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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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<

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.

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.

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...

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.