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

[slaw]

Yes, management made mistakes and they are ultimately to blame but the system put them into situations which were high risk. You shouldn't have to take big gambles to stay competitive or to become competitive. The system is highly flawed and I hope you don't get too angry as a basketball fan once it's fixed and Raptors take a few steps forward because of it.

Again, changing the system won't make any difference unless Toronto drafts a Dwight Howard or a Lebron James or a Kevin Durant. You don't win in the NBA without at least one elite player and you don't get those guys without drafting them. If I go back to 1980 (31 years) the only team I can think of that didn't build around an elite hall of famer that it drafted was the Detroit Pistons of 2004 (you could potentially add the '80 Lakers by noting Kareem was traded for and maybe the '82 Sixers gaining Irving via the ABA merger, though the circumstances there are unique). Otherwise you are talking about guys like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Thomas, Kobe (acquired via draft day trade), Wade, Pierce, Nowitzki, Duncan. Now, you could bring up Shaq and Garnett but their moves were never about making more salary.

As for the Raptors, they won't take any steps toward a championship until and unless they draft an elite player. As for the playoffs, well, given that 50%+ of the league makes the playoffs (and the fact that you don't even have to be very good to make the playoffs, 43 wins in the East is likely enough) I would hope that even this management team could get the Raptors back there under any system in a few years. As for myself, I don't consider 8th place in the East and a 4 game sweep a step forward...

[Apollo]

The point you're missing is that you can draft an elite player but unless you're willing/able to spend above cap you're probably not going to win anything. Period. The system stinks and you can try and take us off course with these distractions but the bottom line is you need lots of money to win it in the current system. There are some very good managers out there who can't get over the hump because they work for an owner who's not spending with the big boys. Then you have guys out there like Kevin Pritchard who would have never made a name for himself or gained respect had he not had Paul Allen forking out cash by the truck load to spend on contracts, coaches and to buy up draft picks. Money is a huge factor in this league.

I could have never imagined anyone but fans of a deep pocketed big market team would come out and strongly oppose a system built on equality. "We don't want an even playing field because what does it matter if we don't have LeBron James or Dwight Howard." Am I the only one who feels this is a silly concept?

[Apollo]

DeRozan Speaks

DeRozan said he had faith in Fisher and the union and was predisposed toward following any proposal submitted to him by the union.

"I trust Derek and everyone who's working for us. They feed us with information about everything that's going on. If he told me [he had a deal he liked], I'm definitely going to trust his judgment."

But like Harden, DeRozan flatly rejected the idea that a 50-5o split in BRI was acceptable. When asked whether he'd reconsider an even split if that was the proposal presented to the players by their leadership, DeRozan reacted as if it were a trick question.

Source: ESPN.com

Not taking no BS deal. We gotta do what we gotta do & stand together...

Its a lot of people quick to criticize us in this situation but have no clue of the business side of it...

It's not about being greedy it's about being fair...

When it's all said & done. More is said then done...

Source: Twitter @DeMar_DeRozan

[mcHAPPY]

I can't really fault DD or any of the players for wanting as large of a piece of the pie as possible.

However when he says "....no clue of the business side of it..." I think that is where he and the players association are clueless. The first year of what they are fighting for is already gone. December 16th will mean it is a 6 year dig out of the hole. The average NBA player plays 5 seasons - they will never recover these losses.

[Apollo]

I think the problem is that they get their information from the union and so they probably don't realize the wealth of articles out there explaining the negotiations. They're going to get a surprise when their public image is the one taking a beating and not the owner's. There is not much sympathy to be had for a bunch of players who don't feel a 50/50 splits is fair.

[GarbageTime]

Found this article... a year old but I think it relates peice Matt52 posted from business week, and what Apollo is saying.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/01/28/nb...venue-sharing/

Using revenue figures from Forbes, winning percentage and net income had a correlation coefficient of 0.17 last season, a small but positive relationship. This could mean winning helps grow revenue, or that teams on track to make money are more likely to be able to put out a good team, or that good teams just happen to be teams which make money for some odd reason. As your auntie has screamed at you many a time, correlation does not equal causation. But winning and making money in the NBA do have a small positive correlation.

So do making money and being located in a large market. Only the relationship isn't as small. In fact, it's double that of the winning-profit relationship. And that counts the New Jersey Nets as belonging to the New York City market, which is a source of logical contention. If you remove the Nets for the equation, the correlation coefficient between 2008-09 net income and market size jumps to 0.46. That's a pretty damn eye-opening relationship.

You'd think owners would be supportive of greater revenue sharing, given the plainly unfair way NBA finance among teams works right now. But the Sterlings and Dolans and Jerry Busses of the league don't want to give up cash.

So if the owners are TRUELLY concerned about

A system that would guarantee owners a chance to make a profit, and a system where all teams would have a chance to compete equally for a championship

why not talk about this right now? Why wait? I can say I'd personally be much more inclined to believe that the owners truelly care about parity if they were willing to immediately (ie. with this new CBA) include revenue sharing. Especially if its NFL style (ie. ALL TV deals are split between all teams and the gate is split between the home and away team)... which is just as big of a reason, if not the key reason, as to why the so called small market teams compete with the big markets.

Besides allowing small market teams to spend more, it will also force the 'big market' teams to spend less as they will have to give up a large share of their profits. Not only that but it will actually looks like the owners (especially those that have been driving up prices and abusing the current salary cap system) are taking a hair cut to help out the league, rather than putting all the burden on the players.

[GarbageTime]

I think the problem is that they get their information from the union and so they probably don't realize the wealth of articles out there explaining the negotiations. They're going to get a surprise when their public image is the one taking a beating and not the owner's. There is not much sympathy to be had for a bunch of players who don't feel a 50/50 splits is fair.

Well I assume that the players have access to the internet and therefore have just as much information as you or I do there... plus they have something we do not, which is a direct link to the discussion themselves. So I'd bet they have MUCH MORE information than we do.

I also guarantee when this is all said an done, every fan will want Lebron James or Dwight Howard on their team just as badly as before, and will forget by the end of the season this ever happened.

[Apollo]

I agree revenue sharing is important but they've said they're dealing with it after these negotiations and they have the upper hand so if they want to go that route they're going to go that route. It is their business after all and it's a piece they don't need to seal a deal with the labour. Revenue sharing is something that I believe is coming, it might not be exactly like the NFL but the majority of the league probably wants to see it happen and so it will happen. It just doesn't need to happen now because it's not a factor in the terms of a labour deal. I still find it pretty funny that people can sit here and calmly tell me that the amount of resources a business has to spend on assets doesn't put it at an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what side of the line it falls on. It's counter to everything I've learned and know to be true.

Well I assume that the players have access to the internet and therefore have just as much information as you or I do there... plus they have something we do not, which is a direct link to the discussion themselves. So I'd bet they have MUCH MORE information than we do.

I also guarantee when this is all said an done, every fan will want Lebron James or Dwight Howard on their team just as badly as before, and will forget by the end of the season this ever happened.

I didn't say they didn't have access to it, I'm saying they probably aren't paying attention to it and so they don't realize how informed the fans are. If you're on the inside are you going to waste your time reading a rehash of what you just discussed in person the day before? Come on man, you have better things to do.

And I was clearly referring to the public image of all the players, not two specific players. Of course they're going to want Howard and James on their team, the heck does that have to do with the PA rejecting an offer they won't do better than latter and causing games to be cancelled in the process? The fans need players on their team. Why are they going to have distaste for Dwight Howard over Tyrone Lue or whoever? In terms of the fans forgetting, it all comes down to when the agreement is settled. If we're talking a cancelled season then I might take your bet on only one full season to regain league popularity to where it was prior to the lockout.

[mcHAPPY]

Well I assume that the players have access to the internet and therefore have just as much information as you or I do there... plus they have something we do not, which is a direct link to the discussion themselves. So I'd bet they have MUCH MORE information than we do.

I also guarantee when this is all said an done, every fan will want Lebron James or Dwight Howard on their team just as badly as before, and will forget by the end of the season this ever happened.

I'm not too sure about that. I can't find the article on ESPN anymore but yesterday he was interviewed about his ranking as 20 in the NBA. Part of the discussion was his thoughts on the owners wanting "The Carmelo Anthony Rule". He said he didn't know what it was but he had looked around on twitter to find out what it meant.

I really wish I could find the article again. I didn't know what to think when I read that. The difficult concept for him to grasp was a player cannot sign an extension via sign and trade unless the extension is signed before July 1st of his final contract year. Not a hard concept to grasp but apparently Carmelo doesn't get it.

[mcHAPPY]

Found this article... a year old but I think it relates peice Matt52 posted from business week, and what Apollo is saying.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/01/28/nb...venue-sharing/



So if the owners are TRUELLY concerned about



why not talk about this right now? Why wait? I can say I'd personally be much more inclined to believe that the owners truelly care about parity if they were willing to immediately (ie. with this new CBA) include revenue sharing. Especially if its NFL style (ie. ALL TV deals are split between all teams and the gate is split between the home and away team)... which is just as big of a reason, if not the key reason, as to why the so called small market teams compete with the big markets.

Besides allowing small market teams to spend more, it will also force the 'big market' teams to spend less as they will have to give up a large share of their profits. Not only that but it will actually looks like the owners (especially those that have been driving up prices and abusing the current salary cap system) are taking a hair cut to help out the league, rather than putting all the burden on the players.

So the players can have 'blood issues' of guaranteed contracts and no hard cap but the owners want a CBA before they address revenue sharing which they have already agreed to quadruple.

This comes down to both sides not giving on the most important issues.

[Apollo]

I'm not too sure about that. I can't find the article on ESPN anymore but yesterday he was interviewed about his ranking as 20 in the NBA. Part of the discussion was his thoughts on the owners wanting "The Carmelo Anthony Rule". He said he didn't know what it was but he had looked around on twitter to find out what it meant.

I really wish I could find the article again. I didn't know what to think when I read that. The difficult concept for him to grasp was a player cannot sign an extension via sign and trade unless the extension is signed before July 1st of his final contract year. Not a hard concept to grasp but apparently Carmelo doesn't get it.

While I'm sure this article isn't the one you're referring to it this pretty much sums it up, just like any industry:

Canvas enough NBA players, and you won't get much diversity of viewpoints on the negotiations -- but there's certainly a disparity of knowledge and intensity of opinion. In some respects, it's not all that different than any industry gathering or social function. Some people feel an obligation to know what's going on, while others find current affairs to be outside their field of interest.

Source: ESPN.com

[heinz57]

seriously. millionaires have a labor union.

the bullshittedness of that concept is so mind boggling.

take your millions, bounce the ball and put it in a basket. you exist as a human being solely to amuse me, so take your god damn millions and stop pretending like ANY of you have idea what the business side of your own ass is. one year at USC where you didnt have to touch a single book ever does not mean you have more business sense than the average person.

[GarbageTime]

I agree revenue sharing is important but they've said they're dealing with it after these negotiations and they have the upper hand so if they want to go that route they're going to go that route.

oh they SAID they'd deal with it. Silly me. Ofcourse that means they will......

It is their business after all and it's a piece they don't need to seal a deal with the labour

That may be true... but do you not think it would convince players and fans that they are alot more committed to dealing with the issues, and/or that they are really putting the strength of league as their priority?

To me a deal where EVERYONE who has helped cause the problem takes a hair cut is the most fair approach. Cut salaries, and cut the income of those who have created the problem the league is in. Help those that have suffered.

The very idea that "they are the owners so they should be able to do what they want" is the very thing that created the idea of a labour union, and has started just about every union thats in existence today. Its that very ignorance (not directed at you but in that thought in general, specifically by those in 'power') that creates the huge divide between management and employees. Just like the employess arguing we make the product so we should see all the money. It causes more problems than it solves. Once people truelly begin to comprehend that both sides are right (and therefore both wrong) in that belief, labour negotiations will can actually become much easier than they are.

I still find it pretty funny that people can sit here and calmly tell me that the amount of resources a business has to spend on assets doesn't put it at an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what side of the line it falls on. It's counter to everything I've learned and know to be true

Who ever said that was untrue? Clearly throwing resources at a problem can help solve problems... but it won't necessarily be the answer and can also can cause new problems. In this case a few teams being willing to throw money at players drove up the prices of all players. Those other teams then in turn spent their limited money inefficiently.

But teams like San Antonio/OKC have PROVEN that you don't necessarily need to throw money around recklessly or need a large market to win. Teams like NY/Washington have proven that throwing money around and being in a large market doesn't mean winning. Its about efficient spending, which not enough owners have been willing or able to do. IF more owners would be smarter about their spending, I guarantee player contracts would be much more in line with what they deserve. Instead owners have valued risk over efficiency. Now its biting them in the ass.... but some of us are putting all the onus on the players anyways. Makes no sense to me what so ever.

I'm saying they probably aren't paying attention to it and so they don't realize how informed the fans are

based on what? I see absolutely no reason to believe this.

Of course they're going to want Howard and James on their team, the heck does that have to do with the PA rejecting an offer they won't do better than latter and causing games to be cancelled in the process? The fans need players on their team. Why are they going to have distaste for Dwight Howard over Tyrone Lue or whoever? In terms of the fans forgetting, it all comes down to when the agreement is settled. If we're talking a cancelled season then I might take your bet on only one full season to regain league popularity to where it was prior to the lockout

those same players are part of the PA no? So if one is mad at the PA they should be mad at the individual players themselves. Its players like Lebron James who left a small market team reeling, who are getting paid top dollar, who are influencing teams to spend recklessly. Dwight Howard has had a similar effect on Orlando over the last season or two. Should these not be the very guys we are most upset with? Yet I'd bet few if any would be mad at having them on their team...its the Derek Fisher's, who has 6 rings as a starting PG, is one of the top 'blue collar' players and arguably the best team leader in the league, who could be traded on a whim, all while being paid less than the league average that we should be mad at.. funny how that works no?


In a game like basketball, where 1 (or a few) player(s) makes all the difference both positively and negatively), NO ONE can guarantee parity or profitablility in any form. Revenue sharing can atleast help address profitabliltiy. Nothing will guarantee parity.

I'd say Matt52's article with football more or less proves this, although it doesn't address it. A very profitable league where small market teams can win and spend close with everyone, yet they don't necessarily. Why? Because you still need a superstar quarterback to do it.... and a hard cap, or revenue sharing, or cutting player salaries won't guarantee you that superstar. Nor will it guarantee that you can keep that superstar, or pay that superstar.

I have no doubts that players are being payed more than they 'deserve'. But thats life. Why does the coal miner who breaks his back and likely shortens his life span be paid a portion of what a manager or owner or even some shareholders do? Because not everyone is capable of owning a businnes, running a business or have the resources to invest in a company. But almost anyone can throw a pick axe around. The same applies here... not every can jump as high, shoot as well, are as strong or be as tall as NBA players. That may not be fair, but that is life. We as fans pay to see that... we want to see the best, we want our teams to have the best and we will give our money to the best time and time again.

At the same time I could really care less how much these guys get paid... I'm just as happy with players averaging 10k a year as I am with players average 5 mil a year.

Where I have problems is with this idea that we should just believe that the owners are being honest and want fairness, and that all the onus is with the players. 22 teams are losing money? Ok what are those 22 teams and how much is each team losing? Is a team like Dallas losing money? Why is this information not available? Should we just ignore the fact that its the owners who offered the contracts? That someone thought it was a good idea to pay Gilbert Arenas or Michael Redd or Rashard Lewis just as much or more than Lebron James or Dwight Howard? Should we now compensate the stupid at the cost of those who are already (arguably) underpaid for their services?

If we want 'fairness' and long term stability... how about this. Cut salaries, 100% revenue sharing among teams, contraction by a 2 or 4 (or whatever is needed) teams, all teams become public companies with purchasable shares.

Now it doesn't get more fair than that. Cuts cost, shares profits, eliminates the teams that are a drain while increasing the supply of players and therefore further decreasing future salaries, and allows all team values and financial statements available to public scrutiny and interpretation. Lets see how much people actually want whats 'fair'....... I'm betting very few want that.

[GarbageTime]

So the players can have 'blood issues' of guaranteed contracts and no hard cap but the owners want a CBA before they address revenue sharing which they have already agreed to quadruple.

This comes down to both sides not giving on the most important issues.

that is, for the most part, exactly it. So why do so many feel the need to put the onus on one side? Thats what I don't get here. Both sides are at fault and both sides need to solve it and both sides need to pay there share.

Yet only 1 side is offering it... the one so many people are blaming.... makes no sense to me.

[Apollo]

Jordan is a no show in the 4th quarter?

The awkwardness of Jordan’s position – many of the same star players his ownership peers are negotiating against are part of his Jordan Brand stable – might have contributed to him distancing himself from the talks. But with NBA commissioner David Stern just cancelling the first two weeks of the season and putting the rest of the 2011-12 schedule on notice, the league would benefit from having Jordan’s presence at any future negotiations. Players Association executive director Billy Hunter said he and Stern will meet with a federal mediator next week – a positive step – but if there’s any one person within the league who can coax the two sides closer toward a middle ground, it’s likely Jordan.

In simpler terms: The NBA once again needs its greatest player to come through in the clutch.

Jordan’s background in the league is as diverse as anyone’s: He’s gone from star player to general manager to owner. He played (and worked) in big markets in Chicago and Washington, and is now trying to make the small-market Bobcats relevant in Charlotte. He entered the league making $630,000 as a rookie and earned as much as $33 million for a single season. He’s the only African-American majority owner in a league predominantly made up of African-Americans.

Most of the league’s players still admire or respect Jordan. And even those that don’t trust him as an owner would at least listen to what he has to say.

Yes, it’s a reach to think the league and Players Association will simply make peace and ignore the millions of dollars that separate them just because Jordan walks into the room. Yet, the two sides could use a voice of reason to cut through all the rhetoric, a voice to help steer them closer to a compromise, and Jordan’s still carries considerable influence.

So far, however, Jordan has largely stayed out of the fray. He attended the owners’ board of governors meeting in Dallas last month, but no players were present. He’s been engaged in some franchise meetings with the Bobcats, but much of his recent time has been spent touring with his Michael Jordan Motorsports group.

Jordan was retiring during the league’s last lockout before the 1998-99 season, but he still showed up at a big labor meeting in New York to confront the owners with the players present. He told Abe Pollin, the late owner of the Washington Wizards, that if he couldn’t afford to compete, he should sell the team.

“Michael Jordan was going at commissioner Stern and Pollin, talking about if you keep writing these bad checks to these bad players maybe you need to give up ownership of your team,” former Indiana Pacers guard Reggie Miller said in an interview on NBA TV. “Michael Jordan was, and still is, the greatest basketball player ever, and he was stepping up for the players.

“There’s always strength in numbers, and the high-profile players needed to stand up like Michael Jordan did in ’98-’99. Because of what he did, that’s one of the reasons that everyone said the players came out on top in that lockout situation.”

Jordan’s words to Pollin now sound ironic, given that he and Milwaukee Bucks owner Herb Kohl have lobbied other owners for increased revenue sharing to protect small-market franchises.

“The model we’ve been working under is broken,” Jordan told Australia’s Herald Sun in an interview that netted him a $100,000 fine from the NBA. “We have 22 or 23 teams losing money, so I think we have to come to some kind of understanding in this partnership that we have to realign. I know the owners are not going to move off what we think is very necessary to put a deal in place that allows us to co-exist as partners. We need a lot of financial support throughout the league as well as revenue-sharing to keep this business afloat.”

Still, even now it’s likely Jordan can admire the passion of some of today’s players in the latest labor battle. He’s even mentored a few of them: Dwyane Wade(notes), Carmelo Anthony(notes) and Chris Paul(notes) are among the stars who endorse the Jordan Brand. During All-Star weekend, Jordan attended a labor meeting with players present, and sources said he later privately tried to explain the owners’ position to some of his endorsers at a Jordan Brand party.

Some owners might consider Jordan too sympathetic to the players. In truth, both sides have reason to question his loyalty, and that just might make him the person best equipped to help broker more productive talks. He’s still powerful, he’s still respected. His presence would help more than hurt.

Jordan has never been afraid of taking the big shot. So where is he now when the NBA and its players need him in crunch time?

Source; Yahoo Sports

I think he's staying out of it because he has a conflict on interest. He's an owner so he has a stake in the league winning the labour feud. He has his personal business, which requires the players to help with marketing and so he doesn't want to tick them off. Then he's not that far removed from his playing days... I think he's staying quiet and playing his cards behind closed doors because it's in his best interests not to bring on his "late game killer instincts". He's smart, he's staying quiet because staying quiet is his most effective play for him. He's not afraid to take the "big shot" here, it merely doesn't make any sense for him to do so. Anyway, I figured you guys might be interested in this so there it is.