In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

Yep. I think the owners--despite being a bunch of jerks throughout this process--have laid MORE than a sufficient groundwork that they have been willing to negotiate with the players and that their latest proposal was a reasonable one.

While I think the owners' initial proposal several months ago was ridiculous, it will likely have an impact on how the court views the owners' movement on their initial position.

Any most "capologists" would agree that the latest proposal (for the most part) makes a lot of sense and that many of the restrictions being labeled as harsh are actually intended to close loopholes and will not likely cause the harm that union leadership feared.

IMO, for the players to win in court would require FAR more evidence of wrongdoing than anything the players can show.

This will end badly for the players. Very, very badly.

But at least they will have squandered away their livelihoods in the meantime!

 

the deal had an opt out after 6, and many things were grandfathered for the first two years, so its more like 4 years... the players are not thinking rationally at all. this a terrible decision

 

Billy Hunter and the player's reps basically bluffed all-in into the nuts...and now they will pay dearly for their decision. Hardline owners are probably celebrating and opening champagne right now.

 

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Octagon's already engaged w/ several European teams about sending clients Rudy Gay, Stephen Curry and Wesley Matthews overseas, source says.

 

How does tighter controls help the teams with better management? Morey, after all, stated the complete opposite - that if he had his way with the CBA, there would be practically zero controls. I mean, Dan Gilbert and Otis Smith are the ones who benefit because they can get away with throwing money after player after player, and still keep Lebron and Dwight under a system with tighter controls.

 

Correct. Tighter controls level the playing field, giving up whatever competitive advantage the Rockets had.

Come on DD, you're embarrassing yourself man.

 

Thanks for the clarification...on that BS argument. LOL.

 

My understanding is they're going to pursue summary judgment instead of an injunction.

When you file a motion for summary judgment, you must give the opposing side 21 days before a hearing. If they file the petition on Wednesday...and the motion the very same day...we're still 3 weeks away from a hearing on the issue. That takes us to, at the earliest, the first full week in December before the Court can make a ruling. I'm not sure what that does to the timetable of trying to preserve a season where the NBA seems to indicate they don't want a season that's less than 70 games.

 

Bima, what is your best guess on the timeframe we are looking at here. I know they have 2 days to file the lawsuit, but what kind of timeframe are we looking at from here on out in a hypothetical lawsuit of this nature?

 

Who wins in this situation?

Europe and the owners

 

Zero sum game though... An agent is now going to have to tell 3 of his clients that Rudy Gay, Stephen Curry, and Wesley Mathews have taken their jobs.

They took our jerbs!

 

You still haven't explained how. The players perspective is we gave back more than enough to cover your losses and you also want system restrictions. My question to you is why should they agree to cover the losses and to system restrictions? If you say it's a terrible business decision please explain why, and avoid terms like leverage or be happy making X, etc.

 

Hey, I'll take a regular season from January to August, and then the players can have a month off!

 

No it doesn't.

Hers is what I would love to see:

1. Eliminate all guaranteed contracts - NFL Style
2. A hard cap
3. A franchise tag
4. Complete revenue sharing

Now granted, most of those will probably never happen, but I believe the current deal would force a lot of the teams that stockpile talent and go over the Lux tax because it is not much of a tax would be forced to reconsider if they had to pay 2 times the amount.

Dallas would not keep Chandler because it had Haywood for example, or would have to get rid of Haywood.

See, that frees up other teams to go after them and disperses the talent more evenly across the league.

And I think that favors prepared and well run management teams like Morey.

Either way, that is how I see it.

DD

 

Loading up on the ipads...

 

How? Overseas jobs are extremely limited. Isn't the season already underway and you can only sign one American per team. No?

 

Sorry, but no clue. Antitrust litigation is highly complex and often takes YEARS to be resolved.

That said, the players are seeking summary judgment, meaning that they are hoping to avoid a full trial, etc. and get a more immediate ruling from a judge on the issues of whether this is an "unfair lockout" by the league. However, "more immediate" is a relative term; and that in itself could take weeks or months. And since (my best guess without full information) the players will likely lose on summary judgment (it's a higher standard for the players to win than for the owners to withstand it), this won't end anytime soon enough for there to be a season.

The only hope for a season is that the parties continue to negotiate. I just don't see how that's possible at this point, however, given this foolish step taken by the players.

 

So they could stockpile talent, and dump bad unguaranteed contracts, franchising an underpaid all star. I don't think that helps the Rockets acquire a superstar at all.

All other things being equal, stars still go to glamorous coastal markets.

 

Owners are about to go Daryl Dixon on the players. Seriously, this is going to be so one sided, it's hard to imagine what the NBA will look like afterwards.

I can accept missing a season, though, if we get a more balanced league out of it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you cannot have 80% of the best players on 20% of the teams. Small market fans will simply find better things to do with their time and money.

 

You may be right about the disclaimer, because I know jack-squat about that. I still don't believe the players would have accepted the deal. They had 200 signatures for decertification the last time I saw (last week). Twitter reporting last week was also saying that players didn't like the deal. I see no evidence besides Kevin Martin interviews that they would have accepted the deal. People just want to think they would have.

As for this Kessler statement from the beginning of 2010, I don't think much anything will come of it. It's just a nice gotcha moment for Stern. Kessler has said some unfortunate things a couple of times (including that plantation slave thing). But, the Union has shown through the summer their oppostion to decertification, even beating back an attempt by agents to decertify out from under them. I don't think any court could really rule that they weren't negotiating in good faith.

The argument that the League wasn't negotiating in good faith is stronger, imo, given the ultimatum, the comments about being "done with negotiating", and the seeming-poison-pill amendments to the offer (like the fake-51%-share, the option to send players down to NBDL with a paycut, and so on). Some of disrespect paid to the players struck me as an attempt to sabotage the negotiation.