Team Dedication

[gopkrs]

You guys using the NBA as an example of how a rich owner can buy a championship need to do a least the very minimum amount of research before saying it.

GS has assembled arguably the greatest roster of all time and will possibly win their 4th championship in 5 years all while being a small market team during a time when the Knicks (who have sucked for years), Bulls (who have had like 2 good years post Jordan) and the Lakers (who have sucked since Kobes legs went) have struggled.

Yes there's a salary cap that they can go over but you can only go over yo resign your own guys or certain mid level guys and even then theres a luxury tax that effectively works as a hard cap cause pretty much NO owner wants to pay it for more then a year or two due to how the tax escalates after a year or two.

In the end it still comes down to having management make smart decisions mixed with a lil luck

The real difference between the leagues is injuries dont cripple the stars which is why great teams stay great longer along with one game playoffs versus best of 7

OK...I'll bite. Because I don't know how it works in BB although I know a team can pay their own player more when his contract is up. So what team has the highest salary? What is it? And what is the number on the lowest? Just trying to determine if the Warriors are buying their championships.

 

[RRyder]

OK...I'll bite. Because I don't know how it works in BB although I know a team can pay their own player more when his contract is up. So what team has the highest salary? What is it? And what is the number on the lowest? Just trying to determine if the Warriors are buying their championships.

Top 5 2018/2019 are:

1- Miami
2- GS
3- OKC
4- Toronto
5- Milwaukee

Not exactly huge media markets outside Toronto and even they are like the ginger step child of big markets

It's also important to note that GS is so high because they were able to add Durant when all of their main guys were on bargain basement deals (which they were still able to win a championship with and 73 games the following season) and their high payroll is also a reason why this iteration of them will probably be their last run because both Klay Thompson and Durant are FAs. GS is largely homegrown and even they arent going to keep the team together despite their success.

Also the Spurs have been the NBAs gold standard for two decades based mostly on their ability to make smart moves to fill out their roster coupled with great coaching

As you'll also note the Bucks have 5 key FAs and probably wont be able to keep their team together after this year due to the tax but in the same vein could also open up a max slot for a FA of they were to renounce their cap holds and sign a Durant, Kawhi or Klay Thompson (not that any of those guys are likely to sign with the Bucks it is possible)

Not sure how you could even argue the Warriors have bought their championships when they were winning championships with a lower payroll of homegrown talent and then added a player for LESS then his original team offered him

 

[rmontro]

the Broncos were breaking cap rules in the 90's were fined a couple million bucks and lost some mid round draft picks for things they did to skirt the cap about the time they won 2 super bowls.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. And most specifically, the '97 Broncos who defeated us in the Super Bowl.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers are usually one of the top 10 in TV draw. But they are more susceptible to downturns in success at drawing a national audience.

While it's true the Packers mostly draw a large viewership them playing in a small market might still result in the team ending up not benefitting from being able to negotiate a TV deal.

You guys using the NBA as an example of how a rich owner can buy a championship need to do a least the very minimum amount of research before saying it.

Just to be clear, I only explained how the NBA salary cap works bit didn't mention anything about the Warriors buying championships.

 

[gopkrs]

Top 5 2018/2019 are:

1- Miami
2- GS
3- OKC
4- Toronto
5- Milwaukee

Not exactly huge media markets outside Toronto and even they are like the ginger step child of big markets

It's also important to note that GS is so high because they were able to add Durant when all of their main guys were on bargain basement deals (which they were still able to win a championship with and 73 games the following season) and their high payroll is also a reason why this iteration of them will probably be their last run because both Klay Thompson and Durant are FAs. GS is largely homegrown and even they arent going to keep the team together despite their success.

Also the Spurs have been the NBAs gold standard for two decades based mostly on their ability to make smart moves to fill out their roster coupled with great coaching

As you'll also note the Bucks have 5 key FAs and probably wont be able to keep their team together after this year due to the tax but in the same vein could also open up a max slot for a FA of they were to renounce their cap holds and sign a Durant, Kawhi or Klay Thompson (not that any of those guys are likely to sign with the Bucks it is possible)

Not sure how you could even argue the Warriors have bought their championships when they were winning championships with a lower payroll of homegrown talent and then added a player for LESS then his original team offered him

So what is the BB salary structure? Is there any cap? I mean, if the home team can pay a player more than another team; is that just after the player is offered a contract from another team?

 

[GleefulGary]

With the NBA luxury tax, you have to pay more if you're a repeat offender.

For example, if your initial luxury tax was $18 million, and you're the same amount over the cap the following year, your luxury tax for year two would be $27 million. It increases by 150%. So really, a team is only doing it for 2-3 years tops in most cases. I believe you can also only go over the cap by re-signing your own players.

For example, if the Lakers had $16 million of cap room, and Joe Schmoe from the Bucks wanted to get paid $20 million, they couldn't do that. But if they want to re-sign Jerry Schmoe, who was on their roster, for $20 million, they could.

The NBA also introduced super Max contracts that teams with bird rights can sign their own players to if they make multiple All-NBA teams. What this will end up doing is hamstringing small market teams. You'll see this with the Bucks (Giannis) and Utah (Gobert) where they're pretty much forced to pay these guys $50/year contracts just to keep them. Pretty crazy.

 

[GleefulGary]

So what is the BB salary structure? Is there any cap? I mean, if the home team can pay a player more than another team; is that just after the player is offered a contract from another team?

Sure. If you want to go $50 million over the cap to re-sign your own players, you can. You won't be able to sign any free agents though. And then the next year that luxury tax money increases by 150%, and so on and so forth. It's cost prohibitive to do for more than 2-3 years.

 

[gopkrs]

Sure. If you want to go $50 million over the cap to re-sign your own players, you can. You won't be able to sign any free agents though. And then the next year that luxury tax money increases by 150%, and so on and so forth. It's cost prohibitive to do for more than 2-3 years.

Then how can the Lakers sign LaBron James? And now they are looking to sign another star. I am not understanding how their cap works.

 

[GleefulGary]

Then how can the Lakers sign LaBron James? And now they are looking to sign another star. I am not understanding how their cap works.

Because they were way under the cap when they signed LeBron. They had enough room. They now have the room to sign another max contract. They'd have to lose some expiring contracts, but that's not hard to do.

 

[RRyder]

Then how can the Lakers sign LaBron James? And now they are looking to sign another star. I am not understanding how their cap works.

As stated it's because they're under the cap and still are. The Knicks as an example are in play for both Kyrie Irving and Durant because they simply arent paying anybody else

You can only go over the cap to resign guys on your own roster when you own their bird rights, sign guys for the vet minimum or use what's called a mid level exemption to sign a middle tier FA.

Also their are cap holds when resigning guys to go over the cap. Those are place holders that count still will count against the teams cap while the player is still a FA unless the team renounces its cap hold in which case the team would no longer be allowed to go over the cap to resign him

 

[gopkrs]

As stated it's because they're under the cap and still are. The Knicks as an example are in play for both Kyrie Irving and Durant because they simply arent paying anybody else

You can only go over the cap to resign guys on your own roster when you own their bird rights, sign guys for the vet minimum or use what's called a mid level exemption to sign a middle tier FA.

Also their are cap holds when resigning guys to go over the cap. Those are place holders that count still will count against the teams cap while the player is still a FA unless the team renounces its cap hold in which case the team would no longer be allowed to go over the cap to resign him

Pretty complicated. Thanx for the explanation.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

I want the team to be dedicated to the organization while on the property practice/workout/OTA and during games. Away from that I could care less who likes who. When you wear the brand you ride for the brand.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I want the team to be dedicated to the organization while on the property practice/workout/OTA and during games. Away from that I could care less who likes who. When you wear the brand you ride for the brand.

Players represent the Packers while not wearing the team's uniform as well though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You guys using the NBA as an example of how a rich owner can buy a championship need to do a least the very minimum amount of research before saying it.

GS has assembled arguably the greatest roster of all time and will possibly win their 4th championship in 5 years all while being a small market team during a time when the Knicks (who have sucked for years), Bulls (who have had like 2 good years post Jordan) and the Lakers (who have sucked since Kobes legs went) have struggled.

Yes there's a salary cap that they can go over but you can only go over yo resign your own guys or certain mid level guys and even then theres a luxury tax that effectively works as a hard cap cause pretty much NO owner wants to pay it for more then a year or two due to how the tax escalates after a year or two.

In the end it still comes down to having management make smart decisions mixed with a lil luck

The real difference between the leagues is injuries dont cripple the stars which is why great teams stay great longer along with one game playoffs versus best of 7

There are a couple of problems with this:

1) Golden State is not a small market team. The metro area population is ranked somewhere around 5th. - 11th. depending on how tighly you circumscribe the area. This is not an Oakland team. This is a San Franciso/Oakland/San Jose (Silicon Valley) team.

https://www.thoughtco.com/largest-metropolitan-areas-1435135

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/largest-cities-list.php

The Milwaukee metro area by the same measures ranks 30th. - 39th.

2) spotrac.com estimates GS's luxury tax bill for this season at $51.5 million. The Bucs, on the other hand, are paying no luxury tax.

3) Revenue disparities will probably go up as GS moves into their spanking new arena in San Franciso. There are many insanely rich individuals and corporations in this market. You would expect private box and courtside prices to be astronomical. Whether this will translate to even more GS salary spending remains to be seen. These owners are paying the entire cost of the arena out of their own pockets which we presume entails debt service.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mo...eers-with-one-franchise/ss-BBROPuX?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yeah, that's what Isomebody was referring to. And most specifically, the '97 Broncos who defeated us in the Super Bowl.

While the Broncos broke rules they were not over the cap. They were cash strapped and made a side deals with Elway and Davis to defer contracted payments.

https://www.milehighreport.com/2015...-behind-the-denver-broncos-salary-cap-scandal

The existance of a rule does not prevent anybody from breaking it.

 

[RRyder]

There are a couple of problems with this:

1) Golden State is not a small market team. The metro area population is ranked somewhere around 5th. - 11th. depending on how tighly you circumscribe the area. This is not an Oakland team. This is a San Franciso/Oakland/San Jose (Silicon Valley) team.

https://www.thoughtco.com/largest-metropolitan-areas-1435135

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/largest-cities-list.php

The Milwaukee metro area by the same measures ranks 30th. - 39th.

2) spotrac.com estimates GS's luxury tax bill for this season at $51.5 million. The Bucs, on the other hand, are paying no luxury tax.

3) Revenue disparities will probably go up as GS moves into their spanking new arena in San Franciso. There are many insanely rich individuals and corporations in this market. You would expect private box and courtside prices to be astronomical. Whether this will translate to even more GS salary spending remains to be seen. These owners are paying the entire cost of the arena out of their own pockets which we presume entails debt service.

I would say it's being extremely generous of you to include the entire area around Oakland when the Lakers are a thing and still suck up most of the fan base in Cali.

And yes they have dipped into the luxury tax bill. You neglected to cite not just escalating luxury tax bill when pondering whether theyll continue to pay it but also that the Bucks in all likelihood will be in the luxury tax if they decide to bring back close to the same team as this past season.

Point being there isnt a scenerio where the team has "bought" its championships as litteraly every other NBA team has the funds to spend what they have invested into their roster. It's just that most rosters simply arent worth it and even the ones that are only stay worth it for a limited time under the escalating tax. As evidence by GS bench being a shadow of what it was just a couple years ago. If they were capable of buying a championship they wouldn't be trotting out the corpse of Andrew Bogut

Just saying when people try and act like in a sport like Basketball teams with deep pockets can just buy players smaller markets cant it simply isnt true. Sure market matters but it has nothing to do with the money a team can spend. Instead it's because the players simply prefer to live in certain cities.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would say it's being extremely generous of you to include the entire area around Oakland when the Lakers are a thing and still suck up most of the fan base in Cali.

It's about a 370 mile drive from LA to Oakland, about 340 miles by air.

Downtown San Franciso to Oracle Arena: 17 mile drive by bridge or take the BART
San Jose to Oakland: 40 - 45 mile drive or an hour train ride

There is a wide cultural divide as well, LA being the land of sunshine and the entertainment business; SF being cool, foggy and the land of tech and finance. They are clearly different markets. The gulf is greater than the one created by the "Cheddar Curtain".

Under a soft cap, so long as profit after revenue sharing and luxury taxes is not equal, which it clearly is not, the more profitable teams have a distinct advantage.

Just saying when people try and act like in a sport like Basketball teams with deep pockets can just buy players smaller markets cant it simply isnt true. Sure market matters but it has nothing to do with the money a team can spend. Instead it's because the players simply prefer to live in certain cities.

The higher revenue teams can spend the most and still make a profit. Low revenue teams can only match them if the owner is willing to forego profit.

 

[RRyder]

It's about a 370 mile drive from LA to Oakland, about 340 miles by air.

Downtown San Franciso to Oracle Arena: 17 mile drive by bridge or take the BART
San Jose to Oakland: 40 - 45 mile drive or an hour train ride

There is a wide cultural divide as well, LA being the land of sunshine and the entertainment business; SF being cool, foggy and the land of tech and finance. They are clearly different markets. The gulf is greater than the one created by the "Cheddar Curtain".

Under a soft cap, so long as profit after revenue sharing and luxury taxes is not equal, which it clearly is not, the more profitable teams have a distinct advantage.



The higher revenue teams can spend the most and still make a profit. Low revenue teams can only match them if the owner is willing to forego profit.

Is that why the 11th, 17th, 27th and 28th market sizes made up 4 of the top 5 spending teams in the league? Guess OKC really should be winning the ring this year with their tax bill of 93 million. (if your curious of why the escalating tax works a type of hard cap for the most part just understand they spent 6 million dollars more then GS but will pay 40 million dollars more in tax) Maybe they missed the memo that they couldn't afford that

There hasnt been an argument presented that a team has bought a championship.

 

[gopkrs]

I may be wrong but I don't think he is saying a team is buying the championship. He is saying that w/o revenue sharing, a team in a small market without an owner willing to lose a bunch of money, is not going to have the wherewithal to spend as much.

 

[gbgary]

I remember years ago team dedication to be a Packer seem important back then.

You feel the players still feel that way?

Today in the NFL seems like a business to players to go were the money is.

for middle of the roster guys, and below, it absolutely is. they're not in the league long and need to get what they can. for top of the roster guys, who are going to get paid no matter where they are, who see the big picture, money isn't their first thought. those guys are rare.

 

[RRyder]

I may be wrong but I don't think he is saying a team is buying the championship. He is saying that w/o revenue sharing, a team in a small market without an owner willing to lose a bunch of money, is not going to have the wherewithal to spend as much.

He may not be but that was what my original response was to and what my entire point was about.

Even still the point about large markets being more willing to shell out and pay the luxury tax doesnt hold weight under the new tax system. The old tax system sure there were teams willing to eat 1 for 1 cost of being over the tax which allowed an advantage. The Lakers as an example were almost always willing to go over the tax line then.

However as of today NO owner wants to pay the repeater tax and is only really dipped into by teams just looking to keep a championship level team together an extra year or two before the repeater tax gets to the point it makes even that not worth it (which as seen by GS still hurts ones ability to fill out the entire team) or by teams that simply made bad financial decisions they cant get out of (see OKC) but in either case theres not really a strong argument that market size is the deciding factor on whether the owner/team is going to dip into the repeater tax as both big and small markets have shown about the same level of disdain or desire to let the tax kick in.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I may be wrong but I don't think he is saying a team is buying the championship. He is saying that w/o revenue sharing, a team in a small market without an owner willing to lose a bunch of money, is not going to have the wherewithal to spend as much.

Of course.

Is that why the 11th, 17th, 27th and 28th market sizes made up 4 of the top 5 spending teams in the league? Guess OKC really should be winning the ring this year with their tax bill of 93 million. (if your curious of why the escalating tax works a type of hard cap for the most part just understand they spent 6 million dollars more then GS but will pay 40 million dollars more in tax) Maybe they missed the memo that they couldn't afford that.

Are you sure OKC didn't lose money this year? I wouldn't be so sure of that. At best, an owner will lose money to make money in an effort to win a championship which increases the fan following, the TV ratings, attendance, ticket prices, etc., in an attempt to create a halo affect that will last for some years. At worst, it is an exercise in ego. However, losing money is not a sustainable business model.

Owners are not always guided by best business principals and practices. Taking another example from the OKC franchise, a partnership owner and a key mover and shaker in engineering the Supersonics purchase and move to OKC was Aubry McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy. He subsequently ran Chesapeake into bankruptcy, was indicted for bid rigging, and died in a high speed car crash the day after the indictment.

But I digress. After all the revenue sharing and luxury taxes are parsed out, whoever has the greatest profit has an advantage. Of course more profit is no guaratee of more winning, but to think it is not an advantage doesn't make much sense.

He may not be but that was what my original response was to and what my entire point was about.

What you wrote and what I responded to was your contension that Golden State is a small market team that competes with the Lakers which was a complete misunderstanding of geography. The other point, mo' money makiing for better odds of winning, should not be in dispute.

 

[RRyder]

Of course.

Are you sure OKC didn't lose money this year? I wouldn't be so sure of that. At best, an owner will lose money to make money in an effort to win a championship which increases the fan following, the TV ratings, attendance, ticket prices, etc., in an attempt to create a halo affect that will last for some years. At worst, it is an exercise in ego. However, losing money is not a sustainable business model.

Owners are not always guided by best business principals and practices. Taking another example from the OKC franchise, a partnership owner and a key mover and shaker in engineering the Supersonics purchase and move to OKC was Aubry McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy. He subsequently ran Chesapeake into bankruptcy, was indicted for bid rigging, and died in a high speed car crash the day after the indictment.

But I digress. After all the revenue sharing and luxury taxes are parsed out, whoever has the greatest profit has an advantage. Of course more profit is no guaratee of more winning, but to think it is not an advantage doesn't make much sense.

What you wrote and what I responded to was your contension that Golden State is a small market team that competes with the Lakers which was a complete misunderstanding of geography. The other point, mo' money makiing for better odds of winning, should not be in dispute.

I wont delve into your entire post. It is well thought out but there are things that are being missrepresented.

When you reference "losing money isnt a sustainable business practice" you are correct but at the same time failing to remember that the new escalating luxury tax has shown to be an pretty equal deterrent for EVERY team in the league. It's not a situation where big markets have been shown to be more willing to delve into the repeaters tax then small markets. Both big and small markets and even contending teams trade away solid players with 1st round picks attached to them not even to gain cap space but to stay below the tax

As for "to think it's not an advantage doesnt make sense" I guess it's your definition of what a significant advantage would be. Before the new tax rules sure. Teams would stay over the tax for years because they made up the difference through the market. I've stated as such. The new tax however levels that playing field because now even huge markets dont want to pay 20 million for a 5 million dollar player

GS may not be a "small market" but it definitely doesnt fall under the "big market" label and yes it does compete for fans with the Lakers simply due to the Lakers being well.... The Lakers.

I wont argue that market size matters. It just doesnt matter much in regards to how much money all these teams can and do spend anymore. Those numbers tend to round out when examining the payrolls of big and small markets alike. Market size matters simply because player choose to play in those markets. The Bucks can offer to pay exactly the same amount of money to Durant, Thompson, Butler, Kawhi or Irving as the Knicks, Lakers, Dallas, Clippers or Bulls but have zero chance of signing any of them because well... Players dont want to live in Milwaukee. In fact theyll probably be resigning Middleton expressly because they can pay him more then all those teams all while going into the luxury tax themselves. That wouldn't be the case if the ability to absorb a big payroll was a huge advantage

on a side note i do appreciate the conversation in the dog days of the sports world

 

[rmontro]

While the Broncos broke rules they were not over the cap. They were cash strapped and made a side deals with Elway and Davis to defer contracted payments.

https://www.milehighreport.com/2015...-behind-the-denver-broncos-salary-cap-scandal

The Broncos' rule infractions may not have been as bad as they first appear. But as a Packer fan, I don't feel it's my job to point that out