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

[mcHAPPY]

Good faith does not mean making your initial ridiculous proposal, slightly less ridiculous Matt.

The players using the Expiring CBA as a Benchmark was NOT unrealistic. Thats Union Bargaining.
And this is also where 'Good Faith' is measured from.
And using the Expiring CBA as a benchmark, the Owners have NOT given up anything.

Given the losses the league had accumulated over every year of the previous CBA, keeping things the same is very much ridiculous in my opinion.


The owners position has been to make a financially sustainable league and a league with more higher tier talent evenly dispersed. It is clear the players realized the first part but are indifferent on the second - which as a fan is much more important to me than the money.


At the end of the day, there were only 22 people associated with the league that lost money last year and 5 of 6 years of the CBA championship winning teams were taxpayers. If I were in the shoes of owners, I too would be seeking the changes they are as would most people, players included.

[RaptorDan]

I am very disappointed in this news. But at least this lock-out is about basketball. Soon in Toronto we will have to deal with a lock-out of city workers that will effect us much more significantly. We just went through an f'n garbage strike and now will will have to live through yet another? This is going to suck. While I can get by with college ball and football instead of the NBA just fine, having the whole neighbourhood's stinking garbage at the end of my street again will make me go insane. The number of bear sized raccoons trying to have babies in my attic are just starting to decrease, I can't bear to have a new vermin breeding ground/food orgy a block away.

[GarbageTime]

Good faith does not mean making your initial ridiculous proposal, slightly less ridiculous Matt.

The players using the Expiring CBA as a Benchmark was NOT unrealistic. Thats Union Bargaining.
And this is also where 'Good Faith' is measured from.
And using the Expiring CBA as a benchmark, the Owners have NOT given up anything.

there is really no specific measurement of 'good faith'. Neither the owners or players are required to be at any certain level. Giving or not giving concessions does not necessarily mean 'good faith' bargaining.

The idea that a side is not bargaining in good faith would be that they had no desire to come to an agreement (regardless of what those results would be). Proving someone is not bargaining in 'good faith' is very difficult and, I think, very rare .... and will likely not be part of the criteria for any court decisions.

[Hugmenot]

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.

Mr. Owner is free to give All-Star/Starter money to any player he chooses. But unlike baseball, there is no arbitration in basketball and thus Mr Owner is never forced by a third party to give All-Star/Starter money to a player who performs as well or better than an overpaid player.

If the restrictions and financial penalties are harsh enough, the system will sustain itself despite the ever present bad contracts. Yes some players will be grossly underpaid/overpaid based upon their production but that's a risk whenever two parties agreed to multi-year guaranteed contract.

[ezz_bee]

I can see that someone's opinion is that the NBA didn't bargain in good faith. I can also see how someone could have the opinion that the Union didn't bargain in good faith.

However, what I can't see is anyone demonstrating that in a court of law, in a sufficient manner to convince a sitting judge. I don't take a bet unless i'm at least 90% sure I'm going to win and I'd give odds to anyone who wanted to place a bet that a judge would rule that either party was guilty of not bargaining in good faith.

You'll see a judge convict Kobe of rape before you see a judge convict either party for not bargaining in bad faith.

Buy hey, I guess that's just my opinion!

[GarbageTime]

This notion that the proposal limits the ability for players to choose where they want to go is completely bogus. I wrote a blog post about it, but basically, they need to learn the difference between and incentive and restriction. If a player wants to make top dollar, then there are restrictions on where he can go, which is how the NBA is trying to level the playing field. Absolutely nothing is stopping players from going where they want to go except their desire to combine that with making as much money as they can. They have to choose between making top dollar and freedom of choice. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for guys whining that they have to take a few million less (yet still MAKE millions) to be able to choose where they want to go. Especially when their ability to choose can completely devastate teams that aren't sought after destinations. THAT is why I don't side with the players at all on this.

again not true. Both the salary cap and tax restrictions are limiting a players ability to go where they may 'choose' to go because its limiting and restricting an owners ability/willingness to sign any player within certain criteria.

If every team had X amount of cap space available, in every given year, and were willing to use it, or every owner gave no regard to the tax, then what you said would be true. But that is not the case, nor will it be the case. The less ability any owner is given, it inevitably results in less choice for the players.

And I have no sympathy for anyone. None of these owners are hard up or going broke. They all have more money than, likely, everyone I know combined and can live beyond what most of us could even call comfort. The players make more money they need to do a job most would love to do. I don't see how anyone could have any sympathy for anyone in these negotiations.

There were numerous teams already unwilling to go in to the tax. Those who did often did not pass $75M. We are talking 3-4 teams here: NYK, LAL, DAL, and eventually MIA.

Read the full CBA proposal - it is only 7 pages.

What the 450 players are fighting for that will effect maybe 5 players per season is RIDICULOUS and will come down to a choice between the most money possible for a player and the place he wishes to earn it.

It does not matter if it only effect 1 or 4 or 30 teams. It does not matter if it effects 1 or 5 or 450 players. Less choice is less choice. And it is, without question, NOT more choice.

[mcHAPPY]

again not true. Both the salary cap and tax restrictions are limiting a players ability to go where they may 'choose' to go because its limiting and restricting an owners ability/willingness to sign any player within certain criteria.

If every team had X amount of cap space available, in every given year, and were willing to use it, or every owner gave no regard to the tax, then what you said would be true. But that is not the case, nor will it be the case. The less ability any owner is given, it inevitably results in less choice for the players.

And I have no sympathy for anyone. None of these owners are hard up or going broke. They all have more money than, likely, everyone I know combined and can live beyond what most of us could even call comfort. The players make more money they need to do a job most would love to do. I don't see how anyone could have any sympathy for anyone in these negotiations.



It does not matter if it only effect 1 or 4 or 30 teams. It does not matter if it effects 1 or 5 or 450 players. Less choice is less choice. And it is, without question, NOT more choice.

Good point. However this is a good example of the best interests of the league and its fans coming before the best interests of players. My quoted point is essentially what players are taking a 4 billion dollar ($4,000,000,000) on in guaranteed contracts, at minimum another $120M a year in BRI, and a true hard cap system being implemented. The risk they are taking is RIDICULOUS in my opinion once one breaks down the true implications of what the league was offering.

[mcHAPPY]

Via HoopsHype.com:

Derrick Williams: Like my boy Kemba said .. Been broke all out lives .. So it ain't nothing new. Twitter

[ezz_bee]

Twitter is over capacity so I can't post the link but got this on my cell phone

@johnhollinger: RT@ekoreen: The NBA accusing the players of negotiating in bad faith is like the pot just completely lacking self-awareness

made me chuckle. But I'd say it would work both ways

[mcHAPPY]

So to review the situation, the Players are going the same route that the NFL Players went last summer, using the same attorney – Jeffrey Kessler. Kessler lost this same battle for the NFL Players and will most certainly face the same result with the NBA Players.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result . . .and it appears there is a great deal of insanity on the side of the NBA Players.

Stay tuned . . .

Source: HoopsWorld.com


Take the source with a grain of salt but this appears to be accurate.

[Tim W.]

again not true. Both the salary cap and tax restrictions are limiting a players ability to go where they may 'choose' to go because its limiting and restricting an owners ability/willingness to sign any player within certain criteria.

If every team had X amount of cap space available, in every given year, and were willing to use it, or every owner gave no regard to the tax, then what you said would be true. But that is not the case, nor will it be the case. The less ability any owner is given, it inevitably results in less choice for the players.

And I have no sympathy for anyone. None of these owners are hard up or going broke. They all have more money than, likely, everyone I know combined and can live beyond what most of us could even call comfort. The players make more money they need to do a job most would love to do. I don't see how anyone could have any sympathy for anyone in these negotiations.

Actually, that's not true. You seem to have confused restriction with incentive, just like the players. Let's say the proposal was accepted and there was no grandfathering of things like sign and trades. Chris Paul could still go just about anywhere he pleases. The only issue would be roster space. But what he can't do is go to any team while still what he wants to make.

The problem is that free agents don't want to give up anything for the ability to go where they please. And they don't seem to realize, or don't care, that it would devastate a lot of small market teams that already have a tough time trying to compete with the big city teams.

[Hugmenot]

It does not matter if it only effect 1 or 4 or 30 teams. It does not matter if it effects 1 or 5 or 450 players. Less choice is less choice. And it is, without question, NOT more choice.

What I hear you saying is the interest of the one is greater than the interests of the whole. Is this what you're saying?

[Joey]

Mr. Owner is free to give All-Star/Starter money to any player he chooses. But unlike baseball, there is no arbitration in basketball and thus Mr Owner is never forced by a third party to give All-Star/Starter money to a player who performs as well or better than an overpaid player.

If the restrictions and financial penalties are harsh enough, the system will sustain itself despite the ever present bad contracts. Yes some players will be grossly underpaid/overpaid based upon their production but that's a risk whenever two parties agreed to multi-year guaranteed contract.

Mr. Owner is never forced, No, you are correct. But was Mr. Owner forced to give Joe Johnson a MAX contract?
Nope. But he did anyway. And you can bet he didn't WANT to.
The market forced his hand.

And when your Free-Agent Power Forward comes to you and says "Eddy Curry is making so-much money. I had a better year than him. Give me more than Curry, or I sign elsewhere."

The market sets the value of contracts. And the value of contracts set the market.

[Bendit]

Primer on De-certification....by Mike McCann

This was date stamped Nov. 3 so is without the furor of the last week's events. McCann is a law professor on sports law and the linked piece seems to lay out the pitfalls for either side quite well.

Linkhttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ify/index.html

[GarbageTime]

Actually, that's not true. You seem to have confused restriction with incentive, just like the players. Let's say the proposal was accepted and there was no grandfathering of things like sign and trades. Chris Paul could still go just about anywhere he pleases. The only issue would be roster space. But what he can't do is go to any team while still what he wants to make.

The problem is that free agents don't want to give up anything for the ability to go where they please. And they don't seem to realize, or don't care, that it would devastate a lot of small market teams that already have a tough time trying to compete with the big city teams.

first of "just about anywhere" is not everywhere... so immediately you do have a lack of choice. Secondly Chris Paul is not every player, and the vast majority of players are not privileged enough to receive any paycheque they may want from any team they want to play for.

And no, Free agents don't want to give up the ability to go where they please... as thats is giving up choice.

And just to be clear, this is not a comment on whether the CBA is right or wrong, or the best/worst/average outcome.