Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

Post #381 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:23 pm

Glad you are seeing it my way, TiKusDom.

Indeed · Post #382 » by **Indeed** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:40 pm

floppymoose wrote:
ranger001 wrote:Falsifying tax statements to the IRS has heavy penalties.

I don't think tax statements need to be falsified in order for the owners to create a financial mirage.

Yes, this is what I think. And based on some information, the amortization is not used, but they are claiming these expenses went up 5 times the inflation (Really? Like what?).

However, the league has noted that amortization is not used in the $300 million loss figure for the past season. Silver misses the mark there.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/ ... oney-lost/

So I would like to know why the NBA has way more expenses than the NHL or other leagues.

They can claim some ownership expenses, such as arena security, insurance and other bills required for the team to operate should be subtracted from their income ledger. The players argue such costs were not factored into "BRI" before and things should remain the same.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/23 ... r-20110924

Those expenses sure as spit aren't tied to revenue -- teams can spend whatever they want. If Mark Cuban wants to spend $20 per towel and upgrade his team's hotels on the road, he can do that. If Paul Allen wants to give Steve Francis $30 million to go away, he can do that. If James Dolan wants to give Jerome James $30 million to eat the last poppyseed bagel for five years, he can do that.

http://www.sbnation.com/2011/7/7/226389 ... avid-stern

Indeed · Post #383 » by **Indeed** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:43 pm

TiKusDom wrote:
floppymoose wrote:I've already said that I don't trust Hunter to have it right. We just have a fundamental disagreement on this point that we are unlikely to bridge. I don't believe the league is really losing money. Pointing me at data that ultimately came from the owners is not going to change my mind on that issue.

So you don't trust the owners and thier accountants because obviously they will try to corrupt the numbers. You dont trust the accountants and evaluators from the NBPA , because they are weak minded and wont see through accounting schemes of the owners. The league isnt really losing money in one of the worst recessions in American history, that is unbelievable to you. Everyone and everything is incompetent , false, or disguised , and you have a clear pulse on what is happening to the league .Bravo!

I think it is not about the accountant, but what exact are the "other expenses", and why it is 5 times more than inflation? They need to purchase crude oil and gold for their operations?

knickerbocker2k2 · Post #384 » by **knickerbocker2k2** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:00 pm

Indeed wrote:I think it is not about the accountant, but what exact are the "other expenses", and why it is 5 times more than inflation? They need to purchase crude oil and gold for their operations?

This is what is mind boggling. People take these supposed $300M at face value. Players salary has being fixed since 2005. With increase in revenue to record levels last year, how can they be losing money? If this is true and they are in fact losing money, its because of non-player related costs. What on earth can this be?

The only logical explanation is that they are playing accounting tricks with depreciation, interest, etc.

Post #385 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:02 am

Adrian Wojnarowski:

A league source wired into bargaining session tells Y!: "There's a deal to be had if everyone shows a little flexibility."

C_Money · Post #386 » by **C_Money** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:23 am

I have a feeling if these talks break off again we won't be having a season.

Post #387 » by **Cyrus** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:30 am

Still to early, Season starts in Jan...

Maybe when players are giving as lavish gifts during the holidays to love ones, as they might generally do, they'll realize, losing 10 million over the 4-5 years better, than losing 6-7 in one season, plus another 6-7 million over 4-5 years.

Twinkie defense · Post #388 » by **Twinkie defense** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:37 am

This argument about draft efficiency is a smokescreen if you ask me. First, look at the correlation they are hyping - less than 50%. In other words, even if you draft perfectly, you have a less than 50% chance that your smart drafting will turn into success on the court. While on the other hand, variables like who else is on your team (stars want to play with stars) and where your team is located (players want to play in major media centers and nice places to live like South Beach and NYC) are much more important - do you think if the Heat were in Minnesota and they had a lower pick in the D-Wade draft that LeBron and Bosh would be flocking to play there? Or that a brilliant Cleveland front office suddenly got stupid when LeBron bolted?

And look at what I would call the "crapshoot" variable, which has a much more powerful effect than being smart with your draft picks - some years (like the 2003 draft) there are multiple, consensus stars for teams to choose from... and sometimes there is Joe Smith. And on top of that is the lottery system, which can further dampen a team's odds of landing even a decent player, let alone a star. Do you think if the Spurs hadn't of gotten "lucky" by suffering some injuries to David Robinson and Sean Elliot, leapfrogging two teams to win the lottery, and happening to have the first pick in a draft with David Robinson they would have won those titles?

The bottom line is there are not enough NBA-caliber players to go around. But both the League and the players don't want to contract, so you have a manufactured shortage of players that is artificially driving up player salaries. Teams could no more simply refuse to pay these artificially high salaries as they could refuse to have an arena, because they cost too much to build.

Kinckerbocker: players salaries have not been fixed. What has been fixed is the percentage of overall BRI that gets earmarked for the players. But BRI can go up and down, and so can the total amount of money spent on player salaries each year.

Floppy, part of your argument is "how come the teams haven't been complaining until now?" But I think you saw the ESPN article referenced above about teams complaining loudly shortly after the last CBA went into effect. So I think you need to retire that argument.

Post #389 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:41 am

I don't think I said anything about when owners have been complaining. I can't think of why they would ever say that they love the deal in effect - that's just inviting the players to ask for more.

Twinkie defense · Post #390 » by **Twinkie defense** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:04 am

Numerous times you have used the absence of team complaints about the CBA until now, that they are negotiating for a new CBA, as evidence that those complaints were just an argument of convenience.

knickerbocker2k2 · Post #391 » by **knickerbocker2k2** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:21 am

Twinkie defense wrote:This argument about draft efficiency is a smokescreen if you ask me. First, look at the correlation they are hyping - less than 50%. In other words, even if you draft perfectly, you have a less than 50% chance that your smart drafting will turn into success on the court. While on the other hand, variables like who else is on your team (stars want to play with stars) and where your team is located (players want to play in major media centers and nice places to live like South Beach and NYC) are much more important - do you think if the Heat were in Minnesota and they had a lower pick in the D-Wade draft that LeBron and Bosh would be flocking to play there? Or that a brilliant Cleveland front office suddenly got stupid when LeBron bolted?

I don't understand your point. I don't think anybody says drafting is 100% of the game. Drafting is the first part. If you don't maximize your draft than you can't build a team in this league. The draft is the building for all teams. Most of the teams struggling in this league its because they have failed the first step which is drafting.

Twinkie defense wrote:Do you think if the Spurs hadn't of gotten "lucky" by suffering some injuries to David Robinson and Sean Elliot, leapfrogging two teams to win the lottery, and happening to have the first pick in a draft with David Robinson they would have won those titles?

Luck is integral part of sports. If sports was a formula or math equation it wouldn't be half as fun. They got lucky but that only entitled that to the first part. Spurs did the right thing in terms of making use of their drafts following Duncan and made right management decisions.

Twinkie defense wrote:The bottom line is there are not enough NBA-caliber players to go around. But both the League and the players don't want to contract, so you have a manufactured shortage of players that is artificially driving up player salaries. Teams could no more simply refuse to pay these artificially high salaries as they could refuse to have an arena, because they cost too much to build.

This is actually the dilemma salary caps in the nba forces. You have the like Joe Johnson making the same amount of money (actually more) than someone like Lebron. It throws the whole thing out of wack. In non-capped system you would have Lebron make $40M but have lesser team-mates.

Twinkie defense wrote:Kinckerbocker: players salaries have not been fixed. What has been fixed is the percentage of overall BRI that gets earmarked for the players. But BRI can go up and down, and so can the total amount of money spent on player salaries each year.

Of course BRI/Salaries have gone up. This is because revenue has increased. In fact last year the NBA grew nearly 5% in depressed economy. Since 2005 BRI has grown 25%. Since owners get 43% of that growth, their net income after player expenses has gone up 10% since 2005.

Put it another way. At the beginning of the current cba their income net of player salaries was $1.2B. This year their income net of salaries was $1.67B. So how are they in worse shape than in 2005? Where is this extra $400M in expenses going to?

Post #392 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:24 am

Twinkie defense wrote:Numerous times you have used the absence of team complaints about the CBA until now, that they are negotiating for a new CBA, as evidence that those complaints were just an argument of convenience.

I don't recall doing that. I've mentioned that they thought the last deal was good enough to sign when they signed it. I've mentioned that the losses seem tilted to the most recent years. I don't think I have talked about the timing of complaints.

Post #393 » by **CPT** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:11 am

One thing I'm wondering regarding these "salary has no effect on parity" studies is just how much the extreme examples on either side skew the results. I know they are part of the league and you can't just remove them for statistical analysis, but I just wonder how much of an impact the New York Knicks had on the study. They had the highest payroll and lowest winning percentage. They were also comically mismanaged, to an extent that may never be seen again.

Teams that benefit from rookie salary scale contracts, Chicago and OKC being the best examples, would skew the results from the other side, but I suppose if the rookie deals stay the way they are right now, teams could replicate their success in the future. I'm still curious about just how much they impacted the study.

Twinkie defense · Post #394 » by **Twinkie defense** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:39 am

Knickerbocker, I would say drafting is not the first part - luck is the first part. If you get lucky (Shaq, Durant, LeBron, Duncan... Ewing) the wins will take care of themselves. You don't have to be that smart. Being lucky is much more predictive of wins than who you choose at the #14 spot in a weak draft. You allude to Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker but without David Robinson and then Tim Duncan, those guards wouldn't matter much. The smart team/dumb team argument used to blame owners for their lack of profits is a fallacy. Donald Sterling is making millions for gods sake!

And to your last question - let's assume that for the League as a whole, there was $400 mil left over after salaries last season. That equates to about $13 mil per team. Not a huge amount, in the scheme of things, when you consider some of the costs involved - charter planes, crew and fuel, hotel rooms, practice facilities, hiring statistical consultants, software, hi-tech camera systems to capture and evaluate real-time data, extra security after 9/11, new logo/unis, player buyouts, up to $3 mil cash on top of trades, arena upgrades, halftime entertainers, coaching staffs, coaching buyouts, etc. etc.

bboyskinnylegs · Post #395 » by **bboyskinnylegs** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:18 am

WojYahooNBA wrote:After 12 hours of labor talks, NBA and NBPA are making progress on system issues, including luxury tax, three sources with knowledge tell Y!

Rapsfan07 · Post #396 » by **Rapsfan07** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:55 am

bboyskinnylegs wrote:
WojYahooNBA wrote:After 12 hours of labor talks, NBA and NBPA are making progress on system issues, including luxury tax, three sources with knowledge tell Y!

That's good news. We can finally get a season going. We as a team have a lot to do.

sh00n · Post #397 » by **sh00n** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:28 am

sportsguy33 Bill Simmons
82-game NBA reg season + full playoffs still in play. Need done deal by weekend. Lots of optimism now. I'd be surprised if this fell apart.

S.W.A.N · Post #398 » by **S.W.A.N** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:03 am

plz let us have full season !!

even crappy tank ball better than no ball....

Indeed · Post #399 » by **Indeed** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:47 am

CPT wrote:One thing I'm wondering regarding these "salary has no effect on parity" studies is just how much the extreme examples on either side skew the results. I know they are part of the league and you can't just remove them for statistical analysis, but I just wonder how much of an impact the New York Knicks had on the study. They had the highest payroll and lowest winning percentage. They were also comically mismanaged, to an extent that may never be seen again.

Teams that benefit from rookie salary scale contracts, Chicago and OKC being the best examples, would skew the results from the other side, but I suppose if the rookie deals stay the way they are right now, teams could replicate their success in the future. I'm still curious about just how much they impacted the study.

It is different with rookie salary, because players are under paid, which allows GMs to correct their mistakes. Rookie contract also allows team to identify the rookie strength before they confirm their worth to the team.

Rose is under paid, Durant and Westbrooks are under paid. Try put them on a free market, and they will be making over 10m a year. Thus, they might not have other good players to play along with them (no Boozer, no Green).

Another way to allow GMs to correct their mistakes is to reduce contract length.
However, at the end, it is up to the GM to reduce their mistakes, so the team says competitive.

J-Roc · Post #400 » by **J-Roc** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:22 am

S.W.A.N wrote:plz let us have full season !!

even crappy tank ball better than no ball....

With injuries and whatnot. Not a good idea. I guess it's a bone for the NBA to throw to the players......that they can play a whole season and collect their full salaries.

I just don't like the idea of coming back with essentially the same system.