Kings Notes: Shareef applauds lawsuit

[VF21]

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/86497.html

Kings Notes: Shareef applauds lawsuit
The Kings forward says the players need to unite to gain respect from the league.
By Sam Amick - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 12:28 am PST Saturday, December 2, 2006
Story appeared in SPORTS section, Page C5

Shareef Abdur-Rahim had his hopes partially realized Friday, when the NBA players' association filed two unfair labor practice charges against the league for what the Kings forward perceives as a dictatorial approach to management.

Abdur-Rahim is the Kings' player representative to the association. And although he didn't know of the suit that was filed with the National Labor Relations Board until told by reporters before the Kings faced the Mavericks, Abdur-Rahim was pleased with the news.

Since Commissioner David Stern replaced the old leather basketball with a synthetic one and approved a crackdown on on-court arguing that is seen as a zero-tolerance policy, Abdur-Rahim has been saying the players needed to fight back.

"If we stood together on issues, consulted each other and kept our ear to the ground, it might make the league respect us more than just (giving us) a paycheck," Abdur-Rahim said. "As players, instead of standing for something, we just fall and have to deal with whatever they want to do."

Abdur-Rahim is one of many players who has received a technical foul this season, his coming on Nov. 19 against San Antonio. But he said he will protest the call, making him the third Kings player to do so.

Kings point guard Mike Bibby and reserve big man Maurice Taylor both received two technicals and were ejected from the Nov. 1 season opener at Minnesota. Both players also had their protests upheld and expect to receive a refund on the $2,500 fine that comes with the two technicals.

Bibby wasn't aware of the lawsuit, either, but was glad when told. Like most players, his complaint is that the league didn't consult the players about decisions that so directly affect their jobs.

"It would've been understandable if they came to us and asked us to change the ball," Bibby said. "But they just said, 'This is what we're going to do, and you're going to like it.' "

Abdur-Rahim agreed.

"Why wouldn't you have players that you'd consult, (asking them) 'How do you feel about this ball? Because this is the way we're going,' " he said. "As players, we let ourselves be controlled like that."

The long-term concern, Abdur-Rahim said, is that Stern's sweeping decisions will only increase as long as he's uncontested.

"Ten years from now, players will be playing for non-guaranteed contracts," Abdur-Rahim said. "That's the truth. If we're not careful about how we're viewed, as more than just making a lot of money. ... They have a plan 20 or 30 years down the road, so we have to have a plan for ourselves, too."

Going deep -- Beyond the win-loss record, there's a sign the Mavericks are simply on a different level than most of the league right now.

Coach Avery Johnson has so many quality reserves at his disposal, he has been trying different lineups not only to determine what works but to decipher what doesn't work. The thinking, Johnson has said, is that he won't have to tinker later in the season when the stakes may be higher.

It's a luxury that would determine a win or loss for most teams, but not this one. Dallas showed off its depth early, when the Mavericks had four reserves on the floor in the first quarter and dominated 38-19.

About the writer: The Bee's Sam Amick can be reached at samick@sacbee.com.

 

[VF21]

I have mixed feelings about this. I do think the players have a right to input on the equipment they're required to use in the jobs, so if they're that unhappy with the ball, I think the league should listen.

As far as the tehcnicals go, however, I think the players should just shut the bleep up and quit proving, via lawsuits like this, that they are being cry-babies.

 

[nbrans]

I have mixed feelings about this. I do think the players have a right to input on the equipment they're required to use in the jobs, so if they're that unhappy with the ball, I think the league should listen.

As far as the tehcnicals go, however, I think the players should just shut the bleep up and quit proving, via lawsuits like this, that they are being cry-babies.

I agree. The players, Kings included, are definitely being crybabies.

 

[uolj]

Abdur-Rahim is the Kings' player representative to the association. And although he didn't know of the suit that was filed with the National Labor Relations Board until told by reporters before the Kings faced the Mavericks, Abdur-Rahim was pleased with the news.

Hmmm... he's the player representative and he didn't know the lawsuits were happening. So the player's association leaders made this decision without even consulting all of the player representatives? And what they are protesting is that the league made decisions without consulting the players? Hmmm...

 

[Bricklayer]

As much as Reef complains on court, no wonder he wants to challenge the no whining rule.

The ball though...I don't think that's actionable, but I do think that was stupid. I mean really now. THE core piece of equipment in the whole sport, soemthing which has a direct effect on how players play...its kind of like if baseball just decided to switch to aluminum bats without consulting the players at all. That was dumb.

 

[BMiller52]

I realize he's the players representative for the Kings or whatever, but shouldn't he have been worrying about beating the mavericks?

 

[slugking50]

"Ten years from now, players will be playing for non-guaranteed contracts," Abdur-Rahim said.

One can only hope!

 

[piksi]

"Ten years from now, players will be playing for non-guaranteed contracts," Abdur-Rahim said. "That's the truth. If we're not careful about how we're viewed, as more than just making a lot of money. ... They have a plan 20 or 30 years down the road, so we have to have a plan for ourselves, too."

maybe that will get some of them to actually earn the money

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I like the no-whining rule. I think it might be acceptable to move to a case by case basis for the automatic fines that result. But the rule is a good thing.

I have no idea on the ball thing... if I read right when it was introduced the NCAA had moved to composite balls a while back and that happened without much of a whimper.

And of course I'd love to see non-guaranteed contracts. It would improve the quality of play league wide and allow for teams to rebuild better from catastrophic injuries to star players. The players could carry insurance on their contracts to protect them in the case of an injury, no reason the fans of a team should suffer.

 

[Bricklayer]

I like the no-whining rule. I think it might be acceptable to move to a case by case basis for the automatic fines that result. But the rule is a good thing.

I have no idea on the ball thing... if I read right when it was introduced the NCAA had moved to composite balls a while back and that happened without much of a whimper.

And of course I'd love to see non-guaranteed contracts. It would improve the quality of play league wide and allow for teams to rebuild better from catastrophic injuries to star players. The players could carry insurance on their contracts to protect them in the case of an injury, no reason the fans of a team should suffer.

Non guaranteed contracts aren't contracts at all -- well, except for one side (the player). Totally unbalanced. No risk, all reward, while the player risks signing for too little (ala Peja or Bobby) and gets no security. Bad moves SHOULD haunt a franchise. Only thing I would like to see changed is career-ending injuries -- should come off your cap number. That's nobody's fault. Of course then the problem is it might inspire teams to highly encourage injured guys to retire ratehr than doing everything they can to get them back on court.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Bad moves SHOULD haunt a franchise.

And poor play should haunt a player. How silly would it be if every time we got a raise at work we decided we could slack off the next 6 months or so and then when our performance review was coming turn on the jets again to hopefully get another raise?

I just look at what then NFL has done and think its great. Not only are teams able to turn around franchises in one or two seasons but problem players quickly find themselves begging for work.

 

[6th]

I don't have a problem with guaranteed contracts as much as I would like to see the number of guaranteed years reduced. These 5 or 6 year contracts with injured players is a bit much.

 

[VF21]

Of course then the problem is it might inspire teams to highly encourage injured guys to retire ratehr than doing everything they can to get them back on court.

But is that really a problem? I can remember - and I'm sure you can, too - when some injuries were career ending for a good reason. The player could no longer perform anywhere close to the level he was at when his contract was awarded.

Now, though, we have players - like Webber - trying to come back to their former form because the pressure on them is so great to do so.

Is it really good for the league, the teams or the players? Maybe some injuries should still be career-ending or at least allow for a revision to the contract?

I don't have an answer, BTW. I'm honestly just asking the question.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Interesting point VF. Not only that but you could also make the case that some injuries that aren't quite career enders nag for years or become career enders because players are rushed back when a full season plus of rehab would have lead to a more successful recovery.

 

[Bricklayer]

And poor play should haunt a player. How silly would it be if every time we got a raise at work we decided we could slack off the next 6 months or so and then when our performance review was coming turn on the jets again to hopefully get another raise?

I just look at what then NFL has done and think its great. Not only are teams able to turn around franchises in one or two seasons but problem players quickly find themselves begging for work.

The NFL has done that by breaking the back of the union and screwing the players up the pooch.

How would you feel on the flipside if you became your company's top performer, outsold everybody else by 2 times or whatever, and when you went in looking for a raise management whipped out your contract and said "nope, you have to work at your current $$ until 2011".

The NBA uses a balanced system. Sometimes teams lose, sometimes the players do. A system where ONLY the team can opt out, but the player cannot, is football. Players are screwed, have no security at all, no contracts. Only teams have rights to demand performance. Its the same thing as if players could walk away at any time and there was nothing the team could do about it, but on the other hand the player could force the team to pay him for as long as he wanted to.


P.S. I don't know if I'd call the days when guys careers got ended by torn ACLs the "good ole days"

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The NFL has done that by breaking the back of the union and screwing the players up the pooch.

Oh yes, those poor players. Struggling to put food on their families' plates.

I do understand that the NFL has got to be tougher than any other major sport on the body, major injuries to star players are pretty much expected and even players who get through their careers without too many injuries wind up debilitated in retirement.

But you're also completely ignoring the fact that NFL players do get their contracts changed in their favor after strong seasons all the time. There are some negatives to their system like players holding out to make it happen but it does happen. On the flip side players who want to win routinely restructure their contracts to help keep the team under the salary cap knowing they may never see that money down the road.

Let's not kid ourselves, these players make an amazing living for playing a game and by the end of their careers even the role players should be set up for life. I don't feel sorry for a single one of them.

 

[nbrans]

Oh yes, those poor players. Struggling to put food on their families' plates.

I do understand that the NFL has got to be tougher than any other major sport on the body, major injuries to star players are pretty much expected and even players who get through their careers without too many injuries wind up debilitated in retirement.

But you're also completely ignoring the fact that NFL players do get their contracts changed in their favor after strong seasons all the time. There are some negatives to their system like players holding out to make it happen but it does happen. On the flip side players who want to win routinely restructure their contracts to help keep the team under the salary cap knowing they may never see that money down the road.

Let's not kid ourselves, these players make an amazing living for playing a game and by the end of their careers even the role players should be set up for life. I don't feel sorry for a single one of them.

So, you'd rather their money went to their billionaire owners?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

So, you'd rather their money went to their billionaire owners?

Not at all, no matter which system is used everybody involved is getting their money. I just like the notion of being able to cancel a contract when a player is no longer able to perform up to expectations so that a team can sign another player who can. There would still be rules in place to insure the minimum amount of players under contract and a minimum payroll to insure that teams don't take advantage of this increased flexibility by putting an inferior product on the court. But the basic idea is that it would enable teams to be more competitive and offer a better product since they wouldn't be tied to underperforming or crippled players.