Why are you not sure most of them really are worried about future seasons or generations of players? What have you seen from them to draw that conclusion?
And if they end up with a worse deal, possibly dropping from 50% to 47%, current players will have screwed both themselves and the next generation.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1228/companies-nba-basketball-heisley-memphis-blues.html When being honest, yes. But several folks have suggested that this is where the NBA was using shady accounting tricks to exaggerate their losses ($600M-$700M vs the more accepted $100M-$300M). Stern himself seemed to keep referring to this when he kept saying that owners wanted a "return on investment." It's no coincidence that the most commonly cited hardliner owners are the more recent ones that put down ~half billion dollar purchase prices.
I don't think anyone is arguing taking a stand doesn't have it's risks. So I assume you think employees should never take a stand for better working conditions, or just not high payed ones? The bottom line is the guys who saw the entire proposal...the ones who have to abide by it...thought it was a bad deal. You may not care about them coming down to 50% but they seem to care. You may not care about them playing under more restrictive rules but they seem to care. They care enough to continue their battle, same as the owners. Name one labor vs mgmt battle that didn't include heavy risks for the labor?
Then that's the consequences they have to live with. There's a reason they made the decision that they did. I'm happy that they stood up to these ridiculous demands of these owners. If you agree to whatever demands the owners ask for now, you can't guarantee in the future they'll demand even WORSE things from the players. My problem with the union was that they "thought" the owners would negotiate in good faith and eventually an "acceptable" deal would be reached. That was never the case, and they should have done this months ago, as a few players have implied (ala. Dwill). This is where Hunter needs to get heavily criticized by the players. The players DO want to play. They seem desperate enough to finally agree to the 50% BRI (which again I insist is not completely a 50% split). They were inclined to accept a deal that they have been thoroughly beat down upon by the owners--complete blowout. But then the owners added a list of "B-list" issues (but very important to the players) that negated the entire thing. I heard that these issues were added last minute. Why the hell did the owners have to do that? Because they did not want a deal. They had a 40 point lead, and they still wanted to push things down the players' throats. That is completely unacceptable and unreasonable of the owners. The owners got what they want. And they still weren't happy. GTFO with that crap. Bingo.
Because he seems to have an issue with these guys taking a stand for what they deem is fair, or think they are idiots for doing it since the odds are stacked against them and they are risking a worse deal. That typically describes the labor side in the majority of labor/owner standoffs, correct? When has the labor side ever really had an advantage or not risked getting something worse at the end of the day, especially in sports labor battles?
Example: The MLBPA's position is a lot stronger than the NBPA. You have to get away from the labor vs management mentality and look at this differently. Take off the ideological straight jacket. This is not a union representing people making $50-80K/yr.
First, I never said they aren't worried about future seasons (that they play in). Why I'm not sure most of them really are worried about future generations of players: the actions and words of many players prior to the lockout. How many times have we heard players say "it's a business". Whether it's taking the highest bidder during free agency, or abandoning their old team to join a stacked team to chase a ring, it's always about themselves first. And we have MJ is in the unique position of having been on both sides of the table, and each time he has looked out for himself first. Just to be clear, I'm not making a moral judgement on them, ie. I don't think they are bad people, they are just human.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked what labor/owner battle doesn't involve labor taking on significant risk to fight for what the deem is fair? Are you saying the MLBPA didn't take on significant risk in 94/95? It's funny that you mention them, since one of the main issues behind the 95 strike was a potential salary cap, which is what the NBPA is fighting against (defacto hard cap and other system issues). My mentality is only one group of guys needs to be concerned about whether or not a deal is fair, and that group doesn't think the current deal is what's best for them. This is a union representing dudes who drive a multi-billion dollar business. I get that we all are entitled to our opinions but don't see the point in knocking them for standing up for what they believe is fair, and don't see how that and the related risk different from other situations? Edit: You did answer, assuming you thought the MLBPA had an advantage over the owners during the MLB strike. Is that what you are saying? Even then, there was still significant risk. The point is labor always takes on significant risk when they push back on mgmt.
I think the players are worried about both, future seasons (especially the younger players) and future generations (older guys losing $$ this year when they won't be around much longer, i.e. Pierce).
Are the management for most of the public traded companies not employees? Because they sure don't own the companies yet have contracts as good if not better than the NBA players. Also restaurants have the talent (chefs) given partnership without having to take as much financial risk as the investors, yet given a lot of time equal rights in the partnership.
Well after thinking about it for a day or so, I am ok with both the owners locking out the players and the players decertifying. I think the players should have done it earlier, and this was pretty selfish on their part, but I also think the owners were pretty selfish in their intolerable bargaining positions. In all honesty, I would love a system reset, where there is a hard cap (based on BRI) and no guaranteed contracts, and a one year franchise tag (can only be used on a player once, and only for a year. This would allow players to have complete free agency, but give teams and them a year to work out a long term deal - exclusively, and it would stop the innane long term guaranteed contracts of players like Eddy Curry, and the handicapping of franchises due to injuries like Tmac and Yao Ming. Either way, I wish both sides would do what the NFL did and go silent and get back to working out an equitable deal, until then, I guess we all will have to enjoy football and NCAA basketball. I will miss my Rockets, but when they do come back, I want this type of deal to not happen again.... DD
Do you have quotes from non-union representatives players who said that they were willing to sacrifice their money for the good of future generations? Whether you believe the owners were negotiating in good faith, the big outcry now is that most players (and especially the player reps) were uninformed by the union about the deal that was on the table. If they were uninformed or even misinformed, how do you know what they really wanted and what they thought was fair for them, let alone for the future players?
Obviously the MLBPA took a risk. Duh! What does that prove? The dynamics of the situation are different here because the MLBPA has always had it's stuff together and the NBPA clearly doesn't. Secondly, the NBA owners this year aren't the bumbling fools the MLB owners were back then. Hunter's foot-dragging (whether it's disbanding the union 6 months late or coming down to 50/50 one month too late) is why a deal hasn't been made. He has failed the players in spades by being too slow to react. His "leadership" is a joke. He's had plenty of time to exercise it but only to stifle dissenting opinions. My gripe is more with the union than with players (unless you want to blame them for Billy Hunter having his position). The union & players have every right to take this action but I'm not convinced most of them know what's really happening. I think they are still flying blind behind Hunter and will crash into a building. He is a dead union leader walking and will be out on his rump after it's over.
It shows that it's pointless to note they are risking a worse deal. That kinda goes with the territory of telling mgmt "no". I'm glad we agree that the MLBPA also could have risked a worse situation. If you are saying that was ok because they had stronger leadership then I can't disagree with you, as I know nothing about their union's leadership. Hunter appears to be making mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that Stern had a potential deal at 50/50 until he came back with more restrictive changes and threats. That doesn't appear to be good leadership either. How ya gonna tell someone take it or leave it then say it's no one to negotiate with when they say no. You just told them there would be no more negotiating.
