Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ezz_bee
    replied
    Twitter is over capacity so I can't post the link but got this on my cell phone

    @johnhollinger: RT@ekoreen: The NBA accusing the players of negotiating in bad faith is like the pot just completely lacking self-awareness
    made me chuckle. But I'd say it would work both ways

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Via HoopsHype.com:

    Derrick Williams: Like my boy Kemba said .. Been broke all out lives .. So it ain't nothing new. Twitter

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    again not true. Both the salary cap and tax restrictions are limiting a players ability to go where they may 'choose' to go because its limiting and restricting an owners ability/willingness to sign any player within certain criteria.

    If every team had X amount of cap space available, in every given year, and were willing to use it, or every owner gave no regard to the tax, then what you said would be true. But that is not the case, nor will it be the case. The less ability any owner is given, it inevitably results in less choice for the players.

    And I have no sympathy for anyone. None of these owners are hard up or going broke. They all have more money than, likely, everyone I know combined and can live beyond what most of us could even call comfort. The players make more money they need to do a job most would love to do. I don't see how anyone could have any sympathy for anyone in these negotiations.



    It does not matter if it only effect 1 or 4 or 30 teams. It does not matter if it effects 1 or 5 or 450 players. Less choice is less choice. And it is, without question, NOT more choice.

    Good point. However this is a good example of the best interests of the league and its fans coming before the best interests of players. My quoted point is essentially what players are taking a 4 billion dollar ($4,000,000,000) on in guaranteed contracts, at minimum another $120M a year in BRI, and a true hard cap system being implemented. The risk they are taking is RIDICULOUS in my opinion once one breaks down the true implications of what the league was offering.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    This notion that the proposal limits the ability for players to choose where they want to go is completely bogus. I wrote a blog post about it, but basically, they need to learn the difference between and incentive and restriction. If a player wants to make top dollar, then there are restrictions on where he can go, which is how the NBA is trying to level the playing field. Absolutely nothing is stopping players from going where they want to go except their desire to combine that with making as much money as they can. They have to choose between making top dollar and freedom of choice. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for guys whining that they have to take a few million less (yet still MAKE millions) to be able to choose where they want to go. Especially when their ability to choose can completely devastate teams that aren't sought after destinations. THAT is why I don't side with the players at all on this.
    again not true. Both the salary cap and tax restrictions are limiting a players ability to go where they may 'choose' to go because its limiting and restricting an owners ability/willingness to sign any player within certain criteria.

    If every team had X amount of cap space available, in every given year, and were willing to use it, or every owner gave no regard to the tax, then what you said would be true. But that is not the case, nor will it be the case. The less ability any owner is given, it inevitably results in less choice for the players.

    And I have no sympathy for anyone. None of these owners are hard up or going broke. They all have more money than, likely, everyone I know combined and can live beyond what most of us could even call comfort. The players make more money they need to do a job most would love to do. I don't see how anyone could have any sympathy for anyone in these negotiations.

    There were numerous teams already unwilling to go in to the tax. Those who did often did not pass $75M. We are talking 3-4 teams here: NYK, LAL, DAL, and eventually MIA.

    Read the full CBA proposal - it is only 7 pages.

    What the 450 players are fighting for that will effect maybe 5 players per season is RIDICULOUS and will come down to a choice between the most money possible for a player and the place he wishes to earn it.
    It does not matter if it only effect 1 or 4 or 30 teams. It does not matter if it effects 1 or 5 or 450 players. Less choice is less choice. And it is, without question, NOT more choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • ezz_bee
    replied
    I can see that someone's opinion is that the NBA didn't bargain in good faith. I can also see how someone could have the opinion that the Union didn't bargain in good faith.

    However, what I can't see is anyone demonstrating that in a court of law, in a sufficient manner to convince a sitting judge. I don't take a bet unless i'm at least 90% sure I'm going to win and I'd give odds to anyone who wanted to place a bet that a judge would rule that either party was guilty of not bargaining in good faith.

    You'll see a judge convict Kobe of rape before you see a judge convict either party for not bargaining in bad faith.

    Buy hey, I guess that's just my opinion!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hugmenot
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    The other thing that hasn't been addressed (at least in my mind) is what is being done to prevent Mr. Owner from giving All-Star/ Starter money to Jamaal Magloire/ Eddy Curry/ Yogi Stewart over 4 years? Nothing at all. So the system will break itself in a few years, once again.

    As soon as one guy gets a deal that is out of whack with the market, the ENTIRE market is out of whack.
    It takes ONE bad contract to set the bar, and there is nothing preventing that from happening.
    Mr. Owner is free to give All-Star/Starter money to any player he chooses. But unlike baseball, there is no arbitration in basketball and thus Mr Owner is never forced by a third party to give All-Star/Starter money to a player who performs as well or better than an overpaid player.

    If the restrictions and financial penalties are harsh enough, the system will sustain itself despite the ever present bad contracts. Yes some players will be grossly underpaid/overpaid based upon their production but that's a risk whenever two parties agreed to multi-year guaranteed contract.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Good faith does not mean making your initial ridiculous proposal, slightly less ridiculous Matt.

    The players using the Expiring CBA as a Benchmark was NOT unrealistic. Thats Union Bargaining.
    And this is also where 'Good Faith' is measured from.
    And using the Expiring CBA as a benchmark, the Owners have NOT given up anything.
    there is really no specific measurement of 'good faith'. Neither the owners or players are required to be at any certain level. Giving or not giving concessions does not necessarily mean 'good faith' bargaining.

    The idea that a side is not bargaining in good faith would be that they had no desire to come to an agreement (regardless of what those results would be). Proving someone is not bargaining in 'good faith' is very difficult and, I think, very rare .... and will likely not be part of the criteria for any court decisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • RaptorDan
    replied
    I am very disappointed in this news. But at least this lock-out is about basketball. Soon in Toronto we will have to deal with a lock-out of city workers that will effect us much more significantly. We just went through an f'n garbage strike and now will will have to live through yet another? This is going to suck. While I can get by with college ball and football instead of the NBA just fine, having the whole neighbourhood's stinking garbage at the end of my street again will make me go insane. The number of bear sized raccoons trying to have babies in my attic are just starting to decrease, I can't bear to have a new vermin breeding ground/food orgy a block away.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Good faith does not mean making your initial ridiculous proposal, slightly less ridiculous Matt.

    The players using the Expiring CBA as a Benchmark was NOT unrealistic. Thats Union Bargaining.
    And this is also where 'Good Faith' is measured from.
    And using the Expiring CBA as a benchmark, the Owners have NOT given up anything.
    Given the losses the league had accumulated over every year of the previous CBA, keeping things the same is very much ridiculous in my opinion.


    The owners position has been to make a financially sustainable league and a league with more higher tier talent evenly dispersed. It is clear the players realized the first part but are indifferent on the second - which as a fan is much more important to me than the money.


    At the end of the day, there were only 22 people associated with the league that lost money last year and 5 of 6 years of the CBA championship winning teams were taxpayers. If I were in the shoes of owners, I too would be seeking the changes they are as would most people, players included.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    I disagree that the NBA has been bargaining in good faith.
    I also disagree that the NBA could claim the NBAPA has not been.

    This has been concessionary bargaining to the 'T' by the NBA, and they haven't given anything up, relative to the expiring deal.
    Any new CBA that comes about, will ONLY reflect what the players gave up.

    By having the players on the 'defense' from Day-1, it is not on them to provide the 'good faith'.
    I don't really know what "good faith" is. Both teams had issues that were non-negotiable and it now seem to have come to a head. The owners are the only ones at the table that can actually LOSE money through these negotiations, rather than just receive less. And if the players had their way, then major markets in warm climates would get the best players, and the smaller, colder cities would fight for the dregs the other teams didn't want.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    If you believe the league was not bargaining in good faith then they certainly did a good job of covering their tails. Read the CBA there were some things (such as rookie wages, cap holds, trade requirements, a new exemption that promotes teams to spend up to and above the soft cap, qualifying offers, wait periods for RFA - off the top of my head) that did improve things for players. The league also came very far from their initial proposals which would be concessionary.

    Both sides started with unrealistic expectations and moved towards each other.

    There seems to be confusion from fans, media, and players: the players do not own the league or the business.

    It took Bill Guerin a lost year and $9M to figure out "It is their league."
    Good faith does not mean making your initial ridiculous proposal, slightly less ridiculous Matt.

    The players using the Expiring CBA as a Benchmark was NOT unrealistic. Thats Union Bargaining.
    And this is also where 'Good Faith' is measured from.
    And using the Expiring CBA as a benchmark, the Owners have NOT given up anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Something just popped in to my head:

    Look at HoopsHype.com and read the number of players who are openly tweeting dissatisfaction with the union and the desire to accept the proposal. The union executives and player reps would not even let the membership vote on it.

    I'm sure the league will make note of this.


    *EDIT*

    As soon as I typed this, this article popped up on ESPN from TrueHoop.

    The last time the NBA and the players association met, the meeting ended early Friday morning with an offer from the league. The NBA then sent that offer in writing to every player, and quietly prayed that the union would let the players vote on it, expecting it would pass and the NBA season would begin.

    It never happened, however. Instead of putting the decision to 450 players, the union put the decision to 30 player representatives who, the union says, were unanimous in rejecting the deal and taking new legal action.

    As soon as that decision was announced, I asked union spokesman Dan Wasserman, who was standing in the back of the room next to attorney Jeffrey Kessler, why the union was turning to the group of 30 representatives.

    The union has three player bodies it can consult: The executive committee, the 30 elected representatives and the full membership. Why that middle body?

    I was asking what I thought was a fairly boring question. I would have been satisfied with a response about by-laws or somesuch. But Wasserman and Kessler blew up. I couldn't even finish the question before both were loud, gruff and dismissive.

    The gist of the response was that you cannot give your adversary direct access to the membership. "That's not how any union in America, that I'm aware of, operates," said Kessler. If the NBA is just going to send offers straight to the players, why even have a union? The idea is that the union is savvier, and knows a good deal when it sees one. And only when the union is sure that the deal is in players' best interests will they present it to the workers.

    Rockets guard Kevin Martin, by text on Monday morning, said he didn't care to represented that way: "I think it's fair for every player to have a vote, because we're all grown men and its time for the players to control their career decisions, and not one player per team. If it comes down to a final decision, you got to be fair."
    He added that other players he had talked to may or may not have voted for the deal the NBA had on the table, but "most feel like we're entitled to a vote!"


    To hear David Stern tell it, skipping that vote was a key misstep. Speaking to ESPN's "SportsCenter" he said: "The union decided in its infinite wisdom that the proposal would not be presented to membership. Obviously, Mr. Kessler got his way and we are about to go into the nuclear winter of the NBA."
    SOURCE: Union Makes Big Decision Without Polling Members
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 05:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    I disagree that the NBA has been bargaining in good faith.
    I also disagree that the NBA could claim the NBAPA has not been.

    This has been concessionary bargaining to the 'T' by the NBA, and they haven't given anything up, relative to the expiring deal.
    Any new CBA that comes about, will ONLY reflect what the players gave up.

    By having the players on the 'defense' from Day-1, it is not on them to provide the 'good faith'.
    If you believe the league was not bargaining in good faith then they certainly did a good job of covering their tails. Read the CBA there were some things (such as rookie wages, cap holds, trade requirements, a new exemption that promotes teams to spend up to and above the soft cap, qualifying offers, wait periods for RFA - off the top of my head) that did improve things for players. The league also came very far from their initial proposals which would be concessionary.

    Both sides started with unrealistic expectations and moved towards each other.

    There seems to be confusion from fans, media, and players: the players do not own the league or the business.

    It took Bill Guerin a lost year and $9M to figure out "It is their league."

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmie
    replied
    Not to mention that *where* a player plays has an impact not only on the team he's leaving and the one he's going to, but also on the system as a whole. For elite players, that impact is large, for role players, it's smaller. But collectively, the uneven dispersal of talent matters a great deal in the long-term health of the league.

    The owners are counting on the disincentives to player movement aiding in a more equal talent dispersal among teams. That's what's meant by "competitive balance" -- not that 'all teams have an equal chance to win a championship', but rather that they have an 'equal chance at acquiring the talent to compete for a championship'.

    Chris Paul will still have his choice of any team in the league that can afford to pay him under the rules of the new CBA. It might just not include NY, Miami, LA or Dallas, who have already paid through the nose for their chance to win a championship, and in the process, diluted the talent pool available, and increased the asking price for the remaining players, for everyone else. Which means CP will -- shudder -- have to choose from one of the other 20-25 teams offering him multimillions. In which case, the criteria for his choice will have to be some combination of variables: best chance to win x best salary offered x city he likes x best place to market himself, etc...

    There's plenty of choice. It's just not 'open market' choice. Because that doesn't work for all teams in a collective that relies on overall health vs. individual franchise health. Yes, the Miami fiasco DID push fant interest in the NBA to much higher levels than recent history, but it's not the kind of interest that is sustainable over time. Better competitive balance (as defined above) is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    I disagree that the NBA has been bargaining in good faith.
    I also disagree that the NBA could claim the NBAPA has not been.

    This has been concessionary bargaining to the 'T' by the NBA, and they haven't given anything up, relative to the expiring deal.
    Any new CBA that comes about, will ONLY reflect what the players gave up.

    By having the players on the 'defense' from Day-1, it is not on them to provide the 'good faith'.
    Last edited by Joey; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 05:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X