Atlanta Hawks: Labor fight heads to courtroom as season in jeopardy

(3:40 p.m. update: David Stern speaks, Billy Hunter says season probably lost.)

NBA players got David Stern’s memo and dragged it to the trash bin.

Not only did the NBPA not send the owners’ latest offer to a vote of the full membership, the executive committee and the 30 player reps unanimously rejected the proposal and filed a “disclaimer of interest” that renounces the union’s interest in representing players in bargaining with the league. Billy Hunter said the next stop is a federal courtroom, where individual players will file antitrust suits against owners.

At a press conference following the union meeting, Hunter said “the collective bargaining process has completely broken down.” Later on NBA TV Hunter said: “It’s a high probability rather than possibility” that the 2011-12 season is lost.

Later on SportsCenter, Stern blasted union leadership for what he called a “sham” strategy, said the move is “really irresponsible given the timing of it” and predicted a “nuclear winter of the NBA.”

“It’s OK to do when you haven’t lost a game, but to do it now, the union is ratcheting it up to, I guess, see if they can scare the NBA owners into something,” Stern said. “That’s not happening. What they’ve done is destroy incredible value that otherwise would have gone to union membership.”

It seems some players also are questioning why the union waited until now to take such a drastic step, especially since Hunter and Derk Fisher have said all along that they didn’t think owners would ever present a deal players would accept. Deron Williams went to Twitter to vent on the union’s strategy:

“This is why I said we should have done this in July bc at least the process would have been underway… even over! Now possibly #NOSEASON”

Since Stern already had already said the owners are done negotiating–and noted today that there now is no union with which to negotiate–this means the season is in jeopardy as the two sides fight it out in court. Once players file the suit, we will see if owners follow through with Stern’s threat to void all existing contracts.

Gabriel A. Feldman, the director of the Tulane Sports Law Program, offered a good primer on the legal ramifications of the union’s move:

Assuming the mere threat of decertification/litigation is not enough to move the owners, the NBPA could (while the players are waiting for the decertification election) disclaim interest in representing the players. Disclaimer would permit the players to file their antitrust suit immediately. The NBA owners would argue that any such lawsuit must be heard in NY, so the players could either file in NY (unlikely) or file in another jurisdiction and engage in a legal battle to allow them to choose where the case is heard (more likely).

Stern has said all along that disclaimer/decertification is a losing strategy for players, citing the suit lost by NFL players last summer when they went the disclaimer route. On SportsCenter today he called the union’s tactic a “magical trick” that won’t succeed.

(The union has retained litigator David Boies, who represented the NFL in that case. Can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?)

But Feldman explains why the NFL case doesn’t necessarily mean NBA players will lose in court:

The ruling in Brady [vs. NFL] obviously favors the NBA owners, but the NBA players may still have success in court for at least a few reasons. First, only courts within the Eighth Circuit are bound by Brady, and it is a virtual certainty that any antitrust suit brought by the NBA players would not be filed in a court within the Eighth Circuit (the NBA filed its preemptory legal action in NY, and the players would likely file their suit in an employee-friendly jurisdiction like California).

Second, let’s be clear as to what the Eight Circuit decided in the Brady case. The NFL players argued that the NFL lockout was illegal and asked for 2 things–an injunction and damages. The district court preliminarily concluded that the lockout was illegal and granted the injunction. The Eighth Circuit reversed, narrowly holding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents federal courts from enjoining lockouts. The court did not conclude that the lockout was illegal and did not conclude that the players were not entitled to bring their antitrust claim. So, even if a court was bound by Brady, it could still determine that the players are able to bring a post-dissolution antitrust suit challenging the lockout, and that the lockout was illegal. In other words, Brady does not prevent the NBA players from dissolving their union and bringing a successful antitrust suit for three-times damages.

Third, decertification (as opposed to disclaimer) may give the NBA players a more powerful argument in court. In Brady, the NFL argued that the NFLPA’s disclaimer of interest was a sham, in part, because it “lack[ed] the formality of decertification” and was “literally a paper-thin statement, issued unilaterally by a union, that may readily be overturned.” The formality of the decertification process could thus weigh in the NBA players’ favor.

Sorry to bog down my blog people with a bunch of legalese but, sadly, that’s where we are. I will update here after Stern speaks.

Michael Cunningham, Hawks beat

315 comments Add your comment

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
4:29 pm

I’d be willing to bet that the ASG doesn’t have collectively a net worth of $1 billion. That’s why they were looking for another outside investor. Meruelo got out while the gettin’ was good.

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
4:33 pm

Mary, you do realize that it takes two sides to reach an agreement… the NBA players and there $100M contracts are only marginally closer to the factory worker than the owners. Again, I’m choosing the side of the factory worker in Cleveland who doesn’t want to go from having the pleasant distraction of watching LeBron play in The Finals to wretching as Boobie Gibson hoists another wayward three during a historic losing streak.

doc

November 17th, 2011
4:33 pm

supreme basg made their bed by going into an ego war with the guy who made up 30% of the money wasnt it and kicked him out.

14 billionaires in the nba owner club though.

drmaryb .[*_*].

November 17th, 2011
4:37 pm

Cook Books!

“supeme you saying accountants dont cook the corporate books?

ever hear of anderson?” -doc-
_____________________

Arthur Anderson, CPA is the most notorious Chef in the world! Can you say, “Enron”? I had a personal friend who worked for a company in Atlanta. Named “Perigrine”.

She sold medical billing systems software worth 3.5M and hospital operating room life support machines. Her commission checks alone were 300K/per sale. This woman had a 12th grade education, but was very easy on the eyes. What a show boat and bragadocious bytch she was. Admittedly, I smiled when she lost her job after Perigrine filed Chapter 11. Arthur Anderson cooked their books as well. All the companies Arthur represented went under investigation as Arthur lost his CPA license under criminal allegations. Funny thing how you can make liabilities look like assets and release false earning reports to the public stock markets.

So yeah, cooking books is the oldest game in the business. You only need a high school diploma to figure that one out! (smh)

Aye Stern! Show Me The Money! These owners ain’t broke! They greedy!

doc

November 17th, 2011
4:39 pm

poobah, no, you arent all crooked but accountants through laws can move profits and losses from here to there and why they better be good at what they do. some are very crooked though, heard of madoff? they are people and some are good and some bad but are you saying accountants cant find loopholes to make things the way it looks best? again, i want to see transparency and the courts will provide it so maybe in the end the owners might back off a bit, find compromises within the club to compensate the haves from the have nots and go on. i imagine the players would like to see the books, too.

drmaryb .[*_*].

November 17th, 2011
4:47 pm

Percentage Rates!

“Astro Joe

Mary, you do realize that it takes two sides to reach an agreement” -Astro Joe-
_____________

Astro, my friend, I think going from 57% to 50% is one helluva step towards compromise. Each % point has a 40M value.

7 x 40 = 210M over 8 years that comes to 1.68B. How much do the owners want from the players? Blood?

From what doc said last week? They do want a blood draw for PED’s in this proposal and during the off season as well.

I’m just on the side of the players, work force, product – I guess.

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
4:55 pm

Mary, I must have missed it where the players objected to the 50% split. I thought they objected to the “system rules”. And as a fan, I mostly support the owners version of many of the system rules because it would help my team. I understand that there is a movement in this country to hate anyone with wealth, but if the good idea comes from the person with wealth, I can’t simply dismiss it because the wealthy guy came up with it. And limiting how much money a luxury-paying team and spend on a FA sounds like a really, really good idea to me. Correcting market prices because some dumb owner gave the farm away to James Posey or Travis Outlaw sounds completely reasonable. Again, I must have missed the outrage from the players about the 50/50 spolit, the outrage I read about was more pointed to issues OTHER than the collective payroll of the players.

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
4:55 pm

“BTW, please define “cooking the books.” I’ll bet you can’t, you just heard someone use that term and so you used it yourself.”

Deadspin already defined it perfectly.

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
4:59 pm

Most corporations do not make their books available to their employees. However, if that will placate the players, I guess they should do it. I just hear a lot of folks talk about the so-called double dipping when it comes to player contracts. You can only expense a player’s contract once. Consider the example of our beloved Hawks. When Joe signed his first contract, he got a $20 million up front payment. Did the team get to expense the full amount of that up front payment? No, they got to expense 1/5 (I think that contract was for five years versus the present 6 year disaster) of the contract. This is the so-called “contract depreciation” (amortization actually).

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
4:59 pm

Owning a piece of a government-sanctioned monopoly is not much of a “risk”.

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
5:00 pm

“Most corporations do not make their books available to their employees. ”

Most corporations are not government-sanctioned monopolies with antitrust exemptions and collective bargaining.

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
5:02 pm

Party A and Party B agree to split a $1.00 evenly. Party A insists that Party B accept their share in dimes & nickels. Party B objects, as they want it in dimes only.

The above scenario is NOT a money issue, it is a “system issue”. I readily admit that I may have missed some of the more recent news regarding the labor conflict, but I thought that the split of revenue was within a penny (if not agreed to) and the REAL problems rested in the decision around pennies vs. dimes. If that is true, then all of this drama about billionaires and millionaires, Enron, Wall St. and Occupy Philips Arena is irrelevant.

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
5:03 pm

“Slavery is a more precise way of putting it than Amateur”

I wouldn’t go that far. They are still being provided room and board and, for whatever its worth (not that much in my opinion), a free “education”. I would liken it more to colonialism than slavery. The players are given a few token perks in exchange for being exploited by the more powerful colleges and NCAA.

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
5:06 pm

Najeh – If you’ll bother to read the article you referenced, the writer disclaimed his assertions that the “loss on player contracts” had anything to do with the non-existent “RDA,” It was a contract they wrote off because of either retirement of the player or a buyout. Even if the “RDA” exists (it doesn’t, by the way) it would only be used on a tax return, not on the financial statements issued by the teams.

doc

November 17th, 2011
5:07 pm

slavesgot room, board and a very severe lesson in life najeh, but yes it is a bit of a reach to call it that. indentured servitude is better.

again astro logic and rationale is not what is going on in these “negotiations”. if there were then we would see basketball nba style by now. this is nba owners pleading this is the same as the nhl and due to many revenue streams it aint so. some remember or owned nhl teams and think it will all end up like that. well it will, because revenues in the end will resemble hockey if they arent careful.

drmaryb .[*_*].

November 17th, 2011
5:08 pm

Cooked Well Done!

Peregrine Systems Files for Chapter 11

Software: The maker of business management programs says it will also sue Arthur Andersen over its accounting.

September 23, 2002⁠|⁠P.J. HUFFSTUTTER | TIMES STAFF WRITER

After months of struggling to shed its financial and legal woes, San Diego-based software company Peregrine Systems Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Sunday and said it would sue accounting firm Arthur Andersen for more than $250 million.

Peregrine–whose chairman is John J. Moores, owner of the San Diego Padres–blames its failure on Arthur Andersen, which it accuses of engaging in fraud, corporate negligence and failure in its auditing and accounting duties.
_______________

For doc.
________________

Astro Joe, you make some very strong points and I must say I’m swayed. Man, I just want my NBA “fix” – fixed. As long as they agree to something, I don’t really care what it is.

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
5:12 pm

Najeh, the NBA owners don’t have as much risk as an owner of a car dealer but the NBA player certainly has an advantage over the car dealers sales force too. From what I previously read (which may be incomplete), the players recognize that one side shouldn’t bear the burden of a product in decline and were willing to compromise from the original 57% agreement. My guess is that concession was based on some economic reality and not just because they were in a good mood.

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
5:13 pm

Of course the Chairman blamed it on the accountants. Oh, wait a minute – the corporate books are not maintained by the auditor – they are the representation of management. I’m sure Anderson may have been involved in some hijinks there, but if so, it was in collaboration with Peregrine’s own personnel. It’s just the way things go in America. Don’t accept responsibility and blame your shortcomings on someone else.

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
5:27 pm

doc, I just don’t know what issue the owners need to relent. I’ll try to study up some more, but I tend to agree with many of the system issues that have previously been discussed. My guess is the split will be within a penny of 50/50 when all is said and done…. I think the players simply want to maintain the freedom to choose to play for the Lakers at the same salary as they could get from the Clippers (despite one team having $20M more in total payroll). And sorry, I personally don’t like that answer as a fan. At this rate, the only chance Blake Griffin has to win a title is if he plays for a luxury-tax playing team. And that shouldn’t be the requirement for a player to win a title.

doc

November 17th, 2011
5:39 pm

the only chance blake has is to get out of a sorry organization just as labron had to do because gilbert didnt put the hosses there to win for him and the fans. it sucks to be fans of teams with incompetent owners, right astro?

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
5:44 pm

Guess what doc, LeBron can’t win even with multiple all-star buddies. If they were going to pay him more money in Cleveland, I don’t know how you can accuse Cleveland of being cheap. Why is it that if the team’s management did what LeBron, Wade and Bosh did, it would be considered “tampering”? Players like Jordan, Bird, Magic, et al took pride in the fact that they could win on their own, without having to bring in a bunch of ringers to do it. Players just don’t want to have to do it the hard way. I hope LeBron never wins another playoff round.

doc

November 17th, 2011
5:49 pm

poobah the owners get to depreciate contracts on players as though the player was a piece of furniture. there are a lot of ways the osners get acconting and financial breaks we dont. all legal but overlooked by the mainstream.

northcyde

November 17th, 2011
5:53 pm

Question for you Astro . . .

Understanding the “system issues” the owners want to implement, how does that help the Atlanta Hawks? How do those “system issues” help us reach the NBA Finals?

Those “system issues” are what the NBA is trying to sell to the general public. So can you explain with a few examples how the proposed CBA by the owners can help the Hawks go from a mid-level playoff team, to a championship contending playoff team?

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
5:55 pm

doc – they amortize the contract over the contract term. They don’t get to deduct the contract twice. There is no such thing as the “RDA.”

Again, even if it did exist, it would be a tax return deduction only, and would not be a part of the team’s financial statements. In the end, if the team was sold, the gain on the sale would be bigger.

drmaryb .[*_*].

November 17th, 2011
5:56 pm

Blame Game!

“I’m sure Anderson may have been involved in some hijinks there, but if so, it was in collaboration with Peregrine’s own personnel. It’s just the way things go in America. Don’t accept responsibility and blame your shortcomings on someone else.” -supreme poobah-
___________________

That’s a fair assessment and probably very true.

northcyde

November 17th, 2011
6:27 pm

@ Poobah

In fairness to these current players, it’s not like they bolted from their original team as soon as their rookie contract was up. All of those guys TRIED to win with that original team.

Lebron gave Cleveland 7 years. Melo did 7 with Denver. Bosh did 7 with Toronto. Paul will at least give 7 years to New Orleans. Howard will at least give 8 to Orlando. Amare would’ve STAYED in Phoenix, had they chose to give him a max deal, but they didn’t, so he went to NY. JJ gave us 6 years, before re-signing.

How long is a player supposed to stay with a team? Is he supposed to stay with them for life? People want to run JJ out of town right now. So is that how it goes? If the team or fans don’t want you, they have a right to get rid of you . . . . but if a player wants to leave, a player shouldn’t have a right to go where he wants to go?

It’s not like those players just flat out bailed on their teams. Magic and Bird won championships very early and immediately played on championship level teams that competed for a decade. This kept them satisfied and hungry enough to stay with their respective teams. Jordan won in year 7 of his NBA career, with the constant improvement of the Bulls in Years 5, 6, and 7 keeping him around.

But guys like Bosh, Paul, and Melo were not going to win anytime soon, because management kept making bad player acquisitions. Lebron’s Cavs were on the obvious decline, and the off the court stuff became too much for Lebron.

Here’s the truth about the 2010 season and summer frenzy:

- had Cleveland gone all out to get Amare from Phoenix, when the Suns were definitely dealing that guy, both Lebron and Amare may have re-signed with the Cavs in the summer of 2010, and given that franchise a legit shot to win a title. Instead, Cleveland opts to trade for Antwan Jamison, an absolute disasterous trade for that franchise.

- speaking of Phoenix, they have made a conscious decision over the years to try to do everything possible to NOT be over the Luxury Tax. This has caused them to lose JJ to us. Caused them to balk on re-signing Steve Nash ( until they came to their senses ). And eventually saw them passing on Amare. So do we blame Amare that he went to NY, when his former team refused to pay him like a superstar?

- JJ, going into the 2010 offseason ( even after that disasterous playoff series with Orlando ), knew he was in the financial driver’s seat. SOMEBODY was going to pay that dude big time money, if the Hawks didn’t. JJ could’ve easily been the 2 guard in Chicago, the 2 guard in NY, or the SF alongside Wade in Miami ( if the Heat couldn’t get a free agent of significance ). Had the Hawks not re-signed JJ, even he was going to a major market. But the 6th year and extra 20 million was enough to entice him to stay.

The fact is that all of these owners who are now crying about being at a “competitive disadvantage”, all were culpable in what happened in 2010. Honestly, a lot of these teams put THEMSELVES at competitive disadvantages, by overpaying mid level talent like Boris Diaw, Tyrus Thomas, Anderson Varejao and Josh Childress.

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
6:46 pm

Well Northcyde, they might as well contract the league down to about four teams, because they are the ones with deep enough pockets to “buy” their titles. Unfortunately, franchises like ours are just out of luck. These few remaining franchises would become the equivalent of all-star teams, and I don’t know about you, but watching the all-star game fast break drill is rather boring to me. No defense, no strategy, just get out there and run. Sloppy turnovers? No problem. Some folks may like that, but I’m not one of them.

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
7:03 pm

Northcyde, I hear what you are saying about the owners putting themselves in this position, and I agree to a certain extent, but what was ASG to do? Either alternative was a no-win scenario for them. If they didn’t re-sign JJ, the fans would have been calling for heads to roll. They did sign him and fans are still calling for heads to roll. Dallas, NY, LAL, Miami more or less forced teams like ATL to overpay rather than lose their star player out right. Is there something that can be done that that the elite owners of the league don’t drive the not-so-deep pocketed teams into making no-win business decisions? The system is screwed up in their favor.

Grandad

November 17th, 2011
7:52 pm

Wait a minute:

A few elite players are supposed to have the “right”
or “privelege” to pick and choose their teams.
And this is granted to them because … why … ?

My point;
If this is all about LeBron or Chris Paul or Melo,
gaining the ability to have the freedom to pick
and choose their teams because, why ?

I’m not talking about free agency or normal player movement.

I’m talking about Super Players having Super Privileges,
to go out and gather Super Teams.

This is not about Dan Gilbert and slavery or indentured servants;
but entitled, spoiled players.
[a generation of which that has arisen since the inception of AAU]

I agree with SGPB;
I do not wish for a league of 8 super teams and 22 have nots.

There are some [Bill Simmons] who believe that;
two NY teams, two Chicago teams, two LA teams, 1 Boston team,
plus one more Big mkt should have all the talent, while the others
play for the fun of it. Fans in those cities [small mkts] would come
only to see the stars.
While the play-offs & championships are for TV and played by
Big mkt teams.

I’m off topic.

LeBron pissed off the owners when he gave the league a giant FU
and said basically I’m bigger than the league, the owners, everyone,
” I rule the world ” !

Now the owners are saying:
“wait just a minute”

I’m only talking about “competitive balance”

I ain’t smart enough to talk about “”"amortization”"” and such.

Supreme Grand Poobah Blogman

November 17th, 2011
8:01 pm

Good sumarization Grandad. It would end up being like All-Star teams vs. NBDL teams. If that’s the case, we can wait for the Globetrotters to come to town.

Grandad

November 17th, 2011
8:09 pm

If memory serves:

Cleveland had the best record in the league.
Dan Gilbert & or Danny Ferry -did- go out and aquire:
*Antawn Jamison & *Shaq -plus- re-signed *Zydrunas Ilgauskas.
along with *Mo Williams (all-star), *Anderson Varejao, *Delonte West,
*Daniel Gibson, and *JJ Hickson … not the worst roster in history.
* not to mention … LeBJ *

Now could they have found a better coach; ? sure.
Did LeBJ want a real Coach; ? nah .

Grandad

November 17th, 2011
8:11 pm

SGPB:

Thanks

Sam

November 17th, 2011
8:13 pm

Amazing video of a high school senior from Columbia TN who kicks the ball dead straight 75-80 yards in the air. He was successful on 54 of 54 attempts this season….100%. Now he needs a college team. For some crazy reason, he wants to go to Georgia Tech…not sure why?

Watch for yourself…it is unreal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_JKwgwFY3g

brigadierjerry

November 17th, 2011
8:17 pm

This is very interesting and I agree with Grandad, Astro Joe superiorblogman that I like to see competitive teams night in and night out.

Do the owners want free agency?NO, because they dont want to happen what happened this year where superstars are choosing where they want to play. Can an employee force his employer to be assigned wherever he wants to work?NO. But because the players fought for free agency, and so they were given that right and owners just hope that these players are competitive enough that they wont abuse the system. And now, an uncompetitive player was born and he does what owners doesnt want to happen and so they are trying to prevent it. So blame lebron not the owners for having no deal done coz hes the one started it all.

And the league would suffer from this. The reason why the league is suffering now because of the lack of parity and these superteams could lead to less parity.

This chart shows that big market teams winning or lack of parity is not good for the league.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1-blog480.jpg

Despite the highest rating in the finals when bulls is playing, the league is less healthy as a whole than when other teams are playing as shown by their oper. margin. The league is healthier in

89-90= 21.3%
93-94=22.4%
94-95=28.2%

when jordans bulls isnt playing.

And despite what everyone says that about the cleveland/san antonio finals ratings, the league had a 8.2%(2006-07) oper margin compared to 2010 where it was boston LA. In fact the 3 lowest oper margin had LA playing in the finals.
1. Boston/LA=4.8%
2. Phi/LA=5.8%
3. LA/Orlando-6.1%

Finals ratings are just for 7 games. What is important is the average rating of all games and not just the finals because that determines profit. And the league has decreasing interest as can be shown by decreasing ticket sales starting 2007-08. And worse is that ticket revenues or attendance just doubled while salaries just quadrupled since the 1989

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
9:37 pm

northcyde, as I understand it, teams that exceed the luxury tax would have a smaller mid-level exemption than teams below the luxury tax. So if the Hawks and the Mavs were both competing for the services of Player A, the Hawks would conceivably have the advantage in terms of offering a better contract. Likewise, sign & trades for luxury-paying teams would either be forbidden or restricted. So using sign & trades to create a super-team that blows well past the luxury tax would either be impossible or highly improbable. That allows other teams to get in on the action for better players. Amnesty would help correct prices of previously overpaid players. Instead of the Agent of Player B being able to reference someone like James Posey as the baseline for a middling SF, Posey likely gets cut, has his salary sliced in half by his future team and now that price for a middling SF is lowered (which helps teams with less revenue). Those are some of the system issues I previously read about that could help the lower-revenue teams compete with the higher revenue teams. And by the way, those issues don’t “hold back” the players. If the Hawks “amnesty Marvin”, he still gets his ~$25M from the Hawks for the next 3 years. Let’s say he signs with Team Q for $10M over 3 years, Marvin goes from a projected income of $25M in the next 3 years to $35M over that same period.

doc, yes, incompetence can be found on every side. But the fact still remains that 67% of the teams in this league aren’t sniffing a title because the current system isn’t designed for parity. It is far miore than just strength of scheduke, it is also neutralizing “organic” advantages based on geography, wealth and revenue. That is why Green Bay and Pittsburgh can produce teams that win as much (or more) than teams from NYC or Chicago.

doc

November 17th, 2011
10:18 pm

poobah in laymen’s terms so all can see some of the fallicy of it. i wish i could have amortize my workers salaries as they aged slowed down and became more disintetested in their work.

http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-cba-glossary/g/roster-depreciation-allowance.htm

doc

November 17th, 2011
10:26 pm

astro your model doesnt work as this is a monopoly/club instead of a yrue competitive business. owners will never have to compete unless they want to and it is not really market driven.

green bay and pittsburg have been two of the better and more stable organizations over the last half century with one literally owned by the town members. bad analogy there. what happened to arizona tampa and atlanta in that same period? we traded away brett farve.

Astro Joe

November 17th, 2011
10:46 pm

doc, the NBA is more like MLB than NFL. That was my point, that parity is defined based on the rules of the league, not just competent owners. The NFL’s model neutralizes the individual wealth of their owners, doesn’t allow geography to dictate who dominates (other than an owner’s decision to play in a dome or open-air stadium), etc. That was my point, that system issues can in fact contribute to a more competitive league. And the strength of schedule the NFL uses isn’t the only thing that helps even the playing field (as that only determines 2 of 16 games).

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
11:09 pm

“the NBA is more like MLB than NFL. That was my point, that parity is defined based on the rules of the league, not just competent owners.”

The NBA isn’t really like either one, because more than owner competency or league rules, what defines the NBA is the nature of the sport. Neither of those other sports is defined by superstars the way basketball is. LeBron surrounded by garbage can get to the NBA Finals. Alex Rodriguez or Adrian Peterson surrounded by garbage can and will still lose. There are only five players on the court at a time in basketball, and each one plays both ends of the floor, which means one great player has a much bigger impact than he would in those other sports.

When success in basketball is so predicated on having a great player, and there are not enough truly great players for each team to have one, there will never be parity. Some team will have LeBron anchoring their team while some other team will have Tyreke Evans or Joe Johnson anchoring them. That will always be the case and is completely independent of whatever system is implemented, regardless of how mid-level players’ salaries are limited. And when there is no superstar to anchor the team, the impact of a mid-level player is minimal anyway, so the under-the-tax Hawks being able to outbid the over-the-tax Mavs for the Erick Dampiers of the world isn’t going to do much to improve competitive balance.

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
11:11 pm

You could draw somewhat of an analogy between superstars in the NBA and quarterbacks in the NFL, since now that the NFL is so pass-heavy the quarterback’s impact is disproportionate to any other player. But even there, the analogy fails because a) there is at least one good-to-great quarterback in nearly every draft, unlike the NBA where multiple drafts can go by with no real superstar, and b) the nature of the game dictates that a team can only start one quarterback, which in and of itself “spreads the wealth”. That has nothing to do with parity. If the rules of the game were such that a team could start Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady — the way the Heat start LeBron and Wade — chances are there would be a lot more player movement among QBs too.

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
11:17 pm

“A few elite players are supposed to have the “right”
or “privelege” to pick and choose their teams.
And this is granted to them because … why … ?”

Everyone has the right to pick and choose their teams. That was established by Curt Flood and Oscar Robertson.

“I agree with SGPB;
I do not wish for a league of 8 super teams and 22 have nots.”

I agree with this too. I think pretty much everyone does, including Bill Simmons (I don’t think you are fully understanding his argument). The problem is that no matter what the system is, it is impossible for all 30 teams in the NBA to be competitive. There is not enough superstar talent to make that happen even if player movement was completely restricted and talent was distributed completely evenly. That’s why all this talk about competitive balance rings hollow to me. Of course I want competitive balance. It’s just not going to happen because of “system changes” and BRI redistribution.

If you want every team to be competitive, it’s time to get rid of six teams.

Najeh Davenpoop

November 17th, 2011
11:25 pm

“This chart shows that big market teams winning or lack of parity is not good for the league.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1-blog480.jpg

Nah, what that chart shows is that non-player-related expenses have grown at an unsustainable rate. Player salaries have grown at a lower rate than league revenue. Based solely on that the league should be making money. It is the other expenses that, if these numbers are correct, are killing the league. What that means is that gas and hotel prices are high, not that lack of parity is bad for the league.

drmaryb .[*_*].

November 17th, 2011
11:58 pm

Fight Night!

I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see Don King’s hair. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see if tHe boxer was wearing Mizuno shoes. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see if the boxer was wearing Everlast shorts. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see if the boxers were drinking Gatorade versus Powerade. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see which team had a better cut man. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see which boxer had the better corporate sponsor. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see how much the purse would be if the fight went 90 seconds or 12 rounds. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see which boxer trained running up stadium stairs or down a mountain side. I never seen a fan buy ring side seats, to see an announcer say, “Let’s get ready to R U M B L E!”

The only thing I ever seen a fan buy a ring side seat for: is to see – one helluva rumble!

Here’s my point: from a fan’s perspective, I go to NBA games at Show Time, to see “The Big Show” and have no interest whatsoever in the side show. I got my ticket – but the arena is blacked out?

Can I get a refund?

drmaryb .[*_*].

November 18th, 2011
12:16 am

Paper or Plastic?

“You could draw somewhat of an analogy between superstars in the NBA and quarterbacks in the NFL, since now that the NFL is so pass-heavy the quarterback’s impact is disproportionate to any other player.” – Poop -
____________________

Paper & can you double bag it – please? (I’m buying this)

doc

November 18th, 2011
12:29 am

yup to najeh, competitive balance is a pipe dream unless more superstars drop out of the sky.

Buddy Grizzard

November 18th, 2011
1:53 am

vava74

November 18th, 2011
2:13 am

vava74

November 18th, 2011
2:16 am

Astro:

“If the Hawks “amnesty Marvin”, he still gets his ~$25M from the Hawks for the next 3 years. Let’s say he signs with Team Q for $10M over 3 years, Marvin goes from a projected income of $25M in the next 3 years to $35M over that same period. ”

Actually I think that the last proposal previewed that if Marvin was cut and owed $25 million for 3 years and signed a $10 million contract for 3 years, the Hawks would only pay $15 million.

I could be wrong though.

vava74

November 18th, 2011
2:38 am

NBA proposal:

“14. Amnesty
• Each team permitted to waive 1 player prior to any season of the CBA (only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA) and have 100% of the player’s salary removed from team salary for Cap and Tax purposes.
• Salary of amnestied players included for purposes of calculating players’ agreed-upon share of BRI.
• A modified waiver process would be utilized for players waived pursuant to the Amnesty rule, under which teams with Room under the Cap could submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player’s remaining contract. If a player’s contract is claimed in this manner, the remaining portion of the player’s salary will continue to be paid by the team that waived him.”

vava74

November 18th, 2011
2:40 am

Only puzzling here is why it says that “…could submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player’s remaining contract.”

Why not all? Presumably to prevent fake trades? But what’s the limit?