The NBA Lockout Thread

AKA the reason I am drinking more these days.

So it looks like the Players Association is NOT going to take the deal being offered by the owners, who gave them a bullshit ultimatum of Wednesday.

To recap - players were getting 57% of league revenue, and the league's owners thought this program was losing them money. The owners eventually rejected player proposals that took that percentage to 52% (a loss of about a billion in player profits), and have been pitching a 50/50 split. The latest deal is revenue based, and suggests that, if the league profits heavily, the players share could rise to 51%, or if it doesn't it falls to 49%. However, not only are these numbers dependent on the owner and teams' accounting, but the players union understands it comes out to, realistically, a 50.2% maximum share, and that the potential of 51% is illusory.

Meanwhile, if the players don't take the current deal, the owners say their next offer will only allow a 47% revenue share and a very hard cap, with a group of separate owners (spearheaded by Michael Jordan, being a total dillhole) pitching only a 37% player share.

Meanwhile, the union is most likely going to decertify, a lengthy process that, if it occurs, essentially means this entire season is lost.

I see the players' side. I see the owners' side. I agree with the players on this, because there is no way in HELL that this lockout won't end (under any circumstances) and, five days later, some jackass owner will bid against himself and give Jamal Crawford $60 million. In other word,s the owners are desperate for new fail-safe strategies that prevent them from being idiots, but, let's face it, they're often idiots (with the exception of the guy who runs the Thunder).

So... um... I guess this can be the thread for discussion of the NBA. NBA stories involving idle players. Guys going overseas. Who might be the first recipient of the proposed Amnesty clause that allows a team to shed one onerous contract so that it doesn't get counted against the cap? If there's a shortened season, who wins the title?

Well, the entire deal proposed by NBA owners can be found here.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba%20proposal%2011-11-2011.pdf

Highlights:

Owners want the right to contract two teams. Without telling the Players Union. What?

(Though I would like a league without the Bobcats and Kings).

And if the NBA owners spend too much, they can procure more funds from the players' own post-career benefits. Huh?

I would guess the players won't take the deal today. Next step is decertifying the union. After that, the season will most likely be lost.

At this point, I was hoping for either

a) Some wacky billionaire would come along and form a ten-team superleague, or

b) There would be a fifty game season similar to 1999, with three-games-in-a-row weeks, players not knowing who each other were, and a proliferation of messy, sloppy 89-86 slapfests.

This is a good compromise. Though this will indefinitely lower the salary cap - what will this do to teams already capped out, like the Heat, Knicks, etc.? How exactly are they going to put a full team together? A lot of guys are going to be squeezed into signing for the veteran's minimum.

Oh, and I can't wait for the amnesty clause. There's going to be a SHITLOAD of player movement before now and Christmas.

My championship pick? Thunder defeats the Bulls in six games.