We vote first. After 135-day lockout, which side u with?

Magic's being a little naive here. It was Magic and Bird that saved the NBA, not David Stern. It was the Dream Team and pioneers like Dream and Petrovic that sold the game to the world, not David Stern. As far as Stern trying to get Magic and Zeke to work it out, well, those were two of his biggest stars and he was tending to the image and bottom line. I seriously doubt he would insert himself into a tiff between Jonas Jerebko and Devin Ebanks.

Besides, if he was always looking out for the league, why are so many teams losing money (allegedly)? Stern's done some good stuff, but let's not write a hagiography.

 

What Stern did do right was allowing the individual players to shine. The NBA is marketed completely different from other leagues in that the best players are often more popular than the team.

 

Really? for the owners? Their franchise values are increasing by $50m+ each easily already from what they got. Players don't get any of that.

 

I am on the FANS side, and that means a competitively balanced system....or thus, the owners side.

DD

 

You have been duped. Which is not shocking, the owners are generally more intelligent than you or any of the players.

The majority of owners do not care for competitive balance. They want to make enough money so that they don't have to compete...and reduce players' leverage in transactions that could drastically hurt their financial situation.

 

LOL - if you can not get a completely competitive situation, profit is better.

They have been losing money, they need to reset the system, even if it is not a completely fair one, it will be better for the Rockets who have excellent management, so ultimately good for me as a fan.

Not duped, just thinking a little deeper than most.

DD

 

The owners haven't given up anything in this lockout. If they would just give in on some system issues this would be over. The players have already accepted the BRI.

 

No they don't. What the players get are guarenteed contracts. Along with other concessions, they have had and will continue to have the sweetest deal for athletes of all major sports. And Derek Fisher's "this is for the players now and future players of the NBA" is total crap. Players are worried about their pockets now, and most are worried about how they can get the hel out of organizations like Sacramento, Indiana, Charlotte, and Orlando.

 

Of course, that's great...FOR THEM. It doesn't do anything for us fans. And, I didn't see anything in the CBA proposal that would significantly improve the Rockets.

 

It would favor teams that are better prepared in management, contracts etc.

And Morey is great at that, it would force the larger market teams to have to let some talent walk to avoid the very punitive luxury tax, thus freeing up players for other mid to small market teams like the Rockets.

I put faith in Morey being on equal footing with the big boys....that is how it favors the Rockets.

DD

 

Neither side deserves more.

 

I'm probably not right on this, but this could be positive:
a) no season will dry up what remaining interest there is in the NBA in a significant number of cities, and many teams will go belly up. So we will have fewer teams with better average players in markets that will provide them major fan support.
or
b) future contract situation will demand lower salaries, more evenly payrolled teams and more talent parity in the league. All cities will be provided more drama as to which team will prevail (more like NFL) and fan interest will increase.

 

Neither really. Because it seems neither wants to sacrifice for the Greater good, the enjoyment of basketball by the fans. No Michael Moore needed here, just perhaps a camera crew to start a reality show for these clowns

 

Mostly players. Like I've said, it's not pro-owners, it's being pro-owners for the small, crappy teams. As Houston is not a small crappy team, I don't really care about their plight.

 

The latest deal effectively take away guaranteed contracts (i.e. send a player to the minor leagues and pay them only 1M per).

 

Oh, I see. So you don't think there should be any safety mechanism in place whatsoever. Owners should continue to trust millions of guaranteed dollars in the hands of children. Franchises will continue to struggle under the weight of player contracts, as hindsight will get the better of half of the Gm's. Same as always. Meanwhile, players can coast through their careers with absolutely no consequences. Don't you think if a player has at least marginal value around the league, he would be spared from this rule anyway? This move would kill a player's value, which wouldn't be good for the organization as a whole. If the player was a contributor, I just don't see an owner dissembling his squad like that. In short, I see it as a safety mechanism. No, not all players are going to get their contracts voided. (only so much room in the d league to begin with...) I would imagine a few bad apples would go down for the good of the franchise, so please don't speak in absolutes.

Remember when the Knicks advised Eddy Curry to lose weight and he came to camp even fatter? Doesn't matter. He was paid close to 10 million dollars that following year anyway... Maybe if bosses could do more than suggest things to their employees, we wouldn't be in such a mess.