Thread Tools

Display Modes

**TomBoerwinkle#1** · 08-22-2002, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robyg1974!

Unfortunately, both Dallas and Portland could REALLY benefit here, since their multimillionaire dot-com owners don't care about money. Dallas can tell Miami that, if they want to avoid losing $20+ million next year, they're going to have to pay the piper. In other words, Miami has to give Mark Cuban what he wants, HOW he wants it.

Roby: Thanks again for the PM. Get back to me.

Slightly off topic, but what made me think of the Yankees example was a baseball documentary I was watching on the Classic Sports Channel not to long ago. The topic was baseball teams which lost year after year.

My dad always harps on the White Sox, which he justifies by stating that when he was growing up on the south side, the Sox would cultivate prospect after prospect, just to sell them to the Yankees when they hit their peak, and get a lousy deal in return.

What I learned in the show was that the league had a rule whereby every team had to start the season in the black. To stay in the league, a team had to have cash on hand to pay all of the previous years' hotel bills, train bills, player salary, support staff salary, rent, etc. If your attendence was poor, and you couldn't meet the expenses, the Yankees would come around at season's end and say "We hear you have a little problem...Well, we'll just take Player X off your hands for cash, and you'll be allowed to field a team next year." And of course, player x would be that teams' star. I had never heard of that rule before, and when I told my Dad that, it really put him back in his chair.

So, using the Dallas/Portland example you cited, we sure don't want the league to become the playground of the dot-com brats. But the luxury tax doesn't solve that problem. It only creates problems for the teams finincially capable of kind of competing with the blank check billionaires. Also,, I can;t help but think that even after the initial mess described and salaries become more uniform and bright lines are drawn regarding cap issues, there is going to be some luster taken out of the game. If there is no finaincial incentive for players to want to move, teams may become stagnant, and eventually we will get into the "too much parity" situation.

Anyway, the proposal as described just seems a bit too draconean to me. I hope the arbitration will soften the league stance a bit.

shroombal · 08-22-2002, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robyg1974!

If you want to actually UNDERSTAND what goes on in the NBA, you need to understand the economics of the NBA. In other words, you have to actually read articles that seem a little boring (although I think this article is fascinating, certainly the most fascinating NBA-related article I've read all summer.) Otherwise, you're doomed to a "Who's better, Kobe or T-Mac?" existence.

Do you really want to just sit around dumbfounded when Orlando trades Don Reid and a 1st round pick to the Nuggets for a 2nd round pick? WOULDN'T you LIKE to understand WHY a trade like that would HAPPEN?

C'mon, shroombal, try reading that article again, you'll thank me for it later.

Whoa!!! I read it !!! I just found it boring. But I like it since the Wizards could be trading their picks for good players. Yay!

shroombal · 08-22-2002, 03:40 PM

But i'm wondering, where are u getting this Wally for a 2nd stuff??? Wouldn't wally for a 1st make more sense????

MightyReds2020 · 08-22-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robyg1974!

No, you seem to be getting it, Dragnsmke1. The Timberwolves, by dumping Wally World (and the $2.9 mil he is owed for next season) on the Clips in exchange for a future 2nd round pick, would go from being INSIDE of luxury tax territory (a $52+ payroll) to OUTSIDE of luxury tax territory (a sub-$52 mil payroll). Of course, Kevin McHale just made that offer to Ricky Davis, so maybe Minnesota is one of those teams that doesn't GET IT.

Unless Minnesota and Cleveland are doing something we don't KNOW about. A Wally-for-Davis swap that would include several other players, a swap that would get Minnesota OUT of luxury tax territory and Wally World INTO a Cavs uniform longterm? Who knows.

ANYWAY, you seem to be getting it, Dragnsmke1. Here's another scenario that might happen, just so you can get a feel for how this works.

Alonzo Mourning to the Mavs; Nick Van Exel, Shawn Bradley, and Evan Eschmeyer to the Heat

Van Exel, Bradley, and Eschmeyer make a COMBINED $17.8 mil next year. Mourning makes $20.6 mil. The trade works salary-wise. The Heat's payroll WITH Mourning = around $55 mil. The Heat's payroll AFTER this trade = around $52 mil. SO, more players would probably have to get involved: Anthony Carter, Laphonso Ellis, Tariq Abdul-Wahad. Maybe even Brian Grant and Michael Finley, I don't know.

THE POINT HERE is that the Heat would actually consider this trade, because it makes so much sense from an ECONOMIC standpoint. They would save themselves over $20 MILLION by agreeing to such a deal. What do YOU think the owner of the Heat is more interested in, holding onto Mourning for one more year and winning 40 ballgames or saving himself OVER $20 MILLION? You know?

Pretty crazy, huh?

I agreed with you most part but you gotta find a better example than the Zo to Mavs for NVE and Bradley trade. In this case Miami will get the extra $18 millions profit but you have to realize that Zo's contract runs out this year and NVE and Bradley still have long way to go. The Heat will gain $18 millions next year but put themselves into trouble in the next 4 years at least. If they do this trade the Heat will loss a combine of $52 millions in next 6 years until Bradley's contract is up(NVE's $50 millions + Bradley's $40 millions - Zo's $20 millions - $18 millions).

I know you were just trying to prove your points but please find a better example

EDIT: I wasn't sure about the salaries but those should be close.

robyg1974 · 08-22-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MightyReds2020!

I agreed with you most part but you gotta find a better example than the Zo to Mavs for NVE and Bradley trade. In this case Miami will get the extra $18 millions profit but you have to realize that Zo's contract runs out this year and NVE and Bradley still have long way to go. The Heat will gain $18 millions next year but put themselves into trouble in the next 4 years at least. If they do this trade the Heat will loss a combine of $52 millions in next 6 years until Bradley's contract is up(NVE's $50 millions + Bradley's $40 millions - Zo's $20 millions - $18 millions).

I know you were just trying to prove your points but please find a better example

EDIT: I wasn't sure about the salaries but those should be close.

Dude, yep, you're right, it's a terrible trade for a lot of reasons for Miami. But the point here is that it is a QUICK FIX. Problems down the road for Miami? ABSOLUTELY. But it WOULD prevent the Heat from losing a TON of money next year because of the luxury tax issue.

The Vin Baker trade was a quick fix. The Celtics, by making that deal, avoided entering luxury tax territory. Problems down the line? ABSOLUTELY. It's a quick fix, a desperate move.

Expect more quick fixes and moves even MORE desperate than the Vin Baker trade over the next several weeks.

robyg1974 · 08-22-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shroombal!
But i'm wondering, where are u getting this Wally for a 2nd stuff??? Wouldn't wally for a 1st make more sense????

Well, SURE, it would make more sense from the T-Wolves' perspective. But they're not in a position to negotiate, the CLIPPERS hold all the cards here. There are SEVERAL teams that will be wanting to do business with the Clips over the next several weeks, but the Clips will only be able to make a COUPLE of trades before they reach the salary cap limit. The CLIPPERS, therefore, are calling all the shots. If the T-Wolves don't want to pay the piper, well, they'll lose over $20 MILLION over this luxury tax issue. OR they'll have to do business with one of the teams that DOESN'T CARE about the luxury tax--either Portland, Dallas, or New York.

So YEAH, obviously, the T-Wolves don't WANT to trade Wally World away for a 2nd round pick, but they may have no choice. A big trade with the Trailblazers is another possibility, a trade in which Portland would be taking on, say, $20 mil and giving up $17 mil in salaries. That $3 mil difference in salaries doesn't mean anything to Portland, but it means a LOT ($20+ mil) to Minnesota.

Here's a trade that Minnesota may have to resort to making with Portland over the next few weeks:

Bonzi Wells (re-signed to a deal that starts at $5.5 mil) and Damon Stoudamire to the T-Wolves; Wally World, Terrell Brandon, Marc Jackson, Anthony Peeler, and a future 1st round pick to the Trailblazers

That trade would work salary-wise, and it would get Minnesota out of luxury tax territory. Minnesota would be taking on $19.0 mil worth of salaries and trading away $21.7 mil worth of salaries. That $2.7 mil that they're shaving off their payroll is SIGNIFICANT--it's enough to avoid the luxury tax. It's not just $2.7 mil--it's $20 MILLION. Does Kevin McHale want to trade for DAMON STOUDAMIRE? No! Does he want to give up a 1st round pick? No! But, again, he's not the one holding the cards here, Bob Whitsitt (the Blazers' GM) is!

robyg1974 · 08-22-2002, 05:04 PM

"Too much parity"? Take a look at the NFL. The REASON why it's the best of all the professional sports leagues is because of its PARITY. A team like the New England Patriots can go from a, what, five- or six-win season to winning the damn Super Bowl IN ONE SEASON. It's a lot of fun.

I don't think there IS such a thing as "too much parity"--a little parity is EXACTLY what the NBA needs. And DEAR LORD is it what MLB needs! I mean, DUH!

You wrote: "Also, I can't help but think that even after the initial mess described and salaries become more uniform and bright lines are drawn regarding cap issues, there is going to be some luster taken out of the game. If there is no financial incentive for players to want to move, teams may become stagnant, and eventually we will get into the "too much parity" situation."

Again, take a look at the NFL. How do teams build a contender in the NFL? Not by signing a bunch of big name free agents--the Redskins tried that when Daniel Snyder took over, and it got them nowhere. Teams in the NFL build a contender through THE DRAFT. A team like the Pittsburgh Steelers can compete, year in and year out, despite being in a small market like Pittsburgh because they have an outstanding scouting department. I'd like to see the same sort of thing happen in the NBA.

And, just because contracts will go way down for the players, that doesn't mean they don't have any incentive to get better. Sure, they will be playing for only, say, a six year $50 mil contract instead of a six year $75 mil contract. But JESUS, that's STILL $50 MILLION, you know?

Again, some teams and some players are going to REALLY get the screw job in the short term, but, like I said, these teams have been getting WARNED by league officials for at LEAST a couple of years now about the luxury tax.

ONE THING that I'd like to see something done about, though, is the Timberwolves' situation. It's bad enough that McHale got caught in that Joe Smith business a couple of years back. But, like I said earlier, when McHale re-signed KG to that huge extension, that was BEFORE the current collective bargaining agreement was drawn up. I think an exception should be made for such situations, don't you?

BY THE WAY, the three franchises that don't care about payroll--Dallas, Portland, and New York--not ONE of those teams have made it as far as the conference finals since the new CBA went into effect. The Knicks are, of course, a bad team that is only getting worse and worse with every move that the worst GM in perhaps the HISTORY of the NBA, Frank Layden, makes. The Trailblazers have a perpetual team chemistry problem (proving that you can't win with a bunch of stars, you have to have ROLE PLAYERS). As for the Mavs, well, they may be a couple of lop-sided luxury tax-driven transactions away from putting together a team that can't be beaten, not by the Lakers, not by the Kings, not by ANYBODY. We'll see.

JoeF · 08-23-2002, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by robyg1974!

Unless Minnesota and Cleveland are doing something we don't KNOW about. A Wally-for-Davis swap that would include several other players, a swap that would get Minnesota OUT of luxury tax territory and Wally World INTO a Cavs uniform longterm? Who knows.

If you make a restricted free agent an offer and his team matches the offer, there is a one year trade restriction on obtaining the player. Davis can't be traded to the Twolves for one year by any team in the NBA.

robyg1974 · 08-23-2002, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeF!

If you make a restricted free agent an offer and his team matches the offer, there is a one year trade restriction on obtaining the player. Davis can't be traded to the Twolves for one year by any team in the NBA.

You're right, good call, my bad, thanks.

**Damian Necronamous** · 08-23-2002, 12:35 PM

Even if the Wolves did want to free cap, they aren't stupid enough to trade an All-Star for a damn 2nd round pick!

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Next thing you know we'll be hearing rumors that the Rockets might trade Francis to a team that is under the cap for a lousy 2nd round pick!

**Damian Necronamous** · 08-23-2002, 12:39 PM

And the Clippers wouldn't want Szcerbiak...they already have Quentin Richardson (who could be a star), Lamar Odom, Corey Maggette, and Eric Piatkowski. If the Wolves wanted to give Wally to the Clipps for a 2nd round pick (yeah right), then the Clippers would surely want to include either Odom or Q, otherwise they have too many great SGs and SFs. They aren't going to trade Q, and it looks like Odom is going to get another chance to prove himself.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes