Tyson Chandler's Future with the Mavs: The Perfect Example of Why We Need a New CBA

Yeah

It is just so unfair for these players on championship teams! Hahaha give me a break. I agree Tyson makes the case against his own argument. It simply is not housing a level playing field to have big market teams shell out loads more money than other teams. It not only affects signing current players, but bringing new ones in as well. Now, spending money isn’t a direct correlation to winning championships every year but it sure helps!

by Airwave on Nov 4, 2011 11:33 PM MST reply actions

talk about “out of touch”

Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun

by Alex Laugan on Nov 5, 2011 11:02 AM MST reply actions

Out of touch?

I think that is putting it midly really. Players like this are thinking only of themselves. What we have here is a form of player greed that doesn’t have as much to do with money as it does with success. Chandler’s arugment at the end that “the Lakers did it so why can’t I do it!?” sounds like a little kid.

This is an important reminder to all of us fans that greed isn’t just from the owners and doesn’t only come from the love of money. Its virulent among players who feel like the game is deisgned to focus on their acheivements and not on fan escapism and entertainment.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM MST up reply actions

and not on fan escapism and entertainment

that’s right! don’t they know it’s all about US?

Blogging Suns Basketball at Bright Side of the Sun

by Alex Laugan on Nov 5, 2011 9:41 PM MST up reply actions

Seriously!

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 1:01 PM MST up reply actions

How ironic

by Airwave on Nov 6, 2011 5:52 PM MST up reply actions

so

he should sign with the Timberwolves or Grizzlies for the end of his career? I can see why he’d prefer to stay with the Mavs as a competitive player.

by eagleheart on Nov 5, 2011 11:09 AM MST reply actions

Sure.

Everyone wants to do what is best for themselves. Who wouldn’t want to be on the Mavs after winning the championship, or on the Heat to play with Wade and Lebron? Or with the Knicks to play under DAntoni’s stats-oriented system? The point is that teams and players should not be allow to form monopolies on success. Its our sport. We support it. We watch it. We are responsible for its continued existence. And if there are, say, 100 million fans of the National Basketball Association…and only 25 million of them reap the benefits of the system…and the other 75 million want a system that better allows fans to reap benefits…then the obvious answer is: change the goddamn system.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 11:35 AM MST up reply actions

It's also worth noting that...

this goddamn system resulted in record ratings and record revenue for the NBA. Not exactly a damning argument against the fan experience in the macro.

The easy fix for all this? A national TV deal a la the NFL model. The reason that big markets can spend and spend and spend is that when you’re the Lakers and sign your new TV deal, you land $150 mil a year for 20 years. When you’re Sacramento, you’re looking at about $9 mil a year.

It’s a shell game, y’all. Owners v. players (remember, it’s a lockout not a strike) is the smoke and mirrors distracting everyone from the owners v. owners issues that should be at the heart of the NBA’s financial remedies.

Twitter: @MikeLisboa

by Mike Lisboa on Nov 5, 2011 12:07 PM MST up reply actions

This

Owners v. players (remember, it’s a lockout not a strike) is the smoke and mirrors distracting everyone from the owners v. owners issues that should be at the heart of the NBA’s financial remedies.

True story…

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 12:26 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs

That's the important thing that nobody wants to talk about.

The NBA has long had a bit of a Harlem Globetrotters/Washington Generals dynamic (look at all the titles for the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls compared to everyone else), and it works for them. We can say what we want about the way the Heat team was formed, but it makes fans watch, either to love them or hate them. Neither David Stern or any of the owners would ever come out and say it, but they would never want to see a Sacramento Kings/Indiana Pacers NBA Finals.

Blogging Suns basketball for Bright Side of the Sun from California wine country.
Twitter: @EastBayRaymundo

by East Bay Ray on Nov 5, 2011 12:54 PM MST up reply actions

Ultimately

It makes no difference what the final resolution is. The Bucks will still be the Bucks and the Bull will still be the Bulls. It’s extraordinarily difficult to legislate parity. I don’t think any CBA will change that.

What ultimately matters to fans is that there’s a product, almost any product, for us to consume. While we may hold a variety of labor v. capital opinions among us and chime in with respect to how we feel about the lockout, all we really want is to watch some basketball even if that means Steve Nash is playing for minimum wage and the ballboys and girls are swabbing up sweat from the court with Robert Sarver’s dropped $1000 bills.

Twitter: @MikeLisboa

by Mike Lisboa on Nov 5, 2011 1:02 PM MST up reply actions

Eh...

Maybe. I am not sure that I buy that completely. I think you can love the sport and be discontent with the way its run so much that you stop watching. I can “consume” something and be unhappy about whats behind it. After long enough I will be too disgusted to watch anymore.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 1:28 PM MST up reply actions

But still...

this goddamn system resulted in record ratings and record revenue for the NBA. Not exactly a damning argument against the fan experience in the macro.
It isn’t necessarily true that fans enjoyed what they saw. It was nice to see the Celtics return to power and challenge the Lakers. That brought a lot of people back. Still, it remains to be seen if the ratings reflect fan happiness or if it is the allure of big lights and well marketed “David and Goliath” stories that rarely (if ever) see the giant topple…

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 1:01 PM MST up reply actions

Record ratings? My ass...

Have you actually looked at the numbers? They aren’t records by any stretch. They got a little better the last two years but are a far cry from the past. Basically people got more interested in watching anyone but the Spurs could best sum it up because all the comparisons of better ratings are basically coming off horrendous lows caused by no one really wanting to watch San Antonio.

by Fakers Stink on Nov 5, 2011 2:06 PM MST up reply actions

Yes

And if you actually look at the ratings, while the Finals were not record-breaking, the entire playoff run on the NBA were the most-watched in the cable era. Barring a miracle, there will be no return to the massive ratings of the 80s and 90s before cable TV had near universal penetration in the US.

Twitter: @MikeLisboa

by Mike Lisboa on Nov 5, 2011 5:05 PM MST up reply actions

I couldn't agree more Mike

It’s a shell game, y’all. Owners v. players (remember, it’s a lockout not a strike) is the smoke and mirrors distracting everyone from the owners v. owners issues that should be at the heart of the NBA’s financial remedies.

Carter having a glazed-eyes contest with Boris Diaw. Carter's winning, but Diaw might respond by eating his eyes.

by NashtySUNS on Nov 5, 2011 4:25 PM MST up reply actions

Dallas is the ninth largest market in the NBA...

And we’re only 13th.

I feel so inferior :-(

Maybe if our owner had made one or two less disastrous decisions, our guys might be the ones saying the things Tyson Chandler’s saying.

And we’d be like “Hell yeah, why should our team get busted up to benefit Indianoplace?”

I'm Michael Beasley's imaginary friend.

by suns68 on Nov 5, 2011 11:50 AM MST via mobile reply actions

In theory its less about the size of the market and more about how much is spent.

Ultimately the money is coming out of the shareholders pockets if a team spends more than it can afford. Mark Cuban has a lot of money to throw around whereas Sarver does not.

You can lament about the decision making of Sarver all you want but you are barking up the wrong tree. If we had won a championship paying 80 million dollars and the subject was being broached like it is now I, for one, would NOT be sticking up for the system that just ended in 10-11. If you would like to speculate on your own attitude under such circumstances feel free but don’t put that on anyone else, least of all me.

Oh and btw, your numbers are off. Dallas/FW is 5th largest, Suns are 12th. What you are referring to is metropolitan area, and the stats you referred to are a year old. Even so, DFW area is 60% bigger than PHX. Thats a lot.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 12:25 PM MST up reply actions

Spare me.

First off, the metro area is the market area for live sports. TV market size is much less meaningful with all the national broadcasts, League Pass, net feeds, etc.

And remind me if I’ve forgotten, but I can’t recall a single complaint about the unfairness of it all coming out of PHX when we were a big luxury-tax team and regularly stomping the Sacramentos and Milwaukees.

I'm Michael Beasley's imaginary friend.

by suns68 on Nov 5, 2011 5:57 PM MST via mobile up reply actions

Spare you what? Facts? Details? That you completely miss the point? Okay...

But, as has been raised several times on this site, the point is that the subject is being broached right NOW, not 3 years ago. And if recall correctly it was regularly talked about that the Suns luxury issues were unsustainable and that it was going to be “blown up” eventually. Paying Steve and trading for Shaq were all moves to make “one last run” before having to fall back on salaries. This was ALL very common rhetoric in the last few years. Just because the fully developed idea that there is a huge disparity between the league’s richest teams and poorest teams wasn’t here yet doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there in its infant stages.

Your attempts to pass off our indignation over the issue as being essentially band-wagon protestors is, at best, insulting, and at worst stupid.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 1:09 PM MST up reply actions

Good article and exactly what I have been saying for awhile

The “haves” which are maybe 8 teams at best don’t want to change because the system works for them. The only way to make the current state of affairs work for the league and the fans is to have relegation as they do in soccer pretty much everywhere outside the US/Canada. Threaten teams that they will have to play in a lesser league next year and they play hard to the end and players fear for their paychecks so they go out and earn them. Without that you have the have nots giving a nice try every now and then when they put a decent team together, but once the losses pile up it becomes every man looking out for number 1.

The beauty of this whole mess is that the owners who have the ability to flaunt their wealth have to pay attention to those who don’t and the top stars who earn $200,000 A GAME have to pay attention to the players who wake up every day wondering how much longer their luck in being on an NBA roster last.

by Fakers Stink on Nov 5, 2011 2:01 PM MST reply actions

The soccer example is interesting.

I dont know much about the soccer system anywhere but I get the impression that soccer players are less about the money than the sport. There are few NBA players that I could point to as an example in the same light. However, I CAN say that when Steve Nash offerred to take a pay cut when he renewed two years ago despite the fact that his game had not dropped off but had gotten better, he made me an everlasting fan. When a sports player that is really good and “deserves” the money he gets says “I have too much money, take some of it back,” then you know you are dealing with quality players. I am proud to have two such players on my favorite team and even if Nash and Hill go somewhere else I will ALWAYS be fans simply because of their character.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 5, 2011 2:23 PM MST up reply actions

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

“Our owners won’t spend the money it takes to win championships, so no other team should be able to either.”

The reality is, a sports team should not be ran like any other kind of business; a team that is run in that manner will be unlikely to win championships because the management will always be looking to make a profit, and will therefore be unwilling to spend the necessary money to acquire the assets required to be a truly winning team. Unfortunately, this only leads to fans losing interest, and an increased decrease in revenue, making the team even less profitable.

Ultimately, sports teams cannot be run like normal businesses because a sports team’s goal shouldn’t be about making a profit; it should be about acquiring glory through meaningful victories (say, championships). When management lose sights of this, the team will flounder and eventually become and economic failure, because, ultimately, no matter how die-hard the fan, they all want one thing: for their favorite team to succeed.

---
Revenge is ice cream.

by HaikenEdge on Nov 5, 2011 9:16 PM MST reply actions

I agree for the most part with the 2 last paragraphs...

But fail to see how that relates to your inital comment. I think you miss the point entirely if you confuse owners’ DESIRE to spend money versus ABILITY to spend money. The fact is some owners have the ability (like Cuban) and some don’t. True, there are some owners who WONT spend the money (like some argue Sarver is) but that is beside the point.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 1:12 PM MST up reply actions

I don't confuse an owner's ability to spend money with the ability to spend money.

All NBA owners are independently wealthy, and significantly so; this means they have the ability to spend money, else they wouldn’t have purchased an NBA team in the first place. Therefore, saying an NBA owner is unable to spend money is factitious at best; NBA owners are in positions where they can liquidate assets or receive substantial loans from multimillion dollar interests, and therefore, they have the ability to spend the money it takes to field a winning team.

Do not confuse an owner’s unwillingness to spend with a lack of ability to do so. A 2005 estimate puts the poorest NBA owner at Peter Holt of the Spurs, with a net worth of about $80 million, and yet the Spurs manage to pay for a team that (since that calculation) won the 05 & 07 championships.

---
Revenge is ice cream.

by HaikenEdge on Nov 6, 2011 3:52 PM MST up reply actions

Go back and read this post again. It doesn't make sense in its current form.

Still, my point stands. To ask an owner to spend out of pocket for a team that is not giving back returns either in wins (i.e. a championship) or in marketing is stupid. No other way of putting it. I don’t see any evidence for your statements and the best you “fact” you can come up with is 6 years old. Try again.

Oh, and parrotting my statement, switching it around to make it fit your argument, doesn’t make it right. If anything it undermines your credibility.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 4:18 PM MST up reply actions

Please do not condescend. It's unbecoming.

I argued that any owner that has the ability to spend the money required to acquire a team, would have the assets required in order to pay for a team’s upkeep, if they so desired. I argue that the so-called inability to pay for an expensive team itself is an illusion created by owners who actually have no desire to pay for such a team.

The only reason I used data dating back to ‘05 was because I failed to locate more recent data on a cursory search; however, in a report published in February of 2011, both the Spurs and Rockets have owners of net worths listed at 80 million, yet neither team were at the bottom of team salaries, while the Kings and Wizards round out the bottom four in terms of net worth, with only the Kings being in the bottom 4 of team salaries; in contrast, the bottom four teams in team salaries were the Kings, Clippers, Timberwolves and Cavaliers (in order of least to greater), but these teams had owners with worths of 200, 500, 2100 and 478 million respectively. While the Wizards also follow the Kings in terms of having poor ownership and a low team budget, the reality is that many of the teams who have low salaries either have championship caliber teams (Bulls & Thunder), or are actually have owners that have worths above the adjusted mean and median worth of the average NBA owner (since owner worth takes a drastic leap from 850 million for the Grizzlies to 1.8 billion for the Nuggets, I adjusted the mean and median to no count owners with worths over 850 million to account for the disparity); of the 15 teams with the lowest salaries in the NBA, 11 of them have worths equal to or greater than the adjusted median worth of 325 million and 10 of the 15 had owners with worths greater than the adjusted average worth of 358 (a rounded number) million, with only the Thunder being in that list and not having a listed owner’s worth. In contrast, of the 15 team with the highest total player salaries, only 7 of 15 teams had owners with worths greater than the adjusted median and mean worth of the league’s owners.

Long story short: 11 of the 15 owners in the lower half of team salaries also have higher worths than the average owner, even after you take really rich guys from the calculation of how much the average owner has, while only 7 of the 15 with team salaries in the upper half of the league have owner worths.

---
Revenge is ice cream.

by HaikenEdge on Nov 6, 2011 7:29 PM MST up reply actions

Another quick stat based on the article:

9 of the 15 wealthiest owners of the NBA are under the average team salary of 67 million; in contrast, only 6 of the 15 least wealthy owners of the NBA are under the average team salary of 67 million. This statistic seems to show that, it’s the wealthier owners who are less willing to spend on team salaries, not the less wealthy ones.

---
Revenge is ice cream.

by HaikenEdge on Nov 6, 2011 7:36 PM MST up reply actions

Very nice. Thanks.

I won’t mince words with you.

I don’t confuse an owner’s ability to spend money with the ability to spend money.

This does not make sense. Condescension or no, its truth.

The facts are fine but I don’t agree with your interpretation of them. You can look at numbers all you want but they can’t tell you the whole story about why a team spends and why they don’t. It would be foolish as an owner to sink money into a team that won’t pay dividends in either wins or payback. The Mavs are a great case in point. Cuban sunk tens if not hundreds of millions of his own money into the luxury tax over the last 5 years and DIDNT win anything until this year.

Does this argue that we should just allow owners to do what they want with their money? I think not. As fans we, and as Americans, we should be concerned with rich people throwing money away for nothing. Do not do so is irresponsible. If you are not American, fine. You don’t have to agree. But then, the team isn’t really yours is it?

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 8:20 PM MST up reply actions

I admit that line is confusing. My apologies for coming off as abrasive; I mistook you to mean the entire argument was nonsensical.

It was intended to read as “I don’t confuse an owner’s desire to spend money with the ability to spend money.” My fault for making that confusing.

The problem is, in any team-based professional sport, a team will rarely pay back an owner with wins or revenue if the owner does not spend first; with few exceptions, because scouting young talent that can be acquired through the draft is not an exact science, teams that want to win need to shell out for free agents. If a team has neither good young players nor good free agents, then the team itself will not be very good, and will usually not win too much and lost some (if not a lot) of its non-hardcore fans. Essentially, it’s a business model where, if the owner is unwilling to spend capital, the business is doomed to fail. Yes, Cuban sank a fortune into the Mavericks and haven’t won a Championship until this past season, but at least the Mavericks have won a championship, which translates into glory for the owner and the team. In contrast, teams that who are unwilling to spend the necessary money to acquire the necessary players won’t be relevant at all in either wins or revenue, in which case, what exactly is the point of owner owning the team? It’s a financial sink, since it doesn’t earn much money compared to the amount of money put into the running of the team, and the team’s not winning either, so there’s no glory.

I find it troubling that you believe you have a say in how other people should spend their money. You say that it’s the responsibility of an American, but isn’t the core belief of Americans freedom? Be it freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom from persecution, surely the value Americans seem to value the most even from the founding of the nation is freedom, which would include economic freedom, or free trade. That you believe you should have a say in how other people spend their own money seems to reek of entitlement, as though somehow something that belongs to somebody else is also somehow yours by some kind of right, even though you’ve done nothing to earn it. if anything, if you’re a fan who has bought products produced by them or their employees, you’ve given them your own money, and that money that was once yours is now theirs, and yet, for some unexplained reason, you seem to have this belief that you have some entitlement to it, even though it’s not yours. Surely, if you believe that it’s an American responsibility to force fiscal responsibility upon others, then you must also believe that it’s an American responsibility to allow others to be fiscally irresponsible. Otherwise, it must be some sort of hypocrisy.

Yes, it’s not my team, but neither is it yours (unless you legally own shares in the team itself, and buying tickets or merchandise doesn’t count, because then you’re just purchasing a product, not ownership in the team), so I’m not exactly sure how that functions as an argument in either of our favors.

---
Revenge is ice cream.

by HaikenEdge on Nov 6, 2011 8:52 PM MST up reply actions

Your argument for fiscal responsibility is simplistic.

The freedom you talk about is the freedom of the individual to do things for the sake of that individual (e.g. have their religion, speak their mind). But that freedom does not apply, in my opinion, so straighforwardly to the way a business spends its money, especially when that business belongs economically and ideologically to the masses.

Robert Sarver is the owner of the PHX Suns in that he is responsible for how the Suns run, where their money goes, and if/how much he pockets any money. He also spends his own money on them if he feels its needed. But the Suns do not exist because some owner wants them to, they exist because the fans want it to. While 99% of the fans may not own any legal ownership or portion of the Suns franchise, we do own it with our support.

We pay for a product that we should have a say in how it runs. I think it is pretty obvious that MOST fans don’t want to see Tyson Chandler go back to the Mavs so that they can wildly overspend and get another championship when he COULD go to a team that could really use him and who could send them to the playoffs.

This argument works in all areas of life. Do I believe rich millionaires and billionaires should be forced to follow strict rules on how hey spend their money when there are people around the world and in this country that cannot feed themselves or put a roof over their head? You bet your ass I do. Its bullshit that in a place like America where Democracy is supposed to rule and Capitalism is a virtual deity that we should allow the guy with the all the money to also have all the power.

If you don’t believe in greater fiscal responsibility for the wealthy then fine. Its your choice. But I think its clear that most Americans right now DO believe in it and isn’t that what Democracy is all about?

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 7, 2011 5:49 AM MST up reply actions

The fact is owners do need to save themselves from themselves

If rules arn’t in place for spending it will continue to be out of whack. However no matter how “fair” you make things, there are still going to be bad owners, and bad GM’s. However making an adjustment is needed. Just look at baseball, it’s still a rich owner’s game, but with the revenue sharing changes they’ve made, team like Milwaukee, with smart owners and skippers can at least be contenders.

Yeah Packers! Yeah Badgers?! cmon NBA, quit screwing the fans!

by thedoovage on Nov 5, 2011 10:09 PM MST reply actions

Totally agree, as is the league encourages overspending

Atlanta knows Joe Johnson isn’t worth his contract and the Knicks know there’s a good chance they’ll be paying Amar’e to rehab an injury for a year.

Achievement is its own reward, pride obscures it.

by hcblankscreen on Nov 6, 2011 5:58 AM MST up reply actions

good perspective

some how this seems appropriate

"Maybe I’m old school," Nash said, "but I signed a contract to play here and I want to honor it. I feel like I owe it to my teammates and the city and everybody to keep battling until they tell me it’s time to go." STEVE (God of Basketball) NASH

by 2NASHTY on Nov 5, 2011 10:51 PM MST reply actions 2 recs

With a Final series like that, it was a lose-lose situation IMO.

Thank Steve Nash we don’t have to deal with any Lakers-Spurs Finals matchups. We usually only have to deal with one of them, which is already more than I can take….

I will love Steve Nash... forever and always.

by NashMV3 on Nov 6, 2011 1:26 AM MST up reply actions

This is effing awesome.

Sums up my sentiments exactly.

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 1:14 PM MST up reply actions

Owners vs Owners.

I agree to an extent. Sure ratings were up some. But in arenas like New Jersey, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Philly, Minny, Atlanta ( except for playoffs) there are plenty of seats. Watch games in Charlotte, goodness pick a seat any seat. The league is way out of balance. For the most part the same teams make the playoffs every year.
I just hope the Suns will draft better in the next five years when they are in the lottery.

by Grockcubs on Nov 6, 2011 7:59 AM MST reply actions

Word, N8.

by raxado on Nov 6, 2011 8:50 AM MST reply actions

Thanks chief

"We never tried Amar'e, Nash, and a live Grizzly bear." -Scott Howard, January 18, 2010
"All they’re fighting for is to stay as obscenely rich as they are now, based on their ability to bounce a ball and throw it in a hole." East Bay Ray, October 10, 2011
"the players and owners are squabbling over how to divide the pie that WE BAKE FOR THEM." East Bay Ray, October 31, 2011

by N8lol on Nov 6, 2011 1:26 PM MST up reply actions

'Impossible' to resign with the Mavs?

That’s a bit of an overdramatisation. I’m sure there will be some form of MLE for them to use, and if he really is the priority he thinks he is they will gladly offer it to him.

Then the choice is his; money, or winning. Can’t have two bites of the cherry, especially if the team you want to sign with has already made their bed by spending heaps on on other great players, which has allowed them to be that winning team in the first place.

Limiting the team to the amount the player can sign for will prevent their payroll from blowing out, which is better for the owner, and better for the league.

Nothing is stopping the player from earning what he is worth, but he may have to earn it in a place that is undesirable to him. There’s nothing unfair about having to decide whether your priority is winning or earning money. That’s a choice most owners have been struggling with for years.

by nevetsov on Nov 8, 2011 3:53 AM MST reply actions