Comments on: Can we blame the Lakers television deal for the lockout?

By: 1historian

1historian — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:38:01 +0000

Things I would love to see but never will;

OWS occupying Lakerland and LaLaLand.

By: trbowman

trbowman — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:41:03 +0000

Can we blame the Lakers for everything?

Yes

By: 140chrviolation

140chrviolation — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:36:41 +0000

Kurt, I think blame is the wrong word here. Blame implies personal responsibility and that one should have acted differently. Suppose the Lakers are up by 1 point with 10 seconds left, Kobe hits a baseline runner putting the lead up to 3 with 3 seconds left. The Celtics get the ball at half-court and Rondo takes a 3-pointer that misses at the buzzer. Do you then blame Kobe for Rondo taking that shot? The Lakers manufactured that deal with Time-Warner. The response by the rest of the league is not their fault. There are better words you could have used then blame.

As for competitive balance…. When the San Antonio Spurs win a championship, this pleases maybe 3 million people (depending also on who they beat out for the win). When the Lakers win it, this makes dozens of millions of fans happy. Competitive balance is nice, but lets not pretend that all fan bases are equal. The Lakers have been better at branding their image then any team in the NBA. They cultivated business associations. The Lakers managed their team and the business in a manner that put then at an advantage compared to San Antonio or New Orleans. A decent portion of this is a result of the market they are in. Beyond this, the Lakers managed to create fans of their team from people who never have and will never step foot in the 310. The Lakers earned their money and now the other owners want to take credit for that success. I love the NBA and I enjoy watching other teams. I’ve had League Pass the last 4 seasons and got my money’s worth. So, I’m not just speaking as a Lakers fan. I just don’t think all the these competitive balance arguments lack general consideration. You can add up the number of fans of probably the bottom 10 teams in the league and there are double that in Lakers fans. Maybe John Hollinger can come up with some sort of stat that expresses happiness per fan given the size of the franchise’s fan base? Call it START THE SEASON ALREADY.

By: marcusfitzhugh

marcusfitzhugh — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:56:33 +0000

I don’t know why LA having an advantage is a surprise to anyone. Buss has been an NBA owner longer than anyone else. He’s also in Los Angeles where there is no NFL competition for fan dollars, there are plenty of businesses buying luxury boxes, and there are celebrities standing in line to buy courtside seats. For those who hadn’t noticed, in LA, courtside goes several ROWS back. OF COURSE he’s going to have an economic advantage over Johnny Come Lately from some city with no fan base.

Eight NBA clubs have changed owners in the past 2 years. Those owners better not complain. Atlanta, Detroit, Charlotte, Golden State, The Nets, New Orleans (who nobody wants to own), the Wiz, and the 76ers – those owners can just shut up, sit in the back, and take whatever deal the other guys come up with. Think about it. They just got here. I know they paid their money, but still, they have ZERO seniority. It’s like 30 guys have a regular poker game. 8 of the guys are new, and just started playing. You know what those 8 guys are in charge of? Nothing. They just got here.

BTW, I’m not a Laker fan. My favorite team hasn’t won an NBA championship since Nixon was pres. But we’re close. Closer than 3 years ago.

By: santolonius

santolonius — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:09:14 +0000

“If they want to compete, they need to draft well and make smart decisions with their contracts.”

i don’t believe this is true. first there is the money. dallas was 3rd highest payroll last year and they got the trophy. but as for draft picks, you can get a great guy and about the time he comes into his own he bolts. and not always for the money. he bolts to create a super team somewhere because he wants a ring. and where will that place be? somewhere sexy. miami. new york. los angeles. how is a small market, low budget, dull city supposed to comete with that? well some of us live in those cities and we’d like a championship every now and then. why does the nba expect anyone to pay for a ticket and come to a game in a city where they don’t have a chance to build a team because the draftees leave as soon as they play out their first contract? stand tall small market owners. because you are the only people in the mess that seem to care what happens to small market fans. sports writers certainly don’t care. they just want something to write about.

By: texmex2

texmex2 — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:06:59 +0000

@marcusfitzhugh certainly hit the nail on the head ~

By: marcusfitzhugh

marcusfitzhugh — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:15:13 +0000

The Lakers TV deal is not the reason for the lockout. Dr Buss bought the Lakers over 30 years ago. No one believes other owners who made more recent purchases in smaller markets can somehow expect to reap the same level of financial success as the Lakers in 2012. The NBA owners have discussed increasing the revenue sharing pool from the current forty something million to one hundred and fifty million. That’s all the smaller markets can expect. Period. If someone pays a gazzillion dollars to add a new franchise on Pluto, that’s their problem. The Lakers / Knicks / Bulls / Boston are not in the NBA to fund teams that can’t turn a profit.

The reason for the lockout is to establish a CBA to replace the one that expired. Now somebody accept a deal so I can check out some games.

By: therealhtj

therealhtj — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:15:08 +0000

Is there seriously something echech88 wrote worth a thumbs down? You small market fans need to lighten up. It’s not like anyone held a gun to your head and made you sign Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson to max deals.

By: echech88

echech88 — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:33:03 +0000

Doesn’t the part about the Raptors and Heat kind of highlight the problem that great players are willing to take less money to play together in huge or attractive markets like New York, LA and Miami? Not to say the Raptors could have done better in a lot of ways, but this can’t be ignored or brushed off as a non-factor.

I’m pretty sure the great franchise-altering players would almost all take a little less to play in a huge market with more exposure and branding opportunities than simply get a bigger contract in Toronto, Sacramento, Charlotte or Indiana. And that IS a serious problem for “competitive balance”