Player contracts in a free market?

[PapaG]

I think Milwaukee traded Kareem because they wanted to control what they got for him instead of letting the commissioner decide.

Milwaukee got 4 players for him from a 30 win team. Hardly their future.

The Lakers won 5 championships with Kareem. That's what the future actually held.

You mentioned owners basically buying players and paying them whatever. I assumed you meant via free agency, since that's really the only way to 'buy' players. If you're talking trade, well, of course that happened. The problem for the Lakers was that it took them 5 years to win with Kareem, and it took Magic to bring them that title when Kareem was injured for Game 6 against the 76ers.

I realize that players were traded, but your previous comments made it seem that an owner could just buy a bunch a players, which was almost impossible at the time.

 

[Denny Crane]

You mentioned owners basically buying players and paying them whatever. I assumed you meant via free agency, since that's really the only way to 'buy' players. If you're talking trade, well, of course that happened. The problem for the Lakers was that it took them 5 years to win with Kareem, and it took Magic to bring them that title when Kareem was injured for Game 6 against the 76ers.

I realize that players were traded, but your previous comments made it seem that an owner could just buy a bunch a players, which was almost impossible at the time.

My previous comment was that there was no salary cap and small market teams won championships and had players like Bill Walton on them.

 

[RR7]

I think there's WAY more difference between the 1970s and now in the NBA to say no salary cap was the difference between small markets winning/competing and not. And even then, it was a big market majority.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The NBA was better when slavery was still legal.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

^^^ so what? What kind of compensation could you get for Kareem that makes you whole?

The Lakers went from 40 to 53 wins his first two seasons.

The Bucks went from 60 wins his last few seasons to 38 and then 30 after he left.

kareem was able to "request" a trade and got it, too ...

I imagine the "compensation" clause was not so much to make team A whole as it was to reduce team B's incentive to offer a lucrative free agent contract. It was all about keeping salaries down. My point was that "free agency" wasn't really open during the 70's--not until the compensation clause expired.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think there's WAY more difference between the 1970s and now in the NBA to say no salary cap was the difference between small markets winning/competing and not. And even then, it was a big market majority.

There is a salary cap now. It didn't keep he Lakers from going deep into the LT while making a profit. Meanwhile, teams like NO and OKC have to dump guys like Chris Paul and James Harden.

I suggested profit sharing to raise NO and OKC's boats, and no cap. The owners are rich businessmen. They don't need to be protected from themselves.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Aberdeen in 83-84, 84-85

...which is more proof of Alex Ferguson's genius than any of his Man U. trophies.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

There is a salary cap now. It didn't keep he Lakers from going deep into the LT while making a profit. Meanwhile, teams like NO and OKC have to dump guys like Chris Paul and James Harden.

I suggested profit sharing to raise NO and OKC's boats, and no cap. The owners are rich businessmen. They don't need to be protected from themselves.

Funny I don't think it's the players clamoring for a salary cap while owners whine about not being able to spend even more on their players... As I recall its generally the other way around.

 

[Denny Crane]

Funny I don't think it's the players clamoring for a salary cap while owners whine about not being able to spend even more on their players... As I recall its generally the other way around.

I think the cap is really unfair to LeBron and to Nate Robinson. Both ends of the spectrum, in terms of pay. Nate was clearly worth more than the $800K partially guaranteed contract he got from the Bulls. But teams were handicapped by the salary cap or luxury tax concerns. People in this thread seem to think LeBron would be worth $50M or even a whole lot more, but the max he can get is $17M.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I think the cap is really unfair to LeBron and to Nate Robinson. Both ends of the spectrum, in terms of pay. Nate was clearly worth more than the $800K partially guaranteed contract he got from the Bulls. But teams were handicapped by the salary cap or luxury tax concerns. People in this thread seem to think LeBron would be worth $50M or even a whole lot more, but the max he can get is $17M.

It's not about what you think, or what the players think. The last three CBA negotiation sessions tell me the owners don't want to bid on LeBron that way.

In my opinion? LeBron's value is somewhere between 50-75 million dollars a year, but in this brave new world, I see LeBron taking his talents to any beach that'll pay him the most for one year. He'd play on 15 teams in 15 years, each offering him more than the others... unless Paul Allen really decided to go for broke and outspend the other billionaires on the list. But by year 6 or 7? LeBron's asking price and his worth would not even be close to the same number due to bidding inflation. That's kind of dystopic to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not about what you think, or what the players think. The last three CBA negotiation sessions tell me the owners don't want to bid on LeBron that way.

In my opinion? LeBron's value is somewhere between 50-75 million dollars a year, but in this brave new world, I see LeBron taking his talents to any beach that'll pay him the most for one year. He'd play on 15 teams in 15 years, each offering him more than the others... unless Paul Allen really decided to go for broke and outspend the other billionaires on the list. But by year 6 or 7? LeBron's asking price and his worth would not even be close to the same number due to bidding inflation. That's kind of dystopic to me.

It does matter what I think. I'm a fan. Without me, they make no money to pay the players or profit for the owners.

What I think is the trend is toward one or two star players per team and a roster full of D Leaguers because they don't demand paychecks that screw up the CBA roster parameters.

 

[HomerLovesKoolAid]

The NBA was better when slavery was still legal.

You're just trying to taunt Dviss into posting!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It does matter what I think. I'm a fan. Without me, they make no money to pay the players or profit for the owners.

What I think is the trend is toward one or two star players per team and a roster full of D Leaguers because they don't demand paychecks that screw up the CBA roster parameters.

Not because the talent pool is diluted? What about back in the late 90s when contracts were larger? That was way better?

 

[Denny Crane]

Not because the talent pool is diluted? What about back in the late 90s when contracts were larger? That was way better?

I think so, it was better.

The 97-98 Knicks had Ewing, Houston, and Grandmama. The last place 76ers had Iverson, Coleman, Stackhouse, and Jim Jackson.

The Bulls let Asik walk for nothing over a $5M + $5M + $15M contract - only because the $15M was a CBA issue.

Wouldn't the Bulls be less diluted if they could keep Asik, Ben Gordon, Jamal Crawford, Tyson Chandler, etc.?

I don't think it's true for the Bulls only. Look at OKC having to get rid of Harden.

Or think of this year's Blazers if PA had called Olshey into his office and wrote him a check for $15M to buy a bench.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Why stop at a free market for salaries? Surely each club should be able to set its own schedule. Why should the Lakers be forced to play shitty clubs like the Pelicans when they could be playing the Knicks ten times? A TRUE free market would have each team be like the Harlem Globetrotters, ready to go where the money is. Each team would be like a boxer, free to agree to whatever fight best suited it. Anything else would smack of socialism!

 

[Denny Crane]

Why stop at a free market for salaries? Surely each club should be able to set its own schedule. Why should the Lakers be forced to play shitty clubs like the Pelicans when they could be playing the Knicks ten times? A TRUE free market would have each team be like the Harlem Globetrotters, ready to go where the money is. Each team would be like a boxer, free to agree to whatever fight best suited it. Anything else would smack of socialism!

The teams have set their own schedules. The Bulls don't play in Chicago early in the season because the stadium is unavailable due to Ringling Brothers being in town.

If they don't want to play the Pelicans, they'll fold the team.

And the teams are franchises in a larger entity known as the NBA. There are teams outside the NBA that make their own schedules exactly as you describe. The Globetrotters are a perfect example.