Major misconceptions regarding the labor dispute between Owners and NBA's Players

[QUOTE=gasolina]And would create a PR disaster that would probably kill the league[/QUOTE]

We're a capitalist nation. When businesses go bad they go under. No sense in continuing throwing good money after bad. The league shouldn't be supported by just a few teams.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]If the NBA contracted its shitty teams, most of the problems would go away.[/QUOTE]

Yep. If the NBA contracted its 5 least possible franchises and added a team in Vegas almost all the issues would go away.

The league would be more competitive top to bottom and put out a much better on court product.

If there were 4 or 5 less teams, that would mean 20 to 25 league starters out there for other teams to utilize.

It wouldn't take ten years to rebuild franchises.

It won't happen though, but it should.

[quote][B]KBerg_CBS[/B]: Stern on owners' proposal: "It's all out there. ... I'm never saying final, final to anything other than we made our offer." #NBA
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply[/quote]

[quote][B]KBerg_CBS[/B]: Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception." #NBA
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply[/quote]

[quote][B]KBerg_CBS[/B]: "This is we think the best shot we have ... to avoid a lockout." #NBA
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply[/quote]

[quote][B]KBerg_CBS[/B]: Proposal also included "flex cap," with a max that could be exceeded and a minimum. #NBA
11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply[/quote]

[quote][B]KBerg_CBS[/B]: Owners proposed guaranteeing no less than $2 billion per year in salary over 10-year CBA. #NBA
11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply[/quote]

So with the conclusion of the 2 days worth of meetings in Manhattan it now seems that the Owners are ok with a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explained, this system would allow allow teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.

This basically coincides with my expectations. I've said all along that there would likely be no true hard cap. Seems now that even the Owners understand that.

It's all just posturing. It happens in all negotiations. Start out demanding the moon and the stars so that when you come down they think you have compromised. Both sides do it every time.

The target is 62 million? That's more than the salary cap is right now.

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]So with the conclusion of the 2 days worth of meetings in Manhattan it now seems that the Owners are ok with a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explain, Whis system would allow allow teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.

This basically coincides with my expectations. I've said all along that there would likely be no true hard cap. Seems now that even the Owners understand that.[/QUOTE]

Looks like we're getting closer to a deal.

This idea of a "Flex cap" sounds identical to the current system we already have in place, just a different term to describe it.

[QUOTE=LJJ]The target is 62 million? That's more than the salary cap is right now.[/QUOTE]

Aint that something. :oldlol:

Hopefully the teams losing money in the luxury tax will be given an amnesty clause to clear off a contract pushing them over the edge. It seems like the whole point of this was NBA players protecting their wages, well they've gotten 1 boulder out of the way.

[QUOTE=LJJ]The target is 62 million? That's more than the salary cap is right now.[/QUOTE]

Of course it is, if there is a hard cap that teams are supposed to not be able to exceed, then it is inconceivable for that number to be lower than the existing cap figure.

Here's an excerpt from my article that I wrote that addresses that point.

[quote][B]POSSIBLILTY OF HARD CAP BEING IMPLEMENTED[/B]

[B]FAN #4[/B]: Can the Knicks add another star in free agency. They already have 2 huge commitments to All Stars (Melo and Amare) and have to pay Balkman in 2012. I

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Of course it is, if there is a hard cap that teams are supposed to not be able to exceed, then it is inconceivable for that number to be lower than the existing cap figure. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but the tweet literally says:

"Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, [B]with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception.[/B]"

A salary cap, but you can go over the cap with exceptions. Ie: The same system in place right now.

The only thing that sounds different is that they'll have a "maximum", probably in stead of the luxury tax system.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Yes, but the tweet literally says:

"Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, [B]with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception.[/B]"

A salary cap, but you can go over the cap with exceptions. Ie: The same system in place right now.

The only thing that sounds different is that they'll have a "maximum", probably in stead of the luxury tax system.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't having that still basically defy the "let's get the small markets better!" initiative? By allowing teams trade for guys and then extend them and go over the cap?

If so that's bullshit and this accomplishes nothing. They'll have to change the Bird Exception.

Or are you saying there's a "soft" max and then a hard max? ...that was a dirty dirty sentence.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]We're a capitalist nation. When businesses go bad they go under. No sense in continuing throwing good money after bad. The league shouldn't be supported by just a few teams.[/QUOTE]
oh really? Everything from Kmart through the financial industry tells us you are wrong on this.

Cool. So now the Knicks can get CP3 and I don't have to hear people say "they can't afford him"?

[QUOTE=boozehound]oh really? Everything from Kmart through the financial industry tells us you are wrong on this.[/QUOTE]

NBA is too big to fail?

Soo what are the chances the NBA makes it so teams can't stack up All-Stars like the Heat,and make it so the Heat don't have any flexibility going forward, while also allowing all teams to have the same advantages(can't go over the cap no matter what)?

Probably unlikely, but boy would that be awesome :oldlol:

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]So with the conclusion of the 2 days worth of meetings in Manhattan it now seems that the Owners are ok with a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explained, this system would allow allow teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.

[B]This basically coincides with my expectations. I've said all along that there would likely be no true hard cap. Seems now that even the Owners understand that.[/B][/QUOTE]Owners always understood this.
You seem to be shy on the act of negotiations. Both sides start far apart and ask for things they know will never happen but it sets the tone for the rest of the process. You seem to have an opinion the owners are stupid from reading your other posts or at least that's what your posts come off as. These people are not even close to being stupid they are 10 steps ahead of the rest of us that just get to read and react. What you post about or report are history to these folks on both sides, while we discuss they are already plotting next months tricks