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

[GarbageTime]

Look at it this way. A hard cap is like giving someone a finite amount of money and saying this is your budget. After that there's nothing more. A soft cap is like giving someone that AND a credit card, just in case he needs more money. If you have $100 to spend (and that's it), you're a lot less likely to spend it on something you don't need because you know once it's gone you've got nothing else to spend on food and bills. If you also have a credit card, you now have a way to buy that big screen TV. Now, logically, you shouldn't buy the big screen TV unless you have the money, but you can justify it because you can always pay the money back at some point.
With a hard cap, a GM is going to do the simple math and realize that he won't have the money to pay Kris Humphries $8 million a season and still have enough leftover to get the other players he needs. There's no justifying that when he needs to add more and better players, he can just pay to get more.

Now there are drawbacks to a hardcap and, as a fan, I don't like it, but it would most definitely curtail spending and all those outrageous contracts.

I know what you are getting at, but it needs to be pointed out that this is a business and not discretionary consumer spending.

The old adage of 'it takes money to make money' holds true in the NBA (or any sport) aswell. So what you may see as just spending on a big screen TV for one person, could be buying a big screen for TV for resale (and profit) to another.

No team should be restricted from 'investing' and helping improve their team or profitability. We can both agree that regardless, some spending will end up making a bad investment... and thats a loss that person will and should simply have to accept. At the same time, others can work out great.

But just because one person isn't willing to take a risk on a new TV, doesn't mean his neighboor shouldn't be able to either.

[mcHAPPY]

Via Twitter.com:

SpearsNBAYahoo Players vs NBA class-action antitrust lawsuit filed in Oakland set for court on Feb. 29, 2012. Court official says date could be moved up.

*EDIT*

It would appear unless the lawyers for both sides get together to work something out there will be no 2011-12 season in my opinion.

[Apollo]

again that comes back to the idea that money (salary) is one of the deciding factors in success. Which has consistently been shown to be inaccurate.

From Slaw's link:



The two biggest factors deciding how good a team is, and will be in any system, is management and luck.

He doesn't say the relationship doesn't exist, he says it's not strong but his logic is a little flawed if I am reading this correctly. You can't just crunch the numbers because you need to individually analyze each particular situation and set of circumstances. Chicago and Oklahoma are prime examples of teams who will throw off basic calculations to prove that money isn't a large factor. They are teams who drafted really well recently and have a lot of their top guys on cheap rookie deals. They would have to spend a lot of money to keep that unit together and a lot more to add to it in the old system. In other words they break the calculation because their current situations are impossible to sustain.

Money can play a big factor. Your stance, this guy's stance as well, is that if you have two equal managers and two equal rosters but one manager has $20M more to spend over the cap on players then that doesn't mean anything. That extra $20M of money plays little into the scheme of things because the findings from your basic comparison of the standings versus labour cost is inconclusive. That's your stance unless I'm misunderstanding here. That's very, very short sighted. The money isn't the determining factor in success but it is a limiting factor to how much success is reached. Bad managers are going to make some bad moves no matter if they have $50M to work with or $90M, no doubt about it. However, good managers tend to make good moves and the only thing that can apply the breaks to their rosters in the old system outside of bad luck is resources. Money.

OK, maybe there is no obvious example but I am sure they do exist! And it's unfair to say The King has no management experience because he played a major role in the organization of The Decision last Summer.

Yeah he's great and if you're not sold, just ask him.

[Apollo]

Déjà vu

NEW YORK — There’s a new David in town, possibly a worthy adversary of the other David, aka Commissioner Stern.

This is a copy of the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court by David Boies, the temporary de-facto leader of what used to be the National Basketball Players Association. In court lingo, it will be called Anthony v. NBA. (Yes, Carmelo is Tom Brady 2.0)

In case you missed it, I was at union (trade association?) headquarters in Harlem last night as Boies spoke to a group of writers who have been closely covering the NBA lockout. Click here to link to the story I wrote last night on Boies saying he is calling David Stern’s bluff.

If somebody wants to call Boies’ bluff, they can cite two quotes from his argument in Brady v. NFL, in which he represented the owners, not the players.

This is from a brief filed in the NFL anti-trust lawsuit after pro football players decertified their union:

“The law is not so easily manipulated. One party to a collective bargaining relationship cannot, through its own tactical and unilateral conduct, instantaneously oust federal labor law or extinguish another party’s labor law rights. A union cannot, by a tactical declaration akin to th flip of a switch, transform a multiemployer bargaining unit’s lawful use of economic tools afforded it under labor laws into an antitrust violation giving rise to treble damages and injunctive relief.”

Later in that same brief, Boise argues:

“When federal labor policy collides with federal antitrust policy in a labor market organized around a collective bargaining relationship, antitrust policy must give way. Accordingly, employees confronted with actions imposed lawfully through the collective bargaining process must respond not with a lawsuit brought under the Sherman Act, but rather with the weapons provided by the federal labor laws.”

Source: Sheridan Hoops

[Tim W.]

I give you: Vincent Levacalier (31 yrs old, 9 yrs, $8mm per), Illya Kovalchuk ($100mm till 2025). I'd also throw in Scott Gomez, Daniel Briere, Chris Pronger and Marian Hossa. I also present some wonderdful NFL deals: Stanford Routt, Paul Solial, Eric Weddle, Davin Joseph, etc.

There are others but, well, I think the point is clear and I grow weary of having to try and explain that the owners are full of crap over and over again. If you can't look at 30 years of history through the 4 major sports leagues and see this for yourself there isn't anything I can write that will change minds. There is a reason very smart, very rich people buy NBA teams: they are profitable in the long run. There is also a reason a lot of owners and GMs make the same mistakes over and over again: they aren't very good at their jobs. I am not waving the players' banner but don't expect me to buy into this garbage about how this is all for the good of the game cause it's nonsense. I learned my lesson from the 1994 MLB ordeal when the owners went and blew their brains out on signing free agents within days of the deal being signed. NHL fans learned the lesson from their last lockout when "poor" owners signed guys to 10 year deals for $100mm and now, not ten years later, are crying poor again even though they got everything they wanted last time. Looks like a new generation of NBA fans will be learning the same lesson soon.

I don't know who any of those people are (I only follow basketball) but the CBA would not allow long deals like that, and other sports have far more players on the roster, so far more flexibility to spend money. In the NBA, you've got 15 roster spots and you know that the majority of that has to go to the top 3-5 players on the team.

Teams HAVE to go out and try and sign free agents if they want to improve, and that means competition for the few free agents that might make an impact. Unfortunately, there's no clear-cut way of deciding who makes an impact and who doesn't, and that means some teams end up having to gamble. Imagine a world where there are a limited number of workers, especially good ones. Companies are going to offer bigger and bigger contracts to try and entice the best workers if they want to compete as a company.

This doesn't mean those teams and those companies can afford it. Like the guy with the credit card, they're taking a mortgage out to put them in a better position.

And you complain about the owners and GMs, what about the fans? They're the first one to jump on a GM for signing a guy to a bad deal, but they'll also lynch him for letting talent go or not trying to go out and get it. Raptor fans are the perfect example. How many times have I read a comment from a fan that has called MLSE cheap? The Raptors have NEVER been under the cap for more than a season, have (or attempted) to sign free agents and overpaid in the process to do it. They've re-signed or tried to re-sign just about every big name player they've had and they've trade for plenty of big contracts. Yet fans still call them cheap because they don't spend as much as teams like the Lakers.

Yes, bad deals are always going to be signed, but if you've got a hard cap and only 15 roster spots, they are going to be a lot fewer and far between.

[Hugmenot]

It would appear unless the lawyers for both sides get together to work something out there will be no 2011-12 season in my opinion.

The first court date in California will not accomplish much towards a resolution anyway because the NBA will surely file a change of venue option arguing "David Stern has a great fondness for the New York minute".

I am curious how many NBA players will find employment overseas in the meantime and how this will help/hurt their case.

[mcHAPPY]

The first court date in California will not accomplish much towards a resolution anyway because the NBA will surely file a change of venue option arguing "David Stern has a great fondness for the New York minute".

I am curious how many NBA players will find employment overseas in the meantime and how this will help/hurt their case.

I think we are saying the same thing here. Waiting until February for the first court date, which will resolve nothing, ensures no 2011-12 season UNLESS lawyers for both sides start negotiating.

[Tim W.]

I know what you are getting at, but it needs to be pointed out that this is a business and not discretionary consumer spending.

The old adage of 'it takes money to make money' holds true in the NBA (or any sport) aswell. So what you may see as just spending on a big screen TV for one person, could be buying a big screen for TV for resale (and profit) to another.

No team should be restricted from 'investing' and helping improve their team or profitability. We can both agree that regardless, some spending will end up making a bad investment... and thats a loss that person will and should simply have to accept. At the same time, others can work out great.

But just because one person isn't willing to take a risk on a new TV, doesn't mean his neighboor shouldn't be able to either.

I'm not arguing in favour of a hard cap. Just stating how it will help the owners stop overspending. I am also completely against a free market system, though, that the players want. The problem is that the league restricts where teams can play, so there should be other restrictions to level the playing field to make up for that. For a company, they can pretty much move anywhere they want and draw their customers or clients from anywhere, especially in todays marketplace. In the NBA, the league only allows the Knicks and soon to be the Nets to play in New York, which is the biggest market in the NBA. Only the Knicks and Nets will be able to access the fans, advertising and TV market in that area. Even if there is a compete sharing of revenue, they'll still have an advantage in attracting players. This is patently unfair, but it is also the only viable model for a league like this to function.

The other thing to remember is that each team is not a completely separate organization. All the players, in effect, work for the league, not each team. And each team is simply an arm of the league.

[GarbageTime]

He doesn't say the relationship doesn't exist, he says it's not strong but his logic is a little flawed if I am reading this correctly. You can't just crunch the numbers because you need to individually analyze each particular situation and set of circumstances. Chicago and Oklahoma are prime examples of team who will throw off basic calculations to prove that money isn't a large factor. They are teams who drafted really well recently and have a lot of their top guys on cheap rookie deals. They're would have to spend a lot of money to keep that unit together and a lot more to add to it in the old system.

Money can play a big factor. Your stance, this guy's stance as well, is that if you have two equal managers and two equal rosters but one manager has $20M more to spend over the cap on players then that doesn't mean anything. That extra $20M of money plays little into the scheme of things because your basic comparison of the standings versus labour cost is inconclusive. That's very, very short sighted. The money isn't the determining factor in success but it is a limiting factor to how much success is reached. Bad managers are going to make some bad moves no matter if they have $50M to work with or $90M, no doubt about it. However, as for good managers who tend to make good moves, well, the only thing that can apply the breaks to their rosters in the old system outside of bad luck is resources. Money.

First off they don't 'throw off' the calculation. They are a very real variable in it. The fact is those teams are NOT spending large yet still having success. They are the most obvious evidence that a team does not have to spend to compete (and maybe time for teams to start learning from others success). Thats like saying a 2 rebound game from Bargnani shouldn't be included in his average, because next game he'll probably grab 5 or 7.

Now here's the thing, if we take this year over year we'll find the same thing. Teams don't need to spend to compete.

I know what you are trying to get at this concept on 'continuing success'. And this gets us to a couple points I made you seem to have avoided or skipped.

1) with the, arguable, exception of Detroit... the most constant/obvious/common factor has been a superstar. Whether a team spent or didn't spend, the superstar player was the biggest factor.

2) the ability of a team to spend because of the existence of said superstar. This happens in all sorts of markets (rich, poor, big, small).


And yes you do need to analyze each particular situation or set of circumstance. Think about that next time you bring up salary imbalance and skip the entire point I made about circumstances (ie. a team having a star and therefore being able to afford to spend more... or conversely teams without a superstar being unwilling to spend).

The money isn't the determining factor in success but it is a limiting factor to how much success is reached.

and thats the crux of the error in your statement. The limiting fact is not $ but rather superstars and/or management. Again... all the 'spending teams' that had 'long term success' also had superstars. All the lower spending teams that had 'long term' success had superstars. The 5-10% relationship between spending and wins, is the proof the relationship is small and therefore not limiting nor determining.

Here's a question. When, or how often, are teams either unable or unwilling to pay a superstars salary? When, or how often, are teams unable to or unwilling to 'spend' (in general) when they do have a superstar? I think when we narrow that down we'll quickly see that superstars are why teams win, why they can spend, and when they should spend.

The issue of money is neither a determining or limiting variable. But rather a minor one. We should not allow a minor issue (spending) to have a big impact on a major problem (the lockout).

[Tim W.]

*WARNING LONG*

I don't mean to break everything you said down here and I don't mean to attack it (so i hope you don't take it that way), but I think what you have said is the general feeling amongst fans... and I will have a point at the end that will hopefully make it all come together.

In that spirit, I'm going to cut a lot of your comments to save space, but I'm commenting on it in it's entirety, or at least trying to.

Well there comes times in life where trying to fix a problem you can't solve ends up leading to different, new, unique or additional problems.

If the biggest problem with parity in the NBA is lack of superstars, then trying to solve the problem of parity by balancing spending seems like a practice in futility. But maybe more importantly; if the problem with parity is the lack of superstars, then giving up a season, to solve the problem of parity through balancing spending, seems like a waste.

If that were the only issue, then I'd agree (somewhat), but it's not. As Matt mentioned, the Pistons weren't a superstar team, but I've argued many times they were a bit of a fluke, so it may seem hypocritical for me to point to them as an example, but while I think them winning a Championship was a bit of a fluke, them contending was not. And there have been several contenders who did not have a top 5 or 10 player. I think what the fans (and possibly the owners want) is a CHANCE to compete. The way things are headed, if a team is not located in one of the few desirable markets, you have little chance of being able to compete without basically playing your hand perfectly....

I think this debate also needs to put the idea of spending into context. Can we say just spending into the tax is enough to be a spender? Or are we talking more LA and Dallas 90 - 100 mil dollar spending? If we are talking the 'LA-ish' spending... well there are only a couple teams who actually do that. If the goal is to prevent that... a hard tax at high level (80 -90 mil range) may not really be an issue. If we are talking about just spending into the tax type spending (70 -75 mil range which the vast majority of spending teams go into)... well how many teams are completely incapable of doing that?

I think this brings up an important point. Whats the correlation between winning and making money (and therefore being able to 'spend')? To be honest I'm having little luck finding anything on it (everything is the correlation between payroll and winning). So we may have to use some anectodal evidence.

The Spurs, in a relatively small market have been capabale of spending. The Sacramento Kings in the early 2000s had the biggest payroll in the league (at one point) and were profitable.... today they have the lowest payroll. The Cleveland Cavaliers for years with Lebron James were one of the top spending teams throwing money away like it was trash..... today they claim to be incapable of competing with the 'big markets'.

I would really love to have some statistical evidence to back that up, but all I can say is that it would seem that a superstar not only means wins, but that they (and the winning they provide) also means $ aswell. So how many teams, when they have a superstar, are actually incapable of spending? I'm willing to bet that very few (if not none) of them are. That the simple fact of the matter is too many teams haven't been in the right situation to spend (ie. have a superstar). I can even add the inverse to this aswell; the teams that have spent, and continually won, how many didn't also have superstars?

So will a team need to spend to 'maintain' success? Probably yes.... but, will they also be incapable of doing it? Probably no.

(beyond that, and I won't get into it in detail, it also brings up the issue of revenue sharing.... how much would greater revenue sharing allow teams that don't currently have a superstar or are not in 'good markets' maintain a reasonable bottom level of spending/profitability, until they obtain their superstar?)

The Kings are the perfect example of what I was talking about above. They were a very good team that contended, but didn't have enough to win it all. They also had deep pocketed owners and excelled before the last CBA and during much better economic times.

Now, the owners don't have a lot of money, and, because they are losing, they aren't getting the fans or near the amount of revenue they were getting when they were winning. And there's no way they can pull a Knicks and simply try and lure the best players with loads of cap room because they won't come.

But that has to assume that all 'overpaid' players are the same. Its one thing to over pay Kleiza or Luke Walton at 4, 5 or 6 mil a year a year, its another thing to over pay Gilbert Arenas at 22 mil, or a 90 year old Shaq at 22 mil, or Rashard Lewis at 18 mil, or Bargnani at 10 mil (*cough* had to slip that in there), or worse have combinations of those guys.

And perhaps most importantly to put this in perspective of the current lockout: Given what I've said, at some level the simple question has to be asked - is the potential loss of a season worth what 'balanced spending' will or will not offer?


To me the answer is an easy no.


As a side note I did come across this statement (no idea who it was and lost where it came from)



I don't think its a complete statement, but its a simple statement that probably applies to this whole debate.

(I hope that all came together)

Now, if it was simply about balancing the field, then it depends on who you are as to whether you think a lost season is worth it. As a Raptor fan, I'd like to see the playing field as level as possible in order to give the Raptors as fair a chance to compete as possible. I think it's worth holding out for that.

As an owner, I think it's worth holding out in order to make sure you aren't going to continue to lose money if you want to try and compete.

As a player, guaranteed contracts are definitely something that helps the majority of players, especially the "99%". Freedom of player movement certainly shouldn't be a "blood" issue because it only helps a minority, as does many of the issues that we're hearing about from them.

My question is, why don't the players simply accept the offer? Is it worth losing a season, and a good portion of the majority of the player's careers, over?

[GarbageTime]

My question is, why don't the players simply accept the offer? Is it worth losing a season, and a good portion of the majority of the player's careers, over?

that is something I completely agree with... and do think the players should have accepted the offer. Unfortunately, us as fans have little impact and can only debate, discuss and take sides on the issues.

The Kings are the perfect example of what I was talking about above. They were a very good team that contended, but didn't have enough to win it all. They also had deep pocketed owners and excelled before the last CBA and during much better economic times.

Now, the owners don't have a lot of money, and, because they are losing, they aren't getting the fans or near the amount of revenue they were getting when they were winning. And there's no way they can pull a Knicks and simply try and lure the best players with loads of cap room because they won't come.

just wanted to address this to. The kings owners being 'poor' and the team being 'not good' also doesn't mean they can't be good and the owners become profitable again.

We have to seperate what is happening right now with a team and what a team is capable of. The history of Sacramento shows that they are capable of packing a stadium, of getting fans and making a profit if they are good (I think we will find this everywhere). The league in general shows that the Kings don't need to spend to become good, to therefore get fans, and therefore become profitable again.

They don't need to be like the Knicks... nor should they try to that. There are other models out there to duplicate. And once they get that star player (or if Tyreke turns out to be him)... we'll hear the cowbells ring again.

Yet even if every team was like the knicks... would that make a difference? The haves and have nots would still exist. The teams without Lebron James/Kobe Byrant/Dwight Howard etc would still not stand a chance (so to speak) against the teams with them.

If one believes that the league should have a system where all 30 teams can compete with each other year in and year, then I can see how things like hard cap could help. But if we look at all the professional sports teams across North America (both hard and soft and no cap systems) we'll see that that has never happened. Even in the CFL where only 8 teams exist... there are always teams that just can't win to save their lives.

If one believes that the league should have a system where any of the 30 teams can compete with the others in any given year. Well we only need to look at the NBA... where the only team that has been incapable of competing has been the Clippers... ironically enough a 'have' team in a 'big market'.

In no sport does 1 (or a few) player(s) make a bigger difference. Getting that one player is the difference between success and money.

[Apollo]

First off they don't 'throw off' the calculation. They are a very real variable in it. The fact is those teams are NOT spending large yet still having success. They are the most obvious evidence that a team does not have to spend to compete (and maybe time for teams to start learning from others success). Thats like saying a 2 rebound game from Bargnani shouldn't be included in his average, because next game he'll probably grab 5 or 7.

No they should not count or they certainly should not count as much. What the Thunder and Bulls have right now is totally unsustainable. It's impossible to sustain at their current level of spending. Both those teams are going to have to spend to maintain and improve. Like I said, good management alone can lead to some success but to maintain it and to build on it takes lots of money. Name me one team, just one team, who has been a perennial playoff team who is not consistently spending above cap. You can't do it. Please answer this question:

If you have two managers equal in ability, who have equal rosters and who are entering free agency but one has $3M he's authorized to spend and one has $20M that he's authorized to spend, which manager do you feel is going to have a better off-season?

You're heading into the trade deadline. Again, two equal managers, equal rosters but one manager is authorized to take on long term deals or deals worth more than the current salary total and meanwhile the other manager has been told not to take on long term deals and not to take on extra money. Which manager do you feel has the best chance of improving the team at the deadline?

And yes you do need to analyze each particular situation or set of circumstance. Think about that next time you bring up salary imbalance and skip the entire point I made about circumstances (ie. a team having a star and therefore being able to afford to spend more... or conversely teams without a superstar being unwilling to spend).

I have considered it. I disagree with it. It's not as simplistic as that. You keep using the Cavs and LeBron James as your base case. Well that case is extreme. You're not providing a strong case using that as an example. He's probably the best know basketball player in the world right now who isn't named Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. If you want to make ground on this theory then provide more examples and more realistic examples. There is only one LeBron James. He's in a class of his own in terms of his overall abilities and market appeal. The fact that you need to use the Cavs case as a crutch for your stance isn't helping the case.

and thats the crux of the error in your statement. The limiting fact is not $ but rather superstars and/or management. Again... all the 'spending teams' that had 'long term success' also had superstars. All the lower spending teams that had 'long term' success had superstars.

Wrong. The Thunder have two Superstar. If they don't spend money to keep quality talent around them they won't maintain. If they don't add to it, which involves spending even more money they'll never win a title. Same goes for the Bulls.

Then you have the league perception. All the young stars are wanting to go to the big markets. Why? Because they feel it offers them a better chance to win. Why do they feel that way? Because most of the big markets right now have good managers in place and all of the big markets have deep pockets to spend on players. I don't hear any rumors about Chris Paul considering to hose the Hornets to play for the Atlanta Hawks. No, who do you hear? The NY Knicks. Same goes for Dwight Howard. The guy doesn't sound like he's itching to get the hell out of Orlando to go play for the Oklahoma City Thunder, no, you're hearing the Lakers. Why? Because regardless of the Thunder's outstanding management roster, regardless of a Hawks roster one elite PG away from contending, they're viewed as small markets. Small markets are viewed as small spenders. Small spenders are viewed as less competitive.

For that matter you could ask the question of why on earth would Chris Paul want to leave an organization that treated him like gold and who have an excellent track record of bringing in quality players? I'll tell you why, it's because they can't afford to spend over cap and have been forced to make some really tough choices. Choices which meant dumping really important pieces to stay afloat financially. In the old system a team like the Hornets can't sustain success no matter who's running the show.

[slaw]

My question is, why don't the players simply accept the offer? Is it worth losing a season, and a good portion of the majority of the player's careers, over?

It's very easy to say that from the outside looking in but you aren't sacrificing anything. The long term implication was a giveback of about $3 billion over the life of the CBA. Plus, since you know that when the next CBA comes around the owners will claim they are all going broke and the system doesn't work, you are going to be giving up even more. The new system would also effectively wipe out the middle class and place massive restrictions on player movement (ed. note: I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic argument on incentives vs. restrictions). Also, Ric Bucher has noted that there were somewhere around 30 issues that were unresolved in the latest offer. Obviously, the players would have lost on all of those once they signed on to the main points.

Look, the players' tactics were awful and the PA (Hunter et al.) should be crucified for the crappy job they have done over the last 2 years. Absolutely criticize them for that. But the players have granted massive concessions to the owners and have all but got down on their hands and knees begging for the owners to throw them a bone. They haven't. The owners are prepared to lose the season to get what they want. Is the PA at fault? Absolutely, but letting the owners off the hook in all this is senseless. The owners wanted this. They got it. It's only fair they own it as well.

Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..

[Tim W.]

that is something I completely agree with... and do think the players should have accepted the offer. Unfortunately, us as fans have little impact and can only debate, discuss and take sides on the issues.

I definitely think the players should have taken the deal, not only because I think it's a fair deal, but because holding out just screws them more. No matter what happens, they'll never make up what they lose if there is no season.

just wanted to address this to. The kings owners being 'poor' and the team being 'not good' also doesn't mean they can't be good and the owners become profitable again.

We have to seperate what is happening right now with a team and what a team is capable of. The history of Sacramento shows that they are capable of packing a stadium, of getting fans and making a profit if they are good (I think we will find this everywhere). The league in general shows that the Kings don't need to spend to become good, to therefore get fans, and therefore become profitable again.

They don't need to be like the Knicks... nor should they try to that. There are other models out there to duplicate. And once they get that star player (or if Tyreke turns out to be him)... we'll hear the cowbells ring again.

Yet even if every team was like the knicks... would that make a difference? The haves and have nots would still exist. The teams without Lebron James/Kobe Byrant/Dwight Howard etc would still not stand a chance (so to speak) against the teams with them.

If one believes that the league should have a system where all 30 teams can compete with each other year in and year, then I can see how things like hard cap could help. But if we look at all the professional sports teams across North America (both hard and soft and no cap systems) we'll see that that has never happened. Even in the CFL where only 8 teams exist... there are always teams that just can't win to save their lives.

If one believes that the league should have a system where any of the 30 teams can compete with the others in any given year. Well we only need to look at the NBA... where the only team that has been incapable of competing has been the Clippers... ironically enough a 'have' team in a 'big market'.

In no sport does 1 (or a few) player(s) make a bigger difference. Getting that one player is the difference between success and money.

It's never been impossible for a smaller market team to compete, but the more freedom players get to go where they want, the less likely smaller market teams will be able to continue to compete.

And when I speak about teams being able to compete, I'm not saying that ALL teams should be able to compete despite what they do. Obviously that makes no sense. You still need to make the right moves. They just need to make sure the playing field is as level as possible so that teams in cities like New York, L.A. and Miami don't have so much of an advantage. As we've seen with the Clippers, sometimes even with an advantage, bad management will doom a team. But they've got no one to blame but themselves, for that.

[Tim W.]

It's very easy to say that from the outside looking in but you aren't sacrificing anything. The long term implication was a giveback of about $3 billion over the life of the CBA. Plus, since you know that when the next CBA comes around the owners will claim they are all going broke and the system doesn't work, you are going to be giving up even more. The new system would also effectively wipe out the middle class and place massive restrictions on player movement (ed. note: I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic argument on incentives vs. restrictions). Also, Ric Bucher has noted that there were somewhere around 30 issues that were unresolved in the latest offer. Obviously, the players would have lost on all of those once they signed on to the main points.

Look, the players' tactics were awful and the PA (Hunter et al.) should be crucified for the crappy job they have done over the last 2 years. Absolutely criticize them for that. But the players have granted massive concessions to the owners and have all but got down on their hands and knees begging for the owners to throw them a bone. They haven't. The owners are prepared to lose the season to get what they want. Is the PA at fault? Absolutely, but letting the owners off the hook in all this is senseless. The owners wanted this. They got it. It's only fair they own it as well.

Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..

No, I'm not sacrificing anything, but, for most of the players what they sacrifice in order to sign the agreement is way less than if the season were to be cancelled. Besides, you're talking as if the players are really being hurt by the proposal when that is incredibly far from the truth. They are being handsomely rewarded for what they do, whether they get 50% or 53% of the BRI.