What's new
By:

Lockout!!!

gregbroncs said:
. . .

I also don't believe the owner's need the players to buy into it. The owner's have little incentive to budge until they get their way. . . .
Click to expand...
. . . except that they still have some fixed costs--and with no games, have minimal revenue (game-night revenue or otherwise) to cover it.

For example, I'd put the New Jersey Nets' lockout losses at about 5 million, give or take a couple of million, over the course of the year.
https://goingconcern.com/2011/06/who-wants-to-comb-over-the-new-jersey-nets-financial-statements/
That single-digit loss may still be better than the near-$10-million loss (excluding amortization, which would make it $20 million plus), which might bolster your argument.

I wonder how many teams lose less money by not having a season (and pushing for more cuts) than by agreeing to a 54%ish share for the players and resuming operations. Then again, there are many teams (at least 8 of them) who are earning a profit and are losing out if part or all of the season doesn't happen.
 
DutchJazzer said:
that wont solve the ak problem. cus ak would have gotten the tag
Click to expand...
Yep, and giving a player who is more of a defensive force and not a clutch scorer (even if he can do 5x5 stats once in a while)--and hurrying it up so that they can give him 7 years instead of 5--is a bad idea with or without a tag.

I still wonder who was the driving force to lock in AK for longer: was it Larry (RIP), O'Connor, or someone else?

Certainly not Sloan.
 
InGameStrategy said:
. . . except that they still have some fixed costs--and with no games, have minimal revenue (game-night revenue or otherwise) to cover it.

For example, I'd put the New Jersey Nets' lockout losses at about 5 million, give or take a couple of million, over the course of the year.
https://goingconcern.com/2011/06/who-wants-to-comb-over-the-new-jersey-nets-financial-statements/
That single-digit loss may still be better than the near-$10-million loss (excluding amortization, which would make it $20 million plus), which might bolster your argument.

I wonder how many teams lose less money by not having a season (and pushing for more cuts) than by agreeing to a 54%ish share for the players and resuming operations. Then again, there are many teams (at least 8 of them) who are earning a profit and are losing out if part or all of the season doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. And the owner's will lose some with a lockout. I believe the overall health of their franchises is more important to them that a bit of pocket change for them in the short term. They have the means and ability to wait out the players in order to make their investments more profitable going forward.

The players on the other hand have little to no other means of income during this time. And a lot of the players in the league do not spend their money wisely. They also have a limited window to make their money. Every game missed eats into that window.

Basically I believe the longer this thing lasts the more desperate the player's side becomes. A full season of lockout is a much lower % loss for the owners than it is for the players.

Therefore it is and has been my belief since mid season that this lockout is going to be long and brutal. Mostly because I think the owners are going to wait for the players to become desperate before a deal gets done. The owners need to get control of this league and I believe that they will do what it takes to do that.
 
gregbroncs said:
So under your system the big market teams gain a bigger stranglehold on the league. Soft cap, Guaranteed contracts and if a player gets injured they can now go over the cap in an additional way. They now have no recourse against signing players to huge deals. If one of their players come up for FA after 5 years they don't count against the cap. Basically every player on a team for more than 5 years can be a big money player.

Simply put. Without either non-guaranteed contracts or a real hard cap. This whole lockout is a complete waste for the owners.

I also don't believe the owner's need the players to buy into it. The owner's have little incentive to budge until they get their way. Eventually the players will begin to cave. When they do a hard cap is where the owner's negotiation begins. No hard cap no CBA. No CBA no season.
Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion? It can't be worse than it is now as there will be a cap. So Dallas won't be able to spend $90m+ each year. Say the cap is set at $50m - that's an additional $40m of players salary that will go to other teams. If for example all teams are over the cap except Charlotte. And Dwight Howard becomes a free agent - then Dwight Howard would be forced to sign with Charlotte.

Big market team would only be able to spend more 'if' a player suffers a season ending injury as diagnosed by league doctors.

And that would be difficult to manufacture as no players would want to intentionally get injured and teams won't be able to dictate this - it will be the league's call.
 
I refuse to watch soccer! Bring basketball back quickly, thank you.

soccer.gif
 
Hotttnickkk said:
3. Teams can sign a player for 25% over the Max. contract (to be determined each year by the lague - say $15m), provided that the player has been with that team for more than 5 years. This 25% can also exceed the Hard Cap (it will be the only exception to the Hard Cap). (Good for players as they can go over the Cap. Good for owners as they can keep their star player).
Click to expand...

This is where I got that. If a player is on a team for 5 years they can go over the hard cap to sign them. So now these teams can sign their 5 years players for max contracts no matter how good they actually are. Giving the teams with lots of money an unlimited bench while teams without that luxury lose their players.

It is not a hard cap if their are exceptions. You have made a 2nd exception for injured players. A league mandatated doctor team is a pipe dream. It will come down to the teams doctors and they will do what the owners want. The players will be talked into being injured for the good of the team and the FA's will replace underperforming players on the big name teams.

You actually have a decent basis but these 2 exceptions are not practical and undermine the league almost as much as the current system.

For me it's a hard cap or no more guaranteed contracts. Without one or the other the owners have failed in their bid to gain control of the league. And that makes this lockout pointless. It also means that their will be another lockout in a few years. Now that they are here I prefer they deal wih the problems now.
 
gregbroncs said:
This is where I got that. If a player is on a team for 5 years they can go over the hard cap to sign them. So now these teams can sign their 5 years players for max contracts no matter how good they actually are. Giving the teams with lots of money an unlimited bench while teams without that luxury lose their players.
Click to expand...

They would only be able to go over the cap with the 25% - not the entire contract.

For example, if a team is at $45m salary wise and the cap is $60m - and a player who has played for five years is becoming a FA. Then the team would be able to offer that player the max amount which is $15m plus 25% which is $3.75m extra. After signing the team would be at $60 (plus the 25% exception).

If the team is already at $55m salary wise (Say, Dallas or Lakers), then the most the team will be able to offer the player would be $5m plus 25%. Taking it to the cap of $60m.

So in this circumstance, a team like Dallas would have to let this player go to another team, because that player would absolutely not sign for $5m if he's worth $15m max contract from another team with cap space.

Note: After reading my previous post it wasn't clear whether only 25% or the entire salary can go over the cap. Apologies for the confusions.
 
gregbroncs said:
This is a good point. And the owner's will lose some with a lockout. I believe the overall health of their franchises is more important to them that a bit of pocket change for them in the short term. They have the means and ability to wait out the players in order to make their investments more profitable going forward.

The players on the other hand have little to no other means of income during this time. And a lot of the players in the league do not spend their money wisely. They also have a limited window to make their money. Every game missed eats into that window.

Basically I believe the longer this thing lasts the more desperate the player's side becomes. A full season of lockout is a much lower % loss for the owners than it is for the players.

Therefore it is and has been my belief since mid season that this lockout is going to be long and brutal. Mostly because I think the owners are going to wait for the players to become desperate before a deal gets done. The owners need to get control of this league and I believe that they will do what it takes to do that.
Click to expand...


I agree with your post, however the players have been talking and preparing for this for atleast two years and probably their lawyers and agents have been discussing options since 1998. If the status quo remained the same I could see this being a long and brutal lock-out as you described. But the players know they have a limited window to make money and knew this lock-out was coming. If the deck is stacked against the players, then they need to change decks, or playing fields, or upset the status quo.

--I believe they will make attempts to break the owners. The players are split--the stars and their lapdogs are coercing the other players into following. The so called stars have said that they prefer contraction ( LeBron in Nov 2010 and Areana July 2011). The players could try a strategy of approaching 6 -8 of the biggest markets and getting them to create their own alliance. Promise NY, LA, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Boston all the best players, all the stars, and all the revenue WITHOUT sharing. The biggest stars and the biggest markets unite to form a super league, they could pick a few more cities to make a league of 12-16 teams-- leaving the NBA to be Oklahoma, Milwaukee, Indiana and Utah.

It gives the star players and certain owners more money and leaves the average joe player (which the union shows no interest in protecting) and the small market less desirable cities to find a solution to overpriced NBA franchises and bad business models.

Before ya'll blast me, I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could happen. Sure it is unlikely that players and teams would conspire against the rest of the league, but before last summer we all thought it impossible that two max players would take pay cuts and shorter deals to team up on a super team. Just something to think about.
 
Last edited:
mellow said:
. . . .

--I believe they will make attempts to break the owners. The players are split--the stars and their lapdogs are coercing the other players into following. The so called stars have said that they prefer contraction ( LeBron in Nov 2010 and Areana July 2011). The players could try a strategy of approaching 6 -8 of the biggest markets and getting them to create their own alliance.
Click to expand...
Love the creativity, but I imagine that the NBA owners have an agreement--probably a legal agreement---that a subset of them cannot collude or split off as you suggest. Besides, the major teams need some smaller teams to justify an 80-game season--a 21-team league at minimum for two home games and two away games per opponent per season.

mellow said:
Promise NY, LA, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Boston all the best players, all the stars, and all the revenue WITHOUT sharing.
Click to expand...
Now you're suggesting that a subset of both sides break rank.

The players' union wouldn't go for it, either; for some reason, they are lobbying for 18-year-olds to be able to enter the NBA, just further increasing the supply of players eligible for the league.

mellow said:
Before ya'll blast me, I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could happen. Sure it is unlikely that players and teams would conspire against the rest of the league, but before last summer we all thought it impossible that two max players would take pay cuts and shorter deals to team up on a super team. Just something to think about.
Click to expand...
Yes, it could happen. And they could schedule an exhibition game on the moon.

Players taking pay cuts is a lot less uncommon than secession, which is what you are proposing.

I still see the owners holding out until they get a split closer to 50/50. It's almost as ludicrous to settle for something less than to have gotten into this mess in the first place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top