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

Details on latest cba proposal

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

  • #46
    Re: Details on latest cba proposal

    I have a friend who is a devout Pacers fan that I have never been able to pursuade to join our forum. In a conversation earlier today, we both discussed the CBA and like many on here, agreed that a salary rollback and the amnesty provision would not do anything to help the Pacers. We both like the hard salary cap, but rollback and amnesty would take some of the sting out of the hard cap for the upper echelon teams since they would probably get rid of a highly paid player that was no performing up to par.

    Then my friend made a suggestion that might help put a little bite back into amnesty. His idea was to include amnesty, but to also take away the team's first available first round draft choice if they got rid of a player whose salary was above the MLE.

    Any thoughts?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Details on latest cba proposal

      Originally posted by beast23 View Post

      Then my friend made a suggestion that might help put a little bite back into amnesty. His idea was to include amnesty, but to also take away the team's first available first round draft choice if they got rid of a player whose salary was above the MLE.

      Any thoughts?
      Not sure I like that. It penalizes the weaker teams by forcing them to give up lottery picks, while the strong teams merely give up a lowly first rounder. And what happens if teams have either multiple picks or no picks at all? It doesn't seem workable.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Details on latest cba proposal

        I just have a bad feeling that whatever gets decided is going to go against the value the Pacers & Kings have spent the last few years developing. If a hard cap is what comes out of the CBA... I'm assured the league will throw a bone to the 28 other teams that are over the cap! At the end of the day, teams like Memphis, NY & Dallas that took on an obnoxious amount of salary could get a better reward than teams like the Pacers and Kings that just spent years trying to get from underneath such a rock!

        I don't have any faith in the league doing the Pacers or Kings any "solids" for trying to do it the right way!
        ...Still "flying casual"
        @roaminggnome74

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Details on latest cba proposal

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          I don't have any faith in the league doing the Pacers or Kings any "solids" for trying to do it the right way!
          The right way? What's the "right way"? Is what Oklahoma City did the "right way"? What about Miami? Dallas? Chicago? Memphis? Could you please enlighten me on what the "right way" is?

          Whatever the "right way" is, I'm pretty sure whatever the Kings are doing isn't the "right way". Unless the "right way" is being the cheapest team in the league. I guess the Pittsburgh Pirates have doing things the "right way" for years in Major League Baseball.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Details on latest cba proposal

            Originally posted by shags View Post
            The right way? What's the "right way"? Is what Oklahoma City did the "right way"? What about Miami? Dallas? Chicago? Memphis? Could you please enlighten me on what the "right way" is?

            Whatever the "right way" is, I'm pretty sure whatever the Kings are doing isn't the "right way". Unless the "right way" is being the cheapest team in the league. I guess the Pittsburgh Pirates have doing things the "right way" for years in Major League Baseball.
            Maybe saying the "right way" is overstating my opinion, but I personally feel that spending till your knees bend knowing that your going into a new CBA where the rules on the salary cap & tax system are likely to change due to 28 other teams being in the same boat "seems" to be more like circumventing the system.

            BUT, THAT IS JUST MY OPINION!!!

            Anyway, I don't see what the Pittsburgh Pirates have to do with the Pacers making trades and letting bad contracts expire to be able to be a player in the FA market or make favorable trades.
            ...Still "flying casual"
            @roaminggnome74

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Details on latest cba proposal

              Here's another article with a little more info on the proposal.
              The $45 mil hard cap is a pie in the sky request IMO. The league has to ask for more then they want so it can appear that they've gave in when they negoiate the cap up to a higher amount. I like the way non-guaranteed contracts are proposed. I guess I wouldn't get along very well with Hunter.

              http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/stor...ard-salary-cap

              The details, spelled out in an April 26 memo issued by National Basketball Players Association Executive Director Billy Hunter, marks the league’s push for a major overhaul of the NBA’s economic model and emphasizes to players an aggressive bid to significantly slash costs and shorten contracts.

              The memo was sent to all NBA players and was dated just days prior to the league delivering to the union a new labor proposal, which a source said still included the $45 million hard cap but added a phase-in of the cap over a few years. Union president Derek Fisher publicly dismissed the latest proposal as too similar to the original proposal.
              The memo’s most eye-popping element is the league’s proposed $45 million hard cap, which cuts the current $58 million soft cap by nearly 25 percent.
              Hunter said in the memo that the NBA projects the $45 million hard cap number with a team’s total salary not to exceed the cap for any reason. The proposed hard cap as outlined by Hunter also would eliminate the current luxury tax provision, which penalizes teams with a dollar-for-dollar tax for the amount spent on player payroll exceeding the salary cap.
              The proposed hard cap is something the NBA has never had under collective bargaining, but it has become a critical element to owners. This initial proposal, and its steep cut in player cap space, demonstrates a strong commitment by the owners to dramatically curtail player payrolls while also supporting NBA Commissioner David Stern’s mantra of making the league more profitable.
              The inclusion of non-guaranteed player contracts, while a negotiating point, also represents a radical shift for players who have long benefited from guaranteed deals. Taken together, Hunter felt compelled to send out the missive.
              “The nature of the owners’ demands is so onerous that I feel it is imperative to reinforce the message of our recent team meetings with this letter,” Hunter wrote in the memo.
              The union confirmed the letter but refused to comment.
              Hunter also alerts players to the league’s effort to alter the structure of current contracts while detailing the owners’ proposal that no player contract be guaranteed for more than 50 percent for the first $8 million in salary and 25 percent for any amount above $8 million.
              “A system-wide change in the nature of guaranteed contracts ... not only would harm players’ economic interests individually, but it would also significantly change the culture of the league collectively,” Hunter wrote.
              The league also strikes directly at a team’s cap room to re-sign players at a maximum salary, known as the “Bird” exception, after hall of famer Larry Bird. Annual contract increases would be no greater than 3 percent for players meeting the Bird rule, down significantly from the current 10.5 percent increase, according to the memo. Owners also proposed that the Bird rule contract length be cut to four years from the current six-year length.
              Non-Bird players, or free agent players signing with new teams, would see their annual increases cut to 2 percent from the current 8 percent increase, with contract lengths cut to three years from the current five-year length.
              The memo also explains that players would be put into one of four categories under a hard cap system, namely, Category A: a minimum salary player; Category B: a rookie wage scale player; Category C: a maximum salary player; and Category D: a player “fighting for whatever room remains under the new hard salary cap after the three above categories are accounted for.”
              The union clearly is most concerned about the last category of players seeing major salary cuts. It uses, in the memo, as an example a player placed in the “D” category with his salary to be dictated by the team’s available salary cap. The player is signed through 2013 for a total salary exceeding $9 million. The memo shows that under the initial league proposal, the player’s salary would drop to a total just over $8 million, demonstrating how teams would be forced to cut salaries to remain under the hard cap.
              “Under the hard cap proposal, a team’s total salary may not exceed the proposed hard salary cap for any reason,” Hunter said in the memo. “The important part to keep in mind is that without exceptions provided in our current soft cap system, all players would have to squeeze tightly under a hard (and much lower) cap number.”
              Hunter and Stern have met in the past few weeks as the June 30 deadline of the current collective-bargaining agreement approaches. But as talks intensify, Hunter used the memo to stress to the players the growing threat of a lockout and the league’s firm hope to roll back salaries.
              “Only by making it a point to prepare and educate yourself about the CBA negotiations and the pending lockout will you be able to best protect your own interests and the interests of the players that will follow,” Hunter wrote to the players.


              Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/stor...#ixzz1MZ5TJA6l
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                That hard cap level is ridiculously low IMO. I'm guessing that is a starting point like you said. I would think it would have to be somewhere near the $53M-$56 range for the players to buy in.

                I do like the non-guaranteed contract proposal though. Of course the players don't like it, but they know that it's a problem that needs fixed. It will only benefit the players in the end because who wants to have a Jerome James on thier team that keeps that team from being able to go out and sign someone that could actually play.
                A healthy man takes a crap every day. A smart man does it on company time.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                  Agreed that it's likely just to wind up with an acceptable higher number later. No way does it end up a $45m hard cap.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                    What are the possibilties of a 45M cap?

                    Anything after that luxury tax? And a hard cap at 58M?

                    This would allow teams to sign their own players up until a point. So the Hawks would lose out on Horford if the sign Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Joe Johnson to bloated contracts.

                    It would spread the talent and require teams to focus on role players more. A farm system would benefit from this as well.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      What are the possibilties of a 45M cap?

                      Anything after that luxury tax? And a hard cap at 58M?

                      This would allow teams to sign their own players up until a point. So the Hawks would lose out on Horford if the sign Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Joe Johnson to bloated contracts.

                      It would spread the talent and require teams to focus on role players more. A farm system would benefit from this as well.
                      not sure if it will be $45M and $58M, but i do think it will be something like this. it makes too much sense. it gives both the players and the owners a win in the negotiations.

                      The current salary cap of $58M is based on 51% of the BRI. A salary cap of $10M below and a hard cap of $10M with luxury tax in between just seems to be a good compromise.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                        Some reasons to hope that a lockout can be avoided. Henry Abbott thinks that the NBA and its players' union might be sprinting to negotiate a new CBA before the next NFL lockout ruling.

                        http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post?id=29279

                        CBA talks marching to an NFL schedule
                        May, 19, 2011
                        By Henry Abbott
                        ESPN.com

                        The heads of the NBA and the Players Association:
                        * Are meeting face-to-face roughly every week, and have scheduled two full days of talks for early June.
                        * Have been careful not to leak the contents of these latest talks.
                        * Say that they realize "time is short."
                        * Have not been trashing each other in any way in the press.

                        Everyone is on their best behavior, in other words.

                        What's driving that? Is it simply that the NBA is going strong, and the current deal is set to end soon, on June 30?

                        Or is there something more?

                        There is one more thing, it turns out, and that thing is football, and the hundreds of millions it could cost one or both sides in the NBA talks. In short, the NFL's messy legal dispute holds not only the potential to give NBA or its players tremendous leverage, but also the potential to destabilize, and randomize, the talks in ways that could get very expensive and messy for both parties.

                        And the only way the NBA and its players can minimize the influence of the NFL labor fight is to make a deal quickly.

                        To understand that better, some thoughts about how the NFL is affecting the NBA right now:

                        Testing the players' "nuclear option"


                        The NFL and its players are using the courts to discover the real current value of the "nuclear option" for players in both leagues: Attacking the league's anti-trust exemption in the courts, through decertification of the union. The next opinion will come in a matter of weeks, but if both sides dig in, a final ruling could be at the end of a long, expensive battle, potentially before the Supreme Court.

                        At the end of all that, if the courts take away the players' "nuclear option" that will stiffen NBA owners' spines in dealing with players. On the other hand, should the legal battle take a turn to damage the NFL owners -- and there are variosu ways that might happen -- players in both leagues might find themselves in the power seats.

                        One insider says a resolution of this legal issue would swing NBA negotiations to the tune of $200 million in annual revenues. In other words, a win for NFL owners would strengthen NBA owners' position such that they could demand, hypothetically, $400 million in annual concessions from players instead of $200 million.

                        Whether that number is high or low, the reality is that there's a ton of money at stake which is, awkwardly for all parties, out of the hands of everybody in basketball.

                        Legal fees and lost revenue become factors

                        There will be a hearing before the three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 3. Some number of weeks after that -- the court has promised something "well before the scheduled [September] beginning of the 2011 [NFL] season" -- the court will hand down an opinion.

                        After that, all kinds of hell could potentially break loose. Experts agree the 8th Circuit has sent strong signals it will take an owner-friendly position. But then what? The players could mount an effort to take the case to the Supreme Court. The anti-trust battle could carry on for years at tremendous cost to both sides.

                        A true court showdown over either league's anti-trust exemption would likely take years. Legal fees alone, one source estimates, could approach nine-figures. In the NBA, that's a big percentage of what the union and league are fighting over anyway.

                        The costs of missing games are almost impossible to estimate. The NBA says it is losing money by operating as is -- so closing could in theory come with savings.

                        However, the NBA does have more than $4 billion in revenue, much of which would go away without games. People who own and operate stadiums can't stand empty seats, and don't forget that the NBA makes a ton of money from corporate sponsorships of everything from stadiums to stanchions -- that pipeline slows considerably without games.

                        The wheel of fortune

                        David Stern and Billy Hunter enjoy the respect of their constituents. They both have some ability to control the negotiation process, and to chart a course to a place from which they can declare victory and solidify their own leadership positions.

                        It's not easy, but they have done it together before, by hammering out all these little issues, painstakingly, in conference rooms, over endless long meetings.

                        That's what's underway right now.

                        The whole darned thing, however, is turned on its ear by having these NFL proceedings roll on in the background. As Stern and Hunter talk, the ground tips and shifts under their very feet, beyond their control. A loser today becomes a winner tomorrow, based on insight from a judges and lawyers in far-off rooms, sorting through the particulars of another league entirely.

                        Imagine if Stern or Hunter scoffs at a deal on a Thursday, only to have something happen in the NFL on Friday that guarantees his side won't get an offer that good again. Whoops.

                        If you crave control (and what leader doesn't!) this is no way to negotiate. At any moment, either leader could be made to look exceedingly foolish.

                        One easy way out

                        The twists and turns of the NFL legalities will affect the NBA talks, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, except ... sprint.

                        The one way the NBA and its players can determine their own destiny is to get a deal done before anything else happens in the NFL case. That's how Hunter and Stern avoid the randomizing effects of future NFL rulings.

                        The end of June marks both the end of the NBA's current collective bargaining agreement, and about the time the next ruling is expected in the NFL case.

                        "Clearly the most recent ruling in the Eighth Circuit favors NFL ownership," says NBA deputy commissioner and CBA point man Adam Silver. "Both sides are very aware of what's happened in the NFL and the disruption to their business caused by the work stoppage, and I think I can speak for both the owners and the union in that we want to avoid at all costs entering into any type of work stoppage or certainly a lockout. And so we're determined to try to make progress between now and the end of June."

                        "Let's focus all our attentions on a negotiated resolution," Silver adds, "and that's what we're doing right now."

                        By racing to the finish line, the league would seem to be passing up a chance to really stick it to the players. Imagine NFL owners do win a stunning court victory. Wouldn't it make sense for the NBA to wait and see if that happens? It's less appealing when you consider that the NFL owners could lose. Less appealing still when you consider that following suit would introduce delays that cost games and money, legal fees galore and the chance that a judge would do things differently in an NBA case.

                        And even after all that, the league would still have to hammer out a new CBA in talks with the union, the likes of which they are already having. It's unappealing and risky, even if does contain the chance, for both sides, of ending in a big win.

                        "We're determined to avoid the course that the NFL and its union has taken," says Silver, "and we've said from the beginning that regardless of who wins or loses a particular motion, whether at the district court or appellate court level, ultimately the resolution will come through negotiations."

                        "I'd like to think," says Silver, "it would be irrational on both sides not to achieve a negotiated solution."

                        Notably, Commissioner David Stern did not support Silver on that last point, saying things do sometimes require the involvement of courts. But nevertheless, the commissioner bangs the drum of diplomacy.

                        "In negotiations like this, whether you ultimately can or cannot bridge the gap, you know in the shortterm, you know eventually you're going to bridge the gap because there will be a settlement eventually and an agreement," explains Stern.

                        In other words, no matter what courts anywhere do, with the NFL or the NBA, ultimately the players and the league will have to sit down and negotiate agreement on every point. The only alternative to that is that the league does shuts down.

                        So long as negotiating is the preferred approach, doing so quickly has a lot to recommend it to both sides.
                        It's pretty good analysis by Abbott, though maybe it boils down to just wishful thinking. On the other hand, it is a good sign that both sides are not spouting rhetoric anymore - seems to indicate that serious negotiations are going on. And certainly the statements by Silver and Stern are a lot less hardline than they were last year.

                        Maybe there is reason to hope for a quick resolution after all.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                          So I guess my last post was horribly over optimistic. Woj at Yahoo is reporting that the players' union just filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB. Probably won't amount to anything according to Woj, but certainly indicates that negotiations aren't going well. Apparently team execs and agents are now resigned to a coming lockout. Oh well, time to find a new hobby I guess.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                            What's the current soft cap set at? Is it somewhere around $56M or so? I would think that the thing to do would be eliminating exceptions altogether and setting a hard cap at about $60M, with a minimum requirement of $50M. That narrow salary range would really promote a level playing field if you ask me.

                            I would also let every team cut a contract from their cap altogether (the Hawks just nodded approvingly) as long as they still paid the player (the Hawks just drank poison).

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                              Originally posted by shags View Post
                              When figuring teams potential cap room next season, you'll need to figure in an amnesty provision. I'll be shocked if there's not one in the new CBA.

                              You could call it the Gilbert Arenas provision or the Rashard Lewis provision. Both will be waived using this. Other candidates include Baron Davis, Richard Hamilton, Travis Outlaw, Josh Childress, Nate Robinson, James Posey, Andres Nocioni, and Luke Walton. But the biggest name, and the most surprising name to many people, will be Brandon Roy. I don't see any way the Blazers can justify keeping him with his contract, his knees, and the backup options they have on the roster (Wallace, Batum, Matthews, and Fernandez).
                              Greg Oden?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                                Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                                Greg Oden?
                                I don't understand the question, but Oden is a free agent this offseason. He isn't eligible to be waived, nor would he need to be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X