Reply With Quote
Props to DPG for the play by play.
I just hope you don't get your way. Basketball, NBA basketball as it's been concocted & conducted the past 30 years has been a good to a me.
& I'll tell you another thing:::Buss needs to get his ass out in front of this so "I" ain't standin' alone with my in my hand. He's vested. Get out of Stern's bed and act like somebody.
Props to DPG for the play by play.
Big deal. He's Kori little idiot nephew.Props to DPG for the play by play.
Lucky bas .
Haven't been many questions for the players yet. Fisher came out swinging with his statement and Billy Hunter the same. Basically they are saying owners took a much harder stance and delivered the poison pill. They are bending the truth and they are the ones that said take it or leave. Players were prepared to keep things going, owners saying no.
Hunter: Players can't even except 50/50 until they know the system is in place. If we can address the system, maybe the 50/50 looks ok to us then. We offered a band where we were guaranteed no less than 50 BRI and you go no higher than 53%.
Hunter: Dan Gilbert just kept saying "trust me"
Hunter: Owners said we won't negotiate on system until you accept 50/50 first.
Absolutely. There is no other way. Start with the cap and work back. I said that 10 minutes ago.
I'm sure if spurs were a big market team and/or we had an owner who didn't mind losing tons of money on the team every year, I'd feel differently. But reality is we don't.
The "golden" age of basketball where its was the lakers and celtics mean nothing to me really. They did a lot for the game and did some amazing things. But in this day and age, we shouldn't have a repeat of those days.
If things stay the same, I don't know how long spurs basketball can survive in san antonio.
I know you don't like it, but things have to change.
Let the owners feed at the revenue sharing trough. Why should the players give in on the cap, providing an enormous windfall for the owners and then the owners feed at the revenue sharing trough as well?
They're talking about a $45 million hard cap. That's $3 million per player on a 15 man roster. That's insane.
Shut up pervert.
Goodbye, 2011-12 season.
I'd go for a higher cap with a min around 55 mil.
If I were Hunter I'd say:::"Here's the deal, we'll go 49/51 and everything else stays the same for 10 years." , the players would go goose NBA revenue so strongly they'd increase their overall take even at 49/51.
No way the owners will take that. It's not about the BRI. It's never been about that. That's the come on to get the "boys" into the room so the owners can try and take their pants down with a hard cap.
Hunter: The big market owners (listed Buss, Cuban....) are the ones that were open to making deals, but they don't have the votes.
That don't do me any good. They're talking about have a the luxury tax hit be 7-1 or even 9-1. Obviously that is untenable. Buss could go at most 2 1/2-1 and if he could live with that---I'd sign that.
No, because those 2 assholes Gilbert & Sarver are hot heads and won't be bamboozled. They got everybody else all lit up and lookin' for blood.
Sounds like Hunter is trying to split the owners publicly and place blame on the small market teams (the majority).
Allowing big market teams to overspend the compe ion is just the status quo. Maybe it gets more luxury tax money, but it still keeps the same compe ive balance...maybe makes it slightly smaller on the teams who would overspend.
Sounds great in theory. But in reality, we all know how this is going to end and it's going to end badly for the players. The longer these things go, it always does. I agree with Stephen A. Smith, in that the players aren't wrong. But it's not about that or showing a united front or the owners needing to be fair or anything but this: Getting the best deal possible. And the best deal possible, is the one they make sooner than later.
So they should go down to whatever number the owners are truly willing to accept, whether it's 51 or 51.5 or a 50-52 range (they'd probably get closer to 52, with revenues projected to rise, particularly once the new TV deal kicks in in a few years), try to get a little less restriction on the "system issues" and take it before they lose another cent they won't recoup and more damage is done to the league. Because the alternative is worse.
lmbebo, not matter how much of a landslide the owners ending up winning this thing by, it'll have little effect on the Spurs ability to contend for championships post-Duncan. This isn't like the NFL, MLB or NHL. In the NBA, with one exception in the past thirty years, every champion has been led by a consensus top 30 all-time player and in most cases, much higher than that. Generally, only once every few years does one of them come along and the odds of the league giving San Antonio another one are slim and none. Because they don't need to, not with what the Duncan-era has done for the team locally. And in the absence of that type of player, no matter how shrewd the management is, it's not going to matter, as it pertains to a championship.
Gilbert and Cleveland got screwed by the last CBA and LeBron. Sarver tried to be a big market player but never could stick with it.
Why should successful owners have to bail out the non-successful ones? Why should large markets have to give up earned profits to small markets just to make the league viable? If owners are supposed to be responsible for their own teams, then why should they also have to be responsible for all the others?
It's pretty obvious that the system is broken. If you set a limit to spending, teams are going to spend up to that limit, and use any wiggle room they have to cir vent it. Owners aren't going to intentionally underspend, otherwise fans will be up in arms against the team for "not trying". Peter Holt has been called cheap for many a year for not going over the tax, then he finally did and shot himself in the foot for Richard freaking Jefferson. Still, when it happens, Spurs fans were glad to see him finally opening his wallet, because that is what fans want.
That's why the system has to change to make the league a business model that owners want to invest in. I agree, it sucks that the players would have to take a pay cut or accept smaller salaries to make it happen, but a) they would still be some of the highest paid figures in sports after the cut b) they would still remain ridiculously overpaid as compared to the average worker. The reason they are in this situation now, both owners and players, is because they over-stepped their bounds with the last CBA, and now they need to take a step back, but the players want to act like doing that is unfair. IMO, they need to just realize that they've been making off like bandits for the past 10 years, and that can't continue.
& they're both mean spirited. They're like rabid dogs who bite and then won't let go.
It's personal with Gilbert & Sarver. That is going to be very difficult.
If so, and you're probably correct, for players it will end badly either way. The players should drag them down into the caca and bloody their in' noses with it. I would not go quietly to my financial doom.
We've always gotten talent from the draft. Never free agency under the old system. I can't see that chaining in the new system. But a new CBA that helps the home team keep talent will help teams like ours.
Remember the days when people thought David Robinson would just ignore SA and sign with the Lakers once he completed his naval assignment. Or in 2000 when Orlando when they courted Duncan (and were close to getting him).
How would the team have faired if they had left? You think the current owners could keep this team afloat making a loss?
I know we may never be the city stars flock to, but when we get lucky in the draft we need to have the means to keep those players here as best we can. Can't always keep people from leaving. But if you had put Lebron in Robinson's shoes 20? years ago, no way he would have signed with us.
But a system change will give us a chance, no matter how slim. I think our chances are slimmer if things stay the same.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions