Toucher and Rich& #8207; @Toucherandrich 2h2 hours ago
According to Danny Ainge on our show this morning, Lonzo Ball informed the Celtics that he will not be working out for them.
for Moncada -- like 60-65 million with tax, for a prospect. Not so crazy to me that JD set his price at $10 million. (obviously there was inflation).
the inequities in baseball between draft picks and IFA's is a completely different topic. I'm actually surprised it's still an open loophole, but being closed gradually.
Can you name another college grad draft pick that sat out a year because he didn't get offered enough money to sign a contract? Serious question, I don't know the answer.
High school players have leverage, they can simply go to college, college eligible draftees do not have leverage IMO, or I guess they do since Drew sat out a year.
Im not sure Im following you. Drew was arrogant/entitled (your terms) because he used leverage? Which was only taken from him by a CBA that was designed to secure his talent at below market wages and prohibit him from selecting any willing employer? When IFAs and high schoolers and Freshman, Sophs, and Juniors all have leverage? When his demand is to make what the guy taken in the same slot he was taken in one year prior made?
Bottom line for me that's not entitled. That's a guy who decided that he didnt just need to concede the plot to take his services at a below market price. It's funny to me when people who advocate for free markets etc. get all cringey when the labor wants to exert its leverage (not specific to you).
(also, he didnt technically sit out. He signed with the independent league)
I don't care enough, remove JD Drew from the list then, point still stands and my thoughts on Eli, Elway, Lindros, Ball, and anyone else who does this is still the same.
If you don't want to include Drew in that same class because rather than refuse to play for a specific team, it's his right to want to get paid as much as he can, demanding above and beyond what any draft pick had been paid before, then don't include him but it's really irrelevant to my point and this thread.
My point was more that he didn't force a trade or force
Anyone to do anything. He decided that he needed a specific situation and if he didn't get it, he would find some other line of work. To me, that's different. It's not so much "play by my rules". It more "I won't play by yours".
RE: My point was more that he didn't force a trade or force
Anyone to do anything. He decided that he needed a specific situation and if he didn't get it, he would find some other line of work. To me, that's different. It's not so much "play by my rules". It more "I won't play by yours".
Ok, cross him off my list and add Kobe or any of the other players who publicly said they won't play for the team who drafted them.
I don't care enough, remove JD Drew from the list then, point still stands and my thoughts on Eli, Elway, Lindros, Ball, and anyone else who does this is still the same.
If you don't want to include Drew in that same class because rather than refuse to play for a specific team, it's his right to want to get paid as much as he can, demanding above and beyond what any draft pick had been paid before, then don't include him but it's really irrelevant to my point and this thread.
Ok, I think Drew is different for that reason. Also, he wanted the same # as the guy taken with the same pick one year prior. Im not sure why you're hung up on it being such an outlandish #.
RE: RE: My point was more that he didn't force a trade or force
Anyone to do anything. He decided that he needed a specific situation and if he didn't get it, he would find some other line of work. To me, that's different. It's not so much "play by my rules". It more "I won't play by yours".
Ok, cross him off my list and add Kobe or any of the other players who publicly said they won't play for the team who drafted them.
Maybe Im an outlier. I think drafts are dumb/abusive. The whole industry, employers and competitive laborers, conspire to strip you of your ability to choose the employer you want to work for. Want to play where you grew up? Tough shit, Milwaukee "drafted" you.
We dont draft lawyers. There isnt a McDonalds fry cook draft. But athletes are allocated that way. So be it but I dont blame guys for bucking that system. BTW, given how leagues now cap what draftees can make by pick basically, guys making those demands are putting their money where their mouths are.
Anyone to do anything. He decided that he needed a specific situation and if he didn't get it, he would find some other line of work. To me, that's different. It's not so much "play by my rules". It more "I won't play by yours".
Ok, cross him off my list and add Kobe or any of the other players who publicly said they won't play for the team who drafted them.
Maybe Im an outlier. I think drafts are dumb/abusive. The whole industry, employers and competitive laborers, conspire to strip you of your ability to choose the employer you want to work for. Want to play where you grew up? Tough shit, Milwaukee "drafted" you.
We dont draft lawyers. There isnt a McDonalds fry cook draft. But athletes are allocated that way. So be it but I dont blame guys for bucking that system. BTW, given how leagues now cap what draftees can make by pick basically, guys making those demands are putting their money where their mouths are.
We don't draft lawyers because the professional isn't a monopolistic competition where leagues that control those monopolies thrive when a certain level of parity exists. E.g. they want all franchises to succeed.
To achieve that parity, the teams who do the worst have the first crack (or close to it) at the best players (in theory).
major sports are in no way comparable to the corporate world yet endless analogies comparing them still happen.
And if the "employees" of the major sports don't like it they cannot find other avenues to get paid similarly for their services unless they take drastic measures like Drew - and personally I see no reason to accept player greed any more than I do to accept ownership greed - greed is greed - I removed Drew from my list though anyway.
And maybe (not sure) professional sports are the only allowable monopoly - and I'm squarely out of my element here but I believe they have a legal exemption (at least baseball does).
exist but that doesn't make them any less ridiculous. And the main reason they exist has everything to do with suppressing wages. That they may influence parity is a secondary "benefit". Also, baseball existed without a draft for 60-70 years...so it's not like it's a situation where "this is the way we've always done it". Bonus babies were making too much money and the owners decided to do something about it.
I applaud any player who decides to try and have some say in where they work. The age limits in different sports are ridiculous as well.
and the union negotiates on behalf of it's members, and for baseball specifically it's probably the strongest union of all the major sports.
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
But again, I removed JD Drew from my list. and who cares about my list anyway, this point is not the point of the thread.
and it goes well beyond his father (because, at the end of the day, who cares about his dad?). Ball has incredible court vision, and is a GREAT shooter...when he's wide open! How is he going to get that shot off in the NBA? He will really struggle to create his own shots, he's not good defensively, he's not an elite athlete, and the way he disappeared v.Fox is very concerning to me.
It goes beyond having a bad game, that can happen to anyone, but Ball looked like he wanted nothing to do with Fox. That, and he looked like he didn't give a shit about a bad loss in the tourney by declaring for the draft minutes after what should have been a devastating loss.
And he is the kind of player that both the Lakers and Celtics have always had success with. I'm a bit surprised that he apparently thinks the Celtics won't take him.
and the union negotiates on behalf of it's members, and for baseball specifically it's probably the strongest union of all the major sports.
Draft eligible players are obviously not part of the union until they get drafted...which is why they get screwed. Same thing in the other major sports.
Quote:
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
I don't consider it noble or heroic either. I consider it normal to want to have some say in where you live and work.
and the union negotiates on behalf of it's members, and for baseball specifically it's probably the strongest union of all the major sports.
Draft eligible players are obviously not part of the union until they get drafted...which is why they get screwed. Same thing in the other major sports.
Quote:
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
I don't consider it noble or heroic either. I consider it normal to want to have some say in where you live and work.
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
if location is that important to you, then you can find another line of work, and not play a game for a living.
there is no right to play a major sport and I do not feel even a little bit sorry for someone who gets stuck playing in a city they don't like or a franchise they don't like.
anyway, not sure why I engaged this line of the discussion so long, I don't feel strongly about this side of it, it is however my opinion.
And he is the kind of player that both the Lakers and Celtics have always had success with. I'm a bit surprised that he apparently thinks the Celtics won't take him.
I don't know if it's as much that as it is that he doesn't want to go there
and the union negotiates on behalf of it's members, and for baseball specifically it's probably the strongest union of all the major sports.
Draft eligible players are obviously not part of the union until they get drafted...which is why they get screwed. Same thing in the other major sports.
Quote:
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
I don't consider it noble or heroic either. I consider it normal to want to have some say in where you live and work.
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
if location is that important to you, then you can find another line of work, and not play a game for a living.
there is no right to play a major sport and I do not feel even a little bit sorry for someone who gets stuck playing in a city they don't like or a franchise they don't like.
anyway, not sure why I engaged this line of the discussion so long, I don't feel strongly about this side of it, it is however my opinion.
The counterpoint to saying find another line of work is that you have a permitted conspiracy among employers to eliminate competition for skilled labor. There may not be a right to play a major sport, but you should at least recognize that the reason you are not free to shop your competition to the bidder of your choice is that sports leagues get to operate by rules that no other industry gets.
It's just bizarre to me that you take so much umbrage at a player using what little leverage he has in a system fixed to screw him out of a market-based wage (and that is 100% inarguable). (and I do like that Im taking the greed is good side and you're taking the other)
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
Also, the answer is all of them. Unrestricted free agents get to make this choice, provided teams want them. Veterans and owners have bargained away the rights of amateurs to enrich themselves.
As for parity, there are other ways to accomplish that if that is really what teams are worried about. A salary cap without a draft makes a whole lot more sense re parity than a draft with no salary cap. And if it is about parity, why do the leagues all have a salary limitation (individual or pool) on picks?
if location is that important to you, then you can find another line of work, and not play a game for a living.
Even by the high standards of bbi, this is an awfully bizarre and silly statement.
Well by the high standards of BBI you fit right in. You took the time to post on a topic and tell someone you disagree with them and they suck but you offer zero substance about what exactly you disagree with or why they suck.
It's almost as chickenshit as the cowardly passive aggressive "this thread has a lot of stupid" posts.
Bravo Mad Mike, Bravo, you are what makes BBI great (again?) way to live up to the high BBI standards. I will hang my head in shame for posting something you find so bizarre and silly.
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
Also, the answer is all of them. Unrestricted free agents get to make this choice, provided teams want them. Veterans and owners have bargained away the rights of amateurs to enrich themselves.
As for parity, there are other ways to accomplish that if that is really what teams are worried about. A salary cap without a draft makes a whole lot more sense re parity than a draft with no salary cap. And if it is about parity, why do the leagues all have a salary limitation (individual or pool) on picks?
Come on, you're smarter than this, so you're saying players entering the league and those who have earned free agency should be able to negotiate freely and similarly both without constraint?
Because as soon as you say no and impose one single limit you contradict yourself.
and you know that financial model will never work and there will be no sports as we know them. There has to be a cost controlled aspect. Period. Tell me which sport does not have a cost controlled aspect for new players entering the league with rules on how they get paid?
the owners wouldn't mind so much - because there are caps (of varying rigidity) in all major sports, but the union and the other players would because it would mean the rich get richer and the less rich get less richer.
the leagues didnt have cost controls on young players for years. NFL put them in when, for Russell (though they had the draft before that). The MLB system is new as well. NBA put it in I think after Glen Robinson got 80 million to sign.
Im not telling the league/players how to run things. What Im saying is that it makes no sense to me that you think it's greedy and arrogant of Drew to demand a high salary (which btw was consistent with precedent) when the system was rigged against him.
Im not even sure what your objection is other than a dislike of greed (maybe a sense that people should pay their dues?).
you can achieve it thru aggressive revenue sharing. NFL does an enormous amount of profit sharing. Every team can compete on money. I mean, if the leagues are going to be allowed to conspire to eliminate competition for entry level workers, you might as well deem them one entity and tell them to share a pool of revenues.
has put enough time in to "earn" free agency? It's all a bunch of arbitrary bullshit. And your whole take reeks of "they are lucky to have that job and should take what they get". Are you in favor of leagues implementing the reserve clause, which MLB used for decades? Or do you think players should be able to experience unrestricted free agency, but only after a completely random period of time you deem appropriate?
the leagues didnt have cost controls on young players for years. NFL put them in when, for Russell (though they had the draft before that). The MLB system is new as well. NBA put it in I think after Glen Robinson got 80 million to sign.
Im not telling the league/players how to run things. What Im saying is that it makes no sense to me that you think it's greedy and arrogant of Drew to demand a high salary (which btw was consistent with precedent) when the system was rigged against him.
Im not even sure what your objection is other than a dislike of greed (maybe a sense that people should pay their dues?).
We are mixing two things, cost control and the requirement to play for the team who drafted you.
they are sort of entwined though to an extent.
So, while the NFL didn't have a rookie wage scale until 2010, they did have rules about the draft. You don't want to play for the team who drafts you at a contract you can agree on, you have to sit out a year or get traded.
So while you may be able to differentiate JD Drew from Eli because Eli wasn't about money per se (he was before the rookie wage scale) and Drew was about money, the fact remains neither could have or should have been IMO free to negotiate with any team to maximize their earnings or desire to play in a place they prefer.
Period.
Now with regards to Drew, I do find it unseemly, if arrogant or greedy aren't the right words to demand the biggest contract ever awarded to a draftee (Lee was a free agent) before even being drafted. If that to you is entrepreneurial and you admire it, then great, I prefer a more humble approach.
And it's also not lost on me how Boras is at the center of it, I hated Boras because of the Arod negotiations with the Mets (many years after Drew sat out), but I don't think he's good for the game, even if he is good for his clients (most of the time).
has put enough time in to "earn" free agency? It's all a bunch of arbitrary bullshit. And your whole take reeks of "they are lucky to have that job and should take what they get". Are you in favor of leagues implementing the reserve clause, which MLB used for decades? Or do you think players should be able to experience unrestricted free agency, but only after a completely random period of time you deem appropriate?
At the end of the day to adjust the approach and free agency rules without increasing salary thresholds is impossible.
What do you think happens with salaries increase?
Fans pay.
Do you go to games? It's ridiculous there is not give without take and there isn't a ton to take.
the average per sport salaries are below and I'm not saying you should be happy with what you have and take what you can get, but I am saying I feel it's fair - except the NFL which gets hosed - the most injury likely sport and the lowest salary, but that's what happens when you have 53+ people on the roster and 16 games.
NBA: 5.15M average annual salary (4.8 year average career)
MLB: 3.2M average annual salary (5.8 year average career)
NHL: 2.4M average annual salary (5.5 year average career)
NFL: 1.9M average annual salary (3.2 year average career)
but more importantly if the players aren't happy with it they should negotiate a better deal and then live within the parameters of the deal they negotiate.
I think leagues charge what they can charge. It doesnt have much to do with what they pay the players. Generally, it's a fallacy to assume that higher costs means high product prices. Product prices are set by other market forces, including consumer desire/need, scarcity and substitutability. If Hanes's costs skyrocket tomorrow, it cant double its prices -- Fruit of the Loom will steal the market.
As for your broader point, we just disagree. I think it's an economic transaction and you get what you can. You seem to read a moralistic side into this. I think that is nuts. This is a business. There is no sentimentality.
BTW, are you an employer (some memory that you're maybe self-employed)?
I think leagues charge what they can charge. It doesnt have much to do with what they pay the players. Generally, it's a fallacy to assume that higher costs means high product prices. Product prices are set by other market forces, including consumer desire/need, scarcity and substitutability. If Hanes's costs skyrocket tomorrow, it cant double its prices -- Fruit of the Loom will steal the market.
As for your broader point, we just disagree. I think it's an economic transaction and you get what you can. You seem to read a moralistic side into this. I think that is nuts. This is a business. There is no sentimentality.
BTW, are you an employer (some memory that you're maybe self-employed)?
No, I'm not an employer, but I'm generally anti-union (feel they had a purpose and served it and a small fraction of them still are needed for that original purpose) and my views usually fall squarely with ownership (who assume the risk.).
but again, i do not equate professional sports to anything else - especially not corporate America, they are very unique in the specialized skills they require of their "employees", the small pool for labor and the monopolies that they all "enjoy".
I don't think my take is a moral issue for the draft picks not wanting to play for their draft team. How is that moral? I just think the players come across looking like entitled, egotistical, and even petty in some cases.
to demand what you think is the market wage. I've heard this sentiment before -- basically that employees who think they're entitled to more pay are greedy pigs etc. As if this isnt business.
All colored by my personal experience. I (and some others) were partners in name alone. For several years we asked for a fairer cut and were refused. So we quit and started our own firm, and then the owners of our old firm bitched about how we destroyed a practice area by quitting (we were the fucking practice area!).
If my boss wants to pay me a pittance of what I bring in, is he not entitled? Note the new piece in the Economist about how US profit margins are too high, certainly b/c of lack of competition.
Also, in the unique sports context, I'd argue that a lot of the time it is the players who assume all the risk, not management. Management's only risk is usually stadium debt. Player put their bodies on the line.
RE: I just dont see how it is entitled or egotistical
to demand what you think is the market wage. I've heard this sentiment before -- basically that employees who think they're entitled to more pay are greedy pigs etc. As if this isnt business.
All colored by my personal experience. I (and some others) were partners in name alone. For several years we asked for a fairer cut and were refused. So we quit and started our own firm, and then the owners of our old firm bitched about how we destroyed a practice area by quitting (we were the fucking practice area!).
If my boss wants to pay me a pittance of what I bring in, is he not entitled? Note the new piece in the Economist about how US profit margins are too high, certainly b/c of lack of competition.
Also, in the unique sports context, I'd argue that a lot of the time it is the players who assume all the risk, not management. Management's only risk is usually stadium debt. Player put their bodies on the line.
Again you are mixing multiple situations. Eli, Elway, Lindros, etc. (Kobe?) players who refuse to play for a franchise with Drew.
How is that about money? Did Eli think the Giants would pay him more than the Chargers?
I'd never heard that.
Did LIndros think the Nordiques would pay him lower than another team? It was never mentioned as a reason for him not wanting to play there.
Elway and the Colts? I'd never heard that.
While I definitely don't like what JD Drew did, it's been established multiple times he was different than the rest and I said so cross him off the list.
Yet that seems like all you want to bring up.
None of the other were about money from anything I've ever heard or read.
As for the others, again, I just dont think it's incumbent on amateurs to just go along with it when it comes to player allocation. If you have leverage, feel free to use it. Eli didnt want SD because of concerns about ownership. Lindros same. Kobe I dont remember why he told the Nets not to take him (did he do it with others?), and Elways was b/f my time.
If you're a ~20 year old who has been honing his craft for years such that you're the most prized prospect, why SHOULD you go quietly to a team that you understand has massive management problems. If my kid was the #1 prospect in the NBA draft and the Knicks had the first pick, I would strongly consider advising him to leverage his way elsewhere. That's a terrible organization and it will be tougher to reach your potential there and win.
Why should a draftee be loyal to a team just because that team drafted him against his will? Tradition?
and spit you out when you cant play anymore. NFL more than others. So why the hell should players just go along for the ride if they can leverage a better situation. It's a business.
At the end of the day to adjust the approach and free agency rules without increasing salary thresholds is impossible.
bullshit. Just because you cannot imagine a workable system doesn't mean it's impossible for one to exist. The easy answer is that the current players would be getting a smaller piece of the revenue pie. The only reason it doesn't exist now is because the two parties negotiating CBAs (owners and current players) are incentivized to screw players entering the league.
Quote:
What do you think happens with salaries increase?
Fans pay.
teams charge what they can get for ticket. Their fixed costs really have little to do with it.
Quote:
but more importantly if the players aren't happy with it they should negotiate a better deal and then live within the parameters of the deal they negotiate.
but, once again, the players hurt most by the rules on drafts and draft caps are UNABLE TO BARGAIN on their own behalf. they don't have a seat at the table.
As for the others, again, I just dont think it's incumbent on amateurs to just go along with it when it comes to player allocation. If you have leverage, feel free to use it. Eli didnt want SD because of concerns about ownership. Lindros same. Kobe I dont remember why he told the Nets not to take him (did he do it with others?), and Elways was b/f my time.
If you're a ~20 year old who has been honing his craft for years such that you're the most prized prospect, why SHOULD you go quietly to a team that you understand has massive management problems. If my kid was the #1 prospect in the NBA draft and the Knicks had the first pick, I would strongly consider advising him to leverage his way elsewhere. That's a terrible organization and it will be tougher to reach your potential there and win.
Why should a draftee be loyal to a team just because that team drafted him against his will? Tradition?
Gretzky made the same point and I disagreed with him, he said something about you work your whole life to be #1 and then you go to the worst team.
but that's what IMO one of the things that makes sports great. Hope.
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
you are living in a fantasy land if you think owners are going to have their revenue shrink and not raise ticket prices, concessions, parking, clothing, etc.
Fans will pay, there is no doubt about it (IMO).
none of this "they charge what they can get" of course they do and they'll charge more and get more if they can't get more you think they'll just say oh well, we used to get x but the players want more so oh well I'll just take less.
if owners can raise their prices, they will. It has nothing to do with their costs. Think of airline tickets -- the price is constantly changing for tickets on the same flight, even though costs arent changing dramatically. Why is that? Because the airline thinks the price the market will bear for a ticket is changing.
Sports teams raise ticket prices a lot when they're winning because there is demand, and hold them steady (or even cut prices) as they suffer rebuilds/disaster seasons.
You seem to acknowledge this in your 3rd paragraph I think.
if owners can raise their prices, they will. It has nothing to do with their costs. Think of airline tickets -- the price is constantly changing for tickets on the same flight, even though costs arent changing dramatically. Why is that? Because the airline thinks the price the market will bear for a ticket is changing.
Sports teams raise ticket prices a lot when they're winning because there is demand, and hold them steady (or even cut prices) as they suffer rebuilds/disaster seasons.
You seem to acknowledge this in your 3rd paragraph I think.
Of course under normal circumstances I completely agree, but what happened (for example) to airline tickets after 911 when TSA had to get paid?
Every airline ticket you bought had a new fee added.
I don't view this hypothetical as much different.
2018 will be the first year in North American sports history where TV/Media revenue for sports teams surpasses gate revenue.
With TV/media contracts fixed (assumption - I don't think they end with each CBA), what will owners do if the lose a bigger portion of the pie?
if you think they'll take less and won't pass their losses on to fans then I'd love to see it and I'm highly skeptical.
Of course under normal circumstances I completely agree, but what happened (for example) to airline tickets after 911 when TSA had to get paid?
Every airline ticket you bought had a new fee added.
What happened is that because all airlines had the additional cost, and because generally air travel lacks much substitutability, is that prices were probably able to rise. Not because costs went up that is, but rather because customers didnt have much choice and all competitors were bearing the new costs.
I say probably because your example has a logical issue, which is the assumption that because the new fees were tacked on as a line item that they therefore represented net increased charges. But in reality the algorithms were at work, constantly resetting prices. So maybe the new TSA fee meant that the airlines got a little less for base ticket prices -- dont know, and it's probably not provable.
Quote:
With TV/media contracts fixed (assumption - I don't think they end with each CBA), what will owners do if the lose a bigger portion of the pie?
if you think they'll take less and won't pass their losses on to fans then I'd love to see it and I'm highly skeptical.
Again, you are assuming that owners arent maximizing revenues/profits now. Otherwise there wouldnt be room to raise prices (i.e. pass losses on to fans). Fundamentally, that's just not how businesses can operate. People like to say that you pass costs on to customers, but that's really BS cover for raising your prices. My clients dont care what my costs are and how they're changing. They consider results/quality vs. price. If I suddenly decided to move to a wood paneled office and have a pretty young thing out front, my clients arent going to just embrace significant increases in rates b/c of cost increases.
about falling revenues and ticket prices. Nobody is proposing giving more money to rookies and keeping everything else the same. What could happen is that existing players take less of the revenues. The revenue pie is what it is. But entry level players have been getting a smaller slice with every successive CBA.
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
who are you to say what is and isn't fulfilling to an individual person? How can you hold it against someone who might want to sell their services to the best possible organization in an industry?
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
who are you to say what is and isn't fulfilling to an individual person? How can you hold it against someone who might want to sell their services to the best possible organization in an industry?
begs the question of who is really the entitled one? The athlete who wants a market based wage, or the fan who demands that the athlete take less to create a compelling narrative for the fan and consider the best interest of the league (which they dont own a part of and which will discard them as soon as something better comes along)?
pj's fidelity to drafts makes no sense. They dont use them in soccer, because there is inter-league competition for talent. He ignores that the draft allows rebuilds, but also rewards incompetence and tanking (in some sports).
about falling revenues and ticket prices. Nobody is proposing giving more money to rookies and keeping everything else the same. What could happen is that existing players take less of the revenues. The revenue pie is what it is. But entry level players have been getting a smaller slice with every successive CBA.
No tangent but you're living in a fairy tale world if you think a professional sports union is going to negotiate a CBA with a major sports ownership group where the current/established players/veterans take less so younger non-established players and rookies can get more.
the only way younger/less established players get more is from the owners IMO.
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
who are you to say what is and isn't fulfilling to an individual person? How can you hold it against someone who might want to sell their services to the best possible organization in an industry?
Fair point, I have no idea what is or isn't fulfilling to someone, but it's really irrelevant even though it's my opinion.
However sports are not free enterprise and athletes know going in how it works going in so it's not like someone changed the rules on them after the fact.
It's not like someone suddenly changed the rules when you got good.
There's probably a reason why in the history of all the major sports drafts a handful of athletes acted like prima donnas and refused to play for their drafted teams.
about falling revenues and ticket prices. Nobody is proposing giving more money to rookies and keeping everything else the same. What could happen is that existing players take less of the revenues. The revenue pie is what it is. But entry level players have been getting a smaller slice with every successive CBA.
No tangent but you're living in a fairy tale world if you think a professional sports union is going to negotiate a CBA with a major sports ownership group where the current/established players/veterans take less so younger non-established players and rookies can get more.
the only way younger/less established players get more is from the owners IMO.
Seems to me that the standards you're holding these people to is:
Owners: not criticized for greed (the risk takers!)
Union/vets: not criticized for greed (realistically they wont share more, so *shrug*)
Amateurs: are greedy and entitled for trying to get market-based wages or approximations thereof.
about falling revenues and ticket prices. Nobody is proposing giving more money to rookies and keeping everything else the same. What could happen is that existing players take less of the revenues. The revenue pie is what it is. But entry level players have been getting a smaller slice with every successive CBA.
No tangent but you're living in a fairy tale world if you think a professional sports union is going to negotiate a CBA with a major sports ownership group where the current/established players/veterans take less so younger non-established players and rookies can get more.
the only way younger/less established players get more is from the owners IMO.
Seems to me that the standards you're holding these people to is:
Owners: not criticized for greed (the risk takers!)
Union/vets: not criticized for greed (realistically they wont share more, so *shrug*)
Amateurs: are greedy and entitled for trying to get market-based wages or approximations thereof.
I'm not criticizing anyone for trying to get money, you are confusing two issues again. for like the 10th time. Maybe I'm not being clear I have repeatedly said JD Drew is different. I said take him off my list - for hours now. Show me where I criticized an athlete for trying to get more money? None of the athletes from what I know who refused to play for a franchise did so for money.
My post to Enzo was simple that I do not believe it's realistic that established professional athletes or owners are giving up any portion of what they are getting today so unproven youngsters can get paid more.
I just don't see any way either of those two groups agrees to that.
Without commentary on who is greedy or who is right or wrong, it's just not something I consider realistic.
so dumb of fans to get upset with what Elway did, Eli did & even this. Elite players out of college deserve to have freedom in where they go. Why in the world should a player be locked into incompetence? The Chargers are an incompetent franchise which can't even stay in their city. Good for Eli & he has 2 Super Bowls to show for his brilliant decision.
If the Knicks had the first pick, I'd have zero issue with a player not wanting to go there due to their incompetence. Andrew Luck is currently being wasted in Indy. I'd love for more players to take this stance.
Quote:
In comment 13482760 Deej said:
Quote:
for Moncada -- like 60-65 million with tax, for a prospect. Not so crazy to me that JD set his price at $10 million. (obviously there was inflation).
the inequities in baseball between draft picks and IFA's is a completely different topic. I'm actually surprised it's still an open loophole, but being closed gradually.
Can you name another college grad draft pick that sat out a year because he didn't get offered enough money to sign a contract? Serious question, I don't know the answer.
High school players have leverage, they can simply go to college, college eligible draftees do not have leverage IMO, or I guess they do since Drew sat out a year.
Im not sure Im following you. Drew was arrogant/entitled (your terms) because he used leverage? Which was only taken from him by a CBA that was designed to secure his talent at below market wages and prohibit him from selecting any willing employer? When IFAs and high schoolers and Freshman, Sophs, and Juniors all have leverage? When his demand is to make what the guy taken in the same slot he was taken in one year prior made?
Bottom line for me that's not entitled. That's a guy who decided that he didnt just need to concede the plot to take his services at a below market price. It's funny to me when people who advocate for free markets etc. get all cringey when the labor wants to exert its leverage (not specific to you).
(also, he didnt technically sit out. He signed with the independent league)
I don't care enough, remove JD Drew from the list then, point still stands and my thoughts on Eli, Elway, Lindros, Ball, and anyone else who does this is still the same.
If you don't want to include Drew in that same class because rather than refuse to play for a specific team, it's his right to want to get paid as much as he can, demanding above and beyond what any draft pick had been paid before, then don't include him but it's really irrelevant to my point and this thread.
Ok, cross him off my list and add Kobe or any of the other players who publicly said they won't play for the team who drafted them.
I don't care enough, remove JD Drew from the list then, point still stands and my thoughts on Eli, Elway, Lindros, Ball, and anyone else who does this is still the same.
If you don't want to include Drew in that same class because rather than refuse to play for a specific team, it's his right to want to get paid as much as he can, demanding above and beyond what any draft pick had been paid before, then don't include him but it's really irrelevant to my point and this thread.
Ok, I think Drew is different for that reason. Also, he wanted the same # as the guy taken with the same pick one year prior. Im not sure why you're hung up on it being such an outlandish #.
Quote:
Anyone to do anything. He decided that he needed a specific situation and if he didn't get it, he would find some other line of work. To me, that's different. It's not so much "play by my rules". It more "I won't play by yours".
Ok, cross him off my list and add Kobe or any of the other players who publicly said they won't play for the team who drafted them.
Maybe Im an outlier. I think drafts are dumb/abusive. The whole industry, employers and competitive laborers, conspire to strip you of your ability to choose the employer you want to work for. Want to play where you grew up? Tough shit, Milwaukee "drafted" you.
We dont draft lawyers. There isnt a McDonalds fry cook draft. But athletes are allocated that way. So be it but I dont blame guys for bucking that system. BTW, given how leagues now cap what draftees can make by pick basically, guys making those demands are putting their money where their mouths are.
Link - ( New Window )
So he won't workout for the Celtics but will workout for the Sixers with Ben Simmons? Go figure.
Quote:
In comment 13482833 Bill L said:
Quote:
Anyone to do anything. He decided that he needed a specific situation and if he didn't get it, he would find some other line of work. To me, that's different. It's not so much "play by my rules". It more "I won't play by yours".
Ok, cross him off my list and add Kobe or any of the other players who publicly said they won't play for the team who drafted them.
Maybe Im an outlier. I think drafts are dumb/abusive. The whole industry, employers and competitive laborers, conspire to strip you of your ability to choose the employer you want to work for. Want to play where you grew up? Tough shit, Milwaukee "drafted" you.
We dont draft lawyers. There isnt a McDonalds fry cook draft. But athletes are allocated that way. So be it but I dont blame guys for bucking that system. BTW, given how leagues now cap what draftees can make by pick basically, guys making those demands are putting their money where their mouths are.
We don't draft lawyers because the professional isn't a monopolistic competition where leagues that control those monopolies thrive when a certain level of parity exists. E.g. they want all franchises to succeed.
To achieve that parity, the teams who do the worst have the first crack (or close to it) at the best players (in theory).
major sports are in no way comparable to the corporate world yet endless analogies comparing them still happen.
And if the "employees" of the major sports don't like it they cannot find other avenues to get paid similarly for their services unless they take drastic measures like Drew - and personally I see no reason to accept player greed any more than I do to accept ownership greed - greed is greed - I removed Drew from my list though anyway.
And maybe (not sure) professional sports are the only allowable monopoly - and I'm squarely out of my element here but I believe they have a legal exemption (at least baseball does).
I applaud any player who decides to try and have some say in where they work. The age limits in different sports are ridiculous as well.
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
But again, I removed JD Drew from my list. and who cares about my list anyway, this point is not the point of the thread.
It goes beyond having a bad game, that can happen to anyone, but Ball looked like he wanted nothing to do with Fox. That, and he looked like he didn't give a shit about a bad loss in the tourney by declaring for the draft minutes after what should have been a devastating loss.
Draft eligible players are obviously not part of the union until they get drafted...which is why they get screwed. Same thing in the other major sports.
I don't consider it noble or heroic either. I consider it normal to want to have some say in where you live and work.
Quote:
and the union negotiates on behalf of it's members, and for baseball specifically it's probably the strongest union of all the major sports.
Draft eligible players are obviously not part of the union until they get drafted...which is why they get screwed. Same thing in the other major sports.
Quote:
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
I don't consider it noble or heroic either. I consider it normal to want to have some say in where you live and work.
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
if location is that important to you, then you can find another line of work, and not play a game for a living.
there is no right to play a major sport and I do not feel even a little bit sorry for someone who gets stuck playing in a city they don't like or a franchise they don't like.
anyway, not sure why I engaged this line of the discussion so long, I don't feel strongly about this side of it, it is however my opinion.
I don't know if it's as much that as it is that he doesn't want to go there
Quote:
In comment 13483219 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
and the union negotiates on behalf of it's members, and for baseball specifically it's probably the strongest union of all the major sports.
Draft eligible players are obviously not part of the union until they get drafted...which is why they get screwed. Same thing in the other major sports.
Quote:
I don't consider it noble or heroic to buck the system because you want more money any more than I consider it heroic to say you won't play for a specific team.
I don't consider it noble or heroic either. I consider it normal to want to have some say in where you live and work.
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
if location is that important to you, then you can find another line of work, and not play a game for a living.
there is no right to play a major sport and I do not feel even a little bit sorry for someone who gets stuck playing in a city they don't like or a franchise they don't like.
anyway, not sure why I engaged this line of the discussion so long, I don't feel strongly about this side of it, it is however my opinion.
The counterpoint to saying find another line of work is that you have a permitted conspiracy among employers to eliminate competition for skilled labor. There may not be a right to play a major sport, but you should at least recognize that the reason you are not free to shop your competition to the bidder of your choice is that sports leagues get to operate by rules that no other industry gets.
It's just bizarre to me that you take so much umbrage at a player using what little leverage he has in a system fixed to screw him out of a market-based wage (and that is 100% inarguable). (and I do like that Im taking the greed is good side and you're taking the other)
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
Also, the answer is all of them. Unrestricted free agents get to make this choice, provided teams want them. Veterans and owners have bargained away the rights of amateurs to enrich themselves.
As for parity, there are other ways to accomplish that if that is really what teams are worried about. A salary cap without a draft makes a whole lot more sense re parity than a draft with no salary cap. And if it is about parity, why do the leagues all have a salary limitation (individual or pool) on picks?
Even by the high standards of bbi, this is an awfully bizarre and silly statement.
Quote:
if location is that important to you, then you can find another line of work, and not play a game for a living.
Even by the high standards of bbi, this is an awfully bizarre and silly statement.
Well by the high standards of BBI you fit right in. You took the time to post on a topic and tell someone you disagree with them and they suck but you offer zero substance about what exactly you disagree with or why they suck.
It's almost as chickenshit as the cowardly passive aggressive "this thread has a lot of stupid" posts.
Bravo Mad Mike, Bravo, you are what makes BBI great (again?) way to live up to the high BBI standards. I will hang my head in shame for posting something you find so bizarre and silly.
Quote:
Which professional sport offers you say in where you live and work?
Also, the answer is all of them. Unrestricted free agents get to make this choice, provided teams want them. Veterans and owners have bargained away the rights of amateurs to enrich themselves.
As for parity, there are other ways to accomplish that if that is really what teams are worried about. A salary cap without a draft makes a whole lot more sense re parity than a draft with no salary cap. And if it is about parity, why do the leagues all have a salary limitation (individual or pool) on picks?
Come on, you're smarter than this, so you're saying players entering the league and those who have earned free agency should be able to negotiate freely and similarly both without constraint?
Because as soon as you say no and impose one single limit you contradict yourself.
and you know that financial model will never work and there will be no sports as we know them. There has to be a cost controlled aspect. Period. Tell me which sport does not have a cost controlled aspect for new players entering the league with rules on how they get paid?
the owners wouldn't mind so much - because there are caps (of varying rigidity) in all major sports, but the union and the other players would because it would mean the rich get richer and the less rich get less richer.
Im not telling the league/players how to run things. What Im saying is that it makes no sense to me that you think it's greedy and arrogant of Drew to demand a high salary (which btw was consistent with precedent) when the system was rigged against him.
Im not even sure what your objection is other than a dislike of greed (maybe a sense that people should pay their dues?).
Im not telling the league/players how to run things. What Im saying is that it makes no sense to me that you think it's greedy and arrogant of Drew to demand a high salary (which btw was consistent with precedent) when the system was rigged against him.
Im not even sure what your objection is other than a dislike of greed (maybe a sense that people should pay their dues?).
We are mixing two things, cost control and the requirement to play for the team who drafted you.
they are sort of entwined though to an extent.
So, while the NFL didn't have a rookie wage scale until 2010, they did have rules about the draft. You don't want to play for the team who drafts you at a contract you can agree on, you have to sit out a year or get traded.
So while you may be able to differentiate JD Drew from Eli because Eli wasn't about money per se (he was before the rookie wage scale) and Drew was about money, the fact remains neither could have or should have been IMO free to negotiate with any team to maximize their earnings or desire to play in a place they prefer.
Period.
Now with regards to Drew, I do find it unseemly, if arrogant or greedy aren't the right words to demand the biggest contract ever awarded to a draftee (Lee was a free agent) before even being drafted. If that to you is entrepreneurial and you admire it, then great, I prefer a more humble approach.
And it's also not lost on me how Boras is at the center of it, I hated Boras because of the Arod negotiations with the Mets (many years after Drew sat out), but I don't think he's good for the game, even if he is good for his clients (most of the time).
At the end of the day to adjust the approach and free agency rules without increasing salary thresholds is impossible.
What do you think happens with salaries increase?
Fans pay.
Do you go to games? It's ridiculous there is not give without take and there isn't a ton to take.
the average per sport salaries are below and I'm not saying you should be happy with what you have and take what you can get, but I am saying I feel it's fair - except the NFL which gets hosed - the most injury likely sport and the lowest salary, but that's what happens when you have 53+ people on the roster and 16 games.
NBA: 5.15M average annual salary (4.8 year average career)
MLB: 3.2M average annual salary (5.8 year average career)
NHL: 2.4M average annual salary (5.5 year average career)
NFL: 1.9M average annual salary (3.2 year average career)
but more importantly if the players aren't happy with it they should negotiate a better deal and then live within the parameters of the deal they negotiate.
I think Eli's reason for not going to SD has been proven to make sense considering SD hasn't won & moved.
But why sandbag the Celtics?
As for your broader point, we just disagree. I think it's an economic transaction and you get what you can. You seem to read a moralistic side into this. I think that is nuts. This is a business. There is no sentimentality.
BTW, are you an employer (some memory that you're maybe self-employed)?
Most likely, his father is a lunatic.
I think Eli's reason for not going to SD has been proven to make sense considering SD hasn't won & moved.
But why sandbag the Celtics?
His big mouth daddy probably has him convinced Boston is a racist town. Because he read it somewhere.
As for your broader point, we just disagree. I think it's an economic transaction and you get what you can. You seem to read a moralistic side into this. I think that is nuts. This is a business. There is no sentimentality.
BTW, are you an employer (some memory that you're maybe self-employed)?
No, I'm not an employer, but I'm generally anti-union (feel they had a purpose and served it and a small fraction of them still are needed for that original purpose) and my views usually fall squarely with ownership (who assume the risk.).
but again, i do not equate professional sports to anything else - especially not corporate America, they are very unique in the specialized skills they require of their "employees", the small pool for labor and the monopolies that they all "enjoy".
I don't think my take is a moral issue for the draft picks not wanting to play for their draft team. How is that moral? I just think the players come across looking like entitled, egotistical, and even petty in some cases.
All colored by my personal experience. I (and some others) were partners in name alone. For several years we asked for a fairer cut and were refused. So we quit and started our own firm, and then the owners of our old firm bitched about how we destroyed a practice area by quitting (we were the fucking practice area!).
If my boss wants to pay me a pittance of what I bring in, is he not entitled? Note the new piece in the Economist about how US profit margins are too high, certainly b/c of lack of competition.
Also, in the unique sports context, I'd argue that a lot of the time it is the players who assume all the risk, not management. Management's only risk is usually stadium debt. Player put their bodies on the line.
All colored by my personal experience. I (and some others) were partners in name alone. For several years we asked for a fairer cut and were refused. So we quit and started our own firm, and then the owners of our old firm bitched about how we destroyed a practice area by quitting (we were the fucking practice area!).
If my boss wants to pay me a pittance of what I bring in, is he not entitled? Note the new piece in the Economist about how US profit margins are too high, certainly b/c of lack of competition.
Also, in the unique sports context, I'd argue that a lot of the time it is the players who assume all the risk, not management. Management's only risk is usually stadium debt. Player put their bodies on the line.
Again you are mixing multiple situations. Eli, Elway, Lindros, etc. (Kobe?) players who refuse to play for a franchise with Drew.
How is that about money? Did Eli think the Giants would pay him more than the Chargers?
I'd never heard that.
Did LIndros think the Nordiques would pay him lower than another team? It was never mentioned as a reason for him not wanting to play there.
Elway and the Colts? I'd never heard that.
While I definitely don't like what JD Drew did, it's been established multiple times he was different than the rest and I said so cross him off the list.
Yet that seems like all you want to bring up.
None of the other were about money from anything I've ever heard or read.
At least not directly.
If you're a ~20 year old who has been honing his craft for years such that you're the most prized prospect, why SHOULD you go quietly to a team that you understand has massive management problems. If my kid was the #1 prospect in the NBA draft and the Knicks had the first pick, I would strongly consider advising him to leverage his way elsewhere. That's a terrible organization and it will be tougher to reach your potential there and win.
Why should a draftee be loyal to a team just because that team drafted him against his will? Tradition?
At the end of the day to adjust the approach and free agency rules without increasing salary thresholds is impossible.
bullshit. Just because you cannot imagine a workable system doesn't mean it's impossible for one to exist. The easy answer is that the current players would be getting a smaller piece of the revenue pie. The only reason it doesn't exist now is because the two parties negotiating CBAs (owners and current players) are incentivized to screw players entering the league.
Fans pay.
teams charge what they can get for ticket. Their fixed costs really have little to do with it.
but, once again, the players hurt most by the rules on drafts and draft caps are UNABLE TO BARGAIN on their own behalf. they don't have a seat at the table.
If you're a ~20 year old who has been honing his craft for years such that you're the most prized prospect, why SHOULD you go quietly to a team that you understand has massive management problems. If my kid was the #1 prospect in the NBA draft and the Knicks had the first pick, I would strongly consider advising him to leverage his way elsewhere. That's a terrible organization and it will be tougher to reach your potential there and win.
Why should a draftee be loyal to a team just because that team drafted him against his will? Tradition?
Gretzky made the same point and I disagreed with him, he said something about you work your whole life to be #1 and then you go to the worst team.
but that's what IMO one of the things that makes sports great. Hope.
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
Fans will pay, there is no doubt about it (IMO).
none of this "they charge what they can get" of course they do and they'll charge more and get more if they can't get more you think they'll just say oh well, we used to get x but the players want more so oh well I'll just take less.
I'd love to hear those CBA negotiations.
Sports teams raise ticket prices a lot when they're winning because there is demand, and hold them steady (or even cut prices) as they suffer rebuilds/disaster seasons.
You seem to acknowledge this in your 3rd paragraph I think.
Sports teams raise ticket prices a lot when they're winning because there is demand, and hold them steady (or even cut prices) as they suffer rebuilds/disaster seasons.
You seem to acknowledge this in your 3rd paragraph I think.
Of course under normal circumstances I completely agree, but what happened (for example) to airline tickets after 911 when TSA had to get paid?
Every airline ticket you bought had a new fee added.
I don't view this hypothetical as much different.
2018 will be the first year in North American sports history where TV/Media revenue for sports teams surpasses gate revenue.
With TV/media contracts fixed (assumption - I don't think they end with each CBA), what will owners do if the lose a bigger portion of the pie?
if you think they'll take less and won't pass their losses on to fans then I'd love to see it and I'm highly skeptical.
Of course under normal circumstances I completely agree, but what happened (for example) to airline tickets after 911 when TSA had to get paid?
Every airline ticket you bought had a new fee added.
What happened is that because all airlines had the additional cost, and because generally air travel lacks much substitutability, is that prices were probably able to rise. Not because costs went up that is, but rather because customers didnt have much choice and all competitors were bearing the new costs.
I say probably because your example has a logical issue, which is the assumption that because the new fees were tacked on as a line item that they therefore represented net increased charges. But in reality the algorithms were at work, constantly resetting prices. So maybe the new TSA fee meant that the airlines got a little less for base ticket prices -- dont know, and it's probably not provable.
if you think they'll take less and won't pass their losses on to fans then I'd love to see it and I'm highly skeptical.
Again, you are assuming that owners arent maximizing revenues/profits now. Otherwise there wouldnt be room to raise prices (i.e. pass losses on to fans). Fundamentally, that's just not how businesses can operate. People like to say that you pass costs on to customers, but that's really BS cover for raising your prices. My clients dont care what my costs are and how they're changing. They consider results/quality vs. price. If I suddenly decided to move to a wood paneled office and have a pretty young thing out front, my clients arent going to just embrace significant increases in rates b/c of cost increases.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
who are you to say what is and isn't fulfilling to an individual person? How can you hold it against someone who might want to sell their services to the best possible organization in an industry?
Quote:
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
who are you to say what is and isn't fulfilling to an individual person? How can you hold it against someone who might want to sell their services to the best possible organization in an industry?
begs the question of who is really the entitled one? The athlete who wants a market based wage, or the fan who demands that the athlete take less to create a compelling narrative for the fan and consider the best interest of the league (which they dont own a part of and which will discard them as soon as something better comes along)?
pj's fidelity to drafts makes no sense. They dont use them in soccer, because there is inter-league competition for talent. He ignores that the draft allows rebuilds, but also rewards incompetence and tanking (in some sports).
No tangent but you're living in a fairy tale world if you think a professional sports union is going to negotiate a CBA with a major sports ownership group where the current/established players/veterans take less so younger non-established players and rookies can get more.
the only way younger/less established players get more is from the owners IMO.
Quote:
And I feel like athletes should embrace challenge. I mean how is it fulfilling to work your whole life to be #1 and then go to the best team? Picking where you go seems like a sure way to blow up an entire league. You see it in the NBA now with FA, imagine if teams didn't have a draft and rookies could simply freely negotiate with anyone, you think the NBA is bad now (in terms of competitiveness) it would get much worse.
Drafts are to keep the talent spread around (in theory) and I think they're the best way to keep leagues competitive and to allow teams to rebuild.
So if that's "tradition" to you then sure, but I think it's more "in the best interest of the league" which without one there would be no teams or players.
who are you to say what is and isn't fulfilling to an individual person? How can you hold it against someone who might want to sell their services to the best possible organization in an industry?
Fair point, I have no idea what is or isn't fulfilling to someone, but it's really irrelevant even though it's my opinion.
However sports are not free enterprise and athletes know going in how it works going in so it's not like someone changed the rules on them after the fact.
It's not like someone suddenly changed the rules when you got good.
There's probably a reason why in the history of all the major sports drafts a handful of athletes acted like prima donnas and refused to play for their drafted teams.
unlike your heroes who bucked the system.
Quote:
about falling revenues and ticket prices. Nobody is proposing giving more money to rookies and keeping everything else the same. What could happen is that existing players take less of the revenues. The revenue pie is what it is. But entry level players have been getting a smaller slice with every successive CBA.
No tangent but you're living in a fairy tale world if you think a professional sports union is going to negotiate a CBA with a major sports ownership group where the current/established players/veterans take less so younger non-established players and rookies can get more.
the only way younger/less established players get more is from the owners IMO.
Seems to me that the standards you're holding these people to is:
Owners: not criticized for greed (the risk takers!)
Union/vets: not criticized for greed (realistically they wont share more, so *shrug*)
Amateurs: are greedy and entitled for trying to get market-based wages or approximations thereof.
Quote:
In comment 13483470 Enzo said:
Quote:
about falling revenues and ticket prices. Nobody is proposing giving more money to rookies and keeping everything else the same. What could happen is that existing players take less of the revenues. The revenue pie is what it is. But entry level players have been getting a smaller slice with every successive CBA.
No tangent but you're living in a fairy tale world if you think a professional sports union is going to negotiate a CBA with a major sports ownership group where the current/established players/veterans take less so younger non-established players and rookies can get more.
the only way younger/less established players get more is from the owners IMO.
Seems to me that the standards you're holding these people to is:
Owners: not criticized for greed (the risk takers!)
Union/vets: not criticized for greed (realistically they wont share more, so *shrug*)
Amateurs: are greedy and entitled for trying to get market-based wages or approximations thereof.
I'm not criticizing anyone for trying to get money, you are confusing two issues again. for like the 10th time. Maybe I'm not being clear I have repeatedly said JD Drew is different. I said take him off my list - for hours now. Show me where I criticized an athlete for trying to get more money? None of the athletes from what I know who refused to play for a franchise did so for money.
My post to Enzo was simple that I do not believe it's realistic that established professional athletes or owners are giving up any portion of what they are getting today so unproven youngsters can get paid more.
I just don't see any way either of those two groups agrees to that.
Without commentary on who is greedy or who is right or wrong, it's just not something I consider realistic.
Um, the Hornets?
If the Knicks had the first pick, I'd have zero issue with a player not wanting to go there due to their incompetence. Andrew Luck is currently being wasted in Indy. I'd love for more players to take this stance.
Quote:
Kobe I dont remember why he told the Nets not to take him (did he do it with others?)
Um, the Hornets?
Caliper said he would've taken Kobe over Kerry Kittles,but Kobe's camp told the Nets to stay away.