DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

Pressing Questions - July 29, 2011

As I understand it, owners lost leverage because they would lose 200 million per preseason game, while the players barely lost anything for those. Is the same true in the NBA?

Does missing a game for the owners equal missing a game for the players? Would be interested to see a breakdown of when either party begins to have a disadvantage. I'd imagine the margin is a little more even in the NBA, depending on when/how often the players are paid in a normal season.

It's true for some teams in the NBA, like the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls and Celtics. But there's a reverse incentive for 22 of the teams (if that number is accurate). They're losing money if they do play games under the old CBA.

The players start losing money as soon as the regular season starts and their paychecks don't arrive.

NBA won't follow suit unless the players get good advice, meaning "take the deal." I don't understand how the NBA players can think their situation is anything like the NFL. The NFL owners were all making profits, and the NFL players had already caved on every big issue (hard cap, no guaranteed contracts) long ago.

When 2/3 of the NBA teams are losing money, the players have zero leverage, and nothing will happen until they wake up and realize that. I'm hopeful that Billy Hunter isn't a dumb as he pretends to be, and we'll have a season with a handful (but minimal) games missed.

Here's my piece on the lockout from SB Nation Philly, check it out.

Sorry it's off topic, but I couldn't resist: NNAMDI!!!!

Pretty unbelievable. I actually don't want them to trade Asante. I'd love to see those three guys in a nickel with Romo trying to find someone on 3rd and 10.

I'm with you. Keep Asante! I feel like Rodgers-Cromartie could play safety, dude is big.

He's tall, not big.

Backing up my dear friend GoSixers, I don't think this team would contend if it added Howard. 50 wins might be a little pessimistic, but 54 and losing in the second round, ECF at best, seems right to me. Miami and Chicago have great defensive teams too, and better offensive talent. In Miami's case, vastly better offensive talent. I know certain Miami players seem to have some emotional issues, but it's been quite a while since a team as offensively ordinary as that one would be won a championship. Perhaps if Turner really came along, I could see that panning out.

Miami and Chicago would have an extremely hard time scoring on the Sixers with Dwight in the middle. Miami had a pretty hard time scoring on them for long stretches with Hawes in the middle. I could see 60+ wins and a title if everything breaks the right way, I could also see less than 55 and a second-round exit. You can also say the same for every other "contender" right now.

Tray reply to Brian on Jul 31 at 13:42

Miami will almost certainly never lose in the second round with the team they have. And they'll improve that team one way or another, no way they stand pat with that iffy supporting cast.

Definitely a definitive statement. Especially considering it should be easier to improve a capped out team with a hard cap.

There won't be a hard cap

If this lockout ends w/out a hard cap (and that "flex cap" is really a hard cap), then the weakest union in major sports has again won in labor negotiations.

That presumes that the union wanting a hard cap was a real bargaining chip - like the players 'fighting' a second year for the one and done rule or the '18 games' in the NFL

Smart negotiators start asking for more things than they actually want, so they can give stuff up and make it seem like concessions.

deepsixersuede on Jul 30 at 6:43

I hope the sixers new owners read the papers and take a walk around town to get the buzz that is going on with our other pro teams and can come up with their own splash in a year or two.

Never has a day better summed up how terrible weak the Sixers are as compared to the other major Philly teams.

The Phillies acquire the big name player they want... again. They use Houston as a feeder team and have the biggest names knocking down their doors to play in Philly. The Eagles get continuous national headlines by signing the biggest name guy (that they don't need.) The Eagles have gotten national headlines by tradeing away their back-up QB, signing a back-up QB and now acquiring a big name CB when they already have 2 recent pro-bowl CB's. While the Sixers remain an irrelevant, cap locked, mediocre team in a league that looks to be heading towards a lost season.

As a Philly born sports fan I am painfully aware that by passionately following the Sixers I clearly chose the wrong horse. It is comical to me how some Eagles and Phillies fans complain about their teams (anti Banner/Reid/RAJ/Manuel) as opposed to what has been the slow motion train wreck happening at Chilis for years. I'm not saying the other teams are should be immune to criticism- more that the Sixers organization as compared to the rest of the team is almost akin to the Globetrotters vs Generals but with real teams.

At least there are new owners and there will eventually be a new CBA. But the reality still exists that Philly essentially has the Yankees, Cowboys, Red Wings and the Clippers. How the heck did I chose the Clippers as the one to follow?

The Cliff Lee trade to the mariners was worse than anything the sixers have done in the past 5 years imo. I still haven't fully gotten over that trade.

They fixed that one.

Agreed, the Cliff Lee trade, I think, might have been the worst trade of all time, in the history of American sports. Lee had just come off of an incredible WS performance, was still fairly young in his prime, was only due $8M in 2010, and was literally thrown away for absolutely nothing (complete garbage prospects). It's amazing to think that we gave away two top-50 prospects for a guy with 11 home runs, but got zero top 100 prospects for Cliff Lee.

The fact that the Phils corrected the trade by signing Lee doesn't make the trade any better. It actually makes the trade appear even dumber, because the whole reason Amaro made the trade was he decided on his own that Lee wasn't going to stay in Philly, he was going to go anywhere to the highest bidder. That was completely wrong, making the trade even more idiotic.

I don't think the Pence trade is really something to be envious of, personally, but I get your point.

Of course, it wasn't that long ago that the Sixers signed the best free agent on the market when no one thought it was possible. Didn't work out as expected, but they did get a guy to choose them, and take a little less money in doing so. I guess take solace in that and hope the next time it happens, they get the right guy (and he stays healthy).

Two top 25 prospects (ala keith law) for Hunter Pence?


The point was not whether the trades have all been great. The point is that certain teams are high profile and make major moves yearly to win. Cuban tinkered until he got a title. The Lakers make major moves every couple of years to stay on top.

The Eagles, Phillies and Flyers are all in that class. The Sixers are not- they only change their coaches yearly. But maybe new owners changes things.

Eh, it's cyclical. The Phils were absolute garbage for years to the point where they were a feeder franchise. If anything, what they've done should show you that it's possible to go from a have to a have not with smart management and front office decisions.

It's a lot harder to make trades and sign free agents in the NBA. Phillies can sign/trade for anyone they want because there is no salary cap. Eagles can sign anyone they want because there are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL, just dump your current players to get under the cap and add new ones. Also, players in the NFL aren't picky about signing only with teams in glamours cities (NYC, LA, Miami) like players in the NBA are. As for the Flyers, they just threw away their best players. I don't see how that makes them high profile. The only reason they are high profile is Philadelphia is one of the only cities in America that has a hockey fanbase.

To respond to the original post.

No, they won't get it done without missing games in my opinion. Because they happened at the same time everyone wants to compare the NBA situation to the NFL situation. They aren't similar. The NBA situation compares more to the last NHL labor negotiations, and that resulted in an entirely lost season.

The NFL thing wasn't about how business is done, mostly, it was about how you carve up a ginormous financial pie. A few tweaks to retired player treatment, rookie salaries, etc...but really it was about 9 billion dollars, who got what, and for how long. (Yeah yeah, owner revenue sharing was involved, but that had nothing to do with playes as much as big cities versus small cities in terms of team)

The NBA isn't just about money, the owners want to make radical changes to the existing system, they want to overhaul the way the NBA works. That's not tweaks to an existing system. The NBA wants to break it down to the foundation and rebuild it from the ground up.

And, honestly, another difference is that as opposed to all the public posturing, Goddell and Smith were both negotiating the first CBA for what is truly Americas Game and wanting to set their 'legacies'. I believe David Stern wants his legacy to be the man that broke the weakest of the 3 major sports unions into little pieces. This isn't akin to the NFL lock out - it's the NHL - and if they miss an entire season I wouldn't be surprised, becuause in the end - the owners mostly likely are going to get what they want.

You've said a bunch of times that the NBA players' union is the weakest in all sports. I'm not sure the facts support that. They still have guaranteed contracts, and the current CBA had them getting such a big piece of the pie that the owners couldn't even make money at the height of league-wide revenues. The banned substance policy really has no teeth compared to baseball. Players reach free agency much earlier than in baseball (though it takes longer to develop in baseball, but still).

If anything, the NBA owners have been the worst group of owners of the three major sports (The NHL is akin to the WNBA in my mind, no need to even bring them up in the conversation).

I mean, if they're really the weakest of the unions then maybe Stern's legacy will be getting a CBA in place that shows he can, for once, out-negotiate them. His track record to this point sure isn't good.

Compared to the NFL and MLB - yes I think the NBA players union is the weakest (I don't consider the NHL because at this point - if you can't get a tv deal beyond 'versus' and a couple games on nbc which seems to be dealing sports away left and right while it throws billions at the olymipcs - you aren't any more important than bowling).

The major league baseball substance abuse policy came into affects because they were called to congress. Did you see a lot of NBA players called to congress. I"m not getting into the BS about PED's and the fact that there's very little evidence they actually help you play your sport better.

The NBA players union put up a fight on marijuana testing - that shows me where their priorities are.

Arguing about marijuana shows they're perhaps misguided, but I still don't get how you can say they're the weakest when they're getting such a huge percentage that the owners can't turn a profit. I mean, the league lost money for the entirety of this past CBA while the players got fat off their 57%.

Yeah - 57% of BRI - which from limited research I've read isn't the same as 57% of gross revenue - the NFL Players at 50% are still getting a larger share because I don't think there's as much 'restriction' on that money.

The players stance to me indicates that they aren't facing the reality of the fact that even with this 'great' season - their popularity is going to wane sooner rather than later - no one cares that dallas won - they care that lebron lost - how long can that last?

The NFL was motivated to settle quickly because they lose MILLIONs even during preseason games.

Numerous reports are that numerous nba teams would profit from an extended lock out.

Like I said - if they play games this season at all I'll be surprised.

PS - commissioners make WAY too much money

MLB union is the strongest, I would agree with that. But I don't see how the NFL union could be considered stronger than the NBA union. The NFL union has no strength whatsoever. Anything the NFL owners want, they get, because the NFL proved it can make a profit with replacement players when the union went on strike in the 80s. Thus the players have zero leverage on virtually anything. Once it was clear the appeals court would rule against them, the players basically folded on all the money issues they were debating. And the NFL players gave up guaranteed contracts long ago, well before such a thing was ever even a consideration in the NBA (and Stern even kept guaranteed contracts in his offer to the players in June).

The problem is that (to me) the NBA Players 'union' isn't a union (let it be said - in general - i think unions have long outlived their usefulness in many areas - for instance - detroits a dying city because of unions)

It's a group of guys in a club but it doesn't function as a union, the players aren't as involved as much as in baseball - or in the nfl -a nd i think they fight the wrong fights - the mairjuana thing was asinine

Also - the players in the NBA aren't facing the reality - there's only so much sports money to go around - when the NFL sells the Thursday night 16 game package (they will folks) - that's money coming out of the NBA's package - if ESPN decides they want to put thursday night football on abc - do you think they want to waste money on the nba too?

The players don't seem to know how to negotiate.

Owners - we want to make massive changes
Players - we don't want to change a damn thing - and we won't compromise

Billy Hunter has never impressed me as a smart man

Yeah, I agree that they don't seem very focused, or particularly smart for that matter, but they do have pretty much the best deal of the three. Like I said, it probably says more about the ineptitude of the owners than the strength of the union, but they did get the best deal.

Which, as you said, gives Stern motivation to bitchslap them into eternity.

The primary point of my original response (which probably was buried by my rambling, - gotta work on that) was that I consider this more of an NHL style 'overhaul' than the NFL dispute which wasn't about how business was done so much as about how much the players got from the 9 billion pie.

The NBA is more about the fundamental set up of how the league is run than just splitting up the cash

(BTW - I tend to be more in favor of ownership especially in leagues that have guaranteed contracts no matter how much you suck after you get your free agent deal)

Agreed on this being much more like the NHL negotiations than the NFL.

I know everybody has been seeing the frenzy that is the eagles and phillies right now and my question is for you guys is if and/or when the nba comes back do you think the sixers fo needs too make a big splash of some sort in a trade too at least stay relevant as a sports story the city.

i personally do think something big will happen because the eagles, phillies and yes the flyers our positioning themselves as power houses in there respective sports while our beloved sixers tell us too have patience.

johnrosz on Jul 30 at 18:36

At least it looks like we will all be enjoying some quality Eagles football. Andy Reid is finally going to get his ring, and the moronic Philadelphia fans that have tried to vilify the greatest coach in team history will be forced to bow down to the fat man in all his glory.

He's vilified for his in-game management, which I believe deserves the vilification. He once called a timeout, then challenged a call and lost, which cost him another timeout.

Rich reply to stoned81 on Jul 31 at 18:59

He gets vilified for wayyyy more than that.

The only warranted criticism is timeout management and parenting skills.

Rich reply to Brian on Jul 31 at 20:42

Agreed, as long as challenges are a part of timeout management, which I assume it is.

do the sixers need too make a big splash too help the team with the sacrifice of abandoning your game plan now. The sixers game plan is too have have collins develop the young guys and bring out the talent that they all have. that is all fine and good, but what i am saying is the eagles and phillies have a aggressive win now or go home philosophy and it seems like the city has embraced this game plan and the nation has also been captivated at what they are doing.

The question is do you think the fo has too change there current game plan too keep from losing relevence from the phillies and eagles by changing there game plan too what the sixers, phillies and flyers have currently. The phillies, flyers, and eagles all might win a championship within the next year or two, the sixers we all know will not come close too a ring in a year.

The sixers probably wont be looked at as a contender for at least 4-5 years, in that time we might see 3-4 parades by then with none of them by the sixers. the sacrifice would be trading away young talent like jrue and/or turner ect, like what the celtics did. yes it would hurt too see them go but if we had the same strategy as the eagles we would also compete now for a ring.

the question is should we develop this strategy for the sake of losing relevance.

What really impresses me are the trades that the other Philly teams make. They come from a position on strength and they really make out well. Thorn better take notes, because if the day comes and he has to trade Iggy, he better get some nice assets.

"What really impresses me are the trades that the other Philly teams make. "

That's where the difference is, the eagles and the Phillies both got to a position of strength from being a bad team by having a plan and building towards a position of strength. The Sixers haven't really done that and continue to try and put together makeshift teams in hopes that it will work out. In order for the sixers to ever be making deals like the other philly teams are they are going to have to do what the phillies/Eagles did and first to get into a good position.

I think people seem to forget the rules in these leagues are different. There's no 'matching' requirements in an MLB trade, you don't have to have salaries within 25% if you're over a cap, there's no cap. You got a desperate owner with a bad gm looking to dump parts you can dump prospects that might or might not ever pan out (and if it's ed wade, include a guy who might be a reliever and he's happy).

As far as the eagles making 'trades', the number of nfl trades this off season is kind of an aberration - there usually aren't a lot of trades

The sixers haven't made any blockbuster moves, that's true, but saying just because the phillies and eagles have it makes the sixers lesser ignores the differences between how the leagues function.

All i am asking is should the sixers change there game plan too what the eagles and phillies are doing. we all know the rules are different ect ect but 3 major sports teams in this area have a game plan that philly has embraced and the question is should the sixers change there game plan too keep from being cast into last in league attendance.

im not saying i dont like there current game plan but they are quickly losing relevance as a sports team in the philadelphia market.

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment