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

[mcHAPPY]

Actually I don't.... which is actually amazingly far away from the other day when Matt52 said I was advocating communism (my socialism comment was sarcasm). I would actually, more or less, be most supportive of a system similar to what there is now but with less exceptions, tougher taxation penalties and greater revenue sharing.

In this way teams would have the choice to spend what they wanted to but would have more limitations through greater taxation and less exceptions. Greater revenue sharing would give the 'have not' teams more ability to spend if they chose to, but at the very least would offer some return if they loose their stars to others.

Your stance advocates spreading all revenues evenly throughout the league.

When players are willing to spread all salaries (EDIT: that should read revenues i.e. salaries and endorsements) evenly through the league, I am sure the owner's will consider the same.

Good luck with that.

[jimmie]

Revenue sharing will do nothing for competitive balance if teams are losing money. I think this has been stated before. When you're sharing less-than-zero, it's not really sharing.

Besides, without a cap system, revenue sharing simply ensures that profits are spread around, with most-profitable sharing with least-profitable. It has no bearing on how those profits are then used. If you're suggesting that sharing any profits made among all 30 teams will ensure that all 30 teams end up spending roughly the same amount on salaries, I'd say you're making a giant leap. There also needs to be a counterbalance to ensure teams don't spend significantly more than one another in signing players.

Again, all your arguments suggest that you just want to see teams in a similar profit position, but then they are on their own to spend as they see fit to improve the product on the floor. That is, if Team X has a wealthy owner who doesn't care about the bottom line as much as he does about winning, they are free to spend like the arena is on fire, while Team Y, with its investment group that won't tolerate such nonsense is left picking scraps and futilely trying to compete both on the court (with inferior product for which it was forced to overpay) and off (with such a crappy on-court product, it will be difficult to bring in as much revenue).

This is not good for either the rich, overspending team or the more prudent team. It inevitably leads to disparity on the court and lost revenues league-wide by the teams who have to keep putting crap on the floor year after year. Which in turn leads to a league that, overall, isn't profitable. Which means NO revenue-sharing at all.

Are you starting to see what the rest of us are seeing?

[Apollo]

Exactly. Which is why I find the union's stated motives to be slightly disingenuous. They don't really care a rat's ass whether the league as a whole remains viable and/or whether teams like the Bucks and Pacers ever have a chance to win a championship, as long as they have the opportunity to make as much as they can, as quickly as they can. The sad thing is that the rank-and-file doesn't understand that, if the union gets what it says it wants, they'll be the ones making less money (and likely on very short-term contracts) over the long haul while the elite 5% or so make the majority of available salary money.

Yeah. Essentially the players are saying "up yours" to most fans of small market teams. They're doing this on two front. First they're trying to con the fans into believing that spending lots of money on payroll(as in above cap) doesn't play a large role in the success of most NBA teams. Second, many have come out said if teams can't afford to spend ridiculously on players or is losing money while trying to maintain a good product for it's fans then that team should fold or relocate to another place. This all comes down to squeezing every last dollar they can get out and if that means fans lose their team then tough. Let's not fix a thing if it means taking a real pay cut. That's their motto.

Do you even realize how difficult it is to live with only five Bentleys parked at the mansion instead of eight? How can these players be expected to realistically accept half of the revenue of a $4B/yr business? It's just not fair.

DeRozan seems to heavily support the union's current stance. I'm sure he would have no problem with the Raptors being relocated if it means he can earn a couple extra million per year until the new location dries up.

Your stance advocates spreading all revenues evenly throughout the league.

When players are willing to spread all salaries (EDIT: that should read revenues i.e. salaries and endorsements) evenly through the league, I am sure the owner's will consider the same.

Good luck with that.

Very good point. Maybe the Messiah, Kevin Garnett, can open up his vast savings in an additional super generous act and bailout all the average ballers who are going to get taken to the cleaners in 2012 if there is still a lockout.

[Joey]

Do you even realize how difficult it is to live with only five Bentleys parked at the mansion instead of eight? How can these players be expected to realistically accept half of the revenue of a $4B/yr business? It's just not fair.

Do you actually believe this is what its about?
Whether or not they can buy another Bentley?

I'm not sure I've EVER heard a player say "Pay me more or Move the team" OR anything Along those lines. EVER.
Not only are the Players already willing to take a Pay Cut going forward, they have even conceded to Rolling Back contracts that have already been agreed too.
Where else in the ENTIRE WORLD do you find someone saying "Here, you agreed to pay too much money; take some of the extra off the top. No biggy." No where! And yet they are still seen as inflexible? Its ridiculous.

If this were actually about "Squeezing every last dollar", as you put it, then not only would they not have Budged on what they feel they deserve, but they would NOT have conceded as much as they have, while the Owners have given them ZERO reason to even believe they are being honest and forthcoming with the Actual Numbers.

Either way, I'm going to remove myself from these debates going forward.
There's far too much opinion being dished out as fact. It's not worth the effort at this point, considering we the fan, have MAYBE been given 25% of the needed information.
Let me know if you guys solve anything! haha

[GarbageTime]

Your stance advocates spreading all revenues evenly throughout the league.

When players are willing to spread all salaries (EDIT: that should read revenues i.e. salaries and endorsements) evenly through the league, I am sure the owner's will consider the same.

Good luck with that.

Umm no. That wasn't my stance. That entire discussion, from me, was an alternative to a hard cap for competitive balance, and using taht as evidence that the ownership need for a hard cap was a red herring. Never did I say that was the best idea or the most likely. Like I said many times, seperate ideas.

[Apollo]

I'm not sure I've EVER heard a player say "Pay me more or Move the team" OR anything Along those lines. EVER.

Multiple players have come out now during the lockout and said quite clearly that if teams can't afford the current system then maybe some of those teams should be moved or fold. Google it. You'll find it.

Where else in the ENTIRE WORLD do you find someone saying "Here, you agreed to pay too much money; take some of the extra off the top. No biggy." No where! And yet they are still seen as inflexible? Its ridiculous.

"Else" implies it's happening here. It's not. The contract you speak of it done. They're discussing a new contract. You can't take a pay cut if your current pay is zero. Try using your logic in the real world where you're a contractor. Once the deal is done, the deal is done. You're entitled to nothing after that until you negotiate a new deal.

If this were actually about "Squeezing every last dollar", as you put it, then not only would they not have Budged on what they feel they deserve, but they would NOT have conceded as much as they have, while the Owners have given them ZERO reason to even believe they are being honest and forthcoming with the Actual Numbers.

Sure they would. It's an negotiation. Had they not budged they would be where they were in July right now, not closer to an agreement with the other side being pretty hostile right now. I said squeeze every dollar, not tactlessly delay the inevitable... Which they're doing now anyway.

[mcHAPPY]

Umm no. That wasn't my stance. That entire discussion, from me, was an alternative to a hard cap for competitive balance, and using taht as evidence that the ownership need for a hard cap was a red herring. Never did I say that was the best idea or the most likely. Like I said many times, seperate ideas.

I don't recall that. But at the same time it would not be the first time I misunderstood.

I agree revenue sharing might achieve the same purpose as a hard cap.

Unfortunately then you would have owners with much deeper pocket or greater sources of income outside of basketball willing to lose money in order to win (Orlando Magic owner or Paul Allen comes to mind). In the end it would not achieve competitive balance.

The only way to achieve competitive balance, in my opinion, is have each team limited to the same payroll requirements.

Will this make things 100% fair? No, because then you are going to have some players who would rather play closer to their hometown or have the allure of a big city or whatever. However, if they have the choice between 2 cities at equal pay or are willing to take a pay cut for those wants or desires in one city compared to the other, then that is the player's right and prerogative.

[Apollo]

I agree revenue sharing might achieve the same purpose as a hard cap.

I believe both are needed. The Owners have said they're going to be working on revenue sharing and even the big markets are now on board. I don't think the Owners would lie about it because it's such an important topic, I'm sure, to the majority of them and besides it would be detrimental to League/Union relations if they were not being honest about it.

I wonder what would come out of Wade's mouth if Stern asked him to turn over his private bank account statement because he wanted to make sure Wade wasn't wasting money before he pulled the league's offer back to 53%?

[jimmie]

GarbageTime, please re-read, because you still seem to think that revenue-sharing can build a competitive system even without restrictions on total team salary:

Revenue sharing will do nothing for competitive balance if teams are losing money. I think this has been stated before. When you're sharing less-than-zero, it's not really sharing.

Besides, without a cap system, revenue sharing simply ensures that profits are spread around, with most-profitable sharing with least-profitable. It has no bearing on how those profits are then used. If you're suggesting that sharing any profits made among all 30 teams will ensure that all 30 teams end up spending roughly the same amount on salaries, I'd say you're making a giant leap. There also needs to be a counterbalance to ensure teams don't spend significantly more than one another in signing players.

Again, all your arguments suggest that you just want to see teams in a similar profit position, but then they are on their own to spend as they see fit to improve the product on the floor. That is, if Team X has a wealthy owner who doesn't care about the bottom line as much as he does about winning, they are free to spend like the arena is on fire, while Team Y, with its investment group that won't tolerate such nonsense is left picking scraps and futilely trying to compete both on the court (with inferior product for which it was forced to overpay) and off (with such a crappy on-court product, it will be difficult to bring in as much revenue).

This is not good for either the rich, overspending team or the more prudent team. It inevitably leads to disparity on the court and lost revenues league-wide by the teams who have to keep putting crap on the floor year after year. Which in turn leads to a league that, overall, isn't profitable. Which means NO revenue-sharing at all.

[Joey]

Multiple players have come out now during the lockout and said quite clearly that if teams can't afford the current system then maybe some of those teams should be moved or fold. Google it. You'll find it.

Not sure what I'd Google for that one ... either way, not sure why a team would have to 'Move' when its just the owner that is the problem... doesn't make much sense to me ... moving wouldn't allow the owner too suddenly be able to afford the system ...

"Else" implies it's happening here. It's not. The contract you speak of it done. They're discussing a new contract. You can't take a pay cut if your current pay is zero. Try using your logic in the real world where you're a contractor. Once the deal is done, the deal is done. You're entitled to nothing after that until you negotiate a new deal.

Wrong. The CBA is expired. Not the player contracts.
Any contract that was signed during the previous CBA must still be honoured.
This has nothing to do with me 'using logic', or whatever.

You are implying every player contract must now be renegotiated, because the CBA expired.

"Real World Logic" or not, thats just wrong.

Sure they would. It's an negotiation. Had they not budged they would be where they were in July right now, not closer to an agreement with the other side being pretty hostile right now. I said squeeze every dollar, not tactlessly delay the inevitable... Which they're doing now anyway.

Well whats the sense in Negotiating when you've already been told what the Final Decision will be? If there is an inevitable, then it is NOT a proper negotiation Apollo. That simple.


Actually "Good Faith Negotiating" implies that both sides maintain sincere intentions to rectify the situation fairly, while satisfying both sides.
If you come in knowing the other side doesn't intend to do this, as is indicated by your 'inevitable', then you are in full rights to sue. Which is actually what the PA did VERY early on in the process.

[jimmie]

"Do you actually believe this is what its about?
Whether or not they can buy another Bentley?"

Oversimplified, but yes. I do believe it boils down to that.

What do YOU believe this is about? Fairness for the players? What defines "fairness" in your world? Fairness to the players in this situation equates to them essentially wanting a guarantee that they will assume none of the risk that the owners assume as a routine part of doing business.

"Where else in the ENTIRE WORLD do you find someone saying "Here, you agreed to pay too much money; take some of the extra off the top. No biggy." No where! And yet they are still seen as inflexible? Its ridiculous."

Au contraire. It happens all the time in the "real world". Salaried employees are let go from jobs all the time when the company isn't profitable -- no guarantees, maybe a severance package. Unionized employees also see job cuts -- often the result of the company being unable to account for changes in financial situation, and being stuck cutting jobs instead of salaries because the union is too strong. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the real world do union members get so much of the corporate pot as pro athletes do...

Also, consider this: The NBA is not a traditional "market" where all 30 teams compete against one another in terms of generating revenue. On the contrary, it's more like a single company with 30 different divisions, all bringing in differing amounts of revenue, but ultimately working toward the common goal of increasing revenue at the company (league-wide) level while at the same time competing for revenue with outside entities (Euro, NCAA, NBDL, etc.) who produce the same product.

The league wants to ensure that it continues to put the best product on the floor, which will in turn ensure that it continues to be the global marquee brand for basketball. You can't purport to put the best product on the floor when the competitiveness of the league continues to decline.

If you're thinking about this in terms of how individual franchises operate, and believe that, if individual franchises are able to survive and be semi-profitable under the old CBA, then all franchises should be able to do so, you are starting from a flawed position, in my opinion.

[GarbageTime]

Revenue sharing will do nothing for competitive balance if teams are losing money. I think this has been stated before. When you're sharing less-than-zero, it's not really sharing.

I doubt you probably read the lengthy debate Matt and I had (and understandably so), but the idea of a hard cap/revenue sharing is seperate from profitability. Yes share 0 revenues between 30 teams is 0 for each team that I know.

BUT there are still means outside of a hard cap or revenue sharing to achieve profitability.

As I said before (and used the NHL as an example) just because there is a hard cap doesn't mean a team will be profitable either. And if the hard cap has a hard bottom it may force teams to loose money aswell (depending on how high that bottom is)

Besides, without a cap system, revenue sharing simply ensures that profits are spread around, with most-profitable sharing with least-profitable. It has no bearing on how those profits are then used. If you're suggesting that sharing any profits made among all 30 teams will ensure that all 30 teams end up spending roughly the same amount on salaries, I'd say you're making a giant leap. There also needs to be a counterbalance to ensure teams don't spend significantly more than one another in signing players.

Again, all your arguments suggest that you just want to see teams in a similar profit position, but then they are on their own to spend as they see fit to improve the product on the floor. That is, if Team X has a wealthy owner who doesn't care about the bottom line as much as he does about winning, they are free to spend like the arena is on fire, while Team Y, with its investment group that won't tolerate such nonsense is left picking scraps and futilely trying to compete both on the court (with inferior product for which it was forced to overpay) and off (with such a crappy on-court product, it will be difficult to bring in as much revenue).

This is not good for either the rich, overspending team or the more prudent team. It inevitably leads to disparity on the court and lost revenues league-wide by the teams who have to keep putting crap on the floor year after year. Which in turn leads to a league that, overall, isn't profitable. Which means NO revenue-sharing at all.

Are you starting to see what the rest of us are seeing?

Don't get me wrong, I know exactly what you guys are saying.

And I don't think any form of revenue sharing (or hard capping for that matter) will ensure anything. Rather it gives owners, as a whole, more options to do as they see fit. If someone chooses to spend more thats their choice, if they choose to spend less thats theirs aswell. They will all have to deal with the consequences of their actions. What it will help do is give all teams a better ability to spend and spend how they see fit.

But I also don't think 'competitive balance' is exclusively due to a teams ability to spend. There is no doubt that a few spending alot doesn't help, but some teams still have an inability to attract or keep talent even when offering more $ than someone else. Toronto is a prime example of this... Bosh left for attention, McGrady left to be a #1, Antonio Davis claims he wanted out due to the metric system (I know probably a terrible lie by him but a reason none the less) and Vince left because he was a douche (and apparenly to be closer to home which I don't buy either). None of them left because they could get a greater salary elsewhere, or Toronto wasn't able to spend enough. Then you have players who took pay cuts to not play in Toronto, such as Trevor Ariza.

Competitive balance is only partially due to the spending issue. But its also a locational issue... which no hard cap can solve and really could make worse.

A hard cap also places a bigger burden on a contract that isn't working (whether the player was overpayed, injured, whatever), because it gives teams less ability to compensate for it.

[Joey]

Oversimplified, but yes. I do believe it boils down to that.

What do YOU believe this is about? Fairness for the players? What defines "fairness" in your world? Fairness to the players in this situation equates to them essentially wanting a guarantee that they will assume none of the risk that the owners assume as a routine part of doing business.

So I guess you believe this is ACTUALLY about the owners wanting to create Parity and NOT just make more money? Hilarious.
Players are only in it for another Bentley, but the owners AREN'T in it for another Private Jet?

I think by offering to roll-back ALL existing Salaries; even those that are GUARENTEED by a WRITTEN CONTRACT, IS assuming Risk, and offering to Help.

Au contraire. It happens all the time in the "real world". Salaried employees are let go from jobs all the time when the company isn't profitable -- no guarantees, maybe a severance package. Unionized employees also see job cuts -- often the result of the company being unable to account for changes in financial situation, and being stuck cutting jobs instead of salaries because the union is too strong. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the real world do union members get so much of the corporate pot as pro athletes do...

Thats because nowhere else are Unioned Employees THE PRODUCT being sold.

When your product is Human Beings, and not an iPod, you will have that product looking for a Fair Share of the Pie.
Its economics. If iPod could go over to Dell and ask for more money, you don't think it would?

If you're thinking about this in terms of how individual franchises operate, and believe that, if individual franchises are able to survive and be semi-profitable under the old CBA, then all franchises should be able to do so, you are starting from a flawed position, in my opinion.

Take Sacremento for example .. Not even 10 years ago, they were probably one of the Top Grossing teams in the League.
Indiana ... same.
Milwaukee (with Ray, Big Dog and Sam) ... same.
Minnesota ... same.

The league fluctuates. Teams success' fluctuate.
Make good Management decisions (as most of those teams did to become Profitable) and you too can have a good, Profitable team!

[jimmie]

"Thats because nowhere else are Unioned Employees THE PRODUCT being sold."

This is where there's a fundamental disagreement. I don't believe the players are the product. I believe the game is the product. The players are what help the NBA be a better product than the NCAA, NBDL, Euro, etc. If the NBA ceased to exist, there would still be a competitive environment for basketball players. If basketball ceased to exist, though, all these players would be pumping gas.

To use your high tech analogy: Apple vs. Dell is not the same as Bucks vs. Lakers. It's the same as Euroleague vs. NBA. A more accurate analogy would be the highly-successful iPhone division of Apple being asked by the CEO to share revenues with the less-successful iCloud division in order to leverage the iPhone division's success to make the overall Apple brand stronger, because the CEO realizes that a strong iCloud product will not only sell iCloud, but iPhone as well.

And yes, of course I believe that the owners want more money, too. But I believe that they know how to get it. The players don't. Owners know that league-wide revenues won't increase unless the system changes. If it were all about LA competing for revenue against Milwaukee, then you might have a point. But it's not. It's about the NBA writ large as a competitive entity, not each franchise.

You've said an awful lot about what you think the owners are stalling for. What about the players? If they want to play so bad, what are they fighting for? More money? For which players? As has been stated time and again in this thread, the only ones who will benefit from a system like the one they've operated under for the past 10+ years are (roughly) the top 5%, and that number will inevitably include a bunch of players who aren't worth it, but are making it because have-not franchises are forced to overpay for them just to maintain *some* semblance of on-court competitiveness.

[mcHAPPY]

So I guess you believe this is ACTUALLY about the owners wanting to create Parity and NOT just make more money? Hilarious.
Players are only in it for another Bentley, but the owners AREN'T in it for another Private Jet?

I think by offering to roll-back ALL existing Salaries; even those that are GUARENTEED by a WRITTEN CONTRACT, IS assuming Risk, and offering to Help.



Thats because nowhere else are Unioned Employees THE PRODUCT being sold.

When your product is Human Beings, and not an iPod, you will have that product looking for a Fair Share of the Pie.
Its economics. If iPod could go over to Dell and ask for more money, you don't think it would?



Take Sacremento for example .. Not even 10 years ago, they were probably one of the Top Grossing teams in the League.
Indiana ... same.
Milwaukee (with Ray, Big Dog and Sam) ... same.
Minnesota ... same.

The league fluctuates. Teams success' fluctuate.
Make good Management decisions (as most of those teams did to become Profitable) and you too can have a good, Profitable team!

Joey those are good examples. Personally, what I see as a concern is the trend of players with the desire to form big 3's. It is a touchy subject for many fans. On the one hand I really am for free agency and understand the players might want to be in a certain city for different reasons. But on the other hand, I have a problem when the system is such that 3 max players can join a team under the softcap and then expand the payroll to over $100M in 2 years. I also have a problem when a player can totally screw over a franchise that was good to them for a long time (I really don't want to start another one of these conversations as they have been had numerous times, I just think it is fair to say not all players are forthcoming with their intentions which is why the Carmelo Anthony rule is a must in my opinion). I don't know what it is but something about that doesn't seem right or fair. If I was a fan of the Heat or Knicks I might have a different view. Obviously I am biased given what happened to the Raptors.