NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion

[The 24th Letter]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

This whole thing was never about getting players a "fair deal" really....

just SOMETHING the PA could take away as a "victory" lol

[DukeC]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

That's true.

How much did Josh Childress make in Greece again?

Either way, if the owners cave on the hard cap, the players will run to the table and sign a deal, methinks.

That's not a good example either. Josh took them to the bank lol. In total his deal was 3 years, 42 or so million dollars, and they gave him a house and car. Needless to say he got the better end of that deal.

A more normal situation would be the Brandon Jennings situation in which he lived in an apartment and they chose not to pay him for over several months and got little to no playing time. The teams over there decided when to pay you, if at all, because their contracts are not guaranteed (gathering from the information I got, I could be wrong).

[TheMatrix31]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

So, let owners rake in all the profits? Bull****, especially for all the lower tier guys that never see that "Kobe money." It's about the players getting what the've already agreed upon. Or do you want the players to get ****ed like before free-agency was implemented?

Sent from Bill Backer Clubhouse

What profits?

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Well, I can't agree when the players created the $4.3 billion in revenue the NBA generated last year. They deserve their fair share or would you really watch Ted Leonosis, Jerry Buss, Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert play two-on-two? It is annoying the double-standard people use with athletes, since they like any of us are applying their trade, when they never say the same about corporate CEOs or actors. All of these people are "overpaid," but people only spit venom at athletes because of it.

Note: There is a underlying reason why, but we can't delve into it on O.S.

Sent from Bills Backer Clubhouse

The players have absolutely zero risk. They have guaranteed contracts and get paid whether no one comes to watch games or if they are injured or if they decided to eat themselves to death (Curry). The owners carry 100% of the financial risk when it comes to the league so I understand why they would want an even split when it comes to revenue.

[DukeC]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

The players have absolutely zero risk. They have guaranteed contracts and get paid whether no one comes to watch games or if they are injured or if they decided to eat themselves to death (Curry). The owners carry 100% of the financial risk when it comes to the league so I understand why they would want an even split when it comes to revenue.

True. But, I still don't think they should be protected from their own bad decisions (such as giving Rashard Lewis $100 million dollars...SMH). They should suffer the consequences of investing in a bad investment.

I agree with the rest of your post (that they should get 1/2).

The only thing not broken with the League in financial terms is the Draft.

[DukeC]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

What profits?

Also true.

[23]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

As stated before, even the lower tiered players leave the season richer than when they came in, and that's their fault if they squander that leaving beyond their means

I dont see what argument can be made against that.

[DukeC]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

As stated before, even the lower tiered players leave the season richer than when they came in, and that's their fault if they squander that leaving beyond their means

I dont see what argument can be made against that.

Oh, I totally agree. I don't think anyone was making that argument (that the players should be compensated after they are finished playing (unless they go down with a career ending injury). It's all on them should they squander it).

If anything though, owning a basketball team is not the same as owning a football (or baseball because of revenue sharing) team because basketball is just not as profitable. Owning one is more like indulging a hobby rather than trying to turn a profit.

[wwharton]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

That's not a good example either. Josh took them to the bank lol. In total his deal was 3 years, 42 or so million dollars, and they gave him a house and car. Needless to say he got the better end of that deal.

A more normal situation would be the Brandon Jennings situation in which he lived in an apartment and they chose not to pay him for over several months and got little to no playing time. The teams over there decided when to pay you, if at all, because their contracts are not guaranteed (gathering from the information I got, I could be wrong).

Also not a good example bc Jennings went straight from high school.

[J_Posse]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

The players have absolutely zero risk. They have guaranteed contracts and get paid whether no one comes to watch games or if they are injured or if they decided to eat themselves to death (Curry). The owners carry 100% of the financial risk when it comes to the league so I understand why they would want an even split when it comes to revenue.

Let me clarify, I believe a 50/50 split is fair to both parties as well as other alteration to contract lengths, Bird Rights, the mid-level exception, even the rookie scale or age limit. But, forcing the players to give back anything more than 7% is ridiculous, IMO. Yes, the owners take on all the financial risk in the business end, but they also have an opportunity to profit long-term than only a few players do (Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc.).

They go into these signings understanding that there is as inherent risk of injury, poor play or decline in play. Yet, they still give undeserving players like Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay and Rashard Lewis max deals. I'm not fully versed in the last CBA, but why can't they negotiate out-clauses do to injury or add a team option? They choice not to instead crying to the public bloody murder. Well, I've never believed the propaganda they've been reporting the last three seasons, especially when $300+ million dollars was spent just last summer.

What profits?

Uh. The revenue generated just last season was an all-time high for the NBA. What percentage do you believe the players should receive? The NBA overall doesn't lose money, people. That whole concept is spin by the NBA office, David Stern and the owners.

The issue really is that teams negotiate seperate local television broadcast deals, meaning the big markets (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, etc.) earn considerably more than small markets (Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Indiana, Charlotte, etc.). The larger markets don't want or don't feel obligated to aid the smaller marekts by cutting into their own profits/revenue through these deals. So, instead we're told that players make too much money and the league is verging on a financial collapse. Horse****. People see how much the players make and agree, sadly. Like I said earlier, they'll be back claiming money is still being lost in 5 or 10 years.

These two posts from another board I frequent express my thoughts more succinctly (including graph being mentioned from Forbes.com):

About the graph: the 09-10 Spurs season was by far their worst financially, because of the trade for a certain tiny-eared SF that pushed them way over the lux tax. Without RJ, they turn a profit somewhere in the Celts/Blazers area - it's that simple. Holt understood the implications before he OK'd the trade.

This is true- Holt took a hit- knowing they would be over the cap- It was becoming clear that to compete you had to exceed and that the past strategy of being able to compete and be below the cap was gone. I remember him saying that the small profits in the past few years enabled them to do it.
HOWEVER
The Lakers in 09/10 had a payroll 13 million more than the Spurs and made a huge profit (>30 million) and the Spurs lost money despite having high attendance. This imbalance in profits will probably even worse looking at the local TV deals now being done.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

They go into these signings understanding that there is as inherent risk of injury, poor play or decline in play. Yet, they still give undeserving players like Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay and Rashard Lewis max deals. I'm not fully versed in the last CBA, but why can't they negotiate out-clauses do to injury or add a team option? They choice not to instead crying to the public bloody murder. Well, I've never believed the propaganda they've been reporting the last three seasons, especially when $300+ million dollars was spent just last summer.

It's not like the players are just so willing to add out-clauses to their contracts. They're selfish. They're going to take their guaranteed money no matter what.

[J_Posse]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

It's not like the players are just so willing to add out-clauses to their contracts. They're selfish. They're going to take their guaranteed money no matter what.

Please, the players accept the terms that are negotiated upon. Stop acting as if all these men want the highest salary possible. Or won't sign contracts with team options or non-guaranteed money, because I can show you examples of all three occuring.

The owners negotiate poor contracts and expect the players to say no? The Spurs just gave 30+ million to Matt Bonner and Richard Jefferson last summer, so now they should reap the consequences of such foolish decisions. Unless, of course an amnesty clause is inacted in the next CBA or they find a moron, um...., trade partner to take one or both (please take both).

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Please show some and don't list players who are on the decline (aka old scrubs)and will do anything including taking the Vet's Minimum just to win a ring.

Otherwise, if you really believe these players don't go into FA DON'T want to get the highest possible amount of $$$ for them to get or get a significant raise from what they were making before or are going to DECLINE taking guaranteed money then pass some of that **** that you're smoking over here LOL.

And once again, it's easy for US to criticize the contracts and the amount of $$$ that's being paid when WE'RE not the ones paying them.

[J_Posse]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Please show some and don't list players who are on the decline (aka old scrubs)and will do anything including taking the Vet's Minimum just to win a ring.

Otherwise, if you really believe these players don't go into FA DON'T want to get the highest possible amount of $$$ for them to get or get a significant raise from what they were making before or are going to DECLINE taking guaranteed money then pass some of that **** that you're smoking over here LOL.

And once again, it's easy for US to criticize the contracts and the amount of $$$ that's being paid when WE'RE not the ones paying them.

Okay. Parker and Duncan both took less than max dollars in their last contract extensions (Duncan was still in his prime when he signed it). LeBron, Wade and Bosh all took less than max to sign in Miami. It happens people, we are just told to believe all these guys are "greedy." If the players are greedy then what are the owners? They just take what is negotiated upon, especially when the rookie scale already prohibits them from making big dollars. Or should they all take $1 million each season while the owners earn millions and billions of dollars?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

You lost me once you brought up Lebron, Wade and Bosh because EVERYONE knows the real deal with that.

It happens people, we are just told to believe all these guys are "greedy."

Because for the most part, they are greedy. You're not gonna find too many Tim Duncan's out here who'll sacrifice money to help the TEAM.

If the players are greedy then what are the owners?

Old and Greedy?

They just take what is negotiated upon,

If players instead of owners could negoatiate their own deals, don't you think just about all of them would demand they get paid max money? You wouldn't find too many players out here saying "Well, I know I didn't play too good last season so I think I'm going to take a pay cut from what I made last year since it wouldn't be fair".