Random Basketball Observations

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

i'm pretty sure i watched that. although its been a while so i'm not sure what's in it that makes you understand why he took his talents to southbeach - CARE TO ELABORATE?

[SuperJon 175]

Does it really matter though. Dude's headed towards the NFL**Pretty much a rumor, I'd give it a 1% of actually happening.

[Dread Aidan 8]

It's not even a rumor, it's just people needing something to talk about. I do think Lebron would be an unstoppable tight end. I can't believe how stupid the NBA is being; I'm including both owners and players. I'm not going to make any empty statements like I'm going to stop watching (in fact, I'll probably be at opening day whenever it is), but it still pisses me off.

[SuperJon 175]

I'll be honest, I haven't been keeping up, so I'm not even sure what the issue even is at this point.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

i'm pretty sure i watched that. although its been a while so i'm not sure what's in it that makes you understand why he took his talents to southbeach - CARE TO ELABORATE?

He's trying to re-create what was seemingly the happiest time in his life.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://deadspin.com/5849309/the-delayed-st...ation-treatment

[Dread Aidan 8]

I liked the bleeding money part.It doesn't bother me that both sides are fighting over money; it's an ass-ton of money and I don't think you should agree to a bad deal just because you're making enough money. The stuff that bothers me is all the bullshit posturing. Like David Stern saying the players turned down a 50/50 offer. Of course, there was never an actual offer made, so the players couldn't reject it and just labeling it as 50/50 is disingenuous anyway. It's a 50/50 split of this chunk of money, but there's still this whole other chunk of money of which the owners get 100%. I'd like to see some sort of permanent amnesty system of guaranteed contracts. Just like the deal they're talking about now (you get to rid yourself of one contract from your salary cap by cutting the player, but you still have to pay him) only have it in place all the time. Players want to protect themselves, which is totally fine. You sign someone to a contract, you need to fulfill that contract. But if a player dogs it and starts sucking, he doesn't need to be on a team anymore. If a team complains that they are losing money because they're paying players who aren't even on their team anymore, that's on them for signing bad contracts. But it doesn't hamstring the team for years in trying to compete, it just costs them more money. I don't have a problem with a team being hurt financially by making bad decisions. Isn't that what happens in the real world? Isn't that what everyone keeps saying, "it's a business?" I would also say that if the cut player signs with a new team, it voids his current contract.In exchange for this, I think the players should agree to a hard cap. Hard caps do not limit the money to the superstars. They get theirs no matter what. It limits the money for all the role players and, personally, I think that's the way it should be. Superstars drive the NBA; they deserve the lion's share.I think the current 57/43 split is too far in favor of the players. I doubt that the owners are losing as much money as they say they are. There are too many ways to show losses while still having positive cash flow and realizing an increase in the value of the franchise. But I do think there are a lot of teams that aren't doing great. I think the players need to come down to around 52/48. Come down 5%, agree to a hard cap, reduce the length of contracts.I'd also like to see contraction by at least two teams, but I don't think that's a possibility. What would the league look like with 24 teams? You're cutting the 10-12 guys on each team, but that pushes everybody back a couple slots. Those 2nd-4th guys off the bench are suddenly relegated to the end of the bench. Borderline starters are now bench guys. It obviously makes every team better. I think it might even have the effect of limiting the power of "big three's." If you create a team with 8 guys who are legit starters, as long as you have one superstar, that could be a really formidable team. I don't think sports leagues should try to mimic the NFL. The whole any given Sunday theme works for them. Parity, small markets, etc. That's not what the NBA should be. The NBA should have a handful of dominant teams with good players at every position. How many teams out there have five quality starters? Are there any? End rambling rant?tl;dr: I need basketball back.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Contraction isn't going to happen but there are some markets where it should like New Orleans.I'm just going to shift my usual NBA time to paying more attention to the NHL and watching more hockey.

[Dread Aidan 8]

Which NBA player will gain the most weight during the lockout?Here's the odds without the comments:Zach Randolph (2-1)Baron Davis (3-1)Hedo Turkoglu (7-2)Raymond Felton (6-1)Mehmet Okur (10-1)Boris Diaw (12-1)Brendan Haywood (15-1)Aaron Gray (15-1)Andray Blatche (20-1)Luke Harangody (30-1)Glen Davis (50-1)Dirk Nowitzki (100-1)Dwyane Wade (250-1)Kobe Bryant (1,000-1)Kevin Durant (1,000,000,000-1)

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

I like the Kevin Durant bet. What if he finally grows into his body and puts a lot of muscle on. I'd do $5 to win $5MM.

[Dread Aidan 8]

Amen (mostly to the basketball stuff, but a little to the Red Sox stuff).

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

what i dont like about this nba lockout is that it seems to me that both sides are going to hold firm until we get to the point where games cannot begin on january 1, 2012. right before that date the players will come down from 53 and the owners will go up to 50/50 and it will get done. they could just do it right now, but they want to ruin my life. but they shouldnt care about me. i'll watch no matter what. but most people wont. they need to get back now and quit this nonsense. i dont even know what i'm saying. im just mad about no basketball. i like to watch basketball. and now i'm sad.

[Dread Aidan 8]

I feel your pain, essay. Simmons talked a little about this in his hockey column, but there's no reason why they couldn't have come up with a one or two year bridge compromise. Split the differences even if that's not what either side wants. Make sure the season is played and you've bought yourself another year or two to negotiate a real solution. If you want major changes to the system that will actually be good for the long-term health of the league, why not negotiate that stuff without these looming deadlines and marathon sessions? Get the season started and continue negotiations. There's no reason you couldn't do that.I have an issue with a couple of the talking points I'm hearing a lot. First is David Stern saying that once they start losing games, the owners money offers will keep going down because they're losing revenues. But they're primary reason for the lockout in the first place was that they were losing money! They specifically said some teams would be better off without a season. Well, then you should be able to offer more money now, not less.Second is the losing fans issue. I keep hearing about how the NBA will lose fans because they'll just find something else to watch and they'll be totally engrossed in football. Like me and essay, the real fans aren't going away regardless. But the casual fan isn't really going away either; he's watching football right now. You're not really hurting your fan base yet. I think you need to save the Christmas games. Anything before that doesn't really matter. Which, I guess, would make the bridge agreement unnecessary until those Christmas games are in jeopardy.Anyway, it's like somebody once said, "I'm just mad about no basketball. I like to watch basketball. And now I'm sad."

[El Guapo 8]

My team is finally looking good and now this lockout threatens their growth and possibly the arena deal (it should be a huge factor). I have barely watched the NBA for the last 3 years because they have been so bad it actually was miserable to watch. I was a die hard fan in the 90's and early 2000's. Hardly missed a game on TV. Obv life with a family changes that a lot. But even when they sucked in the 90's, they have fun teams that were always on the verge. The last 3 years (minus part of last season) they were miserable to watch. I would have rather watched littler girls basketball, because at least then I could have laughed a little.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

thanks for that. i havent really been following the negotiations or the articles. i've been actively trying to stay away because it just infuriates me and thye wouldnt like me when i'm angry. but sometimes i cant help it and i read some article about how kevin garnett went to a meeting and was acting like a real awesome person. anyways. i guess if its back by january 1 or christmas day i can still be happy. i'll have college basketball to see me through. and fantasy basketball is my favorite of the fantasy sports. i got into a keeper league last year and through some shrew trades was able to acquire LeBron and D Howard. and that was after i took BFG (blake fucking griffin) with my first pick. my team will be unstoppable if i can get a PG and we have a season.team name last year was: Blake Gryffindor Wins! (shut up)

[CaneBrain 95]

what i dont like about this nba lockout is that it seems to me that both sides are going to hold firm until we get to the point where games cannot begin on january 1, 2012. right before that date the players will come down from 53 and the owners will go up to 50/50 and it will get done. they could just do it right now, but they want to ruin my life. but they shouldnt care about me. i'll watch no matter what. but most people wont. they need to get back now and quit this nonsense. i dont even know what i'm saying. im just mad about no basketball. i like to watch basketball. and now i'm sad.

from what I am reading, the BRI split is the easy part. The part that the owners and players are digging in on is hard cap v. soft cap. The players consider a de facto hard cap to be the first step towards the end of long-term guaranteed contracts. The owners know that they are too stupid to control themselves and stop giving replacement level players 4-7 milly/year.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

hmmm, cause i thought i heard that the owners gave up on the hard cap stance. now maybe it was they gave up on officially calling it a hard cap and calling something else that was in fact a hard cap. i might have misheard. but despite that, i keep hearing about BRI split.

[Dread Aidan 8]

They don't agree on the BRI split, but if they work out the other stuff, that won't be a sticking point. I'm not sure all the details on the hard cap stance, but I think you're right about it being a de facto hard cap now instead of a real hard cap. Like making the luxury tax much more substantial.A hard cap would definitely limit the amount of those mid-level role player contracts. Which is how it should be. I think the players feel like they deserve to be making these millions of dollars because they're the very best at what they do, but just because you're the best doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a star's league and the stars are the ones that deserve the money. Some inside anonymous Lakers source was quoted as saying that Kobe Bryant is worth at least $70 million to the Lakers every year. So Kobe making $30 million a year sounds kind of ridiculous, but he's really underpaid. With no salary cap/luxury tax restrictions, how much would Lebron command? On the other hand, the owners think they are entitled to make a profit, but they shouldn't think that. This is what Gladwell talked about. In a recent paper in Economics Bulletin, the economists Erdal Atukeren and Aylin Seçkin used a variety of clever ways to figure out just how large the second psychic benefit is (DA note: in the art world), and they put it at 28 percent. In other words, if you pay $100 million for a Van Gogh, $28 million of that is for the joy of looking at it every morning. The big difference between art and sports, of course, is that art collectors are honest about psychic benefits. They do not wake up one day, pretend that looking at a Van Gogh leaves them cold, and demand a $27 million refund from their art dealer. But that is exactly what the NBA owners are doing. They are indulging in the fantasy that what they run are ordinary businesses — when they never were. And they are asking us to believe that these "businesses" lose money. But of course an owner is only losing money if he values the psychic benefits of owning an NBA franchise at zero — and if you value psychic benefits at zero, then you shouldn't own an NBA franchise in the first place. You should sell your "business" — at what is sure to be a healthy premium — to someone who actually likes basketball.

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

that just makes me even madder. these rich fucks should be happy owning an nba team. i know i would be. that's my impossible dream. and i'd spend everything i had to make sure my team was awesome and i'd love every minute of it.

[Dread Aidan 8]

Here is a good summary of the issues that are being negotiated and what the main sticking points are.

[CaneBrain 95]

Simmons has been banging the "stars are underpaid, most of the rest are overpaid" drum for months. It's true.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Simmons has been banging the "stars are underpaid, most of the rest are overpaid" drum for months. It's true.

The stars are a minority in the union however and it's impossible to come up with a system that pays the handful of stars what they're worth without also overpaying the non stars.

[Dread Aidan 8]

The stars are a minority in the union however and it's impossible to come up with a system that pays the handful of stars what they're worth without also overpaying the non stars.

Hard cap?See: NFL and QB's.I think this is why the union is fighting a cap. Think about it, why else does it matter if you're guaranteed a set percentage of BRI? A hard cap can't limit the total amount of money paid to players.

[Tactical Bear 3]

A hard cap can't limit the total amount of money paid to players.

I thought I followed you until: this.Isn't that exactly what a hard cap does? Limit the total amount paid to players? Isn't that the definition of the cap?

[Dread Aidan 8]

I thought I followed you until: this.Isn't that exactly what a hard cap does? Limit the total amount paid to players? Isn't that the definition of the cap?

Well, yes and no.A hard cap limits the amount of money one team can pay the players.But it's the BRI split that limits the total amount of money paid by all teams to all players. Theoretically, the hard cap times the number of teams would equal total BRI times the players' share.$60m x 30 = $3.4b x 53%. Something like that.Of course, in reality you can't predict exactly what your total revenue will be for the year. That's why every year 8% of BRI is put into escrow. At the end of the year they do the accounting and square up to make sure the players and owners all received their collectively bargained amount. So if you set the cap too low, it just means the players get a bigger "bonus" at the end of the year.Edit: I wonder how that bonus is determined. Is it an equal share to all players? Or is weighted based on salary?