NBA labor talks broke down on October 20; No new meeting scheduled

[QUOTE=DFish]Throwing away a season over 2.5%

Nice, players. You'll actually end up losing [I]more [/I]of your millions by not playing a whole season, compared to that 2.5%. But I think we know the real reason the players won't accept 50%. They're probably salivating at the possibility of a 16-team league next year with nothing but super-stars and no smaller market teams. Owners don't want that. They want a little thing called [I]parity[/I].[/QUOTE]

owners want players to go from 57% to 50, AND bend the players over on free agency, MLE's and hard caps.

[SIZE="5"][URL="http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216060/NBA_Official_Progress_Was_Being_Made_Until_Garnett_Entered_Room"]NBA Official: Progress Was Being Made Until Garnett Entered Room
[/URL][/SIZE]

[QUOTE]NBA management believes negotiations with the players changed when Kevin Garnett entered the negotiating room on Oct. 4.

Sources say Garnett was 'defiant, determined and downright ornery.'

As one league official said, “We were making progress, until Garnett [expletive] everything up.”

Read more: [url]http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216060/NBA_Official_Progress_Was_Being_Made_Until_Garnett_Entered_Room#ixzz1bNbCHYBn[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"Kevin Garnett, who inexplicably turned into Norma Rae these past few weeks and led the charge to fight the fight and stand strong … without, of course, ever mentioning that his agent was savvy enough to defer a significant amount of money from his last contract extension so that he still has fresh money coming in this season (unlike 95 percent of the players), or that a 50-game regular season would be absolutely perfect for his aching knees, or that losing two months of 2011-12 money might help him with his next contract because he won't break down during a shortened season (increasing the odds that he'll get one last lucrative extension next summer).

Should someone who's earned over $300 million (including endorsements) and has deferred paychecks coming really be telling guys who have made 1/100th as much as him to fight the fight and stand strong and not care about getting paid? And what are Garnett's credentials, exactly? During one of the single biggest meetings (last week, on Tuesday), Hunter had Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce and Garnett (combined years spent in college: three) negotiate directly with Stern in some sort of misguided "Look how resolved we are, you're not gonna intimidate us!" ploy that backfired so badly that one of their teams' owners was summoned into the meeting specifically to calm his player down and undo some of the damage. (I'll let you guess the player. It's not hard.) And this helped the situation … how? And we thought this was going to work … why?"[/QUOTE]

KG acting like a dick? This is my surprised face

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/q26p2.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]owners want players to go from 57% to 50, AND bend the players over on free agency, MLE's and hard caps.[/QUOTE]

Hard caps and parity = good things.

And the 57% they were originally at = not fair in the first place.

It's blatantly obvious that many NBA teams are losing money and can't realistically pay the NBA players their ridiculous salaries.

This is completely different then the NFL lockout, in which I sided with the players.

[QUOTE=DFish][SIZE="5"][URL="http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216060/NBA_Official_Progress_Was_Being_Made_Until_Garnett_Entered_Room"]NBA Official: Progress Was Being Made Until Garnett Entered Room
[/URL][/SIZE]




KG acting like a dick? This is my surprised face

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/q26p2.jpg[/IMG]



Hard caps and parity = good things.

And the 57% they were originally at = not fair in the first place.

It's blatantly obvious that many NBA teams are losing money and can't realistically pay the NBA players their ridiculous salaries.

This is completely different then the NFL lockout, in which I sided with the players.[/QUOTE]

And what's to stop the NBA owners from doing what the NFL owners did once this CBA is over? BTW Hard cap does not necessarily equal parity.

[QUOTE=MeLO MvP 15]The owners are so ridiculous IMO. Seriously the players are giving back 4.5 percent of billions of dollars and you want more? That covers their supposed losses and they still want more. Not to mention this whole system BS. They want to limit their own stupid decisions with a hard cap and they have the gall to say it's for parity. There can't be parity in sports... I mean you don't expect every team to be competitive all the time and it's not like the only teams winning are the big spenders/ big markets. And if they want balance it won't work out because there will always be better cities and organizations. I just wish that these guys would put this much effort into their basketball decisions instead of just trying to bully the players into some crazy new system. The players have literally made multiple concessions and the owners are like that kid in that commercial "... and?" Greedy bastards.

I was completely against decertification but I think it's probably the only way to get these jerks exposed.

Jeez...

/end rant[/QUOTE]

Try and get Melo's dick out of your mouth for a second. Both sides are guilty. Gotta laugh at the fans picking sides. Like either one gives a f*ck about you. Both sides are completely stuck on getting the best deal for themselves. Clearly far apart.

People should hate the situation and how greedy both sides are, not just hate on side for not caving.

[QUOTE=NuggetsFan]Try and get Melo's dick out of your mouth for a second. Both sides are guilty. Gotta laugh at the fans picking sides. Like either one gives a f*ck about you. Both sides are completely stuck on getting the best deal for themselves. Clearly far apart.

[B]People should hate the situation and how greedy both sides are[/B], not just hate on side for not caving.[/QUOTE]

I definitely feel that way too. But if one side has to compromise, I feel like the players compromising would ultimately be better for fans of small-market teams.

In the end though... players and owners are arguing over millions while arena workers can't feed their families and fans aren't getting the sport.

[QUOTE=NuggetsFan]Try and get Melo's dick out of your mouth for a second. Both sides are guilty. Gotta laugh at the fans picking sides. Like either one gives a f*ck about you. Both sides are completely stuck on getting the best deal for themselves. Clearly far apart.

People should hate the situation and how greedy both sides are, not just hate on side for not caving.[/QUOTE]
You're gonna sit here and tell me that what the owners doing is right? You realize that they've pretty much been lying to the fans consistently about what's been offered and what's been happening. I mean they go into the negotiations offering like 46%, the hard cap, shorter contracts and some other things... are you kidding me? Yes I understand that most teams are losing money, but the loses are covered with the players at 53 and the owners still want more. I mean cmon these guys buy these teams for hundreds of millions of dollars not for business reason but for essentially "a toy." Hell even Dan Gilbert (one of the biggest hawks) was quoted a few years ago saying that buying an NBA team was like buying a fancy piece of art. You don't buy art, a ferrari or a diamond ring to make money off it...

Also I don't see why you would relate this to me being a Melo fan... that really has ZERO effect on my views. The way I see it is, why should the players be giving up so much when it was these owners who made the decision to buy a team and these same owners who set the player's value so high.

[QUOTE=NuggetsFan]Try and get Melo's dick out of your mouth for a second. Both sides are guilty. Gotta laugh at the fans picking sides. Like either one gives a f*ck about you. Both sides are completely stuck on getting the best deal for themselves. Clearly far apart.

People should hate the situation and how greedy both sides are, not just hate on side for not caving.[/QUOTE]

Well that's one thing that's for certain, both sides are in it for themselves. But when billions of dollars are at stake I can't blame them. The thing I don't agree with is that players should be making all the concessions. They've given up money to cover the owners losses, so why can't the owners be held accountable for controlling their own costs?

so even the spurs owner want a system change. Hmm

[QUOTE=knicksman]so even the spurs owner want a system change. Hmm[/QUOTE]
Yup, he didn't have that issue when the Spurs were dominant though.

Now that they got knocked out in the first and his team is old as Mount Rushmore, he has a problem now.

[QUOTE=longtime lurker]Well that's one thing that's for certain, both sides are in it for themselves. But when billions of dollars are at stake I can't blame them. The thing I don't agree with is that players should be making all the concessions. They've given up money to cover the owners losses, so why can't the owners be held accountable for controlling their own costs?[/QUOTE]

Because its the owner's money. The owners have the right to do what they want with their money. If they wanted to reduce players salaries coz their investments are losing, then they have the right to do that.

[QUOTE=knicksman]so even the spurs owner want a system change. Hmm[/QUOTE]
Funny because his team is the example that spending doesn't equal winning. Then he spends a lot this year and loses in the first round to the 8th seed and he's crying bloody murder. His situation is proof that the system is fine, with maybe some tweaks (a little stricter maybe with shorter contracts seems reasonable). They keep saying that spending gives certain teams an advantage and obviously that's true but there also more teams that are hamstrung by their spending. The owners wanting a hard cap or a system similar to a luxury tax is more about them trying to stop themselves from bad decisions than to create parity.

[QUOTE=MeLO MvP 15]Funny because his team is the example that spending doesn't equal winning. Then he spends a lot this year and loses in the first round to the 8th seed and he's crying bloody murder. His situation is proof that the system is fine, with maybe some tweaks (a little stricter maybe with shorter contracts seems reasonable). They keep saying that spending gives certain teams an advantage and obviously that's true but there also more teams that are hamstrung by their spending. [B]The owners wanting a hard cap or a system similar to a luxury tax is more about them trying to stop themselves from bad decisions than to create parity.[/B][/QUOTE]

And why do the players [I]not[/I] want it, to the point of it being a deal-breaker?

[QUOTE=knickscity]Yup, he didn't have that issue when the Spurs were dominant though.

Now that they got knocked out in the first and his team is old as Mount Rushmore, he has a problem now.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe he knows the system is really not fair for small markets.

[QUOTE=MeLO MvP 15]Funny because his team is the example that spending doesn't equal winning. Then he spends a lot this year and loses in the first round to the 8th seed and he's crying bloody murder. His situation is proof that the system is fine, with maybe some tweaks (a little stricter maybe with shorter contracts seems reasonable). They keep saying that spending gives certain teams an advantage and obviously that's true but there also more teams that are hamstrung by their spending. The owners wanting a hard cap or a system similar to a luxury tax is more about them trying to stop themselves from bad decisions than to create parity.[/QUOTE]

if he thinks that the system is not fine despite having the most wins among the small markets, then the system is really broken. If hard cap works with NFL so why not try it in the nba. And its their right to stop themselves from making bad decisions. If NFL which is a more successful sport have unguaranteed contracts whose players are getting injured every game, why cant the nba? The NBA have higher BRI split despite being less profitable compared to NFL yet they are selfish?Worse is that they even have guaranteed contracts whereas everybody else could get fired if they are not performing and yet owners are selfish despite donating their money to eddy curry's in the league.

[QUOTE=knickscity]Yup, he didn't have that issue when the Spurs were dominant though.

Now that they got knocked out in the first and his team is old as Mount Rushmore, he has a problem now.[/QUOTE]


The Spurs are a funny one, sure they drafted magnificently with dudes like Gino and Parker. But they got lucky as f@ck... Balls don't fall their way to get Duncan, they're just another team. Now that those guys are on the decline, they know what's going to happen to them.

[QUOTE=knicksman]Or maybe he knows the system is really not fair for small markets.[/QUOTE]
The pack up and move, and quit crying about your not making money, or sell your damn team.

And quit begging for big market bailouts.

[QUOTE=knickscity]The pack up and move, and quit crying about your not making money, or sell your damn team.

And quit begging for big market bailouts.[/QUOTE]

Its not about the money, its about the chance of small markets in winning a chip. And money will follow after that. The higher the chance, the higher the fan support. And if the owner of the spurs says its it despite winning 4 chips, then theres really something wrong with the system.

These mother****ers can't meet for more than three days in a row less than two weeks before the season should start. They can ALL go to hell.

[QUOTE=MeLO MvP 15]The owners are so ridiculous IMO. Seriously the players are giving back 4.5 percent of billions of dollars and you want more? That covers their supposed losses and they still want more. Not to mention this whole system BS. They want to limit their own stupid decisions with a hard cap and they have the gall to say it's for parity. There can't be parity in sports... I mean you don't expect every team to be competitive all the time and it's not like the only teams winning are the big spenders/ big markets. And if they want balance it won't work out because there will always be better cities and organizations. I just wish that these guys would put this much effort into their basketball decisions instead of just trying to bully the players into some crazy new system. The players have literally made multiple concessions and the owners are like that kid in that commercial "... and?" Greedy bastards.

I was completely against decertification but I think it's probably the only way to get these jerks exposed.

Jeez...

/end rant[/QUOTE]

Yep.

[QUOTE=NuggetsFan]Try and get Melo's dick out of your mouth for a second. Both sides are guilty. Gotta laugh at the fans picking sides. Like either one gives a f*ck about you. Both sides are completely stuck on getting the best deal for themselves. Clearly far apart.

People should hate the situation and how greedy both sides are, not just hate on side for not caving.[/QUOTE]

Wow, how can you still be upset at the Melodrama? He didn't even mention him in his post. Once.

The whole forum was jock riding the owners all of last week, saying it was the players' fault the lockout was still going on. All MM15 did was address the fact that the owners have been lying to the media about the lockout this entire time. So it means he's sided with the players? Pretty big reach.

I do agree with your last sentiment, however; this lockout is dumb. But unions are there to protect the interests of the employees, and owners are there to make sure the wealthy stay wealthy. Expecting either group to make concessions is wishful thinking.

[QUOTE=knicksman]so even the spurs owner want a system change. Hmm[/QUOTE]

Richard Jefferson's contract.

Am I the only one who is not fazed by the lockout?
Yeah, I wanta see some ball.
But this is a negotation - it will get done when its ready.I love my ball but I can keep myself busy without it...
I dont blame either side.They are both entitled to their respective stances.
I guess having been involved in alot of these types of negotations(not the Nba of course.)I take the long term point of view and understand a little pain now will be better in the long run..

I don't understand how you could have billion dollar business owners, million dollar players with all types of executives and agents of the sort, and a world class political mediator meet and talk for 15 hour meetings, and the only result that comes up is, "There has been no progress."

I mean what the **** are they doing in there....

Oh well, truth be told, I gave up on the season about three months ago. There way things were going then, it seemed pretty obvious we were gonna miss basketball until at least past Christmas. That's just the way it is. Doesn't really hurt now cause I accepted it a while ago. I forget that there's supposed to be basketball on right now. I'm just really into football.

This is really gonna suck come around late November early December though. And when we get to Christmas and there's still no b-ball, its gonna blow.

Bye bye season :cry:

[QUOTE=JustinJDW]I don't understand how you could have billion dollar business owners, million dollar players with all types of executives and agents of the sort, and a world class political mediator meet and talk for 15 hour meetings, and the only result that comes up is, "There has been no progress."

I mean what the **** are they doing in there....

Oh well, truth be told, I gave up on the season about three months ago. There way things were going then, it seemed pretty obvious we were gonna miss basketball until at least past Christmas. That's just the way it is. Doesn't really hurt now cause I accepted it a while ago. I forget that there's supposed to be basketball on right now. I'm just really into football.

This is really gonna suck come around late November early December though. And when we get to Christmas and there's still no b-ball, its gonna blow.[/QUOTE]

A mediator is just that...he cant make both parties agree to anything..he can try to reason with both sides but thats it..to me it was just a p.r decision on both sides of the equation..

[QUOTE=knicksman]Its not about the money, its about the chance of small markets in winning a chip. And money will follow after that. The higher the chance, the higher the fan support. And if the owner of the spurs says its it despite winning 4 chips, then theres really something wrong with the system.[/QUOTE]
This whole thing is about the money, the owners want to make a guaranteed profit, and a system that even bad management can't fail in.

And the Spurs didn't lose money all the way through, they have the last few seasons.

Plus there is no way every team could have chance to compete, unless you make in the NHL mold, and as much as I love my Knicks, I'm gone if it comes down to that.

That shit is boring, and unmarketable.

The owners think the player will break, which is why they aren't even playing fair in the negotiations.

Every other sport, the players get the majority share of the income, and those teams especially in the NFL can compete, but there will also be the team that go decades without winning.

Hard caps, and revenue sharing does not help that.

F*ck you Derek Fisher. Why did NBA players voted him as the President of the Players Association?

[QUOTE=Lebron23]F*ck you Derek Fisher. Why [B]did[/B] NBA players [B]voted[/B] him as the President of the Players Association?[/QUOTE]

For starters, he's well spoken.

[quote=Lebron23]F*ck you Derek Fisher. Why did NBA players voted him as the President of the Players Association?[/quote]

why the hate?

[QUOTE=Lebron23]F*ck you Derek Fisher. Why did NBA players voted him as the President of the Players Association?[/QUOTE]
Who'd be your choice? LeBron?

Fish is respected by pretty much every NBA player, that's why he is there.

[QUOTE=knickscity]Who'd be your choice? LeBron?

Fish is respected by pretty much every NBA player, that's why he is there.[/QUOTE]
he also won a game in .4 seconds

Disappointing, no season, nothing to discuss.

My 2ct about this lock out - both sides are guilty, but major fault by owners. They are sitting on their billions and simply waiting for players to crack. Sure, not all teams make money, but with players proposal pretty much everyone would. Owners greedily want to make money regardless how they screw up their teams, thats not how business works.

Most importantly, [B]its owners fault if they arent making money in the first place[/B]. Nobody forces them to give insane contracts to mediocre players, nobody forces them to slack instead of growing fan base and working better with sponsors, etc.

[QUOTE=nayte]A mediator is just that...he cant make both parties agree to anything..he can try to reason with both sides but thats it..to me it was just a p.r decision on both sides of the equation..[/QUOTE]

The question wasn't why did they have the mediator, it's why did they spend multiple huge sessions to come out with "no progress". They were talking about how the players went down to 52.5%, from 53%. And the owners refused going above 50. So what in the **** did they do that entire time? Lol.

[QUOTE=knickscity]This whole thing is about the money, the owners want to make a guaranteed profit, and a system that even bad management can't fail in.

And the Spurs didn't lose money all the way through, they have the last few seasons.

Plus there is no way every team could have chance to compete, unless you make in the NHL mold, and as much as I love my Knicks, I'm gone if it comes down to that.

That shit is boring, and unmarketable.

The owners think the player will break, which is why they aren't even playing fair in the negotiations.

Every other sport, the players get the majority share of the income, and those teams especially in the NFL can compete, but there will also be the team that go decades without winning.

Hard caps, and revenue sharing does not help that.[/QUOTE]

Its their business and they can do whatever they want. If NFL is having unguaranteed contracts while its players are getting injured more often than nba players, then why cant they.

And soft cap or hard cap really doesnt matter. What matters is the BRI split coz even if they have a 20 million hardcap, nba would still end up paying 57% of 4 billion(2.28 billion of salaries) even if all the teams just spend 600 million in salaries(30 teams * 20 million hard cap). Its only use is to separate superstars from joining each other.

Yes, every team doesnt have to compete but at least make it a level playing field by putting a hardcap and maybe its boring to you but its not for others. Just look at NFL. If small market teams has a chance of winning, more fans are watching like the NFL and MLB so the higher the revenue.

And NFL players get lesser share than NBa players and they have twice the revenues than the NBA. I think they are only at 47%.

[QUOTE=knicksman]Its their business and they can do whatever they want. If NFL is having unguaranteed contracts while its players are getting injured more often than nba players, then why cant they.

And soft cap or hard cap really doesnt matter. What matters is the BRI split coz even if they have a 20 million hardcap, nba would still end up paying 57% of 4 billion(2.28 billion of salaries) even if all the teams just spend 600 million in salaries(30 teams * 20 million hard cap). Its only use is to separate superstars from joining each other.

Yes, every team doesnt have to compete but at least make it a level playing field by putting a hardcap and maybe its boring to you but its not for others. Just look at NFL. If small market teams has a chance of winning, more fans are watching like the NFL and MLB so the higher the revenue.

And NFL players get lesser share than NBa players and they have twice the revenues than the NBA. I think they are only at 47%.[/QUOTE]


First of all, the NBA already HAS non guaranteed contracts. The Phoenix Suns offered Amar'e Stoudemire a 3 year contract with 2 years non guaranteed, last year. The Knicks offered him 5 years fully guaranteed, which is why he picked NY.

[url]http://valleyofthesuns.com/2010/07/05/amare-stoudemire-everything-in-place-for-stat-to-join-the-new-york-knicks/[/url]

[QUOTE]Stoudemire rejected the Suns

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]

Second of all, if you have an NFL type system in the NBA where teams can cut dead weight whenever they want, the unintended consequence would be that the Knicks and Lakers would drop their bottom 5 players every single year to get all the top free agents. The reason that system works in the NFL is that there are so many injuries, that you NEED a way to get rid of players. In the NBA, the teams just WANT to get rid of players.

You think the Lakers wouldn't cut Pau and Bynum to sign Dwight and Paul?[/QUOTE]

SALARY CAP. They couldn't do that because there's a little thing in place called the Salary Cap. I thought you would of heard of it by now.

The Lakers or Knicks or Heat or any of the teams way over the cap wouldn't be able to do as you suggest because.

Wait hold on it's so cool

They'd still be over the cap and unable to sign big name big salary players to contracts you can't sign any free agent except an MLE or Vet min. to a contract if you are even one cent over the cap.
But you know who could?
A team that wasn't over the cap or one not over the cap by a mile might be able to ditch that POS sitting on the bench sucking up 5 million a year and sign that big name free agent, but under the old CBA they couldn't do it because even if they buy that POS out, his contract was still on the books while the POS went and sucked some other teams cap space up.

Since you used the Lakers as an example, the Lakers as constructed last year would still have been over the cap by a few million if they cut Bynum and Pau and for next season under the recently expired rules even with the Lakers only having 8 players under contract they would still be over the cap if they cut Bynum and Pau.

You're scenario you're trying to promote is very unrealistic, being able to cut dead weight would only be a positive ofr the teams and fans

Salary Caps it's not just for breakfast anymore

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Salary cap would do nothing to stop the stars from coalescing towards NY, LA, and Chicago. They would just drop every player needed to be under the cap when the big time free agents hit the market. The top 10 players in the NBA would all be a Knick, Laker, or Bull. GUARANTEED.

The only way to stop that from happening would be to allow the small market teams to spend more than the big market teams. For instance say the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls have to work with a 50 million cap, and the small market teams can spend 70 million. With that in place, the small market teams would have a chance.[/QUOTE]

If a team could offer lebron 30 million while the lakers could only offer 10m, do you think lebron would chose 10 million? It wouldnt stop the stars from chosing big markets so it could also be assumed that big market teams always have stars in place. And so other stars would have to choose other place instead of the big markets. Thats why they should make it a 45 or 50 million hard cap and just guarantee the players 57-60. But the union doesnt want it coz arenas, johnson, and other overpaid players wouldnt get those contracts they got.

[QUOTE=knicksman]If a team could offer lebron 30 million while the lakers could only offer 10m, do you think lebron would chose 10 million? It wouldnt stop the stars from chosing big markets so it could also be assumed that big market teams always have stars in place. And so other stars would have to choose other place instead of the big markets. Thats why they should make it a 45 or 50 million hard cap and just guarantee the players 57-60. But the union doesnt want it coz arenas, johnson, and other overpaid players wouldnt get those contracts they got.[/QUOTE]

50 million with a hard cap X 30 teams is only $1.5 billion. That is way lower than even the 50/50 split. That's like a 60/40 split in the owners favor.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]50 million with a hard cap X 30 teams is only $1.5 billion. That is way lower than even the 50/50 split. That's like a 60/40 split in the owners favor.[/QUOTE]

they are still guaranteed 57% split. So if the revenue is 4 billion, owners are going to give the players 780 million which is the difference between 2.28 billion(.57*4 billion) and 1.5 billion. So hard cap or soft cap really doesnt matter, Its the BRI which what matters.

The BRI sets the cap not the other way around.

If the split is 50 50 it doesn't matter how much the owners spend or don't spend the players still get 50% of the BRI

As a simplified example if the total BRI is 4 billion the owners promise to spend 2 billion or 50% on the players if they doesn't and spend only 1.5 billion at the end of the season the players union gets a check for 500 million. If the owners spend more than 2 billion on players salaries the players don't get the 8% of their salaries that were held held in escrow