DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

A Little Talk, No Movement

I think missing games is almost inevitable. The question is how many will be missed? I'm thinking somewhere between 30-40 games. Anything more than that will jeopardize the season and I don't thing either side genuinely want that. The bigger question to me is how many players under contract will play overseas?

user-pic
The Greek reply to KellyDad on Aug 2 at 5:03
+/-

Agreed 30-40 games seems about right. Just pathetic. Gotta give props to the NFL for avoiding any missed games.

I figured missing games was 100%. It's not like the NFL I don't believe. Many (if not most) teams will save money by not playing games (and come on, who really cares if the knicks and lakers lose money really?).


Although Stern is being more than a little disingenuous when he compares average salaries between a league with 40+ players on the roster to a league with 15 at the most.

And you probably are being more than a little disingenuous when you don't factor in the vast difference in money available to the NFL than there is to the NBA. The NFL was splitting up multiple billions of dollars, has huge national (only) tv contracts, and I believe they'll have at least one (Thursday nights) more in the next couple years.

The NBA has filed a claim against the Players saying that they aren't bargaining in good faith. I presume this is a maneuver to force some kind of arbitration?

Which players do you think will file the class action suit?

Gilbert Arenas.

If there is an "Allen Houston rule" put into place next season, is there any point in cutting Elton Brand? I know our cap will go down to $37 million, but the Sixers would still have to pay Elton. Would they have enough revenue to spend an extra $20 million plus the $54 million in salary that they are committed to?

If we lose Elton I don't think we'll be a playoff team and I don't see any free agent out there that could replace his production. Nene, West, and Gasol might but I don't want to be committed to them for the next 3 years.

I wrote about this a couple months back. There's a chance they'd cut him, but it's a really small chance. It would have to be part of something bigger the new owners were trying to do, I'd think.

If I recall properly - cutting a player had no effect on your cap room during the length of that contract right? It just meant his salary didn't apply to a luxury tax calculation?

I personally just want to see the union de-certify, leading to a voiding of all contracts, and a massive free agent free for all. The NFL has been tons of fun this past week

Yeah, last time it was luxury tax only, the speculation was that they'd have to add in an amnesty that affected the cap this time if there was to be a hard cap.

I see the thinking but I disagree with it. I mean it allows bad deals easy escape. If it were me - I'd allow the cut but still leave the team 'at' the cap level as long as the contract would have existed.

It gives an unfair advantage to teams with bad contracts, plus what if you're a team like the lakers? Would one contract even get them to a 62 million (projected) cap number?

Like I said, I believe the hard cap is a red herring equivalent to the 18 game schedule or the NBAPA caring about '2 years' instead of 1.

I think you're wrong about the hard cap. Rolling back salaries was the red herring like the 18 game schedule, but the hard cap is something they're pushing for.

I think it's a red herring mostly because I don't think they can get it, rolling back salaries maybe would be easier to get.

Honestly, the whole guaranteed contract is the thing I'd go hard for. It's ridiculous.

I can't see any way in the world they would pay their best player $35M to not play for them.

Can anyone find numbers on the value of NBA's contracts with TNT, ABC, etc. and when they can be renegotiated?

I'd imagine they are significantly undervalued right now.

As for other sources of revenue: attendance, jersey sales... umm?

I have no idea how they play in here. Attendance around the league is probably a little bit up overall. Jersey sales have to be good, right? Concessions belong to the building owners, not necessarily the team... maybe they get a small cut. Any other revenue sources?

Thinking about it this way, I have to side with the owners. NBA players are a rare thing... you can be in the top 0.5% of basketball players in the world and still not be in the NBA. But that doesn't mean they should be paid beyond their employers' means. This is all assuming the owners' numbers are true and accurate.

As someone here alluded to when Harris bought the Sixers, owning an NBA team today is more like buying a toy than making an investment. With the amount of money these guys have, their true monetary gains come from other areas. Still, they can't be losing.. The players have to be rational.

And Stern needs to take a paycut from 23 million. Absurd to say the league is struggling and take in that much.

Why would you imagine they are significantly undervalued?

It was one season after a season of declining ratings. It's not a trend yet.

What year was it? I can't find the information on those contracts

Yeah, I'm not sure when they signed the TV contracts.

I miss those ABC games every sunday, seems like they do less and less of them since the ESPN/Disney thing.

Okay, just found that the last one expired in 08.. They could be undervalued considering the past year, but you're right... it can't be causing that much of a difference.

http://www.americansportscastersonline.com/abcnbanewdeal.html

This indicates that the tv deals were extended until 2015/2016 and the wikipedia thing indicates 930 million per year (including from NBA TV which seems kind of questionable don't it? Doesn't the NBA own NBA TV?)

close to a billion dollars a year for the NBA TV package doesn't seem an undervalue to me, the problem of course is the local tv contracts which obviously vary in value and that's the crux of the revenue sharing (though honestly, not sure how revenue sharing is the players business, that's between owners).

Not easy to find - but i found this

TNT extended its deal with the NBA in 2007. TNT's NBA contract is up at the end of the 2015–16 season, financial terms between the NBA and TNT were not disclosed, although the NBA will receive $930 million per year from all of its broadcasting partners (ESPN, ABC, ESPN Radio, and NBA TV).[11]here

I don't see how anyone can side with the players in this. The NBA is a for-profit league. Why would they continue to operate at a loss? Most businesses would just Chapter 11 it, which would result in throwing away all labor contracts. The players should be grateful the league is even willing to negotiate. In any other industry, a third of the employees would get laid off when the company is in the red.

What exactly are the concessions that owners want the players to make?

smaller slice of the pie, no more guaranteed contracts, rolling back current salaries, hard cap. That was essentially their first offer.

They backed off that, down to shorter guaranteed contracts, smaller slice of the pie, flex cap with some exceptions, no rollback of salaries.

They also want a second year of college - and the NBAPA is fighting it which I find foolish.

The NBA also (I believe) wants to work out so guarantees aren't 'fully' guaranteed

I think the players are fighting the 2nd-year thing just to concede it later in return for something from the owners.

I don't know exactly what the owners offered, but I thought it amounted to maintaining fully guaranteed contracts.

I think the players are fighting the 2nd-year thing just to concede it later in return for something from the owners.

And I think the hard cap was a similar red herring

I don't think I ever read about the owners asking for the 2nd year of college. Do you have a link to that?

It's been reported various places

This came up first on the swagbucks search

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/32528/nba-players-union-wants-lower-age-limit

That link says the opposite, that the players want to roll it back to zero college years. Doesn't say the owners want to extend it to 2 years.

http://getbuckets.fantake.com/2010/10/10/why-the-nbas-unfair-age-limit-should-be-extended/

It's been reported more than once on various media outlets, because the players have said they'd fight it. I think stern really wants a second year, and I think the players couldn't give a crap. Not really, that whole 'roll it back thing' is just more posturing.

That's from October of last year. I'm talking about it being in the details of the proposal the owners presented to the players immediately prior to the lockout. I'm pretty sure adding a year of college on wasn't in it.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif