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.
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.
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.