+ Reply to Thread
Results 106 to 120 of 180
-
03-13-2012 10:11 PM #106
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Posts
- 10,362
Where was this suggested?
Originally Posted by mweb
-
03-13-2012 10:19 PM #107
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
Here's your quote (so replace limit with range): Originally Posted by hoosiers
I do not believe there was a secret hard cap. I do not believe there was an acceptable range for spending to drift into.
Just a guideline not to go far past the prior cap or the projected 2011 cap. The Skins apparently blasted past that guideline.
-
03-13-2012 10:26 PM #108
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Lanham, MD
- Posts
- 9,657
Yeah. Both strong, opinionated, and not afraid to air some dirty laundry. Originally Posted by mweb
-
03-13-2012 10:27 PM #109
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Lanham, MD
- Posts
- 9,657
Whew....Rogers gets 4 years $31m to stay in SF. Wow.
-
03-13-2012 10:29 PM #110
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
OK, yeah, I agree. Originally Posted by allstar1579
-
03-13-2012 10:31 PM #111
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Posts
- 10,362
I'm not sure how you read what I wrote and conclude I suggested "the owners decided upon an acceptable spend". Originally Posted by mweb
I state I do not believe there was a "secret hard cap" quite clearly.
-
03-13-2012 10:34 PM #112
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
Yet, you posted that there was a guideline to to not go far beyond the previous cap, which is basically the same as saying there was an acceptable spending level, especially when they were planning on enforcing that guideline, which really makes it more than a guideline. Originally Posted by hoosiers
-
03-13-2012 11:02 PM #113
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Posts
- 10,362
I never posted what you said I did. I never said "basically the same as saying". I leave the discussion when folks start doing this to me. Originally Posted by mweb
I like the Garcon signing. Go Skins.
-
03-13-2012 11:08 PM #114
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
That quote you posted was yours. So yes, you did post that and if you mean something other than "just a guideline not to go far past the prior cap or the projected 2011 cap. The Skins apparently blasted past that guideline" then please explain. That is pretty straightforward. So spare the I'm causing you to leave the discussion by making up things you said nonsense. Originally Posted by hoosiers
-
03-13-2012 11:37 PM #115
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Halethorpe, MD
- Posts
- 14,725
Whether it's collusion or not the Skins were told not to do an act and if they did, they would face punishment. They did, and now they are being punished. If Jones and Sndyer want to fight this and file an anti-trust action, they are free to do so, and it will be very interesting/entertaining to follow.
What Stern did to the Lakers is 20 times worse than this but hey, I'm just a bitter Laker fan forced to watch Derek Fisher every night.
-
03-13-2012 11:45 PM #116
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
I think they're both about as bad as each other and I'm not biased in that regard. What Stern did has/will affected the Lakers more, but I think what the NFL is doing here is at least as screwed up from a process point of view. Originally Posted by Pedro Cerrano
-
03-13-2012 11:49 PM #117
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Halethorpe, MD
- Posts
- 14,725
The difference, in my opinion, is at least the NFL is following up on something they warned the other teams about. Now, whether that warning was rooted in illegal activity is yet to be seen (I think it was, for what it's worth), but at least there was some sort of precedent set. Originally Posted by mweb
What Stern basically did was just cave to some baby owners and pull the rug completely out from under the Lakers. Not only did this seemingly come out of nowhere, but it also forced them to trade Odom (who they could have REALLY used this year) for a draft pick and set up a tenuous situation with Gasol where he isn't sure if he's getting dealt this year or not.
What the NFL is doing is probably bad. What Stern did DEFINITELY stinks. That's the difference IMO.
-
03-14-2012 12:01 AM #118
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
What Stern did, while totally screwed up, was well within the rules, both league and legal ones. What the NFL is doing is pretty clearly collusion imo and I think it violates both league and legal rules due to what has already been posted in this thread. Plus, their punishment is far from consistent as most other teams did what they did as well, just not to the same level. Originally Posted by Pedro Cerrano
Bottom line for me is that I can't think of a good argument for the NFL doing this and the warning is not one imo since it's collusion, etc, but at least an argument can be made on behalf of the NBA that they thought they were making the right basketball decision. The bigger problems there were that the NBA owns the Hornets to begin with and they let Demps negotiate with the false premise that he could complete the deal. If the NBA had acted like the involved owner from the beginning and told Demps that they wouldn't be good with that deal, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad.
-
03-14-2012 09:32 AM #119
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Lanham, MD
- Posts
- 9,657
Yeah but the short answer is if there was no written rule in place, they can't just arbitrarily punish a team for doing nothing wrong. The ONLY reason DAL/WAS got punished was because the other owners didn't like what they did and used their leverage of the salary cap number to punish their peers. You can't let that happen as a professional sport. Originally Posted by Pedro Cerrano
-
03-14-2012 10:00 AM #120
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Birmingham, AL
- Posts
- 5,397
The problem is that the NFL warned them that if they followed the rules they would be penalized. Originally Posted by Pedro Cerrano
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks