that old saying never made much sense to me. if there were no players, there would be no game. so by playing the game you are supporting the game. why would they play the game if they thought it deserved to be hated?? or why would they play a game if they hated it themselves?? because the truth is, players love to play the game. so the only logical conclusion is hate the player AND the game they play.
Sign me up for that form of servitude. Millions of dollars, insurance, freedom, potential ad revenue, making more money than 99.9% of the planet. Sounds great.
It makes perfect sense to me. In reality, there's not point in hating a player for playing a game, that's acceptable and been allowed to be played. The only thing that would be is jealousy, a dislike for the game, or etc. Some personal reason. Because there's an incentive to play the game, especially if there's someone is willing to satisfy the player. In this case, it's the owner and GMs. The players do not run anything substantial in the system, like any other worker. They are mere pawns in a billion dollar game, to a point. They did not create the system in place, overall, but have effected it. Though athletes, like Hollywood stars or any celebrity around the world are a part of unique world. Unlike most workers in the world who provide a service and labor to build and manage products, these people are in essence the entity that's being sold. People go to events and functions just to see stars, just as some consumers buy certain products just because a star is endorsing it or is their pitchman/woman. It's just a fun game to watch at the end of the day, alot of people must find fascination in it, to spend so much money on it. It's going to be there at the end of the day, because it's in demand.
I'm on the fan's side buddy we work hard , watch the games, pay for the merchandise and this is how they re pay us!.......
i'm not talking about the nba specifically, just talking about the saying itself and the situations in which it is used. "don't hate teh player, hate the game" is an oxymoron because the players are part of the game. they choose to play, and thus become part of it. nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them to play. they play because they want to and they like it.
Why do random people point out slavery like its comparable to anything "suffered" by NBA players? The very definition of being an indentured servant (or slave) is not being paid for his services. How can NBA players be called slaves in any sense of the word when they make millions of dollars a year and can quit playing ball anytime by retiring? I don't know if you're ignorant or stupid. As for anybody can be an owner, you got 300+M chilling in the bank? I thought so
This is from everyone's fav player Kevin Durant. Looks likes it going to drag on and on.. Two-time scoring champion Kevin Durant wants the NBA's owners to listen up. “We're going to stand up for what we have to do, no matter how long it's going to take,” Durant told The Associated Press after the conclusion of his two-day youth basketball camp. “No matter how long the lockout's going to take, we're going to stand up. We're not going to give in.”
So Lewis held a gun to an owner's head and made him fork over that contract? Give me a break! Yes, the system sucks and needs reforming, but to blame the players more than the owners is, in my opinion, rediculous. And about the lockout... the players didn't go on strike. They are being "locked out." The owners are causing what's happening today and going forward, possibly to a lost season. They aren't bargaining in good faith. They aren't offering the small market teams any sort of reasonable revenue sharing. What they are doing is cleverly trying to place the onus on the players and their union.
Meh, not taking any sides even the fans' side. Majority of fans proved themselves ignorant about the NFL lockout and will probably be the same thing here. The only ownership I will truly embrace is that of the Green Bay Packers. Ha, fat chance we'll see something like that for another major team.
I think you have to side with the owners a little. On average NBA players are some if not highest paid athletes in the world. While 22 teams are probably not losing money there are some that are.
No. They. Don't. Does Sarver deserve a competitive team? Does Sterling, or that idiot Senator who owns the Bucks? Does the Magic owner who can't seem to understand that Otis Smith is dumber than my grandmother in basketball? I don't understand why all 30 owners deserve to make a profit, or have a winning team. I REALLY don't get it given that we have one of the best GMs in the league. From my perspective, "pro-owner" is a complete misnomer. You aren't pro-Alexander, or pro-Cuban. You're pro-Sarver and pro-Sterling. And those are owners I have no interest in supporting. There are changes that need to be made, but I don't see why so many are instinctively siding with the owners.
I'm just probably jaded due to the NFL lockout about how the owners are crying foul over lost revenue yet are transparent about how much money they are making.
like others have said, i side with NEITHER because they are all millionaires and billionares and they have nothing in common with ME and they don't give a rats ass about my interests. BUT something has to give, and i think the league would be healthier in the long run if the owners got their way on this. the players had their way already. that was the CBA that just expired!!!! the CBA expires for a reason. some people (players side) think that everything from the previous CBA should be permanent. but that's not reality. things change, and thats what negotiations are for. the owners gave up alot to the players at the last CBA, and for this new CBA they want something back. i can't blame them for that.
I'm on the fans side. The owners need to be protected from themselves and the imbalance of small and large markets. They should all share equal revenues. Hard cap revenue split. The players need to be protected from themselves and their stupid, idiotic lifestyles. Hard cap on their salaries. Their salaries should be reduced drastically and a large chunk of revenues should go into defined benefit retirement plans for these guys so they never wind up broke except for a couple weeks a month. If they choose to smoke and dope up their retirement pension, then let them do that. But, they should have a defined benefit pension based on years of service and it should inflate to take care of them for life so even the biggest idiot with their money will still have a pension to fall back on that will let him lead a common life.
You do realise a lot of players come from broken familys, ghetto slums, who's only way out of the ghetto is too play bball? So you can understand why they like to spend money, and enjoy life, you only live once, and life is very short. It's there money, so should be able to spend it the way they want to. No idea how fan's are voting for a lockout, the NBA players will not back down, and it's just the owners trying to get back, what they lost in the last lockout. NBA players have been told since 2007, to expect a lockout, and they are all ready for one, and for the long haul this time.
The owners need to be protected form themselves and their stupid, idiotic spending sprees each offseason on players they shouldn't be overpaying in the first place. People like to say "Two words: Kelvin Cato" but Cato wasn't the idiot that had a nutfest over a preseason performance and decided to throw 42 million dollars his way. A player's lifestyle and what he does with his paycheck is, unfortunately, his own business unless it places anyone's life at risk (e.g. speeding down a highway in your ferrari at unsafe speeds). You can't cut a check for a player and say "Now, I'm giving you your $2 million that WE agreed upon and I expect you to spend it wisely" with a straight face when you yourself are making unsound business decisions (like cutting a $2 million check to a Eddy Curry type player). The argument that's thrown around a lot from what I've read here is that "well no one knows how a player turns out and some teams have to pay according to what they believe or perceive the player's talent ceiling is. So, sometimes, owners will overpay to keep that perceived talent". Bull****. The way the system is set right now for players a team drafts, you have those players on, what, 3 years on a rookie scaled contract. MOST players (NOT ALL) tend to show what they have by their 3rd year. Then the team will most likely have that 4th year team option. The team will, of course, exercise that option if they hadn't already offered an extension (an extension that HAS A LIMIT) to said player after the 3rd year. Then, after the 4th year, the player can hit the free agency market if he wants to. Then, if other teams wants to overpay (like the Magic did for Lewis), that's the Magic's owner's prerogative. Just don't overpay for a player and cry about it. Don't drop $100+ on a player like Lewis or Joe Johnson and you don't have to say player salaries are out of control. In other words, you have teams that dropped obscene amounts of money on players that don't even play up to their contractual worth (i.e. Lewis, Joe Johnson, etc.). Would the Magic or the Hawks have been better off without signing either of those guys? Hindsight says "Hell yes" and foresight would have been "I'm not 100% sure but it's almost a heck yea". It wasn't a smart decision when the contracts were offered and it's definitely not a smart decision now. Small market teams have competed well throughout the history of the NBA because they have smart people running the organization. The 2000s Sacramento Kings, the San Antonio Spurs, the more recent Oklahoma Thunder. Hell, I would even call the Reggie Miller Pacers and 90s Sonics a success. Your team/organization don't suck by accident. Either you, as the owner, hired sorryass GMs or you yourself are to be blamed. That being said, I'm not 100% on the players' side either. I think the players need to maintain their strength and conditioning months before training camp. You can't take an owner's millions and come to camp fat and out of shape. You can't also joyride on a moped after signing a multimillion dollar deal and break your ankle months before the season opener. And, in all honesty, if you have an NBA contract and want to represent your country, that's fine. But if you suffer any injuries during international play, the owner/team should have the right to void the remaining years on your contract. I know it's a cruel pill to swallow but the owners invested millions in you and the last thing they want is to see a torn ACL on tv while you play against Poland. This is a time where hard/flex caps might seem like a good resolution but it should be a down time where both owners AND players think about the misjudgements either side has made--owners shoving obscene amounts of cash into the players' wallets and the players not conditioning themselves well enough during the offseason period.
Definitely on the players side on the this one... As another poster said earlier, the players are being 'locked out'. They haven't gone on strike. The owners consider the current system to be so awful that they would rather stop basketball completely rather than continue business as usual. Remember, the last two CBA's had players make givebacks to the owners. In '99 the MAX contract was implemented (Remember, before that KG signed a 6 year $126M deal and Jordan even made $30M+ for a couple seasons), and in 2005 high schoolers were barred from joining the league in addition to the MAX lengths of contracts being shortened from 6/7 years to 5/6. The players are prepared in the current CBA negotiations to make more givebacks, $500 million in guaranteed salary more in fact. Fans blaming the players for signing the contracts they are offered are not being realistic. Players are worth what someone is willing to pay. Owners are NOT entitled to profits, they have to earn them through solid business decisions just like any other enterprise. The real issues are the following: (1) Owners/GM giving out terrible contracts that cripple franchises for years (2) Small market owners not having access to the same resources as large market teams. As a reasonable solution to problem (1): (a) Contracts should be limited to 3 years MAX length without an upper dollar amount limit. (Players re-signing with their own teams would be allowed an extra year) If Minnesota wants to pay Kevin Durant $30Million a season for 3 years to pry him away from OKC let them. This will put butts in the seats and eyes on the screen for smaller markets and keep 'Super-Friends' like teams from emerging. Do you think Chris Bosh would have joined Miami if Toronto (or someone else) offered him a deal like that? (b) The AVERAGE value of the contract should count against the cap, not just the value for the current year. This way if a guy signs for $24M over three years the cap hit is $8M every season no matter how the money is broken down. One of the ways teams kill their chances at adding future pieces is by splurging on FA's one off season only to find themselves way over the Tax threshold once the 10% increases add up each year. (c) Make the Mid-Level exception available only every other year. Make the Lower-Level exception available every year. Self-explanatory As a reasonable solution to problem (2) (a) Reduce trade restrictions. Specifically, I would raise the amount of cash that can be added to 'sweeten' a deal to $5 million and allow trades to be completed as log as salaries are within 150% of each other. One of the ways small market earn extra income is by being facilitators in trades. If the Lakers wants to pay Sacramento $5 million bucks to open a roster spot, or in exchange for a future pick, let them. As a poster mentioned before, Memphis has been making money for years being involved in underwhelming trades. (b) Overhaul the NBA draft. The first round should consist of all non-playoff teams picking twice in serpentine order (based on the lottery results). The second round should be all playoff teams picking twice in serpentine order (based on regular season record). With regards to trades, teams would no longer trade 'first-round' or 'second-round' picks but 'primary' or 'secondary' picks The NBA is a star driven league. The best way for teams to get star-talent is to draft it. This gives the teams that really need high level talent additional opportunities to draft it. Although players want to play in big markets, most of them will resign at least once with the home-team. And if the home team manages to field a contending team, most likely they'll stay. Off the top of my head, Shaq is the only 'super-star' who left the team that drafted him without resigning at least once. As an added bonus this would make the NBA draft a lot more exciting. I imagine there would be a significant increase in trade activity among all teams and fringe-playoff teams would be able to add significant depth if they draft wisely. *I know this doesn't DIRECTLY address the small vs. big market disadvantages facing teams like Sacramento or New Orleans but for the most part, winning is profitable. At the very least, this should speed up the rebuilding process for non-playoff teams. (c) Revenue Sharing In my opinion, this is the biggest issue affecting the league at the moment. This article does a great job of outlining the real reason why small market teams are losing money. Personally, I really don't care who wins the current dispute, I just want to watch basketball again. But I cant in good faith be mad at the players for not capitulating to the owners misguided demands. The real labor dispute should be between the small market owners and the larger market owners over revenue sharing.
I think quite simply, in 2011, contracts should be linked to performance. We have the means to do it, and several owners (including the Rockets owner) are using advanced number crunching to calculate player "value". Think about Shane Battier's value on the court and how that was calculated. There's no doubt that a formula can be constructed where players are compensated for their skill, effort, productivity, longevity, loyalty, etc and have reasonable freedom of movement. However, IMO, both sides are hiding behind their greed. The lockout is not a "how can we make this fair" situation. It's a "how can we both continue to get overpaid in a balanced way". The reality is that the last CBA was decent. Owners have gotten smarter and have learned how to gain maximum value out of their dollars. When was the last time you looked at the Rockets roster and said "I don't think anyone is overpaid on this team"? When was the last time someone re-negotiated their contract like Richard Jefferson did? If you look at the top salaries in the league, now that Ray Allen and Tracy McGrady are gone, Rashard Lewis is one of the few outliers. Bigs get paid a lot, stars get paid more. It's slowly starting to become consistent. Felton, Dalembert and Nene are becoming unrestricted FA's. When was the last time players of that calibre became unrestricted FA's? Clearly the players are not happy and the owners are driving a hard bargain because they would be happy if nothing changes. Certainly, many of these owners have lost money outside their franchise, and are trying to recoup some of that via their franchises. I have no doubt, for example, that there are owners who used the NBA's favorable credit facility even if they didn't need it, as long as it beat their own cost of capital. They're businessmen, why wouldn't they? Can't wait for this thing to end. The thing that pisses me off most is the NBA's nazi-style grip on talking about it, showing player pictures on websites, etc. David Stern is brutal, and I wish the players would take their collective money and start their own league. They can afford it, and they know they are the key asset, but they also know they have no chance of making the same kind of money without these owners.
Just gonna throw my 2 cents in. I hate guarunteed contracts. Hate em. Don't understand the need for them in professional basketball. The NFL does awesome with non-guarunteed contracts, I don't see why the NBA can't do the same. In pretty much any other line of work, if you start to suck at what you do, your employer can decide to stop paying you and can get someone else to do your job. Not in the NBA, though. All you gotta do is play until your contract is up (or just for a couple months before your contract is up), then sign your new huge 5 year deal that guaruntees you get paid an absurd amount of money no matter how hard you work. First, this gives no incentive to players to keep working hard and getting better, because they're getting paid regardless. Second, it means that if a team makes a mistake in signing a guy, they're extremely limited in their ability to improve their team for the length of that contract. This sucks for the fans of that team, because we're stuck watching a team that's not good enough and has almost no way of making itself good enough because it made one mistake in free agency. I much prefer the NFL model. Sign a guy, hope he works out, and if he doesn't, get rid of him and bring in someone else that you think will work out. This seems by far the most logical way of operating a business. Why do you have to keep paying someone who is not playing well or not playing hard? I just wish NBA teams wouldn't be handcuffed for YEARS because of a single bad signing. Non-guarunteed contracts would give teams a real avenue to improve their teams every year. It would also improve the free agent crop every year giving teams more options to improve, because teams would be able to sign the previously overpaid players that get cut a more reasonable salary. And those players would have incentive to play good, too. Not gonna happen, though. Oh well.
That is not true. There are many ways out of "the ghetto" that don't involve bouncing a leather ball. I have family members who have done it, my parents escaped poverty using their BRAINS! And the players will crumble. Once the checks stop coming from last season alot will go broke. I get the sense that most do not manage their money correctly and basically live from paycheck to paycheck.
