Woj article on the lockout.

This would be my first lock out.. what do people mean by ugly?

 

The Celtics owners are not rich, they spent the money because the team is a contender, but they are not a super rich ownership group.

 

Mavs got where they are, by using MLE's to sign a ton of role players(Terry, Haywood, Chandler, etc), no way Cuban will want a hard cap. Imagine the Heat, with 3-4 years of MLE's players.

 

Means we could be in for a long ride and a bumpy road ahead - most likely resulting in lost games if not season.

 

Unlike the NFL where the main divide is between the owners and players disputing over millions of dollars, the NBA is actually losing money and are seeing a web of differing opinions, starting with a divide amongst the small market owners and the large market owners ontop of the basic division between the owners and players. Besides the salary issue, there's also a problem with the integrity of the game itself that needs to be ironed out, primarily the issue with players holding franchises hostage and forming superfriend coalitions on teams located in "vogue" cities.

 

I prefer the Whitlock article on the lockout and tend to agree with the side he takes. The NBA's not losing money, or if they are, it's their own fault and not the players'. This idea that 22 teams are in the red is all a ruse set up by David Stern.

LINK

 

The reason of lockout is very simple

 

Thanks for the info, nice post. I agree whole heatedly with what Whitlock has to say about this lockout rubbish.

These players need to complete their college degrees. That way they are not as easy to exploit. I think that's one of the reasons why they lowered the age for NBA entry. They wanted these kids to come with thew lowest level of education of possible.

 

Not sure if serious. The players should go work in the factories that make their endorsed shoes alongside with those under-aged semi-slaves. They'll know what real exploitation is.

 

Of course, Whitlock offers up absolutely zero facts to explain why he doesn't believes there are teams losing money.

Anyone that's been following closely for the last several years knows that the Pacers, Kings, Hornets, Bobcats, and numerous others are indeed deep in the red and are overleveraged. Sonics were, and that's why Stern allowed the OKC group to buy them and move them. It was no midnight heist.

There was a good point made about how one big modern issue is owners purchasing teams for ~$300M pricetags, almost always via investment loans, and need to make enough profit to offset the interest on their debts. Even at 5%, that means a profit of $5M a year ends up as a net loss.

Add any owners with a foot in the NHL (Wiz, Nugs, etc) as being hard cap pushers. Leonsis was very open about that the second he bought in. They're all happy they shut down the NHL given the result.

 

that means NO NBA GAMES this year.

 

I remember the playoffs series against Golden State that got him the stupid contract from Zeke. He played with a chip on his shoulders against the Kings.

 

Zero facts but some of his points do make perfect sense, especially the part about the league trying to get the players locked into a 10 yr deal knowing they will renogiate their TV contracts in 5 years. I never made the connection between sports and advertising, as far as it being one of the only things folks watch live anymore. He's right, I don't really watch much live TV other than sporting events.

Anyone following basketball also knows that all of those teams (except NO) put a bad product on the floor and gave big $$ to guys who clearly didn't deserve it. On the flip side, Donald Sterling made $$ for at least the last 10 straight years. Why should players take a salary cut to give bad mgmt a get out of jail free card? I'm not saying no teams are in the red, but you can get teams out of the red by revenue sharing just as much as you can by cutting player salaries (Whitlock mentions that as well).

I hadn't read that, but that is a very good point. But wouldn't revenue sharing help offset this?

The NHL is not the NBA, at least not in this country. I think it's safe to say the majority of this country didn't even notice, or care, that hockey games weren't being played.

I really hope the players can stand strong but I doubt it.

 

The 10-yr deal was definitely crap on their part. As is the $45M hard cap with no revenue sharing.

I'm not saying they were wizkids.....but all of them are hampered in a huge way by revenue. The Sonics were getting creamed locally because of the terms with the city with Key Arena. New Orleans simply did not support the Hornets at all, forcing them to fudge and double count attendance figures. The Hornets made bank when they switched to OKC, and Shinn tried his damnedest to stay because he knew New Orleans was a no win situation.

Not all markets are equal, and the disparity between what Indiana can generate versus the Knicks is huge. In a league where LA is spending $92M to team Kobe with Gasol, Odom, and Bynum, the low revenue teams either have to hit all home runs in the draft or get creamed.

But yes, too many tried to keep up and busted their budgets doing so.

Each individual owner is out for his. No one wants to be paying off a competitor's debt. If we were all owners and someone new came in and took a massive loan to buy in....why should we have to slide him cash to make his payments?

Wasn't speaking to the fans' perspective. The owners that are involved with both leagues (5-6) were very satisfied with how they handled the NHL lockout and want the same economic model in place with the NBA. And their vision is especially appealing to the small market clubs. Only big revenue guys like LA, Dal, NY, and Mia are on the outside.