Your opinion of the NBA

[heinz57]

I agree. Even the boston 3 isnt comparable to the miami 3. Youve never had 3 current Top 20 players join together. And i hope never again.

the boston 3 were at least put together by front offices doing some major wheeling and dealing.. they happened by the efforts of the franchise... not because they were petulant little twats who realized they weren't good enough to win anything except stats races on their own.. it was the boston front office saying "if we want to win, we have to completely GUT our whole roster, be willing to shed the majority of the positives our club has going for it right now, and bring these two dudes over." ... and even with them, they still had to pray for some luck... nobody saw glen davis and perkins being as good as they were... nobody would have predicted the emergence of rondo.. by power brokering major trades, and picking up scraps only to find they were gold... boston made a great TEAM.

and i HATE boston.

miami is a mockery.

[thatguythere]

This isn't as simple as the NBA is the employer and players are employees so they need to be put in their place. The entertainment industry is completely different from almost every other work environment. The players are employees but they are also the product. Consumer demand is based on them and when consumer demand is high, like it has been the last few seasons, then why shouldn't they be entitled to more?

If the players union made their own league and the NBA brought in 500 new players from Europe or wherever else then where do you think fans would go? It wouldn't even be close, the players' league would destroy the NBA and anyone who thinks fans would stick with it because of 'the brand' and their favourite team's logo is kidding themselves.

Also to say the players aren't willing to take a hit like everyone else in this economy is untrue, they have given back $1 billion and are open to further negotiations. The owners are saying 'it's our way or the highway', they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith as they would rather get everything they want through the attrition of the players, even if that costs them the season.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with the players but I think this thread is way too pro-owners for my liking.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

This isn't as simple as the NBA is the employer and players are employees so they need to be put in their place. The entertainment industry is completely different from almost every other work environment. The players are employees but they are also the product. Consumer demand is based on them and when consumer demand is high, like it has been the last few seasons, then why shouldn't they be entitled to more?

If the players union made their own league and the NBA brought in 500 new players from Europe or wherever else then where do you think fans would go? It wouldn't even be close, the players' league would destroy the NBA and anyone who thinks fans would stick with it because of 'the brand' and their favourite team's logo is kidding themselves.

Also to say the players aren't willing to take a hit like everyone else in this economy is untrue, they have given back $1 billion and are open to further negotiations. The owners are saying 'it's our way or the highway', they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith as they would rather get everything they want through the attrition of the players, even if that costs them the season.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with the players but I think this thread is way too pro-owners for my liking.

i know what youre saying and i know where the players are coming from, but from my perspective, and this is the perspective of a guy who knows dicksquat about revenue sharing, BRI, etc etc, im voicing out my support for the owners coz its basically picking the lesser of two evils. Do you give more money to the already millionaire who only supports his family, or do you give more money to the millionaire who supports the arena vendors, janitors, handymen and who also give the players their salaries? I get the fact that the players are the brand, but how much millions is really enough? A 10 day contract would roughly fetch $30k, and youre lucky enough if you even break a sweat in those 10 days. Isnt that ridiculous when an average person will earn that for a year?

Well if the players were good businessmen then they can start their own league, but they would be too busy playing rather than running the league at the same time. True we watch players, but most if not all fans actually support teams.

[heinz57]

If the players union made their own league and the NBA brought in 500 new players from Europe or wherever else then where do you think fans would go? It wouldn't even be close, the players' league would destroy the NBA and anyone who thinks fans would stick with it because of 'the brand' and their favourite team's logo is kidding themselves.

uhm... have you seen how retarded the majority of the players in the league are?! they couldn't run a hotdog stand.

any player with a small bit of business sense, would stay far far away from that new league and take the 50/50 from the NBA.

[thatguythere]

uhm... have you seen how retarded the majority of the players in the league are?! they couldn't run a hotdog stand.

any player with a small bit of business sense, would stay far far away from that new league and take the 50/50 from the NBA.

No actually I haven't seen how retarded they are. Have you seen the endless number of former players who become executives after they retire? Have you seen that Michael Jordan is the owner of the Bobcats? Have you seen that Steve Nash is a part owner of the Vancouver Whitecaps? Or have you seen his many other business ventures (such as his production company, his gyms, etc..)? I am also not sure how much of this lockout you have been paying attention too because whether you agree with him or not Derek Fisher is also clearly very intelligent.

Those are just a few examples.. Just because they throw a ball into a hoop for a living doesn't mean the are "retarded".

[Joey]

This isn't as simple as the NBA is the employer and players are employees so they need to be put in their place. The entertainment industry is completely different from almost every other work environment. The players are employees but they are also the product. Consumer demand is based on them and when consumer demand is high, like it has been the last few seasons, then why shouldn't they be entitled to more?

If the players union made their own league and the NBA brought in 500 new players from Europe or wherever else then where do you think fans would go? It wouldn't even be close, the players' league would destroy the NBA and anyone who thinks fans would stick with it because of 'the brand' and their favourite team's logo is kidding themselves.

Also to say the players aren't willing to take a hit like everyone else in this economy is untrue, they have given back $1 billion and are open to further negotiations. The owners are saying 'it's our way or the highway', they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith as they would rather get everything they want through the attrition of the players, even if that costs them the season.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with the players but I think this thread is way too pro-owners for my liking.

I agree 100% with your sentiment Guy. Nice post.

Me and GarbageTime have been making the exact same arguments in the Lockout Thread.

We could use the back up. haha

[heinz57]

No actually I haven't seen how retarded they are. Have you seen the endless number of former players who become executives after they retire? Have you seen that Michael Jordan is the owner of the Bobcats? Have you seen that Steve Nash is a part owner of the Vancouver Whitecaps? Or have you seen his many other business ventures (such as his production company, his gyms, etc..)? I am also not sure how much of this lockout you have been paying attention too because whether you agree with him or not Derek Fisher is also clearly very intelligent.

Those are just a few examples.. Just because they through a ball into a hoop for a living doesn't mean the are "retarded".

i said MAJORITY. of course some are intelligent. law of averages.

but do you really think a player of MJ's magnitude with his intellect and savvy would choose to go play in an organized pickup league? Do you think Nike is going to pay him to endorsement money based on simply who he is even though he plays in a glorified And1 tour?

And ya, Derek Fisher is intelligent... he's been fighting to ensure he can sit on the bench of a championship calibre team and make a small fortune for playing 10 minutes a game for as long as possible. good on him.

Take away the financial backing of the NBA, and the likely highly reduced salaries of this player league (because without the owners, where is this investment of capital coming from), and where would Fisher be?

probably on his sofa. chillin. watching the NBA. because they already have network TV deals, and he won't have to scour the obscure local cable tv channels to watch the player league.

He'd probably get motion sickness trying to watch those games anyways.. because what the hell do players know about CAMERAS or hiring cameramen. It'd be like the Blair Witch Basketball with the nauseating camera shaking

oh, and arena deals... those just magically appear out of thin air.

a player run league would crash and burn.

the majority of players are idiots. you know this. don't deny it just to prove your point. the majority of them floated through high school and college never having to pick up a book.. that's not fairy tale stuff.. EVERYBODY knows that.. one of the more vocal of them through this lockout BS didnt even know what CONTRACTION meant until a few months ago..

do you REALLY think a league run by THEM could compete with the marketing collossus behind the NBA?

If you knew RC Cola was better than Coke... would you hunt down RC Cola every single time you craved a pop? No you wouldn't. it's poorly marketed and poorly distributed. you'd take the inferior Coke because it's easy to find. you know where to look. Why waste time on a product that they dont even know how to make available to you reliably.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

No actually I haven't seen how retarded they are. Have you seen the endless number of former players who become executives after they retire? Have you seen that Michael Jordan is the owner of the Bobcats? Have you seen that Steve Nash is a part owner of the Vancouver Whitecaps? Or have you seen his many other business ventures (such as his production company, his gyms, etc..)? I am also not sure how much of this lockout you have been paying attention too because whether you agree with him or not Derek Fisher is also clearly very intelligent.

Those are just a few examples.. Just because they throw a ball into a hoop for a living doesn't mean the are "retarded".

i dont think theyre dumb, but they cant run a league and play at the same time. if they try to do that, then IMO, that would make them retarded.

[heinz57]

i dont think theyre dumb, but they cant run a league and play at the same time. if they try to do that, then IMO, that would make them retarded.

i doubt they could even find people competent enough to run a league without cherry picking front office people from the NBA.

who's going to be commish? Maverick Carter?

[thatguythere]

i said MAJORITY. of course some are intelligent. law of averages.

but do you really think a player of MJ's magnitude with his intellect and savvy would choose to go play in an organized pickup league? Do you think Nike is going to pay him to endorsement money based on simply who he is even though he plays in a glorified And1 tour?

And ya, Derek Fisher is intelligent... he's been fighting to ensure he can sit on the bench of a championship calibre team and make a small fortune for playing 10 minutes a game for as long as possible. good on him.

Take away the financial backing of the NBA, and the likely highly reduced salaries of this player league (because without the owners, where is this investment of capital coming from), and where would Fisher be?

probably on his sofa. chillin. watching the NBA. because they already have network TV deals, and he won't have to scour the obscure local cable tv channels to watch the player league.

He'd probably get motion sickness trying to watch those games anyways.. because what the hell do players know about CAMERAS or hiring cameramen. It'd be like the Blair Witch Basketball with the nauseating camera shaking

oh, and arena deals... those just magically appear out of thin air.

a player run league would crash and burn.

the majority of players are idiots. you know this. don't deny it just to prove your point. the majority of them floated through high school and college never having to pick up a book.. that's not fairy tale stuff.. EVERYBODY knows that.. one of the more vocal of them through this lockout BS didnt even know what CONTRACTION meant until a few months ago..

do you REALLY think a league run by THEM could compete with the marketing collossus behind the NBA?

If you knew RC Cola was better than Coke... would you hunt down RC Cola every single time you craved a pop? No you wouldn't. it's poorly marketed and poorly distributed. you'd take the inferior Coke because it's easy to find. you know where to look. Why waste time on a product that they dont even know how to make available to you reliably.

Every player wouldn't need to be brilliant at business, and they wouldn't have to do it themselves. All the cities and companies currently playing second fiddle to the NBA and their massive brand would jump at the opportunity in an instant. ESPN has the NBA tv rights, don't you think Fox or CBS would offer enormous sums of money for a tv deal for this hypothetical league? The one with all the good players.. The new league that is guaranteed to make millions because they can put LeBron's face on a billboard..

Also I am not advocating for a new league, I was just using it as an example to talk about the fact that the players are the product and that they drive the revenues and therefore they are entitled to more than the average employee.

I also find it interesting that my numerous examples are just exceptions because of the law of averages but your one example of LeBron not knowing what contraction means is proof of your point. Funny how double standards work huh.

By the way I don't actually deep down believe the majority of players are actually stupid, simply repeating yourself and claiming that I know you're right doesn't make you right, and as nice as your hypothetical situation is, apart from circular reasoning your idea that most players are morons seems to be based on prejudice and stereotypes.

[Apollo]

the boston 3 were at least put together by front offices doing some major wheeling and dealing.. they happened by the efforts of the franchise... not because they were petulant little twats who realized they weren't good enough to win anything except stats races on their own..

This is an excellent point. They system needs to be at least modified to highly discourage players from bailing on their franchise and pulling what James and Bosh pulled. Now we here Howard is probably thinking he's going to pull the same crap on Orlando. I'm betting on Stern and the owners crushing this fad now... Somehow.

[Joey]

Source

1. After Thursday, whose side are you on? To what degree?

Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: 75-25 players. I don't begrudge the owners' right to calibrate their business to achieve maximum profitability, but virtually every concession in the negotiations has been made by the players. Ownership in any industry comes with the risk you'll operate in the red. If the investment is failing you, perhaps you and your capital should be elsewhere.

Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: 60-40 owners. I've long been a proponent of a hard cap, and I broadly agree with the owners' desire to change the system. However, this marks a cooling of my support, as demanding a 50-50 split of basketball-related income and a super-tax system is going too far.

Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: 75-25 players. The players have offered up 8 percent of their salaries from the previous collective bargaining agreement, which lasted 12 years while the league was less popular and lucrative than it is today; to me, the owners are the aggressors. Why not take the $200 million win, and revisit the deal in five years with a stabilized economy and that fat TV deal in hand?

David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: 98-2 players. It's a lockout, and only one side is in control of the lock. Sure, leadership on the players' side is lacking, but owners are proving this is all a hobby to them because they are risking everything that's been built these past few years over an annual amount of money that is not meaningful to them. And that does not include the benefits of owning a team that don't show up in the bottom line for the tax returns of the team, but do for other businesses in which the owners are involved.

Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: 50-50. It's important to realize the owners are already negotiating in "gain" territory, as they are assured of concessions/more cash. That's why it's hard for the players to justify further movement. With each percentage point the union gives, the loss deepens. None of us ever wants to be in this position, to be in concessionary bargaining. But it's happened to millions of Americans over the past three or four years. Because of this, it's so tempting to blame the owners.

However, in concessionary bargaining, you have to understand your leverage. The players have very little. They are losing money by the day that they will never earn back. They have to realize when to take the best deal they can get. That time might have passed. So they share the blame.

Thought you'd be interested to hear what the guys who REALLY know whats going on, think about 'sides'.

Pretty clear they majority are for the players. I can't disagree with any of the points they make.

[thatguythere]

Very interesting, nice post.

I think the players have given up more than enough money in dropping from 57% to 52.5%. The only other thing I think needs to happen is to give owners/teams the ability to get out of bad deals. The Eddy Curry problem is a fairly common one in the league, I think contracts should only be partially guaranteed in some way to give teams a partial out because when they sign the deal now they are trapped. That would play a huge role in dealing with player salaries and after that any financial problems would be entirely the teams' own fault. Unfortunately I don't think that has been on the table since the lockout actually happened.

[jimmie]

Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: 75-25 players. I don't begrudge the owners' right to calibrate their business to achieve maximum profitability, but virtually every concession in the negotiations has been made by the players. Ownership in any industry comes with the risk you'll operate in the red. If the investment is failing you, perhaps you and your capital should be elsewhere.

He's right that ownership comes with a risk. That's why, when the fiscal situation changes for the worse, CEOs have to take mitigating measures, like cutting salaries and/or employees. The CBA expired. The NBA has been losing money. Some assume they're losing money because they signed players to bad contracts. Maybe the real culprit is the global recession. It really doesn't matter. They own the business, and will only accept a way forward that meets their needs. Arnovitz also doesn't take into consideration that profit/loss is just one of the issues at stake. The system issues are more important in the long term, and siding with the players/status quo is not going to fix any of those.

Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: 60-40 owners. I've long been a proponent of a hard cap, and I broadly agree with the owners' desire to change the system. However, this marks a cooling of my support, as demanding a 50-50 split of basketball-related income and a super-tax system is going too far.

This is a rational response. If you're a basketball fan, you can't be happy with the state of the league today, and that means system changes are needed. This is the only opportunity the league will get to do that for maybe another 10 years. If the league continues to lose money as it has been, if the concept of parity continues to decline, or if the US economy continues to skid, 10 years might be too late. You can dicker on the basic numbers, but the fact remains -- the players want the status quo, they've never, ever even mentioned doing anything to help 'competitive balance', and the owners do want change.

Beckley Mason, HoopSpeak: 75-25 players. The players have offered up 8 percent of their salaries from the previous collective bargaining agreement, which lasted 12 years while the league was less popular and lucrative than it is today; to me, the owners are the aggressors. Why not take the $200 million win, and revisit the deal in five years with a stabilized economy and that fat TV deal in hand?

Again, a non-argument re: players giving up salary. They've done no such thing. The CBA expired. They were never guaranteed to keep the same numbers in the new CBA. What, did they expect to get 60% this time around, even when the league is losing money? There's just no factual basis for saying that the league was less popular 10 years ago, and more lucrative today. As a league, it's losing money. That's a fact, and one that wouldn't change under the status quo.

David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: 98-2 players. It's a lockout, and only one side is in control of the lock. Sure, leadership on the players' side is lacking, but owners are proving this is all a hobby to them because they are risking everything that's been built these past few years over an annual amount of money that is not meaningful to them. And that does not include the benefits of owning a team that don't show up in the bottom line for the tax returns of the team, but do for other businesses in which the owners are involved.

So he's blaming the owners for not ending the lockout because they're the only ones that can say yes to get it going again? Hurray! Someone gets it! The owners hold all the chips. The players can only stay on equal footing or lose, and they're losing every pay period they miss. But that doesn't have anything to do with the negotiations, or the reasons WHY the owners are still holding firm on key points. Thorpe needs to address that before condemning them. Maybe it's really not just about the money for the owners? Or, rather, it's about the money that some of them will NEVER make under the status quo because of the system being built the way it is.

Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: 50-50. It's important to realize the owners are already negotiating in "gain" territory, as they are assured of concessions/more cash. That's why it's hard for the players to justify further movement. With each percentage point the union gives, the loss deepens. None of us ever wants to be in this position, to be in concessionary bargaining. But it's happened to millions of Americans over the past three or four years. Because of this, it's so tempting to blame the owners.

However, in concessionary bargaining, you have to understand your leverage. The players have very little. They are losing money by the day that they will never earn back. They have to realize when to take the best deal they can get. That time might have passed. So they share the blame.

Again, a very reasoned response. First person in the media I've heard talk about concessionary bargaining. Hunter and Fisher probably get it, but the rank-and-file obviously have no clue.

[jimmie]

The only other thing I think needs to happen is to give owners/teams the ability to get out of bad deals. The Eddy Curry problem is a fairly common one in the league, I think contracts should only be partially guaranteed in some way to give teams a partial out because when they sign the deal now they are trapped. That would play a huge role in dealing with player salaries and after that any financial problems would be entirely the teams' own fault. Unfortunately I don't think that has been on the table since the lockout actually happened.

The players will NEVER give up guaranteed contracts, though. And that's maybe one of the things the owners can "negotiate" on...