Rising power of Europe: Josh Childress weighs Olympiakos offer

Superman said:
I couldn't care less about globalizing the sport. And if doing so comes at the direct expense of the league that's being used to make the sport popular around the world, how good is that for the sport?
Click to expand...

For a sport to be truly globalized, at some point, the league is going to be secondary to the sport. Just like at some point in the last century, the English soccer league became secondary to the sport of soccer,and many would argue, soccer exploded despite of, not because of, the English.

Stern is desparately trying to make basketball to be as big as or even more so than soccer. I always thought "Be careful what you wish for." But that's a topic for another thread.


Superman said:
This can water the League down even further.
Click to expand...

In the short term, yes. In the long term, it expands the talent pool and thereby raises the level of basketball.
 
Bricklayer said:
I am most concerend about it breaking the league's financial system -- the very system which allows a small market team like the Sacramento Kings to compete with teams form bigger cities. If costs can no longer be controlled because agents (who are the real winners in this whole equation, as usual) have found an end run around salary controls, then a trend this way would end up in disaster. At least for everyone not in New York or L.A..

Full + "fair" capitalism and unfettered competition are NOT good things for a professional sports league. The only people that benefit from them are the players/agents who rake in the dough as teams kill each other competing for them. And the teams who are the "killed" are precisely the small market teams the system was put into place to protect.

Josh Childress is less than irrelevant. He can take his silly hair and his ridiculous push shot to Antartica for all I care. But if this signing is an indication of things to come, if midlevel guys are now developing an out from the system so that they never have to accept a contract at less than their terms...like I have said several times, it would behoove the NBA to do everything possible to squash this before it ever gets going.
Click to expand...

That too.
 
kennadog said:
I'd say at least part of this is simply the rising power of the euro over the dollar.
Click to expand...

This point seems to be a tad bit overlooked in this thread. In fact, the current trend is that in 2 or 3 years, the factor could be signifigantly higher. If I were offered a European contract, I would certainly consider this. If the Euro $$ gets that much stronger, wealthier Euro teams will have no problem competing with NBA salaries.

I think the fear of this is pretty funny. After all, open competition is the American way. And we have been plucking their talent for years now. I guess "turn about is fair play" is not the American way.
 
Kingzrool said:
I think the fear of this is pretty funny. After all, open competition is the American way.
Click to expand...

It is not however the NBA way. Or the any major sporting league way. The very reason there are Collective Bargaining Agreements, bylaws, a commisioner's office etc. is to regulate and control the market so as to create a balanced playing field. "Open competition" is not a balanced playing field, it is a field dominated by the wealthy and the strong. It has taken decades of work and tweaks to get and keep the NBA's system in relative balance via a strict control of the elite basketball market. And the team we all root for has been a major beneficiary of that control. Sacramento isn't big enough to even qualify as a borough in New York, yet for the last decade it has had the better basketball team. That is only possible so long as the system remains relatively closed and controllable. If the agents are able to break the NBA's free agency system and turn every free agent into a world wide bidding war, Sacramento stands no chance.
 
Bricklayer said:
Josh Childress is less than irrelevant. He can take his silly hair and his ridiculous push shot to Antartica for all I care. But if this signing is an indication of things to come, if midlevel guys are now developing an out from the system so that they never have to accept a contract at less than their terms...like I have said several times, it would behoove the NBA to do everything possible to squash this before it ever gets going.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, Brick. I agree this may be bad for small market teams, but I don't know if it is even possible to "squash." We're talking about putting a stop to free market capitalism. How? Impose a penalty for any player who leaves the NBA? Extra cap room for the team who loses one to a foreign club?

I think there is enough protection for small market teams (like Bird rights) that in the long run it is not going to hurt the small market teams that much. I also think this is going to hurt the big clubs as much as the small ones. The only benefactors are clubs outside of the USA and are not under the NBA rules. In other words, the playing field has been changed, but it's still level for all NBA teams.
 
beb0p said:
For a sport to be truly globalized, at some point, the league is going to be secondary to the sport. Just like at some point in the last century, the English soccer league became secondary to the sport of soccer,and many would argue, soccer exploded despite of, not because of, the English.

Stern is desparately trying to make basketball to be as big as or even more so than soccer. I always thought "Be careful what you wish for." But that's a topic for another thread.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, it expands the talent pool and thereby raises the level of basketball.
Click to expand...
Basketball is an American sport (I know Naismith was Canadian). It's perfect for impatient fans who like loud arenas and have short attention spans. It also allows fans to relate to the players, because we can see their faces and identify them on the street (how many people know what Curtis Martin looks like?).

Soccer isn't like basketball in many different ways, and that's part of the reason it hasn't taken off in the United States like it has around the world. Basketball has the potential to be a global sport, but it would be a watered down version of what the NBA has produced over the past 40 years. Which is why if you took top NBA players and made them into a national team that played together year round, they would crush any and every other national team in the world. The United States is the world basketball headquarters, and that's the reason most NBA superstars are from the United States.

So if you take and dilute the talent that is in the NBA (which has been happening for years now), and you still want to trot the NBA out as the figurehead of basketball, you're doing the sport a disservice. Couple that with the problems the US has been having in the world games, and you have a league that's losing influence throughout the world. The evidence for that assertion can be found by googling "Josh Childress".

I don't think that allowing the NBA to be undermined would eventually increase the talent pool for the NBA as much as it would increase competition in other leagues throughout the world, especially in Europe as the dollar declines. And the fact is that Olympiacos acquiring Childress benefits the entire Greek League, not just Olympiacos. Now, if this is the beginning of a trend, then the globalization of basketball just further undermined the standing of the NBA as the premiere league in the world. And instead of being tied to rookie contracts in the NBA, phenoms can shoot overseas and make twice as much money. Yao Ming doesn't come to America (and bring his Chinese fans and their money with him).

I just don't think that this "globalization" is good for the NBA once it goes outside the boundaries of television and the occasional overseas game.
 
beb0p said:
In other words, the playing field has been changed, but it's still level for all NBA teams.
Click to expand...

No it's not. The small market NBA teams who won't pay the luxury tax will wind up losing players to overseas teams. The teams who will go into tax-land will spend money on those players to keep them from going.
 
Great posts by beb0p !!!



Europe is not a threat for NBA just because basketball is not that popular there.

Just look at European markets ...

Italy, Spain - very strong basketball countries with many decent local players. They have decent budgets too, but nothing crazy. I think they will rely on their local guys + some European guys + some mediocre American ones.

France - not a competitor by any means. They do not have enough money even to sign good Europeans.

Germany - France divided by 5.

Israel - there is only one rich team - Maccabi Tel Aviv and they are not famous for sensational contracts with NBA players. They have a very good budget and like American B-players but Childress-like contracts is the maximum. So, IMHO, Israel is capable of signing only one solid NBA player.

Greece - a competitor. I do not think that people love basketball more than soccer there but they sure love it. They invest a lot of money in basketball and I guess there are 3-4 teams that can "steal" 5-8 good NBA players and Olymp. and Panath. can offer 15M tax free contracts each. But again, we are talking about 2 stars and 4-6 solid guys like Childress.

Russia - could have been the competitor, but it is not. The Russians are in love with soccer and Canadian hockey. Basketball competes with tennis or bandy (have you heard of it??). Basically, basketball in Russia is like hockey in Arizona (they have team in Phoenix, they have fans, they care about it but you know what I mean). There is a very, very rich team in Russia (CSKA) that is owned by the 24th richest man in the world, Michael Prokhorov. But they do not sign players for 10M+ contracts. Their coach, Mussina, prefers to have 7-8 equally good players (see Pistons' style of play). I think they might sign someone big in NBA but it will be Russian speaking guys like Kirilenko or Biedrins, or their beloved Serbian/Croatian guys. Other teams (like 3-4) are capable of signing no more than 10 NBA bench players like Delfino or Nachbar. Again, basketball is not big there.

I think that NBA teams should not panic. I think NBA is going to lose more players in the future but we are talking here about 3-4 star players (not super stars) and about 20-25 bench and very deep bench guys (mostly Europeans).

Last news: Biedrins has signed with GS. So, one trouble less for NBA :)
 
Last edited:
Superman said:
I don't think that allowing the NBA to be undermined would eventually increase the talent pool for the NBA as much as it would increase competition in other leagues throughout the world, especially in Europe as the dollar declines. And the fact is that Olympiacos acquiring Childress benefits the entire Greek League, not just Olympiacos. Now, if this is the beginning of a trend, then the globalization of basketball just further undermined the standing of the NBA as the premiere league in the world. And instead of being tied to rookie contracts in the NBA, phenoms can shoot overseas and make twice as much money. Yao Ming doesn't come to America (and bring his Chinese fans and their money with him).

I just don't think that this "globalization" is good for the NBA once it goes outside the boundaries of television and the occasional overseas game.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. Globalization is a two-edged sword. It's good from a money perspective, but it can be bad when it comes to keeping talent. I'd have no problem with basketball remaining a mostly US sport like baseball but it seems the commish has other ideas. So as far as I'm concern, the fans just have to accept it.

Basketball is still in its infancy as a global sport. The 1992 Dream Team help put basketball on the world map. Since then it took a little over then years for Europe to produce one NBA MVP and several All-Stars. Give the world another ten years and the talent pool is going to be scary. That's what I mean by expanding the talent pool. I believe the export of quality NBAers still in his prime is going to increase the exposure of basketall and influence more kids to play this sport. The more particiation, the higher the talent pool. In the long run, there's going to be so many good players that one league cannot possible hold them all. As is the case with soccer.

During the early 1900s, any English soccer team can show up half drunk and beat any non-English side 10-0. It took the rest of the world roughly fifty years to catch up to the Brits. But the point is, they eventually did. We're at an age where, with the help of technology, basketball is probably going to explode the same way soccer did but with less of a learning curve for outside countries.
 
Superman said:
No it's not. The small market NBA teams who won't pay the luxury tax will wind up losing players to overseas teams. The teams who will go into tax-land will spend money on those players to keep them from going.
Click to expand...

I think this is an extreme case and not the norm. Vujacic reportedly got offers from Europe but the Lakers didn't have to overpay to retain him.

Like BritishColumbia has already broken it down, there's but a few teams that can actually afford to throw out money. We're talking maybe two or three FAs each year, at the most, will get offer sheets from Europe. And if the Kings loses an MLE guy to Europe, I won't lose an sleep over it. In fact, with the way Petrie spends the MLE, I may actually want a Euro team to snatch one from him.
 
BritishColumbia said:
Great posts by beb0p !!!

Europe is not a threat for NBA just because basketball is not that popular there.

I think that NBA teams should not panic. I think NBA is going to lose more players in the future but we are talking here about 3-4 star players (not super stars) and about 20-25 bench and very deep bench guys (mostly Europeans).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the breakdown, BritishColumbia.

Btw, I always think of Bandy as ice hockey on a bigger field and a round ball, I'm probably way off. But yeah, I don't know much about it.
 
BritishColumbia said:
Russia - could have been the competitor, but it is not. The Russians are in love with soccer and Canadian hockey. Basketball competes with tennis or bandy (have you heard of it??). Basically, basketball in Russia is like hockey in Arizona (they have team in Phoenix, they have fans, they care about it but you know what I mean). There is a very, very rich team in Russia (CSKA) that is owned by the 24th richest man in the world, Michael Prokhorov. But they do not sign players for 10M+ contracts. Their coach, Mussina, prefers to have 7-8 equally good players (see Pistons' style of play). I think they might sign someone big in NBA but it will be Russian speaking guys like Kirilenko or Biedrins, or their beloved Serbian/Croatian guys. Other teams (like 3-4) are capable of signing no more than 10 NBA bench players like Delfino or Nachbar. Again, basketball is not big there.
Click to expand...

Russia had a recent success with their Soccer team,but that doesn't mean they love soccer more than basketball.Lately,they put a lot of many for players,arenas,basketball marketing,etc.They are European champions in basketball.And it's not true that only CSKA is rich team,what about Dynamo,Ural,Triumf,etc.?Russians have money and will have even more in the future.

10 years ago it was unbelievable for some player to go from NBA to Europe.Now we have solid players going to Europe.Good players who are going to play in Europe will be next thing,mark my words!
 
Peja said:
Russia had a recent success with their Soccer team,but that doesn't mean they love soccer more than basketball.Lately,they put a lot of many for players,arenas,basketball marketing,etc.They are European champions in basketball.And it's not true that only CSKA is rich team,what about Dynamo,Ural,Triumf,etc.?Russians have money and will have even more in the future.

10 years ago it was unbelievable for some player to go from NBA to Europe.Now we have solid players going to Europe.Good players who are going to play in Europe will be next thing,mark my words!
Click to expand...

I am not Russian and I do not live there but I have been to Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and I have some Russian friends, and I can even speak Russian language better than English (shame on me). I can not say that they dislike basketball; no, but it is just not their thing. Hockey is way bigger in Russia, they follow NHL and European leagues. Soccer is obviously #1 there. One more thing - they have a very popular sport newspaper Sport Express and I read it sometimes to find out what is going on there. They talk about soccer a lot, hockey, tennis ... and a little bit about basketball. May be some news and results, and that is it. It says pretty much about their interest. But it would be nice to ask a Russian guy on our forum :) I am sure we have some.

And I do not think that CSKA is the only rich team in Russia. They are the richest team with NBA money and they are capable of signing very good NBA players. I am sure there are some other rich teams; at least, richer than most teams in Italy, Spain, Greece etc. Plus, Russia has a very good tax system. But I do not think that they will be able to sign stars in NBA. Krstic, Nachbar, Delfino etc. - YES, but only CSKA can bring a big NBA name. That was my point. I am not stupid to think that Russia is a old dark kingdom with bears and drunk people. It is like to say that all Americans are fat and can not read and we (Canadians) are all crazy lumberjacks and we eat beavers on breakfast. Though, I know people who believe in it. And I am sure they have enough money in Russia to sign many NBA guys but I do not think that they will spend them on basketball.

We are not talking here about European basketball and its future; we want the best players to stay in NBA and thinking how many of them will actually go to Europe :) And, IMHO, I do not think that a lot of them will do it. However, I have no problem at all if some players wanna go to Europe and play there. Europe is beautiful and it is gonna be a great experience for them.

Ok ... now is 4 AM and I am still partying with my friends. So, I'd better go to join them :)
 
Last edited:
beb0p said:
And if the Kings loses an MLE guy to Europe, I won't lose an sleep over it. In fact, with the way Petrie spends the MLE, I may actually want a Euro team to snatch one from him.
Click to expand...

So last season, I think most people were in favor of the Bibby trade, considering how well Beno was playing for us. We felt that he could handle the starting duties for a year or two, and if he winds up not being the point guard of the future, we'll be able to find him within those two years. We knew that he was going to be a free agent at the end of the year, too.

So if, instead of re-signing with the Kings, Beno went back to Lithuania or signed with any European team because the Kings were unwilling or unable to offer enough to keep him here, what would you have thought about that? I wouldn't have been okay with it, that's for sure.

I agree that Geoff has been far too liberal with the MLE for the past few years (Mikki, SAR, etc.), but this isn't about Geoff or the Kings. I think it has the potential to be bad all around for the NBA. Short term and long term.
 
Superman said:
So if, instead of re-signing with the Kings, Beno went back to Lithuania or signed with any European team because the Kings were unwilling or unable to offer enough to keep him here, what would you have thought about that? I wouldn't have been okay with it, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

That'd have made my day, I didn't want to keep Beno and I made a couple of posts on it. I was surprised to see that many fans share my point of view.

I was beaming a little after the BJax tade. Imagine if Beno isn't there, then BJax is the PG and we get to keep both Brown and Singletary and let them battle it out. Talk about saving the cap and building for the future. But I guess that's a topic for another day.

At any rate, I cannot think of one single MLE signings that a team cannot live without.
 
beb0p said:
That'd have made my day, I didn't want to keep Beno and I made a couple of posts on it. I was surprised to see that many fans share my point of view.

I was beaming a little after the BJax tade. Imagine if Beno isn't there, then BJax is the PG and we get to keep both Brown and Singletary and let them battle it out. Talk about saving the cap and building for the future. But I guess that's a topic for another day.

At any rate, I cannot think of one single MLE signings that a team cannot live without.
Click to expand...

Keon Clark was big for us in 2003 off the bench. Of course he couldn't replace Webber in the playoffs, but he filled in admirably throughout the year.

And I have to disagree with you on Beno, Brown and Singletary. Brown and Singletary are fringe roster players at best, and if not for them being young, wouldn't be in most fans minds as the hope for the future.

Udrih, on the other hand, is a proven commodity, who, as a starter last season averaged 14 and 5, shooting 47% overall, 40% from three, and showed his ability to play point guard in the NBA. At 26, he's hardly old, and if we get good within two or three years, he'd be in his prime. I can't imagine any other reason for not keeping Beno other than not wanting to spend money. But you don't let good players walk just because you're rebuilding, not when they're young and have the potential to be good for a long time, and especially not when you don't have anyone proven behind them.

Bobby Jackson notwithstanding (who isn't a very good facilitator, by the way), no one on this team is more qualified or more deserving of being the starter than Beno, and I would have been livid if we hadn't kept him.
 
Superman said:
Keon Clark was big for us in 2003 off the bench. Of course he couldn't replace Webber in the playoffs, but he filled in admirably throughout the year.
....

Bobby Jackson notwithstanding (who isn't a very good facilitator, by the way), no one on this team is more qualified or more deserving of being the starter than Beno, and I would have been livid if we hadn't kept him.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt Beno is the best PG on the team. But the Kings need him like a fish needs a bicycle. There's no point in keeping him when we're not even close to being in the playoff. This is the time to play the young guys not sign vet to MLE. Imo.
 
beb0p said:
Without a doubt Beno is the best PG on the team. But the Kings need him like a fish needs a bicycle. There's no point in keeping him when we're not even close to being in the playoff. This is the time to play the young guys not sign vet to MLE. Imo.
Click to expand...


Beno is only 25 himself you know. He's no more an old guy than Kevin is. That's about the cutoff point -- 25/26, but guys at that age are still likely to be in their late 20's primes when we next have a team put together that can go somewhere.
 
beb0p said:
Without a doubt Beno is the best PG on the team. But the Kings need him like a fish needs a bicycle. There's no point in keeping him when we're not even close to being in the playoff. This is the time to play the young guys not sign vet to MLE. Imo.
Click to expand...

So we don't need a quality point guard? That and a good head coach are the two biggest aspects to developing the young guys.

And Beno isn't a "been around the mill veteran", either. Yeah he's been in the League for four years, but he sat behind one of the best guard combos in the game in San Antonio for three seasons and played 10-14 minutes a game, and really didn't get the chance to play extensively until last season. And he played damn well, if you ask me. The guy is only turned 26 barely a month ago. So if we develop into a good team in the next two or three years ( :: crosses fingers :: ), Beno's in his prime. It's not like we have a young stud at point guard that we're ready to hand the keys to. Singletary and Brown are not Beasly and Conley.

Your line of reasoning is tantamount to saying that we shouldn't have resigned Kevin Martin because we're not close to making the playoffs. You lock up your young guys if they have a future with the team. You don't let them walk just because you're rebuilding. They're a part of the rebuild.
 
Last edited:
beb0p said:
Without a doubt Beno is the best PG on the team. But the Kings need him like a fish needs a bicycle. There's no point in keeping him when we're not even close to being in the playoff. This is the time to play the young guys not sign vet to MLE. Imo.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree, playing blindly against other team without a good point guard (the quarterback of the NBA) would only teach our young player chaos.

Its true fish can't ride bike but if we get Lance Armstrong that bicycle could proof to be very useful. ;)
 
I think Beno's going to be rock solid with us, because he can do a multitude of things well and has great mental toughness/savvy, but there's going to come a time, when somewhere along in that five-year contract of his, where fans will probably grow tired of him due to a multitude of reasons: 1) he may be repressing the minutes of the backup PG who deserves more playing time (hopefully that becomes Bobby Brown), 2) fan expectations. Being a team that's quite far from contending at this stage, we appreciate potential more than productivity, and as time goes on we may look at other teams' good PGs and look down on Beno as a result, who three years down the line should be the same guy as what he is now, and 3) he just doesn't excel at any one thing. Solid defender, solid athletically, good at initiating offensive sets but court vision is only slightly above average and not at the elite level, solid jumpshooter, etc. Personally I really love him as a backup, but as a starter, he's somewhat fringe. As noted his ability to do different things at a solid rate makes him worth it now, but will his inability to excel greatly in any one area hurt him in the long run? I must say that, in Udrih's support, his game is not too reliant on athleticism and footspeed moreso than it is on court savvy and fundamentals, so his productivity should not waver too much a la Steve Nash. Remains to be seen.

Considering he'll be with us until age 31 (if he lasts all five years), I predict that he'll be traded nearing the end of his contract--we can get optimal value out of that if we play our cards right. I really am high on Bobby Brown, because he has three qualities I value: shooting ability, athleticism, and potential, as well as a solid foundation of playmaking skills that Ronnie Price always lacked with us. He's got a nice platoon to take off from and my hope is that he can develop within the timeframe of three years to supplant Udrih out of the PG position.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top