If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

[hawkfan]

If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

I'm going with the players. Some of these guys need major paycuts. Big time.

[DMV2]

I would like to see the owners salary, and as well as how much they pay to their non-athletic workers.

[Sarcastic]

Owners.

This is a lockout, not a strike.

Some players may need a pay cut, but there is an equal amount that needs a raise. For every Eddie Curry that you feel is overpaid, there is a Derrick Rose that is underpaid.

[hawkfan]

The question that is going to start getting asked is whether the NBA will cancel two seasons, like hockey was going to do back in 04-05.

Canceling the whole season makes total sense for the owners. One year of getting rid of bad contracts - not having to pay Arenas, Jamison, Billups, Lewis, Davis, Hamilton, Diaw, Brand, Kaman, Childress - right there that is about 130 million in bad contracts.

And then come back next year with more teams under the cap and easier to implement a more restrictive cap.

[Kurosawa0]

The owners. It's their recklessness that has caused this problem. How is it a player like Rashard Lewis' fault? Is he supposed to turn down a $100 million contract? The players do need to agree to be held more accountable in terms of quality of play, but also these bad contracts start with the owners. If they don't offer them, there's no problem.

Take someone like Dan Gilbert. The guy spent like crazy when he had a contending team and when it didn't pay off, he became a hardliner. So, that means Antwan Jamison was the problem? Why should someone like Kyrie Irving have to lose money because Dan Gilbert made bad moves?

[Kblaze8855]

This is a lockout, not a strike.

Exactly. The owners decided to lock the players out. The players didnt decide not to have a league.

[Hondo]

Owners. They have no business taking this hardline approach. They should be allowed to cancel a contract each though. Lots of undeserving players. Also, the league should step in and say no to some deals.

Joe Johnson, Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis etc all need to be waived under an amnesty clause. The NBA should say, Hell, naw" when owners try and hand out these deals. Or they should say, "You can't use this at the next labor agreements. You offered this stupid deal, you're a fool."

Sounds fair to me. Or lock out the stupid GMs that offer the deals. That's who the owners should have the beef with.

[StarJordan]

players

[with malice]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.

[Sarcastic]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.

There is so much fail in this post, I don't know where to begin.

[knicksman]

The owners. It's their recklessness that has caused this problem. How is it a player like Rashard Lewis' fault? Is he supposed to turn down a $100 million contract? The players do need to agree to be held more accountable in terms of quality of play, but also these bad contracts start with the owners. If they don't offer them, there's no problem.

Take someone like Dan Gilbert. The guy spent like crazy when he had a contending team and when it didn't pay off, he became a hardliner. So, that means Antwan Jamison was the problem? Why should someone like Kyrie Irving have to lose money because Dan Gilbert made bad moves?

Maybe they did it to satisfy those prima donna superstars who wouldve left if these owners are in cheap mode.

[hawkfan]

The owners. It's their recklessness that has caused this problem. How is it a player like Rashard Lewis' fault? Is he supposed to turn down a $100 million contract? The players do need to agree to be held more accountable in terms of quality of play, but also these bad contracts start with the owners. If they don't offer them, there's no problem.

Take someone like Dan Gilbert. The guy spent like crazy when he had a contending team and when it didn't pay off, he became a hardliner. So, that means Antwan Jamison was the problem? Why should someone like Kyrie Irving have to lose money because Dan Gilbert made bad moves?

It's bad for fans to have guys with stupid, big contracts.
The Clippers had to trade away a first round pick to get rid of Baron Davis, because Davis couldn't stay away from the buffet line.

I totally against a hard cap for this reason - a team gets a guy who just sucks or is fat and then they are stuck with him screwing up the roster for years.

The best solution is limiting the lengths of contracts - 4 years for regular contracts, 3 years for MLEs. If a guy sucks, the cap hold is reduced.

The 57% BRI income down to 52% is not that big of a deal really. It's long contracts that are the bigger issue.

[Math2]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.

:bowdown: :bowdown: Yes! This^

[with malice]

There is so much fail in this post, I don't know where to begin.
Dude... really? I'm happy to entertain a differing point of view, but you're really going with *that* as your stance?

[Math2]

There is so much fail in this post, I don't know where to begin.

lol. That's a fail post....You can't find anything wrong with it, so you just say that the whole post is awful. Entertain me, what do you disagree with?

[L.Kizzle]

Owners.

This is a lockout, not a strike.

Some players may need a pay cut, but there is an equal amount that needs a raise. For every Eddie Curry that you feel is overpaid, there is a Derrick Rose that is underpaid.
He's still on his rookie contract.

[97 bulls]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
This really makes no sense. No businessman is gonna try to develope a market if its not gonna benefit their own bottom line

Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.
This is called a budget. All businesses have one.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.
This is crazy. We live in a capitalistic society. The players get paid according to their market value. What are you a socialists?

Ill tell you why this post fails. In business, your two biggest costs are the actual product your selling and labor. The players in this case are both.

And as I always say, if an owner doesn't like it, walk away from it. The fact is the players don't need the owners to play basketball.

I also believe the owners are slowly begining to shoot themselves in the foot. The players are starting to realize they can get paid just as much to play in europe. Its gonna greatly decrease the quality of the nba game in time.

[Joey Zaza]

I tend more towards the owners-side but the owners take more blame, here. They are moving less in negotiations (from reports) and are definitely more willing to lose the season.

Idon't understand the anti-stern sentiment. He is employed by the owners. All he can do is represent their intersts.

[LJJ]

Ill tell you why this post fails. In business, your two biggest costs are the actual product your selling and labor. The players in this case are both.

And as I always say, if an owner doesn't like it, walk away from it. The fact is the players don't need the owners to play basketball.

I also believe the owners are slowly begining to shoot themselves in the foot. The players are starting to realize they can get paid just as much to play in europe. Its gonna greatly decrease the quality of the nba game in time.

You are insane if you think the players can bring in 4 billion dollars playing basketball without the NBA.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Idon't understand the anti-stern sentiment. He is employed by the owners. All he can do is represent their intersts.

Because he is so powerful that most owners won't do anything to him? There are 30 owners. You have to get a majority to oust him. He knows that. Let's say you are an owner that wishes he was gone. If you make it public, he will make your life (and your team) miserable. So you will have to get at least 15 more owners to agree with you. That is a daunting task.

So, in essence, Stern is the head of that side.

[2LeTTeRS]

I used to be very pro-Players but the more reading I did and the more time passed I stopped supporting the Players or the Owners; and just starting rooting for the fans. Right now though I'm starting to care less each day about who wins, and worrying more that we are going miss games.

[97 bulls]

He's still on his rookie contract.
Rookie contract or not, he's underpaid. The nba makes a killing off successful rookies through endorsement etc. And they have him for four years. For every rashard lewis, there's a derrick rose or a john wall.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

The fact is the players don't need the owners to play basketball.

No, you're right. They can play basketball without the owners. Can they make major money without them, though? Nope. Ask the guys in the And1 tour or similar. They make enough to support themselves, but definitely not what the NBA players make. Face it: neither can exist without the other. The players are the owners' product, the owners are the players' development staff and marketing team. The two are codependent on each other.

And, honestly, the split is messed up. It should be 50-50... after all wages are paid out to the support staff. There is no reason why the owners are solely paying for the staff wages when the players directly benefit from these people (most of them at least. The owners benefit indirectly from all of them).

Also, can we end the "are you socialist" bullshit? It's a fallacious statement, for one, and two... it isn't even accurate. There is far more to socialism than redistribution of wealth which is just a simplified portion of the socialist method of economic rule. Socialism, which I do not believe to be as awful as the average person, often fails because of the other things that go into it.

And, really, the redistribution of wealth in the NBA really goes in the favor of the players, who are not the only people that need to be paid (there are 2-3 times as many staff as there are players).

As a general rule of thumb, your employees' salary should hover in the 25-35% of revenue range. The NBA is paying almost double that right now, not including insane benefits that your average employer (who pays 25-35%) does not have to deal with such as private planes, meals, hotels, support facilities, etc. that are paid for out of the 43% the owners currently get of the revenue.

Honestly, forget about changing the split. Make the players pay for their training and coaching staffs (arena, managerial, scouting, marketing, etc. should still be an owner expense) as well as all those fringe benefits and I am sure the owners would be 100% okay with keeping the current split. At that point, the split would end up being about 50%.

[bagelred]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair?

Ignoring the fact that the owners are BILLIONAIRES and the players MILLIONAIRES.......the owners OWN THE TEAM. That means, regardless of whether the income statment shows profit or loss that year, the owners get 100% of all the valuation increases of the sports franchise. This usually averages about 10% a year and pretty much never goes down over the long haul.

What do the players own? ZERO! They are laborers just like you and me....although high salaried laborers. The moment they can't play ball, they have zero value to show for it. Owners own the franchise, which keeps going up and up and up.

So really, there's very little "risk" per se, unless you believe the human race will stop caring about and watching sports......doubtful.


Let's put it this way...if the players started a new league tomorrow.....what would YOU watch....the NBA teams with scrubs? Or this new league with Kobe, Lebron, Durant, etc.?.........in NBA, the players matter, not the franchises.

[97 bulls]

You are insane if you think the players can bring in 4 billion dollars playing basketball without the NBA.
Why wouldn't they? They are the product. In no way shape or form do they need a bunch of old guys to play basketball. And as a fan, I don't care who runs the team. Ponly who's on the court. Ill never pay to see a bulls game cuz jerry reinsdorf owns the team. Or watch it for that matter.

[All Net]

Owners easily

[LJJ]

Why wouldn't they? They are the product. In no way shape or form do they need a bunch of old guys to play basketball. And as a fan, I don't care who runs the team. Ponly who's on the court. Ill never pay to see a bulls game cuz jerry reinsdorf owns the team. Or watch it for that matter.

Why wouldn't they?

They are completely free to do so. So if they could, why aren't they? Why are they wasting time trying to negotiate with the owners, when they could start up their own league right now, and as you say make 4 billion dollars?

They don't because they could never make that amount of money without the current NBA organisation. Not anywhere close to it.

[Math2]

Ignoring the fact that the owners are BILLIONAIRES and the players MILLIONAIRES.......the owners OWN THE TEAM. That means, regardless of whether the income statment shows profit or loss that year, the owners get 100% of all the valuation increases of the sports franchise. This usually averages about 10% a year and pretty much never goes down over the long haul.

What do the players own? ZERO! They are laborers just like you and me....although high salaried laborers. The moment they can't play ball, they have zero value to show for it. Owners own the franchise, which keeps going up and up and up.

So really, there's very little "risk" per se, unless you believe the human race will stop caring about and watching sports......doubtful.


Let's put it this way...if the players started a new league tomorrow.....what would YOU watch....the NBA teams with scrubs? Or this new league with Kobe, Lebron, Durant, etc.?.........in NBA, the players matter, not the franchises.

If the players don't want to play on the owners terms, fine. I'd just start the league without the marquee players and just have scrubs until the stars come back and work on the owners terms. No reason for the players to have the leverage. The NBA should start the year with everyone who joins the on the owners terms. They won't like it overseas...

[Math2]

Why wouldn't they?

They are completely free to do so. So if they could, why aren't they? Why are they wasting time trying to negotiate with the owners, when they could start up their own league right now, and as you say make 4 billion dollars?

They don't because they could never make that amount of money without the current NBA organisation. Not anywhere close to it.

They aren't SMART enough to form a league themselves...they COULDN'T get arenas because, amazingly, the owners may own major parts of it.

[97 bulls]

No, you're right. They can play basketball without the owners. Can they make major money without them, though? Nope. Ask the guys in the And1 tour or similar. They make enough to support themselves, but definitely not what the NBA players make. Face it: neither can exist without the other. The players are the owners' product, the owners are the players' development staff and marketing team. The two are codependent on each other.
The and 1 players aren't anywhere near as talented as the nba players. Come on.

And, honestly, the split is messed up. It should be 50-50... after all wages are paid out to the support staff. There is no reason why the owners are solely paying for the staff wages when the players directly benefit from these people (most of them at least. The owners benefit indirectly from all of them).

Also, can we end the "are you socialist" bullshit? It's a fallacious statement, for one, and two... it isn't even accurate. There is far more to socialism than redistribution of wealth which is just a simplified portion of the socialist method of economic rule. Socialism, which I do not believe to be as awful as the average person, often fails because of the other things that go into it.

And, really, the redistribution of wealth in the NBA really goes in the favor of the players, who are not the only people that need to be paid (there are 2-3 times as many staff as there are players).

As a general rule of thumb, your employees' salary should hover in the 25-35% of revenue range. The NBA is paying almost double that right now, not including insane benefits that your average employer (who pays 25-35%) does not have to deal with such as private planes, meals, hotels, support facilities, etc. that are paid for out of the 43% the owners currently get of the revenue.

Honestly, forget about changing the split. Make the players pay for their training and coaching staffs (arena, managerial, scouting, marketing, etc. should still be an owner expense) as well as all those fringe benefits and I am sure the owners would be 100% okay with keeping the current split. At that point, the split would end up being about 50%.
This is fine. But why do they need the owners again? It seeems to me the only thing the players need from the owners is the actual nba and team and unifrom names. You still havnt produced anything to show the owners real contribution past money. Which is generated through the players talent.

I got a question for you, what percentage of a budget is dedicated to the actual product a business sales?

[bagelred]

If the players don't want to play on the owners terms, fine. I'd just start the league without the marquee players and just have scrubs until the stars come back and work on the owners terms. No reason for the players to have the leverage.

No one would watch and the owners would make the NBA brand into a joke. There's a reason no one watches the D League. And actually, the NBA would probably lose more money because believe it or not, there are actual expenses to be paid when you schedule a basketball game.

[Math2]

No one would watch and the owners would make the NBA brand into a joke. There's a reason no one watches the D League. And actually, the NBA would probably lose more money because believe it or not, there are actual expenses to be paid when you schedule a basketball game.

Not as much as salaries...adn the players would come back...

[97 bulls]

Why wouldn't they?

They are completely free to do so. So if they could, why aren't they? Why are they wasting time trying to negotiate with the owners, when they could start up their own league right now, and as you say make 4 billion dollars?

They don't because they could never make that amount of money without the current NBA organisation. Not anywhere close to it.
Oh come on, would you pay $5000 for courtside seats to see the luke walton led lakers? Its an nba team.

And if the owners don't need the players, why don't they just replace them with the And 1 players and save themselves money?

[97 bulls]

Not as much as salaries...adn the players would come back...
Why would they? There's plenty of money to be made overseas. Its happening right before our eyes. Didn't a team in the italian league just offer kobe $800,000 a game?

[LJJ]

Oh come on, would you pay $5000 for courtside seats to see the luke walton led lakers? Its an nba team.

And if the owners don't need the players, why don't they just replace them with the And 1 players and save themselves money?

No one is saying the owners don't need the players.

The owners can't make money without the appropriate star power and quality play.
The players can't make money without the organisation, investment, goodwill, facilities of the owners.

Simple as that. Currently, one of these parties is making about 2,3 billion dollars in pure profit every season though, while the other is losing money. And that is why there is a lockout.

[97 bulls]

No one is saying the owners don't need the players.

The owners can't make money without the appropriate star power and quality play.
The players can't make money without the organisation, investment, goodwill, facilities of the owners.

Simple as that. Currently, one of these parties is making about 2,3 billion dollars in pure profit every season though, while the other is losing money. And that is why there is a lockout.
A lot of you guys sure are acting as if the owners can function without the players.

The only thing the owners have in this disagreemnet is the fact that the nba is established.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

The and 1 players aren't anywhere near as talented as the nba players. Come on.

This is fine. But why do they need the owners again? It seeems to me the only thing the players need from the owners is the actual nba and team and unifrom names. You still havnt produced anything to show the owners real contribution past money. Which is generated through the players talent.

You are correct that AND1 players are not nearly as talented. But it doesn't really matter. The NBA players could not make the kind of money they do now if they ran things themselves. There are too few players that have enough business experience to run a multi-billion dollar league themselves and hiring people to run it for them... well you are just in the same position as before.

Beyond that, only a select few players have the kind of cash it would take to support a league (at least in terms of start-up cash) and, in the end, the players with the most money would end up controlling the league, which, as with hiring others to run the league, is exactly where we are right now. And if the players would control things, what happens when the richer players, the ones in control, retire from playing? I do not believe it is legal to force them out upon retirement.

Not only that, but the league has to have someone in control. You could do a share-type deal where the league is essentially a private stock market (again, not sure if that is legal) and the players buy chunks of it with their own money, but you then run into the same issue as before: what happens when a player retires? They cannot be forced to give up their portion of ownership of the league, so you end up with outsiders (albeit former insiders) having control of your league. Because of how many shares these players have accumulated over the 15-20 years they played, the rookies coming in get a smaller and smaller portion of things each year until, eventually (say 20 years from now), the league is almost entirely owned by former players acting, essentially, as today's current owners. No matter what route you take, you will end up where you are today.

In short, the owners provide business management which is as important as the product when a business grows to be as large as the NBA. And there is a reason the players have not already done this: it just cannot work.


This is fine. But why do they need the owners again? It seeems to me the only thing the players need from the owners is the actual nba and team and unifrom names. You still havnt produced anything to show the owners real contribution past money. Which is generated through the players talent.
Depends on the market, really, and if the product is new or in development. Your product line should, by general rule, never cost you more than 20-30% of your revenue. Now, I know the first thing you are going to do is add that 25-35% and this 20-30% and go, "Hey! That's exactly what the players are making now!" (give or take a few exclamation points, of course), but you only have half the picture.

That 25-35% and that 20-30% that the employees and product cost also include all employees and all fees associated with those employees. In the NBA, this includes all of the players, trainers, coaches, front offices, arena personnel, etc. and all of the health care (players get insane health care benefits), travel expenses, retirement benefits (unlike most of the world, athletes still get these), general expenses such as uniforms and supplies, and product development.

What remains is roughly 40% (Hey! What the owners get!) that is used for facility, maintenance, marketing, legal, damage, recruitment, utility, and security expenses. What is left of that 40% generally goes to the owners/executives/shareholders.

In the NBA, that 40% is stretched to include that as well as all employees, minus the players, and all benefits. By no means, even by giving the players both the employee and product description, does the NBA's current model fit that of a typical successful business.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Owners. I mean obviously it's not the player's fault, they didn't decide to cancel. Sure, some players are overpaid. But it's not the player's fault, it's the owner or GM's fault for overpaying that person. Let's say Rashard Lewis, if his manager negotiates a good deal that maxes out at 22 Mil a year, he's supposed to say, "No, that's too much, get me a deal that's worth less." ? The owners are just being dumb.

And running a sports franchise isn't just a business. This article explains it pretty well. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6874079/psychic-benefits-nba-lockout

It's all on the owners. And David Stern I suppose. The players couldn't control that.

[kkling]

Damn owners! "we want more than billions."

[Kurosawa0]

It's bad for fans to have guys with stupid, big contracts.
The Clippers had to trade away a first round pick to get rid of Baron Davis, because Davis couldn't stay away from the buffet line.

I think that owners should be able to have an out if a player doesn't live up to a contract, but if owners wouldn't be giving out these massive contracts to guys who aren't named LeBron or Durant, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Put it this way, if the majority of the league wouldn't overpay the Elton Brands the contracts would cheapen on their own.

Some of the players may be ridiculously overpaid, but no one made the owners agree to pay them in the first place.

[97 bulls]

You are correct that AND1 players are not nearly as talented. But it doesn't really matter. The NBA players could not make the kind of money they do now if they ran things themselves. There are too few players that have enough business experience to run a multi-billion dollar league themselves and hiring people to run it for them... well you are just in the same position as before.
Except that seeing as how since its the players league, they can dictate everything. And the people they put in charge of it can ask for more money. Not demand it.

Beyond that, only a select few players have the kind of cash it would take to support a league (at least in terms of start-up cash) and, in the end, the players with the most money would end up controlling the league, which, as with hiring others to run the league, is exactly where we are right now. And if the players would control things, what happens when the richer players, the ones in control, retire from playing? I do not believe it is legal to force them out upon retirement.
I'm sure they caould find investors


Not only that, but the league has to have someone in control. You could do a share-type deal where the league is essentially a private stock market (again, not sure if that is legal) and the players buy chunks of it with their own money, but you then run into the same issue as before: what happens when a player retires? They cannot be forced to give up their portion of ownership of the league, so you end up with outsiders (albeit former insiders) having control of your league. Because of how many shares these players have accumulated over the 15-20 years they played, the rookies coming in get a smaller and smaller portion of things each year until, eventually (say 20 years from now), the league is almost entirely owned by former players acting, essentially, as today's current owners. No matter what route you take, you will end up where you are today.
They could limit the amount of shares. Or upon retirement they must sell off their shares to the current players.

In short, the owners provide business management which is as important as the product when a business grows to be as large as the NBA. And there is a reason the players have not already done this: it just cannot work.
It could definately work. It would just take a lot of work.

Depends on the market, really, and if the product is new or in development. Your product line should, by general rule, never cost you more than 20-30% of your revenue. Now, I know the first thing you are going to do is add that 25-35% and this 20-30% and go, "Hey! That's exactly what the players are making now!" (give or take a few exclamation points, of course), but you only have half the picture.

That 25-35% and that 20-30% that the employees and product cost also include all employees and all fees associated with those employees. In the NBA, this includes all of the players, trainers, coaches, front offices, arena personnel, etc. and all of the health care (players get insane health care benefits), travel expenses, retirement benefits (unlike most of the world, athletes still get these), general expenses such as uniforms and supplies, and product development.

What remains is roughly 40% (Hey! What the owners get!) that is used for facility, maintenance, marketing, legal, damage, recruitment, utility, and security expenses. What is left of that 40% generally goes to the owners/executives/shareholders.

In the NBA, that 40% is stretched to include that as well as all employees, minus the players, and all benefits. By no means, even by giving the players both the employee and product description, does the NBA's current model fit that of a typical successful business.
The main problem for the owners is that the players are irreplaceable. Bottom line, flatout. Which honestly is something you can't say for the owners, trainers, ballboys, etc. You don't have a grocery store without gorceries.

[97 bulls]

I think that owners should be able to have an out if a player doesn't live up to a contract, but if owners wouldn't be giving out these massive contracts to guys who aren't named LeBron or Durant, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Put it this way, if the majority of the league wouldn't overpay the Elton Brands the contracts would cheapen on their own.

Some of the players may be ridiculously overpaid, but no one made the owners agree to pay them in the first place.
Elton Brand was one of the top PFs in the league when he signed his contract. He got hurt playing basketball.

And while what you state is true, in context, what about the second round picks and late picks that are underpaid?

[pauk]

both

owners for being stupid and desperate

players for being so stubborn and having their heads up their asses

[bagelred]

Why would they? There's plenty of money to be made overseas. Its happening right before our eyes. Didn't a team in the italian league just offer kobe $800,000 a game?

Wait....what?

$800,000 * 82 games = $65,600,000 :eek:

:bowdown:

:cheers:

:banana:




:pimp:

[Math2]

Why would they? There's plenty of money to be made overseas. Its happening right before our eyes. Didn't a team in the italian league just offer kobe $800,000 a game?

They wouldn't be happy overseas.

[Math2]

No one is saying the owners don't need the players.

The owners can't make money without the appropriate star power and quality play.
The players can't make money without the organisation, investment, goodwill, facilities of the owners.

Simple as that. Currently, one of these parties is making about 2,3 billion dollars in pure profit every season though, while the other is losing money. And that is why there is a lockout.

Owners can make money without players, that's how they got to the point where they could buy a team. The owners don't need players to function.

Players can't do much of anything else except basketball.

[Math2]

Owners can make money without players, that's how they got to the point where they could buy a team. The owners don't need players to function.

Players can't do much of anything else except basketball.

And I'm not saying I don't want a season...I just don't want the players to be paid nearly as much.

[97 bulls]

Wait....what?

$800,000 * 82 games = $65,600,000 :eek:

:bowdown:

:cheers:

:banana:




:pimp:
Thats what I heard and read. It was anywhere from 600,000 a game to 800,000

[97 bulls]

They wouldn't be happy overseas.
How do you know that?

[97 bulls]

Owners can make money without players, that's how they got to the point where they could buy a team. The owners don't need players to function.

Players can't do much of anything else except basketball.
This isn't about what they do outside of owning a pro sports franchise. That's irrelavant.

[Math2]

This isn't about what they do outside of owning a pro sports franchise. That's irrelavant.

Owners don't need players to make money. Players do, if they want to make as much as they make...

[97 bulls]

And I'm not saying I don't want a season...I just don't want the players to be paid nearly as much.
Why not? You know every time a team signs a big name free agent, all they do is raise the ticket prices to compensate for it.

Now let's say the players do concede and give back about 30-40% of their salaries. You think the owners are gonna generously lower the ticket prices to reflect that? It all greed.

Ill never understand how anyone can side with the owners. Or big business in general. Were getting our asses kicked by employers. Cutbacks, layoffs, busting unions, outsourceing.

To answer the original post, its the owners fault. I'm always gonna side with the employees

[Math2]

Why not? You know every time a team signs a big name free agent, all they do is raise the ticket prices to compensate for it.

Now let's say the players do concede and give back about 30-40% of their salaries. You think the owners are gonna generously lower the ticket prices to reflect that? It all greed.

Ill never understand how anyone can side with the owners. Or big business in general. Were getting our asses kicked by employers. Cutbacks, layoffs, busting unions, outsourceing.

To answer the original post, its the owners fault. I'm always gonna side with the employees

They don't raise it to "compensate", they raise it because, this might make out team appealing instead of appalling. I don't get why people side with employees. I don't get why if they go on strike why the owners just don't fire them. And I know this isn't a strike.

Layoffs are because there is no need for a certain employee to work for them.

I'd side with oweners

[97 bulls]

Owners don't need players to make money. Players do, if they want to make as much as they make...
Nope, as long as they have a fanbase and people willing to pay thosands of dollars to watch them play, they don't need the owners.

You act as if the owners are giving the players money out of the kindness of their heart. Come on now.

[97 bulls]

They don't raise it to "compensate", they raise it because, this might make out team appealing instead of appalling. I don't get why people side with employees. I don't get why if they go on strike why the owners just don't fire them. And I know this isn't a strike.

Layoffs are because there is no need for a certain employee to work for them.

I'd side with oweners
Are you an owner of a business? Or are you a joe the plumber type?

[Math2]

Nope, as long as they have a fanbase and people willing to pay thosands of dollars to watch them play, they don't need the owners.

You act as if the owners are giving the players money out of the kindness of their heart. Come on now.

They don't need to be giving players this kind of money. They wouldn't be anything without the owners.

[Math2]

Are you an owner of a business? Or are you a joe the plumber type?

High school

[97 bulls]

They don't need to be giving players this kind of money. They wouldn't be anything without the owners.
Lol they don't give the players anything. They PAY the players.

[Math2]

Lol they don't give the players anything. They PAY the players.

I know and the players wouldn't be making much of anything WITHOUT THE NBA AND THE OWNERS.

[97 bulls]

High school
Well are the people that raised you owners of a business? I ask cuz I'm trying to get an understanding of where your comming from.

[Math2]

Well are the people that raised you owners of a business? I ask cuz I'm trying to get an understanding of where your comming from.

no

[97 bulls]

I know and the players wouldn't be making much of anything WITHOUT THE NBA AND THE OWNERS.
What fortune 500 company or any business for that matter could you not say the same about?

You just seem real bitter. Did a basketball player take your girlfirend? lol

[Math2]

What fortune 500 company or any business for that matter could you not say the same about?

You just seem real bitter. Did a basketball player take your girlfirend? lol

I'm talking about the outrageous money they get, not that a lot of people wouldn't make much without the company they work with.

[97 bulls]

no
Then tell me why you side with the "man"?

[Math2]

Then tell me why you side with the "man"?

Because I belive that they are the ones that make the whole NBA buisnees posible, and are the ones investing the $, thus should get the money back.

[97 bulls]

I'm talking about the outrageous money they get, not that a lot of people wouldn't make much without the company they work with.
Its supply and demand. Millions of people are willing to pay top dollar to watch them. Why shouldn't they be compensated accordingly?

[Math2]

Its supply and demand. Millions of people are willing to pay top dollar to watch them. Why shouldn't they be compensated accordingly?

Because they aren't the ones investing in the NBA. They are the equivalent of NBA 2k12 developers. People around the world pay for their work, why shouldn't they be paid accordingly? How is it different other than the recognition of players.

[97 bulls]

Because I belive that they are the ones that make the whole NBA buisnees posible, and are the ones investing the $, thus should get the money back.
But they dont. They fund it. But they aren't the product.

I'm really disturbed by your point of view. Especially seeing as how you havnt had to experience the greed that has overtaken our society.

[97 bulls]

Because they aren't the ones investing in the NBA. They are the equivalent of NBA 2k12 developers. People around the world pay for their work, why shouldn't they be paid accordingly? How is it different other than the recognition of players.
No bro, theyre the developers and the actual games rolled into one. And whats more is that they're irreplaceable. That's the main point you're missing.

And what do you mean by "people around the world pay for their work?"

[Math2]

No bro, theyre the developers and the actual games rolled into one. And whats more is that they're irreplaceable. That's the main point you're missing.

And what do you mean by "people around the world pay for their work?"

I'm refering to 2k.

They ARE irreplaceable, but what I am saying is for the owners to take a stand, start the year without them, and they will come back. The players don't get as much recognition in Europe, if they come back, then the owners will have gotten what they wanted.

What the hell, what do I know...the start the season without them probably isn't a good idea...I think they need a drastic pay cut is all..

[with malice]

Thats what I heard and read. It was anywhere from 600,000 a game to 800,000
It was just shy of $740,000. And the "per game" was only on offer if he decided to play only a few games.
Four contracts were offered to him by Virtus Bologna.
- A per game contract (short term)
- A month contract
- A two month contract
- A season at $6.7 million.

There is no where near the money available overseas that you suggest. The contract offered to Kobe is many times larger than the ones being offered most players, and it falls well short of what he'd earn in the NBA.


This isn't about what they do outside of owning a pro sports franchise. That's irrelavant.
How is it irrelevant? I'd suggest that given we're talking about who can last the longest, it's completely relevant.


Ill never understand how anyone can side with the owners. Or big business in general. Were getting our asses kicked by employers. Cutbacks, layoffs, busting unions, outsourceing.

To answer the original post, its the owners fault. I'm always gonna side with the employees
And I'll never understand how someone could make a blanket assumption on a situation merely based on the fact that one side of the equation is "big business". It's not like the players are the lil' guy.
Me? In a situation like this, I'll read up, look at what's happening and then make a decision with no preconceived notions about who's right.

Then tell me why you side with the "man"?
The inanity of that comment is ridiculous. As was the comment about the guy's girlfriend. Play the ball, not the man.

[bagelred]

Thats what I heard and read. It was anywhere from 600,000 a game to 800,000

I heard they offered Brian Scalibriane $50 + free lunch, per game.

Just sandwiches, but still, not too shabby. :cheers:

[dbugz]

both

owners for being stupid and desperate

players for being so stubborn and having their heads up their asses


http://www.ct4me.net/images/Bullseye.gif

[97 bulls]

It was just shy of $740,000. And the "per game" was only on offer if he decided to play only a few games.
Four contracts were offered to him by Virtus Bologna.
- A per game contract (short term)
- A month contract
- A two month contract
- A season at $6.7 million.

There is no where near the money available overseas that you suggest. The contract offered to Kobe is many times larger than the ones being offered most players, and it falls well short of what he'd earn in the NBA.


How is it irrelevant? I'd suggest that given we're talking about who can last the longest, it's completely relevant.
I think you need to reread the context of the conversation.

And I'll never understand how someone could make a blanket assumption on a situation merely based on the fact that one side of the equation is "big business". It's not like the players are the lil' guy.
Me? In a situation like this, I'll read up, look at what's happening and then make a decision with no preconceived notions about who's right.
What makes you think I haven't read up on what they're. Held up on? The players have conceded a portion of the bri. As well as a hard cap, a drastic cut in contracts, eliminate the guranteed contracts, and revenue sharing. The revenue sharing is an infight between the owners. I may be missing some things but those are the biggest

The inanity of that comment is ridiculous. As was the comment about the guy's girlfriend. Play the ball, not the man.
Again, you miss the context of the question and statement. Not to mention you have no sense of humor


Who do you side with? And why?

[with malice]

Who do you side with? And why?
If you'd taken the time to read the thread, you'd know (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6357744&postcount=10).

And on your bolded points...
1. I have read it. The fact that many owners have revenue outside the teams is entirely relevant.
2. Wasn't me who stated that he would categorically fall in with one side or another no matter what...
3. Math2 didn't appear to be talking in humor... yet you hit with:

You just seem real bitter. Did a basketball player take your girlfirend? lol
That's humor? I think you need to perhaps reassess what "humor" actually is. That reads more like an attempt to denigrate when you have nothing substantial to offer.
If you want to get your point across better, I'd suggest using caps for words you deem more important...

[97 bulls]

If you'd taken the time to read the thread, you'd know (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6357744&postcount=10).

And on your bolded points...
1. I have read it. The fact that many owners have revenue outside the teams is entirely relevant.
2. Wasn't me who stated that he would categorically fall in with one side or another no matter what...
3. Math2 didn't appear to be talking in humor... yet you hit with:

That's humor? I think you need to perhaps reassess what "humor" actually is. That reads more like an attempt to denigrate when you have nothing substantial to offer.
If you want to get your point across better, I'd suggest using caps for words you deem more important...
No... you didn't read it. And if you did, you didntt get the context in which math was saying it. The point he was trying to make is that all basketball players can do is play basketball. As if that's the only way they can be successfull in life.

I stated what the owners did outside of owning a pro-sports franchise has no bearing cuz its not basketball related income.

Now id like o ask you the same question I asked math. Why do you feel basketball players are over payed?

[Walker]

No... you didn't read it. And if you did, you didntt get the context in which math was saying it. The point he was trying to make is that all basketball players can do is play basketball. As if that's the only way they can be successfull in life.

I stated what the owners did outside of owning a pro-sports franchise has no bearing cuz its not basketball related income.

Now id like o ask you the same question I asked math. Why do you feel basketball players are over payed?
I'll field this one, well where to start.
The majority of the teams lose money on a yearly basis, solely due to the fact that players can be paid such large amounts. This is competition we're talking about here, if you don't pay someone else will. Why give them (the owners) the option to over extend.
Look at the current US (and world for that matter) economical state, we're on the verge of a world wide ression. The US has been in ression since 2008 (it actually extends back as far as 2001 but that's another story altogether), the goverment just won't admit it and there is no way out, it'll only get worse.
As a result of this the NBA and the respective teams outlook for future earnings would be less than they would have forcast in previous years. If people don't have money the first thing they cut out is unnessicary endevours, ie. going to games.
In order for the NBA to continue to grow and open up other options of revenue they players need to get a lower cut. Even the players admit this
The money in proffesional sports, especially in America, is drying up. Take N.O for instance, the NBA can't even find anyone willing to buy the team. This will become a trend as the worlds economy continues to dry up, an economy that is soley based on finite resources.
The average NBA fan won't look beyond the game itself in a debate such as this, but sport is not ression proof and the larger picture plays a big role.

[Fatstogie]

Owners. I think the players are right. It should be soft cap.

The owners are trying to ruin good teams, to spread the money around. I couldnt care less about their money. I want the game to be maximum. Not for it to be fair for markets. I want the game to be hot.

Larger markets should be able to spend more. They are larger markets. IThats just the way it is. Hard cao is basically anit "free market."

So im with the players. Although if i were them id suggest and even greater pay cut instead of a hard cap. Thatd make me side with them even more. lol

[hawkfan]

How is it fair to owners when players sign huge contracts and then get fat or act stupidly or don't perform?

Moreover, how is that fair to fans?

[97 bulls]

I'll field this one, well where to start.
The majority of the teams lose money on a yearly basis, solely due to the fact that players can be paid such large amounts. This is competition we're talking about here, if you don't pay someone else will. Why give them (the owners) the option to over extend.
Look at the current US (and world for that matter) economical state, we're on the verge of a world wide ression. The US has been in ression since 2008 (it actually extends back as far as 2001 but that's another story altogether), the goverment just won't admit it and there is no way out, it'll only get worse.
As a result of this the NBA and the respective teams outlook for future earnings would be less than they would have forcast in previous years. If people don't have money the first thing they cut out is unnessicary endevours, ie. going to games.
In order for the NBA to continue to grow and open up other options of revenue they players need to get a lower cut. Even the players admit this
The money in proffesional sports, especially in America, is drying up. Take N.O for instance, the NBA can't even find anyone willing to buy the team. This will become a trend as the worlds economy continues to dry up, an economy that is soley based on finite resources.
The average NBA fan won't look beyond the game itself in a debate such as this, but sport is not ression proof and the larger picture plays a big role.
Its my understanding that there have been groups lined up to buy the hornets. And the nba declined their offer.

Understand that I'm not trying to say the players should get more money. And they've conceded that much. But I just can't let go of people saying that athletes are overpayed. And it only athletes. Not the owners, not actors, or musicians.

Why is this?

[Sarcastic]

Its my understanding that there have been groups lined up to buy the hornets. And the nba declined their offer.

Understand that I'm not trying to say the players should get more money. And they've conceded that much. But I just can't let go of people saying that athletes are overpayed. And it only athletes. Not the owners, not actors, or musicians.

Why is this?


Correct, but the people who wanted to buy them wanted to move them out of NO. The NBA is trying to find an owner that will keep them in NO, but with little luck so far.

[hovermaster]

i'm siding with the players on this because it's the owners who decide to give these outrageous contracts to undeserving players like lewis and curry while the system causes players like kobe,lebron,rose and durant to be severely underpaid.
they should just have terms that a player hast to meet in his contract in order to get all the money like not getting overweight or not going below a certain ppg. players shouldn't be able to hold out if they think they deserve more and owners shouldn't be able to simply cut a player they don't want anymore. changes need to be made, but nothing as drastic as the owners have been proposing

just my honest opinion

[Sarcastic]

How is it fair to owners when players sign huge contracts and then get fat or act stupidly or don't perform?

Moreover, how is that fair to fans?

Besides Eddie Curry, who is the outlier and the one guy everyone loves to point the finger at, who else got fat and didn't perform?

[hawkfan]

Fat:

Baron Davis
Eddy Curry
Jerome James
Boris Diaw (although he still can produce something)
Antoine Walker

Unproductive:

Rashard Lewis
Jared Jeffries
Matt Carroll

Broken down:

Chauncey Billups (this year he will be)
Michael Redd
Antawn Jamison
Larry Hughes
Penny Hardaway
Steve Francis

Stupid
Gilbert Arenas

Some of these guys are from years past, but the general concept prevails.

[Sarcastic]

Fat:

Baron Davis
Eddy Curry
Jerome James
Boris Diaw (although he still can produce something)
Antoine Walker

Unproductive:

Rashard Lewis
Jared Jeffries
Matt Carroll

Broken down:

Chauncey Billups (this year he will be)
Michael Redd
Antawn Jamison
Larry Hughes
Penny Hardaway
Steve Francis

Stupid
Gilbert Arenas

Some of these guys are from years past, but the general concept prevails.


That's all subjective opinion.

Antoine Walker doesn't even play in the league, so I don't know why you include his name.

[97 bulls]

That's all subjective opinion.

Antoine Walker doesn't even play in the league, so I don't know why you include his name.
And a lot of those guys were injured playing basketball.

[Sarcastic]

For every Eddie Curry out there that people think are "overpaid", there is a Derrick Rose that is "underpaid".

Because of the cap, there is no real way to determine who is overpaid, and who is underpaid. If we had no cap at all, and let the free market determine who makes what, then we could truly assess who is worth what.

For instance Lebron James on the open market would easily demand $50 million +. But because we have a cap, he doesn't even make half that.

[with malice]

Walker, thank you for that. Fielded with a well-written answer - far more so than I could do! Cheers...


No... you didn't read it. And if you did, you didntt get the context in which math was saying it. The point he was trying to make is that all basketball players can do is play basketball. As if that's the only way they can be successfull in life.
The specific quote:


Owners can make money without players, that's how they got to the point where they could buy a team. The owners don't need players to function.

Players can't do much of anything else except basketball.
This isn't about what they do outside of owning a pro sports franchise. That's irrelavant.
Reiterating: due to the fact we're discussing the cancellation of the season, where they can source alternate income is entirely relevant.
And I agree with Math2: it's incredibly doubtful that a single, solitary player could make anywhere near the income they get in basketball doing something else. That's simply an inescapable reality.

Wouldn't bringing up what actors/musicians make in a thread about an NBA lockout be far, far more irrelevant than what money the antagonists/protagonists of the NBA lockout could get sans basketball?

[Darius]

Owners.

They negotiated the last CBA, it didn't just "happen".

Now, they are renegotiating drastically while taking a hard-line stance.

[with malice]

Owners.

They negotiated the last CBA, it didn't just "happen".

Now, they are renegotiating drastically while taking a hard-line stance.
From what I've read, they screwed up hugely on that CBA, expecting more money than came. And most experts agree that the last CBA is one of the worst in sports (for ownership).
Just because they made errors in the last one doesn't mean it should continue...

No-one's saying that the owners are without blame, but there has to be some accountability for the players. At the moment, I don't believe there is.

[97 bulls]

Walker, thank you for that. Fielded with a well-written answer - far more so than I could do! Cheers...


The specific quote:

Reiterating: due to the fact we're discussing the cancellation of the season, where they can source alternate income is entirely relevant.
And I agree with Math2: it's incredibly doubtful that a single, solitary player could make anywhere near the income they get in basketball doing something else. That's simply an inescapable reality.

Wouldn't bringing up what actors/musicians make in a thread about an NBA lockout be far, far more irrelevant than what money the antagonists/protagonists of the NBA lockout could get sans basketball?
I was directing that question to you and your view that nba players are overpaid.

As far as the rest point taken.

[the_wise_one]

Players. Because they are overpaid.

[PowerGlove]

Owners easily.

[with malice]

I was directing that question to you and your view that nba players are overpaid.
Hehe... so someone saying what I would have said (only perhaps better phrased) doesn't count?
C'mon dude, this isn't thee-against-me...
Players are overpaid. The mere fact that some franchises run in the red should be enough for that to be accepted. Hell, even the players accept that.

I have a question for you: wouldn't you consider a business model as flawed, where the employee makes more than the employer?

[Walker]

Its my understanding that there have been groups lined up to buy the hornets. And the nba declined their offer.

Understand that I'm not trying to say the players should get more money. And they've conceded that much. But I just can't let go of people saying that athletes are overpayed. And it only athletes. Not the owners, not actors, or musicians.

Why is this?
Ohh it's not only athletes, but that's the topic of this discussion.
However in terms of actors they get paid before production. I can't say I know how it works but one would assume the studios would think they'll make $X on a movie and pay the lead actor a % of that amount. I guarentee however in the vast majority of cases that figure is nowhere near 57% or even 50%. Obviously movies can tank at the box office which makes the actors salary obserd.
Musicians get a tiny amount of the money made on music sales, we're talking around 15%. They actually make the majority of their money by concert ticket sales. Bring those two together I'd estimate they'd be looking around roughly 40% of total income from their product.

There's no doubt that team's revenues are going to decrease except maybe for afew teams yet the costs of running the club remain the same. I'd say the owners % of revenue they're offering the players is actually very generous.

[Sarcastic]

From what I've read, they screwed up hugely on that CBA, expecting more money than came. And most experts agree that the last CBA is one of the worst in sports (for ownership).
Just because they made errors in the last one doesn't mean it should continue...

No-one's saying that the owners are without blame, but there has to be some accountability for the players. At the moment, I don't believe there is.

If they screwed up so bad on the last CBA, why did they resign it in 2006? Why would they resign a deal in which they were guaranteed to lose money from year 1? Do you realize how bad of a business person you would have to be to sign a deal which causes you to lose money from day 1?

Also why was the clear consensus that the players lost in the last negotiations, but now the owners claim they are the ones that lost?

[code green]

I was going to make a new thread about this, but i didn't know if it was already answered and didn't want to make a redundant thread. If the entire season gets locked out, does the year count as far as their contract goes, or do the players pick up from where it left off?

[2LeTTeRS]

If they screwed up so bad on the last CBA, why did they resign it in 2006? Why would they resign a deal in which they were guaranteed to lose money from year 1? Do you realize how bad of a business person you would have to be to sign a deal which causes you to lose money from day 1?

The CBA did not guarantee them to lose money, the recession did. Now that people have less money to spend the league is having to spend more money to make a buck.

Because of that the 43% of revenue that they receive is not enough for them to profit.


Also why was the clear consensus that the players lost in the last negotiations, but now the owners claim they are the ones that lost?

Basically the reason people thought the players lost the last negotiation was because there was a cap placed on the maximum amount a player could make. Therefore the top-tier players lost out. Members of the media used this as evidence that the Players lost the negotiations.

However if you delve deeper you realize that because Players are guaranteed 57% of revenue, combined with the rapid rise in revenue generated by the league, and the fact that each capped out team has exceptions such as the MLE which allow them to spend money to bring in players even though they are over the cap, the lower and middle classes of players were rewarded handsomely by the last CBA. Thats why now people (including Stern himself) say that the Players won the last negotiation.

[guy]

I kind of understand both point of views. The players have made huge concessions already, and if they make anymore they feel like they are being taken advantage. The owners might just need more concessions just because the system is THAT BAD (assuming they aren't lying about anything). I'm not sure who's fault, but they both deserve a huge amount of blame for everything because:

Players: Its a business, and the bosses are allowed to cut there employees pay if needed, or stop work then. It happens in every business. The players have the opportunity to pursue other opportunities if they want. Its not a black vs white issue or a millionaires vs. billionaires issue. Its an employer vs. employee issue where the employer always has the opportunity to go a certain direction and the employee always has the opportunity to stay under those circumstances or go elsewhere. Considering business fundamentals, I'm not sure the owners deserve blame in that regard.

Owners: They have control over their business. Its not the player's fault they give out these ridiculous contracts. Theoretically, they can agree to the soft cap, and just control themselves and even make up an unofficial hard cap amongst each other and never go over it. They don't need to institute rules and regulations against themselves to stop themselves from making dumb decisions.

[Sarcastic]

The CBA did not guarantee them to lose money, the recession did. Now that people have less money to spend the league is having to spend more money to make a buck.

Because of that the 43% of revenue that they receive is not enough for them to profit.



Basically the reason people thought the players lost the last negotiation was because there was a cap placed on the maximum amount a player could make. Therefore the top-tier players lost out. Members of the media used this as evidence that the Players lost the negotiations.

However if you delve deeper you realize that because Players are guaranteed 57% of revenue, combined with the rapid rise in revenue generated by the league, and the fact that each capped out team has exceptions such as the MLE which allow them to spend money to bring in players even though they are over the cap, the lower and middle classes of players were rewarded handsomely by the last CBA. Thats why now people (including Stern himself) say that the Players won the last negotiation.

I am fully aware of why the owners are locking out the players, and I do think changes should be made. However I don't think the losses are as large as the league is making them out to be, nor do I think that the players should be held responsible for the interest that an owner has to pay on the loan he took out to buy the team. A solid chunk of their claimed losses are due to interest and amortization, which the players should not be responsible for.

[2LeTTeRS]

I am fully aware of why the owners are locking out the players, and I do think changes should be made. However I don't think the losses are as large as the league is making them out to be, nor do I think that the players should be held responsible for the interest that an owner has to pay on the loan he took out to buy the team. A solid chunk of their claimed losses are due to interest and amortization, which the players should not be responsible for.

I completely agree with everything you said there. However, even though the true cash losses are probably much smaller than the league suggests, everybody (even the Players) agrees that the league is losing money.

With that in mind I do have a question for you - if you had the power to write the CBA yourself, what changes would you make?

[Sarcastic]

I completely agree with everything you said there. However, even though the true cash losses are probably much smaller than the league suggests, everybody (even the Players) agrees that the league is losing money.

With that in mind I do have a question for you - if you had the power to write the CBA yourself, what changes would you make?

Well the first thing that needs to be done is figure out a revenue sharing program among the teams, as well as a relocation plan for some of the teams that are in cities that just shouldn't have a team.

Once that is hammered out, I think the league should keep the soft cap. I think that teams should have the ability to spend a little extra should they need to, and not be locked under a hard cap. I do think contracts should be made shorter. I am steadfastly against the individual cap. That should be taken out. I think the players should receive somewhere between 52-54% of the BRI, which is right in line with what NHL and MLB does. The players are the product, and should be compensated accordingly. I do like some of the amnesty clauses that I have heard about where teams can drop a player, and not take a cap hit while the player is still able to receive a sizable chunk of the contract. However I don't want to see a system like the NFL has where players can just be cut at the team's whim. It works well in football where everyone is just a cog in the machine, but basketball is different. It's a game where you need to build cohesion with teammates, and changing parts that quickly will ruin that. Look at how long it's taken Wade and Lebron to learn to play together.

I think many of the problems the league has are self induced, from over expansion, as well as maintaining teams in cities that shouldn't have teams and leaving cities that should have teams (Seattle).

[2LeTTeRS]

Well the first thing that needs to be done is figure out a revenue sharing program among the teams, as well as a relocation plan for some of the teams that are in cities that just shouldn't have a team.

Once that is hammered out, I think the league should keep the soft cap. I think that teams should have the ability to spend a little extra should they need to, and not be locked under a hard cap. I do think contracts should be made shorter. I am steadfastly against the individual cap. That should be taken out. I think the players should receive somewhere between 52-54% of the BRI, which is right in line with what NHL and MLB does. The players are the product, and should be compensated accordingly. I do like some of the amnesty clauses that I have heard about where teams can drop a player, and not take a cap hit while the player is still able to receive a sizable chunk of the contract. However I don't want to see a system like the NFL has where players can just be cut at the team's whim. It works well in football where everyone is just a cog in the machine, but basketball is different. It's a game where you need to build cohesion with teammates, and changing parts that quickly will ruin that. Look at how long it's taken Wade and Lebron to learn to play together.

I think many of the problems the league has are self induced, from over expansion, as well as maintaining teams in cities that shouldn't have teams and leaving cities that should have teams (Seattle).

I like that, honestly my proposal isn't much different than yours >>>>> http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235262.


As the labor debacle wages on, the debate as to whose right and whose wrong is over. Now if we want to have a season that starts on time both sides are going to have to make major concessions and compromises.

Here goes my proposal as to what should happen so both sides can come away feeling like they achieved key victories, while also making the league more financially stable.

Hard Cap or Soft Cap

This is the key issue right now. Billy Hunter has called taking a hard cap a "blood issue" that he claims he is willing to lose a season instead of taking, and some owners feel just as strongly that one should be imposed.

I would keep the soft cap in place but would make it a lot "harder." How you ask - easy by eliminating most of the exceptions that allow Teams already over the cap to bring in players from other Teams (including the MLE) and lengthen the amount of time needed to attain Bird rights.

This way teams would be limited to go over the cap to sign minimum salaried players or to re-sign their own guys (if they have been under contract long enough to have Bird Rights).

Players Share of Revenue

Currently the Players are entitled to receive 57% of league revenues. Seeing that everyone agrees many teams are losing money, that percentage is completely too high to ensure the financial health of the league.

Therefore this percentage must be decreased drastically. I would have the Players decrease their share from 57% to right at 50%. That is a big sacrifice by the Players, but its worth it if they can keep the soft cap system in place.

Length of Contracts

The current CBA which allows contracts to be a maximum of 5 to 6 years is too advantageous to the Players. Period. In this market where most people can and are being fired on the whim, it is unrealistic to expect NBA contracts to remain as they are where for the most part they are fully guaranteed and extend so far into the future.

I would recommend having Players sacrifice here to shorten max length of contracts to 4 years if going to a new team and 5 years if re-signing.

Effect of Buy-outs/Amnesty Provision

As I mentioned earlier the previous CBA counts all money paid to a bought out player on a team's salary cap for all the remaining years left on the deal. This means if a Player whose under a 2 year contract for $12 million is bought out for $10 million, then the team takes a $5 mil cap hit for the next 2 seasons. Because of this in the current system once a relationship sours between a Player and the Team, the only options the Team has are to:

1) keep him and hope things get better,
2) trade him for peanuts,
3) send the Player home and pay him his full salary, or
4) buy the Player out but still have him count fully against your teams cap.

This level of job stability is basically unknown in America, and with this labor dispute occurring during the current political climate it does not bode well for the Players. With that in mind, I suggest a system where if a Player is bought out the Team can distribute the money given to the Players over the next 10 cap years (thus lessening the cap hit). This would give the team more ability to part with troubled players, while still giving the Player the money he is entitled too.

If that idea doesn't sound good to you I propose in the alternative an expanded Amnesty provision. In my proposal every 2 years Teams would be able to buy out a Player and he not count for either luxury tax (if it remains, calculation toward revenue sharing, or salary cap purposes.

Revenue-sharing

Here's another of the major issues that must be resolved to end this labor dispute. Many teams are suffering and because of that this system must be expanded to give teams in smaller markets an infusion of cash.

While its unclear if the Owners have relented on their demands to be allowed to determine revenue sharing amongst themselves, its clear the whole system of revenue sharing must be expanded. Currently certain items of revenue including that from local TV deals are not included in revenue. I would remove those restrictions and include all moneys earned through operation of the franchise used to calculate revenue.

[Darius]

From what I've read, they screwed up hugely on that CBA, expecting more money than came. And most experts agree that the last CBA is one of the worst in sports (for ownership).
Just because they made errors in the last one doesn't mean it should continue...

No-one's saying that the owners are without blame, but there has to be some accountability for the players. At the moment, I don't believe there is.

I agree they shouldn't just continue.

But, at the same time, it's disingenuous to moan about being victimized by the current state of affairs when they themselves were the architects of it.

Likewise, in a partnership situation, you are going to come across in bad faith when you want to take a hardline stance and dramatically renegotiate a deal that you happily signed not all that long ago.

[Math2]

I have a question for you: wouldn't you consider a business model as flawed, where the employee makes more than the employer?

Most valid point this whole thread...how come no one has answered it?

[Sarcastic]

Most valid point this whole thread...how come no one has answered it?

Not a valid point at all for 2 reasons.

1. The NBA is unlike any other business since the employee is also the product, and not replaceable.

2. It's not true at all. When Lebron James went to the Miami Heat, the value of the franchises went up about $200 million. Lebron didn't make more than that, nor did the entire team combined.

[LJJ]

Most valid point this whole thread...how come no one has answered it?

Someone did answer the question, read the article Eat like a bosh posted. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6874079/psychic-benefits-nba-lockout

The answer is that owning an NBA franchise is not like owning a simple business that is purely about making money. It's not like owning the local laundromat chain. Owning a basketball team gives you prestige and if you are a fan of basketball it gives you a lot of satisfaction and pleasure. Don't like the amount of pleasure and satisfaction and prestige you are getting as an owner? Sell the team to someone who actually is a fan of the sport, it's as simple as that.

Note that I don't necessarily 100% agree with that argument. But it does provide a counterpoint.

[Darius]

Most valid point this whole thread...how come no one has answered it?

The question isn't whether the business model is flawed.

The question is who do you blame.

If a company enters into a 10 year contract with another company and, when the contract comes up for renewal they start complaining they lost their shirt and need to dramatically renegotiate, who is the blame?

It's the company who made the poor strategic decision in the first place.

[Math2]

Not a valid point at all for 2 reasons.

1. The NBA is unlike any other business since the employee is also the product, and not replaceable.

2. It's not true at all. When Lebron James went to the Miami Heat, the value of the franchises went up about $200 million. Lebron didn't make more than that, nor did the entire team combined.

:facepalm If a companies demand goes up, does that mean that the salaries should go up?

Products get cut all the time. They don't have to play if they don't want to...good luck to them. THey won't make a QUARTER of what they do now....

[Sarcastic]

:facepalm If a companies demand goes up, does that mean that the salaries should go up?

Products get cut all the time. They don't have to play if they don't want to...good luck to them. THey won't make a QUARTER of what they do now....

And the NBA isn't a multi-billion dollar product without the best basketball players on the planet. They can't get a TV deal with scrubs just because they have an NBA logo on the shirt, nor are they allowed to run their monopoly without a collectively bargained agreement with the players union.

Stop thinking of this as some normal business where the boss has total control and can just call any shot he wants. It doesn't work that way, and if the NBA tried to run itself that way, it would sued into oblivion and put out of business.

[Math2]

And the NBA isn't a multi-billion dollar product without the best basketball players on the planet. They can't get a TV deal with scrubs just because they have an NBA logo on the shirt, nor are they allowed to run their monopoly without a collectively bargained agreement with the players union.

Stop thinking of this as some normal business where the boss has total control and can just call any shot he wants. It doesn't work that way, and if the NBA tried to run itself that way, it would sued into oblivion and put out of business.

Why shouldn;t it be run that way?

[Sarcastic]

Why shouldn;t it be run that way?

Because it breaks the law.

[Math2]

Because it breaks the law.

How so.

[Sarcastic]

How so.

The NBA is allowed to run as a monopoly by the government on the sole condition that it has a collectively bargained agreement with the player's union.

No CBA, no NBA.

[Math2]

The NBA is allowed to run as a monopoly by the government on the sole condition that it has a collectively bargained agreement with the player's union.

No CBA, no NBA.

That doesn't mean that they should have to agree to what the players want.

[Sarcastic]

That doesn't mean that they should have to agree to what the players want.

No, not with everything but they have to bargain with each other and come to an agreement. The owners can't just make up all the rules on their own.

[with malice]

I agree they shouldn't just continue.

But, at the same time, it's disingenuous to moan about being victimized by the current state of affairs when they themselves were the architects of it.

Likewise, in a partnership situation, you are going to come across in bad faith when you want to take a hardline stance and dramatically renegotiate a deal that you happily signed not all that long ago.
Well, it's not like they created the CBA alone. The players had a role in that too. And as stated before: a global recession was hardly predictable.
And when any business finds themselves in a situation where they are losing money, it's ridiculous to expect them to continue along that path merely because they agreed to it (with the players) in the first place. Surely they have the right to renegotiate it - that's why the CBAs expire...

[B]

Owners.

This is a lockout, not a strike.

.The CBA expired. The owners by articles of labor law have to lockout the players or they can be open to being charged with violations of antitrust law.

Using the "owners locked them out" as a way to point the finger of blame is ignorant. Both sides negotiated both sides could not come to a deal before the CBA expired.

[B]

I agree they shouldn't just continue.

But, at the same time, it's disingenuous to moan about being victimized by the current state of affairs when they themselves were the architects of it.


Exactly, it's called the "Collective Bargaining Agreement"
"Collective" being the key word.

[swi7ch]

Blame goes like this: agents > owners > stern > players

[with malice]

Guys, sorry about my tendency to answer several posts at one time - I don't have time/opportunity to be on here that frequently!


Not a valid point at all for 2 reasons.

1. The NBA is unlike any other business since the employee is also the product, and not replaceable.

2. It's not true at all. When Lebron James went to the Miami Heat, the value of the franchises went up about $200 million. Lebron didn't make more than that, nor did the entire team combined.
Ridiculous.
1. Is that a legitimate stance? To be ok with one side of the equation sustaining a level of profitability that ensures the other side loses it? How is that not a flawed business model?
The NFL operates at a profit. And I wouldn't jump to say "it makes more money", all that means is that the player's slice of the pie should be adjusted accordingly. The NBA can make money on both sides. This is not in question.
2. It'd be a pretty amazing position to say that an owner has to sell his team to attain a profit...



The answer is that owning an NBA franchise is not like owning a simple business that is purely about making money. It's not like owning the local laundromat chain. Owning a basketball team gives you prestige and if you are a fan of basketball it gives you a lot of satisfaction and pleasure. Don't like the amount of pleasure and satisfaction and prestige you are getting as an owner? Sell the team to someone who actually is a fan of the sport, it's as simple as that.

Note that I don't necessarily 100% agree with that argument. But it does provide a counterpoint.
May have been true 2 decades ago, or even 1... but not now. Saying "well, you should be a better fan" to ownership doesn't justify the lion's share of a profitable business going to the employee.


And the NBA isn't a multi-billion dollar product without the best basketball players on the planet. They can't get a TV deal with scrubs just because they have an NBA logo on the shirt, nor are they allowed to run their monopoly without a collectively bargained agreement with the players union.

Stop thinking of this as some normal business where the boss has total control and can just call any shot he wants. It doesn't work that way, and if the NBA tried to run itself that way, it would sued into oblivion and put out of business.
I don't understand why said "multi-billion dollar product" can't be profitable for both players and owners. Why does it have to be slanted towards the player? Sure: as you stated, it doesn't exist without the players. It'd be a pretty shoddy product without ownership too...

Stating that it should stay as is because a) the owners agreed to it at the last CBA, and b) because the league wouldn't work without the players - it's not viable, nor realistic. Nor is pointing to some supposed ideal of altruism on the behalf of ownership.

The NBA makes money. I do not blame owners for believing they'd like to see a bit of this rather than accumulate losses to the point of where they have to to sell their team (of course, this isn't all teams... but it's a large proportion).

[senelcoolidge]

It's a lockout, so the owners hold the cards. Now if there really is a rift between the owners than I would fault them now. But I can't blame the owners at the same time. If you have a business you protect it..you make the calls. The players will fold eventually. The owners should have fixed this a long time ago and those horrid contracts..I still wonder why they made them. So really everyone is at fault. The players may end up hurting themselves more than anything. Guys like Kobe and Lebron will be fine..but other guys..fringe or underpaid guys will suffer. Also regular everyday people that work for these franchises and fans suffer. It's depressing. It actually makes me lose respect for both sides. I don't think I'll look at these people the same again..owners and players especially.

[A.M.G.]

The main problem for the owners is that the players are irreplaceable. Bottom line, flatout. Which honestly is something you can't say for the owners, trainers, ballboys, etc. You don't have a grocery store without gorceries.
Yeah, but the groceries don't own the grocery store. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, and does not serve your argument. It actually equates the players to having the intelligence and ambition of fruits and vegetables and frozen pizzas and such.

Then again, 99% of your argument for a brand new player owned and run league is fundamentally flawed, so maybe it's appropriate that your analogy is so laughable:

a) it isn't going to happen, I have not heard a single NBA player suggest it, not even a rumor. So stop acting like it's GOING to happen.

b) most of the players actually CAN be replaced in the short term, quite easily believe it or not. I'm talking about the scrubs and most of the young players. There are a lot of fairly talented American players overseas or languishing in minor leagues who would absolutely leap at the opportunity to be role players in the NBA. It's only that top 20% or so of players, the stars, who would be irreplacable, but they would have to be united in their desire to leave the NBA behind forever and start their own league. If the NBA still had say half of the superstars and all-stars, it could still get by. It would be less talented players on the court, ie. poorer product/lower ratings/lower attendance, but they could get by, especially if they were paying all those players a lot less. So you would need to get enough of the NBA's talent united behind the concept and execution of a player owned league to cripple the NBA, which would be a hell of a lot harder than you think. Most players would want to keep playing in the NBA, would cut a deal, would not take the risk.

c) it would almost certainly fail if they tried. The logistics and expenses of organizing a newnational basketball league, hiring people to run it, hiring all new coaching training staff, people to design new logos, team names, uniforms, setting up franchises in cities, getting T'V, arena, and endorsement deals done, would be enormous. I don't think the players would even have enough money between them to pull it off, especially because most of them spend so much of their salaries on big assed houses, luxury cars, supporting family members(NBA players, and pro athletes in general, are not the most fiscally responsable demographic). They're rich bastards, but they're not "Let's start a new league on our own dime" rich. They would get investors I suppose, but that would be difficult in and of itself.

d) Even beyond the money aspect, I doubt most players have the business knowledge to handle that kind of project, even though they would be hiring people to do most of the work for them, they are ultimately the decision-makers and financiers, and they wouldn't be able to handle it. They're athletes, not professional business men.

e) even if the players were willing to come together, risk all their money, and put in the massive amount of work required to start a league to compete with and supplant the NBA (if they even had enough money between them + investors), where are they going to play? The NBA would probably be able to keep them out of the current NBA arenas, so this new league would end up playing in second and third rate buildings. And would they be able to work out new TV deals? Endorsement deals? That's a lot more work, a lot more convincing people that this new league can work.

f) even if the players have more money between them than I suspect, AND they were willing to risk it on the insanely expensive adventure of starting a player-run league (even with investors, they would be putting up a lot of their own money right?), it probably wouldn't be profitable for the first couple of seasons, and it would fold. There would be too many problems.

And now you're probably going to be angry at me for telling you that you're idea is stupid. Well if that is you're response, you can shove it up your ass. You keep expunging this concept of a player owned and run league like it's the only thing that even makes sense, when it is in fact a stupid thing to argue so strongly in favor of. I won't deny that the product the NBA sells is the best basketball players in the world, competing to represent major North American cities. The players are hugely important, maybe they should be making as much money as they are, they deserve a large percentage of the profits to be sure. Maybe the owners are being total ***** in this current lockout, and are almost totally responsible for it, and are the ones fans should be mad at.

But even if you think a player-owned league is such a great idea, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN REALITY, FOR INNUMBERABLE REASONS, SO YOU CAN SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. Groceries aren't intelligent or ambitious. You don't see the frozen foods walking out of a store and starting their own frozen foods store to try and sell themselves. To put it in a broader context, in business, products don't generally sell themselves. I know that there's a slight difference, in that NBA players are human beings, not inanimate manufactured goods and natural resources, but hey, it's your grocery store analogy.

[A.M.G.]

Obviously NBA owners shouldn't be expected to operate their franchises at a loss year in year out. By the same token, players should not have to take a huge pay cut.

The bottom line is that the two sides should have been talking about this, and should have been able to come to a resolution, long before it came to a lockout. I am forced to assume then that the owners wanted a lockout in order to coerce greater concessions from the players in the new CBA. Therefore, I blame the owners.

And you know what I can do about it as a fan? Absolutely nothing, unless I am willing to stop watching NBA games and following the league. Which I won't be doing. So instead I will just piss and moan uselessly about the stupidity of this lockout, until it ends.

[Faberg]

Owners, because they are clearly waiting for the players to crack once they start missing out on checks. They have little to no intention to really collectively bargain and compromise. They want to give the players the shittiest offer possible by using missed checks & games as leverage. After a breakthrough season in terms of interest & popularity, they rather ruin it all to get what they can. Shame. End the lockout. :facepalm

[with malice]

Owners, because they are clearly waiting for the players to crack once they start missing out on checks. They have little to no intention to really collectively bargain. If they lose games, this shit is going to have a negatively long lasting impact. Shame. :facepalm
How does the owners being resolved to redress the CBA amount to them being the villains of the piece?
I agree that losing games would be negative, but I still think the players get far too heady a reward, with absolutely no risk. The reverse: the owners get all the risk, with very little (sometimes 'no') reward.

[97 bulls]

Yeah, but the groceries don't own the grocery store. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, and does not serve your argument. It actually equates the players to having the intelligence and ambition of fruits and vegetables and frozen pizzas and such.
the whole concept for owning a business is to sale a product to make money. I know your not so shallow that you can't draw a parallel.

Then again, 99% of your argument for a brand new player owned and run league is fundamentally flawed, so maybe it's appropriate that your analogy is so laughable:

a) it isn't going to happen, I have not heard a single NBA player suggest it, not even a rumor. So stop acting like it's GOING to happen.

b) most of the players actually CAN be replaced in the short term, quite easily believe it or not. I'm talking about the scrubs and most of the young players. There are a lot of fairly talented American players overseas or languishing in minor leagues who would absolutely leap at the opportunity to be role players in the NBA. It's only that top 20% or so of players, the stars, who would be irreplacable, but they would have to be united in their desire to leave the NBA behind forever and start their own league. If the NBA still had say half of the superstars and all-stars, it could still get by. It would be less talented players on the court, ie. poorer product/lower ratings/lower attendance, but they could get by, especially if they were paying all those players a lot less. So you would need to get enough of the NBA's talent united behind the concept and execution of a player owned league to cripple the NBA, which would be a hell of a lot harder than you think. Most players would want to keep playing in the NBA, would cut a deal, would not take the risk.

c) it would almost certainly fail if they tried. The logistics and expenses of organizing a newnational basketball league, hiring people to run it, hiring all new coaching training staff, people to design new logos, team names, uniforms, setting up franchises in cities, getting T'V, arena, and endorsement deals done, would be enormous. I don't think the players would even have enough money between them to pull it off, especially because most of them spend so much of their salaries on big assed houses, luxury cars, supporting family members(NBA players, and pro athletes in general, are not the most fiscally responsable demographic). They're rich bastards, but they're not "Let's start a new league on our own dime" rich. They would get investors I suppose, but that would be difficult in and of itself.

d) Even beyond the money aspect, I doubt most players have the business knowledge to handle that kind of project, even though they would be hiring people to do most of the work for them, they are ultimately the decision-makers and financiers, and they wouldn't be able to handle it. They're athletes, not professional business men.

e) even if the players were willing to come together, risk all their money, and put in the massive amount of work required to start a league to compete with and supplant the NBA (if they even had enough money between them + investors), where are they going to play? The NBA would probably be able to keep them out of the current NBA arenas, so this new league would end up playing in second and third rate buildings. And would they be able to work out new TV deals? Endorsement deals? That's a lot more work, a lot more convincing people that this new league can work.

f) even if the players have more money between them than I suspect, AND they were willing to risk it on the insanely expensive adventure of starting a player-run league (even with investors, they would be putting up a lot of their own money right?), it probably wouldn't be profitable for the first couple of seasons, and it would fold. There would be too many problems.

And now you're probably going to be angry at me for telling you that you're idea is stupid. Well if that is you're response, you can shove it up your ass. You keep expunging this concept of a player owned and run league like it's the only thing that even makes sense, when it is in fact a stupid thing to argue so strongly in favor of. I won't deny that the product the NBA sells is the best basketball players in the world, competing to represent major North American cities. The players are hugely important, maybe they should be making as much money as they are, they deserve a large percentage of the profits to be sure. Maybe the owners are being total ***** in this current lockout, and are almost totally responsible for it, and are the ones fans should be mad at.

But even if you think a player-owned league is such a great idea, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN REALITY, FOR INNUMBERABLE REASONS, SO YOU CAN SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. Groceries aren't intelligent or ambitious. You don't see the frozen foods walking out of a store and starting their own frozen foods store to try and sell themselves. To put it in a broader context, in business, products don't generally sell themselves. I know that there's a slight difference, in that NBA players are human beings, not inanimate manufactured goods and natural resources, but hey, it's your grocery store analogy.
The rest of your post isn't really worth responding to. I don't mind having discussions. But if your gonna write a long ass essay as to why you disagree with me and then finish it off with "shove it up my ass" then we really have nothing to say to each other.

[97 bulls]

How does the owners being resolved to redress the CBA amount to them being the villains of the piece?
I agree that losing games would be negative, but I still think the players get far too heady a reward, with absolutely no risk. The reverse: the owners get all the risk, with very little (sometimes 'no') reward.
I had a similar conversation with some buddies today. One of them used the same example as you. Implying that the owners take all the risks, another replied that's not totally true. How much money would lebron james or prime kobe bryant command on the open market? Probably twice what they're making now. But they can't cuz the owners demanded a cap for player salaries. Isn't that taking a risk? Because if the league isn't flourishing, the owners are gonna want some concessions from the players. Which is why we are here right now. And if the league is successfull, the players can only capitalize on it so much due to the salary restrictions

[Faberg]

How does the owners being resolved to redress the CBA amount to them being the villains of the piece?
I agree that losing games would be negative, but I still think the players get far too heady a reward, with absolutely no risk. The reverse: the owners get all the risk, with very little (sometimes 'no') reward.

Just split it 50-50. I don't see why the players have to make all these concessions to the owners and the owners won't come off the hard cap or make a counter proposal. Increased revenue sharing should help a lot. They're just going through the motions just to wait and see how the players react to missed checks.

[the_wise_one]

It actually equates the players to having the intelligence and ambition of fruits and vegetables and frozen pizzas and such.


This is not totally invalid.

[with malice]

I had a similar conversation with some buddies today. One of them used the same example as you. Implying that the owners take all the risks, another replied that's not totally true. How much money would lebron james or prime kobe bryant command on the open market? Probably twice what they're making now. But they can't cuz the owners demanded a cap for player salaries. Isn't that taking a risk? Because if the league isn't flourishing, the owners are gonna want some concessions from the players. Which is why we are here right now. And if the league is successfull, the players can only capitalize on it so much due to the salary restrictions
Man... anyone taking a guaranteed contract of millions per year is clearly not taking a risk.
And as alluded to before by someone else, the "open market" is a null and void argument. There is no such thing, and the reasons as to why have been gone over at length here, and I suspect ad infinitum elsewhere.

Now... moving on from that: the players have no risk at all on their side of the CBA. I'm fine with that concept, but compensation should take that into consideration.

[with malice]

Just split it 50-50.
If the players agreed to split it 50-50 post cost (net rather than gross revenue), I think ownership would agree to that in a heartbeat.

[knicksman]

wow people herer really think that players are irreplaceable when they are being replaced right now by ncaa. ncaa ratings >>>nba ratings

[2LeTTeRS]

wow people herer really think that players are irreplaceable when they are being replaced right now by ncaa. ncaa ratings >>>nba ratings

Generally people watch NBA and NCAA basketball for different reasons. Many NCAA fans watch the game out of school pride or allegiance to their region, you don't really see that type of allegiance to NBA teams. When people watch NBA ball they do it to see the best players in the world, if you replace that with a sub-par product what reason do I have to watch?

[with malice]

Generally people watch NBA and NCAA basketball for different reasons. Many NCAA fans watch the game out of school pride or allegiance to their region, you don't really see that type of allegiance to NBA teams. When people watch NBA ball they do it to see the best players in the world, if you replace that with a sub-par product what reason do I have to watch?
The reality is that that (a sub-par product) is never going to happen. You're never going to get an NBA where the top players aren't playing.

[Sarcastic]

wow people herer really think that players are irreplaceable when they are being replaced right now by ncaa. ncaa ratings >>>nba ratings

People watch the tournament because it is so heavily gambled on. No one watches regular season NCAA basketball at all.

[knicksman]

Generally people watch NBA and NCAA basketball for different reasons. Many NCAA fans watch the game out of school pride or allegiance to their region, you don't really see that type of allegiance to NBA teams. When people watch NBA ball they do it to see the best players in the world, if you replace that with a sub-par product what reason do I have to watch?

nba would have those loyal fans if there was parity. Time has come for fans that nba has become boring for them due to the fact that its always lakers or boston and other big market teams.

NCAA is a subpar product yet they gain more ratings than nba. And. Nba has the money to market the players to make it appear that they are as talented as the current players.

[knicksman]

People watch the tournament because it is so heavily gambled on. No one watches regular season NCAA basketball at all.

because there are lots of teams in the ncaa.

And thats the reason why nba has less viewers coz its so predictable with the lack of parity. Nobody wants to gamble against the lakers/celtics/bulls or other big market teams.

[Sarcastic]

because there are lots of teams in the ncaa.

And thats the reason why nba has less viewers coz its so predictable with the lack of parity. Nobody wants to gamble against the lakers/celtics/bulls or other big market teams.

LMAO, NCAA doesn't have parity. The same few schools win year after year. The small schools might get an upset or 2 in the first few rounds, but by and large the same schools from the same conferences are in the Final Four every year.

And parity does nothing to drive interest. Baseball has more parity than football, yet it doesn't get better ratings. The past 10 years, there have been 9 different World Series winners. In the same time, the NFL has only 7 different teams win the Super Bowl. On top of that, the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots have almost exclusively been the AFC representative.

If you want to take it back further, in the past 30 years the NFL has 15 different Super Bowl winners, and MLB has 19 different World Series winners.

So now tell me, is parity what drives football or is it football that drives football?

[Math2]

I had a similar conversation with some buddies today. One of them used the same example as you. Implying that the owners take all the risks, another replied that's not totally true. How much money would lebron james or prime kobe bryant command on the open market? Probably twice what they're making now. But they can't cuz the owners demanded a cap for player salaries. Isn't that taking a risk? Because if the league isn't flourishing, the owners are gonna want some concessions from the players. Which is why we are here right now. And if the league is successfull, the players can only capitalize on it so much due to the salary restrictions


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

That's hilarious....more money than they make now? and what risk?

[Sarcastic]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

That's hilarious....more money than they make now? and what risk?

Lebron certainly deserves more than he makes now. The Miami Heat went up in value by $200 million when he signed there.

[winwin]

Yeah, but the groceries don't own the grocery store. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, and does not serve your argument. It actually equates the players to having the intelligence and ambition of fruits and vegetables and frozen pizzas and such.

Then again, 99% of your argument for a brand new player owned and run league is fundamentally flawed, so maybe it's appropriate that your analogy is so laughable:

a) it isn't going to happen, I have not heard a single NBA player suggest it, not even a rumor. So stop acting like it's GOING to happen.

b) most of the players actually CAN be replaced in the short term, quite easily believe it or not. I'm talking about the scrubs and most of the young players. There are a lot of fairly talented American players overseas or languishing in minor leagues who would absolutely leap at the opportunity to be role players in the NBA. It's only that top 20% or so of players, the stars, who would be irreplacable, but they would have to be united in their desire to leave the NBA behind forever and start their own league. If the NBA still had say half of the superstars and all-stars, it could still get by. It would be less talented players on the court, ie. poorer product/lower ratings/lower attendance, but they could get by, especially if they were paying all those players a lot less. So you would need to get enough of the NBA's talent united behind the concept and execution of a player owned league to cripple the NBA, which would be a hell of a lot harder than you think. Most players would want to keep playing in the NBA, would cut a deal, would not take the risk.

c) it would almost certainly fail if they tried. The logistics and expenses of organizing a newnational basketball league, hiring people to run it, hiring all new coaching training staff, people to design new logos, team names, uniforms, setting up franchises in cities, getting T'V, arena, and endorsement deals done, would be enormous. I don't think the players would even have enough money between them to pull it off, especially because most of them spend so much of their salaries on big assed houses, luxury cars, supporting family members(NBA players, and pro athletes in general, are not the most fiscally responsable demographic). They're rich bastards, but they're not "Let's start a new league on our own dime" rich. They would get investors I suppose, but that would be difficult in and of itself.

d) Even beyond the money aspect, I doubt most players have the business knowledge to handle that kind of project, even though they would be hiring people to do most of the work for them, they are ultimately the decision-makers and financiers, and they wouldn't be able to handle it. They're athletes, not professional business men.

e) even if the players were willing to come together, risk all their money, and put in the massive amount of work required to start a league to compete with and supplant the NBA (if they even had enough money between them + investors), where are they going to play? The NBA would probably be able to keep them out of the current NBA arenas, so this new league would end up playing in second and third rate buildings. And would they be able to work out new TV deals? Endorsement deals? That's a lot more work, a lot more convincing people that this new league can work.

f) even if the players have more money between them than I suspect, AND they were willing to risk it on the insanely expensive adventure of starting a player-run league (even with investors, they would be putting up a lot of their own money right?), it probably wouldn't be profitable for the first couple of seasons, and it would fold. There would be too many problems.

And now you're probably going to be angry at me for telling you that you're idea is stupid. Well if that is you're response, you can shove it up your ass. You keep expunging this concept of a player owned and run league like it's the only thing that even makes sense, when it is in fact a stupid thing to argue so strongly in favor of. I won't deny that the product the NBA sells is the best basketball players in the world, competing to represent major North American cities. The players are hugely important, maybe they should be making as much money as they are, they deserve a large percentage of the profits to be sure. Maybe the owners are being total ***** in this current lockout, and are almost totally responsible for it, and are the ones fans should be mad at.

But even if you think a player-owned league is such a great idea, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN REALITY, FOR INNUMBERABLE REASONS, SO YOU CAN SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. Groceries aren't intelligent or ambitious. You don't see the frozen foods walking out of a store and starting their own frozen foods store to try and sell themselves. To put it in a broader context, in business, products don't generally sell themselves. I know that there's a slight difference, in that NBA players are human beings, not inanimate manufactured goods and natural resources, but hey, it's your grocery store analogy.

1- wrap this long ass essay with aluminium foil
2- "shove it up your ass"






-

[Math2]

Lebron certainly deserves more than he makes now. The Miami Heat went up in value by $200 million when he signed there.
:lol :roll:

I'd like to see him make AN EIGHTH of that ANYWHERE.

If a company's value goes up, does everyone get a raise....

:roll: :roll:

LOL get real

[Math2]

Lebron certainly deserves more than he makes now. The Miami Heat went up in value by $200 million when he signed there.


Just because the value goes up, does that means he should get all of it? Who INVESTS the $$$$$$$

:lol

[Sarcastic]

Just because the value goes up, does that means he should get all of it? Who INVESTS the $$$$$$$

:lol

Did I say he should get all of it? Miami is a pretty shitty franchise. They get 3 super stars and still can't sell out the building every night. They certainly are not worth that extra $200 million without him.

If someone is the main reason that something goes up in value, are you saying that person shouldn't benefit? How anti-capitalist of you if you are.

[Math2]

Did I say he should get all of it? Miami is a pretty shitty franchise. They get 3 super stars and still can't sell out the building every night. They certainly are not worth that extra $200 million without him.

If someone is the main reason that something goes up in value, are you saying that person shouldn't benefit? How anti-capitalist of you if you are.

They should, but they already get more than their fair share.

[Sarcastic]

They should, but they already get more than their fair share.

Some get more, some get less. Unfortunately because of the cap on individual contracts, we don't know the true value of most players and what they could earn on the open market.

[gasolina]

Did I say he should get all of it? Miami is a pretty shitty franchise. They get 3 super stars and still can't sell out the building every night. They certainly are not worth that extra $200 million without him.

If someone is the main reason that something goes up in value, are you saying that person shouldn't benefit? How anti-capitalist of you if you are.
I'm not even sure where you're getting those numbers. Your favorite website "Forbes" reports only $61M increase in "Value" from 2009 to 2010.

Further, the "Value" doesn't include liabilities (as mentioned in the webpage Note #1).

Another thing is operating income. What operating income? They have a net loss of $6M for the year.

I don't even know what "Value" means. Surely its not the selling price of the team, because if you buy the team, it also means you assume its liabilities, which coincidentally is not included in this "Value".

[hawkfan]

A pure hard cap with no exceptions is a terrible idea.
It would force Dwight Howard to leave Orlando, since they are far above the cap with a lot of bad contracts.
How is that good for the league.

The players offered 53% of BRI, which is down from 57%. So that is a good thing. The next thing is shortening contracts.

Lower the BRI down to 51.5% and 5 year max regular contracts, 3 years MLEs and a deal can be had.

[bagelred]

That's hilarious....more money than they make now? and what risk?

What risk? The owners OWN while the players are just laborers. So the owners get all the valuation increases of the franchises while the players get ZERO of that.

The moment a player can't play, he has nothing to show for it. The owners can own the franchise forever, which historically has gone up and up and up. About 10% a year supposedly.

So what's the risk exactly for these billionaires?


Lebron deserves WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than he's making, with all the revenue he generates for the league. So does Kobe.

Corey Maggette? John Salmons? Stephen Jackson?........eh........not so much.

[knicksman]

LMAO, NCAA doesn't have parity. The same few schools win year after year. The small schools might get an upset or 2 in the first few rounds, but by and large the same schools from the same conferences are in the Final Four every year.

And parity does nothing to drive interest. Baseball has more parity than football, yet it doesn't get better ratings. The past 10 years, there have been 9 different World Series winners. In the same time, the NFL has only 7 different teams win the Super Bowl. On top of that, the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots have almost exclusively been the AFC representative.

If you want to take it back further, in the past 30 years the NFL has 15 different Super Bowl winners, and MLB has 19 different World Series winners.

So now tell me, is parity what drives football or is it football that drives football?

At the end of the day ncaa has more parity than nba thats why it has higher ratings.


Baseball might have more parity than football but it doesnt matter as long as the 2 have higher ratings than nba because those 2 have more parity than nba.

The reason why nfl is more popular because it is more entertaining. Just like basketball. Thats why football>basketball>baseball in college but when it comes to pro nfl>mlb>nba. Why do you think so genius?Parity.

[Droid101]

Corey Maggette?
How dare you.

[Sarcastic]

At the end of the day ncaa has more parity than nba thats why it has higher ratings.


Baseball might have more parity than football but it doesnt matter as long as the 2 have higher ratings than nba because those 2 have more parity than nba.

The reason why nfl is more popular because it is more entertaining. Just like basketball. Thats why football>basketball>baseball in college but when it comes to pro nfl>mlb>nba. Why do you think so genius?Parity.

Define "parity".

[with malice]

What risk? The owners OWN while the players are just laborers. So the owners get all the valuation increases of the franchises while the players get ZERO of that.

The moment a player can't play, he has nothing to show for it. The owners can own the franchise forever, which historically has gone up and up and up. About 10% a year supposedly.

So what's the risk exactly for these billionaires?


Lebron deserves WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than he's making, with all the revenue he generates for the league. So does Kobe.

Corey Maggette? John Salmons? Stephen Jackson?........eh........not so much.
Ummm... say what? If a player doesn't play - say injury - then his salary still gets paid. How on earth could that be considered a risk for the player - other than career-ending injuries (which are becoming rarer than before as medical science advances).
Marry that up to the fact that a disproportionate amount of NBA owners lose money on their investments.

Enough on the "the franchise is worth $XXX" guys. Surely an owner shouldn't have to sell their franchise merely to recoup lost dollars.

Something that's become a truism for the NBA:
How do you make a small fortune out of being an NBA owner? Start with a big one...

[with malice]

A pure hard cap with no exceptions is a terrible idea.
It would force Dwight Howard to leave Orlando, since they are far above the cap with a lot of bad contracts.
How is that good for the league.

The players offered 53% of BRI, which is down from 57%. So that is a good thing. The next thing is shortening contracts.

Lower the BRI down to 51.5% and 5 year max regular contracts, 3 years MLEs and a deal can be had.
I think you'll find that ownership will want a re-working of what is considered "Basketball Related Income".

[Math2]

What risk? The owners OWN while the players are just laborers. So the owners get all the valuation increases of the franchises while the players get ZERO of that.

The moment a player can't play, he has nothing to show for it. The owners can own the franchise forever, which historically has gone up and up and up. About 10% a year supposedly.

So what's the risk exactly for these billionaires?


Lebron deserves WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than he's making, with all the revenue he generates for the league. So does Kobe.

Corey Maggette? John Salmons? Stephen Jackson?........eh........not so much.

Should someone that makes tape dispensers be paid based on how many of the tape dispensers he makes sells? :roll: Bad logic.

[Droid101]

If you are still on the owner's side, please read this article. Actually, everyone should read it.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics

[quote]Ten years ago, a New York real estate developer named Bruce Ratner fell in love with a building site at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues in Brooklyn. It was 22 acres, big by New York standards, and within walking distance of four of the most charming, recently gentrified neighborhoods in Brooklyn

[97 bulls]

Just because the value goes up, does that means he should get all of it? Who INVESTS the $$$$$$$

:lol
Oh I see. Its an investment as long as the owners make money. But if the investment doesn't pan out, then they want their money back.

[Droid101]

Continued:

[quote]
Ratner knew this would not be easy. The 14 acres he wanted to raze was a perfectly functional neighborhood, inhabited by taxpaying businesses and homeowners. He needed a political halo, and Ratner's genius was in understanding how beautifully the Nets could serve that purpose. The minute basketball was involved, Brooklyn's favorite son

[Math2]

Oh I see. Its an investment as long as the owners make money. But if the investment doesn't pan out, then they want their money back.

LOLWUT? Where'd you pull that one from? If it doesn't pan out then they sell it...lol what does that have to do with anything? and it is their fault if they pick a bad investment....

[with malice]

If you are still on the owner's side, please read this article. Actually, everyone should read it.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics
So... because Simmon's Grantland has a particular barrow to push, and that there ARE owners who make money (quite a few only outside of the NBA tho'), that makes the disparity in financial division "A-ok"?

It blows my mind that anyone is angry that the owners want to redress the split - sheesh, it's not even a 50/50 divide, and the players aren't expected to address any of the costs.

[knicksman]

Define "parity".

equality. Hard cap which makes all owners in the same footing

[hawkfan]

http://oneanswer.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/06chat_otissmith.jpg

"I don't want a hard cap. I like bad contracts. If you have one, send them to me. I'll take them."

[Sarcastic]

equality. Hard cap which makes all owners in the same footing


Ok, so are you telling me the University of New Hampshire has an equal chance to win as does Duke?

[Faberg]

equality. Hard cap which makes all owners in the same footing

Hard cap doesn't necessarily mean parity.

[with malice]

Hard cap doesn't necessarily mean parity.
Absolutely true... tho' it creates something a lil' closer to it.

[Sarcastic]

Absolutely true... tho' it creates something a lil' closer to it.

It won't stop the Timberwolves from drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the lottery of the first round. A hard cap can't fix stupid.

[with malice]

It won't stop the Timberwolves from drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the lottery of the first round. A hard cap can't fix stupid.
Nor will it stop guys taking seasons off when they've "just been paid"...

[Sarcastic]

Nor will it stop guys taking seasons off when they've "just been paid"...

Besides Eddy Curry, name these players who took seasons off (non injury).

[with malice]

Besides Eddy Curry, name these players who took seasons off (non injury).
Immediately after getting a new contract? Hell, the last contract Z-Bo had, his following season dipped considerably. I'd be a bit nervous if I were Memphis...
Vince Carter's another one that springs to mind.

There's a reason why people talk about players being better in a contract year...
Sure, it's a bit of a cliche - but it's based on something.

[Sarcastic]

Immediately after getting a new contract? Hell, the last contract Z-Bo had, his following season dipped considerably. I'd be a bit nervous if I were Memphis...
Vince Carter's another one that springs to mind.

There's a reason why people talk about players being better in a contract year...
Sure, it's a bit of a cliche - but it's based on something.

It's not that they didn't try. Vince Carter just got old. Z-Bo doesn't really "fit" in most systems. He plays hard for himself though if you give him the ball.

[with malice]

Before Vince got old, Vince got lazy. And Z-Bo has changed immensely since his "fat" days.

[Sarcastic]

Before Vince got old, Vince got lazy. And Z-Bo has changed immensely since his "fat" days.

He was a 20 point scorer every year until he hit 32, which is the age most players start to decline, and especially for a player like him that uses his athleticism so much. Did you expect him to jump forever?

[knicksman]

Ok, so are you telling me the University of New Hampshire has an equal chance to win as does Duke?

Still ncaa has a new champion every year and theres no dynasty in it so its still parity. NCAA is not NBA where teams are only limited

[Sarcastic]

Still ncaa has a new champion every year and theres no dynasty in it so its still parity. NCAA is not NBA where teams are only limited

Because Duke has never won back to back. Florida didn't win back to back.

I won't even mention UCLA from the past, because that completely destroys you.

[knicksman]

He was a 20 point scorer every year until he hit 32, which is the age most players start to decline, and especially for a player like him that uses his athleticism so much. Did you expect him to jump forever?

You know why these players are lazy. Coz they knew their teams dont have an equal chance with the big market teams. If I were a player too, why would I care about winning when I knew stern only wants lakers or boston and other big market teams to be in the finals. And the same with the owners, why would they care about winning when titles can be bought by the big market teams. Thats why nba sucks compared to ncaa, nfl and mlb. Coz players dont care about winning, owners dont care about winning and so were getting mediocre products/services. And mediocre products means unsatisfied fans so it equals lesser fans going to stadiums. And thats the reason why we have a lockout right now because most teams are empty. Which in turn, cannot generate revenues to pay the players who provides these mediocre services anyways.

[knicksman]

Because Duke has never won back to back. Florida didn't win back to back.

I won't even mention UCLA from the past, because that completely destroys you.

yah coz back to back is the same as 15 rings, 17, 6, etc. Wheres your math bro?

[Sarcastic]

yah coz back to back is the same as 15 rings, 17, 6, etc. Wheres your math bro?

You really bringing up the Russell Celtics when there was 8 teams?

[LJJ]

It won't stop the Timberwolves from drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the lottery of the first round. A hard cap can't fix stupid.

When people talk about parity, they mean it in the "every team has equal opportunities" sense. Not in the "every team is exactly the same quality" sense.

[knicksman]

You really bringing up the Russell Celtics when there was 8 teams?

ok lets look at the past 20 years. chicago-5, houston, 2, lakers 5, boston 1, spurs-4. thats 13 of 20. not bad eh

[knicksman]

When people talk about parity, they mean it in the "every team has equal opportunities" sense. Not in the "every team is exactly the same quality" sense.

What can you do?Lots of posters in here are idiots

[Sarcastic]

When people talk about parity, they mean it in the "every team has equal opportunities" sense. Not in the "every team is exactly the same quality" sense.

Are we talking about money or winning?

If it's winning, then every team already does have the equal opportunities. If it's about money, well that can never be equal just due to regional differences. A business in NY will usually do better than a similar business in Indiana just because there are so many more opportunities in NY than anywhere. Life isn't always fair, and this is one of those situations.

[bagelred]

Here's a post I wrote for another thread, but it's appropriate for this one too:

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol

[Sarcastic]

Here's a post I wrote for another thread, but it's appropriate for this one too:

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol

Actually a lot of people to clamor for a salary cap in baseball, but the Yankees have agreed to share their money with everyone, so it shuts them up, and they all make profit. The Pirates make money every year thanks in part to the "Yankee tax". Even despite the huge advantages the Yankees have, it hasn't translated into any more titles. They have 1 in the last 10 years. With such a huge advantage, one would think they should win every year. But it turns out that money doesn't buy championships. It can help you remain competitive for longer periods of time, but it never actually gets you over the top.

And as I pointed out earlier in this thread, baseball actually has more parity than football, despite the huge gulf in team salaries. 9 different World Series winners in the last 10 years, as opposed to 7 different Super Bowl winners in the last 10 years. On top of that the Colts, Steelers, and Patriots have dominated their conference. If football really had parity, wouldn't teams like the Chiefs, Bengals, Raiders, or Lions at some point eventually make it to or win the Super Bowl. Fact is the NFL has just as many bottom dwellers as MLB and NBA. The NFL also creates a faux parity by using a single elimination playoff which gives the opportunity for flukes to happen. Best of 7 series almost never have flukes. Anytime you do a single elimination tournament, you allow for the possibility of the best team NOT winning.

[nycelt84]

I find it odd how in Europe they follow a much more socialist system overall but their sports are run in a free market system.

In America people tend to be more for the free market but so many people prefer their sporting leagues to be in a socialist system. It's nothing short of weird.

[Sarcastic]

I find it odd how in Europe they follow a much more socialist system overall but their sports are run in a free market system.

In America people tend to be more for the free market but so many people prefer their sporting leagues to be in a socialist system. It's nothing short of weird.

What I find odd is that people LOVE to say they want parity, but when it actually happens, they never watch. Look at the year George Mason went to the Final Four. It was one of the worst rated ones ever. The Spurs (small market) have been part of the 2 worst rated Finals ever. If parity is so great, why is it not reflected in the ratings?

[pegasus]

What I find odd is that people LOVE to say they want parity, but when it actually happens, they never watch. Look at the year George Mason went to the Final Four. It was one of the worst rated ones ever. The Spurs (small market) have been part of the 2 worst rated Finals ever. If parity is so great, why is it not reflected in the ratings?

They all want their teams to have a chance to compete, but if it's not their team in the finals, they don't watch it. So, it's really either pleasing only two teams' fans in the end, or pleasing the whole world except for a few small city fans.

[Sarcastic]

They all want their teams to have a chance to compete, but if it's not their team in the finals, they don't watch it. So, it's really either pleasing only two teams' fans in the end, or pleasing the whole world except for a few small city fans.

If it's about making money, then it is better to cater to the world population than just Milwaukee and Sacramento.

[knicksman]

I find it odd how in Europe they follow a much more socialist system overall but their sports are run in a free market system.

In America people tend to be more for the free market but so many people prefer their sporting leagues to be in a socialist system. It's nothing short of weird.

Because in europe, its a real competition because its against countries whereas in american sports, they are just friendly competition because the teams are all on the same country so they care more about the success of the league as a whole like nba, nfl, mlb rather than just their team like in europe.

[knicksman]

If it's about making money, then it is better to cater to the world population than just Milwaukee and Sacramento.

if it is about making money then your concern is to sell those arenas in the small markets during the regular season. And the best way to do it is to give them hope that there team has a chance to win.

[UtahJazzFan88]

Honestly, I think the competitiveness of the NBA really isn't a problem, I do think there needs to be a few small incentives to keep the smaller markets in a better place, I think there needs to be a bigger gap of money you can pay a star player, so if he wants to play in a bigger market, he will have a bigger reduction in pay. I think there does need to be some revenue sharing between teams to keep the Milwaukee's, Sacramento's, and New Orleans alive. I would like to see a hard cap, but it's not absolutely necessary if you can implement other incentives to smaller markets. In short, make the incentive bigger for a player to stay in a small market, make some of these teams at least more profitable, I don't think a hard cap is the total answer to parity, but I think it might be necessary.

The Heat, Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Knicks are making plenty of money, but there needs to be a system in place for EVERY team to be able to make money, and sharing a bit of the revenue is something that needs to be done, I'm sure most people don't care about Milwaukee or Sacramento, but I would truly miss watching the Jazz go to those places if it were to come to contraction.

[UtahJazzFan88]

What I find odd is that people LOVE to say they want parity, but when it actually happens, they never watch. Look at the year George Mason went to the Final Four. It was one of the worst rated ones ever. The Spurs (small market) have been part of the 2 worst rated Finals ever. If parity is so great, why is it not reflected in the ratings?

I'm not buying the George Mason logic, they were probably the reason I DID watch it, I wouldn't be as enticed to watch if it was another Big East team.

Also, I'm not totally buying into the Spurs logic anymore either, NBA is different than in 2003. I'm not going to say the small market didn't have any reason for the ratings, but the Spurs were TOO good that it was boring for most people. If you put OKC in the finals, people would watch so the small market idea is not right.

[hawkfan]

A hard cap is bad for small markets, because if they get one bad contract then the entire franchise is dragged down because no one will want to take that on.

The Cavs got Baron Davis and a first round pick because if the Cavs somewhere get really good this year and are able to get into the playoffs, then the owner would spend money to over the cap. Otherwise, under a hard cap they have to say no, because who would want 2 years of Davis's bad contract.

Size of markets doesn't matter at all. What matters is if you have a star player who can carry a team. OKC is a small market, but as long as they have Kevin Durant, they can compete in the playoffs. San Antonio is a small market, but they had Tim Duncan in his prime and they were able to compete.

Dallas won not because they were spending money but because their players were finally willing to sacrifice this year and Dirk worked on his game.

[Sarcastic]

if it is about making money then your concern is to sell those arenas in the small markets during the regular season. And the best way to do it is to give them hope that there team has a chance to win.

They get more money from the TV deals, and not from ticket sales.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba2/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba2-blog480.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1-blog480.jpg

Even MLB which has double the games, doesn't make most of its money from ticket sales.

[longtime lurker]

Here's a post I wrote for another thread, but it's appropriate for this one too:

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol

This man is on the money. And if the season is cancelled both the owners and players are to blame, although it seems that the players have been willing to make more concessions.

[with malice]

This man is on the money. And if the season is cancelled both the owners and players are to blame, although it seems that the players have been willing to make more concessions.
The players are willing to make more concessions because they are on the far, far better deal.

[knicksman]

They get more money from the TV deals, and not from ticket sales.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba2/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba2-blog480.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1-blog480.jpg

Even MLB which has double the games, doesn't make most of its money from ticket sales.


NFL has the highest ticket sales despite the 16 games. If only the nba could generate that kind of revenue for only 16 games, then it could generate around 8.5 billion(1660 * (82/16)). But we cant coz nba only wants big market teams to win thus discouraging fans from small market teams to support their respective teams. Even nhl has higher ticket sales as of now than nba.

And LOL. Looks like the nba is performing better when jordan retired and before jordan won his first chip in 1989-1990. Look at operating margin(21.3%, 22.4% and 28.2%I think it was at the time detroit won. Hmm why is that so?maybe because a small market wON?

and during the down years, the nba performed worse when lakers is winning(7%,5.8%, 9.3% in 99-02) then 6.1 and 4.8 in 09 and 2010. So that means that the league is more exciting when there is fairness in the league. And if you think the cleveland/san antonio(8.2%) and new jersey/san antonio year(6.5%) sucks, well that year performed better than lakers/phila 5.8%, lakers/orlando 6.1% and LAKERS/BOSTON:lol 4.8%.

[knicksman]

They get more money from the TV deals, and not from ticket sales.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba2/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba2-blog480.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1-blog480.jpg

Even MLB which has double the games, doesn't make most of its money from ticket sales.

Oh btw thanks for this data coz this just proves that the nba as a whole didnt really performed well when jordans bulls dominated or when the lakers dominated like you keep on repeating.

[knicksman]

Oh btw thanks for this data coz this just proves that the nba as a whole didnt really performed well when jordans bulls dominated or when the lakers dominated like you keep on repeating.

EDIT: Never thought that NHL has the same amount of games as NBA so this just really proves that parity is better coz NHL is now having more ticket sales than NBA