Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Kobe Bryant....shot down 50/50 deal!

[TheItinerantSon]

so if your employer comes to you and demands that you take a 12.5 % paycut even as the company is making record profits you would accept that? I know a lot of people have had to do that or worse, but if you can avoid it you should.

 

[trigg3r]

so if your employer comes to you and demands that you take a 12.5 % paycut even as the company is making record profits you would accept that? I know a lot of people have had to do that or worse, but if you can avoid it you should.

Depends on the viability of the company at the time. There is an ongoing debate whether the NBA is losing money or not. I offer you the flip side. If you are an owner is it not fair for you to try to get the best deal possible?

 

[TheItinerantSon]

nobody denies that the league is making tons and tons of money. What is up for debate is the extent to which individual franchises may be losing money. That sounds like a revenue sharing issue to me...

I dont understand why nobody talks about how the league as a whole is making enormous amounts of money, why is everyone focused on the individual franchises? Its not 30 different units, isn't that the whole reason they are able to avoid anti-trust litigation?

 

[carolinajazz]

so if your employer comes to you and demands that you take a 12.5 % paycut even as the company is making record profits you would accept that? I know a lot of people have had to do that or worse, but if you can avoid it you should.

....you make an interesting point! If my boss said to me "take this pay cut or find another job"....I would take the pay cut, be looking for another job....but probably not giving him my best effort anymore! But NBA players can't possibly give a worse effort than they've been doing the past 10 years anyway! Poor shooting, poor defense, poor team play.

 

[r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t]

Depends on the viability of the company at the time.

did you not read this part: "even as the company is making record profits"?

 

[trigg3r]

did you not this part: "even as the company is making record profits"?

As was stated, some franchises might be making record profits. There are many that aren't. Sure it is a revenue sharing issue. But why not get the best deal you can as an owner? Or do you expect them just to give in without a fight? I don't feel bad for either side and I think 50/50 is fair. That being said, the owners have IMO made their final offer or concession on BRI IMO.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Or do you expect them just to give in without a fight?

I understand what you're saying, but the owners started the fight. To "give in" without a fight clearly implies that the players came barging down their doors demanding raises (which didn't happen, in case that needs explaining to the majority of you that act as though this is what happened).

 

[trigg3r]

I understand what you're saying, but the owners started the fight. To "give in" without a fight clearly implies that the players came barging down their doors demanding raises (which didn't happen, in case that needs explaining to the majority of you that act as though this is what happened).

And yet the players were making 57% of the BRI and the owners 43%. Why would they continue with that deal if they knew they could get a much better one. The owners' original stance was 54/46 in favor of them, right? At least that's what I have been reading. Their ultimate ceiling I believe is 50/50. That's the highest they will go IMO. I can't fault them for wanting the best deal they can get and I can't fault the players for wanting the best deal they can get. I will say the owners have IMO done a much better job of arguing their position. I haven't read any real good arguments from the player perspective. Anyway, 50/50 is the best the players are going to get and they are wasting their time and money by not accepting that. The owners as many have pointed out are already very wealthy. They can afford to wait the players out.

 

[carolinajazz]

....gee, I hate being right all the time, but NBC Sports is now reporting that it WAS Garnett that muddy up the whole thing and here are the details! "Privately, management insists that everything changed when the Boston Celtics’ Kevin Garnett(notes) walked into the negotiating room on Oct. 4. The owners knew it wouldn’t go well when Garnett started glowering across the table, sources said, like the league lawyers, owners and officials were opponents at the center jump. He was defiant, determined and downright ornery. He was K.G. Everyone knew Hunter had to cede to the wishes of the stars, and the stars demanded that the players stop making concessions to the owners.

As one league official said, “We were making progress, until Garnett [expletive] everything up.”

By the way, for those who are CJ supporters, I just got busted with a warning for referring to Garnett as an "Angry man of color"! How ironic???

Here's the link: https://probasketballtalk.nbcsports...at-“garnett-expletive-everything-up”/related/

 

[carolinajazz]

.....I'm not gonna get another warning, am I???

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I still doubt that one person can mess up negotiations that bad. Think it's a ploy by the Owners/League to make players look bad.

 

[carolinajazz]

I still doubt that one person can mess up negotiations that bad. Think it's a ploy by the Owners/League to make players look bad.

....you know how hoppers don't like to be dissed? Well, some of these old school owners don't appreciate it when some punk kid from the streets trys to intimidate them with staredowns and gangsta rap looks!