Player's Association looking at SAG Executive Director to lead union

[saltlover]

The union got crushed in the last round of negotiations, and Billy Hunter was an embarrassment.  To replace him, it appears they're looking at the current head of the Screen Actors' Guild.  He's been successful there, is a Rhodes Scholar, and has experience in employment law in the entertainment industry.  This would be a huge coup for the Player's Association.  I would also bet that they'd opt out of the current CBA in 2016, since this version isn't very favorable to players, and a new director would want to put his imprint on a new agreement.

Hopefully the C's are mindful of this.  The last agreement did not help the Celtics one bit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/screen-actors-guild-executive-director-is-frontrunner-to-become-next-national-basketball-players-association-executive-director-154440153-nba.html

[Mencius]

The Film Actors Guild head would be a big improvement over Hunter.

[gpap]

Does this mean there's a good chance there's another lockout in 2016?

[saltlover]

Does this mean there's a good chance there's another lockout in 2016?

Not necessarily, but it's likely.  I think the players were very unhappy with the deal this time around, and it was made worse by Hunter's malfeasance.  They'll likely want to opt out of the agreement.  Of course, opting out does not mean that there can't be an agreement reached without some sort of labor stoppage, but given the history between the players and the owners (and the fact that the recent lockout didn't hurt the product), I'd expect there will be one.

[gpap]

Does this mean there's a good chance there's another lockout in 2016?

Not necessarily, but it's likely.  I think the players were very unhappy with the deal this time around, and it was made worse by Hunter's malfeasance.  They'll likely want to opt out of the agreement.  Of course, opting out does not mean that there can't be an agreement reached without some sort of labor stoppage, but given the history between the players and the owners (and the fact that the recent lockout didn't hurt the product), I'd expect there will be one.

That would be really unfortunate. Especially for a team like the Celts where they are currently in rebuilding mode.

You would think by 2016, they'd be on the cusp of greatness. A lockout could only hurt that.

Man, why are the NBA and NHL so prone to lockouts all the time?

[saltlover]

Does this mean there's a good chance there's another lockout in 2016?

Not necessarily, but it's likely.  I think the players were very unhappy with the deal this time around, and it was made worse by Hunter's malfeasance.  They'll likely want to opt out of the agreement.  Of course, opting out does not mean that there can't be an agreement reached without some sort of labor stoppage, but given the history between the players and the owners (and the fact that the recent lockout didn't hurt the product), I'd expect there will be one.

That would be really unfortunate. Especially for a team like the Celts where they are currently in rebuilding mode.

You would think by 2016, they'd be on the cusp of greatness. A lockout could only hurt that.

Man, why are the NBA and NHL so prone to lockouts all the time?

I don't think a 2016 lockout would be as bad as the last time for the Celtics, but it would be better to have flexibility in 2016.  I've thought for awhile that the C's should target 2016 instead of 2015 anyway, when Wallace's, Green's, and at one point Lee's contracts come off the books, and this is another reason.

[gpap]

Does this mean there's a good chance there's another lockout in 2016?

Not necessarily, but it's likely.  I think the players were very unhappy with the deal this time around, and it was made worse by Hunter's malfeasance.  They'll likely want to opt out of the agreement.  Of course, opting out does not mean that there can't be an agreement reached without some sort of labor stoppage, but given the history between the players and the owners (and the fact that the recent lockout didn't hurt the product), I'd expect there will be one.

That would be really unfortunate. Especially for a team like the Celts where they are currently in rebuilding mode.

You would think by 2016, they'd be on the cusp of greatness. A lockout could only hurt that.

Man, why are the NBA and NHL so prone to lockouts all the time?

I don't think a 2016 lockout would be as bad as the last time for the Celtics, but it would be better to have flexibility in 2016.  I've thought for awhile that the C's should target 2016 instead of 2015 anyway, when Wallace's, Green's, and at one point Lee's contracts come off the books, and this is another reason.

Problem with that though do fans really want to wait another 2 1/2 years before we become relevant again?

I know for me, after waiting long enough, I would just lose interest.

[317]

the players need all the help they can get just to keep the current agreement. its the owners, particularly the small markets and especially Dan Gilbert in Cleavland, who are desperate for a way to extend control over a young star beyond the current 4 year rookie deal(think the franchise tag in the NFL) and then restricted free agency. if im an owner im more worried about a players ability to force a trade then i am my ability to keep them after there restricted free agent contract.

[D.o.s.]

Yeah Hunter and Fisher completely botched the last lockout, and I think we've officially moved beyond seeing a 'lockout' like the two hour conversation in  1996 ever again.

[saltlover]

Does this mean there's a good chance there's another lockout in 2016?

Not necessarily, but it's likely.  I think the players were very unhappy with the deal this time around, and it was made worse by Hunter's malfeasance.  They'll likely want to opt out of the agreement.  Of course, opting out does not mean that there can't be an agreement reached without some sort of labor stoppage, but given the history between the players and the owners (and the fact that the recent lockout didn't hurt the product), I'd expect there will be one.

That would be really unfortunate. Especially for a team like the Celts where they are currently in rebuilding mode.

You would think by 2016, they'd be on the cusp of greatness. A lockout could only hurt that.

Man, why are the NBA and NHL so prone to lockouts all the time?

I don't think a 2016 lockout would be as bad as the last time for the Celtics, but it would be better to have flexibility in 2016.  I've thought for awhile that the C's should target 2016 instead of 2015 anyway, when Wallace's, Green's, and at one point Lee's contracts come off the books, and this is another reason.

Problem with that though do fans really want to wait another 2 1/2 years before we become relevant again?

I know for me, after waiting long enough, I would just lose interest.

We can become relevant without relying on free agency.   There are certain to be teams willing to dump talent to clear free agency space in 2015 for second rounders, just as we may be willing to do now for next year.  Right now, the big market inefficiency is future cap space.  You can get decent talent if you're willing to give up on free agency.  I'd expect we could be competitive in 2015-2016, while preserving our younger assets and not taking on contracts other than Rondo and rookies which go beyond that period.  Maybe not championship competitive, but certainly division title competitive, and we need to walk before we can run anyway.