Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    Comment


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

      The players called the owners bluff.

      What next?

      Comment


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

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

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

        Comment


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

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

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

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


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

          Comment


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

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

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


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

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



            Bosh bolting made the Raptors one of the most talent depleted teams last year but the Heat saga made for one of the very best seasons ever with the highest BRI to date.
            Last edited by stretch; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 04:04 PM.

            Comment


            • The other thing that hasn't been addressed (at least in my mind) is what is being done to prevent Mr. Owner from giving All-Star/ Starter money to Jamaal Magloire/ Eddy Curry/ Yogi Stewart over 4 years? Nothing at all. So the system will break itself in a few years, once again.

              As soon as one guy gets a deal that is out of whack with the market, the ENTIRE market is out of whack.
              It takes ONE bad contract to set the bar, and there is nothing preventing that from happening.

              Comment


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

                Comment


                • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                  The other thing that hasn't been addressed (at least in my mind) is what is being done to prevent Mr. Owner from giving All-Star/ Starter money to Jamaal Magloire/ Eddy Curry/ Yogi Stewart over 4 years? Nothing at all. So the system will break itself in a few years, once again.

                  As soon as one guy gets a deal that is out of whack with the market, the ENTIRE market is out of whack.
                  It takes ONE bad contract to set the bar, and there is nothing preventing that from happening.
                  That is a good point.

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

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

                  Comment


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

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

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


                    This is all about choices and the players don't want to have to choose when it comes to free agency.
                    That is not true. There are huge restrictions on player movement in Free Agency, greater than ever.... not on the players themselves, but on the teams. And that in turn restricts the players ability to move to a team.

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

                    Comment


                    • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                      That is a good point.

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

                      The stretch provision could help a team that makes a mistake.
                      Couldn't agree more. The reality is there is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from making a bad choice.

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

                      Comment


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

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



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

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

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


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

                        Comment


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

                          And the 2nd line is the exact opposite of what the players and owners are seeking. The players want as much choice as possible... the owners want to limit that choice by players by an amount that they see as reasonable.
                          The restrictions are on teams AFTER free agency. The restrictions on a team AFTER it uses a full MLE for the season that directly follows is they cannot go in to luxury tax zone - a zone which 7 of 30 teams went in to. Come July 1st the next year, the restriction is gone unless they wish to give another full MLE. If they give a mini-MLE there is no issue.


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

                          Comment


                          • stretch wrote: View Post
                            Bosh bolting made the Raptors one of the most talent depleted teams last year but the Heat saga made for one of the very best seasons ever with the highest BRI to date.
                            I dont quite understand how the BRI would have escalated solely due to that phenomena...did gate receipts and the trio's merchandise rise that dramatically? Of what there is no doubt is of course the venom directed against the Heat and wanting them to fail...and lots of tv eyeballs. But wouldn't you say that such "interest" is the type that is so rooted in negativity and so one-sided (no one cared who they played...there was no balance in the rooting/interest) which strikes me as unsustainable long term. Much better I think to have a Wade led team go toe to toe with a James led one.

                            Comment


                            • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              Couldn't agree more. The reality is there is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from making a bad choice.

                              But this was something I said before the lockout even started. Regardless of how this ends up.... both sides will find a way to screw the system again.
                              The stretch permits a team to fix a mistake with a minimal cap hit.

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

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

                              Comment


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

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X