-The thing about NBA revenue being split 50/50 between ownership/players is hilarious because so much commentary is basically debunked by this simple fact almost no one knows.
-Why do you want superstars to be paid what they're worth? Are you against max contracts? To me max contracts seem like an awesome mechanism that makes it so teams can actually build solid rosters around the best stars.
Also, the nerdy side of me is obsessed with the idea of a perfectly balanced salary cap. Players taking salary cuts totally undercuts the idea of teams all being on equal footing, and like you said, is it really a pay cut in the long haul?
Also I wished the CBA made it so contracts were automatically adjusted for state taxes so florida/texas teams didn't have an advantage. #pipedreamz
Yes, the 50/50 thing just isn’t quite understood, and like you said, it’s really thrown all these conversations out of whack.
And I think we’re taking different routes to the same destination. I’d love if Victor Wembanyama, Shai, and Jokic could make 80% of the cap, the next tier of stars make 65%, so on and so forth. In a perfect world, i think that would be the clearest way to both more creative, asymmetrical teambuilding strategies and league parity!
My issue with the max is mostly that not all max players are created equal. It hurts Cleveland’s chances that Donovan Mitchell is paid the same as Victor Wembanyama when they’re not on the same level as players, right?
To me, seeing stars compete against each other is the essence of playoff basketball and the way it should be. The league wouldn't have as rich a history if Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, etc etc didn't compete in so many finals and deep playoff runs. And great team basketball is cool, but basketball is more about individual dominance. Just a subjective preference though obviously.
If you’re saying the max leads to higher likelihoods of the best players meeting in the playoffs, then yeah, that’s a very solid argument I have no defense against ha. My ideal max-free world would be fascinating on a night-to-night basis, but it might not be as entertaining in the playoffs as yours haha.
Does the Second Apron make it THAT hard to construct a team? What is more harmful: the penalties of going into it, or the cost of avoiding it (ie, trading Jaylen Brown, promising Gary Trent Jr. a massive deal lol)
The second apron is a psyop from team owners to convince fans that spending money is bad.
The teambuilding penalties are quite restrictive, for sure. There is a real, substantial cost to it. But for teams that are already fully built, like, to pick a team out of a hat, the Knicks, I completely agree the cost of going in is lower than the cost of staying out.
When management is telling fans that they have to let go of a good player so that they maintain the ability to get a good player, we can see the cracks.
-The thing about NBA revenue being split 50/50 between ownership/players is hilarious because so much commentary is basically debunked by this simple fact almost no one knows.
-Why do you want superstars to be paid what they're worth? Are you against max contracts? To me max contracts seem like an awesome mechanism that makes it so teams can actually build solid rosters around the best stars.
Also, the nerdy side of me is obsessed with the idea of a perfectly balanced salary cap. Players taking salary cuts totally undercuts the idea of teams all being on equal footing, and like you said, is it really a pay cut in the long haul?
Also I wished the CBA made it so contracts were automatically adjusted for state taxes so florida/texas teams didn't have an advantage. #pipedreamz
Yes, the 50/50 thing just isn’t quite understood, and like you said, it’s really thrown all these conversations out of whack.
And I think we’re taking different routes to the same destination. I’d love if Victor Wembanyama, Shai, and Jokic could make 80% of the cap, the next tier of stars make 65%, so on and so forth. In a perfect world, i think that would be the clearest way to both more creative, asymmetrical teambuilding strategies and league parity!
My issue with the max is mostly that not all max players are created equal. It hurts Cleveland’s chances that Donovan Mitchell is paid the same as Victor Wembanyama when they’re not on the same level as players, right?
To me, seeing stars compete against each other is the essence of playoff basketball and the way it should be. The league wouldn't have as rich a history if Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, etc etc didn't compete in so many finals and deep playoff runs. And great team basketball is cool, but basketball is more about individual dominance. Just a subjective preference though obviously.
If you’re saying the max leads to higher likelihoods of the best players meeting in the playoffs, then yeah, that’s a very solid argument I have no defense against ha. My ideal max-free world would be fascinating on a night-to-night basis, but it might not be as entertaining in the playoffs as yours haha.
I know this is somewhat tangential, but…
Does the Second Apron make it THAT hard to construct a team? What is more harmful: the penalties of going into it, or the cost of avoiding it (ie, trading Jaylen Brown, promising Gary Trent Jr. a massive deal lol)
The second apron is a psyop from team owners to convince fans that spending money is bad.
The teambuilding penalties are quite restrictive, for sure. There is a real, substantial cost to it. But for teams that are already fully built, like, to pick a team out of a hat, the Knicks, I completely agree the cost of going in is lower than the cost of staying out.
When management is telling fans that they have to let go of a good player so that they maintain the ability to get a good player, we can see the cracks.
well said!