LeBron taking his talents to South Beach has caused a frustrating lockout

They do have a right to form a union, but what constitutes a fair deal is not up to them, it is up to a comprimise between them and the owners, the owners have a right to make money or run a tight ship for the good of the game, they are taking all the risk, the players have no risk at all, they are getting paid.

They WORK for the owners......not the other way around......and if they don't like the offer, they can go flip burgers.

Someone else will take their spot.

DD

 

Yaya replacement players. That sounds like fun to watch. Good job NBA and NBPA, way to act professionally and realize whats at stake.

 

I did not say it would be fun, just that the players have a choice.

DD

 

They both have a choice. Put your personal vendettas aside and cut a fair deal. Stop playing used car salesman and bill collector games and realize whats at stake. Which would be a few billions dollars. No biggie.

 

A fair deal is one in which the LEAGUE thrives....

What is on the table is a fair deal...

DD

 

I think we should eventually start a thread about this. What is it about the current offer that makes the LEAGUE thrive. The hardline owners do not agree with you and are actually hoping for it to be rejected.

"LEAGUE thrives" is probably more hopeful than reality -- imo, the system changes are marginal improvement, at best. An NFL CBA would make the league thrive more, no? Hard cap, franchise tag, no guarantees, etc.

What specific system changes do you think make this CBA deal thrive? versus the NFL and what the hardline NBA owners want.

 

As I read the numbers the deal on the table now allows the small market teams to basically break even and stop the bleeding, they want to make a profit so want a better deal.

I would love to have guaranteed contracts go away, and a franchise tag implemented and true revenue sharing, but those are probably unrealistic, so what is on the table now is a pretty good deal for both the owners and the players.

DD

 

band aid compromise regarding its effects on parity

 

That is where I think they are now, yes.

IMO, it would be better for the league overall to institute revenue sharing, a hard cap, kill guaranteed contracts, and have a franchise tag.

To me that would level the playing field and allow the better managed teams to really have their advantage.

Hard work would be better rewarded over luck.

But the deal on the table allows the players to keep some of what they have won in negotiations past, but still keeps the league and all of it's branches (teams) viable.

Because that is what stops this crap from happening again in 6 years....if everyone is making some money.

The only reason we are here now is because one side started losing money....

DD

 

Blah Blah Blah I do not believe that 22 owners are hemorrhaging money. I do believe LBJ took his talents to Miami and didn't stay in Cleavesburg and focused less attractive destination markets to scream SMALL MARKET/BIG LOSS. It's a negotiating tactic, unverified in fact (accepted by many as truth).

Is it a fair deal? When both sides ink a contract (that I hope is for 25
years) the deal is deemed 'fair'. I couldn't give a rat's rump over who is more righter or more wronger, players or owners, I just want NBA basketball.

There are loads of changes I'd love, starting with injured player exception. The signed guy should NOT count against cap until the injured player is deemed returnable to court.

Franchise tagging sounds good, let's check in with the NFLPA. Doesn't work real well there, but some mechanism should be installed, needs to be implemented.

Guaranteed contracts, yes. But shorter term, three-years max?

Smaller rosters, MORE teams. Let's expand by two. More. More. More. And let's tip off the season.

 

Unlike the NFL the NBA opened up it's books it showed their losses.

Now, you may not believe them - which is fine.

But they sure are dug in like a group that is losing money.....seems to add credibility to their position since they are so willing to fight for it.

DD

 

Every time I see the word "Fair" as it relates to the players and the owners I just shake my head. When did "Fair" ever have anything to do with the lockout?

Its about what you can get and what you are willing to sacrifice to get it.

Both sides say they are willing to sacrifice the season to get what they want, so on the surface, things would seem equal. But of course, they are not.

I am betting strongly that the player blink first. And in the end, the owners are going to get the lions share of what they want while the players get just enough to have a face left to save.

 

yeah it's interesting reading that DD is against free agency.


edit: especially given that

so you want a system in which no one is free to move but one that also favors lots of movement. that certainly seems feasible and logical.

 

What? I am NOT against free agency at all....

I am for making a system to where the player has the right to move, but it will cost him a lot to do it.

DD

 

hmm, because that's pretty much what you just said in the 1st quote. kind of mutually exclusive positions.

well that certainly is free.

 

I tried to rep u for this, but couldn't

 

I want a system like the NFL, where you have a franchise tag.....where teams can franchise a player for a year and if they don't get a long term deal done, they are a free agent.

Make the players be married to the teams for 5 years....then they are free to do whatever.

And before folks say...that is not free.....that is exactly what a draft is....we are not talking about baseball, this is a completely different system, more akin to the NFL than MLB.

DD

 

Moving this as I already got dinged in rep for not following the rules of the "ALL UPDATES thread"...I am sure everyone else that was not following the rules got dinged too.....lol.....

They need more to cover their costs.

No, I want a system that allows teams to pay their own guys WAY more than they can make by switching teams...more in $$$, more in guaranteed years (If they still have guaranteed contracts).

I am fine with them doing that, but there were no systems in place to encourage them to stay.....at least not proportionate ones, especially when you consider some states have no income taxes.

No, that is not safe, I would like a system like the NFL, where teams can cut players that are not performing, and there are no guaranteed contracts, if they are cut, sure, they are complete free agents.



DD

 

Their books were open, partially. And NoWay! do I believe what they showed.

So, if a hoopster keeps whining at a ref next season I should believe in his credibility?

The problem is not money, it's system. And the deal, as 'revealed', does little to address systemic issues because more guys want to play with Lakes than Griz, Knicks than Bucks and so on.

If King (sic) [sick!] James could have delivered in Cleveland instead of choking as he has too oft done at (as Earvin Johnson famously said, 'winning time') there would be no strike. BronBron was the tsunami and the Gilberts of the (NBA) world don't know how to deal with it.

 

Lebron has nothing to do with this lockout. The difference between 57% of RBI and 50% of RBI is likely more than $3.3 billion over the next 10 years.

The teams would have gone through with the lockout to get that money with or without Lebron doing anything.

Besides, under the new system, it's likely that Miami would have been able to clear a bunch of cap room and lure a Lebron there, too. Nothing changes.