Mr. Stern: where does it say that all NBA teams have to make a profit?

[magicmanfan]

I don't understand why every freakin' team in the league has
to make a profit? Which seems to be the stance the league has
taken.....

In the old days, struggling teams were sold and the new owners
were responsible for improving the situation... Now it seems like
the owners want guaranteed profits, no matter what type of
product they put on the floor...

That's wrong IMO.

I do think players salaries have risen too fast, but that's the
owner's fault, they gave the fat contracts out..... Now they want
the players to give up hundreds of millions of dollars when it
was the owners who created the problem? That's BS.

[iamgine]

Not really. If the profit is guaranteed, then they can focus on creating a champion.

Hard cap, profit sharing. That's the way to go.

[SourGrapes]

Not really. If the profit is guaranteed, then they can focus on creating a champion.

Hard cap, profit sharing. That's the way to go.

Nothing is stopping them from focusing on creating a champion right now. This has nothing to do with winning and everything to do with owners spending too much on a team because they wanted the glory of team ownership

[InspiredLebowski]

It's not about every team being profitable. It's about 22 teams (allegedly) losing money. When 73% of your league doesn't make money that's a problem.

[AMISTILLILL]

It's a broken business model, dude. Arguing from your perspective is like throwing punches under water.

[Walker]

I do think players salaries have risen too fast, but that's the
owner's fault, they gave the fat contracts out..... Now they want
the players to give up hundreds of millions of dollars when it
was the owners who created the problem? That's BS.

How did the owners create the problem?
Do people seriously not understand the concept "if you don't pay someone will"
The owners are paying these contracts because that's what this system demands, is that really so hard to understand?
How would you like it if your team was never willing to compete for players? They'd be at the bottom of the table year in year out losing every good young player they draft because, IF THEY DON'T PAY SOMEONE ELSE WILL.

Teams are meant to be trying to win the championship right? That entales getting the best players you can. You do that by paying them as much as you possibly can. As the system works now teams are able to pay more than they can really afford.

[SourGrapes]

How did the owners create the problem?
Do people seriously not understand the concept "if you don't pay someone will"
The owners are paying these contracts because that's what this system demands, is that really so hard to understand?
How would you like it if your team was never willing to compete for players? They'd be at the bottom of the table year in year out losing every good young player they draft because, IF THEY DON'T PAY SOMEONE ELSE WILL.

Teams are meant to be trying to win the championship right? That entales getting the best players you can. You do that by paying them as much as you possibly can. As the system works now teams are able to pay more than they can really afford.

There are several teams who don't overpay players to the extent their franchises are harmed. And they are competitive. That is an owner problem.

Another owner problem is paying too much for a team and expecting massive changes as a result. They didn't have to pay that amount. The reason they did is likely because they wanted the benefit and prestige of team ownership

[longtime lurker]

It's not about every team being profitable. It's about 22 teams (allegedly) losing money. When 73% of your league doesn't make money that's a problem.

Agreed, but how much of it is due to the players and how much of it is due to bad management, bad business decisions and maybe some of these markets just can't simply support a basketball team. Problem is the owners are blaming everything on player salaries trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

[Sarcastic]

Why was 57% ok in 1999, but now it's not?

[dak121]

Why was 57% ok in 1999, but now it's not?

The economy went to shit.

[ProfessorMurder]

Owning a team is a symbolic 'f*ck you, look at how much money I have', not a way to get richer. People seem to forget that.

If you can't afford to lose a few million, don't buy a f*cking team.

[ProfessorMurder]

It's a broken business model, dude. Arguing from your perspective is like throwing punches under water.

Throwing punches underwater worked pretty well in Top Secret: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrC6OHTSn0

[RazorBaLade]

In what business does the owner make less money than the employees?

[Sarcastic]

The economy went to shit.

The only thing that has changed is that the interest that owners have to pay has gone up. You see when an owner buys a team, they don't make the entire payment all at once. They spread the payments over several years and pay interest on the loan. What has changed is that the cost of interest is no longer as cheap as it was back in 1999.

But please explain to me why the players should be responsible for the interest payments an owner has to make, but they are not able to receive any of the profit a team makes when the value of the team appreciates in value?

[Sarcastic]

In what business does the owner make less money than the employees?

Steve Jobs makes $1 per year in salary. He is the lowest paid employee at Apple, going by salary.

[knicksman]

Steve Jobs makes $1 per year in salary. He is the lowest paid employee at Apple, going by salary.

Where in the quote did he say salary as an employee. I guess if your weak in logic then it follows that your also weak in reading comprehension :D

[Sarcastic]

Where in the quote did he say salary as an employee. I guess if your weak in logic then it follows that your also weak in reading comprehension :D

College coaches make more money than the presidents of the schools.

There's an example of an employee making more money than an employer.

[chips93]

College coaches make more money than the presidents of the schools.

There's an example of an employee making more money than an employer.

a school president isnt the employer

the people who fund the school are the employers

[Eat Like A Bosh]

People seem to forget that a sports business is different, and it's not all about profits. If you are not into it, you really shouldn't be owning a team int he first place.

[knicksman]

College coaches make more money than the presidents of the schools.

There's an example of an employee making more money than an employer.

you really said that the president is the owner. That shows how idiot you are.:lol

[Sarcastic]

you really said that the president is the owner. That shows how idiot you are.:lol

I never said owner. I said employer.

[Sarcastic]

Is the ultimate goal of a team to win or to make profit?

If it's to make profit, then every team should be forced to run itself as cheaply as Donald Sterling does the Clippers. Owners like Mark Cuban should not be allowed to pimp out the locker room, and give all the amenities to his players.

If it's to win, then profit shouldn't even matter.

[Chalkmaze]

Is the ultimate goal of a team to win or to make profit?...

It's to win AND make a profit.

[Sarcastic]

It's to win AND make a profit.

Not always possible.

[Chalkmaze]

Not always possible.

But that is the ULTIMATE goal and it should always be possible. If the only way to win is to lose money, that's ridiculous, and that's why you have lockouts to correct the situation to where it makes a little more rational sense.

[Sarcastic]

But that is the ULTIMATE goal and it should always be possible. If the only way to win is to lose money, that's ridiculous, and that's why you have lockouts to correct the situation to where it makes a little more rational sense.

Why should any business be guaranteed to make profit? If a pro basketball team can guarantee profit, then shouldn't we have pro basketball teams in ever city across the country? I mean we can fix the entire economy just by having basketball teams in every city.

[knicksman]

I never said owner. I said employer.

owner and employer are the same

[Chalkmaze]

Why should any business be guaranteed to make profit? If a pro basketball team can guarantee profit, then shouldn't we have pro basketball teams in ever city across the country? I mean we can fix the entire economy just by having basketball teams in every city.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/0f/f4/f2/a-bit-of-a-stretch.jpg

You tend to go off topic when you don't have a good rebuttle. (fixing the economy wth?)

1 - Bottom line is that a hardcap is the best way to have a FAIR competition. That's all I and most of the people in smaller markets want, a league that's fair. Allowing one team to spend as much as it wants versus another that can't afford to is like watching prime Mike Tyson fight Sugar Ray Leonard. It's not fair, it's not fun to watch (unless you like to see bloodbaths). I want to watch a fair competition instead of watching a card game where everyone knows who has stacked decks.

2 - Owner's of business do what they do in order to make a profit.

3 - When you have a league of 30 teams under a league system, it's obvious there will be the cities that have more financial power, and cities that have less financial power. Not everyone can be L.A., so either the league has 5 teams total, or they make a system where they even things out. This makes a strong league that's fun for everyone.

__________________________________________________ _______________

I see the league needing a hardcap so that things are fair and everyone makes money, and if some of the players think they can do better elsewhere, then I say that's what they should do.

I don't like the concept of revenue sharing, but it that can keep things fair, then maybe that's the way to go.

[knicksman]

Is the ultimate goal of a team to win or to make profit?

If it's to make profit, then every team should be forced to run itself as cheaply as Donald Sterling does the Clippers. Owners like Mark Cuban should not be allowed to pimp out the locker room, and give all the amenities to his players.

If it's to win, then profit shouldn't even matter.

The goal of every owner is to win while in ordinary business is to profit. The common between the 2 is that they dont want losses. The problem in the nba is not that they are not profiting but because they are losing.

[knicksman]

Why should any business be guaranteed to make profit? If a pro basketball team can guarantee profit, then shouldn't we have pro basketball teams in ever city across the country? I mean we can fix the entire economy just by having basketball teams in every city.

Because the nba is not a start up business. Nba is an established business and in fact the number 1 basketball sport. If the number 1 basketball sport is losing while euroleague is gaining then that means that youre business has a problem.

[RazorBaLade]

Steve Jobs makes $1 per year in salary. He is the lowest paid employee at Apple, going by salary.

Apple is owned by many people, shareholders. Jobs has a pretty high amount in the company, maybe even 40% or something. Apple is worth 2 billion or so, so he is entitled to 750 million from apple. That means everyone under him, if Apple adopted an NBA system, would be entitled to more than 750 million a piece. This is obviously not the case. semantics wise you got me i guess, he has no salary, but hes paid in stocks.. everyone who works for apple is i think.


College coaches make more money than the presidents of the schools.

There's an example of an employee making more money than an employer.

I believe I said owner, not employer. In any case, I would definitely need a source that the president of a prestigious school makes less money than a coach. But anyways, look at most businesses dude.

walmart. kmart. best buy. sony. NO one makes more money than the person who writes everyone checks. The CEO of Nintendo does not make less money than his assistant. The guy who owns a chain of walmarts does not make less money than the grocery baggers.

What we have, basically, is a system where (if we extremely simplify it) every year, 10 million dollars are made for each team on average. The business makes 10 million. The owner of the business then has to pay his employees, except his employees salary is 20 million. What kind of an employer/owner/CEO would make more money if he retired?

That is freaking ridiculous, right? The players are so totally in the wrong here its insane.

[bagelred]

Mr. Stern: where does it say that all NBA teams have to make a profit?

The Bible, Motherf-cker. Where you think?

"Thou shalt profit from the labor of the coloreds and thus it is said."

[pmj]

In what business does the owner make less money than the employees?

This is a completely false premise. The players aren't just employees, they are THE PRODUCT being sold.

Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc. are NOT replaceable. They are the best basketball playing PRODUCTS in the world.

Put it this way, I have a lemonade stand. For every $1 in revenue I bring in, it costs me $.57 cents to buy the lemonade mix (players), $.10 cents to lease the place my stand is in (arenas), $.10 to pay an employee to make the lemonade (staff), and so on. Anything left over is my profit.

I can't simply choose to not buy my lemonade mix, the whole point of my business is selling lemonade.

I can't simply buy cheaper lemonade, the whole reason my customers come to me is that I am the ONLY one who sells lemonade this good.

That is why the players should get a bigger % of the pie than owners. They are the whole reason people watch, buy merchandise, etc. I agree they should change some dumb rules with crappy contracts, but the whole notion that owners should get more the players makes no sense to me. The players are your most important "operating cost".

[Sarcastic]

This is a completely false premise. The players aren't just employees, they are THE PRODUCT being sold.

Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc. are NOT replaceable. They are the best basketball playing PRODUCTS in the world.

Put it this way, I have a lemonade stand. For every $1 in revenue I bring in, it costs me $.57 cents to buy the lemonade mix (players), $.10 cents to lease the place my stand is in (arenas), $.10 to pay an employee to make the lemonade (staff), and so on. Anything left over is my profit.

I can't simply choose to not buy my lemonade mix, the whole point of my business is selling lemonade.

I can't simply buy cheaper lemonade, the whole reason my customers come to me is that I am the ONLY one who sells lemonade this good.

That is why the players should get a bigger % of the pie than owners. They are the whole reason people watch, buy merchandise, etc. I agree they should change some dumb rules with crappy contracts, but the whole notion that owners should get more the players makes no sense to me. The players are your most important "operating cost".


Exactly.

How much money would the league make if its best player was Sasha Vujacic?

[bdreason]

The idea that every team should be guaranteed profits is ridiculous. You realize how high the value of these teams will skyrocket if they strike a deal that guarantee's profitability? Even the largest corporations in the world and most renowned investment firms in the world can't GUARANTEE profits.

[RazorBaLade]

This is a completely false premise. The players aren't just employees, they are THE PRODUCT being sold.

Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc. are NOT replaceable. They are the best basketball playing PRODUCTS in the world.

Put it this way, I have a lemonade stand. For every $1 in revenue I bring in, it costs me $.57 cents to buy the lemonade mix (players), $.10 cents to lease the place my stand is in (arenas), $.10 to pay an employee to make the lemonade (staff), and so on. Anything left over is my profit.

I can't simply choose to not buy my lemonade mix, the whole point of my business is selling lemonade.

I can't simply buy cheaper lemonade, the whole reason my customers come to me is that I am the ONLY one who sells lemonade this good.

That is why the players should get a bigger % of the pie than owners. They are the whole reason people watch, buy merchandise, etc. I agree they should change some dumb rules with crappy contracts, but the whole notion that owners should get more the players makes no sense to me. The players are your most important "operating cost".

Here's the thing. The only businesses where the product is sentient are sports, films and music. Every where else, like in something like a grocery store, that carries produce, technically the produce is the reason that people come there. So the produce makes the most money. But farmers are the ones who create the produce, and there is no CEO that makes less money than a farmer. So everything besides those 3 things pretty much is no doubt employer makes more money than employee.

Now lets look at the film and music industry. For music we have this:

http://artandavarice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/record-company.gif

A system where the artist makes SO MUCH less money than the owner of the record label.

In movies? Again, no actor or producer or writer makes as much money as their boss, CEO of SONY or warner brothers does.

So we now have all regular businesses, and 2/3 entertainment driven businesses where the owners make more than the employees. Lets look at sports. I don't know about football and baseball, so someone will have to educate me on that, but I know the NHL had a lockout a while ago that again sent the profits back into the favor of the owners. In soccer the owners of clubs make more money as well.

So basically every business besides the NBA has an owner over employer situation. I'll adress your lemonade example hella fast in the next post dont wanna make this too long

[RazorBaLade]

Put it this way, I have a lemonade stand. For every $1 in revenue I bring in, it costs me $.57 cents to buy the lemonade mix (players), $.10 cents to lease the place my stand is in (arenas), $.10 to pay an employee to make the lemonade (staff), and so on. Anything left over is my profit.

I can't simply choose to not buy my lemonade mix, the whole point of my business is selling lemonade.

I can't simply buy cheaper lemonade, the whole reason my customers come to me is that I am the ONLY one who sells lemonade this good.


Because your lemonade is the product, and it does not require salary, this example is totally random.

The best example we can do are actually pimps and prostitutes. The pimp must provide the birth control, and he's selling a product that is the only reason his business exists.. But lo and behold, I've never heard of hookers that make more money than their pimps.

If you have a better example to try to convince me, I'm all ears, but something where you're your own employee and are selling a product that does not require payment in return like a lemonade stand is just silly.

[bdreason]

The 90's called, they want their music industry pie chart back. :oldlol:

[bdreason]

And pimps don't take more than 50%. He makes more than the prostitutes by taking a small % from multiple transactions. That's why pimp's typically have more than one ho.

[iamgine]

I think NBA should be seen as a unity. The teams are owned by the NBA corporation, not the owners. Owners just make an investment to have certain power over the team and get a share of the pie. Kind of like buying stocks in a company. As a unity they make money together, and lose money together.

If the league as a whole make too little money paying the players 57%, then they should definitely fight for a bigger cut.

[Sarcastic]

I think NBA should be seen as a unity. The teams are owned by the NBA corporation, not the owners. Owners just make an investment to have certain power over the team and get a share of the pie. Kind of like buying stocks in a company. As a unity they make money together, and lose money together.

If the league as a whole make too little money paying the players 57%, then they should definitely fight for a bigger cut.

Then NY, LA, and Chicago have to start sharing their money.

[RazorBaLade]

And pimps don't take more than 50%. He makes more than the prostitutes by taking a small % from multiple transactions. That's why pimp's typically have more than one ho.

the point at the end of the day is no one that is the employer makes less money than the employee. in any other business. its ridiculous to have the NBA do that.

[Sarcastic]

the point at the end of the day is no one that is the employer makes less money than the employee. in any other business. its ridiculous to have the NBA do that.

MLB, and NHL. The players make more than the owners.

There are your 2 other businesses.

Now please STFU.

[knicksman]

This is a completely false premise. The players aren't just employees, they are THE PRODUCT being sold.

Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc. are NOT replaceable. They are the best basketball playing PRODUCTS in the world.

Put it this way, I have a lemonade stand. For every $1 in revenue I bring in, it costs me $.57 cents to buy the lemonade mix (players), $.10 cents to lease the place my stand is in (arenas), $.10 to pay an employee to make the lemonade (staff), and so on. Anything left over is my profit.

I can't simply choose to not buy my lemonade mix, the whole point of my business is selling lemonade.

I can't simply buy cheaper lemonade, the whole reason my customers come to me is that I am the ONLY one who sells lemonade this good.

That is why the players should get a bigger % of the pie than owners. They are the whole reason people watch, buy merchandise, etc. I agree they should change some dumb rules with crappy contracts, but the whole notion that owners should get more the players makes no sense to me. The players are your most important "operating cost".

What the players provide are services. The service to entertain people. The difference between product and services is that the products are tangible like apple while services like surgeries, defending a case by lawyers are intangibles. Players are still employees and if you think they are not replaceable then how come ncaa who has lesser talent than nba has higher ratings than nba. That means that these players can be replaced by ncaa talent which can be paid less while generating higher revenue coz of higher ratings.

[knicksman]

Then NY, LA, and Chicago have to start sharing their money.

The league as a whole is losing money so the amount these big market teams earned isnt enough to cover the loses of those teams.

[RazorBaLade]

MLB, and NHL. The players make more than the owners.

There are your 2 other businesses.

Now please STFU.

proof please.

why are you so ****ing butthurt about my opinion?

[Sarcastic]

What the players provide are services. The service to entertain people. The difference between product and services is that the products are tangible like apple while services like surgeries, defending a case by lawyers are intangibles. Players are still employees and if you think they are not replaceable then how come ncaa who has lesser talent than nba has higher ratings than nba. That means that these players can be replaced by ncaa talent which can be paid less while generating higher revenue coz of higher ratings.

People watch the Final Four because it's so easy to gamble on. No one watches the regular season except for hardcore basketball fans and alumni.

[Sarcastic]

proof please.

why are you so ****ing butthurt about my opinion?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg

NHL - 55%
MLB - 54%
NFL before this year - 55%

57% for the NBA should not be out of line, and the players have already agreed to come down to 52%, which is lower than NHL and MLB.

[RazorBaLade]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg

NHL - 55%
MLB - 54%
NFL before this year - 55%

57% for the NBA should not be out of line, and the players have already agreed to come down to 52%, which is lower than NHL and MLB.

Cool thanks. How come the NBA teams are losing money tho ? do most owners in those sports lose money as well?

[tpols]

A system where the artist makes SO MUCH less money than the owne
So we now have all regular businesses, and 2/3 entertainment driven businesses where the owners make more than the employees. Lets look at sports. I don't know about football and baseball, so someone will have to educate me on that, but I know the NHL had a lockout a while ago that again sent the profits back into the favor of the owners. In soccer the owners of clubs make more money as well.

Basketball isn't like soccer or baseball. Basketball is an individual focused sport and those two are both team driven. Basketball players are probably the most idolized individuals out of every other team sport. Basketball players themselves are actually much more well known than any of the teams they play for. They are the product.

[Sarcastic]

Cool thanks. How come the NBA teams are losing money tho ? do most owners in those sports lose money as well?

Because the NBA doesn't have a revenue sharing program like the other sports. The Pittsburgh Pirates have not been competitive for 2 decades, but the Yankees share enough of their money that they can put a shit team on the field and still make money.

BTW, the owner of the Pirates is richer than the Steinbrenners. He just chooses to invest his money in other ventures, while the Steinbrenners put their money back into their team, hence the $200 million payroll.

[RazorBaLade]

Because the NBA doesn't have a revenue sharing program like the other sports. The Pittsburgh Pirates have not been competitive for 2 decades, but the Yankees share enough of their money that they can put a shit team on the field and still make money.

BTW, the owner of the Pirates is richer than the Steinbrenners. He just chooses to invest his money in other ventures, while the Steinbrenners put their money back into their team, hence the $200 million payroll.

Understood. Well then. Why don't the players accept revenue sharing and keep everything else about the same maybe toned down just a bit?.

[Sarcastic]

Again, I'll repeat what has happened to the owners: the cost of borrowing money has gone up significantly over the past decade since the economy went south. The owners don't buy teams with a lump sum payment. They spread the payments out over several years, and pay interest. Now that interest has gone up, they are trying to pass that cost onto the players. That is where their losses are. It is in interest and amortization. (What are they amortizing anyway? A player as he gets older? :confusedshrug: )

I guarantee you that the EBITDA for every team is positive for every team!!!

[Sarcastic]

Understood. Well then. Why don't the players accept revenue sharing and keep everything else about the same maybe toned down just a bit?.

Because Jerry Buss doesn't want to share his $3 billion TV contract that he just signed with Time Warner, with Milwaukee or Sacramento.

[RazorBaLade]

Because Jerry Buss doesn't want to share his $3 billion TV contract that he just signed with Time Warner, with Milwaukee or Sacramento.

Hmm. INteresting.

[Sarcastic]

Just as a comparison between NFL and NBA revenue sharing:

NFL teams receive 70% of their revenues from their revenue sharing program.

NBA teams receive 30% of their revenues from their revenue sharing program.




Therein lies the main problem with the NBA. NY, LA, and Chicago don't want to share their money with the small markets.

[Sarcastic]

Hmm. INteresting.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32183/owners-divide-detrimental-to-talks


The divide centers around the large-market owners' refusal to share their local television revenue. For instance, while Lakers' owner Jerry Buss is willing to share national TV revenue, he wants the money made from his 20-year, $3 billion deal with Time Warner all to himself, according to sources.

[knicksman]

People watch the Final Four because it's so easy to gamble on. No one watches the regular season except for hardcore basketball fans and alumni.

They watch because its more exciting while theres no excitement in the nba. Looks like you just forgot this data that you posted.



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



it shows here that the league is better when there is parity like at the time of jordans first retirement while it has a down year when big markets are winning like LA. The only time that it had high operating margin is when they faced New Jersey(small market team) which posted 9.3% operating margin. And in fact, NHL now has more ticket sales and higher operating margin now that they imposed the hard cap. That means, on the average, there are more fans of NHL than NBA

In conclusion, the league really doesnt care about superstars as evidenced by the increased operating margin at the time of jordans first retirement. And after the 1998 lockout, the year detroit won posted the highest operating margin again which signifies again that fans prefer a team play superstars league.

[Sarcastic]

They watch because its more exciting while theres no excitement in the nba. Looks like you just forgot this data that you posted.



it shows here that the league is better when there is parity like at the time of jordans first retirement while it has a down year when big markets are winning like LA. The only time that it had high operating margin is when they faced New Jersey(small market team) which posted 9.3% operating margin. And in fact, NHL now has more ticket sales and higher operating margin now that they imposed the hard cap.

In conclusion, the league really doesnt care about superstars as evidenced by the increased operating margin at the time of jordans first retirement. And after the 1998 lockout, the year detroit won posted the highest operating margin again which signifies again that fans prefer a team play superstars league.

The highest operating margin occurred during the 1990s when the Bulls dominated, aka Michael Jordan at his peak.

[knicksman]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg

NHL - 55%
MLB - 54%
NFL before this year - 55%

57% for the NBA should not be out of line, and the players have already agreed to come down to 52%, which is lower than NHL and MLB.

The difference is that in NHL, MLB, and NFL, they have parity and thus more revenues so they can afford those salaries. In fact nba now has the lowest operating margin between the 4 leagues

[Sarcastic]

The difference is that in NHL, MLB, and NFL, they have parity and thus more revenues so they can afford those salaries. In fact nba now has the lowest operating margin between the 4 leagues

MLB has parity now? :lol :lol :lol

They don't have any caps at all. The NBA should go to MLB model and drop all caps. They have no team caps, nor any individual caps.

I agree. Let's drop all caps. Free market RULES!!!

[knicksman]

The highest operating margin occurred during the 1990s when the Bulls dominated, aka Michael Jordan at his peak.

LOL the highest is 28.2, 22.4 and 21.3 which happened after jordans first retirement and before his first title.

[Sarcastic]

LOL the highest is 28.2, 22.4 and 21.3 which happened after jordans first retirement and before his first title.

Yea, those are the years the Knicks had a chance at the title.

So the NBA should make sure the Knicks are always competitive. I agree wholeheartedly. :rockon:

[knicksman]

Because the NBA doesn't have a revenue sharing program like the other sports. The Pittsburgh Pirates have not been competitive for 2 decades, but the Yankees share enough of their money that they can put a shit team on the field and still make money.

BTW, the owner of the Pirates is richer than the Steinbrenners. He just chooses to invest his money in other ventures, while the Steinbrenners put their money back into their team, hence the $200 million payroll.

Because the league as a whole lost 300 million. No matter how profitable the big markets are, theyre profit is not enough to compensate the losses. The 300 million loss meaning after the income and losses of all the teams are added and subtracted. If the league as a whole had a profit of 300 million then the losses by other teams even if its 22 teams losing can be solved by a profit sharing.

[knicksman]

Again, I'll repeat what has happened to the owners: the cost of borrowing money has gone up significantly over the past decade since the economy went south. The owners don't buy teams with a lump sum payment. They spread the payments out over several years, and pay interest. Now that interest has gone up, they are trying to pass that cost onto the players. That is where their losses are. It is in interest and amortization. (What are they amortizing anyway? A player as he gets older? :confusedshrug: )

I guarantee you that the EBITDA for every team is positive for every team!!!

if those owners didnt borrow money then these players wouldnt have a job by now coz they have no team to play for. So its really the same as contraction. So what would you rather have? players taking a paycut so all the players would still have a job or removing some players through contraction so the players remaining could retain their current salaries.

[Sarcastic]

Because the league as a whole lost 300 million. No matter how profitable the big markets are, theyre profit is not enough to compensate the losses. The 300 million loss meaning after the income and losses of all the teams are added and subtracted. If the league as a whole had a profit of 300 million then the losses by other teams even if its 22 teams losing can be solved by a profit sharing.

Most of the losses can be attributed to interest and amortization. What are they amortizing? Lebron as he goes from 24 to 25? Also, why should the players be responsible for interest that owners pay to buy their teams? They don't benefit when a team appreciates in value, so why should they be responsible for the costs?

[knicksman]

MLB has parity now? :lol :lol :lol

They don't have any caps at all. The NBA should go to MLB model and drop all caps. They have no team caps, nor any individual caps.

I agree. Let's drop all caps. Free market RULES!!!

LOL youre the one who said MLB has the highest parity. And MLB is not basketball which is team oriented. MLB is really more of an individual game coz theres no teamwork in it so an individual doesnt much have of an impact at all in the outcome of the game. So they can live with no cap unlike the nba, nfl, nhl which are all team oriented sports.

[Sarcastic]

if those owners didnt borrow money then these players wouldnt have a job by now coz they have no team to play for. So its really the same as contraction. So what would you rather have? players taking a paycut so all the players would still have a job or removing some players through contraction so the players remaining could retain their current salaries.

Of course they would have a job. The old owner of the Cavs didn't have to sell the team to Dan Gilbert. He only sold the team because he felt that the team had appreciated enough in value that it was time for him to sell. There are over 1000 billionaires on the planet. There are more than enough of them that would want to invest in an American basketball league.

[knicksman]

Most of the losses can be attributed to interest and amortization. What are they amortizing? Lebron as he goes from 24 to 25? Also, why should the players be responsible for interest that owners pay to buy their teams? They don't benefit when a team appreciates in value, so why should they be responsible for the costs?

Because its the players that benefit from these teams. Without these teams, these players would have no job right now. They would be receiving 1/4 of their current salaries in europe.

[knicksman]

Of course they would have a job. The old owner of the Cavs didn't have to sell the team to Dan Gilbert. He only sold the team because he felt that the team had appreciated enough in value that it was time for him to sell. There are over 1000 billionaires on the planet. There are more than enough of them that would want to invest in an American basketball league.

Then how come new orleans have no owner yet?

[Sarcastic]

LOL youre the one who said MLB has the highest parity. And MLB is not basketball which is team oriented. MLB is really more of an individual game coz theres no teamwork in it so an individual doesnt much have of an impact at all in the outcome of the game. So they can live with no cap unlike the nba, nfl, nhl which are all team oriented sports.

I was just reiterating the common feeling about MLB. I would be more than happy if they dropped all caps from the NBA.


Fact:
The NBA was the first league with cap on team salaries, and the first league with a cap on individual contracts. It's no wonder that they are doing the worst.:rolleyes:

[Sarcastic]

Then how come new orleans have no owner yet?

Because the NBA wants to keep the team in New Orleans. There have been people who wanted to buy the team with the condition they can move the team, but the NBA has said NO. They want the team to stay in NO.

[knicksman]

I was just reiterating the common feeling about MLB. I would be more than happy if they dropped all caps from the NBA.


Fact:
The NBA was the first league with cap on team salaries, and the first league with a cap on individual contracts. It's no wonder that they are doing the worst.:rolleyes:

Yeah dropped all caps so the league would suffer more.

It really doesnt matter if the nba is first or last, when the system is of no use.

[knicksman]

Because the NBA wants to keep the team in New Orleans. There have been people who wanted to buy the team with the condition they can move the team, but the NBA has said NO. They want the team to stay in NO.

Then why not buy the team and remain in new orleans?

[knicksman]

Yea, those are the years the Knicks had a chance at the title.

So the NBA should make sure the Knicks are always competitive. I agree wholeheartedly. :rockon:

yeah coz new york werent contenders during the 1st 3peat of jordan:rolleyes:

[Sarcastic]

Then why not buy the team and remain in new orleans?

New Orlean is broke.

[Sarcastic]

Yeah dropped all caps so the league would suffer more.

It really doesnt matter if the nba is first or last, when the system is of no use.

Why would it suffer more? MLB is doing fine with no caps, as long as they share revenues.

16 years of labor peace. More than NFL, NHL, and NBA.

[iamgine]

Then NY, LA, and Chicago have to start sharing their money.
Of course. That's what's called profit sharing.

Hard cap, profit sharing is the way to go.

[Sarcastic]

Of course. That's what's called profit sharing.

Hard cap, profit sharing is the way to go.

No need for hard cap. Just share profits.

[iamgine]

No need for hard cap. Just share profits.
Hard cap is needed, or else when teams spend they'd be cutting into the shared profits.

[Sarcastic]

Hard cap is needed, or else when teams spend they'd be cutting into the shared profits.

What if an owner like Cuban is willing to forgo his profits?

[iamgine]

Then we're back to not profitable owners.

[Sarcastic]

Then we're back to not profitable owners.

Maybe not all owners care about profit. What are we to do if all 30 owners don't share the same goals?

[iamgine]

Maybe not all owners care about profit. What are we to do if all 30 owners don't share the same goals?
Hard cap.

Let em spend in scout/training facility/better management

[SourGrapes]

But that is the ULTIMATE goal and it should always be possible. If the only way to win is to lose money, that's ridiculous, and that's why you have lockouts to correct the situation to where it makes a little more rational sense.

but that isn't the only way to win. it's been proven many times, over and over. in fact, those who make good financial decisions tend to compete very well

[Sarcastic]

Hard cap.

Let em spend in scout/training facility/better management

They already do.

A hard cap hasn't made the NHL more competitive. Detroit still dominates its division while Columbus still finishes last or almost last every year.

[SourGrapes]

Then we're back to not profitable owners.

wrong. if it isn't profitable to make bad decisions, eventually those decisions won't be made as often.

this idea that owners need to be protected from themselves is pathetic

[iamgine]

wrong. if it isn't profitable to make bad decisions, eventually those decisions won't be made as often.

this idea that owners need to be protected from themselves is pathetic
It's true though.

[iamgine]

They already do.

A hard cap hasn't made the NHL more competitive. Detroit still dominates its division while Columbus still finishes last or almost last every year.
That's NHL. On paper, it should be more competitive while being more profitable.

Or at least just as competitive while being more profitable.

[SourGrapes]

It's true though.

no... it isn't. if they can't make good decisions, they run a loss. if they keep running a loss, they might have to sell to someone who does make good decisions.

with institutions like a hard cap, we keep mediocre owners in the league and reward mediocre results, without increasing the competitive balance

[SourGrapes]

That's NHL. On paper, it should be more competitive while being more profitable.

Or at least just as competitive while being more profitable.

economists who've studied this issue disagree with you :oldlol:

[Sarcastic]

That's NHL. On paper, it should be more competitive while being more profitable.

Or at least just as competitive while being more profitable.

Columbus is more profitable but not more competitive. They still have lousy management and won't get better until that changes. Detroit will still dominate the division because they have better management.


In the NFL, the Detroit Lions didn't get good because of a cap. They got good because they changed management and made smarter decisions.

[iamgine]

no... it isn't. if they can't make good decisions, they run a loss. if they keep running a loss, they might have to sell to someone who does make good decisions.

with institutions like a hard cap, we keep mediocre owners in the league and reward mediocre results, without increasing the competitive balance
Good decision for profit or for competitiveness?

[SourGrapes]

Good decision for profit or for competitiveness?

they are mostly one and the same... check out the okc thunder and new york knicks

[iamgine]

Columbus is more profitable but not more competitive. They still have lousy management and won't get better until that changes. Detroit will still dominate the division because they have better management.


In the NFL, the Detroit Lions didn't get good because of a cap. They got good because they changed management and made smarter decisions.
Which is why the hard cap, profit sharing is useful. It eliminate profit issue and teams have to rely on good management to be successful.

[Sarcastic]

It's true though.

Why should the Blazers be protected from skipping on both Michael Jordan and Kevin Durant. They screwed up 2 times in the draft and picked the wrong player.

Why should the Timberwolves be protected from picking 2 point guards with back to back picks in the lottery? Do you think any NFL team would pick 2 quarterbacks in the first round with back to back picks?

[iamgine]

they are mostly one and the same... check out the okc thunder and new york knicks
Not really. Check out bad teams who are still profitable.

[iamgine]

Why should the Blazers be protected from skipping on both Michael Jordan and Kevin Durant. They screwed up 2 times in the draft and picked the wrong player.

Why should the Timberwolves be protected from picking 2 point guards with back to back picks in the lottery? Do you think any NFL team would pick 2 quarterbacks in the first round with back to back picks?
Protected? No they're not protected? The team will be less competitive as a result of picking the wrong player.

[Sarcastic]

Which is why the hard cap, profit sharing is useful. It eliminate profit issue and teams have to rely on good management to be successful.

Profit sharing is fine. But don't force all teams to use the money in the same way. If one team wants to spend extra for the chance to win, who are you to tell him he can't.

[iamgine]

Profit sharing is fine. But don't force all teams to use the money in the same way. If one team wants to spend extra for the chance to win, who are you to tell him he can't.
That's what a cap supposedly is. Or else why don't we just have no cap like european soccer?

[SourGrapes]

Not really. Check out bad teams who are still profitable.

the fact of the matter is that teams that make good contract decisions do well in the win column and the financial report.

if a team does poorly on the court but still turns a profit, none of the owners can complain

[Sarcastic]

Protected? No they're not protected? The team will be less competitive as a result of picking the wrong player.

They should have to suffer from making poor decisions, hence not making as much profit.

[Sarcastic]

the fact of the matter is that teams that make good contract decisions do well in the win column and the financial report.

if a team does poorly on the court but still turns a profit, none of the owners can complain

The Clippers do poorly on the court, but always make profit.

[Sarcastic]

That's what a cap supposedly is. Or else why don't we just have no cap like european soccer?

Or like baseball where the Rays beat out the Red Sox despite having a payroll of about 1/4 of Boston.

[SourGrapes]

The Clippers do poorly on the court, but always make profit.

exactly. and they aren't a problem for the rest of the owners or the league. meanwhile, teams that utilize free agency and particularly the draft responsibly and smartly gain long term competitiveness without losing money due to years long financial hampers

[iamgine]

the fact of the matter is that teams that make good contract decisions do well in the win column and the financial report.

if a team does poorly on the court but still turns a profit, none of the owners can complain
So that's saying it's okay to not be competitive as long as you're profitable.

[iamgine]

Or like baseball where the Rays beat out the Red Sox despite having a payroll of about 1/4 of Boston.
Rare occurences do happen.

[SourGrapes]

So that's saying it's okay to not be competitive as long as you're profitable.

from the owners' perspective, being profitable seems to be important.

and as we've seen already, good financial decisions tends to lead to increased competitiveness

[iamgine]

from the owners' perspective, being profitable seems to be important.

and as we've seen already, good financial decisions tends to lead to increased competitiveness
Where have we seen that. The league is as competitive as ever but 23 teams are losing money.

[SourGrapes]

Rare occurences do happen.

the rays have been in contention since their latest gm took over several years ago

[iamgine]

the rays have been in contention since their latest gm took over several years ago
Then they'd win more if hard cap was there.

[SourGrapes]

Where have we seen that. The league is as competitive as ever but 23 teams are losing money.

okc thunder
portland trailblazers
utah jazz

are just three examples of teams that don't make bad financial decisions and utilize the draft in such a way to build perennial contenders

hard caps don't increase competitiveness. they just save money... by getting rid of guaranteed contracts. that's all this is about

[SourGrapes]

Then they'd win more if hard cap was there.

it's not the league's job to make sure they win more. jesus that nonsequitar was retarded

edit: and that's wrong anyway. constrictions don't lead to parity or increased competitiveness

[iamgine]

Hard cap should increase competitiveness because everyone have the same cap. So everyone have equal chance to be competitive.

[SourGrapes]

Hard cap should increase competitiveness because everyone have the same cap. So everyone have equal chance to be competitive.

it doesn't. teams with more money spend it on gms and scouts and infrastructure and coaches and facilities and statisticians and all sorts of other investments and end up out competing the teams that don't.

check out points 2 and 3

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/

[Sarcastic]

Hard cap should increase competitiveness because everyone have the same cap. So everyone have equal chance to be competitive.

But it doesn't. MLB has more competitiveness than NFL with no cap at all. 19 different champs in 30 years for baseball compared to 15 different champs for football in 30 years.

[iamgine]

^imagine if they spend it on talent as well, it'd even be much more one sided.

Look at European soccer.

[iamgine]

But it doesn't. MLB has more competitiveness than NFL with no cap at all. 19 different champs in 30 years for baseball compared to 15 different champs for football in 30 years.Every sport is different. I don't know what happen with baseball but look at European soccer. What happen with baseball is actually against the norm.

[SourGrapes]

^imagine if they spend it on talent as well, it'd even be much more one sided.

Look at European soccer.

the point is it's always been one-sided, and it always will be. those who make good decisions about where to spend money do well. those who don't, don't.

hard caps don't increase competitiveness. and it's worth it to allow the owners to determine through their own actions who is good and who isn't. eventually, those owners who make good enough decisions to stick around, do, and those who don't, sell or continue to take losses.

in this way, competition is guaranteed. and it's quality competition

[knicksman]

Why would it suffer more? MLB is doing fine with no caps, as long as they share revenues.

16 years of labor peace. More than NFL, NHL, and NBA.

Then why did nhl change to hard cap?

[Sarcastic]

^imagine if they spend it on talent as well, it'd even be much more one sided.

Look at European soccer.

The only thing that would increase competitive balance would be to increase the number of available superstars in the league or to reduce the number of teams, which would make it more likely that teams end up with a superstar on the team.

[SourGrapes]

Every sport is different. I don't know what happen with baseball but look at European soccer. What happen with baseball is actually against the norm.

mystery solved. you are obviously a scholar and a scientist

[SourGrapes]

The only thing that would increase competitive balance would be to increase the number of available superstars in the league or to reduce the number of teams, which would make it more likely that teams end up with a superstar on the team.

exactly

[knicksman]

Every sport is different. I don't know what happen with baseball but look at European soccer. What happen with baseball is actually against the norm.

baseball is really not a team game despite having so many players coz theres really no cooperation between the players when it comes to offense. So superstars doesnt impact that much and so they can live with no cap

[Sarcastic]

Then why did nhl change to hard cap?

Because player salaries got way out of control and went above 60%. The owners fought back and locked them out till they could get it back under control. When this contract is over the players will strike to get some control back. Believe that.

[SourGrapes]

Because player salaries got way out of control and went above 60%. The owners fought back and locked them out till they could get it back under control. When this contract is over the players will strike to get some control back. Believe that.

people don't seem to realize... all a hard cap is, is a way to eliminate most guaranteed contracts, thereby saving huge amounts of money

[knicksman]

the point is it's always been one-sided, and it always will be. those who make good decisions about where to spend money do well. those who don't, don't.

hard caps don't increase competitiveness. and it's worth it to allow the owners to determine through their own actions who is good and who isn't. eventually, those owners who make good enough decisions to stick around, do, and those who don't, sell or continue to take losses.

in this way, competition is guaranteed. and it's quality competition

If im an owner of a team and knowing that I dont have a chance to compete coz its always the big market who wins because of their ability to spend more, I would rather focus on making a profit rather than winning.Why would I care about winning when I know 80% of the time, its always the big markets who wins? And so we are getting low quality products because of cheap owners and low quality products equals lesser fans. And thats the reason why we are having a lockout coz the fanbase of nba is decreasing. Lesser fans=lesser revenue and thus those revenue arent anymore enough to support the 57% split.

[Sarcastic]

people don't seem to realize... all a hard cap is, is a way to eliminate most guaranteed contracts, thereby saving huge amounts of money

I actually would not have a problem with that as long as they paid their superstars what they are really worth. Lebron and Kobe should both make 50 million considering how much they money they generate.

[SourGrapes]

If im an owner of a team and knowing that I dont have a chance to compete coz its always the big market who wins because of their ability to spend more, I would rather focus on making a profit rather than winning.Why would I care about winning when I know 80% of the time, its always the big markets who wins? And so we are getting low quality products because of cheap owners and low quality products equals lesser fans. And thats the reason why we are having a lockout coz the fanbase of nba is decreasing. Lesser fans=lesser revenue and thus those revenue arent anymore enough to support the 57% split.

your premise here is wrong

there is little to no correlation between market size and wins

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/

why? because spending more doesn't mean more wins. often it's the bad deals not made that make a team. good drafting and avoiding poor decisions in general is the way to go.

otherwise, your story seems to be sensible in a pretend sort of way... like, it seems plausable

edit: and i doubt your point about the reason the nba is "losing" fans. if anything, the game is more popular than ever, and the economy now is bad compared to the economy when many teams were bought/created (90s)

[Sarcastic]

If im an owner of a team and knowing that I dont have a chance to compete coz its always the big market who wins because of their ability to spend more, I would rather focus on making a profit rather than winning.Why would I care about winning when I know 80% of the time, its always the big markets who wins? And so we are getting low quality products because of cheap owners and low quality products equals lesser fans. And thats the reason why we are having a lockout coz the fanbase of nba is decreasing. Lesser fans=lesser revenue and thus those revenue arent anymore enough to support the 57% split.

Every team can compete, as long as they get the proper players. Washington has been crap for a long time, but if John Wall turns out to be as good as projected then Washington's future will be awesome.

[knicksman]

Because player salaries got way out of control and went above 60%. The owners fought back and locked them out till they could get it back under control. When this contract is over the players will strike to get some control back. Believe that.

Then how come nhl has higher ticket sales than nba?Does that mean that they have more fans right now than the nba? What do you think is the cause? Do you think its because of competitiveness?The same with nfl, how come in 16 games, they can generate 1.6 billion compared to 1.1 billion for 82 games in the nba?

[Sarcastic]

If market size mattered, then we should expect the Lakers and Clippers to be equally good and win the same number of titles since they share the same city. When we look at the actual stats we see that the Lakers win a lot, and the Clippers never win. So obviously the city is not the determining factor. What ends up really happening is that the Lakers have good management and the Clippers have lousy management, and THAT is the difference between the 2 teams.

[Sarcastic]

Then how come nhl has higher ticket sales than nba?Does that mean that they have more fans right now than the nba? What do you think is the cause? Do you think its because of competitiveness?The same with nfl, how come in 16 games, they can generate 1.6 billion compared to 1.1 billion for 82 games in the nba?

Because the NHL allows fights to occur in its games. If the NHL removed fighting, it would lose a ton of revenue.

[knicksman]

your premise here is wrong

there is little to no correlation between market size and wins

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/

why? because spending more doesn't mean more wins. often it's the bad deals not made that make a team. good drafting and avoiding poor decisions in general is the way to go.

otherwise, your story seems to be sensible in a pretend sort of way... like, it seems plausable

edit: and i doubt your point about the reason the nba is "losing" fans. if anything, the game is more popular than ever, and the economy now is bad compared to the economy when many teams were bought/created (90s)

There is really a correlation between spending and winning. I doubt dallas wouldve won without their 90M payroll just like the lakers. I doubt they wouldve gasol/bynum on that team if they didnt spend over the cap.

The nba may have an increased fanbase around the world but the fans going to arenas are decreasing. coz if im a fan of a small market team, why would I support them knowing they are not going to win anyway coz of the advantages given to these big markets. Plus sterns constant screwing of teams and I think thats the reason why nba is the only league that suffered from the recession.


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

If the nba really is not losing fans then how come the NHL had higher ticket sales as of now compared to nba and ticket sales is decreasing since 2007 and thats the time when donaghy scandal happened.

[knicksman]

If market size mattered, then we should expect the Lakers and Clippers to be equally good and win the same number of titles since they share the same city. When we look at the actual stats we see that the Lakers win a lot, and the Clippers never win. So obviously the city is not the determining factor. What ends up really happening is that the Lakers have good management and the Clippers have lousy management, and THAT is the difference between the 2 teams.

Because clippers is not as profitable as LA

[knicksman]

Because the NHL allows fights to occur in its games. If the NHL removed fighting, it would lose a ton of revenue.

It is already there since how many years so how come they been only good now?

[Sarcastic]

Because clippers is not as profitable as LA

Clippers make profit every year. They have the cheapest owner in the league that penny pinches in order to squeeze out every cent he can for profit. Despite playing in LA, and making profit, they can't seem to ever win a title.

[knicksman]

The only thing that would increase competitive balance would be to increase the number of available superstars in the league or to reduce the number of teams, which would make it more likely that teams end up with a superstar on the team.

The problem with the nba is not the stars but superstars teaming up. If you can separate them then most teams would be profitable. Just put a hardcap then remove the max player salary cap and teams would choose between ticket sales by signing superstars to 40 million a year or winning. I doubt a team with 40 million could still sign another superstar on that team. But does the union wants that?No coz the midlevel players wont be paid more than their value anymore.

[knicksman]

Clippers make profit every year. They have the cheapest owner in the league that penny pinches in order to squeeze out every cent he can for profit. Despite playing in LA, and making profit, they can't seem to ever win a title.

As I said. The formula for winning is good management + good market= championship. Only few teams are in a good market so only few teams have the chance to win.

[Sarcastic]

As I said. The formula for winning is good management + good market= championship. Only few teams are in a good market so only few teams have the chance to win.

San Antonio is a good market? Detroit is a good market?

What the actual recipe is: good management, good coach, good stars that complement each other. Market means nothing, or else teams like NY, Golden State, Washington DC, and LAC would have won at least 1 title in the last 30 years.

Lakers didn't win multiple titles because they are in LA. They won because they had stars like KAJ, Magic, Shaq, and Kobe.
Bulls didn't win titles in the 90s because they are in Chicago. They won because the Blazers took Sam Bowie, and Michael Jordan fell to 3rd in the draft.
Celtics didn't win titles because they are in Boston. They won because they had Bird, then got the Big 3. They had almost 2 decades of downtime, and being in Boston did nothing for them.

[knicksman]

San Antonio is a good market? Detroit is a good market?

What the actual recipe is: good management, good coach, good stars that complement each other. Market means nothing, or else teams like NY, Golden State, Washington DC, and LAC would have won at least 1 title in the last 30 years.

Lakers didn't win multiple titles because they are in LA. They won because they had stars like KAJ, Magic, Shaq, and Kobe.
Bulls didn't win titles in the 90s because they are in Chicago. They won because the Blazers took Sam Bowie, and Michael Jordan fell to 3rd in the draft.
Celtics didn't win titles because they are in Boston. They won because they had Bird, then got the Big 3. They had almost 2 decades of downtime, and being in Boston did nothing for them.

ARE Ny, Golden State, washington well managed? Never knew Isiah now is a good GM:lol

[Sarcastic]

ARE Ny, Golden State, washington well managed? Never knew Isiah now is a good GM:lol

They're not, and that is why they don't win. San Antonio is very well managed and has made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 years. Being in a small market has done absolutely nothing to stop them from being successful.

[knicksman]

They're not, and that is why they don't win. San Antonio is very well managed and has made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 years. Being in a small market has done absolutely nothing to stop them from being successful.

Of course but only few of them have done that compared to almost 80% from big market teams. 20% for small market. Im not interested in that kind of league.

[Sarcastic]

Of course but only few of them have done that compared to almost 80% from big market teams. 20% for small market. Im not interested in that kind of league.

It's just a coincidence that the teams that win are from a big market. If you look at the history of the Bulls, they have been absolutely awful except for the Jordan years, and now when they got Derrick Rose. The Lakers won championships when they were in Minneapolis as well as in LA.

[rmt]

They're not, and that is why they don't win. San Antonio is very well managed and has made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 years. Being in a small market has done absolutely nothing to stop them from being successful.

With the exception of DET, superstars/multiple stars win championships. SA was successful because they were lucky in the draft - mainly Robinson & Duncan and to a lesser extent, Manu and Parker. Being in a small market has hindered them. If they could spend like LA or MAVS, they would have kept Stephen Jackson and Scola and won even more.

[Sarcastic]

With the exception of DET, superstars/multiple stars win championships. SA was successful because they were lucky in the draft - mainly Robinson & Duncan and to a lesser extent, Manu and Parker. Being in a small market has hindered them. If they could spend like LA or MAVS, they would have kept Stephen Jackson and Scola and won even more.

Just about every team that has won titles has done so with players they drafted or traded for, and not through free agency. The one exception was the Lakers with Shaq.

Lebron didn't even leave his team based on market size. He left because he wanted a better chance to win, and he felt playing with Wade and Bosh gave him the best opportunity to do so. If market size mattered to Lebron, he would have chosen NY, Chicago, or LA Clippers.

[el gringos]

Market size is the most over rated thing ish talks about- really its ownership commitment/management- marketing is so much more national and international than it is local market
------
People don't believe it but carmelo didn't have to leave denver because he needed new york to be an international star- he left denver because the team didn't hire an above min wage player for 4 years in a row and gave away more talent than any other team in the league- had denver still had camby,mcdyss, kleiza, blake as well as something usefull for kmarts max contract salary slot that's a whole different story for carmelo

[knicksman]

It's just a coincidence that the teams that win are from a big market. If you look at the history of the Bulls, they have been absolutely awful except for the Jordan years, and now when they got Derrick Rose. The Lakers won championships when they were in Minneapolis as well as in LA.

Theres nothing coincidence if you win 80% of the time and there are 24 small markets to 6 big markets and you win 80%? I want the league to succeed and so I would try the system of NHL and NFL which are more profitable right now than the nba. Sad that the NBA is now the least profitable when its NCAA counterpart is near football in terms popularity.

[knicksman]

Just about every team that has won titles has done so with players they drafted or traded for, and not through free agency. The one exception was the Lakers with Shaq.

Lebron didn't even leave his team based on market size. He left because he wanted a better chance to win, and he felt playing with Wade and Bosh gave him the best opportunity to do so. If market size mattered to Lebron, he would have chosen NY, Chicago, or LA Clippers.

johnson/kobe forcing their way to lakers. tmac to rockets. kareem to lakers and wilt too. Now amare and melo to NY.

[Sarcastic]

johnson/kobe forcing their way to lakers. tmac to rockets. kareem to lakers and wilt too. Now amare and melo to NY.

Kobe didn't force his way to the Lakers. He was part of a trade on draft day for Vlade Divac.
McGrady was traded to Houston.
Amar'e wanted to stay with Phoenix, but the owner didn't want to give him a full contract. NY was the only team willing to pay him the max.
Melo got traded to NY. He played out his contract. He is also originally from the east coast, and his wife is from NY. Is it so wrong for him to want to play for an east coast team?

The number of players that have forced their way out is far smaller than the number of players who stayed with their original franchise.

Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Olajuwon, Ewing, Isiah, Michael Jordan, David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Dominique Wilkins. The list goes on forever.

[Sarcastic]

Theres nothing coincidence if you win 80% of the time and there are 24 small markets to 6 big markets and you win 80%? I want the league to succeed and so I would try the system of NHL and NFL which are more profitable right now than the nba. Sad that the NBA is now the least profitable when its NCAA counterpart is near football in terms popularity.

Almost all those wins come from 2 teams: Lakers and Celtics. They also happen to be the best run franchise.

NBA doesn't allow for flukes to happen the way the NFL does. If the NBA had a single elimination playoff, then we would see upsets too like we do in the NFL. Patriots would never lose to the Giants in a 7 game series. If the NBA had single elimination, then in 2000 the Lakers would have lost to the Sixers, in 2006 the Mavs would have beaten the Heat, in 2011 the Heat would have beaten the Mavs, in 1991 the Lakers would have beaten the Bulls in Jordan's first finals.

[Pinkhearts]

Steve Jobs makes $1 per year in salary. He is the lowest paid employee at Apple, going by salary.

Sure. Let's pay all the players with stock in the NBA teams. Give Wade 30% of the Miami Heat and pay him $1. I'm sure he'll love that! He can take home 30% of the Heat's annual earnings. Miami will be always under the cap too. Not too sure whether Stern will let this fly though.

[Sarcastic]

Sure. Let's pay all the players with stock in the NBA teams. Give Wade 30% of the Miami Heat and pay him $1. I'm sure he'll love that! He can take home 30% of the Heat's annual earnings. Miami will be always under the cap too. Not too sure whether Stern will let this fly though.

James Dolan wanted to give Lebron stock in MSG if he came to NY, but the NBA wouldn't allow it.

[knicksman]

Kobe didn't force his way to the Lakers. He was part of a trade on draft day for Vlade Divac.
McGrady was traded to Houston.
Amar'e wanted to stay with Phoenix, but the owner didn't want to give him a full contract. NY was the only team willing to pay him the max.
Melo got traded to NY. He played out his contract. He is also originally from the east coast, and his wife is from NY. Is it so wrong for him to want to play for an east coast team?

The number of players that have forced their way out is far smaller than the number of players who stayed with their original franchise.

Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Olajuwon, Ewing, Isiah, Michael Jordan, David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Dominique Wilkins. The list goes on forever.

coz tmac dont want to be orlando. There are teams who are willing to do a sign and trade for amare but he chose new york. Melo wanted new york. kobe/johnson forced their way or else they wont be traded.

[knicksman]

Almost all those wins come from 2 teams: Lakers and Celtics. They also happen to be the best run franchise.

NBA doesn't allow for flukes to happen the way the NFL does. If the NBA had a single elimination playoff, then we would see upsets too like we do in the NFL. Patriots would never lose to the Giants in a 7 game series. If the NBA had single elimination, then in 2000 the Lakers would have lost to the Sixers, in 2006 the Mavs would have beaten the Heat, in 2011 the Heat would have beaten the Mavs, in 1991 the Lakers would have beaten the Bulls in Jordan's first finals.

they are just run the same as other small markets, its just that they can spend more. Im not saying I want a single elimination but I want the playoffs to be best of 5 and make it best of 3 in the first round. And I really dont care if dynasties still happen even with hard cap. I just want all teams to be equal coz its good for the business. But I know you have no idea about business coz you dont realize the importance of fairness. Fairness=more fans=more revenue. Im not a 15 yr old kid who wants the league to be wrestling:lol . Where the more famous wrestler most likely to win.

[magicmanfan]

Why should any business be guaranteed to make profit? If a pro basketball team can guarantee profit, then shouldn't we have pro basketball teams in ever city across the country? I mean we can fix the entire economy just by having basketball teams in every city.

That's exactly why I think the "new" owners are ruining the league.

[magicmanfan]

Almost all those wins come from 2 teams: Lakers and Celtics. They also happen to be the best run franchise.

They had their best TV ratings in years when those two team met....

I wonder what the ratings will be when the finals are....

MIN vs WAS ???????

[with malice]

I get what the gist of your post is magicmanfan, but I also think that if the NBA as a business is making heaps of money, why shouldn't teams be able to make a profit?

[magicmanfan]

I get what the gist of your post is magicmanfan, but I also think that if the NBA as a business is making heaps of money, why shouldn't teams be able to make a profit?

this article on SI explains how the league's hard line for guaranteed
profits is making things worse:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/10/21/lockout/index.html

The players have given up a lot, they may have to give up more,
but the league needs to move too. So far they haven't. Not an inch.

[RazorBaLade]

They had their best TV ratings in years when those two team met....

I wonder what the ratings will be when the finals are....

MIN vs WAS ???????

if min had kobe and was had bron itd be pretty good................

[Sarcastic]

if min had kobe and was had bron itd be pretty good................

Just like Duncan vs Lebron did pretty good too?