Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[PosImpos]

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.

And this is what my argument boils down to, although I don't think the owners' proposed deal is all that unfair.  I prefer an NBA where players make less on shorter deals and teams have more control over building their roster (less is determined by location, how much money you have to spend etc).  But that's my opinion. 

I certainly agree that the owners have been bullies (while the players have been inept).  To me, though, that's as irrelevant as the state of the economy.  It's just a way to frame the narrative.

As you note, regardless of opinion about the fairness of these proceedings and the deals that have been proposed, the reality is that the players are risking the season without any great likelihood that they'll benefit from it.  That, ultimately, is why I blame them.  

I can see the arguments for the players to act in their own interest.  But I just don't see how rejecting the latest deal and decertifying was in the best interest of any of the parties involved.

[Interceptor]

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.

And the owners would lose a big pile of money, without any prospect of replacing the players that they can't close a deal with. This is leverage that the players have over the owners. I triple guarantee you that the owners are cognizant of this even if they don't admit it.

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.

If we can hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!

I don't think that this analogy represents the reality of the situation at all. You are leaping over important intermediate steps, here. What makes the players the petulant children, and not the NBA owners?

Hey, here's one from me: it's unfair to the owners, but not as unfair as you just were to the players. The players are the breadwinning, hardworking parents sending their kids (the owners) to college with a stipend to pay their expenses. The kids party hard and always come up in the red, making promises that they shouldn't and splurging on things that are unnecessary. The bill comes due. Parents want the kids to cut back, kids want the parents to give up more of their income so that the party doesn't stop.

The lesson here is that analogies are the devil.

[ballin]

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.

[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. The owners claim the NBDL send down thing was never proposed yet most people in the executive committee say it was verbally communicated and Hunter and Fischer claim Stern said they would need that concession.

Believe who you want but given the fact that the owners have all along said they would have revenue sharing at a more substantial level and yet only put into the written proposal that they would verbally communicate what the revenue sharing plan is tells me they are being purposely deceptive. They write in the formal proposal that they will verbally communicate parts of the agreement but when the NBPA state that the owners are leaving out parts of the proposal that they verbally communicated we are to believe they wouldn't or didn't do that?

That NBDL send down clause is a huge deal sprung on the players last minute as being a deal breaker, again done all verbally so that the owners could keep their "the players are just spoiled brats" PR campaign going.

If it was me I would have called the ultimatum bluff and counter proposed and waited for the owners to drop their BRI to 47%. If they did, disclaim. If they come back with another proposal you know they are being disingenuous with this whole ultimatum thing.

[Roy H.]

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. 

[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).

[StartOrien]

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 anyone can say that's true.

[Roy H.]

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?

[manl_lui]

I always blame the players...

please don't hate me for this

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

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?

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

[Interceptor]

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?

Well, how many court cases ultimately ends in settlements rather than decisions?

For this, I say that the one percent doctrine applies. The players may not have even a decent chance of winning a court battle, but if they did, it would be devastating to the owners. Do they take that gamble, instead of just agreeing to great concessions from their baseline offer and chalking it up to the cost of business? I say that they don't go all the way.

[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?

[LB3533]

There's a part of me that feels if Stern didn't offer the ultimatum part, there would have been a vote on this most recent CBA proposal.

That vote could have turned out to be accepted by the union and we'd be opening up the season next month.

I think the ultimatum and the threat of a worse deal forced the players innate instincts and caused the current course of action.

[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.

[Chris]

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?

Well, how many court cases ultimately ends in settlements rather than decisions?

For this, I say that the one percent doctrine applies. The players may not have even a decent chance of winning a court battle, but if they did, it would be devastating to the owners. Do they take that gamble, instead of just agreeing to great concessions from their baseline offer and chalking it up to the cost of business? I say that they don't go all the way.

Exactly.  But their hope is that 1% is enough to push the owners to come off their hard line stance of their last offer, and give just a bit more, to both save the season, and take away any risk that the players would see the litigation through to the end.

[Chris]

There's a part of me that feels if Stern didn't offer the ultimatum part, there would have been a vote on this most recent CBA proposal.

That vote could have turned out to be accepted by the union and we'd be opening up the season next month.

I think the ultimatum and the threat of a worse deal forced the players innate instincts and caused the current course of action.

Neh.  I think if there was no ultimatum, then they just would have sat in a room together for a few more days, before realizing they are still at a stalemate. 

Personally, I think this is where we were destined to end up, unless the owners gave in more (which they weren't going to do).  Stern's ultimatum just sped up the process.