Why the owners SHOULD win

by Dipper on Jul 1, 2011 10:20 AM EDT

I can't see the players winning this battle since they have so much more to lose then the owners, EG:

1. An athlete's time is limited. Garnett and Allen would lose around 30K (includes endorsements) that can never be made back.

2. Garnett, Allen and PP would all lose the added pumps to their legacies, ie Allen three pointers, Garnett alltime rebounds and scoring, PP all time scoring and all Celtics numbers.

3. The Lebum types would lose a year and when you have all the money and fame, you are working really for your legacy........all time scoring records etc etc

4. The Kobe types are in the same boat as KG, RA, PP.

5. The young guys who were just drafted NEED the cash. And perhaps worse, if a whole year should go by, and another draft occur, their chances of making a roster are perhaps halved.

IMHO, like most 'strikes' etc etc, it's the Union leaders trying to justify their existence so then tell the players to "Don't give in to those dirty rotten 888888888888".

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Maybe unions were created with good intentions, but nowadays they are money grubbing entities. They care about dollars and power (buying politicians, etc) not the people they are suppose to protect. I think Billy Hunter enjoys having the spotlight. He’s been waiting for this for 2-3 years. Just to do something simple like building a bridge is the biggest hassle because of unions..it’s a joke.

by tenkaistar on Jul 3, 2011 10:21 PM EDT reply actions

Commenting about this in general terms, and directing it at “Unions” in general doesn’t do anything to address the NBA lockout (or even unions for that matter, since theyre are all organized differently). Unionization, privatization, socialization etc…it just isn’t the topic for a sports board to me.

We all know the specifics of each side at this point.
The owners – They want to end guaranteed contracts, take a MUCH larger share of the teams revenues, and decrease the players future wages
The players – They want their contracts to be guaranteed, take a SOMEWHAT smaller share of the team revenues, and allow for contracts to stay close to where they are now

Billy Hunters person agenda has no bearing on the discussion either. Who cares what his motives are? What the players are earning now really shouldn’t enter the conversation either (unless it’s discussed as a percent of each teams revenue). The fact is that both sides here are rich.

The main issue, is that the owners have been giving out contracts to players that didn’t deserve them, and as a consequence, their teams (and subsequently) their revenues have underperformed. Did anyone outside of Hawks management actually think Joe Johnsons contract made sense? When the pistons had a ton of cap space saved up, did anyone think it was a good idea, to spend it all on ben gordon and charlie villanueva? Would anyone else have signed Perkins to a multi year extension before seeing him play a game after knee surgery? For every team that runs into trouble due to factors out of their control, there are 2 or 3 that are losing revenue because of their own stupid decisions. Why should the players have to pay for the owners poor management decisions? The same way people bring up $, saying the players don’t deserve millions for playing a game, I say the owners don’t deserve millions for buying a team (which often they have done with money that was inherited anyway). The NBA is growing, and it isn’t because Mark Cuban (who I love) is becoming more popular in China. It’s because of the players.

by dtrader on Jul 7, 2011 11:39 AM EDT reply actions