Who do you support?

[Fairview4Life]

A hard cap doesn't guarantee parity but it'll be a hell of a lot better than the current system.

How so? The only way to increase parity would be to change to a less superstar friendly format like the Euroleague, or make other game altering changes that take away the effect of one player.

[Reignman]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, and Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously.

What about player endorsements? Should they be brought into the discussion as well?

[Indeed]

^^ Putting themselves in a position to make more of a profit, will put them in a position to have a better team. It is in their best interest to try and put the best product on the court because they know thats where the money is. Miami was horrible 2,3,4 yrs ago. Last yr they got some big names and their stock instantly doubled over night. The NBA would have no problems if the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, were 7th 8th or 9th seed yr in yr out.

That is naive thought.
Miami's player expenses are the same (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/bas ... 29036.html).
And please explain New York Knicks (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/bas ... 28815.html).

It has nothing to do with profit, player expenses are almost identical every year.

[Tenacious_C]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, and Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously.

Like he'd said, we can then talk about endorsements that the players make, revenues they make on investments.

Within the specific dynamic of the current NBA CBA, it favors the players who don't take any of the risk. Furthermore, I don't remember player agents ever being this vocal about CBA negotiations before.

There is a lot of money at stake and if the players want to keep a bigger piece of the pie, then they should take on more of the risk.

[Lakonomy]

No offense to the OP, but this is a really bad false choice.

Why would any fan support the owners? Lets review: they are asking for a bigger slice of the pie of a business literally taking off globally, with franchises selling for record amounts. A franchise has never been worth as much as it is now, and while the NBA stars are as popular as they are in not just the US, but Europe and China, the value of these franchises will continue to rise. They can claim they loose money all the time, but very few of them actually do. For example, MLSE makes a mint of off the various spin-offs around the ACC - the condo buildings, the restaurants. but this is hidden from the players and from these negotiations as it is not technically part of BRI. The owners are perfectly willing to screw over the fans, with inflated ticket prices, $15 beers, and $10 hot dogs, and the removal of many of the rules that make the game watchable in favor of letting LeBron take 5 steps and dunk over someone's head. In these negotiations, the owners now want to make to players play for their poor decisions. There's all this talk about how the owners get the profits because they bear the risks, but the owners gave JO and Gilbert 20+ M per year! And they're still doing it - does anything think Joe Johnson will be worth his max contract in 4 years when he's 35? Does anyone think Bo Outlaw was a smart signing?

But, lets be clear - this criticism of the owners doesn't imply in any way that I support the players. The players are a bunch of overpaid spoiled wankers that also don't care much about the game or the fans. Does anyone really support players that want bigger contract because "they gotta feed their family"? Given the number of things like superstar trade requests, players who stop trying on the court, the "contract year" effect, and the number of players who drink and gamble their way to being broke 5 years after their last contract, its really hard to see these guys as the defenders of the fans or purity of the game, or the appropriate role models or sports icons that get marketed.

And that's the real problem. Who, in this whole owners/player debate, is looking out for the fans? Who is trying to create a competitive league where the best-managed team has a chance to compete? If you think its either of the folks at the negotiating table, you're either blind or stupid.

What we need are things like:

Real, effective revenue sharing between large market teams and small market teams.
An independent commission made up of coaches who are the only folks who can alter rules and can actually hold referees accountable.
A real development system that develops players skills, not just athletic abilities.
An independent body that can oversee league competitiveness, and has the power to create/manage a framework where there is league parity.

Anyone want to add to this list, feel free.

[overpaid]

The owners because the best excuse players like Dwayne Wade have is that they "have 2 children." People are surviving off $40k a year and these multi-millionaires will apparently be unable to raise their kids.

[Indeed]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, and Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously.

What about player endorsements? Should they be brought into the discussion as well?

You are saying NHL doesn't have the same problem of overpaying players? Hard-cap have its limitation, and it is bought up to bring more profits to the owners more than to the fans.

[Fairview4Life]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, and Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously.

What about player endorsements? Should they be brought into the discussion as well?

Sure, except then we can discuss local TV deal revenue sharing, which is a massive amount of money. Or including more than 40% of arena signage and luxury suites, or more than 45-50% of arena naming rights, or some % of game day profits from owners restaurants near arenas (hi Real Sports!), everything that Dan Gilbert said about the benefits of having Lebron on the Cavs for Quicken Loans, the ridiculous tax savings that can be had by moving profits and losses around internally, and on and on and on.

[The_NeX]

If you were my Boss and I was earning more than half the business related income without any expenses, I would try and walk all over you to get more.

You do realize that the BRI is split between 350+ players, right ? And also that you are the reason why your boss is making money in the first place.

And to clarify, im not arguing if the current deal is fair (probably should be tweaked) im arguing against the method and the way the owners are conducting the negotiations.

[Reignman]

A hard cap doesn't guarantee parity but it'll be a hell of a lot better than the current system.

How so? The only way to increase parity would be to change to a less superstar friendly format like the Euroleague, or make other game altering changes that take away the effect of one player.

The main reason is it eliminates the huge disparity in payroll $$$ between the haves and have nots. 99% of the owners are in the NBA to turn a profit and aren't going to burn through money to win a ring like Cuban. What this does is it gives teams a level playing field from a payroll perspective and then it comes down to making the most with those $$$.

I do agree that officiating also needs to be addressed but I think we need to start with the payroll disparity.

[Fairview4Life]

There is a lot of money at stake and if the players want to keep a bigger piece of the pie, then they should take on more of the risk.

The players aren't arguing for a bigger piece of the pie. They already offered to give up a **** load of money, and some guaranteed years off of contracts. The players do take on risk, by the way. Their salaries are tied to revenue. They have to give some back if revenue declines. Revenue keeps going up, fortunately for them.

[DreamTeam09]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, and Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously.

I dont think its fair to equate side income from your main income as actuall main income. I mean if your a teacher by day and sell real estate at night, and something is messing with your teacher money, you should't shrug that off and not care just because your making a few real estate deals. A loss is still a loss somewhere, for someone. I just think the players have a lot less to lose here. Yea they are both losing money, but teams losing 30 - 100 mill is way worse than players losing a couple of mill. The players won't even lose all that up because its way easier to recoup that back for them unlike it is for the owner that actually pays that player. Yea they have to go out and find condo deals, and railyard deals, and tv deals. Good luck telling that to millwaukee, or the hornets, or the bobcats.

[disoblige]

Owners should get all the power except human rights. If employee doesn't like their company, employees can just move on. Owners should have freedom to do what they want and can't let their employees to bankrupt them.

[Reignman]

You are saying NHL doesn't have the same problem of overpaying players? Hard-cap have its limitation, and it is bought up to bring more profits to the owners more than to the fans.

You missed the point, I never said the owners wouldn't be making more profits. Here's the thing, I don't care if the purpose of the hard cap is to give the owners more profits as long as a symptom of the hard cap is more competitive parity and we've seen that to be the case with both the NFL and NHL.

Just take a look at the NFL pre-hard cap and post-hard cap, the difference is obvious.

[Indeed]

Owners should get all the power except human rights. If employee doesn't like their company, employees can just move on. Owners should have freedom to do what they want and can't let their employees to bankrupt them.

Stern won't allow this. There is only one league.
Players are like prisoners, they have a number. Once they are drafted, they reported to that team.

[Fairview4Life]

A hard cap doesn't guarantee parity but it'll be a hell of a lot better than the current system.

How so? The only way to increase parity would be to change to a less superstar friendly format like the Euroleague, or make other game altering changes that take away the effect of one player.

The main reason is it eliminates the huge disparity in payroll $$$ between the haves and have nots. 99% of the owners are in the NBA to turn a profit and aren't going to burn through money to win a ring like Cuban. What this does is it gives teams a level playing field from a payroll perspective and then it comes down to making the most with those $$$.

I do agree that officiating also needs to be addressed but I think we need to start with the payroll disparity.

But having the same payroll does not increase parity. The NBA is still going to be dominated by the top 5-10 players. NBA payrolls are already fairly close. In fact, I believe the differences in NBA salary are closer percentage wise than in the NFL with it's hard cap. A hard cap does not increase parity. Adding 5 more players per team on the court, making the court larger, get rid of dribbling, etc. those are extreme things that will bring parity. Or just change some of the post D and hand check rules or something.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Why does there always need to be a "right and wrong". Old deal is up. .

Because there is a wrong. Owners are saying "you don't get to play, receive your money, unless you accept our conditions".

Edit : spelling xD

It goes both ways, players have conditions too, such has give us over half of the BRI, and no hard cap. and they won't play unless owners accept their conditions. That's what makes it a negotiation. There are two parties at the table. It's not just one party. The old deal is up, the two sides need to come together on a new deal. Both sides are looking out for their interests, owners aren't the only side with a position in these talks.

[Reignman]

Owners should get all the power except human rights. If employee doesn't like their company, employees can just move on. Owners should have freedom to do what they want and can't let their employees to bankrupt them.

Agreed, if the players don't like what they are getting they have several options, GTFO, start your own league, find a different employer or find a different profession.

The owners are in it to make a profit and I don't blame them for wanting a much more owner-friendly CBA. The last CBA was extremely player-friendly and the system sucked donkey balls for small market teams. Let's try this CBA in a different way and see if it works better (it will).

People act like this CBA is be-all / end-all. If the system doesn't work or if the players are starving (LOL) then they can put up a greater fight during the next negotiations.

[Fairview4Life]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, and Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously.

I dont think its fair to equate side income from your main income as actuall main income. I mean if your a teacher by day and sell real estate at night, and something is messing with your teacher money, you should't shrug that off and not care just because your making a few real estate deals. A loss is still a loss somewhere, for someone. I just think the players have a lot less to lose here. Yea they are both losing money, but teams losing 30 - 100 mill is way worse than players losing a couple of mill. The players won't even lose all that up because its way easier to recoup that back for them unlike it is for the owner that actually pays that player. Yea they have to go out and find condo deals, and railyard deals, and tv deals. Good luck telling that to millwaukee, or the hornets, or the bobcats.

These are not unrelated though, like real estate and teaching. If your real estate business was all selling houses of your students parents, that might be more applicable.

[Indeed]

You are saying NHL doesn't have the same problem of overpaying players? Hard-cap have its limitation, and it is bought up to bring more profits to the owners more than to the fans.

You missed the point, I never said the owners wouldn't be making more profits. Here's the thing, I don't care if the purpose of the hard cap is to give the owners more profits as long as a symptom of the hard cap is more competitive parity and we've seen that to be the case with both the NFL and NHL.

Just take a look at the NFL pre-hard cap and post-hard cap, the difference is obvious.

Yes, perhaps the hard cap can help, but neither giving more to Players nor Owners will make the league better. It is naive to think all owners will make it better (see NHL), it is naive to think all players will make decisions based on loyalty. There are good owners and players, but the majority are not.