Lockout!!!

[moevillini]

I'm bummed. I really would like to see this settled before the end of 2011.

I don't really understand the details of any of the proposals enough to say I'm on the side of the players OR the owners, though I do feel the owners have a "bigger picture" perspective than the players. But in some ways I feel like maybe this is comparable to the housing bubble - and the players are still thinking more in terms of the "gravy train" of the expired CBA and aren't quite able to adjust their thinking to the realities of the current global economic situation.


someone had a great twitter quote about the possible decertification vote, and compared the players' understanding of the issue to college students who had partied the whole semester and now were trying to pull an all-nighter to cram for their final exams

 

[carolinajazz]

But in some ways I feel like maybe this is comparable to the housing bubble - and the players are still thinking more in terms of the "gravy train" of the expired CBA and aren't quite able to adjust their thinking to the realities of the current global economic situation.

....interesting observation! Of course, then there's mine: Owners are tired of supporting the extravagant lifestyle of punks, pukes and thugs!

Someone had a great twitter quote about the possible decertification vote, and compared the players' understanding of the issue to college students who had partied the whole semester and now were trying to pull an all-nighter to cram for their final exams

.....another good observation! But then, these NBA guys were never much on thinkin...spent most of there time chasing women and drinkin!


True dat!

 

[jope]

spent most of there time chasing women and drinkin!

isn't that what the vast majority of men in their 20's do?

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

We need our young guys to develop no doubt and no season will hurt that but losing a season also means the Spurs, Lakers, and Mavs are a year older and closer to AARP membership. Not so bad.

Really what we need is Millsap or Hayward or Jefferson to grab the reins, and get these guys together for practices, workouts, scrimmages and such. I think we have just nine under contract per se but see no reason someone like Watson couldn't or wouldn't participate in such to get it to 10. This would be huge, HUGE, in not only the development of the players but the chemistry and camaraderie of the guys as well so that when things do resume, everyone's not a stranger to each other.

I doubt anyone is going to be motivated right now to put in extra work when they aren't getting paid and they aren't getting the CBA deal that they want.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

This would be awesome if this happened. Just like what Drew Brees did with the saints during the NFL lockout. The only problem is that Jefferson and Milsap don't know what system Corbin is going to use. But it would still be benificial IMO!

I think something like that is probably happening to an extent. Burks and Hayward have obviously been hanging out, playing ball, and working out together at times. Many of the Jazz players workout at P3, I assume they there at similar times, so they also probably play pickup games together.

 

[green]

They were talking on the radio and they were saying that Evans said he is ready to take the deal and play (of course), but the interesting thing was, they said Kobe wants to take the deal and play. Anyone else heard that? If they are not only losing support from the low level guys, but players like Kobe as well, then we may have a season on Wednesday after all.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Can someone explain to me why they believe the owners when having no substantiated evidence of these supposed losses?

To refresh, the NBA made more money than it ever has last year, and paid the smallest percent of that to players (at least in the last 13 years where everything seemed peachy for most of those years). These are the facts that we have. That, and that the salary cap goes up every year (a point that ties into the initial one in the paragraph). And let's also remember that this is a lockout and not a strike.

So, establishmentarians, why do you believe the owners claims with no real evidence?

 

[sirkickyass]

They were talking on the radio and they were saying that Evans said he is ready to take the deal and play (of course), but the interesting thing was, they said Kobe wants to take the deal and play. Anyone else heard that? If they are not only losing support from the low level guys, but players like Kobe as well, then we may have a season on Wednesday after all.

Here's a very good summary of the NBA's current proposal: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/...o-union-stern-details-his-ultimatum.html?_r=1

The N.B.A.’s current proposal to the players includes a soft salary cap, a 50 percent share of revenues for players and these features:

¶ Salary-cap and luxury-tax levels in Years 1 and 2 of the new agreement will be no less than they were in 2010-11. By Year 3, they will be adjusted downward to conform to the new system.

¶ Sign-and-trade deals and the biannual exception will be available only to nontaxpaying teams.

¶ Extend-and-trade deals, such as the one signed by Carmelo Anthony last season, will be prohibited.

¶ The midlevel exception will be set at $5 million for nontaxpaying teams, with a maximum length between three and four years (alternating annually). The value of the exception will grow by 3 percent annually, starting in Year 3.

¶ The midlevel exception will be set at $2.5 million for taxpaying teams, with a maximum length of two years, and cannot be used in consecutive years. Its value will also grow at 3 percent annually.

¶ A 10 percent escrow tax will be withheld from player salaries, to ensure that player earnings do not exceed 50 percent of league revenues. An additional withholding will be applied in Year 1 “to account for business uncertainty” stemming from the lockout.

¶ Maximum contract lengths will be five years for “Bird” free agents and four years for others.

¶ Annual contract increases will be 5.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others.

¶ Players will be paid a prorated share of their 2011-12 salaries, based on the number of games played once the season starts.

¶ Team and player contract options will be prohibited in new contracts, other than rookie deals. But a player can opt out of the final year of a contract if he agrees to zero salary protection (i.e., if it is nonguaranteed).

Viewed through that lens, players who only have 1-2 great years at high pay remaining are going to be pushing for the deal.

Before we get another round of "the greedy players blah blah jailhouse tats" on this board it's worth noting that every provision of the proposed deal is worse for players than the system was last season. They will make significantly less money (what amounts to a 12.2% pay cut), have less latitude to determine where they play, have more money withheld for escrow, receive smaller raises, and receive fewer contract guarantees. In exchange they make no tangible gains. It is not hard to understand why they have a toxic reaction to the proposal, even if it represents a practical reality.

If the players don't agree then the league will default to a reset option which is described as follows:

The “reset” proposal features a flex-cap system that contains an absolute salary ceiling — to be set $5 million above the average team salary. In addition, the N.B.A. would roll back existing contracts “in proportion to system changes in order to ensure sufficient market for free agents.”

The other major differences in the “reset” proposal are:

¶ The midlevel exception would be set at $3 million in Year 1, with a maximum length of three years, and would grow at 3 percent annually.

¶ Maximum salaries would be reduced.

¶ Sign-and-trade rules would remain consistent with the 2005 labor deal.

¶ Contracts would be limited to four years for “Bird” free agents and three years for others, but each team could give a five-year deal to one designated player.

¶ Raises would be limited to 4.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others.

¶ Changes requested by the union on restricted free agency rules and salary-cap holds would not be included.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

honest question - why would the players be hurt by decertification? Isn't the worst case scenario a removal of salary cap and a removal of guaranteed contracts? Isn't that better for the players than accepting whats on the table?

 

[sirkickyass]

honest question - why would the players be hurt by decertification? Isn't the worst case scenario a removal of salary cap and a removal of guaranteed contracts? Isn't that better for the players than accepting whats on the table?

My impression is that it's solely a question of time-frame impacts.

There's also a redistributional element to what happens when salary limits are removed that's probably scary to middle of the road players.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Can someone explain to me why they believe the owners when having no substantiated evidence of these supposed losses?

They don't believe the losses are as large as the NBA claims, but they have provided "substantiated evidence" by submitting audited financial reports:

"The NBA has shared with the players' union audited financial reports for all 30 teams which unequivocally demonstrate why Mr. Hunter favors the expiring agreement and why it does not work for us," spokesman Tim Frank said.
https://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6243850

So, establishmentarians, why do you believe the owners claims with no real evidence?

Well, I haven't seen the evidence, but apparently the NBPA has. They saw enough to immediately, before negotiations really began, offer up a 3% concession of BRI worth $100 million a season. There is NO DOUBT that the NBA has been losing money. They players didn't offer this concession out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't think it's wrong that the players are trying to get as much as they can, but most would agree that the owners have all the leverage right now. Meanwhile, we have NBA players tweeting that 1/2 the revenue is going into owners pockets as if they have no other employees or expenses to run the league.

No, fans don't go the arena to watch the owners. However, the players don't have to pay the salaries and expenses of thousands of other employees, pay for the arena, player's travel expenses, player's food and hotel expenses, medical staff, insurance, etc. That all comes out of the owner's "cut". And apparently, that cut is lower than all the other expenses combined.

I understand both sides. The players want to keep as much money as they can, and the owners want to end their losses and start making some profit. You can see each side's point, but the owners have the leverage. Why do they have the leverage? Because they are operating at a loss, and the player's are all making a profit.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Sure glad this clown no longer represents the Jazz. Decert pretty much destroys the league as we know it. The greedy *** players have no leverage in this and look retarded. Read that another unnamed player said "we are going to blow this to the moon." I'm not so sure these players have any idea what they are talking about.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiret...y_To_Sign_Decertification_Petition_Since_July

At least he would have done it in July. I would appreciate if anyone made any attempt at something that early.

 

[gregbroncs]

honest question - why would the players be hurt by decertification? Isn't the worst case scenario a removal of salary cap and a removal of guaranteed contracts? Isn't that better for the players than accepting whats on the table?

1. They decertify this season is done. Almost guaranteed.

2. Their decertification is much more likely to be found illegal than the NFL's was. Thereby making it much more likely that they gain nothing by doing it. They have already proven by playing overseas that their are other options for basketball player where football players have far fewer options.

3. If they believed decertification was going to work they should have done it on the day the lockout was announced like they did in the NFL.

There are good reasons for them to try and decertify and hope it goes through. I find it very hard to believe that any of these players will see a dime this year if they go this route though. So their decision comes down to if they believe that decertifying will scare the owners into a deal. The reports I saw quoting owners seem to indicate they don't believe the decertification will hold up in court. Meaning they are unlikely to scare the owners into a deal.

Time is on the owners side here. They have a long time to make their money in the NBA the players have a very limited time to do the same thing. Decertification to me is going to shut down talks and force the owners into a hard line stance, IMO.

So no you don't have the worst case senario. Worst case senario for them is their decertification is found to be illegal and they lose all of their bargaining power putting them in a situation where they are going to lose all of the ground they have gotten the owners to move.

If their decertification fails then the owners are going back to the deal from 2 months ago and waiting for the players to cave. Hard cap, Non-guaranteed contracts and 47% BRI. If the players believe this is the best deal they will willingly get from the owners they should take it. Otherwise I believe the season is lost.

Again I believe if the union decertifies this season is done. ONce the courts get involved this process will drag out even more. Remember it took months for the hearing on the NFL decertification to even be looked at. Then it was quickly appealed and reinstated. That is with a judge who was pretty much hand picked by the NFLPA. No other judgement in the courts fell on the side of the players. And NFL players really have very few other options.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

1. They decertify this season is done. Almost guaranteed.

2. Their decertification is much more likely to be found illegal than the NFL's was. Thereby making it much more likely that they gain nothing by doing it. They have already proven by playing overseas that their are other options for basketball player where football players have far fewer options.

3. If they believed decertification was going to work they should have done it on the day the lockout was announced like they did in the NFL.

There are good reasons for them to try and decertify and hope it goes through. I find it very hard to believe that any of these players will see a dime this year if they go this route though. So their decision comes down to if they believe that decertifying will scare the owners into a deal. The reports I saw quoting owners seem to indicate they don't believe the decertification will hold up in court. Meaning they are unlikely to scare the owners into a deal.

Time is on the owners side here. They have a long time to make their money in the NBA the players have a very limited time to do the same thing. Decertification to me is going to shut down talks and force the owners into a hard line stance, IMO.

So no you don't have the worst case senario. Worst case senario for them is their decertification is found to be illegal and they lose all of their bargaining power putting them in a situation where they are going to lose all of the ground they have gotten the owners to move.

If their decertification fails then the owners are going back to the deal from 2 months ago and waiting for the players to cave. Hard cap, Non-guaranteed contracts and 47% BRI. If the players believe this is the best deal they will willingly get from the owners they should take it. Otherwise I believe the season is lost.

Again I believe if the union decertifies this season is done. ONce the courts get involved this process will drag out even more. Remember it took months for the hearing on the NFL decertification to even be looked at. Then it was quickly appealed and reinstated. That is with a judge who was pretty much hand picked by the NFLPA. No other judgement in the courts fell on the side of the players. And NFL players really have very few other options.

Good insight! Rep.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The owners have leverage because they have leverage. Period. That the NBPA was willing to give 3% to prevent the lockout more illustrates that innate leverage than it does show the players trying to cut the owners a break out of the goodness of their hearts. The owners have banging lockout war-drums for years and considering their massive advantage in negotiation, the players knew they weren't getting anything. And as it stands, the players will continually be put in this position unless a viable competing league starts up.

And on these presented documents to the NBPA (remember, none of us have seen them for ourselves), what is defined as a loss is at it's greatest legal parameters. This includes asset amortization (even though to date absolutely NO franchise has ever shown depreciation on a sale [shooting from the hip here]) and things like the Knicks including their sexual harassment issue as a relevant expense.

I firmly believe the owners stance to be 100% financially motivated, and that this lockout is simply them flexing their muscles to get even more of what they don't remotely need. Until I see evidence to the contrary, which of course we won't. Or at least it will never be purposefully disclosed, and there's a really good reason for that.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Moral of the story: Rich people get their way.

 

[margodydek]

I'm going to be bold and predict that the players take the deal. Oh who am I kidding? These guys are idiots. Nevermind. But in all honesty I find it amusing that the players are saying they won't sign this deal because they want to protect not only themselves but future players as well. Doesn't everybody (including the players) realize that the deal they will end up signing will be far worse for not only themselves (not to mention a missed season) and for future players?

On a side note, I just went over the deal proposed to the players, and to be honest, as Jazz fan, I like it.

 

[margodydek]

The owners have leverage because they have leverage. Period. That the NBPA was willing to give 3% to prevent the lockout more illustrates that innate leverage than it does show the players trying to cut the owners a break out of the goodness of their hearts. The owners have banging lockout war-drums for years and considering their massive advantage in negotiation, the players knew they weren't getting anything. And as it stands, the players will continually be put in this position unless a viable competing league starts up.

And on these presented documents to the NBPA (remember, none of us have seen them for ourselves), what is defined as a loss is at it's greatest legal parameters. This includes asset amortization (even though to date absolutely NO franchise has ever shown depreciation on a sale [shooting from the hip here]) and things like the Knicks including their sexual harassment issue as a relevant expense.

I firmly believe the owners stance to be 100% financially motivated, and that this lockout is simply them flexing their muscles to get even more of what they don't remotely need. Until I see evidence to the contrary, which of course we won't. Or at least it will never be purposefully disclosed, and there's a really good reason for that.

I like the post, but I disagree with the bolded statement. I think the owners main motivation is to gain back control of player movement. Here are people who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and they have quite limited control as to when their employees (products) will decide to skip town. This isn't something I necessarily agree with, but I think it's the owners' current mindset. I think things swung too far w/ Lebron/Bosh, Melo & DWill to a certain degree. Basically the players were the ones now building their teams. I think the owners feel like they've lost power and this is more about getting that power back than it is about money.

 

[billyshelby]

The owners have leverage because they have leverage. Period. That the NBPA was willing to give 3% to prevent the lockout more illustrates that innate leverage than it does show the players trying to cut the owners a break out of the goodness of their hearts. The owners have banging lockout war-drums for years and considering their massive advantage in negotiation, the players knew they weren't getting anything. And as it stands, the players will continually be put in this position unless a viable competing league starts up.

And on these presented documents to the NBPA (remember, none of us have seen them for ourselves), what is defined as a loss is at it's greatest legal parameters. This includes asset amortization (even though to date absolutely NO franchise has ever shown depreciation on a sale [shooting from the hip here]) and things like the Knicks including their sexual harassment issue as a relevant expense.

I firmly believe the owners stance to be 100% financially motivated, and that this lockout is simply them flexing their muscles to get even more of what they don't remotely need. Until I see evidence to the contrary, which of course we won't. Or at least it will never be purposefully disclosed, and there's a really good reason for that.

The owners have leverage precisely because they're not making a profit. They would never forego the profit of staging professional basketball games just to squeeze out a few more pennies. In the previous two CBA negotiations, the players had leverage for that exact reason. In the recent NFL standoff, everyone knew it would get resolved because the owners stood to lose too much money.

This time around, the owners are willing to take the operating losses. Yeah, they're looking to get fat on this deal. They ate 2008. NBA Attendance declined in at least 2009. The players are simply negotiating at the wrong time. Presuming the economy fully rebounds (huge presumption), they would have been a lot better off negotiating next year or the year after. They're not. So they need to figure out how to lose this and stop crying about fair.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

1. They decertify this season is done. Almost guaranteed.

2. Their decertification is much more likely to be found illegal than the NFL's was. Thereby making it much more likely that they gain nothing by doing it. They have already proven by playing overseas that their are other options for basketball player where football players have far fewer options.

3. If they believed decertification was going to work they should have done it on the day the lockout was announced like they did in the NFL.

There are good reasons for them to try and decertify and hope it goes through. I find it very hard to believe that any of these players will see a dime this year if they go this route though. So their decision comes down to if they believe that decertifying will scare the owners into a deal. The reports I saw quoting owners seem to indicate they don't believe the decertification will hold up in court. Meaning they are unlikely to scare the owners into a deal.

Time is on the owners side here. They have a long time to make their money in the NBA the players have a very limited time to do the same thing. Decertification to me is going to shut down talks and force the owners into a hard line stance, IMO.

So no you don't have the worst case senario. Worst case senario for them is their decertification is found to be illegal and they lose all of their bargaining power putting them in a situation where they are going to lose all of the ground they have gotten the owners to move.

If their decertification fails then the owners are going back to the deal from 2 months ago and waiting for the players to cave. Hard cap, Non-guaranteed contracts and 47% BRI. If the players believe this is the best deal they will willingly get from the owners they should take it. Otherwise I believe the season is lost.

Again I believe if the union decertifies this season is done. ONce the courts get involved this process will drag out even more. Remember it took months for the hearing on the NFL decertification to even be looked at. Then it was quickly appealed and reinstated. That is with a judge who was pretty much hand picked by the NFLPA. No other judgement in the courts fell on the side of the players. And NFL players really have very few other options.

my understanding is that the nfl decertification was overturned because it was ruled to be fake...as in the players were still interested in negotiating.

My understanding is that the NBA players have a much better chance because they have proven through negotiation that the owners aren't offering any concessions.

Also the NBA has already filed to maintain their exemption from anti-trust laws even if the players decertify. Can somebody explain to me why the anti-trust exemption doesn't mandate profit sharing? Isn't the whole rationale of an anti-trust exemption that hte league is composed of teams who are not competing business entitities? At that point shouldn't that logic dictate that the teams split net profits evenly (ending this bizarre notion that the league is losing money just because some teams are located in inadequate markets)?


Only in this country do people seem to think teams from 2nd and 3rd tier locales have some divine right to be competitive for championships. If there isn't parity in this league, thats not because the rules are unfair - its because the world is unfair. New York and LA are bigger and better than utah and milwaukee at every single thing in the world. Why should basketball be any different?

Would you expect the top opera singers in the country to live and work year round in charlotte and minnesota, just so that you could enforce parity in opera perfomances with megalopolis like new york?

Small market teams like indiana and sacremento should simply be thankful that they have a team and get to see great teams visit their town to perform. That they're trying to rig the system to dilute the product to the point that they can compete is bad for the quality of the game.