What's new
By:

Interesting take on why players need to cave in....quickly!!!

The only problem with that logic is that players who have been in the NBA for just a few years (or the rookies) aren't the ones on the negotiating committee. Derek Fisher is consulting with guys like Kobe, LeBron, etc., not the players who fight for roster spots every year. Otherwise, it wouldn't be difficult to agree to a hard salary cap. If the players union wanted the best for EVERYONE, one of the key points would be to require teams to carry 15 instead of the minimum 13 as is happening with most teams right now looking to cut costs.


The players union is fighting to keep the current system in place which favors the stars who get the MAX deals and punishes the 9th-13th players on the rosters who can only get the league minimum because teams have spent their cap on 3-5 players.
 
I can see why certain players would simply want to get their next contract, or get paid another year or two, without thinking about the future of the players union. But like you said, it's a question of how much influence these types of players really have within the players' union. The players' union has been preparing for this situation for a few years now at least and is looking at the bigger picture.
 
IMHO, lowering the amount and years allowed maximum contracts + increasing the amount allowed for minimum contracts make the most sense, since the median salary is way less than the average salary. That way the stars are sharing the earnings.

The owners do not have to require a hard cap. Just agree among themselves not to sign players to ridiculous contracts. Fact is, they won't because they are competing against each other.
 
And because agreeing among themselves would be an antitrust violation, and then they'd all have issues with the players and the Department of Justice.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
No. No one cares about them. They aren't the reason fans watch basketball and pay to come to games. They have no leverage.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do. The union is one player = one vote. If the rank & file feel like Derek Fisher or whomever are not representing their interests, they could vote them out of power.
 
colton said:
Actually, they do. The union is one player = one vote. If the rank & file feel like Derek Fisher or whomever are not representing their interests, they could vote them out of power.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the previous two comments. The lower-tier players have their votes. Jeremy Evans' vote counts just as much as Kobe's. Having said that, I don't think you should try to raise the median of player's salaries. The big dogs (all-pros, all-stars, etc.) should get paid a ton more than the scrubs, because their making all the money.
 
margodydek said:
I actually agree with the previous two comments. The lower-tier players have their votes. Jeremy Evans' vote counts just as much as Kobe's. Having said that, I don't think you should try to raise the median of player's salaries. The big dogs (all-pros, all-stars, etc.) should get paid a ton more than the scrubs, because their making all the money.
Click to expand...
Yes, each vote counts as much, but the vote is only to approve or disapprove of an agreement or elect a union rep. Fact is FOUR agents control nearly 1/3 of all players. And you know damn well if Lebron, Kobe, etc. approve of a settlement (or disapprove) then those agents would be calling the rest of their lesser clients and "advising strongly" that they vote a particular way.

Same thing with the US state/federal govt. Each of our votes counts equally, but we are electing representatives who then make the laws. And when the leadership is corrupt, they do what's in the best interest of themselves and those who contribute the most to their pockets (i.e. lobbyists), not their constituency.
 
GlassEater said:
Each of our votes counts equally, but we are electing representatives who then make the laws. And when the leadership is corrupt, they do what's in the best interest of themselves and those who contribute the most to their pockets (i.e. lobbyists), not their constituency.
Click to expand...

....good point! Like unions, civil rights groups....save the whales, etc, right?
 
I think Bill Simmons hit the nail on the head. He said that this will most likely end up like the writer's strike back in 2006. The NBA players are going to lose paychecks to ultimately get a worse deal than they could get now.

I think the writing's on the wall. The players don't want to look weak, but let's face it, the owners have time and money on their side. If I were the players I'd choose one thing/concession that I really want, and then say, "we love the game too much, and just want to play, we've agreed to everything the owners want, but we want (x). If we get (x), we'll sign the new CBA." That might be the only shot they've got to get at least one concession out of this.
 
margodydek said:
The NBA players are going to lose paychecks to ultimately get a worse deal than they could get now.
Click to expand...

...well, obvious to even the most casual observer....anybody who would cover their body from head to foot in jailhouse tats....can't be the sharpest tool in the shed!
 
To get this thread back on track:

If you could ask Billy Joel one question, what would be your follow up question?
 
Here's a completely off-the-wall idea:

The players' union could threaten to ditch the NBA and start another league in the U.S. Players could nullify their NBA contracts. New teams could be created as corporate entities. Players could receive shares from a certain class of stock, with voting privileges and share of revenue, along with base salaries. The new league could be set up within 90 days. It would remain to be seen whether this new league could run more profitably than the NBA and provide as well for its players, but players could earn dividends from their shares in the league even after they've retired. Their shares could have seniority based on when they are issued. Obviously, new coaches and new managers could be brought in.

If the good players that people want to see (i.e., the players that create market demand) leave the NBA for a new league, the owners' investment in NBA franchises would go belly-up. The value of those franchises is really based on the NBA having the best talent. The ones with the real power in this negotiation should be the elite players (and their agents), and their leverage is the potential to start another league that they own. Other than the top players, there's nothing that the NBA has that can't be replicated.

These powerful agents shouldn't be threatening to de-certify the union and sue the owners for anti-trust, they should be threatening to "de-certify" the league.

If players aren't willing to take these steps, it shows that the players ultimately want outside billionaire owners to take care of them and assume the risk of running a profitable league. If that's the case, the players should make some concessions to the owners and let the owners earn some return for their risk.
 
Catchall said:
Here's a completely off-the-wall idea:

The players' union could threaten to ditch the NBA and start another league in the U.S. Players could nullify their NBA contracts. New teams could be created as corporate entities. Players could receive shares from a certain class of stock, with voting privileges and share of revenue, along with base salaries. The new league could be set up within 90 days. It would remain to be seen whether this new league could run more profitably than the NBA and provide as well for its players, but players could earn dividends from their shares in the league even after they've retired. Their shares could have seniority based on when they are issued. Obviously, new coaches and new managers could be brought in.

If the good players that people want to see (i.e., the players that create market demand) leave the NBA for a new league, the owners' investment in NBA franchises would go belly-up. The value of those franchises is really based on the NBA having the best talent. The ones with the real power in this negotiation should be the elite players (and their agents), and their leverage is the potential to start another league that they own. Other than the top players, there's nothing that the NBA has that can't be replicated.

These powerful agents shouldn't be threatening to de-certify the union and sue the owners for anti-trust, they should be threatening to "de-certify" the league.

If players aren't willing to take these steps, it shows that the players ultimately want outside billionaire owners to take care of them and assume the risk of running a profitable league. If that's the case, the players should make some concessions to the owners and let the owners earn some return for their risk.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting idea, but where would the games be played in this upstart league? Would the Miller's allow some other owner to use their facilities? Would the games be played at the U or SLCC? I'm sure it could work more easily in a bigger city that has multiple large basketball arenas, but SLC is not one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top