Henry Abbotts take on System Issues; or; The idea of Parity Revised

by piccolomair on Nov 18, 2011 2:56 PM PST

Hi All,

I'm not one of you, I thought i should come out and say that much. I am not a fan of the Blazers Team (though i have liked several players on your team, Rudy Fernandez and Brandon Roy being the two biggest) nor do I live in Portland. So perhaps on that merit i can never possibly understand some of your positions on this recent Lockout and the issues that reside in it.

I post on this site right now to present an argument, or rather, to seek a possible rebuttle or just simply to observe your observations. I have in the past, and will probably continue to, lurk on this site and observe this Fanbase's reaction to several league wide issues or news. It was through my lurking that i eventually found a topic, or rather a reaction to a topic that intrigued me, so i inquired. While i dislike generalizing, it seemed to me that a majority of the members here, who i find are certainly intelligent, were very much pro-owner in the current lockout debate. While i do understand that everyone deserves their own opinion, i still wondered why were Portlander's so fond of the owners stance for Parity.

No, i dont think parity is wrong, in fact i am all for it, however, i felt the owners idea of parity, or rather their changes to create parity were flawed and in fact unfair. However (if you follow the link above) it seems there was a school of thought within B.E. that did not feel the same.

I dont come here to change your minds, believe me...i tried , but now more to query the B.E. mindset. So then i found this article (hat tip to Bullets Forever, a wonderful site even if you arent a Wizards fan) Written By Henry Abbott.

And it is here where I have a request. Please, read the following, and let me know what you think. I'd like to know if I am simply mistaken with my generalization that most of B.E. is for the owners idea of Parity, and if you honestly believe a Soccer like system would somehow create Parity, or if perhaps the article changed your mind.

The article can be found here: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33268/the-offer-that-should-have-been-accepted

I thank you for your time, and to any of those who wish to comment and explain a stance (even if you agree with me or just want to needlessly bash my attempt). I thank you all, and love the community of people on this site. Thanks for letting me post this long strange fanpost.

Tweet Comment 48 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It seems there's more here

It seems to me that something is being overlooked. Limiting player movement isn’t just about the chance to win a championship although I like the idea of the stars being spread out more because it makes for a more interesting game more often but that’s just me.

As an example, over a year ago, I could go root for the Blazers while seeing three games-Bosh work for Toronto, LeBron for the Cavs, and Miami show up with Wade. Now I can wait to go see Miami once to see all three and probably only hope for an upset win.

Part of the issue is about making money because having a more marketable star in each franchise means more merchandising opportunities and thus more of a cut. Maybe a team can promo their tickets better. If LeBron was still in Cleveland, the Cavs would be still be seeing financial opportunities come their way, etc. (I know the Cavs had good ticket sales after he left, but does one think that’s honestly going to continue).

It’s possible parity is being looked for in more ways than just championships.

by Interested on Nov 18, 2011 9:14 PM PST reply actions

I actually like the owners' last offer

There’s no way to get absolute parity in the NBA but I believe the extra restrictions on teams over the cap and in lux tax would be a tiny step in the right direction. I understand players’ argument that these restrictions negatively effect their ability to pick their teams.

I’m not after letting players pick their teams though. I’m after things that make the NBA better from a basketball perspective. If a player wants to play on a certain team they’re going to have to deal with the fact that may have to take a couple million a year less.

The NBA should be about more than providing players with high paying jobs, guaranteeing their contracts and letting them do what they want as far as player movement. Strangely enough, even with the latest owners’ proposal the NBA will continue to do all of this. It needs to provide a structure that allows all 30 teams a reasonable chance to compete and be successful.

Adjusting BRI means smaller market teams can spend more to compete before going into the red and it will be easier for revenue sharing to be effective. The system issue adjustments give teams under the cap and tax a better chance at beating out other teams on MLE signings.

The shorter contracts take some of the edge off bad guaranteed contracts and take an extra “lazy” year away from players that only bring it during a contract year.

It’s not even close to perfect but I wouldn’t mind seeing this CBA given a chance for at least 6 years. I think it’s a slight improvement on the old one. Guess we’ll see if the 50/50 proposal is even offered again at this point.

by poorwebguy on Nov 18, 2011 10:12 PM PST reply actions

I agree with Abbott about rookie deals and max deals, however

I think the changes being made give teams a better chance at competing year in and year out, the ability to rebuild more quickly, and puts more limits on player leverage in switching teams. I don’t like seeing Carmelo Anthony force his way out of Denver, I don’t want to.see Dwight Howard force a trade to the Lakers, and I’m tired of seeing guys underperform on their big FA deals and hijack a team’s cap for years. I think the owners system issues are concerned more with these problems than creating parity. If the players were for bigger max deals and inceptive laden rookie deals Id be all for that.

I think the players have managed themselves terribly, especially in the court of public opinion. Their arguments have been awful, while the league’s desire to overhaul the system makes total sense. The owners have annoyed me as well with their take it or leave it, condescending attitude, but unbelievably the plays have been worse with their ridiculous whining about not being treated fairly and how poorly they’ve handled the negotiations. The disclaimer move really pisses me off, because if they try to follow through on this it will guarantee the cancellation of this season and possibly next season, this should have been done much earlier.

by billsfan4life on Nov 19, 2011 7:17 AM PST reply actions

You are right...

BE is a hotbed of pro-owner sentiment, and it’s purely ideological, from what I’ve seen, meaning no rational argument against the owners stands a chance…

by flightrisk on Nov 19, 2011 9:10 AM PST reply actions

Oh, come now...

That’s unfair. I have seen all kinds of reasonable discussions on this website.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Nov 19, 2011 9:36 AM PST up reply actions

But not...

… on this particular issue. The thread below is a case in point: “The owners are right because the owners are right and the players are wrong and dumb and I hate them.” “Reasonable” breaks out here more frequently than it does on OLive, but not as much as it used to in the not so distant past.

by flightrisk on Nov 20, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

I've seen this from both sides

and it’s true for just about every topic in existence.

by poorwebguy on Nov 21, 2011 7:02 AM PST up reply actions

A response...

I think “hotbed of owner support” is probably true but not because the BE inteligentsia is pro-owner necessarily. When BE feels the ownership is wrong, they’re quite hostile about it. During the KP and Rich Cho firings, for example, there was plenty of hostility directed at Paul Allen. Ditto during the Brandon Roy and LMA contract discussions.

In this case, we find quite a bit of support for Paul Allen. Why? Because I think the owner’s position—despite their belligerence in negotiations—enjoy the superior stance. I have a friend who likes to point out the following: when lots of smart people independently arrive at the same conclusion, then you have to pay attention because it’s probably right. It’s simply not the case that a memo went out to all the BE folks who months ago were shrilly opposed to the GM firing(s) to support the owners in this case. They indeed independently arrived at the same conclusion.

You yourself point out the flaws in the system as does Abbot. Guaranteed contracts create indifferent players (indifference and “mailing it in” being one of the most corrosive effects of the NBA). I’m less impressed with the hard cap issues but, in general, I’m more supportive of caps in all sports leagues that are very hard. I like the idea of owners having to deal with real market issues and living with their decisions. Abbot points out that most teams are bad because they made bad decisions. I agree. I don’t like that those owners and GMs can hide behind this notion of money; hard caps eliminate that argument.

From the players side, Dave actually gave the most cogent argument in support of the players the other day: they feel like they ARE the league; that the league is making money off of THEM; and that they should be treated better.

I get that. But it also seems inarguable that they have the absolute best deal of any sports league. They’re arguing, somehow, that they deserve more than other athletes in other big league sports… and that seems kind of a strange position for me to take directly in the face of an economy and an environment of retraction.

I think you see support for the owners position because there’s a sense that they’re looking to fix the NBA as a whole… not that they’re scrabbling for more money. There is a very real sentiment among most fans to “fix” the NBA. Abbot doesn’t believe this new offer will do that but I think you’ll find broad support for at least trying.

So, in summary, the support here is for NBA fix, not for more money for owners. The overwhelming sense I get is that the players are not looking for an NBA fix but are looking for more money.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Nov 19, 2011 9:44 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Understandable, but the issue that Abbott was trying to make there

Is that the owners stated goals (increased parity) have almost nothing to do with the concessions that they’re demanding, while the players consider those concessions a deal breaker. The MLE limitations would have a potentially large effect on player mobility and almost no effect on parity, so it’s ridiculous that the owners would be wiling to blow up a season there. Especially when multiple ideas that would potentially have a large impact on parity that the players would probably be more amenable to were never considered, as Abbott points out.

And while I understand support for “the sense that they’re trying to fix the NBA as a whole”, but an amorphous sense is simply not worth canceling an entire season over.

by Royster on Nov 19, 2011 10:04 AM PST up reply actions

Some of the owners probably really do want a better chance to compete

It’s easy to claim the negotiations have nothing at all to do with parity and will have no effect on parity. From what I’ve seen and read, though, it seems apparent that some of these issues are very important to a solid chunk of the owners.

That the proposal doesn’t seem like it would be effective regarding parity doesn’t mean these owners didn’t try for more. Hard cap comes to mind and no MLEs for tax payers. It probably means, rather, that Stern dragged them kicking and screaming to a point he thought (hoped) he could get the players to agree to.

Just my take on it. It is an interesting discussion though.

by poorwebguy on Nov 19, 2011 9:52 PM PST up reply actions

I'm sure 100% of the owners want a better chance to compete

and regardless of their original proposals, which were still mainly about money. the final proposal’s deal breakers for the players had essentially nothing to do with inducing parity. It’s like claiming that you want to lose weight, but insisting that you’re going to do it by buying a new iPod.

by Royster on Nov 20, 2011 1:17 PM PST up reply actions

Have to wonder how much more Stern could get

out of the owners. Many of them wanted much more and probably weren’t willing to give much at that point. It will be interesting to see how the vote turns out in whatever CBA we eventually get up for vote.

I do believe that things that deal with finances and player movement can nudge parity in the right direction.

by poorwebguy on Nov 20, 2011 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

couldnt you make this argument going the other way

I have a friend who likes to point out the following: when lots of smart people independently arrive at the same conclusion, then you have to pay attention because it’s probably right.

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 19, 2011 10:37 AM PST up reply actions

Not in this context...

I was merely responding to the original post speculating why it is that BE specifically seems a hotbed of owner support. In that sense, I regard BE as collection of people where the majority (not the totality but certainly a majority) seem to have arrived at the same conclusion.

You are arguing vigorously below so I’ll simply offer one more reason why BE in particular is on the owner side (again, in general): Portland lives in fear of the Blazers leaving. After watching Vancouver and Seattle both depart quite painfully and the scare in Sacramento, I would say BE is more acutely aware of this than any other fanbase. Given that fear, it’s only natural that a team’s fanbase would tend to side on owners that argue for a stable system and don’t seem to favor big-market teams.

Throw out notions of “good faith” and whatever else you want, all we really want around these parts is for the team to stay in Portland. Even if it means sacrificing a season (or two) at least we get to keep the team. I’m all for that.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Nov 20, 2011 8:17 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

thanks for your answer

i was just referring that the your friends philosophy could be used going the other way (there are plenty of people who are intelligent who believe the players are in the right). I do understand the position of small market teams in a sense, however i suppose i have always disliked the use of phrasing of words like parity and equality, mainly due to the connotation of the words, if you are against the ideas that go along with those words somehow it means you are in favor of unfair or unjust treatment.

It ultimately isnt the nba, owners, or players (or fans) fault that there are such things as small markets and large markets. The nba, due to the nature of its sport, is unlike any other sport where a single individual can have such a tremendous impact on the success of a team, and due to that, a single individual can be given limitless bounties due to their success. These individuals (thanks to the era ushered in by Jordan and his Shoes) eventually grow themselves as players and as Brands, and in that regard most find it the best for them to go into large markets where they can grow quickly as brands.

I guess Portlanders arent really taking owner or player side but their own side. Because of the nature of the beast, they really dont care of what benefits either side loses so long as somehow some way, they can maintain not just their team, but the idea that their team can have some of the better individuals in the league and eventually a championship. So it makes since for blazer fans to be all for regulations that might somehow guarantee that those ‘evil’ big markets can usurp stars from them.

The only counter i could have to this idea is that Lebron, perhaps the biggest rising and most impactful player in the nba, went to a smaller market just to join up with two other great talents, one who happened to have been drafted by said small market. The last system, at the very least, and the one the players liked allowed such to take place. While we may hate lebron for him damning his possible legacy, he at least showed that some of the bigger stars arent just going to flock to a big market like chicago and new york, not for money at least.

still again, thank you for you answer, i wish my ramblings themselves make sense

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 20, 2011 1:05 PM PST up reply actions

You bet... I like your thoughts about individual talent

I think you’re right-on about idnividuals having way more impact on the NBA game than any other sport. Even QBs don’t have the individual contributions that basketball players do. In that sense, it’s hard to imagine an economics system where a superstar is ever getting paid what they’re worth.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Nov 21, 2011 9:56 AM PST up reply actions

I read your article; the very foundation of your argument is flawed.

You base your entire argument on your statement the NBA owners have put the season at risk. This is false. The owners did not file the lawsuit. The owners wanted to continue the negotiations in its prior format. It was the players that put the season at risk by filing the lawsuit. The sad part is, the players filed this lawsuit when there were only a few minor issues left to agree on. This begs the question, why? It appears to me the attorneys for the players did not want to settle. The attorneys did not want a vote by all of the players. The attorneys quickly followed this with a lawsuit on the eve of reaching an agreement.

The player’s lawyers and leadership changed the system for negotiating, not the owners. It will take the owners a good month to evaluate all of the legal options to find the best strategy against the player’s lawsuit. Then after the best legal strategy is decided on, only then can the owners start working on their new CBA negotiating strategy. The player’s lawsuit has slowed the process down to the point of putting the season at risk. You have built an entire argument around misleading information. Here is the kicker. The owners may find their best legal strategy is to take their chances in court. If the owners win, they write their own CBA. If the owners lose, they file for bankruptcy protection. Either way, the player’s legal filling will change the face of the NBA as we know it.

I am neither pro-owner, nor am I pro-player. I am pro-healthy-league. I agree with the owner’s position more often than the player’s position because the owner’s position provides for a healthier league more often than the players position. However, I do agree with the players on some issues. Both sides have made mistakes. The players just made the biggest mistake, not the owners.

It is time for the players to take a long hard look at the actions of their attorneys, agents and and player leadership.

by oldfishermen on Nov 19, 2011 1:04 PM PST reply actions

This is a lockout, not a strike.

The NBA owners have put the season at risk. They are the ones who are making the demands; they are the ones who are locking the players out. If this were a strike, and the players were proposing one-sided changes to the system, then the onus would be on them. That is not the case.

The problem is that the owners want to solve two completely different issues: profitability and parity. Instead of separating them and working with the players to address each issue, the owners are trying to force a one-sided “solution” that will ensure owners make profits regardless of how poorly they run their organizations.

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 19, 2011 6:11 PM PST up reply actions

make profits and compete regardless of how poorly they run their organizations.

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 19, 2011 6:12 PM PST up reply actions

The NBPA forced the lockout

The owner’s need for a new CBA system was made known to the NBPA 2 years before the lockout started. Here is a link to a Jan. 29, 2010 article by SI writer Ian Thomsen outlining the new system the owners needed. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/01/29/countdown.trade.deadline/index.html?eref=sihp

The possibility of a lockout was made known to the public a full year and a half before the lockout in this article. Despite this, the NBPA refused to bargain in good faith the entire time. The NBPA forced the owners to use the lockout card.

by oldfishermen on Nov 19, 2011 7:26 PM PST up reply actions

21+ months ago, agent Bill Duffy predicts union will disband and file antitrust lawsuits

• Other options. Agent Bill Duffy is among those who believes the NBA won’t be able to install a hard cap in 2011-12. “I’ve heard all of that [speculation],” said Duffy, who represents Yao Ming, Steve Nash and other stars. “If the league tries to go too far with this, then my prediction is the union will disband. If the league is going to try to force a hard cap down the players’ throat, then they’ll disband the union and file antitrust [lawsuits] against the league.”

by oldfishermen on Nov 19, 2011 7:45 PM PST up reply actions

Good faith?

How can you claim they refused to bargain in good faith? They agreed to reduce their percentage of BRI, and they were ready to agree to some system issues as well. A negotiation involves a discussion between two parties, not a dictum or ultimatum (that ultimatum, by the way, will feature in the lawsuits).

Of course the owners made their “need” known, but one man’s necessity is another man’s luxury. The owners don’t “need” a new system, as the recent sale of the Warriors and near-sale of the Atlanta Hawks illustrates. The NBA had to negate that sale because it was evidence of their lie: why would billionaires buy into a failing business if it is indeed a failing business?

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 19, 2011 7:46 PM PST up reply actions

Rather than bargain in good faith, this is what the NBPA did long before the lockout began

Nov. 23, 2010 Billy Hunter says..

“I’d be 99 percent sure as of today that there will be a lockout,” Billy Hunter, the executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, said in an interview at his Harlem office. "I’ve said, ‘Save your money because in all probability there’s going to be a lockout.’

Dec. 13, 2010 NBPA has their players begin to vote to decertify the union. The vote to decertify was rejected by the players.

Jan. 29, 2010 Billy Hunter tells players if there is a lockout, it will kill the 2010/2011 season. Does this sound like someone bargaining in good faith???

These are only three of the reasons I do not believe Billy Hunter was bargaining in good faith.

by oldfishermen on Nov 19, 2011 8:23 PM PST up reply actions

because the players dont think anything is broken

it was always the owners who have felt the system was broken. Ironically, it has seemed more like the owners are the ones not bargaining out of good faith by proposing several one sided concessions…

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 19, 2011 8:49 PM PST up reply actions

How does anyone know what the majority of players think?

The union would not let the entire player membership vote on anything having to do with the CBA negotiations. There was an active campaign by some of the players, led by Steve Blake, asking for a full member vote on the last owner’s offer. This request was ignored by the NBPA

How much more proof do you need the NBPA was not bargaining in good faith? It was the union’s responsibility to give the entire player membership an opportunity to vote on a proposal. The union failed at this responsibility.

by oldfishermen on Nov 19, 2011 9:17 PM PST up reply actions

guys like steve blake

want to fix an nba system that allow guys like steve blake to make 5+ million a year? Just cuz he wanted a vote on the last proposal doesnt mean he thinks the system is broken. You think steve blake nodded his head in agreement that the cba needed to be changed. Did you ever, ever, hear any nba play come out and say “yes the system needs to be changed”?

I shoudl also state that i dont think the nbpa are angels, i certainly believe that billy hunter is a selfish prick who is trying to get his more than help the players. However, that doesnt change the fact that the owners have been shafting the players every time “negotiations” came up. So while the nbpa might be making some dumb moves, it doesnt excuse the owners of being selfish imbeciles who want to idiot proof the nba themselves.

As a fan of basketball, I wanted the players to take the last proposal for no other reason than my own selfish gains. I WANT NBA BASKETBALL BACK. However, after i read the proposal (linked below) i could understand why the players couldnt accept that deal.

Oh yea, about the vote thing. You know why its a bad idea for the nbpa to put the proposals to a vote? BECAUSE ALOT OF THE NBPA ARE POOR! They arent going to make a rational long game decision in these regards, they are going to cave under the pressure of paychecks, and honestly, this isnt just about the money to the players, if it was they would never have dropped to 50% of bri.

The players have gotten nothing from the negotiations. The last proposal the owners offered was a farce. It presented the owners idea of concession being this; “Hey nba players, guess what, we arent going to take everything away from you. Instead…WE are going to take MOST things away from you. You sacrificed 7% of your bri which covers most of our losses and then some, we in turn, give you a new set of rules which is almost exactly like the last set of rules except for a few changes, which favor us. I know we are so kind, now accept before we do something mean”

Good faith indeed

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 19, 2011 11:21 PM PST up reply actions

What your post describes is a class system within the players group

The elite class players do let the poor class of players vote. That is un-American!
The union was not bargaining in good faith FOR ALL OF THE PLAYERS, They are bargaining for the elite class.

by oldfishermen on Nov 20, 2011 9:20 AM PST up reply actions

They are players' representatives.

The players choose their representatives; if they are unhappy with their team representatives, they can choose another. These representatives are not of the elite class (the elite class is off getting endoresments or playing in charity games). These Player Representatives exemplify the middle class of the NBPA more than anything else.

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 20, 2011 10:02 AM PST up reply actions

The different perspectives are obvious here

The owners have to think of their teams as businesses. They mentioned a couple years ago that the CBA was kicking their tales and needed wholesale changes. To them, as you say, the system was badly broken.

To the players the system was just fine. Money was always guaranteed. The only way to screw up financially was to spend yourself stupid. You could get a couple million a year as the 12th man and, if you got cut, you’d sign up somewhere else and collect on both contracts. Players think the owners are just grabbing for money. Whether this is true or not, many of them have no concept of how to run a business or manage money.

The whole “bargaining in good faith” thing seems overdone to me. I’m kind of tired of the owners and players mentioning the fans too. Whether proposals are one sided or not depends on the perspective.

Probably important to mention that players cost of living seems to be right up there with what they make in many circumstances. If that’s the case I can see why they might be freaked out at getting a smaller BRI bonus check or no check at all.

by poorwebguy on Nov 19, 2011 10:08 PM PST up reply actions

Prediction Does not Equal Causation

Just because a weathercaster can predict a storm does not mean that he or she causes that storm . . . Billy Hunter may have foreseen the lockout; that does not prove he caused the lockout. Hunter can be faulted for being a poor negotiator, but he can’t be faulted for not bargaining in good faith. Again, he was willing to go from 57% to 50% BRI. If that isn’t good faith bargaining, then what is?

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 19, 2011 8:32 PM PST reply actions

The last proposal

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2011/1113/nba_proposal.pdf

its not really that hard to see why the players rejected it, and its not about the bri, the system changes were heavily one sided.

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 19, 2011 8:55 PM PST reply actions

The players did not reject this proposal

The entire player membership was not given the chance to vote on this proposal. How do we know if it was good enough for them or not? When their only option is not working and missing paychecks, that proposal may look very good to a majority of the players. The fact the union did not give all of their players a vote on going back to work or not is a crime in my book.

by oldfishermen on Nov 19, 2011 10:04 PM PST up reply actions

did u honestly even read this?

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 19, 2011 11:22 PM PST up reply actions

My problem is, I read too much on all sides of this issue

In the end, it does not matter what you or I think of the proposal. It only matters what the majority of players thought about it. We will never know.

You are supporting a class system within the players group that gives all of the power to the elite class of players and denies the poor class. Including denying the lowers class of players the right to vote.

by oldfishermen on Nov 20, 2011 9:23 AM PST up reply actions

.

The idea that the players at large need to have the opportunity to vote on the owners’ offer is one of the most persistent (and pernicious) ideas that has sprung out of this whole discussion. The entire basis a union’s bargaining power is its unity. Once the union grants the idea that 50+1% of the membership at large is sufficient to approve a collective bargaining agreement two different things happen:

(1) The union loses legitimacy amongst a massive chunk of its membership. The next time you need to strike or try to hold a hard line in negotiations it’s going to be nearly impossible.

(2) There will no longer be a body charged with negotiating for the union as a whole that has any teeth. Management will simply tailor the worst possible proposal that will be approved by 50+1% of the membership.

At that point, why even have a union? The idea of a union steering committee that manages the negotiations and decides when to call a vote is central to the concept of collective bargaining. If the rank and file is unhappy with the actions of those representatives, their remedies are to vote in new representatives or decertify.

i keep dancing on my own.

by atomiccafe on Nov 20, 2011 11:08 AM PST up reply actions

The players only have two remedies? Really??

The union system as you describe it is ripe for abuse of power. I would think the players have other remedies available to them. Would you please explain what all of them are?

For the players not permitted voting rights on the proposal, especially those requesting a vote. These players may have a lawsuit to file against the union in the future. What would stop these players from filing for damages for salaries lost, and for the any difference in their income due to the players group later accepting a worse offer?

If I was a player, and I wanted to vote for the last owners offer, I would take steps to protect myself from the union. I would file a complaint letter with the National Labor Relations Board informing them of my desire to not only vote on the proposal, but to also accept it. This step would protect the player by making legal record to his position on the proposal in a timely manner. This would serve to prove his position if he later decides to file a lawsuit for damages against the union.

by oldfishermen on Nov 20, 2011 12:25 PM PST up reply actions

OK there is a third option

an individual can eschew the benefits of collective bargaining and seek out work on his own terms without the benefits or hindrance of the union.

Union members make a fundamental tradeoff by sacrificing their ability to individually negotiate contracts with employers, but theoretically they gain greater leverage by acting in concert. Frankly it sounds to me like you’re on the opposite side of unions on this concept.

The NLRB exists to oversee the options I outlined above, along with overseeing the relationship between union boards and management.

i keep dancing on my own.

by atomiccafe on Nov 20, 2011 12:51 PM PST up reply actions

I liked almost all of the system stuff

If I were the players I would have tried to get the escrow amount changed and maybe one or two minor things…rookie and d-league stuff maybe, voted on it and presented it to the NBA as preliminarily approved. Something like “We’re confident we could push this through now as long as we can work the details out. Take it or we’re going to disclaim interest/decertify”.

You have to get what you can get. It’s beyond common sense or reason why players would sacrifice a season. Owners have to look at the long term and have the money/patience to wait. Players need to do the math and get what they can get. They did a lousy job of it but managed to get to a place where just over 50% of the owners would have taken the deal and possibly the same with the players (we’ll never know).

They needed to use what small leverage they had to get some minor concessions and get playing. Now they’re going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars (possibly a couple billion) fighting for a deal that will probably be worse. If it seems like a terrible deal then work on alternatives and opt out after 6 years. Come to the table prepared next time.

by poorwebguy on Nov 19, 2011 10:31 PM PST up reply actions

take a look at the luxury tax thing

on the nba twitter interview, the commish and deputy were very happy about how they allowed the players have their precious soft cap, but look again. The luxury tax threshold has been lowered and the luxury tax has changed. The mavs would have had to pay almost 3.5 dollar for dollar in order to keep their team, the lakers and magic more than 2 dollars. The three year mark of being over the tax essentially is a tease, most owners wont want to go over the tax unless they are able to assemble a final four team. Now its set up that if owners feel they have a final four team and fail, well they have to cut tons of salary somehow in the next year or so which is already hard enough in a league where such horrid tax restrictions dont exist. In other words, the new luxury tax rules becomes a hard cap. No owner except for maybe mark cuban will want to pass it, and even he will think twice before he does that.

For my thoughts on the hardcap, i refer u to my original article by Abbott.

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Nov 19, 2011 11:32 PM PST up reply actions

I still like it

I’m all for making the cap tougher. 3.5 may be a little steep but nuclear shouldn’t have been the reaction. The NBPA ran through at least two “ultimatums” already. Should have tried to figure it out.

by poorwebguy on Nov 20, 2011 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

In response to Stern’s first “ultimatum” proposal (the faux 49-51% band) the players came up with six system adjustments that would have made the 50/50 split acceptable to their membership. They got no movement on those. Then Stern said the offer he presented was final and negotiations were over. Why counter-offer?

i keep dancing on my own.

by atomiccafe on Nov 20, 2011 6:44 AM PST up reply actions

Stern said that repeatedly

and was dealing with hard nosed owners on the other side. Got to do your job and get it figured out or you just wasted a ridiculous amount of time and money just to lose a couple billion for the people you represent.

by poorwebguy on Nov 20, 2011 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

The Disclaimer Is Leverage

You’re right in that the players have little or no leverage (other than not signing). However, that changed with the Disclaimer of Interest, which they couldn’t declare until they had evidence of the other side’s intransigence/lack of bargaining. Stern’s ultimatum provided that evidence. One can fault the players for disclaiming so late “in the game,” but they had to wait until there was specific, tangible evidence the other side was refusing to negotiate; an ultimatum is that evidence.
Maybe the last offer was the best offer the players will ever see, but that is the players’ choice (and don’t give me the b.s. about not giving all the players a vote; unions exist to represent the players in the same way the US Congress exists to represent the public. We don’t vote on raising the debt ceiling; Congress does), and it dumbfounds me how many people are making the players out to be either stupid or villainous when they are fighting for the same economic freedoms all of us can understand: the freedom to choose where we work the freedom to freedom to maximize our skills and talents.
As the great philosopher Aaron Tippin once sang, “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.”

As to the argument that the players are overpaid or waste their millions, at least they are not purchasing their own private submarines . . . Unless you’re Cousteau, that is a waste of money.

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 20, 2011 6:47 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I'd buy a submarine if I had a few billion

I do believe the players were ill informed and that there were groups on both sides working things from multiple angles. To me that is obvious but I’m sure others have a different view and it’s just as obvious to them.

Many of the players are overpaid and some of them are underpaid. Stupid really depends on what you’re good at when it’s put in the context of a situation. I consider myself at least average in intelligence but disarming a bomb would not be something I’m good at. In this case if negotiating was a sport the players would be the lottery team.

If I were going to give one of the sweetest gigs in the world up I’d need to be very sure that the matter of principal I’m claiming to stand for is more than just emotionalism wrapped in some nifty rhetoric. I’d also make sure the guys I was supposed to be representing were well informed and knew I was about to cost them their jobs as well.

Obviously all my opinion. I can respect the people that disagree with it.

by poorwebguy on Nov 20, 2011 1:49 PM PST up reply actions

Principals

I completely agree. One man’s principal is another man’s folly, and it’s easy for us to sit here and say that the players’ principal is foolish while the owners’ principal is sound, but really, that’s just a result of the two sides’ propaganda machines (the owners’ well tuned radio, and the players’ broken telegraph).
The same applies to value. In a capitalist economy, an object is worth what someone will pay for it. If a player can get a contract worth $20 million, then that player is worth $20 million. It is irrelevant that that money is more than the rest of us will ever see: it’s what the market will bear, and it’s why a Porsche is “worth” more than a Kia. They’ll both get you from A to B . . .

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 21, 2011 6:06 AM PST up reply actions

That should be principles, not principals (my bad)

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 21, 2011 6:10 AM PST up reply actions

I actually agree

I believe the key here is in the phrase “what the market will bear” though. The way the NBA is set up players’ salaries will always go up whether the league will bear it or not. That’s not going to change as the NBA combines both financial and sports competition. A few owners will always push the envelope and many of the others will have to try and keep up to be competitive.

What if the NBA made 100 million instead of losing near 400 million as they claim. Avg 3.3 million profit a team hypothetically. Could they afford to lower ticket and concession prices and lose the little profit they made? Probably not.

Let’s say the NBA made a cool half billion in profit last year. Avg a bit under 17 million per team. Massive over estimate but even in these circumstances and under the recently proposed CBA nearly every team in the league would be making less in profit than any one of their best paid players.

I’m sure many of the owners would be ecstatic with 17 million profit…they would be making a killing. My example was more for perspective than anything. Even at 50/50 the players get the lions share of the profit.

by poorwebguy on Nov 21, 2011 6:58 AM PST up reply actions

Pushing the Envelope

Other sports provide all sorts of comparisons. People like to use the NFL, but the short season and huge rosters make that comparison less apt. A better comparison is MLB, and yes, there are teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who outspend teams like the Blue Jays (keeping things in the division). Yes, that provides a competitive advantage, but that advantage does not necessarily translate into championships. The Blue Jays (or Tampa Bay) don’t go broke trying to outspend the Yankees; they have to resort to smart drafting and trading to compete, but they do compete.
From a global marketing position, it’s a good thing to have a powerhouse team for fans in China or Turkey to follow. A team like the Yankees (or the Lakers, unfortunately) provides that inroad that leads to fans for the other teams. I spend the summer in Turkey, and of course everyone knew about the Lakers, but the players everyone wanted to talk about were Nowitski and Durant (and a few of them expressed their concern for Roy, and the vast majority were not Heat fans). I don’t think that would be the case if it were not for these teams that attract the media attention.
What we’re forgetting, as well, is the fact that Lebron took less than the maximum to play on the Heat. That wasn’t a case of a team going broke or even overspending its competitors; it was a case of a team gutting itself in order to be able to sign three excellent players. It was a strategic decision from both players and management; as much as I hate to say it, that “decision” is a model of cooperation (excluding Cleveland, of course).

by Jackalope 66 on Nov 21, 2011 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs