The compromises that need to be made

[Trueblood]

I'm not sure if this has any credibility but Ken Berger wrote this small blurb on cbs sports.com and he has covered the lockout very closely. It says..

As he announced that the NBA was cancelling two weeks of the season, commissioner David Stern made the surprising assertion that the share of basketball-related income is not a major obstacle to getting a deal done with the union.

Both Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver said the main impediments are contract length, the length of the collective bargaining agreement, the use of exceptions by taxpaying teams, tax levels and the frequency of the tax.

The union claims that these new luxury tax and exception usage provisions that the league is seeking would be the equivalent of a hard salary cap.


If this is true, then these guys really need to compromise as it isn't that hard. I'll break down the issues one by one.

1) CONTRACT LENGTH

The players want 5 years and 4 for players switching as free agents. The league wants 4 and 3.

The league needs to cave on this. No other league has contract length limits. 5 and 4 should be more than good enough and making this concession will allow the league to ask for concessions from the players elsewhere.

2) LENGTH OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

I heard that the league wanted 10 years with the players having the right to terminate after 7. I don't see the problem here for the players. If we have to make it 9 and 6 for the purpose of compromise then what the heck, go for it but I think the 10 and 7 number makes sense for all.

3) THE USE OF EXCEPTIONS BY TAX PAYING TEAMS

Anyone who has listened to me rant or read my annoying sig for the past year will know that I am and have been very passionate about keeping the amount of the MLE intact but not allowing tax payers to be able to use it. I've gone so far as to emphasize it when I sent my own proposal out to owners on the labor committee.

The owners also want to limit the amount to $3 million and have less years on it as well. I say that they shouldn't set their sights on that. Allow for the contracts to last the full 4 years for FA's leaving their current team and for the full amount that is above $5 million but not allow the tax payers to use it. This way, the Heat, Lakers and Celtics can no longer just load up on FA's and keep buying championship level teams. This was the Heat's strategy when they signed the big 3. They knew that they could just keep improving the team through the MLE. Now, they won't be able to do that while the players that do sign it get paid in full. This will create more parity for the league without totally limiting what the players make.

4) TAX LEVELS AND FREQUENCY OF THE TAX

Again, if you take the MLE away from the tax payers then you lower their payroll to the point where they aren't much higher than the lux tax itself. If the only way of going above the lux tax is by re signing your own free agent, I say that the league should let that slide and not be so hard on the tax payers.

Also, more revenue sharing will give small markets less incentive to make one sided trades that we've seen. For example, we had Gasol to the Lakers or Garnett to the Wolves. More revenue sharing puts more money in the pockets of the small markets and thus, less incentive to make those trades. As a result, you have a lower payroll in Boston and LA and no need for super taxes in the first place.

In summation, give this one to the players. Allow for a larger tax but not to the extent that the owners are asking where it quadruples and what not.

 

[Larry David]

I disagree.

The game is broken on the contract side. They are never going to get rid of guaranteed deals, and there a lots of guys like Baron Davis, Curry and Lewis dogging it in years 3-4 of 5 year deals. It’s very important for the game, fans, and competition for the players not to be able to coast. The owners can’t stop handing out these contracts, so there has to be some protection for the fans. I think the length of contract is the most important thing for the owners and the dumbest thing for the players to fight over. Basically, hard working young guys are missing checks to ensure that older bums can coast on bad deals. No matter what, the league pays the players a set amount of BRI. Why not give that money to the players that should make it? The players want security – fine, resign with you team and you’ll get 4 years.

The owners have been very smart at moving this much closer to a football system, and what they seek now is probably good enough for the NBA. They got a league wide cap, the capped max salaries, now they are going to get a defacto team cap. It will help the mid and small sized markets, competition, franchise values, and slow the star players grouping in the small markets. Whether or no you think this is a good idea, it’s very important to the owners, so its happening. The old tax wasn’t even a speed bump to many teams and this is their only chance to make it a wall.

Look, this fight has been set for at least two years. Back then we knew that we were a lock to miss 30 games and we might miss a season. Even if they compromised today on these issues, the sides would still loose 30 games fighting over the crumbs at this point. They are committed and resigned to missing 30 games. Plus, the economy gives the owners the cover to impose the changes that are needed to fix the game.

The fans are going to be pissed no matter what and the fight and changes the owners seek now are coming. Like hockey, its’ better to just rip off the band aid and finish this now. Don’t give away 25% of what you need and end up with a third work stoppage.

Like hockey, we'll all be in a better place after. The people pushing the panic button and screaming for the owners to cave are the writers that are headed for pay cuts if the season goes away. These are some of the same people that ran with the talking points and told you that a deal was very doable before we started missing game. In both instances, these writers just hoped a deal was close because they want to work. Sorry, but its bigger than that.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think the NHL is better now (it wasn't immediately) but it does seem like contracts are starting to spiral again (thanks to revenue going up). Also I may just be biased because my team won and I got to snuggle with the cup.

There are a lot of angry fans in Portland right now speaking out. Talks of boycotts, etc. I wonder if any kind of massive fan movement could have any effect. People are PO'd in general (occupation movement?) and the NBA players and owners fussing over who gets how many million seems to fit right into that general sense of contempt around here. Not sure how it is in Sac which obviously has the much larger arena issue looming and then other cities where everything is otherwise rosey.

 

[bajaden]

I disagree.

The game is broken on the contract side. They are never going to get rid of guaranteed deals, and there a lots of guys like Baron Davis, Curry and Lewis dogging it in years 3-4 of 5 year deals. It’s very important for the game, fans, and competition for the players not to be able to coast. The owners can’t stop handing out these contracts, so there has to be some protection for the fans. I think the length of contract is the most important thing for the owners and the dumbest thing for the players to fight over. Basically, hard working young guys are missing checks to ensure that older bums can coast on bad deals. No matter what, the league pays the players a set amount of BRI. Why not give that money to the players that should make it? The players want security – fine, resign with you team and you’ll get 4 years.

The owners have been very smart at moving this much closer to a football system, and what they seek now is probably good enough for the NBA. They got a league wide cap, the capped max salaries, now they are going to get a defacto team cap. It will help the mid and small sized markets, competition, franchise values, and slow the star players grouping in the small markets. Whether or no you think this is a good idea, it’s very important to the owners, so its happening. The old tax wasn’t even a speed bump to many teams and this is their only chance to make it a wall.

Look, this fight has been set for at least two years. Back then we knew that we were a lock to miss 30 games and we might miss a season. Even if they compromised today on these issues, the sides would still loose 30 games fighting over the crumbs at this point. They are committed and resigned to missing 30 games. Plus, the economy gives the owners the cover to impose the changes that are needed to fix the game.

The fans are going to be pissed no matter what and the fight and changes the owners seek now are coming. Like hockey, its’ better to just rip off the band aid and finish this now. Don’t give away 25% of what you need and end up with a third work stoppage.

Like hockey, we'll all be in a better place after. The people pushing the panic button and screaming for the owners to cave are the writers that are headed for pay cuts if the season goes away. These are some of the same people that ran with the talking points and told you that a deal was very doable before we started missing game. In both instances, these writers just hoped a deal was close because they want to work. Sorry, but its bigger than that.

I disagree on the deal being very doable without losing games. I think it was very doable, but that doesn't mean its going to happen. Aside from that, I agree with everything you said. As much as I want them to play, I'd rather bite the bullet now and get it over with. I'm sick and tired of teams not getting what they paid for, and having no recourse.

I'm 640 miles south of the border right now and the weather is beautiful. Going fishing tomorrow and hoping for no chop. Te veo mas tarde

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm 640 miles south of the border right now and the weather is beautiful. Going fishing tomorrow and hoping for no chop. Te veo mas tarde

I hate you right now

 

[Trueblood]

I disagree.

The game is broken on the contract side. They are never going to get rid of guaranteed deals, and there a lots of guys like Baron Davis, Curry and Lewis dogging it in years 3-4 of 5 year deals. It’s very important for the game, fans, and competition for the players not to be able to coast. The owners can’t stop handing out these contracts, so there has to be some protection for the fans. I think the length of contract is the most important thing for the owners and the dumbest thing for the players to fight over. Basically, hard working young guys are missing checks to ensure that older bums can coast on bad deals. No matter what, the league pays the players a set amount of BRI. Why not give that money to the players that should make it? The players want security – fine, resign with you team and you’ll get 4 years.

The owners have been very smart at moving this much closer to a football system, and what they seek now is probably good enough for the NBA. They got a league wide cap, the capped max salaries, now they are going to get a defacto team cap. It will help the mid and small sized markets, competition, franchise values, and slow the star players grouping in the small markets. Whether or no you think this is a good idea, it’s very important to the owners, so its happening. The old tax wasn’t even a speed bump to many teams and this is their only chance to make it a wall.

Look, this fight has been set for at least two years. Back then we knew that we were a lock to miss 30 games and we might miss a season. Even if they compromised today on these issues, the sides would still loose 30 games fighting over the crumbs at this point. They are committed and resigned to missing 30 games. Plus, the economy gives the owners the cover to impose the changes that are needed to fix the game.

The fans are going to be pissed no matter what and the fight and changes the owners seek now are coming. Like hockey, its’ better to just rip off the band aid and finish this now. Don’t give away 25% of what you need and end up with a third work stoppage.

Like hockey, we'll all be in a better place after. The people pushing the panic button and screaming for the owners to cave are the writers that are headed for pay cuts if the season goes away. These are some of the same people that ran with the talking points and told you that a deal was very doable before we started missing game. In both instances, these writers just hoped a deal was close because they want to work. Sorry, but its bigger than that.

The NBA fan base is different than the NHL one. Hockey fans are going to come back no matter what and the owners know that. They identify a lot more with the players than NBA fans do and since the game doesn't translate well on tv, they pack the arenas knowing that their presence is key to keep the sport afloat.

The NHL has a very small corporate base so losing corporate sponsors isn't much of a threat so the owners can focus completely on the fans and since they knew they weren't going anywhere, they could afford to take the risk and lose the season. And FWIW, while the fans may have come back, the owners did wind up with a patchwork CBA that, according to Forbes, leaves the NHL with greater losses than what we see in the NBA. Hard cap? Give me a break. As we've seen this past offseason, teams sign players to 16 year deals to get around the hard cap and these are guaranteed just like the NBA. The NHL is in a bad place because their financial plight is real but it's kind of hard to completely wipe out another season after you've done it once so they've backed themselves into a corner of sorts.

Sure, there will be some fans that come back if they wipe out the entire season but you'd be amazed at how many won't. Diehards like myself will come back and despite what you may think, I have a pretty good idea of how the business of this league works. But most fans could care less about the business matters. They just want to see ball and if you take it away from them, they'll get into the college game, hockey, football or baseball. It may be important to the owners to get what they THINK will help the game but what they don't realize or shouldn't risk is that if you lose 20% of your fan base, you're losing a lot more than what you lose by paying some jakes an extra year on their contract.

Players slacking off is way overblown. For every BD, Lewis or Curry, there are many more Dirks, Kobes and Lebrons who get better and better no matter how much money they make. Bad contracts are part of the game and part of the risk that owners take. Like I said, no other sport has a limit on contract length and the NBA gets their's lower and lower for each cba. It was 7 years in '95, 7 and 6 in '98 and now went to 6 and 5 in '05. 5 & 4 isn't that bad. Or think of it this way. Are the owners really going to lose an entire season to cut it down an extra year? That would be stupid.

Let's not forget how many all stars are under their rookie contract. Despite what that idiot agent said on hoopshype, it's a good thing that they don't start talking about opting out of their rookie deal if they are an MVP candidate in year 3 like CP was. As a fan, I love the rookie salary scale but that's why I don't have a problem with SOME players who don't live up to their 2nd deal. Like I said, they are outnumbered by those who are good players and at worst, I look at it as back pay for the rookie deal. If you are an all star in year 2 of your rookie deal making less than the league mid level than being overpaid in year 7 just evens things out a bit.

As for the super tax, it's not something you want to lose a season over. If you can knock it through then great but if you don't, you need to consider the alternative. The players themselves are willing to double the tax which is better than nothing and when you get down to it, with more revenue sharing and hopefully a limit on the MLE, how many teams are ever going to get that high over the $70 million threshold even if there was hypothetically no tax at all?

Let's take the Lakers for example. With real revenue sharing plan in place, a team like Memphis would have less incentive to trade Pau Gasol for expiring contracts. Take away that trade and take away the right for lux tax payers to use the MLE and you don't have Derek Fisher or Meta World Peace on the team either. A starting lineup of Smush Parker, Kobe, Walton, Odom and Bynum is a lot less frightening than Pau, Fisher, Kobe, Artest and Bynum. Therefore, less teams will get above the tax and thus no need for a supertax.

Also, will a hard cap really keep teams profitable? The league claims that they're losing $300 million. Never mind that Forbes, Larry Coon, Time Magazine, Billy Hunter and a whole host of others have exhibited how that number is bogus. Here's something that nobody has even bothered to counter. The league says that 22 teams are losing a total of $450 million and 8 teams profit at $150 million to come out to a number of negative $300 million. If that's so, then 22 teams are losing an average of over $20 million per season but only 7 paid the luxury tax meaning that the majority of those money losing teams are closer to the salary cap level than they are the lux tax but are still losing over $20 million. Sorry but nobody buys that and even if it were true, then even a hard cap wouldn't stop these guys from losing money unless they lower it to number that's so ridiculously low that the BRI take would be lower than the NFL and a heckuva lot lower than the NHL or MLB.

You're right, fans will be pi$$ed regardless but it's going to be at a much bigger level if they miss the whole season as opposed to 10 games and that's a level that these owners shouldn't be risking. And fwiw, it's not the owners that we think should be caving on all issues. Good old fashioned horse trading is all I'm asking for. If the players cave on cba length, then owners cave on contract length. Limit the MLE and we don't impose a supertax. It's really not that tough.

 

[Rookie]

We should have a poll.

I have to disagree in your assumption that NBA fans are not as loyal and will abandoned it if the season is missed. Angry yes because we'll missed a freaking season to enjoy what we love but to give up on the game itself is just something I can't see happening. I just can't see people with 10 years of dedication would just give up on the NBA just like that.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I do think that a KEY difference is that in the NHL case fans did seem to have the players' backs, here the players are viewed as greedy. Of course I think the owners are also viewed negatively, but when it comes down to it haggling over whether or not you'll make 15 million or 12 million per year and the fact that you can stop performing and still get paid just isn't perceived very well by the general public during a depressed economy. The owners don't really seem to have the fans interest in mind either, and the arena employees are really getting hosed here. Interesting that the players haven't done more to reach out with that in mind, winning the PR war is at least half the battle.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

We should have a poll.

I have to disagree in your assumption that NBA fans are not as loyal and will abandoned it if the season is missed. Angry yes because we'll missed a freaking season to enjoy what we love but to give up on the game itself is just something I can't see happening. I just can't see people with 10 years of dedication would just give up on the NBA just like that.

I could see many people giving up on it if a whole season is missed. There's only so much of this BS you can take as a fan before it taints your view of the NBA to the point of indifference or even disdain. It's hard enough for people to relate to the players as it is but when folks see these multi-millionaires with their guaranteed contracts sniveling over how losing a percentage point or two of the profits insults their precious pride, it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. It magnifies the gulf between players and fans to such a degree that many people are liable to shy away from the NBA just out of disgust alone. There's a lot of apathy out there about the NBA already. It's not like the NFL where the prospect of a lockout is treated as if it were a matter of life and death. The NBA doesn't have that luxury and I honestly think that missing an entire season would prove disastrous for the NBA beyond what most people even think.

 

[Trueblood]

I could see many people giving up on it if a whole season is missed. There's only so much of this BS you can take as a fan before it taints your view of the NBA to the point of indifference or even disdain. It's hard enough for people to relate to the players as it is but when folks see these multi-millionaires with their guaranteed contracts sniveling over how losing a percentage point or two of the profits insults their precious pride, it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. It magnifies the gulf between players and fans to such a degree that many people are liable to shy away from the NBA just out of disgust alone. There's a lot of apathy out there about the NBA already. It's not like the NFL where the prospect of a lockout is treated as if it were a matter of life and death. The NBA doesn't have that luxury and I honestly think that missing an entire season would prove disastrous for the NBA beyond what most people even think.

Unfortunately, you may very well be correct. If something good happens next week then most people will have short memories and forget the nonsense of the last 3 months. If this lasts past Christmas or we miss an entire season then we have very real problems.

I will say that today's developments have me a bit optimistic. All this talk about how the sides are far apart sounds like rhetoric. Billy Hunter and David Stern keep telling the media that they were so close to a deal....http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215991/Hunter_Says_CBA_Deal_Was_Close
.....but then they tell a different source that there is a gulf between them. My gut tells me that they are closer than we think and that a mediator may help get things solved.

Speaking of the mediator, I like the fact that Stern is all for this. In '98, Billy Hunter mentioned on several occasions that a mediator would be a good idea but Stern always shot it down. I never understood that. It's almost like he was admitting that he was trying to shove a bad deal down the player's throats and that a mediator would expose his plan. Now that he's in favor of it, I see positive developments taking shape.

More importantly, this guy is an Obama appointee. It's no secret that NBA players of all backgrounds are Obama supporters so having one of his guys tell them what they need to hear can only be a good thing.

Lastly, Jordan needs to get his a$$ in there. I've always said that he's the closest thing to a mediator. Despite owning a small market team and thus wanting to stick it to the players more than a Buss or Reinsdorf would, he just has a certain way of brainwashing his supporters into seeing things his way. The mediator and Jordan can really ram this through. Or so I hope.

 

[Rookie]

I could see many people giving up on it if a whole season is missed. There's only so much of this BS you can take as a fan before it taints your view of the NBA to the point of indifference or even disdain. It's hard enough for people to relate to the players as it is but when folks see these multi-millionaires with their guaranteed contracts sniveling over how losing a percentage point or two of the profits insults their precious pride, it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. It magnifies the gulf between players and fans to such a degree that many people are liable to shy away from the NBA just out of disgust alone. There's a lot of apathy out there about the NBA already. It's not like the NFL where the prospect of a lockout is treated as if it were a matter of life and death. The NBA doesn't have that luxury and I honestly think that missing an entire season would prove disastrous for the NBA beyond what most people even think.

What you're talking about is fans view of players...which I agree as well. Personally I think if the season is lost and not much is being done to limit this players from their guaranteed contracts and consequence of leaving a team, then I would agree. Fans would quit on the NBA (I'll be one of them). But if the season is lost but a new and improve system that would provide a better playing field for all teams, you would leave as well? (That is what I don't see happening)

 

[pdxKingsFan]

What you're talking about is fans view of players...which I agree as well. Personally I think if the season is lost and not much is being done to limit this players from their guaranteed contracts and consequence of leaving a team, then I would agree. Fans would quit on the NBA (I'll be one of them). But if the season is lost but a new and improve system that would provide a better playing field for all teams, you would leave as well? (That is what I don't see happening)

I agree. If a lost season actually addresses the wants/needs of the fans, particularly in creating small market stability for keeping the players they draft and develop, then I do believe the damage will be short term with long term gains a distinct possibility. If the season is lost and the only effect is some shift in who gets a bigger chunk of the fans' money then things get dicey.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

What you're talking about is fans view of players...which I agree as well. Personally I think if the season is lost and not much is being done to limit this players from their guaranteed contracts and consequence of leaving a team, then I would agree. Fans would quit on the NBA (I'll be one of them). But if the season is lost but a new and improve system that would provide a better playing field for all teams, you would leave as well? (That is what I don't see happening)

If the changes implemented after a lost season included a true hard-cap, I'd be much more likely to bail as a fan. I'm not at all a fan of hard-caps or the idea of parity in sports and i don't share the opinion that they would improve the NBA. I wasn't really speaking for myself though. I'd probably come back no matter what. I think an entire season lost will cost the NBA many fans, though. Fan interest was very high coming off of last season. I don't however think that that renewed interest is going to carry enough momentum to last an entire season with no basketball.

Everything I’m saying may end up being moot though because I really don’t think the owners want to lose the season. I think there’s some bluffing going on on both sides and I’d be surprised if something isn’t done on Monday and Tuesday.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I agree. If a lost season actually addresses the wants/needs of the fans, particularly in creating small market stability for keeping the players they draft and develop, then I do believe the damage will be short term with long term gains a distinct possibility. If the season is lost and the only effect is some shift in who gets a bigger chunk of the fans' money then things get dicey.

The problem is, I think the idea that the changes on the table will create "small market stability" or help teams keep players is mostly myth. Free agents are going to be attracted to the big markets and most successful teams, no matter what. A Small market that is willing to spend is better off under a soft-cap in terms of chances of winning a championship. I often wonder if the folks who are so gung ho over a hard-cap realize that the 1999-2004 Kings never could have existed under a hard-cap system. I also wonder if they realize that implementing a hard-cap pretty much guarantees that there's no chance of keeping Evans, Cousins, Thornton, and Jimmer on the same team long term.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Well I don't believe a true hard cap is the answer, my preference is to see all the silly exceptions go away and for some kind of franchise tagging of players to be put in place. But there does need to be limits. I also think that if a player chooses to walk away from a team that desperately wants to keep them they should see a reduction in pay. I believe I have expressed my concerns that neither side really seems to give a rats a** about the fans (or the smaller employees/vendors who are going to be devastated by missed games) here. So we shall see.

 

[Trueblood]

It will help the mid and small sized markets, competition, franchise values, and slow the star players grouping in the small markets. Whether or no you think this is a good idea, it’s very important to the owners, so its happening

Just going over this thread again and wanted to make a couple points and set the record straight. Don't get me wrong. Helping small markets, getting competitive balance, franchise values and getting rid of super teams ARE all VERY important to me. Unlike a lot of player lovers out there, I am a team first, league first person and I want competitive balance more than anything. I'm merely saying that I go about it differently than you. Not saying I'm right. Maybe you are correct in your assessment but I have different views of how to get there.

Plus, the economy gives the owners the cover to impose the changes that are needed to fix the game.

This is where I disagree and where I think the league and players are completely underestimating their customer's tolerance level. The economy is exactly why a lot of fans won't come back and it's not all about not having enough money to patronize the NBA product. It's the principal of fighting over billions when we're in the midst of a recession that makes this frustrating for so many.

 

[Trueblood]

The problem is, I think the idea that the changes on the table will create "small market stability" or help teams keep players is mostly myth. Free agents are going to be attracted to the big markets and most successful teams, no matter what. A Small market that is willing to spend is better off under a soft-cap in terms of chances of winning a championship. I often wonder if the folks who are so gung ho over a hard-cap realize that the 1999-2004 Kings never could have existed under a hard-cap system. I also wonder if they realize that implementing a hard-cap pretty much guarantees that there's no chance of keeping Evans, Cousins, Thornton, and Jimmer on the same team long term.

Good post although I disagree about keeping the core intact. Jimmer and Thornton probably won't command big bucks and if the owners can get the max contracts down to 20% of the cap from 25% then I think they can keep Evans and Cousins even if they become max players. I guess it all depends on how many bad deals are still on the books from the rest of the roster by the time that happens. That being said, I don't want a hard cap either so hopefully it's a moot point.

But I agree on the rest. If anything, the summer of Lebron showed that players are willing to take a pay cut to play for a winner so a hard cap could very well derail competitive balance hopes.

OTOH, a team like the Kings would have to overpay to a certain extent to pay for a winning team even in a soft cap system but here's the difference. If we can get revenue sharing to a certain level then the Kings will have no problem paying a few bucks over the cap or threshold to keep a winning and possibly championship level team from being split up.

 

[Rookie]

The problem is, I think the idea that the changes on the table will create "small market stability" or help teams keep players is mostly myth. Free agents are going to be attracted to the big markets and most successful teams, no matter what. A Small market that is willing to spend is better off under a soft-cap in terms of chances of winning a championship. I often wonder if the folks who are so gung ho over a hard-cap realize that the 1999-2004 Kings never could have existed under a hard-cap system. I also wonder if they realize that implementing a hard-cap pretty much guarantees that there's no chance of keeping Evans, Cousins, Thornton, and Jimmer on the same team long term.

I doubt some of the 1999-2004 players would make the same amout of money they did because other team has to think aobut their cap space as well.

We may not guaranteed to keep all of them but other team are require to think just as hard to sacrifice cap space for them. Basically players don't make the call, it's the team. Plus shorter contract with another team would really require player to think before ditching. If another team willing to sacrifice their cap space such that the players willing to sacrifice a longer contract with their original team then so be it.

Wihout it, I can see us losing two if not all in Sacramento (assuming they end up being top players). Because those players would demand higher pay, and because we can't afford to go over much, Sacramento pretty much had a hard cap. While places like LA would have no problem paying the extra cost of going over (higher cap space). Especially in an econonmy like this, I don't see small market going over the cap at all.

Just my thought, I could be wrong....I just want things to be fair as they can be in an unfair world.

 

[Kingster]

I disagree on the deal being very doable without losing games. I think it was very doable, but that doesn't mean its going to happen. Aside from that, I agree with everything you said. As much as I want them to play, I'd rather bite the bullet now and get it over with. I'm sick and tired of teams not getting what they paid for, and having no recourse.

I'm 640 miles south of the border right now and the weather is beautiful. Going fishing tomorrow and hoping for no chop. Te veo mas tarde

Stop that! Next thing you're going to be telling us is the dorado and rooster fish you're hooking into. You are tuuuurrrriiiblllle!

Speaking of fishing, the players on the hook right now. They are desperately trying to get off by all the "tricks", but the barb is in deep and it's just a question of time before they are played out. Then it's eating time for the owners...