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

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

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

[QUOTE=boozehound]oh really? Everything from Kmart through the financial industry tells us you are wrong on this.[/QUOTE]

NBA is too big to fail?

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Rose]

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

I think this is correct.

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=kentatm]I think this is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

IE) Chicago did this with Jordan making 30 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[b]The lockout

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

Stay tuned.

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Wanted to bump this thread after I've seen more and more talk about the Owners not being united, with some having no interest in implementing a hard cap. This is the first signs that the Ownership are nowhere near as united as David Stern would like for us to believe. Now that some pre-season activites have been cancelled there are only a few more weeks to go until games will start being cancelled.

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

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE]COMPARISON OF UNITY OF OWNERS vs. PLAYERS

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

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

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]

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

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

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

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

This.

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=iamgine]Well they're not equally run though.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

[QUOTE=iamgine]But that's not the question.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Reality is life isn't fair.... [/QUOTE]
I think this is more about making a system where the difference in advantage is as low as possible. That can indeed be changed.

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Wanted to bump this thread after I've seen more and more talk about the Owners not being united, with some having no interest in implementing a hard cap. This is the first signs that the Ownership are nowhere near as united as David Stern would like for us to believe. Now that some pre-season activites have been cancelled there are only a few more weeks to go until games will start being cancelled.

Stay tuned.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Gee, I wonder which teams are against a hard cap... :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Math2]:wtf: Age limit of 19?!?!? Great, more and more busts, more failed prospects, and YAY! MOre dilution![/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=iamgine]I think this is more about making a system where the difference in advantage is as low as possible. That can indeed be changed.[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Indiana the decade before are great examples of smaller market teams being run very well and excelling to compete with big market teams.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

ANd how could the clippers, who did everything wrong, make Donald Sterling richer[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]Look at what Oklahoma City is doing right now? They have proven you can build a high quality, low market franchise from the ground up quickly. They have EXCELLENT fans and attendance numbers and they are the talk of the town and a top story in the NBA. They have only been in OKC 3 years too.[/QUOTE]
The OKC thunder is a good team to look out for. Remember the mid 90's charlotte hornets. They were selling out arenas with LJ, Zo, and Muggsy. but after the LJ / Zo breakup everything went downhill.

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

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

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

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

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

Just want that advantage be a little less pronounced.

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

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

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

How can that be counter-intuitive?

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

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

How can that be counter-intuitive?[/QUOTE]

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

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

Here are two key issues from this article:

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

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

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

[QUOTE=iamgine]I think this is more about making a system where the difference in advantage is as low as possible. That can indeed be changed.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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