Hunter: Lockout might be 'death knell' for NBA

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.