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

[Context]

and I still maintain that the union would never agree to a roll back.

So you believe that--- but you think the union will agree to something that compromises the process of one of their star-players or ANY player for that matter's-free agency? How fair would that be? I have a ton of experience with a wide variety of "completed/executed contracts" and I believe it's safe to assume that there will be a period of NOTIFICATION. This will allow players like Melo and their process, not to be compromised; this will give a player who's in this situation prior to a new CBA deal a fair amount of time to make his decision. This idea that the players association will allow Melo to be the only casualty is ridiculous. It's unfounded...

[cgmw]

KnicksGod, enjoyed the debate brother. I'm off to go have some x-rated adventures to report on our other sticky.

One thing we can agree upon is that adding Carmelo to the Knicks would be awesome (for the right price).

Also, F the Heat.

[K_ick_God]

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."

Don't know what to tell you. You're just mistaken on this. When you have a union-employer collective agreement, your contract has been collectively negotiated. Your contract can then be collectively re-negotiated. This is not an individual contract right, outside of your union, that you can sue on.

[bigguy44]

No disrespect to anybody but yall making this thread boring discussing collective bargaining and all that, thought it was a thread for that.

[truth serum]

KnicksGod, enjoyed the debate brother. I'm off to go have some x-rated adventures to report on our other sticky.

One thing we can agree upon is that adding Carmelo to the Knicks would be awesome (for the right price).

Also, F the Heat.

At 2:30 in the afternoon? My life sucks.

[soby22]

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

why NETS NETS NETS?THERE DONE ARENT THEY? dam man ... when is it going to be some good knicks news dam?

[knicks9784]

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.

I feel this quote from Always Sunny is applicable here.

"And I'll take that advise under cooperation, alright? Now, let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor? "

-Charlie Kelly

[Leeroy Jenkins]

While the rumors are conflicting, so are his words. First he says the money isn't that important and he wants to win a championship, then he agrees if he doesn't sign extension he's screwed

[Context]

While the rumors are conflicting, so are his words. First he says the money isn't that important and we wants to win a champoinship, then he agrees if he doesn't sign extension he's screwed

Why are so many of you missing that he was smiling when he said that?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

While the rumors are conflicting, so are his words. First he says the money isn't that important and we wants to win a champoinship, then he agrees if he doesn't sign extension he's screwed

Why are so many of you missing that is was smiling when he said that?

I thought he was smiling when he said knicks weren't interested in him....


edit: i saw the wiretap it says he agreed, smiling. Not really sure that means he was joking tho

[Context]

While the rumors are conflicting, so are his words. First he says the money isn't that important and we wants to win a champoinship, then he agrees if he doesn't sign extension he's screwed

Why are so many of you missing that is was smiling when he said that?

I thought he was smiling when he said knicks weren't interested in him....

I asked, “If they trade you somewhere, and you don’t sign the extension, you’re screwed …” But then, before he could answer, I justified by saying, “Well, not necessarily screwed…” But, Melo flashed a smile and said: “Screwed.”

http://blogs.denverpost.com/nuggets/201 ... is-future/

[randybrown]

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.

cgmw, your logic has been spot on the past few pages.

The rumor i've heard floating around is there will be a Super Tax (2-3 times what it is now). League might also consider relaxing salary match restrictions on trades, allowing teams that are over a better chance to restructure. If no melo, there should be some steals for teams under the cap like the knicks. With a super tax, owners with deep pockets might think twice before taking on extra salary via trade, makes sense to relax the 15% match.


http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2011/jan/14/nfl-and-nba-collective-bargaining-agreements/

[delvec19]

Dell (Houston TX)

What's the latest with the Carmelo rumors? And are the rockets close to any deals?
Chad Ford (1:02 PM)

Let's get it out of the way early. No new updates. Likely won't be until we get closer to Feb. 24th. Nuggets aren't getting blown away with any other offers. Melo is sweating becoming a free agent under a new, more restrictive CBA. Nets are still maintaining they're out. Most likely they all come together and make nice on Feb. 23rd.

Justin (New York)

Glad your not in New York where it's snowing for the millionth time this year! What do you make of Carmelo's recent remarks about "being screwed" if he does not sign the extension?
Chad Ford (1:05 PM)

I think he's speaking the truth. He could lose (and this is a bit of speculation since we don't know exactly how the CBA will turn out) something to the tune of $40 million. Could he make some of that up in endorsements ... sure. But he'd rather have all that money guaranteed and then add to it with endorsements.

[J9Starks3]

I dont get the whole "he could lose $40 million" thing people throw out there...

He is due 18 million next year and can only sign a 3 year/65 million extension...

So thats 4 years, 83 million. Is Ford (and others) claiming the new CBA will have him signing a 4 year/43 million deal as a MAX player? That means his 1st year salary next year will be about the same as Hasheem Thabeet makes next year? I dont see it happening, sorry....

[Justdatdude]

While the rumors are conflicting, so are his words. First he says the money isn't that important and we wants to win a champoinship, then he agrees if he doesn't sign extension he's screwed

Why are so many of you missing that he was smiling when he said that?

Exactly. As the saying goes "actions speak louder than words." Obviously the guy want to get paid as its a job and he wants money for doing his job. But he also stated that his decision isn't strictly based on money. No doubt he would love to have an extension and play for the team he desires, but this guy has things going for himself outside of basketball, which at the very least will still pay him 10+ million a year. He isn't going to go broke if he doesn't get 20 million a year from basketball.

Just like he was being sarcastic about the Knicks not wanting him, I think its obvious he was being sarcastic here.

[seren]

If everything stays the same, Melo can opt out in the summer and sign a 6 year/120 million deal. By signing the extension, he is risking 37 million. Why not mention this extreme if you will stick with the idiotic with new CBA the max will be 43 million extreme?

[K_ick_God]

I dont get the whole "he could lose $40 million" thing people throw out there...

He is due 18 million next year and can only sign a 3 year/65 million extension...

So thats 4 years, 83 million. Is Ford (and others) claiming the new CBA will have him signing a 4 year/43 million deal as a MAX player? That means his 1st year salary next year will be about the same as Hasheem Thabeet makes next year? I dont see it happening, sorry....

I'll be nicer and just say that Chad probably didn't get straight A's in school.

'Well Melo, it's true that Rudy Gay's contract won't be touched. He'll make $70M over 4 years, $18M per. But you Melo will make $40M over the same 4 years, $10M per year. Sorry Melo. Life is just not fair.'

Yeah that's gonna happen lol.

[bigguy44]

I dont get the whole "he could lose $40 million" thing people throw out there...

He is due 18 million next year and can only sign a 3 year/65 million extension...

So thats 4 years, 83 million. Is Ford (and others) claiming the new CBA will have him signing a 4 year/43 million deal as a MAX player? That means his 1st year salary next year will be about the same as Hasheem Thabeet makes next year? I dont see it happening, sorry....

I'll be nicer and just say that Chad probably didn't get straight A's in school.

[vallen]

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.

cgmw, your logic has been spot on the past few pages.

The rumor i've heard floating around is there will be a Super Tax (2-3 times what it is now). League might also consider relaxing salary match restrictions on trades, allowing teams that are over a better chance to restructure. If no melo, there should be some steals for teams under the cap like the knicks. With a super tax, owners with deep pockets might think twice before taking on extra salary via trade, makes sense to relax the 15% match.


http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2011/jan/14/nfl-and-nba-collective-bargaining-agreements/

I agree, unfortunately hes been overshadowed by uninformed forum frontiers. Hey its not there money.

But hey we need people to hold the pom poms too.

[Context]

If everything stays the same, Melo can opt out in the summer and sign a 6 year/120 million deal. By signing the extension, he is risking 37 million. Why not mention this extreme if you will stick with the idiotic with new CBA the max will be 43 million extreme?

Thank you Seren. I am SO tired of this nonsense. The doom and gloom is only "realistic" when it comes to the Knicks. From now on every time that I read non sense of Melo losing money I will post this:

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

So for all of the people that believe this nonsense please tell me why the players association would instruct one of there star players to carry on with no concern??