NBA Lockout 2011: Suits V. Shorts, Part I: The Owners Perspective

Almost three weeks after concluding one of the most entertaining and satisfying NBA seasons in recent memory, the league officially shut down and locked the players out once its collective bargaining agreement expired as the clock struck midnight on July 1.

It’s the first work stoppage since the lockout of 1998, and there’s a strong possibility that we’re not going to see basketball anytime soon as both sides—the owners and the players—remain pretty far apart in establishing a new CBA for the league.

It’s a pretty demoralizing reality right now for the diehard NBA fan, and it’s only natural to blame someone—since the sides are so clearly drawn—for jeopardizing the 2011-12 season and the opportunity to see LeBron James disappear yet again during the playoffs.

The question is, though, which side is most deserving of our scorn: the multi-millionaire owners or the multi-millionaire ballers?

I’ll attempt to figure this out after exploring both sides of the 2011 NBA lockout.

Up first, the Suits.

The Owners’ Perspective

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it goes the old adage. However, if over 73 percent of the franchises in a 30-team league are losing money, then something is broke and needs to be fixed.

At least that’s the rallying cry for the owners and the reasoning behind their decision to shut down the NBA and lock the players out.

According to the league, 22 franchises were in the red last season with losses exceeding $300 million. You don’t need an MBA from Stanford to understand that those figures are not healthy for business.

You also don’t need anything more than a little bit of common sense to realize that changes obviously must be made.

The owners, all savvy businessmen who've made millions upon millions of dollars by being savvy businessmen, clearly understand both of these things far better than poor people like you and I and proposed several key changes to the union that they believe will help solve some of the profitability issues that currently plagues the majority of the teams in the league.

Two of the major changes the owners want in their proposed, 10-year deal is the implementation of a flex cap of $62 million and shortened contract lengths.

The former would serve as a hard cap for each team and eliminate the luxury tax of the previous deal, while the latter would help prevent owners from burdening their teams with soul-crushing, long-term contracts for players.

The third, major change the owners are pushing for in their proposed deal is guaranteeing players $2 billion a year in salary and other benefits, which is a decrease from the $2.17 billion players are currently guaranteed per season.

In addition, the owners also wish to keep the escrow money, do away with sign-and-trades and reduce the value of rookie contracts.

So that's the gist of the suits' side in this whole ordeal and what they're pushing for in a new CBA.

Obviously, the players aren't buying what the owners are selling, or else the lockout would be over and everyone would be happy.

Stay tuned for the players' side of things before I ultimately decide whose side I'm on in the 2011 NBA lockout.