Lock out looming with next CBA?

[vy65]

Y'all know that the owners and teams are the ones caving to these demands when they don't have to, right? Spurs didn't have to trade Kawhi. Sixers literally sat on the Simmons thing until the got a deal they wanted. The Nets don't HAVE to trade KD and surely don't have to trade him to only the teams he wants to go to. The teams just don't want to go against them because of fear. That's just the players using leverage.

Like I said above, its pretty hard to say the NBA is being harmed at a time they are making profits hand over fist so much so that the next TV deal is once again expected to raise the salary cap substantially.

Wait, I thought player empowerment was the name of the game? Is it that owners should be fining players for not honoring their contracts? In which case, why isn’t that an issue for future CBA talks?

And that’s to say nothing about players who force their way out of teams they don’t wanna play for no more. The problem isn’t just the Simmons and the Kawhi’s. And the whole empowerment movement is coming at a time when nearly half the league’s teams need welfare to be profitable.

[jjspur]

The problem is money. There is so much of it going around. It's given then taken advantage of without any repercussions. The owners caved in the last CBA. They however won't let it happen again. Why ? Because finally some top teams in big markets are losing money because of the spoiled NBA players they themselves are enabling. It's a viscous circular arrangement. Something has to give. Eventually one side gets tired of the arrangement and decides to end the agreement and go on strike. Maybe this time it will be the fans. It should be, we're are the ones getting hurt the most sometimes emotionally when our favorite players act like spoiled children and bolt for greener pastures, but mainly it hurts in our pocketbooks.

[MannyIsGod]

Wait, I thought player empowerment was the name of the game? Is it that owners should be fining players for not honoring their contracts? In which case, why isn’t that an issue for future CBA talks?

And that’s to say nothing about players who force their way out of teams they don’t wanna play for no more. The problem isn’t just the Simmons and the Kawhi’s. And the whole empowerment movement is coming at a time when nearly half the league’s teams need welfare to be profitable.

You keep trying to frame as "welfare" which is a hilariously stupid piece of stupid rhetorical nonsense. Profit sharing isn't welfare. The small market teams aren't being gifted . They're profitable because they exist in a situation where the big markets NEED them because no one wants to watch an 8 team league. So yes, they are only profitable because the NBA is set up to be an incredibly profitable league.

Furthermore, I never said about what should be talked about in the CBA. I took issue with your idiotic statement that players somehow have to do whatever teams want because they are under contract for millions. The solution for players who don't want to play is ing obvious and the same for anyone who doesn't perform what they are contracted to do: They don't get paid. But that doesn't mean they HAVE to work for someone if they don't want to. If they want to bring that up in CBA negotiations, then by ALL MEANS. But the players have the leverage here and as I've said in every single post are the owners really in a hurry to potentially damage an incredibly profitable situation over that isn't affecting their bottom line? You think the small market teams you apparently are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned about are eager to lose revenue over something that isn't really a problem?

God damn aren't you a lawyer? Are you sure you aren't a diversity hire?

[MannyIsGod]

Honestly, "They're only profitable because they make more money than they spend" is a of a take.

[Ice009]

They need to do something about players always demanding trades to stacked teams or wanting to create a stacked team. Lockout the whole season if necessary. Absolute joke. Most players aren't willing to work or build a team, they all want out to a more stacked team. Take away 50% of their pay for the length of their contract if a superstar demands a trade. Let's see if they'll still go through with the trade if they lose pay.

[baseline bum]

But the players have the leverage here and as I've said in every single post are the owners really in a hurry to potentially damage an incredibly profitable situation over that isn't affecting their bottom line? You think the small market teams you apparently are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned about are eager to lose revenue over something that isn't really a problem?

The players never have the leverage in CBA negotiations, which is why their share of revenue has dropped from 57% to like 51% of basketball related income over the last 25 years, why there is a max salary, why contracts max out at 4-5 years depending on Bird status, why there is a luxury tax, etc. They have power right now but I think the owners are going to crush them with non guaranteed deals and such in the next CBA based on all the hold outs and forced trades. Unless the players agree to some pretty harsh penalties for holding out or forcing trades while under contract.

[baseline bum]

5yr/300M contracts are also not sustainable, especially for smaller market teams. At some point they're gonna price out their fans from being able to attend games so the owners still make their tens and hundreds of millions.

Meh I hate this argument. Teams will charge the max amount they think people will pay for tickets regardless of their payroll. The whole team could take paycuts to zero and it wouldn't change our ticket prices.

[99 Problems]

Yep.