Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[S.W.A.N]

This may seem counter-intuitive, but I think if the players stop negotiating with the owners, that will speed things up. The sooner the owners are convinced that the players have the votes to decertify, the sooner the owners will improve their offer. I think there are only two ways to save the season at this point:

1) the players cave soon
2) the players show they have the votes to decertify, and show that soon.

Your assuming that there is a better deal to be had.

I think that is wrong. I believe that this is it, the best offer on the table and the further this goes the worse the deal gets. People that think the owners are bluffing are obviously not hockey fans or they would know what happens next.

Hopefully the players get on board now, I would love it if Stern managed to sweeten the pot just a little between now and Wednesday but I think at this point that is wishfully thinking.

If we going to have a season, its going to happen soon or not at all.

Edit: Just after I posted this read a tweet that they might meet again tuesday. So maybe Stern is going to sweeten the pot just enough to get deal done.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Forget about whether the deal is good for players or not. The way league has gone about this from day is bad and counter-productive.

Why set ultimatum? Why the threats of offers getting worse? All this doesn't make any sense since the season in some form could still saved late into December. All they do is unite the players even more. They could have presented this offer to players in way that would have divided the union. Right now the offer makes financial sense to players, but by trying to bully them, all it does is to play to their emotions, ego and their principles.

[Rhettmatic]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
The NBA and NBPA are seriously discussing setting up a meeting for Tuesday to try and reach agreement on a labor deal, league source tells Y

[floppymoose]

Your assuming that there is a better deal to be had.

Actually, I'm 100% certain there is a better deal to be had. But it takes a tremendous amount of player unity, so it's very possible that we won't ever find out.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Your assuming that there is a better deal to be had.

Actually, I'm 100% certain there is a better deal to be had. But it takes a tremendous amount of player unity, so it's very possible that we won't ever find out.

If players have being following this crowd they would have settled for the 37% BRI. The owners offers have only gotten better at this point and every stage along the way some people have being saying its not going to get better. Why should now be any different?

[Thelonious]

NBA Proposal: Shorter contracts = more cap room every season. Money to pay players @ all salary levels

Actually more cap room in future seasons, not current ones.
Which raises the question of job security. Generally shorter contracts mean less job security. But this is very true with top players and less with borderline NBA players. I actually see this as an increase of job security for the Julian Wrights of the league, as owners can offer them longer contracts for development sake as they're not tied-up with a long superstar contract that takes up a big part of your future cap room.

How do players decide? Do they each own a vote, or do they decide around a table, because I'd like to know the weight small time players like Wright hold in those decisions. For example if I was him I would be against decertification.

[ronleroy]

This may seem counter-intuitive, but I think if the players stop negotiating with the owners, that will speed things up. The sooner the owners are convinced that the players have the votes to decertify, the sooner the owners will improve their offer. I think there are only two ways to save the season at this point:

1) the players cave soon
2) the players show they have the votes to decertify, and show that soon.

Your assuming that there is a better deal to be had.

Lets hope the owners won't cave. Right now, the government in the U.S is very anti union. Breaking teacher unions, government unions. And the NFL just had their case in favor of them. As one of the NFL player has said, its totally different, we are making money and they are losing money.

[knickerbocker2k2]

NBA Proposal: Shorter contracts = more cap room every season. Money to pay players @ all salary levels

Actually more cap room in future seasons, not current ones.
Which raises the question of job security. Generally shorter contracts mean less job security. But this is very true with top players and less with borderline NBA players.

Shorter contracts is worse for mid level type of players. The first consequence of this is that each FA period they'll be more Free Agents (more supply). With more restrictions for tax paying teams, lower cap figure, there will be less demand (fewer teams able to bid). So more supply and less demand, means decrease in contract values.

Secondly with shorter years and less raises, this will reduce value of contracts. For instance currently you see players who can sign for 6 years/40M using MLE. If maximum is 4 years, starting $5M, with 3.5 raises, the max value of MLE is 4/$24M.

[Thelonious]

NBA Proposal: Shorter contracts = more cap room every season. Money to pay players @ all salary levels

Actually more cap room in future seasons, not current ones.
Which raises the question of job security. Generally shorter contracts mean less job security. But this is very true with top players and less with borderline NBA players.

Shorter contracts is worse for mid level type of players. The first consequence of this is that each FA period they'll be more Free Agents (more supply). With more restrictions for tax paying teams, lower cap figure, there will be less demand (fewer teams able to bid). So more supply and less demand, means decrease in contract values.

Don't forget that for each new FA, there is a team that needs to fill a roster spot, so the "more supply" argument is negated by an equal increase in demand. One thing it does is bring more player movement which is a bad thing for teams like the Spurs who are good at drafting.

[lobosloboslobos]

Over and over in the last two weeks, I have heard the same refrain from players and agents, from big markets and small ones, max guys and minimum salaried guys. You can forget asking about community service work. You can forget asking for cooperation for NBA Cares. Basketball Without Borders? Don't even ask. All of the public service requests that the league has made of its players -- in part, it must be said, to quell fan anger after the Brawl at Auburn Hills in 2004 -- are in jeopardy.

Man, the PR for the players is just the worst.

So true. From day 1 it has been atrocious.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Don't forget that for each new FA, there is a team that needs to fill a roster spot, so the "more supply" argument is negated by an equal increase in demand. One thing it does is bring more player movement which is a bad thing for teams like the Spurs who are good at drafting.

Yes but there are different kinda of players. The teams under the cap would usually be either teams rebuilding and don't need certain of player, or are under the cap because of financial reasons. The upper teams usually give out MLE to one player per season because they are competiting for top spot. Lets use last year as example. Teams in tax situations signed the following players

Al Harrigton - 5/33 (Denver)
Steve Blaker - 4/16 (Lakers)
Chris Duhon - 4/15 (Magic)
Jermain Oneill 2/12 (Celtics)

These contracts under the new system could not be done since these teams where at the luxury tax or near it. Plus this year was unusual in that teams usually would spend the MLE (KNICKS, HEAT, DALLAS) where either under the cap so couldn't offer the MLE or in the case of mavericks did sign & trade for Marion (4/32M).

So tell me which teams other than those would pay those players that much? They got those offers because they are only worth that much to the those teams. Charlotte or Cleveland wouldn't bid that much for those players because they are not the difference between winning and losing. But those teams they are worth it because they already have the base and those players could put them over the top. But under new system those teams would be restricted in what they can offer.

[Thelonious]

Al Harrigton - 5/33 (Denver)
Steve Blaker - 4/16 (Lakers)
Chris Duhon - 4/15 (Magic)
Jermain Oneill 2/12 (Celtics)

These contracts under the new system could not be done since these teams where at the luxury tax or near it.

But would they still be, under the new system?

What I'm saying, is that there are roughly 360 roster spots to fill in the NBA and usually the same players come back. Then you have retirings compensated by draftees, and busts compensated by d-league/europe revelations. But the vast majority of players end up comming back. And bench players are the majority. They make up 7 of the 12 roster spots each time. Even if you put the Steve Blakes and Duhons in the starter group, they still don't make up for the number of bench players.
These bench players don't make the MLE. They make much less and for much shorter periods. If you only allow shorter contracts, it will mostly affect big salaries, maybe the top 50-100 players who make up for 50% of total salaries. The remaining 50% of total salary are 250 players who will see their chances at getting a longer contract increase because owners will have more freedom as far as future capspace goes.
So if each player is equal in voting, which should be the case, and they are well informed, I don't see why they should decertify. Sure it makes sense for about 100 players, but eventhough their voice speaks the loudest, their vote still counts the same.

[Laowai]

Your assuming that there is a better deal to be had.

Actually, I'm 100% certain there is a better deal to be had. But it takes a tremendous amount of player unity, so it's very possible that we won't ever find out.

Actually you are very deluded to think there is a better deal on the table. This proposed deal was by the arbitrator not the owners. The union rejected everything!

Stern is now no more than a puppet this is his last gasp as well before the owners that want real change take control.The owners don't fear decertification but the players should in fact if the players take the nuclear option they are in much deeper trouble. All contracts are void how well would that sit with these players Joe Johnson,Al Horford,Marvin Williams,Zaxa, Pachula,Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo,Racheed Wallace, J O'neal, Maggette, Daiw, Tyrus Thomas, Diop, DJ Augustine, Gerald Henderson I used 1st three teams in alphabetical order now will cherry pick Orlando Arenas, Hedo, Nelsson, Reddick, Duhon,
Detroit Hamilton, Gordon, Charlie V Toronto Jose, Bargs, Alabi, Barbosa

I think you get the idea bad long term contracts guys on last year of deals will get hurt badly.

If the union is decertified who negotiates?
The agents !
God help the players.

[knickerbocker2k2]

What I'm saying, is that there are roughly 360 roster spots to fill in the NBA and usually the same players come back. Then you have retirings compensated by draftees, and busts compensated by d-league/europe revelations. But the vast majority of players end up comming back. And bench players are the majority. They make up 7 of the 12 roster spots each time. Even if you put the Steve Blakes and Duhons in the starter group, they still don't make up for the number of bench players.
These bench players don't make the MLE. They make much less and for much shorter periods. If you only allow shorter contracts, it will mostly affect big salaries, maybe the top 50-100 players who make up for 50% of total salaries. The remaining 50% of total salary are 250 players who will see their chances at getting a longer contract increase because owners will have more freedom as far as future capspace goes.

Two points I think you are missing. In this scenario Duhon/Blake who got slice of MLE, will be competiting with lower tier players. So if player X would have gotten $2M, Blake/Duhon are getting the $2M deal, and they are forced to take the minimum. The second thing is you are assuming that those players who don't make MLE level salary are happy with lower tier contract/and that is all they aspire. These are professionals and their goal is to make MLE and even bigger contract if possible. You essentially reducing their potential salary. They also look into this. Take Moon for example. The guy was playing hundreds of dollars. He comes in makes minimum, improves as player and all of sudden he lands 3/$9M contract. That is the goal of most players. They are not aspiring to make minimum. They are thinking big.

[Thelonious]

True but they also have families to feed well beyond the scope of their short careers and are looking for job security. Moon takes 4/11 over 3/9. Injuries happen and stuff.

The other thing is a 3/9 contract will not suddenly turn into a 3/5 because another team will be willing to offer Jamario a 3/8 or even a 4/10 contract.

[floppymoose]

Actually you are very deluded to think there is a better deal on the table.

I didn't say it was on the table.

[carlosey]

You have misunderstood the implications of decertification. It's Wade who loses big then. A lost season hits the big contract guys harder than the young guys.

It sounds like you expect decertification actually results in a situation where the league is going again, but with no union or CBA. That's not going to happen. Decertification is just a step that ends with the parties hammering out a deal that has a union and a CBA.

Decertification means a new union and a new CBA? It does not mean free market?

On the players side it would most definitely increase the wage gap between stars and the average and low tier players. No standardized contracts. Disputes between players and teams go to court. The massive pay raise a lebron would recieve would come at the expense of guys like Manny Harris actually having a job. There would be no salary cap, no restricted free agents, etc etc.

A lost season does not hit wade harder than jamario moon. Wade has made millions in previous contracts and has aditional income in advertisements. Sure they will miss their millions for that year but they certainly have something to go on. A guy like Julian Wright will be bankrupt within that year and he will have a hard time getting out of that hole in a free market. Decertification only helps the stars and screws the little guy in an uncomfortable place. No way the majority says ok to this and Stern knows it.

A guy like KG has some nerve to tell people to stay put when he has made 100 times more than the little guy that has to suck this up ever will.

Owners have always had the upper hand and the ultimatum is what is going to get this deal done. The idea of having no salary for an entire year is just something simply not appealing to the average NBA player with their ultra short career spans. The owners know that, everyone knows that and this is why the owners own the place and the players have their cheques signed by them. I think this will be over tomorrow...i hope anyways.

[floppymoose]

Key quotes:

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/ ... ource-says

"Being for decertification does not mean you want the season to be cancelled," said [Cleveland player rep Anthony] Parker. "Even if we decertify there will still be plenty of time to get a deal done and that's our hope."

There is no evidence in circulation yet to suggest that more than a handful of rank-and-file players are lobbying the union to put Saturday's offer from the owners to a vote.

[floppymoose]

Decertification means a new union and a new CBA? It does not mean free market?

There are two ways to interpret your question. Let's take the hypothetical situation that the players decertify the union, and the players and owners never reach a deal on a new CBA. Eventually the owners would start up the league again without a CBA, and labor law would force the teams to drop the salary cap and every player would be a free agent who could negotiate their own contract for any amount with any team. From looking at the history of other pro leagues that have had free agency with no cap, we can see that the players would get more than 50% of the league revenues, and quite possibly more than 60%. However, it would be distributed differently. Superstars would make more than they currently make. "Rank and file" players would make less. But the overall salary expense for the league would be significantly higher than deals that the players union has already offered the owners.

Because of that, the above is a hypothetical situation that would never happen. The owners would accept the players most recent offer rather than move to such a total free agency, no cap system.

The other way to interpret your question is simply "what likely happens when the players show they are willing to decertify"?

The answer to that is that they will sign a decertification petition with at least 30% of the players. Then the NLRB will review the petition for up to 45 days, and then likely have a vote among all the players in the union on decertification. But in that "up to 45 day period" the union still exists and can still negotiate with the owners.

If it gets that far, the owners will improve their offer and the union will likely accept the improved offer. Then since a new CBA deal is signed, the decertification vote will be cancelled (it's the law - you can't decertify a union that has just successfully signed a bargaining agreement).

[C Court]

I wonder when the 20 big/mid market teams say to the 10 small market hardliners among the ownership group that it's not worth pushing the players towards decertification?

If this ever ends up in the courts as an anti-trust lawsuit, then the NBA owners will lose.

While 50/50 is the ultimate owner's goal, likely 80% of the NBA's franchises can be profitable with a 51/49 split - which the players would accept in a heartbeat. The Raptors made money at 57, so they'll do just fine at 51. Is the extra 1% worth the fight to the Raptors and most other owners?

There is a better deal to be had once the big/mid market teams decide they've pushed this far enough on behalf of the smaller markets like Charlotte, New Orleans, Memphis, Sacramento, OKC and Milwaukee.