In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

If Nash was so displeased then he wouldn't have signed that extension and stayed, but he took the money anyway, even though the entire team was traded away and Amare was on his way out as well

Nash needs not to open his mouth

 

I know I am breaking this threads rules, sorry for that, but I was wondering if the following could happen.

1. The players approve the deal.
2. The owners end the lockout.
3. The players go on strike.

DD

 

Extension was signed back in 2009. A lot of things can happen in 2 1/2 years.

 

I understand that but doesn't revenue sharing stop that from being a problem?

Because the way I'm looking at it is what you just posted -

Anyway, the meeting is underway right?

 

Apparently, the agreed-upon revenue-sharing plan (which allegedly triples shared revenues and eventually will quadruple it) is not enough for these owners.

Perhaps my "lighting a pile of money" example was overly simplistic, as the small-market owners still have some quasi-legitimate concerns over competitive balance. But some mild concessions on the MLE and luxury tax cliff won't hurt them too badly. If the players are willing to go 50/50 AND meet the owners somewhere in the middle on the system issues, then these hard-liners will be blowing up the season over essentially nothing but ego.


And, yes, the meeting began at 1:00 EST. T-minus 2 1/2 hours and counting . . .

 

Howard wasn't going to sign with those teams if they were the nicest owners in the world, anyway.... unless they were offering him more money, with an equal chance at a title... in which case, he's likely to continue to sign with them.

I understand the general idea that players will be less likely to sign with certain owners... BUT, players are already less likely to sign with the majority of those teams, since those are small market teams, generally. While the owner hard-line attitudes don't help, hopefully the system changes do, and the NYC's, LA's, Miami's of the world maybe are less likely to overspend quite so much, forcing certain stars to sign where-ever the biggest paycheck comes from.

exactly


carp...apologies, but no update from me. i come here to read the updates you guys post!

 

Last Ditch Effort

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/11/09/deadline-day-again/

If nothing happens by 4 pm today, we can pretty much kiss the season goodbye

 

I understand Dwight Howard himself wasnt considering Charlotte, but that doens't mean that Charlotte hasn't tried to extend their hand to future free agents like they did last season with Carmelo Anthony.

Melo's disinterest in Charlotte didn't have anything to do with playing under Michael Jordan the owner, Ill give you that, but the small market owners ,ALL OF THEM, will do what they can to sign a superstar now and in the future if its in their power.

 

I just don't see it happening today. They have wasted too much time already.

 

PDcavsinsider Reed, Boyer
ESPN reports #Cavs owner Dan Gilbert has moved into a more "moderate mode."

 

Players executive council, Derick Fisher and Billy Humter just need the owners to throw them some kind of bone in order to allow them to save face and the deal will get done. They can't sign the deal as is due to ego and all their rhetoric which has kind of backed themselves in a corner.

 

Ehh... If the players really do dercertify after "tonight" then the season is toast. If they do not reach an agreement tonight, and do not continue tommorrow with progress made, then look to cancel games through Christmas.

The final deadline for the NBA to cancel the season would probably be more towards the end of December actually just like 98/99.

However, if the players decertify, all reports are that its at least a 4 month long process. Im sure Bima will give us a step by step process of what happens in that case if they should decertify by the end of this week. Im sure he would rather not though.

 

Approaching 2 hours..

 

Wait a minute......

 

On cancellation of games through Christmas: This is a totally artificial threat by the league. Since it takes about 30 days to start the season once a deal is reached, the league WILL need to cancel games through the first half of December; but they still could conceivably play games on Christmas if negotiations continued for another week or so beyond today. Hell, wouldn't a Christmas Day slate be a pretty darn good Opening Day?

On the decertification process: First of all, you are right that I do not want to walk people through that process. Go follow Larry Coon on Twitter (@LarryCoon), as he's done a good job explaining it in detail.

That said, please note that the players signing a petition to decertify is NOT the same thing as decertification. It simply starts the clock on an approximately 45-day period for the NLRB to approve the petition, AFTER WHICH a decertification vote is held. During those 45 days, the union can continue to negotiate with the league; and the thought of the players is that the two sides could reach a deal during that time. Only AFTER the 45 days is up and there is no deal will the season TRULY be blown up.

That is, unless the owners blow it up first.

 

Everybody saw what Sarver was doing.. including Nash

He just wanted the money, so like i said, he has nothing to complain about

 

This is pretty shocking, but understandable.

Gilbert needs another high draft pick to go along with Thompson and Irving. Never understood why he was so pissed off.

He has a good nucleus of talent going forward.

 

Bima, I have the following question about owners and what they stand to lose.

*If* you believe owner X at face value, and he says that he loses money in the current model, couldn't you argue that he will "save" money by avoiding the loss? Meaning, no salaries, no jet travel, no hotels, etc, etc, and no income is better than operating at a loss.

It seems to me, if I'm an owner, one of the biggest motivations is to protect my enormous investment. If you lose a season, the value of your franchise could really decline, for years to come, and you could even end up selling it for a loss, pending other circumstances.

 

How about not being able to go to work to make the money he signed a contract for? Nash has been vocal about getting a deal done, and Sarver has been out front and center wanting to cancel the season to get a hard cap, basically to protect himself Vs. himself for signing big extensions to guys like Nash. Makes a ton of sense.

 

Under the old system, sure. But even under the union's latest proposal, pretty much every team's franchise value would greatly increase and pretty much every team could (but not necessarily will) be profitable.

Remember, there is a new tentative revenue-sharing plan in place that would triple the amount of previously shared revenues from last season. Also, salaries will be prorated for a shorter season, so that will limit some of their downside (to the extent that expenses are [100 + X]% of revenues).

Also, many teams still have to pay rent and/or stadium financing debt service payments, regardless of whether a season is played.

And the TV networks get all of their money back, WITH INTEREST, if there is no season. To the extent that any of that money was distributed to the owners, that's more money out of their pockets with no season.

Bottom line: EVERY owner will be better off next year if they get a deal done. Over the course of TEN YEARS, however? Who knows?