Re:

[Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>]

At 03:16 PM 8/5/98 -0800, Peter Delevett <pdelevett@sjbj.com> wrote:
>You know, I just had this crazy thought: why is there "no way in hell" the
players wouldn't accept non-guaranteed contracts, the end of the Bird rule
or anything else? What is their alternative? The CBA? European leagues? I
guarantee you, if the NBAPA decided to walk away from the league, they would
be replaced by any number of (talented) young kids out there who are looking
for a chance. Don't belive it? Just look at what's happening right nopw in
Greece. And yes, the quality of play would suffer, and the fans would be
turned off, but over time they would come back. People are too
basketball-crazy not to. The owners deserve to be able to set financial
ground rules that allow their companies to prosper and grow. Every other
industry in America does this. (Right, Noah?)

The players have been pretty hard line about changes to the Bird rule (blood
in the streets was the phrase used at one point), with which the rest of
their stance mitigates against their accepting the rest. They're greedy too.
Obviously at some point someone's going to have to give in some, but it's
not quite as simple as you portray. 

First, this is not a strike, this is a lockout. The players have not walked
away from anything. The owners did. So presumably they are still obligated
to pay off the existing megabucks worth of outstanding contracts at some
point (remember negotiations are about terms for future contracts). They are
not going to just pay the entire league to walk, on top of having to pay the
new players and their ongoing operating costs that are from agreements made
under high revenue standards. The TV money has to be paid back if there are
no games and I'd imagine will have to be paid back, at least in part, if
there are not games based upon what the network thought they were buying. So
they can't use that to cover the difference. It's just a bridge loan. 

Greece. Bob Ryan said on the radio that they're playing in front of a few
hundred, tops. And remember what happened with baseball and football with
'replacement players'. Owners cannot afford/will not be willing to take that
kind of long term hit. Especially with college basketball as an even cheaper
and talent wise near equivalent option for people to go to. People may be
hoops mad, but there are alternatives and all the marketing in the world
won't make everyone pay prime rib prices for hamburger. They'll go looking
for a cheaper place to buy hamburger.

Look, it probably sounds like I'm pro player, and I'm not particularly. The
evil's about equally spread IMO. The owners have a right to make money, but
they've been less than honest in their dealings with the players and the
league on revenue as it is, lessening the amount of pity they deserve. And
they're once again looking to others to sacrifice to make up for their own
stupidity, rather than managing themselves. Everyone talks about Garnett
money as the big problem. Well the GM, Kevin McHale, was against paying
Garnett what he wanted. That was the owner that gave in. That's what the
players are relying on with their stance -owner greed and the uniqueness of
a certain level of ability. And precedent is with them. Noah's beloved (god
help me) supply and demand. It's not as all consuming as he makes it out,
but it's more of a factor than you make it out. Perception is reality and
the owners perceive the players in the league now as necessary to making the
kind of money they want to.
<snip>

-Kim
Kim Malo
kmalo19@idt.net