Comments on: Trusting Guts, Gutted Trust: R.I.P. 2012 NBA Season?

By: Brian Cronin (@Brian_Cronin)

Brian Cronin (@Brian_Cronin) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:15:28 +0000

It was a really well done commercial, but also quite depressing, that they feel that the lockout will last long enough for it to be worth the money to make a commercial about it.

By: New Guy

New Guy — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:51:42 +0000

John Kenney: New Jordan spot featuring DWade, CP3, and our boy Melo…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYDS_MEWPU0&feature=share . Might have been a bit stereotypical having the New Yorker ball against hipsters and Jews, but come on, Melo in a Williamsburg pickup game is pretty funny.

The little kid in the jewish U-40 league hitting the J in Melo's face and talking smack after kinda makes the whole commercial for me.

By: Z-man

Z-man — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:55:13 +0000

Another good read, or should I say Reed:

http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/knicks-reed-forever-a-captain-among-men/?src=me&ref=sports

They just don’t make ‘em like that anymore.

By: John Kenney

John Kenney — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:27:40 +0000

New Jordan spot featuring DWade, CP3, and our boy Melo…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYDS_MEWPU0&feature=share .

Might have been a bit stereotypical having the New Yorker ball against hipsters and Jews, but come on, Melo in a Williamsburg pickup game is pretty funny.

By: Brian Cronin (@Brian_Cronin)

Brian Cronin (@Brian_Cronin) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:19:16 +0000

Right, but the issue is that whatever the percentage is, the amount of revenue does not stay the same. And you have to be negotiating under the impression that eventually the revenue will go up (as the league has held very consistent even while the rest of the country’s economy has been absolutely terrible). Therefore, if you sign a four-year deal in 2011, you may be giving money back in 2011, but you’ll likely get that money in 2012 or at least in 2013-2014. While if they effectively cut off the ability of team’s to go over the cap, you’re never getting that money – even if the league has a boom period, because you don’t have nearly the same market. Look at Harrington. If teams couldn’t go over the cap to sign him to the mid-level, what team would have signed him to the mid-level? Having that mid-level market there totally makes up for the fact that he might have to lose 9% of his salary the first year or two.

Revenues can quickly change. John Starks and Scottie Pippen both signed contracts in the early 1990s that made them among the highest paid players in the NBA. But within a few years, the revenue had exploded and then suddenly role players were making five times as much as Pippen and Starks.

By: John Kenney

John Kenney — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:54:17 +0000

@Bob I think @latke is right, they’d take away money from players if the total exceeded 57%.

By: latke

latke — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:47:38 +0000

interesting article from the now independent Chris Sheridan on the specific system related positions of the union and NBPA as of their last negotiating session: http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/10/23/nba-lockout-remaining-issues/

By: citizen

citizen — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:52:39 +0000

As a diversion from the depressing lockout news, Knickerblogger statheads will find this study on the “hot hand” interesting – maybe it’s not just an illusion/silly traditional sports belief after all!
http://mindhacks.com/2011/10/20/the-hot-hand-smacks-back/

By: Z-man

Z-man — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:37:01 +0000

When a team pays luxury tax, does that count against league income for BRI accounting purposes? Since that money comes back to the league, for purposes such as balancing revenue with small-market teams, it actually is more like income than an expense.

By: latke

latke — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:28:17 +0000

Robert Silverman: Because even though the total BRI determines what the cap will be, it’s a soft cap. Teams (like the Isiah Knicks or the Lakers) are free to go over the cap should they be able to pay the luxury tax. A hard cap would mean a cap on spending for each team, regardless of their financial resources. It’s ironic — a group of billionaires want to impose socialism. Nutty, ain’t it!

I was under the impression though that the players still always end up with 57%. That's why there is escrow money taken from salaries -- to ensure that the number doesn't ever go over 57% total BRI. I think it more has to do with guaranteed contracts and players always having the opportunity to get their market value. A hard cap means some offseasons will see very few teams able to offer serious money to players. Also, I feel like the hard cap package demands shorter contracts with fewer guarantees. This means that while players as a whole get more money, individual players have fewer guarantees regarding money. They want guarantees more than they want money. At least that's the most sense I can make of it.