The Lockout has arrived.

[Superman]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my contempt for James stems for his refusal to consider a third option: "I want to win championships, but I'd rather win them here in Cleveland. I haven't really done all that I could to try to get another star here to play alongside me, I'll try harder to make that happen, before I consider leaving Cleveland as an option."

To hear him tell it, he did. (First thing that happened is Carlos Boozer stabbed Gordon Gund in the back, but that's neither here nor there.) He tried to get Bosh to Cleveland, and Bosh wasn't having it. The Cavs couldn't get Amare Stoudemire the year before. I can go back and make a list of the players that the Cavs did bring in over the past two or three years, when they knew LeBron was going to opt out in 2010, and you'll be unimpressed. So now, he's finally a free agent, and he can either resign to a team that hasn't done anything worth mentioning in the last three years other than put the ball in his hands, or he can go sign with a team that has the cap space to sign him and two other really good/great players.

I think, for the sake of his image and the way he'll be remembered over time, your option was the best. Obviously, right? Bill Simmons broke it down by saying we all wanted LeBron to make a run at being the GOAT, and now, no matter what happens in Miami, he'll never be the GOAT, because Jordan would have never left to go team up with Patrick Ewing and Isiah Thomas. So people are upset that we've been robbed of a legitimate shot at all-time greatness. I get that. I agree, to an extent. But still, he wanted to win, and he's getting killed because of it.

You may notice that I don't have any ill feelings towards Dywane Wade. Why not? Because he did what he was "supposed" to do: get star players to come play with him. If James had done what he was "supposed" to do (according to me, I'll unapolgetically admit), it would have happened the other way around.

Not that your opinion is without merit, but I don't see what the difference is, at the end of the day. The only reason Wade didn't leave Miami is because LeBron (and Bosh) agreed to come play there. Not because of loyalty to Miami. He was on his way to Chicago. They wanted to play together, and Miami is better than Cleveland (to them), so that's where they went. It's not really the major consideration to me.

AFAIC, asked and answered.

Fair enough.

WHAT?

LeBron and Bosh left Cleveland and Toronto. After the fact, they worked out sign and trades, which benefited Cleveland and Toronto. Those deals were not in place when they decided to leave. They could have signed outright, with less of a cap hit, less money, fewer years on the contracts, and it would have been better for Miami. Their old teams got involved only to receive draft picks in return. Otherwise, they get nothing.

Well, as the B.C. posts remain unrecoverable, I suppose that you'll have to take my word for it that I was against that trade, too.

On the basis of a sign and trade? If it was on the basis of not wanting to pay Brad Miller $70 million, that's a horse of a different color. I don't remember, but like you say, I'll have to take your word for it, if you're saying you were opposed to a sign and trade on principle.

That's fine, in the ideal, but it doesn't seem to me that it always works out in practice: Milwaukee built a literal championship team around Lew Alcindor, before he forced his way out of town, and they have since had what has essentially been forty years of irrelevancy. Was that their reward? What was Orlando's reward when O'Neal walked? What will their reward be when Howard walks?

Alcindor forced his way out of town. That's not what I'm talking about.

Shaq got Orlando to the Finals. I would argue that has something to do with Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady signing there as free agents (that and a lot of zeros). It certainly has something to do with them being able to pay those contracts.

As far as the free agency question is concerned, While I have mostly tried to keep quiet in this particular thread topic, I think that my past history will show that, if I ruled the world, I would completely eliminate free agency. To the extent that I would allow it, it would be completely restricted. I think that, if the home team is capable and willing to match any contract offer, they should always be allowed to. It's one think if Tyreke Evans leaves Sacramento to go to Philadelphia because he wants the max, and Sacramento is only offering ninety percent of the max; it's quite another if Sacramento is offering the max, and he leaves to go elsewhere for the same amount of money.

You have established the opinion that, all things being equal, in a dispute between labor and management. the benefit of the doubt should always go to labor, and it would be fair to say that I don't particularly agree with that.

And we're on different sides of the table there. I don't like the idea of taking free agency away, or severely restricting it.

My bad; didn't know we weren't allowed to be partisan...

Someone else started the partisan issue. I said I wouldn't call it partisan.

 

[Vlade4GM]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33367/truehoop-live

Interesting panel discussion about all the lockout stuff if you guys got the time. CBA guru Larry Coon is on the panel.

 

[Telemachus]

That's fine if it worked for the NFL, but this isn't the NFL. The way the regular season and playoffs are played in the NFL, there is an inherent attraction in that, and a natural environment for parity.

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of cr*p IMO. Everything that you are saying about how "parity" wouldn't work in the NBA was also said about the NFL when they changed it. So far, the NFL has proven everyone to be wrong. I don't see any reason for the same idea to work for the NBA. If anything, the example of the NFL should help to prove that it would work just fine.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of cr*p IMO. Everything that you are saying about how "parity" wouldn't work in the NBA was also said about the NFL when they changed it. So far, the NFL has proven everyone to be wrong. I don't see any reason for the same idea to work for the NBA. If anything, the example of the NFL should help to prove that it would work just fine.

So?

 

[bajaden]

There's still a chance for a season. It might be a slim one, but three league sources have said that there has been contact between the two sides through back channels. They said the league would like to have the season start before christmas day, and that there won't be a repeat of the 50 game season after the last lockout. If its going to happen, it has to happen fast. Stern said that the season could start 30 days from the day of agreement. Do the math! December 25th isn't that far off. While its a single ray of sunshine, I'm not getting out the tanning lotion. Here's part of a paragraph from an article I read. I found it interesting.

"one thing both sides agreed on when the bargaining talks reached their conclusion on Nov. 10 was that the existing format and dynamic were not working. Stern and the union's lead negotiator, attorney Jeffrey Kessler, had developed an unhealthy and destructive disdain for one another and their vitriolic relationship was standing in the way of reaching an agreement, two people involved in the negotiations told CBSSports.com".

 

[Trueblood]

"one thing both sides agreed on when the bargaining talks reached their conclusion on Nov. 10 was that the existing format and dynamic were not working. Stern and the union's lead negotiator, attorney Jeffrey Kessler, had developed an unhealthy and destructive disdain for one another and their vitriolic relationship was standing in the way of reaching an agreement, two people involved in the negotiations told CBSSports.com".

Stern has hated Kessler and vice versa since the mini lockout of '95. Those 2 guys in the room together hasn't worked in 16 years so I'm surprised media sources are just now picking up on that.

From everything we hear, Adam Silver is being groomed as the new commish. I wonder if it would help things if the league removes Stern on the condition that Kessler go away as well.

 

[Vlade4GM]

There's still a chance for a season. It might be a slim one, but three league sources have said that there has been contact between the two sides through back channels. They said the league would like to have the season start before christmas day, and that there won't be a repeat of the 50 game season after the last lockout. If its going to happen, it has to happen fast. Stern said that the season could start 30 days from the day of agreement. Do the math! December 25th isn't that far off. While its a single ray of sunshine, I'm not getting out the tanning lotion. Here's part of a paragraph from an article I read. I found it interesting.

"one thing both sides agreed on when the bargaining talks reached their conclusion on Nov. 10 was that the existing format and dynamic were not working. Stern and the union's lead negotiator, attorney Jeffrey Kessler, had developed an unhealthy and destructive disdain for one another and their vitriolic relationship was standing in the way of reaching an agreement, two people involved in the negotiations told CBSSports.com".

I don't believe anything hopeful anymore, and I definitely don't believe any more threats from the league.

 

[Vlade4GM]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

Really good (but long) article by Bill Simmons

 

[Trueblood]

I don't believe anything hopeful anymore, and I definitely don't believe any more threats from the league.

I would love to believe the hopeful articles on realgm.com and hoopshype.com but the problem is that I don't trust the "sources". For example, one "source" says that there is negotiating along back channels and that the league wants games on Christmas but another source says that they don't want to negotiate until after December 1st when the players miss their 2nd paycheck. One of them is wrong. Even if the league came to an agreement on December 2nd, there's no way you could have games on Christmas.

That being said, nothing would surprise me. Whenever we had those positive swings and the media was reporting that we'd have a deal by the "end of the week" and what not, I always had a feeling deep in my gut that nothing good was going to happen and sure enough, we're here at this point. Now that we're assuming the worst, my gut is telling me that things may actually work out. But don't trust me, I've been wrong before.

The best case scenario for us fans is that the rank & file start putting serious pressure on the union leadership for a vote. Even if they don't vote in favor of it, I'd then like to see Hunter send an amended version of the deal back to the owners like he said he would last week. From what we saw last week, 20 owners were going to vote favorably for the deal and 10 wouldn't. An amended deal may get that to a 15/15 split. Stern begs some on the fence owners to consider what would happen if there was a lost season. The money gained by a more favorable cba would be wiped out by all the fan apathy of a missed season. The vote goes in the fans favor and we have ball starting on the Friday before Christmas.

 

[bajaden]

I don't believe anything hopeful anymore, and I definitely don't believe any more threats from the league.

To clarify, there have been threats by both sides. The league has threatened deadlines, and the union has threatened decertication and anti-trust suits. There are no angels here. And, I expected nothing less. Thats how these things typically go. Which is why I don't take sides. I refuse to let myself get emotionally involved with one side or the other. My emotions revolve only around failure or success. If I had the ability to sit in on the negotiations, then I might be able to take a side. But without really knowing what transpires in that room, and no one does except the parties involved, its impossible to seperate the good guys from the bad guys. At least if your an impartial observer.

Therefore, I went a long way to say that your right. Its hard to know exactly where the line in the sand is, by either side. I quoted some league sources. However there are other so called league sources that contradict the sources I'm quoting. So who knows. Deals in this kind of situation usually come out of the blue when least expected.

 

[bajaden]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

Really good (but long) article by Bill Simmons

I enjoyed the article once I got past the racism part. Wasn't necessary and should have been left out. Other than that, it was a good article with some excellent points.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Yeah, I didn't like the racism part either, he was reaching. He should know better than to put any legitimacy into anything Jesse Jackson says.

 

[Vlade4GM]

To clarify, there have been threats by both sides. The league has threatened deadlines, and the union has threatened decertication and anti-trust suits. There are no angels here. And, I expected nothing less. Thats how these things typically go. Which is why I don't take sides. I refuse to let myself get emotionally involved with one side or the other. My emotions revolve only around failure or success. If I had the ability to sit in on the negotiations, then I might be able to take a side. But without really knowing what transpires in that room, and no one does except the parties involved, its impossible to seperate the good guys from the bad guys. At least if your an impartial observer.

Therefore, I went a long way to say that your right. Its hard to know exactly where the line in the sand is, by either side. I quoted some league sources. However there are other so called league sources that contradict the sources I'm quoting. So who knows. Deals in this kind of situation usually come out of the blue when least expected.

Regardless of what the players have threatened, I'm just a little tired of the empty threats by the league, they only serve to further pee the players off.

 

[Warhawk]

Regardless of what the players have threatened, I'm just a little tired of the empty threats by the league, they only serve to further pee the players off.

That's a little......one-sided. Threats on one side is OK, but on the other not so much? Making owners mad is OK, but heaven forbid the players get upset?

 

[Vlade4GM]

That's a little......one-sided. Threats on one side is OK, but on the other not so much? Making owners mad is OK, but heaven forbid the players get upset?

I didn't say anything was okay or not okay on the players side, I'm just saying I'm getting annoyed by the obvious empty threats that the league continues to make. It doesn't scare the players, it just pisses them off.

 

[Warhawk]

I didn't say anything was okay or not okay on the players side, I'm just saying I'm getting annoyed by the obvious empty threats that the league continues to make. It doesn't scare the players, it just pisses them off.

Frankly, I don't care who gets pissed off. I just want to see the Kings playing again. And that isn't happening until the owners have a deal where they aren't losing money.

I think the players are going to be a bit upset they didn't take the deal on the table when all is said and done. The deals aren't going to get better the longer they wait. Not in this economy.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Frankly, I don't care who gets pissed off. I just want to see the Kings playing again. And that isn't happening until the owners have a deal where they aren't losing money.

I think the players are going to be a bit upset they didn't take the deal on the table when all is said and done. The deals aren't going to get better the longer they wait. Not in this economy.

Read the Bill Simmons article I linked to, it'll explain why the players getting pissed off about how they're treated has affected the negotiations.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Read the Bill Simmons article I linked to, it'll explain why the players getting pissed off about how they're treated has affected the negotiations.

So, that sounds like they're basically throwing the season because their pride got insulted.

 

[bajaden]

I'm sure most of you are familar with the game risk. I used to play all the time. Usually with the same players. There was nothing more that I hated than bringing in a new player that had never played the game. I would be sitting in my usual spot, australia, with a huge army, and this new player would suddenly launch an all out attack on me, instead of a weaker opponet. I'd ask him what the hell he was thinking? He wasn't going to take me out, and he was going to weaken himself, and me to the point we'd both be easy pickings for the next strongest player.

He'd usually have some ridiculous response about not caring as long as he helped take out the strongest player. Basicly he was commiting sucide for what he percieved to be a greater cause. To me, he was just being stupid at my expense. As the NBA players appear to be at the moment. Their commiting financial sucide, for what they percieve to be a greater cause. I hope its worth it to them. There will only be one real winner here. The agents!

 

[Warhawk]

Read the Bill Simmons article I linked to, it'll explain why the players getting pissed off about how they're treated has affected the negotiations.

I did.

And frankly, so what? They had it GOOD in the last CBA, and the owners lost money.

When players and/or their representatives see themselves as "slaves" or "on the plantation" when they are the highest paid professional players in the world, maybe it is them who has the issue? I don't see any race "issues" in the league - they highest paid and most lauded players in the league are minority. Nobody is begrudging them their paychecks! All the owners want to do is be able to have a more fair system in place to be able to compete evenly on keeping good players on EVERY team and not lose money in the process. What's wrong with that?

Instead of being reasonable and helping to ensure the longevity and health of the NBA, the player representatives intentionally sink an entire season instead of negotiating (and are not sharing information with the players!). Maybe you should re-read the article? 5 of the 6 groups he discusses as having problems are not the owners. Those 5 relate directly to the players.

Are the owners perfect? Heck no. But they take all the risks and are the ones losing money. I can't think of one player that actually ever lost money by playing in the NBA - they have the highest payroll of any sport and their contracts are guaranteed. What do they have to complain about???

Without the owners and their facilities, there is no league. Players, in general, can be replaced. It may take time, but it would be infinitely more feasible than the current players finding new owners and building new facilities to play in.

What good are their services if the owners go bankrupt trying to pay them? It's like GM and Chrysler - sure is nice that their unions drove them into bankruptcy, right? As long as "they get theirs" they don't actually care about the company at all.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I did.

And frankly, so what? They had it GOOD in the last CBA, and the owners lost money.

When players and/or their representatives see themselves as "slaves" or "on the plantation" when they are the highest paid professional players in the world, maybe it is them who has the issue? I don't see any race "issues" in the league - they highest paid and most lauded players in the league are minority. Nobody is begrudging them their paychecks! All the owners want to do is be able to have a more fair system in place to be able to compete evenly on keeping good players on EVERY team and not lose money in the process. What's wrong with that?

Instead of being reasonable and helping to ensure the longevity and health of the NBA, the player representatives intentionally sink an entire season instead of negotiating (and are not sharing information with the players!). Maybe you should re-read the article? 5 of the 6 groups he discusses as having problems are not the owners. Those 5 relate directly to the players.

Are the owners perfect? Heck no. But they take all the risks and are the ones losing money. I can't think of one player that actually ever lost money by playing in the NBA - they have the highest payroll of any sport and their contracts are guaranteed. What do they have to complain about???

Without the owners and their facilities, there is no league. Players, in general, can be replaced. It may take time, but it would be infinitely more feasible than the current players finding new owners and building new facilities to play in.

What good are their services if the owners go bankrupt trying to pay them? It's like GM and Chrysler - sure is nice that their unions drove them into bankruptcy, right? As long as "they get theirs" they don't actually care about the company at all.

I don't usually bother posting just to confirm what someone else said but I'll make an exception here. You pretty much nailed it!

 

[bajaden]

Warhawk is on the warpath!! Its a beautiful thing. By the way, the racism that was brought up by Simmons reminded me of a story in Mulege. I call this ignorant racism. We have a close mexican friend named Josefina who used to help sell realestate in the mulege area. One day she spent almost the entire day showing this couple from the US different properties. At the end of the day, the woman turned to her and said, "We love some of the properties but we've decided not to buy. You know this would be a beautiful place if it weren't for all the mexicans". To which Josefina replied, "You do know your in mexico, don't you?"

There are some people that live in another world. I don't think they're mean spirited. I just think they're ignorant. I admit that I'm cutting them some slack here.

 

[Trueblood]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal

Really good (but long) article by Bill Simmons

Good article but Simmons over analyzed this thing. It really doesn't have to come to this. The league came off it's best season ever and the sides have made progress to the point that a deal that the owners will accept is within 3 tweaks of being ratified by the players. To miss a season over something like that is pride and ego at it's best.

The players need to say why the deal isn't good. Instead of just going with the usual "it limits movement", they need to come up with something better than that. Losing a season because your free agent options are limited isn't going to cut it. The league has thrown in mechanisms that will enable the players to be paid in full only they MAY have to go to a less than desired market. That's how things go. There are 30 teams and almost 450 players. Not everyone will get to be in the market of his choice.

Someone on another board brought up a great point that contradicts what the players are saying. Competitive balance and parity are actually good things for players who actually want to win. By limiting things to big and glamorous markets, the players are actually screwing themselves out of a better shot at winning. Only so many players will be able to go to the major markets. The rest will be "stuck" on smaller market teams. Shouldn't the union want ALL of it's members to have a good shot at winning? If so, then the deal on the table or even one that is more restrictive will be good for all and nobody would have to worry about going to a big market because everyone would be on equal footing.

You never hear NFL players talking about going to a large market. Eli Manning did it but in general, it isn't a big deal because of the parity level in the NFL. Players have just as good a shot at winning in Green Bay as they do in New York. If you do that in the NBA, players will be less desperate to flee to the large market which SHOULD be a good thing if they really think for themselves and not be led on by their agents.

 

[mac]

I did.

And frankly, so what? They had it GOOD in the last CBA, and the owners lost money.

When players and/or their representatives see themselves as "slaves" or "on the plantation" when they are the highest paid professional players in the world, maybe it is them who has the issue? I don't see any race "issues" in the league - they highest paid and most lauded players in the league are minority. Nobody is begrudging them their paychecks! All the owners want to do is be able to have a more fair system in place to be able to compete evenly on keeping good players on EVERY team and not lose money in the process. What's wrong with that?

Instead of being reasonable and helping to ensure the longevity and health of the NBA, the player representatives intentionally sink an entire season instead of negotiating (and are not sharing information with the players!). Maybe you should re-read the article? 5 of the 6 groups he discusses as having problems are not the owners. Those 5 relate directly to the players.

Are the owners perfect? Heck no. But they take all the risks and are the ones losing money. I can't think of one player that actually ever lost money by playing in the NBA - they have the highest payroll of any sport and their contracts are guaranteed. What do they have to complain about???

Without the owners and their facilities, there is no league. Players, in general, can be replaced. It may take time, but it would be infinitely more feasible than the current players finding new owners and building new facilities to play in.

What good are their services if the owners go bankrupt trying to pay them? It's like GM and Chrysler - sure is nice that their unions drove them into bankruptcy, right? As long as "they get theirs" they don't actually care about the company at all.

I like

 

[bajaden]

I like

Brevity is the soul of wit!

 

[Superman]

I did.

And frankly, so what? They had it GOOD in the last CBA, and the owners lost money.

When players and/or their representatives see themselves as "slaves" or "on the plantation" when they are the highest paid professional players in the world, maybe it is them who has the issue? I don't see any race "issues" in the league - they highest paid and most lauded players in the league are minority. Nobody is begrudging them their paychecks! All the owners want to do is be able to have a more fair system in place to be able to compete evenly on keeping good players on EVERY team and not lose money in the process. What's wrong with that?

Instead of being reasonable and helping to ensure the longevity and health of the NBA, the player representatives intentionally sink an entire season instead of negotiating (and are not sharing information with the players!). Maybe you should re-read the article? 5 of the 6 groups he discusses as having problems are not the owners. Those 5 relate directly to the players.

Are the owners perfect? Heck no. But they take all the risks and are the ones losing money. I can't think of one player that actually ever lost money by playing in the NBA - they have the highest payroll of any sport and their contracts are guaranteed. What do they have to complain about???

Without the owners and their facilities, there is no league. Players, in general, can be replaced. It may take time, but it would be infinitely more feasible than the current players finding new owners and building new facilities to play in.

What good are their services if the owners go bankrupt trying to pay them? It's like GM and Chrysler - sure is nice that their unions drove them into bankruptcy, right? As long as "they get theirs" they don't actually care about the company at all.

I think that blaming the auto manufacturers bankruptcy solely on the unions is a bit simplistic. There were several factors that sunk GM and Chrysler, not the least of which was the union issues. Still, the differences between those labor unions and the NBA players are just as varied as the reasons the auto companies were doing so poorly. Not the least of those is the fact that NBA players are much more difficult to replace than auto workers, no disrespect to auto workers. Also worthy of consideration is the fact that GM and Chrysler suffered for years from declining revenues, while the NBA is increasing revenue every year (revenue is separate from profit, to be sure). I say all this to point out that I don't think what happened to the auto manufacturers and their bankruptcy is relevant to a discussion about a professional sports league that's making more money than ever before.

I also don't think it's relevant that no NBA player is losing money. They are the most important part of the product. AEG built the Sprint Center in Kansas City, and without an NBA team, it's not performing the way they want it to. The infrastructure is important, as without it, the league doesn't perform. But without the players, the infrastructure is just bricks and mortar. They need each other, absolutely. But the infrastructure isn't the product; the infrastructure supports the product, which is primarily the players.

Those players feel entitled to a portion of the revenues the league generates, and they feel entitled to share in the growth of the league. There can be many arguments made for and against that stance, but the owners conceded those two points decades ago. That's status quo, and I don't see it changing. Changes in BRI splits are necessary and appropriate as you analyze your business periodically. The owners have said "we're giving you too much of BRI for the league to remain viable long-term," and the players have not been wholly resistant to changes in BRI splits. Still it doesn't really matter that they had it good in the previous deal. That doesn't mean they should be willing to take a "bad" deal this time. Not that what they've been offered is necessarily bad; just that they shouldn't be looked at as being unreasonable because they want a "fair" deal.

A lot of the things I post might make it seem like I'm on the players' side, and I don't believe that I am. Still, I don't think it's fair to say "the owners are the ones making it possible for the players to make millions of dollars to play a game, so the players ought to just cash their checks and be happy, because they have nothing to complain about." If you're going to argue for collective bargaining, then you have to recognize that the players have a position from which to bargain.

What I think the players are ignoring is that all the owners are not bargaining from the same position. Some of them have been more than willing to sacrifice a season in the interests of breaking the union. It may have been their intent from the beginning. So the players really don't have much leverage, especially not when it comes to walking away from the bargaining table. They've really made this worse from the very beginning.

 

[Rookie]

While auto workers may not have the talent they have experienced. Which is not as easy to replace as you may think. I do understand and agreed that it was more than the union that sunk GM..

From a disgruntled fan :
Fans make the NBA millions not the players! IMO owners understand that...NBA players don't.

I want a solid fairness for my team to compete in regard to building their team with just as many skillful players as the rest. And because they already in my eyes "end" the season I would walk away if there's not an improvement to the system. I don't care if the players win and get 52% or 50%. I don't care if the LBJ of the NBA come back. Maybe there is only a 2-3% of people like me out there but damn, that would be 2-3% of the total revenue...better recognize or you'll be like Netflix and BOA. (of course diff. scenario but the effect is the same)

 

[bajaden]

While auto workers may not have the talent they have experienced. Which is not as easy to replace as you may think. I do understand and agreed that it was more than the union that sunk GM..

From a disgruntled fan :
Fans make the NBA millions not the players! IMO owners understand that...NBA players don't.

I want a solid fairness for my team to compete in regard to building their team with just as many skillful players as the rest. And because they already in my eyes "end" the season I would walk away if there's not an improvement to the system. I don't care if the players win and get 52% or 50%. I don't care if the LBJ of the NBA come back. Maybe there is only a 2-3% of people like me out there but damn, that would be 2-3% of the total revenue...better recognize or you'll be like Netflix and BOA. (of course diff. scenario but the effect is the same)

Just for the record, the reason GM would have gone bankrupt, is that it, like all other american car manufacturers are having to compete with foreign manufacturers. The price of building a car in the US is higher than building a car in Korea or China, etc. The reason the price is more, is that GM workers are paid more, and also promised higher benefits on retirement. When your cost exceeds your income, your in trouble.

But none of this has anything to do with the NBA. There's no similar product being sold anywhere else thats better than the NBA. However, there are alternative products being sold. And thats what the NBA has to fear. People are creatures of habit. Once you have them hooked, you better keep them hooked, or they might take their addiction somewhere else. There are a lot of, for lack of a better term, bandwagon fans out there. Those fans are fickle, and easily lost. Last time I checked they paid the same money, and used the same bathrooms as the rest of us. If this dispute isn't settled soon, its going to get uglier, and people don't like ugly.

 

[Warhawk]

NEW YORK -- NBA players have withdrawn one of their lawsuits against the league but could resubmit it.

A filing made Monday in the Northern District of California asked that the suit be "discontinued, without prejudice."

Locked-out players filed class-action antitrust lawsuits against the league last Tuesday in California and Minnesota. Plaintiffs in the California suit included Carmelo Anthony and Kevin Durant.

The players' representatives planned a news conference later Monday.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7...ne-their-antitrust-lawsuits-league-california

Also:

LarryCoon Larry Coon
RT @KBergCBS: David Boies says players filing consolidated complaint, combining the cases in Calif. and Minnesota

 

[Vlade4GM]

While auto workers may not have the talent they have experienced. Which is not as easy to replace as you may think. I do understand and agreed that it was more than the union that sunk GM..

From a disgruntled fan :
Fans make the NBA millions not the players! IMO owners understand that...NBA players don't.

I want a solid fairness for my team to compete in regard to building their team with just as many skillful players as the rest. And because they already in my eyes "end" the season I would walk away if there's not an improvement to the system. I don't care if the players win and get 52% or 50%. I don't care if the LBJ of the NBA come back. Maybe there is only a 2-3% of people like me out there but damn, that would be 2-3% of the total revenue...better recognize or you'll be like Netflix and BOA. (of course diff. scenario but the effect is the same)

No one makes anyone anything, it's all an exchange. Fans are not donating money to the NBA, they're paying for entertainment and merchandise, and that's what they get.