Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?

[nickagneta]

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.

I agree with you regarding whether players have bad contracts or not that that shouldn't make a difference regarding the split of the BRI because someone is going to end up with that money anyway.

Looking back I guess your post just wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make which is that GMs and owners have to be held accountable for poor decisions in giving out bad contracts, something I think Greenbean is not acknowledging by saying that the owners have been bailing out players by giving under performing players huge contracts.

Well if the were underachieving then you shouldn't have given them that contract. Blame has to be put squarely where it belongs there and that is at the feet of the owners and GMs for bad management.

As for your question in the post after my bad salary list, Chris, I wish I knew. I wish there was a way to keep contracts guaranteed but have portions deferred to the end of the season so that players that underperformed would be penalized and players that over performed could get the money the under performing players had to give up.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

[Chris]

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.

I agree with you regarding whether players have bad contracts or not that that shouldn't make a difference regarding the split of the BRI because someone is going to end up with that money anyway.

Looking back I guess your post just wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make which is that GMs and owners have to be held accountable for poor decisions in giving out bad contracts, something I think Greenbean is not acknowledging by saying that the owners have been bailing out players by giving under performing players huge contracts.

Well if the were underachieving then you shouldn't have given them that contract. Blame has to be put squarely where it belongs there and that is at the feet of the owners and GMs for bad management.

As for your question in the post after my bad salary list, Chris, I wish I knew. I wish there was a way to keep contracts guaranteed but have portions deferred to the end of the season so that players that underperformed would be penalized and players that over performed could get the money the under performing players had to give up.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

OK, we are on the same page then.  And it didn't even take a federal mediator!

[wdleehi]

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.

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.

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?

The players should "partner" with the owners to make sure teams can make a profit so teams do not decide to fold up because they have no money to keep going. 


The players have a stake in the health of the league.  If the league has teams bleeding money, it has to be fixed.  I can't believe some of the penny pinching owners on small market teams (the ones fans complain will not spend more money on players) are throwing it away on the other aspect of running the NBA. 

[Interceptor]

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.

I was not talking about the rollbacks.

Sweeping the terms of the expired CBA under a rug may be convenient to an argument, but it is not realistic, as previous BRI splits have largely worked, and there is a good reason why new negotiations take the older arrangements into consideration. What changed?

The players should "partner" with the owners to make sure teams can make a profit so teams do not decide to fold up because they have no money to keep going.

Indeed.

The players have a stake in the health of the league.  If the league has teams bleeding money, it has to be fixed.  I can't believe some of the penny pinching owners on small market teams (the ones fans complain will not spend more money on players) are throwing it away on the other aspect of running the NBA. 

Let us play the Hypothetical Shuffle. Suppose that the expenses of the small teams were largely a result of bigger teams distorting the market for things like front office salaries, more lavish benefits, etc. In this scenario, could it not be argued that the problem could be solved by the owners themselves?

[wdleehi]

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.

I was not talking about the rollbacks.

Sweeping the terms of the expired CBA under a rug may be convenient to an argument, but it is not realistic, as previous BRI splits have largely worked, and there is a good reason why new negotiations take the older arrangements into consideration. What changed?

The players should "partner" with the owners to make sure teams can make a profit so teams do not decide to fold up because they have no money to keep going.

Indeed.

The players have a stake in the health of the league.  If the league has teams bleeding money, it has to be fixed.  I can't believe some of the penny pinching owners on small market teams (the ones fans complain will not spend more money on players) are throwing it away on the other aspect of running the NBA. 

Let us play the Hypothetical Shuffle. Suppose that the expenses of the small teams were largely a result of bigger teams distorting the market for things like front office salaries, more lavish benefits, etc. In this scenario, could it not be argued that the problem could be solved by the owners themselves?

57% is still 57%.


Actually, big teams overspending helps those smaller teams because it adds to the 57%.  If NY, Dallas, Boston and LA ever all decided to get salaries down near the cap, small teams beware.


I will be honest, I don't care if the NBA players make a few less millions. 


I care that the teams are healthy. 

[Interceptor]

57% is still 57%.

But 43% is still 43%, and that's the part that I was talking about. There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

I will be honest, I don't care if the NBA players make a few less millions.

I don't care either, but I very much do not like some of the arguments that are being made around here.

[Chris]

In this scenario, could it not be argued that the problem could be solved by the owners themselves?

What I don't get is why is renegotiating a new, more team friendly CBA, not considered the owners solving the problem themselves?

How is that different than them negotiating smaller contracts for front office people, or negotiating ways to save costs in other areas?

That 57% is an expense.  It is by far their largest expense.  So why shouldn't be that be one of the key places to go, in order to lower expenses.

Particularly since the average player salary is significantly higher than that of any other league in the world.

[wdleehi]

57% is still 57%.

But 43% is still 43%, and that's the part that I was talking about. There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

I will be honest, I don't care if the NBA players make a few less millions.

I don't care either, but I very much do not like some of the arguments that are being made around here.

And teams are losing money at 43%.

[Chris]

But 43% is still 43%, and that's the part that I was talking about. There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

Who care's if it is the only viable way to do it.  The question is whether it is the best or most feasible way to do it.  And I would not be surprised if it is.  

They can always make cuts elsewhere (and they have, as I am sure anyone who has been a season ticket holder over the last 3-4 years can attest), but right now is their only chance for another 5-10 years to make cuts in the largest piece of the pie.  

[Finkelskyhook]

57% is still 57%.

But 43% is still 43%, and that's the part that I was talking about. There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

I will be honest, I don't care if the NBA players make a few less millions.

I don't care either, but I very much do not like some of the arguments that are being made around here.

I don't either.  I think the class envy thing totally sucks.  I don't spite the players for making as much as possible and I sure as hell don't envy the owners...The guys who take all of the risks..For wanting to be profitable. 

Both sides bring unique talents to the table.  I don't spite them for wanting to max their income.

[Interceptor]

What I don't get is why is renegotiating a new, more team friendly CBA, not considered the owners solving the problem themselves?

My hypothetical was specfically referring to the concept of bigger teams distorting the market for smaller ones, in things that are not player salaries.

And teams are losing money at 43%.

There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

Who care's if it is the only viable way to do it.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the NBPA cares about that very much.

[wdleehi]

What I don't get is why is renegotiating a new, more team friendly CBA, not considered the owners solving the problem themselves?

My hypothetical was specfically referring to the concept of bigger teams distorting the market for smaller ones, in things that are not player salaries.

And teams are losing money at 43%.

There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

Who care's if it is the only viable way to do it.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the NBPA cares about that very much.

Big teams are not distorting player values for smaller teams.  If they didn't spend as much as they did, smaller teams would have to spend more for the teams to hit 57%. 

[Greenbean]

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.

I agree with you regarding whether players have bad contracts or not that that shouldn't make a difference regarding the split of the BRI because someone is going to end up with that money anyway.

Looking back I guess your post just wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make which is that GMs and owners have to be held accountable for poor decisions in giving out bad contracts, something I think Greenbean is not acknowledging by saying that the owners have been bailing out players by giving under performing players huge contracts.

Well if the were underachieving then you shouldn't have given them that contract. Blame has to be put squarely where it belongs there and that is at the feet of the owners and GMs for bad management.

As for your question in the post after my bad salary list, Chris, I wish I knew. I wish there was a way to keep contracts guaranteed but have portions deferred to the end of the season so that players that underperformed would be penalized and players that over performed could get the money the under performing players had to give up.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

Okay so players are not going to give in to un guaranteeing contracts, so in my opinion they have to give up a slice of the pie.

SThe current model doesnt work. The original argument that I was responding to was interceptors stating that the owners should have been able to turn a profit with 43% of the revenue. Not whether owners should be held accountable for bad contracts because they shoul (it just shouldnt hurt their bottom line as much as it does). The way the salry scale works now, owners need to pay role players and fringe stars, big time money. There will never be a salary scale where guys are paid their real value. Agents do their part in this mess by driving the salary scale up for all kinds of players from bench scrubs to superstars.

So either agents stop lying and driving up the price on players who wont reward management with their investment (never going to happen) or players get less of the pie.


To suggest that owners who lost money did so by burning through their share is just silly to me. There is less money to be had because the league is faltering. Each side is going to have to give something up including the players giving up some of the revenue. Teams arent going to get cheaper to run. Costs will rise. Unless attendance and TVV ratings return to 90's levels, there have to be concessions from the players.

[Interceptor]

Big teams are not distorting player values for smaller teams.  If they didn't spend as much as they did, smaller teams would have to spend more for the teams to hit 57%.

This is all well and good, except that I was talking about the 43%.

[D Dub]

57% is still 57%.

But 43% is still 43%, and that's the part that I was talking about. There's no question that altering the BRI split would solve the profitability problems, but it's not entirely clear that's the only viable way to do it.

I will be honest, I don't care if the NBA players make a few less millions.

I don't care either, but I very much do not like some of the arguments that are being made around here.

And teams are losing money at 43%.

just like hitting jumpshot, running a business is a skill

if you're an owner with a publicly funded arena, can sell $12 beers at will, and are guaranteed a 43% margin


but still can't turn a profit...  maybe it's time to enroll in MBA classes

just saying, most average business owners would LOVE to have a guaranteed 43% margin.  
if they can manage living, why can't these tycoons?