Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Barkley has been predicting for a while that there would not be a season unless the players gave in to the owners' wishes.

    Barkley on the owners: "They're not going to let us become like baseball where we have the haves against the have-nots. That's why we have the best commissioner in sports. . . David Stern is trying to do what's best for the small market teams."

    Barkley on Amar'e Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony talking about starting a new league: "That's right up there as one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. That's right up there with new Coke."

    Barkley on Commissioner David Stern's proprieties: " No. 1, have a hard cap. Secondly, have better revenue sharing. Or get the owners 50-50 (BRI split). It's going to be one of those three ways to be honest with your. They can forget the way things are going now, that they're going to let all these stars play and kill these small-market teams. I can promise you that or they're not going to play at all."

    Barkley on how the lockout relates to the Suns: "It's technically a small market. Phoenix is in limbo right now. They've got a mediocre team that barely can make the playoffs. They're not a big player in this whole thing. This thing is all about protecting Cleveland, protecting Toronto, Sacramento. Denver just lost Carmelo. They've already started talking about where is Chris Paul going -- to New York or New Jersey. Orlando, Dwight Howard already is going to the Lakers. I agree with them. They have to protect these small-market teams. Baseball has got to the point where you've got probably 10 teams that can win or are really competitive and that the rest are mediocre or they stink. We don't want that in the NBA. When you come see the Phoenix Suns play, don't you want your team to have a fair chance to win?"
    http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PaulCoro/145612

    Comment


    • Oh McGee! Wonder what other meeting McGee had to go to that was so important? Local girlie club?

      I suppose it's safe to say that Barkley will never become head of the players union. He makes sense. But the Stern fawning ? hmmmm.
      Last edited by Bendit; Fri Oct 14, 2011, 08:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Stern says, "Checkmate."


        http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nb...n_int_full.nba

        Comment


        • Via Twitter:

          LarryCoon
          Hunter "If the NBA wants to point a gun at us, we'll point it right back." Isn't that what got Arenas & Crittenton in trouble?

          Comment


          • Matt52 wrote: View Post
            That was quite the vid...thanks.

            The best thing about it was he kept bringing up "competiveness" amongst the teams as a primary goal. Great!!

            Comment


            • Simply put : Players get their 53% BRI, but owners alter player exception terms and impose more severe luxury penalties.
              The only way to bag a classy lady is to give her two tickets to the gun show... and see if she likes the goods.

              Comment


              • i heard they got a mediator. If im not mistaken mediation is when theres 2 sides and then a 3rd dude(the mediator) who tries to help the sides solve the problem. And if an agreement isn't reached the mediator decides whats goin down.

                Comment


                • NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
                  i heard they got a mediator. If im not mistaken mediation is when theres 2 sides and then a 3rd dude(the mediator) who tries to help the sides solve the problem. And if an agreement isn't reached the mediator decides whats goin down.
                  NoProps: you are thinking of binding arbitration. The mediator, unfortunately, has no final say. His role is more like that of a marriage counsellor working with a couple looking to give it one last shot before they start divorce proceedings. In the end if one side still isn't happy they can walk away.

                  Comment


                  • This thing is all about protecting Cleveland, protecting Toronto, Sacramento. Denver just lost Carmelo. They've already started talking about where is Chris Paul going -- to New York or New Jersey. Orlando, Dwight Howard already is going to the Lakers. I agree with them. They have to protect these small-market teams
                    Here's one of my issues with a hard cap keeping star players in small markets.

                    How can anyone ensure they will still want to stay? I can see if a franchise tag was created where a team could pay a player a ton of money above the 'average' max salary....

                    But otherwise, you can't control local or state tax. You can't control weather. You can't control the cities 'entertainment'. You can't control the cities location. You can't control the potential external income players can earn in larger markets (endorsements). . You can't control the attention another team brings etc etc.

                    Bosh/Lebron/Carmelo could have all got paid more by staying in Toronto/Cleveland/Denver (well I guess Carmelo did get that contract but had he not been traded he wouldn't have) yet they all choose to leave, none of them due to $ issues. How much a player gets paid is only a piece of the pie.

                    Then you have the potential problem of a team being unable to keep a player because they may not have the money under the cap in order to do it.

                    So lets take some Toronto examples as they are the most relevant to us:

                    Tracy McGrady - left because he claimed he wanted to be Michael Jordan and not Scottie Pippen. Hard cap does what to stop that? So now lets rewrite history and say McGrady didn't mind being a #2 guy, wanted as much money as he could reasonably make and the salary cap at the time was a hard cap. Unless I'm mistaken (which is hardly rare) Toronto would not have had enough cash under the cap to pay him. Now, assuming Toronto thinks he is worth the money, they have to find ways to get back under the cap... which means making the rest of the team worse (well theoretically anyways).

                    Bosh - left because he wanted attention he couldn't get in Toronto. Hard cap does what to stop that? Again, rewrite history and say he doesn't care about attention, wanted to max out his contract, salary cap is the hard cap... same problem as the example above.


                    I really don't think a hard cap is going to have the effect people hope it will. Players will still want the attention NY and LA brings, the chicks and tax breaks in Miami and the weather most places in the south. Atleast with revenue sharing, teams that are unable to keep players, more or less because of their location, will still get 'rewarded' (technically) for developing a talented player that fans want to see (even if he does not remain with the team). Still sucks for that teams fans I know....

                    Comment


                    • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                      Here's one of my issues with a hard cap keeping star players in small markets.

                      How can anyone ensure they will still want to stay? I can see if a franchise tag was created where a team could pay a player a ton of money above the 'average' max salary....

                      But otherwise, you can't control local or state tax. You can't control weather. You can't control the cities 'entertainment'. You can't control the cities location. You can't control the potential external income players can earn in larger markets (endorsements). . You can't control the attention another team brings etc etc.

                      Bosh/Lebron/Carmelo could have all got paid more by staying in Toronto/Cleveland/Denver (well I guess Carmelo did get that contract but had he not been traded he wouldn't have) yet they all choose to leave, none of them due to $ issues. How much a player gets paid is only a piece of the pie.

                      Then you have the potential problem of a team being unable to keep a player because they may not have the money under the cap in order to do it.

                      So lets take some Toronto examples as they are the most relevant to us:

                      Tracy McGrady - left because he claimed he wanted to be Michael Jordan and not Scottie Pippen. Hard cap does what to stop that? So now lets rewrite history and say McGrady didn't mind being a #2 guy, wanted as much money as he could reasonably make and the salary cap at the time was a hard cap. Unless I'm mistaken (which is hardly rare) Toronto would not have had enough cash under the cap to pay him. Now, assuming Toronto thinks he is worth the money, they have to find ways to get back under the cap... which means making the rest of the team worse (well theoretically anyways).

                      Bosh - left because he wanted attention he couldn't get in Toronto. Hard cap does what to stop that? Again, rewrite history and say he doesn't care about attention, wanted to max out his contract, salary cap is the hard cap... same problem as the example above.


                      I really don't think a hard cap is going to have the effect people hope it will. Players will still want the attention NY and LA brings, the chicks and tax breaks in Miami and the weather most places in the south. Atleast with revenue sharing, teams that are unable to keep players, more or less because of their location, will still get 'rewarded' (technically) for developing a talented player that fans want to see (even if he does not remain with the team). Still sucks for that teams fans I know....
                      The decision making processes would certainly be different had a hard cap been in place for the last 10-12 years. It doesn't seem fair, accurate, or realistic to hypothesize on what would have been done with a different system in place.

                      Regarding players, you are painting them all with the same brush using LeBron, Bosh, and Carmelo when:

                      Garnett stayed for years in Minnesota and only left because Taylor wouldn't give him the max anymore.

                      Brand left LA for Philly (same deal offered).

                      Durant (arguably best young player in the game) is happy to stay in OKC.

                      Amar'e first choice was to stay in PHX but NYK offered more money which PHX would not match.

                      Chris Paul, it appears, truly wants to stay with the Hornets as long as they stay in NO and have a shot to be competitive.

                      Rudy Gay and Zach Randolph both love it in Memphis.

                      Howard wants to stay in ORL but given the state of their payroll, they have little chance to be truly competitive for years.


                      The attention in a different market is not a solid argument either. Players are getting attention in larger markets or desirable markets because they are teaming up there to make competitive teams. NY made the playoffs for the first time since 03-04 and finished above .500 for the first time since 2000-01, that is why they got attention. Miami got all the attention because two of the best players in the game teamed up together - that is almost unheard of in professional sports. LAL gets all the attention because they have one of the best players and they are at the top of the standing year in year out of late. The Clippers are getting attention because of Griffin - much like Toronto use to get attention because of Wince Carter. Boston gets attention because they are at the top of the standings and are a contender.

                      Teams at the top of the standings get attention. New Orleans got plenty of attention 3 years ago when they were one of the top teams. OKC is getting a lot of attention in the last 2 years because they are winning. Miami was an afterthought the last 2 seasons before July 13, 2010. Cleveland and LeBron were hyped to the max until July 13, 2010. Back in the Webber years, Sacramento were one of the most hyped teams in the league. PHX was one of the most highly publicized teams when D'Antoni was there and Nash was winning MVP's. Memphis certainly got a lot of attention this year in the playoffs. San Antonio certainly gets attention and the fact they don't get more probably has to do with the lack of attention seeking people associated with the team and the 'unexciting' leading star of Tim Duncan. Chicago was a wasteland for years before Rose was drafted despite being a huge market. Nobody followed Boston for years until June 2007.

                      The expired CBA gave players the leverage to force GM/owners hand - who says the new CBA offers that? The owners are doing their best to implement the Carmelo Anthony rule. So now with LeBron, Bosh, and Carmelo all of a sudden sign and trades are no longer an option and they are looking at passing up 5 years guaranteed for only 3. All of a sudden passing up $30M or more - guaranteed - over 2 years is much more difficult to do than passing up $13M over 6 years.

                      A hard cap places every team on the same footing financially. In the expired CBA, once teams get the max players they then can recruit year after year using MLE and veterans minimum for guys searching for a championship to round out the roster and Bird's Rights to extend the talent they already have. That is how DAL and LAL are able to get $30-35M above the $58 soft cap.

                      A hard cap places more emphasis on decision making: allocation of dollars, draft picks, development of players, coaching, etc. A hard cap also helps distribute the talent around the league - as long as the talent is willing to be compensated at fair market value. It is now apparent this lockout is no longer strictly about dollars - it is the allocation of the dollars. The players want to continue allocating the dollars unevenly throughout the league whereas the owners want to distribute it evenly. It is the same amount of money. That right there shows you the players don't care about competitive balance, they want top dollars AND the leverage to get those dollars where they want.


                      With your examples, McGrady might have left anyways. He did sign with his hometown team and he did not want to be one of the back up dancers to Wince. However, take 2-3 years and $30+M off a contract and maybe those factors change - maybe they don't. But again, going back 10-12 years guessing about what if's is only an exchange of opinions with no basis.

                      The other issue is teams being unable to re-sign players due to a hardcap. That is true. However, that is where the planning and decision making of GM's becomes even more important. As a fan I want factors teams can control being the reason for success or failure rather than factors they cannot control - mainly player leverage in teaming up with friends or wanting to play in a certain city.

                      Comment


                      • It is official - the players association is stupid.

                        If Hunter pointing figurative guns at Stern wasn't enough nor JaVale McGee saying some were about to fold nor Martin wishing everyone to get full-blown AIDS, how about this:


                        "As they want to inflict these self-inflicted wounds, the gash is only going to get bigger, franchise values are going to decimate," Evans said. "Best-case scenario -- when we ran the numbers -- 2023 is when they would recover [financially] and get back to where we are with BRI (basketball-related income) if we lost an entire season. So continuing to threaten that it's a season and that it's two years is only going to further damage your business. Again, that's not even speaking for individual owners and what they stand to lose. Not every owner would be able to, again, come out of this lockout. There would be some contraction, potentially, if they want to lock us out for a year or longer."

                        Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1aqpk6c9S
                        Who says that is best case scenario? And if it is, the owners will recoup the money. The players will NEVER get the money back - NEVER.

                        So the owners lose because of contraction? And each team lost is 15 jobs for your union, Maurice. What are you guys smoking at these PA meetings?

                        Comment


                        • The decision making processes would certainly be different had a hard cap been in place for the last 10-12 years. It doesn't seem fair, accurate, or realistic to hypothesize on what would have been done with a different system in place.

                          Regarding players, you are painting them all with the same brush using LeBron, Bosh, and Carmelo when:

                          Garnett stayed for years in Minnesota and only left because Taylor wouldn't give him the max anymore.

                          Brand left LA for Philly (same deal offered).

                          Durant (arguably best young player in the game) is happy to stay in OKC.

                          Amar'e first choice was to stay in PHX but NYK offered more money which PHX would not match.

                          Chris Paul, it appears, truly wants to stay with the Hornets as long as they stay in NO and have a shot to be competitive.

                          Rudy Gay and Zach Randolph both love it in Memphis.

                          Howard wants to stay in ORL but given the state of their payroll, they have little chance to be truly competitive for years.

                          Umm.....everyone who supports a hard cap is doing that no?

                          And I'm not even remotely painting everyone with the same brush..... In fact I specifically said there is a multitude of different reasons as to what influences a players decision. I'd say the very idea that the reason superstars aren't staying with their team is because of finances (which is the very reason for wanting a hard cap no?) is painting players with the same brush.

                          Your examples (while I don't necessarily agree with all of them) more or less prove my point.


                          The attention in a different market is not a solid argument either. Players are getting attention in larger markets or desirable markets because they are teaming up there to make competitive teams. NY made the playoffs for the first time since 03-04 and finished above .500 for the first time since 2000-01, that is why they got attention. Miami got all the attention because two of the best players in the game teamed up together - that is almost unheard of in professional sports. LAL gets all the attention because they have one of the best players and they are at the top of the standing year in year out of late. The Clippers are getting attention because of Griffin - much like Toronto use to get attention because of Wince Carter. Boston gets attention because they are at the top of the standings and are a contender.
                          You don't think NY and LA get a ton of attention even when they are not good? I'm sorry but we are living in 2 different realities then. Thats like saying the Leafs aren't getting much attention when they aren't good....

                          Do teams at the top get attention... sure they do. But certain teams get alot of attention ALL the time.



                          The expired CBA gave players the leverage to force GM/owners hand - who says the new CBA offers that? The owners are doing their best to implement the Carmelo Anthony rule. So now with LeBron, Bosh, and Carmelo all of a sudden sign and trades are no longer an option and they are looking at passing up 5 years guaranteed for only 3. All of a sudden passing up $30M or more - guaranteed - over 2 years is much more difficult to do than passing up $13M over 6 years.
                          Sure eliminate the sign and trade. That really has nothing to do with a hard cap though. Yes a hard cap will likely get rid of it, but the league doesn't just need a hard cap to do it. Just implement the "Carmelo Rule" without a hard cap.


                          A hard cap places more emphasis on decision making: allocation of dollars, draft picks, development of players, coaching, etc. A hard cap also helps distribute the talent around the league - as long as the talent is willing to be compensated at fair market value. It is now apparent this lockout is no longer strictly about dollars - it is the allocation of the dollars. The players want to continue allocating the dollars unevenly throughout the league whereas the owners want to distribute it evenly. It is the same amount of money. That right there shows you the players don't care about competitive balance, they want top dollars AND the leverage to get those dollars where they want.
                          sure sounds like you are hypothesizing to me...... which is "not accurate or realistic" right? All sarcasm aside... I agree a hard cap places more emphasis on decision making. That has nothing to do with a star player who wants to leave for any individual personal reasoning.


                          Again lets look at Toronto. Name me one of the 'stars' who left because of money. That should sum things up.

                          Comment


                          • also forgot to mention:

                            It is now apparent this lockout is no longer strictly about dollars - it is the allocation of the dollars. The players want to continue allocating the dollars unevenly throughout the league whereas the owners want to distribute it evenly.
                            the league can allocate resources just as well through revenue sharing. So to say that its the players who want to allocate resources unevenly and the owners evenly is inaccurate.

                            Comment


                            • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              Umm.....everyone who supports a hard cap is doing that no?

                              And I'm not even remotely painting everyone with the same brush..... In fact I specifically said there is a multitude of different reasons as to what influences a players decision. I'd say the very idea that the reason superstars aren't staying with their team is because of finances (which is the very reason for wanting a hard cap no?) is painting players with the same brush.
                              Maybe I'm splitting hairs but hypothesizing what would have happened in the past in a different system is much different that discussing the future. In the past the outcomes are known.

                              Your multitude of different reasons all have players going to more desirable cities for reasons other than basketball. A hardcap gives each team more of an opportunity to satisfy the number one goal of most professional athletes: the chance to win.

                              Your examples (while I don't necessarily agree with all of them) more or less prove my point.




                              You don't think NY and LA get a ton of attention even when they are not good? I'm sorry but we are living in 2 different realities then. Thats like saying the Leafs aren't getting much attention when they aren't good....

                              Do teams at the top get attention... sure they do. But certain teams get alot of attention ALL the time.
                              Prove your point? Hmmmmm. We'll have to agree to disagree there, GT.

                              Tell me when the Clippers were getting national attention before this past season.

                              NY got attention for all the wrong reasons (Isiah Thomas - sex scandal, Larry Brown - undermining owner, Stephon Marbury - apparently mentally unstable drama queen) and couldn't lure the top free agents of 2010 and instead settled for Amar'e. EDIT: Also NY was receiving attention for 2 years leading up to last summer's free agency because it was well know they were clearing cap space in an attempt to lure LeBron James.

                              When I say attention, I am talking national attention. The amount of local attention can certainly distort things because of their market size. National attention is what matters because national attention means you are either a) winning or b) controversial. The Leafs are a bad example as over 1/3 of the population of Canada is in the GTA where the majority of our national media is also based.




                              Sure eliminate the sign and trade. That really has nothing to do with a hard cap though. Yes a hard cap will likely get rid of it, but the league doesn't just need a hard cap to do it. Just implement the "Carmelo Rule" without a hard cap.
                              The hardcap allocates dollars evenly and therefore helps allocate talent evenly unless top players are willing to play for significantly less money.



                              sure sounds like you are hypothesizing to me...... which is "not accurate or realistic" right? All sarcasm aside... I agree a hard cap places more emphasis on decision making. That has nothing to do with a star player who wants to leave for any individual personal reasoning.


                              Again lets look at Toronto. Name me one of the 'stars' who left because of money. That should sum things up.
                              I'm not saying players should not have the right to move. The issue is when the players leverage their moves at the expense of their former franchise. That is not fair to the fans and it does not help competitive balance around the league.


                              I do find it funny how you cherry picked my response leaving out this comment:


                              Matt52 wrote: View Post
                              A hard cap places every team on the same footing financially. In the expired CBA, once teams get the max players they then can recruit year after year using MLE and veterans minimum for guys searching for a championship to round out the roster and Bird's Rights to extend the talent they already have. That is how DAL and LAL are able to get $30-35M above the $58 soft cap.

                              And ignoring this comment (EDIT: post #803 was added after I hit reply, GT did mention this):

                              Matt52 wrote: View Post
                              It is now apparent this lockout is no longer strictly about dollars - it is the allocation of the dollars. The players want to continue allocating the dollars unevenly throughout the league whereas the owners want to distribute it evenly. It is the same amount of money. That right there shows you the players don't care about competitive balance, they want top dollars AND the leverage to get those dollars where they want.

                              Both of these comments speak to the very heart of the matter: competitive balance. The players are going to get paid regardless. The issue is players want to control WHERE they get paid at the expense of the fans in certain markets that year in and year out serve as a doormat or farm team to those at the top who have the resources to pay numerous top talents AND attract new talent year after year via exemptions.
                              Last edited by mcHAPPY; Sat Oct 15, 2011, 09:40 AM. Reason: I did not finish a sentence in the second paragraph.

                              Comment


                              • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                also forgot to mention:



                                the league can allocate resources just as well through revenue sharing. So to say that its the players who want to allocate resources unevenly and the owners evenly is inaccurate.
                                The current system does not generate profits. The league as a whole is losing money, something which the players admit. Revenue sharing in the current system is sharing losses and it does not fix the underlying problems.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X