DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

A Transformative Amnesty Card

Bill Simmons has a podcast with Billy Hunter going up later this afternoon if you're looking for a way to end the work day.

Hunter was a Sam-e - which is weird to me

user-pic
Stan reply to GoSixers on Oct 29 at 20:37
+/-

I do not understand this comment at all.

Did you listen to the pod cast?

user-pic
Stan reply to GoSixers on Nov 5 at 14:46
+/-

nope. maybe why. I have no idea what a Sam-e is.

It's a fraternity, started out nationally / historically as a jewish fraternity and in my experience at 2 campuses with rather large Sam-E houses, all the members were jewish.


Would you be on board with this approach? Am I grasping at straws because this lockout has drained the basketball life out of me? All of the above?

I guess I'd be onboard. Yes you are grasping at straws

I'd only cut Brand now if that meant they could lure Dwight Howard (not exactly likely.) Otherwise, you might as well let Brand expire naturally and hope his expiring has some value next year.

Otherwise, I'm not a huge fan of signing Nene(age 29) or overpaying for D.Jordan. But maybe I am just grumpy because of the lock-out. Or maybe I don't want to see another PF being paid at age 34.

Sorry, just read the "3 year deals" part. I guess that sort of works in terms of building max cap for when Iguodala comes off the books, but I'm still not really on board. But they certainly could make worse moves.

How many more game would we win that roster over what we have right now? (assuming no else does anything)

I just feel like doing this will land us where we are right now- mediocrity.

I would be happy with that lineup. I would however add a guy or two to be our backup PF and C. I mean you can't have have DeAndre and Nene play 48 mpg.

How good are Nene and Jordan at jump-shooting? I thought Collins likes big men that can "stretch the floor".

They both do most of their damage at the rim, but Nene can hit the long two. It's my deepest desire that Collins only said he likes bigs who shoot jumpers because that's all he had on his roster.

The number of games they'd win this season w/ either roster isn't really why I'd do something like this, though I think they'd be much better w/ these changes. Nene is better than Brand was this past season and Jordan is a legit defensive center.

I'd make the move because it would give Jrue a complete lineup to play with for the first time, and really, it would add a guy who is potentially a long-term piece at the five (and Jordan is only 23). Plus it would line up all their big contracts with Jrue's free agency, so they could totally pull the plug and potentially add a superstar at that point.

In a nutshell, they'd be in the playoffs for the next three years and then they'd have the financial flexibility to make a big splash to put them over the top...or the ability to completely blow it up and have a ton of cap space.

user-pic
Stan reply to Brian on Oct 24 at 22:35
+/-

I like the idea, but getting Nene to sign is a huge "if". If that doesn't go through you pretty much lost Brand and Thad for DeAndre Jordan.
It's basically too much of a risk for me.

If the amnesty clause were used on Brand I would prefer they pursue resigning him at market value (the new MLE is supposedly 3yr/5mil, sounds pretty fair) than a big name free agent with any cap space they'd have. I also don't think it would be wise to pounce on this free agent market if any cap space were opened up.

I disagree with the notion that Philadelphia won't become an alluring landing spot within the next couple of seasons. Regarding the city itself, despite the 76ers low ranking on the sports team totem pole, it's proved that it can embrace a true star and elevate them on the national level (See: Amar'e Stoudemire vs. the city of Phoenix).

After the city comes the organization. Not much can be said for them and their basketball sense thus far, but they seem intent on improving the practice facilities (I believe the quote is "We want to be cutting edge in everything we do.") and creating a "willing to spend to win" culture around themselves. Perception is everything in this business but follow through is almost as important. Wild card.

And then we have the secret weapon, the magician, Doug Collins. His past coaching experiences tended to start strong but his overbearing nature caused his teams to tune him out over time. Now, he's delegating more of his every day duties to his assistants so when he speaks, the players listen. They want to play for him. Dwight Howard is going to want to play for him. And with Dwight Howard at the 5 then Thaddeus Young can start at the 4, two birds with one stone.

You're definitely right in that most of the pieces will still have to be in place since they still aren't a proven team. Holiday, Iguodala, and Young make a good start to a (youthful) supporting cast. That's a hell of a lot better than Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkoglu, and Brandon Bass (I don't count Gilbert Arenas because just like the millions of tons of debris from the earthquake in Japan will be in a few years, he's washed up). Turner developing into a starting caliber wing and reliable shot creator is probably the second wild card.

Above all else though, everybody saw how we played the Heat in the first round. I think they fared much better than the Bulls or Celtics (aside from Game 2).

I haven't read this anywhere, but common sense dictates that guys who are cut using amnesty can't re-sign with the teams that cut them. If they were allowed to, then a guy like Carmelo could cut a deal with the Knicks where he'd agree to be cut (be paid that full salary), and then re-sign for the veteran's minimum (so he'd be making the old max plus the veteran's minimum) and then the Knicks would have an extra $20M in cap space to spend on CP3. I don't see any way the league allows that.

user-pic
Cin reply to Brian on Oct 24 at 20:19
+/-

In the NFL players sometimes restructure their contract to solely improve a team cap situation (although in many of these cases the players other option is being cut outright). Since this would be a one time allowance and aimed towards players who have severely underplayed the exorbitant contracts they were given, I don't consider it so farfetched if the cuts are observed on a case by case basis.

Case by case isn't really how the NBA works. If they write this CBA allowing teams to cut players using amnesty and then re-sign them, it will be abused and abused badly. I don't see any way that's possible.

user-pic
Cin reply to Brian on Oct 24 at 20:43
+/-

The logic is sound and when the logic is sound everything else should work itself out, no? Player A underperformed enormous contract, but is still an asset to his team and is either cut or plays out the contract. That's definitely the black and white of it, but the fairer compromise is Player A given a market valued contract by the team that's already invested so heavily in him.

Solution: All players affected by the amnesty clause go through a seven day period where they can be claimed by another team but under their previous contact amount.

The real point of it is that we should preserve our salary cap, especially if Dwight Howard opts-in for his final year.

Could work w/ a 7-day period, but I doubt the union would go for that. It would work kind of like a draft where a guy w/ 10 years in the league could have no say in where he was going.

This sounds great! If we can get Jordan, yeah just dump Brand and don't look back. I don't have too much faith that Thorn would go for it tho, if we can learn anything from what he wants out of his center by his latest draft pick, he probably wouldn't like Jordan's game all that much. I bet he would rather trade for Brook lopez or someone like that. Please come back hoops.

Whats the amnesty clause? Wouldn't the Sixers still have to pay EB his money even if they used this clause on him?

Yeah, essentially the Sixers would be paying Brand $35M to average 16 and 9 for a rival. No way on earth this happens.

We might as well just go off the ledge of reason now that we have no real basketball in the foreseeable future. Why not start a list of why Dwight Howard will choose to be a Sixer...

1. Jrue (and their secret handshake deal this past summer on the Adidas Euro tour.)

2. Adidas wants to pair Dwight with one of their stars (Lebron/DWade/Bosh are all Nike) Sure Rose/DH3 would be the ideal pairing, but maybe they figure Rose is locked in so Jrue is the next best choice?

3. Collins has mind bending jedi-like powers. Dwight, you want to play for the Sixers...

4. Dwight likes Will Smith better than Otis Smith:
"QUESTION: Who is your favorite film star in movies right now? – Pui Yuk Leung
DWIGHT: For the male, I’d go with Will Smith. Female, I’d have to say Jessica Beal."
http://www.dwighthoward.com/qa
So if we can get Jessica Beal in with the Sixers then it is a shoe in.

5. Dwight has tried to play out of Shaq's shadow... so maybe he should just move on and try and be the next Wilt.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/20217448
"Howard pulled out a mock newspaper dedicated to Wilt Chamberlain that he keeps in his locker to show the kid and tell him about his favorite basketball player of all time."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_magic/2009/12/dwight-howards-idol-wilt-chamberlain.html

user-pic
Stan reply to tk76 on Oct 26 at 11:37
+/-

One can only hope.
I can only see this happening if Jrue elevates himself to all star status. Otherwise I see him going to NJ.
If there is an amnesty clause I can see him going to Chicago or Oklahoma.

But if he chooses to play with Boston in order to play with Rondo, or Washington in order to play with Wall- I will laugh at his stupidity.

Is Jessica Beal related to Jessica Biel? Or does Beal have actual talent?

Sorry any sort of 'web site' that publishes an interview like that but can't bother to fact check names is silly.

Maybe he meant Jennifer Beals? I mean she's still alive right?

Yeah, I saw that and heard Hunter say it yesterday. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, it would all depend on where the put the luxury tax threshold, and how punitive it was. I'm not a big fan of having a gap between the cap and the tax threshold, to be honest. This would essentially just remove that gap.

How's it working in baseball by the way?

That's what it sounds like to me - a luxury tax without a real cap

Hunter didn't sound strong in his interview with Simmons (yes i listened to it) in my mind

Hunter's in the most precarious position here. There's no way the players are going to really be winners in this ordeal, he's got the agents pulling the strings of his union members, and the owners are bending him over. No matter what happens, he's not going to come out of this looking good. Even if he realizes what the union is up against, and what they should do, he's got morons like Garnett mucking things up.

What B.Hunter should do is offer a hard cap at the current BRI and when it's rejected people will then begin to see what a bunch of frauds the owners are. The players have already agreed to take a four to five percent pay cut which will more than cover the owners losses for the previous season. If the NBA can't make their business profitable after that, then it's on them. The owners could be replaced by thirty other rich guys and no one would notice the difference, but let them try running their business without the top thirty players in the league. I really don't think anyone has ever paid a dime to watch an owner own.

The owners would be frauds because they see Hunter caving and want to get more? They want a hard cap AND a more equitable division of the basketball income (again why should the players get more than half when the owners put up all the money / risk)?

Your theory makes no sense, if Hunter comes in accepting a hard cap it means he's giving in on something he was 'hard line' about and that he's weak and the owners should get as much as they can.

To me the players are being morons, and they will kill the NBA

user-pic
raro reply to GoSixers on Oct 26 at 11:39
+/-

I think the owners are just as culpable as the players when it comes to killing the NBA.

I wasn't overly impressed with the Simmons-Hunter interview either, but his point about the owners 'wanting' a lockout from the get-go, and therefore not negotiating in good faith is a solid one IMO. There's a difference between wanting to run a profitable business and absolutely crushing the will of your players.

And the owners accuse the players of not negotiating in good faith - and when you let uneducated hot head morons into the negotiating room to 'negotiate' complex issues - are you negotiating in good faith?

user-pic
raro reply to GoSixers on Oct 26 at 13:12
+/-

Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolving the players of messing things up on their end. But how is KG wreaking the negotiations similar to someone like Paul Allen wreaking the negotiations? Shouldn't you expect better behavior from the latter?

I was simply saying that both sides are at fault. All this he said, she said BS and fake negotiating from both sides is just continually disappointing.

I know he 'graduated' high school but KG's education probably stopped at 8th grade

Paul Allen on the other hand has started multiple successful business and made BILLIONS using his MIND - Kevin Garnett can't even use his mind to know when to stop acting like a bitch

Simmons isn't often right - but the intellectual capital statement was spot on...more so in the NBA, not as much as in MLB though

user-pic
raro reply to GoSixers on Oct 26 at 17:24
+/-

Bingo, you shouldn't expect the two sides to negotiate at the same level. Yet Paul Allen's negotiating tactics don't seem to be that different from KG's chest pounding method: give me what I want or else.

I'm not surprised when KG pulls something like this, and frankly, I don't really care. Hopefully it's not taken seriously as a negotiating tactic by the owners. But a supposedly brilliant innovator like Paul Allen doing effectively the same thing? That's the disappointing part.

I'm not surprised when KG pulls something like this, and frankly, I don't really care

That's great you don't care, but trust me, the owners care, and it demonstrates that the players don't have a clue WHO to put in the room, don't put the idiot chest thumpers who can't balance a check book but think they can read team balance sheets. It demonstrates to the owners (in my mind) you aren't serious about NEGOTIATING

If you're serious about negotiating you put INTELLIGENT THOUGHTFUL well spoken players in the room, and there are many in the NBA - yo udon't put the guy who bitch slapped a teamm mate because he showed him up in a game of one on one - yes he's a 'league star' but SFW - it demonstrates to me that the players have NO CLUE of a gameplan that makes sense...

user-pic
Raro reply to GoSixers on Oct 26 at 20:54
+/-

You're missing the point. KG isn't a major player in these negotiations. He's loud and obnoxious, but I bet you he wasn't part of today's conversations.

The owners however are major players and they are negotiating on the same level as KG.

And you're missing the point - but that's ok - I don't really care if yo uget it.

He was in the room - which means he was part of the negotiations - and he's a moron - so he shouldn't even have been in the room. Bringing a bunch of guys who might not have finished more than a year of college in as a 'show of force' in negotiations concerning 4+ billion dollars - in any 'level' is asinine. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how to negotiate and what these negotiations are about - the super stars ALWAYS get their money - CBA negotiations aren't about those guys.

user-pic
raro reply to GoSixers on Oct 26 at 13:13
+/-

Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolving the players of messing things up on their end. But how is KG wreaking the negotiations similar to someone like Paul Allen wreaking the negotiations? Shouldn't you expect better behavior from the latter?

I was simply saying that both sides are at fault. All this he said, she said BS and fake negotiating from both sides is just continually disappointing.

The owners make up system changes like non-guaranteed contracts, a hard cap, and a four to one luxury tax, and while some of those things might actually be good for the league, the owners "negotiate" them away to distract from the fact that this is all just a money grab from the players. The NBA wants to set up a league where the owners are guaranteed to make a profit. What other kind of business in the world is there like that? If I'm an owner, and I make bad business decisions and spend money unwisely, then should it be guaranteed that I won't take a loss? If the owners don't like it, they can sell to other guys who will be owners. Owners are replaceable.

I disagree with almost everything you said, I'm anti salary cap at all actually, and guaranteed contracts, and contract length limitation.

The players are idiots, the players are going to lose money - the owners don't JUST make money from basketball (most of em) and the players need to realize that. It's a business, and the owners have a right to a fair system that allows them to make a profit, and now they claim it's not a system that allows them to make a profit, and while the players bitch and moan publicly what ACTUALY EVIDENCE have they shown the public to say the owners are llying, aside from the whole 'the owners are lying'

Billy Hunter thinks letting a guy like Kevin Garnett in the negotiating room is a GOOD IDEA. That demonstrates how fracked up the union is.

Oh that's cool, I thought you were more for the NFL model which has a hard cap. Either way, the reason I side with the players is because they are the ones with the talent people pay to see, so their sense of entitlement means more to me than that of some rich businessman, who like you said has made his money in other ventures, but doesn't know how to operate his toy correctly, which is the basketball team. In my view he doesn't have the right to demand a profit when he is not as successful in basketball as he was in something else. He can sell the team if he wants, and every owner will make money in the long run beacause the team appreciates in value. If looked at from a business perspective, it has been a very profitable investment over the years no matter what the system was.

I'm not sure how this is a "right or wrong" type of thing. The players and owners each are wealthy people fighting over a huge pile of money. Both have certain power based on labor and anti-trust laws. Within that framework they will each fight to profit and exert their power. It is in no way about what is fair or right. And if one party feels like they are being squeezed then it will end up in the courts-much like with football. And that would still be about who has more power.

I only care about the outcome in terms of how it effects me as a fan and the team I root for. I can care less if the owners are making or losing money or if the players make 5M per year or a few mil more or less. But I don't want a deal that locks my team into more mediocrity. And that is for simple selfish reasons. If I was a Mavs or Laker fan I'd probably want a different outcome.

Of course you do, TK, just like the rest of us. It's the one point I conceed makes sports different than the rest of the business world. Every fan that truly follows the team, that watches every night, that buys tickets to the games, and lives and dies with each play, each person feels like a little piece of the team belongs to them, even though it doesn't legally or financially. And while we couldn't care less what the CEO of some company the manufactures household goods pays his lead engineers, we scream and yell about what an NBA owner agrees to pay a certain player. And I'm all for that, it makes things fun, which is why I guess I'm a real life capitalist and a sports socialist. :)

her way, the reason I side with the players is because they are the ones with the talent people pay to see, so their sense of entitlement means more to me than that of some rich businessman,

And that's a flaw in your thinking in my opinion and it's what is wrong with the entirety of basketball all the way back to AAU and earlier

their 'talent' gives them a sense of entitlement.

Where would they play without the money - the marketing - do people pay to see them play pick up games at rucker park? No - please - the owners need the players AND the players need the owners - there is a much larger pool of player to choose from than owners. Your theory is what's WRONG with sports today in my opinion, the players 'entitlement'

I don't favor any caps - caps are bull - if you can't swim in the deep end don't play

user-pic
johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Oct 26 at 17:12
+/-

The players don't really seem to have any respect for the owners, or what the league has built over the last however many decades.

You wouldn't see any of the owners saying "all I need to do is put in some work at the gym, practice my jumpers and I can get out there and play"

Because that's fucking ridiculous...

But you've got someone like Amar'e spouting off about starting a new league, and that "all they need is to get together a blueprint"

I think that's the dumbest thing I've heard during the lockout.


You might actually be wrong. Look at the music business. For decades they performers were managed by old white guys and large corporations. Then in the past 20 years we saw the development of some artists becoming music moguls with surprising success- partly because they have a better sense of their audience.

I am not saying Amare can run a franchise. But I don't doubt that players/agents and the right advisers could build a successful basketball business model. It might not be exactly the NBA, but it would have its own strengths. I don't want that to happen because I am closer in sports interests to the old white guys... but I won't sell the players short just like I don't think hip hop artists have needed major labels to be a commercial success that has gone mainstream.

UFL
XFL
Arena Football (folded, reformed)
"SLam Ball"

And on and on

Numerous alterantive sports leagues have been tried already - maybe it would work better if all the nba players went to it - but think about this - where the hell are they playing? Cause the NBA isn't giving up their stadiums

If the XFL, AFL and others cornered the market oon the premier players would they have folded.

If the XFL had 95% of the current NFL players while the NFL fielded scabs- who would win out?

I'm not saying NBA players would replicate the current NBA. But if 90% of the current NBA players started a league with the backing of their agents they would be a success of some sort.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Oct 26 at 19:03
+/-

I guess it was just the way he said "all we need to do is a get a blueprint together"

Like it was some small task to create a league capable of trumping the NBA.

I'm not saying the players couldn't in theory build their own league if they threw money at the right people.

But Amar'e having seemingly zero perspective of the scope of undertaking such an enormous operation doesn't inspire much confidence that they'd succeed.

Agree with that sentiment 100%.

That's a good point you make about the players not being able to succeed outside of the current structured environment, I've got to give that one to you, it wasn't something I had really thought much of. But I don't look at my opinion on the owners as a flaw in thinking, just a difference in perspective. When the owners bought in they knew the rules, they've done plenty of market research to know the revenue streams, they know the tv contracts, they know the amount of expenses they can incur and still be able to turn a profit. If anything causes them to go beyond that whether it be ego, or desire to win, or pressure from the fans, then it's their own fault that they went above their financial means to make a profit for that year. The owners take on a certain amount of risk, I agree, but the owners seem to now be seeking to eliminate any risk at the expense of the players, which I do not agree with.

And if the economic environment changes (you know crippling recession massive unemployment) they shouldn't be able to adjust the system?

The system is broken

Isn't the current climate pretty bad? I mean, I'm not an economist, so I guess things could get worse. But even with that cloud hanging over, I believe the perennial powerhouse that is the golden state warriors sold for a huge price this past year. If actions speak louder than words, then I'm not sure the new ownership group necessarily agrees with you that the system is shot.

And yet the NBA can't find a local owner for the new orleans hornets?

Don't pick and choose to say it works - as a whole the system is broken - if people with billions of hollywood dollars are willing to over pay for a messed up franchise - that's up to them - doesn't mean you'll always find a stupid person willing to over pay.

What did the sixers sell for huh? Was that some sort of record?

The NBA had more than one person bid on the Hornets, but chose not to sell because they didn't feel they were getting a high enough price. Also, they had the idea that holding onto the Hornets for one more year would give them extra leverage when it came to the doomsday threat of contraction. And the Sixers sold for what percent of what Snider paid for them, even after adjusting for inflation, was it over a hundred? :)

The NBA had more than one person bid on the Hornets, but chose not to sell because they didn't feel they were getting a high enough pric

Really - contrast to all reports that every purchase bid was based on moving the team OUT of New Orleans and the NBA doggedly STUPIDLY remains committed to having a team in a place where the city is likely to sink before an economic recovery hits it.

Nothing goes up forever - but it seems many people here forget that gravity applies to more than just apples

Why don't they let them move the team then? I mean, the NBA let the new owners move the Sonics out of Seattle, didn't they? And that's clearly a better market than New Orleans. Also, if gravity applies to more than just apples, then why didn't Andy Reid fall over when McCoy punched him in the gut? That's what I want to know! :)

You really don't know why they won't let them move out of New Orleans? It's all about rebuilding the city and commitment to the rebuilding process and all that nonsense (ain't no rebuilding - though Tremé is an awesome show). The NBA won't allow anyone to buy the team who intends to move it - the new owners are going to have to STAY in the god forsaken financial hole that is the New Orleans market (and when they lose Chris Paul watch how bad it gets) - but the NBA still wants 'market value' on those terms.

Hi - you can buy this car - but you can only drive it on certain roads and can't go more than a 50 mile radium from your home - but you still have to pay full price - and here - shove this up your ass too

Well if the NBA wants to set terms that a new owner has to abide by, and yet can't possibly turn a profit in, then how do you expect them to set fair terms in negotiations with employees that have to work under the new conditions that they set? :)

Per Fagan he made maybe 6% per year annualized on his investment. Not all that different the return on more traditional investments over that same time frame.

That's just the increased value of the franchise, though. Doesn't take into account the profits/losses from year-to-year.

Auctions speak louder than words. This delay is just that, an elaborate auction of manpower. Owners hold all the cards. Night comes to day, players are mere supplicants - and rightfully so. There's 60-plus years of sweat equity, intellectual capital and public trust contrasting the players' stupid claims. When action, independent of the NBA, is taken by players, more power to them. As subsidiary contractors, they're fools - and are advertising it well.

Well if it's advertising there are contractors,
Who are players to paralyze detractors?
Seeing independence as claims of power,
Who blames trust while scaling towers?
Through years contrasting capital
Their sweat met fears the owners pull
Supplicant by night so lay away
These games of cards the just delay
To elaborate that actions speak
A deal that manpower holds so bleak...


Stephen A Smith was on the radio in LA and seems to think that there is a good chance that the thing is close to being settled. He also claims they could still pull an 82 game season (which seems contrary to the month of canceled games already doesn't it?)

Claims that the players came in at 52.5% BRI and the owners at 47.5% BRI and then said 'look 50% is the exact middle of that". Later on in the interview he said the only way the players could come out and say they 'won' something is to keep it at 52.5% so i'm not sure why he thinks it's likely they'll compromise to 50. (Some nonsense about both sides needing to say they 'won' - nonsense)

Also claims that the mediation broke down last week because of Sterns flu and some owners 'puffing out their chests' and the players taking offense. I don't know about you, but since the NBA is usually tightly under Sterns thumb, I really don't believe one day of having the flu would send it all to crap UNLESS of course, the flu was faked and all the owner 'puffery' was staged, at Sterns 'suggestion' to cause the players to over react because (as stephen a smith says) they are the most competetive people in the world (BS) and they don't like to be pushed around.

It was on ESPN 710 Radio - 710ESPN.com - I don't know if they'll put it up later on the web site. Stephen A Smith actually has a show on 710ESPN (I don't know if it's national) I'm sure he'll spout his continued contradicting opinoins and rants tonight if you're interested.


I would not be surprised if they settle soon. They are at a breaking point in terms of the numbers. The individual players will lose more in the long run if this goes on too long (while the owners have a longer horizon), and there is only so long you can make a stand simply on principle.

So I don't have any more faith in either party, more that they are at the stage where the rubber hits the road.

except how much money do the owners save by not having to pay anyone versus the lost revenue of gate and tv?

Agreed. The players are dumb and obnoxious, but eventually Billy Hunter remembers that his union is one person one vote. The majority of players would've voted yes to the 50-50 demand last week, Hunter just didn't put it up for a vote. That doesn't fly for much longer when the players are not receiving paychecks. It's only the Garnetts and other max players who are filthy rich and still get endorsement money that don't want to settle.

Hey look - they got smart again.

Stern rejoined the talks Wednesday after missing last Thursday's session with the flu. He was joined by Silver, Holt, owners Glen Taylor of Minnesota and James Dolan of New York, and a pair of league office attorneys.
The union was represented by executive director Billy Hunter, Fisher, union vice president Maurice Evans of the Wizards, attorney Ron Klempner and economist Kevin Murphy.

For some reason i get the feeling that something is indeed moving in the right direction with the latest marathon 15 hour talks. They wouldn't have stayed up until 3AM and schedule another meeting for 2 PM the next day if there wasn't a chance of getting a deal soon.

I've been mostly quiet about the lockout (a depressed fan?), but recent movement has given me confidence that we will be talking about the Sixers very soon indeed.

As for the system vs. BRI issues i think they are both kinda tied together and one cannot be solved without reaching an agreement for the other. My prediction: the players will give up something in the system related issues in order to save face and say we got more than 50% in the BRI.

According to SAS that 15 hours included no talk about the BRI or the revenue sharing, just dealing with ancillary issues like contract lengths, exceptions, luxury tax settings, so the two big issues were completely ignored, and nothing was accomplished on the two big issues that have been the crux of the problem before.

So that 15 hours accomplished 0 of significance towards TRULY settling this

Actually, that's not really true. If they were talking about the luxury tax system, and they had meaningful talks, then we may see some movement on the BRI. Revenue sharing among teams really has nothing to do w/ the CBA, the union needs to let go of that one.

There are two issues which are stopping this thing from being settled, the BRI split and the luxury tax system. Everything else is window dressing. If the luxury tax system swings in favor of the players (meaning their economist doesn't think it'll prohibit teams from spending into the luxury tax), then I think the BRI split will slide toward the owners and we'll have a settlement. If the owners won't allow the luxury tax to be reasonable, then the players won't come down from 52.5% and we're pretty much stuck. The fact that the owners were willing to discuss the luxury tax means they've come off Paul Allen's ultimatum, which is positive.

Of course, this is all only true if you believe SAS's report.

I thought it was BRI and revenue sharing?

Revenue sharing is something the union sort of wants in the CBA, but they're never going to get. It's like the owners insisting the union's retirement plan be part of the CBA. It's a big deal to the owners, among themselves, but it has nothing to do w/ the union, at all.

The union has tried to drag it into the CBA conversation because they owners keep throwing around "competitive balance," but how the owners split up their share of the pie is for the owners to figure out on their own, and it can happen after the CBA is figured out (in fact, it'll probably have to happen after, because they need to see what their slice of the pie is going to look like).

Well, I still think the point stands that if the BRI split hasn't really been discussed, then movement hasn't really been made because it's the vital point. 15 hours and they avoided the 5% divide (which as Smith points out, 1 point, over 10 years, is a billion bucks folks)

I don't agree with his math - i'm just saying - he said that this morning on the radio :)

I seriously doubt it's going to be a 10-year deal.

Basically, this is what the players need to get to get a deal done. They need the luxury tax system to be loose enough to allow the dumb owners to spend their way up 2-3% from the guarantee. So if they settle on a 50/50 split, the owners will spend it up to 53% anyway because they're, you know, idiots who hire Ed Stefanski to make their basketball decisions two minutes after he's fired.

I still think the owners (and stern) want to break the union and are more than willing to give up an entire season to do it - I think the money saved will offset the money lost. While players will lose an entire season of money

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the league still gets the national TV money. Have you seen that?

No I haven't - but does that make sense? I mean didn't the players sue the NFL over the fact that they had the 'tv money warchest' set up even if they weren't playing games?

Does ESPN/TNT really pay for games that aren't aired? If so they're getting the shaft.

And yet - you're right

One key point to bear in mind as the NBA and its players prepare to get back to the bargaining table in the wake of the lockout the owners called last week is this: The networks that air NBA games are still on the hook to pay rights fees even if the season doesn’t start as planned.

Guys who negotiated those tv contracts on the tv network side should be fired.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/tv-dollars-give-nba-owners-advantage-over-players-during-lockout

So - the premise of the owners MAKING money on a lock out is even stronger if the NBA is collecting tv money - think how much the lakers would make (let's not forget local tv deals) without having to pay anyone major money.

The people most screwed by these lockouts might not even be players, what about staff - do they get paid? Is the trainer paid? The assistant coaches, guyes who don't make huge cash?

I think you're going to see a bunch of those ancillary positions being cut loose, if they haven't already.

It does kind of make me feel warm inside that Comcast is paying the Sixers for the TV rights during the lockout :)

As for the proposal in the post Brian i feel like this is more or less a lateral move that won't really get the team anywhere near a championship which need to be the ultimate goal. This is essentially Nene + Jordan for Brand + Young an i don't think that change will result in a significant improvement in the "WIN" department. I am on record that i don't like Jordan as much as the other posters here but i do agree that Nene and Jordan do fit together fairly well. Neither is a game changer though and i am not sure how good such a move would be since the general goal would be to set the team up for the post- "Nene-Iguodala contract era". The ceiling of the above mentioned lineup is 50 wins IMO, which is good but we need to aim higher.

user-pic
Stan reply to Xsago on Oct 27 at 19:17
+/-

We won 41 games last year and lost at least 8 games when we had a 15+ lead in the 4th qaurter. With this move we won't be a contender, but we would definitely be a top 4 team in the east. Clearly over BOS and NYK and possibly be better than ATL and ORL.

To tell you the truth, if I had this deal I would take. It's better to be a top 4 team that can compete with CHI and MIA then to wait around and hope that Dwight chooses you over 28 other teams. Or hope that you win the lottery and get Andre Drummond.

Nice to hear them talking about trying to salvage an 82 game season. That would be less nights without a game and put a young, balanced team like the Sixers at a competitive advantage. The Sixers don't generally rely on the same guy to carry them every night, and Collins gives 5 different players 20-30 minutes. Iguodala and Brand are the only ones I'd worry will start wearing down- but I expect Turner and Speights to be able to step in more for them this year.

Well - players want full salary owners want full ticket income - it's still all about money.

Interesting, NBA.com has an interview from a leading econonmist who is working for the players

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/steve_aschburner/10/27/lockout-q-and-a-kevin-murphy/index.html

Here's an interesting excerpt from that Economist article

I would say the primary disagreement is not over the accounting numbers. It's what you include and how you interpret the numbers. For example, the accounting picture of the NBA isn't very different from what it was five years ago or 10 years ago in terms of ratio of revenues to costs and all the rest -- it's changed very little

"I would say the primary disagreement is not over the accounting numbers. It's what you include and how you interpret the numbers."

Isn't that sort of a generic statement that applies for any negotiations?

Depends on how creative your accounting is - i mean personal accounting isn't as complicated as nba franchise accounting.

Here's one thing i've always wondered - nba 'swag' - jerseys and such - is that split evenly between all teams? Is it in the bri?

If the hard cap is at 62 million, I say we cut Elton, sign DeAndre(3 years 25 million) and resign Thad (3 years 24 million).
In 2012 we can sign Kevin Love to a 5 year 75 million contract with 45 million gauranteed. I would throw in 2-1st round draft picks and Vucevic if we have to trade.

Our 2012 roster would look like this-

DeAndre Jordan - Vucevic
Kevin Love - Thad
Andre Iguodala- Turner
Evan Turner - Meeks
Jrue Holiday - Lou Will

Love, i do like quite a bit and i think he will be available for trade as he approaches free agency. Unless the Timberwolves make a dramatic turn this year to 50 wins, i believe Love will go somewhere else. Thorn needs to get creative here...

As for Jordan there is no way we can sign him for that little. The Clippers are ready to give him 10-11 million per season IMO and unless we pay mroe than that we won't get him. And more than 10-11 million is too much for him.

Anyone else feels like the season will begin on Thanksgiving with the scheduled matches and all the missed ones will be rescheduled for "in-between" dates as well as pushing the season to last 1-2 more weeks?

user-pic
Da Jruth on Oct 28 at 10:20
+/-

http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-magazine/features/2011/10/philadelphia-76er-jrue-holiday-talks-playoffs-allstar-olympics/

Humble kid here. Subtle dig at Eddie Jordan. At least it's basketball related and not all that other bull.

I don't know if I'd call it humble as much as well grounded. He knows he has talent, but others have more. He also knows his achievements will be dictated more by how hard he works. On the same token he has set the bar really high (All Star game this year seems like a huge reach.) Overall glad he is a Sixer.

I care less about what Jrue thinks of himself than I do what Dwight Howard thinks about him. He's our only chance.

True. Unrealistic, but true. But I never expected Brand to choose Philly, so maybe we are due for a shock signing with a good outcome.

user-pic
Stan reply to Brian on Oct 28 at 12:18
+/-

I just hope he doesn't think that a guy like Wall or Rondo would be a better fit.

Wall maybe, but Rondo can't shoot.

If I were Dwight I would pick Wall, because his explosiveness will force the defense to be more honest- making it easier for Dwight to be open on drives.

Jrue needs to establish that he can be a better finisher on his drives.

Anyone want to rank who would be the best PG's from Howard's perspective?

1. DWill: Not as quick as some others, but knows how to run a pick and roll and can really shoot.

2. CP3

3. Wall- explosive and unselfish. Potential good defender. Needs to improve hgis jumper to spread the floor.

3. Rose- Will probably take too many shots and jumper is just starting to be a weapon, but otherwise perfect fit. Would be deadly.

A big step down from these 3. The other PG's are either getting too old or have major flaws in their games in terms of PG skills, penetration ability or jump shooting. But Jrue probably should be near the top of this list.

Jrue
Westbrook
Parker

I actually would put Jameer pretty high in terms of how his skills fit with Dwight.

Jameer is a terrible fit w/ Dwight. Jameer isn't a playmaker at all, he's a decent scorer as a PG, but a terrible playmaker.

Wall doesn't deserve to be that high until he proves he can score efficiently. Not sure Rose is such a great fit either. He needs a pure PG who's a playmaker first. Williams, CP3 are legit, then you get into a group of guys like Jrue.

yeah, that entire comment should've said IMO, or maybe "Jesus, I've been in meetings all day long and have no idea how to talk without yelling right now." Oh, and Jameer blows.

Jameer is not a good PG. But he can penetrate and shoot and has decent chemistry with Dwight when he gets in the lane. So his fit with Dwight supersedes his ability as a PG. But I would not put him top 10 on the list.

As for Wall, I am trying to project him as a teammate of Dwight from 2012-2018. Sure, he has not proved anything. But I think he will, and he'd work great with Dwight.

there's a reason the wings are the ones who wind up setting Dwight up all the time in Orlando, it's because Jameer isn't good at running the P&R, and he has terrible PG instincts. My whole sales pitch to Dwight would be how much better he'd be with a legit point guard.

it's no coincidence that the only time the Dwight Magic have made it deep in the playoffs was when Jameer was hurt.

user-pic
Cin reply to tk76 on Oct 28 at 14:42
+/-

I'd add Stephen Curry to the list. Below Williams/Paul but above Holiday.

Who Howard likely won't be playing with:

Wall - Has JaVale McGee and Ted Leonsis wants homegrown talents.

Rose - Has Joakim Noah and there are already too many big contracts, with Rose coming up soon... already settled on Carlos Boozer.

Westbrook - Has Kendrick Perkins to a fresh new contract and management won't split him and Kevin Durant up (See: Dwight Howard and Jameer Nelson).

Parker - Adultery.

Williams and Paul are, to echo Brian, legit. Williams at least is also realistic. A sign-and-trade with Brook Lopez could probably work if the Magic definitely knew that Howard was leaving.

Another option for Howard would be to latch on to a young team with a talented core that has a potential first or second tier point guard and proven coach.

Nuggets (Karl): Lawson w/Chandler and Gallinari
Timberwolves (Adelman): Rubio w/Love, Williams, Beasley, and Johnson.

and of course the 76ers with Collins and Holiday.

I find it unlikely that Howard would want to come to the city of Philadelphia. I think there's zero chance in hell he's going to Minnesota and signing to stay there, no matter who's on that team.

user-pic
Cin reply to Brian on Oct 28 at 14:56
+/-

The religious bond Dwight develops with Jrue and D.C. will outweigh his want of playing in NY. Every star player wants to play in NY right?

I don't agree with the notion that Philadelphia is not a desirable city to play for. It's a big market, has a fanatical fan base (when they're winning or have a star), and the league is better when the 76ers are good.

And like I posted before, Dwight has been quoted that his favorite star and player are Will Smith and Wilt. Got to hope he can become a Philly guy.

Then maybe Voose can shave his head and be the Sixers version of the Montenegrin Anvil.

What are the chances we get good news today? 50/50?

I'm so ready to actually think about basketball instead of BRI.

75/25 we get good news this weekend.

My latest over on SB Nation Philly. You can probably guess what it's about.

Marc Stein has some comments on the amnesty - might have some time to use it

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32935/more-flexible-amnesty-clause-on-way

That would be interesting. Any chance ATL uses their amnesty on Joe Johnson after their sale?

Then he join Miami for the minimum.

Miami's going to wind up signing a bunch of these amnesty guys, I bet. Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis, Maggette.

Like they Payton/Malone geriatric Lakers?

Yup, exactly.

Sounds more like a mulligan than amnesty.

But makes the bad contract thad is going to get maybe not so bad

3 years would be so much better than 6.

I'm wondering if there might be a 2-year difference w/ bird rights. Like 3 years w/out, 5 years w/.

I just pray they do away with the portability of bird rights.

We need some good news.

If we get a start date is there a way for you to post a "Voose Countdown" clock?

http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?msg=Start+of+the+Voose+Era&month=11&day=25&year=2011&hour=19&min=30&sec=00&p0=198

Looks like you're going to have to wind that clock forward a little bit. Talks broke off again, more cancellations coming, apparently.

I'm not sure why I even follow this BS. Time to tune out again for a while until we start hearing "deal is imminent" talk.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Oct 28 at 17:58
+/-

I think this is just one final round of posturing.

Hopefully you are right. But it is just as likely that the negotiators don't have the power to meet half way. If there are enough idiots on either side then even the most level headed negotiator cannot make a deal that their members won't ratify. Sort of reminds me of the Debt Ceiling negotiations and how one or two congressmen tried to hold the world hostage. Its often not the fault of the negotiators that they represent egotistical losers (for lack of a more appropriate term.)

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Oct 28 at 18:21
+/-

well, caught a tweet that said it'll cost the players 400 million to miss a month of games, and it'll cost 280M over the 7 year deal to move from 52% to 51%

The rank and file aren't going to want to miss much needed checks over 1% point...

I think the union is going to get some serious pressure from the middle and low end earners to get this thing done now.

Agreed. I'd bet anything a majority of the players would vote for a 50-50 split today. Hunter/Fisher are just refusing to put it up for a vote. Borderline breach of duty.

And another two weeks of games get canceled.

Yeah, they're close

user-pic
johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Oct 28 at 19:10
+/-

That's insignificant. They weren't going to be able to play basketball by mid November regardless of what happened today. Need 30 days for free agency and training camp.

An yet all the 'talk' was about how they'll still get 82 in if they agree by the end of the weekend. So if they're close, and could still get all 82 in - WHY cancel 15 more days worth of games?

Cause they aren't close and all the sheep buy it because they're 'talking' but making NO movement on the key point

I'm not sure if it means they're closer or further away, but they had to officially cancel those games either way because they need to release the dates for the arena owners. Even if they agreed today, those games would've had to be cancelled anyway.

Either way, this isn't the announcement I was hoping to see, at least not on its own. Hoping we'll hear December 1st is opening day on Halloween, but not optimistic anymore.

But they won't be getting that type of pressure from Kevin Garnett, who will be thumping his chest to a chant of "53%!"

user-pic
Jeff reply to Jeff on Oct 28 at 19:17
+/-

Reply fail. Meant to respond to Johnrosz.

ESPN's story has some details, looks like Bird Rights contracts will be 5 years long and regular contracts will be 4. So that one went the players' way, owners definitely wanted 3 year max on non-bird contracts. Midlevel will start at $5M, which is down a bit, but again, closer to what the players wanted. This is all news from the league, though, so of course they're going to talk about the compromises they made. Basically, this came down to the owners saying 50% is as high as they'll go, and the players saying 52% is as low as they'll go. 51% seems pretty logical to me, but what do I know. If the owners think they really gave on the system the day before, they're probably pretty pissed the union won't budge at all now that they're back to BRI. If that's the case, then I could see the owners backing out of whatever concessions they made whenever negotiations begin again.

I don't really understand how they could "fix" the system to the point where everyone was super happy yesteray, then sit down today and have Hunter basically walk out of the room when the NBA didn't agree to exactly where he was the last time they spoke.

I think the owners will hold to 50-50 (or 50.5-49.5 to throw the players a bone), and I think they have a right to. They wanted a hard cap and no guaranteed contracts originally, NFL style. They dropped that to a very-punitive luxury tax and 3-year max guarantees. Now they've caved to a less-punitive luxury tax and 4-year max guarantees. This, despite the owners holding all the leverage.

It's time for the players to declare victory and move on. Nothing but greed is keeping them from a 50-50 split, and they will absolutely cost themselves more money in the long run by sitting at home staring at the wall then by dropping from 52 to 50 percent.

I'm not worried though. There is no way the season gets canceled over a 2% difference. Personally I loved the last 50-game season, 4-5 Sixer games a week was great.

When you're enemy is down - do you let him up - or do you go for the throat? Which is more likely from a professional athlete point of view?

To Stan - that depends on who you ask - but over 10 years it's a hundred million or so i think

I get your point, but they are only costing themselves money. Even if they got a 52-48 split 2 months from now (which they won't), the loss in salary from missed games will eat the benefit of the favorable BRI split. More likely, the players will have to cave to 50-50 or 50.5-49.5, in which the players really blew it, because they cost themselves wages from games lost and then had to cave anyways.

It's a short term long term thing - if there's more money for the players in the next 10 yars by sticking to their gones, then missing a month of paychecks is worth it. A negotiation like this isn't about current players - it's about future players as well, and that's why you got a guy like hunter in charge who isn't impacted by the lock out directly, leading the way.

If the amount they are arguing about comes to 250 million dollars over 10 years (let's say) - that's not worth missing one month of pay?

No because there's no way the owners are coming to 52 percent. I suppose there's a shot the owners come up to 51 percent, but I don't see how getting the owners from 50 to 51 could ever be worth missing 2 months of games for the players.

not to mention that the players, if they really want 51 percent, could propose that now and maybe get it. They're never getting 52 so it's absurd to stick to that position.

user-pic
Stan reply to Brian on Oct 29 at 12:43
+/-

How much does 1% of the amount money that they are arguing for represent?

Any chance that Dwight goes to OKC? If they cut Perkins, they might be able to sign him. If they get a little over ambitious they could swing a deal with NJ and trade Westbrook, Aldrich, and Harden for Deron Williams

A Durant-Howard-Williams trio would be sick.

Highly doubt it. Dwight says he wants a big market to increase his Hollywood stature. OKC is about the smallest, and certainly the most boring.

Can't believe OKC wasted all that money on Perkins.

user-pic
stan reply to stoned81 on Oct 30 at 8:39
+/-

Howard might think that but he would never publicly say that. Lol.

He's already said it.

SR: Do you think that the drive to represent, on an iconic level, will be a factor in your free agency? Do you see yourself in a much larger market?

DH: There's more you can do in a bigger place. I'm stuck in a tough position because I feel like right now, where I'm at, I've done so much. And I just don't know what else I can do.

http://www.esquire.com/features/man-at-his-best/q-and-a/dwight-howard-interview-1111-2#ixzz1cI6nPYjA

Yes, Lebron James had a hard time being a mega super star in Cleveland, and Wade struggled with it in Miami (not to mention Shaq was an unknown when he was in orlando)

The only thing a 'bigger' market does is get you better local contracts - it's a small world dwight, maybe you should join this century

user-pic
Stan reply to GoSixers on Oct 30 at 15:28
+/-

yea but who knows Tim Duncan, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Deron Williams, David Robinson, Reggie Miller and etc. ?

You're right, Karl Malone was an unknown, so is Tim Duncan.

Again, you can be a STAR anywhere if you're a star...big men don't tend to get the dollars other players do, it's a fact. Except for fat shaq when he was in orlando.

In fact Shaq is the perfect object lesson for why dwights quote is asinine.

Miami is a pretty big market, and when it comes to glamour it's the biggest (or 2nd next to LA). LeBron in Cleveland is a rare situation because he's one of the best players ever (and was so hyped even in high school). I do think being in a big market can help a player's stature. Dwight really isn't a Hollywood-type star, even if Shaq was. So I think Dwight is correct that a bigger market might make him more of a Hollywood guy. Or maybe people find Dwight boring. But we won't know until he tries it.

user-pic
Cin reply to stoned81 on Oct 30 at 17:47
+/-

Also keep in mind that many Latin American (especially those in the Caribbean) countries tend to back the Miami teams. Puerto Rico, for example, is basically an extension of the Miami fan base.

That and LeBron James was definitely an exception to the small/big market star rule. As stoned81 mentioned he had immense pre-NBA exposure and was then drafted by his home team. How many times has that ever happend?

user-pic
Tray reply to GoSixers on Oct 30 at 18:09
+/-

LeBron sure had a tough time getting any talent to come to Cleveland. In fact, there were a lot of reports last year that he would've stayed if Bosh would've accepted Cleveland's offer, but of course Bosh would never do that. Now, Howard's had some pieces, and they've pretty much gotten whatever they wanted (they've wanted the wrong things, though), so I don't see that that quote makes any sense as applied to his situation. But generally, there's some truth to it.

user-pic
Stan reply to Tray on Oct 30 at 18:55
+/-

There's no way Cleveland could have offered Bosh anything more than the MLE. Without Lebron they were still over the cap.

Bosh could've told Toronto he'd do a sign-and-trade with Cleveland only. Though Toronto probably would've told him to get lost because Cleveland had no assets to trade.

Regardless Bosh wasn't going to Cleveland anyways. No one was going to Cleveland, cuz it's an awful city.

hmmm

biggest markets in the NBA-

Knicks
Lakers
Clippers
Bulls
Raptors
Rockets
Philadelphia

Dallas, Boston, San Fran, and DC are bigger markets than Houston.

That list is strictly by city population. Oddly enough, Anchorage, Alaska is higher on that list than Orlando.

Yes, that's a perfect example of why market size is different than city population size.

Really looking forward to the Brandon Roy cut. F Portland.

user-pic
Scott reply to Brian on Oct 31 at 14:57
+/-

Brian or anybody else, anyone being cut with the amnesty clause from another team that you think the Sixers should go after?

I think Fagan said in her chat last week that the Sixers would be looking to sign a center. Hawes (ugh) would be the backup until he either gets better or they go get someone else.

The only C free agent or amnestee worth having is Marc Gasol and he will be too expensive and the Grizzlies will most likely match.

The only way we can get a C that can be considered part of the current core is via trade IMO.

user-pic
Cin reply to GoSixers on Oct 31 at 15:16
+/-

I'd say maybe Leandro Barbosa for the Raptors.

Do we have a shortage of undersized combo guards who can't defend?

user-pic
Cin reply to Brian on Oct 31 at 16:23
+/-

This was in response to the article, not Scott's question. To Scott's question I'd answer either Brendan Haywood or Andris Biedrins.

user-pic
Stan reply to Cin on Oct 31 at 16:37
+/-

I'd probably cut Mo Williams from LAC instead.

I agree w/ their take on the Clippers.

Besides, the Clips have not one, but two kickass former all stars: Kaman and Mo Williams.

user-pic
Stan reply to Stan on Oct 31 at 16:40
+/-

and I also don't know why CHA would cut Diop over Maggette

Diop is turd, but there is always a premeium on centers, which means that the Clippers shouldn't have any trouble unloading Chris Kaman's expiring contract to another team. Buyer beware if his contract year status motivates him toward a production spike.

If the Clippers were smart they would cut Mo Williams and then trade Chris Kaman for Andre Miller. Andre Miller cant defend a cold, but he would at least make the Clippers a dunk fest with Miller setting up Jordan and Griffin. The Clippers need to retain Jordan and surround Griffin with defenders with length.

I read and enjoyed Brian's Al Farouq Amunu's draft preview. Anumu does have the potential to defensively complement Griffin down the road. Undersized Eric Gordon's length and strength allows him to compensate for his lack of height on the defensive end. I'm interested to see the development od Eric Bledsoe for next year. The Clipper core is right there, they just need to upgrade their coach, PG, and SF positions...

Cracks in the union?

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7176180/nba-lockout-derek-fisher-says-report-questioning-union-loyalty-absurd

You got this story, you got David Stern commenting how Hunter might seem more beholden to agents than players. They are losing the PR war

Not surprising that you are hearing stories of disunity on both sides (the Twitter 500K fine on the owners side.) Both sides are under the stress of losing games and maybe the season. I'm sure things are very strained on both sides and people are looking for someone to blame.

Both sides definitively deserve the consequences of their inability to save a full season. I hope when games return that they are punished at the gate. maybe someone will organize a fan boycott for a certain week.

Both sides definitively deserve the consequences of their inability to save a full season. I hope when games return that they are punished at the gate. maybe someone will organize a fan boycott for a certain week.

Yes, cause a nationwide boycott is easy to organize, and will have as much actual impact as the occupy lunatics, or the tea party.

I'm sure attendance will drop next season whenever it's played but it's not an organized boycott

I definitely think a no show night could happen since we are in the social media age. It probably would start with a viral video on YouTube linking to a facebook page. If all of the blogs picked it up then the mainstream media would follow (unless they bow to pressure from the league.) Once it got media coverage it would pick up steam. The only issue would be season ticket holders, but maybe they could attend but not applaud for a quarter or something similar (or just stay in the concourse at the start of the game.

It would not be a big financial hit, but it would be great TV showing dead silent arenas and then watching the players and management have to apologize for the process.

I think you're wrong and you over estimate the power of social media / viral video and the interest of a lot of fans - you're asking for over about 400K people (rough estimate) nationwide to boycott all on the same day.

Yeah, good luck with that

400K people? So 20 games w/ 20K people per game. Not sure how you get 20 games on the same day when there are only 30 teams in the league.

Math aside, I could see maybe something like this happening in a BS city like Portland, but it's never going to happen at the Garden. 90% of people who go to Knicks games are complete morons who don't even know there's a game going on.

No, it would be a tough sell at the Garden or Staples.

But it would be great to see these guys play in an empty/silent gym. It would almost be like a league full of Sixers games :)

Season Tickets holders would be giving money away for something like this.

It's foolishness

Ugh, hate inventory day, math was off

but lets say 15 games - 12,000 - you're still talking about 180,000 people some of whom have paid to attend EVERY home game of a team and they're just going to waste that night?

Basically TK wants people to actively waste money

And he wants to screw over all those vendors for one night who make money in tips too? Real solidarity there

Are the vendors paid on commission?

I kind of assumed they got tips

At the bars they get tips. Not sure what else they would get tips for. I never tipped a hot dog vendor or someone selling merchandise.

Anyhow, probably not worth debating. Can't wait to not have to be talking about this stuff.

user-pic
Sharone Wright on Nov 1 at 13:06
+/-

I think they should contract. We don't need so many teams, and they can't even get a buyer for New Orleans. The league is watered down. The players will be against this because of less jobs, and the owners might be against it because I beleive they will all share in the money they get from the eventual New Orleans buyer. (Can anyone confirm this?) But, a smaller league is a better league.

Never going to happen - non starter - for both the league AND the players.

And be clear folks - they CAN find a buyer for the Hornets franchise - the problem is finding a buyer who won't move them from New Orleans. I predict that the NBA will relent on that issue sooner rather than later especially since having a league own a team when the Chris Paul thing is about to come to a head could lead to some pretty sticky issues

ON a complete side note

Hey Derek - what the heck is NoSQL and where can i learn about it?:)

http://www.slideshare.net/thobe/nosql-for-dummies

Actually don't know anything about this, was just looking for the pic.

The slideshow actually looks pretty good. But that is coming from ignorance to what it is talking about.

Have heard about it, but don't really know anything about it.

Thanks

See lots of norcal jobs asking for it as a skill - even if you know sql itself - technology keeps making it harder to find jobs :)

I read the first slide and stopped reading. Everything went over my head. Thanks for depressing me, assholes.

I either picture yo uas stan lee or the stan from the eminem song

user-pic
Stan reply to GoSixers on Nov 1 at 20:07
+/-

lol. Stan from Eminem

I'm more like Stan the engineering student who does just enough to get by.

Something to be proud of

Have you met tray?

BTW, I will be working in Philly this winter about 10 days a month. So if I am not boycotting or protesting outside the arena, I'd be up for meeting up for a few games (if there is a season.)

Did New Zealand fall through? If there's a season, I'm definitely in for catching a game as a group.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Brian on Nov 1 at 23:02
+/-

Moving halfway around the world is as complicated as you would imagine. I am still working on it but it does not look like it will happen quickly (if at all.) The Philly position will actually help with NZ, but that is not my main reason for wanting to be in town.

You have my email. contact me if/when it happens.

Woj's take: Hunter is killing the season single-handedly in order to try and claim victory to save his job.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Au_GqypiMWDDf0kZDBpnI9.8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_110111

Hunter claims that the 50/50 split nets the owners and extra 3 billion over 10 years (at current numbers)

Seems like something worth standing your ground on.

His claim is that the 53-47 split of BRI is the equivalent of a total revenue 50/50 split

This is a pretty damning piece, and I think Woj is the best national NBA writer, he's not just going to pen something based on conjecture. He even says Hunter is the one that threw Fisher under the bus with that leak about him trying to make a back room deal w/ the league.

Two quotes from unnamed sources (one league one player) and a whole lot of what smells like conjecture to me. This is an op-ed - not an article

Hunter was worried the deceritification would cost him power?

Sure, cause Demorris smith lost all power when the NFLPA decertified?

Smith certainly lost leverage, and he was on more stable ground w/in the union than Hunter is, I believe.

Leverage against the owners ain't the same as power in the union -s trike ends - union reforms - smith still in charge

Somehow decertification didn't put him on the outs but Hunter thinks it's going to put him on the outs?

And if Hunter was so self serving ain't that something federal mediator would have noticed?

In the three days the federal mediator was there?

And again, Smith had solid footing w/ the union heading in and was able to survive the decertification, which was a mistake. Hunter, maybe not such good standing going in, plus, if he decertified and it had similar results, wouldn't that make him look even worse for having seen the results in the NFL and still doing it?

If Hunter didn't have solid footing going into these negotiations, he should have been replaced before they started (in my opinion) :)

Hunter will likely be out because this is a results oriented world. The NBA has more power so the players will make huge concession. And Hunter will lose his job because of these concession. It might not end up being fair, but it is pretty typical. But the more Hunter seems to be trying to hold the line the better his chances. At least that is from Woj's perspective.

A company can be well run be be crushed by a larger competitor or external forces. In such cases the CEO tend to take the fall.

In such cases the CEO tend to take the fall.

"Fall" is a relative term, I doubt hunter has a 50 million golden parachute

I'm sure he'll be able to feed his family.

user-pic
sfw reply to sfw on Nov 2 at 9:38
+/-

Sorry for the duplication. Have been away for awhile. Refreshed waiting for a reponse.

God bless J.R. Smith... A triple double in two quarters in his first CBA game.

Big Baby showing his unity on Twitter. "Take the 51 percent man and let's play."

Unfortunately, 51% hasn't been offered.

Haha I like the unraveling of the NBPA at the seams. It's going to be 50-50 and we'll all be better for it.

"We'll" all be the same, and the same franchises in the nba will spend and the same franchises won't, the same franchises that are run badly will still be run badly.

I miss Doug Collins. We haven't heard from him at all since the Lockout tour. That's a shame.

He must be going nuts.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Nov 2 at 14:49
+/-

Ironically, I wonder if lockout time off is worse for his health than actual coaching is. It really wouldn't surprise me. You know he wants to shed the, "One year improvement guy" label so bad.

Not sure this roster has that much room for improvement. The individual players have upside, but are they really going to be much better than their pace after the 3-13 start?

They went 38-28 to finish the season (57.5% win percentage.) That projects to 47 wins over a 82 game season (not that there will be 82 games.) I don't see this a 50 win team as constructed.

user-pic
Rich reply to tk76 on Nov 2 at 15:07
+/-

A lot of his critics feel that in the next two years, his teams will take a step backward. If they won 48 games, that would be another nice improvement.

YOu can call them critics or you can call them historians - that's how doug collins history goes - 2 1/2 years of so - first year the best over all performance.

The sixers SHOULD improve because even though TK sees no room for improvement - guys like Thad, Jrue, Turner and even Lou should take a step forward

I agree with you that some of the players will improve (although Brand will probably take a step back.) I'm just not sure if that translates into more than the pace they were one for al but the first 16 games of last season.

IMO there are 2 ways this team makes a big leap:

1. Jrue surprises us and truly develops into an elite player

2. The team plays like last year, but a healthy Iguodala steps up to make a much bigger impact.


user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Nov 2 at 21:57
+/-

I think Elton has his best season as a Sixer if they end up chopping 20+ games off the schedule, assuming that Doug rests him from time to time like he did last season

user-pic
tk76 reply to johnrosz on Nov 2 at 23:29
+/-

I think Speights will get/earn more minutes this year. That plus the Voose may be enough to keep Brand fresh.

Yeah, I don't see Speights being anything but what he already is - one of numerous incredibly talented players with little to no work ethic

I'm not sure how much rest Collins really got for Brand. The only game he didn't play was the game he was suspended. He played less than 25 minutes twice, and less than 30 minutes 14 times. Collins didn't really even get him any rest down the stretch, he played under 30 minutes 4 times in the last two months. 23 games in 44 days.

If they end up with a highly compressed schedule he will have to rest Brand.

Only 3 players averaged 30+ minutes. And you have to figure both Brand and Iguodala will need some protection from getting worn down. And Turner should be ready for more minutes at SF to protect Iguodala. But will Speights or Voose be able to reliably give minutes for Brand?

We did, at the new owners PC.

That's not what I meant. Yeah, he talked in very vague terms about wanting to win and building for the future, but I want to hear him talk about Jrue Holiday's development and on-the-court basketball specifics. That's who Doug Collins is to me.

Which since there's a lock out might lead to fines or tampering charges - you hear a lot of coaches publicly talking about players? Nope - probably cause they'd get fined if they did.

The lockout means the NBA DOES NOT WORK - that includes coaches even publicly trying to 'influence' players

user-pic
Rich reply to GoSixers on Nov 2 at 15:10
+/-

Yeah, I'm aware.

Larry Coon:
Per the Boston Herald, labor talks will resume Saturday.

Yeah, Henry Abbott had the same thing. Interesting nugget from ESPN. They say there's an issue on the table as to whether the traded player and mid-level exceptions should be available to teams who pay the luxury tax. I kind of like the idea that those exceptions should only be available to teams who are over the cap, but haven't entered luxury tax territory. There should be more than a financial penalty for paying the luxury tax if the goal is competitive balance.

I wonder if more or less trades would get done in the NBA if the 'salary matching' nonsense was removed.

that would be one result of Cuban's no cap idea, if it was actually an idea that cuban surfaced.

Personally, i like the matching salaries in trades, and I like the cap in that it makes it harder for teams to completely rape other teams for superstars.

Not really - just ask Pau Gasol and the Grizzlies

Any team can be taken advantage of if they want to be.

It's harder in the NBA, matching salaries is an equalizer.

Personally, I'd let any team make any trade they wanted- the luxury tax still kicks in if you go over. I think restricted player movement is one of the problems in the NBA actually. If some team is willing to take on my crappy contract, why do I have to take a crappy contract by, it gives teams an out of their crappy contracts

(Not to mention the whole guaranteed thing is BS ot start with)

Basically, I think I'm disappointed because instead of getting an overhaul, it's going to end up pretty much the same broken ass system with a few tweaks.

The league was talking tough about scrapping the system and building a system that works, and in the end, it's not a new system, it's still a broken system with some tweaks but it's still the same darn broken system (it seems)

It's adding on a new wing to a house with a crumbling foundation and expect it to fix everything even though the core is rotten

Eh, the system doesn't bother me a whole lot. I mean, yeah I'd love to have seen it completely reworked here, but once it's put into place and we figure out the nuances/changes, it's just there. It's the framework and then you hope your decision makers are smart enough to take advantage of it and your owners are willing to pay what it takes to put a winner on the floor. Any drastic reworking of the system would've been purely situational anyway. I wanted X because it would help the Sixers out of their current situation. While Y would've helped the Sixers more if they were closer to contention, or Z would've helped them more if they just completely blew the team up. Just get the friggin deal done, then let's see if/how things will change under the new owners and let's see some basketball being played.

I don't expect much to change at all, the dumb will still be dumb, the smart will still be smart, dumb teams will over pay mediocre players and then spend the length of the contract trying to get out of it, unsuccessfully due to the draconian CBA, and teams will lose money because of stupidity

Then in 7-10 years they'll do it all agian. Oh boy

It's not always about dumb vs smart. Some teams are rewarded for being the dumbest (like when Cleveland got to draft Lebron.) Other teams are incentivised to tank and take on crap expiring contracts in order to get a chance at a high pick. There is not "smart" way for an average team like the Sixers to build to a high level.

I'm not sure any change in the system fixes this, but it would be nice to seam them try.

Yes, you can use the luck example and then i'll bring up the spurs who smartly used consistently low draft picks to be able to add productive star level pieces to their franchises while teams like the knicks and sixers were blowing lottery pick after lottery pick.

I guess the spurs just got lucky?

Actually, yes, they did just get lucky. They could've wound up with the #2 or #3 pick in the 1997 draft instead of leapfrogging the Grizzlies and the Celtics. How many rings would they have now if they drafted Keith Van Horn instead of Duncan?

user-pic
Rich reply to GoSixers on Nov 3 at 17:09
+/-

Yeah, with Duncan they did get lucky. They were bad in the right year. Now after that, they did about as good of a job as a team can do building around one player.

I don't know if that will hold though, especially the Spurs being able to be smarter with their drafting. Much of their success was predicated on their European scouting being ahead of the curve. That's not really the case anymore with everyone (well, not the Sixers, and they still send people to do their due diligence) going into Europe for players. I feel like the jury is still out on a guy like Tiago Splitter for example.

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Nov 3 at 20:01
+/-

Echoing what others said about the Spurs: Getting the #1 overall pick in 1987 and 1997 was IMO 90% responsible for the teams prolonged success. The other 10% was good choices aside from Duncan/Robinson.

IMO the other choices were the difference between being a Jazz caliber good team for those 20 years versus being a multiple champion. With mediocre management but still getting Duncan and Robinson they would be basically what Orlando has been due to drafting Shaq and Howard.

Teams that were built with smart trades and drafting include Detroit and the recent Celtics.

Tony parker
Manu ginobli
Even scold who they traded
yup. All fucking luck
I admitted they got luck but in the nba you dont win with one star
Other franchises have gotten lucky and gotten a great pick like Dwight Howard or Lebrun and both franchises sucked ass in building round him as opposed to the spurs

Making it all about luck just excuses dumb move after dumb move by a franchise because they don't get lucky

I admitted they got luck but in the nba you dont win with one star

You also don't win without one. Parker + Manu + Keith Van Horn = 0 rings. Lucky ping pong ball = 4.

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Nov 3 at 23:21
+/-

Go back to my initial comment. I did not bring up luck. I said that the current system rewards teams for being bad and punishes average teams if the try and improve.

Under the current system if you are average then the smartest move is often to tank. No other league is like that. IMO this is bad for the fans and the game, and it would be great the this was addressed as a systems/competition issue.

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Nov 3 at 23:27
+/-

Like I said, had the Spurs gotten Duncan and not been so well run they would have "only" made the Finals and had multiple 55+ win contending seasons like Magic and Cavs.

The excellent management got the Spurs from being merely contenders to winning multiple rings. But without Duncan they would have been hard pressed to be as good as the Cavs or Magic have been with their stud #1 picks and terrible management. If the Sixers had the Spurs management team the past 5 years do you think they would be contenders right now?

The thing is, I'm not sure how you fix this. It is a star driven league.

remove (or increase) the max salary limit, make the price for stars go up, make it prohibitive for teams to hoard multiple stars like the lakers/heat, and have less teams in the lottery.

All good ideas. But do they make a difference when you have some owners who are much more willing and able to spend than others?

If they had an NFL situation (hard cap and voidable contracts) as well as higher max contracts you would probably see real change- but that is not happening.

I like this idea, If anyone ever readd the book fair ball by bob costas he talked about having one 'superstar' contract per team - i don't remember the exact mechanics but it could be modified to fit the situation. (And hell there's 25 folks on an active mlb roster, and you use i bet, on average, almost double the amount of players in a standard MLB game versus NBA - maybe slightly less)

Restrictions on using the exceptions would also work I think. Those are the things that the 'capped' teams use to add those final championship pieces (or try to) so much.

Part of the issue with what you're suggesting is that some teams could just keep going up and just raise ticket prices (Lakers and New York come to mind) to offset the aditional penalties. (Which is where the revenue sharing adjustments come in

One note from the ESPN article is that it's the sign and trade exception they're talking about only...not a trade exception per se

To me - the most (non financial) disappointing part of these negotiations is the whole 2 years in college thing went out the window. I think it's very important to the future success of bad teams that guys have to spend two years in school. The NFL gets it, it's shocking the NBA doesn't get it. Compared to the other issues, I can't believe this just hasn't been thrown in there (and I can't believe the players union really gives a rats arse either)

The players union definitely gives a rats ass.

SomePlayers reportedly considering decertification

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Nov 4 at 0:46
+/-

That would mean no season, right?

Sounds like a mess right now.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Nov 4 at 1:01
+/-

they would need a majority vote from the union membership in order to decertify...I can't see more than 200 players willing to piss away a years salary to battle it out in court.


I wrote something for sb nation philly, it'll be up in the morning. if they decertify, there's no way the season isn't entirely lost.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to Brian on Nov 4 at 2:36
+/-

Paul Pierce, D Wade, Dwight Howard, and Ray Allen leading the charge according to Marc Stein...

Surprised by Ray Allen, he doesn't seem like the type to go behind the NBPA's back.

Not shocked by the other 3 douchebags. I assume KG is involved too, trying to fire up the rank and file as he counts his 200 Mil.

more reason to hate the celtics.

There's also no way they decertify.

I think if it was up to Hunter and Fisher we would have had a deal at something like 50.5% and had an 82 game season. But they can't agree to a deal that the players won't accept.

The $160M escrow payment to the player has really poisoned things on both sides. It pushes off the date that the players actually feel any pain/motivation, while at the same time it shows the owners that they lose money even if they do not make terrible signings (since the players get paid 57% regardless.)

Here's my latest from sb nation philly.

Decertification means the players could lose their guaranteed contracts. That would be a big gamble considering how many players have contracts that the owners would love to void.

Not if the NBA losses with the NLRB.

Spencer Hawes was on the conference call!

I wonder if Spencer considers himself as a job creator.

He just wants to break the union like any good conservative :)

Think of all of the jobs the owners will create if they get to pocket more money.... I'm sure it will trickle down to you and me someday.

user-pic
Jeff reply to tk76 on Nov 4 at 13:01
+/-

It'll trickle down in the form of more t-shirts being launched into the stands during games.

Lower ticket prices?

Did not think so...

If the owners want to win the PR war and completely turn public opinion against the players - why not make an offer of a 51-49 split in favor of the players? Be proactive and shine some light on those rumored cracks in the players 'resolve' to continue the strike.

Adande writes that the bigger problem is the owners who are ok letting a season go. Seems that even if the players came down to 50/50 one source says that Stern might not get the owner votes for 50/50

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/Lockout-111104/owners-squabbles-not-players-real-issue

As reliable as the wojo sources sure, but there's the face that the union and owners say and the owners present and that's not necesarrily the truth

However you read it (owners or union issues) the common denominator is that these sides are dysfunctional.

The NFL sides played brinkmanship and even involved the courts- but both sides were smart enough to avoid shrinking the pie. But the NBA/players have been eager to drive their car of the cliff and fight over what will become an ever decreasing pie.

It annoys me to not have NBA basketball, but its not really that big a deal (and I'm a bigger fan than most.) But the parties that should care are not able to see reason, and are the ones that will lose out on a ton of money for reasons I can't really fathom beyond arrogance.

I'm not sure you'll get the 'boycott' you're looking for but I wouldn't be surprised to see shrinking attendance and all that 'goodwill' lost from last season

I put up the avatar as a joke- but I would not shed any tears if less people subscribed to league pass (and used "other options" to view games) and if there was a drop in attendance. I also hope their next TV deal is smaller as punishment for the networks having paid for rights to cancelled games (based on an assumption the the sides would act responsibly.)

The NBA is not a better product than it was 25 years ago- but it generates a ton more revenue.

user-pic
johnrosz on Nov 4 at 14:30
+/-

Has anyone been reading Jason Whitlock the last few days? Brutal. Anyway, he wrote a few lines that really stood out to me...

"The NBA lockout is all about respect — a general lack of respect for NBA players.

Ownership doesn’t respect the players. Fans don’t. And neither do the media."


I think he's wrong, but that seems to be the attitude of so many of the players. Especially these guys willing to detonate the season all of a sudden.

And Spencer Hawes is an idiot, he's never going to see anything close to that qualifying offer again if he sits out this year.

I mean, I'm shocked to see that he's so noble in his willingness to sacrifice for the rank and file, but unfortunately I think he's more misguided than anything.

None of this is surprising when you think of these guys life experience.

Remember how you were treated when you were 5? The world resolved around your needs and you probably were not very capable of "negotiating" aside from pouting and crying.

That is how most of these guys have been treated since they started showing talent with a basketball- so why should we expect to act reasonably.

This is the average NBA player IMO:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/U-mad-bro-Young-Giants-fan-pouts-big-time-over?urn=mlb-wp13298

And this is the average owner:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCjWYbcbpiWA&ei=oTC0TsLeHqe42QWaiLnMDQ&usg=AFQjCNEm_NEkGQrIpg_8HBxoGr1ZtALRJg

(well at least one of them :) )

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Nov 4 at 14:53
+/-

Definitely agree that they're out of touch. Really we have a collection of some of the most unreasonable egotists in the world, on both sides, trying to negotiate a deal. Recipe for complete disaster.

This is kind of funny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/sports/basketball/hard-line-factions-threaten-latest-nba-negotiations.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Jordan is leading the faction of hardline owners, he doesn't even want to go above 47% BRI

The same guy that told Abe Polin in 99 negotations, "if you can't make a profit, you should sell your team"

The agents are MUCH too involved in this mess

People are making this about things it's not, whitlock, gumble making it racially motivated, it just fans the flames of idiocy.

Is the nba the 'least educated' league in pro sports, i mean yeah you get a lot of mlb draftees out of high school but those that don't have to go to college for 2-3 years before being eligible don't they? (I'm not saying college athletes necessarily get an education, but at least they're forced to stay in school more than a year?)

Anyone hear the interesting fact that with new elevated NCAA 'academic' requirements for the march madness tournament that UCONN (the winner) wouldn't have qualified last year.

Who knew that there actually WERE academic requirements for march madness?

"student" athlete is sort of a joke for some basketball programs. It is a shame there is no minor league pathway like baseball. It would be good for all parties (except those looking to make money from the NCAA.)

I don't think careers last long enough for a minor league like you have in baseball and hockey. I think boosting the requirement just one year would have a huge impact on the quality of the players and teams. A year older, two years under a rigorous coaching process...I just think that it's the kind of thing that should be just implemented and neither side should have an issue with it.

The NCAA is actually on its way to obsolescence one way or another anyway probably

I think "life in the minors" is helpful for baseball players. They adjust to the travel/etc before all of the media and money becomes an additional distraction. Probably better than college in that regard.

I'm saying 2 years in basketball "minors" befoer the NBA in place of college. That way all current NCAA players would get paid at least a decent salary, and then the best can go on and make big money in the NBA. And the best prospects can get signing bonuses like in MLB.

Basically, I'm asking for what happens in Europe.

Not gonna happen in America. For some reason, 13 year olds can be sent away to train for professional tennis, or golf, or individual sports that only matter in the olympics in this country but when it comes to team sports it's a lot different.

Europe isn't just a minor leagues, it's guys getting drafted when they're much younger than freshman in college and also having very few rights as players

You are probably right.

It's not a new idea or debate - it's been around for years (at least with epeople I talk to) - it's a really weird difference I think.

Espns 'business' chatter said this - it is the first time I remember seeing a firm value related to the BRI

Right now, there are $540 million of expense credits taken from BRI before the players split with the owners. The players would like to split even more of the revenues in the split. We'll look for that as well.

That doesn't seem like an awful lot - it's 18 million per team?

I know it was a big deal at some point for the owners to include more in the expenses that weren't included, because their costs have skyrocketed. Jet fuel for team planes, facilities, technology. There are a lot more expenses in the modern game that weren't accounted for. I'm surprised that hasn't come up publicly recently, I think it's highly doubtful they'll roll that number back toward the players at this point.

Well as I've said repeatedly, while the players make the game - their contracts are guaranteed no matter how they perform - the economy has no impact on their salary but all the costs and expenses and economic impacts are born by ownership. I have no problem with the owners taking money off the top before they share with the players (50/50) but i honestly thought it would be more than 18 mil per team

PS - fuel costs are insane and volatile, my ups 'contract' rates change almost every week due to fuel adjustments

Yeah, that's the point. It's only $18M per team because so many expenses aren't taken into account.

Hawks sale falls through, read into it as you will :)

Broussard writing a report that some owners are pessimistic before the talks even resume on Saturday

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7190096/nba-hope-bleak-labor-talks-sources-say

Yeah, I read that. Either means that we are heading to no basketball this year or that we'll get a last second deal when people no longer expect it.

Maybe I'll watch Euroleague? What team is the Voose on?

You are giving the Voose too much credit. He is not even on a Euroleague team :).

Anyway i don't really pay too much attention ti these "sources". Most of the stuff are said the way they are supposed to be said. All that "decertification" and "47%" talk is about gaining some negotiation leverage and nothing more. We have no idea what each side truly hopes and believes will get.

I am more pessimistic than you. I don't think there are two coherent sides as much as multiple factions. And the extremist have tied the negotiators hands so that Stern and Hunter cannot make a deal.

On one side MJ and Company won't come down to 51% to close a deal. On the other side Pierce/Wade et al are more concerned about "winning" than playing and will end up hurting a lot of players by consistently undermining the process.

Negotiators cannot come to agreements if they represent truly unreasonable and unrealistic parties. This is the type of thing that gets settled by arbitrators and courts, because too many of the people involved are incapable of reason.

Hope they prove me wrong.

user-pic
Ryan F reply to tk76 on Nov 5 at 10:59
+/-

Agree with most of this, but to an extent, Stern/Silver and Hunter/Fisher carry the blame. Even if both sides representation are being influenced by the more extreme of both sides respectfully, it is still their job to achieve common ground and bring something back to their parties worth voting on. They haven't even made it that far.

Even if 50 or so players are vowing not to sign off on anything they feel is less than acceptable, and a dozen or so owners want to ride this thing out for more cash, majority rules.

These four need to get everyone else out of the room and find compromise. Take the deal back to their sides and paint it as lose a lot of money and more fan base now, or make a tad less over s significant amount of time.

The biggest problem is not the men off camera, its that the ones in the spotlight are more concerned with their own image and agenda than the greater good.

I fully agree with the notion that the sides are not coherent and there are multiple factions. At the end of the day though it's all about how many "voters" can each negotiating party persuade that this is a good deal.

In that perspective, i still believe that Stern still has the backing of the majority of the owners and whatever he decides is a good deal (of course based on everything they asked for a long time ago) will be accepted. On the other hand i seriously doubt most players even truly understand the implications of each particular point in the CBA (they have agents to take care of them and believe them blindly). I think the players will accept whatever Hunter/Fisher or anyone else that they listen to will take to them if they say it's a good deal. Not to mention that 100-150 of the required 225 votes are guarantee whatever the deal since a lot of the lower echelon players need any amount of money asap.

Yeah, the Speezy's of the world need to unite.

From: Chris Broussard
I will not be surprised if the players go down to 50/50 today...nothing definitive, just a sense I