Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[PosImpos]

Supposedly, 2/3rds (that is 66%) of the NBA teams lost money last year.

Why wouldn't there be more than 10-14 teams willing to miss the season? Why only around 33% and not all 66%?

Because the answer maybe is only 33% of teams are actually losing money.

Well, keep in mind that a lot of the teams that previously were losing money would now be making money under this deal.  We're talking about approximately a $10 million per franchise shift per season.  Teams that were barely losing money would now be profitable; I doubt they'd complain too loudly about that.

Also, of course, there are the owners who don't really care about money, as they see their franchises as a hobby / ego booster, rather than as a revenue maker.

When you look at those two factors, I'm surprised that as many as 10 to 14 teams would be willing to lose the season over relatively minor differences.  If the owners can get their 50 / 50 split, I would have expected way more than 16 - 20 franchises to sign on.

I suspect the "10-14 owners aren't happy with this deal but we managed to make them agree to it" narrative was just something the NBA was putting out there to try to create the sense that the deal was more of a compromise (i.e. somewhat of a "win" for the players) than it really was.  

I suspect the narrative coming out of the player's side that the rejection of the owners' proposal was unanimously enthusiastic was similarly an effort to create the sense that the deal was utterly unfair and unpalatable to any member of the union (when in fact I suspect plenty of players would have accepted it if not for peer pressure).

[nickagneta]

I suspect that the reason there are that many owners willing to lose a season rather than cave on system issues is due to the fact they have been in the revenue sharing meetings and know that what they are telling the NBPA is a sham and that revenue sharing will not be increasing much if at all.

The extra $300 million a year is great but without revenue sharing some of these teams just aren't going to be guaranteed a profit and, let's face it, that's really what the owners want. They want something no other business association that doesn't revenue share extensively gets and that is each and every owner wants to be guaranteed a profit regardless of how incompetently they run their organization.

[LB3533]

I really disagree the stance that even if GMs and teams don't hand out bad contracts that they are still obligated to fork revenue over to meet the 57% towards the players.

This is not a good reason to offer bad deals.

Who cares if you still have to pay money in the end anyway. Just don't handcuff your team and future by giving out poor contracts.

[PosImpos]

each and every owner wants to be guaranteed a profit regardless of how big their market is because they contribute to the profits of the NBA as a whole, too

fixed.

running your team competently in a small market by no means guarantees that you will make a profit (see: Bucks).  running your team incompetently in a big market by no means guarantees that you won't make money hand over fist (see: Clippers).

i don't think it's unreasonable for the owners to expect that they will make a profit even if their team is in a small market if the NBA as a whole turned a profit.  this is the status quo in other major American sports leagues (NFL, MLB).

I really disagree the stance that even if GMs and teams don't hand out bad contracts that they are still obligated to fork revenue over to meet the 57% towards the players.

This is not a good reason to offer bad deals.

Who cares if you still have to pay money in the end anyway. Just don't handcuff your team and future by giving out poor contracts.

i think you're misunderstanding the small teams' arguments a little here.  teams don't have to hand out bigger contracts to players "in order to meet the 57% BRI split."  the BRI split is such that regardless of how big or how small the players' contracts are, the players will receive 57% of the BRI of the NBA each and every year, split up proportionately among all of the players according to the size of their contracts relative to one another.  so every team could sign a contract with each player for $200 and the players would all still make $5 million each (assuming that's the mid-level).


i think people who talk about the bad, crippling contracts that teams hand out overlook the dilemma that small market teams face.  because big market teams, who can afford to hand out enormous contracts with impunity (see: Mavericks), drive up the market for capable mid-level players, small market teams have to give out those big contracts just to compete for decent players on the free agent market.  

in fact, small market teams often have to offer those players more money just to get them to come to their small market as opposed to the big one.  the result is that a small market team often has to choose between fiscal responsibility and trying to build a competitive basketball team.  

the only other option is to build the team solely through the draft, which is for the most part a crap shoot.  people point to the OKC Thunder, but the Thunder have been lucky to get such high draft picks and have them work out.  the Thunder still face the challenge of paying big bucks in order to keep those young players once they finish their rookie contracts.  the Thunder could just as easily be in the position of the Blazers, who would likely be losing a lot of money if they werent in a decent market.


i think it's reasonable for the small market teams to want system changes so they don't have to choose between fiscal viability and competitive viability.

[StartOrien]

running your team competently in a small market by no means guarantees that you will make a profit (see: Bucks).  running your team incompetently in a big market by no means guarantees that you won't make money hand over fist (see: Clippers).

The Bucks ran a competent system for ONE year, then splurged a ton of money on contracts that seemed bad on the day of signing. I have zero sympathy for them because those decisions they made were terrible in every sense.

Also, the Clippers run an OK business model, and one that small markets should probably look into. They have an advantage of a market, but they're also in a competing market against the Lakers. They don't spend money when they're competitive, and have shown some willingness to do so when they are.

As far as the large market vs small market argument, I'm sorry, that's  life. These owners pay big money to get a big market team in hopes for a large return. You pay for location.

[PosImpos]

running your team competently in a small market by no means guarantees that you will make a profit (see: Bucks).  running your team incompetently in a big market by no means guarantees that you won't make money hand over fist (see: Clippers).

The Bucks ran a competent system for ONE year, then splurged a ton of money on contracts that seemed bad on the day of signing. That's not a good example.

As far as the large market vs small market argument, I'm sorry, that's  life. These owners pay big money to get a big market team in hopes for a large return. You pay for location.

i disagree about the Bucks.  they spent a lot of money on those contracts last year because they felt that their team was close to being a top playoff contender (they had won 50 games the year before).  it just didn't work out.  the year before they traded for John Salmons's large contract, and it worked out.  you can criticize the Bucks for choosing to trade / pay the wrong players (Corey Maggette), but their money spending made sense in the context of an almost-there team trying to get over the top.

the Bucks example speaks once again to the not-lose-money or be-competitive dilemma i just described.  most people seem to suggest that a team like the Bucks should never hand out large contracts to complementary players in order to try to make their team a contender.  i just don't think that's reasonable.  if that's the way things should be, why even have teams in small markets to begin with?


i also disagree with the "that's life" argument.  the owners pay big money for a good location . . . and get enormous amounts of money in return.  that's called turning a profit.  the amount of money they pay to get the location in the first place is irrelevant if they're making lots of money.  your argument amounts to "the big market teams got there first."  so again we've reached the point where the solution is that the small market teams should just not exist.  you're basically advocating contraction.

since we all know that's never going to happen, there has to be another solution.  my answer is that there should be revenue sharing.  the small market teams contribute to the success of the league, too.  if it weren't for the Bucks, Bobcats, Pacers, Kings, T-Wolves, Suns, Grizzlies (etc) of the league, the Knicks, Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls (etc) wouldn't have teams to play throughout an 82 game season, and they wouldn't make their money.

Put another way, the big teams get those lucrative TV deals so that people can watch them play against all of the other teams in the league -- including the small market teams.  Therefore, the small market teams should get some of that profit, too.

[LooseCannon]

Put another way, the big teams get those lucrative TV deals so that people can watch them play against all of the other teams in the league -- including the small market teams.  Therefore, the small market teams should get some of that profit, too.

They should do a 60-40 split of local media revenue.

[KGs Knee]

I think the reason I stand behind the players in this dispute has to do with my philosophy on what owning a sports franchise should be about.

To me, it has always been about winning.  Winning at any cost.  That to me means, that as an onwer you should be willing to accept operating losses on a year to year basis.  In order to purchase a franchise in the first place an onwer has to already have massive amounts of money.  Furthermore, just owning the franchise is going to allow you access to revenue streams otherwise inaccessible (see Dan Gilbert and his new casinos).  Having minor losses in operating costs on a year to year basis does not mean you are losing money on your initial investment, the purchase of the franchise.

If as an owner, you are not willing to accept these realities, then as MJ himself once so eloquently put it "sell your team".

In my opinion, the players deserve the majority of the revenue created from the actual game itself (as they are the ones actually playing the games), and the owners deserve all of the increases in value of their franchises and any other non-basketball related revenue streams created by simply being a franchise owner.

[nickagneta]

I think the reason I stand behind the players in this dispute has to do with my philosophy on what owning a sports franchise should be about.

To me, it has always been about winning.  Winning at any cost.  That to me means, that as an onwer you should be willing to accept operating losses on a year to year basis.  In order to purchase a franchise in the first place an onwer has to already have massive amounts of money.  Furthermore, just owning the franchise is going to allow you access to revenue streams otherwise inaccessible (see Dan Gilbert and his new casinos).  Having minor losses in operating costs on a year to year basis does not mean you are losing money on your initial investment, the purchase of the franchise.

If as an owner, you are not willing to accept these realities, then as MJ himself once so eloquently put it "sell your team".

In my opinion, the players deserve the majority of the revenue created from the actual game itself (as they are the ones actually playing the games), and the owners deserve all of the increases in value of their franchises and any other non-basketball related revenue streams created by simply being a franchise owner.

I like this philosophy and respect it. I don't think I agree with all parts but I understand where you are coming from.

[nickagneta]

I do have to say that I completely disagree with Pos.

In the NFL and MLB there is significant revenue sharing as compared to what occurs in the NBA. Without that revenue sharing, it is incumbent upon the team owner to run his franchise as a business because there is no guarantee on making a profit.

And as far as I am concerned you are completely wrong regarding the OKC/Seattle franchise. They have been making wise business decisions for years and are not seeing success because they got lucky with young talent. They had a firmly established business plan to build success through the draft and youth and not to overpay for talent and to jettison talent they feel wasn't worth the price they were demanding.

- They didn't overpay for Rashard Lewis, instead they sign and traded him for a trade exception and a pick

- They didn't think Ray Allen would be worth his price tag anymore and decided to trade him for youth and a pick.

- They left Seattle to an area that would give them a much better arena deal and yet still maintain a vibrant fan base.

- They drafted intelligently when the got high draft picks(see Minnesota as a team that didn't draft intelligently with high draft picks).

- Having large amounts of cap space, rather than spending frivolously on any talent(see NY early 2000s and Milwaukee over the last couple years), they decided to give playing time to young talent and save their cap space.

-Having large amounts of cap space instead of trading for just any big man they instead decided to move a redundant piece in SF Jeff Green and spend their $45 million he would be asking for on Kendrick Perkins, the defensive minded center with championship experience they have craved.

This is a concerted business plan that worked to perfection and has kept OKC competitive and fiscally viable and profitable. My guess is without revenue sharing, OKC would continue this philosophy and probably have to make tough decisions on who to sign and keep and who to let go. And they would do it rather than throwing themselves into unprofitability because that is what is smart business.

[LB3533]

If they got rid of Sports Agents, I bet they could save some money there on player salaries.

[PosImpos]

I do have to say that I completely disagree with Pos.

In the NFL and MLB there is significant revenue sharing as compared to what occurs in the NBA. Without that revenue sharing, it is incumbent upon the team owner to run his franchise as a business because there is no guarantee on making a profit.

And as far as I am concerned you are completely wrong regarding the OKC/Seattle franchise. They have been making wise business decisions for years and are not seeing success because they got lucky with young talent. They had a firmly established business plan to build success through the draft and youth and not to overpay for talent and to jettison talent they feel wasn't worth the price they were demanding.

- They didn't overpay for Rashard Lewis, instead they sign and traded him for a trade exception and a pick

- They didn't think Ray Allen would be worth his price tag anymore and decided to trade him for youth and a pick.

- They left Seattle to an area that would give them a much better arena deal and yet still maintain a vibrant fan base.

- They drafted intelligently when the got high draft picks(see Minnesota as a team that didn't draft intelligently with high draft picks).

- Having large amounts of cap space, rather than spending frivolously on any talent(see NY early 2000s and Milwaukee over the last couple years), they decided to give playing time to young talent and save their cap space.

-Having large amounts of cap space instead of trading for just any big man they instead decided to move a redundant piece in SF Jeff Green and spend their $45 million he would be asking for on Kendrick Perkins, the defensive minded center with championship experience they have craved.

This is a concerted business plan that worked to perfection and has kept OKC competitive and fiscally viable and profitable. My guess is without revenue sharing, OKC would continue this philosophy and probably have to make tough decisions on who to sign and keep and who to let go. And they would do it rather than throwing themselves into unprofitability because that is what is smart business.

. . . yet if one of their high draft picks had suffered a devastating knee injury, and another one had been a bust despite all of their scouting, they'd still be at best a borderline playoff team (again, look at the Blazers).

there's no guarantee they'll be able to hang onto the players they have right now.

without Durant, OKC would not be such a great example of small market success.  even with him, OKC must constantly make difficult financial decisions that most other contending teams don't have to -- pay complementary players to keep winning, or turn a profit?  

this is the same problem San Antonio has faced for years, by the way.  the Spurs, despite their continued success over the last decade, still have trouble consistently making a lot of money because they are in such a small market.


the "stockpile young talent and not overpay for mid-level talent" plan sounds great, and looks nice when it's working, but it's very difficult to sustain unless you strike it big in the lottery with a franchise superstar.  even then, under the previous system, the franchise superstar can bolt for greener pastures in a few years leaving the small market team, that invested so many resources into that one player, with nothing -- and their franchise value greatly diminished.



big market teams, meanwhile, can keep spending and spending and spending to remain competitive, and because of their lucrative TV deals they make money hand over fist.  if they make some bad decisions along the way, it's not a big deal because they make enough money to cover it. 

unless their management is outrageously bad like the Knicks, in which case they will still rake in profits, they just won't win very much.  that is until some marquis free agents from small market teams bolt to their city to win in the spotlight.

[nickagneta]

I do have to say that I completely disagree with Pos.

In the NFL and MLB there is significant revenue sharing as compared to what occurs in the NBA. Without that revenue sharing, it is incumbent upon the team owner to run his franchise as a business because there is no guarantee on making a profit.

And as far as I am concerned you are completely wrong regarding the OKC/Seattle franchise. They have been making wise business decisions for years and are not seeing success because they got lucky with young talent. They had a firmly established business plan to build success through the draft and youth and not to overpay for talent and to jettison talent they feel wasn't worth the price they were demanding.

- They didn't overpay for Rashard Lewis, instead they sign and traded him for a trade exception and a pick

- They didn't think Ray Allen would be worth his price tag anymore and decided to trade him for youth and a pick.

- They left Seattle to an area that would give them a much better arena deal and yet still maintain a vibrant fan base.

- They drafted intelligently when the got high draft picks(see Minnesota as a team that didn't draft intelligently with high draft picks).

- Having large amounts of cap space, rather than spending frivolously on any talent(see NY early 2000s and Milwaukee over the last couple years), they decided to give playing time to young talent and save their cap space.

-Having large amounts of cap space instead of trading for just any big man they instead decided to move a redundant piece in SF Jeff Green and spend their $45 million he would be asking for on Kendrick Perkins, the defensive minded center with championship experience they have craved.

This is a concerted business plan that worked to perfection and has kept OKC competitive and fiscally viable and profitable. My guess is without revenue sharing, OKC would continue this philosophy and probably have to make tough decisions on who to sign and keep and who to let go. And they would do it rather than throwing themselves into unprofitability because that is what is smart business.

. . . yet if one of their high draft picks had suffered a devastating knee injury, and another one had been a bust despite all of their scouting, they'd still be at best a borderline playoff team (again, look at the Blazers).

there's no guarantee they'll be able to hang onto the players they have right now.

without Durant, OKC would not be such a great example of small market success.  even with him, OKC must constantly make difficult financial decisions that most ther contending teams don't have to -- pay complementary players to keep winning, or turn a profit?  this is the same problem San Antonio has faced for years, by the way.  the Spurs, despite their continued success over the last decade, still have trouble consistently making a lot of money because they are in such a small market.


the "stockpile young talent and not overpay for mid-level talent" plan sounds great, and looks nice when it's working, but it's very difficult to sustain unless you strike it big in the lottery with a franchise superstar.  even then, under the previous system, the franchise superstar can bolt for greener pastures in a few years leaving the small market team, that invested so many resources into that one player, with nothing -- and their franchise value greatly diminished.

So this is a bad system and teams need to overspend and act irresponsibly with their money because a bad injury MIGHT happen or draft picks MIGHT not pan out?

Small markets teams should change the system to take even more money from the players than they already have because their owners decided to buy an NBA team in a small market with limited earnings potential and because they want to be spendthrifts with their operating expenses?

Sorry, I own a business and this makes zero sense to me.

Let's just agree to disagree because there's just no way either one of us will change the others mind. I just can't wrap my head around making an investment into a business and then acting fiscally irresponsible simply because the competition is bigger, has certain advantages, or is running their business incompetently.

[PosImpos]

I do have to say that I completely disagree with Pos.

In the NFL and MLB there is significant revenue sharing as compared to what occurs in the NBA. Without that revenue sharing, it is incumbent upon the team owner to run his franchise as a business because there is no guarantee on making a profit.

And as far as I am concerned you are completely wrong regarding the OKC/Seattle franchise. They have been making wise business decisions for years and are not seeing success because they got lucky with young talent. They had a firmly established business plan to build success through the draft and youth and not to overpay for talent and to jettison talent they feel wasn't worth the price they were demanding.

- They didn't overpay for Rashard Lewis, instead they sign and traded him for a trade exception and a pick

- They didn't think Ray Allen would be worth his price tag anymore and decided to trade him for youth and a pick.

- They left Seattle to an area that would give them a much better arena deal and yet still maintain a vibrant fan base.

- They drafted intelligently when the got high draft picks(see Minnesota as a team that didn't draft intelligently with high draft picks).

- Having large amounts of cap space, rather than spending frivolously on any talent(see NY early 2000s and Milwaukee over the last couple years), they decided to give playing time to young talent and save their cap space.

-Having large amounts of cap space instead of trading for just any big man they instead decided to move a redundant piece in SF Jeff Green and spend their $45 million he would be asking for on Kendrick Perkins, the defensive minded center with championship experience they have craved.

This is a concerted business plan that worked to perfection and has kept OKC competitive and fiscally viable and profitable. My guess is without revenue sharing, OKC would continue this philosophy and probably have to make tough decisions on who to sign and keep and who to let go. And they would do it rather than throwing themselves into unprofitability because that is what is smart business.

. . . yet if one of their high draft picks had suffered a devastating knee injury, and another one had been a bust despite all of their scouting, they'd still be at best a borderline playoff team (again, look at the Blazers).

there's no guarantee they'll be able to hang onto the players they have right now.

without Durant, OKC would not be such a great example of small market success.  even with him, OKC must constantly make difficult financial decisions that most ther contending teams don't have to -- pay complementary players to keep winning, or turn a profit?  this is the same problem San Antonio has faced for years, by the way.  the Spurs, despite their continued success over the last decade, still have trouble consistently making a lot of money because they are in such a small market.


the "stockpile young talent and not overpay for mid-level talent" plan sounds great, and looks nice when it's working, but it's very difficult to sustain unless you strike it big in the lottery with a franchise superstar.  even then, under the previous system, the franchise superstar can bolt for greener pastures in a few years leaving the small market team, that invested so many resources into that one player, with nothing -- and their franchise value greatly diminished.

So this is a bad system and teams need to overspend and act irresponsibly with their money because a bad injury MIGHT happen or draft picks MIGHT not pan out?

Small markets teams should change the system to take even more money from the players than they already have because their owners decided to buy an NBA team in a small market with limited earnings potential and because they want to be spendthrifts with their operating expenses?

Sorry, I own a business and this makes zero sense to me.

Let's just agree to disagree because there's just no way either one of us will change the others mind. I just can't wrap my head around making an investment into a business and then acting fiscally irresponsible simply because the competition is bigger, has certain advantages, or is running their business incompetently.

we just view NBA franchises differently.  i don't see each NBA franchise as an independent business, but as a smaller part of the NBA as a whole.  i think it's reasonable for smaller market owners to expect to make money as long as the NBA as a whole is turning a profit, because they're all integral parts of the NBA. 

i think each team in the NBA should have similar restrictions and capabilities for managing their team to success.  i don't think it's right that the rules are effectively different depending on where a team is located.

[PosImpos]

This excerpt from Bill Simmons' lockout article basically sums up why I blame the players (or rather their union representation) for what's happened:

As a friend who works in professional sports (not the NBA) pointed out by email this week, "When one party has all of the leverage (like the NFL lockout once the Court of Appeals ruled the lockout could continue, or the NBA lockout until now), it does not necessarily mean the other party has to hit its head against the wall. What is wrong with figuring out, well in advance, that you have a weak position and cutting the best deal you can? This notion that a good negotiation lasts right up until a deadline (or past a deadline) is stupid. A good negotiation is understanding your position and getting a deal done before bad things happen. That is where the NBPA (Kessler, really) screwed this up. Sometimes you just have to understand that the best deal to be made (under any circumstances) CAN be made early. If you get criticized as a Gene Upshaw-type lackey then so be it. By the way, when you are willing to do a deal early you can sometimes get peripheral issues your way because the other party does recognize the value of avoiding a fight and missed games."

In the rest of his article, though, Bill Simmons does a really good (and entertaining) job assigning blame to pretty much everybody involved.  Simmons effectively describes why there's a good reason for anybody to blame any particular person that's been involved in the CBA negotations, or all of them.