Are the Lakers Ruining the NBA?

[AsUdUdE]

First, let me say, I am posing this question for discussion, not to bash the Lakers, or anything of that nature, so please don't respond by defending them that way...

While this topic has been debated for a while now, with the Lakers signing of Artest and prospective signing of Odom, their payroll for 2010 will be at approx. 93 million.

This means they will pay 66 MILLION in Tax and over-the-cap money ALONE!

To put this in perspective, this is more money than 19 other teams' ENTIRE PAYROLL...

The Knicks have been doing this for years, but they did it foolishly and thus were not the topic wasn't really discussed, but with all the moves the Lakers have made over the past 2 years, for the Lakers, there is no cap.

So here is the question to debate:

A. Why doesn't the NBA adopt a NFL type of HARD salary cap?

B. Does the Lakers being able to literally spend move in taxes than most teams do on their payroll, worsen the NBA product as a whole?

C. If this theme continues (and you can all bet that New York will do it too starting in 2011) will we see the return of the 4-6 SUPER teams and everyone else is mediocre days of the 1970's and 1980's?

Thoughts?

 

[Mainstreet]

Well it never seemed to help the Knicks much in the past but times are a changing. I agree something like a hard cap needs to be looked into or soon it will be just the Knicks and the Lakers in the Championship.

_______________________

 

[Darth Llama]

Believe it or not, I'm a Laker fan that agrees with you. I think all sports should have a hard cap like the NFL that teams are not allowed to exceed for any reason.

Don't get me wrong, as a Laker fan, I'm thrilled to have all this talent in LA, but at the same time I see the huge flaw in the "soft cap" system. The same problem exists in Baseball where teams with the wealthiest owners can just buy anyone they want and the rest of the league is left to pick through scraps. The hard cap is the only way to keep things fair, and I think one day it will be a standard in all sports. I wish the NBA would take this method from the NFL, and the NFL would take the NBA method of setting a maximum on rookie contracts.

 

[sunsallday]

The rich just got richer.

 

[Mainstreet]

Believe it or not, I'm a Laker fan that agrees with you. I think all sports should have a hard cap like the NFL that teams are not allowed to exceed for any reason.

Don't get me wrong, as a Laker fan, I'm thrilled to have all this talent in LA, but at the same time I see the huge flaw in the "soft cap" system. The same problem exists in Baseball where teams with the wealthiest owners can just buy anyone they want and the rest of the league is left to pick through scraps. The hard cap is the only way to keep things fair, and I think one day it will be a standard in all sports. I wish the NBA would take this method from the NFL, and the NFL would take the NBA method of setting a maximum on rookie contracts.

 

[Covert Rain]

There is a reason the NFL has the best league on the planet. Any team, even our home town Cards can eventually get to the big dance. In Baseball and Basketball it's much much harder to get there. A hard cap is needed.

 

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I'm not that sold on a hard cap. The NFL has too much parity for my taste. What about having a better revenue sharing system and only allowing one player to have bird rights?

 

[Darth Llama]

I'm not that sold on a hard cap. The NFL has too much parity for my taste. What about having a better revenue sharing system and only allowing one player to have bird rights?

That's the one flaw with the Hard Cap system. Teams usually can't keep their best player and as a result you rarely see teams become dynasties. It's the norm in the NFL for a team to get to or win the Super Bowl and then suck the next year. That part kinda gets old. It's good and bad, it's kinda nice to see new teams advance every year, but when your team advances it kind of sucks because it's so hard to keep that team together.

 

[elindholm]

Let the Lakers have their fun. Once they were gifted Gasol, they were set for another mini-dynasty, and the rest of the league can only wait and let it play itself out. If the Lakers really wanted to pull out the stops, they would have signed Artest for the MLE, and extended both Ariza and Odom for raises (which they were allowed to do). All they're doing is spending big to try to win a title, the same thing we hoped the Suns would do a couple of years ago. In any competitive league, the teams most committed to taking advantage of every opportunity available to them within the rules are going to be the ones with the best chances of winning it all.

 

[Duke of Oysters]

At first I was pissed that the NBA's richest just got richer. As a fan however, have we ever seen a bunch of powerhouse teams like this before? If ones of those were the Suns, i would love it.

Remember the NFL and their hard cap have their problems, too. Their rookie salaries are obscene where people seriously suggest for teams to let their time expire to get a lower pick.

I like the idea of players being paid a (relatively) small base and then a bonus based on wins and minutes.

 

[HooverDam]

Don't people make these same complaints about the Yankees? Yet they haven't won a title this century.

 

[Yuma]

Being totally nit picky, but shouldn't this be in the "Other NBA Talk" forum?

 

[AsUdUdE]

The Hard cap seems like the way to go, but I agree with many already, it has it's flaws..

Another one that hasn't been mentioned is the lack of guarentee on contracts... with guarteed contracts, a soft cap is almost needed just to even things out.. If there was a hard cap, and NBA GM's, who have about as high of success rate as Rosie O'donnel on a diet, The Franchise would be really hurt if/WHEN they screw up and give an Elton Brand-esce contract.. they would be stuck and nothing they could do about it...

I don't believe the Players Union would ever give up guarenteed Contracts, so the point is probably moot, but it would be the only way I see to get a hard cap in the NBA..

Maybe it will happen, but in the mean time, the NBA needs to put some sort of stop Gap...

 

[95pro]

Don't people make these same complaints about the Yankees? Yet they haven't won a title this century.

remember when the lakers added gary payton, and karl malone too???
that was malone's sure fire way to get a ring.
we know how that ended.

 

[cobbler]

Let the Lakers have their fun. Once they were gifted Gasol, they were set for another mini-dynasty, and the rest of the league can only wait and let it play itself out. If the Lakers really wanted to pull out the stops, they would have signed Artest for the MLE, and extended both Ariza and Odom for raises (which they were allowed to do). All they're doing is spending big to try to win a title, the same thing we hoped the Suns would do a couple of years ago. In any competitive league, the teams most committed to taking advantage of every opportunity available to them within the rules are going to be the ones with the best chances of winning it all.

How's that attitude worked for the Yankees over the last 6 years? You still have to get the right players who compliment each other, you still have to play the games. Granted, if you have the finances and are willing to use them it gives you an advantage but it doesnt guarantee you anything. On the other end of that spectrum, look at the Marlins who blew up the teams and rebuilt twice and won with minimal payrolls.

 

[mojorizen7]

How's that attitude worked for the Yankees over the last 6 years? You still have to get the right players who compliment each other, you still have to play the games. Granted, if you have the finances and are willing to use them it gives you an advantage but it doesnt guarantee you anything. On the other end of that spectrum, look at the Marlins who blew up the teams and rebuilt twice and won with minimal payrolls.

Yeah! Just like the Clippers did! Oh sorry...bad example.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Darth Llama]

So not to be hostile, but I have to ask. Why is it that the Cavs have the best record in the league last year, lose a total of one home game all season, then aquire Shaq for nothing, but it's the Lakers signing of Artest that starts the accusation of "ruining the NBA?" Or what about the Spurs? They now one of the best lineups in the league (Duncan, Parker, Jefferson, Ginobli) but not a word. The Lakers add Ron Artest and now they're ruining the league?

Just curious why no other additions sparked such a debate? Again, please don't take this as a hostile post or an attack on the OP, it's not. Just curious, nothing more.

 

[shazaam6]

Laker hate runs deep. Lakers always getting what they need too, which sucks if you are fans of the other teams. You are privileged more than just luck or skill, it is beyond ridiculous.

Is this a serious question? Do you really not know that it's like you are playing the card game "war" using the pinochle deck against the standard deck? You know all aces and face cards. Cheater cheater cheater. Not really but it is ridiculous. Just look at the players you get. What did you do as fans that we don't, for you to get what you get? When was the last time the Lakers got screwed over in a trade or league officials or regular officials?

Really this question pisses me off.................Oh poor Lakers. Why aren't you happy for us? We just won another championship and signed a tough defender. Life was almost unbearable when Ariza said he might not sign with us. Booo hooo.

Get the idea? We hate the Spurs too. Same ****

 

[Darth Llama]

Laker hate runs deep. Lakers always getting what they need too, which sucks if you are fans of the other teams. You are privileged more than just luck or skill, it is beyond ridiculous.

Is this a serious question? Do you really not know that it's like you are playing the card game "war" using the pinochle deck against the standard deck? You know all aces and face cards. Cheater cheater cheater. Not really but it is ridiculous. Just look at the players you get. What did you do as fans that we don't, for you to get what you get? When was the last time the Lakers got screwed over in a trade or league officials or regular officials?

Really this question pisses me off.................Oh poor Lakers. Why aren't you happy for us? We just won another championship and signed a tough defender. Life was almost unbearable when Ariza said he might not sign with us. Booo hooo.

Get the idea? We hate the Spurs too. Same ****

Fair enough, not trying to start a fight. I just think there are more teams then just the Lakers that seem to pull off great moves, but it might be just me. The worst part is, players want to sign with teams that have a winning history, but how are teams supposed to develop winning histories without getting good players? I understand why it's upsetting, I was just curious why it's so much MORE upsetting when it's the Lakers. I think you answered it though, and people are going to take it the wrong way so please consider the question respectuflly withdrawn.

For what it's worth, I believe Phoenix Suns fans deserve better then what they get. If there is a reason the Suns are failing it's not the fans, that much is for sure.

 

[Joe L]

Yeah! Just like the Clippers did! Oh sorry...bad example.

You must be registered for see images

You mean like you guys are going to do, now?

Let me know how that works out.

On a serious note, the Clips have been known to be cheap but they have been paying up the last decade. You also have to take into consideration that we were arguably the most injured team in the league in the last 2 years. Regardless, our future looks bright with our young talent ( Gordon, Thornton, and Griffin). By the way, we have been at cap level the last several years.

Anyway, I'd much rather go Thrifty while building through the draft than overpay for such players as Randolph. We fixed that problem and have our core set (* see avatar) as a result. Plus, we will have $39 million against the cap in the summer of 2010.

Tell me that isn't a position a team wants to be in? Just saying...

 

[Ollie]

Soft cap or not, the biggest spender rarely wins anyway. 2 seasons ago the Lakers had a 80M$ payroll and were almost swept in the first round, and the 120M$ Knicks were a lottery team. Cuban has put up 90M$ teams after another and has still nothing to show for it.

The sad truth is that unfortunately, the Lakers are the most attractive team in the league and probably the most famous professional basketball team in the world. It gives them magical powers like "rebuild on command" and "immunity to the crappy economy".

But even if they re-sign Odom for 10M and get Artest for the MLE, their next years payroll will be around 90M. That's less than the Cavs, the Mavs or the Knicks this season, for instance.

Sure, they have concurrential advantages but you cant help but acknowledge that their management and ownership are smart enough to make the most of them.

 

[AsUdUdE]

So not to be hostile, but I have to ask. Why is it that the Cavs have the best record in the league last year, lose a total of one home game all season, then aquire Shaq for nothing, but it's the Lakers signing of Artest that starts the accusation of "ruining the NBA?" Or what about the Spurs? They now one of the best lineups in the league (Duncan, Parker, Jefferson, Ginobli) but not a word. The Lakers add Ron Artest and now they're ruining the league?

Just curious why no other additions sparked such a debate? Again, please don't take this as a hostile post or an attack on the OP, it's not. Just curious, nothing more.

To answer your question, this question was posed not because of the telent the Lakers have gotten, but rather the money they are spending to obtain and keep them...

The Cavs payroll including Shaq is 68 million, the Spurs payroll including Jefferson is 71 million.. The Lakers payroll (asusming they sign Lamar Odom which I think is a foregone conclusion at this point) will be approx. 93 million..

That is a staggering difference even aong the elite teams that are aquiring talent as well. So, I posed the question based on the Laker's seemingly lack of CAP, and if this continues, will it hurt the NBA product on a whole?

 

[elindholm]

So, I posed the question based on the Laker's seemingly lack of CAP, and if this continues, will it hurt the NBA product on a whole?

Apparently it won't hurt at all. Stern has already figured out that the league does best when a few large-market teams led by "superstars" win most of the titles. For almost ten years, he had Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics, and then he had Jordan's Bulls for almost another ten years after that. Parity is not in the league's financial interest. It's much better to have five franchises that are actually in the running for each year's title, along with 25 that do nothing but provide entertainment and try to make themselves some money.

 

[shazaam6]

Darth
I retract the "Question pisses me off" part of my previous answer. It is a good question.

I'm pissed by your obnoxious bandwagon fans. Too many Lakers fans are extremely obnoxious, pompous, in your face jerks when they are in Phoenix. Yes Kobe is good, yes we wish we had someone that good, but don't rub in in so much. You are not the home team, have some class when you win. It is not like it is the first time. This goes back to the Magic Johnson era too, so it's been old for a long time. Admit once in a while that the call was b.s. That there is bias in officiating. Old argument but why be in denial about it.

It always seemed like Lakers had better coaches, more physically bigger and better players except for a year here or there.

Now, all Suns talk is about contracts and cutting costs and the Lakers don't have that. They just casually announce eh we got badass Ron Artest. Whooo hoo for you.(really congrats-good job. Watch what we do-we are lucky if we sign our own players like Amundson and hopefully Hill, who feels so sorry for us he plays for the league vet minimum)

Sucks for us. I'm happy for you, you really deserve another great player because you had so few.

You must be registered for see images

Still someone knows what they are doing over there in Lakerland.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Mainstreet]

So not to be hostile, but I have to ask. Why is it that the Cavs have the best record in the league last year, lose a total of one home game all season, then aquire Shaq for nothing, but it's the Lakers signing of Artest that starts the accusation of "ruining the NBA?" Or what about the Spurs? They now one of the best lineups in the league (Duncan, Parker, Jefferson, Ginobli) but not a word. The Lakers add Ron Artest and now they're ruining the league?

It's fairly simple IMO. The Suns FO is inept. The Suns should have minimally received a first round pick in the Shaq trade. It's hard to see a once relevant team (like the Suns) sink out of sight and better run teams just keep retooling and getting better. It's easy to see why some Suns fans are looking for a scapegoat. However, in any regard I like some kind of hard cap with some modifications.