Knicks · Who is making the dumber move here? (page 2)

Also I knew you'd bite on the "noble" thing! Introducing "worldviews" reveals a world view too.

EDIT:
Actually to hell with that line of argument. Who gives a crap about "world views"? I have an opinion about the NBA. When I hear things that make sense, I change my mind. World views... too much.

jrodmc: If you work for Walmart and their CFO decides it will look good on the balance sheet and be part of his bid for Financial Wizard of the Year to cut your benefits, you can beeatch and moan, you can accept it and be happy you have a job, or you can go work somewhere else. That's freedom in a market-based, capitalist society. Welcome to reality. The rest of the "it's not fair" syndrome is a batch of entitlement driven, victim mentality BS.

In your Walmart example, you express the real truth that a Walmart employee ain't got much recourse but to accept this hypothetical cut to their benefits.

The NBA players — unlike our Walmart employee — are, or were, a unionized workforce. They get to negotiate with their employers as a block. When that fails, they have the legal option of decertifying and challenging the NBA in court. A great number of them are highly-paid employees who aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck, and are owners themselves in various enterprises, thanks to the paychecks they have gotten.

All I'm trying to say is the players own a set of keys too and can have this play out in the courts. They may win a significant legal victory, or suffer a crushing defeat and regret they chose this route. Do the owners win if they make a bigger percentage of a now-smaller pie? All this growth in the 90s only to have to contract and head towards NHL/MLS levels of cultural irrelevance?

I just think vision of the players' knees buckling because they'll "only" make investment income this year is a little silly. It seems like both sides have been planning for this. The question is, to use the old fable, are there more grasshoppers or ants among the players? Is it more Ray Allen or Eddy Curry? Both are extremes, it's somewhere in the middle. And if the ants help out grasshoppers when it gets cold this winter, the players and their agents may be ready for an extended fight.

But everyone loses out on the hard court at least for now.

jrodmc wrote:Players thinking about future player salaries are noble, owners thinking about future owner's/heirs profits are evil.

That last sentence of mine you pounced on shows a mid-sentence position shift... I started a pro-player argument, then immediately countered it with a "maybe the owners feel in a similar way" direction, ending with the "Who Knows". I do acknowledge that if the players are thinking of the future players, what is different than some owner thinking of their future heirs in this negotiation? I acknowledge my bias and blindspots, but my position is more nuanced than you'd probably give me credit for.

I forthwith hereby recognize the senior chair of nuance, Dr A.

Nuance is such a hard thing to deal in within a board that doesn't have much to offer in the way of icons, avatars and font choices.
[ Not that I'm suggesting to give the intern more work, martin. Seriously. ]

I resent the fact that you know what I would pounce on. Although, to hell with that sentiment! I'm glad you know; that must mean my worldview is coming across clearly in my typing.

Understanding and acknowledging your worldview/biases is the key to coherent and intelligent debate, Dr A.
Every ahole can have an opinion.

Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

Agreed! It's like those fools on other forums who are yelling that the players are greedy- how are they greedy? a) they came down to 50% BRI, and b) they are losing a lot of money for the benefit of future players, not themselves- regardless of the new CBA, they're never going to get that money back. As a person I'm pleased to see people making such a stand, though as a basketball fan I'm furious we're losing the season! Also worried about what happens if they lose (which is a strong possibility).

The era of Unions is ended.
It is not sustainable to have Unions in any business any more.
We see them being dismantled one by one as there is no money left to support their demands.
Any corrections of free market lows are temporarily and make the situation worth at the end.
Player salaries became inflated and prohibitive to the owners.
The amount of beggars and predators around NBA and NBA players became too big.
Time for all of them get back to make leaving by doing something useful which people will pay for.
NBA is not only place for bbal players to get paid. Players who deserve it will get paid elsewhere.
Players who not need to find another ways to make a living.

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

Exactly

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Nalod wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Voiding contracts? Max years, max salaries for players? I think the thing you're not appreciating is that these owners are getting all sorts of gifts or entitlements already that business owners in the real world don't get and just looking for even more entitlements.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Voiding contracts? Max years, max salaries for players? I think the thing you're not appreciating is that these owners are getting all sorts of gifts or entitlements already that business owners in the real world don't get and just looking for even more entitlements.

I'll name 3 knicks: Marbles, Eddy, Jerome. All different, all guaranteed. Thats just 3 knicks in the last 5 years.

$200 million?

Owners are stupid. Players are not.

I have not read about voiding contracts, but you know if there are stipulations then it should be allowed. Eddy, Marbles and Jerome......Winken, Blinken and Nodd.

jrodmc wrote:I forthwith hereby recognize the senior chair of nuance, Dr A.

Nuance is such a hard thing to deal in within a board that doesn't have much to offer in the way of icons, avatars and font choices.
[ Not that I'm suggesting to give the intern more work, martin. Seriously. ]

I resent the fact that you know what I would pounce on. Although, to hell with that sentiment! I'm glad you know; that must mean my worldview is coming across clearly in my typing.

Understanding and acknowledging your worldview/biases is the key to coherent and intelligent debate, Dr A.
Every ahole can have an opinion.

Ha... that's some sig-worthy stuff, jrod. You are fun to debate with, I have to admit. And yes, your worldview of "suck it up, greedy players" comes across loud and clear. >winky face<

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Voiding contracts? Max years, max salaries for players? I think the thing you're not appreciating is that these owners are getting all sorts of gifts or entitlements already that business owners in the real world don't get and just looking for even more entitlements.

I'll name 3 knicks: Marbles, Eddy, Jerome. All different, all guaranteed. Thats just 3 knicks in the last 5 years.

$200 million?

Owners are stupid. Players are not.

I have not read about voiding contracts, but you know if there are stipulations then it should be allowed. Eddy, Marbles and Jerome......Winken, Blinken and Nodd.

In the real world too, if you give someone a guaranteed contract and they don't breach the contract, you owe them the money no matter how much they underperformed. Here the owners just feel they're entitled to special treatment.
RE voiding contracts: The owners proposal was to be able to reduce salaries to $75K, which is pretty close to voiding them.

I don't see how anyone can pick a side here..Some of you wanna say, just becuase the onwers sign the checks they could just slap around the workers and treat them any how they want.

Players dictating where they wanna play, coming to camp out of shape, and more then half, not playing up to there contracts..
Blame the social media outlets for turning this into a personal beef.

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Voiding contracts? Max years, max salaries for players? I think the thing you're not appreciating is that these owners are getting all sorts of gifts or entitlements already that business owners in the real world don't get and just looking for even more entitlements.

I'll name 3 knicks: Marbles, Eddy, Jerome. All different, all guaranteed. Thats just 3 knicks in the last 5 years.

$200 million?

Owners are stupid. Player's AGENTS are not.

I have not read about voiding contracts, but you know if there are stipulations then it should be allowed. Eddy, Marbles and Jerome......Winken, Blinken and Nodd.

Anyone maintaining that Eddy Curry is not stupid should be banned from the board. This is a warning.

Owners being villified for looking for entitlements. Now that's some funny shit.

AnubisADL wrote:Both are losing.

However, I now see owners like Cuban, Dolan, and Arison putting some heat on the hardline owners since they have more to lose. The players already agree on the 50/50 split which is HUGE for the owners. These other System concessions are a piss in the bucket for the owners.

I agree. I don't know how teams like NY, LA, Miami, and Dallas let teams like Portland and Charlotte blow this whole thing up. Just 1 or 2 more concessions and the players would have caved. It really was more about the players saving some face and stopping a hard cap. With the money the players gave back, there was no way any team was going to lose money unless they were just poorly run. LA and NY are going to miss out on millions in profit because of the lockout. It is past time these guys start standing up.

Owners should have given the players more potential for BRI, player movement & freedom and asked for some kind of mechanism to kill deals.

Like maybe a simple option on contracts, so they are either guarantee or not - and if a player is injured, its guaranteed and comes off a teams books for cap purposes.

Players should have taken the deal, and used the 6 years to plan to opt out and form their own league. Its doable, but I'm not sure the players or their agents are able to focus on the long term.

Oh, of course a player's league created with help from agents is doable, I mean, look at all the organized Knicks practices we've seen that the players have organized, and look at the long history of foresight and in depth analysis that has always been part and parcel of being a player agent. Not to mention the financial acumen that most of your players have displayed through the years. Why, if it wasn't for this stupid owner's-run league, I bet most of these players would be captains of industry, or running small countries of their own...

Both parties are so incredibly devoted to the good of the sport itself, rather than just entitlements and stinking money [like these stupid owners] that it boggles my mind that you would estimate it would take as long as six years for a player's league to form.

If only IT was available to become a Player's league commissioner... oh wait, he did that once didn't he? Hold on, let me call Charles Barkley...maybe Scottie Pippen could serve as treasurer...

DrAlphaeus wrote:Replacement players will cause revenues, team values and sponsorships to plummet. So obviously the Walmart comparison falls flat: you can't just hand Kobe's blue smock to the next person who fills out an application.

That's why they will still get paid millions of dollars, have the summer off, have access to sneaker and other marketing deals etc.. with the 50-50 split instead of making slightly above minimum wage like a Walmart worker. Their "value" and unique talents ARE built into the salary structure.

It's the other way around.

In no instance would Walmart pay it's employees so much money the company would actually be losing money. They also wouldn't allow employees to transfer to whatever department and store they wanted just because they wanted to. They would only be allowed to transfer when it was in the best interests of the company to do so also.

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Voiding contracts? Max years, max salaries for players? I think the thing you're not appreciating is that these owners are getting all sorts of gifts or entitlements already that business owners in the real world don't get and just looking for even more entitlements.

I'll name 3 knicks: Marbles, Eddy, Jerome. All different, all guaranteed. Thats just 3 knicks in the last 5 years.

$200 million?

Owners are stupid. Players are not.

I have not read about voiding contracts, but you know if there are stipulations then it should be allowed. Eddy, Marbles and Jerome......Winken, Blinken and Nodd.

Some owners/GMs are stupid and do make stupid deals. In a fair deal with the players those teams would be the ones to lose money.

However, not every deal that seems stupid is actually stupid. Here's an example:

The Atlanta Hawks overpaid for Joe Johnson by a significant amount.

Was that stupid or the least of two possible bad decisions?

If they gave him the money they knew would have a bloated contract on the books that would lower their chances of profitability and hamstring the team for years as Johnson aged because no one else would want him.

On the flip side, if they offered a "fair" contract, some other team with excess profits would certainly have given him a max contract to try to win a championship. A team in a big market could afford to take a shot and still be very profitable.

Even worse, the Hawks were about a 50 win team and a minor contender the year before. If they let Johnson walk, the team would become more of a marginal playoff team, the fans would be furious with the owner for being cheap, the other star players on the team would start rumbling they also want out because they want a chance to win a championship and don't want to rebuild etc... Attendance would fall, TV rating would fall and the Hawks would be screwed financially anyway.

So they were screwed either way.

The same can be said of Rudy Gay and dozens of other bad deals that are given out every year. It's a lose lose situation for some teams. Lose if you pay and lose if you don't.

That's why the owners want mome controls even though they already have the 50-50 split.

Without those controls the super rich teams like NY, LA, Dallas etc.. will always be able to afford to wildly overpay players in the pursuit of a championship because they will still be very profitable. That forces the smaller markets into a no win situation and almost guaranteed losses.

ItalianStallion wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Some of these comments defending the owners are hilarious.

The owners are not forced to sign guys like Arenas and Eddy Curry to insane deals.

If your boss decided to pay you more than your worth than who is too blame?

It does not have to be any ones fault. The owners made mistakes. Its their fault. They are stupid. No one disputes this.

But, its their theirs to ruin. If my boss over pays me and others eventually they go out of business.

Then what?

Someone even dumber takes his place and will continue to over pay?

The notion that players are "giving back" is not even applicable. The notion that the owners should have thrown them a bone as if these guys self esteem is eroded because they are some kind of victim!

There is no CBA. When it expires its gone.

The owners were dumb last time. They over paid.

Players are offended? Please!

Does this make me anti player? Hell know, it makes me real! I respect the players and the unique talent they have.

But make no bones about it, there is so much Im gonna spend on this. Nobody is denying the ability to earn a living. I don' t really blame the players but their agents who are always in the middle of this crap.

Voiding contracts? Max years, max salaries for players? I think the thing you're not appreciating is that these owners are getting all sorts of gifts or entitlements already that business owners in the real world don't get and just looking for even more entitlements.

I'll name 3 knicks: Marbles, Eddy, Jerome. All different, all guaranteed. Thats just 3 knicks in the last 5 years.

$200 million?

Owners are stupid. Players are not.

I have not read about voiding contracts, but you know if there are stipulations then it should be allowed. Eddy, Marbles and Jerome......Winken, Blinken and Nodd.

Some owners/GMs are stupid and do make stupid deals. In a fair deal with the players those teams would be the ones to lose money.

However, not every deal that seems stupid is actually stupid. Here's an example:

The Atlanta Hawks overpaid for Joe Johnson by a significant amount.

Was that stupid or the least of two possible bad decisions?

If they gave him the money they knew would have a bloated contract on the books that would lower their chances of profitability and hamstring the team for years as Johnson aged because no one else would want him.

On the flip side, if they offered a "fair" contract, some other team with excess profits would certainly have given him a max contract to try to win a championship. A team in a big market could afford to take a shot and still be very profitable.

Even worse, the Hawks were about a 50 win team and a minor contender the year before. If they let Johnson walk, the team would become more of a marginal playoff team, the fans would be furious with the owner for being cheap, the other star players on the team would start rumbling they also want out because they want a chance to win a championship and don't want to rebuild etc... Attendance would fall, TV rating would fall and the Hawks would be screwed financially anyway.

So they were screwed either way.

The same can be said of Rudy Gay and dozens of other bad deals that are given out every year. It's a lose lose situation for some teams. Lose if you pay and lose if you don't.

That's why the owners want mome controls even though they already have the 50-50 split.

Without those controls the super rich teams like NY, LA, Dallas etc.. will always be able to afford to wildly overpay players in the pursuit of a championship because they will still be very profitable. That forces the smaller markets into a no win situation and almost guaranteed losses.

Good point, also to maintain the revenue you need a good team and the Hawks looked like a top 10 team the year before. Its obvious they were being put up for sale and needed a good cash flow to justify the price.

Yes, positive cash flow biz are more valuable than those that are not. Thats why the notion of owners not caring about losing money because they will cash out when sold is foolish. The premise of a new CBA Im going to guess is baked into the valuations.

If not a good deal, franchise values will drop.

Bonn, what business model contracts a % of revenue to its employees? CBA is not a bad deal for the players! Team can lose money the owners have to abide by REVENUE and they are trying to adjust in the face of inflationary pressure.

With our current economic situation its very easy to see an inflationary environment going forward. OWners have to build in more expense calculations to protect.

Without new arenas and other perks the revenue does not grow.