Daily Thunder.com

sigh i figured it was to good to be true. i was watching espn and saw the progresses. I got giddy for like 10 seconds but i knew how stubborn the owners were. I know that 1 to 2% doesnt seem like a big deal but each percent is very high millions of dollars. I do agree both sides are being stubborn but the players at least WANT to do the sport that brings the owners money. It seems impossible to completely revamp the league and get "competitive balance" . Its also about owners and making smart decisions. *coughs presti, presti* Knowing how to build a team is a key essential to them. Just take OKC for that matter. I know everyone here has heard the OMG just 3 years ago they were 3-29 . now these boys are going the distance. Why? cause of SMART higher ups :P . Now not ALL of them are wise decisions *coughs byron* but still.

At this rate im not sure i even want a season if all 82 games cant be played. Id feel slightly underwhelmed if the thunder made it all the way on 50 games....kinda like..yeah they made it but...with a handicap you know.

I am not giving up my season tickets. It's not realistic to think that would send any sort of meaningful message to the league, and I would probably just wind up losing some seats that I really like. What I AM going to do is not purchase the NBA League Pass for the next couple years, and refrain from buying any merchandise that the league or team would make a penny on. Not exactly Norma Rae I know, but I desperately want the league to lose a bunch of money over this BS.

@ Jimbo Slice
I completely agree. I don't think the owners are negotiating much on the issues of significance. This is why it has appeared to me for some time that the Owners are pursuing the NHL model of bargaining. They appear ready and willing to skip the season to get exactly what they want.

@ f5alcon
Also, banning all current players would result in those players going from just talking about forming another league to actually having incentive to do it. That is one think the NBA sure doesn't want, to be suddenly competing against another league featuring KD, Kobe, Lebron, etc.

@ f5alcon
If those sonuvabitches tried that they wouldn't sell half as many season tickets. I"m not paying NBA prices for Dleaguers. I think they surely know this or they would have tried it years ago.

If the league went for replacement players, it probably would be in the courts 1-2 years. The players might get serious about a new league eventually. The TV partners would go on the war path and probably try to bring pressure to end the dispute or possibly get out of their contracts or at least get a discount. Lots of wild possibilities if they want to go from frustrating to chaos.

Without a CBA and the anti-trust exemption that seems to go with it, the league would be subject to active anti-trust review. Probably can't do a draft without a CBA with players. Might not be able to have a hard cap. Probably can't do a player ban if they agree to the new work terms. But I am guessing and the lawyers and judges would become involved. The player's union could seek an injunction or decertify and file an anti-trust suit with the possibility of triple damages.

does the league have to make a deal with the current players? if the league said we are setting it at 47% with a hard cap and will use replacement players if the union wont agree, and start signing euro players, dleague players and college players how fast would the players cave, or they said do the deal we want or all current players are banned from the nba for life, how fast do they get a deal done?

If they were truly concerned about the game, the fans, the partnership between them they might want to write rules covering how the next negotiation gets done. Clearly the process could have been run better. Intimidation tactics haven't worked and I think are fairly unlikely to work. People point to hockey but hockey was much more imbalanced and probably easier to shut down and turn back on to a niche market.

Unless the owners vote to require local media revenue-sharing (and there has been no indication of that happening because the partnership would probably get very hot and somebody might go to court) they have to let the luxury tax collect revenue and if they are serious about revenue sharing for "competitive balance" they have to let it collect a lot by making the tax not overly painful and allowing some exceptions for taxpaying teams. If they can't agree, split the difference- let tax-paying teams use the exception once every 2 years or until they pay the tax in 3 of 5 years or something. Let them sign n trade once every few years or set somewhat different rules that apply to them. If they don't split the remaining issues near the middle they are not going to settle or play.

I am not sure Silver takes over. Joel Litvin is the top business guy. He has kept a low profile but he might get the job and Silver might stay where he is.

I think one thing missed is the "and/ or" of the situation. Although the pllayers have been stubborn about BRI, I got the connotation from several tweets between Berger, Woj, and Lowe that the players didn't want to do the low BRI split ALONG WITH the proposed system cuts. In honesty, it sounds pretty reasonable in a negotiation to say, "Ok, we'll drop on BRI if you agree to not cut back with the luxury tax" or vice versa. The owners have the power hand and are going to get what they want or nothing at all. It's just pretty ridiculous to me that there's as little actual bargaining being done in the bargaining sessions as there is.

Thomas :Whenever this deal is finally over, after David Stern announces they’ve reached an agreement I want the next words out of his mouth to be “And now I’m announcing my resignation effective immediately.” I’ve had enough of him.

if he does it Adam Silver will probley take over which is also bad because he was one of the person that cause them to end the meetings early last week

Whenever this deal is finally over, after David Stern announces they've reached an agreement I want the next words out of his mouth to be "And now I'm announcing my resignation effective immediately." I've had enough of him.

If can't get agreement to end a roster spot or two permanently maybe they agree to do it for 1-3 years to help ease the transition.

Paying rookies half way between their current scale pay and the minimum until they play x minutes (say 200-500 minutes) would be another way to save the owner money and not hurt most players.

If the league and union agreed to cut a mandatory roster spot by 1 or 2 the league as J.A. Sherman has suggested at loudcity then the league could get more savings and the remaining players could take less cuts personally.

Or maybe it goes 52-50.5-49.5-50-50.5-51. That would average 50.8 and end a bit lower than the previous suggestion.

That averages 51 and ends at 51.5, with 51 on average in the first 3 years and the second set of 3 years, but gives the players a little boost at the end.

If I read a tweet out there correctly, Stern is saying the owners can't realistically get player cost to 50% next season under the proposed rules and current contracts (without prior contract givebacks which was taken off the table previously). So they probably anticipate going lower than 50% later in the deal to compensate. The players don't want to go low period but they don't really want to end low and set the bar there for the next CBA after this one. Both sides need to look at how much BRI can realistically change year to year. A week or two ago I said I thought they might go 52-51-50-49-48 on player share but the players apparently aren't going for that. They might instead need to go 52-51-50-50.5-51-51.5 or something like that.

I am so pissed right now. This is getting worse than the U.S. Congress.