Wilson Chandler signs in China without an opt-out clause

[Roy H.]

Wilson Chandler said he has signed a contract with the Zhejiang Guangsha of the Chinese Basketball Association, a move that would essentially preclude him from participating in the 2011-12 NBA season if the lockout ends and the games begin.

The Chinese Basketball Association will not allow players with existing contracts to sign with its teams, so playing in China is only an option for free agents such as Chandler, a restricted free agent who finished the 2010-11 season with the Denver Nuggets.

In addition, the CBA will not allow escape clauses that would allow players to leave the Chinese league in the event the NBA resumes operations. So Chandler would not be a part of the NBA if the season begins on time or even with an abbreviated schedule starting in January or February.

"Maybe I'll lose out," Chandler said. "But I think it can be a great experience. I haven't been in any [labor negotiation] meetings. I can't call it. I'm just taking a risk, at the end of the day."

... Chandler's agent, Chris Luchey, did not specify the amount of the one-year contract with the Guangsha, or Lions, but said it was worth less than the $3.1 million qualifying offer the Nuggets made in order to retain their rights to Chandler, and more than the $1.7 million offer that has been reported elsewhere.

Interesting.  It seems like Chandler feels fairly confident that there won't be a season.  Otherwise, this move doesn't make a ton of sense, especially since it's likely to delay his restricted free agency by another year.

[StartOrien]

It's interesting, but, I wonder what exactly would stop him from leaving the team if the NBA were to start up again.

Besides the stop of a paycheck, is there anything that would truly bind him to the Chinese team?

[Fafnir]

It's interesting, but, I wonder what exactly would stop him from leaving the team if the NBA were to start up again.

Besides the stop of a paycheck, is there anything that would truly bind him to the Chinese team?

FIBA rules which the NBA has agreed to abide by, basically if he has a contract for another professional league he cannot just break that contract and go back to the NBA.

[nickagneta]

Start of a trend or just one guy making a possible mistake that others won't make?

Or is this showing that maybe European teams are starting to run out of slots for NBA players or starting to become a bit more restrictive about giving out opt out clauses?

[Chris]

Now things are getting a little more interesting.  I don't think anyone is crying over Wilson Chandler going overseas, but if more players follow his lead and sign deals without opt-out clauses, then it might in fact light a little bit of a fire under the owners.  I am not counting on it though.  We'll see if anyone who fills seats follows his lead.

[StartOrien]

Now things are getting a little more interesting.  I don't think anyone is crying over Wilson Chandler going overseas, but if more players follow his lead and sign deals without opt-out clauses, then it might in fact light a little bit of a fire under the owners.  I am not counting on it though.  We'll see if anyone who fills seats follows his lead.

I don't see how going across seas helps their positioning in the grand scheme of things:

They're going over seas for fractions of what they'd make here, isn't that essentially what the owners want anyhow?

[Silent Storm]

Could someone explain to me what the appeal in playing in China is? I realize it's a huge market for the NBA but this is a country that doesn't even allow our Navy to take shelter in their ports. To me that would be reason enough to avoid living or working there at all costs. Greed is not something I subscribe to.

[nickagneta]

Now things are getting a little more interesting.  I don't think anyone is crying over Wilson Chandler going overseas, but if more players follow his lead and sign deals without opt-out clauses, then it might in fact light a little bit of a fire under the owners.  I am not counting on it though.  We'll see if anyone who fills seats follows his lead.

I don't see how going across seas helps their positioning in the grand scheme of things:

They're going over seas for fractions of what they'd make here, isn't that essentially what the owners want anyhow?

But in the meantime they are exhibiting there are meaning other areas of employment available to them. It doesn't matter if they are only making 50% because what matters is that while the owners are trying to break them, they are finding other ways to sustain themselves.

If the players show that they can continuously do this then it might force the owners to concede revenue sharing has to be a major portion if not a starting point at sitting back down. The owners might be able to put off one whole year but if the top 10% of the league's players can make due on their endorsement contracts and a good portion of the rest of the players can find employment somewhere else, then the owners are going to eventually see that the players can sustain for a very long period.

If they players can show this then the owners will become divided as those claiming losses will want to continue to hold out whereas those that don't will get a louder voice and those in the middle will start seeing that revenue sharing is a way to compromise to bring the players to the table and make them profitable. The amount of money being made isn't as important as much as the employment being there because those markets can now be opened in other areas such as individual rights licensing, individual endorsements in local markets, tax savings, and other perks.

I say as more and more players sign overseas, the owners will lose more and more power and compromise will bring them to the table faster. If the players don't continue to go overseas then lack of money for the majority of players will force them to the table to compromise.

Either way the first to table because of this will be the loser.

[nickagneta]

Could someone explain to me what the appeal in playing in China is? I realize it's a huge market for the NBA but this is a country that doesn't even allow our Navy to take shelter in their ports. To me that would be reason enough to avoid living or working there at all costs. Greed is not something I subscribe to.

Yeah but greed is what this whole lockout is about so what do they care whether the US Navy can dock there or if the Chinese government is communist. NBA basketball isn't about national pride. Its about making money.

[action781]

I agree with what nick said.  I think there's another dimension that hurts the owners also.  That's the issue that there are players signing contracts without opt-out clauses!  As mediocre of a player as Wilson Chandler is, an NBA team is going to have to replace a would-be Wilson Chandler with some D-League caliber player for every non opt-out contract that signs in another league, which means the NBA as a whole will become an inferior product which means less $ for the owners.  With just one mediocre player, the difference is very marginal if even noticeable at all.  But if more players or perhaps a few pretty talented players start doing the same, the difference will become greater.  And this will only negatively impact the owners... some players will actually benefit from this as they will be in line to make that extra money that the overseas players would have made.

[indeedproceed]

Further Proof That The Portland Trailblazers Did NOT Need A "Wilson Chandler Type"

Game, blouses.

[cman88]

theres only going to be limited spots though for teams out in the rest of the world. as far as I know, Fbesides china FIBA has stated that NBA players cant sign overseas withotu an opt-out clause.

so, I dont think it helps the players cases really

[Big_Matt34]

Further Proof That The Portland Trailblazers Did NOT Need A "Wilson Chandler Type"

Game, blouses.

[pearljammer10]

man, great trade for the knicks.

[nickagneta]

theres only going to be limited spots though for teams out in the rest of the world. as far as I know, Fbesides china FIBA has stated that NBA players cant sign overseas withotu an opt-out clause.

so, I dont think it helps the players cases really

Management's major weapon in locking out any work force is taking away the workforce's ability to make money because they are richer and can sustain longer in a labor dispute.

But if the labor force can show they can still make substantial money, even though it isn't what it was under their management, they undermine and take away the one major weapon that management has.

So as long as they are making money, does it matter if it is less or whether there is an opt out clause or not? The top talent are still making money off the endorsement deals which in some cases make players more than their NBA contracts. If a major portion of the union is making money through working overseas or coaching or other things, substantial money, it takes away the one real advantage the owners have to leverage the players to come to the bargaining table.

Who cares if there is an opt out clause or not. If there is that's to the player's advantage. If not the player is still making big bucks. Why are they being forced to the bargaining table if they are still making money which is the only thing the owners are taking away from them by locking them out?