What's new
By:
Filters

Lockout!!!

TheItinerantSon said:
Also, free agency agency is an american value. Restricting it, and player choice, the way this deal essentially does is really unamerican.

.
Click to expand...

"Free Agency" isn't an American value. LIBERTY is an American value. Liberty goes both ways. They are free to play for the NBA or play somewhere else. No one is forcing them. NBA teams, while they compete against each other on the court, are not competing businesses, they are FRANCHISES of the same business, the NBA. Just like if I choose to work for Pizza Hut in SLC, UT, that doesn't mean I can just decide to go work for Pizza Hut in LA. The company has the right to have me work for them where I do them the most good. If I don't like it, I am free to go work somewhere else or start my own competing company. The NBA, as a private company, should have the right to structure and run their business any way they want.

While I don't think the owners are angels by ANY stretch of the imagination, the players need to get a grasp on reality. They are PRIVELEGED to get paid millions to play a game. They sign up to do that. They are not required. They are also free to go play in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else.

They need to accept this deal and get on with it. Otherwise, I would love to see them decertify and a group of players form another union and agree to a contract with the NBA, leaving the current crop of self important, spoiled rich kids to take their ball and go home.
 
TheItinerantSon said:
with a hard cap they wouldnt be full guarantees...it would be impossible. i think the new cba, while it doesnt ban guaranteed contracts, also doesnt require them.

also @ricbucher says
New proposal would allow teams to send players to NBDL first 5 years of career and reduce pay to pro-rated 75K. Talk about non-starters.


if thats true...its a poison pill.

Also, free agency agency is an american value. Restricting it, and player choice, the way this deal essentially does is really unamerican.

i dont think the players should give on the BRI, but they've dropped all they way down to 50-50 - far lower than baseball, football and hockey. If the owners still want to make these punitive changes just because they're butt-hurt that lebron left cleveland for a warmer weather small market team thats too bad, and the players shouldnt let them get away with it.
Click to expand...


You have got to be kidding me. I know of plenty of people who have jobs and have needed to relocate. They didn't want to relocate, but they HAD to for their jobs. And guess what they still had their agency. If they didn't want to move, they didn't have to, but they would have lost their jobs. And I've never heard of another company that if an employee wants to relocate that that company needs to grant that wish. Really stupid post.
 
SuperBob said:
They are free to play for the NBA or play somewhere else. No one is forcing them. NBA teams, while they compete against each other on the court, are not competing businesses, they are FRANCHISES of the same business, the NBA. Just like if I choose to work for Pizza Hut in SLC, UT, that doesn't mean I can just decide to go work for Pizza Hut in LA......the players need to get a grasp on reality. They are PRIVELEGED to get paid millions to play a game. They sign up to do that. They are not required. They are also free to go play in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else.

They need to accept this deal and get on with it. Otherwise, I would love to see them decertify and a group of players form another union and agree to a contract with the NBA, leaving the current crop of self important, spoiled rich kids to take their ball and go home.
Click to expand...

....very good post and observation! Perhaps they could get a job at Pizza Hut as delivery boys....since they could cover up those jailhouse tats.....and not be noticed so much in the dark!
 
Another American Value is the right to vote. It would be a travesty if the Union prevents its own constituents the right to vote on this deal. Let the players decide if they want the bad deal.
 
I'm very skeptical that we are going to have a season. A lot of the players have big egos and they can't see far beyond the rims of the baskets, so they aren't concerned about how their decisions affect other people.
 
Hahaha, this is great.

Piss on the NBA, I've spent my last dollar on your merchandise, your TV packages, and your tickets. This is liberating stuff, really.

I remember when I decided MLB could eat the corn from my brown-round, and I've never looked back. There is so much more to do in life than watch what the NBA has become.
 
write4u said:
I'm very skeptical that we are going to have a season. A lot of the players have big egos and they can't see far beyond the rims of the baskets, so they aren't concerned about how their decisions affect other people.
Click to expand...

...or themselves, for that matter! They don't seem to realize that a missed check cannot be made up again. And the longer they hold out the more checks they miss....never to be recovered. Plus, there basketball clock is ticking away.....they ain't gettin any younger, that's for sure!
 
The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.
 
billyshelby said:
The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.
Click to expand...

I actually think this is a "blood" issue for the owners. Without the steep tax, big market teams are not afraid to use the mid-level every year, and attract the "best" average players. Think of how many mid-level exception contracts end up being good for a team. Not many?

Low tax penalties allows for big markets to have the upper hand on selecting free agents every year. If fewer teams are willing to use the mid-level because of the penalties, some of that talent will spread to small market teams that are not over or at the cap.
 
TroutBum said:
Hahaha, this is great.

Piss on the NBA, I've spent my last dollar on your merchandise, your TV packages, and your tickets. This is liberating stuff, really.
Click to expand...

.....I'm with the troutbum all the way! When the season gets completely shut down.....I'm taking a break from this board for 60 days....which will also give me a chance to clear up some of the bogus infractions I have accumulated!
 
billyshelby said:
The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.
Click to expand...

The thing that has always confused me was why the players are so hung up on this. They are guaranteed a certain amount of BRI. Whatever amount of luxury tax paid will only affect which players are paid which amount exactly and where they would be playing. The players as a group will be paid the same amount roughly.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I actually think this is a "blood" issue for the owners. Without the steep tax, big market teams are not afraid to use the mid-level every year, and attract the "best" average players. Think of how many mid-level exception contracts end up being good for a team. Not many?

Low tax penalties allows for big markets to have the upper hand on selecting free agents every year. If fewer teams are willing to use the mid-level because of the penalties, some of that talent will spread to small market teams that are not over or at the cap.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about easing the penalties, not doing away with them. Competitive balance is not going to be greatly swayed by the scraps rich teams can pick up in accepting exorbitant taxes on role players. The owners need to address the players concerns for a middle class. They can do this by softening the spending hits. Small market teams should agree to this because A) they're still getting bigger checks for staying under the tax; and B) they have to accept some responsibility in this process -- ie., not handing out foolish contracts.

The owners have already won the most important battle -- profitability -- with the BRI and pending revenue share agreement. But they might not get to enjoy it if they don't sacrifice a little on the competitive balance front.
 
Last edited:
Qman said:
The thing that has always confused me was why the players are so hung up on this. They are guaranteed a certain amount of BRI. Whatever amount of luxury tax paid will only affect which players are paid which amount exactly and where they would be playing. The players as a group will be paid the same amount roughly.
Click to expand...
I think that the agents and/or the superstars are the ones driving the luxury-tax debate because they are the ones who are most likely to benefit from looser luxury-tax stipulations. Meanwhile, low-priced journeymen are more likely to be affordably sandwiched under the salary cap.

Your astute insight, Qman, sheds light for me on the notion that the agents and/or superstars--with their more abundant financial resources and higher likelihood of getting on camera than Joe Midlevel--have been disproportionately represented in the CBA negotiations overall--not just the luxury-tax discussion. The responsibility for ensuring that the entire union is represented rests squarely on the shoulders of the likes of Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher, and I am skeptical that the team representatives truly embody the sentiment of their respective teams (as evidenced by Raja's comments in contrast to informal interviews of other Jazzmen at the charity game). These union "leaders" appear to have listened too closely to the louder voices of the elites (and even their embarrassing screams sometimes; think D-Wade and Chrissy), thus causing everyone--owners, players, and fans alike--to suffer.

Ironically, the legacy of DF or BH--and perhaps their union jobs--would've been enhanced if they had been able to come to an agreement much sooner, which they could have done if they hadn't let these agents/elites control the dialogue so much. IMHO, it also goes to show that even an accounting degree (Fish) or a law degree (Billy Hunter and Jeffrey Kessler, the NBAPA lawyer) isn't always enough to lead and negotiate effectively, especially when dealing with relatively uneducated people such as NBA "professionals," whose views are further skewed by their inflated sense of themselves. Such a combination is something that some JazzFanz might believe that I have personal experience with :).

Update: Latest chatter is that players balk at the new negotiable/eliminatable "B list" clause allowing demotion of the 14th and 15th player of each team to the D-League for a reduced salary ($75K?) during the first five years of their careers.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/...s-unlikely-accept-owners-proposal-sources-say

I get why the owners want this. I also appreciate why the players don't, even if it affects only the end-of-the-benchwarmer youngins. If the owners refuse to drop it, it's a sign to me that they're willing to blow the league up and start from scratch (which would be interesting to see from an operational standpoint but very uninteresting to see the subpar basketball in the process, which could last years).
 
Last edited:
Qman said:
The thing that has always confused me was why the players are so hung up on this. They are guaranteed a certain amount of BRI. Whatever amount of luxury tax paid will only affect which players are paid which amount exactly and where they would be playing. The players as a group will be paid the same amount roughly.
Click to expand...

This is a good question. My assumption has been that players are returned their escrow losses and cut equal checks for overages in BRI. That would help the low guys, be insignificant to the high guys, and mostly hurt the middle class. In that scenario, the middle class would be getting checks for the profitability of the league that would be under what they could have formerly signed for under the previous agreement.

If payouts are a percentage of salary, ie. Lebron gets a bigger check than Sundiata Gaines, then I'm as confused as you.
 
billyshelby said:
The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.
Click to expand...

billyshelby said:
I'm talking about easing the penalties, not doing away with them. Competitive balance is not going to be greatly swayed by the scraps rich teams can pick up in accepting exorbitant taxes on role players. The owners need to address the players concerns for a middle class. They can do this by softening the spending hits. Small market teams should agree to this because A) they're still getting bigger checks for staying under the tax; and B) they have to accept some responsibility in this process -- ie., not handing out foolish contracts.

The owners have already won the most important battle -- profitability -- with the BRI and pending revenue share agreement. But they might not get to enjoy it if they don't sacrifice a little on the competitive balance front.
Click to expand...


I don't care about BRI. It doesn't affect me, the fan. I am concerned with competitive balance though and so the luxury tax issues are important to me. But I don't like them either - the principle is the same ie: rich markets can spend more than small markets. Making the taxes even more exorbitant doesn't necessarily make them a deterrent. Not for rich markets that can afford to throw money away. It just makes it so the small markets have to stay locked up under the salary cap. If you really want competitive balance then make it a hard cap. I hate the luxury tax.

There's been so much talk in the news about % BRI split - what do I care about that? None of that affects me whatsoever. I want the system fixed. I want competitive balance.
 
BENTLEY said:
I don't care about BRI. It doesn't affect me, the fan. I am concerned with competitive balance though and so the luxury tax issues are important to me. But I don't like them either - the principle is the same ie: rich markets can spend more than small markets. Making the taxes even more exorbitant doesn't necessarily make them a deterrent. Not for rich markets that can afford to throw money away. It just makes it so the small markets have to stay locked up under the salary cap. If you really want competitive balance then make it a hard cap. I hate the luxury tax.

There's been so much talk in the news about % BRI split - what do I care about that? None of that affects me whatsoever. I want the system fixed. I want competitive balance.
Click to expand...

Players .. Owners .. now, Bentley .. 3 separate and distinct aspects of prima donna.





;) (sorry, owners and players, didn't mean to add guilt by association to the already complicated equation)











:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top