Reasons for NBA lockout analysis

[alenleomessi]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Au6a4Rn3_7ksVM_HylZlEOw5nYcB?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_draft_labor_war062511

[quote]The lockout

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Look, Stern/Owners are demanding the moon on all fronts of the agreement.
They set the discussions so far out of reality, that they are having collective trouble finding middle ground.
Stern/Owners will have to come wayyyyyyyyy down from their many absurd positions in order to cut a deal.

It's akin to this:
Your boss, who IS making millions, tells you that you must agree to decrease you salary by 33%, eliminate health insurance, and get no vacation time.

[millwad]

Look, Stern/Owners are demanding the moon on all fronts of the agreement.
They set the discussions so far out of reality, that they are having collective trouble finding middle ground.
Stern/Owners will have to come wayyyyyyyyy down from their many absurd positions in order to cut a deal.

It's akin to this:
Your boss, who IS making millions, tells you that you must agree to decrease you salary by 33%, eliminate health insurance, and get no vacation time.


Only difference is that these guys get millions of dollars just to dribble a ball, it's not like any of these players are down on their knees and can't feed their families. It's a pathetic comparison to compare a simple employee getting his health insurance eliminated and a major salary decrease to basketball players getting a couple of millions less..

[JtotheIzzo]

I've heard Henry Abbott and Chad Ford say the opposite.

I guess this will tell us which ones are a clowns and who really has the inside scoop.

[wang4three]

Sensational much?

[sixerfan82]

I've heard Henry Abbott and Chad Ford say the opposite.

I guess this will tell us which ones are a clowns and who really has the inside scoop.

It might, but I doubt it.

[33teeth]

Look, Stern/Owners are demanding the moon on all fronts of the agreement.
They set the discussions so far out of reality, that they are having collective trouble finding middle ground.
Stern/Owners will have to come wayyyyyyyyy down from their many absurd positions in order to cut a deal.

It's akin to this:
Your boss, who IS making millions, tells you that you must agree to decrease you salary by 33%, eliminate health insurance, and get no vacation time.

Meh. I've had coworkers have almost that bad a cut before. Because... you know... the company was losing money. Crazy, huh?

[The Ownage]

Only difference is that these guys get millions of dollars just to dribble a ball, it's not like any of these players are down on their knees and can't feed their families. It's a pathetic comparison to compare a simple employee getting his health insurance eliminated and a major salary decrease to basketball players getting a couple of millions less..
That's true but they've never experienced having any other job before. A basketball player's salary going from $11m to $5.5m is equivalent to an office worker's salary of $110k to $55k. Obviously we would be more than happy to take the $5.5m, but the way they portray income is different to the way we portray income.

[pete's montreux]

Woj is such a f*cking drama queen.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Only difference is that these guys get millions of dollars just to dribble a ball, it's not like any of these players are down on their knees and can't feed their families. It's a pathetic comparison to compare a simple employee getting his health insurance eliminated and a major salary decrease to basketball players getting a couple of millions less..

I have to say this "just to dribble a ball" or "just to play a game" nonsense is getting old. Nobody's paying you or anyone else on this board a dime to dribble a ball. NBA guys get millions of dollars for being one of top 300 people in the world at what they do. If anything, they have more bargaining rights than a regular employee, who may not even be top 300 in his own company.

[drwax26]

Only difference is that these guys get millions of dollars just to dribble a ball, it's not like any of these players are down on their knees and can't feed their families. It's a pathetic comparison to compare a simple employee getting his health insurance eliminated and a major salary decrease to basketball players getting a couple of millions less..

Ppl sound so stupid when you bring up how much a player makes. They make that much because the masses go to see them work to "Just Dribble a Ball". If you could "Just dribble a ball" then you wouldnt post dumbass comments on ish like this. Whether you are poor or rich you still need health insurance and yes a major salary decrease does hurt because usually the more you make means the more lavish your lifestyle is so if your salary significantly gets reduced where you cant support your lifestyle then you go broke.

[millwad]

Ppl sound so stupid when you bring up how much a player makes. They make that much because the masses go to see them work to "Just Dribble a Ball". If you could "Just dribble a ball" then you wouldnt post dumbass comments on ish like this. Whether you are poor or rich you still need health insurance and yes a major salary decrease does hurt because usually the more you make means the more lavish your lifestyle is so if your salary significantly gets reduced where you cant support your lifestyle then you go broke.

Actually I play basketball for a living, so my "dumbass comment" is not based on me not being able to play basketball, I've played for my NT which I really don't think you have and now I have a contract and I'm probably getting more money than you do every month..

And honestly, I couldn't care less if some of the NBA players go broke, they'll go broke after their careers anyway so it doesn't really matter. And buhu, are the poor NBA players not going to be able to have a luxury lifestyle anymore?

[millwad]

I have to say this "just to dribble a ball" or "just to play a game" nonsense is getting old. Nobody's paying you or anyone else on this board a dime to dribble a ball. NBA guys get millions of dollars for being one of top 300 people in the world at what they do. If anything, they have more bargaining rights than a regular employee, who may not even be top 300 in his own company.

I actually get paid for playing basketball, sure as hell not in the NBA but I play and I get money for it.

And you didn't even get my point, the fella I replied to compared these guys to a employees on a company getting their health insurance eliminated which is just retarded. These guys will make ton of millions even if Stern get his crap through and they won't be in any financial trouble what so ever (if they ain't retarded).

[boozehound]

That's true but they've never experienced having any other job before. A basketball player's salary going from $11m to $5.5m is equivalent to an office worker's salary of $110k to $55k. Obviously we would be more than happy to take the $5.5m, but the way they portray income is different to the way we portray income.
while I certainly agree that the players have every right to resist changes to their current contracted salaries, these arguments about them having a different understanding or need of income are just silly.

[Kevin_Gamble]

I actually get paid for playing basketball, sure as hell not in the NBA but I play and I get money for it.

And you didn't even get my point, the fella I replied to compared these guys to a employees on a company getting their health insurance eliminated which is just retarded. These guys will make ton of millions even if Stern get his crap through and they won't be in any financial trouble what so ever (if they ain't retarded).

Sorry if my comment sounded like a personal jab. I was merely pointing out that NBA players are not doing some trivial thing for millions of dollars. Out of 6 billion people in the world, they are the top 300 at basketball, and they deserve 50% of revenue from NBA or whatever they are asking for.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure we can find 300 people who would do a better job of running NBA franchises than NBA owners, or 300 people who would be better GMs, etc.

[GOBB]

I think I've butchered this guys last name (and sometimes its always abbreviated) that I may be the only one who instantly thinks of the annoying former Duke basketball player.

http://popculturehasaids.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/swojo.jpg

I know he's not the sportswriter but that guy always enters my head as the one who writes the articles. :oldlol:

[millwad]

Sorry if my comment sounded like a personal jab. I was merely pointing out that NBA players are not doing some trivial thing for millions of dollars. Out of 6 billion people in the world, they are the top 300 at basketball, and they deserve 50% of revenue from NBA or whatever they are asking for.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure we can find 300 people who would do a better job of running NBA franchises than NBA owners, or 300 people who would be better GMs, etc.

It's cool!

Yeah, you're right in what you write. I just don't like the greediness that's going on, but it's like you said, if the players don't get the money, then it will stay in the pocket of the owners and the league so it really doesn't matter.

[OmniStrife]

http://thenolookpass.com/Pix/stern2k12.jpg

[Clutch]

http://thenolookpass.com/Pix/stern2k12.jpg
:lol

[insidehoops]

Every time I want to side a bit more with the players, I think of players like Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas, Eddy Curry, Yao Ming and other guys who make massive amounts of money yet can barely tie their shoes, and I don't understand how team owners are supposed to survive stuff like that and really prosper as a business with no way to get out of it

Redd made $18 million last season to sit around and drink water. It's been like this for years. He gets over $1.5 million per month to sit around and be hurt forever.

I think owners need some sort of OUT if a player signs a big contract, then proceeds to suck, or be constantly injured, or just appears to stop fully trying and just goes through the motions

[Knicksfever2010]

Every time I want to side a bit more with the players, I think of players like Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas, Eddy Curry, Yao Ming and other guys who make massive amounts of money yet can barely tie their shoes, and I don't understand how team owners are supposed to survive stuff like that and really prosper as a business with no way to get out of it

Redd made $18 million last season to sit around and drink water

well i agree that certain players like eddy curry make it hard to side with them, but yao ming had a legit injury and genuinely wanted to play but his foot wouldnt allow it. i think its perfectly reasonable to give owners an out in a contract if a player like eddy curry shows no motivation or intent to try to comeback from an injury etc... Also its the owners fault for giving outlandish contracts to begin with. why would ANY owner/gm sign eddy curry to a 5 year $55 million contract when THEY KNOW he has a history of heart problems etc..

* A possible addendum which could help slightly would be to let guys who are injured not have their salary count against the cap. Look at the knicks, curry's contract DESTROYED their chances of competing. Imagine if they were able to get cap relief from his contract.

[IGOTGAME]

while I certainly agree that the players have every right to resist changes to their current contracted salaries, these arguments about them having a different understanding or need of income are just silly.

agreed. extra silly.

[Sarcastic]

Every time I want to side a bit more with the players, I think of players like Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas, Eddy Curry, Yao Ming and other guys who make massive amounts of money yet can barely tie their shoes, and I don't understand how team owners are supposed to survive stuff like that and really prosper as a business with no way to get out of it

Redd made $18 million last season to sit around and drink water. It's been like this for years. He gets over $1.5 million per month to sit around and be hurt forever.

I think owners need some sort of OUT if a player signs a big contract, then proceeds to suck, or be constantly injured, or just appears to stop fully trying and just goes through the motions

So it's Redd's fault that someone gave him a contract like that now?

[DMAVS41]

So it's Redd's fault that someone gave him a contract like that now?

Of course not, but there needs to be a way out of it. Like a buyout at 50% or something that allows a team to move forward.

Contracts need to be a max of 4 years with a team option for a 5th or something. And then teams need to be able to rid toxic contracts in some fashion.

Look, only like 8 teams in the NBA are making money. Most of the reasons for that are the owners fault. However, the people that have benefited from that are the players. They are making more money than ever even though the NBA since 98 has not been as popular or profitable as it once was.

Players have to understand this and give back some money. Just the way the world works.

The owners need to find a way to create more competitive balance and curb their absurd spending sprees that killed the league to begin with.

There are real issues here on many levels. That is not some fake fight like the NFL lockout. This is real. If the owners are really willing to miss the season, we might not have the NBA for a long time now.

And that sucks.

[insidehoops]

well i agree that certain players like eddy curry make it hard to side with them, but yao ming had a legit injury and genuinely wanted to play but his foot wouldnt allow it.

Yeah, I don't blame players for getting hurt, but it's a tough thing for a team's salary cap to be screwed for years over it, and for teams to keep having to pay insane amounts of money to guys sitting out year after year (or just sucking year after year), etc.

[insidehoops]

A possible addendum which could help slightly would be to let guys who are injured not have their salary count against the cap. Look at the knicks, curry's contract DESTROYED their chances of competing. Imagine if they were able to get cap relief from his contract.

Something like that, yeah

[insidehoops]

Take Gilbert Arenas, for example. He's going to make something like $18 or $19 million next season. Yet right now he's 10-15 pounds overnight, and he just MOCKED the Magic GM on Twitter for urging him to exercise and lose the weight. And yet Orlando has to keep paying this guy. Orlando is screwed.

Of course, it was their risk for trading for him. So it was their fault.

But, the GOOD Gilbert of years past was actually a legit lower-tier all-star. The old good Gilbert was actually worth $15 mill a year, or maybe more.

But this current one is a salary cap-killer.

Imagine being an owner and having to keep paying this guy who doesn't seem to care about bball anymore. It's a problem

Owners need some sort of OUT, either out of contracts or if that's not fair than at least some sort of way where these guys don't count against the salary cap.

Or something.

[Godzuki]

i think the players are spoiled brats. Its funny to me how our whole country is in a recession and had been for a long time now, and pro sports has taken hits, but player salaries haven't changed. Now we read all of these articles blaming owners for being greedy but it doesn't add up, then again i'd be shocked to see a reporter take the owners side since they have to kiss player ass in general.

can't say i feel sorry for NBA players at all. no athletes are as spoiled as they are, and their union is worse than the auto unions in spoiling/milking everything they can for them to the point it hurts industry/pro sports.

maybe players can cut out supporting half their entourages to make ends meet? stuff i see with how they roll is ridiculous :facepalm

[boozehound]

So it's Redd's fault that someone gave him a contract like that now?
It not about fault. This isnt some blame game for who broke the lamp. Its about economics and parity, primarily. No one cares who fault it is, the point is that a team has had nearly 1/3 of their capspace tied up in a player who hasnt seen the court (significantly) for several years. I actually have more sympathy for the Redd and Yao cases than the Curry case.

[Godzuki]

So it's Redd's fault that someone gave him a contract like that now?


they should be able to cut them, and insurance pay the rest if they get hurt situation IF the players opts for it.

[NuggetsFan]

So it's Redd's fault that someone gave him a contract like that now?

If they didn't give it to him somebody else would. People give owners shit for handing out ridiculous contracts and sometimes there right but all there doing is paying what any other team would. If you don't overpay for a guy like Rashard Lewis, than some other stupid GM is going to throw cash at him. Micheal Redd, Gilbert Areanas? Same thing. The market is just stupid.

Joe Johnson? Atlanta doesn't give him that contract and he's gonedy.

Hope the owners fight tooth and nail over guaranteed contracts.

[Rose]

If they didn't give it to him somebody else would. People give owners shit for handing out ridiculous contracts and sometimes there right but all there doing is paying what any other team would. If you don't overpay for a guy like Rashard Lewis, than some other stupid GM is going to throw cash at him. Micheal Redd, Gilbert Areanas? Same thing. The market is just stupid.

Joe Johnson? Atlanta doesn't give him that contract and he's gonedy.

Hope the owners fight tooth and nail over guaranteed contracts.
I agree with you somewhat on paying for one guy is going to change the market if you overpay him. BUT that can only go so far given the cap. It really only works that way in baseball.

Rashard Lewis, just got overpaid plain and simple NO ONE was going to offer him that much same with JoeJo.

Redd and especially Arenas were at the time playing up to their contract values. Just injuries ravaged them.

[DMAVS41]

If they didn't give it to him somebody else would. People give owners shit for handing out ridiculous contracts and sometimes there right but all there doing is paying what any other team would. If you don't overpay for a guy like Rashard Lewis, than some other stupid GM is going to throw cash at him. Micheal Redd, Gilbert Areanas? Same thing. The market is just stupid.

Joe Johnson? Atlanta doesn't give him that contract and he's gonedy.

Hope the owners fight tooth and nail over guaranteed contracts.

True.

However, there are still smart teams and dumb teams. You shouldn't get a free pass for signing JJ or Lewis to the kind of contracts they got. If the thinking is:

"Well somebody else will"

Then let somebody else sign an average player to a max deal and let that cripple their franchise and not yours. Especially when the players in question don't fill the seats.

Have you ever hard somebody rave about being so excited to see Rashard Lewis or Joe Johnson play? If you have, it hasn't happened a lot.

The league is broken and the owners are most at fault, however, players have reaped the benefits of this for over a decade now and its time they have to give some of that back to assure the future profitability of the league.

[Darius]

This Woj dude seems more like Peter Vescey than a "real" reporter (if those even exist for the NBA)

[kentatm]

Take Gilbert Arenas, for example. He's going to make something like $18 or $19 million next season. Yet right now he's 10-15 pounds overnight, and he just MOCKED the Magic GM on Twitter for urging him to exercise and lose the weight. And yet Orlando has to keep paying this guy. Orlando is screwed.

Of course, it was their risk for trading for him. So it was their fault.

But, the GOOD Gilbert of years past was actually a legit lower-tier all-star. The old good Gilbert was actually worth $15 mill a year, or maybe more.

But this current one is a salary cap-killer.

Imagine being an owner and having to keep paying this guy who doesn't seem to care about bball anymore. It's a problem

Owners need some sort of OUT, either out of contracts or if that's not fair than at least some sort of way where these guys don't count against the salary cap.

Or something.


so if I overpay for a car that starts to break down after a couple years can I just tell the auto dealership the car is a lemon and I shouldn't have to make my payments?

[Godzuki]

so if I overpay for a car that starts to break down after a couple years can I just tell the auto dealership the car is a lemon and I shouldn't have to make my payments?


better analogy would be to someone with a real world job. a company can overpay him, but if he or the company are under performing, or hit by the recession, he'll be the first to get fired or asked to take less. which has happened a lot to people who had bloated salaries for being with a company for 20+ years when the recession hit...

[DMAVS41]

so if I overpay for a car that starts to break down after a couple years can I just tell the auto dealership the car is a lemon and I shouldn't have to make my payments?

i don't think that is a sound analogy for a lot of reasons.

nobody else is impacted by your car outside of a few family members or whomever.

this is about a league wide problem that impacts players, owners, fans...etc.

there needs to be some sort of out for teams if they get a "lemon".....otherwise, the competitive balance in the league will always be shit and certain teams will never make money.

it kills a franchise for between 5 to 10 years when stuff like this happens. especially if that franchise is a small market team that can't afford to spend their way out of it.

[talkingconch]

this is about a league wide problem that impacts players, owners, fans...etc.

Not to mention sponsors, endorsements, stock? we're talking WORLDWIDE here

[Theoo's Daddy]

I've heard Henry Abbott and Chad Ford say the opposite.

I guess this will tell us which ones are a clowns and who really has the inside scoop.


:cheers: :cheers: , I take everything woj writes about with a grain of salt. I just don't believe his shit most of the times. However this plays out, we'll tell who really has the inside scoop.

[Sarcastic]

Of course not, but there needs to be a way out of it. Like a buyout at 50% or something that allows a team to move forward.

Contracts need to be a max of 4 years with a team option for a 5th or something. And then teams need to be able to rid toxic contracts in some fashion.

Look, only like 8 teams in the NBA are making money. Most of the reasons for that are the owners fault. However, the people that have benefited from that are the players. They are making more money than ever even though the NBA since 98 has not been as popular or profitable as it once was.

Players have to understand this and give back some money. Just the way the world works.

The owners need to find a way to create more competitive balance and curb their absurd spending sprees that killed the league to begin with.

There are real issues here on many levels. That is not some fake fight like the NFL lockout. This is real. If the owners are really willing to miss the season, we might not have the NBA for a long time now.

And that sucks.

The reason there are only about 8 teams making money is that they expanded too much in the last 20 years, and they spread the talent pool too thin. With the talent pool spread so thinly, now we have crappy basketball being played in crappy cities that don't care about the sport.

[MeLO MvP 15]

Woj is one of the best guys in the business when it comes to leaking trades/signings etc. (he literally owned draft night) and actual reporting, but when ever he writes these opinion pieces they always come off as radical and controversial over-exaggerated pieces. He does it all the times with CAA, sports agents, World Wide Wes, LeBron, Carmelo, Stern and many other things. He just likes to write stuff that he knows will grab people's attention and stir up a lot of talk.

[ProfessorMurder]

Only difference is that these guys get millions of dollars just to dribble a ball, it's not like any of these players are down on their knees and can't feed their families. It's a pathetic comparison to compare a simple employee getting his health insurance eliminated and a major salary decrease to basketball players getting a couple of millions less..

Oh yeah, like owners of teams do a lot? The delegate responsibilities and sit around. So you're okay with them getting more money, while the players you watch and enjoy get less and less?

[DMAVS41]

The reason there are only about 8 teams making money is that they expanded too much in the last 20 years, and they spread the talent pool too thin. With the talent pool spread so thinly, now we have crappy basketball being played in crappy cities that don't care about the sport.

I agree, but contraction is kind of a different argument.

Let me be clear. I am totally in favor of contraction. I think the NBA should contract its 4 least profitable teams. It would solve a lot of these issues and make the on court product much better.

But the contracts also play a role in this. Fixing the contracts seems much more likely than the NBA contracting teams.

But damn, the NBA would be so much better with 24 to 26 teams.

[Kevin_Gamble]

better analogy would be to someone with a real world job. a company can overpay him, but if he or the company are under performing, or hit by the recession, he'll be the first to get fired or asked to take less. which has happened a lot to people who had bloated salaries for being with a company for 20+ years when the recession hit...

Most employees are hired as "at will" employees, meaning they can be fired without any explanation. As far as I know, NBA teams are free to ask free agents to sign as "at will" employees or for non-guaranteed contracts, so why don't they?

[Sarcastic]

Most employees are hired as "at will" employees, meaning they can be fired without any explanation. As far as I know, NBA teams are free to ask free agents to sign as "at will" employees or for non-guaranteed contracts, so why don't they?

We do it because we have to and there are million people who want the job we are taking, so the owner has the upper hand and can dictate terms.

There aren't a million people who can step up and be an NBA player. At least not enough that wouldn't diminish the product considerably. If fans were fine with watching inferior talent, yet still paying top dollar for tix/beer/food/etc, then the owners could get away with giving "at will" contracts.

[Samurai Swoosh]

I take everything woj writes about with a grain of salt.
Real reason, because he hates on LeBron.

:oldlol:

[hawkfan]

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/26/the-bucks-borrowed-55-million-from-the-nba-last-year/

Bucks borrowed 55 million from NBA last year.

[GOBB]

Whoa is me said wealthy owner. :(

No one told the Washington Wizards owner to give Gilbert Arenas the contract he did. And no one told other owners if Wash doesnt give Gilbert a fat contract you guys give it to him. No one told Orlando to trade for that contract. No one told Cleveland to trade for Jamisons who was overpaid by Washington (funny how fast they got rid of him after he resigned).

No one told owners to overpay rookies. No one told them to draft them out of high school.

At some point wealthy owners will need to take some responsibility for their careless decisions. Stop expecting outs. It didnt cross Wash mind that giving Gilbert a contract that ESCALATED over the years that maybe just maybe there was no realistic way for him to earn the deal even if he produced the way he did prior to signing his name on the dotted line? Did they not think he may not be able to carry them to the NBA Finals and/or win it? They didnt think of the risk he could get hurt? Nah, but in case down the road stuff happens they now own a get out of contract card. Or get out of contract at 50% card.

Who is to say owners want start giving players outs that dont fall into the Michael Redd category? Gilbert Arenas category? We see NFL teams get rid of guys because quite frankly they feel like it. So whatever.

I'd like to see owners penalized for their f*ck ups. You can give the owners this out clause of overpaid deals. It wont stop them from overpaying. If anything they may overpay more because they know if it doesnt pay off they can get whatever % of the money back from the contract.

[bdreason]

while I certainly agree that the players have every right to resist changes to their current contracted salaries, these arguments about them having a different understanding or need of income are just silly.


About as silly as arguing about a billionaire losing a couple million. It's funny to me when people side with billionaires over millionaires.

[boozehound]

Most employees are hired as "at will" employees, meaning they can be fired without any explanation. As far as I know, NBA teams are free to ask free agents to sign as "at will" employees or for non-guaranteed contracts, so why don't they?
well, then you dont know. they are unionized for a reason, so no, nba teams cant hire them on non-guaranteed contracts.

[Kevin_Gamble]

well, then you dont know. they are unionized for a reason, so no, nba teams cant hire them on non-guaranteed contracts.

Except NBA's CBA allows non-guaranteed contracts.

[boozehound]

No one told owners to overpay rookies.

At some point wealthy owners will need to take some responsibility for their careless decisions.
first, yeah, someone did tell them to overpay rookies. the rookie wage scale is league mandated,


and the owners are taking responsibility. They recognize that the current salary structure is not compatible with the current economy and they are willing to go to a lockout to see it changed. They are collectively saying, no more hibachi contracts that can cripple a franchise.

[miles berg]

I fully support the owners in this. The NFL has contracts down pat and the NBA needs to adopt their system. It is that simple.

As a restaurant owner like myself, if I am paying one of my cooks $30,000 a year and he starts getting lazy and not showing up to work on time then I should be able to fire him, pay unemployment if necessary (which is arbitration in reality), and move on. I shouldnt be stuck to 18+ months of paying this guy to bum around while others are let go because I cant afford to keep them due to this guy sucking all of my payroll out of me.

It is just common sense. 50% guarantee's on contracts no longer than 3 years for a new team, 4 years for an existing team. The other 50% is based on PERFORMANCE and if the player cant perform he either gets cut (while getting 50% of what is owed to him by the team) or put on the IR (while getting 50% of what is owed to him by the team and 50% by insurance).

It really is that simple. It is a flawed system heavily in favor of the players and it is time to move on to a more modern approach. I dont want a lockout, it took my favorite team 31 years to finally win their first championship this year, but I also want the NBA aorund in 10 years and I just dont see how it is possible with the current set up.

It is too much like MLB and not enough like the NFL.

[boozehound]

About as silly as arguing about a billionaire losing a couple million. It's funny to me when people side with billionaires over millionaires.
its not about sides. Its about a viable economic model for the league (as currently constructed). Something like a third of the teams are losing money annually and that cant continue for very long before it impacts the entire league. But what do the players care, since their contracts are guaranteed and have none of the financial risk of the overall product attached. They are going to have to make some major concessions (the owners will as well, but IMO its going to be the players who lose the most ground from the current CBA) if they want this league to go forward in a fiscally healthy manner.

[Kevin_Gamble]

first, yeah, someone did tell them to overpay rookies. the rookie wage scale is league mandated,


UNDERpay rookies. You really think LeBron couldn't have signed for $10 mil+ a year out of high school in a fair market?

[Kevin_Gamble]

its not about sides. Its about a viable economic model for the league (as currently constructed). Something like a third of the teams are losing money annually and that cant continue for very long before it impacts the entire league. But what do the players care, since their contracts are guaranteed and have none of the financial risk of the overall product attached. They are going to have to make some major concessions (the owners will as well, but IMO its going to be the players who lose the most ground from the current CBA) if they want this league to go forward in a fiscally healthy manner.

If owners are losing money, let them sell their teams. We will see if there is a shortage of people lining up to buy these supposed money-sinks.

[DMAVS41]

If owners are losing money, let them sell their teams. We will see if there is a shortage of people lining up to buy these supposed money-sinks.

Nobody would buy those teams because of the current state of the NBA in which 22 teams lose money.

Thats the point.

Its the owners fault we are at this point, but the players have to help out to get the league back in a profitable place.

And they should because its the players that have benefited from the owners' stupidity for the last 10 years.

[kentatm]

better analogy would be to someone with a real world job. a company can overpay him, but if he or the company are under performing, or hit by the recession, he'll be the first to get fired or asked to take less. which has happened a lot to people who had bloated salaries for being with a company for 20+ years when the recession hit...



i don't think that is a sound analogy for a lot of reasons.

nobody else is impacted by your car outside of a few family members or whomever.

this is about a league wide problem that impacts players, owners, fans...etc.

there needs to be some sort of out for teams if they get a "lemon".....otherwise, the competitive balance in the league will always be shit and certain teams will never make money.

it kills a franchise for between 5 to 10 years when stuff like this happens. especially if that franchise is a small market team that can't afford to spend their way out of it.



They are similar actually in that when you buy a car ona payment plan, you have signed a binding contract that you must pay no matter what.

Too bad, so sad if you sign a deal for a car you cant end up affording or sell in the long run.

and it really does not matter that its an NBA team instead of a family getting screwed.

It THEIR OWN FAULT they overpaid. This is especially true when everyone knows that you are paying too much such as in the case of Rashard Lewis and Joe Johnson.

Also, TOO DAMN BAD if you are losing money as a business b/c you signed binding contracts. A CEO can run a company into the ground and still get a $30 million severance package b/c its in his contract even if he harms the company to the point it has to fire people.

The players are not the bad guys here.

its the owners that refuse to go to true revenue sharing.

If they wont treat the NBA as a single entity and have full on revenue sharing they have no right to piss and moan that some teams are losing money b/c they are in an every business for itself situation.

If some owners can't hack it, they need to either GTFO of the NBA or gang up and force the other teams to do full revenue sharing. Never mind I can flat out guarantee many teams losing money are using tricky maneuvers to show losses. Owners that own their arenas pull shit like charging the team as a separate business to rent out the arenas and have the balls to call it a loss when in reality its just the money going from one pocket to the other. Then there are owners like Mark Cuban who pull out all the stops by making incredible locker rooms with flat screens and i-pads in the lockers, spending big on food spreads, and any number of other things that will attract players. If you are losing money, you give up non essential stuff like that first but you know they aren't b/c they think they can simply squeeze the players.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it to.

[GOBB]

first, yeah, someone did tell them to overpay rookies. the rookie wage scale is league mandated,

Before the rookie wage scale was mandated teams overpaid rookies.


and the owners are taking responsibility. They recognize that the current salary structure is not compatible with the current economy and they are willing to go to a lockout to see it changed. They are collectively saying, no more hibachi contracts that can cripple a franchise.

They arent taking responsibility when Chris Bosh was just given how much money? Joe Johnson? When Amare Stoudemire signed 5yr $100mil deal?

Yeah lots of responsibility being taken there. :rolleyes:

[bdreason]

Anyone who thinks the NBA isn't profitable is fooling themselves. The only teams complaining are the small market teams, because they lack the fanbase to match the spending of the large market teams (without taking losses).


The answer isn't taking money away from players (although I do agree shorter guaranteed contracts should be implemented). The answer is to take some of the profits from the large market teams, give it to the small market teams, then mandate that they spend a large % of it on improving their franchise (investment).


I think it's beyond hilarious that the NBA is claiming losses after the contracts handed out last off-season, and the TV ratings records broken all season. I don't want to hear the owner of the Hawks crying about profit after handing out 120 million to Joe Johnson.

[bdreason]

And rookies are overpaid? :roll:


Now I've heard everything.

[Sarcastic]

Anyone who thinks the NBA isn't profitable is fooling themselves. The only teams complaining are the small market teams, because they lack the fanbase to match the spending of the large market teams (without taking losses).


The answer isn't taking money away from players (although I do agree shorter guaranteed contracts should be implemented). The answer is to take some of the profits from the large market teams, give it to the small market teams, then mandate that they spend a large % of it on improving their franchise (investment).


I think it's beyond hilarious that the NBA is claiming losses after the contracts handed out last off-season, and the TV ratings records broken all season. I don't want to hear the owner of the Hawks crying about profit after handing out 120 million to Joe Johnson.


What do the profitable large market teams get in return for revenue sharing?

[Kevin_Gamble]

What do the profitable large market teams get in return for revenue sharing?

NBA gets to ****ing exist, so they can continue to profit.

[brownmamba00]

NBA gets to ****ing exist, so they can continue to profit.
:lol

[Sarcastic]

NBA gets to ****ing exist, so they can continue to profit.

Why can't they just disband, then start up a new league with fewer teams that don't need to be carried?

[kentatm]

What do the profitable large market teams get in return for revenue sharing?


league wide stability is kind of a big deal.

if everyone is making money, everyone can spend which in turn should make for a better product.

refusing to go to full revenue sharing is the real issue. The players salaries are a red herring. (this is of course, all IMO, i could be wrong)


Anyone who thinks the NBA isn't profitable is fooling themselves. The only teams complaining are the small market teams, because they lack the fanbase to match the spending of the large market teams (without taking losses).


The answer isn't taking money away from players (although I do agree shorter guaranteed contracts should be implemented). The answer is to take some of the profits from the large market teams, give it to the small market teams, then mandate that they spend a large % of it on improving their franchise (investment).


I think it's beyond hilarious that the NBA is claiming losses after the contracts handed out last off-season, and the TV ratings records broken all season. I don't want to hear the owner of the Hawks crying about profit after handing out 120 million to Joe Johnson.

pretty much where I stand.

[Sarcastic]

league wide stability is kind of a big deal.

Or we can just trim the fat, and get rid of the charity cases.

[kentatm]

Or we can just trim the fat, and get rid of the charity cases.


too bad contraction is a complete non starter.

its not going to happen.

that would also damage the league's reputation.

revenue sharing is the most obvious, most logical move.

These teams should not view themselves as in financial competition with each other.

They need to view the growing leagues in Europe as the true threat and by collectively sharing revenue they can do that much more effectively.



never mind that most of the value in owning a team is made from when you eventually SELL the team. Like it or not, an NBA team is a long term investment, not a short term profit maker. You have to spend money to make money.

[bdreason]

Why can't they just disband, then start up a new league with fewer teams that don't need to be carried?




The truth is, owning an NBA team isn't even about making money. Most of these owners could make a lot more ROI if they invested their money elsewhere. Owning a pro franchise is about prestige... which is why many owners don't sell their team despite years of losses.... which is also what makes the owners crying about losses that much more hilarious.


If you're really concerned about taking losses on your investments, buying a pro sports franchise is the LAST thing you should do. That's why these teams are owned by billionaires, not millionaires.

[Sarcastic]

So basically NY, LA, and Chicago have to give up their advantage of being in a big city and turning large profit while small market teams can use their advantage of lower tax rates to attract free agents which in effect allows them to offer more money? Seems fair.

With this line of thinking why would anyone own a team in a large market when every advantage of it is completely negated.

[Kevin_Gamble]

So basically NY, LA, and Chicago have to give up their advantage of being in a big city and turning large profit while small market teams can use their advantage of lower tax rates to attract free agents which in effect allows them to offer more money? Seems fair.

With this line of thinking why would anyone own a team in a large market when every advantage of it is completely negated.

Yeah that's why small market teams have owned big market teams in terms of popularity and playoff success... And sure, small market teams offer more money to free agents than the Lakers ALL THE TIME. That's why the Lakers' payroll is $100 million.

[Sarcastic]

Yeah that's why small market teams have owned big market teams in terms of popularity and playoff success... And sure, small market teams offer more money to free agents than the Lakers ALL THE TIME. That's why the Lakers' payroll is $100 million.

NY hasn't won since 1973. Chicago has 6 great years from Jordan and total shit otherwise. Clippers never won anything.

Big market has nothing to do with success. Success comes from getting lucky and drafting franchise players like San Antonio did with Duncan and Robinson.

[Undisputed]

Writers are making this all doom and gloom just for the sake of story. I doubt we miss a season.

[Kevin_Gamble]

NY hasn't won since 1973. Chicago has 6 great years from Jordan and total shit otherwise. Clippers never won anything.

Big market has nothing to do with success. Success comes from getting lucky and drafting franchise players like San Antonio did with Duncan and Robinson.

So why are you moaning about big market teams being disadvantaged?

[hawkfan]

Whoa is me said wealthy owner. :(

No one told the Washington Wizards owner to give Gilbert Arenas the contract he did. And no one told other owners if Wash doesnt give Gilbert a fat contract you guys give it to him. No one told Orlando to trade for that contract. No one told Cleveland to trade for Jamisons who was overpaid by Washington (funny how fast they got rid of him after he resigned).

No one told owners to overpay rookies. No one told them to draft them out of high school.

At some point wealthy owners will need to take some responsibility for their careless decisions. Stop expecting outs. It didnt cross Wash mind that giving Gilbert a contract that ESCALATED over the years that maybe just maybe there was no realistic way for him to earn the deal even if he produced the way he did prior to signing his name on the dotted line? Did they not think he may not be able to carry them to the NBA Finals and/or win it? They didnt think of the risk he could get hurt? Nah, but in case down the road stuff happens they now own a get out of contract card. Or get out of contract at 50% card.

Who is to say owners want start giving players outs that dont fall into the Michael Redd category? Gilbert Arenas category? We see NFL teams get rid of guys because quite frankly they feel like it. So whatever.

I'd like to see owners penalized for their f*ck ups. You can give the owners this out clause of overpaid deals. It wont stop them from overpaying. If anything they may overpay more because they know if it doesnt pay off they can get whatever % of the money back from the contract.

The ironic thing about the Jamison deal is that Gilbert didn't want to trade for Stoudemire because he didn't want to give him a big extension. Then they get Jamison, who does absolutely nothing last year and will probably break down even more this year.

The other part is that coaches know they will probably only be there 5 years so if they are in year 2 of their tenure, why do they care about a guy getting paid when the coach is fired? A perfect example is Larry Brown - he wanted guys to get long term deals, so he could get them for 2 or 3 years while he was there. When the player was old and beat down, by that time, Brown would be gone.

[hihofink]

For all those saying that owners are at fault for giving out these crazy contracts I want to hear your opinions on what an owner of a small market team should do to stay competitive.

For example; lets look at Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix:

Atlanta: The hawks were coming off their first 50+ win season in 15 years or so. Their best player is Joe Johnson. The Knicks, Chicago, NJ...were all waiting to offer him a max contract to bring him over as a free agent. All of these teams would have overpaid him (as its the only way really bring in decent players) - but it puts Atlanta in a tough spot. Try to capitalize on their 50+ win season by bringing Joe Johnson back at an overpaid price to try and win a championship....or let Johnson walk - lose your best player and a chunk of your fan-base. To make money the hawks need fans in their seats - so no Joe Johnson = less fans and less money. So should the Hawks just let their best player go, lose more games and lose a big a chunk of fans? Or resign Johnson. Not an easy decision.

Phoenix: They basically did just the opposite of Atlanta. However, they had the luxury of Stoudamire not being their biggest star. Nonetheless they let Stoudamire walk by doing 'good business'. Leads to angry fans and a ticket to the lottery. So now to try and save face and make fans happy they have to sign other players to bad contracts or basically become a joke like the clippers. And this was just over a secondary star. I can't imagine what would have happened if a team's top player was allowed to walk.

Orlando: Similar to Cleveland two year ago. Orlando's franchise is built on around a superstar - Dwight Howard. He gets wins and fans in seats. Howard says he will bolt if they don't get better. Orlando is basically forced to bring in other stars players or lose Howard. And its not like you can just trade for a superstar. The only stars that are on the market are overpaid guys like Arenas or you have to have a bunch of assets to trade for a disgruntled star. Orlando didn't have the assets - so are forced to either trade for a guy like Arenas in a hope to keep Howard or simply roll the dice and hope Howard would stay without making improvements. They chose to gamble on Arenas. What should they have done?

I'm not justifying if owners deserve more money - simply showing that owners don't have easy decisions to make. Owners are almost forced into creating these bad contracts. I know in NJ when we lost Kenyon Martin, who wasn't even the best player on the team, every fan was ridiculously pissed. I know ticket sales dropped and it was what most pundits call the beginining of the end of the Kidd era in jersey.

[Sarcastic]

So why are you moaning about big market teams being disadvantaged?

I'm not. I am saying they shouldn't have to share their money.

NY and LA face higher operating costs than anywhere else. They shouldn't have to share their money so teams in Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Indiana can continue to exist.

[hawkfan]

The Joe Johnson deal was bad because of the last year. First 5 years, ok - he's a proven All-Star and 20+ ppg scorer. He plays a lot of minutes during the season, he's a good character guy, so that is ok.

That 6th year is going to be a killer. Dude will be injured and beat up, and he'll be either a shell of former self or he will be sitting on the bench in street clothes.

That said, if the Hawks really had wanted to move him, they could have. Tony Parker and Richard Jefferson for Joe Johnson (if the Spurs had kept George Hill). The Spurs would have gotten a 20 ppg scorer to go alongside Manu and TD, while allowing Hill to start. The Hawks get Parker to start at point guard (Teague is erratic), while Jefferson starts at small forward (better than Marvin). Crawford moves into starting lineup at 2 guard.

[97 bulls]

I think some off you guys are being hypocritical. For every eddie curry, there's 2 or 3 toni parkers who are diamonds in the rough, and are getting paid the league minimum, but playing like a top tier player. How bout serge ibaka? Hell michael jordan was the most under paid athlete ever. Look at taj gibson. For a while, michael redd was underpaid too. It goes both ways.

And all im hearing is how the owners take the risks. Well if the players have to take paycuts, then then they're assuming some risks too. And if I hear or read another person say a player is "given" money instead of "paid" im gonna pull my hair out.

And let just say the player do concede and allow the owners the hard cap and non guaranteed contracts ect, are ticket annd meal prices gonna decrease too? I wouldn't hold my breath

The bottom line is something obviously has to be done. But blamig the nbas problems on the players isn't being realistic.

[hawkfan]

Well, there should definitely be a lardball clause - guys who can long terms deals can have their pay cut if they get overweight.

Jerome James, Baron Davis, Antoine Walker, Eddy Curry.

[97 bulls]

The Joe Johnson deal was bad because of the last year. First 5 years, ok - he's a proven All-Star and 20+ ppg scorer. He plays a lot of minutes during the season, he's a good character guy, so that is ok.

That 6th year is going to be a killer. Dude will be injured and beat up, and he'll be either a shell of former self or he will be sitting on the bench in street clothes.

That said, if the Hawks really had wanted to move him, they could have. Tony Parker and Richard Jefferson for Joe Johnson (if the Spurs had kept George Hill). The Spurs would have gotten a 20 ppg scorer to go alongside Manu and TD, while allowing Hill to start. The Hawks get Parker to start at point guard (Teague is erratic), while Jefferson starts at small forward (better than Marvin). Crawford moves into starting lineup at 2 guard.
But that's the chance you take as the owner of a pro franchise. If johnson does get hurt, its probably gonna be due to the physical pounding his body is gonna take over the course of the years playinf for the hawks. But this still goes back to what I was saying. Joe johnson was a low lottery pick. What if he creates a contract dispute the year he avg 25 ppg? And use the same reasoning that your trying to use for the owners. claiming he wants stability cuz he might get hurt. Then you guys would be attacking him for not fulfilling his contract obligations.

[dallaslonghorn]

Nobody would buy those teams because of the current state of the NBA in which 22 teams lose money.

Thats the point.

Its the owners fault we are at this point, but the players have to help out to get the league back in a profitable place.

And they should because its the players that have benefited from the owners' stupidity for the last 10 years.

The Nets and the Warriors found buyers pretty quickly.

[kentatm]

Well, there should definitely be a lardball clause - guys who can long terms deals can have their pay cut if they get overweight.

Jerome James, Baron Davis, Antoine Walker, Eddy Curry.


well then if they can lose their salary b/c they dont live up to expectations they should be able to renegotiate for more if they exceed them.

but you know the owners would NEVER go for that.

[97 bulls]

well then if they can lose their salary b/c they dont live up to expectations they should be able to renegotiate for more if they exceed them.

but you know the owners would NEVER go for that.
Exactly.

[Sarcastic]

How about this for revenue sharing:
Teams share all profits across the league but the draft is reworked going by how much money you share instead of your record. The team that shares the most gets first pick and the biggest leach at the bottom gets last pick. Fair?

[97 bulls]

How about this for revenue sharing:
Teams share all profits across the league but the draft is reworked going by how much money you share instead of your record. The team that shares the most gets first pick and the biggest leach at the bottom gets last pick. Fair?
I do agree with you. If an owner can't compete cuz they don't have the finances, they should sell the team.

But you must undertand sarcastic. The nba needs other teams to play against. Its not like nike and adidas. If adidas goes belly up, that's good for nike. If nike become the only shoe company, that's great for them. But if the knicks don't have a team to play they're in trouble.

[Funnyfuka]

in an ideal world, players would be paid -a lot- less and 6 shitty teams would be contracted. We are in a generation of spoiled immature s called grown up "men" playing basketball who in fact act like teens and know well they re really overpaid for what they re doing. Too many guys getting paid doing nothing, at some point the salary is so increidbly high that it doesnt make any sense to play hard or merit it. I think a too high salary actualy decreases players motivation.

[tpols]

How about this for revenue sharing:
Teams share all profits across the league but the draft is reworked going by how much money you share instead of your record. The team that shares the most gets first pick and the biggest leach at the bottom gets last pick. Fair?
Then all of the big market teams would always get the best picks.. how would small market teams ever improve? That would be a totally counter-productive system because you would keep the smaller teams alive financially by giving them money, but you would lower their fan interest by never allowing them to build their teams up.. which would end up costing them more money or lost revenue.

[Sarcastic]

I do agree with you. If an owner can't compete cuz they don't have the finances, they should sell the team.

But you must undertand sarcastic. The nba needs other teams to play against. Its not like nike and adidas. If adidas goes belly up, that's good for nike. If nike become the only shoe company, that's great for them. But if the knicks don't have a team to play they're in trouble.

Knicks need about 23 opponents not 29.

[bdreason]

The Nets and the Warriors found buyers pretty quickly.



We had investors lined-up out the door making bids for our franchise.


And if the NBA owners don't like the guaranteed contracts, they should switch to the NFL system. Then they can pay rookies 50 million up front, and don't have to worry about long term contracts.


In reality, the rookie wage scale system is great, and actually saves the owners MILLIONS by letting them evaluate players at the NBA level before paying them big money.


What I think they should do is have 3 year guaranteed contracts, and then have the 4th year be a player option w/ restricted free agency option. This allows the player to re-evaluate his market value if he chooses, while also allowing the team to retain the player at market value (match offers) if they want. The 5th year would be a team option, with no restrictions on free agency.

[97 bulls]

in an ideal world, players would be paid -a lot- less and 6 shitty teams would be contracted.
No, in an ideal world all owners wouldn't be so cheap. And who determines who the shitty teams are?

[97 bulls]

Knicks need about 23 opponents not 29.
The amount of teams don't matter. There's always gonna be bad teams. I remember back in the late 90s to early 00s, people were including the mavericks as a team that needed to be dropped. And when minnesota was competitve they were one of the teams that were never mentioened.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Knicks need about 23 opponents not 29.
Maybe you can get by with 23 opponents in 1995, but you are competing with ever multiplying entertainment options. You have to expand or get left behind by competition. With 24 teams, you are playing 60 home games against same 11 teams, not 14. Time will come when people will stay home and stream a movie on their HD TV rather than pay $500 to go watch your team play the Bucks for the 8th time this season.

[Sarcastic]

Then all of the big market teams would always get the best picks.. how would small market teams ever improve? That would be a totally counter-productive system because you would keep the smaller teams alive financially by giving them money, but you would lower their fan interest by never allowing them to build their teams up.. which would end up costing them more money or lost revenue.

Well at least they would be sharing profits.

[97 bulls]

in an ideal world, players would be paid -a lot- less and 6 shitty teams would be contracted. We are in a generation of spoiled immature s called grown up "men" playing basketball who in fact act like teens and know well they re really overpaid for what they re doing. Too many guys getting paid doing nothing, at some point the salary is so increidbly high that it doesnt make any sense to play hard or merit it. I think a too high salary actualy decreases players motivation.
Its funny. I never hear that actors/actresses are over paid. Same with CEOs, etc. The only eople you can say aren't over-paid and even underpaid is police officers, firemen, teacher, and farmers. And these guys bust their ass to bethe best at their profession just like every other professional.

[Funnyfuka]

my main argument is that they stop caring at some point because they re so damn higly paid, to the point it makes no sense at all anymore to them. Paying them less would actually make them grow up and maybe find more heart. It s about time players get a lesson. Most of these guys never worked a real job.

[97 bulls]

my main argument is that they stop caring at some point because they re so damn higly paid, to the point it makes no sense at all anymore to them. Paying them less would actually make them grow up and maybe find more heart. It s about time players get a lesson. Most of these guys never worked a real job.
Lol what are you talking about? These guys work their butts off. Have to answer tough questions after a loss. Everything they do is scrutinized, they have to make appearances. They earn their money. Its called entertainment. You act as if these guys play basketball for an hour and then spend the rest of their time screwing women and spending their money.

[eliteballer]

There WILL be a season.


They saw what happened to the NHL. They arent stupid.

[28renyoy]

Anyone arguing the owners should quit being so cheap is an idiot, pure and simple. Where are these players without the owners? Exactly. No owner in the league is in the industry for strictly the money. They make these players millionaires when the majority come from trash. If the players don't like the industry, they can certainly get a job elsewhere. Them demanding things from the owners is just hilarious.

If the players really want to lockout, and waste their earning potential, then go right ahead. The owners are so wealthy they don't need a league. Anytime you're working for someone else, you have no right to demand something that isn't included in your contract.

[Funnyfuka]

Anyone arguing the owners should quit being so cheap is an idiot, pure and simple. Where are these players without the owners? Exactly. No owner in the league is in the industry for strictly the money. They make these players millionaires when the majority come from trash. If the players don't like the industry, they can certainly get a job elsewhere. Them demanding things from the owners is just hilarious.

If the players really want to lockout, and waste their earning potential, then go right ahead. The owners are so wealthy they don't need a league. Anytime you're working for someone else, you have no right to demand something that isn't included in your contract.
exactly.

and yes players spend their time taking PED , ****ing women and...playing basketball . They re paid to be watched by people enjoying themselves, make no mistake. And they have 0 obligation to perform.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Anyone arguing the owners should quit being so cheap is an idiot, pure and simple. Where are these players without the owners? Exactly. No owner in the league is in the industry for strictly the money. They make these players millionaires when the majority come from trash. If the players don't like the industry, they can certainly get a job elsewhere. Them demanding things from the owners is just hilarious.

If the players really want to lockout, and waste their earning potential, then go right ahead. The owners are so wealthy they don't need a league. Anytime you're working for someone else, you have no right to demand something that isn't included in your contract.

Let's put it this way. NBA will be fine if all the owners were replaced with 30 other guys. NBA won't be the same if we replaced 300 guys with next best 300 players.

Also demand something that isn't included in your contract? What part of collective bargaining or even bargaining do you not understand?

[Sarcastic]

Anyone arguing the owners should quit being so cheap is an idiot, pure and simple. Where are these players without the owners? Exactly. No owner in the league is in the industry for strictly the money. They make these players millionaires when the majority come from trash. If the players don't like the industry, they can certainly get a job elsewhere. Them demanding things from the owners is just hilarious.

If the players really want to lockout, and waste their earning potential, then go right ahead. The owners are so wealthy they don't need a league. Anytime you're working for someone else, you have no right to demand something that isn't included in your contract.

Players are more important than the teams/owner.

You gonna watch the the Thunder if their best player is Levin Murant? Didn't think so.

[Blue&Orange]

I'm totally pro-owners after listening Derek Fisher.

First he said the players are against and hard cap, and that with a hard cap the Miami Heat couldn't bring more players :confusedshrug: :facepalm
I thought his job was defend the players not teams. Yes the NBA should cater to the Heat.

Then he said the player weren't part of the problem why should they be part of the solution :confusedshrug: :facepalm
Yes Fisher teams are losing money because they gave big contracts to the janitors.


And don't use the "no one force the teams to pay so much" argument. Yeah i'm a GM and i'm not going to overpay one cent... after 3 years let me see what i've got here, oh it's a D-League team!! The players went to where the money was, oh the revenue went to the crap hole, now i got to spend even less.. awesome.

[Kevin_Gamble]

And don't use the "no one force the teams to pay so much" argument. Yeah i'm a GM and i'm not going to overpay one cent... after 3 years let me see what i've got here, oh it's a D-League team!! The players went to where the money was, oh the revenue went to the crap hole, now i got to spend even less.. awesome.

If you can only get a D-League team by paying what you think is "fair" price, then obviously you have misjudged the market and you shouldn't be a GM for a professional team.

[97 bulls]

Anyone arguing the owners should quit being so cheap is an idiot, pure and simple. Where are these players without the owners? Exactly. No owner in the league is in the industry for strictly the money. They make these players millionaires when the majority come from trash. If the players don't like the industry, they can certainly get a job elsewhere. Them demanding things from the owners is just hilarious.

If the players really want to lockout, and waste their earning potential, then go right ahead. The owners are so wealthy they don't need a league. Anytime you're working for someone else, you have no right to demand something that isn't included in your contract.
Lol then watch the d-league then. The owners need the players. The players are the comodity. Your argument is dumb.

[tpols]

Well at least they would be sharing profits.
They would be sharing profits and losing the same amount, probably even more as time goes on because their fan base would shrink due to them always having shitty teams. It's a welfare system that keeps the bottom at the bottom with no room for improvement. I'm sure we could think of other incentives for sharing besides draft pick fixing.. And besides it may be necessary for the league to survive which is plenty incentive already.

[Sarcastic]

They would be sharing profits and losing the same amount, probably even more as time goes on because their fan base would shrink due to them always having shitty teams. It's a welfare system that keeps the bottom at the bottom with no room for improvement. I'm sure we could think of other incentives for sharing besides draft pick fixing.. And besides it may be necessary for the league to survive which is plenty incentive already.

Well give me another idea then.

Let me ask you, do stores in malls share profits, and should they? I mean they are all part of a system, and if too many of them are losing money while only the anchor stores are profitable, then the mall may go out of business. So should those profitable ones share their money in order to keep the mall in business? Or should they realign, with fewer stores in a more streamlined manner in which all of them are able to be profitable?

[tpols]

Well give me another idea then.

Let me ask you, do stores in malls share profits, and should they? I mean they are all part of a system, and if too many of them are losing money while only the anchor stores are profitable, then the mall may go out of business. So should those profitable ones share their money in order to keep the mall in business? Or should they realign, with fewer stores in a more streamlined manner in which all of them are able to be profitable?
Stores in malls are in pure competition with one another.. they're all just trying to get as big a piece of the revenue pie as they can. Basketball teams dont compete in the same way financially and they NEED to be surrounded by other good teams so that there are good games and playoff series to bring in ratings and publicity. Stores in a mall dont necessarily need other stores next to them to boost their earnings. If they could have it their way, they would have a monopoly and run out all of the other stores to maximize their gains.. the nba isn't like that; they need great teams playing great teams because everything comes down to how entertaining all of the different matchups are.

[97 bulls]

Stores in malls are in pure competition with one another.. they're all just trying to get as big a piece of the revenue pie as they can. Basketball teams dont compete in the same way financially and they NEED to be surrounded by other good teams so that there are good games and playoff series to bring in ratings and publicity. Stores in a mall dont necessarily need other stores next to them to boost their earnings. If they could have it their way, they would have a monopoly and run out all of the other stores to maximize their gains.. the nba isn't like that; they need great teams playing great teams because everything comes down to how entertaining all of the different matchups are.
Exactly. I already explained this when I used the example of nike and adidas.

[Sarcastic]

Stores in malls are in pure competition with one another.. they're all just trying to get as big a piece of the revenue pie as they can. Basketball teams dont compete in the same way financially and they NEED to be surrounded by other good teams so that there are good games and playoff series to bring in ratings and publicity. Stores in a mall dont necessarily need other stores next to them to boost their earnings. If they could have it their way, they would have a monopoly and run out all of the other stores to maximize their gains.. the nba isn't like that; they need great teams playing great teams because everything comes down to how entertaining all of the different matchups are.

NBA teams need competition, just not THAT much competition. About 24 teams would suffice.

[Rose]

Anyone arguing the owners should quit being so cheap is an idiot, pure and simple. Where are these players without the owners? Exactly. No owner in the league is in the industry for strictly the money. They make these players millionaires when the majority come from trash. If the players don't like the industry, they can certainly get a job elsewhere. Them demanding things from the owners is just hilarious.

If the players really want to lockout, and waste their earning potential, then go right ahead. The owners are so wealthy they don't need a league. Anytime you're working for someone else, you have no right to demand something that isn't included in your contract.
http://www.lebasketbawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/donald_sterling.jpg
Hi

[tpols]

NBA teams need competition, just not THAT much competition. About 24 teams would suffice.
I'd be fine with the league cutting or merging a few teams.. but not 6. Maybe 3.

[97 bulls]

NBA teams need competition, just not THAT much competition. About 24 teams would suffice.
So are you saying there's a lack of talent? And think about it. With less team competing for players, wouldn't that drive the players negotiating ability higher due to less teams competing for the same amount of players?

[Blue&Orange]

If you can only get a D-League team by paying what you think is "fair" price, then obviously you have misjudged the market and you shouldn't be a GM for a professional team.
Ok then with the last 3 free agencies build a decent team without one overpaid contract, it's not a what if scenario, you got the data, go for it.

[boozehound]

Except NBA's CBA allows non-guaranteed contracts.
not in any real fashion (not for more than a fraction of the bench players)

[B]

I've heard Henry Abbott and Chad Ford say the opposite.

I guess this will tell us which ones are a clowns and who really has the inside scoop.
Wojo seems to be letting personal feelings dictate the article. Incredibly biased article, surprised, he's not usually this one sided

[boozehound]

And rookies are overpaid? :roll:


Now I've heard everything.
look at it this way. Gred Oden's qualifying offer to make him a restricted free agent is 10 million per year. Because of his rookie wage scale. Now, here is the sticky widget for a team like portland. Do you use nearly a 5th of your salary cap to secure the rights to a talented but unproven oden? Or do you let him walk as a UFA? Basically, the current CBA forces the team to take the more expensive risk.

[boozehound]

NBA teams need competition, just not THAT much competition. About 24 teams would suffice.
look, there is no way they are contracting the league. They have spent the last 20 years building up the league and to back away now would be a major embarrassment (and probably a terrible fiscal decision as well). Name me one league in the US that has ever contracted teams and the league has improved in profitability. Contraction is not even on the table during this negotiation, so you may as well table it.

[knicksman]

hoping owners adress superstar treatments done by stern. the non accountability of the refs which ruined the league. stern is the reason why nba is lagging behind when it comes to ratings. hes so corrupt.

hopefully owners can change this fool because hes really the reason why teams are losing. its hard to go to arenas and support your team when your team has no chance of winning because your team is hated by the refs(or is it really stern) or your team has no superstar which are given more benefits than ordinary players.

[28renyoy]

Lol then watch the d-league then. The owners need the players. The players are the comodity. Your argument is dumb.

NBA without the players=d league
NBA without the owners=park pickup games

[boozehound]

NBA without the players=d league
NBA without the owners=park pickup games
yeah, the idea that the players are bigger than the league is pretty silly. Look, you wouldnt even know these cats if they didnt play in the nba. Go back and look at the ABA/NBA joint era (granted it was bad for both sides) and see who wins. There is much more identification with the team than the individual players (except for the moronic player-fans, but they really are a small minority, despite their loud voices on the interweb). I do agree the league would suffer without the current marquee stars, but it would persevere. Individual players leaving for Europe or a rival league or any of that shit is a pipe dream in terms of significantly impacting the nba's popularity.

[kentatm]

NBA without the players=d league
NBA without the owners=park pickup games


WRONG

all the best players would simply go to Europe and we'd be left with garbage basketball here.

There are other leagues the NBA is starting to compete against. If all the owners here just shut everything down for good the Euro teams would poach all the best talent and we'd be left with our low level minor league ball.

People want to see the best players in the world. Its why so many people here watch Premier League over MLS.

[boozehound]

now, dont get me wrong. I think the players should fight to maintain their current agreement (or close to it), but they have to realize that there will be some big changes. And the average (i.e. MLEer) in the league doesnt have the positional security to lose a year of ball and be assured of their future position with a team. They are losing a year of their already limited career and endangering their role (and potential future earnings) past that. Sure, lebron will be fine making a movie or whatever, and ronron will be all over the celebnewz blitz, and d-howard will become a preacher, but the average (i.e. majority) of union members are much less stable. They need to realize that something that limits superstar max salaries while maintaining MLE type levels is better for the league, the teams, and the players (collectively) in the long run. Its also going to allow teams to hold on to star players and bring in addition top caliber FAs.



Also, people need to look at nba salaries and the CBA up until the early 90s (IIRC) for a little perspective.

[chopchop20]

The NBA's Real Economic Problem: A Lack of Revenue Sharing

http://jonesonthenba.com/2009/03/nbas-real-economic-problem-lack-of.html

[purplch0de]

coo hopefully oden can start healthy the next season

[97 bulls]

I kinda like the nfls cba. Pay the players a signing bonus, but don't allow the contracts to be guaranteed. But if a player gets injured, to the point of say greg oden, the team has the option of terminating that players contract or if the players don't like that, then take it to salry arbitration.

As far as the players, if the owners can prove that they are legitiamtely hemorrhaging money, then the players are gonna have to concede some salaryy to make the teams profitable. And if there is revenue sharing, then all teams should be within 15% of each other as far as salary.

[B]

The NBA's Real Economic Problem: A Lack of Revenue Sharing

http://jonesonthenba.com/2009/03/nbas-real-economic-problem-lack-of.html
That author doesn't know how the CBA works or how BRI is split up. he's wrong on a couple things that he uses to base his entire argument off of. The home team does not keep all the gate, over 50% of it goes to the NBA. There is not one thing the owners keep 100% of from the luxury suites and advertising to parking to hotdogs. If the owner gets a cut of it the NBA takes the bigger slice. That's what generates the BRI numbers that the CBA uses as it's yearly cap setting measure.

[chopchop20]

[QUOTE=B

[Mrofir]

fck all this sht. If the players want to play, they'll play. If they don't I will support them to the NBAs grave and ALL YOU PEOPLE NEED TO DO THE SAME

bla bla players would be nowhere without the league. Yeah WE'LL SEE

Americans need to relearn how to tell right from wrong. wtf have owners done to deserve so much money? Do you have a problem with the nba being profitable? Stop buying shit then. You think that money belongs in owners pockets? Do you know who those people are? They don't need your support. At least players come from real backgrounds, they are the ones who can fail, not all of them can succeed. These negotiations are not to protect people like Kobe Bryant. Believe it or not, there are alot of players that arent multimillionaires, they work their asses off, are exploited financially at every turn, and deserve every single penny they get.

I'm on the players side.

Stop drinking the kool aide people. the top .1% of this deeply flawed society is NOT ON YOUR SIDE. They are manipulating you like sheep

PLAYERS MAKE THE LEAGUE

[Kevin_Gamble]

Ok then with the last 3 free agencies build a decent team without one overpaid contract, it's not a what if scenario, you got the data, go for it.

Why do you think a team can or should be able to build a team through free agency?

[Kevin_Gamble]

yeah, the idea that the players are bigger than the league is pretty silly. Look, you wouldnt even know these cats if they didnt play in the nba. Go back and look at the ABA/NBA joint era (granted it was bad for both sides) and see who wins. There is much more identification with the team than the individual players (except for the moronic player-fans, but they really are a small minority, despite their loud voices on the interweb). I do agree the league would suffer without the current marquee stars, but it would persevere. Individual players leaving for Europe or a rival league or any of that shit is a pipe dream in terms of significantly impacting the nba's popularity.

Sorry, but being a fan of an NBA team or even NBA basketball doesn't mean I have to side with the Maloofs or Jerry Buss or Clay Bennett who took the Sonics out of Seattle or any of those clowns.

[Mrofir]

Sorry, but being a fan of an NBA team or even NBA basketball doesn't mean I have to side with the Maloofs or Jerry Buss or Clay Bennett who took the Sonics out of Seattle or any of those clowns.

ding ding ding

[Wonder Bread Kid]

This league, like all professional leagues would be nowhere without the fans who dish out money for the product.

These owners and players need to stop being individuality selfish and realize they're going to lose the fans by the time they each get what they want.

[G-train]

Woj is a sad sad sports writer.
Jeff should *** out his name whenever its typed.

[boozehound]

Sorry, but being a fan of an NBA team or even NBA basketball doesn't mean I have to side with the Maloofs or Jerry Buss or Clay Bennett who took the Sonics out of Seattle or any of those clowns.
again, its not about taking sides. My point is simply that, despite Larry Bird or McHale being the stars of the 86 champs, the celts (the organization) were the champion and thats where the identification starts. Now, sure, stellar individuals like MJ or Laimbeer may draw people to a franchise, but the franchise continues well after that player's career and is the foundation of fan loyalty (granted the espn highlight reel mentality and player-fanbois have changed that slightly, but I maintain those types of fans are really not that common).

[FPower]

NBA gets to ****ing exist, so they can continue to profit.

This was the most hilarious, and true, thing that I have read in a long time. Bravo.

[FPower]

Or we can just trim the fat, and get rid of the charity cases.

I also agree with this though. But as has been said, neither the owners nor the players have any desire to explore that avenue, so there's not much point in thinking about it.

[boozehound]

people should go listen to the NBA today podcast about the CBA. Long, but well worth it, with multiple perspectives.


Also, people seem to forget that the players get 57% of the revenue under the current CBA (and this will not change very much). So, the players get the bulk of the revenue generated by the league and will continue to do so. That is why I think it behooves the average player to not worry about max contracts and focus on maintaining the % revenue close to current.

[boozehound]

people should go listen to the NBA today podcast about the CBA. Long, but well worth it, with multiple perspectives.


Also, people seem to forget that the players get 57% of the revenue under the current CBA (and this will not change very much). So, the players get the bulk of the revenue generated by the league and will continue to do so. That is why I think it behooves the average player to not worry about max contracts and focus on maintaining the % revenue close to current.
OK let me clarify. Apparently the league wants to change the revenue from gross revenue to something like net revenue as well as a more equitable distribution (50/50). THat is much more important than any hard cap or max salaries.

You gotta recall that the nba team books are available to the NBAPA. So, unlike the NFL, the figures are available to all negotiating parties. Very interesting talk with larry coon on that podcast.

[bigdog13]

So basically NY, LA, and Chicago have to give up their advantage of being in a big city and turning large profit while small market teams can use their advantage of lower tax rates to attract free agents which in effect allows them to offer more money? Seems fair.

With this line of thinking why would anyone own a team in a large market when every advantage of it is completely negated.


then contract the league to 4 teams then. Sports leagues are developed for the greater good of the league.

[bigdog13]

fck all this sht. If the players want to play, they'll play. If they don't I will support them to the NBAs grave and ALL YOU PEOPLE NEED TO DO THE SAME

bla bla players would be nowhere without the league. Yeah WE'LL SEE

Americans need to relearn how to tell right from wrong. wtf have owners done to deserve so much money? Do you have a problem with the nba being profitable? Stop buying shit then. You think that money belongs in owners pockets? Do you know who those people are? They don't need your support. At least players come from real backgrounds, they are the ones who can fail, not all of them can succeed. These negotiations are not to protect people like Kobe Bryant. Believe it or not, there are alot of players that arent multimillionaires, they work their asses off, are exploited financially at every turn, and deserve every single penny they get.

I'm on the players side.

Stop drinking the kool aide people. the top .1% of this deeply flawed society is NOT ON YOUR SIDE. They are manipulating you like sheep

PLAYERS MAKE THE LEAGUE

About 9 players make this league. the rest are interchangable.
The following players are underpaid
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Yao
KG
Dirk
Durant
CP3
Rose


Everyone else should be paid paid like $90,000

The amount of asses you bring into the seats the amount of money you should be paid. No one has come to see Jared Dudley play. For example I am a Raptors fan, not so much a particular player. I have had season seats since 1995 before we had players. So why should any of the players get my money? The owner deserves 100%.

[97 bulls]

About 9 players make this league. the rest are interchangable.
The following players are underpaid
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Yao
KG
Dirk
Durant
CP3
Rose


Everyone else should be paid paid like $90,000

The amount of asses you bring into the seats the amount of money you should be paid. No one has come to see Jared Dudley play. For example I am a Raptors fan, not so much a particular player. I have had season seats since 1995 before we had players. So why should any of the players get my money? The owner deserves 100%.
You say the owners deserve 100% of the profits I assume. How much would you pay to see a bunch of old men play basketball? And you can't say the owners are taking all the risks cuz the owners are expecting the players to take a hit.

You sound like a disgrunted person

[Godzuki]

You say the owners deserve 100% of the profits I assume. How much would you pay to see a bunch of old men play basketball? And you can't say the owners are taking all the risks cuz the owners are expecting the players to take a hit.

You sound like a disgrunted person

what are the risks players are currently taking?

[da dream]

There is no need to contract teams. If the NBA just takes its worse 6-8 teams and puts them overseas and forms a europe division, then they will all make money. If teams like memphis, sacramento, minnesota, new orleans, etc were each to move to London, Barcelona, Moscow, Berlin, etc. then all those teams would make a ton of money. Imagine the amount a revenue an NBA team can make by being the only team in its country? Just look at toronto, they were awful this year (22 wins) and had no "superstar" and they finished 19 out of 30 in attendance.

Large cities are the key, and if the NBA can take advantage of larger markets over seas, than they should do it.

[97 bulls]

what are the risks players are currently taking?
Its obvious the players are about to loose money. Right? How much we wont know. But if the league is doing bad. The players are gonna take a hit too.

[Samurai Swoosh]

I've been saying for years, and maintain ... I don't care how upset some fan bases may get ... or how many people will catch feelings on here. But the league needs to axe like 4 - 6 teams. It should theoretically increase the product value, too.

[greymatter]

Look, Stern/Owners are demanding the moon on all fronts of the agreement.
They set the discussions so far out of reality, that they are having collective trouble finding middle ground.
Stern/Owners will have to come wayyyyyyyyy down from their many absurd positions in order to cut a deal.

It's akin to this:
Your boss, who IS making millions, tells you that you must agree to decrease you salary by 33%, eliminate health insurance, and get no vacation time.

Uh, half the teams are losing money. Down economy, blah, blah, etc mean anything to you?

[Bigsmoke]

rap music > NBA

[97 bulls]

I've been saying for years, and maintain ... I don't care how upset some fan bases may get ... or how many people will catch feelings on here. But the league needs to axe like 4 - 6 teams. It should theoretically increase the product value, too.
I really don't see how axeing teams improves the league. Id be right with you if the bad teams had high salaries year in and out. But didn't sell out their games. You put an inferor product on the floor and you expect people to pay their hard earned money to come see it? Its like a restraunt trying to sale fishsticks for lobster prices.

[Sarcastic]

About 9 players make this league. the rest are interchangable.
The following players are underpaid
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Yao
KG
Dirk
Durant
CP3
Rose


Everyone else should be paid paid like $90,000

The amount of asses you bring into the seats the amount of money you should be paid. No one has come to see Jared Dudley play. For example I am a Raptors fan, not so much a particular player. I have had season seats since 1995 before we had players. So why should any of the players get my money? The owner deserves 100%.

So I guess you believe that when they make a movie only the top actor should make money and everyone else should work for peanuts then?

[bigdog13]

So I guess you believe that when they make a movie only the top actor should make money and everyone else should work for peanuts then?

Of course, you should earn a significant % of what you generate.

[97 bulls]

Of course, you should earn a significant % of what you generate.
Then you'll have a bunch of players trying to be the man. Cuz whose gonna accept that small of a percentage when most players feel they are good enough but accept roles.

[Sarcastic]

Of course, you should earn a significant % of what you generate.

And do you have this magic formula that will tell a team exactly how much each player brings in every game?

[gasolina]

I'm sick of hearing these "It's the owners fault mentality". And the Spurs are an anomaly. Since the the current CBA was signed, big markets have dominated the NBA scene with the exception of the Spurs and the Pistons, which is another anomaly.

If every owner took special care of their team in giving out contracts, not overpaying and making sure the bottom line is always good, PLUS they had the best luck in the draft, then they'd be the Spurs. Take out the luck, and they'd be the Clippers.

Clippers have long accumulated assets good enough to compete but Sterling hasn't shown any intention of paying $$$ to maintain these assets. Brent Barry, Darius Miles, Lamar Odom, Corey Magette, Elton Brand, thin Q-Rich, prime Cassell and the list goes on and on. Not to mention they drafted a complete bust in Olowakandi.

Spurs have done the same but they just are just good drafters and have great luck in their stars. As homey as Timmy appears to be, he was THIS close to signing with Orlando to join with Grant Hill and Tmac as the Miami Heat version one back in early 2000's. If he left then maybe Orlando would have had zero championsips the past decade.

Name any other team other than the Spurs who have pulled this off? Maybe OKC, but that remains to be seen. Also, should the rest of the small market teams wait for that once a generation humble superstar that's willing to stick with you and not pull a Melo?

Look at the Pistons back when Big Ben was a free agent. Should the Pistons have paid what the Bulls were offering? Maybe they should and could've competed for another championship. But we all know that Ben lost it after that season, and IF the Pistons did pay him, maybe they'd be in a bigger hole than they are now.

Another poster made a good point about the Joe Johnsons, Rashards, Redd's and Gilbert's. Small market teams need to overypay in order to keep their stars or attract new ones. The Melo situation says it all, what does the Knicks have over the Nuggets that made him want to leave? The Nuggets were a better team, had better chemistry, and was willing / able to pay the most money. The Knicks just had New York.

[Jordan23GOAT]

Dang. Do the owners or Stern even care about the joy of basketball anymore? Apparently not.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Of course, you should earn a significant % of what you generate.

Then let Kobe and Howard play against Lebron and Wade in a 2 on 2 game of 21, 15 times a day, 82 days. Let's see how many billions that will generate.

[bigdog13]

So I guess you believe that when they make a movie only the top actor should make money and everyone else should work for peanuts then?

This already happens. Most actors get paid scale. A few get a few times scale and less than a handful get any decent contract.
No one begrudged Yao's contract. He single handedly brought 1/2 a billion NBA fans to the league.

[boozehound]

You say the owners deserve 100% of the profits I assume. How much would you pay to see a bunch of old men play basketball? And you can't say the owners are taking all the risks cuz the owners are expecting the players to take a hit.

You sound like a disgrunted person
the players arent taking on any of the risk currently, thats the whole point. The nba as a whole had net operating losses of something like 300 million (and only 8 teams actually had a profit). Thats not sustainable. Meanwhile, the player salaries were over 2 billion (half of the total revenue, with no consideration of losses). So, yeah, the owners are asking the players to take less money from the revenue pie so that more than 8 teams can turn a profit. and the nba books are wide open to the players association, unlike the nfl.

[boozehound]

Of course, you should earn a significant % of what you generate.
what does that even mean? whats a significant %? The revenue sharing is at 57% (which is insanely high) right now. It has to come down, based on any real account of the economics of the NBA.

[Rose]

This is the best thread in at least a month. I love all the differing opinions and intelligent discussion going on.:applause:

[Sarcastic]

This already happens. Most actors get paid scale. A few get a few times scale and less than a handful get any decent contract.
No one begrudged Yao's contract. He single handedly brought 1/2 a billion NBA fans to the league.

I am not speaking about just the actors. I mean the entire crew, such as cameramen, grips, makeup artists, etc, etc. They should be paid almost nothing at all since no one goes to the movies to see their work.

[Blue&Orange]

Why do you think a team can or should be able to build a team through free agency?
I wasn't really expecting nothing more than a fail and you delivered it.

[goldenryan]

one way they could fix this is make players contracts only 75% guaranteed.

that way teams could cut players like Gilbert, Baron, Rashard lewis, and be able to move on faster. the real problem is gm's handing out these ridiculous deals.

[97 bulls]

the players arent taking on any of the risk currently, thats the whole point. The nba as a whole had net operating losses of something like 300 million (and only 8 teams actually had a profit). Thats not sustainable. Meanwhile, the player salaries were over 2 billion (half of the total revenue, with no consideration of losses). So, yeah, the owners are asking the players to take less money from the revenue pie so that more than 8 teams can turn a profit. and the nba books are wide open to the players association, unlike the nfl.
You'll get no argument from me as to whether or not the players salaries should decrease. But don't act as if the players aren't about to take a hit. And I don't think the players are arguing this point. But im curious, I thought the tv contracts were in the billions (5 billion), that's not counting the endorsements, the gate/parking, concessions, home team tv deals, video gaming rights, jersey sales, etc. How are the owners ariving at this conclusion? Just as a ball park id say the nba is about a 10 billion dollar a year indusrty. With about a 4.5 billion overhead and I think im being generuous. Which leaves roughly a 4 billion profit for 30 owners. Somethings fishy. And if the players do or when they concede, are the owners gonna pass the savings on to the consumer?

[97 bulls]

QUOTE=goldenryan]one way they could fix this is make players contracts only 75% guaranteed.

that way teams could cut players like Gilbert, Baron, Rashard lewis, and be able to move on faster. the real problem is gm's handing out these ridiculous deals.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't make the contracts guaranteed. But they'd get a signing bonus.

[bigdog13]

I am not speaking about just the actors. I mean the entire crew, such as cameramen, grips, makeup artists, etc, etc. They should be paid almost nothing at all since no one goes to the movies to see their work.

You are being stupid. The crew already gets paid nothing compared to the on screen talent. At least we agree.

[bigdog13]

what does that even mean? whats a significant %? The revenue sharing is at 57% (which is insanely high) right now. It has to come down, based on any real account of the economics of the NBA.


Take the rate down to 41% of BRI and pay it to the 10 guys I listed. The othe 290 players split 27,500,000

[Kevin_Gamble]

I wasn't really expecting nothing more than a fail and you delivered it.

Nice reasoned argument there. I guess you disagree that free agency is not and has never been a viable way to build a winning franchise in the NBA or in any major sports, because you have never watched basketball or any major professional sports in America.

[2LeTTeRS]

Take Gilbert Arenas, for example. He's going to make something like $18 or $19 million next season. Yet right now he's 10-15 pounds overnight, and he just MOCKED the Magic GM on Twitter for urging him to exercise and lose the weight. And yet Orlando has to keep paying this guy. Orlando is screwed.

Of course, it was their risk for trading for him. So it was their fault.

But, the GOOD Gilbert of years past was actually a legit lower-tier all-star. The old good Gilbert was actually worth $15 mill a year, or maybe more.

But this current one is a salary cap-killer.

Imagine being an owner and having to keep paying this guy who doesn't seem to care about bball anymore. It's a problem

Owners need some sort of OUT, either out of contracts or if that's not fair than at least some sort of way where these guys don't count against the salary cap.

Or something.

You do realize the owners aren't even seeking a mechanism to get out of contracts like these right?

[Blue&Orange]

Nice reasoned argument there. I guess you disagree that free agency is not and has never been a viable way to build a winning franchise in the NBA or in any major sports, because you have never watched basketball or any major professional sports in America.
OMG the fail continues.

First i didn't used any argument, so i wonder how could it be or not be reasoned.
Second, yes free agency is a viable way to build a winning franchise, and no i never watched sports in my life :facepalm but that's not the point.

The point being you completely fail to support your first opinion, and as result you came up with another, even worse, completely dumb opinion trying to steer the arguing so that you somehow could come up with the win. You even went and "guessed" what my thoughts are... :oldlol:

Whatever... you've clearly won. I will retreat in shame :oldlol:

[2LeTTeRS]

I completely agree with Wojnarowski on this one. The Owners aren't trying to compromise right now, they are trying to strong arm the Players and bully them into taking a bad deal using the recession argument.

In doing this the Owners are 1) neglecting the fact that right now business is booming, 2) refusing to collectively bargain an effective revenue sharing system with the Players and 3) refusing to hand the Players their financnial documents to prove their claims that 2/3 of the league is losing money (if I remember correctly).

I seriously don't see how you can say Woj was overreacting in criticizing Stern's leadership during this dispute.

-----------------------------------------
Check my blog for more thoughts on the impending labor dispute >>>> http://esquiresports/blogspot.com