Knicks · Maybe the fans want a lock out? (page 1)

For me, I just want the "system" to be updated in some areas. Change the MLE maybe? Slightly change the Max contracts is also an idea. I'm not choosing sides with either the owners or the nbpa. I just want both sides to be content with a solution that brings bball back in a good, lasting way.

I mean, Can't we all just get along?

Last lockout didn't "fix" anything and neither will this one. We will repeat this process in 5 years.

Childs2Dudley wrote:Last lockout didn't "fix" anything and neither will this one. We will repeat this process in 5 years.

Yup. It's funny how they have to lockout the players because the GM's keep giving out stupid long term deals to players who don't deserve them. Yes I support work stoppage every 5 years so owners can try to save themselves from themselves.

I don't want a lockout but I don't think the players are at fault.

The problem is that there's a new generation of owners who leveraged themselves to buy teams, and these teams haven't grown in value due to market conditions (financial crisis). Also, they are paying interest on the loans they used to buy these franchises, so it is harder for them to make money.

Forget fault, what about the net effect. Football model seems to work and the league does better with fewer stars.

Do we want a league that promotes a few stars, or a league of great teams?

You trying to compare football to basketball? Football rosters have 45 players, with 11 players on D, and 11 players on O.

Basketball is completely different and because there are only 5 players on the court per team, on O and D, star players make a much bigger difference.

With that said, I think most people are glad that the Mavericks won. I sure am.

If you have the ability to shed oontracts, would it not promote a better product on the court.

Instead of Eddy, you might have two players who could play? The team might have been better.

If a player is not a fit for a team but is for another, would it not promote more freedom for that player, and if young, still give him a chance to improve and play. The NBA has a narrow window for players to make it.

My point? It might shift some of the risk off the owners to carry and pay dead weight but is there not opportunity for other players to make it? I think while you lose some guarantee the players would gain freedom.

Some would lose, but that opens doors for another to gain.

Not all teams will spend. They don't now anyway.

To me I think the top might be limited, but the bottom could get paid better.

If a team has 60, or 70mm to pay, they gonna use it. Maybe 2 or three players don't get the big cut.

And maybe teams can carry instead of 15, carry 20 contracts and keep them playing in the d-league?

sorry nalod, this is a terrible poll.

yeah, i want a lockout because i don't agree with the hardline of some owners, who have made bad decisions.

too big to fail?

sure, the players can make some concessions, but that doesn't mean that they should just give what the owners want.

it's called negotiations.

yes, i want an nba season like both do, but sometimes you have to play hardball.

silly.

why would i want a lockout? i want basketball.

i want someone to put donnie walsh in charge of mediating the negotiations.

PresIke wrote:sorry nalod, this is a terrible poll.

yeah, i want a lockout because i don't agree with the hardline of some owners, who have made bad decisions.

too big to fail?

sure, the players can make some concessions, but that doesn't mean that they should just give what the owners want.

it's called negotiations.

yes, i want an nba season like both do, but sometimes you have to play hardball.

silly.

THe owners are doing somthing about it. By trying to reduce the lenght of contracts, or restructure, or even worse eliminationg "ignorant contrats" to both enhance thier profits and perhaps keeping better talent on the roster.

what is silly about that.

Nobody wants "No basketball" but the players are not going to give up money so in effect if you want a better league over all, the owners might be right in the long run.

I guess IM trying to say not in favor of the lockout but in favor of better ocntraacts that keep better talent.

The reality is, it means a lock out.

Not so silly. Owners give star players an opportunity to make big money. When they can't perform up to standard of that contract I want them off the cap.

So if you want that, YOur siding with the owners. To get that, you gotta lock them out if they won't negotiate.

Owners are dumb, and so are the players.

The fan pays for both. I don't want to support dumb owners and unprofessional players. I want the players to get paid mind you. Up front bonus gives them lots of money upfrong. IM talking about players getting big money upfront, and say 3 of 5 years guaranteed. If incentives keep them healthy, they get more.

Players can opt out, so should owners.

BTW, it promotes freedom!

very strange poll. the players don't pay themselves. they dont sit at a desk working on budget forecasting, business models etc.

although i agree a majority are over paid, the players should not be held accountable.

The league needs to have revenue sharing similar to the NFL. National broadcast rights for all games are split evenly among all the franchises. Local TV rights are not split and revenues kept for the local team.

Nalod, players don't set ticket prices, owners do. Let's say the owners get the deal they want. Do you honestly think this will make the game more affordable? No way.

You should watch this film http://sonicsgate.org/movie/

I think Stern and the owners are habitual liars. They will tell a community that the NBA will have a positive economic impact when they are trying to squeeze public funding for arenas, but then brought a witness in the Sonics case that says the opposite to justify their move to OKC. So I don't buy all of this crap about 22 teams losing money.

Like you pointed out, why don't the owners share local TV contract money? They don't want to share the burden so they want to put the burden on the players.

I'm on the side of the players, but perhaps they are just a proxy for "workers" for me. Outside of Cuban, who ever roots for an owner? If a season is lost, so be it, players can find other places to play abroad. May be good for the global game in the long run.

Guys, My point is can a change in the economics change the ways players develop and are rostered?

Can a guy like Alex English who took a few years to get acclimated to the NBA still be able to stay in the league and be allowed to get a chance with another team like when he was traded to denver?

I really don't like the way Miami went about its roster and not sure I like the way the knicks are doing it. If a guy gets hurt or declines the team is screwed.

Nalod wrote:Guys, My point is can a change in the economics change the ways players develop and are rostered?

Can a guy like Alex English who took a few years to get acclimated to the NBA still be able to stay in the league and be allowed to get a chance with another team like when he was traded to denver?

I really don't like the way Miami went about its roster and not sure I like the way the knicks are doing it. If a guy gets hurt or declines the team is screwed.

they should consider more interesting injury exceptions rather than try to revert back to pre-FA times if they are worried about players having season/career injuries.

many of the gripes and alleged proposals from the owners seem to be about preventing themselves from making poor decisions. a hard cap/non-guaranteed contracts will not fix a team run by clowns -- see the nfl, many teams still suck because they have made bad choices. this is what you hear from small budget mlb teams, as if having all teams have the same $ to spend will stop poorly run teams from being poorly run.

i am a redskins fan... they have sucked for the majority of 20 years, much of that under a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts. they have had horrid player choices/coaches -- sound familiar?

i suppose i do not follow what you want... to hope you not only get a high draft pick, the pick turns into a franchise changing player? make it really hard for a player to switch teams and also be able to dump them when they are no longer fit what you want? note that while this may make it easy to dump curry and the like, what about the less destructive players/mid tier players who will probably get hammered by that?

Good point about the skins sucking. And knicks under Isiah ran up the cap to historical clown like proportions!

Rangers spent. Sucked. Skins.....Cowboys.....Yankees tried and failed until they grew their own core.......But Lakers succeeds? Redsox didn't win until they went to the dark side........

Money helps, but its not always going to get it done.

I like the NFL a team can basically turn it around inside of two years.

Of course, the NFL is locked up also!

Don't confuse me taking sides with the owners, Im taking the side that makes the league better! I want mid level players to get paid and teams to have a system to cultivate talent.

i suppose i do not follow what you want... to hope you not only get a high draft pick, the pick turns into a franchise changing player? make it really hard for a player to switch teams and also be able to dump them when they are no longer fit what you want? note that while this may make it easy to dump curry and the like, what about the less destructive players/mid tier players who will probably get hammered by that?

I think a player like curry should be given a big upfront bonus and say 3 of the 5 years are guaranteed. If a team wants do drop him after three years Thats fine. He is given a partial buy out, say 50% and if he still can play he goes elsewhere or naturally traded.

If this player is desirable he has a market to bid up his services.

Mid tier players get hammered? Not really, they are given the same contracts.

My point is to have enough money to pay the mid tier talent better. Look at knicks this year: "Basically just one year contracts!" in hope yet another starphuch player.

of the teams that win, they seem to have both luck, a star or more, and decent orgs. there is no limit to how they get what they need to win: trades, draft, fa. cultivate talent == real minor league. i do not see any other decent way to do this. the only other league with no minor system (nfl) has a much higher age requirement, plus a lot larger roster size where you can gamble on projects.

for mid tiers: how will that be defined with a hard cap. one of the probs with "max" contracts is they lowered the bar for elite to the next group of players, maybe lower, operating in the same pay scale. making that lower would seem to make that worse. if we are counting on the same guys who cant control themselves now to guess the diff between an all-star and a near star at top $... that will end as well as it seems to now, badly.

if the knicks win a title doing it in ways you dont like, yet within the nba rules, will you really have a problem with that?

Childs2Dudley wrote:Last lockout didn't "fix" anything and neither will this one. We will repeat this process in 5 years.

You are absolutely right. I do think the problem with the NBA is largely on the plyer side because guaranteed contracts with no performance driven metrics to back them up are absolutely ridiculous. I mean how many of us want to see the Eddy Curry situation repeated over and over? Contracts should be two sided and the players should have incentives to earn more by doing more. If they can't agree to that then NBA just becomes a bunch of entitled rich punks running around with no set objective other than raking in as many dollars as the system will support. I would e happy to see the end of guaranteed contracts and the salary cap.

Beyond the issues of the Eddy Curry's of the world are also the players who 'turn it on for a contract year'. Neither is helping his teammates or the team. Just themselves. It's unrealistic to expect to be paid anyway for under performing. That just doesn't happen in the 'real world' Do that on your job and see how long you last. They should suffer the same consequences.

OTOH politics and team 'fit' matter in these situations. Perhaps a panel could review contract performance on a case by case basis. Or the team could just choose to cut/waive but still has to pat the full amount of the contract with only say half counting against the cap for the life of it unless picked up by another team.

But that is just one issue. It was painful watching the Knicks down the stretch in 2009/2010 with all that money tied up in Curry's contract. Don't see how a lockout will help anyone really. True fans would want to watch the game. So as a result I can conceive of any fan actually favoring the lockout.

ps did not choose to vote. don't see the choices as comprehensive

sidsanders wrote:of the teams that win, they seem to have both luck, a star or more, and decent orgs. there is no limit to how they get what they need to win: trades, draft, fa. cultivate talent == real minor league. i do not see any other decent way to do this. the only other league with no minor system (nfl) has a much higher age requirement, plus a lot larger roster size where you can gamble on projects.

for mid tiers: how will that be defined with a hard cap. one of the probs with "max" contracts is they lowered the bar for elite to the next group of players, maybe lower, operating in the same pay scale. making that lower would seem to make that worse. if we are counting on the same guys who cant control themselves now to guess the diff between an all-star and a near star at top $... that will end as well as it seems to now, badly.

if the knicks win a title doing it in ways you dont like, yet within the nba rules, will you really have a problem with that?

No problem with it, just don't think this is how it gets done.

It sells tix, cures Dolan of anxiety over renovation of the Garden and boosts revenue.

Does it win championship?

Hasn't yet!

Olbrannon wrote:So as a result I can conceive of any fan actually favoring the lockout.

I'd be interested in hearing from UK folks not in the US: what do you think about this? I'm imagining if I was an Israeli/Italian/Chinese/Japanese etc. UK fan I'd be foaming at the mouth with the chance of seeing NBA talent in my local arena, whether it be barnstorming like this Kobe thing they are talking about, or in my local league for a season.

I'm not favoring it, but there is a part of me that is pretty ambivalent about it. Maybe it's LeBron's post-loss words ringing in my ears, but I really wonder what my life would be with a year off from this stuff.

Eh, I'll probably start reading gossip mags or something even more retarded.