Yesterday, I gave my CBA Proposal. In it, I assigned some motivations to the players based on my impressions.
Today, Etan Thomas of the Atlanta Hawks, put down in words a representation of what the players are thinking.
Let me be clear: The players want to get this resolved, and have made every effort to compromise, even in the face of an unrealistic wish list.
The Players Association and the NBA have continued to talk in an attempt to reach some common ground, but our efforts have been thus far unsuccessful. While I appreciate the NBA taking the time to meet with the Players Association repeatedly and give, as David Stern called it, “virtually the best shot we think we have to avoid a work stoppage,” I have to respectfully take issue with the their approach
_________
Against our better judgement, and in an effort to save the next NBA season, which is in danger of being completely lost, we began negotiating from their fictional and ridiculous proposal of non-guarantees, hard cap, shorter years, drastic giveback, adjustment of BRI and guaranteed profits. We attempted to address some of their concerns without drastically dismantling our entire system. A more sensible approach would have been for the NBA to begin negotiations with the system we currently have and begin making additions, adjustments, etcetera, that work in the best interest of both parties.
We entertained their fantasy and they not only discounted and rejected our efforts, but they spit at our concessions and await for us to make another offer to them?
To quote Billy Hunter, ”we’ve had guaranteed contracts for 40 years, so it’s almost like somebody walks into your house and they take something that belongs to you, and then they want to sell it back. And you say, ‘It was mine from the get-go, so why should I pay for it? And I didn’t authorize you to take it, and I never said it was available for you to take or use or abuse.”
It is for this reason that the players collectively reject their proposal and are prepared for a lockout for whatever duration it takes in order to reach a deal that is fair. The players can’t take on the burden of saving teams from themselves. If NBA teams have made bad decisions that were detrimental to their overall profit, success and productivity, then those are issues to be taken up with GMs, presidents and the rest of the powers that be. It is up to each NBA CEO to conduct his business in a way that will be advantageous to him and his franchise as a whole.
I’ll respond to the comments on my offer tonight, but felt it was worth having this in ready proximity to our disussion here.
Read more: http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/thomas/2011/06/27/united-we-stand/#ixzz1Qb9vg2nU
Related Posts:
- Other People’s Words: Holly MacKenzie on Paul George Coming Up Big
- Player Pinpoint: Kurt Thomas
- CBA Talk: Comparing the Owners’ and Players’ Proposals
- Other People’s Words: Joey Whelan and Tyler’s Alternate Path to Establishment
- Larry Bird Criticizes His Players: “We’re Just Not Getting the Effort”
Tim Donahue is an editor and lead writer for 8 Points, 9 Seconds. He lives in Fishers, Indiana, and has been around long enough to dimly remember watching the Pacers play way back in the days of the old Fairgrounds Coliseum. You can find him tweeting about the Pacers @TimDonahue8p9s.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s a shame that not only will there be a lockout but that it appears a good chunk of the season will be lost, as both sides are still so far apart. I have to agree with Thomas’ comments re a better approach being to start with the current CBA and go from there, rather than the owners trying to overhaul the system in one fell swoop. I feel for the owners too, as without them there is no league (as with the players), and if it is not economically viable to own a team in a small market, then those teams will just cease to exist. There has to be a middle ground, and both sides need to make concessions. Ultimately, I’m sure the players would rather play for less than not play at all, just as the owners would settle for just being profitable again to continue on, but it’s not that simple.
What does baffle me, and maybe someone can explain this to me, is why are these negotiations always left until right before the CBA is due to expire. They’ve known about this since 1999, and it realistically has been considered broken for at least 2 years, so why has there not been a more pro-active effort to avoid a lockout when we had one not so long ago? Again, I know it’s not that simple but that’s how it appears to the fans.
Waiting until the last moment is a useful tool in negotiation. There is no incentive to compromise until actual dollars are being lost by either party. Both sides know that this will eventually end in a compromise. It’s essentially a game of poker. Each side has to “bluff” that they are willing to have no season to get the best deal possible. most negotiations go this way. We will have to wait and see who blinks 1st.
Dave hit the nail on the head, which is both understandable and regrettable. In pretty much all forms of negotiations (including things like a budgeting process), people have been trained to ask for more than they need in order to ensure they get what they need.
It politicizes the process (though, arguably, any process with people involved is automatically politicized), and can make for a lot of noise and, IMO, wasted time. When the negotiation has an audience, there’s an uncontrollable urge to spin a good guy/bad guy dichotomy, which may be emotionally satisfying, but is counterproductive.
the owners are not at fault here…they do this to make money the players are their employees and when a company isn’t making money they either make cuts, fire people, or restructure in some way and that is what the owners are doing here. The reason we have the NBA or any major sport is majorly because of the owners. They are willing to put their money into these teams and take risks. The players have a job because of them, they should not be complaining. How many jobs in the world are you guaranteed everything with a contract, one where no matter what happens you get that money. I would have to think almost none if any. The owners should be the ones making money no matter what, even if they are filthy rich greedy people. I don’t really agree with it but it is true. These athletes are in what I would compare to a company going bankrupt. If the owner does not do something to turn a profit as quick as possible then they may be out of business soon. I honestly believe the players need to realize some of these things and how blessed they are to have the type of job they have and type of money they make. These players have to take a pay cut whether they like it or not. Whats the big deal if you go from making 5 to 4 million in a year and then maybe in the near future when the company gets going again you get back to that salary. Maybe my thoughts are all wrong or incomplete but maybe they are right its just a matter of opinion. I just hope for the all the fans sake that greediness can be set aside and a deal can be done sooner than later, However I do fear we will lose the whole season and in the end the owners will get what they want. I cannot argue that they don’t deserve this either even though I do not like it at all.
Dave/Tim – I know all about negotiating tactics, but typically negotiations will conclude before anyone is harmed economically. You push as hard as you can until you go too far, then you concede a little and reach an agreement. That is not the case here.
On another note, I also agree with Louie. I wrote this on another blog today;
There has to be a financially viable business to be able to pay the players at all. There used to be all this talk about pro-athletes being overpaid, and people would counter and say stuff like “based on how much revenue they generate, they’re actually underpaid”. Well that has now changed. They still generate a ton of revenue, but if the owner’s can’t make a profit, or just break even for that matter, then it’s no longer feasible to pay them as much as they got paid. Fact is, the economy is not healthy, so spending habits change. The NBA should be no different than other businesses here.
Wall Street is an example of this. Times were great in the mid 2000s and bankers and traders got paid huge sums. Then banks started losing money, and guess what, they all either got laid off or took a pay cut. They were the best of the best in their industry too. Same thing needs to happen here with the players.
I’m not siding with the owners. I actually appreciate both sides of the argument, but it has to start with what is viable for the league in general, which includes the owners and the players, and that means the players have to take a pay cut to some degree.
What makes this issue so difficult, is that I don’t think any of us truly know what the financial situation of the league is. I would be completely shocked if owners didn’t say they were losing money in a time of negotiation. We all know how much players make per year, but I am not sure I have ever seen or heard how much owners make or lose in a year. To blindly assume that owners are telling us the truth is a little naive. As with most issues, the truth more than likely lies somewhere in the middle. Both sides are probably a little greedy, but as Tim stated, you have to ask for more than you need, so that you end up with what is fair.
The biggest problem I have with Thomas’ argument is his use of the oft-repeated statement “The players can’t take on the burden of saving teams from themselves.” The Owners cannot take it upon themselves to police contract terms, length, “max” amounts, etc. The players would haul the Owners into court for collusion in a heartbeat. The Owners would get their heads handed to them by the court just as the MLB Owners did in the 80′s. On the flip side, if there were 22 of 30 teams that lost money last year then the Owners need to open their books, to an extent, in order to show the players that there is a problem.