Good News. Labor deal is 95.632% complete

[Cman]

To me, calling this deal like 95% done is like saying I'm 80% done with my first marathon after Iwoke up, took a shower, and put on clothes. Now all i have to do is run 26.2 miles

Well put.

As a side note: wow, I dislike David Stern.

[Roy H.]

As a side note: wow, I dislike David Stern.

He definitely comes across as smarmy and unlikeable.  At the same time, I think he's just the messenger for the hardliners, at this point.  I get the sense that he'd offer 51%, and just get this over with.

[Roy H.]

Stern has "left a deal on the table until Wednesday", which is 51%, according to all sources.

From what I'm reading, owners are in fact offering players a 48 to 51% band, with the union willing to come down to a firm 51%. I'm not optimistic.

The players aren't even at a firm 51% right now.

In Kessler’s view, the union isn’t really sitting at 51 percent on the revenue split, because it is only willing to go down that low if it wins on some of the system issues. And right now, Kessler says, it’s losing on just about all the ones that matter. ...

“On their proposal, we’re nowhere near 51 percent,” Kessler said. To which NBA.com’s David Aldridge responded that perhaps the union might really be standing at 52.5 percent given the league’s broader system proposal. “Or even worse,” Kessler said, meaning the union might demand even more than 52.5 percent if the league stands its ground on the other stuff.

Link

[dmny5000]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Under owner's offer: Taxpaying teams can give out mid-level exceptions of $2.5M per year for two seasons.

That and no sign and trades for taxpaying teams. The current offer on the table is awful.

As much as I love basketball and the Celtics I would hate to see the players accept this offer. If they miss the season I will be upset but I would be more upset to see them get so screwed.

The owners haven't given the players anything in any area. The players have been giving on every single issue and it's not fair. I get wanting to make money but you don't need to make back all of your losses in one year. The owners will profit at 52% with system issues met down the middle and profit sharing with other teams.

[Celtics4ever]

I don't like Stern and think he is crook.   I don't the closed door draft drawing or the ref crews that seem to call games a certain way.   But you have to give it to him on this one.  He called their bluff.   Now to see if they blink.   A commisioner does what is best for the league not the players.  With Jordan being in his corner that adds a lot of clout.

[dmny5000]

I don't like Stern and think he is crook.   I don't the closed door draft drawing or the ref crews that seem to call games a certain way.   But you have to give it to him on this one.  He called their bluff.   Now to see if they blink.   A commisioner does what is best for the league not the players.  With Jordan being in his corner that adds a lot of clout.

I get why he's trying to get the players to agree to a bad deal, I just don't think it's right. I think they should let the court handle this cause anyone can see that they're not negotiating in good faith.

It's a bad situation cause it makes you want the players to cave but I would hate to see the middle of the pack players take the hit.

[Roy H.]

I think they should let the court handle this cause anyone can see that they're not negotiating in good faith.

I started a topic on this about a month ago, but the question of "good faith" is an interesting one.  I don't think having a bottom line, and not crossing it, is necessarily bad faith.

From what Stern said -- and the union didn't rebut this -- the NBA agreed to 5 out of 6 proposals set forth by the mediator in terms of bridging the gap.  The union rejected those.  Therefore, it seems like the league was willing to make a good faith move toward the players' position.

In terms of the courts, that's going to take at least a year to sort out (probably much longer), and the resulting anti-trust case would, at least initially, lead to the end of the salary cap, the end of the draft, the end of max (or minimum) contracts, etc.  In short, it would be a bad thing for both the league itself (now and in the future) and for the majority of players.  I'm not wishing that upon anybody.

[dmny5000]

I think they should let the court handle this cause anyone can see that they're not negotiating in good faith.

I started a topic on this about a month ago, but the question of "good faith" is an interesting one.  I don't think having a bottom line, and not crossing it, is necessarily bad faith.

From what Stern said -- and the union didn't rebut this -- the NBA agreed to 5 out of 6 proposals set forth by the mediator in terms of bridging the gap.  The union rejected those.  Therefore, it seems like the league was willing to make a good faith move toward the players' position.

In terms of the courts, that's going to take at least a year to sort out (probably much longer), and the resulting anti-trust case would, at least initially, lead to the end of the salary cap, the end of the draft, the end of max (or minimum) contracts, etc.  In short, it would be a bad thing for both the league itself (now and in the future) and for the majority of players.  I'm not wishing that upon anybody.

That is a good way to look at it and I think it's a very difficult thing to argue with that logic. (That kind of sounded sarcastic but I was agreeing with your point)

I get that the NBA agreed to 5 of 6 proposals and that is good. The owners have set this up nicely so it looks like they're trying to meet the union halfway. They made the gap so huge that bridging it seems like a big move. Unfortunately the players are the only ones that are actually agreeing to things that are worse for them than the previous cba.

I guess I wasn't looking at the big picture and thinking about the consequences. That would certainly be a bad road for everyone involved, especially the fans. I just cant think of a good way to solve this problem.

I've always wanted lower maximum contracts and higher minimums. Not close enough to make the league less competitive but just so it's not such a huge difference. I guess that is why I was so upset about the mid level only being at 2.5 million for 2 years. That obviously means that role players will be paid significantly less money. I think they deserve more compared to how much the stars make.

[nickagneta]

I think they should let the court handle this cause anyone can see that they're not negotiating in good faith.

I started a topic on this about a month ago, but the question of "good faith" is an interesting one.  I don't think having a bottom line, and not crossing it, is necessarily bad faith.

From what Stern said -- and the union didn't rebut this -- the NBA agreed to 5 out of 6 proposals set forth by the mediator in terms of bridging the gap.  The union rejected those.  Therefore, it seems like the league was willing to make a good faith move toward the players' position.

In terms of the courts, that's going to take at least a year to sort out (probably much longer), and the resulting anti-trust case would, at least initially, lead to the end of the salary cap, the end of the draft, the end of max (or minimum) contracts, etc.  In short, it would be a bad thing for both the league itself (now and in the future) and for the majority of players.  I'm not wishing that upon anybody.

I would like to hear what those 6 proposals were before jumping to the conclusion that the owners are the ones willing to move towards the players position and that the players were being immobile.

If 5 of those 6 proposals started with a BRI of 50/50 and the bridge was

• a small concession on the amount of money penalized on the luxury tax fee
• allowing teams in the luxury tax to be able to a half an MLE excemption
• the same deal as last Friday but with owners giving details and specifics of the revenue sharing plan now
• the amnesty would need to be used right away instead of over the course of the CBA
• the elimination of the one time player waiver that scales the money over years

then are those really proposals that really move things towards the players position or are they more geared towards getting the players towards the owners position and only makes sense for the owners to have approved of them.

I say before making assumptions on who is and isn't willing to move we should hear those proposals.

[fairweatherfan]

I think they should let the court handle this cause anyone can see that they're not negotiating in good faith.

I started a topic on this about a month ago, but the question of "good faith" is an interesting one.  I don't think having a bottom line, and not crossing it, is necessarily bad faith.

From what Stern said -- and the union didn't rebut this -- the NBA agreed to 5 out of 6 proposals set forth by the mediator in terms of bridging the gap.  The union rejected those.  Therefore, it seems like the league was willing to make a good faith move toward the players' position.

In terms of the courts, that's going to take at least a year to sort out (probably much longer), and the resulting anti-trust case would, at least initially, lead to the end of the salary cap, the end of the draft, the end of max (or minimum) contracts, etc.  In short, it would be a bad thing for both the league itself (now and in the future) and for the majority of players.  I'm not wishing that upon anybody.

I would like to hear what those 6 proposals were before jumping to the conclusion that the owners are the ones willing to move towards the players position and that the players were being immobile.

If 5 of those 6 proposals started with a BRI of 50/50 and the bridge was

• a small concession on the amount of money penalized on the luxury tax fee
• allowing teams in the luxury tax to be able to a half an MLE excemption
• the same deal as last Friday but with owners giving details and specifics of the revenue sharing plan now
• the amnesty would need to be used right away instead of over the course of the CBA
• the elimination of the one time player waiver that scales the money over years

then are those really proposals that really move things towards the players position or are they more geared towards getting the players towards the owners position and only makes sense for the owners to have approved of them.

I say before making assumptions on who is and isn't willing to move we should hear those proposals.

The thought I had on it is that it's possible Cohen proposed a band on BRI, for instance, but the owners changed the revenue "triggers" for the different % or even the range itself.  No idea if that's what happened but I could easily see the owners doing something like this and claiming to have adopted the proposal.  I'd like to hear more specifics, because I don't trust Stern and the league to represent these changes accurately.

Somewhat unrelated, but I think the small-market teams are going to get more and more committed to limiting the ability of bigger teams to sign free agents, because after this is over, a lot of players aren't going to want to play for those owners unless other options are gone.  The hardline owners are really burning some bridges right now.  Jordan in particular - I wonder how many players will be wearing his shoes whenever things start up again?  My guess is not many. 

[Roy H.]

I think they should let the court handle this cause anyone can see that they're not negotiating in good faith.

I started a topic on this about a month ago, but the question of "good faith" is an interesting one.  I don't think having a bottom line, and not crossing it, is necessarily bad faith.

From what Stern said -- and the union didn't rebut this -- the NBA agreed to 5 out of 6 proposals set forth by the mediator in terms of bridging the gap.  The union rejected those.  Therefore, it seems like the league was willing to make a good faith move toward the players' position.

In terms of the courts, that's going to take at least a year to sort out (probably much longer), and the resulting anti-trust case would, at least initially, lead to the end of the salary cap, the end of the draft, the end of max (or minimum) contracts, etc.  In short, it would be a bad thing for both the league itself (now and in the future) and for the majority of players.  I'm not wishing that upon anybody.

I would like to hear what those 6 proposals were before jumping to the conclusion that the owners are the ones willing to move towards the players position and that the players were being immobile.

If 5 of those 6 proposals started with a BRI of 50/50 and the bridge was

• a small concession on the amount of money penalized on the luxury tax fee
• allowing teams in the luxury tax to be able to a half an MLE excemption
• the same deal as last Friday but with owners giving details and specifics of the revenue sharing plan now
• the amnesty would need to be used right away instead of over the course of the CBA
• the elimination of the one time player waiver that scales the money over years

then are those really proposals that really move things towards the players position or are they more geared towards getting the players towards the owners position and only makes sense for the owners to have approved of them.

I say before making assumptions on who is and isn't willing to move we should hear those proposals.

Cohen has a good enough reputation in the field that I'm fairly skeptical that his proposals strongly favored the owners.  Agreeing to those proposals seems like good faith negotiating to me.

Sure the owners want the players to agree to their position, and the players want the owners to agree to theirs.  What the mediation is supposed to do is help find common or middle ground, and it sounds like that's what Cohen attempted.  The fact that the NBA was willing to listen and change their position, if nothing else, suggests that they're mediating in good faith.

[fairweatherfan]

Marc Stein is reporting players are trying to get the required 130 signatures for a decertification vote by Tuesday. 

Here we go...let's hope it's a bluff or it works out like one, because the alternative really sucks.

[Roy H.]

Marc Stein is reporting players are trying to get the required 130 signatures for a decertification vote by Tuesday. 

Here we go...let's hope it's a bluff or it works out like one, because the alternative really sucks.

The good thing is, from what I understand even after the players start the decertification process, it takes a minimum of 45 days (and probably longer) to put it up to a vote regarding whether they're going to dissolve the union.  That still gives this plenty of time to resolve, although it does escalate things.

[fairweatherfan]

Marc Stein is reporting players are trying to get the required 130 signatures for a decertification vote by Tuesday. 

Here we go...let's hope it's a bluff or it works out like one, because the alternative really sucks.

The good thing is, from what I understand even after the players start the decertification process, it takes a minimum of 45 days (and probably longer) to put it up to a vote regarding whether they're going to dissolve the union.  That still gives this plenty of time to resolve, although it does escalate things.

That's my hope - decertifying is basically opening Pandora's box, but there's a timer on the lock.  Hopefully the owners will be sufficiently motivated to keep it shut, but I don't put anything past either side at this point.

[hpantazo]

Marc Stein is reporting players are trying to get the required 130 signatures for a decertification vote by Tuesday. 

Here we go...let's hope it's a bluff or it works out like one, because the alternative really sucks.

The good thing is, from what I understand even after the players start the decertification process, it takes a minimum of 45 days (and probably longer) to put it up to a vote regarding whether they're going to dissolve the union.  That still gives this plenty of time to resolve, although it does escalate things.

That's my hope - decertifying is basically opening Pandora's box, but there's a timer on the lock.  Hopefully the owners will be sufficiently motivated to keep it shut, but I don't put anything past either side at this point.

I think they easily get the 130 for a vote, but there is no way the vote passes to decertify imo, and I'm afraid the owners know that and will wait it out.