*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (27 Viewers)

[QuizGuy66]

:(

Now I feel bad for NBA fans :( -QG

 

[Daywalker]

Warriors bought for $119mill in 1995. Sold this July for $450mill. Yeah lot's of risk here.

Ask the former Hornets owner how he made out when he sold.

So the nightmare scenario is you turn a 80-100mill expansion team purchase into $300mill in 20 years?

 

[flapgreen]

There's no shot for a season next year.

 

[NewlyRetired]

:( :(

 

[boubucarow]

David Stern continues to talk of bad faith negotiating, posturing, and endangering the season when talking of Hunter and the union. Yet, he has been the one that has drawn a line in the sand on more than one occasion only to erase the line later. What the players have wanted has remained basically constant. They were willing to move on the BRI and did so significantly and only wanted to maintain flexible player movement and assured paychecks in the future market. What the owners have wanted has been murky at best aside from wanted as much as they can take.

This issue starts with the owners and Stern is attempting to pass blame to the players. Would the season be played if the players took a major hit for the team? Sure. But the season would also start if the large markets would share the windfall along with what players have already given up. Blaming the players here makes little sense to me.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Greedy players are going to get what they deserve. Can't wait to hear the stories of how they're all going broke

 

[the moops]

Greedy players are going to get what they deserve. Can't wait to hear the stories of how they're all going broke

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Greedy players are going to get what they deserve. Can't wait to hear the stories of how they're all going broke

Oh wait, was the correct response, "I feel so bad for poor Rashard Lewis"? The players are idiots and are being lead by a negotiating team full of a bunch of idiots.

 

[thecatch]

At this point, the only criticism I have of the players is not realizing what a weak hand they have. Can't really blame them for taking a stand at this point, though - the league has been far too aggressive in both it's demands and negotiating posture.

 

[Bobcat10]

Both sides are fractured and are posturing in lame ways. I'm actually suprised there is so much support for the players here. I've read that other sports players would die for the offer these players are turning down. I'm not sure how true that is, but it's just what I've seen.

As I understand it, they are about to lose billions in real salary to fight for a few hundred million (possibly) and some perks like player movement. I think fans that have seen some of the player movement recently, or knowing your city like Charlotte or Toronto for example having near zero chance at landing a big FA while only being able to lose them, might side with the owners and teams that we cheer for.

 

[Hedgehog]

I blame both sides....owners have played this terribly...but as for the players...any deal that includes guaranteed contracts should be jumped on. Move to the football structure of contracts and see how they like it.

Blow it up and start over...poll America and I bet 95% of the populaion could care less if they dont play the season. If baseball got hammered after their stoppage imagine what the NBA will face.

 

[Ballstein]

i work at mcdonald's and do my job well. i would like more money but my boss won't budge. i think i'm going to sue.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

I think fans that have seen some of the player movement recently, or knowing your city like Charlotte or Toronto for example having near zero chance at landing a big FA while only being able to lose them, might side with the owners and teams that we cheer for.

I'm not sure how true this is if there's still a salary cap. Utah seems to have done OK in the free agent market and that seems like it wouldn't be an attractive location for most NBA players.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Greedy players are going to get what they deserve. Can't wait to hear the stories of how they're all going broke

Oh wait, was the correct response, "I feel so bad for poor Rashard Lewis"? The players are idiots and are being lead by a negotiating team full of a bunch of idiots.

They're also entitled to earn whatever the market will bear for their services, just like the rest of us. The only reason there are any constraints on individual and team player salaries is because the four major sports are granted a sort of pseudo-monopoly status due to their special role in our society. The owners are using that as leverage to force artificial constraints on the players. In some sense artificial constraints are necessary for the good of the league because they can help create competitive balance, but that's all they should be used for. To use the ability to put in place artificial constraints to create something for yourself that is a sure thing investment virtually guaranteed to grow significantly in value over the course of your ownership but also a virtually guaranteed source of annual revenue is absurd. If you can't bear some ups and downs and revenue losses on an appreciating investment (that's also a HUGE ego boost), cash out and sell to one of the hundreds of super-wealthy people who would be more than happy to do so.

 

[Popinski]

A loss of a year's salary is a major hit to the fringe NBA player earning minimum salary who will only be in the league for a few seasons.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Greedy players are going to get what they deserve. Can't wait to hear the stories of how they're all going broke

Oh wait, was the correct response, "I feel so bad for poor Rashard Lewis"? The players are idiots and are being lead by a negotiating team full of a bunch of idiots.

They're also entitled to earn whatever the market will bear for their services, just like the rest of us. The only reason there are any constraints on individual and team player salaries is because the four major sports are granted a sort of pseudo-monopoly status due to their special role in our society. The owners are using that as leverage to force artificial constraints on the players. In some sense artificial constraints are necessary for the good of the league because they can help create competitive balance, but that's all they should be used for. To use the ability to put in place artificial constraints to create something for yourself that is a sure thing investment virtually guaranteed to grow significantly in value over the course of your ownership but also a virtually guaranteed source of annual revenue is absurd. If you can't bear some ups and downs and revenue losses on an appreciating investment (that's also a HUGE ego boost), cash out and sell to one of the hundreds of super-wealthy people who would be more than happy to do so.

Or they can go get a job somewhere else if they don't like the pay. No one is making them play in the NBA.

 

[Ballstein]

i work at mcdonald's and do my job well. i would like more money but my boss won't budge. i think i'm going to sue.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

A loss of a year's salary is a major hit to the fringe NBA player earning minimum salary who will only be in the league for a few seasons.

It is a big hit to pretty much every player who isn't a superstar. Think Billups is happy that he won't see the $14M he is owed this year?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

 

[Bobcat10]

I think fans that have seen some of the player movement recently, or knowing your city like Charlotte or Toronto for example having near zero chance at landing a big FA while only being able to lose them, might side with the owners and teams that we cheer for.

I'm not sure how true this is if there's still a salary cap. Utah seems to have done OK in the free agent market and that seems like it wouldn't be an attractive location for most NBA players.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the changes that come with the new hard salary cap compared to the cap they've been using. The fact is there was a salary cap yesterday and there will be a salary cap tomorrow. Miami for example needed to get under enough to make their big aquisitions last year...so I'm assuming the new cap would not have allowed them to go over the cap to fill their roster (except for maybe a mid level type situation) or resign their own players. Again, I'm just assuming.I don't really follow you regarding the Jazz. I can't recall any FA's worthy of mention that they've landed recently but I'm not much of a Jazz fan.

 

[jestertj]

Link

And, with the players threatening the nuclear option of decertification, Stern has sounded the ominous warning to players that this strategy could have drastic consequences to their finances. Stern warned, "If the union is not in existence, then neither are $4 billion worth of guaranteed contracts that are entered into under condition that there's a union."

Stern and the NBA have asked a judge in the Southern District of New York to essentially rule the same. The NBA’s argument is that in the event the players' decertification or disclaimer -- the distinction is technical but the same for purposes of this argument -- is found valid, the collective bargaining relationship between the players and the owners will have ceased. Thus, argues Stern and the league, all player contracts should then also cease, becoming null and void.

This would be pretty awesome if it made every player an FA and a full on draft when the league starts back up.

I think this would be great for the average fan, but it would destroy the NBA. The NBA needs the big market teams to have a competitive advantage, this would cancel out their deeper pockets for the better part of a decade.

How in the hell does the Lakers and Knicks having a competitive advantage help me as a fan if I live in Toronto/Minnesota/Milwaukee/Cleveland? It's bad enough that we have zero chance at landing a a true superstar free agent, and as Bobcat10 said earlier all we ever do is lose them even if we get lucky enough to draft one because the big markets have more money.How do these leagues not look at the NFL and the hard cap/revenue sharing and see that what fans want is for their teams to have a chance once in a while?

 

[ArbyMelt]

Warriors bought for $119mill in 1995. Sold this July for $450mill. Yeah lot's of risk here.

Thats only an 8.6% annual rate of return over 16 years. The stock market has typically done better (except last 10 years).

 

[Kev4029]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

The bottom half of the league would certainly take it because they need to get paid and their careers are too short to sit out for a full year. The top 10-15% of players (top 2 earners on each team or so) would also take it because their salaries wouldn't take a huge hit. The above average players/earners (the Andre Miller/Jason Terry/Paul Millaps of the NBA) have got to be way against this because they have the salaries that are going to take the hit, but I would also imagine that many of these guys also need a pay check pretty soon. I would say 75% would be about right.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Greedy players are going to get what they deserve. Can't wait to hear the stories of how they're all going broke

Oh wait, was the correct response, "I feel so bad for poor Rashard Lewis"? The players are idiots and are being lead by a negotiating team full of a bunch of idiots.

They're also entitled to earn whatever the market will bear for their services, just like the rest of us. The only reason there are any constraints on individual and team player salaries is because the four major sports are granted a sort of pseudo-monopoly status due to their special role in our society. The owners are using that as leverage to force artificial constraints on the players. In some sense artificial constraints are necessary for the good of the league because they can help create competitive balance, but that's all they should be used for. To use the ability to put in place artificial constraints to create something for yourself that is a sure thing investment virtually guaranteed to grow significantly in value over the course of your ownership but also a virtually guaranteed source of annual revenue is absurd. If you can't bear some ups and downs and revenue losses on an appreciating investment (that's also a HUGE ego boost), cash out and sell to one of the hundreds of super-wealthy people who would be more than happy to do so.

Or they can go get a job somewhere else if they don't like the pay. No one is making them play in the NBA.

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

How in the hell does the Lakers and Knicks having a competitive advantage help me as a fan if I live in Toronto/Minnesota/Milwaukee/Cleveland? It's bad enough that we have zero chance at landing a a true superstar free agent, and as Bobcat10 said earlier all we ever do is lose them even if we get lucky enough to draft one because the big markets have more money.How do these leagues not look at the NFL and the hard cap/revenue sharing and see that what fans want is for their teams to have a chance once in a while?

The NBA isn't like baseball where some teams are spending two or three times as much on salaries as other teams. The Knicks and Clippers play in big markets and have been awful for a while. Oklahoma City and Orlando are fairly small market teams that did well last year. San Antonio is a small market and racked up a bunch of championships recently. I think certain teams do have a competitive advantage due to being more desirable locations to live and bigger markets. But I don't think those advantages are insurmountable.

 

[Kev4029]

Link

And, with the players threatening the nuclear option of decertification, Stern has sounded the ominous warning to players that this strategy could have drastic consequences to their finances. Stern warned, "If the union is not in existence, then neither are $4 billion worth of guaranteed contracts that are entered into under condition that there's a union."

Stern and the NBA have asked a judge in the Southern District of New York to essentially rule the same. The NBA’s argument is that in the event the players' decertification or disclaimer -- the distinction is technical but the same for purposes of this argument -- is found valid, the collective bargaining relationship between the players and the owners will have ceased. Thus, argues Stern and the league, all player contracts should then also cease, becoming null and void.

This would be pretty awesome if it made every player an FA and a full on draft when the league starts back up.

I think this would be great for the average fan, but it would destroy the NBA. The NBA needs the big market teams to have a competitive advantage, this would cancel out their deeper pockets for the better part of a decade.

How in the hell does the Lakers and Knicks having a competitive advantage help me as a fan if I live in Toronto/Minnesota/Milwaukee/Cleveland? It's bad enough that we have zero chance at landing a a true superstar free agent, and as Bobcat10 said earlier all we ever do is lose them even if we get lucky enough to draft one because the big markets have more money.How do these leagues not look at the NFL and the hard cap/revenue sharing and see that what fans want is for their teams to have a chance once in a while?

It doesn't help you, but if the Lakers/Knicks/Celtics/Bulls/etc are top flight teams the ratings for basketball are much better. The more people watching the NBA means the NBA makes more money. Stern isn't looking out for the fans of small market teams, hes looking out for the NBA as a whole. Revenue sharing would be great for the smaller half of league markets, but the richer owners with more power are the same owners that would be against that because they own the big market teams for the most part.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

The bottom half of the league would certainly take it because they need to get paid and their careers are too short to sit out for a full year. The top 10-15% of players (top 2 earners on each team or so) would also take it because their salaries wouldn't take a huge hit. The above average players/earners (the Andre Miller/Jason Terry/Paul Millaps of the NBA) have got to be way against this because they have the salaries that are going to take the hit, but I would also imagine that many of these guys also need a pay check pretty soon. I would say 75% would be about right.

But even your above average earners will still come out behind by missing a season. Terry only has a few years left; you think he can recoup the $11M he is going to miss this year? Miller has maybe two years left; he isn't going to recoup his $7.8M from this year. Millsap I'll give you. Any player that is mid-tier and around 26-27 could have a viable reason to holdout for a good deal. But if it starts spilling into a 2nd year of no NBA, then every single player is losing greatly.

 

[Sammy3469]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

The bottom half of the league would certainly take it because they need to get paid and their careers are too short to sit out for a full year. The top 10-15% of players (top 2 earners on each team or so) would also take it because their salaries wouldn't take a huge hit. The above average players/earners (the Andre Miller/Jason Terry/Paul Millaps of the NBA) have got to be way against this because they have the salaries that are going to take the hit, but I would also imagine that many of these guys also need a pay check pretty soon. I would say 75% would be about right.

I think its far far less than 75%. If this plays out they're going to have the votes to decertify (and they already have thw 25% to put it to vote...presumably those 25% aren't in favor of the current deal). I also think a lot of the superstars are against the deal since some of them would get locked in some bad situations. As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

i work at mcdonald's and do my job well. i would like more money but my boss won't budge. i think i'm going to sue.

You are extraordinarily easily replaceable. Lebron isnt. The players are the product that create the revenue. If they replace the current players with scabs, less money would come in. If you quit, mcdonalds still has burgers.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)World Basketball Association (2004-present)Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)Premier Basketball League (2007-present)United Basketball League (2006-Present)American Basketball Association (2000-present)Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)International Basketball League (2005-present)Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

 

[Kev4029]

How in the hell does the Lakers and Knicks having a competitive advantage help me as a fan if I live in Toronto/Minnesota/Milwaukee/Cleveland? It's bad enough that we have zero chance at landing a a true superstar free agent, and as Bobcat10 said earlier all we ever do is lose them even if we get lucky enough to draft one because the big markets have more money.

How do these leagues not look at the NFL and the hard cap/revenue sharing and see that what fans want is for their teams to have a chance once in a while?

The NBA isn't like baseball where some teams are spending two or three times as much on salaries as other teams. The Knicks and Clippers play in big markets and have been awful for a while. Oklahoma City and Orlando are fairly small market teams that did well last year. San Antonio is a small market and racked up a bunch of championships recently. I think certain teams do have a competitive advantage due to being more desirable locations to live and bigger markets. But I don't think those advantages are insurmountable.

The NBA is closer to the MLB than it is to the NFL in terms of money buying talent. There are instances every year with a team paying salaries equal to twice of what other teams are paying. The small market teams can't sustain that unless they are winning championships and bringing in lots of extra revenue, the Lakers/Knicks/Bulls/Celtics can. My link

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

Sure there is always a chance for the small market teams to hit it big in the draft (OKC with Durant or SA with Duncan) but typically that has been short lived (Denver with Melo, Cleveland with Lebron, Orlando with Shaq, or even way back in the day with Milwaukee and Kareem).

 

[Sammy3469]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)World Basketball Association (2004-present)Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)Premier Basketball League (2007-present)United Basketball League (2006-Present)American Basketball Association (2000-present)Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)International Basketball League (2005-present)Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

and I'm sure the Knicks would be able to get $240 a ticket to watch a bunch of D-league players (and I'm sure you would watch them on TNT and ESPN).

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

I'm not sure it's fair to just look at championships. It's too small a sample size. There have been plenty of good teams from smaller markets over those three decades. I think the NBA's small/large market parity is a lot closer to the NFL than it is to baseball.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

and I'm sure the Knicks would be able to get $240 a ticket to watch a bunch of D-league players (and I'm sure you would watch them on TNT and ESPN).

If I could bet on it I might

 

[JMon348]

Today is the 1st day of NBA players missing paychecks. The avg NBA player will lose $220,000 today.

NBA players miss 1st paychecks today: Kobe ($1,051,832 lost), LeBron ($667,603 lost), Dirk ($795,535 lost).

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)World Basketball Association (2004-present)Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)Premier Basketball League (2007-present)United Basketball League (2006-Present)American Basketball Association (2000-present)Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)International Basketball League (2005-present)Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

Well, "forced to play basketball for a living" doesn't enter into the equation, nor does the option to move to another country. That's not how markets are defined when evaluating whether someone is improperly exercising monopoly power, and with very good reason of course.As far as the other options, I just don't know enough about them, so I guess you're correct. If there are no constraints on the players simply deciding to go play for one of those leagues and those leagues gaining access to the necessary facilities and other infrastructure requirements, then the only source of the league's monopoly authority is the value the public places on the NBA and its franchises, i.e. the public trust. That still puts them in the wrong IMO, though. They're using a public trust for assured private gain beyond what they could get from any other private venture.

 

[Bobcat10]

As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

So you are concluding that the time period in question was more of a perfect storm than anything else, regardless of whether or not we'll ever see a FA class like that again? Those teams you listed, among a few others, decided to, generally speaking, suck (or be average) as well as manage their cap. If Cleveland, Phoenix, Denver, Toronto (well, hmm) and any other smaller market team that has/had a superstar and/or All Star level players was willing to do that (not try to compete for the ultimate goal for your fan base) the end result would likely have been the same and the outrage even worse imo.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.

If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)

World Basketball Association (2004-present)

Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)

Premier Basketball League (2007-present)

United Basketball League (2006-Present)

American Basketball Association (2000-present)

Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)

Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)

International Basketball League (2005-present)

Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)

They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

Well, "forced to play basketball for a living" doesn't enter into the equation, nor does the option to move to another country. That's not how markets are defined when evaluating whether someone is improperly exercising monopoly power, and with very good reason of course.As far as the other options, I just don't know enough about them, so I guess you're correct. If there are no constraints on the players simply deciding to go play for one of those leagues and those leagues gaining access to the necessary facilities and other infrastructure requirements, then the only source of the league's monopoly authority is the value the public places on the NBA and its franchises, i.e. the public trust. That still puts them in the wrong IMO, though. They're using a public trust for assured private gain beyond what they could get from any other private venture.

So the team and the branding are the draw now and not the players? If that's the case then players are dramatically overpaid. If they players are the draw, then they could choose any number of leagues to play in and it would put the NBA out of business. Or heck, they could even be entrepreneurs and create their own league! They got hundreds of millions between them (or at least they should), why not have all the players in the union invest in a new league?

There is absolutely nothing forcing the players to play in the NBA. The NBA is not a monopoly the same way Microsoft and Apple are not monopolies. They currently have the best product, but that can easily change.

 

[pollardsvision]

However this shakes out, I'm hoping it results in getting rid of Stern. What an annoying clown that guy is.

I hope not. I think Stern is great.

 

[Ballstein]

nba players are replaced all the time and cut, for better talent. the mcdonalds example is the same scenerio. and judging by the recent world championships.....there are loads of talent in other countries/leaugues

 

[Cliff Clavin]

However this shakes out, I'm hoping it results in getting rid of Stern. What an annoying clown that guy is.

I hope not. I think Stern is great.

Best Commish in sports right now (although he doesn't have much competition).

 

[pollardsvision]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.

If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)

World Basketball Association (2004-present)

Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)

Premier Basketball League (2007-present)

United Basketball League (2006-Present)

American Basketball Association (2000-present)

Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)

Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)

International Basketball League (2005-present)

Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)

They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

Well, "forced to play basketball for a living" doesn't enter into the equation, nor does the option to move to another country. That's not how markets are defined when evaluating whether someone is improperly exercising monopoly power, and with very good reason of course.As far as the other options, I just don't know enough about them, so I guess you're correct. If there are no constraints on the players simply deciding to go play for one of those leagues and those leagues gaining access to the necessary facilities and other infrastructure requirements, then the only source of the league's monopoly authority is the value the public places on the NBA and its franchises, i.e. the public trust. That still puts them in the wrong IMO, though. They're using a public trust for assured private gain beyond what they could get from any other private venture.

So the team and the branding are the draw now and not the players? If that's the case then players are dramatically overpaid. If they players are the draw, then they could choose any number of leagues to play in and it would put the NBA out of business. Or heck, they could even be entrepreneurs and create their own league! They got hundreds of millions between them (or at least they should), why not have all the players in the union invest in a new league?

There is absolutely nothing forcing the players to play in the NBA. The NBA is not a monopoly the same way Microsoft and Apple are not monopolies. They currently have the best product, but that can easily change.

I wish that were true, for the players' sake, but I don't think it is.

 

[Sammy3469]

As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

So you are concluding that the time period in question was more of a perfect storm than anything else, regardless of whether or not we'll ever see a FA class like that again? Those teams you listed, among a few others, decided to, generally speaking, suck (or be average) as well as manage their cap. If Cleveland, Phoenix, Denver, Toronto (well, hmm) and any other smaller market team that has/had a superstar and/or All Star level players was willing to do that (not try to compete for the ultimate goal for your fan base) the end result would likely have been the same and the outrage even worse imo.

No, but the owners are trying to craft a system that basically reverts to no FA movement for superstars. Superstars aren't going to accept that. Amare's brand is worth more (much more) to Amare in NYC than Phoenix. Same with a whole host of players. That's Cleveland's (or any small market team's big problem). The currently proposed deal does nothing to deal with that fact besides telling the player go F- yourself (the manner in which Stern negotiated the deal didn't help matters). In addition to decreasing their salary take, the NBA is basically saying we're going to control you and you have no out. That just doesn't fly today when these superstars have been dictating who and where they play since their first AAU years. The real solution is increasing max contracts, but the owners can't stop themselves from giving max contracts to non-max guys. I've said this before, but until Stern gets his big market owners to give more up to the small market guys, you're not getting a deal.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know who's right between the players and the owners and frankly it bores me too much to try and figure it out. All I know is that whatever Cliff Clavin writes must be wrong.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So the team and the branding are the draw now and not the players? If that's the case then players are dramatically overpaid.

If they players are the draw, then they could choose any number of leagues to play in and it would put the NBA out of business. Or heck, they could even be entrepreneurs and create their own league! They got hundreds of millions between them (or at least they should), why not have all the players in the union invest in a new league?

There is absolutely nothing forcing the players to play in the NBA. The NBA is not a monopoly the same way Microsoft and Apple are not monopolies. They currently have the best product, but that can easily change.

I wish that were true, for the players' sake, but I don't think it is.

Well, as 'easy' as it is to start up a new business.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know who's right between the players and the owners and frankly it bores me too much to try and figure it out. All I know is that whatever Cliff Clavin writes must be wrong.

Couldn't find anything to copy and paste?

 

[jestertj]

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

I'm not sure it's fair to just look at championships. It's too small a sample size. There have been plenty of good teams from smaller markets over those three decades. I think the NBA's small/large market parity is a lot closer to the NFL than it is to baseball.

So if I live in a small market, I should just be happy to have a "good team"? In reality, that's all the small market teams/fans have. It's all about superstars and big markets. Think Kobe would have won anything in Charlotte? Think he would have stayed there? Garnett was on some decent teams in Minny, but never really had a chance to win a title. When was the last time the Bucks had a sniff of a chance? Toronto?I have no problem with the smaller market owners being "hardline" so they can maybe have something closer to a level playing field in the future.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.

If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)

World Basketball Association (2004-present)

Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)

Premier Basketball League (2007-present)

United Basketball League (2006-Present)

American Basketball Association (2000-present)

Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)

Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)

International Basketball League (2005-present)

Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)

They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

Well, "forced to play basketball for a living" doesn't enter into the equation, nor does the option to move to another country. That's not how markets are defined when evaluating whether someone is improperly exercising monopoly power, and with very good reason of course.As far as the other options, I just don't know enough about them, so I guess you're correct. If there are no constraints on the players simply deciding to go play for one of those leagues and those leagues gaining access to the necessary facilities and other infrastructure requirements, then the only source of the league's monopoly authority is the value the public places on the NBA and its franchises, i.e. the public trust. That still puts them in the wrong IMO, though. They're using a public trust for assured private gain beyond what they could get from any other private venture.

So the team and the branding are the draw now and not the players? If that's the case then players are dramatically overpaid. If they players are the draw, then they could choose any number of leagues to play in and it would put the NBA out of business. Or heck, they could even be entrepreneurs and create their own league! They got hundreds of millions between them (or at least they should), why not have all the players in the union invest in a new league?

There is absolutely nothing forcing the players to play in the NBA. The NBA is not a monopoly the same way Microsoft and Apple are not monopolies. They currently have the best product, but that can easily change.

The team and the branding are a large part of the value because the public has made it so. We've form an emotional attachment to the league and its teams, and that emotional attachment (and the fact that the only other beloved, well-branded basketball league in the US forces its players to play for free) is what has granted the league a virtual monopoly over elite basketball. That's fine, but I'm not going to have sympathy or support for them if they aren't making enough money on teams they could easily sell at a profit to other willing owners. The question I was responding to wasn't one of legality, it was one of support. I'm explaining why I support the players 100%- because the owners are trying to take advantage of the public trust and their unique position to get the sort of arrangement they'd never get in a competitive market. I'd love to see a competitor to the NBA get created, but the infrastructure requirements and the fact that the NBA could just come back to the negotiating table at any point make that practically impossible. So if that likely won't happen, all I can do is support the players.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

I'm not sure it's fair to just look at championships. It's too small a sample size. There have been plenty of good teams from smaller markets over those three decades. I think the NBA's small/large market parity is a lot closer to the NFL than it is to baseball.

So if I live in a small market, I should just be happy to have a "good team"? In reality, that's all the small market teams/fans have. It's all about superstars and big markets. Think Kobe would have won anything in Charlotte? Think he would have stayed there? Garnett was on some decent teams in Minny, but never really had a chance to win a title. When was the last time the Bucks had a sniff of a chance? Toronto?I have no problem with the smaller market owners being "hardline" so they can maybe have something closer to a level playing field in the future.

You're just deliberately choosing teams that have been bad for a while. San Antonio, Utah, Orlando, Portland, Oklahoma City. They're all small markets and have had teams that could plausibly have won championships (or did win, in the case of the Spurs).And you also ignore that sometimes big market teams are awful. The Clippers haven't been good forever. The Wizards haven't competed in a long time. The Knicks and Bulls both went through fairly long periods of suckiness.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.

If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)

World Basketball Association (2004-present)

Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)

Premier Basketball League (2007-present)

United Basketball League (2006-Present)

American Basketball Association (2000-present)

Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)

Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)

International Basketball League (2005-present)

Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)

They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

Well, "forced to play basketball for a living" doesn't enter into the equation, nor does the option to move to another country. That's not how markets are defined when evaluating whether someone is improperly exercising monopoly power, and with very good reason of course.As far as the other options, I just don't know enough about them, so I guess you're correct. If there are no constraints on the players simply deciding to go play for one of those leagues and those leagues gaining access to the necessary facilities and other infrastructure requirements, then the only source of the league's monopoly authority is the value the public places on the NBA and its franchises, i.e. the public trust. That still puts them in the wrong IMO, though. They're using a public trust for assured private gain beyond what they could get from any other private venture.

So the team and the branding are the draw now and not the players? If that's the case then players are dramatically overpaid. If they players are the draw, then they could choose any number of leagues to play in and it would put the NBA out of business. Or heck, they could even be entrepreneurs and create their own league! They got hundreds of millions between them (or at least they should), why not have all the players in the union invest in a new league?

There is absolutely nothing forcing the players to play in the NBA. The NBA is not a monopoly the same way Microsoft and Apple are not monopolies. They currently have the best product, but that can easily change.

The team and the branding are a large part of the value because the public has made it so. We've form an emotional attachment to the league and its teams, and that emotional attachment (and the fact that the only other beloved, well-branded basketball league in the US forces its players to play for free) is what has granted the league a virtual monopoly over elite basketball. That's fine, but I'm not going to have sympathy or support for them if they aren't making enough money on teams they could easily sell at a profit to other willing owners. The question I was responding to wasn't one of legality, it was one of support. I'm explaining why I support the players 100%- because the owners are trying to take advantage of the public trust and their unique position to get the sort of arrangement they'd never get in a competitive market. I'd love to see a competitor to the NBA get created, but the infrastructure requirements and the fact that the NBA could just come back to the negotiating table at any point make that practically impossible. So if that likely won't happen, all I can do is support the players.

We've seen countless players make a mockery of the league and its contract structure that it baffles me that people can support them.