PDA

View Full Version : So this whole deal with the NBA not allowing contact with players



Hicks
07-14-2011, 11:50 AM
What do you think are the motivating factors for this?

The best I can come up with is that they don't want either side upsetting the other in any way, which theoretically could stretch out negotiations even longer than they already will be.

I'd like to think there's more to it than that, though.

Gamble1
07-14-2011, 12:06 PM
What do you think are the motivating factors for this?

The best I can come up with is that they don't want either side upsetting the other in any way, which theoretically could stretch out negotiations even longer than they already will be.

I'd like to think there's more to it than that, though.
I always thought that what a lockout included. NO CBA = no contact. I am sure there is some legality question marks in there as well.

graphic-er
07-14-2011, 12:23 PM
Seeing has how the players can say anything they want. I think the no contact deal is on the part of the players union. They don't want the league promoting players they aren't paying.

Hicks
07-14-2011, 12:32 PM
Seeing has how the players can say anything they want. I think the no contact deal is on the part of the players union. They don't want the league promoting players they aren't paying.

I don't see how this can be correct: Stern and company are threatening people like Bird and Vogel and everyone in similar roles around the league with SEVERE fines for talking about specific players. That can't be coming from the players union. And it's that kind of a threat that I'm referring to in my initial post.

smj887
07-14-2011, 12:32 PM
I always thought that what a lockout included. NO CBA = no contact. I am sure there is some legality question marks in there as well.

That's how I always took it as well, as just a part of the lockout. If you allow contact between the teams and players, you're removing a lot of the lockout's effects because they'll inevitably do under-the-table stuff that will either give certain teams an unfair advantage for when it ends or take away some of the inconvenience of a lockout.

Hicks
07-14-2011, 12:34 PM
That's how I always took it as well, as just a part of the lockout. If you allow contact between the teams and players, you're removing a lot of the lockout's effects because they'll inevitably do under-the-table stuff that will either give certain teams an unfair advantage for when it ends or take away some of the inconvenience of a lockout.

So this will theoretically curb a "black market free agency period"?

Since86
07-14-2011, 12:38 PM
The NBA gave Miami Heat exec's permission to attend Chris Bosh's wedding, but Houston can't comment on Yao's retirement because of the no contact rules.

That's the perfect example IMHO. They've gone beyond what the law says. Players and franchise employees that are friends can't even talk to each other on a personal level. That's F'ed up. But then again, it fits perfectly with Stern's power hungry personality.

The NFL and their player's union never reached his level, as a whole, and I'm ignoring James Harrison's stupid remarks.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 01:02 PM
My understanding of the "no contact" rule is that the league wants to put pressure on the players. NBA players have gotten used to a certain lifestyle where all their needs get taken care of for them by their teams. We've all heard stories of how much teams coddle and babysit certain players, and even the low maintenance guys enjoy a lot of benefits, such as access to team facilities and personnel. Here's a sampling of them from Kelly Dwyer:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/NBA-owners-make-a-lot-of-money-but-they-spend-a?urn=nba-wp5986


The players aren't on the hook for what they wear before and after games, they actually get food per diem, they have food brought into the locker rooms both before and after games, they are shipped around the country on private jets for road games, and they are given rooms in the choicest hotels at no cost to them. Not a single penny, all covered by the owners. Want to come to your league-mandated charity appearance? A car, hired by the team, will be there at 10:30. Toss in insurance and on-site health care, and you've just covered the tip of the iceberg.


So why doesn't the league just ban player benefits but still allow communication? Talking can't hurt right? This is the part where smj887's under-the-table stuff comes in. Not a competitive advantage with regards to free agents, but with one's own players. Teams invest a lot in their players, they want to take care of their players. I'd bet the Pacers' front office are having many troubled moments now wondering how Lance is doing and how much he is sticking to the program. If communication were allowed, I'd bet Clark Kellogg would be in regular contact with Lance right now, offering advice and moral support. From there it's a slippery slope down to off-the-record benefits. This is what the league is working to prevent, I think.

One NBA GM likened the lockout to sending your kids off to camp. Stern is the tough-love camp counsellor warning parents not to indulge their kids. In this case though, the goal is not life lessons for the kids, it's taking away their support system to soften the players up for negotiations.

There's no legal issue, as far as I know. Both the league's decision to ban contact with players and to remove players from websites, etc, are aimed at pressuring players. More of a psychological move than a economic move I think, because you'd think players should have enough money to get their own minders.

Since86
07-14-2011, 01:15 PM
Those are good points, but why can't you just impliment a no business talk rule? These are grown men, if they want to go play golf together, they should be allowed.

Putting a rule in place, isn't going to stop them from talking if they really want too. I bet you that teams/players are still talking to one another, they're just not doing it publically.

The NBA would benefit if they didn't impliment these draconian rules, but rather be sensible and treat them like adults.

EDIT: And I understand you're not arguing for it, just explaining the logic, if you can call it that, that Herr Stern is using.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 01:39 PM
Those are good points, but why can't you just impliment a no business talk rule? These are grown men, if they want to go play golf together, they should be allowed.

Putting a rule in place, isn't going to stop them from talking if they really want too. I bet you that teams/players are still talking to one another, they're just not doing it publically.


Regarding a no business talk rule, it's much easier to police a full no contact rule. If 2 guys are playing golf together, who's to say whether they talked business or not? It's a lot easier for Stern to find out that a golf game took place, than what was discussed during it.

Sure, some under the table stuff might still be going on. But Stern threatened million dollar fines plus possible loss of draft picks. That would deter most people I think.

Since86
07-14-2011, 01:42 PM
I doubt many people know what front office execs look like, so if they pay cash, it would be pretty hard to find out.

Anyone outside of Larry Bird and Frank could walk up to me, and I wouldn't have the slighest clue.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 01:58 PM
I doubt many people know what front office execs look like, so if they pay cash, it would be pretty hard to find out.

Anyone outside of Larry Bird and Frank could walk up to me, and I wouldn't have the slighest clue.

I'm not imagining an army of spies reporting to Commissioner Stern if that's what you mean :D

However, front offices leak, players leak, agents leak. All it takes is one person inadvertently letting something slip (or deliberately, as the case may be). How did you think the Twolves' illegal deal with Joe Smith came to light? It definitely wasn't a member of the public who reported it.

Possibly the risk is low, but it's not zero. And with a large enough fine, I think most teams would be deterred.

grace
07-14-2011, 02:01 PM
My reason that the NBA won't let the teams have contact with players...because the NFL woldn't let their teams have contact with their players.

naptownmenace
07-14-2011, 05:21 PM
Yeah, it's completely about punishing the NBA players for rejecting their deal. You don't take the deal, we'll cut you off from team facilities, security and perks are gone too. You can't even hang out with your friend - you know the one you went to College with - who you got a job in Ticket Sales.

The League is flexing it's muscles hoping that the complete alienation will weaken the players resolve, if not collectively, individually.

Eleazar
07-14-2011, 06:46 PM
I kind of wonder if this would stand up in the courts. I can't imagine the court holding up a fine if Bird and Granger went golfing at a non-NBA owned golf course. I think any reasonable, non-corrupt judge would just laugh at the NBA if it was ever taken to court.

I also wouldn't be surprised if most (if not all) teams are in limited contact with most of their players in some way shape or form. In most cases probably indirectly like through a mutual friend, wife, doctor, etc. Especially if the player has an injury, or is in a situation like Lance. So that they can still keep tabs on them without technically breaking any rules.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 07:01 PM
I kind of wonder if this would stand up in the courts. I can't imagine the court holding up a fine if Bird and Granger went golfing at a non-NBA owned golf course. I think any reasonable, non-corrupt judge would just laugh at the NBA if it was ever taken to court.


Who is going to bring it to court? Stern used to fine Cuban every time he opened his mouth, did anyone bat an eyelash?

In your example, Granger is a locked out player and thus beyond Stern's power. Larry Bird though, is an employee of the Pacers, which is a part of the NBA. Stern can and will fine Bird and possibly the Pacers as well.

pacer4ever
07-14-2011, 07:04 PM
Kahn might to get fined for mentioning players in a interview yesterday Kahn is so stupid.

vapacersfan
07-14-2011, 07:26 PM
Who is going to bring it to court? Stern used to fine Cuban every time he opened his mouth, did anyone bath an eyelash?

In your example, Granger is a locked out player and thus beyond Stern's power. Larry Bird though, is an employee of the Pacers, which is a part of the NBA. Stern can and will fine Bird and possibly the Pacers as well.

:-o:-o:-o:laugh:

90'sNBARocked
07-14-2011, 07:43 PM
What do you think are the motivating factors for this?

The best I can come up with is that they don't want either side upsetting the other in any way, which theoretically could stretch out negotiations even longer than they already will be.

I'd like to think there's more to it than that, though.

I think it's the fear of unity among players/coaches etc, and they dont want the players to "have their cake and eat it too"

Strummer
07-14-2011, 07:46 PM
I think it has to do with the spirit of the lockout. Let's say they allow contact and a coach tells the players what he expects them to do to keep in shape during the lockout. Then it's not really a lockout is it? Instead it's management making demands of players that aren't being paid.

In other words I think the no contact rule is to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. The players (workers) are not under the teams (management) control in any way whatsoever during the lockout. So the players have no right or expectation to be paid during this period.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 08:03 PM
:-o:-o:-o:laugh:

As far as embarrassing typos go, it's not too bad :p Anyway, I've fixed it.

speakout4
07-14-2011, 08:05 PM
Punish the players. Remove their support system. They can't hang out together or practice in a team facility where they would be most comfortable. Break down the rapport between players, coaches, and trainers. Some players are just kids who have come to rely on coaches and support staff. It's psychological warfare plus all the other points mentioned above.

ballism
07-14-2011, 08:12 PM
There's no one reason. It's a ton of them together. Among other things,
to keep things equal for all teams in terms of free agent signing,
to put some pressure on the players,
to keep the sides united internally instead of having multiple lockout fronts within the teams,
to avoid lockout atmosphere hurting long term chemistry within individual organizations,
to give the teams like Pacers (who lack some major FA pieces now) an equal fighting chance (not very fair if Vogel gets new major players right after the lockout, while Stan Van Gundy has full lockout to give his guys instructions, tape and so on, right?).

Ownagedood
07-14-2011, 08:17 PM
I really dont agree with this part of the lockout...

How can they say you can have zero contact with a person? I understand there is no deal and everything but come on... You can't just say hey, because you play in the NBA, you can't talk to your dad right now because hes a GM, or hes a coach... That's just not right.

vapacersfan
07-14-2011, 08:19 PM
I really dont agree with this part of the lockout...

How can they say you can have zero contact with a person? I understand there is no deal and everything but come on... You can't just say hey, because you play in the NBA, you can't talk to your dad right now because hes a GM, or hes a coach... That's just not right.

My understanding is they would let certain exceptions slide. I am sure a father and son could still get together and talk about family, and if Stern tried to come down hard on them the court of public opinion would blast him.

Anthem
07-14-2011, 08:34 PM
As far as embarrassing typos go, it's not too bad :p Anyway, I've fixed it.
It's not nearly as bad as the extra apostrophes in this thread.

Since86
07-15-2011, 09:35 AM
My understanding is they would let certain exceptions slide. I am sure a father and son could still get together and talk about family, and if Stern tried to come down hard on them the court of public opinion would blast him.

Don't exceptions kind of defeat the purpose of it all? If you can't talk, then you can't talk, period.

Now we're entering into where Stern picks and chooses what exceptions he wants, which he's already doing btw. Yeah sure, you can go to Bosh's wedding. No, you can't talk about Yao retiring until he officially retires. How stupid.

Dads/sons isn't some magical bond that doesn't allow them to break the rules, or do something stupid. A father/son combo ran onto a MLB field and beat the **** out of a first base coach.

So if you see a father/son combo in the NBA, what stops them from violating the conditions of the exception?

If you're going to trust certain people, then you need to be able to trust all of them. IMHO.

They're freaking adults. Treat them like adults.

I mean you have to go as far as to completely remove their pictures from teams websites? That's taking it too far, and it's completely ridiculous.

90'sNBARocked
07-15-2011, 10:53 AM
So can Mike Dunleavy talk to his own damn father? Can Markief Morris to to his own brother Marcus? Can Paul Gasol talk to his own brother Marc?

That would be very wierd

vapacersfan
07-15-2011, 11:09 AM
Don't exceptions kind of defeat the purpose of it all? If you can't talk, then you can't talk, period.

Now we're entering into where Stern picks and chooses what exceptions he wants, which he's already doing btw. Yeah sure, you can go to Bosh's wedding. No, you can't talk about Yao retiring until he officially retires. How stupid.

Dads/sons isn't some magical bond that doesn't allow them to break the rules, or do something stupid. A father/son combo ran onto a MLB field and beat the **** out of a first base coach.

So if you see a father/son combo in the NBA, what stops them from violating the conditions of the exception?

If you're going to trust certain people, then you need to be able to trust all of them. IMHO.

They're freaking adults. Treat them like adults.

I mean you have to go as far as to completely remove their pictures from teams websites? That's taking it too far, and it's completely ridiculous.

I don't disagree, though I do understand the spirit of the rule.

Since86
07-15-2011, 11:15 AM
So can Mike Dunleavy talk to his own damn father? Can Markief Morris to to his own brother Marcus? Can Paul Gasol talk to his own brother Marc?

That would be very wierd

I don't think there's any rule saying players can't talk to players. :)

wintermute
07-15-2011, 12:03 PM
I don't think there's any rule saying players can't talk to players. :)

Yup. And Mike Dunleavy Sr isn't currently employed by the NBA, so he can talk to Junior.

The interesting one is George Karl and his son Coby. Coby isn't currently an NBA player, but I presume that he's still a NBPA member.

Since86
07-15-2011, 12:11 PM
Yup. And Mike Dunleavy Sr isn't currently employed by the NBA, so he can talk to Junior.

The interesting one is George Karl and his son Coby. Coby isn't currently an NBA player, but I presume that he's still a NBPA member.

Does anyone know the actual number, or atleast know of more than two examples?

I just think Stern has taken it overboard. He extended the no contract rule to college players, eventhough they aren't NBPA members, and they might not ever be.

Doc Rivers can only watch his son play. That's it. How can someone possibly limit themselves to only focus on your own son? If Austin is playing with Duke, he's going to notice the rest of the players on the floor. He can't turn his brain off and forget what he's seen/heard. He's given an unfair advantage.

This is why the rule is dumb. Once you start handing out exceptions, where do they stop?

ksuttonjr76
07-17-2011, 09:19 PM
Family relationships are not business relationships...