NBA Wealth May Not Be Redistributed To Poorer Teams

[Douglas342@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/31/98 10:40:49 AM Central Standard Time,
wayray@ix.netcom.com writes:

> http://www.dallasnews.com/sports-nf/sports1-062.htm
>  [quote from above-URLd article]
But Mr. Stern's strategy isn't a slam dunk. It probably won't provide much
relief to struggling franchises, even if a new labor deal redistributes money
from players to owners. More than likely, closing loopholes in the salary cap
will simply provide a windfall for already profitable clubs.

    Now I'm REALLY confused.  I was under the impression that   the cap was
calculated by applying a formula to something called "basketball related
revenue" or some such.  And I further thought that just about all income fell
into that pot:  ticket sales, TV money (local and national), souvenir sales,
etc.  It would then follow that a rich owner could pay Jordan 33 mil because
that owner has ten gazillion bucks to spend, while poor little Denver's owner
(for example) had only basketball related revenue to spend, or maybe a paltry
six billion instead of ten gazillion over and above basketball income.
    This whole thing is getting too complicated for me. I think I'd rather
talk about baggy shorts in the NBA are yet another sign of the coming
apocalypse. 
   Oh yeah, all this stuff about a Walker trade.  Were you (list members) the
GM, you wouldn't even discuss this idea?  If so, you'd be a lousy GM.  You
don't have to trade him, but what harm is there in finding out what you can
get for him?
    And finaly, several months ago one of you mentioned the "seven
developmental year" theory of rookie slaries.  Good idea.  Sounds better every
day.