Tag: NBA lockout (Page 8 of 8)

Wade on playing in Europe: “I’m not ruling it out.”

Miami Heat’s Dwyane Wade speaks during a media conference for the NBA Finals basketball series against the Dallas Mavericks in Dallas, Texas June 8, 2011. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson (UNITED STATES – Tags: SPORT BASKETBALL HEADSHOT)

On the heels of Deron Williams’ deal to play in Turkey during the lockout, Dwyane Wade was asked if he was considering playing overseas.

“I’m not ruling it out,” Wade said, following the lead of numerous stars over the past few weeks. “It’s not something you’re waking up every day thinking about. At the end of the day, you get that itch as a basketball player where you want to play the game. I have no idea when I’ll get that itch.”

That’s just it — the itch to play and the itch to get those checks is somewhere over the horizon during this lazy summer. Deron Williams’ proactive action of signing with a Turkish team was an eye-opener but it may prove to simply be an outlier. Most stars are content to sit back and wait to see how things play out without a whiff of urgency.

It will be interesting to see how many stars head overseas as the lockout drags on. Keep in mind that many believe that the NFL labor strife pales into comparison with what the NBA is about to go through. While an abbreviated season seems unlikely in the NFL, it’s a very good possibility in the NBA.

Deron Williams to play in Turkey, more to follow?

New Jersey Nets guard Deron Williams prepares for the third quarter of their NBA basketball game against Toronto Raptors in London March 4, 2011. REUTERS/Eddie Keogh (BRITAIN – Tags: SPORT BASKETBALL)

Deron Williams is going to play for a team in Turkey during the NBA lockout, and has signed a one-year contract worth $5 million that has a clause that allows him to return to the NBA and the players work out a deal. He believes that more players will follow and that if the owners get their way, those players could very well stay in Europe.

But if the owners break the players and get the proposal they’re pushing for, Williams believes some stars could opt to play overseas long-term.

“If the proposal (the owners) have, if that’s what they’re sticking with and that’s what they want, then I think it would be hard for a lot of guys to come back to the NBA,” Williams said Friday in an interview at a private golf resort in San Diego.

Meanwhile, ESPN has rehired Stephen A. Smith (for some unknown reason) and he says that Williams’ move is selfish.

“It’s not good,” one player told me on Thursday, demanding anonymity before saying a word. “Williams’ move makes sense if you’re about getting that cash. Nobody can blame him for that. But when you’re talking about these negotiations, it’s suppose to be about unity.”

Exactly. A union — any union — is supposed to personify that. They’re supposed to exude togetherness as opposed to coming across as a filthy-rich scab looking to do nothing else aside from bloating his bank account.

For his part, Williams says he ran this deal by the union to avoid such a thing…

Williams said he spoke with the union before agreeing to play in Turkey to make sure he wasn’t damaging its cause. He said NBPA executive director Billy Hunter was in favor of the move.

I don’t get Smith’s reasoning here. If star players start fleeing for Europe, won’t that help the union’s cause? The owners would see very clearly that their star players have options and if they try to take a hard line, then those players will find work elsewhere. Smith’s column argues that the mid-level players are the ones who will hurt the most, but if an exodus of star players leads to a quicker agreement (and why wouldn’t it?) then won’t the mid-level players be happy? In other words, the entire union wins if the players as a whole are stronger, and by playing in Europe, the players are stronger.

NBA labor talks explained

Larry Coon (author of the excellent NBA Salary Cap FAQ) explains how far apart the players and owners are in the current NBA labor dispute, and uses the Nets’ books as an example:

In other words, $41.5 million of the Nets’ $49 million operating loss in 2005, and $40.2 million of its $57.4 million in 2006, is there simply to make the books balance. It is part of the purchase price of the team, being expensed each year. This doesn’t mean they cooked their books, or that they tried to pull a fast one on the players. It is part of the generally accepted accounting practice to transfer expenses from the acquisition to the profit and loss over a certain time period. However, it’s an argument that doesn’t hold water in a discussion with Hunter and the players association, who would claim that the Nets didn’t really “lose” a combined $106.4 million in those two years, but rather that they lost $7.5 million and $17.2 million, respectively.

The entire article is worth a read as we try to muddle our way through the posturing and get down to the real facts of the matter. But this excerpt pretty much explains why the NBA’s assertion (that 22 of 30 franchises are losing money) is misleading. Much of the ‘losses’ are costs associated with the transfer of ownership. Why should the players take on these costs? (Hint: They shouldn’t.)

NBA to lockout players

National Basketball Association commissioner David Stern answers questions from members of the media regarding failed contract negotiations between the NBA and the players association in New York June 30, 2011. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES – Tags: SPORT EMPLOYMENT BUSINESS BASKETBALL)

ESPN has the details…

Union chief Billy Hunter said Thursday “it’s obvious the lockout will happen tonight” after players and owners failed to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, potentially putting the 2011-12 season in jeopardy.

The main issue for the owners is that the league has lost money in every year of the current CBA. Apparently, 22 of 30 teams would lose money, but the players say that the number is closer to 10.

[The owners] want to make a profit, along with developing a system in which small-market teams could compete with the biggest spenders. The Lakers and Mavericks, who won the last three NBA titles, are annually at the top of the list of highest payrolls.

So they took a hard-line stance from the start, with their initial proposal in 2010 calling for the institution of a hard salary cap system, along with massive reductions in contract lengths and elimination in contract guarantees. Though the proposal was withdrawn after a contentious meeting with players at the 2010 All-Star weekend, the league never moved from its wish list until recently.

The league would be better off if contracts were shorter and not fully guaranteed, but the owners are likely to get one or the other, not both. A hard cap (like the NFL’s) would also help promote parity, something that is very much lacking in today’s NBA.

Big names show up to CBA negotiations

Per ESPN…

LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul were among the players who attended a negotiating session between the NBA and the union Thursday.

“It’s important for me that all of us, as being the faces of the NBA, to be involved in the negotiations and what’s going on,” Anthony said as he left. “Our future is in jeopardy if we can’t come into a mutual agreement.”

LeBron and Wade are locked into long term deals, and it would be very difficult for the owners to negotiate any kind of changes to those contracts. The guys that really have something to lose with an owner-friendly CBA are Anthony and Paul, who will be signing new deals in the next two years.

Regardless, the show of force from the players’ side is important. The owners need to know that the league’s biggest names are behind the union in these negotiations.

The four-hour bargaining session Thursday was the first since February’s All-Star weekend, when the players — also strengthened by the surprising attendance of some big names — rejected the owners’ proposal. The union recently submitted its own proposal, but commissioner David Stern has indicated it’s similar to the current CBA, and the owners are seeking significant changes to the system.

Stern has estimated the league will lose about $370 million this season, which the union disputes. The sides began discussions last year but remained far apart, creating fears of a lockout next summer.

Stern cracks me up. He effuses positivity whenever he’s asked about the financial state of the league — to the point that I think he’s trying to hypnotize his audience — but now that it’s time to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement, the league is suddenly $370 million in the red. After going on and on about how well the league is doing worldwide, he’s pleading poverty.

However, the CBA does need a few changes. Contracts need to be guaranteed only to a certain point — say, 50% in years 3-4-5 — or they need to be kept to a maximum of four years. Too many franchises handicap themselves by giving long-term, lucrative contracts to players on the decline. Also, there’s nothing a team can do when a perfectly good player is hamstrung by injuries after signing his deal (i.e. Michael Redd or Tracy McGrady).

I’d also like to see a harder cap. Teams with free-spending owners like James Dolan, Jerry Buss or Mark Cuban make things that much tougher on small market teams who can’t afford to keep up with the Joneses. Fortunately, these teams — the Knicks, Lakers and the Mavs — are generally way over the cap, so they aren’t competing directly with the small market teams for free agents. (The Knicks were obviously the exception this summer, but they’ll be over the cap before too long, especially if they rehire Isiah Thomas in a year or two.) All in all, the salary cap rules aren’t too bad — at least it’s not uncapped, like baseball.

Newer posts »