PDA

View Full Version : NBA offers revised proposal, hope for 72 game season



ink
11-11-2011, 12:07 PM
“There comes a time when you have to be through with negotiations,” Stern said. “And we are.” He added that he is confident a majority of owners would approve this deal if the players accept it, even though some of those owners — by Stern’s own admission — don’t particularly like it.

If you think that exact summary could have applied to the breakdown of talks last Sunday, you’re right. That was when Stern gave the union until 5 p.m Wednesday to accept a deal that included a 50-50 split of the league’s approximate $4 billion in basketball-related income and a host of system changes that would make it harder for big-market teams to outspend rivals by huge amounts every season.

But three key things are different now, as Stern awaits word (to come next week) from the union’s executive committee and player representatives from each team — the same group that stared down his first ultimatum:

1. The calendar has moved up nearly a week, and every day that passes forces both sides closer to a decisive choice: accept a deal you don’t really like or risk the full season. That is a particularly painful choice for the players because they have made almost all of the meaningful concessions here. They have the alternative of dissolving their union and filing a monster antitrust suit against the league. A source close to the players has insisted for days now that they could gather the signatures necessary (they’d need roughly 130, or 30 percent of players, to sign) to start that process in 24 hours.

To be clear: The players can start that process via submitting that signed proposal to the National Labor Relations Board and continue talks with the league at the same time. But it still adds an unknown and volatile element to talks that are getting short on time.

2. The league produced the carrot of a 72-game season that would start Dec. 15. That would require the two sides to shake hands by around Wednesday because the league needs a month to get in gear, conduct free agency and hold training camps. And though it would involve some compression of the normal season schedule, it would not be as bad as a rumored 76- or 78-game season starting around the same time.

The union now knows exactly how many games’ worth of salary players could earn by taking this deal, and the public now has a shiny number on which to fixate.

3. The league, for now, is not moving much on its offer. There have been tweaks, but they are on the margins. The offer as a whole still includes the same extra hit for repeat taxpayers — teams that cross the tax line more than twice in any five-year span — as it did five days ago, according to a source close to the matter. It still bans tax teams from using the full mid-level exception, though the league has offered to give them a “mini” mid-level worth $3 million per year over a three-year deal, as Ken Berger of CBS Sports first reported. That’s a small bump from the league’s initial mini mid-level of $2.5 million over two years, but it does not appear to be a game-changer, and it might come with a stricter definition of what constitutes a “taxpaying team.”

The offer still includes limitations on tax teams using sign-and-trade transactions, though the league may have softened those limits, reports Berger.

There are other concessions. The league has offered the union the right to opt out of the new collective bargaining agreement after six years instead of seven. Players have sought that earlier opt-out in part to get a chance to negotiate a new (and presumably better) deal just as the league’s lucrative new national television contract kicks in, after the 2015-16 season. The NBA has also offered to create a new kind of exception for teams that begin the offseason under the cap. Such teams normally forfeit their rights to any cap exceptions, but owners have offered to allow teams a special $2.5 million exception if they start under the cap and then spend right up to it, as the Heat did in the summer of 2010.

Again, taken together, these tweaks do not appear to be game-changers, and if there was one thing that stuck out in Thursday’s meeting, it was the league’s firm commitment to achieving competitive balance through payroll equality. Deputy commissioner Adam Silver was adamant in the face of skepticism: “We believe we will be proven right over time,” he told reporters, “and that this new model, if the players agree to it, will create a better league."

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/11/nba-offers-revised-proposal-hope-for-season/

SteBO
11-11-2011, 12:10 PM
I think the players should be the bigger men and accept this deal. If this truly the best they're going to get, then they have to take advantage of it and sign off on it. You've done what you can, and there comes a time where you have to rethink your position and realize what truly matters. This is coming from the guy who's defended the players' position like a machine on here.

But I will say this though, Stern and Adam Silver are delusional if they think a hard cap and such will create a "better" league. I question their definition of the term.

ink
11-11-2011, 12:17 PM
I think the players should be the bigger men and accept this deal. If this truly the best they're going to get, then they have to take advantage of it and sign off on it. You've done what you can, and there comes a time where you have to rethink your position and realize what truly matters. This is coming from the guy who's defended the players' position like a machine on here.

But I will say this though, Stern and Adam Silver are delusional if they think a hard cap and such will create a better league.

Just looking at a few of the new innovations around S&T, MLE, and luxury ... that will create a better league without a doubt. Without a doubt. Yes, there will be unhappy players but that's too bad, there have been a lot of unhappy people for a while because of the deep flaws of the last CBAs. Basically the players have to grow up and realize they can't have what they want all the time. When someone is badly spoiled though, there's going to be a lot of resentment when someone takes away the spoils you've enjoyed for years. It's time to be fair again for everyone, not just the entitled players.

Change happens and it's not surprising some people are resistant to change. I remember how resistant I was to the NHL hard cap. I was totally against the owners until I started to see it implemented by the league over the first few years. Basically a league gets to the point where it is so screwed up it desperately needs change and innovation. We're at that point. Some are not going to like it because it's new, others will love it because the league will be healthier over all.

The point is, this is the best deal that will be coming out of these negotiations.

And as you say, there isn't a better deal out there. There's already been enough dilution on important points so far. It just isn't going to improve no matter how long Kevin Garnett does his idiotic stare routine. That macho BS might work on the court but it has flopped in these negotiations. The players need to wake up and realize the old CBA didn't work and it is GONE.

SteBO
11-11-2011, 12:23 PM
Just looking at a few of the new innovations around S&T, MLE, and luxury ... that will create a better league without a doubt. Without a doubt. Yes, there will be unhappy players but that's too bad, there have been a lot of unhappy people for a while because of the deep flaws of the last CBAs. Basically the players have to grow up and realize they can't have what they want all the time. When someone is badly spoiled though, there's going to be a lot of resentment when someone takes away the spoils you've enjoyed for years. It's time to be fair again for everyone, not just the entitled players.

And as you say, there isn't a better deal out there. There's already been enough dilution on important points so far. It just isn't going to improve no matter how long Kevin Garnett does his idiotic stare routine. That macho BS might work on the court but it has flopped in these negotiations. The players need to wake up and realize the old CBA didn't work and it is GONE.
I'll need to look at the specifics of the new deal closely later, but it's important to take baby steps instead of this unecessary drastic overhaul the owners want. This is their fault to begin with.

And I fail to see how the players are being spoiled again. I do agree they should seriously consider taking this deal, but that doesn't mean it's for sure the right one. The owners are the ones paying them to play for their franchise(crappy or not), and when a contract is up they are entitled to play wherever they feel is best for their career without any hard restriction. The owners are being self-righteous and you know that as well I do.

beasted86
11-11-2011, 12:26 PM
I think a lot of fans still for whatever asinine reasoning question the players resolve and judgement.

Nobody questions the owners when they hold a hardline at 50% or whatever, because they feel that the owners know what they are doing, and if they are pushing for 50% it's because they know that's the right business move for their team. Conversely, if players decide that 50% is too low, and the system changes too much.... they are just being greedy and stubborn, and don't know what's actually best for themselves.

Screwy logic if you ask me.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the players don't take the deal, and decertify because as has already been reported by many, these are historic givebacks in CBA sports negotiations already.... then to boot the NBA wants to restrict player movement, and moreso some of the teams that already existed will have no chance of staying together (IE: Dallas, etc.).

We'll see what happens.

Chronz
11-11-2011, 12:28 PM
Payroll equality? I dont see this changing anything significant about the league but Im glad they do, I just want the season to start already.

Chronz
11-11-2011, 12:31 PM
The players need to wake up and realize the old CBA didn't work and it is GONE.

EDIT) It should hurt teams that try to build through years of contending, like how does Dallas acquire its talent without the ability to resign Bird deals, S&T and offer the MLE.

The more I think about it, its going to take a few years before we realize the extent of this CBA's impact.

ink
11-11-2011, 12:39 PM
I'll need to look at the specifics of the new deal closely later, but it's important to take baby steps instead of this unecessary drastic overhaul the owners want. This is their fault to begin with.

And I fail to see how the players are being spoiled again. I do agree they should seriously consider taking this deal, but that doesn't mean it's for sure the right one. The owners are the ones paying them to play for their franchise(crappy or not), and when a contract is up they are entitled to play wherever they feel is best for their career without any hard restriction. The owners are being self-righteous and you know that as well I do.

It's not that simple. Sure management screws up with bad signings, but there are loopholes in the past CBAs that agents know very well how to exploit. This CBA tries to close those loopholes, and to some degree the innovations are pretty good.

People seem to need to blame. Not sure why. But if blame needs to happen it is shared blame. Without management mistakes we don't have bad teams and losses. Without agents pushing for undeserved contracts using CBA loopholes again and again until the exceptions require their own (Larry Coon-type) websites just to understand them, we know that it's joint blame at the very least. These agents' entire purpose is to exploit and work against the CBA. I'm not sure how people don't realize that.


I think a lot of fans still for whatever asinine reasoning question the players resolve and judgement.

I doubt anyone questions their resolve. That's been exactly the problem. The same stare down BS they practice on the court doesn't work in negotiations. That's one of the reasons why they've made themselves laughable through this process. The KG stare down is hilariously stupid, and it doesn't seem to be the exception. You lose respect for that kind of dumbness. The union lawyer who called Stern a plantation owner is dumb. You don't gain respect from the public with that kind of behaviour. Does that show "judgement" when the legal counsel who is supposed to be the high water mark for intelligence makes a racial slur during negotiations? Does that show judgement??? Sure, that sounds like "resolve" to some but to others it's just intractability and stubbornness. I'm not sure if the players even now understand that change had to happen to improve the league. It was not working.


Nobody questions the owners when they hold a hardline at 50% or whatever, because they feel that the owners know what they are doing, and if they are pushing for 50% it's because they know that's the right business move for their team. Conversely, if players decide that 50% is too low, they are just being greedy and stubborn, and don't know what's actually best for themselves.

Because they are unwilling to accept that change is needed. They can't let go of a model that does not work. It's frustrating to watch. They look stupid the longer they refuse to understand the need for change. They also looked pretty bad when they were offered the chance for more money if they would take on some of the financial risk, in the sense that they would benefit if the league profited, and they balked. They continue to show a lack of character. They want all of the money but want no part in the difficulty of making the NBA competitive LEAGUE WIDE or profitable.


I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the players don't take the deal, and decertify

I wouldn't be surprised either but for different reasons. I think these negotiations have confirmed many suspicions that NBA players tend to be a few forks short of a full cutlery set. They're not that bright, and they struggle to catch on to concepts. They cling to what they know and all they know is the CBA advantages that have been wrecking the league for years.

likemystylez
11-11-2011, 12:40 PM
I think the players should be the bigger men and accept this deal. If this truly the best they're going to get, then they have to take advantage of it and sign off on it. You've done what you can, and there comes a time where you have to rethink your position and realize what truly matters. This is coming from the guy who's defended the players' position like a machine on here.

But I will say this though, Stern and Adam Silver are delusional if they think a hard cap and such will create a "better" league. I question their definition of the term.

actually if the team reps allow this proposal to go to vote, I think the players will sign off on it. Unfortunately, it seems as though a lot of the team reps are hardline players and may not want it to go to vote.... so its really hard to tell.

Tuesday is a big deal though, if we find out this is going to vote, then the likelyhood of it passing becomes real.


I really think decertifying is was a tactic that was designed more as a threat. Players actually signing off on possibly missing the next 2 seasons with no gaurenteed upside seems kind of crazy. I mean if the two sides were still 18% apart on BRI and not even speaking the same language on system issues... then decertifying would make sense, but they are close enough that the best decetification could do to improve their position would be pretty minimal and likely a result they would still turn down if it were proposed by the owners.

ink
11-11-2011, 12:45 PM
actually if the team reps allow this proposal to go to vote, I think the players will sign off on it. Unfortunately, it seems as though a lot of the team reps are hardline players and may not want it to go to vote.... so its really hard to tell.

Tuesday is a big deal though, if we find out this is going to vote, then the likelyhood of it passing becomes real.


I really think decertifying is was a tactic that was designed more as a threat. Players actually signing off on possibly missing the next 2 seasons with no gaurenteed upside seems kind of crazy. I mean if the two sides were still 18% apart on BRI and not even speaking the same language on system issues... then decertifying would make sense, but they are close enough that the best decetification could do to improve their position would be pretty minimal and likely a result they would still turn down if it were proposed by the owners.

The thing that has been very positive about these negotiations is that the language around system is changing. These players will only be comfortable with what they're familiar with, it's human nature. So it's extremely positive to see the vocabulary of the league re-defined. The old CBAs were ********. This new one is still pretty convoluted, but maybe there's hope they can achieve something cleaner and more bulletproof later. Right now, it's just an achievement to get people to use new thinking.

Cosmic_Canon
11-11-2011, 12:46 PM
IF the players(not just the stars, but the majority) can realistically withstand 2 years of no NBA, then decertify and not accept the deal. Unfortunately, me and many others, believe the players can not withstand no NBA for a 1-2 years. Hopefully I'm wrong, and these guys saved their money. In conclusion, take the deal if you're not financially stable, say no if you are financially secure.

Chronz
11-11-2011, 12:50 PM
It's not that simple. Sure management screws up with bad signings, but there are loopholes in the past CBAs that agents know very well how to exploit. This CBA tries to close those loopholes, and to some degree the innovations are pretty good.

People seem to need to blame. Not sure why. But if blame needs to happen it is shared blame. Without management mistakes we don't have bad teams and losses. Without agents pushing for undeserved contracts using CBA loopholes again and again until the exceptions require their own (Larry Coon-type) websites just to understand them, we know that it's joint blame at the very least. These agents' entire purpose is to exploit and work against the CBA. I'm not sure how people don't realize that.

I question the existence of these loopholes. I see nothing other than what the players and teams fought for in previous negotiations. For example, the Arenas rule allowed teams to go over the cap on 2nd round picks, this was because the Warriors were unable to retain a player they drafted late.

Would that be an example of a loophole? What examples of players abusing loopholes can you think of because I really see no evidence for such an opinion.

Even if they did exist, at the end of the day its up to the owner to decide if the player is worthy. There is no loophole around this, he either declines or accepts the deal.

ink
11-11-2011, 12:59 PM
I question the existence of these loopholes. I see nothing other than what the players and teams fought for in previous negotiations. For example, the Arenas rule allowed teams to go over the cap on 2nd round picks, this was because the Warriors were unable to retain a player they drafted late.

Would that be an example of a loophole? What examples of players abusing loopholes can you think of because I really see no evidence for such an opinion.

Even if they did exist, at the end of the day its up to the owner to decide if the player is worthy. There is no loophole around this, he either declines or accepts the deal.

An exception is by definition a loophole. Status quo accepts that those exceptions are part of doing business; the direction the league needs to go in is to move away from these unmanageable exceptions.

Sure, if the team is infinitely wealthy (Lakers) or lucked out with talent (Spurs) you can succeed consistently. But these exceptions/loopholes, negotiated or not, have proven to be unmanageable for most of the league's teams. That's why many just wanted to clean up the CBA and install a hard cap. What they've done instead is closed off the exceptions that were exploited before for any tax team. It's not elegant, but it will probably stop a lot of what went before.

And again, it's simplistic to put the onus on the owner alone when every contract has two parties involved, one that is trying to assess and gamble on the future (I mean, seriously, injury is a factor beyond anyone's control, for example), and one party that is trying to drive up the price and the demand for their (often mediocre) client. In a bad FA year or a good FA year there are always extenuating circumstances involved in every transaction that make it far more complex than merely deciding if the player is worth it. Basically, if that was the question, the answer 9/10 times would be no, actually the player is not worth it.

Chronz
11-11-2011, 01:09 PM
An exception is by definition a loophole. Status quo accepts that those exceptions are part of doing business; the direction the league needs to go in is to move away from these unmanageable exceptions. Sure, if the team is infinitely wealthy (Lakers) or lucked out with talent (Spurs) you can succeed consistently. But these exceptions/loopholes, negotiated or not, have proven to be unmanageable. That's why many just wanted to clean up the CBA and install a hard cap. What they've done instead is closed off the exceptions that were exploited before for any tax team. It's not elegant, but it will probably stop a lot of what went before.

And again, it's simplistic to put the onus on the owner alone when every contract has two parties involved, one that is trying to assess and gamble on the future (I mean, seriously, injury is a factor beyond anyone's control, for example), and one party that is trying to drive up the price and the demand for their (often mediocre) client. In a bad FA year or a good FA year there are always extenuating circumstances involved in every transaction that make it far more complex than merely deciding if the player is worth it. Basically, if that was the question, the answer 9/10 times would be no, actually the player is not worth it.
I dont follow your logic. That "loophole" was put in by the owners because they wanted the ability to overspend, did they just discard this option in the new CBA? What happens the next time some team loses a player they wanted to keep? Do they bring this exception back?

Without a true to life example I have no idea what your talking about. And I dont buy your rationale for cost assessment, you dont HAVE to take a deal, you let someone else take the bad deal and thats one less team you have to worry about. Most owners dont think that way, most of them accept no matter how ******** the deal is so I understand the need to protect them from themselves but you should acknowledge that the blame is strictly on them. The players are going by what the market dictates and there is no loophole around this. That will remain true no matter what the CBA is.

The players arent abusing loopholes any more than the owners are, the difference is, its the owners that sign off on the deals. Therefore the majority of the blame should fall on them. They know what they are spending going into the deal, players are just following the rules.

ink
11-11-2011, 01:17 PM
I dont follow your logic. That "loophole" was put in by the owners because they wanted the ability to overspend, did they just discard this option in the new CBA? What happens the next time some team loses a player they wanted to keep? Do they bring this exception back?

Without a true to life example I have no idea what your talking about. And I dont buy your rationale for cost assessment, you dont HAVE to take a deal, you let someone else take the bad deal and thats one less team you have to worry about. Most owners dont think that way, most of them accept no matter how ******** the deal is so I understand the need to protect them from themselves but only if they acknowledge the blame is strictly on them.

The players arent abusing loopholes any more than the owners are, the difference is, its the owners that sign off on the deals. Therefore the majority of the blame should fall on them. They know what they are spending going into the deal.

Then again if you have an example Im not considering I would love to hear it.

I think you follow the logic but it doesn't allow for assigning blame so you are rejecting it. There's no need or practical use for blame or fault in a negotiation process.

Every exception is a loophole. Not sure why you're blocking that. And no need to blame, they negotiated these bad CBAs full of exceptions together, they didn't work, now they're moving on.

You can see that they're moving away from those exceptions, especially with tax teams right? Installing a hard cap would have done away with ALL of the exceptions. That would have been more like most other leagues and would have been preferable.

I think you're over-complicating it. The exceptions approach failed most of the league regardless of whether they initially wanted it or not. Now they are trying to shed that model.

Three options:

1. status quo
2. convoluted version of CBA with punitive luxury tax that restricts use of key exceptions by tax teams
3. hard cap

Looks like we're headed for #2 because the owners won't accept #1 and the players won't accept #3.

Chronz
11-11-2011, 01:35 PM
I think you follow the logic but it doesn't allow for assigning blame so you are rejecting it. There's no need or practical use for blame or fault in a negotiation process.

Every exception is a loophole. Not sure why you're blocking that. And no need to blame, they negotiated these bad CBAs full of exceptions together, they didn't work, now they're moving on.
My take on your piece was that you were blaming Agents and Players for finding nefarious loopholes as if it was some shady business tactic of something overly complex and that because of this its "shared blame".
My point is that its definitely shared but so obviously one sided because the players are abiding by market value rules (not loopholes) and because its always on the owner to sign off on any deal.

We'll see what they are moving onto, Im sure the owners will find some way of screwing this one up as well, at least now the screwups shouldnt be so crippling.


You can see that they're moving away from those exceptions, especially with tax teams right? Installing a hard cap would have done away with ALL of the exceptions. That would have been more like most other leagues and would have been preferable.

It does seems more like they making it pricier for owners to go over the cap and making it so that players cant earn as much. Installing a hard cap could have gone either way so I dont really care for that opinion but I would have liked to see the MLE done away with altogether. Its the main proponent of awful deals and only benefits teams with no cap space.


I think you're over-complicating it. The exceptions approach failed most of the league regardless of whether they initially wanted it or not. Now they are trying to shed that model.

Three options:

1. status quo
2. convoluted version of CBA with punitive luxury tax that restricts use of key exceptions by tax teams
3. hard cap

Looks like we're headed for #2 because the owners won't accept #1 and the players won't accept #3.

Your oversimplifying it. I think option 3 gos much deeper than that, with a hard cap would come a complete salary restructure that I dont see possible. For example if the hard cap came about today, I think about a third of the leagues players would be unemployed with no one in the NBA able to sign them.

A hard cap (to me) would have made the art of team building that much harder, in an era of long term guaranteed deals, a single bad move (which the owners are prone to) would be more crippling in that system. So yea I think it gos much much deeper than you make it out to be.

smith&wesson
11-11-2011, 01:39 PM
this is the best deal they will get. its all reliant on the fact that the owners want a 72 game season. if the players reject this offer it means no 72 game season and then the real hard bargaining will start. this deal will seem amazing compared to what will transpire.

ink
11-11-2011, 01:52 PM
My take on your piece was that you were blaming Agents and Players for finding nefarious loopholes as if it was some shady business tactic of something overly complex and that because of this its "shared blame".
My point is that its definitely shared but so obviously one sided because the players are abiding by market value rules (not loopholes) and because its always on the owner to sign off on any deal.

I hear what you're saying but just because the owner is signing off on the deal doesn't make them completely responsible for how bad or good it is. Two parties worked each deal and the system allow for things like rich teams hoarding the best available MLE FAs. In response, the less wealthy teams have to make desperation moves with inferior players because that's all there is left. So they sometimes take ridiculous risks just to be a "player" in the free agent market. Agents and players work in their own self-interest to exploit the weaker teams' vulnerability or work toward getting picked up by the team that stacks talent. A new system would make that practice impossible for tax teams and give other teams a shot at that genuine talent. This would begin to even out the talent level in the league.


We'll see what they are moving onto, Im sure the owners will find some way of screwing this one up as well, at least now the screwups shouldnt be so crippling.

I agree. We disagree on the star marketing, but that's an example of an NBA practice I'm sure they'll hold onto even though it has created a monster and will continue to create a monster. They can't BOTH enable this monster ego building with their marketing approach AND tell those inflated egos where they can and can't play. They're shooting themselves in the foot with that approach.


Your oversimplifying it. I think option 3 gos much deeper than that, with a hard cap would come a complete salary restructure that I dont see possible. For example if the hard cap came about today, I think about a third of the leagues players would be unemployed with no one in the NBA able to sign them.

Restructuring budgets would be complex but not at all impossible. I'm sure one of the whiz kid economists could work out an algorithm to scale salaries to fit inside a hard cap if they approved the idea. It's all hypothetical now because it's not happening. If 1/3 of the players in the league couldn't be employed using one salary model, don't you think the very next step would be to re-calculate and divide up each team's budget pie differently? There would have to be a way to divide up the cap room that would work. It would involve some rollback, but by taking this alternate route they have also had to accept rollback so I don't see a problem. Anyway, we're talking about hypotheticals with #3 because until the union rejects it, we're dealing with #2.


A hard cap (to me) would have made the art of team building that much harder, in an era of long term guaranteed deals, a single bad move (which the owners are prone to) would be more crippling in that system. So yea I think it gos much much deeper than you make it out to be.

When I say a hard cap would be simpler, I mean that it would be cleaner and clearer without the exceptions. I don't think anything is simple about pro sports economics on this scale.

Tony_Starks
11-11-2011, 02:02 PM
The bottom line is the owners want to restrict player movement and discourage the big budget teams from over spending. Regardless of when a deal is struck there's no way whatever deal the players eventually agree to will not be built around that concept.

If Im the players Im really not sure which way I would go on this. You can just cave and take it for the sake of still having or season or you can call the owners bluff and see if they are really willing to hold the league and supporting businesses hostage for a year or two for the sake of having their demands met.

Could really go either way.....

beliges
11-11-2011, 03:02 PM
The bottom line is the owners want to restrict player movement and discourage the big budget teams from over spending. Regardless of when a deal is struck there's no way whatever deal the players eventually agree to will not be built around that concept.

If Im the players Im really not sure which way I would go on this. You can just cave and take it for the sake of still having or season or you can call the owners bluff and see if they are really willing to hold the league and supporting businesses hostage for a year or two for the sake of having their demands met.

Could really go either way.....

How in the world are owners trying to restrict players? There is nothing in this deal that disallows players from moving where they want to go. Players all have a right to sign with whatever team is willing to sign them. There is no player movement restriction. These "restrictions" you are talking about are penalties teams will have to pay if they go over the salary cap. There is no player restriction and this deal is more than fair for the players. The fact that they will receive 50% of all basketball revenue is more than what they deserve in my opinion, but there is no player movement restriction whatsoever.

Tony_Starks
11-11-2011, 03:17 PM
How in the world are owners trying to restrict players? There is nothing in this deal that disallows players from moving where they want to go. Players all have a right to sign with whatever team is willing to sign them. There is no player movement restriction. These "restrictions" you are talking about are penalties teams will have to pay if they go over the salary cap. There is no player restriction and this deal is more than fair for the players. The fact that they will receive 50% of all basketball revenue is more than what they deserve in my opinion, but there is no player movement restriction whatsoever.


Wow. I truly don't understand that kind of thinking, but hey thats your opinion.

Check the rules they are wanting to put in place, it definitely is going to limit player movement. Adam Silver even literally admitted that last night and said he can see why the players would be so hesitant with the changes. At the end of the day they feel thats what is needed to "restore competitive balance."

beliges
11-11-2011, 03:26 PM
Wow. I truly don't understand that kind of thinking, but hey thats your opinion.

Check the rules they are wanting to put in place, it definitely is going to limit player movement. Adam Silver even literally admitted that last night and said he can see why the players would be so hesitant with the changes. At the end of the day they feel thats what is needed to "restore competitive balance."

Why would the players deserve as much if not more money than the owners? This makes no sense. The players are not the owners, the owners are the owners. The players do not risk their own capital in the hopes of making a profit, the owners do. In what world do employees deserve more money than their employer? Furthermore, there is no player movement restriction here. Players are free to sign with whatever team that wants to sign them. This is a league with a salary cap and as such, teams will be penalized for going over that cap, this is not a restriction on player movement. If a team wants to pay a penalty to sign a certain player, then they will do it. Nothing in this new deal will restrict players from testing the waters and sign for a team that wants to pay them.

knicks_champ
11-11-2011, 03:31 PM
This sucks...

Tony_Starks
11-11-2011, 03:45 PM
Why would the players deserve as much if not more money than the owners? This makes no sense. The players are not the owners, the owners are the owners. The players do not risk their own capital in the hopes of making a profit, the owners do. In what world do employees deserve more money than their employer? Furthermore, there is no player movement restriction here. Players are free to sign with whatever team that wants to sign them. This is a league with a salary cap and as such, teams will be penalized for going over that cap, this is not a restriction on player movement. If a team wants to pay a penalty to sign a certain player, then they will do it. Nothing in this new deal will restrict players from testing the waters and sign for a team that wants to pay them.


Well as hard as it is for me to reason with your in depth "the owners are the owners" logic, all I can say is that no one pays money to go see a owner play. The players are the main attraction, the owners provide the venue. Simple as that. If that doesn't make sense to you then I agree to disagree.

As far as the now famous employee/employer illustration people love to use it's just not even close to being the same thing. This isn't Walmart where if the guy working the register doesn't like his job you can just fire him and replace him with some guy off the street and nothing changes. Whether you like them or not superstars make the league. Thats not even debatable....

Chronz
11-11-2011, 04:37 PM
IF the players(not just the stars, but the majority) can realistically withstand 2 years of no NBA, then decertify and not accept the deal. Unfortunately, me and many others, believe the players can not withstand no NBA for a 1-2 years. Hopefully I'm wrong, and these guys saved their money. In conclusion, take the deal if you're not financially stable, say no if you are financially secure.

You dont think it would be more financially sound to take whatever raw deal they get now, and renegotiate when the league is projected to be more prosperous? Wouldnt they make more money in the long run that way, than missing out on a season.

Sactown
11-11-2011, 05:37 PM
I want to see this deal go through because I love basketball, but in reality it's probably best if it doesn't, so we can really get the changes needed to secure the league from not going down this path which will eventually lead to more sold teams and IMO eventually contraction.

da ThRONe
11-11-2011, 10:19 PM
This new CBA as is hurts competitive balance. Parity with the owners earning, but just the opposite on the court.

knicks4life33
11-11-2011, 11:36 PM
coming from a big market i hate this proposal and i hope the players reject it and i am willing to lose the season as fan so the players get the deal they want . this makes it harder for teams like the knicks and dallas and lakers and miami to sign mid level players. Its not our fault players like our city and warm tempatures are at most of these cities. players should have options and the owners are taking this away. They want competitive balance start with contraction of two teams like the bobcats which idk why we brough franchise back there and get rid of the kings.

kjoke
11-11-2011, 11:39 PM
Would you that something like this would get signed: the players would be willing to take 47% BRI, but demand no changes to system?

beliges
11-12-2011, 03:45 PM
Well as hard as it is for me to reason with your in depth "the owners are the owners" logic, all I can say is that no one pays money to go see a owner play. The players are the main attraction, the owners provide the venue. Simple as that. If that doesn't make sense to you then I agree to disagree.

As far as the now famous employee/employer illustration people love to use it's just not even close to being the same thing. This isn't Walmart where if the guy working the register doesn't like his job you can just fire him and replace him with some guy off the street and nothing changes. Whether you like them or not superstars make the league. Thats not even debatable....

Yes people come to watch the players but without the owners shelling out millions for TV rights, huge arenas, promotions and etc..there is nobody coming and selling out arenas to watch these players play. If it wasnt for the owners and thus the NBA, you would have never heard of 95% of the current NBA players. They would be nobodies playing in artificial leagues around the world. And no, this isnt Walmart obviously, this is a business where the employees are not easily replaceable. Think about it like a TV show, lets say "2 and a half Men" with Charlie "Im Winning" Sheen. Now, without Charlie Sheen the show is nothing but you think Charlie was making more money than the owner of the Television studio? I dont think so. And yes, it is as simple as the owners are the owners. They are the freaking owners! They own the team. They make the investment and take the risk of owning a team. They get to decide what to do with their profits and how to pay their players/employees. This is how business works. Thats why the players have abslutely no leverage in these negotiations and are going to give in sooner or later. Because they are in the wrong.