Commissioner David Stern Cancels First Two Weeks Of NBA Season
NBA commissioner David Stern announced that the league would be cancelling the first two weeks of its regular season after seven hours of negotiations with the National Basketball Players Association on Monday failed to produce a new collective bargaining agreement.
Here's the press release.
-----------------------
NBA CANCELS FIRST TWO WEEKS OF REGULAR SEASON
NEW YORK, October 10, 2011--The NBA announced today that it has canceled the first two weeks of the 2011-12 regular season because a new collective bargaining agreement has not been reached with the National Basketball Players Association. This cancellation includes all games originally scheduled to be played through November 14.
"Despite extensive efforts, we have not been able to reach a new agreement with the players’ union that allows all 30 teams to be able to compete for a championship while fairly compensating our players," NBA Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver said.
Refunds plus interest are available for all NBA season-ticket holders for all preseason and regular-season games that are canceled.
-----------------------
The cancellation means that the Portland Trail Blazers will lose a Nov. 3 home game against the Denver Nuggets, a Nov. 4 away game against the Los Angeles Clippers, a Nov. 6 away game against the Phoenix Suns, a Nov. 9 away game against the Denver Nuggets, a Nov. 10 home game against the San Antonio Spurs, a Nov. 12 home game against the Detroit Pistons and a Nov. 14 home game against the Philadelphia 76ers. The Blazers are now left with just 75 games on their schedule.
Thee two sides will remain in communication, Stern told reporters in New York on Monday, but no further talks have been scheduled yet.
Here's a radio hit about the NBA lockout that I did on Monday night with Washington D.C.'s WTOP.
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
8 months ago
Ben Golliver
194 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Good luck with this players
Stern suggests that owner’s offers will get worse for players to account for NBA losses during missed games
. http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA
I have a feeling the players just screwed themselves. And I’m pro-union. But this could get even uglier for the players.
I also suspect it'll get ugly fast.
IMO the soonest we’ll see resolution is by late December, when a season-salvage deadline approaches.
Then again, when this happened in the NHL, the Stanley Cup took a year off.
My gut feeling was they'd either get a deal done tonight or the season would be in serious peril.
Since the owners will dig in their heels and hold firm, you’re right to expect that this’ll “get ugly fast.”
"I Am Mine"
I doubt that a majority of the players will undermine NBPA executive directory Billy Hunter like that.
Hopefully the coalition of super-agents and their high-profile clients are kept at bay, because if they get their way there’ll be a giant mess to clean up.
"I Am Mine"
I'm not yet convinced they'll be kept at bay
The NBA “stars” and their agents have been an unexpected (for me) wrinkle in this lockout.
well, if they decertify,
I take it the owners are green light to get the ‘scabs’ into action.
See how ‘player unity’ works with that.
The games can begin, gee, new rules, new rosters ?
Teams should get first dibs on ‘ex’ players ??
Meanwhile, the players can start their own league ???
hmmm
lot’s of entertainment, or at least news, potential…
nice excalating mess
Wake me when the game is on.
yeah, I know I have lots of typos and mispellings...
you know what I mean most of the time tho.
Wake me when the game is on.
if the union decertifies
nothing prevents individual players from striking deals with the owners directly, or even forming a completely new union.
Of course the superstars might not do this, but if you are a journeyman with little time left, or a fringe NBA player, you might just want to go to work and earn a few bucks.
"Well, you can always sell your team."
we all saw it coming
So the shock is non-exsistant. We have known that the owners were gonna make the players lose some money in this war if they couldn’t get it all out of the new CBA. Here’s hoping the hardliners are kept in check so that "progress " can be made
by lcmonkey05 on Oct 10, 2011 7:11 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I have a lot of thoughts on this
however none of them are appropriate for a family friendly site
Billy Hunter – "OK guys, it’s on to plan B. Let’s all go on to Facebook and “like” Stern, and then turn around and “unlike” him. And if that doesn’t work, let’s start a flash mob outside of the NBA headquarters in Secaucus. That will show him."
"Ted Thompson's running Brett Favre out of Green Bay was the biggest mistake by a GM in the history of the league."
-Skip Bayless, November 2008
by The Cactus Leaguer on Oct 10, 2011 7:25 PM PDT reply actions
Blah.
Disappointed, but not surprised. As stupid as it is, the modus operandi of humanity is to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Traffic is a prime example of this. Better to be right and risk death, than to let someone else be wrong and both live.
It’s not a bad year personally for me to take off from basketball though. I would have preferred the games, but whatever. Sucks for everyone else though.
"Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant. What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed." - G. K. Chesterton, The Common Man
Blazersedge.com || New to Blazersedge?
Actions -> Rec and Flag. Blazersedge works right when you use these two things.
The schedule that was released earlier is completely void now.
There is no point in announcing which games are cancelled (now and over the next couple of months) because once they get an agreement (if they get an agreement this year) they will create an entirely new schedule to balance out home and away, division and conference games, etc.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 10, 2011 7:26 PM PDT reply actions
The guy in charge of making schedules probably just spent a good 15 minutes cursing at Twitter for all the extra work he is going to have to do
by ColeFitz88 on Oct 10, 2011 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
yes and those of us who are "self scheduling" through 1/21 are REALLY happy about this.
Well guess what..I am not going to base my schedule on going to Blazer games for this schedule. …will be changing my days off…
Billy Hunter's a moron.
Blazers fan since '91
REST IN PEACE MAURICE LUCAS 1952-2010 R.I.P #20
"B.Roy, he play like Brandon Roy. That's it." - Nicolas Batum
"We're family. We're family because of this stupid, stinkin' team." - Dave
by rise_stand_resist on Oct 10, 2011 7:30 PM PDT reply actions
Don't forget Derek Fisher, and arguably the A-list (and some B-list) NBA "stars" who stuck their nose into it.
And let’s never forget David Stern, who (while this is likely going according to his plan) just looks so smug and condescending all the time.
I don't think I could dislike a person more than David Stern
I really can’t think of one good thing he’s done for the game.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you all the great things he's done
But at the same time, I keep wondering if he’d tell you that you’re not worth his time to explain.
Gotta love the WNBA
Maybe they can finally pay the NBA back for all those years of subsidies now that the NBA needs the money.
Oh wait…
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Does the NBA still pay them subsidies?
If so, I wonder if the players have gone after that in negotiations, in a “you can’t say you don’t want to lose money when you’re subsidizing a money-losing league” kind of way.
it doesn't seem like the owners made any concessions
whatsoever from their initial proposal.
PHILLY!
The owners changed the split percentage, backed off on demanding a hard cap, and a few others I can't remember
The owners made a number of concessions.
"Making concessions" means giving the players something they didn't have in the previous deal.
What the owners did was like offering $5 for a Rolls Royce then saying “Fine, $10, but I’m making MAJOR concessions here!”
Well, I have a car I would sell for 50 bucks
but to make more money I can raise the price to 100 bucks and be talked down to seventy-five bucks, Did I make any concessions? You should have bought it for 50 bucks.
hg
A good comment on that article:
“If players want to decertify, build their own arenas, negotiate their own TV deals, manufacture & sell their own merchandise, prepay the expenses & manage the traveling and scheduling logistics of a basketball season, price, purchase & manage risk management insurance for their careers, hire & fire all the ancillary personnel + contractors required to operate a league — who’s stopping them?”
David Stern is sneaky
He takes something they never had in the first place (hard cap), retracts the demand to establish one, and calls it a concession.
Yep. The Players just lost $165M today from 2 weeks of cancelled games rather than take a 50-50 deal.
The difference between their offer and the owners offer was only $120M for this year. So they have already lost more than they are holding out for this year. The difference over 6 years is $800M, and they will have lost $800M this year if they hold out for another 8 weeks.
How much sense does it make to lose more money than you are trying to get by holding out (and then you will never get it anyway)? Yep Moron!
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 10, 2011 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I've heard that a lot
But that wouldn’t be fair to all future members of the union. And it means the Owners get to be colossal jerks and win.
Losing $2B this year (if the season is cancelled) isn't going to do future players any good at all.
The owners will take back even more than they asking for now in a final deal if the season is cancelled. The longer this goes on the worse the deal is going to be for the players.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 10, 2011 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah the players are taking a gigantic gamble here
I’m not even sure what their end-game is. The owners can always hold out longer, and the alternatives of a new league or everyone moving overseas looks a lot better on paper than in reality.
That's exactly what I'm afraid of
I think the only reason we will end up losing more than 4 weeks of basketball is that the pride of the players is too great to give in even though it makes no financial sense to hold out anymore.
The worst part is
that it’s the egos of the players that can afford to wait it out, and have already been paid a lot. It sucks to see guys like Dwyane Wade and Kevin Garnett being stubborn about the whole thing, while guys like Elliot Williams will need to think about moving to an apartment. Stupid.
yeah, the union 'representation' is highly questionable
I expect someday after all this we will hear more about the unspeakable ‘disunity’ behind the scenes.
Wake me when the game is on.
It has been said all year
That the Owners are counting on a 2 week cancellation to weaken the Players.
The players are aware of this so they are just playing the owners game.
The real negotiations will start after the 2 weeks lost of salary.
We will see. IMO, it is dumb.
hg
This deal would only last 7 to 10 years
…if reports are to believed. It wouldn’t do future players that much good either way.
I suspect the next deadline will be "last date we can still have an 82 game season"
Which was discussed, they could still fit 82 games with creative scheduling and a late Finals.
After that, “last date we can still have a season,” most likely 50 games like last time.
After that, “last date before we don’t have a draft,” since I believe the CBA has no clause to have a draft during a lockout. (No clue what happens with the draftees in that situation)
And of course, then we start over with “last date before the 2012 season doesn’t start on time”.
I’m starting to wonder if we’ll reach “last date to play games before the Mayan-predicted Apocalypse.”
They agreed on Jan 6 last time and still managed a 50 game season which started late Jan.
I think Stern will issue the final ultimatum for the canceling the year about a week before Xmas and give them until the first week of January to agree. The players will be able to reflect over how much money they have lost over the holidays and sign a deal then.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 10, 2011 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
The last time this happened, the deadline for a season was January 7th
They reached agreement on Jan 6th, and the players ratified it the next day.
hope it is mid-November...
one of the sports writers said he thinks all will change once the first paycheck is missed…
I'm not convinced... I think the players will hold out until January at least.
But I think they may be willing to salvage the season as long as the owners give in on the hard cap.
I kind of want the hard cap...seems to me this may give
the smaller markets a chance for a championship.
What do you think?
I've mulled it over for a while, and I'm really not sure how much it helps
But I’d certainly be open to trying it for 6-10 years (until the next negotiation) and see what happens.
I've heard the hard cap is aleady off the table
Or at least that’s what a lot of reports were citing about recent negotiations. Who knows how true that is. I’ll try and find you a source
That's the same I've heard too.
As you noted, Stern says so himself, so assuming he wasn’t hedging (such as “there’s no hard cap, but you get royally punished for going over it, so nobody will”), then I’m not sure what’s up.
so basically what your saying is....
the Miami Heat lost the last NBA game ever?
I think a lot of people would be okay with that…..
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
What are the players thinking? They have no leverage now.
I bet they just end up taking a 50/50 deal at some point and miss part/all of the season when they could have just done it now.
QUESTION: Does anyone know if all the players are voting/have voted on this, or is it just Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher running the show and making decisions? I know the superstars are fine with a lockout because they have a TON of money and can hold out a long time for more cash. I can’t see the rookies, and Armon Johnson’s of the league being as okay with missing paychecks and a chance to prove themselves.
They don't send offers to a full vote until the heads approve of it.
The general concept is that the players voted for these guys to run negotiations, so they trust them to tell them when it’s time to take a deal.
(Someone feel free to correct me if I messed that up)
Yeah that make sense, much like the U.S. Gov't I suppose.
Maybe now that all the players know what has been offered by the owners they will take a vote back to ALL the players, seems reasonable. Doubt it will happen with the egos at the top though.
That's normally the way it works. But the players could pressure their leaders to refer a deal to them when enough of them get tired of losing money and a year of their careers.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 10, 2011 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
not a fast process,
It appears the ‘gameplan’ was stand tough and watch the owners cave.
Not workin’
We’ll see how long it takes for ‘plan B’ to be implemented.
Wake me when the game is on.
Leave it to a L@ker to fudge up the season
Blazers fan since '91
REST IN PEACE MAURICE LUCAS 1952-2010 R.I.P #20
"B.Roy, he play like Brandon Roy. That's it." - Nicolas Batum
"We're family. We're family because of this stupid, stinkin' team." - Dave
by rise_stand_resist on Oct 10, 2011 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Fish is a Laker.
Stern wishes he was one.
Blazers fan since '91
REST IN PEACE MAURICE LUCAS 1952-2010 R.I.P #20
"B.Roy, he play like Brandon Roy. That's it." - Nicolas Batum
"We're family. We're family because of this stupid, stinkin' team." - Dave
by rise_stand_resist on Oct 10, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
hmmm was Stern ever an owner before becoming Commish?
I know, for instance, Bud Selig owned an MLB team (Brewers I believe) before he got the head job, didnt know if the NBA did that too.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions
thats basically what I thought
guess it kind of kills a lot of good conspiracy fodder though, :( lol
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
It makes me wonder if an ex-player will ever rise to the ranks of NBA Commissioner.
The closest thing to that I can think of is George Mikan being the first ABA Commissioner.
"I Am Mine"
that would be interesting
currently the only way I see it happening is Jordan.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I bet it would be a really unlikely player
Someone who was a mid-level or below player, who used his income to go back to school and become a lawyer, possibly with a marketing minor or something.
I’m not even convinced Jordan will be a good owner yet. :)
yeah, only reason I said him
is that he’s really the only former player in a major position of power. And of course, he’s Michael Jordan.
Racking my brain trying to come up with a mid-tier player who could fill that roll and I can’t come up with anything. It would probably take a guy from an at least semi-prestigious school, Stanford, Duke, Ivy-League, etc and probably one that graduated before entering the league as well.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Former Oregon Gubernatorial candidate Chris Dudley perhaps?
Who's that tromping across my bedge?
by Troll Blazer on Oct 11, 2011 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
He'd be a posibility
But he’d have to get out of politics, and into the league offices, so basically everyone wins.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 11, 2011 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions
the funny thing is
Stern said players floated 50/50. Fisher then denies it. Stern hands over the moral high ground in the minds of fans and fisher burns it. This is some kind of contest of villains.
by Sheed'sTowel on Oct 10, 2011 7:56 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
If there was ever a good time for Chris Dudley to be union president, this would've been it
At the very least they could’ve had one of the Lopez brothers, I mean you have to be smart to get into Stanford, even if you are 7 foot tall, right?
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Why are so many people buying the players as responsible?
If the owners agreed amongst themselves to share revenue, they could keep the players on the previous deal and make money. Jerry Buss alone has a TV deal for billions. Spread that around to the other teams (without whom he wouldn’t have got it) and now they’re viable.
woah woah woah
sharing you say? That is an outright attack on capitalism. NBA class warfare.
by Sheed'sTowel on Oct 10, 2011 8:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Both sides are responsible. Period.
Revenue sharing is helpful, but not a magic bullet, and it’s significantly more complicated than telling the big-market teams to give away the majority of their profits.
"Jerry Buss alone has a TV deal for billions."
Why should Jerry Buss be forced to share the money he earns from his local TV deal in the L.A. market with people such as the Maloof family? If cities like Sacramento or New Orleans can’t successfully harbor a NBA team, then maybe a couple franchises should fold up shop.
"I Am Mine"
Buss' team valuation would plummet if this was done without his permission
He’d sue the NBA, and would probably win, I suspect. It’s definitely more complicated than “give all his money to other teams,” indeed.
why is it that
whenever someone brings up “the rich should pay a little more”, in this case the rich being the Lakers, and other big money teams, that everyone wants to automaticaly jump to “You want to give all their money away”?
Do you seriously think that the Lakers wouldn’t be profitable if they had to pay say 5% more of their Billion dollar TV deal to revenue sharing? (I’m assuming that they already give up a portion of that?)
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
See, the key was team valuation
Jerry’s team is valued based on his expected profits. If they drop a significant amount of profits, their valuation falls, and they’ll be upset. And they’ll sue, arguing that the NBA forced a valuation drop.
Note that I’m speaking of the scenario at the top, which specifically said to give all the Lakers TV revenue to other teams. The scenario isn’t something I invented when responding.
didnt mean to jump on you personally
just something that irks me big time.
However, no where did Meru mention giving all the Lakers TV money away, he said “If the owners agreed amongst themselves to share revenue” and used the Lakers TV deal as an example
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah when I said "all the money" I meant from the TV contract
Since it was in the same thread, it didn’t hit me to define that.
But yeah, revenue sharing is helpful, but only to an extent, and a redo of the CBA is important too. Because teams in large markets will make more money, and it’s natural for them to keep it. They paid more for the team on an expectation that they’d make more.
It’s like paying to move to NYC for a high paying job you accepted, signing a contract on the insane rent costs (due to your higher pay), then being told after you get there that your salary is being shared out to employees in Milwaukee who make less, even though they pay less to be there thanks to lower cost of living. Your response to that would likely be, well, inappropriate for BE. :)
That doesn’t get into competitive balance, but of course, you may not care about competitive balance in that situation!
you may want to competitively balance some dude from Milwaukee
I get what you’re saying.
I would say that, although it costs some money, revenue sharing ultimately helps everyone. No one really wants to pay to see the Lakers demolish the Bucks, however, if a similarly small market team in OKC happens to get a little extra revenue sharing money, which allows them to resign Kevin Durant, everyone will tune in to watch Kobe v Durant.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
There's one big kink though
There’s always going to be bad teams. There will always be teams that get their rears kicked in town after town, every season. Even if it’s not the Bucks, it’ll be someone. And I bet the NBA would rather that bad team not be the large-market teams.
And really, if everyone doesn’t get more money, and say a star player leaves OKC for the Knicks or the Celtics, the NBA will make a lot more money. Make no mistake, if the Blazers had drafted Larry Bird, the 80’s NBA may never have skyrocketed. This is one of those “what’s good for the NBA isn’t always good for many of the hardcore fans” things. But I’m getting way off topic here, sorry.
Not that I’m not always thrilled about the concepts above, but it’s definitely a “best for the NBA” vs “best for the players” vs “Best for the fans” situation, and honestly all three sides want very different things.
You're right
the NBA could make more money of KD (for example) in NYC than in OKC.
My thinking is, when that system ultimately plays out and you get the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Heat with every marketable player in the league, eventually everyone else will lose interest and the league will end up losing money.
Of course, I have no proof of this, and the closest thing to this would probably be the “All-Star League” that has been talked about on here, which will probably never happen.
All in all, I think that the NBA (players and owners) and fans ultimately would benefit more from having more consistantly good teams, and fewer consistantly bad teams. Obviously, you can’t prevent bad managerial decisions that hurt franchises. But I think that more revenue sharing would help to achieve that goal, along with other things like shorter contracts worth fairer values.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I could use a little bit more money
And I am going to use it on a good cause. That doesn’t mean I can walk into my neighbors house and take from them to pay for it. The forced profit sharing you are talking about is immoral at best and theft at the worst.
by Oden Mad, Oden Smash! on Oct 11, 2011 1:46 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Really, Theft??
If the owners of the 30 NBA team come together and agree to a system of profit sharing which takes a little money from the Wealthier teams and gives a little to a Struggling teams, how exactly does that constitute theft?
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 11, 2011 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
If Jerry Buss agrees to profit sharing there is no problem.
If 29 of the 30 owners want profit sharing and Buss is the only one who doesn’t it would be wrong to steal from him. Just because they agreed on it democratically and they have good intentions doesn’t make it any less wrong to confiscate his revenue. Just stick to trying to make the NBA more profitable and split the earnings the league takes in.
by Oden Mad, Oden Smash! on Oct 11, 2011 3:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
losing a vote
doesnt mean you don’t have to abide by the results of that vote. A mutually agreed upon requirement of participation (ie pay a certain amount of profits above x level) is just that, a requirement of participation. If you dont like it, don’t participate.
I don’t want to pay $80/month for Directv, but that doesnt mean they’re stealing my money.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 11, 2011 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions
and of course they should focus on making the league more profitable and splitting league revenue.
More good teams, more star players, star players in more uniforms, it all equals higher overall revenues.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 11, 2011 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
in normal economies, I would agree
but the owners and the league (one the whole, not individually) are best served by cobbling together a system in which teams in every city can reasonably attempt to compete. If the league devolves into an MLB-type system, the owners will all lose in the end – because much more so than baseball, buying the best players is considerably more likely to drive those top spending 4 teams to be in the league’s elite year in and year out.
the NFL model is what the NBA should be angling for. Every team, if ran well, can compete without losing a fortune at the same time. Fans of all teams have hope and something to root (and show up) for.
The owners (should) have a vested interest in promoting competitive balance across as many teams as possible. Revenue sharing is a very large component of this.
"Well, you can always sell your team."
I think a few franchises have shown that small markets can be profitable
Houston comes to mind. So it’s not that these small markets are inherently unprofitable, just that many are run poorly. Either way it’s an argument against revenue sharing though
Hmmm Houston can't be seen as a small market IMO
I was just talking to my wife about the biggest NBA markets, and had actually listed Houston among them.
You're right, It's #10 in the NBA for Market Size
For some reason I thought it was much lower on that list. I’ll look into a better example of a successful small market team (if they exist)
Spurs might be the best example if you look at Franchise value
but surprisingly Forbes claims they pulled in an operating income of -4.7 million last year. Orlando would also be high up on this list if they didn’t spend money like it was going out of style (on players like Gilbert Arenas). According to Forbes we might actually be the most profitable team below 20 in US market size (Forbes:http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Portland-Trail-Blazers_324837.html, Market Size Rankings: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/). So.. other teams should be more like us!
Also, Oklahoma City
They pull in about the same profit for having a market size 23 spots lower on the list than ours
also a unique situation
since a lot of their grounwork was laid in a much larger market.
But I’d be interested to see what kind of numbers they pull.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Link to valuations, Link to market size
Tom Penn said on ESPN that he was specifically aware that the Blazers didn’t spin a profit, even during the year they were at the lowest salary, while still winning games and going to the playoffs. So I’m not sure where the difference in numbers is.
Also, gotta rule out OKC. They’re in a honeymoon period right now, and immediately made a playoff push.
We won’t know about OKC’s true baseline for a long while to come, I suspect.
Hyperlinks. Brilliant.
Yeah I am a bit skeptical as well when it comes to the Blazers. And I imagine that OKC is going to become a lot less profitable as soon as they need to hand out big contracts to keep this team together. So, I revoke my previous argument. Maybe small market teams can’t be profitable.
Best case scenario is a reduction in salaries combined with some additional revenue sharing
But they need to find a solution to some teams who take advantage of the revenue sharing. I won’t name names, but I’m thinking of two owners in particular.
i don't know the numbers exactly
but a quick estimations makes it seem like both sides stand to lose more $$ with this 2 week cancellation than the disputed amount.
common sense? neither side seems to have it.
PHILLY!
Really, it's primarily the players who lose quickly after two weeks
There’s a fanpost on the math. The biggest argument about whether they’re ignoring short term for long term, which is a fair argument.
There are a number owners losing money if the teams do play, and I’m not sure whether they saw the current offer as worth accepting for that reasons.
well...they are good basketball players and lousy businessmen. Go figure.
LaMarshmallow - Distant Memory.
Yeah, who would have thought a bunch of kids that barely got a high-school education
wouldn’t have as much economic sense as a bunch of Billionaire business owners and their finance staffs?
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 10, 2011 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
like I said ^above^
this would be a perfect time for a Chris Dudley type to be running the union, you know, someone who actually got a good education.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm honestly not sure what Chris would have done.
The players are in an unenviable position over the last few months, and even more now.
most defintely
but, as someone who personally sympathizes with the players (obviously), I’d rather have some Ivy-leaguers guiding them then Derek Fisher and a bunch of dudes who never set foot on a college campus.
Not that I’m calling them stupid, but at some point it takes lawyers to fight lawyers.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
To be fair, the players have tons of lawyers too.
But I’m not sure if the players are really looking out for their best interests at this point. I’d have to see what the offer actually is first. There are so many rumors, I don’t know what to trust.
I heard Stern bribed Billy Hunter with a private meeting with MJ
#Idonthaveanyfactstobackthisup
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
JA Adande calls BS on the NBA
This isn’t about creating competitive balance…it’s about getting more money.
You know what else the NBA is asking us to believe? That a new system will automatically eliminate the case of the overpaid player. Why should we believe that when, for the most part, these are the same owners and general managers who continued to overpay players despite all of the cost-containment mechanisms that were already in place.
The other fallacy is that if the owners get what they want it will promote competitive balance throughout the league. As if that were a priority to them. If it were, the NBA would have trotted out details of its proposed revenue-sharing plan a lot earlier than this month. They might have even had something ready to go in June, when there was still a chance to avert a lockout in the first place.
Sorry guys…but when this is over the rich will continue to get richer and there will continue to be a lack of parody in the NBA.
Of course it's all about money
That’s why their negotiating. It’s always about money. They can say whatever they want, but it’s always about money. JA’s been sitting on that article for weeks probably waiting to post it. I was hoping for more nuance from him. He’s looking for the “I’m mad about the lockout!” hits like Simmons looks for hits by picking on various teams.
It’s not like it’s any less about money for the players too. It’s all about the money for everyone but the fans.
Also, heads up you have a typo in your last line. It’ll lead to many inevitable jokes.
After reading this article from AWoj...
I do have to ammend my above comments. It does appear the owners are proposing ideas that can help create competitive balance, but the players are refusing.
The two sides spent Sunday night and much of Monday negotiating system issues that had the league’s owners pushing for harsh taxes for big-spending teams, a lowering of the midlevel salary-cap exception and the narrowing of players’ "Larry Bird" exception rights. The biggest obstacle in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement has been the split of the league’s revenue, or basketball-related income (BRI), but Stern said two sides also have not been able to clear the "system hurdles" – primarily the structure of the league’s salary cap.
The owners want to reduce the annual midlevel exception for free agents from $5.8 million to $3 million with a maximum contract length of two years, league sources told Yahoo! Sports. The owners also want to limit the maximum length of contracts to four years for players re-signed by their own teams and three years for players joining new teams, sources said. The union didn’t want to go below five and four years. The current maximums are six years for players re-signed by their own teams and five for other players.
The owners also want to greatly penalize teams that exceed the salary cap, sources told Y! Sports, proposing that teams won’t be allowed to pay the luxury tax more than twice in five years. Tax-paying teams also could be restricted from using the Bird exception to re-sign their own players.
While Stern claims the owners are no longer seeking a hard salary cap, Players Association president Derek Fisher(notes) said the proposed penalties for tax-paying teams will essentially act the same as a hard cap on player salaries.
Huh, that’s almost exactly as I described a little ways up. I had a feeling.
The players don’t want to be known as the generation who gave up the soft cap.
That is still pretty hard.
I really don’t like the two out of five rule. The way I see it, that creates a situation where teams on the bubble dump lower-wage players to squeeze under the bar, and make up for it by forcing more minutes on their remaining players.
"You can pretty much flip a coin to see which Portland team will show up: the dark-horse world-beaters or the mixed-up eggbeaters" - Dave
by conspirator5 on Oct 10, 2011 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I really don't expect anything solid until the 50 game deadline at this point
The owners will back off their concessions, and the players will dig in. And I’m not sure the owners will give back any additional concessions in a few months. I think Stern wants to break the players and reset the pay structure as much as possible.
They stand to lose more than the owners.
And they’re really, really going to lose when this lockout does actually end.
When are the fans going to have a voice?
It is sad that the nba and players are basically slapping us fans in the face. Basically telling us to “sit tight” until they figure it out. I wish that us fans could somehow rally together to show them that we are not going to just sit here like a puppy waiting for a treat. If we could start a website and have millions of fans pledge to boycott the nba. The longer the lockout, the longer the boycott. I am as big of fan as any of the nba, but it just pisses me off soooooo much that they think/know that we will all come running back the moment they decide they are ready. Doesn’t it bother anyone else? Are any of us willing to do something about it?
MTOUCHAUTO.COM ... Work on your own vehicle in a heated shop with a lift and air supply for as little as $20/hr
The fans always have the same voice: Their wallet.
Typically fans will return within a few years of a lockout. If they don’t return after a lockout, it puts a lot more pressure on both sides to make a deal.
I agree... but
we have to have a method of showing the owners and players that we are as united as they are… Clearly now we are not, but could we be?
MTOUCHAUTO.COM ... Work on your own vehicle in a heated shop with a lift and air supply for as little as $20/hr
The only thing I could see working is a massive boycott
And I cant even imagine how much work that would take from fans who are already exhausted from all the BS
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Fans threaten to boycott during every strike and lockout
But most are generally relieved when play starts again. They just want to enjoy watching their team.
by Timmay! on Oct 10, 2011 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Which is why fans of all major pro-sports leagues continually get screwed
We’re addicted to the product they sell, and even though we are righteously pissed when they do it. We threaten boycotts when they lockout, we bitch and moan when they jack up ticket prices, and charge $60/month for TV packages and $80 for a jersey. But ultimately, we’re addicted, and we’re willing to pay whatever it takes to watch the guy who’s jersey I’m wearing beat the guy who’s jersey I’m not wearing.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions
When you get down to it, the pros of being entertained by the NBA product outweigh ...
the cons — which include the high cost of watching games in person or on TV to knowing that most team owners and pro athletes are greedy, selfish men who look out for number one — and that’s okay. After all, the main reason that I spend time watching and following the NBA is to be entertained. I, therefore, will gladly take the good with the bad.
"I Am Mine"
I agree
sports are probably the thing I’m most passionate about (at least top 2 or 3). I gladly ride the waves of emotion that are Blazers playoff exits, and Ducks BCS chases. As each day goes on, I grow into my newly found Timbers fandom. I try to catch every bit of quality MMA on cable. Hell, I’m 24 years old and I still get pissed off when my old high school football team gets beaten 70-0 (yeah, that actually happened this season).
But as a normal, working class dude, it would be really nice to be able to afford a jersey, or even, if I may be so bold, a couple tickets to a game.
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 11, 2011 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I have a website name in mind already...
FANSSTANDTOGETHER.COM…. It hasn’t been taken yet…
MTOUCHAUTO.COM ... Work on your own vehicle in a heated shop with a lift and air supply for as little as $20/hr
"When are the fans going to have a voice?"
Man, I’m sick and tired of the word “fans.”
So-called “fans” are just a consumer base for the NBA, which is nothing but a federation of separately owned and operated professional basketball franchises that are in the sports entertainment business.
With an emphasis on the word business.
“Are any of us willing to do something about it?”
As an individual, you can quit being a paying customer if you’re no longer satisfied with the NBA product.
But that’s up to you and only you.
“Doesn’t it bother anyone else?”
Sure, it bothers a ton of people. Even so, it doesn’t bother people enough for them to band together and engage in a unified boycott. Most of us don’t have the time, money, or resources needed to participate in such a vain, fruitless endeavor. And yes, any such boycott would be futile. It’d be to no avail.
"I Am Mine"
From ESPN, first two quotes from Stern, 3rd from Fisher
The gap is so significant that we just can’t bridge it at this time," Stern said. "We certainly hoped it would never come to this
Stern said both sides are “very far apart on virtually all issues. … We just have a gulf that separates us.”
Union president Derek Fisher agreed, emphasizing that missing any games puts the season in jeopardy.
“This is not where we choose to be,” he said. “We’re not at a place where a fair deal can be reached with the NBA.”
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:14 PM PDT reply actions
especially considering how great they had been doing
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 10, 2011 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
It would definitely take years to recover. Not sure how many years.
MLB successfully recovered from losing a World Series, NHL is still slowly recovering but seems to be on noticeably better footing financially.
I think the NBA expects fans to return for their next-gen players, but they may be over-estimating their appeal.
Didn't Bill Murray...
Call imaginary Cubs games during the baseball lockout?
by signal_lost on Oct 11, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
2K12 exhibition games
Following the original league schedule. At Spirit of ’77. Play-by and color liveblogged.
Seriously. Somebody go tell them.
"You can pretty much flip a coin to see which Portland team will show up: the dark-horse world-beaters or the mixed-up eggbeaters" - Dave
by conspirator5 on Oct 10, 2011 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
On the plus side, we won't miss as many games due to injury this year.
by Cablinasian on Oct 10, 2011 9:42 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
silly person
no games = no ouch
I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Sean in Vancouver on Oct 11, 2011 1:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Very discouraging news.
I love NBA basketball and, of course, the Blazers. Losing the entire season would be the equivalent of a world apocalypse for me personally.
No Surprise.
The spit of revenues goes hand in hand with a hard or harder CAP. In the absence of a CAP on salaries, then if the split was 50/50, the additional income for the upper tier would enable them to have more money to spend on salaries, whereas the rest would either have to spend their additional money on salaries as well, or be no more competitive than they are now in terms of paying for talent.
Like most, I believe the players cannot win this battle. From the outset, they knew what the owners had been proposing for they last 18 months, yet they had no strategy to deal with it other than not playing. And that’s not a strategy.
Hunter and Fisher, however, have had less choice than we might think. The agents have put pressure on them not to settle for substantially less on the split, and the stars have almost certainly been against any acceptance of a hard or harder CAP. They represent the players, and we have to assume they have their finger on the pulse of player sentiment. If the compromises required to have a season could not have gotten the support of a majority of the players, then agreeing to it would have solved nothing.
As fans, we may take one side or the other, but it’s not our fight. It’s their’s.
In the end, Fisher and Hunter cannot agree to settle anything until player sentiment shifts to demanding a settlement. How long that takes remains to be seen.
Logically, of course, we could see that the players had no end game, and that they’d be forced at some point to settle. From the view of many, they might as well settle now as opposed to later, because there is no gain to be had by settling later. But, these things are not logical. They will lose by not playing, and get the same or worse deal later.
All they had to do is look at the NHL and the NFL to see the reality. Somehow, though, they wanted to believe they were different, but they’re not.
While I appreciate and share Derek Fisher’s faith, why did the players allow a guy who was allowed to void his own contract so he could return to help bring a championship back to the Lakers to be the union president?
(And don’t give me that garbage about Salt Lake City not having sufficient health care for his daughter’s health issues. There were plenty of other places he could have gone besides the Lakers.)
"Ted Thompson's running Brett Favre out of Green Bay was the biggest mistake by a GM in the history of the league."
-Skip Bayless, November 2008
by The Cactus Leaguer on Oct 11, 2011 8:35 AM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
