dlpin

So the suns would not only deal one of the game's best PFs away, they would also help Atlanta get rid of 2 bad contracts? and all of this for the 24th pick?

Well, it's a fact that Lebron's friends ride with him on the plane. Heck, his agent is a high school buddy, his marketing firm is run by other high school buddies, and so on. In fact, his marketing company is either a front so he can receive money under the table, or just a way for him to make the money he pays his entourage tax deductible. Because I've never seen a worst website for a marketing company, just cliches and poor grammar. It's like a high school student watched Jerry Macguire and thought he could run a marketing business for athletes (which may actually be what happened here). Point being, no one makes their entourage as much a part of a team's day to day life as Lebron does. Whether or not Ferry had a problem with that is a different issue, but the underlying point is true.

Gotta love him scheduling interviews to be aired on the first day of the finals. Guess if you can't become the spotlight by making the finals, you can try to hog it by holding your city hostage.

I am not going to engage the whole "benefit boston" thing, as this is a thread on hard caps. To address the issue of Bird rights: Once again, Bird rights were NOT created for Bird. Bird re-signed with the Celtics on September 28th, 1983, 7 years for 12.6 million dollars: http://www.nba.com/celtics/history/TheYear198384_121203.html The NBA salary cap was only implemented for the 1984-1985 season. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q9 So Bird resigned with Boston a full year before there even was a salary cap. The reason people started calling it the "Larry Bird exception" is simply because he was the most recent major free agent resigning when people started debating the new CBA, but it was not created for him or used on him. And the real reason there was the soft cap instead of the hard actually had nothing to do with Boston. The Lakers and the Knicks were already over the 3.6 million dollar cap when it was created, and since contracts are guaranteed, there was no way for them to get under the cap, so the NBA allowed them to stay at that level, and made the exception that teams could go over the cap to keep their teams together. But, again, it had NOTHING to do with Bird and the celtics. The first time Bird benefited from the "Bird Exception" was when he renewed his contract again after the 1988 season. The first player the celtics resigned with the "Bird Exception" was actually Cedric Maxwell, not Bird, and the celtics only went over the cap in 1985, after contracts with Ainge, Dennis Johnson and Walton were signed. If back then they had implemented hard caps like some wanted, the teams that would be broken up would be the Lakers and Knicks. And even then they allowed the soft cap not because they wanted to benefit the lakers and the knicks, but because in order to create a hard cap they would have to make contracts non-guaranteed (so the knicks and lakers could cut players) and the players were opposed to that.

The Bird rights were created 25 years ago, and Bird was just the biggest name free agent that year, not the only one. After the exception was created, Boston was only the 5th largest payroll, almost 1/4 lower than the lakers'. That is your evidence for the "league helping Boston?" I mean, of all teams, you are going to pick Boston as the beneficiary? The team that was absolutely irrelevant from 92 to 07? Did you know that when Reggie Lewis died the celtics still had to have his salary count towards the cap? Did you know that when the celtics cut Vin Baker because he was showing up drunk to practice, they still had his salary count towards the cap? I mean, if your example of the league fixing everything is the Boston Celtics, which, since the lottery was created, has never had a top 2 pick, and which has won 1 championship the past 24 years, then the league is absolutely incompetent in fixing things. Not to mention, of course, that is completely unrelated to a hard cap.

They would never set a hard cap at the current cap level. 28 teams would have to cut payroll if they did. You are ignoring the02 lakers and 06 hear. they were only 13th and 15th in payroll.The only time that 2 top 5 payroll teams are in the finals is this year. Again, THIS YEAR. 02-03 top 4 teams in each conference: east: Pistons (25th in payroll), Nets (8th in payroll), 76ers (5th in payroll), Pacers (13th in payroll) West: Spurs (15th in payroll), Mavs (4th in payroll), Kings (3rd in payroll), Wolves(8th in payroll) http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-team-salaries.shtml 03-04: East: Pacers (13th), Nets (9th), Pistons (17th), Heat (23rd) West: Minnesota (4th), Lakers(8th), Spurs (25th), Kings (5th) http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries04.txt 04-05: East: Heat (15th in payroll) Pistons (18th), Celtics (8th), Bulls (19th) West: Suns (28th) Spurs (23rd) Sonics (17th) Mavs (2nd) http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml 05-06 East: Pistons (17th) Heat (15th) Nets (9th) Cavs (26th) West: Spurs (10th) Suns (24th) Nuggets (22nd) Mavs (2nd) http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries06.txt 06-07 East: Pistons (24th) Cavs (17th) Raptors (28th) Heat (14th) West: Mavs (2nd) Suns (7th) Spurs (9th) Jazz (20th) http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries07.txt 07-08 East celtics (6th) Pistons (15th) Magic (27th) Cavs (4th) West: Lakers (9th) Hornets (22) Spurs (11th) Suns (10th) http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries08.txt 08-09 East: Cavs (3rd) Celtics (5th) Magic(15th) Hawks (19th) West: Lakers (6th) Nuggets (16th) Blazers (4th) Spurs (20th) http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries09.txt So in the last 7 years, you have 30 teams on the bottom 20 payrolls on the top 8 and 26 top 10 payrolls on the top 8. So you have more teams out of the top 10 in spending finishing among the top 8 than teams in the top 10 in spending. In terms of champions, the payrolls are 15th, 17th, 23rd, 15th, 9th, 6th, 6th. So you have more teams ranked 15 and below winning the championship than teams ranked 10 and above. Number of times the top payroll has won the championship since 85-86: http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/index.html 2. 2 times in 25 years the top payroll won the title. And that was the bulls in 97 in 98 because Jordan was making 30 million a year. No, they weren't under the cap. Only 2 or 3 teams a year are under the cap, if that.

No, what you are not hearing is that it does not matter. Again, the only time the finals teams were in the top 5 in payroll was this year. Teams can't buy a championship, so a hard cap won't matter. In fact, doing away with the soft cap and luxury tax would hurt the small teams. Let's say the NBA implemented a hard cap that was exactly at the median payroll for the last couple of seasons. The teams from 99 to 06 would have had to cut no one. The 07 and 08 champions would have had to cut just a few scrubs. The celtics in 08 would could get below the median salary by simply cutting Brian Scalabrine, Eddie House, and Tony Allen. A soft salary cap with a luxury tax is the best thing for the NBA. And people talk about the NFL all the time, but let's look at it: Saints were 4th highest payroll, steelers in 08 6th, colts in 06 were 1st, Steelers in 05 were 10th, Patriots in 03 were 9th. So we've had 4 champions in the past 9 superbowls in the top 10 in spending. In the NBA, the only teams in the top 10 in spending were the 07 spurs, 08 celtics, and 09 lakers.

The reason we don't have lower seeds advancing more often has nothing to do with the cap and everything to do with it being 7 game series without a dominant position (in hockey, goalies get hot and a lower seed team can go all the way). You put in a 7 game series in the ncaa and the same teams will make the finals every year. And I am surprised at these topics about the same teams always being in the finals when we've had 18 different teams in the past 19 finals. There are only 5 eastern conference teams that haven't been to a finals in the past 19 years. Atlanta, Milwaukee, Washington, Toronto and Charlotte. And 2 of these 5 are recent expansion teams. And Milwaukee was a buzzer beater away from making it in 01. In the western conference you have 7 teams that didn't make the finals. But of those 7, 2 got really close. Sure, the same 2 teams have won 50% of all championships. But how many of those came under the current cap system implemented in 84-85? How many of those came in an era without free agency and with a lot fewer teams? The celtics and lakers have 23 of 39 up until 1984, but 9 of 26 after that - with 4 of those 9 coming with the teams assembled before the cap system was in place. In other words, if we look just at teams assembled entirely under the salary cap era (let's say, those after Bird and Magic retired), the lakers and celtics have 5 of 19. Because let's be real here: of all the people complaining about the nba being too predictable and the same teams always winning, how many thought the celtics would be here? If we did a poll at the start of the playoffs, how many people thought that the celtics would win the east? Not to mention that people completely forget how much the celtics sucked from 93 to 07. Basketball, by it's nature, will have a player or two dominate. Even with that, the league has had a great deal of variety. What is more, the soft cap with a luxury tax actually helps the small teams, redistributing money from teams with more money than sense (blazes, knicks) to small market teams. The biggest losers with a hard cap in place would be teams like the jazz and OKC, decent teams that need the additional revenue. The biggest winners would be the knicks, blazers, etc. (which would be saved from themselves) and the mavs, magic (recent teams that have overspent on mediocre talent trying to buy a championship).

You know why most teams who won the championship were over the cap? Because most teams were over the cap, period. There are two teams under the cap right now: Memphis and Portland. If a hard cap were set, it would not be at the same value of the current cap. It would be closer to the value of the luxury tax. And none of the champions from 99 to 07 were paying the luxury tax. I guarantee that if things switch to a hard cap, it'll be the same teams every year in the finals. For the majority of their dynasties, the lakers and spurs weren't even in the top 1/3 in payroll. And they were only challenged by teams that spent a lot of money: dallas, orlando, miami. You put a hard cap in, and Lebron and 4 scrubs go to the final against Kobe and 4 scrubs every year.

Cap only started in 84-5. That celtics team only went over the cap after they had to resign bird (hence bird exception) so they were under what became the cap up until after the 84 season, when they had won 2 titles already. The only teams to win the nba title that were in the top 5 in salary these past 10 years (which is all we have data for) were the 09 lakers and whoever wins this year. 00-02 lakers were never in the top 10. 03 spurs was 23rd 04 pistons were 18th http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml 08 celtics were 6th. 07 Spurs were 8th.

The 00-02 lakers weren't even on the top 10 in payroll. The 03 spurs weren't even on the top 20 in payroll. the 08 celtics was only 6th in payroll. This is the first time that the two teams reach the finals while being on the top 5 in payroll.

I don't think a hard cap would help anything. If anything, a hard cap would lead to fewer teams competing, because good all around teams are more expensive than 4 scrubs and one superstar. Lebron would win the east every year. The 2002 Lakers, for example, cost only about 53 million, and were only 13th in the league in payroll. Spurs won it in 03 with only the 15th highest payroll. 2005 Spurs were only 23rd. You put a hard cap in, and it's lakers and spurs every year.

"Offer more" doesn't mean simply offer a better salary (as the max is whatever cleveland can offer him). Bigger market, better teammates, better coaching, etc. And even if no other team offered as much to cleveland as atlanta in a sign and trade, Lebron still gets the final say. There is no way that Lebron is picking Atlanta, even with Joe Johnson, over Chicago, NY, NJ, Clippers, etc. And several of the teams without cap space could both offer more in a sign and trade to cleveland AND a better situation to Lebron. Houston, for example, could offer Kevin Martin, Ariza, New York's next two picks, and Lebron would still have Yao and Brooks with him there.

Why would Lebron want to come to Atlanta? Joe Johnson? Even with JJ, Horford and Lebron, this would be one of the thinnest teams in the league if it had to trade crawford and smith to get lebron. Why wouldn't he prefer to pair up with Wade, or Bosh, or Amare, or Derrick Rose? Whether or not the Hawks can offer anything the cavs want is irrelevant. Lebron gets to pick where he goes. He might agree to a sign and trade to get a bigger contract, but he is not in any way bound by who can offer more to cleveland.

For Lebron, there are several teams that could offer more, and several teams he'd prefer over these players. Crawford is 30 years old. If the cavs lose lebron they'd be in rebuilding mode and Crawford is too old for that. Smith is a headcase. 1 sts would be nothing in a team favored to be the top seed every year for a while.

They rescinded one of the Ts, but not the other. 2nd game in a row that a game changing ref decision gets revised. Game 4, which ended up tied and went to overtime, they upgraded a Howard foul to flagrant. Now, in a game that ended up tied in regulation, free throws and possession sure change things. And the thing is, it's not that the ref didn't see that elbow. He just chose to call it a foul and not a flagrant. Yesterday, they compound the problem. I guess when each additional playoff game brings in a bit over 2 million dollars, the incentive is there to help the underdog.

First, I don't know what the celtics eventual decline has to do with the hawks winning 53 games again. The hawks already swept the celtics in the regular season this year, so whatever decline they experience next year won't yield extra wins. Now, if I were a betting man and the over/under on hawks wins next year was 53, I'd bet a ton of money on the under. Why? Crawford played 79 games this season. He's only reached that total before in 4 of his previous 9 seasons. Josh Smith also tied his career high for games played. Al Horford missed just one game this season, instead of the 15 he missed last season. No other team in the east was healthier. Add to that the following: given how little the hawks want to pay for their coach, it is clear to me that they won't spend into the luxury tax. Which means that even if they resign JJ, they won't spend the full MLE. So the hawks will continue to have the paper thin bench they have now. Finally, Crawford will be 30-31, the traditional age shooting guards start to deteriorate, and Bibby 32.

This isn't the regular season. People who thought this was the regular season are the ones who picked cleveland to own the celtics. This celtics team had lost twice by double digits in the regular season against the cavs (and only won the last game because the cavs had already clinched the top seed). The celtics were clearly saving themselves and their playbook for the playoffs. The hawks, meanwhile, basically played their playoff rotation for the entire season, and made no adjustments for the playoffs. Not saying that the celtics would beat the hawks, but these celtics are clearly not the same celtics the hawks played before. And in any case, so what? Is the goal for the hawks to beat the celtics? Would the hawks hang a banner saying "we beat the celtics" if they did? Because if that is the goal, then that is fine. But if the goal is to win a championship, then matchups are irrelevant. The hawks might match up better with the celtics, but if the goal is to win the championship, they'd have to eventually go through Orlando anyways. And unless something major happens, this team will be killed by Orlando every year. Howard is young and is not going anywhere.

Yeah, that's one thing that bugs me. If Lebron doesn't want to shoulder most of the blame, he shouldn't claim most of the glory. Before today's game, there was a story about how confident Lebron was that there would be a game 7, and when asked why, he said that it was because the cavs "got me."

The officiating is so bad that people that 2 months ago absolutely hated the celtics now want them to win. Reading the realgm forums, you'll see magic fans, heat fans and even laker sfans talking about the officiating and how they want Lebron to lose. No one has been given so much for doing to little like Lebron has. Jordan only got this sort of treatment after winning a few titles and becoming by far the most popular player in the nba. Meanwhile, even though Lebron is by the far the most promoted player in the league, he has never had the number 1 selling jersey, and his one trip to the finals had just about the lowest tv ratings. They keep trying to make him into the new Jordan, but people see through that.

You know what the worst part about "elbow gate" is? The MRI showed nothing. Normal elbow. I've never heard of a sprain never showing on an MRI. This is just a fake injury he came up to create some drama.

Can they fine players not in the game for criticizing refs? http://twitter.com/andrewMbogut "That was the biggest jump stop ive ever seen....."

As I said: Fouls called on each team by the time the celtics opened a 13 point lead: 6 on celtics 4 on cavs. After that? 10 on celtics, 0 on cavs. The cavs haven't been called for a foul in 10 MINUTES!

Want to destroy your liver? Here's a fun drinking game: down a shot every time the announcers mention Lebron's elbow tonight.

The refs were absolutely ridiculous that game. They took Rondo out of the game with a terrible offensive foul call and a bad tick tack foul later on. Lebron bumped Pierce every time. Heck, there was a play where the ref actually played defense on Ray Allen, stopping him from shooting a 3.