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

[Joey]

On one side, you've got a group of people that have become rich by understanding and dealing with negotiations like these ones. On the other side, you've got a group of people who make their living playing and training for sports. Most have very little understanding of business and have to hire other people to do the most basic financial transactions for them. I'm not surprised few of them understand what's going on.

And the fact that many of them are relying on what is apparently false information says a hell of a lot.

Personally, I don't see why ANY Raptor fan would side with the players. While I've never been one of those pessimistic fans that claim that Toronto can never compete because American players will never stay on the team, I do realize that Toronto cannot compete against cities like Los Angeles and Miami without some help from the NBA. That means allowing teams to pay their own free agents more to prevent them from leaving. It also means preventing the rich teams from being able to continue to pay as much salary as possible without being penalized severely.

Once again, I was talking about Etan Thomas. Not Nick Young or some punk who's to young to care.

And for you to say 'most don't understand' is pretty amazing, and very assuming.
I'm sure more than a few would take issue with a comment like that.

And for the umpteenth time, I am not on any side.
Just because I raise points in defense of the players, does not at all mean that I agree with or sympathize with their stance.
Just that I am able to empathize with their plight to be properly and proportionately compensated for the amount of money that they in turn make the owners.

[Tim W.]

You actually think you know more about the negotiations than someone who's livelyhood depends on it and has been involved in the talks since day 1?

On one side, you've got a group of people that have become rich by understanding and dealing with negotiations like these ones. On the other side, you've got a group of people who make their living playing and training for sports. Most have very little understanding of business and have to hire other people to do the most basic financial transactions for them. I'm not surprised few of them understand what's going on.

And the fact that many of them are relying on what is apparently false information says a hell of a lot.

Personally, I don't see why ANY Raptor fan would side with the players. While I've never been one of those pessimistic fans that claim that Toronto can never compete because American players will never stay on the team, I do realize that Toronto cannot compete against cities like Los Angeles and Miami without some help from the NBA. That means allowing teams to pay their own free agents more to prevent them from leaving. It also means preventing the rich teams from being able to continue to pay as much salary as possible without being penalized severely.

[mcHAPPY]

I see his questions as completely Rhetorical, and at the same time, revealing as to where they stand.

I don't believe his point was to try and justify their stance at all.

I saw it as simply offering up thinking points with which to help understand the players frustration.

I interpreted it differently. I appreciate your viewpoint but we'll have to agree to disagree.

Just because it is unbiased, does not necessarily mean it is concrete. haha
I don't really think anything floating around the media is 'concrete' to be honest.

It's so hard to tell whats 'spin' and whats 'fact'. From either side.

Unless he is willing to tarnish his credibility and reputation as a reporter, this is pretty concrete:

The D-League is not mentioned anywhere in the seven-page proposal that was delivered to the union on Friday — a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/sp...osal.html?_r=1

The NBA.com article also appears to be fairly concrete based on the information in the Howard Beck/NYTimes.com article as well.

[Joey]

The issue now becomes the attitudes and beliefs of Etan Thomas. The problem with Etan is for all his posturing and typing, he does not offer any credible sliver of quantitative information that gives insight in to the players position. I'm not sure you can fault jimmie for answering his questions that seem to be directed towards fans.

I see his questions as completely Rhetorical, and at the same time, revealing as to where they stand.

I don't believe his point was to try and justify their stance at all.

I saw it as simply offering up thinking points with which to help understand the players frustration.

There is a lot more concrete information out there today from NBA.com and Howard Beck at NYTimes.com.

Just because it is unbiased, does not necessarily mean it is concrete. haha
I don't really think anything floating around the media is 'concrete' to be honest.

It's so hard to tell whats 'spin' and whats 'fact'. From either side.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm more speaking directly about Etan Thomas, and jimmie seemingly believing he possesses more knowledge on the situation than the Executive First Vice President of the Union.

There is no doubt that there are a handful of players who are probably not fully informed on the matter. Which is a shame. But the vast majority are.
However, there is also no doubt that the media is far from portraying an 'accurate' version of the facts.
Because they just don't have them. They are simply given the scraps that are found amidst the Media Battle being fought between the Union and the Owners.

The only ones who truly know what is going on, are the ones who are there day in and day out. ie Etan Thomas.

Ah, I see what you are saying now.

The issue now becomes the attitudes and beliefs of Etan Thomas. The problem with Etan is for all his posturing and typing, he does not offer any credible sliver of quantitative information that gives insight in to the players position. I'm not sure you can fault jimmie for answering his questions that seem to be directed towards fans.

There is a lot more concrete information out there today from NBA.com and Howard Beck at NYTimes.com.

[Joey]

Actually Joey, I most definitely agree.

Take a look through the twitter accounts of NBA players. Look at the issues they are getting upset about. Look at the articles from the NYTimes, Sports Illustrated, and Sheridan Hoops stating from 'sources' that the NBPA has not kept members informed on the latest details from Thursday (and it is now Sunday!). Look at the articles and tweets from media people (I'm looking at you Ric Bucher) with incorrect information who are obviously pawns of agents.

I'm more speaking directly about Etan Thomas, and jimmie seemingly believing he possesses more knowledge on the situation than the Executive First Vice President of the Union.

There is no doubt that there are a handful of players who are probably not fully informed on the matter. Which is a shame. But the vast majority are.
However, there is also no doubt that the media is far from portraying an 'accurate' version of the facts.
Because they just don't have them. They are simply given the scraps that are found amidst the Media Battle being fought between the Union and the Owners.

The only ones who truly know what is going on, are the ones who are there day in and day out. ie Etan Thomas.

[mcHAPPY]

You actually think you know more about the negotiations than someone who's livelyhood depends on it and has been involved in the talks since day 1?

Thats a pretty bold stance Jimmie.

(The one I found really tough to read though, was where you somehow made it that the Presidents and GMs own the teams and shoulder all of the risk. I found that ... interesting.)

Actually Joey, I most definitely agree.

Take a look through the twitter accounts of NBA players. Look at the issues they are getting upset about. Look at the articles from the NYTimes, Sports Illustrated, and Sheridan Hoops stating from 'sources' that the NBPA has not kept members informed on the latest details from Thursday (and it is now Sunday!). Look at the articles and tweets from media people (I'm looking at you Ric Bucher) with incorrect information who are obviously pawns of agents.

[Bendit]

There is a kind of delicious irony when players like Etan Thomas complain about the restrictions being imposed on them. They must ask themselves why their union willingly accepts limits on the top-end players making no more than 25-30% of the team's cap. Why? Because it ostensibly allows a more equitable distribution of dollars available to the lesser players on the team and system in whole. This is no more different in many ways what the league is trying to enact to manage the distribution of profitability.

[Joey]

You actually think you know more about the negotiations than someone who's livelyhood depends on it and has been involved in the talks since day 1?

Thats a pretty bold stance Jimmie.

(The one I found really tough to read though, was where you somehow made it out that the Presidents and General Managers own the league and shoulder all of the risk. I found that ... interesting, and probably in need of some clarification.)

[jimmie]

Etan Thomas (bright guy, very thoughtful in general) also doesn't get it. This is why I'm skeptical that the players will come to their senses.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/s...r-negotiations

1. To his credit, David Stern can spin information with the best of them. That being said, I have not met one player who, after fully understanding the particulars of the NBA's proposal, concluded that this is an acceptable deal. So my question is, what will it take for the NBA CEOs to understand that they are not going to be able to manipulate the players through the media?

What about agents manipulating players without requiring the media? Owners aren't manipulating, they're stating and explaining their position. Why won't the players do the same? Because it's hard to rationalize turning down millions of dollars just for the sake of being able to choose where you live and work. Most of us regular folk don't have that luxury.

2. The NBA CEOs know that their proposed system functions as a hard cap, because no team will be willing to pay that strict a penalty for going over the luxury tax. Do they think the players can't see that?

No, they're not trying to put one past you, Etan. It's right there in black and white. It's the intent of the system change.

3. Do the NBA CEOs think the union can't see that this "new revision" is worse than the proposal they gave us last week, even though the "clock has stopped" on their ultimatum?

The new version IS better than the last one they presented you. Have you read it? Sounds like most of you haven't yet, and are relying on hearsay instead. It's pretty ridiculous when half your fans know more about the proposal than the players, and doesn't make you or your union look very professional.

4. Are the NBA CEOs convince the union can't figure out that the way in which they constructed and defined the mid-level exception, no team will ever use it?

Don't buy that for a second, but even if true, again -- that's why it's been designed that way. It's an "exception"; to be used in exceptional circumstances.

5. Did the NBA CEOs believe with Michael Jordan to the negotiating table we were going to be intimidated or awed to the point that this awful deal would start to look more attractive to us?

Not really important in any way. You players are way too emotional about a business negotiation.

6. David Stern obviously issued his "terrible deal now or even worse deal" later ultimatum because he wanted to scare the players into meeting his every demand. Did he really expect that his threat would cause the union to come running with apologies for being bad employees and beg him to let us go back to work?

I think he hoped so. But I think he also realizes you all are getting bad advice from your agents. Better question: do you really expect that your threats of decertification will cause the owners to come running back to you?

7. When the union was given the two options of a horrible deal now or an even worse deal later, why are people really surprised that we chose neither?

Not surprised, give the past couple of months. Disappointed you don't see the forest for the trees? Yes.

8. During recent negotiations, reporters continuously tweeted and wrote articles citing "anonymous sources" saying that we were closer to a deal then we actually were, or that progress was being made. Why do reporters keep giving false hope to fans?

If anything, the reporters are helping you by spreading the inaccuracies about the current proposal. Careful what you wish for. You guys seem to think you enjoy some swing with fans; check the polls - majority want you to accept the deal.

9. During the 1998 lockout, David Robinson made the statement after one of their failed negotiation sessions, "They don't negotiate. They tell you how it will be, and they don't want to listen to the players." Isn't it interesting how history repeats itself?

Yep. Isn't it interesting how you seem focused on facilitating it repeating?

10. When someone buys a fast-food franchise, they don't just get keys and a congratulations card. They receive instructions on how to successfully operate the business. Instead of the NBA CEOs attempting to create rules to save them from from themselves , wouldn't the NBA be better off with a training session by David Stern, teaching each NBA CEO how to successfully run his business and avoid the pitfalls of CEOs past?

Are you really that naive? Wall Street needs rules to avoid both idiocy and intentional system cheating. We saw where not having adequate controls got us in that scenario. Why do you think NBA owners would be any different? Do you try to get away with hand-checks and elbow digs when the ref isn't looking, even though you know it's "against the rules"? That's what I thought.

11. Why wouldn't the NBA consider a rollback on the salaries of the presidents and general managers who mismanaged their teams and were the ones ultimately responsible for their financial problems?

Ha ha! 1. Because they own the league. 2. Because they're also bearing all the risk. Player bear none. You get paid regardless of whether the team is making/losing money.

12. Political sportswriter Dave Zirin asked me if I thought the concession workers, parking lot attendants, janitors, food vendors, secretaries, scouts, trainers, mascots, dance teams and every other employee affected by this lockout would turn their anger on both sides and follow the lead of other protestors around the country. What if they start "Occupy the NBA?"

You actually think anyone cares that much? This is part of the problem. EGO.

13. If Occupy the NBA were to happen, would the occupiers see the NBA CEOs as the 1 percent who want to impose their corporate greed, power and will on their employees?

Yes. But see answer to next question. Both sides are greedy and petty, at the expense of fans and the ancillary employees that you mention above.

14. A few friends of mine told me that although they appreciated my support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, I would never be considered as part of the 99 percent (they made the distinction that I was more like the 5 percent). My question is, if an Occupy the NBA were to happen, would the players be lumped in with the 1 percent because of million-dollar salaries?

Yes. You ARE among the richest Americans, you ARE among the top percent. Don't you get why this makes it SO hard to have any sympathy with your cause?

15. While the issues raised by the Wall Street occupiers differ from the issues of this lockout, aren't there obvious parallels in power imbalance?

Parallels, maybe, but the first part of your sentence is more important. Very different issues. It's borderline insulting to people who really are affected by the gap between rich and poor that you even make this parallel. Have you players lost all sense of scale?

16. Who is in the same position of power as the 1 percent ? Who wants a bailout for their own mismanagement decisions? Who is more closely aligned with the corporate interests from which the Wall Street occupiers are looking to reclaim the country?

Yadda yadda. Owners are rich, greedy people who want it all. Players? Not much difference.

17. More than 46 million people are living below the poverty line, unemployment is at 9 percent, and those who are employed are in constant fear of losing their jobs. Many people are unable to make mortgage payments or buy their kids clothes, much less think of college tuition. And rumors are spreading that unless a deal is reached this week, David Stern will cancel games through Christmas, even as some fans don't know how they will celebrate Christmas. With that economic reality, what if we simply lose the fans altogether?

What are you saying here? Sign the deal and that problem goes away.

18. Do the NBA CEOs understand that if the fan base shrinks that could decrease game attendance, lower TV ratings, lower overall interest and reduce the overall value of each franchise?

Oh, I think they understand that very well. Do you? And who stands to lose more in that scenario? Contraction = fewer jobs for players. Lower revenues = lower contract values. Seems like you guys should be asking yourselves the same question.

19. Could the outrage of the fans push the negotiations along more effectively than any labor committee, union, board of governors or mediator?

Not so far. And if it did, I think you might be surprised where that outrage is directed.

20. Why does race always have to be injected into this power struggle? Do people understand that the only color the 1 percent care about is green? They have a lot of it, they want a lot more of it, and they will step on anyone's (black, white, brown, etc.) neck to get it.

Excuse me? Who brought race into this? As I remember it, it was your union's lawyer. Of course this is all about "green", on both sides. We get that. It's why we don't sympathize much with the players. You guys seem to want max salaries and freedom to play wherever you want. As mentioned above, regular folk don't get that. As you seem to understand yourself, a lot of us are struggling just to find a job, let alone one that pays us at the highest rate of anyone in the world doing the same job.

21. During the lockout of 1998, Michael Jordan famously said to Wizards CEO Abe Pollin "If you can't make a profit, you should sell your team." That was then and this is now. Why do people have difficulty understanding that he is no longer a player but currently joined at the hip with the rest of the CEOs of the NBA, who -- like Bank of America, Wall Street and the rest of the 1 percent -- not only want but expect a bailout for their own actions?

If owners took that advice, you all would have fewer places to play. Don't you get that it's not all on "bad management" but also on the system?

22. During the NFL's lockout, Troy Polamalu said, "I think what the players are fighting for is something bigger. A lot of people think it's millionaires versus billionaires and that's the huge argument. The fact is, it's people fighting against big business. The big business argument is, 'I got the money and I got the power, therefore, I can tell you what to do.' That's life everywhere. I think this is a time when the football players are standing up saying, 'No, no, no, the people have the power.'" Isn't it interesting how the common theme here is power and greed?

Again, on both sides. If you told me I could make $500,000 a year to do what I love to do, with full benefits and numerous other perks, and that money would be guaranteed for the next 5 years, I could retire at the end of that time and never work a day in my life again. I wouldn't bitch and complain that I wasn't making $750,000, or that I couldn't move to Florida for the same money. When you're making millions of dollars to play a kid's game, you don't get to play the "we're standing up to The Man" card.

23. If your boss came to you and said, "Listen, I know we are coming off of record overall profits as far as overall revenue and the most lucrative year in history but we have made some individual decisions that we are not happy with and we need you to take massive pay cuts. We need you to agree to construct the rules so that we can no longer make those mistakes, and we want you to make it easier for us to get rid of you if we choose." What would your reaction be? Would you say "Some money is better than no money," or would you gather the rest of your fellow employees and stand up for yourselves?

My reaction would be "Great. We know you guys can't control yourselves. but we also get that your success means more success for us. So if you think these new rules will help you control yourselves, and will still keep us atop the list of all pro team athletes in terms of salary and benefits while making the overall league healthier for all teams, then we can handle that."

[mcHAPPY]

Beck/NYT: Potential issues and misconceptions for union

Improvements for players:

But a review of the N.B.A.’s previous proposal and the revised offer does not support the claim. In many areas, the league improved its offer, albeit modestly.

For instance, the league is now proposing a higher midlevel exception for luxury-tax-paying teams — $3 million for three seasons, and available every year. The league had been proposing a $2.5 million exception for two seasons, and available every other year.

The league also increased the annual raises for “Bird” players.

And, at the union’s suggestion, the N.B.A. agreed that the 10-year labor deal could be terminated by either side after the sixth year, instead of the seventh.

Misconceptions or more concessions for players:

Two provisions could conceivably hurt players in the middle of the league’s salary structure. The league wants to ban luxury-tax-paying teams from using the full midlevel exception ($5 million) and from making sign-and-trade deals.

To partly compensate, the league last week created a new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two seasons, for teams that are just below the cap. In the past, teams with cap room were not permitted to use any exceptions, even after they surpassed the cap in a given off-season.

The league also proposed raising the minimum team salary to 90 percent of the salary cap by the 2013-14 season, which should increase spending by the more frugal franchises.

One of the N.B.A.’s new demands does leap out: a call for a 12 percent reduction in rookie and minimum-scale contracts, cutting them to 2007-8 levels.

That provision was not listed in the prior proposal, which was sent to the union Nov. 6.

Big issue, I think.

The ban on luxury-tax-paying teams using midlevel exceptions and sign-and-trade deals — a major concern to agents — may have a minimal effect. Since 2005, only four players have been acquired by luxury-tax-paying teams through sign-and-trade deals. Those teams used the full midlevel exception only nine times in that period.

Moreover, because the N.B.A. guarantees the players a set percentage of revenues — 50 percent, about $2 billion a year — any shortfall in total salaries has to be made up to the players.

The speculation about teams losing “Bird” rights seems to be based on a misreading of one particular provision governing teams that move into the luxury tax. The simple explanation is that if a team is going to cross the tax threshold using multiple exceptions, it has to sign its “Bird” player first.

I don't think this is any different that the cap holds free agents had on teams in the past. For example, for the Raptors to execute the Turkoglu trade, they had to renounce free agents at that time essentially meaning the Raptors lost the Bird Rights to re-sign the players.

As for the D-League, the N.B.A. does want to grant teams the right to send any player with up to five years experience to its minor league. However, that provision is not contained in the proposal that is now up for union approval. Rather, it is one of 30 to 40 secondary items that have yet to be negotiated. Those items are typically discussed after the main framework of a deal is approved.

Two way contracts were supposedly something agents have suggested in the past. It would suck for the 14-15th players on the roster but it would create more money for players 1-13. It would also allow development of a 'farm system' similar to MLB and the NHL.


Source: Howard Beck, NYTimes.com

[mcHAPPY]

Player reps to vote on revised version of NBA latest offer

When reached on Saturday night, however, Hunter told SI.com that his intention was to have the player representatives vote on a revised version of the NBA's latest proposal before moving forward.

"We will vote on the NBA's proposal," Hunter wrote in a text message. "The proposal will be presented with some proposed amendments."

Despite Stern's threat that this was a take-it-or-leave-it situation, players could simply ignore the parameters he has set forth and give the league a deal that they claim could be done.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1daoCYsbr

.

[mcHAPPY]

Loopholes of new agreement

The new agreement prohibits the extend-and-trade, but you are permitted to acquire a player with an expiring contract or an opt-out and then sign him to an extension after a six-month waiting period.

So, if a deal is reached, the Knicks could attempt to trade for Paul in December and technically be allowed to sign him to an extension by June, before he hits free agency.

This is not what I thought the Carmelo Anthony Rule or banning of extend and trade would entail.

Another loophole in the revised proposal that may benefit the Knicks later in the deal involves the midlevel exception. A team that goes into the free agency period under the luxury tax threshold may go over it to re-sign its own players and still use the full midlevel ($5 million). This is key for a team that may need one more critical piece for a title run.

In this exclusive case, similarly to NFL cap rules, the team would then have until Oct. 15 to get back under the tax threshold to be in compliance.

Source: Newsday


I'm starting to hope the players turn this deal down. I can see why some owners are as well.

[mcHAPPY]

This is my big reason why I generally favour the owners. What the players want tends to be the complete opposite of what most fans want. At least the one's who aren't fans of the Lakers, Chicago, Heat, Celtics or Knicks. Either the NBA gets rid of every team that players wouldn't want to go to, or they make rules that restrict player movement enough to be able to give those teams a fighting chance to compete with the more favoured cities, er, teams.

The union's interpretation of when a team crosses the luxury-tax threshold -- before it uses the full mid-level exception or after -- is part of the dispute. But most of the displeasure stems from the roadblocks intended to keep free-spending teams out of the marketplace for free agents.

The NBPA believes that its member should have to right to earn the same money, via equal cap exceptions, wherever they choose to play. The league wants to direct free agents to franchises whose rosters are less stocked, in cities that might not be the most alluring. It contends that -- because the BRI split is guaranteed, a zero-sum game in which the players receive 50 percent (or whatever) as a group -- they will wind up with the same money, just paid more evenly across the league.

"It's the most important point for us on the competitive front," Stern said. "This is not going to be a league where, every year, L.A., Boston, Dallas, New York and potentially Brooklyn are going to be the competitors because they have the most money. That's what this negotiation is about on the system.

"We're going to be able to tell fans in Milwaukee or Indiana or Sacramento that because we have a system that compresses salaries -- that is to say, the same amount will be paid but it will be distributed more evenly over teams and will be accompanied by revenue-sharing -- it will be a better league because of it. More teams competing and, probably, generating more revenue in which the players will share."

Stern said the biggest misperception among players and some fans about the current offer is that it "would eliminate the middle class, which is of course false." He said the proposed exceptions allow for movement to all teams (assuming the big spenders willingly incur the tax and the free agents accept lower salaries).

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...bor/index.html

That is another issue I have with players. They are not losing the opportunity to go to a certain market - they are losing the opportunity to go to that market at top dollar. Make a choice like everyone else.

[mcHAPPY]

Stern addresses decertification

And Stern told reporters in a phone interview on Saturday that the crowds pushing for decertification are the ones that concern him most.

"By some combination of mendacity and greed, the agents who are looking out for themselves rather than their clients are trying to scuttle the deal," Stern reportedly said. "They're engaged in what appears to be an orchestrated Twitter campaign and a series of interviews that are designed to deny the economic realities of the proposal."

"No one talks about the rise in compensation under the deal, no one talks about the amount of money being spent. ... I just think that the players aren't getting the information, the true information from their agents, who are banding together, sort of the coalition of the greedy and the mendacious, to do whatever they can not to have fewer opportunities for the agents to make money."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1daXbIT1S

The NBA in August filed a lawsuit with the NLRB, asserting not only that the lockout is legal but also that decertification of the union is not and would result in the possible voiding of existing player contracts. All of which has Stern concerned.

"Yes, I am worried," Stern said, "because they're talking up this thing called decertification which is not a winning strategy on the one hand. On the second hand, it'll take three months to teach them it's not a winning strategy, which would not augur well for the season.

"The agents misunderstand it and all it does is delay things. They themselves think that if the players decertify, then the league will change its offer. And that will not happen as a result of decertification. It's a losing strategy for them."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1daXmDdpU

Obviously Stern is putting the NBA spin on this. Time will tell but I don't think decertification helps the players.

Weighing the pros and cons of decertifying the union, or turning to a disclaimer-of-interest in which the NBPA basically recuses itself from negotiations, would be the players' next big consideration.

Such a move, in theory, could provide some leverage if talks continued while the union dissolution played out in the courts. Then again, it could backfire, either failing in court or creating chaos that could cost the entire 2011-12 season -- and perhaps much more.

"This talk about decertification," Stern said, "would be one last violent effort by the agents to destroy the season, cause their clients to lose the money for this season and destroy $4 billion in guaranteed contracts that exist. Because if the union doesn't exist, the contracts aren't going to exist." The NBA already has filed a lawsuit arguing that point, which the NBPA has challenged.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...bor/index.html