you're mixing situations.
You said "negotiating for a raise", which is what the NBA players are effectively doing. I've asked for raises, and at no point did I think a good course of action was to go work for my competitor for less, in order to show how much I was worth.
In your latest post, you're talking about unemployment, which is a different scenario. In that one, it's akin to being unemployed but wanting to work for Microsoft. Sure, you and I might take a job tending bar to get by until we can get a "good job" again, but it doesn't help our negotiating position asking for a high starting salary to have "Joe's Bar" as the latest bullet on the C.V.
There's literally no benefit I can see from the union's perspective to have some players playing in Turkey/China/Lithuania. The owners don't need this year--for the ones that have been losing money it's a godsend not to have to pay salaries, especially if there's hope for a more fiscally constrained environment. Players can't say "we're worth more than what you're currently giving us", b/c you have people like Deron figuratively prostituting themselves for peanuts all over the globe.
It's like the anecdote:
Winston Churchill said:
■Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Woman: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Woman: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
I have a hard time believing that players can afford a wait-it-out approach more than owners. Fiscally, physically, contractually. The players will have to give at some point. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I think it's folly to think the players will "win" any part of this deal at all.
