View Poll Results: Should the players accept the current proposal by owners by Wednesday?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 77.42%
  • No - not a good deal, keep negotiating

    3 9.68%
  • No - not a good deal, decertify

    4 12.90%
Page 54 of 98 FirstFirst ... 4 44 52 53 54 55 56 64 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,080 of 1944

Thread: The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

  1. #1061
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote heinz57 wrote: View Post
    wait, what!?!?!? i always assumed that game day revenue including the gate and tv deals were shared with the visiting team. isn't that just common sense?!
    I guess not.

    I look at it as every team has a TV contract and home gate - let them keep it.

    It is just like players with endorsement contracts - they don't share them with other players.

    In my opinion the profitable teams should have a percentage of their profits 'taxed' and put in to the revenue sharing pool. The percentage would be determined by the amount of revenue sharing needed. So the Lakers make $100M, they are taxed at 15% and throw in $15M. The Bulls make $50M, they throw in $7.5M. The Suns make $8M, they throw in $1.2M.

    Not sure if that is feasible or if it even makes sense.

  2. #1062
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Heinz, I don't know what the league shares but I know they certainly do not share T.V. deals. It would be a major boost to most teams but it would be a brutal hit to the Lakers. I think it needs to happen though. Without the rest of the league the Lakers would not have landed that deal. If not for the fact that they're lucky enough to operate in L.A. they would not have got that deal. Sure, they have very good management and a very good history. They're a very well run team but no way a team even with that track record wins a T.V. deal like that in Atlanta or Detroit. Not happening. No way, no how.

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    .
    I don't look at it entirely that way because I feel Denver was a much better team than the one Melo went to. So there's more to it than just winning. He does make a really good case on as to why the Owners need to win the system battle. It's basically what we've been talking about in here.

  3. #1063
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Heinz, I don't know what the league shares but I know they certainly do not share T.V. deals. It would be a major boost to most teams but it would be a brutal hit to the Lakers. I think it needs to happen though. Without the rest of the league the Lakers would not have landed that deal. If not for the fact that they're lucky enough to operate in L.A. they would not have got that deal. Sure, they have very good management and a very good history. They're a very well run team but no way a team even with that track record wins a T.V. deal like that in Atlanta or Detroit. Not happening. No way, no how.


    I don't look at it entirely that way because I feel Denver was a much better team than the one Melo went to. So there's more to it than just winning. He does make a really good case on as to why the Owners need to win the system battle. It's basically what we've been talking about in here.
    It is an interesting debate regarding revenue sharing. I am sure the owners meetings on this are just as 'lively' as the owner/player meetings on the CBA.

  4. #1064
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Yeah, I'm sure it's sort of like you have Buss, Dolan and Cuban in a corner arms crossed while everyone else is taking shots at them. I wonder who MLSE sends to those meetings?

  5. #1065
    Raptors Republic All-Star slaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    So true, so true. I made this point a few pages back.

    There is nothing in here that I disagree with and it is a huge factor in my support of the owner's position in this labour dispute.
    Nonsense article. Even his own examples of "loyalty" make no sense. He cites Bird (who played on a team with 3 HOFers, Magic (who played with Worthy, Kareem and other great players), and Jordan who played in the third larget media market in the US. These guys never left cause they all played in premiere markets on superteams. Why would they leave? Ewing was the toast of NYC. Malone chased a ring with, guess who, those dastardly Lakers. Of course, the author also conveniently ignores any current counter-example (e.g Nash, Duncan, Ginobili, Garnett, Nowitzki) cause they don't fit his narrative.

    Of course, it helps to discuss this rationally if you have a memory that goes past last summer. Unfortunately, the reality is that most of the people writing and talking about this can barely remember the 90s, let alone the 60s and 70s. Nothing has changed. There is no system you can create where you can coerce players into staying in bad markets. Just won't happen. If Stern and the owners actually believe this (and I don't think for one second they do) they are, collectively, dumber than a bag of hammers.

  6. #1066
    Raptors Republic Superstar heinz57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    in a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,798
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Heinz, I don't know what the league shares but I know they certainly do not share T.V. deals. It would be a major boost to most teams but it would be a brutal hit to the Lakers. I think it needs to happen though. Without the rest of the league the Lakers would not have landed that deal. If not for the fact that they're lucky enough to operate in L.A. they would not have got that deal. Sure, they have very good management and a very good history. They're a very well run team but no way a team even with that track record wins a T.V. deal like that in Atlanta or Detroit. Not happening. No way, no how.
    im not saying a 50/50 split on their TV deal.... but nobody is paying to watch the lakers stand on the court for a couple of hours with nobody to play against... i'd think a visiting team would get a percentage of any deal that broadcasts them playing. like royalties... "you made money off us coming to your building, so throw us a bone" kinda thing

    like, my company brings in temp workers all the time... they dont work for us, they work for an agency affiliated with us... we gotta pay them for coming into our building to work..

  7. #1067
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    Nonsense article. Even his own examples of "loyalty" make no sense. He cites Bird (who played on a team with 3 HOFers, Magic (who played with Worthy, Kareem and other great players), and Jordan who played in the third larget media market in the US. These guys never left cause they all played in premiere markets on superteams. Why would they leave? Ewing was the toast of NYC. Malone chased a ring with, guess who, those dastardly Lakers. Of course, the author also conveniently ignores any current counter-example (e.g Nash, Duncan, Ginobili, Garnett, Nowitzki) cause they don't fit his narrative.

    Of course, it helps to discuss this rationally if you have a memory that goes past last summer. Unfortunately, the reality is that most of the people writing and talking about this can barely remember the 90s, let alone the 60s and 70s. Nothing has changed. There is no system you can create where you can coerce players into staying in bad markets. Just won't happen. If Stern and the owners actually believe this (and I don't think for one second they do) they are, collectively, dumber than a bag of hammers.
    Bird, Magic, and Jordan were all drafted and management built winning teams around them.

    Ewing was the toast of NYC as LeBron was the toast of Cleveland and the majority of the league. A star the size of LeBron does not need NYC to get any bigger.

    Malone chased a ring in his final season - well past his prime.

    What of Nash, Duncan, Ginobili, Garnett, and Nowitzki? Nash has remained loyal to every franchise he has played for and left DAL to go back to PHX because Cuban wouldn't match the offer. Duncan and Gibobili were a part of a franchise that won with them as key parts. Garnett was traded when he and MIN felt it was time to part ways. Nowitzki won a championship after 13 years.

    The problem comes back to the system which is what the author addresses and how star players in their prime never would have teamed up with other stars in their prime 20 years ago.

    If people can't see the system is broken and needs to be fixed then they are, collectively, dumber than a bag of hammers.

  8. #1068
    Raptors Republic All-Star slaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The problem comes back to the system which is what the author addresses and how star players in their prime never would have teamed up with other stars in their prime 20 years ago.
    But this is just wrong. It's supposition not based on facts and contradicted by reality. Again, Barkley, Drexler, Kareem, Chamberlain, Shaq, Monroe, etc. It's just wrong to say that the current system is the cause of star players leaving bad markets to go to premiere ones. Look, you and the author are entitled to your opinion that the current system doesn't work but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The problem you complain of has existed for 40 years. And it will exist, in some form or another, for the next 40. In addition, the counter-examples I offered were meant to show that the narrative being built here (all star players have no loyalty and fleeing to 5 markets) is false. Again, your assertion (and the author's) simply isn't true.

    Now, is the issue of players scheming over a period of years to go to one team new? Maybe. But even if it is a new problem it isn't one caused by the system and if players are really doing this, with the help of a team, then a new system isn't going to stop it. They will simply find ways around it. Changing the system isn't going to solve a problem that has nothing to do with the system.

  9. #1069
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    But this is just wrong. It's supposition not based on facts and contradicted by reality. Again, Barkley, Drexler, Kareem, Chamberlain, Shaq, Monroe, etc. It's just wrong to say that the current system is the cause of star players leaving bad markets to go to premiere ones. Look, you and the author are entitled to your opinion that the current system doesn't work but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The problem you complain of has existed for 40 years. And it will exist, in some form or another, for the next 40. In addition, the counter-examples I offered were meant to show that the narrative being built here (all star players have no loyalty and fleeing to 5 markets) is false. Again, your assertion (and the author's) simply isn't true.

    Now, is the issue of players scheming over a period of years to go to one team new? Maybe. But even if it is a new problem it isn't one caused by the system and if players are really doing this, with the help of a team, then a new system isn't going to stop it. They will simply find ways around it. Changing the system isn't going to solve a problem that has nothing to do with the system.
    The only player that left in your examples and returned zero assets to their team is Shaq. There will be exceptions to every rule.

    Drexler was not in his prime - he was 31 and the team was bounced in the first round the year before. The team had reached a point where they had peaked and trading Drexler was the best way to try and improve. Notice the Blazers hardly missed a beat once he was traded in the years that followed.

    The current system allows players to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of fans, franchises, and the league. Players are able to get maximum money and chose their location. If players want to play elsewhere, they should have to make a choice - maximum money or market. Also they should not be able to walk away leaving a franchise with nothing.

    Having all-stars and franchise players leave is not the issue. Having all-star players leave their franchise with nothing is the issue as is multiple franchise players teaming up with one another via free agency.

    Seeking perfection is never going to happen - I'm not that naive. However changes to the current system are a must.

  10. #1070
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    But this is just wrong. It's supposition not based on facts and contradicted by reality. Again, Barkley, Drexler, Kareem, Chamberlain, Shaq, Monroe, etc. It's just wrong to say that the current system is the cause of star players leaving bad markets to go to premiere ones. Look, you and the author are entitled to your opinion that the current system doesn't work but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The problem you complain of has existed for 40 years. And it will exist, in some form or another, for the next 40. In addition, the counter-examples I offered were meant to show that the narrative being built here (all star players have no loyalty and fleeing to 5 markets) is false. Again, your assertion (and the author's) simply isn't true.

    Now, is the issue of players scheming over a period of years to go to one team new? Maybe. But even if it is a new problem it isn't one caused by the system and if players are really doing this, with the help of a team, then a new system isn't going to stop it. They will simply find ways around it. Changing the system isn't going to solve a problem that has nothing to do with the system.
    It's not wrong to say that the players are different in this age and so the old system can't handle the modern times. This problem may have existed in the past but now its an epidemic. The current players are also causing more damage than most other cases in history. Its a problem caused by the players and the current system helps facilitate it very nicely. The players have too much control, the owners feel this and they're going to take it away. They're willing to play the waiting game.

  11. #1071
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    But this is just wrong. It's supposition not based on facts and contradicted by reality. Again, Barkley, Drexler, Kareem, Chamberlain, Shaq, Monroe, etc. It's just wrong to say that the current system is the cause of star players leaving bad markets to go to premiere ones. Look, you and the author are entitled to your opinion that the current system doesn't work but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The problem you complain of has existed for 40 years. And it will exist, in some form or another, for the next 40. In addition, the counter-examples I offered were meant to show that the narrative being built here (all star players have no loyalty and fleeing to 5 markets) is false. Again, your assertion (and the author's) simply isn't true.

    Now, is the issue of players scheming over a period of years to go to one team new? Maybe. But even if it is a new problem it isn't one caused by the system and if players are really doing this, with the help of a team, then a new system isn't going to stop it. They will simply find ways around it. Changing the system isn't going to solve a problem that has nothing to do with the system.

    There were multiple iterations of the cba spanning the list of players you cited. I would offer that with each change the players enjoyed greater freedoms and more money. And I dont begrudge that. But the pendulum has swung as it invariably does and certain economic or systemic presumptions do not always work as expected. The system needs fixing and it seems to me that the players are not amenable to it. Will all teams be equally competitive. No. There arent even 10 top players currently playing of equal/near equal stature. And to continue to cling to a system that will see possibly 4-5 teams amassing those 10 players and having the rest of the league provide fodder in a season of 82 mediocre games mostly is asking for the league's demise either thru fan boredom/frustration or unsustainable financial loss for the franchises and ultimately the players.

    I have mentioned this before. What Riley and Arison did was incredibly shortsighted. They colluded with the troika (speaking of greed they weren't even happy with 2 of the best) and the current fight is because of it. To fix it doesnt happen again. 7 championships indeed.

  12. #1072
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Poor J.R.

    Hey Look, It's J.R. Smith In China!
    Seriously guys, if there's any justice in the world, sometime soon we'll reach the tipping point where NBA beat reporters all decide to stop covering the NBA lockout, move to China, and just give us daily transmissions from the life and times of J.R. Smith playing pro basketball in China. Like this, from Sheridan Hoops:

    He wanted to send a Twitter update, but encountered problems because Twitter is blocked in China. At last, he found a way to tweet through his Blackberry: "Dear China, the fact that u won’t let me work my Skype on my desktop or twitter is really pissing me off." Then another one: "Not even YouTube wow this is ass!"

    Also: "For his relocation, Smith brought about 20 pieces of luggage, and the club arranged a room especially for those bags." ... With any luck, this is just the beginning of a long and fruitful journey to self-discovery that the internet will let us share with Shimisi, himself.
    http://www.sbnation.com/nba

    A little bit of reality check for those not used to life as is possible in the NBA.

  13. #1073
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...e-balance-myth

    Good article for those looking to claim spending does not equate to winning.

    My problem with this article is the writer only looks at the numbers without putting them in context. For example:

    You notice that Stern did not sell the unfairness of payroll disparity by pitting the Orlando Magic against the Chicago Bulls. The Magic spent $110 million last season (the same as the Lakers) and the Bulls shelled out a lowly $55 million, or half as much as its Eastern conference foe. And the result? The poor Bulls won more games than any other team and reached the Eastern Conference Finals. The Magic? The nine-figure payroll bought them an embarrassing first-round exit.
    The Magic have averaged 54.5 wins in the last 4 seasons with payrolls in the luxury tax. Chicago has the MVP of the league on a rookie deal (and who gave Ben Wallace $60M over 4 seasons?). Chicago's payroll for next year is already at $61M for 11 players and does not include any exemptions for this year. Then add the same exemptions next year and Rose's max contract extension, and -BOOM- luxury tax payer.

    If spending power ruled all, how do we explain the Utah Jazz and their $80 million payroll winning 16 fewer games than the Oklahoma City Thunder, who spent just $58 million?
    Utah is a team 're-tooling' after 4 years of playoff runs which they needed to go in to the luxury tax to do with max and near max contracts to Williams, Boozer, and Kirilenko. OKC? See Chicago. They have all their star players on rookie contracts. Let's see what happens in 2-3 years in this system - they'll either lose talent to teams paying market value or they will be heavy tax payers.

    The Toronto Raptors boasted a higher payroll than the Miami Heat, so why did the Raps lose 60 games while the Heat came within two games of a title?
    True but Toronto took on Peja's contract and bought him out to get an unknown but promising talent in Bayless and to shed JJ's contract. It was a strategic move as part of the rebuild. Remove this trade and Toronto is at $58M. He also forgets the Heat will easily have a salary of over $100M in 2-3 seasons with raises and exemptions at work.

    Consider this: the previous five champions were smaller market teams (Spurs, Pistons and Heat)
    And Detroit ended up losing their core players because they didn't want to pay them market value. Miami had Shaq earning over $20M and an expensive supporting cast with Wade still on a rookie deal. San Antonio have lost money the last 2 years despite their success and have had to dip in to luxury tax territory to keep the team intact.

    The NBA is a complicated place, but when you cut through the rhetoric and look at the track record of the league, this much is clear: payroll doesn’t matter nearly as much it seems.
    The NBA is definitely a complicated place where one needs to look at the situations behind the payroll numbers with past history and future payroll additions to get a better understanding of the importance of money in winning.

    He makes some interesting points about the draft and it is tough to argue that the number one place to build a team is through it.

    In order to be competitive in the NBA, you don’t necessarily need to have a lot of money, but you absolutely need to be smart with your money.
    If you are a small market team, absolutely. Small market or teams without uber rich owners have to be smart. The Lakers, Magic, and Mavs have been able to give out very questionable contracts and still compete because they have exemptions to fix mistakes in following years.

    And the smart money tends to be in the draft. When Stern says the system is broken because of the disparity in payroll, feel free to listen to the Lakers-Kings comparison but also note that the Thunder has been able to fast track success in a supposedly broken system.
    Smart money is in the draft until they have to be paid max money along with a supporting cast.
    If you call 5 years between playoff appearances fast track - o.k. Also what happens when Ibaka and Harden have to be paid? Time will tell and it will be interesting to see.

    Stern strives for a hard cap (or a punitive luxury tax disguised as one) and claims his pursuit is for the good spirit of competitive balance, but a closer examination shows that payroll and winning are not directly correlated.
    On the surface, possibly.

    What we've learned is that spending is cyclical. The smart organizations, like all businesses, try not to spend until they need to. As an example, the Boston Celtics' payroll the year before they formed their Big Three? It ranked 19th in the NBA. The year before that it was 21st. They lost over 100 games over those two seasons.
    True. Unfortunately the decks is stacked against you in a small market once you are at the bottom. You need a combination of great management and luck to get out.

    The NBA might contend that the Celtics weren’t winning because they weren't spending. But we must be careful about confusing cause and effect here. It may also be the case that the Celtics weren’t spending because they weren’t winning. Why throw big money at free agents when it won't really move the needle for title contention? Perhaps it is better to keep costs low until you can swing a big trade or increase your chances to land a superstar in the draft (see: Thunder, Spurs, Bulls).
    And if that element of luck never comes along? Not every team will get an MVP going from 9-1 in the draft. Not every team will have a franchise centre go out for a year to be able to draft one of the best big men ever. Or what about the luck does come along and the player decides to bolt leaving the franchise with nothing?


    Reading this article I can't help but feel an elephant in the room which he is ignoring which is just as big an issue to the lockout: the concentration of superstars and all-stars in 4-5 markets in the old system.

  14. #1074
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This article would dispute the 'findings' of post 1073.

    If NBA owners have their way in their collective-bargaining fight with the players, the league landscape will change so that, in the future, so-called “superteams”—like the one LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh formed in Miami—probably won’t be possible. Tougher salary restrictions, coupled with limiting contracts to force players to stay with their original teams, would make the continuation of this trend difficult.

    “The competitive issues for us as owners are as big as the economic issues, particularly in the small markets,” Spurs owner Peter Holt, who chairs the league’s labor relations committee, said. “We have been going back and forth for two years and we’re still far apart. This is extremely important for all owners, and for players and in particularly our fans. We want to get to a point where all 30 teams have an opportunity to compete and make a few bucks.”

    The goal, commissioner David Stern has suggested, is to have star players populate rosters all over the league, with teams filling out the rest of the lineup with a secondary star and role players. That sort of set-up, the league feels, will keep teams from stockpiling too many good players, and ensure competitive balance.

    Scientifically speaking, they’re right. And while Stern’s aim has been to curb total spending, a study conducted by professors at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and Stanford business school shows that, in the NBA, one of the deciding factors in team success is not just total money spent, but “pay dispersion.” That is to say, the teams that win are the ones that have a top tier of pay going to a small number of players, who are surrounded by lower-paid role players. Players then establish an instinctual hierarchical structure based on how much they’re paid.

    “Teams need to have some mechanism to allow them to coordinate their actions effectively together and coordinate their behavior,” said Adam Galinsky, one of the authors of the study. “How much they’re paid helps establish that. What’s nice about our study, you can see that what hierarchy is doing is increasing performance because of cooperation and coordination. When you have teams with players getting paid much different salaries, it leads to more assists, better field-goal percentage, more rebounds—the very actions on a court that require coordination among players.”

    The study looked at NBA teams over an 11-year period, from 1997-2007. It examined pay dispersion, playing time dispersion and starting lineup dispersion, finding that teams with the widest gaps among player salaries, playing time and starting roles tended to form the most cooperative hierarchies. They were also the teams that won more. Galinsky holds up, as the sterling example, the Bulls of the Michael Jordan era, which saw important contributions from role players like Dennis Rodman, Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright and Horace Grant.

    “It is important on a team to recognize, ‘OK, Michael Jordan is more the man than I am,’” Galinsky said. “'And Scottie Pippen (is) right behind him.' Certainly, if you see what they’re paid and the minutes they play, you know that. So the other players have to say, ‘I need to do what I can to support them.’ One of the things about those Bulls teams is, a lot of those guys got nice contracts after they left the Bulls but did not contribute very effectively. Their talent existed in the fact that they learned how to cooperate and coordinate with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen.”

    One thing that led Galinsky and his group to study the NBA was a 12-year-old study showing that wide pay dispersion in baseball actually hurt team performance. But there is some logic to that—baseball is primarily an individual sport, where paying a large salary to a first baseman who comes to bat five times in a game can’t hide an less-talented second baseman with a small salary, who also comes to bat five times. In the NBA, the more you pay a star, the more shots you can set up for that player, affording a team the opportunity to sign a low-priced supporting role player.

    There are exceptions to the predominance of hierarchy over the years, most notably the Pistons of the mid-2000s, who thrived without established stars. But that team is notable because it was such an anomaly. What wins in the NBA is a hierarchy built around a well-paid star or two and a supporting cast with a wide range of salaries. If the owners in this lockout get what they want, there will be many more teams with that sort of structure—and better competitive balance might not be far behind.



    Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/stor...#ixzz1bvxmILbG

    This is essentially what the union is opposing. The NBAPA does not want role players and supporting players to be paid as such. They also are not interested in ensuring top talent is dispersed throughout the league.

  15. #1075
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Progess

    The NBA and NBPA met for over 15 hours on Wednesday with talks ending after 3:00 AM on Thursday morning.

    Talks will resume on Thursday at 2:00 PM EST.

    Billy Hunter said that the two sides focused on system issues and did not discuss a split of basketball-related income. Hunter also said that playing a full 82-game regular season schedule remains a possibility.

    Hunter said that depending on how talks go on Thursday, they may be able to elaborate on specifics after those meetings.

    "We can't say that major progress was made, but there was some progress on some system issues," said Derek Fisher.

    David Stern and Adam Silver sounded even more optimistic about a deal being close during their comments to the media.

    "There's no question today was a better day than last Thursday," said Silver. "There's no question we made progress on significant issues."

    Stern also talked about the hope that as many regular season games as possible could be salvaged if an agreement is reached quickly in the coming days.
    Source: RealGM.com

  16. #1076
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Scientifically speaking, they’re right. And while Stern’s aim has been to curb total spending, a study conducted by professors at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and Stanford business school shows that, in the NBA, one of the deciding factors in team success is not just total money spent, but “pay dispersion.” That is to say, the teams that win are the ones that have a top tier of pay going to a small number of players, who are surrounded by lower-paid role players. Players then establish an instinctual hierarchical structure based on how much they’re paid.

    “Teams need to have some mechanism to allow them to coordinate their actions effectively together and coordinate their behavior,” said Adam Galinsky, one of the authors of the study. “How much they’re paid helps establish that. What’s nice about our study, you can see that what hierarchy is doing is increasing performance because of cooperation and coordination. When you have teams with players getting paid much different salaries, it leads to more assists, better field-goal percentage, more rebounds—the very actions on a court that require coordination among players.”
    That is very interesting. I really do think that to a lot of people how much they make can have a big psychological affect. In the NBA though most guys who are making huge contracts were top tier players before getting the big contract. Most players not making huge money are either average or fairly new to the league. If you have two or three really big contracts on your team then chances are you have three of the bigger performers on your team. I think the guys with the big contracts have already established themselves before they got that contract but what do I know, I didn't do a study. I'm just going by casual observation.

  17. #1077
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Moving Target

    David Stern and Adam Silver addressed the media following a 15-hour bargaining session with the NBPA.

    "Until we have an overall deal, we don't have a deal about anything," said Stern.

    "I didn't quantify how much progress was made," said Stern.
    Source: RealGM.com

    I think what Stern is getting at here is until they come to an agreement the Owners conditions for a new agreement could continue to change as time moves ahead and more games are cancelled.

  18. #1078
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Trying not to get excited...

    BUT ITS NOT WORKING!

    http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

    It is the first time during the lockout that there has been all positive things reported by the media. Normally running down the hoops hype rumor mill is a roller coaster with "yes, deal" , "no deal" splitting the coverage 51.5/48.5( ya i went there)

    And with the added rumors of LBJ melo, CP# and Durant pulling out of this disaster of a "World Tour" it makes me wonder if the got a call from D-Fish, saying "Just hold on a minute dur young fellars"

    Im trying not to get my hopes up, but I cant really help it. Anybody else geared up for the let down?

  19. #1079
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote SitnonDfence wrote: View Post
    BUT ITS NOT WORKING!

    http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

    It is the first time during the lockout that there has been all positive things reported by the media. Normally running down the hoops hype rumor mill is a roller coaster with "yes, deal" , "no deal" splitting the coverage 51.5/48.5( ya i went there)

    And with the added rumors of LBJ melo, CP# and Durant pulling out of this disaster of a "World Tour" it makes me wonder if the got a call from D-Fish, saying "Just hold on a minute dur young fellars"

    Im trying not to get my hopes up, but I cant really help it. Anybody else geared up for the let down?

    I'll be more let down if there are not significant changes to the current system after all this hoopla than if a season is lost.

  20. #1080
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I agree. If the Owners are going to dig in like this and games are going to be cancelled then they better darn will deliver or I'll view this all as a complete failure on their part.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •