Atlanta Hawks: ‘It will get worse from there’ Update: Players, owners to meet
(Update 1:20 a.m. Thursday: No deal was reached. The sides are set to meet at noon Thursday. David Stern said “nothing was worked out today” but that owners would not revert to their “reset” offer. Derek Fisher said he couldn’t say “significant process” was made.)
(UPDATE: Players and owners are set to meet at 1 p.m. today, four hours before the league’s deadline. Adrian Wojnarowski reports that David Stern can make a “very slight budge” on the system issues that players say are unacceptable. The union seems ready to accept a 50-50 BRI split, which would more than cover the owners’ claimed losses of $300 million last season.)
As I traveled around the league during the 2010-11 season, I kept hearing that some owners were willing to lose a season in order to get a more favorable CBA. I didn’t believe it, especially since the season ended up being a success. What good would it do owners to get a better CBA if they damaged their popular product in the process?
But now it appears that’s where we’re at. David Stern has issued what amounts to an ultimatum: If the players don’t take the owners’ latest CBA offer (which they’ve already said is unacceptable) by Wednesday, then things get really ugly.
Last night on SportsCenter, Stern said: “We think that there’s a great offer on the table and what we told the players is it’s getting late. The only rational thing to do is for us to make that deal because given what’s going on in our business and our industry, it will get worse from there.” Meanwhile ESPN’s Chris Broussard reports that at least 15 owners hope the players reject the current offer because they believe it’s too generous.
There are reports that some players want to vote to authorize a vote on union decertification, setting in place a process that could scuttle the season. (Stern dismissed the consequences of the tactic, saying it didn’t work for NFL players.) Other reports say there is a faction of players that wants to hold a vote on the owners’ offer.
Union team reps are meeting in New York today. (Mo was the Hawks’ player rep until he got traded. Then it was Etan, who is a member of the union’s executive committee. Now the union says it’s Zaza, but he’s in Turkey so Al is in New York as Atlanta’s acting rep.)
Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports reports that there’s still a chance the union and Stern could meet before the Wednesday deadline. Kobe says he wants that to happen in order to “save this from spiraling into a nuclear winter.”
Anthony Tolliver, the T-Wolves’ player rep, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s Jerry Zgoda that players are “split” on what to do. He also says there’s an emotional element involved for players:
“As players, we felt like we’ve been taken advantage of. The real reason why guys want to decertify is they felt like the owners really screwed us at the end of the day. I don’t blame them. I feel that, too. At the end of the day, it is what it is. Now we have to decide if this is the best of the worst or if we think we can achieve something better in the courts system.”
Howard Beck of the New York Times has the details on the letter Stern sent to the union outlining both the owners’ latest proposal and what the next proposal would be if the players don’t accept that one by Wednesday. From the players’ perspective, it’s either take the bad offer on the table now or be left with a horrible offer that includes salary rollbacks after that.
In the SC interview, Stern declined to talk about the possibility of canceling the season because he didn’t want to make “empty threats” to players. If the reports about the hardline owners are accurate, then Wednesday’s deadline isn’t an empty threat at all. I never would have believed it would get to this point.
Michael Cunningham, Hawks beat
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
246 comments Add your comment
vava74
November 9th, 2011
9:05 am
NBA franchises are toys and typically the larger chunk of the profit is made on sale, rather than during operations.
Further to this, available data from past years shows that NBA Owners are using accountancy gimmicks, like player value depreciation, to show a loss when there is in fact an operational profit or a break even situation and, worse, those losses are then used to offset profits elsewhere in their portfolio, making them an effective gain by diminishing their overall tax exposure.
I don’t question that the previous CBA was wrongly construed and that significant adjustments are necessary in order to render the league more solvent AND more balanced, but to depict players as being greedy and spoiled bastards can only be perceived as an exercise in ENVY.
Known/public player salaries are GROSS, their earning careers are short and subject to being even shorter due to injury, so there are many players who, although earning a lot more than most of us will earn during our lifetime, are far from being millionaires to the point that they cannot easily walk off from their position to keep their BRI above 50%.
Kobe, Lebron and similar players don’t even rely on their basketball wages as their major source of income, so they are not the ones who lose if a 50-50 deal is forced on them, it’s the other guys that are making a push not to lose a system that allowed – in a flawed way – that middling players got access to major cash.
How can you blame the players?
I am not taking sides since I think BOTH parties should make concessions in order not to damage the product and to even enhance it by rendering the league more balanced, however, I think that the players have already taken a huge step towards that and should not be forced to overly compensate at their own expense for foolish business decisions by the owners like, for instance, Agent 0 and Eddy Curry deals.
Having said this, I think that there should be escape valves in the agreement: contracts should only be guaranteed if the employee fulfilled his duties as a player.
Eddy Curry’s contract should be voidable in light of him not being able to stay in shape.
Agent 0’s contract should have been voidable in light of his gun related incident and suspension.
I agree to the proposed mini-mid-level exception for teams in the luxury since that would allow for a better balance.
So players are wrong in some of their points, but who can blame them? They are the product and it was the owners and the NBA that gave them the previous CBA.
Nobody likes to be in losing end of salary and benefit cuts in particular when its not the players who manage the franchises and make them dysfunctional.
Should the players lose benefits and wages because the ASG is a bunch of idiots who overpaid Marvin and Bibby and instead of hiring a good HC went for a bottom of the barrel choice?
Good management results in good teams and good teams typically result in better financial returns for the franchises.
Cutting player wages, contract lengths and benefits will not necessarily turn the Hawks into a successful franchise. There is a lot more beyond that.
vava74
November 9th, 2011
9:06 am
MC, blog monster ate my post. Please rescue it. Many thanks.
Joe Hill
November 9th, 2011
9:19 am
I hope they cancel the season. It is the most boring of all sports. I have never watched a professional game. It is just to boring.
Dale
November 9th, 2011
9:42 am
RIP you Heavy A$$
Bonnie
November 9th, 2011
9:51 am
northcyde’s in town
O'Brien
November 9th, 2011
9:54 am
northcyde,
I don’t shed one tear for Michael Jordan and the Charlotte Bobcats, when Jordan has repeatedly shown that he is one of the worst executives in the league..
He did draft Kwame Brown #1 overall, and Adam Morrisson #3 overall. Not smart.
O'Brien
November 9th, 2011
9:55 am
AJ,
I’m just glad the Hawks don’t have 3 player representatives, who all have to come to an agreement before they can vote.
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
10:08 am
OB, exactly.
MJ hasn’t been awful in Charlotte, other than allowing Larry Brown to talk him out of drafting Brook Lopez in favor of DJ Augustine. But it is hard to fault an owner for allowing a head coach to “purchase his own groceries”. When MJ purchase the Bobcats, they didn;t even have a local TV contract that covered the entire Charlotte market, as the city is split in half by seprate cable companies. So that has always been a challenging market to build a fan base… any good businessperson chooses their location carefully.
The NFL rules in part because the hard salary cap drives parity. Arthur Blank can’t do more than an owner with a third of his wealth. The same is not true in the NBA, where some owners have “money to burn”.
Najeh Davenpoop
November 9th, 2011
10:48 am
” do you think that teams that are seeking to make a profit, are going to lower ticket prices just because they’re playing out less in salaries? ”
Thank you. Co-sign. Ticket prices will NEVER decrease. Owners are just going to pocket the extra money.
But the truth is that even if you make this point clear to the “NBA sucks, good riddance, enjoy your career at UPS” people, it won’t matter, because they relate to the billionaires more than the millionaires. Quite frankly they are all for free markets determining exorbitant salaries as long as mostly white owners and CEOs are getting paid, but are suddenly against it when mostly black athletes are getting paid. I am neither black nor white, as long time readers of this blog know, but that aspect of the general fan reaction is too widespread to ignore.
Najeh Davenpoop
November 9th, 2011
10:59 am
By the way it appears the blog monster hasn’t yet set his clock back to standard time.
ET
November 9th, 2011
11:45 am
NBA – Who Cares??? The way the game is played now, pro basketball sucks. It’s not a team sport anymore has not been since the 80’s. All these guys know how to do is palm the ball, travel, and stand in the lane long enough to order a hot dog.
Just like the baseball players of the 90’s, millionaires on strike to become multi millionaires. It took baseball years to get back what it lost in fan support. The NBA does not have years. Tkt prices are to high, the food & drink at the areas are too expensive, and the game stinks.
So NBA Players Association – I will watch you committ collective suicide. Then hopefully, we will get “TEAM” players, not the tatooed thugs that we have now.
When that day happens and it may never, I will watch & go to a NBA game.
Till then – GOOD LUCK – SUCKERS!!!!!!
Grandad
November 9th, 2011
12:10 pm
There will NOT be replacement players,
because, it is a “lockout”.
Meaning – all players are “locked out”.
If it were a strike;
then replacement players -might- be an option ?
Because the players would be the ones choosing not to work.
However, in this case, the owners are the ones …
choosing to create the work stoppage.
Therefore – No replacement players.
***This was for Jay or any others who may or may not understand***
Worldwide Clyde
November 9th, 2011
12:32 pm
Fire Sund
vava74
November 9th, 2011
12:45 pm
“chuck
November 8th, 2011
7:08 pm
I use to take my family of 4 to about a dozen games per year. We have stopped attending the NBA and have been going to college games for two reasons. First, the local Atlanta Hawks team can’t be competitive against the owners that have unlimited spending capabilities. Second, the prices have become too much in this economy for a family of 4.
I hope the owners hold the line on a true hard salary cap to level the playing field. Second, I suggest the owners cut the players percentage of revenue back into the low 40% range. That way the owners could have a chance to make a reasonable return (5-10%) on their teams WITHOUT having to raise the already too high ticket prices.”
Chuck,
The blog monster ate up a post where I mentioned a few of the things that I will mention below again:
NBA franchises are more toys than businesses and profit is usually made “on exit”, when the owners sell rather than during its operation.
Apart from this, NBA franchises have been presenting negative results by using accountancy gimmicks which include “player value depreciation” as if players were stock which value had to be replaced and a provision (cost) for such replacement accounted for yearly.
More, these “losses” were not specifically created to put pressure on players but in order to allow them to be used as a tax relief since they will balance out profits in other areas of the owning group or the owner’s personal portfolios.
So, there is nothing to feel sorry about the owners on that front. Losses have been actually minimal in general up until very recently when some owners overspent buying with too much financial leverage (owners who do not have the critical mass to be franchise owners – ASG for instance).
So, to cut down the BRI share of players to the 40’s as you suggest is NOT necessary for them to make a profit.
Actually, I think that the driving force for more real and tangible profit is not by cutting costs with players significantly (some tweaking is necessary) but by introducing mechanisms that allow higher parity and more emotion (the season is also too long, with too many games, watering down interest in comparison with what happens with the NFL where ALL games matter).
There (on the parity), the owners are right: the current system allows that some markets and some owners perpetuate an imbalance which makes it almost impossible for small market franchises to be competitive (obviously, SAS was an interesting exception, however, they had a pretty good combo of luck associated with good management).
Gilbert may be a questionable fellow, but a system that allows the Miami trio is bad system. The NBA needs a system which spreads out talent more evenly.
That lack of competitiveness makes it a lot more difficult for smaller franchises to draw more interest and reach the critical mass point when everything on and off the court starts clicking.
Another aspect which cannot be disregarded is that the NBA was too greedy and over-expanded, watering down the talent level and worsening the product that way.
Again, it was not the player’s fault and to brutally reduce their BRI share does not seem right.
Finally: where the players ARE NOT right is when contracts like Agent 0 and Eddy Curry’s can’t be voided.
dap01
November 9th, 2011
12:48 pm
The players and owners want all of the money. They assume that the public will keep spending the money on a declining product.
Yall both lose, the public no longer cares.
vava74
November 9th, 2011
12:52 pm
On the spreading of talent, lets use the MIA trio again as an example:
Who the &%$#$ wants to see the Raptors right now, after Bosh’s departure?
And Cleveland? People still attended games out of spite towards Lebron, but if the losing continues for 3 or 4 years do you think they will continue to have good attendance numbers?
The draft is not enough to counterbalance the exits, in particular if this talent concentration continues and after the rookie contracts are up guys look to join the bigger/stronger clubs.
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
1:11 pm
What is not clear (to me at least) is what is being negotiated to create more parity across the league. I don’t think that players should be denied free agency or determining where they want to work/play, but the entertainment product suffers if there are only a handful of teams (and the same teams year after year) that dominate the league. I don’t too much care who gets the bulk of the cash, I care more about the mechanics of how a low-revenue club like the Hawks will compete once an agreement is signed.
vava74
November 9th, 2011
1:18 pm
Astro,
The mid-level exception being reduced to a mini-mid-level exception for teams in the luxury tax already curbs their ability to sign quality players if they stock up more than two 20 million guys.
It’s on this type of points that the Owners are right and the players wrong.
But on the BRI, I think the Owners are taking it too far.
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
1:28 pm
vava, thanks that sounds like a good start.
vava74
November 9th, 2011
1:37 pm
Astro,
If you want to follow a pretty decent run down on all things related to the lockout you may want to check out http://www.sheridanhoops.com
There you’ll find highlights of what is being said and written virtually everywhere (espn, si, msn, nba, …).
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
1:44 pm
Blog updates with scheduled 1 p.m. meeting between owners and players. Owners may be willing to compromise on salary-cap and luxury-tax issues now that players seem willing to accept 50-50 BRI split.
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
1:54 pm
I’m concerned that those salary cap and luxury tax issues may result in a continued imbalance in power.
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
2:07 pm
@vava74: “MC, blog monster ate my post. Please rescue it. Many thanks.”
i think i saved it.
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
2:19 pm
@Najeh Davenpoop: “But the truth is that even if you make this point clear to the “NBA sucks, good riddance, enjoy your career at UPS” people, it won’t matter, because they relate to the billionaires more than the millionaires. Quite frankly they are all for free markets determining exorbitant salaries as long as mostly white owners and CEOs are getting paid, but are suddenly against it when mostly black athletes are getting paid. I am neither black nor white, as long time readers of this blog know, but that aspect of the general fan reaction is too widespread to ignore.”
yeah, free-market principles seem to go out the door when it comes to pro athletes (but not movie stars). in addition to the “go work at UPS” group, you have the real basketball fans who selfishly want whatever rules benefit their team. for fans of all but the big-spending elite franchises, that means restrictions on salaries and player movement. (for college fans, it means forcing players to stay in school for as long as possible instead of having the right to take a job whenever it’s offered like the rest of us).
i don’t think the players understand either of these dynamics. they can never win the PR battle with the general public in labor negotiations so they shouldn’t even try. all of that “Stand” and “Let us Play” stuff just isn’t going to resonate with working stiffs. better that players message with the basics: “look, the owners said they lost $1, we are giving back that $1 plus 25 cents” and just end it at that.
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
2:27 pm
@jlusfd: no politics on this blog.
O'Brien
November 9th, 2011
2:34 pm
I understand where the owners are coming from, and I am ok with alot of the things they are pushing for (lower salaries, shorter contract length etc). But I dont see why they can’t come to a middle ground with the players so we can have basketball, and those basketball employees (parking attendants, vendors etc) can get back to work.
drmaryb.(*_*).
November 9th, 2011
2:34 pm
The Rabbit Hole!
Just like Alice in Wonderland fumbling, stumbling and rumbling into that quintessential rabbit hole?
So goes The Hawks Fans who really believed the ASKillerG would sell their franchise. As – IF they could!
Ouch! I just bumped my head on a 6′8″ tree root.
(she smirks). Boy, do I hate these 8 orangutans!
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
2:36 pm
@Mike is back: “MC, I think Stern has forgotten that he was part of negotiations of the previous contract…why do the owners have to have a slam dunk to make a deal.”
they are trying to get the most favorable deal they can. i don’t blame them for that, and i don’t blame the players for trying to keep as much as they can. but i do think the owners are not wise to damage their product like this.
Najeh Davenpoop
November 9th, 2011
2:48 pm
“The draft is not enough to counterbalance the exits, in particular if this talent concentration continues and after the rookie contracts are up guys look to join the bigger/stronger clubs.”
The bigger problem is that in a superstar-driven league, there simply are not enough superstars to make 30 teams competitive even if there was a hard cap. That’s what makes the owners’ position so hypocritical. Even if you had a hard cap, and hypothetically going even further, if they instituted a rule that explicitly limited teams to having one “superstar”, you would still have some teams anchored by LeBron or Kobe and other teams anchored by Tyreke Evans or Danny Granger. And as long as players have the right to free agency, the big market teams are invariably going to be the ones with the better superstars.
The only real, lasting way to make every team competitive in the NBA is to contract about six teams and move as many teams to big markets as possible. Either that, or enforce a height limit of 6′5″.
Grandad
November 9th, 2011
2:58 pm
Mr Cunningham;
I agree to a certain extent about the below statement.
” (for college fans, it means forcing players to stay in school for as long as possible instead of having the right to take a job whenever it’s offered like the rest of us).”
I think a youngster should be allowed to decide immediately;
(right out of high school)
whether or not to become a professional athlete
-or-
become a student athlete;
at which time,
[in order to protect the University & other student athletes]
he (in this case) would sign his agreement to stay in school …
a minimum of 3 or 4 years, such as baseball.
This way the young man has a choice.
He still could opt for Juco (2 yrs).
Just weighing in on your above comment.
I’m a proponent of the true student athlete who
loses scholarships due to one & dones;
who use collegiate athletics as a minor league sport.
- Just my thoughts -
- not disagreeing – actually, agreeing in principle -
Grandad
November 9th, 2011
3:13 pm
Anticipating a Season:
G-dad’s T.O’ t D.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=bugc69c
Clips get – Joe -&- Marv
Hawks get in return – Kaman, Eric Gordon, R.Gomes -&- R.Foye
Najeh Davenpoop
November 9th, 2011
3:15 pm
Damn, the trade machine still works? There is technically no CBA under which trades can occur…
educatedthug
November 9th, 2011
3:44 pm
I have always said muti-year contracts doesnt make business sense. What motivation does a player have to his team winning once he’s “won” his contract? One year contracts should be mandatory. You get paid on your performance from the previous year-not a guaranteed paycheck based upon 1 good year during your final year previous contract.
I don’t see players hustling after they sign big multi-year contracts, ala Joe Johnson.
KevinM
November 9th, 2011
3:51 pm
G-Dad, I am trying to recall how many former Clippers have actually won anything after being on that franchise?
Dunno, Joe and Marv for Erik Gordon?, who is the only one I like of that bunch.
Good to see someone bring something original to the table though.
KevinM
November 9th, 2011
3:56 pm
I guess you can say that Doc Rivers and Larry Brown were 2 former Clippers that can say they have a ring…..players though? Bill Walton, Ron Harper perhaps?
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
4:26 pm
The best Joe trade I’ve come up with is Joe to Memphis for Rudy Gay & Tony Allen. Memphis made the WCF without Gay and assuming they re-sign Gasol, they would likely do better with a scoring SG than a 3-headed front-court monster. While I don’t think that Gay is the budding superstar like others may believe, getting some needed toughness in Allen to pair with Gay would be a great deal for the Hawks (while, actually giving Memphis a perimeter oriented complement to Z-Bo).
Najeh Davenpoop
November 9th, 2011
4:48 pm
“I have always said muti-year contracts doesnt make business sense. What motivation does a player have to his team winning once he’s “won” his contract? ”
What motivation does a player have to show any loyalty to his organization if he isn’t guaranteed any long-term security with them? A league of one-year contracts is a league of LeBrons that bolt as soon as things go bad, or bolt to a big market after their rookie season if they are drafted by a small market team. NBA players will become like college football coaches if there are no long-term contracts, leaving for greener pastures as soon as possible.
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
5:01 pm
From Sekou’s latest blog… the ASG are wiling to sell out to sell the team:
There are a good portion of hard-liners among the owners. But guess who isn’t a hard-liner? The owner of the New Orleans Hornets, which just happens to be the NBA. And guess who else probably isn’t today? Atlanta Spirit, the new/old owners of the Atlanta Hawks, who were put back in charge of the franchise last week when Alex Meruelo’s deal to buy the team fell through. It’s a pretty good guess that Atlanta Spirit will be willing to eschew whatever concerns it may have about a new deal in order to secure the help of one David J. Stern to help it make the best possible sale for the team. Those are two important votes the Commish has in his back pocket. And who knows how many other teams are on the block, and whose owners that are otherwise hawks might fall in line to facilitate a future sale?
Astro Joe
November 9th, 2011
5:04 pm
CLOWNS. G-D CLOWNS… the ASG. They would do whatever Stern suggests just to “dispose” of the Hawks.
drmaryb.(*_*).
November 9th, 2011
5:26 pm
Breaking Newz! (Ta Dah)
Tampa Bay just signed Albert Hainesworth.
Is he worth it? Hmmm … 3 tackles for the season and a side line blow up with his last position coach.
This helps The Falcons – yeah!
O'Brien
November 9th, 2011
5:33 pm
G-dad,
Eric Gordon has career averages of 18, 3 and 3, and is still on his rookie contract. Why would the Clippers give him up for JJ, when Gordon’s next contract will pay him alot less than the 6 years, $124 mil JJ got.
Plus the Clippers are still owned by Sterling.
I think to get rid of JJ, the Hawks will have to take back a bad contract, like Gilbert Arenas (if the Hawks and Magic could come up with a good combination that works for both teams).
Grandad
November 9th, 2011
5:42 pm
Personally, I don’t care if ASG are in Stern’s pocket.
Whatever it takes to rid ATL of those vermin.
O'Brien
November 9th, 2011
5:51 pm
From one of the SI guys;
Hours before Stern’s deadline, Forbes once again questions NBA’s claimed losses: .
No wonder the NBA wont open their books. And with the different accounting principles and options, it’s easy to turn a $2 mil profit, but record it as a $2 mil loss.
Grandad
November 9th, 2011
5:57 pm
O’Brien
I would agree. (about Joe)
But there are those who would say:
*6-8
*240
*elite defender
*[can defend anyone from CP3 to LeBJ]
*3rd best [2] in the league
*has the body of a 20 yr old
*does so many things well – does not need to hustle
*team capt. = quiet leadership
*play-off exp for a young up and coming team
*sees the floor
*oh heck I can’t remember everything – ask northcyde
Grandad
November 9th, 2011
6:00 pm
Just kiddin’ nc, don’t be upset !
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
6:01 pm
@Grandad: “I think a youngster should be allowed to decide immediately; (right out of high school) whether or not to become a professional athlete -or- become a student athlete; at which time, [in order to protect the University & other student athletes] he (in this case) would sign his agreement to stay in school … a minimum of 3 or 4 years, such as baseball. This way the young man has a choice. He still could opt for Juco (2 yrs).”
i guess that’s kind of splitting the difference. notice that the only sports that do not allow players to jump directly to the pros are those sports in which the NCAA makes profits, football and basketball. my belief is that NCAA athletes should have the ability to take a job whenever it’s offered just like we all do.
i don’t see how the system you propose, sensible as it is, protects the university and athletes. if you mean academic integrity, the schools would be better off only admitting those athletes who are actually capable of doing college-level work and putting more teeth in the “satisfactory academic progress” rules.
J
November 9th, 2011
6:03 pm
is it me or is it always the first few vents on these blogs come from idiots who know nothing about basketball and never attend games anyways. your comments are basically useless for those of us that do watch the game. please leave and go cry somewhere else, nobody is here to support you.
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
6:19 pm
@J: “is it me or is it always the first few vents on these blogs come from idiots who know nothing about basketball and never attend games anyways. your comments are basically useless for those of us that do watch the game. please leave and go cry somewhere else, nobody is here to support you.”
it’s not you. it seems some political trolls who have never commented on this blog before came over to offer us compelling commentary such as no one cares about basketball and these spoiled thugs should go work at UPS.
Michael Cunningham
November 9th, 2011
6:19 pm
5 p.m. and union and owners still negotiating. that’s good, i guess?
PMC
November 9th, 2011
6:20 pm
As long as they don’t blow out the NBA playoffs I’m good.
THis part of the season is useless.