There's a maximum on unemployment (it probably vaires from state to state). I think last time I required it, it was about $1000/month. Even for the lower-rung players, endorsement deals would wipe that out.
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
There's a maximum on unemployment (it probably vaires from state to state). I think last time I required it, it was about $1000/month. Even for the lower-rung players, endorsement deals would wipe that out.
That's pretty much everything I've been thinking. And since I trust grantland more than most sources, I am bummed.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....I thought so too, especially the observation that there's definitely racial overtones to this lockout/negotiations that are being overlooked! This is much more than about money, a new system, etc. It involves, as I've pointed out...the "hip hop" culture to a very large degree! With the exception of Michael Jordan, how many of these owners do you think have any "rap" songs in their IPODS??? How many of them do you think embrace the "hip hop" culture? How many do you think are over joyed and happy that the NBA virtually went "hip hop" with the majority of there players covered with tattoo's and there selfish style of basketball? Well, here's what Simmons pointed out in that column!
"That's a recurring theme of this lockout, something Bryant Gumbel broached on Real Sports when he compared the NBA owners to plantation owners, then festered when nobody on the players' side distanced themselves from Gumbel's words (if anything, you could almost feel them silently nodding). A few days later, Wise's column "Negotiations could be hijacked by racial perceptions" publicly nailed many of the points that NBPA insiders had been whispering privately for weeks. Why isn't anyone pointing out that Peter Holt is one of Rick Perry's biggest donors? Why isn't anyone remembering that Donald Sterling battled those racial discrimination housing lawsuits, or that Dan Gilbert skewered LeBron James after The Decision and made him seem like, as Jesse Jackson said later, "a runaway slave?" Why hasn't anyone noticed that 28 of these 29 owners are white, or that everyone in David Stern's inner circle is white except for Stu Jackson? Race overshadowed these negotiations more than anyone wanted to admit. Gumbel recklessly ripped that scab open. The NBPA's lead negotiator, Jeffrey Kessler, reopened it last week by stupidly saying, "Instead of treating the players like partners, they're treating them like plantation workers."1 Goodwin (an African-American) revisited the theme a little more diplomatically on Monday, but still … calling the players "property" is pretty telling.2
Is this what happens when 28 wealthy white guys (plus Michael Jordan, who emerged to everyone's surprise as a leader of the "let's screw the players over as much as we possibly can" side) keep trying to impose their will on a collection of not-nearly-as-wealthy-and-mostly black guys? This was one of Stern's biggest mistakes — believing the league had squashed their race issues decades ago, that his record was impeccable on this front, that he could negotiate one last labor deal without worrying about things like, "The players won't care that nearly everyone on my side for this meeting is white, right?" Stern would disagree — vehemently — with Goodwin's assertion that owners treated players like "property." But Goodwin isn't some low-level flunkie. He has represented superstars like Jason Kidd, Paul Pierce, LeBron James and Dwight Howard over the years. He represents Kevin Durant right now. He has a better feel for these guys than Stern does. And if he truly believes the players feel like "property," that's pretty frightening."
https://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7250994/business-vs-personal
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
The worst thing about this situation is now neither side will approach the other because they don't want to weaken their side's position in court. While I've fully accepted for awhile that we won't have a 2011-2012 season, I'm worried that the following season could be in jeopardy as well.
Honestly, I think Bill Simmons is right that many fans will find other sports to occupy their time and spend their money on. Meanwhile, I'm going to my first NHL game next week.
Honestly, I think Bill Simmons is right that many fans will find other sports to occupy their time and spend their money on. Meanwhile, I'm going to my first NHL game next week.
Wait, wat?
I think he is overstating it. I think most fans will just watch College Basketball more, but will switch over as soon as the NBA starts again. They may have trouble with game attendance (especially the teams that were terrible, but they will always have that issue), TV rating will still be good.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I won't say there isn't a racial component. But if the owners had made a better effort to land the plane, the white (+ Jordan) owners would have made their black/white/hispanic/asian/jewish/metta world peace slaves plenty happy.
From a purely practical perspective, the owners failed. When you win a negotiation, as they did, you finish it right. The owners already had the players in a hot box in Nam drinking their own urine from a dirty towel. In that scenario, you don't then put a bullet in their head. You let them out. Say nice things to them. Give them a meal. And then you put a bullet in their head.
From a purely practical perspective, the owners failed. When you win a negotiation, as they did, you finish it right. The owners already had the players in a hot box in Nam drinking their own urine from a dirty towel. In that scenario, you don't then put a bullet in their head. You let them out. Say nice things to them. Give them a meal. And then you put a bullet in their head.
Mark Cuban is a white owner and I don't think he has a problem with the "hip-hop" culture. This is more of an age/generation issue to me.
The fact that the NBA is a single franchise may affect this argument. The NBA should have the right to consider the health of its franchise as a whole and has the right to create rules and regulations (e.g., the draft rules, salary cap rules, scheduling rules, broadcast licenses, etc.), even if the individual teams are run as separate corporations. Creating a standardized pay structure has never been considered anti-trust in the past, and there are ways to make high salaries for superstars punitive to the big-market teams without making those high salaries outright illegal. The luxury tax system is designed to achieve this.
However, one key factor here is that it's not really money alone that motivates star players to head to big markets. It has as much to do with the fame and media coverage those bigger cities can offer, as well as the lifestyle that caters to young, highly-paid, self-infatuated demi-god athletes. Top players want to team up to form super teams, and they want to do so in markets like LA, Chicago, NYC, Miami, etc. They want to create a legacy and establish their fame. They're not satisfied just by being in the league alone, and you never hear about players like Carmello Anthony, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard wanting to team up in cities like Milwaukee or Sacramento. When players can dictate where they want to play and who they want to play with, it shifts the power away from the owners and the league itself, even if small-market teams are willing and able to pony up the same (or better) salaries these players want. Then parity in the league completely falls apart. Keep in mind, Wade, Lebron and even Bosh took LESS money than they could have made in other markets so they could team up in Miami. People thought D.Will was going to leave the Jazz in order to play in a bigger market or play with other top players who weren't willing to come to Utah. It wasn't about whether D.Will was going to get paid.
So what are teams like Phoenix (who lost Amare for nothing), Denver (who lost Carmello Anthony), Toronto (who got nothing in return for Chris Bosh), and Cleveland (who got nothing for Lebron and instead got dissed on national television) supposed to do? How are those teams supposed to compete, and how are they supposed to fill their seats when fans want to see a winning product? I think that as much as smaller market teams want a strong share of BRI, those teams are just as motivated to try to gain some semblance of control over the market for free agents. Why? Because they keep getting screwed by players who want to rule the world. I think this is the gist of the conflict and why the players' association shot down the proposal without letting the rank-and-file players vote.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Repped.