Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Derek Fisher:

    “We’re open to discussions, open to negotiation. We’re open-minded about potential compromises on our number, but there are things in the system that are not up for discussion that we have to have in order to able to get this season going.”
    Source

    This is what bothers me about all the ultimatum talk from the owners. In my opinion the players have been doing the same with comments like the above and the whole 'blood issue' business. You cannot say the owners have not been negotiating in good faith when from the onset of negotiations you are telling the other party (in this case owners) we are not willing to discuss this (hard/flex cap, guaranteed contracts) and then get upset when they are unwilling to move on that (BRI, exemptions and S&T for tax payers).

    Comment


    • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
      Cleveland couldn't afford not to? Really? the argument that they couldn't afford not to is not necessarily true but rather an assumption thats being made. Cleveland may have been able to spend alot less, or the same amount, had they spent that money more wisely on better value players. It may also not have made any difference how much they spent at all... Lebron may have just wanted out of Cleveland as soon as he reasonably could for a variety of reasons.

      You keep assuming that teams need to spend to win.... which has already been proven false (both statistically and with numerous random examples) time and time again. Does it help? Sure. Is it the difference maker? Not at all.
      This is of course a very good and intelligent posture to have....in a general and theoretical GM101 course.

      But I present 2 of the Cavs more high profile acquisitions in that last yr of Lebron...Shaq and Jamison. Was there another big man f/a available better than Shaq? Jamison had competition in Stoudemire but these were trades. Was there a trade imbalance or how about a lack of fit with the games/personality of these two with Shaq? Not easy questions to answer but shows that the theoretical is sometimes not always practical since AS would in restrospect might have been better than AJ.

      Here is a piece in more detail...

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ron/index.html

      Comment


      • You know half of the owners are breathing a sigh of relief from the players rejecting the last deal. I think the owners are really going to try to stick it to the players. I just have a feeling that there will be no ball this year. There's no way the players accept a crappy deal from the owners, especially not one that will last for the next 3-5 years.

        Comment


        • According to Stein, 13 owners wanted nothing to do with the deal and were pissed at Stern for offering it up. Accord to Ford(in think), more and more owners have crossed the line into the land of the Hardliners as time has moved on. The more games that get cancelled, the more Owners see it as viable to take that stance.

          Comment


          • Bendit wrote: View Post
            I am personally a system change guy. As far as I am concerned ownership should give up bri in favour of competitive balance.

            Re point b...your answer is pretty much it...who knows why LJ left. I prefer to believe it was more hubris than anything else...the chance to play with 2 of the other top 5 (I dont think CB is that btw) in the league and win 7 championships (he said so). My point being...should the league or a team who essentially relied on some pong balls to "win" LB should be in a position, whims or not become a has been/bottom feeder thru the loss of a valuable asset...and receive essentially nothing in return. The hard cap is but only one method to arrest this. There are a lot of exceptions that murk the waters but I think a hard cap with unlimited salary would probably work. The real superstar makes his coin with a supporting cast or has to share his spoils with another star, get more lower paid scrubs and diminish the chances of the ring. But you get my thinking...there will just be a natural aversion to teaming up and making the real big money (if you are among the best) with a team of your own. The downside for the rank & file is of course a diminished salary. Doubt if the union would go for it though....they want the status quo...and this I am convinced is not good for the Raptors or the league...unless we want a two tiered one.
            no its not. A 'hard cap' won't change a team getting 'nothing' in return for a player leaving. There has to be other system rules in place... and that doesn't have anything to do with a hard cap.

            Like I said... even if there was a hard cap in place last year, Miami still would have ended up with Lebron James and Cleveland would have received nothing. There would have been no change whether there was a hard cap, soft cap or no cap.

            And sure a hard cap will force some players to take bigger pay cuts to field better a better overrall roster but:

            1) that doesn't help Cleveland at all

            2) if the 'exceptions' to the soft cap were reduced/eliminated that would do the same thing.

            The entire system doesn't need an overhaul... its just needs to be improved.


            Also I'd like to play a bit of a game here. Lets pretend there was a hard cap and Cleveland, as a team that did spend, was at that cap with Lebron James. Lebron was making the max available to him at that time approx 15 mil and is now coming up to a FA period where he is able to make 18 mil. How does Cleveland retain Lebron without Lebron taking a paycut due to a hard cap?

            1) do supporting player(s) lose their jobs in order to to retain Lebron? Thereby making the team 'less good' and therefore not enticing Lebron to stay

            2) does the team just let Lebron go and accept the loss because the hard cap prevented them from paying him what others could?

            Now imagine that situation with a team that does a great job signing, drafting and trading for players. What does OKC due under a hard cap with Durant, Ibake, Westbrook, Perkins and Harden? Is it fair that they will have to just let some of these guys go or hope that they will take paycuts to keep a team together? Exactly how is 'smart GMing' working in OKC favor in a hard cap? Is it fair to the organization, the players and OKC fans for that team to be forcefully broken up because of the new system 'rules'?

            I, like many of you, are completely in favor of preventing players from ganging up... but people's 'hard cap' reaction to the big 3 is a rash decision made out of anger (maybe fear). There are ways to limit players from ganging together... while still allowing those players who are classic superstars (ie. dedicated to the team) and smart organizations go about their business as usual.

            Improve on the current system... get rid of or limit the 'exceptions'. Lose the sign and trade altogether... make a 'melo rule'. Add draft picks for teams who lose key players. But allow teams to affordably resign their own players over a cap atleast to a 'point', allow teams to take risks if the time is right or when they just need one more player.

            Comment


            • Matt52 wrote: View Post
              Derek Fisher:

              “We’re open to discussions, open to negotiation. We’re open-minded about potential compromises on our number, but there are things in the system that are not up for discussion that we have to have in order to able to get this season going.”
              Source

              This is what bothers me about all the ultimatum talk from the owners. In my opinion the players have been doing the same with comments like the above and the whole 'blood issue' business. You cannot say the owners have not been negotiating in good faith when from the onset of negotiations you are telling the other party (in this case owners) we are not willing to discuss this (hard/flex cap, guaranteed contracts) and then get upset when they are unwilling to move on that (BRI, exemptions and S&T for tax payers).
              Really though. I guess this is a one way road to nowhere as far as the Players are concerned.

              Comment


              • Bendit wrote: View Post
                This is of course a very good and intelligent posture to have....in a general and theoretical GM101 course.

                But I present 2 of the Cavs more high profile acquisitions in that last yr of Lebron...Shaq and Jamison. Was there another big man f/a available better than Shaq? Jamison had competition in Stoudemire but these were trades. Was there a trade imbalance or how about a lack of fit with the games/personality of these two with Shaq? Not easy questions to answer but shows that the theoretical is sometimes not always practical since AS would in restrospect might have been better than AJ.

                Here is a piece in more detail...

                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ron/index.html
                that assumes that those were the only deals and best deals available. And why are we limiting it to what Cleveland did at the 11th hour? What about 2 or 3 or 4 years prior? What did they do, or not do, that had an impact? That could have improved their chances and made their loss more bearable?

                And please don't try to discredit me by trying to give the impression this is some sort of basic pie in the sky thinking. For every decision that is made there are opportunity costs to it.... trading for Ben Wallace, then Shaq, signing Mo Williams and trading for Jamison all had a cost which included signing/trading for someone else, not doing anything, waiting for a better opportunity etc. Like I tried to allude to earlier.... Gilbert's risk aversion was so extremely low, thanks to Lebron money making ability, Gilbert was reckless. It cost him huge.... and the only thing that could have saved him from losing Lebron in the end was Lebron's loyalty to the team.... which apparently was 0.


                Cleveland did the same thing year after year... just went and spent with no regard to the real value or any sort of 'system'. It was a hodge podge of 'named' players and they told Lebron... here you go 'star players', who were in fact either no longer stars or never stars at all. Players who were extremely overvalued and prevented the team from using that money on either a better or more valuable player.

                If one wants to call/think of Lebron as a dick... thats fine. I don't disagree. But that doesn't mean Cleveland HAD TO spend money the way they did, nor does it mean they had to spend money at all.

                Comment


                • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                  no its not. A 'hard cap' won't change a team getting 'nothing' in return for a player leaving. There has to be other system rules in place... and that doesn't have anything to do with a hard cap.

                  Like I said... even if there was a hard cap in place last year, Miami still would have ended up with Lebron James and Cleveland would have received nothing. There would have been no change whether there was a hard cap, soft cap or no cap.

                  And sure a hard cap will force some players to take bigger pay cuts to field better a better overrall roster but:

                  1) that doesn't help Cleveland at all

                  2) if the 'exceptions' to the soft cap were reduced/eliminated that would do the same thing.

                  The entire system doesn't need an overhaul... its just needs to be improved.


                  Also I'd like to play a bit of a game here. Lets pretend there was a hard cap and Cleveland, as a team that did spend, was at that cap with Lebron James. Lebron was making the max available to him at that time approx 15 mil and is now coming up to a FA period where he is able to make 18 mil. How does Cleveland retain Lebron without Lebron taking a paycut due to a hard cap?

                  1) do supporting player(s) lose their jobs in order to to retain Lebron? Thereby making the team 'less good' and therefore not enticing Lebron to stay

                  2) does the team just let Lebron go and accept the loss because the hard cap prevented them from paying him what others could?

                  Now imagine that situation with a team that does a great job signing, drafting and trading for players. What does OKC due under a hard cap with Durant, Ibake, Westbrook, Perkins and Harden? Is it fair that they will have to just let some of these guys go or hope that they will take paycuts to keep a team together? Exactly how is 'smart GMing' working in OKC favor in a hard cap? Is it fair to the organization, the players and OKC fans for that team to be forcefully broken up because of the new system 'rules'?

                  I, like many of you, are completely in favor of preventing players from ganging up... but people's 'hard cap' reaction to the big 3 is a rash decision made out of anger (maybe fear). There are ways to limit players from ganging together... while still allowing those players who are classic superstars (ie. dedicated to the team) and smart organizations go about their business as usual.

                  Improve on the current system... get rid of or limit the 'exceptions'. Lose the sign and trade altogether... make a 'melo rule'. Add draft picks for teams who lose key players. But allow teams to affordably resign their own players over a cap atleast to a 'point', allow teams to take risks if the time is right or when they just need one more player.
                  That is where management becomes crucial. Poor management decisions will cause difficult decisions to be made down the road to which there is no easy answer. However, if every team has the same parameters there is not an unfair advantage.

                  If they were successful under the old system, they should be successful under a new system. There is no known answer to this question but: what happens if OKC ownership cannot afford or do not wish to lose money to keep the core under the current system? How do we know they are able and willing to commit 2 max contracts to Durant and Westbrook, $12M a year to Ibaka, $9M to Harden, and $8M to Perkins? That is $65M right there to 5 players in 2 years time - they have another 8 players minimum to pay. Even with 8 players on minimum contracts, OKC is now a tax payer.

                  I do get your point on OKC but there is no guarantee they would stay together under the old system.

                  Now would they stay together in NY/LAL (great market) or ORL (bilionaire owner operating at a loss), absolutely.

                  Comment


                  • People, in a hard cap system no contracts are guaranteed. There is some guaranteed money but that's left to be negotiated between management and the player. In the scenario GT put forth the Cavs could simply cut a player or two and pay them whatever guaranteed money is owed. That guaranteed money would have cap implications of course so they would have to choose wisely. If that's not enough in a hard cap system you can add players at the vet minimum. One year deals in the NFL, I think.

                    Comment


                    • Apollo wrote: View Post
                      It's really easy to be a backseat driver, especially when you have no way of obtaining all the facts. Of course they could have spent the money more wisely, that's blatantly obvious after the fact now that we're at the point where they were left empty handed. They made their real push for the Championship after they were past cap. They had two options, trades and the MLE. They had to take gambles. Most teams have to take gamble. The Cavs gambles would have been fine had LeBron James stayed. They could still afford to keep their cap number high and work on fixing their problems. You're also assuming that LeBron James didn't have any input in those moves. For all you know he could have been implying that if such and such doesn't come here via a trade then he's going to lose interest in Cleveland. LeBron James had all the leverage in Cleveland. "If you don't do this then I might leave. If you don't do that then I might leave." When he actually did leave he went to a team who told him he would have to play on their terms. The situation for him flipped. The Heat have the leverage. See how that works? Same thing happened with Carter in Toronto. They both had leverage with the team who drafted them because those teams invested so much into them that they couldn't afford to lose them. Both guys played it up. In the case of Carter we know for a fact that he was strong arming management into making moves he liked. Hell, he basically left when they finally stood up to him. Players shouldn't have the power to hold teams hostage. It's detrimental to the game.



                      Are you going to really sit here and tell me that if the Thunder and Bulls ownership isn't willing to spend over cap they can compete when their rookie contract players are looking for new contracts? In the new system those two successful teams who aren't spending are going to either have to start throwing down a lot of money or crawl back into the shadows. What do the Bulls do if Rose tells them he needs such and such on his team this coming season and the Bulls need to make it work or he's more likely to bail on them? Are they going to trade him out of principle, sticking to the plans and probably losing a step and lots of money? Are they going cave into him and give what he wants even if it's highly risky? How about this, why don't they do neither and instead fight for a system where players have no power to hold teams random?
                      yeah do you see how that works? We are blaming Lebron, not Cleveland, for giving Lebron leverage, and then applauding Miami for keeping their own leverage.... huh... maybe Cleveland's problem was giving Lebron leverage in the first place. Or, not doing things well enough to keep their leverage.


                      Will these teams eventually spend? Probably. But that neither proves that teams have to spend nor does it say anything about teams ability to spend. The fact is that neither of these teams are spending and yet could win.... why? Because of the superstar players. NOT because they spent.

                      And on a more personal level, why should players have 'no power'.... are they suddenly autonomous machines that shouldn't have input? Need I take the next step and say 'slaves'? Would you like to be a 'slave' at your work? Would you like to have no input about your working conditions, your co-workers or your comfortability with your companies direction? Should you be forced to just sit there and say nothing and do as you are told? Ofcourse not... why should anyone, even wealthy athletes, be forced into that position.

                      Do some players abuse this? Sure. But that does not mean they all do, they all will or that all should lose any influence. And more than anything, the league and the teams shouldn't let them by NOT GIVING THEM THE POWER. Actual trade a guy instead of bowing at the feet of 'the king'. We shouldn't be blaming 450 individuals for Dan Gilbert not having pair and valuing short term hope (keeping Lebron 'happy') over long term stability (doing whats best for the organization even if that means not keeping Lebron happy).

                      Comment


                      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        That is where management becomes crucial. Poor management decisions will cause difficult decisions to be made down the road to which there is no easy answer. However, if every team has the same parameters there is not an unfair advantage.

                        If they were successful under the old system, they should be successful under a new system. There is no known answer to this question but: what happens if OKC ownership cannot afford or do not wish to lose money to keep the core under the current system? How do we know they are able and willing to commit 2 max contracts to Durant and Westbrook, $12M a year to Ibaka, $9M to Harden, and $8M to Perkins? That is $65M right there to 5 players in 2 years time - they have another 8 players minimum to pay. Even with 8 players on minimum contracts, OKC is now a tax payer.

                        I do get your point on OKC but there is no guarantee they would stay together under the old system.

                        Now would they stay together in NY/LAL (great market) or ORL (bilionaire owner operating at a loss), absolutely
                        .
                        but there is also no guarantee they won't either (we've seen time and time again team's ability to spend when they are 'good'... hell this entire Cleveland discussion is based on that).... nor is there a guarantee they will or can anywhere else (Dwight sure looks like he's leaving Orlando).

                        If the exceptions are changed with the current system, rather than the entire system itself, teams can still be limited in their ability to spend while allowing teams that are patient and make good decisions to continue to do business to their ultimate potential.

                        Comment


                        • Apollo wrote: View Post
                          People, in a hard cap system no contracts are guaranteed. There is some guaranteed money but that's left to be negotiated between management and the player. In the scenario GT put forth the Cavs could simply cut a player or two and pay them whatever guaranteed money is owed. That guaranteed money would have cap implications of course so they would have to choose wisely. If that's not enough in a hard cap system you can add players at the vet minimum. One year deals in the NFL, I think.
                          umm when did this happen? Since when does a hard cap suddenly mean no guaranteed contracts?

                          Comment


                          • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                            that assumes that those were the only deals and best deals available. And why are we limiting it to what Cleveland did at the 11th hour? What about 2 or 3 or 4 years prior? What did they do, or not do, that had an impact? That could have improved their chances and made their loss more bearable?

                            And please don't try to discredit me by trying to give the impression this is some sort of basic pie in the sky thinking. For every decision that is made there are opportunity costs to it.... trading for Ben Wallace, then Shaq, signing Mo Williams and trading for Jamison all had a cost which included signing/trading for someone else, not doing anything, waiting for a better opportunity etc. Like I tried to allude to earlier.... Gilbert's risk aversion was so extremely low, thanks to Lebron money making ability, Gilbert was reckless. It cost him huge.... and the only thing that could have saved him from losing Lebron in the end was Lebron's loyalty to the team.... which apparently was 0.


                            Cleveland did the same thing year after year... just went and spent with no regard to the real value or any sort of 'system'. It was a hodge podge of 'named' players and they told Lebron... here you go 'star players', who were in fact either no longer stars or never stars at all. Players who were extremely overvalued and prevented the team from using that money on either a better or more valuable player.

                            If one wants to call/think of Lebron as a dick... thats fine. I don't disagree. But that doesn't mean Cleveland HAD TO spend money the way they did, nor does it mean they had to spend money at all.
                            If all those "Gilbert decisions" (I think u are assuming LJ had nothing to do with them) were so bad the record of the Cavs in the 5 yrs prior to LJ leaving was !st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th. Not bad with 60 some wins in the 1st 2 yrs. This defense of using bad decision making on the part of ownership as the major if not only reason why teams find themselves in a spending quandary is really quite simplistic. It has nothing to do with the system at hand?? The owners need to have fiscal discipline all while they are made to grovel at free agents no matter their abilities or fit to the team to appease their stud player that they are "trying" when of course the judicious course would be the draft or a trade (which doesnt just pop up when you want it) is best. Ah, but that would be slumming it...take the easy way out and hook up with some biggies in an elaborate 3 yr scheme to line up expiry of their contracts in the same year.

                            Btw sorry about the misunderstanding in the previous note. My intention was to in fact indicate that I do not believe that a hard cap in of it self is sufficient. The need for something like a franchise tag or increased length of restrictive agency etc is needed, all that would be unacceptable to the PA.

                            I shall try and find some links/reports which I remember about LJ's choices of Williams and Shaq.

                            Comment


                            • Improve on the current system... get rid of or limit the 'exceptions'. Lose the sign and trade altogether... make a 'melo rule'. Add draft picks for teams who lose key players. But allow teams to affordably resign their own players over a cap atleast to a 'point', allow teams to take risks if the time is right or when they just need one more player.
                              So you admit the system needs to be changed. The players don't, and don't want changes. That's a pretty solid hole in your support for the players.

                              Also, re: LBJ -- It's been intimated that he had all the leverage while in Cleveland, and it's common knowledge that he exercised it to its fullest. There was no FA signing during his time in Cleveland that wasn't either pushed or endorsed by LBJ. So tell me again how this "partner" of Dan Gilbert's held up his end of the bargain? Gilbert fell all over himself to put a team around LBJ, endorsed by LBJ, in hopes of winning/enticing LBJ to stay. LBJ pushes for signings, threatens management with leaving, gets one coach fired, etc. At the end of the day, the team wins over 60 games the year before he leaves, but still that's not enough for LBJ.

                              If you're a "partner", esp. one with so much front office swing, you need to belly up. Cleveland did EVERYTHING for Lebron, and it wasn't enough. This is the kind of thing that can only be solved by significant system changes that take that kind of irrational leverage away from the players.
                              Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                              Comment


                              • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                yeah do you see how that works? We are blaming Lebron, not Cleveland, for giving Lebron leverage, and then applauding Miami for keeping their own leverage.... huh... maybe Cleveland's problem was giving Lebron leverage in the first place. Or, not doing things well enough to keep their leverage.
                                I'm not applauding either organization. You're not getting it. The Cavs didn't "give up" the leverage, it was never theirs' to begin with. The reason why I say Miami has the leverage is because LBJ is only going into year two of the deal. He can't get fancy right now and expect to accomplish much from it and not to mention he chose to go there and they're still in the honeymoon stage.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                Will these teams eventually spend? Probably. But that neither proves that teams have to spend nor does it say anything about teams ability to spend. The fact is that neither of these teams are spending and yet could win.... why? Because of the superstar players. NOT because they spent.
                                Michael Jordan is a classic example of a Superstar not being able to win until he gets a world class supporting cast. For a team to have that level of quality of a roster would require a payroll along the lines of the Lakers in today's system. You do need to spend money to win it and to maintain. It's only a matter of time, not a matter of if, maybe, possibly, whatever. Lay the money on the table or move over. That's the current system.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                And on a more personal level, why should players have 'no power'.... are they suddenly autonomous machines that shouldn't have input?
                                I didn't say they shouldn't have input, I said they shouldn't have the power to extort what they want out of their employers.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                Need I take the next step and say 'slaves'?
                                I'll be your basketball playing slave and live that kind of plush life if you want to give me half of a $4.5B industry. Where do I sign? I think the slave analogy is flippin' ridiculous by the way. Pro players are a very privileged bunch. Average Joe on the street will not even get a taste of what it's like to live like a professional athletes. Slaves have no choice. If they don't work they're killed and thrown away. These players can go work elsewhere and of their own free will. You dared to say "slaves" but it has no meaning here.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                Would you like to have no input about your working conditions, your co-workers or your comfortability with your companies direction?
                                There's a difference between suggestions and extortion.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                Should you be forced to just sit there and say nothing and do as you are told? Ofcourse not... why should anyone, even wealthy athletes, be forced into that position.
                                They're not forced to do that. You've gone off the deep end into Exaggerationland.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                Do some players abuse this? Sure. But that does not mean they all do, they all will or that all should lose any influence.
                                And this is where we say farewell. It's not worth continuing discussing this if you see nothing wrong with the players strong arming organizations. It's a highly unethical practice which can hurt far more people than just a fat guy in a suit. Just ask the state of Ohio.

                                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                umm when did this happen? Since when does a hard cap suddenly mean no guaranteed contracts?
                                Nothing has happened. That's why we're heading into mid November with no basketball. The NBA desired to have a model like the NFL. NFL teams don't give guaranteed deals like the NBA.

                                Bendit wrote: View Post
                                If all those "Gilbert decisions" (I think u are assuming LJ had nothing to do with them) were so bad the record of the Cavs in the 5 yrs prior to LJ leaving was !st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th. Not bad with 60 some wins in the 1st 2 yrs. This defense of using bad decision making on the part of ownership as the major if not only reason why teams find themselves in a spending quandary is really quite simplistic.
                                Excellent post. Not just this part by the way. I tried to stay away from how he classifies a decision bad because I didn't want to get into a long debate about what can be classified a bad or good decision but you raise some excellent points right here and in the rest of the post.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X