Author Topic: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?  (Read 19615 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2011, 01:29:47 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Not sure how that is a strawman.
Unfortunately, this is something that I can only discuss with Some Would Argue, whoever that person might be.


That person is me.  I have argued it several times on this site.  So discuss away.


It's not clear who this is directed at. Did someone say that the owners couldn't renegotiate a CBA? I'll grant that I didn't read the thread that closely, though.

It was inferred by you, when you said:

Quote
Or the owners have to realize that if they can't seem to collectively make a profit with seventeen hundred million dollars in yearly revenue, maybe they need to stop lighting cuban cigars with thousand dollar bills, and not just take it out of the player's cut in the CBA. Just sayin!

Maybe I misunderstood, but I took that to mean that the only reason the league is losing money is because they are essentially throwing away money from the 43%, and that the CBA has nothing to do with it, and is not the solution.  Is that not what you were inferring?


Quote
As far as this soldier knows, the players are not crying salty tears over how they cannot possibly do well with what they have, so I think it's hardly relevant to point out salary waste when they aren't actually complaining about their former share of the pie to begin with.

It is relevant to the quote by you that this was in response to, which I just requoted above.  You are the one who suggested that the owners are burning money, and that is what has led to the leagues financial issues.  So, I think it is very relevant to point out that a large portion of the money that is being thrown away (or burned, as you said) comes from the 57% that is going to the players.  Therefore, at least part of the solution should come from that percentage.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2011, 02:29:02 PM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3739
  • Tommy Points: 418
Yes I know, the owners are all rich....very rich.
Irrelevant! If the owners were hobos living in empty refrigerator boxes on the side of the street, I'd say the same thing. If you can't make a profit off of 43% of four thousand million dollars, you might just be incompetent, or lying.

Well some would argue that the equivalent of lighting a Cuban cigar with a thousand dollar bill is paying $35 million to Travis Outlaw.
And I would accuse those people of strawmanning. Salaries are limited to 57% of BRI. If someone can't find significant waste in the other 43%, it's possible that they haven't actually started looking.

Of course owners could run teams with more efficiency.
The majority of their expenses are player salaries. That is where the waste is. Overpaid underachieving players that do not generate any more ticket sales or TV viewership any more than minimum salary players are a far greater source of waste in my opinion.

What would you classify as waste in the 43% share the owners were getting? Team planes? Marketing campaigns? Front office salaries?

I dont get it. These are businessmen. I am pretty sure they understand the value of usinf resources efficiently.

When the market dictates that in order to compete in the league, you have to overspend on role players that are no sure thing to deliver, then the chance you will recieve a return on investment goes way down.




Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2011, 02:31:57 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
That person is me.  I have argued it several times on this site.  So discuss away.
In that case, as a real person instead of a Weasel Word, I'd probably say it's just irrelevant to the point.

Quote
Maybe I misunderstood, but I took that to mean that the only reason the league is losing money is because they are essentially throwing away money from the 43%, and that the CBA has nothing to do with it, and is not the solution.  Is that not what you were inferring?
That's what you're inferring, it's not what I was implying. There are any number of reasons why the league is/might be losing money. My specific point is that to manage to not make a profit on 43% of BRI -- which is a figure so huge that you could give five bucks to every man, woman and child in the entire continental United States and still have enough money left over for hookers and blackjack -- is such a hilarious proposition to me that I don't even feel the need to go to the second bullet point.

Quote
It is relevant to the quote by you that this was in response to, which I just requoted above.  You are the one who suggested that the owners are burning money, and that is what has led to the leagues financial issues.  So, I think it is very relevant to point out that a large portion of the money that is being thrown away (or burned, as you said) comes from the 57% that is going to the players.  Therefore, at least part of the solution should come from that percentage.
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2011, 02:40:54 PM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3739
  • Tommy Points: 418

Quote
Maybe I misunderstood, but I took that to mean that the only reason the league is losing money is because they are essentially throwing away money from the 43%, and that the CBA has nothing to do with it, and is not the solution.  Is that not what you were inferring?
That's what you're inferring, it's not what I was implying. There are any number of reasons why the league is/might be losing money. My specific point is that to manage to not make a profit on 43% of BRI -- which is a figure so huge that you could give five bucks to every man, woman and child in the entire continental United States and still have enough money left over for hookers and blackjack -- is such a hilarious proposition to me that I don't even feel the need to go to the second bullet point.

How can you ignore overhead and expenses? You NEED a second bullet point to continue your argument.There is no substance if you keep making analogies to how much money 43% of the revenue is. Where is the waste?

It costs a large amount of money to run NBA teams. Sorry I dont have a sarcastic analogy to illustrate how much money that is.

Players making money and not performing is tangible. Saying owners run teams ineffieciently with too much waste without pointing out specifics is a soft case. You are speculating.




Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2011, 02:47:32 PM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3739
  • Tommy Points: 418
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

The owners have been bailing out the players for years overpaying for underachieving players. There's one on every roster.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2011, 03:03:25 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18186
  • Tommy Points: 2747
  • bammokja
Yes I know, the owners are all rich....very rich.
Irrelevant! If the owners were hobos living in empty refrigerator boxes on the side of the street, I'd say the same thing. If you can't make a profit off of 43% of four thousand million dollars, you might just be incompetent, or lying.

Well some would argue that the equivalent of lighting a Cuban cigar with a thousand dollar bill is paying $35 million to Travis Outlaw.
And I would accuse those people of strawmanning. Salaries are limited to 57% of BRI. If someone can't find significant waste in the other 43%, it's possible that they haven't actually started looking.

the rub, of course, is that the owners may actually believe that they have found "significant waste," and that it is in the 57%.  :)
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2011, 03:18:01 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

No one is bailing anyone out.  You make it sound like the owners are asking for handouts.  This is how collective bargaining works.  They come up with a contract, and play it out.  When it ends, they negotiate a new contract.  If the old contract worked for both sides, then they generally stay the same.  If it did not work for one of the sides, then they negotiate a new deal that they think can work for both sides.

No one is bailing out anyone.  They are just negotiating a new deal that works better for the side that the previous contract did not work with, while still being palatable for the other side. 


Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2011, 03:38:27 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

The owners have been bailing out the players for years overpaying for underachieving players. There's one on every roster.
Whoa. Stop right there.

No one held a gun to the heads of the owners and made them give out ridiculous contracts to underachieving players. At some point the ownership has to look in the mirror and realized they have managed some player contract negotiations horribly.

Darko Milicic 4 year $20 million deal....hello
Eddie Curry 6 year $56 million deal....Isiah you there
Josh Childress 5 year $33 million deal....what?
Rashard Lewis 6 year $112 million deal....mind boggling
Travis Outlaw 5 year $35 million deal....huh?

And the list goes on and on. The one constant in all this. Most of these teams weren't even in a bidding war for these players that they gave these ridiculous contracts to. They were just fleeced by agents that were 10 times smarter than their GMs.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2011, 03:39:32 PM »

Offline dtrader

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 730
  • Tommy Points: 42

Quote
Maybe I misunderstood, but I took that to mean that the only reason the league is losing money is because they are essentially throwing away money from the 43%, and that the CBA has nothing to do with it, and is not the solution.  Is that not what you were inferring?
That's what you're inferring, it's not what I was implying. There are any number of reasons why the league is/might be losing money. My specific point is that to manage to not make a profit on 43% of BRI -- which is a figure so huge that you could give five bucks to every man, woman and child in the entire continental United States and still have enough money left over for hookers and blackjack -- is such a hilarious proposition to me that I don't even feel the need to go to the second bullet point.

How can you ignore overhead and expenses? You NEED a second bullet point to continue your argument.There is no substance if you keep making analogies to how much money 43% of the revenue is. Where is the waste?

It costs a large amount of money to run NBA teams. Sorry I dont have a sarcastic analogy to illustrate how much money that is.

Players making money and not performing is tangible. Saying owners run teams ineffieciently with too much waste without pointing out specifics is a soft case. You are speculating.





Analyzing who is managing their % of the BRI split is almost impossible for us as fans. Its easy to point fingers at players and say "he's overpaid"..."he has agood contract" etc, because we see the players on the court every night.  Their decisions and performances are public...the decisions and performances of the owners related to their 43% is not.  As casual observers, we have no way of knowing how well any of the owners are managing their teams beyond the player contracts (and we're not even given all the details with them).  

I find it highly unlikely, that all of the teams supposedly losing money are in that position simply because of the terms of the old CBA.  The owners might be businessmen, but their business wasnt sports management.  Just because they saw success in entertainment, technology, real estate, mining, etc. doesnt mean theyre any good at what theyre doing now.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2011, 03:46:58 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

The owners have been bailing out the players for years overpaying for underachieving players. There's one on every roster.
Whoa. Stop right there.

No one held a gun to the heads of the owners and made them give out ridiculous contracts to underachieving players. At some point the ownership has to look in the mirror and realized they have managed some player contract negotiations horribly.

Darko Milicic 4 year $20 million deal....hello
Eddie Curry 6 year $56 million deal....Isiah you there
Josh Childress 5 year $33 million deal....what?
Rashard Lewis 6 year $112 million deal....mind boggling
Travis Outlaw 5 year $35 million deal....huh?

And the list goes on and on. The one constant in all this. Most of these teams weren't even in a bidding war for these players that they gave these ridiculous contracts to. They were just fleeced by agents that were 10 times smarter than their GMs.

But who does that money go to if it doesn't go to those guys?  It can't stay in the owners pockets.  It would have to go to other players, and there are very few underpaid players who could be paid more within the rules of the CBA.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2011, 03:51:32 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

The owners have been bailing out the players for years overpaying for underachieving players. There's one on every roster.
Whoa. Stop right there.

No one held a gun to the heads of the owners and made them give out ridiculous contracts to underachieving players. At some point the ownership has to look in the mirror and realized they have managed some player contract negotiations horribly.

Darko Milicic 4 year $20 million deal....hello
Eddie Curry 6 year $56 million deal....Isiah you there
Josh Childress 5 year $33 million deal....what?
Rashard Lewis 6 year $112 million deal....mind boggling
Travis Outlaw 5 year $35 million deal....huh?

And the list goes on and on. The one constant in all this. Most of these teams weren't even in a bidding war for these players that they gave these ridiculous contracts to. They were just fleeced by agents that were 10 times smarter than their GMs.

But who does that money go to if it doesn't go to those guys?  It can't stay in the owners pockets.  It would have to go to other players, and there are very few underpaid players who could be paid more within the rules of the CBA.
So your logic is, correct me if I am wrong, that since players have to receive money anyway, let me, an NBA team GM and/or owner, mismanage my budget, mismanage my long term investment under the cap, make my team worse and spend to the point of losing money simply because .......

Why exactly? Its so illogical I can't comprehend it.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2011, 04:04:33 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

The owners have been bailing out the players for years overpaying for underachieving players. There's one on every roster.
Whoa. Stop right there.

No one held a gun to the heads of the owners and made them give out ridiculous contracts to underachieving players. At some point the ownership has to look in the mirror and realized they have managed some player contract negotiations horribly.

Darko Milicic 4 year $20 million deal....hello
Eddie Curry 6 year $56 million deal....Isiah you there
Josh Childress 5 year $33 million deal....what?
Rashard Lewis 6 year $112 million deal....mind boggling
Travis Outlaw 5 year $35 million deal....huh?

And the list goes on and on. The one constant in all this. Most of these teams weren't even in a bidding war for these players that they gave these ridiculous contracts to. They were just fleeced by agents that were 10 times smarter than their GMs.

But who does that money go to if it doesn't go to those guys?  It can't stay in the owners pockets.  It would have to go to other players, and there are very few underpaid players who could be paid more within the rules of the CBA.
So your logic is, correct me if I am wrong, that since players have to receive money anyway, let me, an NBA team GM and/or owner, mismanage my budget, mismanage my long term investment under the cap, make my team worse and spend to the point of losing money simply because .......

Why exactly? Its so illogical I can't comprehend it.

I agree - the fact that the league collectively has to pay 57% shouldn't matter in the slightest to individual owners and GMs, and doesn't make those decisions any less foolish. 

Even with the league as a whole being on the hook for 57% BRI, each individual team has a lot of control over how much their share of that 57% winds up being.  No one is holding a gun to their head, economic or otherwise, to compel them to write up and sign horrible contracts.

EDIT: If 57% isn't viable overall for the league, that's one thing - it may not be at this point.  But league-wide BRI is not at all germane to the kinds of bad deals Nick's citing.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2011, 04:08:47 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
What would you classify as waste in the 43% share the owners were getting? Team planes? Marketing campaigns? Front office salaries?
Hand over the financials, let's give it a shot.

Quote
When the market dictates that in order to compete in the league, you have to overspend on role players that are no sure thing to deliver, then the chance you will recieve a return on investment goes way down.
Funny enough, and not at all coincidentally, this is a problem that can be more or less solved if people stop being greedy without touching the BRI split.

How can you ignore overhead and expenses? You NEED a second bullet point to continue your argument.There is no substance if you keep making analogies to how much money 43% of the revenue is. [...] It costs a large amount of money to run NBA teams. Sorry I dont have a sarcastic analogy to illustrate how much money that is.
I am incredulous that 43% of eleventy hojillion dollars is insufficient to run the NBA profitably, when it might be enough to run a state or a small country.

Quote
Players making money and not performing is tangible.
I think that perhaps you misspelled "a matter of opinion". The owners would be in serious trouble without the current horde of overpaid nobodies, and by "serious trouble" I mean "out of business". There is a lot of money in professional basketball, and though it pains me, my inherent human predisposition towards fairness compels me to argue that the players ought to be compensated as the basically irreplacable assets that they are.

Quote
Saying owners run teams ineffieciently with too much waste without pointing out specifics is a soft case. You are speculating.
Information is limited, speculation is necessary, but skepticism is reasonable.


No one is bailing anyone out.  You make it sound like the owners are asking for handouts.
Aren't they, though? It's more than just wanting a bigger piece of the pie in a void, they are arguing that they are losing money, and their proposed solution is to take more from player salaries.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2011, 04:10:01 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Give me a break. Why should the players bail out the owners?

The owners have been bailing out the players for years overpaying for underachieving players. There's one on every roster.
Whoa. Stop right there.

No one held a gun to the heads of the owners and made them give out ridiculous contracts to underachieving players. At some point the ownership has to look in the mirror and realized they have managed some player contract negotiations horribly.

Darko Milicic 4 year $20 million deal....hello
Eddie Curry 6 year $56 million deal....Isiah you there
Josh Childress 5 year $33 million deal....what?
Rashard Lewis 6 year $112 million deal....mind boggling
Travis Outlaw 5 year $35 million deal....huh?

And the list goes on and on. The one constant in all this. Most of these teams weren't even in a bidding war for these players that they gave these ridiculous contracts to. They were just fleeced by agents that were 10 times smarter than their GMs.

But who does that money go to if it doesn't go to those guys?  It can't stay in the owners pockets.  It would have to go to other players, and there are very few underpaid players who could be paid more within the rules of the CBA.
So your logic is, correct me if I am wrong, that since players have to receive money anyway, let me, an NBA team GM and/or owner, mismanage my budget, mismanage my long term investment under the cap, make my team worse and spend to the point of losing money simply because .......

Why exactly? Its so illogical I can't comprehend it.

You are wrong.  My logic is that which players the money was paid to is irrelevant in the discussion of whether the players should get 57% split or not.  

I personally find the fact that this keeps being brought up as illogical.  The ONLY way it would be relevant to me, is if the players argued that the league would have greater revenue if the money was given to players who produced, rather than players who didn't.  And of course the counter to that is...shorter and non-guaranteed contracts, which the players are firmly against.

Now, I agree that GMs should be held accountable for their dumb decisions.  But when it comes to determining the split of the money between the players and the owners, then I just don't think its at all relevant.

Re: Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2011, 04:15:15 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642


No one is bailing anyone out.  You make it sound like the owners are asking for handouts.
Aren't they, though? It's more than just wanting a bigger piece of the pie in a void, they are arguing that they are losing money, and their proposed solution is to take more from player salaries.

No, they took rollbacks off the table, so they are not taking anything from anyones salaries.  They are just renegotiating a new deal, that will put more of the revenue into the business (and the owners pockets), compared to the old system.

This is what really frustrates me.  They are not reworking the old CBA.  They are negotiating a new one.  So, anything that was in the old CBA does not exist going forward.  Yes, maybe there are precedents, but that's all they are...and precedents do not equal salary.