Comments on: Ben Gordon a plaintiff in Minnesota lawsuit against NBA owners

By: tarsier

tarsier — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:10:24 +0000

I understand how it would feel like to the players like they are giving up $300M or whatever a season. But fact is that they aren’t. The old CBA is gone. If you get laid off from a job making $50K/yr and get a new one making $40K/yr, you arent giving up $10K/yr because the old job is no longer an option to you. The terms of the old CBA are not even on the table. So comparisons to them are irrelevant even if they are natural to us as humans.

Also, a certain percentage of the BRI will probably continue to become a better deal to the players as time goes on as long as the league keeps working towards expansion (in terms of more international markets, not necessarily more teams). Because that means both costs and revenues are going up. As players just get a share of revenue but don’t carry part of the burden of cost, that means that their split of the profit will continue to increase. That is how an old CBA that was considered great for owners when signed came to be seen as bad for owners by the end in spite of record high revenue streams.

By: ds

ds — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:38:36 +0000

I don’t disagree – but from a player’s perspective, there are being asked to give up a lot. It is really hard to stop overpaying someone. If the players are giving up $300 million a year then it seems like overkill to also demand that owners can also get out of contracts that they (the owners) deem are under-performing.

The BRI and system are tied together – and the players have been pretty consistent that if they go to 50 / 50 BRI, then they don’t want a ton of system changes. If the owners want more protection in contracts then they need to back off on the BRI. IMO.

By: Shane

Shane — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:20:21 +0000

Hey Dan/the mods of this site.. is it possible to make a forum for people to talk about random piston related topics?

By: tarsier

tarsier — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:38:18 +0000

The fact of the matter is that every one of those players you mentioned who would be hurt by the deal are players who are losing their teams money. By that I mean that what they are being paid is more than what their presence on the team is bringing in as revenue. All those possibilities for paycuts make sense because they basically say that if you are given a contract based on what level you can be expected to perform at but then you vastly underperform, you stand to lose some of that money. Players who are generating income for the league will continue to be underpaid. Of course, it would make sense for the proposal to throw in a clause allowing vastly overperforming players to get a pay boost within their contracts as well.

By: Tiko

Tiko — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:26:39 +0000

cosign

By: ds

ds — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:06:19 +0000

There were several items that would have hurt a lot of players. I think this has more to do with the rank and file than the superstars.
1. The crazy rule about to sending players to the d-league where they’d only make 75k. Would you take a job where your owner could decide to give you a huge pay cut like that?
2. The mid-level – while I don’t really appreciate it as a fan, these guys work really hard to get to the NBA and many only work a few years. 5 million / year is a ton of money, but if you only work a handful of years… then that has to last you for a long time. These guys hope for one big payday. The owners want to cut what they ‘hope for’ from 30 Million to 9 Million – that’s going to have a very emotional impact.
3. In general, the system rules really seemed to shrink the middle class and limit the freedom of everyone to move.
I have a lot more sympathy for the players – I think the owners were way too greedy.
Derek

By: tarsier

tarsier — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:15:23 +0000

And then give Stuckey a max deal and mandate that Daye be given the starting center job.

By: Laser

Laser — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:55:39 +0000

*GASP*

This trade is so unconscionably bad that it’s not even ALLOWED, due to the gross discrepancy in salaries being exchanged. It MUST be the real you!

By: Joe Dumars

Joe Dumars — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:08:20 +0000

Just for that comment i’m going to trade two 1st rd picks and monroe for baron davis when the lockout is over.

By: Adrià Pagès

Adrià Pagès — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:15:37 +0000

I’ve been hearing lots so much about who looses and who “wins” with the lockout and I’m sick with that!!!
The real loosers of the Lockout are the team’s workers. All of them! Not the owners (who are rich enough to survive) or the players (who can go anywhere – any team around the world would sign them) neither the fans (Yes, we love basketball, but we don’t eat of it). THE LOOSERS ARE THE NORMAL WORKERS, the guys that now don’t have their jobs and maybe they won’t for a year or so!!!!
They should have some voice in this lockout, and we should never forget about them!