NHL players are coming out of the woodwork to tell their brothers in basketball to take an NBA lockout deal, that it's not worth it to fight and lose a season. Should NBA players listen? If so, how will the owners' labor rampages in all American sports ever end?
Nov 3, 2011 - Public pressure is mounting on the players' union like never before to lower its request for 52 percent of basketball-related income and force owners to end the NBA lockout. Even-handed, experienced columnists like David Aldridge have written that the union has essentially no choice but to drop to the league's offered 50-50 deal, lest it get worse for players. Internal union sniping hasn't helped: dueling stories on a rift between Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter only serve to weaken the players' case. No one can honestly believe that a point of power for Hunter or Fisher at the expense of the other at this point helps the players get the best deal possible.
But the most interesting pressure has come from a group that can truly commiserate with NBA players: members of the National Hockey League's players' union. NHL players lost the entire 2004-05 season to a lockout; they ended up being forced to take the crummy offer that Gary Bettman and the owners pushed all along. Holding out cost NHL players an entire season of salary and resulted in a labor loss.
One of the NHL players' union's strongest voices for holding out for a fair deal in 2004 was Bill Guerin, then with the Dallas Stars. He told Mac Engel of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last month that the fight wasn't worth it.
"I learned a big lesson: It's not a partnership. It's their league, and you are going to play when they want," he said.
Today, Guerin has hindsight and his experience serves as a giant caution to any player who thinks losing a game, much less an entire season, to this lockout is a good idea. His message is simple: Get what you can; start playing; you are not going to win what you think.
"It is not worth it to any of them to burn games or to burn an entire year. Burning a year was ridiculous," Guerin said. "It wasn't worth me giving up $9 million a year, or 82 games plus the playoffs, then having a crappy year and being bought out ... Guys in the NBA making $15 million or however much better think long and hard about this."
That's a tough pill to swallow for NBA players who have already shown a willingness to lose games in the fight over about $100 million per season. As NBA players and their advocates have argued, this fight isn't just about this season, next season or 2015. Wherever the revenue split ends up at the end of this lockout, that's where it begins in the next collective bargaining talks. It's never going back up to 57 percent.
This has to be the question that NBA players volley back to their NHL brethren, and their brothers in the NFL and Major League Baseball, too: how do we stop this? If we can't win, how can we survive?
The NFLPA signed a 10-year deal with the league, which means that players can't lose any more ground until 2021. That's probably smart. But look at the NHL. Next summer, the lockout headlines will likely, sadly belong to them. Hockey players ended up giving away everything owners wanted in 2005, and they'll be asked to give up more in 2012. How does the cycle end? Instead of the resignation Guerin expresses -- "it's their league" -- players have to find a way to institutionalize their power.
The NBA, with its strong focus on stars and concentrated talent, would be in better position than any other to accomplish this. But the problem is that it has to get nasty before the lockout begins. Billy Hunter reportedly threatened David Stern with a hold-out at the 2011 NBA All-Star Game in Los Angeles. In the locker room with Stern and the assembled All-Star teams, Hunter -- pissed that the league wouldn't really negotiate with him on labor issues in the run-up to the obvious lockout -- said he considered telling the stars not to play in L.A. But he didn't follow through, and instead used the moment to embolden his players and stick Stern with a bit of fear.
Next time, the players need to follow through, maybe not by walking out of the All-Star Game, but by making a very public display at some point in the season before a labor battle to get their point across. Perhaps the best thing the players can do is relinquish (relatively) minor concessions in exchange for potentially huge handovers in the future. If the players accept 50-50 right now, will owners agree to increase that split to 51 percent when the new national TV contract comes in for 2016 and beyond? Can national TV revenue be split differently than total revenue -- 53 percent to players for national TV revenue, 47 percent to players for everything else -- to the point where, eventually, players win? (This wouldn't be a great deal for players until 2016. At that point, it could be amazing.) The players need to create situations in which they stand to win in the middle of a collective bargaining agreement. The 1999 deal did this beautifully: by capping max salaries and assigning players a big chunk of league income, salaries shot up for mid-rung players. The unintended consequence bolstered the players' position. That lasted 13 years. That's no small matter.
Yes, if the players accept 50 percent, that's where the next talks will start. But the league will want to negotiate other items, too. If the players and their smart team of experts can build a prosperous situation while taking 50-50, they'll be in stronger negotiating position next time around.
Barring that or a public display of protest during a future season, the only way sports unions will stop the labor bleeding is by going through with anti-trust litigation to the bitter end. The NBA won't be doing that this time around, the NFL is 10 years away from another fight, and MLB and NHL players would have a difficult argument to make given extensive minor leagues in their sports. If a blow-out decertification/anti-trust battle ever happens, it might have to come from NBA players the next time the league institutes a lockout.
But first, let's solve this one. NHL players might be right in arguing that it's time to settle.
The Hook runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
46 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
I think
The players should take a 50/50 deal, then Hunter should retire and start rustling up support for a new league. A competing league is the only thing that is really going to weaken the NBA owners position.
Though NBA owners have saved big by negotiating max salaries, they’ve also left themselves vulnerable. Usually, competing leagues fail, but think about it – if a new league started and you rustled up some of the wealthy folks that want to own a team but don’t have 400 million bucks, and sold them franchises, for, say, 20 million bucks, and then instituted a system where the max salary was 25 million per year, with a rookie max of 10 million per year, siphoning players would be pretty damn easy.
The NBA owners have also shot themselves in the foot with all their new arena demands. As a result, there are lots of perfectly OK arenas that would love to host basketball games.
Get The Frickin' Rebound
by fuhry on Nov 3, 2011 10:02 AM EDT reply actions
The NHL owners got lucky. Coming out of the lockout, the NHL had to re-brand itself significantly in order to rebuild the league. Rule changes, promotion of younger talent, work with new TV partners on a horrid deal…. and really, if it wasn’t for the accidental bonanza that was the Winter Classic, a surging Canadian dollar, plus getting cornerstone franchises like the NY Rangers back into the playoffs (and Cups for Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Boston), the NHL probably doesn’t come back to what it has.
The NBA is in a better place. The NHL was desperate when it went through its lockout. I think owners and players are taking the wrong lessons from that NHL experience. And I don’t see the NHL owners going through that again next summer… they’ll ask for some concessions, but nothing significant. Maybe a return to the revenue split of 2005-06 (it has increased 2% in the players’ favour since then).
But NBA players should be taking deals to play overseas. Bill Guerin didn’t, and very few players that took the year off found success in the post-lockout NHL.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Nov 3, 2011 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think the NHL got lucky per se.
They were desperate because the league was in trouble because of how boring the league got as a result of the trap. They were smart for burning down the house to rebuild them back up. Yes it took a season to do it, but look what happened as a result of it. New rule changes that opened up the game to focus of offense, new talent coming it that made the game fast paced and exciting to watch and a cap that helped limit spending so that teams like Pittsburgh for example had a legit chance to compete with the big boys like Philly and Detroit.
But they were not lucky they were smart. They were able to get back on their feet because of how they were marketing their players, switching to a TV network that actually focused on hockey and creating the winter classic that appealed to the casual fan. Sorry but that’s not an accident all that happened, that takes brains to make all that fall in your lap.
I will agree with you that the NBA isn’t in the same boat as the NHL is. The NBA has never been better. The play is better ratings are better. It’s the exact opposite of what the NHL was in.
Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.
by Bradley James McEachern on Nov 3, 2011 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The sports leagues will live or die with the owners and there isn't really anything the players can do about that.
It is their league and the players will play when the owners want. If people really think they’re going to continue to suck as much money from the players as possible and destroy their own league, that’s their opinion – but it’s not going to happen.
I say the players should go along for their short rides that set them for life.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 3, 2011 11:02 AM EDT reply actions
Should the players just sign off on whatever deal the owners present?
If the answer is “no”, then you have to accept negotiation as part of the reality.
And if you’re going to ask your workforce to give back a large amount of money while crying poor, you’re probably going to face a little blowback and maybe a few questions on whether you’re really as poor as you say.
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
right now thier position is unwinnable
TZ can rage all he wants about ‘draconian cuts’ to players making an average of $5mil a year – but a 50-50 deal?
There’s nothing they can do to sound like they’re on the right side of that argument.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
That wasn't my question
I’m trying to understand the logic of the people that say “the players should be happy to have jobs playing a kid’s game”. Perhaps in some parallel universe, that’s an option, but how does that work in our world?
So, if caseycheesecake was an NBA player, or in Derek Fisher’s shoes, and just wanted to play basketball, what would he have found acceptable in a new labor agreement (understanding that the prior agreement had expired AND the owner’s had locked the players out – these guys aren’t on strike)?
You know I don’t agree with your philosophy of accepting a 50/50 deal, just because it sounds fair (with all the strings attached to it, that’s highly doubtful) – but it’s at least a philosophy. There’s an acceptable threshold from your point of view that the players should be willing to accept.
What I’m trying to find out is what the players should negotiate in the “you should be happy to have jobs” world that caseycheesecake is talking about. I’m hoping he’ll take the vaguaries out of that argument.
Do they just bow out and trust the owners to take care of the details?
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I think they should be well paid - they Are and Will be
I’ve always believed that they are the best professional athletes in the world.
Now, do I think they have had too much power and too many guarantees – especially with their contracts? Absolutely. This argument boils down to that they are almost universally Guaranteed to make money while many teams are forced to lose money annually if they want to be competitive for some future hypothetical profit when the team is sold. Ridiculous. Is anyone in the NFL the most popular sport) losing money? Why no complaints about those ownerships’ guaranteed profits? NFL players are treated much more harshly, released when they are no longer viable, often with lingering injuries that will shorten their lives. You can hardly say that about NBA players.
I’d prefer owners attached to thier cities who wish to hand the franchise down generation to generation, that’s almost impossible right now. I know what I’m proposing wouldn’t guarantee that happening, hell, it wouldn’t happen in many places – but it would happen and those cities would both be proud and feel a closer link to their teams.
The lack of a true minor league or necessity to bust thier asses off in college for 4 years has instilled a ’can’t wait for that paycheck’ attitude that can be so destructive both to themselves and to I think the NBA game itself. It drives me crazy to see some kid learning to play NBA level ball on my dime, and crazier that so many don’t develop that could because they can’t get (and don’t deserve) court time.
I think if they NBA players wanted to improve thier sport, improve their membership, they should negotiate a robust minor league, swell that NBA membership from 430 to thousands. Increase the importance of the minor league NBADL (and stop calling it that, call it something more professional, I’m open to suggestions) and those paychecks in the minor league system as popularity rises in yes, Boise, Omaha, Bakersfield, Austin, St Louis, KC.- will shoot upwards to the hundreds of thousands (not a bad living) and the popularity of the Major league game will rise and spread to other markets.
Raise the NBA age to 21 and put more money in that system and yes, the next LaBron may have to struggle along at a few hundred thousand dollars for a year or two in Buffalo (afetr signing bonuses), but IMAGINE how that affects NBA popularity in Buffalo!
‘We get to see a superstar for $30 and we’ll follow him forever after!’
Those Kids salaries wouldn’t count against the major leagues cap unless they were actually on the major league rosters. And yes, Anyone could be sent down, though they’d (probably) have a right to refuse assignment and get released after a certain # of pro years as they do in MLB.
Make that minor league an international league, put a team in PR, in Vancouver, in London, in Paris. in Honolulu.
Of course the players are why the fans watch, but some who say that make it sound like it’s not true in every sport. More players will come along, they will, but the names on the front of the jerseys – and the game – will continue as those players are relegated to history and fans cherished memories.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd for a well written argument
Flagged because it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. ;)
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Further (sorry)
I’d like to see a % or even half a % be set aside from both parties to go towards both future infrastructure investments (see arenas and updating facilities) and to supportingand promoting that AAA league and offering hundreds of good players a year a chance to make a decent living playing a sport they love.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Hahahaha
So no, I don’t think the players are getting screwed in his proposal, I think an inequity is (hopefully) being rectified that should improve the health of the game.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They're not getting screwed
This time, ask me in the next negotiations what I think of the landscape then.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Well now I am confused
You want to raise the NBA age minimum to 21 and at the same time negotiate a robust minor league? Talk about the one way to absolutely kill a minor league.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What don't you understand?
The Major league minimum would be 21 – not the minor. Derek Rose in Boise for two years!
Other (many) good players who either need a few more years to develop or may never quite have what it takes to play on the major league level (but were promised most of their lives that playing basketball was their chance, what they should focus their futures on) make a decent living for many years – without having to go to Europe.
All while increasing the widespread popularity of the NBA.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
So you'd have some athletes in the minors who were eligible for call up and some who weren't?
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, and Derrick Rose is a terrible name for you to bring up
If you’re making the age minimum argument. He had a solid rookie year (prior to the age of 21) and it certainly didn’t hurt his development (as a player or a person).
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
It's exactly my point actually
I don’t care if the abberations like Rose or LaBron have to play a year or two in the Minors, I embrace it!
I think it would be great for the Minors – and great for spreading the popularity of the NBA game into other parts of the country.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The NBA already has a minor league team to spread the popularity of the NBA game, it's called the NCAA.
and respect the heck out of wishing the NBA had a better minor league but the only way the wages are going to go up there is if the age limit is knocked down. Pushing it up to 21 is the exact opposite of what you would have to do.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Some good kids don't/can't get to college
And for every LaBron there are two Brad Millers’ who if they had more of a chance – could develop into NBA players.
And I don’t understand what you are saying about the 21 issue, no idea. 21 would be better for college (it’s not a minor league anymore than college baseball is) AND it would be better for both player development in the ‘D-league’ and a real Minor league would give, as I said, Good players who may never play in the NBA a way to make a decent living.
Those are the guys I worry about, not the guys making $5million.
High school kids either commit to college or the Minor league. A real D-league draft that allows Minor league teams to sign players for two or three years . . . .
When they get to 21 or their Minor league contract expires they can enter the NBA draft just as before.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The 21 issue matters because you are completely marginalizing your own league
neither players nor owners will want to give decent salaries and the status quo with NCAA will continue because it benefits everyone. Players get paid on the side and get prestige, colleges get their cash, NCAA rules turn into a joke, and the NBA doesn’t have to pay squat for a minor league because somebody else is taking care of it. You will see little growth of the NBADL. It won;t be robust. A lot of kids will rather get paid on the side and have favors done for them in college. Some will go to the NBADL like they do now but little will change.
Raising the age limit to 21 would directly run counter to a robust minor league. You lower the age limi, get more picks and more of them guaranteed and on a scaled salary determined by pick you’d get a ton more players jumping into the game. There would be more salary with more rookie contracts at a rookie scaled salary. That’s your best shot at a robust minor league. Raising the age limit would do no good.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think we understand each other
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't understand how you develop your NBA talent against mostly non NBA talent.
Explain that to me.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 3, 2011 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions
and I don't understand how bumping the age limit up even more
will come close to helping create a robust minor league unless the players and owners were giving up a big piece of pie to minor league revenues. And they won’t. Saying you want the age limit bumped to 21 and talking about a robust minor league out of the side of one’s mouth ain’t changing anything from what it is today.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
derp derp
*minor league salaries (no clue why i wrote revenues)
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The minor league point is pretty inconsequential to me.
The players will go to the NCAA as you say so there’s no point. To me the greater issue is how do the players develop into “better” NBA talent by staying a few years in the NCAA if there isn’t necessarily NBA coaching, NBA style of play or NBA players to add to the “preparation of life in the NBA” part that keeps coming up with lttg.
It’s a pretty simple point: Those who can make it make it and those who can’t can’t. That’s where we disagree, and I think the NCAA has done a very good job masking this for people like lttg who choose to see it the way he does.
At the end of the day, NBA GM’s will be the loudest complainers and lobby against the 21 year old age limit. Most GM’s point out that we know pretty much what we know about players from the time they are 18 on, and, in yesteryear before technological advances, that simply wasn’t the case. That’s simply what’s changed. That and the NCAA coaches are no longer seen by the NBA as a necessary feeder system for development of talent. If you’re a NBA team, you don’t want to rely on someone else to do your development when the kind of development you wish to do with a player is so critical. That’s simply something you have to do yourself and see results for as they happen.
You can always hope the NCAA becomes the feeder system, but if you care about the quality of NBA ball, and I do, you don’t want the NCAA style of system to be the one you rely on. The NCAA system is too hypocritical and pushes way too many kids away to support it’s own self serving image.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 4, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Rose and LeBron aren't really aberrations, if you actually check the facts
But we’ve had this argument plenty of times, and it’s not relevant to this particular post, so I’ll let you have the last word.
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
No
I want it.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 3, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You aren't going to get a robust minor league if players under 21 have another league to go to
and good luck getting the owners to funnel real money into the minor league or even better luck finding owners who are going to want to pay their first round lottery picks their lottery scale salaries for 2 or 3 years. No way the owners would let that happen. What you would end up with is the Derrick Rose’s of the world won’t be drafted until they are 21 so, the league nor the players will want to give their profits over to 18-20 year olds so they will be stuck with low wages and the league will continue to have it’s very own “free for me plus super hype machine” NCAA tourney.
The end.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You mis-understand
No NBA draft until 21 +. A NBAdL draft as now with 2-3 year contracts - then the NBA draft. Young players still get to make money and some of the marginal guys get paying careers they wouldn’t otherwise have.
See AAA Baseball.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah no
I got it, I was talking about both ways (no way the owners would be willing to sign on drafting at younger age and waiting until 21 and no chance at having it robust if you go your route because nobody would be stupid enough to pour money into it with another minor league which in fact the age limit would be propping up).
See AAA Baseball? I was unaware baseball required players to be 21 to be drafted. Oh wait …
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
Age limits are arbitrary no matter where you set them, how about 10 years old?
They’re set to support the best interests of the game.
Respond to how a good Minor League would/could provide hundreds of more well paying jobs for kids who have been promised thier whole life that they can make a living playing Basketball?
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 3, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL
I forgot that you like to bust that one out occasionally.
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
You are going to have to reword that unless you are trying to say child labor is a good idea.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 3, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
What he's saying
Is that if you allow 18 year olds to enter the draft, people will start being able to marry their pets. :)
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You're living in a dream world of your own design and desire.
The problem is everyone else does too and they don’t share your ideals or dreams.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 3, 2011 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
At this point in time and negotiations,
they should take the 50/50. Their posturing failed horribly and they’re not doing anybody any favors by continuing it.
There’s nothing they can do if the owners are so dead-set about what they want.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 3, 2011 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
They can be obstinate and hold out until the owners "feel the pain"
by otis29 on Nov 3, 2011 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Accomplishing nothing.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 4, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Not true
by otis29 on Nov 4, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Would agree with casey on this
Owners aren’t caving if the players just stay obstinate. Obviously it appears that the players are threatening decertification now which isn’t staying obstinate.
Either way though, the players aren’t deciding between 50 and 52.5% now. It’s 50% or decertification and a lost season.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 4, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
They can play overseas, with guarantees that they will not come back to the NBA this season.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 3, 2011 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
All 400+ players can do that?
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 4, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Which NHLers besides Guerin have argued that the NBA players should settle?
I mean, Guerin’s probably right, but I haven’t seen a lot of his peers publicly agree with him.
Lighthouse Hockey: A flute with no holes is not a flute. A Dane with no holes is Frans Nielsen.
by Dominik Jansky on Nov 3, 2011 1:18 PM EDT reply actions
not saying you're wrong
but why would they disagree? the NHL players spent 9 months arguing and achieved NOTHING.
"Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Steve Jobs to win the lotto." - Chris Rock
The NBA - Where 2012 doesn't happen
Patrick Ewing - The NBA's all-time leader in rushing yards
by Taylor Made on Nov 3, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
They achieved losing a lot of money.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Nov 3, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The ones that didn’t sign tax-free deals to play for Russian teams owned by billionaire oligarchs… yes, they lost a lot of money.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Nov 4, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed