The 2016 Offseason thread

[ball4life]

I think the thread's been lost a bit with this capitalism discussion. The original point that was being made re: capitalism is that the owners all want to make money. Or that they don't. If anyone could provide an argument that any one owner is not interested in making money, I'd love to hear it.

For the most part I agree its a capitalistic structure within the NBA. But you still have owners like Mickael Prokhrav and Steve Bommer who are in it for the joy of winning and are willing to spend a fortune for the chance to win it. At least in my opinion, they are not in it for the money. Although part of the reason could be it's a safe game to play with money.

[Apollo]

Not an owner but the league as a whole. Why else would Silver comment about preventing Durant to GSW like signings?

What's the market? Label it. Give it a term. Let's look at that.

[ball4life]

Not an owner but the league as a whole. Why else would Silver comment about preventing Durant to GSW like signings?

That's like asking why is there a Securities Commission to monitor and prevent loopholes when it's a free economy.

[slaw]

For the most part I agree its a capitalistic structure within the NBA. But you still have owners like Mickael Prokhrav and Steve Bommer who are in it for the joy of winning and are willing to spend a fortune for the chance to win it. At least in my opinion, they are not in it for the money. Although part of the reason could be it's a safe game to play with money.

The Nets got a huge, enormous amount of taxpayer dollars to build everything around the Nets that Prokhorov will now sell for a huge profit. Ballmer spent a lot on the Clips, sure, but it isn't a charity.

[DanH]

For the most part I agree its a capitalistic structure within the NBA. But you still have owners like Mickael Prokhrav and Steve Bommer who are in it for the joy of winning and are willing to spend a fortune for the chance to win it. At least in my opinion, they are not in it for the money. Although part of the reason could be it's a safe game to play with money.

Easy for owners to say they don't care about the money until they lose money for a couple seasons. Then you get disinterested Prokhorov basically letting the Nets ride into the ground and cut costs. Nets were the only team to lose money in 2015 fiscal year (based on Forbes' basketball franchise reports) and they only lost 6M. Ballmer is playing with house money, the Clippers make a significant profit (20M operating profits, nevermind capital gain), not quite to the level of the Lakers but up there. Lakers and Knicks make over 100M annual profit.

Every other team in the league made at least a small profit, in terms of operating income.

[Axel]

What's the market? Label it. Give it a term. Let's look at that.

It's a professional sports league; they are unique markets in their own category. They have aspects of other types but ultimately they don't fit into traditional categories.

[slaw]

It's a professional sports league; they are unique markets in their own category. They have aspects of other types but ultimately they don't fit into traditional categories.

It operates in most respects like a cartel. All North American pro sports leagues do so.

[ball4life]

Easy for owners to say they don't care about the money until they lose money for a couple seasons. Then you get disinterested Prokhorov basically letting the Nets ride into the ground and cut costs. Nets were the only team to lose money in 2015 fiscal year (based on Forbes' basketball franchise reports) and they only lost 6M. Ballmer is playing with house money, the Clippers make a significant profit (20M operating profits, nevermind capital gain), not quite to the level of the Lakers but up there. Lakers and Knicks make over 100M annual profit.

Every other team in the league made at least a small profit, in terms of operating income.

See that's where my point differs. There's a difference between owners wanting to make money and not wanting to lose money. And people here are hugely discounting the liquidity risk owners are facing. In my opinion the private equity climate is a bubble ripped to burst. Not just sports franchises, but all kinds of debt restructuring private venture initiatives. All this paper value for franchises are meaningless numbers. Sure there is a Steve Bommer but how many of them are out there dying to get an NBA franchise for blank cheques? How much does a business that makes 20 million a year actually worth?? That's a 1 percent return on his initial investment. Could he have made more money from that 2 billion investment via other investments? Sure he could have.

[KeonClark]

See that's where my point differs. There's a difference between owners wanting to make money and not wanting to lose money. And people here are hugely discounting the liquidity risk owners are facing. In my opinion the private equity climate is a bubble ripped to burst. Not just sports franchises, but all kinds of debt restructuring private venture initiatives. All this paper value for franchises are meaningless numbers. Sure there is a Steve Bommer but how many of them are out there dying to get an NBA franchise for blank cheques? How much does a business that makes 20 million a year actually worth?? That's a 1 percent return on his initial investment. Could he have made more money from that 2 billion investment via other investments? Sure he could have.

Yeah, owning a pro sports franchise is just a cool toy for billionaires. Certainly they don't want to lose money, but most guys you see that are the sole owners are more in it for fun and bragging rights, their money is made from whatever endeavour got them billions in the first place

[Axel]

That's like asking why is there a Securities Commission to monitor and prevent loopholes when it's a free economy.

Not sure I see the relevance or connection. What loop hole was exploited when a player who had zero choice for 9 years, paid his dues, and finally earned the freedom to choose within the parameters of the market and chose less money? Only reason anyone blinks is because of the quality of player in question, proving that it's not about fixing a loophole as much about ensuring a balance product across the league.

[Axel]

The 2016 Offseason thread

Yeah, owning a pro sports franchise is just a cool toy for billionaires. Certainly they don't want to lose money, but most guys you see that are the sole owners are more in it for fun and bragging rights, their money is made from whatever endeavour got them billions in the first place

Legit or otherwise.

[rocwell]

[jimmie]

Not sure I see the relevance or connection. What loop hole was exploited when a player who had zero choice for 9 years, paid his dues, and finally earned the freedom to choose within the parameters of the market and chose less money? Only reason anyone blinks is because of the quality of player in question, proving that it's not about fixing a loophole as much about ensuring a balance product across the league.

The point is that there are rules for the employment of capitalism as a economic theory in whatever capitalist-based system you look at: securities has rules to make the capitalists working in the system 'play fair'. The NBA has rules to make the capitalists working in that system to 'play fair'. There's no difference.

[Axel]

The point is that there are rules for the employment of capitalism as a economic theory in whatever capitalist-based system you look at: securities has rules to make the capitalists working in the system 'play fair'. The NBA has rules to make the capitalists working in that system to 'play fair'. There's no difference.

But the rules aren't about "play fair" they are about balance and equal opportunities for teams. Simply, the league is looking at the product as a whole, all teams. The theory that teams operate in a capitalistic manner individually doesn't work within that. So yes, a big difference.

[slaw]

See that's where my point differs. There's a difference between owners wanting to make money and not wanting to lose money. And people here are hugely discounting the liquidity risk owners are facing. In my opinion the private equity climate is a bubble ripped to burst. Not just sports franchises, but all kinds of debt restructuring private venture initiatives. All this paper value for franchises are meaningless numbers. Sure there is a Steve Bommer but how many of them are out there dying to get an NBA franchise for blank cheques? How much does a business that makes 20 million a year actually worth?? That's a 1 percent return on his initial investment. Could he have made more money from that 2 billion investment via other investments? Sure he could have.

Oh, the sports bubble will burst. Mostly because, at some point, the TV money is going to stop increasing every few years.

And when it does, further to the point I've been trying and failing to articulate properly, you won't see CBA agreements with $100 million salary caps and journeymen getting 4 year, $80 million deals and players getting a guaranteed percentage of revenues and cap floors because there won't be the revenue to support those arrangements.