I couldn't find a lockout thread... so here is a new one.

Today was pivotal for the season starting on time... now it seems like the players are being, in my opinion, greedy:

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/10/04/labor-meeting/index.html

One of the biggest sticking points -- in reality, the biggest -- remains the split of revenue known as basketball-related income. Fisher said the players have dropped their offer to 53 percent of BRI -- it was 57 percent in the agreement that expired on July 1 -- but that the offer was not acceptable to owners.

Stern said the owners were willing to consider a 50-50 split, but that the players' side would not consider it. "I was very surprised by that," Stern said.

Stern also said that, during discussions, owners had come off their long-held insistence on a hard cap, and revealed that last week owners backed off their desire for a rollback of existing salaries. He also said the owners had offered the players a chance to opt out of a new 10-year agreement after seven years.

Said Hunter of the owners: "I think they tried to make a deal -- on their terms."

Why not take a 50-50? that sounds very fair.... and the owners are willing to throw in the towel on the hardcap?.... I do not see how the players are being compromising at all....

Here is my thought on it... Owners pay the players, and they split the Basketbal related income... now players ares saying that 50-50 of BRI is not fair becuase BRI is not = to total revenue!

Why would owners and players split 50-50 of total revenue? Do players split 50-50 of total expenses? No! Players don't pay for the stadium, staffing slaries, power, etc, etc.. plus they are getting paid.

Splitting 50-50 of BASKETBAL RELATED INCOME plus collecting the salary that they are getting paid sounds fair to me... specially since they are sharing 0% of the financial risk.... they are never going to LOSE money... owners run risk of losing money.

I don't feel bad for owners as they are billionaries... but it makes no business sense for them to cave in to the players crazy demans.

If teams as a whole lost 300 million last year and 1% of BRI = 37 million... a change of 7% of BRI in favor of the owners (from a 43-57 split to a 50-50 split) means that owners go from losing 300 million a year to losing 41 million a year (7 * 37 =259). So even a 50-50 is not garuanteeing owner profits....

Just my $0.02. Now fans lose out... the employee who is starving looses out.

my thing is, the NBA has many problems BEYOND the players. The owners need to fix their internal problems and stop blaming the players for their revenue mess.

The NBA is the only league where owners do no share revenue... even the yankees and red soxs need to split their revenue with the Rays and Twins. And without salary cap, poor owners in the MLB do not have to spend much money, AND are compensated with a 1st round pick when they lose their star players to free agency.

The NFL completely evens out their revenue to the 32 owners for every single thing except ticket sales (TV contracts and sponsors are evenly split 32 ways.)

In the NBA, the Lakers and Celtics do not have to share with the Timberwolves (so those TV contracts and sponsors vary so greatly, that is why so many teams make a lot less than the Lakers and Celtics.) If a star leaves a team, they do not have to compensate that team. PLUS, you are required to fill up the salary cap to a certain percent, and with all contracts fully guaranteed, there is a huge mess for the salary cap that rich teams could afford, while poorer teams can not.



The owners need to fix their own problems

Yeah, I agree with everything you said, Mr. Crackerz. I just can't believe it that one big organization, such as NBA can't fix that. If they can't do it on their own, they just need to look in the neighbors' yards and see how it's done (meant on NFL and MLB).

Just horrible for all the fans to have to wait and not watch any good basketball because of their incompetence. And it's so annoying to see Lakers and Celtics favored so much. Of course other teams can't keep up with them, when they don't have the same treatment. That has to change.

Mr. Crackerz wrote:my thing is, the NBA has many problems BEYOND the players. The owners need to fix their internal problems and stop blaming the players for their revenue mess.

The NBA is the only league where owners do no share revenue... even the yankees and red soxs need to split their revenue with the Rays and Twins. And without salary cap, poor owners in the MLB do not have to spend much money, AND are compensated with a 1st round pick when they lose their star players to free agency.

The NFL completely evens out their revenue to the 32 owners for every single thing except ticket sales (TV contracts and sponsors are evenly split 32 ways.)

In the NBA, the Lakers and Celtics do not have to share with the Timberwolves (so those TV contracts and sponsors vary so greatly, that is why so many teams make a lot less than the Lakers and Celtics.) If a star leaves a team, they do not have to compensate that team. PLUS, you are required to fill up the salary cap to a certain percent, and with all contracts fully guaranteed, there is a huge mess for the salary cap that rich teams could afford, while poorer teams can not.



The owners need to fix their own problems

I agree with you in part... If you add up every team's profit and every teams loss, then you would end up $300 million in losses for the season... so instead of 22 teams lossing money, there would be 30 teams losing money (each team will have lost $10million). This is why the BRI split is a big issue that revenue sharing can't fix.

But you are soooo right that they have revenue sharing profits problems. The revenue sharing problem is what casues teams to be so un-evenly baised to where teams with money constantly make the playoffs. Yes, it takes more then money to make a champion team, but it is a big ingredient for a team to be consistent.

I am not sure I would want a baseball system that has the NY Yanks, being a team that consistently dominates. Giving a team a 1st round pick (essentially a rookie) for lossing an established player is like saying the small market teams are going to be our D-League and develope our players and then we will buy the players in their peak....

There have been reports that the NBA is increasing revenue sharing x3 in this new CBA, but I don't think the details have been shared.

So yes, the revenue sharing is important, but I believe the biggest item in the lockout is the BRI split, and the soft cap vs hardcap system. I think the owners will waiver on the soft cap system if the players waiver on the BRI split and other teams agree to significant increased revenue sharing systems.

Well, it is official... the NBA has canceled some games.

Yeah first 2 weeks, this sucks. It's amazing when you compare the NFL and NBA lockouts and the public perception of both:

NFL lockout: Owners were the greedy villains trying to take advantage of the innocent players.

NBA lockout: Players are the grossly overpaid money grubbers that are bankrupting teams.

The players should give as the NBA is not nearly as healthy as the NFL and teams are really loosing money and are in jeopardy of contraction.

Well, the NBA players have the power, thus they dictate what happens (unlike in baseball or football). Its weird, but in the NBA, David Stern made it a Star League, promoting Jordan, Kobe, and LeBron all these years... so a league without stars will hurt tremendously. That is why there is now talk of a NBA Stars league developing. They know all they need is someone (or someones to invest in them) and they can possibly do something for the short term before the owners eventually are force to give in.

Now, the NFL has always done the opposite. They do not glorify stars (publicly that is), so they make even the best players look replaceable. Manning hurt, no biggie. Brady lost a season, meh....Baseball is done similarly to Football. In leagues where team>individual, they lead to more stability.

While what you say is true, the nature of the sports determine that team vs individual perception, because it's true. The NBA is unique because one player can and often times does determine the outcome of a game. There are far too many active players in the other sports for that to be the case.

Still doesn't make what the players are doing right. If they were underpaid, I could see that, but NBA players are the highest paid athletes (on average) in the WORLD - not the US - THE WORLD! - http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/NBA- ... ary-042211

I could also get behind what their unwillingness to give back to the league if the league and teams paying them these ridiculous salaries were prosperous - but we know that isn't the case because 22 of the 32 teams are collectively loosing about $370 million - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... als-110630

They haven't a leg to stand on and if they do assemble their own league, I will not be watching. Greedy bastards.

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Well, the NBA players have the power, thus they dictate what happens (unlike in baseball or football). Its weird, but in the NBA, David Stern made it a Star League, promoting Jordan, Kobe, and LeBron all these years... so a league without stars will hurt tremendously. That is why there is now talk of a NBA Stars league developing. They know all they need is someone (or someones to invest in them) and they can possibly do something for the short term before the owners eventually are force to give in.

Now, the NFL has always done the opposite. They do not glorify stars (publicly that is), so they make even the best players look replaceable. Manning hurt, no biggie. Brady lost a season, meh....Baseball is done similarly to Football. In leagues where team>individual, they lead to more stability.

Also, I think the fact that there are only 5 players per team allowed on the court at a time really makes a big difference. I good player really stands out, where as when there are 10,11 or more players it kind of balances it self out. It is harder for one player to dominate when there are more people involed.

But yes, the NBA players are well paid. Even the non-stars are well paid. The thing I don't like is that they keep saying that they are going to be loosing if the accept the owners perposal. THey won't make as much money as they did before, but they won't be loosing. And to say to the owners it is your fault for giving us the contractracts is obsurred... if they would have given them less money they would have waited for another team to offer them more. I mean, teams that don't spend are seen as having bad owners. We complain about teams that don't spend.

Example, if Memphisis didn't pay Rudy Gay the max, they might have lost him to another team. If that would have happened the fans would have blammed the owners for not paying. Rudy Gay is a great player, no way he should get the max, but how else was this small to mid market team going to keep its star player?

I think both owner and players are to blame for the current situation, but owners are trying to fix it beacuse they see it deos not work for them. Players are only focusing on loosing as little money as possible, instead of seeing the big picture being that the system does not work.

Hopefully they can come to an agreement before the whole season is lost.

GSW Hoops Fan wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Well, the NBA players have the power, thus they dictate what happens (unlike in baseball or football). Its weird, but in the NBA, David Stern made it a Star League, promoting Jordan, Kobe, and LeBron all these years... so a league without stars will hurt tremendously. That is why there is now talk of a NBA Stars league developing. They know all they need is someone (or someones to invest in them) and they can possibly do something for the short term before the owners eventually are force to give in.

Now, the NFL has always done the opposite. They do not glorify stars (publicly that is), so they make even the best players look replaceable. Manning hurt, no biggie. Brady lost a season, meh....Baseball is done similarly to Football. In leagues where team>individual, they lead to more stability.

Also, I think the fact that there are only 5 players per team allowed on the court at a time really makes a big difference. I good player really stands out, where as when there are 10,11 or more players it kind of balances it self out. It is harder for one player to dominate when there are more people involed.

But yes, the NBA players are well paid. Even the non-stars are well paid. The thing I don't like is that they keep saying that they are going to be loosing if the accept the owners perposal. THey won't make as much money as they did before, but they won't be loosing. And to say to the owners it is your fault for giving us the contractracts is obsurred... if they would have given them less money they would have waited for another team to offer them more. I mean, teams that don't spend are seen as having bad owners. We complain about teams that don't spend.

Example, if Memphisis didn't pay Rudy Gay the max, they might have lost him to another team. If that would have happened the fans would have blammed the owners for not paying. Rudy Gay is a great player, no way he should get the max, but how else was this small to mid market team going to keep its star player?

I think both owner and players are to blame for the current situation, but owners are trying to fix it beacuse they see it deos not work for them. Players are only focusing on loosing as little money as possible, instead of seeing the big picture being that the system does not work.

Hopefully they can come to an agreement before the whole season is lost.

Yeah, I agree that we are talking about a smaller lineup, where each individual is worth more to its teams success than any other sport.

I think, there should be a compromise between the two sides (owners vs. players) . Have no MAX on salaries, so it will allow owners to compensate more to the super stars that really deserve it. And the players would need to give up fully guaranteed contracts. do it like a percentage.

EXAMPLE: If you give a guy a 5 year contract... (Year 1) 100% guaranteed salary (year 2) 60% (year 3) 30 % (year 4) (20%) and (year 5) 10%.... this way, we see players more reliable to play beyond just the "contract year" (remember Erik Dampier and Jerome James). And it also has owners still somewhat responsible for every year for the contract they gave to a player.

Mr. Crackerz wrote:

GSW Hoops Fan wrote:

Mr. Crackerz wrote:Well, the NBA players have the power, thus they dictate what happens (unlike in baseball or football). Its weird, but in the NBA, David Stern made it a Star League, promoting Jordan, Kobe, and LeBron all these years... so a league without stars will hurt tremendously. That is why there is now talk of a NBA Stars league developing. They know all they need is someone (or someones to invest in them) and they can possibly do something for the short term before the owners eventually are force to give in.

Now, the NFL has always done the opposite. They do not glorify stars (publicly that is), so they make even the best players look replaceable. Manning hurt, no biggie. Brady lost a season, meh....Baseball is done similarly to Football. In leagues where team>individual, they lead to more stability.

Also, I think the fact that there are only 5 players per team allowed on the court at a time really makes a big difference. I good player really stands out, where as when there are 10,11 or more players it kind of balances it self out. It is harder for one player to dominate when there are more people involed.

But yes, the NBA players are well paid. Even the non-stars are well paid. The thing I don't like is that they keep saying that they are going to be loosing if the accept the owners perposal. THey won't make as much money as they did before, but they won't be loosing. And to say to the owners it is your fault for giving us the contractracts is obsurred... if they would have given them less money they would have waited for another team to offer them more. I mean, teams that don't spend are seen as having bad owners. We complain about teams that don't spend.

Example, if Memphisis didn't pay Rudy Gay the max, they might have lost him to another team. If that would have happened the fans would have blammed the owners for not paying. Rudy Gay is a great player, no way he should get the max, but how else was this small to mid market team going to keep its star player?

I think both owner and players are to blame for the current situation, but owners are trying to fix it beacuse they see it deos not work for them. Players are only focusing on loosing as little money as possible, instead of seeing the big picture being that the system does not work.

Hopefully they can come to an agreement before the whole season is lost.

Yeah, I agree that we are talking about a smaller lineup, where each individual is worth more to its teams success than any other sport.

I think, there should be a compromise between the two sides (owners vs. players) . Have no MAX on salaries, so it will allow owners to compensate more to the super stars that really deserve it. And the players would need to give up fully guaranteed contracts. do it like a percentage.

EXAMPLE: If you give a guy a 5 year contract... (Year 1) 100% guaranteed salary (year 2) 60% (year 3) 30 % (year 4) (20%) and (year 5) 10%.... this way, we see players more reliable to play beyond just the "contract year" (remember Erik Dampier and Jerome James). And it also has owners still somewhat responsible for every year for the contract they gave to a player.

+1
Sounds like a really good idea.
Now if we could only get owners and players on the same page....

Well, it looks like the season is lost!

NBPA rejects owners' offer, begins to disband as union

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/11/14/nbpa-labor-meeting-monday.ap/index.html

Well, that sucks. Won't get another game until about 1 more year... when is the summer olympics? Next year right? At least we will get to see that. Maybe Curry will be on their practice squad.

This will change so much for us... next year we don't have a 1st round draft pick, but the Free agent market will be wide open. We should have enough cap space to get any center we want, assuming they would be willing to come here for the right price.

Not only that, it kind of level's the playing feild for us, we are still a young team, so we don't have to worry about age, where some of the eliete teams will have trouble getting their vets in to shape... Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, Nash, Hill, Miller... etc. So that enables to have an edge, and who knows who will retire. Meaning that there will be 2 years of rookies on some teams. And having a new coach won't be such a disadvantage as most of the teams will need to get re-familiar with their team concepts and strategies.

Ok, this is probably my last rant for a while since we won't see any NBA soon

Does look like the season is lost and the players look greedy to say the least

Its Over!!!