Wilson Chandler signs in China without an opt-out clause

[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?

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.

Kinda like with Rubio, Denver or w/e team offers him a contract would also have to buyout his contract with CBA right?

Only if there is a buyout in the contract.  And the team is only allowed to pay $500,000 towards a buyout I believe.

That's an interesting thought: Is Chandler thinking that he could make enough on his next contract where he could afford a buyout?

Anyone remember what the buyout was on Rubio's contract? For some reason 2 mil stands out.

[BballTim]

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.

  This is something like the Josh Childress signing overseas deal, right?

[Moranis]

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.

But at the same time, aren't they highlighting the Owner's fundamental point? They have a business that pays it's employees waaaaay more than any other company in the entire world.

I don't but the WAAAAAAY more at all.  Josh Childress made significantly more money in Greece then he did for the Hawks and that wasn't during a lockout. 

I've posed this question before, so I will pose it again now.

Are the European Leagues minor leagues because they are in Europe or because they don't have the best players in the world?  Put it another way, if the best players in the world played in Europe would the fan interest and money follow?

I mean the soccer leagues and dollars in them should tell you that there is money for athletics in Europe, the question is will it be there for basketball if the premier players are in Europe? 

I don't know the answer to that question, but the NBA better hope that the answer is Europe is a minor league because it is Europe and not because it just doesn't have the best players in the world or else this is a gamble the owners and league very well might never recover from.

[BballTim]

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.

But at the same time, aren't they highlighting the Owner's fundamental point? They have a business that pays it's employees waaaaay more than any other company in the entire world.

I don't but the WAAAAAAY more at all.  Josh Childress made significantly more money in Greece then he did for the Hawks and that wasn't during a lockout. 

I've posed this question before, so I will pose it again now.

Are the European Leagues minor leagues because they are in Europe or because they don't have the best players in the world?  Put it another way, if the best players in the world played in Europe would the fan interest and money follow?

I mean the soccer leagues and dollars in them should tell you that there is money for athletics in Europe, the question is will it be there for basketball if the premier players are in Europe? 

I don't know the answer to that question, but the NBA better hope that the answer is Europe is a minor league because it is Europe and not because it just doesn't have the best players in the world or else this is a gamble the owners and league very well might never recover from.

  I'd bet that a lot of euro Bball teams are having economic issues right now, I know some of the soccer teams are as well.

[Moranis]

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.

But at the same time, aren't they highlighting the Owner's fundamental point? They have a business that pays it's employees waaaaay more than any other company in the entire world.

I don't but the WAAAAAAY more at all.  Josh Childress made significantly more money in Greece then he did for the Hawks and that wasn't during a lockout. 

I've posed this question before, so I will pose it again now.

Are the European Leagues minor leagues because they are in Europe or because they don't have the best players in the world?  Put it another way, if the best players in the world played in Europe would the fan interest and money follow?

I mean the soccer leagues and dollars in them should tell you that there is money for athletics in Europe, the question is will it be there for basketball if the premier players are in Europe? 

I don't know the answer to that question, but the NBA better hope that the answer is Europe is a minor league because it is Europe and not because it just doesn't have the best players in the world or else this is a gamble the owners and league very well might never recover from.

  I'd bet that a lot of euro Bball teams are having economic issues right now, I know some of the soccer teams are as well.

Sure.  The economy is bad everywhere, but it won't always be bad. 

[ACF]

Soccer is by far the number one sport in most European countries, so I doubt that it would be financially feasible even if the best (NBA) players were playing here. Not enough money to go around, especially with the crisis and all.

[KCattheStripe]

Greg Monroe sucks.

At not being awesome, I agree.

[Chris]

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.

Kinda like with Rubio, Denver or w/e team offers him a contract would also have to buyout his contract with CBA right?

Only if there is a buyout in the contract.  And the team is only allowed to pay $500,000 towards a buyout I believe.

That's an interesting thought: Is Chandler thinking that he could make enough on his next contract where he could afford a buyout?

Anyone remember what the buyout was on Rubio's contract? For some reason 2 mil stands out.

I am not sure they would allow a buyout.  They are not allowing opt-out clauses in the CBA, so I would be surprised if they let a player buyout in order to go to the NBA.

I think Chandler went there because he didn't want to risk not getting paid at all next season, and he probably looks at it as a good opportunity to travel the world.  

[BballTim]

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.

Kinda like with Rubio, Denver or w/e team offers him a contract would also have to buyout his contract with CBA right?

Only if there is a buyout in the contract.  And the team is only allowed to pay $500,000 towards a buyout I believe.

That's an interesting thought: Is Chandler thinking that he could make enough on his next contract where he could afford a buyout?

Anyone remember what the buyout was on Rubio's contract? For some reason 2 mil stands out.

I am not sure they would allow a buyout.  They are not allowing opt-out clauses in the CBA, so I would be surprised if they let a player buyout in order to go to the NBA.

I think Chandler went there because he didn't want to risk not getting paid at all next season, and he probably looks at it as a good opportunity to travel the world.  

  Head case obviously, but didn't AI sign with a team from China and not play much? Or am I thinking of someone else (like Starbury)?

[StartOrien]

  Head case obviously, but didn't AI sign with a team from China and not play much? Or am I thinking of someone else (like Starbury)?

My guess is that you're referring to Steve Francis, who had some injury problems and was eventually cut.

[BballTim]

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.

But at the same time, aren't they highlighting the Owner's fundamental point? They have a business that pays it's employees waaaaay more than any other company in the entire world.

I don't but the WAAAAAAY more at all.  Josh Childress made significantly more money in Greece then he did for the Hawks and that wasn't during a lockout. 

I've posed this question before, so I will pose it again now.

Are the European Leagues minor leagues because they are in Europe or because they don't have the best players in the world?  Put it another way, if the best players in the world played in Europe would the fan interest and money follow?

I mean the soccer leagues and dollars in them should tell you that there is money for athletics in Europe, the question is will it be there for basketball if the premier players are in Europe? 

I don't know the answer to that question, but the NBA better hope that the answer is Europe is a minor league because it is Europe and not because it just doesn't have the best players in the world or else this is a gamble the owners and league very well might never recover from.

  I'd bet that a lot of euro Bball teams are having economic issues right now, I know some of the soccer teams are as well.

Sure.  The economy is bad everywhere, but it won't always be bad. 

  True, things are bad now which helps the owners position in the lockout. It's an interesting long term issue, though. If they limit salaries by limiting max contracts, the best players in the league become more of a bargain than they already are. If the economy does pick up, that could spell serious trouble for the nba.

[BballTim]

  Head case obviously, but didn't AI sign with a team from China and not play much? Or am I thinking of someone else (like Starbury)?

My guess is that you're referring to Steve Francis, who had some injury problems and was eventually cut.

  Haha. Yeah, he fits the (late career) AI/Starbury mold...

[Roy H.]

  Head case obviously, but didn't AI sign with a team from China and not play much? Or am I thinking of someone else (like Starbury)?

My guess is that you're referring to Steve Francis, who had some injury problems and was eventually cut.

  Haha. Yeah, he fits the (late career) AI/Starbury mold...

Starbury played in China, too.  Here's how he described the experience:

Citing the tough travel and rigorous training methods, Marbury said he doesn't see the stars going to China, where the Coney Islander has spent the past two seasons.

"I don't think those guys will want to go through it," said Marbury, who is training in Los Angeles. "China is not for everybody -- a whole 'nother world. I don't think they're going to go there, not the big-time guys. Maybe they'd come for a little bit, but if the season is cancelled for the year, I don't think they'd want to stay. They'll want to go home.

"I don't think Carmelo Anthony is going to run like they want to run in practice," Marbury added. "They want to run you to death. The first time I got there, they ran in practice for two straight hours. I said, 'Is that what we have to do every practice?' "

Marbury said the exception is Bryant, who was raised in Italy. Marbury also said he is reaching out to his former Knicks teammate, Eddy Curry, to recommend China to kick-start his career. Curry is a free agent.

"Guys like Kobe, they understand the game, culture," Marbury said. "He's going to embrace Turkey. If you're in China, you have to make sure you're in the right place, the right frame of mind. It's not like America."

Asked about the travel, Marbury laughed. "Planes, trains and buses," Marbury said.

Marbury related a story in which he was carrying one of his largest suitcases during a train trip from Jilin, China. Marbury said it was two miles from where they dropped the club off at the station to where the club picked up the train.

"And I'm carrying this big bag two miles and said, 'God, you know how to show me an experience,' " Marbury said laughing. "We rode the train with the people. It was like being on the D train. No private jets. It was a humbling experience. That's why I love it so much. Not far removed from Coney Island."

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/marbury_china_not_for_melo_PviKiVTCA37uwuH9MBReaO#ixzz1WXXoPgvL

Starbury played in China last season (where he won All-Star game MVP, but missed the playoffs), and is apparently going back there next year, as well.

[StartOrien]

Kinda related - This is a pretty good read. GQ ran an interview/article with Steph. Pretty long, but really good.

http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/201105/stephon-marbury-china-basketball

[Moranis]

Soccer is by far the number one sport in most European countries, so I doubt that it would be financially feasible even if the best (NBA) players were playing here. Not enough money to go around, especially with the crisis and all.

And football is by far the number one sport in America. 

If I'm the NBA I don't want to bet the future of my league on whether or not Europe can sustain a basketball league with the premier players in the world.