Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[roundhead0]

If the players were making chump change, then I'd be on their side. But they just turned down a deal that would each and every one of them a freaking ton of money.

For that kind of money I'd work under the worst (non-life-threatening) conditions possible, and these prima donnas are not happy until they get every little thing they want. So everyone ELSE has to suffer while the Players' Union talks about how unfair the NBA is for offering to continue to make them all ridiculously wealthy.

[BorisDK1]

Competitive parity = the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The majority of this forum is just gobbling up this propaganda due to Chris Bosh leaving.

...and Stoudamire, and McGrady, and Carter. There's a bit of a concern around these parts that teams in certain markets are somewhat consigned to mediocrity or worst just based on geographic disadvantage. While I don't agree with the extent of some of the pessimism, there certainly seems to be a point there.

I think the fans around here are rightfully hoping and cheering on that a situation like Miami's this summer never happens again. Up until now, very few championship-contending teams have been built almost exclusively by free agency. The spectre of a team in a prime geographical market poaching not just so-so players but legitimate superstars from smaller, more northern markets has to be a concern to everybody, no? Not only that, New York grabbed two prime free agents (Stoudemire and Anthony) and you already have another one (Chris Paul) publicly conspiring to become the third. And Utah had to give up its best player just because he might have done the same thing. This is the kind of nonsense that the league rightfully has to put its foot down on.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Remove maximum contracts and sign and trades and suddenly you've solved the problem without any massive overhauls to the system, Boris. If all the owners were after was to protect northern markets the solution is pretty simple.

[timdunkit]

Competitive parity = the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The majority of this forum is just gobbling up this propaganda due to Chris Bosh leaving.

...and Stoudamire, and McGrady, and Carter. There's a bit of a concern around these parts that teams in certain markets are somewhat consigned to mediocrity or worst just based on geographic disadvantage. While I don't agree with the extent of some of the pessimism, there certainly seems to be a point there.

I think the fans around here are rightfully hoping and cheering on that a situation like Miami's this summer never happens again. Up until now, very few championship-contending teams have been built almost exclusively by free agency. The spectre of a team in a prime geographical market poaching not just so-so players but legitimate superstars from smaller, more northern markets has to be a concern to everybody, no? Not only that, New York grabbed two prime free agents (Stoudemire and Anthony) and you already have another one (Chris Paul) publicly conspiring to become the third. And Utah had to give up its best player just because he might have done the same thing. This is the kind of nonsense that the league rightfully has to put its foot down on.

Yeap ... this is more about power and control. Before, the league didn't really have to worry about it because superstars did want to compete against each other and basically let their GM's do the jobs. Now you have players trying to assemble teams and due to the flexibility of the last CBA, they were able to do so.

There is no such thing as a league where 30 teams can compete but thats not what the owners are striving for. Their striving for a league where rich teams have to pay the price for having 2 -3 guys take up so much cap or deadweight contracts.

It doesn't matter if you can pair Kobe and Gasol and pay them 50 mill a year combined. What the league wants to stop is the addition of Bynum/Odom/Artest and then deadweight contract like Walton that LA can get away with because well their LA and their rich. Same with Dallas, who didn't miss a beat despite wasting 10 mill on Haywood and paying 10 mill for Butler to recieve a championship ring.

[Fairview4Life]

Remove maximum contracts and sign and trades and suddenly you've solved the problem without any massive overhauls to the system, Boris. If all the owners were after was to protect northern markets the solution is pretty simple.

+More revenue sharing.

[gerrit4]

Competitive parity = the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The majority of this forum is just gobbling up this propaganda due to Chris Bosh leaving.

...and Stoudamire, and McGrady, and Carter. There's a bit of a concern around these parts that teams in certain markets are somewhat consigned to mediocrity or worst just based on geographic disadvantage. While I don't agree with the extent of some of the pessimism, there certainly seems to be a point there.

I think the fans around here are rightfully hoping and cheering on that a situation like Miami's this summer never happens again. Up until now, very few championship-contending teams have been built almost exclusively by free agency. The spectre of a team in a prime geographical market poaching not just so-so players but legitimate superstars from smaller, more northern markets has to be a concern to everybody, no? Not only that, New York grabbed two prime free agents (Stoudemire and Anthony) and you already have another one (Chris Paul) publicly conspiring to become the third. And Utah had to give up its best player just because he might have done the same thing. This is the kind of nonsense that the league rightfully has to put its foot down on.

Carmelo is a bad example for this - the Nuggets pretty much got a fair return for him. Considering their win % went up after the trade and NY's went down, that trade is a great example of parity.

[MEDIC]

Competitive parity = the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The majority of this forum is just gobbling up this propaganda due to Chris Bosh leaving.

Chris Bosh leaving? You can't be serious. Yeah, I don't know what do with myself now that CB is gone. All that excitement he generated around here & those championship runs.....what will I do......

The only 2 players that walked that I care about are T-Mac & Carter. They are the only 2 players that mattered & the only 2 that could have brought us deep playoff runs.

The only regret I had with CB is not trading him 2 years before his contrtact expired (when his value was at its highest).

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Competitive parity = the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The majority of this forum is just gobbling up this propaganda due to Chris Bosh leaving.

...and Stoudamire, and McGrady, and Carter. There's a bit of a concern around these parts that teams in certain markets are somewhat consigned to mediocrity or worst just based on geographic disadvantage. While I don't agree with the extent of some of the pessimism, there certainly seems to be a point there.

I think the fans around here are rightfully hoping and cheering on that a situation like Miami's this summer never happens again. Up until now, very few championship-contending teams have been built almost exclusively by free agency. The spectre of a team in a prime geographical market poaching not just so-so players but legitimate superstars from smaller, more northern markets has to be a concern to everybody, no? Not only that, New York grabbed two prime free agents (Stoudemire and Anthony) and you already have another one (Chris Paul) publicly conspiring to become the third. And Utah had to give up its best player just because he might have done the same thing. This is the kind of nonsense that the league rightfully has to put its foot down on.

Yeap ... this is more about power and control. Before, the league didn't really have to worry about it because superstars did want to compete against each other and basically let their GM's do the jobs. Now you have players trying to assemble teams and due to the flexibility of the last CBA, they were able to do so.

There is no such thing as a league where 30 teams can compete but thats not what the owners are striving for. Their striving for a league where rich teams have to pay the price for having 2 -3 guys take up so much cap or deadweight contracts.

Yup. That's correct. They can do this through revenue sharing. Why they decided to put this all on the players is greed amongst the owners. Big market teams don't want to help out small market teams, which is why they've gotten together to stick it to the players.

[OvertimeNO]

...and Stoudamire, and McGrady, and Carter. There's a bit of a concern around these parts that teams in certain markets are somewhat consigned to mediocrity or worst just based on geographic disadvantage. While I don't agree with the extent of some of the pessimism, there certainly seems to be a point there.

I think the fans around here are rightfully hoping and cheering on that a situation like Miami's this summer never happens again. Up until now, very few championship-contending teams have been built almost exclusively by free agency. The spectre of a team in a prime geographical market poaching not just so-so players but legitimate superstars from smaller, more northern markets has to be a concern to everybody, no? Not only that, New York grabbed two prime free agents (Stoudemire and Anthony) and you already have another one (Chris Paul) publicly conspiring to become the third. And Utah had to give up its best player just because he might have done the same thing. This is the kind of nonsense that the league rightfully has to put its foot down on.

Yeap ... this is more about power and control. Before, the league didn't really have to worry about it because superstars did want to compete against each other and basically let their GM's do the jobs. Now you have players trying to assemble teams and due to the flexibility of the last CBA, they were able to do so.

There is no such thing as a league where 30 teams can compete but thats not what the owners are striving for. Their striving for a league where rich teams have to pay the price for having 2 -3 guys take up so much cap or deadweight contracts.

Yup. That's correct. They can do this through revenue sharing. Why they decided to put this all on the players is greed amongst the owners. Big market teams don't want to help out small market teams, which is why they've gotten together to stick it to the players.

Revenue sharing does nothing to ameliorate a situation where most of the teams are losing money. That's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Raptors Realtor]

Owners... they are afterall 'the owners' of the team/corporation. They're the ones who invested $100's of millions, if not billions into this product, and with the average player salary being $5.15 million in 2011, it's not as if the players are playing for peanuts... by no means is this a 'sweatshop' situation!

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Revenue sharing does nothing to ameliorate a situation where most of the teams are losing money. That's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

To paraphrase Snoop Dogg - if you can't swim, you bound to drizzown. Get rid of the dead weight to keep the Titanic afloat then. Talent is spread out too thin anyhow. Might as well take talent from the teams losing money and just do a reallocation draft. Competitive parity is more likely when there are less teams, with more all-stars on each roster.

[Fairview4Life]

The players have also apparently offered to give up a projected 3 billion over 10 years to the owners.

[OvertimeNO]

Revenue sharing does nothing to ameliorate a situation where most of the teams are losing money. That's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

To paraphrase Snoop Dogg - if you can't swim, you bound to drizzown. Get rid of the dead weight to keep the Titanic afloat then. Talent is spread out too thin anyhow. Might as well take talent from the teams losing money and just do a reallocation draft. Competitive parity is more likely when there are less teams, with more all-stars on each roster.

Or fix the damn ship.

[NH]

I'm with the owners on this one. It is their league after all. If the players don't want to play in the NBA, they can go play elsewhere. but wait! where else can they play? Negotiations 101; the side with the strongest BATNA (best alternative) always wins. Owners alternative = focus on their other business and wait for this issue to pass. Players alternative... err.. Europe or China? play at the YMCA?

As a Raptors fan, I also want the system fixed. The players want to have the freedom to choose their teams; sure they already do but money has to be a deciding factor. They just want to play in LA/Miami/NYC boohoo. Lots of regular people have to choose to either take lower paying jobs in their hometown or relocate to get a better job. Hell, some people can't get a job in the city they love and have to move to another town to find employment. SMH

[anj]

I'm with the owners on this one. It is their league after all.

I look forward to watching Herb Kohl go hard to the tin against Jerry Reinsdorf this weekend.

[Reignman]

I'm with the owners, they have a vested interest in improving the league.

Think about it like this, if the players had free reign how would the league look?

- Long term guaranteed deals
- Freedom to move any time
- No max salaries

You know what that would lead to? A 5 team league (LA, Bos, NY, Dal and Mia) with stars teamed up sucking each other off for 48 mins.

[JamesNaismith]

Neither reallly.


But the players are being stupid here....they need to realize they are in no position of power. The owners hold the power and that's just the bottomline really. To say that they didn't negotiate in good faith is ridiculous considering we all know the owners can drop the BRI even more and agreed to 5 of the 6 items the MEDIATOR (a neutral party) issued yet the players rejected all.

I'm not a fan of the NBA bullying them which they WILL do NOW and I'm equally baffled by the players thinking they have a ton of power. The owners can easily sustain going on without a league; the players can't AND they could really mess this up for the future generations.

[Fairview4Life]

I'm with the owners, they have a vested interest in improving the league.

Think about it like this, if the players had free reign how would the league look?

- Long term guaranteed deals
- Freedom to move any time
- No max salaries

You know what that would lead to? A 5 team league (LA, Bos, NY, Dal and Mia) with stars teamed up sucking each other off for 48 mins.

If the players are earning a % of BRI, they also have a vested interest in improving the league's bottom line. "The players" as a group, do not have a vested interest in losing 375 jobs, either.

[Reignman]

I'm with the owners, they have a vested interest in improving the league.

Think about it like this, if the players had free reign how would the league look?

- Long term guaranteed deals
- Freedom to move any time
- No max salaries

You know what that would lead to? A 5 team league (LA, Bos, NY, Dal and Mia) with stars teamed up sucking each other off for 48 mins.

If the players are earning a % of BRI, they also have a vested interest in improving the league's bottom line. "The players" as a group, do not have a vested interest in losing 375 jobs, either.

The 375 have clearly not been heard. Look at the last proposal from the owners, it wasn't a bad deal for the 375. It was a bad deal for the players that want to get paid more and force themselves to their fav city.

Actually, if you see which parts of the deal the players didn't like it had everything to do with my 3 points above. They want a system that overpays them, they want the freedom of movement and they want to be free from all risk .

Like I said, if the players had free reign they would bury the league. You'd have the stars teaming up across the 5 cities I listed above. That has been the entire goal for them.

Like I said, the players don't have any vested interest in seeing league prosper long term, their demands have proven that. They have their short careers and they want to make big money and have free reign. That's the reason they'd drive the league into the ground if they had their way.

[power works]

One part of me is sad that there likely won’t be an NBA season, another part is stupefied at the absurdity of the players defiance, but a huge part is glad that the players rejected the NBA’s last offer, cause ultimately IMO, a league with the “reset” system is place is going to be a better league. An awesome league.

And it’s worth losing the season over, if that’s what it takes.

One of the ESPN talking heads mentioned yesterday that the players showed a historic level of backbone….well what you’ll probably witness in a few months is a historic level of collapse -- by the new and still-confused NBA Trade Association. It’s not a matter of “if” the players will splinter, as the missed paychecks keep piling up, but when?! And it won’t matter how many superstar lawyers are on their side. It’s going to end badly for them.

It’s too bad NBA players don’t listen to retired hockey players.