Josh Childress Says Risks Involved For Players Going Overseas During Lockout

by Kris Willis on Jul 13, 2011 12:26 PM EDT

Former Atlanta Hawks forward Josh Childress was once considered somewhat of a pioneer for taking his talents overseas to play with Olympiacos. Now he can't understand why a player would entertain the thought of going to Europe if they already had a contract in the states.

‘No, I wouldn’t,’ he says. ‘And I don’t know why guys would. I understand that guys really want to play. But you sometimes have to look at what you have and treat this as a business. The only way I could see it making sense is if you’re a player from a particular country going back. But for an American player with a good-sized guaranteed deal here, I can’t see why you’d do it.’

We have talked about the risks associated before. A player like Deron Williams isn't likely to get a lot of static from the Nets because they have hopes of resigning him in the future. However, a player such as Childress that has a big contract and didn't exactly perform as expected last season could have a lot to lose if he ventured to Europe and suffered a major injury.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm surprised they keep saying Europe...

I’d have expected a couple to look towards China and the oft-reported enormous marketing potential that goes with it.

http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Jul 13, 2011 1:32 PM EDT reply actions

Maybe I'm missing something

Isn’t going overseas also about winning the best CBA, not just about a love of the game? That is, isn’t it a way to help players make ends meet while the paychecks aren’t coming in, and thus something that would help the players union’s negotiating position? I understand that the money isn’t nearly as good as it is in the States, but that isn’t the point: it might be enough to tread water for long enough to get a better CBA.

In all labor disputes, the resolution revolves around who can hold out the longest. If enough players can defray their costs of living for an extended period of time, they can seriously affect the shape of the negotiations—because one side’s desperation will eventually lead to the end of the lockout.

Perhaps this too simple, and I’m being obtuse—it wouldn’t be the first time. Perhaps, in fact, the fundamentals of the two sides’ negotiating positions will remain unchanged regardless of how many NBA players leave for Europe. But it seems to me that right now the fundamentals of the situation heavily favor the owners, in large part because most players can’t go a full season, or even a few months, without paychecks. We saw that twelve years ago. And if that’s true, then this story is probably about more than Childress’s assumption “that guys really want to play.”

by Adam80 on Jul 13, 2011 2:05 PM EDT reply actions

As if a lot of the players need additional income to tread water

I know some of the guys on the lower end of the pay scale might but nothing infuriates me more than to refer to them as they need to make ends meet.

I can promise you my “making ends meet” is a completely different thing that someone playing in the NBA’s “making ends meet”

Correct me if I am wrong but why should the owners care if the players goto Europe? They all know that they will return as soon as the lockout is over and if they were to get injured then they might not have to pay. Sure it would hurt them if a LeBron or someone got hurt but it is also unlikely that those guys are going. The only way it hurts is if the big names sign exclusive deals without out clauses to return.

@Kris_Willis

by Kris Willis on Jul 13, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Whoa, I'm not justifying it

I’m just speaking in labor terms.

Look, I’m a poor graduate student. For both ideological and personal reasons, I find the salaries that professional athletes make to be deeply troubling, and it generally is one of the two things that give me pause about my fandom. But the fact remains: a lot of these guys live paycheck to paycheck. I have no idea how that’s possible; it blows my mind. It is, however, an undeniable truth, as evidenced not only by the dire financial straits of a number of former players as well as by the example of the last lockout, where we learned not only that many players couldn’t keep going but that the owners were well aware of it.

The reason owners should care about Europe, in theory, is that if enough players bolt then they can undermine the purpose of the lockout—which, as in ALL lockouts, is to wait for the employees to get hungry enough to make the concessions you demand. This is the nature of work stoppages. It’s true in all industries, and it has been true in the history of American labor. If most of the players could legitimately live the next two years without another paycheck, the owners would have no leverage. But the owners do have leverage, or at least they think they do. The existence of another labor market could well be a deeply complicating factor for them. My question was simply whether that was true or not.

Lebron won’t go anywhere, but he’s not relevant here. The NBA needs him as much as he needs the NBA. The guys who will determine whether the players concede now or in 2 months or in 12 months are the guys who need the NBA more than the NBA needs them. The rest of the league. Many of these guys may be rich by normal standards—disgustingly, embarrassingly, in some ways tragically rich—but they’re still the rank and file of the players union, and their ability to hold out is what will determine who “wins” the lockout.

by Adam80 on Jul 13, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions

But you don't waste money like they do either Kris...

as said as it seems, and as hard as it is for people like you and me, these multi-million dollar salaries rarely set up players for life. For the smart ones, it does, but most are not very smart.

http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Jul 13, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

But Sanchez we as a society do waste money like millionaires. Or I do.

Look at the number of people rich or poor who end filing for bankruptcy everyday. Some of it is due to tough situations. But a majority of it is living outside of your means. The description of how Mike Vick owed so many people even though he had a “big” contract made me realize that. And I won’t just single out ball players as we have owners (Dodgers/Kings anyone ?) who have blown more money than I could imagine.

And I agree with Adam80. Let’s say the avg NBA player did prepare for a lost season, thats pretty much the majority of the NBA union. (The superstars are only a small percentage I think). I really don’t think the owners believed the players would and could holdout for an entire season. Along with preparing wisely the ability to play overseas would be welcome source of income.

by xavip on Jul 13, 2011 4:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

good points

http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Jul 13, 2011 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I think it's a littlevposturing by the players that may work.

If I was the owner of The Knicks, Nets, or Thunder I would be nervous if our franchise guy played any games overseas. Who cares about the Zaza’s going over there? Nobody. And really just imagine if KD went overseas and broke his foot. You really think OKC is voiding his contract and making him a free agent? No.
Now there is a money issue involved in this also. I think if enough players could find a place to play to at least earn enough to get thru 11-12 season then the risks are worth it.

by xavip on Jul 13, 2011 2:20 PM EDT via mobile reply actions