Lockout

KevinMcreynolds · Post #441 » by **KevinMcreynolds** » Thu Sep 8, 2011 7:43 am

Lol, f*ck taking the players side. They work their asses off temporarily, get their contract, and then turn into lazy no work ethic having sacks of **** and the owners are stuck with a bunch of 6 to 10 million dollar 12th men sitting at the end of the bench and can't do anything about it.

NBA players are the softest, most selfish, laziest athletes in sports. If I was the owners I would keep them locked out for as long as it takes and not budge one bit.

Post #442 » by **floppymoose** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 8:23 am

Fishers $$$ is not even in the running for bad nba deals. I know a guy on the Warriors from 1995 to 2010 who made $330 million, and he didn't do crap.

turk3d · Post #443 » by **turk3d** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 7:06 pm

Twinkie defense wrote:I don't care what agreements the NFL makes and don't care about the NHL full stop. I do think NFL players are more deserving, and NBA players have gotten pretty soft and whiny.

Regarding players who don't earn their contracts like Derek Fisher and how that relates to whether an agreement is pro-player or pro-owner, for me fairness should dictate what you make, not being pro- one side or the other. In practice that is an ideal that is impossible to fully achieve, but I think you can make some judgments and if there are a lot of really bad contracts that is a bad sign. Overall, I would say that NBA salaries are too high, and I don't like the long-term guarantees (which are performance disincentives), but that a small group of players should be making considerably more - not because they got lucky with their contracts but because they deserve it.

In the NFL, most money is in the form of bonuses, and base salaries usually have few guarantees - you can be cut at any time, and you don't get any money that was remaining on your contract. I think that is fair - who in this world gets guaranteed salaries? Whoever they are, they shouldn't get them either. NFL is a brutal sport though - I'm for sizable minimum salaries and lifetime benefits.

Finally, on it's face, if someone is going on about how great Derek Fisher has been? That he represents good value? Turk suggested that David Stern be burned at the stake, and I suggested that Derek Fisher was as much as a symbol of the problems of the League as anyone. And then several people went on to say how valuable he has been as a player, and then - somewhat ironically given that stance - that it's only the teams' fault that he got so much money.

To which I say, good luck with that poster child!

KevinMcReynolds wrote:Lol, f*ck taking the players side. They work their asses off temporarily, get their contract, and then turn into lazy no work ethic having sacks of **** and the owners are stuck with a bunch of 6 to 10 million dollar 12th men sitting at the end of the bench and can't do anything about it.

NBA players are the softest, most selfish, laziest athletes in sports. If I was the owners I would keep them locked out for as long as it takes and not budge one bit,

I don't get it. I guess most of you have never owned your own business or been in Management responsible for determining employee salaries. Basically, no one holds a gun to your head and dictates what you have to pay someone, nor do they force you to hire someone who you don't feel is a good match for your organization. That decision is totally up to you.

ou can't expect people (in this case players) to turn down these ridiculous contracts when offered. Perhaps you want to put some of the blame on their agents (the ones who negotiate these deals). You have to expect this in a capitalistic society. It's just the nature of business. That's why a good GM is probably worth his weight in gold. There are a few out there. Everyone tries to get the best deal they can possibly get. That's just human nature.

Players To Receive $161 Million In Escrow Funds
http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/08/loc ... rs-by-nba/
"Just a little more food for thought when the assertion is made that the owners hold all the leverage in this dispute because they are holding onto all the money."

Twinkie defense · Post #444 » by **Twinkie defense** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 7:50 pm

You don't understand how markets work Turk, salaries are artificially high in the NBA because of a shortage of good players and because of (yes, negotiated) artificial rules governing player compensation.

For instance, the League and the players have together decided that they need teams in all of these markets, and there are benefits to both sides of having so many teams. But if they got rid of some teams, total player compensation would be reduced, and there would be more talent to go around, leading to fewer bad player contracts burdening teams.

This is not at all free market economics (if it were, a bunch of franchises and roster spots would evaporate), which is why antitrust is a potential weapon for the players union. It is an artificial construct, negotiated between the two parties. Teams can't just say no, we're going to draw the line and pay out only $20 mil in salaries - in fact, in the escrow give-back you mention, the League had to come up with an additional $26 million, above and beyond committed player salaries, just in order to get total player compensation up to 57 percent of BRI.

You may say that a team doesn't have to offer a particular player a given salary, but try telling that to the fans when all their players leave once they get off their rookie deals. Every single team has bad salaries - are they all stupid, or are there artificial constraints weighing in on those decisions to offer "bad" deals?

Simply reducing players' BRI guarantees from 57% to 49% would go a long way toward reducing the number and size of bad contracts. And there would be similar effects from tweaking salary guarantees. Both of these are somewhat arbitrary, so how would your argument about teams offering individual players whatever they want make any difference under a 49% scenario? It would still be the same good system for you because teams still could choose whether or not to offer big, long-term guaranteed deals to second- and third-tier players right?

Twinkie defense · Post #445 » by **Twinkie defense** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 7:52 pm

turk3d wrote:I guess most of you have never owned your own business or been in Management responsible for determining employee salaries. Basically, no one holds a gun to your head and dictates what you have to pay someone

Union much?

Star-Lord · Post #446 » by **Star-Lord** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:10 pm

floppymoose wrote:Fishers $$$ is not even in the running for bad nba deals. I know a guy on the Warriors from 1995 to 2010 who made $330 million, and he didn't do crap.

Oh, he did crap. A lot of crap.

Then he tried to feed it to us with a spoon.

Twinkie defense wrote:
turk3d wrote:I guess most of you have never owned your own business or been in Management responsible for determining employee salaries. Basically, no one holds a gun to your head and dictates what you have to pay someone

Union much?

There's a league minimum, and a veteran's minimum...

Why didn't Rowell offer Fish one of those? Why didn't he just match the Lakers offer, for that matter? He wasn't going to get what the Warriors gave him from any other team... maybe the Knicks.

The Maestro · Post #447 » by **The Maestro** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:24 pm

CCIIIs Hair wrote:There's a league minimum, and a veteran's minimum...

Why didn't Rowell offer Fish one of those? Why didn't he just match the Lakers offer, for that matter? He wasn't going to get what the Warriors gave him from any other team... maybe the Knicks.

We just did the same thing with Lee. No other team was going to give him that contract. The Wolves were slightly interested but even they weren't going to give 6 for $80 mil.

Twinkie defense · Post #448 » by **Twinkie defense** » Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:27 pm

When Chris Mullin made that offer to Derek Fisher, was there even any other PG on the roster? Are we supposed to play with no PG? Don't you think if he matched the Lakers offer he would have stayed with the Lakers? The problem is too few good players and too many roster spots - the system is geared to overpay average players like Derek Fisher.

Star-Lord · Post #449 » by **Star-Lord** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:02 am

Twinkie defense wrote:When Chris Mullin made that offer to Derek Fisher, was there even any other PG on the roster? Are we supposed to play with no PG? Don't you think if he matched the Lakers offer he would have stayed with the Lakers? The problem is too few good players and too many roster spots - the system is geared to overpay average players like Derek Fisher.

Maybe he would have stayed in Los Angeles, or maybe he would have observed the state our roster was in, recognized the fact that he was going to get probably double the amount of playing time on the Warriors that he would have gotten on the Lakers at minimum, and still signed with us. That seems somewhat reasonable to me.

Steve Nash was an unrestricted free agent that year, wasn't he? In fact, there were a few point guards available that summer. Travis Best, Troy Hudson, Brevin Knight, Rafer Alston, Steve Blake... Not exactly a cornucopia of fantastic talent, but each of those guys, except for Nash, could have been had for around the same price as Fish, maybe even cheaper (someone would have to look up what kind of deals those guys signed). It's tough to say whether any of those guys would have been a good fit at all at the time, but how much worse could they possibly have been than Fish?

Post #450 » by **floppymoose** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:04 am

This reminds me of when Dick Cheney said anyone critical of the invasion of Iraq was a traitor.

Thinking the owners are trying to rape the players in this lockout doesn't imply thinking that Fisher's contract was good.

turk3d · Post #451 » by **turk3d** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:36 am

Twinkie defense wrote:You don't understand how markets work Turk, salaries are artificially high in the NBA because of a shortage of good players and because of (yes, negotiated) artificial rules governing player compensation.

For instance, the League and the players have together decided that they need teams in all of these markets, and there are benefits to both sides of having so many teams. But if they got rid of some teams, total player compensation would be reduced, and there would be more talent to go around, leading to fewer bad player contracts burdening teams.

This is not at all free market economics (if it were, a bunch of franchises and roster spots would evaporate), which is why antitrust is a potential weapon for the players union. It is an artificial construct, negotiated between the two parties. Teams can't just say no, we're going to draw the line and pay out only $20 mil in salaries - in fact, in the escrow give-back you mention, the League had to come up with an additional $26 million, above and beyond committed player salaries, just in order to get total player compensation up to 57 percent of BRI.

You may say that a team doesn't have to offer a particular player a given salary, but try telling that to the fans when all their players leave once they get off their rookie deals. Every single team has bad salaries - are they all stupid, or are there artificial constraints weighing in on those decisions to offer "bad" deals?

Simply reducing players' BRI guarantees from 57% to 49% would go a long way toward reducing the number and size of bad contracts. And there would be similar effects from tweaking salary guarantees. Both of these are somewhat arbitrary, so how would your argument about teams offering individual players whatever they want make any difference under a 49% scenario? It would still be the same good system for you because teams still could choose whether or not to offer big, long-term guaranteed deals to second- and third-tier players right?

I'm starting you see your POV a little bit better Twinkie (I saw your other post referencing unions and maybe that's what you are really objecting to, but that's another story, unions in general). I like what the union does (BRI) as similar to "employee owned" companies (of which there are many and some pretty good ones out there (Cisco, who I worked for many ago as just one example). The difference is the %s obviously.

At Cisco, they are very careful in their hires, yet sometimes they make mistakes as does any business. The problem I (and probably a few others) is that a lot of them make bad business decisions (Cohan probably being the poster boy for bad decision making so we're all very familiar). Therefore, whatever model is used, I think it has to be implemented from the top. Just kicking the players out and taking basketball away from the fans, I consider like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Owners need to get their act together, they're the one who supposedly are businessmen, players are just "dumb" basketball players. I think this is just Stern's way of kissing up to the owners, (in other words, "it's not your idiots fault, it's the greedy players we'll show them"). If it were the players striking, I might be a little more sympathetic to the owners although I doubt it.

turk3d · Post #452 » by **turk3d** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:22 pm

Seems to be some movement going on between the players and the owners. Here's the latest.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1555 ... rek-fisher

Seems to be some movement going on between the players and the owners. Here's the latest.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1555 ... rek-fisher

While Hunter has taken heat from high-profile agents over his negotiating strategy, Fisher has stood front and center in nearly all of the union's public appearances during the lockout. The 37-year-old, 15-year NBA veteran also has commanded the respect of both sides in the bargaining sessions, which reached a critical juncture this past week with high-level meetings on consecutive days in New York.

An even more crucial phase begins next week, with the two sides bringing their full bargaining committees together Tuesday for a final push before meeting separately with their broader constituents -- the owners at the Board of Governors meeting in Dallas and the players in Las Vegas, both on Thursday. The days between now and then are without a doubt the most important in the NBA since the hours ticked away to salvage a shortened season during the 1998-99 lockout.

According to five people who have been briefed on the negotiations, there has been no formal movement on the two topics that dominated the three sessions over the past two weeks: the split of revenues and the cap system. That could change Tuesday if the owners make a formal proposal, which would be the first in the negotiations since the players added a sixth year to their proposal on June 30.

Seems that Silver may be the key guy.

"The reality is, until one side or the other is ready to make significant movement, nothing is going to happen," one of the people briefed on the talks said.

Star-Lord · Post #453 » by **Star-Lord** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:54 am

floppymoose wrote:This reminds me of when Dick Cheney said anyone critical of the invasion of Iraq was a traitor.

Thinking the owners are trying to rape the players in this lockout doesn't imply thinking that Fisher's contract was good.

It doesn't even mean you're for the players necessarily...

I'd like to see some basketball get played this year. That's not going to happen until both sides get reasonable. Until recently, the owners were the side being much less rational in their demands. That's not to say the players have it right, but they've been the more malleable party throughout this lockout.

It'd be kinda nice to see some common sense prevail, just this once.

Post #454 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:02 am

I heard today that the owners get paid tv contract money for this season whether games air or not. I don't know whether to believe that, but if so it greatly reduces any pressure on the owners. I'm amazed the networks agreed to pay guaranteed money for games that might not happen.

Either way, nobody is getting paid. Save for the owners, who will still take in that sweet and equally-shared national TV money, even with no games.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba-wp8254

Meanwhile, I just found this article from the fivethirtyeight.com guy, Nate Silver, on the nba collective bargaining situation:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -distress/

It's interesting to note that the players made an offer long long ago to drop player salaries down to 54.5% of revenues, which is right where the other 3 major sports are. Which side is being unreasonable again? The owners have proposed 40% go to players, a much much smaller portion than in any of the other 3 majors.

The full article can be seen here:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -distress/

A portion of it:

In some ways, the N.B.A.’s present condition closely resembles that of Major League baseball before its 1994-95 strike. Baseball was still profitable as a whole in advance of the strike, but about one-third of its teams had lost money in 1993, according to Forbes, while just four teams accounted for almost half of all league profits.

The solution that baseball has since adopted — greater revenue sharing in lieu of a salary cap — could also be a natural one for the N.B.A.: the profits made by the Knicks, Bulls and Lakers alone would be enough to cover the losses of all 17 unprofitable teams. (Players might have some reason to object to revenue sharing — some versions of it are the economic equivalent of a tax on player salaries — but they would probably prefer it to the more draconian measures that the league will try to impose.)

Another way in which the N.B.A. resembles baseball, unfortunately, is by having circulated financial data that doesn’t necessarily hold up to scrutiny. In 2001, Major League Baseball issued figures suggesting that it had incurred losses of $232 million before interest and taxes; Forbes’s independent estimates instead suggested that the league had made a profit of $127 million.

Twinkie defense · Post #455 » by **Twinkie defense** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:11 am

In the new NFL agreement, I think it's 49%... For some reason he is using 2010 numbers.

The NFL tv rights also guaranteed money even without games played... Why would tv do it? They probably would have to pay more if they didn't. League got insurance, tv got a discount.

Which means the players could have a claim for part of the difference, whatever that might be.

Also, note NBA is highest of them all, and teams are losing money. Yes it's real surprising there is no basketball!

And Forbes has already said they were guestimating, and backtracked on their NBA projections.

Post #456 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:03 am

And none of that addresses the real issue of how to split up the pie, which has been split right around 55% across the other leagues recently, and yet somehow the players union are the bad guys for offering 54.5% as an opening offer, while the owners are the good guys at 40%.

Twinkie defense · Post #457 » by **Twinkie defense** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:40 pm

I hadn't heard that the League had put 40% on the table, but even if they did, that's just a first offer. It shows how serious they are about reducing costs. And who's saying the players are bad guys? I would only say they have been in denial.

Post #458 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:09 pm

Twinkie defense wrote:If I am not mistaken the League has put two deals on the table and the Union has yet to put their own deal on the table or even seriously discuss the existing deals on the table, so I'm not sure you can cavalierly say the players have acted in good faith while the League has not.

turk3d · Post #459 » by **turk3d** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:38 am

Twinkie defense wrote:I hadn't heard that the League had put 40% on the table, but even if they did, that's just a first offer. It shows how serious they are about reducing costs. And who's saying the players are bad guys? I would only say they have been in denial.

So I guess it's alright for the league to low ball the players (that's cool) but if the players were to do likewise then that makes them the bad guys? If not, then negotiations are negotiations, regardless of who they come from. And how are they in denial? If anyone is in denial, it'st the owners.

The players are now getting scooped up left and right by overseas teams and the longer this thing goes, the more difficult it's going to be to have a season. The players may make less, but at least they'll be making something (possibly double-dipping for a while if they're still on the NBA payroll which could last up till November).

In the meantime the owners are shut down and they did it to themselves. You think they lost money previously, wait till you see how much they lose if there's no season. At least most of the players will have jobs making the millions and unless they're like Latrell Sprewell (they think they need multiple millions to feed there families rather than just a few if they even have families) they're going to be pretty comfortable.

If the owners don't watch out and the season doesn't get paid some billionaire (or a few of them) will start another professional league in the states. Book it! The players may never make as much as they once did (which a lot of us want) but they'll do fine and still be playing basketball while a lot of those owners will lose that nice asset they had and tax writeoff (in some case) not to mention all the lawsuits they'll be hit with (mostly class action).

Twinkie defense · Post #460 » by **Twinkie defense** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:40 am

I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to Show floppy. I'm not calling anyone out. "bad faith" was just my quesrion to someone claiming the owners are acting in bad faith, which they have not. My onlybpoint is the players got anhell of a del last time, and they will have to suck it up and take a hit this time if they want there to be a season.

And turk I don't see how a lack of a seasn is supposed to hurt the owners so much - when you're losing money it helps a lot if you
Don't have to pay salaries (and you're still making tv money).

Ps damn ipad, but I'm not gonna bother with trying to edit and rewrite!