Re: Good!

["Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

>Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:59:38 -0500
>To: celtics@igtc.com
>From: Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>
>Subject: Re: Good!
>

>...it was the *owners* that initiated the lockout (don't understand 
>why you felt the need to put quotation marks around it), not any 
>theoretically disgruntled players (remember, the players weren't
>disgruntled -they were quite happy to continue with the existing
>system) it wouldn't matter either way. 
>

Yes it is a lockout.  Sorry for the poor use of punctuation.  I wanted 
to emphasize the term as some people are calling it a strike. 

The players may not have been disgruntled, but then they were not living 
under the old agreement either (neither side was).  Remember, the old 
agreement called for salaries to stay under 53% of revenues.  

>You are overgeneralizing, although I agree that that's likely the >case 
with many agents. But just as it's the biggest name players who >are 
coming across as the greediest, it's the same with the biggest >name 
agents. 

Fine.  If, as unlikely as it sounds, there are good, honest and 
kind-hearted agents out there, I apologise to them.  My complaint is 
with their greedy, unprincipled, scheming, slimy, low-life brethren.

>the owners -not the players or agents- initiated a lockout to try to 
>force the league into protecting them from the consequences of their 
>own stupidity. Players and agents can demand until they're blue in 
>the face, but unless someone gives in to their demands all it gets 
>them is, well, blue in the face. I'm not saying the owners should 
>'just say no' to all such demands, because it isn't that simple. 
>Look at all the vilification of Gaston here for daring to object to 
>AW's idea of fair compensation or the Timberwolves situation where 
>the owner overrode McHale's refusal to give in to Garnett because he 
>needed to draw fans to keep his newborn franchise afloat.

If you're not saying the owners should 'just say no', then what is your 
solution.  I don't think you can leave salaries to market forces and 
retain competitive integrity.  Rich owners will spend more.  That has 
always been the case, but virtually unrestrained free agency now means 
that only rich teams ever win anything.  Games need rules to make 
competition fair, and that is true off the court as well as on it. Isn't 
it ironic that the players are willing to sacrifice some of their free 
agency rights, eg. longer rookie contracts, to avoid a hard cap.  The 
players union and the agents are trying to sell us that there can be an 
unrestrained free market for players without the game and competition 
suffering.  It's not true.  It's not about saving the owners from 
themselves, but setting rules so they can fairly compete against each 
other.  

Jim

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com