Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I disagree with the bolded.

    There is no restriction on player movement in free agency in the proposal. There is a restriction on making the most money possible in the location of the player's choice. Players will still have numerous opportunities to play where they want, it just won't be for top dollar.

    Big name players would be free to leave but they would have to take a 4 year deal with 3.5% raises versus a 5 year deal with 6.5% raises.


    This is all about choices and the players don't want to have to choose when it comes to free agency.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Employee
    replied
    tomhaberstroh Tom Haberstroh
    Marreese Speights' verified account. RT @Mospeights16 Why did the players do that ****
    The dude from Yahoo was reporting that Billy Hunter likes young player reps cause he can tell them what to do. Makes you wonder...

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • stretch
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I disagree with the bolded.

    There is no restriction on player movement in free agency in the proposal. There is a restriction on making the most money possible in the location of the player's choice. Players will still have numerous opportunities to play where they want, it just won't be for top dollar.

    Big name players would be free to leave but they would have to take a 4 year deal with 3.5% raises versus a 5 year deal with 6.5% raises.


    This is all about choices and the players don't want to have to choose when it comes to free agency.
    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.
    Last edited by stretch; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 04:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Lark Benson wrote: View Post
    I would LOVE to think that the owners will come back for more discussions, but I don't see it happening. They've positioned themselves perfectly by making it seem as if they were trying to bargain in good faith, with a deal that half their owners already think is too generous. They put the onus on the players and I wouldn't be surprised if the owners expected/wanted the players to reject the deal so that they can now hunker down with an offer that's significantly worse. To me this was all one big posturing stunt by the owners and not a real attempt at making concessions, because all the rhetoric was about the 50/50 split and not the real issues at the heart of it all: the 'system' mechanics restricting options for free agents.

    To me the owners seem to be working toward a league in which small market teams have a much, much better shot at retaining their big names by restricting their options in free agency. That's their idea of 'competitive balance'.
    I disagree with the bolded.

    There is no restriction on player movement in free agency in the proposal. There is a restriction on making the most money possible in the location of the player's choice. Players will still have numerous opportunities to play where they want, it just won't be for top dollar.

    Big name players would be free to leave but they would have to take a 4 year deal with 3.5% raises versus a 5 year deal with 6.5% raises.


    This is all about choices and the players don't want to have to choose when it comes to free agency.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lark Benson
    replied
    I would LOVE to think that the owners will come back for more discussions, but I don't see it happening. They've positioned themselves perfectly by making it seem as if they were trying to bargain in good faith, with a deal that half their owners already think is too generous. They put the onus on the players and I wouldn't be surprised if the owners expected/wanted the players to reject the deal so that they can now hunker down with an offer that's significantly worse. To me this was all one big posturing stunt by the owners and not a real attempt at making concessions, because all the rhetoric was about the 50/50 split and not the real issues at the heart of it all: the 'system' mechanics restricting options for free agents.

    To me the owners seem to be working toward a league in which small market teams have a much, much better shot at retaining their big names by restricting their options in free agency. That's their idea of 'competitive balance'.

    edit: that isn't to say that the players shouldn't have taken the deal. They should have, because there's no way in hell the next one is any better, despite whatever leverage they think they're going to get from the disclaimer.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Supposedly the union is looking to wait a few days to file the disclaimer of interest with the expectation the league comes back for another round of negotiations.

    The players called the owners bluff.

    What next?

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    In hindsight I guess it was a really, really smart move to draft Jonas now

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    "MEMO TO: NBA PLAYERS", NBA.com

    The Owners feel that the Players weren't being fed accurate information. This memo was their effort to right that wrong.
    Nice find Apollo.

    Stern does manage to come off as reasonable and of sound mind in the Memo; just seems to have grown tired of the bickering.
    Just trying to figure out if Stern is trying to save face with the players, now that the owners aren't all on board.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Nuclear option

    National Basketball Players Association executive director Billy Hunter said Monday the union has decided to end the collective bargaining process with the NBA and will soon file an antitrust lawsuit against the league.
    The union chose to reject the deal, and Hunter said he has issued a disclaimer of interest that will dissolve the union.

    Prior to Monday's NBPA meeting, the union was expected to reject owners' offer and issue a counterproposal.

    Source

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Stern's memo directly to the players:

    "MEMO TO: NBA PLAYERS", NBA.com

    The Owners feel that the Players weren't being fed accurate information. This memo was their effort to right that wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Stern doesn't have Owners' support on current offer?

    There’s a growing belief that Stern doesn’t have the ownership support to pass the very proposal he’s been pushing all weekend, and that owners would ultimately kill this deal with the list of non-negotiable B-list issues the players would oppose. This way, the league can say it worked hard to cut a fairer deal with players, but in the end, the owners will get the draconian ‘reset’ proposal that many of them have wanted all along.

    “A lot of teams – more all the time – don’t like the deal on the table,” one high-ranking league official said.
    Source: Yahoo Sports

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Soo kinda like .. Negotiating? Indeed. haha

    Of course the Threat of Decertification is posturing.
    But when you're up against the entity that is The NBA, you must utililize all cards in the deck.

    But as Larry Coon points out, if the players wanted to play the same game that the NBA is currently playing, this process would be a LOT uglier.



    And I also, was wholey disheartened by the amount of 'Twitter' present within the Negotiations.
    Its ridiculous.
    All true. But when it comes down to it this is always about who blinks first. And that is pretty much based on "who has most to lose" or least leverage. The players side has a starting disadvantage...numbers of their membership vs. the owners. They also have their agents. Difficult to maintain a unified posture. It's also now about not making the PA feel like they got whipped too badly. Personally I would ease up on the financial side of the agreement in a couple of areas.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Bendit wrote: View Post
    This is becoming like a house sale offer process. imo the decertification threat is posturing to squeeze the most. There is a about a 45 day wait before actual decertification occurs.
    The players are really calculating whether they want to miss another cheque.
    The 45 day wait is with decertification. The players are looking at disclaimer of interest which means the union stays in tact but it no longer represents the players in negotiations. Supposedly this is a much faster process with the same outcome if players are successful: the right to take the league to court with anti-trust law.

    Given how much strongly the league is pushing this and unwilling to bend, I think they feel the players accusation (negotiating in bad faith) will not hold given the compromises they have made and the union's very public 'blood issue' proclamations.

    The players should put out a counter proposal but be willing to accept deal as is if rejected ..... in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X