Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[PosImpos]

I'll try to respond here individually, so as to save us all from a 1 page quote.

In regards to the system issues the owners are seeking, I'll say this.  If it comes down to small market teams keeping their player, or the players having the right to seek employment wherever they wish (free from overreaching restrictions), I'll always side with the players on that.
Quite frankly, an individuals ability to work where they want is more important to me.

I can respect that, though I wholeheartedly disagree with you.  I view the NBA as one business with many separate parts.  The players have the freedom to choose to play in the NBA, or in another basketball league.  But the NBA, and the teams that comprise it, need to have a lot of control over player movement so that competition in the league isn't a joke.

I get that a lot of people, including yourself, view the NBA as a single business entity.  The reality is different though, the law even agrees.  The NBA is a collection of individual businesses.

I'm not sure how true this is -- I believe the point of contention which has to be decided in court now is whether or not the NBA is one entity.  If it is, then anti-trust law doesn't apply and the players will most certainly fail; if it isn't, then the players might have a shot with their suit.

[PosImpos]

Small markets make less than Big markets?

What's wrong with that? Isn't that just life?

Why always the need to push for everything to be equal?

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

That's a really awful metaphor.

[Chris]

Small markets make less than Big markets?

What's wrong with that? Isn't that just life?

Why always the need to push for everything to be equal?

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

It's not about allowing them to make the same amount of money.  To use your metaphor, it is like making it so the local diner can charge the same amount for food as McDonalds does, without going out of business.

But where the metaphor doesn't work for either of us, is that in the NBA, the "McDonalds" is directly linked to the local diner, and if the local diner goes under, then McDonalds suffers as well.

[Celtics18]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I guess they've even added a clause against extend and trades, something that they are actually informally referring to now as the "'Melo Rule."

I don't see how adding a rule against doing what Anthony did does anything at all for competitive balance.  It seems purely like a punitive, control measure. 

Yeah, that one isn't about competitive balance.  It is to try to make it harder for a player to hold teams (and the entire league) hostage in a contract year.

So, yeah, its about control.  But IMO, it is a good kind of control.  It at least does a small bit of taking some of the soap opera out of the game.

From my perspective there was nothing wrong with the situation, and, in the end, everybody won.  'Melo ended up where he wanted to be, the Knicks got their man, and Denver got some good players for him instead of just letting him walk at the end of the season. 

Pro sports are "soap opera."   The league's not gonna be able to legislate against drama, nor do I really want them to.

[Chris]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I guess they've even added a clause against extend and trades, something that they are actually informally referring to now as the "'Melo Rule."

I don't see how adding a rule against doing what Anthony did does anything at all for competitive balance.  It seems purely like a punitive, control measure. 

Yeah, that one isn't about competitive balance.  It is to try to make it harder for a player to hold teams (and the entire league) hostage in a contract year.

So, yeah, its about control.  But IMO, it is a good kind of control.  It at least does a small bit of taking some of the soap opera out of the game.

From my perspective there was nothing wrong with the situation, and, in the end, everybody won.  'Melo ended up where he wanted to be, the Knicks got their man, and Denver got some good players for him instead of just letting him walk at the end of the season. 

Pro sports are "soap opera."   The league's not gonna be able to legislate against drama, nor do I really want them to.

In the end it worked out fine.  But I think what they are trying to do, is to make sure that the soap opera (which was very tough on Denver's fans, and also led to some bad basketball as the team was distracted) happens in the offseason, rather than the middle of the season. 

This new rule makes it so, if a player is going to force their way out in their walk year, and the team trading for them wants to resign them before they hit free agency, they are going to have to trade for them before the season starts, or else, the player will have to become a free agent.

[PosImpos]

Small markets make less than Big markets?

What's wrong with that? Isn't that just life?

Why always the need to push for everything to be equal?

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

It's not about allowing them to make the same amount of money.  To use your metaphor, it is like making it so the local diner can charge the same amount for food as McDonalds does, without going out of business.

But where the metaphor doesn't work for either of us, is that in the NBA, the "McDonalds" is directly linked to the local diner, and if the local diner goes under, then McDonalds suffers as well.

Not to mention that's there an enormous difference between offering food services to customers and providing entertainment via professional sports competition.  In professional sports, you have to consider not just business competition between the franchises, but the actual competition between the teams. 

[Chris]

Small markets make less than Big markets?

What's wrong with that? Isn't that just life?

Why always the need to push for everything to be equal?

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

It's not about allowing them to make the same amount of money.  To use your metaphor, it is like making it so the local diner can charge the same amount for food as McDonalds does, without going out of business.

But where the metaphor doesn't work for either of us, is that in the NBA, the "McDonalds" is directly linked to the local diner, and if the local diner goes under, then McDonalds suffers as well.

Not to mention that's there an enormous difference between offering food services to customers and providing entertainment via professional sports competition.  In professional sports, you have to consider not just business competition between the franchises, but the actual competition between the teams. 

Exactly.  Now, I think there is a fair argument (I don't agree with it, but I think it needs to be acknowledged) that the league could be better without a level playing field, and where there are a handful of super teams.  But, I think the owners have the ability to make that decision of what they think is best for their business.  And, if they feel that a level playing field is the best thing for their business, then they have every right to try to negotiate rules that work towards that goal, into the collective bargaining agreement, just like the players have every right to resist those rules, in the bargaining process.

[Celtics18]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I guess they've even added a clause against extend and trades, something that they are actually informally referring to now as the "'Melo Rule."

I don't see how adding a rule against doing what Anthony did does anything at all for competitive balance.  It seems purely like a punitive, control measure.  

Yeah, that one isn't about competitive balance.  It is to try to make it harder for a player to hold teams (and the entire league) hostage in a contract year.

So, yeah, its about control.  But IMO, it is a good kind of control.  It at least does a small bit of taking some of the soap opera out of the game.

From my perspective there was nothing wrong with the situation, and, in the end, everybody won.  'Melo ended up where he wanted to be, the Knicks got their man, and Denver got some good players for him instead of just letting him walk at the end of the season.  

Pro sports are "soap opera."   The league's not gonna be able to legislate against drama, nor do I really want them to.

In the end it worked out fine.  But I think what they are trying to do, is to make sure that the soap opera (which was very tough on Denver's fans, and also led to some bad basketball as the team was distracted) happens in the offseason, rather than the middle of the season.  

This new rule makes it so, if a player is going to force their way out in their walk year, and the team trading for them wants to resign them before they hit free agency, they are going to have to trade for them before the season starts, or else, the player will have to become a free agent.

I respect your opinion on this rule.  To me, I could take it or leave it.  I don't think the system is as broken as the league keeps crying that it is.  

The bottom line for me is that these small "system" details are a really weak reason to slash an entire season.

I guess you could say, "fine, then" (like Bill Simmons does) "if it's not that big a deal, then the players should just accept these changes and get ready to play."

But, the players have already done way more conceding than the owners.  They came down 7% of the BRI, giving back a lot of money to the owners, but the owners are still out for blood.  The owners don't just want to win, they want to dominate.

I think--and this may just be a crazy conspiracy theory of mine--that the revenue sharing issue is a huge bone of contention right now among the owners and they are using this lock out as a smoke screen.  In this way they can change the public discourse into one of owners vs. players, knowing that at least some of the public sentiment will be against the players.
That's why they throw out a lot of nonsense about a "broken system" that needs fixing and players who don't want to fix it.

When, in reality, the poorer teams just want a guarantee that they'll make money, while the richer teams don't want to have to share their earnings.  That's what this lock out is all about, as far as I can see, and that's why I blame the owners.

[Chris]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I guess they've even added a clause against extend and trades, something that they are actually informally referring to now as the "'Melo Rule."

I don't see how adding a rule against doing what Anthony did does anything at all for competitive balance.  It seems purely like a punitive, control measure.  

Yeah, that one isn't about competitive balance.  It is to try to make it harder for a player to hold teams (and the entire league) hostage in a contract year.

So, yeah, its about control.  But IMO, it is a good kind of control.  It at least does a small bit of taking some of the soap opera out of the game.

From my perspective there was nothing wrong with the situation, and, in the end, everybody won.  'Melo ended up where he wanted to be, the Knicks got their man, and Denver got some good players for him instead of just letting him walk at the end of the season.  

Pro sports are "soap opera."   The league's not gonna be able to legislate against drama, nor do I really want them to.

In the end it worked out fine.  But I think what they are trying to do, is to make sure that the soap opera (which was very tough on Denver's fans, and also led to some bad basketball as the team was distracted) happens in the offseason, rather than the middle of the season.  

This new rule makes it so, if a player is going to force their way out in their walk year, and the team trading for them wants to resign them before they hit free agency, they are going to have to trade for them before the season starts, or else, the player will have to become a free agent.

I respect your opinion on this rule.  To me, I could take it or leave it.  I don't think the system is as broken as the league keeps crying that it is.  

The bottom line for me is that these small "system" details are a really weak reason to slash an entire season.

I guess you could say, "fine, then" (like Bill Simmons does) "if it's not that big a deal, then the players should just accept these changes and get ready to play."

But, the players have already done way more conceding than the owners.  They came down 7% of the BRI, giving back a lot of money to the owners, but the owners are still out for blood.  The owners don't just want to win, they want to dominate.

I think--and this may just be a crazy conspiracy theory of mine--that the revenue sharing issue is a huge bone of contention right now among the owners and they are using this lock out as a smoke screen.  In this way they can change the public discourse into one of owners vs. players, knowing that at least some of the public sentiment will be against the players.
That's why they throw out a lot of nonsense about a "broken system" that needs fixing and players who don't want to fix it.

When, in reality, the poorer teams just want a guarantee that they'll make money, while the richer teams don't want to have to share their earnings.  That's what this lock out is all about, as far as I can see, and that's why I blame the owners.

I am with you on all of this. 

And for this point:

The bottom line for me is that these small "system" details are a really weak reason to slash an entire season.

See my thread titled "so you're saying there's a chance?"

I think there is still a lot of posturing going on in these negotiations.