NBA lockout

[Big John]

why?

 

If an 18 year-old is good enough to play in the NBA, why should there be any rules to prevent him from doing so?

 

(I can much more understand the NFL rule due to the much more physical nature of the sport.)

They changed that to 1 year out of high school for the NBA.

[bushwacked]

I'm biased...but

 

When I hear Stern using the same voice inflections for his desire to get the season going I hear the same hollow sincerity when the Sonics should have stayed in Seattle. The NBA used to be something I planned my rec activities around, today it's nothing to me beyond the most uninteresting sport in the world where college basketball players go to make money.

[The Holy Roller]

It's not entertaining to me any longer. I wouldn't go to an NBA game if it was free. I'd rather watch high school or college ball.

[Ursa Majoris]

I read yesterday that the big issue now is that the league want a hard cap while the players won't hear of it.

[Outshined]

Quote from Jeffery Kessler who is an attorney representing the NBPA after the latest offer of a 50/50 split from the league.

Instead of treating the players like partners, they're treating them like plantation workers.

 

Wow...I hope the players are locked out forever!!!

Edited November 9, 2011 by Outshined

[Ursa Majoris]

Still meeting. Not sure but I think the players have accepted 50-50 but insist on leaving free agency as it is. League still wants major changes.

[Big John]

In a current press coverage, the players have said talks have broken down.

[Seahawks21]

I just can't believe David Stern is so oblivious to how condescending he sounds. That guy is completely out to lunch. He doesn't realize that every time he talks, the interest in his league dwindles even more.

[Ursa Majoris]

NBA Players Union has rejected the offer and begun to disband.

 

Looks like the 2011-12 season is done.

[otis29]

I just can't believe David Stern is so oblivious to how condescending he sounds. That guy is completely out to lunch. He doesn't realize that every time he talks, the interest in his league dwindles even more.

Stern's smarminess really has me rooting for the players in this thing. And it's not just in this particular labor agreement situation, I'm not sure I've seen an interview with him in years without the condescending "I'm surrounded by dumb people" attitude.

[Ursa Majoris]

the condescending "I'm surrounded by dumb people" attitude.

Condescending but true.

[Outshined]

The NBA needs to fix a lot of things in order for them to become competetive like the NFL. If they can fix the salary structure and have some sort of cap to make all teams even. Since 1999, only three teams from the west have been in the NBA finals. Those teams are the Lakers, Spurs and Mavericks and they won 10 series to become champions. I believe the gauranteed salaries hurt the small market teams. They should be able to pay these players based on performance like the NFL. If they suck or if management makes some bad decisions, teams have to eat their salaries for years.

[otis29]

Condescending but true.

I'm not so sure. There might have been a time this was true, is that the case these days?

 

He's really gone out of his way to paint the players and their representatives in an extremely negative light. Does he realize that after the parties reconcile their disagreements, those players will be the face of his league?

 

I dunno, if you're a Seattle or Sacramento basketball fan, you'd probably see him less as an extremely bright lawyer, and more of a smarmy snake-oil salesman whose bottom line is to make his owners happy, not make sure the sport he runs is at its healthiest.

 

As to competition in the NBA, I think it gets down to which team has the superstar. You surround one superstar with the right talent, and you're in the hunt. That's not always true in the NFL, although Peyton Manning might clearly be the exception.

 

And, if I'm understanding correctly, the NBA is trying to achieve a system that will reduce player movement, which means these franchises that draft a superstar talent will get to keep that talent longer. I don't think the system the owners are after is going to achieve parity on the court, it's going to help the owners achieve parity financially.

 

Seriously, take a look at the final four teams in the NBA playoffs each season during the labor agreements back to 1998. Small market teams are actually represented at a higher rate than big market teams. That's a fact, and that's about as close as you'll get to parity in the NBA IMO.

[Big Country]

And, if I'm understanding correctly, the NBA is trying to achieve a system that will reduce player movement, which means these franchises that draft a superstar talent will get to keep that talent longer.

 

 

Not exactly. They are trying to make it very painful financially for a team to go over the cap to sign these players. Essentially looking to increase the luxury tax penalty. I forget the current numbers offhand, but, using the Lakers as an example, when they signed Artest, despite already being over the cap, they pay X% of that amount in tax.. let's say 50%, so $2.5mill goes into the pot that is divvies up by the other teams. THe league wants this tax to be much higher, say 100%, so that now $5mill goes into the pot that is divvied up by the other teams. If I'm not mistaken, I think I read that part of the proposal was a graduated tax such that the first X million of dollars over the cap are taxed at a lower percent than dollars above this threshold, but I can not say for sure if that was in the actual proposal or just something I had heard was being considered.

 

Ownership says this will help parity (both on the court and financially) as the large market teams will either not sign the top free agents when over the soft cap, or, if they do, it will cost them more, but increase the revenue split to the other teams.

 

The players are oppossed to this because they feel it essentially creates a hard cap and is too strong of a discouragement to the large market teams to spend money over the cap. They claim this will limit the players options in free agency if there are teams that choose to not spend the money to sign players because it puts them into the luxury tax level.The players are also vehemently oppossed to a hard cap.

 

 

On this particular issue, I think I side more with ownership. I don't want basketball to be like baseball where large market teams can spend willy nilly (not that it always pays off in the form of titles, but it helps), but that doesn't mean I think they need a completely hard cap ala the NFL.

 

 

Also, regarding helping a team that drafts a player keep them longer, there is already the "Larry Bird" rule in place that allows a players current team to sign them for more money than another team can (and without penalty). Works for the player that wants to stay with his team, and if he wants to leave, leads to are all these sign and trades in the NBA. The player gets a higher paycheck and the team gets some form of compensation rather than seeing the player walk in free agency.

[ajh2]

I side with the owners on this one. for the following reasons/situations.

 

1.) Increased value of teams, new owners have had to pay (borrow) more money to purchase team

2.) New Arenas (borrowed money) built

 

Both of these loans increased the operating revenue requirements for breaking even.

 

3.) Decrease in attentdance - lower revenue coming in - without MJ the NBA has been facing declining revenues from attendance because ticket prices have gotten higher because of #2.

4.) Limited TV revenue - without the LeBron and Heat situation - the NBA's TV ratings have basiclly been catatonic or marginal. With the LeBron story, the NBA saw a rise in veiwership of games. However, will it last?

5.) The Economy has taken a large down turn. Normal people have stopped buying tickets.

 

This year, the San Antonio Spurs, one of the best run basketball operations, lost money - approximately $5 million. This means that there are many more teams that lost money (how many teams? Total amount?) The point here is that the odds favor most NBA teams lost money last year. Since the operating revenue for NBA teams is lower than that of football teams, there is less room for profit. In this vain, the necessary revenue for a team to break even is higher in terms of total revenue.

 

The players' negoating team is ignoring the facts that the economics of the game have changed for the worse for the teams and the players. The players' negoating team needs to see that a stable economic plan for the league is the key to longer term stability in terms of economic growth of the league and competive balance between teams.

 

I favor a hard cap because the teams tend to spend to the cap anyways. Free Agency should be restricted, the players agrue that the teams have thrown money at the players which is untrue. The Free Agnecy rules in place require a certain dollar level of offer for years of experence, "Middle level exception" and the "Larry Bird Exception" where the base of the offer has to $XX milliions because of experence and not because of performance. Many players get large contracts for being either bench warmers or role players.

Edited November 19, 2011 by ajh2

[Ursa Majoris]

I side with the owners on this one. for the following reasons/situations.

 

1.) Increased value of teams, new owners have had to pay (borrow) more money to purchase team

2.) New Arenas (borrowed money) built

 

Both of these loans increased the operating revenue requirements for breaking even.

 

3.) Decrease in attentdance - lower revenue coming in - without MJ the NBA has been facing declining revenues from attendance because ticket prices have gotten higher because of #2.

4.) Limited TV revenue - without the LeBron and Heat situation - the NBA's TV ratings have basiclly been catatonic or marginal. With the LeBron story, the NBA saw a rise in veiwership of games. However, will it last?

5.) The Economy has taken a large down turn. Normal people have stopped buying tickets.

 

This year, the San Antonio Spurs, one of the best run basketball operations, lost money - approximately $5 million. This means that there are many more teams that lost money (how many teams? Total amount?)

These five things you list would, in virtually any business, be seen as bungling incompetence by management, not the workforce (more on them in a minute).

 

If you have to borrow more, that's your problem, Mr Owner. No-one is forcing you.

 

How could the owners say "well, I spent a boatload on the new stadium so I could make more money, now you'll have to take a pay cut"? Likewise. why ask Joe Spectator to chip in more for the new gin palace that only serves to make the owner more money than before? Surely the owner building a new stadium did these calculations beforehand? Now that they aren't paying off, why is that the players and fans problem?

 

I must admit I say all that with my devil's advocate hat on somewhat but nevertheless, the owners are losing money due to their own business decisions - the last CBA didn't come out of the blue.

 

All that said, I think #4 is entirely down to the players - they are seen as a bunch of lazy, no-effort, overpaid tarts for the most part. Compare the effort level to college. No contest.

[bushwacked]

New Arenas (borrowed money) built

 

Seattle Sonics had a 'paid for' arena and a 40+ year successful history. Stern stiff-armed them out of the 13th largest market to po dunk OK city for a better business/building 'footprint.' All the owners, minus Marc Cuban, were complicit in the relocation.

 

The NBA business model is failing. Every year there are about 2-3 teams that can win a championship, and the rest pretend to play.

 

Now we need to support the owners and the bumbling, condescending, and arrogant management?

 

Bullchit. I don't even care if Seattle ever gets a franchise at this point. I take solace in this lockout and enjoy watching the NBA become about as relevant as soccer.

[Big John]

Tentative deal achieved

[Ursa Majoris]

Tentative deal achieved

That's surprising. I thought the entire season was gone.

[SLAYER]

Couldn't care less. may watch the finals, may not.

[ajh2]

Bushwacked,

 

QUOTE (ajh2 @ 11/19/11 9:44am)

 

New Arenas (borrowed money) built

 

 

Seattle Sonics had a 'paid for' arena and a 40+ year successful history. Stern stiff-armed them out of the 13th largest market to po dunk OK city for a better business/building 'footprint.' All the owners, minus Marc Cuban, were complicit in the relocation.

 

The NBA business model is failing. Every year there are about 2-3 teams that can win a championship, and the rest pretend to play.

 

Now we need to support the owners and the bumbling, condescending, and arrogant management?

 

Bullchit. I don't even care if Seattle ever gets a franchise at this point. I take solace in this lockout and enjoy watching the NBA become about as relevant as soccer.

 

Your mistake is a simple one. The city of Seattle owns the arena and not the team. The teams has signed a rental agreement with the city that was extremely favorable to the city (I do not know the terms of the deal, but it was substanial). The city controled all of the maintenance, upkeep and design of the arena. The team asked for luxury boxes to be built, the city rejected the request. The team asked for a renogiation of the rental amount and lease, the city refused. The team also tried to buy the arena and the city refused.

 

The city of Seattle was the reason for the relocation because of their tight fisted stupidity. The team tried and wanted to stay. The tema need revenue in order to do so and could not get the appropriate revenue stream.

 

You also missed the point, new arenas cost a lot of money to build now. Theses stadiums are never built on a cash basis but by loans. Why, I suspect tax and legal reasons for using loans. Many NBA teams in the last five years built new arenas to bring in revenue because TV revenue is actually a very small part of the revenue the teams take in.

Edited November 27, 2011 by ajh2

[ajh2]

Ursa,

 

QUOTE (ajh2 @ 11/19/11 11:44am)

 

I side with the owners on this one. for the following reasons/situations.

 

1.) Increased value of teams, new owners have had to pay (borrow) more money to purchase team

2.) New Arenas (borrowed money) built

 

Both of these loans increased the operating revenue requirements for breaking even.

 

3.) Decrease in attentdance - lower revenue coming in - without MJ the NBA has been facing declining revenues from attendance because ticket prices have gotten higher because of #2.

4.) Limited TV revenue - without the LeBron and Heat situation - the NBA's TV ratings have basiclly been catatonic or marginal. With the LeBron story, the NBA saw a rise in veiwership of games. However, will it last?

5.) The Economy has taken a large down turn. Normal people have stopped buying tickets.

 

This year, the San Antonio Spurs, one of the best run basketball operations, lost money - approximately $5 million. This means that there are many more teams that lost money (how many teams? Total amount?)

 

These five things you list would, in virtually any business, be seen as bungling incompetence by management, not the workforce (more on them in a minute).

 

If you have to borrow more, that's your problem, Mr Owner. No-one is forcing you.

 

How could the owners say "well, I spent a boatload on the new stadium so I could make more money, now you'll have to take a pay cut"? Likewise. why ask Joe Spectator to chip in more for the new gin palace that only serves to make the owner more money than before? Surely the owner building a new stadium did these calculations beforehand? Now that they aren't paying off, why is that the players and fans problem?

 

I must admit I say all that with my devil's advocate hat on somewhat but nevertheless, the owners are losing money due to their own business decisions - the last CBA didn't come out of the blue.

 

All that said, I think #4 is entirely down to the players - they are seen as a bunch of lazy, no-effort, overpaid tarts for the most part. Compare the effort level to college. No contest.

 

You missed the paragraph on the San Antonio Spurs where even well run teams were losing money. The free agent system that was in place set a minimum salary for free agents based on the number of years the player had played and did not allowed for performance to be factored in. In otehr words, one year wonders getting major contracts that they did not earn. I have no problem with LeBron seeking to play on a high caliber team with the potential to win it all. I do have a problem with a below average bench player getting paid as if he is a starter because of one year. See above response to Bushwacked for the area response. Please not that the arenas are the main source of revenue for the teams. A nice arena that meets today's federal regulations for bathrooms (mens/womens and handicap allocations) is required for the tema to operate. Therefore, a new arena is sometimes required because the old arena cannot be upgraded to meet the Federal regulations (yes, there are Federal regulations about bathrooms). My point about the team purchase is how much per year does the owner have to pay on the loan. The same applies to the arena loan. These are fixed expenses and cannot be changed. With the economy going down, people stopped attenting the games because of ticket prices. Will the ticket prices decrease? I doubt it; therefore, something had to give.

[bushwacked]

Bushwacked,

 

 

 

Your mistake is a simple one. The city of Seattle owns the arena and not the team. The teams has signed a rental agreement with the city that was extremely favorable to the city (I do not know the terms of the deal, but it was substanial). The city controled all of the maintenance, upkeep and design of the arena. The team asked for luxury boxes to be built, the city rejected the request. The team asked for a renogiation of the rental amount and lease, the city refused. The team also tried to buy the arena and the city refused.

 

The city of Seattle was the reason for the relocation because of their tight fisted stupidity. The team tried and wanted to stay. The tema need revenue in order to do so and could not get the appropriate revenue stream.

 

You also missed the point, new arenas cost a lot of money to build now. Theses stadiums are never built on a cash basis but by loans. Why, I suspect tax and legal reasons for using loans. Many NBA teams in the last five years built new arenas to bring in revenue because TV revenue is actually a very small part of the revenue the teams take in.

 

I'm very familiar with what happened and your oversimplifying it , to say the least.

 

Key Arena was re-modeled in the early 90s and although it was done on the cheap; Stern called it a state of the art basketball facility at the time and a jewel for other city's to follow. It had luxury suites, but it didn't have enough revenue sharing for an NBA megalopolis as it was in a 'neighborhood' in Seattle; which was part of the charm. It lacked the 'footprint' for NBA subsidiaries to expand in that neighborhood....that was 'the issue.' Seattle had two shiny new facilities for football and baseball in a more open southern downtown region, and Stern wanted his bigger revenue generator. The NBA was never interested in keeping an NBA team on Queen Anne Hill in Seattle, and that's a damn shame.

 

Once the city didn't budge, initially, the rest of the negotiations were a fraud and Stern was hell-bent on sending a message to the rest of the NBA owners and vested officials. There were many villains in this story including the local government, the former Sonic owner and the NBA itself. There was, in fact a committed and real effort on behalf of local businessmen, with local govt. to to keep the team here and build a new arena. But it was too little to late, as dipwad Shultz wanted to get back at the city,the city didn't want to budge, and Stern was more interested in using Seattle as a sacrificial lamb for his failed NBA business model more than anything else.

 

The effort on behalf of the Oklahoma homeboy to build an arena in Renton was a f'n joke and a facade; everyone here knew it.

 

The relocation was on the backs of the fans and due to a vengeful former owner, lackadaisical reaction on behalf of local officials, and an NBA commissioner who was just as vengeful as the former owner. A new arena was almost a near certainty despite all the BS prattling that Stern was selling. The powers in the NBA would have been appeased, a new arena would have been built, and the Sonics would have continued its 40+ year history in Seattle if the willingness was there. But, make no mistake, that wasn't the goal for the NBA at the end.

 

So no, F the owners and F the NBA. Wish it would have been locked out for the whole season.

Edited November 29, 2011 by bushwacked

[Gopher]

On a somewhat-related note, we have openings in the Huddle Hoops basketball league, if anyone is interested.

[godtomsatan]

I love how a week after this thing gets hammered out for "the good of the small markets", the Lakers go out and start looking to acquire the two best players available.

 

The NBA is inherently flawed. Pro basketball won't work as a 29-team league simply because it's always going to be better to be the #8 guy in Los Angeles making $4,000,000 than the #1 guy in Sacramento making $12,000,000.