Skip to content

One man’s suggestions we like to stop future lockouts

Nov 16, 2011, 8:22 PM EDT

Padlock Arena AP AP

This lockout is painful. Like any smart creatures — and I’m talking about we the fans, not the players and owners — we want to avoid suffering the same pain in the future.

Meaning once this lockout ends, what steps can be put in place to make sure next CBA negotiations, whether it is six or 10 years from now, gets done with more urgency?

Our man A. Sherrod Blakely had a couple ideas over at

First step:

Every day after July 1 that the CBA passes without there being at least an agreement in principle, the league will pay $500,000 to a predetermined group of charities – chosen by the players, but not their own charities – in every NBA city…. (the players union will) have to pony up $250,000 for every day – it doesn’t make sense that the guys who get the checks are punished the same as the guys who cut them, does it? – and those will go to a predetermined group of charities – chosen by the owners – in every NBA community as well.

And for every month moving forward, the owners will have to pay another $250,000 (i.e., on August 1, $750,000 per day, September 1, $1,000,000 per day, etc.) while the players will see their daily total increase by another $125,000 per day (i.e. on August 1, $375,000 per day, September 1, $500,000 per day, etc.)

The idea here is pretty simple — these two sides didn’t really start to negotiate until they felt a financial pinch (and even that has not been enough). So, move the financial pain up in the calendar.

Second step:

After July 1, a federal mediator should be injected into the talks because at that point, it’s clear that both sides can’t and probably won’t strike a deal even with the threat of having to cut checks because they can’t stick to a damn deadline, and…

It works for me. I would prefer to have owners not going for every penny and players willing to die on issues that only impact a handful of players, but I’m not trusting human nature here in the future. I trust Blakely more.

  1. hail2tharedskins - Nov 16, 2011 at 8:42 PM

    There is a big problem with that suggestion. While it sounds good, if the CBA is expired you can’t enforce clauses that force either side to pay anything. As long as there is a CBA in effect you can’t have any legal recourse in anti-trust courts as the players did here. They would have to give that up. In other words if you let all terms of the CBA expire except these penalty clauses – you would still have a CBA with no league rules – ie exactly what the owners want. They could impose anything they wanted on players. Basically, either you have a CBA or you don’t.

    Aside from that even monetary penalties would work against the players, even if the penalties are doubled for the owners they would be able to absorb the payments a LOT easier than the players especially at a time they wouldn’t be getting any paychecks. However, it would likely be a no-go for players before you got to that because if the two sides agreed to that they union would have to set a fund to cover the payments in the event they got to that point and that would be funded by the union taxing players salaries to fund that pot (in other words the players would have to pay the penalty to the union beforehand even if we never got to that situation.

  2. urallstupid - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM

    dumdest idea ever lol, why would you think that the players and the owners would agree to this?

  3. Chris Fiorentino - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM

    This idea assumes both sides actually want there to be basketball…which is a MAJOR assumption with the way both of these sides have acted.

  4. texmex2 - Nov 17, 2011 at 1:38 AM

    what a stupid article, really pushing it past assine…~

  5. berto55 - Nov 17, 2011 at 8:03 AM

    I completely disagree. The dumbest idea ever was green lighting this “article”.

  6. 1historian - Nov 17, 2011 at 8:03 AM

    this is a joke, right?

  7. acdc363 - Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM


  8. jlinatl - Nov 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM

    This would kill the players. The owners could essentially change “their” charity by not donating at all or donating a decreased amount to the charities they already give to. Most of them probably have a few pet charities that they give heavily to. But they also have other secondary charities that they give less to. Those charities would likely take the hit.

  9. borderline1988 - Nov 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

    THe blogger’s just trying to make a theoretical point. Obviously in practice, this idea is stupid.

    Although, the idea (from the players’ point of view) is already in place. Not receiving paychecks is going to hurt those overspending guys bad. Probably 100 out of the 450 players are really feeling the pinch of missing their first paycheck. My guess is that another 50 players will be feeling it with every month they don’t get paid.
    Maybe the top-paid 100 players can last for a long time (for years or forever) without a paycheck. Everyone else has their breaking points.

    THis lockout will end the moment that the influence of the players who are past their financial breaking point will be on equal footing with the stars who are currently running the show.
    WHen that will happen, noone knows exactly. The maximum time it’ll be is one year. My guess is that itll take 1 month.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Rose (2012)
  2. K. Irving (1630)
  3. A. Davis (1510)
  4. L. James (1417)
  5. K. Durant (1407)
  1. K. Bryant (1348)
  2. R. Rubio (1332)
  3. T. Thompson (1210)
  4. J. Clarkson (1139)
  5. A. Aminu (1120)