Breaking news: Hunter says there will be disclaimer of interest

[StartOrien]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

I guess I'm just really angry still, but it bothers me that players pretend like this isn't about greed. Not that they're wrong to want to get the best out of a labor dispute, but it bothers me that they seem so narrow minded (players vs. owners) when so many other people are affected by this dispute.

[Interceptor]

So the players, owners, and fans all think its relevant, and presumably the lawyers and agents do, too.  But they're all wrong?  I'm not convinced.

Sure they are wrong, it's just herd mentality. You're not convinced, but where is your evidence that you're correct? Let me make my argument by listing examples of situations where PR has an impact:

- Company X's product does bad thing Y. Consumer backlash/boycotts absolutely have an effect, because they can just switch to a competitor. Damage control goes right to your bottom line. Take a gander at the airline industry, or at a Toyota recall.
- Almost anything to do with elected office, from school board to senator. You can get thrown out by the voters. I could list a hundred things here.
- Trial of the century ala OJ, the jury is made up of the public. Reasonable expectation for professional impartiality from judges, no such animal for workaday schmoe who gets called for jury duty and knows how to read a newspaper.

The impact of "public opinion" is clearly visible in all above cases. Where is it in this labor dispute? Fans can't do anything except howl at the moon, neither can members of the media. Do you think sponsors will care? Ask LeBron what happened to his meal-ticket after he took a public dump all over Cleveland.

The players are giving ground on the CBA, and they are also "losing the PR battle", but those two things are not necessarily linked. The players, after all, simply just had a worse bargaining position to begin with, and that was obvious from the get-go.

So there you go.

[Chris]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

I guess I'm just really angry still, but it bothers me that players pretend like this isn't about greed. Not that they're wrong to want to get the best out of a labor dispute, but it bothers me that they seem so narrow minded (players vs. owners) when so many other people are affected by this dispute.

Yeah, I really wish the players would keep their mouth shut on stuff like that...and the league too. 

I was also VERY turned off (and I have been a Stern supporter) by Stern's use of his time on twitter to basically just answer to dumb attacks, rather than actually answering questions about the proposal. 

I accept the fact that this is a business negotiation between two sides, but I don't appreciate the weak attempts to try to sway the fans emotions with empty statements. 

[StartOrien]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

I guess I'm just really angry still, but it bothers me that players pretend like this isn't about greed. Not that they're wrong to want to get the best out of a labor dispute, but it bothers me that they seem so narrow minded (players vs. owners) when so many other people are affected by this dispute.

Yeah, I really wish the players would keep their mouth shut on stuff like that...and the league too. 

I was also VERY turned off (and I have been a Stern supporter) by Stern's use of his time on twitter to basically just answer to dumb attacks, rather than actually answering questions about the proposal. 

I accept the fact that this is a business negotiation between two sides, but I don't appreciate the weak attempts to try to sway the fans emotions with empty statements. 

The only good I've found out of it is that I've created a mental anecdote of a person whose dream was to make it in the NBA with the BRI rate at 57% in favor of the players.

[LB3533]

It's entirely possible the players just want to wait it out until Feb. or maybe even Mar.

Last time the players waited they stole 57% of the BRI and won that last CBA by a landslide.

If they wait it out longer, this time around, who knows how much they will crush those intelligent owners with college degrees and more!

[Roy H.]

It's entirely possible the players just want to wait it out until Feb. or maybe even Mar.

Last time the players waited they stole 57% of the BRI and won that last CBA by a landslide.

If they wait it out longer, this time around, who knows how much they will crush those intelligent owners with college degrees and more!

If the players wait it out until February or March, that means no season.  During the 1999 lockout, January 7 was the drop dead date for cancellation of the season; I'm sure the league is projecting something similar again.

[winsomme]

BTW, I read somewhere that worsening the offer is the sort of behavior that the NLRB tends to look very harshly on, which is one reason the NBA hasn't done it.  Any truth to this?  Is the legal process likely to keep the NBA from pulling back on its offer?

I'm not a labor lawyer, but I read the same thing.  I think the owners' counter-argument would be that the 50/50 split was aimed at early resolution of the case, and that the additional missed games and loss of revenue has led them to believe that its not economically viable for them to settle at that number any more.  I think the NBA could couch that argument in good faith, if they have some numbers to back it up.  However, my guess is that the NBA won't be making any more public offers for awhile.

However, that's an issue that is separate and apart from the anti-trust issue, in my understanding.  The parties will be going in front of a District Court judge now, rather than the NLRB.

Well with the NFL, the legal wrangling got the two sides back to mediation. If the owners either decline mediation or come to mediation with a substantially worse offer, then this could peg their negotiating tactics as unfair.

I think the owners are walking a pretty tricky line right now and that makes me believe that the players recent choices have been the right ones...

[Moranis]

BTW, I read somewhere that worsening the offer is the sort of behavior that the NLRB tends to look very harshly on, which is one reason the NBA hasn't done it.  Any truth to this?  Is the legal process likely to keep the NBA from pulling back on its offer?

I'm not a labor lawyer, but I read the same thing.  I think the owners' counter-argument would be that the 50/50 split was aimed at early resolution of the case, and that the additional missed games and loss of revenue has led them to believe that its not economically viable for them to settle at that number any more.  I think the NBA could couch that argument in good faith, if they have some numbers to back it up.  However, my guess is that the NBA won't be making any more public offers for awhile.

However, that's an issue that is separate and apart from the anti-trust issue, in my understanding.  The parties will be going in front of a District Court judge now, rather than the NLRB.

Well with the NFL, the legal wrangling got the two sides back to mediation. If the owners either decline mediation or come to mediation with a substantially worse offer, then this could peg their negotiating tactics as unfair.

I think the owners are walking a pretty tricky line right now and that makes me believe that the players recent choices have been the right ones...

that's where I am at as well.  I mean the Owners have already made an improved offer after their take-it or leave-it offer and after that deadline expired.  To me it smells of desperation on the Owners part.  I really believe the Owners thought if they played hard ball the Players would cave, and that just isn't going to happen.  The Players are in this for the long haul.  I'm not entirely sure that is the right strategy, but that is what it seems like to me.  The Players are willing to see this through to the bitter end and I think the Owners are just starting to realize that.

[Fafnir]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

I guess I'm just really angry still, but it bothers me that players pretend like this isn't about greed. Not that they're wrong to want to get the best out of a labor dispute, but it bothers me that they seem so narrow minded (players vs. owners) when so many other people are affected by this dispute.

Again I can't stand this framing of a labor/salary negotiation.

If you're negotiating a job offer's salary, start date, and your working hours is that greed? In a pedantic sense you could consider it to be, but to do so it implies that all self interest should be termed as greed.

[StartOrien]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

I guess I'm just really angry still, but it bothers me that players pretend like this isn't about greed. Not that they're wrong to want to get the best out of a labor dispute, but it bothers me that they seem so narrow minded (players vs. owners) when so many other people are affected by this dispute.

Again I can't stand this framing of a labor/salary negotiation.

If you're negotiating a job offer's salary, start date, and your working hours is that greed? In a pedantic sense you could consider it to be, but to do so it implies that all self interest should be termed as greed.

The analogy is a little off, because it's a situation that doesn't have impact elsewhere.

If the negotiation of my salary stops others from working, yes, it's greed. Doesn't put me in the wrong, but it's greed.

[Fafnir]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

I guess I'm just really angry still, but it bothers me that players pretend like this isn't about greed. Not that they're wrong to want to get the best out of a labor dispute, but it bothers me that they seem so narrow minded (players vs. owners) when so many other people are affected by this dispute.

Again I can't stand this framing of a labor/salary negotiation.

If you're negotiating a job offer's salary, start date, and your working hours is that greed? In a pedantic sense you could consider it to be, but to do so it implies that all self interest should be termed as greed.

The analogy is a little off, because it's a situation that doesn't have impact elsewhere.

If the negotiation of my salary stops others from working, yes, it's greed. Doesn't put me in the wrong, but it's greed.

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".

[StartOrien]

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.

[indeedproceed]

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.
 

[Yogi]

   The players are not asking for a raise... They are asking for a pay cut!  The players have given back every cent the NBA owners asked for and moved on system issues.  If you are still arguing the players are greedy, then you are being dogmatic and not being objective.  The players have been open and honest through the entire process.  With the exception of Kessler comparing Stern to a Plantation Owner (which he apologized for), no one on the players side has attacked the NBA or spread false rumors about them etc.  
   The NBA originally asked for a ridiculous $4,400,000,000 without factoring growth from the players.  In addition to incredibly restrictive system issues.  Furthermore, The NBA has systematically attacked every one on the player side Hunter, Fisher, Kevin Garnett, Kessler etc. The NBA constantly threw out threats and ultimatums.  The NBA did not negotiate in good faith at any point in this process.  
   If you are still blaming the players for anything and supporting the owners, you are simply ignoring objective reality and sticking to irrational principles.  

[indeedproceed]

Does anyone else get annoyed by players saying things like this on twitter:

Fans talk of NBA players being greedy. But what about the guys willing to sacrifice their big pay day for what's fair and just for others.

(Roger Mason)

one thing I've noticed is that the people with the most decidedly negative viewpoints towards the players are some of the people who so very rarely watch NBA games if they watch them at all.

Its weird, but it seems like a lot of people, who frankly couldn't care less about the NBA at all, are using this particular crisis to get some potshots in at the players. I'm seeing and hearing a lot of "Oscar Robertson worked two jobs, and now Paul Pierce is (complaining) about whether or not he can afford a second bentley? SMH" quotes.

(and that one is verbatim).

Seems a bit malicious for a sport that they don't watch or care about.