Owners don't want to deal, want to destroy players

[Rush]

So first, let’s start off with the initial owners proposal: According to NBA executives familiar with the league’s strategies, once the lockout is in place, the owners will push for a hard salary cap of $45 million, the elimination of guaranteed contracts and ask that the players swallow a 33 percent salary cut. Yeah, so...

Go to Source For Full Article: Bulls Confidential...

By: Doug Thonus

 

[DCguy]

Interesting article. It seems like alot of these owners are trying to use the players to help them pay for some bad business decisions they made outside of basketballs. Like the Maloofs are trying to do.

 

[BNB]

An average NBA player makes 5.8 million a year. That's more than any other sport in the world, and more than any other job in the world. That's what they said on First Take this morning.

22 out of 30 teams in the league are losing money.

Players want their contracts to be guranteed, long years on the contracts, and they want a soft cap so they can sign for however much they want with their current team.

I'm sorry, but the players seem to be the greedy ones here.

The NBA wants to take the NFL path with the whole hard cap thing and less money guaranteed.. which I don't have a problem with.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

^valid point..i think there's greed on both sides and the players and owners are really far apart on this subject

what will be important is when the players stop getting paid around november 15th

 

[GaelicSoxFan]

Already started the lockout thread Rush.

 

[Crystallas]

Doug pushing his agenda again.

 

[DCguy]

I think the players deserve guaranteed contracts since their career's are short compared to other professions. Team owners make money in other areas so they just want to short change the players. The owners are greatly exaggerating their loses.

 

[clonetrooper264]

An average NBA player makes 5.8 million a year. That's more than any other sport in the world, and more than any other job in the world. That's what they said on First Take this morning.

22 out of 30 teams in the league are losing money.

Players want their contracts to be guranteed, long years on the contracts, and they want a soft cap so they can sign for however much they want with their current team.

I'm sorry, but the players seem to be the greedy ones here.

The NBA wants to take the NFL path with the whole hard cap thing and less money guaranteed.. which I don't have a problem with.

I think both sides are being ridiculous. I find it really hard to believe that 22 out of 30 teams are losing that much money. If that's the case, then they need to freaking improve their teams. I mean...I can understand Cleveland, Detroit, Golden State, and the Clippers losing money because their teams are terrible, and I can understand the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Bulls, OKC, and Spurs making money because their teams are good. If all the other mediocre teams are not even breaking even, they need to change the way they run and market their teams.

As for the players, they get enough money as it is. They should require scholarship athletes to take a finance class in college so they don't do stupid stuff like buy 8 cars once they're in the NBA. I know a lot of them grew up in poverty stricken ghettos and whatnot and they're entitled to splurge a bit, but come on. They don't need to be making that much money anyway. A lot of them don't even deserve a lot of their money.

In the end, I think the owners win overall. Maybe not to the extreme extent of what they propose, but teams will be pretty restricted in terms of moves they can make after all this. Sucks for us...probably won't be able to afford a better SG and might barely be able to extend Rose.

 

[BNB]

I think the players deserve guaranteed contracts since their career's are short compared to other professions. Team owners make money in other areas so they just want to short change the players. The owners are greatly exaggerating their loses.

The NBA owners just don't want 100% of the contracts to be guaranteed... just a portion of it.

When you sign a guy for 5 years 100 million dollars and he either get sinjured or stops caring and you HAVE to pay him all of that 100 million dollars, it can really screw over a team.. like it has already done so many times in the past.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

My one hope in all of this is it breaks up the Miami Heat. I don't think that will be the case though.

 

[clonetrooper264]

My one hope in all of this is it breaks up the Miami Heat. I don't think that will be the case though.

That'd be nice, but perhaps they'll just be sucks with the big 3 and lose everyone else that's remotely decent on their team. But they'd still win 50 games with those 3 and a bunch of DLeagers...

 

[BNB]

I think both sides are being ridiculous. I find it really hard to believe that 22 out of 30 teams are losing that much money. If that's the case, then they need to freaking improve their teams. I mean...I can understand Cleveland, Detroit, Golden State, and the Clippers losing money because their teams are terrible, and I can understand the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Bulls, OKC, and Spurs making money because their teams are good. If all the other mediocre teams are not even breaking even, they need to change the way they run and market their teams.

As for the players, they get enough money as it is. They should require scholarship athletes to take a finance class in college so they don't do stupid stuff like buy 8 cars once they're in the NBA. I know a lot of them grew up in poverty stricken ghettos and whatnot and they're entitled to splurge a bit, but come on. They don't need to be making that much money anyway. A lot of them don't even deserve a lot of their money.

In the end, I think the owners win overall. Maybe not to the extreme extent of what they propose, but teams will be pretty restricted in terms of moves they can make after all this. Sucks for us...probably won't be able to afford a better SG and might barely be able to extend Rose.

I heard someone say that it was closer to 10 teams losing money than 22 teams.. but still, no teams should be losing money.

And in the previous CBA, it was almost impossible to build a current team. The only reason why small market teams were ever any good is because of guys they drafted... but eventually, all of those guys ended up leaving via FA or trades, all because the team couldn't afford to bring in more talent.

seriously though, look at the small market teams that have had success. Why did they have success? Because of the way they drafted. Minny got lucky with KG, but then he was traded to a big market in Boston. Memphis drafted Gasol, then he was traded to LA. CLE drafted LBJ, then he left to MIA. Raptors drafted Bosh, then he left for MIA. Raptors also had Tmac and Vince carter a decade ago and they both left.

Teams with a lot of money can afford to bring in high price free agents and trade for bigger contracts to make their team better. Thy can also give out bigger contracts to retain their players.

That's why the CBA that just passed sucked.

 

[DCguy]

The NBA owners just don't want 100% of the contracts to be guaranteed... just a portion of it.

When you sign a guy for 5 years 100 million dollars and he either get sinjured or stops caring and you HAVE to pay him all of that 100 million dollars, it can really screw over a team.. like it has already done so many times in the past.

I see your point, but also a lot of owners sign players to questionable deals and then cry foul when they act up or decide not to play. That doesn't mean that every player should suffer for management/ownership making bad deals. That means they need to do their homework a little better. When your career life span on an average is like 3-5 years, those guys deserve their deals to be guaranteed.

 

[BNB]

I see your point, but also a lot of owners sign players to questionable deals and then cry foul when they act up or decide not to play. That doesn't mean that every player should suffer for management/ownership making bad deals. That means they need to do their homework a little better. When your career life span on an average is like 3-5 years, those guys deserve their deals to be guaranteed.

you can't tell the future for injuries though. See the wizards and Gibert Arenas as an example. That's also a good example of not knowing if a player is gonna bring a gun to a locker room or not.

also, if a player makes 500K in one season after taxes, that's as much as some people make in 10 years. But no player makes that little in the NBA... even rookies drafted in the late first round that never play make over 1.2 million.

If they play a couple years in the NBA and save their money, they should have no problem living a comfortbale life. These guys just blow their money on stupid shit then go broke after 5 years.

Or if they don't make it in the NBA, they can just go back to school like the rest of us and get a degree so they can get another job.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I heard someone say that it was closer to 10 teams losing money than 22 teams.. but still, no teams should be losing money.

And in the previous CBA, it was almost impossible to build a current team. The only reason why small market teams were ever any good is because of guys they drafted... but eventually, all of those guys ended up leaving via FA or trades, all because the team couldn't afford to bring in more talent.

seriously though, look at the small market teams that have had success. Why did they have success? Because of the way they drafted. Minny got lucky with KG, but then he was traded to a big market in Boston. Memphis drafted Gasol, then he was traded to LA. CLE drafted LBJ, then he left to MIA. Raptors drafted Bosh, then he left for MIA. Raptors also had Tmac and Vince carter a decade ago and they both left.

Teams with a lot of money can afford to bring in high price free agents and trade for bigger contracts to make their team better. Thy can also give out bigger contracts to retain their players.

That's why the CBA that just passed sucked.

Well then perhaps they shouldn't have put themselves in such small markets. But really, there's only so many big cities to put yourself in. LA has 2 freaking teams for crying out loud.

Sucky teams get good picks in the draft, that's how it works. They don't get players because their team continues to suck anyway (or in Cleveland's case, it's just a crap city) not because they can't afford them (though I guess they might be losing so much money anyway that it doesn't matter much).

I do think things like Bird rights are fair because if a team is at or near or over the cap they wouldn't otherwise be able to resign their star player. Imagine if we couldn't extend Rose because there was a hard cap. What would we blame? Probably the CBA first and then Boozer's contract. xD But seriously, the reason a lot of teams are probably losing money is because they are overpaying the crap out of their players. There is no reason Joe Johnson should be making that much money...or Brenden Haywood, or lots of other players.

 

[Crystallas]

Nobody deserves a guaranteed contract. If you play, you get paid, if you get hurt, you have arguably the best medical coverage in the world. How on earth do you get a bad deal by making MILLIONS?

I bet the rest of the world would LOVE to have that kind of a deal, where they can make money within the top 5% of the world within their first season.

Here is an idea, if owners have to provide their expenses, so do the players. Fair right? So far, the owners expenses are being presented within maybe a 7% margin of unaccountability/privacy. Its not perfect, but it's on the table. The players should take out their "feeler" ideals of what they think they should make, and provide proof to justify the costs.

What am I advocating for? Better venues and lower ticket costs. Why? Because I'm a fan of the game. How do we get there? Sure as hell not by giving into the players crying about their $10 million not being $15.

 

[clonetrooper264]

you can't tell the future for injuries though. See the wizards and Gibert Arenas as an example. That's also a good example of not knowing if a player is gonna bring a gun to a locker room or not.

also, if a player makes 500K in one season after taxes, that's as much as some people make in 10 years. But no player makes that little in the NBA... even rookies drafted in the late first round that never play make over 1.2 million.

If they play a couple years in the NBA and save their money, they should have no problem living a comfortbale life. These guys just blow their money on stupid shit then go broke after 5 years.

Or if they don't make it in the NBA, they can just go back to school like the rest of us and get a degree so they can get another job.

Except a lot of pro athletes are stupid so they do waste their money on random crap. Look at Scottie, he lost all his money in some way. Randy Brown wanted to sell his championship ring. There's tons more examples I'm sure. Players need an education so that they won't be freaking idiots once they start making more money than all the people that aren't blessed with that kind of talent...

 

[DCguy]

you can't tell the future for injuries though. See the wizards and Gibert Arenas as an example. That's also a good example of not knowing if a player is gonna bring a gun to a locker room or not.

also, if a player makes 500K in one season after taxes, that's as much as some people make in 10 years. But no player makes that little in the NBA... even rookies drafted in the late first round that never play make over 1.2 million.

If they play a couple years in the NBA and save their money, they should have no problem living a comfortbale life. These guys just blow their money on stupid shit then go broke after 5 years.

Or if they don't make it in the NBA, they can just go back to school like the rest of us and get a degree so they can get another job.

I agree with the unpredictability with injuries. But the Wizards signed Arenas after his injury and knowing he wasn't listening to their doctors after he told them he was doing his own thing. Then after the gun incident they wanted the public to feel sorry for them for them.

Even teams that aren't very good still get money because they are having fans for the opposing team buying tickets. I know for the Bobcats that's the case and for the Wizards. Those are the two teams I know personally that get heavy crowds for opposing teams, so the owners are still getting money, just not for people coming to see their team

Yes they should be able to save their money, sadly most don't. Both sides should give up somethings, but the owners to me seem to be a little more hard this time.

 

[Crystallas]

Yeah, but you don't make leaguewide rules based on the exceptions that happen. It's bad business for an owner/backer to throw a player out after an injury. The backlash will cost them far more, than being sensible.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Imo not paying an injured player is like kicking him out onto the street. It just makes them seem more and more like tools for owners to make a profit (which is pretty much how the owners see them I think).