Lockout!!!

[GVC]

Who said unions were bad? I support unions, but I've seen first hand what can happen when a few people in a union get too much power and let their egos get in the way of making sensible decisions. This whole situation is a lot more complicated than simply union vs. management or players vs. owners IMO. Truth be told, I think the star players and rich owners/big market teams would both be thrilled to have a situation where there was no cap at all. I believe those two groups have more interests in common than lumping all the owners together.

I support the owners side because their position best represents teams like Utah. I feel bad for the majority of players who are going to end up getting screwed in all this, but I can't support the rich owners/star players. That's the way I see things. This is really a case of small market teams vs. rich owners/star players.

Consider what I was responding to, and how simplistic the arguments in favor of the owners have been in this thread.

From the start, what has seemed fairly obvious to me (and just about everyone else) is that the players would have to cave. The owners know this, and largely due to functioning as a cartel, are able to extort more from the players (that is, as one brow has pointed out, salaries would almost certainly be higher if the market for their services were freer). Why did the NBA move another team to New Orleans? Memphis? How successful has the WNBA been? The Dleague? Moving into Europe (in the short run)? The league talks about these as investments, and yet they're all very risky gambles. During a downturn, you're pretty well ****ed on any extremely risky decision. The owners are demanding the players make concessions to assure positive profits for all, despite these extremely risky behaviors during the worst economic conditions since the depression. That people buy into this cartel of bullies being a shining example of honest, American, free market capitalism is crazy. ****ing crazy.

With that said, you can't ignore the realities that the players face. Everyone knew from the very start that the players would have to make concessions. If there is no season, however, make no mistake, the owners are to blame.

How does the owners' position best represent a team like Utah? The Jazz have been successful because they've been run extremely well relative to other NBA teams. They understand that gate receipts matter, that poor FA decisions are hard to correct, that stability in the FO leads to a better on court product. They'll be successful as long as they continue to act intelligently, regardless of the outcome of these current negotiations. Other NBA owners seem like complete retards next to Larry, love him or hate him.

I don't hate a hard cap, but I actually think it hurts well-run teams, as it will almost certainly lead to more player movement (rosters are smaller, so more big changes will have to be made to stay under said hard cap). The stability advantage is diminished for Utah. Stiffening the hard cap line, and making minor adjustments to the exceptions, should help Utah.

I also can't bring myself to think about this issue so selfishly. If the players only received 10% of BRI, that would help the Jazz even more. Would I support the owners in that proposal? No. Would you?

 

[GVC]

I feel bad for the majority of players who are going to end up getting screwed in all this

The harder the cap, the higher the number of screwed over players. Stars are going to get paid, regardless. What happens with a hard cap is that the middle-class of players suddenly find themselves fighting for a smaller share of leftovers. It's no mystery why the union was more focused on structural issues, and why the NBA was able to get away with focusing on BRI: Any dummy can understand 50/50, but the nuances of how the cap affects the distribution of pay among players is a little harder to grasp. The league knows they can get their message of "We're losing money, we have to cut costs" across to the average fan, while completely ignoring the real effect of some of the structural issues. A monolithic culture likes a monolithic message.

 

[freakazoid]

I also can't bring myself to think about this issue so selfishly. If the players only received 10% of BRI, that would help the Jazz even more. Would I support the owners in that proposal? No. Would you?

Worst case scenario, the poorest of players will still be making a hell of a lot more than me playing a game they love. So yes, as long as I have to work my *** off for a living for considerably less money, I have NO problem being selfish about wanting what's best for Utah vs. what's best for the players. The players will make out just fine.

 

[GVC]

While I obviously don't have the same values as you do in this regard, I can at least respect that you're honest, reasonably intelligent and consistent. Not a lot of that in this thread.

 

[freakazoid]

I don't hate a hard cap, but I actually think it hurts well-run teams, as it will almost certainly lead to more player movement (rosters are smaller, so more big changes will have to be made to stay under said hard cap). The stability advantage is diminished for Utah. Stiffening the hard cap line, and making minor adjustments to the exceptions, should help Utah.

I've never argued for a hard cap, and I agree that it's iffy as far as how it would affect Utah. I just want to see some changes like inreasing the penalty incrementally for luxary tax payers. When I talk about helping Utah, I'm also talking about changes that help handicap other teams like Dallas and New york.

 

[One Brow]

So yes, as long as I have to work my *** off for a living for considerably less money, I have NO problem being selfish ...

As long as you're not pretending this is actually about what owners are willing to pay, I have no objections to your motivations.

 

[freakazoid]

you're honest, reasonably intelligent and consistent.

You give me too much credit. And stop hitting on me.

 

[GVC]

And stop hitting on me.

****, a dude last night told me the same thing, more or less. Maybe I am gay.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

Who said unions were bad? I support unions, but I've seen first hand what can happen when a few people in a union get too much power and let their egos get in the way of making sensible decisions. This whole situation is a lot more complicated than simply union vs. management or players vs. owners IMO. Truth be told, I think the star players and rich owners/big market teams would both be thrilled to have a situation where there was no cap at all. I believe those two groups have more interests in common than lumping all the owners together.

I support the owners side because their position best represents teams like Utah. I feel bad for the majority of players who are going to end up getting screwed in all this, but I can't support the rich owners/star players. That's the way I see things. This is really a case of small market teams vs. rich owners/star players.

First of all, i don't believe that a restricted cap helps utah at all.

If you have a hard cap, then players are just going to go to the places that offer the best lifestyle - teams in big cities.

At least in the current system you can keep the talent you grew - if you want to.

In basketball its always going to be about who has how many of the top 10 players. And if you can't pay extra to keep your talent then how will you ever compete?

Look at OKC, they have this great core. If we get rid of the mle, and make the luxury tax punitive they're eventually going to have to let either westbrook, harden or ibaka go. How is that good for small markets, and how is that good for basketball?

People will take paycuts to go to la, miami and nyc. They arent taking paycuts to come to utah and indiana. The current system is utahs best bet. (thats what the statistics show - winning causes increases in payroll, but higher payroll does not caused increased winning)

 

[Dr. Jones]

****, a dude last night told me the same thing, more or less. Maybe I am gay.

Were you, by chance, slapping him on the *** and offering to buy him a pina (*****) coladas?

 

[GVC]

No, I just told him he was intimidatingly intelligent and on point with his comments/questions about tough material. I may have said it more than once. I may have been blushing.

 

[Dr. Jones]

That's awesome, I laughed.

 

[Dr. Jones]

No, I just told him he was intimidatingly intelligent and on point with his comments/questions about tough material. I may have said it more than once. I may have been blushing.

... is it safe to rule out IGS?

 

[Gameface]

As long as you're not pretending this is actually about what owners are willing to pay, I have no objections to your motivations.

Two separate issues.

One, what owners are willing to do to put a competitive team on the floor.

Two, what collective agreement they're willing to make with the players union.

If the players want to negotiate pay on an individual basis then what's the union for? I'm pretty sure it wasn't set up by the owners.

 

[GVC]

If the players want to negotiate pay on an individual basis then what's the union for? I'm pretty sure it wasn't set up by the owners.

For all intents and purposes, the NBA is a cartel. The individual team owners all get together, set league wide policy, to various degrees set prices (consider national TV deals, merchandise, etc.), don't allow free entry, divide access to different geographic regions, etc. As such, the market for the services provided by American basketball players is not at all free, and they have to fight to try to get their wages anywhere close to where they'd be in a free (or freer) market. It's a lot harder to negotiate individually than it is collectively with such an organization.

 

[sirkickyass]

For all intents and purposes, the NBA is a cartel. The individual team owners all get together, set league wide policy, to various degrees set prices (consider national TV deals, merchandise, etc.), don't allow free entry, divide access to different geographic regions, etc. As such, the market for the services provided by American basketball players is not at all free, and they have to fight to try to get their wages anywhere close to where they'd be in a free (or freer) market. It's a lot harder to negotiate individually than it is collectively with such an organization.

Empirically the evidence you need for this point is abundant. One need only look at the escalation in player salaries during the ABA era.

NBA teams are only competitors in a very narrow sense in the binary language of wins and losses during the course of a season. From a business perspective, there's a reason they call them "franchises" and the Knicks and Lakers aren't actively trying to run the other teams out of business.

 

[freakazoid]

Report: Hunter Trying To Smear Fisher As Sellout To NBA

According to a report from Adrian Wojnarowski, Billy Hunter is "engaged in a smear campaign to frame (Derek) Fisher as a sellout to the league."

The report says Hunter wants to be known as the last person on the players' side that is willing to go to 50-50 to get a deal done with the owners.

“Right now, everyone has to choose sides: Billy or Derek,” one player involved in the labor process told Yahoo! Sports. “How the [expletive] did it come to this?”

Hunter walked out of negotiations on Friday by refusing to drop below 52 percent for the players' share of BRI.

“Billy can’t just say it’s 52 or nothing, and walk out again,” one league source involved the talks told Yahoo! Sports. “That will not happen again. It’s time that the players get to make a decision on this, and there won’t be another check lost before they do.”

And so it begins.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_...w-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_110111

After Billy Hunter made the grand stand of marching out of Friday’s bargaining session, refusing to negotiate below 52 percent of the NBA’s revenue split, a strong movement within the Players Association emerged that vowed the union will never let him act so unilaterally again.

From superstars to midlevel players to rookies, there’s an unmistakable push to complete the final elements of the system and take this labor deal to the union’s 400-plus membership. Beyond that, there’s an even larger movement to push Hunter, the Players Association’s executive director, out the door once these labor talks are done. All hell’s broken loose within the union, and no one is exactly sure how they’re going to get a deal to the finish line.

 

[billyshelby]

Sadly, the lag between common sense and action will still probably cost us half the year. And that's assuming common sense even registers before it's too late.

 

[NotDeadYet]

The first order of any business is to make enough money at least stay in business. From what I have read 20 of the 30 NBA franchises lost money last year. That is obviously NOT a formula for success. Escalating player salaries and benefits are largely responsible. Yes, owners have overpaid to try and stay as competitive as possible, but regardless, for the NBA to stay in business this disparity has to be corrected.
One of the primary objectives of professional sports in recent years has been to improve the potential for equally competitive teams regardless if they are based in a "small-market" or a "big-market". Owners of teams in small markets have to be aghast at some of the events they witnessed last year, some of them first-hand; Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony et al. They lost key players and had to see within current NBA guidelines the SAME THING would happen again in the future, with nothing in place to stop it. Their chances of ever becoming competitive as things are now are very remote, with virtually no chance of REMAINING competitive.
If the NBA chooses to follow the path of the NFL and NHL with a hard salary cap, both of which have made great strides toward competitiveness for all teams regardless of market-size, the NBA's players are free to move on to other ventures if they disagree with it. The message from the majority of NBA owners is clearly the NBA is NO LONGER the players' gravy train...

 

[trigg3r]

The first order of any business is to make enough money at least stay in business. From what I have read 20 of the 30 NBA franchises lost money last year. That is obviously NOT a formula for success. Escalating player salaries and benefits are largely responsible. Yes, owners have overpaid to try and stay as competitive as possible, but regardless, for the NBA to stay in business this disparity has to be corrected.
One of the primary objectives of professional sports in recent years has been to improve the potential for equally competitive teams regardless if they are based in a "small-market" or a "big-market". Owners of teams in small markets have to be aghast at some of the events they witnessed last year, some of them first-hand; Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony et al. They lost key players and had to see within current NBA guidelines the SAME THING would happen again in the future, with nothing in place to stop it. Their chances of ever becoming competitive as things are now are very remote, with virtually no chance of REMAINING competitive.
If the NBA chooses to follow the path of the NFL and NHL with a hard salary cap, both of which have made great strides toward competitiveness for all teams regardless of market-size, the NBA's players are free to move on to other ventures if they disagree with it. The message from the majority of NBA owners is clearly the NBA is NO LONGER the players' gravy train...

Agreed. Last year was a perfect example of why the system must change. Small market teams can't afford to wait around and chance that their star players are going to just jump ship.