PDA

View Full Version : Dan Gilbert (Cavs owner) & Rbt Sarver (Suns owner) killed a potential CBA agreement



Fresno
09-16-2011, 04:56 AM
Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday's meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners' executive committee, felt that the players' proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.

Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players' future earnings to be tied into the league's revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.

But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland's Dan Gilbert and Phoenix's Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks' James Dolan and the Lakers' Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/6973675/nba-lockout-derek-fisher-los-angeles-lakers-emails-players-says-owners-rift

Pathetic.

2 of the worst owners in the NBA actually are conspiring to keep the league from playing this upcoming season on schedule. The fact that the players & owners got this close only for these 2 to shoot it down because its "too fair" for the players just blows my mind.

Now everyone is back at square 1 and we have a 2 week window left before things have to get postponed/canceled.

Venomous88
09-16-2011, 05:04 AM
For some reason, I think Gilbert is really still holding a grudge against LeBron and is willing to put the season at risk until he gets either a hard cap which will force the Heat to lose one of there Big 3. It's a win - win situation for him. One more loss season means one less possible ring for LeBron and also one more lottery pick in a loaded 2012 draft. He seems petty like that

Bulls_fan90
09-16-2011, 05:11 AM
For some reason, I think Gilbert is really still holding a grudge against LeBron and is willing to put the season at risk until he gets either a hard cap which will force the Heat to lose one of there Big 3. It's a win - win situation for him. One more loss season means one less possible ring for LeBron and also one more lottery pick in a loaded 2012 draft. He seems petty like that

I guess the Suns owner also hates Lebron.

Fresno
09-16-2011, 05:32 AM
I guess the Suns owner also hates Lebron.

Nah, hes still bitter over Amare Stoudemire, Mike D'Antoni, Joe Johnson, & Shawn Marion all getting up out of Phoenix and ending his dreams of being the cheapest owner to win a NBA Title.

All 4 guys are extremely happy they left, while Steve Nash out of the respect for the fans(not Sarver) wont demand a trade knowing how much of a hole Sarver has left them in once hes gone. If Nash retired tomorrow, they'd be left with Aaron Brooks, Channing Frye, Marcin Gortat, Jared Dudley, Hakim Warrick, & Josh Childress. Yikes!

Sarver's cheap tactics this past decade with the Suns, a team that if Sarver hadn't been cheap would've won multiple titles(Nash, Johnson, Marion, Amare, Rondo, Deng, Barbosa, Gortat, Rudy Fernandez, etc) have made Phoenix one of the least desirable locations for any star NBA player serious about winning to go to.

Fresno
09-16-2011, 05:37 AM
For some reason, I think Gilbert is really still holding a grudge against LeBron and is willing to put the season at risk until he gets either a hard cap which will force the Heat to lose one of there Big 3. It's a win - win situation for him. One more loss season means one less possible ring for LeBron and also one more lottery pick in a loaded 2012 draft. He seems petty like that

Thats probably the truth behind it.

Suddenly he goes from being the owner who claims he was going to push Cleveland further than the Gund family ever dreamt of doing when he had LeBron into being the leader of the Owners demanding a Hard Cap, Reducing Player contracts, etc to keep good teams from continuing to be good.

Looking at that deal would mean the league would go on like it has the last few years and Miami will get closer to winning that title and ruining his guarantee.

SteBO
09-16-2011, 06:40 AM
I hate Dan Gilbert even more now, but he'll have something coming to him soon.

bbcmillionaire
09-16-2011, 07:20 AM
I hate Dan Gilbert even more now, but he'll have something coming to him soon.

Lmao this sounds like a threat

SteBO
09-16-2011, 08:27 AM
Lmao this sounds like a threat
Haha, I don't mean it like that. I mean that the reality will soon hit him that if he continues this petty act, he'll realize that it will only hurt him not help him. He'll lose even more money than he already has by blocking a new CBA agreement.

Corey
09-16-2011, 08:40 AM
I dont exactly blame them for not wanting to ease off the two points mentioned in the article.

pebloemer
09-16-2011, 08:44 AM
I'm surprised this information gets out to be honest. Not that NBA players were lining up to sign with Cleveland or Phoenix, but if I'm an NBA player, this gives me even more incentive not to.


I dont exactly blame them for not wanting to ease off the two points mentioned in the article.

Very significant points. I'm guessing there are more owners that were with Sarver and Gilbert; perhaps less vocal.

jtchilln
09-16-2011, 08:47 AM
the NBA is a league of "The Haves" and "The Have Nots". Which group do you think Cleveland and Phoenix fall under? Which group do you think LA and NY fall under?

Knicks21
09-16-2011, 09:01 AM
Its on Dan Gilbert, it is so on.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 09:04 AM
Thats probably the truth behind it.

Suddenly he goes from being the owner who claims he was going to push Cleveland further than the Gund family ever dreamt of doing when he had LeBron into being the leader of the Owners demanding a Hard Cap, Reducing Player contracts, etc to keep good teams from continuing to be good.

Looking at that deal would mean the league would go on like it has the last few years and Miami will get closer to winning that title and ruining his guarantee.

even if a hardcap were passed, the league would have to give teams atleast 2-3 seasons to get under the hardcap. They would have to set a realistic time line that wouldnt violate labor laws. A lot of teams have high salaries with players who have guarenteed contracts.... a new cba agreement does not supercede existing guarentted contracts.

Knicks21
09-16-2011, 09:05 AM
At least there isn't a bigger difference than we all assume.

SteBO
09-16-2011, 09:07 AM
Look, I get it. Gilbert lost millions of dollars after 2010 and he's very sour about that. That's fine, for I would be pissed off too. But how does jeopardizing an entire season help him in this case? Wouldn't he lose even more money? It makes little to no sense to me.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 09:14 AM
For some reason, I think Gilbert is really still holding a grudge against LeBron and is willing to put the season at risk until he gets either a hard cap which will force the Heat to lose one of there Big 3. It's a win - win situation for him. One more loss season means one less possible ring for LeBron and also one more lottery pick in a loaded 2012 draft. He seems petty like that

Well- I think the owners are considering a revenue sharing arrangement to try and satisfy dan gilbert and robert Sarver. Stern and silver hinted at it in a news press confrence on NBA TV yesterday. Another thing of note- The owners have now said everything is negotiable (including the concept of a hardcap... which was specifically mentioned, and you can bet the players committe heard that).....

If it is Dan Gilbert holding this thing up and all the other owners are ready to go, I am hoping that Stern will not sit back and allow the nba as a whole to lose a season and build up a ton of bad publicity over 1 or 2 owners. The two owners in question have to realize that if they are the only two people on their side holding up an NBA season.....it will eventually become crystal clear to everybody in the media and every nba fan on the planet why there is no season going on.


Not to pick on anybody or start a war on this thread, but for healthy conversation. I'd like to hear from some Cavs or Suns fans on their take of the rumors going around now.

NYman15
09-16-2011, 09:21 AM
This is the worrisome part. Some of these owners, mainly small market owners, are determined to get what they want and according to a lot of reports, are willing to lose a season to get what they want. As a fan or player, you have to hope the big market owners can persuade them to give in a little to get a deal done.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 09:25 AM
This is the worrisome part. Some of these owners, mainly small market owners, are determined to get what they want and according to a lot of reports, are willing to lose a season to get what they want. As a fan or player, you have to hope the big market owners can persuade them to give in a little to get a deal done.

the big market owners are basically gonna have to give up their own profit for that to happen. It really depends how many of these small market owners arent willing to move.

gwrighter
09-16-2011, 09:26 AM
if only two owners we're cutting it down this is great news. It means that they are close to a deal that everybody agrees upon. some minor tweaks & everything should be golden.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 09:34 AM
if only two owners we're cutting it down this is great news. It means that they are close to a deal that everybody agrees upon. some minor tweaks & everything should be golden.

I hope you're right... it could create a serious divide amongst the owners (if it hasnt already)

BTW I heard that Dan Gilbert put a tack on Micky Arison's chair at some point during the meeting. :D

gwrighter
09-16-2011, 09:40 AM
I hope you're right... it could create a serious divide amongst the owners (if it hasnt already)

BTW I heard that Dan Gilbert put a tack on Micky Arison's chair at some point during the meeting. :D

some back room deals will be made & they'l win over the hearts of Gilbert & co. I'm not worried.

lol you're obviously joking.

PhillyFaninLA
09-16-2011, 09:48 AM
I'm in favor of what they did.

The NBA owners screwed up and created a horrible financial issue. They gave the players whatever they wanted and started to bankrupt the league. The players did nothing wrong and need to lose this CBA Negotiation (won't say lockout because the lockout is not the same thing as the CBA expiration the CBA expiration is the issue not the lockout).

The players need to lose this badly for there to be an NBA in 10 or 20 years from now. The NBA might be better off losing a season and getting a deal that won't allow the owners to make the same mistakes again, it completely screws the players but if that does not happen and checks and balances keep the owners in check then the league will fold.

So the owners have to get the right deal and can't give in for the long term survival of the league.

Ill21
09-16-2011, 09:48 AM
I don't understand why 2 guys matter. I thought they just need 16-30 owners to agree?

beasted86
09-16-2011, 09:51 AM
I don't understand why 2 guys matter. I thought they just need 16-30 owners to agree?

I haven't read anywhere what vote split is needed to ratify a deal.

I doubt it's 30/30, but I also doubt it's a mere majority of 16/30.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 09:52 AM
I don't understand why 2 guys matter. I thought they just need 16-30 owners to agree?

I dont think its a vote, and it might not be just those two guys, those guys might just be the biggest complainers. At this point there is nothing solid confirming exactly which two guys or how many guys are against the soft cap. I dont think its as simple as a straight vote either....

having said all that- if it is just two guys, and that is indeed true. This will get worked out, the big owners and david stern will not waste this much time over two guys.

pebloemer
09-16-2011, 09:53 AM
I don't understand why 2 guys matter. I thought they just need 16-30 owners to agree?

My thoughts as well. If it is only two owners pushing for a better proposal, I'd have to think the other 28 would push it through. I'm guessing Gilbert and Sarver are simply the more vocal owners.

gwrighter
09-16-2011, 09:55 AM
I don't understand why 2 guys matter. I thought they just need 16-30 owners to agree?

that would cause inner turmoil between the owners. they would rather work together then pinning a majority against a minority. its not like the voting system in NA. it's big business.

beasted86
09-16-2011, 09:56 AM
I'm in favor of what they did.

The NBA owners screwed up and created a horrible financial issue. They gave the players whatever they wanted and started to bankrupt the league. The players did nothing wrong and need to lose this CBA Negotiation (won't say lockout because the lockout is not the same thing as the CBA expiration the CBA expiration is the issue not the lockout).

The players need to lose this badly for there to be an NBA in 10 or 20 years from now. The NBA might be better off losing a season and getting a deal that won't allow the owners to make the same mistakes again, it completely screws the players but if that does not happen and checks and balances keep the owners in check then the league will fold.

So the owners have to get the right deal and can't give in for the long term survival of the league.

I seriously doubt many of the owners were willing to agree to a deal that would put them back in the same financial circumstances as the last deal.

It might not sound like a lot, but a 52% offer down from the 57% the players were previously getting is a lot when you consider that's a 5% shift in a 2 billion dollar business. That's why there were owners thinking it was a reasonable offer they could accept. It might not ensure profitability for 100% of the teams, but it's unlikely any deal will do that.

If previously only 8/30 teams (26%) were profiting under the old CBA, and the latest offer might give... I dunno... 70% of the teams profit, I call that a success.

Ill21
09-16-2011, 09:59 AM
alanhahn Alan Hahn
just majority vote. 16 of 30 owners. RT @KnicksFanBlog: @alanhahn do you know whether owners need unanimity to pass a deal?

http://twitter.com/#!/alanhahn

gwrighter
09-16-2011, 10:00 AM
alanhahn Alan Hahn
just majority vote. 16 of 30 owners. RT @KnicksFanBlog: @alanhahn do you know whether owners need unanimity to pass a deal?

http://twitter.com/#!/alanhahn

i stand corrected.

SteBO
09-16-2011, 10:04 AM
i stand corrected.
So then why are we still locked out again?

I guess there are more owners who feel the same way but haven't made it clear publicly? Ah well, at least we know that we're very close.

gotoHcarolina52
09-16-2011, 10:06 AM
If Gilbert and Sarver keep trying to hold the league hostage, Stern and the majority of the owners should revisit the issue of contraction.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 10:06 AM
I seriously doubt many of the owners were willing to agree to a deal that would put them back in the same financial circumstances as the last deal.

It might not sound like a lot, but a 52% offer down from the 57% the players were previously getting is a lot when you consider that's a 5% shift in a 2 billion dollar business. That's why there were owners thinking it was a reasonable offer they could accept. It might not ensure profitability for 100% of the teams, but it's unlikely any deal will do that.

If previously only 8/30 teams (26%) were profiting under the old CBA, and the latest offer might give... I dunno... 70% of the teams profit, I call that a success.



Great point, The league has also said that they want "teams to have a chance at being profitable AND competitive...IF WELL MANAGED. The truth hurts, but not every team is well managed, there are some teams working very hard to run a succesful organization while others dont seem to have the same priorities.

I mean, owners should have the right to do what they think is best for their teams. I get that completely, but they should have some (if not all) of the accountability if things go wrong.

LOL should the league offer a player value index for all upcoming free agents where they basically ask every GM what the approximate range of value is for each upcoming free agent.... and then publish an average to be viewed? Almost like a Kelly Blue Book for players. Owners would have the right to exceed a players percieved value in an offer... but atleast the league could say ... you had a chance to make a reasonable decision and you opted NOT to make it.

king4day
09-16-2011, 10:08 AM
Revenue sharing helps the league financially, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem. It doesn't make players want to come to Charlotte or Sacramento.

1. This article is all speculation. Nothing was confirmed and most of you act like it was.
2. My guess is, those upset are the ones who are fans of bigger market teams.
3. As was stated in an article earlier, why would they take a deal now when the owners will have more leverage after players start losing paychecks.

PhillyFaninLA
09-16-2011, 10:09 AM
I seriously doubt many of the owners were willing to agree to a deal that would put them back in the same financial circumstances as the last deal.

It might not sound like a lot, but a 52% offer down from the 57% the players were previously getting is a lot when you consider that's a 5% shift in a 2 billion dollar business. That's why there were owners thinking it was a reasonable offer they could accept. It might not ensure profitability for 100% of the teams, but it's unlikely any deal will do that.

If previously only 8/30 teams (26%) were profiting under the old CBA, and the latest offer might give... I dunno... 70% of the teams profit, I call that a success.


If it gives 70% I agree but any company will still struggle to maintain profitability with 30% of it failing to at least break even. You spelled out a great case and a good point but from a strictly economic standpoint if your right about 70% the league will either have to get rid of the teams that are draining the league or still risk folding.

If you get rid of 5 - 7 teams that lose the most money, have the worst attendance, and least history then this deal assuming the 70% is accurate would be an acceptable deal otherwise it might bankrupt the league just at a much slower pace.

As a fan I think its worth doing this right and as long as the right deal for the long term survival of the league is in place I'll be patient and not mad later. The deal needs to be a hybrid of the NFL and NHL systems because the NFL knows how to market a popular league and maximize money made and distributed and the NHL knows how to turn a bankrupting league into one that is doing pretty well, not great but one that will survive.

Ill21
09-16-2011, 10:09 AM
I just really miss basketball. Ive been looking forward to Knicks vs Heat this whole off-season.

king4day
09-16-2011, 10:11 AM
Great point, The league has also said that they want "teams to have a chance at being profitable AND competitive...IF WELL MANAGED. The truth hurts, but not every team is well managed, there are some teams working very hard to run a succesful organization while others dont seem to have the same priorities.

I mean, owners should have the right to do what they think is best for their teams. I get that completely, but they should have some (if not all) of the accountability if things go wrong.

LOL should the league offer a player value index for all upcoming free agents where they basically ask every GM what the approximate range of value is for each upcoming free agent.... and then publish an average to be viewed? Almost like a Kelly Blue Book for players. Owners would have the right to exceed a players percieved value in an offer... but atleast the league could say ... you had a chance to make a reasonable decision and you opted NOT to make it.

I don't think this is possible. It all comes down to where players want to play. If a hard cap is ever implemented then that should take care of this. Then if players want to form superteams, they are forced to take bigger paycuts than that of Lebron/Wade/Bosh

king4day
09-16-2011, 10:12 AM
I just really miss basketball. Ive been looking forward to Knicks vs Heat this whole off-season.

If Amar'e is still having back issues, it's probably best for the season to get pushed back a bit. A lot of teams are going to benefit as well as players like West who should be fully healed when Free Agency comes around.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 10:13 AM
Revenue sharing helps the league financially, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem. It doesn't make players want to come to Charlotte or Sacramento.

1. This article is all speculation. Nothing was confirmed and most of you act like it was.
2. My guess is, those upset are the ones who are fans of bigger market teams.
3. As was stated in an article earlier, why would they take a deal now when the owners will have more leverage after players start losing paychecks.

because at that point- the owners might not be able to recover their season ticket money that has been returned, they might not be able to get the same deals from their advertisement partners, vendors, tv packages, etc. Not to mention- I dont know if they care or not, but it will be a disservice to their fans and will hurt the nbas reputation as a whole.

If there is a reasonable deal on the table, it should be seriously looked at right now not after the season starts.

gwrighter
09-16-2011, 10:15 AM
So then why are we still locked out again?

I guess there are more owners who feel the same way but haven't made it clear publicly? Ah well, at least we know that we're very close.

i would assume so yes. I guess those two owners are the ones being the most vocal to the media? your guess is as good as mine at this point.

beasted86
09-16-2011, 10:19 AM
Revenue sharing helps the league financially, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem. It doesn't make players want to come to Charlotte or Sacramento.

1. This article is all speculation. Nothing was confirmed and most of you act like it was.
2. My guess is, those upset are the ones who are fans of bigger market teams.
3. As was stated in an article earlier, why would they take a deal now when the owners will have more leverage after players start losing paychecks.

The problem is you think it's the small market owners who have the leverage just because they have nothing to lose lengthening the lockout.

I've made a long case about it, and I hope all people here understand the league will not just set a cap limit and suddenly get profit for 100% of teams.

It is going to take profit sharing from large market owners.... meaning they have a larger say than small market clubs. Large market owners stand to take losses if the lockout drags on, while small market owners could care less.

I also hope that more fans understand that there are plenty of owners who look at team ownership as a business first, and care more about profit than competitive ability. If an offer from the players union will give them longstanding profits for the majority, they will take that rather than holding out because a few owners want more draft picks or a franchise player tag, or some other ploy to help them theoretically compete.

I said it from the start, and these articles seem to be backing it... I knew that eventually there would be a divide amongst the owners. I'm not saying it has happened already (like the article speculates), but if there comes an offer from the players that a majority can profit under, but you still have a handful of Dan Gilbert's trying to roadblock it, it's not going to happen. The majority will rule and get it passed.

SteBO
09-16-2011, 10:35 AM
The problem is you think it's the small market owners who have the leverage just because they have nothing to lose lengthening the lockout.

I've made a long case about it, and I hope all people here understand the league will not just set a cap limit and suddenly get profit for 100% of teams.

It is going to take profit sharing from large market owners.... meaning they have a larger say than small market clubs. Large market owners stand to take losses if the lockout drags on, while small market owners could care less.

I also hope that more fans understand that there are plenty of owners who look at team ownership as a business first, and care more about profit than competitive ability. If an offer from the players union will give them longstanding profits for the majority, they will take that rather than holding out because a few owners want more draft picks or a franchise player tag, or some other ploy to help them theoretically compete.

I said it from the start, and these articles seem to be backing it... I knew that eventually there would be a divide amongst the owners. I'm not saying it has happened already (like the article speculates), but if there comes an offer from the players that a majority can profit under, but you still have a handful of Dan Gilbert's trying to roadblock it, it's not going to happen. The majority will rule and get it passed.
great post. I think your last sentence is what's going to end up happening. When it happens is a different conversation, but I've heard on numerous radio talk shows that the owners would at some point have an internal issue, but I never quite bought into that initially because of owners as a whole, and up until this point apparently, unitedly stand firm.

I also fail to understand the excuses given that without a hard cap, small markets won't be able to compete in this league. Umm, if that were true then why are MEM, OKC, and SA able to compete with the best if them? :shrug:
I've said it many times in this forum and likemystylez brought it up too, not every team manages their money or players well at all. It's their bad management why we're even locked out right now in the first place. They're essentially trying to protect themselves from themselves at this point, and it's becoming a waste of time. Free Agency isn't the only way to stay competitive from a basketball standpoint. Drafting right and making smart trades are other ways to have stable organization.

pd1dish
09-16-2011, 10:45 AM
For some reason, I think Gilbert is really still holding a grudge against LeBron and is willing to put the season at risk until he gets either a hard cap which will force the Heat to lose one of there Big 3. It's a win - win situation for him. One more loss season means one less possible ring for LeBron and also one more lottery pick in a loaded 2012 draft. He seems petty like that

of course he has a grudge against Lebron. the letter he wrote right after Lebrons decision shows how immature Gilbert is. this guy is by far one of the worst owners in the league, and after the whole Lebron thing, i cant see any big star ever wanting to play for Gilbert. i could definitely believe the fact that hed be willing to throw the whole season just to get his way and to spite some other players/the Miami Heat.

hopefully its true that basically all the owners are trying to be reasonable and negotiate with the players. if it is true, i think they can get this done because 2 owners isnt going to be what holds this thing back. they will give in because, out of anybody, an owner like Gilbert needs this season to develop his young players and make money.

Geargo Wallace
09-16-2011, 10:59 AM
why am I not surprised?

pebloemer
09-16-2011, 11:16 AM
So then why are we still locked out again?

I guess there are more owners who feel the same way but haven't made it clear publicly? Ah well, at least we know that we're very close.

I'm not sure why any owner would want that information public. I'm curious how this leaked about Sarver and Gilbert. Certainly not in their best interest.

To beasted86's point (and Derek Fisher's/PA) there is definitely a divide among owners. And there is no chance the divide is a 2/28 ratio.

I'm hoping they are close. I'm at least glad they are talking.

Mile High Champ
09-16-2011, 11:23 AM
People are missing the big point, it is not just two owners that did not like the negotiation. It is quite apparent that Buss and Dolan are fine with it because it favours larger market teams and why guys like Sarver and Gilbert would be against it with smaller market teams. Also there should be a salary freeze on player salaries, that is something that has to happen if the NBA hopes to fix its current flawed CBA.

Cal827
09-16-2011, 11:24 AM
Yet another reason to hate Dan Gilbert, first the hate letter, then putting his son up there as a good luck charm (Let's assumed for a minute that the NBA lotto isn't rigged, how does it look if they don't get the first overall pick?) and now this. If anything, he would want to see his prospects (Irving/Thompson) play out the year, develop, give the fans hope and then get what would be a likely lotto pick (since we don't know exactly how the lotto would be next year if the season was cancelled) to the core. Really shows how he cares for those loyal Cav fans who showed up to games despite the record.

I hope the majority of the league makes this guy shut up. I just hope that nothing random happens with the player's union.

beasted86
09-16-2011, 11:28 AM
People are missing the big point, it is not just two owners that did not like the negotiation. It is quite apparent that Buss and Dolan are fine with it because it favours larger market teams and why guys like Sarver and Gilbert would be against it with smaller market teams. Also there should be a salary freeze on player salaries, that is something that has to happen if the NBA hopes to fix its current flawed CBA.

The thing is, the larger market teams who were profiting before, would be profiting a lot more under a BRI split of the 52% speculated in the article.

So of course they would be happy with it... also under a new CBA that includes profit sharing, that would be more to share with smaller teams.

Backstabber
09-16-2011, 11:30 AM
I'm in favor of what they did.

The NBA owners screwed up and created a horrible financial issue. They gave the players whatever they wanted and started to bankrupt the league. The players did nothing wrong and need to lose this CBA Negotiation (won't say lockout because the lockout is not the same thing as the CBA expiration the CBA expiration is the issue not the lockout).

The players need to lose this badly for there to be an NBA in 10 or 20 years from now. The NBA might be better off losing a season and getting a deal that won't allow the owners to make the same mistakes again, it completely screws the players but if that does not happen and checks and balances keep the owners in check then the league will fold.

So the owners have to get the right deal and can't give in for the long term survival of the league.

As stated earlier 5% reduction on BRI is extremely significant. For stability the owners need to work on a revenue sharing agreement to get rid of the gap between the haves and have nots. Hard salary cap is unnessisary. No reason to stifle capitalism, just ne better businessmen.

Backstabber
09-16-2011, 11:43 AM
People are missing the big point, it is not just two owners that did not like the negotiation. It is quite apparent that Buss and Dolan are fine with it because it favours larger market teams and why guys like Sarver and Gilbert would be against it with smaller market teams. Also there should be a salary freeze on player salaries, that is something that has to happen if the NBA hopes to fix its current flawed CBA.

Sarver and Gilbert were probably just the guys who were on the fence in agreement with the deal initially. Those 2 can be bought with certain sweetners. They are probably not in the group of hardliners. This deal may be done sooner rather than later, the structure is already there.

Mile High Champ
09-16-2011, 11:45 AM
The thing is, the larger market teams who were profiting before, would be profiting a lot more under a BRI split of the 52% speculated in the article.

So of course they would be happy with it... also under a new CBA that includes profit sharing, that would be more to share with smaller teams.

You are only looking at select points. Not having a freeze on player salaries is a significant issue that needs to be addressed and not simply brushed over. Of course Dolan and Buss don't care, they own teams in the two largest markets in the United States.

Mile High Champ
09-16-2011, 11:47 AM
Sarver and Gilbert were probably just the guys who were on the fence in agreement with the deal initially. Those 2 can be bought with certain sweetners. They are probably not in the group of hardliners. This deal may be done sooner rather than later, the structure is already there.

I think it is obvious that there are many other small market owners that would not simply agree to a deal like this. Sarver and Gilbert get picked on the most because they are two of the more well known small market owners out there but I seriously doubt the owners of Sacramento, Minnesota etc would be down for something like this.

mdm692
09-16-2011, 11:49 AM
ROBERT SARVER IS A BANKER. Enough said!!!

jimbobjarree
09-16-2011, 12:09 PM
lol I hate articles like this, so the more uneducated fans of big market teams can start their witch hunts and start hating on teams on this forum. Failing to realize that their teams have been profiting off a broken system for years.

Until they come up with an agreement that makes absolute perfect sense, then I'm happy to wait for it. No point rushing back into things with the same problems cropping up in the short term future now is there?

Whatever this idea was wasn't the solution, so just let it go. I just don't get hating on teams just because they're sick of losing money.

king4day
09-16-2011, 12:25 PM
great post. I think your last sentence is what's going to end up happening. When it happens is a different conversation, but I've heard on numerous radio talk shows that the owners would at some point have an internal issue, but I never quite bought into that initially because of owners as a whole, and up until this point apparently, unitedly stand firm.

I also fail to understand the excuses given that without a hard cap, small markets won't be able to compete in this league. Umm, if that were true then why are MEM, OKC, and SA able to compete with the best if them? :shrug:
I've said it many times in this forum and likemystylez brought it up too, not every team manages their money or players well at all. It's their bad management why we're even locked out right now in the first place. They're essentially trying to protect themselves from themselves at this point, and it's becoming a waste of time. Free Agency isn't the only way to stay competitive from a basketball standpoint. Drafting right and making smart trades are other ways to have stable organization.

OKC and SA drafted legends. There are few drafts that spawns future hall of famers.
Memphis caught lightning in a bottle with Randolph since every team had a chance at him. It happened to work out.
A hard cap prevents what Miami and NY are doing unless the players take significant pay cuts.

It's hard to be good GM when nobody wants to play for you. Unlike baseball and football, each draft will spew out a few really good players (game changers) and that's it. You only draft 2 rounds and rarely is anyone that is drafted in the 2nd round ever relevant.

You almost always have to rely on being really bad in order to draft a possible stud. And that also means being bad in the right year. It's all luck and where you play. In football, you have Drew Brees willing to play for the Saints who, at the time, nobody wanted to play for. But the way their CBA was built, it forces top talent to go to teams you would normally not expect them too.

In the NBA, you can't have that. Players should be forced to pay a big price if they want to form super teams that will inevitably shut out half the league from having any chance at competing for as long as 5-10 years.

PhillyFaninLA
09-16-2011, 12:42 PM
As stated earlier 5% reduction on BRI is extremely significant. For stability the owners need to work on a revenue sharing agreement to get rid of the gap between the haves and have nots. Hard salary cap is unnessisary. No reason to stifle capitalism, just ne better businessmen.



I've talked about the revenue sharing I think it was another topic.

My plan for that is no local individual team contract, all media contracts with any team are now NBA contracts and go directly into the revenue sharing pool.

A lower hard cap is necessary is you want to keep the league in 10 - 20 years on top of proper revenue sharing and opening up all possible revenue streams.

As far as stifling capitalism, capitalism allows the creation of agreed upon code of conduct in all aspects of a business that the individuals or groups must act on. Capitalism allows collective bargaining agreements to exist and if a salary cap is agreed upon and signed by all parties involved that it is actually completely in the literal existence of capitalism and the spirit of it. A free system that is capitalism opens up the door to negotiated code of conduct in all aspects of a business, most importantly how to acquire, distribute, and use wealthy to grow your product and a salary cap certainly could be part of that as it is in 3 of the 4 major sports.

beasted86
09-16-2011, 12:49 PM
I've talked about the revenue sharing I think it was another topic.

My plan for that is no local individual team contract, all media contracts with any team are now NBA contracts and go directly into the revenue sharing pool.

That's never going to happen as some cable networks own teams, namely Cablevision owning the Knicks, and MLSE owning the Raptors.

DoMeFavors
09-16-2011, 12:56 PM
Even when the nets had that 12-70 season i still enjoyed watching their games and watching NBA in general. I just want NBA back!
I miss free agency, rookies, trade talk, big games, trash talk!

Gators123
09-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Even when the nets had that 12-70 season i still enjoyed watching their games and watching NBA in general. I just want NBA back!
I miss free agency, rookies, trade talk, big games, trash talk!

:nod:

ManRam
09-16-2011, 01:00 PM
If those two feel this way, I'm sure more do too...and the points being talked about aren't minor.

If anything, this just shows the lack of unity both sides have. There's no way it's just these two that feel this way...yet they're the only two speaking out. The player's union seems incredibly un-unified too...and I think that actually slows things down.

Bummer :sigh:

smith&wesson
09-16-2011, 01:03 PM
I guess the Suns owner also hates Lebron.

No but he is the cheapest owner in the league and only cares about money.

dunedinjays
09-16-2011, 01:21 PM
No but he is the cheapest owner in the league and only cares about money.

Hes not cheap, just stupid. He would rather pay Hakim Warrick and Hedo Turkoglu useless ***** then give the moeny to amare.

TheRunKiller
09-16-2011, 01:23 PM
well they haven't canceled anything yet so thats good news to me, something will happen soon.

smith&wesson
09-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Hes not cheap, just stupid. He would rather pay Hakim Warrick and Hedo Turkoglu useless ***** then give the moeny to amare.

the man is cheap. he traded barbosa for hedo then traded hedo and richardson and he let amare walk right after a season where they made it to the western conference finals.

PhillyFaninLA
09-16-2011, 02:00 PM
the man is cheap. he traded barbosa for hedo then traded hedo and richardson and he let amare walk right after a season where they made it to the western conference finals.


Its good to know the the owner doesn't have a team president, GM, or head coach on the team because they would have influence over all those decisions. I mean if he did have those then you really can't blame the owner you would have to blame the basketball people. Also a free agent that left that would gotten a max deal if he stayed clear does not have free will and only left because of the owner unwilling to give a max deal that he was in reality willing to give.

RevisIsland
09-16-2011, 02:05 PM
Ever stop to think that maybe they just didn't like some of the financial terms of the agreement? No? So naturally it must be a conspiracy against LeBron then. Seriously people not everything is about LeBron. Maybe they just didn't like the financial aspects of it, these teams are, after all, businesses.

HeaTxRipZz
09-16-2011, 02:13 PM
Ever stop to think that maybe they just didn't like some of the financial terms of the agreement? No? So naturally it must be a conspiracy against LeBron then. Seriously people not everything is about LeBron. Maybe they just didn't like the financial aspects of it, these teams are, after all, businesses.

That could be it or it could be what others are saying none of us truly know. Assumptions aside i think everyone just wants a deal done already

Bruno
09-16-2011, 02:43 PM
can two owners actually prevent the others from singing off on a deal?

ewmania
09-16-2011, 02:46 PM
Nah, hes still bitter over Amare Stoudemire, Mike D'Antoni, Joe Johnson, & Shawn Marion all getting up out of Phoenix and ending his dreams of being the cheapest owner to win a NBA Title.

All 4 guys are extremely happy they left, while Steve Nash out of the respect for the fans(not Sarver) wont demand a trade knowing how much of a hole Sarver has left them in once hes gone. If Nash retired tomorrow, they'd be left with Aaron Brooks, Channing Frye, Marcin Gortat, Jared Dudley, Hakim Warrick, & Josh Childress. Yikes!

Sarver's cheap tactics this past decade with the Suns, a team that if Sarver hadn't been cheap would've won multiple titles(Nash, Johnson, Marion, Amare, Rondo, Deng, Barbosa, Gortat, Rudy Fernandez, etc) have made Phoenix one of the least desirable locations for any star NBA player serious about winning to go to.

i bet he cries in his sleep everytime he thinks about that lineup

SteBO
09-16-2011, 02:47 PM
can two owners actually prevent the others from singing off on a deal?
Gilbert and Sarver voiced their disagreement publicly, but I would have to think that a few or more small market owners weren't all that sure of it either. Either way, they aren't going to win the hold out because a deal comes into firuition based on a 16/30 majority vote, not a unanimous one.

Fresno
09-16-2011, 02:47 PM
Its good to know the the owner doesn't have a team president, GM, or head coach on the team because they would have influence over all those decisions. I mean if he did have those then you really can't blame the owner you would have to blame the basketball people. Also a free agent that left that would gotten a max deal if he stayed clear does not have free will and only left because of the owner unwilling to give a max deal that he was in reality willing to give.

This is a false statement, Phoenix let Amare walk becuase they werent willing to pay him to stay.

Also, a Team President & GM have to get their decisions through the Owner. You're dealing with his money in the end, and it is on him to decide how much to invest. He traded draft picks away for nothing & he didnt put the money up to upgrade the Suns teams that were coming close to Title contention.

Do you think it is irrelevant why their Team President & GM have both resigned in the last 2 years? Kerr didnt ruin that team.

Fresno
09-16-2011, 02:50 PM
i bet he cries in his sleep everytime he thinks about that lineup

The ridiculousness of that team would've made them a Dynasty on par with the 80's Celtics and Lakers.

I know they say hindsight is 20/20, but I dont know how anyone can make that many bad decisions. Its not like he was taking a shot in the dark with putting that team together, he screwed it up big time.

LOOTERX9
09-16-2011, 02:51 PM
DAMN Gilbert...!!!!

smith&wesson
09-16-2011, 02:54 PM
Its good to know the the owner doesn't have a team president, GM, or head coach on the team because they would have influence over all those decisions. I mean if he did have those then you really can't blame the owner you would have to blame the basketball people. Also a free agent that left that would gotten a max deal if he stayed clear does not have free will and only left because of the owner unwilling to give a max deal that he was in reality willing to give.

when you have an rfa you have his bird rights meaning you can offer him more money then any other team to keep him. you can match and beat any offer given to him. the season amare was in a contract year the suns went to the western conference finals. they match his offer so he walked. they replaced him with no one because the hedo trade invovled giving up barbosa. now i get the notion that the suns owner is by far the cheapest owner in the league because clearly all he cares about is money.

sure you can blame the gm. but a gm can only do what an owner allows him too do .

are you a suns fan ? i got this notion by speaking with suns posters over the years. i didnt come up with it on my own. plus its a well known thing that the suns ownser is a cheap bastard. nothing against the suns or the fans at all. i think the owner is a ******.

Fresno
09-16-2011, 03:00 PM
can two owners actually prevent the others from singing off on a deal?

Well, it depends on how much they're influencing others in the meetings.

We need 16/30 to get it done and Gilbert & Sarver are taking the charge of trying to make things "even" for small market owners. So when they're voicing their disgust in the meetings about certain financial aspects they're probably speaking as "we",referring to small market teams. Because essentially anything that goes against the Cavs or Suns would seemingly affect other teams.

Raps08-09 Champ
09-16-2011, 03:03 PM
Its good to know the the owner doesn't have a team president, GM, or head coach on the team because they would have influence over all those decisions. I mean if he did have those then you really can't blame the owner you would have to blame the basketball people. Also a free agent that left that would gotten a max deal if he stayed clear does not have free will and only left because of the owner unwilling to give a max deal that he was in reality willing to give.

Not really.

If the owner says he doesn't want to pay like $20 mil in luxury tax, the president and GM has no choice.

In the end, the owner is the boss of management.

yanks19791024
09-16-2011, 03:15 PM
How can two owners veto this, don't they have to vote with majority winning

PhillyFaninLA
09-16-2011, 03:18 PM
Not really.

If the owner says he doesn't want to pay like $20 mil in luxury tax, the president and GM has no choice.

In the end, the owner is the boss of management.


Yum this crow I'm eating is tasting...the key is a good marinade.

Good point did not take that into account.

Badluck33
09-16-2011, 03:19 PM
Gilbert himself doesn't have the power to veto anything.

Fresno
09-16-2011, 03:22 PM
How can two owners veto this, don't they have to vote with majority winning
All it takes is for 1 or 2 guys to start speaking up and creating division. I think thats what Fisher meant when claiming their was division between owners.

Well as both sides were nearing a deal, they apparently opened up their mouths saying how unfair it was and now no future meetings are scheduled between the 2.

IndiansFan337
09-16-2011, 04:41 PM
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/6973675/nba-lockout-derek-fisher-los-angeles-lakers-emails-players-says-owners-rift

Pathetic.

2 of the worst owners in the NBA actually are conspiring to keep the league from playing this upcoming season on schedule. The fact that the players & owners got this close only for these 2 to shoot it down because its "too fair" for the players just blows my mind.

Now everyone is back at square 1 and we have a 2 week window left before things have to get postponed/canceled.

You guys are all hating on these two owners.....But you don't seem to realize that 2 out of 30 owners cannot hold up negotiations.

They take a majority rules vote on these matters, so either this report is completely false or it simply does not include all of the details and someone is looking to pin the scapegoat tag on these two owners.

sunnydayin'zona
09-16-2011, 04:44 PM
This is a false statement, Phoenix let Amare walk becuase they werent willing to pay him to stay.

Also, a Team President & GM have to get their decisions through the Owner. You're dealing with his money in the end, and it is on him to decide how much to invest. He traded draft picks away for nothing & he didnt put the money up to upgrade the Suns teams that were coming close to Title contention.

Do you think it is irrelevant why their Team President & GM have both resigned in the last 2 years? Kerr didnt ruin that team.

It is irrelevant that the team president resigned...he moved to sacramento to live with his partner...? Kerr left because of Amare, i'd say. But it was reasonable. Honestly, Kerr was never a good GM up until his last year. Also, they sold draft picks because they didn't need the players at the time. They were perrenial title contenders those years. What would you do with rookie rondo when you have mvp steve nash and 6th man of the year barbosa at pg at the same time? why keep rudy if you have johnson? Why play rookies if you are constantly in the WCF's?

My point is, you're attacking the guy and he doesn't deserve it. He is looking out for the best interest of his team. Financially and on the court. If a hard cap or some other kind of restricted spending policy is passed, the suns will likely be able to make a trade or two that gets them some great talent just for their expiring money. I mean really, can you blame him honestly? It isn't in the best interest of his team, or 74% of the rest of the league to sign this current deal. And the owners don't need to, they hold the leverage. Can't we all agree that something needs to be done?

And

Amare leaving wasn't about the max contract or going into the luxury tax that kept the suns from keeping amare. it was that his contract wasn't insurable because of his knees. if in a year or two he goes out for the entire season, the knicks still pay him 20mil. Suns dont make enough profit to take that kind of risk for 5 years. SO, you are making a false statement. The suns offered him 5 years non-guaranteed or 3 years guaranteed max contracts.

And essentially, that is the problem that Sarver is speaking up about. The knicks make soooo much more money than the suns that they can afford to be stupid with their money. Sarver could not in his right mind justify taking that kind of risk.

I see how everybody is upset that this is being delayed, and I recognize that Sarver is cheap, but its not like he's sabatoging the damn nba on purpose. 74% of teams in the league need the kind of CBA that Gilbert and Sarver are fighting for. I don't understand how anybody who isn't a lakers, knicks, mavs, or bulls fan would not be for this. Like, aren't you tired of having your best players leave your teams? Aren't you tired of seeing the same teams compete every year?

sunnydayin'zona
09-16-2011, 04:53 PM
All it takes is for 1 or 2 guys to start speaking up and creating division. I think thats what Fisher meant when claiming their was division between owners.

Well as both sides were nearing a deal, they apparently opened up their mouths saying how unfair it was and now no future meetings are scheduled between the 2.

Wow, jumping to conclusions a bit, aren't we?

Thank you for enlightening us on just how fickle owners are with their millions of dollars, I wouldn't usually expect them to be swayed by 2 guys whining. I would think that if over half of the owners didn't pass it, they have good reasons that are well thought out and discussed in their own respective clubs.

Why don't we just disregard the fact that this proposal still only benefits a handful of teams. Let's put all the blame on two guys, say that they are sabatoging the league. That's reasonable. :rolleyes:

How much does it speak to how big of a problem we have that even a team in a medium-large market such as the suns has a problem with this deal.

Really, who wins this deal if it is accepted how proposed?

I'll tell you who:
-Lakers
-Knicks
-Bulls
-Celtics
-Mavericks
-Michael Redd/Eddy Curry players
-Rashard Lewis/Gilbert Arenas players

What happens to anybody who's not those teams?
We saw a good example of the radical measures non-huge market teams have to take to keep their players this past free agency. Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson got huge contracts that they are not worth, just because Atlanta knows that they have no chance getting somebody better for anything less than 21mil a year. Memphis thought they needed Rudy Gay, and thought that they'd have to get lucky in the draft to ever get somebody of his caliber ever again. Players will form superteams ala Heat/Knicks, leaving small market teams that drafted them behind to fail ala Cavs.

The NBA needs a shift. Wouldn't we all hate to see the NBA turn into the MLB? I sure would get sick of 3 teams dominating and signing everyone's players all the time.

smith&wesson
09-16-2011, 05:10 PM
It is irrelevant that the team president resigned...he moved to sacramento to live with his partner...? Kerr left because of Amare, i'd say. But it was reasonable. Honestly, Kerr was never a good GM up until his last year. Also, they sold draft picks because they didn't need the players at the time. They were perrenial title contenders those years. What would you do with rookie rondo when you have mvp steve nash and 6th man of the year barbosa at pg at the same time? why keep rudy if you have johnson? Why play rookies if you are constantly in the WCF's?

My point is, you're attacking the guy and he doesn't deserve it. He is looking out for the best interest of his team. Financially and on the court. If a hard cap or some other kind of restricted spending policy is passed, the suns will likely be able to make a trade or two that gets them some great talent just for their expiring money. I mean really, can you blame him honestly? It isn't in the best interest of his team, or 74% of the rest of the league to sign this current deal. And the owners don't need to, they hold the leverage. Can't we all agree that something needs to be done?

And

Amare leaving wasn't about the max contract or going into the luxury tax that kept the suns from keeping amare. it was that his contract wasn't insurable because of his knees. if in a year or two he goes out for the entire season, the knicks still pay him 20mil. Suns dont make enough profit to take that kind of risk for 5 years. SO, you are making a false statement. The suns offered him 5 years non-guaranteed or 3 years guaranteed max contracts.

And essentially, that is the problem that Sarver is speaking up about. The knicks make soooo much more money than the suns that they can afford to be stupid with their money. Sarver could not in his right mind justify taking that kind of risk.

I see how everybody is upset that this is being delayed, and I recognize that Sarver is cheap, but its not like he's sabatoging the damn nba on purpose. 74% of teams in the league need the kind of CBA that Gilbert and Sarver are fighting for. I don't understand how anybody who isn't a lakers, knicks, mavs, or bulls fan would not be for this. Like, aren't you tired of having your best players leave your teams? Aren't you tired of seeing the same teams compete every year?

they sold draft picks because they didnt need them at the time ? they traded away or let all the players on those contending teams walk acept for steve nash. why ? because nash sells seats. ppl will pay to watch him. that is all the owner is concerned with.

why keep rondo ? umm if your going to say its a bad investment to pay amare because he is risky then you have to admit trading rondo while your star point gaurd gets older and older is just as risky... specially when barbosa was traded for a 10 mill a year hedo turkadoo..

why keep rudy ? because joe johnson left in a very similar fashion as amare.. was he a risk to resign at the time ? no he was young and entering his prime.. the owner was too cheap to resign him even though it could have lead to a championship with nash, johnson, marion & amare plus a solid suporting cast.

the suns team could still contend because they had just made the wcf's and they let one of theyre best players walk prior to last season. theyre run wasnt done if they were making it that far with amare on the team. they were dismantled and because of a cheap owner steve nash will never get a ring, he is too busy selling seats for the owner in phx even though his days are numbered. his career is being wasted at this point. they are not contenders any more they should trade him and start rebuilding.. why dont they ? because ppl dont pay to watch rebuilding teams. as long as nash is on that team ppl in phx will pay to watch the suns untill he retires. the owner is content with not winning and simply profiting off of nash apeal for however long it lasts.

hgtiger32
09-16-2011, 05:30 PM
dan gilbert you suck.

DoMeFavors
09-16-2011, 06:40 PM
What do you guys have to say about this?
ESPN: Stephen A Smith interview with Hunter

On predicting the future:

I think I'll be back on your show in another two weeks talking about something different than we're talking about tonight.

Another two weeks?

Yeah.

Is that a good sign? ... If you come back in two weeks, Billy, will we be laughing and celebrating something Billy Hunter?

I don't know, we might be. I don't know. I'm waiting to see.

PJAF
09-16-2011, 06:41 PM
look at the years these two owners had and where they are today, of course they have certain wants that are gonna benefit especially them, the landscape of the NBA is changing, and right now especially for the suns their in the bottom teir on the Western Conference, Sarve is gonna do anything he can to get a star back on the suns for as cheap as he can. ( and im a huge suns fan ) Bring Barkley in as new President of the team and lets get this thing turned around.

IBleedPurple
09-16-2011, 07:18 PM
Look, I get it. Gilbert lost millions of dollars after 2010 and he's very sour about that. That's fine, for I would be pissed off too. But how does jeopardizing an entire season help him in this case? Wouldn't he lose even more money? It makes little to no sense to me.

It's more of a short term sacrifice for a long term gain situation. This could mean Millions more for him if his team can be more competitive in the future.

Kevj77
09-16-2011, 07:32 PM
great post. I think your last sentence is what's going to end up happening. When it happens is a different conversation, but I've heard on numerous radio talk shows that the owners would at some point have an internal issue, but I never quite bought into that initially because of owners as a whole, and up until this point apparently, unitedly stand firm.

I also fail to understand the excuses given that without a hard cap, small markets won't be able to compete in this league. Umm, if that were true then why are MEM, OKC, and SA able to compete with the best if them? :shrug:
I've said it many times in this forum and likemystylez brought it up too, not every team manages their money or players well at all. It's their bad management why we're even locked out right now in the first place. They're essentially trying to protect themselves from themselves at this point, and it's becoming a waste of time. Free Agency isn't the only way to stay competitive from a basketball standpoint. Drafting right and making smart trades are other ways to have stable organization.Responding to the bolded part I would say historicly free agency is the least effective way of building championship teams. Look at all the best teams since free agency started the 80s Lakers, Celtics and Pistons. The 90s Bulls and Jazz. The Spurs, Lakers and Pistons in the 2000s. Even the current Celtics and Lakers. Besides Shaq I can't think of a single bigtime free agent that shifted the power of the NBA. Those teams were built with draft picks and trades. The common theme is all those teams were well managed. Of course Miami could change all that by winning a title based on free agency.

If this is about owners wanting to make money I understand completely. If they think it will make them competitive by not allowing teams to keep the players they acquired by making good trades and drafting well they need to look in the mirror to see were the blame belongs.

A hardcap won't make these bad GMs better at drafting or making trades. Players don't have a choice who drafts them or if they are traded.

justinnum1
09-16-2011, 07:46 PM
gilberts *** hole is still sore

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 10:10 PM
I think it is obvious that there are many other small market owners that would not simply agree to a deal like this. Sarver and Gilbert get picked on the most because they are two of the more well known small market owners out there but I seriously doubt the owners of Sacramento, Minnesota etc would be down for something like this.

if the t wolves can afford to pay anthony tolliver 4 million a year and pay darko a 20 million dollar deal, they dont need to complain about profiting

GoPacers33
09-16-2011, 10:12 PM
For some reason, I think Gilbert is really still holding a grudge against LeBron and is willing to put the season at risk until he gets either a hard cap which will force the Heat to lose one of there Big 3. It's a win - win situation for him. One more loss season means one less possible ring for LeBron and also one more lottery pick in a loaded 2012 draft. He seems petty like that

I agree

Punk
09-16-2011, 10:14 PM
You guys are all hating on these two owners.....But you don't seem to realize that 2 out of 30 owners cannot hold up negotiations.

They take a majority rules vote on these matters, so either this report is completely false or it simply does not include all of the details and someone is looking to pin the scapegoat tag on these two owners.

They were representing the other small market owners. So, until all 30 owners are actually there, these guys will be there on their behalf. So, we don't exactly know if the other owners would have said yes or no but they basically put words in the other owners mouth.

naps
09-16-2011, 10:21 PM
Gilbert and Sarver are both pathetic. Sarver is a cheap ******* and Gilbert will forever be a dumped girlfriend. Gilbert will always try to harm LeBron's chances of winning a title than focusing on his own team.

king4day
09-16-2011, 10:28 PM
why keep rondo ? umm if your going to say its a bad investment to pay amare because he is risky then you have to admit trading rondo while your star point gaurd gets older and older is just as risky... specially when barbosa was traded for a 10 mill a year hedo turkadoo..

I wasn't a fan of that trade but not even boston could have dreamed he'd become a top 5 PG in the league.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 10:28 PM
Gilbert and Sarver are both pathetic. Sarver is a cheap ******* and Gilbert will forever be a dumped girlfriend. Gilbert will always try to harm LeBron's chances of winning a title than focusing on his own team.

its really kind of sad, I get it for cavs fans... when lebron left it sucked and it hurt. ... but having an owner who basically refuses to get over it or move forward is exactly the opposite of what the organization and the fans need. I'm not trying to be incosiderate or be a prick to the cavs loyal fans.... because I can understand the frusteration...

but at some point you have to rebuild, they got 2 top 5 picks in the draft this year and they have expiring contracts coming up to trade along with some cap room,.... I mean they arent anywhere near being the 60 win team that they were a few years ago... but looking at their current situation objectively and without crying about lebron leaving, its not like they dont have any hope at all in the next 3 or 4 years. I think they are in a far better position now than they were in 2002-2003 the yr before lebron was drafted.

SteBO
09-16-2011, 10:31 PM
its really kind of sad, I get it for cavs fans... when lebron left it sucked and it hurt. ... but having an owner who basically refuses to get over it or move forward is exactly the opposite of what the organization and the fans need. I'm not trying to be incosiderate or be a prick to the cavs loyal fans.... because I can understand the frusteration...

but at some point you have to rebuild, they got 2 top 5 picks in the draft this year and they have expiring contracts coming up to trade along with some cap room,.... I mean they arent anywhere near being the 60 win team that they were a few years ago... but looking at their current situation objectively and without crying about lebron leaving, its not like they dont have any hope at all in the next 3 or 4 years. I think they are in a far better position now than they were in 2002-2003 the yr before lebron was drafted.
Exactly. But as you said, can you really blame him for being even a little sour? When LeBron left, so did his $$$. That would upset anyone, including myself. But jeopardizing a entire season(I know it isn't only him) isn't going to help him any more.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 11:22 PM
Exactly. But as you said, can you really blame him for being even a little sour? When LeBron left, so did his $$$. That would upset anyone, including myself. But jeopardizing a entire season(I know it isn't only him) isn't going to help him any more.

I completely understand why he would be upset, but he had 7 great years because he basically lucked out and got the first pick in a good draft. He didnt make any sensational moves or decisions as an owner (which is probably a big reason why lebron looked elsewhere) He was given antawn jamison for basically nothing.... and you dont see washington crying about that.

At the same time he has a responsability to his fanbase, the people who are supporting him and buying season tickets every year. Times are tuff no doubt, but he owes it to clevland to act like an adult. Its one thing for a 13 yr old kid to throw a rant about how bad lebron is and hold a grudge... but he is a grown man with obligations. The whole year leading up to "the decision"... he had to be aware that this was a possability. He should have perpared himself both emotionally and tactically.

Trace
09-16-2011, 11:25 PM
I think it's unfair to single out these two individuals. There are, after all, 30 owners. I'm sure if the majority felt differently, Stern/Fisher would have announced a NBA season by now.

SteBO
09-16-2011, 11:26 PM
I completely understand why he would be upset, but he had 7 great years because he basically lucked out and got the first pick in a good draft. He didnt make any sensational moves or decisions as an owner (which is probably a big reason why lebron looked elsewhere) He was given antawn jamison for basically nothing.... and you dont see washington crying about that.

At the same time he has a responsability to his fanbase, the people who are supporting him and buying season tickets every year. Times are tuff no doubt, but he owes it to clevland to act like an adult. Its one thing for a 13 yr old kid to throw a rant about how bad lebron is and hold a grudge... but he is a grown man with obligations. The whole year leading up to "the decision"... he had to be aware that this was a possability. He should have perpared himself both emotionally and tactically.
I agree completely. He needs to be focusing on helping along Kyrie Irving's development and supplying him with talent. Not this nonsense. This lockout drama just needs to end already for it's gotten very tiring. Not quite as annoying as 2010 free agency got in terms of media coverage, but it's getting up there a little bit.

mzgrizz
09-16-2011, 11:32 PM
Still doesn't mean we won't get resolution in time for SOME season

Arch Stanton
09-16-2011, 11:33 PM
Not sure how two owners can stop the process from continuing. And the quoted two other owners dissatisfied. Are there only 4 owners in the NBA? Where are the other 26 teams. And it's funny that the two other teams are two of the biggest markets. If there is a divide between owners you've got to consider the other teams.

Arch Stanton
09-16-2011, 11:35 PM
They were representing the other small market owners. So, until all 30 owners are actually there, these guys will be there on their behalf. So, we don't exactly know if the other owners would have said yes or no but they basically put words in the other owners mouth.

Where's the link that says this???

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 11:46 PM
They were representing the other small market owners. So, until all 30 owners are actually there, these guys will be there on their behalf. So, we don't exactly know if the other owners would have said yes or no but they basically put words in the other owners mouth.

I think that the line of thinking is more like this. There is a proposal out there that is reasonable and as owners we have a good idea how low the players are willing to go on the BRI precentage. This isnt a horrible deal right now but we still have some owners who want more and we still have time... so they will sit and wait. I am hoping that the majority of owners feel that the deal on the table is reasonable, but dont want to end negotiations early if it is possible they can get a little more.

Im not sure where revenue sharing fits in, as I think most of the big market teams were aware that some type of new arrangement would have to be made on that front anyways.

likemystylez
09-16-2011, 11:48 PM
Where's the link that says this???

I thought all owners or atleast high level representives were available on tuesday if not then... definitely on thursday. Who knows though... LOL if they want more revenue, i wonder what would happen if they put a camara in the confrence room during these meetings.... then aired it

DaBear
09-17-2011, 12:00 AM
Not that I agree with what Gilbert and Sarver are doing, but they see where the league's future is at. With all the help the big market teams get (luxury tax, MLE, etc), they do have an advantage over the small market teams. The only teams that will compete in the East for probably the next decade or so are the Heat, Bulls, and Knicks. In the West, it is a little more open, but the Thunder will be a very attractive destination, and the Lakers will somehow find a way to get back in it. So you'll have a few elite teams and a bunch of mediocre teams. So in essence, unless the small market teams can draft very well like the Spurs did the last 15 years or so, they are screwed.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 12:12 AM
Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert used his Twitter account last night to angrily respond to reports that he helped derail potential progress in the NBA labor negotiations.

In the process, it appears he also invented a word to describe his online detractors.

"Some of these NBA 'bloggissists' flat-out make stuff up and then try to dupe readers into believing their fiction is real. Sad & pathetic," Gilbert wrote.

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2011/09/cleveland_cavaliers_owner_dan_3.html

Astronaut
09-17-2011, 12:32 AM
Dan Gilbert? One of the worst owners? Get your ****ing head out of your ***.

"He couldn't surround LeBron." ********, he signs the checks. He doesn't go out and get players.. There was never an issue with Gilbert not wanting to pay enough money, he was ALWAYS willing to.


Hothead? Yes.

Bad Owner? No.

The hate for Cleveland Sports/DG is getting insane here. Look stuff up before you spit it out. A CBA wouldn't be shot down if only two owners disagreed. It just doesn't work that way. There's a reason I don't post on these forums very much because seriously half of the posters are just front-runners who troll threads.

The one's who give their opinions, followed up by solid reasons, even if on the opposite viewpoint, respect to you. Don't care if you are a Heat fan, Bulls, whatever.

JasonJohnHorn
09-17-2011, 12:59 AM
I guess the Suns owner also hates Lebron.

If the Suns had Lebron, they would just trade him, along with two unprotected pics, for a smaller salary/expiring contract that they would just by out for 80% of its value. That's how they roll in Phoenix.

DoMeFavors
09-17-2011, 01:02 AM
Dan Gilbert? One of the worst owners? Get your ****ing head out of your ***.

"He couldn't surround LeBron." ********, he signs the checks. He doesn't go out and get players.. There was never an issue with Gilbert not wanting to pay enough money, he was ALWAYS willing to.


Hothead? Yes.

Bad Owner? No.

The hate for Cleveland Sports/DG is getting insane here. Look stuff up before you spit it out. A CBA wouldn't be shot down if only two owners disagreed. It just doesn't work that way. There's a reason I don't post on these forums very much because seriously half of the posters are just front-runners who troll threads.

The one's who give their opinions, followed up by solid reasons, even if on the opposite viewpoint, respect to you. Don't care if you are a Heat fan, Bulls, whatever.

He was a terrible owner, he had the easiest job to surround the best player in the NBA with talent and LeBron went to the finals with Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, and Big Z. Look at all the other NBA teams with stars there are people around them. Getting Shaq and Jamison is a joke.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 01:15 AM
He was a terrible owner, he had the easiest job to surround the best player in the NBA with talent and LeBron went to the finals with Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, and Big Z. Look at all the other NBA teams with stars there are people around them. Getting Shaq and Jamison is a joke.

Easiest job? Really? Also LeBron surrounded himself with talent in Miami and still couldn't get it done. So Melo had people around him in Denver? And Amare in Phoenix? And Durant in OKC? Rose in Chicago? Paul in NO? All these stars haven't won anything yet...??? Why aren't they're owners awful then.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 01:18 AM
^^^ also none of those other teams have made it to the finals with their stars so by your logic they should have even worse owners.

Sactown
09-17-2011, 01:21 AM
Dan Gilbert? One of the worst owners? Get your ****ing head out of your ***.

"He couldn't surround LeBron." ********, he signs the checks. He doesn't go out and get players.. There was never an issue with Gilbert not wanting to pay enough money, he was ALWAYS willing to.


Hothead? Yes.

Bad Owner? No.

The hate for Cleveland Sports/DG is getting insane here. Look stuff up before you spit it out. A CBA wouldn't be shot down if only two owners disagreed. It just doesn't work that way. There's a reason I don't post on these forums very much because seriously half of the posters are just front-runners who troll threads.

The one's who give their opinions, followed up by solid reasons, even if on the opposite viewpoint, respect to you. Don't care if you are a Heat fan, Bulls, whatever.
I disagree that he is a "good owner" because he openly trashed a player which would hurt your franchise

But I do agree that it is obviously more than two owners, I just think they're the most vocal of the group

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 01:21 AM
Easiest job? Really? Also LeBron surrounded himself with talent in Miami and still couldn't get it done. So Melo had people around him in Denver? And Amare in Phoenix? And Durant in OKC? Rose in Chicago? Paul in NO? All these stars haven't won anything yet...??? Why aren't they're owners awful then.

with the exception of the suns, those teams owners arent being constantly mentioned on the internet as the reason we might not have an NBA season... Dan Gilbert is. Who knows how accurate the claims really are... but Dan Gilbert is atleast partially responsible for it being so believable because of his rant following the decision.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 01:29 AM
with the exception of the suns, those teams owners arent being constantly mentioned on the internet as the reason we might not have an NBA season... Dan Gilbert is. Who knows how accurate the claims really are... but Dan Gilbert is atleast partially responsible for it being so believable because of his rant following the decision.

Sometimes people just want a story. They know anytime they mention Dan Gilbert or LeBron James in discouraging fashion it'll make headlines and cause fans to weigh in. Yeah okay Dan Gilbert is partially responsible, and so are the other 29 owners. If you really think Dan Gilbert is THAT MUCH MORE responsible for the lockout then the other owners then it sounds like Dan Gilbert is taking over for David Stern????? :facepalm: And in doing so Gilbert will contract the Miami Heat. :facepalm:

Sactown
09-17-2011, 01:35 AM
Sometimes people just want a story. They know anytime they mention Dan Gilbert or LeBron James in discouraging fashion it'll make headlines and cause fans to weigh in. Yeah okay Dan Gilbert is partially responsible, and so are the other 29 owners. If you really think Dan Gilbert is THAT MUCH MORE responsible for the lockout then the other owners then it sounds like Dan Gilbert is taking over for David Stern????? :facepalm: And in doing so Gilbert will contract the Miami Heat. :facepalm:

Obviously if he was the only owner they'd just vote and say **** you! And I doubt this has anything to do with Lebron, I think he's just the most vocal about revenue sharing and it's annoying the some of the other owners

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 01:39 AM
Obviously if he was the only owner they'd just vote and say **** you! And I doubt this has anything to do with Lebron, I think he's just the most vocal about revenue sharing and it's annoying the some of the other owners

Well if he's the most VOCAL owner fans of their respective teams should then be mad at their teams owners for not being VOCAL enough.

Sactown
09-17-2011, 01:46 AM
Well if he's the most VOCAL owner fans of their respective teams should then be mad at their teams owners for not being VOCAL enough.

Most fans don't care if the CBA benefits their team, but would rather see a season, and also I think majority of the fans aren't rooting for the losing teams...

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 01:52 AM
Well if he's the most VOCAL owner fans of their respective teams should then be mad at their teams owners for not being VOCAL enough.

LOL yeah but who knows who was vocal about what. I mean its not like fans really even know where their owners stand on this whole debate.

Most of the owners are probably somewhere in the middle and going with the flow... because they dont want to be singled out as being on either side, and know that while in negotiations over power between two big groups.... staying united might be the most important thing (aside from indeed having more power.. which the owners do)

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 01:53 AM
Most fans don't care if the CBA benefits their team, but would rather see a season, and also I think majority of the fans aren't rooting for the losing teams...

Yes but that's because larger market teams have a higher percentage of fans. Plus the NBA has a lot of fans that are more or less fans of players over teams. They would rather watch their favorite player. And how are you so sure that most fans of losing teams wouldn't want a CBA that benefits there team? I would think most fans of losing teams would just want a CBA that puts everyone at equal standing.

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 01:54 AM
Most fans don't care if the CBA benefits their team, but would rather see a season, and also I think majority of the fans aren't rooting for the losing teams...

I woulnt say that, but I think from what I hear, the deal on the table isnt that bad.

Both the cavs and the suns have been contenders in the last decade and they have both had multiple MVP awards on their roster... so Im not sure what their gripe is. I mean this last year was a down year... but being a warriors fan, id trade either of their last 10 yrs for the warriors last 10 yrs.

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 01:58 AM
Obviously if he was the only owner they'd just vote and say **** you! And I doubt this has anything to do with Lebron, I think he's just the most vocal about revenue sharing and it's annoying the some of the other owners

yeah....dan gilbert wasnt concerned about all teams being able to compete on a leveled playing field a few yrs ago when he traded big z for jamison and then turned around and signed big Z.... yeah Im not sure how that makes the wizards a better team that season.... but the second he runs into a little hickup after being a top 5 team in the league for the previous 5 yrs....he cries about being able to compete with the top tier teams.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 01:58 AM
LOL yeah but who knows who was vocal about what. I mean its not like fans really even know where their owners stand on this whole debate.

Most of the owners are probably somewhere in the middle and going with the flow... because they dont want to be singled out as being on either side, and know that while in negotiations over power between two big groups.... staying united might be the most important thing (aside from indeed having more power.. which the owners do)

Huh??? Those are all assumptions. You make it sound like Dan Gilbert is Hitler (ironic too because he's a jew) and the other owners are terrified of Gilbert and afraid he's going to the throw them in a concentration camp. These people didn't become NBA owners by acting like a bunch of p(ss(es.

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 02:01 AM
Huh??? Those are all assumptions. You make it sound like Dan Gilbert is Hitler (ironic too because he's a jew) and the other owners are terrified of Gilbert and afraid he's going to the throw them in a concentration camp. These people didn't become NBA owners by acting like a bunch of p(ss(es.

ok maybe the other owners are acting like adults and trying to take a good look at the proposal and work on a plan that could work... while dan gilbert is crying about revenue sharing.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 02:01 AM
yeah....dan gilbert wasnt concerned about all teams being able to compete on a leveled playing field a few yrs ago when he traded big z for jamison and then turned around and signed big Z.... yeah Im not sure how that makes the wizards a better team that season.... but the second he runs into a little hickup after being a top 5 team in the league for the previous 5 yrs....he cries about being able to compete with the top tier teams.

Yeah and how did that trade work out for Gilbert??? Pretty meaningless at this point. And he played by the rules. Others teams have done the same thing. Are you suggesting that Gilbert cheated with what he did with Jamison and Z?

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 02:03 AM
I woulnt say that, but I think from what I hear, the deal on the table isnt that bad.

Both the cavs and the suns have been contenders in the last decade and they have both had multiple MVP awards on their roster... so Im not sure what their gripe is. I mean this last year was a down year... but being a warriors fan, id trade either of their last 10 yrs for the warriors last 10 yrs.

And you'd have the same result. Zero championships!

Sactown
09-17-2011, 02:05 AM
I honestly think this is about revenue sharing and more of not caving into the players demands...

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 02:06 AM
ok maybe the other owners are acting like adults and trying to take a good look at the proposal and work on a plan that could work... while dan gilbert is crying about revenue sharing.

What exactly did Gilbert do that was immature regarding the lockout? Have you sat in the meetings with all the other owners? At this point it's really hard to take you seriously because you haven't provided any useful facts. I get that you want a full NBA season and that you hate Dan Gilbert and that's fine. But you're clearly using him as a punching bag for your frustrations.

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 02:07 AM
Yeah and how did that trade work out for Gilbert??? Pretty meaningless at this point. And he played by the rules. Others teams have done the same thing. Are you suggesting that Gilbert cheated with what he did with Jamison and Z?

NO... Gilbert didnt cheat, he played by the rules. Theres nothing wrong with that according to the rules..... but it just doesnt seem like a move that would allow every team to compete. The wizards lost one of their best players and didnt get anything in return, the cavs added a borderline all star at the time and didnt have to give up a thing.

Was gilbert worried about winning a championship, or was he trying to make sure every team had an equal chance to compete??

Im just saying... gilbert doesnt mind teams getting screwed over when it is bennefiting himself, but the second he runs into a little bump in the road... he crys (ie after the decision) he should be thankful for 7 years of having a team that could compete with anyone in the league on any given night. He didnt win a championship, but atleast his team was considered a contender going into every season.

Trust me as a warriors fan, i dont feel bad for cavs fans at all.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 02:13 AM
NO... Gilbert didnt cheat, he played by the rules. Theres nothing wrong with that according to the rules..... but it just doesnt seem like a move that would allow every team to compete. The wizards lost one of their best players and didnt get anything in return, the cavs added a borderline all star at the time and didnt have to give up a thing.

Was gilbert worried about winning a championship, or was he trying to make sure every team had an equal chance to compete??

Im just saying... gilbert doesnt mind teams getting screwed over when it is bennefiting himself, but the second he runs into a little bump in the road... he crys (ie after the decision) he should be thankful for 7 years of having a team that could compete with anyone in the league on any given night. He didnt win a championship, but atleast his team was considered a contender going into every season.

Trust me as a warriors fan, i dont feel bad for cavs fans at all.

Are you kidding me??? If anything Gilbert did the Wizards a huge favor. You really think that they wanted that huge contract going into the twilight of Jamison's career? Hell no! And I still don't get who Gilbert has screwed over???? Please explain to me the list of teams Gilbert has screwed over and how he screwed them over.
And who should Gilbert be thankful for the last seven years? THE CAVS DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING!!!!

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 02:15 AM
I honestly think this is about revenue sharing and more of not caving into the players demands...

LMAO at the "players demands"... the players are giving up on essentially all fronts. They are giving up like 5+% of pay which is significant when talking about 2.16 billion or whatever.... and that was supposidly the biggest roadblock headed into the lock out. The fact that the owners/ stern basically said their BRI split proposal was basically fair... is definite progress.


The players arent demanding anything. They are bending over and taking it on all accounts their just requesting that the owners have the decency to not shank them after theyve had their way with them. (prison metaphor)

Sactown
09-17-2011, 02:18 AM
NO... Gilbert didnt cheat, he played by the rules. Theres nothing wrong with that according to the rules..... but it just doesnt seem like a move that would allow every team to compete. The wizards lost one of their best players and didnt get anything in return, the cavs added a borderline all star at the time and didnt have to give up a thing.

Was gilbert worried about winning a championship, or was he trying to make sure every team had an equal chance to compete??

Im just saying... gilbert doesnt mind teams getting screwed over when it is bennefiting himself, but the second he runs into a little bump in the road... he crys (ie after the decision) he should be thankful for 7 years of having a team that could compete with anyone in the league on any given night. He didnt win a championship, but atleast his team was considered a contender going into every season.

Trust me as a warriors fan, i dont feel bad for cavs fans at all.
I agree that nobody should feel bad for the cavs, I also agree that Dan Gilbert is a bad owner, but I believe that what he is fighting for is probably best for the league and as a Warriors fan I'm sure you honestly know this too! A more competitive league would be overall greater for the NBA than watching the same 3 teams win a championship over and over again also revenue sharing will also benefit the league greatly

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 02:20 AM
Are you kidding me??? If anything Gilbert did the Wizards a huge favor. You really think that they wanted that huge contract going into the twilight of Jamison's career? Hell no! And I still don't get who Gilbert has screwed over???? Please explain to me the list of teams Gilbert has screwed over and how he screwed them over.
And who should Gilbert be thankful for the last seven years? THE CAVS DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING!!!!

61, 66, 45, 50, 50, and 42... making the play offs each of those 6 years. being an elite team for many of those 6 years. They didnt win a championship... OK thats one series, they were winning games though!! Every year only 1 team wins a championship... that doesnt mean that all other 29 teams didnt accomplish anything.

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 02:24 AM
I agree that nobody should feel bad for the cavs, I also agree that Dan Gilbert is a bad owner, but I believe that what he is fighting for is probably best for the league and as a Warriors fan I'm sure you honestly know this too! A more competitive league would be overall greater for the NBA than watching the same 3 teams win a championship over and over again also revenue sharing will also benefit the league greatly

as a warriors fan, i dont blame the cba or the size of the bay area market for the warriors inability to compete. I blame Chris Cohan (Who IMO was a far worse owner than Gilbert). Now the warriors have lacob and im not sure what to make of him yet.... so far he seems like hes all talk, LOL but somehow thats even a step up from Chris Cohan.

Astronaut
09-17-2011, 02:27 AM
He was a terrible owner, he had the easiest job to surround the best player in the NBA with talent and LeBron went to the finals with Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, and Big Z. Look at all the other NBA teams with stars there are people around them. Getting Shaq and Jamison is a joke.

It seems you have completely ignored my post. Read it again,

It specifically says that owners don't trade or sign specific players, that's the GM's job, the owners just give them the money. Gilbert is not to blame.

I also never said Gilbert was a good GM, I said he wasn't a bad GM. So stop putting words into my mouth.

Sactown
09-17-2011, 02:27 AM
as a warriors fan, i dont blame the cba or the size of the bay area market for the warriors inability to compete. I blame Chris Cohan (Who IMO was a far worse owner than Gilbert). Now the warriors have lacob and im not sure what to make of him yet.... so far he seems like hes all talk, LOL but somehow thats even a step up from Chris Cohan.

I hope for the warriors sake that they dump Ellis

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 02:36 AM
I hope for the warriors sake that they dump Ellis

LOL- I dont see them "dumping" their best player. Not a move a team that wants to get better makes. if they trade ellis, they need an all star in return.

Sactown
09-17-2011, 02:43 AM
LOL- I dont see them "dumping" their best player. Not a move a team that wants to get better makes. if they trade ellis, they need an all star in return.

I think they should go for draft picks

MJ-BULLS
09-17-2011, 02:46 AM
My hate for Gilbert just went up. :sigh:

JEDean89
09-17-2011, 03:42 AM
The league as a whole would be foolish not to except a deal before training camp begins. If you are in the nba and you want to make more money you can either ask for a bigger slice of the pie or you can ask for a bigger pie. Revenue growth is what will make this league rich not cutting up the money they have now. the players would be smart to compromise as long as their pay is tied in with growth and the owners would be smart to back off the cap issue as long as the players give them 48-50% of the split. Then focus everything on making the game more appealing internationally and allowing the young superstars to develop and watch the revenue grow. The league grew 5% for an increase in 170 million dollars. With a small revenue sharing system in place and sustained growth over the next 10 years and the NBA can make more money than they do if they kill the growth for 3 years over a few % bigger slice.

PHX2daDEATH
09-17-2011, 08:11 AM
I don't like that Robert Sarver is giving Phoenix a bad name here.. he has destroyed this franchise from the bottom, up.. from trading JJ for Diaw, to selling away draft picks, to allowing BC to walk..Allowing Amare to walk..to hiring a damn agent to run the team.... the list goes on and on.. Really i want to know how they determine Market Size..because Phoenix is the 5th largest City population wise in the U.S and for the last 20 years the Suns have been a competitive team for the most part and all that credit goes to Jerry C.. but now Jerry is rolling in his un-dug grave..We have gone from a guy who was so respected in Basketball that he was hired to oversee team USA.. to a guy who's teetering on being the Worse Owner in professional sports. Can you name a team in any sport that has had a carousal of players around a 2-two time MVP? neither can I..I wouldn't feel bad if Sarver moved the team to Vegas as long as the name and colors stay in Phoenix and Sarver goes.....I mean its hard to watch the best franchise with out a title be destroyed.. and now what Robert? You are going to lose more money then you ever imagined, it'd be best to sell the team to somebody who has a bigger bank role. NO PLAYER will want to work for the guy who "Killed the 11-12 season...

69centers
09-17-2011, 08:14 AM
As if Cleveland wasn't going to get any big names signing there EVER anyway, they'll never even get mid level guys now. No NBA player should ever want to suit up for Gilbert after this.

MackShock
09-17-2011, 08:43 AM
ahh Dan Gilbert. Bitter about Lebron since his Cavs have reverted back to 2002. Having no season isnt going to make your team better Mister. You have a future all star point guard in Kyrie Irving, and you dont want him to develop because you dont want Lebron to get a ring? Douchebag.

Rain 816
09-17-2011, 08:45 AM
Ignoring Phx...I HATE U DAN Gilbert u coward. Holding up the season as well as Nba 2k12 roster all cuz ur mad..Maybe Lebron saw this side of this loser before we did and THATS y he left.....just maybe

MackShock
09-17-2011, 08:54 AM
I think they should go for draft picks

Nope. Time and time again, GM Larry Riley has said that if they are going to trade Ellis or Curry, it will be for a player of significant value in return. This doesnt exactly mean all star. But suppose Monta Ellis is being traded TO the Warriors. Like that..

The team is already young, with a fresh face in Mark Jackson. Weve made progress, and I'm willing to part with Ellis. But as Stylez has said, it makes no sense to trade our best player unless a significant player comes back to Oakland.

This mean's no draft picks or salary dumps.

MackShock
09-17-2011, 08:55 AM
Ignoring Phx...I HATE U DAN Gilbert u coward. Holding up the season as well as Nba 2k12 roster all cuz ur mad..Maybe Lebron saw this side of this loser before we did and THATS y he left.....just maybe

This. LOL..epic.

The Lebron seeing Gilbert's true colors is also on point.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 11:27 AM
All you fans are seriously ******** if you think that Dan Gilbert is the one responsible for the lockout. Go get an education!

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 11:31 AM
61, 66, 45, 50, 50, and 42... making the play offs each of those 6 years. being an elite team for many of those 6 years. They didnt win a championship... OK thats one series, they were winning games though!! Every year only 1 team wins a championship... that doesnt mean that all other 29 teams didnt accomplish anything.

Again I'll repeat myself... the CAVS DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING!!! And again who should he be thankful for???? The Basketball Gods??? Thank you for letting us be in the playoffs each year????:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Big Zo
09-17-2011, 11:31 AM
All you fans are seriously ******** if you think that Dan Gilbert is the one responsible for the lockout. Go get an education!

He may not be responsible, but he still needs to go **** himself.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 11:34 AM
He may not be responsible, but he still needs to go **** himself.

For what reason???? What did he do exactly????

Tony_Starks
09-17-2011, 03:43 PM
I think the divide between the owners will get larger and larger, and that will probably be what ends this lockout. It's obvious the guys that have been completely screwing up could care less about a season because they just want the slate wiped clean at any cost. But with the league at peak popularity I just can't see any way the owners that have been doing well would be willing to risk a season and take a million steps back popularity wise.That would be disastrous for everyone.....

AZCardsFan
09-17-2011, 03:47 PM
God Sarver has to be the stingiest owner in all of sports.... :facepalm:

Stuckey#3
09-17-2011, 04:55 PM
**** it... just kick the Cavs and Suns out of the league then. If the league plans on contraction (which I hope they don't) this would be a good starting point. Reassign the players via Contraction Draft. We would love to have Robin Lopez or Gortat in Detroit.

No offense to Phoenix/Cleveland fans... but your owners are ****ing up the league.

Maybe they can take their franchises to Europe?

MackShock
09-17-2011, 06:12 PM
All you fans are seriously ******** if you think that Dan Gilbert is the one responsible for the lockout. Go get an education!

My dude, based on this article, only he and the suns owner didnt agree to the deal on the table because of whatever reason, that means it's their fault this lockout is still here.

no one ever said he was responsible for the lockout in the first place, but based on this article, he's letting it go on

Tony_Starks
09-17-2011, 06:12 PM
What do you want to bet that while all this was going on Donald Sterling was probably turning to his neighbor asking "WTF is this salary cap thingie they keep talking about?"

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 07:52 PM
My dude, based on this article, only he and the suns owner didnt agree to the deal on the table because of whatever reason, that means it's their fault this lockout is still here.

no one ever said he was responsible for the lockout in the first place, but based on this article, he's letting it go on

Okay show me where it says this... all it says is that Gilbert and Sarver aired there dissatisfaction in the owners only meeting. It never said anything about Gilbert nor Sarver somehow causing a delay in negotiations. Again... two owners aren't going to prevent a lockout from being resolved. Learn how to read!

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 07:54 PM
**** it... just kick the Cavs and Suns out of the league then. If the league plans on contraction (which I hope they don't) this would be a good starting point. Reassign the players via Contraction Draft. We would love to have Robin Lopez or Gortat in Detroit.

No offense to Phoenix/Cleveland fans... but your owners are ****ing up the league.

Maybe they can take their franchises to Europe?

How are they f(ck(ing up the league? Maybe Detroit should take it's franchise to the D-Leauge because that's the level they're playing at.

Chill_Will_24
09-17-2011, 08:12 PM
What do you want to bet that while all this was going on Donald Sterling was probably turning to his neighbor asking "WTF is this salary cap thingie they keep talking about?"

Then he hears "I must break you" and looks up to see Mikhail Prokhorov scowling down at him...

Stuckey#3
09-17-2011, 09:25 PM
How are they f(ck(ing up the league? Maybe Detroit should take it's franchise to the D-Leauge because that's the level they're playing at.

By prolonging the lockout for one.

Also Sarver has sucked as an owner for years. If I were a Suns fan I would be embarrassed by him; he treated his stars like **** and allowed some of the top talent in the league to walk.

Dan Gilbert is just an a$$hole.

We had a ****** owner in Detroit for a couple years after Mr D left the franchise to his wife; but that cheap ***** had enough sense to sell the team.

BTW Detroit posted a better record than your sorry excuse for a franchise last year. At least they tried to win some games. How many D-Leaguers played for the Cavs last year? Manny Harris? Samuels? Alonzo Gee? Are you ****ing serious? The Cavs tanked purposely and we still came out of the draft with the better point guard.

MackShock
09-17-2011, 10:56 PM
Okay show me where it says this... all it says is that Gilbert and Sarver aired there dissatisfaction in the owners only meeting. It never said anything about Gilbert nor Sarver somehow causing a delay in negotiations. Again... two owners aren't going to prevent a lockout from being resolved. Learn how to read!

Dude, the article basically said that the owners were seriously considering the players demands. HOWEVER, when the owner's were left by themselves, Gilbert and Sarver started whining because they didnt like it. THATS IT.

But can see you how potentially not agreeing with the rest of the owners can cause the lockout to continue?

Dont all owners have to be on board before an agreement can be made...?

likemystylez
09-17-2011, 11:49 PM
Dude, the article basically said that the owners were seriously considering the players demands. HOWEVER, when the owner's were left by themselves, Gilbert and Sarver started whining because they didnt like it. THATS IT.

But can see you how potentially not agreeing with the rest of the owners can cause the lockout to continue?

Dont all owners have to be on board before an agreement can be made...?

No sorry bro, its a vote, 16 owners have to vote it as being fair. In fairness to Gilbert, the article was based on an un named source. Gilbert was probably named because of his recent actions. Its likely that gilbert is strongly in favor of the hardcap..... but blaming the whole lock out on him based on one article from a guy just trying to sell a story... well that seems a bit short sighted..... who knows what was really going on. The owners knew they didnt have to make a deal on that day, and with the players wanting to get a deal done in time for the season... its not like they are going to withdraw their offer.

Its a roller coaster for fans, and you can bet that writers are getting everything they can out of this back and forth overstated drama... in reality... thats kind of what a negotiation is.... back and forth, tactical decisions.... nobody wants to cave in before they have too.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 11:51 PM
Dude, the article basically said that the owners were seriously considering the players demands. HOWEVER, when the owner's were left by themselves, Gilbert and Sarver started whining because they didnt like it. THATS IT.

But can see you how potentially not agreeing with the rest of the owners can cause the lockout to continue?

Dont all owners have to be on board before an agreement can be made...?

I'm pretty sure NO. And the article doesn't say anything about the rest of the owners outside CLE, PHO, NY, and LA. Most people (including yourself) on this thread are jumping to conclusion that somehow Gilbert and Sarver blocked a potential negotiation. And that's completely not true. The article NEVER said anything of that sort.

Arch Stanton
09-17-2011, 11:56 PM
By prolonging the lockout for one.

Also Sarver has sucked as an owner for years. If I were a Suns fan I would be embarrassed by him; he treated his stars like **** and allowed some of the top talent in the league to walk.

Dan Gilbert is just an a$$hole.

We had a ****** owner in Detroit for a couple years after Mr D left the franchise to his wife; but that cheap ***** had enough sense to sell the team.

BTW Detroit posted a better record than your sorry excuse for a franchise last year. At least they tried to win some games. How many D-Leaguers played for the Cavs last year? Manny Harris? Samuels? Alonzo Gee? Are you ****ing serious? The Cavs tanked purposely and we still came out of the draft with the better point guard.

Exactly how are they prolonging the lockout? What makes Dan Gilbert and a$$hole? And so what if he is? What does that have to do with anything? Detroit really has no room to talk they won a handful more games then the Cavs. I'm sure you got the better point guard that's why 7 other teams passed on him. But in fairness only time will tell.

Stuckey#3
09-18-2011, 12:10 AM
Exactly how are they prolonging the lockout? What makes Dan Gilbert and a$$hole? And so what if he is? What does that have to do with anything? Detroit really has no room to talk they won a handful more games then the Cavs. I'm sure you got the better point guard that's why 7 other teams passed on him. But in fairness only time will tell.

I'll put a sig bet on it that Knight has the better rookie season... if there is a season.

Also IMO they are guilty of prolonging the lockout by not signing on with the rest of the owners.

Arch Stanton
09-18-2011, 12:37 AM
I'll put a sig bet on it that Knight has the better rookie season... if there is a season.

Also IMO they are guilty of prolonging the lockout by not signing on with the rest of the owners.

As long as you understand that your opinion is based on no actual fact.

Stuckey#3
09-18-2011, 12:46 AM
As long as you understand that your opinion is based on no actual fact.

Brandon will have more PPG, APG, and be higher in ROY standings.

Arch Stanton
09-18-2011, 12:51 AM
Brandon will have more PPG, APG, and be higher in ROY standings.

Okay... I guess will see!

MackShock
09-18-2011, 01:10 AM
I'm pretty sure NO. And the article doesn't say anything about the rest of the owners outside CLE, PHO, NY, and LA. Most people (including yourself) on this thread are jumping to conclusion that somehow Gilbert and Sarver blocked a potential negotiation. And that's completely not true. The article NEVER said anything of that sort.

well if its majority rules like stylez says it is, then how come they hadnt voted? if the owners were seriously considering the offer from the players, shouldnt they have put it to a vote?

i admit im probably jumping to a conclusion, but im not really blaming gilbert and sarver. besides, the article make it seems like they were the only two who werent on board, as it makes no mention of the owners besides them, NY and LA.

well find out later on if they still have reservations..

Arch Stanton
09-18-2011, 01:53 AM
well if its majority rules like stylez says it is, then how come they hadnt voted? if the owners were seriously considering the offer from the players, shouldnt they have put it to a vote?

i admit im probably jumping to a conclusion, but im not really blaming gilbert and sarver. besides, the article make it seems like they were the only two who werent on board, as it makes no mention of the owners besides them, NY and LA.

well find out later on if they still have reservations..

The article sparks reaction from people who already don't like Gilbert or Sarver. For Miami fans they spew that Gilbert is doing this because he's still angry with LeBron (at least that's what some Heat fans have stated "bitter ex-girlfriend") which I'm not sure I completely understand the relationship between that and the lockout. Other fans maybe didn't like the letter that Gilbert wrote, and want a full basketball season so are somehow again blaming Gilbert. And apparently some fans think Sarver is a cheapskate and hate him as an owner (I'm not as familiar with Sarver and whether or not he's a cheapskate). Either way the article is vague at best and provides little insight as to what went on in those meetings. So I don't know how anyone can blame either of those owners for holding up negotiations.

Kevj77
09-18-2011, 01:55 AM
Most likely those owners were representing other owners that agree with them. I doubt all 29 owners were at the meeting. So it probably isn't fair to put all the blame on them, I doubt two people could hold up a potential deal.

It does seem as if there really is a divide among small vs large market owners though. They need to work out their differences before they can negotiate with players.

likemystylez
09-18-2011, 03:30 AM
well if its majority rules like stylez says it is, then how come they hadnt voted? if the owners were seriously considering the offer from the players, shouldnt they have put it to a vote?

why put it to vote though? If the players were willing to offer to get down to below 52% with 2-3 weeks before cancelling any games, isnt there a chance that the owners could get them to drop another precentage point or even half of one?.... why agree to a deal before you have too?

i admit im probably jumping to a conclusion, but im not really blaming gilbert and sarver. besides, the article make it seems like they were the only two who werent on board, as it makes no mention of the owners besides them, NY and LA.

well find out later on if they still have reservations..

There will have to be a different revenue split than in the old cba, and there is a good chance that owners are working that out behind closed doors. In an effort to keep a united front on the cba negotiations, all the owners want to get as much revenue split out of the players before they help one another out.

Its greedy and its self centered, but hey... if there is ever a time to be greedy and self centered... that time is right now for the owners!!! ... the players came into a meeting last week and asked " what do we need to do to have a season this year"... every single one of the owners heard that loud and clear.

LakersMaster24
09-18-2011, 03:31 AM
Dan Gilbert really needs to stop PMSing and get over the fact that Lebron left.

Arch Stanton
09-18-2011, 04:39 AM
Dan Gilbert really needs to stop PMSing and get over the fact that Lebron left.

Maybe Andrew Bynum can provide the tampons?

MackShock
09-18-2011, 06:54 AM
There will have to be a different revenue split than in the old cba, and there is a good chance that owners are working that out behind closed doors. In an effort to keep a united front on the cba negotiations, all the owners want to get as much revenue split out of the players before they help one another out.

Its greedy and its self centered, but hey... if there is ever a time to be greedy and self centered... that time is right now for the owners!!! ... the players came into a meeting last week and asked " what do we need to do to have a season this year"... every single one of the owners heard that loud and clear.

well, for starters, both sides established a sense of urgency, so thats why they should put it to a vote. but i get what your saying, they can probably make them drop another percent or so. however, if this is the case, then the owners arent worried about the season starting on time at all.

MackShock
09-18-2011, 07:02 AM
The article sparks reaction from people who already don't like Gilbert or Sarver. For Miami fans they spew that Gilbert is doing this because he's still angry with LeBron (at least that's what some Heat fans have stated "bitter ex-girlfriend") which I'm not sure I completely understand the relationship between that and the lockout. Other fans maybe didn't like the letter that Gilbert wrote, and want a full basketball season so are somehow again blaming Gilbert. And apparently some fans think Sarver is a cheapskate and hate him as an owner (I'm not as familiar with Sarver and whether or not he's a cheapskate). Either way the article is vague at best and provides little insight as to what went on in those meetings. So I don't know how anyone can blame either of those owners for holding up negotiations.

I dont know much about Sarver either, but I know there are two cheapskate owners, and thats Donald Sterling of the Clippers, and the owner of the Grizzlies. Gilbert in my opinion is one of the better owners. True, The Cavs did not win a championship, but seven years of being a finals candidate isnt too shabby.

Besides, he didnt stand pat and actually tried to get Lebron some help, ie Antawn Jamison, Shaq, Ben Wallace, Mo Williams, Anthony Parker..

Kind of like a poor man's Mark Cuban...

Although Gilbert was a little irrational talking smack about Lebron as soon as he left, and said the Cavs would win a championship before the Heat would...

Trust me, we Warriors fans suffered through Chris Cohan, twenty times worse than any cheapskate owner you can imagine. He was so hated, that he stopped attending games at his courtside seats. Gilbert is a Godsend compared to that.

likemystylez
09-18-2011, 10:42 AM
well, for starters, both sides established a sense of urgency, so thats why they should put it to a vote. but i get what your saying, they can probably make them drop another percent or so. however, if this is the case, then the owners arent worried about the season starting on time at all.

there is still time to start this thing on time. They probably have about until october 1st. It might make the start of training camp late... and effect free agency a lot.... free agency is a big deal, but this is an important negotiation for the owners.

The owners who can swallow the deal on the table might become a LOT bit MORE annoyed once they start losing real money making opportunities (ie advertising partners ending their contracts, season ticketholders getting refunds, tv deals being taken away etc.)... if it comes to that point a week or 2 into october.

The media made it out to be like Tuesday was like this dooms day, and if a deal didnt get done there it was going to be a horrible situation. And it didnt help when the players went back and said it doesnt look like were starting on time... but who knows if that was sincere, or that was a message for the owners.

likemystylez
09-18-2011, 10:50 AM
Maybe Andrew Bynum can provide the tampons?

:laugh2:

Giants88
09-18-2011, 11:44 AM
I seriously doubt there's any truth to this. There are teams hurting a lot worse then Cleveland and phoenix.

DR_1
09-18-2011, 12:21 PM
Wow, this might make me, a Bulls fan, actually root for the Heat when they play the Cavs and Suns. This is disgusting.

LakersMaster24
09-18-2011, 03:30 PM
Maybe Andrew Bynum can provide the tampons?

:laugh: Good one.

Bornknick73
09-18-2011, 04:45 PM
Milwaukee Bucks + Seattle = Seattle Starbucks
Sacramento Kings + Las Vegas = Las Vegas Kings
Phoenix Suns + San Diego = San Diego Suns
Memphis Grizzlies + St. Louis = St. Louis (pick a name)

I feel part of the problem with small market owners is they put teams in cities which cant sustain the franchises placed there. Contraction is not the answer in regard to this issue. I feel relocation is the answer to this problem.

Seattle had a thriving franchise but left because a greedy owner didnt want to pay for his own stadium. Las Vegas is another city which has the financial stability to maintain a franchise. San Diego is one of the wealthiest cities in the country. And St.Louis has shown for years they are a big sports town who whole heartedly support their teams financially.

I feel a 50-50 split, of the BRI, is a fair proposal. Relocate some of these teams to the cities I pointed out and the league will be more prosperous than ever.

New Orleans needs that team and Jordan will never move out of Charlotte so let them stay put.

And for the love of God, no more guaranteed contracts. Or at least give owners 1 contract per year which they could void under very particular circumstances ( Eddy Curry, Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas etc.) If a particular contract is choking the growth of your franchise, and you can prove it to the NBAPA then that contract should be a one time amnesty void and said player can be cut and is a instant free agent.

I also love the idea someone had about having a dollar value pre- determined for each years FAs. An independent entity can assign players a value and its up to the owners to exceed this value. Like someone mentioned, a Kelly Bluebook for players. Excellent Idea.

But mainly I feel relocation, not contraction is what the NBA needs moving forward.