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

[Apollo]

Players will not accept a hard cap or a soft cap with a high penalty luxury tax

Players believe owners' attempts to make the luxury tax more punitive and limit the use of spending exceptions will effectively create a hard salary cap, which they say they will refuse to accept. Also, each side has formally proposed receiving 53 percent of basketball-related income after players were guaranteed 57 percent under the previous collective bargaining agreement.

Source: ESPN.com

The players aren't backing off this.

[mcHAPPY]

To all NBA players who stand unified against the godless owners, read these words of warning from a former NHL player about the reality of losing an entire season:

"It's not worth it. Get a deal done," former Dallas Stars forward Bill Guerin said during a phone call last week.
There was not a single NHL player during the Great Lockout of 2004-05 who was a bigger proponent of the union's fight than this man. No one believed in the cause more than Guerin, and to hear him admit this is a bit stunning.

"I learned a big lesson: It's not a partnership. It's their league, and you are going to play when they want," he said.

Today, Guerin has hindsight and his experience serves as a giant caution to any player who thinks losing a game, much less an entire season, to this lockout is a good idea. His message is simple: Get what you can; start playing; you are not going to win what you think.

"It is not worth it to any of them to burn games or to burn an entire year. Burning a year was ridiculous," Guerin said. "It wasn't worth me giving up $9 million a year, or 82 games plus the playoffs, then having a crappy year and being bought out.... Guys in the NBA making $15 million or however much better think long and hard about this."

The NBA is stuck in a nasty labor fight with the players' union, and the league already canceled the first couple of weeks of the regular season.

NBA Commissioner David Stern has cautioned that if a deal isn't done soon there will be no games through Christmas, at least.
When reflecting on the NHL lockout that wiped out the entire 2004-05 season, Guerin sounds like a man who had reality shoved down his throat. There is no bitterness in his voice, just truths, which aren't necessarily positive. The truth is Guerin, or any player, really isn't in charge as long as those who are cutting the checks are unified. If it doesn't sound that much different than your job, it's because it's not.

"We could have waited two years and they would have waited us out -- I would have given an extra 2 percent back to play that year," Guerin said. "When you are in the heat of battle, and you are fired up, you don't think what they are doing is right. But it's not about what is right or wrong -- it's their league. It's theirs. I feel, personally, I didn't like guys giving up a year of their career, for what? A few less bucks? Guys are making more money now than they ever have."

Much of what is taking place right now between the players and owners sounds and feels very similar to the early days of the NHL lockout in 2004. Stern has total autonomy. No owner is talking, which means Stern has solidarity and leverage.

"The only thing you can die in the battlefield for in something like this is guaranteed contracts; everything else is nickel-and-dime stuff and it's not worth it," Guerin said.

Guerin sounds like a man who learned this lesson, and one of the many truths that exist in our world.

"For so long, I thought so long and hard about it," he said. "But when you think about it, I tell guys it wasn't worth it."


Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10...#ixzz1bKBjXb1B

In 8 years I guarantee Derek Fisher will say the same things.

[Apollo]

I think if this drags out to the point where the season is cancelled the Owners will have little incentive to agree on anything but what they want. Hunter and Fisher are going to be tossed under the bus by the same people who are pushing to play a game of chicken with the owners. That is unless they wise up and do something for the good of all the players.

[heinz57]

Guerin is totally right. What's getting lost in all this are that the players are employees. They're arguing for finances like they actually have any of their own pennies invested in their teams. They work, they get paid. period.

If my company isnt making enough money and decides some people need to be laid off, do you know how much say i got in the matter? FUCK ALL.

The players need to stop pretending that they're the product being sold like basketball is the Jersey Shore. They're high profile employees, but just that. EMPLOYEES.

if i was a first or second year player on the celtics, i'd piss on KG's windshield in the middle of winter... just for screwing up my pay cheque.

Think about it. If your direct manager came to you and was like "Dude.. we're not going to work... and not get paid... until the executives cede more financial control to us even though we have NOT A SINGLE PENNY invested in the company, even though it wont actually effect our individual pay cheques AT ALL... REVOLUTION!!!!!".... i'd kick him in the balls... thats lap dance money he's screwing with.

[GarbageTime]

The hockey situation was significantly different, (with some similarities) than the NBA currently is in.

Owners are more or less asking for the same thing they did in hockey (different amounts and what not but the same idea).

Hockey however was a dieing sport. In many locations it still is. Basketball is not. Yes there are one or two very bad locations (NO for example), but for the most part, locations have a real potential for profitability, teams are still being bought and sold regularily (the 76ers just were), world wide potential is off the charts (China, Europe etc). There is a significant difference in the financial and future situation of the two leagues during their lockout periods.

Secondly, because of the slow death of hockey, the league made drastic rule changes (not just fiscal changes). So guys like Guerin no long fit. Thats why he was no longer worth near what he was under the previous style game.... which was amplified under the new hard cap rule. (a player that doesn't 'fit' while still getting paid alot is a bigger burden under a hard cap than a soft/no cap).

While waiting may have been the worst thing for players, giving in when they did may have been just as bad (atleast for the 'old guard').

This is not to say the owners in the NBA will or won't wait it out for a very long time, but I don't think it will be anywhere near hockey. Lets not forget, 6 years after a hard cap a huge portion of the league is still not profitable and wasn't along the way. Generally speaking its still the 'original 6' and Canadian teams supporting the league.

If anything the NHL is a great example for the need to contract where necessary. Lose the teams that can't afford it, will likely always have problems and need league funding to support a team. This puts more player supply on the market which drives down employee prices while improving the quality of teams.

Not enough people are discussing this, and I understand neither the players or the owners want this, but I think it will help strengthen the league. Especially if the economy as a whole stays bad or gets worse. (Sorry New Orleans)

[Apollo]

Hockey isn't a dieing sport. It's thriving.

he NHL in 2004 became the first major North American professional sports league to cancel an entire season, a drastic measure Bettman contended was necessary to control costs and reduce the percentage of revenues funneled toward players' salaries.

That the lockout broke the NHL Players' Assn. was a side benefit to the NHL, which steamrolled the union and got the hard salary cap it wanted, plus a 24% rollback on existing contracts. The NHLPA went through four executive directors and constant confusion before hiring Donald Fehr, former head of the Major League Baseball Players' Assn., as its new leader in December.

By many measures, the NHL appears to be thriving. The Canadian dollar, whose weakness led the league to create a financial-assistance plan for franchises based in Canada, has grown strong. League revenues reportedly exceeded $2.7 billion last season, remarkable in a tough economy. The salary cap for this season is $59.4 million and the floor — the minimum amount each team must spend — is $43.4 million. That floor is $4.3 million more than the ceiling was in 2005-06, the first season after the lockout.

Special events such as the Winter Classic and the emergence of successful teams in such major markets as Detroit and Chicago have driven TV ratings to respectable numbers on out-of-the-way Versus and on NBC, which shares profits from its broadcasts with the league rather than paying a rights fee.

Source: LA Times

It goes on to mention that some owners are still claiming losses but that might be because they agreed to give the players 54% of BRI. Regardless, hockey isn't dieing and the lockout went a long way to helping the NHL. The lockout in fact prevented the NHL from any death scenario. In 2012 they're probably going to need the players to accept a little less and I expect this time around the players are more willing to do that.

[GarbageTime]

Look at what the article mentions:

The Canadian dollar, whose weakness led the league to create a financial-assistance plan for franchises based in Canada, has grown strong.

Like I said, Canadian teams (and the other original 6 teams) are what are supporting the NHL. Its these teams driving league revenues and bringing up the salary cap and bottom.

Hockey is NOT 'thriving'. Its thriving in some areas. Hockey is probably the ultimate example of 'have' and 'have not' sports... and how, even with a hard cap, the 'have' teams are still driving the 'have nots' out of business.

hockey isn't dieing and the lockout went a long way to helping the NHL

I said it WAS a dieing sport (I do want to point out this was outside of Canada. Clearly nothing about hockey in Canada is, or was, dieing) and thats why those changes were needed. Basketball is not, and if anything its on an opposite trajectory of where hockey was at the time of the lockout. Thats why this is a different situation.

I also said SOME LOCATIONS are still dieing or not profitable, even under the changes that were made. Atlanta, a city with a metropolitan size of approx 5+ mil, moved its teams to a city of less than 1 mil with nothing but barren landscape surrounding it. Phoenix is a money pit and has been for years. The Panthers just had to sign players to reach the cap bottom, a bottom they apparently are having an issue affording. Tampa Bay and Nashville owners have been desperate to sell their teams for years now. From what I understand Dallas is in terrible financial shape. Pittsburg needed slot machines and Sydney Crosby to survive.



Some interesting information you brought up though that I think we should consider:

It goes on to mention that some owners are still claiming losses but that might be because they agreed to give the players 54% of BRI

So if hockey owners are doing it, how many NBA owners are doing it?

they agreed to give the players 54% of BRI

hockey owners were able to afford a BRI 4% higher than basketball owners apparently can, with league revenues 33% smaller than the NBA?

[Apollo]

So if hockey owners are doing it, how many NBA owners are doing it?

The NHL is losing money at 54%. Pretty good reason in my books.

hockey owners were able to afford a BRI 4% higher than basketball owners apparently can, with league revenues 33% smaller than the NBA?

That's very short sighted. What about operation costs? Maybe they're lower in the NHL?

[GarbageTime]

The NHL is losing money at 54%

But they felt they could still afford it at the time, with a troubled sport that needed significant change. And if the NHL is 'losing money' how is it (and I'll quote you)

thriving

That's very short sighted. What about operation costs? Maybe they're lower in the NHL?

Indeed anymore short sighted than assuming their operational costs are less? Maybe they are higher? And even if they are lower, by how much? Atleast 33%? I have no idea how much it is to operate either team.... but I'd love to see the cost structures of each. How much is hockey paying coaches vs basketball coaches? How much more overhead is there in basketball vs hockey? Are the maintanence costs of teams that much more in basketball? (I'd imagine with the equipment required the maintance cost in hockey would far outstrip basketball but I can't state that definitively)

I've said right from the start one of the biggest issues in this lockout is a complete lack of transparency.

[GarbageTime]

I have no idea how much it is to operate either team.... but I'd love to see the cost structures of each. How much is hockey paying coaches vs basketball coaches? How much more overhead is there in basketball vs hockey? Are the maintanence costs of teams that much more in basketball? (I'd imagine with the equipment required the maintance cost in hockey would far outstrip basketball but I can't state that definitively)

I've said right from the start one of the biggest issues in this lockout is a complete lack of transparency.

I know I'm quoting myself here, but this got me thinking about something else that hasn't been talked about much here although it has other places. Owners have never had to pay more than 57% of BRI. BRI has been increasing every single year (up 500+ mil (?) since the 2005/6). So since the BRI cost of players has stayed the same and BRI itself has been increasing, and ASSUMING the owners are losing more money than before (or atleast still losing money).... what other costs have been increasing to create that loss? Have they been spending more on GMs, staff, coaches etc? Are their agreements with arenas going up? Interest rates are down drastically so that can't have an effect on it (unless they have been making terrible loan agreements) Benifits to players are included in the BRI so that can't be it, although what those benifits entail I'm not sure.

Yes salaries are their biggest expense, but why is there so little talk about cutting their other expenses (atleast as well as decreasing salaries) or even how those other expenses are allocated?

[Apollo]

But they felt they could still afford it at the time, with a troubled sport that needed significant change. And if the NHL is 'losing money' how is it (and I'll quote you)

Just like the NBA is thriving. The only problem is that the distribution of the wealth is wrong. Too much is going to those who don't pay for the costs of operation. The NHL thought the got the distribution right. "Right" being, enough to cover costs and still turn a profit while compensating the players as fairly as financially possible. Things change, economic meltdowns happen, what can I say?

[mcHAPPY]

The hockey situation was significantly different, (with some similarities) than the NBA currently is in.

Owners are more or less asking for the same thing they did in hockey (different amounts and what not but the same idea).

Hockey however was a dieing sport. In many locations it still is. Basketball is not. Yes there are one or two very bad locations (NO for example), but for the most part, locations have a real potential for profitability, teams are still being bought and sold regularily (the 76ers just were), world wide potential is off the charts (China, Europe etc). There is a significant difference in the financial and future situation of the two leagues during their lockout periods.

Some teams are extremely profitable. The league as a whole is losing money. Despite the world wide potential and popularity, the NBA has closed offices around the world as it attempts to compensate for losing money year in and year out through its operations. There is no significant difference in any financial endeavour that results in more money going out than going in.

Secondly, because of the slow death of hockey, the league made drastic rule changes (not just fiscal changes). So guys like Guerin no long fit. Thats why he was no longer worth near what he was under the previous style game.... which was amplified under the new hard cap rule. (a player that doesn't 'fit' while still getting paid alot is a bigger burden under a hard cap than a soft/no cap).

While waiting may have been the worst thing for players, giving in when they did may have been just as bad (atleast for the 'old guard').

Guerin had scored 34 goals going in to the lockout at 33 years of age. What do you think sitting out for a year of competition does to older players? He was no longer worth what he was paid because his production suffered after the lockout from missing so much time. What do you think it is going to do to many NBA players in their 30's?

This is not to say the owners in the NBA will or won't wait it out for a very long time, but I don't think it will be anywhere near hockey. Lets not forget, 6 years after a hard cap a huge portion of the league is still not profitable and wasn't along the way. Generally speaking its still the 'original 6' and Canadian teams supporting the league.

If anything the NHL is a great example for the need to contract where necessary. Lose the teams that can't afford it, will likely always have problems and need league funding to support a team. This puts more player supply on the market which drives down employee prices while improving the quality of teams.

Not enough people are discussing this, and I understand neither the players or the owners want this, but I think it will help strengthen the league. Especially if the economy as a whole stays bad or gets worse. (Sorry New Orleans)

And when the only solution appears to be contraction, the players continue to point the gun at their own head threatening to pull the trigger. If I was a rank and file player, would I want to risk no salary for a lower annual salary?

[planetmars]

I'd argue that most of the owners who need a new 'system' and are needing radical changes to the CBA are the owners like Ted Leonsis and Michael Jordan who just recently bought franchises.

I would think that the owners who agreed on the previous CBA valued their franchises differently since most of them probably bought their franchises for real cheap and would make the majority of their money when they sold their franchises. Leonsis and Jordan are probably realizing that if they sold their franchises in the near future that they would make peanuts (or even worse lose money).

Stern is probably worried that any new potential owner in the future may not want to buy in for that same reason. So he's probably trying to change the 'system' and squeeze the players so that these owners can make money now instead of later.

I really couldn't care less where the money is going, but if in the end we have a system that can help the Raptors out then that's really all that I want.

I think from a Raptors point of view, any rule that would give them a better chance to keeping their home grown talent is better. If Derozan wants to go to LA then that's fine.. however he should never be making as much money as Toronto could offer if he stayed. So they really need to get rid of the sign and trade option. I honestly can't see Bosh giving up $30 million for example for playing with Wade and Lebron. But I'm glad he did leave as he wasn't worth max money anyways - and if he stayed our cap hit would be ridiculous.

And no matter what kind of CBA we get, owners are still going to spend stupidly. We'll always see another Arenas - and if an owner makes a mistake like that then the only way they should be able to get around that is if they are able to trade him away (like Bryan did with Turk) or if his contract expires. I think 4/5 year deals are fine, but an owner/gm should really think hard before agreeing to that.

If the players can team up to play for another team, then I think the owners should be able to get together and decide on what they should pay a player. Bring on collusion! Heck, Bryan has a lot of friends. He'd be great at collusion if it was allowed.

[GarbageTime]

Just like the NBA is thriving. The only problem is that the distribution of the wealth is wrong. Too much is going to those who don't pay for the costs of operation. The NHL thought the got the distribution right. "Right" being, enough to cover costs and still turn a profit while compensating the players as fairly as financially possible. Things change, economic meltdowns happen, what can I say?

I wasn't the one who claimed hockey was 'thriving' while still losing money.

as for economic conditions... in the end who can say. The entire system may meltdown making the BRI a completely irrelevant debate. It may also boom beyond belief meaning the owners will make off like bandits at the player's expense.

(The one thing I will say is that sports do tend to have a resilence beyond most businesses, but everyone is inevitably effected by the economic conditions as a whole).

again this doesn't touch the lack of transparency which is inevitably necessary to make the argument that "yes the owners are losing X dollars and therefore need Y in return to make it work and therefore will hold out until then". Its just amazing the amount of debate thats going on based on information provided by people who:

1) have shown an unwillingness to openly release the information that would be to their 'gain'

2) have a vested interest in providing inaccurate information for their own gain

I have no idea why people want to believe the owners so badly that they are willing to blindly believe what rationality tells us we shouldn't. It may be the owners are losing money and are predicting future losses. It may also be that they are losing money but projecting future gains. It may be they are making money and projecting future losses. It may be that they are making money and projecting future gains.


This is a lockout, not a strike. Its based on the owners statement that the league is losing money because of player salaries (which we know is not entirely true as, at the very least, some salaries make them a fortune), but little to no willingness to prove that statement. Yet we sit here and put all the onus on the players.

[GarbageTime]

Some teams are extremely profitable. The league as a whole is losing money. Despite the world wide potential and popularity, the NBA has closed offices around the world as it attempts to compensate for losing money year in and year out through its operations. There is no significant difference in any financial endeavour that results in more money going out than going in

There is a significant difference based on the amount and the expected trajectory of that amount. HUGE difference.

Guerin had scored 34 goals going in to the lockout at 33 years of age. What do you think sitting out for a year of competition does to older players? He was no longer worth what he was paid because his production suffered after the lockout from missing so much time. What do you think it is going to do to many NBA players in their 30's?

The NHL also completely changed the way hockey was played. They eliminated the 'clutch and grab' approach, for a high speed - high energy approach. Guerin was no longer as effective as he was before, and younger, smaller and speedier players offered alot more value.

So while his age may have had an effect, but so did the style of the sport. Which even with or without a hard cap, a bri change, whatever, he was likely going to be less valuable in short order anyways. There are no shortage of examples to prove this. Hell almost the entire leafs roster at the time showed this.

Regardless this lockout isn't just about the 'old players' anyways. The 'young players' have, theoretically, alot more to lose (atleast long term) under the new CBA than the older players. Using Guerin (and hockey) as an example of why the players should just accept an agreement does not offer a complete picture. Guerin is a guy who was lost because of the rule changes regardless of the what the outcome of the CBA was.

And when the only solution appears to be contraction, the players continue to point the gun at their own head threatening to pull the trigger. If I was a rank and file player, would I want to risk no salary for a lower annual salary?

Contraction would effect a very small % of the player personnel. If it was 2 teams, thats 7% of all players.

Put that up against how the new CBA will effect the salaries of 100% of the players both immediately and in the long term... maybe they see it as worth their risk? But its not at all putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger.

Wasn't there a discussion the other day about how a hard cap hurts the rank and file players the most (ie. superstars are stilling going to get payed a lot, but that will come at the cost of the 'middle class' players?) So, for better or worse, holding out on a hard cap may make the most fiscal sense for the rank and file.

And contraction isn't the only solution, but it is a possible solution/alternative/ingredient. One that should be discussed more and in the end benifits an overwhelming majority on both sides.