Great article on the lawyer hired by the players to represent them in the antitrust case they're about to bring: David Boies. He represented the United States government in its antitrust suit against Microsoft.

 

The Man Who Ate Microsoft

 

Warning: it's very, very long.

Totally off subject, but I just added you on Twitter if you are wondering who that is.

I really thought the players would at least offer a counter-offer trying to call the owners bluff that way. Sounds like the players are seriously ticked off and ready to go to war.

The ones with money.

What would have been the point? At this point, David Stern seems like the rational man in the room with owners positively chomping at the bit to get every penny they feel they deserve.

I think it would have made the players look better PR wise.

The ones with money.

Good point, there are some guys who really need the paychecks they are missing.

Good point, there are some guys who really need the paychecks they are missing.

 

But now they can proceed under antitrust law, which opens up a whole can of worms not available in collective bargaining. You never know, they get a judge feeling in the right mood and he might enjoin the lockout from continuing... say hello to your season, everyone. (This is highly unlikely.)

But now they can proceed under antitrust law, which opens up a whole can of worms not available in collective bargaining. You never know, they get a judge feeling in the right mood and he might enjoin the lockout from continuing... say hello to your season, everyone. (This is highly unlikely.)

 

Only hope left.

I think it would have made the players look better PR wise.

 

If someone from the outside can look at the last couple months and not see the mountain of concessions made by the players -- concessions that include about $330 million annually in the revenue split -- then I'm not sure what good any PR moves would have done.

Only hope left.

 

Even considering how unlikely that is, part of the reason they should have done this months ago is that the lack of predictable outcomes in a trial makes it a nice bargaining chip for the labor side. It may get the owners back to the table fairly soon.

Even considering how unlikely that is, part of the reason they should have done this months ago is that the lack of predictable outcomes in a trial makes it a nice bargaining chip for the labor side. It may get the owners back to the table fairly soon.

As someone not that familiar with antitrust suits, what kind of outcomes can come from a trial?

If someone from the outside can look at the last couple months and not see the mountain of concessions made by the players -- concessions that include about $330 million annually in the revenue split -- then I'm not sure what good any PR moves would have done.

I think the vast majority of casual fans may see this as the players taking their ball and heading home. To the uninformed it's the one who ultimately rejects without a counteroffer that looks the worst. Just my thoughts based on what I can glean from friends, co-workers, comment sections, etc.

I think the vast majority of casual fans may see this as the players taking their ball and heading home. To the uninformed it's the one who ultimately rejects without a counteroffer that looks the worst. Just my thoughts based on what I can glean from friends, co-workers, comment sections, etc.

 

I agree, this makes the players look bad. Until I get a better grasp on what will happen now I certainly don't understand what this will accomplish.

If someone from the outside can look at the last couple months and not see the mountain of concessions made by the players -- concessions that include about $330 million annually in the revenue split -- then I'm not sure what good any PR moves would have done.

 

I think the vast majority of casual fans may see this as the players taking their ball and heading home. To the uninformed it's the one who ultimately rejects without a counteroffer that looks the worst. Just my thoughts based on what I can glean from friends, co-workers, comment sections, etc.

I should add, I don't feel this way. I personally think the owners are trying to bleed every cent they can from the players and like you said the players have given a mountain of concessions. Just stating what I gather to be the opinion of a lot of people.

As someone not that familiar with antitrust suits, what kind of outcomes can come from a trial?

 

In short and obtusely plain English, antitrust litigation gives the players rights to challenge everything: the cap, the draft, league-wide max salaries and the rookie scale are all rules made under collective bargaining that may not be legal outside of collective bargaining. Not to mention what I said above in that a judge might decide that the lockout itself constitutes an illegal group boycott -- in which owners have colluded to not honor pre-existing contracts -- and lift the lockout completely.

As someone not that familiar with antitrust suits, what kind of outcomes can come from a trial?

 

Months of litigation most likely. :irked:

A few people speculating the owners thought the players would take it and the owners will make another deal that is slilghtly better for the players tomorrow.