Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gilbert Arenas basically said fans of rebuilding teams don't have a chance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Gman wrote: View Post
    Out of the four metrics in Wiki land the only one where Houston was larger was the one you chose...I think that's cherry picking but okay.
    It's not 'cherry picking' at all. It's the ONE stat that takes into account the full estimate of people that would be within a certain distance of the city to contribute meaningfully, in an economical sense, to a given team. That's it. Check any debate over market size and it's not using the downtown core population. It's using the Metropolitan Area of a city.

    Comment


    • #32
      dballa21 wrote: View Post
      According to that same article, MLSE is worth 297 million. Which hat they pulled that number out of is beyond me, but it completely ruins the credibility of the article. MlSE is clearly worth north of 2 billion.
      Great point. Was wondering this myself.
      All I can think of is that this did come out in February, which is a while before the Net Worth of the company became a very public issue.

      Comment


      • #33
        When it comes to market size and using the GMA, one also needs to take into account competition from other sports.

        This is where NJ fails, and Toronto wins.


        In fact a lot of big markets in the US do not perform so well on the NBA level due to the competition for the entertainment dollar from other franchises. Some of the attendance figures in the NBA demonstrate this scenario very well in saturated markets.
        Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Sun Jul 3, 2011, 05:11 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          dballa21 wrote: View Post
          According to that same article, MLSE is worth 297 million. Which hat they pulled that number out of is beyond me, but it completely ruins the credibility of the article. MlSE is clearly worth north of 2 billion.
          They may well be referring to just the Raptors portion of MLSE. As far as 2 billion I should think not since there reportedly seem to be no takers at the 1.3 bill. asking price.

          Comment


          • #35
            MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
            When it comes to market size and using the GMA, one also needs to take into account competition from other sports.

            This is where NJ fails, and Toronto wins.


            In fact a lot of big markets in the US do not perform so well on the NBA level due to the competition for the entertainment dollar from other franchises. Some of the attendance figures in the NBA demonstrate this scenario very well in saturated markets.
            does Toronto have any less competition though? They have 3 of the 4 major professional sports teams, a CFL team, a MLS team and numerous minor hockey teams that the puckheads follow.

            NJ, as part of the NY metropolitan area, does have atleast 2 of each of the major sports teams, I imagine atleast one MLS team, and numerous college teams. But it also has atleast 4 times the population of the GTA. I'd bet the saturation of sports entertainment is roughly the same.

            Where i think a big difference is, and I imagine would have an effect on attendance, comes in the amount of wealth in the GTA as opposed to the NY Metro area (and more specifically an area like NJ). You take the top couple percentile out of most American cities, the $ per capita drops dramatically. Canada has a more even distribution of wealth.

            Comment


            • #36
              Bendit wrote: View Post
              They may well be referring to just the Raptors portion of MLSE. As far as 2 billion I should think not since there reportedly seem to be no takers at the 1.3 bill. asking price.
              Actually the 1.3 billion asking price was reported not factual. Also it was for the teachers 60% stake in MLSE, not the entire company.

              Comment


              • #37
                Wouldn't a hard cap even the field for all teams...even one in Canada? Players will have to go where the money is.

                Comment


                • #38
                  It's interesting how Arenas blames the owners for not being able to control themselves; however, he's forgetting one important legal hammer that the players have: COLLUSION. This actually prevents the owners from working as a group to control themselves as a collective. That's the flaw, IMO which I believe tilts the existing system towards the players. The owners must compete with each other at all times which drives salaries up, yet the players are allowed to work as a collective via a union. If a top free agent came on the market, and all the owners passed or low-balled, collusion is the first thing that the NBAPA would scream. That's happened in baseball on a number of occasions, with steep penalties for the owners imposed, so legal precedent has been set for all pro sports leagues.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    he mentions okc and says...the famous rebuilding. now this is a different sport but the rays do it every few years and still compete in 1 of the toughest divisions in sports.
                    durant is signed long term and if they can keep westbrook. perkins,westbrook,and durant there's youre core just plug the other positions with decent to underrated players who will always be available.
                    then again you could look at the flames who managed to keep their best player but got rid of their good players and now nobody will sign there even if its for the most money b. richards turned down their 10 mill. extra to join NY.
                    same with suns kept best traded good and now their rebuilding and prolly wont be good for 10 yrs.
                    If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

                    Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      golden wrote: View Post
                      It's interesting how Arenas blames the owners for not being able to control themselves; however, he's forgetting one important legal hammer that the players have: COLLUSION. This actually prevents the owners from working as a group to control themselves as a collective. That's the flaw, IMO which I believe tilts the existing system towards the players. The owners must compete with each other at all times which drives salaries up, yet the players are allowed to work as a collective via a union. If a top free agent came on the market, and all the owners passed or low-balled, collusion is the first thing that the NBAPA would scream. That's happened in baseball on a number of occasions, with steep penalties for the owners imposed, so legal precedent has been set for all pro sports leagues.

                      You might be right but take a few things into mind. Everyone knew what the guys in Miami were doing, including the commissioner, who represents the owners, yet they were allowed to pull it off. For the commissioner to now pull the collusion "card" he would partially implicate himself. Secondly, the reason why wages increased so much in the late '80's early 90's was because before then the owners were guilty of collusion. I'm sure the older owners don't want to be reminded of their own underhandedness. Thirdly, only 3 players could be proven to be colluding amongst themselves, as a opposed to twenty something owners in the 80's ...

                      Personally I think it's a non starter. The real issue here is profit sharing. As long as owners refuse to share their profits with smaller market teams, players will not give up a thing. Problem is the wealthy teams seem to be controlling the debate instead of the majority of the teams that are allegedly losing money.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        blackjitsu wrote: View Post
                        You might be right but take a few things into mind. Everyone knew what the guys in Miami were doing, including the commissioner, who represents the owners, yet they were allowed to pull it off. For the commissioner to now pull the collusion "card" he would partially implicate himself. Secondly, the reason why wages increased so much in the late '80's early 90's was because before then the owners were guilty of collusion. I'm sure the older owners don't want to be reminded of their own underhandedness. Thirdly, only 3 players could be proven to be colluding amongst themselves, as a opposed to twenty something owners in the 80's ...

                        Personally I think it's a non starter. The real issue here is profit sharing. As long as owners refuse to share their profits with smaller market teams, players will not give up a thing. Problem is the wealthy teams seem to be controlling the debate instead of the majority of the teams that are allegedly losing money.
                        Good points, but I guess I didn't make my initial point clear enough. I'm not talking about player collusion, I'm talking about the fact that owners are not allowed to get together as a group, even secretly, and say, "hey guys, let's not outbid each other for this or that free agent." That's the original meaning of collusion in baseball, which changed free agency in sports forever, and caused player's salaries to skyrocket.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hard cap fixes ALL of this. >:/
                          The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I was unsure about my opinions on the NBA labour disputes, but thank god there are people like Gilbert who are willing to simplify the issues down to a Grade 1 level. Complete with the spelling, grammar, and punctuation of a Grade 1 student, no less.

                            The horrible generalizing stereotyper in me expects better from somebody named "Gilbert"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              enlightenment wrote: View Post
                              Hard cap fixes ALL of this. >:/
                              I agree as long as it is fair. The idea of a flex cap (i.e. NHL cap) with a target in the mid-high $60's and an absolute cap in the low-mid $70's seems more than fair for all parties.

                              The players want it all ways, they want:

                              1) the ability to have a free and open market (which they should have) to fetch top dollar for every possible player,

                              2) they want to be able to point the finger of blame at the owners for giving out such contracts

                              3) they do not want to have any onus or responsibility to play up to their contracts and refuse to give owners an opportunity to fix the mistakes of the Michael Redd's, Eddy Curry's, or Biendris' of the league.

                              Personally, I don't give a sh!t about millionaires fighting it out with billionaires. What I care about is creating a fair league where most teams are competitive and have a real chance to win each year - the current system doesn't allow it.

                              To those who point to small market teams such as San Antonio or OKC:

                              San Antonio hit the lottery jack pot in when David Robinson sat for the almost the entire season to then pick #1 and get Duncan. They have done their part on getting players around Duncan but when you're talking about one of the best big men of all time, that is not an insurmountable task.

                              OKC haven't had to pay Westbrook - yet - but they will. But what happens when Harden and Ibaka come up for renewal in the same year in 2 seasons time? They are competitive now and will continue to be for a year or two with current roster but will they be able to keep this core together for 8-10 years as their age would suggest they should be able to?

                              *EDIT*

                              I was in a rush at the end earlier - joys of wife and child waiting to go for a walk on a nice summer evening.... but it was a great trek.

                              A couple of additions:

                              1) The owners currently have a system of revenue sharing in place with the luxury tax system (every $ over the luxury tax in salary is equal to $2). The teams that pay luxury tax have the tax money divided up among the non-tax paying teams. I believe there were 6 or 7 teams who paid tax in 2011 however this was a different year because of the impending new CBA and many teams prepared for this. Using 2010 as an example (because I can't find definitive information on this past season), 10 teams were over the cap for a total of approximately $110M. That left $5.5M for each team who did not pay tax. It might not be the best way of revenue sharing but it is something.

                              2) As for additional revenue sharing, arguments of capitalism or socialism among players having to take cutbacks in salary can equally be given for owners of successful/profitable franchises - why should they suffer due to poorly run franchises inadequacy? The owners have contended that the CBA and revenue sharing amongst owners are separate - and I have to agree with them. Once the owners figure out how much revenue is shared with the players they can look at how much is shared with each other. Also do not forget that the owners share of the revenue is used to pay for arenas, travel, insurance, medical, trainers, coaching, scouting, management, marketing, etc. etc.

                              Again, I don't give a sh!t about millionaires debating and fighting billionaires, it comes down to trying to have as many fans of franchises having a legitimate hope and prayer of their team making deep playoff runs and, even better, competing for banners and championships each year.
                              Last edited by mcHAPPY; Mon Jul 4, 2011, 06:48 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                                I agree as long as it is fair. The idea of a flex cap (i.e. NHL cap) with a target in the mid-high $60's and an absolute cap in the low-mid $70's seems more than fair for all parties.

                                The players want it all ways, they want:

                                1) the ability to have a free and open market (which they should have) to fetch top dollar for every possible player,

                                2) they want to be able to point the finger of blame at the owners for giving out such contracts

                                3) they do not want to have any onus or responsibility to play up to their contracts and refuse to give owners an opportunity to fix the mistakes of the Michael Redd's, Eddy Curry's, or Biendris' of the league.

                                Personally, I don't give a sh!t about millionaires fighting it out with billionaires. What I care about is creating a fair league where most teams are competitive and have a real chance to win each year - the current system doesn't allow it.

                                To those who point to small market teams such as San Antonio or OKC:

                                San Antonio hit the lottery jack pot in when David Robinson sat for the almost the entire season to then pick #1 and get Duncan. They have done their part on getting players around Duncan but when you're talking about one of the best big men of all time, that is not an insurmountable task.

                                OKC haven't had to pay Westbrook - yet - but they will. But what happens when Harden and Ibaka come up for renewal in the same year in 2 seasons time? They are competitive now and will continue to be for a year or two with current roster but will they be able to keep this core together for 8-10 years as their age would suggest they should be able to?
                                Very well said sir! Summed it up nicely.
                                Eh follow my TWITTER!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X