Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread III

J-Roc · Post #1301 » by **J-Roc** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:40 am

Ah ha, DeShawn Stevenson says Billy Hunter is doing a horrible job.

J-Roc · Post #1302 » by **J-Roc** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

YogiStewart wrote:great idea by Bill Simmons

sportsguy33 Bill Simmons
Great idea: an NBA Twitter lockout! Just unfollowed everyone NBA-related. RT @sburmans Someone needs to start the #unfollownba campaign.

the only players i follow are Ed Davis and Reggie Evans. most of the other players are useless. going to tweet my goodbyes. like they care.

Does his daily morning dose of "Let'$ get it!" get you through the day?

Post #1303 » by **YogiStewart** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:49 am

a month ago, i had a twitter argument with Evans about players being spoiled millionaires. he was being a slight dick about it.

LarSiN · Post #1304 » by **LarSiN** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:01 am

Don't forget Reggies Dallas cowboys tweets, there's that too that you'd miss

Post #1305 » by **YogiStewart** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:18 am

Reggie Evans wrote:
Lets GET it!!!

Gonna hit Frans, my fave

Cowboys betta not lose

Post #1306 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:25 am

TiKusDom wrote:
floppymoose wrote:Future players?

the ones who will be out of the league within 4 years?
what about the present players? the ones whose 4 year window is rapidly closing in?

So then the current players should cut a deal for a frontloaded CBA. 57% now, 37% much later. Right?

TiKusDom · Post #1307 » by **TiKusDom** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:36 am

floppymoose wrote:
So then the current players should cut a deal for a frontloaded CBA. 57% now, 37% much later. Right?

yeah obviously that's the most reasonable thing to do :roll:

Post #1308 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:36 am

Good article on the basic issues to the legal situation here:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... -from-here

Post #1309 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:37 am

TiKusDom wrote:
floppymoose wrote:
So then the current players should cut a deal for a frontloaded CBA. 57% now, 37% much later. Right?

yeah obviously that's the most reasonable thing to do

It seems to be the logical conclusion on your line of reasoning. You are putting the interests of the current players over the future players, so why not make that explicit in the CBA?

TiKusDom · Post #1310 » by **TiKusDom** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:38 am

floppymoose wrote:
It seems to be the logical conclusion on your line of reasoning. You are putting the interests of the current players over the future players, so why not make that explicit in the CBA?

way to completely miss the point. Whats the point of calling off the agreement over movement restrictions when the average player wont even last more than 4 years to even move to another team.

Post #1311 » by **YogiStewart** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:41 am

am i the only one who's been slightly annoyed by floppymoose's roundabout riddletalk?

Post #1312 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:48 am

TiKusDom wrote:way to completely miss the point. Whats the point of calling off the agreement over movement restrictions when the average player wont even last more than 4 years to even move to another team.

THIS -->

TiKusDom wrote:The players are acting dumb, real dumb. With the amount of money they are losing at this point, all the gains they would have made with a higher BRI than 50 % are pretty much gone.

is what I was responding too.

Post #1313 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:49 am

YogiStewart wrote:am i the only one who's been slightly annoyed by floppymoose's roundabout riddletalk?

Feel free to ask for explanations, I'll slow it down where needed.

Courtside · Post #1314 » by **Courtside** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:54 am

YogiStewart wrote:am i the only one who's been slightly annoyed by floppymoose's roundabout riddletalk?

No.

Post #1315 » by **YogiStewart** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:55 am

i'd rather sit back and watch you annoy the Raptors board. more entertaining.

Ponchos · Post #1316 » by **Ponchos** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:00 am

Restrictions on movement are synonymous with restrictions on demand. If the CBA restricts demand, players earn less in the open market.

Post #1317 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:05 am

YogiStewart wrote:i'd rather sit back and watch you annoy the Raptors board. more entertaining.

It's not just the Raptors board. I'm nationwide!

Courtside · Post #1318 » by **Courtside** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:31 am

Ponchos wrote:Restrictions on movement are synonymous with restrictions on demand. If the CBA restricts demand, players earn less in the open market.

But even the players don't believe it's a true open market, even conceding in their suits that the NBA is a de facto monopoly. A monopoly is not an open market and the flipside of this is that the players also control the supply. There is a limited amount of professional caliber basketball players and they controlled the supply to the league through a collective arrangement for the last 40+ years. Just because they decide to change the way they supply their talent to the league, it doesn't mean the owners are instantly breaking the law by not breaking up their alleged monopoly. One reason is that it's not their fault there is no other pro league - nothing stops this from happening - another reason is that antitrust law cannot be used to interfere with the collective bargaining process that both labor law and the courts prefer.

Post #1319 » by **floppymoose** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:14 am

I think it's perfectly fair for the players to end their union if they feel that total free agency with full anti-trust protections is a better deal than what they can get from collective bargaining. In a sense, that's the whole point of all these laws... to protect the collective bargaining process. In order to protect it you put a bound on how lopsided it can get. Simple economic viability (ie, bankruptcy) prevents it from getting too lopsided in the players favor. Teams would just fold then, and no one wants that, players or owners.

And total free market with no union and full anti-trust protections is the "floor" in the other direction. If the owners won't give a decent enough deal the players can always opt for that. It's not a sham for the players to say "ok, we'll take option B then" given the choices offered them by the owners.

There are pro sports leagues that operate that way.

Ponchos · Post #1320 » by **Ponchos** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:24 am

Courtside wrote:
Ponchos wrote:Restrictions on movement are synonymous with restrictions on demand. If the CBA restricts demand, players earn less in the open market.

But even the players don't believe it's a true open market, even conceding in their suits that the NBA is a de facto monopoly. A monopoly is not an open market and the flipside of this is that the players also control the supply. There is a limited amount of professional caliber basketball players and they controlled the supply to the league through a collective arrangement for the last 40+ years. Just because they decide to change the way they supply their talent to the league, it doesn't mean the owners are instantly breaking the law by not breaking up their alleged monopoly. One reason is that it's not their fault there is no other pro league - nothing stops this from happening - another reason is that antitrust law cannot be used to interfere with the collective bargaining process that both labor law and the courts prefer.

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my post.

I wasn't referring to a "true" open market. Just the market as it stands in the NBA for the last few decades.

Restrictions to movement must be restrictions on demand for players. If you tell the LA Lakers they can't sign players to the full MLE then there are fewer teams bidding for the services of players. Fewer bidders = lower earning potential.