Adam Silver says that the NBA lockout deal offered by the league will create a better tomorrow. But you'll just have to take his word on that.
Nov 11, 2011 - There's something about Adam Silver that makes for particularly compelling television. The deputy commissioner is obviously incredibly intelligent and knows the issues top-to-bottom. When he slaloms through tricky subjects, though, you can almost see the physics of his brain's functioning. Where David Stern is smooth and slips easily into condescension, humor or both, Silver's staccato delivery comes off as an oral PowerPoint presentation, replete with bullet points.
So when Silver gives what is effectively a victory speech before a deal to end the lockout is reached, it takes on a certain value impossible to ignore.
Stern and Silver had skated through Thursday's press conference without flaw, building the NBA's case for a deal and waving the carrot of a 75-game season in front of players. The only hiccup had been Stern unleashing his typical sneer at the New York Times' Howard Beck after a perfectly legitimate question on the likelihood of any season at all should players reject the league's offer. But Stern allowed a question from NBA.com's excellent Steve Aschburner on the conflicting bargaining philosophies of the league and union. The NBA has rejected the idea of trading economic concessions for system wins, at least in its public comments. The union has made it clear it expects something in exchange for agreeing to decrease its share of revenue.
Silver answered the question just fine. But then he didn't stop. He kept talking and talking about competitive balance, the future of the NBA and possibly the greatness of civilization. I'm not sure, I blacked out for a minute. He gave what was effectively a victory speech, even though he repeatedly noted the condition that the union must still accept the offer.
And the victory speech is based on a unicorn.
Silver continues to pound the competitive balance myth, despite talking to a room filled with writers who have shredded the league's argument that payroll parity increases on-court parity, talking to living rooms filled with the sort of hardcore fans who have read Zach Lowe, Henry Abbott, Tom Haberstroh and David Aldridge rip Silver's thesis apart. The defiance in Silver's stance is somewhat understood -- he can't abandon the league's No. 2 talking point (behind profitability) now, not with the victory parade in sight. But the volume on SIlver's faith was cranked up to 11 on Thursday. He wants to believe, and he wants you to trust him.
Consider his closing coda.
I understand from the union's standpoint, it's a difficult pill to swallow right now. But once again, over time, we will be proven right, and this will be a better league for the players, the teams and the fans.
"Over time, we will be proven right." You're damn right that's going to be a difficult pill to swallow. Players have already consented to give up $280 million per season in salary, essentially covering the league's reported losses, which include hefty interest payments for the massive amount of debt new team owners carry thanks to inflated franchise purchase costs. The union has essentially agreed to help the owners reach break-even, so long as the owners don't also force measures that will constrict player movement down their throat.
The owners insist on those constricting measures, and as justification essentially say "just trust me" when all of the evidence indicates we should not trust the NBA on this matter.
Now we'll find out whether this is just a difficult pill to swallow, or an impossible pill to swallow. It doesn't look good.
Larry Coon has a killer piece on the added value of getting a favorable revenue split. It's not just that teams will be able reduce expenses and, in many cases, become profitable. But their franchises' values will shoot upwards as a result of those lower expense levels.
How much will franchise values increase? It's hard to say. There are a lot of factors that go into determining the value of a business, and a number of ways to do the calculation. A conservative estimate might be a $3 million to $12 million average increase in franchise values for each percentage point in revenues the league wrests from the players. Decreasing the players' split of BRI from 57 percent to 50 percent therefore might be worth $21 million to $84 million per team.
The owners will only see this money when they sell their teams. But when they do sell, none of it is shared with the players.
A couple of owners, most notably Robert Sarver of the Phoenix Suns, are reportedly underwater or close on their team debt. This is a nice lifeline in addition to the decreased expenses. There may come a point when Sarver can flip his bad investment for a profit ... proving that in the NBA, there really is no risk to the owners. When seven teams sell within a couple years during the worst American economy since the Great Depression, and only one is sold at an inflation-adjusted loss (the Bobcats), there really is no risk to the owners. When you add in $21-84 million of added value via reduced expenses via labor lockout, the argument becomes completely ridiculous.
The Hook runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
30 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
Nah, the owners will still lose money. They’ve convinced me they are complete idiots, and cannot run their business to a profit even if their cooked books say otherwise. On the other hand, these guys will make money proving that profiting in the US doesn’t mean you’re intelligent but merely have the dollars to bully those with less until you get your way. Then you can act smug, self-secure and so forth.
One big real estate scam without houses. That’s all this has ever been or will ever amount to. Sadly.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 9:32 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
You’ve become quite disillusioned.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 11, 2011 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
And maybe you should be more than a right wing billionaire ass kisser before you have the nerve, gall and dare to call me disillusioned.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
Take it Easy buddy
Although I think Casey and I are close in our opinions, they are opinions and as valid as anyone’s.
I don’t reject your right to be cynical (the word I think ccc was searching for) about the owners though, there’s plenty of evidence on that side.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 11, 2011 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If Casey had said what you just did I could live with that.
You know I don’t agree, but so what? There’s nothing new about that.
Claiming I’m disillusioned about something I’ve seen for 3 years as a real estate scam (or raising franchise value is what I’ve actually said) isn’t just stupid, it’s flat out ignorant.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
This is ignorant:
You’re saying these owners are idiots because one of their businesses doesn’t earn a profit? You realize they’ve made fortunes separately?
To profit in the US, you need to have money? What? These crazy blanket statements you’re stating are indefensible.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 11, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Nope. I don’t even know what that means.
And to jail away I go.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Do not pass Go.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 11, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, the entire system is built upon the franchise value bubble
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 11, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Indeed.
How the housing market rebounded with those All-American billionaires leading the charge? I rest my case.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
Personally I have a hard time seeing them being all that terribly similar
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 11, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Understood. Won't argue.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
No responsibility
to the government forcing them to issue sub-prime loans because their ideal was that every American should own a home?
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 11, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Wait wait wait
The collapse was largely caused by shady activities like insufficient collateral, not really on the buyer’s side but mostly on the banks.
Then bundling those debts in those crazy credit default swap instruments. This was mostly due to a lack of oversight and regulation – something the Right cries hurts business so much. In the end, the banks somehow have done just fine.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 11, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Precisely. Can’t have it both ways.
Since I was asked, I do blame the government for not blocking the Dan Gilbert’s, Robert Sarver’s, Goldman Sach’s (among others—and I’m not ignoring anyone but these are obvious names that everyone knows) of the world for conglomeratization and incentivizing an inevitable buildup of a credit system that would burst when the slightest distortion came around. (Distortions are inevitable. Arguing otherwise is silly.)
The idea that every American can own a home is silly. I mean, hello, foreclosure rates? If owning a home was all it took to accomplish the American dream, why does Sacramento have a 12% unemployment rate (or whatever it is today) and a foreclosure rate that is top 5 in the Nation (or has been)? Or shit, since we’re on the topic of things that make America great, why does Las Vegas have entirely empty neighborhoods right now? Not to mention foreclosure rates similar to Sacramento.
A home is not the American Dream unless you’re asking a real estate agent. A home is a place where, if you’re lucky, you own the title of, and can keep the cops and/or whomever the authority structure is at the time from running you off the property whenever they so choose. And I’m only talking about a house with adjacent property to it here. Nothing else.
This idea that anybody could get a house was stupid; not anybody could. Plenty of people were still renting before 2008. I can’t tell you how many “living wage” signs I saw across the street from my Midtown Sac 17th & S apt back in, say, 2006 or 2007. This wasn’t an issue because the credit bubble burst and the US’s credit rating has been recently downgraded. This is a societal issue of wacked out value’s. Pure & simple.
Since I’ve now said all that, it’s still ironic that in a time where the wealthy could make a monumental difference in the way, say, Andrew Carnegie attempted with funding many library’s across the US, which was the fundamental backbone of the modern library system I might add, why couldn’t the billionaire know it all’s do the same thing with a housing market that could badly use the bulk and power of an insane amount of wealth behind it. Why isn’t there a push for private organizations and individuals whose personal fortunes won’t be affected much one way or another to reclaim and rebuild a crumbling infrastructure system?
Oh that’s right: We live in a billionaire ass kissing society. There is no reasons as of yet for those with massive amounts of wealth to invest it in the US because there is no reason for any of them to.
I take it back about the NBA lockout being a real estate scam. The NBA lockout is a fundamentally flawed societal value pandemic that is spreading. Feel better about that terminology Casey?
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I never had a problem with your terminology.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 11, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
That was a flip statement on my part.
I know you didn’t.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
You’re saying the buyers had the ability to pay their loans off?
First of all, regulations are necessary when used properly. Too much, too little, both bad. Also, it would be odd of the government to let the banks fail after forcing them to issue those idiotic, idealistic loans wouldn’t it?
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 11, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
Marvelous.
Bullets Forever | Twitter
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 11, 2011 9:52 AM EST reply actions
Silver took a page out of Dan Gilbert's book.
We have to trust his gut…
by thewiz06 on Nov 11, 2011 10:22 AM EST reply actions
I think the NBA has a habit of purposefully mixing messages on this stuff (as a historical example, the NBA arguing to the public that the 19 year old age limit was for the players but Stern later after all the PR blitz just blatantly telling the truth about how it was a business decision for the league).
Either way though, I do personally find it fascinating that the correlation between wins and losses in the NBA was historically so low for so long and then all of a sudden in 08-09 it jumped to MLB levels (although three years isn’t much of a trend).
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 11, 2011 11:49 AM EST reply actions
Although I don't think it's a panacea
Do you totally reject the idea that this deal, along with revenue sharing will move the league a step or two towards greater competitiveness?
I’d pose the question to TZ but . .
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 11, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yes.
But I’ll flip the question back to you: What do you see as competitiveness?
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 11, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
Why would you think I would know big words?
I don’t totally reject the idea that this deal, along with revenue sharing , will move the league a step or two toward greater competiveness. But like Pookey said, it really depends on one’s definition of competiveness.
(I would expound on this and have been wrestling with my own views on this lately but a little busy at the moment)
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 11, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
LOL
Dunno why, but your subject line reminds me of a scene from “The 40 Year Old Virgin”.
"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)
by otis29 on Nov 11, 2011 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Why doesn't Ziller participate in the comments? I thought that was one of the main pdifferentiators of SB nation vs. other sites?
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 11, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
the lockout is working
last night, i almost didnt care who won what…i just wanted basketball back. I agree with pookeyguru, but at the same time…and the owners and their supporters annoy me, but at the end of the day, regardless of who wins or loses, at this point i just want to hear that this damned lockout is over. My stamina is running dry, kudos to guys like ziller who are still able to function in the depth of this murky sea…
I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!
by piccolomair on Nov 11, 2011 1:01 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
yep
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 11, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
I was with you until
I heard the latest owners proposal which would basically make players their bitches for the first 5 years they are in the league. That isn’t about system issues or revenue sharing or franchise value – its simply about control. And frankly, I think some of the owners proposals are (and I hate to say it) un-American. The idea that you can reduce someone’s salary to 75k and send them to the D League is just offensive.
Take the case of Xavier Henry. He makes about 1.8 million a year. When he was drafted, he was already behind 4 guys in the rotation. The owners want a system where Memphis can send him to the D-League, pay him a 1/12 of his salary – all because Memphis has depth at his position. How is that fair? How is Henry suppose to do any life planning under that system? At any time, for any reason, he could be screwed out of 90% of his salary.
Most NBA players aren’t going to survive more than 5 years. For the current players to take this deal would be to completely sell out the next generation. That is why, we won’t have an NBA season.
by Basketball Smurf on Nov 12, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
The fact that the owners werent' happy in winning a blowout and wanted a landmark one sided victory is what bothers me.
This could have been settled on July 1 in all reality.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
"This is about new owners vs. old owners. And the new owners want what the old owners have." --- Otis29
by pookeyguru on Nov 12, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed