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

[mcHAPPY]

I'm pretty sure that any anti-trust suit filed by NBA players would be far more comprehensive than the lockout issue. I assume they would challenge the draft, salary cap and free agency restrictions much like the NFL suit. What kills me is that there has been vertical collusion for decades between the PA and the NBA supported by the NBA cartel. Now, the players are going to use federal law, which gave them all the benefits of being able to collude with the owners, to punch the owners in the face. Bah, again, a pox on both their houses.... Neither deserve any sympathy.

On your last point, I can't imagine even the lead lawyers are confident of what will happen in litigation. I do believe that this will lead to further talks and a deal. I can't see either side risking the potential earthquake.

I agree with the sympathy. All the points you made are realities of pro-sports. WIthout the collusion there is no league of 30... maybe a league of 6.


The problem with the bolded section is seen in the very last thing Stern says in the ESPN interview I have linked in post 1579:

There is no one to negotiate with now (or as soon as the players follow through on threat). This goes to the courts to be resolved. The league is not budging. The players are going to lose '11-12 season and quite possibly much more with the very real possibility they come back to 47% (or less!) of BRI and a flex cap.

I am pro-owner because my wants as a fan align with theirs as owners but what the players are looking at doing is ridiculous.

As Stern said, Kessler is taking the same argument which he LOST with the NFL on appeal. The players are nuts.


I do hope you are right and it leads to a negotiation in the next day or two before the players dissolve the union because, if not, this goes to the lawyers and what is a bad situation will only get much worse.

[Tim W.]

That is not true. There are huge restrictions on player movement in Free Agency, greater than ever.... not on the players themselves, but on the teams. And that in turn restricts the players ability to move to a team.

And the 2nd line is the exact opposite of what the players and owners are seeking. The players want as much choice as possible... the owners want to limit that choice by players by an amount that they see as reasonable.

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.

[mcHAPPY]

The new CBA has a much greater tax which limits both a teams willingness and ability to sign FAs... and thereby limits a players movement.

Players can not, and never could, play wherever they wanted. They have always been limited by an owners decision to take on a player. The new CBA is forcing the owners to, at a certain point, make greater sacrifices than ever before in order to make that decision, and thereby putting greater limitations on the player.

This is not a statement on the hard cap, or the harder tax, system or the rightness of wrongness of it. But this is the reality of the new CBA as is... players will have less choice, not more.

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.

[slaw]

I'm not going to pretend I know what the outcome of a legal dispute concerning anti-trust would be. However, one thing that seems to be fairly certain is this case for the players is far from a slam dunk. Their case is based on the league not negotiating in 'good faith'. The league can come right back with the same argument. Plus the league can claim this is a negotiating tactic. If I am a player I am starting to sweat.


I really do hope the league and the players have one more conversation before the A-bomb is detonated.

I'm pretty sure that any anti-trust suit filed by NBA players would be far more comprehensive than the lockout issue. I assume they would challenge the draft, salary cap and free agency restrictions much like the NFL suit. What kills me is that there has been vertical collusion for decades between the PA and the NBA supported by the NBA cartel. Now, the players are going to use federal law, which gave them all the benefits of being able to collude with the owners, to punch the owners in the face. Bah, again, a pox on both their houses.... Neither deserve any sympathy.

On your last point, I can't imagine even the lead lawyers are confident of what will happen in litigation. I do believe that this will lead to further talks and a deal. I can't see either side risking the potential earthquake.

[GarbageTime]

The restrictions are on teams AFTER free agency. The restrictions on a team AFTER it uses a full MLE for the season that directly follows is they cannot go in to luxury tax zone - a zone which 7 of 30 teams went in to. Come July 1st the next year, the restriction is gone unless they wish to give another full MLE. If they give a mini-MLE there is no issue.


The players have as much choice as before and probably more. There are 3 exemptions (full MLE, mini-MLE, and the new $2.5M) for the middle class - plus the bi-annual exemption still for non-tax payers. Players can play where ever they want - they just might not get as much money in one place versus another. For just about every other professional in the world, that is a reality - clearly it is a reality NBA players should not have to face in their opinion.

The new CBA has a much greater tax which limits both a teams willingness and ability to sign FAs... and thereby limits a players movement.

Players can not, and never could, play wherever they wanted. They have always been limited by an owners decision to take on a player. The new CBA is forcing the owners to, at a certain point, make greater sacrifices than ever before in order to make that decision, and thereby putting greater limitations on the player.

This is not a statement on the hard cap, or the harder tax, system or the rightness of wrongness of it. But this is the reality of the new CBA as is... players will have less choice, not more.

[mcHAPPY]

Stern: NBA has negotiated in good faith; season in jeopardy

Posted Nov 14 2011 3:35PM

NEW YORK, November 14, 2011 -- NBA Commissioner David Stern has issued the following statement:

"At a bargaining session in February 2010, Jeffrey Kessler, counsel for the union, threatened that the players would abandon the collective bargaining process and start an antitrust lawsuit against our teams if they did not get a bargaining resolution that was acceptable to them.

"In anticipation of this day, the NBA filed an unfair labor practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board asserting that, by virtue of its continued threats, the union was not bargaining in good faith. We also began a litigation in federal court in anticipation of this same bargaining tactic.

"The NBA has negotiated in good faith throughout the collective bargaining process, but -- because our revised bargaining proposal was not to its liking -- the union has decided to make good on Mr. Kessler's threat.

"There will ultimately be a new collective bargaining agreement, but the 2011-12 season is now in jeopardy."

Source


League issues short reply to NBPA decision today.


Stern interview with ESPN after NBPA announcement today:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=723...goryid=2459788

"Nuclear Winter"

[mcHAPPY]

Not sure why the players waited so long to fire their only bullet. They should have done this on July 2. Hopefully, this will lead to further attempts at a deal.

As a sidenote, if I'm Buss/Dolan/Cuban right now I'm on the phone to David Stern making sure that Paul Allen, Sarver, Jordan and Leonsis or the NBA are going to be indemnifying me for any costs associated with the anti-trust suit. Seems fair. They wanted to play chicken with the players confident the PA would fold, they should pay for it. Especially if armageddon happens and I have to cut a check for $200,000,000.

It should be noted the players have refused to negotiate on a number of 'blood' issues.

I'm not going to pretend I know what the outcome of a legal dispute concerning anti-trust would be. However, one thing that seems to be fairly certain is this case for the players is far from a slam dunk. Their case is based on the league not negotiating in 'good faith'. The league can come right back with the same argument. Plus the league can claim this is a negotiating tactic. If I am a player I am starting to sweat.


I really do hope the league and the players have one more conversation before the A-bomb is detonated.

[Bendit]

Not sure why the players waited so long to fire their only bullet. They should have done this on July 2. Hopefully, this will lead to further attempts at a deal.

As a sidenote, if I'm Buss/Dolan/Cuban right now I'm on the phone to David Stern making sure that Paul Allen, Sarver, Jordan and Leonsis or the NBA are going to be indemnifying me for any costs associated with the anti-trust suit. Seems fair. They wanted to play chicken with the players confident the PA would fold, they should pay for it. Especially if armageddon happens and I have to cut a check for $200,000,000.

I am sure there are a few players wanting to play/take the deal. You are not suggesting that those for decertification indemnify the former for missed pay cheques or a lesser deal should they lose their law suit?

[Bendit]

This fast track decertificaton...did the all the players have a vote on it...were there more than half the membership signatures gathered?

[slaw]

Not sure why the players waited so long to fire their only bullet. They should have done this on July 2. Hopefully, this will lead to further attempts at a deal.

As a sidenote, if I'm Buss/Dolan/Cuban right now I'm on the phone to David Stern making sure that Paul Allen, Sarver, Jordan and Leonsis or the NBA are going to be indemnifying me for any costs associated with the anti-trust suit. Seems fair. They wanted to play chicken with the players confident the PA would fold, they should pay for it. Especially if armageddon happens and I have to cut a check for $200,000,000.

[mcHAPPY]

Couldn't agree more. The reality is there is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from making a bad choice.

But this was something I said before the lockout even started. Regardless of how this ends up.... both sides will find a way to screw the system again.

The stretch permits a team to fix a mistake with a minimal cap hit.

Everybody makes a mistake but a franchise should not be crippled because of it.

The player still gets paid, the franchise can move on - maybe with out the front office though.

[Bendit]

Bosh bolting made the Raptors one of the most talent depleted teams last year but the Heat saga made for one of the very best seasons ever with the highest BRI to date.

I dont quite understand how the BRI would have escalated solely due to that phenomena...did gate receipts and the trio's merchandise rise that dramatically? Of what there is no doubt is of course the venom directed against the Heat and wanting them to fail...and lots of tv eyeballs. But wouldn't you say that such "interest" is the type that is so rooted in negativity and so one-sided (no one cared who they played...there was no balance in the rooting/interest) which strikes me as unsustainable long term. Much better I think to have a Wade led team go toe to toe with a James led one.

[mcHAPPY]

That is not true. There are huge restrictions on player movement in Free Agency, greater than ever.... not on the players themselves, but on the teams. And that in turn restricts the players ability to move to a team.

And the 2nd line is the exact opposite of what the players and owners are seeking. The players want as much choice as possible... the owners want to limit that choice by players by an amount that they see as reasonable.

The restrictions are on teams AFTER free agency. The restrictions on a team AFTER it uses a full MLE for the season that directly follows is they cannot go in to luxury tax zone - a zone which 7 of 30 teams went in to. Come July 1st the next year, the restriction is gone unless they wish to give another full MLE. If they give a mini-MLE there is no issue.


The players have as much choice as before and probably more. There are 3 exemptions (full MLE, mini-MLE, and the new $2.5M) for the middle class - plus the bi-annual exemption still for non-tax payers. Players can play where ever they want - they just might not get as much money in one place versus another. For just about every other professional in the world, that is a reality - clearly it is a reality NBA players should not have to face in their opinion.

[mcHAPPY]

I don't disagree with what Matt stated here, and Matt has a much greater knowledge of the inner workings of the final proposed offer, but won't the Miami Heat syndrome where 2 superstars gravitate to join another star through free agency be almost a fiscal impossibility in this deal as it stands?

Check out the NBA's own sample roster in the very last frame at 1:15 of the NBA's youtube video from the weekend:

Bosh bolting made the Raptors one of the most talent depleted teams last year but the Heat saga made for one of the very best seasons ever with the highest BRI to date.

If a player was willing to take MUCH less than far market value, then it would still be a possibility.

That comes back to the idea of a choice. There is no restriction on player movement. There is a restriction on money available for players who move.


So for the max player looking to hook up with his 'bff's', assuming a $15M starting salary, he could take 4 years and $63.2M (3.5% annual raise) from the team with cap space or he could take 5 years and $85.4M (6.5% annual raise) from his current team.

[GarbageTime]

That is a good point.

No matter the system there is going to be bad decisions made.

The stretch provision could help a team that makes a mistake.

Couldn't agree more. The reality is there is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from making a bad choice.

But this was something I said before the lockout even started. Regardless of how this ends up.... both sides will find a way to screw the system again.