True Hoop: Players Demand Super Teams

If this post is to be taken at face value, we have finally achieved clarity. The players will not accept the current deal because they perceive it would hurt a tiny minority of players' ability to form super teams in New York and Los Angeles. They are willing to collectively give up hundreds of millions of dollars for this.

Now that we know this the owners can counter back that the owners win the split 53-47 and concede on these silly points and we can start up free agency!

7 months ago John R 16 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wait what huh?

I assume you’re talking about sign-and-extend deals, which the owners want to abolish but Henry Abbott, in the linked article, doesn’t mention. He does mention sign-and-trade deals for taxpaying teams which has nothing to do with “Super Teams”. The face value of what post? Your post?
Eh, John R, the title of your fanshot is misleading, provocative, and ultimately false. Unless you posted the wrong article.

by John Raffo on Nov 9, 2011 11:24 AM PST reply actions

I thought it was obvious?

If I may excerpt:

Meanwhile, the union says there are five system issues in the league’s latest offer that they cannot accept. They are:

    * The rules governing sign-and-trade deals for taxpaying teams.
    * The mid-level exception for taxpaying teams.
    * The repeater tax, a special additional luxury tax for teams that habitually have high payrolls.
    * “The cliff,” which is a term to describe the penalty for going one dollar into the tax. In the old system, teams that were a dollar below the tax threshold paid no tax and received, typically, millions from the league. Going just one dollar over, in other words, would cost those lost millions, plus a dollar in luxury tax for every dollar the team is over. There’s an effort to reduce “the cliff” in the league’s proposal. Both sides agree, however, that teams that spend hugely on salary will pay significantly more tax than in the past with a new graduated rate system.
    * Escrows, which is a question of what percentage of players’ salaries will be held back during the season to settle up at the end and ensure owners and players, in each year’s final accounting, end up with the proper percentage of basketball-related income.

1. The rules governing sign-and-trade deals for taxpaying teams has nothing to do with the total dollar amount that would go out to the players. It only affects an individual player’s ability to go to a team that is already over the cap. This would help build super teams.
2. The mid-level exception construct has nothing to do with the total dollar amount that would go out to the players. It only affects an individual player’s ability to go to a team that is already over the cap. This would help build super teams.
3. The repeater tax has nothing to do with the total dollar amount that would go out to the players. It is, in fact, revenue sharing. Something the players have said they want the owners to work out. It does disincentivize teams over the cap from going further over the cap. This only affects an individual player’s ability to go to a team that is already over the cap. This would help build super teams.
4. Everything that applies about the repeater tax applies about the cliff feature of the luxury tax. Its not clear why the players should care, except that it discourages teams well over the cap from acquiring more stars.
5. The change in the escrow structure WOULD affect how much goes out to the players, but it really seems like a course correction. This seems like a small amount of money across all the players. Less than the money lost by missing games.

Four out of five are not about player compensation but about player movement. Totally cool. This is something that can be bargained for or away. Nothing wrong with that. But all of these are about preserving a player’s ability to move to a team that is already over the cap. The ability to form a super team.

So let’s get down to business. After the ultimatum it seemed like the next step for the players was to publicly publish what they want. That seems to have happened and these seem to be it. Its not about the money its about freedom. Perfectly reasonable. Alrighty, so buy your freedom for a few% BRI.

by John R on Nov 9, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

Okay.

I’ll buy all that, though I don’t think any of it is “obvious”.
But the title of your post is “True Hoop: Players Demand Super Teams”. That’s not the conclusion Henry Abbott derives from the data he provides, that’s what John R derives. Perhaps the title should have been “John R: Players Demand Super Teams”, as the conclusion is based on your calculations, not Abbott’s. Yeah, that doesn’t fit the definition of a “fanpost” but why quibble?
As I said, it’s interesting that the one thing Abbott didn’t mention is the most relevant to your argument and that would have been “sign and trade extensions”. Especially since the league wanted to abolish it in their “offer”.

by John Raffo on Nov 9, 2011 1:44 PM PST up reply actions

I suspect he wants to try to create some sort of controversy where none exists

Really he should just put the title of the article itself as the title of the fanpost and then if he wants to provide his personal opinion he should just do that in the body.

Kind of funny how it took so many words to explain what the heck he was talking about.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Nov 9, 2011 1:53 PM PST up reply actions

You hypocrites complained when I did that too...

by John R on Nov 9, 2011 3:39 PM PST up reply actions

Well that's not Abbott's list, thats the union's list

If we are going to quibble about attribution.

Does sign-and-trade deals not include sign and trade extensions? “Deals” may include signings or extensions or both. I wouldn’t want to attribute anything to editorial discretion without evidence.

Seems perfectly reasonable that if Abbott says players demand 1 and also 1 that for the purposes of a title I can say Abbott: Players demand 2. It may be a calculation, but the math is the math.

For those keeping score at home, I have now been complained at for writing exactly the title of what I am linking and for not exactly writing the title of what I am linking.

One might wonder if I am actually the problem in these scenarios.

by John R on Nov 9, 2011 3:39 PM PST up reply actions

Oh, so I'm the problem...

You and Buddahfan both seem to believe that I am hypocritcal because I simply point out that neither of you is very good at separating your fiction some someone else’s fiction.
But you linked to Truehoop who’s theme was that “losing a season would be true lunacy” and you corrupted that point to make your own point (a point I happen to agree with you on).
Hypocritical?

by John Raffo on Nov 9, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions

+1

I am always amazed when people heatedly respond to John R’s posts. He displays his opinions as fact and arrogantly dismisses others as stupid.

He is just trying to get a rise out of you. Don’t waste your time.

by AtotheZ on Nov 9, 2011 7:10 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, three and a half years, you'd think I'd wise up.

by John Raffo on Nov 9, 2011 9:26 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not sure what your beef is here

It is clear to me at least that is my voice in the fanshot. I didn’t use quotes or anything. You say it is my fiction and then say after I explain that you don’t disagree? When I am quoting I quote. When I am speaking I don’t.

Comically, none of the other fanshots currently on the front page use the actual title from the linked article except for mine and Buddahfan’s. Now, I see what you mean about some other folks’ fanshots and things going in and out of blockquotes and weirdness, but I just don’t see it here.

by John R on Nov 10, 2011 3:24 PM PST up reply actions

I buy it, but why?

Yes, the union does seem to be fighting against competitive balance. Buy why? Why are the players so adamant on wanting super teams? That’s only going to benefit about 30 players (15 guys on two teams) out of 450. Just asking your (and everyone’s) opinion.

Fisher was quoted as saying that he is all for competitive balance, except where it limits a players ability to go to any team he wants … which is in fact a contradiction.

by Thretch on Nov 9, 2011 8:58 PM PST up reply actions

Its about freedom and opportunity

But there are ways around limits that don’t involve super teams. You could create a max contract exception. If a team can get at least $10M under the cap AND does not have a max player, they can sign a single player up to the max as if they were that far under the cap, BUT that can be their ONLY free agent signing that year.

This would allow max free agents to be created and allow somewhat free player movement, without immediately creating super teams as we know them with the Heat. Obviously its not perfect, but its closer than what the players are asking for. The players want the ability to continue to create super teams.

Make no mistake it is their right to ask for it since in a free market they could go wherever they want. As a feature of collective bargaining they can sell or buy this right. So how much is their right worth to them? 0.5%BRI? Or are they going to keep taking their ball and going home over it?

by John R on Nov 10, 2011 3:28 PM PST up reply actions

Sure

OK, freedom and opportunity … makes sense. But they are asking for the freedom and opportunity to do something that they say they don’t want to do (i.e. creative imbalance). 90% of the free agents will not be invited to sign with a Super Team. So the union is negotiating something that will benefit perhaps 10% of it’s constituency rather than the rank and file. Actually creates a greater disparity for those rank and file to ever win a championship. That is completely the inverse of a union’s charter.

So I still don’t get why the union would be in favor of this. Freedom and opp, yes. But why don’t they understand the practical implications and limitations of this freedom. Craig Smith is not going to get a call from the Knicks to complete their Super Team.

by Thretch on Nov 10, 2011 4:15 PM PST up reply actions

I don't understand everything the union is doing

But maybe this is a bone to the stars? The stars are getting crapped on each other way, maybe this is what is needed to keep them in the fold. Maybe they have numbers that show super teams increase endorsement opportunities?

Just guessing at this point.

by John R on Nov 10, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions