Olbrannon wrote:So as a result I can conceive of any fan actually favoring the lockout.

I'd be interested in hearing from UK folks not in the US: what do you think about this? I'm imagining if I was an Israeli/Italian/Chinese/Japanese etc. UK fan I'd be foaming at the mouth with the chance of seeing NBA talent in my local arena, whether it be barnstorming like this Kobe thing they are talking about, or in my local league for a season.

I'm not favoring it, but there is a part of me that is pretty ambivalent about it. Maybe it's LeBron's post-loss words ringing in my ears, but I really wonder what my life would be with a year off from this stuff.

Eh, I'll probably start reading gossip mags or something even more retarded.

Nalod wrote:If you have the ability to shed oontracts, would it not promote a better product on the court.

Instead of Eddy, you might have two players who could play? The team might have been better.

If a player is not a fit for a team but is for another, would it not promote more freedom for that player, and if young, still give him a chance to improve and play. The NBA has a narrow window for players to make it.

My point? It might shift some of the risk off the owners to carry and pay dead weight but is there not opportunity for other players to make it? I think while you lose some guarantee the players would gain freedom.

Some would lose, but that opens doors for another to gain.

Not all teams will spend. They don't now anyway.

To me I think the top might be limited, but the bottom could get paid better.

If a team has 60, or 70mm to pay, they gonna use it. Maybe 2 or three players don't get the big cut.

And maybe teams can carry instead of 15, carry 20 contracts and keep them playing in the d-league?

exactly, I was always against the long guaranteed NBA deals. I say guarantee only 70% of the deal with a team having an option after so many years to cut the deal. those last 2 or three years of a horrible deal just cripple teams.

Players have a very limited shelf life (Nash, Kidd, Grant Hill notwithstanding). I see a case for performance driven contracts but what about players who honestly want to succeed but get injured (Greg Oden, Yao Ming, etc). In that case I think there's a need for guaranteed contracts.

I think that anyone who sides with the owners too much is being naive. There are all sorts of creative ways business owners can creatively lose money. If you have money you can hire accountants and lawyers to do all sorts of creative things.

knickstorrents wrote:We need to separate out non-performance from laziness vs. freak injuries. In both cases the player is not performing, but for very different reasons.

Players have a very limited shelf life (Nash, Kidd, Grant Hill notwithstanding). I see a case for performance driven contracts but what about players who honestly want to succeed but get injured (Greg Oden, Yao Ming, etc). In that case I think there's a need for guaranteed contracts.

I think that anyone who sides with the owners too much is being naive. There are all sorts of creative ways business owners can creatively lose money. If you have money you can hire accountants and lawyers to do all sorts of creative things.

guaranteed for a %... yes there are freak accidents, but that is not the owners fault as well... take yao ming for example. lets say he had a 80 million dollar deal, a team should be able to get out of that deal without being on the hook for 100%, I could see a 70% guarantee and cut ties...