Tag: Lockout

NBPA Representatives Meet To Discuss NBA Lockout

Players might vote for deal, season, if given vote, which they won’t be


ESPN’s Shaun Powell reports on Twitter:

Source told me if full membership votes on the owner’s deal, NBA would open for business by Wednesday.Sat Nov 12 17:11:26 via web

This is much akin to “Unicorns may cure cancer, if they exist.” The primary problem is that unicorns don’t exist. Similarly, the rank-and-file NBA players that would vote for such a deal don’t have a voice. Those that don’t want to accept any concessions have a voice, that of the agents and the players those agents rep. Those that don’t want this deal but want to keep talking have a voice, the NBPA leadership. But there isn’t anyone to speak up for those players, no powerful voice, no strong element of leadership to say “Look, before we go all half-cocked and start chasing a victory on the wings of the decertification hippogriff, maybe we should vote on the measure to see how close we really are to it.” That player would look weak, would look like a scab, would look to be sniffing at the owners’ boots, despite the fact no one on the players’ side wants this deal, it benefits no one, and a vote simply gauges where they’re at.

So instead, we’ll just have rabble rousing and decertification and a hefty “unified” no on Monday, an opt for the courts and the loss of the 2011-2012 season. Unless someone powerful steps up to say this deal needs to get done it won’t be. The silent majority has no power if it remains silent.

Bluffing or not, David Stern gets his deadline

NBA And Player's Association Meet To Negotiate CBA

For all of the emphasis on David Stern’s recent ultimatum to the members of the National Basketball Players Association, this is hardly the first time he’s issued a deadline threat against the union. The lockout has been laced with cancellation dates, each with the accompanying acknowledgement from Stern that the league’s offers would reflect the damage of games lost. That doesn’t seem to have been the case thus far, as the league’s stance has remained more or less the same. If anything, the offers have become more favorable for the players in recent weeks.

With all of that in mind, it’s natural to wonder if — as Henry Abbott discussed earlier this week on TrueHoop — Stern and the owners will actually follow through with their most recent threat: a reset to a 47-53 proposal that the union would likely never agree to. Stern’s threat record speaks pretty clearly, but there’s always the chance that this is where Stern and the owners legitimately draw the line. There’s a chance that for whatever reason, they’ve picked today, an otherwise nondescript November 9th, as the day when the fate of the basketball universe will be decided.

For all of the rhetoric about the union “calling Stern’s bluff,” this ultimatum has created a sense of urgency. The players may not have accepted the deal the NBA put on the table, but they’re still granting the ultimatum its gravity by rushing to scrap together a last-ditch attempt to negotiate out some system-related kinks.

Late Sunday night, Howard Beck of the New York Times wrote:

The union regards the deadline as artificial and believes the N.B.A. will return to the table.

If the players truly believe that, their actions betray their belief. The NBPA has responded to the NBA’s arbitrary deadline by formally meeting with the entire body of player representatives to discuss their options, and by returning to the table to discuss the league’s latest offer in an attempt to get the owners to move from their positions on a few holdout issues. The players have done a terrific job of flipping the lockout narrative in the process, but they’ve also made the deadline anything but artificial. Stern aimed to make today a critical point in the negotiations when he made his ultimatum, and it has become just that. At this point, no one can say how this otherwise nondescript November 9th will actually turn out, but a threat — legitimate or not — has pushed both parties back into the negotiating room to stave off an “artificial” deadline. Here’s hoping that we’ll never learn the substance of that now infamous ultimatum.

Why the owners should be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for the 49-51 band offer.

Utah Jazz v Chicago Bulls

First, some basics.

During Saturday’s talks, following a talking-points suggestion from George Cohen, the NBA offered a BRI band of 49-51. So if revenues underperform certain levels, the players would receive 49 percent. If they hit acceptable levels (considered by most to be 4 percent growth), both sides would split 50/50. And if things went insanely well (reportedly 20 percent growth which is insane), the players would get 51 percent. Ken Berger reports that in fact, players would get 57 percent of that 51th percent, but that’s getting really complicated, so let’s stick with the basics.

Now, the players rejected the offer outright for a number of reasons. The systemic changes were severe enough for them to resist such an offer. The thresholds were too high for the levels. But instead, let’s consider what the owners did here.

With the players holding at 52 percent, and the owners essentially throwing them a sham offer for 51, it looks like a compromise without being one. OK, that’s par for the course. But if you’ve got a band offer, why not make it 49-52? or 48-52? or 46-52? Any of those band proposals would give the players a public relations pickle. “They gave you 52, what more do you want?!” the uninformed public would cry. It would be seen as a concession, a move towards a deal. You’re not actually giving anything up.

So why not offer that? Yes it puts too much on the table so the players could negotiate the thresholds up. But let’s be honest, that’s not happening, and the owners know it. They’re more than aware of how much power they have. That’s why they held it at 51 percent. Because it’s one percent below what the players said they would hold at. The only way this would be more blatant is if the owners offered a band of 49-51.99999999999999999999999999. It’s a deliberate effort to not only say “we’re going to get what we want, and we’re willing to insult you on the way to taking what we want.”

That’s been the whole problem here. It’s not “the owners are going to win.” They’ve already won. They’ve gotten system concessions. They’ve gotten the players to drop from 57 to 54 to 53 where they said they would not drop from, to 52. They’ve already got what they want. But it’s not enough. The popular analogy has been that it’s not about the win with the owners, it’s the margin of victory. This isn’t even about margin of victory. This is about taunting and doing a dance on your way to the endzone. It’s T.O. dancing on the star. It’s A.I. stepping over his opponent after the three. It’s an assault on more than the players’ earning potential and power, it’s about hitting them in the crotch of their dignity, then taking a photo of it, then posting it on the internet.

They could still make the same one-sided offer they have the whole time while giving the players an out. They’re not even willing to insult the players by patronizing them.

Maybe M.J. is as involved as reports say he is.