Reply With Quote
This is worrying for the last year of Duncan's contract, let alone the future of the franchise.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
This is a desperate time in the NBA, and there will be desperation in these talks. They’ll go into these negotiations with 30 teams and they’ll come out with 30, but the landscape of the NBA could be dramatically different. The way trades are done and free agents are signed and teams are likely be transformed, and it could take a long lockout – maybe much, if not all, of the 2011-12 season – to get there.
This is worrying for the last year of Duncan's contract, let alone the future of the franchise.
Or we could trade for players under the assumption we won't pay them next year. Ha.
ing arseholes, the owners.
No players, no NBA. The players currently get between 55-60% of BRI, and that is fair. Shortening guaranteed contracts makes sense, but reducing the player's cut of BRI below 50% is ing greedy bull .
No players, no NBA. Who provides the entertainment in the NBA? Definitely not the owners unless you are named Mark Cuban when all you do is get laughed at.
Hear ye, hear ye, Ruffnready has proclaimed it to be fair, so from this day forth ... this is the standard that all shall follow!!!
15 teams lost money last year. More teams lose money in the NBA than any other major sport. The overhead is now greater than 50% for many teams so they can't break even. Of course having no hope of winning a championship even if you make the playoffs has contributed to this. The NBA needs an 8th seed who has never been to the finals to win it all. That would wake up revenues all over the NBA.
Hence, that's why they're fighting for a hard cap and thus the elimination of the MLE and the Bird exception. Dropping the percentage of the BRI the players get in combination with these moves would be ridiculous.
If 15 teams are losing money, wouldn't NOT dropping the player percentage be ridiculous? I mean, if you're going to precipitate a work stoppage, shouldn't you get something for it? If your slice of the pie isn't bigger, does any of the rest of it matter?
They gotta do away with gaurenteed contracts. I don't blame the owners for trying to change the rules for the next CBA, too many players sit on their fat contracts. the union serves a purpose but if it's going to destroy the league what;s the point. My take is that the league can drop all the players and start over with new players and I guarentee you the NBA will get just as big in a couple of years. Doesn't matter where they go, Europe, China, the US fans won't follow them. The union has to stop being so greedy and the owners need to fix their product especially the refs.
No way teams are going to be losing money on a hard cap.
Then just get rid of contracts period. Every player is a free agent every year. It's ridiculous to think contracts should only go one way like in the NFL.
We'll see if the players learned from last time and can actually afford to endure a long lockout.
The NBA has to do something to fix the game, though I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it. Though they have to do something to reign in the free spending the owners do, thus driving up overall salary structure.
The MLE is as good as gone. What they should do is setup a soft cap where you pay a tax if you go over it and then there is a hard level some % above the soft cap.
That would be 'interesting' I'd think.
this is all just corporate waving and grandstanding. both parties stand to lose major money in a lockout, so there is impetus to find an acceptable solution.
its just like time warner and fox news.
Uh, no. Major sports have a frequent history of labor stoppages. The owner's have the backing of the networks and will be paid during the lockout as sort of a loan arrangement, so they really have no incentive to work things out. They'll put the players in the position of having no income, keep them there as long as possible, and extract what they want in terms of concessions. This is going to happen.
What sucks is that this time, it's going to be both the NBA and the NFL at the same time. WTF am I going to watch on TV for my Sports Jones? ing Hockey?
What the deal the league is supposedly wanting is just a starting offer. There is going to be a lot of negotiation on the next CBA so it better for the league to start with a low ball offer then let the union counter back until they finally reach an acceptable deal.
I would not take the report of this initial offering too seriously. The new CBA will be a lot different when all is said and done.
At least they'll be another asterisk champ in 2012.
Seriously the owners should police themselves on their spending, but there still remains a great deal of players who just don't earn there massive salaries.
Only the all-star level guys should be getting 10+ per year.
Look at this list:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
How many of these guys are earning that contract?
If the owners can push down the player salaries, I don't expect to see any drop in ticket prices, which are justified as being very high due to the high player salaries.
The owners will simply pocket what they squeeze out of players.
Bud Selig is probably smiling at that thought.
Yeah, I might actually have to pay attention to baseball before the Series, like pennant races and .
This is so weird. I had a dream the other night that the Spurs won the 2011 NBA le to complete the perfect sequence. I didn't realize it would have NBA lockouts as bookends.
Lockout
1999 Spurs Champs
3 years without a le
2003 Spurs Champs
1 year, no le
2005 Spurs Champs
1 year, no le
2007 Spurs Champs
3 seasons without a le
2011 Spurs Champs
Lockout
The sequence will be complete. So let it be written...so let it be done.
I don't understand why fans of basketball in general, and fans of small-market teams in particular wouldn't back the owner's proposal. A hard cap equalizes the field amongst all teams by ensuring teams like the Lakers, with their $91,377,313 payroll (approx. $33.6 million over the cap), will not be able to assemble the types of roster they have. It also prevents the league from having 5-6 contending teams and 25-24 crappy teams. Parity is good for basketball in general and the Spurs in particular.
This is going to suck. I certainly hope this does not hurt the league too badly.
If the salary cap was a hard cap, the Spurs would have been forced to either let Tony Parker walk in 05-06 or trade Manu Ginobili for an expiring deal in 2004-05. In the first case, you murdered your future, and cost yourself the 2007 le. In the second case, you cost yourself the 2005 and 2007 les. A hard cap will ensure a great team cannot be kept together. Parity in sports is bull .
Exactly, why stifle compe iveness? If a team wants to spend to win, let them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
