Slow Day In August: TrueHoop Pushes the "Owner" Envelop

[PhoSita]

https://twitter.com/TrueHoop/status/1159898808001675265

The word "owner," with its overtones of slavery, is evidently on its way out of the NBA.

But you know what's still common practice? Literally trading, and even selling, people.

Thoughts?



Personally this strikes me as very silly.  It seems to me that the endgame of this conversation is a league in which the players sign a new contract every year.  Perhaps we could even draft the entire league over again every summer.

Why not?  It would be great TV!

Let's get rid of all max contract restrictions too.  The stars should be paid more! 



I can somewhat respect the position that certain people take re: empowering the players, letting them choose where to play, paying them their full market value, etc.


I don't agree with it, but I can respect the principle behind it.


However, what never gets mentioned in these arguments is the fact that many of the rules that are in place right now were agreed to by the Players Association.  Those rules are designed not just to benefit the owners but to allow for the lesser players in the league, e.g. the role players and the journeymen, to make much more money.



If you want a league where LeBron makes $100 million a year and gets to sign a new contract each season, that's fine. 


That league would not have John Wall collecting $40 million to sit on the bench for several years with an injury.

That league would also not pay $10 million or more annually to Trevor Ariza or Kelly Olynyk or even our beloved Marcus Smart.



My feeling is that people who like the reality TV aspect of the NBA, who think the stars are what it's all about and want the league to revolve around them, seem to enjoy the NBA as tabloid spectacle more than they enjoy the sport of basketball.


In the NBA these folks envision, you would never get the pinnacle of basketball that we had the chance to witness in 2014 with the Spurs or in 2015/2016 with the Warriors.  Those teams would never get built and they'd never play such a cohesive, impressive, beautiful style.


But maybe we're headed toward a player-run league.  Maybe the players will go on strike, start their own league making use of Internet infrastructure, without the restrictions of big cable TV deals, and never go back.


I don't know --- it's the doldrums of August and we need something to talk about, I guess.

[Csfan1984]

Well sports have always involved players switching teams. Sometimes it's done out of sportsmanship, sometimes it's friends that like playing together, and yes sometimes it's even teams swapping players to change their clubs styles or future.

Some players get trade bonuses, some have trade clauses. Many players understand team's needs or roster dynamics change and they don't push for anything in a trade.

It's not slavery it's contractual obligations to play in the league for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay.

[PhoSita]

Well sports have always involved players switching teams. Sometimes it's done out of sportsmanship, sometimes it's friends that like playing together, and yes sometimes it's even teams swapping players to change their clubs styles or future.

Some players get trade bonuses, some have trade clauses. Many players understand team's needs or roster dynamics change and they don't push for anything in a trade.

It's not slavery it's contractual obligations to play in the league for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay.

The Player's Association could bargain for a CBA in which every player gets a new one year deal every season, and No Trade Clauses are automatically included.


Of course, in such a system, most players would make far less $$.  I am sure the owners would agree to that, ultimately, because they'd never have to worry about paying lots of $$ over multiple years to guys who aren't good anymore. 

[Csfan1984]

Well sports have always involved players switching teams. Sometimes it's done out of sportsmanship, sometimes it's friends that like playing together, and yes sometimes it's even teams swapping players to change their clubs styles or future.

Some players get trade bonuses, some have trade clauses. Many players understand team's needs or roster dynamics change and they don't push for anything in a trade.

It's not slavery it's contractual obligations to play in the league for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay.

The Player's Association could bargain for a CBA in which every player gets a new one year deal every season, and No Trade Clauses are automatically included.


Of course, in such a system, most players would make far less $$.  I am sure the owners would agree to that, ultimately, because they'd never have to worry about paying lots of $$ over multiple years to guys who aren't good anymore.

Their contracts wouldn't have same health assurances. If they got hurt it would be costly. I think they like the guaranteed  $ far more than trade clauses.

I was thinking what if whenever a guy got traded he was only obligated to finish the current year. After that year is done he could opt out of his contract or renegotiate a new contract with the team.

[mqtcelticsfan]

I don’t have much issue with trades in general in the NBA. I think the draft is an issue, though. Open up the market and let young players make what they’re worth.

[Csfan1984]

I don’t have much issue with trades in general in the NBA. I think the draft is an issue, though. Open up the market and let young players make what they’re worth.

I feel only way you can get rid of the draft is if you have another way to improve bad teams. Maybe one is you make a NBA pool redraft similar to an expansion team. Worst team gets first pick in the pool and so on. A different way could be giving a max contract exemption for two year deal so they could sign someone really good.

[Roy H.]

https://twitter.com/TrueHoop/status/1159898808001675265

The word "owner," with its overtones of slavery, is evidently on its way out of the NBA.

But you know what's still common practice? Literally trading, and even selling, people.

Thoughts?



Personally this strikes me as very silly.  It seems to me that the endgame of this conversation is a league in which the players sign a new contract every year.  Perhaps we could even draft the entire league over again every summer.

Why not?  It would be great TV!

Let's get rid of all max contract restrictions too.  The stars should be paid more! 



I can somewhat respect the position that certain people take re: empowering the players, letting them choose where to play, paying them their full market value, etc.


I don't agree with it, but I can respect the principle behind it.


However, what never gets mentioned in these arguments is the fact that many of the rules that are in place right now were agreed to by the Players Association.  Those rules are designed not just to benefit the owners but to allow for the lesser players in the league, e.g. the role players and the journeymen, to make much more money.



If you want a league where LeBron makes $100 million a year and gets to sign a new contract each season, that's fine. 


That league would not have John Wall collecting $40 million to sit on the bench for several years with an injury.

That league would also not pay $10 million or more annually to Trevor Ariza or Kelly Olynyk or even our beloved Marcus Smart.



My feeling is that people who like the reality TV aspect of the NBA, who think the stars are what it's all about and want the league to revolve around them, seem to enjoy the NBA as tabloid spectacle more than they enjoy the sport of basketball.


In the NBA these folks envision, you would never get the pinnacle of basketball that we had the chance to witness in 2014 with the Spurs or in 2015/2016 with the Warriors.  Those teams would never get built and they'd never play such a cohesive, impressive, beautiful style.


But maybe we're headed toward a player-run league.  Maybe the players will go on strike, start their own league making use of Internet infrastructure, without the restrictions of big cable TV deals, and never go back.


I don't know --- it's the doldrums of August and we need something to talk about, I guess.

Can we still use the word "contract"?  I'm pretty sure slaveowners used those.

What about "basket"?  Didn't slaves have to use them?  And maybe we shouldn't be use "field goal", because slaves worked in the fields.

"Steal"?  That's a racially loaded term because perhaps it suggests that black players commit crimes.  Same thing with "shoot" and "court".

[GreenFaith1819]

https://twitter.com/TrueHoop/status/1159898808001675265

The word "owner," with its overtones of slavery, is evidently on its way out of the NBA.

But you know what's still common practice? Literally trading, and even selling, people.

Thoughts?



Personally this strikes me as very silly.  It seems to me that the endgame of this conversation is a league in which the players sign a new contract every year.  Perhaps we could even draft the entire league over again every summer.

Why not?  It would be great TV!

Let's get rid of all max contract restrictions too.  The stars should be paid more! 



I can somewhat respect the position that certain people take re: empowering the players, letting them choose where to play, paying them their full market value, etc.


I don't agree with it, but I can respect the principle behind it.


However, what never gets mentioned in these arguments is the fact that many of the rules that are in place right now were agreed to by the Players Association.  Those rules are designed not just to benefit the owners but to allow for the lesser players in the league, e.g. the role players and the journeymen, to make much more money.



If you want a league where LeBron makes $100 million a year and gets to sign a new contract each season, that's fine. 


That league would not have John Wall collecting $40 million to sit on the bench for several years with an injury.

That league would also not pay $10 million or more annually to Trevor Ariza or Kelly Olynyk or even our beloved Marcus Smart.



My feeling is that people who like the reality TV aspect of the NBA, who think the stars are what it's all about and want the league to revolve around them, seem to enjoy the NBA as tabloid spectacle more than they enjoy the sport of basketball.


In the NBA these folks envision, you would never get the pinnacle of basketball that we had the chance to witness in 2014 with the Spurs or in 2015/2016 with the Warriors.  Those teams would never get built and they'd never play such a cohesive, impressive, beautiful style.


But maybe we're headed toward a player-run league.  Maybe the players will go on strike, start their own league making use of Internet infrastructure, without the restrictions of big cable TV deals, and never go back.


I don't know --- it's the doldrums of August and we need something to talk about, I guess.

Can we still use the word "contract"?  I'm pretty sure slaveowners used those.

What about "basket"?  Didn't slaves have to use them?  And maybe we shouldn't be use "field goal", because slaves worked in the fields.

"Steal"?  That's a racially loaded term because perhaps it suggests that black players commit crimes.  Same thing with "shoot" and "court".

I think it's pretty clear the connotations of "Owner" has in a league that is mostly Black / African American players....

That being said - as a Black / African American myself I believe that this move is a bit of a reach....for the NBA, especially...

Now "IF" the NBA was slow in hiring Black coaches...Black GMs...even Michael Jordan has majority ownership in CHA...then I'd be more willing to push the "getting rid of "Owner" narrative for the NBA..

But the NBA has - for the most part - been a model organization for equality, IMO..even recently hiring qualified / talented WOMEN in key positions..

Poster "Neurotic Guy" posted about something similar to this topic a while back and he did it very eloquently - something to the effect of us UNDERSTANDING why such a change would even be discussed - even IF it seemed a bit far-fetched to some of us.

Society STILL has to understand things from the Other Side. We have a ways to go in this regard.

To SOME - it is Political Correctness gone awry. To OTHERS it is getting rid of labels / titles that haunt society to this day.

[BitterJim]

Well sports have always involved players switching teams. Sometimes it's done out of sportsmanship, sometimes it's friends that like playing together, and yes sometimes it's even teams swapping players to change their clubs styles or future.

Some players get trade bonuses, some have trade clauses. Many players understand team's needs or roster dynamics change and they don't push for anything in a trade.

It's not slavery it's contractual obligations to play in the league for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay.

The Player's Association could bargain for a CBA in which every player gets a new one year deal every season, and No Trade Clauses are automatically included.


Of course, in such a system, most players would make far less $$.  I am sure the owners would agree to that, ultimately, because they'd never have to worry about paying lots of $$ over multiple years to guys who aren't good anymore.

Their contracts wouldn't have same health assurances. If they got hurt it would be costly. I think they like the guaranteed  $ far more than trade clauses.

I was thinking what if whenever a guy got traded he was only obligated to finish the current year. After that year is done he could opt out of his contract or renegotiate a new contract with the team.

That seems like a good way to encourage players the improve/outperform their contracts to ask for trades simply to make more

[Csfan1984]

Well sports have always involved players switching teams. Sometimes it's done out of sportsmanship, sometimes it's friends that like playing together, and yes sometimes it's even teams swapping players to change their clubs styles or future.

Some players get trade bonuses, some have trade clauses. Many players understand team's needs or roster dynamics change and they don't push for anything in a trade.

It's not slavery it's contractual obligations to play in the league for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay.

The Player's Association could bargain for a CBA in which every player gets a new one year deal every season, and No Trade Clauses are automatically included.


Of course, in such a system, most players would make far less $$.  I am sure the owners would agree to that, ultimately, because they'd never have to worry about paying lots of $$ over multiple years to guys who aren't good anymore.

Their contracts wouldn't have same health assurances. If they got hurt it would be costly. I think they like the guaranteed  $ far more than trade clauses.

I was thinking what if whenever a guy got traded he was only obligated to finish the current year. After that year is done he could opt out of his contract or renegotiate a new contract with the team.

That seems like a good way to encourage players the improve/outperform their contracts to ask for trades simply to make more

I think asking for trades hurts the marketability of a player but we could hear of more trade request after the fact which would help teams get more assets and still allow a player to cash in.

[bdm860]

With the whole "owner" thing and the increase we've seen in player empowerment/movement/branding, along with things like a changing media landscape, the players involvement in technology and business interests, etc., part of me wouldn't be surprised to see a rival league form where the players are the owners. 

This seems like something LeBron and Rich Paul would spearhead (though I think LeBron was probably born 10 years too earlier to make this move, CBA expires in '23 and TV deal expires in '25, wouldn't be surprised to see some major changes come around then).  If it was now though, I envision something like:

Netflix and Klutch Sports are proud to announce the formation of the Basketball Players Association, a new 10 team league set to launch this fall with the goal of delivering the best basketball to fans all over the world.  All games will stream exclusively on Netflix, with no blackout restrictions.  Each team will play a 45 game season (playing each team 4 times), followed by playoffs.  There will be no home cities for teams, instead each team will play an equal number of games in each city, giving fans a greater chance to see their favorite players.  Cities agreeing to host games so far include New York, LA, Las Vegas, Seattle, London, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai, Mexico City with more to come.

Players are the owners of their teams, and are free to recruit any player to join their team for the season.  No trades, no contracts, players are free to choose their own team every season.  With no draft and total player empowerment, the new BPA expects to eliminate tanking, a problem which has plagued the NBA for years.

Not satisfied with the 50% BRI split offered by the NBA, and frustrated with the leagues treatment of both the players and the fans.  LeBron and Rich Paul met with investors to devise a plan to come up with a league by players for the fans.  This new league guarantees the players will receive 80% of all income, with no cap or restrictions on any individual players potential earnings.  Players signed on to the league so far include LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Ben Simmons, Draymond Green, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, with more expected to be announced soon.

[mr. dee]

Practice of buying and selling people.....wut?

They are individual contractors, not slaves. You pay for their service, not the entire person. And not to mention, they get paid millions to play the sports they love. If they are so concerned about slavery, better look at Walmart and McDonalds as they are far worse on treating their employees.

[Ogaju]

This whole concept that pro basketball players are slaves is really idiotic. Now NCAA players, that is whole different subject.

[Ogaju]

With the whole "owner" thing and the increase we've seen in player empowerment/movement/branding, along with things like a changing media landscape, the players involvement in technology and business interests, etc., part of me wouldn't be surprised to see a rival league form where the players are the owners. 

This seems like something LeBron and Rich Paul would spearhead (though I think LeBron was probably born 10 years too earlier to make this move, CBA expires in '23 and TV deal expires in '25, wouldn't be surprised to see some major changes come around then).  If it was now though, I envision something like:

Netflix and Klutch Sports are proud to announce the formation of the Basketball Players Association, a new 10 team league set to launch this fall with the goal of delivering the best basketball to fans all over the world.  All games will stream exclusively on Netflix, with no blackout restrictions.  Each team will play a 45 game season (playing each team 4 times), followed by playoffs.  There will be no home cities for teams, instead each team will play an equal number of games in each city, giving fans a greater chance to see their favorite players.  Cities agreeing to host games so far include New York, LA, Las Vegas, Seattle, London, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai, Mexico City with more to come.

Players are the owners of their teams, and are free to recruit any player to join their team for the season.  No trades, no contracts, players are free to choose their own team every season.  With no draft and total player empowerment, the new BPA expects to eliminate tanking, a problem which has plagued the NBA for years.

Not satisfied with the 50% BRI split offered by the NBA, and frustrated with the leagues treatment of both the players and the fans.  LeBron and Rich Paul met with investors to devise a plan to come up with a league by players for the fans.  This new league guarantees the players will receive 80% of all income, with no cap or restrictions on any individual players potential earnings.  Players signed on to the league so far include LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Ben Simmons, Draymond Green, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, with more expected to be announced soon.

Investors? Why do they need investors...I thought that is what they are tired of. A bunch of ingrates that have no idea how their bread is buttered.

[celticsclay]

https://twitter.com/TrueHoop/status/1159898808001675265

The word "owner," with its overtones of slavery, is evidently on its way out of the NBA.

But you know what's still common practice? Literally trading, and even selling, people.

Thoughts?



Personally this strikes me as very silly.  It seems to me that the endgame of this conversation is a league in which the players sign a new contract every year.  Perhaps we could even draft the entire league over again every summer.

Why not?  It would be great TV!

Let's get rid of all max contract restrictions too.  The stars should be paid more! 



I can somewhat respect the position that certain people take re: empowering the players, letting them choose where to play, paying them their full market value, etc.


I don't agree with it, but I can respect the principle behind it.


However, what never gets mentioned in these arguments is the fact that many of the rules that are in place right now were agreed to by the Players Association.  Those rules are designed not just to benefit the owners but to allow for the lesser players in the league, e.g. the role players and the journeymen, to make much more money.



If you want a league where LeBron makes $100 million a year and gets to sign a new contract each season, that's fine. 


That league would not have John Wall collecting $40 million to sit on the bench for several years with an injury.

That league would also not pay $10 million or more annually to Trevor Ariza or Kelly Olynyk or even our beloved Marcus Smart.



My feeling is that people who like the reality TV aspect of the NBA, who think the stars are what it's all about and want the league to revolve around them, seem to enjoy the NBA as tabloid spectacle more than they enjoy the sport of basketball.


In the NBA these folks envision, you would never get the pinnacle of basketball that we had the chance to witness in 2014 with the Spurs or in 2015/2016 with the Warriors.  Those teams would never get built and they'd never play such a cohesive, impressive, beautiful style.


But maybe we're headed toward a player-run league.  Maybe the players will go on strike, start their own league making use of Internet infrastructure, without the restrictions of big cable TV deals, and never go back.


I don't know --- it's the doldrums of August and we need something to talk about, I guess.

Can we still use the word "contract"?  I'm pretty sure slaveowners used those.

What about "basket"?  Didn't slaves have to use them?  And maybe we shouldn't be use "field goal", because slaves worked in the fields.

"Steal"?  That's a racially loaded term because perhaps it suggests that black players commit crimes.  Same thing with "shoot" and "court".

Strong post Roy. It’s a bit ridiculous