Pierce, Allen leading group looking to decertify if things don't go well

[Chris]

The timing on this is the most peculiar though, if it is for real.  I think it would have made sense in July, in the hopes of saving this season.  And it would have a lot more support after this season is cancelled.  But right now, they are kind of in no-mans land, which makes me think it really is just a ploy for leverage.

I agree. One way I think the timing make sense is because the zone of agreement is so well defined now, at least according to the NYT's Howard Beck. If they had really pursued this back in July, without much sense of where the two sides may find agreement, it might have just set fire to everything. I read this as a gambit by the players to frighten the owners away from worsening their offer and to move above the 50/50 line.

Well, if they had done it in July, they could have seen it through in the manner it is really meant for...by taking it through the courts.  But by doing it right now, it is too late for the courts to save the season, but too early to explode the season on their own (which decertification would do).

But, this is all from a logical standpoint, and logic is still taking shots of Jamison in the hotel bar with George Cohen, after being thrown out of the negotiating room.

Hahaha TP for the second graf. I agree with you 100%, if I were in charge, I would have taken it to the courts in July and let the lawyers duke it out. But I can understand the current approach somewhat from the perspective of decertification being the ultimate last resort for the players. I presume in July (against all logic) the players had hope of a more reasonable bargaining process with owners, and wanted to see where it led before playing the only trump card (decertification) they had. Cause once they go that route, the ball is truly in the hands of the courts.

Either way, I think I'm going to join logic and George Cohen tonight for some Jameson myself. Then maybe some NBA 2K. Best I can do.

But I still think its too early to take it to play that trump card (if they are actually playing it, and not bluffing...which I think/hope is what they are doing), because it is too late to save the season through the courts, but there is still a chance of saving it at the negotiating table.  You don't blow that up until the season is already cancelled.

Not to mention, I don't think they can get the necessary votes until after the season is cancelled anyways.

[Roy H.]

If they had taken this to decertification in July then it is more than likely that they would have lost for sure in court. Part of the very conservative Eighth Court's ruling against the NFLPA decertification is that it was just a ploy by the players to get the owners to give concessions in their negotiations. the court didn't feel that the players were actually earnest in decertification because they tried to do it before the lockout even started.

With the NBPA, however, they have been locked out for 4 months, negotiations are at a breaking point, the union has negotiated in good faith and yet the lockout still goes on. The NBPA are looking into a more liberal court to file and their decertification appears as an earnest attempt to decertify and may hold more credence with the court putting pressure on the owners to try to end things before a final decertification vote is allowed by the court.

I think it's a fair argument to make.  The other key difference, as noted in the article you posted, is that the union would be fighting this de-certification, or at least not voluntarily decertifying.  While that strengthens their argument, it also means that they couldn't decertify for a minimum of 45 days.  If the NBA waits that out, that puts us into late December, at the earliest, and then the court arguments can start.  I'm not sure that that's such a great idea; I know that if I was a mid-level or below type of player, I'd definitely vote against that idea.

I don't know. I frustrated. I want NBA basketball and don't care anymore but I thought it strange that someone like Pierce, who is probably on his last NBA contract and who, one way or the other, this new CBA won't effect him, is so vocal about the decertification. Is he really so pro-union and pro-players or is he doing this because he feels he owes it to his agent?

I think Pierce cares too much about a shot at another championship to sacrifice it just as a favor to his agent.  I think he's a genuine true-believer in the players' cause, and I think he wants to look out for the rights of those who come after him.  Right or wrong, I think he's standing on his convictions.

[nickagneta]

I don't know. I frustrated. I want NBA basketball and don't care anymore but I thought it strange that someone like Pierce, who is probably on his last NBA contract and who, one way or the other, this new CBA won't effect him, is so vocal about the decertification. Is he really so pro-union and pro-players or is he doing this because he feels he owes it to his agent?

I think Pierce cares too much about a shot at another championship to sacrifice it just as a favor to his agent.  I think he's a genuine true-believer in the players' cause, and I think he wants to look out for the rights of those who come after him.  Right or wrong, I think he's standing on his convictions.

I hope he's standing on his convictions as a person looking out for the best interest of future players. I hope he realizes that if the owners don't cave on the decertification and come to an agreement, then he's supporting a cause that will lose him his chance at his last title shot.

[fairweatherfan]

Good article from Larry Coon on the consequences of decertification (and threatening it)

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/decertification-111104/nba-decertification-threat-strong-message

Also according to Marc Stein here are some other players involved in the decertification call:

Russell Westbrook
James Posey
JJ Redick
Grant Hill
Blake Griffin
Al Horford
Jason Kidd
Tyson Chandler
Spencer Hawes
DeAndre Jordan

Some pretty big names involved.  I wonder to what extent this is legit and to what extent a semi-bluff to get the owners to move a bit.  Either way this puts a LOT of pressure on this weekend's talks.

[Fafnir]

They are threatening to do this now because they are hoping it will creat leverage for the NBA to compromise on the BRI number.

If they actually follow through it is because they aren't willing to come lower than the 52.5 BRI number and think there is no way to get that negotiating as the facts stand right now.

[Celtics4ever]

Pierce is a poker player.  He is calling Stern right now.

This what poker players call an overcall.

[CaptainJackLee]

Taking away decertification/antitrust factors, I think of it like this: hypothetically, is it easier for NBA players to create a viable competitor to the NBA, or is it easier for the NBA to develop an alternative set of players to displace the current crop of players? However you answer that question determines who you think has the leverage. IMO, the owners have all the leverage because finding an alternate set of players w/r/t their current assets is far more feasible than the players finding an alternate league to ply their skills

No way. Nobody cares about low level basketball.

Think about it this way: on ABC you have the California Purples featuring Kobe, Gasol and Bynum vs. the Boston Greens featuring Pierce, Garnett and Rondo; on TNT you have the Boston Celtics with their start combo Gabe Pruitt and Chris Johnson versus the Lakers commanded by the NBA MVP Curtis Stinson.

What game do you think people will be watching?

Anyway, it's irrelevant: what the players need is not to scare the owners with the perspective of trying to build a successful global sports league without having the best talent in the world - something that has never happened because, in the end, professional sports is about top-level talent, not really names and arenas.

What the players want is to find 15 owners that:
- are okay with the status-quo.
- are terrified enough with the prospect of losing one season that they're willing to accept the players' current stance as a better alternative.

They probably have 11 or 12 already, so they want to scare a couple more.

[CaptainJackLee]

As I've always said, the players should go for litigation if the owners aren't willing to move. Too little to lose. The owners can pay for much better wages than the ones they're proposing. I'm happy they're exploring this route.

[Chris]

As I've always said, the players should go for litigation if the owners aren't willing to move. Too little to lose. The owners can pay for much better wages than the ones they're proposing. I'm happy they're exploring this route.

Too little to lose?  What if their litigation fails, like in the NFL, and they end up without getting much better a deal than the owners are offering right now (like in the NHL), but lose a years worth of salary in the process?

I understand why they would do it, but there is a TON to lose.  If the litigation route was even close to a slam dunk, they would have gone that way months ago.  It is a huge risk, and there is a very good chance they won't gain any ground, and will lose all that salary for nothing.

[JSD]

Decertification would tear up every current NBA contract, would it not? If that's the case, I don't see why players with multi year lucrative contracts would go for it, not to mention the ultra overpaid (i.e. the Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas).


If it does go down, it would really hurt the Celtics cap advantage going into 2012, which is annoying.

[ballin]

If they really didn't have leverage the owners would stay with their original 40% offer of the BRI with minimal years non-guaranteed contracts, and roll backs of current contracts.

Well, I think most of their leverage is that the owners would prefer to have a season.  However, that's going to exist in any labor dispute.  They don't have a lot of outside leverage, which is why they have made a lot of givebacks.

Well put Roy. My saying the players have no leverage is slight hyperbole, but aside from decertification, they have little to cajole ownership into settling aside from the threat to walk away from the table altogether (as Billy Hunter already did last week).

Hear's my quick comparison of bargaining positions:

Owners control:
- The arenas
- Broadcasting rights
- support staff
- travel logistics
- Antitrust exemption
- Brand/legacy
- Merchandising
- lucrative Non-NBA businesses

Players have:
- basketball talent
- A few transcendent stars
- earnings to date
- smaller (relative to owners) amount of non-NBA business income
- very few non-NBA alternative pro basketball options (Europe, China)
- the threat of decertifying and challenging the NBA's antitrust status

I'm sure I'm leaving some things out, but that's my quick list.

Taking away decertification/antitrust factors, I think of it like this: hypothetically, is it easier for NBA players to create a viable competitor to the NBA, or is it easier for the NBA to develop an alternative set of players to displace the current crop of players? However you answer that question determines who you think has the leverage. IMO, the owners have all the leverage because finding an alternate set of players w/r/t their current assets is far more feasible than the players finding an alternate league to ply their skills.

Disagree, since an alternative basketball league just isn't viable and it's not going to happen. Both the players and the owners know that the brand is everything... a new "pro" basketball league would be mocked into oblivion just like the "XFL" was.

In reality, this is a game of chicken, and leverage exists to the extent that one side has more to lose by crashing and burning, and the other side knows or suspects it.

In this case, that would be the players. The owners have alternative means of income, and they could subsist without basketball for as long of a period as they feel like. But for the players, basketball is life. It's their sole source of income, and many of them have lifestyles they couldn't afford to maintain if basketball suddenly stopped. Losing a season would hurt the players a hell of a lot more than it would hurt the owners.

The players need to wise up and take the deal. Is it fair? Maybe yes, maybe no, but its' not gonna get much better. Fighting over 2.5% in BRI is not worth it both in the figurative and financial sense. The players are already past the breakeven point where the games they've lost have cost them more than the amount of money they're arguing over. At this point they're doing it "for the principle of the matter" which is just utterly ridiculous considering they're already the highest paid athletes in all of sports.

[StartOrien]

Disagree, since an alternative basketball league just isn't viable and it's not going to happen. Both the players and the owners know that the brand is everything... a new "pro" basketball league would be mocked into oblivion just like the "XFL" was.

I don't think that's a good analogy.

The XFL had an incredible amount of interest when it first started. I'd have to go through a quick google search but I think for their first game they put in numbers that exceeded your typical Monday Night Football broadcast.

The problem was that the product was horrific. It was simply football (with a ball that was harder to throw) with worse players. And that's when people started dropping like flies.

[Chris]

Decertification would tear up every current NBA contract, would it not? If that's the case, I don't see why players with multi year lucrative contracts would go for it, not to mention the ultra overpaid (i.e. the Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas).


If it does go down, it would really hurt the Celtics cap advantage going into 2012, which is annoying.

Well, this is what the owners are claiming, and what they have asked a judge to rule on, but they haven't ruled on it yet (nor have they thrown it out, despite the NBPA's attempt).

I think it is probably unlikely that a judge would rule that way, but there is still a chance, which IMO will prevent some players from voting for decertification, and make it even harder for them to get the majority they need.

[CaptainJackLee]

As I've always said, the players should go for litigation if the owners aren't willing to move. Too little to lose. The owners can pay for much better wages than the ones they're proposing. I'm happy they're exploring this route.

Too little to lose?  What if their litigation fails, like in the NFL, and they end up without getting much better a deal than the owners are offering right now (like in the NHL), but lose a years worth of salary in the process?

I understand why they would do it, but there is a TON to lose.  If the litigation route was even close to a slam dunk, they would have gone that way months ago.  It is a huge risk, and there is a very good chance they won't gain any ground, and will lose all that salary for nothing.

Their case would be much weaker if they tried to litigate months ago. That doesn't even make sense. It'd be a good strategy to see a court dismissing it as frivolous litigation.

They don't have much to lose because the owners will always be ready to offer this sort of deal, give or take one point. So, there isn't much to lose. Even if they decide to lose a season, that's tough for the current players but not so much in the grand scheme if it's a path to success. That's how labor disputes work for unions; unions are an alliance between past, current and future members or they are nothing.

Plus, decertification can provide huge returns. In the European soccer leagues like the EPL, with their non-CBA system, players salaries are usually above 70% of the total revenue. That's an extremely interesting reward.

[CaptainJackLee]

Disagree, since an alternative basketball league just isn't viable and it's not going to happen. Both the players and the owners know that the brand is everything... a new "pro" basketball league would be mocked into oblivion just like the "XFL" was.

I don't think that's a good analogy.

The XFL had an incredible amount of interest when it first started. I'd have to go through a quick google search but I think for their first game they put in numbers that exceeded your typical Monday Night Football broadcast.

The problem was that the product was horrific. It was simply football (with a ball that was harder to throw) with worse players. And that's when people started dropping like flies.

Obviously. Nobody wants to see 2nd tier sportsmen. It's just the nature of the beast.

Anyone who believes that the NBA could make D-League players sports starts because of the "NBA brand", or "the legacy", or whatever is drastically wrong.

The most successful league in any sport will always be the one capable of attracting the best athletes by paying them more. The rest is irrelevant.