The Lockout

[T Dot O Dot]

coverage up here for NCAA basketball will increase like never before, I'll be fine once the college season is in full swing

I'm about to type something I could never say out loud on a Toronto street:

hockey = soccer on ice

[AlabamAlum]

T Dot,

Time to join the Anthony Grant/Bama team.

[Bklyn]

LOL

[It's me Karen]

Nope, I don't think it helps even things out. The Ron Artest deals are not what makes team's championship squads. The only team I think something like that maybe would've hurt was the 2006 Heat. They had a boatload of guys taking less cash to suit up with Big and Wade (and they probably would have taken less). Outside of that, I'm not sure if it will help the Indianas and Torontos of the world.

That's Metta World Peace to you....

[T Dot O Dot]

looks like the players are going to accept 50-50 on the BRI and the owners will relax on the free agency rules

not my cup of tea

the more Ive followed this thing the more I wish it flip-flopped the other way, give the players their 55% and fix the system

You were right Brooklyn, the owners are strictly about the bottom line

we still disagree on what effect the system issues would have on a team like the Raptors, do I expect a new CBA to bring Toronto a chip?

Nah

but I was hoping it would help teams keep their free agents, restrict superteams & allow teams to correct mistakes and lift themselves out of the gutter more quickly

whatever, the rhetoric I'm most sick of are the people who say the "fans" are the losers, because the fans are obviously not one homogenous mix of similar parts

I have a feeling certain fanbases will enjoy the relaxed system rules more than others

[Bklyn]

True.

What will continue to trip me out if the 50/50 split becomes accepted, it's that owners effectively get more in that allocation (I'm unscientifically saying about 55/45) because they get to write off expenses on the gross income before the split.

Whatever, fairness & honesty rarely come into play with business.

[Jungle Rat]

And marriage

[Bklyn]

Indeed.

[Bklyn]

True Hoop

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Michael Jordan -- famous for his ability to fly -- is a hawk.

There are owners who are willing to make a concession here or there. And there are other owners who feel the NBA's current bargaining position -- a massive cut in pay and quality of jobs from last season -- is ludicrously more player friendly than it need be. Sources say Jordan in this second group.

Which makes him either a hypocrite, or simply someone whose interests have shifted. He was once not just a player, but the most valuable player in league history. Of course he advocated for players.

He is now not just an owner, but one of the poorer owners of one of the most challenged franchises in the league. Why would he not, like all of us most of the time, do what he can to keep the healthiest possible bottom line?

In essence, Jordan is well within his rights to advocate for whatever he wants.

But that doesn't mean anybody has to listen to him.

Pay the players

In Jordan's playing days, when there was a CBA to negotiate, the agent who destablized the process that time around was Jordan's: David Falk.

Falk's contention at the time was that an NBA pay system ought to account for the reality that Jordan's worth was nearly infinite.

No salary would fairly capture the true value Jordan delivered leaguewide. Even when the Bulls paid Jordan more than $30 million it was a mere fraction of his true value.

It's a position that withstands fine economic analysis. But it's seldom an argument that carries the day -- $30 million, or even a third of that, is plenty in the eyes of most.

But know this, it's on record that Jordan has been in the camp of paying top players a nearly infinite amount.

Similarly, when Jordan was running the Wizards and then-majority owner Abe Pollin balked at costs, Jordan famously suggested Pollin ought to consider selling the team if he couldn't run it well enough to handle the necessary costs.

Don't pay the players

And now that same champion of owners' spending has profoundly reversed course. That doesn't invalidate his opinion, but does damage his ability to influence the thinking of others.

How much sway can he possibly have? Any case he makes players and owners alike can laugh off, knowing that history says he'll take whatever position is convenient.

His credibility, in other words, is shot.

The opposite of shifting positions as convenient is standing for something. That's not what Jordan has ever been best known for -- going all the way back to the days of "Republicans buy sneakers, too."

At Harvard, they have done extensive research into negotiations. Crudely summarized, they have found that the winning approach is not for each side to simply advocate for what it wants. The winning approach is for the two sides to search for principles both can agree on -- universal truths within the room. Instead of saying the mid-level must be smaller, in other words, you say that it would be good to control the spending of the biggest teams, and the two sides can explore, together, ways to honor that goal.

It's very hard to imagine that Jordan could play any role like that, however. He is a odd champion of timeless truths.

What option does Jordan have, you ask, to be credible, even if his thinking has evolved? Here are some words that would show respect to both his current position and his credibility: "I was wrong."

[Jungle Rat]

Go Michael!

[T Dot O Dot]

Players with contracts that are below the average salary would be eligible for opt-out clauses.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1dWfeYdMo

I like this rule

[Bklyn]

Just so we're clear, it's not REALLY about player salaries

[Hizzy III]

At some point, the NBA owners should at least offer weed as an extra incentive. More weed and less weed testing.

[Bklyn]

The truth is, the Players have been negotiating for months and owners have been demanding. It was bound to crash and burn, at some point. The owners have never come to the table, collectively, in good faith IMO.

I still say, the owners are trying to balance their books on the backs of all players, instead of managing their team properly and addressing the unequal economics between the 30 teams.

[BigRedMan]

Burn baby burn!!! Hope they cancel the entire season.

[Bklyn]

I know people say that, but for what reason? You want to see bowling or 30/30 repeats on ESPN Friday nights? What good comes out of the season being totally canceled?

[Jungle Rat]

Unless you have an NBA team in your city, nobody really cares anyway. College Basketball > NBA.

[BigRedMan]

I know people say that, but for what reason? You want to see bowling or 30/30 repeats on ESPN Friday nights? What good comes out of the season being totally canceled?

Because David Stern needs to burn. Terrible shitty basketball. Crooked refs. BURN BABY BURN!!

[T Dot O Dot]

The truth is, the Players have been negotiating for months and owners have been demanding. It was bound to crash and burn, at some point. The owners have never come to the table, collectively, in good faith IMO.

I still say, the owners are trying to balance their books on the backs of all players, instead of managing their team properly and addressing the unequal economics between the 30 teams.

I disagree, even if every team made sound decisions there will always be bottom dwellers. The system can make it so the cellar dwellars can climb from the bottom more swiftly but teams 21-30 will always exist, that's the nature of competition. Even then, there is no accounting for season or career ending injuries.

As far as operations go most of the costs related to running a basketball franchise are fixed & will remain constant to a certain degree from team to team, except for player salaries

When 20 out of 30 teams operate at a loss there's a problem. The players say the losses only amount to 200 million, the owners claim 300+ milion in losses.... so 200 million in losses is an acceptable system?

The players could probably get 54% BRI if the owners decided to profit share but good luck with that if the stars keep forming super teams, I can already foresee the "Steinbrenner" arguments. Mickey Arison aint gonna share his profits with Charlotte. And if he does he's going to want them to use it on improving the team...not pocket it. So how does Charlotte go about doing that? Overpaying free agents? Maybe give Boris Diaw "Lebron James" type of money?

The real problem is the players think the bargaining should begin from the system they had in the old CBA, a deal in which they made out like Bandits. If I'm a new owner I'm looking at Stern and the veteran owners and asking "what the hell were you thinking when you decided on a 57-43 split?"

There is no bad business decision made by any NBA owner that can ever be termed as "mismanagement" when compared to the CBA the owners agreed to in the last deal.

[Bklyn]

I disagree, even if every team made sound decisions there will always be bottom dwellers. The system can make it so the cellar dwellars can climb from the bottom more swiftly but teams 21-30 will always exist, that's the nature of competition. Even then, there is no accounting for season or career ending injuries.

My argument is that this process isn't about owners trying to set it up so they can rebound to relevance quicker. I don't think they care as much about being bottom dwellers as much as they care about not losing money. I truly feel that someone like Michael Jordan or the Maloofs (who are in a tough spot in their normal revenue-generating businesses) would take 40 wins and 85% attendance over Playoff appearances and low attendance. The system changes will not impact the fact that only about 10 players give you a legitimate shot at the title and two of the 10 play on the same team. By late March there are ALWAYS 20 teams without a shot at the chip, but the owners want to control what they can control...and that is how much income they can receive.

When 20 out of 30 teams operate at a loss there's a problem. The players say the losses only amount to 200 million, the owners claim 300+ milion in losses.... so 200 million in losses is an acceptable system?

No, however when you give up 5% of your income from a $4Bn business, before the owners discuss their revenue sharing plan, then it is credible to say in good faith that you have done your part in the negotiation.

Mickey Arison aint gonna share his profits with Charlotte. And if he does he's going to want them to use it on improving the team...not pocket it. So how does Charlotte go about doing that? Overpaying free agents? Maybe give Boris Diaw "Lebron James" type of money?

How does the NFL deal with it? They have a profit sharing model that the Giants don't sit and complain about how the Browns' banks their cash?

The real problem is the players think the bargaining should begin from the system they had in the old CBA, a deal in which they made out like Bandits. If I'm a new owner I'm looking at Stern and the veteran owners and asking "what the hell were you thinking when you decided on a 57-43 split?"

That may be true (the new owners issue) but fuck it. They knew what the CBA was when they overpaid for the team they own (hello, Golden State). If they did not do their due diligence before purchase, then they are dumber than a billionaire businessman should be. They are not lottery winners, they well know how acquisitions work. If they did do their due diligence and thought it was a broken model that they were going to swing 180* in the other direction, then they did not go into this negotiation in good faith and the players have even more legal ammunition to claim a violation of the Sherman Act.

Also, in negotiation you start with the last legal agreement. You don't start from scratch. So, yes, the old CBA is the natural starting point for the negotiation, regardless if you paid a $150M premium on a $450M franchise, all the while know the economics and the legal structure of the owner/player relationship (hello, Golden State), and think starting from the last legal agreement is a bad idea. It's the way legal negotiations work.