In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

?? First off, why would Hunter be greedy? He talks on behalf of the players, not for himself. That's like calling Stern greedy for managing greedy owners.

Secondly, the players have conceded $3.3 billion of BRI money over 10yrs. That is $330 million/yr, which exceed the amount that the owners said they lost last year. Think about that. The players have come way more than halfway on BRI split. They now want the owners to at least come half way on system issues...reports are saying that they did not budge much...certainly not half way.

I suppose I can understand why some fans hate the players, but your post just means that you blindly believe the spin-doctoring of the owners.

 

Isn't he playing in Europe these past 2 seasons? Why does he care?

 

If Hunter and the union really wanted to, they could end all of this today. Waiting until next week, imo, will only make things worse.

 

Presumably not every owner is in it to. Real even and have a fun toy. The idea of ever I creasing team value absent legitimate cash flow can't continue for ever. Of course the owners need the players to cover more than what they just lost... They're running a business... And it's a really popular one as the NBA still is, earning a meaningful positive return isn't unexpected. Then consider the nature of negotiations, the leverage of each party, and the losses of some owners over multiple periods and it's not too unreasonable for the owners to try and take their swings here.

Rich vs richer, sure... But at least on a relative basis owners have taken their hits economically. Life's only gotten better and.better for players.... Until now

 

If the old SnT is still intact after all this, I'll be really pissed.

 

yes, cause they've made no concessions thus far.

 

Hope this gets done. A 72 game season starting Dec. 15th, will probably allow me a chance to catch a Thunder game when I am in OKC.

 

What the players have conceded is irrelevant because the NBA couldnt succeed or continue with the old system.

What matters is where things need to be for the continued health of the sport, and that isnt necessarily some halfway point between where both sides started.

 

This sums it up.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...wp10526&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Players have lost, no matter what happens. They. Have. Lost. And I called it (not that it was a great stretch), everyone saw it a mile away, except players, who were (and some still are) living in dreamland. And if players vote to kill their union, fans will laugh at them, many owners will cheer, and the world will go right back to football, the holiday season, and all the other pleasant distractions we have available to us. The public doesn't need the NBA, we don't, and players need to understand this, because the owners most certainly understand this and use it to their advantage.

If players are smart, they will accept the deal, but pride can make the smartest person dumb. Either way, at least we will know by next week.

Prediction, players fold, and training camp starts within ten days.

 

By no means am I calling the owners saints here. But the battle is pretty much lost so my anger towards the players is due to the fact that they have not accepted defeat.

 

I agree. It isn't about meeting half way. The issue of competitive balance should not be taken lightly. There is a reason why the NFL is so successful. If the NBA wants to compete with the NFL they must have a more level playing field and it starts with a fair and balanced CBA. A 50/50 split with harsh punishments on teams that go over the salary cap is a step in the right direction if you ask me.

 

Just don't get this. At this point, they're haggling over obscure things most fans don't know, or care about, like midlevel exceptions for taxpaying teams. I'm going to be furious if we lose the season over that.

The owners have played their hand well, the players aren't getting a better deal than this one, but you still have morons like Danny Green exclaiming that they'd be "idiots" if they took this deal. As opposed to losing hundreds of millions of dollars with a lost season and just getting the same deal (or worse) starting next year? Are you kidding me?

 

No hard cap: no win for the owners ans no win for the NBA.
Buss, Dolan and few others don't care abour spending millions of dollars. Luxury tax make them smile, even if it is harder.
Hard cap was much more important than BRI in this CBA.
The stars can continue to play together in big market and small market continue to die with no hope of victory.
Bad deal, overall for the fans of more than 20 franchises.

 

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard

 

Next opt out date / negotiations - the stars I.E. (30 players) should make sure they are free agents then. That would give them a lot of leverage.

The nbpa should collect a fee from players and purchase land for a few courts around the country. They can play and televise games and make some money while negotiating a fair deal. And more deferrals of payments.

This was two years coming and they still were unprepared.

 

Himm... what does this mean?

 

Better off asking Bima instead of me.

. . .

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard

 

Which renders everything else about the new CBA meaningless. Glamor teams will still dominate, because there is zero chance that a top ten player will demand a trade to the Jazz, Bucks, or Kings. That is simply not happening. What small market owners appear to be saying is that they can accept never winning a Championship as long as they remain highly profitable. This strikes me as extremely short sighted. Watch what happens when (not if) Dwight leaves Orlando, that franchise is finished. You don't lose three top five players in 20 years and expect fans to keep supporting your product.

 

I think it means that, since being a taxpayer is so cost-prohibitive that few (if any) owners will venture into tax territory, and since (starting in Year 3) the salary cap will likely be getting lower, re-signing your top players using Bird rights will quite often push teams into luxury tax territory, meaning both (a) some Bird free agents won't get the same caliber of contracts they used to get and (b) the MLE and other exceptions available to over-the-cap teams will be difficult to maximize (since going into luxury tax territory AFTER re-signing a Bird free agent minimizes the MLE).

One tweet said it best: If you can't use the full MLE if you're under the cap, and if you can't use the MLE if you're in luxury tax territory, and if teams are determined to be "taxpayers" if they go into luxury tax territory AFTER any Bird free agent signings, then who exactly CAN use the full MLE?

It's a pretty good question.

Also, one aside that is going largely unnoticed:

The owners' insistence on reducing annual raises to 5.5% (for Bird free agents) and 3.5% (for non-Bird free agents) is their attempt to align annual player salary increases with the increase in BRI. Otherwise, teams run into the same problem they've run into previously: payroll expanding at a faster pace than the salary cap increases. Personally, I think it's a noble effort and a change that should be made.

The players need to realize that there insistence on higher annual raises (which the owners have compromised on a bit, although I don't know the exactly numbers in the proposal) will only further hurt the middle class. Isn't it better to keep those raises aligned with BRI increases than to outpace the salary cap and end up missing out on several MLE opportunities?

 

I'm not really in disagreement here. But you do realize the league is not negotiating. This isn't a negotiation...and they are risking a revolt. Whether you believe a revolt has merit or is warranted, I DO NOT want the owners to push the players off a cliff.

There are other ways to have profitability *and* significant improvement in competitive balance ... I strongly believe the owners are doing this wrong and don't really care about competitive balance...certainly the Haves do not care. The have a vested interest in maintaining a competitive divide.