Does anyone miss the NBA?

[EKnight]

The owners have no problem with the current contracts. No one looked at the big 3 and said, "your contract won't be paid." The existing contracts are not what is being disputed and not what I mentioned. The lockout is not about the current individual player contracts. The players have a union, so a topic like this isn't likely to ever come up. It's about the CBA, which expired. There was no agreement broken by the owners because there was no agreement to break. Why are you even bringing up individual contracts? No one said anything about them. The reduction in salary was not pertinent to individual contracts it was part of the 7% swing in profits. How short-sighted and greedy do you have to be to balk at 50% of the profits your company makes instead of 57% when the difference to owners means staying in business? If the league continues losing 400 million plus dollars annually because they succumb to the players wanting the extra profit, and the league has to declare bankruptcy, do the players really win? -EK

[JVides]

^^^EKnight, this lockout IS about current player contracts, in the context that the expired system has allowed for non-marquee players (see Lewis, Rashard) to make "max player" contracts.  You don't think the Magic regretted giving him max money to sit at the three point line and clank jumpers the past few years (then traded him to the Wizards, who have seen more of the same)?  The league is full of grossly overpaid non-star players, and owners don't like it.  I don't think many owners would balk at giving LeBron James even $40 M a year; he's the league's top draw!  However, giving Marvin Williams $7.5 M?  Baron Davis $13.9 M?  Al Harrington $6.2 M?  $11M for Hedo Turkoglu?  The owners want to push the reset button on these contracts (the trees) as part of the larger goal of gaining profitability (the forest).

[EKnight]

Absolutely, BUT...they have the right to do so, as they own the company (team), and the system expired. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

The owners have no problem with the current contracts.

They are locking players out to keep from paying them.

No one looked at the big 3 and said, "your contract won't be paid."

Their contracts are not being paid as we speak.

The reduction in salary was not pertinent to individual contracts it was part of the 7% swing in profits. How short-sighted and greedy do you have to be to balk at 50% of the profits your company makes instead of 57% when the difference to owners means staying in business? If the league continues losing 400 million plus dollars annually because they succumb to the players wanting the extra profit, and the league has to declare bankruptcy, do the players really win?

So then, is it safe to presume that you believe if there is a lockout, it's the players' fault, and if there's a strike, it's also the players' fault?

You state that the NBA is losing $400 million per year (the figure offered by the owners) as if it is incontrovertible fact.  Other independent analysis (link) indicates that as a whole, the league has made a consistent profit since the last lockout; the reason why teams benefit unevenly is because of the lack of (sufficient) revenue sharing between the teams.

So now the players are in a position where they are being asked to take less money because the owners of the Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks don't want to share more revenue with the owners of the Raptors, Bobcats, and Kings.  Why should the players care more about the welfare of failing teams more than the other owners do?  NBA player salaries, as a % of total revenue, are already right in line with those in the other major pro sports.

Put rather simply, if you are going to accept every argument the league throws out unskeptically, and insist that no matter the nature of the work stoppage (lockout or strike), it's the players who are at fault and should capitulate, then there is no point in trying to convince you that the players have a valid concern.  I strongly suggest that you read the article I linked for a more independent analysis of the lockout.

[Pappy13]

What's the NBA? Sounds familiar. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

What's the NBA? Sounds familiar. 

National Braille Association

[BigDaddyFin]

When closing up is the owners' cheapest option, it kind of eats away at the players' leverage. 

Plus the guys that own these teams have more money than God.  Do you really think Kobe or LeBron can out-wait Mark Cuban?  Give me a break. 

[mecadonzilla]

Plus the guys that own these teams have more money than God.  Do you really think Kobe or LeBron can out-wait Mark Cuban?  Give me a break. 

This is 99% of their negotiating strategy.  The owners know that outside of the mega/superstars, the rest of the players cannot withstand a prolonged lockout.  The owners were prepared to not play this season long before it even was to begin.  The owners know that most players need to play in order to support their baby mammas, entourages, drug habits, etc.

I hate to sound so simplistic, but I really think this is exactly what's going on.  They're willing to forgo one lost season for long term gain.

Are the players?  For the majority of them, I don't think so.

[EKnight]

Several players- including Kobe- have said they would have taken the 50/50 split, but the players' union, or whatever it is now that they have decertified insisted on this pissing contest. Dumb, dumb, dumb! -EK

[Dave Gray]

The players are probably making a mistake and ultimatley hurting themselves at this point.  The 50/50 deal is probably as good as they're going to get.  If they keep at this, they'll lose an entire season of pay for a deal that's probably similar next year.

[tubba marxxx]

What's the NBA? Sounds familiar. 

"Nothing But Actors" -- Shaq

[stinkfish]

Thankfully, I'm not going to have to.