Just to be clear, I think you misunderstood what I meant by my "as a veteran" phrasing. I didn't mean he deserves more due to his veteran status. What I meant is that, as a veteran, he got to be an unrestricted free agent and let the market determine his worth. As opposed to players on rookie contracts, who are locked into contracts well below what they'd be paid on the open market.
Or themselves. By the way, now seems the perfect time for me to mention that I think the guys who make the fluffy stuff that goes in couches are grossly over paid. And don't get me started on the guys who operate the machines that create the threading on screws.
It's not. That was my point. I don't feel sympathy for owners not being able to artificially constrain the marketplace as much as they'd like. That simply makes no sense. I wasn't talking about academic exercises, I was talking about the real world market. You know, the ones companies actually exist in, in the real world.
Look at it this way, if your assumptions held true, the NBA would not be in such a supposedly dire situation. That should be proof aplenty that you need to revisit your reasoning.
It means NBA owners need to run their businesses responsibly, like all other business owners, rather than tossing business principles out the window and looking for artificial constraints to rein themselves in. Look at it this way, if your assumptions held true, no industries would be able to function without artificially capping all worker salaries and all goods that they use, which is clearly not the case. That should be proof aplenty that you need to revisit your reasoning.
Guys, reality check time. $400 million spread over 30 teams comes to $13.33 million each. That is less than a single max contract per team. This is worth a lock-out?
Clever comeback, but I already said that the NBA does not fit "marketplace at large" examples. Try again. The entertainment industry is well known in economic circles to follow a much different formula than typical supply and demand.
And I already pointed out that does nothing to contradict what I said. My entire point was that the NBA is not following the "marketplace at large" format. My point is that it should be. Again, you're confused about my point. I'm not saying it does. I'm saying it should. What is your reasoning for why it can't follow typical supply and demand principles?
