Welcome to NBA Chat with HOOPSWORLD Senior Writer Eric Pincus. I’ve got all the questions I can handle. Thanks for participating!
Eric covers the L.A. Lakers, Clippers and NBA at large.
bynum, blake, and odom for jennings and bogut… who says no and why?… what you think about that trade?… could you see a way to tweak it and see the teams actually doing it?
Lakers say no. They want Bynum more than they want Jennings and Bogut. If Bogut was clearly at 100% and over the brutal arm injury of a couple of years ago and playing clearly like one of the best centers in the league, then perhaps that changes but I don’t necessarily see it.
do you think rashard lewis would be a viable option at the three spot for the clips if he gets amnestied? i think he’s a 3. would 6 million be enough?
Sure, but I can’t see the Clippers giving him $6 million. I’m not sure he’s even worth that in the new deal. Lewis is a really tremendous shooter but at this point I’m not sure he does much else – and even his scoring has dropped over recent years.
gomes, thompkins, and 2 2nd round draft picks for robin lopez and mikael pietrus?
Well given there are no trades and won’t be for some time, not really . . . but then why on face value would the Suns even consider that?
Eric what i don’t understand is, how can the players say they are giving up or giving back too much, from 57% or the BRI to 50% of the BRI. When you no longer have a contract, how are you giving up anything. If you were still in the previous contract, and you were willing to amend that contract and give the owner 3% or your 57% BRI that would be a concession, and you’d be giving up something, but if you are starting out with a clean slate, and there is no contract,how are you giving up something you no longer have? you are now negotiating for a new contract, that doesn’t mean all that was in it will apply to a new contract. so if a player earns 5 mil. a year over 3 years, when that contract is up, and he’s offered 2 mil. a year,is he giving up a million,because he’s offered 2 mil. in the new contract? I don’t see how you make the comment that you’ve given up something or you’ve made tremendous consessions, am i right?
Nope. I don’t believe that approach holds. Of course it’s a new deal and technically the slate is clean but are you going to say precedent holds no place? The American legal system is largely based on precedent yet each individual case has nothing to do with what came before.
The league and the players have had a way of doing things for decades. Suddenly the owners can decide that’s no longer tenable? Maybe, but why would you not expect the players to fight for what they believe they are worth?
Ultimately this is not about idealistic notions but basic horse trading. Both sides have an idea of what they want and try to get there through negotiation. The players came to the table at 57% and have come off their number to 50%. You can disassociate that with history and precedent all you want but that’s where they started.
The owners originally say they wanted like 38% to the players and have climbed to 50%, so if you want to argue they came back 12 points (and in turn more than the players) and you can rationalize that – go on ahead.
as this silly lockout drags on i am thankful for NBATV. watching a game from 1991, the Admiral at his peak, Sean Elliott, Karl Malone, John Stockton (28 assists in this game)…anyway. a lot of people are mad because the owners want a guaranteed profit and are saying it is unreal for a business owner to want a guaranteed profit…but in what business does the employee get to dictate what percentage of the profit they get? i guess the veterans day weekend has me thinking about how much these guys get to dribble a ball while guys put on a uniform, or back home put on a badge, and get a fraction of the league minimum…:(
It’s complicated. Nothing here is black and white. I can’t say that you’re wrong but then the players aren’t just labor. They’re the product itself. Then again, the individual players are transitory and only in the league for relatively short stretches.
The thing is – the players already agreed to the economic requirements of the NBA – so even that’s a moot point. The owners just put too much of the responsibility of maintaining parity on the players instead of each other via revenue sharing.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but if the union has locked out the players, what’s to stop the players from starting their own league? The players are who the public pay to see. Yes, there would be no up front salaries, but players would own 100% of all revenue. Yes they’d have to get new team names, perhaps play in other venues, make new network deals, work out how to divide the money that comes in (that could just be based on current salary ratios to start). Yes, it’s a huge undertaking, but over, say. a 10 year period wouldn’t the players make out much better?
Who is going to front the money there? The players don’t have it save for a small selection of stars. The agents won’t. It’s a very, very difficult task to put together a league given the players as a group have difficulty organizing charity games, world tours, etc. It’s way more difficult than you might imagine and requires tremendous resources.
The absolute first step in such a venture would be landing a major network contract. Without that, there is no true income to support such a league. What comes in at the gate isn’t nearly enough.
What network is willing to invest in a product that may dissolve in a second? All the NBA has to do is green light a compromise and then poof – all the players this new league was banking on have up and disappeared.
It’s far, far from a realistic notion. It’s not a bad idea. It’s not impossible. It’s just not practical.
I understand the lockout and the reasons that the small market teams are fighting for every penny…but, arn’t those same teams responsible for their own problems, maybe they paid too much considering the size of their market?. Maybe they should think about re-location as much as any thing else? Just wanted to get your thoughts on that. Thanks
On a very simple playing field, if you’re offered about the same money to go play in Los Angeles or Milwaukee . . . where do you go? You may find some choose the Bucks but by and large there is more opportunity in LA economically. Relocation in many cases or even contraction would help, I’m not going to lie and say that’s not the case . . . but now is not the time for that discussion. The league wants to get a system that works for the 30 teams that are in place and frankly they were close to that had they yielded on a few points. They would have had their 50/50 split which would have provided a level of overall profit league-wide. From there, parity could have been achieved via some level of luxury tax but more so with revenue sharing.
If the NBA wanted to get a mjority of players to vote for a new deal would it better if they reduced the MAX contract and increased the Mid-Level exception?
ie lower the STARS wages to increase the middle-class.
Say reduce the MAx to $10-12mil and the MLE to $6-6.5mil
Since many more players would be worried about middle/lower end contracts then MAX deals.
This would also allow teams to carry more MAX contracts, instead of 2 guys making $18-20mil each.
You can make that argument but you can also make the case that fans pay to see the stars – that those players are the ones that bring in the bulk of the league’s income.
If Blake Griffin develops the jumper and can hit the three well, should he do it? It’s not like it would hurt if he had more range right?
Griffin is working on his complete game but if he’s shooting jumpers, think high post not from three. That might be something he slowly adds to the repertoire but doesn’t become a staple. I mean Pau Gasol can hit the three but is that where the Lakers want him shooting the ball? Same idea. Closer to the basket = higher percentage shot.
bargs, barbosa, and e.davis for okafor and ariza?
I don’t believe the Raptors are ready to move Bargnani. If they did, I would want more than that.
this is theory of knicks roster and who gets the most minutes @ the position
the knicks will sign chris anderson ny will love em i assume the knicks will trade toney douglas for either a wing to back up melo or another big if they dnt sign josh harrelson and jerome jordan is still a prospect any problems with this setup?
Hmm, I’m going to go at this point with zero minutes across the board until things clear up with this lockout.
Hi Eric! The way the lockout goes,basketball lovers like us cannot seem to digest why it has to come to this,the players make so much guaranteed money and yet they are still not satisfied. I am not siding with the owners but the owners have to make investment and there’s no guarantee that they will make money out of this. Very disgusting.
As I noted elsewhere, the players gave the owners the percentage they wanted in negotiation. So it’s more than just earning a profit at stake.
Is there any way you guys could change the site name? Instead of Hoopsworld, you guys should rename it to Lockoutworld. Lol anyways, desertification is a “tactic” the players are using? Whats the chances the court rules in the owners favor? I mean it is their money. Even if the players are the product, we regulars are a slave to our companies and have to work til death, while these guys retire whenever they want after being paid more than me and the whole HW cast. Sports nowadays is just f’d up bro.
Lockoutworld? I’ll have to check to see if anyone has that domain name.
The players may still try to decertify but to date they disclaimed which is different. Basically management said they can no longer lead as a union to resolution – whereas decertification is the players saying that management can no longer lead to resolution. A fine distinction but one nonetheless.
The courts are going to rule at times in the owners’ favor – at times in players’ favor – and each time there will be appeals, red tape and delay. If it actually goes to a judge’s final decision, I’ll be surprised though. This is just one of the many paths collective bargaining can take. It’s an ugly path but one we’re faced with.
I’m not sure I view my own position as slave to anything – to death is the vow I made with my wife, not anyone one else.
You’re losing me here on the player side of things. The going rate for athletes, actors and the like are disproportionately high to “important” jobs like teaching, serving the country, etc. but is that DJ Mbenga’s fault?
The owners threw their weight around – got almost everything they set out to get – but pushed too far. The players are fighting for what they believe is right. We’re looking at two different economic bodies battling over a sizable piece of the pie.
If you want to focus on what the product is itself and say they don’t deserve that money, I don’t really know how to help you here. It’s kind of spitting in the wind. I mean someone just paid $4.3 million of a picture of a river? Economics are funny thing in this world.
I’ve read that the three hard-line owners are Paul Allen, Michael Jordan, Robert Sarver. I am good friends with Phil Jackson, and he said there is only ONE reason these three are not budging. They all have a grudge against Kobe “One Ring Away from being the Greatest” Bryan. Paul Allen still dislikes Kobe from the early 2000′s when he robbed the Blazers of several rings. Robert Sarver dislikes Kobe from when he dunked/posterized Steve Nash in the playoffs. Michael Jordan is uber-competitive and this was his only route to keep Kobe from surpassing him. I think these three owners need to know can’ stop Kobe, they can only hope to contain him.
I’m not sure if that’s true or false. It’s an interesting theory. I would stay instead that the teams are very concerned about the Lakers and their off-the-charts TV deal with Time Warner Cable. LA would have to means to outspend all of their adversaries (as far as deep pockets) in a similar fashion to the New York Yankees. Now that the other franchises have the opportunity to try and safeguard against that – Kobe or not – they’re definitely mindful of it and taking action.
I know a couple of cities have sort of taken their own legal action against the nba, because without games, it ruins businesses in their town. Do you think other cities will start to try and take legal action against the nba? And how effective can it be for cities to start stepping into the legal issue?
Cities in general can’t just sue the NBA. You’d have to look at their contracts with the teams regarding public funding of arenas, etc.
Is there any precedent for how the next draft will be ordered?
NFL used an average of the past three seasons when they lost a year. That would be a boon for the Clippers and their Minnesota pick.
I guess I won’t be seeing my celtics this season huh? Also why is A.I so desperate to be back ..he burned a lot of teams in the past and now he wants to be a Celtic …he’s gonna be a bust..what is your opinion on all this?
Iverson wants back in the NBA. Is that a surprise? This is what he does professionally. He’s been one of the best basketball players of the last 20 years. I’m not sure he has the right tools to fit in as a role player, now that he’s in the latter (or end even) of his career but that remains to be seen. As to your first point, we just have to wait and see. It still may happen but obviously we’re facing some serious hurdles here.
just wondering, since the latest proposal from NBA has increased the penalty for going over the luxury tax, wouldn’t teams be look to avoid luxury tax? then technically the restrictions to luxury tax teams on free agents would be gone, or minimize… right?
Teams would look to avoid the tax which means there would be a soft limit to what they’d spend. The players feel that would infringe upon their Bird rights – since some teams won’t use them. To an extent, they certainly have a point. Also, too close to the tax and in the recent proposal teams would have about half the MLE, instead of full.
Hey Eric, so here’s my Q
If the whole issue is players wanting freedom of movement, what’s so hard about allowing that? NBA teams know there’s only 12 spots, so obviously I’m sure players realise they won’t all make it to a big market city, and will still play to get paid. Also, a player can have the freedom to move, but a GM doesn’t need to necessarily sign anyone for the sake of it. Thats what got them here in the 1st place… throwing away $$$ they now want back. It seems like owners are scared to admit their past mistakes, so they’re hiding behind this deal. Your thoughts Langy?
It’s not about past mistakes. It’s about reducing how much the biggest teams can spend. Player movement would EASE in the owners’ proposal, perhaps significantly so.
Could you please explain why agents would file a seperate anti trust lawsuit for rookies seperate from the players asssocations lawsuit? Is it because rookies have not signed contracts and are not officially nba players till they do so?
RIght, the rookies are technically part of the union, so they’re being prevented from work outside of the NBPA – or the body formerly known as the NBPA. We should use a symbol like Prince did . . .
Why are some rookies hating on guys like paul pierce who are pushing for decertification to get a better deal? They are saying that these veteran superstars already have loads of money and are only thinking of themselves…but aren’t they actually looking out for young and future players so that they can have the same priviliges and money making oportunities that they had…seems to me that paul pierce already made his money and is going toward the end of his career, so this CBA wouldn’t affect him since he’s on his last big contract.
I don’t fault Pierce for pushing for decertification. From the players perspective, the owners didn’t play fairly in this negotiation and Paul was doing what he believed was right. We’ll have to see how things go moving forward (even though his plan for decertification never technically happened). As far as young players, I don’t know who specifically called him out but there’s some truth that veterans past a certain age (and fiscal opportunity) are looking out for those still coming up. I’m not sure how much that fits into the overall picture but it’s a factor.
Screw these greedy players. this is stupid. why gamble everything when the chances are low you will even win anything anyways? I hope the owners get 55 percent of revenue after this just for wasting everyones time.
Are you sure it’s not the owners that have been greedy here? I’m not going to say the players aren’t thinking about themselves, but they conceded down from their prior deal at 57% all the way to the owners’ number of 50/50 on the promise and hope that they’d get their system in place for the percentage points. When they got to 50%, they found the owners were still pushing their agenda without yielding (enough).
Remember, revenue sharing – now that the NBA would be profitable at 50/50, would go a long way towards creating parity.
Eric in your proffesional opinion what do you think the chances are of actually having and NBA season now that the players associatio is going to decertify?
We could very well have a season. Remember, the NFL disclaimed and had a season. The 1999 NBA lockout wasn’t resolved until January 20th. In my article last week, I wrote that the players can compromise and take the deal – perhaps even a small counter offer with a point or two . . . but that if they truly believed this was a bad deal they had some leverage.
The NBA does not want the lockout to go past Christmas. That’s when they have to start giving money back to ABC and when most of America starts paying any true semblance of national attention. It was a bold move that I respect. I’m curious to see if they get a better outcome out if it – but we’re all in the land of the unknown at this point!
I’ve heard that the NBA Players Association didn’t bring this offer to a vote because the players would have passed it through. If true, what gives them the right to ignore the wishes/opinion of the members of their OWN union.
What’s stopping the players from getting together right now and forming some sort of new body to approve the plan you say they had no opportunity to accept?
Hi Eric, what do you see are the main differences between the lockout of 98-99 vs the current one? Also how of an impact in the owners eyes did the Carmelo and LeBron situations effect their stance?
The difference is the economy today is very, very different than in 99. Teams didn’t like their deal back then, understandably so with the 100+ million contracts going to the likes of Juwan Howard. It was a different era but now you have teams that are truly having financial issues to deal with. It doesn’t mean owners don’t have deep pockets and the like, but there’s no question some teams are losing money on an annual basis while finding it very hard to field a competitive team.
The Carmelo/LeBron situations are certainly a factor. I would agree in the Melo case that a player had too much power – in that it really impacted the entire league for a period of months. I can’t fault James for leaving for another team that made cap room. There was nothing wrong there, except perhaps in how James delivered the news to the Cavaliers.
Did Stern underestimate the players reolve? How much of this “tit for tat” is due to the fact this is likely Stern and Hunters last go round?
I do think the owners and Stern underestimated where the players were heading into the weekend. They truly seemed to believe that their offer was the right one and that by pushing it hard through the media, Twitter, etc., that the players as a group would see the light. Obviously that didn’t happen. As far as Stern/Hunter – if this is their last negotiation together – that’s not why we’re here today.
Hi Eric, is their anyway to have competitive balence in the NBA? Or will the LA’s, NY’ Chi of the league always have the upper hand? Makes me appreciate guys like Reggie Miller and Kevin Durrant even more
And Tim Duncan. True competitive balance may be difficult to achieve and something the NBA may not even prefer (at a management level) given how important stars and big market teams are to the product. Still, striving for parity on some level is a good thing. Some franchises feel the deck is stacked against them and their fans may feel the same – and both may be right on some level. The key distinction is that the owners could solve some of that with greater revenue sharing.
The distinction between the last little bits that sent this negotiation into orbit – and a slight bump in revenue sharing instead – wouldn’t that have made a lot more sense?
Is Derrick Rose the only PG that can take over a game from a isolation/scoring perspective? I mean I love Chris Paul but I dont put him on the same level as Rose when it comes to scoring prowess
We’ll see how John Wall progresses, he has some of that same potential. Rose isn’t even at the top of his game yet as a developing player. Paul is still an amazing point guard though and probably a better overall floor-leader/play-maker than rose.
Tell the truth my friend, have the wife and kids claimed you have been a bit more crabby since this whole lockout mess started? Is thier such thing as NBA withrdrawl syndrome?
Actually they’re happy to have me around more at nights instead of at STAPLES Center.
Is it fair that teams like the PAcers had to wait years for bad contracts to come off the books (Tinsley, Dunleavy etc) to see a potential “amnesty clause” benefit teams that made mistakes?
The Pacers got those contracts somehow, no?
Why superstars never went public about NBA deal? Maybe because they wanted it? Is it just the group of greedy average players who dont care about the fans, only want their money, stopping us from watching NBA games?
The superstars don’t benefit especially well with this deal at all. The “greedy average players” are guys who are hoping to one day make $4-5 million a year during their brief 4-5 year stay in the NBA. It’s a major amount of money to the average person who isn’t a megastar athlete – but I think your blame is likely misplaced (partially anyway).
who do you believe is more worried at this point owners or players?
If you want to talk volume, there are about 450 players and just 30 ownership groups. Now technically each team may have more than one owner, but in pure mass – there is more worry pound for pound on the players’ side. This is kind of a nonsensical answer but in more serious terms, players have small bankrolls so they’re more under greater pressure long term.
Do you think that public perception of players as greedy, self-focused, money orientated human beings will change and righfully so?
It takes time for the public to get over a lockout like this – but it’s a brief period of time. Get the games going and the moment there’s a compelling storyline on the court, all will be forgiven. Eventually it will be like it never happened.
is this the end of the lakers as we know it?
dude….. now what?
What does the “Nuclear Winter” mean for teams like the Lakers? Would this drastically hinder the Laker’s chances for making a run at Dwight Howard or other big name players?
At this point we’re facing such dramatic uncertainty, I’m not sure how to approach this. If there’s no season then Howard may already have played his last game for the Magic. What system goes in place? When do things start back up. We can’t get into the ins and outs of player movement when, in essence right now, there are no players.
What happens now that the Player Union is essentially out of the picture? Do you believe NBA and players will still try to meet one final time to get a CBA done or is Stern so mad that this all going to the courts?
The union and the owners can’t meet as things are but there are ways both sides can communicate and even compromise (through lawyers). I can’t imagine the owners capitulating at this point just because of the disclaimer. I see both sides digging in for some time.
Why was Kobe the only player at the press conference not smiling? Solidarity, son!
Guess this means he won’t be able to surpass MJ missing a year like this.
Or the extra time off will allow for his legs to bring him back a few years. Remember, MJ took almost two years off and it gave him the energy for his last three rings.
If there is no season this year does this mean all restricted FA’s become full FA’s next year?
The rules don’t exist so anything could technically go into the next CBA but based on the prior rules, no. Restricted free agents remain restricted free agents. An example would be Josh Childress who played overseas for a bit. When he wanted to return to the NBA he still had to deal with restricted free agency and the Atlanta Hawks.
Someone claimed that the NBA will void all current contracts. How can the league handle a 450 FA bum rush?
Wouldn’t teams scramble to make Mega teams that would dwarf Miami’s Big 3?
Seems like parity wasn’t an NBA issue after all, just $’s.
There will be significant legal hurdles for the NBA if they aspire to void all contracts. I’m not even sure the teams as a group would want that. Would the Thunder (Durant), Clippers (Griffin), Lakers (Kobe, etc.), Heat (Wade, LBJ, etc.), Knicks (Melo, Amar’e)? Run down the list and you’ll find some teams are good with it but I could go on – the Bulls don’t want to lose out on Derrick Rose, the Warriors on Steph Curry. Minnesota on Ricky Rubio and Kevin Love. The Grizzlies, etc., etc., etc.
This is a difficult circumstance and I anticipate Stern and the NBA will try to use that as leverage but I feel it’s an empty threat.
Parity was an issue – they already got the $ via the 50/50 split. What they were looking for was a mechanism for parity they could rely on to reduce the pressure on revenue sharing.
With the NBPA done, what happens to Derek Fisher as union president?
Perhaps he still President of the trade association, whatever the official name is/will be. I’m still – like everyone else – waiting for the chips to fall.
Who’s to blame in your opinion for all this mess (decertification – no season possibly, and why?
For the most part the owners, more so than the players. I can’t fault the union for fighting for what they believe in. They’re giving up BRI and not getting the kind of system they’re expecting. The owners basically told them how it was going to be and gave them very little through this process. Most of the NBA’s concessions involved giving back what the players have already had for the past decade (plus). Equally, the players could have found a way to compromise.
On one hand, if they get 50% of BRI – they’re going to get the same money collectively regardless but that’s as a group. Individually, players need the tools to get the most they can get, and the owners were putting obstacles in on that front – obstacles the players believed would be lifted if they came down to 50/50.
If the season is cancelled, do you see Derek Fisher or Luke Walton retiring?
Walton? Presumably so. Fisher? Nah.
Who would be your ideal and realistic choice of a three point shooter that the lakers should pursue to spread the floor?
You had to throw in the word “realistic” now didn’t you? That makes it tougher. I mean Rashard Lewis if waived would fit the bill except LA already has Metta, Barnes, Ebanks and possibly Walton. If Kobe, Gasol, Bynum and Odom are getting the bulk of the minutes at the 2, 4 and 5 positions . . . and the Lakers are stocked at the three, that would mean a point guard who can shoot. I’m not sure that person is readily available at this point given the means LA would have in the new deal (whenever that is).
I would say Daniel Gibson might be a good target although I’m not sure the Cavs are willing to move him – plus Boobie didn’t necessarily excel after his early season or so under Mike Brown.
If Peace is the amnesty cut for LA then Lewis might make some sense – or possibly Tayshaun Prince.
How are NBA reporters like yourself taking this decertification news? Do you guys expect Stern to come back with a counter proposal soon to avoid losing Xmas games?
I thought the union would give the owners a small counter and there would be further battling but games by Christmas. As far as how we’re taking it as journalists? Really it’s not our fight. Unfortunately however, it will hit a lot of us in the wallet – so on that front, no one is going to be happy about that.
Any silver lining to any of this mess?
I mentioned it in another question – I have more time with the wife and children.
Select a Team
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
New Orleans Pelicans
New York Knicks
Portland Trail Blazers
San Antonio Spurs
Select a Team
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
New Orleans Pelicans
New York Knicks
Portland Trail Blazers
San Antonio Spurs
The Los Angeles Clippers, determined to keep free agent Chris Paul, won't bring back Coach Vinny Del Negro.
11:00am - Bill Ingram
3:00pm - Stephen Brotherston
3:00pm - Alex Kennedy
8:00pm - Lang Greene
10:30am - Steve Kyler
1:30pm - Joel Brigham
11:00am - Yannis Koutroupis
3:00pm - Larry Coon
11:00am - Susan Bible
5:00pm - Derek Page