basketballtalk Kurt Helin
Some players have not felt “in the loop” with union http://dlvr.it/wB7xq #PBT #NBA
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply
There were reports of some sort of bonus. The actual proposal from the NBA to the players, however, did not include any such provision. See paragraph 10 of the do ent linked below. You will see that the 12% pay cut is included, as are reduced pay increases for years 2-4 of rookie contracts. There is no mention of any bonus system.
Sorry if these facts don't fit your narrative.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...11-11-2011.pdf
What are those 'substantial bonuses'? Do they offset the 12% salary cut?
I did hear that back when Cohen was involved, both sides agreed to have some sort of bonus system for rookies. But unless that ended up on the B-list, it never made it to the owner's proposal.
I don't have a narrative. I quoted an article. I think the point made is valid, but feel free to disagree.
The rookie scale is already ridiculously owner-friendly. Only two years are guaranteed and are for significantly less than MLE for even the #1 pick, and the values paid out slide down pretty quickly as you march down to pick #30. Then the drafting team has an option on each of years 3 and 4 and rights to match any contract in year 5. What a load of crap you're spewing.
That's a summary. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it, if you really believe that every detail of the deal can be found in a two-page large font do ent - but it's not the entire deal. For instance - the summary also doesn't go into detail about how "designated players" will be handled. But they clearly exist, because they are referenced a couple of times in the summary. I know that you know what a designated player is. Where do you think that the details about how they are handled are, since they aren't in the summary? Do you think there might be other, more detailed do ents, besides the summary? Maybe... maybe the intent was to totally leave the bonuses for top rookies out. I don't think so. But neither of us knows for certain, because all we have seen is a summary.
Stern is a master of media manipulation. But so is Hunter, and so is USA Today, and the NY Times. They tell you what they want you to know, and leave out what they don't want you to know. All of them.
The main focus of the owners' "system" demands, is to keep them from being on the hook for long contracts with players who won't or can't perform. (Jackie Butler leaps to mind here.) I don't think you will find an owner in the group who would not be happy to pay more than rookie scale for Derrick Rose. Jon Brockman... not so much.
And, for the record, there would still have been some details to be hammered out in the deal, had the players at least been allowed to vote on it. (Call it negotiation, or something else.)
2 years is a long contract?
Your point is valid, but it's only half the story. The rookie scale is stupid for players like Blake Griffen and Derrick Rose. But it's also stupid for players like Jon Brockman (and lots of others) who never see a minute of NBA playing time, but were good enough in college to take a flyer on.
Honestly - you don't believe that any owner would object to paying more for Rose or Griffen, do you? They may be capitalists, but they aren't animals, and they aren't stupid. Just as honestly - would you want to give a multi-year, multi million-dollar contract to Jon Brockman, or a bunch of other rookies, just because they went in the first round? Somebody has to go in the 16-30 slots.
Do I think the owners have enjoyed getting cheap talent out of the rookie scale? Damn betcha. But I also think they have hated writing those big checks to the busts. If you have a perfect solution, you should package it and sell it.
Don't forget that teams like Portland and OKC, who stockpile picks, would be instantly out of business. Every time you try and draw up a solution, you see some major holes in it.
Some players have not felt “in the loop” with union
Kurt Helin
Nov 15, 2011, 11:38 AM EST
1 Comment
AP When NBA union director Billy Hunter asked for a show of hands in a New York hotel Wednesday it was unanimous. All the guys in the room backed the idea of the union filing a “disclaimer of interest” and taking the fight to the courts.
But for some rank and file players who would rather just get back on the court, they don’t feel heard in all this.
Take what Glen Davis told the Boston Herald. The Celtics (well, free agent) forward speaks for others.
“I don’t think I’ve been kept in the loop as far as what’s going on and how things are going on,” he said. “I want to be kept in the loop, but when I say that, they say, well, come to the meetings.On the other coast, Kings forward DeMarcus Cousins was frustrated as well, as are a number of younger players, he told the Sacramento Bee.
“It’s not just Paul (Pierce, Celtics team rep) making that decision,” said Davis. “It’s also Derek (Fisher) and Billy Hunter. I talk to players, but my friends are guys like Paul and (Kevin Garnett) – guys who are in a different stage of their careers. I don’t talk to a lot of the guys who are more in my stage, like Carl Landry and DeJuan Blair.”
“Some of the young players I talked to, it’s not about the money. We just want to go out there and play ball,” Cousins said. “For me, it’s knocking off time for me to be improving as a player. This whole situation is really not helping out us younger players.”With 450 members the players union — well, trade association now — is not going to be able to keep everyone happy. Some guys care and seek out the information, others stand back and let others take the lead. Not everyone is going to seek out the information on where things stand.
But remember that while the sentiment in that New York hotel conference room was unanimous, it is not across the full width of the NBA.
^Then they should walk away from the union. Nobody is forcing them to stay.
It is if you're s ing out that kind of money for Lazar Hayward, or J.R. Giddens, or a load of others that I could think of.
After the first 15 (and sometimes even including them) it's like flipping coins for a million dollars a throw. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to play that game, can you?
http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_final_draft/2009
Jon Brockman went in the second round (pick 38, 2009) and thus his team was under no obligation whatsoever to guarantee him a cent!
Hayward played about as well as Jon Brockman and was paid the same (except Brockman got his money on the open market and not from the rookie scale).
A million bucks a throw is really cheap when have a good shot to completely lock down a quality player like Danny Granger, Hakim Warrick, Nate Robinson, Jarrett Jack, Luther Head, Linus Kleiza, David Lee, Rajon Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Jordan Farmar, Nick Young, Marco Belinelli, Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Ferndandez, Aaron Brooks, Aaron Afflalo, Tiago Splitter, Roy Hibbert, JaVale McGee, JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Darrell Arthur, Jrue Holiday, Ty Lawson, Jeff Teague, Eric Maynor, Darren Collison, Omri Casspi, Rodrigue Beabois, Taj Gibson, Toney Douglas, Eric Bledsoe, or James Anderson.
And you seriously underrate the worth of young draft picks. Ian Mahinmi was the definition of complete bust and yet the Spurs still picked up a team option on him in year 3 for that ungodly sum of $1 million.
Not that it matters now, but LOL at who Bonner's alternate as player rep for the Spurs was.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us
God help us.
There's always lemon players in the first round. But the non-lemons makes franchises quite a lot of dough, and overall very likely substantially more than whatever the owners pay for the duration of lemon guys (which is no more than a 2 year deal under the rookie scale). And don't even get me started on the fact that owners don't even have to bid for these perceived talents, or these lemons would really cost a lot more money.
I like the bonus proposal if it were to be there. I also think the rookie scale, when compared to what the league pays for talent in general, is a bit low, but it's debatable.
A 12% pay cut across the board though is pushing your luck. And I think these are the kind of squeezes for petty money in the grand scheme of things that derailed negotiations.
classic
If they didn't think the player was worth the 2yr/2M, they didn't have to sign him.
Billy Hunter sold the players on a plan that keeps him relevant and keeps him on his $2.5 million salary to be in charge of the court battle.
Keeping Hunter also gives the NBA a better probability of convincing a judge that the players are participating in a phony negotiating tactic.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216560/Hunters_Chosen_Plan_Keeps_Him_Relevant_Preserves_H is_$25M_Salary
I read this morning they're gonna sit down again on Friday and resume negotiations.
The NBA formally notified teams Tuesday that it has canceled games through Dec. 15, a source told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard.
An aside here:::
VitaleESPN's Vitale says no other coach will get close to the career wins record that Duke's Mike Krzyzewski is about to break.---
Nice of Media to once again cite (right out in the open in broad daylight) the college career wins record of it's basketball interest. Once Knight took out Dean Smith Media had to scour Junior High School coaches to find somebody to top Knight.
tee, hee.
This disclaimer of interest is a very bad move from the players. They will not win these court battles, especially not in New York, where it WILL take place, no matter how much the players would want it to be in California. The judge will be convinced that this is bargaining in bad faith, it's painfully obvious that it is a negotiating tactic, especially if Billy Hunter is still in fact relevant, which he is. The judge will not be convinced that the players are truly willing to engage in a two to three year long court battle, which they are not.
This isn't a bold move from the players, it isn't victory in any way shape or form. They are burning daylight under a magnifying glass of stupidity. They will bow down to the owner's absurd demands, although extremely unfair, they should have just accepted inevitable defeat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
