Well if a ton of star players are playing in Europe instead of the NBA, the NBA is going to lose a lot of money.
If the assertion that 22 of the teams are losing money then concern of losing money due to a few players going to europe is moot I think. These 22 teams are currently fine with lockout compared to existing situatation.
Also, the idea of some players going to Europe makes a rift in the players situation, complicating matters worse. Big market teams, little market teams, players sitting ($0), players in Europe/China ($$$).
What is the estimated overall 'rebuilding' cost if there is a lockout somewhat into the season? A whole season? If players share in this total $, what is their portion lost?
What is the total career earnings lost if there is a lockout for a year? (average career lenght and pay calculation) And does this opportunity cost outweight the opportunity gain for this generation of players?
What % of the non-superstars care about $3M vs $2.5M /per year? (is that accurate reduction?) Who on the Jazz do you think finds solidarity more important than just taking a cut and getting on with it?
I guess from my limited view, which includes the assumption that 22 teams are losing money is fact, then it is a matter that the players should do some compromising. The lifespan of owning is a longer term proposition than the lifespan of playing. The owners are hunked down for the long haul. The players are posturing.
