Lockout

[Sleepy51]

I could see the Grizz owner Michael Heisley accepting a buyout and possible the Pacer's owner Herbert Simon. Supposedly Heisley has tried to sell the Grizz in the past.

I feel sorry for the major market teams in the rust belt, Pistons, 76ers and Cavs. Detroit in particular may never recover from it's economic doom, where one in three is unemployed.

Philadelphia will be fine. That franchise suffered from poor management. Philly is not only a big sports town but it is a major financial and commerce center. It's not rust belt and it's not a dying city at all. Better management = more profit in Philly. At some level some of these guys have to be responsible for their own failure in a system where others are succeeding.


It would have been REALLY interesting to see what would have gone down if George Shinn had rejected the NBA's receivership offer for the Hornets. They wanted him out BAD. he was an abomination as a businessman and as a person and if he held on to the team, sooner or later the league would have had to distance themselves. I'd have bought a ticket to that show.

[floppymoose]

I'd hate to see the Pistons and Pacers go. I'd even hate to see the Pacers move.

I also think San Jose could support a team (even with the Warriors close by) if the owners would ever allow it. Move the Hornets here.

[floppymoose]

And it's important to point out that both sides agree there have been losses.

It's important to note that both sides are reacting to their bargaining positions. What they say is not equal to what they believe, on either side.

[Twinkie defense]

But if the League hasn't been losing money, or if they have but the players believe they haven't... or even if the players believe they haven't but they want to create the impression that they have, then the players shouldn't be saying the League has lost money and be offering to give back $500 mil - they should be saying BS, you guys haven't lost money, and here's why!

I don't understand how offering to give up $500 mil in future salary is a position meant to exert leverage in the negotiations - unless they fear they really need to give up much, much more.

Regarding contraction, again, I'm all for it. Perhaps that's one thing we can agree on. And my desire for contraction isn't about finances at all (though it would help), but about the quality of play, which is suffering. I want to see the best of the best, locking horns every game. I don't want to see crap teams playing each other four times per year - I don't even want to see an 82 game schedule. Give us something we can really get excited about.

Unfortunately contraction is a non-starter - players don't want to give up the money, teams don't want to pay for other teams to go away, and the League has dreams of expanding, not taking a step backwards.

Contraction = pipe dream.

[KevinMcreynolds]

This thread is depressing.

I want highlight reel dunks yall

[Twinkie defense]

Jerry Jones bought the Dallas Cowboys In 1989 for $140 million, Forbes has them at $1.81 billion Today... basketball is for chumps

[Left*My*Heart]

I thought the owners wanted to cut 800 million in salaries?

[Left*My*Heart]

I think the owners have told the players they want to cut 800 million in salaries or they will look at contraction.

[Twinkie defense]

Presuming that you are talking about the length of the agreement, if the League is asking for $800 mil and the players are already offering $500 mil, it doesn't seem like they are really far off - that's only a $60 mil/year difference, or $2/mil per team per year!

Has the League mentioned contraction as an option? I would be really surprised if that was an option. Unless they know the players won't go for it so it's their doomsday option.

[floppymoose]

Someone will inevitably bring up schoolteachers, and yeah, schoolteachers are highly undervalued in our society. But, they aren't just undervalued vs athletes. They are undervalued vs actors, dancers, CEO's, middle managers, used car salesmen, loan officers and jizz moppers.

Dancers as a group do not make much money. That's one biz I have some connections to... I'm sure there are a few rich dancers, but by and large they are in a position similar to schoolteachers, only with a shorter career and no pension.

The 99th percentile dancers have, like the nba players, been training for their career since middle school (often earlier) and like nba players, have a short career. But unlike nba players, they don't hit the pay jackpot, typically.

[Twinkie defense]

I think he means strippers... aka highly valued

[floppymoose]

omg Miami strippers!

[Sleepy51]

omg Miami strippers!

Try to keep up with me Moose.

[Left*My*Heart]

Best strippers in the US...Miami and Florida in general!

[turk3d]

Lockout News: Insurance discussions between NBA and FIBA:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/67829 ... world-game

French obtain insurance for NBA players:

http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/news/l ... wsid=48164

[old rem]

The owners opened with big "hints" of some VERY extreme changes that they hope to get maybe half of. They are not talking about a slight shift,but some pretty major tilt. However. The fact is that the FANS are ultimately the SOURCE of all the revenue and the FANS pay to see PLAYERS...not guys in suits.

If all the NBA owners were pushing carts through your neighborhood Safeway,odds are that you might recognize Cuban and none of the rest....including Lacob.

It is not in the $$$ interest of the NBA or Owners to contract teams. The NBA profits from expanding,from keeping the book value of an NBA franchise high. Look at the gains Cohan got when he sold. He didn't need to make $1000 per season on operations because he reaped a LOT of MILLIONS in the sale.

The core issue is that the ego's and deep pockets of some owners........are bigger than average.
Blaming the players for saying YES to the deals owners offer...is kinda nuts.

There is some madness to it when a guy like R Lewis is paid near $20 mill and schoolteachers are getting laid off,when an extremist faction wants the USA to declare virtual bankruptcy.

[Left*My*Heart]

The league, as long as there is revenue sharing, does not want the teams that are out of control loss wise. I do believe that the league is extremely concerned about the economy and their money moving forward. We can sit back and say, "Well you are still a Billionaire" and it isn't going make them feel any better. There are legitimate concerns by the owners moving forward.

Yes, this is a players game and that is why we fill the stands(at least we do for the most part), but there has to be a model that also works for the owners and keeps the fan's attention.

Realistically there might be a need in the near future, and this is happening in other sports, is to cut ticket prices...which again affects the bottom line.

One thing that the league is trying to do is make it competitive. There needs to be a realistic "Hope" that there is more than 3 or 4 teams that have a legitimate shot at a title.

The owners will argue that the competition for the upper tier players and the system is set up as such, that they have to overspend to stay competitive. Small market teams are going to have issues staying competitive and having a working budget.

Yes, these are billionaires with toys for the most part, but this is also a business.

The league has thrown a lot of unreasonable things out on the table for negotiations. This is a fairly common stance, because very seldom do you get everything you ask for when you are negotiating.

I may sound like I'm leaning towards the owners side of things, but honestly I just want to watch NBA basketball. I want competition and if that means the league needs to contract, I am all for it. The salary cap in my mind needs to be a fixed hard cap. This should allow small markets to be more competitive. There needs to be some sort of change to the guaranteed contracts, that protect teams. I'm not necessarily talking about bad contracts that the team had control over, I'm talking about injuries and the like that make a player unable to play, but the team is still shelling dollars out.

[floppymoose]

The league has thrown a lot of unreasonable things out on the table for negotiations. This is a fairly common stance, because very seldom do you get everything you ask for when you are negotiating.

I've never understood that negotiating style. When folks try to negotiate that way with me, I end the negotiations immediately. I try to make them a realistic offer. If they aren't willing to be realistic, I've got better things to do.

[Sleepy51]

I'm talking about injuries and the like that make a player unable to play, but the team is still shelling dollars out.

Such protections already exists both financially and competitively.

Player contracts are routinely insured against non-prohibited activities related injury with the exception of preexisting conditions at the time of physical exam (like Amare's inability to get his eye insured.)

As far as competitively, there are injury exceptions and if a player suffers a career ending injury, retirement takes them off of the salary cap in a year.


The Celtics just inked a new TV deal. In addition to the fee increase, they get a 20% ownership in new england comcast sports which doesn't count towards BRI. More new revenue which comes at ZERO additional player contract or overhead costs and the carved out a big chunk of this deal not to count towards the cap calculations either.

Maybe three or possible four franchises have suffered actual total return losses over the holding period of this most recent CBA. Only Charlotte actually lost more money than was generated in net savings from the roster depreciation allowance (which can pass through to offset other income.) The problem is not that the current system is not financially sound. The current system is not financially IDIOT PROOF.

Ticket sales are not down and TV ratings are up. The NBA is going to be ROLLING in money throughout this next CBA with zero changes. This is about grabbing more cash while they have the leverage of one overhyped bad economic year and a couple of REALLY POORLY OPERATED franchises in the rear view mirror.

Once they do idiot proof this thing, how do you all think that will benefit fans? Donald Sterling has operated in a financially idiot proof market for 20 years. He has been among the worst owners in all of sports history, but because the demand for NBA tickets in LA exceeds the supply of competent NBA basketball games/seats (Lakers) he has enjoyed profits and increasing asset values on an organization run strictly for his financial amusement. All that a more owner-finance friendly CBA is going to do is help more guys like Donald Sterling and Chris Cohan pick NBA fans pockets and maintain the overexpanded and watered down league.

I want a hard cap as much as anybody, but a hard cap that would have guaranteed the Charlotte Hornets a profit despite Jordan's absenteeism and bungling would be TERRIBLE for fans. How do people not see this?

[Left*My*Heart]

The league has thrown a lot of unreasonable things out on the table for negotiations. This is a fairly common stance, because very seldom do you get everything you ask for when you are negotiating.

I've never understood that negotiating style. When folks try to negotiate that way with me, I end the negotiations immediately. I try to make them a realistic offer. If they aren't willing to be realistic, I've got better things to do.

In all of my negotiating, I have always gone in with the mindset that I wanted a Win/Win outcome. Not that both sides would get exactly what they wanted, but each side would give in on certain things that they felt they could and still walk away feeling good about the process. I can't recall not being able to compromise on the major topics at hand.

When attorneys would get involved, it always got to be a competitive process and I had a hard time not feeling dirty about some of the tactics. I was able to circumvent the lawyers in a couple of deals, when the other party agreed to meet without their legal representatives. In those cases we came to a decision fairly quickly and without a lot of fanfare. The agreed upon terms of our negotiations would then be sent to the appropriate legal team for contracts to be written up. We would then meet to go over the terms and sign the contracts...simple amazing that I would find things added by our legal team, that were not part of the negotiated deal, that had to be stricken from the contracts to their dismay.