LA Lakers Buss Family: We'd like the NBA to drop a couple teams

the grizzles will never work

blake superior showed what can happen in one season though

clippers will still lose but now ppl want to see the clips

using that argument the grizzles could say we are drafting the next big thing

 

Sorry, but this doesn't compute. Think about it. First, shutting down 2 franchises does not shut down those 30 player contracts. Those are signed contracts. Those 30 players would sue for payment.

Let's say the 30 players settle for a layoff severance package. You now have 30 experienced NBA free agents on the market. The best players will make a roster at market prices. The only thing that will be lost is minimum contracts throughout the league. The worst players would be dumped without a job.

There would be no loss of "likely 2 or 3 fewer max salary contract." The league would merely lose 30 minimum contracts/roster spots.

 

Jordan is too competitive to sell his team.

When he started that motorcycle racing team, he spent money until they won a championship.

 

even before Blake the Clippers were one of the most profitable ball clubs. Sterling ran that club like a business all about the cash flow

 

I believe he is referring to the fact that in the future, theres 30 less nba spots for players, since the nba would be downsizing. the 2 or 3 max contracts are for the would be franchise players of the defunct teams.

 

The 2-3 max players from the defunct teams would get a job via free agency. And they would get a max salary. Do you think they won't get job? For minimum salary?

I don't think you're following what I'm saying.

 

I agree with the Buss family. I'd like the NBA drop the Lakers and Celtics and divvy up the players between all the other teams. Let's put Kobe with Blake, Pau with Dwight, Rondo with Miami, and we'll take Bynum.

 

Of course the Buss family wants to drop teams. What they don't want to is revenue sharing....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As NBA owners battle with the Players Association on a new collective bargaining agreement, they should get their own house in order and fix a revenue sharing system that's totally broken.


Jan 17, 2011 - Going back to 1980, eight different NBA franchises have claimed the league's championship at season's end. In that same time span, 15 different NFL franchises have won a Super Bowl, 19 different MLB franchises have a World Series and 14 different NHL franchises have won a Stanley Cup. And of the NBA's eight franchise champions, all but two (San Antonio and Detroit) reside inside the NBA's 10 largest markets. While owners, employees and fans of the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls and Celtics may not give a crap about historical data like this, it should be alarming to the owners, employees and fans of 20 (or so) of the NBA's 30 teams.


Supposedly, the NBA -- unlike Major League Baseball -- has a salary cap and a system in place to make the playing field even. But thanks to two major factors - first and foremost, a revenue-sharing system that shares television and licensing rights only and, secondly, player salaries that are totally out of control -- most NBA owners are losing money hand over fist. Hence why NBA owners have little incentive to keep the doors open next season while they duke out a new bargaining agreement with their players union. Conversely, NFL owners -- also on the precipice of a possible player lockout and/or strike -- have all the incentive in the world to keep their league going. After all, most NFL owners, like their fellow owners in Major League Baseball, actually make a profit each season.


Because NBA owners share only national and international television and licensing revenue, teams get to keep every dollar they make in their local market, including their local broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals and ticket sales. In the NFL, ticket sales are split 60-40 between the home and visiting teams. In the NBA, the local team keeps every cent of the gate revenue. In Major League Baseball, a substantial percentage (perhaps as much as 35%) of each franchise's local broadcasting revenue is pooled for all teams to share. In the NBA, each team keeps every nickel of their local broadcasting revenue. Hence why the Pittsburgh Pirates are profitable despite being one of baseball's worst teams for 20 years on.


Or, as SB Nation's Tom Ziller aptly put it recently: "If you want to make money in the NBA, you're better off sucking in L.A. than being excellent in San Antonio."

And thus, the NBA needs its own version of Wellington Mara on the owners' side of the table as the owners and players negotiate a bargaining agreement that, in theory, will set the tone for how business is done in the NBA for the next 10 years.


Mara, as most sports fan know, was the well regarded owner of the New York Giants who famously agreed to then-commissioner Pete Rozelle's concept that the NFL's television revenue be shared equally among all teams. With revenue sharing came competitive balance and a league that has operated as one business instead of 32 individual businesses has dominated the American sports landscape for nearly 50 years.


Without a proper revenue sharing system in the NBA, one that extends beyond splitting only the national and international television and licensing revenue, the disparity between the haves and have-nots will continue, save for a few franchises willing to lose their shirts financially just to keep their teams competitive. Unfortunately, two of the NBA's big-market owners -- the New York Knicks ' James Dolan and the Los Angeles Clippers ' Donald Sterling -- are pariahs. The third, the Los Angeles Lakers ' Jerry Buss, appears to have checked himself out of the operations of his team and his son is (allegedly) running the show. And a fourth big-market owner, the Chicago Bulls' Jerry Reinsdorf, wasn't even willing to spend to keep Michael Jordan and crew in tact ... so we certainly can't expect him to be the ringleader of a new revenue sharing system among NBA owners.


Some fans will cringe at this suggestion and others will applaud it, but the only owner I foresee being capable of being the NBA's version of Mara is the Dallas Mavericks' Mark Cuban. In many ways, Cuban has revolutionized the concept of sports ownership and say what you want about Cuban, but you can't argue with him being a visionary for professional sports as know it. Make that all sports, as Cuban is now trying to put together a much-needed, much-wanted and long overdue playoff system for the BCS. Cuban -- and only Cuban -- could bridge that gap between the NBA's 20 small market franchises and 10 big market franchises to come up with a system that produces true competitive balance on the floor and on the profit and loss statement.


As a lifelong Denver Nuggets fan and season ticket holder, I'm acutely aware of the NBA's revenue sharing problems. In Denver, we're fortunate to have owners in Stan and Josh Kroenke who historically have been willing to spend north of $80 million on payroll to compete with the likes of the big-market Lakers, Mavericks and Rockets . But even when the Nuggets took the Lakers to the brink in the 2009 Western Conference Finals, the Nuggets were rumored to be losing millions of dollars (as in, more than $10 million) while the Lakers just added more millions to their pile of millions upon millions upon millions. If the NBA's current revenue sharing persists, the Kroenkes' belt-tightening is sure to come, likely resulting in a shoddy on-the-court product in Denver and one less team worth watching in person for fans in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas.


NBA owners can whine and cry all they want about player salaries crippling their economic model -- and make no mistake about it, those salaries are crippling -- but until the owners agree to an NFL or MLB-type revenue sharing system, slashing salaries by 30-40 percent only solves part of the problem. The NBA desperately needs a system akin to that of the NFL and Major League Baseball, and it will take a bold leader among the owners to get there.


Who among today's NBA owners would make Wellington Mara proud?

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/20...ring-salary-cap

 

No I do follow, and I'm not arguing that point. There no doubt in my mind that rudy gay could play else where and still command a pretty penny. What I am saying is that each team can only afford 1-2 max contracts, so potentially there could be 60 max contracts. if two teams were removed then, that number would drop down to 56 max contracts. That means that player that command top dollars now might have to settle for less, as well as removing spots for the borderline nba players.

So from a player stand point, more spaces are beneficial because more money is out there as well as more chances for young and developing talent to get more playing time. For owners, they would see it the other way, as well as not having to give the most finically unstable teams aid to stay afloat.

 

That's the dirty little secret, without an elite top five talent, you're not winning an NBA championship. The Pistons were an aberration.

 

Yeah, that could happen.

You are still missing one point.

If the two poorest teams close shop, the remaining 28 have a bigger piece of the overall pie...a large part being national TV broadcast rights. Then you have league pass, China, merchandising, etc. Half of Luxury box sales goes to the NBA as a share revenue stream. So they could increase the Cap, since all 28 teams have a larger share then. It makes the league leaner and meaner, with the ability to spend more per team.

I can't imagine each team not making at least 5 million more a year, simply because they don't have to share as much?

Someone will pay max. You have to. If you free up 3 max players, it becomes an arms race to get them. They will pay, because all teams will make more money. Whether the Cap increases or not, someone will exceed the cap to go get the best players.

 

well there's the celtics, but that comes with the question, at what position do we start with a more talented player than they do?

 

Sue who? I close down a business, they can sue me all they like, that company won't have 5 cents to its name.

 

except he doesn't really know how to manage a team. kwame brown? desagana diop/nazr mohammed/matt carroll?

thats even worse than the dleague

 

David Stern.

But those 30 contracts won't be a problem. I'm sure the rest of the nba teams would LOVE to take on a rudy gay or a marc gasol

BUT I think the current state of the nba is totally fine.

30 teams is great.

 

I dunno guys, I think LA needs another team and I'm shocked NY only has one team. ONE! Give them at least 2 more teams in the NBA.

 

sigh

They sue the NBA...I guess your business does not deal with a Union. This is basic economics ... and basic Employee/Union agreements.

aside from the fact I'm right on this...let us assume you are right.

so what is your point. OK, all the players are fired. My point is the max players become free agents and resign as max players.

I think you are two discussions behind us.

 

Unless the NBA has underwritten the agreements of the team in place (I'd be utterly shocked if they had), they aren't liable for the contracts of any team, heck the NBA wouldn't even be liable for New Orleans agreements if they close "the New Orleans Hornets", it's nothing to do with economics, its corporations law, realistically speaking, unless the nba felt good will to pay out (lol), a closed team would likely see its secured creditors gets whats left, and unsecured (such as employee wages) would get somewhere between nothing and close to nothing.

Sure people like Rudy gay would find a new team, and with the closing of 2 weaker teams, the overall salary cap would likely increase (as they'd be losing say 6% of the teams but 3% of the revenue), but anyone with a ridiculous contract (lets say washington was closed and you have rasheed lewis..) would be SOL.

 

So, will Stern be fining the Lakers for speaking out of turn on league business?