Union makes big move without polling members

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by SlyPokerDog, Nov 14, 2011.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 2 of 2
  1. Spud147

    Spud147 Mercy Mercy

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Rip City
    Glad I wasn't imagining things. I kept looking for LMA in the crowd but didn't see him. Then when Fischer said that the vote was unanimous and that all the teams were represented I looked for another player from the Blazers and didn't see any of them. Who represented Portland in the unanimous vote?!?
     
    Spud147, Nov 14, 2011
    #21
  2. THE HCP

    THE HCP NorthEastPortland'sFinest

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    71,511
    Likes Received:
    60,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    N.E.P.
    Utah was also not represented.
     
    THE HCP, Nov 14, 2011
    #22
  3. julius

    julius Living on the air in Cincinnati... Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    34,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Sales Manager
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    As for showing up in jeans and backpacks, I think that's because they're doing it to look cool instead of actually looking like they know what they're doing.

    Maybe by unanimous, they meant those who were actually in attendance?
     
    julius, Nov 14, 2011
    #23
  4. Sinobas

    Sinobas Banned User BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    14,608
    Likes Received:
    5,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think they should have let everyone vote. Don't unions usually have people vote on a strike? Especially when you're only talking about a few hundred people. If you think they are nieve on the subject, lay your case out as to why you think the nba's deal is not good, and what the suggested course of action is.
     
    Sinobas, Nov 14, 2011
    #24
  5. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    You guys didn't get your way, so now you pretend that the majority of players are on the owners' side, but the big bad union has tied gags over their mouths.

    I watched the NBA before any of the current owners were there, and I anticipate watching after the current owners are gone. I don't really care who the owners are. New owners will emerge if the NBA dies.
     
    jlprk, Nov 15, 2011
    #25
  6. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "My way" (if you choose to call it that) doesn't like that players could hold franchises hostage, force trades for pennies on the dollar, and be paid for non-effort. "My way" is still in play. What isn't in play anymore? A deal where the players will get anything close to 50/50, a deal where players get 5 year contracts, and a deal where they don't get their salaries rolled back.
    Are you saying that the "big bad owners" are tying the gag over the players' mouths?


    couldn't you also say that about the players? That is, if you weren't being dramatic and over-the-top in an attempt to push an unpopular opinion? :)

    Serious question....what sympathy do you have for the players in this? Which particular "issue" in the last, take-it-or-leave-it offer did you find objectionable to the point of blowing up the union? B/c I haven't heard it from the players, I haven't heard it from the executive committee of the NBPA, and I haven't heard it from the lawyers. Was it the 50/50? Was it the contract length? Was it the lack of rollbacks? Please, do tell.
     
    BrianFromWA, Nov 15, 2011
    #26
  7. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    My rewording of the previous post shows that in many of the criticisms of the players on this board, the words "players" and "owners" can be interchanged. Here's an example.

    Serious question....what sympathy do you have for the owners in this? Which particular "issue" in the last, take-it-or-leave-it offer did you find objectionable to the point of blowing up the union? B/c I haven't heard it from the owners, I haven't heard it from the executive committee of the owners, and I haven't heard it from their lawyers. Was it the 50/50? Was it the contract length? Was it the lack of rollbacks? Please, do tell.
     
    jlprk, Nov 15, 2011
    #27
  8. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You're arguing against a straw man.

    You're attempting to twist my words into an attack on owners, when I was defending Stern (and the NBA system), rather than merely the owners.

    I have more sympathy for the owners because I find it unreasonable that they would be losing at least $180m a year collectively when the NBA is so popular. I have more sympathy for the owners because of the low number of teams that have competed for an NBA championship over the last couple of decades.

    I think that the owners are attempting to limit their downside while increasing parity in the NBA. I support both of those things much more than I do the players' right not to feel disrespected.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Nov 15, 2011
    #28
  9. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    Duh. Every day on this board I see several posts in which I can interchange "owners" with "players" and the statement is just as true.

    I will try to educate the pro-owners by doing so for about one post per day.
     
    jlprk, Nov 17, 2011
    #29
  10. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um, the owners laid out their proposal for the world to see. There seemed to be about 2 pages of points that were "take-it-or-leave-it." I heard it from Stern, I heard it from the owners, I actually heard from the media that some owners didn't like it, but wanted to get a deal done badly enough that they moved past their point of no-deal.

    Question still stands.
     
    BrianFromWA, Nov 18, 2011
    #30
  11. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    You ask which one issue is the crux of the matter to ther players. I would think it differs for each player.

    What matters is that the players have given in on many issues and the owners have pretended to give in on a few issues. But those latter issues are simply demands the owners made going in, as negotiating points which they planned all along to give in on. Only one side has given in on anything which existed in the previous CBA.

    So you should be asking why the owners can't compromise at all, not why the players can't compromise even more.
     
    jlprk, Nov 18, 2011
    #31
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page