NBA Lockout: The Owners Had a Plan, the Players Did Not

The owners are wrong in that they are trying to repair an illusion they created in 1999.

Basketball is a business, but rarely do businesses renegotiate contracts to the extent the NBA is asking.

While players should understand they've been woefully overpaid for years, asking them to take a pay cut is an exercise in futility. However, one fact remains the reason NBA owners have taken such a hard line stance:

Players are employees. Employees can be replaced.

By disbanding the union, owners can negotiate and sign players for whatever the free market will dictate. In theory, LeBron James could be signed for $10 million a year, along with a percentage of basketball related income.

Disbanding has negated the hard line stance the union declined to soften. By allowing owners to continue lining their pockets by paying for superstars, they have failed the mid level players they vowed to protect.

The players believe that by dissolving the union, they've shown solidarity with one another and will remain united throughout. One player signing on the free market will crumble the solidarity the union believes it has.

The owners had this plan all along: it was never about competitive balance or allowing small market teams to compete. The casual fan is drawn to superstars, and the wealthiest owners can now afford these players without having to adhere to a collective bargaining agreement.

This is a mistake of epic proportions, and the players who Derek Fisher was supposedly representing will come back to the league agreeing to a deal that is even worse than the one they rejected today.