Reply With Quote
That chat was like listening to this er
So the NBA projects inflation and that's where the rise in salaries over 10 years comes from?
That chat was like listening to this er
It was absurd.It's hilarious because the posters on here sound exactly like them:
"Greedy ass players could just end this lockout. They have the power, but they won't do it!!!!!!!!"
NBA: "Players can end this lockout by accepting"
Everyone else: "Uhhhhh, don't you have the power as well by accepting their terms to end it?"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ls.html?src=tp
Link to full proposal...
It doesn't look like the owners are going to get serious about having a season until the new year at least.
What a cluster . I'm getting close to walking away from the NBA. What a bunch of en led rich s. I can't stand getting lied to.
I love how they present the fact they will guarantee the players 50% like some benefit.
The owners are so full of . I can't believe they're sticking to their guns with that "300 million" dollar loss, that's a load of crap. The players shouldn't accept the paycut, because the loss of money has nothing to do with their performance. You don't demote an employee who has done his job consistently well.
Unfortunately layoffs and benefit cuts are rife in our system, when plenty of times the -ups are the fault of ownership or CEOs. You have smoe god-awful decision making with the consequences farmed out to the rank and file. Meanwhile, the rich farks just walk away with golden parachutes. David Stern's little empire looks like just another example.
IMO, the big elephant in the room is revenue sharing.
League wants to frame it as player movement but that's just the butthurtness from some owners after the Heatles/Carmelo fiasco.
The reality is that the league over-expanded. Without some kind of subsidy from bigger market teams (like in the NFL, MLB) small market teams are just not going to be viable in this economic climate.
Also, they keep harping how the "system was broken" but this CBA proposal keeps most of the exceptions and the league also has been showing a healthy growth even during the economic crisis. Can't be that broken if you're still showing growth.
Over-expansion also goes into talent dilution. It's no surprise the marginally good talent wants to go to the big markets. There just isn't that many franchise talent to go around.
What about RJ? Bonner? A lot of players suck, if I was their employer I'd fire them. You can't do that though as they're locked into a guaranteed contract.
I agree that you don't demote and employee who has done his job consistently well, but how can you say that about a lot of the NBA players. What do you base a certain player's performance on? What's the comparison?
If you want to make it like the real workplace, then each player needs to be evaluated individually and not have a guaranteed contract.
Holt willingly re-signed Bonner to a 3 year deal when he could've let him walk. I don't know how it works in your business, but in mine, you pay for the bad decisions.
It's not like you can't trade players for different talent.
Don't get me wrong, not all players are saints. But this should be a shared sacrifice, not just put everything on the player's backs.
yeah. lot of quotes from the insiders always say the lakers deal scared the league. contraction should have been the solution but good luck telling people give us your team and let us take it away forever.
Well, these are the same guys that didn't hesitate the give the middle finger to Seattle when the city didn't want to build a new arena for them.
My guess is the way Hunter and Fisher present this offer will have a lot to do with it's success or failure. I think they both know what the likely outcome of refusing this offer will be. If they think this is about as good as we're getting from these guys, then it will probably pass. If they favor decertification or disclaimer of interest, this thing is going to court and I'll need a new hobby. I realize there is no waiting period for "disclaimer of interest", but don't really know much about this tactic legally.
It's a bit hilarious that Stern keeps saying the system changes are there to help compe ive balance and let small teams compete for championships, when for years and years that's been basically like eating manure for him. The league wants Los Angeles and Boston in the finals every year, or Miami. That's it. Any changes are definitely NOT to help the small market teams, and maybe only the benighted small market owners actually think they are.
lol Stern's favorite finals "Lakers vs Lakers"
But we're just trying to make the league more compe ive
Last edited by ElNono; 11-14-2011 at 02:03 AM.
I don't know about that. Throughout this thing it looked like owners didn't mind losing the season, but now they come up with this proposal and a rushed 72 game season, which to me means they'll try to cram as many games as they can in whatever time they can salvage.
I would suspect that if the union does not accept this proposal, they'll cancel December, including the Christmas games. And they'll be right back to the negotiating table, despite Stern's rhetoric to the contrary.
Don't forget that in 1999 the agreement didn't pan out until January. And once an agreement is in place, there's no reason not to try to get some money coming in.
Even if the union gets the votes to decertify, then there's another 45 days or so to keep churning at it. I don't think "disclaimer of interest" will pan out, tbh. I'm sure agents will push for it, but there has to be some major discontent from the players to force Hunter into it.
Of course they want to get in the maximum number of games. It makes me laugh so hard when I read how Stern wouldn't let a 50 game season happen again if the agreement came late like in 1999.
I think when the players reject this offer. We'll see the decertification process begin. That'll put a time limit of like 45 days to still negotiate a deal.
I'm not sure the league would do a 50 game season again.
Either way. I think when this proposal is rejected. They will have to begin again. I think owners will come with a much worse proposal next. 1 step forward, 3 steps back.
Players will not get what they want. Its the sad truth.
750 regular season games + 90-100 playoff games? I'm guessing the NBA will do that in a second if a deal can get done in January but not before.
The owners need something to protect themselves from each other. If Cuban, Arison, or Buss can afford to spend alot of money to take good players it sometimes forces the small market teams into paying more money than necessary to try to keep a player. We saw it last summer with Rudy Gay, Joe Johnson, and Carlos Boozer. Those contracts were ridiculous. Yet, if they didn't overpay some team would have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
