But what got San Antonio over the top was losing so badly they lucked out twice with the number one picks in exactly the right years. No way would Free Agency have helped them. I understand they've run their business smartly. But they made it to the top by getting very lucky on big men, twice, through being very bad at just the right time. Trying to win isn't good enough. It consigns you, except through great fortune, to mediocrity or being even slightly better than mediocre, especially when you're in a mid market. The system of incentives is out of whack.
Duncan never left as a free agent. Neither has Ginobili or Parker or any of their other players of consequence.
Duncan was very close to leaving for "No Taxes" Orlando, Florida with Mr. Hill in 2000. He also had the benefit of working with Popovich and Robinson to win a championship before that (yes?). You don't want to acknowledge that their situation is remarkable, but c'mon. Duncan is a very unusual guy, and he along with Pop are what have made that team work. The system of incentives is out of whack. It's a problem for the fans, and I'm probably on the favorable side of this because I root for the Bulls, although we haven't exactly hit it big in the free agent market (too damn cold in the winter), but I still don't like to see it. And the hell it's not capitalistic...It isn't free market, but I mean, you're starting from a draft, and the enterprise is the league, not the individual teams. This sure ain't no socialism. If you think it is, you never traveled to Eastern Europe pre 1990.
The teams are individually bought and sold, not some number of shares in the league. It's not capitalistic when there are minimum and maximum scale contracts, guaranteed contracts, guys like Rose can't be paid what they're worth, and guys like Jerome James take up roster spots on big contracts.
Bought and sold with the approval of the league. According to wikipedia (not the end, but at least the beginning) I think there's room in there for what is happening in the NBA.
It's no free market if an owner can't sell to whoever he chooses or hire a player for whatever terms they might agree. And profit isn't the objective, winning championships is.
Yeah, San Antonio has been very smart with the way they've run their team, but they've been riding a black swan for the last 15 years. Tim Duncan's combination of talent and personality is something the league has rarely seen. When they had big FA bucks about 8 years ago and were coming off a championship, I recall them signing Rasho Nesterovic....not exactly a big haul.
Well, you're confusing "free market" with "capitalism". That's my point. It isn't a free market, and it won't be, ever, starting from the draft. It is a capitalistic enterprise. And sorry, but profit is the objective. I mean, a business is formed to make a profit, but that doesn't mean the owners don't take pride in providing a good service that people want. You don't get the profit without providing that to some degree. Sometimes, you make a profit even when your product is substandard, because there's not as much competition for the dollars out there. Sometimes, you don't make a profit, even when your product is better than average, if there's too much competition. But you don't stay in business long if you don't make a profit.
Take a look at this. I believe these are 2010 fiscal year numbers. The Thunder had operating income of $22.6MM which is tremendous based on their fairly modest $118MM revenue number. The Thunder got to that revenue by pretty much maxing out on gate receipts ($44MM). In a metro area of 1.2million, their local broadcast rights can't be all that high. A big part of the reason they were profitable is that their player expenses (salaries and benefits) were only $62MM. In '09-10, Durant made $4.8MM. Westbrook $3.8MM. Jeff Green made $3.5MM. Next season, Durant's salary will jump by over $8MM and then increase by about $1.4MM each season. Westbrook's will do something similar the following season. Green was swapped out for a $7.4MM (with 10% raises) Kendrick Perkins. They have other young players like Harden and Ibaka who have been important to the team's success and will want to be paid. The Thunder has done a great job of assembling an exciting young team. Their fans have enthusiastically embraced them (note: the link above takes revenue and divides by metro population for a "revenue per fan" number. OKC's was a phenomenal $96 per fan. By comparison, the Spurs, who have been a model of mid-market competitiveness gets $65/fan...the Bulls get $18/fan). My fear for them is that their $118MM revenue is about as good as they're gonna get. To maintain it at that level, they'll need to continue to hold on to their small but terrific fan base. As they pay their great young players, that operating income number will dwindle, IMO, to nothing. Several responses: - Revenue sharing will be very important. In '09-10, luxury tax payments amounted to over $111MM. Each team that didn't pay the tax got $3.7MM and the league kept over $40MM for unspecified purposes. If the LT's going away in favor of a hard cap, this sort of revenue-sharing fund needs to be replaced, and ideally expanded. - Players didn't demand expansion, but they were damned happy about it. - Owners got money from the one-time expansion fees, but they also lost an ongoing stream of revenue from their share of the national TV broadcast pool and other money that is equally shared among teams.
Donald T Sterling would disagree. Btw the T is for tightarse And I was referring to the assumption of pride in product to make profit
So again , I ask : If revenue sharing is part of the equation why can't the quid pro quo take the form of the effected stronger owners syndicating to take preferred equity stakes in weaker/ financially effected enterprises?
Because it's silly? Actually, it's only silly if the revenue-sharing proposals don't get really silly...and I've seen some fan proposals that qualify as flat-out silly (generally based on an immediate jump to a NFL revenue-sharing model). For the 2009-10 season, through the LT, over $100MM was paid into the tax pool. Just under $4MM went to each of the non-LT teams. The remaining $40MM+ was retained by the league. The league never said how they distributed these monies, but it's likely that a good part of it went to the serious "revenue have-nots." I'm not sure how fans feel about it, but I don't believe that $100MM is insignificant revenue sharing. If the LT is replaced by a hard cap, it's on the league to still share at least as much as they re-distributed through the LT. If the NBA keeps their revenue sharing to a $100MM-$150MM level, IMO, there's no need to mess around with preferred equity arrangements.
Well, if they say the NBA is losing money, the owners should be buying teams but 1/30th shares of stock in the NBA. I'm not sure how the gates are split, but when Charlotte plays the Bulls in Chicago, both teams should get 50% of the gate; same thing in Charlotte. That would even things out as well. Also sharing of TV contract dollars (WGN pays the Bulls, no?)
Ok thanks. Do nothing on Revenue Distribution Because the current system of Robin Hooding works so well The prior CBA was supposed to fix all ills and guarantee long term competitive balance and sustainability Yet here we are. So revenue sharing is adequate you say if you support leaving it the same So it's then an issue of too random a distribution of talent that not deep enough, newer management in paying too much, debt financing , and handing out dumb contracts that become self perpetuating in market for labor ? Sounds like a consolidation exercise to me where debt needs to be swapped for equity in a lot of cases and a better form of best practice industry management. Yep sure sounds silly
Well, there are enough dollars around in LA that he's found a way to make a profit in spite of offering substandard product. You can't disagree that he's in it for the profit.
By whom? Was John D. Rockefeller widely regarded as a good guy? Where are you going with this? Can't you just say, "yep, you're right. It is capitalism, though it's not a free market." Like it or not, the fact that Sterling is an owner is a pretty good bit of evidence that profit is what matters. I agree with you that winning usually helps bring profits, but this is a business, and they are "for profit" enterprises. Sterling has found a way to keep his team profitable in spite of a minimal investment toward winning. Don't ask me how, but it works for him.
Slight change of direction. I'm starting to research the 2004-05 NHL lockout and the hockey season that wasn't. At the end of the '03-'04 NHL season, the NHL owners made a fairly reasonable offer, but they were adamant about a hard cap. The players stood firmly against the hard cap. The owners then played hardball and lowered their offer. Sound familiar? The NHL owners kept their offers low. After losing the season, the players agreed to terms that were nowhere near as favorable as the owners had offered 6 months earlier. Not only was a lower hard cap shoved down the NHL players' throats, but all existing contracts were reduced by 24% and teams could buy out those contracts for 2/3 of their reduced value (just under 51% of their original value). So my question for the class is, what fundamental differences are their between NBA players and NHL players and NBA owners and NHL owners that would lead us to believe that we're not about to see history repeat itself?
Hockey had a TV contract with the Outdoor Life Channel (I think) - nothing like an ESPN or major network deal. The league comparison should start there. Like, is hockey even a sport? Ironically, ESPN was founded by a guy who wanted to be able to get hockey on his satellite dish.
