View Poll Results: Choose one

Voters
171. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am more sympathetic to the owners

    88 51.46%
  • I am more sympathetic to the players

    18 10.53%
  • I just want the NBA back

    47 27.49%
  • A pox on both their houses!

    18 10.53%
Page 228 of 269 FirstFirst ... 128178218224225226227228229230231232238 ... LastLast
Results 5,676 to 5,700 of 6708

Thread: Lockout News and Discussions thread

  1. #5676

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    The entity formerly known as the NBPA with the lulz when you go to its homepage (http://www.nbpa.com/):

    Error 404: Basketball Not Found

    Please be patient as we work on resolving this. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

  2. #5677
    ENABEABLER MagicRat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,841

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Why am I still getting tweets from @TheNBAPA ? Thought it no longer existed?
    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

  3. #5678
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,302

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Players aren't striking. There's no need to encourage players. If the owners open doors, players will start playing. There's no agreement to be accepted. Without an union and a CBA, the owners can decide whatever set of rules they want as long it's within the law. If the owners are interested in starting business, they only need to call the players and tell them to get back to work.
    That's true, technically, but whatever rules they put in place can still be challenged by the players in an antitrust suit.

    They're better off continuing with the lockout and trusting that the players can't hold out for the duration of the court case.

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm curious about this: how many here wanted the players to accept this last ultimatum proposal? From a Pacers fans perspective. Was that deal passable from a Pacers perspective?
    As a Pacer fan who's been consistently critical of the owners' tactics - yes, I consider that a deal that players could live with. The big items were the BRI split and the supertax - if the players could accept that (and indications were that they did), than the rest was small potatoes.

    For the Pacers as a team, I think the changes in the new CBA were neutral to positive. Putting limits to top spending teams and the improved bottomline from the BRI split are positives. The big item I wanted was massive revenue sharing, which may or may not get done (the owners being shy about the details).

  4. #5679
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,558

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Mike Wells: 2day is supposed to be payday for NBA players. Here's a rundown of what Pacer players would have made thru 15 games (pre and regular season) about 12 minutes ago


    Mike Wells: Granger: $2 mil, Posey: $1.2 mil, Rush: $492k, Dahntay $450k, Hibbert: $431k, Paul George: $401k, Hansbrough: $356k, Collison: $242k about 9 minutes ago

    Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1dnGMlCL5

  5. #5680
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,829

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We need to remember that, as described in most cases, a multi-tier tax is of itself not the hard barrier the current single-tier would be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Huh?
    Because if you went over the first threshold and paid the dollar-for-dollar you still didn't lose the income from the teams paying the higher thresholds (1.5 per dollar or 2 per dollar) or the teams paying extra due to number of years over the threshold.

    Again, I didn't see that attached every time the multi-tier was mentioned, but I can't really see how it would work otherwise. I saw it mentioned very occasionally, along with the idea that the tax proceeds distribution would not necessarily be based solely on whether a team was over the cap.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  7. #5681
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,302

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I know the refrain from some is how pathetic that the tax MLE was the difference between a deal and this, but honestly if the owners gave in on that, doesn't the new tax make things worse, not better, for teams like Indiana? Big spenders will still go well into it, while teams like Indy would now be less likely to enter into that territory, which would result in inadvertently giving big spenders an even bigger advantage than the last CBA.
    I see what you're saying, but I think Indiana is never going far into the tax anyway. We tend to spend up to the tax line, and may go over a bit for a while, but we'd never maintain a $90m payroll for multiple years. So the tiered tax system means that if Indiana ever pays tax, it won't be for much more than the old system. I think that's what BillS meant too.

  8. #5682

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I know the refrain from some is how pathetic that the tax MLE was the difference between a deal and this, but honestly if the owners gave in on that, doesn't the new tax make things worse, not better, for teams like Indiana? Big spenders will still go well into it, while teams like Indy would now be less likely to enter into that territory, which would result in inadvertently giving big spenders an even bigger advantage than the last CBA.
    Fully agreed.

    I think that with the current revenue disparity and the revenue sharing system in place, the tiered luxury tax is a terrible idea for teams like Indiana. It'll make competing almost impossible. With the former system, small-market teams were willing to pay the tax pretty much every time they had a contending team. With this one, I think it'd become a very unlikely scenario.

    I'm a big fan of a tiered luxury tax but only if it goes along a completely reconstructed revenue-sharing system.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They can make rules regarding how the game will be played and regarding inter-team logistics that affect actual game costs, but they CANNOT do ANYTHING as a group that ends in regulating salaries, player movement, or even player drug use or comportment. ANY of those things is restraint of trade and collusion and therefore illegal, even just a set of guidelines.

    I can't imagine more than the most profitable and most personally cocky owners would feel able to operate under such restrictions. I also can't imagine individual contracts can be negotiated for anywhere from 60 to 250 players in less than 6 months, especially when the superstars would hold out for 6 figure annual paychecks.
    Agreed, that's why I explicitly mentioned "within the law"; they need to comply with it like any other business. I agree none of those things would stand antitrust scrutiny, except the drug policy (that would be easy to implement at a team level anyway). But the owners could still implement whatever they desire on their team - if they need a $10 millions payroll to remain profitable, they can. An unionized workforce would be better for most of them, but if they want a bargaining process, they need to provide the players incentives to keep it.

    Anyway, the point was that if owners want the games to be played and get back to business, they don't need to "reach out to some players" or whatever; players are willing and ready to play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Players not losing any money. Restricting luxury tax payers from being able to use exceptions like MLE. Bigger penalties for tax paying teams. Giving teams a bigger benefit with Bird Rights,

    Hell yeah it was passable from a Pacers fan perspective.
    Do you think low-revenue teams like Indiana could be financially viable and still compete for the title though?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to cordobes For This Useful Post:


  10. #5683
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,829

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you think low-revenue teams like Indiana could be financially viable and still compete for the title though?
    More likely than they are today.

    Is it perfect? No, but it would have been better. If you get lucky enough to capture a big-name player, you might be able to keep him without breaking the bank.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  12. #5684

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's true, technically, but whatever rules they put in place can still be challenged by the players in an antitrust suit.

    They're better off continuing with the lockout and trusting that the players can't hold out for the duration of the court case.
    Yeah, the point was about owners reaching out some players to play. I think they'd be better off by settling a deal ASAP, but I suspect that for the time being they'll follow that strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For the Pacers as a team, I think the changes in the new CBA were neutral to positive. Putting limits to top spending teams and the improved bottomline from the BRI split are positives. The big item I wanted was massive revenue sharing, which may or may not get done (the owners being shy about the details).
    What suggests you that owners would be willing to get more substantial changes in the revenue sharing system after a deal with the players is reached?

    I agree that with massive revenue sharing, this deal would be good for teams like the Pacers. But without it, I think it'd be horrific. And I suspect that if this deal gets done, the incentive for massive revenue sharing would go away - as the deal is good enough for 15-20 teams without revenue-sharing changes.

  13. #5685
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,302

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What suggests you that owners would be willing to get more substantial changes in the revenue sharing system after a deal with the players is reached?
    Nothing really, except blind hope Stern did promise revenue sharing (3x from before), but that's still not a lot. Still, anything > 0 is still a positive for the Pacers.

    Curious about your stance on revenue sharing - do you support it as a Boston fan? I think Boston would likely be a revenue payer, or neutral at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree that with massive revenue sharing, this deal would be good for teams like the Pacers. But without it, I think it'd be horrific. And I suspect that if this deal gets done, the incentive for massive revenue sharing would go away - as the deal is good enough for 15-20 teams without revenue-sharing changes.
    From your reply to Hicks, I guess your main objection is the supertax? I'm not a fan of the tax either - I almost prefer a hard cap over the supertax, which I think isn't that good either. But realistically, the Pacers were never going to go that high into the tax, even with a competing team. So to me, while the supertax isn't ideal, it's not worse than the previous system either.

  14. #5686
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brown County, Indiana
    Posts
    3,764

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by shags View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The poll? Are you frickin' kidding me?!? At least come up with a logical reason why the owners bear no blame for the inevitable cancellation of this season. Don't point to a poll.

    I'm smart enough to come up with my own conclusions without having to look at other people's opinion (especially a POLL), thank you very much. And as I stated earlier, I really don't care how many people agree with me. I just wanted an NBA season this year (which was my response). And we're not getting one, thanks to the players AND the owners.
    If the poll is such a bad thing, why did you bother to vote?

    Your reply reminds me of the Jim Mora playoff rant.

  15. #5687
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,260

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you think low-revenue teams like Indiana could be financially viable and still compete for the title though?
    There's no guarantee. But being financially stable without championships is still better than being broke with no championships.

    When teams can't win and can't make money, something needs to give. You can't ensure every team a title, without just handing out a title to whatever team you want each year, but you can put in place a financial system that actually works.

  16. #5688
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,260

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What suggests you that owners would be willing to get more substantial changes in the revenue sharing system after a deal with the players is reached?
    Because the league has already announced they would? If they just kept quiet on the issue, then I'd be a little more ready to agree with you, but they are on public record saying they're going to change the revenue sharing system, and increase sharing by, I think, triple.

    The big market owners are giving back, it's time the players do too.

  17. #5689

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ego.

    If both sides had hired female lawyers to sort this out, it would have been over in August.
    Yes, and they'd probably both be pregnant.

  18. #5690
    The evolution continues neosmndrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Carmel, IN/Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    476

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    For those wondering what ESPN's opinion on this is...

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...ockout-fallout

    Wow. So apparently they have a polar opposite view of this whole lockout than we do here at PD. That's a shame.


    Carmel HS Class of 2011

  19. #5691
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,628

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's true, technically, but whatever rules they put in place can still be challenged by the players in an antitrust suit.

    They're better off continuing with the lockout and trusting that the players can't hold out for the duration of the court case.



    As a Pacer fan who's been consistently critical of the owners' tactics - yes, I consider that a deal that players could live with. The big items were the BRI split and the supertax - if the players could accept that (and indications were that they did), than the rest was small potatoes.

    For the Pacers as a team, I think the changes in the new CBA were neutral to positive. Putting limits to top spending teams and the improved bottomline from the BRI split are positives. The big item I wanted was massive revenue sharing, which may or may not get done (the owners being shy about the details).
    I don't see how a HARD CAP (ie, supertax cap so terrible no one crosses it) help the 2000-2010 Pacers.

    You overpay on guys and now you are against the cap. Exceptions have been removed or limited so you don't get your MLE anymore and can't do SnTrades with a 25% overage exception.

    So now you are watching only Dunleavy and Murphy, you've been forced to trade Granger because you can't pay him on a new deal. You can't bring in Harrington on the Artest TE, you can't get anyone to take the JO deal because the rules limit the ability of other teams to even do that.

    Basically you are way more locked into your team. Meanwhile Miami still guts it's payroll and pays Lebron and Wade to play together, they skip the cost of Bosh and it has almost no impact. They still kick the tar out of the now Granger-less Pacers.


    The Pacers just spent 2 decades GOING OVER THE CAP. They were one of the "big boys" even if the market couldn't afford it. This wasn't a team limited by a market cap that wished they couldn't be outspent, this was a team that was wrecked by their own foolish spending, like the Yanks paying for Danny Tartabull.


    So in terms of the product we've just watched for 20 years the new deal only makes it worse.


    OTOH, for a team that could come into more cap space now it would help if we could sign a player from a team forced to cut someone due to the hard cap.



    But always ask yourself this - if you took the Dun/Troy/Ford money and turned it into 2 players actually earning that value, how good would the Pacers have been in spite of the "unfair" market? And I didn't even mention Tinsley.

    PS - also don't fire one of the best coaches in the NBA to hire one of the worst.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


  21. #5692
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,260

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    If every team has to follow a hard cap, then those problems won't be there, because EVERY team has to follow the rules. It would lower costs for every player across the board, which is why the NBPA is against it.

    If the Pacers wouldn't be able to re-sign Danny, then how in the hell do other teams have the ability?

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  23. #5693
    billbradley
    Guest

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    The NBA Lockout Goes Nuclear, And The Players Did The Right Thing
    http://mobile.sbnation.com/nba/2011/...-stern-players

    As the NBA Players Association voted to disband on Monday, David Stern told America that the NBA has entered into a "nuclear winter". But if they put the 2011-12 season in serious jeopardy, it's simply because the players had no other choice.

    Nov 15, 2011 - The NBA lockout has seen enough twists and turns and standoffs and red herrings to keep us all in suspense for the past few months, but what happened Monday really wasn't that dramatic. The NBA players opted for the only choice that made sense.

    It was up to the players to strike back or risk getting slaughtered, and they chose the former, disclaiming interest the players union, stepping away from a bargaining table where only one side was bargaining, and taking the initial steps toward attacking the NBA in court. There's still a chance the union decertifies altogether, adding more lawyers and more teeth to the players' legal challenge.

    All this puts the 2011-12 season in serious jeopardy, yes. But it also provides a welcome change of pace. Not just in this lockout, but in the context of pro sports labor negotiations, in general.

    Everyone has trouble thinking of professional athletes as victims. They are paid more than we are, our wildest dreams are their reality, and their worst case scenario is still the best case scenario for 99.9 percent of everyone else. There are plenty of rational reasons to have trouble sympathizing with aggrieved superstars. But that doesn't mean it's rational to expect them to be browbeaten without fighting back.

    For the players to win a legal battle, it will take a favorable judge, some exhaustive work from the players' litigators, and a whole lot of patience. But this isn't some kneejerk negotiating gimmick. The owners have been using the threat of a lockout as a weapon all along, and the players had no other choice but to sink to their level.

    And if there was any doubt about why and how we got here, no less than David Stern personified the problems on Monday afternoon. Not 30 minutes after the players opted to disband the union, it was Stern who took to national television oozing with condescension and contempt.

    As he said on ESPN: "They decided, obviously having been hopped up by Mr. Hunter and the lawyers brought in, that this was a good negotiating tactic. And that's all it is. This is a negotiating tactic. You don't get exactly the deal that you want, and you sue. But it's not gonna work. If they were gonna do it, they should have done it a long time ago. ... But they seem hellbent on self-destruction."

    Later, when the anchor asked how he'd explain the news to disappointed basketball fans, Stern answered: "The fans can think that we were very close, and the players decided to blow it up." It was just perfect. No quote captures Stern's breathtaking audacity quite like that one.

    This is all the players' fault, Stern tells his paying customers. They just refused to negotiate.

    We've already outlined the broader, illogical dynamics driving the NBA lockout, but apart from all the numbers and rhetoric, it essentially comes down to the owners' all-encompassing entitlement. But even worse, Stern believes he's entitled to shaping the narrative in all this. In other words, not only can he and the owners erase 60 years of economic progress for the players, but they will rewrite the history as they go. And worst of all? A lot of smart people believe him.

    As Ian Thomsen writes at Sports Illustrated on Monday: "For the NBA owners and players to shut down their league during the worst economic times in more than 60 years has got to be the dumbest thing they could imagine doing." And ... Wait a second. Wait wait wait wait wait wait, WAIT.

    It wasn't the players who shut down the league. It was the players who offered 2.2 billion dollars to play, and then were told they had to offer more. It was the players who raised their offer to 3 billion, and then were told they had to agree to a whole other battery of concessions.

    No, if there's sincere regret this year, it'll be when the owners give back millions of dollars in TV and sponsorship money, then pay a full staff of team employees with no revenue coming in. And for the first time in months, the players have forced the owners to reconcile with that reality. Unless they change course, not only will owners collectively forfeit billions, but they can expect to go to court and risk the future of their billion dollar assets.

    For instance: How excited do you think the NBA would be to have their financial claims audited in federal court? What about when an independent economic expert weighs in on LeBron James' free market value? Or when a judge sees the months-long attempt for the players to negotiate a fair deal before opting for litigation--are we sure it'll be seen as a negotiating gimmick, then?

    More than any league on earth, the NBA grows as a symbiotic organism with its superstars; a partnership where the players and owners share in the responsibility for growing the game. But it's a partnership where one side owns all the equity; so how could it possibly make sense to then split revenue 50-50? Stern and the owners have demanded that all along, and that's audacious enough. But they've also demanded it while painting the players as a bunch of greedy, uncooperative fools. Just look at the way Stern handled SportsCenter on Monday.

    Just last week, even after the players capitulated to a 50-50 deal and agreed to eliminate the owners' annual economic risks, the owners had the arrogance to demand system changes that would eliminate their managements risks just the same. That's when their attitude was really laid bare.

    "Competitive balance" is just code. The owners want shorter contracts to protect themselves from making foolish long-term investments. They also want to make it harder for superstars to change teams with a more rigid salary cap. In other words: On one hand, more player movement. On the other, restricted player movement. It's the NBA's bargaining strategy in a nutshell.

    The owners own the bakery, they want rights to half the cake, and they want to eat it all, too.

    From day one, the lockout's been wielded like a sword hanging over the players' head. The owners wanted an eye for an eye on every front. Everything that happened in the past few years--LeBron James leaving Cleveland, teams losing money, max contracts turned sour--the owners have sought to fix without breathing a word of compromise. The negotiations have been a monologue drenched in condescension, vague threats, and ominous deadlines.

    Maybe it's true that players missing a season's worth of paychecks equates to mutually assured destruction, but you can only get pistol whipped for so long before you reach for a gun. There's no guarantee that a legal challenge does anything but prolong the inevitable massacre, and no doubt, if there's no basketball played this year, then everybody loses.

  24. #5694
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,417

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by neosmndrew View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For those wondering what ESPN's opinion on this is...

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...ockout-fallout

    Wow. So apparently they have a polar opposite view of this whole lockout than we do here at PD. That's a shame.
    Good. I'd be concerned if my opinions were aligned with the morons at ESPN.

  25. #5695
    Chairman of the Boards 90'sNBARocked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Chicago, but Brooklyn/Naptown Raised!!
    Posts
    7,614

    Default Re: An Excellent Summary of the entire lockout and future regret

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad8888 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The vast majority of players will look back 20 years from now and regret that they listened to union leadership and greedy agents destroyed much of the goodwill the league had built up from the days when Larry and Magic came out of college and transformed public perception of the NBA.

    Owners will be grateful that they withstood pressure from the media and agents and superstar players and salvaged the league from its unsustainable business model. They will have virtually no regret, unless you count the large market owners regretting that they could not crush the remainder of the franchises and maintain as much of the status quo as possible.

    The whole "love of the game" angle ceased a long time ago, and has absolutely no reason to even be considered as what brought players and owners together. It is "all about the Benjamins" and has been for a very long time. That has been reconfirmed in such a resounding fashion at this point as to make the assertion of the author of this piece seem laughable in my opinion.
    JMHO, but I dont think you cant paint all the players with one broad stroke. I do believe a lot, if not, maybe even half or more of the players are all about the benjamins, chedda, snaps, whatever

    then again Im remind of people like Kevin Durrant, and I smile
    Sittin on top of the world!

  26. #5696
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,628

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by neosmndrew View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For those wondering what ESPN's opinion on this is...

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...ockout-fallout

    Wow. So apparently they have a polar opposite view of this whole lockout than we do here at PD. That's a shame.
    I haven't been around PD the last few months, but I strongly share the opinion of ESPN and many other NBA writers who've watched ownership try to outright bully the players into a horrible deal.

    The owners have underestimated their own weakness. Just 3-4 years ago the big story was that foreign teams were threatening to steal NBA players with big offers. Yet here they are playing they "where else you gonna go" card.

    Whoops, you picked the wrong time to be an a'hole.

    It's not even the 50/50, which by the way is a 7 point CONCESSION by the players, not a concession by ownership. It's the cap locks and virtual restriction on movement between teams that players hate. The players are against going back to 1971, and for good reason.


    And Stern is being a massive tool about the whole thing. He doesn't even have all of ownership on the same page and does nothing but threaten the players will shallow, obvious tatics like fake deadlines and "if you don't take this then I'll make it worse next time."

    That's not "good faith", that bullying. No group of employees is ever going to respond well to that.



    And BTW, if the players are so worthless/lucky to be playing a game, then you'll be happy to buy my tickets off me at face value when the NBA starts back up with replacement players. Because the only reason I won't be selling them is if it impacts my class action lawsuit when they try to pawn off that product as the one I paid for.

  27. #5697
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,260

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    ESPN obviously needs to read this, and let it sink in for a little bit.

    Gary Roberts, dean and professor at the Indiana University Law School-Indianapolis

    "The [NBPA's] unfair labor practice complaint is extremely weak and lacks legal basis. … Labor law is absolutely 100-percent clear that strikes and lockouts are allowed without [an] impasse being reached. Players could have struck the day the [collective bargaining agreement] expired and the league exercised its right to lock out the players. And the union's argument that the owners somehow failed to bargain in good faith because they made extreme demands also flies in the face of clear labor law. The duty to bargain in good faith does not undermine the right of 'freedom of contract,' a principle that says that either side is entitled to take firm and unbending substantive positions. As long as the owners are willing to keep meeting and talking, they are meeting the duty to bargain in good faith whether or not they make extreme demands and do not budge off of them. So absent some smoking gun in which owners are proven to have been bargaining with no effort to seek an agreement (which I am fairly sure does not exist) the union has little hope of prevailing on this NLRB complaint. … And even if the NLRB made a finding for the union in this matter, I seriously doubt they could get a court to issue a Section 10(j) injunction to end the lockout. I would be positively shocked if it turns out otherwise."
    http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/...sp?id=52768001

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  29. #5698
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,302

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't see how a HARD CAP (ie, supertax cap so terrible no one crosses it) help the 2000-2010 Pacers.
    Seth, to paraphrase Mickey Arison, you're barking at the wrong poster

    I've posted a number of times regarding why I think a hard cap is bad for the Pacers and small market teams in general, but not for the reasons you stated.

    The theory of the hard cap is that owners will be hesitant to hand out long guaranteed deals in a hard cap system, so the thinking there is that Murph/Dunleavy/Jax/Tinsley etc would never have gotten those deals in a hard cap system.

    As for pulling a Miami and gutting their cap, the Pacers could indeed do that, and in fact are poised to do so. The trouble is that the Pacers are unlikely to attract/retain significant free agents without overpaying, which is the crux of my argument against a hard cap.

  30. #5699

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    I really don't blame Stern. He is the mouthpiece for the owners and even they are divided. He has to have 16 owners agree and they obivously agreed that their best deal was the one left on the table.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Gamble1 For This Useful Post:


  32. #5700
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,628

    Default Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shade View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Good. I'd be concerned if my opinions were aligned with the morons at ESPN.
    Larry Coon, CBA super-gura and finance master also agrees with the players.

    He just thought they were F'd and were going to feel more pain in fighting it than accepting it.

    Super-scout David Thorpe agrees.

    Kelly Dwyer of Ball Don't Lie, ditto.


    I haven't really heard a compelling, non-emtional (ie, players are already rich so shut up) argument for the ownership. When your main complaint is "I gotta into an industry and I kinda suck at it and I'm losing money so can someone bail me out", I don't really see where the sympathy comes from.

    Sell the team (for a profit from when you bought it) and let someone else run it better if that's the case. And if it's a passion project (ie, Simon) that you refuse to sell then try to do it the best you can and accept that passion projects often aren't money makers, thus the "passion" part of it.





    Sterns has finalized the crap legacy that I think he earned years ago. The guy that gave Mad Max 10 games then a decade later gave Ron Artest 72 games for the exact same transgression (actually less, Max landed a punch and Ron didn't) and explained it as "It was up for a vote and won, 1-0" says it all.

    You look at the run of other brawls (Mia-NY), the Spreewell choking, the other strike, the Lebron decision, the rookie contract holdouts of the 90's, the Ewing "lottery", the Las Vegas all-star weekend...

    What great thing has he done that didn't involve Bird, Magic and Jordan (and that includes Dream Team 1 vs the rest of Team USA efforts).



    There's a really, really long list of crap moments that he often didn't handle very well. This is just one more of them.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-08-2011, 10:22 PM
  2. September 15th: The first deadline
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 10:59 AM
  3. Replies: 112
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 12:36 PM
  4. MLB: Scores, News, Photos, ALL team discussions...
    By Constellations in forum The Locker Room (General Sports Discussion)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 04:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •