Tag:lockout
Posted on: November 8, 2011 7:17 pm
 

Stern won't commit to new meeting Wednesday

By Matt Moore 

Tuesday after the NBPA met with its team representatives and stated the current offer from the league is unacceptable in advance of the league's threat to withdraw to a significantly worse offer Wednesday at close of business, Billy Hunter signalled a desire to meet with David Stern and NBA officials for a further negotiating session in advance of the deadline. 

On NBATV Tuesday night, David Stern would not committee to a new meeting with Hunter, but said he would take Hunter's call and would consult with the NBA Labor Relations committee regarding further action.

"I always take Billy's call, as a sign of respect," Stern said. 

When asked about the players' willingness to drop on the cut of BRI again in return for more systemic concessions from the league, Stern said there was no "wiggle room" to be found from the owners since their last offer Sunday morning at 3 a.m.

Stern defended accusations from Derek Fisher that the current proposal is a "bad deal" by discussing that the elements included were first proposed by federal mediator George Cohen. Stern admitted that if a deal is not struck by end of business Wednesday, at which point the owners' so-called "Cap Reset" plan goes into effect, he would be "losing confidence" that a deal could be reached to save the season.

In response to Hunter's statement that he had heard through "underground sources" that the league was considering canceling games through Christmas if there was no deal reached Wednesday, Stern laughed off the suggestion.

"I don't know what ground he's talking about or under what ground he's looking," Stern said. "But we have no such plan. We need 30 days from the end of negotiations."

Stern revealed little in the interview outside of what we already know. The owners feel they've given all they can, the players don't think it's enough, and the league is prepared to swing the hammer on Wednesday. It's a game of chicken and the seemingly inevitable collision will be the loss of teh 2010-2011 season. 
Posted on: November 8, 2011 5:25 pm
Edited on: November 8, 2011 7:23 pm
 

Hunter: League could cancel Christmas games Thurs

By Matt Moore 

After the NBPA met Tuesday afternoon, Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher addressed the media. While spinning the tale that the union is united in opposing acceptance of the current proposal offered by the NBA (which, if you track our Buzz post, is not the case at all), Hunter dropped a little bit of a bomb. Hunter said that he heard through "underground" sources that if there is no deal by the league's stated deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday, the NBA will cancel games through Christmas. 

That's right, it's finally here. The NBA lockout is going to steal Christmas.

It's not surprising, considering the ominous tones David Stern has been giving off for the past month. The league has been cancelling in two-week segments, but with Wednesday's deadline signalling a dramatic turn, whether it's the owners moving back to a much harder deal the players obviously won't accept without more lost games, or the union decertifiying in response to such a move, getting a deal by the end of the month would be nearly impossible. What is most alarming is that signals A. what the union has alleged all along, that the NBA is ready, willing, and in some cases eager to lose the entire season, and they're lopping off larger chunks and B. That's the last milestone we'll likely see before the cancellation of the entire 2010-2011 season. Most analysts have predicted that the league would be forced to sacrifice the entire season somewhere between January 1st and January 15th.

NBA Labor
So if a deal can't be made Wednesday, it's possible the last batch of games before a complete cancellation will be made, and one of the NBA's biggest batch of games will be lost to a lockout that will have sacrificed two whole months of games.

If you're looking for good news... uh... college basketball started? 

Posted on: November 8, 2011 8:57 am
Edited on: November 8, 2011 7:36 pm
 

NBA Labor Buzz: Latest updates



NBA Labor
Since there's going to be so many reports and tweets and nonsense today from both sides in preparation of tomorrow's deadline when the owners will pull their "generous" offer for a considerably stricter one, we thought we'd give you a thread to keep track of where everyone stands with what. This post will update throughout the day.

Tuesday 7:26 p.m:

  • Stern responded to the union's rejection of the current proposal by restating the threat of the worse offer. He also would not commit to a meeting Wednesday but said he would take Hunter's call, and denied that Christmas games would be cancelled if a deal was not made by the deadline. 
  • Luis Scola asked on Twitter the following (in Spanish): "The NBPA rejected the proposal to the owners, why not vote?" So apparently Scola's willing to at least talk about it. You've got to wonder how many players are going to be upset the deal wasn't discussed more.
  • Brian Cardinal followed the NBPA line that the players would bend on BRI if system concessions were made. They are also acting like this has been the case the whole time, after all the rabble-rousing over 53 percent. 

Tuesday 5:36 p.m.
Tuesday 12:14 p.m.
  • Spencer Hawes is taking his frustration out on Twitter. He tweeted: "Voting (and not for this completely irrational proposal from the NBA) rather local elections. Hard when democrats r the only choice #writein." I'm not entirely sure what his point is there.
  • Jamario Moon tweeted this: "Deal or No Deal?..........Deal!!!!! Let's play some ball!" I kind of wish Howie Mandel was David Stern.
  • Jonny Flynn tweeted this: "Starting to see why so many things are outta wack. Ppl aren't held accountable. Let enough things slide & forget what's right." One thing that's out of wack? The amount professional athletes are paid to play a sport. But nobody's talking about that.
Tuesday 9:40 a.m.
  • At the Salt Lake City charity game last night, several players weighed in to the Salt Lake Tribune. Jeremy Evans says take "whatever is given" and get a deal. Devin Harris sounds much more like a decertification guy talking about "tough decisions" but that could be the deal as well, and Derrick Favors has not paid attention to anything regarding the talks. So glad he gets a vote.
Tuesday 9 a.m.
  • J.J. Redick told the Orlando Sentinel that he's not necessarily in favor of decertification, but that he would sign a petition to decertify should a deal not be agreed upon in the next few days. You can interpret that as "I don't think this will work but the deal's not acceptable and I'm not willing to just lie down and take it." 
  • Anthony Tolliver of the Timberwolves, a players' rep who will attend Tuesday's NBPA meeting told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that "pretty much everything is split" when it comes to the players between decertification and voting to approve the deal as is. You can interpret that as a pretty good read on where things stand, with most statements from players coming down on either side. It's going to be a tense meeting Tuesday.
  • Chris Sheridan of SheridanHoops.com has been an active optimist during this nightmare. He's predicted an end to the lockout about three times because he keeps assuming we have rational actors. He's back on that bus today as he says the two sides are 99 percent done, so they can't turn back now and we'll have a deal in 36 hours. This is us not holding our breath. You can interpret this as some sources close to the talks continue to be stunned that the two sides can be inches apart and still tossing grenades at one another. 
Previously on "Days of Our Lockout":
For more breaking news on the NBA labor front, follow us on Twitter at @EyeOnBasketball and Ken Berger (@KBergCBS).
Posted on: November 8, 2011 8:24 am
Edited on: November 8, 2011 5:48 pm
 

Report: Owners could be open to system tweaks

By Matt Moore



Many of the owners don't want a meeting, but the few that do think there's some room to tweak things so the players can swallow this deal. 

Yahoo! Sports reports that some owners are open to meeting and discussing system issues on the periphery, not the main elements, if it means a deal can get done to save the season.  
As one ownership source told Yahoo! Sports on Monday night, “If there were a couple of tweaks needed around the edges – not fundamental deal points – I believe there could be a deal if everything else is agreed upon. But there needs to be a meeting with David and Billy for anything to happen.”
via NBA owners, players could talk before deadline - NBA - Yahoo! Sports.

Yahoo! also reports Billy Hunter is on the fence about taking a meeting. That's likely because his job is already in jeopardy over how this process has been handled and knows that if they meet which signals a readiness to accept the deal, and it falls through, the hard-line agents and players pushing for decertification will likely be able to remove him once the union reforms.

The report also backs up Ken Berger of CBSSports.com's reportfrom Monday night outlining hard owners who are still uneasy about the deal on the table now. This deal which lops off seven percentage points from the players' BRI, eliminating any advantage in that regard and implementing massive systemic changes isn't enough for some owners who still want more. In fact, ESPN reports that those owners are making their voices heard. 
A group of disgruntled NBA owners held a conference call Monday to express their displeasure with the 50/50 revenue offer commissioner David Stern has presented to the players' association, according to sources with knowledge of the call.

The deal, which the union sees as an "ultimatum" offer, calls for players to receive anywhere between 49 and 51 percent of basketball-related income, but the group of displeased owners, the sources said, are hoping the players reject it.
via NBA lockout -- Some NBA owners express displeasure with David Stern's 50-50 offer, sources say - ESPN.

Great idea! Let's not have a season so that the huge win you already have in your pocket can be scrapped for even bigger win. It's not enough to be up by 40 in the fourth quarter, let's make sure we can spike the football off the face of our opponent. That's what this comes down to.

It's not clear what peripheral changes could be made to the deal outside of some small amount tweaks in years, raise percentages or amounts regarding various elements like the mid-level exception. If a meeting is taken by both sides, it could very well detonate if the owners balk at any change that actually helps the union accept the deal, which is two percent less than they've sworn to accept, after dropping from 53 percent which they swore to hold at. You're sensing a pattern here, I suppose. 

Going to be a busy, acrimonious day in the NBA. Without games.
Posted on: November 7, 2011 10:14 pm
Edited on: November 8, 2011 12:55 am
 

Report: Of course the NBA doesn't want to meet

By Matt Moore 

Wednesday is the latest Judgment Day in a long history of Judgment Days during this lockout, the day when the NBA's "generous" offer to only knock 7 percent of the player's BRI off eliminating any greater share (after an expenses deduction, I might add), along with widespread systemic changes and the elimination of the sign-and-trade for tax payers expires and their new, stricter, more terrifying offer becomes the new reality. In preparation for that day, the NBPA has four options. 

  1. Decertify the union (or disclaim interest, if they want a quicker and riskier route) and file antitrust lawsuits against the owners, initializing a court-based nuclear winter that eliminates at least this season if not next and which will likely fail in court at one of its many risky junctures.
  2. Calmly wait for the deadline to pass and continue negotiating, effectively ignoring the threat. President Kennedy famously used this same tactic in talks with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 
  3. Try and get the owners back to the table for a negotiation to try and sweeten the deal to a point where it's at least swallowable for the majority of the players. 
  4. Vote on the deal as it stands right now and go back to work, effectively caving in order to keep the season and the paychecks that go along with it, sacrificing their profession and pride for their paychecks and the fans. 
All in all, not an appetizing menu before them. 

But don't worry. The owners are going to make sure that third option isn't one. Because, really, why would the NBA want to negotiate more? They might get a season then! From the New York Times
 
NBA official says no meeting scheduled with union tomorrow, and none being attempted at the moment. (But things change quickly.)
via Twitter / @HowardBeckNYT: NBA official says no meeti ....

Things do change quickly, but with the NBA owners ready for a scorched earth offer on Wednesday, and with as many owners pushing for a lost season as there are, a meeting doesn't make sense. If the players don't take the deal, they look like the bad guys, and the owners can say they hung themselves. The owner want to keep talks closed because starting Monday, reports started filtering in about players being open to the 50/50 deal. Ken Berger of CBSSports.com reports that NBPA officials will be "open minded" about a vote on the current offer.

The owners smell blood in the water. So they will resist anything that gives light to the tunnel the players are strapped in. On Tuesday, they'll fight it out amongst themselves, the decertification hard-liners, the weary 50/50 sympathizers, and the Executive Committee in the middle, desperately trying to hold onto a situation they've never had the reins on.
Posted on: November 7, 2011 9:34 am
 

Report: NBPA asking for team reps at meeting

By Matt Moore 

The players have a lot to talk about Monday, and they want a full house for it. 

Ken Berger of CBSSports.com has confirmed an ESPN report that the NBPA has asked representatives from all 30 teams to attend their meeting in New York on Monday. The range of topics on the table will include the NBA's latest offer, though union leadership is firmly against bringing the offer to a vote as it deems it "unacceptable." On the extreme opposite end of the spectrum is the issue of decertification, and whether or not the NBPA should break apart its union in order to pursue antitrust suits against the league as individuals. So there's kind of a wide gap in how the union might go. Accept the unacceptable and get a deal in the face of the league's strongest bullying tactic yet, or decertify and commit professional suicide in order to gamble on a miracle favorable ruling on three different levels. 

Who's bringing punch and pie?

As we outlined here on Friday, decertification is certainly an option, but the odds of its success are extremely limited. It's best used as a negotiating threat, a threat which of course is wasted if you actually, you know, use it.  But there are players for whom this has become as personal as it seems to be to the league. The league wants to prove a point to the players, and the players are responding the same way most anyone would if you pushed them around enough. They want to fight back. Behind that is a group of agents who have larger investments long-term in the league beyond just the players playing now and want to make sure they fight for every dollar they can get over the next 20 years, not five or ten. 

But as Berger pointed out on Sunday, there are a number of agents who don't support decertification and understand what it means financially. Perhaps in July it could have been used as a viable weapon, but Billy Hunter understood the risks involved in taking this to court and putting this conflict into a trench-warfare-type environment. He gambled on being out in the open, able to maneuver and possibly regain some ground. His gamble didn't work, as the owners' onslaught pressed on. So now the union is torn apart, with some players just wanting to go back to work, some players needing to go back to work, some players wanting to talk more, and a number of players and several All-Stars (with the bank accounts to back it) wanting to blow everything up and commit to a full-on battle.

Might want to order the butter knives and not the steak knives for lunch today. That meeting's going to get really serious very quickly.  
Posted on: November 4, 2011 10:17 pm
Edited on: November 4, 2011 10:21 pm
 

NHL Commish: Losing season worth it

By Matt Moore 

The NHL sacrificed an entire season to get the deal they wanted from the players. It was draconian, it was brutal, it was effective. For months, there have been rumors and speculation that the NHL lockout provided a template for the NBA owners. If the NHL could effectively reset everything back to zero, perform a complete realignment, and then walk out as a legitimate sports league that at least in some senses in thriving, why can't the NBA?

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman joined Yahoo! Radio to discuss the NHL and the correlation between its lockout and the current NBA lockout which is currently threatening the entirety of the 2011-2012 season. Our own Brian Stubits of Eye on Hockey caught the appearance and transcribed quotes for us. The theme is pretty simple. First, Bettman discussed how painful the lockout is for everyone involved. Players, owners, workers, everyone. 

"Any time you have a work stoppage for any length of time in any sport or any business, it's very painful. There are the people that are involved, there are the people that are indirectly involved and in a sports context, you've got the fans. 

"It was very painful for us when we lost the season. We didn't have a choice. We had some pretty fundamental problems. And in our case, I'm not necessarily suggesting it's a template for anybody else, we came back stronger. We were back stronger than ever on Day 1 because our fans understood that we had problems and that they had been addressed in collective bargaining and that gave us great optimism for the future. 

"But a work stoppage is painful for everybody, in any context."
Well, I'm sure it was comforting to arena workers to know the commissioner felt the pain for them. But Bettman's comments on not having a choice is the same kind of ideology at play in the NBA. Justifying brutal negotiating tactics that cause job losses and hurt fan interest is easier when you claim there was no alternative. Bettman elaborated on how losing an entire season was unavoidable. 

Bettman was asked if he would tell the NBA owners the pain of losing an entire season was "worth it" for what the owners gained from the process:

"Well I wouldn't be presumptions enough to tell an NBA owner anything at this point. But our case, and that's the only thing that I can address, we didn't have a choice. We needed a new system. We needed to change our circumstance, our model. Without that, I'm pretty sure we couldn't have continued. 

"So in our case we did what we felt was absolutely necessary. We've come back stronger and people believe the game and the business of the game has never been better. But again, that was our circumstance six years ago and it would be presumptious for me to suggest to the NBA or any other league what they should be doing." 
And that's how the NBA will justify the damage they have done and will do to the league. That they had no alternative. If you remove your options, you can claim that you were "forced" into the desperate and extreme measures you undertook. 

This is the model the NHL has given the NBA.

Thanks, hockey.
Posted on: November 4, 2011 11:23 am
Edited on: November 4, 2011 1:51 pm
 

Decertification: The Nuclear Option

By Matt Moore 

With reports surfacing Thursday night of a possible coup being attempted on the part of outraged players with regards to concessions granted by NBPA leadership in negotiations with the NBA on a new CBA, the talk is now shifting to the courts. Players are threatening an "involuntary decertification," in which 30 percent of union membership signs a petition to bring a vote to the union with regards to decertification. From there a simple majority would be needed to decertify the union. That opens the way for the players to bring individual antitrust suits, which could potentially damage the owners and even end the lockout. 

But what does any of this mean?

To find out, we spoke with David Scupp of Constantine Cannon LLP, an antitrust firm based on the East Coast. Let's try and get to the bottom of what any of this means.

What is decertification?

In an effort to protect employees, the National Labor Relations Act put into law a compulsion for employers to collectively bargain with unions. Under the terms of collective bargaining, Scupp says that in time businesses were protected from antitrust laws as long as both sides were involved in collective bargaining, which must be done through a union recognized by the NLRB. 

"A rule emerged in the 1980's which says antitrust laws are out of bounds except when there is no longer a CBA between union and management," Scupp says. "The only way around that is to decertify the union. That's the result that came out in the 1990's."

So as long as the NBPA exists, the owners are protected from antitrust litigation. Thus, decertification. 

Decertification can be committed to in separate ways. Disclaim of interest is a faster process that involves union leadership essentially scuttling their own ship. However, it is less likely to hold up in court. What the 50 players (and their agents) are seeking is an involuntary decertification, which requires the 30 percent petition, the majority vote, and recognition from the National Labor Relations Board. In doing so, the action would dissolve the union, ending protections for the owners against antitrust suits and paving the way for players to pursue suit against the owners. It is believed that this option represents the only true way to gain leverage against the owners. 

In short, Scupp says, "the law gives the right for the players to be and not be a union." 

What are the legal challenges to decertification?

Before we get into antitrust considerations,  it's important to consider that the league has already challenged any move from the NBPA to decertify or disclaim interest. The league filed suit against the NBPA attempting to protect itself from any suit resulting from decertification on the grounds that the NBPA has not bargained in good faith and that any decertification on the part of the players is not legitimate. This is where the term "sham decertification" comes from. This same consideration was brought up but not settled, Scupp says, during the NFL lockout and subsequent court battle with the NFLPA. 

"The argument says that the union is decertifying, but it's not a good faith decertification," Scupp says. "It shouldn't be a lightswitch that can be turned on and off. That argument needs to be tested. It wasn't one of the issues that was resolved in the NFL case. The league is arguing that if the players' union decertifies, it would be a sham and the court should not entertain a suit."

The biggest problem with this particular suit, Scupp says, is that it's attempting to block something that hasn't occurred yet. Scupp says that the court is essentially tasked with reading intent towards the NBA's decision to decertify, which it has yet to do. How do you evaluate the intent of a party regarding an action they have not taken yet? That's the challenge to the NBA's suit, as outlined by the NBPA in their reply memorandum

Should the union elect to decertify involuntarily, as is being proposed by the players, the sham argument becomes more difficult to prove. The sham argument proposes that the union's decertification is merely being used as a tactic towards negotiation. Having the players (at least on surface) detonate their own union without consultation or approval from NBPA leadership would be pretty difficult to challenge as a sham.  

So the union decertifies, what happens then? 

Why would you give up the protections afforded you by the National Labor Relations Act to collectively bargain by decertifying your own union, essentially putting you out on your own against the power of the NBA?

Because it allows you to sue for antitrust. And it is here we enter the wild, and the one last, desperate hope of the players gaining leverage or an outright victory over the union.

Players would file suit against individual owners claiming that the lockout itself is an antitrust violation, Scupp says. "It's a group boycott, outside the context of collective bargaining, an anti-competitive element, would be their argument," according to Scupp. 

 The league acts in collusion regarding all matters of the CBA, according to the plan of attack for the players. 

"The salary cap, draft rules, etc., if those practices are part of the CBA," Scupp says, "if you're going to restrict free agent movement, and all your teams are going to act together, that's a violation of antitrust, according to the argument." 

We're used to hearing about open markets with regards to antitrust. The NBA is the only real "market" that exists in the United States for professional basketball since the ABA-NBA merger. But Scupp says that the suit would be focused more on the elements and practices of the NBA that may constitute an antitrust violation.

"There are certain violations which are what are called per se violations," Scupp says," that are so anti-competitive, you don't have to prove what the market is. If it is not a per se violation, they go with a rule-of-reason analysis. The players would have to prove what the global market is. That's a very good question, what the market is."

Does the professional basketball market include minor leagues like the barely-in-existence current ABA? Does it include Europe? Does it include exhibition games to the degree it can be argued players can make a living off that option? 

"Is it a worldwide market for basketball and if so does the NBA have market power?" Scupp asks. "Is the NBA a market inside itself? I don't know, but it's a very good question. If the lawsuit ever progressed to that point, would be important."

Scupp says that other questions that would come into play are what percentage of the market does the NBA control, and are there barriers to that market for the players? It gets trickier the further this process goes. 

What happens if the players win an antitrust suit?

The owners go down like Michael Spinks. Scupp says that a possible result would be the court enjoinging the lockout, effectively ending it. The players wouldn't be bound by it, and would start receving checks again. This could actually be enacted while the suit is taking place, putting even more pressure on the owners. For that to occur, the NBPA would need to prove irreparable harm stemming from the lockout, which involves combating a likely claim from the NBA that Europe and other employment options undermine the idea of irreparable harm.

Should the court enact an injunction, the league would no doubt appeal. The question of whether the injunction would hold during such an appeal is up for debate. The original judge in the NFL case in Minnesota held that the injunction would hold during an appeal and the lockout would be withdrawn, but the Minnesota district court ruled to suspend the injunction during the appeals process, opening up the lockout once more. While Scupp says a ruling on such an injunction would come quickly, that would still take a month or more, time neither side has if they wanted to save a season.

But the monetary result is the real hammer for filing the suit. 

"At the end of the day, if the players could win an antitrust suit, you get treble (triple) damages, the payout at the end would be very significant." 

Furthermore, if it looked like the players were going to win such a suit, the league would likely cave and grant the players huge concessions or keep elements the same in the next CBA. It would represent a dramatic win over the owners. 

So the decertify-and-antitrust-suit option has to be the best choice for the players, right?

Not at all, according to multiple experts, including Scupp.  

Provided they manage to get the required votes for a decertification, and that decertification holds up in court, and the players file suit, and the court hears that suit, and the players win, what's the timeline on that? Years, Scupp says. Years.

"The question is whether the players can sustain through that period," Scupp says. "I'm sure a lot of players can, but I'm also sure a lot of players can't." 

Consider who is linked to the 50-player initiative. At least seven All-Stars and probably more were reportedly on the calls. Those players have the means to survive such a monetary drought. Dwyane Wade isn't going under in three years. But the majority of the NBPA is made up of role players and end-of-bench guys, along with rookies and young players who don't have those means.

Additionally, losing the league for multiple years would likely simply mean the end of the NBA. It's unfathomable to think about, but that's the reality. Even once a case is decided and damages set by a court, the appeals process would take further years. Scupps says that the only way this is a feasible option for the players should they pursue this route, considering the money lost in one or more lost seasons, is if an injunction is placed on the lockout, and that is far from certain. This isn't a quick process, it's a painfully slow one, and one that would bleed the league to a flatline on the national spotlight.

Which is why Scupp says decertification and subsequent lawsuits only work as a negotiating tactic, not as a viable strategy towards conflict resolution.  

"An antitrust suit would take years to resovle and neither side takes that."

If the suit is merely being filed as a negotiating tactic, wouldn't the court want to avoid participating in such a process? Scupp says it's likely that the court would urge both sides to settle the dispute at the negotiating table, rather than using the courts as a means to an end.

So what's the end game here? What happens next?

The players are playing a dangerous game of chicken right now. Basically, they have no weapons to aim at the league in this negotiation and feel they're backed into a corner with no acceptable solution in sight. So they've pulled out the antitrust hand grenade and are daring to pull the pin. If the players go down, they're taking the owners with them. 

The problem is that the likely result of this is a lost season, something that the owners have been hinting at and Billy Hunter has explicitly said some owners are pursuing anyway. It's threatening the NBA with something it's already made clear it's ok with. How do you get someone to back off by punishing them with something they're fine with?

The only chance the NBPA has here of victory or even a marginal survival is that the prospect of leaving the process up to the courts takes it out of the NBA's hands. The owners no longer control the field, despite the many obstacles in the way of such suits. That kind of wild card might be enough to shake the moderates to align with those owners who do want a deal and a season, wrestling control from the hard-line owners who so far have carried the day.

Decertification and antitrust litigation is the nuclear option. Once it starts, stopping it becomes harder and harder. The case won't even be brought to court until after the entire 2011-2012 NBA season would be cancelled, and the process could and would probably take up to another full year to reach an initial resolution, prior to the appeal process. The players would be ending professional basketball in this country to protect themselves from the owners' efforts which have been draconian and brutal.

Saturday will be day 128 of the NBA lockout. If it is not the last, the future of the NBA looks dark for all involved.


Additional resources: 
Huffington Post lockout primer.  
Sports Illustrated FAQ.
NBA vs. NBPA legal documents, via Brian Cuban on Twitter. 
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com