NBA Has Become The Latrell Sprewell Association
by Alex Laugan on Nov 17, 2011 7:35 AM MST
in Phoenix Suns Commentary
Email
PrintIn the fall of 2004, Minnesota Timberwolves guard Latrell Sprewell famously claimed, "I'm at risk. I have a lot of risk here. I've got a family to feed."
It was preseason, entering his second year with the Wolves after an exciting Conference Finals run that came up just short to the Lakers, and the 34-year old player he was ranting over an "insulting" $27-30 million, 3-year extension offer.
Of course, he declined the offer and went on to have a poor season. "Why would I want to help them win a title? They're not doing anything for me." Later, when the offer dropped to $21 million over 3 years, he became a free agent. And when no NBA team offered anything better, he just up and retired. Poof. He was gone. Never to play another NBA game. Too proud to accept less money than he felt he deserved.
At the time, Sprewell was ridiculed for his decision by players and media alike. Crazy to completely retire over what he deemed an insulting contract offer.
Yet now the entire NBA - owners and players alike - have become what they once couldn't fathom. Crazy. Stupid. Absurd. Each side has come to the conclusion that if they can't make more than 2 BILLION DOLLARS a year, with guaranteed annual growth built in, then it's not even worth playing any more.
Ian Thomsen of si.com wrote a truly insightful piece the other day, lambasting the owners and players alike for their role in this debacle. Please click that link and read the whole story. Makes you go "whoa".
A sample:
For the NBA owners and players to shut down their league during the worst economic times in more than 60 years has got to be the dumbest thing they could imagine doing. At a time when so many businesses are fighting for every last dollar, the NBA players and owners are giving back money to their season-ticket holders -- their die-hard fans -- and saying we don't want it. Put that money back in your pockets for now, and when we decide to start playing again, think about whether we are worthy of your investment.
Sprewell went to browner and darker pastures. He eventually sold his boat at auction to help pay debts, while his house was foreclosed upon (and this was BEFORE the housing bubble burst!). He made more than $96 million in his 13 year career, yet was bankrupt within 5 years of self-imposed, bravado-laced retirement.
Do you think at some point he wished he'd taken the original $27-30 million guaranteed-money extension that would have paid him through his 37th birthday?
So too will 450 NBA players look back on this 2011-2012 season with regret, wishing they'd been able to see through their bravado and take the deal that still made them the highest paid sports league in history, replete with guaranteed contracts, annual raises and a soft salary cap.
The owners will regret this move as well, having voluntarily given away their foothold on fans' discretionary spending in the middle of the worst recession in 60 years. Once that money is re-allocated amongst those households to greater needs, or even different but equally rewarding entertainment, will it ever come back to the NBA?
How many families, who once had earmarked their NBA season tickets (or NBA League pass subscription) as a "sunk cost", will find that they can no longer afford it when the NBA returns next year or the year after?
This is a bad, bad decision for the owners and players.
Just ask Latrell Sprewell how it worked out for him.
139 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
whoa, indeed
This is such a good post, I think you should send it in to SI, ESPN, Fox Sports, and MSN.com. Wow- just hits it all on the head.
I wish the entire NBA could read it and let it sink in.
I tell you, I’m rapidly losing interest in the NBA after being a die-hard fan for nearly 20 years. I’m getting back into other much more productive hobbies, and liking it.
Sigh.
Grant Hill for prez.
by sun-arc on Nov 17, 2011 8:29 AM MST via mobile reply actions
I agree...Top notch again Alex!
What an awesome comparison…I think you just summed up what many of us are feeling about the ludicrous nature of the billion dollar stalemate.
Yes, apparently no money at all is better than a little less money in their eyes…especially when egos are involved.
by 7footer on Nov 17, 2011 10:31 AM MST via iPhone app up reply actions
Great stuff again…Alex en feugo!
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 17, 2011 8:34 AM MST reply actions 1 recs
For those who listened to the latest Bill Simmons podcast, there was an interesting discussion between Bucher, Stein and BS about fans coming back.
Simmons argues that the NBA will be permanently damaged while the reporters argue that the fans will come back.
I had been on Simmons side but I think Bucher and Stein makes strong arguments….
I think there’s no doubt the first year back would be tough but eventually if the product remains as strong as it’s been the fans will come back.
The owners calculation seems to be something like this:
a) We get an “OK” deal now that saves the season and avoid much damage to the brand and loss of revenue
or
b) We lose the season and pay the price in the short term for that but get a much, much better deal that makes far more money over the long run…aka the NHL model
Hockey bounced back. Baeball bounced back…the NBA would probably bounce back as well after a few years.
The risk is that they push so hard they end up destroying the product for ever but I think they are making a smart bet that eventually enough players will just want to play and end up taking a far worse deal than what they just rejected.
There’s about 6 weeks left to save this season so there’s still a chance that some version of option A is still in play but it would take Stern / owners going back on their threat to roll back their latest offer.
6 weeks…
I guess what we should look for next outside the legal bullshit is if they even start having talks sometime in the next two or three weeks
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
The only reason I would have hope
is if the NBA lawyers actually think that Stern’s ultimatums and self-professed ending of the bargaining process put them in a bad position in terms of the legal process. That seems to be the angle that Boies is pushing.
Otherwise, I really can’t think of a reason why there will be basketball anytime soon. Even if the last deal was still on the table (is it?) I can’t see the players swallowing their pride to accept it. I also can’t see the owners moving off of their line (and admitting defeat) unless there’s some impetus to change their stance. They’ve given their ultimatum – I don’t think their hubris will let them backtrack….
At this point it seems that it will be settled by the courts. If the owners win, they will get their 53% and hard cap. If the players win, they will get something north of the 50% and softer cap on the table (because at that point the league would have to settle to avoid paying out $6 billion dollars). Of course auguring what will happen in this maelstrom is hardly an exact science. I was actually hopeful stupid enough to think that the two sides would have resolved this by now…..
I don’t know if the Sprewell comparison is perfect, but it’s close enough. The owners definitely claimed financial duress (starving families) and both sides seem comfortable (maybe resigned in some cases) with the prospect of losing the war to win a battle.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 17, 2011 9:04 AM MST up reply actions
is if the NBA lawyers actually think that Stern’s ultimatums and self-professed ending of the bargaining process put them in a bad position in terms of the legal process.
It actually could be. The National Labor Relations Act sets rules for how employers must deal with unions in collective bargaining agreements. While the law does not require either party to agree to a deal or make concessions, it does require that both sides “bargain in good faith”.
From the National Labor Relations Board website (https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-obligations):
If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.
and
If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.
The NLRB’s take on ‘good faith’:
In determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances. The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.
So Stern declared an impasse and made an ultimatum. The NBPA would claim in their lawsuit that there was still progress to be made, so the ultimatum was illegal. Additionally the NBPA would argue that the NBA did not argue in good faith, as they appear to have no intention to find a mutual basis for agreement and have made no effort to reach a common ground – evidenced by the union having so far made all of the concessions.
An interesting note:
The NLRB ruling and anti-trust litigation are two ways of going about the same thing. You take your grievances up the with board and hope they rule on it in your favor, ending the lock out, or you dissolve the union and file an anti-trust lawsuit and hope the courts rule on it in your favor, ending the lockout.
The NFL skipped the NLRB, dissolved their union and went the litigation route early. In fairness to the players, they submitted their issues to the NLRB back in May, hoping an early ruling there would take care of this mess. The NLRB has yet to rule, and will only rule if there is a union – dissolving the union removes the NLRB from the picture (though not the good faith requirements and argument, just who has jurisdiction over the ultimate decision, the NLRB or the courts).
Basically I’ve found that the players weren’t in the wrong as much as I thought about dissolving the union late. I was under the impression that if they planned to go this route they should have done it a long time ago like the NFL did, but in truth they have been thinking long term after all, they just trusted the NLRB first instead of the courts – and were let down when the NLRB failed to make a ruling in a reasonable amount of time. Back in the middle of October rumors were that NLRB officials were about ready to make a ruling, but that never materialized.
The players have been filing increasingly detailed complaints with the NLRB all summer claiming that the NBA’s CBA negotiations were a sham as they weren’t really bargaining, but holding “bad faith” negotiations through the summer so that they could push it to a lockout (giving them huge financial leverage over the lower paid portion of the union’s voting bloc), while the players were trying to get a deal done long before a lockout ever happened.
Need an edit button to add this:
The union started negotiations in August of 2009 with the league and claimed they ran into stalling tactics all the way up to the lockout – which is why they first submitted their complaints to the NLRB back in May of 2011, when it became evidenced that the league was pushing for a lockout to gain leverage and not bargaining in good faith.
but the NBA can make the same claims. The NBPA has been threatening decert for years as well. They’re all negotiating tactics, and the fact is the the NBPA dissolved first. You can’t even really say that Stern’s latest was really an ultimatum because he’d said basically the same thing a week earlier and they kept bargaining. And now we hear Hunter’s been working on the side with Boies for weeks. Is that any more good faith than anything the league’s done?
Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun
You can say that Stern’s was an ultimatum, because he said so himself. The fact that he went back on it a week later doesn’t excuse it. To quote Stern:
"There comes a time when you have to be through negotiating, and we are," Stern says. (Nov 12, 2011)
Refusal to bargain specifically constitutes bad faith.
Boies? Of course Hunter is working with Boies. He’s his lawyer for the preparation of an antitrust lawsuit. Preparing for a union dissolving has nothing to do with good faith bargaining.
NBPA dissolved first? They are the only ones to dissolve, as they have to if they are going to file an antitrust lawsuit. As the NLRB hasn’t ruled in a reasonable time and the NBA is no longer bargaining in good faith, the union dissolving is legally required in order to continue negotiations.
I'm not sure exactly how the legal process
works regarding this scenario. The law is a gray area like so many other aspects in life.
What seems hard to refute is that Stern didn’t explicitly end the bargaining process. He was quoted on several different occassions and in very limpid and laconic language.
Whether or not Stern’s faux pas proves costly is up to the courts and lawyers to decide, but it seems contrarian to argue that he didn’t terminate the negotiations.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 9:28 AM MST up reply actions
yup
but if either side is relying on the courts to resolve this, there will be no NBA for a long, long time.
It’s not like the courts are just going to rule one way or another and it’s over. It’s going to take years and once a ruling comes down, it would be subject to appeal.
MAYBE some early rulings lean one way or the other and that entices the other side to cave…but that isn’t likely to happen within the next 6 weeks which is when a deal would need to get done to save the season.
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 10:00 AM MST up reply actions
Not necessarily.
The courts wouldn’t have to fully figure out the details of any new CBA, all they would have to do is grant an injunction against the lockout – effectively forcing them to start season planning under the previous CBA rules until the NBA either successfully stays the injunction (fairly quick), manages to overturn it (long process), or a new CBA is signed.
Most likely, if the players were to win a quick injunction, the league comes back to the bargaining table with a strong interest in getting any deal done to end a legal process that would hurt them financially, as a quick win for the players would be an indication that the court thinks their case has merit, which is not good long term for the leagues bottom line. That’s what happened with the NFL.
Additionally if the league finds itself in a situation where it is forced to live under the last CBA or find an agreement with the union, you can bet they’ll be a lot more interested in a more even split.
True…I just think it’s highly unlikely that a court would do that any time soon. This sort of happened with the NFL when the first judge ruled in favor of the players and the lockout was lifted for about 2 days. Then the appeals court overruled that…that’s where things were when the two sides finally came to an agreement that was very pro-owner.
So, even if one side got that initial favorable ruling, the other would immediately appeal and it would likely drag out for long enough to cancel this season.
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 3:58 PM MST up reply actions
This applied to the NLRB
An antitrust suit is a different thing. Since the union no longer exists, it doesn’t matter whether the NBA is negotiating with them in good faith or not.
What matters now is that any collective agreement between the owners that sets wages (such as a CBA) is illegal when the other side is not unionized.
Should the courts rule in favor of the players who have filed suit, the owners would be forced to end the lockout, and play an uncapped season.
Voted most likely to say "I told you so"
I am no expert at any of this, but all of the lawyers and people who seem to know what they are talking about say it’s almost impossible to save the season now; there’s just no time.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 3:29 PM MST up reply actions
I think whether or not good faith happened still matters, but I can’t find what I read to lead me to believe that. If I find it, I’ll share it and explain why.
But you’re right, anti trust is a different beast all together. The league hates to have to deal with antitrust due to the financial damages they could incur if they lose. Additionally, dealing with an unknown number of lawsuits presided over by different judges is well more difficult and unpredictable than dealing with the union’s representatives.
In fact, the league was apparently so worried about a decert that it took the precaution of attempting to sue the players over decerting before the players even did it. They did so in NY, a jurisdiction that historically favors the owners in this dispute, and attempted to prove that the union’s decert was illegal, the lockout (that hadn’t yet been challenged) was legal, and they even threw in a claim that the players had no right to be paid if the blew the union up as a scare tactic. They also hoped opening the litigation first would force the players to eventually take them to court in NY, the owners home court.
Unfortunately for them, none of that worked (since none of it was correct or legal), and the players opened their lawsuit in the generally labor leaning 9th circuit court, in California.
yeah I wasn’t even referring to the angry fans coming back to love the NBA again eventually.
I was referring to the overall lack of cash in this economy. There’s so many families (mine included) that had earmarked annual tickets as a ‘sunk cost’, despite rising prices against stagnant household incomes. It was a decision made years ago to invest in tickets, and rarely had to be re-justified when the new season came.
But now the money WILL be re-allocated, and it will be spent in the blink of an eye. And the argument over that hefty investment will begin anew with our significant others, and the outcome given the economy might be different.
Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun
by Alex Laugan on Nov 17, 2011 11:15 AM MST up reply actions
Just heard Aaron Brooks signed up with a team in China.
(A possibility that 7 footer had already advised us of.)
His contract does not have an opt-out, so apparently he isn’t too optimistic about the chances of a season….
Maybe he figures this is the best way to keep his bungling skills sharp, or maybe he just needs to feed his family….
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
bye bye Aaron Brooks
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 17, 2011 8:57 AM MST up reply actions
Well, that’s the end of Brooks in a Suns uni. Didn’t really expect him to be back anyway. Maybe we can trade for Beno Udrih or Andre Miller so we have a PG if we decide to pull the plug on the Steve Nash era, which I am thinking more and more that Sarver will.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 17, 2011 11:03 AM MST up reply actions
Most likely...
I really don’t know how contracts would be handled if the season were to resume. Since he left to China with no opt out he would basically be forfeiting his contract, but the Suns might still own his rights once he returns state-side (I think), because of that qualifying offer we made.
I’m not sure how this will play out though, but I think it depends on how the courts decide in all of these lawsuits now. There’s also the possibility that all contracts will be voided, but I doubt that happens.
by 7footer on Nov 17, 2011 12:33 PM MST via iPhone app up reply actions
I fully support the idea of Beno Udrih in a Suns uniform.
NBA Blog: www.nbagirl.tumblr.com
Non-NBA Blog: www.reallycoolshenans.tumblr.com
Follow me on Twitter: @PhxSunsGirl84
"Great things come to those who work."
by Dragic_is_Magic on Nov 17, 2011 6:00 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
THIS PICTURE.
My heart. :(
NBA Blog: www.nbagirl.tumblr.com
Non-NBA Blog: www.reallycoolshenans.tumblr.com
Follow me on Twitter: @PhxSunsGirl84
"Great things come to those who work."
by Dragic_is_Magic on Nov 18, 2011 2:23 PM MST up reply actions
Slovenian men rule.
Blogging Suns basketball for Bright Side of the Sun from California wine country.
Twitter: @EastBayRaymundo
by East Bay Ray on Nov 18, 2011 2:25 PM MST up reply actions
And you were disturbed by the Harden lovefest?
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 3:10 PM MST up reply actions
I was referring to myself
And if self-love isn’t allowed here, well then I don’t know what this blog is coming to.
Blogging Suns basketball for Bright Side of the Sun from California wine country.
Twitter: @EastBayRaymundo
by East Bay Ray on Nov 18, 2011 3:19 PM MST up reply actions
i miss Dragic...
he may have been a screw-up, but he was OUR screw-up
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 3:09 PM MST up reply actions
Exactly.
NBA Blog: www.nbagirl.tumblr.com
Non-NBA Blog: www.reallycoolshenans.tumblr.com
Follow me on Twitter: @PhxSunsGirl84
"Great things come to those who work."
by Dragic_is_Magic on Nov 18, 2011 10:30 PM MST up reply actions
Me too, Dim. He saved my butt on a couple fantasy teams last year.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 10:05 AM MST up reply actions
Heard on the radio he was looking for Mike Conley money
Not sure if that is true but it was from Gambo.
he certainly was
he was trying to get that from the Rockets before last season when he was eligible for an extension…the Rockets (smartly) said, no, and Brooks was disgruntled all season.
He has a very high opinion of himself that’s only born out on the court for one season when he was a high volume/low efficiency scorer on a team with few other options.
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 8:41 AM MST up reply actions
We’d certainly undo that one if we could. :(
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 10:06 AM MST up reply actions
there was already a rumor last week about the Nuggets guys being quietly waived when the lockout is over, despite not having an out clause built into the contract. Same would likely be true for Brooks.
If Nash comes back (meaning the Suns are trying to win games) then I’m a fan of bringing Brooks back to play the games Nash misses due to injury.
If instead the Suns trade Nash (this season) or let him go (next offseason) then there’s no need to bring Brooks back. Start over, lose a lot, have a great draft and start over from scratch.
Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun
by Alex Laugan on Nov 17, 2011 11:09 AM MST up reply actions
Brooks would be good to keep for this year if Nash is gone just for entertainment value- high scoring, fast pace, out of control, and crotch-grabbing.
If he’s gone to China- then who knows?
But he could be a darn good back up PG IF he returns to his MIP form.
Grant Hill for prez.
by sun-arc on Nov 17, 2011 2:38 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
Chinese season
ends in mid-Feb anyway…
But what happens then? Does he take the QO and finish out the season? Is he still eligible for RFA offers? Weird…
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 8:43 AM MST up reply actions
I believe if/when he returns he will still be the Suns’ RFA (assuming all of that doesn’t change in the next CBA), as Childress was still Atlanta’s RFA when he returned.
Still have Z-Do available, for what that’s worth.
right
but if it’s in the middle of the season and he’s an RFA can another team make an offer for him or does he automatically return to the Suns on the QO for the rest of the season?
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 9:10 AM MST up reply actions
Good question
Assuming the new rules are the same or very similar to the old regarding RFA, I would guess that either his old QO still stands, or the Suns will make a new QO if it doesn’t, and the rest will play out as if the lockout never happened from a time standpoint. Meaning other teams will likely have a window to make him an offer that the Suns will have the opportunity to match (7 days).
Wouldn’t be surprised if the Suns and Brooks skipped all of that in the light of a half season or less (think the CBA ends in late February?) and just signed a new deal that happens to be the same amount as the QO. Or do something to that effect.
Isn't there a deadline for when the QO
goes into effect as a new contract?
Voted most likely to say "I told you so"
Great Analogy, Alec!
Rec’d! Living in the midwest, I was a TWolf fan since the beginning of the franchise. We bought their souvenirs and went up for a game every Christmas break, suffering through some of the most dismal basketball imaginable. But it was NBA basketball!
And oh, how we TWolf fans soared when Spree and Cassell came to town to join KG! All that agony and suffering were about to pay off as MIN reached the Western Conference Finals!!
The sky was the limit!! The next year we might go all the way!!
Then Sprewell pulled his infamous “I gotta feed my family line” and BLEW EVERYTHING UP!!
After that, I switched my fandom to a more humble hero, Steve Nash, and caught BrightSide fever. I cheered on the SUNS as they, too, rose to the WCF, only to watch Amar’e pull another Sprewell— sigh.
You’re right on, Alec! The whole Association has pulled a Sprewell, and the league has now been poisoned.key?
—I’m not sure where I will place my fandom now. Hoc
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 17, 2011 9:19 AM MST reply actions
college basketball, dude, of course. Go UofA and OSU!
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 17, 2011 11:04 AM MST up reply actions
Arizona plays St Johns tonight...
On ESPN2 @ 7pm MST. This should be a decent game but I still expect UofA to win.
I’m in full blown college b-ball mode now that I’ve basically lost hope on any NBA season this year.
by 7footer on Nov 17, 2011 12:37 PM MST via iPhone app up reply actions
Yep! Looking forward to it. I miss fantasy basketball and I miss the Suns, but otherwise, I’d rather see college anyway. So it’s all good.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 17, 2011 5:27 PM MST up reply actions
If I didn't have an alma mater which I love dearly and watch because they are in purple laundry I'm not sure I'd watch CBB
The quality of play just kills me. Though I do admit it’s one of my favorite things when someone says CBB is better than the NBA because they “care” or something like that. Never fails to make me laugh.
Founder of the Coalition to Light Vince Carter On Fire (CTLVCOF)
RIP Seasons of Discontent
by Scott Howard on Nov 17, 2011 5:37 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
I hear ya...
I’ve got a ton of friends who think college bball is so…so… pure, or something, and it’s WAAAAY better than the NBA
I wonder if they’ve ever seen an NBA game. More college games are lost than are ever won— idiotic mistakes, missed free throws, blown defense. (‘Course, being SUNS fans I guess we’ve seen plenty of that, too. Anyway..)
AND college bball is a billion dollar industry as well!
Would they rather watch junior high bowling than pro… ok, bad example. Junior high bowling would probably be pretty funny.
But, wouldn’t you rather watch the best in the world athletes than the best in the county?
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 17, 2011 6:48 PM MST up reply actions
I bought the Junior High Bowling league pass package.
Worth every penny.
Founder of the Coalition to Light Vince Carter On Fire (CTLVCOF)
RIP Seasons of Discontent
by Scott Howard on Nov 17, 2011 11:12 PM MST up reply actions
Last year's top-rated show was BumperBowling Hi-jinks...
with Tom Leander or Wink Martendale as the host, i forget which
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 3:12 PM MST up reply actions
Yup.
College basketball is really exciting in March and that’s about as much as I can take. The quality and speed of play is otherwise painful.
Twitter: @MikeLisboa
pass… it… around… the… perimeter… looking … for… an… opening… nope… shakes… head… back… around… the… horn… shot clock expiring, jack up a three— CLANK
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 3:16 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
that would be the 35 second shot clock btw
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 3:59 PM MST up reply actions
THANK YOU
Finally someone else agrees with me about that.. Everyone I know thinks it is better cause they somehow care more. Haha, okay! I barely even watch March Madness cause I can’t take all the chucking 3 point shots and just poor quality from the 1 and dones.
i know...
and the best college players are gone in a year, so there’s little continuity and you rarely get the nuances of the game— the pass that sets up the assist, or the fake for a steal that directs a driver the wrong way, the misdirect with the eyes and turn of the shoulder (I MISS NASH SO MUCH!!) and then the pass going exactly where it should—
College bball seems so hamfisted, like they’re playing outdoors with mittens on
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 3:25 PM MST up reply actions
Yeah
I can never even get into a team because the only thing that stays the same is the coach…. Naturally I would like to see Arizona teams do the best but outside of that I am watching for no other reason then to see basketball. And don’t get me started on the free throw shots!
The rubric that college b-ballers care more always makes me laugh
When just about every “student athlete” who can do it quits early to go to the NBA.
But I’m sure their lives are forever changed by spending six months pretending to take classes at dear old what-was-the-name-of-that-college-again?
I'm Michael Beasley's imaginary friend.
by suns68 on Nov 19, 2011 5:45 AM MST via mobile up reply actions
Although I agree the quality of play is way better in the NBA, I grew up watching UA play and I still prefer watching them play over the NBA. Yeah, the skill levels are lower, and I don’t buy into the players caring more than NBA players, but there’s a lot to be said for watching players develop, something you don’t see as much of in the NBA. Of course you still have your one-and-done guys, but the majority of players are there for several years. Take Jesse Perry for example. Last year, a junior college player who was nothing more than a big body for practice. He became a workhorse who improved a little each game, and this year has four double-doubles in the first five games. Solomon Hill came in as a highly touted recruit, struggled to adapt to the college game his freshman year, improved to a solid second option behind Derrrick Williams last year, and is slowly becoming the team’s best player this year. You can even take D-Will. Yeah, he only played two years here, but he came in very unheralded, and we got to watch him as he discovered his skills and turned into a beast in two years. He may turn into a great NBA player, but he’ll probably never improve as much in such a short time span as he did at UA. What I enjoy most about the college game is how so many players improve season to season and even game to game. I know the quality of play is higher in the next level, and the level of passion isn’t much different, but if I had to chose between the Arizona season being canceled or the Suns’ season, I’d still prefer to watch the ’Cats.
Totally agree, Wedge. The NBA is just a bunch of athleticism; it’s not pure basketball. They have all these rules to facilitate offense. The refs suck and call tons of phantom fouls. There is a lot more tradition in college. Every game means something because the season is so short. In March, it’s one and done; not 7 game slugfests which only the diehards can sit through all of. There’s actual passing and team play, not just driving and dunking with maybe one pass on a possession. There’s team defense as well. For someone who loves to play and watch real basketball, college is where it’s at, no doubt. If it wasn’t for the Suns and for fantasy basketball, I could care less about the NBA. Even as it stands now, I kind of hope they lose one or more seasons so the whiny players can get the reality check that they sorely need.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 19, 2011 12:44 PM MST up reply actions
I think that you meant to do
this.
Very interesting read. The contrasting viewpoint to the “parity” issue. He basically explains that the owners are either misguided or mendacious in suggesting the changes they want will achieve a competitive counterbalance.
I tend to agree with this evaluation. It’s the same basic skeleton as what I’ve proposed recently. He cites other sources that are worth sampling also.
What’s kind of sickening ironic is that if you believe (1) the owners are really only doing this to encourage “parity” (which I don’t), (2) the crux of the article’s assessment regarding the ineffectiveness of the proposed system changes (which I do) and (3) that the players are really willing to split the BRI 50/50 (not 100% sure), then the owners are potentially sacrificing a season based on a misconception. Of course that’s a lot of ifs…
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 17, 2011 4:07 PM MST up reply actions
I think there were a lot of flaws in that story....
1. We don’t know what the players offer was so we don’t know what it is the NBA rejected. Henry could be right that the NBA should have taken the deal but what deal? We don’t know since the players still haven’t said exactly what kind of deal they would have taken.
2. I get why players would want long, guaranteed deals but it’s bad for the game. We’re not talking about going to non-guaranteed deals like in the NFL or to a lot of one or two year small deals like middling players get in the MLB. They are still getting 3 or 4 yrs deals just not 5 yrs on the MLE. If they play well, they get a new deal. If they play really well, they get an even bigger new deal. If they suck, another player gets to come in and earn that money.
3. He argues against the concept of parity and that the league would be better having a few super teams like they have in the EPL. That’s an opinion. I don’t agree and clearly the guys who run the league and have looked at all the numbers don’t either. Yes, a Lakers vs Knicks finals would do better rating than a Bucks vs Kings but that’s just one series. What about all those regular season games? Isn’t it reasonable that the 25 owners that can’t spend huge $ would want a system makes their teams more competitive during the 82 gm reg season when they make their money?
4. Tom’s analysis on the draft impact vs money is flawed. I totally agree that draft matters. Obviously. But his draft rating system which isn’t fully explained seems to be assigning a numeric value to players related to all other players. So, for example, if you have the 3rd overall pick that’s rated against all 3rd overall picks. But that ignores the fact that each draft class is different. So to draft well you have to both be good AND lucky in both the lottery AND the year.
The Hawks are an example of a team that drafted bad (Marvin Williams over Chris Paul or Deron Williams) but still did well (25th in spending, 14th in reg season wins).
5. The parity argument isn’t that decisions and draft and management don’t matter. It’s that there’s a few teams at the top that spend SO MUCH more that those teams (unless they are run by Isiah Thomas) can win despite mistakes. The Mavs gave the full MLE to Marquis Daniels, overpaid Brendan Haywood and of course paid Dampier. They were able to buy their way past those mistakes. The Lakers were able to simple ignore $14m in bad contracts to Luke Walton, Adam Morrison and Sasha Vujcic. Since they were over the tax those three bad contracts cost $28m. How many teams can afford that? Maybe three or four.
The lux tax rule changes, as Henry points out, would likely bring those teams down to around $10m over the tax instead of $20m over. How can you compete w/ teams that can spend an extra $20m on players? That’s such a huge advantage.
6. A lot of Henry’s argument is based on Dave Berri’s work which compared the NBA to other leagues. This is totally, 100% pointless. The NBA roster has max 15 players (10 that matter). 25 active in the MLB and 52 in NFL. He also claims that parity hasn’t been achieved despite having the first salary cap. All that proves is that the cap was too soft. The numbers CLEARLY show this…The gap between the bottom spending team and the 6th spending team was $13m. The gap between the top spending team and the 6th spending team was $18m.
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 9:08 AM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks for posting that, Seth. I totally agree. Well said!
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 10:09 AM MST up reply actions
not sure why
this issue gets me so riled up…maybe b/c we’ve been unable to compete w/ Lakers for so long
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 10:29 AM MST up reply actions
Forgive me if I came across
as pretentious or dismissive in my list of responses. I think you make compelling arguments on these subjects, I just believe that this subject matter is of the nebulous “center of the tootsie pop” nature. It can be ruminated and excogitated upon and dissected from every angle, but some subjects (like who would win a fight between Spiderman and Batman) just tend to be divisive….
I just thought of this. How many teams have won the NBA championship while being at least $10 million over the luxury tax (which would essentially become the new cap under the last proposal)? Who was the runner-up in their conference and the Finals in said years? This might provide interesting insight. I would guess off the top of my head that only a handful of teams have done this, and in most cases it was likely that another top feeder (like Miami last year) was the most likely replacement….
One of these days we’re going to have some scintillating exchanges about the actual sport of basketball. Let me know what you think, maybe I’ll do a little digging.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 1:21 PM MST up reply actions
see, I don't think this matters
How many teams have won the NBA championship while being at least $10 million over the luxury tax (which would essentially become the new cap under the last proposal)? Who was the runner-up in their conference and the Finals in said years? This might provide interesting insight
In the current system, those teams were competing for talent with the top spending teams. Plenty of other teams would have liked to have had Lamar Odom or Shawn Marion or Tyson Chandler but the Lakers and Mavs were able to get them…
I still think under the proposed new system those higher-spending teams would have an edge but it would be such a huge advantage like it is now.
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 2:25 PM MST up reply actions
I guess that spares the shovel.
Thank you for not feigning interest in my gambit and employing legerdemain in an effort to coax me into conducting futile research.
I just thought that maybe uncommon thinking might help us find common ground.
Changes to the spending would probably have some impact, but I don’t think it would be dramatic, and I don’t feel that it’s worth sacrificing a season over. I just don’t think the ends satisfy the means.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 3:00 PM MST up reply actions
FWIW I’m with Seth on this. Logic (to me) dictates that a team willing to blow money on every available player is going to win more games than a team that can’t. if most of the owners are in the latter group, then majority wins.
Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun
some subjects (like who would win a fight between Spiderman and Batman) just tend to be divisive…
How much prep time does Batman get?
Voted most likely to say "I told you so"
Are we talking about
comic book Batman, movie Batman, or tv show Batman?
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 3:08 PM MST up reply actions
Doesn't matter too much.
If you give him more than a week to figure out how to beat you, you’re done.
Voted most likely to say "I told you so"
In that case,
6 days.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 3:20 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
besides, Spidey's probably pooped
from being in about every Marvel comic they put out right now; they’re even making him a quasiAvenger
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 3:35 PM MST up reply actions
Bam. Pow. Ker-whap. That’s all you need to know. Quit insulting the Dark Knight, guys. Might as well have him face Wonder Woman or even Aquaman. Sheesh.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 4:23 PM MST up reply actions
I guess it depends on perspective.
Dissension abounds these days. Reasonable people can still disagree.
1. I belive he is intimating that once the 50/50 split was agreed upon (if you believe it was) the owners should have been willing to negotiate the system issues to reach an agreement. The system proposed in the league’s last offer looked more like the owner’s creation than the players. I think the player’s offer is “we like the old rules”, so most of the changes are owner requests.
2. Isn’t just about any company going to do better if their employees willingly sacrifice pay and benefits? Is this really a reasonable expectation? Is this really even an argument?
3. Ticket sales are becoming less important in determining revenue. TV and internet money seem to be driven by dynasties. Whether or not dynasties are better than parity is a separate issue based on the argument (which I support) that the proposed system changes in basketball won’t affect parity. I believe that getting more control over the players is the primary objective and parity would be an ancillary benefit if it actually works. Forgive me if I’m cynical.
4. By your analysis, why are the big markets luckier? If Portland just drafts Jordan, doesn’t it change the history of the league? Why did LA, Houston, Boston, and Chicago draft better than everyone else? Not only have the big markets done better in free agency and trades (player movement issues), it seems that the best front office personnel may be seeking out these locations as well…
5. A million different ways to approach this. E.g. a team that is already good is more likely to splurge to try to make it over the top (i.e. the Suns). A chicken/egg situation? There is a link between spending and winning (admitted in the article), but not necessarily between spending and parity. By the same token, a salary floor might make it so that a team would have to throw away money even if there were no good options to spend it on. A hard ceiling, hard floor system eliminates the spending difference but doesn’t necessarily achieve parity.
6. Regardless of how the money is split up, the NBA game is still more about having a top 5 talent in order to win. Changing spending rules won’t change the mechanics of the game. I thought the article explained that the NBA was the most imbalanced of any sport.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 12:50 PM MST up reply actions
It is my observant opinion that Jim possesses a prodigious proclivity to be an intractable, inimical dissident who digs differing with everyone. :)
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 1:35 PM MST up reply actions
I concur
But I do venerate his magnanimity.
Blogging Suns basketball for Bright Side of the Sun from California wine country.
Twitter: @EastBayRaymundo
by East Bay Ray on Nov 18, 2011 2:29 PM MST up reply actions
He certainly isn’t pusillanimous. He is an erudite and eloquent adversary who answers with alacrity in all influential altercations.
Personally, I just say to the people who disagree with me, “I’m more callipygian than you!”
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 2:59 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
rec’d for “callipygian”! Are you going to show us a pic of your buttocks?
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 3:33 PM MST up reply actions
Lol, you wish! But some things are just too ethereal for mere mortals to observe. Your eyeballs would fall out.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 4:28 PM MST up reply actions
I’ll wear sunglasses, and shut one eye!
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 9:03 PM MST up reply actions
Hopefully the aggregate of my contribution
is perceived as more pansophic than sciolistic. I appreciate the plaudits (and will ignore the implication of intransigence).
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 3:54 PM MST up reply actions
I am still trying to figure it out. I’m on the fence. There are definitely pansophic and sciolistic tendencies. I can’t decide.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 4:26 PM MST up reply actions
Conceivably, your conglomeratory concoction of comments constitute a consistitationalary confrontational contribution of contrariness...
conditionally conferred conversationally as Coughenour communiques
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 9:31 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
What an adroit, loquacious elucidation. Hear, hear.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 19, 2011 10:57 PM MST up reply actions
Typically awesome work Alex.
I’m enjoying these even handed looks at how both parties are idiots – as opposed to posts about a “players revolution” or some stupid BS like Ziller posted. Unless “players revolution” was being used satirically like how Goran Dragic was “killing it”.
Founder of the Coalition to Light Vince Carter On Fire (CTLVCOF)
RIP Seasons of Discontent
Goran was KILLING IT
bite me
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 9:09 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
He was on a roll the last two or three games. Who says it won’t continue indefinitely?
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 10:10 AM MST up reply actions
lol. I was only being partially sarcastic!
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 18, 2011 1:35 PM MST up reply actions
I was only being 100% sarcastic
Raising Arizona Sports at SB Nation Arizona twitter: @sethpo
by Seth Pollack on Nov 18, 2011 2:39 PM MST up reply actions
Excellent article.
You have a knack for hitting the nail on the head pretty much whenever you write anything.
NBA Blog: www.nbagirl.tumblr.com
Non-NBA Blog: www.reallycoolshenans.tumblr.com
Follow me on Twitter: @PhxSunsGirl84
"Great things come to those who work."
by Dragic_is_Magic on Nov 17, 2011 6:47 PM MST via mobile reply actions
Thanks DiM.
And thanks everyone for the kudos on this article today. Sad to say that I woke up to this revelation – that’s how addicted to the NBA I am.
Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun
Excellent post, thanks
I agree it’s a hideous joke that we at serious risk of loss of an entire season, a catastrophic result – this in spite of the fact that the players made huge financial concessions. I admit I don’t have the patience to analyse the system issues and decide which of them are important. My observation is that the whole process has been plagued by loathing and bravado. At every stage going way back, both sides have had their elbows up, with lawyers jockeying, planting seeds and muttering threats. A completely toxic relationship. Maybe it was inevitable that this would end up in court. These guys may deserve each other.
Remember when we used to talk about basketball?
I miss what we used to be.
Founder of the Coalition to Light Vince Carter On Fire (CTLVCOF)
RIP Seasons of Discontent
For Scott
Here’s my trade idea guys we should totally do this!!!
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=7lks2ms
Cause this would totally happen if Sarver wasn’t so cheap and would just pull the trigger I mean come on that’s more than fair we probably should even get all of the league’s first round draft picks next year and half next year and if not then maybe we can mail all of our trade exceptions paper clipped together in a briefcase with one million dollars in non-consecutive ten dollar bills with no return address so they’d have to accept it and then we’d totally win and Steve Nash would get his ring and Grant Hill would get a movie contract for Pulp Fiction 2 to play Samuel L. Jackson’s character because he’s the real BAMF and then they would both retire and coach the Suns into a thirty year unbeaten dynasty if only Sarver wasn’t such a cheap ass cheaper cheap-cheap.
by waxmonkey on Nov 18, 2011 6:04 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
And then we’d finally have a real starting line up of
PG- Nash
SG- Dirk
SF- Channing
PF- Duncan
C- Gortat
and BAMF would be the backup PG for when Nash wants to rest cause Nash is cool like that to share the glory even though he really doesn’t need it.
And in case someone got injured we’d have Lopez and Saver cheap cheapydoo needs to sign the great Earl Barron who might even get the starting job from Duncan if he just got a chance. And we’d finally be tall and it’d be like a game of keepaway from all those shorties out there and UNSTOPPABLE!
by waxmonkey on Nov 18, 2011 6:09 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think that Grant Hill
should start instead of Frye. I like Frye off the bench to foster cohesion in the second unit.
It was only called the mildly irritated house on McDowell until I showed up.
by Jim Coughenour on Nov 18, 2011 6:26 PM MST up reply actions
True.
We should fine a way to also get Ilgauskas, Marc Gasol, Tyson Chandler, Nene, Greg Oden and Shaq. I’m sure they’d all trade them if we gave each of them three or four of our first round draft picks.
finally, Duncan would be the PF he’s been claiming to be for a decade!
Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun
this trade is amazing!
DAL’s wins go up by 22, SA’s by 17, and PHX’s by 41!!!!!
adding those numbers to last year’s totals
DAL would have 79 wins, SA would have 78, and the SUNS 81 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
81-1!!
by SteveNash, QuantumPhysicist on Nov 18, 2011 9:57 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think the trade machine is broken
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=7×3zsmz
What's basketball?
has to be broken
how can everyone improve their wins in double digits??? Hysterical!
Grant Hill for prez.
by sun-arc on Nov 19, 2011 5:30 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
Hahahaha
Wow that is just ridiculous
Carter having a glazed-eyes contest with Boris Diaw. Carter's winning, but Diaw might respond by eating his eyes.
my solution for the lockout
No more contracts. Everything is employment-at-will!
You will shortly be receiving death threats from the approximate 419 non-superstar players in the association. ;)
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 19, 2011 12:45 PM MST up reply actions
Actually, they kinda are.
Even though the top paid players make 20+ times the bottom paid players, when we say the players are the product, in truth, the superstars are what’s marketed because they’re the only products most fans want to buy.
That’s not what my post was saying, but yes, I do believe that.
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 19, 2011 8:27 PM MST up reply actions
I'm late to this party
But great article, and great discussion in the comments. Enjoyed reading all that.
Probably too late to be adding my thoughts now, but Seth mentioned the EPL and its superteams – terrible. It sucks. Obviously there’s no salary cap here, which means (loosely), whoever spends more, wins. It’s just plain shite.
I’ve never taken sides with either the owners or players, but the one thing I do want is a more balanced NBA that gives all teams equal chances. The proposed 4 to 1 luxury tax doesn’t even do enough in my eyes.
The whole point of a salary cap system is to promote equality. If there isn’t equality, what’s the point? A salary cap wouldn’t work here but at times I kind of wish for one. On the flip side I really wonder how a relegation type system would work in the NBA – I might look into this.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Friend Us On Facebook
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Follow us on Twitter
