Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 9:00 am  |  57 responses

LaMarcus Aldridge: Season Worth Losing to Get a Fair Deal


by Marcel Mutoni / @marcel_mutoni

It’s widely believed that most NBA team owners are prepared to wipe out the 2011-’12 season if that’s what it takes to get a new Collective Bargaining Agreement that they want. Most players, though, have publicly expressed a desire for games to get started on schedule.

LaMarcus Aldridge looks at things with a long-term persective, and thinks that losing an entire season may be worth it (should that result in a favorable deal for the players.)

From the Oregonian:

Is there going to be a lockout? Uh … No matter what kind of audience Aldridge runs into these days, the L-word inevitably surfaces, and Tuesday was no exception. And after the Trail Blazers’ power forward finished signing autographs and posing for pictures at the camp, he acknowledged there does not appear to be an end in sight for the NBA lockout, which is approaching the conclusion of its second month. “No,” Aldridge said, when asked if there was reason for optimism. “Both sides are pretty (far) off right now. So it’s going to be a while.”

Aldridge, who is the Blazers’ player representative in the NBA Player’s Union, said he does not expect the season to start on time but does believe there will be a season eventually. That said, he is prepared to sit out all of 2011-12 if necessary. “If that’s what it takes to get a fair deal done, then yes,” Aldridge said.

Of course, most NBA players aren’t like LaMarcus Aldridge. He did, after all, sign a lucrative contract extension two seasons ago, and can probably afford to miss out on a few paychecks next year.

What remains to be seen is how many others will be able to stand strong until a deal deemed “fair” is agreed upon.

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , ,

← Older Comments
  • mike

    the world economy has changed, the nba should too. players need to understand that fact…. owners and teams lose money, i never heard of players losing money.

  • Samco

    Shut up you greedy spoiled brat.

  • http://dskjfl.com Jukai

    Dr. DL freaking NAILED it with one comment: The owners made millions by playing the open market. Now they failed when they overvalued players and they want to fix that? Calling BS on all of this.
    Lower salaries 5%, level the BRI to 50-50, cut guarentees past 4-years and profit share— that is SO MUCH and will draw in so much profit… there is no reason salaries have to be cut in the double digits, owners need a majority share of the BRI and a hard cap has to be in place so teams can’t overspend on anything. It’s unreasonable. It’s outrageous. It’s negotiating in bad faith.

  • Harlem_World

    Fundamentally the ‘right’ is with the players – but we’re talking about business here, so when does ‘right’ win out over ‘wrong’? Ethics ultimately don’t play a big enough factor in business to determine who will win in a situation like this. Money and power will win every time. Owners have the money and can turn the screws/increase the pressure on mid-level and lower-level guys to the point where you’ll see the union disband or at the very least form 2 groups of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

    What is interesting is, ultimately you have a complete reversal of representation in both camps: with the owners, the highest paid/most profitable owners want to get back to basketball and do not want to lose the season, while the small market/unprofitable teams are happy to sit out the season as they have nothing to lose. Yet with the players you have the highest paid/most profitable players happy to sit out the season (or as long as it takes to get them the deal they want) and can afford to do so, while the mid-low level guys will want to get back to work and can’t afford to lose the season. Both parties have similar dynamics but reversed interests.

  • Yesse

    Fans can watch european basketball if there is not a season, so i don’t find that as too big of a deal. It doesn’t really matter to me if Nba would go down for years. There is always basketball somewhere.

  • Dr. DL

    I hate to say this but this argument has less and less to do with basketball every day. Owners make bad investments, usually because they hear words like “length” “potential” “wingspan” and get so excited they forget to consider professional athletes are greater the sort of Frankenstein’s monster rundown of their attributes that we often describe them as. So players get quickly overvalued, overhyped, and whether the player buys into it or not doesn’t matter because the owners and agents are now entering their area of expertice turning a player’s value (be it an accurate assesment of such or not, into a clear contract as far as how to put it to use. Of course both sides can spin their words to make bad ideas sound more favorable, but that is part of haggling and compromise. This, to me, is all business. At least players are still out their playing their asses off to keep us (and probably themselves, close to something they do out of love to have for a career. Values get overinflated in the stock market all the time. Nobody would allow a rich man special provisions under which he could have a trade back if found out months or years later that one or more of the risks he took didnt pan out. It’s always a risk. Essentially the owners here are begging the nba to step in and protect them from their own stupidity, People will pay to watch Kobe and Lebron play anywhere, and if the nba as an is so disinterested in its product maybe it will just fizzle out. Or better yet, usher in a new era of owners whose goals are to continue the magic, drama, and excitement of nba basketball. Right now i feel like as a paying nba fan I’m putting out chunks of the cash that owners need to play on in their exclusive, private stock market where they get to make all the rules

  • CubicleWorker

    Jukai… your proposal is basically what the owners have proposed… if the players offered that today we’d be having free agent signings tomorrow

← Older Comments
Advertisement