This message sent to Nba Mavs M.Cuban
Has silver lining that no way overpriced
Contracts works towards building elite
Title contenders hoping for Nba championships.

Is reason smaller market ownership will win
Titles in Nba such as Warriors.

When many teams as Spurs, Heat, Bulls,
Celts, LAL and even Rockets, Bucks, Washington,
76Ers, Blazers, Pistons, Mavs and old Knicks
Old Sonics won Nba title $80 mil.,@ 4yrs
Contracts were never in the history equation.

Safe to say though D.Jordan had great improvement
And a star year it's ridiculous DJ got $$$$
Way overpaid for a team whom needed him.

This precedence is good for smaller owned
Teams as well as bigger market teams like
The Knickerbockers.

Carmelo Anthony is last of these contracts
And even in 2016/17 free agency Knicks do not
Have to over pay stars to build back into
Contending in nba.

Formula bloated $contracts is a poison
To be avoided in today's pro sports.

The Lebrons Nba, the Big Ben Nfl, the Buster
Posey' mlb all get $$ after they are proven
Winners.. Period, each all got titles.

Pats Brady had to redo his $$$ few titles yrs.
..ago recently

So Des Bryant nfl and D.Jordan $contract,
D,Thomas Broncos all stars with $$$$ on their
Agendas in today's pro market.

Overpaid likely signs you ain't winning
When it's all & solely about $$$money..loot

Throw #7 my man Carmelo Anthony & the
$123 mil., he in the mix too, it don't work!!!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kawhi-leonard-like-all-the-best-nba-players-is-vastly-underpaid/

holfresh wrote:Don't hate the player, hate the game...

No Matter How Much They Make, The Best Players In The NBA Are Vastly Underpaid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kawhi-leonard-like-all-the-best-nba-players-is-vastly-underpaid/

CrushAlot wrote:T.T. makes an interesting point about guys 7' or taller. I believe on espn yesterday they said that 17% of guys 7' or taller ages 21-40 are in the nba right now.

DJMUSIC wrote:Overpaid..

Bill Simmons made a pretty good distinction at the start of the playoffs.

There's a tried and true "max player" in the conventional sense - Durant, LBJ, The Brow are the classic examples

Then there's the "market max" player, where market forces at work drive the price up on a player to a max level.

Here's a functional problem with the current CBA. It's not what the players really want ( they got their asses kicked and were ripped a new one badly) and it's not what the owners really want. Because it was a lose/lose compromise ( the owners lost because anything other than the NFL model of parity/true competition is not going to be the ideal profit generating system) the "market" force in the league will struggle to "correct itself"

Teams aren't considering this current CBA, they are trying to be predictive of what they think will happen after the next labor war.

It it simply too much of a gut wrenching blow to small market teams for specific players to hold teams hostage for a season or two depending on where they want to go next. While it is press for the league, it converts 75 percent of all teams into the Washington Generals.

Jordan got paid because of market forces, but those market forces are impacted by a huge shift in the league where the first shots in a massive labor battle haven't been fired yet.

If you want true "market correction" then the league needs widespread use of non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap.

TripleThreat wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:Overpaid..

Bill Simmons made a pretty good distinction at the start of the playoffs.

There's a tried and true "max player" in the conventional sense - Durant, LBJ, The Brow are the classic examples

Then there's the "market max" player, where market forces at work drive the price up on a player to a max level.

Here's a functional problem with the current CBA. It's not what the players really want ( they got their asses kicked and were ripped a new one badly) and it's not what the owners really want. Because it was a lose/lose compromise ( the owners lost because anything other than the NFL model of parity/true competition is not going to be the ideal profit generating system) the "market" force in the league will struggle to "correct itself"

Teams aren't considering this current CBA, they are trying to be predictive of what they think will happen after the next labor war.

It it simply too much of a gut wrenching blow to small market teams for specific players to hold teams hostage for a season or two depending on where they want to go next. While it is press for the league, it converts 75 percent of all teams into the Washington Generals.

Jordan got paid because of market forces, but those market forces are impacted by a huge shift in the league where the first shots in a massive labor battle haven't been fired yet.

If you want true "market correction" then the league needs widespread use of non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap.

holfresh wrote:So let me get this straight..TV revenues increased by more than 2.5 times..The owners squeezed the players and got consessions the last round of CBA talks..Dolan watched the value of his franchise rise from just over 300 million to about 3 billion dollars in less than five years..MSG stock went from about $18 to $85 per share since its IPO less than 5 years ago..The NBA has taken off globally and while the player salaries are a fix number, the owners stand to benefit more quickly with all the merchandise, arena sales, what MSG network can charge for ads, etc due to the sudden popularity of the league..So you are telling me you are now concerned that players are overpaid???...Really??

Bonn1997 wrote:that just means players take all the risk and owners take almost none.

Look, you guys can hash this all you want, there are only a finite number of feasible ( yet not perfect ) systems in place for how sports marketplaces operate.

You guys can have the existing NBA system, where the Knicks sign a player like STAT and then have one good year out of him and wait four years for that albatross of a contract expires.

Or

You can have a system where STAT gets signed, he is cut after the first year, but the signing bonus gets prorated against the lifetime of said contract and works against the cap.

If STAT knows he can get cut at any point and lose a majority of his contract, he's going to spend less to no time at his stupid film festivals and wine baths and do things like ACTUALLY TRY ON DEFENSE. You'd see leaguewide shifts in how people behave. Kobe Bryant would be so cavalier about cussing up a storm and running into free agent meetings and ruining the Lakers pitches if he knew he could get cut and bam, get the hell out of my franchise, my locker room and my arena.

You'd have players playing for their jobs and playing hard. Melo would not risk his long term Knicks future by playing in an All Star game for his branding if he thought doing so would likely get his ass cut the last two years of his deal. Or even four years into it.

You'd also have instant market correction. In the NFL model, the best players still get paid the most, except when they stop being the best, they stop getting paid the best. Another issue is if the Knicks were a contender, under the NFL model, a guy like STAT would be out on the market, and at market value, a few million a year, he can actually help a veteran contender team, instead of being stuck on a losing team who can't dump his contract.

It's not like the money burns up. The money not choked up in a STAT contract gets redistributed to players who are actually producing to market value. The NFL model would mean NBA teams would no longer essentially get 7 leveraged years against their players. Free agency would happen much faster, thus players would get a chance to get paid more faster if they PRODUCE to where the market is forced to correct after their rookie contract.

You guys can either have the Knicks have the ability to get better and faster and have actual mechanisms to actually displine/leverage players to play like their jobs count on it ( which they should) or you can have the current system.

More parity under the NFL system means ANY TEAM can compete much better and faster, thus gaining more popularity for the league, thus raising the total revenue pie, thus increasing the total players cut of said pie.

The NFL system is not perfect, however it is more realistic to team building and the reality that franchises and leagues have more competition than ever before to fight for disposable income out there used for entertainment purposes.

Does it make the league and games more competitive?

Does it further suit to balance said league and games with some semblance of parity?

Will fans be more invested in said games and leagues?

The "owners are greedy" narrative doesn't change the reality that siding with the player and NBA Players Union is not actually in the interest of the overall benefit of the game. It's great for said players bank account, his family, his kids, his hangers ons, his agent and maybe people around him who depend on his business directly. But it does nothing to build a better league and a better game for the fans overall.

The "signing bonus" structure operates as guaranteed money, and often works as a limiter to how fast you can cut a player. The proration of dead money against the cap also forms a concern in how you throw contracts around and how fast you can just gut a player from the roster.

The owners are greedy angle is a push by the players union to oversimplify a far more complex issue about how the league is structured for the benefit of all fans, not just the players.

Holfresh, since you are like Melo's 2nd cousin and defend him blindly and you are a traitor to Knicks fandom, I really don't expect any less from you than your normal bile.

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:that just means players take all the risk and owners take almost none.

Look, you guys can hash this all you want, there are only a finite number of feasible ( yet not perfect ) systems in place for how sports marketplaces operate.

You guys can have the existing NBA system, where the Knicks sign a player like STAT and then have one good year out of him and wait four years for that albatross of a contract expires.

Or

You can have a system where STAT gets signed, he is cut after the first year, but the signing bonus gets prorated against the lifetime of said contract and works against the cap.

If STAT knows he can get cut at any point and lose a majority of his contract, he's going to spend less to no time at his stupid film festivals and wine baths and do things like ACTUALLY TRY ON DEFENSE. You'd see leaguewide shifts in how people behave. Kobe Bryant would be so cavalier about cussing up a storm and running into free agent meetings and ruining the Lakers pitches if he knew he could get cut and bam, get the hell out of my franchise, my locker room and my arena.

You'd have players playing for their jobs and playing hard. Melo would not risk his long term Knicks future by playing in an All Star game for his branding if he thought doing so would likely get his ass cut the last two years of his deal. Or even four years into it.

You'd also have instant market correction. In the NFL model, the best players still get paid the most, except when they stop being the best, they stop getting paid the best. Another issue is if the Knicks were a contender, under the NFL model, a guy like STAT would be out on the market, and at market value, a few million a year, he can actually help a veteran contender team, instead of being stuck on a losing team who can't dump his contract.

It's not like the money burns up. The money not choked up in a STAT contract gets redistributed to players who are actually producing to market value. The NFL model would mean NBA teams would no longer essentially get 7 leveraged years against their players. Free agency would happen much faster, thus players would get a chance to get paid more faster if they PRODUCE to where the market is forced to correct after their rookie contract.

You guys can either have the Knicks have the ability to get better and faster and have actual mechanisms to actually displine/leverage players to play like their jobs count on it ( which they should) or you can have the current system.

More parity under the NFL system means ANY TEAM can compete much better and faster, thus gaining more popularity for the league, thus raising the total revenue pie, thus increasing the total players cut of said pie.

The NFL system is not perfect, however it is more realistic to team building and the reality that franchises and leagues have more competition than ever before to fight for disposable income out there used for entertainment purposes.

Does it make the league and games more competitive?

Does it further suit to balance said league and games with some semblance of parity?

Will fans be more invested in said games and leagues?

The "owners are greedy" narrative doesn't change the reality that siding with the player and NBA Players Union is not actually in the interest of the overall benefit of the game. It's great for said players bank account, his family, his kids, his hangers ons, his agent and maybe people around him who depend on his business directly. But it does nothing to build a better league and a better game for the fans overall.

The "signing bonus" structure operates as guaranteed money, and often works as a limiter to how fast you can cut a player. The proration of dead money against the cap also forms a concern in how you throw contracts around and how fast you can just gut a player from the roster.

The owners are greedy angle is a push by the players union to oversimplify a far more complex issue about how the league is structured for the benefit of all fans, not just the players.

Holfresh, since you are like Melo's 2nd cousin and defend him blindly and you are a traitor to Knicks fandom, I really don't expect any less from you than your normal bile.

So we need a system in place to protect the owners against themselves?..I'm sure STAT didn't show up the negotiation table with a gun..

The owners can't have all the leverage..How about maxing out a contract length to 3 years..Owners wouldn't want that because they want max control over the player..

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:that just means players take all the risk and owners take almost none.

Look, you guys can hash this all you want, there are only a finite number of feasible ( yet not perfect ) systems in place for how sports marketplaces operate.

You guys can have the existing NBA system, where the Knicks sign a player like STAT and then have one good year out of him and wait four years for that albatross of a contract expires.

Or

You can have a system where STAT gets signed, he is cut after the first year, but the signing bonus gets prorated against the lifetime of said contract and works against the cap.

If STAT knows he can get cut at any point and lose a majority of his contract, he's going to spend less to no time at his stupid film festivals and wine baths and do things like ACTUALLY TRY ON DEFENSE. You'd see leaguewide shifts in how people behave. Kobe Bryant would be so cavalier about cussing up a storm and running into free agent meetings and ruining the Lakers pitches if he knew he could get cut and bam, get the hell out of my franchise, my locker room and my arena.

You'd have players playing for their jobs and playing hard. Melo would not risk his long term Knicks future by playing in an All Star game for his branding if he thought doing so would likely get his ass cut the last two years of his deal. Or even four years into it.

You'd also have instant market correction. In the NFL model, the best players still get paid the most, except when they stop being the best, they stop getting paid the best. Another issue is if the Knicks were a contender, under the NFL model, a guy like STAT would be out on the market, and at market value, a few million a year, he can actually help a veteran contender team, instead of being stuck on a losing team who can't dump his contract.

It's not like the money burns up. The money not choked up in a STAT contract gets redistributed to players who are actually producing to market value. The NFL model would mean NBA teams would no longer essentially get 7 leveraged years against their players. Free agency would happen much faster, thus players would get a chance to get paid more faster if they PRODUCE to where the market is forced to correct after their rookie contract.

You guys can either have the Knicks have the ability to get better and faster and have actual mechanisms to actually displine/leverage players to play like their jobs count on it ( which they should) or you can have the current system.

More parity under the NFL system means ANY TEAM can compete much better and faster, thus gaining more popularity for the league, thus raising the total revenue pie, thus increasing the total players cut of said pie.

The NFL system is not perfect, however it is more realistic to team building and the reality that franchises and leagues have more competition than ever before to fight for disposable income out there used for entertainment purposes.

Does it make the league and games more competitive?

Does it further suit to balance said league and games with some semblance of parity?

Will fans be more invested in said games and leagues?

The "owners are greedy" narrative doesn't change the reality that siding with the player and NBA Players Union is not actually in the interest of the overall benefit of the game. It's great for said players bank account, his family, his kids, his hangers ons, his agent and maybe people around him who depend on his business directly. But it does nothing to build a better league and a better game for the fans overall.

The "signing bonus" structure operates as guaranteed money, and often works as a limiter to how fast you can cut a player. The proration of dead money against the cap also forms a concern in how you throw contracts around and how fast you can just gut a player from the roster.

The owners are greedy angle is a push by the players union to oversimplify a far more complex issue about how the league is structured for the benefit of all fans, not just the players.

Holfresh, since you are like Melo's 2nd cousin and defend him blindly and you are a traitor to Knicks fandom, I really don't expect any less from you than your normal bile.

So we need a system in place to protect the owners against themselves?..I'm sure STAT didn't show up the negotiation table with a gun..

The owners can't have all the leverage..How about maxing out a contract length to 3 years..Owners wouldn't want that because they want max control over the player..

If owner get money back in one year why they will care about another 4 years of flop.
High risk high reward. 5 years or 3... who cares.
Fans who want winning bbal are the bunch who suffer. But who cares about this fans. This is not were money are coming from.

What you are describing is no risk/high reward for the owners..

Do you watch TNT broadcast of the NBA with Barkley, Kenny Smith, etc??..Do you notice former players over 45 years old can barely walk upright or without a major limp or some leg/hip ailment?..Are the fans going to step up and pay their medical bills at an advanced age?...Are the owners, TV sponsors going to do it??..This is America..Capitalism for all parties is what we worship..Find you own gig to thrive and survive..If you ain't selling tickets, getting eye balls to watch the TV broadcast, getting people to buy sponsor's product then you have no say so...Just enjoy the broadcast with Clydisms, brought to u by(fill in the blank)and pay your cable bill on time..