The 2016 Offseason thread

[DanH]

I think it's more about the perception of owners complaints while throwing around foolish money. You're too focused on the dollars and cents here; what's the big picture? A billionaire complaining how much money they are losing then trying to hit up players or a city for money; while they take their private jets to give ridiculous amounts of money to mediocre players. In the court of public opinion, perception is much more important than CBA rules.

I guess. I'm just saying there is no way for the owners to avoid the spending. There is no way for it to happen. It's an unavoidable perception. So that perception is an uneducated one.

[slaw]

What was your point?

That one cannot feasibly cry that one is going broke one minute and then spend $100 million the next to pay guys in pajamas to throw a rubber ball through a piece of metal the next. If the owners were broke and poor and losing money, they would not be engaging in a business where they were doing so. Everyone involved in the NBA makes a lot of money, if not in pure operating profit, then by the increase of their capital in the form of increasing franchise values. Otherwise, no one would own these teams and, if they did, the salary cap wouldn't be ~$100 million per team. So, when the poor, bewildered owners cry that their teams are in trouble unless players take 48% of revenue instead of 50%, and then they have $100M to spend on payroll alone, I remain unmoved by their cries of poverty.

[Letter N]

That one cannot feasibly cry that one is going broke one minute and then spend $100 million the next to pay guys in pajamas to throw a rubber ball through a piece of metal the next. If the owners were broke and poor and losing money, they would not be engaging in a business where they were doing so. Everyone involved in the NBA makes a lot of money, if not in pure operating profit, then by the increase of their capital in the form of increasing franchise values. Otherwise, no one would own these teams and, if they did, the salary cap wouldn't be ~$100 million per team. So, when the poor, bewildered owners cry that their teams are in trouble unless players take 48% of revenue instead of 50%, and then they have $100M to spend on payroll alone, I remain unmoved by their cries of poverty.

That makes no sense.

They're in a business that pays "guys in pajamas to throw a rubber ball through a piece of metal", that's what they have to spend their money on.

[Axel]

I guess. I'm just saying there is no way for the owners to avoid the spending. There is no way for it to happen. It's an unavoidable perception. So that perception is an uneducated one.

But they don't have to cry about the burden of their finances or threaten to relocate their teams while doing so. So it's not an uneducated perception as much as one based on the big picture. If you solely look at the CBA rules then you are sorely going to miss a lot.

[DanH]

That one cannot feasibly cry that one is going broke one minute and then spend $100 million the next to pay guys in pajamas to throw a rubber ball through a piece of metal the next. If the owners were broke and poor and losing money, they would not be engaging in a business where they were doing so. Everyone involved in the NBA makes a lot of money, if not in pure operating profit, then by the increase of their capital in the form of increasing franchise values. Otherwise, no one would own these teams and, if they did, the salary cap wouldn't be ~$100 million per team. So, when the poor, bewildered owners cry that their teams are in trouble unless players take 48% of revenue instead of 50%, and then they have $100M to spend on payroll alone, I remain unmoved by their cries of poverty.

You realize the problem with that logic though, right? There must exists some percentage of revenue where the owners would not make money, right? Say, if the players got 75% of revenue, let's presume at that number the owners would be losing money. It could be any number, but let's use that one. In that scenario, the players this summer would be getting 50% higher salaries than they did. And you'd be scoffing at owners spending 24 million per year on Mozgov instead of 16M per year. And the owners would legitimately be losing money.

Absolutely you are right to scoff at the owners losing money. You are right to laugh at suggestions that the league can't survive without the players taking pay cuts, or that the league really has competitive interest at heart.

All I'm saying is that the amount of money being given to the players is not the least bit an indicator of the reasons you should scoff at those things. The players getting big money is driven by revenue, by us. Not by the owners. And in fact is inversely related to how much money the owners are making - if profit margins were truly razor thin, the players would make even more money.

[DanH]

But they don't have to cry about the burden of their finances or threaten to relocate their teams while doing so. So it's not an uneducated perception as much as one based on the big picture. If you solely look at the CBA rules then you are sorely going to miss a lot.

But I have no issue with those problems being pointed out. It is the spending itself being irrelevant that I'm pointing out.

[Axel]

But I have no issue with those problems being pointed out. It is the spending itself being irrelevant that I'm pointing out.

Who said anything about spending being irrelevant?

[DanH]

Who said anything about spending being irrelevant?

I did. The amount the owners spend on salaries is irrelevant to the points about how silly it is when owners whine and complain about money even while they get huge capital returns on franchises and force tax payers to pay for the biggest costs. Those are all relevant points. How much salary players get is not.

[Axel]

I did. The amount the owners spend on salaries is irrelevant to the points about how silly it is when owners whine and complain about money even while they get huge capital returns on franchises and force tax payers to pay for the biggest costs. Those are all relevant points. How much salary players get is not.

The hundreds of millions of dollars being spent will always be relevant to the public perception when owners try to force players or tax payers to give them money. Regardless of the CBA, that is reality. If you can't afford to own a team, sell it to someone else because the sympathy factor for billionaires in private jets is pretty darn low.

[Apollo]

These franchises help to greatly stimulate local economies. Their activity leads to job creation, higher tax revenues, higher tourism, etc. Governments don't fork out money to pro sports because they think the owners are cool or something because most of them are not cool at all. We talking dudes that always get picked last in pickup games. No, they're investing in a mechanism to drive the local economy and hopefully lead to returns on their own income statement.

[Bendit]

So, here is a "novel" thought. Since we have so much angst about the copious amounts of green being generated by the NBA why not tighten the spigot a tad....lessen the number of games would be a good start (less injuries and longevity for players). Expending more to setting up basketball facilities in communities (and poor countries) might be another. How about lowering those high ticket prices which many cannot afford.

Voila....less revenue hence lower cap numbers and a curb on salaries and profits of course.

Am I missing something?

[Mess]

Just capitalism.

[Apollo]

So, here is a "novel" thought. Since we have so much angst about the copious amounts of green being generated by the NBA why not tighten the spigot a tad....lessen the number of games would be a good start (less injuries and longevity for players). Expending more to setting up basketball facilities in communities (and poor countries) might be another. How about lowering those high ticket prices which many cannot afford.

Voila....less revenue hence lower cap numbers and a curb on salaries and profits of course.

Am I missing something?

Yes, capitalism. Haha

[Apollo]

Just capitalism.

Dammit Mess, now it looks like I copied you.

[golden]

Extortion really is the best word for it too.

Public funded stadiums should be illegal or require significant concessions to the tax payers (including reduced ticket prices).

Sorry Ax, but I think extortion is a terrible word for that situation. Extortion is when your life and survival is threatened. Sports are a frivolous discretionary indulgence in entertainment to escape from reality. Hell yeah, I'd be upset if the Raps left Toronto, but if the alternative is taking money away from infrastructure and services that people REALLY need, then that's beyond a no-brainer. Any city or municipality that allows public funded arenas to happen, better have a rock solid business case (i.e jobs created, cash injected into the local economy, etc....) or they are acting extremely irresponsibly.