Knickoftime wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

That's looking at it in a vacuum a bit. Advertisers paying more and networks wanting the rights were the primary drivers for the TV deals exploding rather than ratings from the Heat. TV deals are up exponentially across all sports. There wasn't really a way to forecast the way technology would change preferences and the TV deals.

I didn't say the new TV deal was solely responsible. But the NBA really beginning with 2010 has expanded into an almost 365 sport. The draft and free agency is now building tons of interest in the league.

Heat won 2 titles in a sport that has been traditionally dominated by a handful of teams.

If nothing else, they didn't hurt.

At all.

2010 is backdating it a bit too far. Agreed that the Heat didn't hurt. The league has ultimately been dominated by a handful of teams over time. However, historically it was at least plausible that other teams could compete and the players had a desire to do so. I can't recall a time when you could take the entire league in a field bet against 1 team at plus money to win the championship. From a economic perspective I don't really disagree with you here.

I just question how sustainable this is. At some point when every star sits out the TNT games every wk the networks have to pull back a bit. I dunno how u fix the player mentality. It's gotten pretty bad. Even players that were historically tough took vacations (rest) in national games. Granted I'mean going way out here but it has to be a concern if you're an owner or at least I would think it would be.

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:They need to get read of max contracts and cap.
This will make superstar salaries much bigger and the rest of the players much smaller.
Which is exactly reflecting the share in winning.
And owners again will be able to afford only 1-2 superstars.

Player's Association will never go for it.

They don't want that. Why would they?

People usually cannot save themselves.
That why Unions in general are cancer of the society.

That depends on where you work and who your employer is.

Unions a cancer? Yeah cuz those Robber Baron and Child Labor days were so great. There has to be balance. Executive compensation is WAY out of balance. The NBA system is about as balanced between the players and owners as it's going to get. The Owners set these parameters but failed to account for what would happen when the money increased. The money increased because of the public's interest in great players like Curry and Lebron. The Owners thought that by clamping down on the greatest players salaries that it would make things better but Max contracts and MLE contracts threw the balance out of whack and teams ended up paying too much for middle of the road players and scrubs. This is all on the Owners who are supposed to be great businessmen and financial planners.

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pouting billionaires. No one said they had to be logical about this.

I don't know if they're gonna care that they are making money hand over fist on all this.

It's about being shown up by the Warriors and Joe Lacob - who the other owners all despise for his arrogance - saying things like "we're light years ahead of other teams", etc.

Yeah, I'd take the post-game over Durant from the league's owners and execs with a grain of salt.

People like to bitch to the media, about any and all things. It's just the way of things now. I wouldn't necessarily conclude a lockout is coming over it.

The owners were still salty about Lebron to Miami a year after it happened. This isn't gonna be about splitting the pie - it's gonna be about restricting player movement... owners have to be able to see either hope for the future or the illusion of competing. OKC was a standard-bearer for a well run franchise. For them to be defeated by free agency, losing the face of their team, losing him to a big market team... this is the stuff that will sit in the craw of the other owners. Particularly if the Warriors are arrogantly prancing all over the court again next year. And, of course, on the flip side, the players want that hard fought free agency and will be loathe to give it up or accept restrictions on it. I fear it'll be a war. I said this as soon as the TV deal hit and the cap jumps were announced. Silver is smart, but both sides in this one are going to be extremely salty.

The trend I see is the better your team and the more talent you have the easier it is to attract MORE talent. The NBA has done VERY VERY well, and while only a handful of teams actually compete for a title there are upsets every year.

I disagree there will be a lockout. There are crazy salaries being dished out but that is balanced by the revenue coming in. The amount being shared is static, so as the cap spikes and salaries follow the ones benefitting the most are the owners.

Am I supposed to feel back for OKC? I mean if KP leaves after his first big extension is up because the Knicks are a dysfunctional mess I am blaming the Knicks, not the CBA or the system. Of the last 7 years OKC has won 50+ games 5x and missed the playoffs once. Sounds to me like after a great run Durant just got "shared." The only problem is people are salty about where the sharing went.

For all GS's greatness they had to come back down 3-1 vs. OK and lost after being up 3-1 to Bron's Cavs. It was great drama. Super teams aren't really anything new... just how to build them and the player culture has changed. Ownership needs to change also.

I mean there also needs to be some freedom for the players. How many years is it fair for someone to tell you where you are allowed to work before you earn the choice for yourself?

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pouting billionaires. No one said they had to be logical about this.

I don't know if they're gonna care that they are making money hand over fist on all this.

It's about being shown up by the Warriors and Joe Lacob - who the other owners all despise for his arrogance - saying things like "we're light years ahead of other teams", etc.

Yeah, I'd take the post-game over Durant from the league's owners and execs with a grain of salt.

People like to bitch to the media, about any and all things. It's just the way of things now. I wouldn't necessarily conclude a lockout is coming over it.

The owners were still salty about Lebron to Miami a year after it happened. This isn't gonna be about splitting the pie - it's gonna be about restricting player movement... owners have to be able to see either hope for the future or the illusion of competing. OKC was a standard-bearer for a well run franchise. For them to be defeated by free agency, losing the face of their team, losing him to a big market team... this is the stuff that will sit in the craw of the other owners. Particularly if the Warriors are arrogantly prancing all over the court again next year. And, of course, on the flip side, the players want that hard fought free agency and will be loathe to give it up or accept restrictions on it. I fear it'll be a war. I said this as soon as the TV deal hit and the cap jumps were announced. Silver is smart, but both sides in this one are going to be extremely salty.

My thought is too phucking bad.

The trend I see is the better your team and the more talent you have the easier it is to attract MORE talent. The NBA has done VERY VERY well, and while only a handful of teams actually compete for a title there are upsets every year.

I disagree there will be a lockout. There are crazy salaries being dished out but that is balanced by the revenue coming in. The amount being shared is static, so as the cap spikes and salaries follow the ones benefitting the most are the owners.

Am I supposed to feel back for OKC? I mean if KP leaves after his first big extension is up because the Knicks are a dysfunctional mess I am blaming the Knicks, not the CBA or the system. Of the last 7 years OKC has won 50+ games 5x and missed the playoffs once. Sounds to me like after a great run Durant just got "shared." The only problem is people are salty about where the sharing went.

For all GS's greatness they had to come back down 3-1 vs. OK and lost after being up 3-1 to Bron's Cavs. It was great drama. Super teams aren't really anything new... just how to build them and the player culture has changed. Ownership needs to change also.

I mean there also needs to be some freedom for the players. How many years is it fair for someone to tell you where you are allowed to work before you earn the choice for yourself?

Wow, I agree with every word Fish just wrote.

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pouting billionaires. No one said they had to be logical about this.

I don't know if they're gonna care that they are making money hand over fist on all this.

It's about being shown up by the Warriors and Joe Lacob - who the other owners all despise for his arrogance - saying things like "we're light years ahead of other teams", etc.

Yeah, I'd take the post-game over Durant from the league's owners and execs with a grain of salt.

People like to bitch to the media, about any and all things. It's just the way of things now. I wouldn't necessarily conclude a lockout is coming over it.

The owners were still salty about Lebron to Miami a year after it happened. This isn't gonna be about splitting the pie - it's gonna be about restricting player movement... owners have to be able to see either hope for the future or the illusion of competing. OKC was a standard-bearer for a well run franchise. For them to be defeated by free agency, losing the face of their team, losing him to a big market team... this is the stuff that will sit in the craw of the other owners. Particularly if the Warriors are arrogantly prancing all over the court again next year. And, of course, on the flip side, the players want that hard fought free agency and will be loathe to give it up or accept restrictions on it. I fear it'll be a war. I said this as soon as the TV deal hit and the cap jumps were announced. Silver is smart, but both sides in this one are going to be extremely salty.

My thought is too phucking bad.

The trend I see is the better your team and the more talent you have the easier it is to attract MORE talent. The NBA has done VERY VERY well, and while only a handful of teams actually compete for a title there are upsets every year.

I disagree there will be a lockout. There are crazy salaries being dished out but that is balanced by the revenue coming in. The amount being shared is static, so as the cap spikes and salaries follow the ones benefitting the most are the owners.

Am I supposed to feel back for OKC? I mean if KP leaves after his first big extension is up because the Knicks are a dysfunctional mess I am blaming the Knicks, not the CBA or the system. Of the last 7 years OKC has won 50+ games 5x and missed the playoffs once. Sounds to me like after a great run Durant just got "shared." The only problem is people are salty about where the sharing went.

For all GS's greatness they had to come back down 3-1 vs. OK and lost after being up 3-1 to Bron's Cavs. It was great drama. Super teams aren't really anything new... just how to build them and the player culture has changed. Ownership needs to change also.

I mean there also needs to be some freedom for the players. How many years is it fair for someone to tell you where you are allowed to work before you earn the choice for yourself?

I don't disagree with you. But the owners look at the landscape and feel they cannot compete. I think it's 60/40 we have a lockout. Before the Durant thing I would've said 40/60.

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pouting billionaires. No one said they had to be logical about this.

I don't know if they're gonna care that they are making money hand over fist on all this.

It's about being shown up by the Warriors and Joe Lacob - who the other owners all despise for his arrogance - saying things like "we're light years ahead of other teams", etc.

Yeah, I'd take the post-game over Durant from the league's owners and execs with a grain of salt.

People like to bitch to the media, about any and all things. It's just the way of things now. I wouldn't necessarily conclude a lockout is coming over it.

The owners were still salty about Lebron to Miami a year after it happened. This isn't gonna be about splitting the pie - it's gonna be about restricting player movement... owners have to be able to see either hope for the future or the illusion of competing. OKC was a standard-bearer for a well run franchise. For them to be defeated by free agency, losing the face of their team, losing him to a big market team... this is the stuff that will sit in the craw of the other owners. Particularly if the Warriors are arrogantly prancing all over the court again next year. And, of course, on the flip side, the players want that hard fought free agency and will be loathe to give it up or accept restrictions on it. I fear it'll be a war. I said this as soon as the TV deal hit and the cap jumps were announced. Silver is smart, but both sides in this one are going to be extremely salty.

My thought is too phucking bad.

The trend I see is the better your team and the more talent you have the easier it is to attract MORE talent. The NBA has done VERY VERY well, and while only a handful of teams actually compete for a title there are upsets every year.

I disagree there will be a lockout. There are crazy salaries being dished out but that is balanced by the revenue coming in. The amount being shared is static, so as the cap spikes and salaries follow the ones benefitting the most are the owners.

Am I supposed to feel back for OKC? I mean if KP leaves after his first big extension is up because the Knicks are a dysfunctional mess I am blaming the Knicks, not the CBA or the system. Of the last 7 years OKC has won 50+ games 5x and missed the playoffs once. Sounds to me like after a great run Durant just got "shared." The only problem is people are salty about where the sharing went.

For all GS's greatness they had to come back down 3-1 vs. OK and lost after being up 3-1 to Bron's Cavs. It was great drama. Super teams aren't really anything new... just how to build them and the player culture has changed. Ownership needs to change also.

I mean there also needs to be some freedom for the players. How many years is it fair for someone to tell you where you are allowed to work before you earn the choice for yourself?

I don't disagree with you. But the owners look at the landscape and feel they cannot compete. I think it's 60/40 we have a lockout. Before the Durant thing I would've said 40/60.

But what is the ask?

What is the issue they'd lock out over and the solution?

They also don't want longer-term 5 and 6 year contracts.

They're not going to get 40% super-max players, and probably don't want it.

Having a labor stoppage in a league flush with revenue over competitive balance issues would be nearly unprecedented.

The lack of an easy solution is why I think there will be an impasse.

The owners want a solution to a problem that really can't be managed. They want constant parity and the promise of being successful in a league where there are maybe 5-10 players who can move the needle on a championship team. It's an unrealistic ask - but there have been rumblings that five of the big market teams feel this way - have to think Philly.. maybe Boston? maybe Chicago? maybe Lakers? Nets?

Again, this doesn't mean the owners have well-managed teams or are in the right. They don't have to be right to have a lockout. Hopefully Silver can talk them out of it. But we've seen before that these owners are big emotional babies who would rather take their toys home than play a game they think they might lose.

Hey, I'm not rooting for a lockout. I'm rooting strongly against a lockout. I'm just sharing an article that explicitly stated and quoted those dreaded anonymous league sources that the Durant signing could snowball into a lockout impasse. I'm saying that's a potential I could see. It's obviously not definite yet and hopefully Silver can avoid it. But the way the cap jump was handled didn't help every team - it helped Golden State and sucked the heart out of OKC. Silver wanted cap smoothing, the players wanted the chaos of a big pay day for a random group of free agents - and they got it.

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pouting billionaires. No one said they had to be logical about this.

I don't know if they're gonna care that they are making money hand over fist on all this.

It's about being shown up by the Warriors and Joe Lacob - who the other owners all despise for his arrogance - saying things like "we're light years ahead of other teams", etc.

Yeah, I'd take the post-game over Durant from the league's owners and execs with a grain of salt.

People like to bitch to the media, about any and all things. It's just the way of things now. I wouldn't necessarily conclude a lockout is coming over it.

The owners were still salty about Lebron to Miami a year after it happened. This isn't gonna be about splitting the pie - it's gonna be about restricting player movement... owners have to be able to see either hope for the future or the illusion of competing. OKC was a standard-bearer for a well run franchise. For them to be defeated by free agency, losing the face of their team, losing him to a big market team... this is the stuff that will sit in the craw of the other owners. Particularly if the Warriors are arrogantly prancing all over the court again next year. And, of course, on the flip side, the players want that hard fought free agency and will be loathe to give it up or accept restrictions on it. I fear it'll be a war. I said this as soon as the TV deal hit and the cap jumps were announced. Silver is smart, but both sides in this one are going to be extremely salty.

My thought is too phucking bad.

The trend I see is the better your team and the more talent you have the easier it is to attract MORE talent. The NBA has done VERY VERY well, and while only a handful of teams actually compete for a title there are upsets every year.

I disagree there will be a lockout. There are crazy salaries being dished out but that is balanced by the revenue coming in. The amount being shared is static, so as the cap spikes and salaries follow the ones benefitting the most are the owners.

Am I supposed to feel back for OKC? I mean if KP leaves after his first big extension is up because the Knicks are a dysfunctional mess I am blaming the Knicks, not the CBA or the system. Of the last 7 years OKC has won 50+ games 5x and missed the playoffs once. Sounds to me like after a great run Durant just got "shared." The only problem is people are salty about where the sharing went.

For all GS's greatness they had to come back down 3-1 vs. OK and lost after being up 3-1 to Bron's Cavs. It was great drama. Super teams aren't really anything new... just how to build them and the player culture has changed. Ownership needs to change also.

I mean there also needs to be some freedom for the players. How many years is it fair for someone to tell you where you are allowed to work before you earn the choice for yourself?

I don't disagree with you. But the owners look at the landscape and feel they cannot compete. I think it's 60/40 we have a lockout. Before the Durant thing I would've said 40/60.

But what is the ask?

What is the issue they'd lock out over and the solution?

They also don't want longer-term 5 and 6 year contracts.

They're not going to get 40% super-max players, and probably don't want it.

Having a labor stoppage in a league flush with revenue over competitive balance issues would be nearly unprecedented.

The lack of an easy solution is why I think there will be an impasse.

The owners want a solution to a problem that really can't be managed. They want constant parity and the promise of being successful in a league where there are maybe 5-10 players who can move the needle on a championship team. It's an unrealistic ask - but there have been rumblings that five of the big market teams feel this way - have to think Philly.. maybe Boston? maybe Chicago? maybe Lakers? Nets?

Again, this doesn't mean the owners have well-managed teams or are in the right. They don't have to be right to have a lockout. Hopefully Silver can talk them out of it. But we've seen before that these owners are big emotional babies who would rather take their toys home than play a game they think they might lose.

Hey, I'm not rooting for a lockout. I'm rooting strongly against a lockout. I'm just sharing an article that explicitly stated and quoted those dreaded anonymous league sources that the Durant signing could snowball into a lockout impasse. I'm saying that's a potential I could see. It's obviously not definite yet and hopefully Silver can avoid it. But the way the cap jump was handled didn't help every team - it helped Golden State and sucked the heart out of OKC. Silver wanted cap smoothing, the players wanted the chaos of a big pay day for a random group of free agents - and they got it.

All I'm saying is the article just wildly speculated and didn't seem to concern itself with pragmatic issues. The owners really aren't that petulant. They are business owners of varying ability who knows (or at least advised) that they have to sell a work stoppage to the public. Last time is was the league was losing money. And I remember quite clearly at the time they had a good deal of the fanbase on their side.

IF the owners lock out (the players might strike first) they WILL have a reason in which they'll try to win the PR battle with. I don't know what that is here is all I'm saying.

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Waitaminute...

The Heat were so bad for NBA business their 4 seasons together led directly to a new 9 year TV contract tripling revenue.

There's a big disconnect here...

Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pouting billionaires. No one said they had to be logical about this.

I don't know if they're gonna care that they are making money hand over fist on all this.

It's about being shown up by the Warriors and Joe Lacob - who the other owners all despise for his arrogance - saying things like "we're light years ahead of other teams", etc.

Yeah, I'd take the post-game over Durant from the league's owners and execs with a grain of salt.

People like to bitch to the media, about any and all things. It's just the way of things now. I wouldn't necessarily conclude a lockout is coming over it.

The owners were still salty about Lebron to Miami a year after it happened. This isn't gonna be about splitting the pie - it's gonna be about restricting player movement... owners have to be able to see either hope for the future or the illusion of competing. OKC was a standard-bearer for a well run franchise. For them to be defeated by free agency, losing the face of their team, losing him to a big market team... this is the stuff that will sit in the craw of the other owners. Particularly if the Warriors are arrogantly prancing all over the court again next year. And, of course, on the flip side, the players want that hard fought free agency and will be loathe to give it up or accept restrictions on it. I fear it'll be a war. I said this as soon as the TV deal hit and the cap jumps were announced. Silver is smart, but both sides in this one are going to be extremely salty.

My thought is too phucking bad.

The trend I see is the better your team and the more talent you have the easier it is to attract MORE talent. The NBA has done VERY VERY well, and while only a handful of teams actually compete for a title there are upsets every year.

I disagree there will be a lockout. There are crazy salaries being dished out but that is balanced by the revenue coming in. The amount being shared is static, so as the cap spikes and salaries follow the ones benefitting the most are the owners.

Am I supposed to feel back for OKC? I mean if KP leaves after his first big extension is up because the Knicks are a dysfunctional mess I am blaming the Knicks, not the CBA or the system. Of the last 7 years OKC has won 50+ games 5x and missed the playoffs once. Sounds to me like after a great run Durant just got "shared." The only problem is people are salty about where the sharing went.

For all GS's greatness they had to come back down 3-1 vs. OK and lost after being up 3-1 to Bron's Cavs. It was great drama. Super teams aren't really anything new... just how to build them and the player culture has changed. Ownership needs to change also.

I mean there also needs to be some freedom for the players. How many years is it fair for someone to tell you where you are allowed to work before you earn the choice for yourself?

I don't disagree with you. But the owners look at the landscape and feel they cannot compete. I think it's 60/40 we have a lockout. Before the Durant thing I would've said 40/60.

But what is the ask?

What is the issue they'd lock out over and the solution?

They also don't want longer-term 5 and 6 year contracts.

They're not going to get 40% super-max players, and probably don't want it.

Having a labor stoppage in a league flush with revenue over competitive balance issues would be nearly unprecedented.

The lack of an easy solution is why I think there will be an impasse.

The owners want a solution to a problem that really can't be managed. They want constant parity and the promise of being successful in a league where there are maybe 5-10 players who can move the needle on a championship team. It's an unrealistic ask - but there have been rumblings that five of the big market teams feel this way - have to think Philly.. maybe Boston? maybe Chicago? maybe Lakers? Nets?

Again, this doesn't mean the owners have well-managed teams or are in the right. They don't have to be right to have a lockout. Hopefully Silver can talk them out of it. But we've seen before that these owners are big emotional babies who would rather take their toys home than play a game they think they might lose.

Hey, I'm not rooting for a lockout. I'm rooting strongly against a lockout. I'm just sharing an article that explicitly stated and quoted those dreaded anonymous league sources that the Durant signing could snowball into a lockout impasse. I'm saying that's a potential I could see. It's obviously not definite yet and hopefully Silver can avoid it. But the way the cap jump was handled didn't help every team - it helped Golden State and sucked the heart out of OKC. Silver wanted cap smoothing, the players wanted the chaos of a big pay day for a random group of free agents - and they got it.

All I'm saying is the article just wildly speculated and didn't seem to concern itself with pragmatic issues. The owners really aren't that petulant. They are business owners of varying ability who knows (or at least advised) that they have to sell a work stoppage to the public. Last time is was the league was losing money. And I remember quite clearly at the time they had a good deal of the fanbase on their side.

IF the owners lock out (the players might strike first) they WILL have a reason in which they'll try to win the PR battle with. I don't know what that is here is all I'm saying.

You're right about the PR side - and that may be how Silver can sell it. "Listen, you're making money hand over fist as owners, your team values are tripling or more, everyone is happy... you're just not going to be able to beat the Warriors for a few years."

But owners are going to want more restrictive free agency - less player movement. And obviously the Union is not going to like that one bit, rightly so.

NYKBocker wrote:I'm a little confused. Yes, Durant joined the Warriors this year and the system allowed it. BUT...The Warriors were not built via Free Agency or this system. The Warriors were built via the draft. They were smart enough to select the perfect players for their system and the perfect coach. This to me is another knee jerk reaction. The system works. Talent level is dispersed evenly. The 2 top teams right now are unique. 1 has a great team the other a great player. Everybody else has a punchers chance.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Durant passed on 53mil to join the Warriors. There is nothing you can really do about that. The players are independent contractors. Can't stop them from playing where they want to play when they are free agents.

He's really only passing up on 3 mil. He will opt out and get a better long term deal. Agreed that the only question was his mental toughness since he went there in pursuit of a lesser role and decreased accountability.

I think he was frustrated by Westbrook. It seemed to be an overreaction to them blowing a 3-1 lead. But also, maybe the thought that if they couldn't get by GSW fully healthy with a 3-1 lead when Curry was clearly limited, they never would.

That said - Durant's reasoning isn't really going to impact the other owners' reaction. Hopefully Silver can explain it that way, but I could really see it leading to a lockout. And other people involved in the league are saying the same thing.