What's new
By:

Would you accept the NBA offer?

Do you accept the offer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 93.9%

  • No

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
The players have had and continue to have freedom to play where they like. There are costs involved, but they can. Rookies I believe have to sit out a season if they dont sign a contract, but then become free agents. vets can go where they want, they just wont make as much money. So If you want to play somewhere besides the team you are on great, just suck up the loss of revinue and go sign a contract somewhere else. What players want is to be able to force teams to compete in a bidding war for their services, it isnt about movement flexibility. That just doesnt sound as good in the media.
 
InGameStrategy said:
By holding out, those players might get what they ask for: more freedom--more freedom to live wherever they want--without a six-, seven- or eight-figure salary, while the union lawyers desperately attempt to regain some crumb of credibility and leverage.

If negotiations resume, players might not regain any freedom. I don't see why the owners would give any freedom back. Once the antitrust case is struck down, owners can rebuild the league in every way that they want--not just in the ways that they negotiated already.

But in either case, by refusing to accept this deal, the small chance at more freedom will come at a price of significantly lowered compensation. There's no guarantee that the owners will allow any more freedom if negotiations happen down the line.

What is assured that the deal will be less attractive financially. The owners are gonna make the players pay for not accepting this offer; they already warned the players that they would, and they ain't going back on their word.

Sacrificing the freedom to play where players want is a small price to pay for the lavish salaries that NBA players receive--or used to receive. And they (used to) get 4-6 months off to live wherever they damn well please(d).

The financial beatdown that the owners are going to impose will be almost as entertaining as the sport itself.

Almost.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's a HUGE gambit by the players. If the antitrust case is lost, the players are in a world of hurt. Of course the attorneys don't care; they get paid to fight, not to recommend the players cave and sign the agreement. To put it in the words of that famous poet, C. Boozer, Kessler "gets a "raise," regardless."

I would love to see the idiots in the league (not any of the Jazz players, IMO) have their contracts voided. Do you think Lebron, DWade, Kobe, etc. will turn on Hunter. Fisher and their agents?
 
InGameStrategy said:
The financial beatdown that the owners are going to impose will be almost as entertaining as the sport itself.

Almost.
Click to expand...

....it's one of the most fantastic outcomes and paybacks for the low sink of debauchery presently displayed by today's NBA players! Danny Sheridan odds has 50% of the players...ending up wearing "orange jumpsuits" before the lockout ends!
 
Karadrys30 said:
vets can go where they want, they just wont make as much money.
Click to expand...

As in, possibly about 80% less money.

Also, how do you force a team to compete in a bidding war? Either you're so good teams compete, or you're not that good, and they don't? The owners are trying to prevent the bidding wars the players have earned by their talent and experience.
 
freakazoid said:
If I could pick and choose, right now, I'd compare NBA players to Charlie Sheen. That huge sense of self-entitlement caused him to trip over his ego and fall face first into a fresh humble pie. If the players aren't careful, I think they could end up dining from the same plate.
Click to expand...

I would have to throw David Stern in there as well if we are talking about self-entitlement. Stern has not been as PC as he has in the past. He is throwing everything onto the players right now when things could be resolved if the owners gave a little bit back. Personally, I am pro owners but they have gotten more than I thought that they could. They should be happy and get this season going.
 
One Brow said:
As in, possibly about 80% less money.

Also, how do you force a team to compete in a bidding war? Either you're so good teams compete, or you're not that good, and they don't? The owners are trying to prevent the bidding wars the players have earned by their talent and experience.
Click to expand...

Free agents can shop themselves to any team for any price that they are willing to pay short of a max deal from your existing team which can be like you said about 20% higher. However, players complain about not being able to go were they want. Which is incorrect since they could go to any team they wanted (assuming that team was willing to take them and would pay what the player wanted to make). What is interesting is that players want high year deals. If they wanted mobiliy then they should fight for year to year contracts. Then they would have freedom every off season. They dont want that, because they would loose the security of haveing a contract that is set no matter if you are hurt, a huge star, or cant earn your way off the bench.

I just want players to be consistent. Do you want freedom, or do you want longterm contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top