NBA to cancel training camp and part of preseason

The sides met again yesterday, and unfortunately, they dug into their positions rather than conceding anything. As such, the NBA will officially cancel training camp and the initial stages of preseason today.

The players had conceded on money last week, conceded enough that a deal might be struck. However, both sides refuse to bend on league structure, and a deal is not getting done.

At some point, the owners should hopefully wake up and smell the stupidity of their bargaining stance here. They've got a lot more to lose than gain by continuing this battle at this point.

Given the insanity of holding up the season over cap structure with money split in the ball park, I expect that these sides work out some type of reasonable compromisee.

Canceling of training camp and preseason isn't too big a deal for anyone. Most season ticket holders probably view canceling of preseason as a tremendous bonus as they don't have to pay full price for games they don't want to go to. [Note, I don't fall into this group, I'd probably pay double to go to the first preseason game because I'm so juiced for the season to start again, but I'm a rare exception]

To put it bluntly, we'll have to hope that owner sanity prevails. Changing up the system won't do nearly so much to benefit the small owners as some seem to think. In fact, it will considerably raise their costs and won't improve their teams any.

The only difference it will make is that a team like Oklahoma City which is small market but has a superstar will be able to cash in far more money in the Kevin Durant era than it does now. However, Oklahoma City probably isn't hurting right now. The change won't help Cleveland, Minnesota, or Sacramento. If anything those small market teams with losing teams will have an increase in costs with no increase in benefits.

Under a hard cap rule, they can't be subsidized by L.A. and Dallas putting out a large payroll. Nope, they have to kick in an even share, and the system won't make them any more competitive without the talent, nor will the system make it more likely they get the talent as that will still largely be determined by draft success.

Given how much everyone has to lose and how little everyone has to gain by continuing to hold out on this stance, I expect a deal to be struck. I expect the owners to fold on this issue as it's only important to probably half the owners while the lost season hurts them all.

The real question is how long does it take? I'm predicting the we lose less than a month of regular season basketball at this point.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Apparently the owners offered the players 46% of BRI. Ouch. Looks like they have not come to an agreement on revenue splitting. This is according to ESPN this morning. Hmmmmm.

  • 2 questions Doug:
    1) How much could Grant Hill help for 1 year playing the 2?
    2) What would happen to the draft this June in the season is cancelled?

  • you're telling me Cleveland, Minnesota, and Sacramento are better off without Lebron James, Kevin Garnett & Chris Webber?? Sacramento who was once a powerhouse in the west is better off a wispy dandelion fluff, blown from city to city?? And the other 2 players who both took paycuts to stack significantly more attractive teams (starting this whole structure debate in the first place) leaving Cleveland and Minnesota to rot is better for them?? ....oh!..i get it!! OPPOSITE DAY!!!!!!

    Also, the reason owners are so adamant about structure is because by changing it for their benefit, it will not only increase their profits, but will increase the value of their teams and the interest other investors will have in purchasing them. You aren't taking that into account and when you finally do you'll realize it is so much more worth it for them to go without a season, restructure the NBA, & increase the value of their teams & profits.

  • In reply to mepeterser2451:

    A hard cap isn't going to keep those players in their cities. Nor will a hard cap increase their profits. A hard cap will force low revenue teams to foot a higher percentage of the salary bill.

    If you disagree, explain how a hard cap helps that situation.

  • In reply to mepeterser2451:

    I think his point was that players are at least somewhat less likely to leave if the ability to create stacked super teams doesn't exist. Doug, I recall you mentioning this yourself somewhere with the term "equal opportunity". Right now, small cities have almost no hope of retaining players. The draw of the big city and storied franchise will always be there, but you can at least eliminate the draw of the super team that will continue to rob small markets if not put in check. Doug, I truly respect you but I feel like you continue to take an absolutist approach with the cap restructuring arguments. As in, "It doesn't solve the whole problem, so it isn't a good solution".

  • Doug, I love reading your posts and check in almost daily but I can't understand how you continue to state that a hard cap won't improve parity. Of course it would. Let's just look at it this way... If you went to every team over the lux tax and took away their third and fourth best players and put them on other teams instead, would you have more parity? Yes, you would.

  • In reply to dakman:

    what about a situation where lebron james and joe johnson are paid the same amount? they both have exactly the same amount of money to work with around each of their "stars," so it's still gonna be a star driven league. if you don't have a star, you're still screwed.

  • In reply to dakman:

    If you go to a hard cap, it will be virtually impossible to win a title without a top 5 player on your team. That's why it won't improve parity.

    Presently, you can overspend on good players to make up for having an absolutely elite player. Dallas did this last year. That won't be possible next year with a hard cap.

  • In reply to dakman:

    That's why I pointed out that you would take away the third or fourth best player from every team in lux tax and distribute them. That is probably a realistic view on what would happen. The nature of basketball is that the best players will always dominate the floor. You can't change that. But when you take away good players from the best teams and put them on other teams it creates at least some degree of parity. That doesn't mean that the teams with the stars aren't the favorites. It also doesn't mean that other teams would win a championship by merit of the hard cap alone. But it does mean that the best teams would not be quite as good and the worst teams would not be quite as crappy. That is more parity than we have now. Besides, who is to say Joe Johnson gets a max contract under a hard cap? That argument has little validity to me.

  • Anyone catch this quote?

    "The owners agreed to try to come up with a mechanism to solve their issues without adding a hard salary cap before the next meeting, according to the source."

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7008269/nba-postpones-camps-cancels-43-preseason-games

    If true that will be huge!

  • According to Ken Berger of CBSSports.com, who has been a decent source especially for internet standards aka the anti-Ric Bucher, the owners moved significantly on BRI split. Though they are sticking to the flat rate split for eight years which would average out below 50%, but not below say 48%. A move like that could lead to 50/50 which with all the saber rattling, and the generally shaky/scary economic landscape sounds like a deal can be had. Though hard cap acceptance remains the stickler, if BRI split is agreed to then the players/stars will get theirs regardless says Berger. But the question remains with the tugging of minority owners and player agents during the off days will a deal get done?

    http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15625227/owners-revised-proposal-means-theres-some-hope-for-full-season(since these links won't work directly just google "Berger Proposal"

  • Hard cap in some sort of way is the way to go for these small-market franchises. The biggest problem with the current system is it based purely on luck. That is not a good way to conduct any business. Look at the Bulls...even with a big market until Rose dawned upon them, they were a disaster in general. Cleveland blew the chance of a century(losing LeBron) and might not get back in contention for another 20 years. Unless, there is parity where Miami cannot overspend to beef up their team and keep other franchises alive/hopeful in beating them....it is not going to work. As fans we like our team to be that dominating team but it is not good for business unless all 30 teams have hope for the season which is the case usually in the NFL.

Leave a comment