Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[OvertimeNO]

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).

The Spurs were an anomaly though. Not to take away from the awesome job they did drafting Parker and Ginobili ... but the only way in hell they managed to get two HOF players was because one of them missed most of the season due to injury, allowing his team to tank so hard that they could land the other guy.

[I_Like_Dirt]

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.

What proof do you have that franchise values are overrated? Why is it that you or I or anybody should believe the people who have something to gain by exaggerating how much money they're 'losing' over the actions of people who equally have something to gain by exaggerating those losses (because it would result in a lower purchase price)? The owners claim the are losing big money, but the actions around the league, and the actions of other leagues like the NHL suggest that while the owners might have paper losses in the amounts they claim, they probably are making significant money somewhere else, or that those losses are in large part due to some rather huge expenses they've managed to accrue that leagues like the NHL don't have that the players should be willing to sacrifice their salaries in order to maintain.

And I agree generally that eventually franchise values are going to plateau somewhere. They can't keep going up exponentially forever as they have been. That's bad for the league because it leads to horrible financial instability as the only way to buy franchises becomes massive groups of people or massive loans or both. The NBA is clearly pursuing the path to try and maintain that exponential growth.

[plainballing]

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).

The Spurs were an anomaly though. Not to take away from the awesome job they did drafting Parker and Ginobili ... but the only way in hell they managed to get two HOF players was because one of them missed most of the season due to injury, allowing his team to tank so hard that they could land the other guy.

Yes, lucky is required to grab superstars...which is why the Spurs got lucky with Duncan. Now Duncan is falling, the Spurs need another star that can carry them for the next 10 years. No Parker is not a star of that quality to me. I would seriously thought that Andrea can really starred on the Spurs team beside Duncan...now I am gonna get attacked from everywhere.

[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.

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.

You can think McHale was responsible for giving him to his buddy, but Celtics fans should really be thanking Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson for KG. Remember, 2007 was the year Kobe demanded a trade from the Lakers. KG was close to being traded there (the Lakers had the better offer of Bynum and Odom, plus picks), but chose Boston instead, thanks to the uncertainty of Kobe's future with the team. It was mentioned in his introductory press conference as a Celtics, as well as a recent interview.

http://www.nesn.com/2011/09/kevin-garnett-reveals-he-came-pretty-close-to-joining-lakers-but-kobe-bryant-phil-jackson-feud-kept-.html

Dan Patrick: How close were you to joining the Lakers?

Kevin Garnett: I was pretty close, to be honest. What disturbed me about the whole Lakers situation was just [Kobe Bryant] and Phil [Jackson] was at each other pretty bad. A new situation full of uncertainty wasn't something that I wanted to get into.

DP: It was your choice not to go to the Lakers?

KG: It was my choice, yes.

DP: Because you were worried about the friction with Kobe and Phil?

KG: No, I wasn't worried about it.

DP: But that was going on?

KG: There was a lot going on, and I didn't want to be a part of it.

And you're completely correct about Pierce wanting out had he not received veteran help. Had Ainge landed Durant or Oden, Pierce would have been out of there. However, with just the 5th pick, Ainge decided to opt for getting Pierce some help. The original trade for KG was supposed to be Al Jefferson and the 5th pick. KG killed any chance of that quickly, as he did not want to leave Minnesota, nor did he feel that he and Pierce alone would be contending. He then tried for Shawn Marion, but Marion's agent killed any chance of that happening. Finally, Ainge settled on getting Ray Allen, since the Sonics were trying to shed salary (they lost Rashard Lewis that year to FA too). When KG met up with Glen Taylor, who advised him that he planned on shedding salary and starting a rebuild, only then did KG decide to move out of Minnesota.

I guess you could also thank Chauncey Billups for getting KG to Boston too.

http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2007/8/6/1215452/chauncey-billups-helped-deliver-kg

Ainge still had a piece in Jefferson (smart drafting, 15th overall in 2004, same year you guys took Araujo), other prospects (Gerald Green, drafted 18th overall, and Ryan Gomes, drafted 50th), a huge expiring contract (Ainge traded the 7th pick and Raef Lafrentz for Telfair and Theo Ratliff, whose deal ran 1 year shorter than Lafrentz's) as well as multiple 1st round picks (one of them being the T-wolves pick that the Celtics acquired in the Ricky Davis/Mark Blount for Wally Sczcerbiak trade).

Oh yeah, I forgot to add - in 2006/07, Ainge did attempt to swing a couple of deals. One was for Iverson, but Philly didn't want to trade him to the same division. The other one was for Pau Gasol, who was still a Grizzly. In both attempts, the bait was Al Jefferson and draft picks.

So yes, you might be right in that Ainge was lucky, but, at the same time, he had acquired all the pieces to be "lucky".

Ainge had a plan, and he stuck with it. Acquire an elite player either by draft, or by trade. Now, we'll see how good he is at luring a free agent to Boston. He's cleared tons of cap space for the 2012 offseason, with only Pierce and Rondo on the books. (Shaq actually mentions in his book that Danny pulled the trigger on the Perkins trade as he had no intention of re-signing him, in order to preserve that cap space).

[HSOB SIRHC]

What's the difference between this thread and the "Who do you support" thread?

[plainballing]

What's the difference between this thread and the "Who do you support" thread?

None, and no mod bothers to merge it...yet!

[Fairview4Life]

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).

This is from your post on page 8 that I replied to:

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

[LittleOzzy]

What's the difference between this thread and the "Who do you support" thread?

None, and no mod bothers to merge it...yet!

Maybe I'm crazy but I don't see the other thread.

Please link it.

[BorisDK1]

This is from your post on page 8 that I replied to:

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

Sure - it's a concern to the players. It's just not the primary one.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The players don't want to limit the geographical advantage under the proposals outlined by the owners. You can bet there are situations where they would be perfectly fine with limiting the geographical advantage. Increase revenue-sharing in a major way, remove maximum contracts and you've suddenly significantly limited geographical advantage. You haven't gotten rid of it completely, that will never be possible, but you've limited it in a huge way. Clearly, the owners don't want any part of such a proposal, because if it was one of their primary goals to limit that geographical advantage then they'd be looking at all the alternative to accomplish that which might actually have a hope in hell of being acceptable to the union.

[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.

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.

Here, I'll tell you why this isn't feasible from a Raps fan perspective:

Disclaimer: In the NBA certain cities carry huge weight around the league - LA, BOS, NY, etc.

A) Paul Pierce wouldn't have stuck around Toronto as long he did in Boston during down years (see Stoudamire, VC, TMac and Bosh). Players seem to give the big name teams alot more leeway than a team without history and in a different country. Look at Kobe, he wouldn't have stuck with LA during the down years if it wasn't LAC. Imagine that situation with Kobe in Toronto, LOL, he would've been out in a heartbeat.

B) If Toronto were in the same situation as BOS that year I can pretty much guarantee you that KG doesn't agree to come here / sign extension. Ray Allen may have since he has expressed he wanted to play in T.O. in the past.

C) By your own admission, it took BOS years of tanking, threats from its best player leaving and numerous other moves before it coulod pull of a once-in-a-lifetime move(s) to create a championship team. If that's what it takes to build a contender then is the system really working? Hell, if that's what it took for BOS to build a winner, do the small-mid market teams stand a chance?

The system is **** up and needs a major overhaul.

[Reignman]

The players don't want to limit the geographical advantage under the proposals outlined by the owners. You can bet there are situations where they would be perfectly fine with limiting the geographical advantage. Increase revenue-sharing in a major way, remove maximum contracts and you've suddenly significantly limited geographical advantage. You haven't gotten rid of it completely, that will never be possible, but you've limited it in a huge way. Clearly, the owners don't want any part of such a proposal, because if it was one of their primary goals to limit that geographical advantage then they'd be looking at all the alternative to accomplish that which might actually have a hope in hell of being acceptable to the union.

I do agree that in better circumstances the league could give up a bit of one to get the other. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.

People need to realize this CBA isn't about one (BRI split) or the other (system). The last CBA was so **** up (owners fault for signing) that this is about both.

The owners are going for BRI and system overhauls and based on the situation I don't blame them. I also don't blame the players for feeling shell shocked but someone should've told them that the last CBA(s) were ridiculously lopsided in their favour and that major changes were coming.

Actually, Stern did that 2 years ago, Billy Hunter just forgot to pass the message along.

[plainballing]

Maybe I'm crazy but I don't see the other thread.

Please link it.

Here Ozzy.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1133856

[Fairview4Life]

This is from your post on page 8 that I replied to:

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

Sure - it's a concern to the players. It's just not the primary one.

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant. Regardless, the players wanted no part of the owners plan of guaranteeing every team, no matter how poorly run or what market they are in, a profit before revenue sharing by taking it away from the players current share of BRI and instituting a hard cap. I don't blame them at all for that. The owners let George Shinn buy a team, and Bob Johnson start one up in Charlotte. If they aren't willing to live with the consequences of those decisions, they should help keep those teams alive via revenue sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask owners to share some portion of local tv, ticket and sponsorship revenue, since you need 2 teams to stage a game.

I also bet the players would sign up for a hard cap set at 75% of BRI, or whatever. It isn't a hard cap necessarily that causes the problem, it's where the owners wanted to set it.

[BorisDK1]

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant. Regardless, the players wanted no part of the owners plan of guaranteeing every team, no matter how poorly run or what market they are in, a profit before revenue sharing by taking it away from the players current share of BRI and instituting a hard cap. I don't blame them at all for that. The owners let George Shinn buy a team, and Bob Johnson start one up in Charlotte. If they aren't willing to live with the consequences of those decisions, they should help keep those teams alive via revenue sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask owners to share some portion of local tv, ticket and sponsorship revenue, since you need 2 teams to stage a game.

I also bet the players would sign up for a hard cap set at 75% of BRI, or whatever. It isn't a hard cap necessarily that causes the problem, it's where the owners wanted to set it.

Nobody's saying there shouldn't be revenue sharing, because there already is. It's accomplished through the tax system, which is the way it should be.

And the players never objected to the level of the hard cap, they objected to its existence. So because it will NEVER be set at 75%, why bring this up?

[bballsparkin]

I still dont' care. Let them waste a year and lose millions. I'm jacked up for NCAA bball and am enjoying hockey more. Sure I'll be choked come playoff time, but it's worth it to laugh at Stern and many of the owners. Not to mention I think a lot of the players are divas. Don't get me started on the reffs.

[Fairview4Life]

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant. Regardless, the players wanted no part of the owners plan of guaranteeing every team, no matter how poorly run or what market they are in, a profit before revenue sharing by taking it away from the players current share of BRI and instituting a hard cap. I don't blame them at all for that. The owners let George Shinn buy a team, and Bob Johnson start one up in Charlotte. If they aren't willing to live with the consequences of those decisions, they should help keep those teams alive via revenue sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask owners to share some portion of local tv, ticket and sponsorship revenue, since you need 2 teams to stage a game.

I also bet the players would sign up for a hard cap set at 75% of BRI, or whatever. It isn't a hard cap necessarily that causes the problem, it's where the owners wanted to set it.

Nobody's saying there shouldn't be revenue sharing, because there already is. It's accomplished through the tax system, which is the way it should be.

And the players never objected to the level of the hard cap, they objected to its existence. So because it will NEVER be set at 75%, why bring this up?

First of all, I disagree that's how revenue sharing should be handled since it's not actually revenue sharing. Secondly, you changed your tune a bit from saying the players want nothing to do with a system that would level the geographical playing field (as much as possible) to them wanting nothing to do with a hard cap that could possibly limit them from going to a prime market at no real cost to themselves. So I suggested a hard cap system that the players would probably sign up for. A hard cap set extremely high. So however way you want play it, either with your original statement or your revised one, the players would have no problem with a number of systems that level the geographic playing field. The owners would balk at those plans however. So at the end of the day, neither side is actually primarily concerned with leveling the markets. My point being that the owners claims of striving for parity might have suckered in Reignman, but the owners actions put the lie to that claim.

[reck0n3r]

I honestly don't care. Frack'em both.

I'd be cheesed if RealGM was shut down for a year, though.

[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.

Here, I'll tell you why this isn't feasible from a Raps fan perspective:

Disclaimer: In the NBA certain cities carry huge weight around the league - LA, BOS, NY, etc.

A) Paul Pierce wouldn't have stuck around Toronto as long he did in Boston during down years (see Stoudamire, VC, TMac and Bosh). Players seem to give the big name teams alot more leeway than a team without history and in a different country. Look at Kobe, he wouldn't have stuck with LA during the down years if it wasn't LAC. Imagine that situation with Kobe in Toronto, LOL, he would've been out in a heartbeat.

B) If Toronto were in the same situation as BOS that year I can pretty much guarantee you that KG doesn't agree to come here / sign extension. Ray Allen may have since he has expressed he wanted to play in T.O. in the past.

C) By your own admission it took BOS years of tanking, threats from its best player leaving and numerous other moves before it coulod pull of a once-in-a-lifetime move(s) to create a championship team. If that's what it takes to build a contender then is the system really working? Hell, if that's what it took for BOS to build a winner, do the small-mid market teams stand a chance?

The system is **** up and needs a major overhaul.

Well then, there's not much else Toronto and other small markets can do then, if you really feel that it is that big of a disadvantage. Because if we go with your idea of a franchise player tag and no max contract, it would sound like you guys would have to overpay stars to get them to stay. Then it's the KG in Minnesota scenario all over again - 1 guy makes the money, and now you have no money to pay the rest of the team. Star player gets disgruntled because he has no help, gets on the first plane outta there. What else can you really do? Players chase rings and/or money.

[Mister Ze]

I never believed that the league was losing money in the first place. I don't trust David Stern. With the NBA gaining more international fans it seems like the owners want more money.

If it wasn't for David Stern the NBA wouldn't have international fans.

He's done a decent job in expanding the fan base across the globe but he wouldn't have done it without the players. Dwight Howard for instance went to India to create a fan base, most likely not by choice but it wouldn't be possible without him so you can't give all the credit to Stern. He knows how to earn money with events like the Dallas all-star game and fixing the finals so that there would be Boston vs LA in game 7 lol. His next project has been trying to take away as much player earnings as possible and also reducing the rights that a player has.