INTERESTING INSIGHT AS WE ENTER A NEW CBA

The National Basketball Association needs to do more to help small-market teams like the Portland Trail Blazers compete with franchises in larger markets, a top league official says.

And that is a management goal as it embarks on a new collective bargaining agreement with players, NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said.

"We're trying to formulate a new agreement that will allow teams like Portland -- smaller markets in the league -- to have an opportunity to be both profitable and competitive on the court," Silver said, making his remarks in an interview held during a two-day visit to Portland with Trail Blazers management and others.

Silver, who is also the NBA's chief operating officer, is the lead negotiator for the league, having participated in crafting the last three collective bargaining agreements.

The current agreement expires June 30. Team owners contend that have lost money in every year of the current six-year agreement and that the next will need to result in lower salaries.

League observers have said an owner lockout of players and delay of the 2011-12 season is possible. The only work stoppage in league history was in 1998-99, wiping out three months of the season and trimming the schedule to 50 games.

During his visit to Portland on Wednesday and Thursday, Silver talked about the contract talks with Blazers' top brass including owner Paul Allen, team president Larry Miller -- who is one of 12 members of the league's labor relations committee -- and general manager Rich Cho.

"I'm very interested in hearing their initial reactions to internal proposals that have been floated among the owners," Silver said, adding that the said the stakes are high.

"This is the first collective bargaining agreement where, rather than limiting growth of players' salaries, our position is we need to reduce player salaries," he said. "I understand from the players' standpoint -- and for any union -- taking cutbacks is an enormously difficult proposition to accept. From that standpoint, this will be our most difficult negotiation."

He said the league as a whole lost $370 million in the 2008-09 season, slightly less in 2009-10 and is projected for "a little better" financial performance this season -- but still a loss.

In addition to fixing what Silver described as "a broken economic model," the league wants to assure that small market teams, including the Trail Blazers, can compete with the appeal of players moving to larger market cities.

"We're trying to find the right way to strike the right balance," he said, creating a system that allows teams to build around one player yet also gives them "the ability to start fresh" by signing free agents.

"I don't think we want a system where players are necessarily locked into place for their entire careers," he said, "because movement is good, for the players and the teams."

Yet he said the experience of the Cleveland Cavaliers, losing LeBron James last summer as a free agent to the Miami Heat, was "the worst possible situation ...whether there should be compensation for that team or they should have had other benefits to offer (James) to get him to stay...are things we need to look at."

One of those options could be creating the franchise tag, the mechanism National Football League teams are allowed to use to bind a single player to one team.

An identical system has never been proposed in the NBA and Silver said he doubts a replica would work, partly because the starting lineup of both sports -- 22 for football, 5 for basketball -- are fundamentally different.

It's possible, under a new agreement, teams should be given the freedom to offer more money and better contract terms than rules allow now.

112288

112288,

An interesting perspective. In the midst of all this trade brouhaha, I've been thinking about the inequities of it all. Although the Celtics are one of the teams benefiting from it, I think it's very unfair that big market teams can have so many advantages. The abilities of players to collude so as to stack selected teams with all-stars seems unfair. Even the process of buyouts—especially alleged "trades" with wink-wink buyout so a player could then return to his previous team—seems to favor the teams with the most money to spend, the best weather, the greatest championship chances, etc. In effect, the rich continue to get richer.

In one way, I suppose it's hypercritical of me to get such "religion" at this point in life. After all, my pro basketball teeth were cut while following a team that seemed to have far more than its share of good fortune in attracting and retaining the "perfect storm" of human resources year after year after year, without the threat of free agency.

However, I don't really feel guilt or remorse because their luck was due, in greatest part, to the wily genius and hard work of one man—and certainly not due to the affluence of an owner who once had to mortgage his home just to pay salaries. And, in what may be the naivete of old age, I like to believe those players were so loyal to the team and so hungry for a legacy of perpetual greatness that it would have taken a lot for them to defect to another team.

Several times, I've told this story related to me by Sam Jones. When he retired, Red Auerbach offered him a raise of $25,000 to stay for another year. Sam declined because he had contracted for a college coaching job. But he was moved to tears by what he considered an overwhelming gesture that absolutely boggled his strong sense of humility.

So now, we've all "progressed" to a point where rules and regulations designed to make things better eventually make things worse so that additional rules and regulations must be invented as a safeguard against the original rules and regulations, etc., etc., etc. It's really sad. And, in the end, what it suggests to me is that, given the slightest opening, it's the nature of society to gravitate in the direction of greed.

Pretty ironic, coming from someone who considers himself the absolute epitome of optimism.

Sam

Sam, I think this era of stacking teams will end shortly. The spirit in which the Celtics did this was quite different then what players are aiming for now.

Allen and KG came to Boston not for the glamor of South Beach..or the bright lights of Brodway (New York) or Hollywood.....but to win a Championship! They sacrificed big promotion and advertising dollars to be part of a storied franchise and to carry on the legacy of one of the greatest sports teams in the history of sports.

Now .....these players are looking to have their cake and eat it too. Meaning I can come to a "Glamor Town..get a huge $$$$$$contract ...and even richer by getting advertising dollars probably more then their contracts ...and win a championship to! Hummmm......Sunshine and lollipops!

The league ...and I know Stern wants to keep his empire intact and strong will try to end this arrangement....if he's smart!

112288

112288,

I hope you're right. But I'm sure there are many lower-tier clubs that would be delighted at the opportunity to pick up bought out players for the veteran's minimum. But what shot do they have? The bought out players can pick their spots.

Sam, going to have to be revenue sharing like the NFL so small markets compete.
You'll get closer games each night and a better jockeying and lead changes in the standings that will drive revenue higher throughout the league. Remember the NBA skims off the top of each franchise so they make out as well.

112288

I think free agent players will almost always look at two things and two things only when choosing where to sign, money and winning. Unfortunately they almost always choose money over winning. The few players who do choose to go to a winning team even if it means taking less usually do so later in their careers and don't really help that club grow for the future. I don't think location really factors in all that much, for a few it does (Melo for instance) but I don't think the majority care weather their mansion is in Utah, Alaska or Miami (nothing against those places, just examples).

I think the best way to attract free agents to any club (small market or large) is to win. The best way to do that, especially for the smaller market teams is to draft well. Perfect example are the Thunder. Oklahoma City is certainly not the first location that comes to mind if I were a basketball player when thinking of the best location to play basketball (LA,MIA,NYC) but when you look at the pieces they have, they got those mainly through the draft. I guarantee that players will be looking to play alongside Durant and Westbrook regardless of the teams location.

In regards to what we saw in the offseason in Mia, I honestly don't know how that could ever be stopped from happening again. Even if James Wade and Bosh planned this all out before they were free agents (And I think they did) who would you punish? The Heat as far as I know did not contact Bosh or James until they were free agents so I don't think you can hold them accountable and punishing Wade James and/or Bosh would send the union into an uproar.

I think the closest we could come to a perfect system in regards to wealth for the teams is to throw every cent every team makes into a pot and split it equally among the teams (the ultimate form of revenue sharing basically). Of course that would never happen due to the larger market owners not wanting to lose any of the wealth they earn from their clubs as is their right of course, since they do own the clubs. I do think that 112288 is right though and we will see a form of revenue sharing like we see in the NFL. However looking at the NFL and the parity they boast about we still had two dynasties this decade (Pats and Steelers). I feel there will always be dynasties there will always be small market teams and large market teams really regardless of what you do.

However I do think that if the owners want to attract more fans and therefore make more money, especially in small markets, the first step would be to lower the ticket prices. The sad truth is many die hard fans just can't afford to go to games anymore and spending time on message boards like these (though of course inferior to this one ) or following the games for free online does not put any money into the owners or the teams pocket nor do the empty seats however.

Those are my two cents anyway, feel free to completely disagree with everything I just said and sorry if the post is long.

112288,

I understand that logic, which I'd call the "financial approach." My problem is that there will always be have and have-nots among teams, and if the have-nots are subject to the double whammy of being in less desirable markets (as homes for players), then free agents and bought-out players will still get to pick-and-choose. The human equation is really my concern.

Sam

Your right Sam. It may be a long summer, fall and winter before we see basketball again. This financial problem of 2008 is having a trickle down affect not only on businesses, unions and government but it has yet to hit sports because contracts have not come up yet. Football will be the first test with basketball to follow.

What comes out of the football model may well be what will be adopted by the NBA and its players and owners.

112288

Tick Tock,

Agreed lower ticket prices but ticket prices = revenue so the art of the deal then is to try to subsidize the lost revenue. There may be a financial model out there that can illustrate that a team in the end winds up with more revenue even though they lower prices because of the following: more tickets sold and its revenue is higher then when not lowered, more revenue from concessions (food/parking), merchandise sales and corporate sponsorship revenue.

That could actually be proven however each franchise has different revenue sharing in concessions (food/drink parking) and some make out better then others. Bigger cities are going to have more corporate sponsors and the bigger the city the more money will be charged for the entitlement. Corporate sponsorship revenue, lux box seat sales can also generate huge revenue.

So you have to look at the other sources to see how each team fairs in these different revenue streams outside of tix prices to see if they could absorb the cut in tix prices.

Perhaps the NBA takes a bigger skim from the top including TV revenue and redistributes money.

No easy answers.

112288

112288

Absolutely right, each team's financial situation has to be assessed individually based on the factors you mentioned. In the end I'm guessing we'll see lots of threats and fears of a lockout but an agreement of some sort will be reached before a lockout were to actually kick in. I doubt that the agreement will benefit all the teams equally but I'd be stunned if there wasn't some sort of revenue sharing in it.

I do however think that small markets can be turned into larger markets if they win for a long enough time. So while I'm sure there are things the league can do to help these smaller market teams, in the end the burden still falls on the gms and owners to make their teams competitive. If they succeed in doing that for a long enough time then their market will grow and they in turn will start to build a history and a luster which in turn makes them more appealing to future players.

Looking through the home avg attendance numbers for teams this year is actually quite shocking. Portland and Cleveland of all places have the 2nd and 3rd highest attendance in the NBA this year, while the Heat's and Knicks attendance is 5th and 6th respectively. Celtics come in 10th by the way. If you choose to look at total home attendance instead of average than both Cleveland and Portland are still in the top 10.
I wonder if this has to do with there being empty seats that are being filled by visiting fans or if those teams are actually doing better in their markets than one would think. Also interesting that Portland was talked about in the aforementioned article and yet they apparently have a better attendance than some of the larger market teams. Don't really know what to make of it all, almost seems so oxymoronish (glad we not playing scrabble ) that it seems like the info is wrong.

Here is the link to the attendance figures http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

Tick Tock,

I think all the top 10 + teams are at max capacity. I know TD Garden is at max based on the article you posted on attendance. Same for NY & MSG. I guess Celtics need to add more seats!

112288

Certainly looks like the Celts should add more seats, you don't mind if I take all the credit for the idea when I tell it to Danny in the next meeting do you?

Still surprising to see Portland and Cleveland having basically sold out every home game this year, wouldn'ta thunk it.

Tick Tock

Not at all..perhaps it could pay for the return of Perk next summer.

11228

I live here in Boston, and have tried so many times I hate to admit, to buy tickets to a Celtics game. Luckily I have a friend who has season's tickets and has given me a couple, but I have been unsuccessful in trying to get tickets to games that I really want to see for several reasons.

l. The Celtics have turned all their ticket sales over to Ticketmaster, who, in turn charge a $7.50 service charge on top of the ticket price, plus a shipping and handling fee for any tickets bought.

2. The cost of the tickets vary from game to game. I have always tried to sit in Loge seats, right over the hallway where they enter the court. For one game, the ticket price was $85.00, for the night Kevin Durant was in town, it was $157.50. This is just one night. I hate to tell you what they were for the Miami Heat and LA Lakers.

3. The cost of balcony seats also varies as to the opponent that night. This
is not fair. Sell the ticket for face value, this other way is legalized scalping.

4. Corporate season ticket holders are in abundance, and the seats are filled with people who want to say "I was there".

I just don't know how the younger generation is going to afford tickets in the future with the prices going up the way they are. Some times when I am there, I see people walk back and forth from the bar with beer after beer after beer. At $7-$8 dollars a drink, how do they do it?????? Who will
be following the Boston Celtics in ten years?

This site is loaded with people who grew up loving the Celtics. I worry
what the next generation will be like.

And, finally, I think that some of us are having such a hard time accepting this trade for a simple reason. Perk came here as a boy, we watched him
grow into a wonderful young man and father and husband. We always thought he would be a Celtic for life just like Pierce. Having grown up watching a team that hardly changed its lineup year after year except for the new rookies, and the last two seats on the bench. So many guys were here for their entire careers, that we forgot that these are different times.

112288,

I'll be sure to mention to Dany that the fans would like all the money to go towards bringing Perk back

Rosie,

I couldn't agree more with the points and worries you have. I knew ticket prices varied depending on the teams in town but for them to vary by such a large amount is downright shameful. Also if I remember correctly Durant actually did not play that game due to injury, making it even worse.

Seeing the corporate fans crowding the seats merely to as you said say "I was there" is sad indeed. I have heard the same complaint from many NFL fans and have no doubt it is occurring across all the major sports.

I have lived in a low to middle class household all my life and there were times when my parents were not sure if they could pay the bills for the next month, luckily they somehow always found a way, so when I see how much athletes and owners make it saddens and somewhat infuriates me. I have no problem with anyone trying to earn a decent living but at some point it all turns into money that will never be spent. Monopoly money basically. I think every member on the board and every average person could easily find a way to live comfortably and do so for the rest of their lives if they were given a mere (by NBA standards) two million dollars. It makes me wonder how we ever got to a point where guys like Lebron are signing deals upwards of 80 million dollars to simply play a game.

I guess I'm saying when is enough enough? The fans pay the ridiculous prices that you above mentioned only so that some player can have 80 million instead of 40 million? It seems like that is flawed system. I fear that eventually true fans will be left to follow the games only from home. It seems we are heading down a sad slope indeed.

Tick Tock,

Apropos of Rosalie's remarks about crowds, I claim Boston crowds were much louder in the 50s and 60s than now, even though the new Garden has a much larger capacity than the old one. I have always attributed it to two factors:

• So many semi-interested (at best) corporate types who spend most of the game loking around to see who's watching them or on their cell phones (or similar deviced) or in silent seclusion in their hermetically sealed boxes

• The fact that a much larger proportion of the crowd consists of women and children, who simply have softer voices or are more restrained

The tradeoff of less sound for greater presence of women and children is more than acceptable because it's wonderful to have such diversity and new blood among Celtics fans

The difference isn't simply in volume either. The duration of sustained ovations now lasts about a minute at most,partly because the programmed PA announcer intervenes. They used to involve as long as three to five minutes. I kept track during the ovation for The Cooz on his day, and lasted more than five minutes. It would start to die down and then would erupt again and again like waves on the short. Same for Sam Jones before what everyone knew would be his final Garden game. They introduced him first, and he stood there amid cascading series of ovations for nearly five minutes, with his hands clasped behind him, as he humbly looked down at the floor forcing back tears.

When we held a celebration for him in the town of Sharon, where the Joneses and I lived, something similar happened. I had the honor of introducing Sam (barely made it through and actually had to cut it a little short). The crowd then engulfed him with this massive, extended roar.

When the din finally subsided, and it was time for him to speak, the next few seconds were indelibly etched in my mind. His first words were,"When we came here, we had nobody. Now we've got everybody." With the last couple of words, he completely lost it, emitting this high-pitched wail that was a product of loud sobs tempered by his supreme effort to retain control. The whole place was awash with tears for quite some time. Everyone was exhausted by the end of the evening.

Maybe part of the difference between then and now is that people of today are just plain better at controlling their emotions. Who knows?

Sam

Thanks Tick Tock.......Give Danny my warmest wishes for a great "EARLY SUMMER VACATION"!

112288

Haha 112288 I will be sure to do that

Sam - could it have been that fans back "when" seemed to know more about the players and appreciated them so much because they had all been here so long, given so much to the organization and were truly loved. Sam Jones was a perfect
example of that. I can remember Sam's last game when they presented him with his going away gift. He was thrilled and so weren't the fans. These were people who were paying $5.00 to maybe $10.00 a game My tickets were $6.00 a game.
I am sure you can agree that the people attending those games were true fans.
There were no free tickets floating around back then, if you were a Celtics fan, you paid your way. The Garden was hardly ever full until playoff time and back then you could buy your ticket and be able to buy another one. So....the Garden was full, 13,909, for the playoffs

I guess it is wonderful to have the memories, I will admit they were some of the most memorable times in my life. I only wish the same for this generation

Ros,

I got a "free" ticket almost every year during the Bird years (except a few years away in the Army). A neighborhood buddy of mine and his Dad had season tickets, and every year his Dad gave me his ticket when Magic and the Lakers came to town. Looking back at it it is still hard to believe. (I wonder if his Dad hated the Lakers so much he couldn't go to the game?)

Another "free" ticket was when I was home on leave one time and my brother had tickets to game 7 against Philly, the Beat LA game. I think he tried to call your husband to go but he wasn't home...

VERY FUNNY!!!

I was referring to the 60's mostly. I, too, was on the receiving end of some great games. My husband had a friend during the Larry era who had season tickets right behind the bench. They were great. Also, he knew so many guys working for Newton, that I was lucky enough to get tickets to the Bill Russell night where they re-retired his number and Wilt was there. That was such a hard ticket to come by. The same with the ticket the night they retired Cedric Maxwell's number.
So, I have gotten some free one's, just not enough lately!!

Rosalie, the base ticket prices were actually $3, $4 and $5 in Russ's and Sam's last season. I went to Red to ask the Celtics to ante up some tickets that we could sell for Sam's day, with the proceeds all going to Sam's gift. As I sat, rather mesmerized by his office surroundings, we had a long chat about all sorts of things. Then we finally got down to business. He already had hundreds of $3 and $4 tickets waiting for me. I asked whether we could get some $5 tickets too.

He pursed his lips, squinted his eyes,twirled his cigar, and replied, "You know I love Sam Jones. But if you think I'm gonna give up any of my best seats, you're crazy." End of story.

So I got bought two rubber stamps made out of Sam's signature and stamped every one of the hundreds of tickets he had given us. I went on the radio advertising tickets at the base price sporting Sam's autograph. We sold quite a few.

But unfortunately the committee was filled with hangers-on who were there simply to get close to Sam. (There were corporate types in those days too—just not so many.) They all had money-raising assignments. The amount of money that was raised in total wouldn't have paid more than 10% of the house they claimed to "give him." They even had a model of the house on hand, and I'm not sure the money that was raised would have even paid for the model. I was very disappointed in the effort put in by that committee, as were Gladys and Sam. Not that they had their hands out, but they had gone through this great ceremony and had been led to believe they were being given a very nice house for their move to Maryland. And then they learned they'd have to assume the great majority of the actual cost of the house. What a disillusionment.

And,to make matters worse, their youngest son cracked his head on the model house during the ceremony on the Garden floor. I have pictures of me holding him in my arms while trying to hush up his wails as Sam gave his speech.

By the way, I still have both rubber "autograph" stamps. I use them to sign a few checks every once in a while.

Sam

How enlightening! I always thought that they gave him that house, free and clear. I was so impressed with the gift. Goes to show--you never really know the truth about things. I know they gave Cowens a motorcycle, and I think they gave Havlicek a Jeep. Now I wonder if they were paid for in full??????

Rosalie

I'll never forget having to report to Gladys Jones on the final amount. One of the worst days of my life. I still have the canceled check.

To her great credit, Gladys (after her involuntary intake of breath), was as gracious as always. She had (and has) as much class as Sam.

Another thing that Gladys and Sam shared (still do) was that they had the ability to make anyone they met feel like the most important person in the world.

Sam