Bulls are insignificant right now.

[Quality Start Machine]

If you need a distraction from the Cubs while waiting for the Bears to start, here's a GREAT story from Blogabull about how the good NBA teams have to spend money.

The Celtics are going to be taxpayers for the third straight year, but they decided that having Kevin Garnett made it worthwhile. "We won the championship paying a heavy tax,'' principal owner Wyc Grousbeck said. "We had reached the stage where that investment made sense and we are still there today.'' So, too, are the Spurs. "Everyone trying to win a championship is spending. You have no choice,'' said Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. "The way it is now, if you're going to compete, you have to spend the big bucks. It's amazing how it has all changed in the last few years.'' All the preseason favorites for the 2010 title (Lakers, Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, San Antonio) have payrolls over the threshold.

http://www.blogabull.com/2009/8/24/1000976/worrying-about-being-a-contender

What's the point in having a salary cap if you can overspend it if you can afford the tax?

I guess it's because not all owners who can afford to go into the tax go into it.  Like Jerry Reinsdorf.

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To keep people like you from watching and commenting in this thread.  It's not working, obviously.

No, that's the "TDubbs Watching TV And Crying Himself To Sleep" thread.

[TDubbs]

If you need a distraction from the Cubs while waiting for the Bears to start, here's a GREAT story from Blogabull about how the good NBA teams have to spend money.

The Celtics are going to be taxpayers for the third straight year, but they decided that having Kevin Garnett made it worthwhile. "We won the championship paying a heavy tax,'' principal owner Wyc Grousbeck said. "We had reached the stage where that investment made sense and we are still there today.'' So, too, are the Spurs. "Everyone trying to win a championship is spending. You have no choice,'' said Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. "The way it is now, if you're going to compete, you have to spend the big bucks. It's amazing how it has all changed in the last few years.'' All the preseason favorites for the 2010 title (Lakers, Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, San Antonio) have payrolls over the threshold.

http://www.blogabull.com/2009/8/24/1000976/worrying-about-being-a-contender

What's the point in having a salary cap if you can overspend it if you can afford the tax?

I guess it's because not all owners who can afford to go into the tax go into it.  Like Jerry Reinsdorf.

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To keep people like you from watching and commenting in this thread.  It's not working, obviously.

No, that's the "TDubbs Watching TV And Crying Himself To Sleep" thread.

That makes just as much sense as asking why there's a salary cap.

[Quality Start Machine]

If you need a distraction from the Cubs while waiting for the Bears to start, here's a GREAT story from Blogabull about how the good NBA teams have to spend money.

The Celtics are going to be taxpayers for the third straight year, but they decided that having Kevin Garnett made it worthwhile. "We won the championship paying a heavy tax,'' principal owner Wyc Grousbeck said. "We had reached the stage where that investment made sense and we are still there today.'' So, too, are the Spurs. "Everyone trying to win a championship is spending. You have no choice,'' said Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. "The way it is now, if you're going to compete, you have to spend the big bucks. It's amazing how it has all changed in the last few years.'' All the preseason favorites for the 2010 title (Lakers, Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, San Antonio) have payrolls over the threshold.

http://www.blogabull.com/2009/8/24/1000976/worrying-about-being-a-contender

What's the point in having a salary cap if you can overspend it if you can afford the tax?

I guess it's because not all owners who can afford to go into the tax go into it.  Like Jerry Reinsdorf.

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To keep people like you from watching and commenting in this thread.  It's not working, obviously.

No, that's the "TDubbs Watching TV And Crying Himself To Sleep" thread.

That makes just as much sense as asking why there's a salary cap.

Only because you're retarded.

[Eli]

So anyway, if the Bulls were serious about winning, there were probably things they could have done this summer to improve.  

[BH]

So anyway, if the Bulls were serious about winning, there were probably things they could have done this summer to improve.  

Are you implying Reinsdorf is cheap? Hmpf.

[CT III]

So anyway, if the Bulls were serious about winning, there were probably things they could have done this summer to improve.  

Are you implying Reinsdorf is cheap? Hmpf.

That would be a bold assertation (or in this case implication) indeed.

[KD]

The point of having a cap is to limit trades.

Because a single roster spot means so much in basketball, with just five players to a side and a possibility for one of them to take a quarter of a team's shots nightly, trades and acquisitions mean so much more than they do in baseball and football. So in order to limit players being shipped any time a dork like Larry Brown gets a bit of a red ass, a hard salary cap is put in place to force teams to match salaries so that the trading partners (if over the cap) are bringing in as much salary as they're taking out.

And because the luxury tax is far, far more prohibitive; even if biggish owners are going over the luxury tax, you're still not seeing a gulf in the NBA like you do between the Yankees and Royals. The cheapest NBA team, the Memphis Grizzlies, was a top-five team in terms of payroll for a few years in a row at the outset of this decade. And some of the taxpayers (both this year and before) aren't exactly in hot spots. Orlando, San Antonio, and Denver come to mind.

All which makes Reinsdorf look even worse. Grabbing Alex Rios while treating his other team (the most profitable team in the NBA for the last 13 years) like the Kansas City Royals, refusing to top the luxury tax.

[Quality Start Machine]

The point of having a cap is to limit trades.

Because a single roster spot means so much in basketball, with just five players to a side and a possibility for one of them to take a quarter of a team's shots nightly, trades and acquisitions mean so much more than they do in baseball and football. So in order to limit players being shipped any time a dork like Larry Brown gets a bit of a red ass, a hard salary cap is put in place to force teams to match salaries so that the trading partners (if over the cap) are bringing in as much salary as they're taking out.

And because the luxury tax is far, far more prohibitive; even if biggish owners are going over the luxury tax, you're still not seeing a gulf in the NBA like you do between the Yankees and Royals. The cheapest NBA team, the Memphis Grizzlies, was a top-five team in terms of payroll for a few years in a row at the outset of this decade. And some of the taxpayers (both this year and before) aren't exactly in hot spots. Orlando, San Antonio, and Denver come to mind.

All which makes Reinsdorf look even worse. Grabbing Alex Rios while treating his other team (the most profitable team in the NBA for the last 13 years) like the Kansas City Royals, refusing to top the luxury tax.

Thanks.

Was that so fucking hard, guys?

[Oleg]

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To give an out for those that don't when it comes to contract negotiations.  "I know you want a raise, but I'm up against that darn cap.  Lucky for me, notsomuch for you."

Salary caps are socialist.  Piss on leagues for having them.  Shit on the players for agreeing to them.

No, they're not.  They suck, artificially keeping more of the revenue in managements' hands, but unless the next CBA mandates that every player must be paid within a certain percentage of everyone else (or the same), they're not socialist.  In fact, because it suppresses the earning capability of the working class of the NBA, one could argue that in spirit it is the opposite of socialism.

However, the rest of your point is right on.

Just sayin'.

[Chuck to Chuck]

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To give an out for those that don't when it comes to contract negotiations.  "I know you want a raise, but I'm up against that darn cap.  Lucky for me, notsomuch for you."

Salary caps are socialist.  Piss on leagues for having them.  Shit on the players for agreeing to them.

No, they're not.  They suck, artificially keeping more of the revenue in managements' hands, but unless the next CBA mandates that every player must be paid within a certain percentage of everyone else (or the same), they're not socialist.  In fact, because it suppresses the earning capability of the working class of the NBA, one could argue that in spirit it is the opposite of socialism.

However, the rest of your point is right on.

Just sayin'.

Under socialism, the government controls prices so that the entire social group, the society, can benefit.  Under capitalism, the market sets the price.  Each spends according to his means and according to his desires.

In a sports league analogy, how is a cap not socialist?

[ChuckD]

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To give an out for those that don't when it comes to contract negotiations.  "I know you want a raise, but I'm up against that darn cap.  Lucky for me, notsomuch for you."

Salary caps are socialist.  Piss on leagues for having them.  Shit on the players for agreeing to them.

No, they're not.  They suck, artificially keeping more of the revenue in managements' hands, but unless the next CBA mandates that every player must be paid within a certain percentage of everyone else (or the same), they're not socialist.  In fact, because it suppresses the earning capability of the working class of the NBA, one could argue that in spirit it is the opposite of socialism.

However, the rest of your point is right on.

Just sayin'.

Under socialism, the government controls prices so that the entire social group, the society, can benefit.  Under capitalism, the market sets the price.  Each spends according to his means and according to his desires.

In a sports league analogy, how is a cap not socialist?

I suppose if you view the owners as the labor class and the players as the suppliers in that analogy, then sure, it's "socialist." But that seems like a rather tortured interpretation even by Chuckian standards. Wouldn't "corporatist" be a better fit?

[KD]

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To give an out for those that don't when it comes to contract negotiations.  "I know you want a raise, but I'm up against that darn cap.  Lucky for me, notsomuch for you."

Salary caps are socialist.  Piss on leagues for having them.  Shit on the players for agreeing to them.

No, they're not.  They suck, artificially keeping more of the revenue in managements' hands, but unless the next CBA mandates that every player must be paid within a certain percentage of everyone else (or the same), they're not socialist.  In fact, because it suppresses the earning capability of the working class of the NBA, one could argue that in spirit it is the opposite of socialism.

However, the rest of your point is right on.

Just sayin'.

Under socialism, the government controls prices so that the entire social group, the society, can benefit.  Under capitalism, the market sets the price.  Each spends according to his means and according to his desires.

In a sports league analogy, how is a cap not socialist?

Because the market has set the price, every time.

Every CBA that has been negotiated has been ruled by something called Basketball Related Income (BRI). That is to say, "all the money we done get."

And the representatives from both sides determine, based on market conditions, which side should get a bit more, or a bit less, in order to keep this ship going. Which percentage of the BRI will help a particular side in a particular economy. Because, silly them, markets and eras change, and smart people like to think on their feet and not limit discourse to black/white labeling.

How you could possibly compare a PRIVATE business' practices with an open, free-market economy is beyond me. It's like calling some traveling fertilizer salesman's food per diem "socialist" because it's been determined that 100 bucks a day works for both sides.

And, as been pointed out before, there is no rule limiting the New York Knicks from having a $500 million dollar payroll, even if the cap is (as it is this year) $53 million. They just, as it is with any business in a capitalist system, have to endure the costs and lost money incurred after FREELY spending beyond their means.

[JD]

So owners that want to spend money can, and those who don't want to, don't. Again, what's the point in having a cap?

To give an out for those that don't when it comes to contract negotiations.  "I know you want a raise, but I'm up against that darn cap.  Lucky for me, notsomuch for you."

Salary caps are socialist.  Piss on leagues for having them.  Shit on the players for agreeing to them.

No, they're not.  They suck, artificially keeping more of the revenue in managements' hands, but unless the next CBA mandates that every player must be paid within a certain percentage of everyone else (or the same), they're not socialist.  In fact, because it suppresses the earning capability of the working class of the NBA, one could argue that in spirit it is the opposite of socialism.

However, the rest of your point is right on.

Just sayin'.

Under socialism, the government controls prices so that the entire social group, the society, can benefit.  Under capitalism, the market sets the price.  Each spends according to his means and according to his desires.

In a sports league analogy, how is a cap not socialist?

Because the market has set the price, every time.

Every CBA that has been negotiated has been ruled by something called Basketball Related Income (BRI). That is to say, "all the money we done get."

And the representatives from both sides determine, based on market conditions, which side should get a bit more, or a bit less, in order to keep this ship going. Which percentage of the BRI will help a particular side in a particular economy. Because, silly them, markets and eras change, and smart people like to think on their feet and not limit discourse to black/white labeling.

How you could possibly compare a PRIVATE business' practices with an open, free-market economy is beyond me. It's like calling some traveling fertilizer salesman's food per diem "socialist" because it's been determined that 100 bucks a day works for both sides.

And, as been pointed out before, there is no rule limiting the New York Knicks from having a $500 million dollar payroll, even if the cap is (as it is this year) $53 million. They just, as it is with any business in a capitalist system, have to endure the costs and lost money incurred after FREELY spending beyond their means.

I agree.

Now...
Will Stephen Jackson be traded from my Warriors?  I don't really want STEPH CURRY around that guy.

[Ivy6]

Not insignificant anymore.

I agree with Eli when he told me "watch out, Cleveland."  I'm 48% sure he was serious.

[Eli]

Greatly enjoyed this Muksbag-style saboteur question to KC Johnson:

How was the team's psyche after losing Aaron Gray's for such a long period of time and before preseason even began? We saw the affect Kevin Garnett's absence had on the Celtics last season. Was the team hanging it's head saying "Why us, why now?". One thing is for sure...you have to think Gray's absence will test this team's mental fortitude early and often. -- Danka Shane