View Poll Results: Should the players accept the current proposal by owners by Wednesday?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 77.42%
  • No - not a good deal, keep negotiating

    3 9.68%
  • No - not a good deal, decertify

    4 12.90%
Page 88 of 98 FirstFirst ... 38 78 86 87 88 89 90 ... LastLast
Results 1,741 to 1,760 of 1944

Thread: The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

  1. #1741
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    this is from something Matt52 posted a couple weeks back

    Now, the colors tell an important story. Strictly looking at the draft value and win percentage, you’ll notice lost of greens clustered together and reds clustered together. This hints that the two go pretty much hand in hand. If you draft efficiently, chances are you’ll be in good hands.

    But look at the third column of data which tells us how much money they’ve spent over that time. It’s subtle, but the pigments aren’t as closely connected.

    What we’re seeing is a strong tie between drafting efficiency and win percentage, but not so much for winning and payroll. In fact, draft efficiency alone explains 34 percent of the variability in a team’s record over the past decade. How much does payroll explain?

    Just 7 percent -- a tiny amount in comparison.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...e-balance-myth

    so exactly how, over time, is a big markets ability to spend the deciding factor in success?

    rather it was that big market drafting Kobe Byrant or Dirk Nowitski. Or it was that Small Market drafting Tim Duncan or Lebron. Or that highly attractive market drafting Dwayne Wade. If only everyone could have one of those guys....


    Now are big markets more attractive than small markets? Sure they are. I said that a long time ago. But because of spending? Well Cleveland spent and Lebron left, Orlando spent and Dwight still appears to be leaving, Denver spent and Carmelo left.... so saying its spending doesn't fit. Then it has to be something else big market teams offer... attention, endorsement deals, lifestyle, activity etc. Thats not because of spending.

    But you did say something that caught my interest:

    Because most of the big markets right now have good managers in place
    Unfortunately on the list in the link alot of the worst drafters are also some of the smallest and least attractive markets. Milwaukee, Toronto, Minnesota, Charlotte, Utah, Indy. They are the teams everyone talks about when mention teams who can't 'compete' with the LAs or the NYs. Teams that need the draft the most are also some of the teams that draft the worst.

    Maybe what the 'big market' teams need is a cap on their executive and management spending.... not on the player payroll. Lets get some of the scouting talent, that executive savy and experience spread around.

    Name me one team, just one team, who has been a perennial playoff team who is not consistently spending above cap. You can't do it.
    I already addressed this. How many perrennial playoff teams don't have a superstar? How many teams with superstars are incapable of spending? Yet how many bad teams spend? How many bad teams have superstars?

    Like I said... its superstars that make a team good... that leads to revenue... that leads to an ability to spend. NY and LA may not need a star to create revenue, but they still need a superstar to be successful.

    If those teams shared more of that revenue with the small markets... those small markets would have more to spend to. Like I said before... the goal should not be to bring everyone down to the weak and incompetent. It should be to help improve the weak and the incompetent.

    To your next question. If ALL other things are equal then the manager who has more money to spend will ofcourse have an edge. But the reality of the NBA is not all managers, players, locations and opportunities are equal. And thats why $ alone account for such a small % of success.

  2. #1742
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    No one has said it's impossible for small market teams to compete. But there should be restrictions in place that prevent a) teams from buying a Championship and b) elite players from simply banding together in the biggest market. Both appear to be how the NBA is moving, and I, for one, don't like it. Plus, when the majority of the teams are actually losing money, it's hard to blame it all on bad management.

    Like I've been saying. I'd just like to see the playing field levelled a little.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  3. #1743
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,935
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..
    First off, neither Matt or myself said the Owners should get anything. We've clearly been saying that we feel that it's in the best interest to the fan that the Owners win the negotiations. If you got the facts straight we probably wouldn't have been subjected to the rest of that statement, which doesn't make sense based on what we've actually been saying.

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    No one has said it's impossible for small market teams to compete. But there should be restrictions in place that prevent a) teams from buying a Championship and b) elite players from simply banding together in the biggest market. Both appear to be how the NBA is moving, and I, for one, don't like it. Plus, when the majority of the teams are actually losing money, it's hard to blame it all on bad management.

    Like I've been saying. I'd just like to see the playing field levelled a little.
    Right, that's important.

    I've been saying that unless that small market team can afford to spend over cap they can't sustain or improve on their success. If they don't spend they become a farm team to those who can and then we're back to rinse and start over again. This is the problem with the calculations provided on the Internet. They're mindless number crunches which are not capturing the nature of what is happening. To work hard and make all the right moves in a rebuild for five years, only to lose it and have to rebuild again in half that time is model for suckers. This applies to half the Owners for sure. Those Owners have been suckers for a while now and they're trying to fix that the best they can. In the old model only those teams who have deep pockets can have long term sustainability.

  4. #1744
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    It's very easy to say that from the outside looking in but you aren't sacrificing anything. The long term implication was a giveback of about $3 billion over the life of the CBA. Plus, since you know that when the next CBA comes around the owners will claim they are all going broke and the system doesn't work, you are going to be giving up even more. The new system would also effectively wipe out the middle class and place massive restrictions on player movement (ed. note: I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic argument on incentives vs. restrictions). Also, Ric Bucher has noted that there were somewhere around 30 issues that were unresolved in the latest offer. Obviously, the players would have lost on all of those once they signed on to the main points.

    Look, the players' tactics were awful and the PA (Hunter et al.) should be crucified for the crappy job they have done over the last 2 years. Absolutely criticize them for that. But the players have granted massive concessions to the owners and have all but got down on their hands and knees begging for the owners to throw them a bone. They haven't. The owners are prepared to lose the season to get what they want. Is the PA at fault? Absolutely, but letting the owners off the hook in all this is senseless. The owners wanted this. They got it. It's only fair they own it as well.

    Hey, maybe Apollo and Matt are right and the owners should just get whatever they want and the union should just agree. Owners want 99% of BRI. Players should just agree. Well, in that case, the owners don't need the union, right? No one needs a union, right? Let's just let players sign their own deals. Oh wait, that would be bad Apollo and Matt would say. So, we need a union? Don't we? Ah, there's the rub. The idyllic world of competitive balance requires a cooperative union agreeing to control the labour market by colluding with the owners. Odd, for all this talk of who is more important, turns out they need each other after all..

    You clearly have not been reading my posts or have any idea of my views of this situation.

  5. #1745
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,935
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I wasn't really thinking about the court date until just now. You know what? The Players really screwed up here. They waited way too long to play this card because if this thing isn't settled out of court then the season is lost. So pretty much the season is bleepin' lost. Man, that grinds my gears. There should have been a clear deadline for this and it should have been no latter than this time last month. As soon as they hit the deadline they should have acted on this stuff then. Ah well, at least I still have football.

  6. #1746
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    I wasn't really thinking about the court date until just now. You know what? The Players really screwed up here. They waited way too long to play this card because if this thing isn't settled out of court then the season is lost. So pretty much the season is bleepin' lost. Man, that grinds my gears. There should have been a clear deadline for this and it should have been no latter than this time last month. As soon as they hit the deadline they should have acted on this stuff then. Ah well, at least I still have football.
    The only thing to keep in mind is IF the players are successful, they will be able to claim triple the damages for this lost season.

    If they are not successful though, they are screwed.

  7. #1747
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    By many of the players signing elsewhere to play basketball I believe they are hurting their chances in the antitrust claim. The owners are not limiting the players opportunities to play basketball, they are limiting the players opportunities to play basketball in the NBA due to the lockout. Again, this comes down to choices which it seems many of the issues of the CBA tend to revolve around.

    Aaron Brooks is the latest to sign in China.

  8. #1748
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The only thing to keep in mind is IF the players are successful, they will be able to claim triple the damages for this lost season.

    If they are not successful though, they are screwed.
    How much the players will collect if the courts award them treble damages is still open to question. If a franchise who is already losing money has to pay $200 million in damages, it may decide to file for bankrupcy as it is unlikely to be solvent or in a position to be able to recoup these losses within a few years.

    Every surviving franchise will have an extra $10+ million in debt servicing every year and will have to cut expenses, including player salaries.

    Some players will come out ahead, others will be big losers in terms of career earnings as they may destroy their source of employment.

  9. #1749
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,935
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'm assuming it's player salaries x 3. I don't believe they're going to win for two reasons. First I think they're genuinely wrong. Second, we're talking about America here. It's one of the most corrupt places in the world right now. Who has more sway with politicians and the courts? Justice isn't a right there anymore, it's a privilege.

  10. #1750
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Second, we're talking about America here. It's one of the most corrupt places in the world right now. Who has more sway with politicians and the courts? Justice isn't a right there anymore, it's a privilege.
    I lived 30 years in Canada and 20 in the United States and frankly, I have not found justice to be significantly better or worse when comparing one country to another.

  11. #1751
    Raptors Republic All-Star slaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    By many of the players signing elsewhere to play basketball I believe they are hurting their chances in the antitrust claim. The owners are not limiting the players opportunities to play basketball, they are limiting the players opportunities to play basketball in the NBA due to the lockout. Again, this comes down to choices which it seems many of the issues of the CBA tend to revolve around.

    Aaron Brooks is the latest to sign in China.
    The market in question isn't the world, it's the United States. If the "market" was the world, then there would never be any successful antitrust or monopoly cases. It's why the EU, the US, Canada, Australia, etc. all have their own competition boards and authorities - they each are a "market". It would be akin to competitors getting together and colluding in Canada and then saying, it's fine, you can always go buy our product from someone in China or Brazil.

  12. #1752
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    The market in question isn't the world, it's the United States. If the "market" was the world, then there would never be any successful antitrust or monopoly cases. It's why the EU, the US, Canada, Australia, etc. all have their own competition boards and authorities - they each are a "market". It would be akin to competitors getting together and colluding in Canada and then saying, it's fine, you can always go buy our product from someone in China or Brazil.
    There have been many other more informed people who have discussed this in the media than myself. The issue for players is regarding damages. If current players in the NBA are up and leaving to play all over the world, the credibility in the players claim of damages is in great question. The NBA owners are not forcing players to play in the NBA, they do have options elsewhere if they choose to pursue them.

    Regarding the United States there is the ABA, NBDL (only teams with non-NBA affliation at this time), Texas Pro League, and the Premier Basketball League. I will have to respectfully disagree with your view regarding the options players have in the United States. The issue, once again, is the players choose to play in the NBA because that is where they will get the most money, even under these 'greedy' owners more recent proposal.

  13. #1753
    Raptors Republic Veteran Nilanka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Hugmenot wrote: View Post
    I lived 30 years in Canada and 20 in the United States and frankly, I have not found justice to be significantly better or worse when comparing one country to another.
    I think the point was less about the country, and more about the system. Odds are, the deeper pockets win this case.

  14. #1754
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,660
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Regarding the United States there is the ABA, NBDL (only teams with non-NBA affliation at this time), Texas Pro League, and the Premier Basketball League.
    Don't forget the newly minted National Basketball League of Canada! They sent out a letter to NBA players letting them know they could play here.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  15. #1755
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,935
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Bleak

    NBA owners had 20-minute conference call today in which David Stern updated them on labor situation. No strategy was discussed, source said.
    One ownership source doubts there's a season: "There's just not enough time. I imagine another effort will be made toward end of December."
    Source: Twitter @Chris_Broussard

  16. #1756
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,939
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    20 mins. huh? Cutting down on expenses or did everyone agree real quickly on the next move.

    Re: your justice in America post...we must remember that what happens in this case impacts all the other pro sports leagues (creates a precedence). Unlikethe Curt Flood case which was a milestone in fundamental rights of movement this is more of a financial dispute. The case in it's extreme could reach the supreme court and as we know they are a conservative/Republican majority. There are going to be a lot of heavy hitters with political & financial clout interested in how this all proceeds. Boies as well should know about the SC having dealt with the Bush vs. Gore case on the losing side. My own view is there is still time to save part of the season and some of the statements I hear from the player side and their legal support is that they just consider this a temporary manouver rather than a hard assed conviction of position.

  17. #1757
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    “The biggest thing for me is taking advantage of every opportunity that I have in front of me, and that’s how anybody should look at it. I’m 25 and I have a full life ahead of me, God-willing, and I have to do what’s best for me, and that’s it.”

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/howard-tal...unity-in-2012/
    Lockout in a nutshell:

    Howard has to do what is best for him which is why the league and owners have to do what is best for them.

  18. #1758
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Q&A with former NBPA head

    If I had to pick one article to sum up my views and position on the lockout, this would be it. In fact this article nails it. There are a number of other things I had not considered throughout this long Q&A. Well worth the read... if you still care about the league that is!

    Charles Grantham was executive director of the National Basketball Players Association from 1988-95, guiding them through record growth until he resigned after a disagreement with the executive board and then-union president Buck Williams. Grantham was part of the union during the signing four collective bargaining agreements since 1980. Grantham weighed in on the inability of NBA Commissioner David Stern and union executive director Billy Hunter to reach a deal when he talked with USA TODAY's J. Michael Falgoust this week:
    So what do you make of the players' decision to dissolve the union and go the legal route?

    I certainly think the overall players should've had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to proceed. You've got the group that disclaimed the union which are the reps and the executive committee, the 200 or so players who are (supposedly) being led by 25 agents and that big middle group we haven't heard from — the average guy who is risking his salary between $4 and $5 million.

    I'm perplexed as to how we go from agreeing to 50% ready to move forward and not recognizing that you can't get more than that no matter what the system says. When you start talking about missing the season, you have to consider a cost-benefit analysis. How much is it going to cost me as a player to get a system change? Is it worth me losing up to 25% of my salary? … They should probably spend more time on what that average salary is and if that average salary growth is guaranteed. … We've agreed to 50%. The 50% is still going to allow our average salary to grow to $8 million (over the life of a 10-year deal because of projected 4% growth each year). What it sounds like the NBA is saying is that your 50% in this deal going forward is going to, in real numbers, be more than the 57% you're receiving in the last deal. The average salary is going to go up every year.
    How does the NBA's claim that 23 teams are losing money factor into this negotiation?

    If you buy the concept that the league is losing money and their teams are having difficulty you have to be concerned about that as a union because you don't want the prospect of losing any teams. I'm not certain this move is good for the them. I can see where it's good for the antitrust attorneys who might be charging as much as $1 million a week in fees or the agents who see that seven-point swing (from 57% to 50% BRI) as adding up over time as quite a bit of money. But it also is money that hasn't been earned. Theoretically you're losing that money, but at the same time the pie is bigger and the average salary is increasing.
    Then how can players still believe that number from the NBA is exaggerated?

    When we first engaged in this revenue sharing (1980) four teams at the time, all the ABA teams, had came in. It's not that they were claiming that they were losing money. After our examination as well we concluded they were losing money. The question is if there is an auditing process, you've got to use that auditing process so when the league suggests that X number of teams are losing money you should know whether they are or not. If you've done your due diligence and your auditing over the term of the agreement, not the end of the agreement, but during that agreement every year then you pretty well know what the financials look like on a team-by-team basis. So I'm only assuming that because they went from 57 to 50 that they did exactly that. You can't come back and say, "We think." You clearly didn't reduce your percentage because you "think" they're losing money. You had to utilize your resources to conclude after an examination that in fact is true
    You believe if players were better informed they would've demand to vote on this deal?

    If I'm a player who's making an average of $5 million and I've got four more years on my contract why would I vote this down? The fact that it's not exposed to the entire 450 players would raise that question as to whether or not all the players are totally informed and what it actually means to them individually. In addition, should they lose half of the season or a full season — and the average player plays four years — you're telling me a player should give up 25% of his career for a deal that seems on the face not to be as punitive as it is being described?

    When you sit down and negotiate you're trying to get the best deal you can. There's no question the players are getting less going forward. But that may be the cost of working, the cost of doing business if in fact you buy or have bought the fact they are losing this kind of money. If you've agreed to go from 57 to 50 how does a system change which will not allow you to spend more than 50% prevent you from working?
    Do you view this is as a partnership between players and owners?

    They are quasi-partners. Where the players get confused, they are not partners. They're employees. They're not partners. Theoretically they are partners because they're sharing revenue and that it can be a partnership in that we're both trying to promote the game of professional basketball, but (players) make no partnership decisions. (Players) have no input on decisions going forward as a team, or as a league. I help define an agreement between the players and owners which defines how they both make money vis a vis the collective bargaining agreement. Let's not get this twisted. (Players) don't sit in the boardroom.

    Did you feel that way as head of the PA?

    Of course. I never felt this was a partnership. Of course my philosophy was to keep the guys working because they lose income that's not recoverable.
    What was it like dealing with Stern, who has been criticized by players for issuing ultimatums during negotiations?

    Any negotiation is hard when you're trying to divide money. What I can say is faced with difficult issues in the past, we've always been able to come up with solutions to the problem. I've been involved in litigation as well. The critical time, this goes back to 1978, '79, '80 when the NBA wasn't so fantastic and the NBA Finals was shown on tape delay, so what do you do? You have to say, "Look there's a problem here. We have to solve the problem." I don't find David to be an autocrat or a dictator. I don't see him as that. I look at him as a businessman trying to solve an issue. I always perceived when we negotiated a new deal that it was a business deal and not a legal one. Often that's where the conflict comes in.
    Has this negotiation become more personal than about numbers?

    It takes on more of a legal battle than it is a business one. No matter … how much they create this schism between management and labor, the bottom line is they're going to still have to get together and negotiate a deal and that deal is about the business of basketball and it's about (every) 100 dollars and how you divide that 100 dollars. It's a business issue first to be enveloped in a legal document called the collective bargaining agreement. It's not the other way around. Today we spend too much time in the court with too many lawyers when in fact instead of having 10 lawyers and an economist you should probably have 10 CPAs or forensic accountants, two lawyers and you move forward from there because the sophistication of the business calls for analytical tools that critically examine the nature of the business, how it's growing and where the sources of revenue are, how you can find new ones and ultimately what is the players' fair share of that. That's business terminology. That's not the law. In this case, you're looking to use the law to gain leverage to get yourself a better business deal where in fact the negotiations that should be taking place with regard to how you divide that 100 dollars.
    So you're suggesting the players' emotion got in the way of common sense?

    I've always felt what's most important thing in these negotiations and how you prepare from a business standpoint. It seems in the last month, maybe even from the very beginning, they brought too much emotion to negotiation and to a large degree that has driven them to a point that their resolve has been challenged. It's not a question of resolve but the judgment that's most important.
    If you go back and think about what happened in the NHL, they had a lot of resolve for the whole year. They missed the entire year. The union leadership failed to diagnose the winds of change that a salary cap is coming. They failed to recognize that was true. They had great resolve but made a poor judgment. I see that as similar here. A lot of that has to do with the experience and the maturity of the people who own teams with the lack of experience of players and in some regard their leadership. What often happens here you're not prepared to leave your emotions at the door. These are hard-fought business negotiations.
    Who specifically isn't prepared?

    Preparation is more about a plan of action and being able to deal with all the unexpected that come along and having answers. It seems clearly the owners are far more prepared for that outcome. What is the end game?

    In concessionary bargaining, so when you're losing a percentage (like the players), that's a time for the union to pursue other quality of life, improving the pension plan, improving medical, you have to be more creative.
    Did Stern ever issue you an ultimatum?

    Negotiation is negotiation. That means one side is trying to get what they consider their share and the other side is trying to get what they consider their share. It's a business transaction here. Whether someone issues ultimatums … this is not about getting your feelings hurt. It's about dollars and cents. Ultimatums are a part of negotiations. Do you accept the ultimatums or do you keep moving on and keep negotiating and pressing your case? I think those things are overblown. You're hearing a lot of that right now. The league is just saying, "We're going to change the offer that we have on the table." Is it an ultimatum if I say if this one isn't accepted the next offer is not going to be better? Maybe you want to accept the lesser offer? (laughs). I doubt I, but now you're moving into an area of uncertainty. The more games you lose the less likely that 50% will remain constant.
    You think the players have made a wrong turn with antitrust lawsuits filed in Minnesota and California?

    It makes you question the timeliness of this lawsuit with such pressure and put so much salary in jeopardy when it appears there's very little return on lost income that cannot be made up again. The risk is so much greater. Now you sit out there and wait because in football … the court (lifted the injunction) and came back with the decision it was a lawful lockout.

    If you notice in the (NBA players) lawsuit there's no application for an injunction to stop the lockout. To a large degree, there's no (request for) injunction because there's a high level of a burden of proof to actually win that. In the long run, you realize it would be very difficult to reach that standard. You have to wonder why that was not done. It should probably tell you about the strength of your litigation.
    Is this solely to get the owners back to the table than win a labor case?

    I think it's flawed, the entire legal strategy. Most people feel it's a negotiation strategy. You've already reached 50-50 and you've turned that down and decided to press an anti-trust lawsuit for damages. These anti-trust lawsuits can take forever. They first have to determine what jurisdiction it will be heard. That could take a month. After that you're going to have a hearing, have to make your cases, etcetera. … Are you going to predict this is going to be settled before Christmas? The timeliness of this has put them at a disadvantage. If you assume it takes a month or so to get the season up and running, the offer probably would be worse and I don't know you'll be able to get management back to the table at this point for the 72-game schedule that David (Stern) had proposed. They really have jeopardized the season. I'm not certain it's worth it.
    If there's no 2011-12 season, you think the owners will end up offering players less than 47% BRI?

    The only thing we have as a prior experience is the NHL in 2005. They lost an entire season, after which the following season they faced a rollback in salaries in addition to the lost season.
    Do players have any hope of winning the "good faith" argument?

    The NBA has made the same claim against them. The thing that bothers me about the litigation is it's full of such uncertainty and the standard of proof any one of those claims is so difficult and the time consumed for that thing…Of all the litigations in the NBA, of all the anti-trust lawsuits not a single one has ever been adjudicated. Not a single one. They all resulted in settlements and when they settle it's the lawyers that make more money.This antitrust lawsuit is filed in November and it will be settled, a year from now, six months from now, the Oscar Robertson one lasted six years in final settlement. The players can't stand the time it would require to have this thing adjudicated because every player in the league right now who's been in the league three or four years their careers would be over. That means nobody wins. It's clear what the litigators expect: That at some point they relent, they come in, we work a deal they come and we settle and everybody's happy. More importantly they hope the threat of litigation is going to scare somebody.

    Who represented the owners in the hockey confrontation? (Law firm) Proskauer Rose. Who represented the football owners? Proskauer. And who's representing the basketball owners? Proskauer. Hockey players showed resolve. Basketball players showed resolve. But what happened to that resolve? When they came back they all had to take a 25% cut in pay. But they had the resolve. Resolve and judgment are two different things. Judgment is more important than resolve in these long-term negotiations. Good, solid financial judgment. You go back to who is going to best benefit from this? The benefactors are the agents and the lawyers who represent them than the players overall after you analyze each facet of the deal. This is concessionary bargaining, there's no question about that. It was about concession.

    I hear the players talking about they're willing to do this and that for the future. But the future is still good for the players coming behind you. I always look at these labor deals as good, better and best. Everyone is going to do pretty good. If you maintain the guarantees of the average salary then this deal turns around and looks a little different

    When you're looking down the road and the agents are looking at their future clients, it's a little different ballgame.
    Having Proskauer Rose gives the owners yet another advantage despite the players having a star litigator in David Boies?

    Proskauer represented all sports. This isn't new in terms of these types of allegations they're facing. Look at the NFL, look at hockey, then people often forget that (NFL Commissioner) Roger Goodell came up through the system. (Major League Baseball Commissioner) Bud Selig was a former owner. (NHL commissioner) Gary Bettman worked as general counsel for the NBA. And you've got David Stern who is a former anti-trust litigator himself. It baffles to some degree that this particular time to advance an anti-trust suit, boy, talking about a long-shot. I don't know that bringing forth of this anti-trust suit at this time will create the effect they expect. From the very beginning I was saying I'm optimistic there'd be a season. For the first time I'm beginning to think there's a good possibility there won't be one.
    Are you saying they couldn't pick a worse time because of the weak economy or because it's just too late?

    It's the timing. If you think about the strategies that were employed even in the NFL, the concept of decertification is much earlier in the process. Not at the end of the process.
    Is too much being made of the players having Boies as their attorney?

    He's noted for a couple victories but also because of a couple losses. It's a little overstated.
    When union attorney Jeffrey Kessler compared Stern to a plantation owner, how does that harm the ability to negotiate?

    It's inflammatory. It's totally unnecessary. It can only lead to more division at a time when you're trying to make a business deal. This is an economic issue. It's not a race issue.
    How do you feel about the slavery references being used in pro sports?

    You have to know your history. It was Curt Flood who challenged the reserve clause in baseball that tied the players to teams (for life). That's what tied them to the owner. And that's what tied them to "the plantation." But that also was for white guys. Before Curt they were all white guys who were involved in this reserve clause madness. The union leaders used that as momentum to rid themselves of that reserve clause. That sprung everybody free. It freed all the slaves (laughs). Then basketball and football followed. That plantation concept was there before many blacks played in the baseball league. … This is a freedom issue for all baseball players. Not just the black baseball players. You had white guys asking the same questions, "Are we ever going to be free?" That's where it comes from.
    At any time, did players have leverage?

    Leverage does float a little bit. It can change. But from the beginning that was one of the more difficult things. It's can you create any. The time, the wait, the timeliness of the sessions point to trying to navigate and create leverage. But the answer is no. You've got no leverage. If you don't, how can you come to deal quicker? If there's no leverage how do you address this whole concept of lost income. If you have no leverage you don't want to stare lost income in the face. Ultimately when the deal is signed, could that deal have been had six months ago? Those are the questions that are going to be raised as time moves on.
    So players who anticipated needing to stretch their income the last few years to compensate for not getting paid during the lockout doesn't equal leverage?

    That's what I call resolve. I understand that resolve creates leverage. I'm saying the resolve and bad judgment creates no leverage. The lawsuit does not create leverage.When you think through this whole thing you have to come back and ask yourself where average salaries are and where average salaries will be guaranteed to go by the end of the deal. The forecast is revenue will continue to rise. As long as your salaries are tied to that revenue, then the average salary will continue to increase.
    SOURCE: USA TODAY

    I knew David Stern was a lawyer but did not realize he was an anti-trust lawyer.

  19. #1759
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,939
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    If I had to pick one article to sum up my views and position on the lockout, this would be it. In fact this article nails it. There are a number of other things I had not considered throughout this long Q&A. Well worth the read... if you still care about the league that is!
    SOURCE: USA TODAY

    I knew David Stern was a lawyer but did not realize he was an anti-trust lawyer.
    Wow, that was quite the case...but not exactly earth shattering since most of it has been discussed here at one time or another. But to see it all capsulized in an interview...

    Both David Stern and Gary Bettman are alumni of the law firm Proskauer, Rose. You can visit Wiki for more info.

    Emotion in a business negotiation and gamble = trouble. Is that why so many marriages ....

  20. #1760
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    18,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Bendit wrote: View Post
    Wow, that was quite the case...but not exactly earth shattering since most of it has been discussed here at one time or another. But to see it all capsulized in an interview...

    Both David Stern and Gary Bettman are alumni of the law firm Proskauer, Rose. You can visit Wiki for more info.

    Emotion in a business negotiation and gamble = trouble. Is that why so many marriages ....
    That is what blew my mind on the interview. It is really good journalism which can be rare these days.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •