My take on the Strike.......

[AHF]

Agree with everything you said. I also am glad my old man memory isn't too bad. I didn't think the NBA players had ever went on strike.

I don't think there is any inherent difference between the NBA players and the MLB/NFL players who have gone on multiple strikes except for the fact that the NBA players have always preferred the status quo to whatever the owners wanted. When you want the status quo, there is no reason to strike. The only reason to strike is if the status quo favors the owners and the players have the leverage to get additional terms. That dynamic hasn't happened, unlike in the NFL for example.

[red2play]

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.

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

[dlpin]

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