GarbageTime wrote:
View Post
Cousy: Well, we needed representation. It was that simple. I was the only one that had the profile to do it without fear of retaliation. Every year, attorney and fellow Crusader Connie Hurley and I would go down to New York and sit in the office of NBA President Maurice Podoloff. He’d keep us waiting for 45 minutes. We’d go in with our little laundry list, and he’d say, “Fine, I’ll bring it to the attention of the owners at the next meeting.” And, of course, he never would. The owners knew we didn’t have much leverage and they would basically stall us.
I laugh now when I think about trying to get 10 bucks out of these guys for dues just to pay for the stationery and stuff—it was like pulling teeth. Now they pay $10,000 apiece for dues—and I’m sure they’re happy to do so.
But our only major concession over those years was when we got the meal money raised from five dollars a day to seven dollars a day. It was literally an extra 200 bucks in the players’ pockets. Man, I became a hero.
http://magazine.holycross.edu/issue_..._on_one?page=3
I laugh now when I think about trying to get 10 bucks out of these guys for dues just to pay for the stationery and stuff—it was like pulling teeth. Now they pay $10,000 apiece for dues—and I’m sure they’re happy to do so.
But our only major concession over those years was when we got the meal money raised from five dollars a day to seven dollars a day. It was literally an extra 200 bucks in the players’ pockets. Man, I became a hero.
http://magazine.holycross.edu/issue_..._on_one?page=3
Who ever said that was untrue? Clearly throwing resources at a problem can help solve problems... but it won't necessarily be the answer and can also can cause new problems. In this case a few teams being willing to throw money at players drove up the prices of all players. Those other teams then in turn spent their limited money inefficiently.
But teams like San Antonio/OKC have PROVEN that you don't necessarily need to throw money around recklessly or need a large market to win. Teams like NY/Washington have proven that throwing money around and being in a large market doesn't mean winning. Its about efficient spending, which not enough owners have been willing or able to do. IF more owners would be smarter about their spending, I guarantee player contracts would be much more in line with what they deserve. Instead owners have valued risk over efficiency. Now its biting them in the ass.... but some of us are putting all the onus on the players anyways. Makes no sense to me what so ever.
But teams like San Antonio/OKC have PROVEN that you don't necessarily need to throw money around recklessly or need a large market to win. Teams like NY/Washington have proven that throwing money around and being in a large market doesn't mean winning. Its about efficient spending, which not enough owners have been willing or able to do. IF more owners would be smarter about their spending, I guarantee player contracts would be much more in line with what they deserve. Instead owners have valued risk over efficiency. Now its biting them in the ass.... but some of us are putting all the onus on the players anyways. Makes no sense to me what so ever.
based on what? I see absolutely no reason to believe this.
those same players are part of the PA no? So if one is mad at the PA they should be mad at the individual players themselves. Its players like Lebron James who left a small market team reeling, who are getting paid top dollar, who are influencing teams to spend recklessly. Dwight Howard has had a similar effect on Orlando over the last season or two. Should these not be the very guys we are most upset with? Yet I'd bet few if any would be mad at having them on their team...its the Derek Fisher's, who has 6 rings as a starting PG, is one of the top 'blue collar' players and arguably the best team leader in the league, who could be traded on a whim, all while being paid less than the league average that we should be mad at.. funny how that works no?
those same players are part of the PA no? So if one is mad at the PA they should be mad at the individual players themselves. Its players like Lebron James who left a small market team reeling, who are getting paid top dollar, who are influencing teams to spend recklessly. Dwight Howard has had a similar effect on Orlando over the last season or two. Should these not be the very guys we are most upset with? Yet I'd bet few if any would be mad at having them on their team...its the Derek Fisher's, who has 6 rings as a starting PG, is one of the top 'blue collar' players and arguably the best team leader in the league, who could be traded on a whim, all while being paid less than the league average that we should be mad at.. funny how that works no?
In a game like basketball, where 1 (or a few) player(s) makes all the difference both positively and negatively), NO ONE can guarantee parity or profitablility in any form. Revenue sharing can atleast help address profitabliltiy. Nothing will guarantee parity.
I'd say Matt52's article with football more or less proves this, although it doesn't address it. A very profitable league where small market teams can win and spend close with everyone, yet they don't necessarily. Why? Because you still need a superstar quarterback to do it.... and a hard cap, or revenue sharing, or cutting player salaries won't guarantee you that superstar. Nor will it guarantee that you can keep that superstar, or pay that superstar.
I have no doubts that players are being payed more than they 'deserve'. But thats life. Why does the coal miner who breaks his back and likely shortens his life span be paid a portion of what a manager or owner or even some shareholders do? Because not everyone is capable of owning a businnes, running a business or have the resources to invest in a company. But almost anyone can throw a pick axe around. The same applies here... not every can jump as high, shoot as well, are as strong or be as tall as NBA players. That may not be fair, but that is life. We as fans pay to see that... we want to see the best, we want our teams to have the best and we will give our money to the best time and time again.
At the same time I could really care less how much these guys get paid... I'm just as happy with players averaging 10k a year as I am with players average 5 mil a year.
Where I have problems is with this idea that we should just believe that the owners are being honest and want fairness, and that all the onus is with the players. 22 teams are losing money? Ok what are those 22 teams and how much is each team losing? Is a team like Dallas losing money? Why is this information not available? Should we just ignore the fact that its the owners who offered the contracts? That someone thought it was a good idea to pay Gilbert Arenas or Michael Redd or Rashard Lewis just as much or more than Lebron James or Dwight Howard? Should we now compensate the stupid at the cost of those who are already (arguably) underpaid for their services?
At the same time I could really care less how much these guys get paid... I'm just as happy with players averaging 10k a year as I am with players average 5 mil a year.
Where I have problems is with this idea that we should just believe that the owners are being honest and want fairness, and that all the onus is with the players. 22 teams are losing money? Ok what are those 22 teams and how much is each team losing? Is a team like Dallas losing money? Why is this information not available? Should we just ignore the fact that its the owners who offered the contracts? That someone thought it was a good idea to pay Gilbert Arenas or Michael Redd or Rashard Lewis just as much or more than Lebron James or Dwight Howard? Should we now compensate the stupid at the cost of those who are already (arguably) underpaid for their services?
If we want 'fairness' and long term stability... how about this. Cut salaries, 100% revenue sharing among teams, contraction by a 2 or 4 (or whatever is needed) teams, all teams become public companies with purchasable shares.
Now it doesn't get more fair than that. Cuts cost, shares profits, eliminates the teams that are a drain while increasing the supply of players and therefore further decreasing future salaries, and allows all team values and financial statements available to public scrutiny and interpretation. Lets see how much people actually want whats 'fair'....... I'm betting very few want that.
Now it doesn't get more fair than that. Cuts cost, shares profits, eliminates the teams that are a drain while increasing the supply of players and therefore further decreasing future salaries, and allows all team values and financial statements available to public scrutiny and interpretation. Lets see how much people actually want whats 'fair'....... I'm betting very few want that.
Comment