In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

People don't seem to get this. This has never been a negotiation. It has always been how much the owners can destroy the players to get what they want.

You're still on that competitive balance crap I see. But just to remind you, OKC have 2 superstars that will be there long-term unless a feud happens. 2 stars just extended their contracts with Memphis. SA has been a dynasty in this era of basketball. Jazz always had a superstar for the past 20 years before Dwill got traded. The Kings were wildly dominant until their run came out, and they drafted a potentially good player. The Bucks would be better if they weren't injured all the time. That's competitive balance in terms of playoff contention.

Winning a championship in the NBA is HARD. You need SUPERSTAR players, and there are only really 8-10 of them playing right now that are really that (not media-made superstars). Get this through your head: there will never be competitive balance in terms of every team having an equal chance of winning a ring. It's just impossible no matter what you do, even if you spread out the superstars.

The reason Orlando will be losing Dwight is b/c they have been terrible in surrounding Dwight with pieces necessary to win, not because Dwight doesn't want to stay in Orlando, FYI.

 

ESPN "experts" (try to) answer 5 "biggest" lockout questions

daldridgetnt David Aldridge

 

I'd take anything the media says this weekend with a grain of salt.

 

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....know-they-still-don’t-buy-owners-math/related

When you tally the aggregate projected operating incomes of all 30 NBA teams, this yields a surplus of $182.6 million. Granted, Forbes may not be privy to all the financial data that ultimately determine a team’s financial position…and their estimates have come under scrutiny before for this reason.

But $482.6 million off? That seems a stretch. Even if Forbes’ operating income estimates are inflated by 25% (which I seriously doubt), you’re still looking at $137 million in aggregate profits.

 

I thought the players' initial reaction might be negative, but as Monday/Tuesday approach, they also have to cool down and consider the full ramifications of saying no. If the vibe stays totally negative during the weekend, oh well.

 

My gut feeling? Hands will be shook on Nov. 15th.

 

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard

 

Or, players file for decertification and the whole season is wiped out! Totally dude!

 

Not sure I understand the rationale behind allowing them to do it the first two years but not after that point.

 

If they decertify, I hope the owners overhaul the entire system and put in a hard cap, a franchise tag, and much more strict rules.

The players would only have themselves to blame for not taking their best realistic deal.

DD

 

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard

 

because the Lakers want Howard.

 

Funny you mention that. I was going to crack a joke in my previous post about it.

Timing seems a little, well, convenient. Doesn't it?

 

The transition/delay makes it seem less harsh and easier for the players to swallow. It caters purely to the self-interest of some players who are thinking about themselves the next year or two.

 

Exactly...a kind of "Well we don't like it but by the time it is implemented we will be out of the league mentality"...

The biggest concession by the owners though is the forced spending of the revenue.

That means the Donald Sterlings of the league will have to go out and spend money on players......it is a big win for the players IMO.

It also probably means a lot of veteran players get a bigger than they should 1 year contract just for teams like Sacremento and the Clippers to meet the demand.

DD

 

Don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect the union is more likely to ratify than some of the tweets above, quoting player who are mad about the situation, may suggest.

My guess is those who most likely to talk to reporters soon after the meeting last night are the most angry and frustrated amongst the players, who probably would have voted "no" on anything other than 53% BRI and status quo on all the "systems issues." Guys who would vote "yes" are not doing so because they are passionately happy about the offer, and probably are not out there calling Adrian Wojnarowski about how excited they are (an additonal thing is that the "compromisers" don't want to look soft to their peers).

In the end, you don't need 100% of the player to vote in favor of ratification, just 50% who would reluctantly vote "yes."

 

uhhhh...I think it is as much about what the owners can agree upon. I'm sure none of the taxpaying teams want the SnT to go away, and so far, the Haves are not getting their way in the owner to owner negotiations, so this might be a concession between warring owner factions.

 

This is it

http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infom...min&feed:c=sports&feed:i=1.3312517&nopaging=1

 

Yeah imagine those greedy owners actually wanting to make a profit and not just break even.

The reason I'm on the owner side is because it should not be mandatory that an owner lose money in order to field a championship contending team. Plus there is plenty of money for the average NBA player to make millions and every owner to make a nice profit (not lose money or just break even). What other business almost garuntees the rank and file employee gets rich while the owner loses millions every year?

 

Teams (Lakers and others) may have already made certain roster decisions to prepare the way for a sign-and-trade, and an immediate ban for the luxury teams could make the sacrifices they made wasted.

Personally, I think the league is right on the systems issues. They need to do something to protect small franchises. I just wish they'd give up some more BRI% to buy those changes from the players.

And, I still think the losses the league suffered last year were manufactured. They've been generally profitable until just recently. I think they consolidated a lot of expenses so that they could show a loss, and I expect to see a sudden resurgence of profitability right after the CBA is signed, over and above the reduction in their payroll expenses.