Replacement Players

Post #1 » by **ranger001** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:33 pm

In the last lockout Stern said he would consider the use of replacement players if the lockout lasted a season.

Stern says the NBA might consider the use of replacement players for the 1999-2000 season, should the dispute linger that long.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/s ... index.html

Was that an idle threat or could the NBA really do such a thing?

d-train · Post #2 » by **d-train** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:52 pm

It would be great for players if the NBA would start playing games. Of course, the replacement players would be non-union and the league would have to obey antitrust laws. I'm curious what some of the free agent players would fetch in a free market. Nene would love the change to have a crack at free agency with no artificial salary restrictions.

CarMalone · Post #3 » by **CarMalone** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:27 pm

Are D-League players part of the NBAPA? Otherwise the quality of replacement players will be even lower.

killbuckner · Post #4 » by **killbuckner** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:58 pm

This is a lockout- for the owners to try and use replacement players then they would have to lift the lockout which would mean they would have to pay any players currently under contract and there simply isn't an option to use replacement players otherwise. At some point the owners can delcare an impasse and institute the rules of their last, best offer (but that wouldn't affect current contracts) and at that point the players would have to decide on whether to go on strike or not. If the players did go on strike then the owners would then have the ability to use replacement players.

In reality the players would decertify the union long before it came to all that.

Post #5 » by **ranger001** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:01 pm

Why would paying the players not be an option? If the players turned up for games then that's fine, if they didn't then they can be suspended.

Salaries would be lower since a year would have gone by and some players would have come off the books.

killbuckner · Post #6 » by **killbuckner** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:09 pm

SOrry... I didn't complete the sentence. I meant to say that there simply isn't an option to use replacement players without lifting the lockout and paying the players currently under contract. But yes- if the players keep the union in place then thats absolutely an option for the owners but that really has nothing to do with replacement players. Replacement players are only an option if the players were to go on strike after the owners put in their last offer.

Post #7 » by **ranger001** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:41 pm

Interesting. If the owners put in their own CBA and lifted the lockout I'd assume that some of the players would play and some would want to decertify the union and file an antitrust lawsuit. If the players did decertify though the remaining ones and the replacements could form a new union.

Sounds like a last resort, I can see why the NFL was not too keen on the idea when asked about it.

killbuckner · Post #8 » by **killbuckner** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:34 pm

Interesting. If the owners put in their own CBA and lifted the lockout I'd assume that some of the players would play and some would want to decertify the union and file an antitrust lawsuit. If the players did decertify though the remaining ones and the replacements could form a new union.

Not really. if the players decertified the union then there aren't any replacement players. In fact one of the things they give up by decertifying is the ability to go on strike in an organized fashion. What would happen is that everyone would continue to play in the league under the rules the owners implemented and then sue again to get all of those restrictions overturned as an anti-trust violation. Things like the salary cap, draft, max salary, and maximum contract length would all almost certainly be illegal without a union and the owners would have to pay triple damages if they lost in court when that went to trial. The owners could try and put in a 40 million dollar hard cap but its virtually a certainty that they would lose in court.

Post #9 » by **ranger001** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:13 pm

If the players decertified then the NBA could say we'd like there to be a union. I'd happily form one and play for the minimum and I'm sure there'd be others. Those would be the replacements.

killbuckner · Post #10 » by **killbuckner** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:17 pm

If the players decertified then the NBA could say we'd like there to be a union. I'd happily form one and play for the minimum and I'm sure there'd be others. Those would be the replacements.

Thats not how it works either. If the players decertify then the owners can put the rules in place they want and it would be open to whoever wanted to accept. They could try and make the max salary 500k a year to dissuade current players from signing but that would almost certainly be an anti-trust violation in absence of a union. They couldn't band together and decide not to hire people who don't want to be a part of a union- thats also illegal.

Post #11 » by **ranger001** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:53 pm

Here's how I think it could work, first the players decertify then the Owners shut down the league saying "we are checking out the legal issues". They reopen the league and say we will accept anyone but only offer say 200k/year during a probation stage, dozens of scrubs sign up to be evaluated(actually 30 x 12). A week later some scrubs say they are forming a new union. Bang, new CBA that the owners like.

killbuckner · Post #12 » by **killbuckner** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:28 pm

Here's how I think it could work, first the players decertify then the Owners shut down the league saying "we are checking out the legal issues".

How it would work is that the league could continue to lock the players out, but in absence of a union a lockout is likely illegal. (The lockout is the legal tool the owners have that is used to counteract a strike, the players give up the right to strike and the legal option to lockout is also gone) The players would then sue trying to say that the lockout is illegal. For the NFL players when they tried this the courts said that they weren't allowed to grant an injunction stopping the lockout and it would have to go to trial. If the players were to win at trial then the owners would have to pay TRIPLE damages for all money saved during the illegal lockout. Continuing to lockout the players in absence of a union carries substantial risk. Triple damages are automatically awareded- this is what happened when the NFL players won the first time the players decertified.

The "safe" way for the owners is that they can open the doors to the league back up and they could put in any rules that they wanted to. The tricky thing for the league is that any rules they put in place would also be subject to an anti-trust suit with the same triple damages for any money saved if the rules were later found to be illegal.

They reopen the league and say we will accept anyone but only offer say 200k/year during a probation stage, dozens of scrubs sign up to be evaluated(actually 30 x 12). A week later some scrubs say they are forming a new union. Bang, new CBA that the owners like.

Thats completely and totally illegal.

SO_MONEY · Post #13 » by **SO_MONEY** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:09 pm

d-train wrote:It would be great for players if the NBA would start playing games. Of course, the replacement players would be non-union and the league would have to obey antitrust laws. I'm curious what some of the free agent players would fetch in a free market. Nene would love the change to have a crack at free agency with no artificial salary restrictions.

Well, my guess is the league would own player rights not individual teams to avoid anti-trust violations, therefore there really wouldn't be an open market as there would only one buyer.

Post #14 » by **ranger001** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:10 pm

killbuckner wrote:
They reopen the league and say we will accept anyone but only offer say 200k/year during a probation stage, dozens of scrubs sign up to be evaluated(actually 30 x 12). A week later some scrubs say they are forming a new union. Bang, new CBA that the owners like.

Thats completely and totally illegal.

What is illegal? If the players who were left decided to form a new union they can.

SO_MONEY · Post #15 » by **SO_MONEY** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:31 pm

ranger001 wrote:
killbuckner wrote:
They reopen the league and say we will accept anyone but only offer say 200k/year during a probation stage, dozens of scrubs sign up to be evaluated(actually 30 x 12). A week later some scrubs say they are forming a new union. Bang, new CBA that the owners like.

Thats completely and totally illegal.

What is illegal? If the players who were left decided to form a new union they can.

See my post above. If the NBA (proper) owns player rights it would be legal, but if teams own rights it would be collusion and a violation of anti-trust law.

Post #16 » by **ranger001** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:02 pm

That's another way out and is similar to what MLS does. MLS is a single entity owner.

What I'm taking about though is the owners avoid anti-trust by getting some of the players to form a new union.

transplant · Post #17 » by **transplant** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:36 pm

Not going to happen, IMO. Last night, Stern said he'll never say that he's made his "best and final offer." Without declaring "best and final" (and having this rejected by the union), there can't be an impasse. Without an impasse, the league can't install its own rules and hire replacements.

Furthermore, while Stern threatened this in '98-'99, he never did it. It's a union-busting move and I don't think Stern wanted to bust the union then or now.

Also, each professional league that's renegotiating its CBA looks to a recent ownership victory for its model. Back in '98-'99, the model was the NFL in the early '90s when they successfully used replacement players. Now, the model the NBA is looking at is the NHL lockout of 2004-05. Miss a season and then get everything you want.