NBA Lockout thread
- Thread starter SandraC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 833
- Views 41K
BillD1984 said:Hope this is a done deal.
GO CELTICS......DRIVE FOR 18
You and me both! Except for that Celtics part!
From the looks... The players conceded the most...like the last deal. In 6 years...the owners will hate this one too.. Hopefully, there will not be the rancor that we had during this lockout.
I can live with 6 years of peace.
I can live with 6 years of peace.
Supposedly, the is no doubt the players will pass it, rumor is some hardline owners are not happy at all.
It is now up to Stern to complete the deal....and his legacy is at stake.
It is now up to Stern to complete the deal....and his legacy is at stake.
It is now time for the "capologists" to explain to us what is still doable and not doable by teams over the cap. Is Rasheed Wallace's $6 million contract of any value in a trade? Can the Celtics favorably sign and trade Big Baby Davis? The Celtics don't even have a starting lineup under contract even though their $72 million, 2011-2012 payroll is surely ten to twenty million dollars over the cap.
Last edited:
rey_1178 said:
He was not hurting by any stretch of the imagination. He could have missed the entire season MORE SO than Wade or Lebron. He was making approx. $8 million more a year.
AntAltMike said:
That will be the crazy part. That is why the free agent frenzy won't start for another 2 weeks...it may take that long to figure it out and put it on paper.
This free agent frenzy will be crazier than the NFL one.
It was reported his first paycheck was one mil. I'd say that's a good reason. And of course he's just one example. That's why I said players, players missing their first pay check was a good enough reason to get back to discussions. Certainly I'm not going to call it a coincidence because it ain't.
rey_1178 said:
And neither was a $8 billion dollar anti-trust lawsuit that had a 50-50 chance due to all of the consessions the players made. They lose that one and the NBA loses their exemption and tons more than they would lose in a split with the players.
There is no doubt the players called the owners bluff because after they stated the players would not get a better deal. Guess what, the players get no worse than, a 49-51split. Not the threaten 47-53 split in favor of the owners.
It was mutual on both parts to come to the table...but the owners had alot more to lose than the players.
The owners pushed for 50/50 right? Seems like the players gave in way more than the owners. The owners were ready to go through all the legal issues. But I'm not going to argue with you about this my friend. I know what I'm reading with my own two eyes.
rey_1178 said:
The owners got all the concessions... No doubt, but who had the tough talk of 'if the players do no accept the last offer, the next offer is 47-53 owners'...the players called their bluff...and the owners thought they would cave in.
rey_1178 said:
The owners had more to lose. They could not afford the POSSIBILITY OF losing the anti-trust exemption they love. The owners did not have a European league to fall to.
The ones that pushed for the 50-50 split was Sterns and approx. 50% of the owners. About 40% pushed for a 47-53% for ownership. Sterns maybe an arrogant jerk, but he aint stupid and knew that would never fly with players.
Last edited:
