Lockout

Left*My*Heart · Post #461 » by **Left*My*Heart** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:57 pm

Thought this was interesting:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... -positions

Apologize if it has already been posted...

Senchu · Post #462 » by **Senchu** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:58 pm

I think the worst thing for the Warriors would be a shortened season.

If the full season is lost, it becomes easier to move Biedrins and we get the chance to land high lotto pick in a heavily stacked draft if they use NHL system of last 3 year pick avg system coupled with landing top3 pick.

If we have shortened season, we won't be having a training camp and good luck with installing that defense system during mid season. In the end we miss playoffs and we miss lottery pick to Utah.

With full season + training camp, I have at least a little hope that Malone could instill that defense system which made Hornets defensively good and W's could make POs.

Any thoughts on this?

Post #463 » by **floppymoose** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:09 pm

Senchu wrote:With full season + training camp, I have at least a little hope that Malone could instill that defense system which made Hornets defensively good and W's could make POs.

Okafor had a strong season defensively and West was average.

Meanwhile, Biedrins was average for us and Lee was horrific.

I don't think any coaching can change the defense of our front line very much. Both those guys are what they are by now. Without significant personnel change, the Warriors are going t be a very bad defensive team. Our front line is bad, and we are undersized at SG.

turk3d · Post #464 » by **turk3d** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:11 am

Left*My*Heart wrote:Thought this was interesting:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... -positions

Apologize if it has already been posted...

It is interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Twinkie defense · Post #465 » by **Twinkie defense** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:52 am

floppymoose wrote:
Senchu wrote:With full season + training camp, I have at least a little hope that Malone could instill that defense system which made Hornets defensively good and W's could make POs.

Okafor had a strong season defensively and West was average.

Meanwhile, Biedrins was average for us and Lee was horrific.

I don't think any coaching can change the defense of our front line very much. Both those guys are what they are by now. Without significant personnel change, the Warriors are going t be a very bad defensive team. Our front line is bad, and we are undersized at SG.

I think you are forgetting Udoh!

Regarding that ESPN post, it's probably not a stretch to say the more recent owners, who've paid a premium, are more hawkish on dividing the revenue pie.

Meanwhile, talk of decertification heating up!

Post #466 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:20 am

I like Udoh a lot. But I am leery of expecting him to succeed at the center position.

Post #467 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:07 pm

Good article from Woj:

NBA union faces test of strength
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_standoff_091411

Once again, the union had made an offer of significant concessions. And once again, it wouldn’t matter. New system, new rules, new day for the owners. And after all that time, the NBA’s message was numbing: Yes, we want the favorable split of revenue percentages the players are offering … and still we want it within our new system. Hard salary cap. Non-guaranteed contracts. Rollbacks on current deals.

The NBA’s owners want everything, because they don’t believe they’ll need to compromise. They want everything, because they believe this union will crumble, and bow before them.

Twinkie defense · Post #468 » by **Twinkie defense** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:13 am

Maybe they are not negotiating in good faith (and by that I don't mean from a legal perspective, which they clearly are), or maybe they truly are operating a failing business. I suppose that's what it comes down to, although Wojo doesn't seem to consider the latter possibility.

Since we were talking about defense, there is no doubt for me that Udoh had a big defensive impact on the team last season, and I would expect that impact to be even greater if and when the League gets started up again. But I'm not so concerned with whether he is labeled a center or not - there are bigs and smalls, and he is our most productive defensive big... and really, our best defensive player regardless of position.

Twinkie defense · Post #469 » by **Twinkie defense** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:17 am

I also don't think that is even a fair assessment by Wojo - from what I have seen the players have said we aren't talking unless there is a soft cap agreed to up front. Or you can have a hard cap, but we want 60-whatever percent of BRI.

So aren't BOTH sides pretty hardened in their positions?

And the difference for me is the teams are losing money and the players are making crazy, guaranteed money. So I know if there is a hard-line position, which one is more justifiable.

Little Digger · Post #470 » by **Little Digger** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:16 am

The NBA with Non-Guaranteed contracts ? That's worth fighting for. Blow off the season.

Post #471 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:38 am

Twinkie defense wrote:I also don't think that is even a fair assessment by Wojo - from what I have seen the players have said we aren't talking unless there is a soft cap agreed to up front.

I think it's all about the money on both sides. I'm not in the room so I could be wrong, but reading between the lines this is what I'm hearing:

The players offered to scale back on the BRI value to something less than their last proposal, 54.3%, and the owners said we want that and still a hard cap.

The problem with the hard cap is just $$$, plain and simple. If you make a cap for each team such that if all teams are at the cap, the players get 54.3%, then the players are actually going to get significantly less than that, because non-contending teams will run under the cap. You can see that in the nhl here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... in_the_NHL

This is why Billy Hunter said he was willing to give the owners a hard cap, if they would set it at 65% of the BRI. Because that way, the players would likely end up with somewhere around 54% of the revenue. It's all about the $$$. All of it. The players are willing to negotiate on these other issues, as long as they aren't shafted on the dollars.

The owners are saying that the players won't give them a hard cap, but it's not true. The players will, as long as "hard cap" isn't code for "significantly less $$$ than what other leagues are giving their players".

Woj is very well connected. I trust his take on nba issues a lot more than any writer not named Aldridge.

Twinkie defense wrote:And the difference for me is the teams are losing money and the players are making crazy, guaranteed money. So I know if there is a hard-line position, which one is more justifiable.

The LEAGUE is making money, and the league is the players and the owners, and they are trying to agree on how to split it up. Any idea that one side's money is "crazy, guaranteed money" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Both groups take in millions. Both groups can make poor decisions and piss it away. And that has nothing to do with how to fairly divide it up.

Twinkie defense · Post #472 » by **Twinkie defense** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:37 am

You could have a salary floor too - in the NFL the cap and floor are very close.

Post #473 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:41 am

Absolutely you could. If the two sides ever get close on the $$$, the rest will fall into place.

Post #474 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:51 pm

A story on the recent meeting between the players union and a bunch of the players:

NBA players present unified front in labor impasse
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-nbalabor

This part was a bit interesting. Who knows if it's true, but it at least shows that the union is aware that getting the owners to agree to revenue sharing is the key.

“The turning point this past Tuesday was not a disagreement between the players and the owners,” Fisher wrote. “It was actually a fundamental divide between the owners internally. They could not agree with each other on specific points of the deal and therefore it caused conflict within the league and its owners.

“So it is our hope that … at the owners meeting in Dallas that they work out their differences, come up with a revenue sharing plan that will protect their teams and are then ready to come together and sign off on the agreement we as a smaller group deemed reasonable.”

Carl_Monday · Post #475 » by **Carl_Monday** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:50 pm

Seems like there's basically three battles here:
1) Owners vs. players
2) Recent Owners vs. Long-Time Owners (bought for 100s of millions vs. bought for 10s of millions)
3) Owners in High Revenue Markets vs. Owners in Low Revenue Markets

I don't think that the first battle can really happen until the latter two shake out, and based on recent reports, that hasn't happened yet because there clearly an internal divide on the owners side.

#2 is purely financial. For the guys who have owned teams for 20+ years, they're basically playing with house money. They're sitting on a gold mine, so year-to-year fluctuation in net profit or loss isn't that big of a deal. For the guys who recently bought and paid $300-400 million, there's an extremely small margin of error, and they are insisting on a system where they can be profitable, or at the very least not lose money.

#3 is partially financial and partly competitive. The guys who don't want a hard cap, and frankly probably didn't want the lockout, are the Knicks, Mavs and Lakers of the league. The financial advantage of their markets gives them an inherent competitive advantage within the league. For them, having a hard cap is bad for business.

Some recent reports have Sarver and Gilbert as the ones with the most hardline demands. Those two owners are prime examples of the some of the aforementioned categories of owners.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/6973675/nba-lockout-derek-fisher-los-angeles-lakers-emails-players-says-owners-rift

I'm not really pro-owner or pro-player in the lockout, but I do think that if a team makes intelligent decisions (both financial and personnel), they should clearly be able to turn a profit and be competitive in the league. In my opinion, that's not necessarily the case in the league right now, but it's not nearly as dire as the league wants everyone to believe. Having this dissent among the owners is good in theory for the players, but the bottom line is that it's going to hurt the fans even more, because this thing is going to drag out even longer until each one of these battles is adequately agreed upon

turk3d · Post #476 » by **turk3d** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:14 pm

+ 1. Very well put.

Souvlaki · Post #477 » by **Souvlaki** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:28 pm

It'd be better for the economy if they don't play the season. So I'm all for a hardline on guaranteed contracts. The players are overpaid anyway.

turk3d · Post #478 » by **turk3d** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:34 pm

Souvlaki wrote:It'd be better for the economy if they don't play the season. So I'm all for a hardline on guaranteed contracts. The players are overpaid anyway.

That's ok as far as I'm concerned just as long as the scale back ticket prices so the average fan can afford to go to games and not just the elite (that includes food, parking and everything else while they're at it).

Star-Lord · Post #479 » by **Star-Lord** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:36 pm

turk3d wrote:
Souvlaki wrote:It'd be better for the economy if they don't play the season. So I'm all for a hardline on guaranteed contracts. The players are overpaid anyway.

That's ok as far as I'm concerned just as long as the scale back ticket prices so the average fan can afford to go to games and not just the elite (that includes food, parking and everything else while they're at it).

Heh... a fella can dream, can't he?

Post #480 » by **floppymoose** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:04 am

Souvlaki wrote:It'd be better for the economy if they don't play the season. So I'm all for a hardline on guaranteed contracts. The players are overpaid anyway.

Yeah, the players generate $3.5 billion in revenues, so clearly they don't deserve much.