NBA Lockout: What Can Be Achieved
Pessimism is in the air for news on the NBA lockout. It is looking like a dead end, so now, as fans when there is no hope, think of the actual meaning of the NBA lockout.
The NBA lockout seems to be at a dead end and to miss games, it's looking inevitable. So as fans, instead of paying attention to get a deal done, pay attention to a deal that can be done. Many fans, don't realize that there are details to the NBA lockout, and it's not only about the timing but it's about a deal which will be done.
The owners are seeking a hard cap, which would make the NBA a whole lot more fair in several views. Teams are excessively going over the cap, like Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, Portland Trail Blazers, San Antonio Spurs, Miami Heat, and a few more teams.
A hard cap will make the leagues payroll more even, as it seems unfair when teams like the Sacramento Kings, and Denver Nuggets, near a $30 million payroll, compared to the Los Angeles Lakers who have near a $90 million payroll.
Revenue sharing seems to be more of a problem than it is. The players recent idea points out a 53% revenue sharing split, which seems significantly better than 57 percent which they wanted back in June, assuming they go down to 51 or 52 percent, and agree to a flex cap, a deal can most likely be made.
Though the players seem to be nowhere near a compromise for a hard cap, as all the compromising looks to be from the players, and not from the owners.
ESPN points out a scenario in which the league accepts a flex cap of $70 million, which would put teams like the Lakers in a bad scenario, or would it? The scenario also points out you are allowed to go over the cap in order to re-sign players. So yes, this would be a great scenario, and it would be fair for the fans, owners and agreeable for the players.
A new problem could be arriving in the players' minds, an ego issue. The flex cap/hard cap, is now becoming more of a competition than an agreement, the players side is for a regular cap, and owners for a flex.
Owners would almost do anything for a flex cap (realistically the deal above), and realistically it's worth it for both sides, but are the players the real problem? A flex cap is fair for the league, and many teams, and the players won't accept it, so what I'm trying to point out, is that a fair deal is possibly not the goal, a deal for ego can be.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?