Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
BENTLEY
Well-Known Member
Thanks freakazoid. Your link led me to this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/nba-lockout-rhetoric-escalates-as-deadline-looms/2011/11/08/gIQALY1Y2M_story.html
At the bottom was a reader's comment that I'm including because I thought it was quite good:
At the bottom was a reader's comment that I'm including because I thought it was quite good:
In this society we are raised to all feel entitled to get as much as we can. There is little to no regard about the current state of the country. Some people keep trying to put their players
situations into real life scenarios. "Well if my boss wanted me to take a pay cut so..." Please stop. These players aren't entitled to more. They aren't. There is zero regard for the people
who have put them where they are, the current state of the nation, or any sense of reality. It's just greed pure and simple.
situations into real life scenarios. "Well if my boss wanted me to take a pay cut so..." Please stop. These players aren't entitled to more. They aren't. There is zero regard for the people
who have put them where they are, the current state of the nation, or any sense of reality. It's just greed pure and simple.
Regular folks where I work took a pay cut a few years ago. All pay has been restored now, but I don't remember anyone quitting over it because the economy was in the tank and their options were no better anywhere else.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
And the puzzling thing about the players' strategy, even if they are operating under a maximize-my-take approach as they likely are, is that most players will not make up the money that they are losing by not agreeing to 50-50 now (or earlier), assuming that the owners don't budge significantly above 50-50, which I am convinced that the owners will not.
Even more embarrassing for the players is that if they (sub)consciously wanted to have more than half of the take--arguably a greedy stance, given that their side assumes far less risk and additional costs--then they would've had a good chance to get it under the 49-to-51 offer (or they probably could've notched that up to better than a likely 50.2% or 50.4% outcome).
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I absolutely get the players feeling a little taken advantage of in this negotiation. They see the likelihood of revenues increasing, revenue sharing that will further pad pockets, and the deal they're being presented isn't 'fair' in the true sense of the word. They will not share equitably in the (presumed) profits to come over the next 7 years.
But they didn't share in the losses. Personally, I think the real impediment to their accepting the deal is they were all insulated from the downturn in the economy. 2008 didn't really happen to them. Yeah, many saw depreciation of their homes, or investments that got crushed. But their jobs or paychecks were never directly affected. And weathering the storm on a house that dropped 25% of its value is infinitely easier to absorb if you've already got full or significant equity in it. You're just stuck not being able to sell it, not being unable to make the mortgage.
I don't think most players are really capable of seeing this. But what's happening to them has happened to most people already. The huge difference is their 'losses' still result in exorbitantly high paying jobs once they get past their pride.
But they didn't share in the losses. Personally, I think the real impediment to their accepting the deal is they were all insulated from the downturn in the economy. 2008 didn't really happen to them. Yeah, many saw depreciation of their homes, or investments that got crushed. But their jobs or paychecks were never directly affected. And weathering the storm on a house that dropped 25% of its value is infinitely easier to absorb if you've already got full or significant equity in it. You're just stuck not being able to sell it, not being unable to make the mortgage.
I don't think most players are really capable of seeing this. But what's happening to them has happened to most people already. The huge difference is their 'losses' still result in exorbitantly high paying jobs once they get past their pride.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I'm curious. How much of this money that the players want are they giving personally to Magic, Bird and MJ? Because that's the only reason they're in the position they're in to begin with. They were still ridin' these icons coattails during the last CBA or two and that ****'s slowly faded, and the product's more recently been about them and only them. And that product sucks. Hence, the losses for the owners. These dumbasses want money they didn't even earn and never will.
The players are on their ****ing own with their system demands.
I wonder if they're so clueless as to not understand the damage even allowing a LT to exist poses to the game. And that's saying nothing of the fact that they probably wouldn't care if they did know.
I wonder if they're so clueless as to not understand the damage even allowing a LT to exist poses to the game. And that's saying nothing of the fact that they probably wouldn't care if they did know.
Apparently Stern has enough ownership support to tweak the system issues to try and get something done today. With the players willing to go to 50-50, I think we might get a deal unless the players are after some major system changes. It would salvage what little enthusiasm I have left for a season.