RE: Dave Kindred, Who needs the players

[Jim Hill <jahill@leasingservice.com>]

Shawn or whoever ;)

Why would the players agree to a "soft cap" if they were not going to
police it?  Or was it a matter of "I'm going to get mine, the hell with
the agreement"?

As far as the owners selling the team if they don't want to pay the high
salaries, I'm sure it makes more sense to have large corporations own
the teams and run them as profit centers/tax deductions.  You must feel
it will be better to have the ownership concentrated on ad revenue or
corporate outings at the stadium for their customers, then being
championship driven.  The Florida Marlins really benefited baseball and
their fans.

What is a joke is the opinion on the list stating that the owners should
pay the players whatever the player wants or sell THEIR team. Then in
the next breath complaining about ticket prices and pay-for-veiw
access.  You can't have it both ways.  Either the teams are run and the
decisions are made by basketball people or they will be run as just
investments.

You don't think that Fox or Disney is concerned about you or me do you.
They are smart enough to know that they can get "fans" to support their
investment if they package it right.  Regardless of whether today's fan
watches another game.  Look at today's TV programs and the movies as
examples of what large corporations provide us as entertainment.

If you think that half time at the Fleet Center is more entertaining
then 5 years ago or the fireworks and motorcycles to introduce the
players before each game is more appropriate, then you will get you
wish.

Jim H.

Shawn Roth wrote:

> Jim( or Joe, or whatever the hell your name is):
>
>         I see some of your points, but your point, and I quote "The
> players and their agents knew that the CBA would be re-opened if they
> exceeded the voluntary cap on revenue distribution that they agreed to
> with the owners in the last CBA.", is a joke.  Why should it be up to
> the players to watch what the owners spend?   Shouldn't that be the
> owners job?  So what the owners need to do is sack up, pay the
> players, budget for what they can afford, and live with the results.
> If they don't like the results, sell the team to someone who can
> afford to pay higher salaries.
>
>         Maybe this was all a conspiracy to open up the CBA again.
> They didn't like the original one, so they just continued to pay
> higher and higher salaries until the players made more than the agreed
> upon limit!  Just a thought.
>
> Also, on Kevin Garnett, that was Wolves ownership mistake for paying
> him $20 mill.  They raised their own offer, before anyone else had
> even offered Garnett a dime.  Why?  Were they afraid he would bolt at
> the first offer. Wouldn't he probably give the T-wolves the chance to
> counter.  A good agent would have gave the Wolves a chance.  So they
> could have had Garnett for less, but chose to pay him more.  NICE JOB,
> OWNERS!  Way to pay market value!