And the 10 or so hardlining owners never wanted to get a deal. In fact, 10 of them sent emails (according Stephen A Smith) to Stern saying this deal was bad, that they actually wanted a 47% BRI and harsher system restrictions. And we ALL know that the players would reject that without any hesitation. So 10 of those owners came into these negotiations with that mindset. And Stern has been "threatening" with "ultimatums" all throughout the negotiations. Is that negotiating in good-faith? Well, I hope you're not that easy to beat around. These players have conceded A LOT. I understand what people say when they claim the players don't have "leverage." I completely agree. But I'm glad to see them stand up to these selfish owners, and some of them don't know how to run an NBA franchise at all and now want the players to generate a safety net for the future just in case they mess up again and lose money. Just like there were 10 owners who were not satisfied with this current deal. There are always exceptions, and you always rule to the majority. From all sources that I've read and heard on sports radio/TV, the majority of players agreed with Hunter's ruling--I heard on ESPN radio that Hunter and Fish did ask for an "informal" raise your hand type of vote in its meeting. They, and I, think that he did this WAY too late. He should have done this earlier knowing the owners' drastic needs.
I hope the refs decertify... even though I'm not even sure what that means (it probably doesn't even make any sense). I wanna see Dick, Crawford, and the gang out.
Who cares about the grumblings that went on behind the scenes? That's entirely irrelevant. What you need to focus on are the actual offers made by the League to the Union. Remember, the offer was good enough that there were players who wanted to put it to a union-wide vote. I'd say that's negotiating in good faith.
How many players? 3, 4, or 5 that took it to twitter? Hell, let's give 20. C'mon now. Again, I heard on Max/Marcellus that there was an informal raise your hand type of vote among all the player reps, and it was pretty much unanimous in their decision to reject the deal. Outside of Kobe Bryant, most, if not all, the other superstars have blasted the 50-50 deal publicly that the players supposedly were willing to accept, until the owners added on new "systems" stuff--the "B" list of issues to us per se, but "A-" issues to the players. OTP, as a fan, the only things I regret most from the lockout are: 1) Not watching the Rockets. Although they won't be competitive, it's just a yearly routine at this time of the year that at 5:30pm Pacific you tune in to watch a Rockets game. 2) Losing a year of greatness from the likes of Kobe/Lebron/Wade. Not able to see the potential growth/maturity of a KD/WB/Rose/Wall. I've seen vids of these guys workout this summer, and it's a shame we won't be able to see how their game develops/evolves. 3) The fans, putting aside opinions on who we think is right/wrong in all of this. They are innocent in this, and now most likely no NBA to watch. We just want to watch basketball. College just doesn't do it.
Yeah....you didn't really refute anything I said. Sure, let's say 20 players twittered that they wanted a union vote. Most of them were lower/mid level players, right? Don't you think it's logical that there are other lower level/mid players who feel the same way but don't want to publicly vent? Based on the progression of the owners' offers and the call for a union-wide vote, it would be hard to argue that the owners didn't negotiate in good faith.
"Progression" of the owners' offers from what? Nothing in the current proposal "favors" the players from the previous CBA. Not one single thing. Like I said, it's pretty much agreed upon that the NFL owners won their negotiations, but even they gave some things to the players that appeased them (like no more 2-a-days). Just b/c the NBA owners started off with some ridiculous demands and eased off of them (like a hard cap and 47% BRI) doesn't mean it's a "progression" of their offers. Nothing in the proposal is "progressive" for the players from the previous CBA. So that in itself is not negotiating in good faith. And to your other point, like I said, even if I gave you 20 players, and I doubt there are even that much, that wanted to call for a vote or agreed to the deal, there are 450 players. The majority agreed with rejecting the deal. From all the player reps that were at the meeting, there was an informal raise your hand vote (from Max/Marcellus on ESPN radio), and they voted to reject the deal. What's the point of putting an all out vote when it's an overwhelming majority that did not want the deal. And why don't those mid-tier players want to vent? There are twitter and other public ways to vent their frustrations if they think this is wrong. Dwill, and others, did, saying how this should have been done SOONER on their twitters. KD and other stars took it to the TV during their summer go-around to blast the current 50-50 offer, that the players ACCEPTED before the added system restrictions. The majority did not want this deal. That's a fact. I don't know why people think having an all-out vote would have shown anything.
Why should the current proposal favor the players? They had guaranteed contracts last season. The owners lost $300mm collectively. Which side do you think should be making concessions? I'm sure a lot of players realized this. Like I've said before, based on the progression of the owners' offers and the call for a union-wide vote, it would be hard to argue that the owners didn't negotiate in good faith. That's irrelevant if you're trying to argue that the league negotiated in bad faith. Venting solves nothing and can only hurt you. Hypothetically, let's say that 85% of the union didn't want the deal, and 15% did. If 15% wanted it, you can't say the league negotiated in bad faith.
Here's a list of the Players' Union representatives (and alternates) who voted unanimously to reject the offer. I see a lot of low- and mid-level guys in there. Do you think Austin Daye and Jordan Farmar voted against their own preferences so they can screw over their teammates? TEAM PLAYER REPRESENTATIVE PLAYER REPRESENTATIVE (ALTERNATES) Atlanta Hawks Zaza Pachulia Josh Smith Boston Celtics Paul Pierce Rajon Rondo Charlotte Bobcats Matt Carroll Eduardo Najera Chicago Bulls Carlos Boozer Joakim Noah Cleveland Cavaliers Anthony Parker Ryan Hollins Dallas Mavericks Jason Terry Brian Cardinal Denver Nuggets Arron Afflalo Al Harrington Detroit Pistons Austin Daye Jason Maxiell Golden State Warriors Charlie Bell Louis Amundson Houston Rockets Kyle Lowry Chase Budinger Indiana Pacers Danny Granger Mike Dunleavy LA Clippers Blake Griffin Ryan Gomes LA Lakers Shannon Brown Derrick Caracter Memphis Grizzlies Sam Young Mike Conley Miami Heat *James Jones Milwaukee Bucks Corey Maggette Luc Mbah A Moute Minnesota Timberwolves Anthony Tolliver Kevin Love Martell Webster New Jersey Nets Jordan Farmar Stephen Graham New Orleans Hornets Willie Green Emeka Okafor New York Knicks Amar'e Stoudemire Oklahoma City Thunder Kevin Durant Russell Westbrook Orlando Magic Chris Duhon Jameer Nelson J.J. Redick Philadelphia 76ers Jason Kapono Spencer Hawes Phoenix Suns Jared Dudley Josh Childress Portland Trail Blazers Marcus Camby LaMarcus Aldridge Sacramento Kings Samuel Dalembert Beno Udrih San Antonio Spurs *Matt Bonner Richard Jefferson Toronto Raptors Jerryd Bayless Julian Wright Utah Jazz Ronnie Price Raja Bell Washington Wizards *Maurice Evans
No, I think they represented the majority opinion of their teams, not themselves individually. If the 450 players voted anonymously, do you really think there would be less than 25 who would've accepted the deal?
I never said the current proposal should favor the players. And I do agree the players should make the concessions (AND THEY DID, more than enough to cover whatever losses the NBA owners claimed they lost. All I'm saying is there is not ONE single thing (one out of what? a bajillion things discussed--THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND) that the owners could have conceded to the players (and it doesn't have to be a monetary issue--since people think it's all about greed to the players)--like the NFL conceded no more 2-a-days to the players--not a monetary issue, but a huge thing to the players. Instead, the owners wanted to suck the players dry. Like many media sources have said, the owners are up by 30-40 points, and they still want to throw alley-oops and embarrass the players. Venting solves nothing? Stern just went on Sportscenter and blasted Hunter and the union. And apparently, a lot of people are buying his BS as the owners are winning the media war. If the MAJORITY of mid-tier players are truly disgruntled about not being able to vote, I'm sure they would find some way to vent or another that a media source would be able to find out. If the feeling is more players would "accept" this deal, trust me, something would be done about that. But the general feeling is that the majority of players do NOT want this deal. If you think the owners negotiated in good faith, well, hopefully you won't be in any negotiations soon where you get blown off the table and think your opponent negotiated in good faith b/c 1 person in your group out of 20 think it's an "acceptable" deal. And I predicted the players would reject this deal last week. Just as the players were conceding to the 50-50 BRI (and not a true 50-50 split anyways), I just know the owners would add "something extra" to make sure the players would reject the deal. And they did.
Yes. The union is made up of mostly scrubs most fans don't even know about. If they felt this strongly about rejecting the deal, I'm sure more than 95% of the players felt the same way. And Derek Fisher, the President, IS a mid-tier player who is on the last legs of his career, the perfect example of a player you are talking about. And he FIRMLY rejects that deal. Don't let a Big Baby Davis or 3-4 players who took it to twitter make you think otherwise.
So the owners get to break even while the players get hundreds of millions of dollars with no risk. You're right. I totally underestimated how generous the players are.
Break even? They claimed they lost $300 mil (and most sources show they didn't lose anywhere that much). The players gave back more than $1 billion. That's breaking even? What math am I missing here? They want the players to generate a safety net so when some of these dumb owners who don't know how to run a franchise lose money again, they'll have something to back them up.
May as well remove the word unanimous. During this very insulated, coercive meeting, nobody was going to have the guts to do anything else other than go with the flow. I've been in these kinds of meetings before and have been the one or two that didn't cow under the pressure. You get accused of being a "sellout", "traitor" or "non-team player" and relationships can get ruined. It's costly. I promise you there were people in that room (including some team reps) that didn't agree with the course of action. But it was in their personal interest to support a display of unanimity.
I wasn't aware that Les Alexander built Toyota Center and bought the land that it sits on. I recall us having this vote about using public dollars for that stadium, but maybe I'm misremembering. Just an assumption, but I bet you could find 32 rich guys willing to invest in an NBA team faster than you could find guys to replace the league's top 32 players.
I'm letting common sense make me think otherwise. For the vast majority of these players, the wages earned from playing basketball will need to support them and their families for the rest of their lives. How long do you think the average career lasts? 10 years? I think a lot of players recognize that any benefit received from decertification won't be enough to compensate for that lost year of basketball revenue.
The most obvious mistake you're making is assuming that their revenues will stay constant. Secondly, if you've had years of continual losses, you want to recover as much of those losses as you can in years of prosperity.
Common sense dictates that if the majority of the union really felt that way then we would be watching basketball right now. Common sense seems to dictate that the majority of the union thought the deal was garbage and thinks they have a better chance in court.
Common sense would say you are right, if the owners are not being such hard-asses on imposing their will. The players were finally agreeing to the 50-50 split, apparently the biggest issue. So the players do see the urgency in having to play, and not lose any money, going by common sense. But the owners added other issues like completely restricting player movement is just absurd, according to the players--and that's nothing related to money. This is an example of players/union showing "backbone" and not just kneeling down and accepting whatever is thrown your way b/c you "had" to accept it. And I applaud the players for doing this. Again this was a HUGE step that the players took, and something that may end up with dire consequences (worse deal, a year of losing money...). But they believe this is something that had to be done, or else the owners would kill them even further in the future. Again, a lot of the rank-and-file players make up the union, and the president is the perfect example of a player you describe. They all rejected the deal. What I do agree with you is that this step was taken too late. They should have done this in June/July and skip all this BS. This is where Hunter and co should take all the blame.
The union has exercised anything BUT common sense during the entire negotiation. They have bumbled everything. Not a good analogy for you to use.
