dlpin

Let me make 2 points: - The NBA already allows for non guaranteed contracts, just like the nfl allows teams to offer contracts where almost all the money is guaranteed. While cases of players being overpaid can hurt a franchise, the fact is that forcing non guaranteed contracts essentially take choices away from owners and players. - Guaranteed contracts are far from being the main issue in this CBA. at the end of the day, player salaries are set at 57% of revenues, so guaranteed contracts essentially makes some players overpaid at the expense of others. Something that should be dealt with, sure, but not what the owners are mainly about. It is no accident that this was one of the first things owners were willing to give up. I am staunchly against restrictions on individual contracts. Sure, total salaries should be restricted and salary cap is important. But the more restrictions you put on individual contracts, the more it backfires and hurts competition. When all salaries are determined the same way, when all salaries have the same restrictions, big markets and top teams win out. If Memphis can only offer the same as the lakers or the celtics, players are going to pick the lakers or the celtics.

Very few that are interested in buying teams? 14 teams changed owners since 2000, and I can't remember a single one losing money on the deal. On top of that, bids were rejected for the hornets and clippers, at least. As for hardcap and revenue sharing, while that ends up in the CBA that is not part of why there is a lock out, or even really part of the dispute between owners and players. If the salaries are set at 57% of revenues, it doesn't matter to the players if every team is contributing the same or if the select few bear the brunt of the bill. As for smaller markets getting teams, the ironic part is that more small markets are getting teams than ever before. OKC, New Orleans, Memphis, Charlotte all got franchises within the past decade. Part of the reason for that is that smaller markets are willing to heavily subsidize teams. And that ends up being part of the reason there is less revenue sharing in the nba. Owners don't want to subsidize people who move teams from large markets (Seattle, Vancouver) to small markets (OKC, Memphis) chasing short term bonuses from local governments. But that is all beside the point, as those are quarrels between the owners themselves, not between owners and players

not to get into this argument, but at least the celtics got bogged down with long contracts that hurt them. First, the league didn't allow Reggie Lewis' contract to come off the books after his death. So as late as 1995 the celtics were still with his contract in the books (his was the largest contract on the celtics team when Nique signed with the celtics in 94, and one of the reasons Nique left was that the celtics couldnt offer more money or get other FAs due to Lewis' contract still being on the books). Then Rick Pitino killed the celtics with long term deals to Andrew Declerq, Travis Knight and Pervis Ellison. Finally, the celtics eventually got bogged down with the massive contracts of Raef Lafrentz, Vin Baker, and later Theo Ratfliff. Though it must be said that Theo Ratliff's contract came in handy when the Wolves needed a big expiring deal. But yes, there is a reason the celtics' biggest free agent signing of all time is a one year rental of a 34 year old Dominique WIlkins.

First, plenty of leagues around the world survive without cbas and anti trust exemptions, so the assumption that without a cba the league would be lost and fold is unsubstantiated at best (1st nba cba came in 1970). But second, and most important, what you are saying actually supports what I am saying. Even if in the long term a lack of a cba leads to financial ruin, the first, and most immediate, impact would be a flurry of large contracts signed. Maybe that leads to a less profitable league 5 or 10 years down the road from now, but the bottom line is that if, right now, the players decertified the current players would make more money. Any problems from a lack of a cba, if they exist, wouldn't show up for at least a couple of seasons. Which in the end is precisely my point. Players give up the opportunity to sign a 30 million a year contract with the knicks right now in exchange for the long term viability of the league. So the question isn't if revenues would be this much right now if they didn't have a cba from the beginning. The question is what would happen right now if the cba was abolished. The likely result would be teams like the lakers and knicks driving up contracts until a few franchises have to fold. But from now to the point where the downside of no cba happens, players would end up with more money. Money that they are giving up for the long term stability of the league.

A hard cap or not is more about revenue sharing than it is about how much players make. There is a reason why it was the first thing the league gave up on its talk with players this lock out. And using the Hornets for an argument is crap: - First, the reason the owner of the Hornets had to sell the team has NOTHING to do with the NBA's CBA. Gary Chouest was in the process of taking over the Hornets and the sale was even up for approval by the league. Now, Gary Chouest made his money through Edison Chouest Offshore, which is a company that makes money by renting ships to the offshore oil business in the gulf. What was the major even that happened as soon as Chouest announced his bid? The BP oil spill. Now, what do you think happened to his business then? That is why the sale fell through and the league had to step in. The team didn't go bankrupt. The guy who was going to be the new owner nearly did. So he backed off. - Second, the league didn't have to buy the team. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, was about to buy the team and move it to San Jose, and he even offered 350 million for it: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesports/2011/01/06/ellison-tried-to-buy-hornets-was-outbid-by-nba/ Again, if the NBA is having to outbid billionaire CEOs for its franchises, it seems quite obvious the league isn't losing anywhere near as much money as they claim.

I am sorry. but this is useless moralizing. The question of how much they make is not whether they should be making more than the average person for playing a game. It is how much they make back to their bosses. In a market society, that is the bottom line. Last I checked, the league turned down a 300 million plus offer to buy the hornets. The warriors were the second worst franchise for the past 15 years and still made the owner almost 300 million inflation adjusted just in profits from the sale. The clippers, which were the worst franchise over the past 15 years, turned down an offer of almost one billion dollars. Forbes, which pretty much nailed down the books for the franchises that were leaked, estimated a profit of 183 million last year for the league. And we are talking cash profit, and not counting the tax breaks owners end up getting for their other businesses. Sounds to me like either we have the stupidest bunch of billionaires around, or the situation is not as bad. As for the players not caring about long term survivability, that has got to be a joke. The only reason there can be a salary cap is because players have a union and collectively bargain. If the player's union decertified (and I mean truly decertified, not in name only like the nfl), there would be no salary cap, no draft, no rookie scale... In other words, by forming a union, they leave money on the table precisely for the stability of the league. Also, math is math. If 57% of revenues was good enough 5 years ago, the percentage is still the same now. So if the owners are losing money is because they are spending more on other parts of the franchise. This is where comparisons to other businesses completely miss the point. A union at a regular business is there to get as much money and as many benefits for their members as they can bargain. In pro sports, unions actually serve to restrict money and benefits in exchange for stability. They negotiate RESTRICTIONS on how much the players can make and who they can deal with.

How are you "quite sure" the owners are hurting? Of course, if that were the case, then some of these billionaires are just stupid. Would people pay 450 million dollars on a money losing business, like the warriors? Would people pay over 700 million for a money losing business, like the nets? Also, plenty of employees have access to the books. Any publicly traded company, any non profit, and any time a company tries to take away a contracted upon benefit there will be something like that. Finally, people need to remember that the whole point of the players union and the collective bargaining in the nba is restricting pay in order to provide stability. In other words, the whole reason we have a collective bargaining system is to protect the owners from themselves.

you guys saying that players make more money than owners, etc. are forgetting that teams increase in value very fast, making it a huge cash cow. The warriors were bought in 1995 for 119 million, and despite being one of the absolute worst franchises since then (2nd worst record in the league since then) and despite lacking a single markee name right now, they were still for 450 million. Inflation adjusted, that is a profit of 280 million dollars over 15 years. This, of course, on top of the massive tax incentives and tax breaks of owning a professional team. Owners can write off both the salaries and the salary depreciation.

high ticket prices are not caused by high salaries. In fact, given that salaries are a constant share of revenue, the relationship is precisely backwards. Salaries go up because ticket prices go up, not the other way around.

here's the thing with regards to guaranteed contracts: the cba doesn't mandate that all contracts be guaranteed. In fact, teams have a lot of discretion in that regard. They give out guaranteed contracts just as a matter of staying competitive in the FA market. Which means that in order for contracts not to be guaranteed, you'd have to go above and beyond that, mandating all contracts not to be guaranteed. And while I think that might be good for play quality (no slackers anymore), I am strongly against this on philosophical terms. Regardless of unions/players/owners, etc. I think it is simply wrong to give a side the guaranteed ability to rescind a contract that they had agreed was guaranteed. Teams can already offer non guaranteed deals, so changing the cba to make even the guaranteed deals non guaranteed simply gives teams a way out of incompetence. On top of it all, think about the teams that would have been bailed out by this over the past decade: Boston (Vin Baker), New York (Marbury, Curry, etc), Orlando (Lewis, Arenas, etc), Miami (Jermaine O'neal), Chicago (Hinrich, Tyrus Thomas, John Salmons). If these cities can be under the cap with less effort, would competitive balance improve?

one thing that is amazing is that, as short lived as his career was, and as injured as he was, he still had almost 10000 points, 5000 rebounds and 1000 blocks. I won't count his all star selections because that is easy with China behind him. But 5 all nba selections is pretty impressive. Had he been able to stay healthy he would certainly be one of the all time greats. He was doing 25, 10 and 2 blocks his last good season on just 34 minutes a night. Look at the list of people who've been able to do that: http://bkref.com/tiny/v8MM1 It's a shame that it had to end early. But I have to take my hat off to him. Even with all the health issues you just know someone would offer him a contract this offseason, and instead of doing that he just called it quits.

Another good read on the "losses" and showing how, to the extent that they exist, they are created by increasing operational expenses, not player salaries: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/taking-a-look-at-the-numbers-behind-the-nba-labor-dispute/

This is a pretty good piece, and shows why owners are afraid to open the books and show how they are "losing money." http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss

I am pretty sure that this is just some reporters trying to create a buzz during the slow news period. First, because the salaries are very far apart, and it's not like the Hawks could just throw in a 3 million dollar filler to match them up. Second, because the entire celtics' plan for the future is based on having cap space in 2012. That is the reason they didn't resign Tony Allen (wanted one more year), that is the reason they only game Ray Allen and Jermaine Oneal 2 year deals. Why would they take on someone who is signed for an extra year? Third, because Smith simply doesn't fit with the celtics. The celtics need post scoring and an inside presence. They already have a powerforward who would rather hang out at the 3 point line (Jeff Green).Not that Jeff Green is on the same level as Smith, but how would they play together, at least on offense? Finally, KG may be old but he is still a team leader and a solid post defender. I am pretty sure the other veterans on the team would be pretty pissed if he was traded.

2003 Spurs Ginobili was a rookie scoring less than 10 a game and Tony Parker was a 20 year old who shot 40% in the playoffs. Dirk's postseason was awesome, but he definitely had a better supporting cast than what Duncan had in 99 and 03. Also had better supporting cast than Olajuwon had in 94.

In a sign and trade, what Orlando wants is irrelevant. They can't say no to Howard then.

anything past the 2012 free agency is irrelevant, as they would have signed Howard already.

No. Just no. The hawks have 58 million on the books for 12-13, so there are no major contracts that will be ending (at least not before Howard is a free agent) and IF the hawks traded for Howard there would be no room for more FAs. Trading either Horford or Smith for Howard would kill the remaining of the cap using today's number, never mind after the new cba. Meanwhile, the bulls have 48 million for 12-13, counting Rose's qualifying offer. And if they trade Noah, Gibson and Deng for Howard, for example, they'd actually lower the total salary they'd have for 12-13.

Having property here is not the same as living here. His offseason home is in seminole county, florida: http://www.seminolemagazine.com/DwightHowardA09webed.htm As for listing his prefences: http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/mavericks/post/_/id/4677903/dwight-howard-to-dallas And that is only one of the articles that links him consistently with the same teams. So please, next time you feel like accusing people of stuff like that just because they disagree with you, spare me the condescension. I never lacked with respect towards anyone here and I would think expecting the same in return is not too much to ask.

Well, first, I was responding to this thread, titled "do you think Smoove could get us Howard." Second, the Hawks beat the Magic, not Chicago. And while almost any team becomes a contender with Howard, that doesn't make Atlanta specifically appealing. If we take him at his word that he would only leave for a top contender, the fact that the hawks would become a contender doesn't change the fact that there are much better teams out there for contention purposes. Again, my point wasn't about denying that the Hawks would be a contender with Howard, or that the pieces around him here would be better than the pieces around him in Orlando. Just that it doesn't make the hawks anywhere close to the same level of a contender as other places. As for the fan base, it doesn't matter what the fan base in Atlanta is like in comparison to Orlando -20th in attendance this year, for the record (and it doesn't matter how many nationally televised games the hawks have now, wherever he ends up he'll end up on national tv). What matters is in comparison to NY, LA, etc. So in the end the only thing that Atlanta really has going for it is being his hometown. And other than Melo, who happens to be from the biggest NBA market of them all, I don't remember a single NBA star demanding a trade just to go to their hometown. I mean, Howard doesn't even live in Atlanta in the offseason, so I don't think this would be a top priority for him. None of this is meant as a disrespect to the Hawks, but Howard has already listed his preferences in the past (lakers, nets, mavs, etc) and didn't include the hawks then. That would be a great get, no doubt. But Lebron and Bosh aren't the best comparisons because the heat could sign them outright, something the hawks can't. So the best comparison would be Melo and the knicks (and Horford would still be a good deal in comparison to that).

I really doubt Howard ends up in Atlanta. And to preempt accusations of homerism, I doubt he'd end up on the celtics either. First, friendship is overrated in terms of trade. How many of you would move cities to be closer to friends? Second, he claims he might leave to join a championship contender. in that case, what does Atlanta offer (or Boston, for that matter) that is a definitive, significant upgrade in terms of title chances? Are JJ, Teague, Smith and Drew (assuming Horford is who they trade) that big an improvement over Richardson, Nelson, Bass and Van Gundy? I am not saying that the hawks pieces aren't better than the magic's, but the question is if they are sufficiently better to warrant him alienating his original fan base? The lakers and the bulls I think would be the clear favorites (add NJ if the move to NY goes smoothly, and NY if they get enough pieces to trade for him).

I think that the point is not that Horford is great, but that all the other all star bigs are either in the twilight of their careers (KG, Duncan) or are better than JJ.

With regards to who is the best player, it is hard to tell because both played very different styles. Depending on the team, KG or Dirk would be better. KG was a much better defender and Dirk a much better scorer. But if we are talking about better career in terms of accolades, than KG has the edge (KG is 2 years older) KG vs Dirk All star games - 14 v 10 1st team all nba - 4v4 2nd team all nba - 3 v 5 3rd team all nba - 2 v 2 1st team defensive - 9 v 0 2nd team defensive - 2 v 0 all star mvp - 1 v 0 Defensive player of the year - 1 v 0 MVP - 1 v 1 MVP runner up - 2 v 0 Championships - 1 v possibly 1 nba finals appearances - 2 v 2 League leader in PER- 2v2 League leader in rebounding - 4 v 0 As you can see, KG has more accomplishments than Dirk. As I said, that doesn't mean he is better. If I needed a scorer I would pick Dirk, a defender KG. But in terms of career recognition, KG has the edge. Only thing Dirk has more than KG is 2nd team all nba.

He is most definitely carried them against the thunder.

I don't think that team would even get out of the west. Dallas beat okc in 5 games. But the margins of victory were 9, 6, 7 (in ot), and 4. And to get those wins they needed Dirk scoring 32 per game and shooting over 50% from 3. Has JJ ever given any indication that he can average that for an entire series?