There MAY be a lockout

[CaminoChaos]

i really think that most players want to play. i bet the agents might even have a bigger part in it.

 

[Warhawk]

he has 20 days to make all the phone calls he can, put deals in place and then 2 to make them happen if this travesty does occur. He can do it, they did it in Philly.

Petrie may actually be at an advantage if teams have a very short time to deal - they may jump at anything quickly in an effort to improve. I do not see Petrie doing that (he's just too smart).

For many teams, what he has to offer may be appealing:

KT - almost a double-double guy in limited minutes on a 50-win team he never got time to practice with
BS - athletic defensive presence until he jammed his thumbs
Nasty - bruiser guy with a ring and good defender
Bobby - 6th man winner (when he's not injured by freak accidents)

Obviously, the negatives are there too, but I think Petrie has pieces that might be appealing to some teams, especially the way some GMs grasp at straws to make their teams better. His ability to move Webber leaves me optimistic about this offseason. And we haven't even talked about what happens if one or more of our "core" players becomes "available"....

 

[Rowdyone]

I suspect we'll be hearing a lot of this "sky is falling" posturing by both sides right up to the deadline. And then, I'd like to think that both sides will realize they have more to lose than gain by not working something out because, from my perspective, that's what killed my interest in baseball when they had their issues a while back...I haven't been back to a ballpark since.

 

[Folsom Al]

A Little Bit Off the Topic, but ...

I suspect we'll be hearing a lot of this "sky is falling" posturing by both sides right up to the deadline. And then, I'd like to think that both sides will realize they have more to lose than gain by not working something out because, from my perspective, that's what killed my interest in baseball when they had their issues a while back...I haven't been back to a ballpark since.

You've hit a sensitive spot with me & baseball ...

Rowdyone ... you got kids ???

I too, didn't like it when there was a strike in baseball years ago. I had A's season tickets for years .... strike .... haven't renewed since. Years after the strike, my little boy who was probably about 6-7 years old, asked if we could go to a baseball game. Well, he was far too young to understand why I didn't want to or wouldn't go ... but, he really wanted to go .... so, I found myself in a peculiar situation .... in a way, I was passing on my DISLIKES down to him without allowing him the "freedom of choice".

Anyway, make a long story short .... I took him, and we've been to a few games since. When he got older I explained to him what happened back in 94/95 ...

It was more an issue for me than it was for him. He was just curious what goes on at an A's game.

Of course he loved it, I'm glad I took him .... life goes on.

 

[Rowdyone]

Good points, Al. I can understand your dilema. My kids were grown by then and more players than watchers. But I freely admit that I still follow the A's (admittedly, from a distance since the strike and then the Giambi defection as Oakland sand deeper a deeper into small market oblivion) and all of baseball...hard to be critical of something you don't know all of the latest about. I guess I'm just a purest...endless expansion of franchises, talent dilution, prima donna players and agents, unruly fans (I was and A'a fan because I could take my kids there without having to explain filthy language and pot smoking in SF). Sure hate to see the Kings degenerate into second class talent again, that's why this off season is so critical and a lockout disastrous.

 

[VF21]

I took the liberty of changing the thread title to "There MAY be a lockout"... That way, if and when the official announcement comes, this thread won't be confused with one that actually tells the news instead of Napear's opinion.

 

[SacTownKid]

I took the liberty of changing the thread title to "There MAY be a lockout"... That way, if and when the official announcement comes, this thread won't be confused with one that actually tells the news instead of Napear's opinion.

Good idea!

 

[CruzDude]

What is sad about the lock out is that it is only about players (rather the union and the agents) wanting more money. The losers in this crybaby approach to money first last and always are the rookies, young free agents, draft choices, the FANS, arena employees.

But the player agents and the union sure don't care now nor have they ever about us and the young players.

My number one irk is guaranteed contracts. There is no such thing in industry or any other pro sport (is there?). For us workers if we don't perform we get fired or laid off. But a player doesn't have to perform. His contract, as all NBA contracts are guarenteed. So if he doesn't perform, too bad for everyone else but him.

The summer leagues are all about performance. You do well there and you get up the ladder to an NBA team. Bleeeccckkkkk.........

 

[Bricklayer]

Guaranteed contracts don't bother me in the least -- indeed I think they are a key part of the league's stability compared to other pro sports where I detest the rampant player movement forcing fans to at best develop a vague loyalty to a unirorm rather than players.

And while I am normally a big management guy in all these stupid player money grabs, this time its not so clear -- it is the league asking for major concessiosn this time and apparently willing to put the season at risk because of it. I was all on management's side when that happened in the NHL -- the league was dying financially and the players were greedily gobbling league revenues right into bankruptcy. But this is a little different. Sure it would be NICE to have contracts dropped from 7 years to 5, but the league isn't in danger of collapse if it doesn't happen. Its one of those things that should be compromised on, not the subject of a lockout. Similarly it would be nice to get the kids out of the league with a 20yr old limit, but shut down the league over it? Compromise -- go for 6 years, go for 19. Whatever. Playing brinksmanship over THESE isssues is just stupid.

 

[quick dog]

I think the NBA contract-duration issue may involve a subtle means to make it more difficult for wealthy teams to pay whatever it takes to get rare franchise players. Small-market teams simply can't afford those risky Sampson-Webber type contracts. The proposed contract-duration limit is similar to limiting bets in a high-stakes poker game.

The last vestige of player-team loyalty ended when Karl Malone moved to Los Angeles. Contract duration will make no discernable difference. Look at our team!

 

[BLNINJA #81]

How ironic would it be.. The Kings Era, began and ended with a lockout.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

If there's a lockout, there's no personnel transactions as PixelP mentioned, AND there's no practice, etc.

The Kings would be much more likely to end up playing abysmal ball if they haven't had the chance to reform themselves into something resembling a cohesive unit.

You do NOT want a lockout. It doesn't help ANYONE.

As far as Grant's comments go, it's June 10. There's a lot that can take place between now and midnight, June 30. The teams don't want a lockout, the players don't want a lockout and David Stern most definitely doesn't want a lockout... especially after watching what's happened with the NHL.

You are so right VF, unlike before when there was a lockout, when the Kings had all new pieces and no idea of their identity yet, we have a nucleus but no supporting cast, and with so many departing peices, and to get the motor running on the fly, a shortened season probably would only be a detriment for the team, but who knows. I see a shortened season only helping out teams who are pretty much fully in task, the Spurs, Pistons, Suns, and hey, even the Warriors are going to be tough next year, especially in an all out sprint of a lockout shortened season.