Yeah, I don't think they showed the Union's side. NBATV just said coming up shortly, same with ESPN. Now we wait...
KBergCBS Ken Berger WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski KBergCBS Ken Berger sheridanhoops Chris Sheridan ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix sheridanhoops Chris Sheridan ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix daldridgetnt David Aldridge SHowardCooper Scott Howard-Cooper WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski daldridgetnt David Aldridge daldridgetnt David Aldridge ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix KBergCBS Ken Berger KBergCBS Ken Berger
Stephen A. reporting that Fisher wanted to agree on the 50-50 split, but the players and Billy Hunter want the 52-48 split. There might be some divide soon
I wonder if anyone on the board more invested in the process has any insight on this point? Because, if the numbers above are true, there's got to be something else?? Cause, again if true, not only does it not make any sense for the players not to budge on the whole, it makes even less sense considering all of the $400 million mentioned above comes immediately. The only opposing view I could see would be saying that you don't want to set a precedent for the next negotiation... but I think the extent that one CBA impacts the next is overstated. If all of a sudden the NBA takes off like football has financially, and in 7 years the owners are raking in the cash, etc, of course the players are going to negotiate for a much higher split then, whether they take 52.5% this time or 50%. this analogy makes no sense, if the owners are really losing money. If the owners are really losing money, the actual analogy would be the teen ALREADY driving a Ferrari, the parents in debt, and comes to renegotiate what the teen drives and the parents offering a Mercedes and the teen asking for the AMG package.
What a bummer. We should be watching games by now! I hope they don't try to cram an 82 game season with a month cancelled already. A 50 game season will do fine. All of this seems trivial, how much of a difference is 1% make. Yes, I know technically its millions of dollars, but in the big picture it isn't that much. It certainly shouldn't be enough to cancel games.
You are assuming they had any sense to begin with. These are professional athletes we are talking about. There is no way they are thinking about the next negotiations. Most these players won't even be in the league in 7 years.
Got to wonder about that report. Fisher is the one barking about unity and not speaking out against the union. Even if he felt that way, why would he stupidly tell a reporter that?
well, don't think it's completely fair to ridicule them all. There's got to be more to the story, in that either the numbers quoted are wrong, or the % agreed upon ultimately has some other impacts I don't know about?
Do we know that Fisher was the source of that info? Could it have been one of the lawyers or other negotiators?
The numbers make sense. A season is about 6 months, and if it's a 7 year deal, the total value of the paychecks is 42 months. So losing 1 out of 42 months is about 2.4% of the total deal that you're losing. Going from 52% to 51% is a decrease of 1.9%. It's probably a matter of principle - this is why owners felt that as soon as players start losing paychecks, they would crack. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes far more sense for players to take a lower percentage than to lose any real portion of the season. They will never make that money back. It's similar in principle to NFL players/rookies holding out for a season to get a better deal. Generally speaking, unless their current deal is tiny, they are going to end up with less total money because they'll never make up the money they lost. But they do it anyway for whatever reasons - principle, pride, stupidity, etc. People aren't inherently purely rational economic beings.
That would certainly make more sense. But what I fear is that they are negotiating from the stand point of what they deem as "fair" compared to their prior deal. What they are not thinking about is the possibility of their prior deal not being "fair" to begin with. And the last thing on their minds is what actually makes economic sense to them in reality, with all this "fairness" clouding their judgement. These are professional athletes who barely graduated college dealing with billionaire businessmen. Fairness is out of the question, it is all about economics.
This may have been mentioned already, but this may really suck for the Rockets. Even if the two sides will come to an agreement next week, both parties not agreeing to a deal this week pretty much puts an end to the thought of playing 82 games. So if they do come to an agreement next week, they may just go with the current schedule and start in December, when the Rockets schedule is absolutely BRUTAL. The first two weeks of December, anyway. You may not like this, but it might be in the Rockets best interest that the regular season doesn't start until mid December, now that we most likely won't get a full season.
They aren't gonna "cancel" these games, more like postpone them. I think if they agree to a deal by next week, they will try to squeeze in all 82 games during that time span.
FisolaNYDN Frank Isola Still waiting for David Stern and Adam Silver to speak. Chances are they're listening to a recording of what Bill Hunter & Derek Fisher said
FisolaNYDN Frank Isola Only good thing about NBA talks breaking off is that very soon there will be a "crucial day" followed by more "crucial" days of negotiating
