The Lockout is coming......

It's become apparent that there will be a lockout this coming year. And it will be worse than the NFL. In that League, the players and owners are just attempting to devide money. In the NBA the owners are going to demand that the players take less money, which won't go over well. This will most likely result in either a complete cancellation of the season, or a season that doesn't start 'til 2012. So what do y'all think? How will the upcoming lockout influence the decision making of the Warriors front office, particularly in regards to trades and FA's?

12 months ago myk 19 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

no bball would suck.. hope they pull it off

by PIRATEWARRIOR on Jun 2, 2011 8:58 PM PDT reply actions

I hope you like the Sharks, football, or hope that a BAYseball team is playing in the World Series

becasue this is happening.

When the NHL lockout happened all the big NHL players went and played in the euro leagues that season. That’s actually where Thornton and Heatley first played together. They were in Davos Switzerland on the same line. A couple seasons later Heatley and his agent wanted really badly for him to play for the Sharks.

Maybe Curry can go play with Dwight in Greece or Spain…..

by myk on Jun 2, 2011 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions

i like where ur going with that haha...

i may just have to boycott all sports for a year… maybe pick up a new hobby or see if the sun really does shine or the birds realllly do chirp…

by PIRATEWARRIOR on Jun 2, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh, it is?

by Missing Barry on Jun 3, 2011 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Huh? How do you know? Didn't they recently say the negotiations are going well?

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawkGSW on Jun 2, 2011 9:38 PM PDT reply actions

oh well

by Slightly Hyphy on Jun 2, 2011 11:00 PM PDT reply actions

And it will be worse than the NFL. In that League, the players and owners are just attempting to devide money. In the NBA the owners are going to demand that the players take less money, which won’t go over well.

I don’t see a difference. The NFL was already dividing money a certain way, but the owners claimed they were losing money and wanted the players to take a smaller portion, but wouldn’t provide financial proof.

I’m not sure about this, but I believe the NBA owners have provided proof that most teams are losing money. This should be much less of a hurdle then. I personally think a hard cap like the NFL and NHL is going to be implemented.

by racsan on Jun 2, 2011 11:14 PM PDT reply actions

NFL's finances aren't that similar to the n.b.a.'s

signing bonuses are the only guaranteed portion of an n.f.l. contract, and the players know they can be cut off like dead meat when they’re hurt or teams wish to discard them ; in part, this is because the pool of talent is bigger(football a big business at more colleges than hoops), more diluted to a degree, and there are more positions available in the n.f.l. With only fourteen/fifteen roster places per team, the hoops players can behave more like a classic guild with exclusive control over a certain form of service. During the n.f.l. players’ strike, the owners demonstrated to the players’ union that the public was so hopelessly addicted to the product that they’d still patronize the scab games which were obviously not the same quality.

As far as revenue, the NFL has a bigger gross domestically, and the league redistributes it to a greater degree to the small market teams than how the n.b.a. owners share. Before the ‘pie’ of revenue gets cut between the owners and players, the owners take out a big multi-billion dollar chunk for their expenses, separate and exclusive of the players’ salaries. They dissolved their labor agreement unilaterally (there was an option to continue) – it did not expire like the c.b.a. – because they claimed expenses had gone up and they want that chunk enlarged. This really isn’t similar to Stern’s gang claiming that 24 of 32 teams are losing money, when the reason some of those teams are losing money is because the revenue isn’t shared between the teams nearly to the same degree as it is in the n.f.l. The football owners will certainly exaggerate their expenses and claim losses, but they couldn’t expect to get away with claiming that three fourths of the teams are in the red. Consider how the revenue has dropped for Davis’ silver and black, but it’s still sufficient to sustain a very competitive payroll. The football owners understand how parity keeps a bigger fan base engaged(and stimulate wagering, which accomplishes the same thing), and revenue redistribution helps perpetuate parity. The hoops owners will do much less to limit how the big market teams dominate economically, and those ‘flagship franchises’ will use that to keep the championships a nearly exclusive domain for a small handful of teams.

Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)

by the.monk on Jun 3, 2011 4:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I’ve never really been convinced that “parity” is the driving force behind the NFL’s economic success. It gets repeated a lot as a theory, but that’s pretty much all it seems to be to me – a theory, and one that people just seem to accept….

by Missing Barry on Jun 3, 2011 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions

parity plays a supporting role

among many components that sustain the juggernaut. It doesn’t hurt that the NCAA provides a huge, well-funded farm system, and that football hooked into society’s television addiction during the medium’s formative years, with the game’s structural compatibility to being televised. Except for the horses and golf, amerikaners usually avoid the word ‘handicap’, but the schedule of play every season is partly composed by giving the teams with the worst records from the previous year easier competition. Not familiar with how the n.h.l. does things, but among the pro team sports, that’s a significant concession to handicapping, or parity in n.f.l. lingo.

Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)

by the.monk on Jun 3, 2011 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Is this something that’s actually backed up by sources, or just your opinion?

by Missing Barry on Jun 3, 2011 7:08 AM PDT reply actions

Phil Jackson was fined during the season when responding to a question about his retirement for saying' "It doesn't matter, there's going to be a lockout."

About a week or two ago Chris Broussard of ESPN said that there is for sure going to be a lockout, it’s just a matter of whether or not they’ll get any games in before the new year. Which he went on to admit as being an optimistic view.

NBA players have some of the biggest and worst ego’s of any sport. Whether compared to baseball, football, or even european soccer. These guys are the worst. The whole big deal of Buss not consulting Kobe about a coach, that sort of BS just does not happen in other sports.

So common sense tells me that the ego’s in basketball are not going to take kindly to a proposed pay decrease, especially when the revenue of the league isn’t going down.

It’s going to happen.

by myk on Jun 3, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions

If your Paul Revere-like announcement is true

Then as a Warriors fan I have to wonder how a season’s cancellation would impact an upcoming draft? if there were no basketball played next year, then would the same teams that comprised this years lottery team be the same teams comprising the nba’s lottery whenever a new season ramps up? Would each team be weighted the same? Would the NBA do something different? What happens if the season is shortened to a couple of months and a team like the Celtics get “injuries” to Garnett, Pierce, and Allen causing them to lose a good deal of their games. Would they enter the lottery like say the Cav’s, a team that is legitimately awful. For that matter, what if the Cav’s hit a stretch where they played teams that were tanking the season and end up winning most of their games. Would they find themselves out of the lottery by virtue of shenanigans? Would the NBA consider historical “badness”? If, like the Warriors, your team has not been very competitive for some time, would they consider accounting for that in the lottery formula?

questions, questions, questions, but no answers.

by fuller over bryant on Jun 3, 2011 9:46 AM PDT reply actions

They would treat it like a normal season and go on from there.

So if all your scenarios happened, like the Celtics having huge injuries that put them in the lottery, then yeah they would get a lottery pick.

by myk on Jun 3, 2011 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Does anybody know how a lockout would affect next years draft?

Does it happen? If so, how are picks arranged if no season was played?

by hellafornia on Jun 3, 2011 10:10 AM PDT reply actions

The draft will still happen.

by DubsFan408 on Jun 3, 2011 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Larry Ellison has plans to start his own basketball league with the locked out NBA players and take full advantage of this opportunity to fill the void left by the NBA. The plan includes offering pubic ownership in shares of the teams. This explains his cold feet and low balling when buying the Warriors and the Hornets. Maybe. Anyway the players union would be smart to have negotiations with alternate ownership options. The NBA owners really add nothing to the sport of basketball. I would rather see cities own the team. The tax payers pay for the stadiums anyway.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Jun 3, 2011 12:39 PM PDT reply actions

That’s actually a vey interesting idea to me – anytime a stadium gets public funding, the taxpayers get an ownership share in the organization. Of course, I think I know how that would end up playing out – owners hiding their profits with some fraudulent accounting (which they’d never get in trouble for, of course) and claiming losses that taxpayers have to help cover….

by Missing Barry on Jun 3, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm pretty sure parts of that statement are not true.

I did a huge op/ed piece for my college paper on the proposed 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, where I live. The city is putting up near 400 mil on a 1 billion dollar stadium, the NFL is paying half of the rest, and the rest is put up by private investors including the 9ers and whoever they can get to invest in it.

If memory serves me correctly, each of the buyers has a say, and technically the city council of Santa Clara has a say. But that doesn’t necessarily translate into the tax payers having a direct influence or really any influence at all on what happens to the stadium.

However, you are right about the shadiness of owners and sports franchises as a whole.

The city of Santa Clara was one of the few cities in California with a budget surpluss. They allowed the 49ers to like to the citizens of Santa Clara about this jobs and economy nonsense through a multi-milllion dollar propaganda add.

It’s all bs. A football stadium operates, at most, 13 times a year. And that would be if the 9ers got 2 playoff home games and the super bowl is helad there. 10 times a year is nothing compared to the millions of dollars that the city is spending to get this thing built.

Not to mention that the construction firm they’re using works out of San Mateo, not Santa Clara. Also the 9ers have stated they intend to keep all their contracts with vendors and security firms, which are also all based out of the upper penninsula, sf, or the east bay.

They even have to front the bill to move the Tamien Light rail station because VTA wants nothing to do with this, and Santa Clara has their own city power.

There has already been hang ups in the process which somehow has resulted in Santa Clara officially being in the red.

Building a sports facility is really a crappy investment unless the league, organization and private investors completely finance it.

Which is why I’m hoping that the Raiders move into the stadium, because then the NFL has to pay half the bill.

Although, that would probably be to the 9ers benefit and not the city’s. Santa Clara’s city council is trying to hook up the 9ers because the majority of them are vain SCU products that are so absorbed with themselves that all they want is to have their names on a shiny gold plaque on a shiny new stadium that is featured 8 times a year on a national broadcast.

Add to that the fact that the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara have been traditionally run by the Catholic Club, it becomes apparent that this is some crappy left coast catholic mafia hook up.

It’s lame, but hey, at least Santa Clara has an NFL team….. Oh wait, they still belong to San Francisco..

by myk on Jun 3, 2011 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions