How dumb are todays players?

[thedoper]

They did have to pay MJ 33 mil dollars by the end of his career to play in Chicago. The cap was put in so owners could protect themselves from their own stupidity. It has always been a game of greed and leverage. I really would take issue with trying to argue morality on either side when clearly both owners and players look out for their own interest. The fact remains that there should be even more incentive for a player to resign with the team that drafted them if the owners really believed in parity. The owners locked out the players, this is their deal. If players work within the confines of the system to get the most they can i really can't see how we can blame them. It is greedy and selfish, but no more than the owners crying about how hard their business situation is when the bucks can fetch 600mil.

[ace [enjin:6598567]]

Jared Dudley: RT @mlkg721: @JaredDudley619 I'm glad you're speaking up on this. Taking a pay cut to win chips is ridiculous. Are Owners taking cuts?(Nope) Twitter @JaredDudley619 - See more at: http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm#sthash.Ib3Gnmbg.dpuf

Do you think he realizes how much money the nets lost last season trying to stack a team?

Do you think he understands that players taking less to stack teams is undercutting the spirit of competition in the league?

Lebron is crying because the stacked team he created didn't win its' third title in four seasons so he might take his ball and go somewhere else. What a bunch of pussies we now have representing the NBA.

Hey Jared, let me know when you pony up $500 mil to own a franchise to make $10 mil a year!

Do you expect your investments to go up in value?

To be fair, the owners make quite a bit each year. It's not all in cash, but I would say even Prokhorov has made money on the Nets with the way franchise values have climbed.

That said, I agree that guys like Dudley would be making the minimum if it weren't for the player max.

That thinking isn't being fair. With the exception of the clippers, most of these franchises aren't returning any more on investments than if the owners put their money in other vehicles. More importantly is the fact that they can lose money as well.

Most of these owners are active in their teams in one respect or another. Shouldn't they be paid for that time? What happens when some of the owners lose money like Taylor? I don't see Dudley handing back some of his paycheck. The players are quick to state this is a business when it suits their purpose, but a group investing hundreds of millions isn't allowed to make a profit?

Dudley's complaining about big markets not being able or willing to spend ridiculous sums of money to build super teams. So NY has asked Melo to take a paycut so they have more space to sign other guys. I have a solution for Dudley and these other candy asses. Stop crying about your situation and play harder to make it better. I think they should go to a hard cap and then Dudley will realize how easy they had it. Everyone isn't supposed to get a trophy!

This is why Lebron will never be considered to be on MJ's level. He has to have a stacked team to win a title.

Bruce Willis said it best in The Last BoyScout. FA has ruined the game!

What the hell are you talking about? The Clippers just sold for 2 billion dollars! He bought them for 13 million. That's a return on investment if I've ever seen it.

Glen could sell the team tomorrow and get enough to buy Lebron about 50 times over.

Last time I looked, most "well off people" expect to double their money every five years in high risk investments. That 12 mil investment Sterling made would have grown to around a billion. So he doubled that, good for him.

You either way overestimate what the wolves are worth, or way underestimate what Lebron is worth.

Sports franchises are far from a high-risk investment. They are about as safe as it gets. Like land, they are a highly desirable asset with a limited supply that can't be increased. Prokhorov got 80% of the Nets and 45% of the $1billion Barclay's Center for $200 million in 2009. The Nets themselves were valued at $780 million in January, before Ballmer drive franchise prices up. You can double-check my math, but including the stadium, Prokhorov has more than quadrupled his money in 5 years on a low-risk investment. With the new TV deals coming, that will only get higher.

[A Friendly Flatulence [enjin:8907904]]

If I remember correctly the Bucks owner didn't even sell to the highest bidder, he sold to a a group that would make a commitment to keep the team in Milwaukee. Balmer offered $800 million and got turned down because the owner wanted assurances of the team being kept in Milwaukee, he turned down $250 million extra, thats insane. respect

[mjs34]

Sports franchises are far from a high-risk investment. They are about as safe as it gets. Like land, they are a highly desirable asset with a limited supply that can't be increased. Prokhorov got 80% of the Nets and 45% of the $1billion Barclay's Center for $200 million in 2009. The Nets themselves were valued at $780 million in January, before Ballmer drive franchise prices up. You can double-check my math, but including the stadium, Prokhorov has more than quadrupled his money in 5 years on a low-risk investment. With the new TV deals coming, that will only get higher.

I think you'll find that the 780mil included the Barclay Center ownership, and that he paid 200 for the nets alone. I posted a link to an article showing the breakdown, and he show him paying 360 mil. It sounds like he doubled his money. It also shows that Ratner before him held the team for 6 years and only turned 20% profit. Kohl's sale numbers don't include that he conceded money toward a new arena as well, although I haven't seen any numbers on that.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/brooklyn-nets/

Sterling owned the clips for over 30 years, and Kohl close to the same timeframe for the Bucks Their investments were certainly high risk when they bought them back then. Everyone should keep in mind that anytime there is a CBA negotiation the players could opt to leave the NBA altogether which would ultimately make the NBA franchises worthless. While highly unlikely, it is always a possibility. There has been talk in the past of agents and players forming a league of their own. I believe back in Jordan's day there was talk of exploring that avenue before a deal was reached.

Even though Balmer is paying 2 billion for the clips, that doesn't mean every other franchise goes up. Balmer is clearly paying for cable rights that he expects to go through the roof, similar to what the Lakers got. That isn't available to most markets. While the up coming network TV deal looks like a boon, there is also sure to be an opt out on the players side for a new CBA shortly thereafter.

[Lipoli390]

I just think it's funny cause he's advocating against himself and players like him. Sure pay Griffin and Paul a combined 50-60 million, now cut the DeAndre Jordans, jj Redicks, Jared Dudleys, and Jamal Crawfords of the league by 25-50%.

Good point.

Exactly!! That was my first thought when I read Dudley's quote. Weird that he's worried about the mega-stars who can get max contracts.

[mjs34]

If I remember correctly the Bucks owner didn't even sell to the highest bidder, he sold to a a group that would make a commitment to keep the team in Milwaukee. Balmer offered $800 million and got turned down because the owner wanted assurances of the team being kept in Milwaukee, he turned down $250 million extra, thats insane. respect

Here's a link on the Bucks offer by Balmer for 650 mil. Interesting that Kohl had a 125 mil debt with the NBA. Wondering if that was losses due to operation expenses. Would certainly curtail his profit margin.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2014/05/ballmer-was-rebuffed-in-650m-bid-for-bucks.html

[mjs34]

I just think it's funny cause he's advocating against himself and players like him. Sure pay Griffin and Paul a combined 50-60 million, now cut the DeAndre Jordans, jj Redicks, Jared Dudleys, and Jamal Crawfords of the league by 25-50%.

Good point.

Exactly!! That was my first thought when I read Dudley's quote. Weird that he's worried about the mega-stars who can get max contracts.

I think Dudley's point is that the stars shouldn't have to take paycuts and still be able to load up a team with mid tier guys like himself. He is implying there is a hard cap because of this. If things continue as they are the league will eventually lose several markets and contract down to 20 teams leaving Dudley without a job altogether.

[Lipoli390]

Most owners of professional sports teams don't buy them as investments on which they can evetually get huge capital gains by selling. They buy franchises for the fun of owning them. Those franchises become part of the fabric of the local communities they're in and the League in which the franchise plays prospers by having a lot of teams spread out geographically throughout the Country. The only relevant financial issue is whether the team's revenues at least match its costs. It's in everyone's interest -- the team's owner, local fans and the League -- that the team is able to operate at least on a break-even basis. Otherwise, even the weathiest owner will ultimately feel compelled to sell. And if the owner selling the team because of annual operating losses can't make money he'll have a hard time finding a local buyer who will keep the team in that community.

That's why a League salary structure is essential. That's why we need a salary cap. What do NBA players get in return for the salary cap?

1. They get a League that's has more teams and broader geographic reach, which translates into more job opportunities and more overall League revenue to pay the players.

2. They get guaranteed contracts -- something that very few employees get in any industry.

3. They get a minimum individual salary, and minimum team salary leve -- ensuring that even the worst players in the League make over a quarter million per year and ensuring that each team spends a minimum level on player salaries generally.

It's a reasonable, balanced system. Mr. Dudley seems to ignore or maybe he's just unaware of the benefits that the CBA confers on players. Without a cap there would likely be a much smaller NBA with no room for players of Dudley's caliber. So he'd probably be playing a the YMCA with the rest of us.

[mjs34]

I'm not sure Dudley could keep up at the Y with his current state of conditioning!

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Zach Lowe covers some of the numbers in the BS report on 6/30 (8 minute mark). He mentioned the numbers from a basketball operations perspective not including local TV deals and stadium revenue from non-basketball activities. Brooklyn lost 144 million dollars this year just from an operational standpoint. 9 teams lost money on basketball activities. I'm tired of hearing players complaining about the money. They're getting paid millions to play a game. Even the guys making the minimum salary make CEO money. Why should basketball be any different than any other business in the world? If the reason is because it's employees are a bunch of babies who can't feed their families for 8 million a year because of how much their owner makes, then I have a problem with where they are coming from. If the big 3 breaks up because they can't afford to pay the big 3 and bring in the pieces needed to win another title, then hasn't the CBA done it's job to prevent a super team from continuing to exist?