Lockout!!!

[Nate505]

Since the news is on the NBA page I'll close this damn thing soon, though I really want to hear a bit more before I do.

Eh, I won't lock it but will unsticky it.

 

[sepanol]

so does anyone know how the new rules will effect jazz? is it a favorable deal for rather small franchises? or it gives more power to rich ones?

 

[Revolution 9]

Pissed at what they have put us through. Was willing to sit through this for the long haul.
We are all basketball nuts though. This is nothing but good news.

Jazz basketball is BACK!!!!!

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

so does anyone know how the new rules will effect jazz? is it a favorable deal for rather small franchises? or it gives more power to rich ones?

You mean the 2014 St Louis Jazz?

 

[GVC]

You only have to look at European sports leagues to see what kind of an advantage the "closed league" system is for players. The stability the NBA players have is tremendous. Just look at it this way? What was the last NBA team to fold or get wound up? When was the last time you remember a team having trouble paying their players because of financial turmoil? When was the last time a shady owner came in from a third-world country, overpaid stars and then disappeared when his money ran out? European soccer is full of these stories.

Competition sounds like a great thing for players, in theory. A rich man with deep pockets comes from abroad and buys a small team. Since there is no salary cap in soccer(except the MLS), he can throw money at potential transfer targets. Since players' rights are not traded for other player's rights in soccer but rather traded for cash, he can just throw money at teams to get much better players than his team currently have. You don't need trade assets like in the NBA, you've got cash. If you overpay, you can get much better players than the standard of your club. Why wouldn't a team sell you their best player if you pay twice his actual market value? And why wouldn't he come to a crappier team if you pay him twice the money. Keep in mind that in soccer, the money you pay for a player's rights is actually a fee to break his contract. He signs a new contract with you regardless of how much he had left on his old contract. That means you can instantly offer him double his salary. Of course, you overpaying for players has an effect on the market is that it drives up both wages and the transfer fees. The players love it, because their wages go up.

At some point, the bubble bursts, and it's perfectly logical. As several clubs drive wages up, teams end up signing players to contracts they cannot honour. Then you have a situation where both players and teams who are paying their players suffer. It's obvious how the players suffer, but a little less obvious why other teams would suffer. The devious part about this is that most large transfer fees are paid in installments. If you pay $10 million to a club to sign their player, this will usually mean something like paying $300,000 a month for the next 3 years. That's how most deals are structured. Of course, the selling team then has to assume you will be able to make those payments and spends the money. They might buy a couple of players of their own and their wages may total $200,000 a month. If you go broke and can't pay them anymore, they can't pay their players. They then go broke and it affects teams they owe money. Vicious cycle then continues.

And it's more common than people would think.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...uggling-Portsmouth-players.html#ixzz0SfuRHyRx

This was 2 years ago. Portsmouth FC were playing in England's Premier League, which is widely considered to be soccer's highest quality league.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/16/hearts-delayed-players-salaries

This is going on now. Heart of Midlothian FC are Scotland's third best team. Scottish league is probably just outside of top 10 leagues in Europe.

https://www.inter.it/aas/news/reader?N=3676&L=en

This was in Italy 10 years ago. SS Lazio had won the Italian championship two years earlier. Italian league is probably top 3 in the world. This story is kinda hilarious, because unlike the NBA players, these guys "voluntarily" took a pay cut. In reality, they did it because some money is better than no money. The team couldn't afford to pay them their full wages so they decided to take a pay cut hoping that the team would be able to at least regularly pay them their decreased wages. Sort of shows you what might happen if NBA teams really start going broke.

And these are top leagues in Western European countries. I've got a relative who plays soccer professionally in Croatia. Saw him this summer. Told me how in Croatia's top division, about 2-3 teams out of 12 pay their players on time. The rest are all in arrears, ranging from a couple of months to a year. One of the team's recently had to forfeit a league game since their players decided to not show up, having not been paid since 2010. My cousin's description of how this happens? He calls it the "They can't pay you half as much as we can tell you we'll pay you" syndrome. Team owners offer you contracts, and they might as well be giving you Monopoly money. In theory, you might be doubling your salary, but in reality, your pay will be 6 months late. If you sue the club, you'll wait a couple of years on a decision, which will then be unenforceable. The club is in debt and if they get wound up, their president might go to jail, but you won't ever see any money because there isn't any.

Sorry for a long rant about a different sport, but to bring it back, the greatest thing about the closed league system, from a players perspective, is that your contract is guaranteed by the league itself. At the end of the day, you will get your money. Unless perhaps there is a catastrophic scenario where NBA as a whole goes out of business and the combined assets of the owners aren't enough to pay the remaining contracts off. Kinda unlikely. When the shady Russian mobster who owns the soccer team goes broke, the league can't pay you because it's not their jurisdiction. Your contract is with the shady Russian mobster. Something that did not seem that bad when you first signed it.

Are you comparing the United States to Croatia and Scotland?

Croatia's GDP is about $79bil, roughly in line with New Mexico.
Scotland's GDP is about$140bil, roughly in line with Iowa.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Are you comparing the United States to Croatia and Scotland?

Heres the scoop: I grew up playing soccer competitively, and I watched soccer religiously much before I started watching the NBA. One of the reasons I stopped watching Club soccer completely cold-turkey was because of the capitalistic-nature of the league. Its always the same ****ing teams who are successful, and the lack of a draft (much more difficult I guess, due to the sheer amount of soccer players across the world) or any other structural things to promote parity really detriments the sport, I think. I think its BS that people who root for the Bolton Wanderers will probably never see an english premier league championship, unles a really rich russian owner buys the team and spends absurd amounts of money on free agencies. I will always be a soccer fan, but honestly international soccer is so much better, strictly for this reason. Teams like Madrid, Barca, Man U, AC and Inter Milan will always be relevant simply because of their market, whereas its an extremely rare occurence when a team like Napoli is doing as well as theyre doing right no. One of the reasons I started watching the NBA, and Ive never looked back. Just my $0.02

 

[GVC]

Yet there have been 13 different UEFA Champions League winners (and another 7 runner-ups) since 1990. The EU has roughly the same sized economy as the United States (and 60% more people).

 

[Deleted member 848]

Yet there have been 13 different UEFA Champions League winners since 1990...

Yeah, but the Champions league pretty much only pins up the 4 best teams of at least 5 different european leagues together (i think its even more); I mean, of course the champions will differ. A more accurate comparison would be comparing the NBA to something like the Italian Serie A. However, what is interesting to point out is that its almost always the same four "elite" teams of a country's league that make the champions league. If you look at the winners since 1991, only liverpool isnt considered an elite team nowadays; every single other team, whether its milan, man u, porto, real, barca, b. dortmund and juventus are all dominating their respective divisions, while the 15 other teams they play with will almost never even get a taste of the champions league, let alone winning even their own league.

If you want a more accurate representation of this, go through the history of the winners of the english premier league, or la liga, or even the italian serie A. It will be a lot more evident to you how often the same teams always win. I dont mean to argue, I'm just saying that I have watched the sport for a long time, and its pretty much consensus that there is a serous lack of parity in the soccer world. If youre a fan of West Ham united, your team will probably never hold a league trophy, let alone a champions league one.

Also, I am not arguing how different the economics of each sport are; Im just saying that the capitalistic nature of the sport clearly extinguishes a lot of the egalitarian nature that most american sports have, and it really alienates most fans who dont wanna root for Man u, or barcelona or something.

 

[GVC]

A more accurate comparison would be comparing the NBA to something like the Italian Serie A.

I disagree. The US's population and GDP is 5X and 8X as large as Italy's respectively. There is no comparison.

8 NBA champs since 1984. 8 Serie A champs since 1984.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I disagree. The US's population and GDP is 5X and 8X as large as Italy's respectively. There is no comparison.

8 NBA champs since 1984. Parity!

Yeah, but out of the US population, how many do you think follow the NBA? And how many people do you think follow the Italian Serie A in Italy, let alone across the world? I would be very shocked if the numbers were not similar. Strictly comparing the GDP of both countries is a bit innaccurate if you're comparing the two leagues, in my opinion.

I would still argue that the NBA has better parity. Again, look at the winners of the English Premier League, or the Italian Serie A since 1984 if you wish. Also, in the NBA almost every team has a very formidable chance of at least making the playoffs someday; very few teams in each european league can even fantasize about qualifying for the champions league.

 

[GVC]

Yeah, but out of the US population, how many do you think follow the NBA? And how many people do you think follow the Italian Serie A in Italy, let alone across the world? I would be very shocked if the numbers were not similar. Strictly comparing the GDP of both countries is a bit innaccurate if you're comparing the two leagues, in my opinion.

The point is the US economy should be able to support more professional sports teams because the economy is 8X as large as Italy's. There are 122 MLB, NHL, NBA and NFL teams in the US and 20 teams in Italian Serie A (and there are other pro sports leagues in Italy, Lega Basket Serie A for example). You're arguing that there's greater parity due to the draft, salary cap, etc. in the NBA than in Italian Serie A, yet it seems as though each league produces new champions at about the same rate (despite there being fewer teams in Italy). Your argument doesn't make sense. Step back and think about it before responding.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The point is the US economy should be able to support more professional sports teams because the economy is 8X as large as Italy's. There are 122 MLB, NHL, NBA and NFL teams in the US and 20 teams in Italian Serie A (and there are other pro sports leagues in Italy, Lega Basket Serie A for example). You're arguing that there's greater parity due to the draft, salary cap, etc. in the NBA than in Italian Serie A, yet it seems as though each league produces new champions at about the same rate (despite there being fewer teams in Italy). Your argument doesn't make sense. Step back and think about it before responding.

Look, if you really think that the parity between the soccer world and the NBA is identical, then I dont know what to tell you. Ive just been watching the sport for at least a decade, and its something that most people accept. Only 5 different teams have won the Serie A since 1991. Also, there is a consistent influx of teams due to relegation or promotion, so theres definitely more than 20 teams that technically have a shot at a championship. This isnt just the Serie A, by the way. 5 different Spanish teams have won since 1984. Since its inception in 1992, only 5 different teams have own the english premier league. Only 6 different teams have won the German Bundesliga since 1982. Only 5 dutch teams have won since 1964. Notice the pattern? And heres the thing, there have been several instances where many small market NBA teams have nearly won championships; teams like the Pacers, the Jazz, and so on. If youre a small market team in soccer, your chances of winning it all are unbelievably low.

 

[GVC]

Look, if you really think that the parity between the soccer world and the NBA is identical, then I dont know what to tell you. Ive just been watching the sport for at least a decade, and its something that most people accept. Only 5 different teams have won the Serie A since 1991. Also, there is a consistent influx of teams due to relegation or promotion, so theres definitely more than 20 teams that technically have a shot at a championship. This isnt just the Serie A, by the way. 5 different Spanish teams have won since 1984. Since its inception in 1992, only 5 different teams have own the english premier league. Only 6 different teams have won the German Bundesliga since 1982. Only 5 dutch teams have won since 1964. Notice the pattern? And heres the thing, there have been several instances where many small market NBA teams have nearly won championships; teams like the Pacers, the Jazz, and so on. If youre a small market team in soccer, your chances of winning it all are unbelievably low.

Nearly? 5 or 6 teams winning in small domestic leagues vs. 8 in the NBA (which happens to located in the largest economy in the world) does not support the contention that there is more parity in the NBA. Yes, I notice the pattern: Parity in the NBA isn't significantly different than parity in European football leagues.

Do you really think economic size makes no difference?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Nearly? 5 or 6 teams winning in small domestic leagues vs. 8 in the NBA (which happens to located in the largest economy in the world) does not support the contention that there is more parity in the NBA. Yes, I notice the pattern: Parity in the NBA isn't significantly different than parity in European football leagues.

Do you really think economic size makes no difference?

Yes, NEARLY. Whens the last time West-Ham "nearly" won the premiership? Or Aston Vila? Or Newcastle? Or Bolton? Or Tottenham? Or Middlesborough? Or Everton? Or Fulham?

I think you're just missing my point. Do you watch soccer a lot?

 

[GVC]

Yes, NEARLY. Whens the last time West-Ham "nearly" won the premiership? Or Aston Vila? Or Newcastle? Or Bolton? Or Tottenham? Or Middlesborough? Or Everton? Or Fulham?

I think you're just missing my point. Do you watch soccer a lot?

I see your point, but again the size of the respective countries matters. You've chosen to ignore this entirely, even when I've asked you directly whether you think that shoul dbe considered. Have a little intellectual integrity.

Also, can't the same be said of Toronto, Memphis, Charlotte, New Orleans, Minnesota, the Clippers, Milwaukee and Washington?

 

[Deleted member 848]

I see your point, but again the size of the respective countries matters. You've chosen to ignore this entirely, even when I've asked you directly whether you think that shoul dbe considered. Have a little intellectual integrity.

Also, can't the same be said of Toronto, Memphis, Charlotte, New Orleans, Minnesota, the Clippers, Milwaukee and Washington?

Im sorry, I must've forgotten to reply to the last half of your post. To me its the size of the audience that matters more than the wealth of the countries itself, but again I never denied that larger economies play a role in parity. Its obvious that it does, but I think I am missing the link as to why poorer nations are expected to have less-competitive teams. Are you hinting that there isnt enough wealth to go around and support all of the teams altogether? My point is simply that teams like the ones Ive rarely even crack the top 10, let alone the top 4. Out of the teams you listed, I can only see Charlotte and Toronto being cemented outside of the playoffs over the next few years (with even Toronto being potentially on the rise,with Bargnani, DeRoazan, Davis, and Valancuinas). The Grizzlies are on the rise; hell, they were a few points away from being a Top 4 team. So are Minnesota and the Clippers. Washington has Wall and McGee, and now Vesely with Singleton. Milwaukee strkes me as an Aston Villa equivalent, but they still have had opportunities in the playoffs. Thats the thing with the NBA; anything can really happen. Every season in soccer, its honestly only ever a competition between the four biggest markets, and its a shame for most fans.

Am I really being intellectually dishonest?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Straight from Wikipedia:

A major criticism of the Premier League has been the emergence of the so-called "Big Four" clubs.[72][73] Since Blackburn Rovers lifted the trophy in 1994–95, only three clubs have won the Premier League title – Manchester United (ten of the club's twelve titles), Arsenal and Chelsea (three times each). In addition, Manchester United have not finished outside the top three since the formation of the Premier League. From the 1996–97 season onwards, the "Top Four" (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United) have dominated the top four spots, and thus places in the UEFA Champions League (qualification was one club for the first four seasons, increased to two clubs in 1997, three in 1999 and four since 2002). The benefits of qualification, especially increased revenue, are believed to have widened the gap between the "Top Four" clubs and the rest of the Premier League.[73] As of the end of the 2010–11 season, Manchester United have finished in the top four the most often, having finished in the top four in all 19 Premier League seasons. Arsenal are second with 16 top four finishes, followed by Liverpool with 12 and Chelsea with 11.

In May 2008, then Newcastle United manager Kevin Keegan said the "Big Four"'s dominance threatened the division, saying, "This league is in danger of becoming one of the most boring but great leagues in the world."[74] Following Keegan's comments, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore defended the league, saying, "There are a lot of different tussles that go on in the Premier League depending on whether you're at the top, in the middle or at the bottom that make it interesting."[75] The dominance of Chelsea and Manchester United has led some to believe that the "Big Four" has contracted to a "Big Two"; no club other than these two has won the Premier League since 2004 and, as of May 2011, 20 of the last 27 major domestic trophies have gone to either Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford.[71]

This is what Im referring to with all of my posts.

 

[GVC]

Im sorry, I must've forgotten to reply to the last half of your post. To me its the size of the audience that matters more than the wealth of the countries itself, but again I never denied that larger economies play a role in parity. Its obvious that it does, but I think I am missing the link as to why poorer nations are expected to have less-competitive teams. Are you hinting that there isnt enough wealth to go around and support all of the teams altogether? My point is simply that teams like the ones Ive rarely even crack the top 10, let alone the top 4. Out of the teams you listed, I can only see Charlotte and Toronto being cemented outside of the playoffs over the next few years (with even Toronto being potentially on the rise,with Bargnani, DeRoazan, Davis, and Valancuinas). The Grizzlies are on the rise; hell, they were a few points away from being a Top 4 team. So are Minnesota and the Clippers. Washington has Wall and McGee, and now Vesely with Singleton. Milwaukee strkes me as an Aston Villa equivalent, but they still have had opportunities in the playoffs. Thats the thing with the NBA; anything can really happen. Every season in soccer, its honestly only ever a competition between the four biggest markets, and its a shame for most fans.

Fair enough. The point still stands that 5 or 6/20 teams winning over the last 10 or so years in those leagues is roughly equivalent to 8/30 teams winning in the NBA over the same period. Those domestic European leagues don't have the same playoff format as American leagues do, so it's hard to talk about whether teams in European football leagues "have a chance" (as they don't have the opportunity to come up with an upset in the playoffs). It might be interesting (and perhaps more accurate) to compare the number of winners of domestic cups in Europe to NBA champions.

 

[GVC]

There have been 8 winners of the FA Cup (England), 9 winners of the DFB-Pokal (Germany), 10 winners of the Copa Del Rey (Spain) and 10 winners of the Coppa Italia (Italy) since 1991.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Sorry to bump this thread, but.....

DIE! DIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!