Owners or Players?

[Ed O]

What would best describe your position on the upcoming lockout, based on what you know now?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Owners tremendously.

 

[maxiep]

I put owners (barely), but I'm really owners (moderately).

 

[barfo]

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

 

[santeesioux]

The fans

 

[Ghost Pepper]

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.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I'm on HCP's side. Fuck all the rich people arguing over how much richer they get to be next decade.

 

[Ed O]

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?

I was thinking who you think is (more) "right"... which I think overlaps with who you want to prevail.

Ed O.

 

[LittleAlex]

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.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

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.

 

[barfo]

I was thinking who you think is (more) "right"... which I think overlaps with who you want to prevail.

Ed O.

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

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[Ed O]

Not necessarily - for instance you might think the players were right, but that it would be worse for the NBA if the players won.

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.

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).

Fair enough. But I purposefully didn't put that as an option in order to bring out the arguin'!

Ed O.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

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.

 

[Draco]

Also, if this change means owners will pay more for their own stadiums I am all for it.

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.

 

[Minstrel]

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).

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.

 

[mook]

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

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.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Owners. Most owners are losing $$$ while the players are making lots of $$$.

 

[Nikolokolus]

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.

 

[Blazinaway]

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.

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.

 

[BBert]

I support the fans, and by extension, the owners, in this dispute.

 

[ebott]

I said owners barely which I interpret as small market owners and that's only because I root for a small market team and that's only because I was born in this one horse town and it just so happens that the one horse is an NBA team. If the NBA contracted and Portland was one of the teams that got contracted and as a result a hockey or baseball team moved here I'd probably follow them just as much as I follow the Blazers. But I digress...

What is the sort of thing that would benefit small market owners? Just spitballin here...

1. Profit sharing
2. A hard cap
3. non-guaranteed contracts
4. A Franchise Tag
5. Restricted free agency

What am I missing?

 

[KingSpeed]

Players tremendously. The league is nothing without them.

 

[BBert]

Players tremendously. The league is nothing without them.

And what are the players without the league? Or the fans?

They are just tall.

 

[ebott]

Players tremendously. The league is nothing without them.

A year ago I would have totally agreed with you.

- The massively smug superstar players

But then this group has totally turned the public debate toward the owners. A year ago things were vastly different. That was before Lebron left the cavs high and dry, Bosh did the same to Toronto, Melo finagled his way to New York and even a guy like Deron Williams was able to get himself over to New Jersey. That's four cities that have lost faith in the NBA and every city of similar size has got to be seriously questioning whether the NBA gives a crap about them.

 

[Run BJM]

How (And Why) An NBA Team Makes A $7 Million Profit Look Like A $28 Million Loss

I'm more on the players side morally but agree with many of you that the league would be "better" if the small market owners came out on top.

 

[illmatic99]

What can Stern do to facilitate a quick end to the lockout?

 

[Ed O]

Players tremendously. The league is nothing without them.

You could take the next-best 300 players in the country and still have a very, very entertaining league.

Put the current NBA players on the "Seattle Evergreens" and "San Diego Admirals" and ... it's lame.

Ed O.

 

[Run BJM]

You could take the next-best 300 players in the country and still have a very, very entertaining league.

Put the current NBA players on the "Seattle Evergreens" and "San Diego Admirals" and ... it's lame.

Ed O.

Too bad the NBA stars have already been branded and ingrained into the minds of the country. The next 300 players would make a fine league and fine basketball games but the big time viewership is won and lost on casual fans who just want to see the guys on Nike ads dominating.

LeBron on the Seattle Evergreens will get more viewers and interest than the Trailblazers with 15 undrafted players.

You could easily find another 30 rich white people to invest in a new league provided the big stars agreed to be in the league. These owners would get a raw deal compared to the current NBA owners but I still doubt there would be any lack of investors for that.

 

[Ed O]

Too bad the NBA stars have already been branded and ingrained into the minds of the country. The next 300 players would make a fine league and fine basketball games but the big time viewership is won and lost on casual fans who just want to see the guys on Nike ads dominating.

Maybe. I think that the guys on Nike ads are relevant because they're on NBA teams... not because they are really good at basketball.

LeBron on the Seattle Evergreens will get more viewers and interest than the Trailblazers with 15 undrafted players.

I'm not so sure about that. Even assuming it's true, though, I'd rather watch 15 undrafted Trail Blazers than Chris Bosh and the San Diego Admirals...

You could easily find another 30 rich white people to invest in a new league provided the big stars agreed to be in the league. These owners would get a raw deal compared to the current NBA owners but I still doubt there would be any lack of investors for that.

I don't think many would touch that kind of league unless there was heavy corporate (advertiser) backing... and in these economic times, in particular, I'm not sure many corporations would be eager to cross the NBA.

It's interesting to think about, for sure.

Ed O.