The players today offered to settle for 52% of BRI. One percent is worth $40M per year.

Therefore, over a 6 year deal, with BRI growing at 4% per year, the players would gain an extra $531M if they got 52% rather than the 50% the owners offered them before any games were cancelled.

BUT, they have now lost 4 weeks of salary, which is worth $330M to them. 

So if the owners magically give them 52% tomorrow, they would now gain $201M ($531M-$330M) over 6 years, which is a mere $33.5M per year more than they would have got had they taken the 50% deal a month ago (and not missed any games).

Of course the NBA is never going to give them 52% so they aren't going to gain that $33.5M per year by refusing to settle.

In fact, when David Stern cancels the next 2 weeks of games, about 2 weeks from now, the players will have lost $495M this year while still trying to get that extra $531 TOTAL over 6 years. They will then be holding out for an extra $6M per season, which they will still never get, rather than have taken the original offer. 

I'll bet you can see where this is going (even if the players can't). One week of cancelled games later and the players will be bargaining to lose money compared to the deal they could have had to start the season on time.

What was the name of that famous economist that is advising them?