According to NBA Deputy Commissioner Russ Granik... I know I've read in here somewhere that they are looking to reduce the raise percentages and shorten contracts, but if the players -- as a whole -- are still getting the same or more of the whole pie, how is it that they are getting screwed by this? Seems like it's more about tweaking the system to give teams more flexibility so they don't get hamstrung by contracts to a couple of players. Maybe some players will come out on the short end, but others will benefit.
If the owners agree to a set of rules that is not found to be unjust in a court of law, then they should be able to institute those rules and abide by them. The Players Union is a joke. Oh my, if I don't get treated fairly then I might not be able to buy four new Mercedes, a play crib in Miami and smoke pot, er, vacation in Jamaica. Run the bums out! Bring in some scabs from Europe, Australia and Latin America! Who would the refs give preferential calls to then?
Raising the salary cap may or may not mean more money in the players' pockets. The salary cap has more to do with player movement than how much someone gets paid. Most teams are over the cap anyway. Not that I think it will have no effect, it would, but it isn't a simple math deal. If it results in an additional $6 million in cap room, that won't mean that players will be paid an additional $180 million. And, notice that the 57% percent of BRI isn't changing from the recent past. I wouldn't use the term 'screwed' for either party in this fight, unless we're talking about their relationship with the fans. I'm just saying that the league is the aggressor here, not the union. And, if there's a work stoppage, it's because the league wants more, not because the union wants more. The union is just trying to maintain their positions, not conquer new territory.
Well, a lockout is pretty much guaranteed now. So much for the All Star game in Houston next season... http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2073793 Lockout looms less than a month awayAssociated Press NBA labor talks stalled Wednesday after a 2½-hour meeting in New York, less than a month before a lockout would begin. "All I can say is that we had a meeting, and we don't have anything else scheduled," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. Players association director Billy Hunter said he outlined a new proposal, then offered to extend the terms of the current seven-year agreement that expires June 30. The league turned both offers down. "It's definitely fair to say the talks have stalled," Hunter said. "They are seeking more concessions off the current deal, and we contend we made major concessions in the last collective bargaining agreement." Hunter attended the meeting with union president Michael Curry, secretary-treasurer Pat Garrity and five members of the union's staff. The owners were represented by Granik, commissioner David Stern and four staff members from the league office staff, Hunter said. Among the issue the sides have failed to reach agreement on are the maximum length of long-term contracts, the size of the annual raises available in those contracts and a possible increase in the minimum age. "We've tried our best to reach out to them and address their concerns," Garrity said. Stern has said the owners have offered to guarantee that the players receive a 57 percent share of revenues, would raise the salary cap three percentage points -- from 48 to 51 percent of revenues -- and minimize the level at which the luxury tax clicks in, making more money available for salaries. A lockout would likely begin July 1 if the sides fail to reach an agreement. The league imposed a lockout in July 1998, after the previous deal expired, and the work stoppage lasted 7½ months to force the cancellation of games because of a labor dispute for the first time in league history.
In my opinion, Stern has been pushing for more than I believe he has reason to. He can't use the argument that the league is suffering from flawed economics like he did last time around. I think the union is absolutely in the right for not wanting the length of deals to go down. However, I agree that a safety needs to be included so that owners aren't on the hook for ridiculous contracts once a player can no longer play at a high level (Mashburn, Penny, etc). Insert a buyout clause after the 4th year or something along those lines. Either way, the issue as I see it is this: if the Union caves to all the owners demands again, only this time without the league survival at stake, won't it beg for them to be taken advantage of everytime the CBA comes up? Billy Hunter is a terrible Union head, imo. Evan
hey, the good thing about the lockout is if they do start the season late again, we'll have three Rockets games in three nights. Three Rockets games back to back to back, that's always fun.
Having a lockout doesn't necessarily mean losing regular season games. I think with them doing a lockout a few years back, and the current hockey lockout, the league and players won't want to lose any games. I think when push comes to shove and the deadline to save the regular season comes, both sides will hammer out a deal.
