View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
MJST Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 Posts: 26409
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:50 pm Post subject: NBA and NBPA pushed closer to a deal on a new CBA |
|
|
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojVerticalNBA 26m26 minutes ago
Sources: After Wednesday labor meeting, NBA and NBPA pushed closer to a deal on a new CBA. Most major items agreed on, deal within sight.
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojVerticalNBA 24m24 minutes ago
Among items that will be in final CBA agreement: NBA's "one-and-done" college draft rule will remain in place, sources tell @TheVertical.
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojVerticalNBA 14m14 minutes ago
The NBA and NBPA's Basketball Related Income (BRI) split will be unchanged in a new CBA deal, league sources tell @TheVertical.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lowest Merion Retired
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 Posts: 10720
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, man. If true, that's no fun. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Brain Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Oct 2016 Posts: 515 Location: Avatar courtesy of Jodeke, my friend.
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously, Adam Silver in 2 years has been as flawless a commish as you could be. I do wish the one and done was off the table though. Either scrap it or make it a 2 and done. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
activeverb Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 37470
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Brain wrote: | Seriously, Adam Silver in 2 years has been as flawless a commish as you could be. I do wish the one and done was off the table though. Either scrap it or make it a 2 and done. |
The one and done rule is completely exploitative, and I am surprised no one has yet fought it with an age-discrimination suit. I don't know that there's much evidence that 1 or 2 years in college are better for a player than coming straight out of high school -- in all cases, some will be busts, some will make it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 11266
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
activeverb Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 37470
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. |
It's legal in that it's withstood cases that take an antitrust approach. As far as I know, no one's ever challenged it based on age discrimination, though there has been speculation that challenge could be successful.
LarryCoon wrote: | And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player." |
Well, the league (and union) do often perpetuated the hypocrisy that they are protecting players who aren't ready for the league. That aside, I don't see why the league's self-interest should trump the self-interest of the players coming into the league. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
I couldn't see how the union could be for or against the one and done rule. The number of players in the league is basically stagnant. I am not sure how union dues are paid, but if it is a percentage of income then maybe more vets would mean higher paid players and more dues. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
activeverb Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 37470
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
I couldn't see how the union could be for or against the one and done rule. The number of players in the league is basically stagnant. I am not sure how union dues are paid, but if it is a percentage of income then maybe more vets would mean higher paid players and more dues. |
That didn't make a lot of sense. Every year, there are going to be first round picks with guaranteed salaries who will take the place of players who retire or are cut.
The one-and-done rule only affects who the replacements are; it doesn't quash the inevitable changing of the guard.
It's simplistic to suggest that the union gives no thought or feels no responsibility to the next wave of players. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 Posts: 30722
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't Maurice Clarett go after the NFL for similar reasons and lost? I don't think it'd end well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 31763
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
The non-statutory labor exemption does not apply to discrimination claims. Otherwise, an employer and a union could bargain for racial or sexual preferences. Title VII has specific provisions to prohibit this.
However, the age discrimination statute applies only to workers who are over 40. If the NBA and the NBPA negotiated a provision that required players to retire at 40, or something like that, it would be illegal. 18 year olds get no protection. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 31763
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jonnybravo wrote: | Didn't Maurice Clarett go after the NFL for similar reasons and lost? I don't think it'd end well. |
Yes. That was an antitrust claim, not an age discrimination claim. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
activeverb Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 37470
|
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
The non-statutory labor exemption does not apply to discrimination claims. Otherwise, an employer and a union could bargain for racial or sexual preferences. Title VII has specific provisions to prohibit this.
However, the age discrimination statute applies only to workers who are over 40. If the NBA and the NBPA negotiated a provision that required players to retire at 40, or something like that, it would be illegal. 18 year olds get no protection. |
If I'm correct, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that reverse age discrimination wasn't illegal in a case 15 or so years ago. However, I think all but one or two of the six judges in the majority are no longer on the court. So is it feasible a new court could rule the other way? (I have to admit I don't know what the current court's leaning on this matter is) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VegasLakerFan Star Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2011 Posts: 1835
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Brain wrote: | Seriously, Adam Silver in 2 years has been as flawless a commish as you could be. I do wish the one and done was off the table though. Either scrap it or make it a 2 and done. |
His only blemish in my eyes was jumping too soon at the jerseys ads. Why do it when the league is flourishing? Save it for when the league might have some trouble down the road. Now the only next step is to go soccer style and remove the team and city names in favor of companies. I think that was the one thing David Stern really got right, as much as he sucked. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 31763
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
activeverb wrote: | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
The non-statutory labor exemption does not apply to discrimination claims. Otherwise, an employer and a union could bargain for racial or sexual preferences. Title VII has specific provisions to prohibit this.
However, the age discrimination statute applies only to workers who are over 40. If the NBA and the NBPA negotiated a provision that required players to retire at 40, or something like that, it would be illegal. 18 year olds get no protection. |
If I'm correct, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that reverse age discrimination wasn't illegal in a case 15 or so years ago. However, I think all but one or two of the six judges in the majority are no longer on the court. So is it feasible a new court could rule the other way? (I have to admit I don't know what the current court's leaning on this matter is) |
That's not quite correct. The plaintiffs in that case were 40 and over and thus were covered by the statute. The argument was that the company was providing special benefits to people who were over 50, but were not providing those benefits to people who were 40-49. In other words, the company was discriminating against people who were 40-49. That's no help to an 18 year old, and besides, the 40-49 plaintiffs lost. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Brain wrote: | Seriously, Adam Silver in 2 years has been as flawless a commish as you could be. I do wish the one and done was off the table though. Either scrap it or make it a 2 and done. |
He will be "flawless" once he gets the Lakers a #1 pick this year, even if we have the 10th worst record. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
governator Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 25092
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
The one and done helps NCAA keeps top HS prospects in the country albeit inky for 1 yr (better than zero yr), that's 1 yr worth of star $ that don't need to be shared with the player |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002 Posts: 58348
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
No amnesty is going to bite these owners and GMs in the butt. They handed out some huge contracts this summer. I would have thought the amnesty being there was a given. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MJST Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 Posts: 26409
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | The Brain wrote: | Seriously, Adam Silver in 2 years has been as flawless a commish as you could be. I do wish the one and done was off the table though. Either scrap it or make it a 2 and done. |
He will be "flawless" once he gets the Lakers a #1 pick this year, even if we have the 10th worst record. |
There's no more bent envelopes though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
activeverb Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 37470
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter wrote: | activeverb wrote: | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | It's collectively bargained, so it's legal. And it's really not that it's better for a given player, it's that the league gets an extra year to see how that player develops before deciding whether he becomes a "given player."
It's an issue that was never going to get any pushback from the players. The raison d'etre of a union is to protect its membership, and for every young guy the league lets in, a current member loses his job.
BTW, I was told back in July that this was going to get done before December 15, so I'm glad it's all working out according to plan. |
The non-statutory labor exemption does not apply to discrimination claims. Otherwise, an employer and a union could bargain for racial or sexual preferences. Title VII has specific provisions to prohibit this.
However, the age discrimination statute applies only to workers who are over 40. If the NBA and the NBPA negotiated a provision that required players to retire at 40, or something like that, it would be illegal. 18 year olds get no protection. |
If I'm correct, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that reverse age discrimination wasn't illegal in a case 15 or so years ago. However, I think all but one or two of the six judges in the majority are no longer on the court. So is it feasible a new court could rule the other way? (I have to admit I don't know what the current court's leaning on this matter is) |
That's not quite correct. The plaintiffs in that case were 40 and over and thus were covered by the statute. The argument was that the company was providing special benefits to people who were over 50, but were not providing those benefits to people who were 40-49. In other words, the company was discriminating against people who were 40-49. That's no help to an 18 year old, and besides, the 40-49 plaintiffs lost. |
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
audioaxes Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 12573
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
now is a very crappy time to be a crappy team. Great teams have much more room to sign/resign valuable players while crappy teams like the Lakers are stuck overpaying for over the hill players like Deng and Moz. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gatekeeper Star Player
Joined: 11 Jan 2012 Posts: 5103 Location: Southland Native
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MJST Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 Posts: 26409
|
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Read somewhere that they are gonna add 2 spots for D-League spots. So basically you have your 15 players plus 2 that are exclusively in the D-League. I'm guessing then you can also have the 14th and 15 guy jump back and forth. This would be pretty big for the D-League if true.
via bigfetz |
HUGE if true. Especially for player development. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JUST-MING Retired Number
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 43997
|
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do the owners get another trade veto in the new agreement? . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|