Nalod wrote:grillco wrote:franco12 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:
"its not class warfare, its math!"....ObamaNix, teams are making less money
That's true in almost every industry. It doesn't necessarily mean that owners should now be entitled to a higher percentage of the profits from the work of the employees.
I don't teams are making less money. I thought the issue driving this was some of the newer owners that paid unrealistically high amounts for teams that are struggling to be profitable after paying back the loans they took out to buy the teams.
What other industry guarantees a business owner profit like the NBA, and other sports franchises?
Sorry, but if an owner over pays for a team in a market that can't support that bad decision, and he over pays for talent, he has him or herself to blame- not the players.
James Dolan is replaceable. Lebron James isn't.
And if the talent doesn't pan out or gets injured that's just part of pro sports. Eddie Curry had the potential to be the second coming of Ewing (maybe more like Mourning, but still). He was paid too much based on that potential, but it didn't pan out. Owners can't agree to these deals and then start complaining about how overpaid this unproductive player is. Dolan at least had the sense to just let it go, accept the mistake and loses associated with it and allow his GM and coaches to move on. There can never really be built in protections against this unless non-guaranteed contracts return. The union, agents, and players will NEVER agree to this though.
I think the onus for the current situation is really on the owners and the commish. The unwillingness of folks like Sterling to really invest in winning even a huge market REGARDLESS of being the Lakers' shadow is one issue (and a unique one). But in other sports small/smaller market teams are finding ways to be competitive and even win. Winning teams make money. Drafting, signing, and trading well are all part of the process, but they all require investing in the team. Complaining about the cost of elite players doesn't hold water. If Melo had either won or was consistently competing in the semis and finals (and still losing), I don't think he leaves Denver. If he saw a future there, even to the point of being convince to take a pay cut to add the right guys, he doesn't leave. But the Nuggets didn't want to or couldn't really bring in any new guys to get them over the hump. The Suns let Amare leave and took away (without replacing) the type of player that they needed to pair with Nash to really compete. But investing in those things would have kept seats full and maximized profits (or the potential for profits). Winning teams rarely lose money, IF they're well managed (fiscally speaking). Several of these owners aren't really invested in the game, like a Cuban, they're looking at as just another company to run. Sports franchises are unique and standard practices don't really apply.
Melo left because he percieves himself as outgrowing Denver and his wife need to be in NY or LA.
It does not matter why a players wants to leave, its just the fact of having to deal with it.
The players have a good deal now and good guarantees. Agents get paid based on their clients salary. OF course they want no changes.
Players have huge egos and "want their money". They don't care about how.
Lets talk about Arenas vs. Plaxico.
Arenas did not shoot anyone but between his health problems and guns the guy has been awful. His contract should not be fully guaranteed. LIke the NFL, there is a reduced buyout.
If Plaxico returns to form, like Vick they have the opportunity to get new contracts. If a team releases them and they return to form well then good for the player and his new team. Eddie should only had 2 of his deal guaranteed. The cavaet should be what if he outplays his contract? Then incentives are put in place and perhaps a tax is imposed.
Players get security and then relax is not good for anyone, except the player of course!
But does Melo really feel he's outgrowing Denver if they were in the semis regularly and maybe had a trip or two to the Finals OR his team loads up like the Celts, Heat, or Knicks...I don't see it happening. Yes dealing with players leaving is huge for any franchise in any sport, but they can't play forever. Jeter's been playing for 16 years already, but he's going to stop one day. Owners acting like losing players for any reason or getting bum players is problem they shouldn't have to deal with is ludicrous. And so are guaranteed contracts, but they are the standard and aren't going anywhere.
The problem with the NBA is there aren't really any incentive based contracts. They happen in the NFL and MLB all of the time. A-Rod's 13 or so HR season might cost him $5 million increments if he doesn't reach certain milestones, but it drives him to earn those bonuses. The NBA might be harder, because scoring incentives won't necessarily equate to wins, but leadership-, defensive-, team play-based incentives, created in cooperation with the player/agent and GM/owner could benefit the team, as in defining "leadership" goals/actions, defensive intensity and milestones, and "team-play" (assists, not ignoring your teammates, etc.). The players aren't driven like they used to be. Ewing wanted his paydays, sure, but he wanted to win, just like Jordan...although he DID win. Bird and Magic obviously have done and lived well as players, but they wanted to win above all else. Joe Johnson wanted to be paid just like Amare, but Amare was in on the plan to build the franchise in NY. Wade, LeBron, and Bosh wanted to win just a bit more than just get paid, hence that financial "compromise" to join forces in Miami.
Basically the owners and players are broken. Their desire to make money (and as much as possible) takes massive precedent over winning. It was a known fact that Knicks/Rangers ownership over the years were often just happy with a series or two play-off revenues. Winning would have been gravy (and WAS for the Rangers), but the main thing was the money to be made off of playoff tickets, concessions, merchandise, all without having to pay the players any extra salary (or their regular per game salary). The players want long fat guaranteed contracts so they don't have to worry about money and the owners want unrealistic guarantees that their franchises will be lucrative. The owners have a bigger jump in the area of managing their expectations. While sports franchises are much different from every other kind of business, they are still a business and have all the risks of failure associated with business. But they won't have any business without a product and their product relies on the players.
50/50 seems fair to me, but I think that's become the worst case scenario for either side, because then neither side "wins". If the season goes, I'm done. I live around the MLB season, tennis tourneys, World Cups, and...well that's it for me.
