Childs2Dudley wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Boies isn't playing.

"If you've got somebody on the other side who is saying, 'It's my way or the highway, it's take it or leave it, this is our last and final offer and you will not see negotiation,' you can't resolve this," Boies said. "That, I will predict, that will stop, OK? There will come a time when the league faces the reality of the exposure that they face under the antitrust laws, the exposure that they face because of fan dissatisfaction with their unilateral lockout, the exposure they face by having other people in the business of professional basketball. And they will believe it is in their best interests to resolve this case.

"I can't tell you when that will happen," Boies said. "But I will tell you that it will happen, because those forces are too strong for anybody to resist indefinitely."

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/33333992?source=rss_blogs_NBA

This guy sucks at tough talk. He should leave that to Stern.

Stern isn't talking anymore.

Stern just spoke yesterday. What else do you expect him to say? Or are you waiting him to do a daily briefing on the situation?

This stuff from Boies all came out today. Before yesterday you couldn't shut Stern up. He just kept going to his talking points and threatening the players that things would get worse. He is smart to button his lip. His words may prove to have gotten him in trouble already.

I'm not sure what your point is. It seems like you're trying to make something out of nothing which is something you do often.

David Stern doesn't need to talk every day and he didn't talk every day even during the lockout. Just because he didn't respond to anything Boies said and hasn't made a statement in one full day doesn't mean he is being intimidated by anyone. That's a ridiculous comment to make when you don't know the situation. It seems to me you are letting your personal feelings get in the way and are "rooting" for the players so hard that any rhetoric they spew is gospel.

I definitely am on the side of the players. I am upset that after getting to 50-50 a deal couldn't be done and that is on Stern and the owners. I don't see any objectivity on your part so I wouldn't present yourself as that. I agree that Stern doesn't need to talk every day and I am enjoying not hearing his voice or his repeating the same mantra. I personally don't find the players to be a group that it is easy to sympathize with. However I think they did attempt to negotiate in good faith and were denied the process.

I don't support any side but I do think the players are complete idiots for turning down the deal and I will tell people they are wrong to place 100% blame on the owners. Both sides are wrong but the players should have taken the deal.

The CBA for the NBA players was the most rich of all CBA's in the major sports. They benefited greatly for it. The owners did not. Players made tons of money, owners lost money. Owners want radical changes for a league they run. I thought the very final proposal was decent and one that both sides could live with. The players didn't want to even negotiate on system issues. They said we'll give you 50% and you keep everything else the same. That isn't going to fly. It's also not "negotiating in good faith" when they say a hard cap is a "blood issue" or that "we will not go below 53% unless you give us what we want". The players have been spoiled and can't handle drastic changes. This sense of entitlement will burn them in the end. The owners were celebrating when they rejected the offer and disclaimed, that's for sure.

DrAlphaeus wrote:I think Melo is going to the Finals with this one... meaning the Supreme Court.

I have no interest in this case

BasketballJones wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:I think Melo is going to the Finals with this one... meaning the Supreme Court.

I have no interest in this case

Yeah - it's no where near as interesting as the Anucha Browne Sanders thing a few years ago.

how come martin and andrew never got game picker sponsored by Ford or Chevy trucks?

nixluva wrote:

eViL wrote:the reason i believe the players have gained leverage is because there is no legal precedent for a case like this. so even if we favor the owners 60/40, would you roll the dice, as an owner, knowing that if you lose, you are facing almost $3 billion in damages? wouldn't you feel inclined to settle? perhaps give in on some of the system issues that are apparently holding the season up.

Yea cuz Stern didn't really think the players would do this! He was banking on them caving in. I wouldn't want to risk this in a California court! Much more friendly to artists and entertainers out there.

I agree with both of you. Stern really didn't think this would happen- just look at his body language in that espn interview, he's like an open book of anger and surprise- this is really his worst nightmare because regardless of the outcome of legal action, it means the loss of a season AND that the nba product is ruined and will take years and years to recover.

As you said, eVil, regardless of whether the players legal action wins or not the key thing is the % of risk and what it actually at stake. Most lawyers recommend settling out of court because of the gamble. The owners already have the 50% BRI- their economic problems are over, what is being fought over is the system. They also have shorter contracts, another big gain. What exactly do the owners have to gain by pushing their system proposals further? MLE players won't be able to go to big market teams as easily. The richest teams may have a slight advantage in adding salary (but are still restriced by the soft cap), but it's no guarantee that they'll do better as a result. That's essentially it. What do they stand to lose? billions from a lost season, financial ruin if on top of that the players get treble damages plus a much worse CBA from them in which they lose the 50% BRI. Even if the players chance of winning the legal action is only 10%, it is madness to risk that much with so little to gain.

smackeddog wrote:

nixluva wrote:

eViL wrote:the reason i believe the players have gained leverage is because there is no legal precedent for a case like this. so even if we favor the owners 60/40, would you roll the dice, as an owner, knowing that if you lose, you are facing almost $3 billion in damages? wouldn't you feel inclined to settle? perhaps give in on some of the system issues that are apparently holding the season up.

Yea cuz Stern didn't really think the players would do this! He was banking on them caving in. I wouldn't want to risk this in a California court! Much more friendly to artists and entertainers out there.

I agree with both of you. Stern really didn't think this would happen- just look at his body language in that espn interview, he's like an open book of anger and surprise- this is really his worst nightmare because regardless of the outcome of legal action, it means the loss of a season AND that the nba product is ruined and will take years and years to recover.

As you said, eVil, regardless of whether the players legal action wins or not the key thing is the % of risk and what it actually at stake. Most lawyers recommend settling out of court because of the gamble. The owners already have the 50% BRI- their economic problems are over, what is being fought over is the system. They also have shorter contracts, another big gain. What exactly do the owners have to gain by pushing their system proposals further? MLE players won't be able to go to big market teams as easily. The richest teams may have a slight advantage in adding salary (but are still restriced by the soft cap), but it's no guarantee that they'll do better as a result. That's essentially it. What do they stand to lose? billions from a lost season, financial ruin if on top of that the players get treble damages plus a much worse CBA from them in which they lose the 50% BRI. Even if the players chance of winning the legal action is only 10%, it is madness to risk that much with so little to gain.

+1, completely agree