NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion

[da ThRONe]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

There is NOTHING the owners could give up.

It was a one sided CBA for the players. They got 57%. The Allen Houston clause went away in the last CBA. The midlevel exception. The luxury tax stayed the same.

Your argument is starting to make no sense. The CBA was heavily skewed towards players. Its agreed that teams are losing money. Its agreed that the current system isnt working well for competitive balance or financial stability. WHAT COULD THE OWNERS GIVE THEM? Agree to take away the luxury tax?.....There goes any chance a competitive balance. Agree to increase the midlevel?.....Both sides thought that was a problem. Give them more money from the BRI? What can they give them?

I'm ok with the players being the only party giving up something. I am also ok with them drawing the line @52-53%. If the owners want more than they have to make some concessions. Like getting rid of of salary limits. If a team wants to sign LeBron for a 25yeard billion dollar deal that should be possible.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

LOL...thats in incredibly naive statement. If every owner sold their teams to owners like Donald Sterling the league would change considerably. If Lebron got hurt for a year, people would still go to Heat games because of the other talent and it would affect the 29 other teams at all.

People don't go to Heat games now though ziiiing! Okay sorry, couldn't let that one get by though. Carry on

[OSUFan_88]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Hmmm max deals.

So your problem is that they have any sort of cap at all?

BTW, max deals doesn't protect anyone. If anything, it over inflates the market. Unless you believe that Joe Johnson is being paid a fair share of what he is worth.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

NBA players/ owners: a plague on both their houses

[OSUFan_88]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

I'm ok with the players being the only party giving up something. I am also ok with them drawing the line @52-53%. If the owners want more than they have to make some concessions. Like getting rid of of salary limits. If a team wants to sign LeBron for a 25yeard billion dollar deal that should be possible.

So you want the owners to punish themselves and ruin any chance at competitive balance?

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

I'm ok with the players being the only party giving up something. I am also ok with them drawing the line @52-53%. If the owners want more than they have to make some concessions. Like getting rid of of salary limits. If a team wants to sign LeBron for a 25yeard billion dollar deal that should be possible.

You get rid of salary limits, we are back at square one. There goes competitive balance and you cant do that with a luxury tax cap. Try again.

[da ThRONe]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

LOL...thats in incredibly naive statement. If every owner sold their teams to owners like Donald Sterling the league would change considerably. If Lebron got hurt for a year, people would still go to Heat games because of the other talent and it would affect the 29 other teams at all.

Clearly i'll have to take the humor out of my comments in this discussion.

Owners has some impact, but it pales in comparison to that of the players. The players are due a certain percent so even if every owner took the Sterling approach the players would still get their money.

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

People don't go to Heat games now though ziiiing! Okay sorry, couldn't let that one get by though. Carry on

LOL! So true.

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Clearly i'll have to take the humor out of my comments in this discussion.

Owners has some impact, but it pales in comparison to that of the players. The players are due a certain percent so even if every owner took the Sterling approach the players would still get their money.

If its a joke, you have to make it clear its a joke. This is the internet. Cant read tone on a message board.

[Dice]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Here is my issue with that: The players carry no risk. They have guaranteed contracts. As long as they show up for work each day they are guaranteed millions under the old cba and probably the new ones.

The owners carry some risk. If they overpay someone or a star player gets injured or a star player just decides to demand a trade...that can affect the number of people who come to see their games and the amount of revenue that owner brings in.

So I have no problem with the owners trying to devise a system that guarantees each team at least breaks even because they bear all the risk. Players dont bear any risk so for them to turn to the owners and say "I dont care if 16 teams lost money last year, we want our 53% and the system to remain the same as it always has"....thats a little greedy.

Yes, owners take financial risk. BUT to say players have no risk at all is not true. Players take personal risk for future earnings in regards to injury. As you and most people know, these players are paid most on their history and not their future. So the question becomes, is one risk greater than the other? Grant Hill is a perfect example of BOTH sides of the risk. He signed a big contract with the Magic and then the Magic doctors misdiagnosed him and just let him play on the bum ankles and basically ruined his career. While the Magic still ended up paying him, Hill was never the same player and probably blew his hall of fame chances because the Magic in their infinite wisdom let him ruin his feet. So when he finally left the Magic, he ended up signing with the Suns for less than $2 million, when he should have been in his prime making max money.

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Clearly i'll have to take the humor out of my comments in this discussion.

Owners has some impact, but it pales in comparison to that of the players. The players are due a certain percent so even if every owner took the Sterling approach the players would still get their money.

No they wouldnt. They would get significantly less money. Overall revenue would drop because Sterling barely promotes his team and before Blake Griffin his team attendance and revenue was middle of the pack. He makes enough from his other businesses that he doesnt care if the Clippers make him rich.

[da ThRONe]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Max deals have nothing to do with luxury taxes. If a team goes into the luxury they would have to pay the same way they do now.

I am a fan of a salary cap and if the owners took a hard stance on that I would be all for it, but they are focusing on BRI.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Yes, owners take financial risk. BUT to say players have no risk at all is not true. Players take personal risk for future earnings in regards to injury. As you and most people know, these players are paid most on their history and not their future. So the question becomes, is one risk greater than the other? Grant Hill is a perfect example of BOTH sides of the risk. He signed a big contract with the Magic and then the Magic doctors misdiagnosed him and just let him play on the bum ankles and basically ruined his career. While the Magic still ended up paying him, Hill was never the same player and probably blew his hall of fame chances because the Magic in their infinite wisdom let him ruin his feet. So when he finally left the Magic, he ended up signing with the Suns for less than $2 million, when he should have been in his prime making max money.

And he still got paid his massive contract.

So, no, I don't feel bad for Grant Hill. He got misdiagnosed but the Magic still paid him. There was no chance he would ever have missed a check. It was fully guaranteed to him.

[23]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Yes, owners take financial risk. BUT to say players have no risk at all is not true. Players take personal risk for future earnings in regards to injury. As you and most people know, these players are paid most on their history and not their future. So the question becomes, is one risk greater than the other? Grant Hill is a perfect example of BOTH sides of the risk. He signed a big contract with the Magic and then the Magic doctors misdiagnosed him and just let him play on the bum ankles and basically ruined his career. While the Magic still ended up paying him, Hill was never the same player and probably blew his hall of fame chances because the Magic in their infinite wisdom let him ruin his feet. So when he finally left the Magic, he ended up signing with the Suns for less than $2 million, when he should have been in his prime making max money.

You're wrong... Grant Hill got injured in Detroit... injured and they had him play in the playoffs anyway if im not mistaken

The Orlando Magic got robbed 50 times over, I dont care how nice he is.

Now the Rockets along with Chine ruined Yao earlier than needed be, thats a different story

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

You're wrong... Grant Hill got injured in Detroit... injured and they had him play in the playoffs anyway if im not mistaken

The Orlando Magic got robbed 50 times over, I dont care how nice he is.

Now the Rockets along with Chine ruined Yao earlier than needed be, thats a different story

Yep he was injured in Detroit.