Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[nickagneta]

The players could have accepted the deal the owners proposed and be getting ready to play right now.  How is that not refusing to play?

How is it refusing to play? Nobody in the NBPA wants to quit basketball. By the way, I can play this game all day.

Fine, we'll play semantics.  The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them.  The players could be making millions of dollars to play a game but refuse because the terms arent favorable enough.

Give me a break.

Actually what you are calling for is for the players to accept a deal that was in the players union's opinion an unreasonable deal. Since its their deal, they should be the one's determining what is and is not reasonable.

[Interceptor]

Fine, we'll play semantics.  The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them.  The players could be making millions of dollars to play a game but refuse because the terms arent favorable enough.

Give me a break.

The owners could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them.  The owners could be making millions of dollars to watch other people play a game but refuse because the terms arent favorable enough.

Which leg?

[Fafnir]

The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them. 

This is a joke, right?  Did you sleep through 3 months of the players making concession after concession?

Did you see the recent 'first born son' clause, wherein if owners don't recover at least 83% of the BRI then players must immediately send their first born sons to Castle Mordor in Newark, NJ to serve as 'pages' until the matter is resolved?

IP that is just on the NBA's "b-list", thus we shouldn't take it seriously.

[fairweatherfan]

The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them. 

This is a joke, right?  Did you sleep through 3 months of the players making concession after concession?

Did you see the recent 'first born son' clause, wherein if owners don't recover at least 83% of the BRI then players must immediately send their first born sons to Castle Mordor in Newark, NJ to serve as 'pages' until the matter is resolved?

IP that is just on the NBA's "b-list", thus we shouldn't take it seriously.

Stern and the owners were just floating the idea of instituting the right of Prima Nocta with any supermodel, actress, or celebrity girlfriend players might acquire while under contract.  It's never been formally proposed, and the owners say the players can trust them on this one.  What's the big deal?

[indeedproceed]

The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them. 

This is a joke, right?  Did you sleep through 3 months of the players making concession after concession?

Did you see the recent 'first born son' clause, wherein if owners don't recover at least 83% of the BRI then players must immediately send their first born sons to Castle Mordor in Newark, NJ to serve as 'pages' until the matter is resolved?

IP that is just on the NBA's "b-list", thus we shouldn't take it seriously.

Stern and the owners were just floating the idea of instituting the right of Prima Nocta with any supermodel, actress, or celebrity girlfriend players might acquire while under contract.  It's never been formally proposed, and the owners say the players can trust them on this one.  What's the big deal?

Stern: What, its traditional! People have been doing it for a thousand years. Now, get Gabrielle Union in here pronto! What's that Lamar? No, you don't need to call Khloe. Definitely don't call Khloe.

[PosImpos]

The players could have accepted the deal the owners proposed and be getting ready to play right now.  How is that not refusing to play?

How is it refusing to play? Nobody in the NBPA wants to quit basketball. By the way, I can play this game all day.

Fine, we'll play semantics.  The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them.

I really think if that's what you believe that you don't have a great handle on where the negotiations are right now. Everyone (aside from David Stern) agrees that even the most recent owners' offer (which allegedly is supposed to be the 'best one yet') is still immensely favorable to the owners. Those who say the players should accept it don't do it based on anything close to fairness, they just believe nothing better is coming down the line.

Here's my thinking on the situation:

The players want to maintain the status quo.  That makes sense, because the status quo -- the previous CBA -- was immensely favorable to them.

The owners -- understandably, in my opinion -- want to make very significant changes to the status quo.  They want to alter the BRI split and make comprehensive system changes so that things are more favorable for them, both in terms of player salary and in terms of teams having control over their own players.  We can debate whether or not it is reasonable for them to want to make those changes -- and I, personally, think it is -- but what cannot really be debated is that the owners have from the beginning had almost all of the leverage in these negotiations.  The fact that they can point to the poor state of the economy as justification for their desire to restrict player salary only bolsters their position.

Nevertheless, the players continue to insist on terms that would constitute a "win" for them even though the circumstances dictate that they will almost certainly eventually "lose."  Indeed, although the players managed in the last month or two to force the owners to make concessions on many of their demands, the player chose not to accept a deal yesterday, and another a few weeks before that, that would have been far more favorable than any they are now likely to ever get.

In doing so, the players have risked the entire season.  This would be more understandable if the deals that have been offered by the owners were completely unreasonable (i.e. 47 / 53 BRI split, non-guaranteed deals etc).  But the deals offered haven't been completely unreasonable.  The deals offered are only so bad in comparison to the previous CBA, and it is my belief that that is a faulty comparison.  The previous CBA was far more favorable for the players than the owners were willing to accept any longer, and the players should never have expected to see anything proposed along the same lines as the previous CBA.  Yet much of what I have read about the player's expected terms suggests that they wanted to see something very much like the previous deal, with lots of free agent freedom and the ability of teams to enter a bidding war over every player.

[nickagneta]

The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them. 

This is a joke, right?  Did you sleep through 3 months of the players making concession after concession?

Did you see the recent 'first born son' clause, wherein if owners don't recover at least 83% of the BRI then players must immediately send their first born sons to Castle Mordor in Newark, NJ to serve as 'pages' until the matter is resolved?

IP that is just on the NBA's "b-list", thus we shouldn't take it seriously.

Stern and the owners were just floating the idea of instituting the right of Prima Nocta with any supermodel, actress, or celebrity girlfriend players might acquire while under contract.  It's never been formally proposed, and the owners say the players can trust them on this one.  What's the big deal?

Stern: What, its traditional! People have been doing it for a thousand years. Now, get Gabrielle Union in here pronto! What's that Lamar? No, you don't need to call Khloe. Definitely don't call Khloe.

But Kris Humphries definitely has to bring Kim. There's no such thing as divorce when it comes to Prima Nocta.

[PosImpos]

Fine, we'll play semantics.  The players could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them.  The players could be making millions of dollars to play a game but refuse because the terms arent favorable enough.

Give me a break.

The owners could have accepted what is in my opinion a reasonable deal given the circumstances, but chose not to because they appear determined not to accept anything that isnt totally favorable to them.  The owners could be making millions of dollars to watch other people play a game but refuse because the terms arent favorable enough.

Which leg?

So what you just articulated is that we have to agree to disagree, because you think the players' demands are reasonable and the owners' demands unreasonable, while I think the opposite.  There's no way to reach a middle ground there.

Interestingly, this is the same situation that the players and the owners find themselves in, but with one enormous difference: the owners have all of the leverage, and the players have to play again eventually in order to make a living.  Whenever they do, they're going to have to play under some sort of CBA agreed upon by both the owners and the players.  The chances of that CBA being more favorable than the deal proposed to the players union on Monday is miniscule.

Therefore, the NBPA's decision to reject the deal and instead spend the season in court amounts to nothing more than a huge, extremely expensive protest.  It's a decision grounded more in pride, wounded ego, and a desire never to concede defeat than in reason.  Is this situation fair to the players?  Not at all.  But life's not fair, and the players aren't accomplishing anything but losing a whole lot of money for a lot of people, and damaging their livelihood and the sport of basketball as a result. 

We're not talking about factory workers or the teacher's union here (many of you, btw, seem like you'd have much less sympathy for one of those unions).  We're talking about guys who get paid to play a game professionally, guys who make more in one or two years than most of us can ever hope to make in a lifetime -- even under the owner's proposed deal which is supposedly so awful.

[indeedproceed]

Here's my thinking on the situation:

The players want to maintain the status quo.  That makes sense, because the status quo -- the previous CBA -- was immensely favorable to them.

Well, we can save a lot of time here by just looking at the above statement. Sure, the players 'want' to preserve the status quo, but they have from the very beginning proven they don't think that's realistic. They've come down from 53% of BRI (which will encompass the alleged losses the owners have suffered) to 50% of BRI (which assuming static BRI from last season (which was one of the NBA's best ever)) means the owners go well above and beyond where their 'losses' (again, a pretty dubious term here, because the supposition again is that the players' salaries are the thing limiting the teams from being profitable).

On top of that they've conceded terms on things like sign and trades, MLE contracts, maximum years on a max contract, rookie scale earnings, etc..

Pretty much the ONLY thing I've seen that would at all favor players is that teams' can now offer a bigger raise through Bird Rights then they could before.

So if there is anything in there that reminds you of the players wanting to preserve the Status Quo, point it out to me, cuz I'm not seeing it.

The owners -- understandably, in my opinion -- want to make very significant changes to the status quo.  They want to alter the BRI split and make comprehensive system changes so that things are more favorable for them, both in terms of player salary and in terms of teams having control over their own players.  We can debate whether or not it is reasonable for them to want to make those changes -- and I, personally, think it is -- but what cannot really be debated is that the owners have from the beginning had almost all of the leverage in these negotiations.  The fact that they can point to the poor state of the economy as justification for their desire to restrict player salary only bolsters their position.

Fact: Under the current CBA, the players get 57% of the BRI, and no more. They can only earn less.

Fact: BRI fluctuates with the economy.

Fact: Whether the economy is good, or bad, or whatever, does not hold any bearing over how much the players make, at least in terms of relevance to the CBA. If 57% of the BRI is less than the amount the owners were due to pay out in salary, then  the owners got that money back from a portion of the players salaries they held in escrow.

So the whole 'but in this economy' argument is pretty much moot to my mind. On top of that, part of the proposed (and endorsed by players) new CBA would hold 10% of players' salaries (as opposed to 3%) in escrow to account for the possibility that salary could go over the 50% of BRI, which the players have also caved on.

Nevertheless, the players continue to insist on terms that would constitute a "win" for them even though the circumstances dictate that they will almost certainly eventually "lose."

I think that terms like 'win' and 'lose' here are misleading. The players know they're going to lose. What they want to avoid is 'total and malicious subjugation by the owners' which is a pretty sympathetic goal to my mind.

Indeed, although the players managed in the last month or two to force the owners to make concessions on many of their demands, the player chose not to accept a deal yesterday, and another a few weeks before that, that would have been far more favorable than any they are now likely to ever get.

If we split a pizza between the two of us, and you tell me that you're eating 60% of it and I'm only entitled to 40%, and we manage to get down to a 50/50 split, that doesn't mean you made 'concessions'. It means you stopped being unreasonable. The owners 'concessions' are basically like a crazy person agreeing that they won't eat your entrails, and they instead they'll only rip out a chunk of your hair. Neither one is very pleasant, but one is significantly more untenable than the other. Neither one, however, is a 'win'.

In doing so, the players have risked the entire season.  This would be more understandable if the deals that have been offered by the owners were completely unreasonable (i.e. 47 / 53 BRI split, non-guaranteed deals etc).  But the deals offered haven't been completely unreasonable.  The deals offered are only so bad in comparison to the previous CBA, and it is my belief that that is a faulty comparison.  The previous CBA was far more favorable for the players than the owners were willing to accept any longer, and the players should never have expected to see anything proposed along the same lines as the previous CBA.  Yet much of what I have read about the player's expected terms suggests that they wanted to see something very much like the previous deal, with lots of free agent freedom and the ability of teams to enter a bidding war over every player.

There are two different wars being fought here by the owners and players, and your last piece highlights that.

Battle 1: How much money the players as a commodity are entitled to of all the money generated by the NBA.

Battle 2: How much freedom the players as individuals should be entitled to in terms of their ability to choose their place and terms of employment.

Ironically, both 'battles' could be solved much more competently by a more comprehensive profit-sharing system between big-market and small market teams.

[Interceptor]

So what you just articulated is that we have to agree to disagree, because you think the players' demands are reasonable and the owners' demands unreasonable, while I think the opposite.  There's no way to reach a middle ground there.

Negative, I just did a word-replace on your opinion, to show you that it was just a matter of perspective. I am personally more than willing to throw both the owners and the players under the bus, alas I have no vote.

Interestingly, this is the same situation that the players and the owners find themselves in, but with one enormous difference: the owners have all of the leverage, and the players have to play again eventually in order to make a living.  Whenever they do, they're going to have to play under some sort of CBA agreed upon by both the owners and the players.  The chances of that CBA being more favorable than the deal proposed to the players union on Monday is miniscule.

Baloney on all counts. The players have leverage over the owners, even though nobody seems to want to talk about it. The NBA cannot be intransigent forever: another league will pop up to take its place. The decert is also serious business.

We're not talking about factory workers or the teacher's union here (many of you, btw, seem like you'd have much less sympathy for one of those unions).  We're talking about guys who get paid to play a game professionally, guys who make more in one or two years than most of us can ever hope to make in a lifetime -- even under the owner's proposed deal which is supposedly so awful.

It's fine to make this argument, but I'm just going to go ahead and tell you flat-out that it doesn't have the traction that you seem to think it does. NBA players make exceptional amounts of money, but they are also exceptional talents. I couldn't dunk a basketball even if you gave me a hundred years, so this is a comparison that just doesn't really make a lot of sense. The market absolutely can support the wheelbarrows full of money that these people make, so more power to them, god bless America, etc.

[StartOrien]

A day later I've decided that I blame everyone, and I'm still angry. So there.

[PosImpos]

Baloney on all counts. The players have leverage over the owners, even though nobody seems to want to talk about it. The NBA cannot be intransigent forever: another league will pop up to take its place. The decert is also serious business.

A different league might pop up eventually, but a large portion of the players currently in the league would no longer have a career by the time it happened.

Here's my thinking on the situation:

The players want to maintain the status quo.  That makes sense, because the status quo -- the previous CBA -- was immensely favorable to them.

Well, we can save a lot of time here by just looking at the above statement. Sure, the players 'want' to preserve the status quo, but they have from the very beginning proven they don't think that's realistic. They've come down from 53% of BRI (which will encompass the alleged losses the owners have suffered) to 50% of BRI (which assuming static BRI from last season (which was one of the NBA's best ever)) means the owners go well above and beyond where their 'losses' (again, a pretty dubious term here, because the supposition again is that the players' salaries are the thing limiting the teams from being profitable).

On top of that they've conceded terms on things like sign and trades, MLE contracts, maximum years on a max contract, rookie scale earnings, etc..

Pretty much the ONLY thing I've seen that would at all favor players is that teams' can now offer a bigger raise through Bird Rights then they could before.

So if there is anything in there that reminds you of the players wanting to preserve the Status Quo, point it out to me, cuz I'm not seeing it.

You say they've conceded on all of those things, and yet they refused to accept the offer presented yesterday, and offers presented to them in the past.

From what I've read, the problem seems to be that the players want to either compromise on the BRI split and concede very few if any system changes, or they will accept the system changes but without as much concession on the BRI split.

If the players were as amenable to concessions as you say, we'd have a deal.  The players don't like many of the system changes that restrict the ability of "tax paying teams" to use cap exceptions as in the old deal.  This is just the newest extension of the players' fight, tooth and nail, to prevent the league from implementing a hard cap. 

In my mind, that's simply a fight they are going to lose.  The owners want to limit the ability of bigger market teams to spend on free agents, and that's going to mean that players won't have as much freedom to go to the nicest city around (read: LA or Miami).  I'm okay with that.  I really, really didn't like the stuff that went down in the last couple of years with players holding free agency over their teams' heads.



I won't argue with you that the owners are being harsh with the players here.  But it is what it is, and we're going to have a deal eventually, one way or another, that is not going to be favorable for the players.  So why lose most or all of the season only to reach the same conclusion?


The players are like little kids sitting at the dinner table who have been fed on chicken nuggets and french fries for years and whose parents have finally decided to feed them nothing but vegetables to make up for it.  Is that cruel?  Kind of.  But the little kids aren't gonna leave that table until they eat vegetables, and whether it's broccoli now or brussell sprouts later, they a) have to eat something eventually and b) that something will be some kind of a vegetable.

Just eat the broccoli now and let's play basketball.

[LB3533]

Owners' "Blood" Demand #1: We want guaranteed profits! ("...a chance to make a buck or two". -Peter Holt)

Owners' "Blood" Demand #2: We want competitive balance! (small market versus big market)


1.) Players have given back 300 million from 57% yo 50%, this is the owner's chance to make a buck or two.

2.) Players have conceded every system aspect except for "guaranteed contracts".

That's it.

Everything has gone the owners way except guaranteed player contracts.

The score is like 99 - 1, owners.

[PosImpos]

Owners' "Blood" Demand #1: We want guaranteed profits! ("...a chance to make a buck or two". -Peter Holt)

Owners' "Blood" Demand #2: We want competitive balance! (small market versus big market)


1.) Players have given back 300 million from 57% yo 50%, this is the owner's chance to make a buck or two.

2.) Players have conceded every system aspect except for "guaranteed contracts".

That's it.

Everything has gone the owners way except guaranteed player contracts.

The score is like 99 - 1, owners.

If you want to argue that the players have been really incompetent at this whole negotiating thing and that the owners have rather gleefully taken advantage of it, you'll get no argument from me.


Also, let's keep in mind that the previous CBA was a much more favorable deal than players have in really any other American professional sport.  Even the owners' proposed deal that the players rejected yesterday would still be far better than what players in the NFL and NHL play under. 

If the players keep making their stand and cause the season to be lost, they could end up with a deal that is really draconian by any measure, not just in comparison to the last CBA.  That's what happened to the NHL players.

[indeedproceed]

Baloney on all counts. The players have leverage over the owners, even though nobody seems to want to talk about it. The NBA cannot be intransigent forever: another league will pop up to take its place. The decert is also serious business.

A different league might pop up eventually, but a large portion of the players currently in the league would no longer have a career by the time it happened.

Here's my thinking on the situation:

The players want to maintain the status quo.  That makes sense, because the status quo -- the previous CBA -- was immensely favorable to them.

Well, we can save a lot of time here by just looking at the above statement. Sure, the players 'want' to preserve the status quo, but they have from the very beginning proven they don't think that's realistic. They've come down from 53% of BRI (which will encompass the alleged losses the owners have suffered) to 50% of BRI (which assuming static BRI from last season (which was one of the NBA's best ever)) means the owners go well above and beyond where their 'losses' (again, a pretty dubious term here, because the supposition again is that the players' salaries are the thing limiting the teams from being profitable).

On top of that they've conceded terms on things like sign and trades, MLE contracts, maximum years on a max contract, rookie scale earnings, etc..

Pretty much the ONLY thing I've seen that would at all favor players is that teams' can now offer a bigger raise through Bird Rights then they could before.

So if there is anything in there that reminds you of the players wanting to preserve the Status Quo, point it out to me, cuz I'm not seeing it.

You say they've conceded on all of those things, and yet they refused to accept the offer presented yesterday, and offers presented to them in the past.

From what I've read, the problem seems to be that the players want to either compromise on the BRI split and concede very few if any system changes, or they will accept the system changes but without as much concession on the BRI split.

If the players were as amenable to concessions as you say, we'd have a deal.

See, that's the point. They have conceded on those things, but the owners want more on top of it. If the owners were rational human beings, they should have a deal. The owners however, as everyone and their uncle is want to point out, have nearly all the leverage. So, they're levering the players, mostly by telling them to put on the gimp suit like they were told to, or to quit talking and jump.

I won't argue with you that the owners are being harsh with the players here.  But it is what it is, and we're going to have a deal eventually, one way or another, that is not going to be favorable for the players.  So why lose most or all of the season only to reach the same conclusion?

This is the only logical argument that I see that supports the players taking an undeniably and systematically unfair deal.

The players are like little kids sitting at the dinner table who have been fed on chicken nuggets and french fries for years and whose parents have finally decided to feed them nothing but vegetables to make up for it.  Is that cruel?  Kind of.  But the little kids aren't gonna leave that table until they eat vegetables, and whether it's broccoli now or brussell sprouts later, they a) have to eat something eventually and b) that something will be some kind of a vegetable.

Just eat the broccoli now and let's play basketball.

This is an unfair metaphor and I think it speaks to a broader prospective. The 'they make millions of dollars to play a game, that's way more than I make and in this economy yadda yadda shut up and play' argument. It also implies that the players are irresponsible irrational children and that the 'owners know best'. Its a flawed argument because logically it is just riddled with irreverent premises and biased conclusions.

The players are grown men who see themselves as the main, limited commodity in a billion-dollar industry. They think because of that they are entitled to a lions share of the income.

The owners are grown men who happen to own the buildings the players play in, and the copyrights on the images on the players jerseys. They see their established infrastructure and established team culture and history as a commodity more important than the actual players. They believe they are entitled to a lions share of the income, and to more control over the players' freedom regarding their ability to dictate their place of employment.

Both sides have a case here, but up until this point, the players have been the more rational and have been the only party negotiating in good faith.