Tag: Collective Bargaining Agreement


Knicks’ Wilson Chandler fires agent, looks to cash in next summer

Leave a comment

Back in the fall, Wilson Chandler’s agent Chris Luchey tried to convince Knicks GM Donnie Walsh to sign his client — whose rookie deal was about to end — to an extension. The Knicks are all about financial flexibility going forward, so they said no.

Chandler has gone out and had the best year of his career. He’s giving New York 17.6 points a game, he’s shooting 35.9 percent from three, he finished at the rim at a crazy good 78 percent, and he’s improved his rebounding. The guy is even getting blocked shots. (That said, he’s being moved to come off the bench starting Friday night, so that Ronny Turiaf can start.)

He’s going to get paid this summer, and he wants a new agent to make sure he gets the most out of that. And of course, as with all thinks Knicks right now, it ultimately ties back into Carmelo Anthony. Chandler could be part of a package sent west if a deal is struck. From Newsday:

Chris Luchey, who has represented Chandler since he entered the NBA Draft in 2007, confirmed to Newsday that he has been let go. Luchey called it “amicable” and said he had “no ill will” toward Chandler, which is an interesting choice of words considering “Ill Wil” is one of Chandler’s nicknames….

The Knicks want to keep Chandler, who is a favorite of the coaching staff for his coachability and very quiet, hardworking demeanor (not to mention his steadily improving talent), and his status as a restricted free agent might actually be what keeps him in New York. The Nuggets like Chandler as a talent, but there is concern about what they’d have to pay him as a restricted free agent. Luchey was looking for money similar to the five-year, $60 million deal Danny Granger signed with the Pacers in 2008.

Chandler is a three who can run and fill it up. He has value (whether it’s Granger value is up for debate). How that will translate into dollars in a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is another question entirely. After the deal is struck, teams may be tight fisted.

If that is the case, the Knicks may match what the market offers.

Stephon Marbury sums up the lockout talk pretty well

Leave a comment

Halfway around the world, playing hoops in a coastal Chinese city most Americans have never heard of, Stephon Marbury is watching the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations unfold.

And he gets it, just check out this quote from a New York Magazine profile.

“There’s definitely going to be a lockout in the NBA after this season. The owners do not want to pay older players, and the players will cave, because they’re only focused on now. The owners, they’re looking at this long term, like a fifteen-year business investment.”

Seriously, that is it in a nutshell. The owners want a way to get out of their own bad decisions — they keep giving the Joe Johnsons of the world six-year max deals that they regret by year four an have to pay for two more. They want a mulligan on their own choices and that is one thing they are willing to go to the mattresses over.

It is just part of the owners belief the core of the system is flawed, and they are willing to suffer the repercussions of reduced gate and fan interest for years to fix it.

The players don’t want things to change dramatically, but their convictions (and money) will run out more quickly. Marbury says they “cave,” you can say they became willing to compromise, the phrasing is moot. Just know that’s most likely how it all goes down. The only question is will regular season games lost?

On another note, go read the entire fascinating profile of a more mature Marbury. A guy who may be out there but who has a real appreciation for what he had and has. However, he has no appreciation for Chinese food. Which can be a challenge when living in China. However, he plans to stay and do business in China for a long time to come.

Maybe revenue sharing isn’t the answer for owner, players

Image (1) jbuss-thumb-250x140-15577.jpg for post 3061
1 Comment

If there is one thing that both the players and owners almost, kind of agree on in the new Collective Bargaining Talks is the concept of increased revenue sharing.

The players see it as a way to help make small market teams competitive — allowing those teams to pay higher salary and avoid issues such as contraction (a loss of jobs). Small market owners want more money for obvious reasons, and NBA Commissioner David Stern said big market owners are willing to discuss the idea so long as there are safeguards to make sure that money is re-invested in the team and not just pocketed.

Behind it all is thinking of the NBA like the NFL model, where there is extensive revenue sharing, great parity on the field, increased competition and a rising tide lifts all boats. Whether that is a model which really works for the NBA — where one player like a LeBron James or Kobe Bryant can alone radically alter a game in a way no one football player can; and where stars have long driven the sport — is another debate.

But revenue sharing does not work for the players or owners, argues Adam Fusfeld at Business Insider.

He notes that that while big market teams such as the Lakers and Bulls have made money, so have franchises in Sacramento, Utah, Cleveland. Also, having that money does not automatically produce wins — see the Knicks or Clippers, two profitable but losing teams.

But the data shows that those deep-pocketed owners in New York and Los Angeles might as well keep their cash. The size of the market isn’t what makes teams profitable, and the size of the payroll isn’t what makes them winners….

Washington, in the nation’s ninth largest media market, had a nearly identical won-loss record to Indiana over the five-year span, but earned $87 million more in operating income. The Wizards generated slightly more income, but also spent $7.6 million less each year on player expenses. If the Pacers simply reduced their payroll to equal that of the Wizards, their $26 million loss would transform into a $12 million profit.

In this five-year span, eight franchises – Phoenix, San Antonio, Denver, Detroit, New Jersey, New Orleans, Chicago, and Utah – finished with more wins than Indiana despite paying substantially less in player salaries between 2005 and 2009. Of those teams, only the Nets lost more than $1 million per year.

Small market owners gripe that it’s impossible for them to stay afloat without sustained on-court success, while large-market teams rake in profits no matter what. But how does that explain the Dallas Mavericks? Mark Cuban’s $75 million loss dwarf those of Pacers’ owner Herb Simon.

Sure, Mark Cuban and Knicks’ boss James Dolan can afford to incur those losses, but they are losses nonetheless. In essence, the Pacers, Bucks, and other small market teams are griping over rival owners’ riches.

And that’s the true inequity in NBA financials.

Some owners are willing to bankroll losses to assemble the best roster they can, while others aren’t.

This disparity continues. Peter Guber and Joe Lacob purchased the Golden State Warriors and have promised to run it smarter, but also said they are not going to spend over the NBA luxury tax line. Meanwhile Mikhail Prokhorov purchases the New Jersey Nets and money is no object.

With both the Detroit Pistons and New Orleans Hornets available for purchase, the debate about the types of owners the NBA has and needs is a very relevant one.