NBA officially cancels first 2 weeks of season

[AboveLegit]

KBergCBS Ken Berger

Stern: I'm sorry to report ... that the first 2 wks of the season have been canceled.

http://twitter.com/#!/KBergCBS/status/123575445957509120

 

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

Stern: "we remain very, very apart on all issues."

http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA/status/123575562429149184

 

So after 7 hours of meeting today, this is what it comes down to. Let's just hope this is all we miss of the season....

[Dr. Feelgood]

Damn it...I need my basketball fix and the WNBA isn't quite cutting it.

[NomarFachix]

I'm honestly at the point where I just don't care anymore.. wake me up when it's over.

[deestillballin]

They really need to get it together. They are loosing more money by locking out like this.

[AboveLegit]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

GM just texted me: "Now it gets ugly. God help us."

daldridgetnt David Aldridge

On BRI, Stern says league is back to last formal proposal of 47%, w/union at 53. 50-50 concept on shelf for now.

 

So now the Owners go back down to 47%, players better be prepared to miss paychecks.

 

Here's more depressing news:

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

Another GM: "I think the best case scenario now is 50 games, but I can see the whole season gone."

[JYD]

The season is too long anyway.

[SRV]

I honestly don't really care at this point. i was expecting this to happen. For some reason these guys can't make an inch of progress even after these long ass meetings. Sucks for all the people involved in putting on games, they are losing their jobs here.

 

I also think the season is mostly fluff anyway, the good teams are determined after a few games either way. So playing less than 82 games isn't really that bad.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SRV

[AboveLegit]

So playing less than 82 games isn't really that bad.

It is for fans.

 

And btw, there's no guarantee we even have a season yet..

[Dash]

What the [expletive] happened to all this talk of "progress" being made then?

[?QuestionMark?]

I like how Stern and Silver try to spin this, saying that the league has given concessions?

 

What concessions? Unless they mean not taking more from the status quo.

 

The only concession that have been reported thus far have been from the players going from 57 to 53% BRI. The owners haven't given anything. What do they give up for the players to come down? More increases to contracts? An extra year on contracts? Raising base year salaries on contracts? The owners haven't "conceded" anything. They've only offered to give the players something they already had.

 

The idea of a 50-50 split in BRI is stupid in a historical context. When Stern and the owners originally wanted to implement a hard cap, the players told the league to screw off. As a trade off for the players accepting the hard cap, the league let the players share in the league's revenue. To have the player's come down to 50% or now 47%, is ridiculous.

 

It's obvious the owners were never serious about negotiating when their initial offer was so laughable and they waited this long to finally try to really get a deal done.

 

The players already have offered to help the owners with their increasing costs of operation, but it shouldn't be the players' responsibility to give up more to cover the owner's stupidity in running a franchise. No one forced them to buy a team way above market value when teams are claiming they're losing money.

 

Players should just go nuclear and decertify. Lets see if the owners blink at the idea of no hard cap, no limits on salaries, no limits on roster spots, no age limit, no drafts. Lets see how owners like Gilbert and Sarver and Jordan like it when the Knicks, Blazers, Mavericks, Heat, Lakers, Celtics, and Nets go out have 12 man rosters filled with all-stars because they have the owners to spend that much. This system the owners claim is so broken has seen San Antonio win 4 rings, while New York has been a laughing stock.

[AboveLegit]

What the [expletive] happened to all this talk of "progress" being made then?

The past two days they didn't talk about anything but the system.

 

The owners essentially gave the NBPA the same system they have right now, except with a more favorable BRI. Since the players balked at the offer from hindsight, the owners will probably go back to demanding a hardcap among other things.

[AboveLegit]

Players should just go nuclear and decertify. Lets see if the owners blink at the idea of no hard cap, no limits on salaries, no limits on roster spots, no age limit, no drafts. Lets see how owners like Gilbert and Sarver and Jordan like it when the Knicks, Blazers, Mavericks, Heat, Lakers, Celtics, and Nets go out have 12 man rosters filled with all-stars because they have the owners to spend that much. This system the owners claim is so broken has seen San Antonio win 4 rings, while New York has been a laughing stock.

But at the same time, this system has also resulted in only 6 teams winning championships in the past 11 years. I don't really have a side on this issue, all I truly care about is a full year of basketball.

 

Stern is essentially allowing for teams with large markets to dominate the league this past decade, superstars being literally above the law, and many teams losing cash.

 

A 50/50 split of BRI would have been perfect for both sides because it would eliminate a good deal of the $300 million losses the league is claiming. I guarantee you if you poll every player in this league, the majority would accept a split in BRI right down the middle, because the overwhelming majority cannot afford to miss paychecks.

[Dr. Feelgood]

Players should just go nuclear and decertify. Lets see if the owners blink at the idea of no hard cap, no limits on salaries, no limits on roster spots, no age limit, no drafts. Lets see how owners like Gilbert and Sarver and Jordan like it when the Knicks, Blazers, Mavericks, Heat, Lakers, Celtics, and Nets go out have 12 man rosters filled with all-stars because they have the owners to spend that much. This system the owners claim is so broken has seen San Antonio win 4 rings, while New York has been a laughing stock.

 

Especially when Portland has the richest owner in the entire league with Nike, Inc headquartered in Oregon.

[?QuestionMark?]

But at the same time, this system has also resulted in only 6 teams winning championships in the past 11 years. I don't really have a side on this issue, all I truly care about is a full year of basketball.

 

Teams that were well run. Even Detroit when they won didn't spend a ton of money. They were 17th in the league in salary. Does the system need tweaks? Sure, but it works. The problem comes from owners that overspend for mediocre talent. Great teams are built through the draft and through making smart trades. That's been the similarity between all 6 of those teams that have won.

 

Stern is essentially allowing for teams with large markets to dominate the league this past decade, superstars being literally above the law, and many teams losing cash.

 

The only large market that has really dominated has been the Lakers. We've also seen the Kings be really good, yhe Pacers and Magic and Cavs get to the Finals. The Spurs win 4 titles. I disagree that big markets have dominated. They may have spent a lot of money on bad/mediocre talent, but they haven't dominated.

 

Are some teams losing money? Sure, but that might be resolved by revenue sharing between owners, instead of going after the players. It's not the union's fault that teams are poorly run. It's not their fault that teams are in certain cities. It's not the union's fault that Seattle and St. Louis don't have teams but Memphis and New Orleans do.

 

A 50/50 split of BRI would have been perfect for both sides because it would eliminate a good deal of the $300 million losses the league is claiming. I guarantee you if you poll every player in this league, the majority would accept a split in BRI right down the middle, because the overwhelming majority cannot afford to miss paychecks.

 

Considering the players haven't moved off a 53% split, I doubt a majority would agree to it. A lower BRI affects a majority of the players more than the superstars.

 

And a 50-50 split isn't good when it's not a 50-50 split. It's 50-50 after they deduct 350 million, so really it's 53-47 split in favor of the owners.

[Universe]

I'm honestly at the point where I just don't care anymore.. wake me up when it's over.

This.

[Nitro]

Are some teams losing money? Sure, but that might be resolved by revenue sharing between owners, instead of going after the players. It's not the union's fault that teams are poorly run. It's not their fault that teams are in certain cities. It's not the union's fault that Seattle and St. Louis don't have teams but Memphis and New Orleans do.

 

You are right...it is the owners' fault. However, with 22 teams losing money, there needs to be changes to the system, if for nothing else than to completely prevent the owners from destroying themselves. Above all else the NBA is a business. Currently, the average NBA player has the highest salary in pro sports, and on top of that they've had a ridiculous advantage in the BRI. I said it the other day, but with owners finally budging on the hard cap and offering a true 50/50 split, it'll end up being a huge mistake for the players to have rejected that so quickly. After about 20 games are lost, the players will start to lose more money than if they accepted a lesser deal.

[AboveLegit]

Teams that were well run. Even Detroit when they won didn't spend a ton of money. They were 17th in the league in salary. Does the system need tweaks? Sure, but it works. The problem comes from owners that overspend for mediocre talent. Great teams are built through the draft and through making smart trades. That's been the similarity between all 6 of those teams that have won.

So your telling me only 6 teams were well run in the past decade? Detroit is one of a handful of teams that won without a legitimate superstar, so they're irrelevant in this discussion. Fact of the matter is this league is driven off of superstars, and the nature of these stars is that they want big bucks and fame, which resides in large markets.

 

Why did Shaq go to LA? Because they offered more money.

 

The only large market that has really dominated has been the Lakers. We've also seen the Kings be really good, yhe Pacers and Magic and Cavs get to the Finals. The Spurs win 4 titles. I disagree that big markets have dominated. They may have spent a lot of money on bad/mediocre talent, but they haven't dominated.

But the amount of power these superstars have is also a huge problem in todays game.

 

Are some teams losing money? Sure, but that might be resolved by revenue sharing between owners, instead of going after the players. It's not the union's fault that teams are poorly run. It's not their fault that teams are in certain cities. It's not the union's fault that Seattle and St. Louis don't have teams but Memphis and New Orleans do.

But with real revenue sharing, with a lower % for player salaries would ensure competitive balance amongst the league. Add that with a hard cap system, one team such as the Mavericks wouldn't be able to spend $90 mill while another team such as the Kings spend only $46 mill.

 

Not to mention the owners already admitted to the fact that their non player expenses (such as paying coaches, fired coaches still on salary, front office salaries, advertising, etc) has risen at a greater rate than their player salaries. So it's not a huge stretch to assume that the league will be profitable under a BRI split.

 

With the NBPA not agreeing to the split, they lose OVER 160 mill as opposed to losing 120 mill from the split. That is money that they cannot get back.

 

Considering the players haven't moved off a 53% split, I doubt a majority would agree to it. A lower BRI affects a majority of the players more than the superstars.

Regardless, they're losing salaries.

[?QuestionMark?]

You are right...it is the owners' fault. However, with 22 teams losing money, there needs to be changes to the system, if for nothing else than to completely prevent the owners from destroying themselves. Above all else the NBA is a business. Currently, the average NBA player has the highest salary in pro sports, and on top of that they've had a ridiculous advantage in the BRI. I said it the other day, but with owners finally budging on the hard cap and offering a true 50/50 split, it'll end up being a huge mistake for the players to have rejected that so quickly. After about 20 games are lost, the players will start to lose more money than if they accepted a lesser deal.

 

I doubt 22 teams are losing money. If they were, what moron would pay that much money to purchase a franchise knowing they won't turn a profit?

 

Second, why should the players be held responsible for the owners' own stupidity? In any system, owners will find a way to complain about it. It's all about finding loopholes in their accounting to make profits look like losses.

 

The players have a ridiculous advantage on BRI as a concession for having limits on contracts and salary caps. All these things the owners are proposing would be illegal without a collective bargaining agreement.

 

Owners would start losing money too. In fact, they start out in the red and lose more money than the players. Players at least have the option of going overseas to collect a paycheck, but owners still have expenses. Sure they might get money from tv rights, but if there is no season they have to pay it back with interest. So they'll still have debt to look forward to.

[Nitro]

I doubt 22 teams are losing money. If they were, what moron would pay that much money to purchase a franchise knowing they won't turn a profit?

 

The same morons who are overpaying for mediocre players and giving the Gilbert Arenas and Kenyon Martin's of the league max deals. And just because 22 teams are losing money doesn't make it impossible for those 22 teams to turn a profit, especially under a new CBA.

 

Second, why should the players be held responsible for the owners' own stupidity?

 

Because the owners are writing out the paychecks and they own and run the franchises in the league. Once the new CBA is implented, the players will have the right to play oversees in a different league. However, if they want to remain in the NBA, they have to deal with the CBA. And as I said before, the NBA is a business, and even if the owners are responsible for this mess, the deal that's made should be in the best interest of the league's financial success. NBA players have the highest average salary of any major sports league, despite it being less popular than the NFL, and probably still trailing the MLB. They also have a massive advantage in the BRI, even though the owners are the ones investing in new arenas, marketing the teams and individual players, and ultimately giving these players the platform they need to bring in the audience. If 22 teams are non-profitbale, a new system needs to be developed to change things around.

 

In any system, owners will find a way to complain about it.

 

Same goes for the players, and that's how it should be. This is a business, and each side should be greedy and low-balling the other side at the beginning to effectively negotiate a lucrative deal.

[?QuestionMark?]

So your telling me only 6 teams were well run in the past decade? Detroit is one of a handful of teams that won without a legitimate superstar, so they're irrelevant in this discussion. Fact of the matter is this league is driven off of superstars, and the nature of these stars is that they want big bucks and fame, which resides in large markets.

 

There were/are plenty of teams that are well run that don't win. Winning a title is not exclusively synonymous with being a well run organization. The Kings came close to a title in 2002, does that mean they weren't a well run franchise?

 

You want to discount Detroit, fine. The Heat were 15th in the league in spending when they won. The Spurs won a title with a payroll for 48 million.

 

Sure some players want money, but they get paid just the same in smaller cities thanks to the CBA. Otherwise Duncan, Durant, Howard, Paul, Deron Williams would have bolted a long time ago.

 

Small market teams can be sustained if they're winners, when they lose then, yeah, it's tough for them. But that's more of Stern's issue than the players. He's allowed too many teams to move to small markets that can't sustain a franchise because they offered him a shiny new arena.

 

Why did Shaq go to LA? Because they offered more money.

 

Under an old CBA. Doesn't apply today. LA wouldn't be able to offer more.

 

But the amount of power these superstars have is also a huge problem in todays game.

 

What power? Players aren't running franchises, and if they are that says more about management than the owner.

 

If you're talking pushing for sign and trades, then yeah that's one aspect of the CBA I've said for years needs to be eliminated. Take more money to stay with your team or take less to go somewhere else, but you can't have both.

 

But with real revenue sharing, with a lower % for player salaries would ensure competitive balance amongst the league. Add that with a hard cap system, one team such as the Mavericks wouldn't be able to spend $90 mill while another team such as the Kings spend only $46 mill.

 

No it won't. What's to stop Sterling from just pocketing the revenue instead of putting it into the team? He rarely spends profits as is.

 

Besides, what you're talking about isn't what the CBA negotiation is about. You're talking about this from a fan's POV. We'd all like to see 30 teams with an equal shot at a ring to make things more entertaining.

 

The players don't necessarily care about that, nor should they. Their primary concern is their ability to earn money, hence why a hard cap is being rejected. What you're asking is great for the league, not necessarily for the players.

 

Not to mention the owners already admitted to the fact that their non player expenses (such as paying coaches, fired coaches still on salary, front office salaries, advertising, etc) has risen at a greater rate than their player salaries. So it's not a huge stretch to assume that the league will be profitable under a BRI split.

 

That's why the players have gone from 57% to 53% to help the owners cover operational expenses. But again, it's not the players' duty to protect the owners from their own stupidity.

 

With the NBPA not agreeing to the split, they lose OVER 160 mill as opposed to losing 120 mill from the split. That is money that they cannot get back.

 

The same is true for the owners. Their debt is growing including interest and they have to pay it off. Hence a stalemate. It's about who blinks first.

 

Regardless, they're losing salaries.

 

Still not a good enough reason to take a bad deal. They can wait it out or decertify and go to war.

 

My guess, if they play nice the owners win. If they decertify, players have a much better chance.

[?QuestionMark?]

The same morons who are overpaying for mediocre players and giving the Gilbert Arenas and Kenyon Martin's of the league max deals. And just because 22 teams are losing money doesn't make it impossible for those 22 teams to turn a profit, especially under a new CBA.

 

It's not impossible for 22 teams to turn a profit now. It's about self control. No one points a gun to owners heads telling them to overpay players. No one tells them to fire coach after coach and then have 3 coaches on the books. Most of their losses are self inflicted.

 

 

 

Because the owners are writing out the paychecks and they own and run the franchises in the league. Once the new CBA is implented, the players will have the right to play oversees in a different league. However, if they want to remain in the NBA, they have to deal with the CBA. And as I said before, the NBA is a business, and even if the owners are responsible for this mess, the deal that's made should be in the best interest of the league's financial success. NBA players have the highest average salary of any major sports league, despite it being less popular than the NFL, and probably still trailing the MLB. They also have a massive advantage in the BRI, even though the owners are the ones investing in new arenas, marketing the teams and individual players, and ultimately giving these players the platform they need to bring in the audience. If 22 teams are non-profitbale, a new system needs to be developed to change things around.

 

Players have the right to play overseas now.

 

The union looks out for the players, as it should. Just because the NBA is more profitable, does not necessarily mean the players are better off.

 

Plus, the players aren't just employees. They're the product. No one comes to watch Jerry Buss, Dan Gilbert, Paul Allen. Without the players, the owners have nothing to sell.

 

Their advantage in BRI is a result of the salary cap and contract limits. If they didn't have an advantage in BRI and still had those limits, then there's really no benefit to them to have a CBA. The players should decertify and let the owners deal with a free market.

 

The issue here, I guess, is that you believe Stern when he says 22 teams are losing money and I don't.

 

 

Same goes for the players, and that's how it should be. This is a business, and each side should be greedy and low-balling the other side at the beginning to effectively negotiate a lucrative deal.

 

I agree on this part. It's just about being realistic. Here it's the players that have made concessions, the owners haven't.

 

If parity is an issue, then to me that's an issue that should be dealt among the owners through revenue sharing than placing the onus on the players.

[Real Deal]

I agree on this part. It's just about being realistic. Here it's the players that have made concessions, the owners haven't.

According to most reports out there, and even ESPN tonight, the owners offered the 50/50, and the players declined. Before, I was against what the owners were doing...but if that really did happen, the players are ignorant.

[Nitro]

It's not impossible for 22 teams to turn a profit now. It's about self control. No one points a gun to owners heads telling them to overpay players. No one tells them to fire coach after coach and then have 3 coaches on the books. Most of their losses are self inflicted.

 

Once again, I agree that the owners are at fault for their teams' respective financial struggles. However, with 22 teams losing money which can be linked to some basic problems in the league's system, the players are still the ones that will ultimately have to deal with the majority of the consequences.

 

Plus, the players aren't just employees. They're the product. No one comes to watch Jerry Buss, Dan Gilbert, Paul Allen. Without the players, the owners have nothing to sell.

 

The players are only part of the product. The arenas, cheerleaders. merchandising, marketing and a huge amount of other things are generated by the owners. They give the proper platform for the players to perform and rake in the money. If players could have anywhere near the success the NBA has by creating their own league, you can bet your ass they would while taking in all that money the owners currently profit from. Thing is, they can't. The owners deserve more than 43% of the BRI.

 

Their advantage in BRI is a result of the salary cap and contract limits. If they didn't have an advantage in BRI and still had those limits, then there's really no benefit to them to have a CBA. The players should decertify and let the owners deal with a free market.

 

The NFL is vastly more popular than the NBA, has a lower average salary, and a much harder cap system, and the players currently take in less than 50% of the football related income (the exact number is 48% I believe).

[*Swish*]

If it's only 2 weeks, I'll be very happy. It seems like the 2 sides are still far apart. Hopefully though, I'm wrong and we could see a deal after the 2 weeks of the regular season!

[Built Ford Tough]

If it's only 2 weeks, I'll be very happy. It seems like the 2 sides are still far apart. Hopefully though, I'm wrong and we could see a deal after the 2 weeks of the regular season!

 

Ahh, the joys of being young and naive.