Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Should we be hoping for a long lockout?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
61 replies to this topic

#1 ZP1

  • 180 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 07:36 PM

Looking at the looming prospect of a lockout that could potentially devour a chunk of the upcoming season - should Celtics fans be happy?

We have one of the oldest teams in the league, with our core players being veterans that have a much higher chance of running out of the gas late into the season. Seeing the current team survive an 82 game season, and then play at an extremely high level against teams like the Heat in a long post season (with potentially several 7 game series before it) seems like a long shot. How much do our odds improve if the season ends up getting cut to 40-50 games from a long and protracted lockout battle?

#2 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9498 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 07:50 PM

Even if true, I'd probably miss the 30-40 games per team we'd lose more than I'd appreciate the Celtics extra odds of victory. I just really enjoy the regular season (I know- I'm the only one).

#3 TheYellowDart5


  • Hustle and bustle


  • 8597 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 08:38 PM

While it's true that, the fewer games the Celtics play, the more energy they'll be able to expend in what's left of the season (theoretically, anyway), there are three things that make me think that a long lockout would be no good:

1. The fact that, with every passing day, Garnett, Allen and Pierce are getting older and by extension slower and creakier, which (obviously) hurts the team;
2. The fact that a long lockout would adversely effect the conditioning of the players, something that's especially bad for older, more injury-prone players;
3. Any games that the Celtics miss are games that other teams miss, too, and for as much as having extra time off could be good for the older players, it also won't hurt the likes of LeBron and Dwyane Wade not to have play a full 82 plus the playoffs. The grind is the grind for everyone, even the young.

Plus, as bowiac pointed out, even though it might give the Celtics somewhat of an advantage not to have to go through an 82-game slog, it would suck immensely to lose out on part or perhaps the entirety of a season, especially given that this is likely the last or close to the last time the Big Three will be in contending shape. I'd rather get a full season then half or nothing at all.

#4 JerBear

  • 842 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 08:42 PM

Didn't they cram 50 games into the time they'd normally play 35 last time? A partial season means lots of 5 games in 8 nights, not a schedule that would work well for am older team.

#5 ElUno20

  • 1430 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 09:05 PM

I love the owners not only wanting a guaranteed profit every year but protection from THEMSELVES to not sign players to contracts they're not worth. lmao. I hope this lockout last 2 years.

#6 kelpapa

  • 765 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 11:13 PM

I think it will definitely help. They were the top seed in the east halfway through the year, and faded to the three seed as the season wore on and other teams gelled together.

1. The fact that, with every passing day, Garnett, Allen and Pierce are getting older and by extension slower and creakier, which (obviously) hurts the team;


Assuming the championship gets played around roughly the same time, how does this hurt the Celtics more than a non-lockout season? If you think they'll be too old next year, then they'll be too old, regardless of the lockout.

2. The fact that a long lockout would adversely effect the conditioning of the players, something that's especially bad for older, more injury-prone players;


Regarding the conditioning, I have to think KG, PP and RA stay in pretty well shape. Given the drive of the core players on the team and the knowledge that it is potentially their last shot, I don't see how they come in out of shape. None of them are nursing serious injuries now, right? The Celtics had six losses by Christmas last year, and I think that was a result of the work they put in during the offseason.

3. Any games that the Celtics miss are games that other teams miss, too, and for as much as having extra time off could be good for the older players, it also won't hurt the likes of LeBron and Dwyane Wade not to have play a full 82 plus the playoffs. The grind is the grind for everyone, even the young.


Well yes, but it's still an advantage for the Celtics. The grind is harder on the old than it is the young. Wade and Lebron had endless amounts of energy in the Celtics and Bulls series. While it won't hurt the Heat either, it will help the Celtics and level the playing field.

Plus, as bowiac pointed out, even though it might give the Celtics somewhat of an advantage not to have to go through an 82-game slog, it would suck immensely to lose out on part or perhaps the entirety of a season, especially given that this is likely the last or close to the last time the Big Three will be in contending shape. I'd rather get a full season then half or nothing at all.


Agreed. Any chance you miss to see the Big Three play while they are still competitive sucks.

I don't want to see a lockout, but the only way the lockout hurts the Celtics is if they try to make up for lost games, like Jerbear said.

#7 javaisfun


  • took the wrong girl to the prom


  • 560 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 11:16 PM

That Wyc Grousbeck is apparently the leader of the owners who want to lockout is awful. The Celtics are one of the money making teams, so he's just looking to make more. It's greedy, and hurts everyone, not only the fans, but the people who actually work in the league (administrative staff, etc.).

I actually think most of the owners have been more reasonable than the players during this negotiation, IMO, the flex cap offer wasn't a bad one. But... Grousbeck? Ugh.

#8 SoxFanPJ


  • call me Chester


  • 3856 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 12:05 AM

When Wyc and crew bought the team in 2002 they paid a then record $360 million for a team Forbes valued around the time at $218 million. http://a.espncdn.com...31/1485198.html

This is without gaining ownership rights over the Garden, so the Celtics aren't getting as much money as we may think they are having to give Jacobs a healthy chunk of money.

So after you think about potential debt payments, lease costs, and a consistently high payroll, I can see why Wyc would want to take a hard line. He took the risk and bought a team that wasn't very good, paying a record amount and by luck and skill of management hit a championship and turned the franchise around. If the KG trade didn't happen and he C's stayed in a cycle of mediocre goodness, just how much of a profit would they be making?

With the increasing cost of purchasing teams and building venues in all sports, I think owners need to have CBA that allow then to make consistent profits.

#9 swingin val

  • 983 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 12:46 AM

The Celtics are one of the money making teams, so he's just looking to make more.

Aren't the players looking for the same exact thing?

#10 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 12:48 AM

The last couple of years the Celtics have been gangbusters the first half of the season. So if the entire 2011-2012 season equals a half season, we should be title contenders again. Then KG and Ray come off the books and we can rebuild. Nice strategy if Wyc is doing this intentionally.

#11 jose melendez


  • Earl of Acie


  • 12720 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 05:10 AM

The Celtics don't hand any money over to the Bruins. They use the building for free, they just don't get any of the concessions revenue.

#12 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22294 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 06:11 AM

Posted Image

#13 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7298 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 06:54 AM

This is an interesting article that suggests player salaries have stayed even with inflation so the owners are wasting money elsewhere while trying to blame the players. --found on the Wages of Wins blog

#14 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 07:46 AM

I'm no economist but wasn't the rate of inflation considered unreasonably high in recent years, which accounts for multiple sports related lockouts?

This is an interesting article that suggests player salaries have stayed even with inflation so the owners are wasting money elsewhere while trying to blame the players. --found on the Wages of Wins blog



#15 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7298 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 08:19 AM

I'm no economist but wasn't the rate of inflation considered unreasonably high in recent years, which accounts for multiple sports related lockouts?

I'm not an economist either but I don't think the inflation rate has been particularly high this century with six of the ten years (2000-10) below 3% (range: -0.34% to +3.85%). Contrast that to 1979-81 when inflation was over 10% in each of those years.

#16 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6686 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 09:28 AM

This is an interesting article that suggests player salaries have stayed even with inflation so the owners are wasting money elsewhere while trying to blame the players. --found on the Wages of Wins blog

Probably why operating expenses are going up so much is because many new owners have recently bought teams - at artificially high prices (bubble) I should note - and need to service the large amounts of debt service they took on.

BTW, heard Darren Rovell on the radio yesterday and he said one big issue is that unlike the other sports, NBA team valuations are stagnant, and this is a sticking point in the negoatiations.

#17 moly99

  • 392 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:04 PM

It's amazing to me how so many good businessmen can't understand the business side of sports. The rate of return in retail and entertainment businesses like the NBA isn't high enough to enable you to get out of debt quickly if your interest rate is high. So if you're an intelligent venture capitalist like Grousbeck, why take out a huge loan to buy a team when the interest will likely exceed your profits?

Unfortunately I don't know how they fix this. It's not fair to make the players pay for the bad loans the owners took out, but what alternative is there?

Edited by moly99, 01 July 2011 - 02:06 PM.


#18 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12076 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 03:16 PM

It's amazing to me how so many good businessmen can't understand the business side of sports. The rate of return in retail and entertainment businesses like the NBA isn't high enough to enable you to get out of debt quickly if your interest rate is high. So if you're an intelligent venture capitalist like Grousbeck, why take out a huge loan to buy a team when the interest will likely exceed your profits?

Unfortunately I don't know how they fix this. It's not fair to make the players pay for the bad loans the owners took out, but what alternative is there?


Wyc is smart; he knows buying a sports franchise is a long-term capital appreciation play, with tax benefits and a big chunk of "shiny" thrown in (i.e., a sports franchise will underperform an otherwise comparable, less sexy investment). Most of the tax benefits are realized in the first five years of ownership, so the C's ownership group probably is more focused on profitability now than in the first few years they owned the club.

I suspect his prominent role in labor negotiations means (1) other owners respect his business acumen, and (2) he's firmly in the middle of the spectrum of ownership opinion on the key issues. Neither of those things surprises me.

Edited by maufman, 01 July 2011 - 03:17 PM.


#19 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12076 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 03:25 PM

This is an interesting article that suggests player salaries have stayed even with inflation so the owners are wasting money elsewhere while trying to blame the players. --found on the Wages of Wins blog


The article makes some dubious assertions.

For example:

The key fact to start with is the following: Players salaries are a fixed Cost at 57% of League Gross revenue.

Letís repeat that: Players salaries are a fixed Cost at 57% of League Gross revenue!



Well, no. That's true in a league with a "hard" cap, like the NFL. In the NBA, however, most teams spend more than the cap, and several spend in excess of the (higher) luxury-tax threshold. Maybe the players currently get 57% of revenues, but nothing in the recently expired CBA's structure dictates that players will receive a given percentage of revenues.

That's a big fuck-up, and it calls into question the rest of the article's conclusions, which are in large part based on this erroneous assumption.

The assumption that the league was profitable in 2005 also is a reach. As I noted above, one of the reasons owners buy pro sports franchises is "tax benefits"; those "benefits" take the form of paper losses, which owners use to offset other income. I doubt the NBA was profitable on a GAAP basis in 2005, just as I doubt it's now in the dire situation the owners claim.

#20 moly99

  • 392 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 10:39 PM

Wyc is smart; he knows buying a sports franchise is a long-term capital appreciation play, with tax benefits and a big chunk of "shiny" thrown in (i.e., a sports franchise will underperform an otherwise comparable, less sexy investment). Most of the tax benefits are realized in the first five years of ownership, so the C's ownership group probably is more focused on profitability now than in the first few years they owned the club.

I suspect his prominent role in labor negotiations means (1) other owners respect his business acumen, and (2) he's firmly in the middle of the spectrum of ownership opinion on the key issues. Neither of those things surprises me.



This is the same sort of "bigger fool" economics that led to the real estate crash. If a transaction is going to cripple you financially and you're only able to get out of that bad loan by finding another idiot to take on a bad loan and overbid for a franchise, you are playing with fire. As someone has already posted, NBA franchise values have been stagnant.

#21 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9498 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 01:15 AM

Well, no. That's true in a league with a "hard" cap, like the NFL. In the NBA, however, most teams spend more than the cap, and several spend in excess of the (higher) luxury-tax threshold. Maybe the players currently get 57% of revenues, but nothing in the recently expired CBA's structure dictates that players will receive a given percentage of revenues.


Is this true? I was under the impression that's exactly how the CBA was structured. I've read a number of articles claiming that the league has had total cost certainty for some time because of this issue. There's even an escrow account setup to ensure this 57% mark. Eight percent of players salaries are withheld with the excess over 57% being refunded to the owners. This year that account had $160M in it, which will all be going to the players.

That's just what I've gathered from various commentary on the issue. Is this not accurate? I haven't read the CBA itself.

EDIT - Found it explained here. Put simply, yes - the CBA dictated that players were to receive 57% of revenues. If the salaries that owners had to agreed to (after luxury tax payments and all that) came out to more than 57%, then the excess would be refunded to them from the escrow account. If it came out below that 57% number, then the owners would need to write the players a check making up the difference. The latter scenario had never happened by the way - players had always received more than 57% of BRI and then been forced to refund the owners from the escrow account. That 57% figure was totally locked into the CBA though.



Edited by bowiac, 02 July 2011 - 01:46 AM.


#22 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9498 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 01:27 AM

Unfortunately I don't know how they fix this. It's not fair to make the players pay for the bad loans the owners took out, but what alternative is there?



Have the owners pay? It doesn't really have much real world salience that GAAP allows for the owners to include debt service in their expenses. It doesn't have much to do with the negotiations ongoing here - it's just a PR stance.

#23 javaisfun


  • took the wrong girl to the prom


  • 560 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 03:04 AM

Aren't the players looking for the same exact thing?


Well, no, they know they're going to lose money in this negotiation (see their 54% BRI offer). They're trying to minimize how much.

The article makes some dubious assertions.

For example:

[/b]

Well, no. That's true in a league with a "hard" cap, like the NFL. In the NBA, however, most teams spend more than the cap, and several spend in excess of the (higher) luxury-tax threshold. Maybe the players currently get 57% of revenues, but nothing in the recently expired CBA's structure dictates that players will receive a given percentage of revenues.

That's a big fuck-up, and it calls into question the rest of the article's conclusions, which are in large part based on this erroneous assumption.

The assumption that the league was profitable in 2005 also is a reach. As I noted above, one of the reasons owners buy pro sports franchises is "tax benefits"; those "benefits" take the form of paper losses, which owners use to offset other income. I doubt the NBA was profitable on a GAAP basis in 2005, just as I doubt it's now in the dire situation the owners claim.


The now expired CBA guarantees the 57% revenues. If player salaries do not reach the 57% of BRI, they go to an escrow account which is then distributed to the players.

#24 ElUno20

  • 1430 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 10:04 AM

This 57%, that's of the net right?

Also, I think the players are far more prepared than last time and it wouldn't surprise me to see them float money to the younger guys who need it in the interim. It's something that already happens in sports while guys wait on checks, so I could see them doing it keep this thing going.

Edited by ElUno20, 02 July 2011 - 10:07 AM.


#25 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12076 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 03:19 PM

Is this true? I was under the impression that's exactly how the CBA was structured. I've read a number of articles claiming that the league has had total cost certainty for some time because of this issue. There's even an es
crow account setup to ensure this 57% mark. Eight percent of players salaries are withheld with the excess over 57% being refunded to the owners. This year that account had $160M in it, which will all be going to the players.

That's just what I've gathered from various commentary on the issue. Is this not accurate? I haven't read the CBA itself.

EDIT - Found it explained here. Put simply, yes - the CBA dictated that players were to receive 57% of revenues. If the salaries that owners had to agreed to (after luxury tax payments and all that) came out to more than 57%, then the excess would be refunded to
them from the escrow account. If it came out below that 57% number, then the owners would need to write the players a check making up the difference. The latter scenario had never happened by the way - players had always received more than 57% of BRI and then been forced to refund the owners from the escrow account. That 57% figure was totally locked into the CBA though.


Thanks -- I totally forgot about that escrow account.

If NFL owners can get players to accept 48% of revenues, NBA owners must think they can do a lot better than 57%.

Decertification seems like it would be a potent weapon in basketball, with most players having guaranteed contracts. I wonder why the players haven't played that card.

#26 grsharky7

  • 433 posts

Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:37 AM

How big of a stain would this be on Stern's record if they did lose a season? He has done so much for the league since he came in 1984, but losing a season is the ultimate disgrace. Selig has had the stigma of being the commish when MLB lost a world series, although you rarely hear about it as much since its been 17 years and so many other things have happened in the time span. Stern is on the downside of his commish career you'd have to figure so he wouldn't have as much time to rehab his record.

#27 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 04 July 2011 - 03:12 PM

Decertification seems like it would be a potent weapon in basketball, with most players having guaranteed contracts. I wonder why the players haven't played that card.


Billy Hunter's failure to pursue decertification followed by anti-trust litigation baffles me as well. Why are the NBA players ignoring this potential source of leverage? The legal fees are steep, but they are peanuts compared to the amount of money in dispute. Was some sort of backroom deal made? Were some of the big stars or powerful agents opposed to this strategy? But if so, why?


As for those wishing for a long lockout, be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it.

#28 TheRooster

  • 1771 posts

Posted 05 July 2011 - 02:38 PM

Also, I think the players are far more prepared than last time and it wouldn't surprise me to see them float money to the younger guys who need it in the interim. It's something that already happens in sports while guys wait on checks, so I could see them doing it keep this thing going.



Unless the union already has a large slush fund, this sounds nuts. "Hello, LeBron, this is Billy Hunter, could you send $100k to Avery Bradley?" Don't see it happening.

#29 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6686 posts

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:32 PM

Billy Hunter's failure to pursue decertification followed by anti-trust litigation baffles me as well. Why are the NBA players ignoring this potential source of leverage? The legal fees are steep, but they are peanuts compared to the amount of money in dispute. Was some sort of backroom deal made? Were some of the big stars or powerful agents opposed to this strategy? But if so, why?

They aren't ignoring it. I think they have a pretty good roadmap from the NFL and are waiting to see when will be the right time to pursue it. There are reports that Hunter has the signatures required to decertify.

From reports, the 8th Circuit seems to be suggesting that the bargaining relationship doesn't immediately end with an impasse and decertification. Perhaps he's waiting to see what the court rules before he commits himself to one course of action.

#30 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 7946 posts

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:58 PM

Nate Silver's take on the lockout

Another way in which the N.B.A. resembles baseball, unfortunately, is by having circulated financial data that doesnít necessarily hold up to scrutiny. In 2001, Major League Baseball issued figures suggesting that it had incurred losses of $232 million before interest and taxes; Forbesís independent estimates instead suggested that the league had made a profit of $127 million. But that yearís labor dispute, and the next in 2006, were resolved amiably and with few changes to baseballís economic structure, and years of profits have followed since.

A similar discrepancy exists today between Forbesís estimates ó a $183 million profit for the N.B.A. in 2009-10, and those issued by the league, which claim a $340 million loss. The difference between the two numbers is roughly of the same size on an annual basis as the salary concessions the N.B.A. is seeking.

Even as it stands, however, the Forbes data suggests that the league is still profitable. Its operating income ó revenues less expenses (but before interest payments and taxes) ó is estimated to have been $183 million in 2009-10, or about $6 million per team. The N.B.A.ís operating margin (operating income divided by revenues) was about 5 percent in 2009-10 and has been about 7 percent during the life of the current labor deal.

A 5 percent or 7 percent profit is not dissimilar to what other businesses have experienced recently. Fortune 500 companies, for instance, collectively turned a 4.0 percent profit in 2009 and a 6.6 percent profit in 2010 (both figures after taxes). Profit margins in the entertainment industry, in which the N.B.A. should probably be classified, have generally been a bit lower than that.



#31 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 07:35 AM

They aren't ignoring it. I think they have a pretty good roadmap from the NFL and are waiting to see when will be the right time to pursue it. There are reports that Hunter has the signatures required to decertify.

From reports, the 8th Circuit seems to be suggesting that the bargaining relationship doesn't immediately end with an impasse and decertification. Perhaps he's waiting to see what the court rules before he commits himself to one course of action.


Hmmm... I would expect the courts to defer to the National Labor Relations Board in these matters. That's the scheme that congress adopted. As for the 8th circuit's refusal to enjoin the NFL lockout, that doesn't really help the owners. My guess is that it is the treble damages available for anti trust violatiuons that worry the NFL owners, and the longer the lockout lasts, the longer the damages keep piling up.

These owners are out to break the union, and if Hunter wants to fight back, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

#32 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6686 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 08:34 AM

Hmmm... I would expect the courts to defer to the National Labor Relations Board in these matters. That's the scheme that congress adopted. As for the 8th circuit's refusal to enjoin the NFL lockout, that doesn't really help the owners. My guess is that it is the treble damages available for anti trust violatiuons that worry the NFL owners, and the longer the lockout lasts, the longer the damages keep piling up.

These owners are out to break the union, and if Hunter wants to fight back, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes, in the NFL's case, I'm sure the treble damages worry the owners, but it appears that the 8th Circuit is going to rule that there are no antitrust violations so long as the bargaining relationship still exists, which continues for some period of time following decertification but not indefinitely. Which is probably the one thing that is keeping leverage on both sides.

You might want to check out the various NFL lockout threads for some legal analysis from real labor lawyers (not me!) concerning sports unions, decertification, and the antitrust statutes.

#33 JKelley34

  • 1250 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 12:24 PM

Nate Silver's take on the lockout


Even as it stands, however, the Forbes data suggests that the league is still profitable. Its operating income ó revenues less expenses (but before interest payments and taxes) ó is estimated to have been $183 million in 2009-10, or about $6 million per team. The N.B.A.ís operating margin (operating income divided by revenues) was about 5 percent in 2009-10 and has been about 7 percent during the life of the current labor deal.

A 5 percent or 7 percent profit is not dissimilar to what other businesses have experienced recently. Fortune 500 companies, for instance, collectively turned a 4.0 percent profit in 2009 and a 6.6 percent profit in 2010 (both figures after taxes). Profit margins in the entertainment industry, in which the N.B.A. should probably be classified, have generally been a bit lower than that.


This is confusing. Silver in the first paragraph quotes that the NBA is generating operating profits of 5-7% (before interest and taxes) and then proceeds in the second paragraph to quote net profits for Fortune 500 companies which is after interest and taxes. Very apples to oranges and isn't clear at all to me how that is illustrative.

#34 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 06 July 2011 - 04:22 PM

This is confusing. Silver in the first paragraph quotes that the NBA is generating operating profits of 5-7% (before interest and taxes) and then proceeds in the second paragraph to quote net profits for Fortune 500 companies which is after interest and taxes. Very apples to oranges and isn't clear at all to me how that is illustrative.



That's another reason to decertify and bring an antitrust action. Instead of trading numbers in the press, if the owners cried poor the court could order an audit of the NBA's books, and we would know whose numbers were right.


Look, if you are running a multifaceted business it is easy to book expenses wherever you want to book them. Take the corporate jet. You paint the team's logo on the side, use the plane for legitimate business purposes related to the team (e.g. flying the owner and his entourage to away games) and allocate the expenses of operating the plane to the team. If the owner does other business at the team's destination without apportioning the expenses, that's very difficult to track. This is just one small example of how an owner can make his NBA franchise look much less profitable than it really is. Also, all those business losses create tax benefits (including depreciation on the aircraft) for the other entities that the NBA owner owns assuming he files consolidated returns. To the extent that these "book" losses shelter taxable income from the owner's other profitable businesses, they aren't losses at all.

Edited by Brickowski, 06 July 2011 - 04:27 PM.


#35 th@tkid

  • 312 posts

Posted 13 July 2011 - 09:24 AM

Wait is this true? Ignore the Celtic hopes and dreams here, but if the season is cancelled they still credit the players with time served? That's sort of dumb. But it basically guarantees either Paul or Howard on the Knicks.. :)

Celtics now free to dream about Howard The lockout could be a game-changer in Boston's chances of landing Dwight Howard. For weeks, I have not wavered from my belief that Howard will never wear the Green and White, at least not in these prime years of his career. And the reason is simple. If the Orlando Magic can't re-sign him at some point during the 2011-2012 season, they will surely trade him to the highest bidder. And the Celtics don't have enough attractive chips to be a real player in the Howard sweepstakes. But if there's no 2011-2012 season, that is what we would call a game-changer in the pursuit of Howard. He could terminate his contract and thus become a free agent next summer. This would rob the Magic of having an opportunity to move him and get something in return this upcoming season.


Read more: http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz1RzlATMkM

#36 ZP1

  • 180 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:02 PM

When Stern makes statements like this:

"From where we sit, we're looking at a league that was the most profitable in sports that became more profitable by virtue of concessions from their players," Stern said, "and with an average salary of $2 million. Our average salary is $5 million, we're not profitable and we just can't seem to get over the gap that separates us."


He really must think that the average person at home whom that statement was directed at is utterly stupid. Given that the max roster size in the NBA is 15 versus the NFL cap of 55, it actually detracts from Stern's point when he makes statements like that. The NFL roster size is 3.6667x bigger than the NBA roster size. Multiply the average NFL salary by 3.67 to get an idea as to what salaries would be like if the NFL was as small as basketball, and you end up with an average salary of 7.33 million.

There's arguments to be made in the owner's favor, but being so stupid as to compare average salaries between the NBA/NFL without adjusting for roster size is pretty laughable.

#37 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5463 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:38 PM

When Stern makes statements like this:

He really must think that the average person at home whom that statement was directed at is utterly stupid.


This was a statement made for PR purposes, and yeah most fans will buy that. Stern is trying to sell the concept of 'the NFL players caved and they were making money', he is going to try to make that point over and over. And he knows he can crush the players in a lockout so expect much more of this egotistical approach because thats Sterns standard operating procedure.

#38 ElUno20

  • 1430 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 11:07 PM

I truly hope after the NBA loses its season and stern breaks the players and gets what the owners want that he retires and goes somewhere and dies quietly.

He always got too much credit for what Nike and Jordan did for the league in the 90s and since then he's become a complete ass

#39 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5463 posts

Posted 02 August 2011 - 10:11 AM

I truly hope after the NBA loses its season and stern breaks the players and gets what the owners want that he retires and goes somewhere and dies quietly.

He always got too much credit for what Nike and Jordan did for the league in the 90s and since then he's become a complete ass


I agree that its time for new comish for the NBA. Unfortunately Stern knows he can get whatever he wants if the players start losing game checks because so many NBA players actually live paycheck to paycheck. Its sad that what the owners need is to be saved from themselves. The NFL went a year without a cap and not a single team went crazy signing guys, but year after year NBA teams cant stop themselves from signing average players to above average contracts, and ultimately if they truly have financial issues that is why.

#40 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 02 August 2011 - 07:11 PM

I'd love to see Stern replaced, if only because he has failed utterly to improve NBA officiating. And while the owners are at it, they should fire Stern's equally ineffective crony, Stu Jackson.

But Billy Hunter also has to go. DeMaurice Smith makes Hunter look like a rank amateur. Hunter has been completely ineffective in creating leverage on behalf of the players. And while the players are at, they should get rid of Derek "Uncle Tom" Fisher. When the owners say "bend over," Fisher's response is 'Oh, I'll bend over, but please don't hurt me too much."

As a consequence of the ineffective leaders on both sides, it seems likely that the entire season will be lost.

#41 Beomoose


  • SoSH Member


  • 8596 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 03:35 AM

Just as long as Simmons doesn't get made commish. I mostly enjoy the guy as a writer, but I don't want to wake up to find that there are suddenly 6 NBA teams in Southern California and "Cage Match" is the latest addition to All-Star Weekend.

#42 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5463 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 01:53 PM

Just as long as Simmons doesn't get made commish. I mostly enjoy the guy as a writer, but I don't want to wake up to find that there are suddenly 6 NBA teams in Southern California and "Cage Match" is the latest addition to All-Star Weekend.


I cant believe I am saying this, but I might actually want Simmons to have the job, not that he has the credentials but he would have the correct priorities. We know he thinks the officiating is fixed and awful, so he would address that. He also understands the real financial problem the NBA has, that teams overpay for average players, he addressed this in a recent Grantland article it was issue 4. Now his solution to this problem is overly complicated and flawed, but he is one of the few people who want to address why there are so many average NBA players with horrible contracts. If Simmons fixed these 2 things and didnt change anything else in the league, I would say he would do more good than Stern has done in his entire career. And honestly what would be worse a theoretical 6 California teams or Stern actually allowing the Sonics to be bought and a fan base to be completely screwed over while lying to them the entire time?

#43 Beomoose


  • SoSH Member


  • 8596 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 02:53 PM

... or Stern actually allowing the Sonics to be bought and a fan base to be completely screwed over while lying to them the entire time?

Well unfortunately that water balloon already burst, and after LA, LA, Anaheim, Fontana, Long Beach, and San Deigo have their teams I doubt Seattle's getting one back. There has to be someone out there that isn't a blatantly evil as Stern as as in love with his crazy/dumb ideas as Simmons, hasn't there?

#44 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:08 PM

I received an email today from the Celtics urging me to purchase a "Club Green" mini plan game package. The email from the Celtics' marketing department went on to say "Becoming a Club Green member is the only way to gain access to these plans, so join today and get ready to pick the plan thatís perfect for you!"


It's sad, really.

#45 ElUno20

  • 1430 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:38 PM

It's sad, really.


Not as sad as getting one from...the LA Clippers

#46 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5463 posts

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:28 AM

There has to be someone out there that isn't a blatantly evil as Stern as as in love with his crazy/dumb ideas as Simmons, hasn't there?


Absolutely there are people out there, but I honestly dont know if the NBA owners are interested in addressing these problems. Lets face it, Stern has done very little for them or the league in the past 10-15 years but the owners still support the guy. Nike and Adidas has done the majority of the marketing and star promotion for the league, the dynasties that existed werent Sterns doing [ok he helped a little, like Game 6 Kings/Lakers], etc. Rumor has it the guy makes $20M+ and for that I would expect some steady improvements that lead to increased profitability, I dont see that.

So if they have stuck with Stern for this long, because apparently he has the owners under some spell, I have a feeling once he steps down they will ask him for recommendations and help on finding his replacement. Realistically the search would not be difficult all you need is someone with great integrity [ie improve officiating and the 'one rogue official' bs], ability to lead league with a growth strategy [copy what the NFL has done, plan is already there for you], and have a small understand about sports and the economics of sports leagues.

#47 Nomar813


  • SoSH Member


  • 6309 posts

Posted 08 August 2011 - 01:53 PM

Rondo is still experiencing swelling in his elbow and hasn't been cleared for contact drills, which isn't surprising. Oddly enough he might wind up being the biggest beneficiary of an extended lockout.

If anyone remembers the 1998-99 lockout, the schedule was really grueling and there was plenty of complaining. There weren't just a lot of back-to-backs and five games in seven nights, but also stretches of three games in three nights, which never occurs in a standard schedule. It will be interesting to see how they're affected. FWIW, in 1999 the Spurs won it all as one of the oldest teams in the league.

#48 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5463 posts

Posted 08 August 2011 - 03:53 PM

Rondo is still experiencing swelling in his elbow and hasn't been cleared for contact drills, which isn't surprising. Oddly enough he might wind up being the biggest beneficiary of an extended lockout.

If anyone remembers the 1998-99 lockout, the schedule was really grueling and there was plenty of complaining. There weren't just a lot of back-to-backs and five games in seven nights, but also stretches of three games in three nights, which never occurs in a standard schedule. It will be interesting to see how they're affected. FWIW, in 1999 the Spurs won it all as one of the oldest teams in the league.


Bad news on Rondo, I dont want to think what it could have been like had he played much more with it.

As for the Spurs in 99 while they were the oldest it was a very unique team. They had Duncan, 22 at the time, in his 2nd year and he was playing almost 40 min a game and he was great. Meanwhile they were the oldest team, but their bench and starters that were old were just at that point in their careers where they were still effective playing reduced minutes and Popovich handled that perfectly. This time around if the schedule is as grueling I dont think the Celts will have the depth to manage minutes, nor a young horse to ride, to be as effective as the Spurs were that year. We will probably have to hope they gear the season to being fresh for the playoffs, forget about where they are seeded and keep the veterans as fresh as possible.

#49 Nomar813


  • SoSH Member


  • 6309 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:25 PM

Bad news on Rondo, I dont want to think what it could have been like had he played much more with it.

As for the Spurs in 99 while they were the oldest it was a very unique team. They had Duncan, 22 at the time, in his 2nd year and he was playing almost 40 min a game and he was great. Meanwhile they were the oldest team, but their bench and starters that were old were just at that point in their careers where they were still effective playing reduced minutes and Popovich handled that perfectly. This time around if the schedule is as grueling I dont think the Celts will have the depth to manage minutes, nor a young horse to ride, to be as effective as the Spurs were that year. We will probably have to hope they gear the season to being fresh for the playoffs, forget about where they are seeded and keep the veterans as fresh as possible.

Yeah, it's certainly not the same situation, especially if Rondo can't return to form. How Jeff Green bounces back will be the key to the bench's success and the ability go get the vets quality rest. Of course, it's all moot if there's no season at all, or if by some miracle no games are missed.

#50 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9498 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 01:20 AM

He also understands the real financial problem the NBA has, that teams overpay for average players, he addressed this in a recent Grantland article it was issue 4.


I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but how does this do anything to address the financial problems in the NBA. Lets say all of a sudden the superstars were to swallow up an extra $4-5M/year each, and the JR Smith's of the world were to be paid the appropriate league minimums or whatever. To the extent that teams are actually losing money, this doesn't fix anything, right? It's a zero sum game - so long as the players are actually earning 57% of basketball revenues, and teams are losing money as result, then it doesn't really matter how that 57% is distributed, right?

This problem - the overpaying of mediocrity, is an issue in a league without cost certainty. In a league where cost certainty is both the current reality, and likely to be the future, it seems to me not one of the issues that Simmons raises actually has anything to do with anything. Guaranteed contracts, the rookie cap, the max contract, etc... all of this is just part of shuffling around pieces of a pie. The players would agree to every single owner proposal if they could keep the current 57% figure, and the owners would agree to have fully guaranteed deals with no maximum years and no rookie salary cap at all if they could get the players to agree to only take 45% of basketball revenues.

Simmons is trying to treat the symptoms here without treating the disease (to the extent any disease exists at all).