Tag: NBA lockout


D-League changes (plus age limit) not part of owners’ proposal


UPDATE 4:36 pm: We now have confirmation on this.

The changes to the D-League are among things the owners want, but it is all part of what union chief Billy Hunter described as the “B-List” issues, along with draft age limit changes (there are reports the owners want to raise it from 19 to 20) and the like.

Those are still up for negotiation, they are not part of the take it or leave it offer.

Stern’s offer had to do with the handful of A-list issues, such as the mid-level exception for tax-paying teams, the sign-and-trade for tax paying teams and the like.

Once the A-list is agreed to there will still be negotiations on the B-list (which is pages long). There will be some interesting horse trading on those that will impact future NBA players, but these issues are not considered deal breakers in the least.

UPDATE 4:01 pm: While this proposal by the owners was on the table at one point, there are now some reports that it may not have been part of the formal proposal the owners made Thursday. Here is what Zach Lowe of Sports Illustrated tweeted:

Hearing d league rule may no longer be part of league’s official proposal. Def was at some recent point.

We’re trying to find out where it stands.

3:44 pm: The players are not going to like this. Well, they don’t like a lot of things about the latest ultimatium from David Stern and the owners, but you can add this to the list.

The owners want to expand use of the D-League by teams and cut players salaries who go down, according to a tweet from Ric Bucher of ESPN.

New proposal would allow teams to send players to NBDL first 5 years of career and reduce pay to pro-rated 75K. Talk about non-starters.

Bucher is right, the players are going to balk at that.

Right now, players can be sent down to the D-League during the first two years of their NBA career, but when they go they still get the full money from their NBA contracts.

If the NBA wants the D-League to be a true minor league, then expanding the time frame in which players can be sent down makes some sense. (I like the idea of a rehab assignment, too, but let’s not go there today.) Expanding it to three or four years has some merit, it does take time for some guys to develop and getting to play in the D-League rather than riding the NBA pine can speed that process up.

But if you think the players are going to sign off on giving up salary, you ate the special brownies.

This sounds like the kind of thing that would make for future negotiations, which is what the players want to do next. But if the offer really is take-it-or-leave-it from the owners (it wasn’t last time) then this is another sticking point.

James Dolan is like the rest of us, just sick of the lockout

The Beacon Theater Joins MSG Entertainment
Leave a comment

Of all the owners, it would have been easiest for James Dolan to make it to the NBA labor negotiations last week. He owns the Knicks, he’s on the negotiating committee for the owners, he’s right there in Manhattan, he could just drop in a whole lot easier than Spurs owner Peter Holt.

Yet Dolan was nowhere to be seen this week.

The why — at least what the New York Post tells us as why — is the interesting part (via Ziller at SBN).

Knicks owner James Dolan blew off the two-day desperation labor session between the NBA and players’ union in Manhattan with one source saying he has been sickened by the failure of his fellow owners to make a deal.

Dolan is in the group of owners that doesn’t want or need to just crush the union, he wants a deal. He wants to see basketball. In part because his team is finally relevant again, partly because his team turns a profit.

And partly because he’s one of the rational guys in the room. Really. Others in the room have said that.

And when James Dolan is the rational one thinking like the fans you know how ridiculous this has all gotten.

Why agents hate the owners’ offer — they lose power

*Jul 24 - 00:05*
1 Comment

Agents are leading the charge against the latest offer from the NBA owners — agents are at the heart of decertification efforts, they are telling their clients not to take this deal.

Agents are in one sense looking out for their clients’ interest, although everything is intertwined — the more money the players make, the more money they make. To be fair, most agents are concerned about the well being of their clients beyond just the financial, but the financial is the cornerstone.

However, this fight is not about money as much as power. In the wake of what LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony did last season, the owners felt like they were losing power. They are using this Collective Bargaining Agreement to get it back.

The agents had some of that power, and they will not give it up quietly. Look what agent Mark Termini told the Cleveland Plain Dealer (via SLAM).

“The agents represent a threat to the control of the owner and the team,” said Termini, who has represented many of the top players from Ohio, including Jim Jackson, Brad Sellers, Earl Boykins and Kosta Koufos. “They want to just deal with the player. They’re going to tell him what to do, where to go, when he’s hurt, when he’s not hurt, what doctor to go to, what’s a good deal, what’s a bad deal, when he’s traded, what time to report.

“The agent gets involved in all of those decisions on behalf of the player and it’s burdensome to the team. They don’t like it. They’d like to eliminate that. So in these negotiations, as the options for the players become fewer and fewer, it has the hand-in-glove effect of reducing the role of the agent.”

Clearly that’s an agent’s spin, but the sentiment is correct. The owners and league would love to diminish the role of agents and this deal helps do that by reducing the trade options an agent could pursue for a client.

Just remember that this CBA negotiation is pretty much like everything that happens in Washington D.C. — it’s about money and power. It gets spun as being good for the people (or the fans), but it’s always about money and power.

Don’t think for a second owners’ latest offer is what fans want

Dallas Mavericks Victory Parade

Let’s be honest about what you really like — trades and teams full of stars.

You like seeing basketball, too, which makes the new offer from NBA owners appealing to fans. Because it means 72 games and a full playoffs, basically a normal season. I want to see it in place for the same reasons.

You may get it (not that we have any say) but know that the owners offer — the parts the players are opposing of it particularly — goes against what fans have shown they want.

The owners have preached “competitive balance” and sold it sort of like the NFL’s parity. The NBA is never going to have the parity of the NFL (because the stars of the NBA control the game much more and are so much better than their peers). But that’s not really what is at the heart of all this. Small market owners watched LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony control the process, take all the power and force their way where they wanted to be. The owners want that power back.

I know what is coming in the comments — you say you want that, too. You’ll say that you want Grizzlies to be able to compete with the Lakers every year. You say you don’t want the Knicks to make all the big trades. You’ll say you want sanity in the system.

The numbers tell a different story. The numbers being every measure of fan interest we can find, whether it is television ratings or Internet traffic or ticket sales.

You love trades and free agency — there is a reason traffic on this and every other NBA web site peaks in July, not during the finals but during free agency. You love rumors. Love them. You love to read about and talk player movement. We all love to play armchair GM. There is a huge traffic and interest boost in February as the trading deadline nears for the same reason.

This new deal from the owners is designed to restrict the kind of big trades you clearly want to see (hence more restrictions on tax spending teams). Sure, there will be plenty of smaller trades and we can get excited about Sasha Vujacic getting moved for cash considerations. But the small market owners want to keep their stars. Those are the guys that sell tickets and bring in sponsors and boost local television ratings and they don’t want them all going to New York and Los Angeles and Miami.

Thing is, you love teams loaded with stars. You may say you hate the Miami Heat, but you watched them and bought their gear in record numbers. Ratings were up last season and the Heat and Knicks were the primary reasons. When you talk about the golden age of the NBA, you talk about the Jordan era when the Bulls dominated the league, or the 1980s when the Lakers or Celtics won eight out of nine titles. That’s when the ratings were highest.

What’s frustrating about the lockout is they figured out the money part of the lockout, mostly. That was supposed to be the hard part of getting a new NBA labor deal, but the players have gone all the way back to a 50/50 split of revenue, giving enough money back to cover what the owners said they lost (even if we don’t buy their math).

We’ll see what happens with the offer the owners made. We may get our wish and get basketball. But know that while David Stern and Adam Silver are selling this deal as good for the fans, it really isn’t. It’s just very good for the owners.

What does a 72-game season look like? Packed like sardines.

Empty Amway Arena

Here’s the real hook for players with a season that starts Dec. 15 — they lose essentially only one paycheck.

Their salaries in a shortened season are pro-rated by games played, a 72 game season would mean 10 fewer games than normal (a 12 percent loss). That is basically a little more than one missed paycheck total for players over the course of a season. Money is the bait to tempt players to take the offer. (Teams would only lose five home games of revenue.)

For fans, what 72 games would mean is one crowded season — which is not good for quality of play. Teams normally play 15 games a month (give or take a couple), and the season would start six weeks late. So most teams would have played about 22 games by Dec. 15.

To miss only 10 games means one very condensed schedule — basically the pace of the 1999 50-game season (the last time there was a lockout) just spread over another month and a half. John Schuhmann breaks it down a little more at NBA.com.

As we laid it out last week, a 72-game schedule allows every team to play in every arena at least once. Each team would play the 15 teams in the other conference two times and the 14 teams in their own conference three times….

But if the players approve this deal, get ready for a schedule with very little time for practice or recovery from aches and pains.

What we saw in 1999 was guys who got tired and it showed more on the defensive end. Basically, things got sloppy. This is a longer version of that so expect more guys missing games with minor injuries, and expect some stretches of play where coaches will want to burn the tape (if they still used tape).

But that’s the offer on the table. If the players reject the owners’ offer, well, it likely becomes chaos. And all we’ll know is there will be less than 72 games.