Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Two separate issues.
One, what owners are willing to do to put a competitive team on the floor.
Two, what collective agreement they're willing to make with the players union.
If the players want to negotiate pay on an individual basis then what's the union for? I'm pretty sure it wasn't set up by the owners.
GVC
Well-Known Member
For all intents and purposes, the NBA is a cartel. The individual team owners all get together, set league wide policy, to various degrees set prices (consider national TV deals, merchandise, etc.), don't allow free entry, divide access to different geographic regions, etc. As such, the market for the services provided by American basketball players is not at all free, and they have to fight to try to get their wages anywhere close to where they'd be in a free (or freer) market. It's a lot harder to negotiate individually than it is collectively with such an organization.
Empirically the evidence you need for this point is abundant. One need only look at the escalation in player salaries during the ABA era.
NBA teams are only competitors in a very narrow sense in the binary language of wins and losses during the course of a season. From a business perspective, there's a reason they call them "franchises" and the Knicks and Lakers aren't actively trying to run the other teams out of business.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Report: Hunter Trying To Smear Fisher As Sellout To NBA
And so it begins.
https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_...w-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_110111
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Sadly, the lag between common sense and action will still probably cost us half the year. And that's assuming common sense even registers before it's too late.
NotDeadYet
Well-Known Member
The first order of any business is to make enough money at least stay in business. From what I have read 20 of the 30 NBA franchises lost money last year. That is obviously NOT a formula for success. Escalating player salaries and benefits are largely responsible. Yes, owners have overpaid to try and stay as competitive as possible, but regardless, for the NBA to stay in business this disparity has to be corrected.
One of the primary objectives of professional sports in recent years has been to improve the potential for equally competitive teams regardless if they are based in a "small-market" or a "big-market". Owners of teams in small markets have to be aghast at some of the events they witnessed last year, some of them first-hand; Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony et al. They lost key players and had to see within current NBA guidelines the SAME THING would happen again in the future, with nothing in place to stop it. Their chances of ever becoming competitive as things are now are very remote, with virtually no chance of REMAINING competitive.
If the NBA chooses to follow the path of the NFL and NHL with a hard salary cap, both of which have made great strides toward competitiveness for all teams regardless of market-size, the NBA's players are free to move on to other ventures if they disagree with it. The message from the majority of NBA owners is clearly the NBA is NO LONGER the players' gravy train...
One of the primary objectives of professional sports in recent years has been to improve the potential for equally competitive teams regardless if they are based in a "small-market" or a "big-market". Owners of teams in small markets have to be aghast at some of the events they witnessed last year, some of them first-hand; Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony et al. They lost key players and had to see within current NBA guidelines the SAME THING would happen again in the future, with nothing in place to stop it. Their chances of ever becoming competitive as things are now are very remote, with virtually no chance of REMAINING competitive.
If the NBA chooses to follow the path of the NFL and NHL with a hard salary cap, both of which have made great strides toward competitiveness for all teams regardless of market-size, the NBA's players are free to move on to other ventures if they disagree with it. The message from the majority of NBA owners is clearly the NBA is NO LONGER the players' gravy train...
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Last year was a perfect example of why the system must change. Small market teams can't afford to wait around and chance that their star players are going to just jump ship.
NotDeadYet
Well-Known Member
And that same fear had permeated the Jazz FO regarding Deron Williams. I suspect it was the reason the Jazz chose to trade him rather than wait and lose him later with no compensation.
The small-market owners should see this as a RARE opportunity to band together with enough clout (as in VOTES) to get Stern's attention and get this issue resolved now.
The small-market owners should see this as a RARE opportunity to band together with enough clout (as in VOTES) to get Stern's attention and get this issue resolved now.
1) The union allows the NBA to avoid anti-trust legislation.
2) Before the union, the teams adopted rules league-wide. They did not act as individual entities in a competition. So, back then ther was no free market for players, either.
Player salaries have been capped at 57% of BRI for over a decade. There has only been excalation to match proportionate increases in revenues.
Green Bay did well before the hard cap, and the hard cap didn't help St. Louis. It's effectiveness has been overstated by the owners.
