2011-2012 OFFICIAL NBA LOCKOUT thread

[ZoomSlowik]

I thought they've made it known that contraction is an option they're willing to negotiate? Maybe that was just a talking point though.

 

As you say in the latter part, the problem is there is so much BS floating around that it's hard to know the true facts. The impression I get is that Stern wants to protect the investments that the owners have made and make every team profitable rather than cutting their loses and folding a few franchises. Taking another Simmons' reference, Stern is protecting his "I've never lost a franchise" streak like Wilt Chamberlain's "I never fouled out of a game" streak. Again, that might be BS though.

 

Both sides are incredibly stubborn. The owners want to guarantee profits regardless of ineptitude and the players want to protect the current system that overpays a large percentage of players even though it's not totally sustainable.

[RockRaines]

And then Marty34 blamed it on Kenny Williams.

 

[Balta1701]

I also love that Paul Allen is on the list of small market owners griping about unacceptable annual losses when he's worth more than the rest of the list put together. Seriously, he could probably cover the losses from money he finds in his couch. How many years worth of losses would it take to equal what he spent on that massive yacht of his?

 

The biggest problem is not that the players are paid too much, the biggest problem is that the money is handed out in an extremely stupid manner. Instead of Lebron or Wade getting $25 mil, you have players that make no real impact on the team's success making $7 million-plus. Just look at the Bobcats; Corey Maggette, Boris Diaw, Tyrus Thomas and Desagana Diop will make a combined $33 million for a team that might not win 20 games. You can maybe handle one deal like that, but not four, and someone like Antawn Jamison getting $15 mil is just as painful.

 

THAT is your main problem. The middle class of players (for these purposes that will be defined as everyone between $7 mil in salary and the top-20 players) are consistently getting about $4 mil more than they should.

 

I love the idea that Mark Cuban may/may not have suggested: get rid of the salary cap but have a super-high tax at certain levels. That way the respective teams can spend what they want to spend, player movement will be a bit more fluid, and a fair amount of money will get funneled to the bottom tier teams. It seems to work reasonably well in baseball: the awful contracts are mostly grouped on major market teams that can absorb them more easily.

 

Of course it would work even better if they simply contracted a few of the teams that can't turn a profit anyways, but the NBA will never admit defeat like that.

You're right, That is part of the main problem...but I would contend that the other half of it is that the teams which don't have a superstar are overpaying for regular players because the economics of the game leave them with zero choice...either they lose 60 games a season and have a completely empty arena, or they spend that kind of stupid money to try to make a run at the 8th spot.

[bmags]

It sounded more like from Billy Hunter's interview, that the owners still haven't figured their s*** out yet on revenue sharing, so I doubt they'll be able to get the players to agree to anything.

[ZoomSlowik]

You're right, That is part of the main problem...but I would contend that the other half of it is that the teams which don't have a superstar are overpaying for regular players because the economics of the game leave them with zero choice...either they lose 60 games a season and have a completely empty arena, or they spend that kind of stupid money to try to make a run at the 8th spot.

 

Clearly spending that 30 million I mentioned on complete crap is going to keep the Bobcats out of the cellar and put them in good financial shape for the forseeable future.

Edited October 26, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[Balta1701]

Clearly spending that 30 million I mentioned on complete crap has kept the Bobcats out of the cellar and put them in good financial shape for the forseeable future.

They won 34 games and were in competition for the 8th spot last year. This is effectively a new franchise, it doesn't have a strong fanbase, I'd be shocked if it has a high TV/Radio revenue...they're not going to build that franchise into anything of value by winning 20 games a year and being judged out of it by December 1. They made a legit playoff run the year before, they had a chance to build up good will if they could continue some measure of winning.

 

This is the catch 22 in the league. The only way to truly win is to get the #1 pick or a true star, but that requires destroying your revenue streams several years in a row in order to actually get a chance at that...then managing to win during the 7 year window you have that player.

[ZoomSlowik]

They won 34 games and were in competition for the 8th spot last year. This is effectively a new franchise, it doesn't have a strong fanbase, I'd be shocked if it has a high TV/Radio revenue...they're not going to build that franchise into anything of value by winning 20 games a year and being judged out of it by December 1.

 

And they also traded Gerald Wallace mid-season, their best player by a wide margin. They are going to be terrible whenever this lockout ends.

 

And obviously winning 35-40 games a year hasn't done anything to improve their financial situation. In the NBA you're way better off being a cheap, bad team with a shot at the top of the lottery as OKC recently proved.

 

But hey, we'd rather spend $33 million on guys that wouldn't start on a decent team and b**** about how the players are making too much money instead.

[bmags]

The Bobcats are an atrocious organization. You'll be hard pressed to win anyone over by saying they don't have a chance.

[Balta1701]

And obviously winning 35-40 games a year hasn't done anything to improve their financial situation. In the NBA you're way better off being a cheap, bad team with a shot at the top of the lottery as OKC recently proved.

Strategically you're right...but that's also a path to contraction or being forced to move the franchise if you don't have a firm fanbase already built up. 3 years of 20 win seasons will effectively end probably 1/3 of the teams in the league.

[ZoomSlowik]

This is the catch 22 in the league. The only way to truly win is to get the #1 pick or a true star, but that requires destroying your revenue streams several years in a row in order to actually get a chance at that...then managing to win during the 7 year window you have that player.

 

So if the fastest way to be good is to stink for a few years and draft well, why do teams insist on spending extra money to be mediocre? Spending that extra $10 million to get someone like Mike Dunleavy just isn't a smart business decision. If you draft well and don't overspend, you can build from a 20 win team to a 40 win team and look for that finaly piece, which will get you there a lot faster than tacking on a mediocre vet or to in some desperate hopes to improve.

 

You also don't necessarily have to pick in the top-3 to get a really solid player. Plenty of solid players have gone a bit later in the draft, and you can still sign/trade for guys before they peak.

 

Winning 40 games and getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs just isn't going to drastically improve your "revenue streams". Several of the franchises that are struggling the most right now are teams that are/have been consistent playoff contenders in the Hornets, Bobcats and Pacers.

 

You have to spend your money intelligently just like in any other business.

[Balta1701]

So if the fastest way to be good is to stink for a few years and draft well, why do teams insist on spending extra money to be mediocre? Spending that extra $10 million to get someone like Mike Dunleavy just isn't a smart business decision. If you draft well and don't overspend, you can build from a 20 win team to a 40 win team and look for that finaly piece, which will get you there a lot faster than tacking on a mediocre vet or to in some desperate hopes to improve.

 

You also don't necessarily have to pick in the top-3 to get a really solid player. Plenty of solid players have gone a bit later in the draft, and you can still sign/trade for guys before they peak.

 

Winning 40 games and getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs just isn't going to drastically improve your "revenue streams". Several of the franchises that are struggling the most right now are teams that are/have been consistent playoff contenders in the Hornets, Bobcats and Pacers.

 

You have to spend your money intelligently just like in any other business.

You can only sign and trade for a guy if he's willing to sign with your franchise...which means you need to offer him stupider money than the next owner, and you still don't have a shot at a top 5 player.

 

And name for me a top player in the league drafted in the last 10 years who was taken outside of the top 5 picks. yeah, I'm excluding Kobe and Nowitzki with that date...but if the NBA has gotten any better at scouting over the last decade...I can't think of many 2nd round league-changers any more.

 

 

[ZoomSlowik]

Strategically you're right...but that's also a path to contraction or being forced to move the franchise if you don't have a firm fanbase already built up. 3 years of 20 win seasons will effectively end probably 1/3 of the teams in the league.

 

That's a gross exaggeration, otherwise the Clippers would have been gone 20 years ago.

[Balta1701]

That's a gross exaggeration, otherwise the Clippers would have been gone 20 years ago.

The Clippers have a major market to feed off of, and they're really helped by the existence of the Lakers. The Pacers, Kings, Bobcats, don't.

 

This is actually one of the worse things the NBA has done recently...in pursuit of new owners willing to put up with losing money, they've wound up moving a lot of franchises to places that were smaller cities than previous. Memphis is a small market. New Orleans was a small market even before a storm. OKC is a much smaller market than Seattle.

[ZoomSlowik]

You can only sign and trade for a guy if he's willing to sign with your franchise...which means you need to offer him stupider money than the next owner, and you still don't have a shot at a top 5 player.

 

And name for me a top player in the league drafted in the last 10 years who was taken outside of the top 5 picks. yeah, I'm excluding Kobe and Nowitzki with that date...but if the NBA has gotten any better at scouting over the last decade...I can't think of many 2nd round league-changers any more.

 

No, you're not going to get a top-5 player. Those kind of guys almost never change organizations and don't join poorly run ones when they do. However, there have been a number of other deals that paid huge dividends that didn't look that huge at the time.

 

The Wizards got Gilbert Arenas after his second year at well below the value he provided. The Grizzlies acquired Marc Gasol in a deal that was widely mocked, but he became a really solid player for them. Detroit picked up Richard Hamilton and Ben Wallace for peanuts and grabbed Chuncey Billups for a reasonable deal as well. The Suns signed Steve Nash before he jumped another level with his play. Those examples are just off the top of my head.

 

As for the drafting part, here's seven second round difference makers with zero research- Manu Ginobili, Michael Redd, Marc Gasol, Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer, Rashard Lewis and Wes Mathews. There's also Ben Wallace, who wasn't drafted. One or two might be pushing the 10 year limit, then again this past draft doesn't count yet and most steals don't produce as rookies, so I'm claiming them.

 

I like how you limted it to top-5 instead of #1 this time since that conveniently eliminates Dwayne Wade, Russell Westbrook and Kevin Love, who were all considered reaches at the time anyways (Wade less so than the other two). Your year limit also takes out Paul Pierce and Steve Nash.

 

With that qualifier, I guess it depends on how you define "top player". A lot of teams would love to have Rajon Rondo, Amare Stoudemire, Zach Randolph, Danny Granger, Rudy Gay, Joe Johnson, David West, Tony Parker, Andrew Bynum or Joakim Noah, though none of them are going to carry the franchise single-handedly. You can build a playoff team around 2 of those kind of guys, which is a hell of a lot better than pissing away money on proven mediocrity.

Edited October 26, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[Balta1701]

With that qualifier, I guess it depends on how you define "top player". A lot of teams would love to have Rajon Rondo, Amare Stoudemire, Zach Randolph, Danny Granger, Rudy Gay, Joe Johnson, David West, Tony Parker, Andrew Bynum or Joakim Noah, though none of them are going to carry the franchise single-handedly. You can build a playoff team around 2 of those kind of guys, which is a hell of a lot better than pissing away money on proven mediocrity.

Take a look at your own list of players now.

 

How many of them are getting stupid money? The names you just wrote are some of the worst contracts in the league. Amare is getting paid what., >$20 mil a year? Rudy Gay signed a near max deal last year. Joe Johnson signed the biggest contract of the Lebron offseason. Andrew Bynum's contract and injuries would be hampering any team other than the Lakers. Zach Randolph looked like he was stealing money from 3 franchises before he finally got things ironed out for 1 season in Memphis, and turned that into another big extension.

[nitetrain8601]

The Clippers have a major market to feed off of, and they're really helped by the existence of the Lakers. The Pacers, Kings, Bobcats, don't.

 

This is actually one of the worse things the NBA has done recently...in pursuit of new owners willing to put up with losing money, they've wound up moving a lot of franchises to places that were smaller cities than previous. Memphis is a small market. New Orleans was a small market even before a storm. OKC is a much smaller market than Seattle.

 

Thing is, OKC draws but have a horrible color scheme and logo, which is why they don't sell jerseys or merchandise. But they have one of the best fanbases in the league. Memphis drew once they started winning. New Orleans is the only one you could really make a case for.

[Balta1701]

Thing is, OKC draws but have a horrible color scheme and logo, which is why they don't sell jerseys or merchandise. But they have one of the best fanbases in the league. Memphis drew once they started winning. New Orleans is the only one you could really make a case for.

Which is exactly why teams spend stupid money on these players to try to make a run at the 8th spot. Memphis included. It paid off for them in 1 season so far.

[ZoomSlowik]

The Clippers have a major market to feed off of, and they're really helped by the existence of the Lakers. The Pacers, Kings, Bobcats, don't.

 

This is actually one of the worse things the NBA has done recently...in pursuit of new owners willing to put up with losing money, they've wound up moving a lot of franchises to places that were smaller cities than previous. Memphis is a small market. New Orleans was a small market even before a storm. OKC is a much smaller market than Seattle.

 

Okay, fine, change it to the Warriors, Timberwolves, Hawks, Raptors, whatever. Those teams have bad stretches that lasted a hell of a lot more than 3 years and have still lasted to some extent (I don't have their books in front of me, though I'm sure they're not great). There are a number of other teams like Utah and Denver that haven't come close to a championship recently but aren't exactly goners.

 

A team just doesn't die THAT quickly, and a turnaround on the court can fix things rather quickly. OKC's attendance is stellar right now, and Memphis could join them rather quickly if they build on their strong playoff run from last year.

[Balta1701]

and Memphis could join them rather quickly if they build on their strong playoff run from last year.

Exactly.

 

Memphis had a choice. Let Zach Randolph hit FA once a new CBA was signed, or try to build off their 8th place playoff finish and following playoff run.

 

4 years, $71 million for Zach Randolph. Nearly $18 mil a year.

 

It was either that...or go back to 20-25 wins.

 

Edit: Just like Atlanta, when they threw $125 million at Joe Johnson. And I still got decent seats for the Bulls playoff game in Atlanta 2 days before Game 6.

[ZoomSlowik]

Take a look at your own list of players now.

 

How many of them are getting stupid money? The names you just wrote are some of the worst contracts in the league. Amare is getting paid what., >$20 mil a year? Rudy Gay signed a near max deal last year. Joe Johnson signed the biggest contract of the Lebron offseason. Andrew Bynum's contract and injuries would be hampering any team other than the Lakers. Zach Randolph looked like he was stealing money from 3 franchises before he finally got things ironed out for 1 season in Memphis, and turned that into another big extension.

 

What you pay these guys is an entirely different issue than finding them. No one made Washington give Arenas that huge deal coming off a major injury, just like no one forced Memphis or Atlanta to give those guys max deals before they even got a shot to test the market. I don't really know why some teams have a big problem with that, because it seems like some teams get players to sign reasonable contracts all the time (Rondo and Aldridge immediately come to mind).

 

If the money isn't right, you don't HAVE to give it to them. Seattle/OKC eventually moved on without Allen and Lewis (before you say that cost them their team, the Sonics were essentially gone already), Memphis has moved on without Gasol, Atlanta would get by with Horford/Smith and Teague developing as a PG, ect.

 

The problem is no one ever says no. It seems like everyone would rather spend $60 million on a 40 win team and then b**** about it than spend $30 million on a 25 win team and try to rebuild.

[nitetrain8601]

What you pay these guys is an entirely different issue than finding them. No one made Washington give Arenas that huge deal coming off a major injury, just like no one forced Memphis or Atlanta to give those guys max deals before they even got a shot to test the market. I don't really know why some teams have a big problem with that, because it seems like some teams get players to sign reasonable contracts all the time (Rondo and Aldridge immediately come to mind).

 

If the money isn't right, you don't HAVE to give it to them. Seattle/OKC eventually moved on without Allen and Lewis (before you say that cost them their team, the Sonics were essentially gone already), Memphis has moved on without Gasol, Atlanta would get by with Horford/Smith and Teague developing as a PG, ect.

 

The problem is no one ever says no. It seems like everyone would rather spend $60 million on a 40 win team and then b**** about it than spend $30 million on a 25 win team and try to rebuild.

 

Not only a question for Zoom, but for everyone else as well.

 

If you were a big time star in the NBA, going into FA, what cities would you consider off the bat(rank them)? Also rank the following in terms of importance to you.

 

Winning

Money

Location

Fan Base

 

[ZoomSlowik]

Exactly.

 

Memphis had a choice. Let Zach Randolph hit FA once a new CBA was signed, or try to build off their 8th place playoff finish and following playoff run.

 

4 years, $71 million for Zach Randolph. Nearly $18 mil a year.

 

It was either that...or go back to 20-25 wins.

 

Edit: Just like Atlanta, when they threw $125 million at Joe Johnson. And I still got decent seats for the Bulls playoff game in Atlanta 2 days before Game 6.

 

First off, the Grizzlies spending that much on Randolph isn't the type of problems I was talking about. Memphis was legitimate playoff team and Randolph was their best player for most of the year, certainly in the playoffs. This isn't the same thing an awful team throwing a bunch of money at some mediocre player in the hopes that he can help them sneak into the playoffs.

 

Second, there's a big difference there: the Hawks have proven that they can't win with their current roster while Memphis doesn't know exactly how good they are.

 

The Grizzlies nearly made the conference finals even with Rudy Gay missing nearly 30 games and all of the playoffs. With him, they might be really good. They won 46 games and could have had an even better season with Gay healthy. If they were in the East, they'd have been like the 4 seed instead of 8th.

 

Given the way Randolph and the team played this year, it's not that bad an investment. Randolph was a difference maker, difference makers are worth that kind of money. Joe Johnson has never made that kind of impact in a game of any significance, and he's getting a fair amount more money than Randolph. If I owned the Hawks, there is no way I give Johnson a max deal right away. I'd offer him like $14 million a year and maybe go to $16 if I have to, but no more. That's a lot of money to be paying for a second or third tier star already.

 

If he goes, so be it, I can still probably win 35 games in the East and maybe sneak into the playoffs with a lineup of Teague/Crawford/Williams/Smith/Horford and try to find a suitable replacement in the draft or with the MLE (and maybe replace Crawford this off-season too. Also, screw that Bibby/Hinrich deal where we gave up Jordan Crawford and a 1st in the deal as well, we're keeping those parts to build for the future. /rant).

 

Obviously Marc Gasol's pending free agency is an issue, but even if he gets $14 million (which would be steep even under the old system), they'd have roughly the same amount of money committed to this year's roster as the Hawks would even with Jamal Crawford not being counted.

 

The Grizzlies are in a bit of a money crunch because they overpaid some people (Conley by a fair amount, Gay by a few million, arguably Randolph by a few million given his history, possibly Gasol by a lot), but they'll have a 50-win type team for a total payroll of $60-65 million payroll. If you can't at least break even in that scenario, you're doing something wrong and probably shouldn't be running the team.

Edited October 26, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[ZoomSlowik]

Not only a question for Zoom, but for everyone else as well.

 

If you were a big time star in the NBA, going into FA, what cities would you consider off the bat(rank them)? Also rank the following in terms of importance to you.

 

Winning

Money

Location

Fan Base

 

I think the cities are different for every player. Some might want to be closer to home, some might want to be in a big city with plenty of nightlife/entertainment options, some might want somewhere warm, some might want a state with no income tax. For some I'm sure the organization is more important than the city.

 

If given the option, it seems like free agents typically go to LA or Florida, so I'd say those teams are 1-4, with New York 5. After that, who knows.

 

Everyone is a little different, but for most of these guys I would think it looks something like this:

 

1) Money, though this is dependent on the gap between the offers. If the Lakers are offering me their MLE and the Timberwolves are offering me something like 5-60, I'm going to Minnesota. If it's more like 5-60 from Minny and let's say the Knicks or Magic are offering me 5-50, I'm probably going to the better team in the better city.

 

1A) Winning at least I hope this would be the case. For me, I'd rather take a few million less and be in a better situation than extract every last dollar out of a situation, though I'm sure some guys are all about the money.

 

3) Fan base. I don't really know about this one. I'm sure playing in a half empty stadium all the time sucks, but then again the constant media attention in a more basketball-rabid city could suck just as much.

 

4) Location. I don't think I'd care personally. The team is traveling for 6-8 months out of the year anyways and I could always live elsewhere during the off-season. I think some players care about this a lot more though.

[nitetrain8601]

I think the cities are different for every player. Some might want to be closer to home, some might want to be in a big city with plenty of nightlife/entertainment options, some might want somewhere warm, some might want a state with no income tax. For some I'm sure the organization is more important than the city.

 

If given the option, it seems like free agents typically go to LA or Florida, so I'd say those teams are 1-4, with New York 5. After that, who knows.

 

Everyone is a little different, but for most of these guys I would think it looks something like this:

 

1) Money, though this is dependent on the gap between the offers. If the Lakers are offering me their MLE and the Timberwolves are offering me something like 5-60, I'm going to Minnesota. If it's more like 5-60 from Minny and let's say the Knicks or Magic are offering me 5-50, I'm probably going to the better team in the better city.

 

1A) Winning at least I hope this would be the case. For me, I'd rather take a few million less and be in a better situation than extract every last dollar out of a situation, though I'm sure some guys are all about the money.

 

3) Fan base. I don't really know about this one. I'm sure playing in a half empty stadium all the time sucks, but then again the constant media attention in a more basketball-rabid city could suck just as much.

 

4) Location. I don't think I'd care personally. The team is traveling for 6-8 months out of the year anyways and I could always live elsewhere during the off-season. I think some players care about this a lot more though.

 

So with that said, you answered why teams overpay for marginal players. It's because they have to in order to get them to go there or stay there. As you stated, I would look at LA or Florida first. Next would be any big city. Winning would go next.

 

And the players want to keep that system.

[ZoomSlowik]

So with that said, you answered why teams overpay for marginal players. It's because they have to in order to get them to go there or stay there. As you stated, I would look at LA or Florida first. Next would be any big city. Winning would go next.

 

And the players want to keep that system.

 

I get "why" they have to overpay marginal players to get there, my point is why bother? The return on investment is absolutely horrible. You don't see a team like the Royals or Pirates making an $16 million a year bid on AJ Burnett very often, but for some reason that kind of thing happens regularly in basketball (obviously the numbers are a little different).

 

I guess it also depends on how you define "marginal player". I'm not talking about someone like Rudy Gay or Joe Johnson in that scenario (who while overpaid do have a fair amount of talent and probably have some drawing ability), I'm talking about deals to guys like Corey Maggette or Stephen Jackson or Emeka Okafor or Chris Kaman. Yeah, those guys have some value as the fourth best player on a contending team, but what the heck is the point on Charlotte? To win 30 games instead of 20-25?

Edited October 26, 2011 by ZoomSlowik