Why do I keep seeing people solely blaming the players for this predicament?

[Collie]

Sometimes it isn't what's fair, but what's practical. Is it really practical to lose a season's worth of salary over something that might be changed during the next CBA negotiations?

I'm not sure.

[SourGrapes]

For them not taking the deal because they won't do better, not because it's a fair deal.

If we get 50 dollars and I offer you only 2 or 1, they both suck, but you should still take 2 and you'd be blamed if you didn't.

I'd blame you for not negotiating in good faith if previously I'd been guaranteed 20

[longtime lurker]

Sometimes it isn't what's fair, but what's practical. Is it really practical to lose a season's worth of salary over something that might be changed during the next CBA negotiations?

I'm not sure.

I'm not even talking about what's fair, I'm just saying the players have shown that they're willing to make concessions in order for there to be a season. The owners thus far have not really conceded anything which leads me to believe they actually want to lose a season which wouldn't only hurt the players but themselves too. And with the players talking about decertifying everyone would be royally fcked so why not reach an agreement now for the good of everybody instead of trying to run up the score.

[Dave3]

I'd blame you for not negotiating in good faith if previously I'd been guaranteed 20

Yeah, you can blame me for being a jerk, but at the end of the day it doesn't change your choices. Either 1 or 2. 2 is the right choice if you can't do any better. People have been blaming the owners all along, but at the end of the day, they have the power, so it doesn't matter what's fair. All that matters is what is.

[Dave3]

But the owners are already getting money back to cover their losses. They've pretty much just broken even without actually having to put any work into how they run their business. I'm just saying the owners have gotten everything they asked for and more. To say the players are holding this up is just doesn't make any sense.

The players don't have a choice. That's why they're considered holding it up. If you have no choice but to take the offer, then what more can you do?

[SourGrapes]

Yeah, you can blame me for being a jerk, but at the end of the day it doesn't change your choices. Either 1 or 2. 2 is the right choice if you can't do any better. People have been blaming the owners all along, but at the end of the day, they have the power, so it doesn't matter what's fair. All that matters is what is.

the question is who to blame for holding up a deal. the starting location of discussions colors who's being a jerk, but either side can end the lock out instantly.

that the players get the blame for that is myopic

[Dave3]

the question is who to blame for holding up a deal. the starting location of discussions colors who's being a jerk, but either side can end the lock out instantly.

that the players get the blame for that is myopic

Well, if they have no choice but to accept now or later, why not accept now? It's going to get "more worse" for them than it will for the owners, so they have more to lose, so they're the ones that have to give in.

[SourGrapes]

Well, if they have no choice but to accept now or later, why not accept now? It's going to get "more worse" for them than it will for the owners, so they have more to lose, so they're the ones that have to give in.

not true. the other choice is to negotiate with the owners, as they have been, and for the owners to make more concessions, as they have been (allegedly)

[Dave3]

not true. the other choice is to negotiate with the owners, as they have been, and for the owners to make more concessions, as they have been (allegedly)

If that's an option that's great, but for the most part it hasn't seemed like it. From what I understand they're going to get owned anyways. Obviously they're going to try to get owned as little as possible, but at the end of they day, they're going to have to accept something over no season.

[DMAVS41]

not true. the other choice is to negotiate with the owners, as they have been, and for the owners to make more concessions, as they have been (allegedly)

true, but its beginning to reach that point in which its either deal time or blow up time.

it honestly just seems like the players are trying to save face now. they have lost...which doesn't even matter...because everyone knew they would. i don't like how the players have handled this, but if they get a deal done in the coming days then so be it.

but they better be aware of what happened in the nhl. they better be aware that there are a number of owners that are not happy with this current offer. they want to squeeze the players more. they want to miss more games or the season.

each passing day without a deal brings in a greater chance that those owners start making more noise....and brings in the chance that stern follows through on a deadline and resets the offer back to 47 and a hard cap. if that actually happens, the season will be lost most likely and players will be kicking themselves for not taking the deal right now.

[SourGrapes]

true, but its beginning to reach that point in which its either deal time or blow up time.

it honestly just seems like the players are trying to save face now. they have lost...which doesn't even matter...because everyone knew they would. i don't like how the players have handled this, but if they get a deal done in the coming days then so be it.

but they better be aware of what happened in the nhl. they better be aware that there are a number of owners that are not happy with this current offer. they want to squeeze the players more. they want to miss more games or the season.

each passing day without a deal brings in a greater chance that those owners start making more noise....and brings in the chance that stern follows through on a deadline and resets the offer back to 47 and a hard cap. if that actually happens, the season will be lost most likely and players will be kicking themselves for not taking the deal right now.

agreed. a small part of me wants them punished for their poor negotiating. those stupid t-shirts were almost as insulting as the owners' pretending they've negotiated in good faith

[DMAVS41]

agreed. a small part of me wants them punished for their poor negotiating. those stupid t-shirts were almost as insulting as the owners' pretending they've negotiated in good faith

but what is good faith? its very difficult to define. it basically means that the owners are giving the players their word that they want to get a deal done and will try.

that doesn't really mean anything for the terms or points of this CBA though. its not in bad faith for the owners to ask for 47% and hard cap. why would it be? the economy sucks. there are real issues impacting these teams. over 20 teams are losing money. the future of the nba in terms of attendance looks bleak.

and throw all of that in with the nba players getting way too much money over the last decade.

good faith is being tossed around way too much as if it means anything. the owners are not being so absurd that what they want is unreasonable. this deal should not and will not be "fair"....that would just be bad business by the owners.

[The Iron Fist]

Because the players are employees of the owners, and make more than most people will make in a lifetime.

Do you get that?

The owners, can do whatever they want with their business, and that includes setting wages above minimum.

If the players don't like it, they can always find another job like the rest of us.

[SourGrapes]

but what is good faith? its very difficult to define. it basically means that the owners are giving the players their word that they want to get a deal done and will try.

that doesn't really mean anything for the terms or points of this CBA though. its not in bad faith for the owners to ask for 47% and hard cap. why would it be? the economy sucks. there are real issues impacting these teams. over 20 teams are losing money. the future of the nba in terms of attendance looks bleak.

and throw all of that in with the nba players getting way too much money over the last decade.

good faith is being tossed around way too much as if it means anything. the owners are not being so absurd that what they want is unreasonable. this deal should not and will not be "fair"....that would just be bad business by the owners.

bringing to the table a set of demands that doesn't alter the landscape of the agreement more than it has to, and one that historically makes sense relative to other agreements signed previously, is good faith. starting with a reduction from 57 to 45% bri to the players is bad faith negotiating. it really isn't that hard to define

[SourGrapes]

Because the players are employees of the owners, and make more than most people will make in a lifetime.

Do you get that?

The owners, can do whatever they want with their business, and that includes setting wages above minimum.

If the players don't like it, they can always find another job like the rest of us.

wrong. because the owners are exempt from antitrust laws as a result of the players bargaining power (the creation of the union), they have to have honest negotiations with the players at times like these