PDA

View Full Version : blame the agents!!!



smith&wesson
11-16-2011, 03:18 PM
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/5-on-5-111116/who-deserves-most-blame-nba-lockout

blame the agents that are leading the players astray. they are the ones responsible for this. the agents arent thinking about any of the 450 players currently in the nba. if they are its an after thought. what they really are fighting for is themselves and the ability to negotiate player contracts in the future. the size of the contracts, the length of the contracts etc. this is all about the agents at this point. even with the system issues in terms of trades, free agency, mid level, bird rights etc. they just want to have more control. or keep the control they have. and the owners want to take some of control away. and rightfully so!!!

how come the players dont get a vote ? if they dont get a vote how do we know what the majority of them want ? and where they stand ?

i blame the agents. :mad:

sixer04fan
11-16-2011, 03:35 PM
I voted for all three. As many know, I'm pro-owners, but all three sides of this are to blame.

ShakeN'Bake
11-16-2011, 03:39 PM
I voted for all 3. I really dont want to have to wait till 2012 for a season.

WestCoastSportz
11-16-2011, 05:42 PM
Who to blame? I'll tell you. Kevin Garnett. The day he signed that $126M contract, which indirectly caused the 1998 season lockout, he turned it into an "its all about the money" for all players looking to prove themselves. He sure has hell didn't bring a championship to Minnesota. And not on the court, but by their bank account. The owners want to make more money? Thats not unreasonable is it? Do you open a business hoping to break even or lose money? No, you're in business to make money. Thats the bottom line. All these high paid players are taking money out of the owners pockets and indirectly, out of the fans. Because its the fans that ultimately have to pay right? From the jacked up ticket prices to the $8 corndog at the stand.

Yes, I understand that there wouldn't be a league without the players and thats why I trace this back to KG, at the time, unheard of contract. That lead to guys like Sprewell asking how's he suppose to feed his kids on $10M a year. Really? What are you feeding your kids? Burgers with a diamond crusted bun? In the real world, if you make $150K a year, chances are, your kids are eating well. Its the ego. He didn't want to play against guys he thought he was better than, but knew he was getting paid less.

Wade>You
11-16-2011, 05:45 PM
Who's lockout is it? The owner's.

Who's fault is it? The owner's.

Really people, it's not rocket science.

Sactown
11-16-2011, 05:55 PM
Who's lockout is it? The owner's.

Who's fault is it? The owner's.

Really people, it's not rocket science.

I'm sorry, but how is it their fault when they're the ones losing money? and just want to make some money on their business...

blahblahyoutoo
11-16-2011, 06:05 PM
Who's lockout is it? The owner's.

Who's fault is it? The owner's.

Really people, it's not rocket science.

please stop.
i've already owned you in countless threads.

Sactown
11-16-2011, 06:07 PM
please stop.
i've already owned you in countless threads.

Everyone has, his logic is so flawed..

Da Knicks
11-16-2011, 06:08 PM
all three are at fault but you also forgot the media all of them can go suck a nut.

Wade>You
11-16-2011, 06:09 PM
I'm sorry, but how is it their fault when they're the ones losing money? and just want to make some money on their business...a) Because it's their lockout! If the players were on strike demanding more money, and the owners made the players a new offer that substantially increases their salary, whose fault do you think it would be if no deal were reached?

b) Owners have not proven that they are losing money. Please don't go around repeating their claims/lies as if it were a fact.

It's not rocket science.

Sactown
11-16-2011, 06:16 PM
a) Because it's their lockout! If the players were on strike demanding more money, and the owners made the players a new offer that substantially increases their salary, whose fault do you think it would be if no deal were reached?

b) Owners have not proven that they are losing money. Please don't go around repeating their claims/lies as if it were a fact.

It's not rocket science.

Let's see here.... BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT 72% OF TEAMS ARE LOSING MONEY. that's why the players have agreed to drop the BRI and allow teams to make almost everything back, and have said that revenue sharing should be enough to cover the rest... NOW

And if the players were making a tenth of what they are now, and the owners were rolling around in cash THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE PLAYERS, but that's not the case

The PLAYERS have no leverage, and the players need to realize they are at fault... the recession has hit everyone including and especially the owners.. it's time for the players to give some of that cash back...

blahblahyoutoo
11-16-2011, 06:19 PM
a) Because it's their lockout! If the players were on strike demanding more money, and the owners made the players a new offer that substantially increases their salary, whose fault do you think it would be if no deal were reached?


how old are you, seriously?

your logic is akin to a 4 year old's "but he started it!" argument.

Sactown
11-16-2011, 06:20 PM
how old are you, seriously?

your logic is akin to a 4 year old's "but he started it!" argument.

this :facepalm:

Wade>You
11-16-2011, 06:25 PM
please stop.
i've already owned you in countless threads.


Everyone has, his logic is so flawed..


how old are you, seriously?

your logic is akin to a 4 year old's "but he started it!" argument.How does attacking a person (not even their post, just the person) make your argument valid? You call people names and claim they're not behaving their age, but that's exactly the way a child would behave and respond back when they cannot formulate a coherent argument. I've done nothing but tell you the facts and yet "my logic is flawed" and I'm "4 years old."

blahblahyoutoo
11-16-2011, 06:29 PM
How does attacking a person (not even their post, just the person) make your argument valid? You call people names and claim they're not behaving their age, but that's exactly the way a child would behave and respond back when they cannot formulate a coherent argument. I've done nothing but tell you the facts and yet "my logic is flawed" and I'm "4 years old."

reading > you.
where did i attack you? tell me.
i've stated that your logic is flawed and that you should stop, but not once have i attacked you or called you names.
please, enlighten me.

and tell us how old you are.
i'm 27.

beliges
11-16-2011, 06:53 PM
a) Because it's their lockout! If the players were on strike demanding more money, and the owners made the players a new offer that substantially increases their salary, whose fault do you think it would be if no deal were reached?

b) Owners have not proven that they are losing money. Please don't go around repeating their claims/lies as if it were a fact.

It's not rocket science.

a) Its their business so they can lock players out if they choose that its the best business decision. The owners are the ones who risk it all to run these franchises so if they want to make a business decision and make more money then they are entitled to it. The players on the other hand are not because its not their business, its not their investment and they have nothing at risk. I would blame the owners if they were just offering a clearly unconscionable deal to the players but they have offered a deal which was more than fair to the players and the players refused to accept it, citing issues with money. The owners have the right to do what theyre doing. If the player does not like the way the owners are handling their teams, then the player is more than free to stop playing and pursue another profession or they are free to play ball in another league. Nobody is forcing these guys to play in the NBA.

b) Owners dont have to prove they are losing money. Its their business and its their money to begin with. If they decide they should earn more of the profits than the players are earning then thats their right. Again, if the players want to make the big bucks the owners do then they should put together half a billion dollars of their own and start a franchise or buy a franchise.

Its not rocket science like you said. When youre not the boss you cant call the shots. If you disagree with your boss then you are more than free to walk away. There is nothing legally keeping the players in the NBA. They are free to pursue a paycheck elsewhere.

barreleffact
11-16-2011, 07:02 PM
Let's see here.... BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT 72% OF TEAMS ARE LOSING MONEY. that's why the players have agreed to drop the BRI and allow teams to make almost everything back, and have said that revenue sharing should be enough to cover the rest... NOW

And if the players were making a tenth of what they are now, and the owners were rolling around in cash THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE PLAYERS, but that's not the case

The PLAYERS have no leverage, and the players need to realize they are at fault... the recession has hit everyone including and especially the owners.. it's time for the players to give some of that cash back...

Show me where BOTH sides agreed that 72% were losing money. Last I heard the NBPA said the losses were about 200mil less than reported AND only 6-8 teams lost money at all.

Sactown
11-16-2011, 08:16 PM
Show me where BOTH sides agreed that 72% were losing money. Last I heard the NBPA said the losses were about 200mil less than reported AND only 6-8 teams lost money at all.

At this point it's common knowledge they are losing money, and Forbes reports that 5 teams would actually lose less money by not having a season than having a season

He also states that 17 teams are losing money, not including taxes, interest, depreciation and amortization

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/09/many-nba-teams-would-lose-less-money-no-season/
there's the site

beliges
11-16-2011, 08:18 PM
Bottom line is it doesnt matter if the owners are losing money or not. They want an even 50/50 share of all the profits as opposed to being forced to give a substantial majority of their profits to the players. The owners are the ones taking all the financial risks and as such, they deserve more of a return of the substantial portions of profits.

smith&wesson
11-16-2011, 08:31 PM
LOL may i shouldnt have let you all pick more then one option. i never seen such an even poll on psd. i guess it makes sence that all partys can be blamed somehow.

LA_Raiders
11-16-2011, 09:22 PM
The players are no kids to be manipulated. Wait, are we talking about NBA players?

D1JM
11-16-2011, 09:34 PM
all of you are seeing it through the eyes of a fan. no point in blaming one group because everyone dipped in for the lockout, even the fans.

if you were an nba player and you gave concessions after concessions while the owners wanting more and more, you too would of said **** no.

barreleffact
11-16-2011, 10:19 PM
Bottom line is it doesnt matter if the owners are losing money or not. They want an even 50/50 share of all the profits as opposed to being forced to give a substantial majority of their profits to the players. The owners are the ones taking all the financial risks and as such, they deserve more of a return of the substantial portions of profits.

No they don't! They already received about 50% in the last CBA because of the nBRI that was up to 30% that they took off top as overhead costs. THEN they split the remainder among the players. The new system would be closer to a 40/60 split than a 50/50.


At this point it's common knowledge they are losing money, and Forbes reports that 5 teams would actually lose less money by not having a season than having a season

He also states that 17 teams are losing money, not including taxes, interest, depreciation and amortization

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/09/many-nba-teams-would-lose-less-money-no-season/
there's the site

How would Forbes know? As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, Forbes is a private organization. The NBA has not disclosed any information about income to anyone that did not need to know, Forbes included. Instantly I am inclined to look over this article because it says there are 30 owners. The Hornets are ownerless, unless the NBA itself has a vote.

Regardless, the point I was responding to was what the players agreed to how many teams lost money. The NBPA has actually seen the their financial records.

Sactown
11-16-2011, 11:22 PM
No they don't! They already received about 50% in the last CBA because of the nBRI that was up to 30% that they took off top as overhead costs. THEN they split the remainder among the players. The new system would be closer to a 40/60 split than a 50/50.



How would Forbes know? As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, Forbes is a private organization. The NBA has not disclosed any information about income to anyone that did not need to know, Forbes included. Instantly I am inclined to look over this article because it says there are 30 owners. The Hornets are ownerless, unless the NBA itself has a vote.

Regardless, the point I was responding to was what the players agreed to how many teams lost money. The NBPA has actually seen the their financial records.

I've just assumed it was common knowledge at this point as the NBPA hasn't had any recent articles calling out the owners "Losses" and have already been willing to drop the BRI% down to 50/50 with minor system changes

And as for the "blame the agents" It almost seems like the agents have a more pure agenda than Billy Hunter and Kessler, as Kessler gains the most by taking this to court :shrug: correct me if I'm wrong of course.
And as far as blame goes, I mostly blame the players, because honestly they have absolutely no leverage and are fighting a no win war, and I think partial blame has to go to the owners as well as they should have made minor tweaks at the end isntead of saying negotiating time is over... also I blame the NBPA as a group for not putting the last CBA offer to a vote, as that would of been the most obvious thing to do as it affects the players the most and it's the players they are suppose to be representing

seikou8
11-16-2011, 11:53 PM
wow people ,the owners are the ones giveing these player these contracts. the player are giveing up 5-9 percent thats not the issue its the cap and mid leveltrade and free acency. so the player should just give in because the owners are losing money. not every player is kobe or lebron so why shold palyer give in when there the ones who bring the people to arena, sell the jersey,is the playing out here. the small market teams just want to stop player from leaveing and stop makeing them money.

Dade County
11-17-2011, 12:24 AM
I want the F'in season to start already!!!!!! :cry: :bang:

And I blame the fans... checkmate

Sactown
11-17-2011, 12:51 AM
wow people ,the owners are the ones giveing these player these contracts. the player are giveing up 5-9 percent thats not the issue its the cap and mid leveltrade and free acency. so the player should just give in because the owners are losing money. not every player is kobe or lebron so why shold palyer give in when there the ones who bring the people to arena, sell the jersey,is the playing out here. the small market teams just want to stop player from leaveing and stop makeing them money.

That's why the owners are trying to add "checks and balances" to the system to prevent themselves from shooting themselves in the foot.. I don't understand why the players are fighting so hard for the owners to overspend?

CousinsEvansDUO
11-17-2011, 01:02 AM
Wade>You I feel very sad for you. Wade is about to come out of his prime and be a shell of his former self. Me and Sactown on the other hand are about to enjoy two top 25 players of all time in Tyreke and Cousins enter their prime of excellence. I don't know why you're such a fan of wade anyways he's injury prone, getting slower, getting more inconsistent and has a fat, disgusting anchor on the salary cap of the Miami heat.

Dade County
11-17-2011, 01:54 AM
Wade>You I feel very sad for you. Wade is about to come out of his prime and be a shell of his former self. Me and Sactown on the other hand are about to enjoy two top 25 players of all time in Tyreke and Cousins enter their prime of excellence. I don't know why you're such a fan of wade anyways he's injury prone, getting slower, getting more inconsistent and has a fat, disgusting anchor on the salary cap of the Miami heat.

25yrs from now, The Kings still want have a finals appearance... :D

And with the team mates that Wade have, he will stay at his prime a lot longer then you think.

He's the best player in the league, and it's going to stay like that for a while.

Cal827
11-17-2011, 02:04 AM
Wade>You I feel very sad for you. Wade is about to come out of his prime and be a shell of his former self. Me and Sactown on the other hand are about to enjoy two top 25 players of all time in Tyreke and Cousins enter their prime of excellence. I don't know why you're such a fan of wade anyways he's injury prone, getting slower, getting more inconsistent and has a fat, disgusting anchor on the salary cap of the Miami heat.

Just plain :facepalm: