DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Lockout Update: Get Over Yourselves

Stephen A Smith talked about how if they had the superstars instead of 'no names' (Including chris paul in the no names) that somehow the negotiations would get done sooner.

Stephen A Smith is still a moron - but ESPN LA has given him a radio show

amare on with colin cowherd (torturing myself at work is my new way to get through the day) - starts off with a questiona bout the bad middle contracts - amare's answer 'get better gms' - cowpie agrees

It's all so pointless. These guys are complete idiots and it's bad enough they're going on interviews half-cocked to spread their idiocy, but these same guys are in the room during negotiations.

I don't like the owners, but I do agree with them when they say players' contracts should be for 3 years.

I don't

I believe they should be non guaranteed. The NFL gets it more right in my opinion

What about lebron james, or kobe bryant, or chris paul, why shouldn't teams be allowed to sign the stars as long as they want.

it's the guarantee that screws teams - remove the guarantee

Guaranteed contracts are a pox on sports and performance

Yeah I don't have a problem with that at all. I was going on the premise that the owners had already said they wouldn't take away the guarantee. I think it's fair for the players too because if they outperform their first contract they can get a better deal sooner.

Players starting their own league - funny

Where did you read that?

Oh no - didn't read it anywhere - amare suggested it as a possibility on a radio hit yesterday - he was doing the 'car wash' at espn yesterday for god knows what reason

user-pic
johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Oct 12 at 16:13
+/-

A'mares espn campaign was kind of embarrassing. He was mailing it in like it was a post game interview. It was apparent after 30 seconds that he hasn't bothered to educate himself on the issues. You would think a self proclaimed renaissance man would know the facts.

"Keep the idiots out of the room (if you must, use a 700 on your SATs as the litmus test for admission)."

A 700??? If you want to keep idiots out, the minimum should be 1400.

Yeah, that was kind of a jab at Garnett, who couldn't manage a 700 for college eligibility. 1400 is a pretty high standard, though, at least it was back when I took the SATs. What's the max these days? It was 1600 back then.

Yeah, back n the day 1400 was higher than the average Ivy entry score. Back when I took it I accidentally skipped a question early on, which shifted every answer off by one. It would have given me a sub-Garnet score had I not caught it with 15 minutes to go. I still can't believe they let me refill out the answer sheet after time expired.

Where I live now (Midwest) no one even takes the SAT. ACT instead.

Really, don't remember if the ACTs were around back then. I do remember achievement tests though, do they still have those?

I remember achievemnt tests. Was that to place out of a subject in college after taking an A.P, class? If so, I think they still do that.

The ACT has been around for a while. It's use looks like a presidential election map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_(test)#Use

My understanding was that the ACT was easier than the SAT's back in the day

user-pic
Cin reply to GoSixers on Oct 13 at 12:03
+/-

As if the SAT's weren't easy enough. An acquaintance of mine scored a 1740 after being several years removed from high school, and even then only having graduated up to the 9th grade. He also didn't study. In high school they should start prepping students for the GRE's instead.

No these were something different. It was just like the SATs, except limited to a specific subject. I think I had to take three: Math, English and U.S. History. Each was scored out of 800.

user-pic
Tom reply to Brian on Oct 12 at 17:03
+/-

It's out of 2400. (800 reading, 800 math, 800 writing). So that means the minimum you can get is a 600. Back when I took it (5 years ago) colleges only cared about the first two scores.

1400/1600 is a high standard, even I couldn't score that high. You have some pretty educated trolls on this site.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to Tray on Oct 12 at 16:10
+/-

If the benchmark were 1400, Stern and Silver might be the only ones in the negotiating room

Brian, your idea sounds reasonable. But I don't expect that counts for much in these negotiations. It's all about power, ego and money. No one is trying to come up with a reasonable solution.

Can someone tell me what percentage of the revenue the players get in the NFL, MLB and NHL?

The NFL is pretty complicated. Ends up being close to 50/50:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Details-of-new-NFL-collective-bargaining-agreement.html
" Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of “all revenue,” a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue.

· Beginning in 2012, annual "true up" to reflect revenue increases or decreases versus projections.

· Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.

· Player share must average at least 47 percent for the 10-year term of the agreement."

NHL:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366

"The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion."

THe interesting thing out of all of that is the NHL's 'variable' share based on league income - i wonder if the NBA will end up with something like that

MLB does not have a salary cap, so there is no defined division of revenue.

As of 2008 the players took home 52% of league revenue:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/12/20081215/Labor-Agents/MLB-Players-Share-Of-Leaguewide-Revenue-At-About-52-Percent.aspx

That same article states that in 2008 the other leagues broke down like this:

"Under their respective collective-bargaining agreements, NHL players received 56.7 percent last season, NBA players about 57 percent and NFL players about 59 percent."

Those numbers have come down a lot with the new labor agreements. I'm sure the changed economic landscape had a lot to do with it. Possibly the Supreme Court becoming more conservative has also impacted negotiations.

I just wanna get back to talking about hoops.

So, do you think Wall separates himself to be head and shoulder better than Jrue this year (or at least puts up huge numbers?)

I think Wall puts up big pts/ast/reb numbers, but he's wildly inefficient doing it and the team continues to lose a ton of games. I'll be shocked if he ever breaks out of that mold, to be honest.

user-pic
Rich reply to tk76 on Oct 12 at 22:36
+/-

Interesting question. David Thorpe, after ESPN voters ranked Wall #40 (40!) in the league, this year, when I think Jrue was like 80th:

"Embarrassingly too high. Seriously, I'm almost concerned that some of our voters just chose guys based on popularity and speed (Wall would score well in both). There is no metric available that would rank Wall as a top-30 backcourt player. He's going to be great as he learns to modulate his speed and set players up in more complex ways; he's got All-Star potential, without doubt. But a top-40 player right now? No chance."

In Wall's rookie year and Jrue's second year, Jrue scored much more efficiently, the assist to turnovers were slightly in Jrue's favor but the difference is fairly negligible. Jrue made a little bit of a jump between the two years, but remember that Jrue also was in a horrible spot under Eddie Jordan as a rookie.

What I found interesting is the hype surrounding Wall's defense. In iso sitautions, per Synergy, he gave up 1.03 points per possession. Jrue, who struggled mostly in pick and rolls (as the numbers bear out) because of a systematic approach, only gave up .83. That's a big difference, and something to look at because of the amount of times people went right at wall in iso spots.

My feeling is that people see Wall's speed and athleticism and just drool over what he could be. He's going to need a very big jump to become a better player than Jrue.

Sixers players on that ESPN list:

Iguodala 34
Brand 62
Holiday 83
Young 84
Turner 171
Williams 173
Nocioni 197
Hawes 219
Speights 236
Meeks 274
Kapono 339*
Battie 362*
Vucevic 391
Daniels 400*
Brackins 454
Allen 500

I think with a few exceptions the list is fair. Holiday deserves to be higher, but not by that much at the moment. He still needs to improve. Turner ahead of Lou is interesting and while i agree with it, i am stunned the "experts" agreed with that too. Meeks at 274 is the biggest shock IMO. He is certainly better than a 10th man on an average team. He is at least 70-80 positions lower than what i expected him to be...

Turner ahead of Lou is a joke. I may not like the guy, but Lou should be much, much higher than that.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Oct 13 at 13:57
+/-

Agreed on Lou and Turner, especially because it is this current year we are talking about.

Meeks also proved that he should be higher than Speights, Nocioni (It's a joke how high he is) and Hawes. He could be higher than Turner, who probably got the same "benefit of a huge jump" that Wall got.

I'm not as mad about Jrue's ranking in terms of positioning than the fact that people think Wall and Jennings are that much better than him right now.

Does the list take into account defense? Because if yes, Turner is head and shoulders above Lou. They shoot the same percentage on offense, while Lou doesn't even try on D. Not a contest in my opinion.

Meeks at 274 is just confirmation of what I said about him all year. He was extremely overrated by most commenters here because it's been so long since we had a 3-point specialist. The fact is he shoots 3's and does nothing else. Guys like that are a dime a dozen. Except Meeks isn't even a top 3-point shooter:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/bycategory?cat=Fielding&conference=NBA&year=season_2010&sort=22&qualified=1

Very cool that you got interviewed for the Inquirer Brian! My only concern is now that your blog is going mainstream, I think I'll have to change my username :/ ... any suggestions, all?

user-pic
Rich reply to stoned81 on Oct 13 at 0:09
+/-

Hawes4Prez00

hahah that is great. I think I need to somehow add Vucevic to the name, since I dig the guy and he's hated as much as Hawes. Maybe HawesVuc4PreznVP?

DeceptiveQuicknessFTW

Haha thanks that is good. Still thinking!

Terry is #55
Jamal Crawford is #76
Thad is #84
Lou is #173?

Those are some of the premier offensive 6th men. Sure you an say Lou is the worst of the bunch... but not that much worse. I understand why people hate Lou's game, but still...

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Oct 13 at 17:01
+/-

maybe they saw some of his rap videos

user-pic
Rich reply to tk76 on Oct 13 at 17:19
+/-

Yes, Thad is definitely not 90 players better than Lou.

Stefanski might be headed to Canada. Who do you want the next GM to be?

What would be the next 5 moves you would make if you were hired? (assuming cap stays the sane and there is no Allan Houston rule)

The next GM is already in house.

That's what I thought - Stefanski hasn't been the GM for a while has he?

Thorn or Dileo?

user-pic
Jumaine Jones reply to tk76 on Oct 14 at 17:38
+/-

Joshua Levein. The guy who ran the Kings.

Joshua Levin didn't run the kings

I guess I did not consider him "in-house", since he is part of the new group. But That was who I assumed would be GM.

user-pic
Da Jruth on Oct 14 at 9:43
+/-

Well go ride your damn bike

Anyone see that cooney blurb on philly.com? Sixers sale is official now.

Should be announced tuesday or wednesday officially.

But yes, I can confirm it's been agreed to.

Anyone see in the Cooney article that Iguodala was, in fact, going to be part of a trade on draft day but the new owners vetoed it?

Wonder a) who the trade was with b) if they vetoed it because they want Iggy long-term or just because they thought they should wait until the new CBA/season...

user-pic
Dan reply to Stu on Oct 14 at 20:52
+/-

Probably to Toronto in exchange for Jose Calderon

I have a bad feeling that the Sixers might extend Thad to a big deal and then trade Iguodala for garbage to make sure that all of the salaries fit their budget.

...don't we still have no idea about their budget or anything they think about the team at all?

Looks like ESPN's NBArank is down (up?) to the top 10. If I'm not mistaken, the ten players are: Blake Griffin, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Dirk Nowitzki, Wade, Kobe, Durant, Dwight Howard, LeBron. It will be interesting how the top 5 rank, as I can see arguments for several players.

I am more or less agreed on the other 9, but Blake Griffin in the top 10 is a joke. He should be in the 40-50 range or something like that right now. He has top 10 potential but this list isn't about potential.

user-pic
Rich reply to Xsago on Oct 15 at 14:37
+/-

Really? The guy did average 22 and 12 as a rookie. I remember that the Sixers had good success against him, but anywhere out of the Top 20 would probably be too low.

You can say more or less the same about a lot of players further down the rankings, whose teams are playing poorly. And make no mistake Griffin is as responsible as the others for that poor record. He is very one dimensional and is really bad on defense at this point of his career to be that high...

I understand what you are saying about empty stats. But there was only one other player in the NBA who put up similar pts/reb numbers (Dwight.) Add in Randolph and Love at 20/12 and that is it for high volume scorers/rebounders. He scored at a good percentage and also averaged nearly 4 assists per game. Not sure how far down you can drop him.

Maybe that 40-50 ranking was exaggerated but he definitely shouldn't be that high. The way i see it he was the best player on a team that gave him every possible opportunity to do so and he led them to 32 victories. He is spectacular around the rim, where he converts at an elite rate, but he is still horrible on defense (which is 50% of the game last time i checked) and doesn't really have a backup plan offensively. He has top 3 potential, but that list shouldn't be about potential and we've seen too little of him, especially in meaningful games, for him to warrant that high a ranking.

user-pic
Rich reply to Xsago on Oct 17 at 14:17
+/-

Don't disagree with that, but I was kind of reacting to the 40-50 range. Regardless of his shortcomings right now, the guy is solidly a Top 30 player.

Considering it'll probably be months before the new owners can make any more personnel moves, we can at least feel good that they've already made a smart decision.

Great article on a potential hard cap from the SB Nation Clipper site. This may make it harder for us to trade Iggy...

http://www.clipsnation.com/2011/10/14/2488252/NBA-lockout-david-stern-competitive-balance-misguided-view#storyjump

user-pic
Tom reply to Jakey on Oct 17 at 14:30
+/-

Why would we want to trade Iggy? I really don't know how this relates to the Sixers since we don't have a superstar. Are you suggesting that we should trade him so that our teams stinks and we can get a superstar in the draft?

user-pic
johnrosz on Oct 15 at 17:22
+/-

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32730527

Provides a little bit more insight into the KG blowup. From everything you read, the union has handled this whole negotiation so poorly.

Billy Hunter is making bizarre gun references now,the stupid twitter campaign, Javalle McGee admitting that some players are ready to fold, only 25 guys show up to the most important union meeting....

what a shit show....

Ecommerce ist doch der Bringer. Facebook - Amazon - YouTube. Und wenn Vidable eine Nische komplett ausfüllt, häng ich mich dran. Ich glaube, bei der Company geht allmählich wieder die Post ab. Was denkt Ihr?


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif