PDA

View Full Version : NBA owners budge on hard cap demand



beasted86
09-27-2011, 09:47 PM
NEW YORK – For the first time in two years of labor talks, NBA owners made a modest push from their rigid stance on implementing a hard salary cap, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

The owners proposed at Tuesday’s negotiating session an idea similar to the current system that allows teams to pay a luxury tax for going over the cap. Only, now there would be ultra-punitive measures against higher-spending teams. The current system has teams pay a dollar-for-dollar tax for exceeding the cap.

Players Association executive director Billy Hunter has called the hard cap a “blood issue” for the union, and insisted the players would never agree to it.

The owners’ proposal on Tuesday “would still have the affects of a hard cap,” one source with knowledge of the talks said.

The owners didn’t budge on a desire to change the basketball-related income percentage (BRI) to a split that takes the players from 57 percent to the mid 40s, sources said. The players had offered to drop from a 57-43 split to 54-46 at a meeting last week in New York.

The two sides met for a little less than two hours on Tuesday on Manhattan’s East Side, and planned to meet again on Wednesday morning. The Players Association’s economist, Kevin Murphy, didn’t attend Tuesday’s meeting, but was traveling to New York to take part in Wednesday’s session. While the owners’ proposal was a slight upgrade, it is unlikely to move union leadership.

The owners and union both strongly suggested that Wednesday’s meeting would tell the direction of the talks. After the NBA canceled the first two weeks of training camp and preseason games last week, sources said league officials would likely suspend the last two weeks of October games by the end of this week if the two sides hadn’t made significant progress in negotiations. The NBA’s regular season starts on Nov. 1, and it’s almost certain games will soon start to be canceled without the framework of a new labor agreement.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_meeting_092711

NBA_Starter
09-27-2011, 09:48 PM
Good, now maybe they can get something done!

LayZbone
09-27-2011, 09:51 PM
Dammit split the BRI 50-50 and lets get the season started.

likemystylez
09-27-2011, 09:53 PM
wait a second, how low have the players offered to go on the split. They offered to go to 54% before the lockout even started in JUNE, then a couple weeks ago in NY, I thought they went lower than the 54%... otherwise why would they present the exact same proposal as they had 3 months ago???? Something isnt adding up, or the writers arent following these talks as closely as I have been the last 4 months.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 09:55 PM
wait a second, how low have the players offered to go on the split. They offered to go to 54% before the lockout even started in JUNE, then a couple weeks ago in NY, I thought they went lower than the 54%... otherwise why would they present the exact same proposal as they had 3 months ago???? Something isnt adding up, or the writers arent following these talks as closely as I have been the last 4 months.

Share some of your insider info... I recall you were one of the first to break the correlation between the lockout ending and LeBron's love for basketball, so it's clear you know a lot more than these guys do.

likemystylez
09-27-2011, 09:55 PM
Dammit split the BRI 50-50 and lets get the season started.

The thing is- this is just one portion of the revenue. The owners get 100% of the other revenue already.

Punk
09-27-2011, 10:12 PM
For what's worth, Alan Hahn who covers the Knicks, Rangers here in NY says it is likely we will see Amare/Carmelo soon on the basketball court.

Seems like both sides are on heading towards the same page.

likemystylez
09-27-2011, 10:14 PM
For what's worth, Alan Hahn who covers the Knicks, Rangers here in NY says it is likely we will see Amare/Carmelo soon on the basketball court.

Seems like both sides are on heading towards the same page.

doesnt carmello do charity games all the time though? Was he talking about an NBA basketball court?

DoMeFavors
09-27-2011, 10:16 PM
Kinda sucks without a lockout there is always news
NBA season obviously
After season we talk about draft, and free agency.
There is no news going on and its boring!

iggypop123
09-27-2011, 10:27 PM
it still works as a hard cap and i think the owners would argue we gave you your soft cap now give us your BRI. you are 7 points from where we want to be.

Cal827
09-27-2011, 10:34 PM
So they go from something that would help limit expenses on small market teams and help prevent bigger market teams from stacking the deck (E.g blocking LA from signing Dwight outright, or allowing teams well over cap to add MLE players), to accepting something that would really screw small market teams spending a little more b/c they are in a semi-contending mode, and allow the teams that already make tons (like LA and New York) to keep spending..... The owners are a collective joke :facepalm:

mjt20mik
09-27-2011, 10:36 PM
For what's worth, Alan Hahn who covers the Knicks, Rangers here in NY says it is likely we will see Amare/Carmelo soon on the basketball court.

Seems like both sides are on heading towards the same page.

You sure he wasn't talking about Lebron/Wade/Bosh's charity game?

bmd1101
09-27-2011, 10:43 PM
wait a second, how low have the players offered to go on the split. They offered to go to 54% before the lockout even started in JUNE, then a couple weeks ago in NY, I thought they went lower than the 54%... otherwise why would they present the exact same proposal as they had 3 months ago???? Something isnt adding up, or the writers arent following these talks as closely as I have been the last 4 months.

I thought they were around the 50-51% range last I heard.

LakersIn5
09-27-2011, 10:43 PM
So they go from something that would help limit expenses on small market teams and help prevent bigger market teams from stacking the deck (E.g blocking LA from signing Dwight outright, or allowing teams well over cap to add MLE players), to accepting something that would really screw small market teams spending a little more b/c they are in a semi-contending mode, and allow the teams that already make tons (like LA and New York) to keep spending..... The owners are a collective joke :facepalm:

just because a team is a big market team it doesnt mean that it will already contend. even small market teams can contend if the management is good. big market teams can spend all they want but they can still not win anything. the spurs are not a big market but they are a winner. the nets are a big market team but they somehow suck so i dont really understand why the league is trying to prevent teams from stacking. everyteam started from scratch, if the players doesnt want to play for your team then just deal with it and try to make your team a contender with other ways.

Bruno
09-27-2011, 10:43 PM
:clap:

likemystylez
09-27-2011, 10:54 PM
I thought they were around the 50-51% range last I heard.

I dont remember ever hearing the precentage, but it was definitely lower than the 54 that had been proposed in June. Also david Stern came out and basically said it was a fair offer where he could see a meeting point. The problem was the hardcap/ soft cap thing. Now I hear that the owners want it to be somewhere in the mid 40s? but this is from the same reporters who arent aware that it went below 54 two weeks ago... so Im not sure they can be trusted. it sucks when people who arent following the situation on a daily basis are doing the reporting, there are too many inconsistancies.

Cal827
09-27-2011, 10:57 PM
just because a team is a big market team it doesnt mean that it will already contend. even small market teams can contend if the management is good. big market teams can spend all they want but they can still not win anything. the spurs are not a big market but they are a winner. the nets are a big market team but they somehow suck so i dont really understand why the league is trying to prevent teams from stacking. everyteam started from scratch, if the players doesnt want to play for your team then just deal with it and try to make your team a contender with other ways.

Oh I know, believe me, I'm one who believes in that if the ownership is good and they make the right decisions, that they will come. Hell, Toronto has a fairly large market (Canada), we would likely be paying into the pot if there's revenue sharing, but we have sucked because of some terrible draft picks (Araujo, Graham, Villanueva (bad mainly b/c we already had Bosh), and in many people's opinions, Bargs).

LA made some good choices in the draft (Bynum, Kobe, Fisher (Srry if i'm wrong on this one I'm not completely sure)) and added players at the right time, like Gasol and Artes; sorry if I offended anyone with the example. I'm just looking at other rules in the NBA, like the ability to pay a player more and go over the cap in order to keep them. For example, just suppose that both LA and Milwaukee have franchise players on their teams that are due for a contract and say that both want to remain with their respective teams but they are close to the cap . Luckily for LA, they have an an owner who doesn't worry about the money (cause of the market), so they could easily resign him and pay the lux tax without a problem. The Bucks on the other hand on top of having to pay the huge contract, would basically have to pay it again for the lux tax, and for a smaller market team, that could kill.

Of course I would expect other supervisions would be included (mainly the revenue sharing idea) in order to help teams in a situation like this.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 11:04 PM
Oh I know, believe me, I'm one who believes in that if the ownership is good and they make a team contend, that they will come.

LA made some good choices in the draft (Bynum, Kobe, Fisher (Srry if i'm wrong on this one I'm not completely sure)) and added players at the right time, like Gasol and Artes; sorry if I offended anyone with the example. I'm just looking at other rules in the NBA, like the ability to pay a player more and go over the cap in order to keep them. For example, just suppose that both LA and Milwaukee have franchise players on their teams that are due for a contract and say that both want to remain with their respective teams but they are close to the cap . Luckily for LA, they have an an owner who doesn't worry about the money (cause of the market), so they could easily resign him and pay the lux tax without a problem. The Bucks on the other hand on top of having to pay the huge contract, would basically have to pay it again for the lux tax, and for a smaller market team, that could kill.

Of course I would expect other supervisions would be included (mainly the revenue sharing idea) in order to help teams in a situation like this.
That only works with adding more role players. Everybody plays by the same rules of a soft cap and using exceptions. Franchise players aren't included in your type of example because it's not often teams gamble on cap space. The summer of 2010 is fresh in everybody's mind, but otherwise tell me the last time more than 2-3 teams had cap space to add a max player.

jkiddvc20
09-27-2011, 11:20 PM
I want this to be resolved soooo badly

likemystylez
09-27-2011, 11:22 PM
I want this to be resolved soooo badly

we all do, I wish they would just come out and say one way or the other whether this is going to be done or if they are going to just hold off on the season and start seriously negotiating next summer.

IBleedPurple
09-27-2011, 11:47 PM
So they go from something that would help limit expenses on small market teams and help prevent bigger market teams from stacking the deck (E.g blocking LA from signing Dwight outright, or allowing teams well over cap to add MLE players), to accepting something that would really screw small market teams spending a little more b/c they are in a semi-contending mode, and allow the teams that already make tons (like LA and New York) to keep spending..... The owners are a collective joke :facepalm:

Pretty much this

McPeak92
09-28-2011, 12:00 AM
we all do, I wish they would just come out and say one way or the other whether this is going to be done or if they are going to just hold off on the season and start seriously negotiating next summer.

and what just twiddle their thumbs till then? they won't do that cause even though its looking more and more likely that their will not be a full 82 game season they may still be able to get an abbreviated season in(hopefully) at some point.

Mckphins
09-28-2011, 03:00 AM
God is is soo frustrating. Me and couple mates are on holiday in the USA in a few weeks, and a day before we go we wanted to go to the hornets bulls game in new orleans on nov 2nd. Would be the 1st game we've seen live as we live in new Zealand. We want to know if the season Is going ahead cause if it's not were gonna go to Vegas for our last couple of days there. What yous think the likelihood of a game on nov 2nd. Or should we go with the Vegas plan instead?

JEDean89
09-28-2011, 03:21 AM
i agree about the extreme luxury cap. there are only a handful of teams that can pay a 3$ luxury tax and those teams could still spend quite a bit. even with revenue sharing that money would have to be spread out to the 25 teams that can't spend like that. I like the other propositions, but i think there needs to a more competitive way.

I propose a 65 million dollar soft cap, that lets you go over for any reason, screw the exceptions, but you can only go up to 80, which is the hard cap, and the teams with a salary between 65 to 80 pay a 2$ luxury tax on the dollar. This allows teams to both spend when they want to contend, which then the luxury funds go to the teams not overspending as does the revenue sharing, and keep costs down when they are rebuilding. What you could also do is instead of putting a hard cap at 80, is you could marginally increase the luxury tax so that 65-75 pays 1 on the dollar, 75-85 puts 2, 85-95 puts 4. The idea is to let teams spend when they want to spend, but to keep the salaries between teams looking to contend equal. Everyone loves dirk but the mavs had 30 mill extra in salary. Thats Jason Terry, Jason Kidd and Shawne Marion.

A problem of the current system is that it was not possible for the heat to spend as much as the mavericks. the mavs had taken advantage of various exceptions over the years to build up a huge payroll. the heat too were over the cap, albeit slightly. But they would have had a hard time going over the cap much further. It is unfair and needs to be fixed. A cap that would let you go over for any reason, but then made you pay a luxury tax would stop this.

What do you all think? I know there is much more too it, but the players get there BRI% regardless of how it's chopped up. A competitive system is tough too make, it is more than just small vs big markets.

todu82
09-28-2011, 08:36 AM
I don't think we get a deal in time to start the season on November 1st but I really think they're going get a deal done by Christmas. Hope so, be nice to see the NBA again.

Tom Stone
09-28-2011, 09:24 AM
That is crazy....I wanted a Hard Cap......Hopefully this soft cap has penalties that sway teams to not go over .... thus kind of creating a hard cap.....because of this .....the insane owners like Cuban will still be able to buy his way to the finals probably.....like I said the penalty's better be extream....instead of 1$ for 1$ luxury tax...it should be 1$ to 10$ luxury tax.....meaning if you want to over spend your going to pay through your teeth and you'll be helping lesser teams in the process.....
I call it the... Fake Hard cap.

jimm120
09-28-2011, 09:26 AM
i agree about the extreme luxury cap. there are only a handful of teams that can pay a 3$ luxury tax and those teams could still spend quite a bit. even with revenue sharing that money would have to be spread out to the 25 teams that can't spend like that. I like the other propositions, but i think there needs to a more competitive way.

I propose a 65 million dollar soft cap, that lets you go over for any reason, screw the exceptions, but you can only go up to 80, which is the hard cap, and the teams with a salary between 65 to 80 pay a 2$ luxury tax on the dollar. This allows teams to both spend when they want to contend, which then the luxury funds go to the teams not overspending as does the revenue sharing, and keep costs down when they are rebuilding. What you could also do is instead of putting a hard cap at 80, is you could marginally increase the luxury tax so that 65-75 pays 1 on the dollar, 75-85 puts 2, 85-95 puts 4. The idea is to let teams spend when they want to spend, but to keep the salaries between teams looking to contend equal. Everyone loves dirk but the mavs had 30 mill extra in salary. Thats Jason Terry, Jason Kidd and Shawne Marion.

A problem of the current system is that it was not possible for the heat to spend as much as the mavericks. the mavs had taken advantage of various exceptions over the years to build up a huge payroll. the heat too were over the cap, albeit slightly. But they would have had a hard time going over the cap much further. It is unfair and needs to be fixed. A cap that would let you go over for any reason, but then made you pay a luxury tax would stop this.

What do you all think? I know there is much more too it, but the players get there BRI% regardless of how it's chopped up. A competitive system is tough too make, it is more than just small vs big markets.

Your proposition of 65 mil soft and 80 mil hard is technically the "flex" cap that was proposed by the owners.

I like it

Players dont. ANYTHING that restricts a team from hirin new players will be frowned upon by the players.

But personally, if its equality that people are looking for, a flex cap would be good.

Btw, the owners flex cap was around a 10 million cushion(62 mil, but can go up to 72)


Personally, both sides suck. A lot blame the owners because "they are the ones that give out the contracts". But the rules are the ones that put teams ina position that they can infinitely keep acquiring players....and that is what the players want...and owners have to since they want to save face with the fans and wan to compete.

TRF929
09-28-2011, 09:41 AM
Stay strong owners, let these whining players play overseas where they only get paid a portion of what they would in the NBA. That wouldnt last long, I promise you and that would also put pressure on the players association because the players that don't go overseas would pressure them. I'm tired of all these players complaining about making millions and working 6 months outta the year, given they have to stay in shape and some continue to play after season, but thats a very selected few.

MJ the GOAT only made 90 mil through his entire NBA career, not including endorsements, and now a days thats nothing. Let these punks do what they want, but owners you stay strong, sooner or later they'll learn

likemystylez
09-28-2011, 10:15 AM
Stay strong owners, let these whining players play overseas where they only get paid a portion of what they would in the NBA. That wouldnt last long, I promise you and that would also put pressure on the players association because the players that don't go overseas would pressure them. I'm tired of all these players complaining about making millions and working 6 months outta the year, given they have to stay in shape and some continue to play after season, but thats a very selected few.

MJ the GOAT only made 90 mil through his entire NBA career, not including endorsements, and now a days thats nothing. Let these punks do what they want, but owners you stay strong, sooner or later they'll learn

Stay strong owners? i dont think you are following the lock out very closely? The owners are not being asked to give up ANYTHING relative to the last CBA. In every proposal, every scenerio... the players are the only side losing on any issue? LOL- You act like someone is trying to take advantage of the owners? They are absolutely guarenteed to be better off on every single issue being discussed.

BTW- your MJ reference is a bit short sighted. Perhaps look at the bigger picture. Were Franchises selling for 450 Million dollars when MJ was making his money? Were good seats going for 350-800 dollars? Was the league as a whole bringing in 4.3 billion a year? There is something called inflation. BTW- even in 96-97, Jordan was making 30 million a year, while the salary cap was like 34 or 35? LOL Do you know any players today that make 85% of the teams salary cap... or heck even make close to 30 million a year?

Jeesh- Ill bet you in the 60s there were people working 5 times as hard as I do today, and I make more in a month now than they made in a year. Does that mean Im greedy? Its something called inflation.

likemystylez
09-28-2011, 10:19 AM
God is is soo frustrating. Me and couple mates are on holiday in the USA in a few weeks, and a day before we go we wanted to go to the hornets bulls game in new orleans on nov 2nd. Would be the 1st game we've seen live as we live in new Zealand. We want to know if the season Is going ahead cause if it's not were gonna go to Vegas for our last couple of days there. What yous think the likelihood of a game on nov 2nd. Or should we go with the Vegas plan instead?

right now it doesnt look great, having said that- things could change so fast... its hard to put a propability on it since the progress being made in the meetings is very vague, as both sides are keeping a game face until the end.

It really depends if the bigger market teams who want a season are going to step up and just yell it... Im not gonna lose a season over the smaller market teams being greedy.

CostanzaNumba0
09-28-2011, 10:40 AM
Does the nba realize they are on the brink of becoming irrelevant? If this doesn't get done, good luck getting people to watch next year.

likemystylez
09-28-2011, 10:45 AM
Does the nba realize they are on the brink of becoming irrelevant? If this doesn't get done, good luck getting people to watch next year.

They just had their best season in the last 8 in revenue growth and ratings. Every economist in the country expects their revenue to go up considerably over the next 5 years. IM not sure how they are irrelevant?

Punk
09-28-2011, 11:21 AM
They just had their best season in the last 8 in revenue growth and ratings. Every economist in the country expects their revenue to go up considerably over the next 5 years. IM not sure how they are irrelevant?

They aren't now but they still trail 3rd behind NFL and MLB. If they lose a season, they lose everything they worked for. The interest and appeal of the feel good story called the Dallas Mavericks over the big bad Heat becomes dead.

Nobody would care about Dwight and Paul signing with NY or LA.

Missing a bunch of games and a whole season takes away from every single thing that happened this past season.

Miami's big 3, Dallas winning the title, Derrick Rose being an MVP, Knicks revived, Pacers revived, Memphis as a contender, 2011 draft class, etc. It would be every difficult to jump right in and expect people to care and buy tickets.

TRF929
09-28-2011, 01:02 PM
Stay strong owners? i dont think you are following the lock out very closely? The owners are not being asked to give up ANYTHING relative to the last CBA. In every proposal, every scenerio... the players are the only side losing on any issue? LOL- You act like someone is trying to take advantage of the owners? They are absolutely guarenteed to be better off on every single issue being discussed.

BTW- your MJ reference is a bit short sighted. Perhaps look at the bigger picture. Were Franchises selling for 450 Million dollars when MJ was making his money? Were good seats going for 350-800 dollars? Was the league as a whole bringing in 4.3 billion a year? There is something called inflation. BTW- even in 96-97, Jordan was making 30 million a year, while the salary cap was like 34 or 35? LOL Do you know any players today that make 85% of the teams salary cap... or heck even make close to 30 million a year?

Jeesh- Ill bet you in the 60s there were people working 5 times as hard as I do today, and I make more in a month now than they made in a year. Does that mean Im greedy? Its something called inflation.

I'm not following the talk at all, but when I see players making 5 mil to sit at the end of the bench doing c**p and complaining that they want more, thats greed. I understand inflation but when you make millions per year, inflation doesnt hurt you as much as the blue collar workers. If the players weren't greedy do they really need a full garage of 100k cars, 10 mil houses, I think not. The CBA done in 98' was very player friendly and the players took advantage of it, so thats why salaries got so high and now that the owners are trying to stop that the players are crying and taking their basketball home or overseas, being like little kids.

I like how you bring up the ONE year Jordan got paid, but I'm not too sure on the salary in the 90's as you say, considering Pippen made more that Jordan overall. And Kobe 25 mil is close to your 30, I actually heard that Duncan is the highest paid player for 2011, not sure about that, just heard it from somewhere.

Um... in the 60's concidering the average yearly pay was somewhere along 5-6k I'd hope you get more that 5 times that amount now. So yes inflation affected you otherwise youd be homeless. but thats a big difference from a player making millions nowadays. Who sees inflation more, millionaires or average society? You cant tell me having a hard cap is going to hurt these players from living a lavish life.

Another things that gets me is how these players are going overseas to play ball to get some more money, but let these NBA teams pay them the same amount as these overseas teams and the players are going to cry about it. Example the Italian team offering Kobe money to play for them, from what I read its 1.5 mil after taxes for 10 games, let the Lakers pay him that, thats about 12 mil for a nba season, much lower than his 25 mil nba contract. And thats only because he's Kobe, let that be a nba star that not so famous and they won't even get half their nba contract.

Stack_NJNets
09-28-2011, 06:40 PM
LeBron likes basketball.

/thread

likemystylez
09-28-2011, 11:05 PM
I'm not following the talk at all, but when I see players making 5 mil to sit at the end of the bench doing c**p and complaining that they want more, thats greed.


The players are not asking for more, the owners are the side demanding more. Infact thats kind of the reason for this whole lock out. Owners didnt like the old CBA, owners want more of the income.

I understand inflation but when you make millions per year, inflation doesnt hurt you as much as the blue collar workers. If the players weren't greedy do they really need a full garage of 100k cars, 10 mil houses, I think not.

Do you think owners are living in the projects getting food stamps every week? Owners are all Billionaires. I'm not sure what blue colar workers have to do with this at all?

The CBA done in 98' was very player friendly and the players took advantage of it, so thats why salaries got so high and now that the owners are trying to stop that the players are crying and taking their basketball home or overseas, being like little kids.

I think its a natural reaction for almost anybody in any line of work to be bothered when their salary is cut. Especially when it's not like the players have done anything wrong. The owners are ultimately responsible for making sure their organization is running efficiently and turning a profit. The owners have the right to back away from any contract before its signed. Don't they deserve atleast some of the blame for these large contracts??

I like how you bring up the ONE year Jordan got paid, but I'm not too sure on the salary in the 90's as you say, considering Pippen made more that Jordan overall. And Kobe 25 mil is close to your 30, I actually heard that Duncan is the highest paid player for 2011, not sure about that, just heard it from somewhere.

Yeah Kobes 25 million might be close, but he wouldnt make 25 million if the cap was still 36 million. the league was different when Jordan was in it. Teams werent bringing in the same revenue.

Um... in the 60's concidering the average yearly pay was somewhere along 5-6k I'd hope you get more that 5 times that amount now. So yes inflation affected you otherwise youd be homeless. but thats a big difference from a player making millions nowadays. Who sees inflation more, millionaires or average society? You cant tell me having a hard cap is going to hurt these players from living a lavish life.
I think i said in the 60s there were people who worked 5 times as hard as me and I make more in a month than they made in an entire year. I dont consider myself to make an exceptional amount of money either.

Players will continue to get paid extremely well relative to the rest of society. I dont think any of the players are worried that they will wind up in poverty. They know that they are a big reason why owners are making hundreds of millions over the years though.

You cant compare your lifestyle to their lifestyle or an average persons spending power to theirs. Nobody wants to be taken advantage of, and they feel that by giving MORE back to the owners, that the owners are taking advantage of them

I can meet you half way though. While it is probably fair for the players to make millions of dollars. The fact that the owners are taking risks and losses while the players are taking guarenteed contracts doesnt seem completely reasonable. Perhaps a portion of the players contract should be based on the profit that their team made in a given year? Or players as a whole should have to absorb a portion of the leaguewide reported and verified loss?

I dont think its fair that the entire loss should come out of the players pay, but a precentage of it (less than 50% because i think the owners are far more at fault)

Another things that gets me is how these players are going overseas to play ball to get some more money, but let these NBA teams pay them the same amount as these overseas teams and the players are going to cry about it. Example the Italian team offering Kobe money to play for them, from what I read its 1.5 mil after taxes for 10 games, let the Lakers pay him that, thats about 12 mil for a nba season, much lower than his 25 mil nba contract. And thats only because he's Kobe, let that be a nba star that not so famous and they won't even get half their nba contract.

NBA teams pay higher salarys because they want to have the best players in the world. And guess what- the NBA is a league of the best basketball players on the planet. THE NBA markets their league that way around the world. IF any company could honestly say they are at the highest level in their field and they demand that of their employees... its not unreasonable for the employees to get paid more than competing companys is it?

likemystylez
09-29-2011, 01:04 AM
LeBron likes basketball.

/thread

hopefully, lebron shows up at this meeting on friday. Theyre all gonna gather around and bring in the lie detector to put this discrepency to rest.. Apparently there is still some doubt as to whether lebron james actually enjoys basketball or not.

MTar786
09-29-2011, 01:40 AM
didnt mj make 30 mil in each of the 96.97 and 98 seasons? thats 90 mil

Raps18-19 Champ
09-29-2011, 01:46 AM
They aren't now but they still trail 3rd behind NFL and MLB. If they lose a season, they lose everything they worked for. The interest and appeal of the feel good story called the Dallas Mavericks over the big bad Heat becomes dead.

Nobody would care about Dwight and Paul signing with NY or LA.

Missing a bunch of games and a whole season takes away from every single thing that happened this past season.

Miami's big 3, Dallas winning the title, Derrick Rose being an MVP, Knicks revived, Pacers revived, Memphis as a contender, 2011 draft class, etc. It would be every difficult to jump right in and expect people to care and buy tickets.

I'm not getting the last part. If people are considerably eager for the NBA and they miss out, that eagerness will only grow or people will stop caring.

And no reasonable person will completely stop watching the NBA just because of 1 measly lockout.

likemystylez
09-29-2011, 10:03 AM
I'm not getting the last part. If people are considerably eager for the NBA and they miss out, that eagerness will only grow or people will stop caring.

And no reasonable person will completely stop watching the NBA just because of 1 measly lockout.

very few people in this forum likely would, but the reality is that the NBA and most Sports have a large segment of fans that are casual fans and basically just turn it on TNT to watch Kobe Bryant against Dwight Howard or whatever. These are the types of fans who dont really care who wins or what the teams injury situation is. They may read a couple articles a month about the league in general (where most people in here are probably reading 4 or 5 articles a day... when the league isnt even active LOL).

The casual fans will lose interest, and might even know right away when the league starts up. The die hard fans will always be there, is that enough though.

Sixerlover
09-29-2011, 05:13 PM
didnt mj make 30 mil in each of the 96.97 and 98 seasons? thats 90 mil

Pretty sure it was just 97 and 98. And what did that have to do with anything?

smith&wesson
09-29-2011, 05:38 PM
Greedy *** owners.

smith&wesson
09-29-2011, 05:50 PM
The thing is- this is just one portion of the revenue. The owners get 100% of the other revenue already.

this

GiantsSwaGG
09-29-2011, 05:51 PM
There won't be an NBA season this year BOOK IT!

Badluck33
09-29-2011, 06:04 PM
Money will be lost before any interest is lost. NBA is at its highest interest since the Jordan era.

Also consider the social media and the impact it has on todays culture. That will be a powerful tool to get any 'lost' interest back in the NBA.

jiggin
09-30-2011, 06:58 AM
that sucks, hard cap is the only way to immediately regain control of not only competition of equality in revue streams trickling down into the competition ont he court.

Less ball games, same problems...sounds about right for corporate American owned entertainment.

Hellcrooner
09-30-2011, 07:40 AM
for gods sake, give them 50-50 and continue with the CURRENt CBA and start the damm season.

NYman15
09-30-2011, 09:19 AM
I wonder how much stricter the rules will be with a soft cap in place, assuming their isn't a hard cap. I'm sure the owners are really gonna make it tough to go over the cap and make the luxury tax very steep.

daleja424
09-30-2011, 10:18 AM
that sucks, hard cap is the only way to immediately regain control of not only competition of equality in revue streams trickling down into the competition ont he court.

Less ball games, same problems...sounds about right for corporate American owned entertainment.

How on earth does a hard cap level the playing field.

The two biggest factors that determine where players end up every year is status and and location...

Do you ever here a players wishlist say, "I want to go to Detroit, Milwaukee, or Toronto b/c they have money." I didn't think so...

New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Miami... that is where players want to be. Every year players take discounts to go to those places...

da ThRONe
09-30-2011, 10:59 AM
How on earth does a hard cap level the playing field.

The two biggest factors that determine where players end up every year is status and and location...

Do you ever here a players wishlist say, "I want to go to Detroit, Milwaukee, or Toronto b/c they have money." I didn't think so...
New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Miami... that is where players want to be. Every year players take discounts to go to those places...

That's because they can get similiar money playing in markets they want to. A hard cap would force a player to choose between money or the market they want. As of now guys can go get both. Look at Carmelo perfect example. He was able to force his way out of Denver while still getting a max deal. If he had to choose between New York for a third the money or stay in Denver and get the max deal. I'm sure Anthony would still be in Denver, but since he was able to get his cake and eat it too he's with the Knicks now.

likemystylez
09-30-2011, 11:03 AM
That's because they can get similiar money playing in markets they want to. A hard cap would force a player to choose between money or the market they want. As of now guys can go get both. Look at Carmelo perfect example. He was able to force his way out of Denver while still getting a max deal. If he had to choose between New York for a third the money or stay in Denver and get the max deal. I'm sure Anthony would still be in Denver, but since he was able to get his cake and eat it too he's with the Knicks now.

Im not sure it would have as much of an impact on max players... but for the other 97% of the league.... you are correct. Max players can make 5 times their salary via endorsements in which case... market size matters a ton more than the nba teams cap space.

But... it wouldnt have been as easy a decision for melo

da ThRONe
09-30-2011, 11:15 AM
Im not sure it would have as much of an impact on max players... but for the other 97% of the league.... you are correct. Max players can make 5 times their salary via endorsements in which case... market size matters a ton more than the nba teams cap space.

But... it wouldnt have been as easy a decision for melo

Well we know going to New York wasn't about winning for him. It was about market and money and this system allowed him to get both.

As far as endorsement money a guys like Melo can get the majority of that revenue in any market. This may have been the case 20 years ago, but now-a-days being in a certain market isn't that big of a deal endorsement wise. LeBron was a global icon in Cleveland.

daleja424
09-30-2011, 01:00 PM
1st of all... in the NBA the stars are really the main reason for any team to succeed or fail... so if my point is only applicable to stars... it still screws the smaller teams. Sacramento can sign all the John Salmons they want, but unless they get a legit superstar to join them, they will not be a contender.

2nd of all... The mid level and lower level players ALSO take less money to go to bigger markets and winning situations. There is always a line of guys willing to take less money to play in LA, Dallas, Boston, Miami, etc... So don't kid yourselves into thinking this only applies to the stars.

Andrew32
09-30-2011, 01:03 PM
1st of all... in the NBA the stars are really the main reason for any team to succeed or fail...

Not really, a Star without a good enough supporting Cast will fail 99% of the time.

I'd say its the management/gm's that determine a teams success and how much and what kind of players/talent they surround their star with.

Sure the better your star is the less talent around him you will need to win but no star wins without a semi-decent cast.

daleja424
09-30-2011, 01:08 PM
Not really, a Star without a good enough supporting Cast will fail 99% of the time.

I'd say its the management/gm's that determine a teams success and how much and what kind of players/talent they surround their star with.

Sure the better your star is the less talent around him you will need to win but no star wins without a semi-decent cast.

Do you watch the NBA? How many stars were there on non playoff teams last year?

GiantsSwaGG
09-30-2011, 02:25 PM
Not really, a Star without a good enough supporting Cast will fail 99% of the time.

I'd say its the management/gm's that determine a teams success and how much and what kind of players/talent they surround their star with.

Sure the better your star is the less talent around him you will need to win but no star wins without a semi-decent cast.

:facepalm:

likemystylez
09-30-2011, 11:02 PM
Not really, a Star without a good enough supporting Cast will fail 99% of the time.

I'd say its the management/gm's that determine a teams success and how much and what kind of players/talent they surround their star with.

Sure the better your star is the less talent around him you will need to win but no star wins without a semi-decent cast.

Yeah but when you have a true star, a sure fire hall of famer.... being a GM gets easy because there are a number of quality players who want to join your team.... and somehow trades seem to start working out in your favor A LOT.

TRF929
10-01-2011, 09:07 AM
Money will be lost before any interest is lost. NBA is at its highest interest since the Jordan era.

Also consider the social media and the impact it has on todays culture. That will be a powerful tool to get any 'lost' interest back in the NBA.

What money are you talking about, apparently 28 of the NBA teams lost money last year.

I'm not speaking for everyone, but with the players whining about more money or no hard cap, they've lost me. I'm a moderate fan but with all this crab going down, only makes my interest go down. I'm not saying everyone is like that, but I also know I'm not the only one.

TRF929
10-01-2011, 09:18 AM
Yeah but when you have a true star, a sure fire hall of famer.... being a GM gets easy because there are a number of quality players who want to join your team.... and somehow trades seem to start working out in your favor A LOT.

I agree with what your saying, but thats not always the case that quality players wanna join you or trades work out.

Look at the Spurs, they drafted their profile players. There's few quality players that wanted to join them. OKC is another example, its a little harder for those teams because of their location. All it takes is for a bigger city to take a liking to them and they may leave when can, almost happened to Duncan. You have to take players personalities also, Duncan, Durant have very strong minded "wanna do this myself" personalities. Bron, Bosh not so much. I would add Garnett also but he tried his hardest and switched teams in later years when he cant carry a team on his own.

daleja424
10-01-2011, 11:03 AM
What money are you talking about, apparently 28 of the NBA teams lost money last year.

I'm not speaking for everyone, but with the players whining about more money or no hard cap, they've lost me. I'm a moderate fan but with all this crab going down, only makes my interest go down. I'm not saying everyone is like that, but I also know I'm not the only one.

You are really really confused...

Last year the average owner lost 10 million... true... (22 of 30 lost money for a total of 300 million is believe the NBA)

BUT if we do not play this season it is not like the owners break even... FAR FROM IT! The owners will lose massive amounts of money without a revenue stream. The owners still have to make interest and principle loan payments, pay front office staff, front the money for maintenance and operating costs, etc etc etc...even if the games are not played. The owners will lose A LOT MORE by not playing this year than by playing it under the old rules.

da ThRONe
10-01-2011, 01:46 PM
You are really really confused...

Last year the average owner lost 10 million... true... (22 of 30 lost money for a total of 300 million is believe the NBA)

BUT if we do not play this season it is not like the owners break even... FAR FROM IT! The owners will lose massive amounts of money without a revenue stream. The owners still have to make interest and principle loan payments, pay front office staff, front the money for maintenance and operating costs, etc etc etc...even if the games are not played. The owners will lose A LOT MORE by not playing this year than by playing it under the old rules.

Another thing that's not being discussed is why some teams are losing money. A lot of owners acquire the past debt of previous owners. I know this was the case with my Hornets.