And why was it that he was able to earn so much? Because there wasn't a limit in place on a player's potential earning. So this "broken" system seems to have benefited the owners. I want a player to look Jordan in the face and repeat what MJ told Abe Pollin, "If you can't make a profit, sell the team." Anyways, as for this lockout, I want it to end, but if the players hold firm and are willing to lose a season, I completely understand. The owners are being disingenuous and are purposely sabataging the season. This has never been a negotiation. How can they call it one when the players are the only ones making concessions? What have the players gotten out of this? Nothing. The owners haven't been willing to give up something, just to take less. Even in the NFL players got less practice sessions out of it. The NBA made more revenure than ever before and the value of franchises are exploding, if owners can't make a profit, that's the league's own fault, not the players. That's up to the league to have significant revenue sharing and placing teams in markets to succeed. This argument about small market teams not being able to spend as much as big market teams is stupid. Ok, so you can't spend as much, but spending doesn't guarantee success. The Knicks, Clippers, Bulls, and Celtics had about a decade of irrelevance despite their spending. Meanwhile the Jazz, Spurs, Magic, and Cleveland have had success. This has never been a real negotiation, this has been about the owners bleeding the players for as much as they can to the point where both sides would sacrafice a season. During the season when there were talks about a lockout, I was on here saying the players should decertify because that was their biggest leverage. Now we're here in November and just now are there real talks about decertification. The biggest mistake was the players believing the owners wanted to make a fair deal.