NBA Lockout Update: NBPA Rejects Owners' Deal, Ask For System Changes
by Mike Prada on Nov 8, 2011 5:19 PM EST
in Links
Email
PrintThe NBA Players Association has announced its intentions to reject the owners' current proposal on the table, in spite of a Wednesday ultimatum that David Stern spelled out. In a press conference aired on NBATV, Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter announced that the current offer, one that suggests a 50/50 split of Basketball-Related Income and a number of system changes, is "not one we can accept."
"Not under any circumstances will they give us a position of weakness and give us ultimatum where we have to negotiate for a specific deal," Fisher said.
Fisher and Hunter, speaking for 43 players who attended the NBPA meeting, said they are willing to accept the BRI split, but only if there are system changes made. Hunter specifically noted the mid-level exception, sign-and-trades for luxury tax teams, the more punitive luxury tax and others as the issues on which the players would like to see the league move.
"We're open-minded about potential compromises on our [BRI] number," Fisher said. "But there are things in the system that we have to have"
Hunter said he plans on calling Stern in the next 24 hours to arrange a meeting and "anticipates" it will happen. He said he expects the original offer to remain on the table past Wednesday, but said that he's heard through the "underground" that games may be cancelled through Christmas if the talks break down.
Also, he got one more jab in at Michael Jordan.
"I would give him the advice he gave to Abe Pollin," Hunter said when asked about Jordan's stance as a hard-liner.
For more on the NBA lockout, visit SBNation.com's StoryStream.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hunter and Fisher go spelunking
Almost over now…they caved on the main thing they said they wouldn’t without a single concession from owners. Who here believes they will stop now.
Players will get what they deserve amd Hunter would be fired if it were up to me for his lack of ability to hold the players together because this is obviously due to a lack of solidarity. Bad strategy or bad communication. Either way, they declared a line in the sand and kept moving it back towards them. Reminds me of an old bugs bunny and yosemite Sam cartoon.
Terrible negotiation. Nothing more to say. Smh.
by DavidDunn on Nov 8, 2011 5:32 PM EST via mobile reply actions
The reason the NBA has a Union is
Be able to create a set of rules (without being subject to anti-trust laws) that govern how players get paid.
These rules make sure that
A. The majority of the players or the so called ‘middle class’ gets paid handsomely and
B. puts restrictions in place that allows owners with less money in smaller markets to compete with their peers.
The problem is that some of the system rules that help A, hurt B. since richer teams can use them to work around their mistakes while the less fortunate market teams can’t.
More so than the BRI split, this is the core of the lockout to me and it should be for the owners as well.
Any team in any market (currently in the NBA) should be able to make a profit or break even most of the yrs, especially in a better economic climate than we have today. Even with rather small operational profits or losses the ROI will still be significant if you take into account what owning a franchise means for an owners’ other businesses ánd the selling prices they’ll eventually receive when selling the team. IMHO, teams that cant be profitable under a 52-48 split even if they sell out or when in better economic times, should just be contracted or moved to a better sports market.
It’s the system that needs to be improved in order to enhance B. Thát’s what makes the league more attractive while competing for our leissure-time-dollars with other forms of entertainment.
The players now budging on the BRI split in exchange for less severe system changes tells me that they (NBPA) still think the owners value money saving over parity like they said from the beginning. I’m afraid they’re right though and that Stern will budge on some of the system issues while having already giving up on the hardcap in this current proposal
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 8, 2011 6:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
IMHO the owners don't care about changes for parity at all.
because a crappy market like the Spurs have been a dynasty and a nothing market like OkC are knocking on the door of greatness. Drafting the right players both through sheer luck (hello John Wall) and impressive acumen (Manu/TParker) are how you win in the nba. Market size is closer to irrelevant than critical (Memphis on the rise), and when a guy like Ted talks about parity all he is really doing is SELLING you a plan that will make him more money by requiring him to spend less.
Great point...
There was an article recently that did a comparison between payroll spending and winning – and it found that there was very little correlation…
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
This again?!
Correlation is not the same as causation
Yes drafting good players helps you win games but
A Rookie deals are capped off and eventually expire, then the players need to get paid
B The supporting cast (other than the drafted ones) needs to be signed or traded for and cost a lot of money too.
Bottom line: If you want to keep contending you need to spend big eventually and if you make a mistake or are so unlucky to get an injury you need to spend even more to get around that to stay competitive.
I.E. Teams that can spend more are in a better position to compete. Good management can account for that disadvantage somewhat but richer teams can have good management too, just like the smaller ones. Rich teams can have luck too, just like the smaller ones and so the innate appeal of a NY or LA combined with the money advantage will always put those teams in a better position than others. The appeal factor can’t be changed, but the money part can. Through the system.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 9, 2011 4:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
When was the last time NY was any good?
Not truly since they had Patrick Ewing, #1 pick in the draft. How many team really have this big advantage you are talking about?
About 6 I think
Money and an appealing market can be severely hampered by incompetence and NY is a great example indeed.
But you have to acknowledge that both big and small market teams can have good or bad management. Both big and small market teams can be lucky or unlucky in the draft or with injuries.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 9, 2011 8:57 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
definitely, i just dont see how a hard cap would change things significantly
Teams can already sign their draft picks for more money than the competition, so a player has to turn down more money to leave. The Heatles took less money to play together, Miami’s payroll was $65mill last season which isnt that high really. What would a hard cap really change significantly? Other than give cheaper owners a built-in excuse to claim they can’t improve the team through FA?
If there's a hardcap and players sign for significantly less to be able to win
Thumbs up for those players and there’s nothing you can do about it. If anything I love to see atheletes value winning over money.
I don’t even dislike James, Wade and Bosh for teaming up with eachother while taking less money. What I want to take away though is the ability to sign 2 or 3 more good players via exceptions that others can’t afford. (they were unlucky with Miller’s injury, but still)
What I really like to eliminate is Melo being able to sign for more ánd get traded to NY. What I lile to eliminate is signing Haywood for 10 million and then signing Chandler for a nother team while already be over the cap etc.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 9, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Dwyane, Chris Flop and LeBoob didn't take extreme cuts from the max
so let’s not kid ourselves here. They just gave back just enough money so Mike Miller could sign.
Fine, but you get my point
Sacraficing money to form a super team is something no system can stop and it’s perfectly fine for players to do so
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 9, 2011 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
Theoretically impossible maybe
But you could definitely come up with a system that functionally stops superstars from taking less money to form a superteam.
What if you allowed each team to have one “franchise player” on the roster who was not subject to the max salary restriction. Then, dial back the max salary (rename it the “max sidekick salary”) to, say, $9 million per year. Would LeBron take $9 million to play with Wade if he could get $30 million or more somewhere else?
Yeah I guess you could
Players would never agree though I think
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 9, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe tie it to a higher percentage of BRI
The rank and file get a smaller fraction of the pie, but because the pie itself is bigger, their piece stays the same size.
Small market owners might go along with it if it gives them enough of a cost advantage to hold onto their free agents and compete for a championship. If the system is structured right, it may also induce the big market owners to spend enough so that the small market owners are able to regain through the escrow and luxury tax systems what they give up with the BRI division.
Miami will have to hit the luxury tax maybe not in 11-12
but will likely have to starting in 12-13 or 13-14. If LeBron, Chris, and Dwyane do not opt out of their 2 year options, then it’s almost inevitable that the Heat will have to hit the tax. If they opt out and stay, they could take a little less money to stave off the tax for a year or so, depending on where revenues go.
OKC will likely have to hit the tax in 13-14 or 14-15 to keep their current core. Russell Westbrook will get a max deal in 12-13 under the last deal. Harden, Maynor, and Serge Ibaka are all due for pay bumps in 13-14. Even with Nate Robinson and Nazr Mohammed’s deals off the books, they’re still probably going to have to hit the tax to keep that team together. Fortunately, OKC makes more revenue right now than it otherwise would if the team were in a state like Sacramento, and the discounts STH’s get for their tickets is much less than it is for the Wizards.
That would be all well and good...
… if LeBron stayed in Cleveland and DHoward (and Shaq before him) stayed in Orlando. If Kareem stayed in Milwaukee…
That one fact (the fact that these small markets don’t have a realistic chance of hanging on to those draftees that could change their fortunes) is what exposes that argument as false.
stern will talk to billy but i don't think there will be negotiations.
the hard liners do not want it and may say no, even if stern wants to.
by thewiz06 on Nov 8, 2011 7:46 PM EST via mobile reply actions 2 recs
So the Union is for 50/50 now but want to change everything else?
They are so messed up.
by jmpalomo on Nov 9, 2011 4:20 AM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
What are you talking about?
The players never agreed to the mediator’s “what if’s” that Stern has adopted. The NBPA has every right and obligation to see if they can get more favorable terms since they are going from 57% to 52.5% to now 50%. Was it messed up that owners essentially stayed firm on their 50% but “compromised” on the" what if’s"?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
