The NBA Lockout, The Dream Shake and You: Owners Vs. Players?
It's so bad right now here at The Dream Shake that I'M the one breaking the silence and writing. Seriously, it has to get pretty bad for that to happen, right? I mean, only OAL coming out of nowhere and writing something would be more surprising, right?
I know that BD34, (our resident love him or hate him addition to the team, because no one loves Dave) already broke down the Owners vs. Players scenario, but I quickly have to get this off my chest. I am pro-players.
There, I said it. Ok, I've said it in other words before, but it's true. I'm not 100% on their side, clearly there are teams losing money, that's really not arguable. The question I have is, whose fault is that? To me, there is no way we can blame that on the players. No one makes a the Pacers pay 10.5 million on Mike Dunleavy. They did that all on their own. As did the Bobcats in giving Boris Diaw 9 million. The Maloofs pay Samuel Dalembert 12.5 million? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay are max players? Also smashing decisions. And what's worse, all of those were terrible decisions at the time of the contracts, not just in retrospect. Am I really able to blame the players for accepting those contracts? I would have too, and so would you.
Fans ripping the players for striking is ridiculous. First of all, the players didn't strike, the owners locked them out. There is a big difference. I've even seen our own commenters ripping Kevin Durant for this comment:
Durant says "no matter how long the lockout's going to take, we're going to stand up. We're not going to give in."
What exactly in that comment is bad? Do you expect him to say: "we're going to cave and let the owners have everything they want"? That would be stupid. You don't like the sentiment that they aren't going to give in? I'm fine with that, but I can't in good conscience agree with your line of thinking. The players are behind the 8 ball. The NBA has a ton of leverage because, frankly, a lot of NBA players are as smart with their money as Frank McCourt has been with the Dodgers money.
So is that the deal? Those strictly on the owners side think that the players make too much money so they should just suck it up? Then where do you think that money will go if the players don't get it? To charity? To workers on the team? Because the answer is neither, unless an owners tax burden gets too high and they need a write off. They're good at those, especially depreciating players like they are old milk cows and then saying those are real losses. And they are good at taking operating expenses and players salaries and finding ways to deduct them from the bottom line twice.
That's, again, not to say that some teams aren't losing money. But the answer there is contraction. The league has no business being in multiple of the cities it's in. The product is watered down by 2-4 too many teams as are the books. If they want to contract and leave salaries where they are, I think that would be a logical move. If you are losing money because you are stupid, then I have no sympathy for you. If you are losing money because you simply can't compete in your market, well, isn't that a form of stupidity too? Contraction would allow the NBA to truly build the NBDL up like it should as well.
This argument is about money. Isn't every argument? And the owners have made bad decisions with their money. Instead of changing those decisions, they are trying to regulate the game to protect them from themselves.
And to everyone saying that players shouldn't go overseas. Frankly, I think you are wrong. It's one of the easiest, and fastest ways they have to gain immediate leverage. No, they shouldn't go to certain places, but there are plenty of countries where they are safe and there are plenty of insurance companies ready to write policies for them. Go make a few million, grow the game outside of the country and let the NBA know that they cannot simply make up numbers and come to a negotiation.
Here's the last thing I have: If you believe the owners are right, then make them open their books 100%. There is nothing to hide if they are truly losing money and the books are kept, so it should literally be as simple as producing them from the year before. Oh, some are committing fraud on their taxes? Wait, some are taking out the expense of purchasing the team and calling that a loss? Some are saying that building a new building is a basketball loss? Great, so they're lying. That's pretty much the point. And if they aren't, they have no reason to keep the books closed or only partially open.
And Yao just retired too? I have no nice words for that event. For Yao I have plenty, but for his feet and legs forsaking such a good person I have none.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fact of the matter is that that few teams are actually making money
So something needs to be done about it.
Difference between this lockout and the NFL : Teams in the NFL are still making a profit.
I think Owners are entitled to try to create a different business model so their business can be profitable.
If they cant make a profit the league is going to suffer because no one is going to want to own a team.
Also I wouldnt say its the owners actually handing out these ridiculous contracts.. its the General Managers. Im sure some owners do have a say in the operations.. but im not sure it goes that deep for all owners.
"Slammed that hoe on the counter like I just got 35 on the domino table!!"
Sherrod Harris
Every single owner has a say
Whether they choose to exercise it or not isn’t my problem
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
Owners are entitled to try
and create a different business model but we do not need to agree with them on it.
There is no moral or ethical issue here. It’s purely a financial negotiation to divide the revenue between the different stakeholders. Neither the owners or players have the moral high ground. None of us are going to receive $1 from either party, so why would anyone choose a side?
I'm with the players.
Owners recklessly spent their money and are now blaming the labor situation for losing it.
Some players do have massive contracts, but most owners just spent away and are blaming anything/everyone but themselves.
"Hakeem couldn't kick your ass cuz you were too
close kissin his!"- Sir Charles to Kenny Smith.
Piss off, everyone loves me.
Firmly entrenched with the owners. Sustainable basketball and competitive basketball can only be attained through a model that makes money and levels playing fields. There’s a lot of work to do and NBA players are among the best compensated and most secure financially in professional sports today. They’re guarding privilege, not longevity. If the majority of teams are operating in the red it’s because the market that has been created is failing. The current economic collapse has taught us that wild spending just brings everyone down. Fortunately in the NBA the owners can go ahead and manipulate the model so that it’s profitable for all involved. Supporting the players is supporting financial hardships and possible collapse of the NBA.
Your proposal about opening the books implies the argument is solely financial, and it’s majorly financial but not solely. It’s about competitive balance and players able to shape super-teams by exercising total leverage in a system in which teams can’t maintain a viable product to sell. If your big name draft item can walk away after their first contract expires and he will regardless of what you want to pay him, as a small market, you’re screwed. My argument is that the owners want their investment to give returns. If the majority of the teams aren’t getting those returns, most investors will not take that business off their hands, and the business folds. Unfortunately in the NBA, your business can’t fold. Owners are at gunpoint to pay those salaries because they can’t cut losses and collapse the franchise. Assuming that this is all on the owners is naive to say the least. We always say in free agency “It’s what the market will bear.” If you believe that honestly, then you’re simultaneously lauding the players for gauging salaries and riding the owners for doing what is necessary to try to compete. Which one do you want? Players abusing the system or owners recklessly spending?
If you opened a business and your employees wound up costing you money to the point that you’re not generating profits and they’re able to walk if you don’t cave to their monetary demands, wouldn’t you be a little pissed? Or do you believe that businesses are in place for people to leech for maximum gain until they move on to their next host?
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
what?
So you’re advocating that the NBA go back to pre-free agency days where they have permanent rights to a player for the length of his career. How in the world is that a free-market approach? Would you accept that from your employer?
Businesses are in place to earn the maximum profit. People choose to work at those businesses to earn the maximum compensation. Which side is the one doing the leeching here? The owner who wants the employee’s services at the minimum cost or the employee who wants the maximum salary? Why do you think one is inherently more worthy than the other?
Also, if an NBA team folded and declared bankruptcy I don’t think there’s anything the players could do to stop it. They’d sue to get the balance of the outstanding guaranteed contracts but the players can’t force a team to continue operating.
Saying that businesses are in place to earn maximum profit is oversimplifying it a bit. This would be totally reasonable if we were talking about companies that produced roller skate wheels or a local corner store or something.
This is an NBA team. They can’t fold whenever, because they are cultural institutions. That’s the business model. Become part of the community. “Boston Celtics” means more than a piece of laundry, no matter what Jerry Seinfeld says. If it was all about making money, there would only be teams in the cities where the cool players are and people want to pay money to see them.
I want teams like the Bobcats and Raptors and Blazers to exist. And, by the way, the Rockets. There needs to be a system in place that brings us, the fans, the product we expect. That product is competitive, interesting basketball. That’s also what a business does: provides a service. So how’s about they figure out how to provide that service?
I would agree
I would agree with you that it’s simplistic Dunots, but that’s not what the owners are saying. They aren’t viewing their teams as charitable or community projects. Well, at least most of them are not – they want to make a profit. Cultural institutions fold up shop all the time because the community doesn’t provide enough support. It happens in the performing arts and it can certainly happen in sports.
Players also play for reasons beyond purely money as well. I was responding to BD34’s comment about employees ‘leeching’ off businesses.
You took an innocuous comment by me and made unreasonable conclusions.
Free agency – Teams need more leverage in negotiations with players on contracts and incentives to stay with teams. As of right now with all money being green and high end pay differences making roughly 0 difference, teams are at a disparity.
Salaries – Leeching is clearly coming from the players side when you consider it’s “Tap this well until it runs dry, move on to another well that will give me something like I had.” The owners have to dump cash to keep players coming back to their well, that’s a system in place because the expired CBA put more power in the hands of the players. Contrary to Gamefly’s slogan, power to the players isn’t necessarily the best route.
Collapse – Teams can’t, that’s the problem. A failed business investment hangs as an albatross to the owners. Even if your follow up to that comment you go that extra step further to basically say “if the workers bring a business to the ground the workers should still be compensated.” Unions are responsible for some big damage (In conjunction with owner incompetence but if you’re letting unions off scott-free you’re doing them a huge and undeserved favor) in the economic downturn we had. Remember GM? The auto-workers union bled them dry when they asked for concessions to get themselves back on their feet. How’d that work out for GM? Took a federal bail out and plenty of work to try to revive their losses. You want that for the NBA? Advocate the players then.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
We'll just disagree
If you think unions were solely responsible for the deterioration of GM, then there’s little point in further discussion. UAW members didn’t run the company, design terrible cars, or come up with lame marketing campaigns. It’s truly remarkable that those who most loudly proclaim their allegiance to the free market system complain the most about people exercising their collective bargaining rights. That is the market in action.
For myself, I don’t support either side in this. I’ve posted more than once that there’s no reason to favor one party or the other in this business negotiation. Each side is trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. I don’t care which group winds up with the bigger share.
You really don't read anything I write, do you?
This post smacks of “I don’t want to bother understanding you so I’ll pull the agree to disagree card.”
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Two Wrongs DO NOT Make a Right
There are 3 sides. [ Owners + Players + Fans ] While both players and owners have legit concerns that need to be addressed fairly, its the 3rd side that are the real losers. Players should earn outrageous salaries, have guarenteed contracts, good working conditions.They are the best in the game of basketball because of talent and hard work.
Two Wrongs DO NOT Make a Right
There are 3 sides. [ Owners + Players + Fans ] While both players and owners have legit concerns that need to be addressed fairly, its the 3rd side that are the real losers. Players should earn outrageous salaries, have guarenteed contracts, good working conditions.They are the best in the game of basketball because of talent and hard work.
Owners have invested tons of money and should be able to have some control on player movement, a fairly even playing field for small markets and resonable expectations of return on investment. Fans should be able to expect to see a good product for a reasonble price.
Can I be on neither side?
Both sides are going to have to make some concessions, here. The owners are probably cooking their books a bit, and more robust revenue sharing is going to help the league overall.
However, I also think a hard cap would make for a larger field of competitive teams, allow places that don’t have cool reputations, beaches, etc, to land some players. If the players have to take a 20% pay cut or whatever, I’m not going to cry.
I want the CBA to be better, make more sense, and help the league to improve upon their already growing popularity. The players and the owners want a very different thing from what I want, so I don’t side with either group.
Not sure a Hard Cap is the answer but a Harder cap a must
The expiring CBA allows too many ways to go over the cap. Teams willing to pay luxury tax have too many exceptions to do so. While its still better that MLB it does not keep the playing field level. Teams in bigger markets that can make more revenue in other ways have too much of an advantage. People saying it’s the owners fault for paying the high salaries is not completely fair.The cap needs fewer exceptions. The owners need more protection to keep their players and maybe exceptions for long term injuries not counting against the cap.
As of now the players have too much control. Revenue Sharing for the Owners should be done with better distribution of joint money coming in such as with both teams getting a share of the gate, TV money , NBA merchandise sales and such. Do not take money from smart spending teams to give to the foolish teams.
I think it is reasonable to do some salary cuts too. The best players should make the most money. In the old CBA the 5 year veteran minimum is just under 1million dollars while a max player makes over 17 million dollars. No revenue sharing there. Guaranteed contracts are a good thing for the player’s protections. But maybe contracts should be shorter or at least the years that it has a 100% guarantee.
I just wish they would all just get it done. As far as treating this as a business is concerned expecting owners (guys risking ALL the money) to open up their financials to the employees (guys getting paid money no matter the profit) is crazy
There are too many teams and too many poor players getting payed.
Reduce the league back to fewer teams which will increase the standard and reduce the loss.
Bailing out basket cases doesn’t work. Start with Nor., as how can you have the league owning a team? What a crock of shit.
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.
"No one makes a the Pacers pay 10.5 million on Mike Dunleavy"
Actually the market makes the Pacers pay that much, otherwise they would lose him to a team that will. Players get these rediculous contracts in smaller markets because if they dont pony up the money the player is going to leave. Its kinda like the Rockets situation, if they dont overpay for a FA Center than how else are they gonna get one? Its not like players are lining up to go play for the Pacers, Bucks, Bobcats, and even our Rockets.
"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 8, 2011 7:20 PM CDT reply actions
Um, then lose him
Because he’s not worth that much money
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
This branches off a discussion I had with my friend in class.
People ignore how these players played when they got signed, they treat it as though the player constantly renegotiates each year based on his performance and they don’t. People get the pitch forks out for owners paying big money but they have to if they want to keep guys. Not every team can gut payroll, take advantage of free agency, and be on their merry way. It’s how guys like Gilbert Arenas got their paychecks. You pay the best guys you have when they are conceivably worth it because you need to lock in a foundation SOMEHOW. Unfortunately contracts are for definite periods of time, a player’s contribution is not.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
A harder cap will help
I can think of oly a couple of rea
I don't fault a team for singing Arenas to that contract
Not at that time. At no time ever has Mike Dunleavy been worth the money he is getting paid. That’s the difference. Arenas was a scoring superstar when he signed that deal. And if he hadn’t been suspended from the league I think people would view his contract a bit differently even now.
But you can’t say that for any of the players I listed. Daryl Morey’s contracts are the exact reason I know that GMs can do it correctly in paying players. You can’t argue any of the contracts he’s given except maybe Ariza and really, that was the MLE, not some crazy deal. His Scola deal was below market, and can be argued that’s way below. How many teams wish they were paying Kyle Lowry less than 6 mill a year? It can be done, and it can be done well. You don’t have to overpay players to get a good team. You can’t bankrupt your team just because “I can’t get left behind”.
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
We won't know Luis's deal's market value, he was re-signed before a right of first refusal could be sought.
Arenas was coming off knee surgery when he got his colossal extension, it was with more than half a year done that he hadn’t played for his team. When you say we’re doing it right I have to scratch my head and ask “How?” We’ve been barely breaking over 40 wins the last two years with no discernible plan until the most recent trade deadline and no big ticket free agent because the way the business is run, you pay for those kinds of guys. Dunleavy was the closest thing Indiana had to a “precious commodity” in the NBA, so he got paid what he did. Part of that was that Indiana is not well run, but in general, the market is the thing that forces teams into these deals. It’s a one sided ordeal because the players can dog it up and it doesn’t impact the bottom line guaranteed salaries. It’s why contract year players are always appraised with skepticism.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
BD be fair
We had those 40+ wins with $17,000,000 of payroll sitting on the sideline.
A few things I disagree with
1. Luis as a player has a market value that is set by other players of his caliber. He’s dominating at the price he signed today. Whether he has it at the end of the contract is to be seen, but regardless, he’s below market value today.
2. Dunleavy was not, is not and has never been close to a precious commodity. If you want to argue Danny Granger, then sure, I’d understand them overpaying a bit more for him. But for some reason they want to trade him instead.
3. I’m not saying the way we are doing it from a win/loss standpoint is right in the statement above (I do happen to believe that it is, but that’s not part of this point). I’m saying that you can be financially responsible and make money and have a winning record not overpaying players. And Morey did that with a max player out for the season, pretty damn impressive.
www.TheDreamShake.com Co-Founder and Writer
OK
then what? Go from a 40-43 win team to a 30-35 win team, draft a good prospect, rinse, and repeat? How does that help your team? How does that help attract FAs? I know he’s not worth that much but what choice do the Pacers have, they’re not gonna attract any big name FA. Dunleavy was probably thinking along the lines of “I could either A) take the $10 mill Indiana is offering me and be THE GUY or B) take less money to be a 2nd/3rd option for another team and still not win a championship”
"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 8, 2011 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm with the fans.
Why would I side with anyone else in a Billionaire vs. Millionaire battle?
Because if they don't strike a deal that works for both of them then the product will get worse.
The fans just want to be entertained, judging by YouTube clips this can be accomplished by watching a bunch of bros standing around hitting each other in the crotch. If I want basketball they need a deal that allows for profitable clubs, competitive balance, and adequate compensation of the employees. The fans aren’t an involved party in this because they’re not the ones writing the paychecks or playing the sport, they’re drones sitting back and consuming a product.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
I beg to differ
at least in Houston and if fact in many NBA cities fans and non-fans are involved. The mega million dollar palaces these owners demand be built by the cities in question come in no small part from the cities in question. Remember when the Rockets were shopping for new digs in Kentucky? The deal, (or extortion, pick your term), was simple. If you build us a new arena, we will play ball in your city. Houston, along with many other cities ponied up massive piles of cash, so we can expect the owners to deliver the promised product . That is the side I come down on. Play or pay the damn money back.
In short, grow up, compromise, and play the game. You do in fact owe it to the fans and taxpayers of your cities.
Still doesn't make the fans an involved party. The city council makes the call on the contributions.
Unless they hold it to a referendum. Still then, if it passes you can’t withhold taxes out of spite. Construction of arenas/stadiums also employs people, encourages business growth, and has several other secondary and tertiary benefits. Owners pony up a portion of the cost, the city chips in as well.
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Sometimes the oddest things resonate a certain way
and an action has a very unintended effect down the road. The recent past has caused some public arena financing deals to get some bad press. What happens if someone decides to campaign against public financing in an election during a year long lockout. If enough fans were fed up, the well could go dry for public money for sporting events. Not in owners or players best interest.
Again, it's a decision on the town council, no campaign promise is going to get in the way of doing business.
Even if someone campaigns against public financing the allure of bringing in business and employing people during a recession wins out over rhetoric.
What was that line? Money talks and something walks…
My beingadick-butnotbeinganannoyingdick skills, they're impressive.
-TCWIR paraphrased
Agree
I just wish they will get it done soon. I realize we ( the fans ) have no organized voice but we do write the checks. No business can make it without customers. Retail businesses understand this because its easy to see the correlation between customers buying product to making the revenue. Its a little harder with the NBA. Sure there is ticket and mechandise sales but also other income not as obviously coming from the fans. TV is the largest of these. Advirtisers pay big money for TV spots because of all the people watching the NBA. If that stops so will the money. If they have an extended lockout the TV money will most likely go down. It may take a long time to get it back up. So if they take too long there will be less money to divide on we all lose. I wish they would think more of this and get it done.
From my understanding, any current contract can be voided if the new CBA
takes place assuming the players union caved in? In other words, it is very possible that players under contract could have their contract reduced by 1/3 with the owner’s proposal in the new CBA. So Kobe was due t o make 30mil this coming season. If the owners win and get their demand, Kobe would be making only 10mil? Am i right?

by 




















