On July 09 2014 09:04 cLutZ wrote: Oh I know that, I mean this summer.
I don't believe there is much that can be done this summer via additional spending due to the cap and spending restrictions under the current system. Part of the discussion is that the system itself is flawed and/or biased towards the owners, and puts star players in a difficult situation of grabbing the max salaries they can (which are still less than what they're actually worth) and being seen as not prioritizing winning or championships, or taking even less money to play by their owners' rules to build strong rosters. Whether that's a valid criticism is up for debate.
Well, the only thing "biased" towards owners or players is the topline # (currently 50%), and the formulas that go into making the topline.
All the other things are biased within either group.
Amongst players the bias is towards mediocre veterans over rookies and elite veterans. Amongst owners the bias is towards shitty owners in markets that shouldn't have teams over owners who try to win and are in real markets.
You also could argue its biased against trying to be the Heat 2.0 because young stars and young role players cannot make as much as older players in most cases.
The Spurs are actually not the model the CBA favors, it favors OKC, if OKC was well run, which it secretly isn't.
You guys have some bizarre business sense. I don't think any NBA owners (except for the Dolans and Busss) got into the business to make money, but I don't think they want to lose money either. Equity is swell and all but who thinks that way? Is Ballmer or Bennett thinking about selling the team off in 10-15 years? Is that factoring into their year to year decisions?
Never mind that they aren't actually spending any less. The whole conversation is absurd. You need to criticize every player who didn't take the max contract before you can blame the owners. You should want every team to spend approximately the same amount, not for certain owners to go rogue and subvert the CBA.
I also think the idea that 'max players' are demigods is overblown and that removing the max contract would be a Pandora's Box.
the nba is hotcake business. it's not about operating revenue, it's about real estate and franchise value.
look at the brooklyn nets the russian guy ran a 100m+ operating loss but should still come out hundreds of millions ahead in equity. those 100m paid in luxury tax goes to the small market teams.
the nba model is basically using the land and tv market value in big cities to subsidize small market team owners. the players are whatever.
On July 09 2014 10:26 oneofthem wrote: the nba is hotcake business. it's not about operating revenue, it's about real estate and franchise value.
This is pretty much all that needs to be said. Keep thinking that business owners need to "make profit year to year" on a business they knowingly would lose money in operating costs and you're just missing the obvious stuff that's going on.
On July 09 2014 09:04 cLutZ wrote: Oh I know that, I mean this summer.
Well if you read the article that started this debate, Lowe mentions that the strategy the Heat have employed basically allows them to cry about being unable to afford Lebron Etc w/o pay cuts because they went out and got McBob & Granger's wheelchair. I can see why that might not move the needle much. Which is how I took the piece to be mostly a small aside on how Lebron might not feel much sympathy towards the "Real men would take a pay cut" nonsense Riley was spewing.
Also NBA owners are raking in the cash Scrooge McDuck style. The Clippers are going to sell for two fucking Billion dollars. And there were multiple bidders! This is not spending money to brag to your rich buddies about how much money you can burn. Operating losses for teams that claim them are incredibly bogus (and were during the lockout). It's basically asking you to not notice that the arena, tv-deal, associated realty, connected benefits etc are all pretty solid on top of the basic NBA $. Like Gilbert in Cle can have Quicken loans host stuff @ Cavs games for free/on the cheap and count that against the Cav's earnings and completely ignore that he just shuffled the money around.
Frankly I don't understand what the agents are doing. People pay to watch the best players play not the team owned by James Dolan. Why they tolerate begging for handouts is beyond me. I get that the union is broken, and that they're going to lose the next lockout too. But I can't fathom why the power agents wouldn't just go to the stars and say "why do we need the owners at all?"
This discussion has gone so far afield of where it started.
If I take oneofthem's thesis, then I shouldn't feel sorry for the players at all because it's the league and the owners that are driving profits, not the demigods.
@Haqiq- because the Billy Hunter's and CAA types would soon be running the NBA (into the ground).
On July 09 2014 09:04 cLutZ wrote: Oh I know that, I mean this summer.
Well if you read the article that started this debate, Lowe mentions that the strategy the Heat have employed basically allows them to cry about being unable to afford Lebron Etc w/o pay cuts because they went out and got McBob & Granger's wheelchair. I can see why that might not move the needle much. Which is how I took the piece to be mostly a small aside on how Lebron might not feel much sympathy towards the "Real men would take a pay cut" nonsense Riley was spewing.
Also NBA owners are raking in the cash Scrooge McDuck style. The Clippers are going to sell for two fucking Billion dollars. And there were multiple bidders! This is not spending money to brag to your rich buddies about how much money you can burn. Operating losses for teams that claim them are incredibly bogus (and were during the lockout). It's basically asking you to not notice that the arena, tv-deal, associated realty, connected benefits etc are all pretty solid on top of the basic NBA $. Like Gilbert in Cle can have Quicken loans host stuff @ Cavs games for free/on the cheap and count that against the Cav's earnings and completely ignore that he just shuffled the money around.
Frankly I don't understand what the agents are doing. People pay to watch the best players play not the team owned by James Dolan. Why they tolerate begging for handouts is beyond me. I get that the union is broken, and that they're going to lose the next lockout too. But I can't fathom why the power agents wouldn't just go to the stars and say "why do we need the owners at all?"
they need the owners cause they own all the buildings and tv deals. and 90% of the league is always under contract, so even if the power agents are like hey guys why dont we just start our own league huehuehue, there will be not enough good players. not to mention, who's gonna pay them?
On July 09 2014 11:43 Jerubaal wrote: This discussion has gone so far afield of where it started.
If I take oneofthem's thesis, then I shouldn't feel sorry for the players at all because it's the league and the owners that are driving profits, not the demigods.
@Haqiq- because the Billy Hunter's and CAA types would soon be running the NBA (into the ground).
the product is the players though, the entire product. the owners merely have some rent collecting arrangements in the franchises.
all the value accrued to owners could theoretically be accrued to either a community identified club, (not familiar with european style clubs but something like that) or some sort of player run league.
I think what Haiq is talking about is who drives the product. Replacing James Dolan with a sesame street muppet wouldn't affect the NBA business much. People don't pay because he owns the Knicks. Lose star players, even on bad teams and you have a major problem.
On July 09 2014 09:04 cLutZ wrote: Oh I know that, I mean this summer.
Well if you read the article that started this debate, Lowe mentions that the strategy the Heat have employed basically allows them to cry about being unable to afford Lebron Etc w/o pay cuts because they went out and got McBob & Granger's wheelchair. I can see why that might not move the needle much. Which is how I took the piece to be mostly a small aside on how Lebron might not feel much sympathy towards the "Real men would take a pay cut" nonsense Riley was spewing.
Also NBA owners are raking in the cash Scrooge McDuck style. The Clippers are going to sell for two fucking Billion dollars. And there were multiple bidders! This is not spending money to brag to your rich buddies about how much money you can burn. Operating losses for teams that claim them are incredibly bogus (and were during the lockout). It's basically asking you to not notice that the arena, tv-deal, associated realty, connected benefits etc are all pretty solid on top of the basic NBA $. Like Gilbert in Cle can have Quicken loans host stuff @ Cavs games for free/on the cheap and count that against the Cav's earnings and completely ignore that he just shuffled the money around.
Frankly I don't understand what the agents are doing. People pay to watch the best players play not the team owned by James Dolan. Why they tolerate begging for handouts is beyond me. I get that the union is broken, and that they're going to lose the next lockout too. But I can't fathom why the power agents wouldn't just go to the stars and say "why do we need the owners at all?"
they need the owners cause they own all the buildings and tv deals. and 90% of the league is always under contract, so even if the power agents are like hey guys why dont we just start our own league huehuehue, there will be not enough good players. not to mention, who's gonna pay them?
On July 09 2014 11:54 Ace wrote: I think what Haiq is talking about is who drives the product. Replacing James Dolan with a sesame street muppet wouldn't affect the NBA business much. People don't pay because he owns the Knicks. Lose star players, even on bad teams and you have a major problem.
To a point, for what both you are saying, but you both ar kind of ignoring that what the NBA needs the top 10, top 20, top 30 guys to make the NBA work, and that the CBA is bad for those players, the CBA (even with its shitty split) is objectively really good for the rest of the players. The real battle is between players within the Union, and allocation of resources amongst them.
Also about agents, they are small beans compared to owners. Sure they can trick them into overpaying a player for a bad deal, but they cant outmaneuver them in an actual market transaction...that is why they are not owners.
I think so too. The top players are the ones hurt by a spending ceiling, not the lower level union members. Also there is disagreement between owners on things like hard/soft caps, revenue split (the big divide between owners during the lockout), and player movement. It's just funny to see guys like Clay Bennett arguing about small market needing to survive with the stuff he's pulled.
While the agents have power, they can't just convince NBA players to walk out and kill the league. There are multiple reasons why it would be difficult but the biggest is getting a lot of players to give up money all at once and leave. Even among star players that is a tough sell because not every owner is against paying them their actual value.
On July 09 2014 09:04 cLutZ wrote: Oh I know that, I mean this summer.
Well if you read the article that started this debate, Lowe mentions that the strategy the Heat have employed basically allows them to cry about being unable to afford Lebron Etc w/o pay cuts because they went out and got McBob & Granger's wheelchair. I can see why that might not move the needle much. Which is how I took the piece to be mostly a small aside on how Lebron might not feel much sympathy towards the "Real men would take a pay cut" nonsense Riley was spewing.
Also NBA owners are raking in the cash Scrooge McDuck style. The Clippers are going to sell for two fucking Billion dollars. And there were multiple bidders! This is not spending money to brag to your rich buddies about how much money you can burn. Operating losses for teams that claim them are incredibly bogus (and were during the lockout). It's basically asking you to not notice that the arena, tv-deal, associated realty, connected benefits etc are all pretty solid on top of the basic NBA $. Like Gilbert in Cle can have Quicken loans host stuff @ Cavs games for free/on the cheap and count that against the Cav's earnings and completely ignore that he just shuffled the money around.
Frankly I don't understand what the agents are doing. People pay to watch the best players play not the team owned by James Dolan. Why they tolerate begging for handouts is beyond me. I get that the union is broken, and that they're going to lose the next lockout too. But I can't fathom why the power agents wouldn't just go to the stars and say "why do we need the owners at all?"
they need the owners cause they own all the buildings and tv deals. and 90% of the league is always under contract, so even if the power agents are like hey guys why dont we just start our own league huehuehue, there will be not enough good players. not to mention, who's gonna pay them?
On July 09 2014 11:54 Ace wrote: I think what Haiq is talking about is who drives the product. Replacing James Dolan with a sesame street muppet wouldn't affect the NBA business much. People don't pay because he owns the Knicks. Lose star players, even on bad teams and you have a major problem.
To a point, for what both you are saying, but you both ar kind of ignoring that what the NBA needs the top 10, top 20, top 30 guys to make the NBA work, and that the CBA is bad for those players, the CBA (even with its shitty split) is objectively really good for the rest of the players. The real battle is between players within the Union, and allocation of resources amongst them.
Also about agents, they are small beans compared to owners. Sure they can trick them into overpaying a player for a bad deal, but they cant outmaneuver them in an actual market transaction...that is why they are not owners.
sure the nba needs their stars to make it work, but its not like the players have any other choice if they want to get paid. they can't go join the canada basketball league and still get paid 6/7/8 figures a year. the cba is bad for all the players, in the sense that if they had gotten more of the split, ALL players would end up getting paid more.
Yes, but all those players would be trying to leverage the power of a minority of them, which can only work if they have their own house in order to start with. Plus, there is always the asymmetric power issue due to short careers, and that Professional Athlete Unions are probably the least sympathetic of all Unions.
On July 09 2014 16:01 RowdierBob wrote: Gordon Hayward signed an offer sheet for the max... With Charlotte!
Bobcats gonna be a east playoff team again. Don't even mind, I like Big Al and I think Hayward's a fair player who got put in a shitty situation in Utah. I don't know if he's quite worth the max but Charlotte's a team that needs to overpay to get free agents to come.
Wonder if Jazz will match. I can go either way on this and I don't think it would be a bad decision for them either way. Gordon's a good player but 4/63 is a lot.
wait I just realized the Jazz have hella cap space, they'll probably re-sign him.
EPT
