2011-2012 OFFICIAL NBA LOCKOUT thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

I really don't have the impression that they're this close. If they were, they'd be meeting like crazy to save the regular season opening. They're not.

 

I think there's a real big competitive balance issue that the owners are trying to figure out.

They need to find a way to stop "big 3s" from assembling again.

[southsider2k5]

They need to find a way to stop "big 3s" from assembling again.

 

Then they need to allow more movement and not less, that way such moves are easier to counter if they happen. The reality is that if players really want to do this, it is difficult to stop. Heck, two of them look smaller salaries to make it happen.

[ZoomSlowik]

Then they need to allow more movement and not less, that way such moves are easier to counter if they happen. The reality is that if players really want to do this, it is difficult to stop. Heck, two of them look smaller salaries to make it happen.

 

Especially given the interest in the league and ratings that the Heat drew. The NBA typically does a lot better when there are star-loaded teams at the top of the league.

[Steve9347]

Especially given the interest in the league and ratings that the Heat drew. The NBA typically does a lot better when there are star-loaded teams at the top of the league.

Everyone loved rooting against the Heat this year, and thus their ratings soared and the NBA adored it.

[Steve9347]

Joakim Noah Beer Pongin' During NBA Lockout

 

[Balta1701]

The problem with that model is that there are 20 teams that go into an NBA season with pretty much no hope of winning. This hurts their season ticket sales, this hurts their walk up sales, this hurts their big business clients, this murders their ability to grow fanbases.

 

Just ask yourself this Q...how many people in China are going to tune in to see a Kings/TWolves game? Or buy a walkup ticket? If the NFL is the model for a successful league...the NFL operates totally differently. Almost every team goes into the season having some reason for hope. Baseball is almost the same way, with some Pittsburghian exceptions.

 

In the NBA, if you don't have a winning local team, the only reason to buy season tickets is to see when Lebron and Rose come to town, and you can do that by buying 3-4 tickets if you really care. And there's almost zero reason to tune in on TV.

 

Supposedly, the NBA's numbers last year showed a $300 million loss...but there were like 8 teams that turned a >$100 million profit (combined). So 20 or so teams lost $20 million each, and the rest turned in $8 million or so in profits. If you're in the $20 million lost crowd...there's very little obvious path to getting in the top if you don't nail a draft pick, and then that still doesn't guarantee you a shot at a title if you don't overspend.

[southsider2k5]

 

File this under "The Least Surprising Thing I Have Seen Today."

[Balta1701]

File this under "The Least Surprising Thing I Have Seen Today."

You're not surprised that there's no, um, herb?

[ZoomSlowik]

The problem with that model is that there are 20 teams that go into an NBA season with pretty much no hope of winning. This hurts their season ticket sales, this hurts their walk up sales, this hurts their big business clients, this murders their ability to grow fanbases.Just ask yourself this Q...how many people in China are going to tune in to see a Kings/TWolves game? Or buy a walkup ticket? If the NFL is the model for a successful league...the NFL operates totally differently. Almost every team goes into the season having some reason for hope. Baseball is almost the same way, with some Pittsburghian exceptions.

 

In the NBA, if you don't have a winning local team, the only reason to buy season tickets is to see when Lebron and Rose come to town, and you can do that by buying 3-4 tickets if you really care. And there's almost zero reason to tune in on TV.

 

Supposedly, the NBA's numbers last year showed a $300 million loss...but there were like 8 teams that turned a >$100 million profit (combined). So 20 or so teams lost $20 million each, and the rest turned in $8 million or so in profits. If you're in the $20 million lost crowd...there's very little obvious path to getting in the top if you don't nail a draft pick, and then that still doesn't guarantee you a shot at a title if you don't overspend.

 

Really? Almost every team in baseball and football really had a legitimate shot at winning going into this season? I'd say it's highly similar, there are 6-10 teams that really matter, maybe one or two surprise teams and everyone else pretty much playing out the string.

 

As for the money part, there are multiple different sources disputing that number because of creative accounting. Things like counting the purchase price of the team as a $40 million (number may not be accurate) loss for 10 years against their operating expenses even though they're not related.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[southsider2k5]

You're not surprised that there's no, um, herb?

 

I don't doubt that also happened, just away from everyone else.

[Balta1701]

I don't doubt that also happened, just away from everyone else.

I'm pretty sure he got caught on camera with that part before.

[southsider2k5]

I'm pretty sure he got caught on camera with that part before.

 

Which would be why he doesn't do it in public anymore...

[Balta1701]

Really? 20 teams in baseball and football really had a legitimate shot at winning going into this season? I'd say it's highly similar, there are 6-10 teams that really matter, maybe one or two surprise teams and everyone else pretty much playing out the string.

 

As for the money part, there are multiple different sources disputing that number because of creative accounting. Things like counting the purchase price of the team as a $40 million (number may not be accurate) loss for 10 years against their operating expenses even though they're not related.

Note how I phrased it...I didn't say "Winning a championship"...I said "Winning". When the Bulls were struggling for the 8th spot every year, I didn't think they had a chance at "Winning". Would watch some but not always, took them having a chance to beat the Celtics to really make them worth watching.

 

In MLB and NFL...yeah, I'd say that a huge majority of teams go into a season thinking they have a shot. Especially the NFL. Hell, the Bills and Lions are off to starts that ought to put at least 1 of them in the playoffs. The Cardinals went to the Super Bowl a couple years ago.

[ZoomSlowik]

Note how I phrased it...I didn't say "Winning a championship"...I said "Winning". When the Bulls were struggling for the 8th spot every year, I didn't think they had a chance at "Winning". Would watch some but not always, took them having a chance to beat the Celtics to really make them worth watching.

 

In MLB and NFL...yeah, I'd say that a huge majority of teams go into a season thinking they have a shot. Especially the NFL. Hell, the Bills and Lions are off to starts that ought to put at least 1 of them in the playoffs. The Cardinals went to the Super Bowl a couple years ago.

 

If the Bulls didn't have a chance of "winning" when they were the 8th seed in the NBA, then how could you say that the teams in the other sports had a legitimate shot at winning? At least the Bulls got some playoff games out of it, 22 teams in baseball and 20 in football don't see the post-season and at least half of them were never really close. Someone like the Blue Jays were no closer to winning than the Bulls, and they had a relatively decent season.

 

I don't see how you could say with a straight face that the Orioles or Nationals in baseball or the Jaguars or Seahawks in football had any chance coming into this season. It's basically the same thing, you can pick most of the playoff teams before the season even starts.

 

And if you want to pick the rare examples of an expected mediocre team making a run, I'm sure you had the Grizzlies going to game 7 in the second round, right?

Edited October 5, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[Balta1701]

If the Bulls didn't have a chance of "winning" when they were the 8th seed in the NBA, then how could you say that the teams in the other sports had a legitimate shot at winning? At least the Bulls got some playoff games out of it, 24 teams in baseball and 20 in football don't see the post-season and at least half of them were never really close. Someone like the Blue Jays were no closer to winning than the Bulls, and they had a relatively decent season.

 

I don't see how you could say with a straight face that the Orioles or Nationals in baseball or the Jaguars or Seahawks in football had any chance coming into this season. It's basically the same thing, you can pick most of the playoff teams before the season even starts.

 

And if you want to pick the rare examples of an expected mediocre team making a run, I'm sure you had the Grizzlies going to game 7 in the second round, right?

The Seahawks made the playoffs and beat the Saints last year.

 

The Orioles and Nats are in the group of 5-8 teams that didn't really have a shot this year in MLB. The Nats have a shot in a few years though, you can't deny that.

[ZoomSlowik]

The Seahawks made the playoffs and beat the Saints last year.

 

The Orioles and Nats are in the group of 5-8 teams that didn't really have a shot this year in MLB. The Nats have a shot in a few years though, you can't deny that.

 

And that was last year, when they had a better group of players and still went 7-9, not this year. This discussion is on a year by year basis, otherwise I could say the Cavaliers won 60 games last year so clearly they had a shot this year!

 

I would also love to know what definition of "winning" you're using where one .500-ish team that makes the playoffs is doing it while another one isn't.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[GoodAsGould]

And that was last year, when they had a better group of players and still went 7-9, not this year. This discussion is on a year by year basis, otherwise I could say the Cavaliers won 60 games last year so clearly they had a shot this year!

 

Seahawks didn't lose anyone near lebron caliber though. It does seem though in Nba you go in season with only a handful of teams having realistic shot at championship. In baseball yes there are Yankees and bsox always good but like 14 teams had a shot at some point. Football seemingly easiest sport for teams to become legit contenders. Different team from NFC makes superbowl every year.

[Steve9347]

Seahawks didn't lose anyone near lebron caliber though. It does seem though in Nba you go in season with only a handful of teams having realistic shot at championship. In baseball yes there are Yankees and bsox always good but like 14 teams had a shot at some point. Football seemingly easiest sport for teams to become legit contenders. Different team from NFC makes superbowl every year.

Apples to Oranges.

[ZoomSlowik]

Seahawks didn't lose anyone near lebron caliber though. It does seem though in Nba you go in season with only a handful of teams having realistic shot at championship. In baseball yes there are Yankees and bsox always good but like 14 teams had a shot at some point. Football seemingly easiest sport for teams to become legit contenders. Different team from NFC makes superbowl every year.

 

I obviously used an extreme example to make a point. The bottom line is last year the Seahawks were expected to be a contender for the weak NFC West conference while this year they were not.

 

As for the second part, I guess it depends on how you define "having a shot at some point" or "having a chance to win a title". In all three sports, I'd say there are at least 10 that have no real shot at a successful season (which I will define as making the last 8 teams for continuity between the sports) going into the season, and another 5 or so are eliminated relatively early.

 

Yes, the NBA is top-heavy, but so are the other sports. The Packers and Patriots among others had a way better chance of being successful going into this season just like the Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox (yes, I realize they choked) and just like the Heat and Lakers.

 

If anything, the NBA had MORE parity than you would expect this year given that the conference finals were Heat/Bulls and Mavs/Thunder. No Lakers or Celtics in sight.

[StrangeSox]

If the Bulls didn't have a chance of "winning" when they were the 8th seed in the NBA, then how could you say that the teams in the other sports had a legitimate shot at winning? At least the Bulls got some playoff games out of it, 24 teams in baseball and 20 in football don't see the post-season and at least half of them were never really close. Someone like the Blue Jays were no closer to winning than the Bulls, and they had a relatively decent season.

 

I don't see how you could say with a straight face that the Orioles or Nationals in baseball or the Jaguars or Seahawks in football had any chance coming into this season. It's basically the same thing, you can pick most of the playoff teams before the season even starts.

 

And if you want to pick the rare examples of an expected mediocre team making a run, I'm sure you had the Grizzlies going to game 7 in the second round, right?

 

You can get hot in the MLB as long as you make it into the playoffs. Same with the NFL, since it's all single-game eliminations. That doesn't seem to happen very often in the NBA.

[Jenksismyhero]

Am I really the only one that's leaning slightly to the owners here? I mean, you've got teams that are losing money, one team having to be run by the league (another in SAC about a year away), you have small market teams that simply cannot compete because while they get their #1 stars they either (1) can't afford to keep them there after season 3, or (2) can never afford to give him a quality cast, the players already take more than the majority of revenue without taking into account the fact that owners have to spend money to make money. And most importantly, the players don't risk ANYTHING here. The owners risk losing money every year or having to take out loans from the NBA to make payroll. The players just accept their paycheck.

 

If the two sides were really, really far apart, and the league was demanding a lot more, sure, I'd be on the players side. But they're so damn close, the players need to stop b****ing. The NBA is willing to give you 50% of the profit, contract a couple of teams to make the league itself better AND begin structuring a revenue-sharing model to, again, make the league better. This is craziness to me that they can't get this worked out. At the very least make it a 2-3 year deal and re-work this again so that the NBA can continue the momentum from last season.

[ZoomSlowik]

You can get hot in the MLB as long as you make it into the playoffs. Same with the NFL, since it's all single-game eliminations. That doesn't seem to happen very often in the NBA.

 

The playoff structure plays a major part in that. 16 teams make the playoffs in the NBA, 8 in baseball and 12 with byes in the NFL. If you had teams like the Indians making the playoffs, you'd see fewer runs from the lesser teams (the value of things like 4th starters and long relievers also changes in the postseason, but that's another topic).

 

As you said, single elimination also helps in the NFL. It's a lot harder for the weaker team/team that's not playing as well to win 4 games than one. You still generally have a top team winning and there have been numerous repeat champs lately.

[ZoomSlowik]

Am I really the only one that's leaning slightly to the owners here? I mean, you've got teams that are losing money, one team having to be run by the league (another in SAC about a year away), you have small market teams that simply cannot compete because while they get their #1 stars they either (1) can't afford to keep them there after season 3, or (2) can never afford to give him a quality cast, the players already take more than the majority of revenue without taking into account the fact that owners have to spend money to make money. And most importantly, the players don't risk ANYTHING here. The owners risk losing money every year or having to take out loans from the NBA to make payroll. The players just accept their paycheck.

 

If the two sides were really, really far apart, and the league was demanding a lot more, sure, I'd be on the players side. But they're so damn close, the players need to stop b****ing. The NBA is willing to give you 50% of the profit, contract a couple of teams to make the league itself better AND begin structuring a revenue-sharing model to, again, make the league better. This is craziness to me that they can't get this worked out. At the very least make it a 2-3 year deal and re-work this again so that the NBA can continue the momentum from last season.

 

As I said earlier, the numbers of losses are highly debateable. I don't remember who said it, but a famous quote is "I can turn a $1 million profit into a $2 million loss and get every accountant in the country to agree with me".

 

Are some teams losing money? Sure, but it's hard to make every team profitable, especially with some of the dumb contract decisions teams make.

 

The small market team thing is also BS. How many rings do the Spurs have? Isn't one of the hot teams to be the "next dynasty" the OKC Thunder? Wasn't Cleveland a powerhouse with a massive payroll not that long ago? When was the last time the Knicks were relevant?

 

Much like the other sports, teams that make more money obviously have an edge, but they also have to be run well.

 

The flipside to the "owners take all the risk" argument is "the players are the reason that there's a league and people are making money." No one pays to see Dick Bavetta make a big call, or Phil Jackson to sit there in a suit, or for Mark Cuban to get angry a lot courtside (though they might belive that).

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

As I said earlier, the numbers of losses are highly debateable. I don't remember who said it, but a famous quote is "I can turn a $1 million profit into a $2 million loss and get every accountant in the country to agree with me".

 

Are some teams losing money? Sure, but it's hard to make every team profitable, especially with some of the dumb contract decisions teams make.

 

The small market team thing is also BS. How many rings do the Spurs have? Isn't one of the hot teams to be the "next dynasty" the OKC Thunder? Wasn't Cleveland a powerhouse with a massive payroll not that long ago? When was the last time the Knicks were relevant?

 

Much like the other sports, teams that make more money obviously have an edge, but they also have to be run well.

 

The flipside to the "owners take all the risk" argument is "the players are the reason that there's a league and people are making money." No one pays to see Dick Bavetta make a big call, or Phil Jackson to sit there in a suit, or for Mark Cuban to get angry a lot courtside (though they might belive that).

 

Well you've got an actual example of a franchise that had to close shop because they couldn't turn a profit (NO). You have another that just needed a big loan to stay afloat (SAC). I don't think anyone is doubting that the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

As to the small market comment, look at the list of NBA champions the last 30 or so years. There's a common theme. LA, Chicago, Boston and the occasional Houston (not exactly a small market), Spurs (sure) and Miami (sure). And who did those small market teams have? Hall of Famers. Each one of them.

 

Now look at the environment of today. Ray Allen left the Sonics. They suck. Garnett left Minnesota. They suck. Gasol left Milwuakee, they suck. Lebron left Cleveland. They suck. This is a league about stars and 95% of the time it's the big market team that gets them in their best years.

 

 

[ZoomSlowik]

Well you've got an actual example of a franchise that had to close shop because they couldn't turn a profit (NO). You have another that just needed a big loan to stay afloat (SAC). I don't think anyone is doubting that the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

As to the small market comment, look at the list of NBA champions the last 30 or so years. There's a common theme. LA, Chicago, Boston and the occasional Houston (not exactly a small market), Spurs (sure) and Miami (sure). And who did those small market teams have? Hall of Famers. Each one of them.

 

Now look at the environment of today. Ray Allen left the Sonics. They suck. Garnett left Minnesota. They suck. Gasol left Milwuakee, they suck. Lebron left Cleveland. They suck. This is a league about stars and 95% of the time it's the big market team that gets them in their best years.

 

First off, the Hornets didn't "close shop". They were bought by the league because they weren't happy with the offers they were getting (I can't comment on how good the offers were).

 

Second, in both of those cases, their financial issues are related to their owners' problems as much (probably moreso) than that of the teams. The Kings are in deep s*** largely because of the casino-related debt of the Maloofs (I don't know enough about Shinn to comment). Ownership finacial issues aren't unique to the NBA (I'm looking at you McCourt and Wilpon, which is even sadder given the markets they are in).

 

That's also two teams out of thirty that are having serious problems, and I'd bet they count for a disproportionate amount of the losses. If you contracted those two teams and improved revenue sharing, you'd probably be fine.

 

I don't get your point on the second part. Aren't good players usually a pre-requisite to winning a championship, or multiple championships in most of those cases? You also left off Detroit, who won 3 titles and isn't exactly a monster market.

 

Plus as I said before, a major market isn't a guarantee of wins. The Knicks haven't won in my lifetime and haven't come close in like 15 years, the Clippers have sucked forever, and Chicago and Boston have both gone through major down turns in the past 20 years. Houston and Dallas haven't exactly been juggernauts either. Dallas has been good of late, but I'd say that has a lot more to do with an owner that cares than their market.

 

The players go where they can make the most money while getting a chance to win. Tim Duncan stayed in San Antonio, Garnett was in Minnesota forever before the T-Wolves finally realized they were too inept to win it all, Nash has been in Phoenix for quite a while, Durant re-upped in OKC. There are plenty of counter-examples. Hell, even the guys everyone is griping about (Lebron, Melo, Bosh, Williams, probably Paul and Dwight soon, to a lesser extent Amare) stayed with their original teams past their rookie contracts.

 

I just don't see how it's really that different from baseball, which isn't getting much demand for a drastic reformatting. The players are going to go for the money first, and after that they'll generally look for the best place to win. Dropping salaries isn't suddenly going to make Lebron want to play for the Timberwolves.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ZoomSlowik