Owners are replaceable

[Fishsticks]

One thing I do find unfair is the rookie scale. There should be some sort of override that allows a player like AD who is a top 5 player in the league to get paid now.

 

[Fishsticks]

Valid point, yes. But if the players collectively are adamant that they're not for sale, then no amount of money can buy them. And if the owners decided that they are wiling to pay more then we're back to what the players have wanted all along.

You are talking about 20-30 or so players that are REALLY getting paid. the other 400 players have bills. The NBA is not going anywhere under any circumstance. The NBA and their genius marketing made these guys, otherwise they are pounding the blacktop.

EDIT: Point is these guys make money but they live far above their means and there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

 

[♪alt13]

This would likely take years to bring into fruition, meanwhile the current players would be sacrificing their legacy. It's not just a matter of changing team names and telling the fans to show up in a different building.

Legacy? This is about money. Besides what better legacy than to be a founder of the world's premier basketball league.

I think one more thing to consider is HD streaming. It wasn't really an option even just a few years ago. The players wouldn't really be limited to the big cable channels for broadcast rights. There are a number of companies that have the money to pay and the ability to broadcast online.

 

[♪alt13]

It is not a real threat. You are talking about millionaires Vs billionaires and brawn vs brains. The players need the league just as the owners need them. this nitwit lawyer is a blowhard.

It is a real threat which is why the league will pay. It's not going to happen because yes the owners aren't stupid enough to let it go that far, but it is feasible.

 

[The Midnight]

You are talking about 20-30 or so players that are REALLY getting paid. the other 400 players have bills. The NBA is not going anywhere under any circumstance. The NBA and their genius marketing made these guys, otherwise they are pounding the blacktop.

EDIT: Point is these guys make money but they live far above their means and there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

OK, but that's why I think players' unity is key. If 100% of the players are all united then the owners have a problem. Money is not an issue, the players can always find "investors" who will bank roll their new league.


But if the 10-20 or so star players are gonna side with the owners, then yeah of course the players won't have as much bargaining power.

 

[The Midnight]

Legacy? This is about money. Besides what better legacy than to be a founder of the world's premier basketball league.

I think one more thing to consider is HD streaming. It wasn't really an option even just a few years ago. The players wouldn't really be limited to the big cable channels for broadcast rights. There are a number of companies that have the money to pay and the ability to broadcast online.

This is a good point. Much easier now to get a new league up and running and simply sell subscriptions via online streaming. Investors will jump all over this to get in on the action. The NBA had already done a lot of the marketing to make these players household names, it won't be hard.

 

[freakazoid]

That may be, but the threat itself is a significant bargaining chip for the players..

Doubt it. The owners know the feasibility, and more importantly, they know the players. IMO, very few, if any, would want to make the sacrifices that would be necessary to pull this off, no matter what the player's union would have you believe. These guys love the game, and the stars especially value their place in history next to the great players that came before them.
-
I also remember reading something about the NBA being ready to fight this legally, and could tie it up in court. If that's true, none of the players are walking the walk.

 

[freakazoid]

Legacy? This is about money. .

Both come into play.
-

Say it takes 3 years to get to a point similar to NBA now. I doubt you can just clone it over night in one season. Think Lebron/KD/entire spurs team is willing to give up a shot at 3 more rings while making millions?(spurs will be dead by then, but you get the picture) Maybe some players might make that sacrifice, but not most, let alone all, IMO.
-
I do believe the players deserve more money, and I think they will get it, but it will be for other reasons. I have a hard time believing the owners aren't sitting back chuckling over this.

 

[♪alt13]

Both come into play.
-

Say it takes 3 years to get to a point similar to NBA now. You don't just clone it over night in one season. Think Lebron/KD/entire spurs team is willing to give up a shot at 3 more rings while making millions? Maybe some players might make that sacrifice, but not most, let alone all, IMO.

The stars are the guys leading the charge.

Many of the league’s highest-paid and most visible superstars have spoken out against this system, including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban suggested that players should give up guaranteed contracts if they want maximum salaries eliminated; Kevin Durant did not take kindly to that idea.

https://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/16/nbpa-director-michele-roberts-on-max-salaries-the-premise-offends-me/

Ps Chris Paul is the president of the players association.

 

[freakazoid]

It could happen and it could happen quickly.

I'll buy that it's possible, although extremely unlikely. If it could happen quickly, it already would have.
-
"Spoken out against the system" is a long ways from ready to make the necessary sacrifices. They're speaking out because they know they are not paid fairly, and they're trying to get back some of what they lost last time around. However, at the end of the day, most of the players just want to take their check and get back on the court. As a group, I just don't believe the majority would be in.
-
Also, if the players did start their own league, I'm assuming they would want to implement a free market system, considering that's what seems to be the issue with the stars. Such a system would allow for about half or less of the teams we have now to be competitive. That league doesn't rake in nearly the cash the NBA does. I think this is way more complicated than people want to admit.

 

[One Brow]

I agree.


I was thinking about this the other day. What do the "owners" actually own? Basically just the "brands" and the "right" to be included in the NBA. They don't own the stadiums. They don't "own" the players. They own very little as a matter of act. The players could just as easily collectively walk away and start their own league if they don't like what they're getting.

They also own TV contracts. A players league would be starting from scratch, there, with networks having committed huge amounts to the NBA.

 

[One Brow]

This is a good point. Much easier now to get a new league up and running and simply sell subscriptions via online streaming. Investors will jump all over this to get in on the action. The NBA had already done a lot of the marketing to make these players household names, it won't be hard.

It's easier, but not more profitable. The NBA rakes in a lot more money from TNT than it does from League Pass, as I understand it.