Originally Posted by Real Men Wear Green
The logic behind locking players out is that when these guys aren't making any money they will capitulate just for the sake of earning a paycheck again. Especially some of these guys with fleets of luxury cars getting bottle service in the VIP every night with pet tigers and other such bullshit. If players are earning money during the lockout the Union will be able to hold out longer and thus get a better deal if the owners are truly willing to kill a season. You actually have it backwards: the more players that are willing to go overseas, the better it is for the NBPA because it shows the owners that they aren't the only option, that they have to compete for the services of the best players in the world.
Players look greedy? Lockouts/strikes always make both players as well as owners look greedy, why is a guy finding another job when his current employer won't let him work make him look any worse? Barely anyone will see things that way. When a lockout happens the players owe their teams that refuse to let them train/practice/play at their facilities and more importantly, aren't paying them any money in spite of their contracts, no loyalty whatsoever. It's for the individual player to decide whether or not he's willing to play in a different league. Williams isn't a bad guy for going to Turkey just like STAT isn't a bad guy for his decision to stay exclusive to the Knicks. It's not a moral decision, it's a business decision.
Amazing point. It's really just about point of view. Most casual fans look at a lockout and they think greed. Which yeah is true, but only to an extent. It's business negotiations. I think it really depends on what kind of fan you are (hardcore, casual or in between) and what your favorite team is.