The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
2 hours ago they ordered dinner... Seems they have something to talk about..
I would have thought if they are too far apart then they would have just ended the talks at 5pm est and went their separate ways. Since there is a deadline involved and they are talking PAST the deadline I have a feeling it's going to get done.
http://twitter.com/#!/daldridgetnt
Keep updated with David Aldridge tweets.
I would have thought if they are too far apart then they would have just ended the talks at 5pm est and went their separate ways. Since there is a deadline involved and they are talking PAST the deadline I have a feeling it's going to get done.
http://twitter.com/#!/daldridgetnt
Keep updated with David Aldridge tweets.
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
8 hrs in. Re: progress as reported by Yahoo! et al: 1 high-ranking team exec previously skeptical now optimistic. But heard that before..
http://twitter.com/#!/daldridgetnt
AschNBA Steve Aschburner
Reports of "progress" in NBA labor mtg (multiple outlets). If it took chastened union attorney Kessler or Stern's straw deadline, so be it.
http://twitter.com/#!/AschNBA
8 hrs in. Re: progress as reported by Yahoo! et al: 1 high-ranking team exec previously skeptical now optimistic. But heard that before..
http://twitter.com/#!/daldridgetnt
AschNBA Steve Aschburner
Reports of "progress" in NBA labor mtg (multiple outlets). If it took chastened union attorney Kessler or Stern's straw deadline, so be it.
http://twitter.com/#!/AschNBA
I get that whole pride thing, because at a certain point the powers that be don't want to look like they got railroaded into a bad deal. But from the players' perspective, especially the people in the know like Fisher and Hunter, I understand their hesitation to take such a drastic cut and then have to turn around and say "we did what we thought was best for our union and our game." The players have been making 57% of BRI for several years now, not because they need to in order for them to survive, but because it's what was agreed upon. And now, the owners claim that even a 50/50 split is untenable? It's only recently that they've been willing to offer that split without a hard cap and a serious rollback of present salaries. And this on the heels of one of the most popular seasons in recent history, and with the game doing well domestically and internationally. I understand the players' stance that the owners need to work out revenue sharing amongst themselves.
However, I do believe that the league needs a drastic overhaul of player compensation. I don't particularly care about their BRI split, one way or the other. I don't care if the best players make $40 million a year and the mediocre players make $2 million a year. Doesn't matter to me. I do care that the big market teams can spend with relative impunity, year after year, while the small market teams can't lure free agents and struggle financially to spend up to minimum payroll levels. That disparity is what I think is ruining the league. I don't want to see any teams get contracted (especially because the Kings would be one of the first on the block), but there is a haves vs have-nots element that's promoted by the current rules, and the salary cap and luxury tax will have to be real restraints in order for that to go away. I don't care what the Lakers do with their $3 billion in TV money, so long as they can't use that money to pay players more than anyone else can. I don't think they necessarily need to subsidize small market teams; I do think they need to have real restrictions on the amount they can spend.
Unfortunately for the players, the real fix lies with fixing the player compensation model (not necessarily BRI), which will necessarily reduce the average salary in the NBA. They are resistant to that idea, but are willing to take a 50/50 split, which makes no sense to me. That's where pride comes in. They are already limited to 57% of BRI. That's going to come down drastically, without a doubt. Then they are going to have to agree to reduce the length of contracts, and restrict big money/market teams' ability to spend over the cap/tax. And, there's already a maximum salary for top players (which is also a problem; the star players deserve $30 million a year more than the mediocre players deserve $6 million a year), and a compensation structure for rookies. They are going to lose this thing, one way or the other. They always were. And once the NFL union tried the decertification route (which didn't work, and only slowed down progress at the end of the day), that option was effectively off the table. Yeah, they can still try it, but the courts decided with the NFL action that the decertification doesn't allow a union to immediately abandon collective bargaining. So they'd wind up missing an entire season, then having to fight a court battle over anti-trust issues, which may or may not go their way, considering the conservative makeup of the courts. No way does the union agree to that course of action. And on top of that, they didn't decertify and file suit before they were locked out, so their argument is even weaker. This is a non-starter, and everyone who paid attention to the NFL labor debate knows it.
So back to the basics. They're losing. They were always losing, and we knew it when they did the last deal, just like with the NFL. The only question is how much is it going to hurt? They can stop the bleeding right now. If it continues any longer, it gets real bad. I hope, for the sake of the game, that they reach an accord now. Otherwise, pride will force them into a very costly and damaging course of action.
However, I do believe that the league needs a drastic overhaul of player compensation. I don't particularly care about their BRI split, one way or the other. I don't care if the best players make $40 million a year and the mediocre players make $2 million a year. Doesn't matter to me. I do care that the big market teams can spend with relative impunity, year after year, while the small market teams can't lure free agents and struggle financially to spend up to minimum payroll levels. That disparity is what I think is ruining the league. I don't want to see any teams get contracted (especially because the Kings would be one of the first on the block), but there is a haves vs have-nots element that's promoted by the current rules, and the salary cap and luxury tax will have to be real restraints in order for that to go away. I don't care what the Lakers do with their $3 billion in TV money, so long as they can't use that money to pay players more than anyone else can. I don't think they necessarily need to subsidize small market teams; I do think they need to have real restrictions on the amount they can spend.
Unfortunately for the players, the real fix lies with fixing the player compensation model (not necessarily BRI), which will necessarily reduce the average salary in the NBA. They are resistant to that idea, but are willing to take a 50/50 split, which makes no sense to me. That's where pride comes in. They are already limited to 57% of BRI. That's going to come down drastically, without a doubt. Then they are going to have to agree to reduce the length of contracts, and restrict big money/market teams' ability to spend over the cap/tax. And, there's already a maximum salary for top players (which is also a problem; the star players deserve $30 million a year more than the mediocre players deserve $6 million a year), and a compensation structure for rookies. They are going to lose this thing, one way or the other. They always were. And once the NFL union tried the decertification route (which didn't work, and only slowed down progress at the end of the day), that option was effectively off the table. Yeah, they can still try it, but the courts decided with the NFL action that the decertification doesn't allow a union to immediately abandon collective bargaining. So they'd wind up missing an entire season, then having to fight a court battle over anti-trust issues, which may or may not go their way, considering the conservative makeup of the courts. No way does the union agree to that course of action. And on top of that, they didn't decertify and file suit before they were locked out, so their argument is even weaker. This is a non-starter, and everyone who paid attention to the NFL labor debate knows it.
So back to the basics. They're losing. They were always losing, and we knew it when they did the last deal, just like with the NFL. The only question is how much is it going to hurt? They can stop the bleeding right now. If it continues any longer, it gets real bad. I hope, for the sake of the game, that they reach an accord now. Otherwise, pride will force them into a very costly and damaging course of action.
I agree with this completely. I don't really care at all about the BRI split.
The final agreement could be 60/40 in favor of the players, as long as the system changes are put into effect to limit the disparity between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'.
Of course the owners want both. They want more money as well as the sytem changes. I'd rather they let the players have 52% and implement better system changes, than going to a straight 50-50 split, but conceeding on system issues. Gilbert himself said that he lost 100 million when LeBron left. If a different system had been in place, it's entirely possible, that things would have worked out differently. So the owners do have to consider the long range benefits of system changes, over the straight revenue generated by a slightly better BRI-split.
I don't want to hear all the time at work from Laker fans how they are expecting to get Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, when they are currently due to have a 90+ million dollar pay-roll next year.
System changes can make it all but impossible for well established teams to go after a Howard or a Paul, and as a fan, that's what I want to see happen.
I want the Kings to be able to develop Tyreke and DeMarcus, and then have the best opportunity in keeping their investment and re-signing them to long-term deals.
Hopefully a deal will be made tonight, because if it isn't, I don't think the odds of having NBA basketball this year is very good.
The final agreement could be 60/40 in favor of the players, as long as the system changes are put into effect to limit the disparity between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'.
Of course the owners want both. They want more money as well as the sytem changes. I'd rather they let the players have 52% and implement better system changes, than going to a straight 50-50 split, but conceeding on system issues. Gilbert himself said that he lost 100 million when LeBron left. If a different system had been in place, it's entirely possible, that things would have worked out differently. So the owners do have to consider the long range benefits of system changes, over the straight revenue generated by a slightly better BRI-split.
I don't want to hear all the time at work from Laker fans how they are expecting to get Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, when they are currently due to have a 90+ million dollar pay-roll next year.
System changes can make it all but impossible for well established teams to go after a Howard or a Paul, and as a fan, that's what I want to see happen.
I want the Kings to be able to develop Tyreke and DeMarcus, and then have the best opportunity in keeping their investment and re-signing them to long-term deals.
Hopefully a deal will be made tonight, because if it isn't, I don't think the odds of having NBA basketball this year is very good.
If Gilbert lost money by losing LeBron, I feel sorry for his business, but that's a part of the game. I don't think players should be restricted from signing with whoever they want to sign with, but I do think big market/money teams should be restricted from adding talent on top of talent, salary on top of salary, without regard for the cap/tax, knowing that pairing Wade, LeBron and Bosh will more than make up for the money they're spending. I don't think the Lakers should be able to trade for Pau, extend Bynum, extend Kobe, extend Pau, resign Odom, sign Artest, etc., all the while being over the luxury tax threshold. Those are the restraints I think will balance the scales out, to a certain extent. Sacramento will never be LA; Cleveland will never be Miami; Charlotte will never be New York. The big market teams will always have an advantage. But they shouldn't also be able to spend more than everyone else, knowing they'll be net positive at the end of the day.
Unfortunately, that means that the Kings might one day lose Tyreke and/or DeMarcus to a big market team. I get that, and it sucks. But once you play out your contract, you should be able to decide where you want to play. If the Knicks or Lakers or Heat or whoever else is willing to strip their roster so they have the payroll to offer big deals to big name players, so be it. But they shouldn't be able to be above the payroll and then trade a bushel of apples for a star-level player, propelling them to three Finals appearances in a row.
I think so, too. If the owners pull their offer, the players will have to save face and try the long-shot decertification strategy, which everyone knows will not work. Eventually, they'll come back with their tails between their legs and take less than 50%, only we'll have lost an entire season. Which is completely unnecessary.
Unfortunately, that means that the Kings might one day lose Tyreke and/or DeMarcus to a big market team. I get that, and it sucks. But once you play out your contract, you should be able to decide where you want to play. If the Knicks or Lakers or Heat or whoever else is willing to strip their roster so they have the payroll to offer big deals to big name players, so be it. But they shouldn't be able to be above the payroll and then trade a bushel of apples for a star-level player, propelling them to three Finals appearances in a row.
I think so, too. If the owners pull their offer, the players will have to save face and try the long-shot decertification strategy, which everyone knows will not work. Eventually, they'll come back with their tails between their legs and take less than 50%, only we'll have lost an entire season. Which is completely unnecessary.
David Aldridge
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Don't know if they can close the gap on everything, but do have the sense Stern/Hunter want to make a deal tonight if possible...
12 minutes ago
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
But, again, we've been at this spot before and they haven't been able to get it done. No promises or predictions tonight, either.
8 minutes ago
»
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Don't know if they can close the gap on everything, but do have the sense Stern/Hunter want to make a deal tonight if possible...
12 minutes ago
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
But, again, we've been at this spot before and they haven't been able to get it done. No promises or predictions tonight, either.
8 minutes ago
»
I agree with a lot of whats being said, but not all. I do think its important to have a system where all the teams, if managed properly, can make a profit. otherwise whats the point of being in business? Lest we forget, it is a business. A strange business by business standards, but you should be entitled to make a profit. Also, I'm not of a mind that the players lost in the last lockout. I guess you could say that they lost in the sense that they didn't get everything they wanted, but the bottom line is that they ended up with a pretty good deal.
I think the owners could make a case that they didn't get everything they wanted in the last CBA either. So its a matter of who cried the most. I'm all far revenue sharing between the teams, and I think that will be a step toward equalizing the playing field. I also agree that a player should have the right to go where ever he wants once his contract is up. However, I think something needs to be done to help make the team that drafted him more attractive as a destination. There's something that just doesn't sit right about a team drafting a player, developing him, and then when he reaches his potential, he leaves for greener pastures.
No easy answer for that one other than being so competitive that he doesn't want to leave. Aka, Tim Duncan! As for contraction, I seriously doubt that will happen. Logically it doesn't make any sense. The Warriors just sold for 400 plus million dollars. Certainlly every team out there isn't worth that amount. But the point is, every team is worth a chunk of change, and you would be throwing that chunk of change away by contracting a team. I also don't think the Kings would be at the top of the list. If I had to pick a team, it would be New Orleans. Simply because the league owns the team. They wouldn't have to compensate an owner.
Lets hope and pray they come to a settlement tonight, or at the latest, tomorrow. PLEASE!
I think the owners could make a case that they didn't get everything they wanted in the last CBA either. So its a matter of who cried the most. I'm all far revenue sharing between the teams, and I think that will be a step toward equalizing the playing field. I also agree that a player should have the right to go where ever he wants once his contract is up. However, I think something needs to be done to help make the team that drafted him more attractive as a destination. There's something that just doesn't sit right about a team drafting a player, developing him, and then when he reaches his potential, he leaves for greener pastures.
No easy answer for that one other than being so competitive that he doesn't want to leave. Aka, Tim Duncan! As for contraction, I seriously doubt that will happen. Logically it doesn't make any sense. The Warriors just sold for 400 plus million dollars. Certainlly every team out there isn't worth that amount. But the point is, every team is worth a chunk of change, and you would be throwing that chunk of change away by contracting a team. I also don't think the Kings would be at the top of the list. If I had to pick a team, it would be New Orleans. Simply because the league owns the team. They wouldn't have to compensate an owner.
Lets hope and pray they come to a settlement tonight, or at the latest, tomorrow. PLEASE!
It's not a good sign.
I really doubt that they will meet for 10 hours tomorrow.
Most likely, Stern wants everything to think about things tonight and get some sleep. If there isn't some sort of concessions quickly tomorrow, they'll probably present the hardline offer and await the player's response.
But this just tells me that they do not agree on the system issues and neither side is willing to concede to get a deal done.
I really doubt that they will meet for 10 hours tomorrow.
Most likely, Stern wants everything to think about things tonight and get some sleep. If there isn't some sort of concessions quickly tomorrow, they'll probably present the hardline offer and await the player's response.
But this just tells me that they do not agree on the system issues and neither side is willing to concede to get a deal done.
According to Stern, the deadline remains "frozen," so hopefully there's still room to get things done. Billy Hunter said there was give and take on both sides. They didn't come out of the meeting and skewer each other like they have been in the past. That's a step in the right direction.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7...rs-players-wrap-12-hours-talks-major-progress
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7...rs-players-wrap-12-hours-talks-major-progress
If an owner buys a team and then realizes that he's having a hard time turning a profit because he paid too much (which is what a lot of the recent buyers like Jordan and Gilbert are saying), I don't think the revenue sharing structure needs to be modeled to benefit them, especially not at the expense of owners who have been in the league for decades and have built their teams into profitable businesses. I do see the need for revenue sharing, but I don't think it should be so aggressive that the big money teams are penalized for being more profitable than the small money teams. Gilbert chose to buy in Cleveland; that's not Jerry Buss's fault, nor should he be required to make up for the disparity.
I'm really not that concerned about teams being ensured a profit, either. Your "managed properly" criteria, while idealistic, is vague, and while I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by that, how do you gauge whether a team has been "managed properly"? Some would say LeBron neutered the Cavs ability to add players around him; others would say the Cavs enabled LeBron and his entourage. So were they "managed properly" over the last five years? Are they entitled to a profit? Like you say, this is not your typical business. If you can't turn a profit, it's most likely because your team is losing, and has been for several years. The Kings were booming in the early 2000s, and a few bad decisions and some bad luck later, and now they're barely making minimum payroll. I don't think they should be bailed out by big money teams just because they own a business as part of a league. No business is "entitled" to a profit. If you can't turn a profit, you need to either change your strategy/management, or sell to someone who can invest more aggressively in the business. I don't think you should have your hands held out to the big money teams, solely on the basis of "this is a business, and we expect to turn a profit." That's not what you said when you bought the team. You said that you'd do whatever it takes to put a winner on the floor. That's all your fans care about, not your profit and loss statements.
And in that regard, the league would be better served to limit the big money teams' ability to spend that big money on player compensation than it would be trying to balance the scales with money. The Lakers and Knicks will always be more profitable than the Kings and Bucks. They'll always be more attractive destinations. You'll never balance that out. You can limit how much those big teams can spend on their product, which will allow the small teams to compete more effectively. And once those teams are more competitive, they'll automatically be more profitable.
I think the players definitely won the last time around. The luxury tax is a joke. The biggest concession was reducing the length of contracts by one year, and that obviously didn't make any significant difference. Teams can still make acquisitions despite being above the salary cap and tax threshold. As revenues and BRI has increased, so have all contracts, no matter whether you're a max level player (a lot of whom don't deserve to be, by the way, which is the biggest problem of all, if you ask me), a mid level player, or a rookie. Everyone is getting paid more than they were ten years ago. There are no real constraints in place, and the players have been major beneficiaries.
But the reason I can't jump firmly into the owners' camp is because they doled this ridiculous contracts out. The owners agreed to pay Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson max money. The Knicks gave Amare Stoudemire $100 million, despite the fact that they couldn't get the contract insured because of his knee surgeries. It's hard for me to feel sorry for guys who complain about people making too much money when they are the ones who voluntarily agreed to pay them that much money in the first place, despite the BRI telling everyone involved that there simply wasn't enough to go around.
I don't like it either, and the argument can be made that for $100 million, you should be willing to play wherever they ask you to play. The problem is that, without broad antitrust exemptions from Congress (which the NBA doesn't have), there's a very real argument against the legality of restricting a player's right to leave once his contract is up. Despite the 8th Circuit ruling that the NLFPA's decertification might not be valid due to the short period of time between the expiration of the CBA and the vote to decertify, Judge Doty and Judge Nelson both appeared sympathetic to the claims of antitrust violation with regard to the NFL's franchise tag and restricted free agency. In short, it's a worker's legal right to choose where he wants to work once his contract is up. You don't sign that right away just because you make a lot of money playing sports. So, as a fan of a small market team, I totally agree and hate the idea that we can hit a homerun in the draft and then have our legs cut out from under us a few years later. But from a legal standpoint, I don't think there's any argument that a player shouldn't be able to leave once they play out their contract.
Only reason I bring up contraction is because it makes sense for the league, outside of having to pay off the owners in question. But I think it makes more sense than having the big market teams being competitive and having to subsidize the smaller teams who still can't compete financially. Either that, or move them into big markets, if they truly can't survive. But it doesn't make sense to me to put a $400 million business on welfare. If you're truly going to make the argument that it's a business and they are "entitled" to a profit, then they need to be proactively doing whatever it takes to turn a profit. I'm not a Sacramento native, but I don't want them to leave; I think that's where they belong, and I think the local fans deserve to have their team. BUT, if you're truly going to operate as a bottom-line business, then before you stick your hand out for help from other franchises, you have to make changes. If that includes moving to a region where you can make more money, then that's the cost of doing business. But I don't think you can have it both ways. Either it's a business that exists to make a profit, or it's a sports franchise that exists to entertain fans. They're not mutually exclusive, but for small market teams, the two ideologies breed conflict, especially when your team isn't good for several years in a row.
I'm really not that concerned about teams being ensured a profit, either. Your "managed properly" criteria, while idealistic, is vague, and while I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by that, how do you gauge whether a team has been "managed properly"? Some would say LeBron neutered the Cavs ability to add players around him; others would say the Cavs enabled LeBron and his entourage. So were they "managed properly" over the last five years? Are they entitled to a profit? Like you say, this is not your typical business. If you can't turn a profit, it's most likely because your team is losing, and has been for several years. The Kings were booming in the early 2000s, and a few bad decisions and some bad luck later, and now they're barely making minimum payroll. I don't think they should be bailed out by big money teams just because they own a business as part of a league. No business is "entitled" to a profit. If you can't turn a profit, you need to either change your strategy/management, or sell to someone who can invest more aggressively in the business. I don't think you should have your hands held out to the big money teams, solely on the basis of "this is a business, and we expect to turn a profit." That's not what you said when you bought the team. You said that you'd do whatever it takes to put a winner on the floor. That's all your fans care about, not your profit and loss statements.
And in that regard, the league would be better served to limit the big money teams' ability to spend that big money on player compensation than it would be trying to balance the scales with money. The Lakers and Knicks will always be more profitable than the Kings and Bucks. They'll always be more attractive destinations. You'll never balance that out. You can limit how much those big teams can spend on their product, which will allow the small teams to compete more effectively. And once those teams are more competitive, they'll automatically be more profitable.
I think the players definitely won the last time around. The luxury tax is a joke. The biggest concession was reducing the length of contracts by one year, and that obviously didn't make any significant difference. Teams can still make acquisitions despite being above the salary cap and tax threshold. As revenues and BRI has increased, so have all contracts, no matter whether you're a max level player (a lot of whom don't deserve to be, by the way, which is the biggest problem of all, if you ask me), a mid level player, or a rookie. Everyone is getting paid more than they were ten years ago. There are no real constraints in place, and the players have been major beneficiaries.
But the reason I can't jump firmly into the owners' camp is because they doled this ridiculous contracts out. The owners agreed to pay Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson max money. The Knicks gave Amare Stoudemire $100 million, despite the fact that they couldn't get the contract insured because of his knee surgeries. It's hard for me to feel sorry for guys who complain about people making too much money when they are the ones who voluntarily agreed to pay them that much money in the first place, despite the BRI telling everyone involved that there simply wasn't enough to go around.
I don't like it either, and the argument can be made that for $100 million, you should be willing to play wherever they ask you to play. The problem is that, without broad antitrust exemptions from Congress (which the NBA doesn't have), there's a very real argument against the legality of restricting a player's right to leave once his contract is up. Despite the 8th Circuit ruling that the NLFPA's decertification might not be valid due to the short period of time between the expiration of the CBA and the vote to decertify, Judge Doty and Judge Nelson both appeared sympathetic to the claims of antitrust violation with regard to the NFL's franchise tag and restricted free agency. In short, it's a worker's legal right to choose where he wants to work once his contract is up. You don't sign that right away just because you make a lot of money playing sports. So, as a fan of a small market team, I totally agree and hate the idea that we can hit a homerun in the draft and then have our legs cut out from under us a few years later. But from a legal standpoint, I don't think there's any argument that a player shouldn't be able to leave once they play out their contract.
Only reason I bring up contraction is because it makes sense for the league, outside of having to pay off the owners in question. But I think it makes more sense than having the big market teams being competitive and having to subsidize the smaller teams who still can't compete financially. Either that, or move them into big markets, if they truly can't survive. But it doesn't make sense to me to put a $400 million business on welfare. If you're truly going to make the argument that it's a business and they are "entitled" to a profit, then they need to be proactively doing whatever it takes to turn a profit. I'm not a Sacramento native, but I don't want them to leave; I think that's where they belong, and I think the local fans deserve to have their team. BUT, if you're truly going to operate as a bottom-line business, then before you stick your hand out for help from other franchises, you have to make changes. If that includes moving to a region where you can make more money, then that's the cost of doing business. But I don't think you can have it both ways. Either it's a business that exists to make a profit, or it's a sports franchise that exists to entertain fans. They're not mutually exclusive, but for small market teams, the two ideologies breed conflict, especially when your team isn't good for several years in a row.
I'm pretty sure this right here sums up the lockout. The players have a clear path, or opening for that matter, but continually choose to take the much harder, more painful route:
http://i.imgur.com/QHcss.gif
http://i.imgur.com/QHcss.gif
Look as if we might have an agreement coming soon.
Union doesn't look too happy, but they are going to take a slilghtly revised proposal back to the players. Even though the league didn't move as far as they wanted on some system issues, I think they feel it's the "last, best offer", and they'll indicate that it's their best shot to get a deal done while getting the season started as soon as possible.
So as long as the players don't decertify, it looks as if the union will ask the players to seriously consider it.
For once, I'm a bit optimistic, and we'll probably know in the next few days.
Union doesn't look too happy, but they are going to take a slilghtly revised proposal back to the players. Even though the league didn't move as far as they wanted on some system issues, I think they feel it's the "last, best offer", and they'll indicate that it's their best shot to get a deal done while getting the season started as soon as possible.
So as long as the players don't decertify, it looks as if the union will ask the players to seriously consider it.
For once, I'm a bit optimistic, and we'll probably know in the next few days.
Last edited:
The players didn't get into specifics as far as what the League conceded with the revised proposal.
Stern will be coming up soon, so we might get some more details on the revised proposal soon.
My guess is the league didn't move on the sign-and-trade or mini-MLE, but relented on the repeater tax, cliff, and other issues like that.
Stern will be coming up soon, so we might get some more details on the revised proposal soon.
My guess is the league didn't move on the sign-and-trade or mini-MLE, but relented on the repeater tax, cliff, and other issues like that.
According to Stern, if the players accept the revised proposal, it will allow for a 72 game season starting on December 15th.
He won't comment on the revisions, but I really have the feeling that the Union is going to push the players to accept the proposal.
I'm feeling pretty good after watching the press conferences.
He won't comment on the revisions, but I really have the feeling that the Union is going to push the players to accept the proposal.
I'm feeling pretty good after watching the press conferences.
No.
Union is going to have all 30 player reps meet on either Monday or Tuesday to go over the revised proposal. From there they will decide if they should take the proposal to the players for a vote.
Stern has basically said that this is the last chance the players have before the league goes to their hard-line offer.
So my money is on Hunter and Fisher to recommend to the 30 player reps that they should allow this proposal to go to a vote.
And since the league is offering a 72-game schedule, I think the players will ultimately vote to pass the proposal.
So we'll know in a few days (either Monday or Tuesday) if they are going to let the players vote on the revised proposal or not.
Union is going to have all 30 player reps meet on either Monday or Tuesday to go over the revised proposal. From there they will decide if they should take the proposal to the players for a vote.
Stern has basically said that this is the last chance the players have before the league goes to their hard-line offer.
So my money is on Hunter and Fisher to recommend to the 30 player reps that they should allow this proposal to go to a vote.
And since the league is offering a 72-game schedule, I think the players will ultimately vote to pass the proposal.
So we'll know in a few days (either Monday or Tuesday) if they are going to let the players vote on the revised proposal or not.
Not yet but the owners have made a revision of the proposal that they made on Sunday. The players say that it's far from perfect but better than the last one and they feel more confident taking this proposal to the player reps.
Stern feels comfortable that his owners will accept this as well. I don't think he'd put any proposal in front of the players that he didn't already know was good enough for his guys.
We heard rumblings that there was a faction of players that would've been willing to approve the deal from a few days ago so I'm hoping that those guys continue to speak up and push this through.
That being said, nothing would surprise me now. I could see them rejecting this and talking decertification again. But this is our best shot as fans so let's keep our finger's crossed.
Stern feels comfortable that his owners will accept this as well. I don't think he'd put any proposal in front of the players that he didn't already know was good enough for his guys.
We heard rumblings that there was a faction of players that would've been willing to approve the deal from a few days ago so I'm hoping that those guys continue to speak up and push this through.
That being said, nothing would surprise me now. I could see them rejecting this and talking decertification again. But this is our best shot as fans so let's keep our finger's crossed.
OK cool.. Yahoo is making it sound like the talks were a failure.
NBA talks break down; players to regroup
NEW YORK (AP)—The NBA and its players are hitting pause in their negotiations as the union considers the league’s latest revised offer.
The league offered a revised offer after nearly 11 hours of bargaining Thursday. It’s based on the possibility of a 72-game season, starting Dec. 15.
But union president Derek Fisher(notes) said it doesn’t address all the necessary system issues that are important to the players.
MORE
EDIT: oops.. Looks liek they changed the article a bit. A few mins ago they had one that spelled "doom and gloom".
NBA talks break down; players to regroup
NEW YORK (AP)—The NBA and its players are hitting pause in their negotiations as the union considers the league’s latest revised offer.
The league offered a revised offer after nearly 11 hours of bargaining Thursday. It’s based on the possibility of a 72-game season, starting Dec. 15.
But union president Derek Fisher(notes) said it doesn’t address all the necessary system issues that are important to the players.
MORE
EDIT: oops.. Looks liek they changed the article a bit. A few mins ago they had one that spelled "doom and gloom".
Yeah, Fisher and the Union board looked a bit resigned, and they are not thrilled with the latest proposal.
But it also seems to me, that for the first time they are accepting that this is the very best deal they are going to be able to get with-out going the decertification route.
So they'll present it to the player reps, and we'll see what happens. As mentioned, since Stern is dangling a 72-game season in front of them, I am actually quite optimistic that the players will accept the deal, even if it isn't everything they wanted.
But it also seems to me, that for the first time they are accepting that this is the very best deal they are going to be able to get with-out going the decertification route.
So they'll present it to the player reps, and we'll see what happens. As mentioned, since Stern is dangling a 72-game season in front of them, I am actually quite optimistic that the players will accept the deal, even if it isn't everything they wanted.