Billy Hunter expects entire NBA season to be cancelled because of lockout

There never was that big a difference between the NFL owners and the NFLPA, especially when the owners gave up on an 18-game season. Another thing is just the idea of the NFL missing any games is a much bigger deal for more people than anything to do with the NBA.

There is also a vast chasm between the NBA owners and the NBPA. Instead of a slight tweaking like the NFL wanted, NBA owners intend to radically transform the NBA's revenue structure to such an extent that no union could agree to such terms without extreme duress (like missing half or an entire season).

 

I agree. I see canceling the season as a real possibility, BUT you can't count on anything that comes out of Stern's or Hunter's mouth at the moment. Everything they say is calculated to be a pressure tactic. It is wholly accidental if it ever corresponds with the truth. We'd be better off if ESPN didn't bother reporting what they say.

 

Not just that, but didn't the reports on how owners can calculate losses based on players aging as a form of "lost assets", also talk about how they were using the teams as a loophole to limit the tax and debt incurred for their initial ownership transfer.

While I do tend to agree that the league needs some changes, a lot of the current issues are owner-to-owner issues that need to be worked out.

I would love to see the players do something clever though. Like set up small basketball tournaments in different cities raising some money for charity or something. I know some of them are a playing in already established summer league tourneys around the country, but I don't see how they wouldn't be able to organize something with more players and get even a few sponsors that are not "official sponsors of the NBA".

Think how amazing that would be PR-wise for the players. They could definitely win the public opinion with that.

Seriously, if you can do it for Lebron deciding he wants to lay on a beach for the entire year, you can do it for a small mini tourneys of NBA players.

 

Don't post often, but here's what I think:

1) Obviously Hunter is posturing through the media. He's trying to send a message to the owners that the players are okay with missing the season, and that they won't cave just because they're missing their paychecks.

a) nothing wrong with that - everyone postures during the lockouts (See the NBA's lawsuits, which aren't going to go anywhere but shift leverage and send a message)

b) it's also total BS, maybe some players will be okay, but given the notorious track record for a lack of ability for NBA players to save, once those paychecks stop coming there's going to be enormous pressure to get a deal done. Newsflash, European teams aren't rolling in money. There is going to be a limit to how many guys they can sign.

2) Maybe it's true that the owners shouldn't be giving those kinds of contracts, but for small market teams it's a no-win situation. People are right in saying that Jerry Buss and James Dolan have ZERO excuse for a bad contract. Why? Because big players want big markets, they shouldn't have to overpay to get guys who will sell tickets. Hell, the Knicks made money even during the terrible Isiah years. But take the Atlanta Hawks for example: the signing of Joe Johnson to a max contract will likely cripple that franchise's ability to compete for the next few years. But what if they hadn't offered the absolute max? Johnson would have bolted to NYC or Chicago in a heartbeat. So even if there's only a 15% chance that he'll play up to the standards of a contract, it's still worth the risk just to put asses in the seats. You certainly aren't going to do that rolling out a line up of Jason Collins, Kirk Hinrich, Josh Smith, Al Horford and Jamal Crawford. Small market teams HAVE to overpay to attract talent, because they don't have the benefit of getting players to come to their team just for the city. If someone offered me $15 million to play in Houston, I'd sure as hell take that over $20 million to play in Milwaukee. It's a game of risk, and ultimately one that is bad for the NBA.

Contraction is the ideal situation, but that will never happen. I do think a hard cap would help. NBA players have it better than almost any other sport. If you get hurt in football, you can get cut halfway through your contract and you might not have guaranteed money left. The NBA doesn't work like that, and it allows stiffs like Michael Redd to collect a fat paycheck while sitting on the bench. Irresponsible decision by Milwaukee? I'm not so sure, back when they gave him that contract they had to overpay so he wouldn't leave. He was their star and they needed him to fill arenas.

If we want a competitive league the players are going to have to give up more than they are right now.

That being said, don't believe all the media hype, there may be a shortened season but talk of the season being cancelled is just a posturing game...we'll see who blinks first.

 

Great post.

Just wanted to tell everyone to calm down. Just wait until Sep-Oct roll around.

I remember at the start of the NFL lockout all the dire news that floated around, and some guys thought it was sure that some games would still be missed...yet here we are ready to play a full preseason.

 

Holy cow, you don't post much.
All good points.

 

Excellent post but I'd like to make an educated argument

Agree 100%

I know this is an outlier but the Joe Johnson situation is one where I think Atlanta DIDN'T have to overpay in the sense that it cripples their salary cap and future. Sure overpay by a few million on the total contract but not by a few million PER YEAR.

[For example, what Morey did with Kyle Lowry and Luis Scola last year was to let the market dictate their value. I UNDERSTAND 100% that Lowry was a RFA but it still is a good example of how a smart GM can re-sign his players without having to break the bank. Even at $9 million a year and despite his age, Scola is still a bargain IMO.]

But back to the JJ thing:

1. If ATL decides "You know, JJ, we'll let you test the open market and see what other teams will offer you. Whatever offer you get, we will match it and put a 10% raise on top of that". There was no sense in saying "look JJ, I know you're searching for a max contract so we're going to give it to you without even looking back".

2. The market for a player just past his prime on the open market is not going to command a 9 figure salary. Chicago had cap room but they got Boozer and took the rest of their cap to get players to fill out their roster. Miami spent all of their money on the big 3. The Knicks were never going to sign JJ when we all know they've been having their eyes on Melo and Paul the day they signed Amare. Who was left that would have offered JJ THAT much money? I'd venture no one.

3. You, as the Hawks GM, just play the waiting game. Because one of three scenarios will play out:
-JJ will bolt for a much lesser contract than what you were prepared to give him (highly unlikely)
-JJ gets a max contract via S&T, a S&T that must be okay'd by you, the Hawks GM. This would have netted the Hawks at least draft picks and maybe even young cheap players.
-JJ comes back and takes whatever you offer

4. Thusly, you could have had Joe Johnson for 6 years for 80 million dollars. Hell, you could have had Joe Johnson for 6 years 90 million and that is still a better deal than the 6 years 119 million you literally threw his way. That 30-40 million difference could have meant you have space to re-sign Crawford and keep Josh Smith instead of seeing the real possibility of not having both next season.

I agree with you that it's a game of risk but you make your moves according to variables that are clear to you. If Joe Johnson was 25 when he signed that deal instead of 29 most wouldn't have an issue with it. But the Hawks being the Hawks, decided that they should pay 119 million for a player that isn't worth 119 million because they 1. outbid themselves and 2. foolishly thought JJ could be the player that takes them to the promise land.

I can see the reasoning behind spending 100+ on players like Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant or even Yao during his not-so-injured years because they are elite talent. Rashard Lewis, Joe Johnson, Michael Redd were never elite talent but their teams stupidly overpaid.

While I trumpet the idea of contraction I agree it's not going to happen. But rather than a hard cap, why not just shorter guaranteed contracts? 4-5 years max? The problem with Redd, other than his injuries, is that his contract was too long. Redd signed that deal back in the 2004 offseason. If his contract was capped at 4 years, he would have been off the books 3 years ago.

 

Also another difference between NBA and NFL lockouts is that NFL had 6 months before the start of a new season so they had enought time to go through talks and negotiate a new deal. NBA only has 3 months before losing regular season games, so they have less time, and if they want a full preseason they only have 2 months.

the NFL lockout lasted 18 weeks and 5 days, so if the NBA lasts the same, the end of the lockout will be the last week of october, or the first week of november, so that means, some games are already cancelled. and now they need some training camp and 2 or 3 preseason games.

But I think the season will be shortened, but not completely cancelled.

 

they're blaming the CBA?

ergo the push for the new CBA?

not rocket science dude.

as for contraction, Stern doesn't want that. his entire shpil is how the NBA is expanding (as in, look revenue sucks, officiating is terrible, fan interest is low... but LOOK HOW IM EXPANDING THE LEAGUE OVERSEAS AND EVERYWHERE). contracting would be like admitting that he's been ****ing the league and taking home $23 million a year. Stern would rather screw a couple hundred players than weaken his stranglehold on the league one bit.

 

This really is simple to me.

1) Either several teams are losing money, or they are not. This is the first point that need absolute clarity. If it is true, than regardless of how it got to be this way, the only area to shrink that will have enough of an effect is payroll. If a NBA player that is making 12M, cant get by on 8 or 9M, then I really feel for his starving family.

2) If teams are not actually losing money, and this is a owner scheme to scam the players, then it needs to be uncovered in full and in a indisputable fashion. When done, the pressure on the owners to cave be enormous.

I narrow things to this point because:
A) Contraction wont happen.
B) If all things remain equal, the players will run out of money before the owners will.

 

I've been expecting the lockout to devour the entire season for a long time. It nearly claimed the 99 season, but the players seem better prepared to hold out longer this time. That is good for those who chose to save (and there are plenty that didn't), and there are also overseas opportunities. This will just allow them to resist accepting all of the owners' demands for longer, but it won't stave it off forever.

In 1999, there was a drop dead date in January (iirc) where Stern drew a line in the sand and said accept our terms by this date or the season dies. The union and owners managed to hash it out, and Shawn Kemp's local Krispy Kreme franchise lost 80% of their revenue. Stern will try that again, and there is a bit of legitimacy to it. Even with games three nights in a row, you have to start by February at the latest to salvage even a 40 game season. This time the players will be anxious to get a deal done, but enough members will still have the financial power to resist giving in completely to the owners.

We'll see the season canceled, and probably months go by before they really get serious about hashing this out. If it even looks like a second season will be impacted by the lockout, that will finally turn the public tide to nudge the owners a bit off their demands. The desperate player union will gladly accept most of the points at that stage.

I forsee a one year drop in length of maximum contract lengths, a franchise tag, a drop in percentage of BRI (probably about halfway between where they stand now, although if it shifts either way it would be towards the owners), a drop in max salary, and a change or elimination of the MLE. I can't see a hard cap, but I could see draconian taxes on those teams that exceed a certain threshhold. I also expect to see Stern implement a much easier bar to terminate contracts for player misbehavior.

 

That would never happen for multiple reasons. For one, these owners bought the franchise for several hundred million. They cannot just walk away from that. If the team were to just go away, the owner would insist on being bought out by the NBA, and I really can't see the NBA deciding to do that.

As far as merging one team with another, the other owners would never go for that. Not anything close to fair play, there would have to be some sort of supplemental draft. Even ignoring that, how is that going to fit under any kind of salary cap? And even you ignore that, it still doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Merging two franchises is not going to double the value of the remaining franchise, so one or both owners would be taking a loss in the value the hold in the franchise.

If there was some sort of contraction, I imagine there would be some sort of long term plan to pay off the debt to the owners losing teams. No doubt that would be paid for by a drop in player's salaries. Revenue sharing, combine with lowering player salaries, is a much better option.

 

Yep, this is posturing. "We have saved our money and/or will play in Europe, we can hold out just as long as you."

We'll see if it's true or not.

 

Money is money. Nobody is losing them NOW so nobody really cares. It is easy to me. It may look difficult to find a resolution now but once both sides feel the heat of losing BIG money they will make it work.

Right now they are playing the 'check/fold' game

 

Man, i hope this is just posturing.

 

Good stuff as usually Ego. Something inside me thinks the players association would love a drop dead date.

Once Stern Draws that line in the sand Owners loose alot of leverage.

The canceling the season bullet is a bullet you can only fire one once a year.

As much as whole season locket would hurt the players, the second whole season lockout hurts the owners more. If you loose a whole season the next year advertisers and season ticket holders don't want to touch you. Not to mention the local Market TV deals that would be in jeopardy.

Both sides need to use the Nfl CBA as a framework to tackle some of the Big issues like Revenue Sharing and Contract length.

Why reinvent the wheel when you don't have to.

 

Stern was saying this too, and I don't buy that it makes a difference. The league and the union have had years to prepare for this summer. The leg-work should be done already. Just like the debt-ceiling crisis in Washington, the duration of the stalemate is a factor of the proximity of the deadline. No one will concede anything until they are on the verge of losing leverage or something of value. Once one or both sides move a bit on their positions, we can get dramatically closer overnight. Extensive talking isn't necessary.

 

imo, college rivalry games are much more intense than anything in the NBA (at least today's NBA) as the players have a stronger vested interest in their team.

Plus March Madness is as good and usually better than the NBA playoffs.

 

SO it's becoming reality after all?

 

Unfortunately, I thinking that Saturday will be the day the music died