Here's an idea, try not paying large sums of money to Eddy Curry. Oh and injured players like Yao are covered by insurance, your argument is just plain wrong.
The owners and players are inflexible,and only care about themselves. The game is suffering,and the fans are being deprived of watching this great sport.
Here's an idea, try not paying large sums of money to Eddy Curry. Oh and injured players like Yao are covered by insurance, your argument is just plain wrong. The average NBA player makes like 3.5 mil. So no, they don't make more than owners.
All I can say is this. The league is heading down a direction where there are two or three teams a season that have a real chance at winning it all. The draft gets weaker every year and between south beach and Boston you essentially have your all star starters for the east. Powerhouses in the west are weakening as well, LA is getting worse, San Antonio too. The CBA as it is, is causing consolidation of power. Something needs to change. Owners need to cut costs, otherwise the Hornets will not be the only team the NBA owns. Does that mean I support the owners? I don't know, all I know is that my Rockets are probably not going to perform well for the next couple of years, and I will get behind whomever can change that.
I support the players in the NFL lockout, given that 1) everybody's making $$$ hand over fist, and 2) the owners are making that money based on profound health risks that the players are facing (and have lied/distorted/ignored those risks for years)...NBA strike doesn't really ahve those issues, NBA teams are worse off and players don't subject themselves to the same risks as NFL players do.
support the same players that are leaving their teams/fans high and dry to join their friends in tourist destinations? **** em'. The players need to be put back in their place.
I don't give a crap about either side. Just agree to something and get the damn season started on time.
both sides need to give a little What is not considered in the owners 'money losing' is the future capital gains when they sell the team and the tax effects on the owners overall portfolio from operating losses ( also the synergy effects on their other business) If the operating losses were a big deal the teams would sell for less than the owner paid for them (see Astros) The player should agree that the competitive nature of bidding for talent has their contracts a little out of scale and they should drop back on the guaranteed years a little and should firm up the soft cap for the sake of balance.
Its great if you knew that Eddy Curry would be Eddy Curry before you signed him, unfortunately you can't go back in time and undo the contract. In the NFL, this is prevented by not having guaranteed contracts, IMHO Eddy Curry would put more effort if his contract could be voided if he plays like crap. Injured players making money off insurance are pretty rare, the cases where a guy like John Salmons plays like a demon possesed and then drops off after signing a ridiculous contract is far more common. Yes, its the GM's fault for being bad at his job, but I don't see why the league can't put safeguards in place to protect the teams from themselves. Everybody seems to be complaining about the "super teams", well here's your chance to rectify it by giving everyone a "reset" button by empowering the teams. The NFL model makes perfect sense, I don't see why NBA players are making more than the NFL guys considering NFL has more risks. Other teams lost money. So the Pacers owner actually loses money while Player X is actually making money.
I am a fan of free enterprise. If I could make a perfect NBA, I'd put its entire gross revenue into one big pot, pay the players, coaches, and staff some standard, minimal income and benefits, and all the other overhead out of that big pot-- and have the teams compete for the remainder. Then we'd see some diving for loose balls! All this commie revenue-sharing and income engineering is driving the league into the same third world sewer the rest of our country is washing down-- and it's a scary place, where the sewer meets the sea.
LOL, restrictions on trade are the only things that allow leagues to exist or survive. If you want a complete free enterprise system, there wouldn't be an NBA and clubs would be fully independent entities, staging games of their own choosing, sort of like the way things were back in the early 20th century, and there'd probably be a few power clubs and everybody else. It might be interesting for a time but certainly not as compelling as a system in which there are rules to ensure equity amongst 30 or so participants -> This is a case where a freer market puts forth a worse product for both owners, players, fans alike.
I don't actually care how much the players make, I'd be fine with a flat X% pay cut or whatever, but the Eddy Curry argument is just plain wrong. There's a reason the contract was a Knicks contract and not a Spurs or Lakers contract. Its kind of like how they signed a guy with a broken knee and broken back and broken eye to a long tern max deal just now. Oh and no owner loses money. An NBA team is just part of an owner's portfolio, like a stock. Some assets win, some assets lose, they know this because they're billionaires. Unless every NBA team lost money, that's not an argument that indicates something is inherently wrong.
Actually I care less about it from the "owners losing money" aspect than I do the "your team gets locked up in salary cap hell and there's nothing you can do about it" limbo. We may have gotten insurance money for Yao Ming, but he's still been killing our cap space. Think it would have been nice to have his salary off the books last off-season?
Support players, because they're greedy by demanding more money as owners from small markets are losing money? No, I'm on the owners side on this one.
.................I like to think I'm sort of a libertarian, but I have NO CLUE why people thinks anything but socialism can work in sports, since the point of owning a sports isn't supposed to be making a profit, it's supposed to be having a winning team. I mean, if you want the Lakers, Heat, Knicks, Bulls, and 26 Sterlings, then it's a great idea. I'll pass.
I am all for red meat and the spectacle of gladiators and the ascent of man. My ideal NBA would provide a safety net for the losers. It would still pay to play. It would reward the winners much more.
So basicallly just a slight rebalancing towards large market teams is your ideal NBA? I doubt too many people, aside from maybe Lakers, Knicks fans, and nets fans (who don't exist) would agree with that.
what?? These are private entities agreeing to share revenues on their own. There's nothing "commie" about that at all. They're individual business owners making decisions on their own for the health of their product. Each owner has an interest in the health of the league the way a McDonald's franchise owner has an interest in the health of McDonald's brand and product. There is no state/government actor here forcing shared wealth.
My ideal NBA would shift the marketing forces into a global reward. There would be no more big market vs. small market factor, no more luring superstars, no more Super Friends. Players, coaches, and staff would have to put their extracurricular income into the NBA pot-- then go compete for it. I'd like to see the thirteenth guy on the bench make as much as the #1 scorer. If they win the championship, they'll all make an astronomical sum. Then #2 would make more than #3, and so on... If we don't get back to basketball as a team effort, a true competition, we run the risk of turning into pro wrestling.
I agree with you but: 43% of total income split between ~28 owners 57% of income split between ~250 players. Owners will still make more money than each individual player. I'm sure that CEOs of large corporations dont make more than the total sum of all of their employees salaries...
