Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[theSkinny]

I'm for whichever one lowers ticket prices, so neither?

[Reignman]

hard cap with no max franchise tag. That's all it would take. That will keep the stars spread out.

I have no problems with the lower to mid tier guys being changed from year to year.

I don't expect we'll see a non-guaranteed environment in the NBA so no point in discussing.

[Reignman]

I'm for whichever one lowers ticket prices, so neither?

Your optimism has no bounds.

[Fairview4Life]

You proposed that all teams end up with the same amount of cash. That puts the team who's paying, say, $5 million annually for its stadium lease and $8 million annually in interest at an incredible advantage to the team who's paying $10 million for its stadium lease and $12 million in interest. That is nonsensical, as is a hard cap anyway.

I think what we all want is a system that sees teams building up through draft and trade and not seeing a privileged few teams poach away star talent from markets for reasons of glamour and/or climate.

It does put teams with worse leases at a disadvantage. I'm not sure what the problem is with that. That is a team management issue and what I want is a league that rewards or punishes good or bad management. If Jerry Buss wants to pay his son a lot of money to manage the team, that's fine, but then Kobe might have to take a pay cut, or the Lakers don't have cheerleaders, or something else. I don't see why that's as nonsensical as you think. Give people roughly the same pot of gold tied to certain conditions or benchmarks, and let them do their worst. That is a different system in practice than a hard cap, since the money isn't just tied to player salaries.

Maybe there's a better way to figure out what revenue should be shared based on market, so you aren't punishing well managed teams to prop up Michael Jordan's awfulness, but there have been several suggestions proposed by posters here, and several other leagues have decent systems that could work out of the box.

[BorisDK1]

It does put teams with worse leases at a disadvantage. I'm not sure what the problem is with that.

You want non-basketball-related factors determining franchise success? You're welcome to such a system, if you really want one. You do realize that things like leases, etc. are determined by cost of real estate, which differs from market to market - right?

Or you put a team with a left-leaning municipal government who decides to pay for the lease of a stadium at a ridiculous advantage over the rest of the league. Again - that doesn't favour competitive basketball.

That is a team management issue and what I want is a league that rewards or punishes good or bad management. If Jerry Buss wants to pay his son a lot of money to manage the team, that's fine, but then Kobe might have to take a pay cut, or the Lakers don't have cheerleaders, or something else. I don't see why that's as nonsensical as you think. Give people roughly the same pot of gold tied to certain conditions or benchmarks, and let them do their worst. That is a different system in practice than a hard cap, since the money isn't just tied to player salaries.

It's exactly the same system as a hard cap, except it's just on the supply side and not the demand side. And now it brings non-basketball-factors into the forefront of how successful a team can be.

[Fairview4Life]

And now it brings non-basketball-factors into the forefront of how successful a team can be.

Just like what the owner's want, right? A hard cap that let's them afford non player salary expenses, correct?

Take markets into account with various multipliers if you want.

[BorisDK1]

Just like what the owner's want, right? A hard cap that let's them afford non player salary expenses, correct?

What? The owners aren't offering a hard cap. They just want a bigger share of the pie so they aren't losing money, and to make it more unlikely for geographically-advantaged teams to dominate free agency.

[OvertimeNO]

I'd be watching other teams. I don't know how/why I could ever find this exciting. Give me my team stacked with talent, and screw everyone else.

Edited for truth. This is really what it comes down to. I wish people would just own up to it. I'd respect them more.

[Fairview4Life]

Just like what the owner's want, right? A hard cap that let's them afford non player salary expenses, correct?

What? The owners aren't offering a hard cap. They just want a bigger share of the pie so they aren't losing money, and to make it more unlikely for geographically-advantaged teams to dominate free agency.

They did, with their initial offer, which is what Reignman wants them to push for and thinks will promote parity.

[BorisDK1]

They did, with their initial offer, which is what Reignman wants them to push for and thinks will promote parity.

I'm not an advocate of the hard cap at all, so I don't know why you're bringing this up. And the hard cap was brought up only in introductory discussions - posturing, was all it was.

[Fairview4Life]

They did, with their initial offer, which is what Reignman wants them to push for and thinks will promote parity.

I'm not an advocate of the hard cap at all, so I don't know why you're bringing this up. And the hard cap was brought up only in introductory discussions - posturing, was all it was.

Because I didn't bring it up and wasn't replying to you initially about it? You posted that the players want no part of a system that would lead to nullifying geographical advantages. I posited a system that would do that using no max contracts and revenue sharing and Reginman responded with this:

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.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The owners brought it up more recently than that, Boris. Adam Silver made a few comments like a week or two ago or so where he mentioned that if the players thought the conditions the league was imposing were a de facto hard cap then they should just scrap all the negotiations and call it a hard cap. I'd love to see all this proof you've got that the owners aren't and haven't really pushed for some form of hard cap. Heck, I'd still love to see your proof that the owners are just asking for enough that they aren't losing money on their investment. A lot of the recent sales have shown significant return on investment overall, especially when factored in with tricker things like real-estate deals. Other than the owners' statement that all they're asking for is enough to turn a profit, there really is no proof to back up that point. And the general conditions the owners have been asking for suggest they're out for more than that.

[BorisDK1]

Because I didn't bring it up and wasn't replying to you initially about it? You posted that the players want no part of a system that would lead to nullifying geographical advantages. I posited a system that would do that using no max contracts and revenue sharing and Reginman responded with this:

No, I posted that the players wanted nothing to do with a hard cap (and, perhaps secondarily, one that would limit their ability to go to prime geographical markets at no cost to them).

[BorisDK1]

The owners brought it up more recently than that, Boris. Adam Silver made a few comments like a week or two ago or so where he mentioned that if the players thought the conditions the league was imposing were a de facto hard cap then they should just scrap all the negotiations and call it a hard cap.

That's the players characterization (caricature, is probably more accurate) of the owners' offer, not the actual offer. It's fairly clear that the owners did NOT offer a hard cap, if words mean anything.

I'd love to see all this proof you've got that the owners aren't and haven't really pushed for some form of hard cap. Heck, I'd still love to see your proof that the owners are just asking for enough that they aren't losing money on their investment. A lot of the recent sales have shown significant return on investment overall, especially when factored in with tricker things like real-estate deals. Other than the owners' statement that all they're asking for is enough to turn a profit, there really is no proof to back up that point. And the general conditions the owners have been asking for suggest they're out for more than that.

Sure, some franchises have been selling at high rates: that's just a market bubble. The earnings of the franchises do not justify such sales, and at some point that bubble is going to contract if they continue to hemorrhage cash.

I think the owners are asking for enough such that they don't lose money. Frankly, breaking even isn't exactly a sound long-term business strategy, but whatever.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

I'd be watching other teams. I don't know how/why I could ever find this exciting. Give me my team stacked with talent, and screw everyone else.

Edited for truth. This is really what it comes down to. I wish people would just own up to it. I'd respect them more.

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel. Instead of getting a chance to come out and see KG and Ray in what could be their final year playing, I get to enjoy debating the lockout on realgm, because of incompetent and/or greedy owners (Celtics owner, Wyc Grousbeck included!).

Why should I, as a fan of the Celtics, care about how other franchises are run? No one cared about the Celtics before 2007. They were irrelevant from 1994 until 2007, with 2002's surprising run to the Conference Finals being the only anomaly. No one cared about the Celtics, because they were horrible, and now, all of a sudden, the Celtics are a problem because they started the "super team". Gimme a break. Look at all of Ainge's moves from 2003 until 2007. Ainge had a plan that whole time. Stockpile draft picks, and draft good young prospects, because there was hell in no way Ainge was going to be able to lure elite talent to Boston. No capspace, losing environment, cold city. Look at Ainge's drafting since being with the Celtics, and look at his trades. The majority of them have 1st rd picks coming back to Boston. Shrewd moves.

And now, instead of getting to enjoy the fruits of Ainge's labour, I get to sit here in front of my PC and read articles about losers like Rober Sarver and the Maloofs whining about their teams losing money, despite the fact that everyone knows they're bleeding more money from their other investments than their NBA teams. I get to listen to you guys talk about competitive balance, instead of seeing Rondo drive to the hoop and kick out to Ray for the open 3.

Yeah, I can admit to not caring about these other lowly, franchises. Never have, never will. I don't feel sorry for other teams, just like how no one felt bad for the Celts when they were down. You guys would be in the same boat if the Raps were in contention. As it stands, they can't even keep their own All-Stars, which is why you guys keep bringing up this parity BS.

[Reignman]

Thanks for explaining why so many people want the system to be completely reformed.

But hey, I can see why some people might like to see an all-star league made up of 5 teams rather than a real pro-league.

[OvertimeNO]

I'd be watching other teams. I don't know how/why I could ever find this exciting. Give me my team stacked with talent, and screw everyone else.

Edited for truth. This is really what it comes down to. I wish people would just own up to it. I'd respect them more.

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel. Instead of getting a chance to come out and see KG and Ray in what could be their final year playing, I get to enjoy debating the lockout on realgm, because of incompetent and/or greedy owners (Celtics owner, Wyc Grousbeck included!).

Why should I, as a fan of the Celtics, care about how other franchises are run? No one cared about the Celtics before 2007. They were irrelevant from 1994 until 2007, with 2002's surprising run to the Conference Finals being the only anomaly. No one cared about the Celtics, because they were horrible, and now, all of a sudden, the Celtics are a problem because they started the "super team". Gimme a break. Look at all of Ainge's moves from 2003 until 2007. Ainge had a plan that whole time. Stockpile draft picks, and draft good young prospects, because there was hell in no way Ainge was going to be able to lure elite talent to Boston. No capspace, losing environment, cold city. Look at Ainge's drafting since being with the Celtics, and look at his trades. The majority of them have 1st rd picks coming back to Boston. Shrewd moves.

And now, instead of getting to enjoy the fruits of Ainge's labour, I get to sit here in front of my PC and read articles about losers like Rober Sarver and the Maloofs whining about their teams losing money, despite the fact that everyone knows they're bleeding more money from their other investments than their NBA teams. I get to listen to you guys talk about competitive balance, instead of seeing Rondo drive to the hoop and kick out to Ray for the open 3.

Yeah, I can admit to not caring about these other lowly, franchises. Never have, never will. I don't feel sorry for other teams, just like how no one felt bad for the Celts when they were down. You guys would be in the same boat if the Raps were in contention. As it stands, they can't even keep their own All-Stars, which is why you guys keep bringing up this parity BS.

I don't agree at all that I would do the same in your situation, but at least you're being honest. Thank you.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Thanks for explaining why so many people want the system to be completely reformed.

But hey, I can see why some people might like to see an all-star league made up of 5 teams rather than a real pro-league.

Well, tell me - what did Danny Ainge and the Boston Celtics do that other teams couldn't accomplish? Why revamp a system for competitive balance, when Ainge has already proven that it is possible to build a contender through trades and smart drafting? The Celtics were the 2nd worst team in the league in 2007.

[Anatomize]

Thanks for explaining why so many people want the system to be completely reformed.

But hey, I can see why some people might like to see an all-star league made up of 5 teams rather than a real pro-league.

Well, tell me - what did Danny Ainge and the Boston Celtics do that other teams couldn't accomplish? Why revamp a system for competitive balance, when Ainge has already proven that it is possible to build a contender through trades and smart drafting? The Celtics were the 2nd worst team in the league in 2007.

Ainge was good at drafting late rounders, but Kevin Garnett was a gimme - gift wrapped by McHale. Pierce was close to quitting on the team, and he forced Ainge's hand by coming out with public displeasure. Some times, the best thing your star player can do is come out and complain about the lack of help - in some cases not (see Raptors).

Looking back, Seattle made a mistake getting Jeff Green for ageless wonder and underrated star Ray Allen and now he's ended up back where he started next to the guy he was traded for (picture Ray next to Durant and Westbrook). Ainge also made a mistake trading away Perkins who was the backbone of their grit/defense for that same player he drafted so he can have a future SF when Pierce inevitably retires. Ainge should have done everything to keep Tony Allen there, and not taken fliers on guys like Nate Robinson and Delonte West as well as an old and aging Shaq.. he's made so many questionable moves both in the past and recently.. but everything ran smoothly for him in their championship year.

Now Ainge is trying to spark the team by constantly bringing over all kinds of weird and unfitting pieces as he did this past season to try and reclaim another quick championship before the 'big 3' call it quits. In my honest opinion, he got lucky and the chips fell into place. Other than that, I do like his ability to draft in late rounds as he always seems to pull away with a super productive player.

Sam Presti would be your example of building through trades and smart drafting (this is well known), not Danny Ainge.

[plainballing]

Ainge was good at drafting late rounders, but Kevin Garnett was a gimme - gift wrapped by McHale. Pierce was close to quitting on the team, and he forced Ainge's hand by coming out with public displeasure. Some times, the best thing your star player can do is come out and complain about the lack of help - in some cases not (see Raptors).

Looking back, Seattle made a mistake getting Jeff Green for ageless wonder and underrated star Ray Allen and now he's ended up back where he started next to the guy he was traded for (picture Ray next to Durant and Westbrook). Ainge also made a mistake trading away Perkins who was the backbone of their grit/defense for that same player he drafted so he can have a future SF when Pierce inevitably retires. Ainge should have done everything to keep Tony Allen there, and not taken fliers on guys like Nate Robinson and Delonte West as well as an old and aging Shaq.. he's made so many questionable moves both in the past and recently.. but everything ran smoothly for him in their championship year.

Now Ainge is trying to spark the team by constantly bringing over all kinds of weird and unfitting pieces as he did this past season to try and reclaim another quick championship before the 'big 3' call it quits. In my honest opinion, he got lucky and the chips fell into place. Other than that, I do like his ability to draft in late rounds as he always seems to pull away with a super productive player.

Sam Presti would be your example of building through trades and smart drafting (this is well known), not Danny Ainge.

Speaking about the draft, I thought the Spurs are really good at this. They got Parker and Manu on late picks...sometimes you just need a centrepiece in place and you can get around by adding late picks that can compliment your star(s).