The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[airjordan jb23]

I was personally never a fan of the age limit in the first place... Now they want it to be 20?

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by 13saldana13

Originally Posted by bhzmafia14

Originally Posted by JapanAir21


Also, what's more important is that the Grizzlies should be whooping on the Mavericks tonight.

I know 

lol you even agree the mavs would poop on you.

No, he switched it.

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by 13saldana13

Originally Posted by bhzmafia14

Originally Posted by JapanAir21


Also, what's more important is that the Grizzlies should be whooping on the Mavericks tonight.

I know 

lol you even agree the mavs would poop on you.

No, he switched it.

 

[japanair21]

[h1]Why Tyson Chandler is pessimistic on return[/h1]
November, 10, 2011
Nov 10

12:20

PM CT

• Email
• Print
• Comments5

By Jeff Caplan

Last week Dallas Mavericks free-agent center Tyson Chandler went on local radio and expressed pessimism regarding his chances of re-signing if the league's current labor proposal is ratified.

"With the collective bargaining agreement and some of the things that they're trying to enforce, it would basically prohibit me from coming back," Chandler told The Ben and Skin Show on 103.3 FM ESPN. "It would take it out of my hands -- and the organization's -- because it would almost be pretty much impossible for me to re-sign. I just think that can be the worst thing that can happen."

“For years, the Lakers have been able to win championships and re-sign their players and keep them there so they can go out for another title,

 

[japanair21]

[h1]Why Tyson Chandler is pessimistic on return[/h1]
November, 10, 2011
Nov 10

12:20

PM CT

• Email
• Print
• Comments5

By Jeff Caplan

Last week Dallas Mavericks free-agent center Tyson Chandler went on local radio and expressed pessimism regarding his chances of re-signing if the league's current labor proposal is ratified.

"With the collective bargaining agreement and some of the things that they're trying to enforce, it would basically prohibit me from coming back," Chandler told The Ben and Skin Show on 103.3 FM ESPN. "It would take it out of my hands -- and the organization's -- because it would almost be pretty much impossible for me to re-sign. I just think that can be the worst thing that can happen."

“For years, the Lakers have been able to win championships and re-sign their players and keep them there so they can go out for another title,

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by PMatic

Player support for owners' plan dwindles

Support among players and agents for the owners' revised collective bargaining proposal appears to be lower than it was for the previous offer, and approximately half the union membership is expected to sign decertification petitions in a show of defiance, multiple people involved in the process told CBSSports.com Friday.

"This isn't going to fly," said one formerly moderate agent now on board with the movement to decertify and vote down the owners' latest ultimatum proposal -- if it goes up for a vote at all.

At least 15-20 agents representing an array of agencies held a conference call Friday to plot their next strategy as players and their representatives angered by the proposal prepared to submit the decertification cards to the National Labor Relations Board seeking an election to dissolve the union.

The NLRB almost certainly wouldn't authorize an election unless the National Basketball Players Association withdrew its unfair labor practices charge against the NBA -- something union officials are not believed to be considering, as an NLRB complaint remains the most ironclad chance for a federal injunction lifting the lockout, legal sources said.

Even if the NLRB charge were dropped, an election would still take 45-60 days to schedule. In the meantime, negotiations between the league and union leadership could continue. The pressure perhaps would be shifted to the owners to modify their proposals if they are serious about having the 72-game season that Stern promised Thursday night, complete with Christmas Day games and a regularly scheduled All-Star weekend, if the players approved the existing offer.

In addition to the seven major agencies that have been clamoring for decertification for months, several other previously moderate agencies have joined the movement, sources told CBSSports.com.

"They've lost me," said one of the previously moderate agents. "Three months ago, we thought this would be done. We thought people would be reasonable."

The owners' lack of significant movement on key system issues in their revised proposal, plus new, still-to-be-negotiated requests viewed by the players and agents as draconian, make the chances of players voting for the proposal -- or player reps even recommending it for a vote -- extremely unlikely, sources said.

The new proposal, one of the agents said, is "probably as bad, if not worse than the last proposal."

Union executives are bringing the 30 team player reps to New York Monday or Tuesday to evaluate the latest proposal from the league, delivered Thursday night once again with the threat that if the players rejected it, they would be faced with a worse offer. Commissioner David Stern said the latest proposal, which contains a 50-50 split of revenues, would be replaced by the so-called "reset" proposal in which players would receive 47 percent of revenues and be constrained by a flex cap with a hard team payroll ceiling and a rollback of existing contracts.

In the revised proposal, the owners made the following moves toward the players' position:

* Increase the mid-level exception for luxury tax-paying teams to three-year deals starting at $3 million, available every year. The previous proposal called for mid-level deals for tax teams to be for two years starting at $2.5 million and available every other year.

* Allow tax-payers to execute sign-and-trade transactions for the first two years of the agreement. Such trades would be banned for tax teams after that. They were completely banned for tax-payers in the prior proposal.

* Create a new, $2.5 million exception that can be used by teams that are under the cap. It would allow teams that previously only had cap space to sign a minimum salary player to offer more.

* Increase the team payroll floor (i.e. minimum team salary) to 90 percent of the cap in the third year of the deal and 85 percent in the first two years. It was 85 percent across the entire agreement in the previous proposal, and 75 percent in the prior CBA.

* Increase annual raises for Bird free agents to 6.5 percent, up from 5.5 percent in the prior proposal. Non-Bird players' annual raises remain capped at 3.5 percent, as in the previous proposal. In the prior CBA, Bird raises were capped at 10.5 percent and non-Bird at 8 percent.

* Increase qualifying offers to restricted free agents.

* Allow player options in contracts for players making less than the average league salary. In the previous proposal, player options were banned. There were no restrictions on player options in the previous CBA.

* Accept the union's proposal that each side be able to opt out of the 10-year CBA after the sixth year. 

But union officials and agents were disappointed that the league did not address the so-called tax cliff, by which teams are double-penalized for barely wading above the tax line, and they disagree with the league's position that mid-level restrictions would be in place if the signing pushed the team's payroll above the tax. The players want teams to be able to use the exception as long as they are under the tax line before the signing occurs.

"We'll try in court, because it can't get worse than this," one of the formerly moderate agents said. "... The owners are selling players short on their intelligence, and they're definitely selling their representatives short."

The introduction of a series of B-list issues -- drug testing in the offseason, an age-limit of 20, and a provision that would allow teams to send players to the D-League during the first five years of their careers and make substantially less than the NBA minimum -- formed a rallying point for players and agents who formerly were open to considering the league's proposal to become unified against it. League officials said Friday that these B-list issues are not in the owners' written proposal, and that both sides agreed to "park" them to be discussed after there is agreement on the framework of the major issues.

Link

Shocking that an agent would come out and say all this. And they're just feeding it to their players, keeping up the charade that they're acting in the best interest of the players.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by PMatic

Player support for owners' plan dwindles

Support among players and agents for the owners' revised collective bargaining proposal appears to be lower than it was for the previous offer, and approximately half the union membership is expected to sign decertification petitions in a show of defiance, multiple people involved in the process told CBSSports.com Friday.

"This isn't going to fly," said one formerly moderate agent now on board with the movement to decertify and vote down the owners' latest ultimatum proposal -- if it goes up for a vote at all.

At least 15-20 agents representing an array of agencies held a conference call Friday to plot their next strategy as players and their representatives angered by the proposal prepared to submit the decertification cards to the National Labor Relations Board seeking an election to dissolve the union.

The NLRB almost certainly wouldn't authorize an election unless the National Basketball Players Association withdrew its unfair labor practices charge against the NBA -- something union officials are not believed to be considering, as an NLRB complaint remains the most ironclad chance for a federal injunction lifting the lockout, legal sources said.

Even if the NLRB charge were dropped, an election would still take 45-60 days to schedule. In the meantime, negotiations between the league and union leadership could continue. The pressure perhaps would be shifted to the owners to modify their proposals if they are serious about having the 72-game season that Stern promised Thursday night, complete with Christmas Day games and a regularly scheduled All-Star weekend, if the players approved the existing offer.

In addition to the seven major agencies that have been clamoring for decertification for months, several other previously moderate agencies have joined the movement, sources told CBSSports.com.

"They've lost me," said one of the previously moderate agents. "Three months ago, we thought this would be done. We thought people would be reasonable."

The owners' lack of significant movement on key system issues in their revised proposal, plus new, still-to-be-negotiated requests viewed by the players and agents as draconian, make the chances of players voting for the proposal -- or player reps even recommending it for a vote -- extremely unlikely, sources said.

The new proposal, one of the agents said, is "probably as bad, if not worse than the last proposal."

Union executives are bringing the 30 team player reps to New York Monday or Tuesday to evaluate the latest proposal from the league, delivered Thursday night once again with the threat that if the players rejected it, they would be faced with a worse offer. Commissioner David Stern said the latest proposal, which contains a 50-50 split of revenues, would be replaced by the so-called "reset" proposal in which players would receive 47 percent of revenues and be constrained by a flex cap with a hard team payroll ceiling and a rollback of existing contracts.

In the revised proposal, the owners made the following moves toward the players' position:

* Increase the mid-level exception for luxury tax-paying teams to three-year deals starting at $3 million, available every year. The previous proposal called for mid-level deals for tax teams to be for two years starting at $2.5 million and available every other year.

* Allow tax-payers to execute sign-and-trade transactions for the first two years of the agreement. Such trades would be banned for tax teams after that. They were completely banned for tax-payers in the prior proposal.

* Create a new, $2.5 million exception that can be used by teams that are under the cap. It would allow teams that previously only had cap space to sign a minimum salary player to offer more.

* Increase the team payroll floor (i.e. minimum team salary) to 90 percent of the cap in the third year of the deal and 85 percent in the first two years. It was 85 percent across the entire agreement in the previous proposal, and 75 percent in the prior CBA.

* Increase annual raises for Bird free agents to 6.5 percent, up from 5.5 percent in the prior proposal. Non-Bird players' annual raises remain capped at 3.5 percent, as in the previous proposal. In the prior CBA, Bird raises were capped at 10.5 percent and non-Bird at 8 percent.

* Increase qualifying offers to restricted free agents.

* Allow player options in contracts for players making less than the average league salary. In the previous proposal, player options were banned. There were no restrictions on player options in the previous CBA.

* Accept the union's proposal that each side be able to opt out of the 10-year CBA after the sixth year. 

But union officials and agents were disappointed that the league did not address the so-called tax cliff, by which teams are double-penalized for barely wading above the tax line, and they disagree with the league's position that mid-level restrictions would be in place if the signing pushed the team's payroll above the tax. The players want teams to be able to use the exception as long as they are under the tax line before the signing occurs.

"We'll try in court, because it can't get worse than this," one of the formerly moderate agents said. "... The owners are selling players short on their intelligence, and they're definitely selling their representatives short."

The introduction of a series of B-list issues -- drug testing in the offseason, an age-limit of 20, and a provision that would allow teams to send players to the D-League during the first five years of their careers and make substantially less than the NBA minimum -- formed a rallying point for players and agents who formerly were open to considering the league's proposal to become unified against it. League officials said Friday that these B-list issues are not in the owners' written proposal, and that both sides agreed to "park" them to be discussed after there is agreement on the framework of the major issues.

Link

Shocking that an agent would come out and say all this. And they're just feeding it to their players, keeping up the charade that they're acting in the best interest of the players.

 

[antbanks81]

wow #$**$@# wow the NBA is on some bull

 

[antbanks81]

wow #$**$@# wow the NBA is on some bull

 

[big j 33]

And the league is keeping up the charade of "competitive balance" to take more money and system benefits for their side even after they have more than made up for their losses each season.

Can't have it both ways. If you want a league to get high ratings, then you need the Heat and Big 3, the Lakers v. Celtics, the 90s Bulls, etc. If you want "competitive balance" then be prepared to deal with low ratings when it's Spurs v. Nets or Spurs v. Pistons.

 

[big j 33]

And the league is keeping up the charade of "competitive balance" to take more money and system benefits for their side even after they have more than made up for their losses each season.

Can't have it both ways. If you want a league to get high ratings, then you need the Heat and Big 3, the Lakers v. Celtics, the 90s Bulls, etc. If you want "competitive balance" then be prepared to deal with low ratings when it's Spurs v. Nets or Spurs v. Pistons.

 

[CP1708]

Chandler can shut the @#$% up. Everyone loves crying and blaming the Lakers but the Mavs been spending just as much for just as long. Freakin pathetic all these sore losers blaming LA for everything. Unbelievable. Change your kotex Tyson.

 

[CP1708]

Chandler can shut the @#$% up. Everyone loves crying and blaming the Lakers but the Mavs been spending just as much for just as long. Freakin pathetic all these sore losers blaming LA for everything. Unbelievable. Change your kotex Tyson.

 

[aepps20]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by PMatic

Player support for owners' plan dwindles

Support among players and agents for the owners' revised collective bargaining proposal appears to be lower than it was for the previous offer, and approximately half the union membership is expected to sign decertification petitions in a show of defiance, multiple people involved in the process told CBSSports.com Friday.

"This isn't going to fly," said one formerly moderate agent now on board with the movement to decertify and vote down the owners' latest ultimatum proposal -- if it goes up for a vote at all.

At least 15-20 agents representing an array of agencies held a conference call Friday to plot their next strategy as players and their representatives angered by the proposal prepared to submit the decertification cards to the National Labor Relations Board seeking an election to dissolve the union.

The NLRB almost certainly wouldn't authorize an election unless the National Basketball Players Association withdrew its unfair labor practices charge against the NBA -- something union officials are not believed to be considering, as an NLRB complaint remains the most ironclad chance for a federal injunction lifting the lockout, legal sources said.

Even if the NLRB charge were dropped, an election would still take 45-60 days to schedule. In the meantime, negotiations between the league and union leadership could continue. The pressure perhaps would be shifted to the owners to modify their proposals if they are serious about having the 72-game season that Stern promised Thursday night, complete with Christmas Day games and a regularly scheduled All-Star weekend, if the players approved the existing offer.

In addition to the seven major agencies that have been clamoring for decertification for months, several other previously moderate agencies have joined the movement, sources told CBSSports.com.

"They've lost me," said one of the previously moderate agents. "Three months ago, we thought this would be done. We thought people would be reasonable."

The owners' lack of significant movement on key system issues in their revised proposal, plus new, still-to-be-negotiated requests viewed by the players and agents as draconian, make the chances of players voting for the proposal -- or player reps even recommending it for a vote -- extremely unlikely, sources said.

The new proposal, one of the agents said, is "probably as bad, if not worse than the last proposal."

Union executives are bringing the 30 team player reps to New York Monday or Tuesday to evaluate the latest proposal from the league, delivered Thursday night once again with the threat that if the players rejected it, they would be faced with a worse offer. Commissioner David Stern said the latest proposal, which contains a 50-50 split of revenues, would be replaced by the so-called "reset" proposal in which players would receive 47 percent of revenues and be constrained by a flex cap with a hard team payroll ceiling and a rollback of existing contracts.

In the revised proposal, the owners made the following moves toward the players' position:

* Increase the mid-level exception for luxury tax-paying teams to three-year deals starting at $3 million, available every year. The previous proposal called for mid-level deals for tax teams to be for two years starting at $2.5 million and available every other year.

* Allow tax-payers to execute sign-and-trade transactions for the first two years of the agreement. Such trades would be banned for tax teams after that. They were completely banned for tax-payers in the prior proposal.

* Create a new, $2.5 million exception that can be used by teams that are under the cap. It would allow teams that previously only had cap space to sign a minimum salary player to offer more.

* Increase the team payroll floor (i.e. minimum team salary) to 90 percent of the cap in the third year of the deal and 85 percent in the first two years. It was 85 percent across the entire agreement in the previous proposal, and 75 percent in the prior CBA.

* Increase annual raises for Bird free agents to 6.5 percent, up from 5.5 percent in the prior proposal. Non-Bird players' annual raises remain capped at 3.5 percent, as in the previous proposal. In the prior CBA, Bird raises were capped at 10.5 percent and non-Bird at 8 percent.

* Increase qualifying offers to restricted free agents.

* Allow player options in contracts for players making less than the average league salary. In the previous proposal, player options were banned. There were no restrictions on player options in the previous CBA.

* Accept the union's proposal that each side be able to opt out of the 10-year CBA after the sixth year. 

But union officials and agents were disappointed that the league did not address the so-called tax cliff, by which teams are double-penalized for barely wading above the tax line, and they disagree with the league's position that mid-level restrictions would be in place if the signing pushed the team's payroll above the tax. The players want teams to be able to use the exception as long as they are under the tax line before the signing occurs.

"We'll try in court, because it can't get worse than this," one of the formerly moderate agents said. "... The owners are selling players short on their intelligence, and they're definitely selling their representatives short."

The introduction of a series of B-list issues -- drug testing in the offseason, an age-limit of 20, and a provision that would allow teams to send players to the D-League during the first five years of their careers and make substantially less than the NBA minimum -- formed a rallying point for players and agents who formerly were open to considering the league's proposal to become unified against it. League officials said Friday that these B-list issues are not in the owners' written proposal, and that both sides agreed to "park" them to be discussed after there is agreement on the framework of the major issues.

Link

Shocking that an agent would come out and say all this. And they're just feeding it to their players, keeping up the charade that they're acting in the best interest of the players.

The agents don't have to say anything because the players see the deal for what it is and that's terrible.  Do you really believe it takes an agent to explain to a player that the D-League demotion stuff is terrible?

 

[aepps20]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by PMatic

Player support for owners' plan dwindles

Support among players and agents for the owners' revised collective bargaining proposal appears to be lower than it was for the previous offer, and approximately half the union membership is expected to sign decertification petitions in a show of defiance, multiple people involved in the process told CBSSports.com Friday.

"This isn't going to fly," said one formerly moderate agent now on board with the movement to decertify and vote down the owners' latest ultimatum proposal -- if it goes up for a vote at all.

At least 15-20 agents representing an array of agencies held a conference call Friday to plot their next strategy as players and their representatives angered by the proposal prepared to submit the decertification cards to the National Labor Relations Board seeking an election to dissolve the union.

The NLRB almost certainly wouldn't authorize an election unless the National Basketball Players Association withdrew its unfair labor practices charge against the NBA -- something union officials are not believed to be considering, as an NLRB complaint remains the most ironclad chance for a federal injunction lifting the lockout, legal sources said.

Even if the NLRB charge were dropped, an election would still take 45-60 days to schedule. In the meantime, negotiations between the league and union leadership could continue. The pressure perhaps would be shifted to the owners to modify their proposals if they are serious about having the 72-game season that Stern promised Thursday night, complete with Christmas Day games and a regularly scheduled All-Star weekend, if the players approved the existing offer.

In addition to the seven major agencies that have been clamoring for decertification for months, several other previously moderate agencies have joined the movement, sources told CBSSports.com.

"They've lost me," said one of the previously moderate agents. "Three months ago, we thought this would be done. We thought people would be reasonable."

The owners' lack of significant movement on key system issues in their revised proposal, plus new, still-to-be-negotiated requests viewed by the players and agents as draconian, make the chances of players voting for the proposal -- or player reps even recommending it for a vote -- extremely unlikely, sources said.

The new proposal, one of the agents said, is "probably as bad, if not worse than the last proposal."

Union executives are bringing the 30 team player reps to New York Monday or Tuesday to evaluate the latest proposal from the league, delivered Thursday night once again with the threat that if the players rejected it, they would be faced with a worse offer. Commissioner David Stern said the latest proposal, which contains a 50-50 split of revenues, would be replaced by the so-called "reset" proposal in which players would receive 47 percent of revenues and be constrained by a flex cap with a hard team payroll ceiling and a rollback of existing contracts.

In the revised proposal, the owners made the following moves toward the players' position:

* Increase the mid-level exception for luxury tax-paying teams to three-year deals starting at $3 million, available every year. The previous proposal called for mid-level deals for tax teams to be for two years starting at $2.5 million and available every other year.

* Allow tax-payers to execute sign-and-trade transactions for the first two years of the agreement. Such trades would be banned for tax teams after that. They were completely banned for tax-payers in the prior proposal.

* Create a new, $2.5 million exception that can be used by teams that are under the cap. It would allow teams that previously only had cap space to sign a minimum salary player to offer more.

* Increase the team payroll floor (i.e. minimum team salary) to 90 percent of the cap in the third year of the deal and 85 percent in the first two years. It was 85 percent across the entire agreement in the previous proposal, and 75 percent in the prior CBA.

* Increase annual raises for Bird free agents to 6.5 percent, up from 5.5 percent in the prior proposal. Non-Bird players' annual raises remain capped at 3.5 percent, as in the previous proposal. In the prior CBA, Bird raises were capped at 10.5 percent and non-Bird at 8 percent.

* Increase qualifying offers to restricted free agents.

* Allow player options in contracts for players making less than the average league salary. In the previous proposal, player options were banned. There were no restrictions on player options in the previous CBA.

* Accept the union's proposal that each side be able to opt out of the 10-year CBA after the sixth year. 

But union officials and agents were disappointed that the league did not address the so-called tax cliff, by which teams are double-penalized for barely wading above the tax line, and they disagree with the league's position that mid-level restrictions would be in place if the signing pushed the team's payroll above the tax. The players want teams to be able to use the exception as long as they are under the tax line before the signing occurs.

"We'll try in court, because it can't get worse than this," one of the formerly moderate agents said. "... The owners are selling players short on their intelligence, and they're definitely selling their representatives short."

The introduction of a series of B-list issues -- drug testing in the offseason, an age-limit of 20, and a provision that would allow teams to send players to the D-League during the first five years of their careers and make substantially less than the NBA minimum -- formed a rallying point for players and agents who formerly were open to considering the league's proposal to become unified against it. League officials said Friday that these B-list issues are not in the owners' written proposal, and that both sides agreed to "park" them to be discussed after there is agreement on the framework of the major issues.

Link

Shocking that an agent would come out and say all this. And they're just feeding it to their players, keeping up the charade that they're acting in the best interest of the players.

The agents don't have to say anything because the players see the deal for what it is and that's terrible.  Do you really believe it takes an agent to explain to a player that the D-League demotion stuff is terrible?

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Chandler can shut the @#$% up. Everyone loves crying and blaming the Lakers but the Mavs been spending just as much for just as long. Freakin pathetic all these sore losers blaming LA for everything. Unbelievable. Change your kotex Tyson.

, I knew that would get you riled up.

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Chandler can shut the @#$% up. Everyone loves crying and blaming the Lakers but the Mavs been spending just as much for just as long. Freakin pathetic all these sore losers blaming LA for everything. Unbelievable. Change your kotex Tyson.

, I knew that would get you riled up.

 

[Animal Thug]

Originally Posted by What up

You know what though, the NBA will be just like any organization. The owners won't back off that. At the end of the day, a business is a business.

And what does Tom Cruise or Lady Gaga have to do with this? People would cry when those two @%!$$/moan about making too little money.

NBA players should be grateful they're in a position they were in. If this isn't satisfactory, then start your own league. Things were getting out of control before, and thats definitely not the player's fault. But things couldn't continue that way forever. And again, who is in a position to change that? The owners. So just deal with it.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

 

[Animal Thug]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

And the league is keeping up the charade of "competitive balance" to take more money and system benefits for their side even after they have more than made up for their losses each season.

Can't have it both ways. If you want a league to get high ratings, then you need the Heat and Big 3, the Lakers v. Celtics, the 90s Bulls, etc. If you want "competitive balance" then be prepared to deal with low ratings when it's Spurs v. Nets or Spurs v. Pistons.

What fun would it be for someone in Oakland, Charlotte, Cleveland, etc. if it's the same $!%@ every year? That's what the NBA is nowadays. This ain't the 90's anymore dawg. The players back than were faithful to the team that was bared across their chest - these new fake baller cats - not so much. I'm sick of the players treating the NBA like it's a fashion show, where lights, camera, action reigns over actual basketball i.e. Melo, Lebron, Stat, etc.

I don't give a damn if it's Spurs v. Nets v.s Pistons every year, I'm going to watch it - that just means they played better basketball than everyone else - like the way it should be.

Stop feeling sorry for these lame %!+ #%%%#*@ players. They get enough groupies to spill fake emotions to already..

 

[CP1708]

Groupies like you?

You soundin dumb up thru here, give it a rest we all know your angle. If your binkie was still in Clev you'd be all about gettin this lockout over with. And btw, the same number of different teams played in the finals in the 90's as the 2000's.......so quit acting like its the same teams every year now, but not then. Once again soundin stupid.

 

[Animal Thug]

You and I know damn well that if it wasn't for that 1 player; their would've been 6-10 different championship teams in the 90's - those players didn't give a damn where they played - as long as their fed, housed, healthy and ready - they played their +%##! off out on that court. Now you got people half assing it because their stuck in Portland, Detroit, or some other gloomy city. Enough is enough man. This NBA players ain't thoroughbreds; they're half-hearted, unworthy primadonnas..
Throw the hammer down on these spoiled +@* players and let them know who's business this is. Because this is a business at the end of the day - and if that means you gotta drop piss in a cup before every season starts - than so be it fam. Strap your @*@!!+! Nikes up and get on that court play your heart out - cause I dont' give a damn about that new tattoo you got.

 

[big j 33]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

I don't give a damn if it's Spurs v. Nets v.s Pistons every year, I'm going to watch it - that just means they played better basketball than everyone else - like the way it should be.
And I will too, but that's not the point because we're the minority. The fact is, those series will have lower ratings and the league will suffer as a result. My point was, if the owners are so desperate for competitive balance, then they will need to accept the potential for ratings to suffer when Memphis and Indiana are in the Finals.

What fun would it be for someone in Oakland, Charlotte, Cleveland, etc. if it's the same $!%@ every year? That's what the NBA is nowadays. This ain't the 90's anymore dawg.
Let me get this straight, "same thing every year... this ain't the 90s anymore" You mean the 90s when the Bulls won 6, the Rockets won 2, and the Spurs and Pistons each got one? Fact is, smaller market teams do get to the Finals and playoffs, if they don't win, then that must mean they didn't play well enough, using your logic.

8 championships between Boston and LA in the 80s. After that 4 different teams won in the 90s, 2000s and beyond only 6 different teams have won. If they're upset now, then they should have been upset for the last 3 decades. What fun was it for the Knicks and Bulls for the majority of the 2000s? What fun was it for the Celtics after their decline in the 90s?

I'm sick of the players treating the NBA like it's a fashion show, where lights, camera, action reigns over actual basketball i.e. Melo, Lebron, Stat, etc.
These players don't live in a bubble, they're an active part of a culture and society that has far more contact and exposure to celebrities, athletes, entertainers, politicians, etc. This isn't even a basketball issue, it's an issue of American culture. You did not have the same access to athletes back in the 80s as you do now, so because of that, the athletes, the fans, the media, the league, and so on, will all change as well. Don't want these athletes to embrace the celebrity of being an athlete? Then take that up with Nike, McDonalds, Gatorade, 2K Sports, T-Mobile, and every other separate business that will pay very well for these athletes to rep their brand. The opportunities presented for today's athlete are not the same, things change. Not to mention the nature of the game has changed, 24 hours ESPN, newspaper writers and athletes themselves having Twitter, the LEAGUE ITSELF makes an active attempt to reach out to fans in new and innovative ways.

How exactly is it reigning over basketball? Are you disappointed with the quality of play the past few years? Because I'm not... what I'm actually disappointed with is how the NBA has instructed its refs to negatively affect the flow of the game, and that isn't Amare and Melo's fault for being at Fashion Week.

Don't want the lights, camera, action, to reign over actual basketball? Then tell that to the league and ESPN/ABC, because they sure as hell benefit from the exposure and attention of the athletes.

The players back than were faithful to the team that was bared across their chest - these new fake baller cats - not so much.
Was the Miami Heat's formation a big deal? Yes. For 3 of the league's best players to team up in their prime was significant. But their actions do not negate the many players who have stayed with their teams for a majority of their career (or have been traded without a demand). Sure, the Melo saga sent him to New York with Amare, except the Knicks gave up everything they had except Landry Fields to get him. Lebron wasn't faithful for the 7 years he put in before he left? He should have been more faithful with Shaq and Jamison on his squad, what a "fake baller cat".

Stop feeling sorry for these lame %!+ #%%%#*@ players. They get enough groupies to spill fake emotions to already..
Settle down, and chill out that nonsense.

You sound quite bitter and angry. Have I sided with the players on most issues? Yes, but I've done it like a sensible adult... rather than like a whiny little kid.

 

[japanair21]

Although I disagree with the players stance and that they should just let the deal happen, even I can tell that Animal Thug might be related to Gilbert somehow.

 

[japanair21]

Although I disagree with the players stance and that they should just let the deal happen, even I can tell that Animal Thug might be related to Gilbert somehow.

 

[big j 33]

The thing many don't seem to grasp, siding with the players and believing the owners are being unfair does not mean you support every single action taken by the Union. It also don't automatically suggest that I want the players to turn down every offer. I personally believe at some point, Stern will back up his threat, and other than changing a few system issues, I don't think this deal gets any better for the players.

The owners should give the players a few system issues and that's as good as it gets for the union so you take the deal.