"They chose this."

[Anthem]

I'm intrigued by the comments in other threads saying that players like Roy "chose the lockout.". I'm not sure how much that is the case. Forget the owners for a moment... What about union management?

Let's say Roy doesn't want to be locked out and is fine with the owner's offer. What's he supposed to do?

[k_lewis93]

Re: "They chose this."

I actually don't think there are that many players who were against the new offer from the owners. Teams that were profitable last year obviously don't want a change but the other 75% (or w/e it is) of the teams wanted a change. And for the NBA to survive I think there must be a change.

[King Tuts Tomb]

Re: "They chose this."

Let's say Roy doesn't want to be locked out and is fine with the owner's offer. What's he supposed to do?

Play in a league without a union.

[wintermute]

Re: "They chose this."

Play in a league without a union.

Which league would that be?

The NBA is required to have a union, because a lot of its practices are anticompetitive, e.g. salary cap, rookie pay scale, the draft, max contracts. In real life, a normal employee can choose to work for any employer that would hire him, and the employer is free to pay him any amount. This is not true in the NBA.

The NBA thus needs a union to shield its practices under collective bargaining. That's why union decertification opens up the NBA (and NFL, etc) to antitrust lawsuits.

[Eleazar]

Re: "They chose this."

Saying the average player chose this is like saying the average US citizen chose to pass the Patriot Act, or chose to spend $100's of millions on a new stadium for their local sports team. This is not a direct democracy, and neither is the NBPA.

[King Tuts Tomb]

Re: "They chose this."

Which league would that be?

The NBA is required to have a union, because a lot of its practices are anticompetitive, e.g. salary cap, rookie pay scale, the draft, max contracts. In real life, a normal employee can choose to work for any employer that would hire him, and the employer is free to pay him any amount. This is not true in the NBA.

The NBA thus needs a union to shield its practices under collective bargaining. That's why union decertification opens up the NBA (and NFL, etc) to antitrust lawsuits.

Absolutely. That's why it doesn't matter if Roy (or the rest of the players) wants the lockout or not. The only way he could avoid it is by not playing in the NBA or not playing basketball.

[able]

Re: "They chose this."

Besides being about 100% sure there is nowhere near a majority of players in the union that would want to agree with the owners proposal (if you can find 1, i would be impressed) it is not the players who went on strike but the owners that locked them out, it is not something they were asked to agree with.

There is a labour dispute, owners decided to force the issue and show how strong they are, whereas players had the option to strike and choose not to.

The hypothesis that anyone would possibly want to agree with a 40% paycut and that maximized your income for the next 10 years, in short your entire career, whilst the company starts making insane amounts of money of which you will see nothing is something i think is very very far fetched

[Anthem]

Re: "They chose this."

I continue to think the Players Union is screwing over most of its constituency for the sake of a few. They've shown zero movement towards a fix.

David Aldridge's starting point was a good on. Split the BRI 50-50. just that, with everything else kept in place, would have gone a long way towards hammering out a deal.

EDIT: Just read the Woj article. Still too little to late.

[Tom White]

Re: "They chose this."

Which league would that be?

The NBA is required to have a union, because a lot of its practices are anticompetitive, e.g. salary cap, rookie pay scale, the draft, max contracts. In real life, a normal employee can choose to work for any employer that would hire him, and the employer is free to pay him any amount. This is not true in the NBA.

The NBA thus needs a union to shield its practices under collective bargaining. That's why union decertification opens up the NBA (and NFL, etc) to antitrust lawsuits.

Well done! Very good and simple explanation that a number of people possibly have not considered.

[graphic-er]

Re: "They chose this."

I actually don't think there are that many players who were against the new offer from the owners. Teams that were profitable last year obviously don't want a change but the other 75% (or w/e it is) of the teams wanted a change. And for the NBA to survive I think there must be a change.

I agree, I'm sure many players throughout the league were made aware by their GM's that their team is losing money. I'm sure it would have been brought up around the Pacers locker room when there is a need to remind the players on how to conduct themselves out in public. Hell a player has to get the clue just by seeing their attendance at home games. I'm sure the Hawks players know their team is losing money. Memphis as well.

And Granger has already basically said he is okay with taking less money overall for the health of the league, and he is not a fan of the recent super teams like Miami, Boston, and LA.

I'd imagine that there is some sentiment around the league by players for owners to have the ability to throw out bum contracts like Curry in NY. Tinsley in IN. Because it would allow their teams to get better and for them to possibly make more. And it doesn't matter what profession you are in....when you see somebody who generally doesn't care and slacks off and is a bum....you dont' want them making more money than you.

[vapacersfan]

Re: "They chose this."

Has anyone said the players choose this?

I know I do not feel that way, but I do honestly believe the union is living in some fantasy world and I also do not think the union is negotiating at all. They are just throwing out what they want.

[graphic-er]

Re: "They chose this."

Has anyone said the players choose this?

I know I do not feel that way, but I do honestly believe the union is living in some fantasy world and I also do not think the union is negotiating at all. They are just throwing out what they want.

I think the players have made it pretty clear that they dont' intend to offer anything until the owners solve their own revenue sharing. I don't blame them on that front.

[vapacersfan]

Re: "They chose this."

I think the players have made it pretty clear that they dont' intend to offer anything until the owners solve their own revenue sharing. I don't blame them on that front.

I had not heard that, thank you.

I honestly only follow bits and pieces (I got burnt out trying to follow the NFL lockout from day one) but it just seems to me like both sides are not really negotiating yet, they are just playing chicken.

[DaveP63]

Re: "They chose this."

I don't think the players chose this, I think the players union chose this for them with their never give an inch stance.

[Brad8888]

Re: "They chose this."

I agree. I don't think the players are being represented very well by the union in this case.

The "They" who "chose this" ultimately would be the most influential players who have the most to lose in the long term. I suspect that the Pacers have few, if any, players who fully support the actions of the NBAPA at this point because they play for a franchise that stands to gain in a substantial fashion from a competitive standpoint from any resolution that addresses hardening the cap in such a way that it prohibits buying elite status / championships just because the ownership of a given franchise is willing to pay whatever penalties are needed to circumvent the current cap. IIRC, Granger came out several different times and all but said that he didn't want to see things stay the way they are and that he would be happy to take a pay cut to help out. I would guess that Granger is far from alone in that sentiment.