RE: To season ticket holders

["Noah P. Evans" <ishbak@conknet.com>]

>  Well, maybe the players should feel quite lucky to be able to be
> paid the money they get for playing a children's game.  Let them go to
work in
> the real world for a year or two and they might feel lucky as well.

Sorry to go back to speaking academiese, but I really have to responding to
your argument. Your argument is interesting, socially, because of two of
your assertions. First you assert that playing basketball is inferior to a
"real job" because basketball is a "children's game". While I think your
argument would be true if NBA basketball was untelevised and unwatched like
a pickup game at the Y, in the current context of NBA basketball it is
false.
	While basketball is literally a "children's game"(i.e. a game played by
children), the connotations you apply to the term through context do not
apply to NBA basketball. NBA basketball has ascended(or descinded given your
viewpoint) from the realm of simple basketball, played for the love of game,
into the realm of entertainment. This removes basketball players from the
realm of "players" and turns basketball players into entertainers. Given the
current evolution of NBA basketball this should be obvious. Style over
substance is the norm.
	And that evolution explains the current situation involving player
contracts. NBA owners *have* to give players large contracts in order to put
people in the stands, just as movie directors have to put stars in their
movies to put people in the seats. That is why basketball players get more
money than people with a "real job". If you wish to condemn players for
their greed you must condemn movie stars, pro wrestlers, star stage actors
and every other prominent entertainer who doesn't have a "real job".
	As for your assertion of the inherent superiority of a "real job", I find
the connotations equally interesting. Because this topic is unrelated to
basketball I will not delve as deeply into it. However it does incorporate
communist ideology--which is *not* a bad thing, I will not comment on the
value of either political system. All you have to do is substitute owner and
manager for the NBA players in your argument and then you have one of the
central tenets of communism. It's always amusing when people start debating
the societal value of different jobs.

> I don't have a problem with saying the owners suck, but this is a
> two way street and the players are just as greedy and care just as little
about the
> fans as the owners.  There are no good guys in this situation, except
maybe
> the veterans playing for league minimum.  They do deserve something more.

> Noah, you seem to believe that somehow the players are not greedy
> and only the owners are.  Maybe that is not your position, but that is how
it
> comes across.

I partially agree. The players *are* as greedy as the owners. However I
certainly don't go to celtics games to see Paul Gaston sit in the stands in
his suit. I go to see the players. The players provide the service I enjoy,
so they--not the owners-- have a greater right to basketball related income.

Noah