CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I don't know about that. I was just reading something a couple weeks ago talking about the upcoming labor thing and they mentioned how the Players haven't bent in the NBA ever. The owners are the ones that caved back in 99 and forced Stern to end things. I'll try to find the article. Hell someone here might've posted it.

I don't know about that. According to this article and Kevin Johnson, it might have been the players who bent over.

http://www.newsweek.com/1999/01/17/t...-nba-hoop.html

[justblaze09]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

because they cant save a dime to save their lives thats why

We're talking about the NBA here. The same league that has lost $300 million.

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Yeah but the owners are mostly either billionaires or a group of billionaires

Think Mark Cuban vs Deshawn Stevenson

[DemiGodzillla]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

because they cant save a dime to save their lives thats why

this is a different time than it was before

especially with the atmosphere of the league, guys bolting teams, teams handicapped by long term deals
even if it is the owners fault, the league claiming huge loses in consecutive years..

Theyre going to change some things for sure

Yeah I was thinking about that when I posted, does anyone know what % of players in the league have declared for bankruptcy at some point?

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Yeah I was thinking about that when I posted, does anyone know what % of players in the league have declared for bankruptcy at some point?

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/04/09/60-of-nba-players-go-broke-within-5-years-of-retirement/

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The players are going to lose here. If the league is really losing as much as they say they are they have no choice, but to change the rules. Even though they are the ones who can't run their teams properly.

[VanCitySportsGuy]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I think its a complete joke that one of the offers from the owners had a hard cap of only 45 million.

I'm on the players side. The Owners basically want a CBA that protects themselves because they can't stop handing out dumb contracts.

A hard cap would be horrible for the NBA. Just imagine if your team had a bunch of players develop and then you had to ship them out for 50 cents on the dollars because of the hard cap. This is what happened to the Blackhawks in the NHL. They were basically punished for winning the Stanley Cup.

The current CBA is already fair to both sides. We already have a soft cap, limit on the length of contracts, luxury tax, escrow tax, and incentive to stay with your own team due to more money and 1 more year on the contract.

If there is a lockout (which I predict will happen), the real losers are the fans.

[Drewski]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The current CBA is already fair to both sides. We already have a soft cap, limit on the length of contracts, luxury tax, escrow tax, and incentive to stay with your own team due to more money and 1 more year on the contract.

If there is a lockout (which I predict will happen), the real losers are the fans.

I'm here with it. I feel like the current CBA is fine if utilized responsibly. It's the owners throwing MAX or close to MAX money to guys that seem's to have polluted the current CBA to extinction. It's tough though, because holding onto talent is very hard to do through free agency. It generally forces teams to pay guys like Joe Johnson big bucks, because there are teams well beyond the cap that have money to throw at a very limited free agency market.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I only want to see slight tweaks to the system. I like the partially guaranteed contracts, and I like trying to expand on the Bird rule. I don't want to see a hard cap just one that's firmer than the one in place now. I don't want to penalize the Dr. Busses or Mark Cubans of the NBA and reward the Donald Sterlings. At the same time the NBA could use more competitive balance when it comes to free agency.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

One of the logical things that the players and owners should be able to agree on is NO guaranteed contracts and NO hard cap. At that point, this should give owners the edge to rid themselves of bad contracts and stay competitive. While at the same time, being able to keep a superstar player on the team(if they have one) with some flexibility to build around that superstar.

But of course, logical might not play into the negotiation thought process.

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

you know it wont... its not only a money struggle but a power struggle

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

One of the logical things that the players and owners should be able to agree on is NO guaranteed contracts and NO hard cap. At that point, this should give owners the edge to rid themselves of bad contracts and stay competitive. While at the same time, being able to keep a superstar player on the team(if they have one) with some flexibility to build around that superstar.

But of course, logical might not play into the negotiation thought process.

Do explain Dice. Why would the majority players be against guaranteed contracts, and/or why would the majority owners be against a hard cap?

[Kashanova]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I don't want a hard cap at all. I think it would be horrible for the nba

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Do explain Dice. Why would the majority players be against guaranteed contracts, and/or why would the majority owners be against a hard cap?

The explanation is that the owners are FOR non guaranteed contracts and players are against it. Same goes for the hard cap. Owners are for hard cap and players are against it. So in retrospect, if the players can live with non guaranteed contracts then the owners should accept the current salary cap system. Players give up one. The owners give up one. And I think everybody walks away happy.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

The explanation is that the owners are FOR non guaranteed contracts and players are against it. Same goes for the hard cap. Owners are for hard cap and players are against it. So in retrospect, if the players can live with non guaranteed contracts then the owners should accept the current salary cap system. Players give up one. The owners give up one. And I think everybody walks away happy.

How dare you bring logic into a labor dispute. It has absolutely NO place in these type of negotiations.