Spirit of '99: 2011 Lockout Discussion

[Andrew]

Bill Simmons suggested the split be 50-50, which I guess is fair in theory (half for you, half for me) but I don't see the players agreeing to that kind of cut.

[_Steve_]

One could say, there are no cheaper basketball players who could play to NBA standards. But even with less money it would be still a quiet profitable "job" which attracts enough young talents. Sooner or later NBPA will accept an offer that cuts their (BR)Income...

That makes no sense. "The players need to take a paycut, otherwise they're going to have to take a paycut".

What?

Not quite true. Players should take a paycut or may face (permanent) substitution. Some players should still have in mind how the last lockout ruined careers and/ or the financial situation of several (former wealthy) players. I believe owners are right now try to threat players like thoses things could happen them too.
As I said before, players are on the weakside.
I also agree with andrew that players are (still) pretty stubborn about their 54.3 % proposal.

[benji]

Basically you're demanding that Derek Fisher, James Jones, John Salmons, Maurice Evans, Matt Bonner and others like them get by on less than $7 million per year while guys like LeBron and Dwight Howard continue to make two or even up to three times that!

In other words, you're a terrorist who hates working families.

[_Steve_]

Basically you're demanding that Derek Fisher, James Jones, John Salmons, Maurice Evans, Matt Bonner and others like them get by on less than $7 million per year while guys like LeBron and Dwight Howard continue to make two or even up to three times that!

In other words, you're a terrorist who hates working families.

If you say so... Maybe I even eat children at supper...

And I am SO sorry for guys who at the end of their professional careers (e.g. Fisher) still get sh*tloads of money. I can't tell you how sorry I am.
By comparison to NHL & NFL, NBA players earn not that bad, but their league is loosing money (at least it is said it does), a consequential conclusion would be (in short) just to cut their money...

[benji]

No, the logical conclusion is to take more of the owners money and give it to the players. The owners haven't earned that money, they don't play the games, they don't win the rings like Derek Fisher does. If anything the players should be getting all of the revenue instead of having to dig through and fight over the tiny scraps they're currently handed by billionaire owners.

Look at someone like multi-time All-Star Antoine Walker who sacrificed the prime of his life to these billionaires then when he's finally used up from the horrible working conditions they first drastically cut his pay and then later he's cast off to fend for himself with no support from anyone. Or someone like Darius Miles who is now forced to carry guns through airports probably because he was forced into a life of drug smuggling after being thrown into the street by the owners.

How would you like it if your bosses made tons of money, gave you a little bit of it, then just because your performance dropped they cut your pay by 50-90% and eventually just left you to die in the street?

The fans should be standing in the streets arm in arm with the players making sure nobody could enter the arenas until the owners cave. And if the owners refuse, it's time to use force.

Then the players might finally be getting a fair share.

[_Steve_]

No, the logical conclusion is to take more of the owners money and give it to the players. The owners haven't earned that money, they don't play the games, they don't win the rings like Derek Fisher does. If anything the players should be getting all of the revenue instead of having to dig through and fight over the tiny scraps they're currently handed by billionaire owners.

Look at someone like multi-time All-Star Antoine Walker who sacrificed the prime of his life to these billionaires then when he's finally used up from the horrible working conditions they first drastically cut his pay and then later he's cast off to fend for himself with no support from anyone. Or someone like Darius Miles who is now forced to carry guns through airports probably because he was forced into a life of drug smuggling after being thrown into the street by the owners.

How would you like it if your bosses made tons of money, gave you a little bit of it, then just because your performance dropped they cut your pay by 50-90% and eventually just left you to die in the street?

The fans should be standing in the streets arm in arm with the players making sure nobody could enter the arenas until the owners cave. And if the owners refuse, it's time to use force.

Then the players might finally be getting a fair share.

I agree with you, that owners should not be allowed to do anything just to get richer. It's the players who carry the league on their backs. Without players like Kobe, LBJ, Yao Ming, Luis Scola, Dirk etc. the league would not be able to make worldwide that amount of money it does.
But it's also the Owners who are committing significant capital expenditure by owning a NBA team (I would say around 300 mio §). Surely an owner should not just think of the bucks he can make but to be honest owning a team is still pretty similar to running a company. As far as everything works (the company makes money instead of loosing it), employees (players) should get their fair share. If the company is in trouble, employees can't expect to get more/ the same money of it.
E.g. After the worldwide financial crisis many companies gone broke. Many of the companies which "survived" the crisis had to let some employees go or had at least to lower the work time of the remaining employees (which means an indirect paycut). During that crisis people suffered a lot more then most NBA players will do if their income just get lower, because consequences much are stronger if you haven't earned millions of dollars yet. If you've earned millions of dollars and did not even saved a penny... well that's tough luck!

Btw if my personal performance drops to much I get fired. Period.

[koberulz]

One could say, there are no cheaper basketball players who could play to NBA standards. But even with less money it would be still a quiet profitable "job" which attracts enough young talents. Sooner or later NBPA will accept an offer that cuts their (BR)Income...

That makes no sense. "The players need to take a paycut, otherwise they're going to have to take a paycut".

What?

Not quite true. Players should take a paycut or may face (permanent) substitution.

Big deal. Plenty of other places they can earn millions of dollars.

Btw if my personal performance drops to much I get fired. Period.

Also true of NBA players. What's your point?

[_Steve_]

One could say, there are no cheaper basketball players who could play to NBA standards. But even with less money it would be still a quiet profitable "job" which attracts enough young talents. Sooner or later NBPA will accept an offer that cuts their (BR)Income...

That makes no sense. "The players need to take a paycut, otherwise they're going to have to take a paycut".

What?

Not quite true. Players should take a paycut or may face (permanent) substitution.

Big deal. Plenty of other places they can earn millions of dollars.

Maybe not millions but more than the average worker in ten years. IIRC the average income of an NBA player is around 5 mio dollar per year. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6794587/nba-lockout-2011-audit-reveals-5-percent-income-boost-2011 (Found a quote to proof it.) Even with taxes paid you can have a live without bigger limitations in your lifestyle. It is not as if players have to live on welfare by force.

Btw if my personal performance drops to much I get fired. Period.

Also true of NBA players. What's your point?

I answered to that question.

How would you like it if your bosses made tons of money, gave you a little bit of it, then just because your performance dropped they cut your pay by 50-90% and eventually just left you to die in the street?

Maybe I should give an explanation: I think it is harder to lose a job than just getting less money, especially if you earn at least hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Houndy]

Billy Hunter expects lockout to wipe season

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/68325 ... n-canceled

[NovU]

Makes me wonder how many veterans will come out out of shape next season if this season's wiped.

[Andrew]

Most disheartening.

[koberulz]

Maybe not millions but more than the average worker in ten years.

...your point?

Maybe I should give an explanation: I think it is harder to lose a job than just getting less money, especially if you earn at least hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The NBA isn't the only basketball league in the world. If the players can get more money elsewhere, they will.

[_Steve_]

Makes me wonder how many veterans will come out out of shape next season if this season's wiped.

Sad but true. Dirk already said, that he has to do something to stay in good shape because he can't afford not to play over a span of a whole season.

I wonder if David Stern eventually steps back/ gets removed if the whole season is cancelled...

@ koberulz:
I'm not sure what my comments lack to be understood. Maybe longer phrases would help (I'm serious about that because it's really difficult thing is to sense irony/ sarcasm in a foreign language).
Players like Childress or as he said foreign guys who go back to play in their homecountries may be attracted by other leagues over a longer period, even when the lockout finally ends. Real NBA superstars can't afford to stay away from the NBA for too long. NBA does not only mean player contracts but also merchandising etc. E.g. I do not think a player who play at Panathinaikos (Greece) will get the same contract from Jordan brand as one who plays for the Knicks.

[koberulz]

Real NBA superstars can't afford to stay away from the NBA for too long.

Because the NBA pays them so much. If the NBA was paying them less than Europe, they'd be in Europe in an instant.

NBA does not only mean player contracts but also merchandising etc. E.g. I do not think a player who play at Panathinaikos (Greece) will get the same contract from Jordan brand as one who plays for the Knicks.

Are you basing that on anything in particular? NBA superstars are recognisable world over. Kobe is probably more popular in China than in the US.

Not to mention that Europe, from what I remember of the discussion that happened when Childress went over there, is a completely different situation tax-wise, so the same money goes further.

[x-uNdErRaTeD-z]

Real NBA superstars can't afford to stay away from the NBA for too long.

Because the NBA pays them so much. If the NBA was paying them less than Europe, they'd be in Europe in an instant.

Proof or BAN!
By superstars, I mean Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, and etc...
I do not agree with the poster above me. They can't just leave the NBA like that, and just leave the fans. It's like stealing a kid's Christmas present.

[koberulz]

Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with an argument that amounts to slightly more than the internet equivalent of a toddler stomping his foot and saying "I DON'T WANNA!"

Nobody in the NBA gives a shit about you. They certainly don't care about you enough to take a paycut of millions of dollars if it's avoidable. If they were all so concerned about your feelings, this lockout wouldn't happen in the first place.

[NovU]

Enuf guys. No need to get ugly here. No need to get too emotional over something phony.

I have another question, perhaps a dumb one.
Seems like there are many that think the players are making too much money and there should be a huge pay cut. As for example, here's a quote from other forums.

These so called stars make too much money as it is and is the main reason why I do not support them by buying into their movies/sports/etc. These stars make millions upon millions in the US then go and spend it in other countries. There is no reason why they should be making more money in one month then most people wont even see in a life time. Thus, until things change I will do my best to keep my money from supporting their pays.

I actually was surprised to see so many sharing this sentiment that players are getting paid too much. Are they really? I know hockey players get paid less but the NHL has smaller fan base. So I thought salary was about right for the NBA. However, some teams are apparently struggling to make profits. Is this really the players' fault? Just want to know what you guys think. For me, I always thought it wasn't the players but thought it was more of the league creating too many teams in the hopes of making more profit. Hence the greed actually being the bigger factor why some teams fail to do well, as there can be so many good teams each year. So generally the question is, do you guys think the players are getting paid too much?

[Andrew]

I say they're not in the grand scheme of things, it's relative to the industry. There's a lot of money in professional sports and athletes are entitled to their share of it. There was a time in professional sports where athletes certainly wouldn't be making that much more than anyone else and that's still the case in some sports (pro netballers in Australia don't have big salaries as I understand it, they actually have other jobs as well), but the NBA has grown well beyond that and the revenue facilitates huge player salaries.

Certain players may be overpaid given their abilities and performance but that's the fault of the individuals who were foolish enough to offer them those contracts in the first place.

[x-uNdErRaTeD-z]

Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with an argument that amounts to slightly more than the internet equivalent of a toddler stomping his foot and saying "I DON'T WANNA!"

Nobody in the NBA gives a shit about you. They certainly don't care about you enough to take a paycut of millions of dollars if it's avoidable. If they were all so concerned about your feelings, this lockout wouldn't happen in the first place.

Easy to say when you're not in the states. I've watched plenty of games and I doubt these guys would go to Europe just for money. Well it is money but these guys may feel better playing at home rather than a country far away. I see it more of a sensitive thing/as you call it dumbass mind but that's just me. And calm down man all you want is to argue with people, as I can see pior to looking at your older posts.

[koberulz]

Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with an argument that amounts to slightly more than the internet equivalent of a toddler stomping his foot and saying "I DON'T WANNA!"

Nobody in the NBA gives a shit about you. They certainly don't care about you enough to take a paycut of millions of dollars if it's avoidable. If they were all so concerned about your feelings, this lockout wouldn't happen in the first place.

Easy to say when you're not in the states.

Why should where I live, or where you live, or really where anyone lives, affect what other people are going to do? You are completely irrelevant to the Bryants and Jameses of this world.

I've watched plenty of games and I doubt these guys would go to Europe just for money. Well it is money but these guys may feel better playing at home rather than a country far away.

What difference does it really make? Plenty of players from other countries desperately want to play in the NBA, why should it be any different the other way around? How do you account for Deron Williams? Brandon Jennings? Josh Childress? Yes, there might be a number at which the American NBA players will be happy to earn less than they could in Europe just to stay in the US, but that number will lead to a mass exodus of European players, massive drop in the quality of the league, probably a drop in league revenue due to less worldwide interest at the very least, and pay dropping even more. Eventually, Europe by far the better option and the only players that will stay here are the ones that can't make it in Europe.

There's simply no way that player salaries can be cut that much. The players can survive without the owners. The league can't survive without the players.

And calm down man all you want is to argue with people, as I can see pior to looking at your older posts.

This is me being calm. It's a discussion forum, or an opinion forum, or whatever you want to call it. I'm discussing things and presenting my opinion, same as you. You want everyone to just not say anything if they disagree? That'd lead to a really pleasant forum atmosphere, but the conversation would be boring.

[NovU]

I say they're not in the grand scheme of things, it's relative to the industry. There's a lot of money in professional sports and athletes are entitled to their share of it. There was a time in professional sports where athletes certainly wouldn't be making that much more than anyone else and that's still the case in some sports (pro netballers in Australia don't have big salaries as I understand it, they actually have other jobs as well), but the NBA has grown well beyond that and the revenue facilitates huge player salaries.

Certain players may be overpaid given their abilities and performance but that's the fault of the individuals who were foolish enough to offer them those contracts in the first place.

I am pretty much with you on this issue. And I am thiking this only means that agreement is harder to reach than expected. If it isn't the players' fault that the some teams are losing the money, I don't see much room there will be on the table to be nogotiated between the players and the league. We could blame the economy, or certain individuals for this lockout, but it seems nobody's able to offer a great solution. Right now, it's just owners blaming the players and players defending their position. Frustrating.

[_Steve_]

Someone mentioned hockey. In fact there is one league who reaches pretty close to the NHL, the Russian KHL. The sallary is very good for a hockey league. Stars get paid a good share of money. But more or less just the stars. "Normal" players get a good average salary.
In my opinion the NBA has one big problem: players who just warm the bench or complete the roster get paid to much. I mean if guys like Kobe, LBJ or Dwight have big contracts, than I'd say it is ok because those guys are the key reason why many people watch the NBA. And the NBA makes money of it, plenty of money (league passes etc.) because people want to see those guys. I doubt there are many people who want to see guys like Derrick Caracter in first place.
IIRC Pippen had a higher player contract then MJ for some time and MJ played for less money then todays NBA average. I know times they are a changing but it's quite remarkable anyway...

[koberulz]

But whose fault is that? The owners/GMs. Not the players.

And just because people don't necessarily pay to see you doesn't mean you should be paid less. In an ideal world without idiot owners/GMs, everyone's pay would be roughly equal to their importance to the team winning, but there's no need for a massive gap.

[NovU]

In my opinion the NBA has one big problem: players who just warm the bench or complete the roster get paid to much.

Might be true but I'm thinking that it's not those bench players' fault that they're getting paid much. There are many teams that will offer big contracts to overrated players. Players these days easily can get overpaid since there're more than enough teams that seek for their service. There're only handful of true stars and many of them prefer playing only for certain cities. This forces smaller market teams to chase after left overs by giving them more than what they really deserve. I think that was the case with players like Joe Johnson and Hedo Turkglu.

But whose fault is that? The owners/GMs. Not the players.

IMHO Stern and cos. I am thinking Lebron was absolutely right about there being too many teams nowadays. To borrow a quote from some article, "There are too many teams, which is a big reason why the NBA has increasingly become a league of the rich and the poor." Poor teams often makes wrong investment and have to deal with financial crysis which follows. It's rare true superstars want to sign with them but rather they end up overpaying 2nd tier stars that rarely live up to the contract.

And just because people don't necessarily pay to see you doesn't mean you should be paid less. In an ideal world without idiot owners/GMs, everyone's pay would be roughly equal to their importance to the team winning, but there's no need for a massive gap.

Very true. And that is player association's stance at the moment I believe.

[_Steve_]

In my opinion the NBA has one big problem: players who just warm the bench or complete the roster get paid to much.

Might be true but I'm thinking that it's not those bench players' fault that they're getting paid much. There are many teams that will offer big contracts to overrated players. Players these days easily can get overpaid since there're more than enough teams that seek for their service. There're only handful of true stars and many of them prefer playing only for certain cities. This forces smaller market teams to chase after left overs by giving them more than what they really deserve. I think that was the case with players like Joe Johnson and Hedo Turkglu.

Didn't said it was their fault. But as you and koberulz already said it's up to the GMs to make "reasonable" decisions in those cases. To stay on our example, I never understood why those two guys could land big deals like that.

But whose fault is that? The owners/GMs. Not the players.

IMHO Stern and cos. I am thinking Lebron was absolutely right about there being too many teams nowadays. To borrow a quote from some article, "There are too many teams, which is a big reason why the NBA has increasingly become a league of the rich and the poor." Poor teams often makes wrong investment and have to deal with financial crysis which follows. It's rare true superstars want to sign with them but rather they end up overpaying 2nd tier stars that rarely live up to the contract.

I also agree on that. During the last season I read an interesting article about the Houston Rockets and their currtent situation right in the middle of nowhere. Too good, to get a good draft picks but too bad to be a contender, which leads to less people attending their games.

And just because people don't necessarily pay to see you doesn't mean you should be paid less. In an ideal world without idiot owners/GMs, everyone's pay would be roughly equal to their importance to the team winning, but there's no need for a massive gap.

Very true. And that is player association's stance at the moment I believe.

Quite possible.