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.

That's the whole point. The league has very few that's interested in buying teams, so much so that many teams have to move to another state in order for them to survive. So the Ellison argument proves my point. Also, sounds a lot like hockey doesn't it? Look, I'm simply stating that if each team generated 100 million in profits per year, 350 mill for a team would be a drop in the bucket for prospective buyers. NFL teams are in demand and Basketball is world wide so it should be able to generate at least as much interests. Its no secret that in Atlanta, the Hawks are losing money and that makes no sense.

A hard cap isn't about revenue sharing as much as maintaining balance in the league, I'm sick of the Lakers/Celtics finals. Its not that they have the best players but they have the best markets to attract players. I believe a hard cap would help that situation.

Lastly, revenue sharing is a joke. Who believe's that markets like LA, NY and Boston will REALLY share enough revenue so no team loses money? If the players are supposed to make money then so do the owners. Having 10-20 teams losing money each year is a joke and means that smaller markets won't get teams. If 20 teams are really losing money out of 32, that's attrocious, revenue sharing or not. I can see revenue sharing helping out 2-3 teams but 20 is indefensible.

Have the owners making decent money so the clubs will have long term value and won't have to move away from smaller markets and I'm all in. Take a look at this article and it underscores the point.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?STORY_ID=20424

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

I can't really remember the Celtics, Lakers, Spurs, or Heat being bogged down with unwanted contracts that held them back.

When I think of huge long contracts that were a burden to their franchise I think: (Alan Houston and Eddie Curry with the Knicks, Penny Hardaway & Grant Hill in their Magic days, Redd with the Bucks, G. Arenas with the Wizards, T. McGrady and Y. Ming with the Rockets.) B. Roy may soon in that boat with these guys.

Most on this list become poor contracts after a significant injury that could have happened to any one. If an NBA team has an allstar player with a career threatening injury there should be some salary cap relief in some form or another........more relief then signing a minimum salaried player to fill their franchise player's shoes.

On your NY Knicks / Lebron analogy. With no luxury tax and a hard cap there would be measures that prevent teams from forming "super teams" like the Heat have done. In fact it will force the Heat to trade one of their big 3 for a shorter contract if this plays out the way the owners want with more of a hard cap with fewer expections to exceed it.

I did not read anything indicating that players would become unrestriced free agents after their rookie contracts. That is what you seem to imply with you Howard analogy.

The only difference I see in this regard is that a players max length of their 2nd contract would go from 5 years to 4 years. For the 3rd contract (when a 1st round pick become an unrestricted free agent) it would be a 2 year difference. 6 year max contract length would go down to a 4 year max.

Rookie contract (3 to 4 years for 1st round picks) + 2nd contract ( 4 year max) = 7 or 8 seasons for a franchise to build around any player they draft.

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.

That is just wrong on the role of Unions. Without Unions, the gross revenues for the league would be a small fraction of what they are today. There is no question that the league could not survive without an antitrust exemption or a collective bargaining agreement. For that reason, it involves exactly zero bit of sacrifice for the players to Unionize because it means more money in their own pockets. There would be no league without restrictions like the draft, restricted free agency, etc. so it isn't a richer but less stable option to decertify - it is a throw the baby out with the bath water option to refuse to unionize. In actuality, the likely outcome of a pro sports league like the NBA or NFL really decertifying for more than negotiating leverage would be legislation that would give the owners exemptions from anti-trust law so they could run viable leagues which would only reduce the players' leverage. Things right now are in their optimum shape for the players.

Pro sports unions are there for the same purpose as other unions - to maximize the take for the people they represent. It so happens that their members get the most out of a system with a CBA.

The current and former players could always choose to pool their money together and open their own sports league but getting a guaranteed 57% cut of the NBA gross profits regardless of expenses is a much better arrangement.

This doesn't make the owners angels by any means. The lack of revenue sharing in the NBA is ridiculous, IMO, for example. But the Union could not come up with a better deal today than the status quo. They will end up agreeing to something less desirable than the status quo but much more desirable than either (a) decertifying or (b) running their own league.

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.

When a league has to buy a team because noone else wants them, then you know the CBA is crap. They also need a hard cap, otherwise you'll see boston, NY and LA have much better chances to win titles and I'm NOT a lakers/celtics fan, I'm a hawks fan so lets hope that they get a hard cap.

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.

No, shame on you sir. This isn't about the players playing within the rules...this is about the owners recognizing their mistakes and trying to correct the system to bring it back in. This is the players not caring about the long term survivability of the game and trying to get theirs now. I can and do blame the players. This isn't like me going to my boss and asking for a $1000 a year raise in a recession. These are people who are making at the lowest ($400,000) a year...10 times what the average American makes. The average NBA'er makes 4 million a year...100 times what an average American makes. That's right...one average year in the NBA, 8 months really, is enough to set you up for life. Asking for a more even, stable system isn't wrong on the owner's part...it's good business.

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.

Your post is so rediculous I dont even no where to start....................

Nobody that has a job is allowed to look at the owners books. The NBA is out as an organization to make sure the BIG market teams and especially New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are succesful.

It doesnt matter what the books look like and I am quite sure the owners are hurting, but the players are free to go to whatever team. If there are no rules in regards to salary cap etc teams like Atlanta are out of business. The owners own the company and the players can play for what they are offered in the collective bargaining contract, if they dont like it go overseas. Good luck with that.

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.

Terry is a 6'2'' SG who has never made an allstrar game. Typically if a 1 time 6th man of the year is your 2nd best player that is not the kind of Robin that gets you an NBA Championship based on past precedence.

Here are the Robins of past NBA Champions:

2010 - Gasol

2009 - Gasol

2008 - Pierce, Allen, Garnet (I'm not sure who is Batman and who is Robin here)

2007 - Ginobli, Parker (both allstars)

2006 - Shaq

2005 - Ginobli, Parker again

2004 - R. Wallace

2003 - Ginobli and Parker again

2002 - Shaq (I think this is the year Kobe and Shaq switched roles)

2001 - Kobe

2000 - Kobe

1999 - D. Robinson

1998 - Pippen

1997 - Pippen

1996 - Pippen

1995 - Drexler

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.

The point is after they reup Rose in 2012.. And i assume that they would have signed a reliable 2, they won't have the money to get Howard. Not outright. It will have to be a SNT and now you're talking about Noah vs. Horford for Orlando.

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

Chicago

Atlanta

Take a good look. When you add in Rose's QO in 2012, they're at 58... However, the next year, they will have to take him to the max.

For us, we will have lost one possible two bad contracts the next year. Not to mention that this year, Chicago will sign a better two guard than Bogans. That will cost money.

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

CTC?? Continue the confusion?

What are you talking about??

Hello?? Chicago is capped out and going to get worse.

We have contracts that will be ending. If we traded for Howard, we would actually be a strong team with room for more FAs.

Chicago is not even paying Rose max money yet... and they are at the cap. Luol Deng makes 12 freakin Million dollars. Korver makes Zaza Money. So does Brewer. Chicago has a much worse cap situ than we do.... Boozer gate.

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.

Dwight indeed has property here.

When did Dwight "Howard has already listed his preferences in the past (lakers, nets, mavs, etc) and didn't include the hawks then." do this?

Stop making up stuff.

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.

Hmm...First, Dwight would not be " would move cities to be closer to friends?", he'd be moving back home. Dwight indeed grew up Atlanta dreaming of playing in the NBA for the Hawks.

Secondly, These last playoff Hawks beat Chicago with Dwight instead of Al. In fact, most any team with Dwight becomes a contender. Orlando was a contender before it was traded away. Even then the were viewed as a contender.

" the question is if they are sufficiently better to warrant him alienating his original fan base? "

Pul-ease. The fan-base in Orlando is significant but the potential fan base of 5.7 million in Atlanta is staggering. Philips is packed Haks have 20 TNT-ESPN dates.

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.

If Dwight is going for sure, Horford would be a great get for Orlando. Look at what Cleveland got for Lebron, Toronto got for Bosh, etc.

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).

What has this two time allstar done in the playoffs except shoot 40 something percent.

Not just this yr.. every year except during his contract year.

Horf doesn't really show up in the playoffs.

We have learned to deal with no impact from Marvin. We have learned to deal with sometimes negative impact from Smoove. But when you take Horf and say he's not going to give you much in the playoffs.. then his allstars are meaningless.

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.

Dirks has had a better career than KG.

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.

I think you may be right but that team would still be in the convo and better than our current makeup. We are seeing now how important having the right role players is in the Finals. One superstar and a team of to notch role players us beating a team with two top five players, an allstar and worse role players. Dirk its leading that team and prong together some 7-9pt runs. He isn't carrying them. It was those same role players posters on here are belittling that hit all those big 3ptrs.

He is most definitely carried them against the thunder.

Good question. I think That team would still give MIA hell for sure. JJ and Terry would give MIAs backcourt serious problems. Wade would have to defend Joe instead of cheating off Stevenson and closing on 3s when they kick out to him. JJ would be another distributor and playmaker. Dirk has been so clutch in this series that I don't think that could be duplicated. JJs first two years in ATL, he was tied for second in the League for unassisted game winning shots with 8. He isn't an elite closer but hit some pretty big shots in this post season. I think that team would still be a hell of an out for anyone.

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?