How Did We Get Here?
by Dave on Nov 17, 2011 10:00 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintDave,
I hate to drag you back into the lockout stuff but man, how did we get to this point? Are these guys really that blind? How could you stare across the table, look at a lost season, and not get a deal done?
Perhaps not wholly blind, just afflicted with the myopia that comes with being deeply entrenched in one's position. Neither Republicans nor Democrats nor any independent party you care to name has all the right answers. That doesn't stop them from believing that they do, considering the opposition as enemies who are ruining the country, and fighting every time they get into public discussions.
If I'm an owner I've watched years of guaranteed salary go out the door. That hasn't gotten me guaranteed performance, mind you. Me and most of my colleagues haven't sniffed at ultimate success during my whole ownership tenure. I've had players get injured, players dog it after signing those huge contracts, players reaping the largest salaries precisely when their performance has declined due to age. I've faced mediocre win totals and empty arenas. I've watched LeBron James' "Decision" debacle where the guy flushed the toilet on the franchise he was supposed to save, skipping off merrily to play with his friends while throwing a powerless owner an an entire fanbase into apoplectic fits. I've been hogtied, paying 57% of my income to a group of employees...not even my only group and certainly not my only expense. Losing even a single dollar under those circumstances--watching 57% fly out the door off the top--is going to sting. The guys who own the teams and shell out all the money are the only guys not guaranteed to make any. In my view that's got to stop. There is no way I'm making sacrifices for the sake of players anymore. Them screaming about it only underscores how little they understand my position and how spoiled they've become.
If I'm a player I've heard owners whine for years, since my grandpa was in the league. I've seen shady accounting practices and watched fat cats sell teams they bought at $70 million for $400 million plus. The owners can ride out their losses. I've got a short chance to make long money and then I'm done. I've also watched the owners bully their way through these negotiations. They made up a wholly fictitious starting point and then negotiated up to the current level. Meanwhile I'm paying with money I used to make and will never see again. There's been no give and take. I've given, they keep taking. Plus they're acting like my father, making all kinds of public declarations threatening to put me in timeout. They show no respect for the talent that makes this league. Plus my union leaders have been in my ear since day one that our position is winnable and we need to stay strong. That's not their fault. If somebody came in and said, "We've got no position here. We're going to lose. Give up early and hope for the best" we'd have fired them and gotten somebody who would fight for us. How, then, am I going to reverse course and sign off on an agreement that costs me a whole bunch of money and much of my freedom of mobility? How do I come to an understanding that the money we used to make means nothing now...that the real starting point for negotiations is the money I'm making right now, which is zero? The owners hammering down the gate only shows how invested they are in keeping me unimportant and powerless, the better to make money off of me. There's no way I accept that definition of myself. The more I listen to them the weaker I become. I'd rather fight than make that implied weakness a cold reality that I have to embrace with every paycheck.
It's not that hard to get here. The tricky part is getting out. Everything that either side has done seems to have confirmed the worst suspicions of the other from the players refusing to go 50-50 until late in the process to David Stern's paternal lectures to the anger leaking from the hawk-minded owners. In a way it's good we're going to court. At least judges and lawyers speak their own language. It's not the best language in this scenario but it's light years better than the dialect the players and owners have been speaking. The change of venue may reset some of the prejudices that are flowing both directions right now or at least ensure that they're uttered from a greater distance. Even that would be a breath of fresh air in this muddled, accusatory mess.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
45 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for the perspective Dave
You’ve managed to do something most other journalists and news sources haven’t. Actually look from both sides without the fanatical emotionalism. Nicely done and one of the reasons I always enjoy reading your articles.
Yep, I totally agree
this is a really really great piece, Dave
"If I had a dime for every basket I made today, you'd still suck!" - from the book 'John Dies @ the End'
Decision Derision?
I agree with a lot you are presenting. And I admit I’m in a great minority here. LeBron James has become the popular favorite villan. And honestly I don’t know if I like LeBron James as a person or not- however, I think he has taken way too much flak for his decision. I think “flush the toilet on the franchise he was suppose to save” is patently unfair. By my count LeBron James did spend 7 seasons playing for The Cavaliers, and during those 7 years he gave them playoff viability and a never ending relevence in the N.B.A.. Ultimately? He made a free agent decision. I think anyone has to do, is look at the fall of The Cavaliers in his absence to gain an understanding of how much LeBron did mean to the Cavaliers…they are a bad team without him. Which tells me? There might of been lots of reason for LeBron to leave. IMO The Cavs had 7 years and never really did much in making The Cavaliers “championship” viable.
Isn’t Cavalier management somewhat responsible? Did they ever look at making the big trade that couples LeBron with the All-Stars he evidently coveted playing with? Did they ever draft or develop those complimentary stars during his tenure?
Despite a trip to the finals, one would have to say no. And even if you want to say Yes. It still boils down to LeBron James becoming a free agent and making a personal decision. I think players deserve the right to make those decisions once becoming a free-agent. Just because you’re drafted by a particular franchise, doesn’t mean you are locked into devoting your entire career to their cause. At some point, all contracts end, for good or for bad. What would you have? Drafted by an ill-managed franchise, well too bad, you can never leave? Every franchise becomes the Hotel California?
People reveled in LeBron failing to get a championship. Okay, enjoy it…it’s part of the game. BUT…even in failing with the Heat, do you imagine LeBron would of gotten farther with The Cavaliers?- I don’t.
I think LeBron has become the “personality” poster boy for what a lot of people “imagine” they don’t like about N.B.A. players. And like I said, I don’t know if I like LeBron James as a person, I’ve never met him. But I do think he has taken way too much flak for simply making an earned decision to go to a situation that he felt was better. I even give him some slack about the “circus” that surrounded his decision. The media was rabid, there was absolutely no way his decision was going to be low key.
Do I think the N.B.A. should be structured as to give advantage in potential to resign and extend players to the original franchise, or the franchise that currently has the player? Certainly. But lets be realistic. LeBron gave 7 years of his career to The Cavaliers…if that was flushing the toilet it was a long slow flush.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Nov 17, 2011 10:41 PM PST reply actions 6 recs
I wouldn't argue with that
but Cavs owner Dan Gilbert probably would. And he’s in on the owner’s meetings.
—Dave
This is a great comment.
I think you are spot on in a lot of your observations and as you mentioned, part of the intrigue of sports is being emotionally invested… whether you cheer or jeer.
I would add, though, that while I don’t condemn James for his decision (I am with you in that he had every right to leave) I feel that they way he handled it was in poor taste, as many others would probably agree. It is one thing to announce your intention to explore free agency, and when the time comes that you have made up your mind, directly state it. However, for much of the process (and he almost certainly never had any intention of re-signing with the Cavs) he played it coy giving false hopes to Cavs fan base that adored him, essentially stringing them along. In a nutshell he lied to them. Were I a Cavs fan, nothing would upset me more than to find out a player you respected and followed closely for 7 years, hadn’t the respect to deal with you honestly.
by SabasTheHut on Nov 17, 2011 11:29 PM PST up reply actions
I agree on the whole Decision thing
and James also played a few other franchises at the same time. Not all of it was his fault but he did encourage a lot of what happened with the other teams and managed to tick their fans off and cost those franchises some time/money as well.
Technically he had a right to do what he did but it’s something I hope I never see in professional sports again.
I agree with you.
The problem with Lebron is that he made of himself someone most of NBA fans wouldn´t like: “the chosen one” attitude, his unnecessary gests in all NBA arenas, his total lack of any resemblance of humbleness… Then it seems during the Olympics in China the NBA stars of the US team decided to get themselves together in a few teams to be able to compete for the NBA title. This was a massive movement and has been carried by Lebron, in particular, with no class at all, no matter business or no business. We all think he had taken his decision before he started to negotiate, as all the movement between himself and Wade and Bosh, “the Superfriends”, evidence. And he let many people to humiliate themselves for nothing, although it is not his exactly his fault, and he put the last straw to make that humiliation as painful and public as possible, which I may consider something Cleveland deserved for enjoying such a jerk in its team for all those years. You have to know better what you have at home. Somehow, Lebron seems to be the scapegoat among the public opinion. But the crisis of this model is not about Lebron and his attitude. Stern didn´t point his finger at Lebron, he did it at Wade, getting him mad. Because Wade was the guy leading the Miami recruiting. And, as many have pointed out before, it was not only Miami and the Superfriends. It´s Howard wanting to go to LA, Melo and Amare to NY, etc, etc, etc.
Silver Linings
While the “Superfriends” may have burned the markets in Cleveland and Toronto, they lifted the markets of the NBA as a whole. One of the driving factors for the increased visibility and attention from the general public (and not just die-hard NBA fans) was the debacle that was the “Decision.” While James may be “hated,” that motivates people to watch, even if it is just to root against him (count me in that camp). Again, while these spectacles may be negative for the individual team markets, they benefit the NBA market overall.
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 18, 2011 9:16 AM PST up reply actions
Kind of like steroid abuse
You get all pumped up and then your heart fails. Not good for the league in the long run…unless we want to go back to 10 or 15 teams? There goes 50% of the players’ jobs.
What logic is this?
How did you go from the Decision to contraction? Cleveland selected Lebron with tehir number one pick; when he left they got another number one pick. You can argue (and logically so) that those two picks ended up with players of vastly different potential, but you can’t argue that the system doesn’t already have systems to facilitate balance. It’s up to the owners and GMs to maximize their opportunities.
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 18, 2011 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
I know it's probably only my opinion
but build 5 or 6 more super teams ala the Miami Heat and the rest becomes almost unnecessary. Doubtless more talent would come and we’d get a few more relevant teams.
IMO it just doesn’t add up to something that will be healthy for the league in the long run unless we have a whole lot more star quality talent than we do. More half empty arenas for hopeless teams. More teams losing money and we’d need to cut some of them to keep the NBA afloat. Profit sharing would be a nightmare.
Lebron had a right to leave. I probably would have done the same. I have no issue with that excepting the idiotic way that he did it.
I don’t want a WWE version of the NBA. Having the Grizzlies and the Thunder of the NBA give these “super” teams a scare is good for the league imo. I don’t want 23 teams of cannon fodder.
The World Champs
Would you classify the Mavericks as one of these “super” teams. I realize that Cuban is an owner who is not afraid to spend money to win, but I don’t think I would describe last year’s Mavericks as a WWE team. I’m just curious: would you?
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 20, 2011 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Krang:
What you say is right. I am not sure whether Cleveland ever complimented James with all-star players because James can make players look like all stars and I don’t know the difference.
I totally agree with you on LBJ, being a free agent, filled his obligation to his contract to the Cavs and moved on. IMO, the way he left is what everybody is ticked about. Playing the part of being indecisive, giving Cleveland hope, playing with the fans hearts when all along he knew where he wanted to go. Yes he should have that opportunity, but not to stomp on the people that help get him there. In actuality, Clyde did the same to us by going to his old teammate,and his hometown, but he did it in away that it didn’t sting quite as much. Time will tell whether James is better off in Miami then in Cleveland as far as championships goes, but if James is happier in Miami that is surely where he should be
hg
Yes
“The Decision” was far more offensive than the decision, as posters here pointed out to me when I criticized James for it.
Steve Goodman lives.
Yeah, LeBron spent 7 years in clevland but there are more professional ways to handle the situation than LeBron did. How about having the common decency to return the owners phone calls or work with them in landing some free agents in exchange instead of dumping the franchise on national television. I don’t know, the players want to pretend to be businessman but most do not act like one nor know anything about business.
I'm typing this here because I became jealous of everyone else with signatures in their posts.
by Flapbreaker on Nov 19, 2011 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Valid point
I do think that Lebron is being scapegoated a bit, and there’s no law saying you have to play for a team for your whole career or else be considered evil or villainous.
But I think that paragraph from Dave was meant to say “here are the arguments from the owner’s point of view,” not necessarily an objective measure of the situation.
Please don't forget
The owners making profits on franchise sales due to the increased value given them by fan-financed new arenas.
I think a lot of this debate is about owners thinking they won’t be able to get that future franchise value boost as automatically as they used to, as players point to past resale values and say “you don’t lose as much as you claim” . . . yet having happily taken salaries owners were only willing to pay because the owners counted on that resale value to recoup their losses. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul Allen’s hardline stance came partially from years of frustration at failing to turn the Rose Quarter into a planned real-estate bonanza, while being the unusual owner who lost money on the arena itself. That big grain silo next door probably hasn’t helped, although I always liked it.)
Not to get too political, but both sides have taken for granted, for a long time, fan money in taxes as well as ticket sales, merchandise, TV ratings, etc.
Steve Goodman lives.
After they agreed to 50/50 it´s not about the money anymore.
Now it´s the system. And Paul Allen is defending what a Portlander should be defending: the small market team.
Except everything they're focusing on will not bring competitive balance
I’m against the owners right now because their theories are a sham.
dinasour type of guys choir boys
I agree with this.
The lockout has not nor ever will be about competitive balance.
It’s about getting in the black for some, as well as maximizing profits for others.
"I Am Mine"
The owners making profits on franchise sales due to the increased value given them by fan-financed new arenas.
I don’t think the owners believe that increased values are a certainty anymore. I think that’s related to the hardline stance.
Look at the recent sale of the Warriors and the near-sale of the Hawks.
The values are increasing. The owners are being disingenous when they claim otherwise.
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 21, 2011 6:22 AM PST up reply actions
It occurred to me
I am not against what the owners want, but the way they were doing it. They did say from the beginning that this is what they were after. They did not say they wouldn’t settle for less, so as so many have said, what the union did should have been done a long time ago. As what James did should have been done in the beginning. The owners toyed with the union to thinking they could get an agreement within a short while when all along they were trying to avoid the courts until after the players lost their first pay check. With the hope that the players would lay down and bow to the power.
Now, I feel both sides of the coin is to blame, but I feel the owners created the mess with too many ultimatums and their play acting tactics.
That doesn’t make me any less understanding of what the owners want and what the players want, It is the way the owners went about it that ticks me off.
This could have and should have taken place on July the first.
hg
How did we get here
Good description of two sides position and emotions, but you and most people don’t mention the third side. How about us fans? Here’s what I want: a chance for my team to win the title; a chance to actually see a game at a price that makes it reasonable to take a couple of my kids along; players and management (owners) that are role models; and probably a few other items that I will think of after I’ve finished my coffee.
Maybe the sports writers, owners and the union should ask what the fans want. After all, we pay the bills.
Stern was asked about the fans
His reply was after a very short while the fans would return, so I guess we are a predictable part of the equation. But then they have had this planned out for a couple of years and dream of what the fan will give them in projected future basketball related income. I say shame on him.
The players at least say they are sorry for letting down all thier fans, Not sorry for thier fight but sorry that the fans get hurt in the fight. I am not sure the owners really care about the fans as people, but more as just dividends in the equation.
The fan’s has and will lose either way the end comes. If we boycott, we lose out on watching our team play, if we concede and buy tickets we are giving into the power.
hg
Fans can still revolt a bit and enjoy the team.
There is no reason the Rose Garden needs to sell out every night. The games would still go on and be televised if attendance was sparse. If fans simply made it their mission to watch the games without supporting the team financially, they could do it for the most part. TV Broadcasts, internet streams, sports bars, friends with NBA League Pass…
Sure fans would still have to spend some money, and the team would still see some benefit just from fans tuning in. However, fans could make a statement without completely boycotting the team. How about an entire season without one sellout or a 60% drop in merchandise sales? Paul Allen wouldn’t go broke, and the players wouldn’t suffer one bit financially. But both would take notice.
We, as fans, can’t inflict any dire consequences on either party. But we can shake our fingers at them defiantly and give them the silent treatment. We can say to the NBA that the product isn’t worth our hard earned money, but when we can enjoy it for free for the most part, we will.
Well, I lve some 160 miles from Portland
So what you say, I am already doing, except for paying for NBA pass. but if my local radio station was more reliable and I didn’t get so much interferance, I might even give up the NBA package. I might anyway.
hg
Small Markets Can Succeed
If Oden and Roy were healthy, the Blazers would be among the elite. Their injuries aren’t a fault of “System Issues.” They are a result of the hazards of chance (or insufficient scouting/medical tests). When these small market owners blame the system, they are blind to the fact that much of success or failure is a result of factors beyond anyone’s control: call it fate, call it chance, call it life.
True
also true is that a guy with a 6-shooter can kill a guy with a machine gun….if the machine gun guy is taken by surprise or if 6-shooter guy is extremely clever . I am tired of the Lakers having a machine gun
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Nov 18, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How many #1 picks do the Lakers have on their roster?
Everyone bemoans the Lakers as if they have somehow gamed the system, and granted, the Pau Gasol trade doesn’t pass the smell test. That being said, they have succeeded by incorporating the right players into their system. I would be the last one to cheer for the Lakers (I was giddy when they were swept last year), but to somehow assume that they always hold all the cards (or the “machine gun,” as you put it) is an oversimplification at best.
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 20, 2011 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
It isn't about #1 picks
it is about money for free agents. They a desirable location and money to spend (and still make a profit) ….they will always have an advantage and won’t have work as hard getting players to come there
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Nov 21, 2011 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
Geographical Advantage
I completely agree. Who wouldn’t rather spend their December and January in L.A. or Phoenix than in Minnesota? The owners’ proposal won’t fix that. Global warming, on the other hand . . .
As for the money to spend, New York has been shoveling money out the door for the past decade, and how many championships can they show for it? It’s not how much money you spend; it’s how you spend the money you have.
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 21, 2011 8:12 PM PST up reply actions
and all other things being equal ....the more money the better
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Nov 23, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
that's the point . . . all other things will never be equal
no matter what. And as the Heat just proved, sometimes even these greedy selfish players (note the sarcasm) will take less money to play where and with whom they want.
by Jackalope 66 on Nov 27, 2011 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that small markets can succeed
but most of them don’t have Paul Allen’s bottomless bank account to even things up. PA has spent himself into the red every year trying to be competitive. This tends to even things up for us a little bit. The only things we lack are location/weather and size of media market.
Those are things that no rules are going to change. We’re a small market that can pretend to be big because of our owner.
PA has spent himself into the red every year trying to be competitive.
He’s also spent himself into the red to make sure Francis, Zbo, RaFrentz, et al. did not show up. We can’t always pass off the spending of money as spending money to win. Usually PA spends money on the Blazers the way he spends it on all his other companies, merely throwing good money after bad.
dinasour type of guys choir boys
by mittsabishy on Nov 18, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
It's never completely black and white
and PA does spend money to compete so the point stands. Owners will make more mistakes than players because owners have the opportunity to make mistakes. Players mistakes typically turn up with a player breaking the law or doing something stupid on the court.
Players make their fare share of financial mistakes too. It’s just not front and center like it is with teams governed by guaranteed contracts, salary caps and luxury tax.
Polarizing everything doesn’t make sense.
Dave you drew a very apt parallel
These negotiations have been very similar to the congressional debate to raise the debt ceiling. Repubs(owners) push some plan and say take it or leave it and Dems (players) say no way. That is the state of negotiations until approaching the final hour despite Dems working hard to find som compromise that the other side will consider. Once jeopardy is near then the Dems make huge concessions and the Repubs walk away having Blackmail the Dems into voting for the best they can get without destroying the credit rating of the Federal Gov’t.
It is not coincidental that these tactics are similar. The owners are part of the class that pays the Repubs to push these absurd policies under threat of dire consequences. In the case of the NBA, that is the owners guarentee thier winning by doing away with games and getting their savings upfrotnt by not paying contracted salaries because the owners refused to negotiate until they got their savings in hand first.
This us why I’m glad the players are standing up and saying no way, even though it will cost them more to do so. Blackmail is wrong. And if our courts weren’t corrupted they would surely identify this negoatiation as such. However our court systems has been corrupted itself by years of appointments of justices who favor the desires of the very wealthy. See Citizens United decision where Thomas’s wife has pulled in $100,000s extra because her job directly benefited from the decision.
by NWfan on Nov 18, 2011 10:59 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Look
I don’t get to negotiate with my employer. I take what the owners give me. If I don’t like it I am free to quit and work somewhere else – where I will not be able to negotiate the terms of my employment. The most I can ask for as a college student is that I don’t get scheduled to work when I am supposed to be in class.
by Oden Mad, Oden Smash! on Nov 18, 2011 12:28 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Each of us is guided by our own principles.
Watching all of these the events unfold in the NBA is like watching a valued family member self destruct. It’s hard to watch the destructive behavior and not be able to do anything about it. You want to take sides. This isn’t fair! That’s not fair! But I think we know we can’t do anything for them no matter how much we want to. It’s useless to say that one side is right and the other is wrong. Some of us try to be helpful by being reasonable, saying there’s some merit on both sides. But that’s not really helpful either. If you’ve ever had a friend that is getting divorced you know what I mean when I say you will never know what’s really going on inside their relationship.
I’ve been trying to come up with an analogy that’s satisfying but I can’t find one really. The best I’ve come up with is to look at the players like body parts; arms, legs, eyes and the owners like the brain. With this view, it would be silly for the arms and legs to suddenly decide for themselves where they’re going to go and it would be equally silly for the brain to decide it doesn’t need arms and legs.
Anyone can take sides if they want, just make sure it fits your own philosophy. I personally think that the ownership position (not necessarily the owners actions) should should be in charge. The union isn’t there to usurp the owners, but to counter any possible mistreatment of employees.
The best we can do is to be there and hope that they come to their senses and stop the damage before someone dies.
Another way to say it
is that people’s ethics and concept of goodness is often determined by their need and circumstance. Often that works but sometimes it becomes destructive…usually when they lose sight of the role of their context and assume that their “good” should apply to everyone and determine the universe. That’s what’s happening here, in my view. Each side has determined their “good” and neither side is admitting it’s contextual and limited. This is precisely why I said earlier in the week that everyone would be better off forgetting about goodness and their own sense of righteousness and just try to figure this like a chess match. Who’s going to win and how? Let’s get it done. Certainly every mewling public appeal for sympathy by Stern or Hunter or whomever is falling on deaf ears at this point and claims to nobility are wearing thin.
—Dave
by Dave on Nov 18, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
People to tend to favor their long held views, and to see this throught that
prism. If capitalism seems harsh and unfair to working people, then some will never accept audited financials, nor will they ever believe that owners are not essentially dishonest. All we can do is accept that the seeds of this lock-out were set once the last CBA was signed. The league lost 1/2 of season, and I have no doubt that the arguments were similar then, to what they are now. We need to keep this in perspective. Fans simply do not have all the information they need to make good decisions about right and wrong in these situations. The fact that 5 or 6 owners seem overly manipulative and make bad decisions cannot be used as a whip on the other 24 or 25. The fact that we routinely bring up the same tired contracts as indications of mismanagement does not detract from the fact that you never read about the 90% or more that don’t attract attention. The fact that we have a star system in which stars may be under-paid, and many of the rest over-paid doesn’t detract from the fact that the stars cannot shine if they have no one but stars to play with. It is still, after all, a team game. And the fact that doing a better job of creating a level the playing field on salaries so that small markets can better compete for talent with large markets, does not imply that everyone will be equal. In the end, this is not the end of anyone’s world. The process will play out. The tiresome hyperbole and spin will continue. Sports writers, whose editors would never remotely consider hiring to write for the business and financial sections of their publications, will still claim to have an opinion, due in part to the fact that their jobs depend on the goodwill of the players to give them inside information and interviews, and so they are naturally biased. So, the controversy is fueled.
The most relevant comment is your last one. People increasingly just turn it off. The NBA is simply repeating the cycle of the rest of the professional sports. BRI splits have moved back to 50/50 or so, and leagues try, however imperfectly, to try to control spending on salaries so that they have at least the appearance of giving everyone a chance to compete for talent. The players naturally oppose this.
The only important issue the courts are likely to deal with will be whether or not the lockout continues. If they say yes, or refuse to rule, then the players will have little leverage to get a better deal due to the simple fact that the remaining lawsuit will take years to litigate, and the players aren’t going to wait years to get paychecks. So, it will settle. We could lose a year, or 1/2 a season, to get there. But no-one will wait 3-7 years to see what a fully appealed decision related to player lawsuits will look like.
by ebenc on Nov 19, 2011 5:40 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The NBA Isn't Capitalism
The existence of a cap (or luxury tax) and limits for contracts means that the NBA is not a capitalist entity; the growing calls for revenue sharing means that it will be more like socialism (at least for the owners). It is funny to me that the vast majority of the posts are in favor of this socialist economy for the NBA but nowhere else. This is eerily similar to the bailouts for the Financial Industry. The billionaires at the top of the pyramid want to subsidize their losses. In effect, they are trying to game the system.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Blazer's Edge
Related FanShots on Blazer's Edge
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
