PDA

View Full Version : Stephen A Smith - 10 Teams Send Letter to Stern Saying NO DEAL



kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:05 PM
According to numerous team sources, obviously prohibited from talking publicly, the league's labor relations committee received a written letter from 10 owners vehemently opposed to the offer presently on the table. All of them -- Charlotte, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Memphis, Indiana, Portland, Minnesota, Sacramento, Denver and Milwaukee -- were emphatic that they believe this is a bad deal, that the players should actually receive less than 50 percent. Yet, Stern went ahead and made the offer, anyway.



They don't want:

• To leave the luxury-tax penalty as it was in the previous collective bargaining agreement for the next two years before stiffer implementation kicks in during Year 3.

• The maximum length of guaranteed contracts to be shortened by just one year instead of three.

• Maximum contracts to stay the same.

• An additional midlevel exception of $2.5 million to be allowed for teams that spend up to the cap.

• Modifications in both sign-and-trade options, which the league originally wanted eliminated altogether, for teams which spent more than the luxury-tax trigger number.

What those 10 owners want is for the league to go for the jugular

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7233073/offer-not-nba-players-want-better-nothing

The players aren't all to blame. This is the same set of owners who put their own franchises in a bad situation because of their own CHOICES (aside from new Phili owners who just bought a down team). They are as much a roadblock as the players and probably have caused the rift to be greater than it was.

#NBANoBailoutsForIdiotExecs

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:06 PM
10 owners can't stop the deal however, so no, the blame shifts back to the players at this point, sorry.

Hellcrooner
11-14-2011, 05:08 PM
stern shuold ahve threaten to contract the whole ten and make a redraft of its players ( who go figure woudl have created some Parity and benefits for the remaining 20)

Jonathan2323
11-14-2011, 05:08 PM
Seems like this small group ran the negotiations eventhough they were in the minority.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:09 PM
No the fact is that at least 130 players are impacted by playing for those 10 owners. That is a fourth of the league. That is a large portion of guys to alienate in negotiations because you want to be bailed out for your own mismanagement and get guaranteed a profit, which you are not ever guaranteed in any real business venture. The only concessions that were offered, weren't real concessions because things like a hard cap, low BRi, non-guaranteed deals, and so on we're never in place in the past for the owners to concede in the first damn place.

VillaMaravilla
11-14-2011, 05:11 PM
funny those 10 teams could be taken out of the league and no one would miss them aside from Phili which has good faithful fans the rest can just go

Wade>You
11-14-2011, 05:14 PM
The teams that no one gives a ---- about were the ones that ruined the 2011 season.

The players did the right thing today even though no one will admit it because they wanted so badly for the season to start.

Tony_Starks
11-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Why am I not shocked at the 10 teams listed there? Oh well guess they got what they wanted, wasn't like they were going to win anyway so what do they care about a season.......

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:17 PM
Stern was also sent a letter 2 years ago stating that this would happen from many of these same teams. He didn't do **** about it then, so now the league is being forced to do something.

I get that many large market fans, and fans of teams that make money despite ALSO having idiotic front offices looks at these teams as the Big Bad small market owners, but the fact is, the NBA could not continue as it was. I would be interested to read the exact way they were going to do revenue sharing, but in reality, 7 of those 10 teams have fielded extremely successful teams in the past decade, so this isn't all about wanting just money.

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:19 PM
Why am I not shocked at the 10 teams listed there? Oh well guess they got what they wanted, wasn't like they were going to win anyway so what do they care about a season.......

not every team can suck the floor up and churn out a profit likes the Knicks for example. Sorry these teams had to inconvienence so many of you, but the NBA needed to change big time. The players have gotten everything they asked for in the past 2 negotiations. Stern, and the other NBA owners knew this was coming, and decided to turn the cheek until it was too late.

Funny thing is, its a matter of timing. Over half the teams on the list would have been totally in favor of the old deal if this were 5-10 years ago.

Chi StateOfMind
11-14-2011, 05:22 PM
This is on the players now. Now they will recieve a deal that's worse then the one presented now.

VillaMaravilla
11-14-2011, 05:23 PM
no and I just finished reading that by dibanding the union owners can now legaly void their contracts, Kinds of crazy I wonder if any owner will try to do this....

Bishnoff
11-14-2011, 05:24 PM
not every team can suck the floor up and churn out a profit likes the Knicks for example. Sorry these teams had to inconvienence so many of you, but the NBA needed to change big time. The players have gotten everything they asked for in the past 2 negotiations. Stern, and the other NBA owners knew this was coming, and decided to turn the cheek until it was too late.

Funny thing is, its a matter of timing. Over half the teams on the list would have been totally in favor of the old deal if this were 5-10 years ago.

Spot on Hawkeye.

Wade>You
11-14-2011, 05:25 PM
These negotiations were painted as "Big Market vs Small Market," but the truth is, it was always "Good owners vs Bad owners."

It's all part of the fabricated lies that the bad owners played on their fans to seek their support.

All they wanted was the money, and they fed their fans lies about how the new system was meant to improve competitive balance, which we all know is a joke. There's still bad teams in the NHL and NFL. In MLB, small market teams beat big market teams all the time, the big market teams that spend frivolously aren't always serious contenders, and they have no salary cap at all.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:26 PM
not every team can suck the floor up and churn out a profit likes the Knicks for example. Sorry these teams had to inconvienence so many of you, but the NBA needed to change big time. The players have gotten everything they asked for in the past 2 negotiations. Stern, and the other NBA owners knew this was coming, and decided to turn the cheek until it was too late.

Funny thing is, its a matter of timing. Over half the teams on the list would have been totally in favor of the old deal if this were 5-10 years ago.

You mean if they were milking the likes of Iverson, Garnett, and JO? And ignoring that they got nothing back for them and were given years to maximize those talents but failed because they made dumb decision constantly.

And you are still ignoring that you want a handout from the teams who make their money and rebound themselves from their own blunders.

beasted86
11-14-2011, 05:26 PM
Like I said in the other thread, players are not willing to take the system limitations. People keep thinking it's stars that dislike this deal, but in reality its the other 80% of the league that gets affected by the system changes.

Previously all teams had a mid-level, and all teams had a bi-annual.... and it had higher initial starting salaries, as long as 5 years, and with as much as an 8% raise. The league proposes no mid-level for about 7-8 current teams, a lower mid-level for all 30 teams, no bi-annual for about 95% of teams, a max contract length of 3-4 yrs, and an average of a possible 1.5% raise if they sign the full 4 year contract since the first 2 years of any exception contract has no raises.

Players want a free market where they can negotiate against a mid-level contract or a bi-annual contract. If barely any teams have these exceptions, and there is no outside threat of another team signing away a player, there really is no "market" for free agents.

Sinestro
11-14-2011, 05:28 PM
I'm kind of disappointed Atlanta and Philadelphia are on this list, with their market size, all they need is good marketing and some decent management in order to make profits that being said the players gave the owners a lot in the negotiations the owners were trying to screw over the players NOT negotiate with them which is why I support their decision

Tony_Starks
11-14-2011, 05:28 PM
These negotiations were painted as "Big Market vs Small Market," but the truth is, it was always "Good owners vs Bad owners."

It's all part of the fabricated lies that the bad owners played on their fans to seek their support.

All they wanted was the money, and they fed their fans lies about how the new system was meant to improve competitive balance, which we all know is a joke. There's still bad teams in the NHL and NFL. In MLB, small market teams beat big market teams all the time, the big market teams that spend frivolously aren't always serious contenders, and they have no salary cap at all.


Exactly. They sold that "system is broken" dream to fans of teams desperately looking for hope and they bought it. Look at the very fact that these owners aren't even satisfied with 50% and actually wanted them to drop down to 47%. If that doesn't spell out what its all about then I don't know what will.......

beasted86
11-14-2011, 05:32 PM
I'm kind of disappointed Atlanta and Philadelphia are on this list, with their market size, all they need is good marketing and some decent management in order to make profits that being said the players gave the owners a lot in the negotiations the owners were trying to screw over the players NOT negotiate with them which is why I support their decision

Philadelphia is currently paying 3 head coaches (Cheeks + Jordan + Collins) and have been handicapped by the bad contract they signed Brand to. Atlanta screwed themselves with the contract to Joe Johnson and have 7 players making $66M before they even fill up to the league minimum of 12 players or sign their draft picks.

This is the classic case of mismanagement for both teams.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:32 PM
Also can someone tell me how you conceded what you don't have?

The owners didn't have a hard cap, non-guaranteed deals, high revenue sharing, a high stake in the BRI or anything in place to concede to the players.

The players made every concession from what was in place. They conceded 7 percent. They conceded higher annual raises. They conceded the format of the old MLE.

Don't be sheep, actually think of the fact that you have to have something in the first place, if you are to concede it to someone else? You can't give up what you don't have, you can only try to trick people into giving up what they have and make a deal seem better than it is

Tony_Starks
11-14-2011, 05:33 PM
I'm kind of disappointed Atlanta and Philadelphia are on this list, with their market size, all they need is good marketing and some decent management in order to make profits that being said the players gave the owners a lot in the negotiations the owners were trying to screw over the players NOT negotiate with them which is why I support their decision


The funny thing is Philly sold their team for a big profit, and ATL was about to despite both teams being mired in mediocrity for years. Yet people still want to believe that these franchises are just hemorraging money and virtually on the brink of extinction. So you're telling me a billionaire who made his money by making wise investments is going to INTENTIONALLY purchase a business he knows he has absolutely no chance of making a profit with? On the chance that things will change even though that business is currently going through a labor dispute? Ok sure.......

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:34 PM
You mean if they were milking the likes of Iverson, Garnett, and JO? And ignoring that they got nothing back for them and were given years to maximize those talents but failed because they made dumb decision constantly.

And you are still ignoring that you want a handout from the teams who make their money and rebound themselves from their own blunders.

I will put it simply for you. Small market fans love their teams, and they don't care about large market teams fans opinion on this issue. I understand you would rather these 10 teams be absolved, and their players drafted. Guess what? I don't, because my team is one of them.

kblo, I respect you as a poster, but you and I will never agree here. I want the Minnesota Timberwolves in the NBA, and I honestly don't care if they are one of the 10 teams (10 teams can't shut this deal down btw, that should be obvious BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T, AND IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLAYERS AS IS), but I do think the league over the past 10 years is b.s. Shouldn't just be able to continue adding on to $78 million payrolls.

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:36 PM
I will say it again, 10 owners can't stop a deal, nor did they. The deal they did not like was presented to the players. So this is after the fact, and not important. They can want a $50 hard cap, no trades, and no mid levels, but they aren't going to get enough support to ever have it offered.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:37 PM
But you had no problem when Minny was paying Hudson, Spreewell, Wally, Candy, Cassell, and KG one of the top salaries in the league did you? It is a case of sour grapes because after that blew up, your team never rebounded because it had no plan or adequate management in place.

They can't stop a deal, but they can hurt it. The NBAPA has roughly over 400 members and those 10 owners employ and alienated at least 130 of them purposely. You make a deal being reached harder with ultimatums, deadlines, dictating, false concessions that you aren't really making, and having things constantly leaked. The fact is those owners very well played a part in creating a group of talent who don't want to deal with them and are just pissed off because they know they are being screwed. That same contingent has a say in a vote and more and more people over time will agree with them as time passes. Those owners knew that the **** they pulled would hurt negotiations just so they could say money and not suck for a year, while painting said players as the bad guy and in the wrong for all the mistakes they as owners and management made year in and out for their franchise.

natedogg74
11-14-2011, 05:38 PM
this is getting damn ridiculous, damn players accept the contract u all r stubborn son of *****es

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:40 PM
But you had no problem when Minny was paying Hudson, Spreewell, Wally, Candy, Cassell, and KG one of the top salaries in the league did you? It is a case of sour grapes because after that blew up, your team never rebounded because it had no plan or adequate management in place.

oh no, I did have a problem with those salaries. Not because of the number on it, but because those individual players didn't deserve those salaries.

Spare me dude. The Wolves fan base is as excited as ever going into this season. We are going in the right direction again.

I am simply sick of reading so many large market fans, many of which supports an average team that simply makes money (the only difference), saying they should contract small market teams and acting as if the NBA is a farm system for their teams.

"Screw them! Contract them and lets have a draft!"

You know what, go for it. I won't be following the NBA again if that happens.

ink
11-14-2011, 05:44 PM
10 owners can't stop the deal however, so no, the blame shifts back to the players at this point, sorry.

The recriminations are going to fly in here just like the Kobe vs. Wade threads and the Kobe vs. Lebron threads. It'll be simplistic threads about who's to blame for at least until the lockout is over and then some.

Owners vs. players. UFC title fight. Who ya got? :laugh:

IT'S BUSINESS, people! Don't get sucked into the fight.

Bravo95
11-14-2011, 05:45 PM
I'm kind of disappointed Atlanta and Philadelphia are on this list, with their market size, all they need is good marketing and some decent management in order to make profits that being said the players gave the owners a lot in the negotiations the owners were trying to screw over the players NOT negotiate with them which is why I support their decision
I kind of agree, but the Atlanta Spirit Group (Hawks owners) have literally been suing each other ever since they bought the team. These idiots have no clue about marketing and PR. Worst owners in the history of sports.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:45 PM
That same Wolves fan base going to the games, buying merch, subscribing to league pass and so on when the good teams aren't coming to town?

If the answer is no, then tell me why those large teams should be giving them 2 handouts with revenue sharing and the tax, while they shouldn't be held accountable for their own decisions or the fans of said teams with competent management should suffer because of them needing to be saved from themselves

Sinestro
11-14-2011, 05:46 PM
Philadelphia is currently paying 3 head coaches (Cheeks + Jordan + Collins) and have been handicapped by the bad contract they signed Brand to. Atlanta screwed themselves with the contract to Joe Johnson and have 7 players making $66M before they even fill up to the league minimum of 12 players or sign their draft picks.

This is the classic case of mismanagement for both teams.

Yep pretty much hell I forgot where I saw it but Cuban said that when Dirk leaves he's going to blow up his team and build through the draft, which is what a team should do, theres a reason why teams like the Pacers, Bobcats, and 76ers have been middle of the road teams for so long

ink
11-14-2011, 05:46 PM
oh no, I did have a problem with those salaries. Not because of the number on it, but because those individual players didn't deserve those salaries.

Spare me dude. The Wolves fan base is as excited as ever going into this season. We are going in the right direction again.

I am simply sick of reading so many large market fans, many of which supports an average team that simply makes money (the only difference), saying they should contract small market teams and acting as if the NBA is a farm system for their teams.

"Screw them! Contract them and lets have a draft!"

You know what, go for it. I won't be following the NBA again if that happens.

The ignorance is mind-boggling. It's like "I hate all the small markets because they are stopping us from stacking our teams" ... "**** them". No thought at all about how to actually run a league like that. The 6 team NBA where everyone plays like the Harlem Globetrotters. Yeah, great sport.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:46 PM
I kind of agree, but the Atlanta Spirit Group (Hawks owners) have literally been suing each other ever since they bought the team. These idiots have no clue about marketing and PR. Worst owners in the history of sports.

True, but to be fair the Falcons even have a hard time getting fans to the stadium. Atlanta just isn't that good of a fan base it seems sadly, which is weird because if you go there for a college game or a WWE event they are packed and rabid.

Sinestro
11-14-2011, 05:47 PM
I kind of agree, but the Atlanta Spirit Group (Hawks owners) have literally been suing each other ever since they bought the team. These idiots have no clue about marketing and PR. Worst owners in the history of sports.

Yea they are, they should go back to the old school uniforms those were sweet

Chronz
11-14-2011, 05:54 PM
Anyone up for contraction now?

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 05:55 PM
That same Wolves fan base going to the games, buying merch, subscribing to league pass and so on when the good teams aren't coming to town?

If the answer is no, then tell me why those large teams should be giving them 2 handouts with revenue sharing and the tax, while they shouldn't be held accountable for their own decisions or the fans of said teams with competent management should suffer because of them needing to be saved from themselves

if you haven't noticed, the majority of the NBA goes up and down in revenues. We are simply blaming the ones that are currently down. Its all a matter of timing.

Look, we won't agree on this, because I have a vested interest in one of these teams, and I really don't care to continue to read that the NBA would be better off without them, because I don't care personally. And each and every fan of the other 9 teams feels the same.

I keep going back to this- there are many teams that have sucked over the years that simply are placed in a large market, so they don't lose as much money. So attacking the front offices of these respective teams, many of which were very, very good for periods of time, is useless.

I think we are done with this subject. As I said before, I really don't care what large market fans think of this subject. It will all get sorted out, the owners and players will be fine with each other again, that is how sports work.

BSplaya2121
11-14-2011, 05:58 PM
Look, each owner needs to run their team like a business, they cannot expect to get everything to be handed to them, they need to think short term and long term. Owners like Jordan sit here with a ton of losses and instead of looking for ways to improve his business by doing things he can control (getting people in the stands). He *****es and moans to the league and says its "its not fair, and we want more" but in reality thats way too selfish.

Do you think if a company like Walmart reports losses, that they are gonna say "Hey lets raise our prices 10% and make the customers pay for our losses by making them pay more"? No way, they are going to do their best to keep those prices, and find other reasonable ways to make up for those losses, things that don't hurt the people that make your business run.

This one is on the owners guys, the players have already conceded a lot, and a few owners make it tough for everyone because they are acting like 6 year olds wanting more and more and more, so they dont have to do any actual work themselves.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 05:59 PM
The ignorance is mind-boggling. It's like "I hate all the small markets because they are stopping us from stacking our teams" ... "**** them". No thought at all about how to actually run a league like that. The 6 team NBA where everyone plays like the Harlem Globetrotters. Yeah, great sport.

I have a problem with

- The idea that the owners can concede what they don't even have to the players. That in itself is illogical and insulting to the intelligence of those players because They are the ones making the actual concessions, because by definition you have to have things to concede them. You can't concede a hard cap, non guaranteed contracts, and so on when they aren't and haven't been in place. The players however could concede their higher BRI stake, the MLE structure, the length of deals, pay increases by year, and so on because they actually have and had those assets to concede, which they did in different ways,

- The idea that owners should be saved from themselves and their bad decisions by altering the structure of the league to take away the option that they will **** up their franchises further and at the dame time limit good owners and management from doing their job and improving their teams so they stay competitive as contenders or playoff perennials

- The idea of limited agency because it isn't free when you basically take away most options

- A tax that is so punitive that it is basically a hard cap that only a few would stomach as owners

- Revenue sharing being one sided and teams who can't market their brand or who outright will not try to put talent on the floor (see Jordan) and just collect a handout from teams who do things the right way and actually have fan bases who pout money in to supoorting them through the good and bad, to make a profit, that no owner or business is normally guaranteed for failing to perform adequately.

- The idea that the owners negotiated in good faith by giving ultimatums and making public threats. The fact that the owners and Stern can call agents pariah basically and go unchecked while being offended and playing victim when the same people respond back and slander them

Lo Porto
11-14-2011, 06:01 PM
Tired of these stupid, greedy players.

Bravo95
11-14-2011, 06:04 PM
True, but to be fair the Falcons even have a hard time getting fans to the stadium. Atlanta just isn't that good of a fan base it seems sadly, which is weird because if you go there for a college game or a WWE event they are packed and rabid.
Falcons don't have a problem packing the Dome. Can't blame the fans for the Hawks woes; historically bad ownership will drive away almost any fanbase, especially if the team doesn't have much tradition or upside. Atlanta is a transient town. It's tough for a lot of franchises to attract casual fans without superstars. Some NBA cities who are on top right not only fill the arenas because the team is contending, but if they lost those big names, people wouldn't show up.

Wade>You
11-14-2011, 06:06 PM
Tired of these stupid, greedy players.Tired of mis-informed fans who think the players are being greedy when they've taken paycuts and made every concession in the world to keep the season alive.

Bravo95
11-14-2011, 06:06 PM
Yea they are, they should go back to the old school uniforms those were sweet

From your keyboard to God's ears.

Lo Porto
11-14-2011, 06:14 PM
Tired of mis-informed fans who think the players are being greedy when they've taken paycuts and made every concession in the world to keep the season alive.

When they are getting paid more than their counterparts in a more successful league, then they should take a pay cut. NBA teams lose money but NFL teams don't yet their players don't make the same wages that NBA players make. Don't come whine about more players and other garbage. There are trash players in the NBA making more money than the biggest players in the NFL. That makes no sense. The NBA is trying to fix that now, and the players are fighting it. This is one of many battles in this 50-50 vs 57% argument going on.

It all comes down to what you're worth. The NBA is not worth the NFL. So why should the NBA players think they deserve a better deal than what the NFL players just agreed to? 50-50 is a better deal than what the NFL players just got. Like I said - stupid, greedy players.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 06:18 PM
When they are getting paid more than their counterparts in a more successful league, then they should take a pay cut. NBA teams lose money but NFL teams don't yet their players don't make the same wages that NBA players make. Don't come whine about more players and other garbage. There are trash players in the NBA making more money than the biggest players in the NFL. That makes no sense. The NBA is trying to fix that now, and the players are fighting it. This is one of many battles in this 50-50 vs 57% argument going on.

It all comes down to what you're worth. The NBA is not worth the NFL. So why should the NBA players think they deserve a better deal than what the NFL players just agreed to? 50-50 is a better deal than what the NFL players just got. Like I said - stupid, greedy players.

You do get the fact that less players means the average or mean is distorted much more by the top stars making high wages (which by all means should be higher since they generate more than other stars in the other leagues and are restricted as to what they can make)? You look at the median in a sample size like this and the median of the league has far more players in the lower end 2M range and less, than they have the average of 5mil, which once again is distrorted by max contracts at the top of the league. Don't try to spin it otherwise or ignore that rotations are mostly 8 deep and 1 player impacts the game far more

Wade>You
11-14-2011, 06:19 PM
When they are getting paid more than their counterparts in a more successful league, then they should take a pay cut. NBA teams lose money but NFL teams don't yet their players don't make the same wages that NBA players make. Don't come whine about more players and other garbage. There are trash players in the NBA making more money than the biggest players in the NFL. That makes no sense. The NBA is trying to fix that now, and the players are fighting it. This is one of many battles in this 50-50 vs 57% argument going on.

It all comes down to what you're worth. The NBA is not worth the NFL. So why should the NBA players think they deserve a better deal than what the NFL players just agreed to? 50-50 is a better deal than what the NFL players just got. Like I said - stupid, greedy players.I can't argue with a guy who believes the impact of a player in basketball is even comparable to the impact of a player in football.

SunsFanIam
11-14-2011, 06:22 PM
Look, each owner needs to run their team like a business, they cannot expect to get everything to be handed to them, they need to think short term and long term. Owners like Jordan sit here with a ton of losses and instead of looking for ways to improve his business by doing things he can control (getting people in the stands). He *****es and moans to the league and says its "its not fair, and we want more" but in reality thats way too selfish.

Do you think if a company like Walmart reports losses, that they are gonna say "Hey lets raise our prices 10% and make the customers pay for our losses by making them pay more"? No way, they are going to do their best to keep those prices, and find other reasonable ways to make up for those losses, things that don't hurt the people that make your business run.

This one is on the owners guys, the players have already conceded a lot, and a few owners make it tough for everyone because they are acting like 6 year olds wanting more and more and more, so they dont have to do any actual work themselves.

You say run it like a business, but tell me in what company the employees make more of the percentage than the owners? Dont worry I will wait...... The NFL players took 48 percent of their after NFL Revenue and still dont have guaranteed contracts. Every Nickle the NBA players get is gauranteed and they want more than half of the bri. They are not willing to budge. The fact is we need every team this league has to create the season we are a custom to. The NFL players make less money per year and not gauranteed and take a higher risk of injury, so why does the NBA players think they deserve more? The NFL is by far more popular.

Tony_Starks
11-14-2011, 06:26 PM
Anyone up for contraction now?


Isn't it funny how people overlook how it was Sterns greed and hastiness to try to maximize more fans in more markets that got us in this predicament in the first place? He got so carried away with expansion that he ignored the repercussions of watering down the league. He saw Miami and Orlando become legit franchises and figured that would just be the status quo for new teams but thats not the case......

Jonathan2323
11-14-2011, 06:26 PM
I can't argue with a guy who believes the impact of a player in basketball is even comparable to the impact of a player in football.

He doesn't take into account that there are 53 players per team in the NFL and only 15 on an NBA team. NFL salaries per player of course have to be smaller.

Lo Porto
11-14-2011, 06:28 PM
I can't argue with a guy who believes the impact of a player in basketball is even comparable to the impact of a player in football.

I'll argue all day that a quarterback is worth as much or more than any one basketball player. I don't see many quarterbacks making what AK47 made last year and AK47 wasn't even the 4th best player on his team. Not one QB made as much as TMac made a few years ago when Houston was doing their best just to dump the guy.

The problem is simple - NBA players make just a bit too much. Kobe, LBJ, elite guys should make a lot, but instead of $20, they maybe should make $18. It's slight concessions like that that I'm talking about. I'm not saying that these guys need to go from max deals to midlevels. I'm saying that the gap from current maxes to meet at 50-50 is extremely reasonable.

And to say it's not reasonable in a recession with people losing their houses or not having a job just makes the NBA look that much more foolish. So once again I say stupid, greedy players.

Korman12
11-14-2011, 06:38 PM
These negotiations were painted as "Big Market vs Small Market," but the truth is, it was always "Good owners vs Bad owners."

It's all part of the fabricated lies that the bad owners played on their fans to seek their support.

All they wanted was the money, and they fed their fans lies about how the new system was meant to improve competitive balance, which we all know is a joke. There's still bad teams in the NHL and NFL. In MLB, small market teams beat big market teams all the time, the big market teams that spend frivolously aren't always serious contenders, and they have no salary cap at all.

In a league with 30 teams, only 2 in the bottom 17 in terms of team salary made the playoffs last year. What baseball are you watching?

Rocco Gandolfo
11-14-2011, 06:41 PM
If you didn't think this was going to get much worse, here you have it. Ouch

Arch Stanton
11-14-2011, 06:42 PM
In a league with 30 teams, only 2 in the bottom 17 in terms of team salary made the playoffs last year. What baseball are you watching?

I would love a MLB lockout. But apparently the MLB has the most parity of NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB. Which was shocking news to me. But that's due to good scouting from smaller market teams. However, when you see the Yanks and Sox in the playoffs each year and then.... when was the last time the Royals or Pirates made the playoffs???

Bruno
11-14-2011, 06:51 PM
Anyone up for contraction now?

yes.

if a given small market team wants to continue to offer horrible contracts and expect a de-facto bail-out from the league or it's players, and they aren't making the league any money- then why should the league halt production to appease them? the players obviously needed to come down from 57% but these minority owners who want the players to drop under 50% because of their inabilities to manage their teams won't get sympathy from anyone except their own fans. If they can't make money under a deal where players get 50-51%, then they should consider their equity and sell their teams; as famously stated by charlottes leading flip-flopper.

Korman12
11-14-2011, 06:55 PM
I would love a MLB lockout. But apparently the MLB has the most parity of NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB. Which was shocking news to me. But that's due to good scouting from smaller market teams. However, when you see the Yanks and Sox in the playoffs each year and then.... when was the last time the Royals or Pirates made the playoffs???

The NFL has far, far more parity than any of the four major North American sports. It's not even close.

Only two of the 32 existing teams (Buffalo and Detroit) haven't made the post-season since 2000 (both made it in 1999).

In MLB, 5 out of the 30 teams haven't made the post-season since 1998, two of which (Washington, Kansas City) haven't made it since the mid-80s.

Not even to mention because of the NFL economic system, small-market teams (not unpopular teams - teams in small cities) actually win championships. The only small market team to win a World Series since the 1994 Strike was Florida, twice.

BSplaya2121
11-14-2011, 06:58 PM
You say run it like a business, but tell me in what company the employees make more of the percentage than the owners? Dont worry I will wait...... The NFL players took 48 percent of their after NFL Revenue and still dont have guaranteed contracts. Every Nickle the NBA players get is gauranteed and they want more than half of the bri. They are not willing to budge. The fact is we need every team this league has to create the season we are a custom to. The NFL players make less money per year and not gauranteed and take a higher risk of injury, so why does the NBA players think they deserve more? The NFL is by far more popular.

Well you must not know business too well. I would say that in all current business the owners/CEO does not make as much of a salary as the employees collectively. The owners pay the contracts, they know what they are getting into, its then their job as upper management to figure out ways to make that money back, without completely screwing their workers, who are the ones making them the money. And my post has nothing to do with the NFL, I agree the players deserve more, not the NBA players deserve less, but their owners know how to make money in that league. Plus how can you say the players arent willing to budge. They agreed on a 7% drop from the previous BRI, thats millions and millions of dollars if not billions over 10 years. Thats a HUGE concession. This lockout isnt all about guaranteed contracts either. The players want to make sure its fair for those coming into the league and those who cannot speak for themselves. Like people trying to get a MLE, or minimum contracts. The Lebrons and Kobes of the league could care less about the concessions of certain things, they are still getting their money

Sactown
11-14-2011, 06:59 PM
These negotiations were painted as "Big Market vs Small Market," but the truth is, it was always "Good owners vs Bad owners."

It's all part of the fabricated lies that the bad owners played on their fans to seek their support.

All they wanted was the money, and they fed their fans lies about how the new system was meant to improve competitive balance, which we all know is a joke. There's still bad teams in the NHL and NFL. In MLB, small market teams beat big market teams all the time, the big market teams that spend frivolously aren't always serious contenders, and they have no salary cap at all.
HOW ARE YOU SO NAIVE? If you aren't making money you can't spend money! I'm going to say this nice and slow AND IN BOLD so that maybe you can understand this MONEY IS PART OF THE SOLUTION TO HAVING COMPETITIVE BALANCE... The Kings, are at the minimum in salary cap and are still losing money, the THUNDER are below the cap and contenders and they're still losing money MONEY IS PART OF THE SOLUTION TO HAVING COMPETITIVE BALANCE said it again just in case you forgot :facepalm:

Bravo95
11-14-2011, 07:01 PM
In a league with 30 teams, only 2 in the bottom 17 in terms of team salary made the playoffs last year. What baseball are you watching?

Yeah, it's amazing how many people pass off the lie about MLB parity.

Kevj77
11-14-2011, 07:03 PM
Isn't it funny how people overlook how it was Sterns greed and hastiness to try to maximize more fans in more markets that got us in this predicament in the first place? He got so carried away with expansion that he ignored the repercussions of watering down the league. He saw Miami and Orlando become legit franchises and figured that would just be the status quo for new teams but thats not the case......Exactly I said that in the thread about Stern. When he took over as commih there were 23 teams now there are 30. It watered down the talent of all teams. Three of those teams have already had to relocate. NO is owned by the NBA. Three of those seven teams are part of these 10 hardline owners. Only the Heat and Orlando have been competitive.

It is time for contraction.

iggypop123
11-14-2011, 07:04 PM
contraction is the solution but it wont happen. it still means loss in money and revenue. this is ugly. the players are being raped now and the owners thought this was a gift.

justinnum1
11-14-2011, 07:05 PM
Those are the teams that should be contracted

Korman12
11-14-2011, 07:07 PM
Those are the teams that should be contracted

Yeah, that's fair to everyone.

Arch Stanton
11-14-2011, 07:08 PM
The NFL has far, far more parity than any of the four major North American sports. It's not even close.

Only two of the 32 existing teams (Buffalo and Detroit) haven't made the post-season since 2000 (both made it in 1999).

In MLB, 5 out of the 30 teams haven't made the post-season since 1998, two of which (Washington, Kansas City) haven't made it since the mid-80s.

Not even to mention because of the NFL economic system, small-market teams (not unpopular teams - teams in small cities) actually win championships. The only small market team to win a World Series since the 1994 Strike was Florida, twice.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110203&content_id=16560964&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/12/once-again-baseball-has-greater-parity-than-the-nfl/

http://lockersmash.com/2011/09/mlb-best-parody-in-sports/

MLB makes better case for parity than NFL

If you want a sterling example of split-sporting personality, look no further than Pittsburgh's North Shore. Within walking distance of each other sit Heinz Field, home of the dynasty-building Steelers, and PNC Park, home of the perpetually rebuilding Pirates.

The Steelers, as you might have heard, are hoping to climb the "Stairway to Seven" ("One for the Forefinger on the Second Hand" wasn't quite as catchy) when they face the Packers in Super Bowl XLV on Sunday.

The Pirates, meanwhile, enter 2011 merely hoping to avoid their 19th consecutive losing season

To some, the clear disparity in social standing for this Pittsburgh pair illustrates a larger truth -- that market size matters not in the NFL and is dictatorial in Major League Baseball. And from that supposed truth arrives the premise that the NFL possesses more parity than baseball.

At least, that's the assertion made by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim in their interesting new book, "Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won."

"Trying to predict who will win the next Super Bowl is a fool's errand, but trying to predict who will win the next World Series is far easier," the authors write. "Though you might not be right, you can limit your potential candidates to a handful of teams even before the season begins."

If we take an expansive yet expeditious gaze at history, then the generalization is a fair one. The Yankees, after all, have won 27 World Series titles since 1923 (an average of once every three years), while eight current teams have never won one.

Obviously, baseball's lack of a salary cap creates a clear dividing line between the haves and have-nots, in terms of player payroll, and that's where the authors' premise originates. It is also why many casual baseball fans (or people who simply don't support the sport at all) who I talk to tend to voice their opinion that the Yankees and Red Sox seem to be the only teams who have a realistic shot at a title on a consistent basis.

Certainly, those two teams tend to command more national TV face time than any others, which is probably why the casual fan tends to feel that way. (Of course, that 86-year title drought endured by the Red Sox before 2004 is conveniently forgotten in such discussions.)

But the parity premise is not only imprecise, it's incorrect. The Steelers, having participated in three of the past six Super Bowls, help prove as much.

Looking back at the past 10 years of Super Bowls and World Series, both the NFL and MLB have seen the exact same number of teams -- 14 -- compete for the ultimate prize. The Patriots (four appearances) and Steelers (three) have set the standard in the NFL, and the Colts have appeared twice. Meanwhile, the Yankees (three), Giants (two), Phillies (two), Red Sox (two) and Cardinals (two) are all repeat attendees in MLB.

(The NBA, for the record, is barely worth mentioning in any discussion of parity. Over the past three decades, only eight different teams have won an NBA title. Compare that with MLB, where eight different teams have won the title in the past nine years.)

Continuing with the championship discussion, consider this: The Super Bowl has been held since 1967 and has had 18 different winners. Pretty panoptic, right?

Well, no fewer than 20 teams have won a World Series title in that same time period (and there wasn't a World Series held in 1994).

Of course, it's not all about championships. Part of the thrill of being a sports fan is merely rooting for a team that you know has a shot at the playoffs. Once you get in, anything can happen.

On that front, there seems to be a popular misconception that the NFL clearly has more competitive balance than MLB. It's just not so. At least, not recently.

Since 1995, MLB's first year utilizing the Wild Card, 27 of the 30 teams (the D-backs and Rays joined in '98 and have both since reached the World Series) have made it to October. In the NFL, in that same time frame, only one team -- the Houston Texans, who formed in 2002 -- has failed to reach the playoffs.

That's a pretty small gap, all things considered, and we must certainly consider that the NFL allows 12 teams to advance to the playoffs vs. MLB's eight (for now).


In the past five years, that gap has been erased. The NFL has seen 24 of its 32 teams reach the playoffs since 2006, or 75 percent. In that same timeframe, MLB has seen 22 of its 30 teams make it to October, or 73.3 percent. As Jayson Stark of ESPN.com recently noted, only 15 of baseball's 40 playoff teams (or 37.5 percent) in that five-year span had reached the playoffs the year before. Compare that with the NFL, which saw 29 of its 60 playoff teams (or 48.3 percent) repeat.

Over the last 15 years, 120 postseason slots have been available in baseball, and 61 teams (50.8 percent) have made a back-to-back appearance in the postseason. The NFL's percentage of repeat postseason entries in that same timeframe is nearly identical. Of the 180 available playoff spots, 90 (50 percent) have gone to teams that returned to the playoffs in consecutive years.

As baseball has gotten younger in recent years, its competitive balance has improved. Eleven of the last 12 World Series clubs have gone to different clubs, and only two of the top nine clubs in terms of Opening Day payroll in 2010 reached the postseason last year. Three teams from the bottom 12 in player payroll (the Reds, Rays and Rangers) advanced to October.

Baseball, by its nature, isn't a sport that lends itself to parity. I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but teams play 162 games, not 16. That's a heck of a lot of time to separate the best from the rest. Any team can beat any other team on any given day (as is the case in the NFL, where teams have a week to prepare for each other), but the sheer length of the schedule rewards those who can beat other teams with the most consistency.

The MLB postseason also inherently rewards the fittest, not the flukes. A best-of-five opening round creates a little more uncertainty than the best-of-seven format in the League Championship Series and World Series, but it still provides a more suitable setting for the deepest and most talented team to shine than a single-elimination setup.

When you consider those built-in factors, what's transpired, in terms of the number of different teams contending for and, ultimately, hoisting the World Series trophy, defies popular wisdom. Yes, baseball's structure allows for some major economic disparity (the Royals' Opening Day 2011 payroll, as an example, projects to be just $2 million more than Alex Rodriguez's season salary), but that hasn't translated into the kind of predictability of which the game is often accused.

Anthony Castrovince is a reporter for MLB.com. Read his columns and his blog, CastroTurf, and follow him on Twitter at @Castrovince. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

beliges
11-14-2011, 07:10 PM
The reason why there is not as much parity in the NBA as their is in the NFL or MLB is because ONE individual player has a much more dramatic impact on the outcome of a game in the NBA than any one individual has in the NFL or MLB. Baseball and football are more team games as compared to the NBA. In the NBA, having a player like Kobe or Lebron or Dwight Howard guarantees you success. In baseball or football you need more of a collective talent on your team to win. Not so much in teh NBA.

Bruno
11-14-2011, 07:13 PM
The reason why there is not as much parity in the NBA as their is in the NFL or MLB is because ONE individual player has a much more dramatic impact on the outcome of a game in the NBA than any one individual has in the NFL or MLB. Baseball and football are more team games as compared to the NBA. In the NBA, having a player like Kobe or Lebron or Dwight Howard guarantees you success. In baseball or football you need more of a collective talent on your team to win. Not so much in teh NBA.

Absolutely. Even in the NFL the QB still plays less than half the game. Star players have been dragging mediocre teams into the playoffs for decades in the NBA.

Korman12
11-14-2011, 07:26 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110203&content_id=16560964&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/12/once-again-baseball-has-greater-parity-than-the-nfl/

http://lockersmash.com/2011/09/mlb-best-parody-in-sports/

MLB makes better case for parity than NFL

If you want a sterling example of split-sporting personality, look no further than Pittsburgh's North Shore. Within walking distance of each other sit Heinz Field, home of the dynasty-building Steelers, and PNC Park, home of the perpetually rebuilding Pirates.

The Steelers, as you might have heard, are hoping to climb the "Stairway to Seven" ("One for the Forefinger on the Second Hand" wasn't quite as catchy) when they face the Packers in Super Bowl XLV on Sunday.

The Pirates, meanwhile, enter 2011 merely hoping to avoid their 19th consecutive losing season

To some, the clear disparity in social standing for this Pittsburgh pair illustrates a larger truth -- that market size matters not in the NFL and is dictatorial in Major League Baseball. And from that supposed truth arrives the premise that the NFL possesses more parity than baseball.

At least, that's the assertion made by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim in their interesting new book, "Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won."

"Trying to predict who will win the next Super Bowl is a fool's errand, but trying to predict who will win the next World Series is far easier," the authors write. "Though you might not be right, you can limit your potential candidates to a handful of teams even before the season begins."

If we take an expansive yet expeditious gaze at history, then the generalization is a fair one. The Yankees, after all, have won 27 World Series titles since 1923 (an average of once every three years), while eight current teams have never won one.

Obviously, baseball's lack of a salary cap creates a clear dividing line between the haves and have-nots, in terms of player payroll, and that's where the authors' premise originates. It is also why many casual baseball fans (or people who simply don't support the sport at all) who I talk to tend to voice their opinion that the Yankees and Red Sox seem to be the only teams who have a realistic shot at a title on a consistent basis.

Certainly, those two teams tend to command more national TV face time than any others, which is probably why the casual fan tends to feel that way. (Of course, that 86-year title drought endured by the Red Sox before 2004 is conveniently forgotten in such discussions.)

But the parity premise is not only imprecise, it's incorrect. The Steelers, having participated in three of the past six Super Bowls, help prove as much.

Looking back at the past 10 years of Super Bowls and World Series, both the NFL and MLB have seen the exact same number of teams -- 14 -- compete for the ultimate prize. The Patriots (four appearances) and Steelers (three) have set the standard in the NFL, and the Colts have appeared twice. Meanwhile, the Yankees (three), Giants (two), Phillies (two), Red Sox (two) and Cardinals (two) are all repeat attendees in MLB.

(The NBA, for the record, is barely worth mentioning in any discussion of parity. Over the past three decades, only eight different teams have won an NBA title. Compare that with MLB, where eight different teams have won the title in the past nine years.)

Continuing with the championship discussion, consider this: The Super Bowl has been held since 1967 and has had 18 different winners. Pretty panoptic, right?

Well, no fewer than 20 teams have won a World Series title in that same time period (and there wasn't a World Series held in 1994).

Of course, it's not all about championships. Part of the thrill of being a sports fan is merely rooting for a team that you know has a shot at the playoffs. Once you get in, anything can happen.

On that front, there seems to be a popular misconception that the NFL clearly has more competitive balance than MLB. It's just not so. At least, not recently.

Since 1995, MLB's first year utilizing the Wild Card, 27 of the 30 teams (the D-backs and Rays joined in '98 and have both since reached the World Series) have made it to October. In the NFL, in that same time frame, only one team -- the Houston Texans, who formed in 2002 -- has failed to reach the playoffs.

That's a pretty small gap, all things considered, and we must certainly consider that the NFL allows 12 teams to advance to the playoffs vs. MLB's eight (for now).


In the past five years, that gap has been erased. The NFL has seen 24 of its 32 teams reach the playoffs since 2006, or 75 percent. In that same timeframe, MLB has seen 22 of its 30 teams make it to October, or 73.3 percent. As Jayson Stark of ESPN.com recently noted, only 15 of baseball's 40 playoff teams (or 37.5 percent) in that five-year span had reached the playoffs the year before. Compare that with the NFL, which saw 29 of its 60 playoff teams (or 48.3 percent) repeat.

Over the last 15 years, 120 postseason slots have been available in baseball, and 61 teams (50.8 percent) have made a back-to-back appearance in the postseason. The NFL's percentage of repeat postseason entries in that same timeframe is nearly identical. Of the 180 available playoff spots, 90 (50 percent) have gone to teams that returned to the playoffs in consecutive years.

As baseball has gotten younger in recent years, its competitive balance has improved. Eleven of the last 12 World Series clubs have gone to different clubs, and only two of the top nine clubs in terms of Opening Day payroll in 2010 reached the postseason last year. Three teams from the bottom 12 in player payroll (the Reds, Rays and Rangers) advanced to October.

Baseball, by its nature, isn't a sport that lends itself to parity. I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but teams play 162 games, not 16. That's a heck of a lot of time to separate the best from the rest. Any team can beat any other team on any given day (as is the case in the NFL, where teams have a week to prepare for each other), but the sheer length of the schedule rewards those who can beat other teams with the most consistency.

The MLB postseason also inherently rewards the fittest, not the flukes. A best-of-five opening round creates a little more uncertainty than the best-of-seven format in the League Championship Series and World Series, but it still provides a more suitable setting for the deepest and most talented team to shine than a single-elimination setup.

When you consider those built-in factors, what's transpired, in terms of the number of different teams contending for and, ultimately, hoisting the World Series trophy, defies popular wisdom. Yes, baseball's structure allows for some major economic disparity (the Royals' Opening Day 2011 payroll, as an example, projects to be just $2 million more than Alex Rodriguez's season salary), but that hasn't translated into the kind of predictability of which the game is often accused.

Anthony Castrovince is a reporter for MLB.com. Read his columns and his blog, CastroTurf, and follow him on Twitter at @Castrovince. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

It does make a case that the construction of the game does better to sort out the best from the rest, but when you look at the championship winners in both leagues since 2000, there's a clear difference.

MLB: New York, Arizona (Phoenix), Anaheim (Los Angeles area), San Francisco, Florida (Miami), Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, St. Louis. Only St. Louis ranks outside of the top 50 in terms of U.S. city population by Census Bureau statistics.

NFL: Baltimore, New England (Boston), Tampa Bay, New England (x2), Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, New York, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Green Bay. Only New England, New York, and Indianapolis rank in the top 50.

I am putting area size and spending into account here, plus the previously mentioned playoff disparities. The spending is the main catalyst here when a team like Green Bay that has a population of less than 105K is the best team in the league and defending champions.

There's more to it than I'm alluding to, but there's also more than Castrovince is.

ClippersE.G
11-14-2011, 07:44 PM
no and I just finished reading that by dibanding the union owners can now legaly void their contracts, Kinds of crazy I wonder if any owner will try to do this....

The Stars with all kinda of millions already will not care...it is the guys that are barely in the league that will probably be affected....I mean what will Birdman Anderson do without the NBA?

topdog
11-14-2011, 08:02 PM
It's ridiculous how much East and West Coast fans want to hate on everybody else. Pretty much all those team's owners have spent in the past to be winners. The Pacers were one of the best teams in the East until the players started a brawl. The Wolves had the best record in the West but got caught between Latrell "having a family to feed" and trying to keep KG happy by signing whoever he wanted. The Hawks opened their pocketbook to keep JJ and try to stay in the East's top 4. Milwaulkee has tried to piece itself back together after "20 Million Dollar Man" Michael Redd went down and left his massive contract lurking on the books. And Denver was a continual threat to the West's elite even after Melo gave the franchise a kick in the nuts as he cried his way out of town. Then, there's Portland who like Milwaulkee gets to deal with a max contract on the books and a crippled man on the court.

Common theme: not cheap owners, but rather player's behemoth contracts dragging teams down to the point where they have to wait out contracts and start over. These teams don't have an extra $40M to pay for a replacement star and his tax bill nor the market to attract him.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 08:03 PM
The Stars with all kinda of millions already will not care...it is the guys that are barely in the league that will probably be affected....I mean what will Birdman Anderson do without the NBA?

Play overseas or the dleague where he made his name before the NBA and after being banned from it for a short time

Sactown
11-14-2011, 08:10 PM
I think the clear cut solution is to make the league more profitable, 72% failure rate is unacceptable, the next step is to regulate spending with a harsher flex cap, and I don't think there should be restriction on FA movement, but I agree MLE and Sign and Trades should be aloud for teams 5 or more million over the cap.. seems pretty reasonable
Also I think the amnesty clause shouldn't be one and done, it should be permanent, but you're only aloud to have one player under amnesty at once much like the stretch clause

DaBUU
11-14-2011, 08:12 PM
Portland is the team that really chaps my hide. No one told them to draft Oden, with his injuries, over KD. And everyone knew about Roy's knees coming out of college. Now Paul Allen is a hardliner so the players can pay for his stupid mistakes.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 08:12 PM
It's ridiculous how much East and West Coast fans want to hate on everybody else. Pretty much all those team's owners have spent in the past to be winners. The Pacers were one of the best teams in the East until the players started a brawl. The Wolves had the best record in the West but got caught between Latrell "having a family to feed" and trying to keep KG happy by signing whoever he wanted. The Hawks opened their pocketbook to keep JJ and try to stay in the East's top 4. Milwaulkee has tried to piece itself back together after "20 Million Dollar Man" Michael Redd went down and left his massive contract lurking on the books. And Denver was a continual threat to the West's elite even after Melo gave the franchise a kick in the nuts as he cried his way out of town. Then, there's Portland who like Milwaulkee gets to deal with a max contract on the books and a crippled man on the court.

Common theme: not cheap owners, but rather player's behemoth contracts dragging teams down to the point where they have to wait out contracts and start over. These teams don't have an extra $40M to pay for a replacement star and his tax bill nor the market to attract him.
You forget the Wolves agreed to trade KG for trash right? No one made them take Telfair, Gomes, Green, and the biggest empty stat big there was in Jefferson. They chose that over other options, one being a deal around damn near every big LA had not named Mihm.

You get that the Pacers sold their talent not for talent but for the clean white image so their fans wouldn't see them as having thugs right?

Atlanta gave a max deal to a non max player who can't make them the money back at the gate and on the court. They are learning the same lesson Memphis learned with Pau and are feeling with Gay.

Denver ran Carmelo out of town. Hey cut costs and rested on the Billups deal. The players wanted out of there as well as JR, Kenyon, and Nene have shown. Their management sucks with how they deal with them.

Portland has no one to blame but themselves. It stopped being poor them after Walton, Pippen, Sheed, Van Exel, Stoudemire, Miles and Wells all complained about their medical staff. They are the ones who haven't upgraded that department after hurting so many careers. That is called not protecting your investment, as they could have told Roy to sit his *** down instead of coming back for that meaningless series

As for Milwaukee, Redd hurts them but they could have used the asset. They also weren't forced to give Gooden the money he got or Slamons. They outbid themselves for two journeyman who can t stick with a team. That is bad business.

And you can't deny that MJ is just cheap, wasted picks, gave away players, let them walk, and hasn't tired to win year in and year out

bmd1101
11-14-2011, 08:15 PM
This is on the players now. Now they will recieve a deal that's worse then the one presented now.

In the short term perhaps, in the long term no. They will receive a deal better than the previous.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 08:25 PM
In the short term perhaps, in the long term no. They will receive a deal better than the previous.

Like Stephen A Smith said, the league had been telling networks they will be ready for December 15th for the season. They have a lot of pressure to get it together from those outside sources, especially Disney for Christmas.

KnicksorBust
11-14-2011, 08:32 PM
Usually when both sides are pissed that means it's a fair deal. I suppose this is the exception.

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 08:40 PM
stern shuold ahve threaten to contract the whole ten and make a redraft of its players ( who go figure woudl have created some Parity and benefits for the remaining 20)

This 100%.

Get rid of all them cheap bastards. The talent pool is way too thinned out anyways.

& yes parity would come back to the league.

topdog
11-14-2011, 08:42 PM
Yumgethtts the Wolves agreed to trade KG for trash right? No one made them take Telfair, Gomes, Green, and the biggest empty stat big there was in Jefferson. They chose that over other options, one being a deal around damn near every big LA had not named Mihm.

You get that the Pacers sold their talent not for talent but for the clean white image so their fans wouldn't see them as having thugs right?

Atlanta gave a max deal to a non max player who can't make them the money back at the gate and on the court. They are learning the same lesson Memphis learned with Pau and are feeling with Gay.

Denver ran Carmelo out of town. Hey cut costs and rested on the Billups deal. The players wanted out of there as well as JR, Kenyon, and Nene have shown. Their management sucks with how they deal with them.

Portland has no one to blame but themselves. It stopped being poor them after Walton, Pippen, Sheed, Van Exel, Stoudemire, Miles and Wells all complained about their medical staff. They are the ones who haven't upgraded that department after hurting so many careers.

As for Milwaukee, Redd hurts them but they could have used the asset. They also weren't forced to give Gooden the money he got or Slamons. They outbid themselves for two journeyman who can t stick with a team. That is bad business.

I don't see you really making an argument against what I am saying. KG's contract was an albatross and the Wolves had no choice with the guys they put around him (specifically for him) other than to clear out the contracts and start with young talent. Lamar Odom is who I recall being offered, but just the same let's say Bynum was offered as a hypothetical. He's been hurt for most of the time since then, so the logic of the antagonists in this thread would be that the Wolves should have known Bynum would be injured and it was mismanagement that chose him over Al Jefferson, or Amare or some other rumored deal.

Why did Indiana have to re-tool their image? Because their players, while talented, were just a bunch of thugs. They made some bad draft/trade choices but they did it for the fans.

Same with Atlanta overpaying for JJ and Memphis with Gay. Someone was going to offer them that money. If Atlanta/Memphis didn't retain them, the fans would have called the owners cheap and potentially would attend fewer games, ect.

I don't get how Carmelo was "run out of town." Denver already had an above average cast of bigs and tried through several trades to get the right PG to help Melo get over the hump. Then, they offered him a nice big extension. Boy he must have felt like Frankenstein's Monster! "Enough with the torches!":rolleyes:

I don't get what kind of asset an injured player with a giant contract is. Admittedly, some of the signings following where not good decisions, but 1. Salmons again was one of those guys who would get your fanbase crying "cheap" if you didn't re-sign him and 2. all these decisions are being put under a microscope because these teams can't simply trade their problems away for more salary or dole out another $25M each year on a mid-level player to make us forget about it.

For instance, LA traded Shaq for Caron Butler, Brian Grant and Lamar Odom. Terrible deal. Grant is just wasted money. Caron gets traded for friggin' Kwame Brown and Odom only becomes an x-factor once the team spends a crapload on better players. But guess what? LA has the money to take on Gasol. It has the money to go out and sign Artest and Blake and Barnes and keep throwing money out there until someone sticks and we forget all the terrible contracts they've gven out and the bad trades they make.

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 08:45 PM
Stern was also sent a letter 2 years ago stating that this would happen from many of these same teams. He didn't do **** about it then, so now the league is being forced to do something.

I get that many large market fans, and fans of teams that make money despite ALSO having idiotic front offices looks at these teams as the Big Bad small market owners, but the fact is, the NBA could not continue as it was. I would be interested to read the exact way they were going to do revenue sharing, but in reality, 7 of those 10 teams have fielded extremely successful teams in the past decade, so this isn't all about wanting just money.

Get rid of them. Those 10 teams players would solidify the remaining teams, & most of these problems would disappear.

Mudvayne91
11-14-2011, 08:52 PM
Never ceases to amaze me how foolish some of you are.

topdog
11-14-2011, 08:57 PM
Get rid of them. Those 10 teams players would solidify the remaining teams, & most of these problems would disappear.

The idea is to grow the league, not destroy it. Ratings are up because you have more people engaged in the sport. Those people get engaged by having a local/semi-local team to follow and then it expands to seeing who will be champion.

The league would peak rather quickly if it's limited to California and the New England area. Everyone else will be watching football or hockey because they actually have a stake in it. That's just bad business.

bmd1101
11-14-2011, 09:01 PM
not every team can suck the floor up and churn out a profit likes the Knicks for example. Sorry these teams had to inconvienence so many of you, but the NBA needed to change big time. The players have gotten everything they asked for in the past 2 negotiations. Stern, and the other NBA owners knew this was coming, and decided to turn the cheek until it was too late.

Funny thing is, its a matter of timing. Over half the teams on the list would have been totally in favor of the old deal if this were 5-10 years ago.

Can you share a link breaking down these teams losses?

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 09:04 PM
These owners should sell their franchises to someone who can afford them, & actually know how to run one. :horse:
because you don't buy a franchise to make money, you buy it cause you love the game you cheap bastards.

daleja424
11-14-2011, 09:05 PM
those 10 teams should join then 200 pro decert players and just go away.

20 teams and 250 players should go play some basketball.

kblo247
11-14-2011, 09:10 PM
I don't see you really making an argument against what I am saying. KG's contract was an albatross and the Wolves had no choice with the guys they put around him (specifically for him) other than to clear out the contracts and start with young talent. Lamar Odom is who I recall being offered, but just the same let's say Bynum was offered as a hypothetical. He's been hurt for most of the time since then, so the logic of the antagonists in this thread would be that the Wolves should have known Bynum would be injured and it was mismanagement that chose him over Al Jefferson, or Amare or some other rumored deal.

Why did Indiana have to re-tool their image? Because their players, while talented, were just a bunch of thugs. They made some bad draft/trade choices but they did it for the fans.

Same with Atlanta overpaying for JJ and Memphis with Gay. Someone was going to offer them that money. If Atlanta/Memphis didn't retain them, the fans would have called the owners cheap and potentially would attend fewer games, ect.

I don't get how Carmelo was "run out of town." Denver already had an above average cast of bigs and tried through several trades to get the right PG to help Melo get over the hump. Then, they offered him a nice big extension. Boy he must have felt like Frankenstein's Monster! "Enough with the torches!":rolleyes:

I don't get what kind of asset an injured player with a giant contract is. Admittedly, some of the signings following where not good decisions, but 1. Salmons again was one of those guys who would get your fanbase crying "cheap" if you didn't re-sign him and 2. all these decisions are being put under a microscope because these teams can't simply trade their problems away for more salary or dole out another $25M each year on a mid-level player to make us forget about it.

For instance, LA traded Shaq for Caron Butler, Brian Grant and Lamar Odom. Terrible deal. Grant is just wasted money. Caron gets traded for friggin' Kwame Brown and Odom only becomes an x-factor once the team spends a crapload on better players. But guess what? LA has the money to take on Gasol. It has the money to go out and sign Artest and Blake and Barnes and keep throwing money out there until someone sticks and we forget all the terrible contracts they've gven out and the bad trades they make.

Some rumors had them getting Andrew, Kwame, and Lamar after Kobe blew his stack in the media.

They did it for the fans who won't pay to see Dunleavy or Murhpy on the court. They had one of the top 20 names there was int he league in ONeal. They had Jackson, Harrington, Tinsley, and Artest. They just sold them for trash and image over winning. That isn't excusable.

No one was going to offer Johnson max money lik that. Only Chicago could make an offer and they weren't close. They outbid themselves for a guy who can't draw and pulls playoff disappearing acts. Memphis gave Pau money that they couldn't afford. He too couldn't sell tickets, move merch, draw ratings, or get a playoff win. They had to deal him

Denver gave Camby away. That above average cast of bigs you speak of spent only one healthy season together. Going into last year they would be without Martin and Anderson because of surgery, and they couldn't bring in any big to help tide them over despite Melo trying to get Shaq and JO by both admission, instead they went and bought Harrington and Sheldon Williams. Martin and Smith had already declared hey were gone. The team promised to retain Kleiza but let him walk. They did a lot of things wrong. They admittedly didn't even have a plan b for if Karl went down again. The fans also were at the point they booed Melo fresh off his sister dying and him returning to dominate Durant.

Grant was just wasted money because Jim didn't want Eddie Jones back in town, nor was he high on Wade admittedly. And yeah I know he is an idjut. Butler got eat because Jimmy had the idea of Kwame, Odom, and Bynum starting together on the frontline and he thought Kwame had a good shot in his introduction conference. The fact is though they gave Kwame a workable deal with an option for a third year and flipped it to a team who foolishly maxed out the wrong guy instead of paying him his true market value. Every team in the league had the money to sign Artest, but few took the chance to even negotiate for a deal with multiple years outside of LA and Cleveland because he is crazy. Barnes got better offers from other teams and basically took less than BAE, the same experience teams have used countless times, money to come to LA. Blake, Barnes, and Artest took the place of home grown talent like Sasha, Farmar, Ariza, Turiaf, and so on. LA won the title and went to back to back finals with the youngest team in over a decade, relying on players like Walton, Turiaf, Sasha, Jordan (all late picks and developed by them) and Ariza/Brown (who had been passed around the league and were written off as trash)

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 09:11 PM
The idea is to grow the league, not destroy it. Ratings are up because you have more people engaged in the sport. Those people get engaged by having a local/semi-local team to follow and then it expands to seeing who will be champion.

The league would peak rather quickly if it's limited to California and the New England area. Everyone else will be watching football or hockey because they actually have a stake in it. That's just bad business.


Give them all low budget CBA affiliates where young NBA players can occasionally go to, as well as some allstar CBA ers would eventually move up to the (majors) NBA, & all these cities would have a connection with the team their favorite CBA star went to.;)


I am only doing this out of the bottom of my heart for those pore defenseless 10 owners, so they wont have to pay NBA prices, & instead be SAVED by the reduced cost of having a CBA franchise instead.
See its all for the children, & pease on earth. :hide:

kblo247
11-14-2011, 09:12 PM
those 10 teams should join then 200 pro decert players and just go away.

20 teams and 250 players should go play some basketball.

Like Stephen A Smith said from his sources, a good portion of the pro decert contingent are their players. They pissed them off, I would say purposely, to get the result of desertification and a lost season to reset their past mistakes.

Edit - yeah there are a bunch of prima donnas too but it makes it easier for them if they already have a pissed off contingent to manipulate and back them, especially the rank and file as they can say look we are representing your interests as well

Gators123
11-14-2011, 09:14 PM
I'm happy the Pistons new owner wasn't one of those 10.

mike_noodles
11-14-2011, 09:19 PM
Pro sports is ridiculous, it is the only place where less then 50% of the employees can demand more than 50% of the revenue (not the profits btw, the gross revenue) and we're supposed to believe this isn't on them? It's laughable, the NBA players are making me sick.

ink
11-14-2011, 09:24 PM
They don't want:

• To leave the luxury-tax penalty as it was in the previous collective bargaining agreement for the next two years before stiffer implementation kicks in during Year 3.

• The maximum length of guaranteed contracts to be shortened by just one year instead of three.

• Maximum contracts to stay the same.

• An additional midlevel exception of $2.5 million to be allowed for teams that spend up to the cap.

• Modifications in both sign-and-trade options, which the league originally wanted eliminated altogether, for teams which spent more than the luxury-tax trigger number.

Considering those are the weaknesses of the deal it's not surprising they refused. These points seem pretty straightforward. I'll use big letters:

THEY DON'T WANT THE OLD CBA.

topdog
11-14-2011, 09:33 PM
Give them all low budget CBA affiliates where young NBA players can occasionally go to, as well as some allstar CBA ers would eventually move up to the (majors) NBA, & all these cities would have a connection with the team their favorite CBA star went to.;)


I am only doing this out of the bottom of my heart for those pore defenseless 10 owners, so they wont have to pay NBA prices, & instead be SAVED by the reduced cost of having a CBA franchise instead.
See its all for the children, & piece on earth. :hide:

Not the same thing at all. I'd rather watch NCAA.

Kevj77
11-14-2011, 09:34 PM
It really is time to talk contraction even Stern admitted it could be a good idea in August, but said he wouldn't talk about it until there was a new CBA.


“[Contraction] is not a subject that we’re against,” Stern said. “In fact, when you talk about revenue sharing, a number of teams have said that if you have a team that is perpetually going to be a recipient, aren’t you better off with the ability to buy them in? Because between the revenue sharing and the split of international and the TV money, we could almost buy them in with their own money.

“The players actually have been heard to suggest that as well, which was interesting because that means they are suggesting that we eliminate 30 jobs, or the potential for 30 jobs. So we’ve said to the players, you know, ‘Give us the right to contract, let’s agree upon what the basis will be. Let’s make this deal and then let’s continue to look at that subject.’”Stern over expanded the NBA it is time to do the right thing admit the mistake and contract.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/15/stern-says-nba-will-talk-contraction-after-new-cba/

Sactown
11-14-2011, 09:40 PM
It really is time to talk contraction even Stern admitted it could be a good idea in August, but said he wouldn't talk about it until there was a new CBA.

Stern over expanded the NBA it is time to do the right thing admit the mistake and contract.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/15/stern-says-nba-will-talk-contraction-after-new-cba/

I don't quite understand how contraction will help the league? It would make the league more competitive for players which they don't want, and it would make owners lose teams which they don't want. The simple solution is just make the league more profitable... the league will make less money with contraction as well which doesn't make sense for the league as a whole


SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT PROBLEMS CONTRACTION RESOLVE?

topdog
11-14-2011, 09:41 PM
Some rumors had them getting Andrew, Kwame, and Lamar after Kobe blew his stack in the media.

They did it for the fans who won't pay to see Dunleavy or Murhpy on the court. They had one of the top 20 names there was int he league in ONeal. They had Jackson, Harrington, Tinsley, and Artest. They just sold them for trash and image over winning. That isn't excusable.

No one was going to offer Johnson max money lik that. Only Chicago could make an offer and they weren't close. They outbid themselves for a guy who can't draw and pulls playoff disappearing acts. Memphis gave Pau money that they couldn't afford. He too couldn't sell tickets, move merch, draw ratings, or get a playoff win. They had to deal him

Denver gave Camby away. That above average cast of bigs you speak of spent only one healthy season together. Going into last year they would be without Martin and Anderson because of surgery, and they couldn't bring in any big to help tide them over despite Melo trying to get Shaq and JO by both admission, instead they went and bought Harrington and Sheldon Williams. Martin and Smith had already declared hey were gone. The team promised to retain Kleiza but let him walk. They did a lot of things wrong. They admittedly didn't even have a plan b for if Karl went down again. The fans also were at the point they booed Melo fresh off his sister dying and him returning to dominate Durant.

Grant was just wasted money because Jim didn't want Eddie Jones back in town, nor was he high on Wade admittedly. And yeah I know he is an idjut. Butler got eat because Jimmy had the idea of Kwame, Odom, and Bynum starting together on the frontline and he thought Kwame had a good shot in his introduction conference. The fact is though they gave Kwame a workable deal with an option for a third year and flipped it to a team who foolishly maxed out the wrong guy instead of paying him his true market value. Every team in the league had the money to sign Artest, but few took the chance to even negotiate for a deal with multiple years outside of LA and Cleveland because he is crazy. Barnes got better offers from other teams and basically took less than BAE, the same experience teams have used countless times, money to come to LA. Blake, Barnes, and Artest took the place of home grown talent like Sasha, Farmar, Ariza, Turiaf, and so on. LA won the title and went to back to back finals with the youngest team in over a decade, relying on players like Walton, Turiaf, Sasha, Jordan (all late picks and developed by them) and Ariza/Brown (who had been passed around the league and were written off as trash)

With regards to Indiana: what is the purpose of an "image?" It's a relationship with the public i.e. potential fans. Especially in a market that doesn't generally buy into street culture.

All we heard about guys like Johnson and Gay was how they were going to get the max. Look at David Lee's deal. Another example teams overpaying to stay in the game. Because equal salary leads to "stars" going to markets with better promo deals.

The health of their players is not the Nugget's fault. They paid to play and their players' large guaranteed contracts hancuffed them so that they could spend big on replacements.

I could give you the same kind of long conversation about how any GM "thought" their deal was going to turn out. The fact is, lower budgets mean fewer chances to cancel out bad deals with good ones.

natedogg74
11-14-2011, 09:45 PM
its ridiculous seeing this crap does the nba and the players not see what happened to baseball when they went on strike a long period of time it took fans awhile to come back so if players and owners want to do this then fine suffer the consequences

Kevj77
11-14-2011, 09:51 PM
I don't quite understand how contraction will help the league? It would make the league more competitive for players which they don't want, and it would make owners lose teams which they don't want. The simple solution is just make the league more profitable... the league will make less money with contraction as well which doesn't make sense for the league as a whole


SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT PROBLEMS CONTRACTION RESOLVE?The players are spread to thin so it is impossible for all teams to compete. The good players on the contracted team will stay in the NBA and go to other teams making the NBA as a whole more competitive. It will be the 30 worst players in the NBA out of jobs. Stern in his own words said how it helps teams financially. If a team is constantly going to be a recipient of revenue sharing and TV money they are a drag on the other owners.

Heediot
11-14-2011, 10:00 PM
Screw this where is the vote by all players? I don't wanna hear the spin about player reps knowing more or what's best for their mates.

Heediot
11-14-2011, 10:07 PM
Tired of mis-informed fans who think the players are being greedy when they've taken paycuts and made every concession in the world to keep the season alive.

100k per player average is enough for them. 1 mill profit/revenue per franchise is enough for owners. 5 dollar seats for us fans, wooot!!

Captain Moroni
11-14-2011, 10:10 PM
Small market owners are just trying to survive. Cant blame them on bit.

AndyfromNeptune
11-14-2011, 10:11 PM
I feel like the players might regret not taking the deal.

Once they figure out that they are not being "abused"...they do have to go back to their employers right ??

Heediot
11-14-2011, 10:12 PM
When allstars like Rudy gay and Joe Johnson have bad contracts you know there is something wrong with the system, just sayin'...

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 10:15 PM
Pro sports is ridiculous, it is the only place where less then 50% of the employees can demand more than 50% of the revenue (not the profits btw, the gross revenue) and we're supposed to believe this isn't on them? It's laughable, the NBA players are making me sick.


1 NBA player impacts his team more then any 1 Football, Baseball, Hockey, or Soccer player ever will.

Reason for this is cause NBA team only allow 5 players to play at any given time, unlike all the rest.

Heediot
11-14-2011, 10:18 PM
When allstars like Rudy gay and Joe Johnson have bad contracts you know there is something wrong with the system, just sayin'...

wait a min... lets be bad gm's and let these guys sign with ny, chi, mia... yay!!

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 10:22 PM
Not the same thing at all. I'd rather watch NCAA.


You never know.

I laugh at the WNBA, but i actually found myself watching the MIA Sol while they were here. OK think of it like an arranged wedding, at 1st you dont know each other, but eventually fall head over heals for another. :love:

milominderbinde
11-14-2011, 10:29 PM
If the NBA were a real business most of the teams on this list would not exist. Real businesses close unprofitable locations.

The owners completely botched this. You don't get huge egos like the players to agree by treating them like children and saying take what we offer or you will go to bed without dinner. With the owners approach this was inevitable.

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 10:32 PM
Small market owners are just trying to survive. Cant blame them on bit.

Then sell your team & make a killing like the PHI ownership did, & ATL was going to.

Lord Leoshes
11-14-2011, 10:36 PM
When allstars like Rudy gay and Joe Johnson have bad contracts you know there is something wrong with the system, just sayin'...

I just want to know, in your opinion do you think the owners were forced to give these players that contract? What, the night before they found a dead horses head in their beds?

ink
11-14-2011, 10:42 PM
Then sell your team & make a killing like the PHI ownership did, & ATL was going to.

To who?

ink
11-14-2011, 10:43 PM
I just want to know, in your opinion do you think the owners were forced to give these players that contract?

Do you understand what agents do?

SPEARS
11-14-2011, 11:10 PM
Do u think walmart would ever let the people who work for them have 57% of there profit? ??? Me either. This is stupid everything a player gets is 100% profit .... How many companies employees tell them how much money they have to make or there not working ??? O ya gm and ford did now all there jobs are in mexico or china...

kblo247
11-14-2011, 11:14 PM
Do you understand what agents do?

Do you understand a good executive is supposed to bargain them down, have backup plans, and know how to say no?

The lack of accountability on your part is astounding

kblo247
11-14-2011, 11:16 PM
To who?

There are plenty of former players who would buy a team if given a chance. Magic, Webber, and Barkely come to mind by their own admission as they have saved and are waiting for a chance to get a real stake in one

ink
11-14-2011, 11:20 PM
Do you understand a good executive is supposed to bargain them down, have backup plans, and know how to say no?

The lack of accountability on your part is astounding

:laugh2:

On my part? I'm not a player or a GM. lol.

Look, no one is saying that GMs are perfect, far from it. But saying it's their incompetence alone is just naive. Frankly it's just childish blaming.

Agents are there to drive up their client's price whether he is worth it or not. Since impact talent of any kind is hard to come by, GMs are constantly taking expensive risks, hoping they have signed a difference maker who will be good throughout the term of his contract.

All this CBA is doing is preventing those economic risks from being too high, or too agent-driven. The risks will still be taken because GMs gamble just like PGs on a fast break. The good ones will connect, the bad ones will continue to be weak. But the POINT is that the cost will be lower.

ink
11-14-2011, 11:22 PM
There are plenty of former players who would buy a team if given a chance. Magic, Webber, and Barkely come to mind by their own admission as they have saved and are waiting for a chance to get a real stake in one

They should make an offer and try their hand at it. No one is stopping them.

Hawkeye15
11-15-2011, 12:16 AM
contraction is the solution but it wont happen. it still means loss in money and revenue. this is ugly. the players are being raped now and the owners thought this was a gift.

I would gladly bend over and get raped if I was getting paid $3 million to be the 9th man on a basketball team.

Hawkeye15
11-15-2011, 12:19 AM
Interesting. Even this labor deal has turned small market fans against large market fans.

Hawkeye15
11-15-2011, 12:20 AM
Can you share a link breaking down these teams losses?

Its beyond easy to google it man.

Lord Leoshes
11-15-2011, 12:31 AM
To who?


Easy response considering i have no actual connection with the NBA so i don't have the info they have on that.:rolleyes:

In other words, there are several billionaires that would love to buy an NBA franchise.

Its Stern picking, & choosing of who he wishes to join his special little club. :eyebrow: Him, & the other guy are like an old spanky, & a Bald Alfalfa.

Lord Leoshes
11-15-2011, 12:33 AM
Do you understand what agents do?


What kind of a question is that? Do you know what the sky is? :confused:

Theyhateme459
11-15-2011, 12:34 AM
Do u think walmart would ever let the people who work for them have 57% of there profit? ??? Me either. This is stupid everything a player gets is 100% profit .... How many companies employees tell them how much money they have to make or there not working ??? O ya gm and ford did now all there jobs are in mexico or china...

The argument you guys keep making is flawed. The fact is wal-mart can fire said worker or easily replace them with an average joe of the street and not miss a beat or have their bottom line effected one bit.

The NBA can not replace their star player with any average joe of the street and expect their bottom line to come close to remaining the same. Thats the difference, these players drive profits with their unique talents that are not easily replaced. I mean we don't even have enough star calibre players to have a good product on all 30 teams.

Lord Leoshes
11-15-2011, 12:38 AM
Do u think walmart would ever let the people who work for them have 57% of there profit? ??? Me either. This is stupid everything a player gets is 100% profit .... How many companies employees tell them how much money they have to make or there not working ??? O ya gm and ford did now all there jobs are in mexico or china...


How many people you know only go to walmart to see the employ do their jobs? :facepalm:

So how does your logic work for musicians, actors, & other entertainers?

LA_Raiders
11-15-2011, 12:49 AM
The players aren't all to blame. This is the same set of owners who put their own franchises in a bad situation because of their own CHOICES (aside from new Phili owners who just bought a down team). They are as much a roadblock as the players and probably have caused the rift to be greater than it was.

#NBANoBailoutsForIdiotExecs

lol, ok

quietstorm80
11-15-2011, 12:51 AM
Comparing the NBA to another business like Walmart is silly. The players are the PRODUCT being sold! I would bet that Walmart spends a big part of it's revenue on the products sold in its stores.

Plus, these are the best basketball players in not only the U.S. but in the China, Europe, Russia, South America, Africa etc.

I know I'm in the minority but they deserve every penny they are paid. Sometimes people act like these players are born being basketball players and don't take into account ALL the years of hard work that they put into becoming good enough to play in the NBA.

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-15-2011, 01:21 AM
The players did what the owners wanted, and dropped down several percentage points in BRI to accommodate the owners supposed losses. The owners went for the kill and tried to force players to stick with horrible owners, and basically enslave the players to one franchise for their whole career.

It's not about big market vs small market. Knicks, Nets, Clippers, 76'ers, and for most of the lifetime of the Bulls franchise, they have not won, nor been competitive. Even in their large markets. It's not about what resources you have at your disposal, it's how you use them. Ask the Spurs, San Antonio, and Miami about that. The owners what to be able to draft a great player, market him, and collect revenue off his name. Yet have no obligation to spend money to sign other talent around him, use money to pay advance scouts for collage players or overseas to be able to draft good talent from out of the country.

I did blame the players when I thought they hardline at 52% BRI. But since they dropped, this is all on the owners now. FML

ink
11-15-2011, 01:39 AM
Easy response considering i have no actual connection with the NBA so i don't have the info they have on that.:rolleyes:

In other words, there are several billionaires that would love to buy an NBA franchise.

Its Stern picking, & choosing of who he wishes to join his special little club.

Wow.

ink
11-15-2011, 01:45 AM
Comparing the NBA to another business like Walmart is silly. The players are the PRODUCT being sold!

Mythbusters needed. lol. At least you're not alone. There are a lot of fans who oversimplify this.

Um, no, the game and all the production from team jerseys to coaching to broadcasting are the product.

Otherwise you have Kobe on a tarmac in his sweats. You might like it but who's going to see that? 50 people max. Who's going to create a team for him? Or are you happy watching him shoot 3s? Where's his Lakers uniform? Who marketed him all these years? Who took him in as a teenager and got him through all the **** he got into? And don't think I'm singling out Kobe because the same thing applies to every single player that ever entered the league. They are NOT the product. They contribute to the product. Can we dispense with this cliche once and for all?

Heediot
11-15-2011, 05:41 AM
I just want to know, in your opinion do you think the owners were forced to give these players that contract? What, the night before they found a dead horses head in their beds?

Your damned if you do, damned if you don't. You will be called a bad gm if you let your star player walk. Fan attendance will decrease, revenue will decrease. Bad cycle. If you re-sign them you will be called a bad gm for over-paying. You tell me how come over half the contracts in the nba are bad contracts and the league overall is losing money? Hmmmm....

Sactown
11-15-2011, 04:23 PM
The players did what the owners wanted, and dropped down several percentage points in BRI to accommodate the owners supposed losses. The owners went for the kill and tried to force players to stick with horrible owners, and basically enslave the players to one franchise for their whole career.

It's not about big market vs small market. Knicks, Nets, Clippers, 76'ers, and for most of the lifetime of the Bulls franchise, they have not won, nor been competitive. Even in their large markets. It's not about what resources you have at your disposal, it's how you use them. Ask the Spurs, San Antonio, and Miami about that. The owners what to be able to draft a great player, market him, and collect revenue off his name. Yet have no obligation to spend money to sign other talent around him, use money to pay advance scouts for collage players or overseas to be able to draft good talent from out of the country.

I did blame the players when I thought they hardline at 52% BRI. But since they dropped, this is all on the owners now. FML


Where does it say this in the current CBA offer? I think I might have missed it if it's actually in there? I understand they were trying to make it harder for teams over the cap to acquire additional talent, but I don't see a slavery clause.. Also it's not about making the league more competitive come playoff time, as great GM'S will always make the best moves for a franchise.. they're trying to level the playing field during the off season, and are trying to make each team more profitable so they are able to spend. which will make teams more competitive

Lord Leoshes
11-15-2011, 05:47 PM
I don't quite understand how contraction will help the league? It would make the league more competitive for players which they don't want, and it would make owners lose teams which they don't want. The simple solution is just make the league more profitable... the league will make less money with contraction as well which doesn't make sense for the league as a whole


SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT PROBLEMS CONTRACTION RESOLVE?


How exactly do you propose that?

+ who really cares about the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, & 15th man you any team?

& if a franchise keeps losing money every year to the point where other teams have to share (THEIR) profits with them, then its best to cut & run. Eliminate the weak links, so that those rotten apple don't spoil the bunch, like what is happening now.

Lord Leoshes
11-15-2011, 05:54 PM
Your damned if you do, damned if you don't. You will be called a bad gm if you let your star player walk. Fan attendance will decrease, revenue will decrease. Bad cycle. If you re-sign them you will be called a bad gm for over-paying. You tell me how come over half the contracts in the nba are bad contracts and the league overall is losing money? Hmmmm....

Please explain how Pat Riley (a General Manager) was able to convince Wade, Bron, Bosh, Haslem, & Miller to sign, & with a discount?

Yes qualified personnel is needed in running any business. If you have a bunch of idiots running the show, you whined up with a LOCK OUT. :facepalm:

Kashmir13579
11-15-2011, 06:08 PM
not every team can suck the floor up and churn out a profit likes the Knicks for example. Sorry these teams had to inconvienence so many of you, but the NBA needed to change big time. The players have gotten everything they asked for in the past 2 negotiations. Stern, and the other NBA owners knew this was coming, and decided to turn the cheek until it was too late.

Funny thing is, its a matter of timing. Over half the teams on the list would have been totally in favor of the old deal if this were 5-10 years ago.

great post.

Corey
11-15-2011, 06:13 PM
stern shuold ahve threaten to contract the whole ten and make a redraft of its players ( who go figure woudl have created some Parity and benefits for the remaining 20)

....really?

Hawkeye15
11-15-2011, 06:19 PM
Comparing the NBA to another business like Walmart is silly. The players are the PRODUCT being sold!

And who pays for uniforms, transportation, facilities, stadium employees, front offices, marketing, tv deals, arenas, and everything that allows these players to be the product?

ChiSoxJuan
11-15-2011, 06:56 PM
Charlotte, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Memphis, Indiana, Portland, Minnesota, Sacramento, Denver and Milwaukee.

Atl, Phi, & Mem are big surprises. Two have new owners & Mem looks like an up & coming team. You would think they would be more middle of the road since they all figure to become LT's over the next CBA. Perhaps more surprising are the teams not on the list: GS, Det, Cle, Orl, DC, Utah, LAC. NO isn't on it because Stern represents that team.

It's that easy to name 18 teams that are either in trouble, resigned to competing for the last few playoff spots each yr, or will be in trouble when their 1 superstar departs. But hey, the league is just fine.