So the inmates continue to run the asylum, smh

[NYKalltheway]

Feels like the thread's title is handy as sometimes the PSD inmates have to run the asylum, as in the regular members have to stop the mods from bickering...

Valade, what Scoots is saying is perfectly legit, it's the one outcome any investor expects.

If you were right, if the players also do not like the NBA setup, if even some owners aren't happy enough, if there are arenas and cities and waiting for this, hence no need for infrastructure to get built up, broadcasters lined up and fans waiting for this to happen, then..... where are all these billionaires trying to poach the elite players and start this new league?

Or are you seriously arguing a "proletariat" riot from the top players (who are multimillionaires with too much to lose if they abandon the league)?

The bottom 90% of the league's players are replaceable. You would barely notice the difference. The next 5% is also replaceable as you can hype up just about anyone in decent form. The top 5%, not so much. But where their incentive to leave the league? Do they have any?

[More-Than-Most]

Feels like the thread's title is handy as sometimes the PSD inmates have to run the asylum, as in the regular members have to stop the mods from bickering...

Valade, what Scoots is saying is perfectly legit, it's the one outcome any investor expects.

If you were right, if the players also do not like the NBA setup, if even some owners aren't happy enough, if there are arenas and cities and waiting for this, hence no need for infrastructure to get built up, broadcasters lined up and fans waiting for this to happen, then..... where are all these billionaires trying to poach the elite players and start this new league?

Or are you seriously arguing a "proletariat" riot from the top players (who are multimillionaires with too much to lose if they abandon the league)?

The bottom 90% of the league's players are replaceable. You would barely notice the difference. The next 5% is also replaceable as you can hype up just about anyone in decent form. The top 5%, not so much. But where their incentive to leave the league? Do they have any?

this is pretty much all correct... hell its been proven countless times with how they have bolstered the popularity of overseas guys like millicic/saric etc

[valade16]

Feels like the thread's title is handy as sometimes the PSD inmates have to run the asylum, as in the regular members have to stop the mods from bickering...

Valade, what Scoots is saying is perfectly legit, it's the one outcome any investor expects.

If you were right, if the players also do not like the NBA setup, if even some owners aren't happy enough, if there are arenas and cities and waiting for this, hence no need for infrastructure to get built up, broadcasters lined up and fans waiting for this to happen, then..... where are all these billionaires trying to poach the elite players and start this new league?

Or are you seriously arguing a "proletariat" riot from the top players (who are multimillionaires with too much to lose if they abandon the league)?

The bottom 90% of the league's players are replaceable. You would barely notice the difference. The next 5% is also replaceable as you can hype up just about anyone in decent form. The top 5%, not so much. But where their incentive to leave the league? Do they have any?

Who ever said this? I never did. I simply posited a hypothetical that IF the players decided to leave the NBA the NBA would be screwed. That’s not a remotely fantastical notion.

I never said the players would, of course they wouldn’t, they have a great thing going. My original point was the players are more important to the league than the owners. The only way to argue against is to obfuscate the point to something I never said.

Of course they have no incentive to league the league currently. That was never my point. Let me ask you: who is more important to the NBA: the players or the owners?

[valade16]

this is pretty much all correct... hell its been proven countless times with how they have bolstered the popularity of overseas guys like millicic/saric etc

It’s correct. It also in no way goes against what I said or anything I argued.

[valade16]

I think players finally realized they are the most important asset. If all the owners stopped fielding teams tomorrow. There’d be plenty of other people willing to pay and invest in the NBA. If all the players decided not to play, interest would plummet.

I made a fatal error when I made this post. I assumed posters were intelligent enough to comprehend a hypothetical.

[NYKalltheway]

Who ever said this? I never did. I simply posited a hypothetical that IF the players decided to leave the NBA the NBA would be screwed. That’s not a remotely fantastical notion.

I never said the players would, of course they wouldn’t, they have a great thing going. My original point was the players are more important to the league than the owners. The only way to argue against is to obfuscate the point to something I never said.

Of course they have no incentive to league the league currently. That was never my point. Let me ask you: who is more important to the NBA: the players or the owners?

You're trying to simplify this with a yes or no answer. So I'll try and simplify it as well.

Are the owners important? Yes.
Are the players important? Yes.

If any of them suddenly stops their operations, would it hurt the league? Yes.
Would it benefit anyone? No.
Is an individual owner replaceable? Yes.
Are 30 owners replaceable? Yes, with the current setup.
Is the NBA replaceable for either owners or players? No.

The question is who can last longer without the other. And the truth is that the owners (ie the league) can outlast the players. They can find new players. The players cannot find new owners.
That's the entire argument you're fighting against and I'm not sure if there's a leg to stand on here.

[valade16]

You're trying to simplify this with a yes or no answer. So I'll try and simplify it as well.

Are the owners important? Yes.
Are the players important? Yes.

If any of them suddenly stops their operations, would it hurt the league? Yes.
Would it benefit anyone? No.
Is an individual owner replaceable? Yes.
Are 30 owners replaceable? Yes, with the current setup.
Is the NBA replaceable for either owners or players? No.

The question is who can last longer without the other. And the truth is that the owners (ie the league) can outlast the players. They can find new players. The players cannot find new owners.
That's the entire argument you're fighting against and I'm not sure if there's a leg to stand on here.

You would do well in Americans politics with this evasive answer. Yes both are important, but I asked which are more important. The fact no one can give a straight answer is telling.

As to who can last longer without the other, that entirely depends on when this scenario goes down. If it’s just before negotiations for Broadcast rights, the NBA would be absolutely crippled. As for the players being unable to find new owners, well that’s just flat untrue. Of course they’d be able to find investors/owners, particularly if my hypothetical in which the players collectively agreed, was true.

There is literally zero leg to stand on with any of your arguments because every single one involves changing my hypothetical. I suspect done because you secretly agree with my basic premise but don’t want to admit so.

[valade16]

If I were to restate my point as: which is more important: owners or players (recognizing both are important but inquiring which was moreso), how many of the people now arguing against me would answer this question with “the owners”?

[Tg11]

And it is because of player empowerment the NBA could go into another lockout/work stoppage because certain players are going to ruin it for everyone and the owners I know are tired of it

[warfelg]

If I were to restate my point as: which is more important: owners or players (recognizing both are important but inquiring which was moreso), how many of the people now arguing against me would answer this question with “the owners”?

I think it's a perfectly symbiotic relationship at this point that it's impossible to separate the two. I think at this point the owners are a touch more important because they are what financially makes the thing works. As important as the talent is (here on the court), without the infrastructure the whole thing would collapse.

Now I know the argument countering this could be that you could just find 30 new owners easily, but that's no guarantee they would financially be able to support teams.

The biggest reason I say this is in the question of strikes/lockouts, only one side can (and has been in other sports) replaced by other people (scrubs).

[NYKalltheway]

You would do well in Americans politics with this evasive answer. Yes both are important, but I asked which are more important. The fact no one can give a straight answer is telling.

As to who can last longer without the other, that entirely depends on when this scenario goes down. If it’s just before negotiations for Broadcast rights, the NBA would be absolutely crippled. As for the players being unable to find new owners, well that’s just flat untrue. Of course they’d be able to find investors/owners, particularly if my hypothetical in which the players collectively agreed, was true.

There is literally zero leg to stand on with any of your arguments because every single one involves changing my hypothetical. I suspect done because you secretly agree with my basic premise but don’t want to admit so.

The fact that you want a false answer just because you can only compute yes/no answers is more telling about your capacity to engage in a dialogue rather than just be on one side of something that causes friction for the sake of it.

But you want to know who is more important because anything else just goes over your head. So here goes:

The players are replaced by other players.
The owners are replaced by other owners.

The players in your fictional scenario will have to be owners as well. So obviously you cannot have this without owners. Just like you cannot have a league without players.

The players are the key ingredient but the product remains the team. You watch teams play against each other. Teams are comprised of players, coaches and the one who puts them in place are the owners.


What exactly are you looking for here? A "gotcha" moment? The only thing you're doing is exposing yourself in this silly quest because your arguments are extremely lame and weak.
You have failed to respond to my post and I trust you didn't even bother to read it and only highlighted a small part thinking that you "got me".

You're arguing things in your head and expect others to play along. And they're silly things really.

Players leave the NBA. Cool. What next? Play the whole thing out, in writing, then you can complain if someone doesn't keep up with your weird ideas.

[valade16]

The fact that you want a false answer just because you can only compute yes/no answers is more telling about your capacity to engage in a dialogue rather than just be on one side of something that causes friction for the sake of it.

But you want to know who is more important because anything else just goes over your head. So here goes:

The players are replaced by other players.
The owners are replaced by other owners.

The players in your fictional scenario will have to be owners as well. So obviously you cannot have this without owners. Just like you cannot have a league without players.

The players are the key ingredient but the product remains the team. You watch teams play against each other. Teams are comprised of players, coaches and the one who puts them in place are the owners.


What exactly are you looking for here? A "gotcha" moment? The only thing you're doing is exposing yourself in this silly quest because your arguments are extremely lame and weak.
You have failed to respond to my post and I trust you didn't even bother to read it and only highlighted a small part thinking that you "got me".

You're arguing things in your head and expect others to play along. And they're silly things really.

Players leave the NBA. Cool. What next? Play the whole thing out, in writing, then you can complain if someone doesn't keep up with your weird ideas.

False answer? Fictional scenario? Arguing things in my head? My point from the beginning is the players are more important than the owners. You guys started creating fictional scenarios to give a false answer.

I’m not looking for any “gotcha” moment. I thi it when question is “what are you and scoots looking for?” And of course it’s the same thing: you just see something I say and feel a reflexive need to disagree.

Remember this is all in a thread about how players are freely demanding trades and getting their way despite signing long exhibiting contracts.

Yes, the players have tremendous power nowadays. For some reason that upsets you.

[valade16]

I think it's a perfectly symbiotic relationship at this point that it's impossible to separate the two. I think at this point the owners are a touch more important because they are what financially makes the thing works. As important as the talent is (here on the court), without the infrastructure the whole thing would collapse.

Now I know the argument countering this could be that you could just find 30 new owners easily, but that's no guarantee they would financially be able to support teams.

The biggest reason I say this is in the question of strikes/lockouts, only one side can (and has been in other sports) replaced by other people (scrubs).

Serious question, when was the last time a major American sports league used scabs during a lockout?

[joeyc77]

Serious question, when was the last time a major American sports league used scabs during a lockout?

In 1997, baseball strike, Corey Lidle and Kevin Millar come to mind.

The players need the NBA more than the NBA needs the players.

[NYKalltheway]

False answer? Fictional scenario? Arguing things in my head? My point from the beginning is the players are more important than the owners. You guys started creating fictional scenarios to give a false answer.

I’m not looking for any “gotcha” moment. I thi it when question is “what are you and scoots looking for?” And of course it’s the same thing: you just see something I say and feel a reflexive need to disagree.

Remember this is all in a thread about how players are freely demanding trades and getting their way despite signing long exhibiting contracts.

Yes, the players have tremendous power nowadays. For some reason that upsets you.

Lol.
Yes, the players have a lot of power. No it doesn't upset me because I'm completely indifferent to the NBA, I stopped caring about FA and all that and simply watch the Knicks sometimes, some random game here and there and some playoff games. So you're barking at the wrong tree.

As for the player's having too much power, have you paid attention to how many jobs the US basketball players have lost in the last 15 years to international players? You think they can't find more of those if necessary?

There's demand for both playing in the league and owning a team. Care to do the math and tell us which one has more demand?