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

[Bendit]

Some more meat on the system issues "progress"

SYSTEM ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1:15 p.m.: TNT’s David Aldridge checked in with some informative information from New York that should help us prepare for today’s session:
Assuming no delays in the pre-meeting caucus each sides conducts with itself, the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association should be underway in their pivotal meeting in New York.
Sources have indicated that the sides made progress Wednesday on three of the five significant system issues that separate them. Those are believed to be the escrow account that the league has implemented since 2006 where a portion of player salaries are withheld and placed in escrow in case the players’ overall share exceeds their agreed-upon percentage (the league is looking for a 10 percent escrow commitment from players in the next collective bargaining agreement), the league’s “repeater tax” proposal that would add additional financial penalties for luxury tax paying teams that do so three or more times in a five-year period, and the so-called “cliff” issue, with the union concerned that teams that are marginally and infrequently tax payers get punished financially under the league’s proposals just as badly as teams that are tax paying recidivists.
It is not known how much progress was made on those issues, though a source indicated Thursday morning that the moves were incremental rather than substantial, a view also expressed by the union’s executive director, Billy Hunter, in his post-meeting remarks early Thursday.
That would leave mid-level exception use for taxpayers and the ability of tax payers to execute sign-and-trade deals as the two significant issues that still aren’t close to being solved.
The NBA wants to limit tax paying teams to a “mini mid-level” exception that would only run two years and start at $2.5 million in the first year. The union has countered with a four-year mid-level starting at $5 million. Both sides have agreed that whatever mid-level is adopted for tax payers, it will only be available to them every other year.
The league argues that teams that go into the tax shouldn’t be able to add to their rosters by using the full mid-level, as the Lakers did with Ron Artest in 2009 and the Celtics did with Jermaine O’Neal last season. The idea is both to reduce the payrolls of tax paying teams to bring them closer to those of non-payers, which the league thinks will help competitive balance, and to get more players into the system for non-tax payers. The union believes that such restrictions will chill the market for free agents–in essence, taking the top five or six paying teams out of play–and will also affect players who don’t sign with the top teams, because the teams that bid for them will be able to sign them to smaller contracts than they would have to if the bigger payroll teams were able to pursue those players.
The NBA has similar concerns about allowing tax paying teams to execute sign-and-trade deals, where a free agent is allowed to add an additional year to his contract by signing a deal with his old team, which then immediately trades him to another team. Free agents got a seventh year if they re-signed with their old teams under the previous CBA, but only six years if they signed with another team. This was the method used, for example, by LeBron James when he went from Cleveland to Miami last summer–though the Heat was not over the tax threshold when it made the deal.
The union has pointed out that tax payers have only been involved in sign-and-trade deals five times over the past several years, making it an issue hardly likely to impact competitive balance.
***

Source

[Apollo]

I think the problem now appears to be that the majority is more willing to give up some of the system for the money. This makes me believe them even more when they say that half the league is losing coin. If it were an act one would think they would be budging on the money but not on the system...

Maybe they're more willing to claw back the money this go around and establish the new mark. Then next go around they'll get the rest of the system. (hard cap)

[Bendit]

I dont like those "gives" on the system. Puzzling that inspite of that they are still chewing the fat? What else is he willing to give up? Shoot.

[Hugmenot]

Because there is a difference between doing what is required and doing what is right.

A well-timed comment considering even living legends such as Joe Paterno can be dismissed for failing to do what is right.

[Apollo]

What to believe at this point? Nothing.

Progress was made on three system issues, source tells Y! Sports.

Source: Twitter @WojYahooNBA

Growing optimism in the agent and front-office community that a deal will get done. One person briefed on talks "incredibly optimistic."

Source: Twitter @KBergCBS

Source in room, when asked midway through negotiations if a deal could get done, said of NBA group, "Don't think they have the authority."

Source: Twitter @sam_amick

[Apollo]

I think the threat is real and as soon as these talks break down, the hardliners are in control.

I think the issue here is the perception they are negotiating in 'good faith' to fans.

Notice these are all "I think" statements and could most likely be wrong.

Good point. Maybe the Wednesday deadline was a scare tactic on Stern's part designed more to gather information than to make the deal? If that was the plan he certainly got some good intel. It caused guys like Steve Blake to take the initiative to pressure Hunter into a vote. Stern now knows there is reasonably strong factions wanting to make the deal, just not enough yet to put it over the top.

If this is the way its going, then we'll be seeing the Heat and the Lakers in the finals for years to come. I'd prefer a relaxed BRI split favouring the players in favour of stronger system changes. One's hoping that this is all still very premature.

I agree. Heck, give the PA the 53% they were asking for a while if they agree to the system. Maybe Stern has been whittling away at the PA to get them to the point where he flips it and says, "you know what? You've come down to 50% now and that's reassuring but what if we give you 53% instead and you take all of our new proposed system?" I don't think that's in the cards but a guy can dream.

[mcHAPPY]

Marc Stein reporting on yesterday's meeting...

Source

Two things that I did not want to see, seemed to happen





If this is the way its going, then we'll be seeing the Heat and the Lakers in the finals for years to come. I'd prefer a relaxed BRI split favouring the players in favour of stronger system changes. One's hoping that this is all still very premature.

Yeah, I am a little worried myself.

One thing about the MLE for tax teams that both union and league agreed on was the MLE would be available every other year - the amount and length of the MLE was the dispute.

The sign and trade for tax payers does not appear to be too much an issue as I originally thought. There were only 5 or 6 trades done in the last CBA (6 years). The extend and trade, or Carmelo Anthony rule, appears to be the bigger issue. A team has to clear the cap space to sign the superstars to get the leverage to get the sign and trade - taxpayers would not have the cap space to create the leverage, only exemptions. The leverage is taken away by allowing the 'home' team to offer a much larger contract than the new team - for example, Dwight can get 5 years and $100M from ORL or 'only' 4 years and $75M from another team.

That is not to say any of the above will happen but there are other ways to get around the sign and trade for tax payers.

[mcHAPPY]

Ok, this last bit to me makes Stern look a little goofy. "You have until to the end of Wednesday to agree to our terms or else." Wednesday arrives: "No deal, we'll continue talks. False alarm about the whole 'Wednesday or else' deadline."

Maybe he meant it when he said it and then the 16 teams against hardlining pressured him to back of the deadline? Maybe he doesn't want to wait for the "River Card" after decertification?

Source: RealGM.com

I think the threat is real and as soon as these talks break down, the hardliners are in control.

I think the issue here is the perception they are negotiating in 'good faith' to fans.

Notice these are all "I think" statements and could most likely be wrong.

[Apollo]

Talks to continue Thursday

Ok, this last bit to me makes Stern look a little goofy. "You have until to the end of Wednesday to agree to our terms or else." Wednesday arrives: "No deal, we'll continue talks. False alarm about the whole 'Wednesday or else' deadline."

Maybe he meant it when he said it and then the 16 teams against hardlining pressured him to back of the deadline? Maybe he doesn't want to wait for the "River Card" after decertification?

The NBA and NBPA met for 12 hours on Wednesday, beginning at 1:00 PM EST and concluding at 1:00 AM EST early on Thursday morning.

David Stern said that the two sides have agreed to stop the clock on their ultimatum offer and continue negotiations on Thursday at noon.

"Nothing was worked out today," said Stern.

Stern advised the media not to read much into the situation both for optimism or pessimism.

Source: RealGM.com

[planetmars]

Marc Stein reporting on yesterday's meeting...

Source

Two things that I did not want to see, seemed to happen

NBA.com reported that an unspecified amount of progress was made on three of those system issues, but that the parties continue to struggle to find compromise on the parameters of a workable mid-level exception and face "a couple of new issues added to [the] mix." The various restrictions and penalties that owners continue to insist on to regulate teams that stray into luxury-tax territory, sources say, are where the sides continue to snag.

Stern and Fisher, however, have assured their constituents that the league will relax some of the proposed restrictions against tax teams, such as its determination to forbid taxpayers from participating in sign-and-trade deals and having access to the full mid-level exception. So they're under pressure to deliver and secure a few concessions with the union dropping to a 50/50 split after players earned 57 percent of BRI in the final year of the previous labor deal.

If this is the way its going, then we'll be seeing the Heat and the Lakers in the finals for years to come. I'd prefer a relaxed BRI split favouring the players in favour of stronger system changes. One's hoping that this is all still very premature.

[Apollo]

I think you are mixing up team owners with peace officers and the judicial system.

The 'authority' of the owner or league only goes as far as the contract allows it to.

And when an owner allows a player to make decisions for his team, he is giving up part of his authority.

I'm not mixing anything up. This comes back to the system. The Owners are pressured into the situation where they have to let these guys who don't have a clue about running a team have a lot of input in a bid to keep them happy so that they re-sign.

Maybe its time to see them all as humans instead of one side as childhood heroes and the other as faceless irrelevant beings. The players should be held to no higher of a moral or ethical standard than anyone else. The idea that one is 'the boss' doesn't change the level of morality or ethics anyone should be held to. Manipulation is manipulation... deception is deception.

I'm not going to argue with you further about this because we're not exactly making any headway here but I will say this. Looking beyond whether it's right or wrong the impact of these players strong arming teams is detrimental to the game. Basically like you said earlier, it all comes down to the contract and not morality. Sure, I think LBJ is a narcissistic, oblivious, PR rep's worst nightmare but the only reason he wronged Cleveland on the highest level imaginable was because he's a narcissistic, oblivious ass and because he wasn't blocked by the system. So coming full circle, there needs to be rules in place that block things like the "extend & trade", the "S&T" and furthermore there should be a franchise tag. When a team makes a trade typically they're looking out for the team. When a player demands a trade he's looking out for himself. The fans are paying to see the team win, not the particular player win even if the players are selling points to the fans.

You may not care about having a double standard towards individuals, or for standing up yourself, or for wanting to make your own choices or for treating people equally. But I'm not the same. And do you know why? Because no one failed me along the way

I care about the product. With the players' at the helm they're looking out for themselves and they carry this out in a very short sighted approach. Instant gratification.

The owners also are looking out for themselves and they carry this out by trying to keep the fans happy. The fans are the source of their revenues. They're trying to make a system which appeals more to all fans, like the NFL does.

I'll say it again. To cheer for the players keeping their newly found power is to shoot yourself in the foot. It does nothing for you the fan, who is paying for a product. If you go to a restaurant and find that someone spit in your burger and ate half your fries, who are you rooting for when the manager goes to discuss the matter with the only other person in the kitchen?

first off all trying to say there is something wrong with me, or how my parents raised me, is quite ignorant.

I never said that. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. Let's see it again:

if you think what he did with that whole "The Decision" special and all the rest of the fiasco was fine then someone failed you somewhere along the way.

Now did I like Lebron's decision? No.

So no one failed you. You have compassion for other people. In prior posts it wasn't clear or not if you were defending what he did because you thought it was right. There wasn't anything ignorant about what I said. LeBron James did act extremely selfish and heartless in how he left Cleveland. You see this. You see what is wrong with it. You passed the if statement. If you thought it was great how the hometown boy played an entire city for fools and kicked them while they were down then we would have been in a whole different ball game...

[GarbageTime]

Of course I do. They're the employees, not the boss or the Owner. Accepting the system instead of trying to exploit it and doing what you're told instead of not respecting authority has nothing to do with rights. Everybody else in society who is not in a place of authority has to accept the system they work under and follow orders. Hell, even people in positions of authority have to answer to somebody

I think you are mixing up team owners with peace officers and the judicial system.

The 'authority' of the owner or league only goes as far as the contract allows it to.

And when an owner allows a player to make decisions for his team, he is giving up part of his authority.

No but they are role models in the community and if you think what he did with that whole "The Decision" special and all the rest of the fiasco was fine then someone failed you somewhere along the way.

first off all trying to say there is something wrong with me, or how my parents raised me, is quite ignorant.

but I read this last night and thought its appropriate to the discussion of 'role models', 'players priviledge' and player 'ethics'.

What’s happening here is that the players will look like jerks for stopping the negotiations because everybody who likes them thinks they’re making tremendous amounts of money. Now they seem greedy and it’s a little harder to admire them. But the owners don’t serve as inspiration for fans so they don’t lose that aspect.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...al-nba-lockout

Maybe its time to see them all as humans instead of one side as childhood heroes and the other as faceless irrelevant beings. The players should be held to no higher of a moral or ethical standard than anyone else. The idea that one is 'the boss' doesn't change the level of morality or ethics anyone should be held to. Manipulation is manipulation... deception is deception.


Now did I like Lebron's decision? No. But I also don't care he left and I was expecting it. What I dislike the most though, is how the league didn't bother to do anything to look into it... to see if there was something more to the entire scenario. That to me was the biggest failing.

But as you like to point out to so regularily with the current negotiations and with the owners.... Lebron had no contract and was therefore free to do as he choose. He had no 'authority' figure (as you like to call it) to be responsible to other than himself and he made his own decision. If thats all the owners seem to need (ie. a contract), then I see no other reason than to hold Lebron (or any player) to that same standard.

You may not care about having a double standard towards individuals, or for standing up yourself, or for wanting to make your own choices or for treating people equally. But I'm not the same. And do you know why? Because no one failed me along the way

I'm done with your nonesense

[mcHAPPY]

Adam Silver:

"The competitive issues are independent of the economic issues," Silver said. "Our goal is to have a system in which all 30 teams are competing for championships and, if well managed, they have an opportunity to break even or make a profit. We don't see the ability to break even or make a profit as a tradeoff for the ability to field a competitive team. All of those issues are still in place."

Source

I don't by the 30 teams competing for a championship in any one or two seasons but over a 5/6 year span, well managed, that is a realistic goal in my opinion. And by competing for a championship, I mean making competitive playoff appearances.

[Apollo]

well thats fair....

And if thats the case... why do you even care what the superstars do?

It makes it a lot easier[to win it]

seriously... we know the CBA is over.

And the owners can try and do what ever they want. The exact same applies to the players. What exactly is your point?

Now is the time to bring in new things that they deem important.

I find your interpretation of 'ethical' very one sided. Is there anything in a player's contract that says they can't demand a trade, demand certain teammates or have to return to their current team? Hmm......

No but:

This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

If people are only responsible for whats in the contract.... then why do you even care what Lebron did? He did nothing, to my knowledge, outside what his contract demanded. Or does his contract say he is responsible for the state of Ohio?

Because there is a difference between doing what is required and doing what is right.

Or are the players held to a higher level of responsibility above and beyond their contract?

No but they are role models in the community and if you think what he did with that whole "The Decision" special and all the rest of the fiasco was fine then someone failed you somewhere along the way.

In which case you are talking morality? Which then has nothing to do with whats in one's contract but rather whats 'right'. But then, why is forcing someone (and possibly their family) to pick up and move across the country for the owners own personal gain any less morally wrong then a player 'holding a team hostage' to be traded?

This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

This sure sounds like what I talked about earlier... you want these guys to just do what they are told.

Of course I do. They're the employees, not the boss or the Owner. Accepting the system instead of trying to exploit it and doing what you're told instead of not respecting authority has nothing to do with rights. Everybody else in society who is not in a place of authority has to accept the system they work under and follow orders. Hell, even people in positions of authority have to answer to somebody.

- since when can they just 'cut' contracts?
- since when can they renegotiate contracts?

- Since when can they do anything? There is no system in place. It very clear we were discussing the hypothetical situation where the Owners could get an system like the NFL in place. I'm not sure why you keep getting confused here. Here, let's me referesh your memory:

the question was under the hard cap, what does a team do when they have a FA coming up who they can't keep but want to (specifically referring to a superstar). Do they just let that player go, or try to get rid of some of their teammates... specifically those teammates who play an important roll on the team. Your answer was to cut contracts as guaranteed contracts would not exist under a hard cap.... yet they are going to exist. That is not answering the question.

They have many options. They can cut players to get them down under cap. They can renegotiate contracts with other players, getting the player to take a pay cut to market price if they're overpaid. Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money. There are many options available which do not include cutting valuable pieces. They can also work a trade if the player doesn't want to be flexible to allow for his teammate to sign. I've already been over this once or twice, heck maybe three times in this thread. Once on like the last page even.

- since when can they just 'cut' contracts?
- since when can they renegotiate contracts?

Moving on...

- getting a player to take a cut now for a later contract is not allowed in the NBA (and quite unethical if you ask me)

Where does it say that? There isn't a CBA to govern team activities. And I never said they could get a player to take a cut now with the promise of a later contract. I said in this hypothetical situation:

Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money.

- working a trade needs to bring back a comparable salary or have another team with space with a smaller salary and for the other team to want that player. Plus it shouldn't be, theoritically, the player that is 'needed' to retain the star player.

Teams typically re-sign players before or during free agency. One could safely assume that there would be teams with cap space during free agency. I also never mentioned which players in particular would/could/should be traded.

no your right...it could have been a much better situation, it also could have been much worse, or it could have been the same. The question was an example of what could happen under a hard cap.

I fail to see how they could be in a worse situation than they were in. The question was pointless because the circumstances would be different in a different system.

[GarbageTime]

No I do not. It makes it a lot easier but the Pistons did no have superstars and they won it. The hard cap would help eliminate superstar players leaving small markets for big markets

well thats fair....

And if thats the case... why do you even care what the superstars do? Stars 'ganging up', leaving teams etc. should have little relevance as they are not necessary.

Do you think you're funny? I think you're being immature. We both know you posted that I said I wanted the players to have no rights, period. I didn't say that. Never have I said that I want the players to have all their rights taken away from them. Maybe you should focus more on what I'm saying and less on trying to make yourself sound witty?

umm I stated I made a mistake. There was no sarcasm or 'whit' in that statement. I read it wrong, just like I said.

They need a new CBA because the old CBA has expired. That deal is done. Now is the time to bring in new things that they deem important. Welcome to the real world? Well in the real world joint venture agreements include lots of stipulations on what the partnering organizations are allowed to do or are responsible for. The NBA is a joint venture and if they want to agree to put in contract language to reduce their operating risks then they're free to do so provided they can get their unionized laborers to agree to accept it.

seriously... we know the CBA is over.

And the owners can try and do what ever they want. The exact same applies to the players. What exactly is your point? [/QUOTE]

No it's not unethical. The team is working within it's means to make it's team better and doing so without being manipulative and in some cases malicious. This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

See above. The Owner is working within the contract. If a player in the expired system was playing on an non-guranteed contract then he's was at the level where he should have been thankful to even get to play a few games in the league. If non-guaranteed contracts were outlawed in the old system that player probably wouldn't get anything more than "ten days".

I find your interpretation of 'ethical' very one sided. Is there anything in a player's contract that says they can't demand a trade, demand certain teammates or have to return to their current team? Hmm......

If people are only responsible for whats in the contract.... then why do you even care what Lebron did? He did nothing, to my knowledge, outside what his contract demanded. Or does his contract say he is responsible for the state of Ohio?

Or are the players held to a higher level of responsibility above and beyond their contract?

In which case you are talking morality? Which then has nothing to do with whats in one's contract but rather whats 'right'. But then, why is forcing someone (and possibly their family) to pick up and move across the country for the owners own personal gain any less morally wrong then a player 'holding a team hostage' to be traded?

This sure sounds like what I talked about earlier... you want these guys to just do what they are told.

They have many options. They can cut players to get them down under cap. They can renegotiate contracts with other players, getting the player to take a pay cut to market price if they're overpaid. Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money. There are many options available which do not include cutting valuable pieces. They can also work a trade if the player doesn't want to be flexible to allow for his teammate to sign. I've already been over this once or twice, heck maybe three times in this thread. Once on like the last page even.

- since when can they just 'cut' contracts?
- since when can they renegotiate contracts?
- getting a player to take a cut now for a later contract is not allowed in the NBA (and quite unethical if you ask me)
- working a trade needs to bring back a comparable salary or have another team with space with a smaller salary and for the other team to want that player. Plus it shouldn't be, theoritically, the player that is 'needed' to retain the star player.

so exactly how do those help the team to make space while still keeping the players a team 'needs' to help retain said player? There are consequences to a well run team under a hard cap to.... its not just 'saving the poor' and 'limiting the idiots'.

It's not fair to assume the Cavs would have pulled the trigger on the same moves if they were operating under a different system. For that matter its not fair to assume that the same moves would have been available to them under a different system.

no your right...it could have been a much better situation, it also could have been much worse, or it could have been the same. The question was an example of what could happen under a hard cap.

You seem to be only focusing on what we disagree on because I've said in here many times that I think revenue sharing and the hard cap should go hand in hand. Never have I said revenue sharing isn't important, I've said it's not the only issue. I've said that it should have no impact on the CBA negotiations but never that it wasn't important.

this whole NFL issue you mentioned was based on my inital question about contracts and the hard cap ... which you turned into a "system like the NFL" and non-guaranteed contracts which the NBA is not talking about.