Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[nickagneta]

Let's also not forget that although the owners put a lot of stuff in writing in that proposal, there was just as much that they didn't put in and much of that is why the deal was not accepted.

Yeah, I think the owners made a misstep there.  The D-League issue shouldn't have been treated as a "side issue".  While I understand that there wasn't necessarily time to negotiate each and every issue, they should have made sure that all of the important ones were in the actual offer.  

This is something I haven't been clear on.  Were the owners presenting that offer as the only things that would be negotiated, and then everything not in there would be left to management to decide unilaterally?  Or was that offer just a preliminary offer on the key topics they had been discussing, and, if the players agreed to it, then both sides would get back in the room to negotiate the B issues?

My understanding was that if the players ratified the proposal then the negotiating team would hammer out the B issues but that Stern indicated that there were two points that the league would definitely have to have in the B issues and one of them was the NBDL send down of players with less than 5 years. I can't remember the other issue.

EDIT: The other was year round expanded drug testing to include blood tests for HGH.

[indeedproceed]

I think the owners should always get the bigger piece of the pie. The owners are the ones who pays all the expenses (scheduling arenas, marketing/promoting, paying workers), why shouldn't they get the bigger piece? You never see a blue collar worker make more money than the white collars.

And yes the players are the workers and they also are the product which is essential to the league, but I disagree that they could not be replaceable. The league COULD replace the players

The blue collar to white collar is to players and owners analogy isn't really accurate at all. For one, not all blue collar workers are as you have represented them. Many are very skilled through years of experience, and cannot be replaced with some scab off the street, at least not in the immediate time frame.

But NBA talent isn't just irreplaceable in the short term, its irreplaceable, period. Yes, the players need the league just like the league needs the players, and that's why a deal will get done eventually, but lets not pretend that available players of NBA caliber even exist in the world right now.

Has a professional American sports league in its modern incarnation ever tried this and succeeded? No. My uncle was a scab (or 'replacement player' during the NFL strike in the 80s. Didn't work then, wouldn't work now. Nobody is shelling out NBA prices to see the players that the NBA might bring in play basketball. Remember, these guys have to be A) out of college, B) not a part of the NBAPA (or a person who is libel to stand with them), and C) cannot be under contract overseas. Between the NBA, Euro-leaguers, and CBA (Chinese BA), the availability of free-agent top tier basketball talent isn't just thin, its non-existent. That means the NBA would have to work with the players from a severely degraded quality of stock. Words and phrases like 'misguided' and 'doomed to fail' come to mind.

Economically it short term losses (cuz league will lose a lot of super stars), but long term is works

Owners get what they want, lets see how some players fair in todays world without their large paychecks...

The league will lose many fans for a few years, but after a while, new fans will be created and new superstars are created
HOWEVER, do we want this, NO...i still want to see our big 3, Rondo, and continue to love cheering against Lebron and Miami...

And I see no problems in a 50-50 split... not to mention the owners are giving them a 50.2/51% of the BRI...whats wrong with that?

Its not just the BRI though, there is a lot more at stake than just the immense concessions players have made regarding the BRI.

If you read through the whole thing and disagreed and got p---ed: I am sorry about that

I don't think anyone gets angry about this stuff. At least I hope not. Passionate maybe, but not angry.

[Chris]

Let's also not forget that although the owners put a lot of stuff in writing in that proposal, there was just as much that they didn't put in and much of that is why the deal was not accepted.

Yeah, I think the owners made a misstep there.  The D-League issue shouldn't have been treated as a "side issue".  While I understand that there wasn't necessarily time to negotiate each and every issue, they should have made sure that all of the important ones were in the actual offer. 

This is something I haven't been clear on.  Were the owners presenting that offer as the only things that would be negotiated, and then everything not in there would be left to management to decide unilaterally?  Or was that offer just a preliminary offer on the key topics they had been discussing, and, if the players agreed to it, then both sides would get back in the room to negotiate the B issues?

My understanding was that if the players ratified the proposal then the negotiating team would hammer out the B issues but that Stern indicated that there were two points that the league would definitely have to have in the B issues and one of them was the NBDL send down of players with less than 5 years. I can't remember the other issue.

That is what I understood too.  Although the stuff that the owners absolutely had to have was all rumors.  And if they decided to do anything based on rumors like that, then shame on them. 

I think they made their decision, because they could not accept the offer the owners made in writing, and since Stern went on record saying that he would not consider amendments to those issues, they blew it up.

[nickagneta]

Let's also not forget that although the owners put a lot of stuff in writing in that proposal, there was just as much that they didn't put in and much of that is why the deal was not accepted.

Yeah, I think the owners made a misstep there.  The D-League issue shouldn't have been treated as a "side issue".  While I understand that there wasn't necessarily time to negotiate each and every issue, they should have made sure that all of the important ones were in the actual offer.  

This is something I haven't been clear on.  Were the owners presenting that offer as the only things that would be negotiated, and then everything not in there would be left to management to decide unilaterally?  Or was that offer just a preliminary offer on the key topics they had been discussing, and, if the players agreed to it, then both sides would get back in the room to negotiate the B issues?

My understanding was that if the players ratified the proposal then the negotiating team would hammer out the B issues but that Stern indicated that there were two points that the league would definitely have to have in the B issues and one of them was the NBDL send down of players with less than 5 years. I can't remember the other issue.

That is what I understood too.  Although the stuff that the owners absolutely had to have was all rumors.  And if they decided to do anything based on rumors like that, then shame on them.  

I think they made their decision, because they could not accept the offer the owners made in writing, and since Stern went on record saying that he would not consider amendments to those issues, they blew it up.

The rumors state that Stern took Fischer and Hunter aside and told them directly they would need those B list issues. If Hunter and Fischer don't elaborate that to their executive committee they are not doing their jobs.

Because Stern did it in private he has deniability due to lack of proof but given that the owners only wrote they would tell the players about the revenue sharing they would implement, instead of writing the specifics down, how much can one trust Stern denying the allegations?

The owners are clearly alright with certain verbal communication in this deal due to pretty obvious reasons. Later on, if it isn't written down they don't have to own up to what they have said or do what they have claimed to do.

Check out the exact wording in the Revenue Sharing clause. It's so vague as to be nonexistent.

[LB3533]

You guys do realize that if the players win in Court, they will get a far better deal then has ever been proposed by the Owners up to this point.  At this point the players will ride out the Court train to the conclusion (and frankly I think they win the court case).

I don't think there's any possible way that the players fully litigate an anti-trust case.  We're talking about anywhere from 1 to 3 years here.

Also, from a lot of what I've read, the owners are more likely to be ultimately successful on the merits.  Opinions are divided on that, but most seem to side with the owners' argument, from the sports law experts I've read.

Do the players really want to give up literally billions of dollars in salary, on the hope that they recoup that money in a lawsuit that is 50/50, at best?

Also, if the players win, can't the owners just declare bankruptcy given that they would have had to pay back all the money to the networks and local broadcasting companies and still had to pay out the leases and overhead for running a business generating zero revenue over 2-3 years?

The players aren't guaranteed any money even if they do win in court.

But I thought the owners were billionaires and could survive without the NBA revenues.

Billionaires declaring bankruptcy....is there are a greater farce in the history of the universe ever?

[nickagneta]

You guys do realize that if the players win in Court, they will get a far better deal then has ever been proposed by the Owners up to this point.  At this point the players will ride out the Court train to the conclusion (and frankly I think they win the court case).

I don't think there's any possible way that the players fully litigate an anti-trust case.  We're talking about anywhere from 1 to 3 years here.

Also, from a lot of what I've read, the owners are more likely to be ultimately successful on the merits.  Opinions are divided on that, but most seem to side with the owners' argument, from the sports law experts I've read.

Do the players really want to give up literally billions of dollars in salary, on the hope that they recoup that money in a lawsuit that is 50/50, at best?

Also, if the players win, can't the owners just declare bankruptcy given that they would have had to pay back all the money to the networks and local broadcasting companies and still had to pay out the leases and overhead for running a business generating zero revenue over 2-3 years?

The players aren't guaranteed any money even if they do win in court.

But I thought the owners were billionaires and could survive without the NBA revenues.

Billionaires declaring bankruptcy....is there are a greater farce in the history of the universe ever?

The owners are billionaires and will remain billionaires because they have legal protections on their money. The NBA teams are corporations, LLC's and the like. The teams can declare bankruptcy without the owners losing a dime of their personal wealth.

[PosImpos]

There comes a time in negotiating where you need to take the best deal available. What's "fair" really isn't part of the equation, since "fair" is only defined as what the market will bear.

Unfortunately, the players failed to notice that the opportunity to take the best deal available has already come and gone. And now everyone is going to pay for it.

But why should you blame the players, and not the owners? First of all, let's start with the obvious. The players haven't acted rationally. The players are now going to lose more income from missed games than they can ever hope to regain through bargaining. In fact, they reached that break-even point the moment the first 10 games were cancelled. So what they are doing and the way they are acting simply cannot be explained as the actions of pure, rational, self-interested people. It's obviously not about money for them.

There are two likely explanations for this sort of behavior:

1) You can choose to believe that these players are simply sacrificing huge amounts of income for the benefit of future players, and for the principle of the matter. After all, that's what they're all telling us, right? Yet this would in fact make them some of the most principled people I've ever heard of... have you ever met anyone who would sacrifice millions for the benefit of some kids they don't know who are currently playing ball in highschool? Neither have I. Maybe the players just have superhuman powers of empathy, or are just so principled that they have no problem throwing away millions without a blink. Maybe.

2) Or the much more likely scenario: this is simply what happens when you take a group consisting of the 450 most competitive people in the world and tell them to bargain with someone. It's not just about getting a good deal, it's about winning and losing, like every other game. They just don't want to "lose" the bargaining, and that's why they're fighting tooth and nail despite the fact that they're cutting off their noses to spite their face. It's the reason why Jordan is doing the exact same thing on the other side of the bargaining table. Sure, it might be a little more about the money for him due to his risk exposure on his massive investment, but you really think that JORDAN isn't extremely motivated to "win" the bargaining process? People routinely underestimate the power of subconscious factors as motivation for behavior and decisions. Go ahead and read "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely, "Drive" by Daniel Pink, or pretty much anything by Malcolm Gladwell if you don't believe me.


So yeah, I absolutely think it's fair to blame the players when they're willing to throw a whole season under the bus simply to satisfy their egos. It's a betrayal of fans and the people who work for the league.


But aren't the owners also trying to "win"? Yes, they are. But the simple fact of the matter is that a good third of them are actually AVOIDING losing money by not having a season. That's not irrational. Furthermore, they're acting the way they're acting because they know they have more leverage than the players, and they're in the driver's seat of the negotiations. Again, that's not irrational. They know that they're better equipped to recoup any potential losses they suffer after one cancelled season. Again, not irrational.

The owners are just trying to get the best deal they can, knowing they have the superior bargaining position. Any fool would do the exact same thing as them if they were in that position. The players, however, decided to take it personally, and to hell with anybody who might be hurt along the way. That's why I blame the players.

Other notes:
-I also wouldn't underestimate the impact of the scumbag lawyers suckering the players into thinking that decertifaction is the way it go. As someone about to become a lawyer who's taken both Antitrust and Sports Law classes (basically Antitrust in disguise... wish I had know that before taking it) I can tell you that the NBAPA doesn't have a prayer of winning anything in court based on both the legal principles and case precedent. But the agents will make bank on that process, win or lose.
-What's "fair" and "not fair" doesn't come into the equation in a business negotiation. Rational people will ALWAYS try to get the best deal they can. And the result is "fair" because people on BOTH sides of the table are trying to get what's best for them. The market essentially decides the terms. There's nothing more fair than that. If the players don't like it they can go play in Europe or China.

Thank you.  You have successfully articulated everything I've been trying to say only in a much better way.

This is front-page material.

TP.

[Jeff]

I blame myself

[PosImpos]

I blame myself

aw

[Roy H.]

I blame myself

Yeah, if the blogs kicked up a share of their revenue, maybe Samardo Samuels could feed his kids.

[Donoghus]

I've always found that blaming Tony Danza for all of the world's problems is a solid solution.

[Moranis]

You guys do realize that if the players win in Court, they will get a far better deal then has ever been proposed by the Owners up to this point.  At this point the players will ride out the Court train to the conclusion (and frankly I think they win the court case).

I don't think there's any possible way that the players fully litigate an anti-trust case.  We're talking about anywhere from 1 to 3 years here.

Also, from a lot of what I've read, the owners are more likely to be ultimately successful on the merits.  Opinions are divided on that, but most seem to side with the owners' argument, from the sports law experts I've read.

Do the players really want to give up literally billions of dollars in salary, on the hope that they recoup that money in a lawsuit that is 50/50, at best?

It can be done in less then a year, probably won't happen, but it certainly can be.  Of course once the owners lose their "sham" argument, the Court will move fairly quickly on whether or not to grant an injunction to remove the lockout.  The NBA players have a much better argument then the NFL players (the NBA owners started in a terrible position that they didn't back off of until long after the lockout started and have issued a take-it or leave-it proposal, something that never happened in the NFL) and the players can and will forum shop to get into the right Court of Appeals jurisdiction.

I truly believe the players would win an antitrust law-suit, but it won't come to that, after the Owners lose some of the initial rounds, the Owners will come around and make a deal acceptable to the Players. 

[Fafnir]

In the end I'm still shocked that its come to this once the players came down to 50% of the BRI. I always figured this was about money rather than restructing the system the NBA is run by.

[nickagneta]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but the lawyers for the players said they are asking for an injunction and I don't believe the court will issue one without it being requested.

[Chris]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but the lawyers for the players said they are asking for an injunction and I don't believe the court will issue one without it being requested.

I actually heard that they specifically are not asking for an injunction (for some legal reason that I didn't understand).