A Question 4:

[W]

I didn't say it WILL happen, since it's in the best interest of the players and owners overall for it not to happen, just that if you can't make money in a place then you need to spend less, move, or shut it down. If you do the first two and it doesn't work for you, then you've only got one option left.

My perfect model for a salary system is no model at all (with a few anti-collusion rules). You can spend whatever you want on whoever you want, but the decisions won't be based on rigid Bird Rights, max contracts, MLE/LLE's, minimum contracts, etc. Superstars will get paid what they're worth, the little guys will be paid less. You're still going to have GMs making stupid decisions, but if those decisions weren't based on profit maximization, then there's nothing at all you can complain about. New York, LA, Boston, etc make more money and have more fans, and should be able to spend more money. Obviously that won't happen for various reasons.

[Buscemi]

They do that in Major League Baseball and it doesn't work at all.

[W]

It doesn't? How so?

Superstars don't get paid what they're worth? The little guys aren't paid what their worth? Are there guys getting paid twice what they're worth because they fit into an exception? Are teams by and large NOT making money? If not then is it because of the system? Laissez faire works with sports. It values players much better as the gaps between the superstars and the twelfth man SHOULD be much larger. Especially in the NBA where one superstar guarantees a playoff appearance and two makes you a contender. It gives teams the choice between pocketing money and spending it on players. In baseball, small market teams work through the draft because they're trying to make a profit while bigger clubs like the Yankees can buy whomever they want. In the NBA, almost every team no matter the market will max out (or close to max out) their best player even when he's not worth it, for example.

It makes sense.

And if you don't make money in this system year in and year out, but have no plans to close the business then you aren't running a business, you're running a plaything. Which is perfectly fine if you treat it that way. But if you run a team like a toy then claim it's a business, then that's where the problem lies.

That said, this will NEVER happen.

[Buscemi]

The Yankees always have payrolls over $200 million and get flak for stealing talent left and right. Meanwhile, a team like the Rays has a payroll of about $57 million. This is why lower-market teams use Sabremetrics. Because the lack of a salary cap system makes it nearly impossible for most teams to compete.

If you didn't have Sabremetrics and continued to claim that the MLB system works, the Yankees would win the World Series every year. And pre-Moneyball, that was the case.

[W]

Yep. But I don't care what happened twenty years ago and having a big market team win more often than a small market team isn't necessarily a bad thing. They've got more fans and spend more money, so why shouldn't they win more? What teams have won the most championships in the NBA? The small market Lakers, Celtics, Bulls?

[Buscemi]

The Lakers won five of those in Minneapolis. And Boston wasn't always the huge market that it is now (during the 1960's and 1970's, it was as economically depressed as Cleveland is now).

And the most recent true dynasty in the NBA was in the small market of San Antonio (four titles in eight seasons).

[W]

Anyways, we're getting really off track. Fault lies with both sides, but it's hard for me to blame the players considering how inflexible the owners have been the entire time. I realize it's just business and, after a Mavs championship and how good last season was, I'll probably watch more of this shortened season (if applicable) than I did the past few whole seasons.

[Geezer]

I think anyone with common sense would realize that a 50/50 split would be fair. The players have failed numerous attempts to realize this. They will lose far more money by not playing games than they will win by getting a better deal. The whole thing is stupid.

[Ron Burgundy]

it would seem that players are getting a 50.9% deal. This is apparently over.

A Q 4:
Anyone on here,
who have u actually met on these forums, im talking secrets agents as we are all on, though i count as two, dont you think its a tiny bit weird that we all know each other so well, but we havent actually met? Well im glad to say ive met 2 of the best, and i would like to meet at least 10 more, any of those in \perth or \west \u\s, look out for a \ro\n \b

[Ron Burgundy]

/wine is a pretty lethal weapon

[silversurfer19]

Flight schedules messed up my meet with NSpan, but I should be making my way to the UK again next year so it'd be cool if I found time to meet up with either six or Chien, though I'm not sure if I'll be taking in either Dublin or Paris, so I'll have to see if I can find the time.

[numbersix]

When are you in the UK, SS? I'm planning a weekend to London in mid Feb. Otherwise, if you come on over to Dublin there'll be a pint of Guinness with your name on it!

[Chienfantome]

It's funny, cause I've spent quite a few years with you all on the web without meeting anyone, and in three months time, I've met two of the gang. First was Six last summer, on his land in Dublin, and then you Ron, on your big European trip, when you stopped by Paris a couple of months ago.
And what's even funnier is that I'll meet you a second time before I'll meet a third member of the fantaverse, Ron

Surfer, that would be cool if you stopped by Paris next year !!!

[silversurfer19]

I'll have to see how I go with time, but I will be over for my Dad's 60th which is at the start of November. It'd be awesome to catch up with you guys if possible.

[numbersix]

Don't go to Paris. It sucks. Dublin is way cooler