I posted a link from Maurice Evans earlier saying some of those things. Fisher and Pierce have as well, though I would have to each for their quotes. Do you have any links to show that the majority of players or player reps weren't informed? I recall Fisher saying it was insulting to think players didn't know the dynamics of the owners proposal (after the Stern interview...paraphrasing). I've read reports about some players grumbling but haven't seen anything to highlight a majority being clueless. Definately nothing to highlight player reps weren't informed.
Can you at least try to understand the circumstances were different back then in baseball? Saying "no" to two different groups of people isn't the same. The NBPA is taking a much bigger risk because their likelihood of failure is massive. NBA owners clearly mean business this time and are willing to give up a couple of seasons. MLB owners were not unified and the union knew they had a good chance to wait them out. The situations are reversed this time. Sometimes I wonder if you are even trying to comprehend. Hunter "appears" to be making mistakes. Your are so kind. If you were as hard on him as Stern, I'd give you some cred. Stern serves the owners and has laid out as far as they will go. It's obvious he's not in total control. You know it's bad when a large group of owners wants the players to say no to 50/50.
I think one of the reasons people, atleast myself, seem to be supporting the owners/Stern more here is he atleast put something out there to get a deal done. We've heard for months and months about what kind of system the owners wouldn't accept and what kind of system the players wouldn't accept, but Stern atleast put out a proposal for what the owners WOULD accept, while the union just keeps saying NO. Is it possible/legal for the players to have made a proposal on their own for the owners to accept? Im obviously not exactly sure how these things work, but it seems to me that if Billy Hunter would have come out on Monday and said that they're not accepting the owners' proposal, but instead made a few tweaks and have a proposal of their own, then the pressure of public opinion would have shifted to the owners instead. The public just sees that the owners came out with a proposal that should be decent enough for the players to not cancel a season over and then they see the players say "no and we're not negotiating anymore." Had the players come back with a proposal to the owners that the fans think was good enough for the owners to not cancel a season over, then I think everyone would be mad at the owners for turning it down. But like I said, if they're not even allowed to do that, then I guess this point is moot. But I don't consider Stern's "ultimatum" that he had already slightly back off of, as a true end to the negotiations. I personally just see the negotiations as too close to just blow up and end. I feel like the union felt they could use the courts as leverage against the owners here and that Billy Hunter passed on an acceptable deal to try to get a great deal simply because he didn't want to "lose" to David Stern. I also think he's wrong about to being able to use the courts as leverage and this is ultimately just a waste of time, which adds to the bitterness towards the players side.
I view it this way. Hunter - totally on players side Owners - totally on owners side Stern - in the middle with a lean towards owners/competitive balance. I think Stern was pushing the owners and the players to try to make a deal, he failed, but ultimately as a paid employee of the owners he can only do so much. I think the owners wanted the decertification, I don't think the majority wanted a deal, I believe they want a system reset, and that is probably ugly. And, IMO, I think Stern said....well if we can salvage a season, would you settle for a profit instead of a reset, and he could have gotten that through. However, the owners put some poison pills in the deal and the players had enough.... Also, I think the players did not decertify in July because of what the NFL did and how it was ruled a tactic rather than a real necessity, so they gathered data, and negotiated and tried to make a deal, but ultimately their blood issues were too much. Now, the court will decide, unless this respite gets calmer heads to prevail. I do think the players will feel the sting sooner than the owners, but I don't believe all the owners want to go the entire year. I still think this get settled and we get the NBA back in Dec or January. DD
This is one of the best points. I think most people side with the owners here because it seems pretty obvious to us that the owners will win in the end. Most of us believe the players are fighting a losing battle, can't win, and should just give up and play now. Because, we believe, ultimately they're not going to end up getting anything better than what they're getting now so everything in between is a colossal waste of time and we just want to watch basketball. If Im wrong and the players are able to win in the courts and get a significantly better deal later than the one that they just turned down, Ill eat my words and tip my hat to them for fighting for what they believe in and coming out victorious. I just don't see that happening. And I also hope that doesn't happen, as I believe the system the owners are proposing is much more fan-friendly than what the players want.
I comprehend just fine. If you are arguing that the players are taking a riskier stand than other labor battles, fine. Can you comprehend that ALL labor battles revolve around labor taking some type of huge risk? One could argue that the baseball union was taking on a bigger risk because other sports leagues had salary caps and they were trying to knock down the big gorilla, with the original sports antitrust exemption. How much riskier does it get than trying to defeat MLB, the national pasttime, in the courts? Either way, some are implying that players should just not fight because things can only get worse and my point was if you look at it that way, then no underdog would ever fight. Listen to Bucher's comments revolving around this (I believe you commented in that thread). I think both sides have made mistakes, and I doubt you will see one post from me defending Hunter as a good negotiator. But the bottom line is the players came down to 50% and covered the owners losses, and that still wasn't enough. They balked when the demands seemed to be outrageous to them (7% decrease and more system restrictions). And I don't think it's unwise for them to continue to fight that, because under the new deal they do give up a ton.
This really isn't true. The players have conceded way more than the owners have. Now I agree, the players have not put out their own seperate proposal and it would probably have been better for them to try that first, but I can't credit the owners for putting "garbage" out there to get a deal done. That's like me telling you "well I offered you 5%....at least I'm trying to get a deal done". But the players aren't the ones that said "negotiating is over, take this or leave it". That was the owners stance before this last deal was rejected.
I agree we will not have a season and have come to really blame Dan Gilbert, Pat Riley, and Lebron. I know Lebron gets enough grief. Gilbert is the most culpable by far. But: 1. DG coddles Lebron beyond what anyone should ever do. 2. Lebron buys into what the coddling implies: he is god king of NBA. 3. Riley gets in his head and forms superfriends. 4. Nearly every other owner gnashes teeth, rolls eyes in head. 5. The Decision happens. 6. Gilbert loses his **** and lashes out, making owners look more pathetic than ever. Truly an embarrassing display for ownership in the NBA, if you ask me. These steps really set an undercurrent of "who really runs the NBA now?" and I think the owners more than anything want to answer that unspoken question definitively, even to their own detriment, even to miss one or more seasons.
Yeah that's what Stern said, but he had also said that about the previous proposal, that if the players didn't accept the deal by 5:00 last Wednesday that they'd reset the proposal. Then the players' union came to him and tried to negotiate again and Stern backed off that hard stance. IMO, if the players would have come back to him again on Monday with a proposal that Stern would have atleast brought it to the owners to see if they would approve it. And if it was a reasonable deal, I bet the owners would have taken it. I think Stern was bluffing about negotiations ending soon to try to give both sides a sense of urgency to get a deal done. I think the union saw this as an opportunity to claim the owners weren't negotiating in good faith and would be a good time to dissolve the union and sue the owners to gain leverage. And I believe this strategy will ultimately just waste a bunch of time and we'll eventually just end up back at the negotiating table. Had the union just atleast called Stern's bluff and tried to keep negotiating then Id support them more, but I believe their actions on Monday were just a really bad negotiating ploy. I don't think the owners would be willing to cancel the season over losing out on all those "B-List" issues. I feel like the owners were still willing to negotiate those had the players made a real attempt. If not, atleast make them reject an offer and be the ones telling me there's not a good enough deal on the table to play NBA basketball this year.
Folks saying that they hope the Feb 29th court date gets moved up: It's inconsequential. There's no chance that the anti-trust could be heard, ruled on, and pave the way for an agreement in time to save the season, even if it miraculously got moved all the way up to December 2011 (it won't be). The suit, pure and simple, is the players bluffing that they are willing to burn the season. The only way games are played are if the owners cave and negotiate with the no-longer-a-union in the next few weeks. The bad news? The owners that have a foot in the NHL (Was, Den, Tor, etc) already won over several small markets and hardliners (not Stern, not fully) to the idea of flushing the season in order to get a complete massacre win. THEY WANTED THIS ALL ALONG. So here we go. Get ready to see a tidal wave of Anti-Billy Hunter sentiment as players slowly realize they're giving up a year's salary only to end up with a far worse deal than they had on the table last week. I wouldn't even be surprised if Hunter gets hit with a lawsuit over this.
That's the thing, I don't think the majority of owners wanted this all along (just my opinion). I think they, like the majority here, assumed the players would fold when it was time to miss checks. I guess the next couple of weeks will let us know.
Yes sir. Soon it will be "disgraced former NBPA Executive Director" Billy Hunter. The players will unload bombs on him. Stupidest bluff I've ever seen. To (1) not put the NBA's latest offer to a vote and (2) not counter with something was a travesty dereliction of duty. His salary should be cut off and he should be tossed.
"Most players, and especially the player reps?" Where do you get this? This is not true. The player reps voted unanimously after a day of discussion. Negotiations ended on Thursday, right? Friday was Veteran's day. They wanted to fly everyone to meet. They met on Monday...the first business day after. Screw the information age...this is how you still make crucial business decisions....in PERSON! Easy, I respect you as much if not the more than anyone on this bbs...I just don't see this "player reps" were not given info. The Union just controlled when and where, which is exactly what Stern does with the owners. It is smart. How is it not smart? The Union was likely advised by counsel how to do this. You say "most players." If it were "most players" there would be more that 7 tweeters about this. There are 400+ players with no gag order. And we are talking about a few tweeters? The reps voted unanimously. Case closed.
Even if they did vote 60/40 instead of "unanimous," The fact that it possibly came out to 60/40 means this was a very bad deal. Plus, they had to come out of that meeting with a sense of togetherness. One thing that most people dont realize is that the proposal only contained the key issues that they were voting on. essentially if they agreed to this deal there were over 30 "B-Issues" that the owners and Stern would have full say so on. Those B-Issues were not fully explained in the documents given to the Players union. This is huge. No one would give that much power to their employer in a contract situation where you would be legally bound to those unknown "B-issues" for 6+ years. The players did the right thing, they just did it 4 months too late.
So come back with a proposal that addressed the B-List issues in a more favorable way for the players rather than saying "we don't like it, we're suing."
I don't know that I agree that the disclaimer was 4 months too late. The NFL case was negative towards disclaimer as a bargaining tool. The Union needed evidence of bad faith to have any shot in court. The Union's lawyers may have been waiting for the right moment to issue the disclaimer. After all, disclaimer is a one-time play for leverage and that leverage has to be maximized. The owners issued an all-out ultimatum RIGHT BEFORE the deadline for players to start missing checks. That's as good as you can hope for if you're looking for evidence of bad faith negotiation. Perfect timing for a disclaimer, assuming the union's strategy is to weaken the hardline owners and force a fairer deal before the season is lost.
But if you do that then the first round of paychecks (11/15 I believe) can't be included in the lawsuit damages. Is it best to risk that when the owners position is "take it or leave it"? Granted, they could have gone to the courts much earlier but it may have been harder to argue that the league wasn't negotiating in good faith then. I think the argument is stronger when the league issues a take it or leave it ultimatium.
Yeah you're probably right about that. While I don't really believe the players have much of a case that the owners weren't bargaining in good faith, this was unquestionably their best chance to make the claim. I still think they'd have had an even stronger claim had they brought a proposal to the owners, and if the owners unilaterally rejected it then it would certainly appear as if the owners weren't negotiating but instead making demands. Instead of taking the weekend off they should have drawn up a counter proposal ASAP. But you're right, if they were ever going to take this to the courts, and I thimk they always wanted to, then this was the best time to do it. I just really really hate all this posturing and just want the quickest resolution possible, and there's no way going through the courts is the fastest way.
All of that is true, but why do we have to look at the last deal when trying to make this one? IMO, the goal of the negotiations should be to obtain the fairest deal possible for each side, and the previous deal has no bearing on the fairness of this one. I can see why the players view it the way they do, but I think they need to stop looking at it as what they're losing and look at the new deal by itself, and they'll see they're still getting a pretty decent deal.
