Breaking Down The Breakdown: The NBA Lockout
by BD34 on Jun 30, 2011 11:17 PM CDT
in Random Commentary
Email
PrintSo, here we are my friends. The NBA and the Players Association has decided that they can’t play nice. The dispute boils down to owners seeking more financial stability and profitability off of their teams and the players wanting long-term security and financial guarantees. There are layers to this onion we’re currently peeling through. There is the exterior issue that everyone notices and comments on, who gets paid but under that is the important issues. What does it take to run the league? What is adequate compensation? What about non-performance related revenue? What are the free agency goals of owners and players?
This is where I hope to come in handy in helping to frame the lockout debate. There is the clearly visible financial struggle and we’re seeing divisions on both sides of the debate within their own camps. The implications of the lockout are wide reaching for a sport that finally got some spotlight for the summer and most of this season. Unfortunately they’re still having problems biting into the NFL’s slice of the pie and the NBA is not so dearly embraced in the United States that it will be able to sustain such a huge black eye of missing an entire season without having further reaching damage. We’ll look at this after the jump.
When we’re looking at the financial aspect of the NBA we have to keep in mind that the league itself spans 30 teams across the United States in markets that vary in size from that of New York City to that of Memphis and Oklahoma City. The operation of these teams varies drastically from leagues such as the NFL in many ways as well. The NFL splits ticket sales at a 60/40 home/away clip, revenue sharing is league wide, ownership is often split amongst investor groups or operated as a publicly invested group (Green Bay Packers). The financial acumen of the individual owner in the NBA is what helps keep his franchise operating in the red or the black. The owners are saying that 22 of 30 franchises operated at a loss this past season. If we’re playing the guessing game I would venture a guess that the profitable franchises were: LA Lakers, New York Knicks, Boston Celtics, Miami Heat, Chicago Bulls, Oklahoma City Thunder, Houston Rockets, and the Golden State Warriors. That means the financial viability under the current CBA of the other 22 teams in the league is unsustainable under the current agreement. From an owner’s perspective if the league seeks to continue with 30 teams something must be done. Contraction is an option amongst financially strapped teams (The Hornets are almost a foregone conclusion as contraction leverage) to attempt to streamline operation costs in the league. How can this be addressed? Let’s look at some basic splits.
Currently players receive 57% of revenues generated outside the game. The owners receive 43%. As it stands now the owners are seeking a split of 60% and 40% in their favor. An article posted on NBA.com as of June 27, 2011 referenced revenue sharing between owners and players is something that the owners are interested in discussing only after the terms of the agreement are hammered out. Proposals from both sides are guarded. The Player’s Union is seeking to have guaranteed figures as it stands, the owners are seeking to allow revenue sharing to serve as leverage in finalizing a deal. Where this gets sticky is that the owners themselves should be seeking to redistribute revenues to each club to cover salary, operation costs, and subsidies to funding facilities. As it stands now NBA players are the second highest paid of the United State’s four premier leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL).
Revenue sharing amongst the players is functional as it helps to bridge the gap between role player paychecks and superstar paychecks via distribution amongst the players. Then again, the NBA also has a favorable salary structure to both players and owners by way of penalties. The Kings incurred that penalty this year with their payroll. If a team is under the minimum salary requirement the players receive the difference between the minimum and the current pay as a bonus. For the owners when a team exceeds the luxury tax the subsequent penalties assessed to each team are distributed amongst teams under the salary cap. These mechanisms are in place for players and owners to attempt to subsidize their earnings and cover their costs. The ultimate questions to address in revenue sharing are as follows:
If the players receive nearly 60% of revenue split now, should they acquiesce a certain amount in player salaries over the life of a new deal?
If the owners aren’t seeking a revenue sharing amongst franchises, is a hard cap asking too much to cover costs?
With 73% of the league operating at a loss, is this financial structure viable?
Free agency is another point of contention that is necessary to address in the current labor negotiations. Money is a primary motivator but we must not lose sight of what Lebron James, Chris Bosh, and Carmelo Anthony catalyzed this past year. Lebron’s act of narcissism this year began creating questions and a general concern and panic amongst teams. Players rightfully should be allowed some say in their places of employment but there are a few complicating factors in the equation. First, we’re dealing with contractual employment. If you’re an at-will employee then that’s fine, you are disposable at your employer’s whim and you may leave on your own. In contractual obligations you’re obligated to fulfill the terms and your say is diminished since you waived your rights the moment your name hit that paper. The second factor that combines with the first to create a point of contention for owners is that in the NBA the loss of one player can drastically alter your franchise’s entire course, its marketability, and its financial stability. As Houston fans this should come as no surprise. Yao Ming goes away and we’re no longer a playoff team, we’re no longer as viable as we were. Cleveland knows this in an extreme fashion in that Lebron went away and the value of the Cleveland Cavaliers plummeted. The NFL solves this by way of the franchise tag (Both exclusive and non-exclusive). The owners have offered a "flex cap" which is essentially a transition to a hard cap. The flex cap proposal was a salary cap coupled with some player exceptions that enable a team to go over that cap but the exceptions were flat. Essentially it is a disguised hard cap without detouring too far from current salary structure.
Carmelo Anthony also deserves blame for bringing about discussions of franchise tagging in the NBA. Lebron is a model for an exclusive franchise tag where a player is not allowed to negotiate with teams for one year while the club surrounds him with talent. Anthony is the argument for a non-exclusive franchise tag. Under the non-exclusive tag a player may negotiate with other teams but he must be paid no less than the average of top 5 players at his position. If that player signs with another team then the team he left is owed two first round draft picks. Owners are seeking more of a say in their investments and the players wish to preserve their autonomy. No doubt free agency is important but with the impact a single player can have on an entire franchise the ability to franchise a player would help enable teams to hold on to marquee players and encourage migration of top tier talent in a swap. This would go hand in hand with a restrictive cap to teams to attempt to level the playing field for smaller market teams.
Finances and free agency are the hot topics and yes, some basics are good to have but what has happened recently? Recently the two sides are coming across as divided in their own camps, confusing overall, and stubborn from both sides. Some concessions are being made. Here, in quick reference format you can be caught up some of what’s going on.
The Owners:
Want: Want a hard salary cap, more revenue sharing from the players NOT included in the CBA, shorter contract durations, less guaranteed contracts, lowered player salaries, and more of a say in player destinations and talent dispersal.
Have Conceded: Non-guaranteed contracts
Should Seek: Revenue sharing among moneymaking teams (TV Deals and merchandise revenue) amongst each other to promote viable financial circumstances for teams, lowered guaranteed player salaries and contract duration, a franchise tag, and a hard cap.
Aren’t pursuing: A revenue sharing among moneymaking teams and less financial set teams.
The Players:
Want: To maintain high player salaries and contract durations, stabilized revenue sharing, current free agent structures, maintenance of the current salary structure.
Have Conceded: $500 million dollars off player salaries over a 5-year period to avoid a hard cap.
Should Seek: A revenue sharing structure in the CBA to be completely viable amongst teams, current contract durations, salary guarantees, retention of a soft cap.
A proposed deal to me, which makes sense for me would be if the owners established revenue sharing of ticket sales and television deals at a 60/40 split (in favor of the owners) with the 60% being divided amongst all franchises to cover operating costs. Establish a soft cap that may only be exceeded with player exceptions with a non-exclusive franchise tag. Player contracts should be partially guaranteed based on performance/health incentives for durations comparable to what they are now. Players agree to cut back salaries by $200 million over 10 years to alleviate giving up 17% annually in revenue sharing they retain $300 million and go from giving up $100 million a year (To renegotiate in 5 years) to only giving up $20 million a year in a sustained CBA structure. The players get their durations, most of their guarantees, relinquish less salary over the life of the deal, retain the right to large paychecks, give up a little bit of say in free agency, and disperse a broader revenue sharing amongst all teams in the league to help cover cost and spread prosperity. The owners continue to operate under a familiar framework, gain more profits from their franchises, have to bite the bullet and spread around their TV deals to help markets like Memphis and Sacramento attempt to sign free agents and gain leverage, and regain some more say in the players the dump millions into.
These are very basic and doubtless there is more to it but I’m working from open source material and have not found a great deal of material of proposals and rejections. What we’re stuck with right now is knowledge that currently the players are divided amongst each other (if you follow Shane Battier’s twitter you’ll know what happened between him and Billy Hunter, Shane’s outspoken-ness on wanting negotiations to happen but his frustration that both sides are too far apart, and the NBPA’s reaction) and the owners cannot agree on what they want (Big money teams don’t want revenue sharing of television and ticket sales to be shared amongst teams, small market vs. big market, and hard cap vs. soft caps). So what’s the projection? You may want to find a hobby because the NBA is going to lock out for a while. There isn’t harmony amongst both camps and the NBPA and the League office is extremely hostile towards each other. The league is going to take a hard hit on this one. David Stern will now have presided over two lockouts, a refereeing scandal that was swept under the rug, the Brawl At the Palace, a thug reputation league, and now a narcissistic league. This is the consequence of entertaining personas rather than teams in basketball. The players have embraced a lifestyle that allows flaunting their lifestyle, an aloof separation from the fans, and a level of privilege that the French Nobility reveled in until a bunch of pissed off peasants stormed the Bastille and reminded them what life really was like. All I can say is either there’s going to be a lot of people beheaded or we’re going to be extremely bored until the 2013 NBA season.
Strap in TDS, this is going to be one of those times where it’ll be slow but we’ll try to make it work for you.
141 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not going to be surprised if we miss the entire season.
The biggest reason for me is that some NBA owners own NHL teams.
The NHL missed an entire season two or three years ago. The NHLPA and NHL eventually agreed to a long-term deal. However, in order to get that long term deal, the players pretty much caved, and the owners got what they wanted.
I expect to see the same strategy from NBA owners.
"Hakeem couldn't kick your ass cuz you were too
close kissin his!"- Sir Charles to Kenny Smith.
There are six NBA owners that own NHL Franchises.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
I know that there are only six,
but they will use their recent CBA experience to convince the other NBA owners that what the NHL owners did helped long-term. The NBA owners want a long term deal.
"Hakeem couldn't kick your ass cuz you were too
close kissin his!"- Sir Charles to Kenny Smith.
by bone31crusher on Jun 30, 2011 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I think his point was, that's a lot
So it’s very possible
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
Shane is a class act through and through.
I’ve lost some respect for some of the players, namely Durant. With all the statements he’d been releasing, he made it seem like his family can’t live comfortably if he makes less millions. Honestly, what sort of life does your family live anyway? Whatever the outcome is, he’ll still make enough money to feed an entire neighborhood for a year, let alone his own.
I hate when players do that
They aren’t starving if they make less money. But on the other hand, less money in their pockets = more money in the owners pockets. The owners are being just as greedy. We have more of a connection with the players that we sometimes forget that hey those greedy owners are part of this debacle too.
You lost respect for a guy saying he wants more money?
Really?
I want more money too. So do the owners.
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
I don't hate that he wants more money.
I hate that he’s trying to make it seem like he NEEDS more money(need , not want). Like his family would not be able to live properly if he’s making less millions. THAT is what i hate, just say it plain and simple , “I want more money to satisfy my desire.” easy as that.
I haven't seen KD's comments
but would like to and can’t speak to them specifically.
But doesn’t everyone think they need more money? Except maybe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? And the second one is pretty debatable.
What if Kevin gets Shaun Livingston’d or Hank Geathers’d tomorrow? He’s likely supporting his entire family, mom, grandma, brother, sister, etc on his money. Yes, they can live comfortably, but a guy on an NBA rookie contract isn’t living above a lower upper middle class life with that many mouths on the payroll. This isn’t Latrell Spreewell turning down 15 million.
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
Kevin's comments were essentially as followed:
“The players are digging in and we won’t back down from the owners.”
As opposed to Shane’s “Let’s negotiate and get this taken care of, we’ve made lots of money but I just want to play basketball.”
Shane’s comments resonate more with the fan who wants the structure fixed. Kevin’s come across as greedy, which is strange considering KD had a PR windfall for the last couple of seasons juxtaposed to Lebron James.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
If that's all KD said
Then it’s utterly ridiculous to compare that to “not feeding my family”. Kevin is right, they shouldn’t back down.
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
I'm of the opinion that if there's a financial viability issue and we want to have some form of agreement that we can't have these attitudes on either side.
For both sides to say they won’t back down is essentially throwing a fit and pissing on the entire idea of negotiating. All this is going to do is knock the NBA further back down the ladder of “sports Americans give a shit about” when they had to climb so far to get where they were. At least in the NFL they understand/care about the severity of the situation. If the players are not willing to budge then they should just go ahead and resurrect the ABA because both sides need to get their shit together.
It doesn’t help the owners were posturing by saying the offers will only get worse once the lockout starts, which flies in the face of good faith negotiations.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
by BD34 on Jul 2, 2011 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
the players shouldn’t back down, they should stay locked out and make nothing instead, makes a lot of sense.
by Bobbythegreat on Jul 2, 2011 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions
There is a big difference
Between not backing down and not negotiating. They aren’t anywhere near the same thing
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
Hey, Kevin...
…here’s how this goes. The owners are the entrepeneurs here. They are the ones who are taking risks, not you spoiled brat AAU-produced prima donnas. The geniuses running your union (Derek Fisher) turned their noses up at a deal that would have kept average salaries at OVER $4 million per year. Not very bright.
I figured out at about age 5 that basketball isn’t a non-contact sport, but this isn’t the NFL here. The $4 million figure would have given the rank and file a salary almost double that of your NFL counterparts. I’m not thrilled witn that situation, either, but what they do is a little bit more dangerous. Plus, all of their teams make money, even your incompetent leadership has figured out that half of the NBA teams lose money.
Poor things, you might not have guaranteed contracts? Boo-hoo. Most of America doesn’t. You won’t now, either, but you would have under the owner’s last proposal. You see, they can last this little work stoppage a little bit longer than you can, Right around the time the snow flies, we’ll start readin stories about your Bentleys getting repoed, and you’ll be wishing your leadership was competent. Maybe before the repo man shows up, you can wax them up real nice and buff the finish with those “unity” t-shirts you wore at the last bargaining meeting.
Good luck finding real work after the season gets cancelled, Kevin. I’m sure you’ll have no with that. Oh. wait, no one else is gonna pay 8 figures to a guy who spent 1 year at Texas and then bolted. Yeah, you’re right; the NBA owners did squat for you.
No reason for him not to want more money.
This is a job that doesn’t last past age 35, if one is lucky. They need all of the money that they can get now, and for the hours that they put in, they deserve every last penny.
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
Mo money mo problems
True, the average career doesn’t go past 35, but that doesn’t mean they can’t continue working. It’s not the NBA Owners’ fault that these superstars don’t have a backup plan for when their career ends. I don’t feel sorry for someone who puts a ball through a hoop for 10-15 years and gets paid a quarter million plus. While most people’s careers perhaps could last a lifetime, they don’t have job stability.
Every penny? He has the annual income of around 1/6 of my hometown.
I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe he puts in the hours they do. Yet he is entitled to more money? That’s absolutely insane. I’m pretty sure I can live comfortably on one million, then getting some part-time job once I retire from basketball. But apparently…that’s not enough for players.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 1, 2011 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions
His job sells tickets
Your hometown doesn’t. It’s really simple.
Teachers don’t make more money because the amount people pay in taxes doesn’t equal the amount they pay for attending a game with concessions and apparel sells. I know you didn’t say teachers, but that’s what every one tries to throw out.
And what you are saying is that the owners should get the money then? Any one falling on the owners side in this debate is just crazy talk to me. Stern is basically asking them to cap earnings with no lower limit. Ask the Pirates how that is working out for them.
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
I don't care how many tickets he sells.
He earns more money than I could hope to make in my lifetime. Yet they still bitch about it. Please, there is no excuse for whining when you make 5+ mil in a year. Absolutely none. And I’m not on either side, as they are both based upon greed and stupidity. Regardless how you look at it
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions
When your job starts impacting thousands of employees, improving your local economy to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars,
or dictats that 24/7 365 you have to train, change your eating habits, and relocate at the drop of a hat, we’ll see about compensating you like these guys get paid.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Sign me up bro. Give me 1 mil a year, and I'll be happy as a lark.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Gotta do something to warrant the pay first.
Sorry the dudes flipping burgers at McDonald’s aren’t millionaires, they’re cogs in the machine who don’t pay nearly a million in taxes or effect the value of the franchise by $40 million dollars.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Hey now...It wasn't McDonalds, it was Diary Delite. Give me some credit.
But they pay so much in taxes because they earn so much. Unless I’m mistaken, they pay the same percentage or maybe even less of their paycheck than I lose. So….no sympathy for them. They may be worth a lot, but where do we draw the line? Where do we sit back and decide that they have enough money, and they need to quit bitching?
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Diary Delite, you sell journals? I am confused!
Tax brackets cut off at like 45-49% percent or so. Obama wants to bump taxes back up to levels they were under Reagan (Amongst the highest in the last 40 years, funny enough) that would push it to something like 55% if I recall correctly. I could be off on those figures but the plan is the same.
You don’t pay a greater percentage, you feel it more because 10% of 40,000 hurts more than 50% of 5 million.
When you look at what the job entails, as slighted as you feel that we can’t translate our menial skills into millions, you have to observe and admit that these guys literally sign their lives over for years, their personal health is constantly at risk, and they’re of a class of athlete that no others in the world can accomplish. It’s funny that people will gripe about the pay of lawyers, athletes, and doctors but when you consider the skillset and the amount of time spent perfecting the work you have people working unskilled/unspecialized jobs crying about the paygrade. Specialties are expensive, consequently, the rarer the quality in that specialty, the more it’s worth.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Nah, Dairy Delite is a little hometown burger joint like a Dairy Queen. (Don't know if those exist in NE U.S.)
My problem with them is that they are complaining about what they have. They deserve a good amount of money for what they do. Pay them the millions, I’m fine with that. But when they get their millions and still complain? Then I have a problem. I couldn’t afford to see the games regularly. I’m attending college, and making by on the skin of my teeth, yet these guys complain about this? Hell, I can’t afford to go to more than a few games a year anymore. I’m sorry, I find it impossible to have any sympathy for guys who make that much money and just want more. And personal health at risk? I work in more dangerous situations than these guys do.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm a pro-owner guy to clarify. I just understand where the pay comes from.
These guys are training, dieting, and under scrutiny 24/7. The pay makes sense. You said it yourself what you’re doing and I apologize that as a student and a guy working in the restaurant industry you’re not raking in cash. The NBA does need to lower their ticket prices but it depends on where you are. For 35 bucks with a student ID I can get lower bowl wizards games and a burrito.
As far as personal health, I don’t think you stand as high a likelihood of shattering an ankle or shoulder/arm as they do.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
I understand where the pay comes from too.
What I’m trying to get across is that the they are entitled to the millions, sure. My only problem is how they are demanding more. That’s all.
And for the personal health thing, that is true. But I have a much higher risk of losing fingers due to belt sanders, grinders, skill saws, etc. Plus there’s the chance of falling off of the scaffolding, railing, etc. Lot more chances to die/dismember myself. To clarify, I used to be flipping burgers back in Texas. Now I’m part of a construction crew remodeling buildings. Once again, no sympathy for them.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
The players aren't demanding more, they're demanding the pay stays the same.
The owners are pointing out losses and wanting to make the league more financially viable and cut down on pay. Major difference.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Holy crap....You are right, my bad.
I got the numbers mixed up in my head. I read that fourth paragraph totally wrong. I apologize, my bad, I’ve been arguing with you over something I had wrong since the beginning. Oops….My bad, BD and UofT. I shall now go hide in my corner again.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey, it's why we discuss things, right?
Glad we could clarify some things.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Indeed.
You win again…one day…I shall produce something of substance for this fine website…one day…
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions
These guys earn there money
You may not like that, but it’s a fact. They are paid to be constantly hounded off the court and not be able to ever eat a meal without being interrupted with their families.
And you if you don’t feel sorry for the players, do you feel sorry for the owners? The guys with enough money to pay the guys asking for more money?
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
Like i said a few posts ago, I side with neither of them.
Only people I feel sorry for during a lockout is the recently drafted.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
And all the staff associated with the franchises who also get no pay/laid off.
Merchandise and ticket sellers, retail, etc…
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Jeez, totally blanked on them for a second.
Yeah, those were the guys I thought about first when the lockout hit.
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 2, 2011 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Theres something you all forget
This is my first post here but I thought I needed to chime in. I read the dreamshake almost everyday. but anyways.
The fact that their bodies are physically worn down after they play so many years. They need medical care for the rest of their lives. Their knees are pretty much gone, as well as their back. Think of how much they have to pay for going to get ice baths, massages, surgeries and whatever they need. These 10-15 years they play need to be able to pay off the rest of their lives medical bills.
I don’t think a lot of these players realize that the money they make now needs to stretch out for the rest of their lives if they want to not have another job after basketball. But instead they spend it on 15 bedroom mansions and what not instead of saving and investing. Thats why you hear a lot of them going bankrupt and you think to yourself how can you go bankrupt making millions.
Yes other jobs have their dangers but there is insurance for that. However for basketball there is no program for players medical problems after their career.
by Joeyyungrocks on Jul 4, 2011 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions
That's quite a first post. I think mine said "Go Rockets!" or something along that line.
Anyways, I would beg to differ a bit. While I do know they get worn down, I don’t feel that they are too much worse than anyone else in a physical profession, such as construction. Knees, yes, they destroy those. But anything else, you can see worse in other professions. And why can’t they get jobs after they retire to help pay for things?
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 4, 2011 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions
For the most part
the players aren’t good at anything and due to the social status they have achieved due to the NBA most of them are unwilling to take the few jobs they are actually qualified for due to unreasonable salary expectations.
by Bobbythegreat on Jul 4, 2011 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions
But then who on earth feels sympathy for these guys?
"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are
even worse! " ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes
by TheChuckwagonisrolling on Jul 4, 2011 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions
I have
no idea, I certainly don’t have any sympathy for them.
by Bobbythegreat on Jul 5, 2011 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Top tax bracket
On income it’s 35% now. 45 is what Blue Team wants to get it back to, and as you noted was basically the Reagan era taxes. Under Eisenhower it was 91% at the highest brackets and has fallen steadily since then.
However, that’s just federal income tax. Payroll taxes, for instance, comprise a much huger chunk for working and middle class individuals than for people who don’t get paid in payroll, or get paid a smaller portion of their income in payroll. Also things like sales taxes and many state taxes tend to be somewhat regressive.
It would be a tedious and time consuming endeavor to check how much the average NBA player in each state pays as a percentage of income in taxes. But the claim that they may be paying a lower percentage of their income when you look at all taxes, well, that’s not actually a very wild claim at all.
Not that this has much to do with the NBA lockout. Just sayin.
Thanks for the correction on the info, I was firing from the hip but thought I was close.
The taxation issue has a bit to do with the lockout, I know taxes on player salaries is figured by amount paid per game and the tax rate in the state they play (New York taxes paid on games played in MSG, etc…).
Good info by the by, thanks for it.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Spare me...
…the “relocate” nonsense! At $4 mil per, a person could absorb a small loss selling their house and afford a stay at home mom for the kids. PLEASE, SOMEBODY GIVE ME A LEGIT ARGUMENT FOR THESE SPOILED BRATS!
C'Mon, Tom...
…really? You lost credibility with the “every last penny” comment. THEY PLAY A GAME FOR A LIVING! $4million a year should be adequate for that. Even a player who goes to the finals has 3 1/2 months off after the season. Yes, there is off-season work involvolved, but YOU CAN’T BE FREAKING SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nice write up
pretty good summary of what were looking at
"Slammed that hoe on the counter like I just got 35 on the domino table!!"
Sherrod Harris
i want to add
Although I was initially skeptical about you being a writer on TDS im coming around to it.
You’ve written some actually pretty legit articles and have toned down the hostility.
Keep it up and ill be sticking around even if(god forbid) theres no basketball next year.
"Slammed that hoe on the counter like I just got 35 on the domino table!!"
Sherrod Harris
Revenue sharing,true losses and guaranteed contracts
On Revenue Sharing,the League’s position is that the League OVERALL is losing money,so sharing revenues would simply spread the losses over all 30 teams.
They want the players to give up money to cover their losses,which is why they are asking for $700mil+ in salary cuts while claiming losses of from $300-400mil(depending on the day).
But the huge elephant the League wants us to ignore is what are their true losses?
To begin with,three of the teams losing money are Portland(Paul Allen,who had the Blazers breaking even yr before last,and spent again this yr in hopes of a title run),Orlando(DeVoss family-Amway founder-and until a few yrs ago kept his team in black) and Mark Cuban(who spends on the Mavs because he likes to). These three extremely wealthy owners,who are voluntarily spending their own money probably account for 10% of Leagues claimed losses.
Using the Leagues greatest claim of $400mil,less 10% we’ve got 19 teams allegedly losing $360mil,almost $20mil a team.
Looks pretty horrific. But,the Kings were losing so much they had to move and they claimed losses of…$8mil or so. The Milwaukee Bucks are claiming losses of $26mil,but then their owner went and signed Salmons,Maggette and Gooden to over $25mil in contracts.Hmmm.
But we don’t hear other teams claiming they lost $20mil or more last yr,and you’d think owners would be leaking such bad news in the very public negotiations that have gone on.
You may have missed a rash of stories lately that have looked at a couple of team’s finances that became public and the ways legal creative bookkeeping creates imaginary losses.
Players Association head Billy Hunter is claiming that the Leagues books show @ $250mil in losses that are accepted accounting practices are in reality non-existant,that the League’s losses by their books are @$120mil-or less.
Something to keep in mind,player’s salaries are fixed at 57% of League revenues,they CANNOT go higher,so any talk of player salaries ballo0ning out of control is pure BS.
Under the current system the League made money in 2005. As League revenues went up salaries went up at same pace,they could not go above 57%. Yet the League is claiming that by 2008 it was losing $200mil+ a yr. What happened? Either some very creative bookkeeping…or the Owners have been spending like crazy on their side and they want the players to cover their checks.
In 2005 League revenues were @$3.22bil and player salaries were @$1.84bil.and the League made money. In 2011 League revenues were @$3.70bil and player salaries were @ $2.10bil and the league is claiming $300-400mil in losses. You’ll note that revenues went up some $480mil and player salaries went up some $260mil. If we use the League’s $370mil in losses last yr figure that means went from spending substantially less than spending $1.38bil on operating costs to spending over $1.97bil on operations,a 42% increase in operations spending against a 15% increase in revenue,w/inflation averaging 2.5% in that span.
Of related interest the players proposed giving up @$100mil+ a yr in salaries,close to what the union says are the true losses this past yr and much more than the real dollar losses of past few yrs. Throw in a bit more(sorry rookies), w/enhanced revenue sharing(good luck w/that!) and expected growth in League Revenues and the League as a whole would be profitable,w/a few winners and losers financially,but on a much smaller scale.
I’m constantly amazed at fan hatred for guaranteed contracts. It seems as if once the NBA did away w/them World Peace would break out,cancer be cured and every team would win the Championship each year.
I’m going to make the argument for them.
First,if they were truly the evil that is destroying the League the owners would have never taken them off the table for nothing. The owners are willing to kill the season,permanently piss off the players(have fun when the next deal is up-one reason why the owners want it for 10 yrs,most of them won’t be around for that one) for the opportunity to fi the sport for good-and they threw away guaranteed contracts for nada,zippo,zilch?
One has to keep in mind that owners LIKE guaranteed contracts,on their terms. W/out guaranteed contracts,players are FAs every single yr. Good luck planning for the future not knowing if your star PG will be here next yr,much less two yrs from now,if your brought-your-franchise-back-from-the-dead PF can leave in his second year.
The players gave up FA freedom-and uncertainty,and constantly moving families-for the security of a long-term deal. And in the bargaining over guaranteed contracts,the players agreed to limit what they could make,both in a max contract limit and as a fixed percentage of revenues. Outside of Government employment(and even there there are bonuses,OT pay,that can considerably boost your salary),there’s not another industry that limits what you can make. Esp not in the Entertainment field,which is what major sports are a part of.
Guaranteed contracts give stability to both Franchises and Players.
As to the big money,that’s usually payback for performance previously done. Any great player on his rookie deal is losing at least $25-30mil compared to what he could get as a FA. You don’t think Durant,Rose wouldn’t get the max if they were FAs?
The problem lies in two areas-injury and overpaying talent.
Injuries are a legitimate problem,but what about a team signing a player to a max deal knowing there are medical concerns. Should they get a free take-a-gamble card and not pay a penalty?
There are two fairly simple ways around the injury issue,and the NHL does one.
One,an injured player can be replaced by a another player,making up to the same salary,cap free while the injured player is unable to play. Once he’s able to play again,the other player’s salary counts against the Cap.(Pretty much what the NHL does.)
Two,once a yr an injured Player can be bought out Cap free,and if League doctors determine he will be unable to play that season the League will cover half the buy-out. The player becomes a FA.
As for Owners signing Players to huge deals and the player doesn’t perform,f*** the owners. If they and their management team is that stupid,let them suffer the consequences. Any other system will let deep-pocketed owners buy their way out of their stupidity. I refuse to endorse any mechanism whereby a Dolan in NY can make a ridiculous signing,then buy it out and thus have the instant Cap Space to sign a Paul,Howard,Westbrook. Let the Magic pay the price for bargaining against themselves and signing Rashard Lewis.
I want smart GMs and Owners to have an edge,not the guys willing to spend the most.
My new CBA would be pretty simple,min team salary is the shared NBA revenues-National Media and NBA Merchandising-about $35mil and a hard cap at the median ticket revenue and the shared revenues,@62mil. Teams can only go over Cap on the injury exception and via rookies first 2 yrs don’t count towards cap,nor do min vets.
No limits on salaries of any kind,except for Cap. You want to sign a player for $50mil a yr for 10 years,go right ahead. Exception of rookies(sorry) who all get same salary of $750,$1mil,$1.25mil and $2mil(team options after each yr,until 4 yrs in League,these are the salaries,except can sign for less if optioned,just not w/same team and at 4rth yr become FA),w/non-Cap signing bonus depending on Draft position.
One yr transition where existing contracts are honored,then EVERYBODY becomes a FA except players on Rookie deals.
Fans hate guaranteed contracts?
I love them. Think they are the right thing to do. I hate non-guaranteed NFL contracts though
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
David stern will give all lottery picks to
LA, Boston, NY, MIA, and CHI. The rest of the league will fall in line.
Me against the world is a mismatch in my favor.
this is kinda madness to me
nothing like this happens in european sport really (rugby and football). im my country there is a sporting league (GAA) where all players are paid nothing at all from thier teams although there is talk of givin them some sort of pay.
Ya, let's mirror the EPL
Um, no. Everyone of those upper tier teams is broke as shit but keeps spending. No thanks
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
yeah thats business takeovers
all these rich people come in buy the majority shares by taking massive loans out which instantly makes the club millions in debt chelsea, united, man city pretty much all of them because a man sees future financial gain. problem is a shit team wont sell tickets, this is where the NBA seems much better a crap team can be a top team in a matter of a couple of years in the EPL its all about money
by IrishThrasher on Jul 3, 2011 9:02 PM CDT up reply actions
This sucks
And this looks like it’s going to be a long drawn out and nasty battle.
The player I would like least at #9 would be my sister’s cat, Captain Creamsicle. She does have a great work ethic and agility, but I’m really concerned that at 9 lbs., she’s too small to play safety in the NFL. She also bites way too often on play action and is easily distracted by someone waving string in the crowd. Lastly, her wonderlic score was pretty awful, answering "meow meow meow" for most of the questions- Dr. Brackish Okun
Subprime owners and subprime ballers think their prime
Greed my friends on both sides.
No one gives a flying f$%k about the game.
Get rid of David Stern that little parasitic weasel and bring in someone like Ervin Johnson.
Sad thing is the unemployment line just got longer for a lot of people.
The content of the text above is provided for information purposes only. No claim is made as to the accuracy or authenticity of the content. The troll does not accept any liability to any person for the information or advice (or the use of such information or advice) which is provided in the text above.
Personally, I'm with bone
I think the odds that we are without basketball all year are decent, though I’m guessing they figure it out sometime in November/december for a partial season.
A couple of things Im wondering
1) If there is no season how does that affect the draft for 2012? Do they go in the same order they did this year?
2) How big is the rookie class gonna look in the rookie sophmore game whenever we get back?
3)How does this affect NBA 2K12? Is the game gonna have a bunch of FA to start off with? Will the new rookies be on there?
4) If there is no season, is there a carry-over on player contracts? Meaning those who would enter FA at the end of the 11-12 season would have to wait for the end of the 12-13 season to become FA because they didnt play/get paid for that last year of their contract
"Stability is a factor in teams that win the championship. But if you stabilize on a team that's going to end up short of that, then all you're doing is spinning your wheels in the 45-win range."-----Daryl Morey
by fanoflosingteams on Jul 1, 2011 9:42 AM CDT reply actions
My guesses on the answers
A lot of those things haven’t been decided, but this is my take.
1. Draft would likely take same order (or a redone lottery)
2. Rookie/soph game might turn into Class of 2011/Class of 2012 game.
3. NBA 2k12 will be released, though you might see star forward LeBrun Jacobs playing for the Florida Fire b/c of licensing (they won’t be that transparent but you get it)
4. Likely no contract carryover
by Patrick Harrel on Jul 1, 2011 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Recc'd for Lebrun Jacobs playing for the Florida Fire.
I lol’d hard.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Quick answers.
1.) Depends on whether or not the NBA allows them to go ahead and draft. The most likely option is students might actually opt to play in another year. If they lockout the season that’s not the post-season.
2.) We’ll see.
3.) No NBA 2k games if the NBPA and NBA have no agreement between them because the licenses involved in likeness, logos, and rights are tied up in those two entities and they have put the kaibosh on negotiations/use.
4.) There is no carry over. Contract durations are by year, not years work performed or salary paid.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Here's Larry Coon's take on the draft
If the lockout lasts an entire season, what will happen with the 2012 draft? How will the draft order be determined?
If the season is canceled and the sides come to an agreement by next June, the 2012 draft should go on as planned. The draft order will be a little tricky. There will be no season upon which to determine the order, and they can’t just repeat the 2011 draft order — that would “reward” teams twice for the same bad season in 2010-11.
The NHL was faced with this dilemma when it lost its 2004-05 season to a lockout. The league settled on a weighted lottery that included all 30 teams. The weighting was based on playoff appearances over the previous three seasons and first overall picks over the previous four seasons.
The NBA would likely adopt a similar system should the 2011-12 season be canceled. It would be a one-time occurrence — the league would revert to its usual system the following year.
by Patrick Harrel on Jul 1, 2011 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Seems good
sounds like it would favor us quite a bit not many playoff appearances in last 3 years and not very high in lottery.
I'm more with owners on this one
I know it is a complex problem but the fact that players get 57% of all basketball income is ridiculous since the owners are the ones taking the vast majority of the risk at the end of the day. Also with basketball, with the way the current system is,if you have an injury or mess up one players contract the team would be in trouble for a few years and that does not help the competitiveness of the league. Last thing I have to say is that sign and trades need to be canceled and that a team should be able to offer a player a significant amount more to be able to keep it’s star player so that he won’t bolt of Miami, New York, or LA. The small market teams need to have more of a fighting chance to compete for players and so that they can be able to keep their star players so that the league is more competitive.
Game Thread Extraordinaire
by Rockets4LIFE on Jul 1, 2011 10:49 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Disagree,but there are no good answers on this one
When an owner sells the team,he gets to keep all the money,the players don’t get squat. But there’d be no team to sell w/out the players. The owners are asking the players to give up pay to finance their buying of the team,yet get nothing from a sale.
Second,the League actually manufactures nothing,there are no factories to pay for,no capital improvements to make,it’s all just payroll.(Even if the team owns it’s stadium,NBA games will be at best a third of the events.) We can quibble about what percentage the players should make,but THEY are the only reason for NBA Basketball,so I think it’s pretty reasonable they get the bulk of the money. The owners disagree.
As to forcing players to play for a Franchise-how long do you want to keep them? LeBron,Bosh and Carmelo played SEVEN YEARS before they left. I kinda thought slavery was illegal in this country.
I guess we can blame this on Laker Envy. The Buss’ are widely known to make at least $30mil a yr off Lakers and the other owner’s want to be assured of the same yearly profits-and keep the money when they sell their team.
Just a couple things here.
1.) By your reasoning the venture capitalists who start up a business should pay the workers when they sell the business because they’re the employees. The fact is Rockets was right, the owners provide the working environment, the training staff, the medical staff, the marketing, pretty much everything except for playing the game.
You’re absolutely right in that the league manufactures nothing but licensing agreements and property rights are pretty big. If the players want to market and retain all the rights, they can go ahead and do it without the contractual agreement to play.
Let’s not try equating contractual employment to slavery. Slavery was a one time investment that folks never had to look back from. I’m sure Kunta Kintae would happily trade his lot in life for “slavery” of living in a city at a 5-20 million dollar a year clip. Let’s be realistic about our comparisons, please. These guys sign large scale contracts and it’s important to protect investments. A franchise tag would buy a year an emergency one year “oh shit” time or force an adequate compensation for a major departure. James is the prime example in that his arrival increased Cleveland’s value by 100 million dollars, his financial contribution to local and state government in Ohio is over a million dollars, and secondary and tertiary business interests lost major stake with his leave too. In a league where individuals command so much attention/finances/marketing there is incentive to guard all that. I’m yet to see an adequate rebuttal for this outside of claiming slavery where it doesn’t belong.
There’s not Laker envy, there’s a broken revenue sharing system in the league. 22 teams would like to be in the black, not the red, if you want an 8 team league due to financial viability, go right ahead, I don’t.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
by BD34 on Jul 1, 2011 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Thanks BD totally agree, rec'd
Game Thread Extraordinaire
by Rockets4LIFE on Jul 1, 2011 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
An importnant note is part of the reason teams are in the RED is because...
they are including cost in purchasing the team into operating expenses. Thats something that should be totally seperate. And if all teams opened up their books, i bet only about 10 or less are actually losing money.
As Larry Coon said:
“Unless the players can share in the profit when a team is sold, they don’t want to be burdened with the costs associated with buying the team in the first place.”
They're conflating two issues they shouldn't.
Player salaries and operation problems are a part of the purchase. The players want the profit but don’t want to concede the debt they help the owners incur. Player salaries don’t get renegotiated when the franchise is sold, why should the players be entitled to any profit from the sale of a team? Specifically, if it’s operating at a loss it’s downright asinine for the players to assume they’re owed any “profit” off the sale. The owners incur the losses, the players still get their checks, and their employment continuity is ensured by the purchase and maintenance of a team. Just because a team is sold doesn’t mean their debts or obligations are absolved.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
So
Indentured servitude,a common practice in Colonial times,is a form of slavery and it’s what the owners want.
Cleveland offered LeBron more money than Miami. The only way a Franchise tag works is if the team can force it on a player.
Venture Capitalists starting a company don’t demand that their workers accept less pay so they can be assured a profit.
And explain the logic behind the owners saying the players should give up pay so an owner can pay off the cost of buying the team,then when the team is sold it’s all the owner’s money? It’s like demanding the workers who built your car should kick in part of their salaries to help you pay off the note.
In 2005,the League made money under the current CBA. Player salaries have remained the same percentage of revenues and now the owners are claiming massive losses. To be fair I’ve made fun of their constantly shifting claim of how much they’ve lost,and it may be that losses are greater than they’ve claimed,simply because we don’t know if the total claimed is League-wide losses,which means the losses are greater as some are offset by profitable teams or just the total of teams losing money.(Altho I believe it’s the later,as otherwise we’d be hearing of the greater losses as part of NBA PR spin.)
But if teams are in such financial distress,why haven’t we seen numerous teams cutting payroll to near League minimum?(In fact,that would be a viable way of forcing more revenue sharing. If 5-6 teams were near minimum the League-wide salaries would likely be far below the 57% minimum and teams would have to pay the players,but it would be done by all the teams according to their payroll,so you’d be paying far less than those w/high payrolls.)
In the past few yrs the minimum required spending on player salaries has been between $40 and 45mil. The salary cap has been near $55mil. yet check out how few teams have been under $55mil in salaries,much less near minimums past few yrs.(Per Patricia Bender.)
Remember the League is claiming losses of $200ml+ for prior three seasons to this one.
2007/8
4 under $60mil in payroll
Atl @55.5mil
Memphis @ $54mil
Charlotte @ $53mil
2008/9
1 under $60mil
Memphis @ $55mil
2009/2010
5 under $60mil
None under $55mil
Memphis and Portland @ $56mil
2010/2011
8 under $60mil(2 of whom made Play-Offs),w/15 having payrolls between $64 and $70mil
Cleveland @ $53.9
Chicago @ $53.6
Minn @ $53.5
Clippers @ 53mil
Sacramento @ $45mil.
Think about it,19 teams are said to be hemorrhaging money(Port,Orl and Dallas while losing money are doing so by choice of extremely rich owners,I don’t count them),yet 13 of them wouldn’t make the obvious business decision to cut payroll.
In the past 4 seasons withe the NBA claiming $1Billion in cumulative losses only 1 team cut payroll BELOW $50mil.(Though it should be pointed out that a couple of yrs ago Memphis had an announced payroll of $56,but the owner was actually spending below the League minimum on payroll as Zac Randolphs contract had several millions of his contract deferred and other teams were paying significant portions of salaries for players they traded to Memphis.)
If 2/3s of the League’s teams were losing $15-20mil you’d think that a few would be following the Sac example and slashing salary to the minimum. Then you go to the players and say we’ve done all we could and we’re still losing our shirts. When you want people to believe there’s a crisis,act like it. The NBA hasn’t. Teams that were put on the market sold,the League refused to allow NO to be sold to someone who wasn’t committed to NO.
Are there teams losing money? Prob quite a few,more than I suspect,but less than the League is claiming.Prob a lot less,and losing much less than they claim.(As pointed out one perfectly legitimate-according to IRS-practice is owners are allowed to deduct their purchase price of team for up to 15 yrs. So if you bought a team for $360mil dollars you are allowed to create a loss of $24mil for 15 yrs.(Don’t think you’re going to own the team for 15 yrs,do $30mil/yr for 10 yrs.)That will show up on your books as a loss,but you’ve spent no outgoing cash. And the benefit beyond claiming woe is me,is you don’t have to pay taxes on that $24mil-ie if your team has revenues of $125mil,presto,you only pay taxes on $101mil(or $95mil,whatever). W/a tax rate of 33%,you’ve saved $8-10mil depending on how long you want to write off the buying price.
Another nice,legit tax deal is Bill Veck got the IRS to agree you could depreciate players just like livestock.(Yes,to the IRS players are just animals,insert your rant against the odious comparison to slavery here:) .) Not only can you deduct player salaries,you can deduct a depreciation “loss”,a number that shows up on the loss ledger,but again doesn’t reflect cash going out. The Players Association believes these two accepted accounting practices make up better than 25% of claimed losses.
Even in the Players are right and unavoidable ownership losses are fairly modest(likely less than $100mil league wide),it still means that some owners/teams are losing pretty decent sums and several others are barely hanging on. But there’s the little matter of non-player expenses have increased three times as fast as team revenues(and again player salaries have increased directly proportional to revenue increases-because they can’t raise faster as they are capped at 57% of revenues.)
A 10% cut in player salaries would seem to be enough to put the League in the black and enhanced revenue sharing should see overwhelming majority of teams making money.
But the owners want the players to swallow cuts huge enough to ensure smallest revenue teams are in the black,w/out revenue sharing. I think that’s greedy,wrong and will not work in the long run.
And it’s important to note that the owners demanding teams make a profit no matter what will do nothing to create competitive parity. If you are assured of a nice profit even if you field the worst team in the history of the NBA,so what? Who knew Donald Sterling was ahead of his time and that the NBA would decide to model its business practices after him? Think anybody any good is going to want to play in Minn or Milwaukee or Toronto? They’re going to end up overpaying second-rate talent and in a couple of yrs will be whining how they need more to help them.
Small market teams in not greatly desired cities will always be at a competitive disadvantage. Their only hope is a deep-pocketed owner who will spend to his hearts content,ala Cuban or Paul Allen. Sucks,but there it is.
For them a hard cap will keep them from ever being consistently competitive.(The diff between the NBA and the NFL is two great players can get you into title contention in the NBA,and won’t do it in the NFL.)
I really want to respond to this but I can barely make it through the first two paragraphs.
You started off claiming indentured servitude would be the franchise tag but indentured servitude stated that a person would work exclusively for another for x amount of years then be granted freedom, that’s called contractual labor and it’s what the CBA has now, calling the franchise tag indentured servitude is the pot calling the kettle black.
Then you rant on salaries using statistics from 2005, decided 4 years before a recession was declared and given the usual ebb and flow of economics that means it kicked in in 2008. You’re using figures from a healthy economy to forecast and speak about modern figures after the United States experienced a drastic downturn in employment and disposable income, which is downright shameful that you would use that to establish the crux of your argument because you know you’re better than that, and I know it too.
For ease of discussion maybe breaking this in and bringing up the bits as they come rather than one lump sum or something? Summarizing some points rather than running them too long? There’s a lot of good content but I had to skim 75% of the post because it was a labor of dedication to read as much as I did. From what I gather your position is essentially the players are right because small markets are unattractive and small markets deserve to lose money because they need fortunate ownership to draw much at all.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
by BD34 on Jul 2, 2011 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're right about my rambling way too much
League Revenues have increased each yr during the Recession.(Remember how the Salary Cap was going to fall to $52mil this yr,only it ended up being a tad higher than previous yr?) Player salaries have remained fixed at same percentage. If League revenues had gone down so would player salaries.
Claiming the Recession is causing teams to spend more on operations is rather interesting,but if the spending is due to the Recession,are we to assume the Recession is permanent-or at least to last another 10 yrs? Otherwise once the Recession ends we would expect teams to start making money again,just as they did at beginning of current deal.(And the League is claiming teams started losing $200mil in 2007/8-before the Recession. In two yrs the League went from making money to losing $200mil,before the Real Estate crash and the Recession.Sure.)
Owner behavior in what they do,not what they say,has not shown any sense of financial distress. If you’re losing a ton of money yr after yr,the first thing you do is slash expenses,cutting costs everywhere. The only team that has done this is Sacramento-and they’re claiming losses of $8mil.(If they had had a payroll of $64mil,they’d have been facing the kinds of losses a $400-300mil League loss would indicate is the norm. Yet the other teams allegedly losing huge sums are apparently ok w/losing them as they have not slashed spending like the Kings.) Either the otherwise very successful businessmen are idiots when it comes to the business of their teams,or there is something else at work.
On this one I’m on side of the players,but I recognize there are some distressed franchises-why they are we can argue about forever-and that ultimately the players are going to have to give up some of what they had bargained for earlier.
I just can’t stomach the owners greed. Think of it this way,the owners want to be guaranteed $30mil a yr in profits.Some 600-700,000 tickets will be sold by each team,so if owners knocked $20 off each ticket(yeah that means there be tons of freebies,bear with me),they’d just make $16mil in profits. Think there’s a chance in **** that will happen? So I would rather the players get the money than the owners.
As to small market teams,in the NHL the small market teams are still hurting,while the bigger market teams are raking in the cash. Guess what kind of NHL teams the dual owners have?
Small market teams will always be at a disadvantage long term. They need significant financial aid from their larger brethren to survive and to compete for titles they need a system where deep pocket,free spending owners are allowed to spend. A small hard cap won’t help them long term.
My original slavery comment was sarcastic,I should have left it at that. The point on indentured servitude was it was quite often extended by the “owner” w/out the other party being able to do anything about it other than run away.
Me,I'm pulling the plug
This is the last time I’m going to talk about the lockout,new CBA,all the BS because frankly I really don’t care in the end how they split our money. They aren’t going to really talk to each other until for the next few months anyhow,and likely then not get serious until Nov/Dec. Why waste anyone’s time on something that means squat to me.
Debating a Thabeet’s potential,whether Martin or Scola should be traded,that I can get into. And that’s what I hate about this,it’s robbed us of these debates/arguments/mini flame wars because everything is in limbo.
Both sides have right and wrong on their side,and I just can’t get too passionate because one might be a little more righter,one a little more wronger. Big whup.
Wake me when it’s over.
In the meantime I’ll rewatch my tapes(yes VHS) of the Streak a few more times. That’ll kill a couple of months.
I really hope you stick around, you have a lot of good info to contribute and the board will drop in quality if you check out.
All we’ll really have for quite some time is the lockout and light hearted posts. As far as the VHS Tapes, I kind of wish I had someone tape the Bills from the early 90’s for me. I have YouTube clips to assuage the pain of my beloved franchise from its relevance.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Thanks for kind words
I’m sure I’ll get off my high horse and comment on the CBA,but not for a while.
But for now I just get too angry over something that’s just not worth it.
But it’s kinda fun to see agents and players proposing exhibition tours,something I said would happen(now if they actually play the exhibitions,then I’ll really throw out my shoulder patting myself on the back.)
But it will be fascinating to see who gets the money if the exhibitions do come off. Will the players keep the money,or will they share it w/the other players. How ""Together" are the players?
Where did I say anything about FORCING players to stay at the franchise?
I was saying that the home team should be able to offer much more than another team, which isn’t the case now, so that the home team can keep it’s star if it chooses to do so. If the player isn’t inticed, he can go else where.
Game Thread Extraordinaire
by Rockets4LIFE on Jul 1, 2011 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
The thing about these free agents leaving:
Name an elite free agent, who had a competitive team around him, who openly left for a larger market or sexier city.
The only guy I can remotely think of is Melo, and that’s as much about going back to his hometown. I don’t like what Melo did because it was with the Knicks, but I don’t see a huge difference between Melo going to New York, Pau being traded to LA, or Clyde being traded to Houston. At the end of the day, the fact that Lebron left Cleveland isn’t why I hate him, and it shouldn’t be the reason he’s despised. The manner of how he did it is, but that’s not something that a CBA can address.
This isn’t to say that there is no need for reform – I think revenue sharing has to be the primary target. But I’ll freely admit that as a fan of a team with a competent front office and an owner who will reasonably spend, I’m not enthusiastic about coddling cheapskates like Phoenix or the fools in the smaller markets.
Minnesotan Rockets fan
"Back to his hometown."
I guess 8 years in Brooklyn vitiates the fact that all of his formative (non-collegiate and NBA) years growing up were in Baltimore, eh?
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
very true
that would make his home team the Bullets. If he wanted to go back home he should’ve joined John Wall. I forgot how far Baltimore was from New York
"Stability is a factor in teams that win the championship. But if you stabilize on a team that's going to end up short of that, then all you're doing is spinning your wheels in the 45-win range."-----Daryl Morey
by fanoflosingteams on Jul 1, 2011 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions
It's kind of like driving to Dallas
It’s really not that far. I do agree with BD34 on this though. Of course he had his wife’s hometown to think about too.
And yes I know the actual drive is nothing like it, but the time and distance is
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
I see no reason to choose sides
This is a negotiation between what are essentially business partners over who gets a bigger piece of the pie. I don’t think either side has the moral high ground here.
i’m pretty skeptical of the claims that 22 out of 30 teams lost money, though. You can play a lot of games with your accounting to turn a profit into a loss if you want to. What was the actual cash flow for each team? That will tell you who is truly operating at a loss.
What's really depressing
For next few months there will be nothing to talk about except the Lock Out and the new CBA.
The same endless arguments over the SOS.
And next time Bill Simmons calls the NBA the No Balls Allowed League,remember this year. Remember how all the talk was of teams going to be frantically dumping salary for the coming lock-out,the Draft was going to be so terrible that teams left and right were going to be trading out of it,that in the trading period after the Draft clubs were going to be dumping players at bargain rates just to clear salary? None of it happened.
When Morey gets ripped for not making a huge trade,remember this year,when teams supposedly had all the incentive in the world to make trades and clear some salary-and they didn’t.
Both sides are being greedy. They have both forgotten that the customers pay for everything.
The fans are the losers. Both sides have good points. Players keep saying it is a business, but what business lets the non-management employees have this kind of control. The players are currently making 57% of what comes in. Lets not forget that does not include ALL employees. There are still coaches, office personel, medical staff, custodians and the list goes on. All of this comes out of the owners 43%. In order to pay all of these the price of going to games and buying merchandise keep rising. So the bottom line is that the customers (loyal fans) pay and pay high. They make a big deal of how they GIVE back to the community and I am talking about owners as well as players. They only have it to GIVE BACK because they 1st GOT PAID FROM the Community. Everybody has the right to make money but how much is enough. What choice do we the fans have. I am a big basketball fan that can not afford to go the games now. I have to settle for TV(which still has a cost) and leave my going to the games to High School games and such where I do go to 8-10 games a week during the season . I would love to be able to attend more than one Rocket"s game a year. So who is negotiating for me and others like me?
Yeah we're getting hosed
But at least the NHL was smart enough to reduce ticket prices 10% after their lock-out as a good PR.
Notice how we haven’t heard any of the owners or Stern and crew say they’ll reduce tickets as well. Heck,the Knicks just about doubled theirs!
Best idea I’ve read on this was one where they’d play the season as scheduled under current contract,except half the player’s salaries would go into escrow account. We get our season and both owners(paying full salaries) and players(getting half their money) would have incentive to negotiate.
Have not heard the players say they would take less money if they would lower prices either.
I understand that the Life of an NBA players earning years are short. We keep hearing about these players that make millions and then go broke. Maybe a higher amount should be taken out and put in a retirement plan to protect them from themselves and all the family and friends that are living off them. I am also hearing that THE PLAYERS want the owners to share more revenue to help the ones that are losing money. I think this is a good idea as long as it does not reward the ones that are wasting their money. Why do the PLAYERS not SHARE their money with ALL PlAYERS. The better players should get paid the most but just how much more. The minimum salary for a 5 yr veteran has only rose about $300k in the last 10 years to just under a million while the max salary is over 17million. The way I see it they need to address that.
To Quote the Great Patrick Ewing
We may make a lot but we spend a lot
by arnold p on Jul 1, 2011 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Gold club aint cheap
The player I would like least at #9 would be my sister’s cat, Captain Creamsicle. She does have a great work ethic and agility, but I’m really concerned that at 9 lbs., she’s too small to play safety in the NFL. She also bites way too often on play action and is easily distracted by someone waving string in the crowd. Lastly, her wonderlic score was pretty awful, answering "meow meow meow" for most of the questions- Dr. Brackish Okun
22 of 30 teams losing money is more accounting spin than anything else.
This article on Deadspin on how teams make money “disappear” is definitely worth a read.
(by way of Kelly Dwyer on Ball Don’t Lie)
Very good read
These tax loopholes the owners are trying to use to justify themselves are just going to make things harder to resolve.
by Patrick Harrel on Jul 2, 2011 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Beautiful rebuttal cramming it back down the throat of Deadpsin.
Funny enough, it’s from the friendly folks at SLC Dunk. http://t.co/Jhb4XYU He explains it pretty well how the Deadspin article takes it in the wrong direction and capitalizes on general ignorance of finances to prove a point.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Look at my comment over there
I personally think the truth lies somewhere in between the two articles.
by Patrick Harrel on Jul 2, 2011 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Those are two interesting articles.
The Tommy Crags article starts out by complaining about tax law and accounting rules. This is a waste of mental energy. MBasing a case against the owners on depreciation rules as they related to sports teams or purchase price amortization is an enormous waste of time and proves nothing other than US tax law is convoluted. Does anyone think the players, with their representation, are hoodwinked by some tax law moves? As the article moves on it becomes more useful, pointing out that this is one facet of several interconnected businesses, and just seeing one of several entities doesn’t tell us all that much about the overall condition of the Nets and related businesses.
The SLC Dunk rebuttal looks more useful, but not dispositive either. Reading what’s on Deadspin shows that a lot of the cash that came into the the Nets company was part of the purchase arrangement. It’s a lot of capital to be contributed, certainly, but it mostly pertains to taking out a previous debt facility and other aspects of the purchase agreement. IF that capital contribution mostly went directly to covering massive operating losses you’d see it reflected in the Income Statement as well. We do see losses though – seemingly real ones.
If we can’t see the whole picture for one team, let alone all teams, we don’t have much. If the players aren’t seeing the whole picture of all related businesses in their negotiations, then they can’t be blamed for thinking the owners are simply lying about their financial condition. That’s why you’ll see the players simply demanding a percentage of gross revenue, or certain contract provisions. They’re negotiating off what they can see and prove.
IF the NBA is a losing bet (with all revenue sources to owners thrown in) then why won’t they show us that? Otherwise it’s like saying “I have no money in my left front pocket, therefore I can’t pay you.” when you have three other pockets.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Re the Nets
They started claiming massive debts after announcing they were going to try to move to Brooklyn. Probably just a coincidence.
Probably not.
One thing I’d say is that problems with operating an overleveraged business are not the same as system problems with the league. Frank McCourt was so leveraged he couldn’t make money with the DODGERS. THE DODGERS.
Debt’ll kill you.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Well,that and a nasty divorce
He and the Missus looted the Dodgers pretty good for a couple of years taking every loose dollar they found.
MLB should have never let them buy the team.
BTW,we keep hearing about the wave of Hockey owners who bought teams.
There’s Stan Kroenke w/the two Denver teams(fourth richest NHL owner w/est $2.5bil net worth),Ted Leonis w/the two Washington teams and then there are the Atlanta Spirits Investment Group,frantically trying to sell the NHL team and possibly the Hawks,Madison Sq Garden Company w/Knicks and Rangers,Comcast w/the Philly teams and Maple Leaf Sports,another group whose primary “owner” is the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund who are looking to sell their 79%.
So the dual NBA/NHL owners boil down to two holding companies looking to sell,two Media Giants(Comcast and Cablevision) who’ve had their teams for a while and the fifth richest owner in the NBA and Leonis. Hardly a wave of new owners w/NHL teams.
(BTW,the weathiest NHL owner(Phillip Anschutz-net @$7bil-owns a third of Lakers. He’s the financial muscle behind getting a NFL team for LA.
And there’s Henry Samueli who owns Anaheim Ducks and was believed to made great offer to Maloofs to come to Orange County as a back-door way of buying Kings when Maloofs eventually go broke.)
Timing could be a lot worse, it could be mid October.
I don’t see why there is so much negativity. We’re a long way away from the season right now – and not much other than trades and signings would be going on (I’ll miss summer league though).
The NFL, though, they’ve got a problem if they don’t get it together soon.
Why anyone things an NHL style year loss is a goal of the owners is beyond me. Sure, its great, if you want to be shown on Versus.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Hey there's some good news for some
W/the Lock-Out scaring some top talent into staying in school and the likelihood of no NBA games,NCAA Basketball got a huge boost from the NBA.
For College Basketball fans,expect a great season.
Very nice analysis BD.
But the main point to me is that we simply don’t have much information we can trust.
1. Until we can see a picture of profit and loss and cash flow from all related operations and entities for every team, for at least 5 years, we really don’t know if 73% of teams are actually consistently losing money or not. I believe some teams really are losing real money. If it’s 73% making “hard” losses though, I’d be surprised.
2. Picking the nadir of a recession as your reference negotiating point is silly – that’s why multi year figures are important. Sure, it’s not 2007, but it’s no more fair to assume those conditions are permanent than to assume bad conditions are either.
3. I think we’ve seen more reasonableness out of the gate than last time. I also think neither side wants to cancel a season, or even part of one. We’re starting this bright and early, just after the draft. Sides that seem impossibly far apart often come together quickly once a major concession has been granted by each. Once the real horse trading starts deals can happen very very quickly.
4. The concern should be long periods between negotiations, where each side spends too much time with their lawyers, and broods about how they’re being mistreated. Plus their lawyers certainly don’t want a quick deal – all those lovely hours and hotel suites dry up. The best thing that could happen would be both sides being locked into a small motel in western Nebraska with no connectivity until they made a deal.
5. On a couple of comments – yes, the players make a lot of money for playing a game. This is completely beside the point – they are workers who perform their work better than anyone else. They have as much right as anyone else to demand what the market will bear for their services. Since the NBA is very popular, the market can bear quite a lot. You want to see them make less? Stop being a fan and watching. Otherwise, why gripe about them demanding the most their employers can pay them? They aren’t stealing your money. You want to be mad about something? If you’re a shareholder of any company then you are an owner, so get mad about management voting themselves lavish pay for poor performance and trusting that no one will bother to vote against them doing it. No player in the NBA can do that.
6. Contract and “franchise” tags as indentured servitude (or slavery!?!). No. This is absurd. An indentured servant or slave has no choice about their work. None. They can’t leave. They can’t seek new employment elsewhere. All players in the NBA voluntarily entered into the NBA’s labor arrangement. They knew about the draft, the union, the CBA. Not one signed a deal without professional representation being available. Their contracts are generally guaranteed whether they perform well or poorly, or not at all due to injury or often other issues. If the wish to leave the contractual arrangement and become a beekeeper or whatever, they can. Such is the desire for this employment deal that the overwhelming majority of people who would like to play in the NBA will never, ever, be asked to do so. Comparing the NBA to forced labor is simply ignorant. It’s a structured work environment, to be sure, but no one is forced to endure it. They’re free to leave anytime, and may do anything other than play in the NBA – this is not onerous.
7. Each side has a ton to lose. The fact that the effort to make a deal appears so weak is beyond aggravating. Everyone knows there will be a deal eventually, is the point to see how much damage the league can recover from? Is it to see the players learned to keep a big rainy day fund from the last time? Is it to throw away the vast goodwill of an amazing season of basketball? That’s certainly what it looks like, and that’s sad.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
I contradicted myself a bit there. You can't trust a word I say.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Hard to discuss without contridictions.
I just think both sides are being a little ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that the owners are really losing money. Some revenue sharing seems to be a good idea but not by rewarding the ones that spend money foolishly. A cap with less exceptions in order to even the playing field is reasonable. 57% to the players seems too much but do not cut from the bottom. I like the rookie pay rate. The minium pay for a 5 year veteran of just under a million seems a little low when compared to the max of over 17million. A little revenue sharing by the players seems to be in order. The cuts should come from the upper salaries not the minium salaries.
I honestly think that some owners really are losing actual money.
Some are generating tax losses, and some are making money while appearing to lose it (ask Hollywood how they can stay in business with so many losers).
My sympathy to the owners extends to this – 5-6 year guaranteed deals that they are essentially forced into or they lose their best player are problematic. I don’t want to see guarantees go away, the NFL example is fairly ugly – those contracts only have value to one side. But I would like to see declining guarantees – that is years 1-3 are 100%, 3-4 are 70%, 5-6 are 40% guarantees. You can cut the player in year 4, pay the money but it doesn’t go to the cap.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
The problem w/your suggestion
Is that any form of cap-free buyouts,plus reduced buyouts is Manna from Heaven for deep pocket/big market teams and a killer to small ones.
Let’s assume for the minute the NBA claims of $20mil losses for numerous teams are correct. Reducing their player salaries from $64/70mil to $45mil puts them just about even financially(so much for guaranteed making money! Incredible the way the NBA spins.)
Enhanced revenue sharing(good luck w/how enhanced it will be)is going to be offset by the $3mil+ in Lux Tax money. For a small market team to buy-out 40% of a $10mil deal is $4mil plus whatever the replacement player costs. Yeah you save money if the replacement player makes less than $6mil,but pretty soon the fans are going to turn on you for being cheap.
Meanwhile a Mark Cuban who was willing to spend $56mil more in salaries and Lux Tax this yr than the theoretical $45mil Cap,could BUY OUT EVERY ONE OF HIS PLAYERS and sign all new ones-and still spend less than he did this yr is salaries and Lux Tax.
Think NY wouldn’t dump Billups in a second for Nash?
Cap free buy-outs ensures major markets/deep-pocketed owners will get the cream of the FA crop each yr and create a League of 5-6 Super Teams and everybody else.
Contrasting problem
A real hard cap essentially guarantees profits to big market teams then. To lower salaries such that every Bad+Small Market (because good SM teams do fine) makes money means that LA prints even more money
What about a mechanism to sell players?
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
by Xiane on Jul 9, 2011 10:53 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't think any sensible negotiator would propose double paying on a player.
You’d have big market teams winning out on that too because the teams with deeper pockets could spend all they wanted with reckless abandon.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
similar to the English premier league
The content of the text above is provided for information purposes only. No claim is made as to the accuracy or authenticity of the content. The troll does not accept any liability to any person for the information or advice (or the use of such information or advice) which is provided in the text above.
Basically yes.
Instead of just having the Lakers sign Odom and Gasol or whatever, they have to sign them AND pay a hefty transfer fee. It doesn’t look fair, but then the league isn’t fair – it’s ALWAYS an advantage to be LAL, Bulls, Knicks, Celtics. So instead of letting a big player go with an exception that means that team can spend more, why not actually put cash in their pocket on a transfer fee? Even have some sort of fee for UFAs leaving the club that drafted them.
Dunno if that all really works, but it might.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Now that you explain it it's interesting to me. Kind of reduces the incentive to just buy talent.
It comes down to goals though, if the owners want competitive parity AND profitability it gets tougher.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Max FAs leaving thru past decade
For fun,I’ve tried to put together all max FAs who left their teams since 2000.
2000:
Grant Hill (Det to Orl). Was supposed to team up w/Duncan
Tracy McGrady(Tor to Orl) Went home,was supposed to team up w/Duncan and Hill.
(First attempt to put together a super-team thru FA. Failed when Robinson talked Duncan out of leaving SA.)
Eddie Jones(Charlotte to Miami in SnT) Went home,was signed when Riley missed on McGrady.
2004
Kenyon Martin(New Jersey to Denver)
(Yeah,that was the year teams thought Kenyon Martin was much more valuable than Steve Nash.)
2005
Joe Johnson(Pho to Atl in forced SnT)
(Phoenix refused to include JJ when talking w/Orlando about trading for McGrady,then lost him anyway.)
2006
Ben Wallace(Det to Chi)
2007
Rashard Lewis(Seattle to Houston)
(Good Lord,how does Otis Smith still have a job?)
2008
Elton Brand(LAC to Philly)
Baron Davis(GS to LAC) Not really a max,but…
Davis turned down a max to sign w/Clips and Brand heavily recruited him,then Brand fled the Clips leaving an unhappy Davis in LA.
2010
LeBron James(Cleveland to Miami) Took less than he could
Chris Bosh(Tor to Miami) Took less than he could
Amare Stoudemire(Pho to NY) Took as much as he could
Carlos Boozer(Utah to Chi) Wanted to go to East Coast team to be closer to family-well he really wanted to go to Miami,but Bosh blocked him.See,Bosh is a good guy after all :)
I may have missed one or two,but this averages out to about 1 a yr and 4 of them were trying to create super-teams.
thats mad how big a deal 2010 actually was
thanks very interesting stuff
by IrishThrasher on Jul 3, 2011 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah 2010 was big
Don’t forget Gay got a max to stay and Joe Johnson extended on a max staying in Atlanta.
Durant took a max extension w/his team.
Horford “only” extended for $12mil.
And coming in 2012 when the 2008 Draft Class is coming off their rookie deals-Rose,Westbrook,Love and Gordon,Brook Lopez,Ibaka. W/guys who may yet turn it around in Mayo,Beasley,Gallinari. Then there are the guys who could reasonably expect mid-level+ money in Lee,Hill,Thompson,Hibbert,McGee,Robin Lopez,Batum,Ryan Anderson and Arthur.
You could make a half-way decent argument that the Lock-out is a pre-emptive action against the 2008 Class second contracts.
wow Ben Wallace was a Max player ?
I admire him more and more
by NVP on Jul 4, 2011 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Not going to happen
Odds are that guaranteed contracts are still going to be in the next deal given that the owners already reportedly conceded that.
by Patrick Harrel on Jul 3, 2011 7:00 AM CDT up reply actions
That was one of the first owner concessions. I would like to see more NFL style contracts.
Partial guarantees based on performance/health standards. I mean, let’s face it, if any team in the NBA would want some insurance provisions padding injury and guaranteed salary, Houston and Portland should be pushing that agenda. Insurance is expensive and if you can pad the contract up front? I say do it.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
the past 2 years are prime examples
The Rockets PAID YAO $17 mill to have courtside season tickets. I want a piece of that action. On a different note, players have no one but themselves if they go broke. No one forced them to leave college early. Its no ones fault but their own if they cant spell “encyclopedia” and cant find another job if this doesnt pan out. Arent you supposed to save around 10-15% of each paycheck for instances such as this? Probably would’ve learned that if some had actually went to class. Now on a less hostile note, does anyone if all NBA players are able to play over seas? I’ve read that Monty is goin back to playin for Italy until this thing is cleared up, but what about non-international players? Can the Euro-League be the next NBA if all the best players go there?
"Stability is a factor in teams that win the championship. But if you stabilize on a team that's going to end up short of that, then all you're doing is spinning your wheels in the 45-win range."-----Daryl Morey
by fanoflosingteams on Jul 3, 2011 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
There's restrictions on the amount of NBA Players a Euro-League roster can have.
I guess the interesting question is, if the NBA locks out, are the players still considered NBA Players? I would argue yes since they’re still part of the NBPA.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
I'm with you
Barring a decertification (which appears highly unlikely), they have to be considered NBA players.
by Patrick Harrel on Jul 3, 2011 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
If I was a Euro league team with good finances (Barca, Real, etc)
I’d argue that NBA players are players who play in the NBA currently. As they are not allowed to do that, they don’t. The players association simply represents a group of people with similar interests and desires.
In other words, it could go either way. The main sticking point I’d think is what happens if a player is lost for the year in a Euro game.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
You can argue that, but contract law is a bitter mistress.
If they’re part of the NBPA they’re identifying themselves as members of the NBA Player’s union and their contractual obligations still exist. Only if they dissolve their union can they go ahead and do it without having to make a huge case about it and I don’t think they’ll go the NFL route of decertification.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Not sure I agree with your interpretation of the mistress
Consider
1. NBA/team is in breach of contract. Players have right to earn living so long as NBA is in breach
2 also CBA is expired -
3 players have some obligation to NBA PA but contract is with breaching teams/NBA
Teams can’t have it both ways – if they’ve licked out employees willing to perform their duties and aren’t paying them, those employees should not be tied to contract team is not honoring
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
by Xiane on Jul 9, 2011 11:00 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not about CBA, it's about contract law.
1.) Right to earn a living isn’t a right, if it were, all jobs would pay a living wage, they do not, and employment is at will or contractual in the United States. There is no legal right to earn a living.
2.) CBA is expired, contracts are not.
3.) The NBA isn’t breaching their contracts. There is currently frustration of purpose while negotiations ensue but the terms of the contract that are enforceable tend to be upheld by courts.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
mmmmm ok -
Consider this – I rent a car, sign the paper. The car is now in my driveway. I owe X dollars over Y days.
I decide I don’t like the terms of car rental in general. I strongly believe car rental terms are onerous, and I say I will no longer drive the car until there’s a new rental agreement. What? I don’t owe the payments because I chose not to drive the specific car I rented? The car company wants the car back, to rent it to someone else. I say, no, you can’t have it, but I won’t pay you either, because I want to revise general rental terms with the whole car rental industry first. How have I not breached my contract?
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
You do realize there's more than one type of contract, right?
In employment/entertainment contracts players sign for exclusive rights and employment. Rental cars are boilerplate contracts for temporary services rendered. Whether or not you liked the terms of the agreement, you signed on to them at the behest of the rental company. Sorry that you’re not a fan of the terms but those are the rules you chose to play by. You also never unionized for collective bargaining rights with other car renters.
The example you created is comparing apples to steaks. There is no common ground by trying to boil this down to basics and assuming the principles would apply the same. Especially considering the rental company isn’t paying you to drive their car.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
You frustrate me, and I'm going to give up after this.
This is funny to me- you basically argue for the premise I’m trying to get to in your first paragraph above. (And yes, I’m well aware my feelings about a car rental agreement are meaningless. That was part of the point.) Then you say that premise wouldn’t apply to the NBA situation in your second.
Why do you think standard contractual premises don’t apply? The labor agreement has expired, so how it continues to bind a player until there’s a new one is at best unclear to me.
Please answer this question, because I’m genuinely curious as to your thought process – how is locking out an employee, canceling the work for which his team hired him and presumably not paying him once the “season” starts NOT a breach of that player’s contract?
How would the team hope to enforce that contract to prevent him from playing elsewhere when it won’t let him work or pay him? FIBA may bail the NBA out, but assume it doesn’t.
I’ve tried to kick a real question I have about this around with you collegially. You’ve responded by being condescending. I suggest to you that our actual experience in dealing with matters somewhat like these is probably the opposite of what you assume.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Not sure where you find condescension, I actually have been responding with respect to you.
Contracts are construed under the auspices they were signed. The old CBA expired but all current contracts were under that CBA. Without an agreement to renegotiate the old contracts they’re untouchable in the new one but the terms of the old one are still binding. I don’t have the player contracts in front of me but they’re still bound to that NBA club and there’s a difference between frustration/impracticability and breach.
Right now they fit under the frustration or impracticability exception more than breach if anything. Standard contractual premises do apply but contracts are not in a status of “breached or performed”, there’s exceptions and there’s context that courts have to weigh.
Again, any feeling of condescension or negative tone you perceived, I can assure you, was not there. Maybe it’s my reputation, I don’t know.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Ok, that's an argument, thank you.
I personally think it’s gone farther than frustration since the players can’t train, or even contact their teams. At least that’s what I’d argue if I was a player who wanted to go to Europe. They haven’t missed a paycheck yet, in most cases, though in some, where payments are spread year-round rather than in the season, maybe they have. If they’re willing to perform, but aren’t getting paid, or allowed to I honestly think they’re is a breach, unless there is some sort of “force majeur” sort of language dealing with labor situations. But by the actions of some players I suspect there isn’t.
Until games are cancelled it’s a much tougher argument, I’d say, but not impossible. Where it would get interesting would be players on options or RFAs.
I appreciate your statements regarding my being annoyed. I’m not trying to pick a fight, as you’ve seen that’s not my thing, but there’s a tone that comes across that gets under my skin. That might just be me, it might not. I can’t say for sure.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Hey, any time I can avoid pissing off some of the folks I respect, I gotta do it.
Sometimes I might inadvertently come across as an ass, it needs to be called out so I can avoid it.
To me it seems like a frustration of purpose, which just basically states “the reason for the contract has evaporated” and a lot of times those contracts merely get suspended. I think we can rest reasonably assured that in the previous CBA the contracts were tailored around the possibility of a work stoppage with annulment clauses in the case of a defection to Europe. It’s the primary reason we don’t see most roleplayers in the NBA head to Europe mid-season, contractual guarantees. I’d be very interested in seeing what the contracts say because our discussion could be all for not in black and white language in the contract, yea?
I’m interested in watching this develop mostly because of the harsh fines being threatened and the proposed labor move of contracts with an out. European clubs have to be leery of taking on big name NBA talent if the contracts have an out mid season (In case of a surprise twist that saves the season), it could really compromise the leagues over there.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Billy Hunter and NBA PA released a memo supporting playing overseas
So now its between the teams and players if they want to go.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6767374/billy-hunter-nbpa-supports-going-europe-memo-players
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Let's be fair, a memo endorsed by the head of the player's union is like having my mom tell you I'm smart.
It’s from within the camp encouraging the activity. Of course he’s not going to publicly shun them and it gives him leverage if players are getting paid while the league is trying to play hardball.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Oh I hear you - that's certainly true.
But I think it also means the NBA PA won’t be a stumbling block if it actually comes to players signing in Europe.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
I think the owners are the pertinent stumbling block.
Especially if a guy gets injured. Kobe’s idea for China with his knee injury you just know baby Buss will get pissed/see if he can cut after that if it’s a major injury overseas that occurs.
Wow, reading over that, I laid a mouth turd. Baby Buss to get Bullish if Bryant breaks knee.
There we go, 1920’s Headline style.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
I think the chilling effect of the season suddenly being on again
and the NBA, plus FIBA, could make players leaving a rarity. I think if you’re a player that wants to go you really ought to plan on staying.
I suggested to Metta World Peace that he play in Japan and donate his salary to tsunami relief. Still waiting to hear back.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Twitter - xiane1
The Dreamshake
Finally getting around to commenting on this
This is great, through and through. I’ve had discussions before where we talked about how sports in America were kind of cyclical in terms of popularity. Much of the popularity of a certain sport can be traced back to when it’s most recent lockout occurred.
For example, the three most popular sports in America are (in order): football, baseball, and basketball. In 1987 (the last NFL lockout), baseball and football were competing for top sport. Baseball enjoyed tremendous success between ’87 and ’94, when their most recent lockout happened. It was this stoppage that brought football to the forefront, with an unretired Michael Jordan helping basketball achieve enormous popularity as well.
The NBA locked out in 1998-99, and thus established our current order of popular sports. The NBA was hoping (I assume) that an NFL lockout would increase ticket sales for them if they could avoid a lockout. Of course, there really was no chance for them to stay away from a lockout.
How many Biletnikoffs does he have? NOT TWO!
from a lakers fan
very sad news guys
WojYahooNBA: Rockets’ Yao Ming has decided to retire from the NBA, league sources tell Y! Sports. He informed the league office within past 48 hours.
"I got my caveman club," -- THE BLACK MAMBA
Yao has retired
Oh well….guess we shouldn’t be real shocked on this. :-(
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on The Dream Shake
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
