PDA

View Full Version : You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?



Reginald
06-27-2011, 11:01 AM
Realize the NFL owners and players are merely arguing over how to split up a gigantic pile of money while the NBA owners know their economic model is unsustainable and are more than willing to gut an entire season to save the league.

I think this is going to get bad, really bad. I'm talking NHL bad.

LetsTalkPacers
06-27-2011, 11:09 AM
sounds about right. take the plunge

duke dynamite
06-27-2011, 11:13 AM
That's fine, at least I have this to look forward to:

http://photos.indystar.com/photos/2008/12/22/202766/show.jpg

Unclebuck
06-27-2011, 11:14 AM
There are many different ways to look at it.

First there is nothing you or I or any of us can do about it, so what good is freaking out about it.

Second, the actual games are over 4 months away and a lot can happen between now and then

Third, I would be as shocked as I ever have been in my entire life if a whole season is missed. At worst we would have what we had in 1999 and that is at worst. The players will cave well before a whole season is missed.

Speed
06-27-2011, 11:25 AM
I've heard it said that the numbers are in a place that the current players salaries won't be impacted next year. 2 billion to the players and this covers next years scheduled pay. The sticking point appears to be that the owners want the next CBA to be 8-10 years in length and the players do not. Basically amounts to if the current players want to lock future players into this deal and maybe screwing them.

So it seemed positive that the general areas of concerned have both sides bending a bit was real progress. So maybe they aren't that far away. The rub seems to be how willing both sides are to throw away the progress thats been made and to start losing money. I think it gets done before paychecks are lost, hearing people talk about it. That would mean we maybe have a shortened training camp, but lose no games. Thats my best guess, at the moment. Good news is the Pacers don't have any true rookies who will lose ground in this delay. Bad news is a truncated free agent period could reduces chances for an impact signing, imo.

Trader Joe
06-27-2011, 11:36 AM
The NHL has never been stronger than it is right now. The lockout actually saved that league.

Unclebuck
06-27-2011, 11:37 AM
If you read this article it appears the owners have given in on a few issues while the players seem to be holding firm.

I was unaware that the owners have already come off their demand for a hard cap. it almost seems like the owners are at least somewhat close to putting their best offer on the table before the lockout begins where as the players are holding back.

Once the lockout starts (unless they just push the deadline back 10 or 30 days) then there is very little incentive to get anything done until after Labor Day.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2011-06-26-labor-contract-deadline_n.htm

NBA owners, players plan deadline talks to avoid lockout

By J. Michael Falgoust (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/reporter/J.+Michael+Falgoust), USA TODAY


In less than a week, the status of the 2011-12 NBA (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Sports+Leagues/NBA) season will officially be on the clock.
Players and owners must come to an agreement on a collective bargaining agreement by Thursday to prevent a work stoppage.

Owners will convene in Dallas on Tuesday to discuss their options, which could include authorizing a lockout. Both sides will meet together Wednesday or Thursday, hours before the expiration date.

Negotiations have stalled because the sides are far apart on the salary cap, which was a "soft" $58 million for the 2010-11 season. Fifty-seven percent of basketball-related income is designated for players' salaries.

Owners want to reduce that to about 50% to help control expenses and institute a firmer cap system that won't have various exceptions that allow teams to exceed it. The league claims 22 of its 30 teams lost money last season. The NBA champion Dallas Mavericks (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Sports+Leagues/NBA/Dallas+Mavericks) had a payroll of more than $90 million.

Players declined to present a new economic proposal to owners Friday. Owners had hoped for another proposal from the union, but players felt they had gone far enough after offering a $500 million reduction in salaries over five years early last week, a move NBA Commissioner David Stern termed "modest."

"Why did we not make one? Because we felt that the one that we made previously was sufficient," union executive director Billy Hunter (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Sports+Coaches,+Team+Owners,+Execs,+Officials/NBA/Billy+Hunter) said.

Owners, who also are exploring an expanded form of revenue sharing, have backed off their insistence on non-guaranteed contracts and moved from a hard cap with no exceptions to a flex cap that would allow some. Players rejected that, too.

"There's still such a large gap, we feel that any move for us is real dollars we'd be giving back from where we currently stand, as opposed to where our owners have proposed numbers that in our estimation don't exist right now," union President Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers said. "They're asking us to go to a place where they want."

Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver, the NBA's lead negotiator, said it would be "premature to talk about where we're going to find ourselves next week."

Hunter said there was enough good dialogue between owners and players that any lockout action might be unnecessary.

"The nature of the discussion today was such that they may find it difficult to pull the trigger," Hunter said. "Even though we didn't make any progress, maybe they felt that the energy and the attitude in the room was such that it might necessitate further discussion."

Stern remains optimistic both sides can come to an agreement after a banner 2010-11 season.

"The one thing we don't want is a lockout," he said. "We have told the players that."

Brad8888
06-27-2011, 11:44 AM
No help to Reginald here, either.

Overall, on average, the players are the only ones in danger of losing money in the event of a lockout, even a protracted one. The owners are in a position where they, on average, will either come out about the same, or actually lose less in the event that the lockout continues. The values of the franchises are already probably declining due to the inability of many teams to charge what they used to for tickets, and I would suspect that TV revenues aren't growing fast enough to make up for that.

Also, the players have a finite window of time that they can earn money at the NBA level. A protracted lockout would damage them from the perpective that they will lose whatever amount of time the lockout takes from that window. For many players, that is very significant because they are either nearing retirement or are only marginal NBA players to begin with.

Players do have at least a limited option to go overseas and play, but that comes with a lot of personal and potential emotional costs to them, reducing the likelihood that many would take that route in my opinion.

So, in my opinion, the owners are the ones most in control of this situation, and I fully expect them to put the clamps on to whatever level they legally can to make the business model sustainable going forward. And, despite the likely loss of at least some games, I cannot blame the owners one bit (other than for permitting salaries to get out of control to start with) for proceeding with this lockout.

It s*cks as a fan, but it is not the least bit surprising, either.

Unclebuck
06-27-2011, 11:44 AM
The NHL has never been stronger than it is right now. The lockout actually saved that league.

The NBA is in a much different position than the NHL was a few years ago. The NBA is much, much higher profile, they have a ton to lose, where as the NHL had not that much to lose.

Sparhawk
06-27-2011, 11:48 AM
It's inevitable, so why worry. Didn't worry about the NFL lockout either. Fans are the ones that get screwed every time, so what are you going to really do?

duke dynamite
06-27-2011, 12:06 PM
On that note who wants to go with me to some IU games this year???

rock747
06-27-2011, 01:37 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2n4Vb91aJQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

presto123
06-27-2011, 01:45 PM
I'm more concerned with the NFL at this point especially since it is Super Bowl Indy time.

Lurkster
06-27-2011, 01:55 PM
The NHL has never been stronger than it is right now. The lockout actually saved that league.

I don't follow hockey at all...but I remember when NHL games used to be on espn networks all the time (mostly espn2 i believe)

now (for most americans) NHL games are nowhere to be found (aka, Versus)

Tv pretty much runs sports these days..so for that reason alone i don't think the NHL is currently as strong as it has ever been. however I have no idea if their lockout was helpful to the NHL or not, which I realize was your main point

Trader Joe
06-27-2011, 01:56 PM
The NBA is in a much different position than the NHL was a few years ago. The NBA is much, much higher profile, they have a ton to lose, where as the NHL had not that much to lose.

That was my point. They aren't comparable situations.

Eleazar
06-27-2011, 02:01 PM
The NBA is in a much different position than the NHL was a few years ago. The NBA is much, much higher profile, they have a ton to lose, where as the NHL had not that much to lose.

Yeah, I didn't even realize the NHL was having a lockout until like a week before it was over.

xBulletproof
06-27-2011, 02:29 PM
The NHL had a lockout?

I am serious by the way. lol

judicata
06-27-2011, 03:29 PM
My interest in the NBA has only rekindled in the past three years or so. If they bugger it up I'll just go back to not caring and watching college hoops exclusively. It helps that this year college basketball looks to be great.

Will Galen
06-27-2011, 04:16 PM
Realize the NFL owners and players are merely arguing over how to split up a gigantic pile of money while the NBA owners know their economic model is unsustainable and are more than willing to gut an entire season to save the league.

I think this is going to get bad, really bad. I'm talking NHL bad.

I think they will lose a full year, maybe more. The players have been saving their money and the new owners want to make money, not lose it. So . . . a long lockout.

Unclebuck
06-27-2011, 04:20 PM
I think they will lose a full year, maybe more. The players have been saving their money and the new owners want to make money, not lose it. So . . . a long lockout.

What evidence does anyone have that the players have truly saved their money? I would be shocked if they really did

Hicks
06-27-2011, 04:32 PM
What evidence does anyone have that the players have truly saved their money? I would be shocked if they really did

Not to mention the players who have just started their time in the league, or the fringe players who lose a lot more %-wise of their career earnings than any of the name recognizable players do.

Anyway, I was hearing today the first time the players miss a paycheck is November 15th. So if this is as ugly as it sometimes sounds, I wouldn't expect anything before December.

My only hope is it's over sometime in January.

Isaac
06-27-2011, 05:02 PM
Haha you guys are all so Indiana. The NHL and NBA are extremely comparable leagues, especially considering pricing and attendance numbers. In fact, the NBA doesn't really have anything that approaches powerhouse franchises like Montreal and Detroit in terms of money makers.

Unclebuck
06-27-2011, 05:11 PM
Haha you guys are all so Indiana. The NHL and NBA are extremely comparable leagues, especially considering pricing and attendance numbers. In fact, the NBA doesn't really have anything that approaches powerhouse franchises like Montreal and Detroit in terms of money makers.


If you are talking about revenue from ticket sales and related stadium revenue, you are 100% correct. NBA and NHL are very comparable.
But the difference in national TV money from the NBA to the NHL is staggering -

Scot Pollard
06-27-2011, 05:13 PM
Haha you guys are all so Indiana. The NHL and NBA are extremely comparable leagues, especially considering pricing and attendance numbers. In fact, the NBA doesn't really have anything that approaches powerhouse franchises like Montreal and Detroit in terms of money makers.

The NHL/hockey for that matter is a way bigger deal in Canada than it is here in America.

Talking America here, the NFL, NBA, and MLB are the biggest and more popular sports leagues here. Heck, in today's sports world, the NFL and NBA have gained so much national popularity.

A lot of people seem to place the NHL and the MLS on the same page.

Of course hockey used to be a big deal and the franchises even in America that have still continued their winning legacy still attract a nice fanbase, but nearly all cities are fairweather as far as the NHL and a good portion, even if the team is decent can still give a ****.

The quarter of the league (Canadian teams) all pretty much sellout rain or shine. That's their sport up there.

Locations in America like Arizona, Florida, smaller markets Columbus, New York (Islanders) etc. shouldn't have teams. I'm shocked the Coyotes and the Islanders are still in business. No one gives a crap about them.

Either move the teams to Canada or fold them.

xBulletproof
06-27-2011, 05:27 PM
Anyway, I was hearing today the first time the players miss a paycheck is November 15th. So if this is as ugly as it sometimes sounds, I wouldn't expect anything before December.

My only hope is it's over sometime in January.

Don't be so sure that most guys won't be hurting before that. I was listening to Jeff Saturday about a month ago and he said it was the time when NFL players will start make calls around asking more well off players if they can borrow money to float themselves until the season starts.

Can't imagine it's much different in the NBA. That said, I still think it's 50/50 on whether we see a season at all.

LA_Confidential
06-27-2011, 05:30 PM
Jump! Jump!

Oops, my bad. Some old Kriss-Kross was playing on the radio just now.

Will Galen
06-27-2011, 05:32 PM
What evidence does anyone have that the players have truly saved their money? I would be shocked if they really did

Money does seem to burn a hole in 20 year old's pockets, but I've read player quotes where they indicated they are saving money.

The union has been warning them for a couple years, but there will always be people that spend money as fast as they make it.

The last time the Owners and players had a squabble they lost 32 games. If the players last pass the halfway point of being able to play 41 games then I think the whole season will be lost. Will they gain anything from it? Good question, but I think that's where it's headed..

Wage
06-27-2011, 05:36 PM
Talking America here, the NFL, NBA, and MLB are the biggest and more popular sports leagues here. Heck, in today's sports world, the NFL and NBA have gained so much national popularity.

A lot of people seem to place the NHL and the MLS on the same page.



Isaac lists Chicago as his location, and in that case I can agree he is absolutely correct. The NBA is a very distant 4th to the NFL, MLB, and NHL in this area.

mattie
06-27-2011, 05:37 PM
I'm not too worried about it. I actually hope games are missed if that means some serious issues are fixed.

Obviously the case with the NFL is completely different considering we get the Superbowl this year. So I'm deathly afraid of anytime lost.

Unclebuck
06-27-2011, 05:39 PM
Isaac lists Chicago as his location, and in that case I can agree he is absolutely correct. The NBA is a very distant 4th to the NFL, MLB, and NHL in this area.

Not discussing MLB or NFL right now.

But why or what evidnece do you have that in Chicago the NBA is a distant 4th. I don't believe it is local TV ratings - I can look that up tomorrow. Blackhawks are popular I'm not denying that, but I believe the Bulls are more popular.

Scot Pollard
06-27-2011, 05:43 PM
Isaac lists Chicago as his location, and in that case I can agree he is absolutely correct. The NBA is a very distant 4th to the NFL, MLB, and NHL in this area.

No I agree it definitely depends on the success of the team and how much popularity the local team gains to place the sports league it values.

However, it surprises me, based on you, how the NBA is a distant 4th meanwhile the Bulls finished first in attendance?

That city is so big and has various people, it's tough to characterize leagues I would think.

In Indy, it all depends on if either the Colts, NFL or the Pacers, NBA are good and that triggers the popularity of that league even more along with the team itself.

I'm just saying and just watch ESPN, America generally favors the NFL, NBA, MLB.

Reginald
06-27-2011, 05:44 PM
Haha you guys are all so Indiana. The NHL and NBA are extremely comparable leagues, especially considering pricing and attendance numbers. In fact, the NBA doesn't really have anything that approaches powerhouse franchises like Montreal and Detroit in terms of money makers.

Uh, okay.

There's a reason the NHL is on Versus. And that's because in the continental US nobody outside Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philly or New York gives a crap about the sport of professional hockey. Your idea of "extremely comparable" is just plain old silly. The average value of an NBA team is nearly $150 million more per team. NBA league revenues exceed NHL revenues by more than $1 billion.

As for the NBA not having any franchises that approach the value of NHL teams like Montreal or Detroit, that's also total bullcrap. According to Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_land.html), the Toronto Maple Leafs current value of $505M is tops in the NHL, followed by the Rangers ($461M), Canadiens ($408M) and Red Wings ($315M). At present, the Knicks ($655M), Lakers ($643M) and Bulls ($511M) are all more valuable than the NHL's most-valuable team, and the Canadiens are the only other NHL team that would make the NBA's Top 10 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html). The Red Wings, aka the NHL's fourth most-valuable franchise, would rank 21st in the NBA.

Wage
06-27-2011, 06:13 PM
Not discussing MLB or NFL right now.

But why or what evidnece do you have that in Chicago the NBA is a distant 4th. I don't believe it is local TV ratings - I can look that up tomorrow. Blackhawks are popular I'm not denying that, but I believe the Bulls are more popular.

To be honest, my statement was based purely on observations over my last 5 years living here. I personally don't care at all about baseball or hockey, so I notice the difficulty of finding people that follow basketball.

During this past Bulls run, a lot of people were watching the games, but very few had any emotional investment in the team, beyond wanting to see D Rose have a good game. Once the series ended, the Bulls evaporated from conversation almost completely, as people focused on the Hawks, Bears, or Cubs once again.

I have no idea what the town was like during the Jordan years, but my experience tells me that even before the Stanley Cup, the Hawks have been far more beloved than the Bulls for quite some time.

Hicks
06-27-2011, 06:27 PM
Haha you guys are all so Indiana.

With an opening like this, you screw your own message over from the get go. Needless and it comes off as rude.

CooperManning
06-27-2011, 09:29 PM
With an opening like this, you screw your own message over from the get go. Needless and it comes off as rude.

I don't take it as rude and I'm from Indy originally. Hockey/NHL just isn't followed heavily in Indiana, so many Hoosiers tend to discount how big hockey is in other cities. I used to see more Blackhawks apparel, flags, etc. when I lived in Chicago than Bulls gear, hands down. I'm sure the Bulls get more TV money and are probably a more valuable franchise, but as far as general buzz amongst the fanbase, I'd agree with whoever said the Blackhawks are more popular. Before the Bulls got D-Rose, no one in Chicago was talking about the Bulls.

kellogg
06-27-2011, 09:37 PM
There are many different ways to look at it.

First there is nothing you or I or any of us can do about it, so what good is freaking out about it.

Second, the actual games are over 4 months away and a lot can happen between now and then

Third, I would be as shocked as I ever have been in my entire life if a whole season is missed. At worst we would have what we had in 1999 and that is at worst. The players will cave well before a whole season is missed.

And in the end, lockout or not, what happens will have absolutely no real impact on your life...you'll still have a job (or not), family, friends, etc...and the players and owners will still be millionaires.

owl
06-27-2011, 09:54 PM
Lockouts and strikers are annoying but I always seem to find other things to do until
they come to their senses.

pacer4ever
06-28-2011, 06:53 AM
Not discussing MLB or NFL right now.

But why or what evidnece do you have that in Chicago the NBA is a distant 4th. I don't believe it is local TV ratings - I can look that up tomorrow. Blackhawks are popular I'm not denying that, but I believe the Bulls are more popular.

Blackhawks are more popular IMO because the casual fan loves going to see Hockey at the UC. It is truly an amazing atmosphere. The Bulls and the Hawks always sell out due to population size in Chicago though. I will just say this I went to see Cubs v Cards during the NBA/NHL playoffs this year both the Blackhawks and Bulls had playoff games that night. I saw way more Blackhawk jerseys at Wrigley. I mean it probably depends who you talk too but most of my friends in Chicago say the Blackhawks are more popular. The Bears are by far the most popular then i would say the 2 baseball teams then the hawks then the bulls IMO.

Speed
06-28-2011, 07:53 AM
Good for Hockey....

and Meh for Hockey.

Since86
06-28-2011, 10:57 AM
Obviously the case with the NFL is completely different considering we get the Superbowl this year. So I'm deathly afraid of anytime lost.

It needs to be pointed out that the NFL has said that Indy will get another Superbowl if anything happens.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6665613

Unclebuck
06-28-2011, 01:28 PM
Blackhawks are more popular IMO because the casual fan loves going to see Hockey at the UC. It is truly an amazing atmosphere. The Bulls and the Hawks always sell out due to population size in Chicago though. I will just say this I went to see Cubs v Cards during the NBA/NHL playoffs this year both the Blackhawks and Bulls had playoff games that night. I saw way more Blackhawk jerseys at Wrigley. I mean it probably depends who you talk too but most of my friends in Chicago say the Blackhawks are more popular. The Bears are by far the most popular then i would say the 2 baseball teams then the hawks then the bulls IMO.

Both sell out, so no difference there, and there is no objective way to try and judge whether there is more Blackhawk jerseys at a Cubs game. Amd there is no objective way to try and determine a city wide support of a local team by what your friends are into 9or talking about.

I think local TV viewership is one objective measure that could be used. Although hockey suffers on TV and hockey generally has a very die-hard group of fans

I can give you the numbers on Chicago ratings for the NBA Finals vs the NHL Finals. This doesn't compare Hawks vs Bulls, but it does compare NHL vs NBA.

http://sonofthebronx.blogspot.com/2011/06/2011-nba-finals-game-6-on-abc-in-56-us.html
Game #7 NHL - 6.4 - 11tjh best of all 56 top markets
Game #6 NHL - 3.1
Game #5 NHL - 2.9

Game #6 NBA - 18.8 - 6th best of the top 56 markets

so by using this number comparing game #6's the NBA is 6X more popular than the NHL


I think most will agree that Detroit right now is probably a bigger hockey town than NBA.
NBA game #6 - 15.5

NHL game #7 - 8.7
NHL Game #6 - 4.6

so even there and comparing game 6 vs game 6 the NBA outdraws the NHL by more than 3-1

Naptown_Seth
06-28-2011, 01:34 PM
Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?
Yes. What you want to do is take one step forward and wait a few seconds. That should get you off that ledge and back onto solid ground in no time.

Naptown_Seth
06-28-2011, 01:36 PM
And in the end, lockout or not, what happens will have absolutely no real impact on your life...you'll still have a job (or not), family, friends, etc...and the players and owners will still be millionaires.
Okay Lebron.

;)

Unclebuck
06-28-2011, 01:44 PM
Sorry to beat a dead horse like this, but this is an interesting link about historic ChicAGO RATINGS

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2010/06/blackhawks-cup-win-vs-other-chicago-titles-in-tv-ratings.html

How does the Chicago Blackhawks' overtime Game 6 victory to clinch their first Stanley Cup title in 49 years compare in the local TV ratings to the biggest games involving the Bears, Bulls, Cubs and White Sox?

<!-- .entry-body -->WMAQ-Ch. 5's coverage of Hawks' 4-3 victory over the Flyers on Wednesday averaged a 32.8 household rating (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2010/06/blackhawks-tv-first-stanley-cup-since-61-a-ratings-winner.html), meaning that the game was on in 32.8 percent of the homes in the Chicago market, on average, from 7:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.

It's worth noting that although sports teams tend to unite a community, there have been progressively more options dividing viewers viewers over the years.

Still, there aren't any huge surprises in the local TV ratings for other Chicago pro sports teams' championship (and not-quite championship) games of the recent past, which include:
63.1 household rating for the Bears' 1986 Super Bowl XX victory over the New England Patriots on WMAQ- Ch. 5.

53.1 household rating for the Bulls' 1997 NBA title clincher against the Utah Jazz on WMAQ-Ch. 5.

52.1 household rating for Bulls 1998 NBA title clincher -- and Michael Jordan's final game for Chicago -- against the Utah Jazz on WMAQ-Ch. 5.

50.2 household rating for the Bears' 2007 Super Bowl XLI loss to the Indianapolis Colts on WBBM-Ch. 2.

47.1 household rating for the Cubs' loss to the Florida Marlins in the decisive Game 7 of the 2003 National League Championship Series on WFLD-Ch. 32.

42.0 household rating for the White Sox decisive Game 4 victory over the Houston Astros in 2005 World Series on WFLD-Ch. 32.
<!-- .entry-more -->

Unclebuck
06-28-2011, 03:07 PM
On the topic of the locout, enjoy pacers.com while you can for the next two days or so

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/NBA-team-websites-could-get-boring-during-a-lock;_ylt=Ahwg3_06AiKrhQdwKxCLBXe8vLYF?urn=nba-wp5656

By Eric Freeman (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie?author=Eric+Freeman)

To their credit, the NBA has always been near the forefront of using the internet to reach out to fans. Whereas leagues like the NFL and MLB have done everything possible to keep highlights from popping up on YouTube, the NBA freely disseminates videos. They've also embraced Twitter and encouraged players to use it as a positive marketing tool.
Unfortunately, a lockout would put much of the league's web activity on hold. Kevin Arnovitz explains at TrueHoop (http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/post/_/id/30755/back-to-the-internet-stone-ages-for-the-nba):

But for the guys who are in charge of those team websites and NBA.com, the pending deadline is a huge deal.
That's because the moment the clock strikes midnight on the current CBA, all those images and videos of NBA players have to disappear off NBA-owned digital properties. Depending on how you interpret "fair use," the prohibition could include the mere mention of a player's name on an NBA-owned site, though different teams have different interpretations of this particular stipulation.
Over the past few weeks, NBA website administrators and support staff have endured two-hour conference calls and countless planning sessions to figure out how to eliminate all these photos, highlights, articles and promotional features from the sites.
As Arnovitz describes it, most team websites are about to turn into desolate wastelands (imagined here by Trey Kerby at TBJ (http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2011/06/27/nba-websites-nearing-apocalypse/)). They'll be populated mostly by mascots and dancers, and any exciting player videos will be replaced by dispatches from charity events. So, Clippers fans, do you like Blake Griffin dunks? Because pretty soon your visits to clippers.com will be met with an interview featuring Clips superfan Frankie Muniz.

Since86
06-28-2011, 03:23 PM
How. Stupid.

Eleazar
06-28-2011, 04:40 PM
How. Stupid.

I was just thinking that. I mean seriously what is the point?



As far as NBA popularity vs NHL popularity it isn't even close. While there are some areas where the NHL may be very popular the vast majority of the USA doesn't care about the NHL unless their local team has a chance to win the championship.

Wage
06-28-2011, 04:58 PM
As far as NBA popularity vs NHL popularity it isn't even close. While there are some areas where the NHL may be very popular the vast majority of the USA doesn't care about the NHL unless their local team has a chance to win the championship.

I agree with this and was certainly not arguing the opposite. I was simply pointing out how in the Chicago area, the reverse is true. It's honestly not even close. Being from Indiana, seeing just how much more popular the NHL was than the NBA in Chicago shocked me. I had no idea anyone outside of Canada was a die-hard NHL fan.

kellogg
06-28-2011, 05:36 PM
Okay Lebron.

;)

That's King James to you...:)

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 12:58 AM
The players need to stop being so selfish. Billy Hunter and his ugly a.ss hair needs to shutup. And how the hell did Derek Fisher's sorry a.ss get to represent the players?

samiuam
06-29-2011, 03:49 AM
I agree, I live in Chicago, first and foremost this is a Bears town, next come the 2 baseball teams, followed by the 'Hawks. Remember the 'Hawks are an original 6 hockey team, established in 1926. Other original 6 members are Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto and New York, which explains why hockey is big in those cities. Lots of die-hard fans, and generations of fans who grew up with the team. Being from Indiana it was surprising to see how many people here love and actually play hockey regularly...it's like their basketball.

The Bulls on the other hand, est. in 1966, are popular but have a much smaller core group of fans. Indeed, before 1984 the Bulls were frequent cellar dwellers. Most of the core fans are fans that grew up in the Jordan years, and were able to survive the Post-Jordan years.

Of course, during the good times the "bandwagon fans" appear for all teams, but overall the hierarchy here is: Bears, 'Sox/Cubs, 'Hawks-very close third, and then the Bulls.

Hicks
06-29-2011, 08:11 AM
The players need to stop being so selfish. Billy Hunter and his ugly a.ss hair needs to shutup. And how the hell did Derek Fisher's sorry a.ss get to represent the players?

Again, to people getting around the censor, it's there for a reason.

Speed
06-29-2011, 01:10 PM
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214454/Source_Owners_Will_Push_For_$45_Million_Hard_Cap_O nce_Lockout_Begins


According to NBA executives familiar with the league’s strategies, once the lockout is in place, the owners will push for a hard salary cap of $45 million, the elimination of guaranteed contracts and ask that the players swallow a 33 percent salary cut.

The concessions made in recent weeks, including the “flex cap” of $62 million and a guarantee of $2 billion in annual player payroll, will be off the table.

If this seems certain to guarantee the loss of the entire 2011-12 season, it is because there are owners who think it is necessary for the long-term viability of the league.


Via Mike Monroe/San Antonio Express-News (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/06/29/mike-monroe-it-only-gets-harder-for-owners-players/)

--------------

Now it starts to get ugly.


Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214454/Source_Owners_Will_Push_For_$45_Million_Hard_Cap_O nce_Lockout_Begins#ixzz1QgaT8bQG

Unclebuck
06-29-2011, 01:25 PM
The owners have tried (I believe) to create a scenerio where there was great incentive to get a deal done by the June 30th deadline. I think what happened is that the players didn't get the same sense of urgency that the owners have had. The players appear to be about 25% into the negotiating process while the owners are more like 75% through their process. So yes I would expect the owners to take their current proposals off the table.

So negotiations start new and nothing will even begin to happen until after labor day.

Having said that I do not understand how anyone can know or have a good idea that the entire season will be lost. It could be, sure but there are so many moving parts, it is impossible to predict what is going to happen.

At worst we have seen how far the owners are willing to go over the past 3 weeks or so. My guess is the players aren't willing to accept the owners proposals now, but come December 10th and when there is a real possibility the entire season might be lost, the players are much, much more likely to accept what the owners seem willing to concede

Since86
06-29-2011, 01:44 PM
I've been saying for weeks that the players are going to get rolled over. The players have gotten the better end of the agreement for quite some time, and the gravy train is all dried up.

They screwed themselves over by not coming to the table willingly. Now they're gonna come back with their tail inbetween their legs and get shafted.

EDIT: And the idea that revenue sharing would solve the problem is gone. The owners made concessions prior to the 6/30 deadline and but didn't budge off that stance. They're definitely not going to go there now.

Unclebuck
06-29-2011, 01:53 PM
I've been saying for weeks that the players are going to get rolled over. The players have gotten the better end of the agreement for quite some time, and the gravy train is all dried up.

They screwed themselves over by not coming to the table willingly. Now they're gonna come back with their tail inbetween their legs and get shafted.

EDIT: And the idea that revenue sharing would solve the problem is gone. The owners made concessions prior to the 6/30 deadline and but didn't budge off that stance. They're definitely not going to go there now.


I agree. Overall I think the owners have shown some real movement over the past 3 weeks or so (assuming all the reports are correct) and if the players would be willing to negotiate hard over the next couple of days, I think the deal they could get now is probably as good of a deal as they are going to get whether it is December of this year or next summer.

Seems as though the players are not being smart in their overall approach as far as when to get the best deal and not lose any money. I mean sure next summer maybe the players could get a slightly better deal overall than they can right now, but that is after each and every current player has lost a full year's salary that they would never get back.

Putting this in real terms, if I was placed with a choice of taking a $10,000 pay cut or going on strike, is it worth it to me to strike for a full year to maybe only lose $4,000 off my regular salary? Of course not. It would have been better for me to take the $10K pay cut and keep working.

pacersgroningen
06-29-2011, 02:05 PM
I'm sorry, but screw the players, I'm fed up with them! Or at least the ones that claim to be representing them. It seems to me like the owners really wanted to make this work so we could all keep enjoying the NBA, but the players don't seem to realise it hurts the fans. The only thing they are thinking about is how the hurting of the fans will hurt their income. Don't they understand that they are in a very priviledged situation, to be even playing in the NBA? Most of us would trade lives for getting less than the minimum.

So owners, even though you are mostly responsible by not having common sense handing out contracts, I'm on your side. Lay it on 'em! HARD! I'll hate not being able to watch NBA for an entire year or more, but if that's what it takes, so be it! Maybe the players do some charity work from time to time, but it might not come through to them what it's like to have such a job and you have to work six days a week to even put food on the table. (I know, there might be a few exceptions...)

Speed
06-29-2011, 02:34 PM
I'm see it a little different and its really smart by the league in how they've done this.

The league proposed all of these drastic huge changes and then they come off of those stances to look like they are giving a ton.

If your the Union the baseline is what it is like now. So the 57% based on gross minus 900 million. The league isn't moving from that position to a shared comprimise, they are coming from what basically amounts to 37% to the players stance and moving the other way.

So ya, it looks like they've given back a ton, but they started by asking for the moon.

I think its the illusion created by a masterful negotiation by the league.

The players should have said well we want 78% of the gross minus the 900 m, to start out with.... then say well we'll take 60% intead. We want 10 yr guaranteed contracts with 30% raises each year with no max, then come back to 5 years with 13%. It would basically be the exact same thing the league has done.

From everything I've heard/read, the only thing that REALLY matters is that percentage and how its' figured, the rest is just details.

I've seen where the league can break even at 52% and make money at 50% based on the way its figured now. Its really that simple.

The owners want more off the top in the equation and an increasing amount in their favor which in a few years would equal 37 freaking %, a 20% jump, really?

The last piece is the TV contract is up in 2015 and likely to go way up again. The league wants a 10 year deal in which the players don't get to renegotiate after the potential flood of money comes in from that deal.

I'm not saying its all on the owners, but there is alot of smoke and mirrors in how Stern and the league are doing it. The owners for sure have a right to negotiate and should, its there risk much more than the players, honestly. I just don't come down solely on the owner side based on the tactics that make it look like they are bending over backwards.

The players don't want to finance unprofitable poorly ran franchises for the owners, I get that part too.

The league will win, eventually, but how much damage to they do to the product in the process coming off a hugely successful year?

thefeistyone
06-29-2011, 03:08 PM
I haven't kept up the negotiations like I should. Mainly because it's so dang frustrating to read about.

Losing all or part of the season hurts the NBA as a whole, but i gotta think if the owners really lost $300 million this season, which most would say was a pretty successful season, something has to be done. If you have a business running like that you do whatever it takes to fix it.

The owners screwed themselves by years and years of bad contracts, now they got a mess to clean up.

I hate or see any of the season lost. As a Pacer fan i'm about as optimistic as i've been in about a decade and that feels pretty good. They need to get this handled. Without the fans no one is getting paid.

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 03:11 PM
i hope the owners don't give in. They have the higher ground IMO. The players will break once they stop receiving paychecks.

cdash
06-29-2011, 03:46 PM
I don't have any real insight into the CBA negotiations or anything, but I will say this: I am willing to sacrifice half a season of the NBA in order to have better competitive balance. If we were picking sides (which we all do to an extent), I would be siding with the owners. The league is hurting and small market teams like our beloved Pacers have a much smaller margin for error, and I would like a system that addresses that.

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 03:51 PM
I don't have any real insight into the CBA negotiations or anything, but I will say this: I am willing to sacrifice half a season of the NBA in order to have better competitive balance. If we were picking sides (which we all do to an extent), I would be siding with the owners. The league is hurting and small market teams like our beloved Pacers have a much smaller margin for error, and I would like a system that addresses that.

i agree.

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 03:54 PM
I'm sorry, but screw the players, I'm fed up with them! Or at least the ones that claim to be representing them. It seems to me like the owners really wanted to make this work so we could all keep enjoying the NBA, but the players don't seem to realise it hurts the fans. The only thing they are thinking about is how the hurting of the fans will hurt their income. Don't they understand that they are in a very priviledged situation, to be even playing in the NBA? Most of us would trade lives for getting less than the minimum.

So owners, even though you are mostly responsible by not having common sense handing out contracts, I'm on your side. Lay it on 'em! HARD! I'll hate not being able to watch NBA for an entire year or more, but if that's what it takes, so be it! Maybe the players do some charity work from time to time, but it might not come through to them what it's like to have such a job and you have to work six days a week to even put food on the table. (I know, there might be a few exceptions...)

exactly my point. They aren't thankful for what they have. They get paid millions to play basketball!(It's harder than it looks but still)

Unclebuck
06-29-2011, 03:56 PM
I don't have any real insight into the CBA negotiations or anything, but I will say this: I am willing to sacrifice half a season of the NBA in order to have better competitive balance. If we were picking sides (which we all do to an extent), I would be siding with the owners. The league is hurting and small market teams like our beloved Pacers have a much smaller margin for error, and I would like a system that addresses that.


Not to get into the details. But the players position is that the competitive balance can be achieved through proper revenue sharing which at least in the players opinion doesn't involve them. The players seem to believe it is up to the owners to properly share revenue. The owners say yes they plan to create a system amongst themselves to share more revenue, but even if they share the current revenue that isn't enough for the owners to make a profit. So they need some money back from the players.

Speed
06-29-2011, 04:01 PM
If the company you work for said, we want to cut your salary, well everyones salary by 30% over the next 5 years and have that extend through 10 years even though we are as popular now as we've been in 15 years.... just for perspective.

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 04:04 PM
i have to take back for what i said about the players are getting paid millions to play basketball. They work hard for it. Just because they aren't doctors doesn't mean anything. They are smart at their own career. Everyone that i watch basketball with always say asks me, "why do u care so much about this? they don't do anything for you and they aren't educated."

wintermute
06-29-2011, 04:29 PM
Not to get into the details. But the players position is that the competitive balance can be achieved through proper revenue sharing which at least in the players opinion doesn't involve them. The players seem to believe it is up to the owners to properly share revenue. The owners say yes they plan to create a system amongst themselves to share more revenue, but even if they share the current revenue that isn't enough for the owners to make a profit. So they need some money back from the players.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell. It should be noted though that the players have already conceded that they need to give back to the owners (which they've put into their formal proposal) - it's the question of how much that is the sticking point.

The owners are asking for a lot of money back. Not only are they asking the players for a reduced share of BRI, they're also asking for BRI to be recalculated so that expenses come off the top.

There are plenty of other issues (such as the hard cap system), but I'd say the revenue split is the central one.

Since86
06-29-2011, 04:35 PM
If the company you work for said, we want to cut your salary, well everyones salary by 30% over the next 5 years and have that extend through 10 years even though we are as popular now as we've been in 15 years.... just for perspective.

Not at all true.

In the real world people get go, and they don't get any paychecks. I would much rather work for 30% less than not work and not get any money. Just for perspective.

Since86
06-29-2011, 04:37 PM
Yup, that's it in a nutshell. It should be noted though that the players have already conceded that they need to give back to the owners (which they've put into their formal proposal) - it's the question of how much that is the sticking point.

That's also not true. The players association hasn't given a counter-proposal. They say it's no good because they (The NBA and the union) are so far apart.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/30227411

wintermute
06-29-2011, 04:47 PM
Regarding the "players get paid too much" arguments... It also seems unfair to me that people get paid millions to play a game, but that's the nature of the society we live in. As a society, we place a lot more value in entertainment than in causes such as philanthropy, education, or the arts. Thus, the NBA is a massive $4B industry and players get paid accordingly.

What's more, players aren't just employees in a lucrative industry - they're the main product as well. Think about it, what are you actually buying when you buy a Pacers' ticket. You're buying a few hours to watch Messrs. Granger, Hibbert, Collison, etc play basketball against other NBA players. Earlier in the thread, someone posted that team websites will be bereft of content once the lockout starts because they'll have to remove all images and mentions of players. That is very telling.

So you think players are paid too much? The answer is simple. Vote with your wallet, stop consuming the NBA. If enough people lose interest in the NBA, if the league were to shrink from a $4B industry to a $2B industry, you can bet player salaries will go down correspondingly.

wintermute
06-29-2011, 04:53 PM
That's also not true. The players association hasn't given a counter-proposal. They say it's no good because they (The NBA and the union) are so far apart.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/30227411

Yes they have.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/14412293/nba-players-make-cba-counterproposal-owners-turn-deaf-ear

What the link you posted says is that the players haven't given a new couterproposal to the owners' latest offer.

Since86
06-29-2011, 04:58 PM
Sorry, that's the ONLY proposal they've given. Which took them 5months to respond too and haven't changed any of it since Dec of 2010.

The owners had made several concessions while the players haven't moved an inch.

wintermute
06-29-2011, 05:03 PM
Sorry, that's the ONLY proposal they've given. Which took them 5months to respond too and haven't changed any of it since Dec of 2010.

The owners had made several concessions while the players haven't moved an inch.

I think I'm missing another proposal. I'm pretty sure there's another one recently. But yes, the owners have made more proposals.

As Speed pointed out though, it's a bit of an illusion. The owners asked for the moon initially (pretty much everyone was shocked when details of the owners' initial proposal was published) and now appear to have moved a lot. Good negotiating strategy for them. Doesn't mean one side or the other is more reasonable.

Since86
06-29-2011, 05:03 PM
And I think this is a pretty interesting tidbit.


The looming possibility of an NBA lockout sneaked up on league scoring champion Kevin Durant.

Durant said at his youth basketball camp Wednesday that he didn't realize the collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of the day Thursday.
Despite being Oklahoma City's union representative, Durant says he hasn't been able to attend players association meetings because of other obligations this summer.



http://www.iamagm.com/news/2011/06/29/kevin.durant.not.aware.lockout.way.hasnt.attended. any.union.meetings.despite.being

That doesn't help your cause, at all.

Since86
06-29-2011, 05:05 PM
I think I'm missing another proposal. I'm pretty sure there's another one recently. But yes, the owners have made more proposals.

As Speed pointed out though, it's a bit of an illusion. The owners asked for the moon initially (pretty much everyone was shocked when details of the owners' initial proposal was published) and now appear to have moved a lot. Good negotiating strategy for them. Doesn't mean one side or the other is more reasonable.

And the players haven't asked for the moon? They've being getting it and want to continue getting it.

What I'm saying is this. One side is at the table, the other side isn't and some of them (like the link I just posted about KD) don't even know what's going on.

wintermute
06-29-2011, 05:13 PM
That doesn't help your cause, at all.

Uh what? I don't have a cause. In event of a lockout, I hope both sides get punished thoroughly by the viewing public. It's what they deserve.

Btw, why is Durant being unaware of the CBA a bad thing? I mean for himself personally, yeah it's bad to be uninformed. But he's not on the CBA negotiating committee. Not all of the owners are involved with the CBA negotiation either (but hopefully all of them are aware!)

Brad8888
06-29-2011, 06:58 PM
Durant either is completely ignorant to what it means to be a player's union team representative, or it doesn't mean anything to be a player's union team representative.

Either way, it is pretty amazing that someone of his stature within the league is acting as if he is blissfully unaware that the CBA is ending tomorrow. I would venture to guess that not one player in the league is actually unaware of that unless they have been in a coma since the middle of the 2009-10 season because of what it means to them financially and personally for the foreseeable future. Their "goose" that lays golden eggs is about to have an egg breach sideways that will take a very long time to extract, after which it will take quite a while to heal up from the extraction procedure and begin producing smaller eggs that previously would have been rejected by inspectors due to not being full sized.

So, to Mr. Durant, I call out a hearty :bs:

Speed
06-29-2011, 07:23 PM
Not at all true.

In the real world people get go, and they don't get any paychecks. I would much rather work for 30% less than not work and not get any money. Just for perspective.

In the real world, 450 of us don't generate 4.2 billion dollars a year, either... for more perspective. :)

Sollozzo
06-29-2011, 08:18 PM
Stern fostered an environment that allowed these contracts to get out of control. He is on the verge of two lockouts in 13 years. That, along with the ridiculous over-expansion that has ensured an excess of bottom-feeding teams, is something that will be a stain on his legacy for eternity if they don't get a deal in time.

Justin Tyme
06-29-2011, 08:30 PM
Yawn. I haven't read this thread. I said over a year ago this was going to happen... the lockout. Many didn't feel it would. Well, guess what? It is going to happen. So in response to the thread, I saw it coming and have been prepared for it to happen. Nothing any of us can do about it, but be prepared for less than a full season of BB. This is going to be a loooong and boooring offseason. Yawn.

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 08:48 PM
idc if it happens. Every team needs a chance to compete for a championship.

Since86
06-30-2011, 09:49 AM
Uh what? I don't have a cause. In event of a lockout, I hope both sides get punished thoroughly by the viewing public. It's what they deserve.

I didn't say you personally had a cause. The "you" is Kevin Durant.


Btw, why is Durant being unaware of the CBA a bad thing? I mean for himself personally, yeah it's bad to be uninformed. But he's not on the CBA negotiating committee. Not all of the owners are involved with the CBA negotiation either (but hopefully all of them are aware!)

Because KD is the OKC Union Rep. If he doesn't know what's going on, then why is the the union rep? If he has other engagements, so he can't make meetings, then step down and let someone else who is interested and who has time to go to the meetings and become the union rep.

He's the one that's supposed to relay information to his teammates, and he's completely uninformed. That's not a good thing.

Unclebuck
06-30-2011, 10:23 AM
Here is an article from 1999 that provides a very good roadmap to what we might be in for

http://maps.thefullwiki.org/1998%E2%80%9399_NBA_lockout


The 1998–99 NBA lockout was the third lockout (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Lockout_(industry)) in the history of the National Basketball Association (http://www.pacersdigest.com/National_Basketball_Association) (NBA). It lasted from July 1, 1998 to January 20, 1999, and forced the 1998–99 season (http://www.pacersdigest.com/1998%E2%80%9399_NBA_season) to be shortened to 50 games per team. NBA owners reopened the league's collective bargaining agreement (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Collective_bargaining_agreement) (CBA) in March 1998, seeking changes to the league's salary cap (http://www.pacersdigest.com/NBA_Salary_Cap) system and a ceiling on individual player salaries. The National Basketball Players Association (http://www.pacersdigest.com/National_Basketball_Players_Association) (NBPA) opposed the owners' plans and wanted raises for players who earned the league's minimum salary. After the two sides failed to reach an agreement, the owners began the lockout.

The dispute received a tepid response from sports fans, and provoked criticism from media members. It continued into January 1999, threatening cancellation of the entire season. After division within the players union, however, NBPA executive director Billy Hunter (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Billy_Hunter) reached an agreement with NBA commissioner David Stern (http://www.pacersdigest.com/David_Stern) on January 6 to end the work stoppage. Quickly ratified by the owners and players, the deal was signed later in January, ending the lockout after 204 days. The settlement provided for maximum salaries for players and a pay scale for first-year players. In the months after the lockout, television ratings (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Nielsen_Ratings) and ticket sales declined during the 50-game season, and both remained below pre-lockout levels in subsequent seasons.


Background

Before 1998, there had been two lockouts in the previous three years: a three-month labor dispute in 1995 and a brief work stoppage in 1996 that lasted a couple of hours. However, on both occasions, the players and owners reached a deal before the start of the season, and before 1998, the NBA was the only major sports league in the United States that had never lost a game because of a work stoppage. A six-year CBA had been in place since September 1995, but it included a clause allowing NBA owners to reopen the contract after three years if more than 51.8 percent of "basketball-related income" went to player salaries. By the 1997–98 season (http://www.pacersdigest.com/1997%E2%80%9398_NBA_season), 57 percent of basketball-related income was used to pay players, while the previous deal called for a 48 percent split. According to the NBA, 15 of the 29 teams posted losses that season. The NBPA disputed this figure and claimed that only four teams had losses. The league's owners voted on whether to reopen the CBA on March 23, 1998, and the vote passed by a 27–2 margin. Negotiations between the NBPA and owners started on April 1, and nine further bargaining sessions took place in the next three months.

The primary issue was that of player salaries, which owners sought to curb. A salary cap (http://www.pacersdigest.com/NBA_Salary_Cap) had been a part of the CBA since 1983, but it included loopholes that allowed teams to exceed the payroll limit. Among them was the "Larry Bird exception (http://www.pacersdigest.com/NBA_Salary_Cap#Larry_Bird_exception)", named after the former player (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Larry_Bird) who was an early beneficiary of the rule. The Bird exception enabled teams to spend an unlimited amount of money to re-sign their own players, causing a substantial increase in the value of upper-end contracts. Club owners wanted to remove the exemption and place limits on maximum player salaries. Owners also desired a modified pay scale for rookie (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Rookie) players that would prevent them from gaining unrestricted free agency after three seasons. The players union, wanting to protect negotiating gains from previous years, opposed changes to the salary cap system, in particular those involving the Larry Bird exception. Other NBPA positions included opposition to a cap on individual player salaries and support for a raise of the minimum salary, which 22 percent of NBA players earned during 1997–98.


Lockout

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Patrick_Ewing_ca._1995.jpg/180px-Patrick_Ewing_ca._1995.jpg
After negotiations between the sides broke off on June 22, the lockout started nine days later. Teams were barred from making player transactions and holding workouts and meetings for the duration of the work stoppage. An early byproduct of the lockout was the exclusion of NBA players from the U.S. national team (http://www.pacersdigest.com/USA_men's_national_basketball_team) that played at the 1998 FIBA World Championship (http://www.pacersdigest.com/1998_FIBA_World_Championship). USA Basketball (http://www.pacersdigest.com/USA_Basketball), the governing body for the sport in the U.S., elected to send a team consisting of lower-level professional players and amateurs. Negotiations resumed at an August 6 bargaining session, the first since the start of the lockout. NBA commissioner David Stern (http://www.pacersdigest.com/David_Stern) and several owners left the talks after the NBPA presented an offer that included increased revenue sharing (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Revenue_sharing) between teams. By September 25, 24 exhibition games (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Exhibition_game) were canceled and training camps were postponed indefinitely as a result of stalled talks. Further negotiating sessions took place in October and November, but no agreement was reached. The season's first two weeks were officially canceled on October 13, and 99 games scheduled for November were lost as a result. It was the first time in NBA history that games were canceled due to a labor dispute. On October 20, arbitrator John Feerick (http://www.pacersdigest.com/John_Feerick) ruled that the owners did not have to pay players with guaranteed contracts during the lockout. Feerick's decision gave the owners leverage in bargaining talks.

Further games were canceled as the lockout continued through November and December, including the 1999 All-Star Game (http://www.pacersdigest.com/NBA_All-Star_Game), which had been scheduled to be played on February 14, 1999 at the First Union Center (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Wachovia_Center)http://www.pacersdigest.com/images/fact_map/icons/red_A.png (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Wachovia_Center) in Philadelphia. Discussions during the lockout were characterized by frequent hostility between the players and owners. One example of the heated nature of the talks came at an early December bargaining session, when Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Billy_Hunter) became involved in what CBS News (http://www.pacersdigest.com/CBS_News) called "an extremely heated, expletive-laden screaming match". Both men temporarily walked away from the bargaining table, and indicated after the session that the entire season might be canceled. Although the 1998 portion of the schedule was not played because of the lockout, 16 NBA players participated in a December 19 exhibition game in Atlantic City, New Jersey (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Atlantic_City,_New_Jersey)http://www.pacersdigest.com/images/fact_map/icons/red_B.png (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Atlantic_City,_New_Jersey). The event's organizers intended to give NBPA members a share of the money raised, but the idea proved controversial, and charities ultimately received the proceeds.


Settlement

On December 23, Stern announced that he would recommend canceling the season if there was no deal by January 7, 1999. As Stern's deadline approached, the NBPA showed signs of division from within. Highly paid players were seen as the ones most affected by the disputed issues, rather than the union's membership as a whole. Agent (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Sports_agent) David Falk (http://www.pacersdigest.com/David_Falk), who was considered an influential voice for the players, represented NBPA president Patrick Ewing (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Patrick_Ewing) and nine players on the union's 19-person negotiating committee. The NBPA scheduled a meeting in New York City on January 6, where players would vote on a proposal by the owners that the committee had recommended opposing. Several players, including Shaquille O'Neal (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Shaquille_O'Neal) and Hakeem Olajuwon (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Hakeem_Olajuwon), wanted the vote to be conducted by secret ballot (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Secret_ballot), while others indicated a desire to return to competition regardless of how the vote went. Kevin Johnson (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Kevin_Johnson) stated that most players "were just ready to throw down [fight] Wednesday at our meeting if an agreement hadn't been reached." Faced with a splintering union, Hunter moved to resume talks with Stern. On January 6, the day before Stern's deadline, he and Hunter reached an agreement, which was ratified by the NBPA later that day and by the NBA Board of Governors on January 7.

Widely viewed as a victory for Stern and the owners, the agreement was signed by both parties on January 20, officially ending the lockout after 204 days. It capped players' salaries at between $9 million and $14 million, depending on how long they had played in the NBA. A rookie pay scale was introduced, with salary increases tied to how early a player was selected in the NBA Draft (http://www.pacersdigest.com/NBA_Draft). The Larry Bird exception was retained, though maximum annual pay raises were capped. New "average" and "median" salary cap exemptions, which the NBPA had proposed, allowed teams to sign one player per category even if they were over the spending limit. The league's minimum salary was increased to $287,500, a $15,000 raise from before the lockout.


Reaction and aftermath

The lockout prompted indifference among most American sports fans, who thought that greed was shown by both sides. A CBS News–New York Times (http://www.pacersdigest.com/The_New_York_Times) poll conducted in October 1998 showed that, while most fans' opinion of professional basketball was unaffected by the work stoppage, 29 percent reported that their views had become more negative. The same poll showed that fans backed the NBPA in the dispute by a 36–29 margin, while the general public supported the owners 24 percent to 22 percent. One-quarter of basketball fans who responded to the poll did not know enough about the lockout to give an opinion, along with 45 percent of the general public. Media members were frequently critical of the owners and players. Sportswriter Tony Kornheiser (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Tony_Kornheiser) described the labor dispute as one "between tall millionaires and short millionaires." An article in Newsweek (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Newsweek) termed the lockout "an incomprehensible and unconscionable dispute between rival gangs of millionaires". Time (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Time_(magazine))'s Bill Saporito believed that each side was damaged by the lockout, in terms of financial losses and negative publicity. Stern said that he had made concessions in the agreement, while Hunter said that the parties "both blinked."

The 1998–99 season (http://www.pacersdigest.com/1998%E2%80%9399_NBA_season), which began on February 5, 1999, was shortened to 50 games per team, as opposed to the normal 82. As a result of the 204-day lockout, 464 regular-season games were lost. In addition to the lockout, the NBA's popularity was affected by the second retirement of Michael Jordan (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Michael_Jordan), who had been largely responsible for an increase in fan interest during his career. The average attendance during the shortened season was 16,738 fans per game, down 2.2 percent from the 1997–98 average of 17,117 spectators per contest. Ticket sales fell nearly two percent further in the opening months of 1999–00 (http://www.pacersdigest.com/1999%E2%80%9300_NBA_season), and remained under 17,000 per game for the following three seasons. The league also saw television ratings (http://www.pacersdigest.com/Nielsen_Ratings) drop for three consecutive seasons after the lockout. In the years following the lockout, a higher percentage of players signed contracts worth the maximum amount possible under the cap. Some young players, such as LeBron James (http://www.pacersdigest.com/LeBron_James), began signing shorter contracts that allowed for more flexibility in team choice and salary. The agreement expired in 2005, and both sides became concerned about the possibility of another work stoppage. A fourth lockout in 11 years was prevented, however, when a six-year CBA was reached in June.

Unclebuck
06-30-2011, 10:38 AM
here is an excellent current behind the scenes of what is going on right now.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=ArmkOmo0aJS0u4zCNf_6adM5nYcB?slug=aw-wojnarowski_billy_hunter_nba_union_062911

Hunter sidesteps question on pay

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/ed/experts/wojnarowski.png By Adrian Wojnarowski (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/expertsarchive?author=Adrian+Wojnarowski), Yahoo! Sports


After Kevin Garnett (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3007/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3007/news) delivered an inspired sermon in the NBA players union meeting a week ago, declaring his willingness to sit out the season and forfeit $18.8 million in salary, a far more measured voice spoke up with 60 rank-and-file players in a New York hotel ballroom.


Shane Battier’s (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3516/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3516/news) question, directed to Players Association executive director Billy Hunter, was simple: The NFL’s union leader, DeMaurice Smith, had agreed to take $1 in salary for the length of the NFL lockout.

Will you do it too, Billy?

The mere suggestion seemed to offend Hunter, players witnessing the exchange privately told Yahoo! Sports. After Hunter told Battier he hadn’t given it much thought, members of the union’s executive board came to Hunter’s defense. Hunter had taken the union from the red to the black in his term, done a good job, they said. Hunter never did give Battier a firm answer, nor would he answer the question for Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday.

Salary can be a touchy subject within pockets of the union, especially since it leaves some questioning the urgency and motivation for Hunter to work for a deal. Two years ago, Hunter had gone to the Players Association and asked that he be compensated for several years’ worth of unused vacation time. There was resistance to the request, but eventually the union board agreed to award him $1.1 million, the Sports Business Journal reported. Hunter makes a little more than $2 million a year as the union’s executive director.

This is still a sore spot for some agents and players, but several union board members felt Battier was grandstanding with his question. Nevertheless, there are those in the rank-and-file who think Hunter and his executive board members have a habit of getting too snippy, too defensive with dissenting voices. If a lockout endures, these will be questions that Hunter has to answer within his union. Eventually, the players will stop getting checks in November, and if Hunter’s still getting paid … well, Battier’s voice won’t be alone.

“Billy isn’t afraid to embarrass you in front of other players, if he doesn’t like your line of questioning,” an Eastern Conference player said. “He’s done a good job keeping us informed and fighting [NBA commissioner David] Stern, but I don’t need to be lectured by the guy. I’m allowed to ask a question.”

The lockout is coming Friday at 12:01 a.m. ET, and a final bargaining session on Thursday in New York promises to be perfunctory. The union plans no counterproposal to the owners, and there are lots of players and agents who think the union shouldn’t even sit down with the commissioner and owners with such unprecedented givebacks being ordered.

Hunter has a great ability to rally the rank-and-file, and turning to Garnett in the meeting was a smart move. No one is better with a cause than Garnett, one of the great leaders in the NBA. He isn’t the most popular among his peers, but he’s one of the most respected. The union needed Garnett and Paul Pierce (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3253/)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3253/news) – who stand to lose a combined $32.7 million – selling the message to the player representatives in the room.

For all the talk the players have heard from the union about an ownership group splintering with agenda, threatening to usurp Stern’s judgment on issues, the players in the bargaining session last Friday had to admit: For a better part of four hours, Stern was running everything.

Stern dominated the meeting, with most owners reduced to bystanders. As one player said, “They’re always scared to talk when we’re in the room, especially when our stars come.” Still, several players could see the grimace on Stern’s face when notorious windbag Robert Sarver, the Phoenix Suns (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/pho/) owner, started to speak.

There was an informal vote taken in the players’ meeting last Thursday in New York, where an overwhelming majority of the room insisted they would go the distance with the union. The owners want rollbacks on existing contracts, a hard salary cap and provisions that make owning and operating a profitable franchise a paint-by-numbers enterprise. The NBA and union will meet one final time on Thursday before a lockout comes on July 1, and there are many on the players’ side who wonder why they’ll even bother.

“Just look at the proposal the owners have made: How do you expect anyone to respond to that in good faith?” agent Mark Bartelstein said. “It’s laughable. GMs around the league have acknowledged that to me. Every GM has acknowledged that there’s nowhere for the players to go with what’s been proposed by the owners.

“The system doesn’t work for the players now, because it’s so restrictive. It doesn’t work for the owners because they’ve made a lot of bad decisions. That’s the reality. This is a horrible system for the NBA player, incredibly restrictive in every way you look at it. If the NBA owners can’t be successful in this system, blame that on nothing but poor management.”
In the end, this is a fight that’ll come down to the side’s two leaders: Billy Hunter and David Stern. Who can stand tougher, longer and endure the most pain? Here comes the NBA’s Armageddon, here comes Hunter’s and Stern’s moment of truth.

BillS
06-30-2011, 10:40 AM
If the company you work for said, we want to cut your salary, well everyones salary by 30% over the next 5 years and have that extend through 10 years even though we are as popular now as we've been in 15 years.... just for perspective.

Umm ... yeah, even though certain parts of my company had increases in sales ("popularity") the company overall had lower revenues, and I was in fact given the choice of 20% pay cuts or people losing jobs.

ETA: That was badly worded. It wasn't really a choice, I took a 20% pay cut and people got laid off anyway, but not as many as if we hadn't taken pay cuts.

This is a big reason why I don't side much with the players who seem to think their jobs are the only ones that are recession-proof.

Trader Joe
06-30-2011, 10:50 AM
It almost seems like the players are excited at the prospect of a long lock out, at standing up as a group of "common men"....what a bunch of idiots.

Larry Staverman
06-30-2011, 01:27 PM
Here is how I see it working out!

Right now the players are pounding their chests, wearing stupid t-shirts and claiming solidarity.

Once they start missing games (ie: missing paychecks) their wives and girlfriends will start b****ing about them not working and not being able to spend as much as they are used to.

Next the wives and girlfriends will cut off the sex.

Then the players will be ready to settle.

pacersgroningen
06-30-2011, 01:40 PM
Then they'll get it somewhere else, with eventually their wifes or gf's finding out, meaning they will have to buy some big a** ring or so and then the players will be ready to settle.

Hicks
06-30-2011, 02:13 PM
In the real world, 450 of us don't generate 4.2 billion dollars a year, either... for more perspective. :)

Yep, the players handled all of the marketing, television deals, merchandising, ticket sales, accounting, human resources, and administration duties. Truly gifted individuals.

Since86
06-30-2011, 02:30 PM
In the real world, 450 of us don't generate 4.2 billion dollars a year, either... for more perspective. :)

The size of the company, or how much money they bring in as revenue doesn't matter if the revenue still doesn't equal a profit. When companies are losing money, they're going to either lay people off or fire them regardless if they have 10,000 employees or 10.

But you're kind of proving my point. There is still a LOT of money to be made if cuts happen.

In the real world, for perspective, all of us would play in the NBA for a lot less money than they're making now. There isn't a single regular working person in the world that wouldn't play in the NBA for half the money they're currently making.

Skaut_Ech
06-30-2011, 02:40 PM
:burn:
Yep, the players handled all of the marketing, television deals, merchandising, ticket sales, accounting, human resources, and administration duties. Truly gifted individuals.

(Sorry. Couldn't help it. :blush::))

Speed
06-30-2011, 02:42 PM
Yep, the players handled all of the marketing, television deals, merchandising, ticket sales, accounting, human resources, and administration duties. Truly gifted individuals.

Nope, but the marketing salaries, TV revenue, Merchandising, Ticket Sales, Accountants, HR folks, and administrators are getting paid/being employed because the players generate 4.2 billion dollars.

Its like any entertainer or business, you are worth what you can generate.

Trader Joe
06-30-2011, 02:45 PM
Nope, but the marketing salaries, TV revenue, Merchandising, Ticket Sales, Accountants, HR folks, and administrators are getting paid/being employed because the players generate 4.2 billion dollars.

Its like any entertainer or business, you are worth what you can generate.

This is absurd. Are you telling me the player would be paid as much if the NBA didn't have the TV contracts or endorsement deals set up by their marketing gurus? What a short sighted and incorrect view you present in this post.

Since86
06-30-2011, 02:46 PM
Nope, but the marketing salaries, TV revenue, Merchandising, Ticket Sales, Accountants, HR folks, and administrators are getting paid/being employed because the players generate 4.2 billion dollars.

Its like any entertainer or business, you are worth what you can generate.

And when you're company is losing money, you should lose money too.

We sat here and argued about how much Stacy Peatz really cost the Pacers, and were arguing over $100,000 a year and whether or not she was worth that much or even was making that much.

The players are making millions upon millions of dollars, and the franchises aren't re-signing employee's because of a few tens of thousands of dollars.

That's perspective. That's the reality of a team losing money, mostly because of player salary.

Speed
06-30-2011, 02:51 PM
The size of the company, or how much money they bring in as revenue doesn't matter if the revenue still doesn't equal a profit. When companies are losing money, they're going to either lay people off or fire them regardless if they have 10,000 employees or 10.

But you're kind of proving my point. There is still a LOT of money to be made if cuts happen.

In the real world, for perspective, all of us would play in the NBA for a lot less money than they're making now. There isn't a single regular working person in the world that wouldn't play in the NBA for half the money they're currently making.


Absolutely a business has the right to try to make a profit, without a doubt.

The argument the "single working person" doesn't make sense. Can the normal working person generate 4.2 billion in revenue by playing basketball. I wish we could because then I'd say we'd DESERVE to get big bucks.

Its the reason they get paid so well, they generate so much.

If Julia Roberts get 20 million a flick, but she makes the producers 100 million, she's pretty much worth it. She does something that generates revenue.

Its two different things, the arguement that accountants, support staff make the money is wrong, they are actually beneficiaries of it. Does mean they aren't important, but no one is paying to listen to Sally answer the phones at Conseco.

Same with people who say, I'd play basketball for 500k a year, really, would you? Would I pay $250 dollars a seat to go see you play, though?

Heart Surgeons have a special skill, costs TONS of money to use their services, Heart Surgeons make tons of money and they should. Not just for altruistic reasons, but because they generate money.

I could go on, but if folks disagree, thats fine, I likely can't get my point across anyway.

Since86
06-30-2011, 02:57 PM
Absolutely a business has the right to try to make a profit, without a doubt.

The argument the "single working person" doesn't make sense. Can the normal working person generate 4.2 billion in revenue by playing basketball. I wish we could because then I'd say we'd DESERVE to get big bucks.

Its the reason they get paid so well, they generate so much.

If Julia Roberts get 20 million a flick, but she makes the producers 100 million, she's pretty much worth it. She does something that generates revenue.

It doesn't matter how much revenue they generate if operating costs exceeds it.

I don't care if the company generates 100trillion dollars. If operating costs are above 100trillion dollars, it's still a loss.

I don't care if the company generates 10 dollars. If operating costs are above 10 dollars, it's still a loss.

This isn't some CEO making 10mill per year regardless if his company posts a profit or not, and asking his employees to sacrifice.

This is a CEO losing 15mil per year, like Simon, asking his employees to sacrifice.

Obviously the players know they need to make concessions. Which is why they offered some last Dec. I don't know why you're arguing something they're not even willing to argue.

Speed
06-30-2011, 03:01 PM
This is absurd. Are you telling me the player would be paid as much if the NBA didn't have the TV contracts or endorsement deals set up by their marketing gurus? What a short sighted and incorrect view you present in this post.

Thats the EXACT opposite of what I said. I said because of these revenues generated by the players they should get paid accordingly. Therefore, if they didn't generate those revenues or not as much, then they should NOT get paid as much.



BTW, It isn't just the MARKETING GURUS who brought this money in, it is the players.

Trader Joe
06-30-2011, 03:02 PM
I think you're missing the point to my reply.

Speed
06-30-2011, 03:09 PM
It doesn't matter how much revenue they generate if operating costs exceeds it.

I don't care if the company generates 100trillion dollars. If operating costs are above 100trillion dollars, it's still a loss.

I don't care if the company generates 10 dollars. If operating costs are above 10 dollars, it's still a loss.

This isn't some CEO making 10mill per year regardless if his company posts a profit or not, and asking his employees to sacrifice.

This is a CEO losing 15mil per year, like Simon, asking his employees to sacrifice.

Obviously the players know they need to make concessions. Which is why they offered some last Dec. I don't know why you're arguing something they're not even willing to argue.

Concessions yes, the farm no. I never said they shouldn't comprimise. I said that people begrudge players making big money when they generate HUGE money.

My argument is simply this, you are worth what you can generate.

This thread is sprinkled with that old mantra and its wrong by my estimation.

Sure the owners have a right to try to be profitable.

Speed
06-30-2011, 03:13 PM
I think you're missing the point to my reply.

I may be. I'm open to understand what you are saying, if you want to re explain it. I've read your response several times and I can't see another way to take it.

Since86
06-30-2011, 03:17 PM
When has anyone said they should give up "the farm?"

Speed
06-30-2011, 03:18 PM
Yep, the players handled all of the marketing, television deals, merchandising, ticket sales, accounting, human resources, and administration duties. Truly gifted individuals.

More on this, they only have jobs in the NBA because of the players, I don't get what this means. They are support staff.

A brain surgeon doesn't submit the insurance paperwork at the hospital, either, are they not "truly gifted" individuals.

Since86
06-30-2011, 03:21 PM
More on this, they only have jobs in the NBA because of the players, I don't get what this means. They are support staff.

A brain surgeon doesn't submit the insurance paperwork at the hospital, either, are they not "truly gifted" individuals.

That's a two way street. Without the owners, there isn't the NBA. Without the GMs, there isn't the NBA, etc.

The players make up a part of the whole, not the whole thing.

The NBA will survive without LeBron or whoever, because there will always be someone ready behind him to play for less. LeBron can't find another job that pays that much. He's welcome to try, but I doubt it.

Speed
06-30-2011, 03:25 PM
That's a two way street. Without the owners, there isn't the NBA. Without the GMs, there isn't the NBA, etc.

The players make up a part of the whole, not the whole thing.

The NBA will survive without LeBron or whoever, because there will always be someone ready behind him to play for less. LeBron can't find another job that pays that much. He's welcome to try, but I doubt it.

Well this may be the heart of our differences. I disagree, I think the players are why they have the league.

Trader Joe
06-30-2011, 03:31 PM
Well basketball players certainly existed before the NBA, but multi-million dollar basketball stars (brands in the case of guys like Lebron) did not.

Since86
06-30-2011, 03:31 PM
Then please explain why the NBA is still around and why the ABA closed shop.

dal9
06-30-2011, 03:31 PM
3^yeah, i mean the natural test of this is the league popularity w/ "replacement players" (scabs)...everything stays the same except the players, right? I don't know how much of a dropoff in attendance & TV there was with the replacements in MLB and NFL, but it was fairly notable, no?

Since86
06-30-2011, 03:33 PM
3^yeah, i mean the natural test of this is the league popularity w/ "replacement players" (scabs)...everything stays the same except the players, right? I don't know how much of a dropoff in attendance & TV there was with the replacements in MLB and NFL, but it was fairly notable, no?

Well sure, I'm not saying that wouldn't happen. But eventually there wouldn't be any "scabs."

There would be more talented people entering the league because making 5mil per year, instead of 10mil per year, is still hell of a lot better than making $42,000, or whatever the national average pay is.

And eventually, the NBA starts rising in popularity again. (And yes, I'm fully aware that the NBA might lose some teams)

graphic-er
06-30-2011, 03:36 PM
"Hunter has a great ability to rally the rank-and-file, and turning to Garnett in the meeting was a smart move. No one is better with a cause than Garnett, one of the great leaders in the NBA. He isn’t the most popular among his peers, but he’s one of the most respected. The union needed Garnett and Paul Pierce(notes) – who stand to lose a combined $32.7 million – selling the message to the player representatives in the room."

Oh that is just hilarious to me, I can't believe anybody in the room could actually be impressed by that. Kevin Garnet signed a $100 million contract, plays real dirty. Always talking **** to players. Paul Pierce has an equally large deal and had to be carted off on a wheel chair only to return to the game later with no ill effects. I can't imagine any player actually respecting these guys, let alone liking them. Their overly inflated salaries are the freaking problem!

21 Million and 15 million is alot of money, but its really not an issue for these 2 guys. They got a bunch of money coming to them eventually no matter what.

Its the Dahntay Jones's of the league that the most to lose here.

wintermute
06-30-2011, 04:16 PM
That's a two way street. Without the owners, there isn't the NBA. Without the GMs, there isn't the NBA, etc.

The players make up a part of the whole, not the whole thing.



You know, I actually agree with Since. There's more to the NBA than just the players. There's clearly a very clever marketing and money spinning operation behind the league.



The NBA will survive without LeBron or whoever, because there will always be someone ready behind him to play for less. LeBron can't find another job that pays that much. He's welcome to try, but I doubt it.

This part I don't agree with though. LeBron would have been an athletic superstar no matter what sport he chose, whether it's football, track and field, wrestling, etc.

Since86
06-30-2011, 04:22 PM
This part I don't agree with though. LeBron would have been an athletic superstar no matter what sport he chose, whether it's football, track and field, wrestling, etc.

Sure, he would have, but not now. He's too specialized, IMHO. I mean, there might be a NFL team that takes a chance on him, but I think he's been out of football too long, and getting too old, to be able to recover lost time on the skills.

I'm talking about now. Unless he thinks he can make in some other form of entertainment, like acting, whatever he does he's going to do it for less money.

But that's what I'm saying. Him making 12mil per year, instead of 16mil, is still going to be a lot bigger check than anywhere else he can find employment.

BillS
06-30-2011, 05:26 PM
By the way, given the latest info...

:suicide3:

Manguera
07-01-2011, 12:36 PM
“The system doesn’t work for the players now, because it’s so restrictive. It doesn’t work for the owners because they’ve made a lot of bad decisions. That’s the reality. This is a horrible system for the NBA player, incredibly restrictive in every way you look at it. If the NBA owners can’t be successful in this system, blame that on nothing but poor management.”


This made me laugh. Yeah, it's sooooo restrictive to the players that they are able to get $20M/yr contracts for players like Rashard Lewis, $18M for Michael Redd, $17M for Kirilenko, etc. :rolleyes:

Not saying there hasn't been some poor management on the part of the owners, but c'mon man. To say it's a horrible system for the players is ridiculous. Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.