Spirit of '99: 2011 Lockout Discussion

IMHO Stern and cos. I am thinking Lebron was absolutely right about there being too many teams nowadays. To borrow a quote from some article, "There are too many teams, which is a big reason why the NBA has increasingly become a league of the rich and the poor." Poor teams often makes wrong investment and have to deal with financial crysis which follows. It's rare true superstars want to sign with them but rather they end up overpaying 2nd tier stars that rarely live up to the contract.

I'm still inclined to blame owners/GMs for that rather than the league itself. There's only so much of a safety net that the league can provide after all, at the end of the day in any business venture you're as free to fail as you are to succeed, depending on your smarts, savvy, ability to look ahead, etc. Even if we were to trim the number of teams in the league, I don't think it would eliminate the problem because you'd still have idiot owners and incompetent GMs who would panic and overpay for players, no matter the size of the market. Take the two worst owners in the league right now, James Dolan and Donald Sterling. They're in the two biggest markets in the league, it doesn't stop them being screw-ups and erring with bad contracts.

It's the current model that is the problem. I don't think you can blame teams for overspending on crappy players. Even if all teams did what the Kings do & spend $40 million each, it still doesn't make a difference. Even if a team is perfect with payroll decisions, it doesn't matter. At the moment the players are guaranteed 57% of BRI. If every team spends $40 million & the league makes the same BRI as they're currently making, then each team will have to pay at least an additional $20-25 million to the players each season.

The owners either will try to decrease the % that players get or alternatively could set a hard cap & remove the whole BRI from the equation. I like the idea of setting hard caps & teams can spend up to that. How they spend it is up to them. If they can't afford to spend it all then don't. At least then you won't have teams or players having to pay additional wages/pay back wages.

On the flipside I can understand why the players don't want it to change because they're guaranteed a huge chunk of a pie that will continue to grow.

Someone should contact David Stern so he can hire The X.

Owners need to revenue share at least a little too.

Only problem with a hard cap is that they'll have to phase it in, so there'd probably still be another few years where teams in big markets will spend $90 million to try and win a championship.

Agreed any hardening of the cap would require phase-in period & amnesty clauses. You can't just drop from no upper limit to $65 million overnight.

Interesting article on the Euroleagues point of view about signing NBA players during the lockout: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ian_thomsen/08/09/euroleague/index.html.

That's what I thought. This might be a golden opportunity for some teams but in the bigger picture, things could backfire as well, as soon as NBA player return to the NBA. I don't blame the teams looking for committed players at least for the full season.

No doubt that is a concern for a lot of clubs but at the same time I have to believe that there'd still be clubs who would be very happy to bring a top NBA star in for 5-10 games for the temporary boost it would provide not only on the court but in terms of revenue.

NBA union disputes it canceled labor talks

Players Association officials disputed NBA commissioner David Stern’s contention that the union canceled a scheduled negotiating session Wednesday with the league.

Union sources said the players didn’t have a meeting scheduled with Stern and his negotiating team.

“The NBA refused to have a staff meeting [Thursday],” a union official said. “Billy Hunter has been with the [National Labor Relations Board] the entire week, including Thursday, and the NBPA was told that Stern would be completely unavailable to meet for the next two weeks.”

Do they even want to resolve this lockout? Shouldn't they be meeting more often and, you know, making an effort to bridge the gap?

Some rich guys should team up and create another basketball league. That's gotta be faster.

Crack Baby Athletic Association

NBA union disputes it canceled labor talks

Players Association officials disputed NBA commissioner David Stern’s contention that the union canceled a scheduled negotiating session Wednesday with the league.

Union sources said the players didn’t have a meeting scheduled with Stern and his negotiating team.

“The NBA refused to have a staff meeting [Thursday],” a union official said. “Billy Hunter has been with the [National Labor Relations Board] the entire week, including Thursday, and the NBPA was told that Stern would be completely unavailable to meet for the next two weeks.”

Do they even want to resolve this lockout? Shouldn't they be meeting more often and, you know, making an effort to bridge the gap?

It seems that both sides agreed not to meet since the players didn't want to meet unless owners had a new offer.

I spent last hour listening to Bill Simmons' podcast with NBA Commissioner David Stern. Unless players cave, I don't see this getting resolved anytime soon. I can understand players (like any employee) not wanting to go backwards but they will prove it if they're happy to do that by playing for less (even counting in net of tax salaries) overseas.

Lockouts suck, but ahh well.

Stern just wants to lay in his bed, scratch his balls, and sleep all day. Come on.

Stern just wants to lay in his bed, scratch his balls, and sleep all day. Come on.

What can I say? I'm for the most part not a fan of unions.

Like it or not the current system just isn't working. 57% of BRI is far too high, guaranteed contracts are far too long (five/six year guaranteed deals, crazy).

In the end, the US economy is in the shit, the franchise valuations are for the most part (with exception of your big markets) are stagnating or dropping so owners are not going to accept the losses in anticipation of future capital gains.

I don't want to see the season get lost, but it's getting to the stage where I'm resigned to the fact & really just don't give a shit. I couldn't care less how well many of the NBA players do in Europe (Artest being exception) or Asia as they just become irrelevant. It's not like they are going to a top quality league like the Spanish ACB, they're just looking for next pay day (which I can understand, employees are within their rights to do that). Either way, if there is no NBA the World will move on and there are alternatives, such as college bball, Association mode in 2k11 or playing real life bball.

What can I say? I'm for the most part not a fan of unions.

COMMUNIST!

Stern just wants to lay in his bed, scratch his balls, and sleep all day. Come on.

What all of guys want to do on a lazy day. You can't blame Stern for that.

Either way, if there is no NBA the World will move on and there are alternatives, such as college bball, Association mode in 2k11 or playing real life bball.

This is true, though I'd still be greatly disappointed if it comes to that. It's been said before but it's a shame it has to come after such a great season and Finals series, too.

Either way, if there is no NBA the World will move on and there are alternatives, such as college bball, Association mode in 2k11 or playing real life bball.

This is true, though I'd still be greatly disappointed if it comes to that. It's been said before but it's a shame it has to come after such a great season and Finals series, too.

Agreed. I think if Heat can add the right role player or two and get another season under their belt then they'd be my pick to win it all. Bulls are good, but they need more from Boozer. Perhaps some minor tinkering there too. And then there are Mavs & Lakers & even Grizz might be alright.

Would be a shame. I hope a deal gets done. I think we'll either get a full 82 game season (maybe with shorter training camp & exhibition season) or no season at all. I can't see another 50 game season, I just can't.

It will be kinda boring if the season will be shortened to 50 games. No Christmas Day blowouts!

I'm inclined to think the opposite, I'm guessing it'll be a shortened season or nothing. Right now it seems unlikely they'll reach a resolution before the point where there'll have to start cancelling games, but I think it'll come to a point where missing their NBA salary will create dissension in the ranks and the players will end up making some concessions to avoid losing an entire season's worth of their contracts.

Agreed with Drew. As long as it ain't a wiped out season I will be a happy man.

I could see Miami winning a shortened season & then everybody saying it doesn't really count (like people did with '99 Spurs), which is stupid but would still happen.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6869547/minnesota-timberwolves-kevin-love-players-call-owners-current-offer-unacceptable

Seems as if Love would not agree with The X on a shortened season.

Love said the players don't want to see years cut off guaranteed contracts and are not pleased with a proposal that they could lose money if not playing up to their contracts. He also said that the proposed revenue split (50-50, rather than the 57-43 split in favor of players) is unacceptable.

I guess that approach is kind of radical but here's an idea: players play up to their contracts. If players don't slack off, get out of shape and whatnot after signing a big deal, they have nothing to fear.

As for a 50-50 split being "unacceptable", that just reeks of greediness on the part of the players. It doesn't get much fairer than a 50-50 split I would think. 57-43 on the other hand certainly isn't a particularly fair split.

"It would be a crazy system and at the end of the day we're the product and the moneymaker and I don't see (the owners) going out there and playing," Love said. "We've got to stick together as one."

It's true, the owners don't go out and play but they're the ones that have to fork out millions of dollars in salaries, even when players decide to slack off after signing big guaranteed deals and contracts are honoured even if players miss half the duration of their deal or more through injury. Players absolutely deserve a fair deal but the owners have to look out for their interests too. Love's comments actually make me feel more sympathetic towards the league and owners, which I wouldn't have thought was possible.

I'm thinking if a deal is going to get done, the owners are going to have to transition BRI split from 43-57 to 45-55 to 48-52 to 50-50 within 3 years so cut in salaries are not as noticeable based on rest of increase of BRI.

They have to cut lengths of guaranteed deals since 5/6 is just too long to be stuck with Eddy Curry. If you've listened to the BS report podcast with Stern, I like the Commish's idea that teams can get rid of toxic contracts so they're not hamstrung for half a decade. Obviously it'll still have some hold over cap, but can pro-rata over so many years. So bad decisions you still pay for but it's not as crippling. I like idea of guaranteed deals being 3/4 years. Given that most superstar players are signing 6 year deals with player options at 3 year mark, I really don't see what the problem is. You can't have it both ways anymore. I could understand about 25 years ago when the cap was about $4 mill total & a long deal was there one chance for a payday to set themselves up. With increased salaries relatively, it's not the case as much.

But yeah, Love's comments definitely add more fire to owners' side.