Lockout!!!

[freakazoid]

And frankly, I am so dissatisfied with his 4 1/2-month exercise in idiocy that I re-engaged him. (Boies had just finished explaining why he could not, under legal ethical rules, contact Stern directly. But he did concede that he could contact Mishkin as long as Mishkin will be the lead outside counsel for the NBA in this case).

Sheridan: “So if there’s a call to be made, you could make it, or Jeff Mishkin could make it. Can we agree on that?”

Boies: “I think either one of us could make it. I think before I made it, I would probably call him and say I assume you are representing the owners in this lawsuit. If he said no, then I would say ‘Do you know who is representing them?’ And I would call that person.”

Sheridan: “If I may play devil’s advocate, wouldn’t that speed up the process more than filing a new lawsuit?”

Boise: “Only if they want to talk. I could make all the calls in the world … “

Sheridan: “But you haven’t.”

Boise: “And the reason I haven’t is because of that statement (the public statement made by the NBA) and the statements they made to Billy. And in the face of someone saying ‘I don’t want to talk to you, we’ve got an offer, take it or leave it, this is the ultimatum, we’re going to make no more proposals, and somebody saying this is baseless, it ought to go away,’ that’s a waste of time for someone to make a telephone call.”

The meeting adjourned not too long after that, but Boise stuck around and continued talking.

My point in arguing with him, I said while thanking him for allowing me to argue with him, is people do not want to hear that the owners are now compelled to respond within the next three weeks. They want action NOW.

Everyone around the NBA, including Stern, Hunter, Boies, Mishkin, Jeffrey Kessler (conspicuously absent for the second straight Boies news conference) and the fans who have been following the lockout closely, realizes that the sides are close enough (or at least they were less than two weeks ago) that the remaining differences can be settled in a matter of a few hours, if not minutes.

Nobody wants to hear anything resembling revelry over the fact that the owners must now file a court brief by Dec. 5, which is what Boies was selling.

People want to know when this thing will be settled, and they are growing impatient. Boise again made the point about the league’s public statement, and I countered by saying that was merely posturing for public consumption.

Sheridan: “That was spin. If you call Mishkin, you can talk turkey.

Boies: “I don’t have that sense, but … (13 second pause) … I suppose it couldn’t hurt for me to call him. You know, I suppose it couldn’t hurt for me to call him. Ask me that Wednesday.

Wednesday? Why Wednesday? Is there something happening Tuesday that would necessitate me speaking to Boies on Wednesday?

I asked him that very question later, in the lobby, and he acknowledged he was strongly considering seeing if this process can’t be fast-tracked with a phone call. And if that phone call is made, it’ll be made before the close of business Wednesday, he said.

It might end up costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential billable hours, but it might help this dispute get back on track — if not toward a resolution, at least toward a renewed dialogue.

That’s the least they could do, correct?

That was my point, and hopefully Boies bought it.

https://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/21/sheridan-column-boise-wavers-on-whether-hell-call-nba/

 

[zbone]

So lawyers not really interested in big cases being resolved promptly. What a shocker.

 

[Revolution 9]

A lot of you didn't like Dwill's no guts no glory, but I did.

Is that the one he got removed or put the panther over?

 

[One Brow]

The fact that the NBA is a single franchise may affect this argument. The NBA should have the right to consider the health of its franchise as a whole and has the right to create rules and regulations (e.g., the draft rules, salary cap rules, scheduling rules, broadcast licenses, etc.), even if the individual teams are run as separate corporations. Creating a standardized pay structure has never been considered anti-trust in the past, and there are ways to make high salaries for superstars punitive to the big-market teams without making those high salaries outright illegal. The luxury tax system is designed to achieve this.

The NBA has a brand. The individual teams are the franchises. Much like Burger King or McDonalds has a brand, and many individual owners have franchises. Yes, it is illegal for owners of different franchises to set up a common salary structure. For example, the Burger King at the Dayton Mall, the one in west Carrollton (just over a mile north), and the one in Miamisburg (just over a mile west) can't jointly agree that the pay of shft managers will range from X to Y. If they do, they can be sued. There are many steps corporate brands can take to ensure the brand reputation (for example, dress codes and drug policies). Pay rates are not among them. The only way for even the lusxury tax to be legal is for it to be negotiated with the players acting as a whole.

When players can dictate where they want to play and who they want to play with, it shifts the power away from the owners and the league itself, even if small-market teams are willing and able to pony up the same (or better) salaries these players want.

Damn all those uppity players trying to direct the course of their careers. How dare they!

I think that as much as smaller market teams want a strong share of BRI, those teams are just as motivated to try to gain some semblance of control over the market for free agents. Why? Because they keep getting screwed by players who want to rule the world. I think this is the gist of the conflict and why the players' association shot down the proposal without letting the rank-and-file players vote.

I agree with that. I think the desire to restrict labor flow is the primary reason behind the lockout (since they've agreed on a BRI, but the lockout persists).

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Damn all those uppity players trying to direct the course of their careers. How dare they!

I don't think anyone would argue that a player should have no control over where they play, just that we need to have more incentives for a player to stay with the team that drafts them. Things like sign-and-trade just give players no reason to stay with their small-market teams. I love the idea that when a player resigns with his current team, he can sign for 4 years. However, if he switches teams, it can only last 3 years. In addition, players should be able to sign a contract 10-20% higher with their current team than if they change teams. Those are real consequences for players wanting to relocate and they would have to think twice before leaving that much money on the table.

 

[LogGrad98]

Or we could just let them entirely direct the course of their careers, and we would have the California/Texas conference of 2 to 5 teams against the NewYork/Florida/Mass conference of 3 to 5 teams as the "real" NBA where all the best players choose to direct the course of their careers. And use the other 20+ teams that no stars will play on to expand the developmental league. That would rock!

 

[GVC]

I don't think anyone would argue that a player should have no control over where they play, just that we need to have more incentives for a player to stay with the team that drafts them. Things like sign-and-trade just give players no reason to stay with their small-market teams. I love the idea that when a player resigns with his current team, he can sign for 4 years. However, if he switches teams, it can only last 3 years. In addition, players should be able to sign a contract 10-20% higher with their current team than if they change teams.

You realize that these mechanisms already existed in the last CBA, right?

Restricted free agency
longer contracts for free agents signing with their current teams
larger yearly raises for players signing with their current teams
Base Year Compensation
Trade restrictions

and on and on...

 

[Qman]

You realize that these mechanisms already existed in the last CBA, right?

Restricted free agency
longer contracts for free agents signing with their current teams
larger yearly raises for players signing with their current teams
Base Year Compensation
Trade restrictions

and on and on...

But somehow the Miami Heat happened- leaving Cleveland and Toronto holding the bag.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

You realize that these mechanisms already existed in the last CBA, right?

Restricted free agency
longer contracts for free agents signing with their current teams
larger yearly raises for players signing with their current teams
Base Year Compensation
Trade restrictions

and on and on...

I knew that the contracts could be a little higher by staying with your current team, I didn't know that you could sign a longer deal as well. Restricted free agency and trade restrictions are negotiated while putting the contract together, so they are certainly not part of every player's contract. Either way, players can get around these restrictions with things like sign-and-trade, which I think should be banished.

My point is that if the current restraints for players to move isn't limiting elite player movement, then the incentives for players to stay needs to increase.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

How about compensatory picks for teams that lose elite players, like MLB has? That could strengthen small-market teams.

 

[mellow]

I like the idea of compensetory picks, but how do you decide how much a guy is worth? And is it fair that Cleveland loses Lebron for the 27th pick?

I wonder if it would help getting rid of the maximum salary but keeping the salary cap? Would LeBron have stayed in Clevland if the Cavs could pay him 40 million per year?

 

[One Brow]

I think a franchise contract provision would be in order. You can have one current franchise contract, for the maximum with maximum raises (maybe even extra years and extra-large raises). It counts as your only franchise contract for its duration.