.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 50 of 50

Thread: The NBA is Rigged...do you believe it ?

  1. #26
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Pelicanidae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by P_B_&_G View Post
    What about an actual hard cap for every team? Keep everything like it is now except add a hard cap at some percentage of the soft cap. The tax has not kept teams from spending at will. Set a hard cap for every team at about 25% of the soft cap. So the cap for this year was 99 million with the tax line at 119. If there was a hard cap at 125m these are the teams that would be affected: Cleveland and Golden State are at 135, OKC is at 133, and Washington is at 124. The current situation is ruining the league.

    Edited to add: I think the players would go for a hard cap if it was set at a higher amount. I don't know if the owners would go for the higher amount.
    Okay, let's say we do that.

    $125m hard-cap. Say that got passed in this off-season, to be effective in the 2018-19 season. Golden State walks into that season with a salary cap (as of right now, regardless of what happens in summer), of $128.3m. So they're $3.3m over the hard cap, with only 8 players. What happens? Are they forced to cut players until they're under the cap, and then just play with however many they have? Or are they allowed to keep that going until the current contracts play out? In which case, it doesn't actually hurt them doing this for years and the change doesn't help.

    I'm genuinely curious, would the league have to intervene and shuffle contracts around, or would teams just be forced into trading salary for nothing and playing with like, 8 players, or would all contracts be renegotiated, how would that work?

    "Kahwi Leonard will be a Pelican. Please make me a signature." - Silverfoxx

  2. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Okay, let's say we do that.

    $125m hard-cap. Say that got passed in this off-season, to be effective in the 2018-19 season. Golden State walks into that season with a salary cap (as of right now, regardless of what happens in summer), of $128.3m. So they're $3.3m over the hard cap, with only 8 players. What happens? Are they forced to cut players until they're under the cap, and then just play with however many they have? Or are they allowed to keep that going until the current contracts play out? In which case, it doesn't actually hurt them doing this for years and the change doesn't help.

    I'm genuinely curious, would the league have to intervene and shuffle contracts around, or would teams just be forced into trading salary for nothing and playing with like, 8 players, or would all contracts be renegotiated, how would that work?
    i haven't put that much thought into it but since it really would only affect the four teams I mentioned they would have to move people to get under the hard cap. They would still be able to bring players in on minimum deals to fill out the roster.

    Not to mention, in the Warriors case, do you think Thompson resigns after next year for 18 - 19 per to keep them under the hard cap? Would Durant resign for 26 per as well if he doesn't opt out? Unlikely IMO.
    Last edited by P_B_&_G; 05-29-2018 at 07:22 PM.

  3. #28
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Pelicanidae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by P_B_&_G View Post
    i haven't put that much thought into it but since it really would only affect the four teams I mentioned they would have to move people to get under the hard cap. They would still be able to bring players in on minimum deals to fill out the roster.
    If they were forced to move people to get under the hard cap, then sign minimum deals, they'd end up over the hard cap again. The league requires you to have 13 players on your roster.

    So, say they have the $128.3m; they've gotta get under salary, so they move/cut/whatever Shaun Livingston; obviously they're not going to move any of their 4 all stars, and getting rid of Bell or Jones wouldn't bring them under the cap: even getting rid of both wouldn't. So now they're at $120m, with 7 players. So they have to sign 6 minimum guys. The average NBA player plays 6 seasons in the league, so imagine they sign 6 guys halfway through their careers; 3 year players. The minimum contract for a 3 year player is $1.08m. 6 of those, that's $6.48m. So they're back up to $126.48. So they're over again, just by signing the minimum amount of guys required to play.

    So that means that Livingston wouldn't be enough, that means they'd have to cut Iguodala if they wanted to sign enough players to fill out the required roster, which means they'd have to either cut him ($48m guaranteed money), or they'd have to find someone willing to trade for an injury prone 34 year old with nearly $50m left on their salary, which means they'd have to bring back in enough salary to the point where getting rid of him wouldn't actually open up the required cap, so they'd have to cut him, which the owners wouldn't like.



    I think at this point I'm just rambling. God the NBA Cap seems like it's trying to be perplexing.

    Correction: Iguodala's contract is only $48m if you count this season. Obviously that wouldn't be in play next season, so it's only $33m. Still a lot of money, but less.
    Last edited by Pelicanidae; 05-29-2018 at 07:30 PM.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    If they were forced to move people to get under the hard cap, then sign minimum deals, they'd end up over the hard cap again. The league requires you to have 13 players on your roster.

    So, say they have the $128.3m; they've gotta get under salary, so they move/cut/whatever Shaun Livingston; obviously they're not going to move any of their 4 all stars, and getting rid of Bell or Jones wouldn't bring them under the cap: even getting rid of both wouldn't. So now they're at $120m, with 7 players. So they have to sign 6 minimum guys. The average NBA player plays 6 seasons in the league, so imagine they sign 6 guys halfway through their careers; 3 year players. The minimum contract for a 3 year player is $1.08m. 6 of those, that's $6.48m. So they're back up to $126.48. So they're over again, just by signing the minimum amount of guys required to play.

    So that means that Livingston wouldn't be enough, that means they'd have to cut Iguodala if they wanted to sign enough players to fill out the required roster, which means they'd have to either cut him ($48m guaranteed money), or they'd have to find someone willing to trade for an injury prone 34 year old with nearly $50m left on their salary, which means they'd have to bring back in enough salary to the point where getting rid of him wouldn't actually open up the required cap, so they'd have to cut him, which the owners wouldn't like.



    I think at this point I'm just rambling. God the NBA Cap seems like it's trying to be perplexing.

    Correction: Iguodala's contract is only $48m if you count this season. Obviously that wouldn't be in play next season, so it's only $33m. Still a lot of money, but less.
    The easy solution is make minimum deals not count towards the cap. Two way players would not count towards the cap either.

  5. #30
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Pelicanidae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by P_B_&_G View Post
    The easy solution is make minimum deals not count towards the cap. Two way players would not count towards the cap either.
    Maybe, but then how are we in a different situation than we're in now? Warriors still trot out Curry, Klay, Iguodala, Durant, and Green, with a surrounding cast of minimum contracts and rookies. That's essentially what they're doing now anyway, the only difference is no Livingstone, which obviously makes them worse but does it make them worse enough to actually make an impact?

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Maybe, but then how are we in a different situation than we're in now? Warriors still trot out Curry, Klay, Iguodala, Durant, and Green, with a surrounding cast of minimum contracts and rookies. That's essentially what they're doing now anyway, the only difference is no Livingstone, which obviously makes them worse but does it make them worse enough to actually make an impact?
    It might not make a difference next year but it would prevent it from happening again in the future. I also don't think Durant opts in at 26 next year, meaning they would likely lose him. Then after next year would Thompson resign at a discount in the 20 per year range to keep the band together? He might but I wouldn't bet on it. He might give discount but he would be nuts to sign for one that big.

  7. #32
    Let's hope the ratings suck in the finals. I watched both conf finals because it looked like another team might get in. I won't be watching the finals. Is it any coincidence that the two teams with the highest salaries have been in the finals four years in a row? Okc is next closest but I think they are an outlier due to the albatross that is Melo's contract.

    Somehow, I missed Miami at 133.
    Last edited by P_B_&_G; 05-29-2018 at 08:23 PM.

  8. #33
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Pelicanidae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by P_B_&_G View Post
    It might not make a difference next year but it would prevent it from happening again in the future. I also don't think Durant opts in at 26 next year, meaning they would likely lose him. Then after next year would Thompson resign at a discount in the 20 per year range to keep the band together? He might but I wouldn't bet on it. He might give discount but he would be nuts to sign for one that big.
    Durant definitely resigns. He already took a big pay cut to be there this year, not sure why he wouldn't next year, especially considering that next year will be his third season with the Warriors, thus giving them bird rights in the following free agency and allowing them to go over-cap to resign him. As far as I can tell, it's really a question of if the front office will pay the tax, rather than whether or not he stays.

    Klay is a different type of situation, but even so that's two years out from now. That will mean that 2015,16,17,18, and 19, at a minimum, will be Golden State and there's nothing we can do about it.

  9. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Durant definitely resigns. He already took a big pay cut to be there this year, not sure why he wouldn't next year, especially considering that next year will be his third season with the Warriors, thus giving them bird rights in the following free agency and allowing them to go over-cap to resign him. As far as I can tell, it's really a question of if the front office will pay the tax, rather than whether or not he stays.

    Klay is a different type of situation, but even so that's two years out from now. That will mean that 2015,16,17,18, and 19, at a minimum, will be Golden State and there's nothing we can do about it.
    Basketball reference has Clay coming off their books next year. Not that it matters because they will pay the tax and resign him. I read they may hit a max combined salary and tax of 300 million. That's just crazy. Seems like the players would prefer a hard cap if they got more of the money instead of teams just paying a tax to the league. But what do I know.

  10. #35
    An actual hardcap set at a specific amount and the removal of capped player contracts. All current contracts grandfathered in. Teams have the ability to wipe any 1 contract from their books signed under the previous rules.

    This would fix the issue within 2 years. A true open market where teams can offer however much money they want for a single player would cause players to have to seriously think about their destination. Does Durant resign for pennies or go to another team that can offer him hundreds of millions more over the life of the contract?

    The NFL has it right with a true open market. How do you protect teams who draft a player and then he becomes a superstar from walking? The same way the NFL does it, with a franchise tag. You franchise them which pays them the average of the top 5 contracts and they can't walk. A 2nd year of franchise gives them the same amount as the average of the top 2 contracts. You cannot do 3 straight years of franchise. This effectively gives home teams 7 years of a player and 3 years to negotiate a contract.

  11. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    An actual hardcap set at a specific amount and the removal of capped player contracts. All current contracts grandfathered in. Teams have the ability to wipe any 1 contract from their books signed under the previous rules.

    This would fix the issue within 2 years. A true open market where teams can offer however much money they want for a single player would cause players to have to seriously think about their destination. Does Durant resign for pennies or go to another team that can offer him hundreds of millions more over the life of the contract?

    The NFL has it right with a true open market. How do you protect teams who draft a player and then he becomes a superstar from walking? The same way the NFL does it, with a franchise tag. You franchise them which pays them the average of the top 5 contracts and they can't walk. A 2nd year of franchise gives them the same amount as the average of the top 2 contracts. You cannot do 3 straight years of franchise. This effectively gives home teams 7 years of a player and 3 years to negotiate a contract.
    I agree that the NFL has it right in terms of a formula that creates parity. It's a shame it will likely never happen in the NBA.

  12. #37
    Saint Pelican of Mile High Contributor DefensiveMind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    2,614
    In football, the practical reality of running an actual football team makes their cap situation different. In Basketball, a guy plays offense and defense. A singular talent in one sport is clearly worth more. I like the current system because it rewards brilliance both on the court and the front office. I’m not interested in a system that has to save an owner from himself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by DefensiveMind View Post
    In football, the practical reality of running an actual football team makes their cap situation different. In Basketball, a guy plays offense and defense. A singular talent in one sport is clearly worth more. I like the current system because it rewards brilliance both on the court and the front office. I’m not interested in a system that has to save an owner from himself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The current system saves owners way more than a true free market does. There's capped contracts (why does Otto Porter deserve the same percentage as Anthony Davis?), there's soft caps, there's sign and trades, heck there's even rules currently that make GMs unable to trade consecutive 1st round picks - literally saving them from themselves.

    If you really want to reward excellence by the front office a true open market with 1 hard cap that can't be crossed way better than the current system. Baseball players play offense and defense and they don't have capped contracts. Let the cream rise to the top and stop allowing stupid loopholes that build super teams. Everyone gets the same amount of money, may the best ran team win.

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    The current system saves owners way more than a true free market does. There's capped contracts (why does Otto Porter deserve the same percentage as Anthony Davis?), there's soft caps, there's sign and trades, heck there's even rules currently that make GMs unable to trade consecutive 1st round picks - literally saving them from themselves.

    If you really want to reward excellence by the front office a true open market with 1 hard cap that can't be crossed way better than the current system. Baseball players play offense and defense and they don't have capped contracts. Let the cream rise to the top and stop allowing stupid loopholes that build super teams. Everyone gets the same amount of money, may the best ran team win.
    I agree with this...I was thinking about this earlier...Basically a hard cap similar to what NFL does today is the only way to fix the competitive balance.

  15. #40
    Right on with your post. There are so many "phantom" calls that even Stevie Wonder could see were phony.


    Quote Originally Posted by lawless522 View Post
    “Rigged” is a strong word. Heavily impacted by suspicious calls at opportune moments? For sure.

  16. #41
    SKOL! SKOL! SKOL! SKOL! Imnos 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    695
    Does anyone think the nba is fixed right now? When the conferences went 7 games, everyone thinks the league is making it go longer. But wouldn't you want your biggest stars to play the most games on the biggest stage in the finals? I would think the league would want to make this last as long as possible

  17. #42
    While I do not think the NBA is rigged, I do believe there is player favoritism. Like when Jordan would get crazy calls in favor. Or when you rarely see LeBron being called for fouls.

    Or the opposite: Like Jrue never gets any calls. Maybe it is because he doesn't really complain or work the refs ear.

    Warriors have 2 superstars, 1 perennial all-star, and 1 all-star whiner. That combination will yield more favorable calls to them.

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Durant definitely resigns. He already took a big pay cut to be there this year, not sure why he wouldn't next year, especially considering that next year will be his third season with the Warriors, thus giving them bird rights in the following free agency and allowing them to go over-cap to resign him. As far as I can tell, it's really a question of if the front office will pay the tax, rather than whether or not he stays.

    Klay is a different type of situation, but even so that's two years out from now. That will mean that 2015,16,17,18, and 19, at a minimum, will be Golden State and there's nothing we can do about it.
    I've been wondering, if Durant opts out how can the Warriors re-sign him? They will already be over the cap, and they dont have his bird rights, so they shouldnt have a way to re-sign him without shedding alot of salary (Iggy, Klay)

  19. #44
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Pelicanidae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by soggymoss View Post
    I've been wondering, if Durant opts out how can the Warriors re-sign him? They will already be over the cap, and they dont have his bird rights, so they shouldnt have a way to re-sign him without shedding alot of salary (Iggy, Klay)
    I'm not a cap expert, but I'm fairly sure that they have his non-Bird rights due to him having played there for two seasons now, and non-Bird rights allow a team to re-sign their own free agents for up to 175% of their previous years salary, in contracts that must last at least two seasons and cannot last more than four seasons. So theoretically they could have him opt out of his $26m and resign him for something like 2 years $70m.

  20. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by P_B_&_G View Post
    The easy solution is make minimum deals not count towards the cap. Two way players would not count towards the cap either.
    I didn't think minimum deals counted towards the cap
    Last edited by wnelson; 06-07-2018 at 01:25 PM.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I'm not a cap expert, but I'm fairly sure that they have his non-Bird rights due to him having played there for two seasons now, and non-Bird rights allow a team to re-sign their own free agents for up to 175% of their previous years salary, in contracts that must last at least two seasons and cannot last more than four seasons. So theoretically they could have him opt out of his $26m and resign him for something like 2 years $70m.
    Ahhh, ok.. Yeah I just read up on it, they have his early bird rights.. Damn, I was hoping that would be a reason for them to have to gut their team

  22. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by wnelson View Post
    I didn't think minimum deals counted towards the cap.

    I am pretty sure Thompson isn't resigning with GS.

    They would have to get rid of iggy.
    I've seen mentioned ALOT that Klay is willing to leave something like 50-80 million on the table to stay with the Warriors because he has a 100 million shoe deal

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by wnelson View Post
    I didn't think minimum deals counted towards the cap
    They count but you can still sign players to Minimum deals no matter what as long as you have a roster spot. Also veteran players who sign minimum deals recieve higher pay while counting for a smaller cap hit than their pay. It's a way to keep getting deals for veterans when normally they'd cost so much more than rookies that it wouldn't make sense to sign them.

  24. #49
    Basketball Guru GuardianAngel25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NOLA
    Posts
    6,468
    Yea cause it makes so much sense for the NBA to have a team go up 3-0 and possibly end the NBA Finals in a sweep.. must be a good business plan to lose out on millions and millions of dollars to have the Warriors win even though it doesn’t benefit the NBA in anyway.. makes total sense now.. Oh and the proof is they had a rogue referee years back so they must have all been bad!! In case anybody was wondering the earth is flat and planes leave chem trails!!

  25. #50
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Pelicanidae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25 View Post
    Yea cause it makes so much sense for the NBA to have a team go up 3-0 and possibly end the NBA Finals in a sweep.. must be a good business plan to lose out on millions and millions of dollars to have the Warriors win even though it doesn’t benefit the NBA in anyway.. makes total sense now.. Oh and the proof is they had a rogue referee years back so they must have all been bad!! In case anybody was wondering the earth is flat and planes leave chem trails!!
    Believing that it is possible for a giant corporation which has previously been plausibly suspected of rigging things on multiple occasions may be rigging things again is not on, near, comparable to, or analogous to believing in chemtrails or flat Earth.

    The fact is, Golden State are the league's biggest team. That's not debatable. Two of the top five biggest selling jerseys are Warriors players. Three of the top 15 (Klay is number #14), Golden State. They have had full, sell-out attendance every year for the last six years. They are the NBA's third most valuable team by franchise value ($3.1bn in 2018). During the Warriors 4 finals runs, they league has experienced an increase in revenue every year, with the total income jumping nearly $2bn between the 2016/17 season and the 2017/18.

    Given all of this information, is it by no means ''flat earth'' levels of crazy to think that it's possible, what with the NBA being a for-profit corporation and all, that they might be favouring the team that brings them in more cash than any other team. Especially when that team is China's favourite team (most followers on Sina Weibo, most Chinese Facebook traffic, most games played in China over the last 10 years, Curry and Klay visiting China every summer, etc), and China is the world's largest market.

    But yes, you're right, it somehow doesn't benefit the NBA in any way to have the Warriors win.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •