The next move is up to the owners

d-train · Post #1 » by **d-train** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:58 pm

Is the lockout over or will the NBA group boycott players?

What will the NBA do about the draft and negotiations with rookies? Will teams attempt to assert property rights over unsigned rookies?

What will the NBA do about players that would be RFA’s under the old CBA? Will teams attempt to assert property rights over these players?

Will the NBA attempt to impose a salary cap or restrictions on free agency?

Or, will the NBA decide to operate like other businesses and abide by the law?

Laowai · Post #2 » by **Laowai** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:20 pm

!st the union must be decertified which will take till the end of the year!
At that time all union contracts are null and void.

The league then could set up operating principals.

Hard Cap
12 players, rookie salaries, contract length, etc
Could have a total redo.Get in ping pong balls out.
#1 gets 1st choice in the 1st round 60th in second and so on.
The irony in this is LBJ could be drafted by Cleveland, Wade by SAC, and Kobe by Minny.
It would be a blessing the horrendous contracts that are paralyzing teams will be gone Lewis, Arenas, Joe Johnson, Brand, Hedo all gone.

The chances of a anti trust suit working is minimal.

NormanDale · Post #3 » by **NormanDale** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:56 pm

Why are the chances minimal? I'm not a lawyer, but a salary cap seems to me like the definition of anti-competitive behavior. I have a hard time even seeing what the argument could be that it's not breaking anti-trust laws, when taken outside of the CBA context.

I guess that's why the owners' first argument will be to claim that this is not a "real" disbanding of the union.

d-train · Post #4 » by **d-train** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:40 am

Laowai wrote:!st the union must be decertified which will take till the end of the year!
At that time all union contracts are null and void.

The league then could set up operating principals.

Hard Cap
12 players, rookie salaries, contract length, etc
Could have a total redo.Get in ping pong balls out.
#1 gets 1st choice in the 1st round 60th in second and so on.
The irony in this is LBJ could be drafted by Cleveland, Wade by SAC, and Kobe by Minny.
It would be a blessing the horrendous contracts that are paralyzing teams will be gone Lewis, Arenas, Joe Johnson, Brand, Hedo all gone.

The chances of a anti trust suit working is minimal.

The union can file a disclaimer of interest almost immediately.

ace88 · Post #5 » by **ace88** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:56 am

Union using same strategy that didn't work in NFL. Huge risk - bad advice from agents/lawyers. Their contracts could be voided. If the players, all 450 had been able to vote, this would have passed. Players will lose even by winning due to lost season.

ace88 · Post #6 » by **ace88** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:57 am

Union using same strategy that didn't work in NFL. Huge risk - bad advice from agents/lawyers. Their contracts could be voided. If the players, all 450 had been able to vote, this would have passed. Players will lose even by winning due to lost season.

d-train · Post #7 » by **d-train** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:31 am

ace88 wrote:Union using same strategy that didn't work in NFL. Huge risk - bad advice from agents/lawyers. Their contracts could be voided. If the players, all 450 had been able to vote, this would have passed. Players will lose even by winning due to lost season.

The NFL players didn't lose since they got a CBA they believed was reasonable.

The NFL players also didn't lose their case against the NFL. The only ruling the appeals court overturned was a ruling that players under contract couldn't have injunctive relief before a jury decided their case at hearing. This ruling didn't prohibit players not under contract from getting their own injunctive relief and the ruling didn't bar players under contract permanently from injunctive relief.

The appeals court judges specifically said the dispute between owners and players doesn't forever "grow out of" a labor dispute. The judges were particularly persuaded the NFL owners vs. player’s dispute did "grow out of" a labor dispute because the NFL players decertified without negotiating to impasse and continued to bargain with owners after the decertification.

Many of the mistakes NFL owners made the NBA players certainly will not make and some mistakes they cannot duplicate because it's too late for NBA players to decertify early before impasse.

JES12 · Post #8 » by **JES12** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:41 am

So now players can negotiate with individual teams?

What is the difference between disclaimer of interest and decertification?

I am completely lost now.

SO_MONEY · Post #9 » by **SO_MONEY** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:57 am

NormanDale wrote:Why are the chances minimal? I'm not a lawyer, but a salary cap seems to me like the definition of anti-competitive behavior. I have a hard time even seeing what the argument could be that it's not breaking anti-trust laws, when taken outside of the CBA context.

I guess that's why the owners' first argument will be to claim that this is not a "real" disbanding of the union.

The NBA is anti-competitive on its foundation and because of this the courts may rule "unfair" restraint on trade is permitted. It is not unlawful to unfairly restrain trade, but to do so unreasonably under the rule of reason. Some things are bound to be permitted and others possibly excluded, but in reality that is all up to a judge and what case law the court is bound by.

Piston Pete · Post #10 » by **Piston Pete** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:21 pm

The major difference so far is that the NFL players tried this, failed, and re-negotiated in a timely manner and were able to save their season.

NBA players just declined the best deal they were gonna get, and are now looking at losing an entire season.

killbuckner · Post #11 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:19 pm

NBA players just declined the best deal they were gonna get, and are now looking at losing an entire season.

If you are going to miss a season because the other side is offering a lousy deal you might as well put yourself into position to collect 6 billion in damages while you are sitting out.

Piston Pete · Post #12 » by **Piston Pete** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:46 pm

How is a 50/50 deal lousy?

When compared to the last CBA....maybe. But when you look at the big picture, NBA teams were losing money off the last CBA agreement, and the players will still make their millions, whether they get 50% of the cut or 40% of the cut.

And compare the deal the players just declined with what NFL, MLB, and NHL unions have currently, and tell me why they shouldn't have signed it. Your "lousy" deal would still leave the NBA union above the other professional sports unions.

killbuckner · Post #13 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:47 pm

How is a 50/50 deal lousy?

In the last CBA there was not a single season that the owenrs chose to give out less than 56% of BRI in contracts. The players having their compensation capped at 50% is a bad deal for them- the owners showed they were happy to give out more than that when given the choice.

The fact that the owners had to cover the difference to get to 57% is irrelevant for any individual owner's decision. Lets say an owner is claiming to lose money and knows that the owenrs would not have spent 57% of BRI that season. If he gives out a MLE contract it would cost him 5.5 million dollars. If he does not then he would have to pay 1/30th of that amount or 180k. Do you really think that the 180k is the reason that the contract would have been given out rather than just saving the 5.3 million?

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #14 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:53 am

Let the players DECEERTIFY and have the NBA start over. That is what I think they should do. Everyone's slate is wiped clean.

That is how you handle the players having the gall in these economic times of taking the league to the courts. Let them go through the process.

The NBA and Stern should not worry about this season. Let it play out.

Break the entire system up if the players want to sue. Fine. Decertify and throw everyone back in the pot. Hard cap and franchise tag among others. Shortened contracts.

d-train · Post #15 » by **d-train** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:01 am

Piston Pete wrote:How is a 50/50 deal lousy?

The only season teams paid less than 57% (not including ~4% in luxury taxes) was the year many teams were loading up cap space to pursue LeBron, DWade, Dirk, Pierce, Bosh, Staudamire, Johnson, and Boozer. Only a market perverted by a CBA would force prices down in order to win an opportunity to become a big spender.

The true amount NBA teams spend on players is ~61% of BRI. Luxury taxes are a salary expense.

So, the proper question is, why would players take 50% of BRI when it is proven over the last 10 years they are worth 61% of BRI in a market that artificially restricts their market value? An ever better question would be why owners would break the union right after players were ready to accept 50% of BRI because of "system issues."

Post #16 » by **ranger001** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:26 pm

d-train wrote:So, the proper question is, why would players take 50% of BRI when it is proven over the last 10 years they are worth 61% of BRI in a market that artificially restricts their market value?

They'll take 50% because 61% is unsustainable. Billy Hunter acknowledged that the league lost 160 million last year. I can't understand why people seem to think that Hunter does not know what he is talking about.

An ever better question would be why owners would break the union right after players were ready to accept 50% of BRI because of "system issues."

They did it so that large market teams would find it difficult to outspend small market teams.

DBoys · Post #17 » by **DBoys** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:56 pm

d-train wrote:Luxury taxes are a salary expense.

For the league as a whole, no they aren't. The taxes are merely a shifting of money from one owner to another, but they don't increase the player's take by a single penny. To the extent that they increase one owner's outlay, they reduce another's.

The owners paid 57%.