I'm not sure I understand the question. Are we voting on who we think is "right", or who we think is going to win, or who we want to prevail? barfo
If the NBA stays the way it is now... they'll be four super teams and the rest of the league will wilt. Teams like Clev, Wash, Detroit, Clippers, Memphis, NO, Phili, and others will become the JV's to teams like LA, Miami, Boston and New York. Who wants season tickets so your team can be the footnote to one of these teams highlight reels? They'll have three bonified superstars, your team has maybe one almost if lucky... goodluck!!! I think the hardcap will make it fair again and the small market teams will have a chance again to compete and retain a superstar.
I was thinking who you think is (more) "right"... which I think overlaps with who you want to prevail. Ed O.
I didn't see "Fans Strongly" as an option so I picked Owners Barely. That's because the owners, irregardless of how rich, made their money the American way. Either they worked for it or inherited it. The Players, on the other hand, make millions of dollars to dribble a rubber ball and throw it throw a hoop. Frankly, the fact they make even a decent living should be astonishing to them. The level of entitlement of a group of grown ass men earning 100 times what I do for playing a kids game is galling. You mean to tell me you will only make 7 million a year instead of 10? Cry me a river. Also, if this change means owners will pay more for their own stadiums I am all for it.
Millionaires fighting over how to spread the millions. The NBA league minimum salary $90,000 more per/year than what the President of the United States makes. I'm strongly in the corner of the owners.
Not necessarily - for instance you might think the players were right, but that it would be worse for the NBA if the players won. My answer, in any case, is: I'm neutral. Neither party is right - they are just two parties engaged in a negotiation, and eventually they'll reach an agreement (or not). barfo
I look at it this way: Is there any other sport NBA players would trade their situation for? Perhaps European soccer, but the labor situations in the NHL, NFL and MLB all have much more downside for the players.
I can see how some might feel that way. I guess I wouldn't support a sport where I saw the "wrong" side winning, personally. Fair enough. But I purposefully didn't put that as an option in order to bring out the arguin'! Ed O.
I think you should recognize that the two camps are not really unified within themselves. So how about: - The Owners of Big Market Franchises - The Owners of Poxy loser teams (including Portland) - The massively smug superstar players - the All-stars/franchise players who are not in the above group - the people just happy to be in the league who just don't want to have to go to Spain I actually have some sympathy for the second group (because I'm a Portland fan, natch, so I want the playing field leveled, even if the league would probably thrive if only the Lakers and the Knicks/Celtics/Heat ever made the finals) but they're probably the group most responsible for the lockout. But I feel most sorry for the last group, even if they don't really contribute all that much to my enjoyment of the games. I do kinda hope they all go to Spain and then Joel and Victor will get great experience, I already have two teams to root for, and there'll be basketball to watch.
Totally agree. Its ridiculous we tax payers subsidize professional sport owners and players who are all making millions. Tax money should go to schools, law enforcement, public health and safety. Not fancy luxury box suite arenas that benefit a tiny group of millionaires and billionaires.
That's pretty much my view of it, too. They can each negotiate to get the best deal they can and when they're done, I'll get back to watching.
That's a nicely nuanced summary of the major perspectives. It's not just negotiations between players and teams, but negotiations between all five of those parties. Myself, I don't really have much of a dog in this fight, other than to see #2 well represented. In the end it's just about a lot of millionaires arguing among themselves over who gets how much of my hard-earned consumer dollar. I don't really give a shit if Steve Jobs pockets $.50 or $5.00 off of the iPhone I buy vs the 3 or 8 grains of rice earned by the kid with deft fingers in a Chinese sweatshop who made it. I just buy the product and it's up to them to figure out where the money goes. I suppose I have a little more emotional sympathy for the players. They are the ones who took massive risks with their lives to get to this point, and could see their futures dashed with a single bad ankle. They are the ones I actually pay to watch. I have never once said to myself, "I'm going to catch a Blazers game because Paul Allen deserves my money." But I have said, "LaMarcus Aldridge was worth the price of admission tonight!" But meh, my sympathy is not a terribly deep-felt emotion. I tend to reserve that for people who don't make my net worth every two weeks.
I'm in the same boat as maxiep. "Owners Moderately" I'm sure the owners are slightly overstating their case and part of the problem lies with having no revenue sharing system, but when teams are taking out loans to cover operating expenses and the the Blazers haven't turned a profit in decades I'm guessing they have a legit beef with the out of control guaranteed money.
good and valid point, player's had their gravy train for a while and as with those other sports you mentioned the market will not support that any more so it's reality check time.
