PDA

View Full Version : NBA season likely to be canceled, union chief says at seminar



bears88
08-03-2011, 11:28 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ba-sp-nba-bar-association-0704-20110803,0,5328856.story

avrpatsfan
08-03-2011, 11:40 PM
****

LionsFan..LOL
08-03-2011, 11:42 PM
:sigh:

210Don
08-03-2011, 11:42 PM
greedy bastards....
were the ones who suffer not them.

Slimsim
08-03-2011, 11:46 PM
no one gives a **** about us

D_Rose1118
08-03-2011, 11:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q&ob=av2n

Duddy
08-03-2011, 11:52 PM
****! ****! ****! Had to happen the year I'm going to spend 4 months in Florida. **** u mother****ers!

More-Than-Most
08-04-2011, 12:10 AM
It has to be done. If that amount of teams are losing money then it has to be done. It seems like the nba wants the year lockout to be honest. There wont be basketball this season and because of this lockout I am not sure it will recover. Football/Baseball are already far ahead with hockey starting to gain popularity. This could kill basketball.

3mikee_
08-04-2011, 12:17 AM
Don't think it will "kill" basketball... definitely put it a good notch down below Football. Keep in mind basketball was as popular as ever this season. So the fact that it's going to be gone for a season will definitely drive away a lot of fans but at the same time if you look at the silver lining it'll give a lot of fans anticipation for upcoming season I guess.

Just trying to put a positive spin on things, never thought the NBA and their players were so incapable of being adults and discussing things out.

jkiddvc20
08-04-2011, 12:17 AM
:cry:

VCaintdead17
08-04-2011, 12:19 AM
Sad :(

NYtilIdie
08-04-2011, 12:23 AM
Its funny how the NBA filed a lawsuit against the NBPA saying "they're refusing a good faith negotiation", well last the owners have told us is they're sticking by their hard cap proposal, so technically aren't they doing the same thing? Just because they refuse to agree to your proposal doesn't mean they're "refusing a good faith negotiation".

Stern said only the star players will find work over-seas not the 7th-8th men and believes thats why this deal will get done eventually. Well, last I checked the Kobe's, Lebron's, CP3's, Dwight Howard's make this league so you can go ahead and put a bunch of Eddie House's and Josh Powell's out there, I sure as hell won't be watching.

Stern is trying his best to make the player's out to be the bad guys.

MrfadeawayJB
08-04-2011, 12:27 AM
:cry:

this. :cry:


shame on you NBA GM's and player for being so greedy :no:

Hellcrooner
08-04-2011, 12:28 AM
ok, if they are gonna do it the sooner they announce the cancelling the better.

so the WHOLE stars will sign in europe ( china will not accept players with partial year contracts)

JayHunter
08-04-2011, 12:31 AM
800 million

The_Pharouh
08-04-2011, 12:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q&ob=av2n

this
and it is one of my all time fav songs btw

Sinestro
08-04-2011, 12:34 AM
Saddening but not surprising

ChI_ShIzzLe
08-04-2011, 12:37 AM
What happens to the contracts? Will the players who are supposed to be free agents next summer still be?

MacFitz92
08-04-2011, 12:44 AM
If the season is cancelled, I'm done with basketball and sticking with the NFL and MLB. ****ing ridiculous.

Dade County
08-04-2011, 12:46 AM
onto phase 2.

SC1211
08-04-2011, 12:49 AM
Yeah let's see how long this lasts once players start missing paychecks. European teams aren't rich enough to attract a bunch of talent. Billy Hunter is an idiot. Sorry, but players have been getting away with murder when it comes to things like guaranteed contracts. In the NFL lockout, the owners were being greedy. In this one, it's the players.

Duncan = Donkey
08-04-2011, 12:51 AM
Dont really care, I have lost so much interest in basketball.

JordansBulls
08-04-2011, 01:12 AM
800 million

Damn

joshhorvath
08-04-2011, 01:13 AM
now Americans will know how Canadians felt back in 04/05 when the season was canceled in the NHL.

beasted86
08-04-2011, 01:17 AM
I think the NBA owners want this. Their logic is as simple as underpants gnomes:

Step 1: Lockout NBA players

Step 2: .....

Step 3: Profit

:facepalm:

More-Than-Most
08-04-2011, 01:30 AM
I think the NBA owners want this. Their logic is as simple as underpants gnomes:

Step 1: Lockout NBA players

Step 2: .....

Step 3: Profit

:facepalm:

technically their logic is sound. 22 of the teams are losing money... If the sport is locked out they don't make anything but they don't lose anything either.

knicks_champ
08-04-2011, 01:33 AM
At least we got football back.

Hellcrooner
08-04-2011, 01:34 AM
i dont know any bussinesmen that have an inversion that is been losing money for several years and have not tried to sell it or have declared bankrupcy.

owners are LYING.

no surprise, since big tycoons are trying to FORCE a world crisis THEY are responsible for and use it as an excuse to beat on the working class saying we have to work more hours for less money and with less rights and comfort in order that they stop los.... er not winning as much money as they would want.

Bruno
08-04-2011, 01:42 AM
This could just be political gesturing.

BranWingss
08-04-2011, 01:42 AM
Watch hockey, guys!

shep33
08-04-2011, 01:44 AM
The players will be fine I think, and that's why this lockout will be a long one. Unlike the 1999 lockout, players are ready for this one financially. They were warned about it long ago, and with basketball becoming a global sport, guys will play somewhere. Whether it be in Europe, China, Asia, heck who knows maybe the Arabian Gulf (lot of money to give out there), most good players that want an out will get one.

Owners put themselves in this mess, its 100% their own fault.

meloman1592
08-04-2011, 01:45 AM
All this agreement b.s could SMD!!! Everyone is so ****ing greedy. If you gave me 1million dollars, I'd be fine and go about my business but these millionaires and billionaires wanna cry over ******** when they're ALL swimming in cash!!

beasted86
08-04-2011, 02:14 AM
technically their logic is sound. 22 of the teams are losing money... If the sport is locked out they don't make anything but they don't lose anything either.

Oh, I'm most certain they are losing out on that huge arena lease they have to pay even though there is no NBA season. There are a couple owners who own the rights to the Arena as well, but not a majority.

Whether they are losing more or less is unknown though.

heyman321
08-04-2011, 02:17 AM
Oh, I'm most certain they are losing out on that huge arena lease they have to pay even though there is no NBA season. There are a couple owners who own the rights to the Arena as well, but not a majority.

Whether they are losing more or less is unknown though.

That arena lease will be nothing compared to the profits they make via their own businesses. Ex: I'm sure Mark Cuban is fine being a multi billionaire. The players will cave eventually.

THE GIPPER
08-04-2011, 02:27 AM
well, the nhl lockout helped the nhl greatly so lets hope the same happens here.

WadeKobe
08-04-2011, 02:52 AM
Its funny how the NBA filed a lawsuit against the NBPA saying "they're refusing a good faith negotiation", well last the owners have told us is they're sticking by their hard cap proposal, so technically aren't they doing the same thing? Just because they refuse to agree to your proposal doesn't mean they're "refusing a good faith negotiation".

Stern said only the star players will find work over-seas not the 7th-8th men and believes thats why this deal will get done eventually. Well, last I checked the Kobe's, Lebron's, CP3's, Dwight Howard's make this league so you can go ahead and put a bunch of Eddie House's and Josh Powell's out there, I sure as hell won't be watching.

Stern is trying his best to make the player's out to be the bad guys.

In many ways, they are. 22 teams are losing money? While guys like Joe Johnson bring home max deals? I struggle to see how they are not the bad guys, here.

The fact is, though, that the NBA is doomed to fail and needs contraction badly, but LeBron was the bad guy for saying it a while ago. The fact is that there isn't enough talent to field 16 good playoff teams. A hard cap will make it "more competitive", but it will be watered down and miserable. We need contraction. Without it, the league is doomed.

DerekRE_3
08-04-2011, 03:34 AM
**** the NBA. And **** Stern most of all.

NYtilIdie
08-04-2011, 03:42 AM
In many ways, they are. 22 teams are losing money? While guys like Joe Johnson bring home max deals? I struggle to see how they are not the bad guys, here.

The fact is, though, that the NBA is doomed to fail and needs contraction badly, but LeBron was the bad guy for saying it a while ago. The fact is that there isn't enough talent to field 16 good playoff teams. A hard cap will make it "more competitive", but it will be watered down and miserable. We need contraction. Without it, the league is doomed.

I agree contraction would be a good solution, scrap the teams that don't draw crowds at all like the Bobcats, etc.

But think, who offered Joe Johnson that contract? He sure as hell didn't play for it.

Baller1
08-04-2011, 03:50 AM
Good. **** Stern.

I'm over it to be honest. I should've been over it when my team was stolen, but I couldn't give it up. Stern has basically done everything he can to drive away the fans though.

Kashmir13579
08-04-2011, 03:56 AM
College hoops.

203 Uconn LaL
08-04-2011, 07:02 AM
I expected this I just hope a bunch of rich guys come together and make a new league and put the nba out of business. This makes no sense. Clearly these new owners are not fans of the game.

Iron24th
08-04-2011, 08:02 AM
no one gives a **** about us

+1

Mishmin
08-04-2011, 09:05 AM
College hoops.

should be a good college year.

still

mother****er.

Rivera
08-04-2011, 09:12 AM
lol saw this coming 2 years ago

i would be surprised if there was even a 50 game season

nycericanguy
08-04-2011, 09:18 AM
i dont know any bussinesmen that have an inversion that is been losing money for several years and have not tried to sell it or have declared bankrupcy.

owners are LYING.

no surprise, since big tycoons are trying to FORCE a world crisis THEY are responsible for and use it as an excuse to beat on the working class saying we have to work more hours for less money and with less rights and comfort in order that they stop los.... er not winning as much money as they would want.

I also don't know any business men that would lock out their business if they were making money. Why would owners want a lockout if they're making money? That would mean 1 year without profit.

That being said that just sounds like a negotiation ploy from Hunter. He has to try to convince the NBA that the players are not scared of a canceled season, otherwise the players don't have much leverage.

RLundi
08-04-2011, 10:04 AM
Forget the NBA. I'm so over it now. Whenever it does come back, I hope it slips below the popularity of the NHL so the idiot owners and players realize they're a bunch of greedy degenerates that ruined the game of basketball for fans who were just starting to make it hugely successful again.

Cretins.

BigCityofDreams
08-04-2011, 10:05 AM
Smh

metsfaninSTL
08-04-2011, 10:23 AM
dont really care. im more of a college basketball guy. hopefully they will get something worked out though, i still like nba though

JordansBulls
08-04-2011, 10:27 AM
If the season is cancelled when do the Mavs players get there rings and raise banner?

oak2455
08-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Don't think it will "kill" basketball... definitely put it a good notch down below Football. Keep in mind basketball was as popular as ever this season. So the fact that it's going to be gone for a season will definitely drive away a lot of fans but at the same time if you look at the silver lining it'll give a lot of fans anticipation for upcoming season I guess.

Just trying to put a positive spin on things, never thought the NBA and their players were so incapable of being adults and discussing things out.

If the season is lost it would KILL the NBA, There is no hiding from that fact:eyebrow:

NYman15
08-04-2011, 10:34 AM
I've always felt it would be a long lockout but the past few weeks I've been more and more convinced their won't be a season next year.

bledrules
08-04-2011, 11:02 AM
:clap:
Def good news,the NBA has become a joke

boomrsoonr
08-04-2011, 11:03 AM
It has to be done. If that amount of teams are losing money then it has to be done. It seems like the nba wants the year lockout to be honest. There wont be basketball this season and because of this lockout I am not sure it will recover. Football/Baseball are already far ahead with hockey starting to gain popularity. This could kill basketball.

Should read: "This could kill the NBA."

Basketball is gaining such popularity across the globe, and at an amazing rate. There is no chance the game itself is hurt by this BS, only our National Basketball Association will suffer. And if you ask me, that is 100% a good thing, as our league has become a total joke. I haven't even watched the finals in the last 2 or 3 years.

Go Warriors! (No, I won't jump ship, but yes, it is painful to announce.)

LakersIn5
08-04-2011, 11:13 AM
just keep the 8 teams who make money. for the 22 other. create your own league!!!!! its not the players fault that the teams are losing money. its the owners' fault. if they didnt offer the players those contract then they wouldnt have a problem!

AIMelo=KillaDUO
08-04-2011, 11:18 AM
Who were the 8 teams not losing money??

ChaseHamels
08-04-2011, 11:33 AM
Who were the 8 teams not losing money??

Lakers, Knicks, Bulls...yada yada yada

LanceUpperCut
08-04-2011, 11:37 AM
I'd like to know if there really losing money or they just aren't getting the profits they were expecting. Both sides are wrong here, more so for the owners.
Overall I just really don't give a **** anymore, I love BBall and the NBA but it needs to be fixed and I'm happy with sacrificing a year or even two for that.

GoPacers33
08-04-2011, 11:42 AM
I have an idea. Just give me all the money. :)

Lo Porto
08-04-2011, 11:59 AM
It's tough because it has to be done but losing a season sets basketball behind baseball & football for the long term.

It makes no sense that the most expensive player in the NFL Peyton Manning (a much more popular and money making league) makes as much or less than some NBA players that teams don't even want the last couple years (AK47, Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Elton Brand, TMac, Marbury, etc.).

The financial system in the NBA is flawed beyond recognition. It has to be fixed even if it wipes out a whole season.

ABOMB_56
08-04-2011, 12:03 PM
In many ways, they are. 22 teams are losing money? While guys like Joe Johnson bring home max deals? I struggle to see how they are not the bad guys, here.

The fact is, though, that the NBA is doomed to fail and needs contraction badly, but LeBron was the bad guy for saying it a while ago. The fact is that there isn't enough talent to field 16 good playoff teams. A hard cap will make it "more competitive", but it will be watered down and miserable. We need contraction. Without it, the league is doomed.

There is a direct correlation right there, but it has nothing to do with the players. Joe Johnson didn't pay for his contract, he was offered to it by an owner of the Hawks, which is why his team is probably one of the 22 losing money. What is Johnson supposed to say, "I'm sorry, but I'm not worth a max contract so I will accept less money elsewhere"? The owners have been too reckless with their money and now they want to cry about it, when in reality they have put themselves in this situation.

heattiltheend94
08-04-2011, 12:04 PM
:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::(:(: (:(:(

ChaseHamels
08-04-2011, 12:09 PM
If the league has these lockouts some of these players are never gonna get a ring.

Not 1, Not 2, Not 3...

hawkeyefootball
08-04-2011, 12:09 PM
If the season is cancelled when do the Mavs players get there rings and raise banner?

You ask the stupidest ****ing questions.

beasted86
08-04-2011, 12:30 PM
There is a direct correlation right there, but it has nothing to do with the players. Joe Johnson didn't pay for his contract, he was offered to it by an owner of the Hawks, which is why his team is probably one of the 22 losing money. What is Johnson supposed to say, "I'm sorry, but I'm not worth a max contract so I will accept less money elsewhere"? The owners have been too reckless with their money and now they want to cry about it, when in reality they have put themselves in this situation.
+1

The NBA owners have put themselves in this hole over years of handing out bad deals, and they want to dig themselves out of it in one sweeping move.


I think they will eventually sort things out at a 50/50 split of BRI, and that would put a lot more owners over the profit line.

northsider
08-04-2011, 12:33 PM
Just another reason the NBA is low on my totem poll of sports I watch.

What bothers me about this has more to do with the fact that one year for a player can be a difference maker. I mean we are missing out of one year of someones prime, youth, last year. This is what blows me away the most.

Trace
08-04-2011, 12:39 PM
Its funny how the NBA filed a lawsuit against the NBPA saying "they're refusing a good faith negotiation", well last the owners have told us is they're sticking by their hard cap proposal, so technically aren't they doing the same thing? Just because they refuse to agree to your proposal doesn't mean they're "refusing a good faith negotiation".

Stern said only the star players will find work over-seas not the 7th-8th men and believes thats why this deal will get done eventually. Well, last I checked the Kobe's, Lebron's, CP3's, Dwight Howard's make this league so you can go ahead and put a bunch of Eddie House's and Josh Powell's out there, I sure as hell won't be watching.

Stern is trying his best to make the player's out to be the bad guys.


lol @ first paragraph. The lawsuit is not because the NBPA is uncooperative, it's because they're threatening for decertification without a genuine reason for it. That in itself is a violation of anti-trust laws.


The Union’s threatened disclaimer would not be a good-faith, unequivocal renunciation of its representative status. The Union has threatened to pursue this course (decertification) not because it is defunct or otherwise incapable of representing NBA players for purposes of collective bargaining, and not because NBA players are dissatisfied with the representation they have been provided by the NBPA or no longer wish to engage, on a concerted basis, in negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment.For the foregoing reasons, the Union’s conduct violates Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, and the Union should be ordered to bargain with the NBA in good faith

And secondly, Stern is employed by the owners , he basically has no say in this. It's strictly owners vs players.

Crucis
08-04-2011, 12:46 PM
just keep the 8 teams who make money. for the 22 other. create your own league!!!!! its not the players fault that the teams are losing money. its the owners' fault. if they didnt offer the players those contract then they wouldnt have a problem!

If the teams all started not offering players big contracts, you KNOW that the players union would running to the nearest court screaming "COLLUSION!!!!" In a heartbeat!

Crucis
08-04-2011, 12:49 PM
lol the first paragraph is a shallow read of the news. That's not what the lawsuit is about.

And secondly, Stern is employed by the owners , he basically has no say in this. It's strictly owners vs players.

Exactly! In any of these sports lockout/strikes, unless the league commission has done something really obvious, it's much more likely to be strictly an owners vs. players dispute.

Da Knicks
08-04-2011, 12:50 PM
the season will be shortened but there will be a season....

29$JerZ
08-04-2011, 12:51 PM
Terrible news for the fans, amazing news for college fans

JWO35
08-04-2011, 01:01 PM
Personally, I could care less if the NBA Season is canceled ...every year I find myself less interested, its just a 6-Team race to the title and the other 24 Teams just are bystanders.

Shmontaine
08-04-2011, 01:14 PM
lol @ first paragraph. The lawsuit is not because the NBPA is uncooperative, it's because they're threatening for decertification without a genuine reason for it. That in itself is a violation of anti-trust laws.


don't all player contracts become void if they decertify?? i thought i read that somewhere... if so, no chance of this happening.

ChaseHamels
08-04-2011, 01:18 PM
the season will be shortened but there will be a season....

Care to explain?:confused:

Trace
08-04-2011, 01:29 PM
don't all player contracts become void if they decertify?? i thought i read that somewhere... if so, no chance of this happening.

No, this is ONLY if the current NBA lawsuit goes through.

Decertification or rather threat of decertification is the only trump card players have. Take that away and the owners will get what they want hence the importance of this lawsuit.

Crucis
08-04-2011, 02:12 PM
No, this is ONLY if the current NBA lawsuit goes through.

Decertification or rather threat of decertification is the only trump card players have. Take that away and the owners will get what they want hence the importance of this lawsuit.

I think that Congress ought to pass some sort of law, that removes Decertification as a trump card for sports player unions. It's ridiculous that a players union should be able to "decertify" just as a bargaining tool in what everyone knows is a union negotiation.

bearadonisdna
08-04-2011, 04:30 PM
There is a direct correlation right there, but it has nothing to do with the players. Joe Johnson didn't pay for his contract, he was offered to it by an owner of the Hawks, which is why his team is probably one of the 22 losing money. What is Johnson supposed to say, "I'm sorry, but I'm not worth a max contract so I will accept less money elsewhere"? The owners have been too reckless with their money and now they want to cry about it, when in reality they have put themselves in this situation.

the ownere are really handcuffed by the outrageous wages the players are commanding.
either the hawks give joe johnson that contract or they lose him and someone else would have gave it to him.
the owners are in a bad position of pay throught he nose to be competitive, or lose your players and tank the season.

SC1211
08-04-2011, 04:42 PM
My full thoughts:

1) Obviously Hunter is posturing through the media. He's trying to send a message to the owners that the players are okay with missing the season, and that they won't cave just because they're missing their paychecks.

a) nothing wrong with that - everyone postures during the lockouts (See the NBA's lawsuits, which aren't going to go anywhere but shift leverage and send a message)

b) it's also total BS, maybe some players will be okay, but given the notorious track record for a lack of ability for NBA players to save, once those paychecks stop coming there's going to be enormous pressure to get a deal done. Newsflash, European teams aren't rolling in money. There is going to be a limit to how many guys they can sign.

2) Maybe it's true that the owners shouldn't be giving those kinds of contracts, but for small market teams it's a no-win situation. People are right in saying that Jerry Buss and James Dolan have ZERO excuse for a bad contract. Why? Because big players want big markets, they shouldn't have to overpay to get guys who will sell tickets. Hell, the Knicks made money even during the terrible Isiah years. But take the Atlanta Hawks for example: the signing of Joe Johnson to a max contract will likely cripple that franchise's ability to compete for the next few years. But what if they hadn't offered the absolute max? Johnson would have bolted to NYC or Chicago in a heartbeat. So even if there's only a 15% chance that he'll play up to the standards of a contract, it's still worth the risk just to put ***** in the seats. You certainly aren't going to do that rolling out a line up of Jason Collins, Kirk Hinrich, Josh Smith, Al Horford and Jamal Crawford. Small market teams HAVE to overpay to attract talent, because they don't have the benefit of getting players to come to their team just for the city. If someone offered me $15 million to play in Houston, I'd sure as hell take that over $20 million to play in Milwaukee. It's a game of risk, and ultimately one that is bad for the NBA.

Contraction is the ideal situation, but that will never happen. I do think a hard cap would help. NBA players have it better than almost any other sport. If you get hurt in football, you can get cut halfway through your contract and you might not have guaranteed money left. The NBA doesn't work like that, and it allows stiffs like Michael Redd to collect a fat paycheck while sitting on the bench. Irresponsible decision by Milwaukee? I'm not so sure, back when they gave him that contract they had to overpay so he wouldn't leave. He was their star and they needed him to fill arenas.

If we want a competitive league the players are going to have to give up more than they are right now.

That being said, don't believe all the media hype, there may be a shortened season but talk of the season being cancelled is just a posturing game...we'll see who blinks first.

WadeKobe
08-04-2011, 09:57 PM
I agree contraction would be a good solution, scrap the teams that don't draw crowds at all like the Bobcats, etc.

But think, who offered Joe Johnson that contract? He sure as hell didn't play for it.

I think that makes my point for me. Joe Johnson is a top 10 shooting guard in the NBA. The question has already been asked on PSD about how good the Bulls would have been if they would have signed him. Well, Chicago can afford to give Johnson what he's worth ($12-14mil), so the only way for a team like Atlanta to keep him is to overpay for him ($16.6m) since the big market teams would not be willing to compete with that offer.

A hard cap fixes this problem for a team like Atlanta in this situation. Chicago cannot go after Joe Johnson, and Atlanta can offer him what he's worth, without overpaying him, and they don't lose money.

This is just one scenario, there are many like it. The fact is, a hard cap would fix that problem. However, with the talent level in the NBA, and amount of it, we'd just end up with a bunch of teams competing with each other who would only be worth a #5 or 6 seed right now.

Contraction solves both problems, without instituting a hard cap. The talent that currently fills 30 (?) teams could fill 20-25 a lot more easily, and then if there was a hard cap the fans would still get a strong product. If they institute a hard cap right now... the fans suffer from a weak product.

Cosmic_Canon
08-04-2011, 10:16 PM
So no NBA season, because of Gilbert being salty as **** over Bron? :rolleyes:


I understand most of you guys side w/ the owners, but basically this lockout is the owners undoing(Rashard Lewis type contracts aside). Poor management in CLE/Tor/NO led/will eventually lead Bron/Bosh to the Heat and CP3 to greener pastures. Bottom line, superteams wouldn't be a issue, if teams do a better at complementing their stars with pieces.

Look at Por/OKC, sure Portland has been injury riddled the past couple of years. However, if not for injuries, they are an example(along w/ OKC) on how to be a successful small-market team. Yes, they resigned Oden and overpaid Aldridge, however they stockpiled on cheap young talent. If more teams do a better job, of getting cheap young players and not handing out contracts that cripple the cap flexibility, than the possibility of superteams would dwindle.

Also the import factor is, new owners were led to believe, that their investment(ie buying their new team) was GUARANTEED TO YIELD PROFIT.
Anytime you invest in something, it's no guarantee it's a win for you, investments are calculated risks at best.
That foolishness on the owners' side.

Ultimately, that along with the owners' arrogance(wanting to reach into players' pockets for money already earned, league wanting to keep 160 mil held from players' from this past season), makes me side w/ the players.
I hope the NBPA decertify, F the owners, he's slimy as hell.

WadeKobe
08-04-2011, 10:19 PM
There is a direct correlation right there, but it has nothing to do with the players. Joe Johnson didn't pay for his contract, he was offered to it by an owner of the Hawks, which is why his team is probably one of the 22 losing money. What is Johnson supposed to say, "I'm sorry, but I'm not worth a max contract so I will accept less money elsewhere"? The owners have been too reckless with their money and now they want to cry about it, when in reality they have put themselves in this situation.

This ignores the reality....



Personally, I could care less if the NBA Season is canceled ...every year I find myself less interested, its just a 6-Team race to the title and the other 24 Teams just are bystanders.

JWO35 is correct.

The first thing you learn in a statistics class is that you can make statistics say anything without context, or with a manipulated context. You're taking away the context here.

Sure, if you just took the stats, you get teams losing money because players are being paid too much. Fact.

But there is context there - competition. Talent costs money, and talent is what is needed to win. So winning costs money.

The reality is that the two teams spending the most money are making money. There is a reason small markets are the ones clamoring for a hard cap. If LA can afford to spend more money than Cleveland can, how is Cleveland supposed to compete? The teams spending the most are making money, and other teams, spending much, much less, are losing money.

So small market teams are forced to overpay - and pay beyond what they can afford - in order to try and compete with teams like Los Angeles and Boston. They then lose money. So now, they're trying to say "Boston and LA cannot spend so much, because we cannot compete without going bankrupt."

Trust me, if any fan-base should be against the new CBA, and against a hard cap, and bothered by all of this, it should be Heat fans. We worked under the rules of the former CBA to build a winner, and this will screw us. But the small market owners are right, in the current form, without a hard cap, it will be a 6 team league, or, worse, owners will lose money trying to make their team compete.

Again.... the problem is not the big market teams, the problem is the existence of too many teams, too many small market teams, and a lack of talent. Contraction is the only answer to the NBA's current problems.

Trace
08-04-2011, 10:41 PM
So no NBA season, because of Gilbert being salty as **** over Bron? :rolleyes:


I understand most of you guys side w/ the owners, but basically this lockout is the owners undoing(Rashard Lewis type contracts aside). Poor management in CLE/Tor/NO led/will eventually lead Bron/Bosh to the Heat and CP3 to greener pastures. Bottom line, superteams wouldn't be a issue, if teams do a better at complementing their stars with pieces.

Look at Por/OKC, sure Portland has been injury riddled the past couple of years. However, if not for injuries, they are an example(along w/ OKC) on how to be a successful small-market team. Yes, they resigned Oden and overpaid Aldridge, however they stockpiled on cheap young talent. If more teams do a better job, of getting cheap young players and not handing out contracts that cripple the cap flexibility, than the possibility of superteams would dwindle.

Also the import factor is, new owners were led to believe, that their investment(ie buying their new team) was GUARANTEED TO YIELD PROFIT.
Anytime you invest in something, it's no guarantee it's a win for you, investments are calculated risks at best.
That foolishness on the owners' side.

Ultimately, that along with the owners' arrogance(wanting to reach into players' pockets for money already earned, league wanting to keep 160 mil held from players' from this past season), makes me side w/ the players.
I hope the NBPA decertify, F the owners, he's slimy as hell.

How many teams are able to find such talents? Portland and OKC were both able to stockpile talent from relatively strong drafts but were they able to attract significant free agency talent without overpaying? Portland was going to pay a similar contract that was offered to Hedo by Toronto. Why? Because they wanted to win but they knew they had to overpay to get the necessary talent in order to so. Under the current CBA, small market teams are at a disadvantage, and even though it is a "calculated risk" to buy such teams, fair competition practices must exist. So either contract or change the current CBA, there's no other way around this.

Knicks21
08-04-2011, 11:12 PM
How many teams are able to find such talents? Portland and OKC were both able to stockpile talent from relatively strong drafts but were they able to attract significant free agency talent without overpaying? Portland was going to pay a similar contract that was offered to Hedo by Toronto. Why? Because they wanted to win but they knew they had to overpay to get the necessary talent in order to so. Under the current CBA, small market teams are at a disadvantage, and even though it is a "calculated risk" to buy such teams, fair competition practices must exist. So either contract or change the current CBA, there's no other way around this.

If a player is offered the same money, role, playing time and has the choice between a Big Market Team and a Small Market Team it will be up to him to choose. With the personalities in the NBA, some players, mainly the good ones like big cities because it gives them the most exposure and ultimately money.

Trace
08-04-2011, 11:14 PM
If a player is offered the same money, role, playing time and has the choice between a Big Market Team and a Small Market Team it will be up to him to choose. With the personalities in the NBA, some players, mainly the good ones like big cities because it gives them the most exposure and ultimately money.

Exactly which is why the current CBA is flawed.

Either contract or change the CBA so that it allows for fair competition practices. If corporations have to adhere to such anti-trust rules, what makes NBA teams so different?

Mishmin
08-04-2011, 11:49 PM
How bout Adam Silver vs. Adam Morrison, winner takes all. That's the end of it.

JNA17
08-05-2011, 12:22 AM
If the league has these lockouts some of these players are never gonna get a ring.

Not 1, Not 2, Not 3...

Another year or two of Lebron not winning a ring while they get older (especially wade since he will be 30 this year i believe) is the only bright side in this whole thing.

Punk
08-05-2011, 12:33 AM
How many teams are able to find such talents? Portland and OKC were both able to stockpile talent from relatively strong drafts but were they able to attract significant free agency talent without overpaying? Portland was going to pay a similar contract that was offered to Hedo by Toronto. Why? Because they wanted to win but they knew they had to overpay to get the necessary talent in order to so. Under the current CBA, small market teams are at a disadvantage, and even though it is a "calculated risk" to buy such teams, fair competition practices must exist. So either contract or change the current CBA, there's no other way around this.

:clap: Thank You.

Samething can be said for Memphis. How the hell is the CBA helping small market teams when there is more teams that will get screwed with a hard cap than benefit?

naps
08-05-2011, 12:47 AM
**** the all these greedy bastards! (From both sides). Come on the ****ing level ground! We fans want to see basketball, that's it. I can't believe there won't be any basketball next year. I am not a football or baseball fan at all. It's going to be a very very tough year if there's no NBA.

naps
08-05-2011, 12:57 AM
Another year or two of Lebron not winning a ring while they get older (especially wade since he will be 30 this year i believe) is the only bright side in this whole thing.

WOW! I didn't expect anybody would ever come up with something like this. LeBron James loses a year of his prime and it's the only bright side of this lockout. WOW...folks, LeBron James hate has just reached another milestone.

JNA17
08-05-2011, 12:59 AM
WOW! I didn't expect anybody would ever come up with something like this. LeBron James loses a year of his prime and it's the only bright side of this lockout. WOW...folks, LeBron James hate has just reached another milestone.

Well it is a bright spot, you can't deny that :p.

MrPeytonManning
08-05-2011, 01:55 AM
I don't mind the NBA, but I think it would do good for the league to take as long as they need to in order to make the CBA right.

The problem with the NBA I think is twofold. First of all, basketball, more than any other game, is a star-driven sport. Teams can't win with just a collection of good players (like the current Denver Nuggets will find out). They have to have superstars. Problem is, superstars almost always have super egos, and thus will demand to play in the big money markets (LA, Chicago, NY, Boston, Miami), and so teams in the non "glamour" markets, which are most of them, get screwed and are never able to compete. Cleveland never had a shot at keeping LeBron in 2010 because no other stars want to go to Northeast Ohio. They'd rather go to South Beach. So in a way, because of the nature of the NBA, it's almost as if the only purpose most small market teams exist is to serve as cannon fodder for the Lakers, Heat, Knicks, Mavs, etc., with the Spurs being a notable exception to the rule.

Second is that, yes the players are paid WAAAAYYYY too much. Gilbert Arenas isn't even worth half his current salary. Neither is Rashard Lewis. Teams overpaying "stars" has led to this mess, but the problem is for some teams you have to overpay to get someone to come or stay in your city. Just look at Michael Redd or Rashard Lewis for proof.

Sadly I don't know if there is a workable solution to this, other than contracting to maybe 20 teams (seriously, I'd almost say there aren't even 20 markets in the current NBA that are acceptable to most players). But the union will never go for it, and contraction is really just waving the white flag on the growth of the sport.

iggypop123
08-05-2011, 02:36 AM
i think this is legit no posturing. the new owners are the tea party. they are gonna keep the hard line. january is going to be painful. thats when the last hope begins. we either get an agreement or kobe plays in china for 9 figures. and others explore other ways to get paid.

Toxeryll
08-05-2011, 03:01 AM
**** the union chief

SportsFanatic10
08-05-2011, 03:09 AM
no surprise here...damn this sucks. at least football is back.

JNA17
08-05-2011, 03:30 AM
no surprise here...damn this sucks. at least football is back.

Yeah, if there was a full year lockout on both of them...damn I don't even want to think about it.

SportsFanatic10
08-05-2011, 03:37 AM
Yeah, if there was a full year lockout on both of them...damn I don't even want to think about it.

haha yeah i hear you...i'm not gonna lie depression would of definately set in for me. i would of been playing alot of madden and nba 2k to try and make up for it. actually i already play those games too much!

LakersMaster24
08-05-2011, 04:50 AM
I dont understand why no one likes Hockey? I even watched it when NBA was on. Once you watch it a little, you start to like it.

Btw. When does the Eurolegue Basketball Championship start, and what channel do they air it on in the USA?

alencp3
08-05-2011, 05:21 AM
nah i'll believe it when i see it
i still say there will be nba season

TheGsw
08-05-2011, 05:47 PM
I hope superstar players go overseas and get hurt if its cancelled for the whole season.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
08-05-2011, 06:21 PM
If there is a lockout for a full year... Does this guarentee that there will be a 2012-2013 season?

Cosmic_Canon
08-05-2011, 07:51 PM
How many teams are able to find such talents? Portland and OKC were both able to stockpile talent from relatively strong drafts but were they able to attract significant free agency talent without overpaying? Portland was going to pay a similar contract that was offered to Hedo by Toronto. Why? Because they wanted to win but they knew they had to overpay to get the necessary talent in order to so. Under the current CBA, small market teams are at a disadvantage, and even though it is a "calculated risk" to buy such teams, fair competition practices must exist. So either contract or change the current CBA, there's no other way around this.


Yes Portland was close to signing Turk, however Por/OKC along with the Spurs USUALLY make good moves. At the end of the day, every GM will have it's blunder, but the good ones have the blunders as rarities. A hard cap, will still see players getting over-payed, it always happens in sports. Add to that, the owners care way less about competitive balance, than led to believe.

Their(owners) MAIN agenda, is to get guaranteed profits. Basically, to get money, without fielding a quality product. Competetive balance, is a much 2nd, and will always be in play unless a franchise tag is there(which is very unfair btw) That logic is so crooked, I can't see why people side w/ the owners, aside form idiot Joe Blow logic(I work a lousy job, these jerks should feel gracious that they're the owners are offering them a deal{albiet lousy one}.

Crucis
08-05-2011, 08:53 PM
**** the all these greedy bastards! (From both sides). Come on the ****ing level ground! We fans want to see basketball, that's it. I can't believe there won't be any basketball next year. I am not a football or baseball fan at all. It's going to be a very very tough year if there's no NBA.

Naps, you can ***** and moan all you want about how you fans just want to see basketball. But the reality is that as with all professional sports, the NBA is a business, first and foremost. And first and foremost, the NBA's franchises have to each turn a profit as businesses or they won't stay in business for long, and then where would you be?

It's not all about what you want. It's about businesses operating in a way that allows them to remain functional entities for the long haul. The NBA and its players need to find some balance that makes the league a viable long term operation.

Crucis
08-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Yes Portland was close to signing Turk, however Por/OKC along with the Spurs USUALLY make good moves. At the end of the day, every GM will have it's blunder, but the good ones have the blunders as rarities. A hard cap, will still see players getting over-payed, it always happens in sports. Add to that, the owners care way less about competitive balance, than led to believe.

Their(owners) MAIN agenda, is to get guaranteed profits. Basically, to get money, without fielding a quality product. Competetive balance, is a much 2nd, and will always be in play unless a franchise tag is there(which is very unfair btw) That logic is so crooked, I can't see why people side w/ the owners, aside form idiot Joe Blow logic(I work a lousy job, these jerks should feel gracious that they're the owners are offering them a deal{albiet lousy one}.

Actually, I disagree, Canon. If you're selling out your arena, all the time and you have good TV and radio revenues, you should be turning a profit, regardless of your record. Of course, if you aren't filling your arena, then that's another thing. But on the whole, it should be possible to turn a profit without needing to be a top 4 team.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
08-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Good, this league has started to turn into a disaster.

Cosmic_Canon
08-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Actually, I disagree, Canon. If you're selling out your arena, all the time and you have good TV and radio revenues, you should be turning a profit, regardless of your record. Of course, if you aren't filling your arena, then that's another thing. But on the whole, it should be possible to turn a profit without needing to be a top 4 team.

Yeah the teams that are/were doing that are not losing money, ie Celtics pre-Big 3/Knicks pre-Stat/Bulls pre-05. The problem is, owners who don't field a quality team and don't yield profit, want it so they're guaranteed a profit. That's the qualm I fully don't endorse. Obviously it's a business, but if you're not making money w/ a bad team, than you shouldn't be complaining. By quality product, I mean a playoff team, or a bad team w/ a franchise-type guy(Reke in Sac, Blake in LA, Kyrie in Cleveland). Obviously, some of those teams I listed are losing money. However, revenue sharing would fix that, and that's a issue some of the owners don't want to address.

imagesrdecievin
08-05-2011, 11:05 PM
Yeah the teams that are/were doing that are not losing money, ie Celtics pre-Big 3/Knicks pre-Stat/Bulls pre-05. The problem is, owners who don't field a quality team and don't yield profit, want it so they're guaranteed a profit. That's the qualm I fully don't endorse. Obviously it's a business, but if you're not making money w/ a bad team, than you shouldn't be complaining. By quality product, I mean a playoff team, or a bad team w/ a franchise-type guy(Reke in Sac, Blake in LA, Kyrie in Cleveland). Obviously, some of those teams I listed are losing money. However, revenue sharing would fix that, and that's a issue some of the owners don't want to address.

It's sad it took until page 7 for one of the most important things necessary to get the league back on track gets mentioned.

The owners have an agenda to take as much money back from the players BEFORE agreeing to share revenue because if there were a healthy dose of revenue sharing than the numbers the owners cite wouldn't look all that bad at all.

Melo4Mvp
08-05-2011, 11:26 PM
:sigh:

JerseysFinest
08-05-2011, 11:30 PM
He's just offering his take on what the situation looks like as of now. I expect for there to be a season. Both the NBA owners and players know what is at stake if there is no 2011-12 season. In there long attempts to become one of the most popular sports leagues on the planet, they know how detrimental losing a season would be. Especially coming off one of their best seasons in awhile. People would start to lose interest in the league in itself and a number of casual to serious NBA followers would fall to active sports such as hockey and football. If there was no season, whenever basketball resumes there undoubtedly would be a lesser audience.

I'd wait until the season is actually set to begin. That's when we'll see activity raise between both sides. When November rolls around and the players miss out on their checks, even more talks will occur. And as a wise person once told me, don't underestimate how quickly two sides can come to an agreement in such little time. It's all basically back and forth right now. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think either side of the negotiations are willing to allow a season to go by like that.

Dade County
08-06-2011, 12:06 AM
I'd wait until the season is actually set to begin. That's when we'll see activity raise between both sides. When November rolls around and the players miss out on their checks, even more talks will occur. And as a wise person once told me, don't underestimate how quickly two sides can come to an agreement in such little time. It's all basically back and forth right now. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think either side of the negotiations are willing to allow a season to go by like that.

Man... I just don't know.

With these new owners and small market teams tired of being door mats; anything can happen.

I can see half the owners not giving a **** about next season, because if they don't change things now.... Minnesota will always be Minnesota, the fans of Toronto will never see a NBA championship parade, in their city.

The list goes on and on... smh.

But it's always been like that, I guess it's a problem now.

Crucis
08-06-2011, 11:36 AM
Yeah the teams that are/were doing that are not losing money, ie Celtics pre-Big 3/Knicks pre-Stat/Bulls pre-05. The problem is, owners who don't field a quality team and don't yield profit, want it so they're guaranteed a profit. That's the qualm I fully don't endorse. Obviously it's a business, but if you're not making money w/ a bad team, than you shouldn't be complaining. By quality product, I mean a playoff team, or a bad team w/ a franchise-type guy(Reke in Sac, Blake in LA, Kyrie in Cleveland). Obviously, some of those teams I listed are losing money. However, revenue sharing would fix that, and that's a issue some of the owners don't want to address.

CC, there are always going to be bad teams. And there are always going to be teams that don't make the playoffs. Should teams that don't make the playoffs lose money? That's utterly and completely ridiculous!!! The nature of the NBA as compared to MLB or the NFL is such that you can't succeed without some star players. And you rarely get star players without drafting them, usually as a lottery pick. (Sometimes you can pick one up in a trade, but you'll need some good pieces of your own to exchange.) And given that the draft lottery is entirely random, you're putting the future profitability of franchises into a lottery? Come on!

Furthermore, I oppose the concept of revenue sharing, because it is calculated before a franchises profitability has been determined. You can quite literally turn a team from turning a profit to losing money simply because you have to pay your revenue sharing "tax" before you've paid your bills (so to speak). If there's going to be any sharing of monies, it should be profit sharing, not revenue sharing.

Regardless, why should owners have to give money to other owners to prop them up in the first place when the real problem is personnel costs?

Crucis
08-06-2011, 11:41 AM
It's sad it took until page 7 for one of the most important things necessary to get the league back on track gets mentioned.

The owners have an agenda to take as much money back from the players BEFORE agreeing to share revenue because if there were a healthy dose of revenue sharing than the numbers the owners cite wouldn't look all that bad at all.

And I'd say that that was very, very smart of the owners. Doing revenue sharing or profit sharing before dealing with the real problem (excessive player salaries) would paper over the seriousness of the situation.

Crucis
08-06-2011, 11:48 AM
I'd wait until the season is actually set to begin. That's when we'll see activity raise between both sides. When November rolls around and the players miss out on their checks, even more talks will occur. And as a wise person once told me, don't underestimate how quickly two sides can come to an agreement in such little time. It's all basically back and forth right now. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think either side of the negotiations are willing to allow a season to go by like that.


You're probably correct here, Jersey. A lot of players are talking about playing overseas, but I expect that the number of roster spots on those teams for American players may actually be more limited than they realize. After all, I'd bet that all of the players currently on those European league teams would be seriously pissed if there was a massive wave of American players taking their jobs this fall. There also might be league restrictions on how many foreign born players can be each team's roster. (I think that I read that Israeli pro teams are only allowed 1-2 foreign players per team, for example. This is to protect and promote local talent.)

Anyways, I think that the number of players being able to play overseas will be limited to some degree, and when it sets in that the majority of NBA players aren't going to be getting paychecks, they'll start getting serious about negotiating.

Stack_NJNets
08-06-2011, 12:01 PM
:down: :cry:

69centers
08-06-2011, 02:05 PM
I guarantee I won't pay a dime to see a game in 2012-2013 if the 2011-2012 season is canceled. They will surely have less fans in the stands next year, if this year is canceled. If the teams with losing profits and poor attendance thought they have it bad now, a canceled season may pretty much fold a few franchises.

Crucis
08-06-2011, 02:16 PM
I guarantee I won't pay a dime to see a game in 2012-2013 if the 2011-2012 season is canceled. They will surely have less fans in the stands next year, if this year is canceled. If the teams with losing profits and poor attendance thought they have it bad now, a canceled season may pretty much fold a few franchises.

And what? The unprofitable teams should just sit on their hands and keep losing more money just so people like you don't get PO'd? Seriously, fans need to have more open minds about pro sports, and realize that they're businesses, and that they have to pay as much attention to the bottom line as any other business. If a Broadway show is losing money, should it stay open just to keep its fans happy, or should it try to tweak the show or possibly close down?

People need to understand and respect the fact that these teams need to do something to make their businesses profitable. The fact that they feel the need to do a lockout is only the flipside of the fact that the players are unionized. Maybe if people are so up in arms about this, perhaps the players should stop being unionized, and team-player relations should be handled on a 1-on-1 basis. But is that likely to happen? I doubt it. So as long as players in team sports are unionized, there will be the occasional strike or lockout. It's just a fact of life.

mzgrizz
08-06-2011, 05:15 PM
Well kiss my grits......hope Hunter doesn't really have the inside info and that he's spreading some good ol' snake oil. After years of getting back in the good graces of Memphis basketball fans, now this.
Owners? Players? Who cares!!!! They are both hardheaded and self righteous. Just get 'er done.

dodie53
08-07-2011, 05:49 AM
wtf

RevisIsland
08-07-2011, 06:34 AM
Looks like I'm throwing myself into college basketball this year.

LA_Raiders
08-07-2011, 10:24 PM
it seems to me that Players just want the year off. So dang greedy... ****

bearadonisdna
08-07-2011, 11:32 PM
how about scabs. the players need the league more than the league need the players.

THE MTL
08-08-2011, 12:29 AM
800 million dollars divided by 30 teams would reduce each team's payroll by 26.67 million dollars which would reduce the salary cap to 32 MILLION! Owners are freaking ********!

203 Uconn LaL
08-08-2011, 07:03 AM
If the nba owners are such business men they should understand stop over paying these players. They claim its the only way to be competitive which is bs cause they're not even in the race with their overpaid players. They over value these players and pay them a **** load of money and cry when he doesn't have the impact on the court as which they are paid. I've always questioned how many owners are legit fans and know the game and as far as I can tell its just an investment for most of them, they dont know **** about. And with that said they need to gtfo of the nba. Who invests hundreds of millions into something they don't know crap about?

Tony_Starks
08-08-2011, 05:17 PM
And what? The unprofitable teams should just sit on their hands and keep losing more money just so people like you don't get PO'd? Seriously, fans need to have more open minds about pro sports, and realize that they're businesses, and that they have to pay as much attention to the bottom line as any other business. If a Broadway show is losing money, should it stay open just to keep its fans happy, or should it try to tweak the show or possibly close down?

People need to understand and respect the fact that these teams need to do something to make their businesses profitable. The fact that they feel the need to do a lockout is only the flipside of the fact that the players are unionized. Maybe if people are so up in arms about this, perhaps the players should stop being unionized, and team-player relations should be handled on a 1-on-1 basis. But is that likely to happen? I doubt it. So as long as players in team sports are unionized, there will be the occasional strike or lockout. It's just a fact of life.



You're assuming the nba is being accurate about the amount of money they're losing, which has already been disputed publicly by independent reporting and found faulty.

Secondly the smaller markets will always be at a disadvantage. No salary structure can change that because players will always prefer to play in the big cities.

Thirdly the owners want a drastic switch of the BRI, rollbacks on current contracts (so Kobe for example would go from 25 million to like 10 in theory), cancelling of gauranteed contracts, a ten year deal that ensures they get all the revenues from the new TV deal in 5 years (which is supposed to be enormous), gauranteed profit no matter how badly the team is ran, AND they're even discussing getting a piece of player endorsements because "they're the ones that are making these guys stars anyway."

AND they're not negotiating, the negotiation is basically take the deal or we keep your checks. Does that sound reasonable to you?

JordansBulls
08-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Time to start downloading some games to watch.

Cosmic_Canon
08-11-2011, 10:56 AM
You're assuming the nba is being accurate about the amount of money they're losing, which has already been disputed publicly by independent reporting and found faulty.

Secondly the smaller markets will always be at a disadvantage. No salary structure can change that because players will always prefer to play in the big cities.

Thirdly the owners want a drastic switch of the BRI, rollbacks on current contracts (so Kobe for example would go from 25 million to like 10 in theory), cancelling of gauranteed contracts, a ten year deal that ensures they get all the revenues from the new TV deal in 5 years (which is supposed to be enormous), gauranteed profit no matter how badly the team is ran, AND they're even discussing getting a piece of player endorsements because "they're the ones that are making these guys stars anyway."

AND they're not negotiating, the negotiation is basically take the deal or we keep your checks. Does that sound reasonable to you?


Basically

This lockout is pretty much all on the owners, and you're a fool to say otherwise. Also to those who bring up competetive balance, the owners don't care about that much. They just brought it up, to get fans on their side.

Shmontaine
08-11-2011, 11:52 AM
You're assuming the nba is being accurate about the amount of money they're losing, which has already been disputed publicly by independent reporting and found faulty.

Secondly the smaller markets will always be at a disadvantage. No salary structure can change that because players will always prefer to play in the big cities.

Thirdly the owners want a drastic switch of the BRI, rollbacks on current contracts (so Kobe for example would go from 25 million to like 10 in theory), cancelling of gauranteed contracts, a ten year deal that ensures they get all the revenues from the new TV deal in 5 years (which is supposed to be enormous), gauranteed profit no matter how badly the team is ran, AND they're even discussing getting a piece of player endorsements because "they're the ones that are making these guys stars anyway."

AND they're not negotiating, the negotiation is basically take the deal or we keep your checks. Does that sound reasonable to you?

don't the players get guaranteed profit no matter how badly they play, even if they don't play at all??

i understand what your saying, but IMO the players have had it better than the owners over the last 5-10 years...

beasted86
08-11-2011, 12:02 PM
don't the players get guaranteed profit no matter how badly they play, even if they don't play at all??

i understand what your saying, but IMO the players have had it better than the owners over the last 5-10 years...

And what about the 50 years prior to that when players made more money off endorsements than NBA contracts? Magic & Bird made $16-$18M over their entire career, how much money do you think they made their team in their career?

This is a new wave of majority owners who have teams in small markets and have made poor business decisions. The player contracts & BRI does need to get scaled back some, but not like the owners are currently proposing.

pebloemer
08-11-2011, 12:06 PM
800 million dollars divided by 30 teams would reduce each team's payroll by 26.67 million dollars which would reduce the salary cap to 32 MILLION! Owners are freaking ********!

The average team salary does not equal the salary cap. You're confusing terms here.

Shmontaine
08-11-2011, 12:29 PM
And what about the 50 years prior to that when players made more money off endorsements than NBA contracts? Magic & Bird made $16-$18M over their entire career, how much money do you think they made their team in their career?

ummm... not as much as you think... most of the added money is from MJ and the popularity of the sport exploding in the 90's... hence, the raise in the salary cap, and player salaries...

chicago bulls were purchased for 16 million in 1984.
celtics were purchased for 17 million in 1986.
etc. etc.




This is a new wave of majority owners who have teams in small markets and have made poor business decisions. The player contracts & BRI does need to get scaled back some, but not like the owners are currently proposing.

owners have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to own teams... they are entitled to make a profit... IMO the BRI and contracts will meet somewhere in the middle of the two sides... this is a negotiating tactic...

I will say this though... i don't think owners should be allowed to buy teams on credit... it just inflates the cost of the team needlessly and makes it harder for the owners to turn a profit...

TheChamp
08-11-2011, 01:04 PM
What do they expect us to watch after the NFL season? Hockey and soccer? God no.

beasted86
08-11-2011, 01:10 PM
ummm... not as much as you think... most of the added money is from MJ and the popularity of the sport exploding in the 90's... hence, the raise in the salary cap, and player salaries...

chicago bulls were purchased for 16 million in 1984.
celtics were purchased for 17 million in 1986.
etc. etc.

The inflation rate from the late 80s to mid 90s was astronomical. That's the reason the owners even agreed to that ludicrous deal in 95. But from the late 80s to early 90s it's clear the owners got the better end of the CBA.



owners have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to own teams... they are entitled to make a profit... IMO the BRI and contracts will meet somewhere in the middle of the two sides... this is a negotiating tactic...

I will say this though... i don't think owners should be allowed to buy teams on credit... it just inflates the cost of the team needlessly and makes it harder for the owners to turn a profit...

What? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Nobody is ever "entitled" to make profits. Basketball is a business just like any other business. 1 out of 3 new businesses fail in the first year, and 2 out of 3 fail within 5 years... why should team owners be "entitled" to different rules than every other business man out there? Teams are allowed to continue operating even with poor management because the NBA supports the bad team management by sharing revenues and taxes.

Like I said, the BRI needs to be reworked, and possibly the maximum player salary by veteran status along with contract length. But I seriously hope the owners aren't going to maintain this idea that 100% of teams are suddenly going to go from the negative to profiting in one single bound. That's not how any business model works.

fadedmario
08-11-2011, 01:24 PM
I honestly have lost a ton of interest/respect for the NBA. To say I won't watch anymore would be a lie but I can honestly say I rank the NBA far behind the NFL/MLB now. **** this league and it's owners and players. They will lose fans over this.

OC Knights #11
08-11-2011, 01:30 PM
Don't think it will "kill" basketball... definitely put it a good notch down below Football. Keep in mind basketball was as popular as ever this season. So the fact that it's going to be gone for a season will definitely drive away a lot of fans but at the same time if you look at the silver lining it'll give a lot of fans anticipation for upcoming season I guess.

Just trying to put a positive spin on things, never thought the NBA and their players were so incapable of being adults and discussing things out.

Lock out or no lock out, basketball has always been below football and baseball in popularity.

Cosmic_Canon
08-11-2011, 01:30 PM
owners have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to own teams... they are entitled to make a profit... IMO the BRI and contracts will meet somewhere in the middle of the two sides... this is a negotiating tactic...



FALSE

No investment you make, you should be entitled to net a profit. You HOPE that you net a profit, but you should never shoe-in cash off that commitment. Once again, NBA Franchises/big time investments are calculated risks. you expect to net a profit, but there's always a RISK that the franchise doesn't rake in money. Too many things to account for, to cancel out guaranteed profits(bad team, poor market, bad arena), so the whole guaranteed profits thing is nonsense.

W/ that said, yes this may be a negotiation ploy. However, the owners' demands are too outlandish to be taken seriously. Once again, the NY Times proved that the league ISN'T losing money, so small-market teams are not going to the poor house. The only reason/s the owners are doing this, is because they think they can, and that the owners were led to believe that they would get NFL money(all the teams are netting profit, but want more).
The owners demands, would thus give them NFL money or close to it.

NY Times link disproving teams losing money :
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/calling-foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/

bledrules
08-11-2011, 01:41 PM
Def great news the NBA has turned into a bunch of ego-maniac millionaires.Will take nhl anyday

Shmontaine
08-11-2011, 01:43 PM
What? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Nobody is ever "entitled" to make profits. Basketball is a business just like any other business. 1 out of 3 new businesses fail in the first year, and 2 out of 3 fail within 5 years... why should team owners be "entitled" to different rules than every other business man out there? Teams are allowed to continue operating even with poor management because the NBA supports the bad team management by sharing revenues and taxes.

Like I said, the BRI needs to be reworked, and possibly the maximum player salary by veteran status along with contract length. But I seriously hope the owners aren't going to maintain this idea that 100% of teams are suddenly going to go from the negative to profiting in one single bound. That's not how any business model works.

i guess we disagree... the nba as a whole is a business that's been around for 50+ years... and that business needs owners to buy teams... if you're only making a 3% return on your investment, then you aren't going to get any takers.. and i do believe that the nba wants owners to buy teams, as a matter of fact the nba is looking for an owner to buy the hornets... and if the league can't guarantee profitability, then nobody will buy...

nba doesn't support bad management by revenue sharing, sorry... it's the only way to expand the league... as stated previously, big markets will have a clear advantage to make more money than smaller market teams... without revenue sharing, there would be half as many teams, and no one wants that... not players, not owners, not fans..

why do the players get a pass in your so-called business world?? they're entitled to get their full contract even at the cost of the team and league?? most contracts are result based, not a pure guarantee with no expectations or standards for earning that contract... i guess you have double standards...

Yunqn
08-11-2011, 01:44 PM
Same thing was said with the nfl.. The week before the season is when these rumors matter..

Football preseason games are worth way more than basketball ones.. The players dont even care of the preseason in the nba.. So talks wont get serious for awhile.. The same guys who are suppose to meet up or a deal are enjoyong the summer.. They dont care at the moment. Goddell couldnt lose all that money that a preseason game makes thats why they had dinners and meetings.. The nba doesnt care until the real games start..

The sad part about the nfl and nba is the fact that losing teams dont care if they lose in the nba .. In the nfl teams just cant stop losing.. You cant blame al davis an dan synder for losing.. Atleast they arent cheap or complaining about losing and spending..theyre trying to do something..

Shmontaine
08-11-2011, 01:54 PM
FALSE

No investment you make, you should be entitled to net a profit. You HOPE that you net a profit, but you should never shoe-in cash off that commitment. Once again, NBA Franchises/big time investments are calculated risks. you expect to net a profit, but there's always a RISK that the franchise doesn't rake in money. Too many things to account for, to cancel out guaranteed profits(bad team, poor market, bad arena), so the whole guaranteed profits thing is nonsense.


you need a business model that is profitable... of course nothing is guaranteed in life, but i don't know why most on this site feel that because these owners are millionaires/billionaires they somehow should just lose money and be fine with it...

and if you can get more money off interest in banks than investing in a sports franchise, that's nonsense as well...

i'll say it again, take away guaranteed contracts, that alone would help a lot... double the lux tax would help as well..

MJ-BULLS
08-11-2011, 02:09 PM
Similar stuff were said also in the NFL. I really hope they get something going really soon because this is torture. :sigh:

I really don't want to sit around and watch baseball.

Tony_Starks
08-11-2011, 02:53 PM
don't the players get guaranteed profit no matter how badly they play, even if they don't play at all??

i understand what your saying, but IMO the players have had it better than the owners over the last 5-10 years...


There are such things as incentive clauses in contracts. It's not like the players just make up their own contracts and sign them. Perfect example Phoenix wanted stipulations in Amare's new contract about games played and optional years and all that. New York said forget all that we'll just give you whatever you want. So now if Amare blows his knee out and they're on the hook who's fault is it? Amares?

All of that is on the owners. It's not even about the players but really the owners getting into bidding wars with each other and making outlandish offers. So in their mind since they can't police themselves then that means the "system is broken."

It's not broken these guys have just been acting irresponsibly and now want the players to pay for it.

Tony_Starks
08-11-2011, 03:01 PM
you need a business model that is profitable... of course nothing is guaranteed in life, but i don't know why most on this site feel that because these owners are millionaires/billionaires they somehow should just lose money and be fine with it...

and if you can get more money off interest in banks than investing in a sports franchise, that's nonsense as well...

i'll say it again, take away guaranteed contracts, that alone would help a lot... double the lux tax would help as well..


Taking away guaranteed contracts isn't the answer because it will be abused. A big money guy gets hurt and you just drop him to save money.
Also it cheats the fans out of getting any kind of relationship with their favorite players because the player turn over rate would become so high. It would basically become rent a player.

I think shorter length of contracts and also less stringent trade rules is a better answer. If the deals were shorter and it was easier to trade players it would cut down on all that "getting stuck with a guy" business while still leaving the owners with some responsibility.

LakersMaster24
08-11-2011, 03:25 PM
I cant imagine a school year without NBA...:(

Shmontaine
08-11-2011, 03:25 PM
There are such things as incentive clauses in contracts. It's not like the players just make up their own contracts and sign them. Perfect example Phoenix wanted stipulations in Amare's new contract about games played and optional years and all that. New York said forget all that we'll just give you whatever you want. So now if Amare blows his knee out and they're on the hook who's fault is it? Amares?

All of that is on the owners. It's not even about the players but really the owners getting into bidding wars with each other and making outlandish offers. So in their mind since they can't police themselves then that means the "system is broken."

It's not broken these guys have just been acting irresponsibly and now want the players to pay for it.

that's the way a free market system works, though... would you rather have owners collude with eachother and set price ceilings for certain players?? ... i'm pretty sure that's illegal and not allowed in the nba... i'm sure if teams knew what other teams were offering players, contracts would be much lower...

and the owners were acting irresponsibly to the BENEFIT of the players (giving contracts that were undeserved that owners can't afford)... i don't see how it's now making the players 'pay for it' when the players were the ones profiting off those bad decisions... this is more like righting the ship...

Shmontaine
08-11-2011, 03:30 PM
Taking away guaranteed contracts isn't the answer because it will be abused. A big money guy gets hurt and you just drop him to save money.
Also it cheats the fans out of getting any kind of relationship with their favorite players because the player turn over rate would become so high. It would basically become rent a player.

I think shorter length of contracts and also less stringent trade rules is a better answer. If the deals were shorter and it was easier to trade players it would cut down on all that "getting stuck with a guy" business while still leaving the owners with some responsibility.

I wasn't thinking of it in the same way as the nfl... the contracts should be structured for 'pay if eligible to play' format... if you aren't physically able to play, then you don't get paid for the time you're injured... teams can't drop you from their roster, they just don't pay you unless you're eligible for games... this would actually help fans because it would cause players to be on the floor more and that's who the fans are there to watch...

i like the idea of 3 year max deals.. that would make bad decisions not have such an effect on teams...

beasted86
08-11-2011, 11:47 PM
i guess we disagree... the nba as a whole is a business that's been around for 50+ years... and that business needs owners to buy teams... if you're only making a 3% return on your investment, then you aren't going to get any takers.. and i do believe that the nba wants owners to buy teams, as a matter of fact the nba is looking for an owner to buy the hornets... and if the league can't guarantee profitability, then nobody will buy...

Keep in mind the NBA is like a 3 billion dollar business, even at 3% that's an astounding profit margin.


nba doesn't support bad management by revenue sharing, sorry... it's the only way to expand the league... as stated previously, big markets will have a clear advantage to make more money than smaller market teams... without revenue sharing, there would be half as many teams, and no one wants that... not players, not owners, not fans..
That's right, but under the current system large market teams can still make a profit. If the BRI split is reworked in such a drastic way that the team in the worst market is still able to turn a profit, that will only inflate the profits of the large market teams 10 fold. I don't see how that's fair either. Players have to lose, and no matter what happens large market owners have to gain. That's why one of the major stances of the Union is they feel that along with their own concessions, the owners need to share more.



why do the players get a pass in your so-called business world?? they're entitled to get their full contract even at the cost of the team and league?? most contracts are result based, not a pure guarantee with no expectations or standards for earning that contract... i guess you have double standards...
They don't. The owners draft the contract, and the players sign it. A lot of contracts are incentive based on games played, statistical achievements and so forth. Owners have been stupid not to make this a more regular habit of including these as well as giving themselves team options on non-guaranteed later years in the deal.

iggypop123
08-12-2011, 12:17 AM
Similar stuff were said also in the NFL. I really hope they get something going really soon because this is torture. :sigh:

I really don't want to sit around and watch baseball.

not even close. nobody that watched the labor relations predicted that people would miss games. in the nba, everyone has conceeded there is no bbal this year, and around february things will get crazy, somebody has to cave for a season to happen, otherwise 2k12 will be the only nba you'll get.

Cosmic_Canon
08-12-2011, 11:51 AM
you need a business model that is profitable... of course nothing is guaranteed in life, but i don't know why most on this site feel that because these owners are millionaires/billionaires they somehow should just lose money and be fine with it...

and if you can get more money off interest in banks than investing in a sports franchise, that's nonsense as well...

i'll say it again, take away guaranteed contracts, that alone would help a lot... double the lux tax would help as well..


Well the thing is, NBA teams ARE NOT losing money AS CLAIMED. So the owners claims was just propaganda. Hell everyone in this thread, check the NY Times link, it basically says (17)teams are losing money(albeit the losses are small). With that said, the article said, that may not be sure, since NBA teams' financial books are private. In addition to that, newly brought teams, were bought way more than they're worth(Wizards, Pistons, Warriors). Those owners, are not getting SIZABLE returns on their investments', since their investments weren't worth much anyway.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/calling-foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/

gwrighter
08-12-2011, 12:02 PM
I wasn't thinking of it in the same way as the nfl... the contracts should be structured for 'pay if eligible to play' format... if you aren't physically able to play, then you don't get paid for the time you're injured... teams can't drop you from their roster, they just don't pay you unless you're eligible for games... this would actually help fans because it would cause players to be on the floor more and that's who the fans are there to watch...

i like the idea of 3 year max deals.. that would make bad decisions not have such an effect on teams...

you make solid points, though i would make some amendments. I would still pay players when they are injured, but at a reduced salary. If you paid them nothing then they would try & avoid injury on the court. i think 3 years is too short, maybe something like 4.

Ill21
08-12-2011, 12:03 PM
July 1 2011...The day the NBA died.

gwrighter
08-12-2011, 12:05 PM
I cant imagine a school year without NBA...:(

haha now u don't have an excuse not to study.

3mikee_
08-12-2011, 12:08 PM
These deals/negotiations are basically pointless at this point in time. Until they start losing games/season is threatened. Nobody is going to budge..

Oldmantrash
08-12-2011, 12:09 PM
Looks like I'll be able to finish all my unplayed Videogames this winter.
Rather watch my Nets play.

Was going to get the NBA package this year too.

I really hope they settle this

Gators123
08-12-2011, 12:56 PM
Stern doesn't expect a full season lockout.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-11/sports/29877170_1_nba-owners-billy-hunter-labor-accord



SPRINGFIELD -- Commissioner David Stern, despite NBA owners and players being far apart in reaching a labor accord, told the Globe tonight that he "expects" an eventual agreement that would prevent cancellation of the season.

“I would say that we have very smart players who recognize that this system is very good to them,'' he said. "You've got 13 players on a roster averaging $5 million apiece, that’s $65 million and what the owners have said is, ’we’re going to try very hard as we reset this thing to keep you as close to that number as we can.’

“The NFL, which is usually profitable as opposed to the NBA, which isn’t, got the double-digit [revenue] reductions from their players. Our players will understand that when the rhetoric stops and they will understand that the owners are trying to do the right thing and our players always try to do the right thing.”

Stern walked away discouraged from the first full negotiating session two weeks ago and less than 24 hours later, the NBA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board to prevent a decertification.

Still, Stern said he is optimistic about reaching an agreement.

“I expect that we’ll make a deal because the alternative is very destructive,” he said. “It’s destructive of $2 billion worth of player salaries and it’s destructive most important to our fans of the game. And if it spirals badly everyone gets hurt. But in some ways I worry because the players have more to lose, especially those in the later stages of their career. So we’re going to do everything we can when the rhetoric slows down to get this thing back on track.”

The previous statement may have been a shot at Players Association executive director Billy Hunter, who told the National Bar Association last week that he expects the 2011-12 season will be lost because of the labor dispute. Stern said a scheduled negotiating session yesterday was canceled by the players.

“They’ll be smaller meetings, conversations, you don’t need these great media events to have dialogue,” he said. “Eventually we’ll get it done.

“I will not set a deadline on Aug. 11,” he said. “We close to two months away.”

kdspurman
08-12-2011, 01:17 PM
I think the NBA owners want this. Their logic is as simple as underpants gnomes:

Step 1: Lockout NBA players

Step 2: .....

Step 3: Profit

:facepalm:

:clap: that was a great episode lol..