What's new
By:

Twitter reactions to the NBAPA choice to not accept

freakazoid said:
There was an article that suggested these rumors were started by several agents via twitter, as an intentional smear campaign to get the players pissed off so they'd reject the offer.
Click to expand...

I read the proposal. Which I'm guessing puts me in the minority of players who also read it. But it was 7 pages of words. Not even twitterized. So the agents were ahead of the game in realizing they could put out any misinformation they wanted knowing full well that players and certain Duke graduates like Itinerantson would buy it all without bothering with the fine print. You know, the stuff that directly impacted their lives.
 
billyshelby said:
Where are you getting any of this?

1. The league has denied this, it's not in the proposal, and the players aren't contesting this publicly to my knowledge.
2. The players contend the tax system IS a thinly veiled hard cap, not a road to one. There is nothing about non-guaranteed contracts in the proposal and both sides have agreed that contracts will be guaranteed.
3. There is nothing in the proposal about contraction. I haven't heard one player rep mention contraction as a divisive issue.

My guess is you're parroting speculation by third parties. My other guess is you're not reading a lot of the news.
Click to expand...

surely you realize the 7 page pdf is not the entire proposal right? The league is unlikely to highlight the malignant parts of the proposal in their summary

1)
https://twitter.com/#!/RicBucher/status/135947672128462849 ric bucher said multiple sources indiciated the nbdl issue was real and was mentioned as late as thursday.
Also, the league does not deny that they want the NBDL rule, they have however moved it out of the proposal and into the b-list of issues to be negotiated later (which basically means, we will shove it down your throat later when you have no leverage).

2) it has never been a requirement that contracts in the NBA be guaranteed. THat has always been left up to negotiation between players and teams. Earlier this summer the league proposed to ban fully guaranteed contracts, but they have walked back on that. However, a hard cap necessitates that at least some contracts be left partially unguaranteed, or else that teams dont fill all their cap space. zach lowe has written extensively about this.

.

3) The league is insisting on the rights to alter the 50-50 deal in the case of contraction. They don't want to address that until after a deal has been accepted. https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411
"One of the most prominent issues that has been raised in talks includes the NBA’s desire to cut into the players’ share of the revenue split should owners decide to contract teams over the proposed 10-year deal, sources said. The owners are offering a 50-50 split of revenue, but the possible elimination of two teams would cause the BRI to be adjusted with a smaller percentage for the players, sources said. The NBA also wants to be able to contract teams without consulting the union."
 
TheItinerantSon said:
surely you realize the 7 page pdf is not the entire proposal right? The league is unlikely to highlight the malignant parts of the proposal in their summary

1)
https://twitter.com/#!/RicBucher/status/135947672128462849 ric bucher said multiple sources indiciated the nbdl issue was real and was mentioned as late as thursday. The league has not denied that they want the NBDL rule, they have however moved it out of the proposal and into the b-list of issues to be negotiated later (which basically means, we will shove it down your throat later when you have no leverage).

2) it has never been a requirement that contracts in the NBA be guaranteed. THat has always been left up to negotiation between players and teams. Earlier this summer the league proposed to ban fully guaranteed contracts, but they have walked back on that. However, a hard cap necessitates that at least some contracts be left partially unguaranteed, or else that teams dont fill all their cap space. zach lowe has written extensively about this.

.

3) The league is insisting on the rights to alter the 50-50 deal in the case of contraction. They don't want to address that until after a deal has been accepted. https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411
"One of the most prominent issues that has been raised in talks includes the NBA’s desire to cut into the players’ share of the revenue split should owners decide to contract teams over the proposed 10-year deal, sources said. The owners are offering a 50-50 split of revenue, but the possible elimination of two teams would cause the BRI to be adjusted with a smaller percentage for the players, sources said. The NBA also wants to be able to contract teams without consulting the union."
Click to expand...

You're still talking nonsense. ALL these issues are b-fodder that no one considered important, and you're cherry picking sources to prove they are.

Stern and the players have not said anything since 11/14 about D-League issues.
You're dredging up old speculation on a true hard cap eliminating guaranteed contracts. You're whole number two point is garbage, or appropriately number 2.
I can't comment on contraction since your link doesn't mention it. But it has never come up to my knowledge as a serious issue.

Edit: The contraction issue is discussed, but this is literally the only article I have ever seen it mentioned. A third rate issue that can be figured out over a cup of coffee compared to everything else.
 
the twitterview with stern and silver, someone asked abou the d-league issue and this was the response.


NBA:
No such clause was even proposed

One_SageMichael Sadoff:using the D-league 5 year $75k demotion clause, are you trying to get out from guarantee contracts? Isn't this clause a bit too unfair?
 
The players could care less about the league making money...competitive balance for small markets...and the rank and file NBA player. The big salaried players are driving the boat.
 
sojodave said:
The players could care less about the league making money...competitive balance for small markets...and the rank and file NBA player. The big salaried players are driving the boat.
Click to expand...

No, I think the mid-level players are driving the boat. If the top players "Drove the Boat" you would see unlimited payment for tops players (ala baseball).
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
No, I think the mid-level players are driving the boat. If the top players "Drove the Boat" you would see unlimited payment for tops players (ala baseball).
Click to expand...

No, I think the agents are driving the boat. The star players are blindfolded in the back, thinking they are on their way to paradise island. All the rest of the players are in the water, waiting to get mowed over, or eaten by sharks.
 
freakazoid said:
No, I think the agents are driving the boat. The star players are blindfolded in the back, thinking they are on their way to paradise island. All the rest of the players are in the water, waiting to get mowed over, or eaten by sharks.
Click to expand...

No, I think the shoe companies are driving the boat. (best I could come up with - embarassing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top