Looks like the Players Won in the new deal

[phoostal]

Which I think stinks for competitive balance in the NBA.

Below is the link

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7283065/sources-nba-owners-relented-several-key-issues

Basically the only think the owners got was more money from the BRI split. Since it use to be 57 for the players and it will go down to 51 to 49.

Luxury tax teams can still free agents. Still make sign and trades. Still extend players and then trade them. So basically the top 6 market teams or big spending owners will succeed and the rest will sit and watch as the rich get richer.

I'd prefer no season then this garbage. I guess in 6 years the owners will opt out again and cave into the players once again.

P

[phoostal]

Here's another article going into a little more detail point by point

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=As_DpcXFYjdBoCAJhNlCTls5nYcB?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_deal_112611

Like I said nothing really has changed except the revenue sharing. With ASG this means with the current agreement will still be a second tier team with no hope of reaching the next level.

Let's hope we can win with this current roster, but I think we can all agree we need more than what we got. And with this new CBA we aren't going to get any help in constructing a better roster due to the fact we have horrible ownership in the ASG.

P

[HalfHawk]

From what ESPN is reporting, Billy Hunter sent out a memo to NBA players that they're going to receive 51.2 percent of the BRI with the new deal. Looks like the players organization and their lawyers squeezed out, quite literally, every little drop of money they could get their hands on.

[Wretch]

Yeah...it's what I felt was going to happen, or was afraid was going to happen, all along. Like all the posturing and blah-blah about competitive balance and system issues is merely a smokescreen - just something thrown up so that either side can make "concessions" to secure a bigger split of the money. I would have preferred to watch the season burn in order to fix the current system. Other than more money, I don't see what has really changed.

The sign and trade limits look interesting, but that's not going to stop the big market teams from getting the players they want. I guess it's early/late, so I'm not really understanding the difference between sign or extend and trade. Because they're saying that deal's like Carmelo's can still go down and they give no specifics on limitations.

Either way, I'm done worrying about the business side of the NBA. At least until some real changes are proposed and implemented. Perhaps that's what this was really about? Bringing the BRI down, so they could opt out of the new deal in 6 years, concede more $$$ back to the players, and get the system issues they want?

Dunno. Don't care anymore. Ready for basketball.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

It's not the point of being a large or small market. It's if your owner is willing to spend the money AND if your team is a desirable destination for free agents.

Paul Allen in Portland ( one of the smallest markets in the league ) used to spend boatloads of money to get any player he wanted. And as long as Portland was a desirable destination, he could get that player. It wasn't until B-Roy and Oden got hurt, that Allen started crying about the "economics" of the league.

Oklahoma City is the new "Portland". But the new rules in place may very well see them lose Russell Westbrook ( if he continues to improve ). But because they already have "the superstar" in place, a guy like Westbrook will readily be replaced by any number of vet PGs in the future.

Personally . . it's time for the STAR talent on this team to consistently play like STARS. That's the only way we're getting to the next level. Trying to implement an NFL type economic and free agent system to the NBA would've been a disaster. The NBA is a league in which superstars rule the day. And because there are only about 5 - 10 superstars around the league, the rest of the teams would've been sold a bunch of "fools gold" about "competitive balance". ( you can argue that they already have been sold this pyrite ).

If the owners would've gotten everything they wanted, that would've spelled doom for the Hawks, because we're not in position to make a move for a major guy anyway ( without a sign and trade ). At least this system does give us a chance to sign and trade for someone, if we decide to move one or two of our stars.

The owners got the main thing that they wanted, and that was a much more extensive slice of the pie.

[hawkman]

I agree North. This was all about money from the beginning. All that talk about competitive balance was a crock. Why do you think the ASG was so willing to take the Hawks off the market after wanting to dump them off on anyone who would have them? Once they figured the players would accept less than 53% they knew they were golden. I respect any business wanting to make a profit, but don't hide behind competitive balance to get people on your side. Just admit that you run a business and that you want that business to be more profitable.

[Randy]

Does look like the owners caved in the end. Of course, the players did most all the caving up to the last round of negotiation. The owners got 50/50 (plus or minus a bit) and tigthened the caps, etc a bit, but not much.