Originally Posted by Ammo
Just because the negotiations didn't reach the point that the players wanted, that doesn't mean the owners didn't negotiate in good faith. At what point does it become not in good faith? When the owners say, "That's enough" or when the players say, "We will never accept a cap"? NBA players are afterall paid higher than the other major sports and may have the highest percentage shared among the sports.
And they may be essential to the league, but they are soon to be essential..... sitting there losing a year of pay. I'm no "Republican", but there's the perspective. Someone else owns it and paid for it.
Someone else owns it and paid for it, but without players has nothing.
When does it become not in good faith? When the owners decide they are not going to negotiate but merely make demands. The players showed they understood monetary losses, real or not, that the owners wanted to make up for. They were working within that framework and trying to get to where games could be played again. The owners have no intention of playing games or working within any framework as necessary partners that need to work together. They are saying take it or leave it and trust me, after two years of signalling they were ready to make a power play.
I'm not going to try to portray the players as faultless, and there is simply no way to make them worthy of sympathy. But this is a clusterfuck that goes way beyond blaming the players for being greedy.