Lockout/Negotiations Thread

Post #961 » by **Diop** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:00 pm

fatlever wrote:b-list issues that still need to be resolved

- league wants 20 year old age limit

How much an affect would that have on next years draft?

Post #962 » by **fatlever** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:03 pm

Sachmo wrote:
fatlever wrote:b-list issues that still need to be resolved

- league wants 20 year old age limit

How much an affect would that have on next years draft?

good question....hmmm... swedd, slam?

i guess the freshmen would have to wait another year. i think its great for college bball but not good for bobcats this year.

SWedd523 · Post #963 » by **SWedd523** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:24 pm

I've been in favor of a 3 year college requirement since the start, but that's beside the point.

Concerning the draft, the reason so many people have been saying the 2012 draft is so loaded is because of two things: last year's great freshman stayed in school, and this year's great freshman. At this time, the lottery players in the draft are something like

Barnes
Beal
Davis
Drummond
Gilchrist
Henson
P. Jones
T. Jones
Lamb
Miller
Rivers
Robinson
Sullinger
Young

That's 6 Freshman, 6 Sophomores, and 2 Juniors. Take those freshmen out and roughly half the lottery is gone

doc.end · Post #964 » by **doc.end** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 pm

fatlever wrote:b-list issues that still need to be resolved

- league wants 20 year old age limit
- players want rookies to hit pay days earliers
- league wants looser restrictions on sending players to d-league
- league wants off-season drug testing

Stop the celebrations, this won't ciome through!

SWedd523 · Post #965 » by **SWedd523** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:16 pm

They've brought the NBA back, time to bring this back as well

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKX-cf_p90[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_h7Lm7C9Nk[/youtube]

Eoghan · Post #966 » by **Eoghan** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:44 pm

^They could have canceled the season as long as they brought that theme back, hell yeah.

Post #967 » by **floppymoose** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:20 pm

The owners improved their offer. Everyone saying the players would have to settle for 47% BRI was wrong. It turns out calling the owners bluff was the right thing to do.

captaincrunk · Post #968 » by **captaincrunk** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:15 pm

floppymoose wrote:The owners improved their offer. Everyone saying the players would have to settle for 47% BRI was wrong. It turns out calling the owners bluff was the right thing to do.

I'm glad a deal is done, and I'm glad there was some actual compromise made, instead of just a "Take it or leave it". Makes for better relations.

ohara · Post #969 » by **ohara** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:29 pm

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... nba_t11_a1

SI seems to think the NBA is happy and the Players are just OK with it. Seems both sides got a little and gave a little. In the end, probably the fair thing. I'm sure there are things both sides are happy with and things each feel make them want to vomit. So be it. At least the fans have their game back.

SWedd523 · Post #970 » by **SWedd523** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:58 pm

The players really gave 'em the old 1-2

:roll:

captaincrunk · Post #971 » by **captaincrunk** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:03 pm

SWEDD523 wrote:The players really gave 'em the old 1-2

• The players' lawsuit was impactful. Say what you want about the players' chances of winning an antitrust suit, but the threat of a prolonged court battle -- and potentially $6 billion in damages -- clearly affected the way the league negotiated. Stern's long threatened "reset offer" (which would have given the players 47 percent of the BRI and included a hard cap) never crossed the table. Instead, the two sides resumed bargaining even after the union elected to dissolve and locked down the principle components of a deal that will salvage the season.

It apparently was indeed impactful.

Post #972 » by **floppymoose** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:06 pm

There is no doubt the owners made out like bandits. Everyone who wanted to screw the players should love this deal.

Post #973 » by **Diop** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:14 pm

floppymoose wrote:There is no doubt the owners made out like bandits. Everyone who wanted to screw the players should love this deal.

captaincrunk · Post #974 » by **captaincrunk** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:35 pm

Sachmo wrote:
floppymoose wrote:There is no doubt the owners made out like bandits. Everyone who wanted to screw the players should love this deal.

vorbis · Post #975 » by **vorbis** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:45 am

SWEDD523 wrote:They've brought the NBA back, time to bring this back as well

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKX-cf_p90[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_h7Lm7C9Nk[/youtube]

w h i t e p e o p l e

Post #976 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:22 am

Here is some detailed analysis on the differences between this deal and the "take it or else" deal:

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/m ... 3/33514559

They are pretty similar but the players got some ground, especially on sign and trade. They also think they may see 51% BRI by the end of the deal. I have no way to evaluate that part at the moment - hopefully they are right.

Post #977 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:05 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/sport ... ted=2&_r=1

The regular season will be extended into late April, pushing back the playoffs and the finals by a week. To fit 66 games teams will have to play, on average, about two more games per month.

Teams will sometimes have to play on three consecutive nights — something that has not been done since the lockout-shortened 1999 season. That season, the shortest in the modern era, is often regarded with an asterisk, and was marked by sloppy play and out-of-shape players.

The 2011-12 season may need only a quarter-asterisk. Every team will play 48 in-conference games, just four fewer than normal. But teams will play only 18 out-of-conference games, meaning not every team will visit every city.

Post #978 » by **Diop** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:14 am

3 consecutive nights! There is going to be some ugly basketball.

SWedd523 · Post #979 » by **SWedd523** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:19 am

I wonder how many of those big market teams we're going to miss out on?

Post #980 » by **fatlever** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:44 am

floppymoose wrote:There is no doubt the owners made out like bandits. Everyone who wanted to screw the players should love this deal.

for me, it was never about trying to screw the players, it was about creating a system that helped charlotte and at the same time put some things in place to help prevent every superstar for the next decade from trying to pulling a "decision" or a "melo", colluding to created mega teams in prime markets leaving the other 25 teams to play "washington generals"

i was always more interested in the system issues and revenue sharing than BRI.

that being said, i am not so sure i really like the compromises the owners made on system issues. i think we are still going to see paul, howard and deron moving to create mega teams, either in NY or brooklyn/NJ, chicago or re-stocking the lakers.

maybe there is nothing that can be done to prevent this, since its almost more about the mentality of the players today. maybe the next generation of superstars will be more interested in loyalty to a franchise, competing with stars rather than joining them.

i would love to see players go back to hating each other, but i doubt that will ever happen again. shame.