2011-2012 NBA Thread: The Chris Paul and Dwight Howard sweepstakes

[Dimmauk]

That's what the lawsuit is for. Triple damages will cover a lot of baby mama drama.

I notice a lot of people pointing the finger at the players. Why is that? Do you guys think the owners deserve a $1.1 billion bailout because a few of them have had shitty business practices? This is a lockout, not a strike. This is owner imposed. I understand that "some" NBA teams are losing money but to try to force the player to go from 57% to 50% is a huge hike. And the ultimatum tactics Stern presented aren't helping. Professional Leagues (across all sports) needs to realize that small market teams need success to become profitable. It's a risk the owners know and they took a gamble trying to sustain a franchise there. Why should the players hand over $1.1 billion a year to bail them out? They want to gamble with their own money, but if they start losing, they want to have the debt covered by someone else. That's not how gambling works.

This coming from a mavericks fan does not surprise me. You do realize the 57% expired right?

[Valisk]

This coming from a mavericks fan does not surprise me. You do realize the 57% expired right?

My team affiliation has nothing to do with what I wrote, dummy. Maybe if you stop using that as a crutch for things you can't comprehend, people would take you more seriously. Yes I'm aware that a 57/43 revenue split was under the old CBA. I disagree with the owners jumping from 57% to 50% in the new proposal, effectively taking $1.1B to cover their poor business designs. Now do you want to talk about that issue or do you want to continue to sip cocktails out of my ass because of the team I associate with? Probably the latter since you always have that "shit on your upper lip" attitude when addressing anyone in connection with Dallas.

[Dimmauk]

I seriously doubt you would feel that way if you were a Hornets fan or if your team was a smaller market. Both sides are acting retarded. Can you really discuss this without your Cuban tinted glasses? Maybe all teams should be able to spend like the Dallas mavericks? How many originally drafted mavericks are on your team? 2? Dirk and Kidd? Why not make it fair for all teams? I also wouldn't mind seeing 3-4 less teams.

[tyven]

i wouldnt mind seeing nick young in a bulls uniform

[Valisk]

I seriously doubt you would feel that way if you were a Hornets fan or if your team was a smaller market. Both sides are acting retarded. Can you really discuss this without your Cuban tinted glasses? Maybe all teams should be able to spend like the Dallas mavericks? How many originally drafted mavericks are on your team? 2? Dirk and Kidd? Why not make it fair for all teams? I also wouldn't mind seeing 3-4 less teams.

Despite how seriously doubtful you are of my thoughts and feelings, I still stand by what I said. If the Texas Rangers or Dallas Stars (whom both have been in bankrupt court) were unable to sustain themselves, then yes, they deserve to either be relocated or sold to a competent owner. Not change the revenue sharing of the entire league to fix the ownership, or lack thereof, of terrible gamblers businessmen.

I'm fine with all teams spending equally. If you hadn't barged in sporting your anti-Dallas dunce hat, you could have asked me how I felt about salary caps and luxury taxes. But, shockingly, you spit out your typical, I-hate-all-things-Dallas rhetoric without being provoked. I'm in favor of salary caps and wouldn't be opposed to a hard cap that doesn't allow teams to spend over their limit, period. I also wouldn't mind downsizing the league (and less playoff spots) or relocations to larger markets for teams who aren't profitable.

[Dimmauk]

Sorry, I guess I should have replaced mavericks with big market team that throws money at players. Fyi, I hate red sox and Yankees for the same reason. It bothers me to see teams become farm teams for richer teams.

[kisada]

i really don't understand how there is so much anti-player sentiment in this whole thing. basically i agree with what valisk said: the owners are the ones liable for running for their business, whether it's in the red or the green. and because a few owners have no fucking clue how to stay fiscally responsible the players are the ones who have to suffer? it's not right. furthermore, the owners aren't suffering NEARLY as much as they say they are. the reason they've refused to open their books (and also one of the reasons BRI negotiation was such an issue in the first place) is because the owners are using deceptive accounting practices. players can actually be included as tax write-offs, and one of the accounting ledgers for the nets a few years ago showed them turning a 33 million dollar loss into 3. but since the owners will never open their books this can't be used against them.

anyway, this entire time the owners have tried to railroad and lowball the players into an awful, awful deal. i wish i could come up with the link for the original proposal but it was something along the lines of a hard cap AND a 65/35 split in favor of the owners. that is absolutely insane. and to top it off? all this time they've been negotiating in bad faith. i'd love to see basketball back as much as anyone but the greediest and shadiest side has been the owners without question.

[Anakron]

i really don't understand how there is so much anti-player sentiment in this whole thing. basically i agree with what valisk said: the owners are the ones liable for running for their business, whether it's in the red or the green. and because a few owners have no fucking clue how to stay fiscally responsible the players are the ones who have to suffer? it's not right.

I haven't been following this much, and though I also agree that players are being vilified here, I thought some of the issues were between teams in big and small cities. That small city teams cannot compete with the larger teams if teams in general were allowed to offer as much as they want, since large city teams can afford to pay the luxury tax. With a hard cap or an overall scaling back, then teams would theoretically be on more equal footing.

But I know issues like these are complicated, and both sides are trying to portray their side as the victim here, so I don't know how legitimate of an issue that really is.

[Anton]

Needs a Lingerie Basketball League.

All those jumpers...

[Correction]

But I know issues like these are complicated, and both sides are trying to portray their side as the victim here, so I don't know how legitimate of an issue that really is.

I think the anti-player sentiment stems from the notion that the fans expected the players to mention them at least once. They don't expect the owners to give a fuck, but the players saying 'me, me, me' is earning them zero sympathy.

[Azull]

Both sides dragged their feet to long, had to few meetings, and to long of breaks between them. The players have leadership whos best interest is for the lockout to go on. The owners have a group that wants to bully the players into a horrible deal.

Whats happening now should have happened just after the draft.. not 2 weeks into what should have been the season.

[Man0warr]

Most of the owners dug themselves in this hole by overpaying players, so it's their fault.

However, I still agree in principle and I side with them on this. Players getting 57% of the income is absurd - that's as bad as baseball. Basketball players on average get paid WAY more than other pro sports players. On average an NBA player makes 5 mil a year, that's ridiculous.

I'd rather have more parity, and the only way to accomplish that is to impose a hard cap or penalize the luxury tax much more than they are now. The last 2 decades the Finals have been won by only like 6 different teams.

In the process it will end up saving the owners a lot of money but whatever it takes. They should also just get rid of Toronto, Charlotte, and New Orleans.

The problem is the players didn't realize that Stern was trying to give them the best deal the owners would allow - a lot of the owners were mad he offered 50/50, and those same owners have no problems losing a year of basketball. The only way the players can win is if the Courts side with them and that is very very unlikely.

I think the anti-player sentiment stems from the notion that the fans expected the players to mention them at least once. They don't expect the owners to give a fuck, but the players saying 'me, me, me' is earning them zero sympathy.

Exactly, the owners are rich businessmen and outside of Cuban they have no outward persona to most people. They have no reputation to ruin.

The players on the other hand have everything to lose, their reputation/image is all based on fans.

[Azull]

I think the anti-player sentiment stems from the notion that the fans expected the players to mention them at least once. They don't expect the owners to give a fuck, but the players saying 'me, me, me' is earning them zero sympathy.

I dont think it helps that the players compare their 5,000,000 a year ave salary to slavary and have tried to compare themselves to the people of the occupy movement.

[Cleverness]

I really think it's funny that during the NFL Lockout there was this whole sentiment that the owners were setting this up to get their way, yet they have been ALOT more compromising in that lockout than the NBA Owners are here, ultimatum's with billions of dollars at stake is really fucking stupid. 57% is ridiculous for the players to have gotten, but blame whoever agreed to that in the last CBA. If you want it down to something more realistic(personally, give the players 48 + all their system issues, or 51 + some changes considering what % they are coming off of. Players should be getting 40-45 tops in the NBA imo) then it really needs to be a step-by-step process, possibly just agree to something now and come back at an earlier time to make another CBA that'll be closer to what the owners want.. You can't drastically change the CBA to suit the owners at every step and expect the players to just say ok.

Frankly I'd like some change just to diversify the teams, hard caps are good IF the teams know how to spend. The NFL has a hard cap and, with a good front office, a team in a manner of years can turn themselves around and do big things. In the NBA, frankly we reached a point where smaller market teams ended up having to pay certain players big market money just to keep them there due to the big market teams paying similar caliber players that much money, which in the end just screws them over for improvement. Not that I think he sucks, but Joe Johnson shouldn't have gotten a 119 million dollar contract for example, that shit is stupid.

But a hard cap at this step is unrealistic, a stiffer luxury tax on the big market teams should definitely be included, and then as they renegotiate future CBA's, they can work on instituting a hard cap imo. You don't want Basketball turning into Baseball in that regard.

[Man0warr]

What killed the deal wasn't how they were splitting money, it was system issues. Specifically, the players felt with that version of the CBA, player movement would be severely restricted. Basically the owners don't want another "The Decision", or for the players to be able to dictate their destinations so easily.

That CBA would probably also have killed the Mavs chances of keeping Tyson Chandler, unless he took way less than he was worth.

[Dimmauk]

I really think it's funny that during the NFL Lockout there was this whole sentiment that the owners were setting this up to get their way, yet they have been ALOT more compromising in that lockout than the NBA Owners are here, ultimatum's with billions of dollars at stake is really fucking stupid. 57% is ridiculous for the players to have gotten, but blame whoever agreed to that in the last CBA. If you want it down to something more realistic(personally, give the players 48 + all their system issues, or 51 + some changes considering what % they are coming off of. Players should be getting 40-45 tops in the NBA imo) then it really needs to be a step-by-step process, possibly just agree to something now and come back at an earlier time to make another CBA that'll be closer to what the owners want.. You can't drastically change the CBA to suit the owners at every step and expect the players to just say ok.

Frankly I'd like some change just to diversify the teams, hard caps are good IF the teams know how to spend. The NFL has a hard cap and, with a good front office, a team in a manner of years can turn themselves around and do big things. In the NBA, frankly we reached a point where smaller market teams ended up having to pay certain players big market money just to keep them there due to the big market teams paying similar caliber players that much money, which in the end just screws them over for improvement. Not that I think he sucks, but Joe Johnson shouldn't have gotten a 119 million dollar contract for example, that shit is stupid.

But a hard cap at this step is unrealistic, a stiffer luxury tax on the big market teams should definitely be included, and then as they renegotiate future CBA's, they can work on instituting a hard cap imo. You don't want Basketball turning into Baseball in that regard.

You also have to remember that in the NFL there was two solid fronts players and owners. In the NBA, there are four, rich superstars, regular players, big market and small market teams. None of them are unified so it makes negotiations very difficult.

[kisada]

up until now i haven't really felt like the players have been divided. i still don't, really, but there have been signs eking out here and there.

the owners divisiveness, however, is causing all kinds of problems. the hardliners are trying to get the most lopsided deal possible and their arrogance is probably what's holding everything back. kinda reminds me of the tea partiers basically fucking up the whole world a few months ago cause of their opposition to the debt deal.

[Osede]

The players have been divided at some point during last 2 weeks, when the union almost agree with the last 2nd (or 3rd) deal. And some how in the end, they probably just go for another round of voting and then they decided to reject the deal offered.

But it is funny that while the european soccer has foreseen the issue about the overpaying, all the owner just eventually become bankrupt and they have implemented the hard cap thing recently. While the player and owner here still struggling with this issue lol

[Drex]

anyway, this entire time the owners have tried to railroad and lowball the players into an awful, awful deal. i wish i could come up with the link for the original proposal but it was something along the lines of a hard cap AND a 65/35 split in favor of the owners. that is absolutely insane. and to top it off? all this time they've been negotiating in bad faith. i'd love to see basketball back as much as anyone but the greediest and shadiest side has been the owners without question.

and the players' original proposal was equally insane, that's how bargaining works. demand everything you want up front so both sides have opportunities to make trade-offs.

[GRT]

The players have been divided at some point during last 2 weeks, when the union almost agree with the last 2nd (or 3rd) deal. And some how in the end, they probably just go for another round of voting and then they decided to reject the deal offered.

Maybe I haven't followed this closely enough, but I haven't heard the players union letting anything be voted on so far.

and the players' original proposal was equally insane, that's how bargaining works. demand everything you want up front so both sides have opportunities to make trade-offs.

Really, you call giving back 4% BRI right off the bat without the owners conceding anything in return "insane?"

Huh, you might be right in using the word, but not the way you intended.