NBA Season 2011-2012

On a separate note, the current lockout is a power struggle and money grab by the owners irrespective of the popularity and upward momentum of the sport, fueled by accounting fraud

Well I know personally that this is incorrect at least from the Sixers perspective.. I have no idea about the other owners but the Sixers were losing money.

That's good. Thanks, Jayhawker.

TheGameguru wrote:
On a separate note, the current lockout is a power struggle and money grab by the owners irrespective of the popularity and upward momentum of the sport, fueled by accounting fraud

Well I know personally that this is incorrect at least from the Sixers perspective.. I have no idea about the other owners but the Sixers were losing money.

There is some chicanery going on. The NBA owners are playing games with not counting other revenue streams and not taking into account the assets they can write down from a tax perspective. So in terms of projected operating income moving forward there is some creative accounting taking place.

The fact remains, though, that the owners are losing money. There are two important points on this, though.

#1 - The owners are the ones giving out the money. They're the ones paying Travis Outlaw $7.5million. They're the ones giving 8 digit yearly salaries to players they later regret paying that money to. They could exercise some self-restraint. That's a big part of why they're losing money.

#2 - The players have a short window to make money. So their desire to hold their ground make some sense.

#3 - The owners generally buy these teams as hobbies. That the owners are acting as if these are pure businesses is a silly argument to me. Buying a pro sports franchise, with some exceptions, is generally more akin to gambling or buying fine art and hoping it appreciates. In the meantime you get to be an owner of an NBA team.

#4 - No one pays to watch teams, they pay to watch players. Being part of the NBA lends more credibility and gravitas to the players and the games, but the players could form their own league and do okay. In my opinion that entitles them to a healthy chunk of the pie.

I do think the NBA would be better off if it contracted at least a couple of teams.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I do think the NBA would be better off if it contracted at least a couple of teams.

I agree. This is the unhealthiest part of the NBA, IMO. I would love to see the NBA contract 4 teams, honestly. That's the part I will agree with regarding talent levels today versus in the past. In the 80s you had guys like Byron Scott and Kevin McHale frequently coming off the bench when these days they'd be the #2 guy on other teams. It's a less deep league and definitely could stand to be contracted. The problem is that those same owners would have to compensate the owners who were being contracted. Now's the time to do it if they're losing money anyway. Ironically, though, they'd ask for top dollar. Because they know that owning an NBA franchise, if it's any kind of investment, is a long term investment that appreciates. So it's the perfect time to use the threat of contraction for leverage over the players, but there is cost involved with that.

I would love to see the league try it, though. Maybe increase "potential" roster sizes by 1 or 2 players so teams could carry more players if they chose to. Like a practice squad or something. Maybe grow the D League. I think it would be an interesting compromise and outside of the box to consider contracting the league but keeping salaries high and guaranteeing payroll slots for extra players. If I'm the owners I would give up part of that BRI, knowing that my investment just increased by virtue of the fact that it just became more rare.

You know what truly infuriates me about the NBA? Idiots comparing the owner/player relationship to that of plantation owner / slave. As DS pointed out above, the owners have shown zero restraint...mediocre ball players have the chance to make millions.

I don't know, maybe being black makes me more sensitive to comments like that.

mindset.threat wrote:

You know what truly infuriates me about the NBA? Idiots comparing the owner/player relationship to that of plantation owner / slave. As DS pointed out above, the owners have shown zero restraint...mediocre ball players have the chance to make millions.

I don't know, maybe being black makes me more sensitive to comments like that.

Yeah. It's slightly hyperbolic, no? When I heard about that I literally facepalmed. I know the job of any good negotiation these days is to demonize the other side and try to win the battle of public opinion, but that wasn't the way to go about it. It was dumb and it's just not true. If by slave you mean individuals who can make millions of dollars per year, sign contracts of any length after their rookie contract and go to Europe or other places to get paid to play basketball, then yes, I suppose they're slaves.

*sigh*

Don't have much to add especially if you have read the articles floating around grantland.com about the lockout.

I do hate the North American model for sports leagues tho. Compare it Soccer in Europe, thats a model where the owners have nowhere near the monopoly power to pull this sh*t and neither do the players. It blows my mind how the US just turns a blind eye to the monopoly that each league is.

So by now everyoneknows the season is pretty much dead. Here's an article by Wilbon: http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/s...

"Meanwhile, the players keep talking about how they're not being offered a "fair deal," as if anybody in the world finds the global economy "fair" right now. They keep telling us how going from approximately $5.4 million (on average) to $5 million is draconian … when my idea of "not fair" is when a 58-year-old single mom with three children has her teacher's aide salary slashed. Tell her about what's not fair.

I know these players know this because the overwhelming majority of them are African-Americans who, while wealthy now, are still not far removed from grandparents and parents who were/are laborers and civil servants and domestics, people praying every day that their pension funds don't dry up or run out. Please, stop with how the players are looking for a "fair deal."

What's fair is what the market will bear. If you don't have control, which is to say if you don't own the means of production, you can't alone define what is fair."

Well said.

mindset.threat wrote:

So by now everyoneknows the season is pretty much dead. Here's an article by Wilbon: http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/s...

"Meanwhile, the players keep talking about how they're not being offered a "fair deal," as if anybody in the world finds the global economy "fair" right now. They keep telling us how going from approximately $5.4 million (on average) to $5 million is draconian … when my idea of "not fair" is when a 58-year-old single mom with three children has her teacher's aide salary slashed. Tell her about what's not fair.

I know these players know this because the overwhelming majority of them are African-Americans who, while wealthy now, are still not far removed from grandparents and parents who were/are laborers and civil servants and domestics, people praying every day that their pension funds don't dry up or run out. Please, stop with how the players are looking for a "fair deal."

What's fair is what the market will bear. If you don't have control, which is to say if you don't own the means of production, you can't alone define what is fair."

Well said.

horribly said. The market will bear what the owners are willing to give them with their monopoly wielding power. Thats the problem. The owners wield most of the power and hardly any of the will to actually get this sorted out.

I can make the same argument right back at the owners. Were in a recession so take some losses on your sports franchises that should not guarantee you to make millions of dollars. Especially in a recession.

Ugh what a horrible example all over. Not owning the means of production? Last I checked the only thing the owners bring to the table is owning the right to having a monopoly on basketball and in some cases providing the court to play on.

I honestly have respect to the players in this situation as they have much much more to lose and they are taking a stand. Some of them have a very small window to make money compared to the owners who might be passing these teams down the family tree to god knows when.

Also I would love to know what Mark Cuban is actually thinking right now. He must be losing his mind as hes the type of owner that gets into this to lose money and take out that happiness thing. Where its clear other owners are in it to turn profits by preying on the profit potential of peoples irrational demand for sports especially when its monopolized.

Agree to disagree then. Based on what I've seen and read from Hunter, Fisher and other players, I can't side with them. They are all so detached from reality, its pretty sad.

It's all so sad.

The best part of the season being saved is this: the Mavericks will be receiving their championship rings with the Heat visiting. Great.

So, the Lakers work out a trade for Chris Paul where they send Gasol to the Rockets and Odom to the Hornets and then the NBA nixed the trade for "basketball reasons". They let the obvious collusion go down in Miami last year but this is not allowed?

iaintgotnopants wrote:

So, the Lakers work out a trade for Chris Paul where they send Gasol to the Rockets and Odom to the Hornets and then the NBA nixed the trade for "basketball reasons". They let the obvious collusion go down in Miami last year but this is not allowed?

The fact that the NBA still owns this team is mind boggling. They need to contract them. This is an embarrassment.

By the way, I'm already sick of the media coverage that Rubio's getting. There are a couple of reasons that I'm actually kind of looking forward to this "season" but Rubio is not one of them.

carrotpanic wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

So, the Lakers work out a trade for Chris Paul where they send Gasol to the Rockets and Odom to the Hornets and then the NBA nixed the trade for "basketball reasons". They let the obvious collusion go down in Miami last year but this is not allowed?

The fact that the NBA still owns this team is mind boggling. They need to contract them. This is an embarrassment.

Same thoughts here. The owners just colluded to prevent Paul being traded. Stern should be ashamed. The Hornets were used to threaten the players with the loss of 15 jobs and now this.

The Hornets front office made the best of a crappy situation and Stern killed it because his owners whined? Now the Hornets are stuck in the same situation that the Nuggets were with Carmelo. What a mess.

mindset.threat wrote:

The Hornets front office made the best of a crappy situation and Stern killed it because his owners whined? Now the Hornets are stuck in the same situation that the Nuggets were with Carmelo. What a mess.

Dude, they were anyway.

The contrarian standpoint:

If I'm running the Hornets I'd take the Clippers supposed offer of Eric Bledsoe, Al-Farouq Aminu, DeAndre Jordan and two first rounders over what they got from the Rockets/Lakers deal.

I just don't see how two over-30 PFs, a late 20s SG, a late-lottery (maybe?) draft pick plus a backup PG is better from a rebuilding standpoint. Scola is basically a replacement for David West, Odom I don't think has nearly the impact anywhere else that he does on the Lakers, and Martin would be the same thing in NO as he was in Sacramento - a nice enough fantasy player that can't do anything to pull a bad team from the depths. There is nothing bad for an NBA team like consistent mediocrity, and that's what this trade would do for the Hornets.

If I'm Dell Demps, my goal is to secure the best picks in this year's draft possible (note that one of the offered picks this year is Minny's, not the Clips'). He wants a young talent like Eric Gordon or Steph Curry to build around. There are 8-10 dudes going into the draft that fit that bill.

/contrarian

I don't really know what to think of all this. Everyone is jumping to conclusions without all the facts. I was running around my apartment last night pulling my hair yelling EVERYTHING IS CRAZY I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TRUST AHHHH HELP!

I'm betting a modified version of this deal gets done by Monday, btw.

If you want to go that way, and I can understand that direction, I think the Lakers/Rockets package might be able to be flipped for a better set of picks.

That's a possibility. I'd have to take a look at each lottery team's needs and picks and all. At the end of the day a bunch of not-young starter-quality guys aren't really what a lottery team needs, though.

Counter to Pants: I am indeed stoked to see what Rubio can do. I'm not exactly optimistic, but very curious.

Dan Gilbert's email to Stern:

Commissioner,

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen.

I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

On top of all this...the rumor now is that Dwight Howard may sit out training camp to force a trade to the Nets. Brooke Lopez and 2 first round draft picks.

Dan Gilbert is...not wrong. The thing is, the NBA shouldn't have this conflict of interest in the first place.

No. Dan Gilbert is wrong. I would suggest that if NBA teams can't compete they move to a revenue sharing model like the NFL or they start contracting teams of owners who can't afford to be in the league. I'm not in love with Lakers winning title after title because of their pocketbook, but this was a fair trade. That Dan Gilbert (Dan Gilbert of all people) can send a letter to the NBA in Comic Sans (I may have made that part up) and get the deal stopped is absurd. THAT is the kind of action that makes the NBA look like the fix is in.

Will repost when I'm not on a phone and can organize my thoughts.

Oh, an I'd offer up the Cave for contraction. They're clearly nothing without Lebron thanks to their clown shoes owner.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Counter to Pants: I am indeed stoked to see what Rubio can do. I'm not exactly optimistic, but very curious.

I'm curious to see if he's any good but I'm not expecting much based on his performance as of late in Europe. But, if he was the only new thing about the team I wouldn't be any more interested than I was last year. Derrick Williams and easily the best coach the franchise has ever had (sorry Flip) have me more excited than I've been since around 2002.

If anything, I'd like them to somehow be middle of the road so that they don't give the Clippers a lottery pick.

Stern's statement:

“Since the NBA purchased the New Orleans Hornets, final responsibility for significant management decisions lies with the Commissioner’s Office in consultation with team chairman Jac Sperling. All decisions are made on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Hornets. In the case of the trade proposal that was made to the Hornets for Chris Paul, we decided, free from the influence of other NBA owners, that the team was better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the terms of that trade.”

mindset.threat wrote:

Stern's statement:

“Since the NBA purchased the New Orleans Hornets, final responsibility for significant management decisions lies with the Commissioner’s Office in consultation with team chairman Jac Sperling. All decisions are made on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Hornets. In the case of the trade proposal that was made to the Hornets for Chris Paul, we decided, free from the influence of other NBA owners, that the team was better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the terms of that trade.”

Also, the check is in the mail and I'm motherf*cking Santa Claus.

I think you forgot that last part.