NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion

[Dice]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Why does everybody still think the ball is in the players court? It's not. The owners made their offer and they said , no. So what are the players suppose to do if they feel they're not getting a fair shake? And this is not to say that the owners proposal is fair or not. The term "Lockout" in this case is imposed by the NBA. so the players legally have no say on when this is going to end.

There is so much legal jargon that's being thrown around that we don't know what's going on. Both sides are emphasizing one or two aspects of their respective deals and they frame them as being fair or the other side is screwing us.

The owners are emphasizing is that they went up from their original BRI offer of 46% to and even 50. Also they're emphasizing getting off their stance of a hard cap. But what they're not telling you is the new punitive tax, which Stern is not denying, where it's just a hard cap in disguise. And with the BRI, as noble as it may sound that they went up 4% on their end, they don't want to emphasize they want the players to go down by 7%. We all associate 50-50 as being fair because we subconsciously associate it with the word "fair". But "fair" is a very subjective word. Players for years have been getting more of the pot BUT no one complained about it until now. Heck, most of us didn't even know what BRI WAS until June. But until recent, nothing short of 50-50 is not "fair".

Then you got the players trying to spread their propaganda and they're just getting beat to a pulp. There is no way they're going to win that game the NBA is playing against them. In all fairness, the union still hasn't given a solid explaination of why they think the proposed BRI split is "unfair".

Honestly, if you look at the situation it's all about who's BS you gullible to believe.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Man, id love to see owners bring in some random players because "nobodys replaceable"....you think you were "spending more than you were making" before? LOL

anyway, Hunter said the negotiations were close, and that "they couldve lived with the deal they were close to making"....interesting because Stern has maintained they were so far apart...makes me wonder whos really holding eveything up here...

EDIT: I meant "everybodys replaceable"

[Altimus]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Man, id love to see owners bring in some random players because "nobodys replaceable"....you think you were "spending more than you were making" before? LOL

anyway, Hunter said the negotiations were close, and that "they couldve lived with the deal they were close to making"....interesting because Stern has maintained they were so far apart...makes me wonder whos really holding eveything up here...

Marbury could be MVP every year.

[Dice]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Marbury could be MVP every year.

That could possibly be your new NBA. Let's see if the league can make money off of him being your star player.

[cjonesfan921]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Why does everybody still think the ball is in the players court? It's not. The owners made their offer and they said , no. So what are the players suppose to do if they feel they're not getting a fair shake? And this is not to say that the owners proposal is fair or not. The term "Lockout" in this case is imposed by the NBA. so the players legally have no say on when this is going to end.

There is so much legal jargon that's being thrown around that we don't know what's going on. Both sides are emphasizing one or two aspects of their respective deals and they frame them as being fair or the other side is screwing us.

The owners are emphasizing is that they went up from their original BRI offer of 46% to and even 50. Also they're emphasizing getting off their stance of a hard cap. But what they're not telling you is the new punitive tax, which Stern is not denying, where it's just a hard cap in disguise. And with the BRI, as noble as it may sound that they went up 4% on their end, they don't want to emphasize they want the players to go down by 7%. We all associate 50-50 as being fair because we subconsciously associate it with the word "fair". But "fair" is a very subjective word. Players for years have been getting more of the pot BUT no one complained about it until now. Heck, most of us didn't even know what BRI WAS until June. But until recent, nothing short of 50-50 is not "fair".

Then you got the players trying to spread their propaganda and they're just getting beat to a pulp. There is no way they're going to win that game the NBA is playing against them. In all fairness, the union still hasn't given a solid explaination of why they think the proposed BRI split is "unfair".

Honestly, if you look at the situation it's all about who's BS you gullible to believe.

Whether it's BS or not, just look at what else is going on in the country. Clearly, economy is not in a good situation, and for all intents and purposes, it will be in a prolonged depression. Owners must do what is right for the business.

Also, I read earlier a post from aholbert and he got it down, there is no deal right now, as such, there is no going down 7%. There is nothing to go down or up from, they are starting anew.

Moreover, I don't associate 50/50 as being fair because, (good point) most maybe think of it that way. I look at it from a different perspective. 57-43 did not work, it was heavily skewed for the players, CONSIDERING the times now. It has to change. Now, the owners no more than I would know, and if they offered 54/46 in their favor, it usually means the 'fair' number is usually in between there some where. 50/50 may not be fair, but this is what happens when you have leverage.

If they players don't want to get totally annihilated by a CBA, they better make a deal within the next month or whenever a season cancellation would occur. If a whole season is gone, you really think the owners will give in for next year? I'd argue they would tighten up and that 50/50 would be a lot more like the 54/46 they wanted at first.

In any battle like this, the ones who cut the check, usually get their way.

[cjonesfan921]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Man, id love to see owners bring in some random players because "nobodys replaceable"....you think you were "spending more than you were making" before? LOL

anyway, Hunter said the negotiations were close, and that "they couldve lived with the deal they were close to making"....interesting because Stern has maintained they were so far apart...makes me wonder whos really holding eveything up here...

I believe Stern has said, "we thought we were within a whisker of a handshake." Although, after that, now he definitely seems very pessimistic.

Also, believe me, if the owners really wanted to bring in scabs, a few of the players would definitely cross the lines. If the owners really wanted to crush the players, they would do just that. I doubt the players would #standunited for much longer.

[cjonesfan921]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

That could possibly be your new NBA. Let's see if the league can make money off of him being your star player.

They have before! However, he is one of the main culprits of this bad CBA.

[The 24th Letter]

That could possibly be your new NBA. Let's see if the league can make money off of him being your star player.

and theyd STILL overpay him

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Why does everybody still think the ball is in the players court? It's not. The owners made their offer and they said , no. So what are the players suppose to do if they feel they're not getting a fair shake? And this is not to say that the owners proposal is fair or not. The term "Lockout" in this case is imposed by the NBA. so the players legally have no say on when this is going to end.

There is so much legal jargon that's being thrown around that we don't know what's going on. Both sides are emphasizing one or two aspects of their respective deals and they frame them as being fair or the other side is screwing us.

The owners are emphasizing is that they went up from their original BRI offer of 46% to and even 50. Also they're emphasizing getting off their stance of a hard cap. But what they're not telling you is the new punitive tax, which Stern is not denying, where it's just a hard cap in disguise. And with the BRI, as noble as it may sound that they went up 4% on their end, they don't want to emphasize they want the players to go down by 7%. We all associate 50-50 as being fair because we subconsciously associate it with the word "fair". But "fair" is a very subjective word. Players for years have been getting more of the pot BUT no one complained about it until now. Heck, most of us didn't even know what BRI WAS until June. But until recent, nothing short of 50-50 is not "fair".

Then you got the players trying to spread their propaganda and they're just getting beat to a pulp. There is no way they're going to win that game the NBA is playing against them. In all fairness, the union still hasn't given a solid explaination of why they think the proposed BRI split is "unfair".

Honestly, if you look at the situation it's all about who's BS you gullible to believe.

My problem with you and Da Throne's argument is that you are overcomplicating the issues. Lets be clear:

THE OWNERS DONT SEEM TO CARE IF THERE IS A SEASON OR NOT!

That alone puts the ball in their court. They have all the leverage. So if they decide that 50 is where the BRI should be....thats where its going to be. The players are delaying the inevitable. They owners arent going to capitulate and give them 53 or 52 because they have no reason too. The players cant force them to do anything. Public opinion still seems to be against the players so the public isnt going to force the owners hands and that nuclear option that you suggested would cost them 1 or 2 seasons in checks.

So the ball is in their court. Take the 50 or 51, take the punitive tax with some tweaks and take less guaranteed years. You do that you get 2.4 billion this year. You dont and you lose that 2.4 billion, spend money on lawsuits and you end up with a hard cap and less than 50. Its their choice.

Now getting to the specifics, a punitive tax isnt a hard cap. If Cuban wants to spend 100 million extra to go 50 million over the cap....he still can. If he thinks that the extra 50 mill in payroll will lead to a championship, he has to be willing to pay a significant cost and take that risk. The only part of the punitive tax that Stern presented that I didn't like is that after 5 yrs he would force owners who have been over the cap that long to cut payroll and get under the cap. Take that out and the proposal is very reasonable.

[23]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Man, id love to see owners bring in some random players because "nobodys replaceable"....you think you were "spending more than you were making" before? LOL

anyway, Hunter said the negotiations were close, and that "they couldve lived with the deal they were close to making"....interesting because Stern has maintained they were so far apart...makes me wonder whos really holding eveything up here...

EDIT: I meant "everybodys replaceable"

I posted that yesterday



"We thought we could live with the deal we were close to making," Hunter said.


You see... watch this guy, because the owners never said that

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Great post by Simmons today:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7100999/avoiding-lockout-red-sox

[da ThRONe]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

Great post by Simmons today:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ockout-red-sox

I can agree with this. At least he's blaming both sides for their part in this not just one side. I agree that a 50/50 split is fair, but I think the league has to back off of some of their demands or give the players something else as far as contracts and/or salary cap structure. I don't think it's fair for them to lean on the players to ensure they will make a profit.

[Dice]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

My problem with you and Da Throne's argument is that you are overcomplicating the issues.

When all the key players in this mess are a bunch of liars, how do you not look at it in a complex manner?

[aholbert32]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

When all the key players in this mess are a bunch of liars, how do you not look at it in a complex manner?

How can you? The only thing we know is that owners arent afraid to lose a season. Everything else can be manipulated. Thats why you cant look at it in a complex manner.

[da ThRONe]

Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Barganing Agreement Discussion

When all the key players in this mess are a bunch of liars, how do you not look at it in a complex manner?

The funny thing is I'm in favor of a 50/50 split, a flex cap, and the end of all exceptions. I would love for the owners to get all of that. At the same time the owners have to give something up. I would suggest ending max salaries, some kind of non-trade clause for player with x amount of years with one team, and no limit on years for contracts.