Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Apollo
    replied
    I'm assuming it's player salaries x 3. I don't believe they're going to win for two reasons. First I think they're genuinely wrong. Second, we're talking about America here. It's one of the most corrupt places in the world right now. Who has more sway with politicians and the courts? Justice isn't a right there anymore, it's a privilege.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hugmenot
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The only thing to keep in mind is IF the players are successful, they will be able to claim triple the damages for this lost season.

    If they are not successful though, they are screwed.
    How much the players will collect if the courts award them treble damages is still open to question. If a franchise who is already losing money has to pay $200 million in damages, it may decide to file for bankrupcy as it is unlikely to be solvent or in a position to be able to recoup these losses within a few years.

    Every surviving franchise will have an extra $10+ million in debt servicing every year and will have to cut expenses, including player salaries.

    Some players will come out ahead, others will be big losers in terms of career earnings as they may destroy their source of employment.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    By many of the players signing elsewhere to play basketball I believe they are hurting their chances in the antitrust claim. The owners are not limiting the players opportunities to play basketball, they are limiting the players opportunities to play basketball in the NBA due to the lockout. Again, this comes down to choices which it seems many of the issues of the CBA tend to revolve around.

    Aaron Brooks is the latest to sign in China.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    I wasn't really thinking about the court date until just now. You know what? The Players really screwed up here. They waited way too long to play this card because if this thing isn't settled out of court then the season is lost. So pretty much the season is bleepin' lost. Man, that grinds my gears. There should have been a clear deadline for this and it should have been no latter than this time last month. As soon as they hit the deadline they should have acted on this stuff then. Ah well, at least I still have football.
    The only thing to keep in mind is IF the players are successful, they will be able to claim triple the damages for this lost season.

    If they are not successful though, they are screwed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    I wasn't really thinking about the court date until just now. You know what? The Players really screwed up here. They waited way too long to play this card because if this thing isn't settled out of court then the season is lost. So pretty much the season is bleepin' lost. Man, that grinds my gears. There should have been a clear deadline for this and it should have been no latter than this time last month. As soon as they hit the deadline they should have acted on this stuff then. Ah well, at least I still have football.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    It's very easy to say that from the outside looking in but you aren't sacrificing anything. The long term implication was a giveback of about $3 billion over the life of the CBA. Plus, since you know that when the next CBA comes around the owners will claim they are all going broke and the system doesn't work, you are going to be giving up even more. The new system would also effectively wipe out the middle class and place massive restrictions on player movement (ed. note: I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic argument on incentives vs. restrictions). Also, Ric Bucher has noted that there were somewhere around 30 issues that were unresolved in the latest offer. Obviously, the players would have lost on all of those once they signed on to the main points.

    Look, the players' tactics were awful and the PA (Hunter et al.) should be crucified for the crappy job they have done over the last 2 years. Absolutely criticize them for that. But the players have granted massive concessions to the owners and have all but got down on their hands and knees begging for the owners to throw them a bone. They haven't. The owners are prepared to lose the season to get what they want. Is the PA at fault? Absolutely, but letting the owners off the hook in all this is senseless. The owners wanted this. They got it. It's only fair they own it as well.

    Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..

    You clearly have not been reading my posts or have any idea of my views of this situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..
    First off, neither Matt or myself said the Owners should get anything. We've clearly been saying that we feel that it's in the best interest to the fan that the Owners win the negotiations. If you got the facts straight we probably wouldn't have been subjected to the rest of that statement, which doesn't make sense based on what we've actually been saying.

    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    No one has said it's impossible for small market teams to compete. But there should be restrictions in place that prevent a) teams from buying a Championship and b) elite players from simply banding together in the biggest market. Both appear to be how the NBA is moving, and I, for one, don't like it. Plus, when the majority of the teams are actually losing money, it's hard to blame it all on bad management.

    Like I've been saying. I'd just like to see the playing field levelled a little.
    Right, that's important.

    I've been saying that unless that small market team can afford to spend over cap they can't sustain or improve on their success. If they don't spend they become a farm team to those who can and then we're back to rinse and start over again. This is the problem with the calculations provided on the Internet. They're mindless number crunches which are not capturing the nature of what is happening. To work hard and make all the right moves in a rebuild for five years, only to lose it and have to rebuild again in half that time is model for suckers. This applies to half the Owners for sure. Those Owners have been suckers for a while now and they're trying to fix that the best they can. In the old model only those teams who have deep pockets can have long term sustainability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    No one has said it's impossible for small market teams to compete. But there should be restrictions in place that prevent a) teams from buying a Championship and b) elite players from simply banding together in the biggest market. Both appear to be how the NBA is moving, and I, for one, don't like it. Plus, when the majority of the teams are actually losing money, it's hard to blame it all on bad management.

    Like I've been saying. I'd just like to see the playing field levelled a little.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    this is from something Matt52 posted a couple weeks back

    Now, the colors tell an important story. Strictly looking at the draft value and win percentage, you’ll notice lost of greens clustered together and reds clustered together. This hints that the two go pretty much hand in hand. If you draft efficiently, chances are you’ll be in good hands.

    But look at the third column of data which tells us how much money they’ve spent over that time. It’s subtle, but the pigments aren’t as closely connected.

    What we’re seeing is a strong tie between drafting efficiency and win percentage, but not so much for winning and payroll. In fact, draft efficiency alone explains 34 percent of the variability in a team’s record over the past decade. How much does payroll explain?

    Just 7 percent -- a tiny amount in comparison.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...e-balance-myth

    so exactly how, over time, is a big markets ability to spend the deciding factor in success?

    rather it was that big market drafting Kobe Byrant or Dirk Nowitski. Or it was that Small Market drafting Tim Duncan or Lebron. Or that highly attractive market drafting Dwayne Wade. If only everyone could have one of those guys....


    Now are big markets more attractive than small markets? Sure they are. I said that a long time ago. But because of spending? Well Cleveland spent and Lebron left, Orlando spent and Dwight still appears to be leaving, Denver spent and Carmelo left.... so saying its spending doesn't fit. Then it has to be something else big market teams offer... attention, endorsement deals, lifestyle, activity etc. Thats not because of spending.

    But you did say something that caught my interest:

    Because most of the big markets right now have good managers in place
    Unfortunately on the list in the link alot of the worst drafters are also some of the smallest and least attractive markets. Milwaukee, Toronto, Minnesota, Charlotte, Utah, Indy. They are the teams everyone talks about when mention teams who can't 'compete' with the LAs or the NYs. Teams that need the draft the most are also some of the teams that draft the worst.

    Maybe what the 'big market' teams need is a cap on their executive and management spending.... not on the player payroll. Lets get some of the scouting talent, that executive savy and experience spread around.

    Name me one team, just one team, who has been a perennial playoff team who is not consistently spending above cap. You can't do it.
    I already addressed this. How many perrennial playoff teams don't have a superstar? How many teams with superstars are incapable of spending? Yet how many bad teams spend? How many bad teams have superstars?

    Like I said... its superstars that make a team good... that leads to revenue... that leads to an ability to spend. NY and LA may not need a star to create revenue, but they still need a superstar to be successful.

    If those teams shared more of that revenue with the small markets... those small markets would have more to spend to. Like I said before... the goal should not be to bring everyone down to the weak and incompetent. It should be to help improve the weak and the incompetent.

    To your next question. If ALL other things are equal then the manager who has more money to spend will ofcourse have an edge. But the reality of the NBA is not all managers, players, locations and opportunities are equal. And thats why $ alone account for such a small % of success.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    It's very easy to say that from the outside looking in but you aren't sacrificing anything. The long term implication was a giveback of about $3 billion over the life of the CBA. Plus, since you know that when the next CBA comes around the owners will claim they are all going broke and the system doesn't work, you are going to be giving up even more. The new system would also effectively wipe out the middle class and place massive restrictions on player movement (ed. note: I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic argument on incentives vs. restrictions). Also, Ric Bucher has noted that there were somewhere around 30 issues that were unresolved in the latest offer. Obviously, the players would have lost on all of those once they signed on to the main points.

    Look, the players' tactics were awful and the PA (Hunter et al.) should be crucified for the crappy job they have done over the last 2 years. Absolutely criticize them for that. But the players have granted massive concessions to the owners and have all but got down on their hands and knees begging for the owners to throw them a bone. They haven't. The owners are prepared to lose the season to get what they want. Is the PA at fault? Absolutely, but letting the owners off the hook in all this is senseless. The owners wanted this. They got it. It's only fair they own it as well.

    Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..
    No, I'm not sacrificing anything, but, for most of the players what they sacrifice in order to sign the agreement is way less than if the season were to be cancelled. Besides, you're talking as if the players are really being hurt by the proposal when that is incredibly far from the truth. They are being handsomely rewarded for what they do, whether they get 50% or 53% of the BRI.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    that is something I completely agree with... and do think the players should have accepted the offer. Unfortunately, us as fans have little impact and can only debate, discuss and take sides on the issues.
    I definitely think the players should have taken the deal, not only because I think it's a fair deal, but because holding out just screws them more. No matter what happens, they'll never make up what they lose if there is no season.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    just wanted to address this to. The kings owners being 'poor' and the team being 'not good' also doesn't mean they can't be good and the owners become profitable again.

    We have to seperate what is happening right now with a team and what a team is capable of. The history of Sacramento shows that they are capable of packing a stadium, of getting fans and making a profit if they are good (I think we will find this everywhere). The league in general shows that the Kings don't need to spend to become good, to therefore get fans, and therefore become profitable again.

    They don't need to be like the Knicks... nor should they try to that. There are other models out there to duplicate. And once they get that star player (or if Tyreke turns out to be him)... we'll hear the cowbells ring again.

    Yet even if every team was like the knicks... would that make a difference? The haves and have nots would still exist. The teams without Lebron James/Kobe Byrant/Dwight Howard etc would still not stand a chance (so to speak) against the teams with them.

    If one believes that the league should have a system where all 30 teams can compete with each other year in and year, then I can see how things like hard cap could help. But if we look at all the professional sports teams across North America (both hard and soft and no cap systems) we'll see that that has never happened. Even in the CFL where only 8 teams exist... there are always teams that just can't win to save their lives.

    If one believes that the league should have a system where any of the 30 teams can compete with the others in any given year. Well we only need to look at the NBA... where the only team that has been incapable of competing has been the Clippers... ironically enough a 'have' team in a 'big market'.

    In no sport does 1 (or a few) player(s) make a bigger difference. Getting that one player is the difference between success and money.
    It's never been impossible for a smaller market team to compete, but the more freedom players get to go where they want, the less likely smaller market teams will be able to continue to compete.

    And when I speak about teams being able to compete, I'm not saying that ALL teams should be able to compete despite what they do. Obviously that makes no sense. You still need to make the right moves. They just need to make sure the playing field is as level as possible so that teams in cities like New York, L.A. and Miami don't have so much of an advantage. As we've seen with the Clippers, sometimes even with an advantage, bad management will doom a team. But they've got no one to blame but themselves, for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    My question is, why don't the players simply accept the offer? Is it worth losing a season, and a good portion of the majority of the player's careers, over?
    It's very easy to say that from the outside looking in but you aren't sacrificing anything. The long term implication was a giveback of about $3 billion over the life of the CBA. Plus, since you know that when the next CBA comes around the owners will claim they are all going broke and the system doesn't work, you are going to be giving up even more. The new system would also effectively wipe out the middle class and place massive restrictions on player movement (ed. note: I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic argument on incentives vs. restrictions). Also, Ric Bucher has noted that there were somewhere around 30 issues that were unresolved in the latest offer. Obviously, the players would have lost on all of those once they signed on to the main points.

    Look, the players' tactics were awful and the PA (Hunter et al.) should be crucified for the crappy job they have done over the last 2 years. Absolutely criticize them for that. But the players have granted massive concessions to the owners and have all but got down on their hands and knees begging for the owners to throw them a bone. They haven't. The owners are prepared to lose the season to get what they want. Is the PA at fault? Absolutely, but letting the owners off the hook in all this is senseless. The owners wanted this. They got it. It's only fair they own it as well.

    Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    First off they don't 'throw off' the calculation. They are a very real variable in it. The fact is those teams are NOT spending large yet still having success. They are the most obvious evidence that a team does not have to spend to compete (and maybe time for teams to start learning from others success). Thats like saying a 2 rebound game from Bargnani shouldn't be included in his average, because next game he'll probably grab 5 or 7.
    No they should not count or they certainly should not count as much. What the Thunder and Bulls have right now is totally unsustainable. It's impossible to sustain at their current level of spending. Both those teams are going to have to spend to maintain and improve. Like I said, good management alone can lead to some success but to maintain it and to build on it takes lots of money. Name me one team, just one team, who has been a perennial playoff team who is not consistently spending above cap. You can't do it. Please answer this question:

    If you have two managers equal in ability, who have equal rosters and who are entering free agency but one has $3M he's authorized to spend and one has $20M that he's authorized to spend, which manager do you feel is going to have a better off-season?

    You're heading into the trade deadline. Again, two equal managers, equal rosters but one manager is authorized to take on long term deals or deals worth more than the current salary total and meanwhile the other manager has been told not to take on long term deals and not to take on extra money. Which manager do you feel has the best chance of improving the team at the deadline?

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    And yes you do need to analyze each particular situation or set of circumstance. Think about that next time you bring up salary imbalance and skip the entire point I made about circumstances (ie. a team having a star and therefore being able to afford to spend more... or conversely teams without a superstar being unwilling to spend).
    I have considered it. I disagree with it. It's not as simplistic as that. You keep using the Cavs and LeBron James as your base case. Well that case is extreme. You're not providing a strong case using that as an example. He's probably the best know basketball player in the world right now who isn't named Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. If you want to make ground on this theory then provide more examples and more realistic examples. There is only one LeBron James. He's in a class of his own in terms of his overall abilities and market appeal. The fact that you need to use the Cavs case as a crutch for your stance isn't helping the case.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    and thats the crux of the error in your statement. The limiting fact is not $ but rather superstars and/or management. Again... all the 'spending teams' that had 'long term success' also had superstars. All the lower spending teams that had 'long term' success had superstars.
    Wrong. The Thunder have two Superstar. If they don't spend money to keep quality talent around them they won't maintain. If they don't add to it, which involves spending even more money they'll never win a title. Same goes for the Bulls.

    Then you have the league perception. All the young stars are wanting to go to the big markets. Why? Because they feel it offers them a better chance to win. Why do they feel that way? Because most of the big markets right now have good managers in place and all of the big markets have deep pockets to spend on players. I don't hear any rumors about Chris Paul considering to hose the Hornets to play for the Atlanta Hawks. No, who do you hear? The NY Knicks. Same goes for Dwight Howard. The guy doesn't sound like he's itching to get the hell out of Orlando to go play for the Oklahoma City Thunder, no, you're hearing the Lakers. Why? Because regardless of the Thunder's outstanding management roster, regardless of a Hawks roster one elite PG away from contending, they're viewed as small markets. Small markets are viewed as small spenders. Small spenders are viewed as less competitive.

    For that matter you could ask the question of why on earth would Chris Paul want to leave an organization that treated him like gold and who have an excellent track record of bringing in quality players? I'll tell you why, it's because they can't afford to spend over cap and have been forced to make some really tough choices. Choices which meant dumping really important pieces to stay afloat financially. In the old system a team like the Hornets can't sustain success no matter who's running the show.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    My question is, why don't the players simply accept the offer? Is it worth losing a season, and a good portion of the majority of the player's careers, over?
    that is something I completely agree with... and do think the players should have accepted the offer. Unfortunately, us as fans have little impact and can only debate, discuss and take sides on the issues.

    The Kings are the perfect example of what I was talking about above. They were a very good team that contended, but didn't have enough to win it all. They also had deep pocketed owners and excelled before the last CBA and during much better economic times.

    Now, the owners don't have a lot of money, and, because they are losing, they aren't getting the fans or near the amount of revenue they were getting when they were winning. And there's no way they can pull a Knicks and simply try and lure the best players with loads of cap room because they won't come.
    just wanted to address this to. The kings owners being 'poor' and the team being 'not good' also doesn't mean they can't be good and the owners become profitable again.

    We have to seperate what is happening right now with a team and what a team is capable of. The history of Sacramento shows that they are capable of packing a stadium, of getting fans and making a profit if they are good (I think we will find this everywhere). The league in general shows that the Kings don't need to spend to become good, to therefore get fans, and therefore become profitable again.

    They don't need to be like the Knicks... nor should they try to that. There are other models out there to duplicate. And once they get that star player (or if Tyreke turns out to be him)... we'll hear the cowbells ring again.

    Yet even if every team was like the knicks... would that make a difference? The haves and have nots would still exist. The teams without Lebron James/Kobe Byrant/Dwight Howard etc would still not stand a chance (so to speak) against the teams with them.

    If one believes that the league should have a system where all 30 teams can compete with each other year in and year, then I can see how things like hard cap could help. But if we look at all the professional sports teams across North America (both hard and soft and no cap systems) we'll see that that has never happened. Even in the CFL where only 8 teams exist... there are always teams that just can't win to save their lives.

    If one believes that the league should have a system where any of the 30 teams can compete with the others in any given year. Well we only need to look at the NBA... where the only team that has been incapable of competing has been the Clippers... ironically enough a 'have' team in a 'big market'.

    In no sport does 1 (or a few) player(s) make a bigger difference. Getting that one player is the difference between success and money.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    *WARNING LONG*

    I don't mean to break everything you said down here and I don't mean to attack it (so i hope you don't take it that way), but I think what you have said is the general feeling amongst fans... and I will have a point at the end that will hopefully make it all come together.
    In that spirit, I'm going to cut a lot of your comments to save space, but I'm commenting on it in it's entirety, or at least trying to.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Well there comes times in life where trying to fix a problem you can't solve ends up leading to different, new, unique or additional problems.

    If the biggest problem with parity in the NBA is lack of superstars, then trying to solve the problem of parity by balancing spending seems like a practice in futility. But maybe more importantly; if the problem with parity is the lack of superstars, then giving up a season, to solve the problem of parity through balancing spending, seems like a waste.
    If that were the only issue, then I'd agree (somewhat), but it's not. As Matt mentioned, the Pistons weren't a superstar team, but I've argued many times they were a bit of a fluke, so it may seem hypocritical for me to point to them as an example, but while I think them winning a Championship was a bit of a fluke, them contending was not. And there have been several contenders who did not have a top 5 or 10 player. I think what the fans (and possibly the owners want) is a CHANCE to compete. The way things are headed, if a team is not located in one of the few desirable markets, you have little chance of being able to compete without basically playing your hand perfectly....

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    I think this debate also needs to put the idea of spending into context. Can we say just spending into the tax is enough to be a spender? Or are we talking more LA and Dallas 90 - 100 mil dollar spending? If we are talking the 'LA-ish' spending... well there are only a couple teams who actually do that. If the goal is to prevent that... a hard tax at high level (80 -90 mil range) may not really be an issue. If we are talking about just spending into the tax type spending (70 -75 mil range which the vast majority of spending teams go into)... well how many teams are completely incapable of doing that?

    I think this brings up an important point. Whats the correlation between winning and making money (and therefore being able to 'spend')? To be honest I'm having little luck finding anything on it (everything is the correlation between payroll and winning). So we may have to use some anectodal evidence.

    The Spurs, in a relatively small market have been capabale of spending. The Sacramento Kings in the early 2000s had the biggest payroll in the league (at one point) and were profitable.... today they have the lowest payroll. The Cleveland Cavaliers for years with Lebron James were one of the top spending teams throwing money away like it was trash..... today they claim to be incapable of competing with the 'big markets'.

    I would really love to have some statistical evidence to back that up, but all I can say is that it would seem that a superstar not only means wins, but that they (and the winning they provide) also means $ aswell. So how many teams, when they have a superstar, are actually incapable of spending? I'm willing to bet that very few (if not none) of them are. That the simple fact of the matter is too many teams haven't been in the right situation to spend (ie. have a superstar). I can even add the inverse to this aswell; the teams that have spent, and continually won, how many didn't also have superstars?

    So will a team need to spend to 'maintain' success? Probably yes.... but, will they also be incapable of doing it? Probably no.

    (beyond that, and I won't get into it in detail, it also brings up the issue of revenue sharing.... how much would greater revenue sharing allow teams that don't currently have a superstar or are not in 'good markets' maintain a reasonable bottom level of spending/profitability, until they obtain their superstar?)
    The Kings are the perfect example of what I was talking about above. They were a very good team that contended, but didn't have enough to win it all. They also had deep pocketed owners and excelled before the last CBA and during much better economic times.

    Now, the owners don't have a lot of money, and, because they are losing, they aren't getting the fans or near the amount of revenue they were getting when they were winning. And there's no way they can pull a Knicks and simply try and lure the best players with loads of cap room because they won't come.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    But that has to assume that all 'overpaid' players are the same. Its one thing to over pay Kleiza or Luke Walton at 4, 5 or 6 mil a year a year, its another thing to over pay Gilbert Arenas at 22 mil, or a 90 year old Shaq at 22 mil, or Rashard Lewis at 18 mil, or Bargnani at 10 mil (*cough* had to slip that in there), or worse have combinations of those guys.

    And perhaps most importantly to put this in perspective of the current lockout: Given what I've said, at some level the simple question has to be asked - is the potential loss of a season worth what 'balanced spending' will or will not offer?


    To me the answer is an easy no.


    As a side note I did come across this statement (no idea who it was and lost where it came from)



    I don't think its a complete statement, but its a simple statement that probably applies to this whole debate.

    (I hope that all came together)
    Now, if it was simply about balancing the field, then it depends on who you are as to whether you think a lost season is worth it. As a Raptor fan, I'd like to see the playing field as level as possible in order to give the Raptors as fair a chance to compete as possible. I think it's worth holding out for that.

    As an owner, I think it's worth holding out in order to make sure you aren't going to continue to lose money if you want to try and compete.

    As a player, guaranteed contracts are definitely something that helps the majority of players, especially the "99%". Freedom of player movement certainly shouldn't be a "blood" issue because it only helps a minority, as does many of the issues that we're hearing about from them.

    My question is, why don't the players simply accept the offer? Is it worth losing a season, and a good portion of the majority of the player's careers, over?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X