Reply With Quote
Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis sucks.
Spurs would've had a meaningless game against Orlando tonight.We could be watching scrubs right now, dammit!
Spurs relocation to a bigger market ?
Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis sucks.
Spurs would've had a meaningless game against Orlando tonight.
Yep. I would have really liked that. We could have been seeing the growth of Splitter and Neal, the comeback of James Anderson, and our new rookies Leonard, Joseph, and whoever Spurs would have picked up for training camp. This lockout is bull .Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis sucks.
Spurs would've had a meaningless game against Orlando tonight.
Maybe if the Owners would hire competent people in their front office and not hand out horrible contracts to bums, they wouldn't lose money like they do.
I think it's hilarious that the owners and Stern are throwing this off on the players when they've created this themselves. They want to change everything and expect the union to just kneel down and give in. The players have made some concessions and the owners don't seem to know what concession is.
If the owners had their together, they could have solved this problem themselves. Instead they've pushed a big problem between the big and small market teams onto the players and made it their issue. The players, in response, conceded a lot of ground. It's still not enough.
David Stern really has done an abominable job with this. He's been a major league asshole for ringleading such a show. If the teams addressed the real issues - revenue sharing, perhaps contraction - we'd have a season, happier players, and happy fans. Instead you have this dysfunctional bull .
Holt can whine as much as he wants about the old CBA but the true reason why Spurs have lost money lately is because of bad decisions made by Spurs front office.
When you make mistakes as huge as giving $50M to Jefferson+Bonner last summer, it's logical that you lose money. In an healthy business, you lost money when you do bad choices. NBA owners should accept that instead of trying to have a system that cover all the brain farts made by teams front offices.
Not to defend Holt's actions or to say that the owners are in the right, because they aren't....but if it weren't Jefferson or Bonner, it would've just been somebody else. They might have gotten better players or better production for their buck, but the cost would be the same.
The problem is (albeit not the only problem), the bar is set too high. Owners are going to keep reaching for it as long as it's up there, and that's evidenced by the fact that they just had an amnesty clause like five years ago, and they already need another one to let every team cut some bozo contract from their books (which nearly every team would probably jump at the chance to do so because overpaying has become standard practice). The bar needs to be lowered, if for no other reason than to protect the owners from themselves.
If you let a five-year old kid fill his cup to the rim with milk, milk is gonna get spilled.
Last edited by Dex; 10-21-2011 at 02:47 AM.
Then make it more painful to spill the milk. What they're doing is akin to saying you shouldn't give the kid milk anymore. They went from one extreme to the other. Right now the lux tax redistribution is one dollar for each dollar spent on the lux tax. Make it two or three dollars. The more big bucks owners want to tap on that lux tax, the more it hurts them and the more money flows to the smaller market teams, which in turn can both balance their sheets, or use the extra money to play the luxury tax game too if they so choose (A guy like Sterling will probably cheap out and keep the money, but I digress).
The whole 8-1 ratio is virtually a hard cap, and basically a complete shift to the other side of the spectrum. That's not negotiating. Players oppose a hard cap. If you instead offer a little harder soft cap, then I'm sure they'll take it. They already conceded almost everything else (5% BRI, one year contracts on both bird and non-bird contracts). Players already bent over and are leaving a lot of money on the table.
I also agree with Bruno that owners that make decisions should expect to take a financial hit. It happens to every single one of us when we make the wrong choice in business. Why would it be different for them?
I'll be calling to request my refund today.
No it wouldn't have been. The Spurs were way over the cap and wouldn't have had much left to spend after giving Splitter a share of the MLE.
Who else was going to give Jefferson $40 million and Bonner $14 million after the horrible seasons they had? It's still ridiculously mind-boggling how he signed off on those two deals.
Holt has no one to blame.
Funny how people say it's the owners fault. So what? That's part of being an owner. You got the guts, you take the risk, and do what you need to do to stay afloat whether you have made good or bad decisions. it happens in every business all the time.
I agree that a hard cap is going to be unreasonable. A firm cap, as it were, is probably the solution, but it's still not a solution that doesn't come with pitfalls. For one, the players will still oppose it, because they still want their big checks, and teams need to be able to spend freely to get those. Secondly, unless you find a way to severely punish those are spending WAY over the cap, guys like Cuban will be content to pay 3:1 instead of 2:1 to keep abusing the system, whereas guys like Holt will only be further limited by it, creating further disparity. I think that's where the whole 8:1 idea comes in; the intentions are right, but I agree that it's overshooting things by a wide margin.
Also, a lot of people blame the owners for burdening themselves with these contracts, but you can't deny that the players influence the market. The owners may be the ones cutting these checks and inking these deals, but they almost have to do it out of necessity. Players (and more so, their agents) know how to play the money-grab game and get top dollar for their talents, which explains why guys like Jamison, Ariza, and anybody over 6'9 is able to grab these huge contracts even if it doesn't correspond with what they are bringing to the table. If one team isn't willing to s out the big bucks, another team will, which unnecessarily drives up the value of these players. Owners either have to bite the hook, or end up with inferior talent.
The owners jsut want their cake and eat it too because of the two factions adn are going to get sued and lose because of it.
Thats the thing that they do not consider in their calculations. Holt needs to step the back and realze that if they go to federal court there are about 40+ years of precedence indicating they will lose and then the Lakers and Bulls can spend whatever they want and he gets nothing whatsoever. If the players also go after revenue sharing he is doubly ed.
Its pretty clear that the players are willing to hold out the 9 months to a year to get it through tot he appellate level and if the lower courts cite the mul udes of SCOTUS precedence he can have fun trying to appeal that.
Jerry Krause is not Jerry Jones and does not see the benefit in sharing the preponderance of revenue and as much as Holt might want to he cannot hide behind a trust to try and stick it to labor. Its illegal the moment the CBA expired and they decertify.
They have hired Jeffrey Kessler who took on and defeated the NFL who had a much more entrenched and solidified position. Hes ed and whining about his perceived injustice does not change the reality of the cir stances. The only sane explanation for his behavior is the thought that he can starve the players out.
Good luck with that too. It sucks being the little guy but if the wealthier owners nor the players want to subsidize then he just needs to deal with it.
Well, almost all Spurs fans agreed Bonner's and RJ's deals were horrible the day they signed their new contract. This wasn't the typical "hindsight is always right" case. Giving these contracts to these players is a huge professional mistake and Spurs must pay the prize for it.
For the rest, that's capitalism and the law of supply and demand. If players are paid that much, it's because some people are ready to pay them that amount. I find it especially ironic to see owners ing about that. Their fortune comes is a result of capitalism and when they are on the other side, they are turning away from capitalism and try to turn NBA more into an en y lead by socialism values. What is even more ironic is that it is Paul Allen and Peter Holt who are the leader of all of that. Paul Allen is one of the wealthiest because of Microsoft, that is a prime example of a capitalism success. Peter Holt has abused of the free market law by threatening to relocate Spurs to get a great arena deal by the county. Bexar county should sue his ass.
If Peter Holt did indeed make those statements about the "players not feeling enough pain yet", then he has done a great disservice to all the people who have worked so hard to build a wonderful reputation for the Spurs organization.
Sounds like a major asshole and should probably get a pr firm to start doing damage control. Sounds like something an ignorant politician would say. Pop, Tim, Manu, and many others are probably not too thrilled with this either.
But that's a revenue sharing problem. There's always going to be owners that are either on bigger markets or have more money to spend. So the question is how you address that situation so small markets are not just token franchises but at the same time you don't drag down the entire league to the small market budgets (teams with more money should be able to spend more, but should also provide more towards revenue sharing).
The soft cap system made the revenue sharing mandatory by the way of the lux tax: The more teams spent on the lux tax, the more money was shipped to non lux paying teams. Maybe that redistribution isn't enough, and it needs to be increased (2:1, 3:1). The players will likely take a small hit on that, but it's much more reasonable than just drop the entire league to the lowest denominator.
At the end of the day, the salary pool is more or less fixed at a certain amount (percentage of the BRI at a given season). If certain free agents fetch a ton, that automatically pulls dollars away from another free agent.
This isn't a free market. The owners that make bad decisions should have to deal with them. Players already agreed to cut a year off the contracts, which should mitigate that a bit. Owners want to pay little and bail out quicker when they up, and they want the players to assume all of that. It just isn't right.
I hope all the arena staff that have been laid off sue the out of the NBA for lost wages, the city of Memphis follows through on its threatened lawsuit, and the players' union decertifies and sues the out of them, too. Only when the owners start feeling all the financial pain they've caused by locking out the players and other staff will they negotiate in good faith.
Valid points all the way around. The further this draws out and the more details that come to surface, the more I sympathize for the player's position, but that is in no small part due to the excellent debate this forum allows for.
I'd still be rather be arguing over which scrub deserves to be the 15th man in our rotation, though.
No doubt. Players aren't saints either, especially when you know there's some fancy agents pulling strings too. It just that owners decided to go full blown darth vader right now.Valid points all the way around. The further this draws out and the more details that come to surface, the more I sympathize for the player's position, but that is in no small part due to the excellent debate this forum allows for.
I'd still be rather be arguing over which scrub deserves to be the 15th man in our rotation, though.
"Luke Walton, I am your father"
- Lefty
Dex is correct. It's been a pure delight.Valid points all the way around. The further this draws out and the more details that come to surface, the more I sympathize for the player's position, but that is in no small part due to the excellent debate this forum allows for.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
