In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

WHAT? The players gave up 7% =$3billion.

next

 

To them, the big picture is we are giving back tons of money over the course of 10 years, in order to be secure for this one year. And system changes, when our BRI decrease is enough to cover the owners losses. Seems pretty big picture to me.

If you feel like what was just offered was crap, do you accept if because you are scared to not get crap later?

In other words, a more restrictive system. Why would a player want to get less and be under a more restrictive system?

Miami isn't a big market and many teams had payrolls higher than theirs.

They assigned player reps to represent them in CBA negotiations....which involve their livlihood.

 

Haha, more like the owners were coming and the players RAN off the cliff.

 

So you agree...the owners had no intention to negotiate. You know, the owners can't say that, right? They will lose in court, then.

 

man D, when you stick to something, even if its wrong you are 100% behind it

isn't it painful?

 

you negotiate to get the best deal possible... that was the best deal possible. now theres going to be a long drawn out legal process and no season. what is to be gained by this ? nothing

 

But, you are just ignoring the legal case. "You negotiate to get the best deal possible" but if the owners lock you out and don't negotiate in good faith...you go to court.

The argument now is, are the owners negotiating. If they aren't, then the players want their day in court, after negotiating in good faith by giving up 7% of BRI. And the owners aren't even giving us fans a new system of parity. They don't really care about competitive balance, because they are too fractured to agree on anything other than less money for the players...which is fine,,,,IF THEY AGREE TO PARITY!

why is contraction a B-list item?

 

there is no one to negotiate with now right ?

the owners were trying to give a system of parity by placing a hard cap, but the players wouldnt go for it under any circumstance.

 

Except 80% of the best players AREN'T on 20% of the teams.
My personal list of the top 20 players in the league... has 15 teams. Maybe it can be disputed but there's way you'll get that number down to 8. You won't.

There really isn't a problem of people running away to all the big markets - as Icehouse observed, people are acting like Miami's a big market, big spending team, when they're neither. Melo's the lone exception, and he was on a team going nowhere.

 

Basically. Stenr and the NBA are clearly great with the media because everyone feels like the players are oh so wrong.

 

If you want parity, the way to do it is to eliminate max contracts. If Lebron can make twice as much as Amare Stoudemire, then your team has a tougher choice to make: one Lebron, or two Amares. Right now, it's too easy - you can get Lebron for the same price as Amare.

This means that the teams that get the best superstars will have worse roleplayers. The teams that don't can get a couple of second tier stars or three or four third tier stars.

 

this is so laughable. the owners would not discuss system changes until the BRI split was set. system changes was never their first priority. parity was never their first priority.

 

The NBAPA is dumb for not accepting. As time goes on, their stance weakens.

 

No, parity is about contraction. The league is diluted. The owners even have a B-list item about getting rid of two teams. They know contraction is the path to both profitability and parity in one stroke, because contraction allows for more profitability per team which allows for less BRI concessions for players which means they will agree to more confining system rules, which means more parity...but no one (neither side) wants to talk about it, so it is a B-listll item.

Dilution is the problem...very simple. Why is contraction a B-list item?

 

just because it wasnt the first priority, doesnt mean it wasnt a priority.

 

The reduction in BRI by the players already more than covered even the losses reported by the NBA, which everyone knows were inflated.

And there are many things that can't even be reported with forensic accounting -- read Gladwell's piece on how the Net's were used to secure massive real estate profits. There are other things completely off the books related to arena profits and compensation that if accounted for, would erase most of the losses for the league. The fact that the union didn't make this a huge issue and instead gave up ~13 percent of their salary is astounding.

People taking the owner's side in this is insane.

I, for one, will never, ever vote to fund sports arenas with public money, ever again, even if it means Houston not having professional teams. There is NO REASON we should be subsidizing this lockout.

People act like this is all free market capitalism and these owners are John Galt. No, they aren't. They're greedy, lying scumbags that are running away with other people's money, and can't be content with that.

 

If parity isn't your first priority, then greed is.

 

if 22 of the teams are losing money can you blame them ? try to look at it from their POV

how would you proceed if you were an owner, assuming all the risk while players have 100% guaranteed contracts ?

 

Sure - that's an ideal solution. But contraction is complicated because (a) someone has to buy up those franchises and (b) that cuts a about 7% of the workforce, or if rosters get expanded, dilutes salaries since BRI will go down.

My argument is independent of the depth of the league and automatically adjusts for it. If there's a period with a lot of superstars, pay rates for star players will go down relatively. If there's only one superstar way above everyone else, his pay rate will be that much higher. Let's say Lebron is far superior to anyone else - to sign him, you'd probably end up with a team of total scrubs around him. It's a completely self-regulating system, as long as its done with a pretty strict cap.

 

[/IMG]