Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver killed CBA deal

[QUOTE=guy]I actually feel optimistic if its just those 2 owners that weren't okay with it. If its just 2 owners, I can't imagine them not getting a deal done.

[B][I][U]But man, as much I hate Dan Gilbert, this just makes me hate Lebron even more. Is it really possible that the ultimate result of his "decision" would be possibly missed games or even a season? Not to say he didn't have his right, obviously Gilbert has a bigger axe to grind for how it went down.[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE]

Wow I must compliment you I didn't know it was possible to somehow tie Lebron into this o.O

I believe that owners wants to win. But if you dont give them a chance to win, then dont expect them to compete, they rather go cheap mode and aims to have an income on their investment. Thats why they want a hard cap coz they want to compete. If they only care about money or greedy as some of you think, then they wouldnt settle for a 53% split when they wanted 43 from 57. Theyre not even concerned if it remains the same at 57. All they want is a chance to compete. They already said that the financial aspect is not a concern for them.
Thats why the choice is either hard cap or bigger share of around 43%. Chance to compete or guaranteed income on their investment.

Great job Gilbert. The fact that you pissed off Dolan and Buss shows that you're doing the right thing for the sports of basketball.

**** big market teams like LA & NY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]
Well said.I completely agree.

[QUOTE=knicksman]even if its percentage it doesnt mean that all expenses are also percentage based like salaries so there will be a point where revenues are capable of covering those expenses. And NCAA has parity thats why it has higher ratings than nba. or what you mean is ncaa football.[/QUOTE]

You know which expense is not percentage based? The WNBA.

NCAA athletics does not have parity. The same teams win almost every year. In fact in the football BCS, they only allow certain teams from specific conferences to even play in the championship game. Teams can go undefeated for the season, but if you don't play in the proper conference you can't play for the title. The BCS would rather put teams with 1 loss from their conference than an undefeated team from one of the lower conferences in the title game. How is that parity at all? It's no wonder the SEC has had 7 winners of the national title. Their teams play in the title game every year. How do you think Boise State and TCU feel about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]


Hey man, don't you know? The Lakers only win because they play in LA. Playing in the city of LA guarantees that you win titles.

Just ask Sterling.

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

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

Coz theres still parity in baseball.

[QUOTE]

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

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

Still dallas won with the highest payroll the same with lakers last year. Even if san antonio won four, still big market teams have dominated the past 50 years. I think they won around 40.




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


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



Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]

Thats the reason why they are not selling out coz nobody wants to see a league where its always lakers/boston in the finals.

Maybe for you, you dont want to see a powerhouse in those areas. But majority of people wants it. And thats the reason why nfl and mlb are successful coz their teams can compete.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]You know which expense is not percentage based? The WNBA.

NCAA athletics does not have parity. The same teams win almost every year. In fact in the football BCS, they only allow certain teams from specific conferences to even play in the championship game. Teams can go undefeated for the season, but if you don't play in the proper conference you can't play for the title. The BCS would rather put teams with 1 loss from their conference than an undefeated team from one of the lower conferences in the title game. How is that parity at all? It's no wonder the SEC has had 7 winners of the national title. Their teams play in the title game every year. How do you think Boise State and TCU feel about that?[/QUOTE]

Not all expenses are percentage based. Just like advertising which is a fixed payment no matter how much your revenue is.

Still Ncaa basketball has parity and thats the reason why they have higher ratings than nba.

[QUOTE=knicksman]Coz theres still parity in baseball.[/QUOTE]

Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?


[QUOTE=knicksman]
Still dallas won with the highest payroll the same with lakers last year. Even if san antonio won four, still big market teams have dominated the past 50 years. I think they won around 40.[/QUOTE]

Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.




[QUOTE=knicksman]
Thats the reason why they are not selling out coz nobody wants to see a league where its always lakers/boston in the finals.

Maybe for you, you dont want to see a powerhouse in those areas. But majority of people wants it. And thats the reason why nfl and mlb are successful coz their teams can compete.[/QUOTE]


Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?

[QUOTE=knicksman]Not all expenses are percentage based. Just like advertising which is a fixed payment no matter how much your revenue is.

Still Ncaa basketball has parity and thats the reason why they have higher ratings than nba.[/QUOTE]

I just told you it doesn't have parity. Name me a small school that has won a football or basketball title in the past 20 years.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?




Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.







Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?[/QUOTE]
:lol Ya right, market size has no effect on it. Just *some* of the benefits of being a big market team include:

1) Superstars want to be in big markets (of course there are a few exceptions) and will always find a way to eventually go to a big market team.
2) They can get away with gigantic pay rolls. If you really want parity in this league, revenue sharing is a must.

If you honestly think it is just a coincidence that big market teams have dominated the NBA championships for a while now, you are blind.

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Wow I must compliment you I didn't know it was possible to somehow tie Lebron into this o.O[/QUOTE]

LOL. Hey man, if its Gilbert holding this up, good chance he's doing it cause of what happened in Miami. Not saying Lebron didn't have the right to leave, but the way he did it probably made owners pretty pissed, specifically Gilbert.

[QUOTE=FireDavidKahn]:lol Ya right, market size has no effect on it. Just *some* of the benefits of being a big market team include:

1) Superstars want to be in big markets (of course there are a few exceptions) and will always find a way to eventually go to a big market team.
2) They can get away with gigantic pay rolls. If you really want parity in this league, revenue sharing is a must.

If you honestly think it is just a coincidence that big market teams have dominated the NBA championships for a while now, you are blind.[/QUOTE]

1) Besides Shaq, Lebron, and Bosh name another superstar that has left a small market team for a large market team? Actually I think Toronto is bigger than Miami, so I don't know if he should even be included.

2) I agree revenue sharing is a must, but we don't need parity. People don't like to watch parity. People like to watch great athletes dominate their field.

Do you think the PGA gets better ratings now that the last 10 major winners were all different, or do you think they get better ratings when Tiger Woods is destroying everyone?

Do you think track and field gets better ratings when they get a tight photo finish in the 100m, or do they get better ratings when Usain Bolt is blowing past everyone and setting records?

It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.

Its all Lebrons fault :lol