Robert Sarver looks forward to clearing his name as season's first two weeks are canceled


Robert Sarver (center) eagerly awaits the day he can clear his name. (Photo by Michael Schwartz/ValleyoftheSuns)

Robert Sarver (center) eagerly awaits the day he can clear his name. (Photo by Michael Schwartz/ValleyoftheSuns)

PHOENIX — As has been feared for months, NBA commissioner David Stern cancelled the first two weeks of the NBA season on Monday, citing a significant gulf “on virtually all issues,” according to ESPN.com’s Marc Stein.

Thus it would now take a miracle for the NBA not to lose games for just the second time in its history.

That also means it will be at least another few weeks before we find out how involved Robert Sarver actually has been in the lockout proceedings.

Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski suggested that Sarver has “been the most difficult” owner on a local radio show last week, and according to Yahoo! Sarver “befuddled players by insisting that his wife had asked him to bring back the middle level exception in a designer bag.”

Sarver was asked to clarify his position at Monday’s press conference to announce the hiring of Brad Casper to lead the organization’s business operations, and he regretted not being able to comment on anything to do with the lockout at this moment.

“I can say that eventually when it’s over the facts of my role and my involvement will come out, and I look forward to that happening,” Sarver said. “I’m prohibited from commenting about it, but as you know don’t believe everything you read.”

In the meantime what matters is the lockout actually ending, and based on the parties quoted in Stein’s story that does not appear to be on the horizon.

“We think that we made very fair proposals,” Stern told reporters. “I’m sure the players think the same thing. But the gap is so significant that we just can’t bridge it at this time.”

Added players association executive director Billy Hunter, “I think everybody’s waiting for the players to cave. They figure that once a player misses a check or two, it’s all over. I’m saying … that would be a horrible mistake if they think that’s going to happen, because it’s not going to happen. The players are all going to hang in.”

Meanwhile, players took the battle to social media today with a bevy of “LET US PLAY” tweets and #StayUnited hashtags.

Steve Nash went on a tweeting binge and tweeted the following:

“The NBA has experienced over 60 yrs of growth with new growth projected using the current model.  After a banner year the players are still willing to GIVE the owners a higher percentage in good faith. Why are the owners unwilling to negotiate in good faith? As a player I apologize to the fans that we’re in this position but we will not be taken advantage of. In our hearts we’re desperate to play, in our minds we know better and are prepared to #standunited. Let us play. The players are negotiating to take less money & let’s be clear that’s not going to lower ticket prices, it just lines the owners pockets.”

Jared Dudley took some time to answer fan questions about the lockout on his Twitter account, which I highly recommend checking out. Perhaps his most interesting tweet said that he believes a month or two of the season will be missed.

At this point fans can only hope that it is just a month or two.

Tags: Lockout Robert Sarver

  • Steve

    Steve Nash thinks it’s unfair that Josh Childress only makes $6M annually to sit on a bench? Should he be making at least $8M? Steve Nash thinks it’s unfair that he has made over $100M playing in the NBA, which has allowed him to gain fame, fortune, and power beyond his wealth? Should he be paid double?

    The players aren’t getting screwed in this. I’ll tell you who gets screwed. You and I. We are the ones who get left with $100M stadium bills. We are the ones who have to shell out $100 for mediocre lower-level seats at the games (think about a family of four!). We are the ones who pay all of their checks, yet the only enjoyment we get is watching a bad basketball season followed by an ugly lockout where the $100-million-dollar-man Steve Nash is vilifying the owners for wanting to make money instead of lose money.

    Steve Nash is saying that these negotiations won’t lower ticket prices? I can guarantee you that if players played for $500k/year on average, we wouldn’t be paying $30 to sit in the nose-bleeds.

    Shut your mouth, Nash. I like you, but you’re just as much of a tool as the idiot owners who willingly pay your “co-workers” WAY more than they’re worth.

  • Jason

    Steve, have a Valium and a smile and shut the fuck up.

  • Steve

    *is scared*

    Care to elaborate on your fine rhetoric?

  • Tony

    Steve,

    the NBA is unlike any of the other big professional sports leagues in that its stars make the league and generate its profits. While MLB, NFL, and NHL are promoted more as team-oriented leagues, the NBA actively promotes its stars as the main attraction of the league. Thus, the players should get a greater share of the profits than the owners get. People do not go to NBA games to watch the owners, they go to see the star players.

    Furthermore, a few of the small-time owners, such as the moron Sarver, are demanding that they automatically generate a profit despite the product they put out. This is absolutely absurd, as I did not know we live in a socialist system. Why should these owners, who have taken full advantage of our capatalist system all of a sudden get reimbursed for putting together horrible teams? If they cannot afford to own teams, then these owners should sell. The economic model of the NBA should not be dependent on a select few incompetent owners such as Sarver.

  • sun-arc

    Tony- all sports act more towards socialism than our capitalist society at large. They have to in order to keep some competition happening. Some sport brands do it better than others. The most competetive ones are the most socialist. There is nothing wrong with that, particularly when it makes for a good product.

    No fan, of any sport, comes to watch owners. So that argument doesn’t hold water. Though, you are right in that the NBA in particular projects individuals over teams. But that doesn’t mean they should necessarily be paid more, or paid more than in other sports. If the income of the teams is higher, than maybe…

    And I appreciate the frustration with the owners and players very much. I wish I had basketball to watch instead of what seems like dumb rich children fighting over a few bucks. If they were really fighting over making the league better, I’d be rooting for someone. But, I think this is all silliness about saving face and making a few more bucks.

    I hope the owners get a hard cap to have more competiveness in the league long term. And I hope there is some compromise in revenue sharing as well. Maybe the owners need a limit to keep from overpaying people. If so, let’s have it. I want players to be paid fairly – but you get Lou getting paid nothing for a great year with us, and then Childress being way overpaid for near nothing. Something should be done- but I only wish I had answers.

    As for Steve: While I don’t think nash deserves the lashing above, I do wish he would stay out of this. He discredits himself to comment this way.

  • Steve

    People don’t go to NFL, MLB, MLS, NHL, or any other leagues games/matches/events to see the owners. I get what you’re saying about the NBA being more star centric than other leagues, but that’s bull being fed to you by the players and the media that wants you to believe that the casual sports watcher gives a crap what Steve Nash, LeBron James, or Kobe Bryant think about anything.

    And you’re right that we don’t live in a socialist society. We live in a capitalistic society, and capitalism leaves business owners in control of their businesses. It is socialism that dictates business, not capitalism. Giving more control to the owners is the “capitalistic” thing to do. I don’t think owners are trying to argue that they should be guaranteed a profit. I think they’re trying to argue that guys like Channing Frye don’t deserve $5M to play mediocre basketball on a poor squad.

    LeBron James is probably worth over $50M to his team. Josh Childress is probably worth less than $200k to his. It is socialism that got us to the point that Josh Childress makes a third of what LeBron James makes (talking salary here, obviously). That’s totally wrong, and it’s painfully obvious.

    You’re thinking about things backwards. Giving more control to the owners is the capitalistic route. Giving more control to the players means we’re in for higher ticket prices, more 9-figure arenas being forced on tax-payers, and another lockout when the next CBA is up.

  • Rich Anthony, (KJL)

    So, for once, I’m going to go a complete different direction with all of this!

    This lockout could actually serve as a flash point for the NBA.
    Why? Well, unlike the last lockout, players didn’t fly every and anywhere to play and those who did weren’t really covered.

    The NBA currently has players everywhere. Playing for small percentages of what they would make in the “L.”
    Kevin Durant is on a street ball tear. Lighting up outdoor gyms in a hood near you.
    Patty Mills, (yes I used him), is down here in Australia playing for the NBL’s Melbourne team and guess what? Any game involving that team is sold out. People all over the world are flocking to see NBA stars that they wouldn’t get a chance to see otherwise.

    I think it’s a brilliant play by David Stern.

    He played up the whole, “well we can’t stop them if they want to go and play the game that they love we just hope they don’t get hurt” angle but really, this is near-free advertisement for them.

    Players miss games, but the stars have gone all over the world showing exactly why they are stars and play in the NBA where the “best in the world” play, so they say.

    Jerseys are going to get sold. Shoes. Whatever they sell it’s going to get sold, and then when the NBA resumes play, I’d put money on it that globally, things like NBA League Pass or any sort of subscription would have increased.
    Those of us who already love the NBA will go right back no matter how much some of us complain now and along with us will be a bevy of new markets with a higher concentration of paying customers bringing the NBA money.

    I think it’s fantastic.

    By the way, I support the hard cap and a 51 / 49 split in the player’s favor. I also love the amnesty clause it if gets in.

  • Lloyd I. Cadle

    Even if the owners have to give 53% to the players it is still worth it if they get the hard cap.

  • Momochi Sandayu

    Steve, I think you’re extremely confused about Capitalism and Socialism based off the way you toss those words around.

    Essentially Socialism in economic terms is production based on the needs of the community.

    Capitalism in economic terms is production based on generating a profit.

    Socialism would be the NBA directing production to meet the needs of the community: the NBA tells the teams what players they will have.

    Capitalism would be NBA owners competing with each other over scarce resources (NBA players) and paying whatever the free market dictates.

    Its one thing to side with either the owners, or the players in this situation, but its another to use baseless labels in an attempt to slander the side you don’t support.

  • Steve

    @Momochi – I wasn’t the one who brought the terms into play. Two others mentioned them before I did.

    … but, since you found it necessary to point me out, I’ll bite.

    Socialism is an economic model where a government or administration of some kind owns, produces, and distributes all goods, typically “equally” among its members.

    In your oversimplification, you’re missing something very important. No one ever called the “NBA” or its owners socialist. NBPA is the “socialist” entity, in this case. The NBPA “directs production to meet the needs of the community: the NBPA tells owners how much each player will be worth.”

    Capitalism would be a completely free market, you’re right. I even said that very thing, so I don’t know why you made it a point to call me out when I don’t disagree with you. I have argued before, and I even alluded to it in this post, that LeBron James is worth FAR more than any other player in the NBA. If there was a $50M cap (and yes, I know a cap isn’t “capitalistic”), and some owner was willing to blow $40M of it on James, I’m all for that (provided some sort of amnesty clause or back-out clause is in place, but let’s not get into that).

    Don’t forget that the NBPA is an equal (or even greater) power in this whole mess, and my argument was that they are the ones pushing their “socialist” agenda.

    You’re focused on the owners (and the players want us to be focused on the owners as well), but it’s the players that have screwed this all up and are continuing to keep things screwed up if they’re going to fight for things like mid-level exceptions and $8M guaranteed salaries for guys who sit on a bench for 40min a game.

    Thanks for being a douche though.

  • Steve

    Btw, this is laughable:

    “Its one thing to side with either the owners, or the players in this situation, but its another to use baseless labels in an attempt to slander the side you don’t support.”

    Exactly who did I “slander?” I guess I “slandered” Josh Childress by claiming he isn’t worth his ridiculous salary, and it was the “big red” NBPA that got us to the point that Childress would be so grossly overvalued…

    I really just fail to see the point why you singled me out when there were TWO other people who brought up the capitalism/socialism issue before me, and you yourself failed to realize my point in your ridiculous reply…

    Ugh… why can’t the NBA just be here already?

  • Lloyd I. Cadle

    I read where the NBA owners are thinking about a soft cap with a penalty of six dollars for every one dollar over the soft cap, with the players complaining that that is like a hard cap.

    Please owners-forget about a soft cap of any kind. Give the players 53% and hold out for as long as it takes for a hard cap.

    If the Lakers don’t like a hard cap, tough luck, go ahead and leave the NBA join the league in Europe!

  • Steve

    Bill Simmons’ most recent article (it’s NFL picks with a ton of distraction due to the NBA lockout) absolutely read my mind. I’m pretty sure we’re the same person, he just has a much better ability to write down his thoughts.

    “Let us play.” What a joke.

  • Scott

    The idea that the NBA is star-driven isn’t the whole story. Sure, casual fans are more likely to watch a game with a star in it, but real fans are more likely to know the names of everyone on the team, and to cheer on the guys who are working hard to make a place for themselves in the league.

    I don’t watch games because they have stars. I think the stars who are holding the league out of play because of their insatiable need for more money are doing the whole player base a disservice. Yes, get an adequate deal done. But also let the owners get something that improves parity.

    My advice in particular for Nash is to stop calling the owners greedy. Even if it is true, all it does is remind the public that the players are making ridiculous money, and that they won’t take even a tiny pay cut for the good of the game.

  • Lloyd I. Cadle

    Can the players still consider the owners greedy if the owners give the players 53% or 54% of the revenues and get a hard cap as a trade off?

    If that were to happen, all should be satisfied. The players would get their money. The owners would be able to field competitive teams based on having a good G.M., scouting, etc.

    The fans would be happy because their team would have a shot because the Lakers aren’t allowed to spend 58 million over the salary cap. It works that way in the NFL.

    By the way, the players argument that a hard cap would eliminate guaranteed salaries is not true. Larry Fitzgerald signed a 120 million contract with about 60 million guaranteed. If the player sucks after a few years, the owner can cut him. Isn’t that the way it should be?

  • Scott

    So far as I can tell from reports, the players are willing to take a maximum 4% cut, and that’s the only change they will allow. They don’t want anything resembling a hard cap; they want the exceptions to remain as they are, and they oppose a strengthening of the luxury tax.

    Well, they will also allow player amnesty, since that gives the league the opportunity to double pay players. :p

    When any group has a certain pay / benefits schedule for a few years, they start to take it as a baseline for what they SHOULD have, and then they want to increase it beyond that point. It becomes a sense of entitlement. They typically won’t agree to reduce their pay / benefits unless the whole structure falls apart, which is what probably has to happen in the NBA.

  • Lloyd I. Cadle

    If the owners have to close shop for one or two years in order to get a hard cap, so be it.

    The fans (including my family of seven) will be back when they open the doors to see a competitive NBA brought on by a hard cap – NFL style.

  • Momochi Sandayu

    There are two reasons I responded to you directly. Your commentary on Steve Nash, and because you grossly referenced Capitalism and Socialism incorrectly. The way in which you did that is by stating the following:

    “LeBron James is probably worth over $50M to his team. Josh Childress is probably worth less than $200k to his. It is socialism that got us to the point that Josh Childress makes a third of what LeBron James makes (talking salary here, obviously). That’s totally wrong, and it’s painfully obvious. ”

    In my comment I attempted to illustrate to you why the reason Childress can make that much compared to LeBron is actually due to Capitalism, and NOT Socialism. I attempted to do this by pointing out that Captialism allows business owners the freedom to pay whatever they deem to be a fair price for scarce resources. This in fact makes it “painfully obvious” that it is Capitalism that got the League into the current predicament.

    My “over simplification” is actually the most basic tenants of both systems. With the addition of your “typically equally among it’s members” comment you end up describing Communisim, not Socialism. True Socialism actually distributes goods based on individual contribution, or merit. Your complaint that Josh Childress doesn’t deserve to be paid a certain amount based on his contribution/merit means you’re actually an advocate of… wait for it… Socialism!

    I don’t feel my post indicated I missed out on any key points that have been made, nor do I see how the points you feel I “missed” are relevant to my post.

    Last but not least…

    You and I are both aware that in our culture Socialism is used in a derogatory manner, and Capitalism is the “respected truth” . You believe the owners need more power (your notion of “Capitalism”), and the players are fighting to keep the status quo (your notion of “Socialism”). You insult both of our intelligences by insinuating that there is no negative connotation intrinsic to your comparison. Feel free to continue stating otherwise, and convince who you may, but I for one am not convinced.

    I’m a douchebag, and Steve Nash is a tool according to you…. That made me smile. :-)

  • Steve

    “I attempted to do this by pointing out that Captialism allows business owners the freedom to pay whatever they deem to be a fair price for scarce resources.”

    If that’s the case, then you’re just completely wrong. There is a league minimum for veterans that is 5x as much as Childress should be making. That isn’t capitalism.

    Merit-based payment for goods and services can be a product of more than one economical system. Just because I support a merit-based reward system for NBA players doesn’t mean I’m an advocate of socialism. That’s a leap you can’t make logically, but thanks for trying. Non sequitur. My argument for socialism being the cause of the gross overpaying of players is that the NBPA is controlling the production and distribution of goods and strong-arming the owners because the owners are morons who can’t figure out they’re way richer and more powerful than the goons they hire.

    You’re completely ignoring my argument and setting up a false argument in its place or a misrepresentation of my comments. Straw man, red herring.

    And fyi, my commentary on Steve Nash happens to be what the majority of the nation was thinking (or at least a portion large enough to make the NBPA immediately backtrack on their “LETUSPLAY” nonsense). Steve Nash (along with the rest of the NBPA) immediately started apologizing to the millions of Americans who are out of work and don’t have millions in their bank accounts to back them up. They backtracked because they realize nobody who has a brain will have any sort of sympathy for someone who makes an average of $5M annually. They backtracked because they realized that everyone in the country has seen this coming since February, at the latest, and all the NBPA did between then and now is “brace” for the coming lockout that they had been planning all along.

    Steve Nash himself realized how much of an idiot he was for his LETUSPLAY tweet (either that or the NBPA made sure he recanted). So you would vilify me for pointing out the obvious that you have seemed to miss?

    Come on man, there’s gotta be something more to your position than this. The only argument that you have made that holds any water is correctly pointing out that I referred more closely to communism than socialism in my response to you. And even then, you continued on to make the false claim I already pointed out earlier (that I support socialism simply because I support merit-based payscales, as if capitalism does not also support merit-based pay scales).

    I know this is just the internet, but please, don’t say anything if you can’t add something intelligent to the conversation. You attacked me for continuing along with a train of thought that I didn’t even start, then I called you out for it so you felt the need to built straw men and cast red herrings, I called you out on that… what’s your next move?

  • Arthur

    Robert Sarver can clear his name when he hires a real GM who can evaluate and keep talent.

    Let Sarver surround his next All-star point guard with talent and then have Sarver commit to keeping that talent intact for its full championship run window.

    But instead, Sarver is what he is, a suit who is banking smart and basketball stupid and has the habit of proving this whenever sportswriters tend to be nearby with microphones or notebooks.

    Sarver can “clear his name” with prolonged silence and a Finals series run, but none of this is likely to happen.

  • Momochi Sandayu

    I am merely quoting your exact words, and explaining why they are wrong. Once again you’re using high marked language without understanding the true meaning.

    There is no “straw man” as I have only given definitions, and refuted direct quotes from you.

    Please point out what my “red herring” was too as I’m having trouble finding it. I didn’t misrepresent any facts in an attempt to bolster a misleading conclusion.

    I did give an unintended “non sequitur” where I insinuated you support Socialism due to it sharing characteristics you’re a proponent of. I would guess you got that one right merely because you gave every talking head buzzword possible, and were lucky enough to get one to stick.

    Ironically you seem to be using the “proof by verbosity” logical fallacy, in addition to introducing so many side arguments you’re muddling the picture of what this was all about (from my perspective).

    To quote you again: “My argument for socialism being the cause of the gross overpaying of players is that the NBPA is controlling the production and distribution of goods and strong-arming the owners because the owners are morons who can’t figure out they’re way richer and more powerful than the goons they hire.”

    I am shocked if you truely believe that statement. They determine who plays for which teams? They determine who makes it into the NBA? That is more than slightly off base, that is lunacy.

    Here is what you originally stated, and was my original quote: “LeBron James is probably worth over $50M to his team. Josh Childress is probably worth less than $200k to his. It is socialism that got us to the point that Josh Childress makes a third of what LeBron James makes (talking salary here, obviously). That’s totally wrong, and it’s painfully obvious.”

    Do you know what the veteran minimum is in the NBA? It currently takes 5 years to get to a $1 million minimum salary. A far cry from the bloated $5-8 million contracts for what are essentially role players that people are taking issue with. You must be a much more clever man than I for determining that the presence of a league minimum in salary negates the principle of Capitalism that lets the market determine prices paid for goods (translation: role players making $5 – 10 million). A situation you equated with “Socialism”. PLEASE read this paragraph several times and let it sink in for your own sake.

    It seems to me you emotionally apply the words “Capitalism” and “Socialism” to things you like or don’t like, instead of logically by their definitions.

    For the record, I didn’t attack you. I corrected you. If you want to become smarter you need to be man enough to tolerate people questioning, and/or correcting you better than you have with this discussion. And yes, its very unfair that I am only talking to you… :-(

  • Steve

    I was going to tl;dr you, but I figured, “What the hay, this is worth a few more laughs.”

    I’ll address a few of your claims.

    1. “I am merely quoting your exact words, and explaining why they are wrong.”

    Your first reply to me didn’t include one “quote.”

    Here’s your quote from your second reply:

    “LeBron James is probably worth over $50M to his team. Josh Childress is probably worth less than $200k to his. It is socialism that got us to the point that Josh Childress makes a third of what LeBron James makes (talking salary here, obviously). That’s totally wrong, and it’s painfully obvious. ”

    After quoting this, you went onto explain that because I support salary based on demand, I support socialism (as if there is no other economical model that pays people according to their production). Here’s what you said, just so you don’t accuse me of putting words into your mouth:

    “Your complaint that Josh Childress doesn’t deserve to be paid a certain amount based on his contribution/merit means you’re actually an advocate of… wait for it… Socialism!”

    Here’s one of your quotes from your third reply (the unique one):

    “My argument for socialism being the cause of the gross overpaying of players is that the NBPA is controlling the production and distribution of goods and strong-arming the owners because the owners are morons who can’t figure out they’re way richer and more powerful than the goons they hire.”

    To which, you responded with another straw man by putting words into my mouth that were never part of my argument:

    “I am shocked if you [truly] believe that statement. They determine who plays for which teams? They determine who makes it into the NBA? That is more than slightly off base, that is lunacy.”

    I never said any of those things. That would be called a “straw man.”

    So, in your three replies, you quoted me twice (you didn’t quote me in your first reply), and immediately after quoting me, you twisted the words to build up an argument you could more easily counter.

    2. “Please point out what my “red herring” was too as I’m having trouble finding it. I didn’t misrepresent any facts in an attempt to bolster a misleading conclusion.”

    That’s not what a red herring is. It’s when someone deviates from the real argument by bringing up a separate argument that you feel would be easier to argue.

    First, I wasn’t even the first or second person to bring up socialism and capitalism. Second, that wasn’t the point of the article, and it wasn’t the point of ANY of the posts on this comment thread until you came along. You nit-picked an entire post, found the one thing unrelated to the topic at hand (and even you yourself argued that it was unrelated, which was the entire point of your post, so don’t try to say you didn’t), and tried to guide the conversation in that direction. That was just one example of a red herring that has gone on here.

    It’s when you ignore the real point to argue another point that really holds no weight with the topic at hand, and you’re guilty of it (and I guess I shouldn’t have even bothered to reply to your nonsense, but whatever, it’s just the internet). I don’t care to bring up any others because I don’t feel like writing a book tonight.

    3. “I would guess you got that one right merely because you gave every talking head buzzword possible, and were lucky enough to get one to stick.”

    A simple, “Yeah, you’re right, I was wrong,” would have sufficed, but I guess that’s a pretty good apology as far as the internet is concerned.

    4. “Ironically you seem to be using the “proof by verbosity” logical fallacy, in addition to introducing so many side arguments you’re muddling the picture of what this was all about (from my perspective).”

    I would hope that words like “straw man,” “red herring,” and “non sequitur” aren’t really so obscure that I’d be guilty of argumentum verbosium (oh crap, I did it again), but I guess that’s the world we live in today.

    Btw, I think it’s funny that you’re accusing me of throwing out every fallacy in the book in the hopes that one would stick, and in the next breath, you accuse me of committing the red herring fallacy in the next breath. Comical. Straight up internet fun right there. Anyone can say anything.

    5. “Do you know what the veteran minimum is in the NBA?”

    Yes, but I have a feeling you’re about to tell me anyway.

    “It currently takes 5 years to get to a $1 million minimum salary.”

    Right again.

    “A far cry from the bloated $5-8 million contracts for what are essentially role players that people are taking issue with.”

    And did anyone on this thread ever say anything to the contrary? My exact words were “the owners are morons who can’t figure out they’re way richer and more powerful than the goons they hire.” Sounds to me like I’m blaming the owners quite a bit for this whole mess as well, but you haven’t picked up on that part. And if you’ll also note, I never once said that capitalism DIDN’T get us in this mess. I have acknowledged time and again that owners have done their part to mess this thing up, I have just also stipulated that the NBPA holds quite a bit of the blame as well. Anyway, back to your crap…

    “You must be a much more clever man than I for determining that the presence of a league minimum in salary negates the principle of Capitalism that lets the market determine prices paid for goods (translation: role players making $5 – 10 million).”

    Why, thanks for the compliment. I don’t know if I can accept the honor. I’m not sure how much it really means coming from the internet. It’s kind of like YouTube money. It’s not real, is it?

    Well, enough with that, I already refuted this point (where again, you put words into my mouth that I never said. In fact, I said the OPPOSITE). So, straw man again. Btw, I should note that I’m not making a claim that my arguments are free of fallacies. That would be stupid to assume that. In this many words, I’m certain I’ve made a bad argument.

    6. “A situation you equated with “Socialism”. PLEASE read this paragraph several times and let it sink in for your own sake.”

    You’re assuming that the greatest contributing factor to high player salaries is the eagerness of owners to write checks (really, you’re close to assuming it’s the ONLY contributing factor, but I won’t put words into your mouth). I won’t beat a dead horse again, so I’ll just leave this one at that.

    Btw, the last part of that quote of yours was an “ad hominem,” which is another form of red herring. Just thought I’d let you know. And, in case your point was to win over your massive audience on this weeks-old thread, it would then be poisoning the well.

    Just so you know I’m not only trying to accuse you of fallacies, I noticed one of my fallacies from an earlier post. When I argued that a lot of people thought the “LETUSPLAY” campaign was ridiculously stupid and ignorant, that was ad populum. Saying “ad hominem” reminded me of that one.

    7. “It seems to me you emotionally apply the words “Capitalism” and “Socialism” to things you like or don’t like, instead of logically by their definitions.”

    “It seems” is actually a fine argument in my book. If it appears that way to you, I can’t argue with that. I think you’re wrong and really quite foolish for arguing with me about it, especially since I wasn’t the one to bring the terms into play, but I guess that’s just what “I think.”

    Also, it’s funny that you’re accusing me of not arguing logically. Whether or not I am, I think I have already sufficiently pointed out that your argument is fallacy-ridden.

    8. “For the record, I didn’t attack you. I corrected you.”

    A quote from your FIRST reply, before I even bothered to acknowledge your existence; a comment that I didn’t demand or call for.

    “…but its another to use baseless labels in an attempt to slander the side you don’t support.”

    If you want to pretend that wasn’t trolling, go ahead, but it doesn’t change the fact that your first statement was an attack that DARED me for a response. You set the bait, and since it’s the internet and nothing we say here really matters, I took it for the laughs.

    And, by the way, trolling IS an attack. You didn’t just say, “I think you are misunderstanding the true meanings of capitalism and socialism.” No, you accused me of baselessly slandering people (accusing me of ad hominem and red herring, so, in a way, you were the one to start this whole fallacy-point-out train).

    9. “If you want to become smarter you need to be man enough to tolerate people questioning, and/or correcting you better than you have with this discussion. And yes, its very unfair that I am only talking to you…”

    At least you recognize you’re the pot calling the kettle black. I’ll credit you for that.

    Listen, this has been a nice little internet fight, but I’m done with it. You don’t have a point that really holds ANY water, especially considering the fact that NO ONE cares whether the NBA’s economic model is closer to socialism, communism, capitalism, Keynesianism, or whatever other model you can think of. That was never the point. The point is that the system is broken, and both sides are to blame. Keep ignoring that and reply if you want, but you won’t hear from me again in this thread.