Why lockout is all about Rashard Lewis
"The owners can't stand the fact they've been operating under a system that calls for Lewis to make $22 million next season."
"Ask yourself whether it makes sense that the system doesn't allow LeBron James or Dirk Nowitzki to make more money than Lewis next season when they clearly brought more value to their teams than he did last season."
Good read by J.A. Adande
Bumped to frontpage - Ed.
8 months ago
Leandro.
37 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Perfect quote.
Or, as Lewis puts it, “You sign me to a deal, you think I’m going to say, ‘No, I deserve $50 [million] instead of $80 [million]?’ I’m like, ‘Hell, yeah.’ I’m not going to turn it down. You can’t blame the players. If anything, we don’t negotiate the deal. We’ve got agents that negotiate the deals with the team. Y’all need to go talk to the teams and the agents.”
I like to watch.
by MoveThoseChains on Sep 13, 2011 1:06 PM EDT reply actions
This is why GM's and owners should not really complain.
Yes they are overpaid, but you do not have to sign these players to these terrible contracts.
Roll Bass and War Ryno for me
It´s a make or miss league
So managers must try to make, if they stay idle they lose. Any young player that had a great contract year is going to get max money. Owners play high stakes poker. They have to take their chances with a player, risk going all in with Rashard Lewis or Grant Hill. Or try winning a championship with mid level exception players. If the bet pays off they are contenders, as Orlando relatively did with Lewis. If the bet fails you won´t be able to compete until that contract is finished, as happened to Orlando with Grant Hill.
Out of 10 promising young players probably 7 won´t become stars. You can´t stop the owner to offer all they can to this young players, they all want to win, in order to win you need stars. There are only 2 or 3 available stars each summer, so it´s the market: supply and demand. With 3 players coveted by 30 teams, they are going to get a higher price than they should.
In order to restrain this market distortions the NBA must interfere and lower the max wage a player can get. If not franchises will always be one bad move away from 7 years of playing for nothing. See the Grant Hill fiasco, I see no winners in this. Empty stadiums, disgusted fans, boring games, FOR YEARS just because of a bad ankle. An ankle shouldn´t be able to doom a franchise for 7 years.
That is true about anything.
Which is why I think the NBA should get the ability the cut contracts, just like the NFL. Either that or have reduced years on contracts. 7 year deals are too long.
Roll Bass and War Ryno for me
To blame the situation on Rashard Lewis is nonsensical. Rashard Lewis was offered not only a max deal based on his talents at the time, but also received an extra year via a sign and trade.
I put the blame on constant push of a system which is not conducive to incentivizing investors and owners. In general business, it is commonly practiced that contracts are set on annual basis with a clause to be automatically renewed for certain number of years unless either party rejects the renewal in writing. In a sport that all players are just one injury away from losing major portions of their capacities, why couldn’t that be the practice of choice? To think of it, there are advantages in that for players if they feel they could get paid more elsewhere. Are we still a free enterprising and market-oriented nation?
Unions are not about free enterprise or pay for performance - quite the contrary.
They are singularly about job protection. It is the owner’s fault however for giving the players union what they wanted over the years. The players bargained into the situation the league is in today over many years and many past agreements. The owners are now trying to roll back what they percieve to be a broken system – that they were instrumental in signing up to over the years.
And we all know it’s not just Rashard’s fault. It’s the owners and GMs that signed these high dollar long term guaranteed contracts. I saw a quote on another blog – some thing to the effect “it’s not like Gilbert Arenas stuck a gun to someone’s head to make them give him the contract he has today …. well maybe that’s not a good example”
Live life to the fullest, and do it in the fast lane
Exactly. Thank you for that expansion on a question which I did not want to answer myself.
Let’s not fool ourselves. The problem is bigger than unions and their abusive practices. if owners collectively decide that they would not grant any contract longer than 2 – 3 years – or stop competing with each other on handing down insane contracts – they will be sued for collusion. The problem is a system that is moving towards socialism – greater role for the government – intentionally. In short, the problems are:
1 – Common Law, which is outdated legal system.
2 – The courts’ singular – not democratic – stance which is costly to business operation. “Court shopping” would drain vital resources, to defend a position, even when a company is in the “right”.
3 – Intrusion of the governments – Federal and State – beyond constitutional mandates (i.e., Boeing cannot open a plant in a state that does not have union protection).
Until the overarching problems are resolved we cannot call ourselves a “free enterprising economy”, a concept this nation was built on.
There's nothing abusive about collective bargaining
It prevent owners from dividing and conquering the labour market to artificially depress labour costs.
And if the owners decided to only offer specific types of deals, that wouldn’t be a free market either. That’s what the courts (and, at least theoretically, Congress) are supposed to do – make sure neither side of the capital/labour equation has unfair bargaining power.
It might not work perfectly in practice, but I don’t know that there’s much alternative. Lack of regulation has just as many, if not more, problems in creating a distorted market, as regulation does.
by eltharion_doa on Sep 16, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don't know how unions work in Australia, but as far as the dynamics in the United States we are oceans apart, practically as well as theoritically.
I don’t have the time to debate competing views here, but rather to outline my side of the argument. Leaving the extreme views aside, even independents in the United States could have different – and sometimes opposing – views:
1 – Free economies are supposed to work on free-market basis which, theoretically, is the best equalizer. Some argue for regulations to certain extent, but these regulations should not impede the essential dynamics of a free-market system.
2 – Regulations are to be established by the elected representatives of the people. When unelected judges legislate from the bench, Common Law courts are violating that basic principle of democracy. The same applies to regulations imposed by the executive branch of government.
3 – Unions have outlived their usefulness to the extent that their negatives outweigh their positives, especially in the current struggling economy. It would do little good to employees to pursue optimal protection when the company closes the door for business or lacks the incentives to expand and hire new employees.
4 – In modern business models, the value of employees are clearly acknowledged not only as a part of the “stakeholders” chain but also on the simple fact that happy customers require happy employees. In free markets, firms are competing for hiring and retaining good employees, who are receiving benefits well above and beyond what unions could secure for them (i.e., Google and Costco). in such framework, unions often stand for entitlements and unaccountability for bad employees. Such business models now are being taught at business schools, and are taking roots in business communities due to their parsimonious logic and practicality.
you're a Ron Paul supporter, aren't you
by TheGiantSquid on Sep 17, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
1 – the key word here is theoretically. If free markets would be allowed to work on their own you would find a nation full of monopolies… which would then no longer be free markets. Adam Smith himself basically (but not explicitly) admitted that a true ‘free market’ is impossible. Free market capitalists and republicans seem to fail to mention that part…..
2- The judges you speak of are selected by elected representatives. Indirectly they are selected by the voter. However I do agree with you in the sense that all judges should be voted in for their decisions to be truelly democratic… but considering America can barely get half its population to even vote for its president, I doubt its even worth the effort to ask the population to vote more.
3- unions only have the perception of having outlived their usefulness, because the very existence of unions forces government and businesses to obide by a certain level of fairness towards and for workers. You need only to look at history, or outside the western world, to see what the result of not having a union is.
4- a business viewing an employee as a stakeholder or valuing their happiness is dependent on the business and one can argue the only reason it exists to the extent it does is because of unions themselves. In a free market a cheap worker can easily be more valuable than a good worker… thereby driving down the wages, benifits, safety, etc of all workers. If more companies were responsible and proactive with their workers, unions would not have been a necessity. Unions can stand for entitlement and unaccountability, but ownership can also stand for greed and manipulation. Slave labour, labour below minimum wage, unsafe work environments and abusive bosses still exist in America… taking away unions or the right to bargain collectively takes away their ability to defend against these abuses and future abuses.
What America needs to do is make unions smaller, but not eliminate them. That is a business or a plant or a shop should be allowed to unionize. But not all the autoworkers, or actors, or teachers etc under one big union. The individual employees within a workplace know what they find acceptable…. a big union just tries to use a big brush and guarantee jobs and get them more money. Even if that ends up being at the cost of the sustainability of the business itself in the long run
The irony in all this is that its the players union asking for a free market approach (to some degree) in that they want all players to be paid whatever an owner is willing to. Its the owners that want to limit what they and other owners can pay to make it more fair to them…… a true free market capitalist should be telling the owners to shove off and if they can’t afford to compete its time to shut down the team.
by Not so Friendly Stranger on Sep 17, 2011 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
As I have mentioned before, I have no time to engage in a debate on such broad issues although your response could have warranted to do so. I, therefore, briefly address the major issues in your post.
1 – We are way removed from Adam Smith’s economics, and while I grant you that a pure free-market system is not possible, there is no evidence in modern economics that free markets lead to monopolies. On the contrary, free markets promote competition which – by nature – is anti-trust/monopoly.
2 – “legislation by legislators” is the essence of democracy … any other entity even when selected by elected officials is not entitled to legislate. The flaws of Common Law are so obvious that even in UK – birthplace of Common Law – they have a concerted effort underway for “codification” meaning putting more laws on the books … no more subjective interpretation of “precedents” or “traditions”.
3 – “unions only have the perception of having outlived their usefulness”? Your whole argument there is subjective and not supported by facts but if you are not willing to accept the truth, then there is nothing that I can do.
4 – The business model viewing employees as part of the “stakeholders” chain has merits on its own, and has nothing to do with unions’ influence. In fact, unions are impeding the process of rewarding the good employees while getting rid of the bad ones.
Your assertion that NBPA is asking for free market does not make sense. Owners will gladly pay for – and retain – productive players with or without collective bargaining rules … they just don’t want to be on the hook for unproductive players even though it started by a mistake of their own. Think of the stakeholders connected to a franchise – employees, suppliers, contractors, ticket-holders, relevant cities, owners/investors., etc – to which players are just one stakeholder. Would that be fair for all other stakeholders to suffer just to accommodate one?
I won’t get into all of it but needless to say I completely disagree with your response to 1)
3 – "Your whole argument there is subjective and not supported by facts but if you are not willing to accept the truth, then there is nothing that I can do " excuse me? Do you know what the average workers lives are like in China, India, Africa etc etc. Do you even know your own American history and the history of industrialization? Do you know how little control or influence these people have over their own lives at the expense of a few? Unions and the threat of unionization, backed by law, prevent these manipulations. If one is willing to open their eyes or read a book they will see how business with no threat of unionization have, and do, treat their employees.
Whats really “subjective” here, and specifically from where I stand, is what you see as “the truth”.
“Owners will gladly pay for – and retain – productive players with or without collective bargaining rules … they just don’t want to be on the hook for unproductive players even though it started by a mistake of their own” – yet they are asking for a hard cap (among other things) which is very anti-free market….. the players, ideally, want no cap. I’d also say an investment being unproductive is a risk one takes in a free market. Aside from rookie scale deals, every contract offered has been at the owners discretion. Their risks have been failures… a free market capitalist would say its time to learn from their mistakes.
“Would that be fair for all other stakeholders to suffer just to accommodate one?” Free market capitalism is survival of the fittest… and that has never been, and never will be, fair. And to be honest that is exactly the argument socialist, progressives, hard lefts use as to why capitalism needs to be overseen and regulated. To offer fairness to those ‘stakeholders’ who would otherwise have little or no control.
It always amazes me how anti-union or right wingers always proclaim how the unions destroy the virtues of capitalism, but when that same capitalism is hurting them it needs to be socialized (ofcourse they will never call it socialism though).
by Not so Friendly Stranger on Sep 18, 2011 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I know where these kind of debates lead, and I would gladly chicken out of it. I am an independent thinker but have no appetite for engaging in these kinds of debates with extremists from the right or left.
Funny enough, it is easier to reason with the people on the right side of the isle than those on the left side, who have a tendency to get nasty rather easily … is that because as “progressives” they know better than “conservatives/reactionaries”?
My credentials have put me in a position to know all the stuff that you claimed I don’t … I certainly know “American history” and the “history of industrialization”. I also know that, historically, communists were called “progressives” … did you know that Saddam Hussein’s government was, not long ago, praised as “progressive”?
I don’t know about your country, but I know that in U.S., the nation is fed up with extremism and the reform is going to be led not by the right or the left but by the independents in the middle.
“Funny enough, it is easier to reason with the people on the right side of the isle than those on the left side, who have a tendency to get nasty rather easily … is that because as "progressives" they know better than "conservatives/reactionaries"?”
do you see the hypocracy in what you just said? You know nothing about me yet you assume I’m progressive or a leftist because I don’t think eliminating unions is a good idea? That you already made a judgement call about me based on one issue? Did you not tell me first that I’m “not willing to accept the truth”… even though you presented me no “truths” or “facts” or even a argument against my point?
“I also know that, historically, communists were called "progressives" "
and who do you think called them that? The right… just like the do now. That hardly makes them the same. If “progressives” call the tea party facists, are they now offically facists?
“the nation is fed up with extremism "
and you don’t see the elimination of unions, as appossed to the reduction of scope and size of unions such as I mentioned, as more extreme?
please your statements in this most recent post are as ‘independent’ as Glenn Beck.
by Not so Friendly Stranger on Sep 18, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
If you read my comments carefully, you would see that I never passed a judgment on you or connected you to any particular group except for mentioning that your facts on unions are mixed up.
Although my statements were general in nature with no connection to you, to end this conversation on a positive note, please allow me to attest that you are the absolute best of your kind, whatever that is.
and you're the worst!
ooh, ooh, do I win??? :DDD
by TheGiantSquid on Sep 19, 2011 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
yes
and never call me “dear” again, you condescending twerp
by TheGiantSquid on Sep 19, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
you really are a pompous dillweed
*yaaaaaaaaaaaawn * Well, this has been fun!
by TheGiantSquid on Sep 19, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
its never fun
when someone gives one the rest of story is it. A world of half truths is much more convient.
by Not so Friendly Stranger on Sep 19, 2011 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions
you're right
there are totally no monopolies in the business world today.
by TheGiantSquid on Sep 18, 2011 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
You obviously misunderstood me.
I never claimed that monopolies don’t exist, but rather that “there is no evidence in modern economics that free markets lead to monopolies”.
....................................................................
how did those monopolies come into existence, then? Like, my head just exploded from the illogicallness of your statement.
by TheGiantSquid on Sep 19, 2011 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Not as a result of free markets, dear, since competition is the killer of monopolies by means of lowering market entry barriers ... do you have any evidence to the opposite?
Economies of scale lead to expansions but consumers benefit from lower prices while the government watches anti-competitive practices in impeding consumers’ rights … are you against Wal-Mart model? By the way … there are no unions in Wal-Mart.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Orlando Pinstriped Post
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Contact Us
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- The 10-man rotation, starring your Indiana Pacers
- Blake Griffin highlights, ‘NBA Jam’-style (VIDEO)
- Finally, Shelvin Mack and Robert Pack have a dance dedicated to them (VIDEO)
- Create-a-Caption: Allen Iverson, superfan
- Kobe Bryant-themed Gotye cover song waxes wistful for ‘The Kobe That We Used to Know’ (VIDEO)
