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

[BNB]

Oh come off it. How many players do that? I can only think of one and that's eddie curry. Im sure there's more but not to the point that you can use it as a point of reference.

Well... there's a lot of players that get injured..

and I shouldn't say players "stop caring"

But after they get their money and they know it's guaranteed, they stop trying to improve or don't play up to their contract. And that happens a lot.

 

[BNB]

Parity won't work in the NBA, the NBA is a superstar driven league...leave parity to the NFL. You need stars and great teams for the league to thrive. Spreading talent by force like that will only hurt the league in the long run. I don't like that idea at all...

I think it would work.

Better than stacking 5-6 teams now and knowing that one of those teams will win the title every year and just have 25 average/shitty teams in the league.

That's what ends up hurting a league... like the MLB.


It seriously feel like overall, the same teams in the NBA are fighting for a title year after year and a team like Memphis is happy to make it to the second round. If the system stays the same, there is no way a team like Memphis would be able to make it to the second round because eventually, their players would somehow leave and join a team that can pay him more money.

I would hate to know what it's like to root for a basketball team that I KNOW will never compete for a title.

In the NFL, anyone has a chance... and that's part of the reason why it's so popular

 

[houheffna]

I think it would work.

Better than stacking 5-6 teams now and knowing that one of those teams will win the title every year and just have 25 average/shitty teams in the league.

That's what ends up hurting a league... like the MLB.


It seriously feel like overall, the same teams in the NBA are fighting for a title year after year and a team like Memphis is happy to make it to the second round. If the system stays the same, there is no way a team like Memphis would be able to make it to the second round because eventually, their players would somehow leave and join a team that can pay him more money.

I would hate to know what it's like to root for a basketball team that I KNOW will never compete for a title.

In the NFL, anyone has a chance... and that's part of the reason why it's so popular

That is exactly what happened in the 1990's. A few good teams and 25 shitty teams. And the league flourished. It didn't exactly hurt it this year did it? Parity does NOT work in the NBA. The league is known for its absolutes. Going back 30 years plus, there have always been a handful of contenders and the rest of the league. Nothing has or should change.

Contraction is more important...and yes players should leave and go where they can win. That should be top priority. Minnesota is losing because management sucks!!! Look at how Kahn is running things up there. Contract 6 teams and the league will be fine. But players should be able to go where they want to go, just as Lebron did last year. Gilbert is complaining because he spent years catering to Lebron to the detriment of the other teammates. That is Gilbert's fault, stop whining and rebuild. Markets that can't support the NBA, shouldn't have teams. San Antonio for example has benefited from the NBA system, which got them two generational superstars through the draft...both decided to stay, but they also have good management and personnel people there. That makes a difference.

I say contract the teams, Lebron said that and the union was very upset with him...but he is right. Spreading talent means no great teams and a bunch of mediocre teams. Thanks but no thanks. I put up with that enough in college basketball and the NFL.

 

[Kush77]

I agree with Hou on the parity. I do not want parity in the NBA. I hate the parity in the NFL. I don't like it when every team is evenly matched up.

Look at last year's NFL playoffs - a 7-win team beat the defending Superbowl champ. The eventual Superbowl champ need to win their way in. If the Bears played a slightly better game in Green Bay, we'd have a different SB champ.

I understand the players need to make some concessions here, NBA teams are losing money, unlike the NFL. But I do not want a hard cap. I hope the players dig in on that.

I hate salary caps, they are dynasty prevention. Hard salary caps punish teams that draft/develop well and make good moves. We need to look no further than our very own Chicago Blackhawks. It's a damn shame that an f'ing salary cap led to the fire sale of the defending Stanley Cup Champs.

Let's look at the Bulls - if there was a hard cap in place. If you had Deng's deal, and you can't get rid of it, you wouldn't have been able to sign Noah - because you eventually have to sign Rose. (That would be the case if a hard cap had been in place a few years ago).

I hope the players give in some, they'll have to. But no hard cap. PLEASE!

 

[BNB]

That is exactly what happened in the 1990's. A few good teams and 25 shitty teams. And the league flourished. It didn't exactly hurt it this year did it? Parity does NOT work in the NBA. The league is known for its absolutes. Going back 30 years plus, there have always been a handful of contenders and the rest of the league. Nothing has or should change.

Contraction is more important...and yes players should leave and go where they can win. That should be top priority. Minnesota is losing because management sucks!!! Look at how Kahn is running things up there. Contract 6 teams and the league will be fine. But players should be able to go where they want to go, just as Lebron did last year. Gilbert is complaining because he spent years catering to Lebron to the detriment of the other teammates. That is Gilbert's fault, stop whining and rebuild. Markets that can't support the NBA, shouldn't have teams. San Antonio for example has benefited from the NBA system, which got them two generational superstars through the draft...both decided to stay, but they also have good management and personnel people there. That makes a difference.

I say contract the teams, Lebron said that and the union was very upset with him...but he is right. Spreading talent means no great teams and a bunch of mediocre teams. Thanks but no thanks. I put up with that enough in college basketball and the NFL.

this year was a good year for ratings. Overall TV ratings went up... but ticket sales for a lot of teams went down.

I really don't see why parity is so bad for the NBA. What's wrong with having talent more spread out? If anything, fans get sick of watching the same teams win over and over again... no, there won't be stacked teams like LA and Miami, but who cares? Gives more teams an oppurtunity to compete for a title which would just help the fan base grow.

You said the league flourished in the 90's. why was that? Because finally a team was taking over that wasn't named the Lakers or Celtics and there was MJ. Also, the league flourished accoriding NBA standards. In the early 80's, the NBA was struggling until Magic and Bird came along to save it.

and while the NBA is still gaining popularity [according to TV ratings] it still isn't anywhere near the NFL.

Contracting teams would just hurt the league. Not only would a lot of jobs be lost, but fans would be lost as well. If you're a big cavs fan and your team gets taken away, you'll probably lose some interest in the NBA. I know if the Bulls left Chicago or were contracted, I would lose interest. I'm still a huge NBA fan so I'd still watch.. but if I have no one to root for and the same teams keep winning, I'd get kinda bored after a while.

"Spreading talent means no great teams and a bunch of mediocre teams. Thanks but no thanks. I put up with that enough in college basketball and the NFL"

WHAT?! Yeah, the past couple of seasons college basketball hasn't had great teams, but there have been great teams in college basketball for a while...

and the NFL doesn't have great teams? Are you serious? The pats going undeafeted a few years ago in the regular season wasn't a great team? And the times they finished 14-2 a few times wasn't great? The steelers teams? The early 00's ravens? The Cowboys in the 90's? Hell, the packers were a great team even with 100 injuries... the Saints 2 seasons were a great team... etc.

The difference between the NFL and NBA is... you never know what's gonna happen in the NFL. That's what makes it so exciting. Every year there's a new team that comes out of nowhere and fights for the title. yeah, in the NBA there are a few surprised too, like the Mavs winnings. But that's the thing, the Mavs were the 2nd best team in the West and people are SHOCKED they won a title because they were just expecting La to get there again.

The NBA's popularity has grown in the past few seasons because of the stories, more than anything. Kobe winning without Shaq. Phil Jackson getting the most rings as a HC. Big 3 teaming in Boston. Miami's Big 3 and everyone wanting them to lose. Some people were tuning in to watch just to see that kinda stuff, they weren't even watching to see good basketball. when the Spurs and Pistons were in the finals, the ratings were low because there were no good stories. They both already won a ring. The funny thing is.. before that season started, I called SA over DET in 7 in the finals. And that's what happened.

 

[BNB]

I agree with Hou on the parity. I do not want parity in the NBA. I hate the parity in the NFL. I don't like it when every team is evenly matched up.

Look at last year's NFL playoffs - a 7-win team beat the defending Superbowl champ. The eventual Superbowl champ need to win their way in. If the Bears played a slightly better game in Green Bay, we'd have a different SB champ.

I understand the players need to make some concessions here, NBA teams are losing money, unlike the NFL. But I do not want a hard cap. I hope the players dig in on that.

I hate salary caps, they are dynasty prevention. Hard salary caps punish teams that draft/develop well and make good moves. We need to look no further than our very own Chicago Blackhawks. It's a damn shame that an f'ing salary cap led to the fire sale of the defending Stanley Cup Champs.

Let's look at the Bulls - if there was a hard cap in place. If you had Deng's deal, and you can't get rid of it, you wouldn't have been able to sign Noah - because you eventually have to sign Rose. (That would be the case if a hard cap had been in place a few years ago).

I hope the players give in some, they'll have to. But no hard cap. PLEASE!

How the hell is that a bad thing? Upsets are exciting and get the fans interested. That's why the NCAA tournament is so fun to watch and why the NFL is fun to watch. You never know what's going to happen!


"The eventual Superbowl champ need to win their way in. If the Bears played a slightly better game in Green Bay, we'd have a different SB champ."

So... didn't the Pakcers win their way in?

"I hate salary caps, they are dynasty prevention."

So that patriots aren't a dynasty? If the Steelers won, they would have been a dynasty. The PAckers could easily be one.


"Let's look at the Bulls - if there was a hard cap in place. If you had Deng's deal, and you can't get rid of it, you wouldn't have been able to sign Noah - because you eventually have to sign Rose. (That would be the case if a hard cap had been in place a few years ago)."

if there was a hard cap in place, Deng would have never signed for that much money. No player in the NBA would sign for more than 15 million a year. The problem of not keeping players wouldn't be a problem if the players took less money.

 

[Kush77]

How the hell is that a bad thing? Upsets are exciting and get the fans interested. That's why the NCAA tournament is so fun to watch and why the NFL is fun to watch. You never know what's going to happen!

"The eventual Superbowl champ need to win their way in. If the Bears played a slightly better game in Green Bay, we'd have a different SB champ."

So... didn't the Pakcers win their way in?

"I hate salary caps, they are dynasty prevention."

So that patriots aren't a dynasty? If the Steelers won, they would have been a dynasty. The PAckers could easily be one.


"Let's look at the Bulls - if there was a hard cap in place. If you had Deng's deal, and you can't get rid of it, you wouldn't have been able to sign Noah - because you eventually have to sign Rose. (That would be the case if a hard cap had been in place a few years ago)."

if there was a hard cap in place, Deng would have never signed for that much money. No player in the NBA would sign for more than 15 million a year. The problem of not keeping players wouldn't be a problem if the players took less money.

No, upsets are exciting when they happen to great teams. Like when the Broncos beat the Packers in the Superbowl back in Jan of 98 (1997 season).
When a team beats another team in the NFL, I'm not shocked. a 7 win Seattle team beat the defending Super Bowl champs. The Packers just sneak in the playoffs, and win 3 road games. How, because there are no great teams.

Sure the Pats won 3 out of 4 titles. They also missed the playoffs completely the year they didn't win. But those Pats teams would get their ass kick by any of the other dynasties in the NFL, because they did it in this weak parity era. The two years the Steelers won the Superbowl they missed the playoffs the next year. I wouldn't be shocked if the Packers missed the playoffs this year. Why? Because it's the NFL.

Hard salary caps are dynasty prevention. Period. They punish team that have success. No thanks for the NBA. the NBA cap system is just fine. The Pats are the one exception because they got great QB. That's the one thing that will always keep you competitive despite the parity, like Indianapolis.

And look at baseball, no cap at all, and they have the most parity of any sport. The Yanks had their nice stretch of titles, but outside of that you have the Blue Jays back-to-back in the early 90s and the Yanks in the late 70s - and that's it. Baseball had a different champ every year in the 80s and a team hasn't repeated since the Yanks in 2000.

I don't like parity. I don't like teams winning 12 games one year, 6 the next. In the Superbowl one year, miss the playoffs the next.

The Bears go to the Superbowl, then miss the playoffs three straight years. How good were they really in this parity era?

Screw parity, I like to watch dynasties. I like to watch great teams. and when those great teams lose - it's all the better. Like the 1997 Packers, like the 1990 49ers, the Yankees in 2001, the Lakers in 2004 etc.

 

[clonetrooper264]

How the hell is that a bad thing? Upsets are exciting and get the fans interested. That's why the NCAA tournament is so fun to watch and why the NFL is fun to watch. You never know what's going to happen!


"The eventual Superbowl champ need to win their way in. If the Bears played a slightly better game in Green Bay, we'd have a different SB champ."

So... didn't the Pakcers win their way in?

"I hate salary caps, they are dynasty prevention."

So that patriots aren't a dynasty? If the Steelers won, they would have been a dynasty. The PAckers could easily be one.


"Let's look at the Bulls - if there was a hard cap in place. If you had Deng's deal, and you can't get rid of it, you wouldn't have been able to sign Noah - because you eventually have to sign Rose. (That would be the case if a hard cap had been in place a few years ago)."

if there was a hard cap in place, Deng would have never signed for that much money. No player in the NBA would sign for more than 15 million a year. The problem of not keeping players wouldn't be a problem if the players took less money.

But we all know that players are going to try to get every single penny they can. Switching to a hard cap right now would cripple a lot of teams. Unless there's some kind of magic proportionate salary reduction to go along with the hard cap (which the players would never agree to anyway, but hypothetically speaking) there's no way that the good teams could retain their talent. I suppose that would net the parity that you want seeing as the Lakers would likely have to give up Odom, Bynum, and Gasol (2 of the 3 at least) due to Kobe's contract, we'd have to give up Deng, Boozer, Noah, or God forbid Rose, Miami and Boston would have to give up at least one of the big 3, and the list goes on. But I guess if you really want spontaneity you could do the playoffs as a 1 game per series thing like football. Since any team can beat another on a given night in the playoffs most times, there would probably be quite a few upsets.

 

[clonetrooper264]

And Kush, THANK YOU for posting more. Missed your insight. Now all we need is Fred to come here and start yelling at everyone. xD I'm sure he'd have a field day with some people here.

 

[houheffna]

I have heard that some variation of the Bird's rights rule will still be allowed, especially when it comes to drafted players. So from that standpoint, the league will not have a NHL style hard cap. We will see. But I guarantee you this, make the league mediocre and take away teams who are great consistently and the league will drop. That is not the character of the NBA, not at all...

 

[clonetrooper264]

All players and teams aside, I just thought of this while reading a couple espn articles and Doug's blog among other things. Owners are pretty much all billionaires. Where did they make their money? Business. It was only then that they bought an NBA team. It's not like losing a few million is a big deal to them. They're set for life and they most likely have very profitable business ventures outside the basketball world that they can rely on for hundreds upon hundreds of millions a year. How else do you think they got to be owners? If their team is seriously losing so much money that they can't rely on their other business ventures or stocks to "survive" then they need to either manage their team better (hello Minnesota) or sell the team (Detroit I believe did that).

 

[Crystallas]

All players and teams aside, I just thought of this while reading a couple espn articles and Doug's blog among other things. Owners are pretty much all billionaires. Where did they make their money? Business. It was only then that they bought an NBA team. It's not like losing a few million is a big deal to them. They're set for life and they most likely have very profitable business ventures outside the basketball world that they can rely on for hundreds upon hundreds of millions a year. How else do you think they got to be owners? If their team is seriously losing so much money that they can't rely on their other business ventures or stocks to "survive" then they need to either manage their team better (hello Minnesota) or sell the team (Detroit I believe did that).

So wait, you're saying that these businessmen, who often are philanthropists, should have less money to donate to projects and charities that matter them them, so they can give more to the rich? NBA owners aren't mega-million's jackpot winners who don't know what to do with their Scrooge McDuck fortunes, so they swim in it.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

^simply put....if spending continues to expand like it has been at such a rapid rate...you wont be avoiding the conflict...you'll just be making it worse

 

[DCguy]

The owners need to look at themselves, they are the ones spending money on average NBA talent then saying they can't make money. No one forced the Timberwolves to sign Darko, no one says anything about Donald Sterling not caring enough to really build the Clippers while he sits there and rake in the tv revenue because he is in L.A. The owners were their own worse enemy in this past CBA, but unfortunately the players are going to have to pay for the owners bad decisions.

 

[Crystallas]

The owners need to look at themselves, they are the ones spending money on average NBA talent then saying they can't make money. No one forced the Timberwolves to sign Darko, no one says anything about Donald Sterling not caring enough to really build the Clippers while he sits there and rake in the tv revenue because he is in L.A. The owners were their own worse enemy in this past CBA, but unfortunately the players are going to have to pay for the owners bad decisions.

Easier said than done. Every team needs to invest in players to compete. You win some, you lose some. With the current CBA, and this Special person idea of guaranteed contracts for bad players, there is no way for a regressing market to compete with the big market teams, unless they get lucky in a draft, or they overpay to keep players. There will always be bad contracts in pro-sports, if someone can solve that problem, you would be the first to do so in the world history of organized trade.

I am really amazed that a lot of people don't read past the bullshit being fed to us, between taking the players and owners sides here. Take the fan's side. And this CBA, I am in favor of the players taking a cut, because that is the only way to get ticket prices, down, balance the small market teams books, and make the NBA soluble as a whole. I do take a stance, that aligns with the owners, but I am not taking their side blindly. Think about what would be better for the fans. Players that take paycuts, and don't play as hard will screw up their own self-interests, so that is a bad theory. Owners that can cough up an extra million here or there, as if they wipe their asses with federal reserve notes, that's absurd.

Stern does need to go. He is too invested with many of the long time owners, and he grants a double-standard to the Donald Sterlings of this league.

 

[DCguy]

Easier said than done. Every team needs to invest in players to compete. You win some, you lose some. With the current CBA, and this Special person idea of guaranteed contracts for bad players, there is no way for a regressing market to compete with the big market teams, unless they get lucky in a draft, or they overpay to keep players. There will always be bad contracts in pro-sports, if someone can solve that problem, you would be the first to do so in the world history of organized trade.

I am really amazed that a lot of people don't read past the bullshit being fed to us, between taking the players and owners sides here. Take the fan's side. And this CBA, I am in favor of the players taking a cut, because that is the only way to get ticket prices, down, balance the small market teams books, and make the NBA soluble as a whole. I do take a stance, that aligns with the owners, but I am not taking their side blindly. Think about what would be better for the fans. Players that take paycuts, and don't play as hard will screw up their own self-interests, so that is a bad theory. Owners that can cough up an extra million here or there, as if they wipe their asses with federal reserve notes, that's absurd.

Stern does need to go. He is too invested with many of the long time owners, and he grants a double-standard to the Donald Sterlings of this league.

I don't think the players taking a pay cut will lower ticket prices. For years owners have been feeding us lines that player's salaries were the reasons ticket prices were the way they were. When in actuality it went with how good their teams were. They only lowered their ticket prices when their team weren't winning to attract people to come. Now the players take a paycut, I bet the owners will temporarily lower ticket prices to bring fans back, then after a few years, it will go right back up, because they are still trying to generate more money so they will take from the players, and continue to take from us fans as well.

 

[clonetrooper264]

So wait, you're saying that these businessmen, who often are philanthropists, should have less money to donate to projects and charities that matter them them, so they can give more to the rich? NBA owners aren't mega-million's jackpot winners who don't know what to do with their Scrooge McDuck fortunes, so they swim in it.

No, I'm saying that rich businessmen who are running these teams purely to make more money (regardless of what it's used for) shouldn't be complaining about bad contracts and such to players and how it's making them lose all this money. It's not like they're living off of the team or something. I think the players should take a paycut too since their salaries are freaking ridiculous, but I'm saying that owners complaining about losing all sorts of money due to player contracts is not the players' fault, it's the owners'. You don't think this guy is worth x amount of dollars? Don't pay him that much. I think that pushing for no guaranteed contracts whatsoever is over the top, but partial guarantees is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Crystallas]

I don't think the players taking a pay cut will lower ticket prices. For years owners have been feeding us lines that player's salaries were the reasons ticket prices were the way they were. When in actuality it went with how good their teams were. They only lowered their ticket prices when their team weren't winning to attract people to come. Now the players take a paycut, I bet the owners will temporarily lower ticket prices to bring fans back, then after a few years, it will go right back up, because they are still trying to generate more money so they will take from the players, and continue to take from us fans as well.

Understanding how the business cycle works in free market economics, displays the curve of how things like ticket prices are affected.

Now, if your point is, ticket prices will not go lower, for the most part, this is true. But there are instances where teams are able to lower ticket prices as a simple supply/demand measure to sell the tickets. Not all teams have this problem, but the ones who don't have the flexibility, are the ones who suffer the most.

Now, raising player salaries do raise ticket prices. So instead of a stable price at purchase, we see increases that ADD to the speculative market values of where the ticket prices should be at. If the cheapest ticket for a Bulls game is $30 now from the box-office for a normal game pre-speculative market adjustments, and salaries are lowered, the speculation can drive the prices up, but the actual cost of the tickets are stable. When payrolls increase, the box-office price goes up, and the speculative values also increase.

To add to the problem, NBA owners have investments in the NBA's Developmental League, and the domino effect causes the smaller markets who have NBADL teams to also pay higher prices, as part of a tactic used in small areas to monopolize pro-sporting entertainment in cities that have no alternatives. At no point does raising the salaries of the player make the league more solvent to its needs and obligations that were set fourth, and negotiated by both sides of the representation. Therefore the money needs to come from somewhere? Where does the money come from? The owners don't print it on trees, this is a business, they pass that cost down to us every time.

 

[BNB]

So Crystallas, what kind of cap would you want for the NBA? Out of curiosity.. unless you mentioned it somewhere and I skipped it

 

[Crystallas]

So Crystallas, what kind of cap would you want for the NBA? Out of curiosity.. unless you mentioned it somewhere and I skipped it

Personally, I think the caps should be set based on direct revenue. I prefer scale to fixed measurements, because the scales are always a guideline on performance, and an incentive for the owners, players, and league to work within their self interest.

If a team generates more revenue, the factors always include the market, record, global platforms, and many other possibilities that are applied to how they make or lose money. So let me use two examples, a big market(market size is generally determined by active fan base, not by local population, although a big population does help) and a small market team.

New York and Minnesota.

New York's profitability scale is close to the $90million mark with an average win team.
Minnesota's profitability is close to the $40 million mark with an average win team. That is 1/3rd less, therefore one scale measures a 1/3rd range of profitable tolerance. How do we keep incentives for players and owners to have a cap within some range, to contribute to their market's needs? Well, regardless, because of one team's inability to make as much money, they will rarely try to outspend the rest of the league. This should be common sense. However, to prevent a run-away team from attempting to use Steinbrenner tactics in the NBA, in fairness, the league may be better off applying a middle ground between those two.

We take the data from the season prior, apply the new scale to be no greater than 20% max of the lowest profiting team in the league, and no more than 20% max below the highest earning team. In the case of NY and MIN, this would lead the NBA to side with 20% above the lowest profiting team in the league, and because NY is more than 20% more profitable, the scale can not exceed the total. If NY generated less revenue, then the cap would be even lower. And I suggest this to be the NBA's harder(but not a completely hard cap( cap for overall salaries, but player caps would also be measured to scale to help teams retain the "Bird" players, if they so choose to retain them.

In short, in 2011-12, according to the tidbits that we see reported, we end up with something close to having a player cap of $14 million, which isn't terribly lower than their existing max, and $15.6 million for a max "Bird" player. The team cap would be $51.5 million. In 2012-13, the revenue could go up or down, and the scale gets readjusted, then the players could see a MUCH higher cap in the next season, or a lower cap, depending on how the league grows. You no longer play with money based on ideals, but the actual reality of the situation at hand.

But I would also socialize a portion of the revenue by the owners to create per-team mandated investing that would be used by the teams to rebuild/renovate new venues, and this % of revenue would be taken out of the negotiations completely. I think a lot of markets would benefit from 50k capacity stadiums, along with their NHL counterparts, and that it would also help the league generate more money in the long run, along with provide more options for the fans, local events/concerts ect.

Okay, I put a part of my idea on the table... who else has a solid idea, and not just a lot of critiques?