Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[OvertimeNO]

Like I said, the players don't have any vested interest in seeing league prosper long term, their demands have proven that. They have their short careers and they want to make big money and have free reign. That's the reason they'd drive the league into the ground if they had their way.

Not only that, the one factor people seem to be overlooking, at their peril, are the agents. Their fingerprints are all over the current situation.

[BorisDK1]

Yup. That's correct. They can do this through revenue sharing. Why they decided to put this all on the players is greed amongst the owners. Big market teams don't want to help out small market teams, which is why they've gotten together to stick it to the players.

To speak of revenue sharing as a solution to anything when the NBA is an aggregate loss position (which it clearly is) is pure folly.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The 375 have clearly not been heard. Look at the last proposal from the owners, it wasn't a bad deal for the 375. It was a bad deal for the players that want to get paid more and force themselves to their fav city.

The players basically said that if they caved on all the salary demands of the owners then they wanted some form of compensation in return. The funny thing is that if you look over the proposal of the owners, it wasn't designed to actually help struggling franchises, either. It was designed to keep the borderline franchises treading water for a couple years until they NBA needed to renegotiate the deal but it was a phenomenal deal for the wealthiest teams in the league who would have seen their profits all increase in the tens of millions per year.

I'm not actually pro-players in this dispute, but I'm definitely anti-owners. And the owners only have an interest in changing the league insofar as it generates them greater profits. They've been actively pursuing moves that have made parity harder to achieve for years now - max contracts, rookie scale, limiting revenue-sharing, no d-league but a WNBA, allowed expansion and moving of franchises to less desirable markets. They still haven't changed their stance on any of those issues, and if you look closely at their proposals, they aren't actually after parity, either, just generating more profits, the bulk of which will go to already wealthy teams.

[OvertimeNO]

Yup. That's correct. They can do this through revenue sharing. Why they decided to put this all on the players is greed amongst the owners. Big market teams don't want to help out small market teams, which is why they've gotten together to stick it to the players.

To speak of revenue sharing as a solution to anything when the NBA is an aggregate loss position (which it clearly is) is pure folly.

This. It's basic freaking math.

4 + -3 + -3 = -2

with revenue sharing:

2 + -2 + -2 = -2

[Reignman]

The 375 have clearly not been heard. Look at the last proposal from the owners, it wasn't a bad deal for the 375. It was a bad deal for the players that want to get paid more and force themselves to their fav city.

The players basically said that if they caved on all the salary demands of the owners then they wanted some form of compensation in return. The funny thing is that if you look over the proposal of the owners, it wasn't designed to actually help struggling franchises, either. It was designed to keep the borderline franchises treading water for a couple years until they NBA needed to renegotiate the deal but it was a phenomenal deal for the wealthiest teams in the league who would have seen their profits all increase in the tens of millions per year.

The "reset" option is actually the best option for the league as a whole. It allows the smaller markets to make money AND be competitive.

But the players don't want that obviously. Let me rephrase, a small segment of players/agents with a side of a labour lawyer (who wants his billable hours) don't want that.

You can't blame the owners for watering down their original demands in order to get a deal done but the reality is that their initial offer was what's best for the league.

- Hard cap (evens the playing field better than any other solution)
- Short contracts / non-guaranteed deals (players get paid on performance and have the option to move to a different situation if they choose to do so)


But again, we all know the players don't have a vested interest in seeing the league do better and considering they don't want shorter contracts (freedom of movement) they also want to have their cake and eat it too.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Yup. That's correct. They can do this through revenue sharing. Why they decided to put this all on the players is greed amongst the owners. Big market teams don't want to help out small market teams, which is why they've gotten together to stick it to the players.

To speak of revenue sharing as a solution to anything when the NBA is an aggregate loss position (which it clearly is) is pure folly.

So, the players have given back enough to cover these losses, yes? What's the problem then? Why aren't these guys playing yet? Oh yeah, because the owners want competitive parity. It will never happen. Never has, never will.

The teams that can draft/attract/retain the elite players on a consistent basis will be the ones that flourish. Guess what? If you take a big market vs. a small market, and make everything equal, the big market will always win out. Where would you rather live? Winnipeg or Toronto? Ok, what if I told you that I could offer you a bit more money to live in Winnipeg? There's still a good chance most of you would still pick Toronto, right? Right?

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

[OvertimeNO]

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

The issue isn't that black and white though. Yes, movement and salary restrictions aren't going to keep the big markets from attracting one or two free agents. No one is saying they will. It does, however, prevent team stacking - unless superstars are willing to take deep, deep salary cuts to play with their friends.

[Reignman]

Yup. That's correct. They can do this through revenue sharing. Why they decided to put this all on the players is greed amongst the owners. Big market teams don't want to help out small market teams, which is why they've gotten together to stick it to the players.

To speak of revenue sharing as a solution to anything when the NBA is an aggregate loss position (which it clearly is) is pure folly.

So, the players have given back enough to cover these losses, yes? What's the problem then? Why aren't these guys playing yet? Oh yeah, because the owners want competitive parity. It will never happen. Never has, never will.

The teams that can draft/attract/retain the elite players on a consistent basis will be the ones that flourish. Guess what? If you take a big market vs. a small market, and make everything equal, the big market will always win out. Where would you rather live? Winnipeg or Toronto? Ok, what if I told you that I could offer you a bit more money to live in Winnipeg? There's still a good chance most of you would still pick Toronto, right? Right?

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

Of course big markets will over power small markets, that is obvious, but what you can do is put in a sytem where there is a financial cost when picking a destination city.

If Chris Bosh left $40 mil on the table instead of $15 mil then his decision becomes that much harder. If he chooses to still do so then that's his prerogative but you want to give the smaller markets a chance in competing for those big name free agents.

If a large market has to work as hard as any other team to pick up a star I have no problems with that.

[BorisDK1]

To paraphrase Snoop Dogg - if you can't swim, you bound to drizzown. Get rid of the dead weight to keep the Titanic afloat then. Talent is spread out too thin anyhow. Might as well take talent from the teams losing money and just do a reallocation draft. Competitive parity is more likely when there are less teams, with more all-stars on each roster.

You do realize that the league would then be forced to refund all the teams being contracted their franchises fees, etc? How do you think the league's bottom line is going to improve when they have to come up with $1.5 billion to do that? I also find it highly amusing that the most ardent advocates of contraction are also the people who have been squawking the loudest about how interest charges have absolutely nothing to do with the players and they are completely irrelevant to how much they should make. Well, how else would these people expect the league to pay out those owners in contraction? I'll guarantee you that the other 24 teams (or however many remain) do not have a liquid $1.5 billion cash between them.

Plus, the results of that would leave the cities of the teams being contracted with substantial problems in the wake of such a move. Does the NBA really want that on its conscience?

The losses were created out of bad CBAs: a 57-43 BRI split was simply not sustainable. The solution to the problem is simply for that to balance out to the point where the league would be sustainable.

[Fairview4Life]

The "reset" option is actually the best option for the league as a whole. It allows the smaller markets to make money AND be competitive.

No it's not, and that's not what it would do anyway.

But the players don't want that obviously. Let me rephrase, a small segment of players/agents with a side of a labour lawyer (who wants his billable hours) don't want that.

So you're calling into question the integrity of the player reps and their agents and lawyers just because they disagree with your opinion that they should cave? You've been advocating that it's been in the players best interest to cave to every offer on the table for months. It hasn't been. Now? I'm not sure, since this is pretty uncharted, but we'll only be able to look back in hindsight once the final deal is agreed to. What I do know is that the reps and their agents and lawyers have been right, and you have been wrong, up until today. The offers kept getting better, not worse. That could all change, but calling their integrity into question because they again did not cave just because you once again want them to cave doesn't really follow. They might be conniving backstabbing money grubbing greedy bastards for all I know. But they just might also be working towards what they feel are their best interests, and those of their union, and they aren't lacking integrity just because they won't do what you want them to do.

You can't blame the owners for watering down their original demands in order to get a deal done but the reality is that their initial offer was what's best for the league.

- Hard cap (evens the playing field better than any other solution)
- Short contracts / non-guaranteed deals (players get paid on performance and have the option to move to a different situation if they choose to do so)


But again, we all know the players don't have a vested interest in seeing the league do better and considering they don't want shorter contracts (freedom of movement) they also want to have their cake and eat it too.

Their initial offer leads to the slippery slope of more expansion, less talent, more debt, and bad management. Giving people free reign to make bad decisions isn't what's best for the league. And again, the players do have a vested interest in seeing the league do well. Their salaries are directly tied to basketball related income. When the league brings in more money, the players make more money. When the league's revenues go down, the players lose money.

[BorisDK1]

So, the players have given back enough to cover these losses, yes? What's the problem then? Why aren't these guys playing yet?

I don't know: ask the players. They're the ones whose union rejected the NBAs offer and folded up.

Oh yeah, because the owners want competitive parity. It will never happen. Never has, never will.

I think a more level playing field, after the events of the past year and change, is obviously needed. A completely paritive league? Not possible in basketball, but a more level playing field where the geographic advantages are less amplified than they are now is, well, essential for the league.

The teams that can draft/attract/retain the elite players on a consistent basis will be the ones that flourish. Guess what? If you take a big market vs. a small market, and make everything equal, the big market will always win out. Where would you rather live? Winnipeg or Toronto? Ok, what if I told you that I could offer you a bit more money to live in Winnipeg? There's still a good chance most of you would still pick Toronto, right? Right?

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

[Fairview4Life]

What would actually level the geographic advantages of certain markets: no max contracts and massive revenue sharing. I'm willing to bet the players would agree to that, but of course the owners want no part of that.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

The issue isn't that black and white though. Yes, movement and salary restrictions aren't going to keep the big markets from attracting one or two free agents. No one is saying they will. It does, however, prevent team stacking - unless superstars are willing to take deep, deep salary cuts to play with their friends.

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair? Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all. It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space. With shorter, possibly non-guaranteed contracts, it will be a cinch for big market teams to chase elite players whenever they please.

[ATLTimekeeper]

What would actually level the geographic advantages of certain markets: no max contracts and massive revenue sharing. I'm willing to bet the players would agree to that, but of course the owners want no part of that.

Well some players would jump at the former, but I'd say most would turn it down knowing it would essentially destroy the middle class. Of course the players would agree to massive revenue sharing. I'm sure the majority of owners would agree to it, too.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

The issue isn't that black and white though. Yes, movement and salary restrictions aren't going to keep the big markets from attracting one or two free agents. No one is saying they will. It does, however, prevent team stacking - unless superstars are willing to take deep, deep salary cuts to play with their friends.

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair? Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all. It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space. With shorter, possibly non-guaranteed contracts, it will be a cinch for big market teams to chase elite players whenever they please.

It's called cap management, and it works in other leagues. It essentially discourages teams from living in the basement of the league trying to amass cheap stars, so we might have to eventually trade one star for some contracts that are more manageable. I feel like you're late to the parity party.

[BorisDK1]

What would actually level the geographic advantages of certain markets: no max contracts and massive revenue sharing. I'm willing to bet the players would agree to that, but of course the owners want no part of that.

I'm sure you meant "no max contracts along with a hard salary cap", right? I'm not sure the players would acquiesce to that, honestly.

And again: revenue sharing when the league is losing money in aggregate is not a solution to anything. The league has to be profitable for that to help much.

[OvertimeNO]

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair?

It's fair because every other team in the league will have the same problem.

Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all.

So they have one star "for free". They still have to build the rest of their team, with the same restrictions you face.

It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space.

How is that any different from the current situation? Did Boston draft all three of their superstars? Did NYK draft any of STAT-Melo-possibly CP3?

If anything, the hard cap will make those scenarios more difficult.

tl;dr

It's called cap management, and it works in other leagues.

[Reignman]

What's wrong with a system that doesn't strap a team long-term for bad decisions? That's actually good for the fans. Hell, nobody gets hurt by this.

You give Jason Kapono $20 mil and he doesn't live up to expectations then you cut his ass. He still gets a portion of that $20 mil contract so it's not like he is left with nothing. That also doesn't mean he can't sign another contract either.

And I'm not worried about more expansion. You guys keep harping on the NBA's record revenues and I don't see them running around trying to expand. If anything they are doing everything they can to keep teams from contracting.

[Reignman]

What would actually level the geographic advantages of certain markets: no max contracts and massive revenue sharing. I'm willing to bet the players would agree to that, but of course the owners want no part of that.

Actually, the initial offer did have some of those components. Hard cap with no max franchise tag. The players balked.

Remember, the stars want guaranteed dollars and the ability to force themselves to their preferred team, that doesn't quite jive with the above.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

It's called cap management, and it works in other leagues. It essentially discourages teams from living in the basement of the league trying to amass cheap stars, so we might have to eventually trade one star for some contracts that are more manageable. I feel like you're late to the parity party.

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

Look at the Chicago Blackhawks - great young team, comprised of good draft picks and smart trades wins the Stanley Cup, then gets broken up just so they can fit under the cap. Again, that doesn't seem right that a smart franchise has to be penalized for making the right moves.