Owners or Players?

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Ed O, Jun 30, 2011.

?

Owners or Players? Who do you support?

  1. Owners (strongly)

    39.2%
  2. Owners (barely)

    45.9%
  3. Players (barely)

    2.7%
  4. Players (strongly)

    12.2%
  1. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    That's incorrect. If it were "Capitalism," players would be subject to free market salaries (open bidding), rather than having artificial caps. Teams would pay players only as much as they could afford and still turn a profit. That's what the market will bear.

    Instead, the NBA has purposely suppressed the free market by putting in maximum salaries and salary caps.

    Unless you're saying that NBA owners (these men of finance) know nothing about balancing costs versus income and therefore, in the absence of free market suppressing rules, would get taken advantage of by those financial shark players? :)
     
  2. BBert

    BBert Weasels Ripped My Flesh

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    26,296
    Likes Received:
    19,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Selfless Public Servant
    Location:
    South Blazerlandia
    Repped.
     
  3. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Perhaps so where public support is what is being fought over, like some political battles. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that public support matters to either side; you still have yet to explain to me how fan support can impact one side more than the other. My contention is still that whenever basketball resumes, either fans return to the whole thing or they don't. Not "just for the owners."
     
  4. UKRAINEFAN

    UKRAINEFAN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    13,534
    Likes Received:
    10,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    un-retired
    Location:
    Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukraine
    We certainly disagree. If the tables were turned and the majority of fans supported the players, that would definitely matter to the owners, because fans can vote with their dollars, owners do not want to offend fans. For the players it's more complex, but i believe players are like most people, they want to be liked, loved and admired, (probably more than most ordinary people). So they will tend to act in ways which will make them liked, loved and admired, and avoid actions which would make them less likely to be liked, loved and admired.
     
  5. Masbee

    Masbee -- Rookie of the Year

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,856
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But, the NBA is a league. That concept is VERY different than that of competing companies vying for customers business.

    You CANNOT have a "free market" for the players. It simply will not work. AT ALL. There is no way for it to work. What would happen is pretty obvious: LA and NY with their billion dollar TV deal (yes BILLION), would sign up any player they liked and have team payrolls multiple times that of the other teams. The league would collapse of its own weight.

    The best players matter more in team success in basketball than in any other sport. So, the ability of a small handful of TV rich teams to sign the best players would make the NBA uncompetitive.

    The only alternative would be extreme revenue sharing (local ticket and TV revenue shared along with national revenue) - something only possible with a brand new league.

    Successful sports leagues must have competition and uncertain outcomes. They have to figure a way to allow the individual teams at least the opportunity to compete. Otherwise it is the Harlem Globetrotters. And fans lose interest.
     
  6. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Fair enough. Personally, I think you're overrating the effect. Being "disliked" for a few months is likely worth a better financial deal for many years. Once the work stoppage is over, the hard feelings go away over time. The results of the negotiations will last for years.
     
  7. LittleAlex

    LittleAlex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think perhaps my last comments gave the wrong impression.

    I don't support the owners very much at all.
    More the likely they got their money through less then honest means.
    Seriously, it's awfully hard to get billions of dollars without fucking over a large number of people.

    I just support the players less then the owners.
    This is due to my own feelings about even enjoying basketball itself.
    It's a silly game when you get right down to it and I feeling slightly dumb for enjoying it as much as I do.
    The idea that someone could already be paid exceedingly well to perform this absurd task, then complain when that might go down to a figure that is still absurd, is very galling to me.

    I realize this isn't entirely rational or even consistant but it is my gut reaction.

    I do support the fans and the other team employees WAY more then either party.
    Both groups of people are wrong from my perspective.
    Both groups are greedy bastards whose argument hurts a very large number of people who can't afford to miss more then a couple of paychecks such as our own HCP.
    These are the people this lockout will hurt the most and whatever resolves the issue the quickest is the best resolution from my perspective.

    It seems to me the quickest resolution would be for the players to just suck it up, take a 10% pay cut with shorter contracts that are not 100% guaranteed since they have significantly less power then the owners.
     
  8. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    First of all, I never said that the NBA should be a purely free market. I simply pointed out that saying this is all just "capitalism" and "what the market will bear" is wrong. This is about owners attempting to secure as much money as they can by artificially tamping down their costs. Whether the absence of such artificial measures might have negative competitive balance issues for fans is a separate issue.

    Secondly, the situation you describe was pretty much the case in the 1980s, when teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Sixers were able to assemble "super teams." The league didn't seem to be on the verge of collapsing at all.
     
  9. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    I still don't quite follow you, though. If it's a silly game to enjoy and a silly game to be paid for, isn't it then a silly game to finance? Why is the owners' involvement in the game any less subject to the "silliness" issue that you feel?

    I realize that you're not saying it's rational or consistent, just my own question about it.
     
  10. Spud147

    Spud147 Mercy Mercy

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    2,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Rip City
    I don't really think of the salary cap as protection for the owners, I think of it as an attempt at parity. It's more to protect the league as a whole. Again, the players don't have to play in the NBA, there are other alternatives that may pay more and they are "free" to take that salary if they want to. I'm not convinced that the market is going to bear much more, we can see empty arenas in other cities when the Blazers are playing there. And most of us can't afford to see them play in person very often because the ticket prices have gone through the roof.

    Also, on the flip side of the player arguement, out in the real world if you sign a contract and don't fulfill it you get sued and have to pay it back. These are guaranteed contracts that don't pay for the job they're actually doing, they pay based on past performance and hope for an injury free future.

    I'm not saying the owners will get taken advantage of, I'm saying the players don't have a "right" to a bigger percentage of the profit just because the business makes a lot of money.
     
  11. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Since I've been posting a lot, asking questions of others' positions, I'll just quickly mention what I'd like to see. It's going to be light on numbers, since I'm not trained in accounting and only have a general economics overview from college. Just the main conceptual framework.

    First, establish the players' share of the basketball revenue through negotiations.

    Then both a hard salary cap and a hard salary floor based on that players' share that ensures teams cannot spend too much on an individual basis but cannot essentially gut their team. Raise the minimum salary (which will have the required effect of limiting what superstars make...if the money paid to players is set, it's a zero-sum game and all the roster spots need to be filled).

    Strong revenue sharing from the best NBA markets to the worst. The principle behind this is to help keep afloat teams that really do struggle in their markets and it balances another free market constraint: teams aren't free to move their franchise wherever they want, like other types of businesses. Four teams can't choose to occupy the New York market if they so choose, nor can teams all abandon small markets (for the sake of fans having teams to root for all around the nation). For the privilege of having "protected" markets, I think revenue sharing is fair to impose on the teams in the better markets.

    The revenue sharing should include ticket prices and TV revenues, because the only reason those have any value is the league as a whole. The Knicks or Heat wouldn't make any money with no opponents to play. Things like parking and concession revenue don't need to be shared.

    I'm not claiming that this is definitively the best system (if you can even call it one with no numbers), as I'm no expert...it's just the fairest system, conceptually, to my current thinking.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2011
  12. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    In a free market system, that would correct itself. If fans couldn't afford tickets, teams would lower the prices so they'd sell and therefore salaries would go down to ensure a profit were made. Again, owners decide what they want to pay, players don't extort it from them with a gun. This is all about owners seeking protection from their own bad decisions.

    That's fine. It just means that it is a moral issue to you, not merely "capitalism." :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2011
  13. Spud147

    Spud147 Mercy Mercy

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    2,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Rip City
    You're such a brat! :devilwink:

    If this was a "moral" issue with me I wouldn't even watch the NBA. The owners and players are living in a world so far outside my comprehension that they all come across a greedy jerks for the most part... despite the nice PSAs and the citizenship award. Basically I don't think I'd like very many of these people if I knew them in person but I do enjoy the product they put out on the floor and am entertained by it.
     
  14. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Oh yes...by "moral issue," I didn't mean you feel a moral connection to the individual people. I meant that who you choose between the players and owners is about your sense of "what's fair and just" rather than simply a free market outcome.

    I'm not criticizing, just noting it because A. you chose to differentiate between morality and capitalism and B. I'm a brat. :)
     
    Spud147 likes this.
  15. Spud147

    Spud147 Mercy Mercy

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    2,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Rip City
    Excellent post - repped!
     
  16. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Players all the way.

    I'm surprised how many posters support slavery.
     
  17. Masbee

    Masbee -- Rookie of the Year

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,856
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The 80's is nothing like the current situation.

    In the 80's TV money essentially meant national TV, and that went to the league for even distribution.

    Look at the current TV money for NY and LA. It dwarfs ticket sales, merchandise, naming rights, etc. It has changed EVERYTHING.
     
  18. LittleAlex

    LittleAlex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here is the best I can do:
    I guess I just believe a person who pays for something is slightly more sympathetic a figure then someone who is paid to do something as long as the compensation is reasonable.

    In this example, the owners and fans both pay to experiance NBA.
    The players are paid by the NBA.

    Since the players are compensated exceedingly well for their services (and still would be even if the owners got everything they wanted), my general attitude is "Shut the fuck up and do you damn job."
    If the players were forced to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week my attitude would be very different.


    And yes, I do believe it more absurd for someone who gets paid to do something silly to complain about payment then it is for someone paying for something silly to complain about it's cost.
    Both are stupid but one is slightly more stupid then the other.

    One other thing.
    Like most people on this board, I have a boss.
    They make WAY more money then I do.
    Arguably too much money in comparison to their contribution.
    However, that's just the way the world works and I came to grips with that fact long ago.

    Perhaps I think the players should do the same.

    Hell, if they want a bigger share of the pie, why not fund their own basketball league?
    It perfectly reasonable thing for them to do, especially since they are what drives basketball's popularity.

    If that's what the players did then I would be singing a completely different tune.

    In fact, that is my new position.
    The players should form their own league and tell all the NBA owners to go fuck themselves.
    I would respect the hell out of that.
     
  19. LittleAlex

    LittleAlex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am surprised anyone would equate being paid to play a game but still being free in every other aspect to being owned by someone who controls every single aspect of your life.

    I guess we are both surprised.
     
  20. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    How much money is in the system may be different, but the reality of certain teams hoarding a number of excellent players was not. My point is that that era was no more competitively balanced than your doomsday scenario and yet doom did not arrive nor did it seem in the offing.
     

Share This Page