Wyc's purported position on the hard cap and the lockout

[clover]

Did I miss seeing this discussed at Celticsblog?

What do people think?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Avp3ibA1vhX48au9QIW9Tc.8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_players_063011

[Fafnir]

I'm not surprised given that the Celtics don't own their own building (thus get lesser secondary revenues) and that our current core is going to be blown up soon due to age.

We can rebuild under either system just as well in all likely hood and market wise we're not in one of the teams that is making huge profits.

[nickagneta]

You know, Wyc has seen his fellow Boston area sports owner, Robert Kraft, thrive in a hard cap, massive revenue sharing, everyone makes money sports environment because of intelligent investment in upper management and coaching. I believe Wyc thinks he has one of the savviest, most intelligent, front offices and one of the best coaches in the game.

Add to that a building that he doesn't own and lucrative but limited other revenue streams and I do not doubt he wants a system much like the NFL had in place because I think he thinks his franchise could thrive in such an environment.

[Roy H.]

You know, Wyc has seen his fellow Boston area sports owner, Robert Kraft, thrive in a hard cap, massive revenue sharing, everyone makes money sports environment because of intelligent investment in upper management and coaching.

Same thing with the Bruins, as well.  They were a franchise that (to characterize this generously) was hesitant to outbid other teams for talent, due to escalating costs.  In a hard-cap system, though, they've thrived due in large part to talent evaluation.

[nickagneta]

You know, Wyc has seen his fellow Boston area sports owner, Robert Kraft, thrive in a hard cap, massive revenue sharing, everyone makes money sports environment because of intelligent investment in upper management and coaching.

Same thing with the Bruins, as well.  They were a franchise that (to characterize this generously) was hesitant to outbid other teams for talent, due to escalating costs.  In a hard-cap system, though, they've thrived due in large part to talent evaluation.

TP4U...another great example.

[LooseCannon]

A hard cap doesn't imply massive revenue sharing.  The NFL has a lot of revenue sharing because of its unique national television sports deal, which no other sport can duplicate.  A lot of big-market owners would like to decrease revenue sharing if they could get away with it.  The NBA needs a certain amount of revenue sharing to subsidize the small-market teams.  This lockout is about the big-market owners wanting to contribute as little as possible toward the end by taking the money from the players.

[Roy H.]

A hard cap doesn't imply massive revenue sharing.  The NFL has a lot of revenue sharing because of its unique national television sports deal, which no other sport can duplicate.  A lot of big-market owners would like to decrease revenue sharing if they could get away with it.  The NBA needs a certain amount of revenue sharing to subsidize the small-market teams.  This lockout is about the big-market owners wanting to contribute as little as possible toward the end by taking the money from the players.

While revenue sharing should be part of any deal, I don't think revenue sharing alone can cure the competitive balance issues.  Baseball, for instance, has very robust revenue sharing, but there is still a very stratified system of haves and have nots.

[clover]

On a purely short-term competitive basis, I'd imagine a byproduct of holding out for a hard cap would be the C's maintaining the relatively favorable cap advantage they've been working toward for '12-'13, as well as a potential advantage from a shortened '11-'12 season.

[KGs Knee]

It just seems to me the owners are negotiating in bad faith.  They're not even pretending to care about what is best, or fair, for both sides.  This is not to say the players do,but, they at least seem to recognize they need to give back some.

The players really should seek employment elsewhere (Europe?), or form their own league.  It wouldn't be very lucrative to start, but, if the players somehow could find a way to organize a league based, to start, on the current rosters it might work.  Keep teams as they are and have all free agents go into a pool where they are drafted to teams in a fantasy style draft.  I'm sure they could come up with enough money to rent smaller local arenas, hire coaches, refs, and could probabaly even get a small national TV deal.  Possibly look to purchase an insurance policy, in case of injury to protect them from losing their current NBA contracts.

Regardless, the players need to make the owners understand they can not be treated as if they'll always be there.  It is just as much a priviledge to own an NBA franchise as it is to be a player.

[LooseCannon]

On a purely short-term competitive basis, I'd imagine a byproduct of holding out for a hard cap would be the C's maintaining the relatively favorable cap advantage they've been working toward for '12-'13, as well as a potential advantage from a shortened '11-'12 season.

Whatever advantage you get from a shortened season evaporates if you are willing to lock the players out to the point of losing a season.

[Q_FBE]

So does Wyc Grousebeck firmly believe that the Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen era is over and wants a rule change to break up the Lakers and the Heat? It sure sounds like it. So why did he not put an investment group together and partner with Jeremy Jacobs to buy up the North End of Boston and control all the revenue?

What does Grousebeck have to gain by imposing a hard cap and reducing player salaries?

[LooseCannon]

What does Grousebeck have to gain by imposing a hard cap and reducing player salaries?

He avoids having to share revenue with other teams.  If given a choice between keeping a soft cap, having to share revenue with other teams, and winning a few titles in the next decade or going title-less with a hard cap and no revenue sharing, I think he prefers the latter scenario.

[droopdog7]

It just seems to me the owners are negotiating in bad faith.  They're not even pretending to care about what is best, or fair, for both sides.  This is not to say the players do,but, they at least seem to recognize they need to give back some.

The players really should seek employment elsewhere (Europe?), or form their own league.  It wouldn't be very lucrative to start, but, if the players somehow could find a way to organize a league based, to start, on the current rosters it might work.  Keep teams as they are and have all free agents go into a pool where they are drafted to teams in a fantasy style draft.  I'm sure they could come up with enough money to rent smaller local arenas, hire coaches, refs, and could probabaly even get a small national TV deal.  Possibly look to purchase an insurance policy, in case of injury to protect them from losing their current NBA contracts.

Regardless, the players need to make the owners understand they can not be treated as if they'll always be there.  It is just as much a priviledge to own an NBA franchise as it is to be a player.

There is zero chance of the players forming their own league.  They some of certainly rich, owning and running a league is a billion dollar game.  Sorry couldn't pull it off or even dream of it.

Besides, I can bet you that the large majority (maybe all?) of players wouldn't want to risk their own money.  This is what a lot of fans don't understand about business.  He could puts up and risks capital is the one that should reap the most rewards. 

All that said, I agree with your original thought.  The owners are basically out to CRUSH the players and the union.  They are not in the mood to really negotiate.  And, if the small market owners are able to hold out, there will not be a season next year.

[Roy H.]

What does Grousebeck have to gain by imposing a hard cap and reducing player salaries?

He avoids having to share revenue with other teams.  If given a choice between keeping a soft cap, having to share revenue with other teams, and winning a few titles in the next decade or going title-less with a hard cap and no revenue sharing, I think he prefers the latter scenario.

This conclusion is, of course, based upon absolutely nothing other than conjecture, and perhaps personal bias.

[PosImpos]

It is just as much a priviledge to own an NBA franchise as it is to be a player.

Disagree.  Owning an NBA franchise is owning a business; you have a prerogative to try and make a solid profit. As long as they are the ones cutting the checks, they are in control of the league, who plays in it, and for how much.