Should players accept new deal?

Clippers TopBuzz Forum/Message Board » Clippers News & General Discussions
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
rick0314
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1571

mx.gif
votes: 5

What do you guys think , should we accept the new deal or decertify?

SamMays
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4022
votes: 53

It comes down to whether you think the NBA owners are genuine or just posturing... I think they are genuine. I think they will roll it back to a hard cap and a 47% split for the players if they don't accept this deal now...

If the players walk away from this (which Stern has made appear to be an ultimatum), the owners will have to make sure they win... After all, the owners could move just a bit more and get this done. They haven't and I think they won't. They will punish the players for walking away... Sure, it'll get resolved in the off season. Language will be provided so the players can save some face and attempt to justify it, but they are going to lose.

When you have a losing hand in poker, a good player learns to minimize his losses on it... Save what you can for a better day... Remember, the players have won negotiations in the past, getting a soft cap and 57% BRI... Their time will come again. Now ain't it.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

^^^ A portion of the owners never wanted to give up 50% to begin with. The owners never came to the table to negotiate in good faith. Just tells how the evil empire works.

ClipfanSince88
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 3349
votes: 21

I agree with SamMays. I also don't think the owners are bluffing and believe the offer on the table now is as good as the players are going to get anytime soon. If the players' immediate economic interests are more important to them right now than taking a stand on principle, they should take the deal.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108

The owners are no different than the Wall St. turds who f**ked up the entire world's economy. They want to privatize profits and socialize losses.

The LEAGUE operates at a profit! The Milwaukees and Charlottes should be knocking on the doors of the L.A's and Bostons. The players have already agreed to take on 80% of those weak franchises' losses and these greedy bastards still want more.

Handle your f**kin' business, Stern!

clipperboy24
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4867
votes: 37

take the deal all the way. The players are completely taking for granted the fans. Fans in a recession or bad economic environment are going to be tighter with their money and if the season is lost a large chunks of fans could be lost for a good amount. This will be bad for all as the revenues allow better everything. Too bad the players dont get that they have absolutely no leverage and some will have no money.

Battlegun
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1208
Location: California
votes: 5

The players declined the deal, stream now on NBA.com.

ClipperSean
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1437

in.gif
votes: 6

damn... sounds like they are willing to take the 50/50 but by doing so expect some of the other negotiating points to go their way.... man i was really hoping for some good news

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Players were going to decline the 50% deal since the last meeting. Nothing new. Most of the players were warned at least a full season to save their money.

Some people say that the players are never going to recoup the money they're losing but I don't agree. The players can always make it up by playing an extra year from their career goal. This can be considered a leave of absence without pay.

ClipYourWings
Clipper Starter
Posts: 467

ca.gif
votes: 5

They didn't, and they shouldn't.

SDclipper
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1289
Location: Nashville, TN
calif.gif
votes: 19

I have no idea what they should and shouldn't do. I just want them to accept something or the owners to give in. Doesn't matter.

All I know is my life without the Clippers is worse than their life without an extra percentage point from the owners.

tense2
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8825
votes: 20

It will be over sometime. Oh well....life goes on.

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

I'm not so sure on that. I think the league is in bigger financial trouble than the public realizes. 22 teams claim a loss of a combined 450 million last season.

It is more than just owners giving away a couple of bad contracts. The league couldn't sustain itself under the old CBA.

clipperboy24
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4867
votes: 37

well that means no season in 2011. I dont think the players realized the owners werent bluffing. They all just look like greedy and arrogant people out of touch with reality. The thing is people already viewed the owners like that so what did they have to lose. The players on the other hand...

ClipfanSince88
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 3349
votes: 21

I don't know that the players always have that much control over how long they play, particularly the rank and file guys. An injury, or series of injuries, can happen at any time and prematurely shorten a career. Other guys just can continue playing at an NBA level for that long. Also, another year brings a new influx of players -- through the draft -- who could potentially take a roster spot from veteran guys. Given those factors, taking a year off without pay is definitely a pretty big risk for a player financially IMO.

ekker3
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 7257
votes: 80

the 2nd great depression is not the best time to be holding out for more millions and still hope to be held in a positive light among the masses.

in all corners of the world, people are trying to make ends meet and standing up/uniting for a living wage.

this is just wrong wrong wrong. shame on the players. i have no issue with the owners since its their team and they can do whatever they want as long as they're not providing these players with decent work conditions (check) and a livable wage (check x 1million).

and shame on anyone who compares this circumstance to the fight that various labor unions all over the nation are facing.

Mistwell
Clipper Starter
Posts: 668
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 15

So, looking more likely now that we lose the season. Big question on every Clippers fan mind - what draft pick does this mean we will get in 2012, and what pick does it mean Minnesota gets (that we get)?

If the answer is "The number 1 and number 2 or 3 picks" then I will happily write this season off Smile

ClipYourWings
Clipper Starter
Posts: 467

ca.gif
votes: 5

I'm all for the players signing a deal that helps the league where it's at now, but I seriously doubt the economy is going to spiral for another 10 years, which is how long the owners want the players to sign on for.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125


Repped High Quality Post

Shame on anyone that sides with the owners. this is very easy concept. The owners locked out the players. The owners want the talent and product to take less so they can line their pockets with more money.

And shame on us for asking these players to get suckered into a bad deal just so we can selfishly enjoy a trivial game. "In all corners of the world, people are trying to make ends meet and standing up/uniting for a living wage" and we're crying for the players to take less money?

as Sonny Corleone said: "This isn't personal, it's strictly business"

Mistwell
Clipper Starter
Posts: 668
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 15


Repped High Quality Post

clipper*joe wrote:
Shame on anyone that sides with the owners. this is very easy concept. The owners locked out the players. The owners want the talent and product to take less so they can line their pockets with more money.

You understand that the "lock out" was purely a technicality equivalent to a coin toss? If the owners did not lock out, then the players would strike. To gain an incredibly minor advantage, they locked out instead of waiting ONE day for a strike.

Both sides want to line their pockets with more money. Indeed, the players were taking 57% of revenue before - they were doing more pocket lining than the owners.

Quote:
And shame on us for asking these players to get suckered into a bad deal just so we can selfishly enjoy a trivial game.

If it is trivial, then they should not be paid so much. Make up your mind - either what they do is so important that it's worth all that money they are asking for, or it's trivial in which case they should be paid much less. You cannot have it both ways.

Quote:
"In all corners of the world, people are trying to make ends meet and standing up/uniting for a living wage" and we're crying for the players to take less money? as Sonny Corleone said: "This isn't personal, it's strictly business"

Did you really just defend millionaires, all of them 1%-ers, as "trying to make a living wage"? That is outright insulting to the actual 99% of people (actually more than 99.9% of people) who are actually trying to make a living wage.

Sonny was a fictional character. If it were strictly business, the players would take the deal as the likely delay of their decision will cost them more money than what they are fighting for in the first place.

ClippersSince97
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1566
Location: Lob City
votes: 7

blake's beastliness needs to be unleashed NOW! and i would've loved to have watched sunday's game against the cavs...

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
 Avatar
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

markcronan wrote:

You understand that the "lock out" was purely a technicality equivalent to a coin toss? If the owners did not lock out, then the players would strike. To gain an incredibly minor advantage, they locked out instead of waiting ONE day for a strike.

Well, either way, the owners were going to strong arm the players whether it was a lockout or a strike. But since the it was a lockout, my point stands

Quote:
If it is trivial, then they should not be paid so much. Make up your mind - either what they do is so important that it's worth all that money they are asking for, or it's trivial in which case they should be paid much less. You cannot have it both ways.

Are you serious? You know what I meant by trivial. Trivial in the bigger scheme of things. But since you and I made this sport bigger than it should be valued, they should be paid accordingly.

Quote:
Did you really just defend millionaires, all of them 1%-ers, as "trying to make a living wage"? That is outright insulting to the actual 99% of people (actually more than 99.9% of people) who are actually trying to make a living wage.

Actually, I'm defending the employee that is being shortchanged by the employeer. I don't look at the player and what he owns or what he makes, I look at what the employer is trying to do to the employee.

And you know what, I never compared the players to the 99%. you're delusional.

here is the full quote:

"In all corners of the world, people are trying to make ends meet and standing up/uniting for a living wage" and we're crying for the players to take less money?

Read it again. You guys are crying about not being able to watch the players for your entertainment purposes while "In all corners of the world, people are trying to make ends meet and standing up/uniting for a living wage" ???

Get it? Face it, you want the guys to take less so they can get back to entertaining you. Using the 99% is just a cop out. No one is making anyone spend money to watch the NBA. You want to impress me?

Boycott the NBA for a season and hurt all the people who are depriving you of your entertainment. Using what they make against them doesn't change the fact they they're employes who are not expendable and are trying to be cheated.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Oy vey.

You don't even know what that means in terms of the movie. That is how I put it. Watch the movie.

"it's not personal, it's strictly business" means that you do not react in an emotional way and you do what you do strictly out of business. The players are making this deal that is not in an emotional way ( wanting to play), it is strictly business ( playing hardball to get what they want).

ekker3
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 7257
votes: 80

how are these wealthy players getting "shortchanged"? being "shortchanged" implies someone's getting treated unfairly or getting cheated. how is the 50/50 offer unfair? (today's one of the few days i side with kobe).

its been too long, cj. i miss the nba season and all the heated/personal debates over semantics and technicalities.

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

Is it really a bad deal?

The current offer on the table is far less than what they had under the old CBA, but the old CBA clearly wasn't working for the owners. Still the NBA offers the best working conditions and best wages for professional basketball players. You are not going to see NBA players going overseas just because they weren't happy with the CBA agreement.

As for the lockout/strike discussion, it is actually both. What happened is the CBA expired, and players refuse to play without a CBA in place. That is essentially a strike. Of course they can end the lockout/strike any time by simply agreeing to the current offer they have on the table. They say "#letusplay", well they can start to play tomorrow if they vote yes. The ball is in their court.

SamMays
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4022
votes: 53

Generally what happens in the NBA is that the game retires them. Sure, players get to announce their retirement, but very, very few retire while they can still command top dollar, or have the good fortune to be able to hold their declining skills or paychecks off for another year or two. Look at the contracts thirty-somethings get in the NBA. One year, maybe two at a fraction of what they were able to command in their prime. Jerry Stackhouse is typical of what happens to a player (if he's lucky)... A typical rookie contract... One great contract for five years in the player's prime, and then very depreciating one-year contracts as skills erode due to age.

On the bright side, the players have indicated they will accept the BRI split put forth by the owners provided there are some system concessions accepted by owners. This is the perfect opportunity for the players to save face today. They get a couple minor changes. Everyone can claim victory and this gets settled by end of day today...

It seems to be set up perfectly for this. Owners and players both have said they are willing to talk today... Players indicated the money is now acceptable... I think it will get done.

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

Huge move for players to say they would accept 50-50. I have to think the owners have to throw them a couple of bones their way and get a deal done today.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108


Repped High Quality Post

My 2 cents:

It seems like a majority of NBA fans want the players to take the deal. I've read countless opinions in the comments sections of sports news articles and the theme that keeps resurfacing is player greed. People have no sympathy for guys making millions crying about losing a few hundred thousand.

There is a grain of common sense in this viewpoint, which is what makes it all the more dangerous. Yes, the players are vastly overpaid compared to teachers, nurses, the military, etc. Any of us would do their jobs for 10% (or less) of what they make.

But that doesn't make them the villains. If your co-worker makes a couple of bucks more per hour than your measly minimum wage, is your co-worker to blame? Would you hate on him for making more, or on your boss for not paying you a decent wage?

Because the players are the public face of the league, the owners and Stern have successfully deflected all the current animosity about greed toward them. Most of us could easily name the star player on all 30 teams, but wouldn't know more than 4 or 5 owners' names. This has been a systematic campaign to paint the players as money-grabbing prima donnas who don't care about the fans... and it has been successful.

It is a classic tactic of 'divide and conquer' that has been used by the most powerful people in politics throughout civilization. If politicians can convince the masses that their problems are the fault of immigrants, muslims, gay people, etc, they successfully draw attention away from their own shortcomings and hold on to power.

Yes, the players are part of the 1%, but to quote Chris Rock "Shaq is rich... but the guy who signs his check is WEALTHY!".

Supposedly, 22 owners are operating at a loss. OK, but what about the other 8? Whose income would you rather have... Kobe Bryant or Jerry Buss? It seems logical to say that 50/50 sounds fair, but if your 50% has to be divided between 450 guys and the other 50% only has to be divided 30 ways, who has the better deal?

This is, and has always been, a systemic problem with the league structure. Small market teams cannot compete with large market teams. FACT. It is up to the NBA to explain to the profitable teams that they have an unfair advantage due to their geography. If they want a competitive league, there has to be some redistribution of these advantages. Taking more money from the players will indeed raise the bottom line for smaller teams, but it will also make the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Bulls, etc. even more profitable and do nothing to close the gap between teams.

Both sides are negotiating in an almost unprecedented economic funk, but what happens when things pick up? 5 years from now it is highly likely that players will be making substantially less than they were in, say 2006, while the owners combined will be making tens of millions of dollars more... how is that fair?

Players have already agreed to massive pay cuts. Their careers are over in just a few years, yet they stand prepared to lose a season's income because the stakes are so high. This will affect an entire NBA generation and beyond, because there's no way the owners will ever give back whatever than can squeeze out of this CBA.

ClipperJoe is absolutely right to say "shame on you" (repped, btw). If your boss wants to slash your salary and you tell him to go f**k himself, who the hell am I to say "just stop whining and take the deal"? I miss my Clippers as much as anyone, but not because I go to see Sterling's ugly, self-satisfied mug. I go to see the players perform feats of skill and athleticism that are impossible for most people.

Should the players take the deal? It is entirely up to them, but I for one will not say a word against them for standing up for themselves.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
 Avatar
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

80's slow clap

Repped back atcha! wink

This has to be one of the best posts I've read since I've been here. Top 3 for sure.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108

^Cheers!

Mistwell
Clipper Starter
Posts: 668
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 15

clipper*joe wrote:
markcronan wrote:

Sonny was a fictional character. If it were strictly business, the players would take the deal as the likely delay of their decision will cost them more money than what they are fighting for in the first place.

Oy vey.

You don't even know what that means in terms of the movie. That is how I put it. Watch the movie.

"it's not personal, it's strictly business" means that you do not react in an emotional way and you do what you do strictly out of business. The players are making this deal that is not in an emotional way ( wanting to play), it is strictly business ( playing hardball to get what they want).

You are wrong. Objectively, provably wrong. If the players miss one-third of one season, they lose more than the sum they are disputing (which is 2.3% over 10 years). By rejecting, they drastically increase the odds they will miss more than one-third of a season. Therefore, if it were strictly business, they would take the deal on the table right now.

They are absolutely reacting emotionally to the offer rather than logically in a business-sense. In fact lots of articles are starting to name names about who it is that is reacting emotionally, and they even excluded one of those players from the meeting. Once one-third of the season is over, they can no longer win. Even if they get their demand of 52.5%, they still lose as they make net less money over that decade.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108

^ They're playing the long game... this will affect more than just the next decade

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

You have to keep in mind that owners pay the operating costs out of their share. The players take no financial risk in this. A player making the league minimum made more than Michael Jordan did last season for owning the Bobcats. (The Bobcats lost roughly 25-30 million last season)

Forbes also came out today and said 5 teams would actually stand to lose less money if there were no season rather than play under a 50-50 BRI split.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... no-season/

Mistwell
Clipper Starter
Posts: 668
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 15

Ah, and looks like the players are finally willing to take 50-50 (because, as I said, if it's about money then taking a 50-50 deal is better than missing more games):

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-bulls ... m-changes/

Crossing my fingers that we will hear a deal was reached tonight.

SDclipper
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1289
Location: Nashville, TN
calif.gif
votes: 19

Yeah all signs point to a decent possibility that a deal may be reached today. Yes the players "rejected" the 50-50 split but unlike other times said, publicly, they are willing to compromise. Take Stephen A. Smith for what he's worth, but the bottom line is he's very knowledgeable on this subject and he sounds very optimistic about today, as are many other media insiders. Don't want to get too positive but they're good signs if nothing else.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108

Ricky wrote:
cleepers wrote:

Supposedly, 22 owners are operating at a loss. OK, but what about the other 8? Whose income would you rather have... Kobe Bryant or Jerry Buss? It seems logical to say that 50/50 sounds fair, but if your 50% has to be divided between 450 guys and the other 50% only has to be divided 30 ways, who has the better deal?

You have to keep in mind that owners pay the operating costs out of their share. The players take no financial risk in this. A player making the league minimum made more than Michael Jordan did last season for owning the Bobcats. (The Bobcats lost roughly 25-30 million last season)

Forbes also came out today and said 5 teams would actually stand to lose less money if there were no season rather than play under a 50-50 BRI split.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... no-season/

Investment IS risk. The players have a democratic RIGHT to negotiate what their services are worth. Contrary to what Michael Jordan believes, there is no democratic right that one's investments make a profit.

Players take a risk every time they lace-up. They take a risk playing their asses off FOR FREE in college, just for the opportunity to get an NBA contract. One bad fall and they could be paralyzed for life. Others take risks by playing in the D-league, for $17,000 a year hoping to get a call-up when they could make a nice living in Europe or Asia. That is their choice, and it is the owners CHOICE to buy a franchise.

I'd have sympathy for Jordan if he were bitching about the other owners who hold franchises that are profit factories, but this cabal has decided to band together and demonize the very product they sell.

None of the owners seem to have a problem with the 'elite 8' making hundreds of millions in profits. Those teams make more than enough money to subsidize poor little MJ.

This is a revenue-sharing issue. End of story.

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

Owning an NBA team is more than just an investment, it's a business. There maybe no democratic right for a business to make a profit, however if it keeps losing money it needs to fix the problem before it goes out of business.

In this case the problem is operating costs keep going up, but revenue stays the same, and the league is bleeding money. Those things the owners can't control. What they can control is how much of the split of revenue will go to players. It makes very little sense for owners to keep operating at a loss.

As for revenue sharing. 22 teams lost 450 million, 8 teams made 150 million. Revenue sharing alone doesn't fix the problem.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Cleepers just said that if there was profit sharing amongst all teams, then the problem is solved. Why are the players also also subsiding this also? Why can't the more profitable teams carry the ones losing money?

Can you explain why that can't be done?

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

Read carefully the last part. 22 teams lost 450 million. 8 Teams made 150 million. That is still a loss of 300 million a year.

Ricky
Clipper Starter
Posts: 712
votes: 7

Anyway, I really hope this is all over soon.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108
Owning an NBA team is more than just an investment, it's a business. There maybe no democratic right for a business to make a profit, however if it keeps losing money it needs to fix the problem before it goes out of business. In this case the problem is operating costs keep going up, but revenue stays the same, and the league is bleeding money. Those things the owners can't control. What they can control is how much of the split of revenue will go to players. It makes very little sense for owners to keep operating....

Please log in to view the entire post.

MuteHaitian
Clipper Starter
 Avatar
Posts: 608
Location: UCLA
votes: 1

I agree with you 110% ekker. The players are not being shortchanged. There's no notion of unfairness here. Will the players be making as much money as before? No. Will they still be making a reasonable amount? Abso-****ing-lutely. Sure, the owners may be greedy, but it's their team. They can do whatever they want as long as the employees are treated fairly.

At the company I work at, they recently discontinued a bunch of perks, such as free beverages and snacks for employees in order to cut costs. Does this suck? Hell yea, but why isn't there a big commotion over this? Because we still get paid reasonably. We lost some... but in the end we're still being treated fairly. As long as this is the case, we're not going to refuse to show up to work.

Now, are the nba players going to lose something? Yes, but they're still going to be paid MORE than reasonably. I'm not saying that the players need to rush to sign a contract for our entertainment and benefit. But the fact is, no matter how greedy the owners are, it's their team and they haven't done anything wrong so far.

MuteHaitian
Clipper Starter
 Avatar
Posts: 608
Location: UCLA
votes: 1

Contrary to what MJ thinks, there is no democratic right that one's investments make profit. BUT consistent with what MJ believes, it is the right of any owner to control his spending. He can try to cut costs however he wants, including lowering his employees' salaries, as long as it is reasonable and fair. It's his team. He can do whatever he wants. There are a bunch of different ways he can minimize losses, some more morally correct than others. But who are we to tell him what to do? Just because something is distasteful to us he can't do it?

On the other hand, the players CHOOSE to play for him and other owners. They CHOOSE to be subject to the working conditions that MJ employs. They CHOOSE to be the employees of an employer who will have control over them. If they don't like it, it's simple. Don't choose to play in the NBA. They played their asses off in college for free, but most of them also attended college for free. While I paid 30+k for college per year, they paid nothing AND received a bunch of perks us normal students could never get. Did I complain? I sure as hell would have liked to, but I didn't. It was my own choice to pay thousands a year for a college education, just like how it's their choice to get paid millions a year and work for greedy owners that would have control over them. That's what they chose going into the NBA, so they shouldn't be complaining.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
 Avatar
Posts: 15883
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125
Owning an NBA team is more than just an investment, it's a business. There maybe no democratic right for a business to make a profit, however if it keeps losing money it needs to fix the problem before it goes out of business. In this case the problem is operating costs keep going up, but revenue stays the same, and the league is bleeding money. Those things the owners can't control. What they can control is how much of the split of revenue will go to players. It makes very little sense for owners to keep operating....

Please log in to view the entire post.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108

  1. You don't choose where you play... there's this little thing they call the draft.

  2. If it's 'his team' then it's 'their talent' and they have just as much right to dictate their salaries as he does.

  3. The only reason the NBA has a monopoly is because the terms are agreed between the NBA owners and the NBAPA.

  4. If you believe top-tier college athletes actually receive a real education, try holding a conversation with one. They generate far more than the value of their "education".

  5. The reason they got a 'free' ride and you didn't is because they are BETTER THAN YOU at something society has deemed valuable. If I want you to clean my toilet for 25 cents an hour, you have every right to say "no, thank you" if you believe you are worth more than that. It's called the 13th amendment.

It is not yours or my business to dictate to these people how they negotiate.

SamMays
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4022
votes: 53

NBA players do choose where they play... The NBA... The NBA is the Corporation, the teams are its divisions, just like IBM has divisions. If you accept IBM's dime, they will tell you where they want you, or provide incentives to go where they want you to. NBA players aren't forced to take a bad deal. They can go to Europe, China, Japan, Mexico; there are pro leagues in most of the world... They choose to play in the NBA because it pays the best and provides the greatest prestige. Players are also free to use their education and leave the NBA to work on Wall Street or anywhere else.

The owners have a responsibility to maintain the health of their business. Are they greedy bastards? History suggests they're not, since they had previously given players 57% or their gross income... That doesn't seem like the work of greedy bastards. Well, that was then and this is now and now, the economy has changed. The league is losing money, only a portion of which is their fault.

They have a responsibilty to fans, their families, their stockholders in some cases, and even to future NBA players to keep the league healthy.

I don't suggest the players don't have a right to unionize and decide for themselves if the deal is satisfactory. They certainly do. But guess what, they are caving... They understand what's at stake and they understand their circumstances. This isn't their time and they seem ready to make a deal...

I wasn't calling the players greedy when they got 57%... I'm not going to call ownership greedy now... It's business. Sometimes the unions have the upper hand and sometimes management has the power.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8829

us.gif
votes: 108

I agree with you overall, but with one caveat: The only reason the players are caving is because the NBA and it's owners have controlled the message... "These guys make more than YOU for bouncing a ball".

I have simply been stating the opposing argument by saying... "These guys make MUCH more than you, and don't even know HOW to bounce a ball".

As far as choice, the players can absolutely choose to play abroad but they can't, as suggested by mutehaitian, choose to play for different NBA teams based on compensation and conditions. It has long been agreed between the League and the NBAPA that it is in everyone's best interests to maintain a unionized monopoly.

Jordan has no right to pay 'his' players less than they would make in say, Los Angeles. The NBA is not the 'corporation' with different divisions. It is a collective of corporations with mutually agreed upon rules. More like OPEC than IBM.

SamMays
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4022
votes: 53

I think Jordan can pay his players whatever is the least amount they will agree to within union minimums. Lebron James chose to play for a different team as have many others... They have quite a bit of freedom within the rules... The problem is there there is only one NBA... Other leagues are markedly inferior... As the quality of play goes up elsewhere, and the game catches on, the NBA domination may be broken. My guess is, the NBA will go worldwide and continue its monopoly.

Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home

or Comment Using FB

Post new topic   Reply to topic


← some amnesty options for the clippers

→ Boycott Jordan

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

register
You are an anonymous user- Register now!


Follow our Los Angeles Clippers RSS Feed, plus the Clippers Rumors RSS Feed, the LA Clippers News RSS feed, and the Clippers Forum RSS feed to get the newest updated Clippers News and Trade Rumors plus Clippers Game update in your RSS/XML reader!