NBA Players Reject Latest, Disbanding Union

[bluedogok]

Now some of the players, Kevin Martin of the Rockets for one, is saying that they wanted the right to vote, and not let the player rep vote for the entire team. In other reports, a lot of the rank and file would have taken the deal.

From some of the reports that I have read it is a group of the "top money guys" that are the ones that pushed Hunter and Fisher to decline sending it to a vote. They want to make sure they can have their max money guaranteed contracts in the future at the expense of the majority of the players.

[Just the facts]

So, are they going to have a "replacements" call for talent? I'll take a salary of 10% of the average. I can go for maybe 10-15 minutes a half, huffing and puffing down the court. Who's with me?!

I'm in. Below is my demo tape. I played under the name Jackie Moon.

[dankrutka]

So what's the deal - some of you hear the word "union" so you immediately take that side? Selling the team for a profit is a far cry from turning an operating profit.

Here are some articles from economist Malcolm Gladwell to help educate you on why the owners are full of it:

This article uses the New Jersey Nets as an example as to why the owners claims are bogus:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-nba-economics

This article discusses how owning a profesional team has never been a business adventure as much as a luxury for the uber-rich:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ts-nba-lockout

[dankrutka]

From some of the reports that I have read it is a group of the "top money guys" that are the ones that pushed Hunter and Fisher to decline sending it to a vote. They want to make sure they can have their max money guaranteed contracts in the future at the expense of the majority of the players.

It wouldn't be surprising if they were the ones that held up on sending a vote to the players... which was crap.

[RadicalModerate]

So how does all this affect the balance sheet of the local guy who allegedly stole the team from Seattle?

(Not to mention restoring the balance to our daily lives in terms of the cost of necessities that the aforementioned provider provides?)

Just a guess: I bet we pay more.
(Even if we don't have any interest whatsoever in "basketball")
Other than betting on it.

[RadicalModerate]

Please by advised that this is only a "horsing around" version of what goes on everyday in locker rooms across the nation.
Only the issue has been changed to protect the less guilty.
(The language is . . . what it is. Get over it.
And apply the concept to the current Basketball Crisis with simple substitution.)

[dankrutka]

So how does all this affect the balance sheet of the local guy who allegedly stole the team from Seattle?

I don't get why you often address more than one topic within the same sentence... In this sentences you address (1) the affect of the lockout on local businesses and then (2) address 5 year old issues about the relocation of the Thunder. It makes your sentences a little convoluted and difficult to follow. I like your posts, but don't know where you're going sometimes. Just a little constructive criticism, but maybe that's what you're going for...

[Bellaboo]

'Stole the Team ?'

Last I read they paid $350,000,000.00 for it.

If you buy something, how is that stealing ???

[RadicalModerate]

It's NOT "stealing" (except in the eyes of some people in Seattle), hence the allegedly. I just don't know the emoticon for sarcasm.

KT: Actually, I was only addressing the effect of the lockout on one particular individual (and his business partners)--not local businesses in general--rather than the effect on the players.

Alternate phrasing: Rather than addressing the effect on the players, I was focusing on the effect of the lockout on one particular individual and his business partners.

I think the second one is probably more convoluted than the first one because it required the use of a comma. Not counting the dashes and parenthetical remark in the first one. =)

Sometimes I have to rework a sentence two or three times to get the right balance of obscurity and meaning. But thanks for the tip.

[Richard at Remax]

When it comes down to it, they are the Owners and the players are the employees. The owners realized they messed up with the last CBA by giving the players a SWEETHEART deal. They have every right to right the ship. Could they have negotiated better, absolutely, but there comes a time where you just get tired and say this is our best offer. And almost half of the owners hated the leagues offer which says something. Also, at 50% of the current BRI, which is around 4.1 billion, that is the best (RI) deal in all of the major sports. NHL players get ~54% but thier total HRI is in the lower 2 billion.

It is just a shame the union heads didn't let the whole league have a vote because it probably wouldn't have passed. After the top 30 or so players, there is a severe drop off in salary and missing those game checks will hurt the majority of the players. Especially the rookies who are basically unemployed.

The players should have taken this deal. It would have lasted for 10 years with an opt out after year six, in which they could have negotiated again. Also, with the BRI steadily going up over the past decade, you would think it will again. So that 50% might not be a bad chunk of change when the BRI hits 6 billion. The NBA was started to get hot again over the past and the casual fans were starting to jump on board. I think they just didn some serious damage that will take years to get back in a positive light.

Lastly, when a bum like Robert Swift earns just over $7,600 for every minute he was on the court (~$11.6 million for 1500 minutes played) or when Eddy Curry makes $10 million last year and only sees garbage time in seven games, you know something had to change.

[Bellaboo]

How else do you expect those poor lawyers to make any dough ? Gotta keep this thing going now.

So frustrating.