There's definitely some guys in there saying that they're ready to fold, but the majority are willing to stand strong.
JaVale McGee to Sports Illustrated.
, via CSN Washington.
McGee has tried to recant but it was recorded and the twitter world hasn't been particularly kind to him since....
7 months ago
thewiz06
44 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
For a guy not known for his smarts
This was not a smart move….
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 15, 2011 6:24 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
i understand if this is something javale said
to mo Evans, our player rep. I am sure that things like this were said at the meeting and behind closed doors. But in things like this, leave it to Derek and Billy to give the message.
This won’t weaken the union imo. However McGee may not be taken seriously from fellow teammates and players if a deal is done in the very short term and structured closely to how the owners want it… If the deal is done a year from now and is structured toward the owners’ liking, McGee has nothing to do with it.
by thewiz06 on Oct 15, 2011 7:50 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
As Dutch above pointed out, JaVale
had something of a rep already (rightly or wrongly) as not being too smart. Lying to deny what was caught by several mics his will just intensify that perception.
Unfortunately, based on all the jokes making the rounds (for example: Wiz are feeding their team dumb pills), it also adds to the impression that the whole team’s dumb.
the guy who called mcgee out and asked if he knew how to read may have posted something else new.
by thewiz06 on Oct 15, 2011 4:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I am saddened by these callous comments.
He’s not dumb, he just needs a better coach. Then you’ll see that your perceptions are premature.
by Tbonebullets on Oct 17, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
he is dumb
and he needs a better agent.
by hambonejackson on Oct 18, 2011 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions
they shouldn't allow young players to get involved with this
but I can see why he’d be ready to fold since. he’s still on a mid first round rookie contract and this is his contract year. But it’s not like a player of his caliber actually deserve more than he makes.
STRAIGHT CASH HOMIE
by everybodylookin on Oct 15, 2011 11:29 AM EDT reply actions
He only made $1.6 million last yr
If this was a free market he would make 10 times that amount. Eventhough he’s a dumbass sometimes.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 15, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
that's the problem with the league
That a player like him can get paid 10 million dollars a season, even though he’s just a middling player whose defense gets overrated just cause of a few highlight blocks. Even centers who are backup caliber players are getting paid around 7 million a season like Desagana Diop and Brendan Haywood.
STRAIGHT CASH HOMIE
by everybodylookin on Oct 15, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
those guys also play sound defense, mcgee can't right now.
Still shocking that he was given votes for defensive player of the year….
by thewiz06 on Oct 15, 2011 4:16 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Those contracts are not costing the owners
57% is 57% with or without smart, efficient signings. If the owners fail to reach 57% they have to pay up to get there by returning the full escrow and if that still isnt enough they have to write a check. Smart signings save the owners $0.
However, long contracts for players who don’t produce or decrease significantly over the live of their deal, are a problem. Rich teams can spend around those, others can’t. Tháts why we need to make sure nobody can spend around it and therefore force twams to select carefully which player to spend on and which player not to.
Ofcourse injuries will still hapen, just as players aging and the ocasinal dumb contract because a player doesnt pan out. Shorter contracts or at least multiple team option yrs if a contract runs 3+ yrs and trades without salary restrictions account for this, making rebuilding much easier to do.
Unfortunately, the players want nothing to be changed on the system. Nothing. And thats why we’re here today.
If the players would agree to system changes I’m sure the owners will give them their beloved 53%.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 15, 2011 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Smart, efficient signings generate more wins which generate more revenue.
Some, but not all of that revenue becomes a part of BRI.
BRI, again, is most revenue that comes into an NBA team’s coffers: money from ticket sales of all games, including exhibition and playoff games; national television rights fees from ABC/ESPN and TNT; sales from concessions — including “pouring rights” deals with individual beverage sponsors — and parking; temporary arena signage and club fees. Half of revenues from arena naming rights deals and 40 percent of revenues from “fixed” signage inside and outside arenas and from luxury suite sales. Money raised internationally by an NBA team is currently not included in BRI. David Aldridge
And the players have agreed to system changes, stating otherwise is misrepresenting their position.
What changes have they agreed too?
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 16, 2011 4:18 AM EDT up reply actions
They have agreed to cutting the length of contracts, reducing the MLE, and a more punitive luxury tax.
Of course, from the beginning they’ve been pushing for revenue sharing.
No they haven't
They have rejected a deal in which the owners offered a 50-50 split on the old BRI in which 2 yr MLE contracts were suggested and a puntative luxury tax was included.
DA reported they were getting closer on the MLE but no agreement has been made yet.
As for pushing the revenue sharing, yes the owners have to do that ánd are willing too but for the players suggesting this is like me selling you a car while suggesting you should cut down on your personal expenses in order to give me a better price.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 16, 2011 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the players HAVE made concessions on "system" issues.
they proposed to reduce the MLE from 5.8 Million to 5 million.
They have floated several ideas about length of contracts – mostly trimming only one year off contracts – but STILL – that is a concession.
They agreed to a more stringent tax, they just don’t want a tax that is SO PUNITIVE (ie: 3X or 4X) that it effectively acts as a hard cap – where NO team (even the Lakers or Knicks) could afford to go significantly over the cap.
By the way – guaranteed contracts are NOT guaranteed in the NBA…. Rookies sign guaranteed contracts… all other players NEGOTIATE guarantees into their deals.
One of the player’s basic fears is that if there were a “hard cap” (or a severely punitive luxury tax) that teams would stop offering guaranteed contracts. They would be unable to keep their stars… and they would be unable to pay mid-level players a mid-level salary. There would be a huge gap between the Super Star players, and everyone else…. The Superstars would be making $20 Million per year, everyone else would be on minimum , ONE YEAR, NON GUARANTEED deals.
Think about it… Just for arguments sake – Say the cap is set at $65 Million, with a 4X luxury tax at 75 Million (numbers I’ve heard the owners throwing around) – Next year, Lebron, Wade and Bosh will be at $17.5 Million each. Mike Miller is scheduled to make $5.8 Million. Haslem $4. Joel Anthony $3.7 and James Jones $1.8. That is a total salary commitment of $67.6 Million… for 6 players…. Do you think that Miami will sign ANY minimum contract guys for more than a year at a time? Do you think they’ll guarantee ANY of those contracts?
That is where the union is drawing the line… THAT is why the BRI split is not the “blood issue” for the greatest majority of the Union’s constituents.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Next year, Lebron, Wade and Bosh will be at $17.5 Million each. Mike Miller is scheduled to make $5.8 Million. Haslem $4. Joel Anthony $3.7 and James Jones $1.8. That is a total salary commitment of $67.6 Million… for 6 players
This is exactly what the hardcap is supposed to do Rook. Minnesota, Kings, Wizards, Indiana among others can’t afford to pay 2 superstars, a star ánd 4 MLE type salaries. Either the superstars and star wan’t to win so bad they agree to significantly lower salaries or Miami signs a superstar and a star and is forced to be really smart with their other signings. Eitherway, the Wizards should have the same chance to do this as Miami or LA.
By the way – guaranteed contracts are NOT guaranteed in the NBA…. Rookies sign guaranteed contracts… all other players NEGOTIATE guarantees into their deals.
The system is such that every contract IS guaranteed so just like the puntative luxury tax effectively works like a hardcap, the non guaranteed contracts are actually guaranteed.
the players HAVE made concessions on “system” issues.
they proposed to reduce the MLE from 5.8 Million to 5 million.
I guess this what DA called “getting closer” but the bottom line is the players official offer was 53% of BRI and NO concessions otherwise and they rejected the 50-50 offer from the owners that included the for mentioned additional changes.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 17, 2011 4:03 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
As for the revenue sharing
The owners originally claimed to lose $450 million. The players claimed that interest costs should not to be included and ever since the amount of $300 million is floating around.
That’s the aggregated loss. So after adding all the profits of the profitable teams and then subtracting all the losses of the unprofitable teams the league as a whole is losing $300 million apparently.
This means owners could revenue share until they are blue in the face but they’d still be losing money. Thát’s why the owners say they can’t revenue share their way to profit. That’s why they want the players to agree to a 50-50 split (7% of $4.2 is just about $300 million).
If the players would agree to a 50-50 split there are still teams with huge profits and teams who lose money but as a whole the league is break-even (more or less) ánd then the revenue sharing can solve the rest.
Like I said, the players cannot claim revenue sharing as part of the solution in exchange for a less severe pay-cut because those things are innately separate.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 17, 2011 4:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where are you getting your numbers?
This article has different numbers: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=coon_larry&page=NBAFinancials-110630
According to that article, the owners originally claimed that 22 out of 30 teams lost money last year, and that the losses of those 22 teams totaled to $370 million. The NBPA objected (rightly, in neutral analysts’ opinions) to the owners’ inclusion of the borrowing costs in the owners’ analysis, and said that simply disregarding those costs already knocked off $250 million from the $370 million total.
Personally, I would be very wary of all of those numbers, since both sides have strong reason to cook the books. The results of an independent, unbiased analysis are here: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_rank.html
According to this analysis, 17 out of 30 teams lost money last year, and the total losses of those 17 teams totaled to around $144.9 million. 13 teams earned a profit last year, and the total profits of those 13 teams came out to around $327.5 million. The league’s 30 teams as a whole turned a profit of around $182.6 million last year.
Personally, I would be very wary of all of those numbers, since both sides have strong reason to cook the books.
Agreed.
I don’t really care either. 50% or 53%, what ever. The hold up is over the system changes of which I am a proponent.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 17, 2011 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
You are conflating your desires with those of the owners.
For most of them this is a cash grab. Teams are anticipating tons of money coming in from new local cable TV deals, and the owners want to keep as much of the windfall as possible for themselves.
17 teams lost money during a borderline economic depression.
How many of the teams that lost money were below .400 cellar dwellers with empty arenas? The owners want to put in place a deal that would guarantee all of them profits in the very worst of economic times and become an absolute windfall when the economy eventually improves. League revenues were up 4% during a recession, that’s outstanding on some levels and indicative of just how much popularity and goodwill the owners/players are in the proccess of destroying.
We will NEVER see "real" revenue sharing in the NBA...
Since David Stern disconnected it from the collective bargaining with the Union…. there are NO incentives (except for the “poorer” teams whining) for the Owners to do any REAL sharing of revenues….
Sure – they may “triple” the feeble and inconsequential amount they are currently sharing.. but Los Angeles, Chicago and New York won’t be sharing any significant portion of their HUGE profits with the rest of the League….
The Owners CLAIM they had League-wide losses of $300 Million (a number that I simply cannot take at face value because of all the other half-truths, omissions and flat out lies that the mouthpiece for the Owners has put out there) – And those losses don’t explain anything about the “other” expenses that have risen WAY faster than revenue.
The players conceded a 4% reduction in their share of the BRI from 57% to 53% (and would probably settle for even less to get a deal done)… That 4% represents a give back of roughly $180 Million – or almost 2/3 of the owner’s claimed losses…. that equates to close to a Billion over the life of a 6-year deal.
Being a fan of contraction Dutch, answer me this:
If, after giving back those monies – do you believe that 22 teams would still be losing money? or would it only be the Minnesota , Sacramento, New Orleans type teams? Aren’t you the one that is in favor of contraction? If a Team cannot make a profit when the rest of the League is seeing unprecedented growth, attendance and television ratings – shouldn’t they be ALLOWED to lose money? Shouldn’t it be REQUIRED that they lose money? Why should the rest of the League continue to prop up those under-performing, poorly run franchises?
But instead – you are in favor of the Players giving back EVERYTHING – Putting the onus on the Players to make every team in the League profitable.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
One more thing....
I am not convinced that having a “hard cap” or severely restrictive luxury tax (3X 4X) will provide the League with parity…
Poorly run teams (Sacto, Minnesota) and teams in cities that just don’t have the population to support a team (New Orleans, Charlotte) will NEVER contend.
But well run teams in small to Medium size markets should be able to contend (San Antonio, OKC, Memphis, etc…). Those teams, if they draft well, should still be able to contend EVEN LEAVING THE SYSTEM UNCHANGED – They have competed in the past (San Antonio, Cleveland) and are doing so now (OKC, Memphis) – the Draft is the big equalizer.
You want more parity? Change the draft… Give the bottom 6 teams TWO first round draft picks. Expand the draft to 3 rounds. Give teams the option of holding on to their drafted players longer (add another team option year to rookie contracts)… Allow teams to trade players for picks, and picks for players.
Under those circumstances, smart teams ( those that draft well, those that hold on to the right players) – could contend.
Dumb teams (you know, the ones that draft 3 point guards in the first round of ONE DRAFT), should be allowed to LOSE MONEY.
Teams in extremely small cities – you know, the ones that really CANNOT SUPPORT AN NBA TEAM – or ever contend because they just don’t have the resources, (NO, Charlotte, etc…) should be contracted.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
To awnser your question
If with a new CBA the league as a whole is making money, most likely the big market teams will make a profit and some of the smaller ones won’t. Revenue sharing should account for this but at some point the owners have to look eachother in the eye and call it a day on some of them. I think this is inevitable from an economic perspective and the fact that it deepens the talentpool is good for parity (if done well with a draft of some sort)
But let me say this, the league has to be break even or better as a whole first. If you make a profit of $10 and I lose $25, we can revenue share all we want but the total loss exceeds the total profits.
On the hardcap: yes, poorly run teams will still suck as they should. The difference with the old system that every team has the same chance to build a dinasty now and the one that manages best will win.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 18, 2011 7:14 AM EDT up reply actions
But let me say this, the league has to be break even or better as a whole first. If you make a profit of $10 and I lose $25, we can revenue share all we want but the total loss exceeds the total profits.
Drop the depreciation and interest charges and the league as a whole turned a profit last year.
Or don’t drop the depreciation and interest charges, but then give us the projected numbers for future years and include capital growth. In that case, yes, they may have lost money last year, but in future years, they’re set to rake it in big time.
The owners are individuals running separate companies, not one organization.
It’s not true that smart signings dont save money for a team’s budget and help them to be financially successful because if the league is below 57% the required payout is split between all 30 teams. And there has been exactly ONE time the 57% wasnt reached and it cost each team less than $1mill….that’s not a big issue.
big men will ALWAYS get paid no matter what the CBA looks like.
There are more people in the world who can afford to buy an nba team than they are people legitimately 7’ tall like Mcgee is.
I don't know if JaVale is about to fold himself
when he’s tweeting from Kimpo International Airport in Seoul and planking away from Korea to the Phillippines.
His comments have no effect whatsoever on how the CBA plays out
and they werent even dumb comments, of course not every single player in the Union feels exactly the same way about what to do. If Wall had made the exact same statements he’d have been cut plenty more slack
by DCrez on Oct 17, 2011 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think he just gave the reporters a honest answer.
Maybe it was not in the best interest of the players but it was probably just the truth. The players that are making the big bucks are the ones that have been the most vocal. I’m sure the guys at the low end of the salary scale and the rookies want this thing to end.
Long-Time Wizard Fan
At least he was at the meeting
Some reports stated there were no more than 30 players there. If more young guys attended theses sessions instead of playing meaningless exhibition games maybe the rank and file would have a stronger voice.
As always with McGee the narrative dictates the story. If you dislike his game and him personally he’s an idiot with no basketball IQ.
by el freako on Oct 17, 2011 2:50 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
On this issue
I don’t think McGee is wrong on anything, and if anything, he’s probably right. But leave the talking to Fisher and Hunter and Mo. With the tweets, just either say nothing or go with the flow.
And considering that many NBA players were in LA for training, there should have been more guys there.
not sure having more players there is really a good thing
or that it would be helpful in reaching a consensus. Probably just the opposite actually. Better for the Union and for us fans if most of the players stayed away.
by BayAreaBullet on Oct 17, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Mcgee from his POV might have been smart.
He is probably part of a crew of young players on their 1st deal that are like what the hell are you guys doing I need to get paid I have few overseas option I need the money end this now. and I bet there’s a significant group of them feeling this way.
so maybe he wanted to get it out there that thats a voice not being taken into account that needs to be out there even if it reveals cracks. Because afterall they don;t agree with the leaderships take and wants this over with.
that certainly is a possibility too.
Leagues in Korea and the Philippines would salivate over him on their teams.
Jeez, we are down to parsing Tweets...
And when I tuned into a Polish league game tonight, Wroclaw was already down 30.
Arrrrggggh.
JaVale handled this situation
About as well as he handles leading the fast break. Which is to say, in a manner where laughter and derision follow immediately after.
by jakenbake on Oct 17, 2011 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
