# Merged: New CBA Deal



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Among the interesting features:

1.19 year old age limit
2.Contracts reduced by 1 year (5 for new team, 6 for a re-signed player)
3.Increase in salary cap(anywhere from 47 to 51 million)

ESPN article


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

"Anything can change in the blink of an eye"

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: banana:

Dancing bananas all around!

I'm glad the length of contracts was reduced at least a little bit. I'm not sure of the implications of a higher salary cap, but I guess we'll read all about it in the coming months.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Age limit needs to be a bit higher, but it's a start.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Here is what I added to my CBA piece about the latest proposed deal.



> *2. The Current Proposed Deal*
> 
> The deal that Chad Ford is outlining, in my opinion, is a big, big win for the union. It appears much more favorable to the players than the current collective bargaining agreement and the deal I propose in this piece.
> 
> ...


http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/cba2.htm

This is good for the Bulls in the sense that they probably had more to lose than most teams by not having the summer to work with their players. (Although with no rookies in the summer leagues, it is not clear that is true.)

But if there are no important details being left out, this was a huge win for players and it likely will lead to an explosive free agent market. The prices for Chandler, Curry, and Duhon probably increased a cumulative $5 million a year versus what I was expecting the deal to look like. But the cost of crossing the luxury tax threshold is much less now, so there is less reason for Reinsdorf to object to paying some luxury tax. So that might be good for the Bulls.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Layman here:

Outside of their 43% of the BRI, how are the owners making money?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Relatively sensible all around. Both sides get to walk away thinking they might be making money (the players get lower guarantees and raises but a higher cap, and the owners vice versa).

The age limit is ridiculous restraint on free trade that that shuts out deserving players to keep jobs for current players and lets owners get free marketing from an equally corrupt college system. It's clearly in the interest of both players and owners, but not in the interest of anyone else. I hope it gets the legal challenge it deserves and gets overturned.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Mikedc said:


> The age limit is ridiculous restraint on free trade that that shuts out deserving players to keep jobs for current players and lets owners get free marketing from an equally corrupt college system. It's clearly in the interest of both players and owners, but not in the interest of anyone else. I hope it gets the legal challenge it deserves and gets overturned.



http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_171224408.html



> “These agents begin to invade neighborhoods and hassling parents early on and if they see they have that extra pimp in their step, jump in their bump, they begin to probe them early on. That is a kind of trafficking of human beings that must be seen as illegal and it must be stopped," Rev. Jesse Jackson said. He’s pushing reform so that stars don't pass on school.





> Job security is not guaranteed. The average NBA run is just four years, so it could be over at age 22; even sooner. The Bulls picked Eddy Curry straight out of Thornwood High School. After just three seasons a heart problem threatens his career.
> 
> Rev. Jackson said, “I hope to God his heart is healed and strong again. He didn't finish high school and if he can't play basketball again, he has nothing to fall back on. So, we must care about these youths and stop this careless waving of money exploitation.”


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Good writeup: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2091116



> A 19-year-old age limit would be implemented. Players who are not 19 by draft night would be ineligible to declare. Under current rules, American players are eligible for the draft the year their high school class graduates. Foreign players must be 18 by draft night. The new proposed age limit would bar most, but not all (Amare Stoudemire was already 19 when he was drafted), high school players from entering the draft.
> --
> There is potentially another significant development in this area. Under current rules, the NBA has sole discretion over the use of the escrow money. Currently, it redistributes the cash (and luxury tax revenues) to teams that are under the luxury tax threshold. In essence, Clippers owner Donald Sterling gets a bonus for being cheap. Under the new proposed agreement, distribution rules would be changed so that luxury tax revenues would now be distributed equally among all 30 teams.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*









Halleleujah!!!!!!!!!!!!​
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> 2. The Current Proposed Deal
> 
> The deal that Chad Ford is outlining, in my opinion, is a big, big win for the union. It appears much more favorable to the players than the current collective bargaining agreement and the deal I propose in this piece.
> 
> ...












"Phineas J. Whoopie...You're the GREATEST!"


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2091539

Confirmation of the labor deal on the ESPN front page now!

This deserves a dancing banana.

(I still wish the contracts were 4/5 years as opposed to 5/6, but this is better.)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_171224408.html


Seeing that tool argue for an age limit should pretty much cement the stupidity of the concept in the minds of thinking individuals.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

So what's really the problem here? An age limit in the NBA or a broader social ill?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Mikedc said:


> Seeing that tool argue for an age limit should pretty much cement the stupidity of the concept in the minds of thinking individuals.


You are probably right about that, but I had the opportunity to post a quote from a nationally known religious and political figure saying "...see they have that extra pimp in their step, jump in their bump" and I went with it.

Those chances don't come along every day...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You are probably right about that, but I had the opportunity to post a quote from a nationally known religious and political figure saying "...see they have that extra pimp in their step, jump in their bump" and I went with it.
> 
> Those chances don't come along every day...


That really depends on which nationally know religious and political figures you follow :clown:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Jesse Jackson.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



HKF said:


> Jesse Jackson.


This is getting way OT, but in conclusion, I offer for your entertainment, a transcript of the SNL Weekend Update with Jesse Jackson reading Green Eggs and Ham

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

One advantage the owners have under this new deal is the ability to sign their own FAs for a longer term than other teams. Between that and Bird rights, there is more incentive than ever for a FA to stay with their old team if the team is willing to pay up...


On the other hand, as Dan points out, the new terms seem to set up a potential spending frenzy this summer.


Eddy Curry had better get some of his own docs on record that he is healthy to play, if he wants that big pay day (and, of course, if he is indeed healthy to play...).


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> One advantage the owners have under this new deal is the ability to sign their own FAs for a longer term than other teams. Between that and Bird rights, there is more incentive than ever for a FA to stay with their old team if the team is willing to pay up...


They had that right in the old deal as well.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> They had that right in the old deal as well.


He's right of course, under the old CBA teams could sign their own players to a max 7 year deal while other teams could only sign them for a max of 6 years.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_171224408.html


And the money that they make from their rookie contracts could not pay for an education?

If they do blow it there is that old moral of the story from one of Aesop's ancient fables

_ A fool and his money are easily parted_


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

*No Lockout*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2091539

Very Good News for Basketball Fans.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Mikedc said:


> The age limit is ridiculous restraint on free trade that that shuts out deserving players to keep jobs for current players and lets owners get free marketing from an equally corrupt college system. It's clearly in the interest of both players and owners, but not in the interest of anyone else. I hope it gets the legal challenge it deserves and gets overturned.


I couldn't agree more. Age limit is legally a joke. I hope it gets over turned.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*

Stern at halftime: The age limit will improve the draft, will improve the product by giving the teams more to go on so they can draft players who'll contribute.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



GB said:


> Stern at halftime: The age limit will improve the draft, will improve the product by giving the teams more to go on so they can draft players who'll contribute.


It's a marketing issue. He wants all the kids to go to college for at least a year. Ala Melo. I don't have any problems with it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



johnston797 said:


> It's a marketing issue. He wants all the kids to go to college for at least a year. Ala Melo. I don't have any problems with it.



Marketing, more than anything, is his strong point.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



johnston797 said:


> It's a marketing issue. He wants all the kids to go to college for at least a year. Ala Melo. I don't have any problems with it


Actually that may be less likely to happen with the new deal. The age limit for the NBDL will be 18, so there will be players who bypass college and play in the NBDL and then are drafted after one year in the NBDL. This has the potential to be much worse for the college game than what we have now.

So they may get less college marketing of future NBA players; they are likely to further erode the value of school for young basketball players and those influenced by young basketball players. So all the league really gets is replacing NBA scouts and GMs in high school gyms with NBDL scouts and GMs.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Actually that may be less likely to happen with the new deal. The age limit for the NBDL will be 18, so there will be players who bypass college and play in the NBDL and then are drafted after one year in the NBDL. This has the potential to be much worse for the college game than what we have now.
> 
> So they may get less college marketing of future NBA players; they are likely to further erode the value of school for young basketball players and those influenced by young basketball players. So all the league really gets is replacing NBA scouts and GMs in high school gyms with NBDL scouts and GMs.


That's news to me about the NBDL. I think it's great. College isn't for everyone. So there is another option.

But for the academic qualifiers, I can't imagine that they would prefer the NDBD to college. It would be much safer for them to go to college and play against kids rather than the men of the NBDL. And much, much, much more glamourous.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Mikedc said:


> Relatively sensible all around. Both sides get to walk away thinking they might be making money (the players get lower guarantees and raises but a higher cap, and the owners vice versa).
> 
> The age limit is ridiculous restraint on free trade that that shuts out deserving players to keep jobs for current players and lets owners get free marketing from an equally corrupt college system. It's clearly in the interest of both players and owners, but not in the interest of anyone else. I hope it gets the legal challenge it deserves and gets overturned.


The NFL just got through their court challenge. Why would it be any different for the NBA?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



johnston797 said:


> That's news to me about the NBDL. I think it's great. College isn't for everyone. So there is another option.
> 
> But for the academic qualifiers, I can't imagine that they would prefer the NDBD to college. It would be much safer for them to go to college and play against kids rather than the men of the NBDL. And much, much, much more glamourous.


This could change over time as better players play in the NBDL and the college game loses more and more good players. Over time it could be the case that the quality of play will be so bad in college that it will be very hard for good players to go that route.

With the NBDL being a full-time job withouy the silly restrictions of the NCAA, I imagine the coaching and the preparation for NBA life will be much better in the NBDL. Competitive players who want to play against the best young players on a nightly basis and improve their games the fastest will go the NBDL route. College basketball will be a place for late bloomers and guys without NBA skills. I think over time the bigger risk will be for the guys who go the college route. 

This may also force the NCAA to start paying college basketball players.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



johnston797 said:


> The NFL just got through their court challenge. Why would it be any different for the NBA?


I have been told by a leading legal scholar in this research area that the Clarrett lawyers filed this lawsuit in the one circuit where a lower court opinion in their opinion was the most likely to be overturned. Filing in another circuit could have resulted in a very different outcome.

Second, the NBA has a history of successful early entrants they have to contend with. It will be hard to argue that letting a bunch of young players in the league will result in lots of injuries to these players as the NFL could do in its case. Also, I do not understand why Clarrett did not sue the NFLPA. I think his case would have been much stronger if his main point had been that his interests are not protected in the collective bargaining process. Which is true. From a purely selfish point of view, the union should be for a 40 or 50 year-old grandfathered-in age limit. That way they could keep their jobs much longer than they will with just a 19 year-old age limit.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Actually that may be less likely to happen with the new deal. The age limit for the NBDL will be 18, so there will be players who bypass college and play in the NBDL and then are drafted after one year in the NBDL. This has the potential to be much worse for the college game than what we have now.
> 
> So they may get less college marketing of future NBA players; they are likely to further erode the value of school for young basketball players and those influenced by young basketball players. So all the league really gets is replacing NBA scouts and GMs in high school gyms with NBDL scouts and GMs.


:clap: 

I'm glad to hear this, I actually think this could be a great thing.

What I wonder is, does this whole development mean that Stern has given up on the idea of a 15 team NBDL where each team belongs to two franchises? Other wise it'd be pretty messy having players who aren't even draft eligible playing for the teams, would leave the door open for a ton of potential tampering.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Most players would be 19 after a prep year. So if you can't into college, you do a 5th year of high school.

It's done a lot, actually, just not by kids looking to go to the NBA. On my Division III Basketball Team, 3 of the 5 starters did prep years (granted, my college is an academically tough school and that prep year could have helped them prepare for that even moreso than giving them another year of high school ball.)

Go overseas for a year, come to the NBA. Go the NBDL for a year, go to the NBA. Go to college for a year (some colleges may not be totally thrilled about this, with all the 5/8 rules or whatever they are), go to the NBA. Go to prep school, go to the NBA.

It's not that big of a difference, really.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

airety said:


> Most players would be 19 after a prep year. So if you can't into college, you do a 5th year of high school.


The new rule is you must either be 19 or a year out of high school.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Anima said:


> The new rule is you must either be 19 or a year out of high school.


International players are not going to be able to get away with entering the draft at 19, but American players can't, even if they just graduate. It will be overturned, because then they can claim discrimination and then the age limit goes back to what it was.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I have been told by a leading legal scholar in this research area that the Clarrett lawyers filed this lawsuit in the one circuit where a lower court opinion in their opinion was the most likely to be overturned. Filing in another circuit could have resulted in a very different outcome.
> 
> Second, the NBA has a history of successful early entrants they have to contend with. It will be hard to argue that letting a bunch of young players in the league will result in lots of injuries to these players as the NFL could do in its case. Also, I do not understand why Clarrett did not sue the NFLPA. I think his case would have been much stronger if his main point had been that his interests are not protected in the collective bargaining process. Which is true. From a purely selfish point of view, the union should be for a 40 or 50 year-old grandfathered-in age limit. That way they could keep their jobs muc
> h longer than they will with just a 19 year-old age limit.


Stern is a pretty sharp guy and a good lawyer and I am sure he has invested a great deal of time and money studying the legality of this issue. He would not have fought so hard if he didn't like his chances.

Now with that said, I am sure Greg Oden or someone similar will sue. And you never can be sure of what will happen in the courts.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Sam Smith: Players won this deal

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...mith,1,5907645.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

This is the first negotiation since 1988 when there wasn't a lockout of some form, even for a few hours as in 1993.

What happened was that for the NBA to keep doing as well as it has, the league had to give up the majority of its hard-line positions to avoid a crippling blow to its image and the game at a time when TV ratings are declining and interest in its premier event, the NBA Finals, has been questioned.

Perhaps ABC should have televised the negotiations.

The pressure this time, as opposed to in 1998 when there was a lockout until mid-January, was the relationship with sponsors, licensers and international partners.

The internal belief in the NBA is expansion, and TV rights fees have been exhausted and additional revenue sources will be hard to find domestically. As a result, "globalization" has been a key strategy.

The NBA feared, however, that on the heels of a shutdown of the NHL over a labor dispute, that business partners domestically and internationally needing some certainty, would react negatively to a lockout even when the league is idle in the summer.

The league went into the negotiations committed to a substantial reduction in contract lengths to three or four years. Hunter said the initial proposals were for no guaranteed contracts even though players would receive the same total amount of money, from which the union could make a distribution to equalize salaries. But Hunter said in his meetings with players, their priority was security and length of contracts over every other issue.

The league became worried with what they thought was the unpredictability of Hunter, with whom they believed they had a firm deal in April.

That evaporated, which led Stern to try to go over Hunter's head with a message to players in Stern's "doom" news conference. But Hunter said the players were far less confrontational and involved this time compared with 1998 when strong figures such as Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley were in the forefront.

This time, Hunter said the players stayed in the background as he, Michael Curry, Antonio Davis and Pat Garrity faced the league in a final meeting last week. The players were betting the league wouldn't allow a shutdown to interrupt next season.

This time, unlike 1998, the NBA blinked. It had to have a deal and took the best one it could get without blaring lockout headlines.

"We also want to be viewed as a reliable partner for those … involved in NBA-branded products, for the TV partners on a global basis to say, yes, the product will be continuing" Stern said. "In assessing what was possible to get, as against the consequences of doing everything necessary to get it, the better tradeoff was to avoid the lockout."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Rappaport: Agreement better than Exit Strategy (and other musings)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/rapoport/cst-spt-rap22.html

Great Thoughts of Midwestern Man: Good news: The NBA and its players association have turned off the inflamed "mistake of epic proportions'' rhetoric and smiled sweetly for the cameras. Bad news: The season is ending, and you might want to make sure you don't get caught in the stampede heading for the exits.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Telander: Cooler Heads prevail:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/telander/cst-spt-rick22.html

I'm going to say the best thing about the NBA's labor contract, tentatively agreed to Tuesday by owners and players, is that it proves Billy Hunter and David Stern are at least as smart as hamsters.



You can't say that about the NHL folks.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and union chief Bob Goodenow are, according to scientific principles we all have studied, on par intellectually with lemmings and flatworms.

NBA commissioner Stern and union chief Hunter, however, have shown that they, when confronted with a cliff or a sloping septic pipe, will stop and turn the other way.

A lot of the stuff in the new contract probably is not good for one side or the other.

I mean, what's the deal with a minimum-age requirement of 19?

That doesn't change much.

Stern had wanted a minimum of 20 or, ideally, 25 with a college diploma and postgraduate work in oratory, spousal-beating abatement and marijuana-free living.

If it had been the rule a while ago, 19 would have kept out players such as Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James -- for a spell.

But now the supremely talented 18-year-olds straight out of high school will do one of four things.

*Play in the NBA's minor-league system for a year.

*Go to college for a rental season.

*Develop a pro-style posse.

*Work on a more focused rap sheet.

Both sides compromised



Then, too, a lot of owners wanted to go over the ledge on what is known as a "super luxury tax,'' a surcharge to nail those teams who take advantage of the NBA's "soft'' salary cap and spend too much.

There were those -- you have to figure Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf was among them -- who wouldn't have minded a lockout just to show the stupid, greedy workers who the hell it is who runs this place!

But Stern chilled them.

Same with the players' side. Hunter told his constituency to get what it could and shut up.

The players didn't want the length of the long-term contracts reduced from seven years to six, but they accepted it. After all, the owners wanted five.

The players didn't want more drug testing -- four possible random tests per year as opposed to the current one at the start of training camp -- but they accepted the increase.

They got a salary cap that gives them 51 percent of the NBA's revenues, up from 48.04 percent, and that's more than half, isn't it?

Actually, Stern clarified, when all is done, the players will receive a guaranteed "57 percent'' of the NBA's income.

There were other elements to the contract, such as rosters being increased to an average of 14 players per team, but those were only details and window dressing.

The main thing here was an agreement, period.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

NW Herald: Deal good for fans, but _players_ gave in, and owners will make more $$$ (but so will the players...)

http://www.nwherald.com/SportsSection/hu1t/283594838102884.php

The NBA avoided a summer work stoppage Tuesday because the players' association thought pragmatically instead of sticking to some high-minded (read: foolish) principles the way the NHL's players have done for the last year. 

Why did the union see the light? Well, for starters, there's the money. Players also realized further alienating fans and commercial sponsors could have dire consequences. There's also the fundamental matter of money. And the underlying issue of money. 

Did we mention money? 

The average – average, mind you – salary is expected to rise to $5.5 million over the course of the new deal. With that number in mind, the players could afford to yield even when they found doing so distasteful. 

The players agreed to restrict draft eligibility to prospects who have been out of high school for at least one year. Combined with the new option to send players in their first two seasons to the developmental league, it will help teams put a more polished product on the floor. 

Teenagers will still go in the draft. At least they will be older teenagers, and they will not take up valuable roster space unless they are ready. 

Players would have had reasonable grounds for fighting the age increase. Not only is it restraint-of-trade, but the immediate success of tots such as LeBron James and Amare Stoudemire is a compelling argument against it. 

A lot of NBA busts and bums tried college. Two years in school did not do much to temper the explosive personalities of Ron Artest and Rasheed Wallace. Four years clearly refined Tim Duncan's game, but not that of Keith Van Horn or No. 1 pick Michael Olowokandi. 

The players could have brought up these facts at the bargaining table and not backed down from their position. They could have staunchly maintained they were fighting for the rights of future generations of players. 

They likewise could have refused to give in on the various items that make this deal an economic victory for the owners. The players gained additional salary-cap space and other concessions, but the owners scored bigger with a reduction in contract length and salary raises. 

The current economic system, which arose from the lockout that canceled half the 1998-99 season, already favors the owners. They have maximum individual salaries and a sensible rookie wage scale. League revenues have increased steadily. 

The owners wanted more. The players would not have been wrong if they had resisted, although it was galling last month when agents reportedly stepped in and temporarily scuttled the deal. 

In the end, the players let the owners have their way. They had a one-word reason for their willingness. 

It would be redundant to mention the word again, but it starts with "M," rhymes with "honey" and is extremely persuasive.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I have been told by a leading legal scholar in this research area that the Clarrett lawyers filed this lawsuit in the one circuit where a lower court opinion in their opinion was the most likely to be overturned. Filing in another circuit could have resulted in a very different outcome.
> 
> Second, the NBA has a history of successful early entrants they have to contend with. It will be hard to argue that letting a bunch of young players in the league will result in lots of injuries to these players as the NFL could do in its case. Also, I do not understand why Clarrett did not sue the NFLPA. I think his case would have been much stronger if his main point had been that his interests are not protected in the collective bargaining process. Which is true. From a purely selfish point of view, the union should be for a 40 or 50 year-old grandfathered-in age limit. That way they could keep their jobs much longer than they will with just a 19 year-old age limit.


The problem with the Clarett case is that Clarrett challenged the rule of trying to let himself get in, which wasn't the right case for what he could accomplish. If he challenged the rule as being unconstitutional, he would have had a much better case.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

On the NBDL, that could be serious ball. Here is how I see each team shaping up.

4- Team 1 Players
4- Team 2 Players
4- Other Players

So this league could be something special, the young guns that don't play league, or something in that nature. It will include all the high school players that went to the NBDL instead of College, and then guys freshly drafted out of college that their teams sent down. It will be a great display of young talent compared to the modern NBDL.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I have a question for any of you CBA'ers out there... Let's say the 19yr old age limit sticks. Next year, the latest and greatest HS phenom states he's not going to attend college at Duke or Kansas or North Carolina or any other school. He's going to sign a one-year deal with an NBDL team or maybe a CBA team or even play a year in Europe. He's never declared for the draft, and since he's under 19 years old, is ineligble anyway. He plays a year of professional ball (professional being the key word). After his year is up and he's 19 - is he a free agent - able to sign with any team he wants or must he still be drafted? I gotta believe for many of these kids, the allure of earning even just $40 or $50K for a year is better than a year of college - all things being equal.

If such a loophole does exist, would the kid be tied down to a rookie-wage scale contract or could he be eligible for any deal that is allowable under the new CBA? Hell, the kid is better off waiting a year and hopefully signing a deal for more years, guaranteed and starting off at a higher wage...

Just wondering...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



sloth said:


> The problem with the Clarett case is that Clarrett challenged the rule of trying to let himself get in, which wasn't the right case for what he could accomplish. If he challenged the rule as being unconstitutional, he would have had a much better case.


There may or may not be a constitutional question worth discussing...

What article and section of the constitution do you believe is at issue?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



johnston797 said:


> Now with that said, I am sure Greg Oden or someone similar will sue. And you never can be sure of what will happen in the courts.



By the time it's decided, he'll be 19.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I have a question for any of you CBA'ers out there... Let's say the 19yr old age limit sticks. Next year, the latest and greatest HS phenom states he's not going to attend college at Duke or Kansas or North Carolina or any other school. He's going to sign a one-year deal with an NBDL team or maybe a CBA team or even play a year in Europe. He's never declared for the draft, and since he's under 19 years old, is ineligble anyway. He plays a year of professional ball (professional being the key word). After his year is up and he's 19 - is he a free agent - able to sign with any team he wants or must he still be drafted? I gotta believe for many of these kids, the allure of earning even just $40 or $50K for a year is better than a year of college - all things being equal.
> 
> If such a loophole does exist, would the kid be tied down to a rookie-wage scale contract or could he be eligible for any deal that is allowable under the new CBA? Hell, the kid is better off waiting a year and hopefully signing a deal for more years, guaranteed and starting off at a higher wage...
> 
> Just wondering...


He'll still be draft eligible. No way around it.

I think more players will choose college than we're giving them credit for. They'll go in to win a national championship or a final four seating, and then go into the draft on the strength of that.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I have a question for any of you CBA'ers out there... Let's say the 19yr old age limit sticks. Next year, the latest and greatest HS phenom states he's not going to attend college at Duke or Kansas or North Carolina or any other school. He's going to sign a one-year deal with an NBDL team or maybe a CBA team or even play a year in Europe. He's never declared for the draft, and since he's under 19 years old, is ineligble anyway. He plays a year of professional ball (professional being the key word). After his year is up and he's 19 - is he a free agent - able to sign with any team he wants or must he still be drafted? I gotta believe for many of these kids, the allure of earning even just $40 or $50K for a year is better than a year of college - all things being equal.
> 
> If such a loophole does exist, would the kid be tied down to a rookie-wage scale contract or could he be eligible for any deal that is allowable under the new CBA? Hell, the kid is better off waiting a year and hopefully signing a deal for more years, guaranteed and starting off at a higher wage...
> 
> Just wondering...


This kid could would be eligible for the draft at age 19 after spending a year in the NBDL. But another issue is that with NBDL salaries so low, these 18 year-olds will become even more beholden to the shoe companies and other endorsers that are sure to swoop in and offer these kids money to get them hooked before they enter the NBA. The power of shoe companies will increase exponentially with this deal. This could result in lots of kids bypassing college for the easy money (from shoe companies) and better competition in the NBDL.

So there will be all of these kids in the NBDL without any team having a stake in them. Their biggest paychecks in many cases will be paid by shoe companies. To me, this sounds like a marketing and development nightmare waiting to happen and quoting David Stern a "mistake of epic proportions."'

This is a classic case of unintended consequences likely being much worse than the original problem.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: OT: ESPN Reports CBA Deal Almost Done*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> There may or may not be a constitutional question worth discussing...
> 
> What article and section of the constitution do you believe is at issue?


One interesting constitutional argument would probably arise under the 5th and 14th Amendment, as an argument for substantive due process, a doctrine of law that died out in the mid-20th century but threatens to make a comeback in a different form. In relevant part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". 

The defining case for substantive due process was Lochner v. NY. There is no constitutional right to the freedom of contract, but in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is one that can be implied. As a result, the state of New York was disallowed to legislate a mandatory 60-hour work week for people working in bakeries because it violated the bakers' right to contract freely. The "right to contract" became a "liberty" that was deprived without due process of law, even though the right to contract was never enumerated in the Constitution itself.

SDP no longer exists, in that form. And in general, Clarett would not have had much to stand on there. But it would be fun to watch.

The more standard constitutional argument might be age discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, outlawing employers to discriminate when involved with interstate commerce (an umbrella term under which almost EVERYTHING falls).


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

By the way, the new CBA deal is definitely player-friendly. I especially like the 19 age limit because it means that college freshmen would be draft eligible. The list of players that came in the league under 20 is much much larger than the list of players that came in under 19.

One drawback is the shortening of rookie scale contracts, but I think that can work in the team's favor AND the player's favor. Good thing we made that trade with Phoenix; now it's LITERALLY as if we drafted Deng this year, in every aspect.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about NBA players having to be 19 <B>and</b> a year out of high school to play NBA basketball. I understand the legal and political concerns of some [edit], but for the rest of you it seems to be more along the lines of <i>you</i> being denied something. They'll still be on television somewhere...most likely.

A couple of articles:



> Prep schools could end up benefiting greatly from the NBA's new minimum age requirement for the draft.
> 
> Not only do players now have to be 19 years old in the calendar year of the draft, but according to NBA vice president Tim Frank, American players also must wait one year after their high school class graduates to become draft eligible.
> 
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2092008&type=story




> David Stern has said all along he wanted to get league scouts and GMs out of high school gyms, an admirable goal that seems to be addressed by the limitation that players won't be eligible until one year after their high school class has graduated. <B>Stern said Tuesday the league would issue a directive making it illegal for league personnel to scout high school games, backed up by fines and other punishment.</b> But it remains to be seen how effective it would be, since some scouts surely will want to see players a year before they're eligible.
> 
> <B>As for court challenges to the minimum age rule, count on it. The sneaker companies might even foot the bill for the legal costs. But Stern said he was confident it would stand because the issue had been settled in collective bargaining. Court rulings consistently have upheld such agreements</b>, he said, most recently in the Maurice Clarett case against the NFL. But even if cosmetic in nature, the minimum age rule will be good PR for the NBA. And that's an area in which Stern's league has long excelled.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/marty_burns/06/21/nba.labor.reax/index.html



> It'd be nice to see LeBron when he's not hawking something on TV. It'd be nice to see him in a game that mattered.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,1,5697463,print.column?coll=cs-bulls-utility



> rookie contracts for first-round picks will contain only two guaranteed years, rather than three. Teams will hold options for a third and a fourth season.
> 
> "It protects us from ourselves," said a Western Conference general manager, who requested anonymity because of an order of silence issued by the N.B.A. "For the fans, hopefully this protects their investment in the product, too."
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/sports/basketball/22deal.html?



> Yes, the age limit is a legal minefield, what with the apparent restraint of trade and the idea that any union has a right to collectively bargain away the rights of its future members. After Michelle Wie and Freddy Adu, keeping 7-foot, 17-year-old Greg Oden from Lawrence North High in Indianapolis out of the NBA for another two years seems almost criminal.
> 
> Unfortunately, 20-year-old Darko Milicic is grandfathered into the deal.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101846.html


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

We're predicting doosmday when more than likely this has little to no effect on the overall structure of the game. The NBDL is not a scenario many collegiate players will want to undertake primarily becasue the competition WON'T be better. I know Dan is a professor, but to stretch and say this gives show companies more power seems to be a biased opinion. I dislike 19 years old, it does little to strengthen the college game and removes the Bron factor from the draft but regardless there will be a few affected players each year who will have to choose between college or the NBDL or Europe. Oden already said he was going to school so no big deal there.

The players affected this year:
Martell Webster(Washington)
Andrew Bynum(Connecticut)
C.J. Miles(Texas)
Andray Blatche(NBDL)
Monta Ellis(Mississippi State)
Louis Williams(Georgia)
Amir Johnson(Louisville)

As you can tell only one of those was not going to school. Webster only came out after he was a guaranteed lottery pick. Many people feel Miles, Ellis, Williams, and Johnson are making huge mistakes by staying in. Bynum and Blatche are the only ones who would be sorta of hurt not than Bynum ever had a vendetta against playing in college. Williams would've been the only other guy I can think of that would've played for the Jamestown Jammers rather than Georgia.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> We're predicting doosmday when more than likely this has little to no effect on the overall structure of the game. The NBDL is not a scenario many collegiate players will want to undertake primarily becasue the competition WON'T be better. I know Dan is a professor, but to stretch and say this gives show companies more power seems to be a biased opinion. I dislike 19 years old, it does little to strengthen the college game and removes the Bron factor from the draft but regardless there will be a few affected players each year who will have to choose between college or the NBDL or Europe. Oden already said he was going to school so no big deal there.
> 
> The players affected this year:
> Martell Webster(Washington)
> ...


But that misses the point. Under the current deal it only makes sense to declare for players who stand a good chance of being drafted in the first round. So this list of 18 year-old early entrants is small. But with the NBDL able to gobble up a larger number of 18 year-olds and the shoe companies and the like providing extra incentives for these kids to make the jump, the number of players bypassing college is likely to grow a lot. Maybe not the first year but over time there will be more and more 18 year-old NBDLers. And that will result in the college talent pool being drained even more, which would encourage more 18 year-olds to enter the NBDL. It is likely to all be a vicious cycle with the shoe companies and the like being the big winners.

Remember with NBA teams sending players down to the NBDL, the competition and interest in that league will be much higher. It will not match the prestige of the NCAA, but the quality of competition is likely to be considerably higher. And with many players having a distaste for having to be a student, the allure for going the NBDL route will be irresistible to a larger group of players than it is now.

That said, there will be some players who would have declared for the draft out of high school who will go the college route. It will go both ways, but I think the flow will be larger out of college and into the NBDL. And given the fact that no one, except the shoe companies, will really have a stake in these players during their first year, I think this new deal will hurt the development of these players and damage the NBA's marketability - precisely the opposite of what it was supposed to do.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Why isn't anyone talking about the other points of the new CBA?

Some of the other things are, 

A trade can be made if it's within 125 percent and $100,000 dollars, rookie contracts now are two years guaranteed instead of three, a team can match any offer sheet for a 2nd round pick as long as it's MLE, teams can now send players with less then two years experince to the NBDL, and the percent that players currently pay into escrow has been lowered from ten to nine.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> As for court challenges to the minimum age rule, count on it. The sneaker companies might even foot the bill for the legal costs. But Stern said he was confident it would stand because the issue had been settled in collective bargaining. Court rulings consistently have upheld such agreements, he said, most recently in the Maurice Clarett case against the NFL. But even if cosmetic in nature, the minimum age rule will be good PR for the NBA. And that's an area in which Stern's league has long excelled.



This is legally speaking, totally true. Almost every labor law I've read regarding terms and etc. contain a self-trumping provision that allows collective bargaining to contract the terms of a labor agreement beyond the legal guidelines, as long as it's not unreasonable or fundamentally illegal. The argument may be made that an age limit is fundamentally illegal, but as Stern noted, it has been ruled on at the appellate level, and that's fairly substantial law. I'm just glad it's 19, not 20.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Anima said:


> Why isn't anyone talking about the other points of the new CBA?
> 
> Some of the other things are,
> 
> A trade can be made if it's within 125 percent and $100,000 dollars, rookie contracts now are two years guaranteed instead of three, a team can match any offer sheet for a 2nd round pick as long as it's MLE, teams can now send players with less then two years experince to the NBDL, and the percent that players currently pay into escrow has been lowered from ten to nine.


In fact, by far the most important item is that the luxury and escrow tax distributions are going to go back evenly to all 30 teams rather than disproportionately to low-spending teams like under the present deal. This will remove the huge penalties for spending just above the luxury tax threshold (in essence, it was a 400 percent tax over the first $3 million above the luxury tax threshold). This will take the teeth out of the luxury tax and encourage lots of teams to not worry so much about paying a little luxury tax.

Also, there is luxury tax amnesty program, where teams will be allowed to waive a player and not count his salary for luxury tax purposes. The salary will still count towards the salary cap and the player will have to be paid. But players like Alan Houston, Doug Christie, Brian Grant, and Chris Webber might be waived under this rule, which would mean that they might be free agents this summer.

The increase in the salary cap likely also will increase salary maximums, which mean that maximum salary players likely will earn more under this deal than they did under the previous deal - despite the fact that maximum contract lengths were shortened and maximum raises were lowered. Those concessions by the players were likely more than undone by the increase in the salary cap.

The luxury tax likely will be in effect each season, because the trigger rule will be tied players' salaries (before escrow tax) being higher than 61.1 percent of BRI. That is likely to occur in most seasons. But it appears that injured players and minimum salary players will not fully count towards the luxury tax, so this, along with the luxury tax amnestry program, will further erode the effects of the luxury tax.

Together, these changes should result in an explosive free agent market and likely will lead to players getting more than 60 percent of BRI over the life of this deal. In that respect the owners would have been much better off simply re-upping the old deal.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Yea Dan I see your point about the NBDL, but from everything I've read and I know the NBA controls the NBDL. Stern could simply keep the minimum age limit of 20 for the NBDL and that would be the end of any discussion. I highly doubt we will see an increase of the competition and talent in the NBDL anytime soon. Yes the 125 percent is a nugget that got overlooked. However, the difference between 125 and 115 is an extra throw-in player. Instead of sending Kendall Gill to the Wizards in a deal, the Bucks could just keep him. I did not know the implications of the luxury tax amnesty program, but thanks for clairifying Dan. One question, it seems to me that Stern eliminated the stiff penalty and decided to distribute the luxury earnings evenly to discourage teams like the Hawks, Clippers, and such from keeping their payrolls low over a broad stretch of time. Is this the case because the team won't see as much luxury earning and will have no penalty for approaching the luxury tax? Also, the increased salary cap combined with the predicted explosive free agent market pretty much puts the Bulls at the same level they were at before.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Yea Dan I see your point about the NBDL, but from everything I've read and I know the NBA controls the NBDL. Stern could simply keep the minimum age limit of 20 for the NBDL and that would be the end of any discussion. I highly doubt we will see an increase of the competition and talent in the NBDL anytime soon. Yes the 125 percent is a nugget that got overlooked. However, the difference between 125 and 115 is an extra throw-in player. Instead of sending Kendall Gill to the Wizards in a deal, the Bucks could just keep him. I did not know the implications of the luxury tax amnesty program, but thanks for clairifying Dan. One question, it seems to me that Stern eliminated the stiff penalty and decided to distribute the luxury earnings evenly to discourage teams like the Hawks, Clippers, and such from keeping their payrolls low over a broad stretch of time. Is this the case because the team won't see as much luxury earning and will have no penalty for approaching the luxury tax? Also, the increased salary cap combined with the predicted explosive free agent market pretty much puts the Bulls at the same level they were at before.


The age limit for the NBDL was collectively bargained; my understanding is that it can only be changed through the collective bargaining process. I do not think David Stern, the league, or the owners can change it at their own whim - not now that NBA players represented by the union will be playing in that league.

With the teams likely to being sending first round picks down to the NBDL for grooming, I am not sure how you can claim that there will no increase in competition and talent in the NBDL.

I am not sure what you are asking about the luxury tax.

The best summary of the changes is the following.

http://www.dallasbasketball.com/morestories.asp?id=3277&NAV=1

It also mentions that base year compensation (BYC) rules will be changed in some fashion.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If guys can get shoe contracts for a million dollars, while playing a year in the NBDL, then be eligible for the NBA, why wouldn't they go to the NBDL again? 

Do you not understand just how much influence the shoe companies have in basketball? A guy like Louis Williams has incentive, because for the shoe companies a 2 year/2 million dollar deal is great for him. If he pans out better, Nike makes big money on his shoes. If he doesn't, the investment was so small it was inconsequential.

Sonny Vaccaro and Adidas were doing this for years. The NBDL will have 18 years in and this can't be changed for 6 years, so it won't be changed (till 2010-11). Hopefully, Stern has retired by then.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The age limit for the NBDL was collectively bargained; my understanding is that it can only be changed through the collective bargaining process. I do not think David Stern, the league, or the owners can change it at their own whim.
> 
> I am not sure what you are asking about the luxury tax.
> 
> ...


I believe the limit for the NBDL was 20 but I just checked and it has been lowered to 18. Though your concern is now valid I still feel most eligible players will choose college over a trip to the NBDL. Also, Stern seems to believe giving teams options in the 3rd and 4th year of rookie deals will help to discourage younger players from coming out early. Would you have renewed Chandler or Curry after 2 seasons or Kwame or Darko? Maybe but more than likely not. 

My question with the luxury tax changes had to do with discouraging teams from being thrifty. For instance under the old rules, Donald Sterling would receive a good proportion of revenue from the luxury tax for keeping his team under the cap. Now, he will see the same as the other 29 owners. Doesn't this encourage owners to spend, but spend wisely.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Also the changes to amounts being offered to 2nd round picks benefit the Bulls this season. Not that Duhon would have seen more than the MLE starting off, but it makes it far easier to keep him knowing that another team will only have the MLE to offer starting off. Other thing I found interesting was only players with less than 2 years experience can be sent down to the NBDL. 

This seems like a good idea to me. Honestly people are predicting doomsday and that the shoe companies will have an inordinate amount of power, but in reality, Stern doesn't make this deal unless he feels it benefits the league. I doubt the NCAA suffers in the slighest. Perhaps they miss out on one or two prospects who take the shoe money and minimum NBDL contract over college, but mostly 6 or 7 guys a year skip college. If anything, guys like Martell Webster, Andrew Bynum, C.J. Miles who kind of want to go to college but don't want to pass up big bucks will end up in school. Perhaps I see a different side of this whole thing. Dan believes that kids will want a minor shoe deal, but the risks stay the same. Unless the NBDL takes a great leap in talent and competition, only academically ineligible people or those who have no interest in college will go to the NBDL. Maybe my blindness as an NCAA fan is doing me in here, but I'd like to believe we'll see the more talented players who are on the fence go to college (like Oden) rather than play for a minor league team.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Also the changes to amounts being offered to 2nd round picks benefit the Bulls this season. Not that Duhon would have seen more than the MLE starting off, but it makes it far easier to keep him knowing that another team will only have the MLE to offer starting off. Other thing I found interesting was only players with less than 2 years experience can be sent down to the NBDL.
> 
> This seems like a good idea to me. Honestly people are predicting doomsday and that the shoe companies will have an inordinate amount of power, but in reality, Stern doesn't make this deal unless he feels it benefits the league. I doubt the NCAA suffers in the slighest. Perhaps they miss out on one or two prospects who take the shoe money and minimum NBDL contract over college, but mostly 6 or 7 guys a year skip college. If anything, guys like Martell Webster, Andrew Bynum, C.J. Miles who kind of want to go to college but don't want to pass up big bucks will end up in school. Perhaps I see a different side of this whole thing. Dan believes that kids will want a minor shoe deal, but the risks stay the same. Unless the NBDL takes a great leap in talent and competition, only academically ineligible people or those who have no interest in college will go to the NBDL. Maybe my blindness as an NCAA fan is doing me in here, but I'd like to believe we'll see the more talented players who are on the fence go to college (like Oden) rather than play for a minor league team.


I have a question for you. Do you follow AAU recruiting at all? Do you understand how some prospects go to certain schools because they are "Adidas" kids or "Nike" kids? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just wanted to know if you're dialed in to how college basketball recruiting works.

AAU coaches in many cities (with the premier players) are sponsored by the shoe companies. Since HS coaches aren't allowes to work with their players over the summer for the most part, AAU coaches don't have the same restrictions placed upon them. However, Nike and Adidas funnel money into these programs from when the kids are on the "12 and under" teams. 

If you think kids won't take the small shoe contract and a year of being in the NBDL over college, when their intent is not to go to college at all, you're mistaken. 

Monta Ellis is qualified and not a sure thing first round selection, same with CJ Miles and yet they're still going to stay in the draft. Louis Williams has no intention of going to college at all and is willingly wanting to go to the NBDL.

I think what you don't realize is that before, it was the NBA was an option or college was the option. Now it's the NBA, NBDL for a year (getting paid by those same shoe companies you've been involved with for years to make up for the low salary of minor league) or college.

Unless you truly want a degree, most of these guys who would be one and done's would look at the NBDL as a viable option. I love March Madness too, but you have to realize, if you know any ball players who play pro ball or big time college basketball, they'll tell you "Hooping is their life." 

Danny Granger is getting a degree in engineering, but at least he's honest. I've spoken with him many times in the past. If he could have came to the league sooner, he would have.

People (fans) like to think of college basketball, as still love of the game, but guess what, it's a business. Ask Cendric Hensley of Houston if college basketball is a business. He was supposed to be a senior next year and was asked to transfer once better players were recruited. There was no loyalty to him. If you lose, you get fired. It's not about graduating players and never will be. It's about winning and losing. Not about helping you get better for the pros. It's about winning and losing. If it wasn't coaches, wouldn't have million dollar contracts and ties to those same shoe companies.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

HKF said:


> I have a question for you. Do you follow AAU recruiting at all? Do you understand how some prospects go to certain schools because they are "Adidas" kids or "Nike" kids? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just wanted to know if you're dialed in to how college basketball recruiting works.
> 
> AAU coaches in many cities (with the premier players) are sponsored by the shoe companies. Since HS coaches aren't allowes to work with their players over the summer for the most part, AAU coaches don't have the same restrictions placed upon them. However, Nike and Adidas funnel money into these programs from when the kids are on the "12 and under" teams.
> 
> ...


No I completely understand. My AAU squad was sponsored by Adidas. However, don't forget the shoe companies are also heavily invested in the college programs they promote. Is their more money investing in Louis Williams for two years or all the Louis Williams Georgia jerseys they'll sell. Remember Nike and Adidas make their money and give shoe contracts for advertising purposes. Players right out of high school not named LeBron, KG, or T-Mac will not be worth anything to shoe companies. Name recognition is important. Think of it from Nike's perspective. Do I pay Brandon Rush 2 million dollars to play in Des Moines, Iowa and maybe sell some shoes or do I steer him towards Illinois or Oklahoma and sell a bunch more Brandon Rush Illinois jerseys. Obviously Rush never sees any of that money which is the problem. But to say the shoe companies will steer players towards the NBDL, I think you may be mistaken.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> No I completely understand. My AAU squad was sponsored by Adidas. However, don't forget the shoe companies are also heavily invested in the college programs they promote. Is their more money investing in Louis Williams for two years or all the Louis Williams Georgia jerseys they'll sell. Remember Nike and Adidas make their money and give shoe contracts for advertising purposes. Players right out of high school not named LeBron, KG, or T-Mac will not be worth anything to shoe companies. Name recognition is important. Think of it from Nike's perspective. Do I pay Brandon Rush 2 million dollars to play in Des Moines, Iowa and maybe sell some shoes or do I steer him towards Illinois or Oklahoma and sell a bunch more Brandon Rush Illinois jerseys. Obviously Rush never sees any of that money which is the problem. But to say the shoe companies will steer players towards the NBDL, I think you may be mistaken.


So when Nike is trying to steer one of their kids to a "Nike" school, Adidas will swoop in and offer the kid a couple hundred thousand dollars (or maybe even less) to go to the NBDL. If they get the kid to jump to the NBDL, they kill two birds with one stone. Since Nike can't offer the kid anything to go to college, there isn't much they can do to compete with Adidas other than offer the kid a more lucrative contract if he goes to the NBDL.

In fact, it could become more sinister than that. With the NBDL as an option for a larger group of young players, shoe companies could start giving players money while they are still in high school, making sure that they are never eligible to play college basketball.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

It depends. Brandon Rush is going to be one and done at whatever school he goes to. JR Smith got a shoe contract and that was one of the main factors in him going to the pros early. Nike stepped up and offered him a nice little contract and he accepted.

You see selling college jersey's for a year as being a selling point to Nike or Adidas, but you're neglecting that the player would say, why should I do that, when I can sign a contract play in the NBDL for a year and then go to the NBA. That year in college, he ain't getting paid. 

Either way, in the NBDL he's getting paid and then can go pro. All it's going to take is one top star who has no interest in college to go to the NBDL, get that shoe deal and then pro a year later and others will follow.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Well I sure hope this isn't the doomsday issue for college basketball you guys are predicting it will be. I don't see it that way, but it is very possible that youth a lot of times mired in poverty will become caught in a game between two rival shoe companies. Does this mean college basketball is headed for the same fate as college baseball?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

HKF said:


> It depends. Brandon Rush is going to be one and done at whatever school he goes to. JR Smith got a shoe contract and that was one of the main factors in him going to the pros early. Nike stepped up and offered him a nice little contract and he accepted.
> 
> You see selling college jersey's for a year as being a selling point to Nike or Adidas, but you're neglecting that the player would say, why should I do that, when I can sign a contract play in the NBDL for a year and then go to the NBA. That year in college, he ain't getting paid.
> 
> Either way, in the NBDL he's getting paid and then can go pro. All it's going to take is one top star who has no interest in college to go to the NBDL, get that shoe deal and then pro a year later and others will follow.


Your last paragraph is exactly what I think. All it's really going to take is one HS stud to choose the NBDL over college and it really makes sense. The players really owe nothing to the college game and system per-se. It's an unfortunate circumstance but money talks and the players will listen. As more and more young, talented players see the nbdl as both a viable alternative to college and also a way to earn even a decent living ($50,000 for a years worth of work is more than most college graduates with a bachelors degree will get their first year in the work force). Also, as the NBDL starts to land these studs (and they will), the league itself will grow in popularity. Hell, if I had the financial resources I'd seriously look into owning or getting the latest NBDL team.

Maybe this is not necessarily an "unintended circumstance" as Dan has alluded to. Maybe this is a calculated move by Stern and the League to foster interest in the NBDL - to give it something that it doesn't have right now. To give it some star power. I believe folks in Asheville and Columbus and Fayetville would easily pay $10 a ticket to see viable future NBA stars rather than that same $10 to watch guys who don't stand a chance of ever playing at a higher level than they do now.

Anybody want to get an investors group together?????


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> So when Nike is trying to steer one of their kids to a "Nike" school, Adidas will swoop in and offer the kid a couple hundred thousand dollars (or maybe even less) to go to the NBDL. If they get the kid to jump to the NBDL, they kill two birds with one stone. Since Nike can't offer the kid anything to go to college, there isn't much they can do to compete with Adidas other than offer the kid a more lucrative contract if he goes to the NBDL.
> 
> In fact, it could become more sinister than that. With the NBDL as an option for a larger group of young players, shoe companies could start giving players money while they are still in high school, making sure that they are never eligible to play college basketball.


What's sinister about that? Sounds like a good way to kill off college basketball to me. To me, that's no big loss because at least this way more kids are getting a nice chunk of change rather than making a nice chunk of change for the colleges and getting nothing in return.

By the way, great analysis on how this is all gonna work. It never occurred to me that kids would go en masse to the NBDL since I was only thinking of the player salary, which is small, and didn't consider the possibility of endorsements, which is obviously pretty significant.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Your last paragraph is exactly what I think. All it's really going to take is one HS stud to choose the NBDL over college and it really makes sense. The players really owe nothing to the college game and system per-se. It's an unfortunate circumstance but money talks and the players will listen. As more and more young, talented players see the nbdl as both a viable alternative to college and also a way to earn even a decent living ($50,000 for a years worth of work is more than most college graduates with a bachelors degree will get their first year in the work force). Also, as the NBDL starts to land these studs (and they will), the league itself will grow in popularity. Hell, if I had the financial resources I'd seriously look into owning or getting the latest NBDL team.
> 
> Maybe this is not necessarily an "unintended circumstance" as Dan has alluded to. Maybe this is a calculated move by Stern and the League to foster interest in the NBDL - to give it something that it doesn't have right now. To give it some star power. I believe folks in Asheville and Columbus and Fayetville would easily pay $10 a ticket to see viable future NBA stars rather than that same $10 to watch guys who don't stand a chance of ever playing at a higher level than they do now.
> 
> Anybody want to get an investors group together?????



I agree with you ownership. I think Stern sold 6 of the 8 NBDL teams to a private group who will own it and market it, as well. The other 7 teams will be looking for investors. I put this together as to how I think the NBDL could look. 

Florida = Orlando Magic & Miami Heat share this team
Albuquerque = Phoenix Suns & Utah Jazz
Arkansas = Memphis Grizzlies & Boston Celtics
Austin = San Antonio Spurs & New Orleans Hornets
Fayetteville = Charlotte Bobcats & Atlanta Hawks
Fort Worth = Dallas Mavericks & Houston Rockets
Roanoke = Washington Wizards & Philadelphia 76ers
Tulsa = Denver Nuggets & Minnesota Timberwolves

Here are the other groupings I expect:

1.Seattle Supersonics & Portland Trailblazers (Olympia, WA?)
2. LA Clippers & LA Lakers (Long Beach, CA?)
3. New York Knicks & Brooklyn Nets (Long Island, NY?)
4. Chicago Bulls & Milwaukee Bucks (Racine, WI?)
5. Toronto Raptors & Detroit Pistons (Kalamazoo, MI?)
6. Indiana Pacers & Cleveland Cavaliers (Fort Wayne, IN?)
7. Golden State Warriors & Sacramento Kings (Fresno, CA?)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> What's sinister about that? Sounds like a good way to kill off college basketball to me. To me, that's no big loss because at least this way more kids are getting a nice chunk of change rather than making a nice chunk of change for the colleges and getting nothing in return.


I agree. If kids don't want to go to class, it's nice they have a reasonable alterntive. Even if it is bankrolled by sneaker companies.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> It also mentions that base year compensation (BYC) rules will be changed in some fashion.



With (thus far undecided) releaxing of BYC rules, the salary matching rule in trades being changed significantly from 15% to 25%, and the window to match offer sheets being cut in half, I think we should see a notable increase in player movement under this new CBA. It will be easier to complete trades and less handcuffing to extend offer sheets.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Did they do anything about teams being barred from signing a player like just traded, like the C's did with GP along with others?

Also, is the window on matching RFAs still 15 days?


----------

