From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Shaquille O'Neal contract
Date: 12 Aug 92 04:22:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug12.042229.16503
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

jte@beefheart.cc.columbia.edu (Jeff Eldredge) writes:

>No problem.  And while I'm at it, I don't think that Madonna, Stephen  
>King, or Tom Cruise should be paid what they are being paid.  Obviously, I  
>KNOW that basketball is entertainment.  That's why I go to over 20 NBA  
>games a year...to be entertained.  That doesn't mean that I believe the  
>suppliers of my entertainment should be paid 12 zillion dollars a year.   

Sorry.  I can agree with you that they shouldn't be paid like that.
However, the world we live in has said that they do.  

>No, this is not what's happening at all.  Chicago was lucky enough to  
>draft what turned out to be probably the single greatest player to set  
>foot on the court.  Combine that with some savvy pickups like Pippen, who  
>was buried somewhere deep down in the draft pile, Grant, whose draft  
>position I can't remember, and a bunch of other smart trades.  Yes, their  
>success was brought on by a combination of judicious front-office moves  
>and excellent teamwork on the part of their very talented players.   
>However, the salary cap had virtually nothing to do with this.  Whether or  
>not there is a cap, you still have to be clever about building a strong  

That's true.  But you don't see teams assembling Murder's Rows.  If
money were no object, Paul Allen could afford to buy the Rockets, keep
Hakeem, and play a bunch of CBA players.  He's got more bucks than
anyone else in the league, so far as I'm aware.  And he could hit up his
buddy Bill for a loan.

Chicago, like Detroit and Portland, has carefully built a team, and is
changing minor pieces around to see how they fit.  If it weren't for the
cap, they could get out their spreadsheet, decide that it was worth the
money because of increased ticket prices, and then buy a center or point
guard or whatever they feel they need.

That's what the salary cap prevents, team A shooting its wad in the
hopes of winning it all.  If they're right, they're the Celtics again.
If they're wrong, the league has another Stepien team on its hands.

>Orlando is going to be signing lots of players at the minimum salary for  
>the next umpteen years.  On one hand, they would have been stupid to not  
>sign Shaq, but on the other hand, what the fuck are they going to do now?   
>I doubt very much that they are going to be a league contender.  Not this  
>year and not in the years to come.  Building an excellent team takes a lot  
>of smarts, but no matter how clever you are in this game, you can still  
>very easily make fatal errors at high costs.  And I personally don't think  
>this should be the case.  The idea is to make things competitive, not  
>impossible.      

Maybe.  I think that if he is what he's supposed to be, they've got a
good deal.  You don't get too many Jordans or Chamberlains or Jabbars or
Birds or Magics.  Too bad, otherwise everybody could have one.  The
fairest thing to do, actually, would be to have an 81-game season.  Each
player could play 3 games for one team, then move onto the next team.
That would be fair.

Since we can't do that, the cap means that you can't tank for four or
five years in row and then have your very own Dream Team.  You wouldn't
have enough money to sign four or five superstars.  And that lets Salt
Lake City compete with New York City.

--
jamesd@techbook.COM    Voice: +1 503 646-8257 
PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 644-8135 - 1200/2400, N81