I think even in this scenario, they lose. I bet if money wasn't the issue, they could have offered to take 48% of BRI in exchange for wins on all the system issues. If that's true, then the players right now could either have: 50% of BRI and no system issue wins 48% of BRI and all system issue wins Let's look at how this could play out in the courts - this is obviously simplifed, but it kind of covers the spectrum. Option #1: total failure and owners get a death grip on the league (NHL result) Option #2: players win on system issues, hold at 50% BRI. But they've lost a season, meaning $2B is lost and BRI will go down simply due to fan resentment. So they get their system issues, but in the end are going to get less money than 48% of BRI would have gotten today. Option #3: players lose on system issues, but get more than 50% BRI. Same problem as #2 - the higher % is still likely to be less total money; and now you have owners losing money again, which is going to hurt the league's long-term prospects. Option #4: players win on all counts. Now you have the league in complete disarray and probably have contraction of some of the money losing teams or some other major problems. It's possible players win out here in the short term, but the league health is in total jeopardy with uncompetitive teams and a money-losing mess. I don't see how any of these scenarios really put the players in a better situation. Option 4 might give them a short term boost but is likely to lead to disaster eventually.
Even IF the players are getting a raw deal, it doesn't matter, because owners still have all the leverage. This is why the union should have thrown in the towel, because delaying the inevitable will only make it worse for the players. Now the players are hoping to get in court what they couldn't get at the negotiating table, but all they've done is make things worse for themselves, because they will never be able to earn back those lost paychecks. In other words, the players are not thinking logically. They have allowed their pride and ego to lead them to ruin, so there isn't going to be a moral victory, only players engaging in career suicide. And if the season is truly lost, this entire debate over which side is most responsible will look even more foolish. Watching players going bankrupt isn't going to make them more sympathetic and convincing, it's going to make them look more foolish and shortsighted.
Totally agree. And it's AMAZING to me that no one on either side called for arbitration to come up with a stopgap one year agreement to keep the product out there while they continue the pissing contest. B-List Issues: It's tough cutting through all the noise and I haven't yet seen a good detailed leak of the proposal. Billy Hunter claimed there were 30-40 B-List items, and it's unclear whether they were truly negotiable or if the players sensed a bait-and-switch looming...especially since it keeps getting reported that the owners may not be willing to approve the proposal anyway. It seems as if the big issues were: -The Hasheem Thabeet Rule: giving the teams freedom to send two rookie contract players down to the D-League and reduce their contracts to $750K for that period. -Offseason Drug Testing: PEDs + recreational substances, and ramping up to blood tests. -Dropping the need for union approval to contract teams, with apparently two teams already earmarked, and a downshift in the BRI split in the event of contraction. Players lose jobs and revenue share in one shot. -Increasing minimum age to 20. Not sure if the players care *that* much about this, since they're already in the league and this helps older vets stick around. There was some non-specific rumbling about the owners setting things up so that luxury tax would make Bird Rights virtually useless. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...nb68vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411 http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...ge-limit-part-of-owners-proposal-nbpa-lockout http://www.slamonline.com/online/nb...abor-deal-team-contraction-more-drug-testing/ But maybe this is all moot. All along, there was talk that the serious hardliners were taking a cue from the NHL and were fine with flushing the season down the toilet in order to force a Stalin system on the players. Leonis (Wizards, Capitals) openly said as much when he purchased the team. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2010/09/ted-leonsis-prefers-nhl-salary.html I expect the hard cap is about to come back in a big way and players are going to get wiped out.
Matt Moore reported on the d-league issue on saturday. The bolded part made me cry a little about this whole thing.
Future seasons impact options 2 and 3, since this deal will impact the negotiations of future deals. If you can understand how the owners are willing to sacrifice a season of revenue for a long-term deal in their favor then it should make sense for the players as well. Your line of thinking still seems to revolve around "players are dumb for missing checks". As far as option #4, I have to disagree. The league isn't in complete disarray now and that's with players getting 57%. The players think the owners are overstating their losses and I agree with them. I don't believe the league, as a whole, is in deep ish. If so, then some of these brilliant businessmen must be real idiots because teams are still selling for record amounts.
It is irrational to give up a year of salary to get a better deal, if the best possible outcome for the better multi-year deal doesn't even come close to recouping the lost wages.
Exactly how would you prove that? JuanValdez shares my same sentiments. Does he also not know the context of the posts?
What's the best possible outcome? How did you determine what the best possible outcome is since this hasn't even hit the courts yet? So do you also think it's irrational for the owners to give up a year's worth of revenue?
The difference is owners can own a team for a much longer time than a player's career, esp. if the player is already a vet.
How does that difference come into play if players really are very concerned about how this CBA impacts future seasons, future CBA's and the next generation of players? Using that logic I guess Curt Flood was a real idiot.
Are you asking JuanValdez for a wager as well? He seems to share my sentiments. Quite convenient to ignore that question. Add t_mac1 to that list as well. ????
Some comments from Maurice Evans. Seems like they were hung up over 6 issues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...011/11/15/gIQAp4NWON_blog.html?wprss=wizards-
It is not irrational if losing a season of revenue also means missing most of the accompanying expenses of a season. Stern, honestly or not, has claimed that losing a season may cost less than having a season and taking another round of losses, at least for some teams. The loss of a single season of profit, from the perspective of the teams, has to be balanced against the prospect of multiple seasons of projected losses with little chance of competing for a championship (and increasing team popularity/profitability in the process) under a "bad" deal. I am sure the owners can swallow decreased long term revenue and losing a season so long as profitably increases. Who cares about $4 in revenue if your team is bleeding millions each year? Having a season meant at least a $20 million loss. Without player salaries, employee salaries, and other expenses, the cost of keeping the team alive might check in at less than the per team loss. But since we don't have access to their books, we don't know if this is the case or not. If the losses are by and large the product of cooking the books or losing a season costs more than having one, then I would expect the owners to relent. But the owners who went through this ordeal before with the NHL might be licking their chops at a possible NHL-like outcome.
