Great. As if the 1999 season wasn't a complete disaster.
"But you can't make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing dozens of eggs beneath your steel boot and then publicly disemboweling the chickens that laid them as a warning to others." --General Tarquin, The Order of the Stick
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006
The key difference between the NBA and NFL lockout situations. Everything the NFL touches turns to gold right now and they're getting higher ratings than they've ever had in the past. Locking out the players reeks of greed, because it's not like any of the owners are losing copious amounts of money.
With the NBA, the league is LOSING MONEY and LOTS OF IT! Asking the players to take a massive paycut is not unreasonable, especially given the way the times are. If a bunch of spoiled, overpaid millionaires refuse to take a paycut, NO ONE will have any sympathy for them.
Originally posted by It's False With the NBA, the league is LOSING MONEY and LOTS OF IT! Asking the players to take a massive paycut is not unreasonable, especially given the way the times are. If a bunch of spoiled, overpaid millionaires refuse to take a paycut, NO ONE will have any sympathy for them.
Is there any proof of massive losses beyond the word of David Stern?
The author links to Forbes 2009 numbers, which show 6 NBA teams who made $20 million or more in operating profit, and 5 teams with $10 million or more in operating losses.
Why should the players take less money so that bad owners in bad markets (Indiana, Charlotte, New Jersey, Milwaukee, Memphis) can break even? That's just going to mean that the Lakers, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets, Knicks, and Suns are just going to make even more money.
In truth, I don't know what the NBA owners are trying to get done. I just don't think massive salary cuts are the answer. The answer should be greater revenue sharing, hopefully structured in a way that doesn't reward stupid owners (like MLB's revenue sharing does).
A lockout will only feed the image especially in this economy that players and owners are out of touch thus not worth going to see. If anything you will see Hockey and the NCAA benefit from this since they will be playing during the time of the lock out. If the NBA is losing that much money due to poor ownership, contract the teams or get the owners out. NBA is not where it was then last time they pulled this stunt and Stern has got to realize that as well. The NFL will be locked out for the spring and summer then back to work at the end of July. Any owner thinking the NFL can survive a lock out is out of their damn mind when the college game is catching up to them as well as Baseball being played and the start of the NHL. Fans love football, so they will just enjoy the college game that is on 4 out of the 7 nights a week.
Bill Simmons has said for a few years now that a large number of players live paycheck to paycheck and can't survive a lockout. He assumed they'll fold, and Stern won't allow another extended lockout to blemish his portfolio.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
I'm just amazed that one professional athlete can live paycheck to paycheck, let alone "a large number". They must be sweating bullets every two weeks before that $50,000 check clears the direct deposit. "Damn, almost shut off my electricity. Good thing I squeaked by this time."
"What you don't understand, you can make mean anything." -Palahniuk
One could make an argument for Kirk Hinrich over Arenas, but they've really put up very similar numbers (although Hinrich has done it in fewer minutes), and have been key cogs in their teams' resurgences this season. Also: