Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[plainballing]

What's the difference between this thread and the "Who do you support" thread?

None, and no mod bothers to merge it...yet!

[Fairview4Life]

Because I didn't bring it up and wasn't replying to you initially about it? You posted that the players want no part of a system that would lead to nullifying geographical advantages. I posited a system that would do that using no max contracts and revenue sharing and Reginman responded with this:

No, I posted that the players wanted nothing to do with a hard cap (and, perhaps secondarily, one that would limit their ability to go to prime geographical markets at no cost to them).

This is from your post on page 8 that I replied to:

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

[LittleOzzy]

What's the difference between this thread and the "Who do you support" thread?

None, and no mod bothers to merge it...yet!

Maybe I'm crazy but I don't see the other thread.

Please link it.

[BorisDK1]

This is from your post on page 8 that I replied to:

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

Sure - it's a concern to the players. It's just not the primary one.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The players don't want to limit the geographical advantage under the proposals outlined by the owners. You can bet there are situations where they would be perfectly fine with limiting the geographical advantage. Increase revenue-sharing in a major way, remove maximum contracts and you've suddenly significantly limited geographical advantage. You haven't gotten rid of it completely, that will never be possible, but you've limited it in a huge way. Clearly, the owners don't want any part of such a proposal, because if it was one of their primary goals to limit that geographical advantage then they'd be looking at all the alternative to accomplish that which might actually have a hope in hell of being acceptable to the union.

[Reignman]

Thanks for explaining why so many people want the system to be completely reformed.

But hey, I can see why some people might like to see an all-star league made up of 5 teams rather than a real pro-league.

Well, tell me - what did Danny Ainge and the Boston Celtics do that other teams couldn't accomplish? Why revamp a system for competitive balance, when Ainge has already proven that it is possible to build a contender through trades and smart drafting? The Celtics were the 2nd worst team in the league in 2007.

Here, I'll tell you why this isn't feasible from a Raps fan perspective:

Disclaimer: In the NBA certain cities carry huge weight around the league - LA, BOS, NY, etc.

A) Paul Pierce wouldn't have stuck around Toronto as long he did in Boston during down years (see Stoudamire, VC, TMac and Bosh). Players seem to give the big name teams alot more leeway than a team without history and in a different country. Look at Kobe, he wouldn't have stuck with LA during the down years if it wasn't LAC. Imagine that situation with Kobe in Toronto, LOL, he would've been out in a heartbeat.

B) If Toronto were in the same situation as BOS that year I can pretty much guarantee you that KG doesn't agree to come here / sign extension. Ray Allen may have since he has expressed he wanted to play in T.O. in the past.

C) By your own admission, it took BOS years of tanking, threats from its best player leaving and numerous other moves before it coulod pull of a once-in-a-lifetime move(s) to create a championship team. If that's what it takes to build a contender then is the system really working? Hell, if that's what it took for BOS to build a winner, do the small-mid market teams stand a chance?

The system is **** up and needs a major overhaul.

[Reignman]

The players don't want to limit the geographical advantage under the proposals outlined by the owners. You can bet there are situations where they would be perfectly fine with limiting the geographical advantage. Increase revenue-sharing in a major way, remove maximum contracts and you've suddenly significantly limited geographical advantage. You haven't gotten rid of it completely, that will never be possible, but you've limited it in a huge way. Clearly, the owners don't want any part of such a proposal, because if it was one of their primary goals to limit that geographical advantage then they'd be looking at all the alternative to accomplish that which might actually have a hope in hell of being acceptable to the union.

I do agree that in better circumstances the league could give up a bit of one to get the other. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.

People need to realize this CBA isn't about one (BRI split) or the other (system). The last CBA was so **** up (owners fault for signing) that this is about both.

The owners are going for BRI and system overhauls and based on the situation I don't blame them. I also don't blame the players for feeling shell shocked but someone should've told them that the last CBA(s) were ridiculously lopsided in their favour and that major changes were coming.

Actually, Stern did that 2 years ago, Billy Hunter just forgot to pass the message along.

[plainballing]

Maybe I'm crazy but I don't see the other thread.

Please link it.

Here Ozzy.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1133856

[Fairview4Life]

This is from your post on page 8 that I replied to:

The issue isn't whether geographic advantage can be completely nullified, but whether it can be somewhat nullified which is in the league's best interest. I believe it can be, and the players do too -they just don't want anything to do with such a scenario.

Sure - it's a concern to the players. It's just not the primary one.

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant. Regardless, the players wanted no part of the owners plan of guaranteeing every team, no matter how poorly run or what market they are in, a profit before revenue sharing by taking it away from the players current share of BRI and instituting a hard cap. I don't blame them at all for that. The owners let George Shinn buy a team, and Bob Johnson start one up in Charlotte. If they aren't willing to live with the consequences of those decisions, they should help keep those teams alive via revenue sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask owners to share some portion of local tv, ticket and sponsorship revenue, since you need 2 teams to stage a game.

I also bet the players would sign up for a hard cap set at 75% of BRI, or whatever. It isn't a hard cap necessarily that causes the problem, it's where the owners wanted to set it.

[BorisDK1]

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant. Regardless, the players wanted no part of the owners plan of guaranteeing every team, no matter how poorly run or what market they are in, a profit before revenue sharing by taking it away from the players current share of BRI and instituting a hard cap. I don't blame them at all for that. The owners let George Shinn buy a team, and Bob Johnson start one up in Charlotte. If they aren't willing to live with the consequences of those decisions, they should help keep those teams alive via revenue sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask owners to share some portion of local tv, ticket and sponsorship revenue, since you need 2 teams to stage a game.

I also bet the players would sign up for a hard cap set at 75% of BRI, or whatever. It isn't a hard cap necessarily that causes the problem, it's where the owners wanted to set it.

Nobody's saying there shouldn't be revenue sharing, because there already is. It's accomplished through the tax system, which is the way it should be.

And the players never objected to the level of the hard cap, they objected to its existence. So because it will NEVER be set at 75%, why bring this up?

[bballsparkin]

I still dont' care. Let them waste a year and lose millions. I'm jacked up for NCAA bball and am enjoying hockey more. Sure I'll be choked come playoff time, but it's worth it to laugh at Stern and many of the owners. Not to mention I think a lot of the players are divas. Don't get me started on the reffs.

[Fairview4Life]

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant. Regardless, the players wanted no part of the owners plan of guaranteeing every team, no matter how poorly run or what market they are in, a profit before revenue sharing by taking it away from the players current share of BRI and instituting a hard cap. I don't blame them at all for that. The owners let George Shinn buy a team, and Bob Johnson start one up in Charlotte. If they aren't willing to live with the consequences of those decisions, they should help keep those teams alive via revenue sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask owners to share some portion of local tv, ticket and sponsorship revenue, since you need 2 teams to stage a game.

I also bet the players would sign up for a hard cap set at 75% of BRI, or whatever. It isn't a hard cap necessarily that causes the problem, it's where the owners wanted to set it.

Nobody's saying there shouldn't be revenue sharing, because there already is. It's accomplished through the tax system, which is the way it should be.

And the players never objected to the level of the hard cap, they objected to its existence. So because it will NEVER be set at 75%, why bring this up?

First of all, I disagree that's how revenue sharing should be handled since it's not actually revenue sharing. Secondly, you changed your tune a bit from saying the players want nothing to do with a system that would level the geographical playing field (as much as possible) to them wanting nothing to do with a hard cap that could possibly limit them from going to a prime market at no real cost to themselves. So I suggested a hard cap system that the players would probably sign up for. A hard cap set extremely high. So however way you want play it, either with your original statement or your revised one, the players would have no problem with a number of systems that level the geographic playing field. The owners would balk at those plans however. So at the end of the day, neither side is actually primarily concerned with leveling the markets. My point being that the owners claims of striving for parity might have suckered in Reignman, but the owners actions put the lie to that claim.

[reck0n3r]

I honestly don't care. Frack'em both.

I'd be cheesed if RealGM was shut down for a year, though.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Thanks for explaining why so many people want the system to be completely reformed.

But hey, I can see why some people might like to see an all-star league made up of 5 teams rather than a real pro-league.

Well, tell me - what did Danny Ainge and the Boston Celtics do that other teams couldn't accomplish? Why revamp a system for competitive balance, when Ainge has already proven that it is possible to build a contender through trades and smart drafting? The Celtics were the 2nd worst team in the league in 2007.

Here, I'll tell you why this isn't feasible from a Raps fan perspective:

Disclaimer: In the NBA certain cities carry huge weight around the league - LA, BOS, NY, etc.

A) Paul Pierce wouldn't have stuck around Toronto as long he did in Boston during down years (see Stoudamire, VC, TMac and Bosh). Players seem to give the big name teams alot more leeway than a team without history and in a different country. Look at Kobe, he wouldn't have stuck with LA during the down years if it wasn't LAC. Imagine that situation with Kobe in Toronto, LOL, he would've been out in a heartbeat.

B) If Toronto were in the same situation as BOS that year I can pretty much guarantee you that KG doesn't agree to come here / sign extension. Ray Allen may have since he has expressed he wanted to play in T.O. in the past.

C) By your own admission it took BOS years of tanking, threats from its best player leaving and numerous other moves before it coulod pull of a once-in-a-lifetime move(s) to create a championship team. If that's what it takes to build a contender then is the system really working? Hell, if that's what it took for BOS to build a winner, do the small-mid market teams stand a chance?

The system is **** up and needs a major overhaul.

Well then, there's not much else Toronto and other small markets can do then, if you really feel that it is that big of a disadvantage. Because if we go with your idea of a franchise player tag and no max contract, it would sound like you guys would have to overpay stars to get them to stay. Then it's the KG in Minnesota scenario all over again - 1 guy makes the money, and now you have no money to pay the rest of the team. Star player gets disgruntled because he has no help, gets on the first plane outta there. What else can you really do? Players chase rings and/or money.

[Mister Ze]

I never believed that the league was losing money in the first place. I don't trust David Stern. With the NBA gaining more international fans it seems like the owners want more money.

If it wasn't for David Stern the NBA wouldn't have international fans.

He's done a decent job in expanding the fan base across the globe but he wouldn't have done it without the players. Dwight Howard for instance went to India to create a fan base, most likely not by choice but it wouldn't be possible without him so you can't give all the credit to Stern. He knows how to earn money with events like the Dallas all-star game and fixing the finals so that there would be Boston vs LA in game 7 lol. His next project has been trying to take away as much player earnings as possible and also reducing the rights that a player has.

[MEDIC]

I'm kinda hoping the NBA folds & a new league takes its place with a mix of 1990 NBA, NCAA & Euroleague rules.

A tougher game with less divas.

Lets make a league that's actually a mens league with players that actually appreciate being paid a ton of dough to play a game.

[reck0n3r]

Also, it annoys me when people are trying to speak for the "average" baller who has a short lifespan in the NBA and has no other life skills, that this lockout is going to impact them the most.

That's fine with me, maybe they should use that cash to get an education in order to be a more productive part of society like the rest of us.

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I have a hard time feeling bad for anyone who is virtually a millionaire by playing a sport, yet having a government step in to practically lower incomes of more essential professions like doctors. I guess in a way we only have ourselves to blame for letting professional sports become such a lucrative business to begin with. If I was an alien on the outside looking in, I'd really be perplexed at the priority list of a typical human being.

[reck0n3r]

I'm kinda hoping the NBA folds & a new league takes its place with a mix of 1990 NBA, NCAA & Euroleague rules.

A tougher game with less divas.

Lets make a league that's actually a mens league with players that actually appreciate being paid a ton of dough to play a game.

I'd rather have them play over scraps of food. It'd make them hungrier.

[MEDIC]

If I was an alien on the outside looking in, I'd really be perplexed at the priority list of a typical human being.

Yeah, we'd all look pretty F'ed up. It's a pretty funny concept, but you don't need to be an alien to realize this.

Just look at how celebrated Steve Jobs was after his passing. The guy invented a new aged walkman & somehow he's the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.

We love to be entertained.......& don't appreciate the things that actually matter enough.

[MEDIC]

I'm kinda hoping the NBA folds & a new league takes its place with a mix of 1990 NBA, NCAA & Euroleague rules.

A tougher game with less divas.

Lets make a league that's actually a mens league with players that actually appreciate being paid a ton of dough to play a game.

I'd rather have them play over scraps of food. It'd make them hungrier.

There are lots of countries in the world where you could start this league & that could actually be the reality of the situation.

FOX network could air a decade of it as a "reality" TV show & make a ridiculous profit.