Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[Celtics18]

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.

I'm not sure where I stand on the revenue sharing business, but I don't get why the players are to blame for the owners not being able to agree to how or how much to share revenue.

If inequity between small market and large market teams is the concern, that can be fixed without taking away money from the players and the game itself away from the fans. 

These owners seem to truly want to have their cake and eat it, too. 

[Roy H.]

I'm not sure where I stand on the revenue sharing business, but I don't get why the players are to blame for the owners not being able to agree to how or how much to share revenue.

If inequity between small market and large market teams is the concern, that can be fixed without taking away money from the players and the game itself away from the fans. 

These owners seem to truly want to have their cake and eat it, too. 

Well, if the owners' financial numbers are accurate, no amount of revenue sharing alone would fix things.  The league is claiming a $300 million loss, with somewhere between 16 and 23 franchises losing money.  If the BRI number doesn't change -- i.e., the players don't give back money -- then all you're talking about is redistributing that $300 million loss.  Instead of 16 or 23 franchises losing money, you're talking about 30.

However, once the league becomes profitable (again, assuming you buy into the owners' numbers), then revenue sharing ensures that all 30 teams can be profitable.  The 30 clubs would be sharing profits, rather than losses.

[LB3533]

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.

Do you believe the Owners have "all the leverage"?

If they did, why did "the great" Billy Hunter take them to the cleaners the last go around?

I find it interesting throughout this whole process that these rich, college educated, socially fortunate owners who've made billions outside of the NBA.....that they lost to these players with "limited intellectual capital".

I'll tell you who has all the leverage in this thing...the PLAYERS.

The Players got what the owners want and if the Owners want something from the Players then they gotta give up something and so far they haven't given up jack squat.

If I was a Player, I would be fuming. The Players have been the only side that have been trying to negotiate fairly and reasonably. The Owners started at a crazy, insane end of the spectrum; to call them reasonable is totally asinine. 

[LB3533]

I'm not sure where I stand on the revenue sharing business, but I don't get why the players are to blame for the owners not being able to agree to how or how much to share revenue.

If inequity between small market and large market teams is the concern, that can be fixed without taking away money from the players and the game itself away from the fans. 

These owners seem to truly want to have their cake and eat it, too. 

Well, if the owners' financial numbers are accurate, no amount of revenue sharing alone would fix things.  The league is claiming a $300 million loss, with somewhere between 16 and 23 franchises losing money.  If the BRI number doesn't change -- i.e., the players don't give back money -- then all you're talking about is redistributing that $300 million loss.  Instead of 16 or 23 franchises losing money, you're talking about 30.

However, once the league becomes profitable (again, assuming you buy into the owners' numbers), then revenue sharing ensures that all 30 teams can be profitable.  The 30 clubs would be sharing profits, rather than losses.

Here is the thing about revenue sharing....it doesn't matter if the league as a whole didn't earn a profit with or without revenue sharing....what matters is getting every team closer to the black and then each team can find other ways to cut costs or generate income.

Billionaires shouldn't be begging millionaires for money...that is ridiculous.

[Roy H.]

Billionaires shouldn't be begging millionaires for money...that is ridiculous.

Who is "begging for money"?

Whether you're talking about CBA negotiations or revenue sharing negotiations, the ideal solution is to come up with a system that works for all involved to sustain a healthy league.  Revenue sharing helps sustain the smaller markets (making the league as a whole healthier) and BRI adjustments make the league profitable (while still preserving a the highest standard of living in professional sports for the players).

None of it is begging.

[KGs Knee]

I'm not sure where I stand on the revenue sharing business, but I don't get why the players are to blame for the owners not being able to agree to how or how much to share revenue.

If inequity between small market and large market teams is the concern, that can be fixed without taking away money from the players and the game itself away from the fans.  

These owners seem to truly want to have their cake and eat it, too.  

Well, if the owners' financial numbers are accurate, no amount of revenue sharing alone would fix things.  The league is claiming a $300 million loss, with somewhere between 16 and 23 franchises losing money.  If the BRI number doesn't change -- i.e., the players don't give back money -- then all you're talking about is redistributing that $300 million loss.  Instead of 16 or 23 franchises losing money, you're talking about 30.

However, once the league becomes profitable (again, assuming you buy into the owners' numbers), then revenue sharing ensures that all 30 teams can be profitable.  The 30 clubs would be sharing profits, rather than losses.

I for one do not believe a word the owners are saying.  Their words and actions are not those of someone to be trusted.  They are flat out liars in my opinion.


The owners had a plan all along.  The deal signed in 1999 was fair for both sides, the owners even claimed victory back when it was intially signed.  They were totally unprepared for the last negotiation (2005?), thus why it was signed with little fanfare or objection.  The owners plan, starting the minute they signed the previous deal, was to purposely make it appear they were losing money.  They claim they lost money from the minute the previous deal was signed.  By following this plan to perfection, they were able to frame the negotiations around a narrative that would be in their favor and provided the impetus for their bargaining position.

I don't deny the owners that they have a right to attempt to negotiate terms they find favorable.  That being said, their bargaining postion has been nothing more than an elaborate sham, created simply for the purpose of making it seem they had legitimate reason to pay the players less.

The owners may not be wrong for being allowed to seek more favorable terms, but they sure are wrong for doing it.  Especially considering they manner in which they have gone about it.  It's underhanded.

[Roy H.]

I don't deny the owners that they have a right to attempt to negotiate terms they find favorable.  That being said, their bargaining postion has been nothing more than an elaborate sham, created simply for the purpose of making it seem they had legitimate reason to pay the players less.

If it's all a sham, why are the players willing to concede as much as 7% of BRI?  Why has Billy Hunter talked about covering the owners' losses, and "making them whole"?

The league has provided its professionally audited financial statements to the players.  The auditing firm is jointly retained by the owners and the players.  It seems like the owners and players are in agreement that the league is losing a lot of money.  If that's the case, how can you be so convinced this is a "sham"? 

[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.

Do you believe the Owners have "all the leverage"?

If they did, why did "the great" Billy Hunter take them to the cleaners the last go around?

I find it interesting throughout this whole process that these rich, college educated, socially fortunate owners who've made billions outside of the NBA.....that they lost to these players with "limited intellectual capital".

I'll tell you who has all the leverage in this thing...the PLAYERS.

do you understand what leverage means?

[KGs Knee]

I don't deny the owners that they have a right to attempt to negotiate terms they find favorable.  That being said, their bargaining postion has been nothing more than an elaborate sham, created simply for the purpose of making it seem they had legitimate reason to pay the players less.

If it's all a sham, why are the players willing to concede as much as 7% of BRI?  Why has Billy Hunter talked about covering the owners' losses, and "making them whole"?

The league has provided its professionally audited financial statements to the players.  The auditing firm is jointly retained by the owners and the players.  It seems like the owners and players are in agreement that the league is losing a lot of money.  If that's the case, how can you be so convinced this is a "sham"? 

Well, do those numbers have line items included?  Where is the money actually going?  My contention is, the owners have purposely provided numbers that are based on paper lossses, not actual shortfalls in revenue related to legitmate expenditures.

As far as why the players have conceeded these losses, I would guess it has to do with ability to actually prove that the owners have intentionally obfuscated the real economic situation of the league.  The owners knew what they were doing, and having control of the numberes, they were able to manipulate them in a way that would be difficult to argue, pending litigation that would unearth where the money was actually going.  Businesses do this all the time.

I'll admit, the conclusion I have reached isn't based on much other than speculation.  But to trust the owners, based on the players accepting the numbers for what they are, isn't necessarily any less speculative.  The players could easily be accepting the owners numbers for a variety of reasons.

Like I've said, business owners skew numbers to their own benefit all the time.  When it comes to trusting ownership (in any business sector) to be on the up and up in situations like these, there is ample evidence to be untrusting of their practices.

[Celtics18]

I don't deny the owners that they have a right to attempt to negotiate terms they find favorable.  That being said, their bargaining postion has been nothing more than an elaborate sham, created simply for the purpose of making it seem they had legitimate reason to pay the players less.

If it's all a sham, why are the players willing to concede as much as 7% of BRI?  Why has Billy Hunter talked about covering the owners' losses, and "making them whole"?

The league has provided its professionally audited financial statements to the players.  The auditing firm is jointly retained by the owners and the players.  It seems like the owners and players are in agreement that the league is losing a lot of money.  If that's the case, how can you be so convinced this is a "sham"? 

I think the answer to your first question may be that the players do actually want to play basketball and have a season so they have been willing to make concessions.

As to the league claiming to lose over $300 million, I don't buy it, but I have to admit that I don't fully understand it.  I have read reports of them using tricky yet legal accounting loopholes to make it look like they are losing money because their teams are depreciating in value when in fact NBA teams never depreciate in value.  Look at any recent sale of an NBA team, and you'll see that it sold for considerably more than it was bought for.   

Even with a 50/50 split in BRI and all the cap and exception rules that the owners want in place, according to the league and the owners themselves, the rich would still continue to get rich while the small market teams would still continue to struggle to stay afloat.  Revenue sharing might fix this, but that's an issue amongst the owners, not something that can be fixed by taking more away from the players.

What bugs me about the league and owners' public stance on this is the claim that the lockout is about fixing a broken system of inequity among the owners.  I'm not denying that inequity among big market and small market teams exists, but the battle with the players over the CBA is not about fixing that.  It's about maximizing profits (or even minimizing losses, if you believe their financial figures).

Stop lying, NBA.  The Minnesota Timberwolves and the New York Knicks aren't going to be on equal footing just because the league keeps more of the money its been paying in salary.  Everybody knows that, so I wish they would stop pretending that the lockout is about something it's not.   

   

[Roy H.]

Stop lying, NBA.  The Minnesota Timberwolves and the New York Knicks aren't going to be on equal footing just because the league keeps more of the money its been paying in salary.  Everybody knows that, so I wish they would stop pretending that the lockout is about something it's not. 

I don't think it's a lie at all.  I think Stern and Silver have both stated that there are two issues:  the finances, and competitive balance.  Their public position is that they're trying to improve both.

I mean, if this was *just* about money, the lockout would be over now, because the owners got their 50/50 split.  However, what's holding it up are "competitive balance" system issues that lessen the gap between big and small market teams.

[Celtics18]

Stop lying, NBA.  The Minnesota Timberwolves and the New York Knicks aren't going to be on equal footing just because the league keeps more of the money its been paying in salary.  Everybody knows that, so I wish they would stop pretending that the lockout is about something it's not. 

I don't think it's a lie at all.  I think Stern and Silver have both stated that there are two issues:  the finances, and competitive balance.  Their public position is that they're trying to improve both.

I mean, if this was *just* about money, the lockout would be over now, because the owners got their 50/50 split.  However, what's holding it up are "competitive balance" system issues that lessen the gap between big and small market teams.

Yes, but, the "competitive balance" system issues seem to me to be more of an issue between owners of large market vs. owners of small market teams rather than an issue of players vs. owners. 

[nickagneta]

Stop lying, NBA.  The Minnesota Timberwolves and the New York Knicks aren't going to be on equal footing just because the league keeps more of the money its been paying in salary.  Everybody knows that, so I wish they would stop pretending that the lockout is about something it's not.  

I don't think it's a lie at all.  I think Stern and Silver have both stated that there are two issues:  the finances, and competitive balance.  Their public position is that they're trying to improve both.

I mean, if this was *just* about money, the lockout would be over now, because the owners got their 50/50 split.  However, what's holding it up are "competitive balance" system issues that lessen the gap between big and small market teams.

Yes, but, the "competitive balance" system issues seem to me to be more of an issue between owners of large market vs. owners of small market teams rather than an issue of players vs. owners.  

I agree with this for the most part. But, there's always a but, some system issues to solve situations like players predetermining a situation where they can manipulate the system to all end up playing together needed to be addressed.

I fully agree with the owners in that regard and also in reducing their risk with long term exorbitant contracts for players that decide to mail it in like Eddy Curry or Gilbert Arenas or Drew Gooden. I liked the lowering of the length of contracts, especially the full MLE. Some of those contracts have been the worst ever given out(Jarred Jeffries, Travis Outlaw, Drew Gooden, etc.)by the NBA owners.

I think there definitely has to be a major financial incentive for players to remain with teams that originally drafted them to allow small market teams to keep their superstars and remain competitive. I also think some changes needed to be made to stop stuff like The Decision from happening.

So in those respects, I agree with what the owners were striving for in system changes. But I also think that the best way to keep competitive balance is for full fledged revenue sharing which I imagine a very strong group of about 10 teams(some being the cornerstone teams in the league)are solidly against.

[KGs Knee]

Stop lying, NBA.  The Minnesota Timberwolves and the New York Knicks aren't going to be on equal footing just because the league keeps more of the money its been paying in salary.  Everybody knows that, so I wish they would stop pretending that the lockout is about something it's not. 

I don't think it's a lie at all.  I think Stern and Silver have both stated that there are two issues:  the finances, and competitive balance.  Their public position is that they're trying to improve both.

I mean, if this was *just* about money, the lockout would be over now, because the owners got their 50/50 split.  However, what's holding it up are "competitive balance" system issues that lessen the gap between big and small market teams.

You're right about one thing, Roy.  It isn't just about the money.  It is also about the owners wanting to be able to control player movement. 

The owners want to be able to dictate where the players play, and for how much they play.  The "competitive balance" stance is just another veil for what the owners really want.  LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony are what they are trying to prevent.  The players want to be free to play wherever they wish (after their rookie deals are up of course), while the owners want to tell them where they will play.

Competitive balance will never truly exist in the NBA as long as there are less superstars than there are teams.  Furthermore, why would the owners even want this?  This league is most financially profitable when the large market, popular teams are winning.

[hpantazo]

Stop lying, NBA.  The Minnesota Timberwolves and the New York Knicks aren't going to be on equal footing just because the league keeps more of the money its been paying in salary.  Everybody knows that, so I wish they would stop pretending that the lockout is about something it's not. 

I don't think it's a lie at all.  I think Stern and Silver have both stated that there are two issues:  the finances, and competitive balance.  Their public position is that they're trying to improve both.

I mean, if this was *just* about money, the lockout would be over now, because the owners got their 50/50 split.  However, what's holding it up are "competitive balance" system issues that lessen the gap between big and small market teams.

You're right about one thing, Roy.  It isn't just about the money.  It is also about the owners wanting to be able to control player movement. 

The owners want to be able to dictate where the players play, and for how much they play.  The "competitive balance" stance is just another veil for what the owners really want.  LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony are what they are trying to prevent.  The players want to be free to play wherever they wish (after their rookie deals are up of course), while the owners want to tell them where they will play.

Competitive balance will never truly exist in the NBA as long as there are less superstars than there are teams.  Furthermore, why would the owners even want this?  This league is most financially profitable when the large market, popular teams are winning.

Looking at it from the perspective of small market teams, I can undertand that argument. They will never be able to keep players like Lebron, Melo, Dwight Howard, Shaq, etc. from jumping to bigger markets the way the system is now, so I don't blame them. The thing is, I'm not convinced that the system changes they are seeking will do anything to stop that in the end. Big time players will still get much more in big markets just from endorsement deals and exposure regardless of NBA salary, things that the CBA doesn't cover as far as I know.