The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
Let me start by saying that I agree with a lot of what you say. Also let me clarify something. I never said that teams were entitled to a profit. I said they were entitled to be able to make a profit. There's quite a distinction between the two. My point was that the league and players union should try and create the best atmosphere possible, so that every team has the chance to make a profit. That doesn't mean they will, and if they don't, its most likely due to mismanagement. By no means am I advocating a fail safe situation. Just being in a big market doesn't always mean competitive success. The Knicks are a prime example of a big market team that put a poor product on the floor.
However, despite that poor product, they still made a profit due to the huge TV revenues they take in. A team like the Kings doesn't have that luxury. When I said the NBA wasn't like normal businesses, I mean't it in this sense. I used to own my own business. I had competitors in the same business. In a sense, they were my enemy. Just by the nature of adding more customers to my business, I was at the same time taking customers away from them, and therefore hurting their business. But I had no stake in their business, and if they failed, it could actually be good for my business. The NBA is entirely different. Every team has to stand on its own, but at the same time, they're all in the same club supporting each other. The saying is, your only as strong as your weakest link, and thats true of the NBA. If the small market teams can become profitable and competitive, the entire league is stronger.
In a sense they're all on the same team, and like any team, there are some players that are more talented and stronger than some of the others. But you go forward as a team and help one another. Very unlike the real business world of dog eat dog. Its not a perfect world, and there are no perfect answers. I'm for some revenue sharing, but not to the extent that you totally take away the advantage of being in a big market city. It would nice if the NBA had a similar situation as the NFL, where all TV contracts are through the league, and shared equally. But they don't. Essentially what you have is a socialistic system operating in a capitalist society. At times they're going to be at odds with one another.
However, despite that poor product, they still made a profit due to the huge TV revenues they take in. A team like the Kings doesn't have that luxury. When I said the NBA wasn't like normal businesses, I mean't it in this sense. I used to own my own business. I had competitors in the same business. In a sense, they were my enemy. Just by the nature of adding more customers to my business, I was at the same time taking customers away from them, and therefore hurting their business. But I had no stake in their business, and if they failed, it could actually be good for my business. The NBA is entirely different. Every team has to stand on its own, but at the same time, they're all in the same club supporting each other. The saying is, your only as strong as your weakest link, and thats true of the NBA. If the small market teams can become profitable and competitive, the entire league is stronger.
In a sense they're all on the same team, and like any team, there are some players that are more talented and stronger than some of the others. But you go forward as a team and help one another. Very unlike the real business world of dog eat dog. Its not a perfect world, and there are no perfect answers. I'm for some revenue sharing, but not to the extent that you totally take away the advantage of being in a big market city. It would nice if the NBA had a similar situation as the NFL, where all TV contracts are through the league, and shared equally. But they don't. Essentially what you have is a socialistic system operating in a capitalist society. At times they're going to be at odds with one another.
This is the first time that Hunter and Fisher have come out of the meeting and not rejected the proposal out of hand. They didn't seem thrilled, but at the same time they wern't entirely negative either. I agree that they looked resigned, and I think there's a good chance they'll end up taking this deal. As someone said, both sides appear to be somewhat unhappy with the deal on the table, and thats usually when the deal gets done.
Some recent Tweets from former King Omri Casspi.. (reads a lil better if you start from the bottom since it's in order of newest to oldest)
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
I think it's time for us to give the NBA deal that we like and put the pressure on them. #decertify
6 minutes ago
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
I know that it won't be good for the nba that the court will make them open the books and we all find out that there's big difference.
15 minutes ago
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
If the NBA claim loses of 300mil dollars, why they aren't opening the books to the players and letting us see it?
18 minutes ago
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
I have a question! I wasn't really involve in all the talks between the Nba and the players... My question is...
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
I think it's time for us to give the NBA deal that we like and put the pressure on them. #decertify
6 minutes ago
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
I know that it won't be good for the nba that the court will make them open the books and we all find out that there's big difference.
15 minutes ago
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
If the NBA claim loses of 300mil dollars, why they aren't opening the books to the players and letting us see it?
18 minutes ago
Casspi18 Omri Casspi
I have a question! I wasn't really involve in all the talks between the Nba and the players... My question is...
You know the absolutely stunning thing this late in the game? The NBA DID open its books to the union many months ago, at least on this issue. That was the source of the union's position that oh ok, we think you did lose money, but it was more like $100mil than $300mil if you don't count x, y and z. For a player still at this late date not to know that is amazing, but it seems all too common. The wide spread ignorance and apathy amongst the players through this whole thing has just been stunning. They could easily reject this deal and vote to decertify come Monday without even realizing the full consequences of what they are doing or even the realistic possible outcomes.
I don't know where this is going. Despite all the rhetoric, I still hold out hope that IF all 440 players get a chance to vote and have the ballot in hand, they will understand that taking the decertification route and missing the season is a risk that they just can't afford to take.
I'll remind everyone of what happened in '98. Actually, it was early January of '99. The negotiating was done. There was no deal. The league decided to put the proposal to the players for a vote but it never went to a vote. Hunter called Stern and offered one last late night bargaining session and hands were being shook first thing in the morning.
Now I do realize that decertification throws a wrench into this possibility but I'm hoping that's why we have a 3 day window before bringing in the player reps. I'm hoping that the league, despite Stern's warnings, have one last concession in their back pocket and the players ask for one last concession that they can head to the players with. I guess one can only hope at this point but this IS what happened last time.
Let's also not forget about the lockout of '95. The league and players came to an agreement in early August but it wasn't a good one for the players. They realized that a bad deal was better than no deal. OTOH, David Falk and his guys still wanted to decertify the union. Therefore, they put it to a vote. Vote to decertify and the deal is called off. Vote NOT to decertify and it means you are accepting the deal and we have a season. Thankfully, voting to have a season won out. I'm thinking that this could come to play as well. Just hand this over to the 440 members of the union and I'm betting we have a season despite everything we hear to the contrary.
I'll remind everyone of what happened in '98. Actually, it was early January of '99. The negotiating was done. There was no deal. The league decided to put the proposal to the players for a vote but it never went to a vote. Hunter called Stern and offered one last late night bargaining session and hands were being shook first thing in the morning.
Now I do realize that decertification throws a wrench into this possibility but I'm hoping that's why we have a 3 day window before bringing in the player reps. I'm hoping that the league, despite Stern's warnings, have one last concession in their back pocket and the players ask for one last concession that they can head to the players with. I guess one can only hope at this point but this IS what happened last time.
Let's also not forget about the lockout of '95. The league and players came to an agreement in early August but it wasn't a good one for the players. They realized that a bad deal was better than no deal. OTOH, David Falk and his guys still wanted to decertify the union. Therefore, they put it to a vote. Vote to decertify and the deal is called off. Vote NOT to decertify and it means you are accepting the deal and we have a season. Thankfully, voting to have a season won out. I'm thinking that this could come to play as well. Just hand this over to the 440 members of the union and I'm betting we have a season despite everything we hear to the contrary.
I agree, it is absolutely amazing. However it is just like in politics of this country or any other organization. Most don't want to know the details, the facts, let's leave that to someone else. In that sense it isn't surprising. It's true in my case. I don't care what terms are arrived at. I just want the matter to be settled. Both sides want there own way. Neither is looking out for the other one. Neither is all right. They want their own way.
Both sides are equally responsible to end it and reach an agreement. Let's do and move on. Why should Casspi have to worry about the details. He has high paid people to do that for him.
Both sides are equally responsible to end it and reach an agreement. Let's do and move on. Why should Casspi have to worry about the details. He has high paid people to do that for him.
If one is to believe Stern, something has to happen quickly. By quickly, I mean by next wednsday or sooner. Stern has implied that the league doesn't want another 50 game season. He made a statement that anything under 70 games wouldn't constitute a season. He went out of his way to say that if the deal is agreed upon, they would have a 72 game season starting on Dec 15th. He also said that the league would need 30 days in which to write up the agreement, have a short period of freeagency, and a short preseason.
Well I can do the math. They would have to have an agreement by next tuesday in order to have the 30 days, and start the season on Dec 15th. And, if anything under a 70 game season is unacceptable to the owners, then the season could be lost. Now some of this could be bluffing. But at some point, one side or the other is going to call the others bluff. And what if its not a bluff? I think the players union is playing with fire. My hope is that Hunter knows Stern well enough to know the difference.
After reading the tweet by Casspi, I'm not sure what the players will do. Of course Casspi is a little different in that he's playing basketball, and in a very comfortable setting. Maybe someone should tell him he's losing money.
Well I can do the math. They would have to have an agreement by next tuesday in order to have the 30 days, and start the season on Dec 15th. And, if anything under a 70 game season is unacceptable to the owners, then the season could be lost. Now some of this could be bluffing. But at some point, one side or the other is going to call the others bluff. And what if its not a bluff? I think the players union is playing with fire. My hope is that Hunter knows Stern well enough to know the difference.
After reading the tweet by Casspi, I'm not sure what the players will do. Of course Casspi is a little different in that he's playing basketball, and in a very comfortable setting. Maybe someone should tell him he's losing money.
And then you get things like this:
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story...vericks-jason-terry-players-set-walk-deal-bad
Wherein Jason Terry informs the world that blwoing up the world's greatest basketball league and losing the season is really all about "growing the game".
I am glad none of our current guys have been vocal in all this, because 9 out of 10 times when a player has spoken during this thing you end up thinking less of him than before he opened his trap.
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story...vericks-jason-terry-players-set-walk-deal-bad
Wherein Jason Terry informs the world that blwoing up the world's greatest basketball league and losing the season is really all about "growing the game".
I am glad none of our current guys have been vocal in all this, because 9 out of 10 times when a player has spoken during this thing you end up thinking less of him than before he opened his trap.
I object to the didn't go to college = being ignorant assumption. For one thing, there's a difference between ignorance and stupidity and a lot of these players are showing the latter as well as the former. If you're dumb, four years of college isn't going to fix it. If you're not dumb, you can educate yourself and make wise decisions without college. Another part of the problem is that most of these guys are just flat out spoiled. A lot of them were stars before the NBA on collegiate and high school levels and have probably spent most of the lives being pampered and catered to. They have no sense of what it means to have to really work for a meager living, no real appreciation of how good they have it, etc. They're just talented brats riding a gravy train. No one has ever dared tell them that they aren't the only people on the planet that can play basketball at a high level. I'd like to see the NBA null all the contracts of the players who won't take the deal and replace them with new players from college, over seas, etc. who will appreciate that even though the current deal may not be as sweet as the last one, it's still a friggin came walk.
Last edited:
I like how he says "we are trying to grow the game of basketball" then in the very next sentence says "the terms that have been presented to us, the game of basketball for us, from a players' perspective, financially, will not be growing". Translation: It's all about growing our bank accounts. Yeah, dude, we pretty much knew it was about the money. Spare us the charade of pretending it's about more than that, lol. Spoiled greedy punks...
Last edited:
Oh yeah, they definitely need to get something done next week. I'm in no way hinting that this can last 'til January like it did last time. I'm just saying that the situation is eerily similar even though it's a 2 month difference.
You could also look at a best case scenario of it being a combination of '95 and '98. Union decides to leave it in the hands of the 440 players to vote decertify or play ('95) and then Hunter and Fisher call Stern's bluff, make one last call to him and Silver and negotiate a deal in the middle of the night like they did in January '99. We would also have to hope that Stern is bluffing when he says his owners barely want the deal that's on the table now. To get 2 or 3 more concessions might push the owners to not vote for it. That's if you believe Stern. What I'm hoping for is that there is still wiggle room for small concessions. Stern has made threats and ultimatums before and we still got more bargaining sessions and deadlines moved back.
I'm also surprised about how nobody is talking about the sessions with the mediator. The UNION wanted the mediator more than the league did. The league didn't sign off on it until the last second but when it came down to it, the mediator gave them 6 suggestions and the league signed off on all but 1 of them but it's still the union who doesn't like the deal. It was their idea to have the mediator yet they don't even want to take on his ideas and want to blame the league. Why hasn't anyone acknowledged this?
There was one agent who said he would feel more comfortable in front of a judge as opposed to a mediator. But what if decertification backfires? Then there will be no leverage left for the players. Are they sure they want to risk that along with missing an entire year of paychecks?
You could also look at a best case scenario of it being a combination of '95 and '98. Union decides to leave it in the hands of the 440 players to vote decertify or play ('95) and then Hunter and Fisher call Stern's bluff, make one last call to him and Silver and negotiate a deal in the middle of the night like they did in January '99. We would also have to hope that Stern is bluffing when he says his owners barely want the deal that's on the table now. To get 2 or 3 more concessions might push the owners to not vote for it. That's if you believe Stern. What I'm hoping for is that there is still wiggle room for small concessions. Stern has made threats and ultimatums before and we still got more bargaining sessions and deadlines moved back.
I'm also surprised about how nobody is talking about the sessions with the mediator. The UNION wanted the mediator more than the league did. The league didn't sign off on it until the last second but when it came down to it, the mediator gave them 6 suggestions and the league signed off on all but 1 of them but it's still the union who doesn't like the deal. It was their idea to have the mediator yet they don't even want to take on his ideas and want to blame the league. Why hasn't anyone acknowledged this?
There was one agent who said he would feel more comfortable in front of a judge as opposed to a mediator. But what if decertification backfires? Then there will be no leverage left for the players. Are they sure they want to risk that along with missing an entire year of paychecks?
I'm starting to suspect that you didn't go to college. No offense, I didn't go either, if thats thats the case. I doubt the majority of players are stupid, but Ignorance is another matter. Ignorance is nothing but a lack of knowledge, and aquiring knowledge requires some work. Most of these guys are used to having things done for them. I doubt many of them know how to work on a car. Their expertise is with video games. In fairness, the majority of them put in long hours refineing thier game. So they are putting in the work for which they're being paid. But just judging by watching politics, and question and answers in the street, most people are too busy living their lives to pay much attention to information about people running for office, or if your a player, information that might be contained in a legal document called the CBA. Its a shame, because lives are affected in either scenario. Many times to the detriment of those that vote.
So I'm not sure having a college degree is a cure for any of that. JT has a college degree in communications, and I follow him on Tweeter. So far I've yet to see one tweet by him referring to the lockout or the negotiations. On the other hand, Cousins, who only spent one year in college, has made several tweets about wanting to play, or to references to comments by the negotiators. Now that doesn't mean that JT is uninformed. It just means he doesn't comment on it. And maybe he doesn't want to open up pandora's box.
Best way to find out is to put it to a vote. Those that speak the loudest are many times perceived as the majority. Doesn't mean they are!
Regardless of what the media is saying, I'm still more optimistic now of a deal getting done than anytime in the last year.
And while saying that, I don't think the Union is going to get any more concessions from the League.
As Stern mentioned, they spent about 24 hours in two days to listen to the player's concerns regarding the original proposal. They tweaked their offer, and that's it.
Now here is what I think is really interesting.
There are about 30-40 'B-List' items which Hunter mentioned still needed to be negotiated, ones which it seems were dropped in their lap during those 24 hours of negotiation.
One of the items that really caught my attention was this 'B-List' item regarding sending players down to the D-League.
Here are the details:
Any team could send a player at any time during his first 5 years in the league down to the D-League. That player would then be paid on a pro-rated basis on a reduced scale. That scale would be that of a $75,000 yearly salary. (Which is slightly above the average wage of a current D-League player, and about a 5th of the league minimum salary)
Now, this particular item is basically death to the fringe-NBA players. The last thing they want is to go to the D-League and get paid peanuts compared to what they should be making being on an NBA roster.
So here is what I think is happening.
I think Stern is giving Hunter and Fisher a way to 'save face'.
Basically he's saying, "Let the Owners have their way with these 'A-List' items, and accept the current proposal. If you do that, we'll let you have your way with most of the B-List items."
Hunter and Fisher can tell the player reps that the current proposal isn't a great deal, but it's the best that they are going to get and still keep the season. Then they can say that if they accept the Owners proposal on these A-List items, they can most likely negotiate a win on most of the B-List items, including this D-League items which is just terrible for fringe-players.
Hunter and Fisher will also most likely tell the player reps that if the players do decide to decertify and they lose, then the League will most likely attempt to adopt all of the B-List items as well as the harsher A-List items.
So that's why I'm optimistic.
I think Stern tossed some terrible B-List items out there, so that Hunter and Fisher can 'win' regarding those items allowing them to 'Save Face'.
We'll find out on Monday or Tuesday. If they allow the players to vote, I expect the players to pass it. It might not be by much, but I do think that there are more players who want to play a 72 game season, then there are of those who are willing to lose a season or two by decertifying.
I'm now counting on Hunter and Fisher to do the right thing, and convince the player reps that a vote should be made regarding this last proposal.
And while saying that, I don't think the Union is going to get any more concessions from the League.
As Stern mentioned, they spent about 24 hours in two days to listen to the player's concerns regarding the original proposal. They tweaked their offer, and that's it.
Now here is what I think is really interesting.
There are about 30-40 'B-List' items which Hunter mentioned still needed to be negotiated, ones which it seems were dropped in their lap during those 24 hours of negotiation.
One of the items that really caught my attention was this 'B-List' item regarding sending players down to the D-League.
Here are the details:
Any team could send a player at any time during his first 5 years in the league down to the D-League. That player would then be paid on a pro-rated basis on a reduced scale. That scale would be that of a $75,000 yearly salary. (Which is slightly above the average wage of a current D-League player, and about a 5th of the league minimum salary)
Now, this particular item is basically death to the fringe-NBA players. The last thing they want is to go to the D-League and get paid peanuts compared to what they should be making being on an NBA roster.
So here is what I think is happening.
I think Stern is giving Hunter and Fisher a way to 'save face'.
Basically he's saying, "Let the Owners have their way with these 'A-List' items, and accept the current proposal. If you do that, we'll let you have your way with most of the B-List items."
Hunter and Fisher can tell the player reps that the current proposal isn't a great deal, but it's the best that they are going to get and still keep the season. Then they can say that if they accept the Owners proposal on these A-List items, they can most likely negotiate a win on most of the B-List items, including this D-League items which is just terrible for fringe-players.
Hunter and Fisher will also most likely tell the player reps that if the players do decide to decertify and they lose, then the League will most likely attempt to adopt all of the B-List items as well as the harsher A-List items.
So that's why I'm optimistic.
I think Stern tossed some terrible B-List items out there, so that Hunter and Fisher can 'win' regarding those items allowing them to 'Save Face'.
We'll find out on Monday or Tuesday. If they allow the players to vote, I expect the players to pass it. It might not be by much, but I do think that there are more players who want to play a 72 game season, then there are of those who are willing to lose a season or two by decertifying.
I'm now counting on Hunter and Fisher to do the right thing, and convince the player reps that a vote should be made regarding this last proposal.
Now I know why these players want that D-League offer. It's because, once again, all they care about is being able to play together. You see, if Chris Paul wants to go to New York all the Knicks have to do is send someone who is making a ton of money who might not be playing well at all to the D-League and then they can sign Paul. What a shame.
Actually, there have been several reports since then that this was not true - not a part of the NBA's proposal (link).
My optimism is about nil. Every report says the players are going to nix the deal, even though they make more money overall by taking it than they can ever hope to make up by sitting out a season (in fact, ask the NHL players how that worked out). Then they're going to decertify. Then the league is going to void ALL the contracts so we won't even have Evans and Cousins on our team anymore and we'll have to build from scratch. Yay.
My optimism is about nil. Every report says the players are going to nix the deal, even though they make more money overall by taking it than they can ever hope to make up by sitting out a season (in fact, ask the NHL players how that worked out). Then they're going to decertify. Then the league is going to void ALL the contracts so we won't even have Evans and Cousins on our team anymore and we'll have to build from scratch. Yay.
During the press conference neither side would discuss any of the details. I'd assumed that such details which came out later (D-Leauge provision, 3million/3-year deal for MLE for over-cap teams, ect.) came from discussions with League/Union. And if this wasn't part of the deal it isn't that surprising.
But that still doesn't diminish my optimism that the Owners will let the Union have most of it's say on the B-List items in exchange for consessions by the Union on these last remaining A-List items.
I know all reporting says it's dead in the water, but if Hunter can convince the player reps to take it to a vote, I think the players will approve it.
But that still doesn't diminish my optimism that the Owners will let the Union have most of it's say on the B-List items in exchange for consessions by the Union on these last remaining A-List items.
I know all reporting says it's dead in the water, but if Hunter can convince the player reps to take it to a vote, I think the players will approve it.
I have about 0.348% hope that a deal gets done.
excusing my obvious ignorance; someone will have to explain to me what would occur once "contracts are voided." Are we then talking about hundreds of free agents?
that sounds like an absolute joke tbh and a real nail in the coffin for the league.
Can you imagine we "started" the "season" with Evans, Cousins, Jimmer, Hickson etc and end up with Chase Budinger.
Could that actually happen? Or am i confused.
excusing my obvious ignorance; someone will have to explain to me what would occur once "contracts are voided." Are we then talking about hundreds of free agents?
that sounds like an absolute joke tbh and a real nail in the coffin for the league.
Can you imagine we "started" the "season" with Evans, Cousins, Jimmer, Hickson etc and end up with Chase Budinger.
Could that actually happen? Or am i confused.
To my knowledge, nobody's ever asked that question of the league. Stern has made vague statements about the threat of decertification being toothless because the players wouldn't want to tear up $4B worth of contracts that are already guaranteed. But he has never stated what would take place if those contracts were voided.
One possibility is that there would be 450 free agents and an absolute mad, topsy-turvy reassignment of players such that our team would likely look nothing at all like it does now.
However, I suppose it's possible that when the league and a new players' union come to an agreement, that agreement might include the recognition of contracts that were voided by the dissolution of the prior union. I guess it kind of makes sense - there are a lot of teams that wouldn't want to face losing their cores to a free-for-all free agency. There's us (Evans, Cousins), the Clippers (Griffin), the Heat (the big three), the 'Wolves (Love, Rubio, Derrick Williams), the Bulls (Rose, Noah), the Thunder (Durant, Westbrook), the Wizards (Wall), the Warriors (Curry, Lee, Ellis), the Nets (DWill), the Magic (Howard, as an asset if nothing else), the Hornets (Paul, same thing), so probably eleven teams at the least who would blanch at the idea of having to replace their cores in free agency. The Lakers, Mavs, Knicks...they could probably hope to bring their stars back as free agents and happily dump some bloated complementary contracts. But without some way to get our core back, we'd be hosed and starting from scratch.
As long as I'm taking the pessimistic point of view (as it's obvious nothing good can come of this lockout at this point), I'm counting on rooting for a starting five of Jimmer Fredette, Lou Williams, Rashard Lewis, Kris Humphries and Chris Kaman in the fall of 2012...
One possibility is that there would be 450 free agents and an absolute mad, topsy-turvy reassignment of players such that our team would likely look nothing at all like it does now.
However, I suppose it's possible that when the league and a new players' union come to an agreement, that agreement might include the recognition of contracts that were voided by the dissolution of the prior union. I guess it kind of makes sense - there are a lot of teams that wouldn't want to face losing their cores to a free-for-all free agency. There's us (Evans, Cousins), the Clippers (Griffin), the Heat (the big three), the 'Wolves (Love, Rubio, Derrick Williams), the Bulls (Rose, Noah), the Thunder (Durant, Westbrook), the Wizards (Wall), the Warriors (Curry, Lee, Ellis), the Nets (DWill), the Magic (Howard, as an asset if nothing else), the Hornets (Paul, same thing), so probably eleven teams at the least who would blanch at the idea of having to replace their cores in free agency. The Lakers, Mavs, Knicks...they could probably hope to bring their stars back as free agents and happily dump some bloated complementary contracts. But without some way to get our core back, we'd be hosed and starting from scratch.
As long as I'm taking the pessimistic point of view (as it's obvious nothing good can come of this lockout at this point), I'm counting on rooting for a starting five of Jimmer Fredette, Lou Williams, Rashard Lewis, Kris Humphries and Chris Kaman in the fall of 2012...
Here's the thing and it's why I'm actually somewhat optimistic. The whole reason that there has been so much pessimism is because the initial reports of the players nixing the deal are almost completely based on that bogus D league rumor. It's B list at best and will get nixed when they go the horse trading route. Take that away and we don't get nearly the rhetoric that we did on Friday night heading into yesterday.
Forget hoopshype. If you follow realgm.com it gives a more upbeat scenario. The decertification or other route they're talking about that would remove the union from the picture sounds to me like a last gasp effort on their part.
Here's where we stand. The players want to make small amendments to what the league has put forth. They would then vote favorably on that plan in hopes that the owners will accept it as well so I guess it all depends on how big or small the new amendments would be. If the owners accept, knowing full well that not accepting would mean the decertification route, then we have an agreement and the league is open for business.
Sounds to me like they're just trying to save face. Instead of forcing us to accept an owner proposal, let's have them accept our proposal. Silly and stupid but this could be what finally rams this through unless they are going to be flat out ridiculous in their amendments.
Forget hoopshype. If you follow realgm.com it gives a more upbeat scenario. The decertification or other route they're talking about that would remove the union from the picture sounds to me like a last gasp effort on their part.
Here's where we stand. The players want to make small amendments to what the league has put forth. They would then vote favorably on that plan in hopes that the owners will accept it as well so I guess it all depends on how big or small the new amendments would be. If the owners accept, knowing full well that not accepting would mean the decertification route, then we have an agreement and the league is open for business.
Sounds to me like they're just trying to save face. Instead of forcing us to accept an owner proposal, let's have them accept our proposal. Silly and stupid but this could be what finally rams this through unless they are going to be flat out ridiculous in their amendments.
Being the conspiracy theosophist that I'am, I wonder if the D-League scenario isn't being used by the union leaders as means of saving face. Hunter and Fisher have to know that its not part of the proposal, and yet I haven't heard a peep out either of them denying it. Hell, I'm ready to believe just about anything right now. If thats one of the main admendments, then the league will most certainly agree to it, and Wa La, a deal is done.
Then they can all walk away holding hands while singing Kum Ba Yah.
Then they can all walk away holding hands while singing Kum Ba Yah.
How about more conspiracy or not even conspiracy. We heard the rumors that Derek Fisher was in the owner's back pocket a week or so ago. Maybe he wants this deal but is saying that he doesn't and that it should go to the rank & file for a vote. If the rank & file vote for it, Fisher can say, "see, I'm not the bad guy. I didn't want the deal but the rank & file voted for it so quit accusing me of being in Stern's back pocket!!". It's not completely out of the question. Fisher needs to save face so any deal he accepts is going to look fishy, not pun intended.
More realistically, here's how I see this happening. It's being played out just like '98. The union follows through and makes the "necessary" amendments. The union reps vote favorably for it and then send it to the owners for ratification. Stern, wanting to save face because he already said there would be no more negotiating, calls a middle of the night negotiating session with Hunter and hands are shaking at the break of dawn.
Stern saves face because nobody in the union or media can call him out for being a hypocrite for saying no more negotiating since they'll all be asleep and won't be able to call him out.
The union uses the decertification threat to get as much leverage as possible when they send the amendment to the owners and then are satisfied with whatever minor tweaks the owners make to their amendment.
Sound crazy? Not really. That's what happened last time only it was the players who were going to vote on it and then they had the late night negotiating session that led to the deal. We went to sleep thinking that the union rank & file would vote on something only to wake up and hear that a deal had already been struck. The only difference now is that the union will take this to the owners and put the pressure on them. Stern will then ask the owners if it's good enough or should they get one last concession. They'll call the meeting, tweak one aspect of the player's revised deal and then hands will shake....or so I hope.
More realistically, here's how I see this happening. It's being played out just like '98. The union follows through and makes the "necessary" amendments. The union reps vote favorably for it and then send it to the owners for ratification. Stern, wanting to save face because he already said there would be no more negotiating, calls a middle of the night negotiating session with Hunter and hands are shaking at the break of dawn.
Stern saves face because nobody in the union or media can call him out for being a hypocrite for saying no more negotiating since they'll all be asleep and won't be able to call him out.
The union uses the decertification threat to get as much leverage as possible when they send the amendment to the owners and then are satisfied with whatever minor tweaks the owners make to their amendment.
Sound crazy? Not really. That's what happened last time only it was the players who were going to vote on it and then they had the late night negotiating session that led to the deal. We went to sleep thinking that the union rank & file would vote on something only to wake up and hear that a deal had already been struck. The only difference now is that the union will take this to the owners and put the pressure on them. Stern will then ask the owners if it's good enough or should they get one last concession. They'll call the meeting, tweak one aspect of the player's revised deal and then hands will shake....or so I hope.
Last edited:
FWIW, here are some of the main points of the owner's revised offer. If I'm the players, I ratify this YESTERDAY. They will not see a better deal than this. The following is per Steve Aschburner of NBA.com...
"Comparing offers: Facts and figures from the labor talks
Despite concerns expressed by NBA players that the owners' latest proposal in their collective bargaining talks is "worse" than a previous one, the league maintains that the revisions arrived at after 23 hours of negotiations last week are enhancements.
Here are highlights of the current offer, compared to similar points in the owners' previous proposal. Also, here are some terms of the "reset" proposal that commissioner David Stern said would be invoked if the union rejects the latest offer after its meeting Monday in New York with the teams' 30 player-reps.
New offer
Presented to union on Nov. 10:
• A 50-50 split of basketball-related income (BRI), either straight or in a 49-to-51 "band" adjusted for growth figures.
• A mid-level exception for non-taxpaying teams with a starting salary of up to $5 million in contracts up to four years in length.
• A MLE for tax-paying teams starting at $3 million with a maximum length of three years, available every year.
• A new "room" exception for all teams below the salary cap starting at $2.5 million for up to two years.
• Sign-and-trade deals available to all teams, including -- in Years 1 and 2 of the CBA -- taxpaying teams.
• Maximum annual raises of 6.5 percent for "Bird" free agents (players re-signed by their current teams) and 3.5 percent for others.
• Minimum payroll requirement -- known as "the floor" -- of 85 percent of the salary cap in Years 1 and 2, increasing to 90 percent thereafter.
• An allowance for teams whose use of the full MLE would put them over the luxury-tax threshold. They would be permitted to conform by reducing payroll by an Oct. 15 deadline, either through trades or the "stretch" provision in which a player would be cut, with his remaining salary spread out over a longer period of time (two times the years remaining on his deal, plus one). This lower salary figure could enable the team to get down below the tax.
• A mutual opt-out clause in the new CBA after 6 years, conforming to NBPA preference.
* Other provisions in the new offer -- relating to escrow money (10 percent, up from 8), stiffened luxury-tax penalties, a 12 percent drop in rookie and minimum-salary scales (to accommodate 12 percent drop in BRI share from 57 percent), the limiting of bi-annual exceptions to non-taxpaying teams, a 6-month buffer on extend-and-trade deals and other items -- remain essentially unchanged from the previous proposal.
"Comparing offers: Facts and figures from the labor talks
Despite concerns expressed by NBA players that the owners' latest proposal in their collective bargaining talks is "worse" than a previous one, the league maintains that the revisions arrived at after 23 hours of negotiations last week are enhancements.
Here are highlights of the current offer, compared to similar points in the owners' previous proposal. Also, here are some terms of the "reset" proposal that commissioner David Stern said would be invoked if the union rejects the latest offer after its meeting Monday in New York with the teams' 30 player-reps.
New offer
Presented to union on Nov. 10:
• A 50-50 split of basketball-related income (BRI), either straight or in a 49-to-51 "band" adjusted for growth figures.
• A mid-level exception for non-taxpaying teams with a starting salary of up to $5 million in contracts up to four years in length.
• A MLE for tax-paying teams starting at $3 million with a maximum length of three years, available every year.
• A new "room" exception for all teams below the salary cap starting at $2.5 million for up to two years.
• Sign-and-trade deals available to all teams, including -- in Years 1 and 2 of the CBA -- taxpaying teams.
• Maximum annual raises of 6.5 percent for "Bird" free agents (players re-signed by their current teams) and 3.5 percent for others.
• Minimum payroll requirement -- known as "the floor" -- of 85 percent of the salary cap in Years 1 and 2, increasing to 90 percent thereafter.
• An allowance for teams whose use of the full MLE would put them over the luxury-tax threshold. They would be permitted to conform by reducing payroll by an Oct. 15 deadline, either through trades or the "stretch" provision in which a player would be cut, with his remaining salary spread out over a longer period of time (two times the years remaining on his deal, plus one). This lower salary figure could enable the team to get down below the tax.
• A mutual opt-out clause in the new CBA after 6 years, conforming to NBPA preference.
* Other provisions in the new offer -- relating to escrow money (10 percent, up from 8), stiffened luxury-tax penalties, a 12 percent drop in rookie and minimum-salary scales (to accommodate 12 percent drop in BRI share from 57 percent), the limiting of bi-annual exceptions to non-taxpaying teams, a 6-month buffer on extend-and-trade deals and other items -- remain essentially unchanged from the previous proposal.
Apparently those items, like a number of others, are considered "B" items still negotiable and yet to be hammered out. Apparently they want to get agreement on the core financials before filing in the rest. Would imagine as well that reaching agreement o the financials would let them start gearing up for FA and a mini-camp etc. while they hammered out the rest of those sorts of details in the background.
Actually, amnesty and the stretch provision are also good givebacks for the players. What this list does is compare the league's most recent offer to the offer from a week ago where Stern gave the ultimatum before they started negotiating again.
Amnesty is great for the players because the waived guy gets paid in full AND becomes a free agent. Michael Finley got waived by Dallas, proceeded to get paid $30 million over 2 years with a team he didn't play for and then won a ring with San Antonio.
Not only that but amnesty comes off the salary cap as well as the luxury tax. Last time, it was just the lux tax. This is also great for the players. If a team at the cap has a player underachieving at $10 million and they get rid of him, that opens up $10 million in cap space for prospective free agents.
I think the reason that this wasn't in the Aschburner's writeup is because it was agreed to awhile ago but based on my observations, they are definitely A list items.
Same with the stretch provision. If a player has a year left on his deal at $15 million gets the stretch provision, the team will then pay him $5 million a year over 3 years. Again, if a team is at the cap level and does this, it opens up another $10 million in free agent money. Why don't we ever hear the players mentioning this? Both of these are great for them.
Amnesty is great for the players because the waived guy gets paid in full AND becomes a free agent. Michael Finley got waived by Dallas, proceeded to get paid $30 million over 2 years with a team he didn't play for and then won a ring with San Antonio.
Not only that but amnesty comes off the salary cap as well as the luxury tax. Last time, it was just the lux tax. This is also great for the players. If a team at the cap has a player underachieving at $10 million and they get rid of him, that opens up $10 million in cap space for prospective free agents.
I think the reason that this wasn't in the Aschburner's writeup is because it was agreed to awhile ago but based on my observations, they are definitely A list items.
Same with the stretch provision. If a player has a year left on his deal at $15 million gets the stretch provision, the team will then pay him $5 million a year over 3 years. Again, if a team is at the cap level and does this, it opens up another $10 million in free agent money. Why don't we ever hear the players mentioning this? Both of these are great for them.
I wasn't aware that the stretch provision applied to the cap. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention. Thats a nice concession for the players. Personally, I think this is a pretty good deal for the players. As I said before, I can't see Hunter and Fisher endorsing decertification, since it would render both of them irrevelatnt. I'm still optimistic something gets done.
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to throw a stone at the Bee. I think their coverage of this has been horrible. Sam Amick, the ex-beat writer has written more articles on the lockout than the the entire staff of the Bee. They have Jones covering the Raiders. If I were the beat writer for the Bee, I'd be out polling all the players on the Kings to get an idea of where they stand, and how up to date they are. Thats what they make cell phones for. Its a damm shame when the sports fans of sacramento have to read the LA times, or the New York times etc. to get informantion. OK!! Now I feel better.....
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to throw a stone at the Bee. I think their coverage of this has been horrible. Sam Amick, the ex-beat writer has written more articles on the lockout than the the entire staff of the Bee. They have Jones covering the Raiders. If I were the beat writer for the Bee, I'd be out polling all the players on the Kings to get an idea of where they stand, and how up to date they are. Thats what they make cell phones for. Its a damm shame when the sports fans of sacramento have to read the LA times, or the New York times etc. to get informantion. OK!! Now I feel better.....