Gilbert and Sarver's demands continuing NBA lockout

[The Artesticle]

Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday's meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners' executive committee, felt that the players' proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.

 

Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players' future earnings to be tied into the league's revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.

 

But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland's Dan Gilbert and Phoenix's Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks' James Dolan and the Lakers' Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.

 

Owners now are working on ironing out those differences Thursday in Dallas.

 

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/6973675/nba-lockout-derek-fisher-los-angeles-lakers-emails-players-says-owners-rift

[Abro]

Damnit Gildert! Quit being a damn baby! Shit man this is rediculous.

[Cleveland's Finest]

It's not just these two...I heard on the radio that the owners from Milwaukee, Minnesota, and San Antonio are also supporting Gilbert and Sarver.

 

And of course owners of teams like the Lakers and Knicks would oppose them because they like the league the way it is in that it gives them an advantage over small market teams.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Cleveland's Finest

[Real Deal]

It's not just these two...I heard on the radio that the owners from Milwaukee, Minnesota, and San Antonio are also supporting Gilbert and Sarver.

 

And of course owners of teams like the Lakers and Knicks would oppose them because they like the league the way it is in that it gives them an advantage over small market teams.

Sounds about right, but there's something wrong with that. What advantage has anyone had over the Spurs? They have won four championships since 1999, and they are a small market team.

 

Everyone likes to talk about how small-market teams have a disadvantage. The truth is, small-market teams don't know how to spend their money wisely. Instead of blowing it all in free agency, they need to hire better scouts and look to land a gem in the NBA Draft. San Antonio is a great example (a small-market team) of how well that worked out for them. Over the last decade or so, the Spurs have had the best scouts (and definitely the best international scouts) we've ever seen in the league. Again...four championships since 1999, not all because of Tim Duncan.

 

It wasn't too long ago that Malone and Stockton were playing for the Utah Jazz, a small-market team that would have two rings if it wasn't for MJ.

 

What happens with the Kings if Horry doesn't put them away? Do they win an NBA title? Take a look at how loaded that team really was, and they are considered a small-market team.

 

These teams may not have $100 million to spend on their players. It's not that creating the problem, though. The problem lies in the economy itself, and the fact that these players are making FAR too much money. Overpaid players such as Gilbert Arenas are causing small market teams to spend less and less, while the "big dogs" like the Knicks...well, they just don't care.

 

Your very own Cleveland Cavaliers were in the NBA Finals in 2007. They were one all-star away from winning it all, really (a real all-star, not Mo Williams). Cleveland is not LA or NY. The fact is, the Cavaliers landed LeBron James, and they were lucky to have him for seven seasons. Had they played it smart and traded picks and decent players to bring in a second scoring option, that would've put a smile on James' face, and there's a huge chance he would've stayed for another 5-6 years, long enough to win them a ring. The Grizzlies were shopping Pau Gasol...look what the Lakers got him for. Cleveland could've offered, but they decided not to.

 

The Indiana Pacers were in the NBA Finals this last decade.

 

I could go on and on, but there's no reason to. When it comes to who's winning what, it has little to do with the salary cap and everything to do with the owners and their careless spending + poor decision-making. Certain aspects of the CBA can be changed to help keep lottery picks in town, contracts can be changed up a bit, amnesty clauses can be instituted every season, but there's no reason for a hard cap OR tossing the cap completely out the door.

[Cleveland's Finest]

Well, the NBA is going into a totally new age, and we've seen it form the past few years.

 

It's a sole emphasis on star power. Now there's "Big Threes" forming everywhere. Look at where all the big names have gone...besides Kevin Durant they've all gone to a big city or to join a star instead of staying with their team. For small markets, that isn't reassuring.

 

The days of building around one great player (like what the Mavs have done) are over.

 

I see your points about the past with the Jazz, Spurs, and even Cavs successes...but it's a new breed of athlete today...and NBA players of the future are going to most likely follow the same moves made by LeBron, Carmelo, etc...because they look up to them.

 

For teams like Milwaukee or Minnesota, it's a big deal when they find a guy like Brandon Jennings or Kevin Love to produce. The fans are excited and hopeful but wonder if they will leave for a bigger city, or if they don't like playing for a losing team. But when teams like New York get Amare, all the talk is "Yeah, but who are they adding to play with him?" And even after they get Melo it's "Chauncey? Are you kidding me? I mean I'll settle for Parker but we better get Chris Paul."

Edited September 16, 2011 by Cleveland's Finest

[The Artesticle]

I don't understand the argument for a hard cap. If, let's say, teams are only allowed to spend 50 million in contracts, and a free agent is offered 1 million to play for Cleveland or 1 million to play for Los Angeles or New York, it's a no brainer for me. If a hard cap forms, player salaries will likely be reduced, and free agents would be lured by the potential draw of endorsements/marketing to make more money, and obviously they'd get hell of a lot more exposure playing for big market teams than small market ones.

 

In the end how you manage a team is most important, and if you're going to throw multi million dollars at somebody like Drew Gooden, or refuse to trade JJ Hickson for Amare Stoudimire, it's all the product of bad management. The hard cap fixes none of this.

 

I don't mind a hard cap at all, because regardless, the Lakers will succeed. I just don't buy into the fact that it will benefit small market teams all that much.

Edited September 16, 2011 by The Artesticle

[Real Deal]

Well, the NBA is going into a totally new age, and we've seen it form the past few years.

 

It's a sole emphasis on star power. Now there's "Big Threes" forming everywhere. Look at where all the big names have gone...besides Kevin Durant they've all gone to a big city or to join a star instead of staying with their team. For small markets, that isn't reassuring.

 

The days of building around one great player (like what the Mavs have done) are over.

 

I see your points about the past with the Jazz, Spurs, and even Cavs successes...but it's a new breed of athlete today...and NBA players of the future are going to most likely follow the same moves made by LeBron, Carmelo, etc...because they look up to them.

 

For teams like Milwaukee or Minnesota, it's a big deal when they find a guy like Brandon Jennings or Kevin Love to produce. The fans are excited and hopeful but wonder if they will leave for a bigger city, or if they don't like playing for a losing team. But when teams like New York get Amare, all the talk is "Yeah, but who are they adding to play with him?" And even after they get Melo it's "Chauncey? Are you kidding me? I mean I'll settle for Parker but we better get Chris Paul."

No, I definitely see your point. All of that COULD happen, but there are really only two examples of all-star players coming together on one team via free agency or trade demand, and that's Miami and New York (Boston and Minnesota worked trades that I suspected McHale had a big part of, but that's for another discussion).

 

I mean, who knows if Dwight will really leave? If he does, though, it's not because he wants to join forces with another superstar, it's because the Orlando Magic were dumb enough to set fire to a decent team that they could've improved, and their decisions to take hold of Arenas and Turkoglu's toxic contracts make it even worse. Same with Chris Paul and what has happened to him in New Orleans.

 

Minnesota could've had Stephen Curry with Kevin Love, and instead of having to wait on Rubio, they could've selected DeMar DeRozan in that same draft...but, instead, they took Rubio and Flynn. Then, the following year, they take Wesley Johnson over DeMarcus Cousins...and for what reason? I don't even know. They didn't need Johnson.

 

Milwaukee was excited to get Jennings, yes, but what have they done before and after that? Bogut was a nice pick, but let's see...Jennings would've been in the 2009 draft with Blake and Curry, so in the 2008, the Bucks took Joe Alexander, who should've never been drafted. I don't remember very many after him, but Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert and JaVale McGee were all selected after Alexander, and so was George Hill. Many others who would've contributed more.

 

I never understood bringing Shaq to Cleveland. Never understood Jamison there.

 

Sadly, these are teams that have much better selections than teams like the Lakers and Mavericks, who are always selecting late first and second-rounders.

 

The NBA works like this: free agency provides the bigger markets with a way to acquire a superstar, but in return, it will cost them a max contract for 5-6 seasons (and, most of the time, double the contract because of luxury tax). That's why you see teams like Dallas trying to actually build a legitimate team, and not stack the roster with LeBron and Wade.

 

All the while, you have small market teams that feast on the NBA Draft and the ability to overpay players. Unfortunately, they end up overpaying role players, which hurts them tremendously when they finally land someone like Jennings because, despite what anyone would want, the Bucks have wasted money and picks trying to build around someone they THINK is a franchise player, when in fact, he's not.

 

Cleveland was fortunate to land that #1 pick AND have the #4 as well. What if one of those foreign bigs they passed on ends up being an all-star? Poor international scouting is to blame, or Gilbert just not wanting to take a chance. I mean, Tristan Thompson can be decent, but it's a long shot, and quite frankly, after losing Hickson the way they did (instead of getting Amare, which was another mistake), you'd have to wonder what's going to become of Varejao, who is an underrated defensive player.

[GamerGuy]

Another small market team that has had tremendous success in the past few years is OKC. They've built up their talent through drafting, scouting, and smart trades. Granted a lot of their talent was riding out their cheaper contracts, but they've built a winning atmosphere there and that will draw in other free agents.

[?QuestionMark?]

This is mostly coming fron the new owners: Cavs, Bobcats, Suns, Hawks, etc. Which I find interesting because if NBA teams are losing so much money, according to team, why purchase a team and at far higher than market value?

 

The CBA had mechanisms to allow small-market teams to compete. If they really want to add a new provision, just get rid of Sign-and-Trades. It gives teams the ability to keep their stars by ensuring they can offer the most money and teams like LA and NY can't add huge contract after huge contract as easily.

 

RD is right in that small-market teams struggle not because they're small market, but because they're poorly run. Even a team like Memphis who has some success, they didn't take advantage of restricted FA. Rather than giving Conley and Gay extentions, they could have let another team sign them to an offer sheet and Memphis could have matched and kept both for much cheaper.

 

Admittedly, big name FA's aren't really going to flock to the Bucks and Cavs and Utah unless they overpay. But having bad teams almost ensures FAs won't want to go there.

 

The problem teams run into is they think they can get a superstar in their prime via FA. LeBron and Bosh are the only two players since 1999 when the NBA put in these restriction on FAs that have walked away from more money to go to another team. It just doesn't happen. I'd say they're an exception and not the rule.

 

Reality is, you don't get franchise players or superstars via FA. You get them through the draft and smart trades. Small market teams that struggle, are just poorly run. They don't draft well and don't make meaningful trades. How many times have you seen a team with a lot of talent and when they do make a trade it's usually a lateral trade? Rather than package for a star, they make a acquire a player who'll have a similar impact than the guy they just traded?

 

Putting a hard cap isn't going to make them more competative. A HC won't prevent them from drafting poorly or making bad trades or bad signings.

[Jammin]

I wanna live in the 70s where no one cared and everyone played basketball. Terribly unathletic basketball, but non-bitch basketball.