Re: Spre = lockout

[Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>]

At 08:39 PM 3/5/98 -0500, Bentz wrote:
>As a result of ridiculous situations like Sprewell, Garnett, Anderson,
>and Seikly (sp?) the owners will lock out the players this year.  This
>will end up being very ugly.  What is going to happen?  Why not just
>sell Sprewell the team?  Or Walker.  This will have to end somewhere.

Step one first. because of the % of revenue going to the players (over 51% I
think), the owners have the right to re-open the CBA (per the terms of the
currnt CBA).  Resolve something here and I don't believe there will be a
lockout, despite the Spree, etc. stuff. Money talks on both sides.

>Meanwhile, all the guys who are good solid players and who make things
>happen struggle along on minimum salary.  Do the guys drawing more money
>than they deserve care about the fans, his teammates, etc.

C'mon Bentz. That's as much hyperbole as what some of the bad guys are
putting out. Most players making the actual minimum are doing so because
they are scrub bench warmers. Are some of the biggets mouths.showboats
making the most money? Yeah, but that's not the same thing.

>I see no real good prospects here at all.  The fans lose.

This, infortunately, is true. And I wish I thought those in a position to do
anything about it really cared.

-Kim 
Kim Malo
kmalo19@idt.net