What's new
By:

Espn's Ric Bucher says its a "matter of when, not if, a deal [will] be struck"

The Thriller said:
I think this is an interesting point. Anyone have any ideas when this might happen?
Click to expand...

A few ways this could happen:

1) If enough games are lost that there becomes significant doubts that the league will ever come back. I believe that's a very late condition. Probably when the second season is on the verge of missing games. If the risk that two full seasons would be lost became appreciable it would be reasonable to believe that there is some significant risk that the NBA as presently constituted will never return.

2) If an alternative league is formed that appears to have a legitimate chance of sticking.

3) If it becomes apparent that the NBA begins losing stars to foreign leagues in a more permanent way. (Think if Lebron signed a 10 year contract with a Chinese team with no NBA outs for example, that would significantly negatively affect the value of the Heat).

4) If any single franchise folds entirely or an owner publicly requests that his investment be cashed out by the league.

All of these are not imminent conditions, but they serve as reminders that the current popular narrative of "the longer this goes the more pressure shifts to players" is untrue to the extent it reflects a one way street. Once an entire season is cancelled the primary costs of the lockout are already effectively locked in on the players and the game from that point on is one in which owners are probably fighting for a personal $300-500 million asset.
 
Sirkickyass said:
A few ways this could happen:

1) If enough games are lost that there becomes significant doubts that the league will ever come back. I believe that's a very late condition. Probably when the second season is on the verge of missing games. If the risk that two full seasons would be lost became appreciable it would be reasonable to believe that there is some significant risk that the NBA as presently constituted will never return.

2) If an alternative league is formed that appears to have a legitimate chance of sticking.

3) If it becomes apparent that the NBA begins losing stars to foreign leagues in a more permanent way. (Think if Lebron signed a 10 year contract with a Chinese team with no NBA outs for example, that would significantly negatively affect the value of the Heat).

4) If any single franchise folds entirely or an owner publicly requests that his investment be cashed out by the league.

All of these are not imminent conditions, but they serve as reminders that the current popular narrative of "the longer this goes the more pressure shifts to players" is untrue to the extent it reflects a one way street. Once an entire season is cancelled the primary costs of the lockout are already effectively locked in on the players and the game from that point on is one in which owners are probably fighting for a personal $300-500 million asset.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the players should just stick to their guns? Kind of like what I was referring to earlier when Ogatard wanted the players to just say F it and cave?

If so, then I agree.
 
TroutBum said:
So what you're saying is that the players should just stick to their guns? Kind of like what I was referring to earlier when Ogatard wanted the players to just say F it and cave?

If so, then I agree.
Click to expand...

Frankly I would prefer they cave just so I could watch basketball. I don't have any real emotional investment on whether they receive 57% or 47% of BRI. It doesn't affect my well being at all.

I'm merely saying that the media spin machine narrative regarding the direction of leverage is not totally correct. Now, in order to leverage any of these potential opportunities to push owners to the idea that their team investments aren't safe they need to take action to make it apparent that there is imminent permanent damage to the value of the franchises. They should be talking to Larry Ellison about starting up a new league. They should leak that DWill loves it in Turkey and is recruiting others to join him there permanently if the entire season is lost. They should have their agents planting stories in the press about the increased willingness of NBA players to live overseas. They should be openly questioning how long other franchises are willing to support New Orleans' staff during a lockout. At their next negotiating session, if they are serious about pursuing other opportunities and having a hard line when Stern threatens to cancel more games they should tell him that rather than do it serially he might as well cancel the entire season if they're not willing to come off their demands so that the players can move forward with their pursuit of starting a new league.

In short, they are presently paying for the lockout. They need to make it clear that the owners have serious skin in the game and that games will be played with or without the owners. Someone out there has got to be willing to start the Modern ABA, and if they managed to get 50-60% of the league's stars in their league then the NBA's franchises may never recover their purchase value.

I don't really know how feasible that all is, but that's the negotiating position I would be taking.

*Full Disclosure: A former college roommate of mine is an attorney for the NBAPA. I occasionally discuss these issues with him, but I have no inside information regarding anything in the above post.*
 
Sirkickyass said:
A few ways this could happen:

1) If enough games are lost that there becomes significant doubts that the league will ever come back. I believe that's a very late condition. Probably when the second season is on the verge of missing games. If the risk that two full seasons would be lost became appreciable it would be reasonable to believe that there is some significant risk that the NBA as presently constituted will never return.

2) If an alternative league is formed that appears to have a legitimate chance of sticking.

3) If it becomes apparent that the NBA begins losing stars to foreign leagues in a more permanent way. (Think if Lebron signed a 10 year contract with a Chinese team with no NBA outs for example, that would significantly negatively affect the value of the Heat).

4) If any single franchise folds entirely or an owner publicly requests that his investment be cashed out by the league.

All of these are not imminent conditions, but they serve as reminders that the current popular narrative of "the longer this goes the more pressure shifts to players" is untrue to the extent it reflects a one way street. Once an entire season is cancelled the primary costs of the lockout are already effectively locked in on the players and the game from that point on is one in which owners are probably fighting for a personal $300-500 million asset.
Click to expand...
5) Other sports leagues (the NHL being the perfect example with their god awful VS deal) take a bigger slice of national and local TV money (unlike the Utah Jazz, most teams aren't getting by on gate receipts, relying instead on TV revenue).

And you're absolutely right. The national media has decided to completely avoid talking about how a lengthy lockout potentially hurts the value of NBA franchises. It boggles the mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top