More Money For Small Markets

by Ziller on Apr 29, 2008 7:40 AM PDT Comment 11 comments

Via TrueHoop , the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Don Walker reports on a revenue-sharing tweak which should help the Kings over the next three seasons:

The new plan, approved April 18 at the NBA owners' meeting, covers three years, and begins next year. Under it, qualified teams would receive a maximum $6 million a year. That number would increase over the three-year period.

The total amount to be redistributed to NBA franchises would be $49 million, a $19 million increase over the current plan. [...]

In general, the NBA revenue-sharing plan is funded by the luxury tax on teams that spend more than allowed under the salary cap and escrow fund. The additional money will come from the league's 30 teams.

Sacramento's stayed under the luxury tax most seasons, and is not in real danger in coming years (barring a big signing). This tweak will shift some money from the Lakers, Mavericks, Knicks and Celtics (among others) to teams like Charlotte, Memphis and Sacramento. It's obviously good for the Maloofs, but also good for us. All this revenue helps the big picture of arena proceedings, and even helps in making fiscal sanity with regard to player salary more crucial.

1 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Artest

If this makes a ridiculous big contract Artest signing less likely, I’ll be happy.

by Carl on Apr 29, 2008 9:26 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Salary Cap

The soft salary cap merely extends the distance between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Redistributing the luxury tax serves only to pacify small market teams which can’t afford to exceed the cap. The dominance of the teams mentioned in the blog will continue as long as the loophole exists.

by aspen on Apr 29, 2008 9:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Unless you are the Knicks...

Such are the problems with a soft cap.

by moproblemz on Apr 29, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You sure?

I see a lot of small market teams that made the playoffs this year. And one that won the whole enchilada, not just last year, but in what…four of the last nine?

As far as teams out of the playoffs, I see just as many large market teams as small market. Seems to me the system doesn’t create they type of “haves’” and “have nots” you are indicating, unless it’s related to General Managers. :)

"Boo Lakers! Boo Kobe! Go Kings! Go Giants! Boo Dodgers!" - my 5 year-old daughter - 4/15/08

by otis29 on Apr 29, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two words that support the current structure in regards to small markets:

San Antonio.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Apr 29, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong Two Words

Tim Duncan

by aspen on Apr 29, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent Point

Players win championships, not markets size.

I respect your viewpoint and there is a lot of validity to it, but as often as not it is the owner and not the market that determines payroll. Example #1 would be the Lakers and Clippers. Same town, same arena, different owners with different outlooks on payroll, different results. Example #2 would be the Dallas Mavericks BC (Before Cuban) and AC (After Cuban).

While the playing field may not be as level as it is in the NFL, it is a far cry better than it is in major league baseball. That (and Tim Duncan) has allowed San Antonio to hang three championship banners in the last five years.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Apr 29, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tim Duncan

And Tony Parker
And Manu Ginobli
And Robert Horry
And Michael Finley

You get the point. The Spurs play under the same cap rules as everyone else, they have just managed to surround Tim Duncan with the necessary talent to get the job done.

In effect, I think you’ve debunked your own original argument. There are other players in the league of Duncan’s caliber, in both small and large markets, that have either not won a title (Steve Nash anyone?) or have not in many years (Kobe Bryant anyone?).

"Boo Lakers! Boo Kobe! Go Kings! Go Giants! Boo Dodgers!" - my 5 year-old daughter - 4/15/08

by otis29 on Apr 29, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of more money...

The first of the month is coming and we still have a ways to go to meet our goal for the K9 fund (see column down the left side). My contribution for May will be in honor of the #35 worn by Joe Kleine, who was a big and loyal dog, but a dog noetheless. Ironically this number was also worn by Antoine Carr, who was nicknamed the “Big Dog” and actually barked during the games. Grrr!!!

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Apr 29, 2008 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Should get the Maloofs to defer some of this funding...

But seriously, I am sure once we get some of our free stimulus money there will be donations. Although I am still of the mind that if this were to fund part of K9’s buyout, it would’ve filled in the first day.

by moproblemz on Apr 29, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This won't be a popular sentiment, but I could give 2 shits about popular sentiment

If I cared about popular sentiment I would worship Billy Beane @ AN. (I don’t, and refuse to.) The problem I see with this statement is why do the Maloof’s DESERVE a new arena? They make money off the team, and that’s an ultimate goal of theirs is it not? They charge alot for tickets, and alot for parking. This is why they are hurt so badly in the arena issue. They make money on an arena issue, and claim that the arena is outdated and need a new one. They won’t move as long as they continue to make money, especially if the trial turns against Clay Bennett, which it should, and it will be just another point P.R. will try to stifle. I hate public subsidy’s of private business’s period. Which is why I will always have some contempt for billionaires who rail against welfare for those getting 400 a month, but expect the public to finance a hall a billion dollar arena’s at their desire.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Apr 30, 2008 2:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs