CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Way too simple bro.

Owners can also LOSE money........

Players can't. They cannot lose money no matter what. If a guy signs for $30 million, he's getting paid that even if the arena is half empty and the race for the play offs finished for his team in January.

The owners are the guys taking the risk in almost all aspects. The Mavs just won it all........Drik got $21 million and a ring.

Cuban got a championship also...but probably lost $20 million doing it. (well over the cap, fines, parades etc). Cuban can afford to lose it, but not all owners can.

The owners are the only ones in this whole thing who can lose money. I don't think it's unfair that they want a league where smaller teams can compete / all teams are reasonable equal...without having to risk losing millions.

The leagues "profits" are exagerated as it's almost all coming from big markets. Smaller markets cannot sustain the current set up.

Your point is well taken and is correct.

But here is the way I see it. If the NBA would stop selling franchises to owners who expect a profit in their first year then the league probably wouldn't be at this point. These new school owners are buying teams on credit. Then they hire coaches and GM's who make the team worst than what they were before and you basically see the team go deeper into the red. Not realizing that the success of the team is tied into their success as a business. And even at that point, it's going to take 2-3 years of team success in order to turn over a profit.

Which is why I respect a guy like Mark Cuban as an owner. When he took over the Mavericks in 2000, he was loosing money off that franchise. BUT as he poured money into the team despite taking the looses, he made the franchise worth $200 million more than what he paid for. And after winning the championship, their stock will go up. Cuban had patiences, vision and some good personnel decision to wait for the returns.

These new school owners want to a profit from a 35 win team? Get the **** outta here! The only teams that has proven throughout time that will not loose money because of team performance is the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics and Bulls. Obviously, the Knicks and Lakers are in two of the biggest markets. The Celtics is the leagues cornerstone franchise. And the Bulls because of the Jordan era and how that era turned that franchise into being one of the most popular sports teams internationally. Sorry. BUT that's the way it is and no restructuring by the owners is going to change that.

All the other franchises that's still in the black, despite team performance, is because they're cutting cost. BUT how long will they sustain that if they don't take some sort of approach to making their team better? Take a guy like Robert Sarver. A guy who bought the Suns on credit in 2004 and then realize that he's not going to make a profit unless he cuts cost. Despite the fact that he had the building blocks to form a championship team. BUT for him, cost was more important than winning. This is mentality that most of the owners have who want this lockout.

We always look and criticize the players from a perspective of them getting paid and not performing up to their standards. Why can't the NBA do the same for the owners? Do like baseball did with the Dodgers and take the franchise away from these owners who's putting their teams in a bigger deficit. Especially when the team stinks and their generating a loss. If we hold players feet to the fire, owners should be held accountable as well.

BUT as I always stated before, contraction is the BEST solution to the financial situation AND would make the game itself better. I know it's not going to happen now BUT I feel they cannot avoid that situation much longer. Contraction will come. When? Maybe when Stern is not the commissioner.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Way too simple bro.

Owners can also LOSE money........

Players can't. They cannot lose money no matter what. If a guy signs for $30 million, he's getting paid that even if the arena is half empty and the race for the play offs finished for his team in January.

The owners are the guys taking the risk in almost all aspects. The Mavs just won it all........Drik got $21 million and a ring.

Cuban got a championship also...but probably lost $20 million doing it. (well over the cap, fines, parades etc). Cuban can afford to lose it, but not all owners can.

The owners are the only ones in this whole thing who can lose money. I don't think it's unfair that they want a league where smaller teams can compete / all teams are reasonable equal...without having to risk losing millions.

The leagues "profits" are exagerated as it's almost all coming from big markets. Smaller markets cannot sustain the current set up.

That's fine, but not in context of the argument. We understand that right now for whatever reason players salaries are hurting the owners. I understand and I'm all for a flex cap and reduced player salaries.

Now saying that these guys should have a set number they can make is what I disagree with. Unlike probably all of us on our jobs they are the product. Should the revenue be shared more evenly between owners and player sure. Which should results in players taking cuts.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

These new school owners want to a profit from a 35 win team? Get the **** outta here! The only teams that has proven throughout time that will not loose money because of team performance is the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics and Bulls. Obviously, the Knicks and Lakers are in two of the biggest markets. The Celtics is the leagues cornerstone franchise. And the Bulls because of the Jordan era and how that era turned that franchise into being one of the most popular sports teams internationally. Sorry. BUT that's the way it is and no restructuring by the owners is going to change that.

All the other franchises that's still in the black, despite team performance, is because they're cutting cost. BUT how long will they sustain that if they don't take some sort of approach to making their team better?

Ok, with that logic, how does it apply to a team like the Memphis Grizzlies?

I don't know who their owners are and I don't know if they made/loss money in the last few years.

I would highly assume that they lost money.

This is a playoff team, with overpaid contracts, in a small market.

Even if they get to the WCFs for the next 5 years, I highly doubt they'll ever turn a profit.

Now put that same team in NY or LA, and they do.

Can you explain this?

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Your point is well taken and is correct.

But here is the way I see it. If the NBA would stop selling franchises to owners who expect a profit in their first year then the league probably wouldn't be at this point. These new school owners are buying teams on credit. Then they hire coaches and GM's who make the team worst than what they were before and you basically see the team go deeper into the red. Not realizing that the success of the team is tied into their success as a business. And even at that point, it's going to take 2-3 years of team success in order to turn over a profit.

Which is why I respect a guy like Mark Cuban as an owner. When he took over the Mavericks in 2000, he was loosing money off that franchise. BUT as he poured money into the team despite taking the looses, he made the franchise worth $200 million more than what he paid for. And after winning the championship, their stock will go up. Cuban had patiences, vision and some good personnel decision to wait for the returns.

These new school owners want to a profit from a 35 win team? Get the **** outta here! The only teams that has proven throughout time that will not loose money because of team performance is the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics and Bulls. Obviously, the Knicks and Lakers are in two of the biggest markets. The Celtics is the leagues cornerstone franchise. And the Bulls because of the Jordan era and how that era turned that franchise into being one of the most popular sports teams internationally. Sorry. BUT that's the way it is and no restructuring by the owners is going to change that.

All the other franchises that's still in the black, despite team performance, is because they're cutting cost. BUT how long will they sustain that if they don't take some sort of approach to making their team better? Take a guy like Robert Sarver. A guy who bought the Suns on credit in 2004 and then realize that he's not going to make a profit unless he cuts cost. Despite the fact that he had the building blocks to form a championship team. BUT for him, cost was more important than winning. This is mentality that most of the owners have who want this lockout.

We always look and criticize the players from a perspective of them getting paid and not performing up to their standards. Why can't the NBA do the same for the owners? Do like baseball did with the Dodgers and take the franchise away from these owners who's putting their teams in a bigger deficit. Especially when the team stinks and their generating a loss. If we hold players feet to the fire, owners should be held accountable as well.

BUT as I always stated before, contraction is the BEST solution to the financial situation AND would make the game itself better. I know it's not going to happen now BUT I feel they cannot avoid that situation much longer. Contraction will come. When? Maybe when Stern is not the commissioner.

Here's where I disagree with you Dice and ultimately why I side with the owners.

Every team can and should make a profit(for the most part). The NBA CBA's have been in the favor of player. The players have it as about as good as any pro sports league. They are going to have to make the most cuts.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Here's where I disagree with you Dice and ultimately why I side with the owners.

Every team can and should make a profit(for the most part). The NBA CBA's have been in the favor of player. The players have it as about as good as any pro sports league. They are going to have to make the most cuts.

I agree they are. I agree with DA that the BRI split should be 50-50 and if the league continues to 'suffer' at the end of the CBA then they could move that split more in favor of the owners to help them out more and if the league begins to prosper again then they can move it back in favor of the players to help them recoup what they're giving up now.

They also could do more revenue sharing between the owners to help instead of trying to simply gank the players. Sharing local tv money is a great idea to help with that considering the Lakers themselves just signed a tv deal worth 3-5 billion dollars alone.

What we're also not seeing for the players side of this is the fact that the league is pushing for a ten year CBA. For the next ten years they'd be making money hand over fist and when CBA time comes around again and the league is prospering with the new deal, you think they're going to want to toss the players any kind of bone for their sacrifice now? Of course not. They'll hide the real numbers on how the league is doing, they'll trot out the excuses about why things don't need to change and we'll be right back here at lockout mode.

Here's also a good revenue sharing read from January of 2010. Not sure if anybody has seen it before or not.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/01/28/nba-needs-stronger-revenue-sharing/

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

As it stands the players recieve more revenue than the owners do if im not mistaken

That never happens in any company between owners and employees



If im not mistaken the mavs are still not turning the profit you think they are and as I mentioned earlier, one of their investors tried to sue him just recently even though it was dumb...

Main thing is, in the end, we as fans end up paying the people who pay the players so we get stuck in the midst of it too

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Ok, with that logic, how does it apply to a team like the Memphis Grizzlies?

I don't know who their owners are and I don't know if they made/loss money in the last few years.

I would highly assume that they lost money.

This is a playoff team, with overpaid contracts, in a small market.

Even if they get to the WCFs for the next 5 years, I highly doubt they'll ever turn a profit.

Now put that same team in NY or LA, and they do.

Can you explain this?

I'll explain and it'll fit right in with what I'm trying to say.

The Grizzlies majority owner is Michael Heisley.

According to Forbes, the Grizzlies was working at a lost of $7 million in 2009. In their 2010 report, the Grizzlies lost reduced to $3 million, when they won 40 games. With the playoff run they had this year, I'm pretty sure that lost is cut down significantly more or the franchise has broken even.

Looking at the history of their wins compared to the franchises value for that season, you can tell that success makes the franchise worth more. In the stretch of three straight playoff years they had in 2004,2005,2006. The franchise in 2004 was worth $238 million. In 2005 it was worth $294 million. And in 2006 it went to $313 million. The highest value it's ever been and their last appearance in the playoffs before this season. The franchise value went from being $238 million to $313 million in a span of three years. THREE PLAYOFF YEARS.

So what I'm saying is that it's not going to happen over night. I did say it was going to take 2-3 years to come out of the hole IF your team is successful. SO, if your constantly winning 30 games a year and your not in the major markets, don't expect a return.

But with all this, I'm not going to say that players salaries shouldn't be reconstructed. BUT wasn't it the owners that put in a MAX contract in the last CBA? Didn't they say this was going to curb the ridiculous salaries pre 1999? So after all this time, it's still not working. So who implemented this? The owners. Not the players. So as I stated in my original argument: The players are not at fault with the current financial situation.

[elprez98]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

As it stands the players recieve more revenue than the owners do if im not mistaken

That never happens in any company between owners and employees



If im not mistaken the mavs are still not turning the profit you think they are and as I mentioned earlier, one of their investors tried to sue him just recently even though it was dumb...

Main thing is, in the end, we as fans end up paying the people who pay the players so we get stuck in the midst of it too

The players are the product and the employees. They should get a majority of the profit.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The players are the product and the employees. They should get a majority of the profit.

You would think highly different if you owned a business my friend.

Name one Wall Street Owner/CEO that makes less than his/her employees. Not saying the Wall Street model is correct, but come on now.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I'll explain and it'll fit right in with what I'm trying to say.

The Grizzlies majority owner is Michael Heisley.

According to Forbes, the Grizzlies was working at a lost of $7 million in 2009. In their 2010 report, the Grizzlies lost reduced to $3 million, when they won 40 games. With the playoff run they had this year, I'm pretty sure that lost is cut down significantly more or the franchise has broken even.

Looking at the history of their wins compared to the franchises value for that season, you can tell that success makes the franchise worth more. In the stretch of three straight playoff years they had in 2004,2005,2006. The franchise in 2004 was worth $238 million. In 2005 it was worth $294 million. And in 2006 it went to $313 million. The highest value it's ever been and their last appearance in the playoffs before this season. The franchise value went from being $238 million to $313 million in a span of three years. THREE PLAYOFF YEARS.

So what I'm saying is that it's not going to happen over night. I did say it was going to take 2-3 years to come out of the hole IF your team is successful. SO, if your constantly winning 30 games a year and your not in the major markets, don't expect a return.

But with all this, I'm not going to say that players salaries shouldn't be reconstructed. BUT wasn't it the owners that put in a MAX contract in the last CBA? Didn't they say this was going to curb the ridiculous salaries pre 1999? So after all this time, it's still not working. So who implemented this? The owners. Not the players. So as I stated in my original argument: The players are not at fault with the current financial situation.

Thanks for the explanation.

That being said, every team (large or small market) can/will not be a playoff contender in the span of 3-5 years unless they adopt the NFL rules where the worst team is guaranteed the highest draft pick.

Which would lead to 'obvious' tanking games, possible point shaving and shady refs & players.

I think WTF has been saying that contraction is best. With your explanation, it seems contraction would bring about a better competitive advantage.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

You would think highly different if you owned a business my friend.

Name one Wall Street Owner/CEO that makes less than his/her employees. Not saying the Wall Street model is correct, but come on now.

Few problems with your analogy. The amount of people who can do with Wall street employees are vastly more than the number of people who can do what NBA players can. Those guys aren't the product and the employees.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Few problems with your analogy. The amount of people who can do with Wall street employees are vastly more than the number of people who can do what NBA players can. Those guys aren't the product and the employees.

I don't understand your last sentence.

And your statement is just relative to the environment. You can substitute Wall Street with Silicon Valley...the same theory applies.

Everybody on the team is replaceable...besides the true 'stars' of the league.

I wrote in one of these threads that I thought their should be a tiered system of player salaries (based on how good the player is deemed to be).

It's up to the player to view himself as a brand and get his money outside of the league (endorsements).

[TheMatrix31]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The players are the product and the employees. They should get a majority of the profit.

That is inaccurate. Pretty much the opposite of what should happen.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Thanks for the explanation.

That being said, every team (large or small market) can/will not be a playoff contender in the span of 3-5 years unless they adopt the NFL rules where the worst team is guaranteed the highest draft pick.

Which would lead to 'obvious' tanking games, possible point shaving and shady refs & players.

I think WTF has been saying that contraction is best. With your explanation, it seems contraction would bring about a better competitive advantage.

Something that wouldn't solve all the problems BUT WOULD SOLVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS from both sides.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The problem with contraction and why it won't happen is it decreases the revenue the league will generate as a whole. 26-28 teams is not going to generate the same dollars that 30 teams are going to generate. The Lakers, Bulls, Knicks and Celtics aren't going to suddenly bring in a few billion extra dollars after teams in markets like Cleveland or Toronto or wherever you're contracting loose they're only reasons to watch hoops and go to games.