If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

[hawkfan]

If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

I'm going with the players. Some of these guys need major paycuts. Big time.

[DMV2]

I would like to see the owners salary, and as well as how much they pay to their non-athletic workers.

[Sarcastic]

Owners.

This is a lockout, not a strike.

Some players may need a pay cut, but there is an equal amount that needs a raise. For every Eddie Curry that you feel is overpaid, there is a Derrick Rose that is underpaid.

[hawkfan]

The question that is going to start getting asked is whether the NBA will cancel two seasons, like hockey was going to do back in 04-05.

Canceling the whole season makes total sense for the owners. One year of getting rid of bad contracts - not having to pay Arenas, Jamison, Billups, Lewis, Davis, Hamilton, Diaw, Brand, Kaman, Childress - right there that is about 130 million in bad contracts.

And then come back next year with more teams under the cap and easier to implement a more restrictive cap.

[Kurosawa0]

The owners. It's their recklessness that has caused this problem. How is it a player like Rashard Lewis' fault? Is he supposed to turn down a $100 million contract? The players do need to agree to be held more accountable in terms of quality of play, but also these bad contracts start with the owners. If they don't offer them, there's no problem.

Take someone like Dan Gilbert. The guy spent like crazy when he had a contending team and when it didn't pay off, he became a hardliner. So, that means Antwan Jamison was the problem? Why should someone like Kyrie Irving have to lose money because Dan Gilbert made bad moves?

[Kblaze8855]

This is a lockout, not a strike.

Exactly. The owners decided to lock the players out. The players didnt decide not to have a league.

[Hondo]

Owners. They have no business taking this hardline approach. They should be allowed to cancel a contract each though. Lots of undeserving players. Also, the league should step in and say no to some deals.

Joe Johnson, Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis etc all need to be waived under an amnesty clause. The NBA should say, Hell, naw" when owners try and hand out these deals. Or they should say, "You can't use this at the next labor agreements. You offered this stupid deal, you're a fool."

Sounds fair to me. Or lock out the stupid GMs that offer the deals. That's who the owners should have the beef with.

[StarJordan]

players

[with malice]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.

[Sarcastic]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.

There is so much fail in this post, I don't know where to begin.

[knicksman]

The owners. It's their recklessness that has caused this problem. How is it a player like Rashard Lewis' fault? Is he supposed to turn down a $100 million contract? The players do need to agree to be held more accountable in terms of quality of play, but also these bad contracts start with the owners. If they don't offer them, there's no problem.

Take someone like Dan Gilbert. The guy spent like crazy when he had a contending team and when it didn't pay off, he became a hardliner. So, that means Antwan Jamison was the problem? Why should someone like Kyrie Irving have to lose money because Dan Gilbert made bad moves?

Maybe they did it to satisfy those prima donna superstars who wouldve left if these owners are in cheap mode.

[hawkfan]

The owners. It's their recklessness that has caused this problem. How is it a player like Rashard Lewis' fault? Is he supposed to turn down a $100 million contract? The players do need to agree to be held more accountable in terms of quality of play, but also these bad contracts start with the owners. If they don't offer them, there's no problem.

Take someone like Dan Gilbert. The guy spent like crazy when he had a contending team and when it didn't pay off, he became a hardliner. So, that means Antwan Jamison was the problem? Why should someone like Kyrie Irving have to lose money because Dan Gilbert made bad moves?

It's bad for fans to have guys with stupid, big contracts.
The Clippers had to trade away a first round pick to get rid of Baron Davis, because Davis couldn't stay away from the buffet line.

I totally against a hard cap for this reason - a team gets a guy who just sucks or is fat and then they are stuck with him screwing up the roster for years.

The best solution is limiting the lengths of contracts - 4 years for regular contracts, 3 years for MLEs. If a guy sucks, the cap hold is reduced.

The 57% BRI income down to 52% is not that big of a deal really. It's long contracts that are the bigger issue.

[Math2]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.

Yes! This^

[with malice]

There is so much fail in this post, I don't know where to begin.

Dude... really? I'm happy to entertain a differing point of view, but you're really going with *that* as your stance?

[Math2]

There is so much fail in this post, I don't know where to begin.

lol. That's a fail post....You can't find anything wrong with it, so you just say that the whole post is awful. Entertain me, what do you disagree with?