CBA Judgment Day Thread

[The Walker Wiggle]

More solid reportage by Ken Berger.

Unsurprisingly, each side had a different view of the others' vision of the system they were negotiating to achieve. According to a union source, the players agreed to concessions on contract length - reducing them from five- and six-year deals in the previous CBA to five- and four-year deals - and offered to lower the mid-level exception from its previous level of about $5.8 million to $5 million. The source said league negotiators were insisting on a reduction in the mid-level to $3 million a year.

Not mundane enough for you? Other aspects of the impasse included annual raises. The players offered to reduce them from 10.5 percent and 8 percent for "Larry Bird" free agents under the previous deal to 10.5 percent and 9 percent for Bird free agents and 8 percent and 7 percent for other players. Hunter said owners wanted to forbid tax-paying teams from using the Bird exception, meaning they would need to have cap space to retain one of their Bird free agents.

Also doesn't thrill me to learn that with only three owners involved in negotiations Monday, we had one sterling reputation, Spurs owner Peter Holt, to the two worst NBA owners over the length of the last CBA, Glen Taylor and James Dolan.

[Chris]

I just don't know the players are thinking really. They've no leverage, and they're not going to gain any over time.

They are thinking like athletes who have had 1 thing drilled into their heads their entire life...win.  The idea of settling for the best you can against someone you just can't beat is just something that doesn't register to them.  They have been taught their entire life that they can beat anyone if they stick to it, and now they are seeing if they can take that mentality into the boardroom to take down Goliath. 

Unfortunately I really think their best hope right now is a moral victory.  If they can cause the owners to miss a few games, prove the point that they cannot be broken, and still get the same deal that was offered today (or something comparable), then they can walk away with their heads held high.

I will say one thing.  I think Stern has done a pretty weak job over the last two weeks.  I think he has painted the players into the corner with his very public pronouncements and deadlines.  He has made it nearly impossible for the players to accept a deal before his "deadline", and still save face.  Considering how proud these players are, that really killed things. 

Now, I can't say that it would have changed anything, but I think there would have been a better chance of the players accepting a deal today, if Stern had played it a little differently, and allowed the players to accept a deal that the owners wanted, while still saving face themselves. 

Now, their only way of "winning" was to call his bluff and hold strong through his deadline, and probably past November 15 (first checks), not to get anywhere in the negotiations, but to feel like they weren't simply played by Stern and the owners.

OK, having had the night to dwell on this, while I agree with my original statement that Stern didn't give them an out...I really don't think it mattered.

Clearly the two sides are way too far apart on the system, and in particular the harder cap.  All of my optimism over the last couple of weeks came from an assumption that the players would ultimately agree to a system with tiered luxury taxes, however, it now appears they are not willing to do that (well, until the owners succeed in breaking them).  And since I think the harder cap was one of the main priorities of the owners in this negotiation, I now feel pretty confident this was going to end (or start, because this is just the beginning) this way all along.

I really hope I am wrong, and after missing a few games, Hunter goes back to Stern and asks for another chance.  But I just think we can kiss the season good bye...and there is no individual to blame, just two sides with completely conflicting interests.

[StartOrien]

ugh.

[action781]

More solid reportage by Ken Berger.

Unsurprisingly, each side had a different view of the others' vision of the system they were negotiating to achieve. According to a union source, the players agreed to concessions on contract length - reducing them from five- and six-year deals in the previous CBA to five- and four-year deals - and offered to lower the mid-level exception from its previous level of about $5.8 million to $5 million. The source said league negotiators were insisting on a reduction in the mid-level to $3 million a year.

Not mundane enough for you? Other aspects of the impasse included annual raises. The players offered to reduce them from 10.5 percent and 8 percent for "Larry Bird" free agents under the previous deal to 10.5 percent and 9 percent for Bird free agents and 8 percent and 7 percent for other players. Hunter said owners wanted to forbid tax-paying teams from using the Bird exception, meaning they would need to have cap space to retain one of their Bird free agents.

Also doesn't thrill me to learn that with only three owners involved in negotiations Monday, we had one sterling reputation, Spurs owner Peter Holt, to the two worst NBA owners over the length of the last CBA, Glen Taylor and James Dolan.

Nice, owners.  Forbid tax-paying teams from using the Bird Exception... that's GREAT for the fans.  Don't allow some teams to re-sign players that the fans have been supporting for several years?  Awesome.  You guys are really pulling for the best interests of us fans here.

I say eliminate the MLE altogether if you want, but keep some kind of Bird Rights for the fans.

[Interceptor]

They are thinking like athletes who have had 1 thing drilled into their heads their entire life...win.  The idea of settling for the best you can against someone you just can't beat is just something that doesn't register to them.  They have been taught their entire life that they can beat anyone if they stick to it, and now they are seeing if they can take that mentality into the boardroom to take down Goliath.

This is pretty insulting to the players.

[Chris]

More solid reportage by Ken Berger.

Unsurprisingly, each side had a different view of the others' vision of the system they were negotiating to achieve. According to a union source, the players agreed to concessions on contract length - reducing them from five- and six-year deals in the previous CBA to five- and four-year deals - and offered to lower the mid-level exception from its previous level of about $5.8 million to $5 million. The source said league negotiators were insisting on a reduction in the mid-level to $3 million a year.

Not mundane enough for you? Other aspects of the impasse included annual raises. The players offered to reduce them from 10.5 percent and 8 percent for "Larry Bird" free agents under the previous deal to 10.5 percent and 9 percent for Bird free agents and 8 percent and 7 percent for other players. Hunter said owners wanted to forbid tax-paying teams from using the Bird exception, meaning they would need to have cap space to retain one of their Bird free agents.

Also doesn't thrill me to learn that with only three owners involved in negotiations Monday, we had one sterling reputation, Spurs owner Peter Holt, to the two worst NBA owners over the length of the last CBA, Glen Taylor and James Dolan.

Nice, owners.  Forbid tax-paying teams from using the Bird Exception... that's GREAT for the fans.  Don't allow some teams to re-sign players that the fans have been supporting for several years?  Awesome.  You guys are really pulling for the best interests of us fans here.

I say eliminate the MLE altogether if you want, but keep some kind of Bird Rights for the fans.

Well, it comes down to a simple thing.  Owners want a hard cap.  And if the players refuse to give a hard cap, then the best the owners will offer is essentially a hard cap with only a few, weak, loopholes.

I think the owners made their point last night that they are not giving in on that issue, and if the players want to push it, they are just going to get complicated restrictions like that.

[Chris]

They are thinking like athletes who have had 1 thing drilled into their heads their entire life...win.  The idea of settling for the best you can against someone you just can't beat is just something that doesn't register to them.  They have been taught their entire life that they can beat anyone if they stick to it, and now they are seeing if they can take that mentality into the boardroom to take down Goliath.

This is pretty insulting to the players.

Is it not true?  Have you ever tried to negotiate with an ex-jock?  No matter how smart they are, it is incredibly hard to put that competitiveness aside and look at the bottom line.

Like I said though, after hearing more, it is clear that this probably didn't even come into play, because the sides are two split on the system.  But I stand by this statement.  Someone who has been a competitor their entire life is not someone you are going to beat in a negotiation by simple logic.  You need to make them think they won at least a little bit, or else they will continue fighting, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. 

[action781]

They are thinking like athletes who have had 1 thing drilled into their heads their entire life...win.  The idea of settling for the best you can against someone you just can't beat is just something that doesn't register to them.  They have been taught their entire life that they can beat anyone if they stick to it, and now they are seeing if they can take that mentality into the boardroom to take down Goliath.

This is pretty insulting to the players.

Is it not true?  Have you ever tried to negotiate with an ex-jock?  No matter how smart they are, it is incredibly hard to put that competitiveness aside and look at the bottom line.

Like I said though, after hearing more, it is clear that this probably didn't even come into play, because the sides are two split on the system.  But I stand by this statement.  Someone who has been a competitor their entire life is not someone you are going to beat in a negotiation by simple logic.  You need to make them think they won at least a little bit, or else they will continue fighting, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. 

Insulting to the players, yeah.  But I do think there's some truth to this.  Both sides are going to lose money overall with missed games (see article by Larry Coon)....  so what else could be causing them to not agree?  Ego is the only thing that I can come up with.  The sides are composed of the players, which Chris described, vs. the owners who are also a group of people who have made it to where they are by many greedy, cut-throat means of business practice.  Ego/greed/competitive drive is the constant that has driven all participants in this dispute to where they are today.

[Interceptor]

Is it not true?  Have you ever tried to negotiate with an ex-jock?  No matter how smart they are, it is incredibly hard to put that competitiveness aside and look at the bottom line.

I'm not really prepared to paint 400+ people that I've never met with such a broad brush. Never mind that the player's union has already come down from the last CBA significantly, and also extracted a number of concessions from the owner's original hardline stance, which is apparently impossible according to your logic.

[Chris]

Is it not true?  Have you ever tried to negotiate with an ex-jock?  No matter how smart they are, it is incredibly hard to put that competitiveness aside and look at the bottom line.

I'm not really prepared to paint 400+ people that I've never met with such a broad brush. Never mind that the player's union has already come down from the last CBA significantly, and also extracted a number of concessions from the owner's original hardline stance, which is apparently impossible according to your logic.

Woah woah woah, when have I said that owners have such a hard line stance that they won't make concessions?  I have said that they have certain things they will not concede on (such as a harder version of the cap), but they have been negotiating. 

As for painting 400+ people with a broad brush...no, I am painting millions of people with a broad brush.  I am saying that ultra-competitive people (and generally that is a requirement to be a pro athlete) are not going to simply back down in a negotiation. 

In negotiations, there are different tactics you can use for different personality types.  Maybe I am channeling Ainge's buddy the brain doctor here a little too much, but I just do not see the majority of players...and particularly the guys who have been representing the masses...as guys who will take well to Stern's authoritarian style of negotiating. 

[action781]

Chris could be painting 100 people inappropriately with his metaphorical brush, but that wouldn't matter because the 100 players still wouldn't have the majority in a vote.  If 51% of them have that competitiveness to them, his point still stands.  I happen to think that they probably do.

[Interceptor]

Woah woah woah, when have I said that owners have such a hard line stance that they won't make concessions?  I have said that they have certain things they will not concede on (such as a harder version of the cap), but they have been negotiating.

The players have already come down from their original proposal: this alone is impossible, they've already done what you said that they wouldn't. Also, the owners have been budged off of their hard-line stance, which is a success, so why aren't the players doing victory laps around NVC with their contracts held high? I would suggest that this situation is more complicated that a bunch of ultra-competitive jocks stubbornly acting against their own best interests, which I think as a characterization is both insulting and probably inaccurate.

As for painting 400+ people with a broad brush...no, I am painting millions of people with a broad brush.

Well, that's not something that I would be proud of.

[action781]

As for painting 400+ people with a broad brush...no, I am painting millions of people with a broad brush.

Well, that's not something that I would be proud of.

He's not painting them all individually.  How his point pertains to this argument is that out of those millions of competitive individuals, then at least 51% of them are going to bring that competitiveness to the negotiating table with them.

In my experiences attempting to negotiate or bargain with competitive people, I've found the same to be true.  Chris has as well.  Maybe you haven't?  I don't know... I don't think any of us are absolutely positively correct, it's just anecdotal.

[Chris]

Woah woah woah, when have I said that owners have such a hard line stance that they won't make concessions?  I have said that they have certain things they will not concede on (such as a harder version of the cap), but they have been negotiating.

The players have already come down from their original proposal: this alone is impossible, they've already done what you said that they wouldn't. Also, the owners have been budged off of their hard-line stance, which is a success, so why aren't the players doing victory laps around NVC with their contracts held high? I would suggest that this situation is more complicated that a bunch of ultra-competitive jocks stubbornly acting against their own best interests, which I think as a characterization is both insulting and probably inaccurate.

I am confused again, when did I say the owners wouldn't budge at all?  I said (again) that they would not budge on a harder cap...and they haven't.  Every (reported) proposal has had either a hard cap, or something that has been described by the union as a defacto hard cap.

As for it being more complicated than competivie jocks being stubborn, of course it is, and I never suggested that was the whole thing...just that it is playing into the dynamics.

[Interceptor]

In my experiences attempting to negotiate or bargain with competitive people, I've found the same to be true.  Chris has as well.  Maybe you haven't?  I don't know... I don't think any of us are absolutely positively correct, it's just anecdotal.

And as they say, the plural of anecdote is "anecdotes", not fact. I personally have found that extrapolation is dangerous when it comes to large groups of people.

I am confused again, when did I say the owners wouldn't budge at all?

This soldier never accused you of it in the first place, so I don't know what you talking about.