No "cap Smoothing" will be implemented, 2016 cap projected $90 million

[TimRobbins]

I would be curious of what the legality of replacement players would be in terms of ticket prices/TV deals.

If they still get TV money using replacements then the players are more or less completely screwed, because the owners can sit in for the long haul and only have some pressure from networks, but not pressure in their pocketbooks.

You don't need replacements forever or even for a year. YOu only need them long enough to break the players union.

I'm pretty sure the TV deal is dead in case of a lockout. No replacements player league would be televised. Season ticket sales will also be void.

in fact, I doubt the NBA would go with replacement players. It can work in Baseball or Football, but it won't work in the NBA.

In any case, I will agree with your point the the players lack the leadership and the standing power to get the maximum share owners would give them, so they probably won't get that 60% of BRI, but they will get some sort of increase in share.

[TimRobbins]

Ironically the Bulls are one of the teams that proved franchises are what people pay to see, not players.

For years we languished as one of the worst teams in the league with Eddy Curry as our "star" player, and all throughout these times the UC sold out like clockwork. Stern went to some games sitting with JR, was interviewed after one of them and Stern said the Bulls were the prototype of what every NBA team should be, because we were still selling out even with a horrible roster.

I believe most fans watch & root for their team, not players.

If Derrick Rose, Butler, Noah, Taj, all got traded to Milwaukee this summer; would this board all move to the Milwaukee board and talk about these guys in Milwaukee?

Or would we all still be here talking about the guys we got back MCW, Giannis, Middleton, and Parker?

We'd all still be here, we all know that.

Eddy Curry is hardly D-League talent and the visiting teams didn't have D-League talent. We support the Bulls regardless of the specific names playing, but very few of us will be watching the team if they played D-Laeguers vs other D-Leaguers (I know I won't). Trust me, that the UC would be empty in that scenario.

Look at the Knicks board. How active was it when they made the playoffs and how active is it now?

[TimRobbins]

I'm not saying the branding isn't valuable. All I'm saying it can be copied. The only question is how much time it would take to reach the current level. You think it's 20 years and I think it would take around 5.

Simply put, if it was that easy for the players to start their own league in which they make significantly more money it would have been done already.

It would take years of them making less money and everybody would lose. That's not in debate. The question in whether it's a credible threat or not?

[TimRobbins]

What money are the owners fronting? You can argue the wording of it all you want, but the owners have ACTUAL money invested in the team while the players only earn money. Invested money=leverage.

But your ability to spew the same argument over and over, ignoring the multiple people who have given a lot of well-supported counter arguments is enough for me (including a hell of a lot of history that supports you are wrong). No one here is saying the NBA isn't based on the players. But there is a lot more to the NBA than the players that comes into effect- i.e. the entire business aspect of it.

I suggest you read again more carefully.

I haven't ignored anybody, just made the point that with time, the business side can be replicated. The one argument I made and nobody was able to respond to, is the fact that pro basketball team owners all over the world are happily losing money. There is not a single profitable pro basketball team outside the NBA. There would be no shortage of willing owners for franchises which are not making any money or even losing.

[ADDinChicago]

You're also now going to get small market owners objecting to the cap jumping so fast and so drastically. Even today, owners are claiming some teams are losing money. They don't want super teams and both sides hold opt outs after next season in the CBA. This is hardly over or going to go smooth. Both sides want what they feel is theirs, This could be extremely ugly. If the cap jumps that much and certain teams are drastically under the cap, there's no way a New Orleans can compete with a New York for example. Enjoy next season.

[dougthonus]

It would take years of them making less money and everybody would lose. That's not in debate. The question in whether it's a credible threat or not?

Every player in the NBA presently would come out behind by a massive, massive margin. So no, I don't think it's a credible threat. If it was, they would have used it last time when they were facing massive cuts in salary.

I don't see how they're going to try and use that threat now that they're getting a 42% increase in salary. Just doesn't seem to make sense.

As a side note for comparison here are the splits in other leagues:
NHL: 50/50
NFL 51.5/48.5 (in favor of owners)
MLB is individually negotiated, so there is no "share" predetermined, but the share actually paid out is 40%.

Even the NFL with it's massive TV deals and massive profitability for all franchises doesn't pay its players over 50% (and NFL players have shorter, more violent careers, with way, way lower average salaries and no guaranteed contracts).

[TimRobbins]

Every player in the NBA presently would come out behind by a massive, massive margin. So no, I don't think it's a credible threat. If it was, they would have used it last time when they were facing massive cuts in salary.

I don't see how they're going to try and use that threat now that they're getting a 42% increase in salary. Just doesn't seem to make sense.

As a side note for comparison here are the splits in other leagues:
NHL: 50/50
NFL 51.5/48.5 (in favor of owners)
MLB is individually negotiated, so there is no "share" predetermined, but the share actually paid out is 40%.

Even the NFL with it's massive TV deals and massive profitability for all franchises doesn't pay its players over 50% (and NFL players have shorter, more violent careers, with way, way lower average salaries and no guaranteed contracts).

I think the idea came up multiple times, but never caught on.

NHL makes a lot less money than the NBA, so the 50/50 deal is a lot better for the players. NFL is where the players get fleeced, but since these guys play behind masks, their value is far lower. MLB payout is 40%, but the costs of running the franchise are much higher and I believe around a third to half the league is losing money.

Out of all pro sports, NBA players have the most value. The NBA is about players more than ever. Maybe the players should push towards an MLB like system with no predetermined BRI split and a soft cap. That would push spending their way.

[BR0D1E86]

I'm not saying the branding isn't valuable. All I'm saying it can be copied. The only question is how much time it would take to reach the current level. You think it's 20 years and I think it would take around 5.

Simply put, if it was that easy for the players to start their own league in which they make significantly more money it would have been done already.

It would take years of them making less money and everybody would lose. That's not in debate. The question in whether it's a credible threat or not?

Ok, then it's not a credible threat. It's never even been threatened before during labor negotiations. That means the players union doesn't even find it as credible enough to throw it out as an off the wall bluff.

[johnnyvann840]

Tim Robbins, you're living in a fantasy World if you think the players could ever start another league. ZERO chance of that happening and ever succeeding. So it is certainly not a credible threat ( and has about the same chance as we have of still getting the Kings pick this year- which is all but mathematically over and a near impossibility at this point). oh, I know, nothing is impossible, but some things are close enough.

[TimRobbins]

Tim Robbins, you're living in a fantasy World if you think the players could ever start another league. ZERO chance of that happening and ever succeeding. So it is certainly not a credible threat ( and has about the same chance as we have of still getting the Kings pick this year- which is all but mathematically over and a near impossibility at this point). oh, I know, nothing is impossible, but some things are close enough.

The entire thing is a theoretical exercise, since most of us agree that the players don't have the staying power. However, I do think that forming an alternative league is possible, and agents have threatened to do so in the previous lockout. Saying that it never came up simply isn't true. I do agree that it never got off the drawing board. So yeah, the credibility of the threat is low, but it is possible if both sides go nuclear.

[YettiBull]

All in on Anthony Davis IMO. Noah is about done and its sad to see injuries just end careers early.

[ItalianBull]

This is going to kill the smaller teams, but I guess they attract less viewers so its a win situation for the league.

[TimRobbins]

All in on Anthony Davis IMO. Noah is about done and its sad to see injuries just end careers early.

He is not a free-agent and won't be on the market until 2020 at the earliest. Enough with this Anthony Davis crap.

[DannyNoonan1221]

What money are the owners fronting? You can argue the wording of it all you want, but the owners have ACTUAL money invested in the team while the players only earn money. Invested money=leverage.

But your ability to spew the same argument over and over, ignoring the multiple people who have given a lot of well-supported counter arguments is enough for me (including a hell of a lot of history that supports you are wrong). No one here is saying the NBA isn't based on the players. But there is a lot more to the NBA than the players that comes into effect- i.e. the entire business aspect of it.

I suggest you read again more carefully.

I haven't ignored anybody, just made the point that with time, the business side can be replicated. The one argument I made and nobody was able to respond to, is the fact that pro basketball team owners all over the world are happily losing money. There is not a single profitable pro basketball team outside the NBA. There would be no shortage of willing owners for franchises which are not making any money or even losing.

No one is arguing that. we all know owners lose money. but your assumption that it can happen in 5 years is completely ignorant of reality. If it was that realistic you don't think it would have happened by now?

And let's say it does happen- let's say every NBA player gets together and agrees to start their own league in which they make a higher percentage of the profit. You don't think that list of owners willing to lose money will shrink once they see they will be losing even more money in this new, player-run league?

[TimRobbins]

No one is arguing that. we all know owners lose money. but your assumption that it can happen in 5 years is completely ignorant of reality. If it was that realistic you don't think it would have happened by now?

And let's say it does happen- let's say every NBA player gets together and agrees to start their own league in which they make a higher percentage of the profit. You don't think that list of owners willing to lose money will shrink once they see they will be losing even more money in this new, player-run league?

No, it wouldn't happen, since the players rather have the security of the current situation, instead of potentially getting 20% more in the future and going through at least 5 years of rough time. We could definitely argue if it would take 5 or 10 or 20 years for a new league to reach the current NBA status, if that's where you're getting at.

I don't think there will be a shortage of owners willing to lose money.The pool of bored billionaires is deep enough.