Your opinion of the NBA

[Joey]

Geez jimmie. You on David Sterns payroll? You can spin it with the best of them!

I love how the One guy that is in favour of the owners, is also the one thats being 'rational'.

[Bendit]

Very interesting, nice post.

I think the players have given up more than enough money in dropping from 57% to 52.5%. The only other thing I think needs to happen is to give owners/teams the ability to get out of bad deals. The Eddy Curry problem is a fairly common one in the league, I think contracts should only be partially guaranteed in some way to give teams a partial out because when they sign the deal now they are trapped. That would play a huge role in dealing with player salaries and after that any financial problems would be entirely the teams' own fault. Unfortunately I don't think that has been on the table since the lockout actually happened.

In a previous you had mentioned that the players had given back 1 billion $. The 4.5% decrease in BRI valued @ $40 mill/percentage point (as per link: http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ons/index.html)
falls far short. Can you clarify?

There are many prof. sports leagues in the world. Are you familiar with any successful league started and operated by the players? I am guessing the answer is none. There is a reason for that. You do realize the overall capital investment and management of such an entity. The players would have to hire professionals and financial management teams. Guess what would happen in a while...they would get bilked of their earnings like many do today due to poor financial advice from some of their leechy agents.

Yes the players are the product but if you dont have a forum to sell it, it means very little financially. Not so different from brilliant art and acting and musicianship I have seen and heard in very obscure venues and countries. That said, the fundamental reason the players have very little leverage. There is no competition in their financial sphere. They get paid far more than any basketballer on the planet. My own issue here is the competitive balance within the league and no matter the money split I want a system where when my team fails consistently I can point to the shitty operational management of the team as the only reason for failure...and then turf them.

[Apollo]

Source


Thought you'd be interested to hear what the guys who REALLY know whats going on, think about 'sides'.

Pretty clear they majority are for the players. I can't disagree with any of the points they make.

Charles Barkley and Reggie Miller mean nothing to you? Would you have posted this if it was more on the owners' side?

[golden]

There are 2 other parties who share some of the blame (sort of):

1. The player's agents. These are the legal weasels who do nothing but try to jack up salaries and control player movement so they can get ever increasing commissions. They are the real serpents who are manipulating the players and becoming more power hungry and controling as each season rolls on. I'm surprised they are getting off relatively unscathed in this whole fiasco.

2. The fans. Huh? Yes, the fans (me included). We are too stupid and emotionally attached to these selfish morons that we accept yearly increases in ticket prices, jersey sales, cable deals and then go out and buy the products that they endorse. Shame on us for caring too much about people who don't really deserve it.

[thatguythere]

In a previous you had mentioned that the players had given back 1 billion $. The 4.5% decrease in BRI valued @ $40 mill/percentage point (as per link: http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ons/index.html)
falls far short. Can you clarify?

Here is a NY Times article talking about it:

Source

The players have offered to reduce their share to 53 percent, with each percentage point representing $40 million in today’s dollars. Dropping to 50 percent would mean a pay cut of at least $280 million a year, notwithstanding future increases in league revenue. According to union estimates, and accounting for modest revenue growth, the players would give back $1.1 billion over a six-year deal.

It is over the life of the deal, not $1 billion per year.

There are many prof. sports leagues in the world. Are you familiar with any successful league started and operated by the players? I am guessing the answer is none. There is a reason for that. You do realize the overall capital investment and management of such an entity. The players would have to hire professionals and financial management teams. Guess what would happen in a while...they would get bilked of their earnings like many do today due to poor financial advice from some of their leechy agents.

Yes the players are the product but if you dont have a forum to sell it, it means very little financially. Not so different from brilliant art and acting and musicianship I have seen and heard in very obscure venues and countries. That said, the fundamental reason the players have very little leverage. There is no competition in their financial sphere. They get paid far more than any basketballer on the planet. My own issue here is the competitive balance within the league and no matter the money split I want a system where when my team fails consistently I can point to the shitty operational management of the team as the only reason for failure...and then turf them.

As I said before:

Also I am not advocating for a new league, I was just using it as an example to talk about the fact that the players are the product and that they drive the revenues and therefore they are entitled to more than the average employee.

I don't think the players should start their own league. I don't think it would be easy for them to start their own league if they did want to do so. I just alluded to a new league to talk about the fact that the players are not only employees but also the product.

[Bendit]

Here is a NY Times article talking about it:

Source


It is over the life of the deal, not $1 billion per year.





As I said before:


I don't think the players should start their own league. I don't think it would be easy for them to start their own league if they did want to do so. I just alluded to a new league to talk about the fact that the players are not only employees but also the product.

I was fixated at the time on the 300+ million loss per year the owners were claiming. I understand.

A new league would give the players some leverage BUT would only have even a small chance of success if some other businessmen started the enterprise like the WHA in hockey history. Then too the players would have to take a very large shave on salaries during the startup phase which could be at least a couple of years. And how many would go over to the other side. Again just the stars would make the big money. Just doesnt make sense and in my view is a non starter on a bunch of grounds. One has to view this as a business negotiation/deal and without emotion (not easy for the players especially) but in a free market system if you dont have leverage and above all dont have the consumer heavily on your side.... weelll......

[jimmie]

@DwyaneWade You know its sad when people don’t even try and hide their greed..#NBALockout

THIS is why I'm with the owners on this over the players, for change over the sh*tty status quo. What a bunch of BS. These rich idiots *really* don't get it. This clown *deserves* upwards of $50M a year, like he says he'd get in the kind of system the players ideally want??? Come on...

[Joey]

Charles Barkley and Reggie Miller mean nothing to you? Would you have posted this if it was more on the owners' side?

What do you mean "Charles and Reggie mean nothing to you" Apollo?

Stop being so confrontational. Geezus.

Notice how I didn't give my opinion at all on the matter except to say I can't disagree with ANY of the points?

I posted it because it was relevant.

If you check the vote, that you so handily set up, I'm not on anyones side.
I argue the players side because it is severely unrepresented.

I debate to further the conversation. I realize there is no changing peoples opinions on the matter.

For some reason I get the feeling you think you can, if you just beat it to a pulp.


I'm done contributing to this conversation. You are clearly intent on making anyone with a differing opinion feel ridiculous and petty, and that's not what I come here for.

[mcHAPPY]

What do you mean "Charles and Reggie mean nothing to you" Apollo?

Stop being so confrontational. Geezus.

Notice how I didn't give my opinion at all on the matter except to say I can't disagree with ANY of the points?

I posted it because it was relevant.

If you check the vote, that you so handily set up, I'm not on anyones side.
I argue the players side because it is severely unrepresented.

I debate to further the conversation. I realize there is no changing peoples opinions on the matter.

For some reason I get the feeling you think you can, if you just beat it to a pulp.


I'm done contributing to this conversation. You are clearly intent on making anyone with a differing opinion feel ridiculous and petty, and that's not what I come here for.

Joey,

I'm playing catch up with the comments tonight but when I read this:

Thought you'd be interested to hear what the guys who REALLY know whats going on, think about 'sides'.

Pretty clear they majority are for the players. I can't disagree with any of the points they make.

I thought it was pretty passive aggressive and insulting to posters who had views more along that of ownership of late - myself included.

Difference of opinions are more than welcome. The conversation I had with GT was enlightening for me as it really got me thinking about revenue sharing in ways and concepts I had not thought of before. It didn't change my views in the end but it certainly took me down a path that I had not totally traveled in thought.

Hopefully you reconsider your contribution because I for one do enjoy reading thoughts on the 'other' side of the debate.

As an aside, one thing I find with many of the writers, which is why I like Larry Coon so much, is they are biased to the players because when this is all said and done, they still have to work with the players.

[Joey]

I thought it was pretty passive aggressive and insulting to posters who had views more along that of ownership of late - myself included.

Sorry, I guess I should have clarified that I don't actually think guys from ESPN know more than Charles and Reggie. I thought the sarcasm was pretty clear.

As for it being 'insulting' .. well I don't really know what to say to that.. Sorry?

But no, I'm going to steer away from the Lockout Debates for now.
Sorry GarbageTime (and now thatguythere, welcome to the fight!). You're on your own! haha

[Apollo]

I thought it was pretty passive aggressive and insulting to posters who had views more along that of ownership of late - myself included.

That's exactly how I read it as well.

What do you mean "Charles and Reggie mean nothing to you" Apollo?

You gave us the opinion of those "who REALLY know what's going on" and it's swayed towards the players. So my question to you is what about those who feel the players are in the wrong? In particular a certain video that was only posted in here yesterday which showed two of the all-time greats coming to the Owners' defense? My question is, do Chuck and Reggie really know what's going on? They're on the other side of it completely and I don't see you touching that. Where's your props to Chuck and Reg? Maybe they don't have as good a feel for the issues as the couch potatoes you quoted?

I'm done contributing to this conversation. You are clearly intent on making anyone with a differing opinion feel ridiculous and petty, and that's not what I come here for.

Do you agree with anything that the owners are proposing at all? Do you see any benefit to the league in what they're proposing? Do you see any benefit to yourself as a fan if such an offer were accepted by the players? I have a hard time understanding, as a fan, why you are so against the Owners in the labour dispute. If the players lose it's nothing to you. If the Owners win there are many great things that will come in which will enhance your experience as a fan of a smaller market team. I just don't get the hard headed support to the players. What they're fighting for does nothing for you or the sport. In my opinion cheering for the underdog is fun but not when the outcome you're looking for at best translates to a lateral move.

[planetmars]

Apollo, I think you make an excellent point. I think most people are not looking at the Raptors best interest when it comes to what could happen with the league in the new CBA.

I'm hoping for the following personally:

- A way to prevent super teams from being created because star players want to join together. Toronto would never have a fighting chance with a system like this - especially if star players are the ones that will help you win the championship. This is tricky because you want to encourage players from testing free agency, and you can't stop players from talking to each other.. It really sucks that players would want to play with each other and "steal" a championship instead of wanting to do it the "right" way.

- A way for a team to help keep its free agent. So I would love to abolish the sign and trade, and to help teams have a chance to pay more to their own FA then someone else's. Perhaps create the franchise tag.

- Getting rid of the Mid-Level exception as that would prevent Bryan from signing players like Kapono. This is the kind of exception that can get your team screwed if your GM doesn't know what he's doing. By removing it completely it also hurts teams like Miami and NY from continuing to build on their 'super' teams (both teams are coincidentally in the Raptor's conference).

- If there is a hard cap, I'd like to see it on the higher end. The Raptors have money, and I'm sure MLSE (or whoever the new owner will be) will not have a problem spending money if it means creating a competitive team. I think the tax system that the owners are proposing is fine, as it would prevent teams with crazy money from spending, but if the cap is high enough, it can help a team like the Raptors want to spend money. Maybe a cap of something like $70-$75mil. Higher than it was in the old CBA, but not too high so teams like LA, Miami, Dallas etc can't just keep buying championships.

- Because Bryan is awful at giving out contracts (eg, Bargnani), I would love to see the number of years on a guaranteed deal be shortened to 3 years. Perhaps 3 years for someone else's FA, and 3 years with an owner option for the 4rd year for their own FA. It still means that the contract is guaranteed to the player but for less years.

- I really do not want them to change the age rule for draft picks, at least not in 2012 - where the Raptors have the chance to draft a stud. We already got screwed on Durant, and I would hate for that to happen again.

- I do not want to see an amnesty clause. We already discussed this in another thread. The amnesty clause would help other teams more than it would help the Raptors. We could use it on Calderon but he only has 2 years left (and I like him). Bryan would never use it on Bargnani and I think he's a better trade asset anyways. I don't think a team like Orlando or LA should have the ability to shed salary. If they made mistakes (like trading for Arenas, Turk or Walton), then they should live with those mistakes. If there is a hard cap, either they pay a heavy luxury tax or they try and find teams to dump their big contracts to like Sacramento.

- Allowing teams that had TPE's to continue to use them once the new CBA kicks in and the new season starts. I believe the Raptors should still have about 12 days left if that was the case to use the TPE from Bosh.

[thatguythere]

Source

On Thursday night in a Manhattan hotel, as owners and players bickered over ultimatums, the NBA was ignorant of a larger threat developing just miles away. On the southern tip of the rich island were gathered thousands of stubborn protesters representing American economic frustration. They were the people of Occupy Wall Street.
"We are the 99 percent,'' they have been chanting.
They share much in common with NBA fans.
In the NBA's corner of the universe, the 99 percent feel used, ignored, patronized and taken for granted. Fans are angry and they don't know how to express their demands.
The issues protested by the Wall Street Occupiers are far more serious than the lockout that is upsetting basketball fans. Yet the parallels are obvious. The NBA generates $4 billion annually and its players average $5 million in salary per year. Yet they cannot agree on how all of that money should be divided between the owners of the franchises and the employees. They have been arguing for more than two years without recognizing or respecting what is happening in the world around them -- not only that they should be celebrating their good fortune rather than fighting over it, but that those with far less wealth are beginning to mobilize and realize their own power.
There is an arrogance built into these NBA negotiations, a taken-for-granted understanding that fans will always come back. Professional football, baseball, hockey and basketball have all endured player strikes or owner lockouts that have obliterated parts or all of a season over the last several decades, and in every case the fans forgave and forgot. They always returned to watch and, most importantly, to reward the boycotters with higher-priced tickets and ever-increasing revenues.
But never has a league dared to shut itself down in a time like this, during a recession now generating its fourth year of high unemployment and foreclosures. The Occupy Wall Street protesters and their brethren emerging in scores of other cities in America (and around the world) are establishing their own agenda. They are refusing to argue the underlying details of the financial meltdown, and they don't claim to offer solutions. Instead, for now, they are simply demanding that they be acknowledged by those who hold the majority of money and power.
"Respect us,'' the protesters are saying.
"Or else what?'' the rich and powerful seem to be responding.
To which the protesters have said nothing ... yet. They are deciding how to respond and what to do amid an ominous silence.
The NBA has to be aware of its vulnerability here. The frustration of the Occupiers is the same kind of frustration that fans have felt during work stoppages throughout pro sports over the years. Most fans have neither understood nor wanted to understand the reasons why their games have been canceled. (Understand this much, players and owners -- fans view NBA games as their games, because one way or another they pay for the games that you think you own.) In previous years, fans have wanted to organize boycotts, but they have been undermined by their own virtue as fans. They care too much to hold on to grudges, and deep down they want to be fans.
Here is what has to be worrying the NBA. The owners and players ought to be frightened that fans will come to view this ongoing lockout as a symbol of something bigger. What if it strikes the larger public nerve, so that the NBA's $4 billion shutdown is turned into a high-profile example of something deeper and much more important than a game?
This kind of public reckoning has been forecast for a long time. How many times have you heard people complain about the rising prices of tickets, concessions and parking over the years? You hear talk that people aren't going to keep paying these prices, that the leagues are going to price out their fans. The fans have always kept paying.
But now the dots have never been easier to connect. This is a league that has used public money to finance its arenas -- expensive buildings that are now shuttered to the financial detriment of local governments as well as thousands of workers, and it's all because of a very simple and unbelievably greedy story. Everyone else suffers because 30 owners and 400 basketball players cannot agree on how to share $4 billion per year.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are trying in their own way to tell the rich and powerful that they must be conscious of the world around them. The NBA owners and players are failing to recognize not only their citizenship but also their extreme vulnerability. They have forgotten that the NBA exists largely due to its fans.
America needs Wall Street. But does America need the NBA?
What happens to the NBA if fans decide, via word-of-mouth, Facebook and Twitter, to express en masse their long-neglected point of view? Could they influence the NBA to resolve its lockout before the season has been lost altogether?
The NBA owners say their business cannot grow unless they can persuade the players to create a new financial model. The larger truth is that owners and players together cannot hope to grow or maintain their business in this horrible economy as long as they show a disregard for their relationship with the public.
In fact, the NBA needs to be taught a hard lesson by fans. In the early 1980s, owners and players formed a partnership to rescue their league from insolvency, coming together to invent the salary cap and install drug-testing policies that helped grow the league.
Now that growth has become their ruin. They are no longer partners but adversaries, and no business can thrive when the owners and employees view each other as enemies. Their success has separated them from the people who pay their salaries. It should go without saying that the NBA would not exist if not for the overwhelming financial support of the millions of people who buy tickets or watch on TV -- yet that most obvious message now has to be repeated. Because the players and owners have divorced themselves from that reality.
The owners and players think this labor fight is between them. They may turn out to be horribly wrong.
Each time they meet, the owners and players emerge from their failed negotiations and declare how much they love and feel sorry for the fans. It's the one statement both sides share in common, and it couldn't be more hollow or condescending. In the end, the details of their negotiations don't matter nearly so much as the harm the owners and players are creating together.
The NBA had better hope that fans don't organize their own statement: You need us more than we need you.

Excellent article. While we may disagree who is being the aggressor, I think we all agree both sides are being petty and acting like children.

[jimmie]

Source


Excellent article. While we may disagree who is being the aggressor, I think we all agree both sides are being petty and acting like children.

This, I agree with. The reason I lean toward the league is because they want change to the system. The players don't. They're both greedy, but one side wants changes that are geared toward making the league as a whole more palatable to me as a fan. I'm far less concerned with who makes more money out of this than I am about how the new CBA affects the game itself, and my enjoyment of it.

[mcHAPPY]

This, I agree with. The reason I lean toward the league is because they want change to the system. The players don't. They're both greedy, but one side wants changes that are geared toward making the league as a whole more palatable to me as a fan. I'm far less concerned with who makes more money out of this than I am about how the new CBA affects the game itself, and my enjoyment of it.

I endorse this statement 100%.