Blog Entry

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

Posted on: June 24, 2011 3:15 pm
Edited on: June 24, 2011 4:24 pm
Posted by EOB Staff.

The situation, as Ken Berger put it so eloquently, is thus: "In other words, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, the excrement has hit the air conditioning."

The owners and players met Friday in an effort to make progress off of the owners' seemingly concilliatory last offer. The natural step in a negotiation is for the players to respond with another counter-proposal as the two move closer together. But after everyone thought the owners' proposal was a great step forward, the union went ballistic over it.

 The result? Beger reports that Jared Dudley told media Friday after the meeting that the players elected to not offer a counter-proposal, saying the two sides were "too far apart." With a Board of Governor's meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Berger reports that he players expect the owners to vote for the lockout at that meeting. 

It's been a long time coming, and we have a week to go with NBA players and owners agreeing to a "smaller bargaining session" on next Wednesday or Thursday, but the reality is here.

We're headed for an NBA lockout, without question.

If you're looking for subtext here, imagine that the goal is to get a plank balanced on a post. Both sides want as much weight added to their side of the plank while keeping it balanced up in the air. They add things the players want (and have) like guaranteed contracts and things the owners want (like restrictions) to try and get things balanced. After the owners' very Cold-War approach to negotiations for the last, really two years, their last proposal seemed like a move towards progress. But the players feel that the owners have simply moved the post far enough and counter-weighted their side to make it look like it's balanced. In reality, the players feel they's simply moved the post and gotten  more of what they want, by managing the story. 

The players' abrasive and ultimately toxic approach Friday represents the line in the sand. They're not going any further, and they're not going to let the ownership dictate terms any more. The players have been concilliatory about BRI, exceptions, revenue sharing, the works throughout this process. Now that the owners have tossed them what they feel are bread crumbs and called it progress,  the players have elected to throw the bread back in their face and walk out the door.

Berger reports Stern characterized his reaction to the decision as "disappointed."  I characterize his chracterization as "the work of Captain Obvious." 

Perhaps you're wondering why it's taken until a week before the end date of the current CBA to reach this point, why they couldn't have negotiated seriously earlier, to reach this point and then push through it instead of running up against the cliff. 

Welcome to the club.

There's almost no escaping it now. Barring a miracle or a significant coup among the owners by the voices of reason, it's game over.

Professional basketball stops on a dime at midnight Thursday night.

Since: Jun 25, 2011
Posted on: June 25, 2011 12:31 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

The Players are the product and deserve the 57%! Thank God you are not a GM, replacement players is a true joke!
People buy products because of the name, like Polo (Ralph Lauren), in this case the product is the item created but the creator and Ralph gets the money! Since the players created themselves as far as an athelete he/she should get paid accordinglly! Yes the owners pay there salary in return players perform! Actually the people that purchase tickets buy nba products and so on pays the Players salary and owners!

Since: Aug 13, 2006
Posted on: June 25, 2011 1:16 am

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

The people that get hurt the worse are not the Players/Owners, but the workers/vendors for these teams. Players/owners can hold out longer, but the average joe is screwed...nice job you millionaires!!!!!!!!!!!

Since: Apr 27, 2011
Posted on: June 24, 2011 6:29 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

Simply put, the players want things to stay the way they are. Can't blame them. They had it good. This is the only job in america where employees get 57% of the profit. The player have to understand those were different times. Things were good. Now the recession has hit. Things have to change. 23 of 30 teams are losing money. GM's paid out to much money on bloated contracts, bust players, and dead weight on the bench. Not the players fault i know but everyone can see if teams and the league are going to surrvive it has to come under control. If those 23 teams fail and fold, look how many would be out of work.
The current system is broken. There are too many exceptions and loopholes under the soft cap. Under the current system only big markets will thrive. There has to be paitity to generate fan interest all over the country. In the last 25 years there have been 8 different champions. Dallas did win it all which is fresh, but Cuban exceeded the 58 mill cap by 12 mill to do so. There has to be a limit or the league will collapse.
The players filled a complaint claiming the owners were not acting in good faith. The owners raised the cap to 62 mill, let them keep guranteed contracts, put in a the changes won't kick in till year 3, giving them 54% of the profit rather then the 50-50 split they originally wanted, and promised their share would not drop below 2.1 billion. The players not only rejected that offer but don't even bother to counter. Now who isn't negotiating in good faith?

Since: Jun 27, 2010
Posted on: June 24, 2011 6:20 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

The owners have an opportunity to take back control of their league via these negotiations, they will have to take the pain of time in the lockout and lost money but in the long run they will be better off. The players will cave eventually, or I would even look at replacement players with lower ticket prices and start over. It's a joke that the players get 57% of revenue, who negotiated that deal LOL

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: June 24, 2011 6:03 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

32zone people are in business to make money.  I'll give you a normal person example. You and a friend open a pizza shop together.  Your friend is a millionaire and you're not as lucky but you both decide to have 50/50 responsibilites and ownership.  Do you feel like it's fair if you take more profit than him becasue he doesn't need it as much?  If you do, you're living in the wrong country

Since: Sep 15, 2007
Posted on: June 24, 2011 5:29 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

finally this league can be put to more indians (or kings) running the asylum.........Hockey is back!

Since: Apr 28, 2009
Posted on: June 24, 2011 4:50 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

Some people would notice that the NBA is not playing, but not many people that don't go to the games.  This could be a long one.  It could be the NHL part II.

Since: Jan 4, 2007
Posted on: June 24, 2011 4:49 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

32Zone, like your dumba$$ even knows what was in the offer.

Since: Jun 24, 2011
Posted on: June 24, 2011 4:29 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

Having no football would be a terrible thing but the NBA who would even notice till after the College final four.

Since: Dec 16, 2008
Posted on: June 24, 2011 4:16 pm

Players decline to offer owners counter-proposal

22 of 30 NBA teams are losing money. The owners have even opened up their books to show the players this. Anyone who is defending the players in this upcoming lockout is a nut. The players are going to lose one way or another, so not offering a counter offer was the dumbest thing they could have done at this point. They're going to be locked out until the owners get a deal in place that ensures that they'll make money, not lose it.

The players are being selfish and are refusing to accept reality. So are some of you. This is not the NFL lockout, and the owners cannot afford to stand down. They should have just taken this offer, whatever it was, because they're going to lose SEVERAL paychecks before they take one similar or worse than it a few years from now.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or