In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

Suck! Why did I roll over and decide to punish myself with what I knew my twitter was going to tell me first thing this morning? "No Deal"

 

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein

 

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
It wasn't until player rep meeting on Tuesday that those players truly understood what a top-to-bottom brutal deal this will be for them.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Nevertheless, agents also know some players will talk tough to them, but end up voting "yes" in privacy of voting booth.

 

since the decision to meet before the ultimatum, i've been feeling they would meet all day wednesday, then meet thursday, and then at some early-ish time during the friday meeting someone on either side would make some take it or leave it type comment and walk out and then the union would decertify.

 

As long as egos are not bruised and nobody walks away from the table today in a temper tantrum, I assume they will continue on today in small groups and setup a large meeting on Friday to more or less present what the small groups have proposed in order to get the OK from both sides to vote. Unless they call in the cavalry today which I doubt because it seems like they have 2 or 3 major issues to cover in talks today.

 

I think Daryl Morey should have Hunter's job

 

daldridgetnt David Aldridge
All relevant parties have arrived 4 today's meeting, so if there weren't delays while sides caucused w/themselves, they should be under way.
39 minutes ago

Looking like meeting has started. How u

 

Per Henry Abbott:

David Stern stopped across the hall to talk to union Economist Kevin Murphy after the news conference. Stern encouraged Murphy to show up at noon on Thursdays meetings saying, "It will be a good day to be here."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33189/count-on-5050-despite-talk

 

alanhahn Alan Hahn
If Stern can't get a majority of owners to accept system concessions in an otherwise landslide victory, they are pigs at the trough. #NBA

alanhahn Alan Hahn
And Adam Silver ominously maintained that call for "competitive balance," which tells you today will not be about conceding anything.

alanhahn Alan Hahn
FWIW: Barely an hour in and not hearing positive feedback. #NBA

ZachLowe_SI Zach Lowe
Agree with @alanhahn: Things feel/sound stalled. Silver's "competitive balance" talk was discouraging, predictable.

alanhahn Alan Hahn
The "competitive balance" refrain by Silver was clear message that small market teams will rule day. I'm told Holt (Spurs) is unrelenting.

alanhahn Alan Hahn
This is no longer about taking from the players. This is now owners vs owners. Haves vs Have-Nots. The players need not be in the room.

 

ZachLowe_SI Zach Lowe

alanhahn Alan Hahn

 

**** the owners. thank you for ruining my favorite sport.

 

I hate to say it, but all rhetoric aside, Adam Silver is RIGHT.

The cynic in me says that he is just saying this in order to further the owners' ulterior motive of getting over on the economic side of things.

That aside, the issue of how the MLE and sign-and-trades are permitted or restricted for taxpaying teams DOES affect competitive balance. I agree that there should be SOME restrictions on these items. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent a win-at-all-costs owner from burning his money and compiling an unfair competitive advantage over owners that simply cannot afford to be that economically foolish.

I truly believe that the owners and players need to come to a reasonable compromise on these issues and that the players need to realize that they HAVE to give on BOTH (a) a 50/50 BRI split and (b) some substantive level of restrictions on taxpaying teams' use of the MLE and sign-and-trades.

My suggestions (some of which have been mentioned before):

--On the use of the MLE by taxpaying teams:

[Proposal A] Taxpaying teams can offer, once every other year, a three-year deal starting at $3.5M.

[Proposal B] Taxpaying teams can offer either a three-year deal or a two-year deal, alternating each year, starting at $3M.

--On sign-and-trades involving taxpaying teams:

[Proposal A] Sign-and-trades are allowed for taxpaying teams, but for each dollar of luxury tax payable by that team at the end of the season attributable to the team salary increase resulting from such sign-and-trade deal, the taxpaying team will need to pay an extra dollar in luxury tax. This is essentially a "super-DUPER tax" that would double every marginal tax rate otherwise payable.

[Proposal B] Sign-and-trades are allowed for taxpaying teams, but the team must pay the "repeater tax" rates for each dollar of luxury tax payable by that team at the end of the season attributable to the team salary increase resulting from such sign-and-trade deal.

[Proposal C] Sign-and-trades are allowed for taxpaying teams, but if they are party to a sign-and-trade deal, they will automatically lose their MLE the next one or two seasons (depending on how often the MLE is otherwise available to those teams).


While some of these proposals would still leave open the threat of competitive imbalance, it would further mitigate those risks.

Just get a frickin' deal done already!

 

Owners are some dumbasses if they think there will ever be competitive balance. It was never the damn case. These fools simply don't want to have a season.

 

The owners realize that, if superstars want to join up and play together for a big market team, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

The owners just want to make sure that the financial incentives/disincentives for doing so will be as material as possible.

 

Exactly, the question is, how many of the owners are of that belief, and how many are ok with the deal as it stands.

Also, how many votes does it take for the owners to ratify it?

DD

 

16 votes for owners to pass it, I believe.

Stern has, by my count, anywhere from 17-19 votes for the owners' Saturday night proposal. With any substantive concessions today, there is risk that Stern won't have the votes he needs to pass it.

 

One has to wonder how many of the HAVE NOTS also don't have large cash reserves to hold out all year, making them more inclined to accept a deal that at least makes them profitable.

DD

 

Lebron and Co. couldn't have picked a worse time to completely piss off most of the NBA's owners.

I think a big part of this heavier hardliner approach from the owners came after some positive news came out about a possible deal and Lebron and Carmelo went to Twitter to talk about how they wanted Jamal Crawford, Steve Nash, and Chris Paul to play with them.

That could not have set well with Atlanta, Phoenix, and New Orleans.

 

who knows, they are all apparently terrible businessmen and aren't afraid to brag about how terrible they are at it.

 

Recent reports are out that Sarver and Gilbert, 2 of the most die hard hardliners have recently become moderate and would accept a 50/50 BRI split.