Originally Posted by LX
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.
Then the writing is on the wall and the players will end up hurting themselves most. And the longer it goes, even less chance of anything better. Besides, Stern is playing them like a fiddle. There is one guy who totally inderstood. John Salley was part of negotiations for the players at one point and he said he realized early who was in control....and quit on the spot.
I'm not just talking about greed but futility also. If I'm in a busted elevator with Shaq and he says give me all your money or I'll punch you in the head for every dollar I find on you, I can either cough it up or let him take it slowly and take shots to the head. Either way he's getting it, one way hurts me more. Only difference is I won't be getting rich.
John Salley on Prime Time Sports - SPORTSNET 590 The FAN Toronto - Photos