Would someone explain what all this "lockout" talk is all about....

[Who]

I think a lockout is pretty unlikely. I would be very surprised if we saw one.

[Brendan]

Part of me is [peeved] at the owners/managers for shelling out the bad contracts to begin with.

But I am more [peeved] at the system. Teams often overpay for free agents because they are often forced into making a move in a tiny window of flexibility.

I think loosening up the ease of trades would help. Get rid of the base year rules.  And allow maybe a 33-50% difference in salaries in trades.

That unfairly helps the teams who can spend more, and defeats the purpose of the cap.

1. Who cares. Run your business right and you can make money. They share the national revenue, so only local issues (own /lease, concessions, in stadium sales, tickets, and local tv rev) drive that. There is enough money for everyone to compete.

2. They could leave the luxury tax and get rid of the cap. Set the luxury tax based on revenue from the year before and then share the proceeds across all 30 teams.

This would create a revenue stream from the very rich teams that compete through over spending, but keep the divide by all teams. Simple elegant, perfect.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Well, i hope not....going on strike or making problems over MONEY during the Great Depression part II is not too smart...talk about getting rid of the rest of the fans...after that Hack-a-Celtic finals.......

[rkls134]

I usually always side with the players in these issues, believing that the owners generally make their own beds.

Just look how they are killing themselves to get under the cap so the can hand out more horrendous contracts. This whole process has seemed ridiculous to me and has made a farce out of any complaints they might have.

[guava_wrench]

I usually always side with the players in these issues, believing that the owners generally make their own beds.

Just look how they are killing themselves to get under the cap so the can hand out more horrendous contracts. This whole process has seemed ridiculous to me and has made a farce out of any complaints they might have.

I don't think there is any such think as a horrendous contract when talking about Lebron or Wade. Those guys are gold mines.

And it isn't as if the majority of teams are playing that game. It is NY, Brooklyn, Chicago and Miami. Those are big markets.

[jdpapa3]

What happened in the last lockout in terms of player salaries? Were they given pro-rated amounts of their salaries to make up for the games that they mised where owners got no gate revenue?

I'm asking because I'm curious whether Pierce and Ray would be hesitant to sign a 2 year overloaded deal for fear of a lockout.

[rkls134]

What happened in the last lockout in terms of player salaries? Were they given pro-rated amounts of their salaries to make up for the games that they mised where owners got no gate revenue?

I'm asking because I'm curious whether Pierce and Ray would be hesitant to sign a 2 year overloaded deal for fear of a lockout.

I believe they resumed their previous contracts, those who had contracts, and they were pro rated, for the 50 games that were played that year, not 82 like normally.

[rkls134]

I usually always side with the players in these issues, believing that the owners generally make their own beds.

Just look how they are killing themselves to get under the cap so the can hand out more horrendous contracts. This whole process has seemed ridiculous to me and has made a farce out of any complaints they might have.

I don't think there is any such think as a horrendous contract when talking about Lebron or Wade. Those guys are gold mines.

And it isn't as if the majority of teams are playing that game. It is NY, Brooklyn, Chicago and Miami. Those are big markets.

Lebron and Wade are goldmines yes, but not the rest.Second fiddles and lower.

I think there are like 10 teams that have cap room this year, some more than others, and others that are looking to make trades, sign and trade or otherwise. 

[LooseCannon]

I think the potential lockout means that no one getting more than the MLE is going to accept a one- or two-year contract.

[Finkelskyhook]

I usually always side with the players in these issues, believing that the owners generally make their own beds.

Just look how they are killing themselves to get under the cap so the can hand out more horrendous contracts. This whole process has seemed ridiculous to me and has made a farce out of any complaints they might have.

Why would you always side with the players...essentially the union?

The owners assume all of the risk. They also have to be profitable for their investors.   They should have some protection as well.  Such as when their players waste their time and risk injury in events like the olympics.  It usually undermines their NBA season.  Why should an owner bear the burden for that.  There's few times where I agree with Cuban...Who I consider a collossal freaking jerk.  But I'm with him on this.  If the players want to "represent their country"  (Are you kidding me?) by participating in events outside of their contracts, they shouldn't be paid if they're injured and can't play to their contracts.

[rkls134]

I usually always side with the players in these issues, believing that the owners generally make their own beds.

Just look how they are killing themselves to get under the cap so the can hand out more horrendous contracts. This whole process has seemed ridiculous to me and has made a farce out of any complaints they might have.

Why would you always side with the players...essentially the union?

The owners assume all of the risk. They also have to be profitable for their investors.   They should have some protection as well.  Such as when their players waste their time and risk injury in events like the olympics.  It usually undermines their NBA season.  Why should an owner bear the burden for that.  There's few times where I agree with Cuban...Who I consider a collossal freaking jerk.  But I'm with him on this.  If the players want to "represent their country"  (Are you kidding me?) by participating in events outside of their contracts, they shouldn't be paid if they're injured and can't play to their contracts.

I said I USUALLY side with the players because as the saying goes; I pay to see players play, not owners own. The Owners assume risk that they may lose their investment in a sports franchise, so does any owner or investor in any business. That does not entitle them to rake in ALL the profits, and pay players minimum wage. Without the players they pretty much own a bunch of cartoonish logos and have no product to sell or business to operate.

That's why I believe the players deserve their fair share, whether 15 year superstar or 1 year flame out, their risk is crippling injury that could ruin the rest of their life or worse, wind up like Sean Taylor or Brian Williams(Bison Dele) just because the are famous ball players.

The Players didn't push to play in the Olympics, that was the owners trying to get international promotion and money. They risked their own investment with that. Since the beginning of pro sports there has been busts and players that, as you put it "waste owners time", it comes with the territory.

The owners can protect themselves by hiring good management and adopting prudent strategies for success like in a business venture. I don't feel they have always done that, particularly NBA owners. In my opinion David Stern is a huge gaping you know what, who has done as much harm as good for the league.

[FallGuy]

What happened in the last lockout in terms of player salaries? Were they given pro-rated amounts of their salaries to make up for the games that they mised where owners got no gate revenue?

I'm asking because I'm curious whether Pierce and Ray would be hesitant to sign a 2 year overloaded deal for fear of a lockout.

Neither Pierce nor Ray is going to have to settle for a two-year deal, the second of which will likely not be fully paid out due to the coming lockout - especially in this rich market. They'll both probably command three years. Pierce may get four.

[droopdog7]

What happened in the last lockout in terms of player salaries? Were they given pro-rated amounts of their salaries to make up for the games that they mised where owners got no gate revenue?

I'm asking because I'm curious whether Pierce and Ray would be hesitant to sign a 2 year overloaded deal for fear of a lockout.

I could be wrong here but I don't think the owners could lock the players out and then decide not to pay them. They would almost certainly be in breach of contract. Now, if the players held out, then yes, the owners could\would withhold their salary.

So in effect, your reasoning is backwards. Players (like PP) WANT to be under contract during a potential lock out because they will be getting paid. Players without contracts would not.

[wdleehi]

It is coming.


And it will likely be the death of over payed role players.  There has to be escape clauses in there. 


Having dead money on the bench is not a benefit to the league.

[K.J.]

I mean, I know what a lockout is and why it could happen, but people are talking as if there is guaranteed to be no NBA in two years or whenever.  I don't hear anyone freaking out about not having NBA for an entire year!!  Is this all just posturing by the owners or are we really going to be without it for an extended period of time?!?!

The owners are trying to reduce the maximum length of contract from six years to five or even four, and maximum annual pay raises from 10.5 per cent to 8.5 per cent or lower.  In 2005, these changes were offset by an increase by an increase in the salary cap from 48.04 to 51 per cent of the BRI.  This time round, the owners are trying to reduce the salary cap and luxury tax to a much lower percentage of the BRI.  And hence the very real prospect of a prolonged lockout.