Battier's "grandstanding" pissed off Hunter, Union board members

The irony here is to those players or agents who make the millions of dollars is those that can affored the lockout...someone like KG can say its ok for him to not get paid for as long as it takes...he's already a multi-millionaire! Duh!

OTH someone like Aaron Brooks has only recently gotten out of his rookie contract, and he can't wait to make the big bucks. However the longer the lockout happens the longer he has to sit around on his ass and watch his savings get drained away a little everyday.

Saying you can always work overseas is pretty short-sighted, again the only players who will be desperate enough to go to other countries to work will be those who are small fry in the NBA instead of the big names like Melo, Lebron etc. These fringe guys are a dime a dozen, and other countries aren't that hot to get fringe NBA players and pay them the same amount of money they would have made in the NBA.

Again take Aaron Brooks as an example. I doubt he'd be able to find a team willing to pay him more than 3M a year AND be kind enough to get a contract that allows him to leave when the lockout ends. What happens if he gets injured while playing for the Greek League? When the lockout ends he'll end up rehabbing and without a contract. How do you think he would feel if he had to go to Turkey just to earn $$$ but he sees Hunter in his couch earning 2.3M a year without having to leave and saying that the lockout will happen for as long the owners don't meet the player's demands?

To be quite honest, I'm in the owner's side, the NBA players are far too pampered. Basketball is high impact sports but it isn't life threatening like the NFL, you have far more athletes like Eddy Curry working during contract years and then getting fat after getting that big paycheck than you have of athletes who get tragically injured on the court and have to live on the guaranteed years.

 

I think LongTimeFan has summed this up perfectly.

Seems like many here don't recognize that this is more of a success-fee type of job. As LTF mentioend, it is not a service-provider coming in and getting paid regardless of success - like a lawyer, but rather someone doing their work and then getting paid AFTERWARDS.

That's why he's been getting his $2 million plus for many years now.

You don't pay your realtor their commission before they sell your house to motivate them to get it sold. You hold the carrot out there, and when they're successful, then they get paid.

Moreover, I don't think everyone understands that Billy Hunter can't just go out and sign a deal. Just as youre realtor couldn't just go out and sign a contract on a house you are trying to sell. The players have to approve the deal.

LTF's comments are spot on. Hunter taking effectively zero salary seems to make the most sense to me.

 

LOLwut I think YOU don't get it. Billy Hunter is ACTUALLY a lot like the lawyer who gets paid regardless of success, he's still receiving 2M prior to the lockout, when the lockout is going on, and after the lockout ends. As long as the Union doesn't fire him he'll still receive his 2M no matter what happens in the lockout.

 

Still doesn’t make sense. I believe when Hunter signed the employment contract with the players' union, salary was written in the contract. If taking a cut in salary in situation like this was in the contract, there would be no need for Shane to ask this question. If it was not, Shane or anybody else has no right to ask Hunter to take a pay cut. By asking this question, Shane basically doesn’t trust Hunter is doing his best to get the deal done. For the NFL guy, he volunteered, that's a totally different story. Now, if David Stern comes and challenges Hunter that both of them would take $1 if there is a lockout, that would make sense.

 

You don't hire a third party lawyer forever. That'd be an in-house lawyer.

One could argue whether or not Billy Hunter is an in-house lawyer or a third party lawyer. If the crux of the argument is that NOW IS HIS TIME TO SHINE, than that makes him more like a third party lawyer to me. If that's the case, sure, go ahead and pay him now, but his salary during the other large number of years should be much much smaller. Or, more to the point, he probably shouldn't be the guy during the other years. You bring someone else in better suited to "keep the peace" than negotiate the peace. That new person gets paid less then $2.4 million a year.

If I was a player, that'd be what I'd want. Instead, he's gotten much dinero for many years for doing who knows what.... I have no idea what Billy Hunter does the rest of the time. I'm going to assume for doing not that much, relative to the importance of the work performed during labor negotiations. Therefore, my argument is that Billy has been getting paid so much all these years as, effectively, a structured success fee based on his success at the last contract dispute. And thus, volunteering to drop his salary to $1, knowing he will get paid similarly going forward, isn't an unreasonable ask.

Shane is asking if Billy Hunter will volunteer to do so. The fact taht Shane hasn't "demanded" anything has already been addressed in this thread. It was a valid question on his behalf. It'd be similarly to a shareholder asking a CEO, under an employment agreement, if they were going to take a $1 salary during a particular time of [crisis], if other CEO's in the industry facing the same crisis had already volunteered to do so (which we've seen happen).

 

Or it might motivate him to negotiate and get a deal done instead of taking his time.

 

LOL you seem more and more lost with every passing second. Let's say someone goes up to you and say "Dude, we'll make you the chief negotiator during the lockout. We'll pay you 2.5M as long as there is a lockout because you're earning your keep, but we'll only pay you 500,000$ a year if there isn't a lockout cuz you aren't doing anything". Once the lockout happens will you extend the lockout as long as possible or will you end as quickly as you can?

To prevent 3rd party conflict of interest you pay the guy the same rate whether or not there is a lockout, that way he won't be motivated to extend the lockout to maximize his earnings.

Correct. Battier's basically pointing out another conflict of interest in Hunter's side apart from the incentives issue: the players' main negotiator isn't affected by the lockout. The lockout is basically a war of attrition, however in this case Hunter is unaffected at all and can afford to hold out as long as he wants to.

 

There is no conflict of interest between Hunter and the players. It makes zero sense for Hunter to drag it out longer than the majority players can sustain it - in that case he's not doing a good job for the majority of players and he's going to get fired.

 

no, you're completely lost as to my suggestion. Which is the lock-out negotiator, to me, is more like a real estate agent, or M&A broker. You don't keep them "on staff" when there is no lock-out. The pay should be "mostly" success fee based, maybe a small retainer.

not the sytem in place, though. given the system in place, given that Hunter has probably been extremely overpaid the last x number of years (imo), i think it fair that shane ask him to reduce his salary at this point.

similarly, there are parties on the other side who could fairly ask Stern to not get paid during a lockout. Both figures are firmly entrenched in their roles and will reap benefits post lockout from their continued employment and extremely high compensation.

 

Hunter being able to hold out as long as he needs to to get the best deal is a good thing for the players, though. There's no need for the players to put a rush on him to get a deal done just so they can start getting paid again. That would play right into the owners' hands. It's in the players' best interest to let the man do his job and let things play out. The players would cave alot quicker than the owners would and any rushed agreement would certainly favor the owners.

All that being said, I think Hunter is going to end up having to taking a deal that very much favors the owners anyway. I also think that it was his job to take care of this before a lockout occurs and that if the players he is representing aren't getting paid then it doesn't seem fair that he gets paid, but I don't think that telling him that he isn't getting paid until he gets a deal done is the right way for the players to get the best deal possible. I have no problem with Battier bringing it up, though, I just don't think it's the wisest move from the Union's standpoint.

 

they understand what you're saying, they're just disagreeing with you. They are arguing against having any "success" based payment, because it would cause Hunter to purposely cause the lockout to last longer.

I disagree with that however. From Hunters perspective, the longer the lockout would last, the better, but at the same time, the longer the lockout last, the more and more his employers get unhappy with him, and so he ends up being fired.

with that being said, is Hunter paid by the players or by someone else? Because if his employers no longer have jobs, it only makes sense for him to longer be paid as well. Until the lock out ends of course.

 

What? When you sell a property and hire a real estate broker, the success fee payment doesn't make the broker purposely cause your property to sit on the market longer. That makes no sense. They're actually incentivized to make a deal, not not make a deal.

 

Good question made by Battier.

I think he should lower his salary, just like the NFL.

lowering his salary shows that the lockout affects him too, and he wants to solve it quickly.

and people saying that this is why is getting paid for, then why he didnt start negotiating long time ago so this didnt happen again, he should be already prepared to stop the lockout.

 

Battier just owned that dumb prick Hunter! Hahaha!!

 

He's not paid to facilitate a lockout. He's paid to look after the player's concerns. The dude has had the position for 15 years and gotten paid millions. The mere fact that it's gotten to this point after years of lead time indicates some failure on his part.

Man fails, let's make sure he's paid while everyone else is out of work. What is this? The US government?

Is the idea of taking a symbolic pay cut that confusing? It's a common practice to indicate sincerity of purpose and solidarity with the rank and file. Battier is basically asking if Billy Hunter will put his ass on the line along with everyone else.

How is this offensive to anyone who actually works for a living?

 

I understand why some posters get confused here because the issue is a bit complicated let me break it down for you:

1) Billy Hunter is the union dude in charge of negotiating terms with the NBA owners association. The lockout isn't actually his objective, its a worst case scenario. Think of the NBA owners and players as countries, while Hunter is the diplomat. As a diplomat, his "real" job is to prevent the lockout (or war) from happening in the first place. As Bloop already said, the mere fact that the lockout is already gonna happen is a strike against Hunter in the first place, its like Santa passing out IOUs to kids on Xmas or something.

2) However in this "war", the balance of power is strictly on the owner's side, they would love to not pay players and not lose money, while the players go without any income for as long as the lockout is going on.

3) Billy Hunter though, is exempt from this situation since he's being paid by the players. While the average NBA joe is suffering from loss of income, Hunter is fine and still receiving his normal salary. While Hunter isn't receiving any incentives to prolong the lockout, he's in no hurry to end it either. You see, Hunter will be evaluated on how the players fare in the new CBA, so the longer he holds out and "stays tough" the better his job performance will be. Yes that will also be great for the players, but what happens while the lockout is going on? The players will have to sit on their ass and watch their cash slowly drain away.

4) What Battier is asking for Hunter is a symbolic gesture, so that Hunter would be on the same boat as the players in wanting to maximize their benefits while also wanting to end the lockout to end as soon as possible.

5) Another example would be Kim Jong Il staying tough against the UN/US embargo. Sure, its good for South Korean pride that he's going against all these countries, but at the same time the only reason Kim Jong Il is so brave is because he can sit on his capital mooching off of the entire country's resources while the common South Korean is starving in the streets.

 

This is off the topic you were addressing, but a "rushed" deal would actually favor the players IMO. The longer it drags on, the less the owners will compromise and the more the players will lose in the new CBA (in addition to lost salary). If no deal is cut over the summer or by September and games start being missed, the owners will harden and be more determined to get everything they want. Meanwhile, the players will weaken. When it gets to December and the entire season is put at risk, hopefully the players will cave.

Time is on the owners side, not the players.

 

But what you're proposing is Hunter gets paid more when the lockout happens and he gets paid less when there's no lockout. That's why that's a bad idea.

 

I think Hunter should reduce his salary to $1 as gesture of good faith. I don't think he should have any right to recuperate lost salary, just as the players he's representing don't get the opportunity recuperate theirs.

I'm not worried about Hunter having an incentive to take a lesser deal because of it -- he is a professional and his number one job is to make a deal in the best interest of the players.