NBA Lockout thread

Both sides DID agree and if you ask the players, they did not want it to change and have never asked it to change.

The owners wanted it to changed.

There are no real victims here because we are talking a $4 billion dollar business.

Stern needs to step up for what is good for THE GAME....that means compromise on BOTH sides, something that the owners have not done and has been proven so. The players...and I have stated so, had a HUGE 57-43 advantage on the BRI side...but again, a mistake AGREED UPON by the owners....and again, another perfect example of them unable to control themselves to agreeing to ANOTHER bad contract.

The cycle just repeats itself from a bad player contract to a bad CBA contract.

Let's say that we stipulate to that. What is wrong with them trying correcting that mistake and control spending? You seem to harp on the same thing and than don't agree when they try to rectify it.

So you think the owners made a mistake with the last contract, so they should live with it forever? That is why contracts and CBA's expire, so things can get corrected.
 
Hart5150 said:
Let's say that we stipulate to that. What is wrong with them trying correcting that mistake and control spending? You seem to harp on the same thing and than don't agree when they try to rectify it.

So you think the owners made a mistake with the last contract, so they should live with it forever? That is why contracts and CBA's expire, so things can get corrected.

And I have no issues with correcting it. I have stated before that the 57-43 advantage for the players was unfair. But reverse to the same advantage the but for the owners?

Look, again, prove to the players you are actually losing money...and a deal is made fair for everyone...and a deal is done. Stern stated that 22 of 30 teams ... Lately, I have read it's more like 5 teams. Obviously there issues that nees to be fixed. The main one is owners keeping offering dumb a$$ contracts.

How many times YOU have complained about how 'this guy aint worth the money they are paying him'....
 
Here is a good detail article in easier terms what the players are fighting for....

HOPEFULLY, most will read it as oppose to labeling it "dogma" just because it is against what they believe when it comes to this labor dispute. IF you all do, then a true discussion can be had about who has given into what and how much.


Finally, the real fight

November, 11, 2011 Nov 117:33AM ET

By J.A. Adande
ESPN.com

After 133 days of the lockout we finally got a clear vision of what the union is fighting for…even if it took NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver to articulate it for them.

"In order for us to have the competitive balance we want, it restricts player movement to a certain degree,” Silver said, both summarizing the proposal that’s on the table and providing a huge window into the hidden stakes.

This is about control. Will players get to determine where they play at any stage in the prime of their careers, or will the system and the teams dictate the scenarios? Will agents be marginalized, left without the ability to play teams off each other or broker a deal? It’s at the core of many proposals that have bounced around during the negotiating sessions, including the amount teams in the luxury tax are able to spend on the midlevel exception and the ability of luxury tax teams to engage in sign-and-trade deals. The owners’ intentions are two-fold: to limit the ability of big-market teams to hoard talent and make it financially undesirable for players to go to cities that have every other advantage. It wouldn’t keep another team from duplicating the Miami Heat’s star collection – remember, the Heat matched LeBron James and Chris Bosh with Dwyane Wade by gutting the roster to get way under the salary cap – but it would hinder them from bringing in the necessary complimentary players to win a championship. Or it could force a tail-end veteran into the difficult choice of one last payday or one last shot at a ring.

One of the reasons the union has been playing from behind since the first quarter of these negotiations is that the league has successfully framed the terms of the dispute in the public’s eye and the union never made it clear what it was fighting for. Early on David Stern latched on to the ideal of a 50/50split of revenues, the simplest concept for the public to grasp. What’s more fair than 50/50? How could the union not take that and get the season underway?

All the union leadership countered with was vague talk about “system issues” and how they were unfair. They didn’t put it in relatable terms. They didn’t bother to ask the fans how they would feel if they were told where they had to work for their first four years out of school, or if their employers, with no advance warning, could send them to another city. Fans like to counter that it doesn’t matter because the players make a lot of money, but the salaries are irrelevant – doctors, lawyers and Wall Street traders can be highly compensated as well without the same restrictions. Besides, if fans want to make this about money, then they can’t be mad if their favorite player leaves their team to sign a bigger contract elsewhere.

If the union played it smartly they’d say that now that the players have signaled their willingness to drop to 50 percent, the same question that was repeatedly demanded of the players – “Why isn’t 50/50 good enough for you?” – must be asked of the owners. After all, by some estimates simply reducing the players’ share of basketball related income from 57% to 50% would wipe out the $300 million in losses the owners said they suffered last year. That ought to be enough in itself.

The owners aren’t stopping there. Like the NCAA member institutions that approve ridiculously intricate rules because they don’t trust each other, the NBA’s have-nots are doing everything they can to keep talent from accumulating in select spots. They want, for instance, to avoid a repeat of Carmelo Anthony forcing his way to New York while being handed a lucrative contract on the way out of Denver. In the process, they’re putting their own interests ahead of the league as a whole. Player movement is better for the NBA. Fans feed off trade rumors and they devour big free agent signings. And it’s been demonstrated again and again that interest in the NBA is at its highest when competitive balance is at its lowest. Consider all that nostalgia for the 1980s, when the Lakers and Celtics won eight championships in nine years, or for the 1990s, when every year Michael Jordan was in training camp the Bulls ended the season with a victory rally in Grant Park. The league’s broadcast partners are much happier when they get Lakers-Celtics instead of Spurs-Pistons…and when the networks are happy, they write bigger checks for rights fees.

It’s possible to have it both ways, even under the old rules. The Heat were the best thing to happen to the NBA in 2010-11, making regular-season games matter for the first time since the Bulls embarked on their run at the record in 1995-96. At the same time, the Memphis Grizzlies won more playoff games than the Los Angeles Lakers, and the Oklahoma City Thunder went deeper into the postseason than the Boston Celtics. Big-market storylines and small-market opportunities can co-exist.

The union should be framing its disagreement with the owners in terms of individual freedom and fantasy league-like roster possibilities. Instead they’ve come off as simply bickering about money. They’re down to a $2 million difference between the mid-level exception the NBA wants to offer for teams in the luxury tax and what the players want to see. There were only seven luxury-tax paying teams last season, so if this had applied last year we’d be talking about seven players and a total of $14 million per year. These are the details that are holding up a deal worth more than $4 billion annually?

If the players could spin it as the end of true free agency, or a plot to keep teams from adding the player to put them over the top, it might sound more understandable. But if the best they can do is have Adam Silver spell it out for them, they’ll lose both the collective bargaining negotiations and the public relations contest.

Finally, the real fight - TrueHoop Blog - ESPN
 
HOPEFULLY, most will read it as oppose to labeling it "dogma" just because it is against what they believe when it comes to this labor dispute. IF you all do, then a true discussion can be had about who has given into what and how much.


Finally, the real fight

November, 11, 2011 Nov 117:33AM ET

By J.A. Adande
ESPN.com

After 133 days of the lockout we finally got a clear vision of what the union is fighting for…even if it took NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver to articulate it for them.

"In order for us to have the competitive balance we want, it restricts player movement to a certain degree,” Silver said, both summarizing the proposal that’s on the table and providing a huge window into the hidden stakes.

This is about control. Will players get to determine where they play at any stage in the prime of their careers, or will the system and the teams dictate the scenarios? Will agents be marginalized, left without the ability to play teams off each other or broker a deal? It’s at the core of many proposals that have bounced around during the negotiating sessions, including the amount teams in the luxury tax are able to spend on the midlevel exception and the ability of luxury tax teams to engage in sign-and-trade deals. The owners’ intentions are two-fold: to limit the ability of big-market teams to hoard talent and make it financially undesirable for players to go to cities that have every other advantage. It wouldn’t keep another team from duplicating the Miami Heat’s star collection – remember, the Heat matched LeBron James and Chris Bosh with Dwyane Wade by gutting the roster to get way under the salary cap – but it would hinder them from bringing in the necessary complimentary players to win a championship. Or it could force a tail-end veteran into the difficult choice of one last payday or one last shot at a ring.

One of the reasons the union has been playing from behind since the first quarter of these negotiations is that the league has successfully framed the terms of the dispute in the public’s eye and the union never made it clear what it was fighting for. Early on David Stern latched on to the ideal of a 50/50split of revenues, the simplest concept for the public to grasp. What’s more fair than 50/50? How could the union not take that and get the season underway?

All the union leadership countered with was vague talk about “system issues” and how they were unfair. They didn’t put it in relatable terms. They didn’t bother to ask the fans how they would feel if they were told where they had to work for their first four years out of school, or if their employers, with no advance warning, could send them to another city. Fans like to counter that it doesn’t matter because the players make a lot of money, but the salaries are irrelevant – doctors, lawyers and Wall Street traders can be highly compensated as well without the same restrictions. Besides, if fans want to make this about money, then they can’t be mad if their favorite player leaves their team to sign a bigger contract elsewhere.

If the union played it smartly they’d say that now that the players have signaled their willingness to drop to 50 percent, the same question that was repeatedly demanded of the players – “Why isn’t 50/50 good enough for you?” – must be asked of the owners. After all, by some estimates simply reducing the players’ share of basketball related income from 57% to 50% would wipe out the $300 million in losses the owners said they suffered last year. That ought to be enough in itself.

The owners aren’t stopping there. Like the NCAA member institutions that approve ridiculously intricate rules because they don’t trust each other, the NBA’s have-nots are doing everything they can to keep talent from accumulating in select spots. They want, for instance, to avoid a repeat of Carmelo Anthony forcing his way to New York while being handed a lucrative contract on the way out of Denver. In the process, they’re putting their own interests ahead of the league as a whole. Player movement is better for the NBA. Fans feed off trade rumors and they devour big free agent signings. And it’s been demonstrated again and again that interest in the NBA is at its highest when competitive balance is at its lowest. Consider all that nostalgia for the 1980s, when the Lakers and Celtics won eight championships in nine years, or for the 1990s, when every year Michael Jordan was in training camp the Bulls ended the season with a victory rally in Grant Park. The league’s broadcast partners are much happier when they get Lakers-Celtics instead of Spurs-Pistons…and when the networks are happy, they write bigger checks for rights fees.

It’s possible to have it both ways, even under the old rules. The Heat were the best thing to happen to the NBA in 2010-11, making regular-season games matter for the first time since the Bulls embarked on their run at the record in 1995-96. At the same time, the Memphis Grizzlies won more playoff games than the Los Angeles Lakers, and the Oklahoma City Thunder went deeper into the postseason than the Boston Celtics. Big-market storylines and small-market opportunities can co-exist.

The union should be framing its disagreement with the owners in terms of individual freedom and fantasy league-like roster possibilities. Instead they’ve come off as simply bickering about money. They’re down to a $2 million difference between the mid-level exception the NBA wants to offer for teams in the luxury tax and what the players want to see. There were only seven luxury-tax paying teams last season, so if this had applied last year we’d be talking about seven players and a total of $14 million per year. These are the details that are holding up a deal worth more than $4 billion annually?

If the players could spin it as the end of true free agency, or a plot to keep teams from adding the player to put them over the top, it might sound more understandable. But if the best they can do is have Adam Silver spell it out for them, they’ll lose both the collective bargaining negotiations and the public relations contest.

Finally, the real fight - TrueHoop Blog - ESPN

LOL it figures you would have post #666 :eek: :dev


Sandra
 
Well, I know this qualifies as news and not one-sided propaganda, but what the heck I'm going to post it anyway...

Sounds like the NBA gave the players a 'new' proposal today, something the players are actually going to seriously consider. Could be progress.


Sandra
 
Well, I know this qualifies as news and not one-sided propaganda, but what the heck I'm going to post it anyway...

Sounds like the NBA gave the players a 'new' proposal today, something the players are actually going to seriously consider. Could be progress.


Sandra

So EVERYTHING stated in the article is "propaganda"...there are no facts there what's so ever?
 
LOL this time let's ACTUALLY move along...instead of just saying it.

I may be an idiot, but I'm getting a little bit of a good feeling regarding this latest proposal.


Sandra
 
Moving along, for those interested, the lastest proposal seems closer to what the players are looking for. IMHO, they already agreed to the 50/50 split already(as some national writers have mentioned) and they are working on the so called system issues. Hence why you have heard very little regarding the BRI.
 
I haven't been following this thread, but if the biggest obstacle is the hardness of the cap and "Larry Bird" rule, then it seems to me that at some point, a deal might be good for the rank and file that is not so good for the dozen or two dozen top paid players.
 
I haven't been following this thread, but if the biggest obstacle is the hardness of the cap and "Larry Bird" rule, then it seems to me that at some point, a deal might be good for the rank and file that is not so good for the dozen or two dozen top paid players.

That is why they didn't accept the last offer. Especially when it comes to issues like exception rules. Like I have stated, I think the 50/50 revenue is a done deal and not comes all the little "system issues" that need to be settled. From what I heard this afternoon was the owners now are going through the internal battles of their own. They do not want or at least want to avoid the hording of talent like Miami did...or make it harder as the article confirmed. For small markets, it is an understandable move.
 
That is why they didn't accept the last offer. Especially when it comes to issues like exception rules. Like I have stated, I think the 50/50 revenue is a done deal and not comes all the little "system issues" that need to be settled. From what I heard this afternoon was the owners now are going through the internal battles of their own. They do not want or at least want to avoid the hording of talent like Miami did...or make it harder as the article confirmed. For small markets, it is an understandable move.

What the owners want is a cost certainty, and a mechanism to keep the richer teams from outspending everyone else. It works in the NFL, and it's working in the NHL as well.

Didn't the two and a half men actually take less to play in Miami?


Sandra
 
This is not encouraging...

Once NBA players digest all the details of the owners' new contract proposal -- including a clause that opens a way for more player demotions to the D-League -- it's hard to imagine even those desperate to play would be willing to ratify it, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher.

The D-League clause, which previously had not been disclosed, is one of several elements in the owners' proposal to the locked-out players that prompted one agent to describe the proposal as "draconian."

The clause would give teams the right to send a player down to the NBA Development League at any time during his first five years, paying him a reduced contract while he's there, a source who has examined the proposal told Bucher.

Any player sent down to the D-League would be paid at a pro-rated scale of $75,000 a season, which is slightly above the current D-League maximum but roughly one-sixth of the NBA minimum, the source said.

The owners' new proposal also would prohibit luxury tax-paying teams from sign-and-trade deals after a two-year "phase-in" period, according to sources.

Non-tax-paying teams also would be prohibited from using the mid-level exception if doing so would take them over the salary cap, sources said.

The most notable elements of the new proposal, confirmed by sources on both sides to ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard, are the rise of the "mini mid-level exception" from $2.5 million every other season to $3 million every season and the creation of the additional $2.5 million exception for teams that qualify.

The league, sources said, also relented to some degree on its insistence that taxed teams can't participate in sign-and-trade deals.

Owners are now proposing a phase-in of that restriction that would start in Year 3 of a new labor pact, meaning that prominent summer 2012 free agents such as Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Steve Nash still would be eligible to switch teams via sign-and-trade.

The owners, sources say, also have offered to raise minimum team payrolls (which historically had been 75 percent of the salary cap) and raise some season-to-season salary increases.

But one source close to the process told Broussard that while these changes may look significant, "the problem with all of that is that the owners changed the definition of a taxpayer in a way that would destroy (Larry) Bird rights and make it almost impossible to be a taxpayer, so the exceptions would be lost anyway."

NBA lockout -- Players unlikely to accept owners' proposal, sources say - ESPN
 
This season looks doomed. I just can't see the players agreeing to these terms...

It's time to talk to my season ticket representative and see about getting a refund. I envision that will be like pulling teeth...

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top