[Camelo Thread Part 12] - Melo's list grows? pg. 50

[seren]

You assume a lot about what Melo wants. What I don't understand is if he wants out of Denver so bad, why didn't he get an opt-out last year like LBJ, Wade & Bosh?

I don't know what Melo wants, but I do know that any sane person would make securing a maximum contract a pretty high priority. Personally, I don't see the Nets as coming into this conversation at all.

If I had to wager, I'd say Denver 50%, Knicks 35%, Elsewhere 15%.

First, wants and wanted refer to two different periods in time. He wants out now. In all likelihood, he was happy four years ago when he signed the extension.

Second, were Wade, Bosh, and LBJ insane when they signed a three year plus option extension when they could get four plus one? Theoretically, they risked losing at least 18.5 million dollars each as they might have gotten injured in the last three years. People have preferences. Just because theirs are different than yours don't mean they are insane. Moreover, players like everyone else take calculated risks in their lives. Melo may have a career ending injury tomorrow and that extension would be certainly off the table. Still he chooses not to sign it.

[K_ick_God]

1. The court would ask if you were a member of the union. When you said yes, they'd throw your suit out without even hearing it. You sign up for the union, you sign up for the upside of collective bargaining and the downside that goes with it too.

Come on, dude.

If the union agrees to rolling back existing contracts, then players have no remedy except maybe suing the union. I know that.

What I'm saying is that the union would never agree to it. If the owners continued a lockout and insisted on cutting existing salaries, I could see the union trying to sue the league. The theory being that the owners are reneging on existing employment contracts.

And I'm saying the courts would not get involved. The owners already got a rollback in the NHL. Why would the NHL be able to do something that is illegal? It isn't. It's perfectly legal and that's why the NHL was able to do it.

[Context]

I also want you guys to read what I'm about to post. While it's financial on another league. There is a correlation to the NBA. Don't be fooled by the owners and Sterns claims. See this as a general example:

We've obtained financial statements for a number of baseball teams — containing perhaps some of the most closely guarded information in sports — and they offer a rare glimpse at how MLB franchises do brisk business in the modern era.

We'll have some analysis later, not to mention another set of statements. For now, take a look at the documents below, paying close attention to the teams' operating income, their revenue-sharing figures, the size of their TV deals, and the amortization of player contracts (a neat trick of accounting pioneered by Bill Veeck that allows an owner to turn his team into a lucrative tax shelter). If there is a thread running through all of these financial statements, it is the incredible ability of baseball teams — whether they're winners or losers, big market or small, "rich" or "poor" — to make their owners a fat pile of money.

http://deadspin.com/5615096/mlb-confide ... e=true&s=i

[falcindor]

1. The court would ask if you were a member of the union. When you said yes, they'd throw your suit out without even hearing it. You sign up for the union, you sign up for the upside of collective bargaining and the downside that goes with it too.

Come on, dude.

If the union agrees to rolling back existing contracts, then players have no remedy except maybe suing the union. I know that.

What I'm saying is that the union would never agree to it. If the owners continued a lockout and insisted on cutting existing salaries, I could see the union trying to sue the league. The theory being that the owners are reneging on existing employment contracts.

And I'm saying the courts would not get involved. The owners already got a rollback in the NHL. Why would the NHL be able to do something that is illegal? It isn't. It's perfectly legal and that's why the NHL was able to do it.

NHL did not rollback. They had to renegotiate all contracts

[dadanyk]

Most I'd offer in a deal:

Chandler (or Chandler traded somewhere else where he would re-sign and Denver would get a first round pick/another young cheap player they covet)
Randolph
Curry
Bukie
Mason Jr.
any picks we can muster

and we'd get back

Melo
Harrington


Lineup:

Felton/Douglas
Fields/Rautins
Melo/Gallo
Amar'e/Harrington
Turiaf/Mozgov

everything is fine on the players going to denver but remove harrington & replace him with JR Smith

[Context]

Its funny actually. This is what was overlooked during the whole Miami thing, and now once again its being overlooked.

I'll continue to say that Carmelo didn't put himself in such a situation because he is uncertain and he just wants to leave his options open. Believe that if you want to, but if you do your extremely gullible. Melo wants out of Denver that's pretty much a fact. Its strongly believed he wants to go to NY, but more so than going to NY I think Melo wants to be in a situation where he can eventually compete for a championship and not get shut out for the duration of the Miami big 3 existence. If I were Melo or Paul or a number of other elite players I'd be pissed off at the thought of being on the outside looking in for the prime years of my career because those three teamed up to win championships. You think these guys are going to just say good for them, and keep playing to the best of their abilities only to be denied because their best isn't enough to match 3 top level players? These stars want in on the opportunity and Melo is no exception. Does that mean he is coming to the Knicks for less money? Very well mean that, especially since the guy already has a ton of money, he's not going poor any time soon. If he remains healthy (and Amare too) its realistic to think he re-ups with the Knicks after his extension is up and gets another big pay day, especially if we manage to win a championship in that time period. If not and he doesn't believe in our abilities, look for him to reshuffle and go somewhere else or us to work on getting someone else here to help him win. But more so than the money he wants to be able to compete, people can talk about him risking losing some millions over the course of his extension, I think melo would pay millions out of his own pocket to be on a championship caliber team.

EXACTLY... It's as Melo put "the ultimate dream". Add Melo to our young group, + a owner who will spend whatever it takes(unlike Stan Kroenke), it home for him and his wife, and finally on the biggest stage. As a player who embraces pressure what more could you ask for.

[K_ick_God]

NHL did not rollback. They had to renegotiate all contracts

Signed contracts were changed & lowered. Same thing in its essence.

[Knicks_Fan2]

I also want you guys to read what I'm about to post. While it's financial on another league. There is a correlation to the NBA. Don't be fooled by the owners and Sterns claims. See this as a general example:

We've obtained financial statements for a number of baseball teams — containing perhaps some of the most closely guarded information in sports — and they offer a rare glimpse at how MLB franchises do brisk business in the modern era.

We'll have some analysis later, not to mention another set of statements. For now, take a look at the documents below, paying close attention to the teams' operating income, their revenue-sharing figures, the size of their TV deals, and the amortization of player contracts (a neat trick of accounting pioneered by Bill Veeck that allows an owner to turn his team into a lucrative tax shelter). If there is a thread running through all of these financial statements, it is the incredible ability of baseball teams — whether they're winners or losers, big market or small, "rich" or "poor" — to make their owners a fat pile of money.

The problem with comparing to the MLB is that the MLB union has the ability to withhstand the owners' bs.
http://deadspin.com/5615096/mlb-confide ... e=true&s=i

[Context]

According to a source, the Players Association hopes Anthony does not make his decision based on a doomsday scenario NBA commissioner David Stern and his agents are promoting. The union hopes Anthony goes about his business as normal, knowing NBPA executive director Billy Hunter will not agree to an unfavorable CBA deal for its superstars.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/k ... z1CAOO3LbT


Why would they tell him that if there were something to worry about?

[Th3Gr3at3st]

Anyone have a link to the Denver starting to like Randolph article? I was told they werent a fan of dude.

[Jmonty580]

Anyone have a link to the Denver starting to like Randolph article? I was told they werent a fan of dude.

I was told that Denver is a mile high up, you think I'm buying that one?

lol just kidding. I bet they liked AR, and I bet they like other players on our team too, they just pretended not to in hopes of getting a better package from us or else where.

[cgmw]

so cgmw what happens if a hard cap is implemented and lakers have a 95M$ payroll... with your theories what happens to them?

You mean my wild and wacky theory that the union would never agree to rolling back existing contracts?

I'm only guessing, but here's just a few solutions off the top of my head:

1) The union would obviously negotiate for a HIGHER salary cap.
2) Existing contracts (signed before the new CBA) over a certain amount could be grandfathered in up to a certain percentage, thus creating a temporary "soft cap" until all current deals expire.
3) Teams could be granted the options to buyout certain players while having their salaries erased from the cap.
4) Players with existing MAX contracts or MLE contracts don't count toward the cap.

I'm not sure, but there are plenty of answers besides just flat-out cutting existing paychecks, which would be the absolute last thing the union would ever concede.

[waya]

Anyone have a link to the Denver starting to like Randolph article? I was told they werent a fan of dude.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/27258216

[J9Starks3]

so cgmw what happens if a hard cap is implemented and lakers have a 95M$ payroll... with your theories what happens to them?

You mean my wild and wacky theory that the union would never agree to rolling back existing contracts?

I'm only guessing, but here's just a few solutions off the top of my head:

1) The union would obviously negotiate for a HIGHER salary cap.
2) Existing contracts (signed before the new CBA) over a certain amount could be grandfathered in up to a certain percentage, thus creating a temporary "soft cap" until all current deals expire.
3) Teams could be granted the options to buyout certain players while having their salaries erased from the cap.
4) Players with existing MAX contracts or MLE contracts don't count toward the cap.

I'm not sure, but there are plenty of answers besides just flat-out cutting existing paychecks, which would be the absolute last thing the union would ever concede.

Yeah - what would normally happen in that case is year 1 has an extremely high hard cap... which would reduce every year until it gets to the range they want. Say it starts at 90 million and goes down 5 mill/year for 5 years until its at 65 million.

The one issue with a hard cap I see, is that it doesnt work with guaranteed contracts. I dont see the players union agreeing to non-guaranteed deals.

[cgmw]

And I'm saying the courts would not get involved. The owners already got a rollback in the NHL. Why would the NHL be able to do something that is illegal? It isn't. It's perfectly legal and that's why the NHL was able to do it.

How can I be any clearer? Let me try. I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm saying the union would never agree to it. There's no crime here. It's not race discrimination or coercion. It's contract law. If the NHL owners got a salary cutback it's because they somehow convinced the union to accept it. My guess is they had an argument for imminent league-wide collapse. Nothing so dramatic seems evident here, and I still maintain that the union would never agree to a roll back.

If the owners still want to lock out all players indefinitely, you'd better believe courts would eventually get involved.

[Knicks_Fan2]

According to a source, the Players Association hopes Anthony does not make his decision based on a doomsday scenario NBA commissioner David Stern and his agents are promoting. The union hopes Anthony goes about his business as normal, knowing NBPA executive director Billy Hunter will not agree to an unfavorable CBA deal for its superstars.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/k ... z1CAOO3LbT


Why would they tell him that if there were something to worry about?

Did that article really try to imply Chandler was "benched" in the Spurs game for reasons apart from matchups? I seriously hate the Post/Daily News. What a waste of space.

[K_ick_God]

And I'm saying the courts would not get involved. The owners already got a rollback in the NHL. Why would the NHL be able to do something that is illegal? It isn't. It's perfectly legal and that's why the NHL was able to do it.

How can I be any clearer? Let me try. I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm saying the union would never agree to it. There's no crime here. It's not race discrimination or coercion. It's contract law. If the NHL owners got a salary cutback it's because they somehow convinced the union to accept it. My guess is they had an argument for imminent league-wide collapse. Nothing so dramatic seems evident here, and I still maintain that the union would never agree to a roll back.

If the owners still want to lock out all players indefinitely, you'd better believe courts would eventually get involved.

Typical contract law does not apply, at all, to collective bargaining.

[soby22]

any recent melo trade talks? how soon do you guys think this anthony randolph "deal breaker" deal will go through?

[cgmw]

And I'm saying the courts would not get involved. The owners already got a rollback in the NHL. Why would the NHL be able to do something that is illegal? It isn't. It's perfectly legal and that's why the NHL was able to do it.

How can I be any clearer? Let me try. I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm saying the union would never agree to it. There's no crime here. It's not race discrimination or coercion. It's contract law. If the NHL owners got a salary cutback it's because they somehow convinced the union to accept it. My guess is they had an argument for imminent league-wide collapse. Nothing so dramatic seems evident here, and I still maintain that the union would never agree to a roll back.

If the owners still want to lock out all players indefinitely, you'd better believe courts would eventually get involved.

Typical contract law does not apply, at all, to collective bargaining.

Nonsense. The basic "typical" principles still apply. The union has to actually agree to a new deal (like a contract) or else the NBA needs to break up the union. There are plenty of places for courts to get involved. Nobody wants it to come to that, and I don't think it will. But the one position that could extend a lockout longer than anything else is rolling back previously agreed-upon CONTRACTS of players.

This is just extemporaneous, but my suspicion is that an individual player might have standing to make an argument that the league is liable for his remaining contract if it is unreasonably denying him the right to play. Something like that. I'm also saying that the union itself might have standing to sue the league if it feels the league is using improper tactics to bust the union.

Anyway, this is way off topic at this point. My point is that neither the "Rudy Gay fairness" argument or the "all salaries are getting cut" argument would be very reassuring to me if I were Carmelo Anthony. The convincing argument is "hey, we don't know what the hell might happen."

[Jay10]

any recent melo trade talks? how soon do you guys think this anthony randolph "deal breaker" deal will go through?

you're definitely going to hear rumors leading up to the nuggets visiting the nets on monday