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

[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.

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

It's built upon logic and applied psychology.

[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.

It's built upon logic and applied psychology.

You're professing to know the inner thoughts of an owner who, based on everything we've seen, prefers championships over money.  Of course, I'm sure he values money a great deal, as well.  However, Wyc could have very easily kept the team's spending under the luxury tax to save money, and he deliberately chose not to.

Much like most business owners, Wyc almost surely wants his business to be as profitable and low risk as possible.  However, the way he's run his business, he's seemingly valued success over maximizing profits, and as a fan, I'm thankful for that.

[tenn_smoothie]

But isn't one of the main issues on the table the superstar long-term exorbitant $$$$ contracts (Garnett, Bryant, James, Anthony) that paralyze franchises for years and make it very difficult for small market teams to compete.

what % of NBA franchises make a profit in an average season ?

[KGs Knee]

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.

I'm sorry, but, you are completely wrong.  Sports leagues are not anything like traditional business models.

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

[PosImpos]

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

I disagree; the players need the owners, general managers etc in order to organize everything.  They could not do it themselves.  How many players go professional with degrees in business, marketing, law, financing, etc?  In truth, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players.

That said, your argument seems to be that the owners don't "own" their franchises in the same way that any other business owner "owns" their business.  That's simply not the case.  The owners paid the money to take control of their franchise, and so it is their prerogative to do what they want with it.  We can debate what they ought to do for the best of the league, but I have to disagree with your implied notion that the owners are somehow beholden to the "ideal" of the NBA.

[KGs Knee]

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

I disagree; the players need the owners, general managers etc in order to organize everything.  They could not do it themselves.  How many players go professional with degrees in business, marketing, law, financing, etc?  In truth, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players.

That said, your argument seems to be that the owners don't "own" their franchises in the same way that any other business owner "owns" their business.  That's simply not the case.  The owners paid the money to take control of their franchise, and so it is their prerogative to do what they want with it.  We can debate what they ought to do for the best of the league, but I have to disagree with your implied notion that the owners are somehow beholden to the "ideal" of the NBA.

You are right that the players need the owners, but they only need the owners to be as profitable as they are though. The players could still ply their trade without the owners. I just don't know how to state this so that you'll understand I guess.

If the players simply refuse to play for the owners, then the owners are left with nothing, and can not do anything about it (unless they plan on playing themselves).

No Players= No League
No Owners (the ones currently)= Less Lucrative League

[erisred]

But isn't one of the main issues on the table the superstar long-term exorbitant $$$$ contracts (Garnett, Bryant, James, Anthony) that paralyze franchises for years and make it very difficult for small market teams to compete.

what % of NBA franchises make a profit in an average season ?

The conventional wisdom has been that most teams don't make a profit during the regular season. The playoffs get teams into the black.

Now, I think a few big-market teams may make a profit even without the playoffs, but most need to get into the playoffs on a pretty regular basis to break even. If this is true, then I can see where 22 of the 30 teams are losing money, in any year. I can also see where the small market teams *really* need better competitive balance so they can get into the black on a more regular basis. I can also see where revenue sharing is something that would really appeal to most of the teams...and be absolutely hated by a select few.

[guava_wrench]

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

I disagree; the players need the owners, general managers etc in order to organize everything.  They could not do it themselves.  How many players go professional with degrees in business, marketing, law, financing, etc?  In truth, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players.

That said, your argument seems to be that the owners don't "own" their franchises in the same way that any other business owner "owns" their business.  That's simply not the case.  The owners paid the money to take control of their franchise, and so it is their prerogative to do what they want with it.  We can debate what they ought to do for the best of the league, but I have to disagree with your implied notion that the owners are somehow beholden to the "ideal" of the NBA.

You are right that the players need the owners, but they only need the owners to be as profitable as they are though. The players could still ply their trade without the owners. I just don't know how to state this so that you'll understand I guess.

If the players simply refuse to play for the owners, then the owners are left with nothing, and can not do anything about it (unless they plan on playing themselves).

No Players= No League
No Owners (the ones currently)= Less Lucrative League

Or you just find other owners. There are plenty potential owners out there who could replace all the owners in the NBA. There is no one out there who can replace the elite talent in the NBA.

[PosImpos]

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

I disagree; the players need the owners, general managers etc in order to organize everything.  They could not do it themselves.  How many players go professional with degrees in business, marketing, law, financing, etc?  In truth, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players.

That said, your argument seems to be that the owners don't "own" their franchises in the same way that any other business owner "owns" their business.  That's simply not the case.  The owners paid the money to take control of their franchise, and so it is their prerogative to do what they want with it.  We can debate what they ought to do for the best of the league, but I have to disagree with your implied notion that the owners are somehow beholden to the "ideal" of the NBA.

You are right that the players need the owners, but they only need the owners to be as profitable as they are though. The players could still ply their trade without the owners. I just don't know how to state this so that you'll understand I guess.

If the players simply refuse to play for the owners, then the owners are left with nothing, and can not do anything about it (unless they plan on playing themselves).

No Players= No League
No Owners (the ones currently)= Less Lucrative League

Except the owners could just start up another league and invite a bunch of new players.  That too would be a less lucrative league.

Anyway, this isn't about whether the players need the owners more or visa versa.  There's no possibility that one group is going to go off and try to start anew without the other.

The point here is that just as the players have the right to play or not play for the owners, the owners have the right to pay or not pay the athletes however they see fit -- and it's the athlete's prerogative to accept or decline those terms of pay.  At the end of the day, though, the onus is going to be more on the person accepting the check, not on the person writing it.  After all, the person writing the check already has a ton of money.

[Casperian]

Just a few thoughts:

1. It´s neither the owners or the players, it´s the fans. If everyone of us stops watching, then there would be no league.

2. The players don´t need the owners. For example, the most attended sports league in the world is the german soccer Bundesliga with over 42,000 people per game, and their clubs don´t have any owners, just elected presidents.

3. The owners don´t need the players. If there´s no LeBron James or Dirk Nowitzki, who knows, maybe I could get a spot in the NBA. Maybe the best paid player in the league wouldn´t earn 20 million, just 1 million. I know I would like a job where I could earn 1 million Dollar per annum just to play a game.

The product is the league, the only thing essential for a league is the fan.
The quality of the league equals the quality of the product. The quality of the product is determined by the quality of the players, the quality of the players is related to the money flowing in. The money flowing in is proportional to the number of fans watching.

It all comes down to a simple question: Does the league make a profit?

It´s hard to argue this issue if the fans are the only ones who suffer under the lockout, although we´re the most valuable commodity the league has.

In my opinion, we as fans should be careful to take a side in this debate. The only thing we should care about is our own side.

[KGs Knee]

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

I disagree; the players need the owners, general managers etc in order to organize everything.  They could not do it themselves.  How many players go professional with degrees in business, marketing, law, financing, etc?  In truth, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players.

That said, your argument seems to be that the owners don't "own" their franchises in the same way that any other business owner "owns" their business.  That's simply not the case.  The owners paid the money to take control of their franchise, and so it is their prerogative to do what they want with it.  We can debate what they ought to do for the best of the league, but I have to disagree with your implied notion that the owners are somehow beholden to the "ideal" of the NBA.

You are right that the players need the owners, but they only need the owners to be as profitable as they are though. The players could still ply their trade without the owners. I just don't know how to state this so that you'll understand I guess.

If the players simply refuse to play for the owners, then the owners are left with nothing, and can not do anything about it (unless they plan on playing themselves).

No Players= No League
No Owners (the ones currently)= Less Lucrative League

Except the owners could just start up another league and invite a bunch of new players.  That too would be a less lucrative league.

Anyway, this isn't about whether the players need the owners more or visa versa.  There's no possibility that one group is going to go off and try to start anew without the other.

The point here is that just as the players have the right to play or not play for the owners, the owners have the right to pay or not pay the athletes however they see fit -- and it's the athlete's prerogative to accept or decline those terms of pay.  At the end of the day, though, the onus is going to be more on the person accepting the check, not on the person writing it.  After all, the person writing the check already has a ton of money.

I agree, both sides need each other, and believe I did state that in there somehwhere (although not specifically-more implied), in order to keep the current NBA going.  It also is in both of their best interests, as the amount of money to be made is substantial.  This was sort of my orginal point.  I just think the owners are acting in bad faith and need to realize they need to compromise as well as the players, not just the players.

As far as the owners being able to start a new league, I think it would be more financially difficult for them.  In all likelyhood, they would first have to fulfill the existing legally binding contracts they have with the current players.  You cannot, as an owners, just arbitrarily decide to stop honoring a contract (and therefore not pay someone).  Also, who would play for these owners if it ever went that far.  Would anyone ever trust them again?  And who would watch a bunch of rec league-level players when there are professional-level players playing elsewhere?

On the other hand, there is no CBA currently and the players are under no obligation to agree to sign a new one.  They can simply tell the owners let us play or we go elsewhere.  Would the owners ever allow the NBA to continue without a CBA? I doubt it.

 

2. The players don´t need the owners. For example, the most attended sports league in the world is the german soccer Bundesliga with over 42,000 people per game, and their clubs don´t have any owners, just elected presidents.

3. The owners don´t need the players. If there´s no LeBron James or Dirk Nowitzki, who knows, maybe I could get a spot in the NBA. Maybe the best paid player in the league wouldn´t earn 20 million, just 1 million. I know I would like a job where I could earn 1 million Dollar per annum just to play a game.

I agree with #2, except I believe the teams still have owners-its just the individual municipalities that are the owwners.  Otherwise, who elects the team president?

#3, sure its possible, but who is watching that?  Not many I would guess.

1. It´s neither the owners or the players, it´s the fans. If everyone of us stops watching, then there would be no league.

In my opinion, we as fans should be careful to take a side in this debate. The only thing we should care about is our own side.

This I can get on-board with.  Ultimately, this is what really matters to me.  Basketball just being played.  If the players lose some money, it's no skin off my back.  Same for the owners.

[Casperian]

I agree with #2, except I believe the teams still have owners-its just the individual municipalities that are the owwners.  Otherwise, who elects the team president?

#3, sure its possible, but who is watching that?  Not many I would guess.

To answer your questions:

on #2: the fans pay an annual fee to become members, who can elect a supervisory board. The supervisory board assigns the management.

on #3: I agree, and that´s sort of the point. It´s in the best interest of the owners to pay enough money to attract the best players in the world. The key word is "enough", and that´s hard to define, considering all the external variables (economy, european competition, etc.).

It´s why I think the only real solution is a combination of low fix salaries and high profit shares, but that´s hard to install when you work with a salary cap.
(Note to myself: Stop thinking about these millionaire´s problems, and take your own advice: all you want is basketball)

[LooseCannon]

2. The players don´t need the owners. For example, the most attended sports league in the world is the german soccer Bundesliga with over 42,000 people per game, and their clubs don´t have any owners, just elected presidents.

I would be happy if the NFL and NBA permitted the Green Bay Packers model of ownership (which is no longer allowed in the NFL).

[17wasEZ]

The owners can have all the money in the world at their disposal to finance the league.  If there are no players, it doesn't matter, there is no league.  On the other hand, as long as there are players, there will always be a league.  Without the owners it may not be as lucrative, but it will still exist.  To put it more simply, the players are more indispensible (although based on the enormity of revenue generated in today's leagues, probably only marginally).

I disagree; the players need the owners, general managers etc in order to organize everything.  They could not do it themselves.  How many players go professional with degrees in business, marketing, law, financing, etc?  In truth, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players.

That said, your argument seems to be that the owners don't "own" their franchises in the same way that any other business owner "owns" their business.  That's simply not the case.  The owners paid the money to take control of their franchise, and so it is their prerogative to do what they want with it.  We can debate what they ought to do for the best of the league, but I have to disagree with your implied notion that the owners are somehow beholden to the "ideal" of the NBA.

You are right that the players need the owners, but they only need the owners to be as profitable as they are though. The players could still ply their trade without the owners. I just don't know how to state this so that you'll understand I guess.

If the players simply refuse to play for the owners, then the owners are left with nothing, and can not do anything about it (unless they plan on playing themselves).

No Players= No League
No Owners (the ones currently)= Less Lucrative League

Or you just find other owners. There are plenty potential owners out there who could replace all the owners in the NBA. There is no one out there who can replace the elite talent in the NBA.

Arenas are filled every year in college basketball without the the "elite talent in the NBA."  The Pierce and Walker Celtics weren't necessarily an elite talent compared to other teams of that era, but we enjoyed them anyway.  If they had been winning titles, no one would have complained about the talent level of the NBA.

[cman88]

I think it would be alot easier for us to contend again quicker with a hard cap than a soft cap. with a hard cap, building a contending team is more about having better management than your competitors with players, and with ainge as our GM, it would be alot easier for us to get to that level.

A hard cap would put a limit to "how much better" teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Heat can get and would put them more at level with us if we can land some good Free agents next summer.

and, if "elite talent in the nba" ends up just being stockpiling ISO players and watching them go to work, then I dont like the direction the NBA is going in. id rather  watch players who play as a "team"