PDA

View Full Version : Kravitz~~Lockout good thing for Pacers



Dee-Squared
07-01-2011, 02:03 PM
From the Indianapolis Star, written by our favorite Bob Kravitz:

Link: http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/SPORTS15/107010356/Kravitz-You-don-t-want-hear-Pacers-need-lockout?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

Body or Article:

Short term, an Indiana Pacers fan doesn't want a lockout. And for good reason: Things are finally moving in the right direction. A fun, young team, an interesting nucleus, the addition of George Hill and lots of money to buy toys in free agency.

Long term, though, an Indiana Pacers fan wants a lockout.

Whaddya mean I want a lockout? Who are you to tell me what I want?

Listen.

If you're a fan of a smaller market -- or at least a flyover market like Indianapolis, where revenues are smaller and it rates as a less-than-ideal destination for free agents -- you need to see a fundamental change in the NBA's business model.

Or your team is likely to continue to struggle.

Bringing it completely local, how long do you expect Pacers owner Herb Simon to continue to throw good money after bad? I'm not passing the hat for Simon, but if a lockout doesn't produce what the owners like to call "cost certainty," if there aren't changes in the salary cap rules and an increase in revenue sharing, how long does Simon maintain ownership or resist the temptation to move?

The NBA needs a harder cap -- as opposed to one that lets teams like the Mavs spend $92 million, or twice the Sacramento payroll, on players.

The NBA needs more revenue sharing among one another.

The NBA needs to change the revenue split, which gives the players 57 percent of the gross. (The union has shown a willingness to bend in that area.)

Yes, this was a great year for the league. The Heat and Mavericks were great theater. The playoffs were the best I can remember in many years. Attendance was up, TV ratings were up, and the game is populated now by a number of high-character superstars who make a mostly black league appeal to a mostly white audience.

But a league is weakened when its lesser franchises are fighting to remain solvent and competitive -- whether that's 22 of 30, as the owners claim, or a lesser number. (Keeping in mind, as I do, that sports owners are notorious for the kinds of bookkeeping shenanigans that turn profits into losses.)

Still . . .

Sacramento is fighting to remain in that city. The Pacers keep losing money and had the league's worst attendance last season. The league actually had to step in and run the New Orleans Hornets.

Bottom line, too many NBA franchises are losing money, including the Pacers. Which is why this is going to be a long and difficult lockout, and there's every reason to believe we will lose part or all of next season.

This is not like the NFL lockout, where both sides are bickering over massive profits.

This is closer to the NHL lockout of 2004-05, when the owners shoved a fundamental shift in philosophy down the throats of the players, who ended up taking a 24 percent pay cut.

Nobody is insisting that NBA owners have a "right" to turn a profit, any more than newspaper publishers or widget makers. If teams are run poorly, whether it's Clippers owner Donald Sterling or Timberwolves president David Kahn, they should suffer the consequences. Part of the Pacers' problems are the result of self-inflicted wounds. Bad contracts to Austin Croshere and Jermaine O'Neal. Off-court problems. Extending contracts for the likes of Jamaal Tinsley, who finally now comes off the books.

Ultimately, you can't save misguided owners and general managers from themselves. (See: The Trail Blazers giving Greg Oden $8.8 million to stick around.)

But something is wrong with a league where the Mavs can spend $92 million on payroll and the Kings spend only $45 million.

Something is wrong with a league where the second-highest-paid player in the league is . . . you'll never get this in a million guesses . . . Rashard Lewis at $20.5 million a year. (At No. 5, there's Michael Redd. At No. 7, Andrei Kirilenko. And the list of under-performing or injured players with massive, franchise-choking long-term deals goes on.)

Something is wrong when seven of the top 10 payroll teams make the playoffs and seven of the bottom 10 teams miss the playoffs.

A small-market team can be successful. We know that. The Pacers were a perennial playoff team and were in the NBA Finals. The San Antonio Spurs are the best-run franchise in pro basketball. The Oklahoma City Thunder are building the best young team, largely through flawless drafting.

In smaller markets, though, there's no room for error. You can't miss on a draft choice. You can't overpay on a long-term deal. You can't throw money at mistakes.

If you're a Pacers fan, this feels like an especially lousy time to have a lockout: Too many good things are happening, too much momentum.

Big picture, though, the lockout is exactly what the Pacers, and the NBA, need.

Trophy
07-01-2011, 02:07 PM
The more I've been thinking about it, the more I'm believing this is going to benefit us and having a much more broad FA class to choose from.

With owners playing hard ball and wanting it to go their way and get a hard cap going, I think it'll cause a lot of teams to not be able to sign guys like Deron Williams, who I would love to get.

In 2012, the league is of course going to resume from there if the lockout lasts the whole year so that's why we'd have so many options.

So yeah a season long lockout would suck because we don't get our Pacers/NBA for a year, but looking into the future for us, we'd benefit a lot.

So I'm 50/50 on how happy I'll be as to whatever may occur.

blanket
07-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Attendance was up, TV ratings were up, and the game is populated now by a number of high-character superstars who make a mostly black league appeal to a mostly white audience.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

and I'm only half-joking

yoadknux
07-01-2011, 02:22 PM
A shorter 2011 season also gives us a reason to not spend our money on this weak FA class. We'll just wait a little longer and give a max offer to RFAs Derrick Rose, Eric Gordon, Kevin Love, Brook Lopez and to UFAs Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard.
Who knows, maybe we're going to get lucky.

The only disadvantage is that we might not make the playoffs on this 2011 season unless we add more pieces

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 02:23 PM
I was following Kravitz at every step until the Greg Oden line. How someone feels this is a bad deal for Portland is well... Kravitz level dumb.

Shade
07-01-2011, 02:43 PM
Finally, a Kravitz article that doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon covered in barbed wire.

Trader Joe
07-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Bob's been killing it since March or April. Gotta give him props.

Tom White
07-01-2011, 02:58 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

and I'm only half-joking

Maybe, but it is true, and I doubt he's talking about stars like James. More likely the Durants of the league.

Justin Tyme
07-01-2011, 03:23 PM
People keep talking how great of a position the Pacers are in now and how much better if the lockout is the whole 011-012. Yes, they will be better off, but how many other teams will be too going into the 12-13 season better off too? Other teams will have players contracts expire that will make them viable competition for those 012 FA, or better equipped to make trades for good players. This lockout isn't going to just help the Pacers.

vnzla81
07-01-2011, 03:28 PM
People keep talking how great of a position the Pacers are in now and how much better if the lockout is the whole 011-012. Yes, they will be better off, but how many other teams will be too going into the 12-13 season better off too? Other teams will have players contracts expire that will make them viable competition for those 012 FA, or better equipped to make trades for good players. This lockout isn't going to just help the Pacers.

I think he is talking about long term.

MnvrChvy
07-01-2011, 03:44 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

and I'm only half-joking

There is a difference between 'racist' and "pertaining to race." His comment was clearly the latter. Also, if you are going to suggest racism, you should follow that up by pointing out the racist inaccuracies.
I'm sure you didn't mean anything by your post. I just get really frustrated by what I consider to be diluting a serious issue.

spazzxb
07-01-2011, 04:02 PM
I was following Kravitz at every step until the Greg Oden line. How someone feels this is a bad deal for Portland is well... Kravitz level dumb.

no its not. Oden has done nothing in this league and the odds are not good that he will ever be healthy. Oden is a huge risk. If the guys two different length legs become reliable then its money well spent, there is also a high probability that Oden is Portlands Bender.

vnzla81
07-01-2011, 04:14 PM
no its not. Oden has done nothing in this league and the odds are not good that he will ever be healthy. Oden is a huge risk. If the guys two different length legs become reliable then its money well spent, there is also a high probability that Oden is Portlands Bender.

I agree with this in part, but my question is, how we know how much the insurance would pay of his salary? And how much of the 8mil are they really going to pay if we go into a long lockout and start missing games?

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 04:18 PM
no its not. Oden has done nothing in this league and the odds are not good that he will ever be healthy. Oden is a huge risk. If the guys two different length legs become reliable then its money well spent, there is also a high probability that Oden is Portlands Bender.

Ugh.

Another post where it is just *clear* that a lot of people here just don't get it

This means squat to the Trailblazers. They werent going to get under the cap anyways. You also just don't seem to know much about Oden in general if you want to compare him to Bender. Oden has more potential as a former #1 pick than any big man since Shaq and was heralded (rightfully so) even more than Dwight Howard.

Too young, too good, too soon.

This isn't an opinion even. You're just wrong.

neosmndrew
07-01-2011, 04:21 PM
come to think of it... if we miss the whole 2011-2012 season... next seasons FA class is looking really good, and we are gonna have A LOT of $$$ to spend... =).

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 04:29 PM
come to think of it... if we miss the whole 2011-2012 season... next seasons FA class is looking really good, and we are gonna have A LOT of $$$ to spend... =).

How would that work? Are contracts just extended one more year or is this year just gone and someone like Posey is then an UFA? Do we just combine all the free Agents from this year and next year into one bigger pile?

Hicks
07-01-2011, 04:34 PM
I just wonder, to anyone who injects "that's racist" into a thread, if they ever, ever, consider what it's going to do to that thread before they decide to pull the trigger on that post?

[/too old for this ****]

Dr. Awesome
07-01-2011, 05:08 PM
If the owners wanted to make more money, they would find a way to get rid of Stern.

The NBA is way too soft now and caters to superstars. So many people love watching the NCAA because a tap isn't a foul, and while superstars may get some calls, its not as if someone high up would rather see that team win for better ratings.

QuickRelease
07-01-2011, 05:14 PM
come to think of it... if we miss the whole 2011-2012 season... next seasons FA class is looking really good, and we are gonna have A LOT of $$$ to spend... =).
Even more, because Posey would be off the books as well. We'd be down to core only, with no dead weight!

Trophy
07-01-2011, 05:20 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

and I'm only half-joking

I'd say it's the same with the NFL too.

Both the NFL and NBA have gained a lot of popularity in the past 10 or so years.

I think more people, not talking specifically about race, care to watch the sport for the sport and to root for a team not caring who is playing.

Kind of like the NHL. It's a very international/white league with no or few blacks and it has lost a ton of popularity and revenue.

So race, IMO doesn't apply. All what matters is the entertainment of sports that appeals to fans.

dal9
07-01-2011, 05:39 PM
From the Indianapolis Star, written by our favorite Bob Kravitz:

Link: http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/SPORTS15/107010356/Kravitz-You-don-t-want-hear-Pacers-need-lockout?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com





...
Nobody is insisting that NBA owners have a "right" to turn a profit, any more than newspaper publishers or widget makers. If teams are run poorly, whether it's Clippers owner Donald Sterling or Timberwolves president David Kahn, they should suffer the consequences. Part of the Pacers' problems are the result of self-inflicted wounds. Bad contracts to Austin Croshere and Jermaine O'Neal. Off-court problems. Extending contracts for the likes of Jamaal Tinsley, who finally now comes off the books.
...


I believe Kravitz is in error here: the Clippers, by all accounts I've read, are actually clear money makers. Sure, they don't win (or spend), but winning is secondary to turning a profit.



Something is wrong when seven of the top 10 payroll teams make the playoffs and seven of the bottom 10 teams miss the playoffs.

...


This is poorly written, of course, but assuming he means "7 of the top/bottom 10" teams in payroll, I still disagree. There is nothing wrong with this.

I'm not some kind of huge free-market capitalist, but there is still something to the idea that success should not be doled out to teams randomly just because they exist, but because they do something to achieve it: generally, spend money on players. To take an MLB example, do the perennial non-spenders Pirates "deserve" to make the playoffs? The post-fire sale Marlins? Indeed, the LA Clippers?


I know many people like the extreme enforced parity in the NFL, but certainly Colts fans should be able to see the down side. Because of the hard cap, the Colts have had to fill out the roster with inferior talent around the (expensive and great) Peyton Manning. In a sense, his career has been wasted. What would he have been capable of if he were not handing off to and passing to UDFAs?

pacer4ever
07-01-2011, 05:40 PM
How would that work? Are contracts just extended one more year or is this year just gone and someone like Posey is then an UFA? Do we just combine all the free Agents from this year and next year into one bigger pile?

yes Chris Burssard said Deron Williams would be a free agent along with the rest of 2012 class.

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 06:04 PM
yes Chris Burssard said Deron Williams would be a free agent along with the rest of 2012 class.

Hmmm... this just got *very* interesting for us.

Someone (8 pts 9 secs?) should write up a hypothetical post about what this could really mean for the Blue & Gold here. What contracts will be up league wide vs not. What extensions would have to sign vs not. What free Agents all in one big pool would mean for the rest of the league too. Boston for one magically has tons of cap space, hypothetically would they now sign someone like Nene instead of us? Dwight Howard likely has worn his last Magic uniform. Who has the cap space now? Does more money go to which players?

The questions can just go on and on here.

Pacergeek
07-01-2011, 06:27 PM
How can u justify giving oden a pay raise? Paying a player because of "potential" has to stop.

clownskull
07-01-2011, 06:31 PM
Ugh.

Another post where it is just *clear* that a lot of people here just don't get it

This means squat to the Trailblazers. They werent going to get under the cap anyways. You also just don't seem to know much about Oden in general if you want to compare him to Bender. Oden has more potential as a former #1 pick than any big man since Shaq and was heralded (rightfully so) even more than Dwight Howard.

Too young, too good, too soon.

This isn't an opinion even. You're just wrong.
in terms of reliability, oden isn't even up to the level of bender.
4 seasons in the league and he has appeared in a total of 82 games.
heck in the 2001-2002 season, bender appeared in 78 games.
at this point in their respective careers, bender has appeared in more than twice as many games than oden. so compared to oden- bender was practically mr. reliability. eventually, all the chat about potential becomes meaningless if the guy is never available to play.
i hope greg can turn around all the bad luck he has had but, i can't help but get the feeling this guy is never going to come close to all the potential. he has pretty much been continually hurt since high school.

spazzxb
07-01-2011, 06:32 PM
Ugh.

Another post where it is just *clear* that a lot of people here just don't get it

This means squat to the Trailblazers. They werent going to get under the cap anyways. You also just don't seem to know much about Oden in general if you want to compare him to Bender. Oden has more potential as a former #1 pick than any big man since Shaq and was heralded (rightfully so) even more than Dwight Howard.

Too young, too good, too soon.

This isn't an opinion even. You're just wrong.

I used Bender because he was a Pacer and people know how frustrating his contract was (not as bad as JO). There was no attempt to compare the players. I just do not think it is a "Bob Kravitz level of stupid" to suggest that it was a bad move. The qualifying offer just guarantees a 1 year contract right? If so, They haven't taken any real risk yet and my thought are more based on an assumption that it will become something long term with a similar price.

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 06:46 PM
I used Bender because he was a Pacer and people know how frustrating his contract was (not as bad as JO). There was no attempt to compare the players. I just do not think it is a "Bob Kravitz level of stupid" to suggest that it was a bad move. The qualifying offer just guarantees a 1 year contract right? If so, They haven't taken any real risk yet and my thought are more based on an assumption that it will become something long term with a similar price.

Uhhh... so your comment saying how it is a bad move is not based on the move at all but instead founded on the hypothetical concept of a bad move in the future?

You're kidding right? You also just made my case for me right here. ugh.

My point was that this is not a bad move for the Trailblazers. And it's not.

And you can't say you didn't try to compare them when you did just that. Not the play of the players themselves but the lack of play by the players themselves and the contracts associated. That IS what you compared. And those don't take into account the quality of talent Oden is. If I didn't make that clear please let this do so now.

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 06:54 PM
How can u justify giving oden a pay raise? Paying a player because of "potential" has to stop.

Again this *completely* misses the point. In a vacuum do you give a "raise" to a player who has been nothing but injured? of course not. But you have to better understand what this is truly all about here.

Portland has plenty of money to go around and are already over the cap. This does not hurt the team at all to allow the QO so that he can't leave. You also are far too flippant with your "potential" comment. The risk/reward here is so greatly in favor of the trailblazers its comical.

I mean its simple: what is the worst that happens here for Portland? He's hurt all season? I mean.. if this happens it means nothing to them and has no effect on their current team structure. They don't resign him again and they move on. Its only the owner who has more money than God and he obviously isn't even remotely upset about it.

Try and look at the bigger picture people. That's all. You'll get there.

spazzxb
07-01-2011, 07:23 PM
Uhhh... so your comment saying how it is a bad move is not based on the move at all but instead founded on the hypothetical concept of a bad move in the future?

You're kidding right? You also just made my case for me right here. ugh.

My point was that this is not a bad move for the Trailblazers. And it's not.

And you can't say you didn't try to compare them when you did just that. Not the play of the players themselves but the lack of play by the players themselves and the contracts associated. That IS what you compared. And those don't take into account the quality of talent Oden is. If I didn't make that clear please let this do so now.

Actually, I made the case you should have made. When I rethought things it occurred to me that what the Blazers did more than likely only guaranteed a one year deal and therefore wasn't a big deal.(edit) Things are different for people that treat 16 million like pocket change(edit over). I was equating "BOB Kravitz Dumb" (in the context of that post) to being pretty stupid. I honestly just think he is ignorant.

You made the aurgument That Oden is the best big to come in the league since Shaq.

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 08:16 PM
Actually, I made the case you should have made. When I rethought things it occurred to me that what the Blazers did more than likely only guaranteed a one year deal and therefore wasn't a big deal.(edit) Things are different for people that treat 16 million like pocket change(edit over). I was equating "BOB Kravitz Dumb" (in the context of that post) to being pretty stupid. I honestly just think he is ignorant.

You made the aurgument That Oden is the best big to come in the league since Shaq.

So I was right and your first comment was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

As far as your deflection after that what I said was (and I'll quote for you since you seem to struggle at that as well)

"Oden has more potential as a former #1 pick than any big man since Shaq".

Ahem. Thats true. 100% true. But again, thanks for playing.

spazzxb
07-01-2011, 08:31 PM
So I was right and your first comment was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

As far as your deflection after that what I said was (and I'll quote for you since you seem to struggle at that as well)

"Oden has more potential as a former #1 pick than any big man since Shaq".

Ahem. Thats true. 100% true. But again, thanks for playing.

This isn't a competition.

A.B.Hollywood
07-01-2011, 09:53 PM
This isn't a competition.

If you're going to jump on a statement someone makes and then not be able to defend it and then when called out on this completely backtrack and deflect it something else I, and anyone else, will point this out to you.

Its not my fault you didnt understand what you said.

Trophy
07-01-2011, 09:56 PM
There's more than likely going to be a hard cap in place because the owners won't be going down easily.

So we can get the best of both worlds. A summer long lockout and a season, but still have a ton of cap space for 2012 saved from this offseason.

Again, with the hard cap, we'd have a huge advantage to go out and get a guy like Deron Williams.

PacersHomer
07-02-2011, 02:22 PM
Also if they do a weighted lottery for the draft over the past 3 years it should really help the Pacers. Instead of picking somewhere around 18 or 19 they could have a top 10 pick in a ridiculously stacked class. A lockout could be the best thing for the Pacers.

Sollozzo
07-02-2011, 02:43 PM
Kravitz makes a good point from a business standpoint. And from an on the court standpoint, if the entire season is somehow missed then it wouldn't be nearly as devastating to us as old teams like LA, Boston, Dallas, etc.....old teams where every year is precious at this point.

Hopefully there are at least SOME games played this year, IE like 99. I just want to see how much our young guys can improve and I can't wait to see the immediate impact that Hill has on our team. If all that is delayed a year then it would obviously suck, but there are certainly quite a bit of teams who would be more devastated by it than us.

GizzyStardust
07-02-2011, 11:43 PM
If you're going to jump on a statement someone makes and then not be able to defend it and then when called out on this completely backtrack and deflect it something else I, and anyone else, will point this out to you.

Its not my fault you didnt understand what you said.

Dear Mr. A.B.Holllywood,

On behalf of civilizations everywhere, I sincerely thank you for knowing everything. I would also personally like to thank you for having the forethought and courtesy to let us all know about it.

Best Regards,
Will

Hicks
07-03-2011, 09:46 AM
There's needless hostility going on here that needs to be toned down. We are all here to talk, not to flat out argue. Please keep that in mind before trying to hit anyone else in the head with a hammer.

:thankyou: