DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

Should We Get Back Into Gear?

Definitely getting the hopes up too early but I'm right there with you. Very close to buying my 10 game package

In a few words: No, I'm not getting my hopes up.

The Greek on Sep 9 at 21:01

Nope not even close

I'm not sure there's anything to be made of it. Everything has been positive recently, and the players have been leaking stuff and being a bit more free in their comments, but it could still be gamesmanship. Fisher is kind of setting it up so he can say "We were ready to make a deal, but the owners wouldn't budge. It's not our fault."

Talks break off, Derek Fisher says he'll tell players season won't start on time.

Not surprising - it was all bs spin the past week in my opinion - trying to get better public opinion for either side, the same core issues are still the same and no one is budging.

Since many owners save money by postponing (canceling) the season the players need to consider that

Exhibition in Philadelphia on September 25th with lebron, Carmelo and Durant

Mike reply to GoSixers on Sep 13 at 18:13

just got tix! philly team's gonna need to add some big names other than tyreke evans.

I'll be there as well. Assuming it will be the only NBA action I see until January.

johnrosz on Sep 14 at 1:34

for those interested zach lowe from SI interviewed thad young


I was pretty impressed that Lowe knew Lou's dedication to getting 2 for 1. Now we know it's a play called "Go Lou."

Just wanted to let you know that my beloved Macedonia beat Songaila and his mighty Lithuanians in the quarterfinals of the European basketball championship.

If you need a quick high quality basketball fix during these depressing lockout driven times feel free to watch some euro ball :)

I wasn't impressed in the games i saw. The potential is there, he doesn't look like a stiff, but he is still far from truly contributing. Doubt he'll play a lot this season from what i saw in the competitive matches. But as i've said before he can definitely become a very solid backup big man.

Oh yeah, the biggest problem is definitely foul trouble. It's usual with rookies but it's telling that he needs improvement on defense.

tk76 reply to T McL on Sep 15 at 20:10

It is a contract year for Speights- so I would not be shocked if he shows just enough potential to get a payday. Nothing huge, but more than the minimum he'd be looking at now.

Derek fisher email 'leaked' to public

Link not working.

I think this one encompasses the earlier thinga bout fishers email


Sounds to me like they aren't anywhere yet

Here's my weekly piece for SB Nation Philly.


I really need this lockout to end. I'm having serious problems coming up with one post/week at this point. It saddens me to see this blog static for so long, but I just can't bring myself to write some meaningless series of posts or to start talking about what the team needs to do when the lockout ends.

Rich reply to Brian on Sep 16 at 16:14

Yeah, I can't believe you are still pumping out an article a week. Everything I read just takes more out of me.

Tray reply to Brian on Sep 17 at 16:11

I have to admit, and this isn't about you in particular, as I think you generally do a good job, that I've been relieved by the lockout. Before the lockout, I had a habit of reading probasketballtalk and NBA Facts and Rumors, True Hoop, so on, daily - and the fact is, Matt Moore's a lousy writer. So is Henry Abbott at times. It's nice to not read all this junk every day. I don't know why it is, but baseball has way better writers. Not necessarily on the professional level, but in the sabermetric community.

Steve Javie retiring for any interested

Is Bavetta still ticking?


David Aldridge says Speights looked really good in Las Vegas. Don't know if that's a good or a bad thing though...

@KBergCBS: League and union trying to arrange small, high-level meeting, sources confirm

Any news on whether the "Team Melo" game at the Palestra this weekend will be televised or online?


Sports Illustrated will be live streaming it from their website.

Anyone else thought Jrue got a little shafted in this countdown? It's up to #20 or so now, but I think he's probably 10-15 spots too low.


Jrue is top 50 this year (if there is a year, this year). That's way too low.

I don't think Jrue is top 50 yet. But I sure hope he'll be top 35 in 2-3 years. That would put him along the same career arc as Iguodala- but hopefully without the hate.

Not sure if its been posted yet:


Thad Young 5 min interview. Closes with his sales pitch to Dwight to bring his talents to Philly.

johnrosz reply to tk76 on Sep 20 at 23:50

Jrue mentioned Dwight in a Jim Rome interview a month or so back. I like the effort

Jrue toured with Dwight in Europe earlier this summer... make it happen.

I'm surprised there were no comments on this interview. http://m.philly.com/phillycom/db_273122/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=nOBbSLN9

Good to hear he's working out w/ Iguodala. Kind of worrisome that he keeps saying he wants the ball, though. I want the ball in Jrue's hands.

Christ, Chris Paul is on Melo's team too? It would be kind of fitting if Iverson played for team Philly, it'd be like the 2001 finals all over again. Iverson vs. a stacked team.

Christ is playing with Melo? That's just not fair, dude can walk on water, imagine what he can do on a parquet floor. (Will Biff be there too?)

Dan reply to GoSixers on Sep 24 at 13:16

I piss'd. I live next to Penn and I thought the tickets was supposed to be on sale this Tuesday. $35 was a bargain to see this game, now the reasonable prices online are around $600

Check this out from the Oregonian:

"Greg Oden, meanwhile, feels like he'll sign the qualifying offer from the Blazers, play one season, then become and unrestricted free agent. He's not dumb. Oden holds all the leverage now, mostly because the Blazers handed it to him when they foolishly failed to extend his rookie contract."

That was written by a journalist, not Oden's agent. How can you possibly think it was foolish to not extend Oden's contract? Personally, I think it was foolish to give him a $9M qualifying offer. The guys has played 82 games in 4 years, and zero games in 2 of those four years. Basically, he's played two half seasons and he's coming off a year in which he never set foot on the floor. Unreal.


He's also good at basketball. Not saying the injury concern isn't legitimate, but he's more than "just tall".

I'm sure he is good at basketall and if i ever see him play 41 consecutive NBA games in the same season I'll see it for myself - but at this point - he's not worth an extended deal due to his injury problems which have already been recurring and there's nothing to say that they won't keep recurring, just ask bill walton.

The premise that the blazers made a mistake not giving him a long term deal is foolish because Oden hasn't been healthy since his senior year of high school for an entire season

Stan reply to Brian on Sep 22 at 16:36

I really don't think the qualifying offer is a big deal. To me a guy like Dalembert is worth around 9 million a season. Greg Oden may be a risk, but a guy with his talent and age is worth that type of risk. I'm not sure how far along he is with his health but there aren't many good options out there at C.

Bucher reports preseason games are now officially being cancelled

Stan reply to GoSixers on Sep 22 at 19:39

wow, Did not see that coming.

I did

My latest on SB Nation Philly, Lockout update.

I have no idea when LZ Granderson became some sort of sportswriter superstar on both CNN and ESPN (maybe when he outed himself?) but he wrote his view of why the strike wouldn't be huge to him


I enjoy how he spends the first six paragraphs downplaying the effects of a lost season, then says "I don't mean to downplay the effects of a lost season."

Tray reply to GoSixers on Sep 25 at 14:04

I just thought it was funny that he randomly mentions that Maryland girl hitting a shot over Allison Bales as one of the, I don't know, fond memories of basketball he'll cling to in the event of a lockout? I know Bales, as I was one of the Duke team's managers.

If there was an amnesty clause in the new agreement would we use?? Brand? Nocioni???

Hard to imagine either would have that much of an impact, since they are both nearing the ends of their contracts. Although they could target Dwight as a FA next summer if the shed themselves of Brand's contract. Maybe that is the secret plan :)

Gladwell on the Nets


Interesting - footnote one is the philosophy i've been espousing for years - I just use shiny toys instead of art - art is for pompous dillweeds who think hipster is a complimentary word

I'm not sure if anyone else saw Terra Nova tonight, but as long as it's on the air it's going to completely screw up my Google alert for the Sixers.

I saw a part of it while stopped at a friend's place.. they seemed very into it. But I don't get what you mean by interrupt your google alert? Is it really good enough that you'll be reading every article?

It won't interrupt but it will cause problems because there's a 'splinter' group on terra nova called the 'sixers' - just like that stupid australian sports team that gets in the way but it'll happen a lot more often.

Don't worry brian - it won't last more than this season (but due to its high end nature of name and special effects and hype i think it will last the ENTIRE season though a full season of terra nova isn't the normal 23 episodes due to costs and special effects)

I watched it because I've been a sucker for dinosaurs since I could remember, but I don't exactly have my hopes set high for it.

Then again, I can count the number of shows I watch with any regularity on my two pinkies, so I'm probably not an expert on good television.

Good television doesn't matter on networks like fox any more - 18-49 numbers matter, and Terra Nova was not off to a good start - fox has so much reality drivel that scores relatively high in 18-49 that terra nova (with its costs) will have to get much better numbers to get past this season. I think Spielberg guarantees a full seasoon, but this show, like so many others, will suffer the Omara curse.


Decent read on team by team decisions in the event of an amnesty clause in the new CBA.

Especially liked Simmons' take on OKC.

I don't agree w/ Simmons take on OKC. I think they should seriously consider getting out of Perkins' contract. They looked like a much better team w/ either Ibaka, Collison or both on the floor.

Ryan F reply to Brian on Sep 28 at 10:01

Agree. Just found it funny when he said Royal Ivey makes $10 an hour.

Perkins was a good complimentary piece in Boston, nothing more. A solid backup on a good team, or a marginal starter on a decent team. I like what they did in trying to move Green for a more defensive big, but they didn't find the answer for sure. He's out of shape, has no offensive game, and his defensive prowess was inflated by his teammates and the system he played in.

I can't believe they didn't choose Iguodala for us.

What's your take on the latest talk of the lockout? Optimistic there might be a breakthrough today?

I can't believe they didn't choose Iguodala for us.

Maybe they don't think giving amnesty to the best player on your roster who also has trade value is something intelligent?

Ryan F reply to GoSixers on Sep 28 at 11:12

I didn't write that because it would be my choice. I wrote that because nationally, even locally, he is seen as overpaid and a second tier player.

Certainly wouldn't be my choice. I agree with the article.

He's seen better nationally than he is locally - but locally is the worst evaluator of talent and ability in most sports I've ever seen.

NOt a huge simmons fan in general but this made me laugh

e should use the amnesty clause on Charlotte.

Except he's wrong, Charlotte could support a competitive basketball team, however Detroit is a dying city.

Personally, I'd rather see them budge on the rev share than the hard cap. I think the hard cap actually helps the league and makes teams be smarter with their dollars. The rev split doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of the competitive balance of the league.

The argument that the revenue sharing has nothing to do with the players and the cba is kind of funny to me (was that an NBA thing or an NFL thing?)

CBA's are built to protect owners from their own stupidity. A hard cap will not make teams smarter with their dollars, dumb teams will still be dumb, smart teams will still be smart.

For me, the hard cap is more about a way to even the playing field among teams. Yes, Cuban is still going to be much smarter than Sterling, but with a hard cap, Cuban can't use his checkbook to overcome his mistakes anymore. He wouldn't be able to buy a do-over when he signs Brandan Haywood for $60M.

And sterling is still going to spend less to try and maximize profits, not to mention salary caps, of any sort, are anti american

Well, the "flex-cap" the owners were talking about had a floor as well.

The Sixers apparently found their new assistant coach.

Jason reply to Brian on Sep 28 at 18:47

CAA connections make me happy, his son coached VCU for 4 years as well.

I was fooling around on Synergy today and I gotta say that people are right when they say the Sixers don't set screens. I watched about half of Jrue's pick and roll sets and Brand, Thad, and Hawes are particularly horrible at making contact.

Then I watched some of Derrick Rose's and Rondo's pick and roll sets and while it isn't exactly 100 % good contact from their screeners, it's a measurable difference from the Sixer bigs.

Yep, and when the screener doesn't make contact, the defense can do whatever they want. It's a big problem.

HendrikDB reply to Brian on Sep 28 at 17:39

Setting screens is one thing, but the guards/forwards have to take the screen by making shoulder-shoulder contact with their bigs.

Exactly - a screen has to be used after it is set. If the big moves, it's a cheap foul.

So Brian, when was the last time you had one thread stay up top for three weeks?

I can't really remember it going 3 days at any point since I launched the site. This is truly a disgrace, I just can't bring myself to write a pointless series about Sixers of the past or something like that, though.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I'm 100% in on DraftExpress work until the NBA returns to some level of sanity.

johnrosz on Sep 29 at 17:50


good article, I wonder if Hunter will wise up and cut his losses now

Sounds like this weekend is make or break.

"Owners this week relaxed their insistence on the hard cap, instead proposing a system where there would be four levels of the luxury tax, and the more a team spent, the higher that tax. (There is currently a $1 for every $1 over the tax threshold.) But Fisher, without getting into specifics, said that system still wouldn't work for the players."

These bits and pieces that are coming out now are really confusing. I also read yesterday that the owners are still looking for rollbacks, big rollbacks, in player salaries over the next three seasons. If that's true, I think that's a bigger deal than anyone's making it out to be.

I thought the rollbacks were only with a hard cap ?

I'm not sure if they're tied together. Pretty sure what I read was that the owners had budged off the hard cap, but still wanted the rollbacks. Who knows what's going on at this point. I will say that I seriously doubt having Wade and those other players present is helping matters.

johnrosz reply to Brian on Oct 2 at 17:11

Wade is unbearable. They have serious issues with small market teams ability to compete, so Wade suggests that the sport should be completely uncapped. Brilliant...

Maybe he's just not a socialist?

He does play for a small market team

The spurs are a small market team

It seems to me, teams that suck are the only small market teams people are worried about

May have mentioned this before, but I always found it amusing how Euro football was the least socialist sport while the NFL is the most socialist sport in the country that insists on being the champion of capitalism.

I don't know which model is better for the NBA. I think the league has been doing great overall, and the Sixers would eventually be an elite team again. But a more socialistic approach would make that happen faster... Actually, on second though, just a few amnesty clauses would make that happen faster.

Salary caps are put in place to protect owners from their own stupidity. No one made the magic over pay rashard lewis, the moment the wizards SIGNED that arenas deal everyone knew it was a mistake, but now we must have MORE protections in place for the incompetent owners.

Why should the owners be GUARANTEED to make a profit if they can't run their teams efficiently? The clippers suck, but they make money.

Own a team to make money - run it like the clippers -own a team to WIN and run it like the mavericks - those are your options whiny new owners.

As for euro soccer leagues, i don't know how the whole relegation thing works in terms of leagues/money and such, but my understanding is there's a huge 'home town pride' thing for those teams that supports even badly performing ones in the lower leagues, and even then don't they have some 'over spenders' there too?

I enjoy soccer, playing it, but never got into watching it plus so many freaking leagues

Rich reply to GoSixers on Oct 3 at 16:31

Aren't the Clippers more of an anomaly though? Wouldn't Sterling have a much more difficult time making a profit in pretty much any other market?

As I understand it he makes most of his money on revenue sharing and the bonus for being under the cap. It's not like he makes tons of ticket revenue.

Sure he gets 4 sell outs a year be they home or away games (when they play the lakers) but what makes you think it's unique to the clippers. Sterling runs it as a business to make money - not to win

As far as I know, the only revenue sharing is the bonus teams get for being under the luxury tax, and it isn't much at all. I thought Sterling made a ton of money because he has a sweetheart deal w/ Staples and keeps his payroll low.

Oh, and he makes people who he fires sue him to get paid.

I don't know the exact gist of it - but since comcast owns the wachovia center - maybe they could have gotten some sort of profit out of running the sixers like the clippers?

What's the definition as a small market team? The 76ers are the 5th lowest in terms of fan attendance yet they are the 5th most populated city in the U.S.

Portland has a population of 580,000 yet they were 2nd in the NBA when it came to attendance.

I believe the 'small'/'large' market argument is commonly broken down by size of tv market...and you're right, Philadlephia is a large market, but it's not a major NBA city when the team is losing (then again, aside from the knicks, what city is?)

I'm guessing the Sixers the Sixers are worth more in terms of TV revenue, but I'm not sure how that compares in scope to ticket revenue.

Best I could find was that excluding the Lakers and Knicks, teams average (2007):

32M from gate
28M National TV (equally divided with extra cut to St. Louis owners)
13M in local TV
5M in merchandise sales.

Found this strange St. Louis fact:

...So a team like Portland who sells out in a small market probably does about the same as the Sixers, since the local TV contracts are comparatively small. 15% more gate yields about 5M more in revenue, which should make up the gap in the TV deal (and Comcast probably has a sweetheart TV deal anyway.)

This lockout is horse shit. I need basketball.

So does this Eagles team remind anyone of the Sixers? Big leads in the 4th, dominate entire game, and then completely crash in the final minutes.

Rich reply to Gano on Oct 3 at 18:01

Not too much, because the Sixers in my opinion were very well coached and the Eagles at this point are quite the opposite. Then, there is the whole hype and expectations thing. I didn't expect the Sixers to be even mediocre last year, and I thought they were a smidge above average with how competitive they were and how they peaked later in the season.

I do see a similarity in the "strong at some spots, woefully weak at other positions" category.

I've been disgusted by the Eagles the last two weeks and think they are playing a silly defensive scheme that puts the most pressure on the position they are awful at, but I'm not ready to give up on this year yet. The division isn't great this year.


Forgot bout the third, most self serving, group in these discussions

28M National TV (equally divided with extra cut to St. Louis owners)

Dude, I love that, in perpetuity those folks are getting a tv revenue cut for giving up a team that probably woudln't have lasted in the new nba/aba merged league:)

johnrosz on Oct 4 at 23:38

Ken Berger is reporting that the NBA and union are only 80 mil apart annually at this point,and have until Monday to close that gap.

Stern reportedly offered a guaranteed 49% of BRI, with a cap of 51%...players rejected and countered with a guaranteed 51 and cap of 53...

Will they really sacrifice 4 billion dollars this season over an 80 million gap in BRI?

I read elsewhere that Garnett just kept saying no in the meeting and wouldn't compromise at all. I'm kind of wondering how smart it is to have a guy who couldn't get a 700 on his SATs involved in these types of negotiations.

johnrosz reply to Brian on Oct 4 at 23:54

thought the same thing. This isn't the time to have KG, a man incapable of swallowing even an ounce of his pride for the sake of others, to be in the room. Can't we get some more reasonable players in the room if they actually need to be there?

Guy has banked 2 max deals, it's easy for him to say he's willing to miss paychecks. No shit. I think that the middle class players would agree to a 50 50 split.

Dare I say I'm encouraged?

Chris Sheridan and Ken Berger have been doing a great job of covering all this btw. Sheridan's latest is kind of promising...


I think the players thought they need to show their unity and that they are committed to get a good deal for them which is why they brought a guy like Garnett to the talks. They will try to make a deal in the next few days IMO after hearing that informal "50-50" offer from the owners. The question is now, will the owners accept this after being partially humiliated today and even sit on the table with the regular season in mind. This might go the other way round too, the owners may harden their stance and decide the players need to be punished for their way of negotiation (not that i think the players negotiated this badly).

I do believe however that Stern is kind of desperate at this point and that he is losing his credibility with everyday without a deal.

My prediction: A deal gets done very soon at 51-49 (for the players) without salary rollbacks, with a shorter and slightly lower mid-level exception and no biannual exception. They will play a full season but i think the games scheduled to be played in the first week or two will be played at a later date.

I hope the celts wind up playing a bunch of back-to-back-to-backs.


The focus on the BRI is totally a manipulation by the NBA and everyone is buying into it.

The BRI adjustment is only one issue, it's an adjustment of percentages of an already agreed upon 'pie'.

However, there are other major issues that no one is talking about, contract maxs, mins, exceptions, how many and how long, salary caps, ceilings, hard/soft how bad is the luxury tax, revenue sharing.

If the revenue sharing isn't agreed upon how can the base BRI number be agreed upon (and it's not a fixed number folks, because it changes every year)

This is a major conflict, not just the BRI allotment, but by focusing on that the NBA makes it all on the players, it's good strategy.

It's also bull

What do you mean by revenue sharing? If you mean the how the teams will share revenue with each other, that's really not something the union should have any say in. It doesn't even need to be part of the CBA, it's how the owners will split up their piece of the pie.

The union has been talking about revenue sharing like it's some kind of magic bullet, but that's just silly. Under the previous CBA the owners' share was between -$200M and -$300M/year. Split those revenues and you're talking about each team losing $7-$10M/year. Revenue sharing only matters if the owners' total share is a positive number, which is why the split of BRI is the key issue.

Well, the split and the redefining of what constitute BRI (and what further expenses should be included in the calculations). If there's no real revenue to share on the owners' side, then you're just talking about spreading out the losses. How about a revenue share on the players side? Would they go for that? OK, your union is getting $2B/year, split that evenly among all your union members. I'm not sure why a great player should be entitled to $15M/year more than a bad player, but a good team should only be allowed to earn as much as a terrible team.

To the players the revenue sharing matters - so it matters to the negotiation.

The split is just the beginnning because the owners want a contract over haul too - i don't remember hearing them give it up.

Then again, I just heard david stern say that they are going to lose 200 million dollars because of canceling the pre season

Um - who buys that?

From what I heard yesterday on LA radio revenue sharing for local teams is only '25%' shared, so the lakers and knicks keep the majority of what they make by their natural advantages of geography. I think a significant increase in that number (say to 50%) would mean a lot to the teams that don't have massive natural advantages.

Can anyone verify that the NBA players are played on a 12 month cycle as opposed to just during the season? (Gottleib just claimed it on the radio)

For the most part, they're paid during the season, but I'm pretty sure it's an individual thing, written into the contract.

And the -$300M is cumulative for all teams, until that number is positive, revenue sharing isn't going to make a bit of difference. It would just turn even the profitable teams into money-losing endeavors.

Creative Accounting is on the owners side, the government/irs makes really neat rules that allows you to call things losses that aren't actually losses

remember, tax laws favor money, the more you make, the more they are in your favor

That's the union's company line, but even by the union's math (which doesn't adhere to any accounting standards) the league still lost $200M. There's no math that turns it into a moneymaker.

Sure there is

Contraction :)

(It's subtraction)

Does anyone know if this desertification concept really means contracts can be voided?

If so, and the agents get their way, I void every contract if I'm the NBA

A number of agents would be very, very happy if all contracts were voided. It would mean a fresh payday for any client who they signed who was already under contract.

I heard there was a threat of being able to void contracts, my question was whether it was an all or nothing thing. It would be awesome either way. I'd love to see a fantasy draft in the NBA, and the league wouldn't wind up that different. Small market teams would have to give max contracts to third-tier stars to get them to play in their lame city.

I haven't heard anything about it in relation to the NBA, they brought it up in relation to the NFL but it was never that big of a detriment to decertification due to the fact that NFL contracts aren't all that 'guaranteed' to start with.

Depending on how the new league / union agreement went - would everything really end up the same? The Lakers in no way would be able to pay what they pay now - could lebron and wade be on the same team and still fill out a roster.

Was David Stern this apocalyptic publicly during the last lock out?

Really don't remember the last lockout at all.

I doubt the balance of power will really shift because the true superstars will go to the best markets, which are also the richest teams, for the most part. And the secondary markets are going to wind up paying second and third tier stars more than they're worth to lure them.

If you believe it's a star driven league and you need a legit superstar to really compete, then you're going to wind up with true superstars in the big markets and the same have/have-nots.

I believe de-certification combined with contract voiding works to the owners favor. Just my own feeling.

I do think that more super stars may end up in more far flung places because they usually take the most money

Well, look at the math.

D. Williams

Does the superstar list go any deeper than that?

probably Orlando
maybe Brooklyn
Dallas because of Cuban

So you've got those 8 superstars, and really 8 premiere markets. And since every team is starting from zero, there's no financial difference. Small markets can't beat the big markets by offering more money or any other incentives. So it's just a matter of which big market takes which player. Then the Joe Johnson's of the world get max deals from cities like Indy. You can probably add Blake Griffin to that list as well.

The Sixers might fare better in this scenario, simply because I think Collins is a really good salesman, and Philly is technically a big market.

Could you imagine what a zoo it would be, though? I mean, it'd be "The Decision" multiplied by about 50. I'd welcome it. I'd welcome anything tangible at this point. I'm teetering on the edge of just saying fuck basketball.

A. Yes - awesome zoo - and the new owners would immediately show us if the future was something to care about :)

B. I think your expectations of the lock out were unrealistic, I haven't been surprised yet by anything, I still think the whole season will be canned, and it's what I expected from the beginning. Might have to start watching some college ball to find things to write about though?

Orlando is not a premiere market - Philadlephia is a more premiere market than that disney land garbage town

No state income tax. They're one of the teams that can actually offer more money when that's factored in.

Not sure everyone saw this - it's kind of hidden on the front page

Etan THomas (muckety muck in the union i guess) writing from the owners point of view - might give some insight on how the players are acting if you think Etan is writing honestly / intelligently


Stan reply to GoSixers on Oct 6 at 9:52

wow. That was really well written. I did not expect that from him. I don't agree with some of the points that he made but I was surprised to how well he communicated his thoughts.

Obviously you didn't notice he was wearing glasses in the photo attached to the story. glasses = smart.

I mean, he did go to syracuse, so you can forgive a little shock right?;)

the funniest thing yesterday was Rip Hamilton threatening to leave his agent. Like Rip Hamilton has any leverage. I'm sure his agent is sweating bullets that he won't get a commission on Hamilton's next contract, which will be for the veteran's minimum.

Chauncey Billups did it too - and both threatened to take their friends with them.

I think it's a 'show' to demonstrate that in this case everyone knows the owners are self serving shits - they should shut up - the nfl players union decided to decertify for their own good they weren't forced into it by agents. I realize agents are impacted by these things but really - they are the bottom feeders and should shut up and take what they get - go violate some more NCAA rules (ps - nfl/nba - wanna shut down violations in the NCAA? Penalize professional agents if anyone who works for their agency violates the NCAA rules)

A lot of what he said was valid, but some of it was completely out of touch with reality. This particular quote was worrying, in that if the players truly believe the owners feel this way, then this will be a very long lock-out. Because the status quo is broken and will be fixed. But if the players really believe tghe owners are not serious about their belief that the current system is broken then they are blind:
"We know the system is just fine if we can properly run and manage our own teams. We know the general managers and presidents and all the people who actually make the decisions are the ones at fault, but we're going to point the finger at the players for accepting the contracts we give them.

"We will stress that a reduction in player salaries stands as the only way to offset our losses. And we want the players to give us back portions of their existing contracts for the next few years.

"We know limiting the amount each team can pay its players has absolutely zero correlation to competitive balance.

We also know that if teams controlled their own spending, hired the right people to evaluate talent and made better decisions, they wouldn't be operating in the red. But that isn't how we are going to present it to the public. We will divert the attention away from the real crux of the problem."

That is like the UAW or Airline unions saying they should not make concessions when the industry is losing money, and that it is 100% management's fault. But in reality, it is not about assigning blame. When the entire industry loses money then everyone has to take a pay cut.

So if they players really believe that the status quo is viable and by "not caving" they will get to keep the status quo... they show their (not surprisingly) insular/warped view of reality and this will be painful for them and the fans.

I'm not saying one side is "right." Thomas's statement actually sounds fair... but in no way is this the mindset of the owners (which is his claim.) It is what the players believe and it certainly has some truth to it- but for him to suggest the owners share this belief is naive. The financial realities dictate that the players will have to allow the system to be changed to where the league is making a net profit.... just like in every other business. They lack the leverage to dictate otherwise.

Well - many teams ARE run badly and hand out bad contract after bad contract

Giving 80 million to a guy with a knee you know is going to give way and so you can't get insurance - that's just stupid.

Fred reply to GoSixers on Oct 6 at 13:17

But there is so little talent in the NBA. Signing that player with a bad knee to 80 million was probably the best chance for that team to escape mediocrity. 5 years seems like a long time, but if he can give you three good years and take you deep into the playoffs- he has done his job.

Nope - it wasn't - because those knees were going to give out - the fact that they couldn't get it insured should have raised a red flag - it guaranteed an albatross of a contract - guaranteed contracts are awful

I agree that teams are mismanaged and that owners/gms make terrible decisions, but under the current system, that doesn't even matter. Not one bit. The players GUARANTEED 57% of revenues. So if all the owners shaped up and kept their payrolls low, it wouldn't matter. In fact, this past season they did keep payrolls low, lower than at any time previously under this CBA, but the players guarantee made them (a) return the 8% escrow and (b) pay money to the union to get the players share up to 57%.

Whether or not teams make smart decisions on how they spend their money is irrelevant when you're looking at the macro. If everyone made smart decisions and the market wasn't completely out of whack, player salaries would probably be closer to 50% of BRI, and the owners would have to just cough up 7% of BRI in cash to make up the difference.

And teams wouldn't pay the luxury tax and other teams wouldn't benefit it, but bad contracts hamstring a teams ability to try and be competitive

Yeah, competitive balance really is a separate issue from the BRI split.

If there was more competitive balance, more smartly run teams, wouldn't teams be making more money cause fans might show up more int he 'smaller markets' if their teams didn't suck.

Even the NFL has the perpetual sucking franchises and they're the most 'balanced' league out there - stupid ownership is hard to over come (no i don't believe in the raiders, or the cowboys, or the redskins just yet)

I suppose, but how much more revenue would need to be generated for the owners to get into the black? They get 43 cents on the dollar, so by my math, that means BRI would need to increase by $698M, per year, to overcome those losses. And I'm not sure how much you can realistically expect attendance to raise. I mean, even if all the teams are run perfectly you're still going to have bad teams. And you're still going to have a team in New Jersey (for another couple years at least).

Attendance goes up
TV ratings (local) go up
TV rations (national) go up
playoff games - extra tickets
jersey sales go up
season ticket subscriptions go up

Winning has a cascading affect if you can maintain it (no - losing in the first round 3 straight years isn't the same)

I get that sustained winning equals more money, but how are you going to increase the number of teams - total - who enjoy sustained winning, without removing a team who currently enjoys sustained winning? And if the number remains the same, it's just different teams, how are you gaining money?

The only way to do it is to make sure the teams that will make money win or lose are consistently losing, and make sure the teams that only draw when they win are consistently winning.

So make the Lakers, Knicks, Celtics and Bulls terrible and put championship contenders in Philly, Milwaukee, Indy and Washington.

These last 10-15 comments have all been great. I'm pretty sick of reading lockout articles but some real nice points here.

NFL has so many luxuries it's unbelievable. Ofcourse they have great attendance, there are 16 games. And only 13 minutes of action per game. Literally every play has grave consequences. Plus, NFL players are replaceable. It almost doesn't even matter what they put out there, the fans will care and buy their Blaine Gabbert jerseys.

The NBA's strength is in its storylines. It needs strong personalities/rivalries to thrive. That's why it's the only sport where fans consistently talk about things that happened 20-30 years ago. What I'm getting at is that it's very difficult to guarantee anything for these owners no matter the nature of the CBA.

I'm still not sure whose side I am on, I just want to watch some basketball and don't really care who is right or who gets screwed over at this point.

I think you're simplifying and grossly underestimating certain things about football.

It's not like what football is is new - it's milennia old - it's the closest thing we have to gladitorial combat (or was) when you look at the offensive lines - plus there's the gambling aspect - it's a perfect made for tv sport

Then again, i have a sneaking suspicions that the rules aren't keeping up with advances in physical devlopment and at some point someone is just going to die on the field from a fierce hit - the human body should NOT take the amount of impact nfl players do, bu that's just my own opinion.

I disagree with you about the NBA's strength, the nba hasn't changed at all, the sports landscape has, there's more options, the nfl is easy - 3 days a week, sometimes four...

13 minutes of action? Seriously have you watched the NFL this year - the new rules and the lockout have made it offensive galore - it's kind of fun

even if the eagles are pathetic

Walter reply to T McL on Oct 6 at 21:43

You also have to remember that contracts in the NFL are not garuanteed (except for signing bonuses). Expensive players that don't produce can be cut or forced to take pay cuts.

There's also 11 players on the feild at the same time. It so much easier to cover for certain deficiencies.

NFL rookies are much more pro ready than those in the NBA. A low first round draft pick in the NFL is expected to start for you. In the NBA you are lucky if the guy you draft at #17 becomes a rotational player.

Not consistently winning, but at least start the season with a chance.

It's the same thing in baseball - pittsburgh or kansas cit WILL support a team - but not a team that they know is going to come in last (or second to last) with no hope of even making the playoffs let alone winning a round.

The sixers make the playoffs as the 8 seed, as the 7 seed - big deal - no one believe they're going to win, get that hope going and fans start showing up - rightly or wrongly MANY MANY people feel better about themselves when a team they root for is winning

Unless of coursse it's like the raiders - raiders fans are morons and just show up

My question remains the same. How are you going to create more teams with a legitimate chance of being better than a #8 seed without removing some of the teams who currently fall in that category? And if you can't create a higher total number of teams, then how are you going to make a marked increase in BRI by simply increasing attendance.

Dan reply to Brian on Oct 6 at 22:11

Better question- How can you give the #8 seed a better shot at advancing in the playoffs? Fans of those teams who barely make it to the playoffs, don't care about them because they know they won't advance past the 1st round. In that past 10 years I can only think of 2 exceptions.

I believe that you should make it so that only the top 6 teams make it to the playoffs.

or I would make it in this format:

First Round:
#1 vs. #4
#2 vs. #3

#5 vs. #8
#6 vs. #7

After that the best plays the worst, so on and so on....

I know this feels like you're rewarding #5 for being not being good as #4, but I don't care. This makes the playoffs more competitive.

or I would make teams 5-8 play a special playoff contention round (It would be soo much cooler if it was a one and done elimination game)


it becomes
#1 vs. winner of (#5 vs. #8)
#2 vs. winner of (#6 vs. #7)
#3 vs. #4

But then, this has nothing to do with the CBA.

Agree. No one is saying NBA teams are well managed. But if the players getting 50% results in a net loss, then that number will come down sooner or later. The players simply lack the leverage to force the owners to continue to take a net loss.

But my main point was trying to see what the players believe. It sounds like the players believe the owners simply want to squeeze the players for more money. They believe the owners perspective is "We know the system is just fine if we can properly run and manage our own teams."

That is the players view (and maybe it is right.) But if they are negotiating thinking the owners really believe that... then we are many painful months from a deal. There will only be a deal if both parties are approaching this realistically.

Very few players in the NBA have ever approached anything realistically. They've never had to. You don't read one quote about getting a deal done, all you read about is how they're going to show how strong they are. They're bragging about turning down the 50/50 split because it makes them look tough. I'm just so sick of this crap. I'm also sick of hearing from guys who make $20M/year. I'd like to hear what Jodie Meeks has to say about the deal they just turned down flat. I'm also wondering why the sixers Tea Party center is so pro union all of a sudden.

Well he may be an idiot - but he wants a job :)

Thing is - the ones who are going to hurt the most when paychecks don't come in are the ones not talking - 'the middle class' is the one who should be most involved as they are most impacted

Yep. It's because no one wants to hear them talk. They want Kevin Garnett pounding his chest and dropping F bombs in the middle of negotiations. That's a story. Royal Ivey saying he'd like to make a little more money before he's forced to retire isn't interesting.

If the players think Kevin Garnett acting like a bitch or Mr D I can't spell my first name properly Wade being a petulant child is a good idea - go right ahead.

Seriously - Who knew the positions half the guys the NFL players took into the negotiations?

When people debated me regarding relative strengths of unions - i was taking into account atht i felt billy hunter was an idiot running a top heavy (influced) union too influenced by agents

johnrosz reply to Brian on Oct 6 at 18:10

"I'm also wondering why the sixers Tea Party center is so pro union all of a sudden."

Amazing isn't it? I'm sure one day when he's somehow in government he will do everything in his power to screw over unions. Self serving asshole, I cannot wait till he is off this team.

Are tea party members known for common sense? I mean they have some sort of belief they are more 'true' to the constitution and yet with everything they say they demonstrate that they haven't read it (or that reading is beyond their skills)

Spencer Hawes is in favor of what most republicans are in favor of - getting rich without having to work as hard for it as you should - the union helps hawes steal money for being tall and doughy


Evan Turner- I like turtles kid is all grown up


BTW Brian

Terra Nova numbers don't indicate a pending cancelation

And since I was home sick and a sci fi geek I watched it, it ain't horrible

So um - was that Jay-z in a yankees hat that was bejeweled on the adjusting strap?

Dan reply to GoSixers on Oct 6 at 22:17

Adjusting strap? I thought the Yankees hat that he made more famous than the Yankee could were New Era caps. The ones with the gold sticker that didn't have those straps.

I don't know what it is but that 'strap' on the back of the hat (he was wearing it backwards) seemed bejewled

So Brian, how much more viewership have you gotten since the Eagles lost last week?

Maybe you should put up an Eagles post- the name of this website truly describes how I feel about that team.

Good start

They're close enough that I think they'll definitely be a season. But it'll be late-starting and somewhat shortened, because it'll take a month or so before Garnett and Wade start getting drowned out by the 90% of players who actually need the money, and aren't willing to file for bankruptcy over a 2% difference.

I haven't been following too closely, but unless I'm mistaken, Iguodala made the top 35 in ESPN's "#NBArank" -- he hasn't been mentioned yet. (This is where someone will probably say he doesn't belong in the top 500.) Interesting that Iguodala is again held in higher regard nationally (among 91 "experts" in the poll) than locally.

And he does not have a top 35 salary.

Dan reply to tk76 on Oct 7 at 23:45

(next year Iggy will be making top 30, hopefully he can raise his game to that level)

Which brings me to the next point-
Is the NBA going to address this situation or do anything about this?:

Rashard Lewis
Michael Redd
Andrei Kirilenko
Yao Ming
Gilbert Arenas
Vince Carter
Kenyon Martin
Elton Brand
Peja Stojakovic
Brandon Roy
Antawn Jamison
Chauncey Billups
Baron Davis
Al Jefferson
Richard Hamilton

These guys all made more than 12.5 million last year and are crippling their franchises. I do not want a new CBA if something like this isn't limited in the future. What I want most out of this deal is to limit the max years of a gauranteed salary to 3 years.

The players say that is all the owners fault. Which has some truth to it. But it will have to change through either lower salaries for all or less fully guaranteed contracts. And that means the players will "lose" and this will be a long, drawn out labor stoppage.

It is all the owners fault - but that's what CBA's are about - protecting them from their own stupidity.

Welp now that the Phils have made all of us (except for Brian) depressed phans, can we get this thread going again?

I was at the Yanks game 5. Sports aren't being very kind to me right now.

Dan reply to Brian on Oct 8 at 11:24

Yup, I might have to start watching hockey.

I'll probably watch college basketball. Have to find a team worth following this year- any suggestions? I've casually followed Big 5 teams in the past, but none of the squads seem that compelling, especially after how Nova fell appart last year.

It looks looks I will be in center city 1 week a month this winter, so I was hoping to get to some games- but there has to be a season...

Rich reply to tk76 on Oct 10 at 1:34

I would enjoy a big DF meetup because I gotta put faces to names. Last one was snowed out.

They're too close to not settle it. Still may miss some games, or they'll just start the season late, but there will be a season. It's not the NHL where literally no one was watching the games.

Ryan F reply to stoned81 on Oct 9 at 18:43

They will, I'm just hoping it is soon, like tonight. I really need something to read about other than CBA bs.

Um -what?

Last time they decided not to meet because the owners wanted an agreement on 50-50 and the players said no - that was like two days ago - this is all show in my opinion

They're not going to miss a season over 49-51 vs. 51-53 BRI. The might miss a small number of games. The owners could have gone the NHL route if they wanted to, and not negotiate on anything. Instead, they've already given up the hard cap, have increased revenue sharing, and have changed their BRI position from 57-43 (reverse of today) to 50-50. The owners want a season and they'll get one. It's just a matter of when the majority of players tell Dwayne Wade and Kevin Garnett to get out of the room.

Tray reply to stoned81 on Oct 10 at 2:48

Because the owners never really wanted any of that stuff. If they really wanted it, they'd still be asking for it. It was just for show, so they could "concede" it away and look like the reasonable people in the room.

Oh I'm sure they wanted it. They just saw that the players were holding out hard and knew that in order to get the players to agree to it, they'd have to lock them out for a year. The NBA calculated that they were financially better off conceding those items so they could have a season.

This is how negotiations work. That's definitely a concession.

Looks like you were right about it being for show. Nothing happened in like 14 hours of negotiations? Kevin Garnett must be dominating the negotiations.

Coon's article from last week was interesting:http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout

Suggests that by the numbers the players should be motivated to quickly make a deal.

I still get the sense that Fisher is the only guy who just wants to get it done. The rest of the people in the room have other motives. Stern wants to prove to the owners that he can break the players. While Hunter is scared for his job and the other players are driven by ego. In contrast, Fisher is there for the right reasons. He does not stand to make or lose much money and is not trying to save his job. I bet if it was just down to Stern and Fisher they would have made a deal earlier in the month.

The idiot is the writer. I love how he brings up the Eddy Curry contract. Someone should explain to him that the Knicks were making a profit when they were paying him. Profits in the current NBA system have nothing to do with "management quality" and everything to do with playing in a big basketball market (NY, LA, Chicago). Best examples are Knicks and Clippers, mismanaged for years and always profitable.

Except that the clippers aren't mismanaged - i'm so tired of people saying that - OWNERSHIP DOESNT CARE ABOUT WINNING - they only care about maximizing profit and do so every year.

Revenue Sharing won't make people come out to watch the bucks be mediocre or the magic suck (and yes i picked those two teams on purpose cause they gave out REAL stupid contracts as well)

Agree. Bad contracts make you lose games. But if the players get 57% and that results in a net loss for the league then "bad contracts" are not the problem.

Like Brian said before, this past year they gave out less money... and then had to pay the union a lump sum to make up the difference. GM's could all show more restraint in their contracts, and the players will still get the 57% and the league will still lose money. The only answer right now is for the players top take a smaller percentage. Unless suddenly there is a bigger TV deal or higher gate income in the near future. And a strike makes those things less likely.

Good point. I wish the media would quit with the misinformation campaign about "it's the owners who gave them these contracts in the first place." They are in fact required to give such contracts because 57% goes to the players no matter what. But virtually no one seems to understand that.

It's a valid argument when the owners were pushing for shorter contract length, though.

I see your point, but it seems like the players and media bring it up in regard to salary cap and BRI splits rather than contract length.

Welp it's now been more than a month since Brian asked the question, and the Twitterverse sure seems to be saying "Nope, they are now cancelling real games"...

First two weeks down the shitter. At least I've got a 1-4 team to root for in the mean time. Sports blow.

But it's tebow time in denver

I really want to see what Turner's shot looks like. Too bad, hopefully more trips to Henry Avenue then.

Adande's take

johnrosz on Oct 11 at 14:19

spencerhawes00 Spencer Hawes
Call me crazy but where does it say that businesses have a right to guaranteed revenue even when they are continually run poorly? #lockout

His twitter is a masterpiece. I don't even know if he realizes that he's basically speaking out against a revenue sharing program (which the union is adamant about)

Typical Spence, living in his own world. Why do players have a right to guaranteed revenues under the current agreement? I'm sure he hasn't stopped to ask that question.

Just because you put on a nice suit, or a gimmicky UNITY t shirt, doesn't make you informed.

I've watched A'mare talk about the lockout on ESPN today, and it becomes apparent after two seconds of him speaking that he has no idea what he's talking about.

I'm so sick of both sides.

Someone ask Spencer where it says that employees are guaranteed pay even if they don't perform their jobs up to an acceptable level, remind him that it's socialistic that their salaries are guaranteed, no one being fired, no one suffering for poor performance, basically sign your contract and you don't have to perform up to any level and you'll still get paid. He wants to make his one sided comments let's see him defend the players rights to make money even if they underperform.

Ask him if he feels unprofitable teams should be allowed to go bankrupt - oh wait they can't - because of the guaranteed contracts.

Spencer Hawes continues to demonstrate that he's rather a clueless moron, typical of loud mouthed tea party members

johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Oct 11 at 21:39

Another of our players weighs in after someone on twitter was fed up with players trying to curry favor with the fans

robbieiam1 Rob Lee
@thekidet #unitedwestand don't include the middle class who r unsympathetic to athletes holding out for more $$$
9 hours ago

thekidet evan turner
@robbieiam1 with all do respect we all live diff lives and face different things. You don't understand what are finances are like.
9 hours ago


This is where the union is in trouble. The twitter campaign is stupid to begin with, but now you have players trying to gain some sympathy from the public, and it's just not happening. They resort to arguing, and just end up looking like spoiled athletes.

Twitter wasn't around during the last lockout, the players didn't have as many opportunities for their Patrick Ewing moment. Once they start missing checks, I think we're going to see some unbelievably stupid things posted on twitter.

Dear Evan Turner

Learn the difference between are and our

Being a moron doesn't help your argument.

Yew our write.

Clear and irrefutable proof that I must be wrong...

I agree with everything Screamin' A. Smith wrote:

Believe it or not, I'll have a post later today. And it won't be my official retirement from blogging about the NBA announcement...yet.

I was comfortable and it wasn't heavy at all. I am so glad I tried this on.

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment