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

[Tim W.]

Not only that, as soon as they do sign that horrible contract, (which everyone knows is going to happen) a Hard Cap would make it that much more debilitating.

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.

[Apollo]

That's not fair. Michael Jordan had enough capital to purchase a NBA franchise. Given the financial state of that franchise, I will concede your other two points.

Ok, so one guy out of thousands. The most wealthy basketball athlete ever could afford to buy the controlling share in a bottom dwelling franchise. That doesn't help the guy's point but duly noted. I did forget the exception. Anyway, isn't it interesting that of a places the players could choose to file they pick his stomping ground, North Carolina? I'm sure there is no connection.

But let's go back to MJ for a second and try to guess if his perspective changed when he moved from the playing field to management/ownership. Hmmm, given he is now one of the hardliners, I would guess that's a gigantic YES...

That's one reasons why I believe the players owning the teams is just a fairy tale. If the current crop of NBA players purchase the teams, will be they so pro-players once they are no longer players? No, they will look out for their own best interests and maybe much more harshly than the current crop of owners. Why? Because the current crop of owners are billionaires and can absorb some short-term losses as long as there is an end to the losses. I have serious doubts about the average NBA player being able to afford $100,000+ losses a couple years of a row after his playing days are over.

Very good point. Then there's the question of when does a players' stake in the thing begin and end? Where does his liability begin and end? What about players who get cut and can't find new homes? What happens in 20 years when the guys who somehow tossed in the original start up cost have long since retired but new players keep coming along and diluting their share in the business? I think in 20 years you would have 30 Michael Jordan type owners negotiating a new CBA with a bunch of disgruntled players who feel they aren't getting enough of the cake. That's assuming the hypotheitcal scenario could work, which I do not think is possible.

Players are employees. In your scenario, fans are employers.

I don't understand what role the league plays in your scenario. I cannot imagine them negotiating a CBA with the NBPA as players would be sitting on both sides of the table and the owners not be represented. I cannot imagine them negotiating television contracts unless the league is responsible for a large portion of the player contracts. What is the league authority in your scenario?

Perhaps the idea is for King James to sit atop mount Olympus and dictate orders to the peasants?

[slaw]

Interesting interview with Kevin Murphy, NBPA economist for the CBA negotiations. RTWT, but there are some interesting asides:

KM: In certain cases, it's relatively straightforward. In cases like this, there's more room for disagreement. All those moving parts, people can put them together in different ways. Everybody has their own vested numbers, so everybody shapes their numbers in their own direction. If they think 'it' could be between 6 and 12 and 6 is good for them and 12 is good for us, they'll say 7. That's not like making stuff up, that's just saying, 'I'm going to be cautious.' I usually try to say, 'I can't tell you for sure, but it's going to be between 6 and 12.' What's the consequence if it's 6? What's the consequence if it's 12?

NBA.com: Given the numbers that are out there now -- the owners offering 50 percent of basketball-related income (BRI), the players seeking 52.5 -- it seems like a small gap to close.

KM: Saying that and getting one are two different things. You can sit there and say, 'We're only X apart.' But the other guy can say, 'Well, it's only X, why don't you move?' And you say, 'It's only X, why don't you move?'

NBA.com: That's what the owners say they want: A chance for good management to make a difference.

KM: That's a different issue. The problem is, just about for every [owner] who spent a lot and they won a lot, so you're moving them closer to the average, there's some [owner] who spent a lot and didn't win a lot and you're moving them in the other direction.

KM: I would say the primary disagreement is not over the accounting numbers. It's what you include and how you interpret the numbers. For example, the accounting picture of the NBA isn't very different from what it was five years ago or 10 years ago in terms of ratio of revenues to costs and all the rest -- it's changed very little. Which immediately tells you, wait a minute, if the underlying financial picture is similar today to what it was five years ago or 10 years ago, and people are paying $400 million or whatever for franchises, and you're telling me that these things lose money every year, something's missing, right? These people aren't stupid, right? These guys are worth billions of dollars. So why did they pay all this money for franchises that, it looks like, lose money?

Let's say the NBA is a $4 billion revenue business -- that's not exactly right but it's close enough. Then let's say you lose $200 million. That's 5 percent. OK, my franchises are worth -- let's make it simple, 2½ times revenue, which is well below Forbes [valuations] -- that's $10 billion. Now let's say it's appreciating at 4 percent a year. I'm getting $400 million in appreciation even though I only have $200 million in losses. I'm getting better tax treatment on the $400 million that I'm making, and I deduct at a higher rate the $200 million that I'm losing. Suddenly this picture doesn't look so crazy any more

NBA.com: The owners will say there's been a franchise bubble not unlike the housing bubble. A number of them bought high and don't think they'll see the equity growth.

KM: The fact is, guys have not done well over the last few years as asset prices generally have gone down. I don't doubt that. But to say that you lost money in the worst asset crash in memory -- and franchises haven't gone down nearly as much as many assets have gone down -- that's not telling you you need concessions going forward.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...phy/index.html

[Hugmenot]

The Players should own the league, the Fans should own the teams. The Tycoons can go to hell. Simple.

Players are employees. In your scenario, fans are employers.

I don't understand what role the league plays in your scenario. I cannot imagine them negotiating a CBA with the NBPA as players would be sitting on both sides of the table and the owners not be represented. I cannot imagine them negotiating television contracts unless the league is responsible for a large portion of the player contracts. What is the league authority in your scenario?

[mcHAPPY]

The Pistons are the only team in the last 30 years that can claim that... and even so, I personally have no problems qualifying Ben Wallace in his prime (perhaps the best defensive player in the history of the sport and what the core of Detroits success was based on) as a superstar. But I'm sure the Ben Wallace is a debate for another time and another place.

As for superstars joining up... there are, both theoritical and real, limits to it right now. The owners are ofcourse adding more restrictive rules to prevent it. But again, will those rules actually prevent it? (if another summer of FA arives like last offseason, I hardly doubt GMs won't plan for it again... and then we have to consider a players desires outside of just salary (location, endorsements, weather etc))

And most importantly is giving up this season worth POTENTIALLY preventing it? (something that has, atleast to date, been a very rare occurence)

As for the distribution of dollars... I tried to address that when I tried to point out the relationship between winning/superstars and $s. And beyond that whats more important than having dollars to spend is spending them right.

But I do want to mention:



does limiting a teams ability to spend, and therefore offer financial incentives, improve their ability to sign players? Does not 'capping' a teams ability to spend in turn also limit their ability to offer said financial incentive? (ie. if you only have $10 mil of cap space and a player wants $15 mil... a team's ability to offer incentive is effectively capped). Beyond that, does 'capping' a teams ability to spend not also limit their ability to, atleast if done right, improve their team and thereby improve also offer additional incentive (ie. success) for said superstar, and potentially earn the team more money?

I understand that you are taking this from the perspective that limiting another teams (lets say LA) ability to spend, limits the players incentive from LA and that is a real incentive/restriction, but it also limits the incentive said players current team can offer. This also can become much more impactful if a team needs to, or has a history of needing to, 'overspend' to attract talent (.......Toronto.........)

But I think it has to come back to the question that still needs to be asked. Is all that worth a lost season or more?

I've said from the start I'm all for the elimination of the sign and trade, the 'Melo rule', greater revenue sharing, a stronger tax (although not quite as strong as is being presented) etc. But I still find it almost impossible to support any of those if its at the cost of a season or more. Ofcourse the other option is to find a way to keep those system changes and owners giving something back on the BRI side to make it work.

The Pistons no doubt are the exception to the rule. I only mention it because they are an example of a team overcoming the superstars. I also should have said there can only be one winner per year per season. Even if teams take a turns being champions that is only one banner per 30 years. That is not realistic or what I mean by the idea of competitive balance. Having franchises capable of winning 50-55 games and making strong playoff pushes, for me, is competitive balance. You don't need true superstars to achieve that level of success and, once in a while, the underdog (like the Pistons) will prevail.

Like you said on the superstars there will still be potential for them to join up. I've got no problem with that. If a player is willing to risk upwards of $30M guaranteed, that is their choice.

Is this worth a lost season is a very valid question and I agree the answer is no.

I think the owners (remember Stern is just their mouth piece) should have made the offer and said nothing else. They pushed it too hard and their deliver did imply an ultimatum. They could have allowed teams to go in to the tax to offer a full MLE (as had always been done) or allow to go in to the tax via trade later in the season.

[Hugmenot]

Someone versed in modern finance and industry should be able to appreciate the terms capital, ingenuity and know how. Simply put, the players are missing all three. Otherwise we would be talking about this new and exciting start up league right now.

That's not fair. Michael Jordan had enough capital to purchase a NBA franchise. Given the financial state of that franchise, I will concede your other two points.

But let's go back to MJ for a second and try to guess if his perspective changed when he moved from the playing field to management/ownership. Hmmm, given he is now one of the hardliners, I would guess that's a gigantic YES...

That's one reasons why I believe the players owning the teams is just a fairy tale. If the current crop of NBA players purchase the teams, will be they so pro-players once they are no longer players? No, they will look out for their own best interests and maybe much more harshly than the current crop of owners. Why? Because the current crop of owners are billionaires and can absorb some short-term losses as long as there is an end to the losses. I have serious doubts about the average NBA player being able to afford $100,000+ losses a couple years of a row after his playing days are over.

[GarbageTime]

I'm not sure the biggest problem is a lack of superstars. The 2004 Pistons showed that a great team effort can overcome superstars.

I think a bigger problem, and one that is addressed with the owners contract offer, is the limiting of superstars joining up with one another via free agency. To do this, the league is looking at limiting the financial benefits to the player in a sign and trade or traditional free agent signing (4 years, 3.5% raises vs. 5 years, 6.5%).

Players have the opportunity, assuming the team they wish to play for has the cap room, to play where they want - they just might not get the most money they could get by playing elsewhere.

The idea of the total amount of dollars spent is also not the issue as BRI is a percentage of revenues anyways. The real issue is the distribution of the dollars. By limiting teams above a certain threshold, again, players are forced with a choice of location and top dollar amount. Giving teams financial incentive to sign players in less desirable markets helps disperse talent. This is no different than the engineer who leaves Calgary with a salary of $200K to earn $400K in Qatar.


No matter the system, making the most of one's resources is essential to success.

The Pistons are the only team in the last 30 years that can claim that... and even so, I personally have no problems qualifying Ben Wallace in his prime (perhaps the best defensive player in the history of the sport and what the core of Detroits success was based on) as a superstar. But I'm sure the Ben Wallace is a debate for another time and another place.

As for superstars joining up... there are, both theoritical and real, limits to it right now. The owners are ofcourse adding more restrictive rules to prevent it. But again, will those rules actually prevent it? (if another summer of FA arives like last offseason, I hardly doubt GMs won't plan for it again... and then we have to consider a players desires outside of just salary (location, endorsements, weather etc))

And most importantly is giving up this season worth POTENTIALLY preventing it? (something that has, atleast to date, been a very rare occurence)

As for the distribution of dollars... I tried to address that when I tried to point out the relationship between winning/superstars and $s. And beyond that whats more important than having dollars to spend is spending them right.

But I do want to mention:

Giving teams financial incentive to sign players in less desirable markets helps disperse talent

does limiting a teams ability to spend, and therefore offer financial incentives, improve their ability to sign players? Does not 'capping' a teams ability to spend in turn also limit their ability to offer said financial incentive? (ie. if you only have $10 mil of cap space and a player wants $15 mil... a team's ability to offer incentive is effectively capped). Beyond that, does 'capping' a teams ability to spend not also limit their ability to, atleast if done right, improve their team and thereby improve also offer additional incentive (ie. success) for said superstar, and potentially earn the team more money?

I understand that you are taking this from the perspective that limiting another teams (lets say LA) ability to spend, limits the players incentive from LA and that is a real incentive/restriction, but it also limits the incentive said players current team can offer. This also can become much more impactful if a team needs to, or has a history of needing to, 'overspend' to attract talent (.......Toronto.........)

But I think it has to come back to the question that still needs to be asked. Is all that worth a lost season or more?

I've said from the start I'm all for the elimination of the sign and trade, the 'Melo rule', greater revenue sharing, a stronger tax (although not quite as strong as is being presented) etc. But I still find it almost impossible to support any of those if its at the cost of a season or more. Ofcourse the other option is to find a way to keep those system changes and owners giving something back on the BRI side to make it work.

[mcHAPPY]

*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.



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.



and



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?)




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.

The amount of money any player is over paid, and their usefulness compared to what another player could do, both effect wastefulness. I'm not overly concerned with those guys that are making a few mil too much....they will, as you said, always exist. But its those guys who are either literally or close to crippling franchises. How big of an impact are they having on 1) winning and 2) profits? How much worse will those contracts be under a more restrictive system?

So lets take Gilbert Arenas for example. Would Otis Smith be opposed to trading Gilbert for a minimum wage player? (if able to ofcourse). I highly doubt it. Gilbert is not only easily replaceable, but he also eating away at a huge chunk cap space (and therefore flexibility). On top of that he is eating away at profitability (spending 20+ mil on what amounts to almost nothing does that). A Gilbert Arenas for Patrick O'Bryant swap likely has little to no impact on wins or revenues but a huge difference in profitability. On the other hand a Gilbert for Paul Pierce swap (ie. a player with a compareable salary yet much better) likely has an impact on wins, and impact on revenues but no difference on costs.

Lets take this a step further and include the idea of superstars leaving teams. One could argue, much like people have with Dan Gilbert, that Otis Smith made moves to try and improve the Magic and keep Dwight. But what did he do? (simplifying it here) Gave up Rashard Lewis for Gilbert. Gave up Vince for Jason Richardson. Gave up Pietrus and Gortat for Hedo. I mean I look at that and have to ask... WTF? Not only did he give up more short term cap flexibility... he gave up the best value contracts, and arguably the better players (overrall), in the deal. How is that possibly going to 1) keep Dwight 2) help the franchise if Dwight leaves? This is what I was trying to get at the other day with Dan Gilbert and Lebron (which I'm not sure you were part of). Taking on Shaq, Mo Williams, Ben Wallace, Antoine Jamison is not helping the franchise improve, is actually making the team worse both long and short term, and is therefore reducing the chances to keep Lebron and is putting the team in a worse position going forward.

What did these guys do? They spent, they made and took on bad deals, the end result is losing their star player (and therefore wins and money) and have now crippled their teams until those contracts expire or they can get rid of them and then starting again from scratch.

We can look at Milwaukee as well. A team that gave Michael Redd (a good player but definetely not a superstar) a max contract. He unfortunately gets injured, but they draft a few quality guys work a good system, and then decide to go out and spend on Drew Gooden and Corey Magette. Again I ask WTF? At best they are asking for not getting a good draft pick all while having little to no chance at contention. A team that is paying an non-superstar, superstar money.... and then adding those mid to above normal bad contracts on top of that.... just to be a middling team. These guys are simply asking to lose money.

I also want to touch on guys having 'career years'. While that will obviously increase a players value... there is nothing demanding a GM/Owner still makes a long term decision based on a short term result. So if a player has an average to above average career, then a career season during his contract year, why should GMs and Owners not be responsible for looking at the body of work, a players history and their 'trajectory' (so to speak) rather than just the most recent experience? Its not as if there isn't an extensive history in all sports of players only being 'good' at convient times. Its the owners or GMs responsibility to take that into consideration when deciding on a value for that player. If what that player demands is higher, or what another team is willing to offer is higher, then the responsible thing to do may be to simply to let that player walk away.

These ideas combined, to me, is the crux of the issue. The lack of superstars and the inefficient spending and how both of those ideas effect winning, profitability and therefore parity. Teams having the ability to spend competitively (although perhaps not obscenely) but are not currently in the right situation, are doing it the wrong way and/or at the wrong time. A harder cap doesn't fix that, hell no cap doesn't fix that. So whats the point of trying to implement a different economic system that doesn't change where the real problems lie?


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)

I'm not sure the biggest problem is a lack of superstars. The 2004 Pistons showed that a great team effort can overcome superstars.

I think a bigger problem, and one that is addressed with the owners contract offer, is the limiting of superstars joining up with one another via free agency. To do this, the league is looking at limiting the financial benefits to the player in a sign and trade or traditional free agent signing (4 years, 3.5% raises vs. 5 years, 6.5%).

Players have the opportunity, assuming the team they wish to play for has the cap room, to play where they want - they just might not get the most money they could get by playing elsewhere.

The idea of the total amount of dollars spent is also not the issue as BRI is a percentage of revenues anyways. The real issue is the distribution of the dollars. By limiting teams above a certain threshold, again, players are forced with a choice of location and top dollar amount. Giving teams financial incentive to sign players in less desirable markets helps disperse talent. This is no different than the engineer who leaves Calgary with a salary of $200K to earn $400K in Qatar.


No matter the system, making the most of one's resources is essential to success.

[GarbageTime]

*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.

I completely agree about your argument about superstars. That is a problem and there's really nothing to be done about it except to clone Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Larry Bird and Magic.

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.

I do disagree about the spending, though. I don't think there is a direct correlation between spending and winning, but there is certainly a correlation between keeping a winning team together and making them contenders and spending. Eventually any contender will have to start paying out if they want to continue to be one. It's inevitable. Even San Antonio, which has been one of the best managed franchises in pro sports, had to make a decision in order to continue to be contenders. They chose to pay the tax. I think that speaks volumes.

and

Obviously simply spending money will not automatically make you a contender, but if you want to be one and stay one, eventually you'll have to pay through the nose

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?)

And if every team has an overpaid player (which is pretty much true) then everyone is on a relatively level footing. Besides, it's simply not realistic to say that GMs need to stop giving signing bad contracts. You might as well say that players need to stop having career years in the last year of their contract. The chance of either not happening are pretty much the same for the exact same reason.

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.

The amount of money any player is over paid, and their usefulness compared to what another player could do, both effect wastefulness. I'm not overly concerned with those guys that are making a few mil too much....they will, as you said, always exist. But its those guys who are either literally or close to crippling franchises. How big of an impact are they having on 1) winning and 2) profits? How much worse will those contracts be under a more restrictive system?

So lets take Gilbert Arenas for example. Would Otis Smith be opposed to trading Gilbert for a minimum wage player? (if able to ofcourse). I highly doubt it. Gilbert is not only easily replaceable, but he also eating away at a huge chunk cap space (and therefore flexibility). On top of that he is eating away at profitability (spending 20+ mil on what amounts to almost nothing does that). A Gilbert Arenas for Patrick O'Bryant swap likely has little to no impact on wins or revenues but a huge difference in profitability. On the other hand a Gilbert for Paul Pierce swap (ie. a player with a compareable salary yet much better) likely has an impact on wins, and impact on revenues but no difference on costs.

Lets take this a step further and include the idea of superstars leaving teams. One could argue, much like people have with Dan Gilbert, that Otis Smith made moves to try and improve the Magic and keep Dwight. But what did he do? (simplifying it here) Gave up Rashard Lewis for Gilbert. Gave up Vince for Jason Richardson. Gave up Pietrus and Gortat for Hedo. I mean I look at that and have to ask... WTF? Not only did he give up more short term cap flexibility... he gave up the best value contracts, and arguably the better players (overrall), in the deal. How is that possibly going to 1) keep Dwight 2) help the franchise if Dwight leaves? This is what I was trying to get at the other day with Dan Gilbert and Lebron (which I'm not sure you were part of). Taking on Shaq, Mo Williams, Ben Wallace, Antoine Jamison is not helping the franchise improve, is actually making the team worse both long and short term, and is therefore reducing the chances to keep Lebron and is putting the team in a worse position going forward.

What did these guys do? They spent, they made and took on bad deals, the end result is losing their star player (and therefore wins and money) and have now crippled their teams until those contracts expire or they can get rid of them and then starting again from scratch.

We can look at Milwaukee as well. A team that gave Michael Redd (a good player but definetely not a superstar) a max contract. He unfortunately gets injured, but they draft a few quality guys work a good system, and then decide to go out and spend on Drew Gooden and Corey Magette. Again I ask WTF? At best they are asking for not getting a good draft pick all while having little to no chance at contention. A team that is paying an non-superstar, superstar money.... and then adding those mid to above normal bad contracts on top of that.... just to be a middling team. These guys are simply asking to lose money.

I also want to touch on guys having 'career years'. While that will obviously increase a players value... there is nothing demanding a GM/Owner still makes a long term decision based on a short term result. So if a player has an average to above average career, then a career season during his contract year, why should GMs and Owners not be responsible for looking at the body of work, a players history and their 'trajectory' (so to speak) rather than just the most recent experience? Its not as if there isn't an extensive history in all sports of players only being 'good' at convient times. Its the owners or GMs responsibility to take that into consideration when deciding on a value for that player. If what that player demands is higher, or what another team is willing to offer is higher, then the responsible thing to do may be to simply to let that player walk away.

These ideas combined, to me, is the crux of the issue. The lack of superstars and the inefficient spending and how both of those ideas effect winning, profitability and therefore parity. Teams having the ability to spend competitively (although perhaps not obscenely) but are not currently in the right situation, are doing it the wrong way and/or at the wrong time. A harder cap doesn't fix that, hell no cap doesn't fix that. So whats the point of trying to implement a different economic system that doesn't change where the real problems lie?


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)

Yes, agreed. Money buys you wins only in so far as you use it to buy better players.

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)

[mcHAPPY]

Yes, it's an invalid argument. "History" can not be insulted, and even if something is "insulting," this doesn't make it false.

The insult is to the people, their memory, and their place in history who actually were slaves on a plantation.

Slavery has taken many different forms at different place and times in history, there have been numerous eras where certain slaves have had great privilege, and even power, while remaining slaves, for instance prized concubines or gladiators.

Slaves do not have a choice to work. No one is forcing a person to sign an NBA contract under the old CBA. It is their choice. They could easily go to Europe as Brandon Jennings did or go to Israel or Japan as Jeremy Tyler did. Gladiators fought for their masters or were murdered or sent to do manual labour elsewhere - more likely murdered though.

In any case, my comparison was regarding the owners, not the players. They act like plantation owners, as if they own the players and have a right to profit from their work, and dictate the terms.

If this was true there would have been no movement off a hard cap, no guaranteed contracts, or 43% of BRI for owners. There would also have been no movement after the first proposal to add money and years to the mini-MLE.

The players chose not to accept the offer of the owners - that was their right. It is not the owner's responsibility to offer a contract the players deem 'fair'. Negotiations usually involve both parties not getting 100% of what they want - which seems to be the case with this proposal from the NBA.

Was it an ultimatum? Debatable. The owners reached the furthest they were willing to move. That usually happens in negotiations. Should the owners have said we'll reset to this offer if you don't accept? No, I don't think that was a wise move.

Not sure what "play a game for a living" is supposed to mean. Their jobs are both strenuous and stressful and they undertook significant risk and effort to get to where they are.

Miners have stressful and strenuous jobs who took significant risk to get where they are. Miners mine for a living.

Players have stressful and strenuous jobs who took significant risk to get where they are. Players play a game for a living.

They don't "get paid" millions of dollars. They earn millions of dollars. Earnings the owners want more of.

Miners get paid to mine. Players get paid to play.

OR

Miners earn money to mine. Player earn money to play.

Why? How do Tycoon Bosses expand the scalability of a basketball league?

How many shareholders would continue to hold their shares or how many new shareholders would buy in to a franchise like Orlando that has lost more money than any other team in the league the last few seasons? The 'Tycoon Bosses' have other revenue streams that can keep franchises afloat that otherwise would be unable to stay afloat. When

There is no reason to believe a profesional basketbal league is unsound.

22 of 30 teams would beg to differ.

Why?

Because the issue of 'super teams', 'haves and have nots', and 'good market vs bad market' would only be magnified.

The NBA is not did losing money.

The sky is not blue. Just because I said it doesn't make it true. Even the players agree the league is losing money. The difference is the amount.

I am not advocating a "truly free market," in absence of labour agreement that's what the NBA will have to face.

A player/fan owned league would have a labour agreement, and not be a truly free market.

Then at the end of the day whether there are tycoon bosses or fans owning teams, the player will continue to be slaves. Whoever is running a team is not going to be in favour of some teams having advantages within the labour agreement that ultimately effects the product and chances on the court.

You continue to make the false assumption that a profesional basketball league is an unsound business.

The NBA under the last CBA was an unsound business. They lost money every year. Having professional sports teams in a league with little to no chance of success in comparison to other teams as a result of the labour agreement is an unsound business.

In what way do Tycoon Owners have different interests than the stakeholders you describe? If the stakeholders believed that a large stable league was good for their stake, they would support it, just as the current owners do.

So to achieve a large stable league a labour agreement appears to be needed that does not give the players every freedom they desire. How does this conflict change with Tycoon Owners or stakeholders?

A player owned league with fan owned franchises seems to be ideally suited to pursue goals inline with the interests of profesional sports.

In your opinion. Funny how the only thing you did not reply to in this was:

Quirk wrote:
Start by accepting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Look through my posts. I have claimed not to know the outcome of the antitrust. Even the players attorney's have acknowledged this. I think you should look at your own advice there.

[Apollo]

The Players are not against a CBA. They are against the one the owners offered, which is intended to reduce the portion of basketball revenue that players earn and increase what owners earn.

Player/fan ownership would not have this problem.

Why?

[Quirk]

But the Packers still play under parameters of a predetermined CBA which is what the NBA players are fighting.

The Players are not against a CBA. They are against the one the owners offered, which is intended to reduce the portion of basketball revenue that players earn and increase what owners earn.

Player/fan ownership would not have this problem.

[Quirk]

It's already personal for the players.

All the more reason for the owners to find a new line of business. Since they're not needed to organize basketball games.

My point, Quirk, is that that Owners will undoubtedly be out for "blood" if they overcome a law suit hurtle.

Yet, without a labour agreement they are an anti-competitive trust, and with any luck, will be sanctioned as such by the courts.

The Players have already been given a rude awakening about who the Boss is.

So they should fire their Boss, who contributes nothing.

Most industries are dominated by CEO's who delegate from the top and the stakeholders typically go along with their plans.

If they screw up, they get fired.

Pro Sports is going nowhere. It will change with the times, just like any other industry.

Yes, and that future will be without Tycoon Owners, eventually, like any other industry. When that transformation will happen I can't say, but maybe this is the beginning.

Unions are actually detrimental to industry in turbulent economic times such as these and if you don't agree then please see the Detroit automotive industry. If you have trouble finding it that is because you're looking in the wrong place. You're looking in Michigan. You should be looking in China.

Credible citation to actual research that backs the outlandish claims you are making above? Unions did not wreck the automotive industry. Not sure what I should be looking for in China. I suggest we don't pursue this tangent further unless you are prepared to back up your claims with actual facts and analysis, do either of us have the time for that?

The relevant fact is that without a union, the league can not exist, as drafts and contract restrictions etc, presuppose a labour agreement. So the point is moot. Unless we want a free market with dozens of teams and different leagues, no draft and no contract restrictions, there must be a union, regardless of what you think unions did to Detroit.

This works in Greenbay, Wisconsin. I would support that direction 100%... But wait, what happens if one of those fans is a tycoon and has enough money to purchase at least a51% stake in the company?

Again, I'm suggesting the players own the league and the fans own the teams. So, this Tycoon would still not control the league or the CBA, etc. In any case, I'm not really suggesting we figure out the league bylaws for a fictional league right here, right now.

Someone versed in modern finance and industry should be able to appreciate the terms capital, ingenuity and know how. Simply put, the players are missing all three. Otherwise we would be talking about this new and exciting start up league right now.

Capital is formed by securitizing future income. Ingenuity and know how is hired, in the NBA it comes from the GMs, Coaches and even David Stern and his staff, not the Tycoon Owners.

[Quirk]

Seriously?

Yes, it's an invalid argument. "History" can not be insulted, and even if something is "insulting," this doesn't make it false.

Comparing people who ...

Slavery has taken many different forms at different place and times in history, there have been numerous eras where certain slaves have had great privilege, and even power, while remaining slaves, for instance prized concubines or gladiators.

In any case, my comparison was regarding the owners, not the players. They act like plantation owners, as if they own the players and have a right to profit from their work, and dictate the terms.

We are talking about athletes who play a game for a living and get paid millions of dollars over the course of an average career in the just expired system.

Not sure what "play a game for a living" is supposed to mean. Their jobs are both strenuous and stressful and they undertook significant risk and effort to get to where they are.

They don't "get paid" millions of dollars. They earn millions of dollars. Earnings the owners want more of.

Because such a league would most likely have 5-6 teams.

Why? How do Tycoon Bosses expand the scalability of a basketball league?

What happens when a corporation is bleeding more money than it is taking in? What happens when the market figures out that a stock is not worth the hype? Oh sure, they could issue more debt to cover losses but essentially the yields to entice
debt holders would cause the team to fold as the cost to carry the debt eats up all income.

There is no reason to believe a profesional basketbal league is unsound.

What you are advocating would result in the majority of franchises becoming bankrupt in a short period of time

Why?

With an argument to take on more debt when loses do it occur all credibility is lost.

The NBA is not did losing money.

The majority of teams would never turn a profit in a truly free market.

I am not advocating a "truly free market," in absence of labour agreement that's what the NBA will have to face.

A player/fan owned league would have a labour agreement, and not be a truly free market.

Taking on debt to cover operational losses is a good way to go BANKRUPT.

You continue to make the false assumption that a profesional basketball league is an unsound business.

Yes, I am sure stakeholders in NY are going to be very happy to share their revenues with stakeholders in MIL

In what way do Tycoon Owners have different interests than the stakeholders you describe? If the stakeholders believed that a large stable league was good for their stake, they would support it, just as the current owners do.

The goal of a private business is to control the marketplace hence mergers and acquisitions. The goal in professional sports is to win on the court but to do that you need competitors. If the goal is to watch truly great teams squash the majority of the opposition, I believe there is already a professional basketball circuit that meets those desires of the market - they go by the name of the Harlem Globetrotters.

A player owned league with fan owned franchises seems to be ideally suited to pursue goals inline with the interests of profesional sports.

[Apollo]

I was actually just reading they had a sale in 1997-98 with shares going for $200 each.

Darn, well I wasn't 100% accurate but got the general idea out there at least.

Still, I wouldn't mind grabbing a couple shares just to say I did. haha

Me too!

Who knows, maybe they get some perks like an "employee discount" on Packers merchandise?