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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
    ? I'm saying they will get whatever they want and prevail over players then us.
    Ok we back the players which will put the teams further in debt and then the city can adamantly refuse to subsidize the pacers and WHAT?

    Exactly where are you going? You are going to a NBA where there are only very rich teams playing each other and no team in INDY? Is that your logic? Putting small market teams out of business because the Simons are not going to buy into doubling or tripling the losses they sustain now.

    Tell us your best case scenario.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Be aware billbradley thinks Indianapolis was better off in 1983 before the Simons and before any profit boondoggle like the Pacers or Circle Centre Mall ever corrupted the pristine and perfectly sublime place that was downtown Indianapolis at that time.

      Per billbradley, the Simons have taken and taken and taken from the city of Indianapolis and have given nothing back, it only costs $30M to do every single thing that happens in the Fieldhouse because PS&E makes pure profit from the $30M that the CIB gives them and there are no expenses whatsoever, and we should be ashamed, nay, devastated considering where this city could have been without such money-grubbing, greedy, thieving, and downright uncaring a$$holes as Mel and Herb Simon and their cronies like Bill "Screw Indianapolis I Just Want A Profit" Hudnut.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Ha. I'll be done with it. Overall, this is exactly how I feel

        It's a simple, almost insulting way of describing the ongoing NBA lockout, but we're sticking with the premise. The lockout is the owners' fault. They failed to use the last two collective bargaining agreements to their advantage, they spent unwisely, then battled against the players to save the owners from themselves.
        But if the 2011-12 NBA season is lost? Then it will be the players' fault. This has been the case since the two sides starting meeting in earnest two months ago.
        How is that fair, when the owners were the ones who wanted to miss games initially? When the owners have barely budged in negotiating? When it was the owners that refused to talk until the kids were back in school? It isn't fair. Nothing's fair, here, but the players have a deal in front of them and they'll vote early next week to decide whether or not to take it. If they take it, the season starts on Dec. 15, 72 games will be played, and the players will get a lousy deal. The owners will be saved from themselves, in theory at least.
        If they decline? Certain decertification of the NBA players union, and a lost season.
        And, to hear the players tell it, they don't seem to know that they've been beaten. They were beaten in June, in July, in September when things started up again and they'll be beaten next week. No matter their choice.
        http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...aining-content

        It doesn't matter that it is unfair, I want the players to take the deal. Just like I want the city to take whatever deal they have to, so we can keep the Pacers.

        I'm just not going to insult the players and champion the owners doing whatever they want to make bigger bucks because I understand where that road ends.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Be aware billbradley thinks Indianapolis was better off in 1983 before the Simons and before any profit boondoggle like the Pacers or Circle Centre Mall ever corrupted the pristine and perfectly sublime place that was downtown Indianapolis at that time.

          Per billbradley, the Simons have taken and taken and taken from the city of Indianapolis and have given nothing back, it only costs $30M to do every single thing that happens in the Fieldhouse because PS&E makes pure profit from the $30M that the CIB gives them and there are no expenses whatsoever, and we should be ashamed, nay, devastated considering where this city could have been without such money-grubbing, greedy, thieving, and downright uncaring a$$holes as Mel and Herb Simon and their cronies like Bill "Screw Indianapolis I Just Want A Profit" Hudnut.
          Whoa WHoa wWHoa!! I never said any of this!! I love the Simons and think this city would be a **** pot without the Simons or Hudnut!!

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by billbradley View Post
            Whoa WHoa wWHoa!! I never said any of this!! I love the Simons and think this city would be a **** pot without the Simons or Hudnut!!
            When I was in school I learned that having two opposing thoughts at the same time was an example of cognitive dissonance.

            You think that the unscrupulous owners are taking complete advantage of the players and then the owners will be coming after us BUT you want the players to take the deal and you love the Simons.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              When I was in school I learned that having two opposing thoughts at the same time was an example of cognitive dissonance.

              You think that the unscrupulous owners are taking complete advantage of the players and then the owners will be coming after us BUT you want the players to take the deal and you love the Simons.
              Does it matter if it's a bad deal? The players lost, it's over. If you read my post, I don't hate the owners for being good business men, I just don't understand all the hate for the players and support for the owners. A good amount of these people will be complaining about CIB taxes. And I'm not saying you, but people have really given it to the players with over the top insults. Those are the opposing thoughts in my book.

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                I can't believe the union is waiting until monday just to meet with the player reps. A teleconference on Friday and they could be having a vote on Monday.
                I wonder if they decide to take it to a vote just what their process will be.
                I hope they incorporate a secret ballot process and give some flexibility in voting locatiions to allow as many rank and file players to vote as possible. Less the half the players voted on the last cba, I think it's important for as many players as possible to vote if this thing stands a chance of passing.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  Am I really going to have to keep following this crap for the next 10 to 22 months? I don't know whether to cry, vomit, shoot myself, or some combination.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    David Stern says 'greedy' agents hurting chances of NBA deal - ESPN

                    Originally posted by Associated Press
                    NEW YORK -- Commissioner David Stern blamed "greedy" NBA agents Saturday for trying to scuttle a new labor deal and believes they are trying to push their clients into a "losing strategy" of decertification.

                    And Stern says neither the threat of that process nor any request from the union will change the league's negotiating position, repeating that there would be no further discussions about the revised proposal it offered Thursday. If players don't accept it, Stern reiterated that he would move to the harsher proposal that is waiting.

                    Stern is aware of the numerous comments from players criticizing the proposal, and fears they aren't getting the proper information about its contents because agents worry it will cost themselves money.

                    "By some combination of mendacity and greed, the agents who are looking out for themselves rather than their clients are trying to scuttle the deal," Stern said in a phone interview. "They're engaged in what appears to be an orchestrated Twitter campaign and a series of interviews that are designed to deny the economic realities of the proposal."

                    Player representatives will meet Monday and decide if they should put it to a vote. The indication Thursday from union leaders was that they weren't impressed with it, and a number of players have since been quoted saying they would shoot down the deal.

                    Stern said that's because the agents want them to, not because it's a bad offer.

                    "No one talks about the rise in compensation under the deal, no one talks about the amount of money being spent," Stern said. "I just think that the players aren't getting the information, the true information from their agents, who are banding together, sort of the coalition of the greedy and the mendacious, to do whatever they can not to have fewer opportunities for the agents to make money."

                    The revised proposal, though still far short of what the players had in the former collective bargaining agreement, offered some improvements over the one players said Tuesday they would reject. It increased the "mini" midlevel exception for teams over the luxury tax to $3 million annually for three years, allowed taxpayers to take part in sign-and-trades for the first two years, and added another midlevel for teams under the salary cap.

                    It still may not be good enough, and players are already discussing decertifying the union so they can file an antitrust lawsuit against the league instead. Stern said neither that, nor the union disclaiming as NFL players did, would give the players the leverage they seek.

                    And because it's a lengthy process, it would likely kill any hopes for a 2011-12 season.

                    "Yes, I am worried," Stern said, "because they're talking up this thing called decertification which is not a winning strategy on the one hand. On the second hand, it'll take three months to teach them it's not a winning strategy, which would not augur well for the season.

                    "The agents misunderstand it and all it does is delay things. They themselves think that if the players decertify, then the league will change its offer. And that will not happen as a result of decertification. It's a losing strategy for them."

                    Stern again said there would be no further discussion about the revised proposal. Should players reject it, the next proposal calls for a 53-47 revenue split in favor of the owners, a flex cap with a hard ceiling, and salary rollbacks.

                    Stern said the proposal was delivered to the union Friday. Union leaders have been criticized for not getting the details of it out to players in time to prepare them for an educated vote.

                    "They say they are done negotiating. If we really are at that point, the players need to see exactly what is on the table -- not the Internet, not Twitter -- and see exactly in writing, this is the proposal," one agent said.

                    Should players accept the deal, a 72-game season would start Dec. 15. Stern said he hoped the season could be saved, but added that he wasn't sure what to believe because "the agents are trying to do their best to bring it down."

                    And if Stern were running the meeting Monday, he knows what he would tell the player reps.

                    "This is our only shot to get a 72-game season starting on Dec 15. Take the deal, let's go back and play basketball," he said.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                      Does it matter if it's a bad deal? The players lost, it's over. If you read my post, I don't hate the owners for being good business men, I just don't understand all the hate for the players and support for the owners. A good amount of these people will be complaining about CIB taxes. And I'm not saying you, but people have really given it to the players with over the top insults. Those are the opposing thoughts in my book.
                      Well said. Sums up how I feel about the lockout.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                        Does it matter if it's a bad deal? The players lost, it's over. If you read my post, I don't hate the owners for being good business men, I just don't understand all the hate for the players and support for the owners. A good amount of these people will be complaining about CIB taxes. And I'm not saying you, but people have really given it to the players with over the top insults. Those are the opposing thoughts in my book.
                        Most think that the players are arrogant SOBs that make to much money, andd need to just accept the proposal... Many think that the owners are arrogant SOBs that need to make a better proposal... What I think most here feel, myself included is I care more about the Pacer's ability in the future to compete for an NBA Championship... I think the more the owners win, the more the Pacer's organization wins...
                        Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Wow, the former head of the players union makaes a lot of sense. (although I believe Hunter feels the same way, but just cannot say so)


                          http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...son/?page=full

                          Home /



                          Sunday Basketball Notes
                          A place on Celtics bench would sit well with Iverson

                          By Gary Washburn

                          Globe Staff / November 13, 2011


                          UNION OPTIONS

                          A lot could be sacrificed

                          Well, the Players Association is again faced with a proposal that it doesn’t particularly approve of and a limited time to consider it. It can accept the offer and play a 72-game campaign or reject it and risk the season.

                          The owners have offered a 50-50 split of basketball-related income and limits on sign-and-trade deals and mid-level exceptions, and unprecedented constraints on teams that exceed the luxury tax threshold.

                          The NBPA said it will convene tomorrow or Tuesday with its player representatives to decide whether to vote on the proposal. An alternative could be decertification, which also may mean the end of the season if the owners do not respond by agreeing to negotiate further.

                          Decertification would break up the union, giving individual players the opportunity to file class-action lawsuits against the NBA, claiming they are being denied the right to work. It would also mean the end for NBPA executive director Billy Hunter as the players’ representative, unless the union re-forms and hires him back.

                          Such lawsuits could take years, and history has shown that unions don’t fare well in them. The players would have to prove that owners are negotiating in bad faith, but the fact that commissioner David Stern rescinded his first “drop-dead’’ offer, reworked it, and made another proposal might work to the union’s disadvantage.

                          One interested observer is former NBPA executive director Charles Grantham, who held the post from 1978-95. He told the Globe several weeks ago that he expected a settlement once paychecks were missed. Now, he feels the NBPA should realize it has lost and accept the deal because it is out of viable options.

                          “I think there’s nothing more than an agent presence that’s been there from the beginning,’’ said Grantham, also a former agent and now an adjunct professor at Seton Hall. “And the tension between the agents and the leadership of the union with regard to which direction they should take, I think that may have gone underground temporarily but now has surfaced again. I think it was always there.

                          “The interest on the agents’ part was to signify anything less than 52 percent we’re going to move forward with the decert movement, and it appears in an attempt to get there, they have used their star players as shields.’’

                          When the union representatives met Tuesday to review the owners’ previous proposal, Celtics player representative Paul Pierce was a notable absence. Pierce has been one of the main backers of decertification and organized two conference calls in the past two weeks. He has attended meetings in the past and become one of the league’s more vocal player reps.

                          Grantham said decertification by unions became vogue as a weapon in negotiation in the early 1990s, but he believes courts see it now as an attempt to create leverage.

                          “While the unions always have the right to decertify, the question often becomes whether it was a lawful lockout,’’ he said. “And as we saw in football, the court in Minnesota concluded that it was a lawful lockout. And in New York, it’s more pro-management. And those cases have never been adjudicated, always resulted in settlements.

                          “The problem with all that is working its way through the system would take forever. And the question is clearly whether the players would be able to stand that onslaught.

                          “Can the players stay out one year or two years or three years? Because that’s how long it may take in the courts. The loss of income seems very silly and certainly not logical.’’

                          NBPA president Derek Fisher has a difficult decision as the executive committee considers whether to send the proposal to a vote of the 450 players. If the offer is rejected and the NBPA pursues decertification, the season looks lost, meaning dozens of players may not return to the NBA once an agreement is reached.


                          If the season is lost, the league will hold the draft in June regardless, meaning there would be two rookie classes entering the league in 2012-13. If you estimate that 35-40 new players from each class make NBA rosters - first-round picks have guaranteed contracts and therefore will make rosters unless they are foreign picks who remain overseas - then that could be 70-80 new players. Nearly 18 percent of the league would be new players - not even counting rookie free agents.

                          Since there will be no expansion, those players will occupy roster spots usually held by veterans. And, more than likely, a promising rookie will make a team over an expensive veteran.

                          “The question that will arise now is, ‘Who is willing to sacrifice their careers?’’ said Grantham. “Because that’s what’s going to be on the line if in fact you miss the season. Because you have [approximately] 25 percent of the league that will have lost their income for the year, never to be returned, perhaps have their career ended. For what?

                          “That’s why I conclude it’s all about the agents. This is all about keeping that money in the pool, which represents lost fees for them.

                          “Don’t forget, these guys are going to be agents for 15 or 20 years. Paul Pierce will play for one or two more years.’’

                          IN THE CENTER RING
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-13-2011, 07:55 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Does the part I highlighted, does that indicate they will put the owners plan to a vote of all the players

                            http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...C-rss&FEEDNAME=


                            Sleep lost, meetings pile up as NBA talks drag on & on ...


                            By MARC BERMAN



                            Welcome to inside the lockout talkszzzzz

                            Talk of revenue splits, luxury-tax penalties and mini mid-level exceptions is sleep-inducing enough. But for the participants — owners, players, union officials, journalists — it’s been the lockout for the bleary-eyed.

                            There was a David Stern press conference that ended at 4 a.m. There have been several other past-midnight marathons — 16-hour, 14-hour, 12-hour and 11-hour sessions. According to sources, many of those hours are spent with each side caucusing in its own meeting room.

                            There have been 24 meetings total, including federal mediation with presidential appointee George Cohen. The meeting sizes have ranged from small groups of 12 to big groups of 50. In all, 159 hours of negotiations have taken place since the lockout began July 1.

                            The sides have argued all across Manhattan, from Second Avenue to Eighth Avenue, in seven of the city’s ritziest hotels. There also have been two well-publicized, four-hour Players Association meetings, including one at the union’s office in Harlem.
                            The owners on the five-person labor board have flown into New York at a moment’s notice for meetings, save for local resident James Dolan of Long Island. Same goes for the frequent-flying nine-player executive board, with union president Derek Fisher and VP Roger Mason occasionally sharing cross-country flights from Los Angeles.

                            Maybe it all ends tomorrow at 9 a.m. with one final meeting of player reps in Midtown. Stern said he is “through negotiating’’ on this final proposal before he reverts to his “reset proposal’’ of 47 percent and hard salary cap.

                            At least 50 players are flying in today. Tomorrow, they meet with union officials to either accept Stern’s revised 50-50 final offer, reject it and look to decertify, which could kill the season, agree to stage a rank-and-file vote for the 440 players or send back a counteroffer to the commissioner.

                            According to sources, union officials and the executive board want to reject it because it heavily restricts spending on the free-agent market, but will leave it up to the players.

                            Union director Billy Hunter, looking worn down and disappointed late Thursday, indicated the endgame had arrived. Asked why he looked so unhappy and exhausted after negotiations, Hunter said, “We’re locked up in a room for 12, 14 hours. Air is thin, we’re breathing each other’s air. We’re locked in. We can’t open windows. We’re dissipated. But we’re not dissipated from the journey. It’s been a long haul, man. We’re coming near the end of it, trying to get this thing done.’’

                            The combined expense of lockout negotiations for both sides figures to be close to a million dollars — from air travel to hotel rooms and meals for the two committees, additional owners and player reps. But that’s nothing considering the $4 billion in revenue they are fighting for.

                            The sides, neither of which would confirm its costs, also rent hotel ballrooms and several conference rooms for the media and for their meetings.

                            In a pinch Thursday, with no other conference rooms available, the NBA paid the hotel to shut down its lone restaurant to use as a press room.

                            In fact, most bargaining sessions feature two ballrooms for two separate press conferences. One press conference room is draped with an NBA banner, the other a Players Association banner.

                            Labor press conferences have ended in the wee hours — at 4 a.m., 2 a.m. and 1 a.m. One of the lockout reporters became so fatigued that when he was handed the NBATV microphone for a question, he paused for a few moments and said, “Forgot what I was going to ask, sorry,’’ and passed the mike on.

                            Sources said the expenses are distinctly defined between the two parties.

                            For example, NBATV, which is owned by the league, televises both press conferences live, but a source said the union has to pay for its own audio.

                            Meanwhile, the lockout media have been fueled by food donations from various sources. Nets assistant GM Bobby Marks, the 76ers front office and salary-cap blogger Larry Coon have called in deliveries of pizza pies to the hotels for staked-out journalists. Agent Marc Cornstein once ordered deli to a hotel, and Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, trying to change his image as a hard-liner, had 100 chili dogs delivered Thursday.

                            Several celebrity sightings at lockout hotels have also kept journalists awake: Betty White and Bill Murray were seen walking into the Waldorf Astoria, and Larry King, Jesse Jackson, Tiki Barber and John McEnroe also have been spotted.

                            The biggest A-lister, though, came last week when Bill Clinton popped into the hotel during the last player rep meeting. Clinton, an Arkansas acquaintance of Fisher, hugged the union president and signed his new book to starry-eyed Blake Griffin and other players.

                            The title of Clinton’s book is “Back to Work.’’ Too surreal.
                            marc.berman@nypost.com


                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-13-2011, 07:42 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Proposed amendments?

                              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ing/index.html

                              Sam Amick>INSIDE THE NBA

                              The National Basketball Players' Association will meet with its 30 player representatives Monday morning in New York to discuss the owners' latest proposal, multiple sources confirmed to SI.com.

                              With NBA commissioner David Stern claiming the owners are done negotiating and threatening to drastically worsen their offer if it is not accepted by the players, Monday's meeting will likely determine the fate of the 2011-12 season. Players are faced with a host of unappealing options, from taking the proposal to a league-wide vote, to the lengthy legal battles that could come by way of decertification of the union or disclaimer of interest of the union, to continuing to negotiate with the owners. While a consensus of some kind won't be reached until Monday's meeting, one union source said the NBPA executive committee is expected to have a meeting Sunday night as a precursor.

                              There were indications Saturday night that the committee was in favor of taking the disclaiming interest route, a process by which executive director Billy Hunter would submit a letter to Stern saying the NBPA was no longer the bargaining unit for the players. Antitrust lawsuits potentially worth treble damages on existing player salaries could be filed soon thereafter, with players sending the immediate message that they would be willing to lose the season. Negotiations would continue with the pressure shifting to the NBA, but not before the structure of the union and role of lead negotiator would first have to be determined.

                              When reached on Saturday night, however, Hunter told SI.com that his intention was to have the player representatives vote on a revised version of the NBA's latest proposal before moving forward.

                              "We will vote on the NBA's proposal," Hunter wrote in a text message. "The proposal will be presented with some proposed amendments."

                              Despite Stern's threat that this was a take-it-or-leave-it situation, players could simply ignore the parameters he has set forth and give the league a deal that they claim could be done. But numerous agents who spoke with SI.com were frustrated by the lack of information coming from the union at such a crucial time, as they were attempting to educate their clients but often doing so with either incomplete or inaccurate information. There were no widespread updates on the proposal, the union's strategy or its stance beyond private conversations between members of its executive committee and player reps with their innumerable colleagues.

                              Thus, agents and players spent Friday and Saturday scrambling to piecemeal the details of the deal.
                              "System issues" that players say will strictly limit their freedoms in the market remain at the root of the disagreement. But widespread anger among players and agents alike is also threatening the process, especially in light of the way the owners handled the last negotiating session when players offered yet another significant concession on the economic front.

                              When players, who received 57 percent of basketball-related income in the last collective bargaining agreement, informally lowered their BRI offer from 52.5 percent to a 50-50 split on Tuesday, there was an expectation that they'd receive significant system concessions in return. But the owners didn't move on their proposal nearly as much as the union hoped, and NBPA officials were left privately fuming once again in these negotiations that have already been widely considered a lopsided victory for the league.

                              The owners' threatened offer should players not accept the current one was detailed by Stern in a letter obtained by the New York Times. It would include a drop in players' BRI to 47 percent, salary rollbacks of existing contracts, shortened contract lengths and a hard salary cap similar to the one used in the NHL.

                              With the league saying for months that it lost $300 million last season, the economic givebacks from the players already (with the proposed 50-50 split) equate to $280 million annually based on last season's revenue. In the absence of an agreement, though, large factions of frustrated players are strongly considering the decertification route that is so dangerous.

                              And Stern told reporters in a phone interview on Saturday that the crowds pushing for decertification are the ones that concern him most.

                              "By some combination of mendacity and greed, the agents who are looking out for themselves rather than their clients are trying to scuttle the deal," Stern reportedly said. "They're engaged in what appears to be an orchestrated Twitter campaign and a series of interviews that are designed to deny the economic realities of the proposal."

                              "No one talks about the rise in compensation under the deal, no one talks about the amount of money being spent. ... I just think that the players aren't getting the information, the true information from their agents, who are banding together, sort of the coalition of the greedy and the mendacious, to do whatever they can not to have fewer opportunities for the agents to make money."

                              Sources say more than 200 players are prepared to submit a signed petition for a decertification vote, a number that's more than enough since only 30 percent of the league's 400-plus players (roughly 130 players) is required. The strategy was initially supported by a group of seven influential agents but has since grown significantly.

                              If players do decide to file for decertification, it would take 45 to 60 days for the National Labor Relations Board to consider their petition. Players hope the pressure of an antitrust lawsuit would be enough for the league to change its stance. But they would be forced into a precarious position if that strategy failed since it would entail a lengthy legal battle that would likely sacrifice the entire season.

                              The NBA in August filed a lawsuit with the NLRB, asserting not only that the lockout is legal but also that decertification of the union is not and would result in the possible voiding of existing player contracts. All of which has Stern concerned.
                              "Yes, I am worried," Stern said, "because they're talking up this thing called decertification which is not a winning strategy on the one hand. On the second hand, it'll take three months to teach them it's not a winning strategy, which would not augur well for the season.

                              "The agents misunderstand it and all it does is delay things. They themselves think that if the players decertify, then the league will change its offer. And that will not happen as a result of decertification. It's a losing strategy for them.

                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-13-2011, 07:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Proposed amendments?


                                "We will vote on the NBA's proposal," Hunter wrote in a text message. "The proposal will be presented with some proposed amendments."

                                Despite Stern's threat that this was a take-it-or-leave-it situation, players could simply ignore the parameters he has set forth and give the league a deal that they claim could be done.
                                I've got to say that this is exactly what has stuck in my throat through the entire process of these negotiations.

                                How many of you are familiar with the old I.T. acronym "IKIWISI"... "I'll know it when I see it"?

                                For years it was a term used to describe a user for which you, as an I.T. professional, were attempting to provide a solution to who didn't have a clue what his minimum needs were. And, he would not take the time to determine what his needs were, and had enough political clout that you were forced into a position by your own management to keep putting proposals in front of him until he finally saw one he could live with. In other words, no matter how much time you wasted revising your proposal, he would enventually know which one he would choose when he finally saw it.

                                Terrible way of doing business, right?

                                But that's exactly the game the owners have been forced to play throughout almost all of the process.

                                Why is it that it has almost always been up to the owners to doctor the proposal and re-approach the union to get their feedback?

                                Why is it now that we are beyond the point of no return, the union finally says, well we'll present it with a few adjustments and see if it flies?

                                Are you kidding me?

                                If anything were done at this point in time, it should be put in front of the union members and it should be voted up or down on its own merits. If voted down, if the union really wanted to do it's job, they would then take a hard look at it and determine what is the absolute minimimum way the document must be changed in order to achieve a positive vote.

                                And then, because of all the time already wasted and the extreme game of IKIWISI they have played, they should CRAWL back to the NBA and let them know they were unable to achieve a passing vote, but that they could guarantee it would pass with the minor (hopefully) changes that they suggest. And then in the next voice, they should meekly ask if it is to late to suggest the changes.

                                But this has gone on way too long without appropriate feedback. The time for IKIWISI was over long ago. If I'm Stern and you approach me with changes now, I'd probably suggest you go ahead and risk paper cuts on your hemroids.
                                Last edited by beast23; 11-13-2011, 11:40 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X