AP: Labor Talks Don't Go Well, Season Start in Serious Jeopardy

by Dave on Sep 13, 2011 9:30 PM PDT in News

In case you missed it, the players and owners had a get together today and apparently things went sour. Well...sourer. The AP quotes players association president Derek Fisher:

I think coming out of today, obviously because of the calendar, we can't come out of here feeling as though training camps and the season is going to start on time at this point.

Apparently a hard cap is still the main sticking issue. One wonders, though, what both sides expected from today's talks. Did each walk in thinking the other would suddenly cave? Resolution was always in the distance but it'd be nice to think the parties involved were making progress towards it in more than just the obvious temporal sense. Going backwards isn't anybody's idea of fun.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If this keeps up

I’ll have to follow the NFL . . . ugh . . .

Steve Goodman lives.

by twinsbrewer on Sep 13, 2011 9:41 PM PDT reply actions

I think you nailed it. I think each side thought the other would cave a little more

The players thought the owners would make more concessions because they don’t want the season to start late, and because the mythical “buzz” from last season would be lost. The owners thought the players would make concessions because they don’t want to start missing paychecks, and because they know the offers will get worse once the season gets delayed.

Neither side is willing to bend, and I really think the owners are in it for the long haul. I’m not sure where the players stand, many rank and file will have no paycheck and no fallback soon, and it’s no secret that some stars have no budgeting skills.

I get bad feeling this is going to get ugly. As such, the NBA TV needs to show more old Blazer games, something besides airing that dang Blazers/Bulls Game 6 over and over.

by Timmay! on Sep 13, 2011 9:43 PM PDT reply actions

Blazers-Bulls Game 6

Did we win this time?

—Dave

by Dave on Sep 13, 2011 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions

I keep getting my hopes up, and they keep getting dashed

Apply that to both Game 6, and the lockout negotiations.

by Timmay! on Sep 13, 2011 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Why do the players insist on no hard cap?

It makes absolutely no sense that this is their sticking point. The hard cap has nothing to do with their overall pay. It’s just an attempt to even things out between teams. So why the hard line? I can only guess that they are idiots who don’t understand this at all, or else I am.

Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.

by pualo on Sep 13, 2011 9:53 PM PDT reply actions

It has at least something to do with the following:

1. The cap would be lower than the current amount.
2. Nearly every team in the league would be over it.

Ergo…

3. Either current salaries would be cut or, if they graduated down into it, players’ next contracts would potentially be quite a bit smaller than their current ones.

Also the possibility of making $18 million per year is tantalizing even if practically speaking only 10 guys in the league will actually do it. Taking away that possibility, which a hard cap would almost certainly do, is a blow.

Finally, a hard cap would mean, in essence, players would be taking money away from each other in a way that’s visible and tangible…far more so than the current system. Every dollar that one player makes is a dollar his teammate won’t. It’s much easier to live in the current, exception-filled system.

—Dave

by Dave on Sep 13, 2011 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions

"Either current salaries would be cut [...]"

That has to be a sticking point, because the NBPA doesn’t want to concede salary rollbacks for players’ current contracts. Since such rollbacks will almost certainly be necessary if the CBA calls for a hard cap, this point of contention is where the line has been drawn in the sand.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 13, 2011 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions

I have to imagine there's an easy solution to this:

For all current contracts, continue to pay the full price to the player, while the cap hold is the maximum allowed under the new CBA cap rules. Once all the old contracts are paid off, all done, this exception ends.

by Timmay! on Sep 13, 2011 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions

57% is 57%

Or whatever number they end up with. The cap system does not affect how much money players make, in total. They could make a hard salary cap of five dollars, and the players would still make the exact same total salary. Because they give or take extra from the players at the end of the year to make the salaries equal to 57% of BRI, exactly, every time.

The only major thing the players should be concened about is what they change this 57 number to, because that’s the only thing that affects how much money they make. The salary cap or other salary cap rules don’t. They only affect how that fixed total salary is split among the players.

Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.

by pualo on Sep 13, 2011 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions

You're right, it won't affect the overall salary amount

But how that fixed total salary is split impacts a ton of individual players. The star players will probably continue to get the huge contracts, but the average players will likely lose out. The union’s stance is that a hard cap will lead to lower average salaries, shorter contracts and more unguaranteed contracts.

This is a good read: http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/08/25/why-do-players-care-about-a-hard-cap/

by Corvid on Sep 14, 2011 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions

Yep

The fear of the average NBA player is that, although the cream of the crop of the league (the LeBrons and Dwight Howards) would get fully guaranteed deals because of competition, the majority of players would lose out on having fully guaranteed contracts under a hard cap system. Teams would have to give partially guaranteed or non-guaranteed contracts to the majority of their players to have the flexibility necessary to stay under a hard cap at all times.

It’s not a big deal to Dwyane Wade (at least as far as it affects his personal contract). It’s a big deal to 80+% of the league, though.

by Storyteller on Sep 14, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Logically, if some players stand to lose out on this, then other players would have to gain an equal amount. Are you saying that if mid and low level players would get less money, then Dwyane Wade will end up getting more money than currently?

Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.

by pualo on Sep 14, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

There's a flaw in the logic: That assumes the players make the same total salary

But the intent here is that there will be less cash to go around, period. That means every player can make less, there is no equal and opposite reaction involved.

by Timmay! on Sep 14, 2011 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Simply not true.

That’s what the 57% is about. The total salary is locked in, unchangeable. (The new number won’t be 57, but it will be the same idea.)

Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.

by pualo on Sep 15, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Just a thought

Theres been talk around here lately of a way to increase competitive balance, at least some of which has centered around spreading the elite players more evenly throughout the league and its been pretty roundly dismissed.

So heres what I’m thinking…… Does the Hard Cap do the same thing??? Sure, its not called that, but if there is a Hard Cap, which will be lower than the current soft cap, teams won’t have money to sign multiple super stars, so they’ll naturally spread around.

I guess what I’m getting at is, if talent is going to be more widely dispersed, does it really matter if it happens by edict or organically via economics?

Say it ain't Cho

by Sean in Vancouver on Sep 13, 2011 10:19 PM PDT reply actions

Theoretically, yes

If every team is only allowed to spend the same amount of money, it probably helps the competitive balance since the Mavericks and the Celtics and the Lakers and the Magic can’t outpay everybody else any more.

Other factors such as desirability of living, team winning prospects and the like would still be in play so the ‘playing field’ will never be truly even. But it probably helps.

I’m not convinced that would be a good thing for the Blazers (who have an owner willing to spend money).

by Storyteller on Sep 14, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions

boycott boycott boycott

by johnshmidt on Sep 13, 2011 10:20 PM PDT reply actions

Naive

The other leagues have gone through restructuring, yet the NBA players are ignoring this thinking that somehow, it won’t happen to them, and this is simply naive. Storyteller pegged the situation early on, and nothing has changed. The players had a year and a half to look at the owners proposals, knew what the NHL and NFL had done, yet sat around thinking that somehow the owners were what? Kidding. Hardly.

The union, if you can call it that, has never had a realistic game plan. Their entire strategy seems to be to expect the owners to cave in, and if they don’t, to not play. Not much of a strategy. It didn’t work for the NHL or the NFL, and it won’t work for them. The problem for sports unions is that they are made up principally of young people, often inexperienced in anything but the game they play. Which is why 3/4 of them are broke 5 years after they retire.

They don’t act like a real union. If they’d hired the teamsters to represent them, rather than Fisher or Hunter, it would be a very different game. They wouldn’t be advising players to save money, they’d have a strike fund. And they would strike, and march, and be willing to burn the house down if that’s what it took. The owners don’t take them very seriously, because they play low risk softball. A real union treats it like a war, and acts accordingly.

In the end, the owners, if they wish, will win. They, after all, can wait out the only non-strategy the players have. All they’ve ever had to do is be willing to give up one season. Further, they knew this before the first proposal was ever dropped on the table.

by ebenc on Sep 14, 2011 4:59 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah, the owners generally can afford no NBA income, the players generally can't.

Heck, some owners may well be saving money with the lockout – not too painful.
The player’s notioin that they are being ‘mistreated’ just isn’t prersuasive to me – they sign new CBA and live a dream.

Wake me when the game is on.

by Berkeley on Sep 14, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions

This is going to go exactly like the NHL lockout

the owners are prepared and more than willing to sit out a season

"How you gonna fire a ninja Paul?" - Rich Cho

by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Sep 14, 2011 6:34 AM PDT reply actions

I disagree with most everyone...

Despite the recent flurry of optimistic reports before this round of talks, I had little or no reason for optimism. This outcome does not suprise me at all.

I don’t feel either side was showing signs of concesssion or resolution. It has always felt to me, and continues to feel to me, like BOTH sides want there to be blood.

I would of been amazed had The N.B.A. emerged from these talks, with resolution or the season on target.

Recently these reports of “optimism” made no sense. They all sounded like wishful thinking more than realistic thinking. To me? It’s been clear for months that there will be blood….the only question being how much and for how long….

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Sep 14, 2011 8:02 AM PDT reply actions

If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

"How you gonna fire a ninja Paul?" - Rich Cho

by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Sep 14, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Doesn't surprise me either

I still believe that in the end, the owners will get most of what they want. It’s just a matter of when. The longer the players dig their heels in the ground, the longer the lockout will last.

by Storyteller on Sep 14, 2011 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Wont be my blood.

I personally wouldn’t mind seeing some Lebron blood or some Kobe blood on the street. Or some Carmello blood. Or Stern blood. I am prepared for college hoops, the ducks should entertain 2 days a week, then there is going to be a ton of nfl and ncaa foottball until February. Plus I’ll save a couple hundred not buying league pass. Maybe I’ll spend some free time reading Pauls book.
Burn baby BURN!!

by doomsdaymachine on Sep 14, 2011 8:57 AM PDT reply actions

Except,the Players Have agreed there will be rollbacks

They acknowledged early on that they would have to take some rollbacks,but were hoping to minimize them.
Tom Ziller has it right,the Hard Cap is about the role players getting much less,something they don’t want to see happen-and they make up most of the League.(Altho I disagree where he said rookies would get theirs,they will take a huge hit in the new CBA.How many top 2-3 picks haven’t panned out past few yrs-and they’re getting near MLE-type money. The rookies will end up getting hosed in the new CBA.)

As I see it,the two sides are negotiating two different things.
The Players are trying to find the right number that they can sell to themselves and that the Owners will accept.
The Owners meanwhile regard the number(s) as almost irrelevant,what they are negotiating is the framework that creates the number(s).
One side is negotiating over the tree,the other over the forest.

by Tisbee on Sep 14, 2011 9:12 AM PDT reply actions

The longer this lasts, the healthier Greg Oden gets...

hopefully…and the more money I save by not having to buy a ridiculously overpriced Comcast package just to watch one channel!

by biggfish02 on Sep 14, 2011 11:20 AM PDT reply actions

My understand is that talks broke down yesterday based on this conversation:

Silver: We need a concession. The players need to agree to take a smaller piece of the pie. Salaries are increasing at the same rate as revenue, thanks to the escrow system. But other expenses are increasing faster than revenue.

Hunter: That’s not our fault. If the owners can’t watch their spending habits, then that’s their problem. Just reduce spending on those expense items.

Silver: Fine. The next CBA will then reduce the daily meal allowance from $130 a day to $30. Teams will no longer be allowed to charter flights or have their own planes – all players will be required to fly coach. And Motel 6 will become the official chain of the NBA.

Fisher: Hey, we didn’t mean THOSE expenses….

by Storyteller on Sep 14, 2011 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs

David Stern is fond of saying that you can’t revenue-share your way to profitability. Well, you can’t expense-share out of it either. That’s what the hard cap does better than anything else: it shares expenses more evenly among the teams. Instead of the Lakers spending $110 million and the Kings spending $45 million, let them both spend $60 million! Maybe Sacramento gets the Lakers’ leftovers in the transaction — great young talent like Steve Blake, Luke Walton and Derek Fisher will be the first casualties of the hard cap — and get a little better on the court. But something tells me that a team unprofitable with $45 million in player expenses will remain unprofitable when forced to pay $10-15 million more in player expenses. (Yes, it’s a cap. But because of the firmness of it, the floor has to raise, too, to make sure players get their aggregate take. The NFL’s salary floor is set to 90 percent of the cap. In a $60-million hard cap NBA, that’d put the floor at $54 million, or $9 million higher than it was last season.

The lesson being learned in the NHL right now is huge – a hard cap without a realistic revenue sharing plan just leads to a whole new set of problems. Teams don’t have the income without revenue sharing to be able to spend the minimum salary requirements and also make a profit. As I understand it, the NHL is in trouble because to be eligible for all possible revenue sharing, a team must meet certain revenue benchmarks themselves. However, because the large-income teams are doing so well financially, it’s increasing that benchmark target (which is calculated based on how all the teams are performing financially) beyond that which the low-income teams are able to reach, making them ineligible for the revenue sharing money that they need. Keeping the poor, well, poor.

I’m doing a 3 part piece on my site about the numbers and what might be next for the NBA, for anyone that’s interested. Part I is up about the past. I’m working on Part II, which is all about the BRI split. Part III will be about revenue sharing.

by Storyteller on Sep 14, 2011 3:22 PM PDT reply actions