Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

    http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/29/...ut-settlement/

    By Chris Sheridan

    NEW YORK — From what I can gather, it is looking more and more like a deal is going to be cut in the 51/49 or 50/50 range when it comes to the split of basketball related income.

    It’ll probably take the sides a couple of days to get to that point when negotiations resume Friday, with the owners currently offering only 46-48 percent (down from 57 percent in the last deal) and the players at 54 (but having shown a willlingness to drop to the 52 range).

    The owners also have moved only slightly off their late June flatlined offer of $2 billion per season with no increases over the following six seasons. But move they will, and if they come to the table with an offer that keeps salaries and benefits close to where they were in 2010-11 — $2.19 billion, that’ll be the clincher in getting players to ratify the deal.

    I have been telling you since this site opened for business early this month that the two main words to keep in mind throughout this process were “aggregate dollars” — especially the number of dollars that are separating the sides in Years 1-6. That remains the key point, with the settlement number coming in somewhere between $12 and $15 billion over the first six years, as I wrote in my debut column for this site.

    Here is what I believe the deal will look like, dollar-wise in terms of player salaries, when this thing gets settled within the next week: (And in the meantime, the doomsday rhetoric meter is likely to hit 11 at some point, and the words “best and final offer” are guaranteed to be uttered).

    2011-12: $2.19 billion. (No reduction)

    2012-13: $2.2 billion.

    2013-14: $2.25 billion

    2014-15: $2.3 billion

    2015-16: $2.4 billion

    2016-17: $2.5 billion — with a mechanism for bumping that number upward if the NBA’s new TV deal provides a windfall, and/or an opt-out for the players that would allow them to keep the deal from running longer than six years.

    That would give the players $13.84 billion in salaries and benefits over six years, an average of $2.307 billion per season. It is a far cry from what the players were getting percentage-wise under the old deal, but it is palatable enough — no matter how it is categorized percentage-wise — to ensure a high probability that it will pass a ratification vote.

    And again, once they agree to terms on the money, the remaining aspects of the deal (including an amnesty clause that would likely remove at least $100 million from payrolls for the upcoming season, thereby allowing players to avoid salary shrinkage through the escrow tax, the phasing in of a more punitive luxury tax, adjustments to the mid-level exception, etc.) could be worked out quickly. Then they take two weeks to put the thing on paper, and camps can open in mid-October with enough time to save the scheduled Nov. 1 start of the regular season.

    So that is my prediction.

    Now, let’s have a look around the Web to see what other writers who are well-versed in labor lingo are writing today:

    Ken Berger of CBSSports.com: “In addition to what they presented as hard cap alternatives — which also included a reduction in the Bird and mid-level exceptions — league negotiators also have presented a concept that could drive a wedge in the players’ association. In exchange for keeping certain spending exceptions in place — albeit in a reduced form — one idea floated by the owners was a gradual reduction in existing contracts — the “R” word, as in rollbacks – that would minimize the financial hit for players who will be signing deals under the new system. Such a proposal would alleviate the problem of players such as James, Wade, Stoudemire, Anthony, Chris Bosh and Joe Johnson having outsized contracts compared to stars who’d be faced with signing lesser deals under a new system. In essence, the players who already are under contract would take a percentage cut in the early years of a new CBA – 5 percent the first year, 7.5 the second and 10 percent in the third year, sources said — so that players like Derrick Rose, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Deron Williams wouldn’t bear a disproportionate share of the burden when they sign their max deals under the reduced salary structure the owners are seeking. The provisions are not geared strictly for the star class of players; in fact, the proposed rollbacks would be across the board, “for everyone,” a person with knowledge of the idea said. And while this concept may alleviate the problem of having future stars bear more of a burden, it would create other problems — not the least of which is the players’ unwillingness to accept a percentage of BRI in the mid 40s that would make such rollbacks necessary. It is for this, and other reasons — such as restrictions the owners would want even in a soft-cap system — that a person familiar with the owners’ ideas told CBSSports.com Tuesday night that what they were proposing was deemed “alarming” by union officials. And it is why Stern said Wednesday, “We are not near a deal.”

    Sam Amick of SI.com: “The National Basketball Players’ Association has asked stars like Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Kevin Durant to join the efforts on the public front by meeting in New York on Friday. The rank-and-file players are expected to be represented as well, with one source saying that NBPA executive director Billy Hunter wants “as many guys there as possible.” The negotiations are also expected to continue on Friday, with as many as 15 owners reportedly planning to attend the next session. Unless major concessions are made by the owners by then, the sources said players are prepared to show a united front and express their willingness to sit out the entire season — if not more. There is a growing sentiment that missing the start of the regular season could mean missing the entire season, one that was recently reflected in the comments of agent David Falk. There has even been renewed talk of players starting a league of their own, which may or may not be realistic but is certainly indicative of their level of frustration and the types of strategies being considered.”

    Henry Abbott of ESPN.com’s TrueHoop: “Stern has assessed it’s deal time. In other words, he likes his negotiating position now, and is genuinely happy to have everything come to a head immediately. People who do lots of deals talk a lot about the importance of recognizing deal time when it comes around. What better card to play to sharpen everyone’s focus this weekend? Stern wants to eliminate the possibility of talks dragging on through the autumn. It’s interesting to speculate as to why. Maybe he doesn’t want fans and the media to demonize the players he’s counting on to carry his league. Maybe he’s scared of what could happen to the talks — he has intimated in the past that if it gets ugly, it could get really ugly, which could mean the decertification of the union, litigation galore, and who knows what else. An on-time start to the season does carry significant benefits to many owners and the league, and not to mention fans. For moneymaking teams, the benefits are obvious. Some other teams have short championship windows. And then there are all those corporate sponsorship and advertising revenues that might find new homes in a lockout.

    Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports: “When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification. Hunter has no leverage, and no way out. This isn’t about getting the players a great deal, it’s about getting out of this without the agents overthrowing him. The union keeps insisting its players will go the distance, sit out the season, and that’s not happening. It sounds noble and strong, and there are players with the stomach to do it. Yet, there aren’t enough of them. What’s more, there’s the sobering understanding that the bad deal being offered now becomes worse in December.”
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

    Here's the whole Wojo article, worth reading...

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...d_stern_092911

    Stern aims to close out labor win

    By Adrian Wojnarowski

    NEW YORK – Here was David Stern playing the lockout bogeyman on a city sidewalk, reaching past Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher(notes) to speak directly to the players with a doom-and-gloom prophecy. Come on down to the posh Manhattan hotel on Friday, stay the weekend, and let me show you all over again how the commissioner buries the NBA bodies. When Stern dictates this lockout is over, it ends.

    That’s the hard truth, the hard road to labor peace. Stern’s job is convincing the owners to pull off the press, take the 30-point victory and leave the floor with some grace and dignity.

    This has been rigged for years and months and weeks, and here’s how a deal happens this weekend: In the carnage of a devastating collective bargaining loss for the union with billions of dollars redirected into owners’ pockets, Stern has to give Hunter something to take back to the players, so that the union’s bloodied, bruised and beaten executive director can still raise his arms and declare that, yes, we won.

    Stern’s “going to make a real hard push to get a deal this weekend,” one team president told Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday. “If the union makes a slight move, David will move.

    “But the players have to blink first.”

    When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification.
    Hunter has no leverage, and no way out. This isn’t about getting the players a great deal, it’s about getting out of this without the agents overthrowing him. The union keeps insisting its players will go the distance, sit out the season, and that’s not happening. It sounds noble and strong, and there are players with the stomach to do it. Yet, there aren’t enough of them. What’s more, there’s the sobering understanding that the bad deal being offered now becomes worse in December.

    [Related: Stern warns season at risk if deal not reached soon]

    This isn’t about right or wrong. Just or unjust. When the union didn’t decertify back in July, it was destined for this dark place. It’s too bad, too. Because the players have largely won the PR war. The public knows far more about the owners in the digital age, knows far more about their finances and agendas and, yes, incompetence.

    Nevertheless, these cross-country exhibition games have been an awakening of sorts to the players, to everyone, about how much the players need the NBA’s machinery. They need its platform, its coaching, its competitive environment. There’s nothing but a devoted, narrow fan base that can watch these summer exhibitions. It’s bad basketball, and too much of it will devalue the NBA stars playing in the games.

    The masses don’t want to watch LeBron James(notes) doing windmill dunks with defenders running out of the way. They want to watch him in the context of real competition, real stakes. This is foolery, and it has no staying power in a short summer – never mind a long lockout.

    Several agents tried to plan blockbuster barnstorming tours of Asia, Australia, Europe, but they couldn’t find the corporate sponsors needed to make it a profitable endeavor. So, the big stars and the big owners are coming here for Friday’s meeting, and Stern won’t mind having them all in the room. He wants the players to hear all about how they’re going to lose money they’ll never get back by missing games now. And how they’re still going to get a bad deal later.

    Back on All-Star weekend, Hunter had been bold in a locker-room address to the league’s stars, insisting the union wouldn’t bow to Stern. He cornered the commissioner, ambushed him, and the players loved it. Stern lost his cool, and left them all stunned: He knew where the bodies were buried in the NBA, he said, because he had buried a lot of them himself.

    [Related: NBA owners budge on hard salary cap demands]

    The stars were stunned to hear Stern talk that way, and rallied around Hunter for the way he had gone after the commissioner, a bully of monumental acclaim. In the end, Stern does bury the bodies in the NBA. This death march to a brutal deal was the union’s choice, and now it’s hard to see a way out. Stern warned the players there would be “enormous consequences” for failing to come out of this weekend’s bargaining sessions with the framework of a deal. The suggestion he would cancel the entire season now is ridiculous. That wasn’t his message on Wednesday. It was this, one team president said: “Once they start canceling regular-season games, all bets are off. The deal the players accepted in ’99 was worse than what was offered before games had been lost.”

    Yes, the players need to blink on Friday for the Emperor, blink and bow, because he’s decided this is the time to make a deal with them. A lot of these owners don’t love Stern anymore, but they know he’s a closer, know he’s cutthroat and know he can deliver their billions of dollars over the next decade. Yes, Stern knows where the bodies are buried, and he’s telling the players again: Cut the deal, cut your losses, or you’ll get whacked, too.

    “We’ve already given back too much,” one NBA team player representative texted on Wednesday. Only, the players will have to give back more, and more, and more. What’s the alternative now? As long as the agents don’t get between the commissioner and union executive director, the owners and players are coming to try and cut a deal this weekend, coming to try and salvage the basketball season.

    The owners have already won this fight, and it’s just a matter of how greedy they want to get. It’s Stern’s job, his moral duty, to sit the hard-line owners and empty the bench so late in a blowout. This lockout was always ending when the owners were done running up the score, and now it’s on David Stern to be the closer.

    “There are two victory speeches being written up now,” one Western Conference executive said. “Stern just needs to give Hunter his.”

    The message is unmistakable from the commissioner: Blink now, Billy Hunter. Keep coming with the givebacks, and I’ll still get you out of this with your arms raised in the air, with something to sell. Blink now, Stern is saying. Blink again and again. Once more, Stern’s come to bury the bodies.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

      50-50 or 51-49 is exactly where it should be.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

        Maybe it's just the combination of this vitamin C enriched fruit punch and this warm, sunny weather making me delirious, but I have good feelings about the next 72-96 hours.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

          Travel recommendation to players just before he "blinks":





          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

            LOL "saving face"

            Stern and his dictators win again
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

              It was said early... In Billionaires vs Millionaires, Billionaires win every time.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                I keep seeing "bad deal" thrown around but last time I checked 50-50 was about as fair as it gets. Sounds more like the Owners have had the "bad deal" for some time now.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  Maybe it's just the combination of this vitamin C enriched fruit punch and this warm, sunny weather making me delirious, but I have good feelings about the next 72-96 hours.


                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                    I'm so freaking tired of talking about this lockout. I wanna talk about potential trades and free agency.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                      The players must have started on something like 80% of the income in the league if i am to believe all this "information"

                      The bodies are buried where? next to the 20% the owners originally seem to have had as share?

                      '99 "clear victory for the owners" 2005 "Landslide win for the owners" 2011 "owners burying the players"

                      latest i know is that the players had 57% of BRI to split the past 5 years, the players have given back all years but the last one, around 8% on avg for being "overpaid".
                      Yet the owners want to get back even more than that, really?

                      The more i read about Stern, the same man that buried his good buddies the Simons' because Detroit was a bigger market, and at the same time screwed over half the journalist working for ESPN in such a way they all got amnesia at the same time of day, the more i think the NBA would be much better off without him.

                      Then again, the teams are still "toys", instead of a Yacht, an Island, you get a basketball team.
                      Some were lucky and only paid 15 million in the early days, some paid 600 in the latter days, no one loses not even the previous Nets owner.

                      Grown man, one by one rich enough to influence the worlds economy (you can bankrupt a state/country with less then a billion) are showing their employees, their "studs" off to their friends and at the same time they whip 'm in place.

                      I for one will not mourn if the slightly less rich players decide to take a stance, I would love to see the faces of the Sterlings' of the league when the Buss' of the league get upset, you see good old Jerry stands to start a non-season with the loss of 150 million dollar, of not to be received tv money.

                      I am prepared to wait a year for a new season, if that is the cost to get rid of Stern, i come drive him home!

                      I am not under the illusion that a hardcap makes my Pacers more competitive, finals 00 and close in 04 and 05, when it all exploded. I don't remember much of the small market talk than, or when the Spurs (yeah yeah luck my behind, good management) won multiple trophies. Dallas mid market with an owner who choses to spend, and a great management team and coach, beats the giant market with the "BOUGHT" top team.
                      Where were the highest spenders in the league, NY and LA ?

                      Just because the spend a fortune, doesn't mean they can beat anyone.
                      Competitive has little to do with a hard cap, much more with good management.
                      A hardcap only helps to make more profit, and if that is what you want, don't buy a bball team, buy a Yacht and charter it out, or sell the team, no one is forcing you to spend over the cap, no one is holding a gun to your head, you the owner chose that nonsense, and than you signed the contracts and it becomes expensive so you going to tell them, sorry, i wont pay you what we agreed, that is to much, I'm changing the rules, so you get even less than when you had not signed for me.

                      Insane, absolutely insane.

                      Sorry but once you buy a basketball team for 300 or more million dollar you kind of lose the right to complain it loses money, if it is profit you want there are a gazillion better ways to "invest" your money.
                      You knew what you bought when you started out, so give it up already, you now have to be protected because otherwise you give to much to the players, and the other owners (LT) ? ridiculous, nothing else, they gained their billion by finding that on streetcorners?
                      Owner don't need protection, nor do they need sympathy, they are far greedier than the players and they created this, not the players, they are marketing material, and entertainers to draw the crowd, nothing else.

                      I can watch something else all year, if that is what it takes.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                        really, with the slavery references, able?

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                          Many of the new owners bought into this league with the promise that massive changes would be coming. They paid hundreds of millions with this in mind.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                            I'm with Able, I'm firmly on the players side.

                            Worried about small market teams not being able to financially handle the salaries? How about...
                            1. Don't give out ridiculous contracts. That's poor management.
                            2. Revenue sharing. That has nothing to do with the players, there are teams making a ton of money, share it.

                            I have a problem with the idea that we are just going to let billionaires out of bad contracts, just because. Do any of us really think Rudy Gay would have still been in Memphis if he didn't get signed to the max? I don't. I think he would have gone to a better team.

                            And when it all comes down to it, I'd rather have the people who are actually playing, get a ridiculous amount of money, rather than the people paying them. And to add on top of it..we're giving them money because they are too stupid to make proper decisions with it. (YAY Drew Gooden for 20 million)

                            Bottom line is, I think Revenue sharing helps the smaller market teams more than anything team's will get between the players. And I really just think it's the large market teams, shifting blame to the players, so that this issue is really put on the back burner.

                            And if the league was really doing as badly as they say it is, teams would have folded.

                            So really, I just feel that owners need to fix their own stupid mistakes, they don't need the charity.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: NBA Lockout: Where the settlement lies, dollar-wise

                              Before you get too far on the players side the last I checked the owners employed a whole lot of people who work for their organization and depend a whole lot more on there being an agreement than the owners or players. Get a deal done.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X