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

[Apollo]

it would be nice to get something positive to help the Raptors compete with some of the more advantageous teams in the league like Miami, LA, NY, etc.

The NBA may never be able to have perfect parity since there are only a handful of guys in a league of 450 that actually make a difference.. but you should be able to bridge the gap a little bit to help even the playing field out for all the other teams that don't have those players.

I agree 100%. If you eliminate ability of big markets to try and spend their way out of problems you'll be in a system where each team has the same realistic options available to succeed. You would also see less bloated contracts floating around. If a team makes an enormous, competitive killing mistake that team should have the means to fix the issue as the team next door. If that translates to less options available and thus that team stinking for years then so be it. Most of the league has to live with that fate when they make mistakes. Equality in the NBA would be a wonderful thing even if we exclude the Raptors from the conversation all together.

[planetmars]

I'd also add to the first part (and something I mentioned a few weeks ago), is that while one can never completely change the value one individual player has to the sport, it can be limited by changing some of the NBA rules (or more specifically an approach to rules... ie. star calls). This ofcourse will never be a discussion point as those star players are what make these teams their $, and its that 'star status' that makes the players individually wealthy.

Yes.. 'star calls' are so idiotic. Defending basketball to a friend who likes hockey will always bring up this point (and the one where basketball fights are really just slap fights). It may have helped boost the popularity of the sport when Jordan was playing, but it really needs to stop now. Especially in a league that was marred with a fact that a referee was gambling on games, and most people didn't seem to give a crap.

To me a 'star call' is like having steroids in baseball. It just cheats the game.

[Apollo]

1) Cleveland was top 5 (?) in attendance last year. But I imagine they cut ticket prices so I can't tell you what their gate income was

Right, we don't know. We also don't know how much T.V. revenue they lost out on. I'm sure all those mega corporations aren't as eager to buy airtime during game coverage of a stinker. We're not even getting into merchandising. Who knows what happened there.

2) yes the lost their franchise player and got nearly nothing in return.... and how can that be helped? Lebron didn't leave because of money. Something like Slaw mentioned... adding additional sandwhich picks... would atleast offer some compensation.

No he didn't leave for money reasons but he left. The point brought up wasn't about why LeBron left. The point brought up was about LeBron leaving town and the implications to the team. The number one implication being the inability to spend as much to field a good team because of depleted revenue streams. If there were a hard cap the competition for players would be less because there would be less money to go around. I'd love to see a system where the PA is guaranteed every last penny of their BRI split whatever was not spent under the hard cap system is divvied up amongst the players however the PA sees fit. The players get all the money they're entitled to and the teams get a more pure system to operating under.

3) no discussion of how Gilbert spent that money and the inevitable consequences of it? He had 3 of the worst contracts in the NBA on his team to go with Lebron - Shaq, Mo Williams and Antwan Jamison. Shouldn't that be a HUGE part of the discussion? His wasteful spending NEEDS to be in the discussion

Sure, they made some mistakes but they did so to retain their biggest asset. They took risks because they couldn't afford not to.

4) His team was a top team in the league for half a decade... always a contender and he still lost his superstar. Exactly how did the system force him to waste his money with out considering the consequences of said action?

The system forced him to take big risks because the system gives far to much power to the players. The Owners are in a power struggle and this is why you have so many hardliners.

Like I said though, its his hypocracy here. He WAS one of the 'big spending culprits' until just this year. Now he wants people to 'do as he says not as he does' because its currently convient for him. Thats the definition of hypocracy.

He spent because he couldn't afford not to. He spent because he had to try and keep his biggest generator of revenue. The system failed the Cavs. Just like it failed the Raptors. Just like it failed the Jazz. Just like it failed the Nuggets. Just like it's going to fail Orlando and New Orleans if something isn't done. The Nuggets did really well for themselves but that doesn't make the problem go away. If you don't see it a problem that a lot of the big stars want to flock to the big markets and they're willing to hold franchises hostage to do so then we have nothing more to talk about.

Will system changes give every team in the league an opportunity to win? No, but the deciding factor will be coaching and management versus warm weather or cold weather, big city or small city, bloated contract or fair contract.

That explains it well.

[j bean]

The players think it is worth shutting things down because of what exactly? They say they have compromised on the economics but there are other things in the system that must remain status quo. False. Those other things are also economic and drive up salaries like the luxury tax. The players somehow think the owners are bluffing about rolling back salaries. I doubt it.
When they do get back to work there is going to be a lot of egg on the faces of this group that is delusional in their self importance and has a distorted perspective on what is best for the game and it's fans.

[GarbageTime]

A) Can you source me those quotes attributed to Gilbert or like statements. I havent come across those sentiments other than he was pretty pissed when LeBron went thru that "Decision" charade.

B) Why did Lebron leave really? Was it the salary? Were the seasonal records not amongst the best in the league? Did the Cavaliers not spend enough? Did the Cavs not accomodate him with a coach of choice, special considerations for his posse and available free agents really to the long term detriment of the org?

A) The first was paraphrased, but Gilbert has been, apparently the most vocal owner when it comes to changing the hard cap (I don't have the link off hand but I'll try and find it for you). The second was clearly not what he said, but my impressions of what is really going on. While some owners may be reckless... they are not completely stupid. Cutting everyone's ability to 'spend' both reduces his own risk level and limits everyone else's ability to take risks. Making his life after Lebron much easier and, theoritically, more profitable than it would be under the current system.

B)why did Lebron really leave? Who knows... taxes, the weather, to win, South Beach bikini babes, attention, endorsement deals, long term agreement between the big two and half, start LeBron's Lucious Ladies brothel. But I think its abundantly clear that Cleveland's ability to spend and his own salary had nothing to do with it (Cleveland was a top spender and Lebron could have earned more in Cleveland then anywhere else).... which is why I don't understand people thinking a hard cap is going to make all the difference. If a hard cap was in place (at approx where the salary cap is right now), Lebron could have, and likely would have, still left for Miami. Bosh on the other hand may have been left out in the cold (although it may still have worked out and someone like Mike Miller might have been out of luck)

[GarbageTime]

Right, we don't know. We also don't know how much T.V. revenue they lost out on. I'm sure all those mega corporations aren't as eager to buy airtime during game coverage of a stinker. We're not even getting into merchandising. Who knows what happened there.



No he didn't leave for money reasons but he left. The point brought up wasn't about why LeBron left. The point brought up was about LeBron leaving town and the implications to the team. The number one implication being the inability to spend as much to field a good team because of depleted revenue streams. If there were a hard cap the competition for players would be less because there would be less money to go around. I'd love to see a system where the PA is guaranteed every last penny of their BRI split whatever was not spent under the hard cap system is divvied up amongst the players however the PA sees fit. The players get all the money they're entitled to and the teams get a more pure system to operating under.



Sure, they made some mistakes but they did so to retain their biggest asset. They took risks because they couldn't afford not to.



The system forced him to take big risks because the system gives far to much power to the players. The Owners are in a power struggle and this is why you have so many hardliners.



He spent because he couldn't afford not to. He spent because he had to try and keep his biggest generator of revenue. The system failed the Cavs. Just like it failed the Raptors. Just like it failed the Jazz. Just like it failed the Nuggets. Just like it's going to fail Orlando and New Orleans if something isn't done. The Nuggets did really well for themselves but that doesn't make the problem go away. If you don't see it a problem that a lot of the big stars want to flock to the big markets and they're willing to hold franchises hostage to do so then we have nothing more to talk about.



That explains it well.

Cleveland couldn't afford not to? Really? the argument that they couldn't afford not to is not necessarily true but rather an assumption thats being made. Cleveland may have been able to spend alot less, or the same amount, had they spent that money more wisely on better value players. It may also not have made any difference how much they spent at all... Lebron may have just wanted out of Cleveland as soon as he reasonably could for a variety of reasons.


You keep assuming that teams need to spend to win.... which has already been proven false (both statistically and with numerous random examples) time and time again. Does it help? Sure. Is it the difference maker? Not at all.

[planetmars]

.... which is why I don't understand people thinking a hard cap is going to make all the difference. If a hard cap was in place (at approx where the salary cap is right now), Lebron could have, and likely would have, still left for Miami. Bosh on the other hand may have been left out in the cold (although it may still have worked out and someone like Mike Miller might have been out of luck)

You hit the nail on the head - I personally don't have an issue with Lebron leaving (or any other FA), but if they are still demanding top dollar (or near top dollar), then the team who gets them should not be able to afford other expensive players like Mike Miller or Chris Bosh. A hard cap / flex cap - whatever you want to call the cap - can prevent this from happening which is good for a team like the Raptors and all the other teams in the league who can't create super-teams.

NY in my opinion is not a good team the way it is (Amare and Carmelo do not make a formidable duo). But if they can continue to afford to pay for really good mid-level players (like Steve Nash, or Jamal Crawford, etc) or other near-max players like Chris Paul, then that's crap. I'd like to see Miami succeed without being able to buy mid-level role players. The 2.5 stars are great, but how will they do if all they can afford are D-leaguer's to fill out their roster? If they still win, then I'm cool with that - but if they continue to buy all the great role players in the league, then I'm not cool with that.

[NoPropsneeded]

now the players are just being plain stupid. Just accept the deal and shut up like seriously

[mcHAPPY]

A) The first was paraphrased, but Gilbert has been, apparently the most vocal owner when it comes to changing the hard cap (I don't have the link off hand but I'll try and find it for you). The second was clearly not what he said, but my impressions of what is really going on. While some owners may be reckless... they are not completely stupid. Cutting everyone's ability to 'spend' both reduces his own risk level and limits everyone else's ability to take risks. Making his life after Lebron much easier and, theoritically, more profitable than it would be under the current system.

B)why did Lebron really leave? Who knows... taxes, the weather, to win, South Beach bikini babes, attention, endorsement deals, long term agreement between the big two and half, start LeBron's Lucious Ladies brothel. But I think its abundantly clear that Cleveland's ability to spend and his own salary had nothing to do with it (Cleveland was a top spender and Lebron could have earned more in Cleveland then anywhere else).... which is why I don't understand people thinking a hard cap is going to make all the difference. If a hard cap was in place (at approx where the salary cap is right now), Lebron could have, and likely would have, still left for Miami. Bosh on the other hand may have been left out in the cold (although it may still have worked out and someone like Mike Miller might have been out of luck)

I have no issue with a player leaving their team. However, I do have an issue with screwing a franchise and its fans in the process.

There should be a choice to be made: money or team/teammates. To ensure this:

Abolish the sign and trade.

Allow the 'home' team to offer much more money and years guaranteed therefore incentive to stay. For example, what would LBJ have done with an offer of 5 years and $100M from CLE versus 3 years and $50M from Miami?


If I am an engineer, I can make $400k a year working in the middle east or I can earn $150k in North America.... same job but I have to make a choice what is important to me outside of salary.

[Bendit]

A) The first was paraphrased, but Gilbert has been, apparently the most vocal owner when it comes to changing the hard cap (I don't have the link off hand but I'll try and find it for you). The second was clearly not what he said, but my impressions of what is really going on. While some owners may be reckless... they are not completely stupid. Cutting everyone's ability to 'spend' both reduces his own risk level and limits everyone else's ability to take risks. Making his life after Lebron much easier and, theoritically, more profitable than it would be under the current system.


B)why did Lebron really leave? Who knows... taxes, the weather, to win, South Beach bikini babes, attention, endorsement deals, long term agreement between the big two and half, start LeBron's Lucious Ladies brothel. But I think its abundantly clear that Cleveland's ability to spend and his own salary had nothing to do with it (Cleveland was a top spender and Lebron could have earned more in Cleveland then anywhere else).... which is why I don't understand people thinking a hard cap is going to make all the difference. If a hard cap was in place (at approx where the salary cap is right now), Lebron could have, and likely would have, still left for Miami. Bosh on the other hand may have been left out in the cold (although it may still have worked out and someone like Mike Miller might have been out of luck)

I am personally a system change guy. As far as I am concerned ownership should give up bri in favour of competitive balance.

Re point b...your answer is pretty much it...who knows why LJ left. I prefer to believe it was more hubris than anything else...the chance to play with 2 of the other top 5 (I dont think CB is that btw) in the league and win 7 championships (he said so). My point being...should the league or a team who essentially relied on some pong balls to "win" LB should be in a position, whims or not become a has been/bottom feeder thru the loss of a valuable asset...and receive essentially nothing in return. The hard cap is but only one method to arrest this. There are a lot of exceptions that murk the waters but I think a hard cap with unlimited salary would probably work. The real superstar makes his coin with a supporting cast or has to share his spoils with another star, get more lower paid scrubs and diminish the chances of the ring. But you get my thinking...there will just be a natural aversion to teaming up and making the real big money (if you are among the best) with a team of your own. The downside for the rank & file is of course a diminished salary. Doubt if the union would go for it though....they want the status quo...and this I am convinced is not good for the Raptors or the league...unless we want a two tiered one.

[RandomGuy]

Yea, greediness is sure a cool feature of americans. Well, Merry Christmas The Lockout and a happy New Year I guess.

[GarbageTime]

I have no issue with a player leaving their team. However, I do have an issue with screwing a franchise and its fans in the process.

There should be a choice to be made: money or team/teammates. To ensure this:

Abolish the sign and trade.

Allow the 'home' team to offer much more money and years guaranteed therefore incentive to stay. For example, what would LBJ have done with an offer of 5 years and $100M from CLE versus 3 years and $50M from Miami?


If I am an engineer, I can make $400k a year working in the middle east or I can earn $150k in North America.... same job but I have to make a choice what is important to me outside of salary.

I completely agree... and I think you've mentioned in the past the 'Melo Rule' which I think is important to.

[mcHAPPY]

I completely agree... and I think you've mentioned in the past the 'Melo Rule' which I think is important to.

Yes. I can't believe I forgot that. The Melo rule is otherwise known as the extend and trade.

[mcHAPPY]

Another 'final' meeting

Via ESPN:

A meeting Wednesday between the NBA’s owners and its locked-out players tentatively is scheduled for 1 p.m. ET in New York, sources told ESPN The Magazine’s Chris Broussard. Logistics for the meeting currently are being worked out.

The NBA Players Association rejected the league’s latest labor proposal Tuesday but had asked for one more bargaining session before a 5 p.m. ET deadline Wednesday that, according to commissioner David Stern, will cause the offer to vanish if there’s no agreement.

[Apollo]

Cleveland couldn't afford not to? Really? the argument that they couldn't afford not to is not necessarily true but rather an assumption thats being made. Cleveland may have been able to spend alot less, or the same amount, had they spent that money more wisely on better value players. It may also not have made any difference how much they spent at all... Lebron may have just wanted out of Cleveland as soon as he reasonably could for a variety of reasons.

It's really easy to be a backseat driver, especially when you have no way of obtaining all the facts. Of course they could have spent the money more wisely, that's blatantly obvious after the fact now that we're at the point where they were left empty handed. They made their real push for the Championship after they were past cap. They had two options, trades and the MLE. They had to take gambles. Most teams have to take gamble. The Cavs gambles would have been fine had LeBron James stayed. They could still afford to keep their cap number high and work on fixing their problems. You're also assuming that LeBron James didn't have any input in those moves. For all you know he could have been implying that if such and such doesn't come here via a trade then he's going to lose interest in Cleveland. LeBron James had all the leverage in Cleveland. "If you don't do this then I might leave. If you don't do that then I might leave." When he actually did leave he went to a team who told him he would have to play on their terms. The situation for him flipped. The Heat have the leverage. See how that works? Same thing happened with Carter in Toronto. They both had leverage with the team who drafted them because those teams invested so much into them that they couldn't afford to lose them. Both guys played it up. In the case of Carter we know for a fact that he was strong arming management into making moves he liked. Hell, he basically left when they finally stood up to him. Players shouldn't have the power to hold teams hostage. It's detrimental to the game.

Does it help? Sure. Is it the difference maker? Not at all.

Are you going to really sit here and tell me that if the Thunder and Bulls ownership isn't willing to spend over cap they can compete when their rookie contract players are looking for new contracts? In the new system those two successful teams who aren't spending are going to either have to start throwing down a lot of money or crawl back into the shadows. What do the Bulls do if Rose tells them he needs such and such on his team this coming season and the Bulls need to make it work or he's more likely to bail on them? Are they going to trade him out of principle, sticking to the plans and probably losing a step and lots of money? Are they going cave into him and give what he wants even if it's highly risky? How about this, why don't they do neither and instead fight for a system where players have no power to hold teams random?