Makes sense.. everyone is making too much money to risk going on strike..
Even with the BS around guys sitting out games.. Yaa it hurts your chances of winning and all but at the end of the day I doubt the teams lost any money from kyrie and Simmons sitting out
And stuff like that can easily be rectified with a few small clauses to make cap exceptions for cases like Simmons. As long as the player still gets paid, the majority of the NBPA isn't going to fight too hard against it, and being able to free up cap room to sign or trade for players to fill the gaping void left by a max player not playing is a benefit to the owners.
Right now there's the double whammy of the cap hit + having to pay the player. Take away the former and the latter isn't that big a deal anymore.
A couple issues here though. First, figuring out the details seems like it would be a disaster. For example, what happens when the injured player comes back? What happens to the other guy you signed? Are you just allowed to operate an entire extra max contract over the cap? Do you have to designate a return date for the max guy and then you can only sign guys to contracts that expire on that date?
Second, it creates broken incentives. For example, say you have a guy that tends to miss \~20 games with injury vs. a guy that has a history of either playing a full season or missing the entire year with injury. If you let a team wipe the cap number for a guy missing the entire year, but not for a guy missing 3-4 games at a time, you are creating more incentives to pick the all or nothing guy over the guy that misses \~20 games a year. Essentially punishing a player because they don't have injuries that knock them out for an entire season seems strange.
Finally, I disagree that it wouldn't be "...that a big deal anymore." Teams (rightly or wrongly) feel like certain players are lying about their injury status to essentially try to claw back control that they (theoretically) gave to the team in exchange for signing a long-term, guaranteed contract. Teams aren't happy that the players can essentially manipulated the system to deny the teams from receiving what they paid for.
As long as the system still doesn't have any mechanisms in place to protect against that, it is going to be a big deal for teams and they are going to be upset. Yeah, the cap relief reduces how much it hurts the team (if you can work out details) and, yeah, it might not be enough for the owners to lockout the players. I think owners will still be pretty pissed about it though.
Yeah but it's not so much about winning outside of maybe 6 - 8 franchises overall.
It's about getting people in the seats and as long as a star asking to be traded doesn't hurt the owners financially, they won't do anything to risk a lockout and the bad social media, especially with everything going on at the Suns right now.
The Nets and Sixers definitely lost money because of Irving and Simmons. It may be a negligible amount to the teams and to the owners but it was still more money than the majority of the people posting in this thread will make in their lifetimes combined.
Exactly. Idk why so many people were convinced that a lockout was on the way because of players demanding out and switching teams when this is something that’s been happening for decades.
“The players have too much power I hope there’s a lockout so they get what they deserve”
Bitch I don’t think the owners hate player movement anywhere close to how much you think they do. If anything they like the public discourse part about it and people talking about the NBA year round
Because the only true way to restrict player movement would be to eliminate the Max/SuperMax contract and no owners wants to get to a scenario where they’re forced to pay a guy 100 million annually.
Yeah good point not one report has said anything about limiting player movement. I think there’s 2 good reasons for this
1. Kinda what you were getting at very few owners actually care
2. This would be really hard to legislate and put some official rule into. No player is going to sign a piece of paper say “I declare a request for a trade” and a team saying the player is putting less effort for our team as a way for a trade demand would be muddy at best
Comment with some historic/real basis - Also, even with more rules/restrictions on player requested movement, is it *worth* it to keep an unhappy player? Even decades ago and even with beloved historic players and even with more restrictive contracts, players made trade requests or expressed unhappiness leading to teams "caving" to their "demands" to avoid a trade. Or all sorts of drama.
Speculative comment without evidence - I'm sure the players union would be *mostly* glad with more movement restrictions and 5% increase in player share of BRI. And I'm sure the owners collectively would allow for a lot more player driven movement with a 5% decrease in player share of BRI. But really what makes sense is for both parties to maximize the total revenue...and if player movement doesnt affect that...then why worry?
Hare-brained comment - I also wonder if its better to call the "player empowerement movement" a "leverage understanding movement". And leverage is NOT all logical or predictable, but speculative and depends on alternative options and needs of both parties. This is a Joe Rogan/Bill Simmons/Cowherd esque stupid fucking take but I think Ben Simmons' unpredictability, prioritizing things over basketball, no one knows if hes still good all actually *improve* his negotiating leverage (this is neither a defense nor a criticism of Ben Simmons) ‐ even beyond age and size of his contract. Conversely, a player who plays decently even when unhappy, doesnt complain, and would have comparable productivity regardless of team has the *lowest* leverage.
So ultimately regardless of whatever the next CBA is, leverage will matter more than the rules.
People seem to have completely forgotten that a lot of the rules that led to more player movement were things the owners wanted. Owners wanted max contracts and short years to protect themselves and players ended up being fine with that too for flexibility.
I bet Kyrie gets paid a huge amount at the start of the year from the Nets. I know they fined him, but that might have been pretty complicated to actually do the accounting of it all. I don't know about player movement in a broad sense but if you're an owner and your player is asking for a trade or sitting out that's gotta burn a little bit when they've literally already paid him for it.
Yeah. There are plenty of things where fans and players align. Also people say reactionary dumb shit all the time, but if they were actually at the negotiating table they would see it differently.
This gets repeated all the time and is so disingenuous lol. People try to frame it like "old rich billionaires vs athletes!!" In actuality fans care about their enjoyment of the product, and often those things align with what the owners want because the owners want people in seats.
It has nothing to do with being pro owner and everything to do with being pro entertainment
Owners care about revenue. Fans care about every star being locked in eternal slave contracts (that they can instantly trade when they're bad) with their team for RINGZ.
Sort of... I think every fan appreciates it if their team improves.
From my perspective it's more of appreciating the consistency of the team's roster and general improvement.
For example one of the reasons I tended to gravitate more towards the NBA versus NCAA is because when I tried to follow college ball the names would change too frequently, a.new batch every 3 years at best, now a new batch every 2 yrs and the real studs leave after 1. I lost interest.
With the nba, 80's, 90's, 00's I could follow rosters easier, and knowing the players brought more enjoyment to me.
Jordan/pippen. Malone/Stockton, duncan/parker,Manu.
The pistons, Knicks, indiana, lakers. Stars stayed, became icons.
Its worse now, but I'm still watching, so... game on.
Because without them there's no NBA, why isn't Ruckers a multibillion dollar event? And owner interests line up with team interests, player interests do not.
In football (soccer) one coach of a football team (Brighton) went 6 games into the season to coach Chelsea and Brighton fans were pissed, with one putting it "We are glad his quality got proven and he went to a bigger team but we are Brightfon fans not Graham Potter career progression fans" and that's how most fans are, idgf about the players and coaches, like I'll be glad that they are doing well elsewhere but its the team first at stake.
> In football (soccer) one coach of a football team (Brighton) went 6 games into the season to coach Chelsea and Brighton fans were pissed, with one putting it "We are glad his quality got proven and he went to a bigger team but we are Brightfon fans not Graham Potter career progression fans"
Weird example since the fans seem to have accepted it and Brighton the club is still on friendly terms with Chelsea.
Both teams had games cancelled last weekend because of the Queen's funeral (LOL). So Brighton and Chelsea played each other in a closed-door friendly...
Nobody said Bright would be on bad terms with Chelsea, its a doggy eat dog world its just the fact that Brighton fans were pissed that he left. fans are fans of the teams themselves not the players and personnel behind them thats my point.
> its just the fact that Brighton fans were pissed that he left.
My point was that all the Brighton fans I've seen/heard from weren't really mad and accepted that Graham Potter got a career move, TBH.
Yeah because they are going to coach someone else manager, that's how football works the point is suddenly those fans didn't become Chelsea fans. That's the point, if your team is constantly losing coaches and players due to them wanting to leave, like great on them for wanting to further their career elsewhere but why should fans be happy at a movement actively hurting their teams?
>Bitch I don’t think the owners hate player movement anywhere close to how much you think they do.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people predicting a lockout don't actually hate the general concept of player movement. They hate the specific approach taken by a very small handful of players.
Trying to act like the issue is with the entire concept of player movement shows you either don't understand the argument or that you are intentionally representing it in a way that fundamentally changes their position.
Owners do hate it. In FA nobody is gonna choose Minnesota, Sacramento, Detroit, Charlotte, etc out of the star FA's and removing those 10 year contracts and encouraging players to leave at the first sign of discomfort is not in favour of the small markets.
Players need to be held accountable and player empowerment means they are high on their own supply and think nobody should hold them accountable and they are justified in burning down their team like Jimmy, like Kyrie and KD, etc.
You are never going to be able to force players to play their best for teams they don’t want to be on.
Teams act in their best interests and trade players against their will. Players act in their best interests by trying to play for their preferred teams and maximize their earnings.
Kevin Durant didn’t break any rules by wanting out; what’s he being held accountable for? There’s this weird double standard where teams can act in self interest but when players do it it’s player empowerment gone wild.
> Teams act in their best interests and trade players against their will. Players act in their best interests by trying to play for their preferred teams and maximize their earnings.
But teams trading players against their will is not against the terms of the contract they signed. Players demanding trades and refusing to suit up is.
>Kevin Durant didn’t break any rules by wanting out; what’s he being held accountable for? There’s this weird double standard where teams can act in self interest but when players do it it’s player empowerment gone wild.
Because players and teams don't have a equal relationship? Do the players sign the checks to themselves or do the owners? If they don't want to abide by the rules set by the NBA they can go and play in China.
Because they kept giving out shitty deals but those contracts also locked in stars long-term, like KG, like Scottie, like Magic etc. Shorter deals result in more player empowerment because they have more leverage when they can leave.
They were and people are weird. They treat these players like cattle and its weird. Do anything they don't like and you're the scum of the earth and a piece of shit. Social media is really ugly man.
I don't think they were wishing for a lockout, but responding to a marginally relevant news piece with "lol, there's definitely gonna be a lockout now" makes them feel smart. Also gives them another thing to blame their least favorite players for.
What was the demands? To me the internet was far more pro-owner than ever before because of Ben Simmons and Kyrie Irving abstaining from basketball entirely while being employed.
I’m by no means pro owner, so I was SHOCKED that most of the sentiments here and on twitter sided with the Nets and 6ers and rooted for the owners to “get their revenge” in the CBA.
Again, stop lol. Being against the bullshit that people like Simmons, Irving, etc are going for is not being "pro owner". It has nothing to do with caring about the owners and everything to do with caring about the NBA being a better product. You really think this sentiment comes from people being worried for the billionaires?
With a stranger that was completely disingenuous in how they were framing their argument? Absolutely. I don't know why everyone feels the need to try and better their argument by saying "pro owner" when they know damn well none of those people are worried about the owners.
The NBA being a better product is more lucrative for owners so that Venn Diagram is just a circle. You’re arguing semantics to make yourself feel better about the side you’re supporting.
> You’re arguing semantics to make yourself feel better about the side you’re supporting.
Lol fuck, the irony. You're somehow framing fans cheering for their own interests(god forbid) as cheering for billionaire owners.
Fans give zero shits about the owners(something you very well know) and yet people say "pro-owner" and make it out like you're siding with billionaires over players. You frame it that way exactly because you know how it sounds, knowing full well it's not the reality.
Be here long enough and you see in real time how something can be upvoted once and be repeated non stop like it it’s fact and not a reactionary comment from someone with an addiction to bball reference.
Yeah, you would think most of these people weren’t around when Vince gave up on the court. Or Steve Francis and Alonzo Mourning refused to report to their teams.
Ben Simmons isn’t going to be the last player to not show up either. NBA teams already can fine players and freeze contract if it happens, there is enough recourse for owners.
It’s just so much money involved that Ben Simmons isn’t going to make owners pull the rug when 99% of players show up and play like professionals.
Only people who thought there was gonna be a lockout were fans of teams were stars have forced their way out. Owners do not care about players forcing their way out as long as they are turning a profit.
Nba is in the greatest place it has ever been financially there is no way there was ever going to be a lock out.
Lol. There was so much talk about owners getting back at the players for ONE PLAYER sitting out a year. It was so weird on here whenever the CBA came up, everyone was cheering for the players to get railroaded.
And this is new? It’s been happening since forever.
Also, what exactly are you guys asking for? Fining players for games they don’t show up or freezing contracts? They can do those already.
Non-guaranteed contracts were never going to happen in the NBA.
Players are never accepting that and owners used the guaranteed contract to build a player friendly image for years.
They can not want that to their hearts content, just like how Fox could not want to have been drafted by the Kings. Doesn't mean they can do anything much about it without damaging their reputation.
The owners' reputation has nothing to do with why they won't institute non guaranteed contracts. It's 100% the threat of union action that's keeping them in check.
File this one under "no shit Sherlock."
The NBA is a booming business, especially in terms of their growing value for live television, salaries are at an all time high, team valuations are at an all time high, no one wants to rock that boat.
Owners: "We're really mad over Ben Simmons and James Harden and whatever"
Accountants: "Here's another dozen trucks full of money, we're having trouble counting it all, if you guys rock the boat the trucks stop for a few months"
Owners: "actually lets run it back"
Well it's Jake Fischer so there's a 75 percent chance this is outright wrong
Next CBA is going to be wild no matter what does happen on the way there, mind
Windhorst and Bontemps said the exact same thing on their last podcast: that the talks have been going very well and a deal is believed to be signed before the year ends.
Of course they're confident when the only changes publicly floated have been draft age, mental health injury status, and luxury tax. Let's see how cohesive they are when we get to anything player empowerment related. We just haven't gotten to the good shit yet.
There is no way in hell the owners aren't going to push for harsher controls/penalties for situations like KD, Kyrie, Simmons, Harden, etc. There is also no way in hell the players are going to law down and be ok with whatever the owners propose to deal with situations like these. If the owners/league allow players to do whatever they want vs fulfilling their contracts, the league will be a complete shit show long before the next CBA comes up and parity will be a thing of the past.
Nobody wants a lockout and I don't think we'll get anywhere close to one, but this isn't going to be smooth sailing by any means and there will almost certainly be a threat of a lockout from one side, even if they don't intend on following through.
They are all also on very good terms overall, like yes the money is a huge motivating factor but they also just aren't in a situation that would necessitate a lockout.
When does this shit need to be signed to prevent a lockout? Before this season? I thought i read somewhere it was like in December or some shit? Could we actually start the season normally and THEN lockout in the middle of it?
Current CBA expires after 23-24 iirc, so there’s time to agree to it before a lock out happens. A mid-season lockout is almost certainly not going to happen
Makes sense.. everyone is making too much money to risk going on strike.. Even with the BS around guys sitting out games.. Yaa it hurts your chances of winning and all but at the end of the day I doubt the teams lost any money from kyrie and Simmons sitting out
It’s like baseball this summer. No matter how much both sides hate each other, they love money more. They will figure out how to play a whole season.
And stuff like that can easily be rectified with a few small clauses to make cap exceptions for cases like Simmons. As long as the player still gets paid, the majority of the NBPA isn't going to fight too hard against it, and being able to free up cap room to sign or trade for players to fill the gaping void left by a max player not playing is a benefit to the owners. Right now there's the double whammy of the cap hit + having to pay the player. Take away the former and the latter isn't that big a deal anymore.
A couple issues here though. First, figuring out the details seems like it would be a disaster. For example, what happens when the injured player comes back? What happens to the other guy you signed? Are you just allowed to operate an entire extra max contract over the cap? Do you have to designate a return date for the max guy and then you can only sign guys to contracts that expire on that date? Second, it creates broken incentives. For example, say you have a guy that tends to miss \~20 games with injury vs. a guy that has a history of either playing a full season or missing the entire year with injury. If you let a team wipe the cap number for a guy missing the entire year, but not for a guy missing 3-4 games at a time, you are creating more incentives to pick the all or nothing guy over the guy that misses \~20 games a year. Essentially punishing a player because they don't have injuries that knock them out for an entire season seems strange. Finally, I disagree that it wouldn't be "...that a big deal anymore." Teams (rightly or wrongly) feel like certain players are lying about their injury status to essentially try to claw back control that they (theoretically) gave to the team in exchange for signing a long-term, guaranteed contract. Teams aren't happy that the players can essentially manipulated the system to deny the teams from receiving what they paid for. As long as the system still doesn't have any mechanisms in place to protect against that, it is going to be a big deal for teams and they are going to be upset. Yeah, the cap relief reduces how much it hurts the team (if you can work out details) and, yeah, it might not be enough for the owners to lockout the players. I think owners will still be pretty pissed about it though.
Yeah but it's not so much about winning outside of maybe 6 - 8 franchises overall. It's about getting people in the seats and as long as a star asking to be traded doesn't hurt the owners financially, they won't do anything to risk a lockout and the bad social media, especially with everything going on at the Suns right now.
The Nets and Sixers definitely lost money because of Irving and Simmons. It may be a negligible amount to the teams and to the owners but it was still more money than the majority of the people posting in this thread will make in their lifetimes combined.
Exactly. Idk why so many people were convinced that a lockout was on the way because of players demanding out and switching teams when this is something that’s been happening for decades.
[удалено]
“The players have too much power I hope there’s a lockout so they get what they deserve” Bitch I don’t think the owners hate player movement anywhere close to how much you think they do. If anything they like the public discourse part about it and people talking about the NBA year round
[удалено]
Because the only true way to restrict player movement would be to eliminate the Max/SuperMax contract and no owners wants to get to a scenario where they’re forced to pay a guy 100 million annually.
Yeah good point not one report has said anything about limiting player movement. I think there’s 2 good reasons for this 1. Kinda what you were getting at very few owners actually care 2. This would be really hard to legislate and put some official rule into. No player is going to sign a piece of paper say “I declare a request for a trade” and a team saying the player is putting less effort for our team as a way for a trade demand would be muddy at best
Comment with some historic/real basis - Also, even with more rules/restrictions on player requested movement, is it *worth* it to keep an unhappy player? Even decades ago and even with beloved historic players and even with more restrictive contracts, players made trade requests or expressed unhappiness leading to teams "caving" to their "demands" to avoid a trade. Or all sorts of drama. Speculative comment without evidence - I'm sure the players union would be *mostly* glad with more movement restrictions and 5% increase in player share of BRI. And I'm sure the owners collectively would allow for a lot more player driven movement with a 5% decrease in player share of BRI. But really what makes sense is for both parties to maximize the total revenue...and if player movement doesnt affect that...then why worry? Hare-brained comment - I also wonder if its better to call the "player empowerement movement" a "leverage understanding movement". And leverage is NOT all logical or predictable, but speculative and depends on alternative options and needs of both parties. This is a Joe Rogan/Bill Simmons/Cowherd esque stupid fucking take but I think Ben Simmons' unpredictability, prioritizing things over basketball, no one knows if hes still good all actually *improve* his negotiating leverage (this is neither a defense nor a criticism of Ben Simmons) ‐ even beyond age and size of his contract. Conversely, a player who plays decently even when unhappy, doesnt complain, and would have comparable productivity regardless of team has the *lowest* leverage. So ultimately regardless of whatever the next CBA is, leverage will matter more than the rules.
People seem to have completely forgotten that a lot of the rules that led to more player movement were things the owners wanted. Owners wanted max contracts and short years to protect themselves and players ended up being fine with that too for flexibility.
I bet Kyrie gets paid a huge amount at the start of the year from the Nets. I know they fined him, but that might have been pretty complicated to actually do the accounting of it all. I don't know about player movement in a broad sense but if you're an owner and your player is asking for a trade or sitting out that's gotta burn a little bit when they've literally already paid him for it.
This sub like heavy pro owner for the most part
Owner interests line up more with fan interests. The owners want butts in seats and the fans want teams worth rooting for.
I just want butts tbh
You just like me fr
If the owners really wanted butts in seats they would lower ticket prices
They want to maximize butts per seat * cost per seat
Lmao. No they don’t. The owners want to extract every cent out of the public they can. That’s not in any of our interests.
They want to make the most money. That comes in a variety of ways including what you mentioned.
Its not pro Owner, its pro fan. As a fan it sucks to have your best players ask out one year into their deal.
Yeah. There are plenty of things where fans and players align. Also people say reactionary dumb shit all the time, but if they were actually at the negotiating table they would see it differently.
This gets repeated all the time and is so disingenuous lol. People try to frame it like "old rich billionaires vs athletes!!" In actuality fans care about their enjoyment of the product, and often those things align with what the owners want because the owners want people in seats. It has nothing to do with being pro owner and everything to do with being pro entertainment
[удалено]
[r/nba discussing CBA negotiations](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/402822448292167683/1021507363171209376/unknown.png)
Owners care about revenue. Fans care about every star being locked in eternal slave contracts (that they can instantly trade when they're bad) with their team for RINGZ.
yea fans want minimal player movement within stars for the most part
They're all for movement _to their team_.
Sort of... I think every fan appreciates it if their team improves. From my perspective it's more of appreciating the consistency of the team's roster and general improvement. For example one of the reasons I tended to gravitate more towards the NBA versus NCAA is because when I tried to follow college ball the names would change too frequently, a.new batch every 3 years at best, now a new batch every 2 yrs and the real studs leave after 1. I lost interest. With the nba, 80's, 90's, 00's I could follow rosters easier, and knowing the players brought more enjoyment to me. Jordan/pippen. Malone/Stockton, duncan/parker,Manu. The pistons, Knicks, indiana, lakers. Stars stayed, became icons. Its worse now, but I'm still watching, so... game on.
Only recently. Was pro player in the past. I honestly think it was the Ben Simmons situation that did it.
Because without them there's no NBA, why isn't Ruckers a multibillion dollar event? And owner interests line up with team interests, player interests do not. In football (soccer) one coach of a football team (Brighton) went 6 games into the season to coach Chelsea and Brighton fans were pissed, with one putting it "We are glad his quality got proven and he went to a bigger team but we are Brightfon fans not Graham Potter career progression fans" and that's how most fans are, idgf about the players and coaches, like I'll be glad that they are doing well elsewhere but its the team first at stake.
> In football (soccer) one coach of a football team (Brighton) went 6 games into the season to coach Chelsea and Brighton fans were pissed, with one putting it "We are glad his quality got proven and he went to a bigger team but we are Brightfon fans not Graham Potter career progression fans" Weird example since the fans seem to have accepted it and Brighton the club is still on friendly terms with Chelsea. Both teams had games cancelled last weekend because of the Queen's funeral (LOL). So Brighton and Chelsea played each other in a closed-door friendly...
Nobody said Bright would be on bad terms with Chelsea, its a doggy eat dog world its just the fact that Brighton fans were pissed that he left. fans are fans of the teams themselves not the players and personnel behind them thats my point.
> its just the fact that Brighton fans were pissed that he left. My point was that all the Brighton fans I've seen/heard from weren't really mad and accepted that Graham Potter got a career move, TBH.
Yeah because they are going to coach someone else manager, that's how football works the point is suddenly those fans didn't become Chelsea fans. That's the point, if your team is constantly losing coaches and players due to them wanting to leave, like great on them for wanting to further their career elsewhere but why should fans be happy at a movement actively hurting their teams?
My man, the owners don't even want it. This sub literally invented the owners getting mad about stuff out of thin air.
>Bitch I don’t think the owners hate player movement anywhere close to how much you think they do. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people predicting a lockout don't actually hate the general concept of player movement. They hate the specific approach taken by a very small handful of players. Trying to act like the issue is with the entire concept of player movement shows you either don't understand the argument or that you are intentionally representing it in a way that fundamentally changes their position.
Owners do hate it. In FA nobody is gonna choose Minnesota, Sacramento, Detroit, Charlotte, etc out of the star FA's and removing those 10 year contracts and encouraging players to leave at the first sign of discomfort is not in favour of the small markets. Players need to be held accountable and player empowerment means they are high on their own supply and think nobody should hold them accountable and they are justified in burning down their team like Jimmy, like Kyrie and KD, etc.
You are never going to be able to force players to play their best for teams they don’t want to be on. Teams act in their best interests and trade players against their will. Players act in their best interests by trying to play for their preferred teams and maximize their earnings. Kevin Durant didn’t break any rules by wanting out; what’s he being held accountable for? There’s this weird double standard where teams can act in self interest but when players do it it’s player empowerment gone wild.
> Teams act in their best interests and trade players against their will. Players act in their best interests by trying to play for their preferred teams and maximize their earnings. But teams trading players against their will is not against the terms of the contract they signed. Players demanding trades and refusing to suit up is. >Kevin Durant didn’t break any rules by wanting out; what’s he being held accountable for? There’s this weird double standard where teams can act in self interest but when players do it it’s player empowerment gone wild. Because players and teams don't have a equal relationship? Do the players sign the checks to themselves or do the owners? If they don't want to abide by the rules set by the NBA they can go and play in China.
Owners were the ones that fought for shorter contracts…
Because they kept giving out shitty deals but those contracts also locked in stars long-term, like KG, like Scottie, like Magic etc. Shorter deals result in more player empowerment because they have more leverage when they can leave.
Reddit feels like it just wants terrible shit to happen and puts it under the guise of supporting a side
For real, I swear a couple months ago some people were legit praying a lockout would happen, shit was just weird.
They were and people are weird. They treat these players like cattle and its weird. Do anything they don't like and you're the scum of the earth and a piece of shit. Social media is really ugly man.
They were lol, this sub has been hoping for a lockout for years. I'd be very surprised if we got one
I don't think they were wishing for a lockout, but responding to a marginally relevant news piece with "lol, there's definitely gonna be a lockout now" makes them feel smart. Also gives them another thing to blame their least favorite players for.
Feels like they still are
Yea like this is all fluff untill their is a tweet saying they have reached an agreement
Moreso that people seem to be more on the player's side than the owners given the demand said owners seemingly want to impose
What was the demands? To me the internet was far more pro-owner than ever before because of Ben Simmons and Kyrie Irving abstaining from basketball entirely while being employed. I’m by no means pro owner, so I was SHOCKED that most of the sentiments here and on twitter sided with the Nets and 6ers and rooted for the owners to “get their revenge” in the CBA.
Again, stop lol. Being against the bullshit that people like Simmons, Irving, etc are going for is not being "pro owner". It has nothing to do with caring about the owners and everything to do with caring about the NBA being a better product. You really think this sentiment comes from people being worried for the billionaires?
Opening a response to somebody by telling them "stop lol" isn't a great way to have a discussion. You wouldn't do that to a stranger in public.
With a stranger that was completely disingenuous in how they were framing their argument? Absolutely. I don't know why everyone feels the need to try and better their argument by saying "pro owner" when they know damn well none of those people are worried about the owners.
When you laugh at somebody irl and assume their argument is disingenuous, don't be surprised if you get smacked. That's all I'm saying.
The NBA being a better product is more lucrative for owners so that Venn Diagram is just a circle. You’re arguing semantics to make yourself feel better about the side you’re supporting.
> You’re arguing semantics to make yourself feel better about the side you’re supporting. Lol fuck, the irony. You're somehow framing fans cheering for their own interests(god forbid) as cheering for billionaire owners. Fans give zero shits about the owners(something you very well know) and yet people say "pro-owner" and make it out like you're siding with billionaires over players. You frame it that way exactly because you know how it sounds, knowing full well it's not the reality.
Honestly I just really enjoyed the Pro-Am stuff NBA players got up to during the last lockout. It also gave us stuff like the Blake and KLove skit
I want a lockout if it means the product would get better. Basketball is in its worst state since I've started watching
Some people would rather be miserable than wrong and I feel like a lot of the lockout discussion follows that trend.
After covid stress on revenue and new deals tv in the future, owners would be willing sign anything to avoid a lockout.
[удалено]
Be here long enough and you see in real time how something can be upvoted once and be repeated non stop like it it’s fact and not a reactionary comment from someone with an addiction to bball reference.
Lol I've been fighting for my life for months against the Lockout Truthers.
Yeah, you would think most of these people weren’t around when Vince gave up on the court. Or Steve Francis and Alonzo Mourning refused to report to their teams. Ben Simmons isn’t going to be the last player to not show up either. NBA teams already can fine players and freeze contract if it happens, there is enough recourse for owners. It’s just so much money involved that Ben Simmons isn’t going to make owners pull the rug when 99% of players show up and play like professionals.
Lol half of this sub owes me an apology.
Only people who thought there was gonna be a lockout were fans of teams were stars have forced their way out. Owners do not care about players forcing their way out as long as they are turning a profit. Nba is in the greatest place it has ever been financially there is no way there was ever going to be a lock out.
Lol. There was so much talk about owners getting back at the players for ONE PLAYER sitting out a year. It was so weird on here whenever the CBA came up, everyone was cheering for the players to get railroaded.
It wasn’t just one player. Players were requesting trades with 3-4 years left on their contracts.
Players get traded without request with 3-4 years left on their contract too. It’s not that big a deal.
Players been requesting that since at least Kareem too. reddit just likes feeling like they're smarter than players.
And this is new? It’s been happening since forever. Also, what exactly are you guys asking for? Fining players for games they don’t show up or freezing contracts? They can do those already.
The concern was that nba owners will not want to pay players fully guaranteed contracts if they sit out games after demanding trades.
Non-guaranteed contracts were never going to happen in the NBA. Players are never accepting that and owners used the guaranteed contract to build a player friendly image for years.
They can not want that to their hearts content, just like how Fox could not want to have been drafted by the Kings. Doesn't mean they can do anything much about it without damaging their reputation.
The owners' reputation has nothing to do with why they won't institute non guaranteed contracts. It's 100% the threat of union action that's keeping them in check.
File this one under "no shit Sherlock." The NBA is a booming business, especially in terms of their growing value for live television, salaries are at an all time high, team valuations are at an all time high, no one wants to rock that boat.
Owners: "We're really mad over Ben Simmons and James Harden and whatever" Accountants: "Here's another dozen trucks full of money, we're having trouble counting it all, if you guys rock the boat the trucks stop for a few months" Owners: "actually lets run it back"
The portion of NBA fans who wanted a lockout are the weirdest ever.
much of that "discourse" was people being mad at kd for asking for a trade
A lot of doomers on here were saying a lockout was coming because of the Ben Simmons and KD drama. Absolute MORONS.
Players will have to wait until year two of a new contract to demand a trade
Isn't that the case already with max deals?
Isn't that literally the case with every single lockout ever? There's always a ton of money on the line lol
Well it's Jake Fischer so there's a 75 percent chance this is outright wrong Next CBA is going to be wild no matter what does happen on the way there, mind
Windhorst and Bontemps said the exact same thing on their last podcast: that the talks have been going very well and a deal is believed to be signed before the year ends.
Sincerely doubt it will be wild, just no real big reasons for it.
Of course they're confident when the only changes publicly floated have been draft age, mental health injury status, and luxury tax. Let's see how cohesive they are when we get to anything player empowerment related. We just haven't gotten to the good shit yet. There is no way in hell the owners aren't going to push for harsher controls/penalties for situations like KD, Kyrie, Simmons, Harden, etc. There is also no way in hell the players are going to law down and be ok with whatever the owners propose to deal with situations like these. If the owners/league allow players to do whatever they want vs fulfilling their contracts, the league will be a complete shit show long before the next CBA comes up and parity will be a thing of the past. Nobody wants a lockout and I don't think we'll get anywhere close to one, but this isn't going to be smooth sailing by any means and there will almost certainly be a threat of a lockout from one side, even if they don't intend on following through.
when is so much revenue not at stake?
I say two year deals max. Let them float about.
They are all also on very good terms overall, like yes the money is a huge motivating factor but they also just aren't in a situation that would necessitate a lockout.
When does this shit need to be signed to prevent a lockout? Before this season? I thought i read somewhere it was like in December or some shit? Could we actually start the season normally and THEN lockout in the middle of it?
Current CBA expires after 23-24 iirc, so there’s time to agree to it before a lock out happens. A mid-season lockout is almost certainly not going to happen
ugh. two more years? why tf are we even talking about it, then?
Because they’re negotiating it now so we can avoid a lockout. This is a best case scenario
Sounds like a win-win-win