Anyone else feel betrayed by Wyc Grousbeck?

[Atzar]

And you said it yourself. The word "long term."

But here's the issue with the "long term."

Fans don't always think long term. Let's say the entire season gets locked out. Or let's say the season starts late (January or February.)

By then, who is to say that fans will come back. They'll just jump on someone else's bandwagon.

How does it benefit me as a consumer to return to watching a product after that product has jaded me by shutting me out from watching games?

Sorry but the idea of possibly waiting until January or November 2012 to return to watching basketball just doesn't sit right.

Maybe a lockout helps the owners, but how does it benefit me as a fan?

Say this strike cost us some games, but at the end of it the owners and players reached an arrangement that really brought parity to the NBA - no superteams, no tanking, and any team can beat any other team on any given night.  Rather than watching Miami, Chicago, Boston and LA lay waste to most of the teams in the league, most games would be very competitive.

Would that be worth the wait?

People act like this is all about profit and stealing another billion from the other group.  A lot of that is going on, true.  But remember that there are some decisions to be made that will greatly affect the product they put on the court.  They're in position to make positive changes to the landscape of the NBA, to the way teams are built and managed.  I can't fault them if it takes them a lot of long, hard days shouting at each other to get that done.  Of course, having said that I will be fairly judgmental of the final product that comes out on the other side - if they don't do anything that improves the NBA, fans will have every right to be upset.

My problem isn't with the lockout itself, or even the hardline stances that each side has taken.  It's that there's no movement.  They aren't even talking, and right now every day that passes isn't progress, but waste.

[incoherent]

I didn't read the thread but would like to quickly add... No, I do not feel betrayed.

The guy obviously went to great lengths to help Paul Pierce get a championship ring in a Celtics uniform.  That alone is worth the absence of an NBA season, to me.

[LooseCannon]

The real problem I have right now is that I think both sides are digging in too much, and are completely uninterested in talking.

I think only one side is really digging in.  The owners seem to believe that the pain of missing some games is absolutely necessary to their labor strategy.

People who want to blame both sides equally are either too blind to see what's going on or have some sort of weakness that makes them afraid to appear in any way partisan in a conflict.

[ACF]

It's a business. From a fan POV, we can blame Wyc (and the other owners and Herr Stern and even the ballers, for that matter) but it's still a business. I have a feeling we'll see a shortened season but maybe that's just the optimist in me talking.

[Roy H.]

The real problem I have right now is that I think both sides are digging in too much, and are completely uninterested in talking.

I think only one side is really digging in.  The owners seem to believe that the pain of missing some games is absolutely necessary to their labor strategy.

People who want to blame both sides equally are either too blind to see what's going on or have some sort of weakness that makes them afraid to appear in any way partisan in a conflict.

Eh...  I don't see how the owners are to "blame".  They're owners:  they want to minimize and stabilize costs, in a league where over half of owners are losing money.  Players are players:  they want to maximize their own pay and security.  In other words, both are self-interested.

The reason the players prefer the status quo is because it benefits them greatly.  That doesn't make them more sympathetic in my eyes, especially since we all know that if the status quo was heavily slanted in flavor of the owners, it would be the players who were striking.

Neither side cares about the fans, and neither side is ready to make major concessions.  They're both dug in here (the players won't even entertain the idea of a salary cap or less than fully guaranteed contracts), and I don't think either side should be painted as altruistic or heroic.

[dark_lord]

wyc is just one piece to a large puzzle, so i cant blame him.  he has put his $ into the celts and done whatever he felt necessary to turn the team around, and did.  he is a fan, but he is a businessman and has to do what he has to do.  i dont fault him

[chambers]

Wyc is taking the side of his friends.
He has friends who are losing money and he has to help them make a stand so they can share more revenue.
Without struggling teams that the Celtics can pound on, Wyc makes less money in attendances and it's a trickle down effect.

That's not to say that that half of these owners and management have created problems like this by paying guys like Eric Dampier 100 million dollars etc...

But he has to take the side of the owners because they are the ones taking the risks and they are the ones losing money over the long run.

[celtics2]

The insanity of the salaries had to come to an end. The League's financial position is not good generally. Too many teams losing money. The Players are only an instrument of the Owners mostly undeserving and clueless spoiled human beings. They are relevant only because of the Fan who dishes out the $$. Rarely are we considered in the grand scheme of things. Now franchises are beginning to buckle. Let them fall the League will be stronger.
Besides the Red Sox own Boston. The Celts got lucky with Allen and KG. A real short lived dynasty. In fact historically just a blip of matter.

At least the $11 dollar worker gets something while the shackled College Player gets zip.

[KGs Knee]

The real problem I have right now is that I think both sides are digging in too much, and are completely uninterested in talking.

I think only one side is really digging in.  The owners seem to believe that the pain of missing some games is absolutely necessary to their labor strategy.

People who want to blame both sides equally are either too blind to see what's going on or have some sort of weakness that makes them afraid to appear in any way partisan in a conflict.

Eh...  I don't see how the owners are to "blame".  They're owners:  they want to minimize and stabilize costs, in a league where over half of owners are losing money.  Players are players:  they want to maximize their own pay and security.  In other words, both are self-interested.

The reason the players prefer the status quo is because it benefits them greatly.  That doesn't make them more sympathetic in my eyes, especially since we all know that if the status quo was heavily slanted in flavor of the owners, it would be the players who were striking.

Neither side cares about the fans, and neither side is ready to make major concessions.  They're both dug in here (the players won't even entertain the idea of a salary cap or less than fully guaranteed contracts), and I don't think either side should be painted as altruistic or heroic.

While I completely disagree with you on this matter, at least you are consitent in your opinion.

Personally, while I think both side deserve some blame, the lions share lies with the owners.  Their demands have been unreasonable from the beginning, while the players HAVE tried to make some concessions.  Niether side is talking because the owners have said they will not negotiate, their terms are absolute.  What exactly are the players supposed to do? Just capitulate?

[Chris]

Niether side is talking because the owners have said they will not negotiate, their terms are absolute.  What exactly are the players supposed to do? Just capitulate?

I don't think this is true.  While I agree that the owners have dug in, I think the players have done the same thing.  I really think if either team had any interest in working on a deal right now, both sides would be at the table.  But both sides want to wait it out. 

It is a high stakes game of chicken, and neither side wants to budge. 

[LooseCannon]

I don't think this is true.  While I agree that the owners have dug in, I think the players have done the same thing.  I really think if either team had any interest in working on a deal right now, both sides would be at the table.  But both sides want to wait it out. 

I don't think the players have dug in, but they have taken steps to protect themselves and try to avoid being put in a situation where they have no leverage.  I believe the players have a sincere desire to work out a deal, but they also have a sincere desire to not get raped.

This labor situation doesn't move forward until the owners are willing to budge, and they won't budge until the players show either weakness that can be exploited or overwhelming strength that makes a siege mentality useless. 

The best scenario would be for the players to be able to demonstrate that a lost season would not dent their solidarity at all.  That would make meaningless the owner strategy of trying to cause pain that forces the players into submission and instead make the owners bargain in good faith if they sincerely want a resolution.

[D Dub]

Personally, while I think both side deserve some blame, the lions share lies with the owners.  Their demands have been unreasonable from the beginning, while the players HAVE tried to make some concessions.  Niether side is talking because the owners have said they will not negotiate, their terms are absolute.  What exactly are the players supposed to do? Just capitulate?

TP
surprising more folks don't share this opinion, given the strong-arm approach on display by the owners.

it's crazy to expect players to swallow:
pay cuts, hard caps, and unguaranteed contracts ---- all before broaching the subject of revenue sharing. 

and to think the NBA just had it's best season since the MJ days...

[LooseCannon]

TP
surprising more folks don't share this opinion, given the strong-arm approach on display by the owners.

I'm not surprised.  I could draw a lot of parallels to the debt ceiling debate going on right now and the intellectual laziness and cowardice of anyone who wants to parrot centrist cliches about blaming both sides equally.

[cman88]

Personally, while I think both side deserve some blame, the lions share lies with the owners.  Their demands have been unreasonable from the beginning, while the players HAVE tried to make some concessions.  Niether side is talking because the owners have said they will not negotiate, their terms are absolute.  What exactly are the players supposed to do? Just capitulate?

TP
surprising more folks don't share this opinion, given the strong-arm approach on display by the owners.

it's crazy to expect players to swallow:
pay cuts, hard caps, and unguaranteed contracts ---- all before broaching the subject of revenue sharing. 

and to think the NBA just had it's best season since the MJ days...

The players dont want to concede on ANYTHING though...they dont want to give up guaranteed contracts, they dont want to have a "flex cap" they want everything to remain the same. now, of course they do because they are making alot of $$ and basically can force their hand to get anything they want.

but, its going to be a long lockout if they wont concede at least to have a hard cap put in place, or shorten years on guaranteed contracts.

The owners demands have been pretty rediculous in the Numbers they want(45million$ cap?) but in principal I think they are in the right.

a soft cap is no cap...and I'd hate to see this become the MLB

[dlpin]

People talk about "half the teams" losing money as if that was a sign of the financial viability of the league. That is nonsense. What matters is if the league as a whole makes money. After all, the caps are set based on league wide revenues, not franchise specific revenues. And the league as a whole IS making a profit.

Which points to the fact that the problem is a lack of revenue sharing, not a matter of players making too much.

After all, it is a simple mathematical fact that salaries would have to be set at a ridiculously low share of revenues to ensure even small market teams make money pre revenue sharing. After all, they'd be setting overall salaries on small market thresholds, even as big markets make money hand over fist.