Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[PosImpos]

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.

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).

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.

Again, I can respect that you feel this way based on your values, but I completely disagree.  It's not as simple as you say for owners to make their markets desirable (players aren't going to want to play in Minnesota no matter how well run the team is), and I think the league is better and more fun to watch when general managers have a lot of control over building their team.  

That way you can really say that who wins is about who builds the best group of players, not who has the nicest city and the biggest pockets.

[indeedproceed]

I'm switching my blame to the players. I think the owners are jerks, bullies, and condescending b-holes, but the players have drastically mishandled this, and now, being legitimately faced with a missed season, I think it was a huge mistake.

Blame Bill Simmons' latest column. Really swayed me.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

[PosImpos]

I'm switching my blame to the players. I think the owners are jerks, bullies, and condescending b-holes, but the players have drastically mishandled this, and now, being legitimately faced with a missed season, I think it was a huge mistake.

Blame Bill Simmons' latest column. Really swayed me.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

[Fafnir]

I'm switching my blame to the players. I think the owners are jerks, bullies, and condescending b-holes, but the players have drastically mishandled this, and now, being legitimately faced with a missed season, I think it was a huge mistake.

Blame Bill Simmons' latest column. Really swayed me.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

Didn't sway me, listened to his podcast on the NBA and he's coming off as irrational as ever on the issue, while doing his usual "I'm the voice of reason". Just wants to see his basketball, like all of us fans do.

Then he claims that Kings games are more fun than Clippers games to go to, and acts like thats an indictment of the NBA in general rather than just Clippers and their fans.

[indeedproceed]

I'm switching my blame to the players. I think the owners are jerks, bullies, and condescending b-holes, but the players have drastically mishandled this, and now, being legitimately faced with a missed season, I think it was a huge mistake.

Blame Bill Simmons' latest column. Really swayed me.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

Didn't sway me, listened to his podcast on the NBA and he's coming off as irrational as ever on the issue, while doing his usual "I'm the voice of reason". Just wants to see his basketball, like all of us fans do.

I think his points on the Stern/Players dynamic and the agents' role in all this make a ton of sense. And man, does he ever hate the Kessler guy.

[StartOrien]

I came to a defeated realization that I'm angry at the owners for being "too business" and the players for being "too competitive." So basically, I'm angry at everybody for being who they are.

[The Walker Wiggle]

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. 

But to me is Stern's claims that owners are motivated by competitive balance - as opposed to greater guaranteed profits - doesn't hold up.

There's plenty published lately on the subject but ESPN ran a nice starting point: "The Payroll and Competitive Balance Myth."

What we’re seeing is a strong tie between drafting efficiency and win percentage, but not so much for winning and payroll. In fact, draft efficiency alone explains 34 percent of the variability in a team’s record over the past decade. How much does payroll explain?

Just 7 percent -- a tiny amount in comparison.

Many economists have studied the issue of payroll and competitive balance. Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College who has written several books on sports economics, recently told the New York Times, “The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent.” That 7 percent is what he’s talking about.

[Fafnir]

I'm switching my blame to the players. I think the owners are jerks, bullies, and condescending b-holes, but the players have drastically mishandled this, and now, being legitimately faced with a missed season, I think it was a huge mistake.

Blame Bill Simmons' latest column. Really swayed me.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

Didn't sway me, listened to his podcast on the NBA and he's coming off as irrational as ever on the issue, while doing his usual "I'm the voice of reason". Just wants to see his basketball, like all of us fans do.

I think his points on the Stern/Players dynamic and the agents' role in all this make a ton of sense. And man, does he ever hate the Kessler guy.

Nothing new, just a long winded narrative of things we've already talked about.

And lots of movie references.

[The Walker Wiggle]

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.

While this to me is a real issue that does need to be addressed. But then I don't see how Stern can make this case and justify allowing the Seattle Supersonics to be relocated to Oklahoma City.

[Chris]

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. 

But to me is Stern's claims that owners are motivated by competitive balance - as opposed to greater guaranteed profits - doesn't hold up.

There's plenty published lately on the subject but ESPN ran a nice starting point: "The Payroll and Competitive Balance Myth."

What we’re seeing is a strong tie between drafting efficiency and win percentage, but not so much for winning and payroll. In fact, draft efficiency alone explains 34 percent of the variability in a team’s record over the past decade. How much does payroll explain?

Just 7 percent -- a tiny amount in comparison.

Many economists have studied the issue of payroll and competitive balance. Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College who has written several books on sports economics, recently told the New York Times, “The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent.” That 7 percent is what he’s talking about.

I don't think Stern has said that the owners are not motivated by greater profits.  He has been pretty clear that the owners want both.  They want a system where they can make money, and where they can make it easier for all teams to compete on a more level playing field.


As far as that account, I don't think it tells the whole story.  Because its not about "if you pay more, you win more".  It is about certain teams being able to overcome some financial mistakes by throwing money at it, while other teams are doomed by them.

It is about certain teams being able to afford that "extra piece" to put them over the top, while other teams can't (or even have to sell off key pieces to get under the luxury tax).

These type of things wouldn't show up in macro studies like that.  But, they are, in fact, the reality in the NBA.  

[KGs Knee]

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.

If the NBA wanted to operate this way, they should have formed the league like the MLS did.  They didn't, and it's too late.  You'll never get all the individual owners to agree, teams like the Lakers and Knicks would lose a lot of money.

[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. 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.

The Bucks acquired John Salmons mid season, had a good few months and then lost in the first round of the playoffs. They respond by extending John Salmons to an above market deal. They then threw huge money at Corey Maggette and Drew Gooden on a gamble that they really can't afford.

It's fine if that works out - though it seemed unlikely at the time that Maggette and Gooden were the pieces that they were missing to be a serious contender - but that's a gamble that the team can't afford. That's poor GM work, and it's really terrible business.

As far as my argument about 'that's life' I haven't the least idea where you got the idea that I'm pro contraction. Again, what I'm saying is that's what life's like to be a consumer.

If I buy a nice house in a nice city, keep it maintained, it's going to sell more than a fixer-upper you did a great job with in an OK city. That's why my house cost a lot more.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I don't think Stern has said that the owners are not motivated by greater profits.  He has been pretty clear that the owners want both.  They want a system where they can make money, and where they can make it easier for all teams to compete on a more level playing field.

Sorry, I meant that owners are solely motivated by greater guaranteed profits. There simply isn't any evidence that a better BRI split, a harder cap and less player movement are going to contribute to greater parity. Although I'd be happy to read evidence to the contrary.

[The Walker Wiggle]

They then threw huge money at Corey Maggette and Drew Gooden on a gamble that they really can't afford.

Point of order - the Bucks acquired Maggette from Golden State for the more favorable contracts of Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell. But your point still stands. The front office probably should have phoned Skiles to see if he'd even consider giving Maggette a steady role.

[KGs Knee]

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.

As for the second part, that was exactly my point.  All the money in the world can not overcome bad management.  The money isn't the biggest issue, the quality of management is.  The money is almost an excuse.  Normal businesses don't operate this way.  The owners want to be able to operate as a normal business, without an of the responsibilities of one.

Also, the Knicks are not the only large market team to have had long periods of years of a lack of success.  Chicgao had the Jordan years and not much else.  The Sixers had the Iverson years, and not much else since the mid 80's.  The Celtic's?  We all know how bad they were for 20 or so years.  Why?  Bad management.