BENTLEY
Well-Known Member
Astutely put.
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Astutely put.
A couple of obtuse observations:
If the latter years of player contracts were only partially guaranteed and/or contingent upon players being able to suit up without injury concerns, this would save owners from paying out on players who don't perform due to injury. A few contracts are structured like this already, but this could become the norm. This would prevent the financial downside of injury situations like Grant Hill, Allan Houston, Carlos Boozer, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas, etc.
I've never seen any industry where the employees feel so entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and be paid millions of dollars whether they perform or not. If players get injured, they should take out their own insurance policies, not require owners to do so.
Also, if a player doesn't perform well, the owner should have the option to amend down the contract for non-performance. If the player doesn't like this arrangement, the player can be compensated with restricted free-agent status so he can go to another team and earn his true market value.
I think one of the problems from the owners' perspective is that they have these sunk costs in players who don't or can't perform. Whether there is a hard cap or flexible cap, or whether tv and other revenues are divided differently, isn't going to address this problem.
If the latter years of player contracts were only partially guaranteed and/or contingent upon players being able to suit up without injury concerns, this would save owners from paying out on players who don't perform due to injury. A few contracts are structured like this already, but this could become the norm. This would prevent the financial downside of injury situations like Grant Hill, Allan Houston, Carlos Boozer, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas, etc.
I've never seen any industry where the employees feel so entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and be paid millions of dollars whether they perform or not. If players get injured, they should take out their own insurance policies, not require owners to do so.
Also, if a player doesn't perform well, the owner should have the option to amend down the contract for non-performance. If the player doesn't like this arrangement, the player can be compensated with restricted free-agent status so he can go to another team and earn his true market value.
I think one of the problems from the owners' perspective is that they have these sunk costs in players who don't or can't perform. Whether there is a hard cap or flexible cap, or whether tv and other revenues are divided differently, isn't going to address this problem.
NEW IDEA. How about the owners demand an 'insurance policy' that has the players 'guarantee' the performance of their peers (they see the work ethic, off-court distractions, and natural ability more than anyone else). The players rate the league on a scale and pay into a fund that guarantees the output of each pro player.
I'm on to something.
/weirdcrazyfunstuff
I'm on to something.
/weirdcrazyfunstuff
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
. . . except that they still have some fixed costs--and with no games, have minimal revenue (game-night revenue or otherwise) to cover it.
For example, I'd put the New Jersey Nets' lockout losses at about 5 million, give or take a couple of million, over the course of the year.
https://goingconcern.com/2011/06/who-wants-to-comb-over-the-new-jersey-nets-financial-statements/
That single-digit loss may still be better than the near-$10-million loss (excluding amortization, which would make it $20 million plus), which might bolster your argument.
I wonder how many teams lose less money by not having a season (and pushing for more cuts) than by agreeing to a 54%ish share for the players and resuming operations. Then again, there are many teams (at least 8 of them) who are earning a profit and are losing out if part or all of the season doesn't happen.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Yep, and giving a player who is more of a defensive force and not a clutch scorer (even if he can do 5x5 stats once in a while)--and hurrying it up so that they can give him 7 years instead of 5--is a bad idea with or without a tag.
I still wonder who was the driving force to lock in AK for longer: was it Larry (RIP), O'Connor, or someone else?
Certainly not Sloan.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Yessir/ma'am. If I were referring to Taylorsville, NC, I'd likely be a fan of Michael Jordan.
Just asked in the off chance it was Taylorsville, KY. You could be a Kanter fan .. oh wait ..
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
This is a good point. And the owner's will lose some with a lockout. I believe the overall health of their franchises is more important to them that a bit of pocket change for them in the short term. They have the means and ability to wait out the players in order to make their investments more profitable going forward.
The players on the other hand have little to no other means of income during this time. And a lot of the players in the league do not spend their money wisely. They also have a limited window to make their money. Every game missed eats into that window.
Basically I believe the longer this thing lasts the more desperate the player's side becomes. A full season of lockout is a much lower % loss for the owners than it is for the players.
Therefore it is and has been my belief since mid season that this lockout is going to be long and brutal. Mostly because I think the owners are going to wait for the players to become desperate before a deal gets done. The owners need to get control of this league and I believe that they will do what it takes to do that.
BENTLEY
Well-Known Member
I hope so. However long it takes.