Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The latest on the labor situation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The latest on the labor situation

    There is going to be a deal.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colum...ad&id=2068882\


    Road map to NBA labor peaceBy Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider
    Archive

    Three months ago, during All-Star weekend in Denver, NBA commissioner David Stern and National Basketball Players Association president Billy Hunter expressed optimism that a deal would be reached on a new collective bargaining agreement before the end of the season.


    Last week, sparked in part by an ESPN Insider report detailing the dissatisfaction of a number of player agents with the owners' offer, the NBA announced the owners had canceled all further talks with the players. With the current collective bargaining agreement set to expire on June 30, deputy commissioner Russ Granik used the word "alarming" to describe the status of relations between the two sides.


    However, in the past two days, Stern and Hunter have hinted that talks between the owners and players have quietly resumed. Can a deal be struck in time to avoid a lockout?


    The current economic system is not broken. Stern acknowledges that a well-managed team can be both profitable and competitive in the NBA, and he has used words like "tweaks" and "non-economic" to characterize the issues that need to be resolved. For his part, Hunter, who fought the 1998 agreement vigorously, now wants to protect it.


    So the heated rhetoric we have heard from both Stern and Hunter in the past week or so is at odds with the facts of the situation. Each side knows a deal is within reach and that a lockout would be disastrous, as it has been for the NHL.


    Since the news of labor unrest broke last week, Insider has spoken with numerous sources directly involved in the talks to ascertain how a lockout could be averted. Voices from all sides – NBA brass, NBPA officials, agents and even a couple of players – have weighed in.


    If both parties really want labor peace, this might be the road map that gets them there:


    Contract length
    Currently, players can sign a fully guaranteed contract for a maximum of seven years if they re-sign with their current team. Players signing with a new team in free agency can ink a six-year deal.
    This is a major issue for the owners, who often get stuck with the bill for players who become injured or don't pan out. Teams have few options if they want to part with a player with a bad contract. They can hope he retires, try to trade him (usually taking back another bad contract in return) or try to buy out the contract.

    Owners are asking for the maximum length of contracts to be reduced to five years across the board. At one point, the players had offered to shorten the max to five years for players signing with new teams and six years for players re-signing with their current team.


    On Tuesday, Stern referred to the owners' position on this issue as "non-economic," for two reasons:


    One, the owners, according to Stern, are willing to guarantee players receive a minimum of 57 percent of the owners' basketball-related income in the form of salaries each year. Individual contracts may shorten, but players won't be taking pay cuts, Stern says, because 57 percent is the current amount of BRI that goes to players.

    Continued...


    Two, Stern reasons that the issue is really about "the game," not money. Since the owners are willing to guarantee the players a certain amount of the pie, then owners believe they should have the flexibility to divvy up that 57 percent among players in a way that allows for better basketball decisions. By Stern's reasoning, with shorter contracts the owners will be able to ensure that the most deserving players receive the money and that players who struggle because of injury or poor performance are washed out of the system more quickly.

    The players, and especially their agents, see this as a restriction on the free market. They reason that if an owner is willing to give a player a seven-year contract, the player should be allowed to sign it. Agents, in particular, are trying to protect the long-term financial interests and security of their clients and, by extension, themselves.


    What's the compromise? Parties on both sides should accept that five years is probably the magic number. Owners would prefer even shorter contracts. Players would prefer no restriction on the number of years they can sign.


    Both sides risk being overzealous. If maximum contracts were to become too short, owners would constantly have to renegotiate with players. They ardently want to rid their rosters of the players who are not earning their salary – but at the risk of also losing the ones who are.


    Would Cleveland's owners want to put themselves and their fans through a LeBron James negotiation every three years? On the other hand, if contracts become too long, players who sign for below-market contracts, or are stuck on bad teams or at the end of the bench will suffer.


    Raises
    For months, players and management have remained far apart on this issue.
    Under the current CBA, players are allowed maximum raises of 12.5 percent per year if they re-sign with their current team and 10 percent if they sign with a different team in free agency (these raises are built into the overall contract amounts).

    Owners contend the raises are now out of whack with financial reality. Last year, the salary cap stayed flat. In years past, it has increased by small, incremental amounts. If salaries rise 10 to 12.5 percent per year and the cap is rising at a rate closer to 3 percent, more teams will likely exceed the cap each year, and will start paying luxury taxes or incur more tax if they're already over the cap.

    To curb the growth of salaries, owners have proposed significantly rolling back the maximum raises for free agents.

    This is a major sticking point for the players, who look forward to those big payouts at the end of a contract. So far, the players have been looking to increase raises to 15 percent annually to offset the fact that they may lose two years of guaranteed contract length.

    Where is the middle ground? Right where they're standing, actually.


    If contracts were to become shorter, and if the two sides would agree on the 57 percent share for players, the size of the annual raises becomes less significant. If both sides were to agree to maintain the status quo on this issue, they could move on to bigger topics.

    Continued...
    The mid-level exception
    The mid-level exception is available every year to teams that are above the league's salary cap. Every year, a team can use the exception to sign a player for a maximum of six years, with 10 percent raises. The mid-level exception is based on the average salary of players in the league – currently $4.9 million.
    Owners argue that the exception has blown a huge hole in the cap. Because teams can use the exception every year, the numbers really start to add up. Owners believe lowering the mid-level exception and implementing shorter contracts will bring things under control.

    Each side still wants the loophole – the owners just don't want to be able to drive a semi through it.

    The owners would like to split the mid-level exception into two pieces. Under this concept, teams could sign two players with the exception: one for 75 percent of the exception, the other for 25 percent. As things stand now, teams would have a $3.7 million slot and a $1.2 million slot.

    Right now, most teams are forced to offer the full $4.9 million to top players in free agency. Under the proposed system, some teams would continue to offer the top exception, at $3.7 million, but choose not to use the $1.2 million exception, in effect lowering payroll.


    The players would like to keep the exception where it is. They claim the reduction in guaranteed contract years addresses the owners' financial concerns. The owners counter that by agreeing to raise the cap (see below), they would be guaranteeing the average player salary will rise to $5.5 million, which also would raise the exception.


    How can they make a deal? It looks as though the owners' dream of splitting the mid-level exception won't fly with the players. However, the players might be willing to reduce the maximum number of years a player can sign a mid-level exception contract to four. Again, the owners appear willing to trade more up-front dollars to individual players in exchange for shorter contract lengths.



    The salary cap
    The current CBA bases the salary cap on the owners' basketball-related income. The cap is set at 48 percent of BRI. Last year, that came to $43.87 million.
    According to sources, the owners have agreed to increase that percentage to 51 percent, thus raising the salary cap.

    Sources say the cap would, in that case, rise to between $47 and $50 million next year, which would be a concession to the players.



    The luxury tax
    Players (and some owners) dislike the luxury tax. However, it's the best way for Stern to deter owners from what he deems excessive spending.
    Currently, the league doesn't determine the luxury-tax threshold until after the season. That means teams spend all year trying to guess what the number will be. Teams unwilling to risk paying the tax tend to get conservative and try to stay a few million under the projected threshold to protect themselves against fluctuations.


    Last season, teams whose payrolls exceeded $54.6 million paid a dollar-for-dollar tax on the amount they were over the threshold. For example, the Knicks' payroll last season was $94.4 million. That means they paid the league $39.8 million in tax penalties. The total taxes paid by teams last season amounted to more than $157 million.

    Continued... The luxury tax kicks in when total player salaries exceed 61.1 percent of total basketball revenues. That threshold jumped to 63.3 percent this season – giving the owners their first shot in a long time at a season without a luxury tax.


    The tax probably isn't going away, regardless of what both sides might want. In fact, the latest proposal from the league, according to sources, pushes for a "super tax." Owners who exceed the salary cap by more than a certain percentage would be penalized $2 for every dollar they're over the tax threshold.

    In theory, that's a bigger penalty than is now in place, but in actuality, it has more bark than bite. For the "super tax" to kick in, teams would have to be well above the regular luxury-tax threshold. Under the current proposal, only two or three teams would have to pay it.

    How do the sides reach peace on the issue? The owners want stiffer penalties for teams that go well beyond the cap. If the players were to agree to a $1.50-on-the-dollar tax for teams that exceed the luxury tax threshold by $12-20 million and a $2 super tax for teams that exceed the threshold by more than $20 million, the system would punish the very largest spenders without penalizing the whole league.

    Owners would have to make a concession to get the new tax structure. In the new agreement, players (as well as most general managers) would like to see the league give teams the figure before the season begins, so teams know exactly how much money they have to spend throughout the year.


    Player escrow account
    Currently, players must pay 10 percent of their salaries into an escrow account each season. If, at season's end, the total amount of player salaries exceeds 57 percent of the league's total basketball-related income, that money goes to the owners of teams that stay below the luxury-tax threshold (and a few that fall within a certain "cliff threshold"). If it doesn't exceed 57 percent, the players get their money back.
    For the past two seasons, salaries have been at more than 60 percent of BRI, and therefore the players have lost the escrow money to the owners.

    Naturally, the players want to end this system. They already pay personal income taxes at a high rate. Factor in the 10 percent that's taken off the top of their salaries, and the take-home pay for players is substantially reduced.

    Owners are reluctant to make the change. The windfall teams got last year from the escrow tax, combined with the fees paid by owners who were over the luxury-tax threshold, put roughly $8 million back in the pockets of those owners who were under the tax threshold or in the cliff threshold. For several teams, that rebate meant the difference between turning a profit and posting a loss for the season.


    Sources say the owners might be willing to compromise by lowering the escrow amount (from 10 percent to 5 or 6 percent). They are unwilling to eliminate it completely, however.

    This is a major sticking point for both sides. While owners are pushing for a number of items that would bring financial relief over the long term, they are unwilling to completely forfeit their financial position now to get that relief.

    Continued...


    There potentially is another significant development in this area. Under current rules, the NBA has sole discretion over the use of the escrow money. Currently, it redistributes the cash (and luxury-tax revenues) to teams that are under the luxury-tax threshold. In essence, Clippers owner Donald Sterling gets a bonus for being cheap.
    The union hates this rule and has tried, without success, to litigate it in court. The players believe the current use of the escrow money amounts to another tax on teams over the threshold, which are not only paying money into the system but also losing out on the rebates that go to the thriftier teams.


    Owners are willing to change the distribution rules so that luxury-tax revenues would be distributed equally among all 30 teams.

    The owners are ready to make both of these compromises, which should please the players. It means less money out of players' paychecks and fewer penalties on owners who want to spend big.



    Restricted free agency
    Under current rules, teams have 15 days to match any offer sheet on a player they have restricted free agency rights to. This rule often drags out the free agency process for both teams and players.


    While the union originally fought hard to get rid of restricted free agency altogether, they've been willing to compromise by shortening the period that teams have to match to five days.


    According to sources, it looks like this is a compromise both sides can live with.



    Contracts
    The NBA minimum wage, currently starting at $385,277 and increasing each year a player is in the league, will increase significantly, sources say. This is an obvious concession by the league and should placate the large number of players who sign minimum deals.

    Rookie salary scale
    Currently, first-round picks are tied into a league salary scale. When a first-round pick signs a contract, the first three years are guaranteed, with a team option for the fourth year. Players are paid a set amount based on where they were selected in the draft.
    The current proposal, according to sources, modifies that deal in favor of the owners. Under the new rules, first-round picks would get the first two years of their contracts guaranteed. The third and fourth years of the contracts would be team options.

    This is another proposal to which the union is adamantly opposed. In this case, they're turning the tables on owners a bit and saying, if you want shorter guaranteed contracts, we want free agency sooner. That is, the union wants players drafted in the first round to get a two-year guaranteed contract with a team option for the third year. After that, players would become restricted free agents, one year earlier than under the current rules.

    The argument is a little disingenuous. The reason the owners want more years on rookie contracts is because the costs are lower (thanks to the rookie salary scale) and because a team has more time to develop and evaluate a player before signing him to a long-term extension. While shorter guaranteed contracts would help teams get rid of players who turn out to be busts, the costs on the back end would be much higher.

    Continued...

    The compromise? Leave things where they are now. Players get to keep that three years of security and owners get to keep players on the rookie scale an extra year.

    Roster space
    Currently, teams can have a maximum of 15 players on their rosters, with a minimum of 11. Under current proposals, the minimum would be raised to 14. This is another concession by the league.
    The owners also have agreed to do away with the injured list, changing to inactive and active lists. That means teams no longer will have to create false injury reports in order to manage their roster.


    Trade rules
    For years, both GMs and players have been complaining about restrictive trade rules that mandate all trades be within 15 percent and $100,000 of each other in salary. Those standards make many trades impossible.


    Expect the league to loosen those trade rules significantly under the new CBA. That includes widening the gap between salaries traded and received to 25 percent.


    There is also a movement on both sides to dump base-year compensation rules that limit a team's right to sign a free agent and then trade him during the first year of the contract.

    These proposed changes would loosen restrictions on player movement, something the union has more interest in than the owners at this point. On this issue, GMs who would like more freedom to make trades find themselves on the players' side.


    Age limit
    Why is the age limit – the most publicized piece of the negotiations – the last on the list?
    If an agreement on all of the above items is reached, but the players remain opposed to an age limit, it's not a significant enough issue to trigger a work stoppage. The bottom line: The league won't lock out the players over an age limit.

    Why?

    It's true Stern has spoken out repeatedly for an age minimum of 20 (though he has shown a willingness to compromise at 19). He doesn't like NBA GMs and scouts sitting in high school gyms scouting teenagers. But he isn't willing to bargain in order to get the age limit. The players are demanding economic concessions in exchange for an age minimum. Right now, according to the various sources Insider has talked to, Stern doesn't have enough support from the owners on this issue to make any concessions.

    Furthermore, with the league very close to an agreement with the players on turning the NBDL into a true minor league, the argument for an age limit is weakened.

    While the public seems to be generally in favor of an age minimum, a number of NBA GMs are against it, especially if they're able to send their young players to a minor league for development.

    Would the game be better with an age limit? Maybe, maybe not. Is the issue worth a lockout? No. If the league were to drop the issue, could it be the symbolic gesture that jump-starts negotiations again? Absolutely.


    The bottom line
    Labor peace is possible in the NBA. Put aside the pride, the egos, the posturing and the greed and there's a deal to be reached that improves the game, makes NBA teams profitable and guarantees NBA players remain the highest-paid athletes in professional sports.
    There's a way for owners to gain more flexibility to improve their roster and chances of winning a title without overspending, and a way for the union to gain greater financial protection as an overall body.

    The NBA's owners and players are part of a symbiotic whole. The success of one almost always guarantees the success of the other. Compromise is never easy, and it's clear that both sides might be forced to sacrifice a little more to make it happen. However, giving up things in the short term can lead to bigger rewards down the road.

    If a lockout is averted and the product becomes better as a result of a new agreement, the NBA's revenue should increase, and with it, the amount of money the players and owners take home at the end of the year.

    Both sides have too much to lose and too little to gain in a lockout. Why rush to labor war when labor peace is within their grasp?

    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.

  • #2
    Re: The latest on the labor situation

    I hope the trade rules expand as he suggests. Going to 25% and getting rid of BYC would be big for most teams.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The latest on the labor situation

      That was one insider article that was worth the dough.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The latest on the labor situation

        Originally posted by Unclebuck

        Furthermore, with the league very close to an agreement with the players on turning the NBDL into a true minor league, the argument for an age limit is weakened.
        That's almost as good news as a deal being close.

        Hopefully it'll get worked out by July 1. The summer's too long - be nice to have summer leagues as a diversion.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The latest on the labor situation

          Oo, I missed that part before. If we could make the NBDL a true minor league that would be great.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The latest on the labor situation

            Originally posted by Hicks
            Oo, I missed that part before. If we could make the NBDL a true minor league that would be great.
            That would be awesome. The NBA has needed this for a long time.
            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The latest on the labor situation

              They are expanding the NBDL this season. I forget how many teams they will have but I heard somewhere, the plan is to expand again in about 2 to 3 years so there will be enough teams to make a farm system workable.

              It should have happened already but at best we are 3 years away.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The latest on the labor situation

                Interesting article. I hope the "super tax" makes the final aggreement. Also the splitting up of the mid level exception into a 75% and a 25% seems good, but why not give more flexibility by allowing either the full 100% OR the 75% and 25% parts. Why the "if" here?

                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The latest on the labor situation

                  The NBDL is a great idea. Stick players like Bender there from inactive list, and maybe they can actually learn something.
                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The latest on the labor situation

                    If maximum contracts were to become too short, owners would constantly have to renegotiate with players. They ardently want to rid their rosters of the players who are not earning their salary – but at the risk of also losing the ones who are.
                    Thank you. I've been mad as hell ever since I heard the owners wanted a 3/4 limit to contracts. That's too damn short. I'm glad they appear to have gone back to the 4/5, as it should be.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The latest on the labor situation

                      Originally posted by Mourning
                      Interesting article. I hope the "super tax" makes the final aggreement. Also the splitting up of the mid level exception into a 75% and a 25% seems good, but why not give more flexibility by allowing either the full 100% OR the 75% and 25% parts. Why the "if" here?

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      The owners want the 100% taken away from them, because their abusing it and they know it. Mediocre players like Brian Cardinal and Adonal Foyle are not worth $40+ million, but when more than one team is interested, they end up getting the max available by default. The difference between 100% and 75% is around the difference between Foster's contract and Jack's, which is huge when you go out over 6 years.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The latest on the labor situation

                        It would have been nice to see a "Carlos Boozer" rule as part of the new CBA. It sucks when your team does their scouting homework and makes a great 2nd round selection only to lose that player via restricted free agency because they can only match up to the MLE. 2nd round selections should have the same classification as 1st round picks where the team should be able to match any offer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The latest on the labor situation

                          Originally posted by dipperdunk
                          It would have been nice to see a "Carlos Boozer" rule as part of the new CBA. It sucks when your team does their scouting homework and makes a great 2nd round selection only to lose that player via restricted free agency because they can only match up to the MLE. 2nd round selections should have the same classification as 1st round picks where the team should be able to match any offer.
                          The Clippers could have given him a 3-year deal to start with and they wouldn't have had that problem in the first place.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The latest on the labor situation

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                            The Clippers could have given him a 3-year deal to start with and they wouldn't have had that problem in the first place.
                            So, you're saying you should give every 2nd-round pick 3 years in case they're any good?

                            And Rim, I don't think our new member would appreciate you confusing his club with the paper clips.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The latest on the labor situation

                              Originally posted by Kegboy
                              So, you're saying you should give every 2nd-round pick 3 years in case they're any good?

                              And Rim, I don't think our new member would appreciate you confusing his club with the paper clips.
                              Dang graduation parties - talk about screwing with your brain.

                              And I'd try to talk the poor gullible little kiddies into a 3rd year team option.

                              There aren't many who show themselves to be worth more than the MLE (see JJ, our own Ariza) but some do (see Arenas and Boozer) and then you're left with nada.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X