Spirit of '99: 2011 Lockout Discussion

[RedPhazon8]

If no deal is hit by Monday, games will start getting cut. That really sucks...

[Andrew]

Still, perhaps if it comes to that it'll end up giving both sides more incentive to get a deal done sooner rather than later. If they only lose a couple of weeks of games, they could feasibly reschedule them. Even that seems like wishful thinking right now though.

[Mavs4Life]

Yup, no deal today = 1999 all over again for real.

[Andrew]

Some notes from Adrian Wojnarowski on Twitter:

Stern could call for "postponement" of 1st two weeks of regular season - not a cancellation - if progress warrants more talks, source says.

How could postponement of season work? Nov 15 tip; more back to backs, make ups at end of reg season; shorter layoffs between playoff games.

Meeting is apparently in the process of wrapping up now.

[buzzy]

There go the first two weeks.

[Andrew]

As expected.

[Mavs4Life]

Hey atleast we've got repeating classic NBA games though I'm still watching them. Sadf to see it come to this.

[Andrew]

Sadly, no NBA TV here in Australia. Not even ESPN classic or the occasional historical NBA content on ESPN Australia.

[AMenace]

Just a quick design I made to show the occasion:

[Andrew]

Nice. I reckon it needs a padlock or the "no" symbol around the NBA logo to complete the effect.

Woj has more on the latest negotiations.

The owners want to reduce the annual midlevel exception for free agents from $5.8 million to $3 million with a maximum contract length of two years, league sources told Yahoo! Sports. The owners also want to limit the maximum length of contracts to four years for players re-signed by their own teams and three years for players joining new teams, sources said. The union didn’t want to go below five and four years. The current maximums are six years for players re-signed by their own teams and five for other players.

I can see where the players are coming from here as far as long term financial security, but given opt-out clauses and the like, the owner's suggestions aren't that unreasonable. I would have to side with the players in that five years of re-signing, four years for signing elsewhere is a fair change from six/five and when it comes to bad lengthy contracts it's on the owners for handing them out, but then there's also the players that signed big deals and then phoned it in. I'd say it's not just blunders by owners and their GMs that are making this a point of contention, it's also lazy players ruining it for those who are willing to try and play up to those big salaries.

The owners also want to greatly penalize teams that exceed the salary cap, sources told Y! Sports, proposing that teams won’t be allowed to pay the luxury tax more than twice in five years. Tax-paying teams also could be restricted from using the Bird exception to re-sign their own players.

While Stern claims the owners are no longer seeking a hard salary cap, Players Association president Derek Fisher said the proposed penalties for tax-paying teams will essentially act the same as a hard cap on player salaries.

“You can’t say you’re moving away from a hard cap, but then do everything else that brings about the same result,” Hunter said. “You’ve compressed salaries, and then you’ve fixed it so nobody is going to spend. You’ve got a hard-cap situation. That’s the reality.

That certainly does sound like the owners' clever way of instituting a hard cap without actually instituting a hard cap. Something's obviously got to give there to close the gap between players and owners.

NBA owners have sought to reduce the players’ share of BRI from the 57 percent they received in the previous labor agreement. The players have proposed dropping to 53 percent while the owners’ last formal proposal wanted a reduction to 47 percent.

Stern suggested last week the two sides agree to a 50-50 revenue split, but the players balked, not wanting to accept such a deep cut without the owners first preserving many of the old system issues from the previous CBA. Stern said Monday that the players union originally floated the 50-50 idea, which Players Association officials disputed.

I've seen the owners being called greedy over this and while I see the point, given the players have always had more than 50% of BRI in return for agreeing to a salary cap back in 1984 (if I recall correctly) and got a whopping 57% in the last labor deal, I'm a little iffy on the owners being greedy if they are indeed willing to split things right down the middle, 50-50. It's understandable the players don't want to go lower than the deal they agreed to way back in the day (I'm pretty sure they originally got 53% for agreeing to the cap being instituted in the 80s) and without further concessions from the owners on the other cap issues, but in the absence of any other percentage being considered a fair division, a 50-50 split is as fair as it gets. The owners should give a little more in return, though.

The two sides don’t have any future meetings scheduled, but will stay in communication, Stern said.

Though both Stern and Hunter expressed optimism the two sides would reach agreement before the entire season is lost, some team executives fear the league and union will now dig in and progress will be even harder to come by.

“I think the best-case scenario now is 50 games, but I can see the whole season gone,” one team general manager told Yahoo! Sports.

Hunter plans to meet with players in Los Angeles on Thursday. “Unfortunately maybe we need to miss a few games for them to know there’s resolve among the players,” Hunter said.

Guess there's hope for the season, I'd still prefer a 50 game season to nothing, but I'd feel more positive if the talks were ongoing. Hopefully it won't be another situation like it was in July where they simply sniped at each other through the media and nothing was negotiated and discussed.

[AMenace]

Edited Slightly:

Front:


Back:

[Andrew]

Ah, very nicely done.

[Andrew]

A guide to the NBA lockout

[Andrew]

In time of need, Jordan silent in labor talks

Interesting suggestion, but I don't know that Jordan speaking out during the negotiations would bridge the gulf that still separates owners and the players, to use Stern's description of the situation. Spears admittedly acknowledges that he wouldn't provide any kind of magical immediate solution to the dispute but does raise a fair point about him being influential and respected and perhaps the notion that "once a player, always a player" means he can see both sides of the conflict even if he's now on the other side of the fence. Still, these days he's an owner and an owner of a team in one of the league's smaller markets at that, someone more inclined to favour the proposals that the players are vehemently against.

Again, an interesting take but while Jordan as a one-man show saved the Bulls on occasion, I don't think it does anything for the lockout. In fact, I reckon if he had been more vocal through the proceedings so far, writers like Spears would probably be calling for him to shut up and back off.

[NovU]

True. Agreed on all accounts. The lock out itself probably put him in an awkward position already. Speaking out would put him in a more awkward situation.

[_Steve_]

As MJ has already paid his 100k bucks, it's wise to be silent at times.
MJ had already retired when the '99 lockout came, so he isn't more familiar with the topic than most other owners/ players.
I'm not even sure he would second the players position as he had some "meager" years in terms of money he earned of his player contracts with the Bulls (and Wizz). (His salaries can be found at the bottom of that page.)

[shadowgrin]

MJ had already retired when the '99 lockout came, so he isn't more familiar with the topic than most other owners/ players.
I'm not even sure he would second the players position as he had some "meager" years in terms of money he earned of his player contracts with the Bulls (and Wizz).

Doesn't make sense.

He's currently an owner, so he probably is familiar with it like most owners and players. (Or pays someone to feed info for him)

The Wizards salary is negligible. He was part of Wizards management before he decided to play again. It's similar to what Tony Parker is doing right now to his team in France playing for them.

Those meager years, different CBA and Jordan's contract length was until the end of it ('96) so even if he was worth more than Kukoc there's nothing he can do about it even if Kukoc got a similar salary. He was stuck with the contract he signed previously.

He's the main reason for the max salary limit because of the those $30 million salaries he got and he still has the highest paid salary amount (in a season or two) in NBA history.

It would just be plain ignorant to assume that Jordan doesn't want to help the players of today (being a former player himself but also currently an owner) without taking into account the context of that period.

[_Steve_]

MJ had already retired when the '99 lockout came, so he isn't more familiar with the topic than most other owners/ players.
I'm not even sure he would second the players position as he had some "meager" years in terms of money he earned of his player contracts with the Bulls (and Wizz).

Doesn't make sense.

He's currently an owner, so he probably is familiar with it like most owners and players. (Or pays someone to feed info for him)

Sure, but he has no secret special knowledge and/ or superpowers which could have helped to avoid the lockout.

The Wizards salary is negligible. He was part of Wizards management before he decided to play again. It's similar to what Tony Parker is doing right now to his team in France playing for them.

He played for the minimum (?) salary just for the love he has for the game.

Those meager years, different CBA and Jordan's contract length was until the end of it ('96) so even if he was worth more than Kukoc there's nothing he can do about it even if Kukoc got a similar salary. He was stuck with the contract he signed previously. He's the main reason for the max salary limit because of the those $30 million salaries he got and he still has the highest paid salary amount (in a season or two) in NBA history.

All I wanted to say is, that he knows first hand how it is to play for very little money (compared to today's NBA Superstars and his own 30 mio p.a.) for a long time in his career.

It would just be plain ignorant to assume that Jordan doesn't want to help the players of today (being a former player himself but also currently an owner) without taking into account the context of that period.

As much as he may want to help today's players he is still owner of the Bobcats. You can see from his decisions (letting Gerald Wallace and Stephen Jackson go) that he cares about profit. I would not expect him to second any solution that brings him in danger to have more losing seasons (financially) than necessary...

[shadowgrin]

The Wizards salary is negligible. He was part of Wizards management before he decided to play again. It's similar to what Tony Parker is doing right now to his team in France playing for them.

He played for the minimum (?) salary just for the love he has for the game.

You can call it that or that it's bad business sense as a GM to give a 38 year old player who hadn't played for 3 years a salary more than the minimum.
As for drafting Kwame Brown, well...

As much as he may want to help today's players he is still owner of the Bobcats. You can see from his decisions (letting Gerald Wallace and Stephen Jackson go) that he cares about profit. I would not expect him to second any solution that brings him in danger to have more losing seasons (financially) than necessary...

lol at having to let go of Stephen Jackson. He's not worth the money and also his age. He won't be the Bobcats' franchise player or even a suitable 2nd or 3rd option with the (more) money he was asking for. It was the right thing imo.

[Andrew]

I don't think the Wizards had cap room to offer him anything more than the minimum, though that comeback wasn't about money away. Besides, it never happened.

[_Steve_]

I don't think the Wizards had cap room to offer him anything more than the minimum, though that comeback wasn't about money away. Besides, it never happened.

What has never happened?

[Andrew]

Exactly.

[benji]

lol at having to let go of Stephen Jackson. He's not worth the money and also his age. He won't be the Bobcats' franchise player or even a suitable 2nd or 3rd option with the (more) money he was asking for. It was the right thing imo.

But he traded Jackson for someone who makes more money and is only a year yonger.

[shadowgrin]

Bad Porno > Jackson

[_Steve_]

Bad Porno > Jackson