Tom Penn (on PTI) - 75% chance no basketball this season

[Roy H.]

Uh, "right at the cap?" For a numbers guy, you'd think Penn would have a better grasp of things. Portland was a luxury tax-paying team nearly every year Penn was with the team.

2007-08 payroll: ~$75 mil
2008-09 payroll: ~$80 mil
2009-10 payroll: ~$56.5 mil
2010-11 payroll: ~$75 mil

I assume Penn was talking about that 2010 season (his last one in Portland), when the cap was $57.7 million.  In that regard, being "right at the cap" is a true statement.

Anyway, nothing I've read by anybody makes me optimistic about there being basketball this season, so this is just one more voice to add to the choir.

[greenpride32]

it's really not that complicated.
NBA players are making too much money.
the sport/league cannot function profitably
without player concessions.

This is correct. However, the only reason the players are making too much money is because the owners gave it to them.

Your counter argument makes no sense under a cap situation.  The league sets a high cap at $58 million and provides bigger market teams several loop holes to exceed it.  If you're a smaller market team you might have trouble spending at the cap.  

So you say to these teams don't sign big contracts, don't go after any top players, don't draft any super stars?  How are they going to compete?  Who is going to support these teams?  The owners want an environment where any team can win; and not be like MLB where it's the same teams every year because of money.  Smaller market teams are signing the best players they can in hopes they can compete and to draw fans.  If you're going to say don't do it because you can't afford to, then these teams should not exist.

[PosImpos]

 If you're going to say don't do it because you can't afford to, then these teams should not exist.

TP.

This is what it boils down to -- either the league needs to make serious changes so that smaller market teams can be competitive and financially viable, or they need to seriously contract the league.  Small market teams that can't afford to spend have no place in today's league except as fodder for the bigger teams (and places for young guys to develop until they jump ship).

[Moranis]

 If you're going to say don't do it because you can't afford to, then these teams should not exist.

TP.

This is what it boils down to -- either the league needs to make serious changes so that smaller market teams can be competitive and financially viable, or they need to seriously contract the league.  Small market teams that can't afford to spend have no place in today's league except as fodder for the bigger teams (and places for young guys to develop until they jump ship).

One of the easiest solutions is full revenue sharing from television markets like the NFL does.  Instead of the Knicks and Lakers (for example) pocketing the big local tv deals, just split it among all teams. 

[greg_kite]

While the owners are probably right in saying that 22 out of 30 teams lost money last year, the players have to be thinking it's not their problem.

It seems like more of a problem for the owners.  Nobody forced them to buy a basketball team.  Many of the owners purchased those teams knowing that the teams were losing money but still wanted a team.

And what about teams like the Lakers and Knicks?  If the cap is low enough for the small market teams to still turn a profit, imagine the profit those teams are making?  And the players don't get a piece of that?  How is that fair to the players?

And there has been talk of profit sharing between teams.  If you're Jerry Buss and bought the Lakers 20 years ago would you want to share your 3 billion dollar deal with other people that didn't spend the money to buy a team in L.A.?

The problem is the owners aren't going to give in and the players shouldn't either.  The owners are wrong in this.  If they can't compete they need to move to a better city or the league needs to contract.

[PosImpos]

While the owners are probably right in saying that 22 out of 30 teams lost money last year, the players have to be thinking it's not their problem.

It seems like more of a problem for the owners.  Nobody forced them to buy a basketball team.  Many of the owners purchased those teams knowing that the teams were losing money but still wanted a team.

And what about teams like the Lakers and Knicks?  If the cap is low enough for the small market teams to still turn a profit, imagine the profit those teams are making?  And the players don't get a piece of that?  How is that fair to the players?

And there has been talk of profit sharing between teams.  If you're Jerry Buss and bought the Lakers 20 years ago would you want to share your 3 billion dollar deal with other people that didn't spend the money to buy a team in L.A.?

The problem is the owners aren't going to give in and the players shouldn't either.  The owners are wrong in this.  If they can't compete they need to move to a better city or the league needs to contract.

See, when I hear arguments like this my first thought is that this is an incredibly callous and inconsiderate view towards the fans in those cities -- some of whom have been diehard fans for all of their lives and have spent thousands of dollars supporting that team.  The solution should not be "move or contract."

Teams like the Lakers and Knicks ought to share revenue because they wouldn't have a team if there weren't a league for that team to play in.  The Lakers need the Kings, Hornets, Bobcats, Raptors, T-Wolves etc. in order to put a product on the floor 82 games a year.

[greg_kite]

While the owners are probably right in saying that 22 out of 30 teams lost money last year, the players have to be thinking it's not their problem.

It seems like more of a problem for the owners.  Nobody forced them to buy a basketball team.  Many of the owners purchased those teams knowing that the teams were losing money but still wanted a team.

And what about teams like the Lakers and Knicks?  If the cap is low enough for the small market teams to still turn a profit, imagine the profit those teams are making?  And the players don't get a piece of that?  How is that fair to the players?

And there has been talk of profit sharing between teams.  If you're Jerry Buss and bought the Lakers 20 years ago would you want to share your 3 billion dollar deal with other people that didn't spend the money to buy a team in L.A.?

The problem is the owners aren't going to give in and the players shouldn't either.  The owners are wrong in this.  If they can't compete they need to move to a better city or the league needs to contract.

See, when I hear arguments like this my first thought is that this is an incredibly callous and inconsiderate view towards the fans in those cities -- some of whom have been diehard fans for all of their lives and have spent thousands of dollars supporting that team.  The solution should not be "move or contract."

Teams like the Lakers and Knicks ought to share revenue because they wouldn't have a team if there weren't a league for that team to play in.  The Lakers need the Kings, Hornets, Bobcats, Raptors, T-Wolves etc. in order to put a product on the floor 82 games a year.

They do?  I think the league would actually be a much better product with about 4 less teams.

And there are plenty of small market teams that have been successful in all sports without spending insane amounts of money.  What I'm saying is if they could manage their own teams without over spending one guys like John Salmons, Emeka Okafor, Corey Maggette, Bargnani and Darko Milicic they wouldn't have to worry about losing money.  Those crappy teams signed or traded for those crappy players at those prices.  Not sure how it should be the fault of the players for that happening.