The Lockout has arrived.

[Bricklayer]

Sounds like a moneygrab.. Owners are owners for a reason, and players should not be making more than the owners.. Most owners aren't even making money, and the players and agents still want to screw them over.

The agents are a bunch of greedy retards.

Greedy retards who could severely damage us.

I am not a labor lawyer, but I believe that if the union decertifies, then the whole system blinks out of existence (an agent's heaven). What's that mean? Well if true it means that all out work saving free agent money for this summer would mean nothing. With no system, the salry cap is gone, all restrictions on free agents are gone. Marcus Thornotn is no longer restricted. The Heat can go ahead and sign Daly to a contract way over the former cap/tax limit because they are gone. With no system there are no limits, and all of our carefully stored little advantages dissipate and Sacramento jsut goes back to being one of the least desirable NBA cities with no advantage over anybody.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Greedy retards who could severely damage us.

I am not a labor lawyer, but I believe that if the union decertifies, then the whole system blinks out of existence (an agent's heaven). What's that mean? Well if true it means that all out work saving free agent money for this summer would mean nothing. With no system, the salry cap is gone, all restrictions on free agents are gone. Marcus Thornotn is no longer restricted. The Heat can go ahead and sign Daly to a contract way over the former cap/tax limit because they are gone. With no system there are no limits, and all of our carefully stored little advantages dissipate and Sacramento jsut goes back to being one of the least desirable NBA cities with no advantage over anybody.

Yeah, that's scary. At the same time, if the system blinks out of existence, Gilbert Arenas' contract disappears, Joe Johnson's contract disappears, etc. There are a lot of guys getting way over market value who I expect would fight tooth and nail to avoid losing their sweet contracts.

But yeah - everybody a free agent? That's a nightmare for us.

 

[Kingster]

Yeah, that's scary. At the same time, if the system blinks out of existence, Gilbert Arenas' contract disappears, Joe Johnson's contract disappears, etc. There are a lot of guys getting way over market value who I expect would fight tooth and nail to avoid losing their sweet contracts.

But yeah - everybody a free agent? That's a nightmare for us.

And if the system disappears, then there would be numerous small market teams going BK (Sacto among them), which would result in far fewer NBA players being employed. The superstars would do fine, but the marginal to mediocre guys wouldn't. And because Miki Moore has the same union voting power as Lebron, I don't see decertifying happening.

 

[Larry David]

Greedy retards who could severely damage us.

I am not a labor lawyer, but I believe that if the union decertifies, then the whole system blinks out of existence (an agent's heaven). What's that mean? Well if true it means that all out work saving free agent money for this summer would mean nothing. With no system, the salry cap is gone, all restrictions on free agents are gone.

The lawsuit would seek to wipe out the soft cap, max contracts, and even the draft on the grounds they they are restraints to on trade that violate anti-trust. Because there would be no CBA (the deal not the league) and the NBA is clearly a pro-hoops monopoly, they would most likely win the case and get all of those things tossed.

The league can only assign players to a team because the players have a agreed to this restriction on trade. So as crazy as it sounds, no draft.

At which point, star players can make 25-30 million a season if a team will pay it and every team can bid for the best rookies. It's a dream for the agents and the death of the small markets.

With about 20-35 players making all of the money, the top agents would love it. All fans and most of the players, not so much. But when the agents say your pay will go up and your union is telling you to take a pay cut, dumb things can happen.

 

[bajaden]

The lawsuit would seek to wipe out the soft cap, max contracts, and even the draft on the grounds they they are restraints to on trade that violate anti-trust. Because there would be no CBA (the deal not the league) and the NBA is clearly a pro-hoops monopoly, they would most likely win the case and get all of those things tossed.

The league can only assign players to a team because the players have a agreed to this restriction on trade. So as crazy as it sounds, no draft.

At which point, star players can make 25-30 million a season if a team will pay it and every team can bid for the best rookies. It's a dream for the agents and the death of the small markets.

With about 20-35 players making all of the money, the top agents would love it. All fans and most of the players, not so much. But when the agents say your pay will go up and your union is telling you to take a pay cut, dumb things can happen.

Of course for all of those things to happen, the owners would have to participate in it. Something thats not in their general best interest. Therefore, I don't think they would. It does no good to be a top freeagent if no one bids for your service. I guess the top players could try and start another league. Good luck with that. They could go play in europe, which abhors the star system. I doubt they like that for very long. The Kobe's of the world would still make good money, but I really doubt they make anymore than they already make in the long run. In decertifying, they would also destroy the players retirement and hospitalization plan, and any other post retirement benefits, some of which take care of players that retired 20 or 30 years ago.

The top players might benefit, but the Jason Thompsons of the world would be reading a different story. And how would fans across the nation react to the so called stars. I suspect there would be many fans that would simply refuse to pay money to see the players that destroyed the NBA. No fans, no league, and no money. Its a hard sell to a fan thats been out of work for two years. As for me, sorry Lebron, I'll be watching college basketball.

 

[Superman]

Greedy retards who could severely damage us.

I am not a labor lawyer, but I believe that if the union decertifies, then the whole system blinks out of existence (an agent's heaven). What's that mean? Well if true it means that all out work saving free agent money for this summer would mean nothing. With no system, the salry cap is gone, all restrictions on free agents are gone. Marcus Thornotn is no longer restricted. The Heat can go ahead and sign Daly to a contract way over the former cap/tax limit because they are gone. With no system there are no limits, and all of our carefully stored little advantages dissipate and Sacramento jsut goes back to being one of the least desirable NBA cities with no advantage over anybody.

One thing that came out of the NFL labor dispute was an opinion from the court that a union decertifying and filing suit would not be able to reasonably argue that the decertification and suit do not stem from a labor dispute. The NFLPA likely would have lost their case on those grounds, and the NBPA would likely lose the same. The way it was impressed upon me, any suit filed within a year of the decertification would be nullified on those grounds. I don't see how decertification is an option for the players.

 

[Superman]

For those that didn't trip over the PDF in the RealGM article, here's the just the letter to the players by the agents.

http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/nba/AgentsLetter100311.pdf

Requesting a full vote and sufficient time to review the agreement is reasonable. Arguing for the status quo is not.

 

[pilot305]

If the "elite" players of the league try to start another league, i sure the hell ain't watching.

signed,
All NBA Fans!

 

[Larry David]

Of course for all of those things to happen, the owners would have to participate in it. Something thats not in their general best interest. Therefore, I don't think they would.

That's not how decertification and the lawsuit would work. Once the players union is decertified, two things will happen. First, the agents can get a few star players to file an anti-trust lawsuit. Second, it will blow up the process, slow it down, and ensure that the season doesn't happen. So they've got a year to work on it.

Unlike the NFL players, the agents aren't looking for a court to issue a TRO forcing everybody back to work under the old system. Nope, they just want a court to find that the restrictions on trade violate the Sherman Act.

Once a court has ruled that max salaries and the draft are illegal, the owners don't get to choose to partcipate. Max salaries are illegal in the NBA.

Sure, there is a case to be made that the players bargain that away a massive change as a trade union ... but that's not what the agents are going for. They don't want 57-60 percent of BRI. They want to change the system, just like the owners do.

That's why the agents are making this move. That's why the intent of the agents, gap between the parties, and lenght of time might allow them to decertify.

Finally, it's very possible that a court would find that decert invalidates the contracts, but it might not. It's not like a union where all contracts have a set salary formula. The Hawks chose to enter into a service contract with Joe Johnson and pay him a stupid amount. It's not clear that his being part of the NBAPA is material enough to void the contract. Just because the NBA says it over and over again, doesn't mean its true.

 

[Larry David]

The split between the agents and the NBAPA is just as deep as the small market and big market owners.

The agents would love to take control of this and get a seat at the table.

The agents knew the NBAPA needed to compromise a ton today to have any chance to making a deal, and the NBAPA was going to compromise at least some.

Monday, the agents completely cut the knees out from under the NBAPA by telling all of the players that its last offer was a huge mistake, and any further concessions must be rejected.

Therefore, after the owners made a crappy offer, the NBAPA didn’t even bother to make a counter today.

At some point this week, regular season games are getting canceled.

Soon, the agents are going to tell the players, “See, we told you. The NBAPA couldn’t get this done after negotiating for more than two years, and you’ve only got about three months left before the season is gone. Let us try for a few weeks. Who’s for decertification?”

The players figure, “Hey, this might get us a CBA faster.” But the agents want an NBA without a CBA. After 1999, everybody knows the owners can crush the union, including the players, who might turn to the agents. Both sides are trying to screw the bottom 1/2 of the NBAPA. Maybe if more of the players went to college – or more college – they could see why the pieces are moving around the board.

 

[rainmaker]

I disagree with the point about desertification, and that they'd have a year to work it out. They won't have a year.

The Olympics are next July/Aug, and Olympic qualification will be going on in the late spring/early summer for some countries with NBA players. If the union desertifies, how will NBA players participate in the Olympics, not only for us, but for all the other countries participating?

 

[Larry David]

I disagree with the point about desertification, and that they'd have a year to work it out. They won't have a year.

The Olympics are next July/Aug, and Olympic qualification will be going on in the late spring/early summer for some countries with NBA players. If the union desertifies, how will NBA players participate in the Olympics, not only for us, but for all the other countries participating?

The league has already made it clear that the players can do / play where they want during the lockout on the ground that - if the league is saying you can't work here, then you can work where you want.

For example, Kobe might play 10 games in Italy while under contract with the Lakers. Therefore, the player can play in London while locked out.

To put another way, if league is locking out the players and maybe claiming in court that all contracts are void, how do they seek to prevent Lebron playing for team USA or Dirk from playing for Germany? They probably can't and they've said they won't.

They can have almost a year because we probably won't have game for a year.

 

[rainmaker]

The league has already made it clear that the players can do / play where they want during the lockout on the ground that - if the league is saying you can't work here, then you can work where you want.

For example, Kobe might play 10 games in Italy while under contract with the Lakers. Therefore, the player can play in London while locked out.

They can have almost a year because we probably won't have game for a year.

Where does the insurance come from? Say Kobe plays an entire season in Italy, do you think the Italian team would pay insurance for him to represent the US at the Olympics? Can't play in the Olympics without insurance. Who's paying?

 

[rainmaker]

Aside from that, nothing good to report from meeting today. Billy Hunter said when asked about the next scheduled meeting, "There has been no discussion about next meetings," added union executive director Billy Hunter. "Maybe a month. Two months. Your guess is as good as mine."

I'm getting sick of this. Apparently the owners didn't go above 47% BRI. Ridiculous. I don't believe they're negotiating in good faith, but rather for maximum profit. They could get a profitable deal done. It just wouldn't be a profitable as they would like. Well, think about that next time before offering Joe freaking Johnson 126M, among many others.

Edit: Now I'm seeing tweets on ESPN that the players rejected a 50/50 BRI split on principal. Ugh.

 

[Larry David]

The national teams. It might hurt the USA (but then again, they might pay), but Germany will pay up for Dirk. Spain will find a way to get that done. If some small basketball league in Austriala can figure out how to get Bogut's insurance done (and that deal is probably going to get done), then I'm sure USA basketball can sell some more merch and cover that

But either way, you are make a huge leap. Are you really saying that - they NBA players are going to give up an NBA season in January 2011, but they'll take the same deal in March to save the Olympics? If not, then they have until the next set of NBA games are at risk this time next year.

Like when hockey went down for a year, the players probably cave and take the January deal they refused in late spring or early summer. But the Olympics aren't the reason

 

[rainmaker]

The national teams. It might hurt the USA (but then again, they might pay), but Germany will pay up for Dirk. Spain will find a way to get that done. If some small basketball league in Austriala can figure out how to get Bogut's insurance done (and that deal is probably going to get done), then I'm sure USA basketball can sell some more merch and cover that

But either way, you are make a huge leap. Are you really saying that - they NBA players are going to give up an NBA season in January 2011, but they'll take the same deal in March to save the Olympics? If not, then they have until the next set of NBA games are at risk this time next year.

Like when hockey went down for a year, the players probably cave and take the January deal they refused in late spring or early summer. But the Olympics aren't the reason

I'm not sure one way or the other. But until I know for a fact that NBA players without a union, can get insurance to play in the Olympics, it's not something I'm going to discount. All I'm saying is that I disagree that if there is desertification, that they can simply sit around for a year, and hope to get something done this time enxt year. I don't know exactly how the Olympics will impact it, but I believe it will have an impact come the spring, if nothing has changed.

Time to go get ready for the NYRB/LAG match up. At least there's soccer tonight. I know most don't feel the same.

 

[bajaden]

That's not how decertification and the lawsuit would work. Once the players union is decertified, two things will happen. First, the agents can get a few star players to file an anti-trust lawsuit. Second, it will blow up the process, slow it down, and ensure that the season doesn't happen. So they've got a year to work on it.

Unlike the NFL players, the agents aren't looking for a court to issue a TRO forcing everybody back to work under the old system. Nope, they just want a court to find that the restrictions on trade violate the Sherman Act.

Once a court has ruled that max salaries and the draft are illegal, the owners don't get to choose to partcipate. Max salaries are illegal in the NBA.

Sure, there is a case to be made that the players bargain that away a massive change as a trade union ... but that's not what the agents are going for. They don't want 57-60 percent of BRI. They want to change the system, just like the owners do.

That's why the agents are making this move. That's why the intent of the agents, gap between the parties, and lenght of time might allow them to decertify.

Finally, it's very possible that a court would find that decert invalidates the contracts, but it might not. It's not like a union where all contracts have a set salary formula. The Hawks chose to enter into a service contract with Joe Johnson and pay him a stupid amount. It's not clear that his being part of the NBAPA is material enough to void the contract. Just because the NBA says it over and over again, doesn't mean its true.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be. And I'll admit, that nothing would surprise me in todays world. But if I understand you correctly, its possible that the players union could decertify, and the court could rule that all contracts are still valid. As a result the lockout would end, and the owners would then have to proceed with the season against their will. The idea being, that if the contracts are legal, then they have to be paid, and if your going to pay a player, he might as well have to earn it.

I agree that the players union isn't a union that replicates your typical union. But so far the courts have recognized it as a union, and therefore it should be held to the same standards. But thats just my opinion, and who knows what a judge will rule.

I think this would be a very risky move on the players part. I can also see this entire thing being locked up in court for two to three years, maybe all the way to the united states surpreme court. Just who the hell wins in that scenario? I know the fans lose, and if that were to happen, the NBA would suffer a huge blow. At the moment, I think there's stupidity on both sides of the table, and the agents are looking out for the agents. And to be fair, its really only six agents that are being vocal about it. The bottom line is that it takes a majority vote from the players to decertify. I certainly hope the majority of the players listen to more than just their agents.

 

[Larry David]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be. And I'll admit, that nothing would surprise me in todays world. But if I understand you correctly, its possible that the players union could decertify, and the court could rule that all contracts are still valid. As a result the lockout would end, and the owners would then have to proceed with the season against their will. The idea being, that if the contracts are legal, then they have to be paid, and if your going to pay a player, he might as well have to earn it.

I agree that the players union isn't a union that replicates your typical union. But so far the courts have recognized it as a union, and therefore it should be held to the same standards. But thats just my opinion, and who knows what a judge will rule.

I think this would be a very risky move on the players part. I can also see this entire thing being locked up in court for two to three years, maybe all the way to the united states surpreme court. Just who the hell wins in that scenario? I know the fans lose, and if that were to happen, the NBA would suffer a huge blow. At the moment, I think there's stupidity on both sides of the table, and the agents are looking out for the agents. And to be fair, its really only six agents that are being vocal about it. The bottom line is that it takes a majority vote from the players to decertify. I certainly hope the majority of the players listen to more than just their agents.

The players would be shooting for the Court to say that: they have legally decertified their union; the move does not void the contracts; the lockout is unlawful because the NBA is using it's monopoly to its unfair benifit; the player are entitled to damages for that, including the lost season; and going forward a lot of the things that we are used to are illegal. The NFL player did that in the Reggie White case, which brought free agency to the NFL. Here, the agents would shoot for the max contracts and probably the draft just to make the NBA really run for the hills.

The NFLPA knew they weren't missing any games so they rushed it and could only use a TRO. And they wanted the Court to order everybody right back to work, while saying the ongoing negotations were illegal. That doesn't make any sense. The NBA players will be suing for back salary and they would want the other relief going forward. The NBA players are probably missing the season, so they've got time for at least a motion for summary judgment.

I'm pretty sure a Sherman case gets you x 3 damages. So the players would be suing for their contracts x 3. As you can see, this is where the gloves come off. The owners have to decide to cave or break the union like the NHL did.

It has huge risks, but a huge upside. Like Cousins (sorry)

 

[fansinceday1]

I barely started following this so pardon my lack of knowledge.
Is it true that for the players are fighting to keep the profit sharing at Players 56% and the owners at 44%? Thats what I just heard on the radio. If those are the numbers and I were an owner I too would be in full support of doing whatever is possible to get that number to at least a 51% share for the owners.

 

[PurpleHaze]

http://www.kcra.com/sports/29389091/detail.html All preseason games cancelled. Stern says no further talks with union scheduled until apparently a last ditch effort to get an agreement in place by Monday. After that, regular season games will be getting axed. Unfortunately it is what it is - pending doom.

 

[Bricklayer]

I barely started following this so pardon my lack of knowledge.
Is it true that for the players are fighting to keep the profit sharing at Players 56% and the owners at 44%? Thats what I just heard on the radio. If those are the numbers and I were an owner I too would be in full support of doing whatever is possible to get that number to at least a 51% share for the owners.

Started at 57% for players (last CBA)

Owners demanded that be 46% this time, which was just a non-starter.

Today apparently they offered a 50/50 split. Players refused.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Started at 57% for players (last CBA)

Owners demanded that be 46% this time, which was just a non-starter.

Today apparently they offered a 50/50 split. Players refused.

Having defended the players before, I find their walking away from a 50/50 split unreasonable. At least counter with 52, then settle for 51% to save face. Done.

 

[rainmaker]

Having defended the players before, I find their walking away from a 50/50 split unreasonable. At least counter with 52, then settle for 51% to save face. Done.

As Larry Coon stated in the article I posted above, after the BRI is negotiated, they can start attacking the salary cap. It's the foundation of the deal which is yet to be made. How can they walk away from a 50/50 proposal, as a first step to solving this thing? That's a fair first step, anyway you slice it.

 

[est.1999]

I don't get what the players want. Derek Fisher just claimed today that it's not about the money with the players. And that they just feel like they are more valuable/important to this business. Well then why all the shot down proposals? The owners have already agreed to honor all existing guaranteed contracts and to rid the idea of the hard cap. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

A bit more optimism here:

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32511287

It looks like the sides may in reality be only two percentage points (not 6) apart, with that amount representing about $80M per year total. The article also mentions the possibility of meetings on Thursday.

Come on, everybody, get this done and let's have some basketball!

 

[hrdboild]

No offense to anyone in particular, but I think there's a tendency as fans to look at this short-sightedly as if saving this NBA season is the big issue when it's not. Of course everyone involved wants to keep making money. For some unfortunate role players and rookies, losing even one season may mean the end of their NBA career not to mention the thousands of people employed by all of the arenas throughout the season. But the bottom line is that whatever decision this group of players makes will have ramifications for all subsequent generations of NBA players.

When Wade and Lebron and co. go on about 53% it isn't just a few percentage points here or there that they're arguing about. That number in particular is symbolic because it's a legacy of the NBPA that they've never received less than 53% of the total revenue at any point in history. None of these guys wants to be a part of the generation that gave in to the owners and sold out their future colleagues. Employees don't go on strike because they want to miss work, they do it because they're forced to by their employers. And while owners groups in the past have succesfully re-framed the media debate around greedy uneducated millionaire players and their sleazy money grubbing agents, I don't think that's going to work this time because (a) the players are strongly united with the young stars of the league leading the charge -- three of which just elected to take a pay cut because they wanted to play on the same team -- and (b) there's too much evidence out there which refutes the notion that running an NBA team isn't profitable.

Articles like this one for instance by Malcolm Gladwell which is currently linked off of ESPN's NBA page. All the numbers say that the NBA is more profitable right now than at any other time in it's history. Obviously the owners would prefer more financial security. But their product isn't a faceless commodity like oil which has no say in how much it gets exploited. Their product is the players, or more specifically the best basketball players in the world. There is no substitute unless they want to become one of dozens of leagues world wide which can boast "professional level talent". You know David Stern doesn't want that. So if 53% was fair for Michael Jordan and Larry Bird and Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson, all the way on down the line -- why isn't it fair for Wade and Lebron and Melo and Kobe?

I want to be watching NBA basketball right now as much as everyone else does. The off-season is already too long in a normal year. But I don't think the players should feel any pressure to accept an unfair deal just to save 30 or 40 games of regular season basketball. (A full season would be a lot to give up, but it's still way too early to envision that scenario) This has always been about the big picture for both parties. And if that means the season doesn't start until February or we have to wait until next year, I just hope they come up with something that everyone is happy with and we don't have to worry about this for another 10 years. Maybe 50/50 sounds like a fair deal, but it's a historical loss for the players and the owners haven't made a single concession yet with regards to revenue sharing so frankly, they have no right to even ask for 50/50 until they get their act together and do what's best for the league. If anything it's the Jerry Busses and James Dolans of the league who are holding the season hostage and the league itself by insisting that a broken system remain broken in their favor.

 

[bajaden]

Obviously your taking the players side in this. I've said from the beginning that I can see points on both sides. As for the players decision affecting generations of players to come, that ridiculous. The CBA thats being proposed is for 10 years, and the owners have agreed to allow the union to opt out after 7 years if they desire to do so. Your also wrong about the players being totally united. They're not! Several players that were interviewed today stated that a 50/50 split sounded fair to them. There are more players making under 5 mil a year in the NBA than players making over 8 mil. Basicly, support players. And most aren't sitting on an nest egg like the Wade's of the world. They want to play, and most aren't interested in the politics being played right now.

As to whats fair? I have no idea. All I know is I wouldn't want to own a business where my employee's tell me whats fair. But as an outsider looking in, 50/50 sounds fair to me. Also, the owners have made statements about revenue sharing. Stern stated that it would be quadrupled from where it is now over the next 7 years. Yes, there hasn't been anything formal put in writing, but its not a part of the CBA. I can't speak for Dolan, but Jerry Buss has said he's in favor of more revenue sharing as long as the BRI is split more favorably. Stern also said that the league has dropped the hard cap from the negotiations, and that the league is willing to keep the excemptions intact. Sorry, but those sound like concessions to me. Obviously, we don't know all the details, but it certainly sounds like progress.

 

[fansinceday1]

I want to be watching NBA basketball right now as much as everyone else does. The off-season is already too long in a normal year. But I don't think the players should feel any pressure to accept an unfair deal just to save 30 or 40 games of regular season basketball.

What is unfair about a 50/50 split?
Im sorry but this is all on the players. The owners are sounding like the reasonable side here and the players are sounding like the greedy ba^#@*($, From a business perspective, I as an owner would be willing to dump the entire season to overhaul the whole darn system and shoot for what the NFL has. They will never get exactly what the NFL owners have but that should be model.

The prevailing mood that I am hearing from the public is who cares if the NBA strikes. I just heard it this morning on both CNN sports and The Wall Street Journal Business Report. The sports guys exact words were, "sorry NBA, no ones gonna miss ya." That just made me sad.

 

[Rookie]

I really could care less about the Lebron/Wade of the NBA. They all could go to Europe and I'll still be watching the NBA!

New stars will rise when giving the opportunity. Let's start the season!

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I really could care less about the Lebron/Wade of the NBA. They all could go to Europe and I'll still be watching the NBA!

New stars will rise when giving the opportunity. Let's start the season!

I agree with this. Let the prima donnas with their eight figure salaries, nine figure contracts, and ten figure egos walk if they feel disrespected. Personally, i wouldn't miss them. In fact, if they weeded out some of the "superstars", maybe we could have an NBA with more 2004 Pistons type teams where it's just five really good players playing team basketball rather than one or two "studs" and a bunch of "role players". That would be a BIG improvement over the current NBA in my opinion.