and Big Ben just continues to make me proud that he got that Pistons uni on.

That’s all I want to say about this team right cause I’m gonna just keep on looking at the positives.

This is purely personal opinion.

I think NBA players are grossly overpaid. After all, it’s a game. Even guys at the end of the bench make more in a year than a lot of people make in a lifetime.

I’d be all for lowering player salaries if it translates into cheaper tickets and merchandise for fans. Make the game affordable and put it in its proper perspective socially and economically.

However, I sincerely doubt that this is the intention of the owners. I suspect that lower salaries have very little to do with any of that and rather have to do with greater profit margins for owners.

When I was a kid, the baseball strike happened. I don’t really know why, but I got angry at baseball. I was a huge Tigers fan before the strike, but since the strike, I haven’t watched a complete game of baseball. It soured me on the entire sport.

Now, I love basketball and the Pistons more than I ever loved baseball, but an extended lockout could sour me again. Players and owners need to get a grip on reality — they, their children, and grandchildren are financially set for life because of a game. Put the greed to rest on both sides, please.

That MLive article comparing the current roster to the 2001 Pistons is a fun read, but incredibly off.

The reason the comparison doesn’t work at all is actually explicitly stated in the article: the 2001 team had a lot of financial flexibility and it had a young Ben Wallace. So, Jod had the ability to add better players where needed, and he already had Big Ben, who would turn out to be the best defensive player of the decade. Those were the two keys to our quick turnaround. Our current roster is full of highly paid players, limiting future flexibility, and, though I wish they did; young Ben Wallace’s don’t grow on trees.

The NFL owners are looking to shave 20% off of their player salaries as well after next season, so Gulkamania, you may wanna reconsider getting back into baseball.

Apparently the NBA owners’ theory is that their players “don’t save money” and therefore won’t be able to survive a work stoppage. That may be true, but if it’s false, the NBA is at risk, because long lockouts can be disastrous for a league.

…when you say that both the owners and the players may be motivated by greed. But the owners are trying to cut their losses on huge investments in the midst of recession; I understand why they have to spend less. And the players are trying to maximize their earnings and prepare for (in most cases) four or more decades of semi-retirement, where most will never be able to earn anything approaching their current NBA salaries.

Given the way the NBA determines total player salaries as a percentage of league revenues, zero-sum thinking is inevitable from both sides of the dispute. Neither side will be pleased unless the other side gets screwed.

Could an impending lockout ensure that the Pistons stay in Detroit?

I can’t imagine that a prospective investor would buy the Pistons, separate from the Palace, with a work stoppage on the horizon. The Palace could generate revenue during a lockout—perhaps even more revenue than usual, with the schedule cleared of basketball games.

Additionally, the possibility of a lockout might lower the market price of a Pistons+Palace sale, since one of the assets would be non-performing for a stretch of time.

yet if the Pistons are putting out an exciting, watchable, attendable product, people will come to see them. The only thing as I see it that would force a move would be further drops in ticket sales to home games.

Dan I rec’d

… but the owners make more than they do. I never understood why people rant and rave about the salaries for professional athletes. If you take the money away from the athlete, it just goes in the pocket of the owner instead. So instead of 4-5 multimillionaire’s, you’re talking about one hundred-millionaire or likely Billionaire. Why is the owner a more sympathetic party?

If the owners want a bigger slice, I don’t have a problem with it. However, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the owners will necessarily turn around and cut prices to pass those savings onto the consumer. That’s a possibility, but I put it in the same category as Congress rescinding laws. Once you give them something, the chances of getting it back are slim to none.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/01/29/countdown.trade.deadline/index.html#ixzz0eJGhAlhf

It’s too bad they just couldn’t take all the current numbers and reduce them by 25% or something. Players’ salaries, ticket prices, owners’ revenue, everything. Just bring the whole shebang down a notch. I know it’s not that simple, but it would be nice if it was.

…one of the reasons the NBA can be so fun to watch is the athletic ability of the players. Many NBA players, especially those who were born in the States, could have pursued professional careers in another sport. I’m sure that the guaranteed contracts and relatively higher salaries offered by the NBA have influenced more than a few athletes to choose basketball. That dynamic could change significantly under a new labor agreement.