Among the most intractable owners, according to sources -- Paul Allen, Dan Gilbert, Robert Sarver, Michael Heisley, Ted Leonsis, Mikhail Prokhorov (yes, him), and now we learn, Michael Jordan -- only Heisley has faced any kind of public backlash. The Grizzlies owner, who admitted last week he doesn't even know what's going on in the negotiations, has been the only one to face a potential challenge in the form of a possible lawsuit by the city of Memphis to recoup losses sustained by a prolonged lockout. Prokhorov, who according to sources is fine with a strategy that would blow up his mediocre team's last season in Newark, is lucky in that he doesn't really have a fan base to hold him accountable. But where are the city attorneys, district attorneys, attorneys general and editorial page writers in some of those other cities to ask who's going to refund taxpayer money that's funding empty basketball arenas during a canceled season?
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/16015692/for-hardliners-on-both-sides-96-hours-left-to-save-season
Proky has money and he is ready to spend to build a champion.
Wouldn't it be easier for him to do it with a soft cap?
My theory is, that he is a hardliner mainly because he want's this season to be cancelled.
Why?
For Dwight.
If there is no season, Orlando gets no chance to trade him to LA or OKC, and when the NBA restarts, Dwight is already an unrestriceted FA.
That would probably put the Nets at the number one favourite spot for landing him.
Do you guys think that there might be something to this?