To match Interview NBA/STERN

NBA Lockout Q&A: PBT explains it all (well, almost)

17 Comments

Welcome to the NBA lockout. Pull up a chair, make yourself comfortable, you’re going to be here a while. If we’re all lucky it will be for just the summer, but it could be longer. Much longer.

I understand you all have questions about how we got here, where we are at and what is next. We don’t have all the answers, but let’s try to answer those questions as best we can.

Why is the league locking out now, after a season when ratings, attendance and interest in the league are at the highest levels in decades?

July 1 is when the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owners and the players union runs out. It was not so much they chose right now as this was the time the old deal was up and a new one needed to be hammered out. Both sides have known for years that this would be a tough negotiations — that the owners were going to look for big changes to the system — and both sides have anticipated for a couple years a lockout would come now.

That it came on the heels of a fantastic season for the league was a coincidence, but it may be the one thing that saves next season. Both sides understand the need to get a deal done that does not cost games next season or all that newfound momentum will be lost and it will take years and years just to get back to this point.

What are the two sides disagreeing over?

Everything. Much like the negotiations at the end of the Vietnam War, I’m not sure the two sides could agree on the shape of the table they should sit down at to negotiate.

But as always the big issue is money. Specifically how to divide up the money that comes into the league. That money is called “basketball related income” (BRI). That is the money from ticket sales, national television contracts, local television deals, luxury boxes, concessions, jersey sales — basically everything tied to basketball.

Currently the players get 57 percent of the gross BRI — 57 cents on every dollar that comes into the league goes to the players in salary. The owners want to change that number dramatically, their proposal would have the players in the low 40s percent wise in a decade. The players have agreed to go down to about 54 percent in their proposals.

In that gap is hundreds of millions of dollars per season. The two sides are nowhere near close – they can’t even agree on how to define BRI (the owners want to start taking a number of expenses out of it so it is more net than gross that is divided between them).

What are the owners proposing?

The owners want a radical change in the system. They want to put in a “flex cap” of $62 million per team. For some perspective, the Dallas Mavericks payroll last season was $86.2 million (the team with the lowest payroll was Sacramento at about $44 million). Teams could not exceed that $62 million number except to sign their own free agents, and even then teams could not exceed a second figure that would not be more than a few million higher.

What David Stern will gladly tell you is that this number guarantees the players about $2 billion a year in salary, which is not much below the $2.17 billion they made last year. The difference is the owners want to lock that figure in for a decade — even as revenues rise for the league the salary cap would remain flat. All that additional revenue goes to the owners.

The owners also want to reduce the length of contracts by two years when handed out (from five to three for signing a free agent, for example), so they don’t end up stuck with terrible choices and bad deals as long. (Yes, the owners want the CBA to protect them from themselves.)

What is the owners’ sales pitch?

For fans, they are selling parity. This season the Lakers spent more than $90 million on salary, with the luxury tax they spent more than $110 million. And as a franchise they will still turn a profit. Smaller market teams have a hard time competing with teams willing to spend like that. What this harder salary cap would do is put teams on a more even playing field financially.

Now will parity work in the NBA as a practical matter or in marketing manner like it does in the NFL? That’s a harder sell. The best times for the NBA were when Michael Jordan’s Bulls dominated the league, or when Magic and Bird ran the show. Parity has never sold the same in the NBA like it has for the NFL.

What do the players say about the owners’ plan?

What would you say if your boss asked you to take a pay cut then told you they expect record growth for the company in the next decade but you’d see none of the rewards? Yes, NBA players are very well paid, but they also realize that they are the product that drives the league and they should see money from any growth in the league’s business.

What do the players propose?

The players are essentially playing goalie in these negotiations — they want to keep the system pretty much the way it is now. They like the “soft cap” which allows teams to spend well over the cap to keep their own free agents and has a host of other exceptions (a mid-level exception, a veterans exception, and more).

The players have proposed a reduction in the percent of BRI they get down to 54 percent, which would be a give back of about $100 million per season. They say that is their percentage of the losses they admit some owners are suffering. But aside that they want even more flexibility for teams to make trades (not as restricted by matching salaries) and other steps to increase player movement.

What about revenue sharing?

This is the players’ other big push — they want the owners of big market teams to share much more revenue with smaller market teams. They also point to the NFL where about 70 percent of league revenue is shared; where in the case of the NBA it’s about 25 percent. (That is primarily because the NFL has much larger national television deals.)

For example, the Lakers new local television deal that kicks in for the fall of 2012 will pay the team upwards of $150 million a year, the Sacramento Kings made about $11 million last season on their local television deal. None of that revenue is shared right now, the players say it should be and they want to know the numbers.

The owners are talking about revenue sharing amongst themselves, but they say it is not part of the CBA negotiations and the players do not have a seat at that table.

So is the NBA lockout like the NFL lockout?

No. Not at all… well, in one key way yes.

But not in the details. The bottom line is the NFL is a league that is still making gobs and gobs of money, it’s just that the owners are not making as much as they used to so they are locked out. But at the end of the day, that argument truly is about how to divide the profits.

The NBA has lost money for several years in a row, and even though the players dispute the owners figures they do not dispute the losses overall. The losses this past season as a league were around $300 million according to Stern. And that is the key difference between the two lockouts — the NBA has far more serious issues to deal with, real revenue and expenditure issues to deal with.  Because of that the two sides are farther apart than they ever were in the NFL. A few minor issues are the same but the big issues are different in the two lockouts.

So how are the NBA and NFL lockouts alike?

The arc of how the problems will be solved.

The NFL has been locked out for more than 100 days but only now are we starting to see some real progress towards a deal, in time to save this season. (How much progress depends on who you ask.) The bottom line is this — in any negotiations, from teachers unions to longshoremen to sports leagues, nothing actually gets done until there is pressure on one or both sides to compromise. In the NFL, with the owners seeing the threat of lost games and the players fearing lost paychecks, the negotiations are getting serious.

It will be the same with the NBA. With the start of the lockout, the two sides will move farther apart. They have both known this lockout is coming for years — there have been proposals on the table since the 2010 All-Star Game in Dallas — and they have dug in their heels. Don’t be shocked if the owners start talking about going back to their original proposal of a $45 million hard salary cap.

But as we move into the second half of August and September, when the threat of lost games starts to become more real, then we will see movement and the two sides start to negotiate in earnest.

Then we will see the resolve of the two sides.

How and when does this end?

The when is unpredictable. I want to believe there will be a full season next year. But there are hardline owners — smaller market owners who leveraged themselves in recent years to buy these teams and who need a change in the business model — who are willing to lose some or all of a season to reshape the financial landscape of the NBA.

The players are going to come out of these negotiations with less money then when they went in (even under their own plans), the question is how far back will they go and how hard are the owners as a group willing to push for a deal they want? We’ll start to get a feel for that in August and September.

If we get to mid to late September and the two sides are nowhere near a deal like they are now, then my friends we may not see the NBA for a long while.

Dave Joerger: Kings will play more small ball

Sacramento Kings head coach Dave Joerger talks to reporters during the Kings basketball media day Monday, Sept. 26, 2016, in Sacramento, Calif. Joerger, who was fired by the Memphis Grizzlies at the end of last season, was hired by Kings to replace George Karl, who was fired by the Kings.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli
Leave a comment

Shortly after the Kings chose center Georgios Papagiannis with the No. 13 pick in the draft, DeMarcus Cousins tweeted, “Lord give me the strength.” Sacramento already had an abundance of centers with Cousins, Willie Cauley-Stein and Kosta Koufos. If Cousins wasn’t talking about yoga, Sacramento adding center Skal Labissiere with the No. 28 pick would’ve driven Cousins batty.

At least Kings coach Dave Joerger is accustomed to using two bigs, as he did with Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph in Memphis.

Joerger, via Cowbell Kingdom:

I anticipate us playing a lot more small ball this year.

I’m not playing big.

Oh.

This is going to lead to some unhappy campers in Sacramento. It won’t be Cousins (not for getting his role reduced, at least). But this will make it hard for Cauley-Stein and Koufos to get satisfactory playing time. It’ll also make it harder for Papagiannis and Labissiere to get minutes to develop.

Like with most things, winning is the best way to quash griping. The Kings have enough wings – Rudy Gay, Matt Barnes, Arron Afflalo, Omri Casspi, Ben McLemore, Garrett Temple and Malachi Richardson – to theoretically play small effectively. If Joerger goes that route, he better find success with it. Otherwise, he could get plenty of heat – including from general manager Vlade Divac, who spoke incredibly highly of his first-round picks, the players most likely to get squeezed out of a small-ball rotation.

Dwane Casey: Jared Sullinger has Raptors’ starting PF job to lose

BOSTON, MA - NOVEMBER 05: Jared Sullinger #7 of the Boston Celtics drives to the basket against Patrick Patterson #54 of the Toronto Raptors in the first half at TD Garden on November 5, 2014 in Boston, Massachusetts. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Mike Lawrie/Getty Images)
Mike Lawrie/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Last year, Patrick Patterson declared the Raptors’ starting power-forward job his to lose.

Well, he lost it.

Luis Scola started most of the regular season before Toronto tinkered in the playoffs. Patterson claimed the job. Then, the Raptors turned to DeMarre Carroll with Norman Powel in a small-ball lineup. Finally, Toronto reverted back to Scola.

A year later, there’s still no clear, great option at the position. Scola went to the Nets. Patterson returns. Pascal Siakam and Jarrod Uthoff are rookies. First man up: Newly signed Jared Sullinger.

Raptors coach Dwane Casey, via Doug Smith of the Toronto Star:

“I would say Sullinger is the guy now that it would be his to lose, but I reserve the right to change my mind,” Casey said, citing the need to see how that group reacts defensively.

If Sullinger’s bar is defensive, he’ll have a tough time clearing it. He neither protects the rim nor moves well on the perimeter – making him similar to Scola. But Scola got the job last year with similar contributions.

Sullinger rebounds well, and he has some shooting range, though he hasn’t been selective enough with it.

Patterson’s ability to defend the pick-and-roll might make him a better fit next to Jonas Valanciunas, especially if Patterson has confidence in his 3-point shot.

There should be a place for Sullinger in the rotation, but if he’s starting at power forward, that speaks to a lack of quality options.

Report: Cavaliers giving championship rings to 1,000+ workers

CLEVELAND, OH -  JUNE 20: The Cleveland Cavaliers mascot Moon Dog cheers on the fans prior to the arrival of the Cavs players return to Cleveland after wining the NBA Championships on June 20, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Jason Miller/Getty Images)
Jason Miller/Getty Images
2 Comments

The Cavaliers will reportedly give David Blatt a championship ring, and Anderson Varejao also has one available.

They aren’t the only two unexpected ring recipients.

Joe Vardon of Cleveland.com:

Majority owner Dan Gilbert and his partners decided to present rings to more than 1,000 full and part-time employees throughout the Cavaliers and Quicken Loans Arena organization, employees who’ve been fitted for rings told cleveland.com.

A conservative cost for distributing rings to employees is more than $1 million.

This is very cool by Gilbert. Obviously, lower-level team employees won’t receive the same blinged-out rings the players get. But this is a nice way to reward their hard work.

Not to go all Jerry Krause, but organizations win championships. Some pieces – LeBron James – matter much more than others, but everyone plays a part. Security guards keep players safe, preventing a dreadful incident that could derail a playoff run. Public-relations staffers ease the burden on players. Ushers improve the fan experience, which increases revenue and helps Gilbert afford a massive luxury-tax bill.

It all adds up, as Gilbert clearly recognizes.

Mike D’Antoni: Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony rejected my system, but new (old) approach with James Harden

LOS ANGELES, CA - NOVEMBER 20:  Head coach Mike D'Antoni of the Los Angeles Lakers celebrates with Kkobe Bryant #24 and Pau Gasol #16 after the game against the Brooklyn Nets at Staples Center on November 20, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. The Lakers won 95-90.   NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)
Stephen Dunn/Getty Images
Leave a comment

I can’t understate how revolutionary Mike D’Antoni’s offense looked with the Suns. In his first full season, 2004-05, they scored 110.4 points per game – the most anyone had scored in a decade. And it wasn’t even close. Phoenix played fast and scored efficiently.

That offense eventually got D’Antoni jobs in the NBA’s biggest markets and with two of the league’s best scorers, Carmelo Anthony (Knicks) and Kobe Bryant (Lakers).

Ian Thomsen of NBA.com:

But his coaching relationships with Anthony and Kobe Bryant in Los Angeles did not turn out so well. The last two stars essentially rejected his system.

“They did,” acknowledged D’Antoni. “And they were paid 20-something million dollars for it — they were successful. So I don’t blame them. Nothing’s been proven up to that point.”

The Warriors had yet to show that D’Antoni’s offense could thrive in late May and June.

“They’re thinking, like, he’s crazy,” D’Antoni said of Anthony and Bryant. “So I don’t blame them at all. This is a much better situation.”

With the Knicks and Lakers, D’Antoni edged back from his own offensive principles in part because he wasn’t sure, either. He was in a lonely place as the proponent of a style that was rejected by NBA fundamentalists. In New York and L.A., D’Antoni lacked the proof that would be provided years later by the Warriors of Kerr, who when serving as GM of the Suns had himself objected to D’Antoni’s point of view. The inventor didn’t believe fully in his own invention.

“I wasn’t that confident,” D’Antoni insisted. “It was a little bit before analytics. Everybody was telling us that we couldn’t do it, no one was telling us we could. Analytics came in and said, hey, you can do this — this is good, actually. So now you’ve got (GM) Daryl Morey with the Rockets and how they play and different teams trying to do it, and now it’s kind of caught on.

This bucks the narrative that D’Antoni’s offense can’t work with a score-first star. If D’Antoni compromised his scheme for Kobe and Melo, we haven’t yet seen it full bore with a player like that.

We will this season in Houston, where D’Antoni has turned score-first James Harden into the Rockets’ point guard.

As D’Antoni said, it’ll be easier to sell his scheme now that it has been proven to work. But as other teams adopt elements of it, he’ll have less of a strategic advantage.

The best coaches have revolutionary ideas AND get their players to buy into them. D’Antoni’s methods are no longer as cutting-edge, but he’ll have an easier time selling his players. That’s a justifiable knock on D’Antoni’s overall coaching prowess, but he still brings positives.

We’ve seen D’Antoni’s system at full throttle, and we’ve seen him coach generational scorers. To get both simultaneously will be a fun experiment in Houston this year.