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

NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #76
    Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

    http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.co...38893/33072825

    Three items that could break the BRI logjam
    Posted on: November 1, 2011 2:43 pm

    by Ken Berger

    As explained expertly by SI.com and the New York Times in recent days, much progress has been made on system issues that are crucial to a new collective bargaining agreement. But there are several subsets of deal points still unresolved, and many so-called "B-list" items that haven't even been broached yet.

    It's within those issues that compromise finally will have to be reached to push the two sides closer together on the biggest sticking point: the split of basketball-related income (BRI).

    The owners are dug in with their offer of a 50-50 split, while the players aren't budging lower than 52 percent. But not all 50-50 deals are created equal, and the key to breaking the revenue logjam will be tradeoffs that have to be made on the remaining open system issues.

    There are three key issues that could be tweaked to entice the union to compromise further on BRI and/or compel the owners to move from their 50-50 position. They are as follows:

    1) The punitive entry point for small- or mid-market teams considering "wading into" the luxury tax temporarily, which the union refers to as "the cliff." The obvious solution would be for the distribution of luxury tax money to be changed to eliminate the double-whammy teams experience by going from being a tax receivers to tax payers. Such a whiplash effect, in some cases, triples the cost of going for it with a modest move into the tax. For example, a team that is just below the tax adding a $2.5 million player results in a net cost of $7.5 million -- the cost of the player, the loss of $2.5 million in tax revenue from tax-paying teams, and the cost of the $2.5 million in tax that team would have to pay. Rather than a straight transfer of tax money from tax payers to non-tax payers, distributing the money as a revenue-sharing transfer based on need -- or using it for another purpose -- would flatten out the cliff and move the two sides closer to compromise.

    2) The ability of tax-paying teams to use exceptions such as the Bird and mid-level exceptions. The players don't want tax-paying teams, which typically are big-market and/or high-revenue teams, eliminated from the pursuit of free agents through restrictions on their willingness or ability to spend that act like a hard cap. Owners have reluctantly agreed to leave the Bird and mid-level exceptions intact, albeit with shorter contract lengths. But the owners are digging in with their insistence on forbidding tax-paying teams from using these exceptions, which to the players means a smaller market for free agents.

    3) Severe penalties for repeat offenders who spend multiple years over the tax threshold. While the owners' proposal for recidivism tax rates would accomplish their goal of reining in the big spenders, the players have been unwilling to accept restrictions that would further shrink the options for free agents in a system that, even as previously constructed, typically only had a handful of teams with cap space or the ability to blow through the tax threshold in a given year.

    There are any number of small-ticket items still undecided that could be used for what the negotiators call "horse-trading" to close the gap on BRI. As I've suggested previously, one of them is increasing the players' share of licensing money -- which would have a net-zero affect on BRI since those funds already come off the top before the balance is split with the players -- and changing how that money is distributed so stars who sell a lot of jerseys and merchandise get a bigger share of the pie. Another item would be deal length and opt-out clauses; the players will accept a 10-year CBA only if they can opt out after the sixth and eighth years, while the owners want an opt-out after the seventh year.

    But the aforementioned items are the Big Three of what's left to negotiate. It's pretty simple, really, from a bargaining standpoint. More player-friendly agreements on those three items may allow union chief Billy Hunter and president Derek Fisher to be able to sell less than 52 percent to the union membership. More owner-friendly agreements would require the owners to move off their 50-50 split. Something in the middle -- a little give, a little take -- could result in a range of percentages for the players' share of BRI. For example, if revenues come in as expected (4.5 percent growth), the players would get 50 percent. If revenues came in higher, they'd get 51 or 52, depending on how much growth there was. The scale could be tweaked based on the compromises made on the three A-list items.

    "A very reasonable suggestion," one official involved in the negotiations told me.

    There will be a time for reason, eventually. It's just that both sides need to understand how to get from here to there.

    Comment

    • #77
      Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl..._hunter_110111

      After Billy Hunter made the grand stand of marching out of Friday’s bargaining session, refusing to negotiate below 52 percent of the NBA’s revenue split, a strong movement within the Players Association emerged that vowed the union will never let him act so unilaterally again.

      From superstars to midlevel players to rookies, there’s an unmistakable push to complete the final elements of the system and take this labor deal to the union’s 400-plus membership. Beyond that, there’s an even larger movement to push Hunter, the Players Association’s executive director, out the door once these labor talks are done. All hell’s broken loose within the union, and no one is exactly sure how they’re going to get a deal to the finish line.

      Union executive director Billy Hunter has continued to seek no worse than a 52 percent revenue split for the players.

      “Billy can’t just say it’s 52 or nothing, and walk out again,” one league source involved the talks told Yahoo! Sports. “That will not happen again. It’s time that the players get to make a decision on this, and there won’t be another check lost before they do.”

      Rest assured, there’s a vast gulf in the union, and it’s growing with the passing of every day. Players Association president Derek Fisher’s(notes) letter to the players convinced no one otherwise. NBA commissioner David Stern and the owners know it, and it’s part of the reason they won’t raise their offer of the BRI revenue split to 51 percent. There are system issues that need to be resolved for players, but this deal gets done at 50-50, and that’s been true for a long, long time.

      In the end, there are two courses for the union: Take the deal largely on the table or blow this up, decertify and lose the season fighting the NBA in the federal courts.

      Only, it’s too late to decertify. Everyone wanted to do it back in July when the lockout started, and Hunter refused. His decision had nothing to do with legal strategy, nothing to do with leverage or getting the best possible deal for the players. It had everything to do with what it always does with Hunter: self-preservation. He worried about losing power, losing his job, and he sold everyone on a toothless National Labor Relations Board claim that’s going nowhere.

      [Related: Derek Fisher denies trying to cut side deal with NBA]

      This union is threatening to implode, the push and pull of people wanting to cut a deal and those willing to keep warring over the final percentage points. Within the NBPA, the frustration with Hunter is this: Hunter knows where the deal will be made, but he’s engaged in a smear campaign to frame Fisher as a sellout to the league. For Hunter, the end game is simple: Divide and conquer, and ultimately try keep his own job beyond this labor agreement. This is a lousy deal for the players, and Hunter wants the blame everywhere else.

      Yes, this has created doubts about Fisher, but it’s hurt Hunter far more. Once, he had the stars on his side, and that’s rapidly dissipating.

      Hunter wants everyone to believe he’s the last holdout on going to a 50-50 split, that everyone else – especially Fisher – is dragging him there. Suddenly, he’s the tough guy standing alone. Suddenly, everyone else is caving and cutting side deals. Once it was the agents who wanted Hunter out. Now, there are star players lining up for a piece of him. They won’t move until there’s a deal done, but when they do, it will be swift, unruly and unpleasant.

      “Right now, everyone has to choose sides: Billy or Derek,” one player involved in the labor process told Yahoo! Sports. “How the [expletive] did it come to this?”

      For starters, it comes from an unseemly brew of hubris, ego and insecurity. On every level, this has been a disgrace, an embarrassment for the players, and it’s threatening to unravel the entire union. Most of all, the clock’s ticking on getting a deal done. November’s been slashed in the NBA regular season, and December’s on deck.

      Stern is holding back the hawkish owners who want to pull the 50 percent offer off the table. The hardline owners are indeed pushing Stern to drop the league’s offer back under 50 percent as games are missed, but as one high-ranking official said: “The others realize that if you do that, you will lose a season. If the players will not take 50 now, they will not take less than 50 until they sit the whole year.”

      [Related: Heat owner socked with $500K fine for lockout tweets]

      If there’s one more round of game cancellations, owners are privately threatening what Stern publicly promised: a worse offer. That’s why a deal needs to get done sooner than later. From inside and outside, the union is teetering.


      Players Association president Derek Fisher has denied he tried to cut a side deal with NBA officials without Hunter knowing.
      (AP)

      And if Fisher has talked privately with league negotiators – Stern, deputy commissioner Adam Silver, San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt – here’s the thing: So what? He’s the president of the Players Association, and ultimately, Hunter works for the players.

      If Fisher didn’t tell his peers on the executive committee, that’s a mistake. If he didn’t tell Hunter, that’s probably a mistake, too. It’s clear trust broke down between them sometime ago, and make no mistake, that’s on the both of them. Yet Fisher’s job is to cut the best possible deal for the players, and pretending the owners will climb to 52 percent – even 51 – as players lose checks is irresponsible. To go down to 50-50 doesn’t make you in the pocket of the NBA or corrupted. There’s far more support for a deal there than Hunter wants everyone to believe, and that includes among the league’s elite players.

      The bigger issues are the motives of Hunter and his one-man wrecking crew of a PR consultant, David Cummings. Even the people suspicious of Fisher inside and outside the union – those who don’t necessarily love him – believe that he’s worked relentlessly with the lawyers, economists and players to do the job right. He hasn’t mailed it in; just the opposite. This doesn’t make him successful in the job, because the job is results oriented – just like his career as a player. There are a lot of reasons for a bad deal, and most go back to Hunter’s refusal to decertify and gain some leverage with the owners.

      Nevertheless, the end game of the players’ deal doesn’t make Fisher corrupt, on the take or a sellout of his peers. Only, Fisher knows in his heart what has happened, and maybe someday an agenda could come clear. Not now, though. Not with Hunter and his minions running this kind of low-rent garbage.

      For now, Billy Hunter has the clearest agenda here: self-preservation. This job is too public now, too scrutinized to think smoke and mirrors can save you. Those days are done, and probably so is he.

      To take on the NBA – Stern, Silver, the owners, the lawyers, the PR machine – everyone needs to be pulling the same way, with the same goals. As the union fought for its survival, so has Billy Hunter. Only, he’s been chasing his own, and he’s going to lose that fight, too.

      Sooner than later, these labor talks need to get out of Fisher’s and Hunter’s hands, and into those of the rank and file. Whatever the civil war, the Players Association still belongs to the players. They should take it back, and take it back now.
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment

      • #78
        Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

        Don't think I've seen this posted yet, eventhough it's two days old.
        http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...out?view=print

        Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier are both economists. They are also both basketball fans. Here's their take on the NBA lockout.


        The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, rules

        Fundamental Rule of Negotiation: He who cares the least wins

        In the NBA, it's the owners who have the gold and care the least.

        What do the owners have to lose?

        Net revenues from the lost games and any decline in the value of their franchises due to fan alienation and depreciation of assets — namely the players they have under contract.

        What do players have to lose?

        Salaries from lost games and time cut off from already short career windows.

        Why do owners have leverage?

        They have deeper pockets and alternative sources of income. The next most lucrative financial option for players is far worse than the owners’ lowest offer.

        Why do players have leverage?

        Only a handful of star players have leverage. The owners’ product without the top 20-30 players in the league would stink for at least a few years. Rank-and-file players are more easily replaced and have almost no leverage at all.

        Why are labor disputes in sports so weird?

        The bosses control the whole sector and face little competition when it comes to hiring labor. Since the merger with the ABA in 1976, the NBA is a monopoly and operates in a manner (it monopolizes!) that would be illegal outside the sports world.

        Unlike in Silicon Valley, there are no NBA “start-ups.” You cannot create a new NBA team without permission of the incumbent owners. The league also has to approve changes in teams’ location and ownership.

        What does this mean? The owners can get together and agree to jointly cut expenses, that is, the player salaries. Players have limited opportunities to play professional basketball in other countries, but realistically, if you are a world-class professional basketball player, you probably want to be in the NBA.

        The star players are the only counterweight to management’s power. To a large extent, they ARE the NBA’s product. Because of this, the owners aren’t talking about using replacement players, and some stars are getting decent offers to play overseas during the lockout. These factors are a cause for concern for the owners and put limits on how much they can extract from the players.

        Why have past CBAs been so favorable to the players?

        In the past, traditional NBA owners were in the game for the fun, the control, and the bragging rights. They made money through franchise appreciation; there was less emphasis on maximizing short-run operating profits. The newer group of owners bought high, are more corporate in orientation, and the financial crisis renewed their sense of vulnerability. They’ve poured a lot of money into those teams and they aren’t comfortable with seeing red on their balance sheets year after year.

        Why don’t the players settle?

        Perhaps because they have done so well in the past, it’s hard for the players to accept that the owners are dead set on hammering them this time. They feel, correctly, that they have been making all the concessions. Imagine trying to redo your “chores deal” with your spouse, with one side giving in on every negotiating point. As human beings, we are programmed to reject one-sided deals, even when surrender might be the rational choice.

        How far apart are the two sides?

        The split on BRI (Basketball Related Income) is supposedly the biggest point of contention. Players want 52.5 percent (down from 57 in the previous contract). Owners are “adamant” on 50 percent and started with an initial lowball offer of 37.

        Take the NBA’s 2009-10 BRI estimate of $3.6 billion; 2.5 percent of that is $90 million. Let’s say the life of the contract is 6 years. The total value of that over six years, with reinvestment, is around $500 million.

        Is it economically worthwhile for the players to hold out for $500 million?

        No. Total NBA salaries last year were over $1.5 billion, about three times the amount they are fighting over. Canceling a third of the current season would wipe out the gain of winning the extra 2.5 percent of BRI over the life of the new collective bargaining agreement. Canceling the whole season over 2.5 percent of BRI is insane for the players.

        Of course there are other issues relating to the salary cap, like the length of contracts, but the BRI split seems to be the sticking point.

        What’s the bottom line?

        Can the owners afford to give the players a better deal? Yes.
        Forbes magazine estimates that the Knicks franchise, the NBA’s most profitable, is worth about $655 million. The Milwaukee Bucks, the least profitable franchise according to Forbes, still is worth $258 million, and the Clippers, often considered the worst-run team, have a net value of $305 million. The value of the Knicks alone could more than cover what the players are asking for.

        Can the players stop the owners from getting a deal that is much worse for them than the previous Collective Bargaining Agreement? No. What the players are willing to agree to is already materially worse than before. The only question that remains is how bad it will get.

        Does the players’ line in the sand over 2.5 percent of BRI make economic sense?

        No, not if they miss many games to achieve it.

        Is the owners’ offer fair? Not really.

        Should the players take it? Yes.

        Will the owners give in and up the ante? Very unlikely.

        Will the players be rational and take what is on the plate? We can only hope so.
        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment

        • #79
          Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

          I haven't seen this posted yet.
          CHICAGO -- The emails come with increasing frequency, frustrated and sarcastic, quick to comment on the "geniuses" at work whenever the NBA owners and players meet for their latest round of collective bargaining negotiations. In the case of economist Kevin Murphy, though, no quote marks are needed.

          Never mind the card-carrying variety -- Murphy, working with the NBA players union during this lockout, is a check-cashing genius. That's the very best kind, as bestowed by the MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" -- $500,000, no strings attached -- he received in 2005 for his research on "seeming intractable economic questions." Back in 1997, he received the John Bates Clark medal awarded to the most promising economist under the age of 40.

          He is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, he's been commuting to the labor talks in New York and, with all due respect to NBA commissioner David Stern, union director Billy Hunter and the others hashing out the league's finances and future, he truly might be the smartest guy in the room.

          NBPA economist Kevin Murphy
          Courtesy of The University of Chicago


          "Kevin is far and away the smartest guy in the field," Freakonomics author and Chicago colleague Steven Levitt said in a 2006 profile of Murphy. "Not only is he widely regarded as the smartest economist on Earth, but he can also fix your refrigerator."

          Murphy has analyzed the economics of health and medical research, of addictions and national drug policy and of inequality and labor markets. He was brought in to assist Microsoft during its antitrust battles with the Justice Department a decade ago. He and his former professor at UCLA, Ben Klein, worked with the NFL during the formulation of its Plan B free agency system. He teaches an advanced microeconomics class this term, is known to be a mean woodworker and is mired in his second go-round of NBA negotiations.

          "A colleague of mine here, John Huizinga, was the agent for Yao Ming," said Murphy, a sturdy, non-tweedy type of academic known for his trademark ball cap (he reportedly wore one even when he testified before Congress). "I guess Billy asked him, well, do you know any economists who would be good to help. John recommended me. I talked to Billy and started working for them in '05."

          Murphy spoke at length with NBA.com Tuesday evening from his office at the Gleacher Center, the school's downtown campus. By morning, he would be on a flight back to Manhattan for another small-group bargaining session -- the first since talks emotionally broke off last week -- in hopes of ending the nearly 4-month-old lockout.
          "I was very pessimistic last week after the Thursday blow-up but I'm beginning to come around and think we've got a shot," Murphy said. "If there's a deal here, it's going to be a deal that nobody likes. That's what deals are. Nobody walks out feeling like they got a complete victory. That's initially. But then you get back to playing and you realize, geez, I can live with this."

          Murphy is a transplanted Californian; in fact, he grew up so close to The Forum in Inglewood that he could see it from his house. Working his way through school at grocery stores, Murphy dazzled the economics faculty at UCLA, then enrolled in graduate school in Chicago in 1981. Thanks to geography, the eventual influence of his kids and hitting the Michael Jordan era just right, he shifted his allegiance from the Lakers to the Bulls.

          The NBA has its own set of economists, who predictably and respectfully differ with some of Murphy's views on the current labor strife. But in terms of the quality of his advice -- and his role in shaping the union's give-and-take at the table -- NBA players could hardly do better than this superstar of supply-and-demand.

          NBA.com: People are familiar with a lot of the names and faces in the negotiations -- David Stern, Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher -- but you're largely unknown to fans and the media. Tell us what you do in the room.

          Kevin Murphy: My role is to try to really understand the various positions put forward by the sides and how they'll ultimately play out. You talk changes to the luxury tax system or changes to free agency, changes to just about anything, that all has pretty wide-ranging effects on length of contracts, guarantees, salaries, just about everything that matters to the players and to the owners. They're all interconnected, which makes it tough.

          NBA.com: This is your second time dealing with NBA labor talks, right?

          KM: I did this in '05 and tried to build predictions about what was going to happen based on the changes in that deal. Obviously the guys in the NBA office have more experience because they deal with it on a daily basis. They have a team of people who routinely forecast league finances and outcomes, administer the salary cap. I kind of come and go at negotiations.

          NBA.com: Does each side's economist try to discredit the other's viewpoint?

          KM: I don't think it pays to try to pull the wool over the other side's eyes. When it comes to economic analysis, I try to be as honest as I can with the people on the other side.

          It doesn't do you any good to try to fool 'em. They're not dumb. You're not going to succeed and then they're not going to trust you.

          NBA.com: Is economic analysis open to interpretation or do the numbers generate one "truth?"

          KM: In certain cases, it's relatively straightforward. In cases like this, there's more room for disagreement. All those moving parts, people can put them together in different ways. Everybody has their own vested numbers, so everybody shapes their numbers in their own direction. If they think 'it' could be between 6 and 12 and 6 is good for them and 12 is good for us, they'll say 7. That's not like making stuff up, that's just saying, 'I'm going to be cautious.' I usually try to say, 'I can't tell you for sure, but it's going to be between 6 and 12.' What's the consequence if it's 6? What's the consequence if it's 12?

          Sometimes I see things differently that maybe they haven't thought about. Hopefully that will help move the needle and help move their position a little bit. But my biggest role is to keep my side informed and tell them, 'If you agree to this, here's what's going to happen.'

          NBA.com: Given the numbers that are out there now -- the owners offering 50 percent of basketball-related income (BRI), the players seeking 52.5 -- it seems like a small gap to close.

          KM: Saying that and getting one are two different things. You can sit there and say, 'We're only X apart.' But the other guy can say, 'Well, it's only X, why don't you move?' And you say, 'It's only X, why don't you move?'

          NBA.com: You can "cut the baby in half."

          KM: Sometimes. But people will say, I already cut it in half to get to here. That's certainly our view of the world. We started from where we were. We didn't stretch our position in order to give it up. They started from what objectively -- I think they would agree -- was a massive change in the system and have "given" from there. But if you start 100 miles away and move 50 miles, you can still be outside the range of reasonable. Had they gotten their initial offer, that would have been the most one-sided deal in the history of sports negotiations -- by, I think, a fair stretch. It was an enormous ask on their part.

          NBA.com: Many people understand that NBA players as a select group of specialized, highly skilled workers. Are there many many instances, though, in which labor commands more than 50 percent of an industry's costs?

          KM: In certain sectors, there's a ton. You go to a law firm, most of its cost is labor. You've got to remember, labor is 60-something percent of the economy. In the service sector, it can be much higher than that. And these people really define the product. These are the ones people come to see.

          What separates the NBA from a different basketball league? Well, it's the players. The basketball's' the same, the court's the same, it's the players who really are the distinguishing feature. That's not to say that the league doesn't have value. But the defining characteristic and the scarce resource, if you think about it from an economic point of view, is the talent. It's not unlike Hollywood, the music business or any of the other ones where the thing that distinguishes one person from another is the talent.

          NBA.com: Why do you think it's more so in basketball than other sports?

          KM: The difference between being an NBA Finals team and being an also-ran is a couple of guys -- maybe one guy. It's only five guys and you can give the same guy the ball every time you come down if you want to. ... And the players are very visible. It's more of a player-driven sport than [the others], and the advent of the Internet has made it even more so.

          It's also changed the game in that people aren't as parochial as they used to be. At one time, people followed their team because they read the local paper and watched the local news. But now I can be a fan of the Lakers and live in ... Seattle. I've got all the Internet access, I've got NBA TV, I've got a zillion ways to be a fan long-distance.

          NBA.com: That plays right into the structure issues the owners have. They want Milwaukee fans, for example, to not only root for the Bucks but to have most seasons with hope that their team can compete with bigger-revenue markets.

          KM: There's an element of that. But also, be careful what you wish for. When you get a Sacramento-Charlotte NBA Finals, guys will be crying over the TV ratings. We know that even with baseball -- it's an exciting World Series but the ratings aren't there because it's the Texas Rangers and St. Louis [Cardinals]. Basketball is even more star-driven. You get to an NBA Finals that doesn't have one of the premier players in the league in it, it becomes a lot less interesting. And with 30 teams, not everybody is going to have one of the premier players.

          NBA.com: There are fewer franchise players than there are franchises.

          KM: For sure. Especially not created equal. You have a relatively small number of true franchise players. Then you have kind of wannabe franchise players. But there aren't 30 Kobe Bryants, LeBron James or Dwyane Wades -- wherever you want to draw the line, but there aren't 30 of them.

          NBA.com: So do you buy the competitive balance concerns?

          KM: You don't want a system where almost nobody has a chance. Then again, the optimal league doesn't look like a crap shoot at the beginning of the years. First of all, there is a lot more interest in some teams than others. The league has done very well that way. When the Bulls were great, that wasn't a bad league. When it was the Lakers and Boston ... there have been a number of years like that.

          NBA.com: You grew up in Inglewood as a Lakers fan, spanning the time from Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson's arrival. In the 1970s, eight different franchises won the 10 titles.

          KM: That was not the greatest time for the league. This complete egalitarian world is unlikely to be the best league.

          NBA.com: One effect of equalizing payrolls is you incentivize good players to go where the money is available. But another might be paying good money to players who might not deserve it, just because more franchises have to spend on ... somebody.

          KM: That's a problem. The other thing is, there is some relationship between pay and success but it's not nearly as strong as people think it is. Even if you were to completely equalize pay across teams, there still would be an enormous variation in strength of teams. In a statistical sense, the level of payroll of a team explains somewhere like 5 percent to 10 percent in the variation in outcomes.

          NBA.com: That's all?

          KM: That's it. I did a little experiment. All you have to do is take the overall distribution of win-loss percentages. Let them tell you what they think the relationship between salaries and wins is. They tell you 'This much spending is worth this many wins.' So then you take everybody's salary down to the mean or up to the mean. Then if you tell me you get an extra win for every $3 million you spend, I'm going to give everyone I'm moving up an extra win for each $3 million. Everybody I move down, I'm going to give one fewer win for each $3 million.

          NBA.com: And?

          KM: The relationship between salaries and the number of wins in a season is positive, but it's pretty weak. It certainly is not going to have a dramatic change in the distribution of outcomes. It might change who the winners are and who the losers are, but you're still going to have some teams that are much better than others. Because some people spend their money much more wisely than others do.

          NBA.com: That's what the owners say they want: A chance for good management to make a difference.

          KM: That's a different issue. The problem is, just about for every [owner] who spent a lot and they won a lot, so you're moving them closer to the average, there's some [owner] who spent a lot and didn't win a lot and you're moving them in the other direction.

          NBA.com: Even at this late date, from interviews given by Hunter, Fisher and others on the players' side, there seems to be skepticism of the league's financial numbers, as if the audited figures aren't to be believed.

          KM: I would say the primary disagreement is not over the accounting numbers. It's what you include and how you interpret the numbers. For example, the accounting picture of the NBA isn't very different from what it was five years ago or 10 years ago in terms of ratio of revenues to costs and all the rest -- it's changed very little. Which immediately tells you, wait a minute, if the underlying financial picture is similar today to what it was five years ago or 10 years ago, and people are paying $400 million or whatever for franchises, and you're telling me that these things lose money every year, something's missing, right? These people aren't stupid, right? These guys are worth billions of dollars. So why did they pay all this money for franchises that, it looks like, lose money?

          Well, the answer is pretty clear. There are a couple of things that are really attractive. One is, historically, you've seen franchises appreciate in value and that appreciation has more than outstripped any cash-flow losses that you've had. And if you're in the right tax position, it's actually pretty good because you've got a tax loss annually on your operating and you've got a capital gain at the end that you accumulate untaxed until you sell it and then pay at a lower rate. So you get a deferred tax treatment on the gains and an immediate tax treatment on the losses, that's not a bad deal.

          Let's say the NBA is a $4 billion revenue business -- that's not exactly right but it's close enough. Then let's say you lose $200 million. That's 5 percent. OK, my franchises are worth -- let's make it simple, 2½ times revenue, which is well below Forbes [valuations] -- that's $10 billion. Now let's say it's appreciating at 4 percent a year. I'm getting $400 million in appreciation even though I only have $200 million in losses. I'm getting better tax treatment on the $400 million that I'm making, and I deduct at a higher rate the $200 million that I'm losing. Suddenly this picture doesn't look so crazy any more.

          Secondly, it's a lot of fun to own an NBA franchise...

          NBA.com: The "psychic benefits" Malcolm Gladwell touts.

          KM: The psychic benefits are not trivial. Third, there are benefits outside basketball. Like who got a casino? Who got a land deal? Who got real estate? You start looking around, you say, 'There's a lot of benefits to being an NBA owner." You put all those pieces together, it explains why those people spent all that money for those franchises.

          What I keep coming back to as an economist is, "Look, you tell me this is a lousy investment. The No. 1 way to tell if something's a lousy investment, it ain't worth anything." There are a lot of firms that are losing money and are going to go bankrupt, look at what their stock is worth -- it's not worth nothin'. But when you tell me these things aren't worth a lot of money and they don't make money, you immediately hold onto your wallet. You say, "There's a disconnect here. Smart guys, a lot of money -- well, why are you buying it? Why are you buying something that loses money every year?"

          NBA.com: The owners will say there's been a franchise bubble not unlike the housing bubble. A number of them bought high and don't think they'll see the equity growth.

          KM: The fact is, guys have not done well over the last few years as asset prices generally have gone down. I don't doubt that. But to say that you lost money in the worst asset crash in memory -- and franchises haven't gone down nearly as much as many assets have gone down -- that's not telling you you need concessions going forward.

          If you go back before the last 3-5 years, these guys did incredibly well. Their franchises weren't going up by 4 or 5 percent, they were going up by 8 or 9 percent a year. They were making money hand over fist. Should [the players] get credit for that? Should we get that money back? Now those are different people in some cases. They need to go get their money from the guys they bought the franchises from. That's the guy who has all your money. Not us.

          But who bought anything in '07 that they're happy with the price they paid? If you bought a house in '07, if you bought stocks in '07, if you bought bonds in '07 -- I don't care what you bought, you're not happy with the price you paid. When you buy at the top, you don't make your money. That's not unique to the NBA, that's everywhere in life. But by and large, NBA franchise ownership has been a good investment. You can't base long-run projections on how you did in the biggest financial downturn of the last 50 years. On that basis, there are no good investments out there. But we know that's not true.

          NBA.com: Management cites rising costs in marketing, ticket sales and other areas.

          KM: Ask them to show you how much their costs have gone up as a percentage of BRI. Our moving from 57 to 52.5 covers more than 100 percent of any cost increase they've had.

          NBA.com: How does it make sense economically to hold out for a small percentage that's much less, in sheer dollars, than what the players are losing by missing games? A gap of 2.5 percent is worth $100 million annually, but a missed month of paychecks is $400 million.

          KM: Part of it on our side is an investment in the future. If you give up a lot today, you're not just giving it up today, you start the next contract from that much lower. So you're talking about the long-term impact of that kind of concession.

          You can say the same thing for the owners. They're losing money every week. The answer is, both sides are losing in this. It's a shame we can't get a deal. But I'm not going to make it sound easier than it is. It's always easy to say, "Well, one of you guys should give in." But tell me who? And when someone says, 'Just compromise,' at least recently, that hasn't been happening. Maybe it will.

          NBA.com: Some cynics think the owners wanted to get to this point to squeeze the players via lost paychecks.

          KM: I think there's an element of that, a desire to see how far they could push the players to see when the players would crumble. Given that there was not a great cost ... it's almost too bad that it isn't more costly to lose the start of the season. If it had been, they wouldn't have done it. The idea that I can get this, like, almost-free test of the other side's resolve is tempting, right?

          NBA.com: So maybe they need to set the expiration date of the CBA right before the playoffs to raise the stakes.

          KM: That would make a difference. That's the old increase-the-cost way to get a deal. That's true of negotiations in general. It takes the threat of fire to get people to move.

          NBA.com: When do the rosy growth projections of 4 percent used by both sides take a hit from fans' backlash to this lockout?

          KM: If we get a deal here soon, I think the long-term consequences will be minimal. The longer it goes, the more substantial the risk. I think everybody's taken a hit to some extent. It might not show up in the financial numbers right away, but I don't think this has been good for either side. Both sides have looked not so good at times, comical at other times.
          I've tried to stay out of it. This is the first interview I've done. I don't think it does any good to throw crap around, spin everything that comes out -- and there's been a lot of that going on. It wears thin on me, I'm sure it wears thin on fans too.

          NBA.com: Leverage plays a role in economics?

          KM: Absolutely. It ultimately is the determinant of what deal you're going to get. Call it what it is. Neither side wants to take a bad deal from its perspective, which makes it tough. Both sides have this mixed constituency, who aren't all on the same page, which makes it doubly hard. It's a shame. I feel bad for the fans, I feel bad for the people who are waiting.
          Hopefully we'll be able to get in a room, reach across the table and shake each other enough to get us to a deal.

          NBA.com: Where do you see this landing?

          KM: Ultimately what it comes down to is, you get what you can negotiate. It's not what you deserve, what's "right," that ends up carrying the day. But then they ought to be straight up. They ought to say, "We've got the ability to negotiate. We'll hold your feet to the fire and get what we can."

          The one thing I don't want to see happen: I don't want to see any lingering bad blood between the two sides. That's not good either. You run the risk that, if it gets too personal, that creates its own set of frictions going forward. I think people on both sides are cognizant of that.
          http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...phy/index.html
          Last edited by Gamble1; 11-02-2011, 03:15 PM.

          Comment

          • #80
            Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

            http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssp...48484/33086286

            NBA wastes day in court; NBPA to meet Thursday

            The NBA and the National Basketball Players Association met on Wednesday in Brooklyn. The only problem: they met in a courtroom rather than in a negotiating conference room.

            Ken Berger of CBSSports.com reports that the NBA and the NBPA were in court to give oral arguments in the NBPA's motion to dismiss the NBA's lawsuit. The NBA originally filed suited because the NBPA allegedly threatened to decertify.

            Court spokeswoman confirms U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe did not rule on The NBPA's motion to dismiss NBA's lawsuit Wednesday. Per spokeswoman, Gardephe will ask parties to brief him in writing on additional issues before ruling. Timing of ruling uncertain. Union asking judge to dismiss lawsuit, in which the NBA seeks declaratory judgment on legality of potential decertification by The NBPA.

            According to The NBPA, lawsuit has no merit because union hasn't disclaimed interest in representing players and has never done so before. Lawyers for The NBPA characterized lawsuit as "forum shopping," an attempt to beat players to venue for possible antitrust action.

            Lawyers for NBA contend union officials have frequently threatened to disclaim, which warrants a ruling from judge on legality.

            There's little significance to today's court proceedings. Both sides recognize best shot at a deal is to agree to one at bargaining table.
            So, if the courtroom drama is all pretty much irrelevant, when will they head back to the negotiating room?

            Berger reports that there are still no new negotiating sessions scheduled after talks blew up last Friday, although he writes that NBPA leadership officials "will convene Thursday for strategy session" but it's "unclear how many players will attend."

            What's holding up the talks?

            Berger writes that the difference of opinion over the revenue split remains the key issue separating the two sides, and that it's now the primary reason no new talks have yet been scheduled.

            No point to more bargaining until each side decides how much -- if at all - it intends to move on BRI. Most other issues resolved. NBA negotiators have talked with labor committee members and other owners this week, source says. Players also have to decide next move.
            Earlier Wednesday, there were indications from minor players on both sides that a compromise on the revenue issue might still be possible.
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment

            • #81
              Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

              Expected to resume talks on Saturday

              http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...esume_Saturday

              (Sorry, this was done from my blackberry)
              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


              Comment

              • #82
                Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/03/...e-labor-talks/

                Hunter, Fisher defend walkout and deny rift; NBA labor talks to resume Saturday

                Chris Sheridan
                ■November 03, 2011 at 6:38 PM




                A group of eight NBA players went to Hawaii last week and hefted real M16s in a simulated firefight, got up close with an array of makeshift bombs, heard the coordinates barked for a desert air raid and ran in a stuffy, dimly-lit gym or two with soldiers either just back from, or headed to, Afghanistan and Iraq.

                Along the way, they showed that, despite the NBA lockout, the league still cares. Or at least some of its players do.

                The eight players -- Derrick Rose, Al Horford, Brook and Robin Lopez, Tyreke Evans, JaVale McGee, Mike Miller and D.J. Augustin -- did all that as part of a four-day USO tour of Oahu, the first featuring current professional athletes. They met with, and performed for, military personnel at Hickam Air Force Base and the U.S. Army's Schofield Barracks.

                If you were only vaguely aware of it, there's a reason. The organizers wanted it that way. They practically discouraged media attention, declining offers by NBA TV, ESPN and TNT to promote and televise the goodwill mission's two exhibition games, one on each military site.

                Unlike the battles pitting NBA players from different playground or summer-league crews, there weren't any Twitter messages or other forms of advertising by any of the participants, either, because there was no point. Admission was free to military personnel and their families only. It barely got out to the public that the games were streamed live over the Internet.

                And in stark contrast to the recently postponed six-game, four-continent World Tour, the players were not promised six- and seven-figure contracts to make the trip. They were promised and received nothing.



                USO Photo by Dave GatleyNo, Brook Lopez did not get hurt during this training exercise.

                Check that -- they received nothing monetary. Instead, quite unexpectedly, they were given a profound dose of perspective. They participated in a simulation, where they sat in, or walked by, a column of Humvees as they rolled into a desert town as villagers scattered and, suddenly, armed enemy soldiers opened fire. They talked to bomb unit specialists about to be redeployed to the Middle East, every one of them with scars, embedded shrapnel and lost comrades to show for their previous tours. They learned about the constantly evolving game of chess that is the battle to disarm improvised explosive devices (IEDs). They heard about mistakes made by men and women their age that didn't result in lost games but lost lives.

                "I don't think any one of us knew what we were getting into," Horford said. "I know I didn't. I just heard 'Hawaii' and said, 'Sign me up!' I couldn't have imagined the connection we'd make with all these troops, bonding with them just by talking about sports and family. Hanging out with the kids in the clinic was probably what I liked the most."

                The two clinics drew hundreds of kids, almost all of whom had never seen an NBA star in person, much less shook his hand and received a lesson in how to play the game. Then again, the instruction became secondary after the players realized these were kids who had not seen at least one of their parents in months and had no idea when or if they'd see them again.

                "Let's be honest, when we came over here we didn't really know that much about the troops and what they go through, leaving their families, Skyping with their kids, risking their lives every day," Rose said. "We leave our families and we're on the road and we face a lot of pressure, but it's not even close to what they deal with. And they're our age or even younger. It's amazing to meet them and talk with them and it definitely makes you feel you shouldn't take anything for granted."

                The eight players didn't just make their obligatory appearances, either. Brook Lopez, the Nets center, went to lunch and toured Honolulu with a soldier who shared his affinity for comic books. He also donned a padded jacket for a firsthand taste, despite protests by advisers, of what it's like to be attacked by a trained military canine. (Memo to Nets GM Billy King: He's fine. Not even a scratch.)

                "They've obviously enjoyed having us here but we've enjoyed just as much being around them," Lopez said. "Words can't describe the experience."

                The players went through the mess lines on base with other soldiers. Augustin shared dinner with one at the Barracks' Wounded Warrior Center. "You watch movies, you hear about it on the news, but to hear what it's like out of their mouths is different," he said. "I've been to a lot of places around the world, but it's not like seeing some of the things they do to protect us. They're just like us. This soldier, guy named Cervantes, told me how he drove over a bomb and how it messed up his leg and all the Botox he had to have to fix his face. He was walking and talking just like me, but he'll never be the same. Sharing their lives with us like that was incredible. I'll never forget that guy."

                The games, which included military players mixed into the squads, were as competitive and highlight-studded as any put on this summer anywhere. The White squad won the first game 81-78 on a stepback buzzer-beating 3 by Evans. The Red squad claimed revenge two nights later 101-95, a win sealed in the final minute by a lob from Rose to McGee for a thunderous dunk. Miller, a fan favorite for his barrage of ridiculously deep 3s for the winning side, afterward heaved his jersey and shoes into the delirious crowd. Several other players saw the reaction and did the same.

                After they all climbed onto the bus, unshowered thanks in part to an absence of towels and chest-high nozzles, and before tucking into a postgame meal of cold pizza and water, a USO Tour representative thanked them. McGee, the same one recently excoriated for comments made after a players' association meeting, went to the front of the bus, unprompted, and thanked the tour organizers for bringing them.

                "This," the USO Tour rep said, "is something that is going to be talked about for years."

                As the bus pulled out, players gazed through the windows at the soldiers and their families smiling and waving, distracted for the moment from the realities of their commitment to serve and defend.

                Several players nodded to themselves. Yes, indeed, this surely would be talked about for years. By those on both sides of the glass.
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment

                • #83
                  Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                  http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssp...48484/33100070

                  By Matt Moore

                  Update 2:49 a.m.: Two separate lists of players involved in the calls came out late Thursday night. Yahoo! Sports reported Blake Griffin, DeAndre Jordan, Jason Kidd, Al Horford, and Tyson Chandler, while ESPN reported Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, along with Ray Allen and Dwight Howard. That makes leaders from six different teams, including six current or future All-Stars. Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett have not been formally connected to the talks, but considering Pierce's involvement, it could be assumed they were in support of the movement. That's a lot of players with a lot of pull.

                  We're in dark waters, here, kids.

                  Yahoo Sports and the New York Times are reporting that 50 members of the National Basketball Players Association held two separate conference calls this week with an antitrust attorneys to discuss decertification and subsequent lawsuits... without the knowledge of NBPA executive board members.

                  So, that's fun.

                  Yahoo reports that meetings were spurred by players, including multiple All-Stars, who refuse to go below the 52 percent of Basketball-Related Income already offered in negotiations with the NBA. These players reportedly feel too many concessions have been made. This directly contrasts multiple reports and statements from other players indicating that a 51 or 50 percent compromise would be considered reasonable in pursuit of a deal. This new set of reports indicates that not only is the union divided, it is divided bitterly.

                  A move to decertify is thought to equate to the end of Billy Hunter's tenure as executive director of the NBPA. It would also kickstart a scorched earth policy by taking the sport to the courts, one that could take literally years to resolve. The union would require 30 percent of its membership to sign a petition to raise a vote for decertification, then a simple majority of its membership to formally approve it. In other words, the 50-player contingent would need to bring on over roughly 150 additional players in order to reach that threshold.

                  The reports come from multiple sources within 48 hours of a scheduled meeting on Saturday between the NBA and NBPA, which raises suspicions of the intent of the purposeful leak. The question is why and to what end.

                  After talks broke down a week ago, it was predicted that things would get uglier.

                  They certanly have.

                  Comment

                  • #84
                    Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                    10-14 owners including MJ would vote against a 50-50 deal (or over 50 deal, source clash?)

                    Hard-Line Factions Threaten Latest N.B.A. Negotiations
                    By HOWARD BECK

                    A critical weekend for the N.B.A. labor talks will begin Saturday morning with an owners meeting, during which the league’s hard-liners will insist that no more financial concessions be made to players, according to a person briefed on the agenda.

                    The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. in Manhattan. Six hours later, league officials will meet with the players union in what may be the last chance to resolve the lockout.

                    Their efforts may be undermined before they ever reach the table.

                    A faction of 50 N.B.A. players is threatening to dissolve the union if it compromises further on player salaries. The league is facing an equivalent threat from a trenchant group of owners, who are vowing to oppose any deal that gives players more than 50 percent of revenue.

                    The owners’ faction includes between 10 and 14 owners and is being led by Charlotte’s Michael Jordan, according to a person who has spoken with the owners. That group wanted the players’ share set no higher than 47 percent, and it was upset when league negotiators proposed a 50-50 split last month.

                    According to the person who spoke with the owners, Jordan’s faction intends to vote against the 50-50 deal, if negotiations get that far. Saturday’s owners meeting was arranged in part to address that concern.

                    A majority of the 29 owners are believed to support a 50-50 deal, but they are reluctant to move further.

                    “There’s no one who’s interested in going above 50 percent,” said the person who has spoken with the owners.

                    Despite the misgivings of some owners, Commissioner David Stern has said publicly that he can garner support for a 50-50 deal and will continue pushing for it. But the longer the negotiations drag on, and the more games are canceled, it is more likely that the hard-line owners will demand reductions.

                    That group backed an initial proposal that would have cut the players’ share to 37 percent (from 57), eliminated guaranteed contracts, rolled back current salaries and imposed a hard salary cap. The league has since dropped those demands over the objections of those owners.

                    The union could also be hamstrung in negotiations because of the threat made by 50 disenchanted players to dissolve the union. Those players, who are working with an antitrust lawyer, intend to seek dissolution if the union accepts anything less than 52.5 percent of revenue, or if no deal is produced this weekend.

                    The union has not responded to requests for comment. An N.B.A. spokesman declined to comment Friday.
                    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/sp...r=2&ref=sports

                    Comment

                    • #85
                      Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                      Haven't seen this yet..

                      http://www.journaltimes.com/sports/b...cc4c002e0.html

                      A couple of quick hits on the prolonged lockout:
                      -- A so-called "amnesty clause'' is a cinch to be included in a final agreement. The clause would enable teams to dump one bad contract from their payroll.
                      However, contrary to several reports, I've been told the "amnesty'' player wouldn't be free to sign with another team. Instead, he would be subjected to a "bidding'' war for his services.

                      For example, if the Bucks opted to rid themselves of Drew Gooden's contract -- he has four years for $26 million -- other teams could bid to sign him.
                      The team that submit's the highest bid would then obtain his services and the Bucks would wind up paying the difference on the contract -- instead of the entire $26 million.

                      Comment

                      • #86
                        Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                        http://t.co/eZ4FsNfZ Anyone seen this yet good points

                        Comment

                        • #87
                          Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                          http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/06/...-m-edt-update/

                          NEW YORK — We are past the 7-hour mark at the NBA lockout talks, and there are no smoke signals coming from the negotiating room. It is another stakeout at another hotel, and the same cast of media characters is sitting vigil.

                          This time we are in a conference room instead of a lobby, quite an improvement over the sidewalk stakeout the night the media overran cozy East 63rd Street to such a degree that photographers nearly brawled.

                          One item of note from Indiana: A charity game involving NBA players scheduled for Sunday in New Castle, Ind., has been canceled, and a release from event organizers said it was because many of the players scheduled to participate were advised to prepare for a possible agreement. The “King of the Castle” event was to pit the Knox Indy Pro-Am League stars against Mario Chalmers’ Rio All-Stars. John Wall, Zach Randolph and Eric Gordon were expected to play.

                          Sean Deveney of the Sporting News did the math and tweeted that this was the 23rd negotiating session, and the sides have met for a total of more than 130 hours (not including tonight).

                          I have spent many of those 130 hours on stakeouts with the folks currently sitting around me.

                          So to kill some time, I have taken a survey of their favorite celebrity sightings during lockout stakeouts.

                          My personal favorite was the night I saw CarrotTop on the sidewalk outside the Sheraton and called him CarrotHead on Twitter. But I’ve seen nothing that compared to the random 1998 lockout sighting when Henry Kissinger casually strolled past the hotel where negotiations were taking place. (They could have used him.)

                          Here are the favorites from my colleagues.

                          Howard Beck, New York Times: Leaving the Waldorf-Astoria at 5:15 a.m. after an all-nighter last week, actress Betty White was exiting the same time. Unlike Beck, she presumably had gotten some sleep the previous night.

                          David Aldridge, NBA-TV: Bill Murray at the Walforf-Astoria. Few appreciate the movie Groundhog Day like us stakeoutissists.

                          Brian Mahoney, AP: Doing the outdoor stakeout in front of the trendy Lowell Hotel, who should come jogging by but Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. “I probably shouldn’t be talking to you guys,” Pop said before jogging off.

                          Ken Berger, CBS Sports.com: On the same day that Popovich jogged by the Lowell, former NFL running back Tiki Barber strolled by. Berger tweeted: “This would be the perfect time for negotiators to fumble.”

                          Henry Abbott, ESPN.com’s TrueHoop: After a long night of waiting outside the Lowell, Abbott was finally getting his long-awaited briefing from union spokesman Dan Wasserman when Wasserman suddenly bolted to shmooze with celebrity lawyer David Boies (who, ironically, was on the losing end of another 50-50 case, Bush v. Gore).

                          Marc Berman, New York Post: Two days ago outside the union’s offices in Harlem, John McEnroe exited the trendy restaurant the Red Rooster. Berman also covers U.S. tennis for The Post, and McEnroe always warns him on CBS conference calls not to ask him about the Knicks.

                          Mitch Lawrence, New York Daily News: Down the street from the Lowell, Lawrence eyed former CNN talk show host Larry King, wearing suspenders and blue jeans pulled up above his belly, screaming into his cell phone oblivious to everything going on around him.

                          Mason Levinson, Bloomberg News: Seeing Rev. Jesse Jackson walking around the lobby of the Sheraton in a track suit.
                          Sittin on top of the world!

                          Comment

                          • #88
                            Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu..._bryant_110711

                            By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports 2 hours, 14 minutes ago

                            As the NBA and Players Association trudge toward a possible doomsday deadline, Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant(notes) urged owners to meet with the players union before Wednesday and spare the league from “spiraling into a nuclear winter.”

                            “We need for the two sides to get together again before Wednesday, because we’re too close to getting a deal done,” Bryant told Yahoo! Sports on Monday. “We need to iron out the last system items and save this from spiraling into a nuclear winter.”

                            The NBA and Players Association are discussing setting up a meeting for Tuesday to try and reach agreement on a labor deal, a league source told Yahoo! Sports. Nothing is finalized, but the sides were working toward having a session in New York before Wednesday’s league-imposed deadline for the union to accept the owners’ current offer.

                            [Related: NBA owners give players drop-dead offer to end lockout]

                            Lakers guard Steve Blake(notes) has been canvassing peers throughout the league over the past 48 hours, pushing them to contact team player representatives to push the Players Association to let its 450-plus membership vote on the owner’s ultimatum offer, sources said.

                            Blake hasn’t been pushing players to vote “yes” or “no” on the deal but has gained a groundswell of support with players throughout the league. Nevertheless, Blake is a proponent of accepting the league’s current offer, sources said.

                            As a counter, there are multiple players pushing to get a petition together to start the process of decertifying the union, perhaps as soon as Wednesday. Agents have little doubt they can muster the 30 percent of the union – approximately 130 players – to push decertification to a formal vote after a 45-day waiting period.

                            Players representatives of the 30 teams are meeting in New York on Tuesday to discuss the union’s next steps.

                            Comment

                            • #89
                              Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                              http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/1...-meeting-time/


                              http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nb...ime_cblock.nba


                              Update: Meeting Time

                              Was divide and conquer the plan all along? Even if it wasn’t, the owners might reap the rewards of that strategy in their lockout fight with the NBA players’ union. With the 30 team representatives gathering at this hour in New York for a meeting, it remains unclear what their stance will be on the league’s latest proposal.

                              But if the rumblings percolating around the basketball universe are correct, a divided union will have to mend fences within its ranks before it can consider its options in regards to the end-of-business ultimatum handed down by NBA Commissioner David Stern over the weekend.

                              Today we find out all we need to know about union executive director Billy Hunter and union president Derek Fisher. What happens after today will be a direct result of their stewardship of this process for the players. When you have players dead set against accepting the deal on the table and willing to sign a petition authorizing decertification, even when it goes against their core beliefs, as Orlando’s J.J. Redick insists …


                              “I am not in favor of taking the deal as it CURRENTLY stands,” told the Orlando Sentinel in an e-mail message early Tuesday morning. “The luxury tax is too onerous and has essentially created a hard cap that will make it incredibly difficult for the vast majority of players to get their fair value in free agency. We also need to have a strong mid-level, and luxury-paying teams need to be able to use it every year.

                              “As far as decertification, I am not necessarily in favor of decertification but I will be signing the petition to organize a decertification vote if a deal is not worked out in the next couple of days. Then the sides would have 45 days to get a fair deal done before we would officially vote on decertification. IF it gets to that point every player will have to make a decision on whether to decertify or take whatever deal is on the table.”

                              … you know you are in need of strong leadership.

                              Stay tuned for updates throughout the day on the goings on in New York, where our very own Steve Aschburner is entrenched for however long it takes. And Asch is already reporting, via Twitter, that players like Carmelo Anthony (who is not a player rep) are attending the festivities today.

                              This is going to get very interesting.
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment

                              • #90
                                Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

                                NBA owners have given commissioner David Stern the green light to make slight adjustments to the league’s current proposal in order to try to complete a new labor agreement with players before today’s 5:00 p.m. ET deadline, Yahoo! Sports reports.

                                “There can be a few things tweaked along the edges, the periphery and this can be agreed upon,” an ownership source told Yahoo! “I’m confident that would not be an issue if (Stern) did that.”

                                David Stern has reportedly been given the green light to make slight changes to the owners' offer. (AP Photo)“It will be a very slight budge,” another management source told the site.

                                The union acknowledged yesterday that they’re willing to accept a 50-50 split of basketball-related income; they received 57 percent under the previous deal. The sticking point in these negotiations has become the restrictions the league wants to put on the highest-spending teams.

                                The union said yesterday that significant movement was needed on these issues in order for players to agree to a deal, so whether the minor tweaks Stern is reportedly authorized to make are enough remains to be seen.

                                The sides are trying to arrange a meeting today, ESPN’s Chris Broussard reported via Twitter.



                                http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/stor...#ixzz1dE2fgRCA

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X