Your opinion of the NBA

[Apollo]

Charlie Sheen is an excellent example of where ego, a sense of entitlement and pushing too hard can get you. He was the star of a billion dollar franchise and they cut him out and moved on without blinking an eye. He lost millions and millions, like tens of millions, because he wouldn't fall into line with his employer's policies.

Fisher's actions last week make me wonder if he has Mr.Winning on speed dial.

[Gman]

Every player wouldn't need to be brilliant at business, and they wouldn't have to do it themselves. All the cities and companies currently playing second fiddle to the NBA and their massive brand would jump at the opportunity in an instant. ESPN has the NBA tv rights, don't you think Fox or CBS would offer enormous sums of money for a tv deal for this hypothetical league? The one with all the good players.. The new league that is guaranteed to make millions because they can put LeBron's face on a billboard..

Also I am not advocating for a new league, I was just using it as an example to talk about the fact that the players are the product and that they drive the revenues and therefore they are entitled to more than the average employee.

I also find it interesting that my numerous examples are just exceptions because of the law of averages but your one example of LeBron not knowing what contraction means is proof of your point. Funny how double standards work huh.

By the way I don't actually deep down believe the majority of players are actually stupid, simply repeating yourself and claiming that I know you're right doesn't make you right, and as nice as your hypothetical situation is, apart from circular reasoning your idea that most players are morons seems to be based on prejudice and stereotypes.

I think most of the players are probably pretty smart guys. I also think there are probably a few of them who are actually brilliant...law of averages right? And I think if they tried to run a league it would crash and burn faster than the Hindenburg. Let's be realistic here. Something like the NBA is so ridiculously multi-faceted and took so long to enact and perfect as a business model that even the thought of people who haven't been the CEO's of businesses mimicking it is absurd. Beyond even the basic turf war where most of the major arenas won't support the Professional Pick Up League, because anybody with a sophisticated business sense will realize that it's an unsustainable model...and because of that will side with the owners in their restructuring of the league. You're talking about a business turf war where the owners would have so many advantages it would be ridiculous. And the comments earlier about it being the entertainment business were all true except you didn't go far enough...Actors, big name actors if their a pain in the ass get fired off of film projects all the time. And then they get the reputation for being tough to work with and unless they shape up they will have a progressively hard time finding great projects.

[Gman]

Charlie Sheen is an excellent example of where ego, a sense of entitlement and pushing too hard can get you. He was the star of a billion dollar franchise and they cut him out and moved on without blinking an eye. He lost millions and millions, like tens of millions, because he wouldn't fall into line with his employer's policies.

Fisher's actions last week make me wonder if he has Mr.Winning on speed dial.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely...

[Gman]

Neither LBJ nor Bosh did anything other than leave. They didn't "pull" anything, they played out their contracts and left when it was obvious that staying wasn't going so well. Would it have been better to come out and say "trade me cuz I'm leaving" ? In normal speak that's called a trade demand and we'd of all blasted them for that (same as we did to Vince).

As for my earlier list, as you read it remember that trades were much easier in a smaller, capless league. Also keep in mind that both Sir Chuck and Clyde asked for trades to a contender, Payton went ring chasing with LAL AND Miami, Bostons big 3 were assembled under a radically different system and I can go on.

The point is that the as much as we may not like the idea of players playing GM, they did it in a totally legit way, waiting to be FA's before walking away. If the suits in Toronto and Cleveland had built better teams around Chris and James they'd still have them.

Hell, if you guys wanna be pissed off at players screwing their teams over, look at Carmello. What he did to Denver was selfish, cowardly and reprehensible. Kobe started a mini trend when he refused to play for CHA and forced the LA trade, that was also worse.

Sure they didn't do anything wrong...except put their own needs above the needs of the game they supposedly love. The loading up of star talent on a few teams will destroy the league because nobody will want to watch glorified D league teams get blown out by the chosen few. And when there are working models of parity and competitiveness in the other pro sports (that the players are snorting at with derision in their voices by the way), then why not adopt them.

There was a comment earlier about needing villains...and that was their rationalization for the ridiculous talent inequity in the league. Yeah, see I like Basketball. It's a game played with a ball and hoops...it's not really anything like pro wrestling...and that idea, even though it might get some people watching ultimately, i think, is bad for the sport.

[Brandon]

They're free to leave the NBA and play elsewhere. You need to look at the NBA as one giant joint venture, because it is. All the NBA players have the choice to go play anywhere outside the NBA. They can play in that Canadian start up league, they can go play in FIBA, they can go work at McDonald's. The freedom is there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basketball_leagues

Not all of those are running but a bunch are. No one is stopping them from going and playing in one of the smaller leagues for regular people pay. If they're going to play for the 30 partner joint venture known as the NBA then they need to learn to live with the organizational rules. Fortunately for the NBPA, they have a hand in writing them. Most employees elsewhere do not.



I used "their" like many people around here use "my" and "our" when talking about the Raptors. I don't think anyone in here is paying invoices for MLSE. For that matter I don't think NBA players are paying invoices for MLSE.



You make a good case but again, if he doesn't like the rules on the playground he can go to a different playground. No one is forcing him to work for the NBA.



Great generalization there. Furthermore, welcome to life.

If the NBA is one giant joint venture, why does Indiana earn $200k per home game in ticket revenue while the Lakers and Knicks earn $2 million? Why does Indiana earn a few million a year in local TV revenue while the Lakers and Knicks earn $150 million or more? Why does the league implement almost no revenue sharing, while the NFL shares all revenue? In sum, why does the NBA allow economics to dictate success?

The players can go elsewhere to play, that's true, and the owners are free to hire replacement-level scrubs to play ball.

[Brandon]

Sure they didn't do anything wrong...except put their own needs above the needs of the game they supposedly love. The loading up of star talent on a few teams will destroy the league because nobody will want to watch glorified D league teams get blown out by the chosen few. And when there are working models of parity and competitiveness in the other pro sports (that the players are snorting at with derision in their voices by the way), then why not adopt them.

There was a comment earlier about needing villains...and that was their rationalization for the ridiculous talent inequity in the league. Yeah, see I like Basketball. It's a game played with a ball and hoops...it's not really anything like pro wrestling...and that idea, even though it might get some people watching ultimately, i think, is bad for the sport.

The ridiculous talent inequity is due to the expansion carried out by Stern, because the owners wanted to collect the juicy expansion fees. All the expansion did was add about 100 additional replacement-level scrubs to the league.

Super Teams like the Heat and Lakers are inevitable, and, as it happens, necessary. For the league to have irrelevant teams in big markets, where most fans live, would not be good for a league. It isn't good for the league to have a team full of scrubs in Toronto.

[Bendit]

So you don't want the players to have the same freedom to work where they want, and are wanted, as you presumably would want for yourself. And why is that, because they're rich, and so the same pesky freedoms shouldn't apply to them?

"Their franchise" is an interesting phrase. That implies that the players own the franchise, but I'd say, in most pro sports, especially team sports, the reverse is true. Dwight Howard was drafted by the Magic. If he didn't play well and produce, they'd toss him away like a piece of rubbish. But he cannot make the same choice.

Fans and sports organizations often treat athletes as though they are disposable pieces of meat. IF they produce, they're virtually slaves, who must work under our guidelines and rules and take what we choose to give them. If they don't produce, they're out the door and swiftly forgotten.

It is getting very tiresome to hear about the defense of professional athletes with the "how would you like if these freedoms were imposed on you". The NBA is notlike a "normal" business. In part they can operate the way they do because they get an anti trust exemption. As well I have heard many say that the players are the "product" or create it so they are entitled...well if they are in fact the product then in the "normal" business world of products there is something called a patent. I would deduce from this reasoning that there is a great deal of value in the ownership of the patent. And therein lies the nub...a star player just leaving without a justified return. The system has to change to promote competitiveness. And I find it very difficult to support the "worker" which is my natural inclination when that worker can drive his Maserati just as easily in Minneapolis as in LA. And he'd be doing it to make the best bb league in the world more competitorive and more profitable.

[Gman]

The ridiculous talent inequity is due to the expansion carried out by Stern, because the owners wanted to collect the juicy expansion fees. All the expansion did was add about 100 additional replacement-level scrubs to the league.

Super Teams like the Heat and Lakers are inevitable, and, as it happens, necessary. For the league to have irrelevant teams in big markets, where most fans live, would not be good for a league. It isn't good for the league to have a team full of scrubs in Toronto.

The NHL and NFL are perfect examples why what your saying is wrong. All leagues expand and there are ways to do it that will give each team a chance at some of the talent out there. Super teams are not inevitable...they're a bi-product of how privileged players believe they can engineer the league to endorse their own personal legacies. There's a reason that Jordan, Bird, Magic, Barkley, Reggie Smith, and a lot of the other icons of the game publicly came out against the Miami Heat. It's because they knew ultimately it was bad for the game and could if followed to it's likely outcome threaten the league they had strived to build.

I'll ally myself with them.

[Gman]

It is getting very tiresome to hear about the defense of professional athletes with the "how would you like if these freedoms were imposed on you". The NBA is notlike a "normal" business. In part they can operate the way they do because they get an anti trust exemption. As well I have heard many say that the players are the "product" or create it so they are entitled...well if they are in fact the product then in the "normal" business world of products there is something called a patent. I would deduce from this reasoning that there is a great deal of value in the ownership of the patent. And therein lies the nub...a star player just leaving without a justified return. The system has to change to promote competitiveness. And I find it very difficult to support the "worker" which is my natural inclination when that worker can drive his Maserati just as easily in Minneapolis as in LA. And he'd be doing it to make the best bb league in the world more competitorive and more profitable.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes...

[slaw]

Well, pre-lockout, I couldn't hold a lower opinion of either side, so I guess I'm in the "a pox on both their houses" club. I'll make here the same four statements I have made elsewhere on these boards.

First, there is no system in the world that is going to achieve parity in the NBA where 30 teams have a chance to compete. Anyone who believes this is the case has not been watching the NBA for the past 30 years. You could ban free agency, trades and the draft and just allocate players to teams every year and it still would not create a situation where all 30 teams had an equal chance. I actaully kind of feel bad for people who are falling for this b.s. because they are going to be extremely disappointed.

Two, being in a small market sucks. It sucks for NBA teams. It sucks for TV stations. It sucks for professionals of all stripes. Being in a cold climate sucks for everyone living there. Teams like New York, LA, Miami, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Dallas are always going to have a leg up on places like Minneapolis and Milwaukee. They are simply better places to live. You can even out salaries all you want but players are going to go play where it is warm and/or where they have more of the amenities that wealthy people can enjoy.

Three, the owners, including small market owners, benefit greatly from the little bilateral cartel they have with the players union. So, be careful what you wish for. If you create a scenario where the union has no power, and therefore provides no benefits to the players, there won't be a union. Think Milwaukee is in trouble now? Wait until a superstar costs $40mm/season.

Four, I am not sure why people on here care so much about what players make (i.e. all the greedy bastards comments). They are freaks of nature. They are gifted by their genetics in ways that are unique. They use their unique talents to entertain. In return, because hardly anyone in the history of mankind can do what they do, we pay them scads of money. If you don't like that, then don't buy tickets, don't buy jerseys, don't watch on TV. No one ever paid $1 to watch an owner. You pay for them. If you think they make too much, stop paying. The funniest thing about this whole "greedy bastards" thing to me is that they players have voluntarily limited how much they can earn. If there was an open market many of them would be making more money. Would that mean they were altruistic?

[Apollo]

If the NBA is one giant joint venture, why does Indiana earn $200k per home game in ticket revenue while the Lakers and Knicks earn $2 million?

A joint venture is when multiple entrepreneurs and companies come together to work on a project. There is no law on how they share revenues. They come to their own internal agreement on it. For example, I work on the site of a big joint venture between some very large global corporations. Revenues are not shared equally there and it's a totally different industry. They came to an agreement before the project started. My thoughts are the NBA is probably using a prehistoric revenue sharing policy from days gone by when everyone was making money, there were less teams(so higher demand per team) and less salary expense. The dollar was probably worth a hell of a lot more back then as well.

Why does the league implement almost no revenue sharing, while the NFL shares all revenue? In sum, why does the NBA allow economics to dictate success?

The NBA is currently working on better revenue sharing. They had meetings about it last week. The NBA is trying to make a lot of changes to get through a bad economy.

[Brandon]

The NHL and NFL are perfect examples why what your saying is wrong. All leagues expand and there are ways to do it that will give each team a chance at some of the talent out there. Super teams are not inevitable...they're a bi-product of how privileged players believe they can engineer the league to endorse their own personal legacies. There's a reason that Jordan, Bird, Magic, Barkley, Reggie Smith, and a lot of the other icons of the game publicly came out against the Miami Heat. It's because they knew ultimately it was bad for the game and could if followed to it's likely outcome threaten the league they had strived to build.

I'll ally myself with them.

Are the Yankees one of the Super-Teams that are explained by evil, privileged players?

The reason is they're worried Lebron might win more titles than they did, and they want to be on the record suggesting there's an asterisk. All of those players are hypocrites. Bird played on a stacked Boston team with two of the greatest of all time on the front line with him. Barkley forced a trade off a bad Philly team to a much better Phoenix team, where he had several all-stars with him. Barkley has said his only regret is not forcing a trade sooner. Magic Johnson played with numerous all-stars, including the greatest big man ever, and stated that he would not have agreed to be drafted by any team but the Lakers. Jordan played with several all-stars as well. Reggie Miller (I think that's who you mean. Reggie Smith is a 49ers safety) played on a team with Detlef Schrempf, Rik Smits, Anthony and Dale Davis, Chuck Person, et al. He had great running mates.

But nevertheless, I agree with those guys. We can't have another season where Miami wins every game by 80 points, and sweeps their way to the championship. It was really an embarrassment how easy it was. That 82-0 regular season record definitely has an asterisk.

[Apollo]

The reason is they're worried Lebron might win more titles than they did, and they want to be on the record suggesting there's an asterisk.

Brandon, how many rings does Barkley have again?

The game was different back then. Those guys had different philosophies. They believed in team loyalty, to their teammates and coaches. To the guy who wrote their check. To the fans. To everyone they represented in that city. They had accountability. They believed in being a leader on their own team. Jordan would never team up with Magic because Jordan wanted to beat Magic. Magic would never team up with Bird because Magic wanted to beat Bird. They didn't care about how many rings, they cared about how they won each ring. To suggest that Jordan or Magic or Bird are worried about James winning more titles than them and that's why they criticized James is laughable. James is a different breed than those guys. He doesn't have the same killer instinct. He doesn't have the same values and he doesn't play by the same code. In fact, many of the new stars don't play by that code. Durant does but many do not. Jordan, Magic and Bird played with honor and class from start to finish, win or lose. To question the integrity of their statements about James flies in the face of everything they represented as players in the NBA.

But nevertheless, I agree with those guys. We can't have another season where Miami wins every game by 80 points, and sweeps their way to the championship. It was really an embarrassment how easy it was. That 82-0 regular season record definitely has an asterisk.

The Heat aren't doing that now, they got schooled in the finals. The problem isn't about James winning titles with Wade. The problem has to do with the damage guys like James do when they bail on their old team and their community, leaving them empty handed. James was even classless enough to do it to place he was born and raised. To disrespect them on a level not seen before.

[Brandon]

Brandon, how many rings does Barkley have again?

The game was different back then. Those guys had different philosophies. They believed in team loyalty, to their teammates and coaches. To the guy who wrote their check. To the fans. To everyone they represented in that city. They had accountability. They believed in being a leader on their own team. Jordan would never team up with Magic because Jordan wanted to beat Magic. Magic would never team up with Bird because Magic wanted to beat Bird. They didn't care about how many rings, they cared about how they won each ring. To suggest that Jordan or Magic or Bird are worried about James winning more titles than them and that's why they criticized James is laughable. James is a different breed than those guys. He doesn't have the same killer instinct. He doesn't have the same values and he doesn't play by the same code. In fact, many of the new stars don't play by that code. Durant does but many do not. Jordan, Magic and Bird played with honor and class from start to finish, win or lose. To question the integrity of their statements about James flies in the face of everything they represented as players in the NBA.



The Heat aren't doing that now, they got schooled in the finals. The problem isn't about James winning titles with Wade. The problem has to do with the damage guys like James do when they bail on their old team and their community, leaving them empty handed. James was even classless enough to do it to place he was born and raised. To disrespect them on a level not seen before.

Does this argument, about loyalty and whatnot, also apply to more fungible players, or only to James and others who blow the bell curve?

Does the team have an equal obligation to be loyal to the player, for example paying him a lot of money well past the point where he's useful on the court?

I'm assuming you'd also have been against Curt Flood, or wasn't he a good enough player for it to matter?

[thatguythere]

Well, pre-lockout, I couldn't hold a lower opinion of either side, so I guess I'm in the "a pox on both their houses" club. I'll make here the same four statements I have made elsewhere on these boards.

First, there is no system in the world that is going to achieve parity in the NBA where 30 teams have a chance to compete. Anyone who believes this is the case has not been watching the NBA for the past 30 years. You could ban free agency, trades and the draft and just allocate players to teams every year and it still would not create a situation where all 30 teams had an equal chance. I actaully kind of feel bad for people who are falling for this b.s. because they are going to be extremely disappointed.

Two, being in a small market sucks. It sucks for NBA teams. It sucks for TV stations. It sucks for professionals of all stripes. Being in a cold climate sucks for everyone living there. Teams like New York, LA, Miami, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Dallas are always going to have a leg up on places like Minneapolis and Milwaukee. They are simply better places to live. You can even out salaries all you want but players are going to go play where it is warm and/or where they have more of the amenities that wealthy people can enjoy.

Three, the owners, including small market owners, benefit greatly from the little bilateral cartel they have with the players union. So, be careful what you wish for. If you create a scenario where the union has no power, and therefore provides no benefits to the players, there won't be a union. Think Milwaukee is in trouble now? Wait until a superstar costs $40mm/season.

Four, I am not sure why people on here care so much about what players make (i.e. all the greedy bastards comments). They are freaks of nature. They are gifted by their genetics in ways that are unique. They use their unique talents to entertain. In return, because hardly anyone in the history of mankind can do what they do, we pay them scads of money. If you don't like that, then don't buy tickets, don't buy jerseys, don't watch on TV. No one ever paid $1 to watch an owner. You pay for them. If you think they make too much, stop paying. The funniest thing about this whole "greedy bastards" thing to me is that they players have voluntarily limited how much they can earn. If there was an open market many of them would be making more money. Would that mean they were altruistic?

I think this is my favourite post in the entire thread. Great Post.

Ultimately the players make as much money as they do because we give it to them.

Lebron and Bosh didn't do anything wrong by going to Miami and "crushing this fad" would mean eliminating free agency because there was nothing abnormal about how they made their way to Miami.

If Lebron, Wade and Bosh were Caron Butler, Stephen Jackson and Emeka Okafor nobody would have even cared. But since the three of them were superstars, now what they did was horrible, like they stabbed their teams' in the back when they didn't, they didn't demand a trade, they fulfilled their commitments, played out their contract then chose to leave. I am not sure how them being athletes relates to the thought that they shouldn't be allowed to chose where they live and work when the opportunity comes to them.