A comical idea, another fake deadline and the offspring of stars

Okay, of all the crap we’ve heard during this NBA lockout – owners crying poor and talking about concessions that are simply smaller takeaways than first proposed, players talking about being “united” while a lot of ‘em are exploring overseas options, all the other boring BRI and “system” issues – here’s the one that I find most laughable:

A Players League!

Seriously. I read somewhere that Amar’e Stoudemire – while on a tour shilling his shoes that he wants fans to buy – made some crack about the players forming their own league since the NBA won’t “let them play.”

What’s that old saying?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, right.

Players – or the money-grubbing agents more interested in their future 4 per cent than anything – are going to find arenas, enough guys who want to take part, sponsors willing to run afoul of the league by backing something doomed to failure and the organizational skills to pull off a league?

You have got to be kidding.

Look, if you held a gun to my head, made me hold my nose and pick a side this ridiculous dispute over a $4 billion business, I’d come down on the side of the players. They are being asked to give back gains they’ve made in legitimate collective bargaining sessions over the years and the owners simply want protection from themselves. It stinks but it’s the way it has to be, I’m afraid.

But to think the players could somehow start a legitimate league is laughable.

More of those silly exhibition games? Maybe.

A competitive league? Ridiculous. And not just for them, either. There are no TV deals to be made for some rival league – at least not ones worth anything – and there are no arenas that aren’t already locked up or an infrastructure in place.

So we can forget that, okay?

-

You know, I’m a big fan of fall in a lot of ways -- love fall baseball, the weather’s better than frigid winter or scalding summer, it’s usually a sign that my work season is about to begin – but …

These darn varmints as still screwing with the growing sod and seem to have set up winter camp under the deck and as I sit on the front porch and watch the magestic maple and skinny birch trees create leaf carnage I’m rethinking that.

-

David Stern goes on a popular New York City radio yesterday and then sits down with NBA TV and I figure if I turn on the TV this morning, he might be chatting with Rachael Ray.

Oh, and it’s all doom and gloom: League wants a deal, he doesn’t think the union does; Tuesday’s an important day because he can see the whole season slipping away; Christmas games are definitely in peril.

Oh, and the players are meeting in Los Angeles today, I believe, and I’m sure we’ll be inundated with stories of solidarity and not giving in and sticking together.

Yawn.

-

Interesting item by my colleague Zelk on CFL quarterbacks now that Anthony Calvillo has passed for a billion or so yards and become the most prolific QB in history.

Is he the greatest CFL quarterback ever?

I must admit I’ve seen less of him than I have of the others who’d get some consideration, watching CFL games on TV has become a victim of time, I simply don’t have enough each weekend.

But if I had to rank them, I’d probably go with:

Doug Flutie

I was a CFL scribbler for a couple of years in the 1990s when Flutie was around and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more creative football player in my life. He just did wild things. And well.

Warren Moon

If you go by winning, he has to be here, no? What’d he have? Five Grey Cups in his short career? I think people might forget how good he was.

Anthony Calvillo

By sheer dint of yards and time, he’s definitely in consideration but somehow, he doesn’t elicit the excitement in the mind that the other two do.

Damon Allen

He’s retired, right? Bet he’d still be able to do something for this sorry lot of Argos.

Now, I don’t know where Russ Jackson fits on this list but if you’re doing Top 5 – and Zelk’s story on did four – he’d have to be the other one, wouldn’t he?

-

Grr.

Mail.

Please. Here. Now. Thanks.

-

Hey, how come nobody told me Chynna Phillips got whacked on DWTS? People!

And I’m not sure I realized – or I’d forgotten – that she was the progeny of half of the Mamas and Papas which can only mean …

-

There’s nothing like a long late-afternoon/evening of baseball playoff doubleheader is there?

Seriously, two fine games yesterday, one hugely dramatic one followed by an okay one the night before and it’s like a ritual of fall.

But the problem I have this year, or this week at least, is that I cannot come to enjoy the announcing teams.

We know that good tastes runs more to the under-stated – Vin Scully should do every post-season game every year – and these guys on Fox and the international feed we’re getting on Turner just seem to turn me off.

Too excited, too verbose, not nearly enough good stories told for my liking.

Besides, just about every time I hear Gary Thorne I think of the pucks and shudder a bit.

-

Comments

[ET]

Doug, why is it a "fake" deadline? Last deadline Stern said he would have to cancel the first two weeks of the season and then when they didn't reach an agreement he did (cancel the first two weeks of the season).

I would definitely side with the owners on this one. Now that would be one poll I would actually be interested in seeing (for the players, for the union or don't care)

[ET]

Doug,
I meant to say... the deadline is real. No agreement, more games are going to be cancelled.
I'm 100% with the owners and would be curious to know what others are thinking on the subject (for the players or the owners or don't care)

[Harley]

Doug, you know I love your writing and your straight forward, no BS style of telling it like you see it, right? And I have missed your curmudgeony self at the games, as you pass by on your way to your station :).

However ... though I most often do agree with your perspectives, I have to disagree with your "slight bias" in support of the players position in the current negotiation. See, fundamentally, my disconnect with the whole thing, is that one cannot argue with the basic fact that the vast majority of franchises in this league are LOSING significant money -- maybe we can argue by how much, but fundamentally, it is indisputable that they are losing money. That means that shareholders (ie. owners) are paying for player salaries, and not the business itself. Not a sustainable position. Yes, I agree that most owners buy teams for reasons other than pure profit (eg. ego and pride of ownership), but none of them got to where they got to in life by knowingly doing deals that consistently lose them money, no matter how big their egos are. I have never known any businesses (even star-based entertainment and media businesses) where more than 50% of the revenues go to salaries -- that simply doesn't provide enough gross margin to fund all the rest of the expenses of the business. The fact that such a deal was agreed to in the last CBA, under a different and much more exuberant economic climate, does not mean that it should be a baseline against which to measure the terms of the new CBA. From the perspective of an average fan, who needs to save and allocate scarce entertainment dollars to take their son or daughter to see a couple of games per season, and who has faced threats to job security, employment income, housing, cutbacks in standard of living and tremendous uncertainty in their own futures, the position that players are taking sounds like pure entitlement and completely unrealistic. To add insult to injury, we can all recount too many instances in past seasons, where we see a group of millionaires mailing it in, on the one live game that we pay good money to watch -- no other explanation except for disrespect for the game and the privileged position that they find themselves in, relative to most of their paying fans.

Fundamentally, the players need to understand that there is an immutable principle that owners are not going to give on, which is that the operating model for their franchises has to be self-supporting and not subsidized by those owners. Yeah, that's going to result in a drastic cut to player salaries, benefits, longevity, guarantees etc.etc.etc. -- but then again, when people are losing homes, jobs, retirement funding, and livelihoods, I'm going to say that there is going to very little sympathy for that -- join the crowd !!!

[Andrew Gregg]

Hi Doug:

Isn't this idea of a players league more driven by shoe companies than anything else? Nike would love to showcase a "league" of superstars wearing nothing but their duds. With Adidas currently holding the NBA contract as the "official" outfitter of the NBA, it's a chance to Nike to steal whatever part of the spotlight it doesn't already have.

Raccoons? Best way to get rid of them (besides explosives) is to put a radio down under your deck and leave it on a talk station. Also, place a lamp down there. They hate that--and they'll be gone in two days.

Put the radio on the FAN's afternoon line up and they'll be gone before dinner today.

AG, Toronto

[Blake Kennedy]

Doug, the thing about collective bargaining is that it's supposed to be give-and-take. When one side gets too much, the whole is endangered. Clearly, when the league's hemorraging money, something needs to balance out. The "gains they’ve made in legitimate collective bargaining sessions over the years" are not written in stone, and they are not permanent: they can be negotiated in, and they can be negotiated out. Just because two parties reach an agreement, it doesn't mean they made the right decision. Consider the CBAs most of the Big Three auto manufacturers came to in the late 90s: obviously, those were not good deals (and have had most of the provisions made scrapped since then).

[jwss]

There's a great article about Anthony Calvillo on Bill Simmons' Grantland website. Here's the link: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7082619/the-best-passing-quarterback-ever

[Mike kovacs]

Through creative accounting almost any business can be made to 'lose' money - especially after the owners pay themselves a comfortable dividend. What is the old joke about only 5 Hollywood movies ever making any money? They still keep making them though! Finally even if the team is legitimately 'losing' money the inherent value of the team itself still seems to go up every year and much money is made on resale.

[Robert Bertuzzi]

Wow, there really is no hope here when the slaves blindly side with the masters. Tell me where oh where is anyone who owns a business guaranteed a profit. In a free enterprise system, not monopolized or a cartel arrangement, anyone is supposed to be able to enter a competitive field and the person with the most talent, innovation, hard work, skill, etc gets to make the most money. If you cannot run your business successfully then you sell or go bankrupt or keep soldiering on in hopes of turning things around. No bailouts, no corporate welfare i.e. municipalities building arenas for billionaires, or other subsidies i.e. revenue sharing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that we have demonstrated the falsity of one of the founding myths of the economic system, not that the NBA is a free enterprise system as the owners are franchisees (and yes, even Tim Horton's locations close down or relocate), the principal remains the same, as an entrepreneur you assume the risks and reap the rewards if successful. But as we can see, corporate capitalism enjoys socializing the risks--public money for bailouts--but maintaining privatized profits of course. Sweet deal if you can get, don't you agree? And since you all seem to think so, then why not walk into your manager's office, or better yet go see HR personnel, this morning and really make their Friday and offer to give up pay and benefits to ensure a fatter bottom line for the owning class that has put them in place to do their bidding. I will not wait for the stampede, but I'll be sure to check the TSX ticker this afternoon to see if share prices have gone up on the news that workers are voluntarily slashing wages and benefits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you could begin by learning about the labour theory of (surplus) value. Start with Adam Smith since you are such free market adherents, move on to Ricardo, and then take up Marx. Because as recent estimates show, Kobe Bryant may get $25 million a year, or whatever it is, but his value to Dr. Jerry Buss is estimated at $70 million per year. Again, not a bad deal. $45 million of surplus value for doing nothing is pretty sweet. Now, if you want to go out and sign Yogi Stewart for $24 million over six years that is the flip side, the cost/risk of doing business. You won't always be able to extract so much surplus value from your workers but the onus is on the entrepreneur to be smarter, to be better. It is not, allegedly, on the worker to continue to make concessions to bail out the stupidity of the entrepreneurs and the managers they put in place.

[Tannis]

Doug-No consideration for Ronnie Lancaster on your quarterbacks list?

Blogger's note: 6th?

[sam]

Agree with @Harley -
A business has top be self sufficient and is only as good as it's employee's and business model. Depending on who you believe, the most current business model works from only a handful of the leagues elite teams.
The Players and owners should equally assume the risks and rewards.
Getting to that place is a different story, though...

[Lorie]

Morning Doug!
Still troubled by raccoons, eh? (But really - aren't they adorable? Did I ever tell you about the litter of eight of them I raised when the mother was hurt? Maybe now's not the best time...) Lure 'em under the deck with peanut butter (smooth or crunchy, Kraft or Jif - they don't seem to have a preference), then shine a bright light while playing (as loud as you can stand it) an aria sung by Maureen Forrester, and have a dude with cages waiting their immediate departure. David Stern and Raechel Ray? Wouldn't you like to hear some of her homespun wisdom as she guided him through the preparation of her Decadent 3-Alarm Italian Style Chili Mac. She'd say something like: "David, David. Here's My Rule: Whatever it is that you're successful at, that has to be the No. 1 Goal. In my case it's accessibility. So all of my products have to be usable, accessible, affordable." Yes. As yours should be, David. My Current Favourite Offspring Of Stars? You don't get much more talented parents than Kate McGarrigle of the McGarrigle Sisters and Loudon Wainwright III. So, there's Martha Wainwright, and here, her wonderfully talented brother. Cheers!
http://youtu.be/d5CLmflrwIA

[David in Oakville]

Rachael Ray? really....

I have to admit I did not see that one coming.

You are full of surprises Mr. Smith.

I agree, the players have to make concessions or Stern closes the league for a year.

Would love to know how that affects people who have ponied up the OUTRAGEOUS seat license at the ACC... does a lost season still count against the years their license is in affect?

[larry lukeeborg]

i take exception to the comment that "it is indisputable that they [teams] are losing money." to be honest, i haven't followed the situation closely, but i do know that corporate structures can be organised in such a way as to indicate losses at one end while another end has amassed profit. to provide a theoretical example: los angeles lakers ltd. (lal) is owned 100% by bussholdings inc. (bh)

suppose lal in turns owns the entire basketball operation, but not the tv rights, which are held by bh. lal has massive expenses - player and staff contracts, travel and lodging expenses, as examples - but not much revenue other than ticket sales. the real profit is held by bh, which, as a 100% privately-held corporation, does not need - ever never ever - to open its books to anyone. [well, perhaps to the irs, but...]

the point is, if the owners have not fully disclosed their books - which includes the books of related companies - then their position is tainted.

[John]

Doug,
RE: the racoon problem. A friend of mine had the same issue and picked up some fox urine (usually sold at outdoors stores, ie Bass Pro) and dropped or sprayed it around the perimeter of his yard. He hasn't had any problems since. Might be worth a try as it seems fairly humane.

[Chris Rivers]

Hey Doug;

One thing you might want to consider is muting the TV and listening to the radio feed. You can get it from MLB.com during the postseason. When watching the Brewers, Bob Uecker's obviously a pretty good one. He's not Vin Scully, but his description of John Axford sending a fastball down Wisconsin Avenue last night was pretty wonderful.

As for the Rangers and Tigers, the Tigers radio team isn't bad - though still overly excitable.

Cheers!

[marc in panama]

Hola Doug,

The NBA is dumber than a bag of hammers regarding the whole shut down. More and more people out of work, or trying to stretch their dollars a little further and the League and all it's parts can't figure out how to divide a $4 billion pie? Shame on both sides, and a pox on both their houses I say. In my opinion this ridiculous fight between the owners and players does nothing but increase the divide between these billionaires and millionaires from the rest of us the poor schmucks paying the freight for this dramarama. Wake me when this is over, perhaps I'll care...but then again maybe I won't.

[Jay Menard]

Another solution for raccoons and skunks. Buy moth balls (the poisonous ones), then put them in a toilet paper roll, tape up the ends, and poke holes in it. Throw it into their den and they should leave.

The non-poisonous ones don't work. There must be a difference in the smell. And by putting it in a sealed roll, with the holes to vent the odour, you can have a clear, dead-critter-free conscience. Now, admittedly, they'll just become somebody else's problem, but they won't be around Casa Smith.

Blogger's note: I'm actually quite okay with them becoming someone else's problem.

[Paul B]

Doug, If you were able to get the racoons to all sit and pose for you like that, they obviuosly listen. Tell them to pay some rent, or move on.

cheers.

Blogger's note: Yeah, I'm like the Racoon Whisperer

[D-Mac Ottawa]

Not sure about how to evict racoons, but if you want to invite a few there's nothing quicker than chinese takeout...
And you know we're in hoops hiatus and music is reaching a zenith when Louden Wainwright III is now gracing the scene. Awesome. Anyone else wear their vinyl down to nubbins on this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7J0nBXEvA4&feature=related
And you're right about the baseball announcers, Doug. Tim McCarver is finally wearing me down in the patience department; he obviously abhors a vacuum.
Cheers!

[m]

@Robert Bertuzzi +100%

[RR]

Whether the players get 57% of the pie or 43% of the pie they're still the only people in this scenario who are guaranteed to be getting rich. Average NBA salary is currently what, 6M per year and even if you take 20% off of that they're still on average getting 4-5M.

Without seeing the detailed financials it's hard for me or anyone else to really make an educated decision as to what split is fair and viable long term but it doesn't really seem to me like they can even agree that everyone should have a decent chance to get paid, including the owners.

That players league comment made me laugh, seriously they should try it. Maybe then the players would realize that owning a franchise isn't a license to print money.

[doug]

I can't believe how people have drank the owners kool-aid...the financial stats they show to the public and to the players are much different then the one's they show to prospective new owners, or who in their right mind would by a franchise...it's all a load of crap, think about it people, in the last year or so the Pistons, Warriors, Wizards and today the Sixers were all sold for above asking, and that is a league in trouble??....unmitigated propaganda by Stern, and this raises my heckles, do people read one article and see well 22/30 teams are losing money and take it for fact?...people there is the internet do some research, get informed, and then make a argument not this drivel that owners ARE losing money...yea right....try and sell me another one, and the players are just as unified as the owners, they will start having cracks , what do you think the owners of the Spurs and Celts are thinking over losing a full year with a aging roster?...the pressure works both ways, I hope the players stay out for as long as it takes and don't capitulate.....and Stern's newest deadlines are becoming comical in their doomsday effect scenario..Mommas and Poppas and yesterday Simon and Garfunkel does it get any better?/...and McCarver is way past his good before date, and Buck is god-awful what is it with sons who had dad's for announcers, even if they are terrible they are given free passes it seems, Chip Caray is another announcer who is just well bad....if my dad is a dentist does that automatically make me one??/...no...same with announcers it's not a gene driven profession I wouldn't think....

[J]

@Robert Bertuzzi:

"And since you all seem to think so, then why not walk into your manager's office [...]"

This inane argument again, but I'll entertain you this one last time. It's amusing that you constantly ask the average Joe making $30,000 to accept less pay before they can have an anti-NBAPA opinion (not to be confused with pro-owner) without your condescension, but I doubt you ask the average NBA player making $5.8 million to accept the same employment standards as the average Joe before they can argue their stance. Double standard much?

"Tell me where oh where is anyone who owns a business guaranteed a profit"

Tell me where oh where is it wrong for anyone who owns a business to even try to guarantee themselves a profit? Tell me where oh where do people have to give up their own salary to have a contrary opinion on what is essentially a business venture between millionaires and billionaires? Bertuzzi-ville, apparently, where anyone who is an employee must think alike, and all employers are capitalistic pigs.

"Because as recent estimates show, Kobe Bryant may get $25 million a year, or whatever it is, but his value to Dr. Jerry Buss is estimated at $70 million per year. Again, not a bad deal. $45 million of surplus value for doing nothing is pretty sweet."

Point being? It's a given that the top several players in the league are severely underpaid due to the cap on their salaries. It's completely disingenuous of you to talk about Smith, Ricardo and Marx, then use the Kobe surplus value example as if it bears any relevance to the league's BRI split. In case you truly don't understand, even if you made the BRI split 100 to 0 in favor of the players, then scaled all salaries up, Kobe would *still* be a surplus value of over $20 million under your logic. $20+ million of surplus value for doing nothing is pretty sweet too, except in this case, the owners received no actual revenue. Whether the maximum salary is set too low and whether a BRI split reduction is fair are two different topics. Shame on you!

If anything, the Kobe's huge surplus value outlines the issue with the old CBA. Unless you had the luxury of a Kobe, LBJ or Wade, most deals exceeding two or three years were guaranteed to be a financial liability at some point. The old CBA "helped" non-contending teams keep their core players by raising the limit on the length of contracts and the raises allowed. This means the teams were inherently always paying above market value to keep their own players. Don't offer the full max contract or mid-level exception then? Okay, the player just signed for much less with a contender, further widening the competitive gap. Rejoice over the money saved? Nope, there's a salary floor so you still have to sign free agents, albeit inferior ones. Regardless of their profitability (or lack thereof), the Nets are the perfect example of what happens when you miss the first two (or three, in their case) tiers of free agents and need to add salary to get above the payroll floor: mediocre players like Travis Outlaw end up making almost half of what Wade and LBJ make.

I'm not against players as a whole making 57% of the BRI; they could make even more money for all I care, but to say the owners are entirely at fault for any financial loss they may suffer is ridiculous when the CBA itself has such a huge impact on their spending patterns (interestingly, I have yet to see @Robert argue one bit of economic theory within the constraints of the CBA itself -- only anti-capitalism drivel). Want to blame the ownership entirely? Unlink salary levels from the BRI and remove all of the salary ceilings, whether per player or per team. Remove Bird rights and all exceptions except maybe the Traded Player Exception. Remove team payroll minimums and reduce the salary minimum to ~$400,000, regardless of years in the league. Set the maximum contract length to two years. Remove the rookie scale. Maintain a tiered luxury tax where the proceeds go to a benefits fund for retired NBA players. Contract a handful of teams with the smallest revenue bases. Now we have no room for excuses on either side. Players would be paid what the market will bear, which -- thanks to teams like the Lakers and Knicks -- should approximate their true worth. The shorter contract lengths helps guys like Chris Paul and Kevin Durant make more money sooner, and helps teams get out from under the contracts of guys like Rashard Lewis and Elton Brand sooner. Teams would no longer be forced to spend a single dollar they don't want to, and would completely own the responsibility for every dollar lost. Until then, the NBAPA is as much responsible for team profitability (or lack thereof) as the owners, and unless someone here has access to the league's books, I'm surprised anyone can truly comment on how the teams are doing with such great conviction.