?QuestionMark?

I'm not sure I follow. When I say the owners aren't as well off, I'm refering in regards to the lawsuit. I don't think this is a slam dunk victory for them at all. Odds are in their favor, but the odds of them losing are high enough to scare them of the 6 billion dollars of damages the players are seeking. But as to your point of the owners losing less money. Even though all of them are accuring debt (they have to payback their TV deal with interest), there are some teams that probably will lose less money not having a season. But how long will the owners that do make a profit go along with this? Especially when those teams are the big markets, the ones the NBA relies on the most for revenue? The Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, Heat will lose a lot of money that they won't get back either if the season is lost. But as to the owners massive losses. I don't buy it. I believe there are some owners losing money, but I don't think its as massive as the league claims it to be. Doesn't pass the BS test. In 2005 when they negotiated the new CBA, players agreed to take less money. Fewers years, less raises, lower base salary. So how could owners suddenly start losing this mass amount of money? I know we're in a recession, but the NBA has been making record revenue. And I go back, if franchises were in such bad shape, then how is it possible then for franchises to be sold at record price tags? I assume that the billionaries who purchase these teams are idiots, and would know a good or bad investment when they see it. The NBA hasn't really explained why the sudden losses. I tend to agree with the players that the owners are trying to include the purchase price of their team as part of their losses on their balance sheet.

And yet both dissolve the union, which allows the players to bring an antitrust suit against the NBA. It serves the same purpose for the players. As a side note, I do think the best thing the players could do is fire Hunter and try to disassociate themselves as much as possible before this goes to trial. I'm still surprised he has a job.

On the surface that looks nice, but the owners new deal restricts the players ability to move. The new lux tax itself is a hard cap, not even an owner like Cuban would pay it at that rate. Just because they don't call it a hard cap doesn't mean it won't functionally work as one. There were also reports that the NBA wanted to be able to retract two teams (which lowers the BRI for the players further) without talking to the union. So yeah it looks "fair" but the NBA is also trying to sneak some provisions in there hurt free agency.

No doubt they lose big, but they also hurt their future earning potential if they agree to this deal. Those flaws are optional though. Just because you're allowed to give someone a 6 year deal doesn't mean you have to. The owners have no self control and are taking it out on the players. The BRI split is there as a concession for originally implementing a salary cap. So it was fair to have it placed high, or else why would have the players ever agreed to limit their earning power. I agree there were some parts of the CBA that needed to be changed, but the owners took it too far. IMO this deal isn't really fair. More restriction on movement, paycuts, a defacto hard cap with the lux tax system, and this on top of the 3 billion the players are giving back to the owners. What have the players gotten out of it? That's not a concession. They haven't given the players anything they didn't already have. They're just asking for less in return. To your comment that the players have budged less? They've given 3 billion dollars to the owners. They've agreed to take paycuts. And this at a time where the NBA has record attendence, viewership, revenue, and franchise values are at an all time high. I disagree that the owners have all the leverage. If they did, what's to stop them from demanding capping salaries for everyone at 5 million? I agree that they have more leverage because they can hold out longer, but they've also underestimated the players' resolve by holding out for this long. The players run a risk by going the legal route, but they score a few wins there the owners are screwed. It's still a longshot but when you're facing 6 billion in potential damages, that tends to make you budge a little just to avoid the major risk.

Sure the courts can rule that the players aren't getting to a deal just to pursue an antitrust suit....if they ignore common sense. The players could have gone this route back in July but spent several months negotiating. The players are the ones that have gone from 57 to 50 in BRI. The players are the ones making consessions. The owners have just been giving ultimatums and threats. And it was the owners that locked them out. I don't see how a court could say the players are dissolving the union just to seek a suit when they're the only ones negotiating and they're not the reason for the work stoppage. The owners aren't as well off as you make it seem. Their case isn't a guaranteed win by any stretch of the imagination. The players aren't asking to lift the lockout, they're seeking damages-- damages that would destroy some NBA teams. In the meantime they're still generating losses and accruing interest debt. Everything you're arguing is based on a guaranteed victory by the owners (which could happen), but sometimes just the threat of losing is enough to get them to come to a more reasonable deal.

It serves the same purpose for the players. It's a voluntary decertification via the disclaimer of interest. It's quicker but it acheives the same thing: Allows the players to file antitrust suits against the owners.

They have decertified. A disclaimer of interest and decertification both dissolve the union and now Hunter and Kessler and file suit against the league on behalf of the players. The 50/50 deal was terrible. Dissolving the union finally gives the players some leverage besides just saying "no" to a bad proposal. I disagree that the players screwed themselves. Is it a risk? Yeah, but it's just as big, if not a bigger risk, for the owners. If the players lose they go back to playing basketball under a bad deal. But they'll still play. If the owners losing, they've lost potential revenue, they have to payback the TV networks plus interest, and they're facing damages in the billions where some franchises may not exist when the dust settles. And I'm not sure doing this now is such a bad thing. Hunter will argue that they could have taken this step in July, but made a real effort to negotiate in good faith and its been the owners who won't budge. He'll likely point out that Stern threatened the union with a lockout three years ago. This isn't a slam dunk for the owners. If they didn't fear this move by the players, they wouldn't have filed lawsuits with the NLRB or the district court. Even if the odds for the owners are 70-30 in their favor, when they're facing possible damages of what? 6 billion? That 30 percent risk starts looking huge enough that they might budge off their demands. Personally, I think we at OTR could have reached a fair CBA far faster than these two groups.

Good for the players. I'm surprised they actually sacked up went this route. Leading up to today I was expecting them to cave. I would have actually thought less of the players if they took this deal (which was terrible for various reasons) just to make a few bucks and therefore screwing future players. Whatever deal they strike will be the starting point for the next CBA negotiations where owners will want to take even more. There has to come a time where players in whatever sport take a stand and say "enough". The owners pushed the players to this point. The union made an effort to get a deal done and the owners kept wanting more without giving anything. That's not a negotiation. And I'm sure that's what the union will argue -- that they're the only ones making any concessions. And, ironically, Hunter waiting until now to decertify may actually work to the union's benefit to show they negotiated in good faith. I'd much rather someone cave so we can have hoops this year, but I understand why the players made this decision. And I blame Stern for creating this climate.

Isiah Umipig and Chris McNealy. Show some love to the Big West.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been really productive with all this extra time since there's a lockout. Once again, I think the owners are full of crap and the players have given up enough for a deal to get done. And besides the players getting the short end of the stick, this rumored deal is complete BS. I don't like the idea of eliminating the MLE for teams over the Lux Tax or a super tax. Too me that just says the owners can't control their own spending habits. Spending a ton of cash doesn't translate to winning...just ask Isiah Thomas era Knicks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: NEVER TALK TO COPS!!! If he hadn't talked to cops, the DA would have had a tougher case to prove. Should have learned from Martha Stewart and Marion Jones.

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.

This should have been the union's initial move once the owners made their original ridiculous proposal. If you're going to lose a season, might as well put pressure on the owners with an anti-trust lawsuit over their heads.

I personally wouldn't waive Artest, but I can see Buss going for it. A healthy Matt Barnes was pretty effective offensively with the starters last year. Plus Devin Ebanks showed enough last year to give him a shot to crack the rotation. At the same time, I would think that Buss would want to see what the team does with Brown as its head coach. There's going to be a lot of stress put on the defensive end and Artest was LA's best perimeter defender last year and still one of the better defenders in the league, even if he is losing a step. Artest struggled in the triangle, but Brown is pretty much kicking the tri out the door so Artest could find himself being more effective in a more traditional offense.

I don't think this is an either or situation. Either we keep Miller or we cut him and get cap space. Either way, Miami is out of cap space and stuck just with their MLE. So that eliminates guys like Chandler, Nene, and Crawford. I wouldn't cut Miller unless I feel he's damaged good and basically just wasting a roster spot (ahem, Luke Walton). Arison isn't afraid to spend money. I'm sure he'll shell out the cash to try to get a big. Dalambert or Przybilla for MLE or cheaper alternatives like Kwame Brown or Aaron Gray.

Agree but right now they need to focus on just getting production from their starting SG position. If Roy or Gordon or even Hamilton don't get amnestied, then those players I listed are their best options. They can't afford to not sign one of them just because they can't consistently create their own shot.

I don't see anyone worth using the amnesty on for Chicago. I know Boozer was a disappointment in the playoffs, but he still provides Chicago an inside threat that isn't exactly easy to replace via FA. The only guy they could use it on just for the sake of using it on is Brewer if they feel 4 million is too much for defensive specialist and just sign a guy like Dominic McGuire to fill that role. But I'd keep the current team as is and just add a SG. There'll be plenty of options: Arron Afflalo, Jason Richardson, and Shane Battier as my top choices. Then guys like Roger Mason, Michael Redd, Anthony Parker, DeShawn Stevenson, and Willie Green would be next on my list.

It would make sense. Plus they can replace him with plenty of FAs that probably come cheaper: DeShawn Stevenson, Josh Howard, Mo Evans, Anthony Parker, Al Thornton, Vlad Rad, etc. Williams has been such a disappointment. I thought he'd be the 2nd best player of his draft behind Paul and that both of them would be multiple time all-stars and on a level way ahead of any other player in the draft. Oops. I guess Atlanta is thinking the same thing.

I don't know that Dallas should just waive him outright. I can think of a couple teams that a pretty desperate for size who can give Dallas at least some value for Haywood. Boston and New York come to mind immediately. Unless Dallas is deadset on having cap space in 2012, I don't know that they should be so quick to dump Haywood. It's not like Dallas has any other bad contracts. And they still play in the West where size is important to go through LA and Memphis.

Not sure how I feel about this super tax. I know that you don't want to have big market teams or owners with deep pockets to just spend ridiculously, but at the same time it does penalize a team if they've been smart with their trades and drafts. Suppose a team does their homework and lucks out and are lucky enough to draft 5 all-star calibar players, now they may have to let one walk or just trade him because they can't afford the super tax. I think getting rid of a sign and trades and giving players incentives to re-sign with their team would almost eliminate the need for a supertax. Owners have a better chance at keeping their players and teams over the cap can't acquire them unless it's with an exception that would probably be below market value. It also would give players less leverage to hold their teams hostage ala Carmelo.

I agree with Ryan Wolstat, this FA class sucks for rebuilding teams like Toronto. There's no one they can get that makes them into contenders, or are there any players available that they can realistically get that'll be a key piece for the future. I think they should sign some young players that could come cheap and still have potential. Guys like Al Thornton or CDR. Otherwise just stay put and use their cap space to make good trades or just wait for a stronger FA class.

In the regular season I'd say LeBron is better. In the playoffs, I'd go with Wade. I'd feel more comfortable with Wade in the postseason because he'll amp up his level of play up. You can get a mixed bag with LeBron. In that ECF Cleveland-Magic game where LeBron hit that game winning 3, the person most surprised that he made that basket seemed to be LeBron himself. Wade on the other hand just has that swagger that he'll come up huge somehow.

As if there wasn't enough incentive to get a deal done http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/memphis-looks-to-sue-nba-over-lockout-mfo-20111018

I'm not saying he won't be a solid SF, I just don't think he'll be special. Not that I think Irving is the second coming of Chris Paul or anything, but if given the choice of Andre Miller and Richard Jefferson, I'd go with the PG. I don't think LeBron would have been scrutinized for that. His guard skills were impressive (minus his shooting), but I'm not sold his perimeter skills are good enough to have made it worth taking him 1st. Granted, I could be wrong. That Loul Deng just reminds me I thought he'd be a bust.

Bobcats are a mess. Their two best players are both PGs. I'd trade Augustin for another young player of equal talent at another position just to balance out the roster. Really wouldn't look at FA. Not much there that would make a profound difference. Maybe if they MAX Gasol they could get him out of Memphis, but that's unlikely. The only FA I'd sign as a piece for the future and only if it's a reasonable contract is Carl Landry. He can be a solid starting PF or an excellent 6th man. Other than that, there's not much they can do. I would just try to dump as many bad contracts as possible, trade whatever asset they have that doesn't fit into their long-term plans (Diaw) and get something of value. Then I'd wait for the draft.