Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Posted on: September 15, 2011 7:10 pm
 
Posted by Royce Young



There was a reason for all the budding optimism surrounding Wednesday's labor meeting. There was a little momentum and by a lot of indications, the players and owners were closing the gap to a degree.

But after a five-plus hour meeting in New York, a lot of that optimism was squashed. The reason? Two owners didn't like the way things were heading, according to ESPN LA.

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.

That, is kind of hard to swallow. Especially knowing that Gilbert was a soft cap lover as long as he had LeBron. And knowing that Sarver is one owner that doesn't have much of a reputation for caring about his team, instead only about profits.

Now, it might be a bit strong to suggest the two owners "killed" a potential deal because there is still some separation, but they certainly caused a major bump. Still, this is kind of good news. The players and owners are getting close on money, which is a major hurdle. If they can just get lined up on systematic details, we'll get a deal. And that could happen in any meeting.

Maybe next time Sarver and Gilbert don't get their way. Maybe next time, the other heavy hitters come together. Billy Hunter spoke of a divide between owners and while David Stern tried to brush it off, he acknowledged it. The owners are looking at losing a substantial amount of money in a lockout and playing the hardline, stubborn card might not be wise right now. For owners like Buss and Dolan who are making money, I'm sure it would be easy to grow annoyed with that kind of edged approach.

But keep hope. Like I said, while it's bad news, it's also kind of good news. There's movement towards... something. Eventually someone will get overruled and a deal will be struck. It's just a matter of how long all this hardline posturing is allowed to go on.
Comments

Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: September 17, 2011 9:43 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Contracts should probably be limited to two years, maximum, not the five or six years in the current contract. The limit would increase player motivation and willingness to keep learning the game.

Although I agree too many players are overpaid in a big way I don't think limiting the length of a deal solves anybody's problems.  I think a combination of how the NFL and NHL do things is a perfect solution.  The NHL has a hard cap with not only an upper limit but a floor as well. Nobody can outspend anybody else by 10's of millions but owners also aren't allowed to pocket 10's of millions in a market that supports them and watch their team lose year after year because there is a minimum the owners must commit to their team's salaries.  This levels the playing field a little bit but keeps everybody honest.  The NFL owners on the other hand don't have to guarantee 100 percent of contracts which is the second thing the NBA should do.  For star players, regular every day starters and rookies drafted very high in the draft there is always some and in most cases significant guaranteed money available in salary, signing bonuses, roster bonuses, etc.   For others not as important or as good the guaranteed money is limited.  Either way non guaranteed contracts keep a player honest.  If they don't perform well into a rich deal the owner can cut them after the guaranteed money has been paid.  If they peform well but an owner cuts them no skin of their ass because other teams will line up to make them richer then ever before.

By about year 3 of the current NFL CBA the NFL owners will be required to spend 99 percent of whatever the salary cap is at.  Perfect for the league and would be perfect for the NBA as well.  I don't mind owners being required to spend x amount of dollars as long as it goes to the right players.  What makes the NBA the biggest joke around is a player can sign a 5 year 60 million dollar deal or a 5 year 100 million dollar max contract, suck 2 years into it or get hurt 2 years into it and get paid every nickel he's owed.  There is not a profitable business on this planet that runs like that... And outside of the NFL and MLB where a player's performance means nothing 5 seconds after he signs a deal things don't run like that in most other sports either.

Players should always be able to get fired if they don't perform......... just like every other person in any other industry on the planet. 



Since: Aug 7, 2008
Posted on: September 17, 2011 4:18 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Why doesn't the league let the owner of the team that won the last NBA championship make the decision. Oh wait....that was Mark Cuban and the league cannot have a sane, competent person who ACTUALLY cares about his team and its fans from making a decision that would be best for fans and the league. Yeah, let's leave the decision up to Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver. They know how to ruin franchises. Let them ruin the NBA. 

It's talk like this that bothers me. I know the issue is about money/respect but if there is no season owners don't make money and the players don't get paid. When people don't get paid they don't have money to support economy. Strikes are bad because they hurt the economy.  When was a strike ever a good idea? 

I think that all the pro sports leagues should let the fans decide how much they want to pay to watch sporting events. It's not like we fans have no alternatives to watching pro hockey, football, basketball and baseball.  



Since: Sep 17, 2011
Posted on: September 17, 2011 2:42 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Contracts should probably be limited to two years, maximum, not the five or six years in the current contract. The limit would increase player motivation and willingness to keep learning the game.



Since: Aug 26, 2006
Posted on: September 17, 2011 11:32 am
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

As Football has taken over our current interest with college and the pros,  college basketball  starts in December leading into March Madness, who really cares if there is a season or not.  For me its one less fantasy sport I'm in. Pro basketball is not as interesting to watch compared to college anyway.  Just compare ratings for March Madness to that of the NBA playoffs. Let the league take a year off and wake me up when they decide to play again.



Since: Feb 15, 2008
Posted on: September 17, 2011 10:09 am
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Maybe you are a fan of the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, Spurs, Heat or Bulls. For all the rest of us the reality is that no other team has a chance.
News Flash........The Spurs are as small market as they come......gee, how come they're successful?  Could it be a competent front office? Same goes for the Heat. You lump them in with those group of teams as if they've been winning championships since their birth 23 seasons ago, when the reality is they've won one championship and just a few seasons ago were the worst team in basketball, so the proof is there that a team can go from the cellar to instant contender overnight if you have competent savvy personel in your front office. And same goes for Dallas. Like Miami, they are relatively new to the scene of contending for championships.   And how come you left two small market contenders like OKC and Memphis off of your list? They both had a legitimate shot last year with the playoff runs they had and most people are convinced OKC will win a title within the next few years or so, and maybe they will.....unless a hard cap forces them to break up their team.



Since: Jul 9, 2011
Posted on: September 17, 2011 12:28 am
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Get a deal done.



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: September 16, 2011 10:26 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Um, even at a level giving players 52% or 53% of revenue, profits aren't guaranteed.  Still gotta have butts in seats and advertisers on your walls (and between quarters).

That's the problem right there.  The union and their players want to be a "partner" in the business, a majority partner at that yet won't take any risk at all.  Why would the players NEVER agree to be paid a percentage of the NET profits and not gross profits?  Answer: The players won't take the risk, they'll never work for free.  Yet they expect the owners to suck it up when they lose money and keep on paying..... 



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: September 16, 2011 10:13 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

Starscup - are you looking at their books? Then don't offer your opinion as our fact. There likely are a few owners losing money, to which I say "tough sh*t." An NBA team is a business like any other. An expensive one, but still a business. Name me a business that guarantees profits. There isn't one. Profitability in any sport is about more than market size, although that helps, which is why baseball shares revenue. Regardless, teams that win will make money. Teams that are run by smart people will win. Teams that are run by greedy tycoons or airheaded idiots won't win or make money. That's how it is.

First of all the NBAPA has publicly stated they agree the NBA is losing money and a whole lot more then "a few" teams are in the red. So for you to imply that itsn't the case makes you look stupid.  The only thing the union is arguing is HOW MUCH money the owners are losing, but there is no question at all the NBA has not done well the last couple of seasons.   

Second of all you say businesses can't have any guarantees and that there isn't a business on the planet guaranteed to profit.  You're right, there isn't. But here's the the problem.... how many other businesses are forced to sign employees to multi year guaranteed contracts? Not many is the answer,, if any at all.  And here's another question.  How many other employees are GUARANTEED their salaries regardless of how they perform?  NONE, is the answe to that question... not even one employee, union or not can agree to a deal with his employer, stop performing at his job and still be guaranteed he doesn't lose his job. 

It's funny you ask people to provide you with a business guaranteed to profit, yet you don't provide us with a business where an employee can suck at his job and still be guaranteed his money.....  typical player supporter.   



Since: Jul 14, 2009
Posted on: September 16, 2011 7:36 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

"An NBA team is a business like any other. An expensive one, but still a business. Name me a business that guarantees profits. There isn't one. "  Um, even at a level giving players 52% or 53% of revenue, profits aren't guaranteed.  Still gotta have butts in seats and advertisers on your walls (and between quarters).  Smart management is a factor, and many owners overpaid for their franchises, but while I side with the players' approach to negotiation, I side with the owners' desire to increase the likelihood of profitability (which is far from a "guarantee").



Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: September 16, 2011 4:05 pm
 

Report: Sarver, Gilbert killed potential deal

If owners are losing money or not is speculation. The only known fact is, an AVERAGE NBA player makes $5 mil a year under the owners last proposal, so THE PLAYERS AREN'T LOSING, that's for sure...unless they can do better playing in Europe, China or in another occupation, which  of course, THEY CAN'T. 

The players and owners are saying the same thing- "WE want MORE or we we'll try to starve YOU out".  

Well, I'd say the advantage in that war will ALWAYS be with the billionaire owners who HAVE made their money outside the NBA, in other business unaffected by a basketball bankruptcy or franchise folding... NOT the largely uneducated millionaire players, many who are in debt up to their bling covered necks, and would be hard pressed to make a fraction of the worst NBA salary, anywhere else.   

Sometimes, there IS no more. I'd say if you can't do better, you probably should get back to work, before someone else starts doing your $5 mil job for $2 mil, or $200 K.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com