Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: LeBron James Laughs In Kevin Garnett's Face

The NBA Lockout Goes Nuclear, And The Players Did The Right Thing

As the NBA Players Association voted to disband on Monday, David Stern told America that the NBA has entered into a 'nuclear winter.' But if they put the 2011-12 season in serious jeopardy, it's simply because the players had no other choice.

Nov 15, 2011 - The NBA lockout has seen enough twists and turns and standoffs and red herrings to keep us all in suspense for the past few months, but what happened Monday really wasn't that dramatic. The NBA players opted for the only choice that made sense.

It was up to the players to strike back or risk getting slaughtered, and they chose the former, disclaiming interest the players union, stepping away from a bargaining table where only one side was bargaining, and taking the initial steps toward attacking the NBA in court. There's still a chance the union decertifies altogether, adding more lawyers and more teeth to the players' legal challenge.

All this puts the 2011-12 season in serious jeopardy, yes. But it also provides a welcome change of pace. Not just in this lockout, but in the context of pro sports labor negotiations, in general.

Everyone has trouble thinking of professional athletes as victims. They are paid more than we are, our wildest dreams are their reality, and their worst case scenario is still the best case scenario for 99.9 percent of everyone else. There are plenty of rational reasons to have trouble sympathizing with aggrieved superstars. But that doesn't mean it's rational to expect them to be browbeaten without fighting back.

For the players to win a legal battle, it will take a favorable judge, some exhaustive work from the players' litigators, and a whole lot of patience. But this isn't some kneejerk negotiating gimmick. The owners have been using the threat of a lockout as a weapon all along, and the players had no other choice but to sink to their level.

And if there was any doubt about why and how we got here, no less than David Stern personified the problems on Monday afternoon. Not 30 minutes after the players opted to disband the union, it was Stern who took to national television oozing with condescension and contempt.

As he said on ESPN: "They decided, obviously having been hopped up by Mr. Hunter and the lawyers brought in, that this was a good negotiating tactic. And that's all it is. This is a negotiating tactic. You don't get exactly the deal that you want, and you sue. But it's not gonna work. If they were gonna do it, they should have done it a long time ago. ... But they seem hellbent on self-destruction."

Later, when the anchor asked how he'd explain the news to disappointed basketball fans, Stern answered: "The fans can think that we were very close, and the players decided to blow it up." It was just perfect. No quote captures Stern's breathtaking audacity quite like that one.

This is all the players' fault, Stern tells his paying customers. They just refused to negotiate. 

We've already outlined the broader, illogical dynamics driving the NBA lockout, but apart from all the numbers and rhetoric, it essentially comes down to the owners' all-encompassing entitlement. But even worse, Stern believes he's entitled to shaping the narrative in all this. In other words, not only can he and the owners erase 60 years of economic progress for the players, but they will rewrite the history as they go. And worst of all? A lot of smart people believe him.

As Ian Thomsen writes at Sports Illustrated on Monday: "For the NBA owners and players to shut down their league during the worst economic times in more than 60 years has got to be the dumbest thing they could imagine doing." And ... Wait a second. Wait wait wait wait wait wait, WAIT.

It wasn't the players who shut down the league. It was the players who offered 2.2 billion dollars to play, and then were told they had to offer more. It was the players who raised their offer to 3 billion, and then were told they had to agree to a whole other battery of concessions.

No, if there's sincere regret this year, it'll be when the owners give back millions of dollars in TV and sponsorship money, then pay a full staff of team employees with no revenue coming in. And for the first time in months, the players have forced the owners to reconcile with that reality. Unless they change course, not only will owners collectively forfeit billions, but they can expect to go to court and risk the future of their billion dollar assets.

For instance: How excited do you think the NBA would be to have their financial claims audited in federal court? What about when an independent economic expert weighs in on LeBron James' free market value? Or when a judge sees the months-long attempt for the players to negotiate a fair deal before opting for litigation--are we sure it'll be seen as a negotiating gimmick, then?

More than any league on earth, the NBA grows as a symbiotic organism with its superstars; a partnership where the players and owners share in the responsibility for growing the game. But it's a partnership where one side owns all the equity; so how could it possibly make sense to then split revenue 50-50? Stern and the owners have demanded that all along, and that's audacious enough. But they've also demanded it while painting the players as a bunch of greedy, uncooperative fools. Just look at the way Stern handled SportsCenter on Monday.

Screen_shot_2011-11-15_at_10

Just last week, even after the players capitulated to a 50-50 deal and agreed to eliminate the owners' annual economic risks, the owners had the arrogance to demand system changes that would eliminate their managements risks just the same. That's when their attitude was really laid bare.

"Competitive balance" is just code. The owners want shorter contracts to protect themselves from making foolish long-term investments. They also want to make it harder for superstars to change teams with a more rigid salary cap. In other words: On one hand, more player movement. On the other, restricted player movement. It's the NBA's bargaining strategy in a nutshell.

The owners own the bakery, they want rights to half the cake, and they want to eat it all, too.

From day one, the lockout's been wielded like a sword hanging over the players' head. The owners wanted an eye for an eye on every front. Everything that happened in the past few years--LeBron James leaving Cleveland, teams losing money, max contracts turned sour--the owners have sought to fix without breathing a word of compromise. The negotiations have been a monologue drenched in condescension, vague threats, and ominous deadlines.

Maybe it's true that players missing a season's worth of paychecks equates to mutually assured destruction, but you can only get pistol whipped for so long before you reach for a gun. There's no guarantee that a legal challenge does anything but prolong the inevitable massacre, and no doubt, if there's no basketball played this year, then everybody loses.

But what Stern and the owners have been doing is so wrong that whether the players succeed or not, fighting back is right. And a day after everybody lost in the NBA lockout, I'm reminded of a movie from the 1980s--Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing. It fades to black with two quotes on screen. 

The first is from Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."

The second is from Malcom X:

"I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."

The players' future may be uncertain now, but the past five months left them no other choice. If a violent lawsuit engulfs the NBA season, then yeah, we'll miss watching the NBA this year. But don't blame the players for finally defending themselves. That's just called intelligence. 

Do you like this post?

Profile_medium

Andrew Sharp

Featured Contributor

"Opinions is like a Escalade, everybody got one"
-- Professor Jeezy

"People gon' think I'm crazy, but if you believe it, you can achieve it."
-- Stephon Marbury


Comments

Display:

Weird

Sharp took the side of the players and once again fails to recognize that it’s not a negotiation when one side has no leverage.

by CJ206 on Nov 15, 2011 12:21 PM EST reply actions  

Pretty much this. The players, if they have any strategy, need to get to a position where they have leverage

That means taking a bad deal and working within the system to be able to extract a better one the next go round- whether that means player owned franchises, conglomerate arrangements or something of the like players need to realize that unless they are legal shareholders they’re pretty much voiceless outside the grievances covered in a collective bargaining agreement. I’d be more sympathetic to the players if they hadn’t agreed to this mess in the first place.

The twitter
Anfield Asylum, sbnation's very own open zoo for the most dangerous game: Liverpool fans
"Voetbal is pas totaal als je wint"- Coach Adun
"The greatest sin is to spurn the gift"- Coach Alistair

by Londonjoe on Nov 15, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re right, the players were begging to be locked out and not be allowed to go to work. How greedy of them to offer to cover all of the owners “losses” AND then some. The players leverage is that they’ve negotiated in good faith and put together a fair amount of givebacks. The owners have stood their with a gun to their head and simply said “give me more.”

by jpmchugh77 on Nov 15, 2011 1:49 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

If "fair" was even possible to calculate,

there would be no lockout going on buddy.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions  

How does good faith during the negotiations that you’re already in give you leverage? Good faith doesn’t mean not protecting your own interests. They just started conceding things because they had no leverage. Players have no risk.

by CJ206 on Nov 15, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions  

the only actual leverage the players have is decertification with the threat of a lawsuit which will likely lead to an eventual settlement b/c neither side wants to go to court

by CJ206 on Nov 15, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I don't see stadiums and their parking lots filled with fans of the NBA

I don’t see long concession lines and I don’t see jerseys being worn. And I don’t see the NBA as a whole gaining any popularity, coming off a season where there was finally a substantive increase in the overall excitement level. I don’t see this helping overall franchise values either. And how does this affect the next league television contract?

And there are plenty of owners who would happily accept a deal palatable to the players so they would get back on the court. Many of those owners are old school guys and might have influence on the other owners.

The players have very little leverage, I don’t think there’s any denying that. But to say they have none is completely untrue.

Even if the players get most of the public’s scorn, after all is said and done they will be the face of these owner’s franchises. How in the world does it help the league long-term to allow and encourage your most marketable product to be publicly crucified?

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

The Honorable Hari-Kari.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry it’s more like Kamikaze.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

actually your first term is right.

Hara-kiri is an honor suicide in feudal Japan.

by thewiz06 on Nov 15, 2011 2:03 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

But they didn’t just kill themselves, they killed the owners, arena workers and fans.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok

when you think about it, you’re right there too.

At worst, if the players don’t have their way, they’ll just bring everyone down with them.

by thewiz06 on Nov 15, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm betting

you’re in the “CAN’T THEY MAKE LESS MILLIONS” camp, or perhaps you looked down on the writers’ strike in Hollywood all those years back

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 16, 2011 8:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Don’t know what camp that is. And I don’t recall caring about a writer’s strike.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 16, 2011 12:49 PM EST up reply actions  

But have you seen the new sitcoms the last few years?

We should have cared! :-)

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I'll elaborate.
they killed the owners, arena workers and fans.

Implies this is the players’ fault, I consider that a faulty premise based on some notion of they should simply be grateful to make so much money, ipso facto "CAN’T THEY MAKE LESS MILLIONS?’

And I don’t recall caring about a writer’s strike.
Writers need to shut up and write, basketball players need to shut up and play ball, either way, rhetorical ‘I’ must have ‘my’ entertainment without considering where it came from

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 18, 2011 9:19 AM EST up reply actions  

lol you are very wise

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:08 AM EST up reply actions  

What if Stern Cancels the Season this week?

You are going to have 400 Players go Nuclear on the 50 Player Reps and Executive Committee.
I hope they sell tickets to the fights.
I gotta make sure I get all the players on my twitter so I can laugh at all the comments.

by jmpalomo on Nov 15, 2011 1:08 PM EST reply actions  

OH THE SLAUGHTER!

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 1:55 PM EST reply actions  

I can't stand this anymore.

The league sits down with the players and, whether you want to claim it’s not 100% legit is up to you, attempt to show the players how much money they need to operate successfully.

The players sit down and say “but I made ____ much last year…!”

:| Okay… And?

I mean, really…

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 2:10 PM EST reply actions  

Gee, that was almost substantive, Casey

Good on ya.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

And that’s still a little more substantive as the player’s arguments.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 2:14 PM EST up reply actions  

than*

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

this

Last CBA expired. Owners aren’t asking players to cover their losses. Owners are offering players millions of dollars and a very fair deal to play ball. Forget about last CBA…take the deal…play bball with no salary rollbacks and make even more money (avg up to 7 mil instead of 5)…let small markets enjoy a few more restrictions for teams into luxury tax.

Or don’t. Go to Europe or something. Open fast food restaurants. Get out of the way. You signed a CBA for a certain amount of time and now it has expired. Now you have the league hostage. Let someone else step up for their guaranteed multi million dollar contract. If you don’t want it just get lost.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:22 AM EST up reply actions  

You can't "forget about the last CBA"

Would you, if you were the players? Would it be the first time in collective bargaining history that a prior agreement is ignored when creating a new one?

Now you have the league hostage.

You mean the same league that locked out the players?

Instead of the players going to Europe or opening restaurants, Stern and the owners should quit their whining and sign the last offer that was agreeable to the players. If not, they have the option to attempt to sever all the existing player contracts and re-start their league with brand new players! Instead of getting 50%, the owners could get 90% and really reap the profits amirite??

Come on owners, put your money where your mouth is. If the players aren’t the league, you should be able to do just fine with replacements and set these current players adrift.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 7:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I wish they’d do that. If certain players are willing to leave the NBA then good riddance. The league would go on. In 5 years, it would be better than it is now.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 16, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

this

The NBA has been on a collision course with insanity for awhile now. I’m all for a reset. The lockout needed to happen…unfortunately. What we had wasn’t maintainable.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions  

The NBA would be dead in 5 years

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Not likely

Talent comes in every year and the NBA still pays more than the Euro league assuming at least a 40% BRI for the players. Working conditions and pay would still be the best in the world right here in the NBA.

Many of the current NBA players would probably end up back here within a year or two as well.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions  

It's really a ridiculous argument

The owners don’t want to replace the players, and the players don’t want to replace the league. In either scenario, the product would suffer tremendously.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

If the players can't get consistent payments from the euro league that match the NBA

and accommodations that match playing in the states and they can’t get the same money off the court with shoe contracts and what not, then highly unlikely they are all staying out there for very long.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 16, 2011 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree that the NBA would suffer

but look where we are now. This mess has already done incalculable damage to the league. If the NBA could roll forward under a new CBA with stars, mid-level players and rookies that just want to play we might be able to stabilise the league for the future.

Not that it has a chance of actually happening. More that I wouldn’t mind if it did.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Kind of like it is now.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 16, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Forget? No. Put in perspective? Yes.

The players union agreed on the amount of time the CBA would be effective. The NBA gave them the heads up that they needed wholesale changes to make the league viable months before the CBA expired.

Crying about how much you’re giving up doesn’t make sense. You don’t have it to give up. It’s not yours. You have a league asking what it would take within reason for you to play ball, offering riches beyond most peoples’ dreams. You have a union that should have found a way to sign a CBA with no contract roll backs for their workers that would keep them all ridiculously wealthy and guarantee every contract even when some bums don’t care to earn it until the last year.

Instead we have a bunch of guys so stuck on the last CBA and how good they had it that they can’t see how good they could have it with the new CBA.

If a similar CBA were put before the players’ unions in the NFL, NHL, Nascar, MLS would they not run through hell itself to get it signed?

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

That's crazy
You don’t have it to give up. It’s not yours.

It is and was theirs. You people who want to scream about the last agreement not meaning anything in this negotiation seem impervious to the real world.

If a similar CBA were put before the players’ unions in the NFL, NHL, Nascar, MLS would they not run through hell itself to get it signed?
Sure they might. How does this matter back here on Planet Earth?

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

This is planet earth

and legally the CBA expired. Legally. It’s fact that it isn’t theirs to lose. They can bargain with it in mind but it’s not theirs. They even helped put the expiration date in place.

Using it as a gauge of what’s fair is unrealistic. Please don’t emotionalise what I’m trying to say. That’s part of the players’ problem and much of why they’re in this mess.

In the current CBA proposal, they would still be the most richly compensated sports league in the USA and likely the world. They would still benefit from completely guaranteed contracts and much of what makes player movement possible for them.

How is that not fair? They don’t make the NBA the most popular or profitable sports league in the world. They don’t pay all the bills, coaches etc with their portion of BRI. Many of them are admittedly overpaid. Some of them recently managed to do great damage to their teams financially in holding them hostage for trade…increasing the risk of employing stars.

Their travel and stay and then some is paid for out of the owners BRI split. They don’t make tough business decisions for the franchise that could easily lose a team millions of dollars. Many times players even wait until a contract year to really play.

Let’s be real. The proposed BRI split for many of the teams looks more like 50% for the players and barely breaking even or losing money for the owners. Much of the actual 50% goes up in smoke for them. Much of what’s left sticks in the wallets of large market teams.

Contracting 6 teams or so might have made that a little better but how would the players feel about that? Revenue sharing can’t answer it by itself. Bad decision making is a cop out for all but a few teams.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Problem is, you're buying the Stern's spin on the owners' financial woes as fact

The players have every right to negotiate a deal based on what they had previously. You and I would do the same if we were in their positions.

That is the real world, you can stomp your feet and deny it as much as you want – but it will not change that fact.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

He's not stomping his feet and denying it

The question as to how much the NBA is losing will clearly need to be addressed in a case, he isn’t stomping his feet and denying that.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 16, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

(actually, technically it might not be material in an anti-trust suit. My brain is still in NLRB land and not anti-trust land)

by wallywagon11 on Nov 16, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not buying anything

I look at this whole thing from the perspective of a business owner and a fan. I understand who writes the pay checks and how much they pay out for their ridiculous investment.

I believe that working on the financial and system aspects of the CBA will lead to a more stable league.

I understand that the large market teams need the lower 2/3 of the league to make everything viable from a sports standpoint.

I understand that making NBA teams a good investment will get us owners that actually know what they’re doing from a business standpoint.

I understand that players don’t want contraction because it will cost them jobs from a player’s standpoint.

I understand that 50% BRI compared to 57% BRI doesn’t necessarily mean the players make less money. Also that 57% now is probably less than 50% when the 50/50 deal was first presented.

I understand that losses over the course of the last CBA means that selling a franchise for many teams will barely even touch the original money they paid for the franchise. Some owners have effectively paid for their franchises twice.

Stern is just the go between. For whatever reason, a lot of these journalists don’t seem to realise that. If the union had dealt directly with the owners we wouldn’t have even seen a 50/50 deal. Bully tactics, ultimatums and spin probably have more to do with a desperate Stern trying to match two parties that are worlds apart than anything.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

"The players have every right to negotiate a deal based on what they had previously."

Sure they do. You get what you can. In this case they might have been able to get a couple more tweaks to system issues and they would have been back in business without any roll backs on contracts.
 
Instead they went nuclear because?? I still can’t figure that out. People blame the ultimatum but it’s not like that’s hasn’t happened before.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Was my understanding that disclaiming was from the union down while decertifying was from the players up. If that is the case then the recent filing of anti trust suits against the NBA officially signal the nuclear option.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

damnit

sorry, keep getting the two mixed up because I am a moron.

Once they disclaimed (not filed the lawsuits) they can’t negotiate as a union. If they decertified there would have been a 45 day window.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 16, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Not NHL players

Their deal is for a minimum of 54% of revenue and up to 57% if NHL revenues exceed $2.7bil.
Not 50%,54% minimum :)

by Tisbee on Nov 17, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions  

The owners own the bakery, they want rights to half the cake, and they want to eat it all, too.

Did I miss something with how a bakery works? What is wrong with this picture?

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 2:12 PM EST reply actions  

You missed the part where 95% of the patrons come to see the employees work

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

What do the other 5% watch?

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Should I get a tiny % of the revenue of Mel’s Diner because I have customers that come in because of me?

No? Because when they come in, I benefit with tips? Is that kinda like endorsements that the teammates, coaches, owners, etc…get no part of?

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I dunno

If it were you or me, and we brought in an inordinate amount of the employer’s revenue, we’d probably expect to be handsomely rewarded.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Not if I can’t do the same thing on my own.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Damn, what are you good at?

Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to hire you some day.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions  

What is your business?

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm a shepherd

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 5:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I’ll take payment in the form of Shake and Bake pork chops.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 5:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 7:02 PM EST up reply actions  

What? 95% of every customer in every business

isn’t there for the product rather than the company?

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 15, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

That's my fault for engaging in "bad analogy theater"

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I do a lot of bad analogies.

that’s how I spotted Andrew Sharp’s.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 4:30 PM EST up reply actions  

and the owners pay all the bills out of their 50%

while the employees buy drugs, gamble and do 120 mph on the freeway in expensive sports cars.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Ah, I actually engaged in debate with you above

My bad.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 7:31 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Re 50/50

The Owners get @ $1biilion from their National deals. The Networks sold $1.6billion dollars worth of commercials.
Since the Networks pay for all the production costs of televising/streaming the games,shouldn’t they get to keep 50% of ad revenues? And shouldn’t the League be happy w/just $800mil,because that would be a fair 50/50 split?

by Tisbee on Nov 17, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The NBA isn't a monopoly because it's only a monopoly in America?

Did you really say that?

“Wanna play ball, kid? Too bad. These 30 guys don’t want to pay you, so you can move the hell to China.”

11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi

by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 15, 2011 3:34 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Say what you want

but the fact that there are tons of other leagues where players can make millions is a winning argument in the whole anti-trust argument.

It’s an international game with players from all over the world, Russia, Israel, S. America, N America, Australia, playing here, playing in Europe . . . .everywhere.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 15, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

So you're saying that if this actually got to court

Leagues outside of the U.S. would be considered “competition” to the NBA from a legal standpoint?

I just want to make sure I’m understanding this.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it's a winning argument yes

There are obvious and recent examples of NBA guys going overseas to play. There are enough of them I believe. There are enough S Americans that choose to play in Europe rather than here etc..

Enough evidence that it isn’t a monopoly.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 15, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not so much saying it as the NBPA is

Once the lockout went into effect, the NBPA encouraged its players to seek contracts overseas. Deron Williams, an Allstar point guard, is playing in Turkey. JR Smith is playing in China. Undrafted players play overseas all the time. American players lose their positions in the NBA to foreign players.

The NBPA was arguing one thing for months, that the NBA was not the only game in town, that the players were prepared for a lockout and had saved their money. That the players would seek employment overseas. That the players would start their own league. This was part of their negotiating strategy to prove that this lockout wouldn’t be like in 1999 where as soon as players started missing paychecks, they folded. These are all on the record comments from the NBPA and its members.

Now they are going to ask a court to find that there really is no alternative? They can’t have it both ways. Deron Williams and his agent will be the NBA’s star witnesses. Basically to succeed, the NBPA will have to admit that they were lying to the NBA about there being alternatives to the NBA. Once they do that, they’ve proven the NBA’s bad faith case.

by tyrantking on Nov 15, 2011 4:01 PM EST up reply actions   3 recs

Thanks

Not sure I agree with you (I think the number of jobs available to players overseas is pretty limited, and the idea that having to ply your wares on another continent is an extreme example of an alternative), but you articulate your case extremely well.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

And having said that

I’m clearly no lawyer, so take my parenthesized comments above with the appropriate sized grain of salt.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 4:06 PM EST up reply actions  

The number of jobs available in the NBA are limited as well

There are thousands of jobs overseas and as the list i posted above/below shows, they pay quite well for NBA guys heading that way. Is there competition for those jobs? Sure.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Not everyone on your list was NBA talent

You should pare that down a bit.

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Most of our NBA guys would quickly get/take

away the jobs of some of those poor shlubs playing in Europe. The fact that some on the list aren’t great NBA talent actually MAKES my point.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I disagree (imagine that)

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 16, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmm, yes the NHL and NFL tried all this

This argument, which I agree is unlikely to be argued long in curt

For instance the problem with trying to ascertain Lebron James free market value is that in basketball, unlike in football, there is a free market. Lebron can go play in Europe or China. So what is Lebron’s value without the NBA?

but Kenyon Martin just got $14 freakin’ mil to play in China, and others who want to have done so as well, here’s the list:
http://hoopshype.com/overseas.htm
I think LaBron would do fine and I think that the NBA has much less to stand on than the other leagues did.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Of course it would if the players are claiming the NBA is a monopoly

that’s the whole point of an anti-trust action.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Although this has a lot of opinion in it

The real issue is whether or not the NBA operates as a single entity competing against other entities, ie NBA v European Leagues v Chinese League; or whether the NBA operates as 30 distinct businesses who have engaged in anticompetitive labor practices against the players by locking them out.

If it’s the determined to be the second of these, none of that would be relevant.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 16, 2011 8:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh my oh my
It was up to the players to strike back or risk getting slaughtered,

Slaughtered?.
Laughable!

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 15, 2011 3:36 PM EST reply actions  

I laughed.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 15, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I wish someone would slaughter me with several million dollars lol. Even better if I could be deep bench. That way I’d get rich doing as little as possible.

by poorwebguy on Nov 16, 2011 3:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Have to ask Mr. Sharp

obviously we are not at the end of the tunnel yet but given the last line of this article you think the players are making the intelligent decision here I am curious whether you think the NHL players made the intelligent decision when they decided to hold out a few years back.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 15, 2011 3:52 PM EST reply actions  

And it was Ghandi on that whole "eye for an eye - " quote

perhaps MLK quoted Ghandi . . . .

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 15, 2011 4:32 PM EST reply actions  

I agree the players had to do this. I wish they did this earlier but oh well. Also, my uncle Paul Benjamin, was in Do The Right thing. He was one of the 3 guys sitting outside next to the street. So…yeah. He’s alive and well.

Dante Nelson-Staff Writer at "The Sixer Sense" and "Hardcourt Mayhem"
Follow on Twitter @Dantewrites

by Dalanel on Nov 15, 2011 4:34 PM EST reply actions  

Mr. Sharp, what about the N.B.A. do you like the most?

“‘Competitive balance’ is just code. The owners want shorter contracts to protect themselves from making foolish long-term investments.” Notice how they never say this about N.F.L. owners? Why? Is it because they are so much more astute than their N.B.A. counterparts? No, it’s because in the N.F.L. there are no guaranteed contracts. Granted, there are some ineptly run N.B.A. franchises, the Knicks come to mind; but, are they as incompetently managed as the Raiders or the Lions under Matt Millen? Al Davis drafted JaMarcus Russell as the first pick in the draft for God’s sake. Matt Millen drafted Joey Harrington then Charles Rogers and then Mike Williams! The Raiders and especially the Lions are now competing. Why? See above, “No guaranteed contracts.”

Another “blood” issue for N.B.A. players is no hard salary cap. Once again, there is a hard salary cap in the N.F.L. and it seems to work very well. Just ask Green Bay. Do you really think a Green Bay would work in the N.B.A.? I don’t know if in fact the hard cap and a true draft, not the “ping-pong” draft of the N.B.A., creates a situation where there is absolute parity in the N.F.L. There are too many other variables such as competence. But what I do know is that, here we go again, take away the Knicks, the top 10 salaried teams in the N.B.A. stand right at a 90% chance of going to the playoffs while the bottom 10 salaried teams stand a 40% chance. What I also know is that if you take away the 3 years, including last year, that a team won a single N.B.A. championship, since 1980 a grand total of 6 teams have won 97% of the N.B.A. championships.

 Also, I really believe, if the present N.B.A. model continues the parity won’t get better, it will get worse. Why? Do you really think Dwight Howard will stay in Orlando or Chris Paul in New Orleans? No chance whatsoever!!!! They will join with a couple of other “stars” and make their own Miami. Can’t everyone see this coming? The owners sure can. What do you think they are trying so hard to stop? If the present model continues, within 3 or 4 years there will be 5 to 6 Harlem Globetrotters and 24 to 25 Washington Generals.

So, I say once again Mr. Sharp, what about the N.B.A. do you like the most? Do you want to see the “Globetrotters and Generals” league where admittedly the t.v. games and playoffs would feature the best teams, or a more competitive league where in theory every team would stand a chance to compete? Spend some time and read the comments from the blogs of the small market teams. Then you will see what they want.

Finally, by every objective measure the N.F.L. is a more popular and profitable league than the N.B.A. (in fact, the N.F.L. generates more than twice as much money as the N.B.A.) Why then do the N.B.A. players consider what helps to make the N.F.L. so much more popular and profitable, namely non guaranteed contracts and a hard salary cap, to be “blood” issues that they will “never” agree to?

by rbish44 on Nov 15, 2011 4:47 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Why then do the N.B.A. players consider what helps to make the N.F.L. so much more popular and profitable, namely non guaranteed contracts and a hard salary cap

You say that like it’s a fact?

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 15, 2011 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

5 or 6 Globetrotters

is being optimistic.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:30 PM EST up reply actions  

But I slightly agree with Andrew and TZ on one thing

This deal wouldn’t insure a more competitive balance, it’s not a panacea – but it could be (hopefully) a very necessary step towards that goal.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

To go on (and on)

The problem is, Sharp and TZ not only dismiss the possibility of the new CBA reaching towards that goal, they also appear to dismiss the very Idea of greater competitive balance as a goal completely.

In any case, for all the supposed solutions they’ve offered none have tried even slightly to address it, it’s been all about money with the greedy owners on one side and the noble workers, sweating under the yoke of their masters for an average of $5 million a year and be-moaning that they can’t just pick up and move to Miami and NY as they please.

Defenders say that the NBA is a ‘Star driven league’, a phrase I’ve grown to dispise. The NFL and MLB aren’t Star driven? The fact that there is some bit of truth in that phrase is exactly what I think is one of the worst things about the NBA that needs fixing.
None of it has been about the names on the Front of the Jerseys.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 16, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Then why don't NBA Owners do what NFL Owners do

And share EVERYTHING. All media money pooled. Ticket revenue shared.
Owners do that and your NFL argument works,until then….

by Tisbee on Nov 17, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

The funny thing Tisbee

is that we already have an accounting of most of the profits each team makes because most of it is under the BRI. The BRI does not include most of the suite revenue and the some of the other arena revenues but it does include regular season gate receipts, broadcast rights, exhibition game proceed, playoff gate receipts, novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within proximity of an NBA arena), parking, proceeds from team sponsorships, proceeds from team promotions, arena club revenues, proceeds from summer camps, proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments, proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances, proceeds from beverage sale rights, 40% of proceeds from arena signage, 40% of proceeds from luxury suites, 45% – 50% of proceeds from arena naming rights, proceeds from other premium seat licenses, and proceeds received by NBA Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald’s Championship and other NBA special events. It is all accounted for every frickin year. We know these revenues! They have to tally it up and show their work every year too because they allow the players to audit it with their own lawyers and accountants.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 17, 2011 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't believe anybody really cares

Outside of those directly affected.

This is no different than the UAW vs GM. IMO, there is no “right” or “wrong”, there are two groups fighting over how to divide the pie. Yawn.

by Craig from Az on Nov 16, 2011 5:52 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

60 updates with 188 comments

Like to see major updates on this story in Facebook.

526 updates with 1102 comments

Like to see major updates on this story in Facebook.

May 29; Newark, NJ, USA; New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur (30) during media day for the 2012 Stanley Cup Finals at the Prudential Center. Mandatory Credit: Ed Mulholland-US PRESSWIRE

Martin Brodeur Looms Large For Devils Young And Old

BATON ROUGE, LA - NOVEMBER 25:  Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team out onto the field before taking on the Arkansas Razorbacks at Tiger Stadium on November 25, 2011 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  (Photo by Chris Graythen/Getty Images)

Things To Look Forward To: Les Miles And John L. Smith, Just Crazyin' Up The Place

May 11, 2012; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams head coach Jeff Fisher looks on during mini camp at ContinuityX Training Center. Mandatory Credit: Jeff Curry-US PRESSWIRE

Worst-To-First: Which NFL Team Can Make The Jump In 2012?