In either case their argument is the same: some issues simply aren't the players' problem. Unless the players can share in the profit when a team is sold, they don't want to be burdened with the costs associated with buying the team in the first place. And if they don't have a say in the team's management decisions, they don't want to pay the cost when those decisions go awry.

To repeat, we can't extrapolate from just two franchises to draw any firm conclusions about the league as a whole. But Hunter is privy to current documents for all 30 teams and claims that at least $250 million of the league's $370 million loss comes from these sorts of accounting quirks. Based on what we've seen from these two teams, he indeed may have a point.

From the owners' perspective, accounting quirks or not, the league still loses money each season. They insist that the whole financial model of the league is broken, and that much more is required beyond better team management and increased revenue sharing.

"Revenue sharing doesn't solve the problem if there are losses," Stern said, "because you can't revenue share your way to a profit as a league."

In 2009-10 salaries totaled $2.1 billion, and the CBA includes a system to ensure that players receive 57 percent of the league's gross revenues.

A $45 million hard cap would lower league-wide salaries to $1.35 billion, a 36 percent decrease. This would represent a staggering $760 million drop in salaries from this season to next.

"If we had to choose between this [proposal] and a lockout, we'd welcome a lockout," Hunter said.

Based on the $370 million loss figure, it's about double what the league needs to cut in order to break even. Of course, the league's goal is to do more than just break even.

"It's about getting the percentage down so our teams and our league are profitable," Stern said.

The league later offered to guarantee the players at least $2 billion in each season of a 10-year deal, but hold the salaries relatively steady over the lifetime of the agreement while revenues continue to increase over time. This would achieve the same cost reductions the owners seek -- reducing salaries from 57 percent of revenues to around 40 percent over 10 years -- but phase those reductions in slowly, rather than asking the players to take a massive pay cut at the start of the agreement.