CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

“When we had Tariq Abdul-Wahad, he didn’t seem to want to train, didn’t really want to practice — he really was interested in a lot of things besides basketball,”

I'd like to know how exactly you'd be able to detect these types of players aka the Mirages aka Show you everything one year, pay the man and then he reverts back to his old self.

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Yet, Cubes offered that horrible contract to a middling player and now expects people to sympathize with his bad decision. He's made plenty of bad moves as far as contracts are concerned - he's even admitted in the past that it didn't bother him much - yet now he wants give backs from Branden Haywood, Eric Dampier and alike. **** off, Cuban.

...and furthermore this makes a case why contracts shouldnt be guaranteed

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I have a whole list of reason why I believe reducing game would increase the popularity and you point out something that was a side bar. Then try to use it like my whole point is based around fantasy basketball. You do that with every thing you don't agree with find the most insignificant part and try to ridicule it, yet ignoring all the other things said.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Yea, you and I both know this ish is not true and would not be the case either.

I think you just don't want to accept the validity of the idea. Even if you don't pole the idea I think everything in that quote is 100% on.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I think you just don't want to accept the validity of the idea. Even if you don't pole the idea I think everything in that quote is 100% on.

No, it can't be 100% on because of the simple fact that if teams are only playing games two nights a week that gives over half the league more potential to do stupid **** that'll just **** the league over even more than it already is. I don't wanna give Ron Artest extra time to go out and do some dumb ****. I'd rather not leave extra potential time for DeMarcus Cousins to be a *******. Also, just because you shorten the season doesn't mean dudes are going to suddenly start trying every game of the season. Dudes still aren't going to give a **** until after the All-Star break because ****ty teams are still going to exist in the league. Kobe and the Lakers can still drop games to the Bobcats and Pacers throughout the year cause they'll still have the talent to crush weak teams when they feel like it.

Sometimes I want some of these kinds of things to happen just so people who assume things will just automatically be fixed can see how not simple it really is.

[clipperfan811]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

...and furthermore this makes a case why contracts shouldnt be guaranteed

I really think it's fair to have partially guaranteed contracts. You have to maintain some sort of accountability for both sides. I started this lockout almost blindly supporting the players but lets call a spade a spade. There are a ton of instances of young guys playing in contract years having a consistently ballin season and almost as soon as they sign a fat contract somewhere they tank.

I remember watching Bobby Simmons ball it up all year long for the Clippers, he was the second in line impact player after Brand and once free agency hit he thought he was worth much more than he was. Sterling let him walk, the Bucks overpaid and he was never heard from again.

There's way too many stories like that, Jerome James balling for 2 playoff series with the sonics and getting an inflated deal with the Knicks, the infamous Eddy Curry deal

It's either partially guaranteed or much shorter deals, like 3 years going to a new team, 4 years for resigning.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I have a whole list of reason why I believe reducing game would increase the popularity and you point out something that was a side bar. Then try to use it like my whole point is based around fantasy basketball. You do that with every thing you don't agree with find the most insignificant part and try to ridicule it, yet ignoring all the other things said.

BECAUSE YOURE FAILING TO GRASP THE CONCEPT THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY GAMES YOU CUT ITS NOT GOING TO FORCE THE CASUALS TO START CARING ABOUT THE NBA ANYMORE THAN THEY ALREADY DO!!!!!!!!!

THAT's been basically what you're entire argument on this stupid issue has been based on.

The Casuals.

The sames ones who don't give a **** now and the same ones who aren't going to give a **** if you cut down the games either. But for some strange, ****ed up reason you seem to believe that if we cut down games or start the season in December or February, that it's going to make people care more about the NBA or that it'll be better for the league(even though it's not a problem and is the absolute LAST thing that needs to be addressed).

Have 2-3 games a week? Start the season in December? Players will start caring more? Everybody gets more skilled? Players having "extra time" to work with Position Coaches?? Are you really serious with some of this **** or are you just ****ing with us to get a response out of people?

/ridiculous rant on stupid, pointless issue.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

No, it can't be 100% on because of the simple fact that if teams are only playing games two nights a week that gives over half the league more potential to do stupid **** that'll just **** the league over even more than it already is. I don't wanna give Ron Artest extra time to go out and do some dumb ****. I'd rather not leave extra potential time for DeMarcus Cousins to be a *******. Also, just because you shorten the season doesn't mean dudes are going to suddenly start trying every game of the season. Dudes still aren't going to give a **** until after the All-Star break because ****ty teams are still going to exist in the league. Kobe and the Lakers can still drop games to the Bobcats and Pacers throughout the year cause they'll still have the talent to crush weak teams when they feel like it.

Sometimes I want some of these kinds of things to happen just so people who assume things will just automatically be fixed can see how not simple it really is.

Thank. You. Good. Sir

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

BECAUSE YOURE FAILING TO GRASP THE CONCEPT THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY GAMES YOU CUT ITS NOT GOING TO FORCE THE CASUALS TO START CARING ABOUT THE NBA ANYMORE THAN THEY ALREADY DO!!!!!!!!!

THAT's been basically what you're entire argument on this stupid issue has been based on.

The Casuals.

The sames ones who don't give a **** now and the same ones who aren't going to give a **** if you cut down the games either. But for some strange, ****ed up reason you seem to believe that if we cut down games or start the season in December or February, that it's going to make people care more about the NBA or that it'll be better for the league(even though it's not a problem and is the absolute LAST thing that needs to be addressed).

Have 2-3 games a week? Start the season in December? Players will start caring more? Everybody gets more skilled? Players having "extra time" to work with Position Coaches?? Are you really serious with some of this **** or are you just ****ing with us to get a response out of people?

/ridiculous rant on stupid, pointless issue.

It's clear that what I see as common sense and what other view as common sense aren't even in the same ball park. I talking simple supply and demand, but it seem some people can't grasp that. This is how it works you decrease the supply and by doing so you increase the demand for something. It's not a radical idea. It's like I'm talking quantum mechanics in here.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

No, it can't be 100% on because of the simple fact that if teams are only playing games two nights a week that gives over half the league more potential to do stupid **** that'll just **** the league over even more than it already is. I don't wanna give Ron Artest extra time to go out and do some dumb ****. I'd rather not leave extra potential time for DeMarcus Cousins to be a *******. Also, just because you shorten the season doesn't mean dudes are going to suddenly start trying every game of the season. Dudes still aren't going to give a **** until after the All-Star break because ****ty teams are still going to exist in the league. Kobe and the Lakers can still drop games to the Bobcats and Pacers throughout the year cause they'll still have the talent to crush weak teams when they feel like it.

Sometimes I want some of these kinds of things to happen just so people who assume things will just automatically be fixed can see how not simple it really is.

There's going to be a firmer cap. The days of teams spending 80+ million on salary are over for a long time. That will bring about more competitive balance. When a third of the time you had to play around and still make the post season is gone and every other team in the league os improved yes I think it will have a great impact on the entire season.

Sure there are some *******es in the league that take their abilities for granted. That's on each individual franchise to do their due diligence and stop giving money/drafting guys who don't want to be great. If you know Cousins have problem with his work ethics, and prior to the draft teams knew about his immaturity and work ethics. Yet he was still drafted high how many times can franchise and front offices people make the same mistakes?

This isn't counting the smart veterans who understand in order to be fresh come playoffs time they have to pace themselves. I don't know how anybody can argue against a system that allows time for resting, at the same time reduces the opportunity for errors.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

There's going to be a firmer cap. The days of teams spending 80+ million on salary are over for a long time. That will bring about more competitive balance. When a third of the time you had to play around and still make the post season is gone and every other team in the league os improved yes I think it will have a great impact on the entire season.

Sure there are some *******es in the league that take their abilities for granted. That's on each individual franchise to do their due diligence and stop giving money/drafting guys who don't want to be great. If you know Cousins have problem with his work ethics, and prior to the draft teams knew about his immaturity and work ethics. Yet he was still drafted high how many times can franchise and front offices people make the same mistakes?

This isn't counting the smart veterans who understand in order to be fresh come playoffs time they have to pace themselves. I don't know how anybody can argue against a system that allows time for resting, at the same time reduces the opportunity for errors.

Short answer? Repeatedly! Cause they've been doing it for years. The NFL has exactly what the NBA wants and still the Detroit Lions are ****ing terrible because locking out and losing parts of a seaon or entire seasons or salary caps or non guaranteed contracts doesn't cure GM/Owner *******ness. The Chiefs have been pretty much not a threat to win a title for how long now? The Redskins were last relevent when? How long now have the Cowboys been a first round playoff exit? How about how the majority of the 2000's the AFC has been a superior conference to the NFC?

You can argue the system cause giving time for resting means the jackasses like Eddy Curry and others will just not do **** with the time. We're running a thread here about who's going to come back from the lockout out of shape. You're acting like teams are suddenly going to give a **** about winning when they've got this super lucrative tv contract you keep talking about. They don't even care about winning now but suddenly they're gonna care so much that they'll do their due diligence to find out who's a lazy sack of **** or not?

You can't provide supply and demand when there is no demand. You can't take away something no one gives a **** about and some how get more demand for it. That's like saying I'm going to take the XFL or UFL and cut the season back and that'll make so much demand to see this competitive league that we'll be able to cash in with a sweet tv deal. Problem with that is no one gives a **** about either of those leagues so taking it away doesn't faze them. You take away basketball games and the only people begging the NBA for more is hardcore basketball fans while the rest of America continues blowing they're money on all things NFL and whatever other stupid trend has come along.

[WTF]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

It's clear that what I see as common sense and what other view as common sense aren't even in the same ball park. I talking simple supply and demand, but it seem some people can't grasp that. This is how it works you decrease the supply and by doing so you increase the demand for something. It's not a radical idea. It's like I'm talking quantum mechanics in here.

I've not seen anyone saying that what you're suggesting is "common sense". I've not seen anyone back the stance that you keep bringing up. What I do see, is you continuously saying that there are more who share the same view as yourself. Where?

You're entitled to your own opinion, as is everyone else who is on the site.

Some people can't grasp supply and demand that you're suggesting? It's not a supply & demand issue. You cut down on the number of games, you cut down on total # of tickets, concessions, memorabilia purchased from the arenas, you cut down on the lucrative tv deals, regional marketing deals.... and the players still won't make the regular season any more relative. The league is MUCH worse off. The TV networks have time slots to fill, and they're doing it with the NBA, paying them to fill those slots with "entertainment".

The NBA is not the NFL, MLB, MLS, NHL, UFC, WWE... and it's definitely not the NCAA. The reason the NBA doesn't have the viewership that the others do, is because of the product itself and how the product, on the court, is played.

Talk to a NCAA fan... they will tell you that the style of play, and the game on the floor (officiating, game style, pace, etc) is the reason that they don't like it. It's not because the number of games over saturating their televisions.

[Mintsa]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Cutting the amount of regular season/playoff games IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN......period. Even if it makes sense to have less games or not......it's not going to happen.


Reduced the season by 26 games. Each team would play two games per week. (Not going to happen)

Start the season on Christmas day every year. (Not going to happen)

Schedule all games Tuesday and Thursday nights, and Saturday mornings and afternoons. (Not gonna happen, only the NFL has that type of scheduling)

Reduced the number of teams in the playoffs. Rewarding the top two seeds with a bye. (Not gonna happen)

Reduced the playoffs series to best of 5 throughout. (Not gonna happen)

I can see how you can make some points to validate less games would help......but it's just not going to happen........simple as that.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I've not seen anyone saying that what you're suggesting is "common sense". I've not seen anyone back the stance that you keep bringing up. What I do see, is you continuously saying that there are more who share the same view as yourself. Where?

You're entitled to your own opinion, as is everyone else who is on the site.

Some people can't grasp supply and demand that you're suggesting? It's not a supply & demand issue. You cut down on the number of games, you cut down on total # of tickets, concessions, memorabilia purchased from the arenas, you cut down on the lucrative tv deals, regional marketing deals.... and the players still won't make the regular season any more relative. The league is MUCH worse off. The TV networks have time slots to fill, and they're doing it with the NBA, paying them to fill those slots with "entertainment".

The NBA is not the NFL, MLB, MLS, NHL, UFC, WWE... and it's definitely not the NCAA. The reason the NBA doesn't have the viewership that the others do, is because of the product itself and how the product, on the court, is played.

Talk to a NCAA fan... they will tell you that the style of play, and the game on the floor (officiating, game style, pace, etc) is the reason that they don't like it. It's not because the number of games over saturating their televisions.

I have already acknowledged that it would be a temporary step back revenue wise. It's a gamble that judging by the fact that the league as of now isn't seriously discussing. But businesses take risk buying an NBA franchise is a risk. IMO if they don't take this risk they will never fully maximize the leagues earning potential.

Sure the league is great for the Lakers and they can sign huge lucrative deals, but that's not the case for the teams that's losing money. Only 65 of the Hornets game will be televised locally this year. They aren't making 150million a year off of tv money.

Some are keep saying that the NBA will never be a close second to the NFL, IMO they won't as long as they keep the current model of quantity of quality. The overwhelming theme I get from people I know that follows football ranging from loosely to deadhard is the season goes to quickly. While the theme with people who are deadhards feel like the NBA season drags on and once the season is over people are like finally.

I guess this is what happens when you sell ideas intended for people that's lukewarm about something to people that's white hot.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Cutting the amount of regular season/playoff games IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN......period. Even if it makes sense to have less games or not......it's not going to happen.


Reduced the season by 26 games. Each team would play two games per week. (Not going to happen)

Start the season on Christmas day every year. (Not going to happen)

Schedule all games Tuesday and Thursday nights, and Saturday mornings and afternoons. (Not gonna happen, only the NFL has that type of scheduling)

Reduced the number of teams in the playoffs. Rewarding the top two seeds with a bye. (Not gonna happen)

Reduced the playoffs series to best of 5 throughout. (Not gonna happen)

I can see how you can make some points to validate less games would help......but it's just not going to happen........simple as that.

I respect the feedback, but I have never made the argument that this was likely to happen just that I believe it's what's best for the league moving forward.