Hunter: Lockout might be 'death knell' for NBA

Hunter: Lockout might be 'death knell' for NBA
Web Posted: 06/16/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Mike Monroe
Express-News Staff Writer

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b....1314da33.html

TROY, Mich. — NBA commissioner David Stern and union director Billy Hunter are in total agreement on one thing: An NBA lockout would be a disaster for the pro league.

At a news conference just south of the Palace of Auburn Hills, Hunter on Wednesday said he had no doubt a lockout would be a long one.

"I think it might be the death knell for the NBA," Hunter said.

The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NBPA, the union that represents its players, expires at midnight June 30, and Stern warned last week that if the players don't agree to a new deal before then, the owners will lock them out and they will have made "a tragic mistake of epic proportions."

Asked Wednesday to respond to that statement, Hunter said, "that door swings both ways."

"I think it would be a tragic mistake for the owners as well," Hunter said. "From the information we have, the league is going to take in (more than) $3 billion a season. You all know the injury the league suffered with the last lockout. It has taken us about seven years to get back.

"I know commissioner Stern is probably concerned with how he would be perceived in the event of another work stoppage. He is a highly respected commissioner, touted to be the best there is in the business, so I don't think the history would look too friendly upon him if in fact there were another lockout."

Hunter offered a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution when he promised to "reach out to the commissioner" and ask for another formal negotiating session, even though the league walked out of the last session and has not contacted the union about scheduling another meeting.

Hunter also said the union was prepared to extend the terms of the current agreement for one more season in order to avoid a lockout.

"From my perspective, the deal has worked," he said. "From my perspective, I think it's one of the fairest deals that exists currently in professional sports. The players are getting paid. The owners are making money, the franchise values have increased dramatically. Franchises are selling for upwards of $400 million.

"From my perspective, it doesn't make much sense and I can't understand why it is that commissioner Stern and I can't get together. We've been extremely fair. We've been extremely open. We've been extremely reasonable. I'm left to only one conclusion: It's really a grab on the part of the owners."

Then make some concessions of your own fuck face hunter, and sign a deal dumbshit.

What else is Hunter going to say?

I couldn't take sides last time because I thought both sides were full of shit. This time I'm 100% behinfd the players. Stern absolutely bent the players union over the table and somehow deflected all of the heat onto them in the 1999 lockout. He got rid of the Shaq, KG contracts, the Glenn Robinson rookie deals, he gave so much power to his teams to keep their free agents through the fixed rookie deals, qualifying offers, restricted free agency at the end of the rookie deals, the reduced raises for leaving, the 6 year limit on contracts for teams without Bird Rights, etc. The players gave up so much 6 years ago and I don't think they should budge an inch. Stern has balls of steel to push for othe 5 year deals and the age limits.

Players should get their fair market value, and that's whatever somone is willing to pay them. It's not the players responsibility to keep the owners from trying to outdo one another for their services, but that's what Stern's telling them. For such a right wing board I'm surprised how much opposition there is to the players wanting a more free market.

If the players accept Stern's 5 year contract limit they're nuts. Most of the players are black and the vast majority of owners white, so guess who average American fan is unfortunately going to side with again. :(

they're still making millions! wohooo hehe mannnn i wonder who's really at fault?
society or the ones who are taking advantage?

Billy Hunter, you unoriginal ass kisser, stop stealing Phil Jackson's lines. And David Stern owns you.

Hunter is a wanker, i bet yah he also gets a stake out of the pie from the members in the players union, he wants to much.

If the NBA doesn't lose any regular season games (like the NHL), the NBA will be fine.

Fans here and in Detroit should make signs saying something like..."No Lockout" "Get your sh** together" "Remember the NHL!" etc. Hopefully, they'll get the message.

I do not understand: what is too much?

And with those 5 max contracts is better deal than all those Allan Houstns and Pennys who are earning milions for nothing.
And those players (fortson ex) when on contract year they can play superb. Singing a 6 year deal with milons and are plaing like shit till the next contract year.

And what the rasizm got to do with all this ??
Damn.

I don't get all the lockout threats. The two sides are not that far off apart.

If the Players allow things to go to a lockout, I guarentee the Player's get reemed again. Do it now while the Owners are looking to bend.

Quote:

---

If the players accept Stern's 5 year contract limit they're nuts.

---

Stern has already conceded on that -- they wanted what is currently 6/7 to be reduced to 4/5. They've now offered 5/6. They also met at 19 for the age limit. Stern's side has made a lot of adjustments. The player's side agreed to everything verbally and then balked when their agents freaked out.

Read more here

If the players are offering to extend the current deal for another season the NBA damn well better accept that offer instead of going through a lockout.

I personally think the deal that has been in place over the last few years is the best in sports...I think the NBA has the best CBA and cap structure in sports...and I am having a hard time figuring out who is the most unahppiest with the current deal...

The NBA players give up a lot that their counterparts in the other pro leagues have not given up.

i agree with hunter the owneers are trying to shaft the players again if you cannot agree might as well just extended the current contract in place now

Like I said, Stern got everything he wanted in 1999 and fucked the players over. They shouldn't concede a thing. They made a mistake last time and shouldn't complicate it even worse.

the reason for the Kidd for = tony manu and rasho is because if we had signed kidd we were likely to lose most if not all those players
and yes the title kidd for sa coems from spurs report and how everyone was up all into KiDD, but now we been showing we don't need to have kidd to win and be a dynasty and a huge mistake getting kidd would have been i owuld of posted this reply in the kidd thread but some body locked it

most here NEVER WANTED KIDD

If what Stern said in the transcript thread Kori gave us the link to above is true - that the owners are in fact guarenteeing the players the same percent of BRI - at least 57% - as is in the current deal, and are willing to discuss raising the cap and softening the lux tax the players are crazy not to take it. It would be a better, more flexible deal for everybody but players like Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Penny Hardaway and Allan Houston, who have these bloated contracts but stopped being worth a fraction of them years ago.

A tougher drug policy, raising the minimum age to 19, shortening contract lengths by a year, and reducing the max % yearly raise in exchange for at least 57% of BRI, a higher cap, and a softer lux tax seems like a pretty fair deal for both sides to me.

what good is a raise if their is a drug policy that gets you fired?
maybe tha that is the reason
would tim duncan recive his full max after it is found out he uses cocaine>? possibly but that is a risk he might not want

however i don't know how tougher you mean the policy is i haven't seen the contract and don't plan too so tougher might be still not tough

After reading through the commissioners report it looks to me like the issue is the same it is in all sports...

The NBA wants the players to protect the NBA from the stupid owners...and the stupid owners want the NBA players to protect them from their own stupidity.

It always comes down to the stupid owners being the problem.

We all know that the guys bitching the loudest about signing crappy players to huge longterm contracts are the ones that sign the crappy players to the huge long term deals...

Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Knicks...

Those are the guys that fuck everything up..

Since the NBA already has a unique protective device for them that no other league has..a salary scale for max contracts...

Those guys are protected enough and the small owners are also protected...any bad contracts they have now are due to their own stupidity...and Spurs fans should be able to see this clearly.


I am with the league on the issues of:
Mandatory year round drug testing(test em every week for all I care, if those guys are making 15 million a year their employer has a right to protect their investment). Either allow it...or no guranteed contract for players who suffer drug related injuries, missed time,.. or cause a PR backlash

Keeping a max salary scale(actually I like all the salary scales).

Totally preserving the soft cap structure currently in place, complete with exceptions and the like. I wouldn't mind seeing them add a Scola exception allowing for signing of international draftpicks that have been developing overseas, outside of the MLE or LLE though ;). A draft pick should have it's own exception. And it's stupid to allow teams to draft a player but not have a guranteed exception to sign them with.

I am with the NBA on the age limit thing...I am sick of unskilled extremely talented players dilluiting the NBA with a shitty brand of basketball.

I think the NBA is legitimately trying to protect themselves and both the players and the integrity of the game by disallowing the drafting of highschool players...it also helps the college game.





But as far as the length of contracts etc, which seems to be the seminal issue....


Fuck the owners on that...that's the one outlet NBA players have to truly test their market value in their prime...and if the owners are stupid enough to give a longterm contract to an unworthy lazy player then they deserve what happens to them...no one forces them to do it and they are already protected from their own stupidity by the max salary scale, and that protection comes at the direct expense of the players....They are the luckiest owners in all of sports to have that protection.

IOW...keep the current deal...moderninze the drug testing program and institute the age limit for +1. Maybe add an exception for second round picks...

Oh and I am for rasing the cap and lessining the lux tax penalty...the Spurs have proven it's possible to compete being well under the cap...raising it will allow the players to make better money and make back some of the money they lose with the max salary scale.

And once those small teams do find success...the harshness of the current lux penalty prevents them from spending money they might otherwise be willing to spend...and if they do spend it..it could wipe them out.


Owners need to give up pushing for the 6 and 5 contract...they ask too much of the players. I wouldn't budge on that either if I were the players. They already do more than any other major sport athletes to protect the owners from their own stupidity.

Quote:

---

Oh and I am for rasing the cap and lessining the lux tax penalty...

---

I haven't heard much about lessening the Luxury Tax penalty, only about the Super Luxury Tax that they want to add.

How is 6 and 5 asking too much if what is being offered in return is raising the cap and softening the lux tax? Especially if the % of BRI is fixed at at least the current level? The amount of money going to the players would stay the same, but there would be a modest shift towards players that can actually help a team win and away from useless players.

Quote:

---

and if the owners are stupid enough to give a longterm contract to an unworthy lazy player then they deserve what happens to them...no one forces them to do it and they are already protected from their own stupidity by the max salary scale, and that protection comes at the direct expense of the players....They are the luckiest owners in all of sports to have that protection.

---

What do you think about raises? They want to lower the current 12.5/10 percentages to 10/7.5 or even less, I believe.

From what I've read of the average players' comments, they don't seem to be standing to solidly behind Hunter and the player's union, they want a deal done. Guys alraedy into a contract are just sacrificing money the longer a lockout would go. If that's the case and it goes to la ockoout Hunter's going to have a lot of pressure on him and Stern will be firmly in the captain's chair.

Well, if the cap is raised, the starting salary for contracts based on a % of cap goes up. Higher potential max starting salary, but lower potential max. year to year increases.

Again, it seems like a reasonable proposal to discuss if at least 57% of BRI is guarenteed to the players.

Whottt, I think that's a fairly balanced kind of post. I mostly agree. Where I disagree is on things where the owners have clearly compromised and players have backed off. That pisses me off. I am a loyal Spurs fan, and a big basketball fan, so I'll return if they lockout, but I'll be pretty cynical, and most of the folks I know will be done with it.

And as for the drug penalties - hell yeah you should be fired if you are taking any illegal substance or performance enhancing substance. What good is a raise? What difference does it make if you blow it coke?

Quote:

---

From what I've read of the average players' comments, they don't seem to be standing to solidly behind Hunter and the player's union, they want a deal done.

---

Yeah that's true. The players pretty much agreed to everything but their agents freaked out. NBA agents get a maximum of 4%, so if a total of a contract is significantly less than it hurts them. Greedy bastards :)

Agents' timeline is the next twenty years, that's how long they'll be in business minimum if they're good. Players timeline is on average, what 4-5 years. Agents are representing their own interests more than their clients in most cases.

The NBA players made the ultimate concession by agreeing to a max salary limit...I may be out of touch with MLB and the NFL...but last I checked the NBA is the only league that has such a deal and the NBA players made a huge concession there.

They in effect put a cap on their own earning potential to protect the NBA from irresponsible owners who would cannibalize the other owners and destroy the NBA just because of a laziness to be responsible with how they spend their money and a flat out indifference to the well being of the league for their own selfish reasons...

That's it right there...how many of us are willing to put a cap on our max earning potential? I am not...I may not get greedy but I am not going to let someone tell me the max I can ever make in my career...it's down right un-American actually...I gurantee you Stern and the owners don't have a cap on how much they can make in their careers.

Sorry but that concession alone makes the NBA players Saints compared to any other major pro sports leagues players.

Hell no they shouldn't have to concede years...in fact I would it'd be well within the realm of fairness for them to be pushing for more years.


As for the PCT's...I think that's based on league revenues and so I can't claim to really know what would be fair there...but I'd be inclined to say the players are being reasonable by maintaining the status quo...

The max salary limit pretty much beats anything the owners can offer the players...the players have made the greatest concession just based on that alone...it's time for the owners to be responsible for themselves...just a little. The players have given more than enough to do their part in protecting the league from owners stupidity.

This is still America.

whottt how exactly should the league protect itself from the potential destruction of a handful of mutli-billionare owners who view their franchises as toys with no regard to economics whatsoever?

Quote:

---

The NBA players made the ultimate concession by agreeing to a max salary limit...

---

I only ask this because I really don't know much about caps. Isn't that what a salary cap does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Austin

How is 6 and 5 asking too much if what is being offered in return is raising the cap and softening the lux tax? Especially if the % of BRI is fixed at at least the current level? The amount of money going to the players would stay the same, but there would be a modest shift towards players that can actually help a team win and away from useless players.

---

They should raise the cap and soften the tax anyway for one thing. It would help the teams too...some of the biggest franchises are contrained by that cap and they'd be willing to spend more regardless of the players adjusting the max length of years.

If nothing changes except fort he cap being raised and the penalty being lessened even our own Spurs are going to be spending...and the players know that, they aren't stupid. The owners aren't offering the players anything there.


You act like the owners are conceding something to the players when it would help them compete better as much as it would help the players.

Raising the cap and lessning the tax in and of itself will helps teams win...expecially since it's been well demonstrated that teams are able to be comepetive at well under the current cap.


The players gave up the right to pursue being able to earn the most they could earn based on INDIVIDUAL ability...now ask you them to give up the years they can get as a way of lesser compensation for giving up max earning power...that's just not fair.

If I were the players I'd say fine...you get your 6 year deal...and we want the right to pursue earning based on our individual ability and not a scale...and they'd still be giving the NBA a better deal than any other athletes are giving their league.

whottt's solution will ultimately result in about 10 - 12 NBA franchises located in LA, New York, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Portland will hang in there until Allen dies or gets bored with basketball. San Antonians will have their choice of driving to Dallas or Houston to watch a game. Most iof the in between cities' fans will just tune out of pro ball entirely so the total revenue available for players will drop dramatically. But that's okay because instead of 450 or so NBA pros there'll only be 100 or so to split the money and the rest of the players will be scrounging in Europe, the NBDL or bagging groceries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

I only ask this because I really don't know much about caps. Isn't that what a salary cap does?

---

Well I guess it means one player can't take up an entire teams cap...

A cap is a concession made by the players anyway...

But no there is a definite maximum a player can earn that doesn't exist in other leagues...IE...Tim Duncan can't just go out ask for 20 million a year...and you can damn well bet he'd get it from just about any team in the NBA...

Bu the most he can ask for is the max for a player that has been in the league his number of years and it's based on league revenue...I forgot what it was but it was a hell of a lot less than he could have gotten if there wasn't a max. What did Duncan's last contract start out at? 12 million a season? And that was about 6 or 7 years after Garnett and Shaq inked deals that paid them even more than that with no max scale in place...

No...in MLB Alex Rodriguez could go out and get the most any team was willing to pay him 25 million per season.....In the NBA a player can only go out and get the max allowed under the CBA...and his old team can better that offer by one year...

There are teams that would be willing to pay Tim Duncan a lot more than he is making right now...a lot more...and for longer years.


That's what the NBA players gave up...and to the best of my knowledge they are only athletes in a major pro league that have done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

whottt's solution will ultimately result in about 10 - 12 NBA franchises located in LA, New York, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Portland will hang in there until Allen dies or gets bored with basketball. San Antonians will have their choice of driving to Dallas or Houston to watch a game. Most iof the in between cities' fans will just tune out of pro ball entirely so the total revenue available for players will drop dramatically. But that's okay because instead of 450 or so NBA pros there'll only be 100 or so to split the money and the rest of the players will be scrounging in Europe, the NBDL or bagging groceries.

---

So...how is your right to watch basketball game greater than their right to earn what someone is willing to pay them?

Hmm...you show me where you have a constitutional right to limit another persons earning ability so you can watch a fucking basketball game with a team from your own home town.

If the game is too rich for you then fold your hand and get the fuck off the table...and go buy a CBA team.

That's bullshit anyway...We have an entire roster of players that took less to come here and are all working on very good deals...and it's all done under the current CBA...and the Spurs would be willing to spend more right now if they could do it without getting hammered by lux tax.


I am in favor of maintaining the status quo basically...the owners want to be bailed and protected from stupid contracts, they already are, at the cost of the players right to pursue pay based on their own individual ability..the Spurs don't sign stupid contracts and there is more than enough protection in place...I reccomend other teams take up that practice rather than taking dollars out of the pockets of others.

I don't follow football but doesn't it have a hard cap, much harder than the NBA?

Yep and it sucks...but the last I remember they don't have a limit on what an individual player can earn(other than the totality of a cap) and even with their hard cap I think they have certain exceptions like franchise player designation...

I dunno because I don't watch the NFL anymore because it pretty much sucks and has no identity and very few players become associated with a franchise like it used to be, and like the soft cap in the NBA allows for, and their hard cap is the reason for it.

Last time I paid attention to the NFL players could still try and get as much as someone was willing to pay them...that is not the case in the NBA...

And baseball has a cap now too that I think is more like the NBA cap than the NFL but I still believe the players have the right to go out and pursue the most someone is willing to pay them individually. And I think the owners can go still go over the cap if they are willing to incur a luxury tax.

If I'm an owner of an NBA franchise in a major market I want to have no cap. I can buy a good team and I can make a ton of money off my franchise.

If I'm an owner of a smaller market team I want a cap of some type to prevent the rich owners and dominant market teams from basically putting me out of business because I can't retain talent, can't compete, can't stay in business.

If I'm a superstar I want no cap because I can always get a lucrative contract even if there are fewer teams and less total revenue going into pro basketball

If I'm the average player I'd like to get a great deal but if I'm not to stupid I realize if there are fewer teams I'm not getting any money at all. This is the great majority of players.

If I'm Stern I want the NBA to generate the most revenue possible which means the largest fan base which means more franchise to maintain local interest.

Players get paid enough.. IMO... plus they get more time off for vacations than most of us working class. More humility and less decadence... do it for the kids man they need to show more realistic earnings than just being pimp daddy rich.

I am sure even the rich owners are in favor of a soft cap that allows them break the cap if they are willing to pay for it...I am sure that Cuban and the Knicks would love for there to be no maximum salary though...so they can raid the talent of other teams.

But they don't get all of that, they are constrained on a level playing field...and now it's those guys that are hamstrung by the shitty contracts and they can't squash the smaller teams with their financial clout...

So IMO, it's those guys that are now wanting protection from the shitty contracts they give out...using the only leverage their $$$ gives them...the ability to overpay shitty players and sign them to longterm deals..

I don't think the Spurs, Clippers and Suns are the ones complaining about it...they are the ones laghing at the dumbasses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vashner

Players get paid enough.. IMO... plus they get more time off for vacations than most of us working class. More humility and less decadence... do it for the kids man they need to show more realistic earnings than just being pimp daddy rich.

---

You get paid enough. IF you work with the bigggest slacker in the world who you constantly have to carry...you should never be paid more than he is.


It's called communism. And it drags the fastest horses back to the pack instead of letting them push the limits of just how fast a horse can go.

The rampant inflation of sports salaries effects a lot of people. I think pro's should be rich and make millions... but there needs to be a sanity check in there somewhere so the little folks don't suffer. I am just saying a little less greed would be nice.

Ultimately it's in everybodies interest to put in place a system that is financially viable for all parties. Otherwise you end up with the NHL where the owners lost less money shutting it down than they would have if they played the season under the current economics.

And 1 league, here I come :)

If you think about it, what is really wrong with 5 year max deals? I mean if you earn your pay, you will get an extension, if you don't you still got 5 years worth of money to eat off of. The longer you make these deals, the less likely it is teams will have the cap to sign any of the FA's on the market, which guess what hurts the TALENTED players which could use the money.

So giving the bums longer contracts so that teams can't make a run at other dudes IF it doesn't work out, is hurting the players? Bullshit.

If you don't like it stop supporting the NBA...stop giving them your money. I am sure your local highschool or college team would be greatly appreciative of your dollars.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you are talking about the NBA though...

The point is...there are no out of control salaries in the NBA, there is no spiraling salary problem...the players have already made that concession and there are constraints on them...

They gave up their right to pursue pay based on their individual ability, some of these players gave up millions of dollars per year for that.....the one way they of being compensated for that is getting paid later in their career when they might not possibly be worth as much as they were during their prime...

Tim Duncan is worth a hell of a lot more than 15 million dollars a year to this franchise...and the fucking owners make a hell of a lot more than 15 million dollars a year off of him. So Tim gave that up...in fact he even gave up the 7th year IIRC...but that should be his right to do so and it should not be forced upon him...he already gave up the right to earn what he is worth.

I have a five year contract. Has a terminate without cause clause in it. Think Hunter would go for one of those?

Whottt, Nobody is telling the players after a 5 year deal they can't play basketball anymore. If they EARN the money, they will be able to find work..just like in any job. If you do well you get rewarded for it. if you do poorly and can't perform the tasks anymore, why should you keep your job?

Thats why people tell them they should all finish college, so if they do go bust, they have something to fall back on.

The owners are full of shit...if right now you raised the cap and lessened the lux tax penalty the Spurs would be one of the first in line to spend a few extra bucks signing Glenn Robinson or something like that. The only thing the Spurs are afraid right now is the lux tax....they probably wouldn't mind it kicking in before they go too far over the cap though...because they'd bank on it right now

If you don't want them to get a 6 year deal then don't offer them one...if someone else wants to offer them one them let them...the protection for the smaller teams is already in place because all teams can only offer the same amount per year(except for the home team).


Limiting it to 6 years is still not going to protect the stupid owners...

Whottt, do you honestly think Duncan would be here if he could be making twice as much in Dallas? And players can and do choose to go earn a living playing basketball in other professional leagues. The NBA is not the only outlet for playing professional basketball on the planet. Nobody's stopping them from signing a richer deal elsewhere. Obviously, the NBA gives players the most earning potential. But this isn't the only 30 owners in the world who can pay basketball players to play for their teams.

It looks like you're saying that what the owners are asking of the players is somehow un-American. But the owners are not asking to decrease the total amount of money they give to players - per Stern's comments on the transcript Kori provided, it would stay at 57% at least. The owners will still be out the same cash; it just means they'll be spending it on players who are going to be more productive. Productivity and an honest days work for an honest day's pay are also in the best tradition of American values that to me, and I would say to most employers and most employees, are principles that are just as meritorious the one you chose to champion.


I guess just don't see this as the slap in the face you do. If the owners were still trying to drop the BRI% too, I would be solidly on the players side. As long as that % stays the same, I see no reason againt letting individual players compete more for their share of that 57%.

Here's a sweetener the players could counter with, though: agree to the owner's proposal with the additional change that rookie contracts be shortened by a year with the ability to extend after the third season (thus the fourth season becoms the first year of the new deal) and a stinger on the fouth year 1-year option that bumps it up to the MLE. Eliminate the fith year qualifying offer, that way players either have to be extended or be cut loose to sign with somebody else. Good, productive or still promising players could make more money faster than they can now; and draft busts or bad matches would be in the same spot they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Austin

But the owners are not asking to decrease the total amount of money they give to players - per Stern's comments on the transcript Kori provided, it would stay at 57% at least. The owners will still be out the same cash; it just means they'll be spending it on players who are going to be more productive. Productivity and an honest days work for an honest day's pay are also in the best tradition of American values that to me, and I would say to most employers and most employees, are principles that are just as meritorious the one you chose to champion.

---

Excellent point, that is what i was trying to say but you did it a lot better. I think that is the key point to the argument.

I dunno MIA...Drob turned down more elsewhere...he tore up a contract that guranteed him being paid an average of the top 3 salaries in the NBA. KG opted out of his own grandfathered deal...


The owners already got something out of the players that is Un-American...a max salary limit. That's is blatantly Un-American and anyone that is truly fair minded would admit it.

Is it good for the league? It protects the league from stupid owners...I'd call that an act of unmatched benevolence on the part of the players...

If they gave that it's more than enough...and it's just not fair to ask more of them in that area.

If you really want to stop the stupid contracts why not hold those that give them out responsible for them?

IE have a review every season and see if any owners stupid spending habits are responsible for an escalation in salaries I don't mean unfortunate...like a player not living up to his contract due to injury. But giving a scrub a 10 million dollar a year deal for one good season or something like that...if you find a consistently responsible party you force him to sell the team and go fuck up another league with his stupidity.

Paul Allen and Cuban would already have been drummed out of the NBA if they did that.

That's what should be done...no one has right to be a member/team owner of the NBA. It's a club...and membership is a privilege not a right.

The owners should police their own instead of asking the players to do it for them by limiting their earning power.

BTW MIA...your scenario about players going to play in other leagues over unhappiness with the NBA?

That day that happens is drawing ever closer...The Euro leagues are already very close to the NBA...I think they see themselves as equals...they want to have a tournament with the NBA teams...

Manu was finals MVP in their title game just a few years ago...and he is within a hairsbreadth of doing it in our championship...

His team took down a team of our best in the Olympics, you can say it was the rules or make all the excuses you want...but it never happened before. And it wasn't that hard to see it coming.


...the MVP this season is not an American player...

There are players who have turned down a career in the NBA to stay in Europe.

The day is drawing very close where it will be an attractive option for a top NBA player to go to another league...be careful what you wish for because the day that happens the NBA will no longer the best league in the world.


Now how you can think Stern is working to benefit of the NBA if that happens is beyond me.

I think the NBA would be better off forcing out the stupid owners and replacing them with smart ones, than making a transfer to another league an attractive option for a great player.

whottt you keep saying a max salary limit is un-American. What is a salary scale based on time of employment, rank or position, etc.. Max salary is what hte union agreed to they could have continued to stay out.

You are right about that...they did agree to it and when someone joins a union they set themselves up for something like that...I am just saying in principle it is Un-Ameirican...IMO, most unions are Un-American too. They are the cause of strikes, lockouts and a ton of people making more than they deserve.

The Unions are the reason guys sit on the IR all year pull down a million a half per year...that's what drives the cost up...some guy not making what he is worth...not some guy who does. Tim Duncan doesn't need a union.

And in most cases in other sports I probably would side with the owners...but in this case the players made a huge concession that no others have made in terms of giving up earning potential.....and it's a joke to act like the owners are giving as much as the players are in that area

The owners have agreed to up the player's % of BRI from 55 to 60, thereby rasing the salary cap. All they want in return is max length of 5 years instead of 7. That's it in a nutshell. The agents are fucking everybody, because 5 years means less overall guaranteed money, and less surefire money for them. That's a bit shortsighted, as the overall money pool will grow. The just need to get off their fat asses and have more clients, instead of gravytraining one superstar.