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

[GarbageTime]

[QUOTE=Apollo;97455]Because when Michael Redd is eating up like 20% of the cap to watch the games in a suit and you know your ownership can't afford to throw dollars around QUOTE]

Q: And whose fault its that? If ownership can't afford it... why did they risk it?

A: Because they thought, if it did work out it would be profitable.


Q: So why is it that prices on players got that high in the first place where the risk was greater than the reward?

A:Because Buss and Cuban would have payed it otherwise.


Anyway you slice it, it is still ownerships fault for things getting to where they are today. And yes the players are clearly going to have to pay for it.

I'm in no way against a hard cap, but don't get mad at the players for not wanting to pay for someone else's mistake, who when things turn around, won't be able (or willing) to reward the players for taking that haircut to fix things.

They probably can get alot of things flowing again (and come to an agreement with the union) if revenue sharing was worked on.

[Apollo]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...r_talks_092211

This raises something I have wondered about and presents some danger to the owners. If the union simply caves and gives the owners everything they want then a basic question comes to mind: what the hell is the point of the union? If the players must concede to all the owners' demands under the current system, then what is the benefit of the current system? Maybe the players are just all better off as free agents where Lebron can demand $50 million/year and 5% of the team.

They don't have to cave on everything but there is no in between on the cap. Either there is a soft cap or there is a hard cap. That, the players will have to cave on. Perhaps they end up giving that to the owners but then in exchange the owners increase the cap to $65-70M instead of last year's $55M. I don't know, it's hard to say but the players giving into the hardcap demand isn't "caving on all issues".

The risk of the unknown is one reason the owners might move off a hard cap. We all know the owners don't care about parity or competitive balance (that's just to placate the fans) but money. Give up enough money and the owners will make it work. This is why I believe the players need to let go the sword of damacles (decertification) cause it will bring the owners to the table for serious discussions and we can start playing again.

No we don't. I believe a lot of the owners DO care about the parity. This isn't the NFL, there is no real revenue sharing plan in place. This is why Buss and Dolan are irritated at Sarver playing hardball. The Lakers and Knicks are racking in money but the Suns? The Pheonix economy is in the toilet, just like many other major American cities. Sure this all comes back to money for the owners, but for the owners in survival mode a hard cap means a lot. I understand the turmoil in the American economy and so I believe the idea that half the league is losing money.

Q: And whose fault its that? If ownership can't afford it... why did they risk it?

Q: So why is it that prices on players got that high in the first place where the risk was greater than the reward?

So they let their star, who at the time of the contract was one of the brightest stars in the league, go...What next? What do they tell the season ticket holders? What do they tell the companies who wanted to invest in advertising? What do they tell the other players who looked up to that player as the leader of the team? What do they tell the executives who were told to build around that player and now suddenly they have to restructure, to start over?

In this system you spend or you lose. Sometimes it works out and you win, but most times it doesn't and you lose. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Might as well do seeing how there is at least a chance of success that way.

Anyway you slice it, it is still ownerships fault for things getting to where they are today. And yes the players are clearly going to have to pay for it.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. The system doesn't work and needs to go.

I'm in no way against a hard cap, but don't get mad at the players for not wanting to pay for someone else's mistake, who when things turn around, won't be able (or willing) to reward the players for taking that haircut to fix things.

The players aren't going to have to pay for anybody's mistakes. They were getting paid too much and the economy changed. Time for a correction. If you call making millions of dollars per year to play a game paying then where do I get dressed? Here, I brought my own pen. I'm ready to sign and start helping the players pay for what ever they're paying for.

[GarbageTime]

So they let their star, who at the time of the contract was one of the brightest stars in the league, go...What next? What do they tell the season ticket holders? What do they tell the companies who wanted to invest in advertising? What do they tell the other players who looked up to that player as the leader of the team? What do they tell the executives who were told to build around that player and now suddenly they have to restructure, to start over?

You tell them we fucked up and now we have to take time to fix this. Or you shut down shop, or you try a new direction, or a new location, or just try to learn from your mistakes and don't offer Drew Gooden 7 mil a year. Do what the rest of the world does, who doesn't already have a billion dollars in their pocket, when shit goes bad, and work your ass off to fix it and quit making the same mistake. I would love to buy 10000 shares in a stock for a dollar and expect it to go up to $10 a share. But when it drops to zero do you think I have a right to tell my stock brocker to return my commission? I mean I lost money and thats not right.

If you can't take the heat get your ass out of the kitchen.... someone else will take your spot. If no one does, then your problem was always with the kitchen.

In this system you spend or you lose. Sometimes it works out and you win, but most times it doesn't and you lose. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Might as well do seeing how there is at least a chance of success that way

.

Teams don't win just by spending. They win by spending wisely. The problem is teams were not spending on the right person. Its your very logic "might as well do [it]" that caused the problem. If less teams have 'just done it', they wouldn't be spending so much on players who were costing them wins.

The players aren't going to have to pay for anybody's mistakes. They were getting paid too much and the economy changed. Time for a correction. If you call making millions of dollars per year to play a game paying then where do I get dressed? Here, I brought my own pen. I'm ready to sign and start helping the players pay for what ever they're paying for

The player's aren't going to pay? Ummm what do you call less BRI, and inenvitably lower salaries?

I'll have sympathy for owners when they stop selling teams, in a bad economy, for 100s of millions of dollars. AND when they offer to, at the very least, take their new found profits they'll make and give it to a charity in the local community in the names of the players who took pay cuts

[Apollo]

You tell them we fucked up and now we have to take time to fix this. Or you shut down shop, or you try a new direction, or a new location, or just try to learn from your mistakes and don't offer Drew Gooden 7 mil a year.

See, most of the franchises not spending into luxury tax are not incompetent. The problem is that they're essentially farm teams for those who can and will spend well into luxury tax. They grow talent and then that talent eventually ends up making huge coin while playing for the haves. Meanwhile the have nots are stuck developing more players to only have those players also eventually leave. You're saying these teams should just bend over and take it but what sense is there in that? You're telling me that the best move they can make is to tell their two main revenue streams that the major asset they either have been paying to see or paying to capitalize on through advertising is now long gone and the team is probably going to regress a lot? So let's say they do that. Season tickets drop. They lose those fat advertising contracts. They can't keep those plush cozy box suits filled anymore. The average fans see the team stinks and they stop caring about going to the games. Jersey and merchandising sales drop. Great plan. Personally, if I'm running a business, I'm going to avoid pissing on my fan base. I'm going to try and nurture my revenue streams, not toss them away. Only problem is you can't do that right now without placing bets on players worth upwards of $80M.

Do what the rest of the world does, who doesn't already have a billion dollars in their pocket, when shit goes bad, and work your ass off to fix it and quit making the same mistake.

You assume that these teams who aren't winning, the bulk of which also happen to be the ones not spending the big bucks, are incompetent and lazy. I think the contrary. I think no one goes into a venture as demanding as pro sports without having strong business sense and very good work ethic.

Teams don't win just by spending. They win by spending wisely. The problem is teams were not spending on the right person. Its your very logic "might as well do [it]" that caused the problem. If less teams have 'just done it', they wouldn't be spending so much on players who were costing them wins.

Almost all the teams who make the playoffs and get to reap those rewards are typically the top spending teams in the league. There are exceptions but for the most part, if you're not spending with the top half of the league the chances of you making the playoffs are greatly reduced. That's not opinion, that's based on the standings and money spent by teams. Yeah, spending wisely helps a great deal but at the end of the day if you can't spend with the big boys you're not winning anything.

I'll have sympathy for owners when they stop selling teams, in a bad economy, for 100s of millions of dollars. AND when they offer to, at the very least, take their new found profits they'll make and give it to a charity in the local community in the names of the players who took pay cuts

This is business. This is a business where the super rich are doing battle against the very rich. Why do you need to have sympathy for either side? Let's see all the players also donate all their money to charity and play for the goodness of their hearts. Now, let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya around the camp fire.

[Joey]

See, most of the franchises not spending into luxury tax are not incompetent. The problem is that they're essentially farm teams for those who can and will spend well into luxury tax. They grow talent and then that talent eventually ends up making huge coin while playing for the haves. Meanwhile the have nots are stuck developing more players to only have those players also eventually leave. You're saying these teams should just bend over and take it but what sense is there in that? You're telling me that the best move they can make is to tell their two main revenue streams that the major asset they either have been paying to see or paying to capitalize on through advertising is now long gone and the team is probably going to regress a lot? So let's say they do that. Season tickets drop. They lose those fat advertising contracts. They can't keep those plush cozy box suits filled anymore. The average fans see the team stinks and they stop caring about going to the games. Jersey and merchandising sales drop. Great plan. Personally, if I'm running a business, I'm going to avoid pissing on my fan base. I'm going to try and nurture my revenue streams, not toss them away. Only problem is you can't do that right now without placing bets on players worth upwards of $80M.

Though in theory one can't really argue with this view point ... how often does this actually happen? Not very.
Durant is in Oklahoma, and looks to be staying.
Blake Griffin seems to enjoy playing in LA. Can't imagine he'll leave.
Kevin Love seems on his way to reupping with Minni.

These 'farm' teams often times CHOOSE to not spend over the cap. And then once the chance to become competitive presents itself, they spend the necessary coin to make the push. They're not going to spend big money if they don't have good players to spend it on. Once they GET good players (and the subsequent playoff appearance) they spend money (into the cap) to keep good players.

There are VERY few teams that are perennially successful year in and year out.
LA and San Antonio. Boston was crap for Years. Same with New York but even longer. Philly IS crap. Detroit is lost. Chicago was a NOBODY for over a decade. Dallas was a joke for years until they got Dirk and Nash and Finley.

All these 'major' markets suffer the same lapses in Playoff Appearances and Franchise Success as any other team.

The only difference between them and LA/SA (the only HAVES I can think of) is that LA/SA drafted Hall of Famers a decade ago and haven't looked back.

[mcHAPPY]

Though in theory one can't really argue with this view point ... how often does this actually happen? Not very.
Durant is in Oklahoma, and looks to be staying.
Blake Griffin seems to enjoy playing in LA. Can't imagine he'll leave.
Kevin Love seems on his way to reupping with Minni.

These 'farm' teams often times CHOOSE to not spend over the cap. And then once the chance to become competitive presents itself, they spend the necessary coin to make the push. They're not going to spend big money if they don't have good players to spend it on. Once they GET good players (and the subsequent playoff appearance) they spend money (into the cap) to keep good players.

There are VERY few teams that are perennially successful year in and year out.
LA and San Antonio. Boston was crap for Years. Same with New York but even longer. Philly IS crap. Detroit is lost. Chicago was a NOBODY for over a decade. Dallas was a joke for years until they got Dirk and Nash and Finley.

All these 'major' markets suffer the same lapses in Playoff Appearances and Franchise Success as any other team.

The only difference between them and LA/SA (the only HAVES I can think of) is that LA/SA drafted Hall of Famers a decade ago and haven't looked back.

What is the common denominator with all these teams? (Exception of Griffin and Love because they are still unknown)

They have drafted a player worthy of building around, have been able to keep them under contract, and surrounded the player with complimentary pieces through good free agent signings or trades.

The issue is when a player who is worthy of being a building block (all-star talent) leaves, leaving the team to start the process again.

[Joey]

What is the common denominator with all these teams? (Exception of Griffin and Love because they are still unknown)

They have drafted a player worthy of building around, have been able to keep them under contract, and surrounded the player with complimentary pieces through good free agent signings or trades.

The issue is when a player who is worthy of being a building block (all-star talent) leaves, leaving the team to start the process again.

EXACTLY!

So it comes down to Scouting and Good Management.
If management fails to compliment said player properly, why shouldn't they leave?

If your well-being and your livelihood was directly tied to your manager, and that manager proved incapable of providing a successful environment, I would leave to!

If you get a good player, do what it takes to make that team a winner, and you WILL make your money back. OKC is a perfect example. They're raking in the cash right now. Even once they payup for Durant and Westbrook and Ibaka they'll STILL be making money.

The good teams WILL make money. Even if they are spending it as well.

[mcHAPPY]

EXACTLY!

So it comes down to Scouting and Good Management.
If management fails to compliment said player properly, why shouldn't they leave?

If your well-being and your livelihood was directly tied to your manager, and that manager proved incapable of providing a successful environment, I would leave to!

If you get a good player, do what it takes to make that team a winner, and you WILL make your money back. OKC is a perfect example. They're raking in the cash right now. Even once they payup for Durant and Westbrook and Ibaka they'll STILL be making money.

The good teams WILL make money. Even if they are spending it as well.

Good points.

But what about the Carmelo's of the league. Guys who are a part of perennial playoff teams but decide that is it? Granted they have a right with free agency but it doesn't seem quite fair to the team to be held hostage by a guy who the team is built around.

Bosh is another example. However his (and to some extent Carmelo) situation made teams wiser. If a guy is not taking a contract extension, trade him (Deron Williams?) on your own terms.

It is a tough situation - especially when it comes down to player X wants to play in a _______ (insert warmer, larger, closer to home, with his buddies) market.

[Apollo]

I challenge you guys to find me the last team who made the finals who didnt spend into luxury tax. In fact find me multiple examples so you prove it wasnt a fluke. I challenge you to find me an example of a perrenial playoff team who was not forced to spend over cap to maintain. It always comes back to money. Good management is vital and I have been agreeing with that from the onset BUT you put the best management in the league on a small market team who doesnt have money in the budget to ever go over cap and in that situation that team is gong to end up being mediocre in the long haul.

[Joey]

And precisely. Look at Edmonton trading Wayne Gretzky. Even while they were perennial contenders (returning defenders).
He wouldn't sign a ridiculously LARGE contract extension, so they weighed their options and traded him. Instead of getting burned and getting nothing in return, they traded him and won a cup the next year.

Denver, in a way, made out like bandits BECAUSE of the fact Carmelo was so intent on leaving.
They knew they could keep asking for more and more and he'd still want to leave.
Teams need to realize they are in full control of these players, and NOT let the players run the league.

It is possible to do this without a franchise player tag, and without a hard cap. Denver proved it.
New York was a better team before they acquired Carmelo. Denver was WORSE before trading him.

[Joey]

I challenge you guys to find me the last team who made the finals who didnt spend into luxury tax. In fact find me multiple examples so you prove it wasnt a fluke. I challenge you to find me an example of a perrenial playoff team who was not forced to spend over cap to maintain. It always comes back to money. Good management is vital and I have been agreeing with that from the onset BUT you put the best management in the league on a small market team who doesnt have money in the budget to ever go over cap and in that situation that team is gong to end up being mediocre in the long haul.

I challenge you to find me one owner who can't actually afford the extra $30M required.

These guys AGREED to the soft cap/ luxury tax system.
Clearly they felt it would be a good system.

And even with a Hard Cap of $70M, you don't think there will be certain teams who spend $40M and teams who spend exactly $70M?

As I pointed out before, its up to management whether they want to spend money to make money.

It's impossible to guarentee profitability as an owner of ANY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE WORLD.
Why should these guys be able to circumvent anti-trust laws, and fair collective bargaining time and time again in order to try and do so?

[Apollo]

Exactly, you avoid the question because you know I'm right in saying that good management typically needs resources above the salary cap to be successful. Moving on...

I challenge you to find me one owner who can't actually afford the extra $30M required.

I can't do that because I don't have access to that sort of information. It would be 100% speculation to go there. We might as well start talking about where we think this season of "Sons of Anarchy" is going because there would be just as much value added from that.

These guys AGREED to the soft cap/ luxury tax system.
Clearly they felt it would be a good system.

Yeah, they agreed to a deal when economic we times were different. They agreed to something when America was booming, pre "great recession". They agreed to something which has expired. People in the 70's agreed that bell bottoms, huge sideburns and disco were all great but please, let's not force our parents and grand parents to have to dust off that trunk in the basement. Times were different then, let them have their boot cut jeans, their conservative hair styles and their country music.

And even with a Hard Cap of $70M, you don't think there will be certain teams who spend $40M and teams who spend exactly $70M?

Perhaps but at least if they wish to spend as much as the top spending team they can do it overnight.

As I pointed out before, its up to management whether they want to spend money to make money.

The problem Joey is that the gap between what the haves can spend and what the have nots can spend is large.

It's impossible to guarentee profitability as an owner of ANY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE WORLD.
Why should these guys be able to circumvent anti-trust laws, and fair collective bargaining time and time again in order to try and do so?

The owners aren't breaking the law right now. The players tried to wave that flag but they don't have a leg to stand on. The owners are taking on tough negotiation tactics because they want to push back. It's pretty text book really.

[Joey]

Because I know your right, Apollo?
No, I wouldn't be debating you if I knew you were right.

Can you then break down for me who is a 'HAVE' and who is a 'HAVE NOT', please.
This will make it easier. I've pointed to LA and SA. Who else do you consider a 'HAVE', Apollo?

And can you also acknowledge, and if you like, break down like this one, the points I made in 2 earlier posts and not JUST this most recent one.



1)And if they were SO much prosperous before, how is that teams are selling for RECORD numbers in the last 2 years??

2)I don't believe the gap is that large, in how much can be spent by each team. I really don't.

3)And I never said the Owners are breaking the law. They are however, breaking Anti-Trust laws left right and center. Look it up.
NBA collective Bargaining breaks almost every single one. Hence why if the players Decertify the Union, they can SUE for breach of Anti-trust laws.

[mcHAPPY]

Joey regarding the last three points:

1) Do not confuse asset appreciation with operations. There are numerous pages in this thread on that and do not really wish to go there again.

2) I would disagree on the gap. I think the reason why you see so many teams in the mid-high $60M range is because that is what they can afford. The owners with really deep pockets (Super Super Rich as opposed to Super Rich) are spending $90M on salary and then another 20M on tax. That is $45-50M more than teams just below the tax.

3) One could argue the players are breaking anti-trust laws as well. The owners wish to add more restrictions. The players want to keep things status-quo. Neither is budging. The players have said in the media things are a 'blood issue'. That does not sound like bargaining - nor does the owners saying there must be a hard cap. Both sides have lawsuits against the other about good faith. To me it is more like two taddle tales running to the teacher looking for the teacher to pick a side.

[slaw]

I challenge you guys to find me the last team who made the finals who didnt spend into luxury tax. In fact find me multiple examples so you prove it wasnt a fluke. I challenge you to find me an example of a perrenial playoff team who was not forced to spend over cap to maintain. It always comes back to money. Good management is vital and I have been agreeing with that from the onset BUT you put the best management in the league on a small market team who doesnt have money in the budget to ever go over cap and in that situation that team is gong to end up being mediocre in the long haul.

Miami Heat and Dallas Mavericks were under the luxury tax this past season. That's two. I believe only the Lakers, Magic, Celtics and Spurs paid tax last year. I may be mistaken but I don't believe one of those teams made it past the second round.

AS for perennial playoff teams, it's tough to say because salaries can fluctuate wildly from year to year as can results. I would argue that teams like Chicago, Miami, OKC, NOH are all fairly well-positioned to have long runs within their current salary structures. Memphis as well. In terms of past teams, Philly, Hawks, Rockets, Hornets, Phoenix, come to mind but again, there is volatility in payroll and results in virtually all cases.

Error: The Mavs did pay tax last year apparently, along with the Lakers and Magic. The information I was looking at included the Celts and Spurs, which was wrong.