PDA

View Full Version : Billy Hunter podcast covering Players' latest offers



beasted86
10-12-2011, 11:42 PM
Feel free to listen to the entire podcast w/ Mike Francesa:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.podtrac.com%2Fpts%2F redirect.mp3%2Fnyc.podcast.play.it%2Fmedia%2Fd0%2F d0%2Fd0%2FdY%2FdY%2FdA%2FdH%2FYYAH_3.MP3%3Fauthtok %3D5561586686087907619_CWY21a0j6WW3gbgXc4f1Y3MJIY&podcast_name=Billy+Hunter&podcast_artist=Mike+Francesa&station_id=62&tag=pages&dcid=CBS.NY


Here are some key elements that he discussed:

Last BRI split offered by players was 53% players / 47% for owners (Owners offer 47% players / 53% owners)
Reduction from 57% to proposed 53% would cover approx. $200M of owners $300M claimed losses
Proposed shortening contracts to 5 years Bird rights, 4 years free agent (Owners offer 4 Bird, 3 free)
Wants inclusion of owners revenue sharing plan in new CBA
Proposed "stretch provision" to allow buyouts to be extended to 10-12 years payout
Proposed on extending hard cap in tranches to 1.25:1 ratio first $5M over, 1.50:1 over $5-10M over, extending eventually to 2:1 ratio. (Owners want immediate 2:1, see other thread)
Proposed incentive to take years off rookie contract for every year NCAA player stays in school after 1yr removed; Ex: 20yr old can sign 3yr rookie deal, 21yr old 2yr deal (Owners offer 2 years removed minimum, and instead extending rookie contract to 6yrs)
Offered concession on raises; 10.5% Bird, 8% Non-Bird in old CBA, willing to go down to 8% Bird, 7% Non-Bird (via Stern's podcast)

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 01:10 AM
The owners can't, shouldn't and won't accept below 50% of BRI. They should target 53% for themselves, 47% for players. The average NBA salary would still be well above $4 million per year at the start of the deal and would go up substantially from then on.

Hellcrooner
10-13-2011, 01:33 AM
reasonable.
as for 6 year rookie contract, as long as you are UNRESTRICTED after it, im all for it.

gotoHcarolina52
10-13-2011, 01:34 AM
Split the difference and call it a night.

Dade County
10-13-2011, 10:17 AM
reasonable.
as for 6 year rookie contract, as long as you are UNRESTRICTED after it, im all for it.

NO!... Thats F'in ridicules.

The owners just want to ride that cheap rookie contract as long as they can. This is getting insane.

Can the rookies restructure their contacts after 3yrs or something:confused: to get more $$$ if they deserve it.

beasted86
10-13-2011, 10:33 AM
NO!... Thats F'in ridicules.

The owners just want to ride that cheap rookie contract as long as they can. This is getting insane.

Can the rookies restructure their contacts after 3yrs or something:confused: to get more $$$ if they deserve it.

Don't worry, just yet another of the owners ridiculous posturing requests... Has no chance of getting ratified through. Union won't agree with 22 yr old seniors stuck on a rookie deal until they are 28, and still being restricted after that. Hunter talks about that very scenario in the interview.

likemystylez
10-13-2011, 10:34 AM
The owners can't, shouldn't and won't accept below 50% of BRI. They should target 53% for themselves, 47% for players. The average NBA salary would still be well above $4 million per year at the start of the deal and would go up substantially from then on.

47% would be less % than any of the big pro sports right now. Why should the players take such a huge pay cut when the sport is thriving mainly because of big name players.

Its bad enough that the top tier players are being underpaid because of the cap on max contracts. IN capitolistic economy, one should be able to be paid as much as anybody is willing to spend on him.... just because YOU think thats more money- than they deserve... doesnt really change anything.

How much money would Lebron have made had he been outside a max contract cap situation? 25 million a yr, 30 million a yr, 40 million a yr?... Probably in that neighborhood... be hes making like 14-15? If you think he is making more they are making more than they deserve, then stop going to games, stop watching them on tv, stop buying merchandise. If enough fans stop paying for this stuff... then BRI will go down as will the average players salary.

ANOTHER thing that I find funny? So the midlevel exception is the average salary in the league at the time. LOL how does one just decide to change that number from 5.5 million to 3 million? The midlevel is an average by definition. If the owners want that number to go down, then they need to start paying lower salaries... and it automatically will go down?... am I missing something.... You cant just decide what an average salary will be with complete disregard to what the current salarys actually are.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 10:53 AM
As one analyst put it yesterday... Most in the know have sided with the players, but unfortunately, most are not in the know.

The owners offers have been crazy. I understand that they want to change some things... but they are demanding radical changes across the board and have been unwilling to budge much (if at all).

ink
10-13-2011, 12:41 PM
As one analyst put it yesterday... Most in the know have sided with the players, but unfortunately, most are not in the know.

The owners offers have been crazy. I understand that they want to change some things... but they are demanding radical changes across the board and have been unwilling to budge much (if at all).

That analyst has a tried and true arguing technique: anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. lol. Still not understanding how anyone can take a side choosing between millionaires and billionaires, or why anyone would attach themselves personally to something that has nothing to do with them. Consider that it might be the players and owners together who are screwing the fans, and have been doing so for a long time. The average fan can't afford to attend a game. That's more of an injustice than any perceived injustice any player is going through, yet fans buy into the BS about the poor players or the poor owners. Makes you shake your head.

jrice9
10-13-2011, 12:48 PM
That analyst has a tried and true arguing technique: anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. lol. Still not understanding how anyone can take a side choosing between millionaires and billionaires. If the players don't like capitalism they should stay out of the entertainment business.
Is a salary cap capitalism ink? How about Revenue Sharing? How about a Draft? How about a maximun salary and term length on deals? How about restricted free agency?

Those are all ownership positions and rightly or wrongly in their intent those are anti-capitalist positions that players would glady take away.

ink
10-13-2011, 12:54 PM
Is a salary cap capitalism ink? How about Revenue Sharing? How about a Draft? How about a maximun salary and term length on deals? How about restricted free agency?

Those are all ownership positions and rightly or wrongly in their intent those are anti-capitalist positions that players would glady take away.

It's not political in the least. They run their business in whatever way they see fit because they own it. That's what I mean by capitalist. The fact that they're sharing to the degree they're sharing with the players is also not pure capitalism in the political sense, but once the players unionized, the model was broken right? The issue is that the owners put up the capital, take all the risks, and run the league. I don't have a lot of sympathy for either side but the players' position is just silly. At least the owners are trying to make some sense out of the muddled mess.

I am all for systemic change to the league. The old system was clearly only benefiting a few teams.

ttam68
10-13-2011, 01:06 PM
That analyst has a tried and true arguing technique: anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. lol. Still not understanding how anyone can take a side choosing between millionaires and billionaires, or why anyone would attach themselves personally to something that has nothing to do with them.

Isn't that what we do everytime we watch sports? 99% of arguments have no real affect on those arguing them.



Consider that it might be the players and owners together who are screwing the fans, and have been doing so for a long time. The average fan can't afford to attend a game. That's more of an injustice than any perceived injustice any player is going through, yet fans buy into the BS about the poor players or the poor owners. Makes you shake your head.

Welcome to America.

ink
10-13-2011, 01:15 PM
Isn't that what we do everytime we watch sports? 99% of arguments have no real affect on those arguing them.

lol. No doubt. But this isn't on-the-court action, this is financial, and for the most part we're rubes for getting personally involved in their financial problems. The irony is that both sides forget the fans while they squabble over money, and the average fan will be stretched to the max just to watch the game live when the actual season starts. It's not unique to basketball, but it is pretty ironic. If anything we should be pissed at them for gouging, not for what percentage they are able to get while gouging fans. See what I mean?

jrice9
10-13-2011, 02:54 PM
They run their business in whatever way they see fit because they own it.
No they run it with many anti-trust issues along with many collusion issues. Professional sports is very far away from capitalism principles. There are laws/free market principles that limit what ordinary busineses can do.


That's what I mean by capitalist. The fact that they're sharing to the degree they're sharing with the players is also not pure capitalism in the political sense, but once the players unionized, the model was broken right?
Well thats not right first of all. No capitalist enterprise has any kind of salary cap. Professional sports is the only industry where a union wants more capitalism. Concepts of the draft, limited free agency, reserve clause, salary caps, max salaries are not capitalst. If the NBA was truly a free market it wouldnt have any of those kind of things.



The issue is that the owners put up the capital, take all the risks, and run the league. I
Agreed but why does that mean they get to have protection against themselves for their own mistakes. Lets not weep over owners either who are getting easily on average a 10% increase in equity a year.




players' position is just silly. At least the owners are trying to make some sense out of the muddled mess.

I think your being a bit holier than thou on the owner's issues. The owner's simply want to make more money as do the players.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 02:59 PM
The owners need to realize that this is a star-driven league and it was as it's highest peak when there were these so called "super teams". The NBA will never become the NFL. They need to come to grips with this....

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 03:15 PM
The athletes share of revenues is 5% in the UFC, 12% in professional tennis, and 47% in the NFL (without guaranteed contracts). By way of contrast, NBA contracts are guaranteed and NBA players received 57%. It's no wonder 17 teams lost money as of '09-'10.

You're right, players will get exactly what owners are willing to spend, which right now is zero.

The owners can decide to pay whatever they want, since they are the owners.


47% would be less % than any of the big pro sports right now. Why should the players take such a huge pay cut when the sport is thriving mainly because of big name players.

Its bad enough that the top tier players are being underpaid because of the cap on max contracts. IN capitolistic economy, one should be able to be paid as much as anybody is willing to spend on him.... just because YOU think thats more money- than they deserve... doesnt really change anything.

How much money would Lebron have made had he been outside a max contract cap situation? 25 million a yr, 30 million a yr, 40 million a yr?... Probably in that neighborhood... be hes making like 14-15? If you think he is making more they are making more than they deserve, then stop going to games, stop watching them on tv, stop buying merchandise. If enough fans stop paying for this stuff... then BRI will go down as will the average players salary.

ANOTHER thing that I find funny? So the midlevel exception is the average salary in the league at the time. LOL how does one just decide to change that number from 5.5 million to 3 million? The midlevel is an average by definition. If the owners want that number to go down, then they need to start paying lower salaries... and it automatically will go down?... am I missing something.... You cant just decide what an average salary will be with complete disregard to what the current salarys actually are.

ink
10-13-2011, 03:31 PM
The owner's simply want to make more money as do the players.

That's why I said capitalism because it was fundamentally about making money on both sides. I also removed the remark in an edit because I knew it would lead to a pointless semantic discussion.


The owners need to realize that this is a star-driven league and it was as it's highest peak when there were these so called "super teams". The NBA will never become the NFL. They need to come to grips with this....

I think that's exactly what makes the NBA so obnoxious. The super teams are a nuisance. I'd rather see a great team developed honestly and mostly internally -- i.e. Spurs, pre-Rodman Bulls, Bird-era Celtics, Hakeem-era Rockets, Pistons, etc. These super teams really started when Shaq jumped from the Magic to the Lakers, and the NBA structure really started to crumble after that landmark free agent signing. Before that you had free agents, yes, but almost all of the teams had developed their own talent and used FAs to augment their core. From Shaq on, teams started looking for ways to pull in a #1 or #2 (and in the case of the Heat, a #1, 2, and 3 star) to dominate with. It makes for a crappier overall NBA product.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 03:39 PM
I think that's exactly what makes the NBA so obnoxious. The super teams are a nuisance. I'd rather see a great team developed honestly and mostly internally -- i.e. Spurs, pre-Rodman Bulls, Bird-era Celtics, Hakeem-era Rockets, Pistons, etc. These super teams really started when Shaq jumped from the Magic to the Lakers, and the NBA structure really started to crumble after that landmark free agent signing. Before that you had free agents, yes, but almost all of the teams had developed their own talent and used FAs to augment their core. From Shaq on, teams started looking for ways to pull in a #1 or #2 (and in the case of the Heat, a #1, 2, and 3 star) to dominate with. It makes for a crappier overall NBA product.
How does it make for a crappier product when more people watch? TV revenue for the NBA skyrocketed this past year because of the Heat, because of the Celtics, because of the Lakers, and eventually the Knicks(I think it's inevitable now). When the big markets are good and have multiple stars, people get interested and watch. It didn't even start last year, it started in the 80s, the so called "golden years" by many.

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 03:47 PM
How does it make for a crappier product when more people watch? TV revenue for the NBA skyrocketed this past year because of the Heat, because of the Celtics, because of the Lakers, and eventually the Knicks(I think it's inevitable now). When the big markets are good and have multiple stars, people get interested and watch. It didn't even start last year, it started in the 80s, the so called "golden years" by many.

Which leads to the inability of small market teams to compete financially, hence a lockout of the entire league. :)

Wade>You
10-13-2011, 03:52 PM
How do you guys propose that 30 teams simultaneously compete for a championship? Get rid of the playoffs? Give everyone a trophy at the end of the season like they do in little league? There will always be 1 winner and 29 losers. Grow up and get over it.

beasted86
10-13-2011, 03:52 PM
That analyst has a tried and true arguing technique: anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. lol. Still not understanding how anyone can take a side choosing between millionaires and billionaires, or why anyone would attach themselves personally to something that has nothing to do with them. Consider that it might be the players and owners together who are screwing the fans, and have been doing so for a long time. The average fan can't afford to attend a game. That's more of an injustice than any perceived injustice any player is going through, yet fans buy into the BS about the poor players or the poor owners. Makes you shake your head.

This comment is contradictory of previous comments. Either you are of opinion or without opinion. You've made comments in the past about the reasonableness of a proposal, by doing so you have taken a side already.

Both parties involved have long determined changes need to be made, they are merely arguing over the degree of change that is needed. I posted this list because many were unaware of what changes and concessions, if any, players were willing to make. As listed above, all revenue and systematic changes the players have proposed are only benefitting owners. They have not proposed any changes to benefit themselves such a removing restricted free agency or fully guaranteeing all 4 years of a rookie deal instead of only the first 2, or wanting larger raises or so forth. People seemed to be under the impression players were unwilling to make systematic concessions as well as revenue give backs.

ink
10-13-2011, 03:56 PM
How does it make for a crappier product when more people watch? TV revenue for the NBA skyrocketed this past year because of the Heat, because of the Celtics, because of the Lakers, and eventually the Knicks(I think it's inevitable now). When the big markets are good and have multiple stars, people get interested and watch. It didn't even start last year, it started in the 80s, the so called "golden years" by many.

More people watching doesn't always translate into better basketball and you know that. Lots of casual fans watch because they only know the big names. We've seen that phenomenon happen over and over again ever since the league wanted to reproduce the phenomenon of MJ after he retired for good. with a few exceptions the post-MJ era has been shallow and the super teams have their greatest appeal to the casual fan. That's where the numbers are coming from.

All that aside, creating super teams trashes many of the other teams who can't hoard talent like the wealthier teams. The league badly needs systemic change so that the overall level of the league improves.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 03:56 PM
Which leads to the inability of small market teams to compete financially, hence a lockout of the entire league. :)
If that's the issue, then start contracting. I know people don't want to hear that, but stars will find ways to go to bigger markets for the sake winning regardless if it's for less money. The NBA has changed in more ways than one, and the end result could very well be small market teams losing money anyway if they don't get the big stars. That's why you draft and lock up your guys early like OKC did. It's a superstar league, and they want to win. The NBA is that concerned about it, contraction needs to happen. Too many teams in the NBA anyway.....

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 04:02 PM
Not likely. There's a lot of prestige and a tremendous amount of revenue generated by being home to a pro sports franchise, especially an NBA franchise.

A lot of the battle right now is psychological, involving egos rather than dollars and cents. And given the size of the egos involved, this lockout may continue on for quite some time.

beasted86
10-13-2011, 04:02 PM
The athletes share of revenues is 5% in the UFC, 12% in professional tennis, and 47% in the NFL (without guaranteed contracts). By way of contrast, NBA contracts are guaranteed and NBA players received 57%. It's no wonder 17 teams lost money as of '09-'10.

You're right, players will get exactly what owners are willing to spend, which right now is zero.

The owners can decide to pay whatever they want, since they are the owners.

Keep in mind the total revenue in the NFL is about $5 billion more than the NBA though.

And before you mention it, yes I'm aware there are approximately 4x the players in comparison to the NBA, but also keep in mind they play over 5x less games.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 04:03 PM
More people watching doesn't always translate into better basketball and you know that. Lots of casual fans watch because they only know the big names. We've seen that phenomenon happen over and over again ever since the league wanted to reproduce the phenomenon of MJ after he retired for good. with a few exceptions the post-MJ era has been shallow and the super teams have their greatest appeal to the casual fan. That's where the numbers are coming from.

All that aside, creating super teams trashes many of the other teams who can't hoard talent like the wealthier teams. The league badly needs systemic change so that the overall level of the league improves.
Actually, more people watching means more money to the NBA as a whole, which is a plus. TV revenue is one thing the NBA gets a living off of, and the super teams help that aspect dramatically. You mention the casual fans and what you said about them is true, but those same fans will get glued to the television if super teams are the ones taking center stage. That's been known for quite some time now.

And as far as basketball, while I agree there are too many bad teams in the NBA, who's fault is that? Make better business decisions, draft better, and prove that you know how to build a winner. Do these things, and you're product will be good. Is luck involved to an extent? Sure. But so is the Heat taking a huge risk going after LBJ and Bosh with Wade as pending FA and with only Chalmers and Michael Beasley to build around. Why did that work out in the end? Because Pat and Micky have proven that can build a winner. When more teams do that, you'll get your wish for better basketball. Unfortunately, that isn't the case now.

ink
10-13-2011, 04:04 PM
This comment is contradictory of previous comments. Either you are of opinion or without opinion. You've made comments in the past about the reasonableness of a proposal, by doing so you have taken a side already.

Both parties involved have long determined changes need to be made, they are merely arguing over the degree of change that is needed. I posted this list because many were unaware of what changes and concessions, if any, players were willing to make. As listed above, all revenue and systematic changes the players have proposed are only benefitting owners. They have not proposed any changes to benefit themselves such a removing restricted free agency or fully guaranteeing all 4 years of a rookie deal instead of only the first 2, or wanting larger raises or so forth. People seemed to be under the impression players were unwilling to make systematic concessions as well as revenue give backs.

The side I'm taking is that the league needs deep systemic change. The owners aren't immune from criticism by any stretch of the imagination. They're just the only ones at the table who are doing anything to achieve deep enough systemic change. It's been apparent for some time that the players misjudged the situation, thinking it was all about money and focusing most of their efforts in that direction. Turns out the owners prioritized systemic change. As a fan, I want the system to change too, so only one side is responding to what I think the league needs. I also think prices to games should go down accordingly, but neither the players or the owners will respond to that request because both of them are clearly greedy. You see? I can clearly see the greed on both sides, yet still welcome the proposals to make systemic change that are presented. If the players got off their ***** and made serious systemic proposals that would improve the overall health of the league and create better basketball throughout the league, I'd support them too. But all they seem to want is the absolute right to go play with the best players and sign with super teams, something that previous generations of players reject as disloyal and shallow. I agree with them. That's one of the fundamental changes I'd like to see coming out of this lockout. If I have to choose between another BS year like last year and no NBA for a year or even more, I'd pick no NBA.

ink
10-13-2011, 04:10 PM
Actually, more people watching means more money to the NBA as a whole, which is a plus. TV revenue is one thing the NBA gets a living off of, and the super teams help that aspect dramatically. You mention the casual fans and what you said about them is true, but those same fans will get glued to the television if super teams are the ones taking center stage. That's been known for quite some time now.

But this is where the owners are showing that it isn't just about the money. They're being forced to listen to small market teams that it isn't just about net revenue, it's also about competitiveness and some equality to the business of talent acquisition.


And as far as basketball, while I agree there are too many bad teams in the NBA, who's fault is that? Make better business decisions, draft better, and prove that you know how to build a winner. Do these things, and you're product will be good. Is luck involved to an extent? Sure. But so is the Heat taking a huge risk going after LBJ and Bosh with Wade as pending FA and with only Chalmers and Michael Beasley to build around. Why did that work out in the end? Because Pat and Micky have proven that can build a winner. When more teams do that, you'll get your wish for better basketball. Unfortunately, that isn't the case now.

Only the very few teams can stockpile elite talent because there is only so much elite talent. Right now we see those elite players trying to manipulate their way into making super teams. The league wants to make the competition between owners for talent a lot fairer. Again, it's not about blame, it's about a reasonable system that doesn't encourage agents to exploit loopholes. The league has basically gotten out of control for all but a few destination teams. That is untenable.

ink
10-13-2011, 04:12 PM
Not likely. There's a lot of prestige and a tremendous amount of revenue generated by being home to a pro sports franchise, especially an NBA franchise.

A lot of the battle right now is psychological, involving egos rather than dollars and cents. And given the size of the egos involved, this lockout may continue on for quite some time.

Good post. I agree totally that egos are playing a huge role right now. And the more I hear of this debate, the more I'm willing to wait.

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 04:13 PM
Keep in mind the total revenue in the NFL is about $5 billion more than the NBA though.

And before you mention it, yes I'm aware there are approximately 4x the players in comparison to the NBA, but also keep in mind they play over 5x less games.

None of that matters. The only thing that matters in this lockout is that the majority of nba clubs are losing money and these owners won't agree to anything less than break even.

The players will settle at somewhere between 47-50% share. They have zero options and leverage for making anywhere near that much anywhere else.

da ThRONe
10-13-2011, 04:14 PM
Parity is good for the overall growth of any sport.

I don't know why people say the NBA can't have similar appeal as football when the NBA has never tried for parity. The league has always hang it's hats on stars. The problem with that is there's only so many stars to go around. If a league can give the perception of balance it IMO will attract more fans in more markets. Most people are fairweather there is no way around it. You have to give them occasional success for them to support.

While I'm more ride or die whether it's championships or not. I can understand why a fan of a smaller market team can fell turned off by a league that only markets the same few teams. If the league doesn't care about the T'Wolves, Hornets, Raptors, Kings etc why should a casual fan in that market?

Hellcrooner
10-13-2011, 04:43 PM
Parity is good for the overall growth of any sport.

I don't know why people say the NBA can't have similar appeal as football when the NBA has never tried for parity. The league has always hang it's hats on stars. The problem with that is there's only so many stars to go around. If a league can give the perception of balance it IMO will attract more fans in more markets. Most people are fairweather there is no way around it. You have to give them occasional success for them to support.

While I'm more ride or die whether it's championships or not. I can understand why a fan of a smaller market team can fell turned off by a league that only markets the same few teams. If the league doesn't care about the T'Wolves, Hornets, Raptors, Kings etc why should a casual fan in that market?

thats why the number 1 sport in the world has NO parity, the 3 or 4 biggest teams of each country win most of the leagues and then the 5-6 best teams on each continent win the international competitions every other year.

llemon
10-13-2011, 04:47 PM
reasonable.
as for 6 year rookie contract, as long as you are UNRESTRICTED after it, im all for it.

After 5th year RFA, after 6th year UFA

Shmontaine
10-13-2011, 04:59 PM
thats why the number 1 sport in the world has NO parity, the 3 or 4 biggest teams of each country win most of the leagues and then the 5-6 best teams on each continent win the international competitions every other year.

I understand where you're going, but if i may...

you're comparing a global sport a national sport... why not look at the NFL, they have the closest thing to parity and are extremely profitable...

most countries cant afford to support 4 major sport leagues like the US can, soccer gets lost here...

Hellcrooner
10-13-2011, 05:11 PM
I understand where you're going, but if i may...

you're comparing a global sport a national sport... why not look at the NFL, they have the closest thing to parity and are extremely profitable...

most countries cant afford to support 4 major sport leagues like the US can, soccer gets lost here...?

here(spain) we can support Lucrative Pro leagues of Soccer ,Basketball, Handball, Volleyball, Skate Hockey, Grass Hockey.
Then have not so profitable leagues but still pro for other sports.
IN some countrys they also have profitable PRo Ice hockey leagues ( sweden, czech republic, russia etc).

da ThRONe
10-13-2011, 06:02 PM
Just because soccer is insanely popular everywhere else doesn't mean parity wouldn't improve the sport.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 10:39 AM
The side I'm taking is that the league needs deep systemic change. The owners aren't immune from criticism by any stretch of the imagination. They're just the only ones at the table who are doing anything to achieve deep enough systemic change. It's been apparent for some time that the players misjudged the situation, thinking it was all about money and focusing most of their efforts in that direction. Turns out the owners prioritized systemic change. As a fan, I want the system to change too, so only one side is responding to what I think the league needs. I also think prices to games should go down accordingly, but neither the players or the owners will respond to that request because both of them are clearly greedy. You see? I can clearly see the greed on both sides, yet still welcome the proposals to make systemic change that are presented. If the players got off their ***** and made serious systemic proposals that would improve the overall health of the league and create better basketball throughout the league, I'd support them too. But all they seem to want is the absolute right to go play with the best players and sign with super teams, something that previous generations of players reject as disloyal and shallow. I agree with them. That's one of the fundamental changes I'd like to see coming out of this lockout. If I have to choose between another BS year like last year and no NBA for a year or even more, I'd pick no NBA.
Just as you believe you are merely of the opinion that more changes need to happen so you favor the proposals made from the side that wants to make changes, I guess I am also only of the opinion that less changes need to be made, so I favor the proposals made from the side that wants to leave the system mainly intact.

I've seen a business & system model developed that has allowed the NBA to thrive and gain popularity for 60 plus years. Only over the past 3 years since the economic recession really hit in 2007 have more than a handful of teams struggled financially. But the NBA is operating under the same principal system that allowed it to see it's peak in popularity and revenue as it did in the 90s in the Jordan era, and it's also coming off a season under that same principal system that allowed it to have a surge in popularity and viewership. If the NBA "needed" system changes, not only would teams be losing money, but popularity and total revenue would be on the decline, instead those are on the rise. That completely contradicts your stance that "the league needs deep systematic change". So I believe the system model needs to mainly remain intact to continue to gain total revenue and popularity, and it's clearly the business model that is failing some teams due to the overall economic climate, and since the players prioritized business model changes over system changes, I view their proposals in a better light.

Heediot
10-14-2011, 10:44 AM
Don't worry, just yet another of the owners ridiculous posturing requests... Has no chance of getting ratified through. Union won't agree with 22 yr old seniors stuck on a rookie deal until they are 28, and still being restricted after that. Hunter talks about that very scenario in the interview.

This ain't no NFL. The average rookie (atleast 1st rounder) is more like 20.

Heediot
10-14-2011, 10:53 AM
If that's the issue, then start contracting. I know people don't want to hear that, but stars will find ways to go to bigger markets for the sake winning regardless if it's for less money. The NBA has changed in more ways than one, and the end result could very well be small market teams losing money anyway if they don't get the big stars. That's why you draft and lock up your guys early like OKC did. It's a superstar league, and they want to win. The NBA is that concerned about it, contraction needs to happen. Too many teams in the NBA anyway.....

It's not like Lebron or Bosh went to Miami for 5 million less. If Melo really wanted to go to the Knicks for less, he woulda signed as a FA for less and not forced a trade.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 11:03 AM
None of that matters. The only thing that matters in this lockout is that the majority of nba clubs are losing money and these owners won't agree to anything less than break even.

The players will settle at somewhere between 47-50% share. They have zero options and leverage for making anywhere near that much anywhere else.


The owners can't, shouldn't and won't accept below 50% of BRI. They should target 53% for themselves, 47% for players. The average NBA salary would still be well above $4 million per year at the start of the deal and would go up substantially from then on.

Take into account the NBA cuts $600M off the top before it assess what "BRI" actually is, and you might understand why there's no way in the world the NBA players will take 47%.

In the NFL all revenue is calculated into the total when they negotiated their split of 47%... there is no "off the top" cut. In an NFL like analogy, being that $600M is approx. 7% of $4 Billion, asking the players to take 47% is really like asking them to take 40%, and owners get 60%.

NYman15
10-14-2011, 11:18 AM
From listening to both Stern and Hunter, even though there's still a pretty big gap in the BRI split, it seems like they both feel they can agree to a BRI split, it sounds like the system issues are much more significant.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 11:23 AM
This ain't no NFL. The average rookie (atleast 1st rounder) is more like 20.

Doesn't make a big difference either. 26-28, and they may be forced to stay with a team via restricted free agency if they sign a 3yr (owners proposed contract limit) contract offer sheet elsewhere, even at only 26, they potentially have no "free agency" until they are 29-31 yrs old.

The average NBA career lifespan is only 4 years... so basically something like 95% of players will probably have to stay where they were drafted unless they are traded for their entire career. It's mainly a plot to eliminate free agency like has been the owners goal since the LeBron/Bosh/Amare/Carmelo recent situation. The problem is going by the entire history of the league... that situation was more an anomaly than a regular occurrence. No need to make these outlandish changes based on a recent trend of a handful of players. Union won't let that one pass through I'm sure.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 12:27 PM
Updated original post with added point on contract growth through raises

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 12:46 PM
The more and more i hear Hunter and Fisher, the more i see that their incorherent reasonings on anything related to the CBA is just a desperate grab at something they know they will lose in the end.

daleja424
10-14-2011, 12:56 PM
The more and more i hear Hunter and Fisher, the more i see that their incorherent reasonings on anything related to the CBA is just a desperate grab at something they know they will lose in the end.

Realistically...the players are going to lose in these negociations... and they know it. By virute of the fact that not a single system or financial change has been negociated towards the players liking...the players by default will lose. But just because the owners have the leverage doesn't mean that they are in the right...

The right person doesn't always end up ahead unfortunatly.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 01:10 PM
Realistically...the players are going to lose in these negociations... and they know it. By virute of the fact that not a single system or financial change has been negociated towards the players liking...the players by default will lose. But just because the owners have the leverage doesn't mean that they are in the right...

The right person doesn't always end up ahead unfortunatly.

I don't think its about being right or wrong. It's about ego and control. The players want freedom for themselves, and owners want to cut that freedom for parity. They've already agreed on the split essentially.

SteBO
10-14-2011, 01:35 PM
It's not like Lebron or Bosh went to Miami for 5 million less. If Melo really wanted to go to the Knicks for less, he woulda signed as a FA for less and not forced a trade.
Very true, hence why I didn't mind the idea of a system change. Just not to the degree the owners want to take it. Bottom line is that Carmelo had the chance to get his money and go to a big market and he took advantage of it. Good for him. The owners want to essentially limit the players' options and that isn't fair nor is it right.

daleja424
10-14-2011, 01:38 PM
It's pretty clear who is right seeing as the players have a textbook anti-trust lawsuit they could file at anypoint they feel a deal won't get done to save this season.

Based on recent precedent... I feel like the courts would surely deem that the NBA is colluding and violating free market laws engrained in US law.

da ThRONe
10-14-2011, 01:39 PM
Very true, hence why I didn't mind the idea of a system change. Just not to the degree the owners want to take it. Bottom line is that Carmelo had the chance to get his money and go to a big market and he took advantage of it. Good for him. The owners want to essentially limit the players' options and that isn't fair nor is it right.

I don't have a problem with that. It's that the owners want to completely change the system while asking for a large percertage of the BRI.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 01:48 PM
The owners want to essentially limit the players' options and that isn't fair nor is it right.

Is it fair that smaller market teams cannot compete with larger market teams?

daleja424
10-14-2011, 01:52 PM
Is it fair that smaller market teams cannot compete with larger market teams?

OKC, SAS, and Memphis have competed just fine...

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 01:53 PM
What also isn't fair is the Billy Hunter is representing player like Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Garnett etc, and not representing the rank and file players who are not franchise players.

daleja424
10-14-2011, 01:55 PM
What also isn't fair is the Billy Hunter is representing player like Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Garnett etc, and not representing the rank and file players who are not franchise players.

That is just straight not true... The guys at the top are going to make their money regardless... It is the middle class of the NBA that the union is trying to protect here.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 01:55 PM
OKC, SAS, and Memphis have competed just fine...

They are at a clear competitive disadvantage AND they are losing money. Doesn't seem fair to me.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 01:55 PM
Is it fair that smaller market teams cannot compete with larger market teams?

It's not a matter of smaller market teams not competing with larger market teams... because they have been competing. Cleveland was in the eastern conference finals the year before last, and Phoenix in the western conference finals. It's more a factor of players favoring larger market teams than small market teams. Cleveland lost a player to a bigger market... Phoenix lost a player to the biggest market.

But that said, you can't restrict player movement when everyone is still working under the same system. Both of those players I gave an example of, their native teams could have payed them more to stay than they eventually signed for, so it's clearly not just about money even though many owners seek to restrict larger market teams' spending power.

daleja424
10-14-2011, 01:57 PM
They are at a clear competitive disadvantage AND they are losing money. Doesn't seem fair to me.

wat competitive disadvantage are they at? Explain that to me?

This is not about losing money...b/c the new revenue sharing plan will level out the profits...

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 01:59 PM
That is just straight not true... The guys at the top are going to make their money regardless... It is the middle class of the NBA that the union is trying to protect here.

It's not about money, they've agreed on the money, the players want to be able to pick and choose where they can go and with who they want to go with. The problem is, within the last 5 years, everybody wants to go to a big market.

Do you think the middle class players really have a choice to go where they want regardless of what the rules are today? They don't have the leverage like the starts do.

daleja424
10-14-2011, 02:01 PM
It's not about money, they've agreed on the money, the players want to be able to pick and choose where they can go and with who they want to go with. The problem is, within the last 5 years, everybody wants to go to a big market.

Do you think the middle class players really have a choice to go where they want regardless of what the rules are today? They don't have the leverage like the starts do.

Yes... the MLE is a fundamental tool for the mid level player to be able to pick their destination... (often times ends up being the big markets as well)

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:02 PM
wat competitive disadvantage are they at? Explain that to me?

This is not about losing money...b/c the new revenue sharing plan will level out the profits...

Simply, they don't make enough money to spend on players.

Revenue sharing is not going to work if the players are against a punitive tax and if they also want a soft cap. The players demands are not only rediculous, they don't make any sense.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:04 PM
It's more a factor of players favoring larger market teams than small market teams. Cleveland lost a player to a bigger market... Phoenix lost a player to the biggest market.

Exactly, i don't think this is good for the game. Its good for the players, not good for the game as a whole.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:06 PM
Exactly, i don't think this is good for the game. Its good for the players, not good for the game as a whole.

Why is it not good for the game as a whole when the NBA came off one of it's most popular seasons, and had it's peak during the Jordan era with this same principal system?

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:06 PM
Yes... the MLE is a fundamental tool for the mid level player to be able to pick their destination... (often times ends up being the big markets as well)

It ends up being a big market because its for teams that are above the cap. Do you see the trend here?

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:07 PM
Why is it not good for the game as a whole when the NBA came off one of it's most popular seasons, and had it's peak during the Jordan era with this same principal system?

So why don't they just have an 8 team league, owners and players take all the profits?

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:08 PM
It ends up being a big market because its for teams that are above the cap. Do you see the trend here?

Nearly all teams are above the cap. I believe only 3 teams were under the cap last year... the Kings, Wolves and Wizards.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:09 PM
My point is, the reason of players being against a hard cap are kind of rediculous.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:11 PM
So why don't they just have an 8 team league, owners and players take all the profits?

Look, I don't make the rules, I'm just telling you as it is.

You can't tell me it's good for the league to do "X", when it's already proven it's better when they do "Y". It's clear the principal system is good for the popularity of the sport, it just needs some minor tweaks.

Once teams are paying less to it's players as well as receiving increased revenue sharing, coupled with a smart GM, it will be a lot easier to both turn a profit and be competitive.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:11 PM
Nearly all teams are above the cap. I believe only 3 teams were under the cap last year... the Kings, Wolves and Wizards.

i believe it was 8 teams over the cap last year. Coincedentially or not, 8 teams turned a profit last year.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:14 PM
Look, I don't make the rules, I'm just telling you as it is.

You can't tell me it's good for the league to do "X", when it's already proven it's better when they do "Y". It's clear the principal system is good for the popularity of the sport, it just needs some minor tweaks.

Once teams are paying less to it's players as well as receiving increased revenue sharing, coupled with a smart GM, it will be a lot easier to both turn a profit and be competitive.

Having smart GM's has nothing to do with it. With all the rediculous contracts that were handed out, the NBA still had to write a check to the players to cover their 57% share.

My point is, the players want it all, and that reads to me that they don't have a plan and they know they're going to lose. So I don't feel sorry for them. They've become spoiled.

SteBO
10-14-2011, 02:16 PM
Having smart GM's has nothing to do with it. With all the rediculous contracts that were handed out, the NBA still had to write a check to the players to cover their 57% share.

My point is, the players want it all, and that reads to me that they don't have a plan and they know they're going to lose. I don't feel sorry for them. They've become spoiled.
Umm, having smart GM's has almost everything to do with it. Overpaying players who don't deserve what they get is a huge contributing factor to the problem. They are the ones who decided how much they're going to invest into a player.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:17 PM
My point is, the reason of players being against a hard cap are kind of rediculous.

Explain why it's ridiculous.

Players are against hard cap (or a punitive tax similar to a hard cap) because it will inhibit free agent movement via the MLE like you are against, but also keep the players they got on their own through the draft.

I'm sure the Celtics had no idea Rondo would turn out to be a top 10 PG when they drafted him in the end of the 1st round, and Perkins a quality starting Center when they got him straight out of high school. It would basically penalize their GM from making smart draft choices and those guys turning out to be great fits around their big 3. Under a proposed hard cap system, even if they didn't get all 3, say they only got Pierce & Garnett (no Allen), they still wouldn't have been able to sign Rondo & Perkins to their market value without hitting a hard cap. This isn't a logical system for the players to agree to when the game is so popular and revenue is only increasing.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:18 PM
Umm, having smart GM's has almost everything to do with it. Overpaying players who don't deserve what they get is a huge contributing factor to the problem. They are the ones who decided how much they're going to invest into a player.

that has nothing to do with the macro arguments of the cba. The players were getting 57% period. That essentially was the hard cap.

Southsideheat
10-14-2011, 02:24 PM
Explain why it's ridiculous.

Players are against hard cap (or a punitive tax similar to a hard cap) because it will inhibit free agent movement via the MLE like you are against, but also keep the players they got on their own through the draft.

I'm sure the Celtics had no idea Rondo would turn out to be a top 10 PG when they drafted him in the end of the 1st round, and Perkins a quality starting Center when they got him straight out of high school. It would basically penalize their GM from making smart draft choices and those guys turning out to be great fits around their big 3. Under a proposed hard cap system, even if they didn't get all 3, say they only got Pierce & Garnett (no Allen), they still wouldn't have been able to sign Rondo & Perkins to their market value without hitting a hard cap. This isn't a logical system for the players to agree to when the game is so popular and revenue is only increasing.

Under a hard cap, those draft picks would be cost controlled for 6 years. Like baseball. Also, in your example, Boston would also get players from other teams for the same reasons Boston wouldn't be able to keep theirs.

ChiSoxJuan
10-14-2011, 02:40 PM
If they want to play they should be able to strike a deal now that the NLRB's Cohen is involved. Instead of a set BRI of 53, use that as a max for a flex BRI. Each yr the BRI would flex to cover league wide losses. Based on last yr's rev 4% of BRI is worth about $200M so they are 2% short. This yr's BRI should be 51%. In exchange the owner's accept their latest proposal wrt to CBA details. The biggest gulf appears to be the over the cap tax system. The player's don't want anything close to 10:1 so they have to compromise something else. Getting a good tax system is essential to improving competitive balance.

I think their tranches are fair wrt to $'s. 1.25 for any team over, & .25 more for increments of $5M tranches over the cap. What's not fair though is a max of 2:1. Any team over the cap by more than $20M would get a bargain for the next tranches. So a compromise would be the loss of picks. Along with the .25 increase for the $5M tranches, the team would lose a 2nd rd pick. They can exhaust 3 yrs worth of 2nd rd picks, before they have to pay the price of a 1st rd pick. They can exhaust 3 yrs worth of 1st rd picks, before they have to buy 1st rd picks from other teams. All picks paid into the tax system enter a supplemental draft for teams that are at or under the cap.

Fisher earlier proposed giving non playoff teams 2 1st rd picks each yr to improve competitive balance so I don't see why the NBAPA would be against this & I can definitely see the owners liking it.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:41 PM
i believe it was 8 teams over the cap last year. Coincedentially or not, 8 teams turned a profit last year.

By cap, do you mean luxury tax? 7 teams payed the luxury tax: Lakers, Magic, Mavericks, Celtics, Trail Blazers, Rockets, Jazz.

I'm pretty sure not all of those teams turned a profit.

Tom Stone
10-14-2011, 02:46 PM
Explain why it's ridiculous.

Players are against hard cap (or a punitive tax similar to a hard cap) because it will inhibit free agent movement via the MLE like you are against, but also keep the players they got on their own through the draft.

I'm sure the Celtics had no idea Rondo would turn out to be a top 10 PG when they drafted him in the end of the 1st round, and Perkins a quality starting Center when they got him straight out of high school. It would basically penalize their GM from making smart draft choices and those guys turning out to be great fits around their big 3. Under a proposed hard cap system, even if they didn't get all 3, say they only got Pierce & Garnett (no Allen), they still wouldn't have been able to sign Rondo & Perkins to their market value without hitting a hard cap. This isn't a logical system for the players to agree to when the game is so popular and revenue is only increasing.



There is no way you would think like this if you were a fan of a small market team....like the players you have become spoiled.

Hard cap = Basketball saved

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:47 PM
If they want to play they should be able to strike a deal now that the NLRB's Cohen is involved. Instead of a set BRI of 53, use that as a max for a flex BRI. Each yr the BRI would flex to cover league wide losses. Based on last yr's rev 4% of BRI is worth about $200M so they are 2% short. This yr's BRI should be 51%. In exchange the owner's accept their latest proposal wrt to CBA details. The biggest gulf appears to be the over the cap tax system. The player's don't want anything close to 10:1 so they have to compromise something else. Getting a good tax system is essential to improving competitive balance.

I think their tranches are fair wrt to $'s. 1.25 for any team over, & .25 more for increments of $5M tranches over the cap. What's not fair though is a max of 2:1. Any team over the cap by more than $20M would get a bargain for the next tranches. So a compromise would be the loss of picks. Along with the .25 increase for the $5M tranches, the team would lose a 2nd rd pick. They can exhaust 3 yrs worth of 2nd rd picks, before they have to pay the price of a 1st rd pick. They can exhaust 3 yrs worth of 1st rd picks, before they have to buy 1st rd picks from other teams. All picks paid into the tax system enter a supplemental draft for teams that are at or under the cap.

Fisher earlier proposed giving non playoff teams 2 1st rd picks each yr to improve competitive balance so I don't see why the NBAPA would be against this & I can definitely see the owners liking it.

Over the last 3 years, 7, 11, and 7 teams were in the luxury tax. The only teams that remained consistent over that span were the Lakers, Celtics, and Mavericks. Teams staying over the tax isn't as big of an issue as the percentages I believe. The extra penalty only seems like a gimmick to hurt those 3 teams which probably isn't fair even if I agree teams shouldn't be staying over. The players aren't making an suggestions to hurt the bottom 3 teams in revenue, so the owners shouldn't suggest rules to hurt 3 of the top 5 teams in revenue.

All in all, there seems to be a deal to be made somewhere in the middle on all the major issues.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 02:56 PM
There is no way you would think like this if you were a fan of a small market team....like the players you have become spoiled.

Hard cap = Basketball saved

I'd think like this as a fan of any team. Watching the Blazers "Pritch-slapping" people into giving up their young talent... as a fan I'd be excited to see that young talent grow into a potential dynasty... not the potential thought that "we can only keep 2 or 3 of these guys". I want smart GMs who evaluate young talent on their rookie scale to be rewarded if they pan out. I'd want the same thing if all the T'Wolves rookies pan out the same way.

Right now the system the owners are proposing garnishes the same penalty whether stacking talent by signing outside free agents with the MLE, or signing inside guys to extensions. I could reason with an owners proposal that teams could keep spending on inside free agents, but would lose MLE once at the luxury tax limit... but not one that punishes all tax teams.

ink
10-14-2011, 05:04 PM
Just as you believe you are merely of the opinion that more changes need to happen so you favor the proposals made from the side that wants to make changes, I guess I am also only of the opinion that less changes need to be made, so I favor the proposals made from the side that wants to leave the system mainly intact.

I've seen a business & system model developed that has allowed the NBA to thrive and gain popularity for 60 plus years. Only over the past 3 years since the economic recession really hit in 2007 have more than a handful of teams struggled financially. But the NBA is operating under the same principal system that allowed it to see it's peak in popularity and revenue as it did in the 90s in the Jordan era, and it's also coming off a season under that same principal system that allowed it to have a surge in popularity and viewership. If the NBA "needed" system changes, not only would teams be losing money, but popularity and total revenue would be on the decline, instead those are on the rise. That completely contradicts your stance that "the league needs deep systematic change". So I believe the system model needs to mainly remain intact to continue to gain total revenue and popularity, and it's clearly the business model that is failing some teams due to the overall economic climate, and since the players prioritized business model changes over system changes, I view their proposals in a better light.

1. There is no difference between "business model" and "system".
2. The system failed all but a handful of teams last year.
3. The main spokespeople for the players' union on this site are noticeably Heat and Knicks fans. Not to single you guys out for being fans of those teams but it's not surprising you like the status quo. It yielded you the top FAs. But looking at it from outside that POV you can see that free agency was a giant cluster **** for the rest of the league. That's just one issue, but a very sizeable reason why some have no sympathy whatsoever for players exploiting loopholes in the existing flawed system. It basically sucks for the majority.
4. In terms of popularity, I don't think we've ever seen a more dumbed down era in pro sport than what we had last year and the year leading up to 2010 free agency.

No, the league is not healthy, and yes, it needs deep, systemic change. At some point even the owners realize they have to preserve the integrity of the actual sport. That was severely cheapened over the last couple of years. I don't blame the owners a bit for not wanting to participate in another FA farce like we all had to endure in 2010.

Tom Stone
10-14-2011, 07:08 PM
I'd think like this as a fan of any team. Watching the Blazers "Pritch-slapping" people into giving up their young talent... as a fan I'd be excited to see that young talent grow into a potential dynasty... not the potential thought that "we can only keep 2 or 3 of these guys". I want smart GMs who evaluate young talent on their rookie scale to be rewarded if they pan out. I'd want the same thing if all the T'Wolves rookies pan out the same way.

Right now the system the owners are proposing garnishes the same penalty whether stacking talent by signing outside free agents with the MLE, or signing inside guys to extensions. I could reason with an owners proposal that teams could keep spending on inside free agents, but would lose MLE once at the luxury tax limit... but not one that punishes all tax teams.



With a Hard Cap you would only have so much money per team and you would see players that would have gotten paid 8 mill get 5 mill.....you would still build a young dynasty they would just get paid less....and they wont run to the Lakers... because the Laker's won't go into Lux tax.....and if you can sign a rookie for 6 years that will make it easier as well to build a young dynasty.


Hard cap = Basketball Saved

Hellcrooner
10-14-2011, 10:30 PM
With a Hard Cap you would only have so much money per team and you would see players that would have gotten paid 8 mill get 5 mill.....you would still build a young dynasty they would just get paid less....and they wont run to the Lakers... because the Laker's won't go into Lux tax.....and if you can sign a rookie for 6 years that will make it easier as well to build a young dynasty.


Hard cap = Basketball Saved

let me get it straight.

hard cap =

you are a poor team like cavs.

You drafted a star.

the star obviously wants a TON of money.
so since the cap is HARD you have to surround him with CRAp if he wants a max contrat.

case B

you dont offer him the moon, just say 9 millions year so you can afford some help for him.

and Knics/ lakers/bulls whoever has cap that year offers him 9 million too and has the help or has cap for the help.

where do you sign? Ohio or California/ The great apple


hard cap will get the EXACT opposite of what it intends.

BigCityofDreams
10-14-2011, 10:35 PM
There is no way you would think like this if you were a fan of a small market team....like the players you have become spoiled.

Hard cap = Basketball saved

Like Hockey right???

beasted86
10-14-2011, 11:15 PM
No, the league is not healthy, and yes, it needs deep, systemic change. At some point even the owners realize they have to preserve the integrity of the actual sport. That was severely cheapened over the last couple of years. I don't blame the owners a bit for not wanting to participate in another FA farce like we all had to endure in 2010.

I disregarding opinions, and only hold regard for facts.

Facts: The league came off of one of it's most productive seasons in decades in terms of total revenue and viewership; the league claimed total losses of $300M.

With those two facts in place the changes proposed by the NBAPA sound reasonable to me.

Tom Stone
10-14-2011, 11:19 PM
let me get it straight.

hard cap =

you are a poor team like cavs.

You drafted a star.

the star obviously wants a TON of money.
so since the cap is HARD you have to surround him with CRAp if he wants a max contrat.

case B

you dont offer him the moon, just say 9 millions year so you can afford some help for him.

and Knics/ lakers/bulls whoever has cap that year offers him 9 million too and has the help or has cap for the help.

where do you sign? Ohio or California/ The great apple


hard cap will get the EXACT opposite of what it intends.

Heres what you don't understand.....That star wants a lot of money....But he won't get as much as usual because teams won't pay everything into one player... the hard cap will make sure of that....

HARD CAP = BASKETBALL SAVED

beasted86
10-14-2011, 11:23 PM
Heres what you don't understand.....That star wants a lot of money....But he won't get as much as usual because teams won't pay everything into one player... the hard cap will make sure of that....

HARD CAP = BASKETBALL SAVED

:confused: really confused on your response.

If both teams have equal money to spend, why would anyone pick a smaller market team? And even in the past when small market teams offered more money, stars have signed for less with big market teams.

So where are you exactly going by repeating the same thing over and over?

Hellcrooner
10-14-2011, 11:25 PM
Heres what you don't understand.....That star wants a lot of money....But he won't get as much as usual because teams won't pay everything into one player... the hard cap will make sure of that....

HARD CAP = BASKETBALL SAVED


you get a 1500 dollars a month offer to work in the kitchen in a mcdonals in i dont know...........topeka.

and at the same time you get a 1500 dollars a month offer to work as personal resources manager in a good building in manhatten or as chief salesman of chrysler in a nice car store in Malibu beach.


What do you chose'?


thats Hard cap for you, good lUck with the next "lebron" chosing to get 5 million a year in ohio instead of 5 million a year in Florida....

Cosmic_Canon
10-14-2011, 11:32 PM
I'd think like this as a fan of any team. Watching the Blazers "Pritch-slapping" people into giving up their young talent... as a fan I'd be excited to see that young talent grow into a potential dynasty... not the potential thought that "we can only keep 2 or 3 of these guys". I want smart GMs who evaluate young talent on their rookie scale to be rewarded if they pan out. I'd want the same thing if all the T'Wolves rookies pan out the same way.


:clap::clap:
:laugh: @ people who believe parity is a main issue behind the lockout
:laugh: @ people who think this system needs to be radically changed.
Parity is just a topic, thrown around to get "Average Joe's" to rally around the owners. Clearly it's working :laugh2:

This lockout, is about owners maximizing profits and crippling the Players' Union. PERIOD

At the end of the day, the owners have yet to show the league's financial books, and have shaky accounting practices. Add to that, Stern is a master spin artist. He makes it seem like, the owners made several "concessions". When in reality, they barked off from their ridiculous demands from the beginning. Also, it's well known that some owners/most owners wanted to lose games, to see how players would react to missed checks. Several league insiders alluded to it, if you don't believe me.

da ThRONe
10-14-2011, 11:35 PM
you get a 1500 dollars a month offer to work in the kitchen in a mcdonals in i dont know...........topeka.

and at the same time you get a 1500 dollars a month offer to work as personal resources manager in a good building in manhatten or as chief salesman of chrysler in a nice car store in Malibu beach.


What do you chose'?


thats Hard cap for you, good lUck with the next "lebron" chosing to get 5 million a year in ohio instead of 5 million a year in Florida....

This isn't accurate.

If McD is offer 10,000 a month to flip burgers or you can work in an office for 1500.

A cap limit the amount of salary all teams can offer. So many players will have too choose between big money and big market.

Hellcrooner
10-14-2011, 11:38 PM
This isn't accurate.

If McD is offer 10,000 a month to flip burgers or you can work in an office for 1500.

A cap limit the amount of salary all teams can offer. So many players will have too choose between big money and big market.

1 hard cap means NO BIRD RIGHTS, no EXCEPTIONs.

so in essence NOPE they WONT be able to ofeer you 10000 dollars for flipping burgers.

But lests play along.

lets say they allowed it.

lebron here you have your 10000 to flip burgers, but since hard cap still is 11000 the whole help we can get you are nbdl player signed for the minimum.
yep sure he picks thos 10000 to fight to get the most ping pong balls in teh nexty draft over signing for 1500 for Ny or La and fight for a ring

not to mention than SPONSORS in L.A and NY can MAKE UP for those 10000 in endorsements.

boriquaabe
10-15-2011, 12:32 AM
A hard cap will not save the NBA. It also won't help small market teams... in essence it can actually hurt them. If a player becomes a free agent and he is deciding between his current team (small market) and a different team (big market) and the difference in salary offered is minimal BUT the off court income is greater in the bigger market hes going to choose the bigger market.

I'll say this.... we all know Dan Gilbert is one of the major players driving this. He lost the cash cow he was milking (LBJ) and just recently won the right to own for the time being two other kids he can milk in Irving and Thompson... did it cross his mind once that Irving is from the tri-state area and that he could very well be a candidate to run from cleveland when his rookie contract is up? No.... just in the same way he didn't realize who LBJ was deep down as a person (someone who has had eyes for a more metropolitan environment since he was a kid... also a personality too big for cleveland). Gilbert and other small market owners have to take into account what type of personality they draft and build their franchises around... For instance Durant is a perfectly mannered star for a small market team much in the same way Tim Duncan is.

ink
10-15-2011, 12:05 PM
I'd think like this as a fan of any team. Watching the Blazers "Pritch-slapping" people into giving up their young talent... as a fan I'd be excited to see that young talent grow into a potential dynasty... not the potential thought that "we can only keep 2 or 3 of these guys". I want smart GMs who evaluate young talent on their rookie scale to be rewarded if they pan out. I'd want the same thing if all the T'Wolves rookies pan out the same way.

Right now the system the owners are proposing garnishes the same penalty whether stacking talent by signing outside free agents with the MLE, or signing inside guys to extensions. I could reason with an owners proposal that teams could keep spending on inside free agents, but would lose MLE once at the luxury tax limit... but not one that punishes all tax teams.


:clap::clap:
:laugh: @ people who believe parity is a main issue behind the lockout
:laugh: @ people who think this system needs to be radically changed.
Parity is just a topic, thrown around to get "Average Joe's" to rally around the owners. Clearly it's working :laugh2:

This lockout, is about owners maximizing profits and crippling the Players' Union. PERIOD

At the end of the day, the owners have yet to show the league's financial books, and have shaky accounting practices. Add to that, Stern is a master spin artist. He makes it seem like, the owners made several "concessions". When in reality, they barked off from their ridiculous demands from the beginning. Also, it's well known that some owners/most owners wanted to lose games, to see how players would react to missed checks. Several league insiders alluded to it, if you don't believe me.


A hard cap will not save the NBA. It also won't help small market teams... in essence it can actually hurt them. If a player becomes a free agent and he is deciding between his current team (small market) and a different team (big market) and the difference in salary offered is minimal BUT the off court income is greater in the bigger market hes going to choose the bigger market.

I'll say this.... we all know Dan Gilbert is one of the major players driving this. He lost the cash cow he was milking (LBJ) and just recently won the right to own for the time being two other kids he can milk in Irving and Thompson... did it cross his mind once that Irving is from the tri-state area and that he could very well be a candidate to run from cleveland when his rookie contract is up? No.... just in the same way he didn't realize who LBJ was deep down as a person (someone who has had eyes for a more metropolitan environment since he was a kid... also a personality too big for cleveland). Gilbert and other small market owners have to take into account what type of personality they draft and build their franchises around... For instance Durant is a perfectly mannered star for a small market team much in the same way Tim Duncan is.

Three posts that aren't even vaguely realistic. One says that talent evaluators need to be better (right, because drafting is so predictable right?); another doesn't seem to realize that the players have miscalculated this lockout completely, making it about money when it's not; and the other says that owners should forgo the biggest superstars coming up through the HS and college ranks if they're not nice. Give that some thought and ask yourself how likely any of that is to happen or to be controlled. That's exactly WHY a better system is necessary: because those things can't be predicted or controlled. Spending, however, can be and should be. The other thing players may have miscalculated is how the public sees them as obnoxious, spoiled fools. I know that does not apply to all NBA players, but it definitely applies to the current crop of superstars. I think it's going to be a long lockout if the players don't start to realize they don't have public sympathy. They need to get realistic about the business they're in and stop seeing it exclusively as something to exploit.

beasted86
10-15-2011, 12:10 PM
Three posts that aren't even vaguely realistic. One says that talent evaluators need to be better (right, because drafting is so predictable right?); another doesn't seem to realize that the players have miscalculated this lockout completely, making it about money when it's not; and the other says that owners should forgo the biggest superstars coming up through the HS and college ranks if they're not nice. Give that some thought and ask yourself how likely any of that is to happen or to be controlled. That's exactly WHY a better system is necessary: because those things can't be predicted or controlled. Spending, however, can be and should be.

Where does my post say any of that?

My post merely says a team who made smart trades for players on rookie contracts should be able to pay them their worth when it's due rather than lose them to free agency for nothing because they are scared of paying a 10:1 tax.

ink
10-15-2011, 12:36 PM
I disregarding opinions, and only hold regard for facts.

Facts: The league came off of one of it's most productive seasons in decades in terms of total revenue and viewership; the league claimed total losses of $300M.

With those two facts in place the changes proposed by the NBAPA sound reasonable to me.

Selective facts used to support opinions aren't much use. I don't think simplistic points like "profits high = NBA is fine" hold much weight. Not when it's so obviously dysfunctional in so many other ways.

ink
10-15-2011, 12:40 PM
Where does my post say any of that?

My post merely says a team who made smart trades for players on rookie contracts should be able to pay them their worth when it's due rather than lose them to free agency for nothing because they are scared of paying a 10:1 tax.

The only way that would work is if there were absolutely no cap at all (as in baseball) and even then the richest markets consistently skim off the best elite talent in the league. The MLB is basically a feeder league for a handful of stacked teams. There is no utopia. The point is that restraining spending allows ALL franchises a chance at competition. Not saying they're going to win, but it restrains spending to the point where they can have full geographic representation AND a fairly equalized starting point. Don't stress the end point to disprove the concept; they're talking about the starting point, where every team in the league can deal with a reasonable budget.

da ThRONe
10-15-2011, 12:44 PM
LOL @ anybody who thinks evening the playing field won't help small market teams. Lets take a situation that's near and dear to my heart.

Chris Paul to the NYK.

Right now the Knicks have two players signed long term. Their total next year alone (when Chris has an option to become a free agent) is 39.3 million between two guys. If we have a hard cap of 60 million two guys count as 60% of the cap. So Chris is going to have to choose between staying with his team and get max money or maybe another team with the cap space to give him max dollars, or take a 10-12 million dollar per year pay cut to go play with the Knicks. Because if he signed for max money he that would leave the Knicks with 95% of their cap space between 3 players.

Money is power you even the amount each team can spend you severly even it the power. No it's not the end all be all, but don't say it doesn't change anything or it hurts small markets when that's simply not the case.

beasted86
10-15-2011, 12:55 PM
LOL @ anybody who thinks evening the playing field won't help small market teams. Lets take a situation that's near and dear to my heart.

Chris Paul to the NYK.

Right now the Knicks have two players signed long term. Their total next year alone (when Chris has an option to become a free agent) is 39.3 million between two guys. If we have a hard cap of 60 million two guys count as 60% of the cap. So Chris is going to have to choose between staying with his team and get max money or maybe another team with the cap space to give him max dollars, or take a 10-12 million dollar per year pay cut to go play with the Knicks. Because if he signed for max money he that would leave the Knicks with 95% of their cap space between 3 players.

Money is power you even the amount each team can spend you severly even it the power. No it's not the end all be all, but don't say it doesn't change anything or it hurts small markets when that's simply not the case.
What you posted doesn't make much sense because Chris Paul is faced with the same dilemma even without the hard cap. Even with a soft cap of ~$60M, the Knicks have around $10-11M to sign him, unless the next CBA allows players to immediately restructure their contracts.

The media is playing up the idea, but when you look at it in logical terms, you'll see the unlikelihood of Paul signing for nearly half of what his other 2 teammates are making.

ink
10-15-2011, 12:57 PM
What you posted doesn't make much sense because Chris Paul is faced with the same dilemma even without the hard cap. Even with a soft cap of ~$60M, the Knicks have around $10-11M to sign him, unless the next CBA allows players to immediately restructure their contracts.

The media is playing up the idea, but when you look at it in logical terms, you'll see the unlikelihood of Paul signing for nearly half of what his other 2 teammates are making.

That's because they've already hoarded two superstars. lol.

beasted86
10-15-2011, 01:11 PM
The only way that would work is if there were absolutely no cap at all (as in baseball) and even then the richest markets consistently skim off the best elite talent in the league. The MLB is basically a feeder league for a handful of stacked teams. There is no utopia. The point is that restraining spending allows ALL franchises a chance at competition. Not saying they're going to win, but it restrains spending to the point where they can have full geographic representation AND a fairly equalized starting point. Don't stress the end point to disprove the concept; they're talking about the starting point, where every team in the league can deal with a reasonable budget.

Or....

Like I said before, you could make a system where luxury tax teams aren't allowed to spend the mid-level... basically capping them systematically. That system change wouldn't affect a team like Portland, Minnesota or others to gradually give extensions to near tax or over tax... but would cripple the Lakers from rising to $90M.

I will always have a problem with not being able to keep the players you drafted. Just as an example, I think the Heat got a steal at the end of the draft getting Norris Cole. What happens if he ends up being a Tony Parker (also drafted 28th)? I don't think he should be a rental where we have to let him or one of our big 3 go. He should be able to stay. We aren't in the luxury now, and probably won't be for 2-3 years, but Arison shouldn't have to pay 10x his contract to keep him once he eventually is due for an extension in 4yrs.

fadedmario
10-15-2011, 01:21 PM
NBAPA is making me hate the whole league. Good luck getting the NBA fans that actually pay to go watch - to show up at games. People on here fail to realize - the NBA has ruined it's reputation. I hope they cancel the next 2 seasons. The owners are being more than fair with these greedy uneducated thugs. NBAPA can suck it. And for the fans that side with the players on this - your going to realize when the arenas are half empty - what I'm saying is true. In a day and age when the economy and people struggle to feed their families - we get to read and watch the news to hear Derek Fisher with a bunch of ghetto thugs in the background complain about a fair deal. Hope you get your fair deal NBA players - just don't expect the fans support.

ink
10-15-2011, 01:21 PM
Or....

Like I said before, you could make a system where luxury tax teams aren't allowed to spend the mid-level... basically capping them systematically. That system change wouldn't affect a team like Portland, Minnesota or others to gradually give extensions to near tax or over tax... but would cripple the Lakers from rising to $90M.

I will always have a problem with not being able to keep the players you drafted. Just as an example, I think the Heat got a steal at the end of the draft getting Norris Cole. What happens if he ends up being a Tony Parker (also drafted 28th)? I don't think he should be a rental where we have to let him or one of our big 3 go. He should be able to stay. We aren't in the luxury now, and probably won't be for 2-3 years, but Arison shouldn't have to pay 10x his contract to keep him once he eventually is due for an extension in 4yrs.

Your first idea is interesting. The second point though ... you have to realize that teams will always stand to lose their talent because of free agency. There is almost no scenario in which they won't lose top level talent, not in a completely capless system or in a hard cap system. There is no perfect system. The point of these discussions is that all the loopholes and exceptions have become too problematic and too unmanageable, and the league needs to find a way to control its spending, its salaries, and its player movement/loyalty. The loyalty issue is very big in this. I'm not specifically talking about Lebron even though he's the famous example. I'm talking about fixing the system to the point where it encourages more Durants and Duncans than CP3s and Melos. Frankly this is generational. This kind of mercenary behaviour really didn't exist before Shaq blew up the idea of team loyalty. I'd prefer watching a league with the kind of loyalty Nash, Duncan, Durant, Hakeem, Robinson, Bird, Magic, and Nowitzki show. The problem is, when a few franchises monopolize talent in the league because of their wealth, players have begun to give up on their teams, all but a few loyal players, and we see mercenary moves that are a major turnoff to most.

beasted86
10-15-2011, 01:31 PM
Your first idea is interesting. The second point though ... you have to realize that teams will always stand to lose their talent because of free agency. There is almost no scenario in which they won't lose top level talent, not in a completely capless system or in a hard cap system. There is no perfect system. The point of these discussions is that all the loopholes and exceptions have become too problematic and too unmanageable, and the league needs to find a way to control its spending, its salaries, and its player movement/loyalty. The loyalty issue is very big in this. I'm not specifically talking about Lebron even though he's the famous example. I'm talking about fixing the system to the point where it encourages more Durants and Duncans than CP3s and Melos. Frankly this is generational. This kind of mercenary behaviour really didn't exist before Shaq blew up the idea of team loyalty. I'd prefer watching a league with the kind of loyalty Nash, Duncan, Durant, Hakeem, Robinson, Bird, Magic, and Nowitzki show. The problem is, when a few franchises monopolize talent in the league because of their wealth, players have begun to give up on their teams, all but a few loyal players, and we see mercenary moves that are a major turnoff to most.

The whole thing is compressing salaries further isn't going to help the situation when players know they have better business opportunities outside of basketball playing in a bigger market. Imagine how big of a star any of those player you mentioned instead played the duration of their career in NY, LA, or CHI?

Aside from that, with the owners proposing caps of 4yrs in contract length, you might even start to see stars leaving teams even earlier. Aside from Shaq and to a much lesser extent Grant Hill, basically top 15 players that left their teams usually did it by way of forced trade similar to VC, Kidd, Melo or others. Probably 95% of the time all-star caliber players sign their first extension without even testing restricted free agency.

It's extremely, extremely rare for big market teams to hoard cap space. They usually find a way to trade for the players they want.

ink
10-15-2011, 01:40 PM
The whole thing is compressing salaries further isn't going to help the situation when players know they have better business opportunities outside of basketball playing in a bigger market. Imagine how big of a star any of those player you mentioned instead played the duration of their career in NY, LA, or CHI?

Aside from that, with the owners proposing caps of 4yrs in contract length, you might even start to see stars leaving teams even earlier. Aside from Shaq and to a much lesser extent Grant Hill, basically top 15 players that left their teams usually did it by way of forced trade similar to VC, Kidd, Melo or others. Probably 95% of the time all-star caliber players sign their first extension without even testing restricted free agency.

The thing is, in the so-called golden era, player movement was a lot less common. There was NEVER a question that Bird would finish out his career as anything but a Celtic, same with Robinson as a Spur, Magic as a Laker, or Stockton as a Jazz. I know there were exceptions but they were either because of shocking trades (Wilt) or because the greatest player in the history of the league (MJ) didn't want to deal with Reinsdorff any more. Who knows, maybe that broke the allegiance issue wide open in the league, but by then MJ had won all of his rings with the Bulls, he pulled that team up with himself.

Getting back to first extensions, all players should be signing their first extensions with their first teams. And players just didn't force trades as often, if at all. The pendulum has swung too far in the players direction and even fans find it a problem. Like even Dennis Rodman of all people says, it's time for the pendulum to swing back.

Cosmic_Canon
10-15-2011, 04:43 PM
One says that talent evaluators need to be better (right, because drafting is so predictable right?); another doesn't seem to realize that the players have miscalculated this lockout completely, making it about money when it's not; That's exactly WHY a better system is necessary: because those things can't be predicted or controlled. Spending, however, can be and should be.

The other thing players may have miscalculated is how the public sees them as obnoxious, spoiled fools. I know that does not apply to all NBA players, but it definitely applies to the current crop of superstars. I think it's going to be a long lockout if the players don't start to realize they don't have public sympathy. They need to get realistic about the business they're in and stop seeing it exclusively as something to exploit.

1. Of course drafting isn't a exact science, but these small markets need to get more draft picks/cheap young talent. Look at OKC/Portland/Spurs, aside from having a healthy Roy and Aldridge/KD/Duncan, these teams all excelled from getting stockpiling on young talent. Pritchard(Portland GM) and Presti(Thunder GM) are known for trading for cheap young players.
Small market teams need to acquire picks/cheap young talent, through trading their vets to playoff teams, or by taking on bad contracts from other teams.

2. How is it not about money? The players from the beginning of the lockout, have tried to get a deal done, by lowering their BRI from 57 to 54. Stern have said that the league has said that the league is money. I don't know about you, but if someone is losing money and have yet to show proof(financial books), something doesn't sit right. Especially words from said commissioner, whom has had numerous "questionable" occurrences under his tenure.

Referees possibly fixing playoff series(Kings-Lakers, Mavs Heat in 2006) as well as fixing games in general(Donaghy). Questionable draft lotteries(Cleveland getting #1 picks in '03 and '11, Bulls being able to draft the hometown kid in Rose) and to frozen envelopes(Ewing draft in'85). Let's disregard these occurrences and lack of proof of financial losses, since Stern is so credible, that we can take what he says at face value. :rolleyes:

2. How will a hard cap or another system in place will help, if the best run teams are at top(Lakers, Heat, Thunder)/have been on top(Spurs)? Yep, good front offices have nothing to do with success. Stern and the lovely owners will save the NBA, and a terrible run team will still succeed. :rolleyes:

3. Well, given the fact that Stern has thrown shots at the NBAPA, Americans typically side with owners in sports work stoppages since they're jealous that athletes get paid to play a game, I say yes players are deemed "spoiled" in the public eye. Especially, when the superstars get special calls, and are extremely marketed thanks to Stern's NBA.

4. So taking a 7%+ paycut is wise, because the business they're in is losing money, yet no proof was shown that the business is losing money?



NBAPA is making me hate the whole league. Good luck getting the NBA fans that actually pay to go watch - to show up at games. People on here fail to realize - the NBA has ruined it's reputation. I hope they cancel the next 2 seasons. The owners are being more than fair with these greedy uneducated thugs. NBAPA can suck it. And for the fans that side with the players on this - your going to realize when the arenas are half empty - what I'm saying is true. In a day and age when the economy and people struggle to feed their families - we get to read and watch the news to hear Derek Fisher with a bunch of ghetto thugs in the background complain about a fair deal. Hope you get your fair deal NBA players - just don't expect the fans support.


Since they're black and have tattoos, they're thugs? Yep, this doesn't reek of racism at all. :rolleyes:

daleja424
10-15-2011, 06:15 PM
No, pointing out the facts is not racism. But it's convenient to pull the race card when presented with facts. Especially when you have none of your own.

Here's a partial database of NBA player's criminal records for your perusal:

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/character/index.jsp

Take the time and add up how many people individuals are there and then compare that to the number of players that have played in the nba in its history...

hard_candy
10-15-2011, 06:16 PM
At last count it was 40%. And those are only the ones who are arrested. That's the tip of the iceberg.

SteBO
10-15-2011, 06:17 PM
Let's stay on topic please......

Tony_Starks
10-15-2011, 06:46 PM
Take the time and add up how many people individuals are there and then compare that to the number of players that have played in the nba in its history...


Don't even waste your time man. Once you see certain terms thrown out there its obvious what kind of individual you're dealing with.

Back to topic the players offer seems pretty reasonable to me and pretty much the majority of those that are covering this soap opera. Of course David Stern is the spin master so the casual uniformed person just echoes the old "those greedy players" basic thinking.......

hard_candy
10-15-2011, 08:11 PM
The criminal actions of the corporatist class are even more vile than those of players. The point being, there's no one to root for.

vdhkf8ds9
10-15-2011, 08:20 PM
welcome to: **************************

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.


free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

**************************

jordan shoes $32

nike shox $32

Christan Audigier bikini $23

Ed Hardy Bikini $23

Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $16

Sandal $32

christian louboutin $80

Sunglass $15

COACH_Necklace $27

handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman $30

**************************

MTar786
10-15-2011, 09:36 PM
the players should take 51 and owners 49. players need to have more than 50% (it is THEIR names that are being merchandized)

the owners dug themselves in this hole so i think the players have already done more than enough to 'help' the owners out of their so called holes.
either way, both sides are full of **** to me because i am being deprived of watching the sport i love because everyone is money hungry.

Kevj77
10-15-2011, 11:55 PM
LOL @ anybody who thinks evening the playing field won't help small market teams. Lets take a situation that's near and dear to my heart.

Chris Paul to the NYK.

Right now the Knicks have two players signed long term. Their total next year alone (when Chris has an option to become a free agent) is 39.3 million between two guys. If we have a hard cap of 60 million two guys count as 60% of the cap. So Chris is going to have to choose between staying with his team and get max money or maybe another team with the cap space to give him max dollars, or take a 10-12 million dollar per year pay cut to go play with the Knicks. Because if he signed for max money he that would leave the Knicks with 95% of their cap space between 3 players.

Money is power you even the amount each team can spend you severly even it the power. No it's not the end all be all, but don't say it doesn't change anything or it hurts small markets when that's simply not the case.Since this is so personal for you how would a hard cap help you keep CP3? You have 3 players that would make 38.5 million dollars if CP3 stayed instead of opting out. How do you get him the help he wants in order to stay a Hornet with only 21.5 million to spend on players assuming he wants all-star help to stay? You would have to spend the at least 2/3 of that cap space on a single player leaving you chump change to fill out the other 8 roster spots.

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 12:41 AM
This discussion is further proof why I never want to see a salary cap in baseball. I believe that if a team makes the right decisions, they can win no matter how much money they have.

Tony_Starks
10-16-2011, 12:53 AM
This discussion is further proof why I never want to see a salary cap in baseball. I believe that if a team makes the right decisions, they can win no matter how much money they have.


You probably made the most logical, simple, should be easy to understand point in this whole thread. Unfortunately 85% will not understand what you just said......

3XDouble
10-16-2011, 01:14 AM
I just love the responses from Heat and Knicks fans. What happened in Miami last year set off a trend toward the “super team”. There are probably enough superstars to establish this practice in 3, 4, maybe 5 cities. What I have heard from the NY and Miami fans here is the 22-24 teams should develop great young talent and then support a system that will inevitably have that talent leave for one of these prime destinations once those players reach their prime. It’s really irritating to be told the rest of us should just accept mediocrity and that all of the best players should end up in a handful of cities.

Parity is good for the long-term popularity of the NBA. The lack of parity has always been a problem but the degree has increased with all the cap exceptions, contract terms, endorsement money, etc. Add to that the trend that started in Miami and you have a potentially toxic situation. If this trend continues we would eventually have the league’s top 15 players on 5 teams. The fans in 20-25 cities are going to get really sick of losing their best players and they are going to quit watching. I know that I am done if something is not done to ensure parity.

The owners are billionaires because they understand the long-term implications of these trends. I really don’t believe for a second this is about a hundred million dollar difference in bargaining position on revenue sharing. Think about it … they have been and continue to accept a model where they have a giant investment in a team and the terms of the CBA basically guarantee the expected outcome (league wide) is roughly break-even. Obviously, the people who think the owners are looking to maximize profits have never run a business. They want parity because it will drive popularity and revenue growth. There is only one way where business men and women with the sophistication of these owners accept such a premise and that’s long-term growth of the value of the organization.

If the detractors here had and business acumen at all they would understand the owners are finally taking a stance to protect the long-term health of the league. Fans in half of the markets or more are going to give up if the current trends are not drastically changed. OKC is being held-up as an example of how the current system works. Tell me that in 3 years when they can’t keep their players. Having done everything right, they will be back to mediocre or worse because there is no way they can hold on to those players with the current CBA terms and economic realities.

Fans of the game should be siding with terms that promote parity.

likemystylez
10-16-2011, 01:22 AM
I just love the responses from Heat and Knicks fans. What happened in Miami last year set off a trend toward the ďsuper teamĒ. There are probably enough superstars to establish this practice in 3, 4, maybe 5 cities. What I have heard from the NY and Miami fans here is the 22-24 teams should develop great young talent and then support a system that will inevitably have that talent leave for one of these prime destinations once those players reach their prime. Itís really irritating to be told the rest of us should just accept mediocrity and that all of the best players should end up in a handful of cities.

Parity is good for the long-term popularity of the NBA. The lack of parity has always been a problem but the degree has increased with all the cap exceptions, contract terms, endorsement money, etc. Add to that the trend that started in Miami and you have a potentially toxic situation. If this trend continues we would eventually have the leagueís top 15 players on 5 teams. The fans in 20-25 cities are going to get really sick of losing their best players and they are going to quit watching. I know that I am done if something is not done to ensure parity.

The owners are billionaires because they understand the long-term implications of these trends. I really donít believe for a second this is about a hundred million dollar difference in bargaining position on revenue sharing. Think about it Ö they have been and continue to accept a model where they have a giant investment in a team and the terms of the CBA basically guarantee the expected outcome (league wide) is roughly break-even. Obviously, the people who think the owners are looking to maximize profits have never run a business. They want parity because it will drive popularity and revenue growth. There is only one way where business men and women with the sophistication of these owners accept such a premise and thatís long-term growth of the value of the organization.

If the detractors here had and business acumen at all they would understand the owners are finally taking a stance to protect the long-term health of the league. Fans in half of the markets or more are going to give up if the current trends are not drastically changed. OKC is being held-up as an example of how the current system works. Tell me that in 3 years when they canít keep their players. Having done everything right, they will be back to mediocre or worse because there is no way they can hold on to those players with the current CBA terms and economic realities.

Fans of the game should be siding with terms that promote parity.

if parity is truly the goal, the players should throw them for a loop then. The players should say... do whatever you want to the system and the length of contracts... but we want the Bri split to be at 60% in favor of the players.

BRI has nothing to do with parity, if the owners want parity and are so sure that it will create more revenue, then it shouldnt be such a huge concern on the bri split.

BTW- Im neither a fan of the heat or knicks, Im a fan iof the warriors... and I can tell you from being a fan of a horribly ran team. There is no cba in the world that could have prevented the warriors list of mistakes over the last 2 decades.... and yet the fans always keep coming to support them and dont lose interest.

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 02:11 AM
I just love the responses from Heat and Knicks fans. What happened in Miami last year set off a trend toward the “super team”. There are probably enough superstars to establish this practice in 3, 4, maybe 5 cities. What I have heard from the NY and Miami fans here is the 22-24 teams should develop great young talent and then support a system that will inevitably have that talent leave for one of these prime destinations once those players reach their prime. It’s really irritating to be told the rest of us should just accept mediocrity and that all of the best players should end up in a handful of cities.

Parity is good for the long-term popularity of the NBA. The lack of parity has always been a problem but the degree has increased with all the cap exceptions, contract terms, endorsement money, etc. Add to that the trend that started in Miami and you have a potentially toxic situation. If this trend continues we would eventually have the league’s top 15 players on 5 teams. The fans in 20-25 cities are going to get really sick of losing their best players and they are going to quit watching. I know that I am done if something is not done to ensure parity.

The owners are billionaires because they understand the long-term implications of these trends. I really don’t believe for a second this is about a hundred million dollar difference in bargaining position on revenue sharing. Think about it … they have been and continue to accept a model where they have a giant investment in a team and the terms of the CBA basically guarantee the expected outcome (league wide) is roughly break-even. Obviously, the people who think the owners are looking to maximize profits have never run a business. They want parity because it will drive popularity and revenue growth. There is only one way where business men and women with the sophistication of these owners accept such a premise and that’s long-term growth of the value of the organization.

If the detractors here had and business acumen at all they would understand the owners are finally taking a stance to protect the long-term health of the league. Fans in half of the markets or more are going to give up if the current trends are not drastically changed. OKC is being held-up as an example of how the current system works. Tell me that in 3 years when they can’t keep their players. Having done everything right, they will be back to mediocre or worse because there is no way they can hold on to those players with the current CBA terms and economic realities.

Fans of the game should be siding with terms that promote parity.Funny how we have people complaining about a lack of parity in basketball WITH A SALARY CAP. Baseball, with NO salary cap, despite all the criticism against teams like the Yankees for having superstars, has had 9 different champions in the last 10 years. In basketball, in spite of the salary cap, where every team is equal, has had 5 different champions in that time same period, including multiple championships by the Lakers and Spurs. It goes back to the fundamental point of my original post. Payroll means nothing if you do not make the right decisions. The Yankees, with all the payroll in the World, has only had one World Series Championship in 10 years. In the same time period, the Yankees have managed to be knocked out in the first round 5 times (including this season), lose to the Rangers in the League Championship Series in 2010, lose to the crappy Marlins in the 2003 World Series, miss the playoffs completely in 2008, and of course, blow a 3-0 lead the 2004 ALCS in what was the arguably the most painful collapse in modern baseball history (this after the Yankees won Game 3 by a score of 19-8). The Red Sox, with their massive payroll and contracts, have not made the playoff in 2 years, and partook in what was statistically and emotionally the worst regular season collapse in baseball history. The Cubs, with all the payroll in the World, have not had a winning season since 2008 and has not had a World Series title since 1908 and are loaded with bad contract after bad contract. The Mets, with all the payroll in the World have not had a winning season since 2008, managed to lose 92 games in 2009 with the second highest payroll in baseball, and signed some of baseball's worst contracts (Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez). Once again, it goes back to my fundamental point. If you make the right decisions, you can win regardless of payroll.

Cosmic_Canon
10-16-2011, 07:55 AM
Back to topic the players offer seems pretty reasonable to me and pretty much the majority of those that are covering this soap opera. Of course David Stern is the spin master so the casual uniformed person just echoes the old "those greedy players" basic thinking.......

Man, I've been seen saying that for the past few days. It's funny, when you offer facts that challenge their arguments, yet they do not "notice" them.
They don't hear us. :pity:



Funny how we have people complaining about a lack of parity in basketball WITH A SALARY CAP. Baseball, with NO salary cap, despite all the criticism against teams like the Yankees for having superstars, has had 9 different champions in the last 10 years. In basketball, in spite of the salary cap, where every team is equal, has had 5 different champions in that time same period, including multiple championships by the Lakers and Spurs. It goes back to the fundamental point of my original post. Payroll means nothing if you do not make the right decisions.

The Yankees, with all the payroll in the World, has only had one World Series Championship in 10 years. In the same time period, the Yankees have managed to be knocked out in the first round 5 times (including this season), lose to the Rangers in the League Championship Series in 2010, lose to the crappy Marlins in the 2003 World Series, miss the playoffs completely in 2008, and of course, blow a 3-0 lead the 2004 ALCS in what was the arguably the most painful collapse in modern baseball history (this after the Yankees won Game 3 by a score of 19-8) The Red Sox, with their massive payroll and contracts, have not made the playoff in 2 years, and partook in what was statistically and emotionally the worst regular season collapse in baseball history.

The Cubs, with all the payroll in the World, have not had a winning season since 2008 and has not had a World Series title since 1908 and are loaded with bad contract after bad contract. The Mets, with all the payroll in the World have not had a winning season since 2008, managed to lose 92 games in 2009 with the second highest payroll in baseball, and signed some of baseball worst contracts (Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez). Once again, it goes back to my fundamental point. If you make the right decisions, you can win regardless of payroll.

ETHER

BigCityofDreams
10-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Funny how we have people complaining about a lack of parity in basketball WITH A SALARY CAP. Baseball, with NO salary cap, despite all the criticism against teams like the Yankees for having superstars, has had 9 different champions in the last 10 years. In basketball, in spite of the salary cap, where every team is equal, has had 5 different champions in that time same period, including multiple championships by the Lakers and Spurs. It goes back to the fundamental point of my original post. Payroll means nothing if you do not make the right decisions. The Yankees, with all the payroll in the World, has only had one World Series Championship in 10 years. In the same time period, the Yankees have managed to be knocked out in the first round 5 times (including this season), lose to the Rangers in the League Championship Series in 2010, lose to the crappy Marlins in the 2003 World Series, miss the playoffs completely in 2008, and of course, blow a 3-0 lead the 2004 ALCS in what was the arguably the most painful collapse in modern baseball history (this after the Yankees won Game 3 by a score of 19-8) The Red Sox, with their massive payroll and contracts, have not made the playoff in 2 years, and partook in what was statistically and emotionally the worst regular season collapse in baseball history. The Cubs, with all the payroll in the World, have not had a winning season since 2008 and has not had a World Series title since 1908 and are loaded with bad contract after bad contract. The Mets, with all the payroll in the World have not had a winning season since 2008, managed to lose 92 games in 2009 with the second highest payroll in baseball, and signed some of baseball worst contracts (Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez). Once again, it goes back to my fundamental point. If you make the right decisions, you can win regardless of payroll.

Game set match. Payroll plays a role but it's not the end all be all. If you get the right ppl in place you can produce a winner. The problem is many of the ppl in the FO aren't smart enough to make the right decisions.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 11:07 AM
Last ten years in the three major sports:

NFL (with hard cap) has had 7 different champions...

NBA (with soft cap) has had 6 different champions...

MLB (with a free market) has had 9 different champions...

Please go ahead and show me the correlation between system and parity!

ink
10-16-2011, 11:44 AM
Game set match. Payroll plays a role but it's not the end all be all. If you get the right ppl in place you can produce a winner. The problem is many of the ppl in the FO aren't smart enough to make the right decisions.

Obviously the FO makes a difference but that post was not game set and match by any means. Not at all. Seems a few people are missing the entire point, which is that it's about talent acquisition, the BEGINNING of the process, not just the end of the process. Since that won't sink in I won't bother going through it again. But it's clear that that is what is at stake regardless how many PA memos some of you guys re-post. Don't get distracted by the negotiating points. They are rarely the whole issue, in fact, the tactical problem the players have had so far is that they've focused completely on money and that's not really what's at stake here at all. That's one of the main reasons why they're about to get locked out for at least half a season. I'd be happy to wait out the full season or more if it means the league will improve its system.

ink
10-16-2011, 11:53 AM
Last ten years in the three major sports:

NFL (with hard cap) has had 7 different champions...

NBA (with soft cap) has had 6 different champions...

MLB (with a free market) has had 9 different champions...

Please go ahead and show me the correlation between system and parity!

Still trying to prove everything by outcome. Tell that to the other 20 teams who have little chance because of the markets they're in. When 2/3 of your league doesn't stand a chance from the outset and you have 5,000 people in the stands in some of those stadiums, you don't have a healthy league. This is about the WHOLE league. We already know the tired argument about the number of teams that win, but conveniently ignore the issues of talent acquisition and retention. The disparity between budget size and actual ability to retain talent is the issue, and no league in North America has a wider disparity on those points than the MLB. Bad example.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 11:59 AM
Still trying to prove everything by outcome. Tell that to the other 20 teams who have little chance because of the markets they're in. When 2/3 of your league doesn't stand a chance from the outset and you have 5,000 people in the stands in some of those stadiums, you don't have a healthy league. This is about the WHOLE league. We already know the tired argument about the number of teams that win, but conveniently ignore the issues of talent acquisition and retention. The disparity between budget size and actual ability to retain talent is the issue, and no league in North America has a wider disparity on those points than the MLB. Bad example.

And yet teams in Arizona, South Florida, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Atlanta, Detroit, and Houston (none of which represent a top 8 North American market) have all made it to the World Series in the past decade.

I understand the theory behind what you are saying...but in practice it has not been proven true. The NY Yankees have had the highest payroll for the past 10 years and have ONE Title to show for it.

Yes, my Florida Marlins do not stand a chance at getting the major FAs each year... but guess what... they make due with good scouting and prospects and timely spending...and as such they have won two World series in the past 14 years. Compare that to the Cubs and Mets who play in a major markets and spend a ton of money on players (and yet have only combined for two titles in the past 42 years).

Teams like the marlins, diamondbacks, thunder, grizzlies, spurs, bulls... heck, even the Packers... prove that you don't need to break the bank in free agency to be a successful organization and compete for championships.

ink
10-16-2011, 12:09 PM
And yet teams in Arizona, South Florida, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Atlanta, Detroit, and Houston (none of which represent a top 8 North American market) have all made it to the World Series in the past decade.

I understand the theory behind what you are saying...but in practice it has not been proven true. The NY Yankees have had the highest payroll for the past 10 years and have ONE Title to show for it.

Yes, my Florida Marlins do not stand a chance at getting the major FAs each year... but guess what... they make due with good scouting and prospects and timely spending...and as such they have won two World series in the past 14 years. Compare that to the Cubs and Mets who play in a major markets and spend a ton of money on players (who have combined for two titles in the past 42 years).

Teams like the marlins, diamondbacks, thunder, grizzlies, spurs, bulls... heck, even the Packers... prove that you don't need to break the bank in free agency to be a successful organization and compete for championships.

You keep missing the point. It's not just about the end result. Fans come to watch teams that have a chance. They come to watch talent. The owners are clearly working on setting up the BEGINNING of the process properly. I support that completely. Also, baseball is a completely different sport with a completely different roster construction. They don't just chip away in machine-like fashion to manufacture runs in basketball; they need one or two players dominating the majority of minutes per game. That puts a lot of emphasis on a few select players and their immediate supporting cast. 7 man rotation at most vs. a massive roster in baseball. Baseball is just not a good parallel at all.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:15 PM
You keep missing the point. It's not just about the end result. Fans come to watch teams that have a chance. They come to watch talent. The owners are clearly working on setting up the BEGINNING of the process properly. I support that completely.

Im not missing the point at all. One reason fans come to the game is the talent. Another reason is to see a winning team. You seem to want to seperate those things...but they are not seperate. Ultimately, if you have a team with a ton of talent that misses the playoffs are they really better off than a team with less talent that makes the playoffs? HELL NO

If you win games, fans will show up. Plain and simple. Run your team well and win games...and the rest will sort itself out.

Can you really tell me that the T-Wolves are a well run organization?

ink
10-16-2011, 12:18 PM
Im not missing the point at all. One reason fans come to the game is the talent. Another reason is to see a winning team. You seem to want to seperate those things...but they are not seperate.

Sure people want to see a winning team, everybody does. But fans tend to be the most hopeless optimists in the world if the team can acquire talent and retain it. That's what the owners are working towards. The old argument about winning ignores most of the rest of the league and most of the rest of the process of running a franchise. There are many well run teams (at least 1/3) that don't advance at all year to year. You don't have to cite the worst run teams to try to make the point. We all know there are poorly run franchises. That doesn't mean the middle teams that still have no real chance don't deserve serious improvements to the CBA.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:20 PM
If you do not want to look at basball...fine...I can draw NFL parallels or NBA parallels. The point remains... if you run your team well and win games...people will show up. If you run your team poorly and lose games...people will not show up.

Look at the teams at the bottom in attendance last season. The Blazers, Magic, Thunder, Spurs, Jazz, Cavs, and Suns all sold 90% of their ticket volume despite being in small markets. The 76ers, Kings, and Nets sold less than 81% of their ticket volume despite being in larger markets.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:22 PM
Sure people want to see a winning team, everybody does. But fans tend to be the most hopeless optimists in the world if the team can acquire talent and retain it. That's what the owners are working towards. The old argument about winning ignores most of the rest of the league and most of the rest of the process of running a franchise. There are many well run teams that don't advance at all. You don't have to cite the worst run teams to try to make the point. We all know there are poorly run franchises. That doesn't mean the middle teams that still have no real chance don't deserve serious improvements to the CBA.

Which teams are you talking about? Lets talk in specifics. Which well run teams are you talking about that are unable to compete?

Cosmic_Canon
10-16-2011, 12:47 PM
Obviously the FO makes a difference but that post was not game set and match by any means. Not at all. Seems a few people are missing the entire point, which is that it's about talent acquisition, the BEGINNING of the process, not just the end of the process. Since that won't sink in I won't bother going through it again. But it's clear that that is what is at stake regardless how many PA memos some of you guys re-post. Don't get distracted by the negotiating points. They are rarely the whole issue, in fact, the tactical problem the players have had so far is that they've focused completely on money and that's not really what's at stake here at all. That's one of the main reasons why they're about to get locked out for at least half a season. I'd be happy to wait out the full season or more if it means the league will improve its system.

Once again, the draft is a main way to get talent. Especially if you're in a small market. If you're short on picks and are REBUILDING, trade away your non-franchise type vets for picks. Houston is known for that, that's why they'll have an extra 1st rounder in the next two drafts. Bobcats are getting smart as well, by trading away Wallace and Jackson, to get away from the mediocrity they were in.

Let's say, you're a rebuilding team and have no quality vets, keep your cap space low to take on bad contracts. The Cavs took on Baron Davis' bad contract, to get a 1st rounder.

If these small market teams are rebuilding, trade away your vets for picks and/or keep your cap space low to take on bad contracts. We all know, a small market team is not as desirable(doesn't mean they can't draw major FA) as a big market for FA, however they can acquire talent through the draft.

Finally, drafting players isn't the end all be all. If you have a influx of cheap young talent/1st rounders, use those pieces as trade chips to acquire a great player. Houston/Orlando/NJ all did this, by trading for T-Mac/Grant Hill/D-Will. At the end of the day, a small market team needs to have some sort of FLEXIBILITY to succeed. Whether it's having a small cap space to take on bad contracts, stockpiling on picks/cheap young talent or using them as trade chips to get a great player, you need some flexibility to get talent. So yes, the GM's are responsible for the BEGINNING of talent acquisition. No, the system doesn't need radical change, since I just debunked your faulty claims.

BigCityofDreams
10-16-2011, 12:57 PM
Obviously the FO makes a difference but that post was not game set and match by any means. Not at all. Seems a few people are missing the entire point, which is that it's about talent acquisition, the BEGINNING of the process, not just the end of the process. Since that won't sink in I won't bother going through it again. But it's clear that that is what is at stake regardless how many PA memos some of you guys re-post. Don't get distracted by the negotiating points. They are rarely the whole issue, in fact, the tactical problem the players have had so far is that they've focused completely on money and that's not really what's at stake here at all. That's one of the main reasons why they're about to get locked out for at least half a season. I'd be happy to wait out the full season or more if it means the league will improve its system.

You're willing to miss an entire yr coming off the season they just had. Why on Earth would anyone want that. It took them so long to regain the popularity they lost over the yrs and ppl want to throw it away so easily. The owners in Hockey were complaining about their system so they missed a yr came back and no one cares about the league. Does anyone actually think if the NBA missed a yr and came back with changes that it would be business as usual.

Cosmic_Canon
10-16-2011, 01:03 PM
Still trying to prove everything by outcome. Tell that to the other 20 teams who have little chance because of the markets they're in. When 2/3 of your league doesn't stand a chance from the outset and you have 5,000 people in the stands in some of those stadiums, you don't have a healthy league. This is about the WHOLE league. We already know the tired argument about the number of teams that win, but conveniently ignore the issues of talent acquisition and retention. The disparity between budget size and actual ability to retain talent is the issue, and no league in North America has a wider disparity on those points than the MLB. Bad example.

Teams in Conference Finals last 10 years
2011 WCF - OKC
2010 ECF and WCF - Orlando and Phoenix
2009 ECF and WCF - Orlando and Cleveland. Denver
2008 WCF - Spurs
2007 WCF ad ECF - San Antonio and Cleveland
2006 WCF - Phoenix
2005 WCF - Phoenix and SA
2004 WCF and ECF - Minnesota and Indiana
2003 WCF - SA
2002 WCF - Sacramento
2001 WCF and ECF - Milwaukee and San Antonio

HEY LOOK, in the past 10 years, there has ALWAYS been a small team in a conference finals series. Man these small markets sure don't stand a chance. :rolleyes:

So please, just quit while you're ahead, you're constantly getting prove wrong with FACTS.

Bramaca
10-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Teams in Conference Finals last 10 years
2011 WCF - OKC
2010 ECF and WCF - Orlando and Phoenix
2009 ECF and WCF - Orlando and Cleveland. Denver
2008 WCF - Spurs
2007 WCF ad ECF - San Antonio and Cleveland
2006 WCF - Phoenix
2005 WCF - Phoenix and SA
2004 WCF and ECF - Minnesota and Indiana
2003 WCF - SA
2002 WCF - Sacramento
2001 WCF and ECF - Milwaukee and San Antonio

HEY LOOK, in the past 10 years, there has ALWAYS been a small team in a conference finals series. Man these small markets sure don't stand a chance. :rolleyes:

So please, just quit while you're ahead, you're constantly getting prove wrong with FACTS.

Pheonix is actually closer to a large market then a small one. Also, how many of those teams made the finals let alone won one? The Spurs with a couple other finals appearances by other teams. And how many of those teams had star players either bolt or traded away (because they couldn't afford to build around them) to big markets? Basically all of them except for the Spurs and a couple teams that haven't got to that point yet.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:28 PM
Pheonix is actually closer to a large market then a small one. Also, how many of those teams made the finals let alone won one? The Spurs with a couple other finals appearances by other teams. And how many of those teams had star players either bolt or traded away (because they couldn't afford to build around them) to big markets? Basically all of them except for the Spurs and a couple teams that haven't got to that point yet.

Phoenix is 15th...so right in the middle... but Phoenix's owner is taking a small market stance, so it is hard to argue they are a big market.

Also... who cares who won the title? Competitive balance is not about making sure everyone wins a title...it is about making sure teams are competing. Making a conference finals is definitely being competitive.

Tony_Starks
10-16-2011, 01:39 PM
-Deron Williams said for years that he tried to recruit players to come to Utah, a competitive team, and they refused because of the location.

-Lebron tried to recruit Bosh to come to Clev before he went to Miami, he refused

-Noahs famous words after a Clev vs ChiTown playoff game: "When people go on vacation, I never hear them say Im going to Cleveland...."

-Trevor Ariza said when he got traded to NO, even though they have a superstar pg, he was extremely disappointed

-Carmelo left Denver, a team that has been consistently competitive since he's been there and was getting ready to go into the summer with the most financial flexibility they've had in years due to FA's leaving, to go to NY who hasn't been competitive for about a decade.

-Mike Bibby left millions on the table in Washington to go take his talents to south beach.

-Ron Artest could've got more money in Houston but chose to come to LA instead

-Matt Barnes could've got more money on a weaker team but chose to take a smaller deal with LA

-Corey Brewer got cut by NY and had a handful of teams to choose from and picked the Mavericks, even though he knew he wouldn't get significant playing time


......See where this is all going? Can someone please explain to me how a brand new system changes any of that? Especially since the small market teams now won't even have the only leverage that they had, being able to overpay a FA?

Bramaca
10-16-2011, 01:49 PM
Phoenix is 15th...so right in the middle... but Phoenix's owner is taking a small market stance, so it is hard to argue they are a big market.

Also... who cares who won the title? Competitive balance is not about making sure everyone wins a title...it is about making sure teams are competing. Making a conference finals is definitely being competitive.

So the bottom 20 teams (in terms of market) account for less then half of the conference finals appearances, less then half finals appearances, and less then half the finals wins. How is that competitive balance? I really doubt thats all bad management.

Also the argument that I have been hearing is that its management holding a lot of these teams back and if they are competitive and retain key players its not a problem. Yet the teams listed were competitive and couldn't retain their players. Its a system that needs to be fixed.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:04 PM
So the bottom 20 teams (in terms of market) account for less then half of the conference finals appearances, less then half finals appearances, and less then half the finals wins. How is that competitive balance? I really doubt thats all bad management.

Also the argument that I have been hearing is that its management holding a lot of these teams back and if they are competitive and retain key players its not a problem. Yet the teams listed were competitive and couldn't retain their players. Its a system that needs to be fixed.

The bottom 20 teams also account for less than half of NBA fans...

Cavs could not retain Lebron b/c management sucked and couldn't get him help. Raptors lost Bosh b/c management sucked and couldn't get him help. Amare left b/c he wanted to play in a big market (and he did so for the same amount of money and went to a team below the cap).

would you like me to go on...

Bad management is the root of the problem people.

ink
10-16-2011, 03:22 PM
You're willing to miss an entire yr coming off the season they just had. Why on Earth would anyone want that. It took them so long to regain the popularity they lost over the yrs and ppl want to throw it away so easily. The owners in Hockey were complaining about their system so they missed a yr came back and no one cares about the league. Does anyone actually think if the NBA missed a yr and came back with changes that it would be business as usual.

Everything about last year was shallow. It's easy not to miss the NBA after a year like that. Looks to me like the owners believe in the sport of basketball and not the selling of massive egos, which is a departure for the league since it's poorly advised superstar approach post MJ. Last year was an all-time low for the integrity of the sport. So, no, I wouldn't miss it for a second. Literally. I will watch NCAA.

Rego247
10-16-2011, 05:13 PM
The bottom 20 teams also account for less than half of NBA fans...

Cavs could not retain Lebron b/c management sucked and couldn't get him help. Raptors lost Bosh b/c management sucked and couldn't get him help. Amare left b/c he wanted to play in a big market (and he did so for the same amount of money and went to a team below the cap).

would you like me to go on...

Bad management is the root of the problem people.

It was a bad management decision to try and build around Bosh in the first place. It would be even worse had they re-signed him.

Don't equate Lebron's scenario with the Cavs to Bosh's scenario with the Raps. One is a franchise level talent who you can actually build around, the other is not.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 05:16 PM
It was a bad management decision to try and build around Bosh in the first place. It would be even worse had they re-signed him.

Don't equate Lebron's scenario with the Cavs to Bosh's scenario with the Raps. One is a franchise level talent who you can actually build around, the other is not.

Bosh is an all-star...and the post was in reference to teams being able to their stars. Just making a point about all the guys who left this past year. None of them took off b/c another team offered a bunch more money... they did it b/c despite equal (and sometimes even lesser pay) they were tiired of playing in small markets with bad management.

ink
10-16-2011, 05:36 PM
Bosh is an all-star...and the post was in reference to teams being able to their stars. Just making a point about all the guys who left this past year. None of them took off b/c another team offered a bunch more money... they did it b/c despite equal (and sometimes even lesser pay) they were tiired of playing in small markets with bad management.

No, they just wanted to create a monopoly because unlike stars of the past, they didn't have the stones or the talent to actually live up to their "franchise player" billing. And they were up against a system that concentrated all the talent and wealth in a few spots. So the players went with the "if you can't beat em, join em" concept that is completely antithetical to competitive sport. This was pointed out by many of the stars of the past who never stooped that low just to stack a team and win a ring. This became the norm under the past CBA and many fans are hoping we've seen the last of it. Again, it's no surprise that the most fervent defence of the status quo is by fans of the teams that hoarded talent. It worked for your teams. Great. It doesn't work for the LEAGUE.

If you have a commercial chain and the franchises are doing poorly, the chain AS A WHOLE works to ensure the health of its franchises or it closes them. Closing them is apparently not an option, so the owners are doing what attracts the investors it needs to keep ALL of its franchises healthy. They are attending to business for all of the franchises. What some of you don't realize is that the league is ONE enterprise on a business level, and 30 teams on a sporting level. Don't confuse the two. The owners are now taking care of the business level.