Jokingly, yes. But as far as the spirit of the game, no.

Because owners are for the most part billionaires with 30+ years ahead of them to make up the lost money, while the average career for a NBA player is like 5 years.

The owners have a much longer term interest here. How many of the players will play beyond their next contract? Meanwhile, the owners will reap the benefits of a deal for a much longer time, and they benefit in multiple ways. A better deal means more money immediately, a better starting position when negotiating the next deal, higher franchise values, and probably some other stuff that isn't immediately obvious to me. The players are definitely hurt by the short term nature of their careers compared to the owners.

also there are probably some crappy teams that are losing less money by not playing

Yes but these are better answers than just saying "the owners have all the leverage because the players would lose more money waiting it out than taking a worse deal now." The owners would also make more money taking a worse deal now compared to losing an entire season.

The whole point is that this isn't necessarily true. The players have a much shorter time frame to earn their money, for guys who only expect to play three, four years in the league, missing half a year or a full year is huge. For an owner who expects to own the team for another few decades, half a year is nothing. Keep in mind that for the players, their take home pay scales linearly with their share of BRI. For the owners who have to pay a bunch of different expenses on top of players salaries, waiting the players out and getting a few extra percents lopped off their share of BRI can dramatically alter their actual profits. Imagine a simplified scenario where they currently have a 5% profit margin, getting the players to give back another 2% of total BRI doesn't increase their costs at all but increases their profits 40%. Stretch that out over the next decade plus, and imagine the increased valuation of a franchise whose profit margin just dramatically increased, and you can see why missing a year can make a lot more sense for the owners than the players.

i lol'd

you might be right about that. but also they probably shouldn't be trying to directly negotiate a collective bargaining agreement simply because they're good at basketball.

Different people have different priorities and goals.

now thats negotiating

(I knew someone would write this). What I wrote is true for the overwhelming majority of people.

Anyone that goes broke after playing and making millions in the NBA is an idiot.

Oh wait, 60% of them go broke after 5 years.

Most of them would have made a lot more money if they stayed in college another 2 years and took some finance classes. But forget that edumication garbage, who needs it right?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...ine/MAG1153364. These guys are like fat fishes swimming in a pool full of sharks.

If you need a finance class to tell you "Don't put 35 people you grew up with on your payroll just to hang out and run errands for you, and don't take out seven-figure markers at casinos," a finance class is not going to help you.

(ok, I guess that mostly applies to Antoine Walker.)

false

That is what I implied. Owners can wait as long as they want to get a deal that works for them. They have other sources of revenue. The players can't wait forever. Their shelf life is too short and uncertain.

?!?!?!?

They're losing money as a collective or they're not making enough however you want to look at it. No amount of "losing less money" will be sufficient for business owners. They need to make profits and will sacrifice as many seasons as need be to obtain whatever profits they are aiming for.

The players will break.

ahh yes, because things always work out for coveted prospects who turn down deals to go pro in order to stay in school. they always get paid the max in the end

You mean, passing up two years working at your maximum earnings potential is not the best way to make the most money?

You really think the league is losing money as a collective?

I was talking about what they do after the NBA.

All the money they make is meaningless when they're broke and bankrupt right before they hit 40 with no education to fall back on. That's another miserable 30+ years to go.

Do you have understanding issues?

It makes zero relevance whatsoever if the league is losing money or not. Owners aren't making enough and that's it. They want to make more yearly profits and they will break the players until they get more.

Sustaining 1 year of bigger losses for owners isn't going to effect them as much as it will effect the players when looking at this issue in long term. Players on average last less then 5 years. They need to take this deal ASAP.

ty Captain Obvious

I don't know. Kind of reminds me of cards like this: http://sales.starcitygames.com/cards...esearch=STASIS

Listening to the new BS Report with Billy Hunter and Billy Hunter IS SO BORING. No wonder they can't reach a deal, the owners can't take this monotone slow talking asshat seriously.

He dropped a TRUST ME, clearly what a liar would say.