More signs of labor peace?

[Roy H.]

On the heels of Roger Mason's now-infamous tweet in which the NBPA vice president wrote, "Looking like a season. How u," but later claimed his account was hacked, one league source claims that union president Derek Fisher text-messaged numerous players last week indicating that some progress had been made and imploring them to be physically prepared just in case the season started on time.

Link.

[Chris]

I really hope this is true.  I also think I need to plan to get WAY ahead on my work in the next month, because if they have free agency and preseason start at the same time like the NFL did, its going to be an insane October.

[slamtheking]

I bought preseason tickets for the game in Providence (being a prepared optimist) and was able to get close to front row thanks to the doubtful atmosphere surrounding the talks but I'll be absolutely stunned if they reach an agreement where I can use those tickets.

[paulcowens]

What I find interesting is that someone would use the phrase "labor peace".  Wait, who exactly started this confrontation?  As I recall, it was the owners all the way.  What I'd like to see is some owner peace.

[Roy H.]

What I find interesting is that someone would use the phrase "labor peace".  Wait, who exactly started this confrontation?  As I recall, it was the owners all the way.  What I'd like to see is some owner peace.

 

"Labor" has more meanings, even in this context, than "organized labor".  Indeed, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the term "labor dispute" doesn't necessarily involve a union.

There's plenty of blame to go around among the owners and players, as they mutually work toward resolving their labor issues.

[LooseCannon]

If a new CBA is negotiated with little or no loss of games, that would suggest that either the players caved or the owners were massively lying about their claimed losses.

[KCattheStripe]

What I find interesting is that someone would use the phrase "labor peace".  Wait, who exactly started this confrontation?  As I recall, it was the owners all the way.  What I'd like to see is some owner peace.

 

"Labor" has more meanings, even in this context, than "organized labor".  Indeed, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the term "labor dispute" doesn't necessarily involve a union.

There's plenty of blame to go around among the owners and players, as they mutually work toward resolving their labor issues.

I dunno man. If you offer Joe Johnson 20 million dollars a year and Joe Johnson says yes and then you look at how much money your team makes and get angry that you spent 20 million dollars on Joe Johnson, is that really Joe Johnson's fault?

[action781]

What I find interesting is that someone would use the phrase "labor peace".  Wait, who exactly started this confrontation?  As I recall, it was the owners all the way.  What I'd like to see is some owner peace.

 

"Labor" has more meanings, even in this context, than "organized labor".  Indeed, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the term "labor dispute" doesn't necessarily involve a union.

There's plenty of blame to go around among the owners and players, as they mutually work toward resolving their labor issues.

I dunno man. If you offer Joe Johnson 20 million dollars a year and Joe Johnson says yes and then you look at how much money your team makes and get angry that you spent 20 million dollars on Joe Johnson, is that really Joe Johnson's fault?

What bothers me is this...

I understand the stance that the owners in small markets have to overpay so their players don't go to bigger markets.  But 6 years $119 million for Joe Johnson???  If the Hawks lose money, I have to point to the fact that they could have secured Johnson for 6 years $100 million.  That was simply poor ownership.  I have no pity on these owners and think decisions like these play a big role in their losing of money.

If another team wants to outbid that price for JJ, then LET THEM.  I realize some markets make more money than others so can pay players more.  But there is still a salary cap in place with only certain exceptions to exceed it that are not all that easy.  Also, it is difficult for any team in any market to make a large profit when having huge payrolls, so these teams won't just take on anybody.

[cman88]

What I find interesting is that someone would use the phrase "labor peace".  Wait, who exactly started this confrontation?  As I recall, it was the owners all the way.  What I'd like to see is some owner peace.

 

"Labor" has more meanings, even in this context, than "organized labor".  Indeed, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the term "labor dispute" doesn't necessarily involve a union.

There's plenty of blame to go around among the owners and players, as they mutually work toward resolving their labor issues.

I dunno man. If you offer Joe Johnson 20 million dollars a year and Joe Johnson says yes and then you look at how much money your team makes and get angry that you spent 20 million dollars on Joe Johnson, is that really Joe Johnson's fault?

What bothers me is this...

I understand the stance that the owners in small markets have to overpay so their players don't go to bigger markets.  But 6 years $119 million for Joe Johnson???  If the Hawks lose money, I have to point to the fact that they could have secured Johnson for 6 years $100 million.  That was simply poor ownership.  I have no pity on these owners and think decisions like these play a big role in their losing of money.

If another team wants to outbid that price for JJ, then LET THEM.  I realize some markets make more money than others so can pay players more.  But there is still a salary cap in place with only certain exceptions to exceed it that are not all that easy.  Also, it is difficult for any team in any market to make a large profit when having huge payrolls, so these teams won't just take on anybody.

then you lose arguably your best player and go back into rebuilding mode...thats not really a sustainable model if you want to remain competitive and just let your stars go everytime they go to free agency...

heck, look at all the grief Danny ainge gets for letting Perkins(a roleplayer) go instead of overpaying him for a longterm deal to keep him.

although, the other side of the argument I agree is that smart GM's tend to remain competitive and avoid the pitfalls....the Celtics and Knicks were in the doghouse for a long time..it took ainge and walsh about 3-4 years to rid them of bad contracts and bring them back to a competitive level.

[StartOrien]

Roger Mason just tweeted

"Just finished a long day of negotiations. Unfortunately we are NO Where Near a deal! It's def disappointing!"

Not cool.

[StartOrien]

Time to start my Slamball themed blog: The Slamball Jones

[greenpride32]

I dunno man. If you offer Joe Johnson 20 million dollars a year and Joe Johnson says yes and then you look at how much money your team makes and get angry that you spent 20 million dollars on Joe Johnson, is that really Joe Johnson's fault?

You guys really don't understand how the system works.  The owners have to pay 57% of all revenue to players.  They can either pay all of that 57% as salary to the players, or if they fall short they have to pay a lump sum bonus at the end of the year.  For simplicity let's say the league revenues are $100m so $57m goes to players.  Let's also assume the league spends a total of only $45m on player salary/contracts.  What happens is at the end of the year the owners have to fork over that $12m to the players to meet the 57% requirement.  If you're an owner and you want to stay competitive you're going to want to spend the money on players for your team, and not let them go to other teams.  You might as well do this since you have to pay the money in the end regardless.

The league actually had a shortfall in salary this past season.  I don't recall the exact number but the owners have to pay the players somewhere in the neighborhood of $150m or so because that's how much they fell short of 57%.  See the owners can't even try to reduce salary; it's not an option when 57% of revenue is guaranteed to the players.  When you fault the owners for overspending, you are just ignorant of how the system works.

[StartOrien]

I dunno man. If you offer Joe Johnson 20 million dollars a year and Joe Johnson says yes and then you look at how much money your team makes and get angry that you spent 20 million dollars on Joe Johnson, is that really Joe Johnson's fault?

You guys really don't understand how the system works.  The owners have to pay 57% of all revenue to players.  They can either pay all of that 57% as salary to the players, or if they fall short they have to pay a lump sum bonus at the end of the year.  For simplicity let's say the league revenues are $100m so $57m goes to players.  Let's also assume the league spends a total of only $45m on player salary/contracts.  What happens is at the end of the year the owners have to fork over that $12m to the players to meet the 57% requirement.  If you're an owner and you want to stay competitive you're going to want to spend the money on players for your team, and not let them go to other teams.  You might as well do this since you have to pay the money in the end regardless.

The league actually had a shortfall in salary this past season.  I don't recall the exact number but the owners have to pay the players somewhere in the neighborhood of $150m or so because that's how much they fell short of 57%.  See the owners can't even try to reduce salary; it's not an option when 57% of revenue is guaranteed to the players.  When you fault the owners for overspending, you are just ignorant of how the system works.

You're right about the  57% GP, but I don't see how that takes away from KC's fundamental point.

[wdleehi]

I dunno man. If you offer Joe Johnson 20 million dollars a year and Joe Johnson says yes and then you look at how much money your team makes and get angry that you spent 20 million dollars on Joe Johnson, is that really Joe Johnson's fault?

You guys really don't understand how the system works.  The owners have to pay 57% of all revenue to players.  They can either pay all of that 57% as salary to the players, or if they fall short they have to pay a lump sum bonus at the end of the year.  For simplicity let's say the league revenues are $100m so $57m goes to players.  Let's also assume the league spends a total of only $45m on player salary/contracts.  What happens is at the end of the year the owners have to fork over that $12m to the players to meet the 57% requirement.  If you're an owner and you want to stay competitive you're going to want to spend the money on players for your team, and not let them go to other teams.  You might as well do this since you have to pay the money in the end regardless.

The league actually had a shortfall in salary this past season.  I don't recall the exact number but the owners have to pay the players somewhere in the neighborhood of $150m or so because that's how much they fell short of 57%.  See the owners can't even try to reduce salary; it's not an option when 57% of revenue is guaranteed to the players.  When you fault the owners for overspending, you are just ignorant of how the system works.

You're right about the  57% GP, but I don't see how that takes away from KC's fundamental point.

Yes it does.


The owners are not complaining that Joe Johnson is making to much money. 


They are complaining the the players as a whole are making to much money.



Fans complain about single players making to much money.

Owners understand either they overspend on some players or they give the money to all the players at the end of the season. 

Overpaying good players helps sell tickets.  Giving lump sums to at the end of the season does not. 

[mkogav]

Man, I love collective bargaining disputes. Nothing better then billionaires and millionaires arguing over how to split up 2 billion $$$ when 1 out 6 Americans live under the poverty line. This is not to mention $4 per gallon gas prices, 9% unemployment, and a tanking stock market.

Love the game, hate the business.

Mk