Anyone else feel betrayed by Wyc Grousbeck?

[Roy H.]

People talk about "half the teams" losing money as if that was a sign of the financial viability of the league. That is nonsense. What matters is if the league as a whole makes money. After all, the caps are set based on league wide revenues, not franchise specific revenues. And the league as a whole IS making a profit.

According to the NBA -- which has opened its books to auditors approved by the Player's Association -- the league as a whole lost money last year, and has lost money for several years.

Why people point to over half the teams losing money is because that is the *best* case scenario.  Worst case, 23 teams lost money, as did the league as a whole.  No amount of revenue sharing solves issues like that.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/30466702

[LooseCannon]

The owners demands have been pretty rediculous in the Numbers they want(45million$ cap?) but in principal I think they are in the right.

The numbers are the main issue of contention.  Hard cap vs soft cap is window dressing that doesn't really affect league profitability or competitive balance as much as some people think.  A hard cap is not a magic bullet that will fix everything.

I think the players are willing to be realistic about what percentage of revenue they should receive, but I don't think the owners are anywhere near willing to make any concessions in that area.  If they can agree that players should get x% of BRI, this will be easy.  Until they get there, it will be hard.

[dlpin]

According to the NBA -- which has opened its books to auditors approved by the Player's Association -- the league as a whole lost money last year, and has lost money for several years.

Why people point to over half the teams losing money is because that is the *best* case scenario.  Worst case, 23 teams lost money, as did the league as a whole.  No amount of revenue sharing solves issues like that.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/30466702

As you can see in the entry, the numbers are unverifiable, as they were not made available to the media, and the players' side hasn't released their view on it. And even the NBA hasn't released the actual losses found on those books.

But that is irrelevant to my point, still. The financial viability of the league as a whole is completely independent of how many teams make money. In fact, given the approach, which is to set caps and minimum spending as an AVERAGE of the whole revenue, even in a profitable league about half the teams can lose money every year, without any form of revenue sharing. It is basic math. If you set how much each team will have to spend as an average of everything, which includes both NY and Sacramento, it is obvious that Sacramento will lose money. The only way the number of teams losing money goes down is:
- more vigorous revenue sharing
- or you restrict everyone by market conditions in the smaller markets, which makes no sense- no point in restricting how much NY players should make based on how much Sacramento can afford).


In fact, given Forbes' numbers, even if the players accept the 50/50 split the owners are proposing (instead of the current 57-43), and salaries are cut by close to 15% across the board, you will still have some 8-10 teams losing money.

[LooseCannon]

In fact, given Forbes' numbers, even if the players accept the 50/50 split the owners are proposing (instead of the current 57-43), and salaries are cut by close to 15% across the board, you will still have some 8-10 teams losing money.

The 50-50 split that the owners have offered involves a redefining of BRI.  It's been suggested that the players would eventually end up with under 40% under the current definition by the end of the next CBA.

[BASS_THUMPER]

naw..

he aint done nuthin to me..

*sippin*

[Q_FBE]

A simplistic solution is to contract the biggest money losers. And the best players from those contracted teams find their way onto remaining teams while the bench warmers and overpaid stiffs get laid off from the NBA. This is how a normal corporation is run during a recession. I hear mixed reports on how the teams are doing financially. They are bleeding cash left and right. They are making money hand over fist and they just want to make more money. I am not going to sit here and decide what the owners and players ought to settle on. I only pray for common sense here but then again the league is run by that Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. David Stern so we know there is no common sense allowed here. If there is no NBA season this year, I will probably retire from my 43 year Celtic career.

[cman88]

I just have a hard time siding with the players in this when a guy like Eddy Curry can make 10million$ sitting on the bench, or Greg Oden can make 8million$ based on "potential"...of course the Players dont want to change anything when players who barely contribute can rake in millions$

I think something has to be done so underperforming/injured players dont hurt Teams caps....theres no reason eddy curry should be able to make 10million$ sitting on the bench, and make 700k$ for being traded while the teams mire in mediocrity for years waiting as we celebrate expiring contracts.

I think limiting the years of guaranteed contracts would do alot to help teams stay competitive, or the ability to re-structure contracts with players. That way, if you make a bad decision you have options to keep your team competitive

we can blame the owners, but the market as a whole dictates these rediculous contracts. If the hawks didnt pay Joe Johnson, some other team would and they'd have to go into rebuilding mode...not a desirable option

[dlpin]

I just have a hard time siding with the players in this when a guy like Eddy Curry can make 10million$ sitting on the bench, or Greg Oden can make 8million$ based on "potential"...of course the Players dont want to change anything when players who barely contribute can rake in millions$

I think something has to be done so underperforming/injured players dont hurt Teams caps....theres no reason eddy curry should be able to make 10million$ sitting on the bench, and make 700k$ for being traded while the teams mire in mediocrity for years waiting as we celebrate expiring contracts.

I think limiting the years of guaranteed contracts would do alot to help teams stay competitive, or the ability to re-structure contracts with players. That way, if you make a bad decision you have options to keep your team competitive

we can blame the owners, but the market as a whole dictates these rediculous contracts. If the hawks didnt pay Joe Johnson, some other team would and they'd have to go into rebuilding mode...not a desirable option

Two things:

1- The owners offered those contracts. No one forced them to.
2- Now, if the above is neither here nor there, there is the often ignored point that salaries, whatever they are, are set as a share of the total revenues. So if Curry or Oden are being overpaid, that is because other players are being underpaid. Curry and Oden, because of the nature of the CBA, are therefore taking it from other players, not the owners. The issue of guaranteed contracts is also just window dressing. The issue is really about what percentage of revenues should go to the players. But once that share is set, it doesn't matter if player A or B is overpaid, some player would be making that.

Now, would it be fairer if there were no overpaid players like Curry or Oden? Sure. But that is not what the lock out is about.

[317]

as long as the owners can right off 50% of the roster salary over the first 5 years they own the team, and 100% over 15 years when they sell the team any losses they can show on paper mean nothing. and as long as the Celtics continue to have the worst Stadium contract in all of the NBA things wont improve. when you done even get a take on consciousness you know something is wrong.

[gpap]

I started this thread and apparently I am not the only one that feels this way (see link below.)

And this week we hear from Billy Hunter that he doesn't think they'll be a season. WELL, I KNOW I FEEL SCREWED!

http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2011/08/where-do-we-stand-with-wyc.html

[Chris]

I started this thread and apparently I am not the only one that feels this way (see link below.)

And this week we hear from Billy Hunter that he doesn't think they'll be a season. WELL, I KNOW I FEEL SCREWED!

http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2011/08/where-do-we-stand-with-wyc.html

Hey, I think everyone feels screwed.  I just think its hard to pin it on Wyc, who is really just trying to do what is best for his business.

Wyc is not blameless here, but all of the owners, players, and lawyers are accountable here.  I have much more of a problem with the owners who refuse to put the money into their team to put a contender on the floor year after year, yet are asking the players and other owners to subsidize them.

Wyc has done things the right way, but as a businessman, he knows that he cannot sustain that without a new system.  I am OK with that.

[Roy H.]

The quote that I think a lot of people have misconstrued:

Back in the labor talks of 2005, Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck would say over and over in the negotiating sessions: The lockout is an investment.

That was six years ago.  Maybe Wyc feels the same way now, but is it fair to attack him for an opinion he expressed over half a decade ago, in a different economic climate?  Maybe his position has evolved.  Or, maybe he hasn't, and he cares about the long term viability of the league and the team, and wants to see it as economically secure as possible.  Either way, I don't feel that criticism is warranted.