| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19806
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/11/24 7:18 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I would suggest the WNBA structures it like the new cap. Which has a soft cap where owners pay a luxury tax, and a second limit that severly handicaps owners (essentially a hardcap)
Why is it good?
1. Because it raises players salaries. Right now, players CAN’T be paid above a certain amount, but if there is a soft cap an owner much decide they want a player enough to do so.
2. Because of the significant flexibility it gives team building. There are players who are cut that are better than those that make the roster. Why? Because teams can’t afford them - not because they aren’t willing to pay - but because team’s have to stay under the cap.
The result is that teams aren’t as good as they could be. Players who should be playing in this league - aren’t.
|
I don't think that players who get cut because they make more than a rookie would get any significant amount of playing time. More like they would be sitting in the league. Even in practice as all the teams use men to play the starters.
They could allow teams to have up to 15 players like the NBA and have a different cap for each roster size.
If only certain teams can afford higher salaries then the league is going to end up with dynasties from only some teams being able to pay for extra talent. Good players benefit as well as fans of teams with richer owners, and fans of less rich owners lose. Seems like a win/lose.
But I guess it depends on the less rich owners. Are they willing to have more money from the luxury tax and worse records and chances of winning a title. I guess in the NBA the answer is yes. |
The league already has dynasties though - because the best players are underpaid allowing for their owners to construct a solid team around them (and to have multiple all stars)
Bc the reality is, the wealthier owners are going to draw the best players anyway because there are going to be perks to playing there.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about depth. For me it seems like most teams struggle to have well constructed rosters and actual depth, and part of the reason for that is because of how inflexible.
Beyond some players getting cut for cheaper players, I think we also see odd things happen with the good players in the league. (Non all star starters and first off the bench type players)..which is..either a team is desperate for the spot to be filled and overpays the player, which then leads to the team not having flexibility for more depth, or the other side is a really good team can’t get a player they really want and would fit really well because of the price tag of the player.
Beyond that, a luxury tax helps the whole league. In the NBA, the teams that don’t go into the luxury tax actually get to split the money, and it becomes a source of revenue for them. So it benefits teams in the rebuilding stage. Or the WNBA could choose to use it for other player benefits, like..for example..use it for the charter flights.
I think the lack of flexibility really hurts roster construction, and the benefits of a luxury tax system with aprons would really benefit the growth of the league.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Richard 77
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4152
Location: Lake Mills, Wisconsin
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/11/24 8:35 am ::: Re: Toronto Awarded WNBA Expansion Team for 2026 |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| Quote: |
Women's professional basketball is coming to Toronto.
CBC Sports has learned that Kilmer Sports Inc., headed by Toronto billionaire Larry Tanenbaum, has been granted an expansion franchise with the Women's National Basketball Association.
An announcement is expected May 23 in Toronto, with the team to begin play in May 2026, according to four people with knowledge of the deal but who are not authorized to speak about it. |
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/basketball/wnba-toronto-awarded-expansion-team-1.7198595 |
This is good news. However, will this possibly help to expand the length of the regular season? I don't need 82 games a season, but it would be nice to see an additional 10(+) games added or so for a 44 or possibly 50 game season._________________ If you cannot inspire yourself to read a book about women's basketball, or any book about women's sports, you cannot inspire any young girl or boy to write a book about them. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Richardstrek
Adding: Write Funko. The WNBA should have Pops. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67057
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/11/24 9:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| 40 games per season is plenty
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24401
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/11/24 9:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| 40 games per season is plenty |
Excessive, even, especially in a year with an Olympic break that reduces the regular season to 101 days.
Although I can at least accept the desire to expand the regular season more easily if teams are actually going to start filling big arenas and presumably make actual money from hosting games. Always seemed particularly dumb to expand the regular season mostly just for the sake of expanding it, considering a lot of teams didn't appear to be making $X extra per hosted game. |
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2559
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/11/24 11:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I like the “slow boil” approach on expansion. One team a year for the next two years will allow that specific team the time to shine in its expansion year and we extend expansion hype in consecutive years vs adding two at once or going too quickly.
For the 2028 teams, I wouldn’t mind seeing Portland and Houston (Denver, Charlotte and Philadelphia would be great potential options too) but this way we can give the new franchises time to breath and see how much this Clark affect really takes hold.
All very very positive. Cathy going out with a bang in the next few years and has really delivered on her “business transformation” message.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5404
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/11/24 6:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| craigmont wrote: |
There are a lot of replacement-level players, but franchise players will always be at a premium.
With more teams, we won't have teams starting 4 All-Stars. |
Here's the thing with that, since there were so few spots some players who had potential to do great things fell by the wayside because they were the best at the moment. With more spots opening up, more opportunities. More players given more of a chance if they're not at that level yet. I hate it for my daughter. Back in high school, she was a pretty good player. Could have been a great player with the right guidance and faith. Her high school coach was/is an idiot. He had her guard in the post even though there were other taller players. He had her run point but tried to micromanage her, she was one of his better defenders but chose not to use her the majority of their state tourney game against Tyler Scaife. When he finally did, she held her down but by then it was too late. I say all this to say, my daughter could have been great. If I knew better then, I would have done better by her. There are potentially great players out there yet to be discovered. |
|
|
|
