Breaking news: Hunter says there will be disclaimer of interest

[Fafnir]

So the players have an obligation to take a deal because other industries that rely on their performances (ie generate value based upon their labor)and can't function without them? So because they're more valuable (and a united labor force rather than an individual) they're greedy for not generating the business that others rely on? (no matter the terms of employment)

Its still not greed, because by your line of thought them not agreeing to work for free could be called "greed".

I think the analogy is perfectly apt, which is why you deny it. When you negotiate your salary, benefits, and all that you don't consider yourself "greedy".

I don't care to continue this conversation with you. I think my original statement was pretty clear, and I thought I clarified my take on it just fine with my followup. No sense in going further.

I think this statement:

So the players have an obligation to take a deal because other industries that rely on their performances (ie generate value based upon their labor)and can't function without them? So because they're more valuable (and a united labor force rather than an individual) they're greedy for not generating the business that others rely on? (no matter the terms of employment)

bears response. Its a pretty valid point, and IMO, linked to some of the fundamental crux of the differences in public perception regarding the lockout.

While I'd like a response, if StartOrien feels we're at an impasse I understand.

I reached a similar one with my fiance earlier today, she shares StartOrien's opinion that its all about greed. Greed is all about an excessive desire for something. My fiance feels all professional atheletes are all so massively overpayed based on their value to society so any sort of hold out is greedy. (She doesn't like the owners much either)

[indeedproceed]

My fiance feels all professional atheletes are all so massively overpayed based on their value to society so any sort of hold out is greedy.

That viewpoint is so incredibly myopic that it makes me wanna pull out my hair.

It is also, however, very common.

[Fafnir]

My fiance feels all professional atheletes are all so massively overpayed based on their value to society so any sort of hold out is greedy.

That viewpoint is so incredibly myopic that it makes me wanna pull out my hair.

It is also, however, very common.

I'm shocked at how many sportswriters and pundits hold it. I've always wondered why this is the case, though since if there is no NBA they'll evitably face economic consequences from it down the line it makes a certain sense. "Its hard to make a man understand something his paycheck depends on him not understanding."

Some of the same writers talk out of both sides of their mouths on the issue when it comes to how college players are exploited, that sort of intellectual laziness boggles my mind.

[Fafnir]

NBA officially cancelling some more games per ESPN radio, but only through Dec. 15th.

Given that they already said the first game of the proposed season would be the 15th this seems like a non-story.

[Chris]

My fiance feels all professional atheletes are all so massively overpayed based on their value to society so any sort of hold out is greedy.

That viewpoint is so incredibly myopic that it makes me wanna pull out my hair.

It is also, however, very common.

See, I kind of agree with both sides on this.  I absolutely think that athletes and entertainers are overpaid, and that it is greedy to ask for more money.  But I also know that it is business, and that they are only "greedy", in that they are asking for market value, and other greedy people would just be lining their pockets with the money if they don't get it.

[indeedproceed]

My fiance feels all professional atheletes are all so massively overpayed based on their value to society so any sort of hold out is greedy.

That viewpoint is so incredibly myopic that it makes me wanna pull out my hair.

It is also, however, very common.

See, I kind of agree with both sides on this.  I absolutely think that athletes and entertainers are overpaid, and that it is greedy to ask for more money.  But I also know that it is business, and that they are only "greedy", in that they are asking for market value, and other greedy people would just be lining their pockets with the money if they don't get it.

See that's what I don't get. If the players aren't making the money, who do people think is? If they knew, why in the heck are people rooting for Paul Allen and Dan Gilbert to be richer?

Its like rooting for the darn house to win in blackjack!

[StartOrien]

In a labor dispute between millionaires and billionaires, where many people who desperately need games to be played in order to survive financially, I think it's fair to call both sides greedy.

[Chris]

My fiance feels all professional atheletes are all so massively overpayed based on their value to society so any sort of hold out is greedy.

That viewpoint is so incredibly myopic that it makes me wanna pull out my hair.

It is also, however, very common.

See, I kind of agree with both sides on this.  I absolutely think that athletes and entertainers are overpaid, and that it is greedy to ask for more money.  But I also know that it is business, and that they are only "greedy", in that they are asking for market value, and other greedy people would just be lining their pockets with the money if they don't get it.

See that's what I don't get. If the players aren't making the money, who do people think is? If they knew, why in the heck are people rooting for Paul Allen and Dan Gilbert to be richer?

Its like rooting for the darn house to win in blackjack!

Its not a rational argument, it is an idealist argument.  They think that the salaries should be cut, and that the prices should as well.  And while I am sure they understand that deep down, some people find it very hard to accept capitalism in that way.

[Roy H.]

So the players have an obligation to take a deal because other industries that rely on their performances (ie generate value based upon their labor)and can't function without them? So because they're more valuable (and a united labor force rather than an individual) they're greedy for not generating the business that others rely on? (no matter the terms of employment)

Its still not greed, because by your line of thought them not agreeing to work for free could be called "greed".

I think the analogy is perfectly apt, which is why you deny it. When you negotiate your salary, benefits, and all that you don't consider yourself "greedy".

I don't care to continue this conversation with you. I think my original statement was pretty clear, and I thought I clarified my take on it just fine with my followup. No sense in going further.

I think this statement:

So the players have an obligation to take a deal because other industries that rely on their performances (ie generate value based upon their labor)and can't function without them? So because they're more valuable (and a united labor force rather than an individual) they're greedy for not generating the business that others rely on? (no matter the terms of employment)

bears response. Its a pretty valid point, and IMO, linked to some of the fundamental crux of the differences in public perception regarding the lockout.
 

I don't think it makes them greedy; it's not the job of the NBA players to provide for arena workers, etc.  At the same time, the players shouldn't try to paint themselves as principled and altruistic.  They're in it for the money, just like everyone else is.

[indeedproceed]

In a labor dispute between millionaires and billionaires which financially negatively affects people who desperately need games to be played to survive I think it's fair to call both sides greedy.

So then how do you think the labor agreement should be sorted? How do you think the BRI and all that garbage should be shared?

I won't disagree that both sides want more stuff. I will however disagree that both sides are playing fair. The players want what they think they're owed, but they're willing to share the M&M's. The owners want at least half the M&M's, but none of the brown ones, and they want there to be a cap how much M&M's the players get, no matter how much candy mom gives them, and they want players to not be able to eat their M&M's anywhere but the playroom, and they want first choice of all the M&M's because they like teh blue ones best.

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates. I guess if the players wanted to be more magnanimous they could just take what the owners are offering and swallow the bitter pill.

But I mean..I think that's kind of garbage. Why should the players just 'take what they're offered and like it' if they think its a raw deal? They had more to do with the success the league enjoys now than any team logos of luxury boxes. Without superstar players, nobody would care about the NBA. Why should the players be treated as anything other than partners?

[Roy H.]

I won't disagree that both sides want more stuff. I will however disagree that both sides are playing fair.

"Fair" is what the other side will agree to.  Was it "fair" that the owners have lost money over the past six years?  They made a bad deal, and they dealt with the consequences. 

There's no crying in labor negotiations.

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates.

By giving the players a 50/50 split?  From which the players pay nothing other than taxes, and are allowed to get separate endorsement deals, while the owners pay 100% of the expenses?  That doesn't sound like too bad of a partnership to me.  In fact, I would absolutely love to find another attorney in town who would give me that deal.  I'll take 50% of the firm's revenue, while he gets the other 50% and pays all the overhead.  I'm in.

Why should the players just 'take what they're offered and like it' if they think its a raw deal?

They shouldn't, unless they determine that the deal on the table is the best one they're going to get.  If it is their best deal, though, and they walk away, they're costing themselves billions of dollars.  That's not a rational decision.

[StartOrien]

In a labor dispute between millionaires and billionaires which financially negatively affects people who desperately need games to be played to survive I think it's fair to call both sides greedy.

So then how do you think the labor agreement should be sorted? How do you think the BRI and all that garbage should be shared?

I'll read and respond, but I'll stop you at your first point and why I really didn't want to elaborate on my initial comments.

Everyone is in such a gosh dang rush to read into everyone's comments and figure out if they're pro-player or pro-owner, and how everyone thinks it should be solved.

I just made a simple comment that a tweet Roger Mason made annoyed me, and then the next thing I know I'm inferring that the players have a moral obligation to work for free so ushers and ball boys could collect a paycheck.

[indeedproceed]

I won't disagree that both sides want more stuff. I will however disagree that both sides are playing fair.

"Fair" is what the other side will agree to.  Was it "fair" that the owners have lost money over the past six years?  They made a bad deal, and they dealt with the consequences.  

There's no crying in labor negotiations.

Do you believe the players' salaries (as a union) was the prime factor in the alleged 'losses' the owners have suffered?

Because I'm not even sure strictly speaking, when considering all basketball related revenue (which is different than BRI) that the league, as a whole actually suffered losses.

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates.

By giving the players a 50/50 split?  From which the players pay nothing other than taxes, and are allowed to get separate endorsement deals, while the owners pay 100% of the expenses?  That doesn't sound like too bad of a partnership to me.  In fact, I would absolutely love to find another attorney in town who would give me that deal.  I'll take 50% of the firm's revenue, while he gets the other 50% and pays all the overhead.  I'm in.

That 50/50 split wasn't the original offer, and they'd already missed games before that came about.

On top of that, going from a 57% split to a 50/50 split seems to me to be huge win for the owners, and would account for all the money they're alleging to lose 'per season', and that's before the unveil their new profit sharing model, which should've accounted for most of those losses to small market teams in the first place.

As far as not meeting the players on a level playing surface, it seems like there is only one side giving back in these negotiations. The owners want a bigger share of the pie, salary roll backs, more control over player movement, and less obligated money to unproductive players (hence the d-league provisions).

The players want....? To not get screwed too bad? Seems like only one side of the deal here is getting everything on their christmas list. I'd hardly call that give and take.

Why should the players just 'take what they're offered and like it' if they think its a raw deal?

They shouldn't, unless they determine that the deal on the table is the best one they're going to get.  If it is their best deal, though, and they walk away, they're costing themselves billions of dollars.  That's not a rational decision.

That's a valid point. On principals alone, I'd say stick it out, no matter the cost if you feel like you're being treated like a second class citizen.

But from the players earning potential and my own perspective of 'dude, there's no basketball', I have to say it is getting tiresome.

[StartOrien]

You're making an incredible amount of money off of something that affects so many people, whether it be of personal interest or financial interest.

When you alter millions of people's ability to enjoy life (whether it be as simple as stopping someone from enjoying a game to taking away a person's livelihood) because you're arguing over  ways to split up millions of dollars I think every single person involved is guilty of a varying level of greed.

[Fafnir]

In a labor dispute between millionaires and billionaires which financially negatively affects people who desperately need games to be played to survive I think it's fair to call both sides greedy.

So then how do you think the labor agreement should be sorted? How do you think the BRI and all that garbage should be shared?

I'll read and respond, but I'll stop you at your first point and why I really didn't want to elaborate on my initial comments.

Everyone is in such a gosh dang rush to read into everyone's comments and figure out if they're pro-player or pro-owner, and how everyone thinks it should be solved.

I just made a simple comment that a tweet Roger Mason made annoyed me, and then the next thing I know I'm inferring that the players have a moral obligation to work for free so ushers and ball boys could collect a paycheck.

You called the players greedy, and I never was trying to force you to pick a "side".

Rather I don't think the players negotiating and how things have played out is greedy, anymore so than asking for a raise or asking for XXX,XXX starting salary at your next job is greedy.