RealGM

The NBA decided to modify the CBA in a way that damages Blazers. Before the NBA decided to make playing in games optional, Ariza had a contract that required him to play. Since the NBA is enabling Ariza to breach his contract with Blazers, the NBA should pay Ariza the $1.8M he will claim against the Blazers after his breach. The NBA should also give Blazers $1.8M in cap relief for 20-21 to offset the cap hit. And, Blazers should be awarded a $12.8M salary cap exception that can be used like an injured player exception to replace Ariza.

The NBA should mitigate damages done to every team caused by the modification to the CBA. I don't know if any other team was damaged, but Blazers have been damaged if Ariza opts out of completing his contract.

Or not.

The NBA literally renegotiated the contract Blazers had with Ariza. Blazers never accepted the change in terms. Why would they? The NBA gave Ariza the option of skipping the last 10 games of the season plus the playoffs, in exchange for this the NBA gave Blazers nothing. What kind of deal is this for the Blazers? Why would anyone take getting F'ed over like this?

The NBA didn't even make avoidance of exposure to the China virus a condition of Ariza opting out of playing games. Ariza just said I'm not playing because the schedule isn't convenient and the NBA changed the rules so I don't have to.

The NBA also "renegotiated" (since you want to use that term) a savings for the Blazers of around $30M off of their contracts. And the same latitude on playing or not is being extended to other players around the league as well as Ariza, if they so desire. I don't imagine there are any complaints being filed by the team.

EDITED TO ADD: I discovered later (see below) that the "$1.8M [Ariza] will claim against the Blazers after his breach" that started this thread is just fiction. NBA memo says the players who sit out will do so WITHOUT pay. Which makes sense, that you only get paid for work if you show up to do the work. Case closed.

Avery Bradley of the Lakers has chosen the same path as Ariza - he doesn't want to play, so he won't have to. (And the Lakers actually have legit title aspirations, so it matters even more.)

Feel free to comment about how the Lakers are getting screwed over by the league as well, dt. And again when it happens with other players, and their teams.

You will eventually see that this isn't an Ariza deal - there will be multiple teams (maybe all of them) who will get screwed over by one or more players. They can get paid without going to work. Good ole union benefit, rewarding idleness as much as hard work. But that's the deal which owners have bought into, so it is what it is.

DBoys wrote:The NBA also "renegotiated" (since you want to use that term) a savings for the Blazers of around $30M off of their contracts. And the same latitude on playing or not is being extended to other players around the league as well as Ariza, if they so desire. I don't imagine there are any complaints being filed by the team.

I'm not sure what $30M savings you are referring to, if true I have no problem with saving $30M. I do have a problem with NBA giving players option to not play without getting a reciprocal benefit for teams.

Because of pandemic, NBA got the union to concede an added 25% of player contract salary for this season to be put into "escrow" (which for this season for Blazers would be about $35M). It's fairly certain the players won't ever see that later. In that context, especially with the uncertainty of potential virus exposure and the fact they are just cobbling together something to mollify TV partners, having a player here or there who has issues playing the "restart" 8 games is minor stuff to them. I'm sure the teams could have pushed for EVERYONE to be required to play, but is that the battle you wanna fight, when at the same time you know you're getting about $30M giveback to each team?

I'd look at it as a "player benefit" being offered from the NBA to the players as a whole. "We support you and your needs in these times," it says. And for the NBA as a league, it's all the same result as long as the games get played for TV. The ones with a real right to complain might be the players who have to do the work of showing up and getting games played for TV while Ariza and Bradley and Bertans and whoever just lazes, but if the other players are actually getting warm fuzzy feelings when the league supports them this way, no one has any issues and it's all good.

Keep in mind, teams always seem to put up with a LOT of crap by players sitting out with no penalty for them being unavailable. This isn't a new approach. It's just more public in this instance as to what's going on.


EDITED TO ADD: I discovered later (see below) that the "$1.8M [Ariza] will claim against the Blazers after his breach" that started this thread is just fiction. NBA memo says the players who sit out will do so WITHOUT pay. Which makes sense, that you only get paid for work if you show up to do the work. Case closed.

I thought that's what you were probably referring to. That is not a $30M or $35M saving to any team. The change in escrow didn't go far enough to protect the owner/player split. The alternative to adjusting the escrow withholding was force majeure, which would have been worse for players than an increase in escrow withholdings. The compromise favored the players. The option for players to skip games was a plain giveaway with no recompense. Not all teams agreed with NBA's giveaway, Blazers voted against it.

1 You do indeed have a huge savings that is in play going forward. The contracts for the Blazers had them obligated to pay out $138M-ish or void the entire CBA and start over. Now they won't have to, and the NBA can also have a partial season to try to recoup some of the revenues that otherwise would have been lost
2 The option to declare a "force majeure" (which used to be known as an "act of God" clause, a term which makes it better understood) was not voided by the deal that was made for the remainder of the season to be played, such as it is.
3 I'm sure if the NBA teams thought that a different route was significantly better for them in the long run, they would have taken it.
4 You assume that the NBA would much rather declare an act of God and force a new CBA. I think you may be wrong. As I see it, the NBA actually seems to be wanting to avoid a CBA do-over, if they can, and did everything they could to retain a restart WITHOUT having to open the door to a do-over. They can probably do better with the threat of a do-over than with the do-over itself.
5 "Not all teams agreed with NBA's giveaway, Blazers voted against it.".... The Blazers voted against the Ariza option itself? No!! The Blazers vote was against the 22-team restart, and based on the fact their players favored a different type of restart (20-teams) (and with different draft ramifications) (and with more innovations) instead.

Your first 4 points are relevant to the adjusted escrow withholding but are irrelevant to my grievance. They are completely separate deals. Force majeure is in the terms and conditions of the CBA. I don't know what the agreement is, but doubt invoking force majeure results in voiding of the entire CBA. I also disagree with your framing of the agreement as a money savings and great deal for the owners. However, it's quibbling over meaningless detail because I have no problem with the adjusted escrow withholding even though the owners got screwed.

The problem I have is your 5th point. The "Ariza option" is part of a completely separate agreement. I don't care when the NBA makes a bad deal that hurts every team roughly the same. I'm happy about it when the players get the better of the owners. I don't like it when the NBA makes deals that disproportionately hurts some teams more than others. How stupid is it that a player can skip playing games for any reason? How about making the rule permanent? If it's a good rule for a month, it must be good for permanent, right?

"I don't know what the agreement is, but doubt invoking force majeure results in voiding of the entire CBA. "

You're wrong. That in essence is EXACTLY what it would do. It voids the contracts and the owners' obligation to pay, and the CBA as written goes bye-bye. Then the two parties have to agree on what to do going forward. It's basically an "early (and immediate) expiration" of the CBA that had been in place.

"...the owners got screwed."

Or not.

" The "Ariza option" is part of a completely separate agreement."

Not really. You yourself don't even believe that, as you say the Blazers were the only negative vote - and that vote was about the restart agreement.

It's the deal they bargained for in exchange for getting a resumption of the season, and apparently both sides thought it was fair, so it is what it is. Before everything is said and done, there may be quite a few teams - maybe all of them, in fact - who lose players. But the Blazers are getting EXACTLY the same "deal" to operate under as every other team, so the whining is really kinda funny because it's so unjustified.

As for what latitude the league (and other players as well) will want to continue to give players, I certainly have my own opinions, but it's not MY money - so "fairness" is their call, not mine.

d-train wrote:The NBA decided to modify the CBA in a way that damages Blazers. Before the NBA decided to make playing in games optional, Ariza had a contract that required him to play. Since the NBA is enabling Ariza to breach his contract with Blazers, the NBA should pay Ariza the $1.8M he will claim against the Blazers after his breach. The NBA should also give Blazers $1.8M in cap relief for 20-21 to offset the cap hit. And, Blazers should be awarded a $12.8M salary cap exception that can be used like an injured player exception to replace Ariza.

The NBA should mitigate damages done to every team caused by the modification to the CBA. I don't know if any other team was damaged, but Blazers have been damaged if Ariza opts out of completing his contract.

I never bothered to read the rules for this situation, because I didn't care. But it appears while I have already given reasons why "this gripe doesn't really matter," there's another response that's even more compelling: the "facts" given for the gripe aren't even factual.

The "$1.8M [Ariza] will claim against the Blazers after his breach" is fiction. NBA memo says the players who sit out will do so WITHOUT pay. Which makes sense, that you only get paid for work if you show up to do the work.

The end.

This is no different than if 30 equal partners owned a business and took a vote on a transaction that would impact the business as a whole, in a way that impacted each partner differently. The majority decides on proceeding with the transaction or not. That is the essence of a "partnership".

Comparative Example: The NFL teams decided to not allow individual teams to sell TV broadcast rights. That hurts large market teams, compared to the NBA, where the Knicks get to sell their regular season TV rights. The NFL does not "owe" large market franchise for their decreased revenue resulting from the decision of the partner teams to share all TV revenue equally.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

I guess this is payback for having Darius Miles count against the cap while playing for the Grizz.