That's an invite I'd gladly accept if I were anywhere near Baja!
The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
That's an invite I'd gladly accept if I were anywhere near Baja!
Trueblood
Bench
This really blows. My apologies to all for my pi$$ poor prediction that this would finally get settled. I really can't believe that the league didn't have one last concession in their pocket and that the union didn't even take their supposed amendment to them. But at the end of the day, this should've went to a vote. The fact that it didn't go to a vote shows that the union knew that they lost. If they really felt comfortable in how united they were, they would've let it go to a vote.
And yes, like I've been saying, the agents completely ruined this. Take them out of the equation and this gets done a long time ago. Keep this in mind. The agents have years and years to keep getting new clients when their bread and butter guys get washed up. The players don't have that luxury but apparently, were naive enough to listen to the advice of their agents and it's going to bite them in the a$$.
And yes, like I've been saying, the agents completely ruined this. Take them out of the equation and this gets done a long time ago. Keep this in mind. The agents have years and years to keep getting new clients when their bread and butter guys get washed up. The players don't have that luxury but apparently, were naive enough to listen to the advice of their agents and it's going to bite them in the a$$.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Kessler and Hunter have also been deeply involved. Frankly the players have really really not looked very bright throughout this, and if you have been paying attention to their comments on twitter or whatever..well, better if you don't if you ever want to be a fan of any of these guys again. Well...not quite any of them. Our old friend Kevin Martin for instance was one of the few players to come out of this thing not sounding like a self absorbed idiot with absolutely no idea how real life works.
Not even allowing the rank and file to have a vote on the dissolution of their own union though was just pure slime. The NBA hasn't been negotiating with the players as a whole, they've been engotaiting with a cabal of less than 50 guys + Hunter and Kessler with its own ideology and goals separate from what's important to the rest of the players. And rather than risk letting those players actually getting a say on anything, the cabal abused their position and used procedural devices to make sure they got the result they wanted. The rank and file guys just got ground up in the process.
Not even allowing the rank and file to have a vote on the dissolution of their own union though was just pure slime. The NBA hasn't been negotiating with the players as a whole, they've been engotaiting with a cabal of less than 50 guys + Hunter and Kessler with its own ideology and goals separate from what's important to the rest of the players. And rather than risk letting those players actually getting a say on anything, the cabal abused their position and used procedural devices to make sure they got the result they wanted. The rank and file guys just got ground up in the process.
Trueblood
Bench
Exactly. The union knew that if it went to a vote, they would've lost. Completely mind boggling why people continue to side with them.
Here's another thing. Why didn't the amended proposal even get to the owners? At least then, they could put the onus on the owners for turning it down. They committed double suicide, if that's even a term and not an oxymoron. They not only didn't follow through on their idea but they didn't do what just about every fan in America wanted them to do but then have the gall to apologize to us and say they want to play. Well, if you want to play so much, let the rank & file vote and you get your wish. Anything else and you're clearly a hypocrite.
Telemachus
Starter
It seems to me that the actions of the union will only serve to help the league's case that they filed this summer about the union NOT negotiating in good faith (using decertifying simply as a tool for leverage). Not letting all 450 members vote looks to me as though it proves the league's suit to be correct.
Gary
All-Star
Yah same.. Bunch of idiots, and they can go F themselves. I am done with the NBA this year regardless to if there is a season. Screw the season tickets.
Trueblood
Bench
Yes. The NBA has some very high powered attorneys themselves. They are looking at that as we speak.
Gary
All-Star
Who wants to bet that the deal they end up getting will be nowhere near as good as this last deal was? Players association have a bunch of brainless morons in their midst.
I hope they end up getting screwed because the players are talking like they are the owners. They aren't... They are EMPLOYEES.. They get paid regardless if the owners lose money. Who are they to say they aren't getting paid enough while the owners flounder?
I hope they end up getting screwed because the players are talking like they are the owners. They aren't... They are EMPLOYEES.. They get paid regardless if the owners lose money. Who are they to say they aren't getting paid enough while the owners flounder?
Trueblood
Bench
That's probably what will happen and it may be the one silver lining to all of this. We may get a harder cap that is similar to the NHL one and that benefits the Kings and other small market teams.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Sigh:
http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...ed_To_Litigation_Unsure_Legal_Action_Required
What a well thought out and great plan they had here.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...ed_To_Litigation_Unsure_Legal_Action_Required
What a well thought out and great plan they had here.
Padrino
All-Star
excellent sports illustrated article on the senselessness of the lockout to this point:
Senseless NBA players, owners will look back on lockout with regret
Senseless NBA players, owners will look back on lockout with regret
This.
Decertification does nothing to help their cause, not without losing the entire season. And even then, it's a long shot. The owners will add the decertification to their complaint against the players that's already with the NLRB. They'll fight the decertification as a sham. There's just no shot that decertification does anything but cause the owners to draw further into their corner, and once the dust settles and the players emerge from court with even less leverage (having used the threat of decertification already, to no avail), the deal gets worse.
This will not work in their favor. And they should know that.
Trueblood
Bench
Hilarious. That joker that Kessler brought along doesn't even know what legal route to take.
You're a lawyer. Where do you see this going? Do the players have any shot at all?
PurpleHaze
All-Star
This...
Rule #1 for attorneys: Never ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Rule #1 for their clients: Everyone hates lawyers, until you need one - then you hate them more!
OMG - and now: Kessler and David Boies together on same anti-trust legal team suing NBA with their likewise high powered attorneys. This will be argued, appealed, countered, argued again, for many, many, many months - and probably years.
Last edited:
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I'm not a lawyer; I just play one on the Internet. And I know you weren't asking me, seeing as how I'm not a lawyer. BUT...
I followed the NFL labor dispute pretty closely, including the legal actions that each side took against the other. Judging from the legal system's response to the NFLPA's decertification and subsequent litigation from both sides, I can't see any scenario in which either the players are able to gain leverage from this action or in which the season is salvaged, even in part. Here's why I say this.
In the case with the NFL players and owners, the players had proof that a) the owners had planned for the lockout several years in advance; b) the owners had set aside money specifically to weather a protracted work stoppage; c) the owners gave discounts in their TV contracts to secure said contracts before the impending lockout; d) the owners exaggerated their financial hardships without any way to document said hardships.
In short, the NFL players could prove that the owners had been dealing in bad faith, and that helped their case against the owners. As a matter of fact, a federal judge had already frozen ill-gotten TV money before the players decertified and filed suit.
On top of that, the NFL's franchise tag and restricted free agency were an easy target for anti-trust complaints, especially with the high-profile restrictions against big name players (Vincent Jackson, Marcus McNeil, Logan Mankins, etc.) leading up to the lockout.
All that said, the courts appeared to be leaning toward striking down any litigation by the players as "stemming from a labor debate," which precludes them from filing as anything other than a labor union. The expected domino effect from that eventual ruling would have been the NLRB ruling that their decertification was a sham, and them being back to square one, with less leverage than before, having already tried the legal route. Best case scenario for the players, they would have had to wait a year after the expiration of the CBA to go back and try their anti-trust suit again. That's my rudimentary understanding of what happened.
I'm applying that understanding to the NBA situation. The players don't have the same anti-trust complaints, since there's no franchise tag and a less oppressive restricted free agency. The NFL players also included the collegiate draft in their complaint, but that was always a long shot. The real punch was with restricted free agency. So any suit brought by the players is going to be weak, if not meritless.
Even if it wasn't weak, it wouldn't be heard by the courts until July of 2012, at the earliest, applying the guideline hinted at by the 8th Circuit while issuing its decision on the NFLPA's suit. In which case, you lose the entire season, and you can get ready for either a long court battle to determine the anti-trust issues, or their weak case gets thrown out, and they're back on the street with their pockets turned out.
So it sucks, is the short answer. Their legal maneuvering doesn't stand a chance.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I've said from the beginning that I don't have a dog in this hunt. I could care less who wins or loses, or who is right or wrong. But I can acknowledge stupidy when I see it, and right now the players are being stupid. If they wanted to go this route, then they should have done it months ago. If the season is cancelled, the players will lose an entire year of salary, which they will never get back. There is a point where being right loses some of its importance. You could say you have the right to walk across a mine field because you own the land. But don't complain if you get blown up.
This is the exact same route that the NFL players union took, and with the exact same lawyers. They lost! Whats that definition of insanity? This should have been put before the players for a vote. Instead, a couple of attorneys and the player reps decided what they were going to do. Three of the player reps weren't even there. There has been little communication between the negotiators and the players. Players were showing up for the meeting with almost no knowledge of what was in the agreement. Hell, they can't even negotiate with the league now. This is just nuts.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Thats the part that I couldn't understand. Hunter talked of taking an amended proposal back to the league. No one knows how the leagut would have responded, but at least, as you said, the onus would have been on the league. I never understood the lack of urgency by the union once a wednsday deadline has been set by Stern. Now it makes more sense, because this is probably what they intended to do. Even some of the agents on twitter are calling this insanity.
I agree with Bricky about reading players comments on twitter. I've certainlly lost respect for some of them. Of course I've always felt that Garnett was an idiot. A talented idiot, but an idiot non the less.
Uncia03
Starter
For the majority of this lock-out I've personally been siding more with the owners. Not from a financial standpoint, as I could care less about the BRI split, but from a system's standpoint.
I'm very much in favor of owners having more of a chance to retain the players they draft, and to prevent teams such as the Lakers and Celtics from being able to continually add pieces to a championship-contending roster.
With that said, I'm not going to blame the players at all for today's debacle. I lay the blame squared on Kessler, Hunter, and Fisher.
If the player's had their way, it's my belief that they would have voted to approval the proposal and put in motion a 72-game season.
The fact that the player reps voted unaminously to reject the proposal tells me one thing. It tells me that Kessler, Hunter, and Fisher advised the player reps that their best option was to go this 'Disclaimer of Interest' route.
There was a particularly disconcerting quote in the NBA article from Keyon Dooling. Here it is:
Why in the world would you begin down this path that definitely cost you the opportunity of a 72-game season, could easily lose you the entire season, and if it truly gets to the courts could cost you multipe seasons, if you don't know what to expect from the process? It's insane.
The fact that the union VP doesn't even know what to expect from this process tells me that that the player reps are letting their egos get in the way and blindly following the advice of the 'experts'. And Kessler, Hunter, and Fisher are doing them all a huge dis-service.
So I'm not upset with the rank-and-file players. I think the League is going to make a point that the Union would not allow it's members to vote on a deal. And the reason they wouldn't is because they knew that the proposal would most likely have passed.
I'm not certain you can argue that the League is not acting in good faith, when the League presents a proposal that would have most likely been accepted by the majority of the members had they been given the chance to actually vote.
Today's decision has been completely maddening, and the fans really loose out.
I'm very much in favor of owners having more of a chance to retain the players they draft, and to prevent teams such as the Lakers and Celtics from being able to continually add pieces to a championship-contending roster.
With that said, I'm not going to blame the players at all for today's debacle. I lay the blame squared on Kessler, Hunter, and Fisher.
If the player's had their way, it's my belief that they would have voted to approval the proposal and put in motion a 72-game season.
The fact that the player reps voted unaminously to reject the proposal tells me one thing. It tells me that Kessler, Hunter, and Fisher advised the player reps that their best option was to go this 'Disclaimer of Interest' route.
There was a particularly disconcerting quote in the NBA article from Keyon Dooling. Here it is:
Why in the world would you begin down this path that definitely cost you the opportunity of a 72-game season, could easily lose you the entire season, and if it truly gets to the courts could cost you multipe seasons, if you don't know what to expect from the process? It's insane.
The fact that the union VP doesn't even know what to expect from this process tells me that that the player reps are letting their egos get in the way and blindly following the advice of the 'experts'. And Kessler, Hunter, and Fisher are doing them all a huge dis-service.
So I'm not upset with the rank-and-file players. I think the League is going to make a point that the Union would not allow it's members to vote on a deal. And the reason they wouldn't is because they knew that the proposal would most likely have passed.
I'm not certain you can argue that the League is not acting in good faith, when the League presents a proposal that would have most likely been accepted by the majority of the members had they been given the chance to actually vote.
Today's decision has been completely maddening, and the fans really loose out.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I sure hope it doesn't come to contracting our kings
Honestly though, if The Kings had to leave Sacramento, I'd rather see them contracted than see another city get them. If I can't have you, no one can!
Variant
Starter
I too think that for the long-term health of the league, things need to be restructured such that the smaller market teams are better able to compete, retain players and generate positive revenue. The owners need to stick to their guns -- even if it means the loss of the season.
I halfway wish they'd go the replacement player route. Maybe too expensive, but there is no shortage of ballplayers out there. Heck, plenty of people enjoy watching the NCAA, and I wonder if we'd start seeing some of the NBA guys come crawling back after they decertify, see the league going on without them and watch their own exposure and marketability (which they owe to the NBA) declining.
Anyways, thank goodness for football!
I halfway wish they'd go the replacement player route. Maybe too expensive, but there is no shortage of ballplayers out there. Heck, plenty of people enjoy watching the NCAA, and I wonder if we'd start seeing some of the NBA guys come crawling back after they decertify, see the league going on without them and watch their own exposure and marketability (which they owe to the NBA) declining.
Anyways, thank goodness for football!
Rookie
Starter
I too don't mind the loss of a season for a better league tomorrow. However at the cost of "regular" people not being able to support their family is a price that I don't like to side with. Of all the people between the players and owners, I would expect the players to understand this more so because most of them have been part of the "regular" people prior to being rich.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Yep. Garnett and Allen may never come back. One year older is one year older. Wonder how many others played their last year last year?
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I think we need to clarify what happened. There have been many references to decertification. Thats not what happend. The union filed a "Disclaimer of interest". Which is both similar and yet quite different than decertification. As explained by a law professor, decertification is the players walking away from the union. A disclaimer of interest, is the union walking away from the players. The post results are very similar. Either way, it lays the ground work for individual players to file anti-trust suits against the league.
So why one over the other? Well, the disclaimer of interest is quicker. You file it, and wa la, your done. But the main reason in my opinion, is that it doesn't require a vote by the membership. Whereas, in order to file for decertification, the entire membership would have to vote on it. I believe that Hunter, Fisher, and Kesler didn't think they had the votes, and therefore took the easier route. Also, with a disclaimer of interest, it can be reversed just as quickly. So Hunter and Fisher remain revelant as the default mechanism if negotiations ever start again.
As of now, the league has no one to negotiate with. Technically, there is no union representation. So its hard to make a deal with no one. Technically, the league could negotiate with the individual players, but I doubt that will happen. Once an anti-trust suit is filed, the league can negotiate with the attorneys of the plaintiffs, but they still can't negotiate a new CBA for all the players, because that can only be done by a union, which at the moment, isn't representing anyone.
The league has threatened to void all contracts signed under the old CBA. On paper, that would make every player in the league a freeagent. I seriously doubt thats going to happen. To my mind, that would be playing into the hands of what the agents want. So if they were to take that path, then there would have to be other parts to the ruling that would allow each team to retain the rights to the players on its roster. I'm not sure that the courts would rule to void legitimate contracts signed by both parties in good faith. I see this as more of a threat than a reality.
In short, this entire thing is a big mess, and there's no end in sight. If it was a giant bluff by the union, I don't think its going to work. The question then is, how long before the union realizes its not going to work, and comes back to the table. I don't think they know! And, I don't think they know where this is going to go. I think a bunch of angry players and greedy agents made a decision based more on emotion, than whats good for the majority of the membership, and for the long term health of the league.
So why one over the other? Well, the disclaimer of interest is quicker. You file it, and wa la, your done. But the main reason in my opinion, is that it doesn't require a vote by the membership. Whereas, in order to file for decertification, the entire membership would have to vote on it. I believe that Hunter, Fisher, and Kesler didn't think they had the votes, and therefore took the easier route. Also, with a disclaimer of interest, it can be reversed just as quickly. So Hunter and Fisher remain revelant as the default mechanism if negotiations ever start again.
As of now, the league has no one to negotiate with. Technically, there is no union representation. So its hard to make a deal with no one. Technically, the league could negotiate with the individual players, but I doubt that will happen. Once an anti-trust suit is filed, the league can negotiate with the attorneys of the plaintiffs, but they still can't negotiate a new CBA for all the players, because that can only be done by a union, which at the moment, isn't representing anyone.
The league has threatened to void all contracts signed under the old CBA. On paper, that would make every player in the league a freeagent. I seriously doubt thats going to happen. To my mind, that would be playing into the hands of what the agents want. So if they were to take that path, then there would have to be other parts to the ruling that would allow each team to retain the rights to the players on its roster. I'm not sure that the courts would rule to void legitimate contracts signed by both parties in good faith. I see this as more of a threat than a reality.
In short, this entire thing is a big mess, and there's no end in sight. If it was a giant bluff by the union, I don't think its going to work. The question then is, how long before the union realizes its not going to work, and comes back to the table. I don't think they know! And, I don't think they know where this is going to go. I think a bunch of angry players and greedy agents made a decision based more on emotion, than whats good for the majority of the membership, and for the long term health of the league.
UK_King
Starter
Agree with the above; I think (hope) the contract voiding is an idle threat. But i heard one person, might have been Sam Amick say most players would welcome free agency, and he's not wrong... a lot of teams would as well. If a mass free agency occurred you'd end up with Kobe, Blake and Dwight Howard in LA and Chris Paul, Melo and Kevin Love in NY. We and the other teams would be fighting over the scraps.
I'm not taking sides, I'm just sad for the game. Has anyone seem Amare's Twitter, pictures of him on his Yacht smoking cigars. Slightly poor taste when "real" people are struggling to find work because of the actions of these players and owners squabbling.
I'm not taking sides, I'm just sad for the game. Has anyone seem Amare's Twitter, pictures of him on his Yacht smoking cigars. Slightly poor taste when "real" people are struggling to find work because of the actions of these players and owners squabbling.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
This thing will end when the anger and greed is supplanted by fear and panic. Momma's not going to like it when the checks stop coming...
Kingster
Hall of Famer
bajaden
Hall of Famer
If this ultimately becomes the end game, then I don't see there being any NBA basketball for at least a couple of years. Even if the players were to win an injunction, and eventually their anti-trust suit, it would immediately be appealed to a higher court, and so on and so on. There is no winner in this scenario. The odds of the players winning are slim. There is no precident. Doesn't mean they won't win, but its a huge gamble that I wouldn't bet my life on.
By the way, today, the first day the players didn't get a paycheck, this is what some of the players lost.
Kobe Bryant - $1, 051,832.00
Lebron - $667,603.00
Dirk N. - $795,535.00
T.Duncan - $1,760,000.00
The average player lost a total of $220,000.00
Thats a lot of cervesa's folks!
Similar threads
