Major misconceptions regarding the labor dispute between Owners and NBA's Players

[2LeTTeRS]

History doesn't suggest Stern will get most of what he's demanding. I want to enter this profession so I study it religiously. What I've noticed is Stern talks tough like this every time there a CBA is about to expire, and media members and fans eat it up, believing that Stern is this all-powerful dictatorial leader and that the players will yield to anything that he wants.

The problem is that unlike the picture the media portrays, the NBA has a very strong union. Billy Hunter is a solid leader who is not going to bow down to Stern. The NBA is the sports league where the players are more visible than any other sport and because of that it is very much a player-driven league. I don't see huge sweeping changes happening.

Yes I know, it it sounds good in theory but unfortunately that’s not how it goes. Billy Hunter knows that the fans tune in to watch his players play not because of the Owners, and uses that fact to negotiate with strength. Want proof, just look at what happened the last time there was an opportunity to negotiate the CBA. According to Chad Ford this a list of demands the Owners had back in 2005 >>>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...had&id=2062066

1) An increase of the age limit of 20 or 21 (was 18 prior to the new CBA),
2) Reducing the maximum length of contracts would be 3 or 4 years if re-signing (was previously 6 or 7 years),
3) Reduction in the maximum raises in contracts to 5% (down from 10 to 12.5%), and
4) Teams would be subjected to a super luxury tax if they exceeded the cap too much.


Of those things here's what the Owner's and Player's actually agreed to:

1) Age limit of 19,
2) Maximum contract length went down to 5 or 6 years,
3) Raises went from 10% to 8% if go to new team; and 12.5% to 10.5% if re-sign,
4) No super luxury tax imposed,
5) The players slice of the revenue pie was guaranteed at 57%, and
6) The formula used to calculate salary went up from 48% to 51% of revenues, (raising the amount of money each team could spend on players pretty substantially).

Keep that in mind when you look at the upcoming labor dispute between the Owners and the Players. I believe there is a great deal of misinformation out there and a lot of it seems unfairly biased towards the Owners.

[2LeTTeRS]

So with that in mind here goes my thoughts of the important issues that will come up during this summer’s lockout. Enjoy.

COMPARISON OF UNITY OF OWNERS vs. PLAYERS

FAN #1: Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA Owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.

MY RESPONSE: Too bad the other 1/3 of the Owners have power as well. Not to mention their teams are in big markets and have more power and money than the average owner. Do you really think Dolan and Buss and the Arison’s who own the Heat are going to willingly agree to a hard cap? Do you think they're going to start sharing their revenue from local TV deals so teams like the Kings and Hornets can compete on an even playing field with them? I don't.

I seriously believe that the notion that at the end of the day all the Owners will present a united front while the players won't is ridiculous. In February or March when ESPN was beginning their coverage of the NFL labor dispute they had Teddy Bruschi on. The Sportscenter anchor continually tried to get him to rip the Players Union and Bruschi wouldn't. He said they're doing the right thing, the Players should never give up money/rights because if they do the Players of the future will never get them back. Bruschi said they should fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't give back a penny, because their not just representing themselves but future generations of Players.

If I were a leader in the NBA Players Union I would have e-mailed the Youtube link of that interview to my entire union. If the leadership does their job and stars continue their involvement in negotiations I could see the loyalty and sense of responsibility to their brothers being greater within the union than with the Owners.

THE NBA NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP STAR PLAYERS FROM “LEBRON-ING” THE TEAM THAT DRAFTED THEM

FAN #2: The NBA needs to do something about teams losing out on star players ditching their teams to go to big markets when their contracts are up. If this is allowed only 6 or 7 teams will have legit chances to win each any every year.


MY RESPONSE: Every year the NBA has always had only 6 or 7 true contenders. I think everyone will agree that the league is better now than it was 5-6 years back when:

- Kobe was playing with scrubs like Smush Parker and Kwame Brown in LA, and demanding to be traded or to have his teammates shipped out for better players
- KG was surrounded by losers in Minnesota,
- T Mac was wasting his prime with the Magic,
- AI had a one-man team in Philly,
- Vince Carter was in Toronto half-assing it because his team sucked

POSSIBLILTY OF FRANCHISE TAG OR OTHER MECHANISM TO RESTRICT PLAYER MOVEMENT

FAN #3: I hate seeing star players ditch the city that loves them when they become free agents to go to greener pastures. The NFL got it right - teams should be able to slap players who are about to be free agents with a franchise tag or something to keep them as long as they want.

MY RESPONSE: I don’t get the view that players give up basic rights that people in all other walks of life have just because they make more money. A player who honors the commitments of his contract until it expires should have the flexibility to explore his options once it ends.

If the Owners want to ensure superstar players stay home, then they should do their jobs and surround those players with talent. There is no need to give them more control over the players, plus many of the proposals people have suggested (i.e. eliminating free agency) would not be legally valid. The only options that I could imagine that would pass legal scrutiny is to impose a franchise tag or to change the triggering conditions for restricted free agency.

First let’s explore franchise tagging in the NBA. I see no way that the players will go for it, and think a large chunk of Owners (i.e. those from large market teams) would be opposed as well. The only way to make this idea slightly more palatable is to give the players who are franchised a substantial raise over the maximum allowable deal they could sign as free agents.

That leaves option #2, expanding restricted free agency. As it stands now star players tend to only hit restricted free agency once in their career, when their rookie deals end. I could see the Owners pushing to try to get players to still be restricted after their 2nd contract ends as well. This way the Owners get the opportunity to match or threaten they will match so that they get compensation when players leave during free agency, while the players don't give up any money, and still get to test free agency. While I still see the Players being hesitant to agree to this option, it seems more agreeable than allowing franchise tagging.

POSSIBLILTY OF HARD CAP BEING IMPLEMENTED

FAN #4: Can the Knicks add another star in free agency. They already have 2 huge commitments to All Stars (Melo and Amare) and have to pay Balkman in 2012. I’m afraid that when the NBA adds a hard cap they won’t be able to add anyone.

MY RESPONSE: Even if a hard cap (a salary level which no team can exceed) is instituted expect it to be nearer to the luxury tax threshold ($70.307 mil) than the current cap ($58.044 mil).

Why do I believe this? Well the average salary for a player in the NBA is slightly above $5 mil a year. Seeing that I believe the Players will do everything possible to keep that salary near the same, then the cap will have to be that high to accommodate the player’s salaries.

[GOBB]

Increase the age of players entering the draft.


I also dont see the point of a luxary tax if there are teams who have no problem paying it. I thought the idea was to have teams be scared off paying double the dollar. Yet you see quite a few teams every year since it was implemented paying it. I think finding a way to limit or just outright stop teams from going over it would create parity in the NBA. What do you think?

[2LeTTeRS]

Increase the age of players entering the draft.

Personally as long as players can't make money in the NCAA, I'll never support the notion of players over the age of 18 being stopped from enterring the league. Just my opinion though.

Check this thread >>>>
Jay Bilas - Colleges SHOULD NOT pay players; but they SHOULD get paid endorsements (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217466)

I also dont see the point of a luxary tax if there are teams who have no problem paying it. I thought the idea was to have teams be scared off paying double the dollar. Yet you see quite a few teams every year since it was implemented paying it. I think finding a way to limit or just outright stop teams from going over it would create parity in the NBA. What do you think?

I disagree, I think that in the NBA the luxury tax scheme is the best system in American sports, forming a good balance between the MLB's no cap and the hard cap of the NFL. I feel that if if an owner wants to run a team he should be able to put as much of his money in that investment as he chooses. To me the fact that some Owners want to put so much money into the league that they are not stopped no matter how big the luxury tax bill is, is a great thing.

Why? Yes some people prefer parity, but in the NBA where one elite player can make more of an impact than any other sport there will only be 8-10 contenders no matter how the CBA is constructed. I'd rather those contenders be good from top to bottom instead of 1 or 2 great players carrying trash. For all the hate the Heat of generated I think they've proved that "super-teams" create interest (see the ratings for proof), and in the long-run the league benefits as the money that those Owner's pay into the luxury tax pot is distributed to teams with lower payrolls, giving them more capital to operate with in future years.

[fatboy11]

Great read. Good job.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

I'll hit on a few of these points. Fair warning: I am an avid hockey fan and a lot of my examples will be from there.

IRT: Hard Cap
It will happen. The NBA wants to cut salaries and Stern has said he wishes to do it in two ways: cut max contracts, thereby decreasing the value of every player in the league, AND imposing a hard cap. I have read things as insane as a $50 million hard cap and $10 million max contract. That would never happen.

Now, Stern is intelligent, much more intelligent than the majority of people give him credit for. He's throwing both options out there so that when it comes time to compromise, he can say, "Well, choose one of the two." The players will almost certainly choose the hard cap. It is the smarter of the two choices. Their players are not devalued at all, especially since such a hard cap would be set at roughly $64 million (dead center between current soft cap and luxury tax threshold), per reports, and the cap would likely continue to rise as revenue does. In ten years when they come back to negotiate again, they can tell the NBA that either the system does not work or that the players should be paid more money, and raise the hard cap. In the end, they will have to choose at least one of the two and the hard cap is the best option. (a quick after thought: having a hard cap set higher than the soft cap would also raise the cap floor, meaning that players on the lower tiered teams would HAVE to be paid more. A hard cap might be in the players' best interest now that I think about it)


IRT: Franchise Tagging
It won't happen. It's a flawed system in the NFL and it would be even worse in the NBA where you can, with a single interview, force your team to trade you. Trades are not as easy in the NFL so it isn't quite as bad. Instead, they will compromise on a stronger restricted free agency.

I foresee a team being able to pay a player that they drafted and developed more than any other team can (much like current Bird Rights, though those I think will disappear in favor of something like this), and the additional money will not count against the cap. Basically, a team will be able to sign their star and still be able to sign people to surround him. I hope they put in a check and balance so that the extra money the player is paid is always paid by the team that signed them to it, even after the player is traded.

I also believe they will look to compensate teams that lose their free agents, much like the NHL. Right now, Red Wings fans (I am from Detroit) are foaming at the mouth at the possibility of the Wings signing Nashville star defenseman, Shea Weber. Doing that would cost us dearly, probably $7 million a year (in hockey, 21-24 guys get paid less than 12-15 NBA players do) in addition to our first round draft pick for the next 4 drafts (there are 7 rounds in the draft, though, so it isn't completely disabling for the team). I hope the NBA follows the same format. Cleveland would be able to completely rebuild their team through the draft in just one season with that (they would have the 1st, 2nd/4th, and the 28th or whatever).


IRT: Owners vs. Players
Owners are on the same team here. They want to limit what players can get. If they have to stop buying championships, so be it. 6 years ago, the NHL lost an entire season over this. The Owners demanded a hard cap and the players refused. An entire season... lost. The biggest heralds of the hard cap? The owners of the biggest teams like the Wings, Rangers, Avalanche, Stars, Devils, and Maple Leafs, all teams that had recently been accused of buying championships (and all succeeding except the Rangers and Leafs) pushed it to realization. You may think the bigger owners like a soft cap with a luxury tax, but you're wrong. They don't like paying $40 million for a $20 million player any more than you would like to be charged $10 for your $5 lunch.


IRT: Using the cheaper teams as "farm teams"
This is where Stern MUST step up and throw his weight around. The NBDL is a nice little league and he has done some really good work with it. It is time to treat it as a farm league, to really take that "development" part of the title seriously. Each team is assigned a D-league team that they will share with no more than one other team (some teams already have such relationships to begin with and there are only 16 teams, so sharing is necessary) and prospects can be sent there to mature. Someone like Darko or Thabeet or Morrison would never have been pushed out there too early. They would be trained by coaches whose specialty is actually developing players, just like any other farm league. I also think it should be used as a rehab league for injured vets (who agree to do it, obviously). Could you imagine how great it would be for one of those teams to get the first two or three games of Yao or Oden's next comeback attempt? Or how great it would be for the NBA team to be able to send a Arenas or McDyess or Hill down to the d-league in order to get back into the feel of things instead of hurting them in the standings? Doing this may even allow the players to avoid a 20-21 year age minimum that the owners are again pushing for, saying that 19 or 20 year old would only play x amount of games in the NBA and spend the rest of the time in the NBDL being mentored and trained. It's a longshot, but I really do hope it happens.

[Laimbeer_Rodman]

Nicely done

[Bricklayer]

If all of those ideas go through, then you'd rather see a league of about 16 teams stacked with more talent. From a general NBA fan's perspective, that's not a bad idea. Nearly every regular season game would be high quality basketball and the playoffs would be insane.

But that would also mean the death of pretty much half the league. Fans in Minnesota, Sacramento, Portland, Utah, Memphis, et al would never again see a live basketball game unless they visited one of the larger markets. And since the majority of people are more casual NBA fans who go to the games for the experience and usually don't care to watch other teams play on TV, I'd venture to say that the NBA would actually LOSE more fans than they would gain by shrinking the league to a few super teams.

The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season. For the sake of the league's survival, the NBA must find a way for owners to be able to keep their stars in the small markets who draft them by providing some benefit we haven't seen yet (I'm not particularly fond of the "franchise tag" idea).

[Apocalyptic0n3]

If all of those ideas go through, then you'd rather see a league of about 16 teams stacked with more talent. From a general NBA fan's perspective, that's not a bad idea. Nearly every regular season game would be high quality basketball and the playoffs would be insane.

But that would also mean the death of pretty much half the league. Fans in Minnesota, Sacramento, Portland, Utah, Memphis, et al would never again see a live basketball game unless they visited one of the larger markets. And since the majority of people are more casual NBA fans who go to the games for the experience and usually don't care to watch other teams play on TV, I'd venture to say that the NBA would actually LOSE more fans than they would gain by shrinking the league to a few super teams.

The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season. For the sake of the league's survival, the NBA must find a way for owners to be able to keep their stars in the small markets who draft them by providing some benefit we haven't seen yet (I'm not particularly fond of the "franchise tag" idea).

Take it from someone who lives in Detroit, Lions fans believe their team can win the Super Bowl every year regardless of how bad it is. We lost the first five games that year we went winless and people still thought we could win it all. Hell, up until last season, we sold out every single game we played in Detroit.

[2LeTTeRS]

Apocalyptic0n3 and fatboy11 thanks. I really appreciate the reads.

Apocalyptic0n3 if you'd like we can go back and forth on all your points, but first I want to speak about your views on the D-League.


IRT: Using the cheaper teams as "farm teams"
This is where Stern MUST step up and throw his weight around. The NBDL is a nice little league and he has done some really good work with it. It is time to treat it as a farm league, to really take that "development" part of the title seriously. Each team is assigned a D-league team that they will share with no more than one other team (some teams already have such relationships to begin with and there are only 16 teams, so sharing is necessary) and prospects can be sent there to mature. Someone like Darko or Thabeet or Morrison would never have been pushed out there too early. They would be trained by coaches whose specialty is actually developing players, just like any other farm league. I also think it should be used as a rehab league for injured vets (who agree to do it, obviously). Could you imagine how great it would be for one of those teams to get the first two or three games of Yao or Oden's next comeback attempt? Or how great it would be for the NBA team to be able to send a Arenas or McDyess or Hill down to the d-league in order to get back into the feel of things instead of hurting them in the standings? Doing this may even allow the players to avoid a 20-21 year age minimum that the owners are again pushing for, saying that 19 or 20 year old would only play x amount of games in the NBA and spend the rest of the time in the NBDL being mentored and trained. It's a longshot, but I really do hope it happens.

I agree completely. I've written a few articles on this subject myself Whats next for the D-League? My proposed rule changes (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127093) and Proposal to Fix the D-League (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=210244). I tried to get in contact with Billy Hunter and someone from the NBA league office to give them my idea but all I got was told "thanks for your interest." I really don't think either side understands how powerful of an asset the D-League could be for the NBA.

[Bricklayer]

I foresee a team being able to pay a player that they drafted and developed more than any other team can (much like current Bird Rights, though those I think will disappear in favor of something like this), and the additional money will not count against the cap. Basically, a team will be able to sign their star and still be able to sign people to surround him. I hope they put in a check and balance so that the extra money the player is paid is always paid by the team that signed them to it, even after the player is traded.



Teams can only go over the hard cap for their own players... Love this idea! And nice touch on the original team paying the remainder of the contract. Hopefully that'll make owners think twice before committing themselves to crippling contracts (i.e. AK47 and Grant Hill).

[Bricklayer]

Take it from someone who lives in Detroit, Lions fans believe their team can win the Super Bowl every year regardless of how bad it is. We lost the first five games that year we went winless and people still thought we could win it all. Hell, up until last season, we sold out every single game we played in Detroit.

Then this shows that whatever the NFL is doing is working. Even if it might be a false sense of hope, that's the beauty of this business - keeping the fans coming back every year expecting something different.

[2LeTTeRS]

If all of those ideas go through, then you'd rather see a league of about 16 teams stacked with more talent. From a general NBA fan's perspective, that's not a bad idea. Nearly every regular season game would be high quality basketball and the playoffs would be insane.

But that would also mean the death of pretty much half the league. Fans in Minnesota, Sacramento, Portland, Utah, Memphis, et al would never again see a live basketball game unless they visited one of the larger markets. And since the majority of people are more casual NBA fans who go to the games for the experience and usually don't care to watch other teams play on TV, I'd venture to say that the NBA would actually LOSE more fans than they would gain by shrinking the league to a few super teams.

I'd rather the system stay the way it is, I never said anything about cutting teams. My point was that the NBA is not the NFL, there are just not enough elite talents to distribute among all 32 teams to truly create parody. Because of that I see creating new rules to limit movement by players is unneccesary.

Instead of evening the playing field "parity" in the NBA is largely been the fact that teams can either afford to have a collection of overpaid mediocre talent or 2 good players and trash. That does not make for an entertaining product.


The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season.

Fans may think that, but true educated football minds can normally call 8 or 9 of the top 12 teams in the league before any games are played. Yes there may be a few more surprises in the NFL but there really aren't that many generally.


For the sake of the league's survival, the NBA must find a way for owners to be able to keep their stars in the small markets who draft them by providing some benefit we haven't seen yet (I'm not particularly fond of the "franchise tag" idea).

And the Owner's do have a way to keep players home, and that simply is to do a good job of running their teams and surrounding those players with a good supporting cast and good coaching staffs/front offices.

[Bricklayer]

I'd rather the system stay the way it is, I never said anything about cutting teams. My point was that the NBA is not the NFL, there are just not enough elite talents to distribute among all 32 teams to truly create parody. Because of that I see creating new rules to limit movement by players is unneccesary.

Instead of evening the playing field "parody" in the NBA is largely been the fact that teams can either afford to have a collection of overpaid mediocre talent or 2 good players and trash. That does not make for an entertaining product.



Fans may think that, but true educated football minds can normally call 8 or 9 of the top 12 teams in the league before any games are played. Yes there may be a few more surprises in the NFL but there really aren't that many generally.



And the Owner's do have a way to keep players home, and that simply is to do a good job of running their teams and surrounding those players with a good supporting cast and good coaching staffs/front offices.

So that's the problem then - there isn't enough talent for all 30 teams to create a quality league of parity. Is it possible for EVERY owner to do a good job of surrounding their stars with talent when there isn't enough talent to go around? There will always be some owners who win and some who lose.

Now, if we leave it up to the players to choose where they want to play and the only factors they have to weigh are: money, the talent around them and the location, then small markets are inevitably screwed if there is no hard cap. Larger markets (and wealthy owners) can simply pay whatever they want to get whoever they want, thereby sucking the talent pool dry. And even if smaller markets are able to pay the same amount (or slightly more in the Larry Bird rule), they still lose out to the larger markets because of their "undesirable location" and inability to attract talented free agents.

I totally see where you're coming from, though - your idea would certainly create a more entertaining product. It's essentially capitalism at work and letting the chips fall where they should. But if this league hopes to sustain smaller markets, then there needs to be a more strict plan in place that benefits everyone at the behest of the large market owners.

[niko]

There won't be meaningful contraction. It doesn't matter if people think it is better, etc. - there won't be contraction. So if you are reasonably discussing the new CBA, there is no point in including contraction.

I think the most interesting thing is the owners. I don't think there will be a hard cap, it doesn't really help save money unless there are salary reductions, reductions in contract length, etc. which is why i think that is ultimately what will happen. Lower soft cap, similar structure, shorter contracts at less money.

Why i say the owners is i doubt they have a consensus on what they want. Think Orlando. They want something that guarantees Howard cannot bolt. Think NJ. They want something that allows him to bolt, but if they could give DWill some incentives that would be nice. two teams with different agendas. Which does Stern push?

[2LeTTeRS]

So that's the problem then - there isn't enough talent for all 30 teams to create a quality league of parity. Is it possible for EVERY owner to do a good job of surrounding their stars with talent when there isn't enough talent to go around? There will always be some owners who win and some who lose.

Now, if we leave it up to the players to choose where they want to play and the only factors they have to weigh are: money, the talent around them and the location, then small markets are inevitably screwed if there is no hard cap. Larger markets (and wealthy owners) can simply pay whatever they want to get whoever they want, thereby sucking the talent pool dry. And even if smaller markets are able to pay the same amount (or slightly more in the Larry Bird rule), they still lose out to the larger markets because of their "undesirable location" and inability to attract talented free agents.

I totally see where you're coming from, though - your idea would certainly create a more entertaining product. It's essentially capitalism at work and letting the chips fall where they should. But if this league hopes to sustain smaller markets, then there needs to be a more strict plan in place that benefits everyone at the behest of the large market owners.

Yes there is a way for smaller markets to win in the current system. If your team isn't in position to win this year you must build for the future. You can't take on overpriced guys who aren't difference-makers, instead you succeed by drafting well and by finding young inexpensive free agents just off their rookie deals who haven't quite showed all they can do in the league. Then you must have quality coaches and trainers to develop those young players.

Look at the Thunder for example. They realized things weren't working before the draft in 08, so they let all of their big salaried guys (Shard Lewis and Ray Allen) go, and they took on vets on short-term contracts to surround around their young players. They also landed 2 solid starters in the draft (KD and Jeff Green). In the first year things didn't go well, but instead of spending in free agency they decided to draft Russell Westbrook and keep their team young core. Because all those players meshed well together to form a good unit that team is looked at as the future of the league, despite playing in one of the least desirable markets in the league.

Trust me, this is not a big market vs small market problem. Its a well run team vs. poorly run team issue.

[JordanL]

What if the NBA shared the royalties from national games in the playoffs with the teams that remained? Decent financial incentive for owners to try and do well instead of fill seats or have warm bodies.

[LJJ]

Let me bump this thread for you KD.

[3zazer1]

1st of all, that was a great post! :applause: :applause:

I personally think that Stern and the owners will eventually cave to the players demands because he has no leverage. By looking at the Owners demands, its clear that they want to strip the players of their freedom going into the future. Stern loves Ethering the NFL, but this time he'll lose out. Like you said, the NBA is a player driven leauge. Without the players, the leauge would have nothing.

Hell, there already planning to create a little leauge where the Stars play each other in Exibition games! David Stern needs to do something quick

[2LeTTeRS]

2 great developments for the Players' today. First off the Owners are no longer insisting on non-guaranteed contracts and now a good sign from the NFL if this article is true >>>> ESPN Reports NFL Owners' Splintering Within Their Ranks (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/conversations/_/id/6671873/several-nfl-owners-resisting-deal-end-lockout-sources-say).

As I've been saying all year I predict that there will be more unity between Players than Owners, and the fact that Owners of NFL teams can't stay united against a much weaker union is a good sign for the NBA's Players. Why? The Owners have been trying to worsen conditions all the Players (an optimal setting for unity), whereas the issues that Owners have pushed for that help the small market teams hurt the big market teams, and vice versa.

[Rose]

2 great developments for the Players' today. First off the Owners are no longer insisting on non-guaranteed contracts and now a good sign from the NFL if this article is true >>>> ESPN Reports NFL Owners' Splintering Within Their Ranks (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/conversations/_/id/6671873/several-nfl-owners-resisting-deal-end-lockout-sources-say).

As I've been saying all year I predict that there will be more unity between Players than Owners, and the fact that Owners of NFL teams can't stay united against a much weaker union is a good sign for the NBA's Players. Why? The Owners have been trying to worsen conditions all the Players (an optimal setting for unity), whereas the issues that Owners have pushed for that help the small market teams hurt the big market teams, and vice versa.
Good job on being accurate so far.:applause:
Quite impressive.

[2LeTTeRS]

Good job on being accurate so far.:applause:
Quite impressive.

Appreciate it man....I first wrote this in March and I've been adding to it ever since. [shameless plug]I post little ideas like this all over my Twitter account (@EsquireSports), if your up there follow me[/shameless plug].

[Rose]

Appreciate it man....I first wrote this in March and I've been adding to it ever since. [shameless plug]I post little ideas like this all over my Twitter account (@EsquireSports), if your up there follow me[/shameless plug].
Haha I will.:oldlol:

I'm surprised you don't have a blog most people who are going/trying to get involved in sports do.

[dallaslonghorn]

Good post.

I don't understand the obsession with parity: weren't the 80's the Golden Era of the NBA? The Lakers and the Celtics had Hall of Fame teams and pretty much dominated the league; was that a bad thing?

Besides, it's not like small markets can't succeed -- look at San Antonio and OKC.

[stephanieg]

Good post.

I don't understand the obsession with parity: weren't the 80's the Golden Era of the NBA?

Because the NBA went from irrelevant to relevant.

People think with parity the NBA could become more popular and maybe pull ahead of baseball. I don't know if that's true, but you can make an argument. I think the transition would be rough because the NBA has spent the last 30 years marketing stars and individuals instead of teams.

[2LeTTeRS]

Haha I will.:oldlol:

I'm surprised you don't have a blog most people who are going/trying to get involved in sports do.

I'm thinking I'll start one up as soon as the summer ends and I get a little more time on my hands. I've thought of starting one up, but between school and prepping for the bar I wouldn't have been able to commit myself to it.

[dallaslonghorn]

Because the NBA went from irrelevant to relevant.

People think with parity the NBA could become more popular and maybe pull ahead of baseball. I don't know if that's true, but you can make an argument. I think the transition would be rough because the NBA has spent the last 30 years marketing stars and individuals instead of teams.

People like to credit parity for the NFL's dominance, but in reality, Americans just love football. College football is bigger in a lot of the country than the pro's, and there is ZERO parity in that sport.

The other sports depend on glamour teams like the Heat, the Lakers and the Yankees to bring casual fans in. As a sports fan, the only reason I would really watch the NHL is for Ovechkin vs. Crosby in the playoffs. I imagine a lot of people who aren't big basketball fans feel the same way about Lakers/Celtics, Knicks/Bulls, Kobe vs. LeBron etc. Don't think it's in the best interest of the sport to make those types of match-ups less likely to happen.

[2LeTTeRS]

Guys stay tuned.....the meetings that conclude today will determine if there will be a lockout or if the Owner's are going to keep up there ridiculous demands.

Oh and I did start up a blog, check it out >>>> http://esquiresports.blogspot.com

[Sarcastic]

If the NBA contracted its shitty teams, most of the problems would go away.

[gasolina]

If the NBA contracted its shitty teams, most of the problems would go away.
And would create a PR disaster that would probably kill the league

[Sarcastic]

And would create a PR disaster that would probably kill the league

We're a capitalist nation. When businesses go bad they go under. No sense in continuing throwing good money after bad. The league shouldn't be supported by just a few teams.

[DMAVS41]

If the NBA contracted its shitty teams, most of the problems would go away.

Yep. If the NBA contracted its 5 least possible franchises and added a team in Vegas almost all the issues would go away.

The league would be more competitive top to bottom and put out a much better on court product.

If there were 4 or 5 less teams, that would mean 20 to 25 league starters out there for other teams to utilize.

It wouldn't take ten years to rebuild franchises.

It won't happen though, but it should.

[2LeTTeRS]

KBerg_CBS: Stern on owners' proposal: "It's all out there. ... I'm never saying final, final to anything other than we made our offer." #NBA
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply


KBerg_CBS: Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception." #NBA
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply


KBerg_CBS: "This is we think the best shot we have ... to avoid a lockout." #NBA
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply


KBerg_CBS: Proposal also included "flex cap," with a max that could be exceeded and a minimum. #NBA
11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply


KBerg_CBS: Owners proposed guaranteeing no less than $2 billion per year in salary over 10-year CBA. #NBA
11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

So with the conclusion of the 2 days worth of meetings in Manhattan it now seems that the Owners are ok with a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explained, this system would allow allow teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.

This basically coincides with my expectations. I've said all along that there would likely be no true hard cap. Seems now that even the Owners understand that.

[joshwake]

It's all just posturing. It happens in all negotiations. Start out demanding the moon and the stars so that when you come down they think you have compromised. Both sides do it every time.

[LJJ]

The target is 62 million? That's more than the salary cap is right now.

[Rowe]

So with the conclusion of the 2 days worth of meetings in Manhattan it now seems that the Owners are ok with a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explain, Whis system would allow allow teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.

This basically coincides with my expectations. I've said all along that there would likely be no true hard cap. Seems now that even the Owners understand that.

Looks like we're getting closer to a deal.

This idea of a "Flex cap" sounds identical to the current system we already have in place, just a different term to describe it.

[Rowe]

The target is 62 million? That's more than the salary cap is right now.

Aint that something. :oldlol:

Hopefully the teams losing money in the luxury tax will be given an amnesty clause to clear off a contract pushing them over the edge. It seems like the whole point of this was NBA players protecting their wages, well they've gotten 1 boulder out of the way.

[2LeTTeRS]

The target is 62 million? That's more than the salary cap is right now.

Of course it is, if there is a hard cap that teams are supposed to not be able to exceed, then it is inconceivable for that number to be lower than the existing cap figure.

Here's an excerpt from my article that I wrote that addresses that point.

[quote]POSSIBLILTY OF HARD CAP BEING IMPLEMENTED

FAN #4: Can the Knicks add another star in free agency. They already have 2 huge commitments to All Stars (Melo and Amare) and have to pay Balkman in 2012. I

[LJJ]

Of course it is, if there is a hard cap that teams are supposed to not be able to exceed, then it is inconceivable for that number to be lower than the existing cap figure.

Yes, but the tweet literally says:

"Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception."

A salary cap, but you can go over the cap with exceptions. Ie: The same system in place right now.

The only thing that sounds different is that they'll have a "maximum", probably in stead of the luxury tax system.

[Rose]

Yes, but the tweet literally says:

"Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception."

A salary cap, but you can go over the cap with exceptions. Ie: The same system in place right now.

The only thing that sounds different is that they'll have a "maximum", probably in stead of the luxury tax system.
Wouldn't having that still basically defy the "let's get the small markets better!" initiative? By allowing teams trade for guys and then extend them and go over the cap?

If so that's bullshit and this accomplishes nothing. They'll have to change the Bird Exception.

Or are you saying there's a "soft" max and then a hard max? ...that was a dirty dirty sentence.

[boozehound]

We're a capitalist nation. When businesses go bad they go under. No sense in continuing throwing good money after bad. The league shouldn't be supported by just a few teams.
oh really? Everything from Kmart through the financial industry tells us you are wrong on this.

[Sarcastic]

Cool. So now the Knicks can get CP3 and I don't have to hear people say "they can't afford him"?

[Sarcastic]

oh really? Everything from Kmart through the financial industry tells us you are wrong on this.

NBA is too big to fail?

[NuggetsFan]

Soo what are the chances the NBA makes it so teams can't stack up All-Stars like the Heat,and make it so the Heat don't have any flexibility going forward, while also allowing all teams to have the same advantages(can't go over the cap no matter what)?

Probably unlikely, but boy would that be awesome :oldlol:

[B]

So with the conclusion of the 2 days worth of meetings in Manhattan it now seems that the Owners are ok with a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explained, this system would allow allow teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.

This basically coincides with my expectations. I've said all along that there would likely be no true hard cap. Seems now that even the Owners understand that.Owners always understood this.
You seem to be shy on the act of negotiations. Both sides start far apart and ask for things they know will never happen but it sets the tone for the rest of the process. You seem to have an opinion the owners are stupid from reading your other posts or at least that's what your posts come off as. These people are not even close to being stupid they are 10 steps ahead of the rest of us that just get to read and react. What you post about or report are history to these folks on both sides, while we discuss they are already plotting next months tricks

[kentatm]

Or are you saying there's a "soft" max and then a hard max? ...that was a dirty dirty sentence.

I think this is correct.

They will have a soft cap that you can't pass over unless you have an exception like Bird rights for a player.

Then on top of that, there will be a max cap that you cannot over no matter what.

Currently there is technically no limit to how far you can go over the cap.

So it would be something like the soft is $62m and the max is $80m.

[2LeTTeRS]

[QUOTE=B

[Rose]

I think this is correct.

They will have a soft cap that you can't pass over unless you have an exception like Bird rights for a player.

Then on top of that, there will be a max cap that you cannot over no matter what.

Currently there is technically no limit to how far you can go over the cap.

So it would be something like the soft is $62m and the max is $80m.
It's still bullshit.

You acquire birds right from players anyways in trades. So a team could still go over the cap to get their players back..

IE) Chicago did this with Jordan making 30 million.

Except it was a bit different because your own players didn't count towards your cap space or something bullshit like that.

[2LeTTeRS]

New article on my blog, after the Players make public statements following the Manhattan meetings. Check it out >>>> http://esquiresports.blogspot.com


Basically it goes like this, you never want to piss of your adversary in a one-on-one negotiating situation. While some reports have correctly stated that you don't want to start with your final offer, you also don't want to begin an outlandish offer that mobilizes your opponent. I think its possible that the Owners' have done just that.

From what I can tell, the Players don't feel that the Owners are treating them with respect with these tactics. First off tho the Players' this insistence towards taking past money that the Players' feel they have already earned and collectively bargained is mind boggling.

Another issue that is also of supreme importance in these negotiations, is the economics of the league. Right now the Owners and Players differ fundamentally on how the economics of the league should function once the new CBA is implemented. Everybody agrees that in the previous collective bargaining agreement small-market teams suffered financially. The disagreement lies in how this issue should be addressed.

[2LeTTeRS]

Yahoo Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski blasts Stern's leadership tactics during the onging labor dispute with the NBA's players >>>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Au6a4Rn3_7ksVM_HylZlEOw5nYcB?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_draft_labor_war062511

[quote]Stern has brought the sport into an unnecessarily dark and ominous place. He has let too many incompetent owners buy into the NBA, and helped them thrust too many incompetent management teams into marching themselves back to the top of the lottery year after year.

[b]The lockout

[2LeTTeRS]

Wanted to bump this thread after I've seen more and more talk about the Owners not being united, with some having no interest in implementing a hard cap. This is the first signs that the Ownership are nowhere near as united as David Stern would like for us to believe. Now that some pre-season activites have been cancelled there are only a few more weeks to go until games will start being cancelled.

Stay tuned.

[B]

Wanted to bump this thread after I've seen more and more talk about the Owners not being united, with some having no interest in implementing a hard cap. This is the first signs that the Ownership are nowhere near as united as David Stern would like for us to believe. Now that some pre-season activites have been cancelled there are only a few more weeks to go until games will start being cancelled.

Stay tuned.The players will break before the owners do. Already agents are lining up players to decertify the Union which is something Hunter and Fisher want to avoid. This Union isn't strong enough to handle decertification it will fragment and sides will be taken in the player ranks. Owners can wait them out.

[Sarcastic]

[QUOTE=B

[iamgine]

[QUOTE]COMPARISON OF UNITY OF OWNERS vs. PLAYERS

FAN #1: Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA Owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.

MY RESPONSE: Too bad the other 1/3 of the Owners have power as well. Not to mention their teams are in big markets and have more power and money than the average owner. Do you really think Dolan and Buss and the Arison

[2LeTTeRS]

[QUOTE=B

[iamgine]

Trust me, this is not a big market vs small market problem. Its a well run team vs. poorly run team issue.
But when equally run, is the difference significant? I think that's what people want, to make the difference in advantage as low as possible.

[Sarcastic]

But when equally run, is the difference significant? I think that's what people want, to make the difference in advantage as low as possible.

It certainly hasn't stopped San Antonio at all, nor has it helped the Clippers or New York in any way possible.

[Hammertime]

But when equally run, is the difference significant? I think that's what people want, to make the difference in advantage as low as possible.

This.

On one hand you have teams that have been run well and still struggle to attract stars and even stay in their cities, on the other hand you have the Knicks who have been run by utter idiots for a decade and still can turn things around in one season. The Knicks spent a good chunk of the decade with a payroll that was almost twice the salary cap. How the f*ck is that fair to all the teams that actually have to think about how their spend their money?

[Clippersfan86]

It certainly hasn't stopped San Antonio at all, nor has it helped the Clippers or New York in any way possible.

Yup. People keep trying to paint a picture that these big city teams are bullies and all this crap. Sure it's easier to be successful and attract good players in a big city but by no means is it as big of a handicap as people cry about. San Antonio this decade and Indiana the decade before are great examples of smaller market teams being run very well and excelling to compete with big market teams.

[iamgine]

It certainly hasn't stopped San Antonio at all, nor has it helped the Clippers or New York in any way possible.
Well they're not equally run though.

[Sarcastic]

Well they're not equally run though.

And the results show that. Market size hasn't held SA back, nor has it helped NY or LAC.

[iamgine]

And the results show that. Market size hasn't held SA back, nor has it helped NY or LAC.
But that's not the question.

But when equally run, is the difference significant? I think that's what people want, to make the difference in advantage as low as possible.

[Clippersfan86]

But that's not the question.

But when equally run, is the difference significant? I think that's what people want, to make the difference in advantage as low as possible.

Reality is life isn't fair. Owners of big market teams knew what they were doing. If you are going to buy a small market team you better be prepared to go above and beyond on quality and getting a winning organization if you want to contend with the big boys. Look at what Oklahoma City is doing right now? They have proven you can build a high quality, low market franchise from the ground up quickly. They have EXCELLENT fans and attendance numbers and they are the talk of the town and a top story in the NBA. They have only been in OKC 3 years too.

Instead of these small market teams crying foul... do something about it. Make your team more desirable. Make your team competitive. How many players have said they LOVE playing for the Spurs and would never leave? San Antonio doesn't have to beg anyone to stay and from hopping ship to the Lakers, Knicks or Celtics.

[iamgine]

Reality is life isn't fair....
I think this is more about making a system where the difference in advantage is as low as possible. That can indeed be changed.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Wanted to bump this thread after I've seen more and more talk about the Owners not being united, with some having no interest in implementing a hard cap. This is the first signs that the Ownership are nowhere near as united as David Stern would like for us to believe. Now that some pre-season activites have been cancelled there are only a few more weeks to go until games will start being cancelled.

Stay tuned.

Gee, I wonder which teams are against a hard cap... :oldlol:

[LJJ]

Gee, I wonder which teams are against a hard cap... :oldlol:

The same teams that are against full revenue sharing I'm sure.

[Math2]

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]History doesn't suggest Stern will get most of what he's demanding. I want to enter this profession so I study it religiously. What I've noticed is Stern talks tough like this every time there a CBA is about to expire, and media members and fans eat it up, believing that Stern is this all-powerful dictatorial leader and that the players will yield to anything that he wants.

The problem is that unlike the picture the media portrays, the NBA has a very strong union. Billy Hunter is a solid leader who is not going to bow down to Stern. The NBA is the sports league where the players are more visible than any other sport and because of that it is very much a player-driven league. I don't see huge sweeping changes happening.

Yes I know, it it sounds good in theory but unfortunately that

[Sarcastic]

:wtf: Age limit of 19?!?!? Great, more and more busts, more failed prospects, and YAY! MOre dilution!

Have you been asleep for the last 5 years? That was already implemented in the renewal of the CBA in 2006. Just one of the many things that the owners have won in their negotiations.

Also if teams don't like the idea of drafting young kids, then there is nothing forcing them to do so. I mean drafting Dwight Howard at 18 was clearly the wrong thing to do, and the Magic should have taken Emeka Okafor with all his college experience.

[Sarcastic]

I think this is more about making a system where the difference in advantage is as low as possible. That can indeed be changed.

It will never be because no one wants to play in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Sacramento, etc unless they have to.

If you implement a hard cap system, it may end up having a completely counter intuitive effect, and the big market teams may become even more desirable as the players may seek new revenue streams and look to the big markets to secure endorsement deals.

[gasolina]

Indiana the decade before are great examples of smaller market teams being run very well and excelling to compete with big market teams.

And yet Indiana couldn't get out of the red the whole damn time Miller was there. How can a team, who did everything right, still lose money.

ANd how could the clippers, who did everything wrong, make Donald Sterling richer

[Sarcastic]

And yet Indiana couldn't get out of the red the whole damn time Miller was there. How can a team, who did everything right, still lose money.

ANd how could the clippers, who did everything wrong, make Donald Sterling richer

How do you know they were losing money in the 1990s? Is the NBA suggesting it has never made money?

[gasolina]

Look at what Oklahoma City is doing right now? They have proven you can build a high quality, low market franchise from the ground up quickly. They have EXCELLENT fans and attendance numbers and they are the talk of the town and a top story in the NBA. They have only been in OKC 3 years too.
The OKC thunder is a good team to look out for. Remember the mid 90's charlotte hornets. They were selling out arenas with LJ, Zo, and Muggsy. but after the LJ / Zo breakup everything went downhill.

It's nice to see how OKC goes from here. They have the perfect superstar who I think is quite content in OKC (unlike LJ and Zo). In fact, I'm willing to say Durant is the new Duncan in terms of attitude.

Let's see how other small market stars did in recent years.

1. Kevin Garnett - bled blue and green until the end. However, the team did some boneheaded moves that cost him his prime.
2. Glen Robinson - held out against the Bucks as a rookie. Possibly set the Bucks back more than any other player
3. Ray Allen - can't remember what happened here but I thought they traded him for old-ass GP instead of losing him for nothing.
4. Tmac - got an S&T to play with Yao in Houston. Wasn't sure if there was any pressure of losing him for nothing.
5. Carmelo - nuff said. To make matters worse, the Nuggets arguably had the better team.
6. Allan Houston - ditched Detroit to be the man in New York. Read somewhere there was some controversy here.
7. Michael Redd - used Cleveland to get a bigger contract extension w/ the Bucks

And the list goes on and on. Fact is, if your'e a small market team, you need a superstar who is willing to stick with your team and then good management to build a good team around to be successful.

On the flipside, if you're New York, you don't need to do anything to get good players, they just wanna come to you. And the Bonus? You can afford them!

Just want that advantage be a little less pronounced.

[gasolina]

How do you know they were losing money in the 1990s? Is the NBA suggesting it has never made money?
Thank god this sin't from Forbes
http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=276&articleID=45941

[gasolina]

the big market teams may become even more desirable as the players may seek new revenue streams and look to the big markets to secure endorsement deals.
But the big markets can't pay all players who want to come to them PRECISELY from the hard cap.

That is what's happening now. Everyone wants to play for the Lakers and Dallas, and because of the soft cap, they can do so.

How can that be counter-intuitive?

[Sarcastic]

But the big markets can't pay all players who want to come to them PRECISELY from the hard cap.

That is what's happening now. Everyone wants to play for the Lakers and Dallas, and because of the soft cap, they can do so.

How can that be counter-intuitive?

Who are the small market players that left and went to LA and Dallas? Almost all the players they have were acquired through drafts and trades. At least all the big names they have. Superstars almost never leave the original team that drafted them. NBA has probably the least amount of superstar movement in all the sports leagues.

[Sarcastic]

Thank god this sin't from Forbes
http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=276&articleID=45941

Here are two key issues from this article:


Still, less than 30 percent of NBA teams' revenue comes from shared revenue, compared with about 70 percent for National Football League franchises.


The Pacers' local TV revenue is about $5 million below the league average, Morris said. On top of that, the Pacers must pay the former owners of the defunct ABA team in St. Louis part of their TV revenue.
That deal was brokered as a condition of four ABA teams-including the Pacers-merging into the NBA in 1976. The NBA didn't want St. Louis, so the four merging ABA teams agreed to pay the St. Louis team owners one-seventh of their annual TV revenue, in exchange for the owners' folding their team. That deal costs the Pacers $4 million to $5 million annually, suggesting the team pulls in $28 million to $35 million a year from television. The arrangement has no expiration, although the Pacers and NBA have tried to negotiate a settlement.

And honestly, if Indiana can't turn a profit after all these years, it never will. The franchise should be contracted.

[Clippersfan86]

I think this is more about making a system where the difference in advantage is as low as possible. That can indeed be changed.

If the NBA wants to baby small market teams then they need to assign each team a financial adviser and force them to follow rules which increase profits. If some small market teams can be popular and win titles.. and make profit... then all of them can IF they follow the same blueprint. Maybe not to the same degree but it is possible.

[gasolina]

Who are the small market players that left and went to LA and Dallas? Almost all the players they have were acquired through drafts and trades. At least all the big names they have. Superstars almost never leave the original team that drafted them. NBA has probably the least amount of superstar movement in all the sports leagues.
I was talking about the Matt Barnes and the Ron Artests. Both players were pretty decent roleplayers. To see them join a stacked team like the Lakers via the MLE in consecutive years was frustrating for other teams.

IIRC Shawn Marion got to Dallas via trade when they were over the cap for freaking Jerry Stackhouse. I know it was a legit trade, but if there was a hard cap, then Dallas wouldn't even be in a position to trade for Marion in the first place.

[gasolina]

And honestly, if Indiana can't turn a profit after all these years, it never will. The franchise should be contracted.
You contract a franchise like Indiana in the birthplace of basketball (not sure) and you're looking at a PR nightmare. This will turn into a big city vs. small town america war.

The hard part is, the NBA can only move forward, and any mistakes made in the past, including granting franchises to the small markets, needs to be dealt with correctly.

[Sarcastic]

You contract a franchise like Indiana in the birthplace of basketball (not sure) and you're looking at a PR nightmare. This will turn into a big city vs. small town america war.

The hard part is, the NBA can only move forward, and any mistakes made in the past, including granting franchises to the small markets, needs to be dealt with correctly.

Birthplace of basketball is actually Massachusetts. I understand Indiana is big on its basketball at the high school and college level, but they have never supported their pro team they way they do the other levels.

I am sorry the truth hurts, but basketball is a sport that does much better in the big city areas, and trying to make sure that teams are kept in small cities is a losing business plan. If a business starts up a product line, and it doesn't make money, it closes down that product line. Look at HP with its tablets. Same should go for sports franchises. If they are situated in a city that just can't support a team due to economics, then it should contract or move the team instead of continuously dumping money into a losing business.

[2LeTTeRS]

:wtf: Age limit of 19?!?!? Great, more and more busts, more failed prospects, and YAY! MOre dilution!

You do realize these changes already occurred right? Before that CBA was implemented, any US player could enter the draft after high school and international players could enter the draft at 18.

[iamgine]

It will never be because no one wants to play in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Sacramento, etc unless they have to.

If you implement a hard cap system, it may end up having a completely counter intuitive effect, and the big market teams may become even more desirable as the players may seek new revenue streams and look to the big markets to secure endorsement deals.
It may or may not be. Players get endorsement in small markets. Lebron in Cleveland get tons of endorsement. Anyway, the big market team won't be able to afford too many stars.


If the NBA wants to baby small market teams then they need to assign each team a financial adviser and force them to follow rules which increase profits. If some small market teams can be popular and win titles.. and make profit... then all of them can IF they follow the same blueprint. Maybe not to the same degree but it is possible.
That's really not the kind of system we're talking about here.