Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[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.  

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.

People like to point to Eddy Curry and Gilbert Arenas as examples of typical NBA contracts, but the truth is those guys are far from typical.  Sure, there are players who don't live up to their teams' or the fans' expectations, but really I see very few who are just taking the money and "mailing it in."

As far as the "Decision" stuff goes, hey, I don't like Lebron James or how he handled that travesty of a circus, but "free agent" means that the player is free to choose where he plays.  There are no system changes that are going to turn the city of Cleveland into the city of Miami.

As a fan, I don't have a problem with the way "competitive balance" plays out on the court under the current system.  San Antonio and OKC are a couple of examples of teams in small markets that have had on the court success, while the Knicks and the Clippers are a couple of examples of the opposite.  No one can claim that there's any where near a direct correlation between where a team is located and the product it manages to put out on the court.  

When the league and the owners talk about "competitive balance," it seems to me that they are talking more about competitive balance in terms of profit and loss rather than competitive balance on the court.  Now that they have already gotten that $300 million back from the players that they claim they lost last year, they could go ahead and share that money amongst themselves however they see fit and go ahead and play the games.  But, no, somehow that's not enough for them.  They want to control where the players can go and how long they can sign contracts for and the like, as well.

I guess I'm probably in the minority among fans, though, that I don't see the on the court system as broken.  I see it as a good, competitive league with a lot of great players and different and interesting ways to build good, entertaining basketball teams.  

[Roy H.]

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.

The proposed changes won't fix things completely, but there are some good ideas:

* No "extend-and-trades", preventing things like the Carmelo situation;

* Not allowing players who are signed-and-traded to get the extra year / raises that Bird rights players do;

* Penalizing teams that consistently spend over the luxury tax;

* Limiting the contracts that teams in the luxury tax can give.

All of those roles help level the playing field between New York / LA and the rest of the league.  They also help teams keep their stars.

[hpantazo]

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.

The proposed changes won't fix things completely, but there are some good ideas:

* No "extend-and-trades", preventing things like the Carmelo situation;

* Not allowing players who are signed-and-traded to get the extra year / raises that Bird rights players do;

* Penalizing teams that consistently spend over the luxury tax;

* Limiting the contracts that teams in the luxury tax can give.

All of those roles help level the playing field between New York / LA and the rest of the league.  They also help teams keep their stars.

I agree with you Roy, those changes would help, and I support those points in the proposed CBA. I still think players will leave for bigger markets anyway and still make more in endorsements than in salary, but they shouldn't be rewarded extra with Bird rights and additional pay raises for ditching their teams for the bigger spotlight.

[nickagneta]

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.

The proposed changes won't fix things completely, but there are some good ideas:

* No "extend-and-trades", preventing things like the Carmelo situation;

* Not allowing players who are signed-and-traded to get the extra year / raises that Bird rights players do;

* Penalizing teams that consistently spend over the luxury tax;

* Limiting the contracts that teams in the luxury tax can give.

All of those roles help level the playing field between New York / LA and the rest of the league.  They also help teams keep their stars.

I agree with you Roy, those changes would help, and I support those points in the proposed CBA. I still think players will leave for bigger markets anyway and still make more in endorsements than in salary, but they shouldn't be rewarded extra with Bird rights and additional pay raises for ditching their teams for the bigger spotlight.

Yes but as Roy said, the superstars are going to have a hard time going to LA or New York or Miami is they are consistently over the tax rate. Sign and trades will not be permitted after year 2. Teams in the luxury tax will be severely limited in regards to free agents they will be able to sign. basicaly large market teams with big spending habits will have to do what Chicago, Miami, New York and new Jersey did in 2010 which is jettison tons of talent and players to get way under the cap to sign big name free agents and even then the contracts are going to be a year shorter and less on the raises than what their current teams will be able to offer because of the lack of sign and trades.

[hpantazo]

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.

The proposed changes won't fix things completely, but there are some good ideas:

* No "extend-and-trades", preventing things like the Carmelo situation;

* Not allowing players who are signed-and-traded to get the extra year / raises that Bird rights players do;

* Penalizing teams that consistently spend over the luxury tax;

* Limiting the contracts that teams in the luxury tax can give.

All of those roles help level the playing field between New York / LA and the rest of the league.  They also help teams keep their stars.

I agree with you Roy, those changes would help, and I support those points in the proposed CBA. I still think players will leave for bigger markets anyway and still make more in endorsements than in salary, but they shouldn't be rewarded extra with Bird rights and additional pay raises for ditching their teams for the bigger spotlight.

Yes but as Roy said, the superstars are going to have a hard time going to LA or New York or Miami is they are consistently over the tax rate. Sign and trades will not be permitted after year 2. Teams in the luxury tax will be severely limited in regards to free agents they will be able to sign. basicaly large market teams with big spending habits will have to do what Chicago, Miami, New York and new Jersey did in 2010 which is jettison tons of talent and players to get way under the cap to sign big name free agents and even then the contracts are going to be a year shorter and less on the raises than what their current teams will be able to offer because of the lack of sign and trades.

I don't think this makes it any harder for a superstar to dump a small market team for a big city. It just makes it harder for a big market team to obtain multiple superstars, resulting in more small market teams left with no superstars, which is completely fair imo.

[nickagneta]

But if the big market teams can't sign free agent superstars by because of the restrictions, where else are the superstar free agents going to sign.

There are about 8-10 big market or desirous small markets that free agents want to go to. New York, Brooklyn, Lakers, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Orlando, Phoenix and maybe Boston.

There will be years, due to these teams spending habits and the new restrictions where NONE of these teams will be able to sign a big name superstar free agent.

What then?

Simple the superstar free agent will have to re-sign with his small market team or have to sign with another small market team or a large market team with a cold environment that is less desirable.

That is how this system will limit superstar free agents from going where ever they want because the sign and trade won't be there and if they are traded the season before to a team they demand to go to, they won't be able to re-sign with that team for a certain period of time and their Bird rights won't be maintained by the team they are traded to.

[Celtics18]

I see that now a few of you are getting into the specifics of the latest league proposal to the players.  To me, the thing that is the most relevant is that the players are against the latest system changes.

I mean come on, NBA owners, the players folded on the BRI, giving back 7%, which should be enough to make up for the losses that the league claimed to have incurred last season.

But, no, despite winning that battle, you can't give us a season unless you get even more control over where free agents can go, how much they can make, and how long they can make it for when they become free agents.  

It's too much already.  What makes it so much worse is that they are probably banking on winning the overall public opinion battle, relying on fans to resent these pro athletes who make millions of dollars playing a playground game.  It's vicious, nasty, and ugly from this fan's perspective.  

[Roy H.]

I see that now a few of you are getting into the specifics of the latest league proposal to the players.  To me, the thing that is the most relevant is that the players are against the latest system changes.

I mean come on, NBA owners, the players folded on the BRI, giving back 7%, which should be enough to make up for the losses that the league claimed to have incurred last season.

But, no, despite winning that battle, you can't give us a season unless you get even more control over where free agents can go, how much they can make, and how long they can make it for when they become free agents.  

It's too much already.  What makes it so much worse is that they are probably banking on winning the overall public opinion battle, relying on fans to resent these pro athletes who make millions of dollars playing a playground game.  It's vicious, nasty, and ugly from this fan's perspective.  

While as a fan I'd like to see both sides cave a bit since they're now remarkably close, shouldn't the debate be whether the ideas are good ones, rather than whether the players like them?  I've got to think that that's what the owners' perspective, anyway.

[hpantazo]

The reason for Bird rights was to retain your own players, not to trade them in sign and trades to give them raises. I fully agree with the new CBA restrictions. There were loopholes in the last CBA that made no sense whatsoever and should have never been there to begin with. There were flaws in the old system that owners are trying to correct. Are the corrections enough? I'm not sure. Are the flaws real? Certainly. Players took full advantage of these flaws, and so did some GMs.

[hpantazo]

There are about 7-9 big market or desirous small markets that free agents want to go to. New York, Brooklyn, Lakers, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Dallas, Orlando and maybe Boston.

There will be years, due to these teams spending habits and the new restrictions where NONE of these teams will be able to sign a big name superstar free agent.

What then?

That should never happen if the big market teams are managed properly. There is no good reason why any of those teams should end up not being able to have one big name FA on their roster. If that happens because they overpay guys like Eddie Curry then they have to suffer the consequences of poor management and not be bailed out by a poorly designed system imo.

[nickagneta]

I see that now a few of you are getting into the specifics of the latest league proposal to the players.  To me, the thing that is the most relevant is that the players are against the latest system changes.

I mean come on, NBA owners, the players folded on the BRI, giving back 7%, which should be enough to make up for the losses that the league claimed to have incurred last season.

But, no, despite winning that battle, you can't give us a season unless you get even more control over where free agents can go, how much they can make, and how long they can make it for when they become free agents.  

It's too much already.  What makes it so much worse is that they are probably banking on winning the overall public opinion battle, relying on fans to resent these pro athletes who make millions of dollars playing a playground game.  It's vicious, nasty, and ugly from this fan's perspective.  

While as a fan I'd like to see both sides cave a bit since they're now remarkably close, shouldn't the debate be whether the ideas are good ones, rather than whether the players like them?  I've got to think that that's what the owners' perspective, anyway.

This I agree with. While I have maintained an attitude that the owners were being disingenuous about their claims of massive losses and favored the plight of the players, I still believe the owners needed certain system changes, many of which were in the proposal and I thought were good ideas. The players won't like them and I mostly support the players but they are still really good ideas that are good for the game.

[KGs Knee]

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.

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

It is about nothing other than control.  Owners feel as if "the inmates are running the asylum".  What really is happening is players are just simply using their freedom of "right to choose where to work" to pick spots they desire (something any human would do). 

If you don't like it (as an owner), make your destination more desirable (and I don't mean artifically price-fixing the market).  Otherwise, too bad.

[nickagneta]

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.

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

It is about nothing other than control.  Owners feel as if "the inmates are running the asylum".  What really is happening is players are just simply using their freedom of "right to choose where to work" to pick spots they desire (something any human would do). 

If you don't like it (as an owner), make your destination more desirable (and I don't mean artifically price-fixing the market).  Otherwise, too bad.

Funny enough....I agree with all of that to.

[PosImpos]

I see that now a few of you are getting into the specifics of the latest league proposal to the players.  To me, the thing that is the most relevant is that the players are against the latest system changes.

I mean come on, NBA owners, the players folded on the BRI, giving back 7%, which should be enough to make up for the losses that the league claimed to have incurred last season.

But, no, despite winning that battle, you can't give us a season unless you get even more control over where free agents can go, how much they can make, and how long they can make it for when they become free agents. 

It's too much already.  What makes it so much worse is that they are probably banking on winning the overall public opinion battle, relying on fans to resent these pro athletes who make millions of dollars playing a playground game.  It's vicious, nasty, and ugly from this fan's perspective.   

While as a fan I'd like to see both sides cave a bit since they're now remarkably close, shouldn't the debate be whether the ideas are good ones, rather than whether the players like them?  I've got to think that that's what the owners' perspective, anyway.

Agreed.  I personally don't care much whether the owner's latest proposal really stuck it to the players or not, or whether or not the owners are giving up much to the players in these negotiations.  What matters to me is that the ideas in the owners' latest proposal sounded really good to me.  I'd like to follow a league governed by those rules.  I didn't like what I saw happening in the league over the last few years due to the CBA rules.

[Chris]

I see that now a few of you are getting into the specifics of the latest league proposal to the players.  To me, the thing that is the most relevant is that the players are against the latest system changes.

I mean come on, NBA owners, the players folded on the BRI, giving back 7%, which should be enough to make up for the losses that the league claimed to have incurred last season.

But, no, despite winning that battle, you can't give us a season unless you get even more control over where free agents can go, how much they can make, and how long they can make it for when they become free agents. 

It's too much already.  What makes it so much worse is that they are probably banking on winning the overall public opinion battle, relying on fans to resent these pro athletes who make millions of dollars playing a playground game.  It's vicious, nasty, and ugly from this fan's perspective.   

While as a fan I'd like to see both sides cave a bit since they're now remarkably close, shouldn't the debate be whether the ideas are good ones, rather than whether the players like them?  I've got to think that that's what the owners' perspective, anyway.

Agreed.  I personally don't care much whether the owner's latest proposal really stuck it to the players or not, or whether or not the owners are giving up much to the players in these negotiations.  What matters to me is that the ideas in the owners' latest proposal sounded really good to me.  I'd like to follow a league governed by those rules.  I didn't like what I saw happening in the league over the last few years due to the CBA rules.

Agreed.  I really would like to see more restrictions on team spending, combined with ways to promote player movement, and that is exactly what the owners proposal was (it might have limited players choices with player movement, but made the actual movement easier).

I think where it got sticky, was with the economics, when combined with those changes that were not great for some of the players. 

I don't necessarily blame the owners for asking for both, since I think they have the leverage to get it.  But, that is where things really broke down. 

I will be curious to see though, if the owners go back to the players and present them a better offer, whether they give more on the system, or the BRI split.