Paul Pierce Explains Why Newer Generation of Stars More Likely to Leave in Free Agency

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

“It’s a players league at the end of the day, regardless of what you say about what all went on about the lockout,” he said. “At the end of the day, players are going to want to play where they want to play, whether they’re free agents or not, and they’re going to have that choice. And I think it’s a right. So I don’t really see too much wrong with it. I don’t know if you can create a system to kind of change it or not because obviously we didn’t do it with this collective bargaining agreement (laughs). “But at the end of the day, the great players want to be part of great teams, and when management and ownership isn’t putting out the product to help the great players, then they feel like their legacy is on the line.When you go through your prime years playing great basketball and you have no help, who knows what kind of player you could have been. That was one of the issues that I had. I was playing into my prime and it’s like you kind of feel like you’re wasting years away. If you got with other players, who knows if there’s a championship on the horizon. Obviously when we got the great players here, we were able to win a championship. So not all of my prime went to waste (laughs).  “It’s kind of a double-edged sword there. When you’ve got Chris Paul down in New Orleans and Dwight (Howard) down there (in Orlando) and not really a great supporting cast, I think they really think about their legacy. Around the league there aren’t a lot of great general managers, they make mistakes, and like Minnesota, they couldn’t put a team around Kevin and really get over the hump. And I think a lot of players are seeing that, what’s happened to the players in the past and they just want that opportunity for a championship.” “This is a new generation,” he said. “You just didn’t see this the last 10, 20 years. This is a newer generation who understands that there’s only a short window for success, and they realize that it’s not always about the money with these guys anymore. These guys, they have other opportunities to make money off the court, with sponsorships and shoe contracts. It’s like, they have the money so what more do they want? It’s a championship. So when guys take less money for that opportunity, that’s what you’re seeing.” http://www.csnne.com/basketball-bost...70&feedID=3352

I couldn't agree more. This generation of players saw how guys like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing were ridiculed for not winning the big one and have decided to do anything possible to make sure they aren't looked at that way.

Honestly I can't say I blame them. The thing that has shocked me has been that fans who always bad-mouthed players for never being willing to take less money for a chance to win, are still criticizing players now that they are.

In light of that I've gotta say that the way most fans' have reacted to this development makes no sense to me.

My Reaction to Dan Gilbert's Infamous Letter

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

You may know that I'm not the biggest fan of some of Dan Gilbert's comments, but how can you read his letter and not believe that this is the most asinine statement ever.  If you haven't seen it I have included it here in its entirety.

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed. This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets. Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing. I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player). I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen. I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do. When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals? Please advise…. Dan G. Via Yahoo Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/news#ixzz1g2S1bkIx

First off let me say that I am not attacking Gilbert, he is a savvy businessman and passionate owner.  I respect that and wish that most other teams had an owner who were even half as involved with their teams as he seems to be with his.  

My criticism stems only from some of the statements he makes, including his latest comments which baffle me because of what has happened to the team he owns.  You would think that if anybody should understand how bad it hurts a franchise to lose a superstar for basically nothing in free agency it would be the Cavs. But here it seems that the man who owns that team has the nerve to claim that it would be better to keep Paul for this year just to let him walk and cripple the franchise? 

Makes no sense.

Lockout of 2011: What Effects (If Any) Will There Be Long-Term

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

With the lockout finally over and an unusual NBA season is set to begin (which will start on Christmas Day for the first time in league history), I thought what better way to begin this journey than to examine the effects of the lock-out post-mortem.  Instead of focusing on which side “won,” I thought it would be better to discuss how the NBA as a whole won or lost in 3 key categories:  buzz among fans, financial impact, and competitive balance.

BUZZ AMONG FANS

After a season where ratings where at a record high, fans and analysts steamed for months with doom and gloom projections about the damage the lockout would cause to the league.  As the lockout consumed the entire summer and most of the fall, most seemed to believe that the NBA was inflicting a blow to itself that would cause long-term damage to its popularity, but looking at the positive response I’ve seen amongst fans it seems that they couldn’t have been more wrong.

This goodwill started on the early morning hours of November 26^th when David Stern and Billy Hunter (the leader of the NBPA) announced that a tentative agreement had been reached to end the lockout.  Within instants the outpour of response from the fans proved that any damage was already being forgiven.

Twitter (everyone’s favorite gauge of what’s “hot” nowadays) blew up with posts about the NBA returning and every new station in the country brimmed with excitement about the impending return of the NBA.  For all the disgust fans had of millionaires and billionaires bickering about money, they could not deny their excitement to see their favorite NBA players hoop it up for real.

FIANANCIAL IMPACT

Heading into this lockout the league claimed losses of $300+ mil in the last 3 seasons.  For all the sites who disputed the numbers and the talk about what percentage of BRI the players should give up it almost was forgotten how poorly the league was performing as a whole financially.

While neither the Players nor the Owners ended up happy with the financial split as it was agreed to, it seems clear that establishing a band where the Players share is reduced from 57% to a band varying between 49 and 51% helps remedy this problem.  Assuming the league were to bring in the exact same revenue as earned in 2010-11 this new system would save Owners somewhere between $229 million and $305 million.  This one change seems enough to take a business that has been operating deeply in the red and give it a chance to be profitable.

COMPETITIVE BALANCE

Although the Owners were not successful in getting all the changes they wanted, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement will bring forth several additions that will achieve a more balanced payroll among the NBA teams.  The hope is that these changes will help improve the chances of a team to compete no matter the size of its market.  Will it work?  My prediction is that it definitely will.

The league did greatly improve the revenue sharing system as well as make key changes to the floor and ceiling that teams will spend.  They did this by first increasing the minimum a team must spend from 75% of the cap up to a percentage that once fully implemented will be 90%.  This new floor means that teams will be forced to spend about $9 mil more than the currently imposed minimum (up to $52.2 mil from about $43.5 mil).  A de facto salary ceiling was also created by overhauling the penalty when a team exceeds the luxury tax (currently $70.3 mil in payroll).  Starting in 2013-14 the new more punitive luxury tax will tax teams at an elevated rate instead of at a dollar for dollar as the old rule did.  

While these changes mean that unless an Owner decides he will not be deterred by these steep taxes, the days of big spending teams having roughly double the payroll of small market teams are over.  However the question is how big of a difference will this make?  It has been proven time and time again that in the NBA you don’t win without a star, and next to nothing was done to help small market teams keep their stars. 

While many perceive this is a negative I for one see this as a positive.  While the attention Chris Paul and Dwight Howard are getting must annoy their fan-base it keeps people talking about the NBA.  As seen with the LeBron and Carmelo mini-dramas over the last few years, the energy that produces is good for business.

CONCLUSION

I think it’s fair to say that the NBA as a whole was a big winner in all 3 categories.  Seeing that we only lost 16 games and there will be games on the first major basketball holiday (Christmas) my gut says any ill feelings still lingering in fans will be forgiven. 

Although things got ugly at several points during the lockout, all I can say to both sides is great job getting it done.

My Proposal for Labor Peace in the NBA

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

As the labor debacle wages on, the debate as to whose right and whose wrong is over.  Now if we want to have a season that starts on time both sides are going to have to make major concessions and compromises.

Here goes my proposal as to what should happen so both sides can come away feeling like they achieved key victories, while also making the league more financially stable.

Hard Cap or Soft Cap

This is the key issue right now.  Billy Hunter has called taking a hard cap a "blood issue" that he claims he is willing to lose a season instead of taking, and some owners feel just as strongly that one should be imposed.

I would keep the soft cap in place but would make it a lot "harder."  How you ask - easy by eliminating most of the exceptions that allow Teams already over the cap to bring in players from other Teams (including the MLE) and lengthen the amount of time needed to attain Bird rights. 

This way teams would be limited to go over the cap to sign minimum salaried players or to re-sign their own guys (if they have been under contract long enough to have Bird Rights).

Players Share of Revenue

Currently the Players are entitled to receive 57% of league revenues.  Seeing that everyone agrees many teams are losing money, that percentage is completely too high to ensure the financial health of the league.

Therefore this percentage must be decreased drastically.  I would have the Players decrease their share from 57% to right at 50%.  That is a big sacrifice by the Players, but its worth it if they can keep the soft cap system in place. 

Length of Contracts

The current CBA which allows contracts to be a maximum of 5 to 6 years is too advantageous to the Players.  Period.  In this market where most people can and are being fired on the whim, it is unrealistic to expect NBA contracts to remain as they are where for the most part they are fully guaranteed and extend so far into the future.

I would recommend having Players sacrifice here to shorten max length of contracts to 4 years if going to a new team and 5 years if re-signing.

Effect of Buy-outs/Amnesty Provision

As I mentioned earlier the previous CBA counts all money paid to a bought out player on a team's salary cap for all the remaining years left on the deal.  This means if a Player whose under a 2 year contract for $12 million is bought out for $10 million, then the team takes a $5 mil cap hit for the next 2 seasons.  Because of this in the current system once a relationship sours between a Player and the Team, the only options the Team has are to:

1) keep him and hope things get better,

2) trade him for peanuts,

3) send the Player home and pay him his full salary, or

4) buy the Player out but still have him count fully against your teams cap. 

This level of job stability is basically unknown in America, and with this labor dispute occurring during the current political climate it does not bode well for the Players.  With that in mind, I suggest a system where if a Player is bought out the Team can distribute the money given to the Players over the next 10 cap years (thus lessening the cap hit).  This would give the team more ability to part with troubled players, while still giving the Player the money he is entitled too. 

If that idea doesn't sound good to you I propose in the alternative an expanded Amnesty provision.  In my proposal every 2 years Teams would be able to buy out a Player and he not count for salary cap purposes. 

Revenue-sharing

Here's another of the major issues that must be resolved to end this labor dispute.  Many teams are suffering and because of that this system must be expanded to give teams in smaller markets an infusion of cash. 

While its unclear if the Owners have relented on their demands to be allowed to determine revenue sharing amongst themselves, its clear the whole system of revenue sharing must be expanded. Currently certain items of revenue including that from local TV deals are not included in revenue. I would remove those restrictions and include all moneys earned through operation of the franchise used to calculate revenue.

Conclusion

All the posturing and hard-lining was nice but it is time to get down to business if we want the season to not be interfered with because of this labor non-sense.  At the end of the day we are all fans first and therefore missing games this season would be a huge black-eye for the league.

As I've said all along, although its clear that talent-wise the league is in a great place, there is no guarantee the fans will come back if games are missed.

Sorry I've been away....

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Sorry guys, based on not having Internet access and general exhaustion after taking the Bar in late July I had to take a little time away from writing.  I'm back now.  

That is all.

Little Known Fact - The inter-relation Between Hard Cap and Guaranteed Contracts

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

I read a great article from Henry Abbott a few days back that really explains why the NBA Players are so opposed to accepting the hard cap and its impact on guaranteed deals that I had never considered. It was weird because I always here people commenting on Players guaranteed contracts and saw fans writing about how Players in the NBA are spoiled by their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that I always assumed the provision promising guaranteed contracts was in the CBA. The truth of the matter is its not.

Abbott explained that there is nothing in the CBA that guarantees the Players guaranteed contracts. They just get them because the current market (which includes a soft cap that allows teams to exceed the cap level) allows teams to be more free with their money, and because of that the vast majority of Players are under guaranteed contracts. The Players position is that if teams were to switch and have a hard cap it would also likely mean the end of guaranteed long-term deals for middle and lower tier players; as teams would lock up their stars forever and then annually fill in their roster around the stars. This is why Billy Hunter has the Players claiming that they are willing to lose the season instead of going for that.

Attorney David Cornwell "NCAA Mandated That He Feed Their Families, But He Could Not Feed His Own."

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Readers of this blog will remember that I have already stated my belief that the system of college athletics is broken, and it should be reformed to allow Players to be paid, although that compensation should not be paid from universities and instead Players should be eligible to receive compensation based on their likeness not actual pay.  If you haven't seen it the petition can be found here >>>>  http://esquiresports.blogspot.com/2011/06/petition-to-allow-collegiate-players-to.html.  

With the recent developments dominating the sports pages involving scandals at Ohio State University and the University of Miami, and the firings of the coach and athletic director at University of North Carolina, I felt now was a great time to reexamine the state of college sports.The quote from attorney David Cornwell in the course of representing former Ohio State Quarterback Terrelle Pryor, that I used as the title shows the hypocrisy of the amateurism rules.  

As such I decided to take Cornwell up on his call to arms on challenging "the NCAA on its 'amateurism' rules." To me this system is nothing short of an injustice, there is no justification to allow enormous amounts of money to be made for everyone involved (i.e. NCAA executives, coaches, and the university itself, etc. ); but the player.  Lets just face it, prohibiting players from profiting off their likeness is patently unfair.  

I know players do receive an education at a university for free and also receive other benefits during their time at the university which obviously have value.  However, when compared to the value lost by Players based on not being able to profit off their likeness during collegiate years, its clear that the latter is more valuable.  The large amounts of money boosters, agents, and others have shown themselves willing to spend to get in contact with these young superstars of college sports illustrates that.

So what do I suggest?  A re-writing of the rulebook totally abandoning the rules of amateurism.  That my friends may just be the only way to reestablish the integrity of college sports.

My Critique of Excellent David Stern Interview Conducted by Bill Simmons

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Hello Sportsfans.  Not sure if you all are aware but prior to the weekend David Stern made an appearance on the BS report giving Bill Simmons a rare interview that spanned a little more  than an hour.  If you've not listened to it for yourself, you should definitely check that out >>>>> http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=6856992.

Although I must admit that my views have been slanted toward the players I decided prior to listening to the interview that I would stay open-minded.  Although at times I felt that Stern was condescending and arrogant, and even felt that at times he seemed a little angry and Simmons for bringing up points that didn't paint him or the owners in the brightest light I think for the most part Stern set out to accomplish what he intended to accomplish - to explain to the common fan what the importance of the issues at stake in this CBA and to illustrate the size of the schism that exists between the Players and the Owners, and to present a united front among his contingent of Owners.

Stern accomplished both of these objectives masterfully by calling the NBA Players the "worlds highest paid union" he shows just how well compensated the NBA players are, and by following that up by stating the amount of money being lost by the league annually.  In these shaky economic times, very few fans will have pity on millionaire Players whose lavish salaries are causing their business to be unprofitable.  He also did a good job in arguing why revenue sharing should be kept out of these negotiations and should instead be determined at a later date once Players and Owners have determined the revenue split, as attempting to do that in these negotiations very well could cause a split amongst his Owners.

However this interview also pointed out some of Stern's weaknesses, as condescending, insecure, and quick to anger when he's being challenged.  His continued statements that the players will come around when the offer is explained to them does that (insinuating their too stupid to understand whats going on themselves) and again even more blatantly when Stern snapped at Simmons that he's "been doing this for 40 years, which is much longer than Billy Hunter has" (which seems irrelevant to me when he admits to having lost the last 3 negotiations that he had against Hunter) seems the best illustration of that.  With all do respect Mr. Stern we all know the league has  grown by leaps and bounds under your leadership, you don't have to be so touchy about not feeling as if you got your due.

All in all though this interview shed great insight on where things currently stand in this labor dispute.  In order to get things going the Players simply must realize that will receive a smaller share of the revenues.  Now we just have to find middle ground where both the Players and the Owners will be satisfied.

I still think the offer reportedly made by the Owners which would allow the Owners to be the sole recipients of the first $900 mil in revenues, and then to split remaining revenues 50/50 goes too far, but at least that forms a basis to start.  Additionally middle ground must be reached on revenue sharing.  Personally I still believe that it should be apart of these negotiations, however I do agree that the revenue split must be determined first before the league can figure out an effective way to split those revenues.

Billy Hunter Admits That He Expects There Will Be No NBA This Year

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

While speaking to an audience composed mostly of lawyers at the American Bar Association, Billy Hunter said what most of us have expecting all season - that chances are the upcoming season will be cancelled as this labor dispute drags on.  Although this statement has been repeated time and time again over the last year or so, I believe this is the first time that Hunter has stated publicly that he expects the season to be cancelled.  

Hunter went on to point to what he views as the problem leading to the more contentious manner behind this whole labor dispute, the changes in the constituency of ownership.  At one point Hunter said "[i]n the last six or seven years, there is a new group of owners to come in who paid a premium for their franchises, and what they're doing is kind of holding his feet to the fire."

Whether you agree or disagree with these tactics at this point it seems clear that if there is no resolution soon the true losers here will be the fans.

NBA Files Lawsuit Against Players and File Unfair Labor Charge

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Remember how I said the meeting yesterday had to be seen as good news?  Scratch that.  The owners and David Stern have now filed a lawsuit against the players as well as filing a charge with the National Labor Relations Board against the Players accusing them of unfair labor practices, specifically for failing to bargain "in good faith" and of "impermissible pressure tactics" in labor talks.

From the information that has been made available to the general public, it seems the league has little chance of success with either of these proceeedings.  Why do I say that?  

First off you must as I'm sure many of you remember, these negotiations didn't take the turn into the current bitterness until David Stern famously told the Players that he knows where “the bodies are buried” in the NBA....because he had buried some of them himself.  Sounds to me that Stern and not the Players started that.

Also you must remember why the league is currently locked out.  The Players had no problem with the old CBA, and would still choose to play under it if given the option.  We're only in lock out mode now because the Owners opted out of the deal and chose to impose that course of action.

I believe the Owners understand that there is a very small likelihood of winning these suits, but are only doing this to try to prevent the NBPA from filing an anti-trust suit against the NBA with the threat of voiding out the Player's contracts if they do pursue a suit.

So as I said, the chance of success for these suits seems low, but they do signal just how far apart the Players and Owners are.  Bad sign.

NBPA and Owners Have First Substantive Talks Since Lockout......No Progress Made

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Yesterday in what has to be viewed as a good sign David Stern and his high level executives (deputy commissioner Adam Silver, Spurs owner and labor relations committee head Peter Holt, and T-Wolves owner and Board of Governors chairman Glen Taylor) met with Billy Hunter, along with NBPA player-execs Derek Fisher and Theo Ratliff. 

Unfortunately the fact that there was a meeting seems to be the only good news to report. Neither side produced an offer, and it currently appears that neither the Players or the Owners are willing to make any concessions yet. However they did agree to meet again in the coming weeks

Stay tuned sports fans maybe there will be something new to report soon.

No News to Report.........And Thats A Very Bad Thing When it Comes to Collective Bargaining

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Right now with the lockout in place there seems to be no real news to report on the NBA's labor situation.  The sides have not sat down at the negotiating table recently, and unfortunately that does not look like it will change any time soon.

This is a terrible thing for NBA fans to hear.  Right now the sides are so far apart that they aren't even at the table.  I hope I'm wrong, but its looking very likely right now that games will be missed in the NBA next year.

A Little More Info on Collective Bargaining

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

In my last article I claimed the the Players may have a valid claim that the Owners have acted in bad faith during the negotiating process based on the tactics they have used against the Players while not elaborating on why. Here is a little information explaining the laws as it relates to collective bargaining which may shed a little light on why I made that claim >>>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collective+bargaining

• 1) The employer may not refuse to bargain over certain subjects with the employees' representative, provided that the employees' representative has majority support in the bargaining unit. 
• 2) Those certain subjects, called mandatory subjects of bargaining, include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 
• 3) The employer and the union are not required to reach agreement but must bargain in Good Faith over mandatory subjects of bargaining until they reach an impasse. 
• 4) While a valid collective bargaining agreement is in effect, and while the parties are bargaining but have not yet reached an impasse, the employer may not unilaterally change a term of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. But once the parties have reached an impasse, the employer may unilaterally implement its proposed changes, provided that it had previously offered the changes to the union for consideration. 

Duty to Bargain in Good Faith

During the bargaining process, the parties are not required by law to reach agreement. They must, however, bargain in good faith (29 U.S.C.A. § 158[d]). Although good faith is a somewhat subjective concept, courts will look to the entire circumstances surrounding bargaining, including behavior away from the bargaining table such as pressure and threats (NLRB v. Billion Motors, 700 F.2d 454 [8th Cir. 1983]).

What this means in the context of the NBA's Labor Dispute?

The Players have felt all along that the Owners have been making attempts at breaking their Union and made offers so bad that no reasonable union could be expected to take it. The offers have definitely been underwhelming, and if the reported comment attributed to David Stern that "he knows where the bodies are buried because he put them there, is true that definitely sounds threatening.

I'm not guaranteeing a legal win, but it definitely sounds like the Players may have a leg to stand on.

According to ESPN's Larry Coon Owners May Be Exaggerating Figures To Reflect A Loss

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

If you have not read this article from ESPN's Larry Coon I suggest you check it out now >>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...ancials-110630. In his article that he wrote based on viewing financial records of two teams (2005-06 Nets and 2008-09 Hornets) he makes 2 main arguments 1) Since the Players can't share in the profit when a team is sold it is not fair that they are burdened with the costs associated with buying the team in the first place and 2) If they don't have a say in the team's management decisions, they don't want to pay the cost when those decisions go awry.

He went on to show that the figures the Owners have been reporting as their losses may be the result of an accounting fiction. While it is true that financial statements are prepared by external auditors, who are bound by their license to do things right and subject to review by the IRS, any person who knows a little about finances you know that depending on the method you use to account for your finances, the profit/loss figures could vary by tens of millions of dollars.

This insistence of bargaining from a position of using these figures and not true basketball-related expenses and revenue could be viewed as an attempt by the Owners to doctor the numbers to exaggerate losses. If Coon is correct, its very possible that instead of 20+ teams losing money only 7 or 8 are, and they seem to be losing less than $20 mil a year.

If this is true and it is happening throughout the league, the Players may have a leg to stand on if the legal route is pursued and they allege that the Owners are negotiating in bad faith. I could very well see a court ruling that The combination of utilizing these figures instead of basketball-related expenses combined with their offers which included taking away so many rights from Players (i.e. guaranteed contracts, hard cap, smaller contract lengths, etc.) in times of increasing viewership and attendance as negotiating in bad faith.

NBA Lockout Offically in Effect

by Kevin L Davis (@EsquireSports)

It is now July 1st, and as expected the Owners have locked the players out.  Reportedly team officials (i.e. coaches, trainers, front office staffs) and their spouses have been told to not contact Players or their families during the lockout whether it be in person, by phone, or by electronic means including social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

I'll have a few more articles coming soon covering important labor issues related to the lockout over the weekend.

At This Point Lockout is Inevitable

by Kevin L Davis (@EsquireSports)

With no major developments occurring in the next few days, it seems inevitable that after June 30th the NBA will be entrenched in its second major labor dispute of David Stern's tenure as commissioner.  Right now both sides seem committed to their positions and unwilling to make necessary concessions needed to begin the path towards a deal.

Hopefully things change soon, but as it stands their is a humongous divide between the Players and the Owners.

Players Speak Out On Current Status of Labor Negotiations...Said to Be Livid

by Kevin L Davis (@EsquireSports)

Now that the latest round of negotiations between the NBA's Players and the Owner's are done the Players are taking to the press to voice their displeasure with the proposal being offered by the Owners'.  While this is a risky strategy that risks turning off the American public I like what the Players are doing. They are making it known, that the Owners are making a proposal that takes away core values that Players of the NBA have enjoyed forever, and they will not accept it and are clarifying their position to the press with statements that have been measured and showed unity. 

The message from the Players was clear, the small amounts of progress that have been made in this proposal (no longer asking for contracts being partially guaranteed, no longer having a true hard cap) are not significant enough to make a difference. The fact that the Owners are trying to retroactively take money that the Owners and Players already agreed that belongs to the Players only makes it worse.

Basically it goes like this, you never want to piss of your adversary in a one-on-one negotiating situation. While some reports have correctly stated that you don't want to start with your final offer, you also don't want to begin an outlandish offer that mobilizes your opponent.  I think its possible that the Owners' have done just that.

From what I can tell, the Players don't feel that the Owners are treating them with respect with these tactics.  First off tho the Players' this insistence towards taking past money that the Players' feel they have already earned and collectively bargained is mind boggling.  

Another issue that is also of supreme importance in these negotiations, is the economics of the league.  Right now the Owners and Players differ fundamentally on how the economics of the league should function once the new CBA is implemented.  Everybody agrees that in the previous collective bargaining agreement small-market teams suffered financially.  The disagreement lies in how this issue should be addressed.  

Players feel that the problem can be solved by larger market teams sharing more revenue (mainly from local TV deals) to support these struggling franchises, and the mechanism to determine how revenue will be shared should be negotiated now.  However, the Owners think these CBA negotiations should only include the manner in which Players should bare their share of the burden, and the way Owners should split money amongst themselves should not be collectively bargained.  

Until one of the sides change their stance on key economic issues and the Players are treated with more respect in this process, expect a protracted lockout.

Owners Make Latest Proposal.....Offer "Flex Cap"

by Kevin L Davis (@EsquireSports)

In their latest offer made to solve the labor impasse, the Owners have offered the Players what has been termed a "flex cap." While all the details of this system have not been explained, this system would include a "target cap number" of $62 mil, but in certain situations teams would be allowed teams to go over the cap, and certain exceptions would remain.  Players also would be guaranteed that they would receive a slice off the revenue pie that would be no less than $2 bil annually over the course of a 10 year CBA.

The dropping of the insistence of a "hard cap" coincides with my expectations. I never expected a hard cap to be implemented during this labor dispute. This is one of the biggest rights afforded to NBA players, so expect Players to right tooth and nail to keep it.  Seems now that even the Owners understand this as well, but I'm not sure if this is enough deviance from the "hard cap" to please the Players.

Petition to Allow Collegiate Players to Receive Compensation

By Kevin L Davis (@EsquireSports)

For those that don’t know, the NCAA has rules which require players to be amateurs to play for their universities. Because of this players lose their eligibility if they are paid in anyway for playing, including profiting off their likeness.  Yes they do get their scholarship and certain other academic benefits, but that’s it.

What this means is these players are also not allowed to receive payment from schools, AAU coaches and agents; they also can't get paid for commercials, shoe deals, aren't entitled to a share of their jersey sales, don't get paid for inclusion in video games, etc. 

To me this system is blatantly unfair.  While I don’t think the school’s themselves or the States, the funding source of public universities, should pay athletes (could you imagine supporting a tax-hike to support paying players when schools are being closed?) I think any of us who attended college for years on end would agree that the living expenses amassed during your stay there are enormous.

These costs and the restriction from making any income off a player’s celebrity status, causes the enticement of accepting illegal benefits from unsavory characters that much harder to resist.  The result of that temptation has brought proud programs like USC and Ohio State to their knees as indiscretions of players and coaches come to light.

As much as the NCAA’s leadership may disagree, I say the only proper reaction to the slew of indiscretions is to abandon their rules on amateurism.  Instead they should adopt rules similar to those proposed by Jay Bilas.  In this article >>> http://www.courtcred.com/college/item/615-jay-bilas-thinks-collegiate-players-should-get-paid.html; Bilas states his belief that the concept of amateurism is morally wrong and a product of past times that is no longer needed.

Bilas went on to say “I don't think that college athletes need to be paid by the universities but they shouldn't be restricted from realizing monetary gains from outside the universities.”  For those that don’t know as well as being an ESPN personality, Bilas is a practicing attorney who went to law school at Duke while also working there as an assistant coach.  During his 3 years coaching the Blue Devils made it to the Final Four all 3 years and won 2 national championships.

In my opinion, Bilas could not be more right.  Changing the rules as he suggested could go a long way in prevent future fiasco’s such USC or Ohio State from occurring.  Players would be able to get paid for commercials, sign shoe deals, etc. and universities would not have to worry about being shamed because of their athletic program or be forced to spend so many of their resources on ensuring that their players aren’t receiving benefits, because a compensation system would be allowed. 

In the words of President Barrack Obama, "it's time for a change."  The reason given to support keeping the requirement that a player must have amateur status to maintain eligibility in the NCAA is normally “that's the way its always been.”  Frankly this is not good enough.  When it is clearly evident that current system is broken, there is absolutely no reason why the status quo should be maintained just in the name of tradition.

Is Today Judgement Day in the NBA's Labor Crisis?

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Everything I keep hearing from David Stern and from the journalists I respect that have been covering the impending labor dispute (i.e. Ken Berger, David Aldridge, Andrew Brandt, Michael McCann, Chad Ford, etc.), has not instilled confidence in me that the a lockout can be averted.

As most of you know, the Owners have told the Players that it will be obvious by tonight if their will be a lockout after they receive the Players latest counter-proposal.  The problem is although the Owners have backed off their demands of non-guaranteed contracts, I do not think they have relented far enough away from their initial proposal to make anything that the Players put forward be deemed agreeable.

I guess we'll know more in the coming days, but I wouldn't expect to hear any good news from the meetings that conclude today.

Excellent article on labor dispute by Ken Berger

 By Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Anybody who reads my blog must check out Ken Berger's excellent article on the meetings between the Owners and Players which has been occurring in Manhattan yesterday and today >>> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15249908/biggest-event-for-nba-this-week-is-tuesday-not-draft-day, 

The entire article captured by attention, but most importantly I took 3 things from that article.  First it seems a sect within the Ownership contingent are motivated to take everything they can from the Players in this labor dispute after they have "experienced life-changing losses in their core businesses, [and] watched franchise values rise at a slower pace than ever before." This faction within the Owners which Berger calls "rogue owners" includes Mark Cuban, Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert, Wyc Grousbeck, Clay Bennett, and Ted Leonsis.  This intrigues me because I've been speaking for months of a possible rift within ownership, and Berger noticed it too.

Secondly no matter how the Owners try to categorize their offer as splitting revenue 50-50, this is not genuine when the first $900 million is not used in the calculation of revenues.  This point is pretty much spot on, and I have wondered why others haven't called the Owners out for this.

And finally the Players are dropping the ball with silly ideas like another MLE or awarding extra draft picks, instead of worrying about the true issue which is causing so many teams to lose money - insufficient revenue sharing.  The issue of small-markets not generating the money necessary to be profitable could be alleviated if the bigger market teams with huge local TV deals, are forced to share that revenue.  Billy Hunter and the rest of the leaders of the Player's union must put this idea front and center in hopes that it causes the supposed rift between owners to grow.

2 Great Developments for the NBA's Players in Their Upcoming Labor Battle

 By Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Over the weekend there were 2 possibly monumental developments occurred that should impact the labor landscape. First off the Owners are no longer insisting on non-guaranteed contracts and now a good sign from the NFL if this article is true >>>> ESPN Reports NFL Owners' Splintering Within Their Ranks.

As I've been saying all year I predict that there will be more unity between Players than Owners, and the fact that Owners of NFL teams can't stay united against a much weaker union is a good sign for the NBA's Players. Why? The Owners have been trying to worsen conditions all the Players (an optimal setting for unity), whereas the issues that Owners have pushed for that help the small market teams hurt the big market teams, and vice versa.

Stay tuned guys......this is going to be interesting.

Revamping the NBA’s D-League

 By Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

The 10 year old NBA D-League model was one of the best ideas of David Stern’s reign as commissioner, but I think even he would agree that the system could use some improvement. With the CBA set to expire this summer, what better time is there to explore totally revamping the system? 

First off let’s explore the existing system. Players are signed by the league itself and then distributed to the individual teams, there are only 16 NBA D-League teams whereas there are 30 NBA teams (which means most D-League teams are affiliated with 2 rival NBA teams), and the rules currently limit NBA to assigning 2 players to the D-League and those players may only be rookies or 2nd year guys. There are not optimal conditions to most effectively develop NBA talent.

With collective bargaining sessions beginning between the owners and players I have included a few suggestions that could improve the quality of the D-League system. While they may seem radical at first, if instituted they could substantially boost league’s effectiveness in developing future NBA talent. While the owners would have to be convinced that scrapping a system of sharing D-League affiliates since it cuts down on expenses, the increase in availability of inexpensive talent should be worth it. I also belief if properly marketed the league could offset much of the increase in expenses. I truly belief there is a sustainable market of die-hard NBA fans who would watch these games if properly marketed. Since these teams are stationed in smaller markets I would strive to create a fan-centric family experience that can be fun for the whole family and start these games earlier in the day at 5 or 6 PM as opposed to 7 or 8 or later like NBA games. 

The players would also have to be convinced to approve this system as many view being demoted to the D-League as an insult and would hate that my proposal eliminates the current system which only allows 1st and 2nd year players to be forced down. However that has to be at least partly offset by the fact that this proposal would create 14 new D-League teams and therefore 168 new jobs (and if I’m correct in forecasting the market that this D-League could have those slots could pay substantially more than the D-League currently pays). Not to mention these new teams would offer an increased potential for coaching jobs or other slots in developmental positions for players in their post-playing days.

With the arguments to lobby both the owners and the NBA Players Association out of the way, let’s explore the actual proposal. First off, as stated earlier every team should be mandated to have there own D-League affiliate. Instead of signing with the league itself, each team should be responsible for hiring its own squad on its D-League team, expanding each NBA team's roster from 15 to 27 (15 NBA contracts and 12 D-League spots). Players would still be available by the draft or to be signed from leagues throughout the world, but I’d totally revamp the drafting process to accommodate the growth. I propose eliminating the D-League draft and expanding the NBA draft to at least 5 rounds. 

As earlier stated I also believe the limitation of only allowing demotion of players with less than 2 years of NBA experience should be scrapped. The only question is where should the magical boundary line be placed? I think everyone will agree that when players are eligible to be drafted at 19 years old, it is very foreseeable that some guys may need long-term development. Since the current system calls for 2 years after a player joins the league, and a player who exhausts his entire college eligibility would normally be 22 years old I propose a rule where any player under 24 years old (2 years over 22) could be able to sent down to the D-League without gaining his consent. Veterans (24 years old or older) signed to NBA contracts could only be demoted to the D-League if the team has gained his consent. This allows true long-term development, while having the added benefit of allowing NBA teams to use their D-League team for rehabilitation.

These changes would usher in an era of true development for NBA teams.

Major Misconceptions Regarding the Labor Dispute between the NBA’s Players and its Owners

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

As most of you know, this summer the NBA faces a labor dispute that threatens to end next season before it even begins. While many view the system as broken, I completely disagree. I feel that the NBA’s luxury tax scheme is the best system in American sports, forming the ideal balance between the MLB where there is no cap and the hard cap employed by the NFL, and attempting to change that system would be a disaster.

In my opinion, all a hard cap does is tell good owners like Mark Cuban that they can't pour money into their investment (i.e. their team), because some teams have owners like Donald Sterling that would rather use their team to make a buck instead of win. To me that is counter-intuitive. We should celebrate owners who are willing to spend on their team, instead of seeking to protect owners who routinely under-spend. I'm all for increasing the luxury tax penalties to defer teams from massively overspending, but to me implementing a hard cap (and in turn eliminating the MLE, “Bird” exemption, etc.) is a bad idea.

For all the criticism that the league receives because of the system currently in place, I ask does performance of small market teams suggest a change is needed? I would say no. San Antonio, a team located in a small market, spent the majority of the season as the team with the best record in the league, Oklahoma City and Memphis, 2 other small markets, were among the final 8 teams last year remaining in the playoffs. Data suggests that if a team is managed well no matter what city you place it in it will succeed, and that if that team is not run well being in a large market won’t save it.

With that in mind I introduce my next point – the NBA is currently in a great place, and if games are lost in an effort to overhaul the system, fans might be turned off. This basically comes down to the old adage “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Ratings are at an all-time high right now and as this last post-season just proved there are a lot of interesting story-lines and compelling talents both young and old to carry the game. There is absolutely no need to risk turning off the fans by labor disputes and legal wrangling when the on-court product is so good.

In addition, although Stern has made it clear that he would like to see sweeping changes to the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), history doesn't suggest Stern will get most of what he's demanding. I want to enter this profession so I study it religiously. What I've noticed is Stern talks tough like this every time there a CBA is about to expire, and media members and fans eat it up, believing that Stern is this all-powerful dictatorial leader and that the players will yield to anything that he wants. 

The problem is that unlike the picture the media portrays, the NBA has a very strong union. Billy Hunter is a solid leader who is not going to bow down to Stern. The NBA is the sports league where the players are more visible than any other sport and because of that it is very much a player-driven league. I don't see huge sweeping changes happening.

Yes I know, it sounds good in theory but unfortunately that’s not how it goes. Billy Hunter knows that the fans tune in to watch his players play not because of the Owners, and uses that fact to negotiate with strength. Want proof, just look at what happened the last time there was an opportunity to negotiate the CBA. According to Chad Ford this >>>>> is a list of demands the Owners had back in 2005:

1. An increase of the age limit of 20 or 21 (was 18 prior to the new CBA), 
2. Reducing the maximum length of contracts would be 3 or 4 years if re-signing (was previously 6 or 7 years), 
3. Reduction in the maximum raises in contracts to 5% (down from 10 to 12.5%), and 
4. Teams would be subjected to a super luxury tax if they exceeded the cap too much.

Of those things here's what the Owners and Players actually agreed to:

1. Age limit of 19,
2. Maximum contract length went down 5 or 6 years,
3. Raises went from 10% to 8% if go to new team; and 12.5% to 10.5% if re-sign,
4. No super luxury tax imposed,
5. The players slice of the revenue pie was guaranteed at 57%, and
6. The formula used to calculate salary went up from 48% to 51% of revenues, raising the amount of money each team could spend on players pretty substantially.

Keep that in mind when you look at the upcoming labor dispute between the Owners and the Players. I believe there is a great deal of misinformation out there and a lot of it seems unfairly biased towards the Owners. 

So with that in mind here goes my thoughts of the important issues that will come up during this summer’s lockout. Enjoy.

COMPARISON OF UNITY OF OWNERS vs. PLAYERS

FAN #1: Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA Owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.

MY RESPONSE: Too bad the other 1/3 of the Owners have power as well. Not to mention their teams are in big markets and have more power and money than the average owner. Do you really think Dolan and Buss and the Arison’s who own the Heat are going to willingly agree to a hard cap? Do you think they're going to start sharing their revenue from local TV deals so teams like the Kings and Hornets can compete on an even playing field with them? I don't.

I seriously believe that the notion that at the end of the day all the Owners will present a united front while the players won't is ridiculous. In February or March when ESPN was beginning their coverage of the NFL labor dispute they had Tedy Bruschi on. The Sportscenter anchor continually tried to get him to rip the Players Union and Bruschi wouldn't. He said they're doing the right thing, the Players should never give up money/rights because if they do the Players of the future will never get them back. Bruschi said they should fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't give back a penny, because their not just representing themselves but future generations of Players. 

If I were a leader in the NBA Players Union I would have e-mailed the Youtube link of that interview to my entire union. If the leadership does their job and stars continue their involvement in negotiations I could see the loyalty and sense of responsibility to their brothers being greater within the union than with the Owners.

THE NBA NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP STAR PLAYERS FROM “LEBRON-ING” THE TEAM THAT DRAFTED THEM

FAN #2: The NBA needs to do something about teams losing out on star players ditching their teams to go to big markets when their contracts are up. If this is allowed only 6 or 7 teams will have legit chances to win each any every year.

MY RESPONSE: Every year the NBA has always had only 6 or 7 true contenders. I think everyone will agree that the league is better now than it was 5-6 years back when:

• Kobe was playing with scrubs like Smush Parker and Kwame Brown in LA, and demanding to be traded or to have his teammates shipped out for better players
• KG was surrounded by losers in Minnesota, 
• T Mac was wasting his prime with the Magic, 
• AI had a one-man team in Philly, 
• Vince Carter was in Toronto dogging it because his team sucked

WHAT ABOUT PARITY?

FAN #3: The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season, in the NBA only a few teams have a chance to win.

MY RESPONSE: First off the point about 30 NFL teams having a chance to win a Super Bowl just isn’t true. While each teams will have delusional fans who always think this year is our year, true educated football minds can normally call 8 or 9 of the top 12 teams in the league before any games are played. Yes there may be a few more surprises in the NFL but there really aren't that many of them.

Additionally I really don’t think its possible for parity to exist in the NBA. In the NBA, one elite player can make more of an impact on the win-loss record of a team than in any other sport. You generally don’t win titles unless you have a transcendent star. Because of this, there will only be 8-10 contenders no matter how the CBA is constructed.

I'd rather those contenders be good from top to bottom instead of having a league full of teams with 1 or 2 great players carrying trash. Recent history suggests that the general public agrees. Want proof? In the mid 2000s when the league was filled with more parity and there were less stacked teams ratings suffered. Now when the league is filled with teams supports multiple stars like the Heat ratings are through the roof. That’s all the proof I need that where basketball is concerned "super-teams" are more interesting than parity.

POSSIBILITY OF FRANCHISE TAG OR OTHER MECHANISM TO RESTRICT PLAYER MOVEMENT

FAN #4: I hate seeing star players ditch the city that loves them when they become free agents to go to greener pastures. The NFL got it right - teams should be able to slap players who are about to be free agents with a franchise tag or something to keep them as long as they want.

MY RESPONSE: I don’t get the view that players give up basic rights that people in all other walks of life have just because they make more money. A player who honors the commitments of his contract until it expires should have the flexibility to explore his options once it ends.

If the Owners want to ensure superstar players stay home, then they should do their jobs and surround those players with talent. There is no need to give them more control over the players, plus many of the proposals people have suggested (i.e. eliminating free agency) would not be legally valid. The only options that I could imagine that would pass legal scrutiny is to either 1) impose a franchise tag or 2) change the triggering conditions for restricted free agency. 

First let’s explore franchise tagging in the NBA. I see no way that the players will go for it, and think a large chunk of Owners (i.e. those from large market teams) would be opposed as well. The only way to make this idea slightly more palatable is to give the players who are franchised a substantial raise over the maximum allowable deal they could sign as free agents. 

That leaves option #2, expanding restricted free agency. As it stands now star players tend to only hit restricted free agency once in their career, when their rookie deals end. I could see the Owners pushing to try to get players to still be restricted after their 2nd contract ends as well. This way the Owners get the opportunity to match or threaten they will match so that they get compensation when players leave during free agency, while the players don't give up any money, and still get to test free agency. While I still see the Players being hesitant to agree to this option, it seems more agreeable than allowing franchise tagging.

POSSIBILITY OF HARD CAP BEING IMPLEMENTED

FAN #5: Can the Knicks add another star in free agency. They already have 2 huge commitments to All Stars (Melo and Amare) and have to pay Balkman in 2012. I’m afraid that when the NBA adds a hard cap they won’t be able to add anyone.

MY RESPONSE: Even if a hard cap (a salary level which no team can exceed) is instituted expect it to be nearer to the luxury tax threshold ($70.307 mil) than the current cap ($58.044 mil). 

Why do I believe this? Well the average salary for a player in the NBA is slightly above $5 mil a year. Seeing that I believe the Players will do everything possible to keep that salary near the same, then the cap will have to be that high to accommodate the player’s salaries.

In conclusion whether you agree or not, expect the upcoming CBA negotiations to be a lot harder fight than the media has made it out to be. Although you may not agree with me that the new CBA should retain much of the system we currently have in place, I think we all can agree that this labor dispute is not worth losing a whole season.