PDA

View Full Version : Players wake up!! Polls here on PSD are blaming you



mzgrizz
10-16-2011, 10:48 AM
Posted a poll a week ago and the blame for the lockout was to the players 55% and 45% to the owners. The new poll attached to the long running labor and lockout thread gives the blame 62% to players.
If the players think they can form their own league and the majority of us blame them , then they need a serious wake up call.
Let's try a poll again.
Today 2 days prior to the meeting with the mediator,
Who do you blame for not resolving the lockout?

Cosmic_Canon
10-16-2011, 11:00 AM
Keep in mind, most people do not know enough about the lockout. So naturally, they will blame the players. I'm expecting around the same numbers, as the last PSD poll.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 11:10 AM
Keep in mind, most people do not know enough about the lockout. So naturally, they will blame the players. I'm expecting around the same numbers, as the last PSD poll.

This... I would say that a majority of people who are educated on the lockout issues and are willing to see through Stern's BS know that the owners are trying to strong-arm the players and are not offering concessions at all.

(Note: Some people disagree with me and are well educated on the issues, but I feel the majority of people that blame the players do so out of ignorance)

Tom Stone
10-16-2011, 11:11 AM
All I care about is the hard cap... I'm hoping for a vote soon....450 players in the league, and 30 show up and among that 30 not all are totally with Fisher.....I wonder how long Fisher and Hunter can tell these guys to be quite and stand behind me, with out letting them vote.....I do respect Fisher I just don't agree with him that sports shouldn't be equal playing feild....he said it's not there responceability....it's the way the world is............And Derrick is right it is the way the world is....that's why there is so high unemployment....union's wanted too much... business owners left the country for cheaper labour.....this is one of the reasons the world is so messed up......So what I say to Derrick is just because the world has a pathetic greedy system that has doomed us all.....and it's the way it has been, doesn't mean you should support it.......in time I hope Saner minds prevail.
__________________

daleja424
10-16-2011, 11:14 AM
All I care about is the hard cap... I'm hoping for a vote soon....450 players in the league, and 30 show up and among that 30 not all are totally with Fisher.....I wonder how long Fisher and Hunter can tell these guys to be quite and stand behind me, with out letting them vote.....I do respect Fisher I just don't agree with him that sports shouldn't be equal playing feild....he said it's not there responceability....it's the way the world is............And Derrick is right it is the way the world is....that's why there is so high unemployment....union's wanted too much... business owners left the country for cheaper labour.....this is one of the reasons the world is so messed up......So what I say to Derrick is just because the world has a pathetic greedy system that has doomed us all.....and it's the way it has been, doesn't mean you should support it.......in time I hope Saner minds prevail.
__________________

Haha! That is certainly one way to spin it....

daleja424
10-16-2011, 11:16 AM
It would be fun if we could make everyone provide rational before voting. That would be way more interesting. It would force people to actually rationalize their feelings and maybe even do some research before answering this question.

sixer04fan
10-16-2011, 11:24 AM
How many "who do you blame" polls are we going to have?

JLynn943
10-16-2011, 11:40 AM
How many "who do you blame" polls are we going to have?

we could poll everyone to find out

mzgrizz
10-16-2011, 11:48 AM
How many "who do you blame" polls are we going to have?

This can be the last. It will stay up til mediation

airronijordan
10-16-2011, 11:54 AM
I definitely blame the owners....they want everything their way

either way I dont expect a deal even with the mediator....Stern should quit!

ink
10-16-2011, 11:57 AM
Keep in mind, most people do not know enough about the lockout. So naturally, they will blame the players. I'm expecting around the same numbers, as the last PSD poll.

You don't need to memorize the negotiating points to understand this lockout. It's actually pretty straightforward. Even Dennis Rodman of all people says that the pendulum has swung too far in the players' direction and now it needs to swing back to the owners so that the league can re-balance.

Sadds The Gr8
10-16-2011, 11:58 AM
David Stern

ink
10-16-2011, 12:00 PM
It would be fun if we could make everyone provide rational before voting. That would be way more interesting. It would force people to actually rationalize their feelings and maybe even do some research before answering this question.

Funny how these statements about the supposed ignorance of anyone who disagrees come up from one side only. It's a weak debating technique to insult the intelligence of those that disagree.

A lockout can be very good for a sport if it's done well. The NHL is 200% better because of the achievements made during their lockout 6 years ago. Hopefully the NBA will be as proactive as it was. In that case, the owners made sure that it was about more than just money and involved the players in a non-adversarial role of helping to renew the league and deal with rulebook issues that had lingered for 20 years.

Tmath
10-16-2011, 12:00 PM
You don't need to memorize the negotiating points to understand this lockout. It's actually pretty straightforward. Even Dennis Rodman of all people says that the pendulum has swung too far in the players' direction and now it needs to swing back to the owners so that the league can re-balance.

This.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:03 PM
Funny how these statements about the supposed ignorance of anyone who disagrees come up from one side only. It's a weak debating technique to insult the intelligence of those that disagree.

I very clearly stated in a previous post that some people are educated on the issues and still side with the owners...and I respect that side... (example: you know what you are talking about you just interpret the facts differently than I do...and I can respect that, b/c it allows us to have an intelligent conversation)

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:06 PM
You don't need to memorize the negotiating points to understand this lockout. It's actually pretty straightforward. Even Dennis Rodman of all people says that the pendulum has swung too far in the players' direction and now it needs to swing back to the owners so that the league can re-balance.

And even the players and those who support the players agree with this statement. This is a very fair assessment.

The problem, however, is that the players have made very reasonable concessions across the board but the league is more interesting in crushing the players than finding an amicable solution. The league is more interested in spreading propaganda that, at best, is misleading than actually negotiating. The league is making it clear that mediation is not a top priority for them as well.

Tom Stone
10-16-2011, 12:17 PM
Funny how these statements about the supposed ignorance of anyone who disagrees come up from one side only. It's a weak debating technique to insult the intelligence of those that disagree.

A lockout can be very good for a sport if it's done well. The NHL is 200% better because of the achievements made during their lockout 6 years ago. Hopefully the NBA will be as proactive as it was. In that case, the owners made sure that it was about more than just money and involved the players in a non-adversarial role of helping to renew the league and deal with rulebook issues that had lingered for 20 years.

Nice comment ink

Tom Stone
10-16-2011, 12:21 PM
And even the players and those who support the players agree with this statement. This is a very fair assessment.

The problem, however, is that the players have made very reasonable concessions across the board but the league is more interesting in crushing the players than finding an amicable solution. The league is more interested in spreading propaganda that, at best, is misleading than actually negotiating. The league is making it clear that mediation is not a top priority for them as well.

It doesn't matter how much money they give back....without the hard cap... we will have the same broken system, and the big Markets will have huge advantages....get it straight, for a real Fan that is the main problem.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:25 PM
It doesn't matter how much money they give back....without the hard cap... we will have the same broken system, and the big Markets will have huge advantages....get it straight, for a real Fan that is the main problem.

Toronto is a large market. When was the last time they had a contending team? What advantage does Toronto offer? How many big time FAs have come fleeing up there?

MrPeytonManning
10-16-2011, 12:33 PM
I may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but I do feel like I know a few of the issues. That being said, I do side with the owners if, in fact, they are losing as much money as they claim they are. The Rashard Lewises, Luke Waltons and Brian Cardinals of the world have been making way too much money for their contributions or lack thereof.

That being said... the owners are not willing to negotiate at all. They know they have the monetary advantage (billionaires always beat millionaires), and they're willing to shut the whole thing down if they don't get everything they want. So in that sense they're not acting in good faith at all.

For the record, BTW, I supported the players' side during the NFL lockout

ink
10-16-2011, 12:33 PM
And even the players and those who support the players agree with this statement. This is a very fair assessment.

The problem, however, is that the players have made very reasonable concessions across the board but the league is more interesting in crushing the players than finding an amicable solution. The league is more interested in spreading propaganda that, at best, is misleading than actually negotiating. The league is making it clear that mediation is not a top priority for them as well.

Step back a few minutes and ask yourself if any of that is unique to these negotiations. Those two sides (i.e. not US but them) are trying to dupe people into taking on their battles. Don't be sucked in to their rhetoric.

The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the players and now it has to swing back. It's a natural development. And it will improve the league. I couldn't care less about millionaires or billionaires otherwise.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:39 PM
Step back a few minutes and ask yourself if any of that is unique to these negotiations. Those two sides (i.e. not US but them) are trying to dupe people into taking on their battles. Don't be sucked in to their rhetoric.

The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the players and now it has to swing back. It's a natural development. And it will improve the league. I couldn't care less about millionaires or billionaires otherwise.

Not at all unique...very routine in most disputes. But it doesn't sit well with me. The owners could today sign a deal that changes the system and gets them the 300 million back...but that is not good enough for them. The players are willing to accept defeat...but they will not conceed in a blowout.

If the owners wanted to make a deal... they could have a win TODAY...but they do not want to win...they want to crush...and for that reason... we are in a lockout. The players will give them money and system concessions...but they will not be bullied.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-16-2011, 12:40 PM
I very clearly stated in a previous post that some people are educated on the issues and still side with the owners...and I respect that side... (example: you know what you are talking about you just interpret the facts differently than I do...and I can respect that, b/c it allows us to have an intelligent conversation)


Toronto is a large market. When was the last time they had a contending team? What advantage does Toronto offer? How many big time FAs have come fleeing up there?

Exactly.... People use parity as an excuse to side with the owners. IMO the only thing that can make smaller market teams Attract stars is to make them able to offer larger sums of money over large market teams. An equal hard cap changes very little. I suggest a lower luxury tax penalty for smaller markets. This way the owners can spend equal to the larger teams. And I still think some teams won't spend ..... Phx doesn't resign Stat but signs Childress,Hakim, and scraps. DID Childress even play last season.

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 12:42 PM
I blame the owners for calling for a hard cap which in the end will do nothing but kill small market teams and punish successful teams. I hate Salary Caps because of nonsense like this. If you make the right decisions, you can win in any sport regardless of payroll. This year, we will have a new champion in baseball, in spite of all the stupid claims that there is a lack of parity in baseball.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:47 PM
I blame the owners for calling for a hard cap which in the end will do nothing but kill small market teams. I hate Salary Caps because of nonsense like this. If you make the right decisions, you can win in any sport regardless of payroll. This year, we will have a new champion in baseball, in spite of all the stupid claims that there is a lack of parity in baseball.

YUP. And of the three teams that are left in the playoffs right now... ZERO of them are even in the top 10 in salaries this year.

Sadds The Gr8
10-16-2011, 12:49 PM
Toronto is a large market. When was the last time they had a contending team? What advantage does Toronto offer? How many big time FAs have come fleeing up there?

it is, but being in another country diminishes that.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:50 PM
it is, but being in another country diminishes that.

Exactly. Regardless of market and system... Toronto is not an attractive place for players to play. Nothing the NBA does is going to make people flock to Toronto. Toronto is always going to be at a disadvantage b/c it is Toronto.

ManRam
10-16-2011, 12:51 PM
The fact that it's split...and the majority aren't just blaming the more rich side, shows that maybe the owners really are fighting for the better thing and have the best interests for the league in mind. I sincerally think both cases are true.

Battier's comments solidify my beliefs too. I'm hoping the owners do what they need to do...as long as the entire season is canceled. I'm fine with missing a few more weeks if they get what they want, but a whole season would make me turn on them a little more. I don't think either side can afford to lose an entire season, and don't fear that.

ManRam
10-16-2011, 12:52 PM
Market size means slightly less than location, hence Toronto. The NBA players have so much power...and the same teams under the current system are likely to maintain their success and continue getting the biggest names...

I'm a fan of a "small market" team, so that also plays a lot into my support of the owners...but for the sake of balance and fair competition, I like what the owners have and continue to push for.

Tom Stone
10-16-2011, 12:52 PM
Toronto is a large market. When was the last time they had a contending team? What advantage does Toronto offer? How many big time FAs have come fleeing up there?

Now you made me mad....Toronto will contend.....when teams can't go over the cap...it will pave the way for the Raps to get there chance....and I think Marc Gasol might want to join us, he's friends with calderon.....Our Draft pick Jonas is pumped about being a Raptor...and Demar Derozen loves our bar scene because of our loose women.....you know nothing about Toronto.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 12:53 PM
The fact that it's split...and the majority aren't just blaming the more rich side, shows that maybe the owners really are fighting for the better thing and have the best interests for the league in mind. I sincerally think both cases are true.

Battier's comments solidify my beliefs too. I'm hoping the owners do what they need to do...as long as the entire season is canceled. I'm fine with missing a few more weeks if they get what they want, but a whole season would make me turn on them a little more. I don't think either side can afford to lose an entire season, and don't fear that.

I disagree ManRam...b/c it is my understanding that an overwhelming majority of people usually side with the owners in labor disputes. The fact that it is a split despite Stern's amazing spinning abilities shows me that the players are doing better with the public than usual.

tom04041
10-16-2011, 12:57 PM
I may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but I do feel like I know a few of the issues. That being said, I do side with the owners if, in fact, they are losing as much money as they claim they are. The Rashard Lewises, Luke Waltons and Brian Cardinals of the world have been making way too much money for their contributions or lack thereof.

That being said... the owners are not willing to negotiate at all. They know they have the monetary advantage (billionaires always beat millionaires), and they're willing to shut the whole thing down if they don't get everything they want. So in that sense they're not acting in good faith at all.

For the record, BTW, I supported the players' side during the NFL lockout

But is it the players' fault that owners/GMs were willing to pay them that much money? Owners make their fortunes outside of basketball and some of them are rich enough that they'll sacrifice some money in order to put a winning team on the court. Then, after overspending over the past few years, they whine about how they are losing money. Owning a basketball team provides some utility to owners beyond just the money aspect, and that's why they were willing to spend that money. I agree the league has swung in the players' favor, but I don't think it is their fault that it got to this point. This makes it hard for me to have sympathy for the owners. They should have been more frugal if they were more interested in making money. As was mentioned, the players have made some concessions (I don't know enough to say whether they should make more concessions or not) and I don't like the PR game Stern and the owners are playing.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:01 PM
Now you made me mad....Toronto will contend.....when teams can't go over the cap...it will pave the way for the Raps to get there chance....and I think Marc Gasol might want to join us, he's friends with calderon.....Our Draft pick Jonas is pumped about being a Raptor...and Demar Derozen loves our bar scene because of our loose women.....you know nothing about Toronto.

I don't know much about Toronto... but I do know that you have never even been to a Conference Finals. You can feel free to be optimistic about your future, but Gasol is not going to leave a better team to join yours (and even if he wanted to he is a restricted FA).

You claimed that the large markets have an advantage... well your team is in a large market... and still isn't competitive. Meanwhile there are teams in drastically smaller markets that have done WAY better. Sounds like a management problem to me.

Rego247
10-16-2011, 01:14 PM
Funny how these statements about the supposed ignorance of anyone who disagrees come up from one side only. It's a weak debating technique to insult the intelligence of those that disagree.

A lockout can be very good for a sport if it's done well. The NHL is 200% better because of the achievements made during their lockout 6 years ago. Hopefully the NBA will be as proactive as it was. In that case, the owners made sure that it was about more than just money and involved the players in a non-adversarial role of helping to renew the league and deal with rulebook issues that had lingered for 20 years.

Really well said Ink.

Dr Cyanide 28
10-16-2011, 01:15 PM
we could poll everyone to find out

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:15 PM
Tom Stone,

Is it the system's fault that the Raptors drafted:
Bosh instead of Wade
Rafael Araujo instead of Iggy/Al Jefferson/JR Smith/Josh Smith
Charlie V instead of Andrew Bynum/Danny Granger
Andrea Bargnani instead of Lamarcus Aldridge/Brandon Roy/Rudy Gay
Roy Hibbert instead of Javale McGee/Serge Ibaka

So lets see...the Raptors could have had a team built around Wade, Granger, Iguodala (or Smith), Aldridge, and McGee... and instead they got Bosh, Araujo, Villanueva, Bargnani, and Hibbert.

Ya, its the system's fault the Raptors aren't competing...

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 01:21 PM
Tom Stone,

Is it the system's fault that the Raptors drafted:
Bosh instead of Wade
Rafael Araujo instead of Iggy/Al Jefferson/JR Smith/Josh Smith
Charlie V instead of Andrew Bynum/Danny Granger
Andrea Bargnani instead of Lamarcus Aldridge/Brandon Roy/Rudy Gay
Roy Hibbert instead of Javale McGee/Serge Ibaka

So lets see...the Raptors could have had a team built around Wade, Granger, Iguodala (or Smith), Aldridge, and McGee... and instead they got Bosh, Araujo, Villanueva, Bargnani, and Hibbert.

Ya, its the system's fault the Raptors aren't competing...Thank you. I am glad there is someone who has taken the time to look up what the owners are asking for.

MrPeytonManning
10-16-2011, 01:22 PM
But is it the players' fault that owners/GMs were willing to pay them that much money? Owners make their fortunes outside of basketball and some of them are rich enough that they'll sacrifice some money in order to put a winning team on the court. Then, after overspending over the past few years, they whine about how they are losing money. Owning a basketball team provides some utility to owners beyond just the money aspect, and that's why they were willing to spend that money. I agree the league has swung in the players' favor, but I don't think it is their fault that it got to this point. This makes it hard for me to have sympathy for the owners. They should have been more frugal if they were more interested in making money. As was mentioned, the players have made some concessions (I don't know enough to say whether they should make more concessions or not) and I don't like the PR game Stern and the owners are playing.

You're right in that it isn't the players' fault the owners are willing to pay them much money. I think another problem is that there are just too many NBA franchises, period. Too many markets that are undesirable for bigshot athletes.

Places like Cleveland, Indiana, Milwaukee, Toronto, Charlotte, New Orleans, Memphis, Orlando, Sacramento, OKC, Utah, Minnesota, Portland, and even Phoenix, Denver, Washington, Atlanta and San Antonio, are not desirable markets for pro basketball players. In an ideal world, none of those teams would even exist. We'd basically have an NBA of:

Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Mavs, Rockets, Bulls, Pistons, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, Celtics, Heat

Those are pretty much the only teams/markets that players will ever want to go to. So every other team either has to have once-in-a-generation geniuses in their management and scouting department, or they have to overpay a marginal star player just to have a 2-3 year window of being good.

Badluck33
10-16-2011, 01:24 PM
This... I would say that a majority of people who are educated on the lockout issues and are willing to see through Stern's BS know that the owners are trying to strong-arm the players and are not offering concessions at all.

(Note: Some people disagree with me and are well educated on the issues, but I feel the majority of people that blame the players do so out of ignorance)

Stop watching basketball and really show David Stern who is boss.

Jacoballen22
10-16-2011, 01:27 PM
So you get 6% of players in one room and Fisher is making all the decisions?

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 01:28 PM
You don't need to memorize the negotiating points to understand this lockout. It's actually pretty straightforward. Even Dennis Rodman of all people says that the pendulum has swung too far in the players' direction and now it needs to swing back to the owners so that the league can re-balance.

in complete agreement Ink. this calls for a one-time only high five.

Tom Stone
10-16-2011, 01:28 PM
Tom Stone,

Is it the system's fault that the Raptors drafted:
Bosh instead of Wade
Rafael Araujo instead of Iggy/Al Jefferson/JR Smith/Josh Smith
Charlie V instead of Andrew Bynum/Danny Granger
Andrea Bargnani instead of Lamarcus Aldridge/Brandon Roy/Rudy Gay
Roy Hibbert instead of Javale McGee/Serge Ibaka

So lets see...the Raptors could have had a team built around Wade, Granger, Iguodala (or Smith), Aldridge, and McGee... and instead they got Bosh, Araujo, Villanueva, Bargnani, and Hibbert.

Ya, its the system's fault the Raptors aren't competing...




Yes, our Gm has made mistakes....but it doesn't change the fact....that if were going to have a chance ....A Hard Cap is a nice step in the right direction....And with a Hard cap and the huge contract of Zack, and Rudy gay contracts, I think Toronto can out bid the griz for him.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:30 PM
Yes, our Gm has made mistakes....but it doesn't change the fact....that if were going to have a chance ....A Hard Cap is a nice step in the right direction....And with a Hard cap and the huge contract of Zack, and Rudy gay contracts, I think Toronto can out bid the griz for him.

Great...then you would have a bad team and Marc Gasol. I didn't realize that overpaying one average player was going to turn your team around from 22 wins to being a contender...

Hellcrooner
10-16-2011, 01:37 PM
where is the BOTH button in the poll?

anyway is more part of the owners than the players.

And dont be delusional about it being about making the league more "fairly" competitive , its all bout MONEY, if the players offered 20% for them 80% for the owners in exchange for elimianting the Draft, the max salary restrictions, the RFA and the Cap owners would ACCEPT

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 01:38 PM
The fact that it's split...and the majority aren't just blaming the more rich side, shows that maybe the owners really are fighting for the better thing and have the best interests for the league in mind. I sincerally think both cases are true.

absolutely. the fact that 50% or greater are siding with "THE MAN" when it's almost a gut level response for the majority of people to side against "THE MAN" is very revealing.

Hellcrooner
10-16-2011, 01:39 PM
Great...then you would have a bad team and Marc Gasol. I didn't realize that overpaying one average player was going to turn your team around from 22 wins to being a contender...

He, tell me if the cap was suddenly raised to 100 million, how much do you think YOUR team will offer to Marc Gasol ;)

Badluck33
10-16-2011, 01:39 PM
Why are former players (PLAYERS) siding with the owners on this??

Rodman and Rick Barry both think the players are asking for too much and should ease up on demands.

PLAYERS SAID THIS!

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 01:40 PM
Funny how these statements about the supposed ignorance of anyone who disagrees come up from one side only. It's a weak debating technique to insult the intelligence of those that disagree.

A lockout can be very good for a sport if it's done well. The NHL is 200% better because of the achievements made during their lockout 6 years ago. Hopefully the NBA will be as proactive as it was. In that case, the owners made sure that it was about more than just money and involved the players in a non-adversarial role of helping to renew the league and deal with rulebook issues that had lingered for 20 years.No it has not. The Chicago Blackhawks (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/us/04cnchawks.html), who went 49 years without a Stanley Cup, had to cut several players (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/hockey/05blackhawks.html) in order to get under the Salary Cap. As I have stated multiple times before, salary caps and hard caps do nothing but punish success and kill emerging teams. Unfortunately, we now live in a society loaded with people who want to punish success. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters here in New York, around the country and around the world calling for the redistribution of wealth. I am not surprised this mindset has seeped into sports.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:41 PM
He, tell me if the cap was suddenly raised to 100 million, how much do you think YOUR team will offer to Marc Gasol ;)

Not a knock on Marc Gasol. He is a nice player. He could put the HEAT over the top possibly... but he is not going to put a 22 win team over the top (I'm not sure Kobe Bryant could even get that group of guys to contend for a title)

Hellcrooner
10-16-2011, 01:44 PM
Not a knock on Marc Gasol. He is a nice player. He could put the HEAT over the top possibly... but he is not going to put a 22 win team over the top (I'm not sure Kobe Bryant could even get that group of guys to contend for a title)

sometiems the impact of a signing goes beyond the individual players.
is nto only that he can put up 20 and 12 with the touches, is the fact of allowing a certain italian to play his real position and being good at it instead of sucking at center, or the positive inlfuence of a good relationship with the Pg.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:46 PM
sometiems the impact of a signing goes beyond the individual players.
is nto only that he can put up 20 and 12 with the touches, is the fact of allowing a certain italian to play his real position and being good at it instead of sucking at center, or the positive inlfuence of a good relationship with the Pg.

ya...b/c more offensive touches is going to raise his rebounding from 7.9 per game to 12... come on man. Gasol is a 14 and 8 guy. A solid player, but not a guy that will elevate a team to new heights. Especially making a 22 win team and contender. GET REAL...and please stay on topic.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Now you made me mad....Toronto will contend.....when teams can't go over the cap...it will pave the way for the Raps to get there chance....and I think Marc Gasol might want to join us, he's friends with calderon.....Our Draft pick Jonas is pumped about being a Raptor...and Demar Derozen loves our bar scene because of our loose women.....you know nothing about Toronto.

Lmbo... That's the only reason why u side with the owners . Hoping that ur team will be able to contend. Why would Gasol choose Tor over other teams again ? Friends with a pg who they can't wait to get rid off

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-16-2011, 01:55 PM
Why are former players (PLAYERS) siding with the owners on this??

Rodman and Rick Barry both think the players are asking for too much and should ease up on demands.

PLAYERS SAID THIS!

Because they didn't make good money in their day. They forget today's era is more of a cash cow in comparison to when they played. Todays player is making way more than they did

sixer04fan
10-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Funny how these statements about the supposed ignorance of anyone who disagrees come up from one side only. It's a weak debating technique to insult the intelligence of those that disagree.

A lockout can be very good for a sport if it's done well. The NHL is 200% better because of the achievements made during their lockout 6 years ago. Hopefully the NBA will be as proactive as it was. In that case, the owners made sure that it was about more than just money and involved the players in a non-adversarial role of helping to renew the league and deal with rulebook issues that had lingered for 20 years.

Amen. 100% agree. Apparently anyone on this forum that supports the owners is a complete moron and doesn't understand the issues. That's just the general sentiment I've noticed from several outspoken posters. God forbid we think the league will be better off if the owners get the changes they want. That would just be idiotic to support the "big bad greedy billionaires."

Please...

Wade>You
10-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Has anyone read one logical argument for the owners side that hasn't already been obliterated with lengthy facts and evidence by the people that support the players?

At the same time, it seems the main argument for the owners are all one liners like "Players are greedy", "Why do the players refuse to play", "Owners have all the leverage."

Maybe the owners know in today's world that you get enough ignorant people to support your cause and you can win any debate. At least, that's what they're banking on.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 01:57 PM
the players!

they are called the owners for a reason. they OWN these franchises. the players have no right to demand more revenue then the owners themselves. even if theyre spoiled ***** are used to having it at 57 %. they should have looked at that as a blessing not a right.

Wade>You
10-16-2011, 01:59 PM
the players!

they are called the owners for a reason. they OWN these franchises. the players have no right to demand more revenue then the owners themselves. even if theyre spoiled ***** are used to having it at 57 %. they should have looked at that as a blessing not a right.This guy just proved my point.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 01:59 PM
Amen. 100% agree. Apparently anyone on this forum that supports the owners is a complete moron and doesn't understand the issues. That's just the general sentiment I've noticed from several outspoken posters. God forbid we think the league will be better off if the owners get the changes they want. That would just be idiotic to support the "big bad greedy billionaires."

Please...

No...I think you are a moron b/c you do not read what other people say before criticizing them.

I clearly wrote that some posters have done the legwork and still agree with owners...and that is fine... good for them. But there is a rather large fraction of posters on here that have nothing to go on but a David Stern press conference...and those people are clearly ignorant of the facts (Note that I didn't say unintelligent...I said ignorant... BIG difference)

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 02:02 PM
This guy just proved my point.

i'm not sure what point you think he proved but i agree with him. heaven forbid the people who assume all the risk and invest their money into the product should get the most out.

sixer04fan
10-16-2011, 02:03 PM
Has anyone read one logical argument for the owners side that hasn't already been obliterated with lengthy facts and evidence by the people that support the players?

At the same time, it seems the main argument for the owners are all one liners like "Players are greedy", "Why do the players refuse to play", "Owners have all the leverage."

Maybe the owners know in today's world that you get enough ignorant people to support your cause and you can win any debate. At least, that's what they're banking on.

My point exactly. Give me a break dude. The player supporters sound like a broken record as well. It goes both ways. It really does. You just don't hear us calling you guys ignorant and complaining about your side in every post.

tr3ymill3r
10-16-2011, 02:04 PM
It's the owners, and those who argue don't know what they are talking about. The owners locked them out, it's not a strike. The players have already agreed to take less, but that's not enough for the owners. The economy won't stay down forever, unless Obama wins again, so when it turns the owners will be raking it in. The owners didn't have a problem paying the insane salaries, so they should have to sleep in the bed they made.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 02:08 PM
Technically both are to blame. But it's a matter of the degree to which you can blame one side. In this case, the players need to recede in their demands in order for the league to be more well balanced. So within this context the players are to blame.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:08 PM
My point exactly. Give me a break dude. The player supporters sound like a broken record as well. It goes both ways. It really does. You just don't hear us calling you guys ignorant and complaining about your side in every post.

Perhaps because we refer to actual numbers, articles, and facts... while a MAJORITY of owner supporters simply regurgitate David Stern and his obvious half truths.

If you can bring facts and logic to support your stance on the owners... props... I will enjoy having a discussion with you. If not, make an informed decision please.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:10 PM
Technically both are to blame. But it's a matter of the degree to which you can blame one side. In this case, the players need to recede in their demands in order for the league to be more well balanced. So within this context the players are to blame.

What exactly have the players DEMANDED that is holding this process up?

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 02:13 PM
Perhaps because we refer to actual numbers, articles, and facts... while a MAJORITY of owner supporters simply regurgitate David Stern and his obvious half truths.

If you can bring facts and logic to support your stance on the owners... props... I will enjoy having a discussion with you. If not, make an informed decision please.

here's a fact that i'm hoping you can comprehend: if i was pulled from my job tomorrow and offered the chance to play basketball for $500,000 a year for the next 5 years i would get down on my knees and thank god for the opportunity. i wouldn't give a **** how much the owners were making.

sep11ie
10-16-2011, 02:16 PM
How many NBA players are active PSDers?

mzgrizz
10-16-2011, 02:16 PM
where is the BOTH button in the poll?

anyway is more part of the owners than the players.

And dont be delusional about it being about making the league more "fairly" competitive , its all bout MONEY, if the players offered 20% for them 80% for the owners in exchange for elimianting the Draft, the max salary restrictions, the RFA and the Cap owners would ACCEPT

There is no both. Got to choose just like one of them has to give more.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:17 PM
here's a fact that i'm hoping you can comprehend: if i was pulled from my job tomorrow and offered the chance to play basketball for $500,000 a year for the next 5 years i would get down on my knees and thank god for the opportunity. i wouldn't give a **** how much the owners were making.

Of course you would... you are not an NBA talent however...and you are not responsible for bringing in 4 billion dollars in revenue each year.

Want to hear some real facts:

6 years ago the NBA owners gave the players 57% and thought they won the negociations.

Now all of the sudden they claim they can't get by without giving the players 47%...despite all the facts that show that 52% would get them back in the black (according to league numbers... which the NBPA dispute anyways...claiming that that they are highly overinflated)

ThOSE are facts.

Tmath
10-16-2011, 02:23 PM
What exactly have the players DEMANDED that is holding this process up?

They aren't demanding anything...... thats the thing. They have been spoilt for years and now that times are tough, they are the only ones that don't want to lose anything, where as the owners already are.

Badluck33
10-16-2011, 02:25 PM
How many NBA players are active PSDers?

They are too busy incautiously spending their money to waste time in PSD.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:26 PM
They aren't demanding anything...... thats the thing. They have been spoilt for years and now that times are tough, they are the only ones that don't want to lose anything, where as the owners already are.

Really? They don't want to give up anything? They have conceeded on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE AT STAKE:

They have agreed to take less money, reduce the MLE, reduce contract length, reduce bird rights, increase the luxury tax, etc etc etc.

Come on man...

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:27 PM
They are too busy incautiously spending their money to waste tome in PSD.

funny, b/c if owners were a little more cautious with spending their money perhaps we wouldn't be in this boat...

Badluck33
10-16-2011, 02:32 PM
funny, b/c if owners were a little more cautious with spending their money perhaps we wouldn't be in this boat...

its not the owners fault that agents and players basically force them to sign big $ contracts over to players?

When do you hear a player say....

"No, you don't have to sign me for that much. I'm not worth that, silly!"

airronijordan
10-16-2011, 02:34 PM
funny, b/c if owners were a little more cautious with spending their money perhaps we wouldn't be in this boat...

x2

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:35 PM
its not the owners fault that agents and players basically force them to sign big $ contracts over to players?

When do you hear a player say....

"No, you don't have to sign me for that much. I'm not worth that, silly!"

In case you were unaware...players get 57% regardless... the reason they are in the red is because of incautious spending on the business side. Owners today are spending 50+% more on "other costs" than they were in 2005 when they agreed to this deal.

Badluck33
10-16-2011, 02:38 PM
In case you were unaware...players get 57% regardless... the reason they are in the red is because of incautious spending on the business side. Owners today are spending 50+% more on "other costs" than they were in 2005 when they agreed to this deal.

Where do you get this?

Seriously?

Badluck33
10-16-2011, 02:41 PM
is signing 3 players at $45 million (77% of cap) cautious spending??

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-16-2011, 02:45 PM
is signing 3 players at $45 million (77% of cap) cautious spending??

It is when it is that calibre of players....

sixer04fan
10-16-2011, 02:47 PM
Perhaps because we refer to actual numbers, articles, and facts... while a MAJORITY of owner supporters simply regurgitate David Stern and his obvious half truths.

If you can bring facts and logic to support your stance on the owners... props... I will enjoy having a discussion with you. If not, make an informed decision please.

I am informed. I've stated my points and my position many times for why I support the owners in a number of these copy-cat threads. I don't feel like explaining it again to you right now, sorry. My intentions of posting in these threads isn't to satisfy you, believe it or not.

I am fully aware of the concessions the owners are asking the players to make. But the fact remains, that IN MY OPINION, I believe the players should make these concessions and that it will make the league better and more sustainable going forward.

But again, as usual, because I have supported the owners, I must not be making an informed decision... Of course. :facepalm:

daleja424
10-16-2011, 02:53 PM
Where do you get this?

Seriously?
If you don't know this already you shouldn't be posting in this thread TBH. This is basic CBA 101 stuff man.


I am informed. I've stated my points and my position many times for why I support the owners in a number of these copy-cat threads. I don't feel like explaining it again to you right now, sorry. My intentions of posting in these threads isn't to satisfy you, believe it or not.

I am fully aware of the concessions the owners are asking the players to make. But the fact remains, that IN MY OPINION, I believe the players should make these concessions and that it will make the league better and more sustainable going forward.

But again, as usual, because I have supported the owners, I must not be making an informed decision... Of course. :facepalm:
Not at all. I never said you were uninformed. All I said is that most people who support the owners are.... MOST not ALL. If you have had informed discussions I applaud you... it puts you in the minority though.

ink
10-16-2011, 03:02 PM
No it has not. The Chicago Blackhawks (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/us/04cnchawks.html), who went 49 years without a Stanley Cup, had to cut several players (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/hockey/05blackhawks.html) in order to get under the Salary Cap. As I have stated multiple times before, salary caps and hard caps do nothing but punish success and kill emerging teams. Unfortunately, we now live in a society loaded with people who want to punish success. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters here in New York, around the country and around the world calling for the redistribution of wealth. I am not surprised this mindset has seeped into sports.

The Hawks are actually a perfect example of a badly managed team not getting away with overspending. So the cap worked. And Dale Tallon was fired for his incompetence.

Interestingly the successor to Tallon, Hawks GM Stan Bowman, only took one year to turn the team around again and has them in contender position again this year. The cap worked.

ManRam
10-16-2011, 03:05 PM
But is it the players' fault that owners/GMs were willing to pay them that much money? Owners make their fortunes outside of basketball and some of them are rich enough that they'll sacrifice some money in order to put a winning team on the court. Then, after overspending over the past few years, they whine about how they are losing money. Owning a basketball team provides some utility to owners beyond just the money aspect, and that's why they were willing to spend that money. I agree the league has swung in the players' favor, but I don't think it is their fault that it got to this point. This makes it hard for me to have sympathy for the owners. They should have been more frugal if they were more interested in making money. As was mentioned, the players have made some concessions (I don't know enough to say whether they should make more concessions or not) and I don't like the PR game Stern and the owners are playing.

I don't like that argument. Small market teams often have to overpay to sway guys to come to their teams. The fact that players have so much power, more power than any sport, to determine how good certain teams can be, requires more equality and more methods to maintain competitive balance.

Hellcrooner
10-16-2011, 03:07 PM
I don't like that argument. Small market teams often have to overpay to sway guys to come to their teams. The fact that players have so much power, more power than any sport, to determine how good certain teams can be, requires more equality and more methods to maintain competitive balance.


lol.

ANY PLAYER OF ANY SPORT OUTSIDE USA has 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000

times the power on how to manage his career that nba players.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:16 PM
What exactly have the players DEMANDED that is holding this process up?

The union have demanded to keep the status quo, which has only benefitted a handful of teams & the players.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:17 PM
The union have demanded to keep the status quo, which has benefitted a handful of teams & the players.

wrong. If you read up on the lockout you would see that your statement here is completely false.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 03:18 PM
Not at all unique...very routine in most disputes. But it doesn't sit well with me. The owners could today sign a deal that changes the system and gets them the 300 million back...but that is not good enough for them. The players are willing to accept defeat...but they will not conceed in a blowout.

If the owners wanted to make a deal... they could have a win TODAY...but they do not want to win...they want to crush...and for that reason... we are in a lockout. The players will give them money and system concessions...but they will not be bullied.

I don't think the possibility (not a guarantee as you seem to infer) of breaking even on an annual basis but losing value on their investment is considered a "win" by the owners.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:21 PM
I don't think the possibility (not a guarantee as you seem to infer) of breaking even on an annual basis but losing value on their investment is considered a "win" by the owners.

I think getting 300 million a year back from the players is most definatly a win by the owners. That plus revenue sharing insures that every team has a chance to make money. It will still require better management to maintain...but the onus of making money should not fall squarely on the players.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-16-2011, 03:24 PM
Small market fans will defend the owners til the death due to the fact that the owners are promising hope for their teams. Can't blame them for that but most don't do research at all. When money is no longer the issue for free agents it will be exposure and quality of life for FA. So basically a 22-26 year old millionaire will have the choice to stay with his small market team which can't offer megabucks do to a hard cap or run to another team which will offer a little less but has better exposure in a more attractive location. Open to more endorsements and can make up the difference in salary

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:24 PM
wrong. If you read up on the lockout you would see that your statement here is completely false.

I said "HAVE", not "are". they have now receded, but it isn't enough. a hardcap needs to be put in place.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:29 PM
Let me ask you a question... which team in the league today represents a team that you feel has "done it the right way"?

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:30 PM
I said "HAVE", not "are". they have now receded, but it isn't enough. a hardcap needs to be put in place.

why? one side wants one and one side doesn't. explain why a hard cap needs to be put in place please.

PHX2daDEATH
10-16-2011, 03:30 PM
can we get a "Both are to blame" option on here? Thats my feeling making 230 a week @ UPS Busting my tail. 230 is chump change to both sides so really I cannot side with either in this..billionaires vs millionaires..how is the average american suppose to sympathize with either side? And unless your're name is Delonte West, this lockout isn't hurting no player or no owner, its hurting the people who work at the arenas, the team employees......but if we as average piss-ants lose our jobs, our houses are going foreclose and we'll end up homeless and when the dust settles in all of this WE will be the ones that are paying for higher ticket prices, higher concessions, higher parking etc etc etc..all to watch 10 millionaires bounce a ball and attempt to put it through a spherical piece of medal.. so yeah when I look at this lockout its not Owners v Players... Its Owners/Players v' the fans.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:31 PM
Small market fans will defend the owners til the death due to the fact that the owners are promising hope for their teams. Can't blame them for that but most don't do research at all. When money is no longer the issue for free agents it will be exposure and quality of life for FA. So basically a 22-26 year old millionaire will have the choice to stay with his small market team which can't offer megabucks do to a hard cap or run to another team which will offer a little less but has better exposure in a more attractive location. Open to more endorsements and can make up the difference in salary

it will always be about money. It's just the amount of money relative to today. the max will be lower, the minimum will be lower, once you put these constraints into effect players will adjust their salary expectations.

you are assuming a lot of things here. For example you are assuming that a desirable franchise will have the money to spend. Which in fact, a hard cap will limit, by denying bird rights, MLE & other methods of overspending. so there will be less spaces available for talent in LA, NYK, CHI Bos & all the other potentially desirable locals.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:33 PM
it will always be about money. It's just the amount of money relative to today. the max will be lower, the minimum will be lower, once you put these constraints into effect players will adjust their salary expectations.

you are assuming a lot of things here. For example you are assuming that a desirable franchise will have the money to spend. Which in fact, a hard cap will limit, by denying bird rights, MLE & other methods of overspending. so there will be less spaces available for talent in LA, NYK, CHI Bos & all the other potentially desirable locals.

What do you mean by this? The NBA is not suffering with the US economy I hope you realize. Stern will be the first to tell you that the league grew 4% last year and is projected to do so every year. The NBA has not felt anything from the down economy. The league grows every year and is projected by both sides to continue to do so.

ink
10-16-2011, 03:34 PM
can we get a "Both are to blame" option on here? Thats my feeling making 230 a week @ UPS Busting my tail. 230 is chump change to both sides so really I cannot side with either in this..billionaires vs millionaires..how is the average american suppose to sympathize with either side? And unless your're name is Delonte West, this lockout isn't hurting no player or no owner, its hurting the people who work at the arenas, the team employees......but if we as average piss-ants lose our jobs, our houses are going foreclose and we'll end up homeless and when the dust settles in all of this WE will be the ones that are paying for higher ticket prices, higher concessions, higher parking etc etc etc..all to watch 10 millionaires bounce a ball and attempt to put it through a spherical piece of medal.. so yeah when I look at this lockout its not Owners v Players... Its Owners/Players v' the fans.

If we have to assign blame (which is un-needed since these are just normal pro sports negotiations) I'd pick your option: BOTH. Blaming does nothing. Both sides have created a dysfunctional league. Now both sides have to fix it. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric from one side or the other. They will come up with an imperfect solution but anything is an improvement over what we have now. I have no problem waiting. In fact if the league didn't even come back it would be better than what we've seen recently. I love the sport but think the league completely sucks.

I also completely agree with your POV that it's owners/players vs the fans. Problem is that people are so deeply sucked into regurgitating bullet points from the negotiations to realize that neither side is completely innocent.

Kyben36
10-16-2011, 03:35 PM
You cant put this on the players, the nba owners cant even make up their minds, small market teams are going to want a hard cap, but teams like Boston Miami NY Chicago and LA arnt goign to want it, if this is the case, the first thing is the owners making up there minds on whether or not their will be a hard cap.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:36 PM
why? one side wants one and one side doesn't. explain why a hard cap needs to be put in place please.

institute a hard cap ->eliminates overspending ->eliminates talend hoarding via overspending -> distributes talent more evenly around the league -> more competition.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:39 PM
What do you mean by this? The NBA is not suffering with the US economy I hope you realize. Stern will be the first to tell you that the league grew 4% last year and is projected to do so every year. The NBA has not felt anything from the down economy. The league grows every year and is projected by both sides to continue to do so.

it grows yet the league still lost something like 300 million. Costs grow as well. the biggest cost is that of paying the players. they are trying to cut down costs so the NBA can make more money.

cutting salaries -> teams more profitable -> NBA as a league collects more money.(not the owners)

So it's in the best interest of the NBA to side with the owners.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:39 PM
institute a hard cap ->eliminates overspending ->eliminates talend hoarding via overspending -> distributes talent more evenly around the league -> more competition.

1. doesnt limit overspending. players are given a flat rate percentage of profits regardless of system.

2. doesn't eliminate talent hoarding. even in a hard cap scenario a team could easily fit three superstars under the cap.

3. doesn't distribute talent evenly (see point 2) + players still want to play in bigger markets

4. Is more competition better for the league? Every great era in NBA history came with a superteam or two. People pay more attention when there are superteams in major markets.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:41 PM
institute a hard cap ->eliminates overspending ->eliminates talend hoarding via overspending -> distributes talent more evenly around the league -> more competition.

-> more distributed wins -> more relevancy within each respective sport market -> higher fan support -> more revenue -> better for all.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:41 PM
it grows yet the league still lost something like 300 million. Costs grow as well. the biggest cost is that of paying the players. they are trying to cut down costs so the NBA can make more money.

cutting salaries -> teams more profitable -> NBA as a league collects more money.(not the owners)

So it's in the best interest of the NBA to side with the owners.

Actually, players costs have stayed level relative to inflation over the last 5 years... it is "other costs" that have risen at a rate over over 11% per year. It is spending on the non-player salary side of the NBA that has ballooned out of control and lead to a 300 million dollar deficit.

Yet, despite that, the players have shown a willingness to give them most, if not all, of that money back.... but that isn't good enough.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:42 PM
-> more distributed wins -> more relevancy within each respective sport market -> higher fan support -> more revenue -> better for all.

League does better with a superteam in NY than with good teams in the 10 smallest markets combined.

ink
10-16-2011, 03:44 PM
League does better with a superteam in NY than with good teams in the 10 smallest markets combined.

Debatable claim but if it's true, it's only in terms of profit. Once again, this isn't just about money, thankfully. It's about the health of the sport in EACH one of the franchises across the league. If any commercial chain has problems in any of its locations it looks out for those locations or it closes them. Since they don't want to close them, they have to find a way to make all locations work. That's all we're talking about. It's not unusual, it's not unjust, it's just better business. It's also not surprising that the players are going to have to give a lot back since the way they just tried with the last CBA was dysfunctional.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 03:46 PM
I think getting 300 million a year back from the players is most definatly a win by the owners. That plus revenue sharing insures that every team has a chance to make money. It will still require better management to maintain...but the onus of making money should not fall squarely on the players.

It's not a win in their minds, my minds, or in the minds of the people who really understand what is going on. If it was a win for the owners, a new CBA would have been inked.

Management only goes so far, the league is still going to have to pay x% of BRI.

The onus doesn't fall on the players, they put $0 up every year and take home 57%. The owners have to advertise, renovate, update, sell, pay support staff, scout, etc. All these things cost $$$ and the players don't pay for any of it.

No one is expecting players to pay for this kind of stuff but when it become impossible for the owners to pay all expenses and still maintain a profit margin, the owners either need to collect more of the BRI on the back end or the league will suffer as we've seen. Charlotte sold for .50 on the dollar, NO is controlled by the NBA. There's only so many people that can shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for an NBA team and even fewer that are willing to make that investment with a near guarantee of yearly losses.

As the league continues to lose money, owners will sell and franchise values will drop, this is bad for everyone, including the players.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:47 PM
1. doesnt limit overspending. players are given a flat rate percentage of profits regardless of system.

2. doesn't eliminate talent hoarding. even in a hard cap scenario a team could easily fit three superstars under the cap.

3. doesn't distribute talent evenly (see point 2) + players still want to play in bigger markets

4. Is more competition better for the league? Every great era in NBA history came with a superteam or two. People pay more attention when there are superteams in major markets.

your 1st point doesn't apply. It limits overspending by owners, big market owners in particular.

2. yes it does, unless the star players want to take a paycut to play with each other. Taking away bird rights disallows teams to go over the cap to re-sign players. didnt MIA use Wade's bird rights to re-sign him?

4. the league is too big now, too many teams. Super-teams work but they need more competition. having 5 good teams & 10 bad ones doesn't improve the league. ppl lose hope. when they lose hope they don't spend money. competition improves fan support.

Before, superteams are what brought in the dough, but now it doesn't. as you can see by the losses that are accruing.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 03:47 PM
debatable claim but if it's true, it's only in terms of profit. Once again, this isn't just about money, thankfully. It's about the health of the sport in each one of the franchises across the league. If any commercial chain has problems in any of its locations it looks out for those locations or it closes them. Since they don't want to close them, they have to find a way to make all locations work. That's all we're talking about.


+1

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:48 PM
Debatable claim but only in terms of profit. Once again, this isn't just about money, thankfully.

In the end...I think it is. If the owners want to complain that the NBA is a business and losing money and whatnot...they cannot then also claim it is about the good of the game. Those two things are contradictory. You cannot maximize profit AND create parity in the NBA...b/c the NBA will always be better off with the big markets having the better teams.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:49 PM
Actually, players costs have stayed level relative to inflation over the last 5 years... it is "other costs" that have risen at a rate over over 11% per year. It is spending on the non-player salary side of the NBA that has ballooned out of control and lead to a 300 million dollar deficit.

Yet, despite that, the players have shown a willingness to give them most, if not all, of that money back.... but that isn't good enough.

doesn't matter which costs have grown. labor costs are always the highest, & are the first to be cut because it is possible to do so. you can't tell the jumbotron manufacturer your going to pay him less, but you can tell your employees you can.

ink
10-16-2011, 03:49 PM
In the end...I think it is. If the owners want to complain that the NBA is a business and losing money and whatnot...they cannot then also claim it is about the good of the game. Those two things are contradictory. You cannot maximize profit AND create parity in the NBA...b/c the NBA will always be better off with the big markets having the better teams.

No one said the big markets can't have good teams.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:51 PM
your 1st point doesn't apply. It limits overspending by owners, big market owners in particular.

2. yes it does, unless the star players want to take a paycut to play with each other. Taking away bird rights disallows teams to go over the cap to re-sign players. didnt MIA use Wade's bird rights to re-sign him?

4. the league is too big now, too many teams. Super-teams work but they need more competition. having 5 good teams & 10 bad ones doesn't improve the league. ppl lose hope. when they lose hope they don't spend money. competition improves fan support.

Before, superteams are what brought in the dough, but now it doesn't. as you can see by the losses that are accruing.

2. No they did not. Bird rights do not work like that. You cannot sign FAs first and then use bird rights to go over the cap. Miami fit Wade, Bosh, James, Haslem, and Miller all under the cap.

You are confusing concepts here IMO. The league brought in more revenue and had higher ratings than ever before. That is an undeniable fact. That NBA reached its pinnacle last year. The NBA lost money b/c non-player costs have ballooned. The players saw that and offered to change the split to account for ballooning expenses off the court. The system did not hurt the NBAs bottom last year...the split + bad spending by owners did.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 03:56 PM
doesn't matter which costs have grown. labor costs are always the highest, & are the first to be cut because it is possible to do so. you can't tell the jumbotron manufacturer your going to pay him less, but you can tell your employees you can.

and the players have willingly given up that money... the problem is that the owners claim they fell 300 million short last year (which the players actually claim is closer to 100-150 in losses) and yet want the players to give up over 400 million next year (and every year after that).

nyanks79
10-16-2011, 03:57 PM
I think one thing some people are disregarding is that you are negotiating from a previous CBA. Just like anything else. So Stern saying the NBA and owners are giving up this or that is not always true. There just going according to the previous contract.

Also people getting caught up on the hard cap, I highly doubt it will be an extremely strict hard cap. There will be some sort of tax if you go over like 4:1. Big market teams like NY, LA will pay that. That wont stop Dolan or Buss. In order to be successful in the NBA you have to be lucky in the draft.

And people saying the owners take all the risk and are losing so much money, what percentage of the money does the players see when the owner sells the team. Nothing. Owner sees all that money and they make money off that. Only person I can think of that lost money when selling the team was Ratner and I think he openly admited he didnt care about the profit on that, he just wanted to get his foot in the door for future invesments.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:58 PM
2. No they did not. Bird rights do not work like that. You cannot sign FAs first and then use bird rights to go over the cap. Miami fit Wade, Bosh, James, Haslem, and Miller all under the cap.

You are confusing concepts here IMO. The league brought in more revenue and had higher ratings than ever before. That is an undeniable fact. That NBA reached its pinnacle last year. The NBA lost money b/c non-player costs have ballooned. The players saw that and offered to change the split to account for ballooning expenses off the court. The system did not hurt the NBAs bottom last year...the split + bad spending by owners did.

i wasn't confusing the concepts, i was posing a question that would indirectly answer another question for me. lol. Bird rights can only be used when you are at the cap to sign your players.

it's not so much the present, but the future is what they are worried about. You now have a super-team. That is the new equilibrium. look how much talent Dallas had on that roster. That is what you need to beat the heat. It's ok to have that on 1 team. but its a talent drain on the league as in order to compete teams will have to drastically overspend to compete with the heat.

60% of the players on the court are all-stars for the heat. That is too many for 1 team. 2 all-stars & 3 supporting players is the optimal amount IMO. when the majority of players on the court are all-stars you have a problem. like i was saying, too many teams to put that much of a talent drain on the league.

& i have no problem with the Heat as an organization or the fans or anything. It's just the easiest example to paint. I also think the Lakers have too much talent, but its distributed among more players than on the Heat.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 03:59 PM
and the players have willingly given up that money... the problem is that the owners claim they fell 300 million short last year (which the players actually claim is closer to 100-150 in losses) and yet want the players to give up over 400 million next year (and every year after that).

that extra cheese like you said could account for the trend of growth in non-player related costs. it's an estimate, yes it is prob more than they need but that is the perspective that they are operating from.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 03:59 PM
I think one thing some people are disregarding is that you are negotiating from a previous CBA. Just like anything else. So Stern saying the NBA and owners are giving up this or that is not always true. There just going according to the previous contract.

Also people getting caught up on the hard cap, I highly doubt it will be an extremely strict hard cap. There will be some sort of tax if you go over like 4:1. Big market teams like NY, LA will pay that. That wont stop Dolan or Buss. In order to be successful in the NBA you have to be lucky in the draft.

And people saying the owners take all the risk and are losing so much money, what percentage of the money does the players see when the owner sells the team. Nothing. Owner sees all that money and they make money off that. Only person I can think of that lost money when selling the team was Ratner and I think he openly admited he didnt care about the profit on that, he just wanted to get his foot in the door for future invesments.

Robert Johnson lost a couple hundred million between his team operating at a loss and eventually him selling at a loss.

hard_candy
10-16-2011, 04:00 PM
doesn't matter which costs have grown. labor costs are always the highest, & are the first to be cut because it is possible to do so. you can't tell the jumbotron manufacturer your going to pay him less, but you can tell your employees you can.

Yes. And labor costs for the players is up to $100 million annually. Any dent owners can make in that is enormously beneficial.

The cost to the players is completely symbolic. 2/3 will have nothing 5 years after retirement anyway. It's an ego struggle pure and simple.

If Billy Hunter was truly interested in the player's welfare, he'd set up a program deducting a measly percentage of player's salaries to create a program teaching players how to save and how to budget their enormous salaries.

We already know how that money is going to be used: partying (drugs, prostitutes, VIP rooms, strippers, multiple girlfriends, mistresses), luxury expenses which depreciate rapidly (mansions, cars), bad investments, money siphoned off by their entourage, various hangers-on, "friends," and family members, both real and imagined.

I have zero sympathy for the players. It is the ripple effect that this lockout has on the rest of the economy, both at a local and national level, which concerns me. Hotel and restaurant employees, those who rely on travel and tourism in order to have a 9-5, office staff for the teams, trainers and so on may suffer economically, and many already have.

It's an important lesson for many cities: don't rely on sports franchises to boost the economy.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 04:03 PM
i wasn't confusing the concepts, i was posing a question that would indirectly answer another question for me. lol. Bird rights can only be used when you are at the cap to sign your players.

it's not so much the present, but the future is what they are worried about. You now have a super-team. That is the new equilibrium. look how much talent Dallas had on that roster. That is what you need to beat the heat. It's ok to have that on 1 team. but its a talent drain on the league as in order to compete teams will have to drastically overspend to compete with the heat.

60% of the players on the court are all-stars for the heat. That is too many for 1 team. 2 all-stars & 3 supporting players is the optimal amount IMO. when the majority of players on the court are all-stars you have a problem. like i was saying, too many teams to put that much of a talent drain on the league.

You have to start the offseason at the cap to use bird rights (including a cap hold for the bird players).

How can 2 all-stars be on every team. That would mean 60 all-stars (when there only 24 in a given year...less than one per team).

There is not enough talent out there to build contenders in every city. plain and simple.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 04:04 PM
that extra cheese like you said could account for the trend of growth in non-player related costs. it's an estimate, yes it is prob more than they need but that is the perspective that they are operating from.

I would argue that the owners need to reign in those expenses like responsible business men. The players are willing to give a little...but the owners need to take some of the responsibility as well and spend that money smarter.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 04:05 PM
Yes. And labor costs for the players is up to $100 million annually. Any dent owners can make in that is enormously beneficial.

The cost to the players is completely symbolic. 2/3 will have nothing 5 years after retirement anyway. It's an ego struggle pure and simple.

If Billy Hunter was truly interested in the player's welfare, he'd set up a program deducting a measly percentage of player's salaries to create a program teaching players how to save and how to budget their enormous salaries.

We already know how that money is going to be used: partying (drugs, prostitutes, VIP rooms, strippers, multiple girlfriends, mistresses), luxury expenses which depreciate rapidly (mansions, cars), bad investments, money siphoned off by their entourage, various hangers-on, "friends," and family members, both real and imagined.

I have zero sympathy for the players. It is the ripple effect that this lockout has on the rest of the economy, both at a local and national level, which concerns me. Hotel and restaurant employees, those who rely on travel and tourism in order to have a 9-5, office staff for the teams, trainers and so on may suffer economically, and many already have.

It's an important lesson for many cities: don't rely on sports franchises to boost the economy.

We get it. You're a racist...

how has this guy not been banned yet.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 04:07 PM
We get it. You're a racist...

how has this guy not been banned yet.

Nothing you put in bold is racist and for most players, it's the truth.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 04:09 PM
You have to start the offseason at the cap to use bird rights (including a cap hold for the bird players).

How can 2 all-stars be on every team. That would mean 60 all-stars (when there only 24 in a given year...less than one per team).

There is not enough talent out there to build contenders in every city. plain and simple.

sorry, i meant max 2 all-stars.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 04:11 PM
Nothing you put in bold is racist and for most players, it's the truth.

I didn't put anything in bold... the poster did

and this poster has made at least 3 posts that I know about that attempt to make the same point... a point that is clearly a negative racial stereotype

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 04:14 PM
I would argue that the owners need to reign in those expenses like responsible business men. The players are willing to give a little...but the owners need to take some of the responsibility as well and spend that money smarter.

are the players willing to fly coach? stay at the Quality Inn or motel 6? have no health insurance? Have the worst doctors in the country? They can't reign in those costs. Almost all of the costs go towards the players in either a direct or indirect way & the costs are passed off to the fans in the form of higher ticket prices & consession prices & things like that.

That's why besides liking the players persona, there is no reason to side with them. Siding with the owners & using the players like a commodity is in the best interest of us, the fans.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 04:17 PM
You don't need to memorize the negotiating points to understand this lockout. It's actually pretty straightforward. Even Dennis Rodman of all people says that the pendulum has swung too far in the players' direction and now it needs to swing back to the owners so that the league can re-balance.

That's interesting because in the same interview he said the lockout was the owners fault and they were in the wrong.

Sounds to me like he thinks an easy solution to end the lockout is for players to give in.


TORONTO -- Dennis Rodman says the owners are at fault in the NBA lockout, but the players should ease their demands to help end the dispute that has already cost the league the first two weeks of the season.

"I think the players should bow down," he said Thursday.

Rodman was a guest at the post-position draw at Woodbine Racetrack for Sunday's Pattison Canadian International, the most lucrative horse race in Canada.

"It's not the players' fault, it's the owners' fault and I think (the players) should give a little bit," the Hall of Famer said. "And that way, things will move on."

ink
10-16-2011, 04:28 PM
That's interesting because in the same interview he said the lockout was the owners fault and they were in the wrong.

Sounds to me like he thinks an easy solution to end the lockout is for players to give in.

As I've said a hundred times, I couldn't care less whose "fault" it is. I find most of the players immature and obnoxious and it really isn't a big surprise they're resorting to the blame game.

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 04:48 PM
I think getting 300 million a year back from the players is most definatly a win by the owners. That plus revenue sharing insures that every team has a chance to make money. It will still require better management to maintain...but the onus of making money should not fall squarely on the players.

you don't think something is wrong when a wildly popular multi billion dollar industry "has a chance" of making money for it's investors?

ink
10-16-2011, 05:06 PM
you don't think something is wrong when a wildly popular multi billion dollar industry "has a chance" of making money for it's investors?

Quotable.

FWBrodie
10-16-2011, 05:10 PM
David Stern should be tarred, feathered, and stoned to death.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 05:11 PM
you don't think something is wrong when a wildly popular multi billion dollar industry "has a chance" of making money for it's investors?

Nope. There is nothing wrong with that. If organizations are mismanaged they don't deserve to make a profit. If they are managed correctly, they will.

The players offer would cover the losses and force owners to manage their money better if they want to make a profit.

That is entirely fair. I do not think we should guarantee profits to poorly managed entities. This is America. You earn your keep.

ink
10-16-2011, 05:28 PM
Nope. There is nothing wrong with that. If organizations are mismanaged they don't deserve to make a profit. If they are managed correctly, they will.

The players offer would cover the losses and force owners to manage their money better if they want to make a profit.

That is entirely fair. I do not think we should guarantee profits to poorly managed entities. This is America. You earn your keep.

The "if" is the hole that lets the air out of that balloon.

airronijordan
10-16-2011, 05:45 PM
David Stern should be tarred, feathered, and stoned to death.

x1000

AndyfromNeptune
10-16-2011, 05:53 PM
the owners are locking out the players---not the other way around

daleja424
10-16-2011, 05:57 PM
The "if" is the hole that lets the air out of that balloon.

not at all.

Organizations that are managed well should make money. Organizations that are not run well should lose money. That is what the players are offering. The owners want guarantees... that is not business.

topdog
10-16-2011, 06:05 PM
I blame both. I feel like the players got way to much in the last deal and should give on BRI and to and extent on luxury tax. A 50-50 BRI sounds about right to me with a punitive luxury tax that makes teams think twice. However, I feel like the owners keep asking for more and that a compunding (yearly) luxury tax is too much while it would reasonable to take a 47-53 BRI split until the next agreement since they did agree to 43-57 in the last deal.

I just want basketball! ...and a players league is not at all feasible

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 06:10 PM
not at all.

Organizations that are managed well should make money. Organizations that are not run well should lose money. That is what the players are offering. The owners want guarantees... that is not business.

that is true to an extent. Tho the players make guaranteed profits. The owners just want a better chance at making money.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 06:11 PM
that is true to an extent. Tho the players make guaranteed profits. The owners just want a better chance at making money.

I am fine with that...but that is what the players have offered.

The owners want a guaranteed profit... which is not a fair stance IMO.

topdog
10-16-2011, 06:13 PM
not at all.

Organizations that are managed well should make money. Organizations that are not run well should lose money. That is what the players are offering. The owners want guarantees... that is not business.

This is a business "association" though. Just like the players have a union to get profitable deal for all players, the teams are part of an association which seeks to get a profitable deal for them because they need each other to be successful.

I'll tell you that if I'm investing billions into a business, I want some guarantee that the market I am assigned isn't going to lose me money. I.e. there can only be so many teams in New York where even crappy teams can make tons of money.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 06:17 PM
This is a business "association" though. Just like the players have a union to get profitable deal for all players, the teams are part of an association which seeks to get a profitable deal for them because they need each other to be successful.

I'll tell you that if I'm investing billions into a business, I want some guarantee that the market I am assigned isn't going to lose me money. I.e. there can only be so many teams in New York where even crappy teams can make tons of money.

Except that no one is asking anyone to invest billions... the money is already invested...and some of them even invested in a system that they knew was losing money...

I understand the desire to turn it around and become profitable... but you cannot expect a guaranteed profit.

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 06:24 PM
not at all.

Organizations that are managed well should make money. Organizations that are not run well should lose money. That is what the players are offering. The owners want guarantees... that is not business.

they're in the business of entertainment - they should all be making money. winning is a different story, but profitable, absolutely.

Jamiecballer
10-16-2011, 06:28 PM
Except that no one is asking anyone to invest billions... the money is already invested...and some of them even invested in a system that they knew was losing money...

I understand the desire to turn it around and become profitable... but you cannot expect a guaranteed profit.

i'm not sure i agree - actually i'm positive i don't. i'm sure even the worst managed Walmart is still highly profitable. the product should be able to make all of it's franchises money. if it isn't, it's the leagues revenue model that is broken.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 06:28 PM
I am fine with that...but that is what the players have offered.

The owners want a guaranteed profit... which is not a fair stance IMO.

there is always risk when owning something, you can't escape that.

But the players have been exploiting the owners, pinning them against 1 another in after cap bidding wars so to speak. whoever has the privately owned deeper pockets outside of the system, or is willing to lose enough money will get the best player. This is unfair. You should be allowed as an owner to compete for a championship within the financial structure that has been set up. not because you're willing to invest 50 mil after cap into a season to try & win.

topdog
10-16-2011, 06:29 PM
Except that no one is asking anyone to invest billions... the money is already invested...and some of them even invested in a system that they knew was losing money...

I understand the desire to turn it around and become profitable... but you cannot expect a guaranteed profit.

They are already on the hook for the money. Now, to be competitive and try to make their teams profitiable, some owners are having to shell out more money. Being a Minny fan, I have seen Glenn Taylor do it for many years trying to build a contender with Garnett taking up $20M of payroll.

I think owners can expect not to lose money if they play by the association's rules - i.e. if I stay below the cap (and above the minimum), I should at least be able to break even.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 06:31 PM
They are already on the hook for the money. Now, to be competitive and try to make their teams profitiable, some owners are having to shell out more money. Being a Minny fan, I have seen Glenn Taylor do it for many years trying to build a contender with Garnett taking up $20M of payroll.

I think owners can expect not to lose money if they play by the association's rules - i.e. if I stay below the cap (and above the minimum), I should at least be able to break even.

As a Minny fan... do you think your organization is well run?

JasonJohnHorn
10-16-2011, 06:37 PM
They players are willing to come down from 57% of BRI, to 52%. That is nearly 10% of their income they are offering to give up. That sounds like a generous offer to me. Can you imagine if you offer to take a 10% pay cut to your boss and he locked you out of work until you were willing to give up more?

I realize that the owners have come down a lot from their initial demands, but their initial demands were insane! Their current demands are more in the rhealm of reason, but still, the players are willing to give up a lot. If they drop all the way to 50%, how low to the have to drop the next time the contract is up?

Owners need to smarten up, spend their money more wisely and do some profit sharing with each other. And that's all I got to say about that.

the_jon
10-16-2011, 06:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DbAs203r3Y

hard_candy
10-16-2011, 07:17 PM
They players are willing to come down from 57% of BRI, to 52%. That is nearly 10% of their income they are offering to give up. That sounds like a generous offer to me. Can you imagine if you offer to take a 10% pay cut to your boss and he locked you out of work until you were willing to give up more?

I realize that the owners have come down a lot from their initial demands, but their initial demands were insane! Their current demands are more in the rhealm of reason, but still, the players are willing to give up a lot. If they drop all the way to 50%, how low to the have to drop the next time the contract is up?

Owners need to smarten up, spend their money more wisely and do some profit sharing with each other. And that's all I got to say about that.

Kobe says 52% of $4 billion isn't enough. Latrell said $9 million wasn't enough to feed his family, lol.

topdog
10-16-2011, 07:23 PM
As a Minny fan... do you think your organization is well run?

Well run is too ambiguous. If we're talking about GMs making the right personnel and coaching choices: no. If we're talking about investing in and marketing a desirable product: yes. LONG TERM

Glenn Taylor was too loyal to his friend Kevin McHale. Nonetheless, he spent extra money every year on free agents to make his product better and to help KG win a championship. He also overpaid to keep KG in MN because of the system. The market (in the state of hockey), does not allow for the same kind of contender swell of revenues as in larger markets (despite making the WCF).

Right now, the team has rebuilt by eliminating the bad contracts and drafting/trading for young players with potential. Whether or not you like those deals, it is a responsible way to run the business and make it profitable long term. Which people have not bee this excited for Wolves basketball since the Big Three.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 08:04 PM
Players are guaranteed a % of BRI, so what does it matter if a team gives out good or bad contracts? The % of BRI will be distributed no matter what, right?

beasted86
10-16-2011, 08:07 PM
As I've said a hundred times, I couldn't care less whose "fault" it is. I find most of the players immature and obnoxious and it really isn't a big surprise they're resorting to the blame game.

Fine, have your opinion... just don't try and twist words and use this 'even a former player said' type nonsense to try and back your opinion. It was clear what he was saying.

ink
10-16-2011, 08:20 PM
Fine, have your opinion... just don't try and twist words and use this 'even a former player said' type nonsense to try and back your opinion. It was clear what he was saying.

No idea how that relates to what I was saying. If you're talking about Rodman, I'm putting forward that the pendulum is swinging away from the players because the last CBA was basically a concession to the players and it didn't work. Rodman may have assigned blame, which I think is pointless, but even then he acknowledged that this round is essentially the owner's. I don't see it as a competition; I just see it as time to fix the CBA. Who cares about blame? We need to have a lockout for as long as it takes to improve the next CBA.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 08:30 PM
No idea how that relates to what I was saying. If you're talking about Rodman, I'm putting forward that the pendulum is swinging away from the players because the last CBA was basically a concession to the players and it didn't work. Rodman may have assigned blame, which I think is pointless, but even then he acknowledged that this round is essentially the owner's. I don't see it as a competition; I just see it as time to fix the CBA. Who cares about blame? We need to have a lockout for as long as it takes to improve the next CBA.

The owners claimed victory after the last CBA...no? My understanding is that the owners were thrilled with the last CBA... until of course they weren't.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Nope. There is nothing wrong with that. If organizations are mismanaged they don't deserve to make a profit. If they are managed correctly, they will.

The players offer would cover the losses and force owners to manage their money better if they want to make a profit.

That is entirely fair. I do not think we should guarantee profits to poorly managed entities. This is America. You earn your keep.

maybe the owners could afford to pay the players 57% when the last deal was made. Now that times are much harder perhaps that deal is out dated and needs to be changed.

it is not fair to acuse 75% of the franchises for running theyre teams "poorly". thats insane to think about. take for example the raptors, as of right now no one wants to play for the raptors. we have to pay out of our *** just to sign a below average hedo turkadoo. No star wants to come here in free agency, its hard for us to keep our own talent that we draft and thats why our team hasnt done crap in 16 years. but its fair for you to just come and say that the raptors are being ran poorly ? i think there is a bit more to it dont you ?

what would pocess any business man to ever become a small market team owner ? why dont we just have a 8 team league then ? whats the point in having a small market teams ?? if your not turning any profits and you have to pay your players(employees) guaranteed money.

as a business owner they are entitled to decide how much they are raking in and determin how much they are willing to fork out to theyre employees. any thing owners feel would help them be more succesfull they will consider and fight for. how can you blame them ? its theyre money, they sign the checks. are you telling me they shouldnt have any say on how much those checks are being signed for ?? no matter if theyre franchises are turning a profit or not ?

daleja424
10-16-2011, 08:45 PM
maybe the owners could afford to pay the players 57% when the last deal was made. Now that times are much harder perhaps that deal is out dated and needs to be changed.

it is not fair to acuse 75% of the franchises for running theyre teams "poorly". thats insane to think about. take for example the raptors, as of right now no one wants to play for the raptors. we have to pay out of our *** just to sign a below average hedo turkadoo. No star wants to come here in free agency, its hard for us to keep our own talent that we draft and thats why our team hasnt done crap in 16 years. but its fair for you to just come and say that the raptors are being ran poorly ? i think there is a bit more to it dont you ?

what would pocess any business man to ever become a small market team owner ? why dont we just have a 8 team league then ? whats the point in having a small market teams ?? if your not turning any profits and you have to pay your players(employees) guaranteed money.

as a business owner they are entitled to decide how much they are raking in and determin how much they are willing to fork out to theyre employees. any thing owners feel would help them be more succesfull they will consider and fight for. how can you blame them ? its theyre money, they sign the checks. are you telling me they shouldnt have any say on how much those checks are being signed for ?? no matter if theyre franchises are turning a profit or not ?

1. nothing is going to make people flock to Toronto. So if it is impossible to run a good team there...why do they exist?

2. I have already outlined how the Raptors have screwed themselves with terrible talent evaluating over the last 6-8 years.

3. The NBA has not hit hard times... they have grown every year and project to continue doing so. Do they need more money... maybe...but the players have offered that...

beasted86
10-16-2011, 08:50 PM
The owners claimed victory after the last CBA...no? My understanding is that the owners were thrilled with the last CBA... until of course they weren't.

You're going over their head.

The owners strong armed the players into a 10% paycut across the board (63% down to 57%) and thought they won that CBA negotiation. Then 2 years later Stern told Billy Hunter in a private meeting in 2007 he would surely lockout the players, so he should be ready.

ChiSox219
10-16-2011, 08:55 PM
they have grown every year

No they haven't, you have said this other threads and it is a lie.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 09:04 PM
1. nothing is going to make people flock to Toronto. So if it is impossible to run a good team there...why do they exist?

2. I have already outlined how the Raptors have screwed themselves with terrible talent evaluating over the last 6-8 years.

3. The NBA has not hit hard times... they have grown every year and project to continue doing so. Do they need more money... maybe...but the players have offered that...

1. if there is a hard cap it will make it harder for teams to sign our franchise players. if they already have theyre own under contract. they will have to pay much higher taxes instead of just dollar for dollar.

2. the raptors have over paid for mediocre players because we cant lure any big name stars to our team in free agency. do you think the timber wolves are any different ? how bout the warriors ? the kings, clippers, cavs, etc..

3. the nba may have not hit hard times, but the owners have other business then just the nba. how do you think they are able to afford teams in the first place ? times have changed since the last cba agreement why cant you accept that ? the deal needs to be updated. the worlds economy has changed and beleive it or not that effects the owners too. nba teams are just one franchise most these owners own my man.

i was gonna say i have alot of respect for the way your defending your points with a stick to soo many here. but your comment about ppl never wanting to flock to toronto was just soo pointless i realize now that your just argueing. even though your acusing others of providing no rational explination for theyre votes. your providing no rational explination for your outragous statments.

good day sir.

ink
10-16-2011, 09:10 PM
The owners claimed victory after the last CBA...no? My understanding is that the owners were thrilled with the last CBA... until of course they weren't.

And apparently "victory" and "fault" are important to you in negotiations. I couldn't care less. Both sides screwed up, both sides lived through a flawed CBA, now it's time to fix it. I am hoping for severe change but expecting compromise.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 09:13 PM
1. if there is a hard cap it will make it harder for teams to sign our franchise players. if they already have theyre own under contract. they will have to pay much higher taxes instead of just dollar for dollar.

2. the raptors have over paid for mediocre players because we cant lure any big name stars to our team in free agency. do you think the timber wolves are any different ? how bout the warriors ? the kings, clippers, cavs, etc..

3. the nba may have not hit hard times, but the owners have other business then just the nba. how do you think they are able to afford teams in the first place ? times have changed since the last cba agreement why cant you accept that ? the deal needs to be updated. the worlds economy has changed and beleive it or not that effects the owners too. nba teams are just one franchise most these owners own my man.

i was gonna say i have alot of respect for the way your defending your points with a stick to soo many here. but your comment about ppl never wanting to flock to toronto was just soo pointless i realize now that your just argueing. even though your acusing others of providing no rational explination for theyre votes. your providing no rational explination for your outragous statments.

good day sir.

This is nothing personal... you commented that people are not rushing to toronto as FAs so it is hard to build a team... and my point is simply that nothing is going to change that. There are just certain markets that are more attractive to players than others. How is that an outrageous point? Where am I failing to be rational?

ink
10-16-2011, 09:13 PM
Stern told Billy Hunter in a private meeting in 2007 he would surely lockout the players, so he should be ready.

Good and now that it's transpired we can't be surprised. I'm prepared to watch NCAA. Better competition, less spoiled athletes, less commercial garbage, more basketball.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 09:28 PM
This is nothing personal... you commented that people are not rushing to toronto as FAs so it is hard to build a team... and my point is simply that nothing is going to change that. There are just certain markets that are more attractive to players than others. How is that an outrageous point? Where am I failing to be rational?

i have respect for the way you defend your points, and agknowledging that some of us actually have put in some research. its tough to go against a whole forum but some ppl are making clear cut points that you are simply dismissing my man.

no doubt LA will always be a more desirable location then minnisota for example. but does that mean that when ricky rubio becomes a free agent it should be as easy for teams like the lakers or celtics to schoop him ? paying dollor for dollar on the luxury tax ? it would be harder for the lakers to go and pry a star away from a small market team if there is a hard cap. thats why it would be easier for small market teams to hold on to theyre players.

i know its not personal bro.. were cool . its just not as simple as black and white here. its small market owners vs large market owners vs the player vs the fans. the fans can even be blamed for some of this as teams like toronto and new york who stink it up year after year get great turn outs in attendence at every game. some fans should be boycotting teams untill the owners put a reasonable product on the floor. but its easier said then done. us fans love our sports too.

ink is right there is no clear side at fault. a change is clearly needed is all that needs to be understood. and us fans taking sides is really silly because were the ones paying as a result of two sides in failing to come to an agreement.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 09:32 PM
1. if there is a hard cap it will make it harder for teams to sign our franchise players. if they already have theyre own under contract. they will have to pay much higher taxes instead of just dollar for dollar.

I keep hearing this, but nobody seems to have an explanation of how give me some hypothetical scenarios... because I'm honestly trying to understand this concept so many flocks of people keep claiming.


Here's how I see it... feel free to tell me if you think I'm wrong. I have to presume the hard cap would have to be somewhere between where the soft cap has been all these years, and where the luxury tax was... around $70M. For discussion sake, let's put it an even $10M over what the soft cap was last season, and make $68M the new hard cap. Keep in mind the Owners actual previous proposal was a $62M flex cap with a to-be-determined hard cap above that $62M. So $68M sounds like a reasonable ball park of where an NBA hard cap would be... now...

Finally, for my discussion point... what is preventing the Heat, Knicks, Bulls or anyone else who played by the soft cap rules last year and signed everyone for $58M... from doing the same thing and instead signing everyone under a $68M umbrella? Again, keep in mind the hard cap rises every year just like the NFL & NHL. While it might start at $68M, it would likely rise in $1M increments. So tell me how did the hard cap prevent what happened? It seemingly only prevents older teams who need to add younger talent like the Lakers, Celtics, and Mavericks from adding talent... not harder to sign franchise players like you posted.

I'm begging will someone take my post seriously and give a well thought out response.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 09:34 PM
i have respect for the way you defend your points, its tough to go against a whole forum but some ppl are making clear cut points that you are simply dismissing my man.

no doubt LA will always be a more desirable location then minnisota for example. but does that mean that when ricky rubio becomes a free agent it should be as easy for teams like the lakers or celtics to schoop him ? paying dollor for dollar on the luxury tax ? it would be harder for the lakers to go and pry a star away from a small market team if there is a hard cap. thats why it would be easier for small market teams to hold on to theyre players.

i know its not personal bro.. were cool . its just not as simple as black and white here. its small market owners vs large market owners vs the player vs the fans. the fans can even be blamed for some of this as teams like toronto and new york who stink it up year after year get great turn outs in attendence at every game. some fans should be boycotting teams untill the owners put a reasonable product on the floor. but its easier said then done. us fans love our sports too.

I understand the point being made about keeping your stars...but that cuts both ways. Take the Thunder for example... what happens to them with a hard cap... they lose their own guys that they cannot afford to resign under the cap.

That is why some people believe it may be even harder for teams to keep their talent (b/c a hard cap means no bird rights)

daleja424
10-16-2011, 09:36 PM
I keep hearing this, but nobody seems to have an explanation of how give me some hypothetical scenarios... because I'm honestly trying to understand this concept so many flocks of people keep claiming.


Here's how I see it... feel free to tell me if you think I'm wrong. I have to presume the hard cap would have to be somewhere between where the soft cap has been all these years, and where the luxury tax was... around $70M. For discussion sake, let's put it an even $10M over what the soft cap was last season, and make $68M the new hard cap. Keep in mind the Owners actual previous proposal was a $62M flex cap with a to-be-determined hard cap above that $62M. So $68M sounds like a reasonable ball park of where an NBA hard cap would be... now...

Finally, for my discussion point... what is preventing the Heat, Knicks, Bulls or anyone else who played by the soft cap rules last year and signed everyone for $58M... from doing the same thing and instead signing everyone under a $68M umbrella? Again, keep in mind the hard cap rises every year just like the NFL & NHL. While it might start at $68M, it would likely rise in $1M increments. So tell me how did the hard cap prevent what happened? It seemingly only prevents older teams who need to add younger talent like the Lakers, Celtics, and Mavericks from adding talent... not harder to sign franchise players like you posted.

I'm begging will someone take my post seriously and give a well thought out response.

I agree. I said it earlier. Miami signed Haslem, Miller, Wade, Lebron, and Bosh all under the cap last year... and that was at the soft cap of 58 million which would have to rise for a hard cap.

A hard cap does not really limit superteams...

beasted86
10-16-2011, 09:39 PM
I agree. I said it earlier. Miami signed Haslem, Miller, Wade, Lebron, and Bosh all under the cap last year... and that was at the soft cap of 58 million which would have to rise for a hard cap.

A hard cap does not really limit superteams...

The only difference would be those guys would be taking less raises per year. But that Heat team or teams like it could still be built.

daleja424
10-16-2011, 09:43 PM
The only difference would be those guys would be taking less raises per year. But that Heat team or teams like it could still be built.

...in the owners ideal system raises wouldn't exist anyways...

ink
10-16-2011, 09:50 PM
...in the owners ideal system raises wouldn't exist anyways...

Pretty sure the cap level would be calculated each year based on the BRI times the (yet to be) agreed upon %, subtracting player benefits and then dividing the result by 30. In other words, raises are tied to the BRI, but they're definitely built into any cap system.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 09:51 PM
...in the owners ideal system raises wouldn't exist anyways...

I think Billy Hunter said 2-3%. Kind of laughable because I'm not even sure that covers inflation.

ink
10-16-2011, 09:53 PM
I think Billy Hunter said 2-3%. Kind of laughable because I'm even not sure that covers inflation.

They'll probably suffer through it, considering the average wage is $5.15M. lol. No sympathy required ...

Why exactly are you concerned with their raises??

daleja424
10-16-2011, 09:54 PM
Pretty sure the cap level would be calculated each year based on the BRI times the (yet to be) agreed upon %, subtracting player benefits and then dividing the result by 30. In other words, raises are tied to the BRI, but they're definitely built into any cap system.

the players as a group would get an increasing amount of money (since BRI would rise), but individuals would not get a raise year to year if the owners got their way.

ink
10-16-2011, 09:55 PM
the players as a group would get an increasing amount of money (since BRI would rise), but individuals would not get a raise year to year if the owners got their way.

Why would that matter to us if it were true?

Cosmic_Canon
10-16-2011, 09:56 PM
Technically both are to blame. But it's a matter of the degree to which you can blame one side. In this case, the players need to recede in their demands in order for the league to be more well balanced. So within this context the players are to blame.

That's a fair point, and yes you're right.
The players could take a "not really" 50/50 deal, and thus end the lockout.
Even though I'm pro-player, I DO NOT blame the owners. I say this, because BOTH sides want what's best for them financially, this is economics people.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 09:56 PM
Why exactly are you concerned with their raises??

Why exactly are you concerned with my concern of their raises??

....Starts infinite loop....

ink
10-16-2011, 09:59 PM
Why exactly are you concerned with my concern of their raises??

....Starts infinite loop....

I've asked the same question a few times. No idea why it matters at all to any of us whether they get raises. It's sad that fans have taken on the battles of the spoiled as if it actually matters. Most people are suffering profound economic hardships in their lives without complaint. These pampered NBA athletes are complaining that they don't get more than 2-3% on their 5.15M annually. And some people are taking THAT on as their personal issue??? Wow.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 10:06 PM
I understand the point being made about keeping your stars...but that cuts both ways. Take the Thunder for example... what happens to them with a hard cap... they lose their own guys that they cannot afford to resign under the cap.

That is why some people believe it may be even harder for teams to keep their talent (b/c a hard cap means no bird rights)


I keep hearing this, but nobody seems to have an explanation of how give me some hypothetical scenarios... because I'm honestly trying to understand this concept so many flocks of people keep claiming.


Here's how I see it... feel free to tell me if you think I'm wrong. I have to presume the hard cap would have to be somewhere between where the soft cap has been all these years, and where the luxury tax was... around $70M. For discussion sake, let's put it an even $10M over what the soft cap was last season, and make $68M the new hard cap. Keep in mind the Owners actual previous proposal was a $62M flex cap with a to-be-determined hard cap above that $62M. So $68M sounds like a reasonable ball park of where an NBA hard cap would be... now...

Finally, for my discussion point... what is preventing the Heat, Knicks, Bulls or anyone else who played by the soft cap rules last year and signed everyone for $58M... from doing the same thing and instead signing everyone under a $68M umbrella? Again, keep in mind the hard cap rises every year just like the NFL & NHL. While it might start at $68M, it would likely rise in $1M increments. So tell me how did the hard cap prevent what happened? It seemingly only prevents older teams who need to add younger talent like the Lakers, Celtics, and Mavericks from adding talent... not harder to sign franchise players like you posted.

I'm begging will someone take my post seriously and give a well thought out response.

the new cba will make it more difficult for teams to spend money on players period. why does that favour the small market teams ? because in comparison to large market teams they hardley ever go over the cap. they dont benifit from the advantages simply because they cant afford too. the large market teams can and they are willing to pay the luxury tax because they can afford it. they have revenue from post season action every year. this puts the small market teams at a disadvantage.

i know what your thinking. your gonna say tough cookies for the small market owner. you have to understand that the perception that these players have is that only a handfull of teams can actually get them to the promice land. how does a small market owner compete with a large market owner in this senerio ? they cant hold on to theyre drafted players there for they cant lure any stars to play with franchise grown talent. even if you have the money to spend on an elite player a large market team will just pay more under the luxury tax and atain the player your going after. you as a small market owner literally have no hope in competing with the large market owner for that talent. the guy would rather go to a stacked big market team any day over a constantly rebuilding small market team. but a stacked big market team close to the cap couldnt go after that elit player you were trying to atain and even through a max contract at.

im convinced that dallas's bench is better then the starting 5 for toronto. marion was in toronto. he turned our deal down to join the contending mavs. how were the mavs able to do that when they already had a stacked team? easy they just pay the luxy tax. apparantly the new deal will still have a soft cap but a higher penalty in tax money. so now its like sure go ahead go over the cap but you better make sure that player is worth it because your paying up the *** for him. in some cases that one player will put a team over the hump and he will be worth the risk. in other cases big market teams will have to be more cautious as to whom they are throwing theyre money at. that caution taken by big market owners will benefit smaller market owners because they can now compete a bit more for that player.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 10:08 PM
I've asked the same question a few times. No idea why it matters at all to any of us whether they get raises. It's sad that fans have taken on the battles of the spoiled as if it actually matters. Most people are suffering profound economic hardships in their lives without complaint. These pampered NBA athletes are complaining that they don't get more than 2-3% on their 5.15M annually. And some people are taking THAT on as their personal issue??? Wow.

Nobody is taking things personal. Last I checked we were having a discussion on a message board about the economics of a deal. For the most part, nobody is cursing at anyone else or calling them names or doing out of line actions.

If we were taking things personally we'd be writing letters to NBA owners, and picketing outside the arenas, and flying to LA or NY or wherever the negotiation meetings are taking place and making sure our opinions were heard. None of that is going on, so I think you need to relax a little.

topdog
10-16-2011, 10:10 PM
I keep hearing this, but nobody seems to have an explanation of how give me some hypothetical scenarios... because I'm honestly trying to understand this concept so many flocks of people keep claiming.

A hard cap imposes limits on the number of high dollar contracts you can have. So, yes, guys like Wade, Bosh and LBJ who have already had their payday contracts can band together to win a championship for less money, but what about the guys coming off their rookie contracts? All 3 of the aforementioned "superstars" took extensions with their original teams at max money. So, players whose greater motiviation is money (over "superteaming") will sign with teams that have max space.

I personally am glad the NBA is not going with a hard cap as I prefer a punitive luxury tax that can be re-distributed to those who stay under the cap.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 10:13 PM
the new cba will make it more difficult for teams to spend money on players period. why does that favour the small market teams ? because in comparison to large market teams they hardley ever go over the cap. they dont benifit from the advantages simply because they cant afford too. the large market teams can and they are willing to pay the luxury tax because they can afford it. they have revenue from post season action every year. this puts the small market teams at a disadvantage.

i know what your thinking. your gonna say tough cookies for the small market owner. you have to understand that the perception that these players have is that only a handfull of teams can actually get them to the promice land. how does a small market owner compete with a large market owner in this senerio ? they cant hold on to theyre drafted players there for they cant lure any stars to play with franchise grown talent, and even if you have the money to spend on an elite player, a large market team will just pay more under the luxury tax and atain the player your going after. you as a small market owner literally have no hope in competing with the large market owner for that talent.

if there is a hard cap, teams like the bulls will have to do with keeping the talent they have rather then going out next year and getting the best sg available.

or teams like maimi will have to make do with what they have instead of going out and ataining an elite C. instead now they will have to trade someone to atain that peice rather then just paying dollar for dolloar of the lux tax and having a super duper team that no one but mayb 3 other teams in the league can compete with.

or teams like dallas will have to decide on tyson chandler or caron butler. im convinced that dallas's bench is better then the starting 5 for toronto. marion was in toronto. he turned our deal down to joing the contending mavs. how were the mavs able to do that ? easy they just pay the luxy tax.

This wasn't the well thought out response I was looking for to be honest. I'm not trying to talk down to you or bash your idea, I'm really just trying to understand your stance as well as a number of other posters.

So I'll try one more shot at trying to make it more clear what I'm looking for...

If teams were able to clear cap space and sign all the players they wanted under a $58M cap, what is to prevent those same signings under a $68M cap?

beasted86
10-16-2011, 10:18 PM
A hard cap imposes limits on the number of high dollar contracts you can have. So, yes, guys like Wade, Bosh and LBJ who have already had their payday contracts can band together to win a championship for less money, but what about the guys coming off their rookie contracts? All 3 of the aforementioned "superstars" took extensions with their original teams at max money. So, players whose greater motiviation is money (over "superteaming") will sign with teams that have max space.

I personally am glad the NBA is not going with a hard cap as I prefer a punitive luxury tax that can be re-distributed to those who stay under the cap.

But most of the franchise players sign the extension coming off their rookie contract anyway. Think of all the star players drafted in the lottery over the past 10 years or so... LeBron, Carmelo, Wade, Bosh, Howard, Paul, Williams, Roy, etc.... all signed their 3 year or more extension. Restricted free agency works exactly how it's supposed to. Teams will have their star player for at the least 5 years, but most of the time 7 years. But the threat would continue of guys leaving after the 7 years even with a hard cap.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 10:20 PM
Why exactly are you concerned with my concern of their raises??

....Starts infinite loop....

because it makes no sence to defend employees of a company that demand more revenue then the owners.

hard_candy
10-16-2011, 10:21 PM
99% of the players are ready to make a deal along 50/50 lines. It's literally 3 players who have vetoed any further negotiations.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32504/the-moment-the-talks-fell-apart

beasted86
10-16-2011, 10:22 PM
99% of the players are ready to make a deal along 50/50 lines. It's literally 3 players who have vetoed any further negotiations.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32504/the-moment-the-talks-fell-apart

Did you take a poll of all the players by direct phone call or did you only talk to their agents?

Grifftiggs
10-16-2011, 10:28 PM
It amazes me how people blame the owners. If 20 teams are losing money why would they want to continue playing the game. It take the Trailblazers 10 games to match what the Lakers make in 1 game with TV revenue and such. I agree both sides need to give a little but last time I checked the owners are the players boss. If you were making 200 k a year and your boss came to you and said we are not making money so either take a 15% pay cut or take nothing what are you going to do? Either look for another job paying you what you were making or your going to accept it. Im sure most of the players would be happy making 10 million a year still.
Again I see both sides needing to come to some sort of agreement with the owners going as far as they can, but they are the Boss hands down. They are athe Billionaires who OWN the team and everyone who plays, coaches, sells tickets are THEIR employees. im sure they are in it to make money and if they are not then something is wrong. We keep paying more and more for tickets why??? Because the players are making more and more money. Plain and simple its a business and when the boss says take it or leave it, well then you have a decision to make. Like I said the players would take 10 million instead of nothing and tell me you wouldnt either?

Kevj77
10-16-2011, 10:28 PM
i know what your thinking. your gonna say tough cookies for the small market owner. you have to understand that the perception that these players have is that only a handfull of teams can actually get them to the promice land. how does a small market owner compete with a large market owner in this senerio ? they cant hold on to theyre drafted players there for they cant lure any stars to play with franchise grown talent. even if you have the money to spend on an elite player a large market team will just pay more under the luxury tax and atain the player your going after. you as a small market owner literally have no hope in competing with the large market owner for that talent. the guy would rather go to a stacked big market team any day over a constantly rebuilding small market team. but a stacked big market team close to the cap couldnt go after that elit player you were trying to atain and even through a max contract at.

im convinced that dallas's bench is better then the starting 5 for toronto. marion was in toronto. he turned our deal down to join the contending mavs. how were the mavs able to do that when they already had a stacked team? easy they just pay the luxy tax.I keep hearing that big market teams are outbidding small market teams to get players. To do that under the current soft cap they still need the cap space or all they can offer is the MLE. So they have to get under the cap to outbid another team. If a player has a better offer on the table with a small market team and takes the MLE to play for a contender what is to stop them from doing the same thing under a hard cap?

Kevj77
10-16-2011, 10:32 PM
99% of the players are ready to make a deal along 50/50 lines. It's literally 3 players who have vetoed any further negotiations.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32504/the-moment-the-talks-fell-apartPlease three players can't hold up the deal. Read the article Stern wasn't even convinced he could get the owners to sign off on 50/50. If 99% of the players wanted a deal at 50/50 and the owners would agree there wouldn't be a lockout right now.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 10:34 PM
This wasn't the well thought out response I was looking for to be honest. I'm not trying to talk down to you or bash your idea, I'm really just trying to understand your stance as well as a number of other posters.

So I'll try one more shot at trying to make it more clear what I'm looking for...

If teams were able to clear cap space and sign all the players they wanted under a $58M cap, what is to prevent those same signings under a $68M cap?

teams over the luxury tax ___insert name here. . heres an article explaining 11 teams that went in to the luxury tax.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/19/11-nba-teams-set-to-pay-luxury-tax/

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 10:41 PM
I keep hearing that big market teams are outbidding small market teams to get players. To do that under the current soft cap they still need the cap space or all they can offer is the MLE. So they have to get under the cap to outbid another team. If a player has a better offer on the table with a small market team and takes the MLE to play for a contender what is to stop them from doing the same thing under a hard cap?

nothing. it would just make the large market owner more weiry of how he is spending his money thus giving the small market owner an actual chance. if the large market owner doesnt offer a deal at all the player would be more inclined to take the small market owners offer.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 10:43 PM
It amazes me how people blame the owners. If 20 teams are losing money why would they want to continue playing the game. It take the Trailblazers 10 games to match what the Lakers make in 1 game with TV revenue and such. I agree both sides need to give a little but last time I checked the owners are the players boss. If you were making 200 k a year and your boss came to you and said we are not making money so either take a 15% pay cut or take nothing what are you going to do? Either look for another job paying you what you were making or your going to accept it. Im sure most of the players would be happy making 10 million a year still.
Again I see both sides needing to come to some sort of agreement with the owners going as far as they can, but they are the Boss hands down. They are athe Billionaires who OWN the team and everyone who plays, coaches, sells tickets are THEIR employees. im sure they are in it to make money and if they are not then something is wrong. We keep paying more and more for tickets why??? Because the players are making more and more money. Plain and simple its a business and when the boss says take it or leave it, well then you have a decision to make. Like I said the players would take 10 million instead of nothing and tell me you wouldnt either?

I'm not a player, so I can't speak on their stance or logic... but here's mine.

When you feel you are making somebody way more money than you are being paid, it definitely comes into play. I've had a handful of salesman jobs and in all of them, while the pay was decent for a college guy, I'd be generating like 500k to $1M (confirmed by commission reports) in gross sales per year, and I'd be going home with a 20k W2 form. After a while I decided it wasn't worth the hassle of feeling I was constantly screwed over.

Like I said, I don't know the players stance, but to think you are the product and play for this owner who demands winning, and can cut you, trade you, bench you at any second... your away from your family the whole year and so forth, and you know gross revenue you are generating $4 Billion as the product, they've got to feel entitled to a fair cut.

I think the players are willing to take a big paycut, but not coupled with the system changes. Stern said in negotiations the players were the first ones to mention 50/50, but without the system changes, and he said owners said "no". So players do see the economics, and are willing to take paycuts, but owners insistence on system changes to limit free agency, especially for all the middle pack players, and you can reason with why the players are holding out.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 10:47 PM
It amazes me how people blame the owners. If 20 teams are losing money why would they want to continue playing the game. It take the Trailblazers 10 games to match what the Lakers make in 1 game with TV revenue and such. I agree both sides need to give a little but last time I checked the owners are the players boss.

and thats it. these players are in a union. a union that signs a contract with the owners. if there is no contract in place these players are just like you and me looking for work. basketball work, but work never theless. u can look at these players as sub contractors. the owners negotiate a contract with the union but if that union doesnt agree to the new deal then techinically the owners can hire scabs. there wouldnt be breaking any rules in doing so because there is no current contract to break. these players could essentially be replaced but the fact of the matter is that the owners invested alot of time and money in marketing these house hold names and they would prefer to come to an agreement rather then to do the unthink able and replace these players.

honestly at one point the players need a reality check in how much say they have. yes they are the reason fans fill the seats but the owners are the reasons why they have that oppertunity.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 10:50 PM
I'm not a player, so I can't speak on their stance or logic... but here's mine.

When you feel you are making somebody way more money than you are being paid, it definitely comes into play. I've had a handful of salesman jobs and in all of them, while the pay was decent for a college guy, I'd be generating like 500k to $1M (confirmed by commission reports) in gross sales per year, and I'd be going home with a 20k W2 form. After a while I decided it wasn't worth the hassle of feeling I was constantly screwed over.

Like I said, I don't know the players stance, but to think you are the product and play for this owner who demands winning, and can cut you, trade you, bench you at any second... your away from your family the whole year and so forth, and you know gross revenue you are generating $4 Billion as the product, they've got to feel entitled to a fair cut.

I think the players are willing to take a big paycut, but not coupled with the system changes. Stern said in negotiations the players were the first ones to mention 50/50, but without the system changes, and he said owners said "no". So players do see the economics, and are willing to take paycuts, but owners insistence on system changes to limit free agency, especially for all the middle pack players, and you can reason with why the players are holding out.

if i work for rogers and i feel im making them more money then im being paid then i have the option of working for telus or fido or whom ever. these players have the same option. the are free to sign where ever they want. they can go play over seas for cash sure but you know if they had the option they would want to stay in the nba.

fact of the matter is that they are the "employees" of the nba and the nba has been really kind to give them 57% of the revenue but that is no longer realistic and the players need to acept this at one point. they are employed by these ppl not vice versa. at the end of the day you cant make someone pay you somthing they are not willing to pay you. its as simple as that. these owners look at players as commodities they want to keep them because RIGHT NOW they are way more marketable to fans as they have become known house hold names. that doesnt mean that they cant be replaced though. when michale jordan was playing no one knew who lebron james was. there are kids coming out of college every year who can ball. all these players can be replaced. there are alot more basket ball players then there are billionaires in the the united states.

im not taking sides. i want ball. thats my side. i want an agreement. but the reality is an employee does not dictate how much an owner is willing to pay. its a contract and they can negotiate but theres no hypethetical gun they can put to the owners head.

beasted86
10-16-2011, 10:56 PM
if i work for rogers and i feel im making them more money then im being paid then i have the option of working for telus or fido or whom ever. these players have the same option. the are free to sign where ever they want. but they grew up on the nba. they love the nba and its no doubt that they want to be in the nba. they can go play over seas for cash sure but you know if they had the option they would want to stay in the nba.

That said, if there was a union when I was working those jobs where we could have gone and demanded a fair share of commission percentages, it would have been great. Instead, if not me, some other shmuck probably thinks 1% commission rates on $1M worth of revenue is worth it to keep working there. He probably thinks his job is great in comparison to McDonald's wages.

Fortunately (for the players) or unfortunately (for the owners), there is in fact a union in the NBA, so players don't have to just play for whatever owners are willing to pay. Same goes for the fans, it's good that payers are paid well and that gives incentive for the Kobe Byrants and LeBron Jameses to play in this league so we can see them, but it's bad when negotiations like this take place and we have no basketball, and hundreds of people are out of jobs because of no games.

hard_candy
10-16-2011, 11:05 PM
It'll be hilarious when the owners hire a bunch of scrub replacement players like the nfl did back in the day. Now that would be a sight!

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 11:07 PM
That's a fair point, and yes you're right.
The players could take a "not really" 50/50 deal, and thus end the lockout.
Even though I'm pro-player, I DO NOT blame the owners. I say this, because BOTH sides want what's best for them financially, this is economics people.

exactly.

your a pro, like at tennis?

beasted86
10-16-2011, 11:07 PM
teams over the luxury tax ___insert name here. . heres an article explaining 11 teams that went in to the luxury tax.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/19/11-nba-teams-set-to-pay-luxury-tax/
This article has nothing to do with what I am discussing. Teams in the luxury tax use the mid-level to add players. I'm talking about teams clearing cap space and signing away franchise players... the exact thing you said a hard cap would prevent.

This is my last post for tonight... if you or anyone else has an explanation, let me know. See post 161 for more details: http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19508311&postcount=161

I'd really just like to know why a hard cap will prevent signing away all-star players if teams clear cap space to do so.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 11:15 PM
I keep hearing this, but nobody seems to have an explanation of how give me some hypothetical scenarios... because I'm honestly trying to understand this concept so many flocks of people keep claiming.

I'm begging will someone take my post seriously and give a well thought out response.

there is proof. It's called the field of economics. the concepts behind the theory have empirical data to support it.

Cosmic_Canon
10-16-2011, 11:15 PM
exactly.

your a pro, like at tennis?

What are you trying to say? Seriously I would like to know.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 11:19 PM
That said, if there was a union when I was working those jobs where we could have gone and demanded a fair share of commission percentages, it would have been great. Instead, if not me, some other shmuck probably thinks 1% commission rates on $1M worth of revenue is worth it to keep working there. He probably thinks his job is great in comparison to McDonald's wages.

Fortunately (for the players) or unfortunately (for the owners), there is in fact a union in the NBA, so players don't have to just play for whatever owners are willing to pay. Same goes for the fans, it's good that payers are paid well and that gives incentive for the Kobe Byrants and LeBron Jameses to play in this league so we can see them, but it's bad when negotiations like this take place and we have no basketball, and hundreds of people are out of jobs because of no games.


the nba has no current deal in place with that union. technically if the owners went nuts and let the nbpa walk they could start signing other players. it all really comes down to how important these current players are to the owners. and that answer is obvious. they are extreamly imoprtant because they are the commodoties we pay to watch. that is the only leverage they hold in these negotiations. they know owners will not resort to this and that both sides want eachother. they just cant seem to meet where both sides are happy but will continue to try. if the nba was telus they would be hiring scabs from bell already.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 11:21 PM
This article has nothing to do with what I am discussing. Teams in the luxury tax use the mid-level to add players. I'm talking about teams clearing cap space and signing away franchise players... the exact thing you said a hard cap would prevent.

This is my last post for tonight... if you or anyone else has an explanation, let me know. See post 161 for more details: http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19508311&postcount=161

I'd really just like to know why a hard cap will prevent signing away all-star players if teams clear cap space to do so.

i get what your saying. obviously if teams are clearing enough cap to sign players then a hard cap wouldnt effect that. thats the whole point of clearing cap space theres no debating that. i agrree withyou

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 11:25 PM
I'd really just like to know why a hard cap will prevent signing away all-star players if teams clear cap space to do so.

It won't, but it will deter the scenario's where teams can go into the max to resign their own players on top of newly acquired players through a sign & trade or whatever other methods that allow it to happen.

you tell the owners, "you have 60 mil to spend on players. No more then that with no exceptions". you give them stiff regulations & you will have more competition between the teams. The whole reason why the US economy tanked was because of de-regulation, in this case, a less free market is the way to create more parity, or as some may call it, communism.

The canadian banking system is heavily regulated & thus the banks are similar in nature, offer similar plans & what not, take similar risks. there is more competition which is better for the monopolist which in this case are the owners, & we can hope that they pass of some of the savings to us. They won't but the point is that at least the team will be competitive & thats really what it's all about.

Owners want to have a reason to justify the high prices that they charge the fans. more competition will improve the level of play. you take away talent hoarding & you see an increase in the team aspect of basketball. there will be less nights off.

I don't know enough about the NHL cap structure to comment but i'm sure someone can illuminate why the hard cap is beneficial if they so desire.

gwrighter
10-16-2011, 11:28 PM
What are you trying to say? Seriously I would like to know.

you said "i'm a pro"

were you speaking in hypothetical terms? I commented in that tone as to not look like an idiot if you are indeed not a pro.

CavsYanksDuke
10-16-2011, 11:35 PM
It won't, but it will deter the scenario's where teams can go into the max to resign their own players on top of newly acquired players through a sign & trade or whatever other methods that allow it to happen.

you tell the owners, "you have 60 mil to spend on players. No more then that with no exceptions". you give them stiff regulations & you will have more competition between the teams. The whole reason why the US economy tanked was because of de-regulation, in this case, a less free market is the way to create more parity, or as some may call it, communism.

The canadian banking system is heavily regulated & thus the banks are similar in nature, offer similar plans & what not, take similar risks. there is more competition which is better for the monopolist which in this case are the owners, & we can hope that they pass of some of the savings to us. They won't but the point is that at least the team will be competitive & thats really what it's all about.

Owners want to have a reason to justify the high prices that they charge the fans. more competition will improve the level of play. you take away talent hoarding & you see an increase in the team aspect of basketball. there will be less nights off.

I don't know enough about the NHL cap structure to comment but i'm sure someone can illuminate why the hard cap is beneficial if they so desire.

Very intelligent post. First time I've seen rationality on here today.

smith&wesson
10-16-2011, 11:58 PM
What are you trying to say? Seriously I would like to know.

he is asking what your a pro at. since you said you were a pro .. actually im a little interested to know as well now lol

ink
10-17-2011, 12:09 AM
exactly.

your a pro, like at tennis?

He just said he was FOR the players, i.e. pro-player. Not pro athlete. lol.

ink
10-17-2011, 12:13 AM
Nobody is taking things personal. Last I checked we were having a discussion on a message board about the economics of a deal. For the most part, nobody is cursing at anyone else or calling them names or doing out of line actions.

If we were taking things personally we'd be writing letters to NBA owners, and picketing outside the arenas, and flying to LA or NY or wherever the negotiation meetings are taking place and making sure our opinions were heard. None of that is going on, so I think you need to relax a little.

I said "I can't see why anyone would take it on as a personal issue" not that people were taking comments on this board personally. I'm asking why people get so absorbed in what the athletes they follow do or what happens to them, they lose touch with the fact that their raises have nothing to do with us. Their lives have nothing at all to do with us. Seriously, why would we care how big the % of raises are? It has nothing to do with us. Unless we're talking about how bloated their salaries are already, which inflates ticket prices beyond any reasonable price ...

gwrighter
10-17-2011, 12:38 AM
He just said he was FOR the players, i.e. pro-player. Not pro athlete. lol.

the ambiguity was killing me. lol

gwrighter
10-17-2011, 12:46 AM
I said "I can't see why anyone would take it on as a personal issue" not that people were taking comments on this board personally. I'm asking why people get so absorbed in what the athletes they follow do or what happens to them, they lose touch with the fact that their raises have nothing to do with us. Their lives have nothing at all to do with us. Seriously, why would we care how big the % of raises are? It has nothing to do with us. Unless we're talking about how bloated their salaries are already, which inflates ticket prices beyond any reasonable price ...

its weird in the sense that people aren't pro fans. I think that at some lvl us as fans live vicariously through these pro athletes or sympathize through their "struggle" if applicable. I think the reason why people defend the athletes is because if the player salaries go down, the ticket prices will probably remain high, & the owners will just capture the created surplus. So they feel that the owners are greedy.

Fans of traditionally good teams side with the players because they feel that if new changes come about they could lose the edge due to player preferences that has been sustained through the previous CBA's. so it's in their best interests as fans to support the structure that they have benefited from in the past, & stand to benefit from in the future if upheld.

marlinsfan24
10-17-2011, 01:21 AM
I think its the owners fault. But what the hell do I know? Neither side really gives a **** about us, so I am getting to the point, why the hell should I?

beasted86
10-17-2011, 11:14 AM
I said "I can't see why anyone would take it on as a personal issue" not that people were taking comments on this board personally. I'm asking why people get so absorbed in what the athletes they follow do or what happens to them, they lose touch with the fact that their raises have nothing to do with us. Their lives have nothing at all to do with us. Seriously, why would we care how big the % of raises are? It has nothing to do with us. Unless we're talking about how bloated their salaries are already, which inflates ticket prices beyond any reasonable price ...

I'm a basketball fan, and a business student, this stuff interests me.

Aside from that, I don't see the difference between discussing this whole lockout and what changes they make, to the threads that are made literally all the time about "_______ signs for 5yrs/$___M" and you have a bunch of people coming in giving their opinion on whether he is worth it or not.

beasted86
10-17-2011, 11:27 AM
the nba has no current deal in place with that union. technically if the owners went nuts and let the nbpa walk they could start signing other players. it all really comes down to how important these current players are to the owners. and that answer is obvious. they are extreamly imoprtant because they are the commodoties we pay to watch. that is the only leverage they hold in these negotiations. they know owners will not resort to this and that both sides want eachother. they just cant seem to meet where both sides are happy but will continue to try. if the nba was telus they would be hiring scabs from bell already.

No, they cannot do that. Remember, the players aren't on strike, the league has locked out the players. The players would immediately dissolve the union, and file an antitrust lawsuit which they would win.

beasted86
10-17-2011, 11:36 AM
It won't, but it will deter the scenario's where teams can go into the max to resign their own players on top of newly acquired players through a sign & trade or whatever other methods that allow it to happen.

you tell the owners, "you have 60 mil to spend on players.

Okay, so first part ... you agree that it won't deter cap space signings. But seriously, $60M? Owners already offered $62M flex cap with a to be determined hard cap above the 62 to allow teams to re-sign their own players. It would have to be somewhere between a $65M and $70M hard cap. The NHL's hard cap is $64.3M for reference, and the NBA creates more revenue ($4.1B vs. $3.0B for 2010/2011; link (http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports%20recreation%20leisure%20market%20research/industry%20statistics)).

Now comes my 2nd part, and most important question. If teams like the Kings lost money last year operating under $45M in salary, how will they make money just because a hard cap is instituted?

Utahjazzfan18
10-17-2011, 12:00 PM
Okay, so first part ... you agree that it won't deter cap space signings. But seriously, $60M? Owners already offered $62M flex cap with a to be determined hard cap above the 62 to allow teams to re-sign their own players. It would have to be somewhere between a $65M and $70M hard cap. The NHL's hard cap is $64.3M for reference, and the NBA creates more revenue ($4.1B vs. $3.0B for 2010/2011; link (http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports%20recreation%20leisure%20market%20research/industry%20statistics)).

Now comes my 2nd part, and most important question. If teams like the Kings lost money last year operating under $45M in salary, how will they make money just because a hard cap is instituted?

It narrows the talent gap for them vs. the big market teams like the Lakers. If the Lakers are forced to spend less then they lose some talent which also forces more talented players to be distributed evenly on teams if they want to get paid. That creates more balance for teams like the Kings to be competitive even with less money to spend which makes them more competitive. If your team is competitive then your franchise is far more likely to see an increase in ticket sales.

rkelly7
10-17-2011, 12:25 PM
I honestly don't care if the NBA locks out. The only reason I want them to play is so that Americans can pump money into the economy. It is already by far the least popular of the major sports in America, and it is on the fast track on losing its "major sport" title this country. 95% of Americans only care about the NBA if you mention Lebron or Kobe anyway, and the 5% fans who are actually hardcore are losing their fanbase.

25 years from now, I don't even see the NBA being considered a relevant league from a sports perspective.

The sport just doesn't hold weight anymore. RIP NBA

daleja424
10-17-2011, 12:49 PM
It narrows the talent gap for them vs. the big market teams like the Lakers. If the Lakers are forced to spend less then they lose some talent which also forces more talented players to be distributed evenly on teams if they want to get paid. That creates more balance for teams like the Kings to be competitive even with less money to spend which makes them more competitive. If your team is competitive then your franchise is far more likely to see an increase in ticket sales.

I fail to see how it narrows the talent gap TBH. With a 65-70 million dollar hard cap each team can afford 2-3 superstars. So all the major markets are still going to get the elite guys. Sure, a hard cap will prevent the Lakers from signing the Matt Barnes of the world... but do we really think that it is the Matt Barnes of the world that make the Lakers contenders?

Look at the cap numbers. Only 4 teams are slated to be above this theoretical hard cap: the lakers, spurs, magic, and celtics. Amnesty cuts of Gilbert Arenas, Richard Jefferson, and Jermaine O'Neal will get three of those teams under the cap.

The only team in the league that would have to struggle to fit under the luxury tax would be LA... The superteams in Miami, NY, Boston, OKC, etc could even theoretically ADD someone this summer.

The notion that a hard cap will level out the talent is ridiculous. There would still be plenty of money for the big stars to pair up an play in the big markets.

king4day
10-17-2011, 03:20 PM
I honestly don't care if the NBA locks out. The only reason I want them to play is so that Americans can pump money into the economy. It is already by far the least popular of the major sports in America, and it is on the fast track on losing its "major sport" title this country. 95% of Americans only care about the NBA if you mention Lebron or Kobe anyway, and the 5% fans who are actually hardcore are losing their fanbase.

25 years from now, I don't even see the NBA being considered a relevant league from a sports perspective.

The sport just doesn't hold weight anymore. RIP NBA

Hockey is still the least popular. I don't know about fast track to being irrelvant but I agree that the smaller market teams are going to lose their fanbase quickly. Contraction may be a real possibility in the event this lasts the year.

beasted86
10-17-2011, 03:23 PM
It narrows the talent gap for them vs. the big market teams like the Lakers. If the Lakers are forced to spend less then they lose some talent which also forces more talented players to be distributed evenly on teams if they want to get paid. That creates more balance for teams like the Kings to be competitive even with less money to spend which makes them more competitive. If your team is competitive then your franchise is far more likely to see an increase in ticket sales.

That doesn't really answer my question as there are a lot of competitive teams, who aren't paying the luxury tax, and still losing money. Teams like the Hawks & Suns ans so forth have had winning teams over the past 4-5 years, and I'm certain they weren't any of the 8 teams the NBA claims made money.

ink
10-17-2011, 03:37 PM
It narrows the talent gap for them vs. the big market teams like the Lakers. If the Lakers are forced to spend less then they lose some talent which also forces more talented players to be distributed evenly on teams if they want to get paid. That creates more balance for teams like the Kings to be competitive even with less money to spend which makes them more competitive. If your team is competitive then your franchise is far more likely to see an increase in ticket sales.

What you've just described is exactly what has played out in the NHL after they established a cap in the lockout season 6 years ago. There is no doubt whatsoever that executives from pro sports leagues keep up to date with the business of other sports leagues. In fact, the Commissioner of the NHL used to work with Stern. Gary Bettman was VP, Legal Affairs and Marketing with the NBA from 1979 through 1993, the year he took the job as head of the NHL.

gwrighter
10-17-2011, 04:02 PM
It narrows the talent gap for them vs. the big market teams like the Lakers. If the Lakers are forced to spend less then they lose some talent which also forces more talented players to be distributed evenly on teams if they want to get paid. That creates more balance for teams like the Kings to be competitive even with less money to spend which makes them more competitive. If your team is competitive then your franchise is far more likely to see an increase in ticket sales.

Exactly this.

more than just ticket sales tho. Merchandise, sponsorship money, potential tv time, advertising revenue etc.

Tom Stone
10-17-2011, 04:04 PM
Nope. There is nothing wrong with that. If organizations are mismanaged they don't deserve to make a profit. If they are managed correctly, they will.

The players offer would cover the losses and force owners to manage their money better if they want to make a profit.

That is entirely fair. I do not think we should guarantee profits to poorly managed entities. This is America. You earn your keep.




In the press conference with the players union the other day, Billy Hunter made a comment that no business is a guarantee in profits....yet the players want and have just that....a Gaurantee......that's what I hate about Billy he wants his cake and eat it too....your looking Fat Billy.......daleja424 your looking Fat too:cool:

ManningToTyree
10-17-2011, 04:36 PM
the poll is dead even. 60-60. I guess both sides are to blame

3XDouble
10-17-2011, 05:27 PM
YUP. And of the three teams that are left in the playoffs right now... ZERO of them are even in the top 10 in salaries this year.

Anything can happen in a short series, especially in baseball. Using the regular season (a much larger sample size), the top salaried teams were dominant throughout the regular season. Using an even larger sample size, say the past couple of decades, having by far the largest payroll has made the Yankees the most dominant franchise in baseball.

Using Anecdotal evidence like Toronto proves nothing. For starters, I doubt television revenue or any type of revenue generated from basketball is not going to rival most of the American cities with NBA teams. Secondly, I have not heard anyone say a cap will assure competitiveness. Poorly managed teams will still do poorly.

What those of us who favor a cap are saying is that we would like a system that gives us a reasonable chance. Yes, some players will still opt for larger markets which begs the question what are many of you worried about if this system would at least partially level the playing field. The fact of the matter is some of you from large markets don't want a fair fight. You like the system that virtually assures you will be able to pick-off other teams best players when the reach free agency.

Fortunately, the owners realize this leauge is headed down a path that will make the NBA unattractive in two-thirds of the present markets. The long-term economic realities of that path will not be good for NBA players in a few short years. As a small market fan, I am done waisting my time. My team has no chance under this system. The odds will be a gainst us with a reasonable cap but I am OK with it being harder as long as the system gives us a fighting chance. The players either don't care what will become of the game or simply don't understand, perhaps a combination of the two. I can tell many here have never run any sort of business when they feel the owners are being unreasonable for wanting a share of the revenue that will assure they are just sligthly above break-even. Those greedy SOBs. How dare they want to break-even. Wow! The players have absolutely no economic basis for their demands in terms of the revenue split. The logic is basically ... we got a ridiculousy good deal last time around and we want the same type of deal this time.

BTW ... The logic that it is a star's leauge is really weak too. Many companies have star employees are critical to that firms success. They don't get guaranteed contracts. For many of them 80+ percent of their income is incentive based. They get paid well if they perform. And, the notion that the owners interests superseed those individuals requires no explanation, nor apology. Let's get real. These guys are a bunch of EXTREMELY over paid efgo maniacs. On average they make more than 100 times the salary of the average guy working hard for a living and have the audacity to ***** about it.

Voodoo Alchemy
10-17-2011, 06:22 PM
Keep in mind, most people do not know enough about the lockout. So naturally, they will blame the players. I'm expecting around the same numbers, as the last PSD poll.

oh, so naturally you're sitting next to billy hunter during negotiations.

mzgrizz
10-17-2011, 07:19 PM
Dead even at 62-62. About 1/2 day to voice your choice.