Hunters Fault?

[indeedproceed]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income. 

How much does it cost to go to Harvard? How much does it cost to have the best surgeons in the world treat you?

The elite get their due. Otherwise, they go somewhere where they can.

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. The cost of tuition at Harvard doesn't go to the professors, no where near half of it, and they don't demand it either. 50% of the cost of a hospital bill doesn't go to the surgeons either, and they also don't demand to have it. 

Fine. Let me simplify it then. Comparing colleges, hospitals, and whatever else you're using to the NBA is a false comparison, because they are not similar. The NBA is a star and player-driven league. While it is true that in 15 years the stars of today will be replaced by the stars of tomorrow, but that goes hand in hand with the NBA guaranteeing that the people playing are the best players in the world, and worth the time to watch over other competing league, and other sports.

Without the players, the NBA is left with a mediocre product, and some league will gain a windfall because it will frankly be more entertaining to watch.

[hpantazo]

Nick and IP, I know I am not going to win this argument, and I don't even care as long as the owners and players come to some sort of agreement.  But, neither have you said to change my mind.  I feel no loyalty to a player.  I feel loyalty, right or wrong, to a brand...The Boston Celtics.  I have my favorite players for sure, but when they are gone, ultimately I am a fan of the Boston Celtics and will undoubtedly cheer for their replacements.

I think you misunderstand me. This is a star and player-driven league, but like you, I'm not going to jump ship when the Big-3 era is over and the rebuilding begins.

But the thing is, even the new guys who come in are still going to be (or at least have the potential to be) the best basketball players in the entire world. That's what the NBA offers. The best basketball players in the world. I'm not going to pay the $200 a year to buy league pass to watch Gerry McNamara and Paul Harris duke it out into their 30's when I can watch better players play better most skilled and nuanced basketball. The teams' histories, and former stars, and logos and locations all mean something, but there is a reason the Chicago Bulls sell out every game, but there is a reason the Chicago Steam or the Maine Red-Claws aren't nationally televised.

And without the best basketball players in the world, all you've got is a lot of cool stories, (mostly) empty arenas and a mediocre product.

In ten years, these "best players in the world" will be over the hill, and the NBA could regain it's glory with a new generation of "best players in the world".

Right. But not if they're not compensated in manner they feel commiserate with their share of the overall product. Hence, the lockout. 

I'm pretty sure that the future crop of elite players,most having never made much money in their lives, when faced with the option of leaving their home country to go play bball for 10-15 years for millions of dollars, or to stay in the U.S. and play bball for historic franchises for 10-15 years for millions of dollars, but maybe a few million less than the foreign deal would give over 10 years, will chose to stay here.

[hpantazo]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income. 

How much does it cost to go to Harvard? How much does it cost to have the best surgeons in the world treat you?

The elite get their due. Otherwise, they go somewhere where they can.

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. The cost of tuition at Harvard doesn't go to the professors, no where near half of it, and they don't demand it either. 50% of the cost of a hospital bill doesn't go to the surgeons either, and they also don't demand to have it. 

Fine. Let me simplify it then. Comparing colleges, hospitals, and whatever else you're using to the NBA is a false comparison, because they are not similar. The NBA is a star and player-driven league. While it is true that in 15 years the stars of today will be replaced by the stars of tomorrow, but that goes hand in hand with the NBA guaranteeing that the people playing are the best players in the world, and worth the time to watch over other competing league, and other sports.

Without the players, the NBA is left with a mediocre product, and some league will gain a windfall because it will frankly be more entertaining to watch.

That's not true. There are "star doctors" and "star professors" for sure, they are just not marketed in the same way as pro athletes, but they sure as heck drive up the reputations of their hospitals and universities, and the profits as well. The only difference is that they don't demand half the profit. This "star driven product" you keep referring to is the product of Stern and the NBA, not the players.

[indeedproceed]

I'm pretty sure that the future crop of elite players,most having never made much money in their lives, when faced with the option of leaving their home country to go play bball for 10-15 years for millions of dollars, or to stay in the U.S. and play bball for historic franchises for 10-15 years for millions of dollars, but maybe a few million less than the foreign deal would give over 10 years, will chose to stay here.

Then why do we have Dirk Nowitzki, or Tony Parker?

That's not true. There are "star doctors" and "star professors" for sure, they are just not marketed in the same way as pro athletes, but they sure as heck drive up the reputations of their hospitals and universities, and the profits as well. The only difference is that they don't demand half the profit. This "star driven product" you keep referring to is the product of Stern and the NBA, not the players.

And if all the doctors, or professors got paid on teh same level as the star doctors or star professors, what % would they be at then?

The ones that have the celebrity and talent level to back it up are paid at a level higher commiserate with that within their profession, (assuming there is a market there of people willing to fork over the dough).

[thirstyboots18]

It seems to me that people who just say throw money at talent because they have worked hard to get where they are, are missing the boat.  
  
On an individual note, throwing money at Blount or Vin Baker didn't work that way.  Are you insinuating that someone is not required to work hard unless they get a huge paycheck?  I think if you accept any pay, you should give your best.  I don't believe Kevin Garnett gives more effort since he got a huge paycheck...I don't believe he gives less, either.  He has always given what he had to give.

On a "team" basis...you can't "buy" a team.  The Red Sox failed again this year, as did the Yankees.  Tampa Bay, with the smallest payroll in the league outperformed both of them.  (And the Rays young/rookie stars are saying they want to stay with the team next year).  In the meantime, the Rays are on the verge of moving, because they can't sell tickets.  Sounds like a few of the lesser basketball teams.

As much as I like Glen Davis, after he admitted that "his head wasn't in the right place" during the playoffs last year, why should he be entitled to a cut of the profits?  He is well paid, for a failure to stay engaged....

In the meantime, players who can't claim a paycheck abroad, and who might not be earning millions in the NBA are without paychecks, while superstars worth millions are willing to give up paydays for something that is not in their individual negotiations...always wanting, demanding more.

Some owners may lose something, I don't know, but the fan will lose the most.  If they go streaming back to support the game, the ticket prices will go up and the extra products will go up in price and when the new contract is up, the greed will start again.

I used to tell my mother-in-law that she was living in the 50s.  Well, maybe I am living in the 70s.  It is quite possible.  

[indeedproceed]

It seems to me that people who just say throw money at talent because they have worked hard to get where they are, are missing the boat. 

Nobody is saying that.
 

On an individual note, throwing money at Blount or Vin Baker didn't work that way.  Are you insinuating that someone is not required to work hard unless they get a huge paycheck?

Nope, nobody is.

I think if you accept any pay, you should give your best.  I don't believe Kevin Garnett gives more effort since he got a huge paycheck...I don't believe he gives less, either.  He has always given what he had to give.

Sure, Kevin Garnett is a 100% guy all the time. I think those people in the world are pretty rare though, but that's neither here, nor there, nor really related to the overall point of the conversation. The point is, most people come out to see the best basketball players in the world play basketball. Many of those people root for specific teams (but don't go down this rabbit hole because explaining fanatic devotion to a team is just..weird. I've tried). Without the top tier talent, the NBA is a bunch of stories franchises with a mediocre or poor product. Without the NBA, the players would be forced to play overseas for (usually) comparable or less money.

On a "team" basis...you can't "buy" a team.  The Red Sox failed again this year, as did the Yankees.  Tampa Bay, with the smallest payroll in the league outperformed both of them.  (And the Rays young/rookie stars are saying they want to stay with the team next year).  In the meantime, the Rays are on the verge of moving, because they can't sell tickets.  Sounds like a few of the lesser basketball teams.

But that ultimately comes down to poor management and promotion of a product (see: The Atlanta Falcons). That's not on the players, but the players are being asked to foot the bill.

As much as I like Glen Davis, after he admitted that "his head wasn't in the right place" during the playoffs last year, why should he be entitled to a cut of the profits?  He is well paid, for a failure to stay engaged....

Shaquille O'Neal for years was accused of poor conditioning, and taking nights off. Shaquille O'Neal sold more tickets than and individual player of the last 25 years, excepting Michael Jordan. Shaq still got paid. Glen Davis, when he's frustrating, when he's rewarding, gets the people goin. Look at all the threads. he's got his detractors, his fans, he's got people talking. He's helping sell tickets, why shouldn't he get paid? By your logic, if a team is in the basement, the players should all be paid less, according to wins.

Or maybe, players should be paid by the win.

Nobody is debating that some players coast on their guaranteed contracts. Its up to the owners to smartly give the long term deals to the guys who will contribute long-term, and while nobody can be right all the time, its up to the GM's to be right more often than not. 

In the meantime, players who can't claim a paycheck abroad, and who might not be earning millions in the NBA are without paychecks, while superstars worth millions are willing to give up paydays for something that is not in their individual negotiations...always wanting, demanding more.

That's a bit of an unfair characterization on a few levels. 1, all NBA players can go abroad if they want to earn a paycheck. 2, the superstars you're casting in the role of money-grubbing villians are already giving up what, a couple hundred million dollars each year? They're going from 57% of BRI to 53%. It is the owners who are 'always wanting more' and the difference is, as anyone who has ever followed labor negotiations will tell you, that you rarely, if ever, get back something you give up. 

Some owners may lose something, I don't know, but the fan will lose the most.  If they go streaming back to support the game, the ticket prices will go up and the extra products will go up in price and when the new contract is up, the greed will start again.

on this, we agree. And lets not forget about all the peripheral workers getting KILLED here. Bars, food vendors, merchants, suppliers, maintainance staff, training staff, many assistant coaches...they're all getting nada right now, and they didn't get much more when they WERE employed.

I want the season to start as much as anyone, but I don't want the players to end up getting screwed because they got pushed around by a bunch of old greedy men who knew their pockets were deep enough to take the hurt. I don't like it when the little guy (who are ironically here some of the tallest people in the world) gets bullied.

[nickagneta]

This is because of Stern and the NBA's marketing efforts and tactics, not because of the players. How many people knew the names and faces the best NBA players before the 80's?

You mean the 80's when basketball and the NBA became popular because of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, not because of Stern's magical ability to draw people to the game?

[greenpride32]

The reality is the NBA is the platform that allows the best basketball players to earn their fame and fortune.  Without the NBA the players don't have a comparable source of income to turn to.  Compare that to a doctor or a software engineer; they have plenty of hospitals, research clinics, universities, or companies that are willing to employ them for comparable salary.  Point is the players need the NBA more than the league needs them.  

BTW - I work in IT; I have spent months/hours honing my craft to be principal level and make a career out of it.  You think NBA player are the only people in the world who work hard at their careers?  

Let's say Kobe and Nash decided to try their hand at professional soccer, and Lebron went for football.  As an NBA fan you would have never heard of these guys as potential NBA players; and instead of them being stars, 3 other guys would be.  You would not think oh this league is junk because Kobe doesn't play in it.  Point is you can take away any players and their will still be "best/top" players around.

Let's say in a worse case scenario the owners start using replacement players.  Yes this will be junk that nobody will want to watch.  But all top prospects coming out of college will see the NBA is their best option and sign on and not join the union.  And I'm sure you'll have union members jumping ship.  Point is players have no leverage.

When you can run your own business that loses money and keep it running according to the way the guys you pay say to run it; then come back to me and tell me the players have a valid arguement.  Until then, you have no case and neither do the players.

Regarding revenue sharing; if the league overall loses money, it doesn't matter how much you share, it still loses.  The Lakers' profits are not enough to cover the losses of SAC MIN IND NO CHA etc.  Do you think Buss is going to agree to revenue sharing if it means he either loses money or breaks even from it?  That's why the NBA needs to reduce payout to the players; the top teams will only share if the league is profitable overall.  

[hpantazo]

The reality is the NBA is the platform that allows the best basketball players to earn their fame and fortune.  Without the NBA the players don't have a comparable source of income to turn to.  Compare that to a doctor or a software engineer; they have plenty of hospitals, research clinics, universities, or companies that are willing to employ them for comparable salary.  Point is the players need the NBA more than the league needs them.  

BTW - I work in IT; I have spent months/hours honing my craft to be principal level and make a career out of it.  You think NBA player are the only people in the world who work hard at their careers?  

Let's say Kobe and Nash decided to try their hand at professional soccer, and Lebron went for football.  As an NBA fan you would have never heard of these guys as potential NBA players; and instead of them being stars, 3 other guys would be.  You would not think oh this league is junk because Kobe doesn't play in it.  Point is you can take away any players and their will still be "best/top" players around.

Let's say in a worse case scenario the owners start using replacement players.  Yes this will be junk that nobody will want to watch.  But all top prospects coming out of college will see the NBA is their best option and sign on and not join the union.  And I'm sure you'll have union members jumping ship.  Point is players have no leverage.

When you can run your own business that loses money and keep it running according to the way the guys you pay say to run it; then come back to me and tell me the players have a valid arguement.  Until then, you have no case and neither do the players.

Regarding revenue sharing; if the league overall loses money, it doesn't matter how much you share, it still loses.  The Lakers' profits are not enough to cover the losses of SAC MIN IND NO CHA etc.  Do you think Buss is going to agree to revenue sharing if it means he either loses money or breaks even from it?  That's why the NBA needs to reduce payout to the players; the top teams will only share if the league is profitable overall.  

Very well put, TP for making a logical argument.

[thirstyboots18]

IP, much as I  want to agree with you, I just don't on this one.  Maybe we can agree on the next controversial move, and at least we agree that it is the peripheral people and the fans who are getting the worst of this.  

Disagreement is good...if we  all agreed we would have only one post on each thread of the Blog,  

[indeedproceed]

BTW - I work in IT; I have spent months/hours honing my craft to be principal level and make a career out of it.  You think NBA player are the only people in the world who work hard at their careers?  

No, but I think they happened to have the physical gifts, the rare drive, and enough lucky breaks to have honed their craft in a super-lucrative business where they have an opportunity to help generate a ton of income. They believe that help to be worth 53% of that income, I'm not inclined to disagree with them.   

[indeedproceed]

IP, much as I  want to agree with you, I just don't on this one.  Maybe we can agree on the next controversial move, and at least we agree that it is the peripheral people and the fans who are getting the worst of this. 

Disagreement is good...if we  all agreed we would have only one post on each thread of the Blog, 

On that we also agree.

[hpantazo]

BTW - I work in IT; I have spent months/hours honing my craft to be principal level and make a career out of it.  You think NBA player are the only people in the world who work hard at their careers?  

No, but I think they happened to have the physical gifts, the rare drive, and enough lucky breaks to have honed their craft in a super-lucrative business where they have an opportunity to help generate a ton of income. They believe that help to be worth 53% of that income, I'm not inclined to disagree with them.  

This idea that having rare physical gifts means you are entitled to a large share of the profit is bs imo. great IT people, doctors, nurses, teachers, painters, musicians etc all have some special gift, be it mental or physical or both, they don't demand to receive more than half the profits of the organizations they work in however. Basketball players are employees, and in the end they are free to work elsewhere if they don't like what they NBA offers. Why are they insisting on trying to reach an agreement instead of signing long term deals in europe and china then? Why is it that those few that signed abroad want opt out clauses? Because they need the NBA.

[nickagneta]

BTW this talk of the players getting a share of the profits is completely wrong. The players are getting their share of the revenue. It is up to the owners to make a profit after what is left.

I have a company. I pay for employee wages, taxes, raw product, overhead, shipping and handling charges etc. What I have left over after properly managing my business is profit. The average NBA team, during the last CBA received 1/30th of the 43% split of the BRI or almost $60 million after the players got their money.

In comparing an NBA team to my business the players are the employee wages and the product. The owners still have to pay taxes, overhead, marketing, coaches, other personnel etc. out of that $60 million they receive after paying the players. It is up to them to manage themselves into a profit.

They are NOT sharing the profit with the players. They are paying their employees and paying for their raw product. Those are expenses, not profits.

[nickagneta]

I also compare athletes to singers and actors. They have a rare gift that very few people in the world will pay millions for in order to see them display those rare talents. Good movie or bad, Julia Roberts and George Clooney and Brad Pitt are getting their $10 million per movie. Same with superstar singers and actors who do Broadway plays or musicals.

The producers take the risk and it is up to them to invest in a great script and make a great movie in order to make their money. Difference is, the NBA owners already have a constant returning audience so much of their risk is removed due to season ticket sales, shares from NBA Properties, local broadcasting rights and of course the ever important national television rights.

In a kind of similar entertainment industry, the NBA owners have a ton less risk and to me, it seems they are asking their employees to take a huge pay cut because they want zero risk and because they want to be able to mismanage their teams and still make money.

That doesn't happen in this country unless you are an American auto maker, bank, or major insurance company or brokerage firm....okay, maybe it does happen in this country. Nevermind.