Players can't wait out a strike. They can't even feed their kids on millions/yr. Latrel Sprewell said so. Some teams are losing less money during a lockout than playing the season. They don't have pay player's salaries, hotel, and flight costs. Phoenix Suns lose a couple mil vs $15 mil if they play the season. Contracts start expiring and players careers get 1 year closer to retirement. Fisher is on the last year of his contract. Does anybody see him getting an extension? If the owners wait out a whole season, he doesn't get paid at all. It's highly unlikely that he gets an extension, next season. He will be 38 yrs old by 2012 season. That's just another benefit of waiting it out. Old players at the end of their contracts don't have to be paid. They drop off the books, next season. It's 1 year amnesty for owners with bad contacts or retiring veterans.
Billy Hunter said in a interview with the Bill Simmons that the players where willing to a Bri band from 53 - 50% of Bri based on what revenue is by the end of the year. Also he has offered to let the owners choose the opt out year they wanted in a new deal. The Hawk small market owners are what is holding this up. A band is the fair but the owners don't want what is fair they want push this to after Christmas once the players have spent Millions on Thanksgiving and Christmas. When January comes around and the Credit card bill start rolling in that's when owners will want to really sit down and deal.
I don't understand what this whole "fairness" thing is about. What makes one proposal fair and the other not fair?
Have you ever negotiated a salary/been offered a contract to sign by your employer? You don't just sign blindly do you at whatever your employer offers, do you? Funny you also forgot to highlight that the gap between a Jordan to a Lebron is over 12 years, which I mentioned. Finals ratings during the Jordan era routinely surpassed 30 million viewers. Last year, it finally peaked at 24 million viewers in game 6. I'm sure the NBA is willing to wait that long and be satisfied with 7-8 million people watching their Finals every year. If it is in terms of pay scale, he's absolutely correct. But I interpreted, maybe wrongly (if so then my point is irrelevant), that he means the NBA can always replace the top stars with the next tier stars and move on like it's nothing in terms of popularity (the superstars are replaceable), which is untrue. If you take away the 5 most popular NBA players in the league, the ratings would absolutely plummet when the NBA season starts again. Absolutely plummet.
Anyone who thinks NBA superstars are easily replaceable has no clue. They are what drive the popularity of the NBA. Without them, the league would be flat as a pancake. Unlike the NFL (which is team driven), the NBA is all about personalities. The top 20 players are like gold. The top 5 players are precious (revenue) jewels. What's easily replaceable are players 20-80. They are like pea gravel compared to the top 20. They don't drive television contracts or ticket sales. If anyone feels differently, I'm 99% sure you are too young to remember Magic, Bird and MJ. Before Magic and Bird, the NBA was almost a niche sport (not quite). Magic and Bird exploded the league's popularity. I don't even need to comment on MJ. He did to the NBA what Tigers Woods did for golf.
OK this just pisses me off: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7...wo-more-weeks-regular-season-according-report ""Most of our players when they end playing basketball they are going to be living for another 40 years or so. And so I don't know how long that money is going to last," he added. "Even if they made every prudent investment that they could possibly make, I don't know at what level they are going to be able to live. " -------------------------------------------- Are you ****ing serious? ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS? GET A MOTHER ****ING JOB after you are done playing basketball........there is nothing that says an NBA player gets to live without a job after playing the game, WTF is that? It is this kind of thinking that just gets under my skin, I understand them wanting to make as much as possible, but to act like when their career is over, they just deserve to sit around and do nothing, is ridiculous.... The only thing a lot of these guys have is that they won the DNA lottery, nothing else makes them special or unique, once their career is over, they should be out there finding something else to do......just like every other Joe in the world. DD
ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix Been asking around, not hearing any further cancellations from the NBA imminent. Foregone conclusion it will happen in next day or two tho
The situations are not comparable as the interest level in both sports is completely different. Hockey doesn't need much recovery time to get back to pre-lockout level. It took the NBA years to get over the 99 lockout. Logic dictates that the owners aren't negotiating in good faith because they, like you, assume the players will eventually fold. Logic dictates that the owners may negotiate in good faith when they see the players are really willing to go without checks. Using your logic, no union would ever win a fight against management.
No, then the players just decertify and it goes to the courts. Just read through this thread as an example. Everything is predicated around "the players can't afford to miss checks". You call them stupid for being willing to miss checks, even for a season or two (highly unlikely) so future players will have a better deal? It's called sacrifice. You are stuck in the present. According to what they are saying, which may all be hogwash, they aren't stuck in the present and are thinking of the long term implications of this deal for them and future generations of players. I doubt they can hold the fort but it's not dumb for them to try. Not if they are serious about what they say. You are basically saying that when KG says he is willing to lose his $20M and possibly last shot at a title contending team to ensure future players aren't stuck with a crap deal (the owners have conceded nothing)...that he is dumb? Was Curt Flood dumb? Edit: My bad, you never called them dumb. But you do seem to be stuck in the present and not thinking about the future.
A "fair deal" is subjective, "our best offer" is not. If the owners are dead set on 50/50 and are willing to lose a season over it, the union has to compare their demands to the cost of $2 billion in lost salaries. They're not getting that $2 billion anywhere else. Spreewell thought $21 million wasn't a fair deal. Unfortunately for him, it was the best deal and now he's broke.
What I find particularly interesting is that due to KG's contract provisions, he will indeed be getting paid this year even through the lockout. It is kind of hilarious that the man who is adamant against caving and rallying the players with his intense "hold the line" attitude, is in reality is going to make 21.2 Million for sitting on his ***. Not much of a sacrifice. Meanwhile, most player make around 4-5 million in a season. Not 21 mill. So please don't bring up KG again. He isn't sacrificing anything. Players don't make his money and they will lose their checks this year which will ruin a lot of them. The players are in fact stuck in the present, not the owners. When you consider how much larger the owner's window of opportunity is for financial success, a year away from basketball is a very minor hitch for them. If they can wait out a year and then get everything they want, why wouldn't they do it? After that year, profits for them would increase dramatically for the rest of their lives. That year is HUGE for players, who have a very small window. They don't have the money to outlast owners, and they certainly don't have as large of a timeframe to make their money. What incentive do the owners have to compromise? They have all the leverage in the world. At the end of the day, they have the means to get whatever they want. The longer the players hold out, the more they ultimately hurt only themselves. I just don't understand how players think holding out against owners is going to get them any sort of leverage? You may think owners are greedy, but they are businessmen and will do what is best for themselves financially. No one can deny the fact that the NBA has the potential run more smoothly for owners. As the NBA is a business to the owners, they will do whatever it takes to fix the problems and gain more profit. At the end of the day, players will still be generously paid millions of dollars to play basketball no matter the outcome. I really don't think going to the courts is going to help the players.... They can't legitimately ask for what they had, while their bosses are losing money. They just need to take their millions and shut up. It is very dumb for players to hold the fort. Again, all they are doing is losing more because of it. Owners are not going to fold. They will wait it out and reap the benefits later. They are thinking in the long term.
The players are already missing checks. Now what? Why would they negotiate in good faith after starving the players for money. They are going to decided to compromise after dominating their opposition? What is logical about that? Really??
What provisions are those? Do the rest of the players have these same provisions? He isn't the only one talking about being willing to miss the season. Again, your entire argument is based upon the players folding. The owners have leverage....we get that. That doesn't mean the players should just bend over because they have less leverage, assuming they are serious about wanting to ensure the next deal is not a bad one for them or future players. Actually, if they are willing to lose the season then they are obviously thinking about more than the present. Players aren't holding out. They are locked out. And owners want basketball to continue as well. They, like you, just assume the players can't afford to sit. I think everyone is looking out for their best interests. The players clearly don't feel like the owners hard-line, gamechanging offer is in their best interests. If it goes to court the bosses really have to prove that they are losing money. We shall see if the players are as well. If they indeed do miss the season then they clearly are.
Just to see the other side, some good takes on what the owners stand to lose. Yes I know, some think they are willing to lose this if the future gains outweigh it:
I'm stuck in the present? If you say so. Tell me what you think the courts will solve. Very curious to know.
+1. Fans wont just start to gravitate towards Joe Johnson if Wade or Kobe retire. The NBA might plummet towards NHL status if they lose the top 5 players. I am listening to the radio right now on my lunch break and I hear that there WILL be a season and both sides are working hard "behind the scene" to get this done. So let's hope we do not lose Christmas.
I'm with the players on this, but i think they should give in now before they lose anymore checks. Reason is, the majority of the players have not planned for the future and are just living day to day. Parties, cars, yachts, family, women. Thats it. OTOH, some of the owners were already involved in other ventures before even getting into the NBA. This whole thing has really always been one-sided. That side has been with the owners all along. If there is no season or no more NBA() the owners will be fine. Can't say the same for the majority of the players.
A Band is "fair" because if the NBA does not meet revenue expectations they on have to pay out 50% of the BRI to the players. If revenue exceeds expectations players get 53% Both sides get protected with a Band that is why my self and others view it as fair.
There is a difference between missing some paychecks and missing an entire season's worth of salary. Because starving players for money might not work. Clearly the odds are in their favor that the players will break, but if they don't then things change. What have they exactly dominated?
