What's new
By:

Twitter reactions to the NBAPA choice to not accept

"Matt Harpring on Twitter said:
Just like selling a house, at first low-ball offer really makes you angry, BUT you kick yourself after it ends up being the best offer!!!.
Click to expand...

"Matt Harpring on Twitter said:
o riddle me this: players, Is this great resolve--or have you gotten terribly bad advice?
Click to expand...


"Matt Harpring on Twitter said:
read the NBA proposal- Not only would i vote yes, i would be calling all my friends around the league to do the same
Click to expand...


"Matt Harpring on Twitter said:
[O]ne of the hardest parts of being a player: finding people who will give you good honest advice. its a huge problem for pro Matt Harpring on Twitter, athletes
Click to expand...

"Matt Harpring on Twitter said:
decertify? not so fast..risk losing your entire contract? fans remember, stern is a step ahead always, he is very good Matt Harpring on Twitter, at what he does
Click to expand...
https://scribe.twitter.com/#!/mharpring15

Pretty gentle and sage if you ask me.

Now, if he could get Bolerjack and Booner to exhibit the same kind of sagacity . . .
 
" [O]ne of the hardest parts of being a player: finding people who will give you good honest advice. ".
Sadly, the players are gonna find this out the hard way.
I'm NOT a David Stern supporter, but the players should've listened to him and DEMANDED a vote...
 
Catchall said:
Is it really just the blue chip free agents and their agents that are unhappy with what the league offered?
Click to expand...

no because built into the proposal (at various times) were several things that would have really harmed the guys on the lower end.

1) the owners would have been able to send players to the DLeague and pay them only 75K

2) the stiff luxury tax was essentially the slow road to a hard cap, and a hard cap would necessitate that role players have non-guaranteed contracts so that teams can maintain flexibility

3) the leauge retained the right to contract at any time without hte approval of the players union and to lower the players % of bri by the proportion of players that lost their jobs.

these issues definitely hurt hte lower tier players more.
 
I'd say the majority of 'average' NBA players were easily swayed to go along with the union leaders, and may well be unhappy with what they heard. As to whether they UNDERSTOOD the full implications and repurcusions of the union's actions is another story...
 
TheItinerantSon said:
no because built into the proposal (at various times) were several things that would have really harmed the guys on the lower end.

1) the owners would have been able to send players to the DLeague and pay them only 75K

2) the stiff luxury tax was essentially the slow road to a hard cap, and a hard cap would necessitate that role players have non-guaranteed contracts so that teams can maintain flexibility

3) the leauge retained the right to contract at any time without hte approval of the players union and to lower the players % of bri by the proportion of players that lost their jobs.

these issues definitely hurt hte lower tier players more.
Click to expand...

Aren't these talking points that Stern said wasn't really in the agreement? Supposedly the DLeague on was an Urban Legend. BUT, I, like many of today's NBA athletes, am too lazy to read the 7 measly pages.
 
TheItinerantSon said:
no because built into the proposal (at various times) were several things that would have really harmed the guys on the lower end.

1) the owners would have been able to send players to the DLeague and pay them only 75K

2) the stiff luxury tax was essentially the slow road to a hard cap, and a hard cap would necessitate that role players have non-guaranteed contracts so that teams can maintain flexibility

3) the leauge retained the right to contract at any time without hte approval of the players union and to lower the players % of bri by the proportion of players that lost their jobs.

these issues definitely hurt hte lower tier players more.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting any of this?

1. The league has denied this, it's not in the proposal, and the players aren't contesting this publicly to my knowledge.
2. The players contend the tax system IS a thinly veiled hard cap, not a road to one. There is nothing about non-guaranteed contracts in the proposal and both sides have agreed that contracts will be guaranteed.
3. There is nothing in the proposal about contraction. I haven't heard one player rep mention contraction as a divisive issue.

My guess is you're parroting speculation by third parties. My other guess is you're not reading a lot of the news.
 
Lockout update: Misinformation rules

NEW YORK — Players reps from all 30 NBA teams are arriving in town today, and tomorrow they’ll get debriefed on what is and what isn’t in the owners’ latest proposal.

Up until now, they’ve been getting fed plenty of bad information in the two days since the owners and players went their separate ways at the conclusion of Thursday night’s bargaining session.

Case in point: ESPN.com drew 5,000-plus comments on a story about how players could be sent down to the D-League and have their salary reduced to $75,000 during their first five seasons. A dealkiller, right?

Maybe it would be, except it is NOT in the owners’ proposal.
“It’s of grave concern to the league that there is an enormous amount of misinformation concerning our proposal, both on Twitter and in the more traditional media,” Adam Silver, the deputy commissioner, told the New York Times on Saturday night. “We believe that if the players are fully informed as to what is and is not in our proposal, they will agree that its terms are beneficial to them and represent a fair compromise.”

More from the story in The Times, by Howard Beck: “Hours after the NBA delivered its final collective bargaining proposal to the players union, the rumors and the rhetoric began to flow. The deal would let teams send players to the development league and cut their pay. Teams that used certain salary cap exceptions would lose the right to re-sign their own players. “Bird” rights would be jeopardized. The middle class would be eliminated. These and other concerns filled Twitter timelines on Friday, a day after labor talks concluded. They turned out to be unfounded, speculative or simply false. The D-League is not mentioned anywhere in the seven-page proposal that was delivered to the union on Friday — a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. Nor are there any measures that could curtail “Bird” rights. While some provisions might crimp the N.B.A.’s middle class, others could boost it. In the absence of official documentation — neither the league nor the union released the proposal publicly — the rumors have prevailed.”

This is one of the problems that happens when you keep the media in the dark when it behooves you to let them see the light. Even if you tell the writers nothing, they still have to write something. And if falsehoods are being reported, it is incumbent upon somebody to set the record straight — and quickly — before the misinformation becomes accepted as fact.

Case in point: Kevin Durant is so upset with the proposal that he hasn’t even seen that he has already decided to vote against it, and he is considering three different overseas options.
Click to expand...

https://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/13/lockout-update-misinformation-rules/
 
billyshelby said:
Where are you getting any of this?

My guess is you're parroting speculation by third parties. My other guess is you're not reading a lot of the news.
Click to expand...

There was an article that suggested these rumors were started by several agents via twitter, as an intentional smear campaign to get the players pissed off so they'd reject the offer.
 
Last edited:
freakazoid said:
There was an article that suggested these rumors were started by several agents via twitter, as an intentional smear campaign to get the players pissed off so they'd reject the offer.
Click to expand...

I read the proposal. Which I'm guessing puts me in the minority of players who also read it. But it was 7 pages of words. Not even twitterized. So the agents were ahead of the game in realizing they could put out any misinformation they wanted knowing full well that players and certain Duke graduates like Itinerantson would buy it all without bothering with the fine print. You know, the stuff that directly impacted their lives.
 
billyshelby said:
Where are you getting any of this?

1. The league has denied this, it's not in the proposal, and the players aren't contesting this publicly to my knowledge.
2. The players contend the tax system IS a thinly veiled hard cap, not a road to one. There is nothing about non-guaranteed contracts in the proposal and both sides have agreed that contracts will be guaranteed.
3. There is nothing in the proposal about contraction. I haven't heard one player rep mention contraction as a divisive issue.

My guess is you're parroting speculation by third parties. My other guess is you're not reading a lot of the news.
Click to expand...

surely you realize the 7 page pdf is not the entire proposal right? The league is unlikely to highlight the malignant parts of the proposal in their summary

1)
https://twitter.com/#!/RicBucher/status/135947672128462849 ric bucher said multiple sources indiciated the nbdl issue was real and was mentioned as late as thursday.
Also, the league does not deny that they want the NBDL rule, they have however moved it out of the proposal and into the b-list of issues to be negotiated later (which basically means, we will shove it down your throat later when you have no leverage).

2) it has never been a requirement that contracts in the NBA be guaranteed. THat has always been left up to negotiation between players and teams. Earlier this summer the league proposed to ban fully guaranteed contracts, but they have walked back on that. However, a hard cap necessitates that at least some contracts be left partially unguaranteed, or else that teams dont fill all their cap space. zach lowe has written extensively about this.

.

3) The league is insisting on the rights to alter the 50-50 deal in the case of contraction. They don't want to address that until after a deal has been accepted. https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411
"One of the most prominent issues that has been raised in talks includes the NBA’s desire to cut into the players’ share of the revenue split should owners decide to contract teams over the proposed 10-year deal, sources said. The owners are offering a 50-50 split of revenue, but the possible elimination of two teams would cause the BRI to be adjusted with a smaller percentage for the players, sources said. The NBA also wants to be able to contract teams without consulting the union."
 
TheItinerantSon said:
surely you realize the 7 page pdf is not the entire proposal right? The league is unlikely to highlight the malignant parts of the proposal in their summary

1)
https://twitter.com/#!/RicBucher/status/135947672128462849 ric bucher said multiple sources indiciated the nbdl issue was real and was mentioned as late as thursday. The league has not denied that they want the NBDL rule, they have however moved it out of the proposal and into the b-list of issues to be negotiated later (which basically means, we will shove it down your throat later when you have no leverage).

2) it has never been a requirement that contracts in the NBA be guaranteed. THat has always been left up to negotiation between players and teams. Earlier this summer the league proposed to ban fully guaranteed contracts, but they have walked back on that. However, a hard cap necessitates that at least some contracts be left partially unguaranteed, or else that teams dont fill all their cap space. zach lowe has written extensively about this.

.

3) The league is insisting on the rights to alter the 50-50 deal in the case of contraction. They don't want to address that until after a deal has been accepted. https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411
"One of the most prominent issues that has been raised in talks includes the NBA’s desire to cut into the players’ share of the revenue split should owners decide to contract teams over the proposed 10-year deal, sources said. The owners are offering a 50-50 split of revenue, but the possible elimination of two teams would cause the BRI to be adjusted with a smaller percentage for the players, sources said. The NBA also wants to be able to contract teams without consulting the union."
Click to expand...

You're still talking nonsense. ALL these issues are b-fodder that no one considered important, and you're cherry picking sources to prove they are.

Stern and the players have not said anything since 11/14 about D-League issues.
You're dredging up old speculation on a true hard cap eliminating guaranteed contracts. You're whole number two point is garbage, or appropriately number 2.
I can't comment on contraction since your link doesn't mention it. But it has never come up to my knowledge as a serious issue.

Edit: The contraction issue is discussed, but this is literally the only article I have ever seen it mentioned. A third rate issue that can be figured out over a cup of coffee compared to everything else.
 
the twitterview with stern and silver, someone asked abou the d-league issue and this was the response.


NBA:
No such clause was even proposed

One_SageMichael Sadoff:using the D-league 5 year $75k demotion clause, are you trying to get out from guarantee contracts? Isn't this clause a bit too unfair?
 
The players could care less about the league making money...competitive balance for small markets...and the rank and file NBA player. The big salaried players are driving the boat.
 
sojodave said:
The players could care less about the league making money...competitive balance for small markets...and the rank and file NBA player. The big salaried players are driving the boat.
Click to expand...

No, I think the mid-level players are driving the boat. If the top players "Drove the Boat" you would see unlimited payment for tops players (ala baseball).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top