Reply With Quote
I don't think they take the deal.
"looking like the bad guys among fans"
They're getting screwed by owners, but I suppose the owners' PR machines are more effective than the NBPA's PR. Without the players, no NBA, no franchise owners. My guess is most of the owners don't GAS about bball, only about making money, and/or getting tax write offs for their losses. It's A Business.
I don't think they take the deal.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...the-real-fightAfter 133 days of the lockout we finally got a clear vision of what the union is fighting for…even if it took NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver to articulate it for them.
"In order for us to have the compe ive balance we want, it restricts player movement to a certain degree,” Silver said, both summarizing the proposal that’s on the table and providing a huge window into the hidden stakes.
This is about control. Will players get to determine where they play at any stage in the prime of their careers, or will the system and the teams dictate the scenarios? Will agents be marginalized, left without the ability to play teams off each other or broker a deal? It’s at the core of many proposals that have bounced around during the negotiating sessions, including the amount teams in the luxury tax are able to spend on the midlevel exception and the ability of luxury tax teams to engage in sign-and-trade deals. The owners’ intentions are two-fold: to limit the ability of big-market teams to hoard talent and make it financially undesirable for players to go to cities that have every other advantage. It wouldn’t keep another team from duplicating the Miami Heat’s star collection – remember, the Heat matched LeBron James and Chris Bosh with Dwyane Wade by gutting the roster to get way under the salary cap – but it would hinder them from bringing in the necessary complimentary players to win a championship. Or it could force a tail-end veteran into the difficult choice of one last payday or one last shot at a ring.
One of the reasons the union has been playing from behind since the first quarter of these negotiations is that the league has successfully framed the terms of the dispute in the public’s eye and the union never made it clear what it was fighting for. Early on David Stern latched on to the ideal of a 50/50 split of revenues, the simplest concept for the public to grasp. What’s more fair than 50/50? How could the union not take that and get the season underway?
All the union leadership countered with was vague talk about “system issues” and how they were unfair. They didn’t put it in relatable terms. They didn’t bother to ask the fans how they would feel if they were told where they had to work for their first four years out of school, or if their employers, with no advance warning, could send them to another city. Fans like to counter that it doesn’t matter because the players make a lot of money, but the salaries are irrelevant – doctors, lawyers and Wall Street traders can be highly compensated as well without the same restrictions. Besides, if fans want to make this about money, then they can’t be mad if their favorite player leaves their team to sign a bigger contract elsewhere.
If the union played it smartly they’d say that now that the players have signaled their willingness to drop to 50 percent, the same question that was repeatedly demanded of the players – “Why isn’t 50/50 good enough for you?” – must be asked of the owners. After all, by some estimates simply reducing the players’ share of basketball related income from 57% to 50% would wipe out the $300 million in losses the owners said they suffered last year. That ought to be enough in itself.
The owners aren’t stopping there. Like the NCAA member ins utions that approve ridiculously intricate rules because they don’t trust each other, the NBA’s have-nots are doing everything they can to keep talent from ac ulating in select spots. They want, for instance, to avoid a repeat of Carmelo Anthony forcing his way to New York while being handed a lucrative contract on the way out of Denver. In the process, they’re putting their own interests ahead of the league as a whole. Player movement is better for the NBA. Fans feed off trade rumors and they devour big free agent signings. And it’s been demonstrated again and again that interest in the NBA is at its highest when compe ive balance is at its lowest. Consider all that nostalgia for the 1980s, when the Lakers and Celtics won eight championships in nine years, or for the 1990s, when every year Michael Jordan was in training camp the Bulls ended the season with a victory rally in Grant Park. The league’s broadcast partners are much happier when they get Lakers-Celtics instead of Spurs-Pistons…and when the networks are happy, they write bigger checks for rights fees.
It’s possible to have it both ways, even under the old rules. The Heat were the best thing to happen to the NBA in 2010-11, making regular-season games matter for the first time since the Bulls embarked on their run at the record in 1995-96. At the same time, the Memphis Grizzlies won more playoff games than the Los Angeles Lakers, and the Oklahoma City Thunder went deeper into the postseason than the Boston Celtics. Big-market storylines and small-market opportunities can co-exist.
The union should be framing its disagreement with the owners in terms of individual freedom and fantasy league-like roster possibilities. Instead they’ve come off as simply bickering about money. They’re down to a $2 million difference between the mid-level exception the NBA wants to offer for teams in the luxury tax and what the players want to see. There were only seven luxury-tax paying teams last season, so if this had applied last year we’d be talking about seven players and a total of $14 million per year. These are the details that are holding up a deal worth more than $4 billion annually?
If the players could spin it as the end of true free agency, or a plot to keep teams from adding the player to put them over the top, it might sound more understandable. But if the best they can do is have Adam Silver spell it out for them, they’ll lose both the collective bargaining negotiations and the public relations contest.
Does the fact that the proposed CBA is intended to stop like Lebron from joining the Heat and Melo going to NYC change anyone's mind?
They are for sure frustrating but they don't have a better option than taking this deal. If they want to counter that, some superstars and big agents need to start an united front with a precise plan to get a better CBA than owners current offer. There is a leadership crisis among players. If nobody step up to replace Hunter and Fisher, I think they are screwed and will be forced to accept that deal.
Players are going to respond with counter with little tweaks. Another 2 day process and the deal is done. I'm optimistic because I think they are pretty close. They don't want to take steps back in the negotiation, lose more games, more money, etc.
Who could step up like Jordan in 1998 ?
Wade and KG tried something but it was not successful at all. Maybe Kobe can but he doesn't seem to care much
I understand the severe butthurt from guys like the Nuggets owner and Dan Gilbert in Cleveland, but I simply don't see how they can keep around players that are disgruntled/unhappy with their situations or players that have their mind set to move somewhere else. It's not like some of these guys didn't take salary pay cuts to go to some of these teams (IIRC, Bosh ended up getting less than what was offered by Toronto, same with Lebron). They'll just make it up with sponsorship on a larger market.
Players will beat their chest and cry and scream that there is no way they will accept the current deal, but as soon as they get a chance to vote incognito, they will approve the deal by a wide margin.
In the end, even with a union, its every man for himself. With the majoritiy of players lasting up to 5 years more, give or take a few years, they know they cannot afford to miss anymore paychecks for some kid that's still in junior high.
I think that part of the problem is the notion that a butthurt player should get his way by demanding a trade to a city of his choice. That's bull . I understand that these guys are human - and that you can't just say get over it - but at the same time, they're professionals and really should get over it. Disgruntled players are a problem for sure. Disgruntled players with the ability to hijack their teams for months at a time is, I think, a much bigger problem.
I think that reducing the avenues open for players to demand their way off of a team would go a long way towards changing their at udes. It's easy to be butthurt and not suck it up when you're stuck on a team. When there are options available to you - being butthurt is advantageous in that you might get your way.
In all, I think cutting off these options (like the whole S&T exclusion) is better for the league.
I don't necessarily disagree that players shouldn't hijack a team. I just don't see what you can really do about it when player's contracts eventually do end and they do become free agents. Ultimately, a sign and trade is actually a positive for the team the player is departing from because at least they get something in return for the player that just doesn't want to stay there anymore.
Then there's the fact that big market owners don't really give two s about the small market guys, and will pimp their teams to top talent no matter how much of a the player has been to their previous team.
I just don't think any of these 'penalties' really addresses that problem, because I just don't see how you can have a solution to that.
One player won't be enough. It will take a dozen of superstar to have some kind of impact of owners.
Right now, NBPA's executive committee is: Derek Fisher, Keyon Dooling, James Jones, Matt Bonner, Maurice Evans, Roger Mason, Chris Paul, Theo Ratliff and Ethan Thomas. Aside of Chris Paul, who is in a special situation since Hornets owner is the NBA, it's a bunch of scrubs. I'm sure Holt would be more friendly if he faced Tim Duncan instead of these players.
Instead, he's facing off against Matt Bonner. No wonder he's being such a head.Not to mention the irony of championing these causes that help protect owners from their own mistakes....like Matt Bonner.
Everything I've read so far indicates that restricting player movement is the "philosophy" motivating the deal as opposed to concrete provisions of the CBA itself. That said I think the new CBA could do this by:
1. Eliminating the S&T in 2013 (after the initial 2 year period ends).
2. By restricting the use of MLEs by tax paying teams
3. Ramping up the penalty from 1:1 to 1:3, 1:4, or wherever they're at currently.
Adande's point was that you can't directly prevent super-teams from being formed in big markets. The point of these provisions is to "hinder them from bringing in the necessary complimentary players to win a championship."
You're right that a S&T helps a team who's losing their star-player. But I think the point of all these restrictions is to disincentivize their star from leaving in the first place. And keeping your star is way better than losing him for pennys on the dollar in some S&T.
Will these provisions ultimately work? Who knows. But these restrictions are way more powerful than the current CBA. If there's a chance it works, I'm for it.
Whether it works or not - I can't say. Ultimately, I think its a good thing that the league is trying to do something about this.
the 30 team representatives have to fly in so they break it down. takes time. just wait if this comes to vote its gonna take like 4 days for all the players to fly in to NY. with that said im not feeling optimistic. like ive said before this is rape, they are getting screwed yet the players have seen stern not follow up on his threat they negotiated again. the players can and probably and will decertify and say lets talk more , are you willing to destroy the season over small system issues? the delay is also probably to try and convince peopel to vote. its like fisher is boehner he has his problem childs in his cons uency and he has to make sure the thing can pass before he brings it to vote.
Well, it's been assumed that they would need at least 28 days (4 weeks) in order stuff in a condensed free agency period, training camp, and preseason. If they are hoping to play by December 15th and still hope to maintain that, a decision will have to be made by next Wednesday. And even I don't see that happening, because players still have to decide, both sides have to vote, and then the deal has to be ratified. That's a lot to do in 2-3 days.
I disagree with this point: lots of times sign and trades are done only to keep from burning bridges with agents. The Spurs sign-and-trade deal that shipped Derek Anderson to Portland for Steve Smith is one example. Who would ever want the last 2 years and $18 million for a player like Smith whose knees were ground to powder by then?
I read somewhere that even before it goes to a ratification vote, the league would be willing to lift the lockout if the player reps decide to go ahead with a full vote. I think Woj tweeted it last night.
It's damn near impossible to overstate the level of incompetence displayed by Billy Hunter through this entire ordeal. You can talk about Eddy Curry, Jerome James and the rest all you want, but the worst contract handed out over the last decade was when the NBPA decided to keep Billy Hunter.
And I agree. I just don't see it happening. But we'll see. Time will tell.
I should've prefaced that with "sometimes". Plus I'm pretty sure the Spurs expected more from Smith. He just turned out to be a major turd.
I know some people here who would trade Bonner for Hunter.
New proposal would allow teams to send players to D-League first 5 years of career and reduce pay to pro-rated 75K.Players aren't going to agree to something like this.
Sources: Players unlikely to accept deal
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/72...eague-proposal
Once NBA players digest all the details of the owners' new proposal -- including a clause opening the way for more player demotions to the D-League -- it's hard to imagine even those desperate to play would be willing to ratify it, sources who have seen the proposal told ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher.
The D-League clause, which had not previously been disclosed, is one of several elements in the owners' proposal to the league's locked-out players that prompted one agent to describe the proposal as "draconian."
The clause would give teams the right to send a player down to the NBA Development League at any time during his first five years and pay him a severely-reduced contract while he's there, a source that has examined the proposal told Bucher.
Any player sent down to the D-League would be paid at a pro-rated scale of $75,000 a season, which is slightly above the current D-League maximum but roughly one-sixth of the NBA minimum, the source said.
The owners' new proposal would also prohibit luxury tax-paying teams from sign-and-trade deals after a two-year "phase-in" period, according to sources.
Non-tax-paying teams also would be prohibited from using the mid-level exception if doing so would take them over the salary cap, sources said.
"They don't want to do a deal," one agent said of the proposals. "And what they've underestimated is the resolve of the players."
NBA commissioner David Stern on Thursday offered players a deal that would, if approved, allow for 72-game season that would start Dec. 15.
Yet the league's latest pitch, according to sources briefed on its contents after adjustments were made Thursday night, contained what the union regards as minuscule financial inducements for the players after nearly 24 hours of negotiations this week.
That disappointed union leaders, who were expecting more after they made a commitment earlier in the week, for the first time since the lockout began, to accept a 50-50 split of annual Basketball Related Income.
"It's not the greatest proposal in the world," NBPA executive director Billy Hunter said of the proposal. "But I have an obligation to at least present it to our membership. So that's what we're going to do."
Hunter said he plans to present the proposal to the player representatives from all 30 teams as early as Monday, as a possible prelude to a full vote from the union's estimated 450 members.
"We don't expect them to love every aspect of our revised proposal," Stern conceded Thursday. "I would say that there are many teams that don't like every aspect of our revised proposal.
"(But) we moved as far as we could and now we're at where we're at."
The ominous response from one source connected to the NBPA, who expects the union to reject the proposal next week after learning of the tweaks offered by the league on the five or so "system" issues that have kept the parties at an impasse: "Nothing was addressed. It's basically the same offer as it was before.
"No way this deal gets taken (by the players). They didn't move on any system issues that concerned us. It's still basically (like) a hard cap with very restrictive rules for player movement."
The most notable elements of the new proposal, confirmed by sources on both sides to ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard, are the rise of the "mini mid-level exception" from $2.5 million every other season to $3 million every season and the creation of the additional $2.5 million exception for teams that qualify.
The league, sources said, also relented to some degree on its insistence that taxed teams can't participate in sign-and-trade deals.
Owners are now proposing a phase-in of that restriction that would start in Year 3 of a new labor pact, meaning that prominent summer 2012 free agents such as Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Steve Nash still would be eligible to switch teams via sign-and-trade.
The owners, sources say, also have offered to raise minimum team payrolls (which historically had been 75 percent of the salary cap) and raise some season-to-season salary increases.
But one source close to the process told Broussard that while these changes may look significant, "the problem with all of that is that the owners changed the definition of a taxpayer in a way that would destroy (Larry) Bird rights and make it almost impossible to be a taxpayer, so the exceptions would be lost anyway."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
