ImageImageImageImageImage

Who do you support?

Moderators: DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX, 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford

Who do you side with ?

NBAPA
59
31%
Owners
132
69%
 
Total votes: 191

DreamTeam09
RealGM
Posts: 17,662
And1: 11,030
Joined: Jan 06, 2009
Location: Scarborough
 

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#101 » by DreamTeam09 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:50 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:
DreamTeam09 wrote: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.


So now in order to own an NBA team and make a profit, you have to be a real estate tycoon or a construction tycoon?? Thats not cool...
Image

In Raptor Ball I Trust
theonlyeastcoastrapsfan
RealGM
Posts: 26,947
And1: 9,110
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Location: Hotlantic Canada
 

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#102 » by theonlyeastcoastrapsfan » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:54 pm

The_NeX wrote:
theonlyeastcoastrapsfan wrote:
Coach Smiley wrote:it's not the players fault that the owners don't know how to make money off of a billion dollar industry, the owners are asking for protection from their own stupid decisions


Easy to point the finger. How many agents would have had their players take less than the market dictated or sign a non guaranteed deal?
I don't recall how many agents and players were applauding the Clippers for their frugality. When I take a piece of crap back to the store, I understand I may not get my money back, but I expect that the store has the humility not to laugh in my face for my patronage.

Any owner would have loved to sign a short term non guaranteed deal for less, would the players and agents have signed it? Do they not see that owners are competitive and are trying to win? Just because and argument feels good off the tongue, doesn't make it a good one.

I wonder if all the owners got together and said, okay, none of us offer guaranteed deals, or deals longer than three years, how long it would take agents to file a collusion charge. They play this game of exploit the system, and then blame the owners, and have the nerve to call Stern the bully?


Are you for real ? Why should anyone ask for less than what the market is offering him ? Might be im not understanding you, but i can't see how this make sense.


I think you may be missing my point. I'm not saying the player and agents should take less than the market allowed. What I'm saying is they never would. However,it's the old system, the one that caps max deals, allowed for Bird Rights and the mid-level, allowed for up to 5 years with certain % raises, and created a climate where the majority of every deal is guaranteed, which created the market. The Front office and players and agents simply work within that system. If players and agents would never have agreed to less because they didn't have to under the old system, then it's simply ignores the flaws in the system to put it all on owners bad decisions.

The deals were fair market deals at the time, the problem is the system left too little protection for owners from injury, or decline, or decreased motivation from players, and so now we act like owners and gms are fools for signing those deals. that tells me maybe there's an issue with the system. I don't blame BC for signing Amir, I wanted him to. I don't think he wanted to spend more money than he had to. I think his agent went out and felt the market out, and came back and made a deal. If the market was different Amir would have gotten less. You can blame BC if it's 32 and not 28 million, but it's not BC's fault that it's in that neighborhood, and not the 15 million neighborhood. That's based on the midlevel, going to average players that creates that market. and that's a system issue. And, that may need some tweaking. For example, was JO's old max deal a mistake? wasn't at the time, sure seemed like it at the end. So what should those fools in Indy have done differently? Wrapped his knee in bubble wrap? Orlando has an old owner who's desperate to win before he dies, so he spent too much on Rashard Lewis. Sucks now. However, they almost won.

I'm not saying that there aren't bad decisions out there, but to fault the owners, who you know would have paid less over less with less guaranteed if they could have, and not blame the system that created that market is short sighted. If they're merely guilty of their own bad decisions, and not of market forces, what would you have had them do differently. Not sign FA's? collude with each other to keep the market depressed? it's only a few teams that get players are taking less than otherwise to join them, the rest are forced to compete for players. To ignore that the CBA creates the field of competition and put it all on the owners need for restraint, and not to adjust the system is not realistic. and it's no wonder why the players want that system, because for every one but rookies and true true game changing superstars, the current system inflates their value. and there's far more of those players in the league than the John Wall's and LeBron's.
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 70,360
And1: 34,149
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#103 » by Fairview4Life » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:56 pm

DreamTeam09 wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:
DreamTeam09 wrote: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.


So now in order to own an NBA team and make a profit, you have to be a real estate tycoon or a construction tycoon?? Thats not cool...


No, actually. You just have to not relocate to a city that subsequently gets destroyed by a hurricane, or you have to actually try and make a profit and not just spend all you have to win a title, or you can share local TV and sponsorship revenue with all 30 teams.

All sports leagues are legal cartels. The only way a union makes sense for the players is if they get a large portion of the revenue. Cut it too low and they'll decertify and the rich owners will spend like the Yankees, without baseball's revenue sharing and inherent parity.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
Reignman
Banned User
Posts: 19,281
And1: 391
Joined: Aug 12, 2004
Location: 2014 playoffs at the ACC!

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#104 » by Reignman » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:56 pm

It's funny, imagine if you wanted to own a Mickey D's and you were told that "hey, you can own one but you'll probably take losses, but how about this? You can dress up like Ronald f'n McDonald on the weekends and do kids birthday parties to make a profit, you in?"

Is that really a good business model to some of you?
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 70,360
And1: 34,149
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#105 » by Fairview4Life » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:58 pm

Reignman wrote:It's funny, imagine if you wanted to own a Mickey D's and you were told that "hey, you can own one but you'll probably take losses, but how about this? You can dress up like Ronald f'n McDonald on the weekends and do kids birthday parties to make a profit, you in?"

Is that really a good business model to some of you?


Except the NBA isn't a guaranteed profit loser. Revenues have never been higher. You just have to not **** things up. Or you can sell after 10 years for way more than you paid for it, making real net profit despite (supposed) operating losses.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
Reignman
Banned User
Posts: 19,281
And1: 391
Joined: Aug 12, 2004
Location: 2014 playoffs at the ACC!

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#106 » by Reignman » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:24 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:
Reignman wrote:It's funny, imagine if you wanted to own a Mickey D's and you were told that "hey, you can own one but you'll probably take losses, but how about this? You can dress up like Ronald f'n McDonald on the weekends and do kids birthday parties to make a profit, you in?"

Is that really a good business model to some of you?


Except the NBA isn't a guaranteed profit loser. Revenues have never been higher. You just have to not **** things up. Or you can sell after 10 years for way more than you paid for it, making real net profit despite (supposed) operating losses.


The only reason owners end up **** up is the imbalance the current CBA has created. There's a reason teams feel they have to throw bags of money at any FA that becomes available just to stay competitive. It's also a reason small market teams overpay their own FAs because they know the big name FAs likely won't sign with them so their only option is to do everything to keep their own, no matter how **** the player is.

Sure, management tends to make bone-headed decisions from time to time, that's no different than any business; however, there are many forces directly relating to the current CBA that puts pressure on teams to sign players extremely aggressively.

Like I've said before, when the owner of the reigning defending champs had to take losses just to win a ring then the system is BUSTED.
Reignman
Banned User
Posts: 19,281
And1: 391
Joined: Aug 12, 2004
Location: 2014 playoffs at the ACC!

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#107 » by Reignman » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:26 pm

And it's funny that the anti-owner crowd keeps harping about the owners wanting more profits while (at the same time) talking about how owners blow their money unwisely.

So what is it? Are the owners greedy bastards or are they loose with their money? Make up your minds.
User avatar
CeltsfanSinceBirth
RealGM
Posts: 23,818
And1: 34,893
Joined: Jul 29, 2003
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#108 » by CeltsfanSinceBirth » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:35 pm

Reignman wrote:And it's funny that the anti-owner crowd keeps harping about the owners wanting more profits while (at the same time) talking about how owners blow their money unwisely.

So what is it? Are the owners greedy bastards or are they loose with their money? Make up your minds.


You can be both. Being greedy and not managing your money wisely are not mutually exclusive.
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 70,360
And1: 34,149
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#109 » by Fairview4Life » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:41 pm

Reignman wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:
Reignman wrote:It's funny, imagine if you wanted to own a Mickey D's and you were told that "hey, you can own one but you'll probably take losses, but how about this? You can dress up like Ronald f'n McDonald on the weekends and do kids birthday parties to make a profit, you in?"

Is that really a good business model to some of you?


Except the NBA isn't a guaranteed profit loser. Revenues have never been higher. You just have to not **** things up. Or you can sell after 10 years for way more than you paid for it, making real net profit despite (supposed) operating losses.


The only reason owners end up **** up is the imbalance the current CBA has created. There's a reason teams feel they have to throw bags of money at any FA that becomes available just to stay competitive. It's also a reason small market teams overpay their own FAs because they know the big name FAs likely won't sign with them so their only option is to do everything to keep their own, no matter how **** the player is.

Sure, management tends to make bone-headed decisions from time to time, that's no different than any business; however, there are many forces directly relating to the current CBA that puts pressure on teams to sign players extremely aggressively.

Like I've said before, when the owner of the reigning defending champs had to take losses just to win a ring then the system is BUSTED.


Cuban didn't have to spend like that to win a title. If you have to spend like that to win, then all of those teams like the Spurs and Pistons who won without spending a lot, didn't actually win, and Isiah did. Cuban just spent like that and won a title. As far as I know, payroll expenses and winning aren't really all that correlated in the NBA.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
User avatar
Rhettmatic
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 21,081
And1: 14,547
Joined: Jul 23, 2006
Location: Toronto
   

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#110 » by Rhettmatic » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:49 pm

Image
Sig by the one and only Turbo_Zone.
User avatar
3Si
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,488
And1: 334
Joined: May 25, 2003
Location: Toronto
 

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#111 » by 3Si » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:02 pm

S.W.A.N wrote:Sure I can. NBA players are elite specialists, they provide a unique skill set. Just like Entertainers and other 'best of the best' jobs.

Out of all the Millions of Basketball players in the world these are the top 400.

What is the average salary of the top 400 movie actors/actresses
What is the average salary of the top 400 lawyers
What is the average salary of the top 400 doctors
What is the average salary of the top 400 accountants

People make a big deal out of the sports salaries because the business revolves around teams ability to manage they salaries and they are common knowledge. They are not out of whack with the world we live in.


What is the average salary of the top 400 teachers?
What is the average salary of the top 400 beggars?
What is the average salary of the top 400 stay at home moms?
What is the average salary of the top 400 cleaners?

They are out of whack when you compare them with average jobs. All the occupations above requires it's own unique skills, but I'm pretty sure the salary isn't even 1% of what an NBA player is. The top 100 players might be worth the money, but after that, they are pretty much replaceable with D League or Euro players.
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 70,360
And1: 34,149
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#112 » by Fairview4Life » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:08 pm

3Si wrote:
S.W.A.N wrote:Sure I can. NBA players are elite specialists, they provide a unique skill set. Just like Entertainers and other 'best of the best' jobs.

Out of all the Millions of Basketball players in the world these are the top 400.

What is the average salary of the top 400 movie actors/actresses
What is the average salary of the top 400 lawyers
What is the average salary of the top 400 doctors
What is the average salary of the top 400 accountants

People make a big deal out of the sports salaries because the business revolves around teams ability to manage they salaries and they are common knowledge. They are not out of whack with the world we live in.


What is the average salary of the top 400 teachers?
What is the average salary of the top 400 beggars?
What is the average salary of the top 400 stay at home moms?
What is the average salary of the top 400 cleaners?

They are out of whack when you compare them with average jobs. All the occupations above requires it's own unique skills, but I'm pretty sure the salary isn't even 1% of what an NBA player is. The top 100 players might be worth the money, but after that, they are pretty much replaceable with D League or Euro players.


If you want players to make less, stop watching games on TV and attending live. Or buying jerseys. Stop increasing BRI. The players salaries are tied to revenues. If revenue goes down, they will make less. So stop paying them money.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
roundhead0
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,070
And1: 668
Joined: Apr 24, 2008

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#113 » by roundhead0 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:10 pm

This is entertainment and the players are the primary generators of huge amounts of revenue. However, it's the owners who have to make the large investments of capital and work to get sponsors and ticket sales. Players--for the most part--just play.

If players were getting cheated and only receiving a very small slice of the pie, then I think most people would support the players. But let's face it: players are getting HUGE money. Even the ones that don't play are making more than most people will make in a year, or 2 years, or maybe even 10 years. Fans are also seeing what happens when big money teams can spend and smaller teams can't. Most of the teams that are championship winners or contenders found ways to totally demolish the salary cap. That's great if you're a Mavs or Lakers fan. Not so good for most of the markets though.

Realistically, the two sides are not that far apart on money. 3% or so? The total dollars are big, but per team and per player it's not really so significant. If you make $970K instead of $1M it's not like suddenly you can't feed your kids. It seems to be mostly an argument of principle and for being able to brag about how you won, or avoiding the appearance of "losing".
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 70,360
And1: 34,149
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#114 » by Fairview4Life » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:14 pm

roundhead0 wrote:Most of the teams that are championship winners or contenders found ways to totally demolish the salary cap. That's great if you're a Mavs or Lakers fan. Not so good for most of the markets though.


The Lakers did it by drafting Kobe and signing Shaq with available capspace. That is not a system anyone is arguing should change. What about the Spurs and Pistons? I would like to know how spending is actually correlated with winning in the NBA, since almost every team sits at or near the luxury tax line every year. There isn't much variation short of a few teams, and those teams don't win all the time.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
theonlyeastcoastrapsfan
RealGM
Posts: 26,947
And1: 9,110
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Location: Hotlantic Canada
 

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#115 » by theonlyeastcoastrapsfan » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:16 pm

Rhettmatic wrote:Woj vs. Stern, again:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... tle_101111



Oh no, Stern didn't have a NBA logo backdrop, oh my. I'm not sure if Woj's article is putting Stern on blast, or patting him on the back. This whole point about it not being fair and him bullying the NBPA, seems to imply very little faith in the ability of the NBPA to hire representative and elect capable presidents of Stern's just going to run through them like wet toilet paper. Must be the agents feed Woj the whole Billy's in over his head. I don't get it. Poor NBPA for not knowing any better, poor Stern for taking advantage. Please. I have a little more faith in the NBPA to believe that they can't competently represent themselves so they should be treated with kid gloves in negotiations.
User avatar
3Si
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,488
And1: 334
Joined: May 25, 2003
Location: Toronto
 

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#116 » by 3Si » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:17 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:
If you want players to make less, stop watching games on TV and attending live. Or buying jerseys. Stop increasing BRI. The players salaries are tied to revenues. If revenue goes down, they will make less. So stop paying them money.


Because I'm a teacher, I can't afford to go to any Raptors games, even though I own them... (The irony) I don't buy jerseys anymore cause they always get traded after, instead I buy made in China fakes! Who needs TV when you have internet? So thanks for your suggestion, but I guess I don't help the players that much. Having said all that, what does that have to do with anything? :roll:

Like many have pointed out, if I'm making Millions and my boss told me to take a 20% cut, I'd say, how about 30% and you keep me employed for 10 more years.
User avatar
RomaniaLuvTR
Head Coach
Posts: 6,494
And1: 1,052
Joined: Apr 02, 2007
Location: bjr-vacante.ro

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#117 » by RomaniaLuvTR » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:19 pm

i don`t support the owners but i certainly not want the players to win this...while i feel sorry for those with minimum salaries or not guaranteed contracts, reading that money starved guys like lebron and wade are begging the union not to accept going down from 53 makes me sick..i really really hope lebron never wins a title i can`t stand that guy..a guy with a minimum contract will feel soon how bad is without the checks coming,but guys like melo james paul wade can stay 2 years without the and still don`t care..
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 70,360
And1: 34,149
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#118 » by Fairview4Life » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:21 pm

3Si wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:
If you want players to make less, stop watching games on TV and attending live. Or buying jerseys. Stop increasing BRI. The players salaries are tied to revenues. If revenue goes down, they will make less. So stop paying them money.


Because I'm a teacher, I can't afford to go to any Raptors games, even though I own them... (The irony) I don't buy jerseys anymore cause they always get traded after, instead I buy made in China fakes! Who needs TV when you have internet? So thanks for your suggestion, but I guess I don't help the players that much. Having said all that, what does that have to do with anything? :roll:

Like many have pointed out, if I'm making Millions and my boss told me to take a 20% cut, I'd say, how about 30% and you keep me employed for 10 more years.


It has to do with your point, which comes up all the time whenever someone talks about player salaries in every sport, that there is an easy fix. Just stop watching. Convince everyone you know to stop watching. Get them to funnel more towards teaching through taxes.

If you and 300 of your friends were directly responsible for over $4 billion in revenues every year, then I don't see why you'd want to be so accommodating. If you capitulate now, you'll be asked for more tomorrow. At some point you should stop capitulating and stand up for yourself.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
User avatar
J-Roc
RealGM
Posts: 33,150
And1: 7,553
Joined: Aug 02, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
       

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#119 » by J-Roc » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:26 pm

The two leagues with hard caps (NFL, NHL) do have parity.
Reignman
Banned User
Posts: 19,281
And1: 391
Joined: Aug 12, 2004
Location: 2014 playoffs at the ACC!

Re: Who do you support? 

Post#120 » by Reignman » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:28 pm

Anyway, the more games that get cancelled the more owner-friendly the deal will be and based on the what we've heard the owners are looking for some variation of a hard cap and as a Raps fan I love it.

Return to Toronto Raptors