And so it begins.
Deron Williams, a top 20 player in the NBA and one of the top point guards, has agreed to a contract with Besiktas in the Turkish Basketball League. The team also announced the signing of Atlanta Hawks center Zaza Pachulia. Both contracts are expected to be officially announced next week.
The Deron Williams contract is for one year at $5Million, and includes an immediate out in the event that the lockout is lifted. This signing, and the framework of the contract, are expected to be the pattern for other European and Asian teams looking to sign American players. In fact, Besiktas has stated that they are not done going after NBA players, and are going to reach out to Kobe Bryant to gauge his interest in playing over there.
Now, if Besiktas sounds somewhat familiar, it is because they have employed NBA talent in the past. This is the team that briefly signed Allen Iverson last year, before he left the team. So, they do have experience in dealing with NBA players, their egos, and everything that goes along with them.
Here is where this gets interesting. Some people are suggesting that Williams is signing this contract as an attempt to show that the NBPA is serious about not accepting a deal that would eliminate any of the progress they made over the past ten to fifteen years through the collective bargaining agreements. They are thinking that Williams is doing this only as a sign of solidarity with the union, and is not serious about playing overseas. Now, what happens when the lockout drags into the season, as David Stern and company seem intent on having happen? What happens when players overseas realize that the teams will provide them housing at no cost to the players, or that they are willing to play the taxes on the contracts? What happens when they realize that the Euro is a stronger monetary unit than the dollar? What then?
Deron Williams is the first domino to fall in the game of chicken that the NBA is intent on having with it's players. Doubtless, they figured that the players would never go overseas to play, as that would be a logical choice for them to make. After all, most of the owners seem to regard their players as trained animals that perform for their enjoyment.
Williams and Pachulia were the first, and they will not be the last. The NBA had better tread carefully, or they could be in a lot of trouble.
Showing posts with label lockout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lockout. Show all posts
Friday, July 8, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Start of a Future Trend?
One of the facets of the NBA lockout is the desire by the owners to have a hard salary cap. This cap number, which is thought to be around $60Million, would serve to lower the salaries of players across the NBA, which would make the ridiculous contracts given to role players seemingly a thing of the past.
As such, players, particularly those that would not be considered star caliber, may look to other avenues to maximize their income. One such way would be to play for a professional team overseas, where they do not have such guidelines. Previously, foreign leagues had been seen as a last resort for those not good enough for the NBA, or for those players whose peak had passed them by, yet they still thought they had something to offer (see Iverson, Allen).
However, this has begun to change. In hockey, Jaromir Jagr spent three seasons playing in the KHL for Avangard Omsk before returning this past week to the NHL. Evgeni Nabokov later joined him in the KHL, signing with SKA St. Petersburg. Even in basketball, Josh Childress played for Olympiacos Piraeus in the Euroleague, turning down a contract from the Atlanta Hawks for one that was worth the equivalent of $15Million per year in Greece.
Fast forward to yesterday, when Real Madrid in the Spanish ACB offered Rudy Fernandez a six year contract that would make him the highest paid player in the history of the league. The proposed contract would pay roughly $4.25Million per year, which is a million dollars more than the qualifying offer that he would receive next season as a free agent. Given the potential of a vastly altered financial landscape in the NBA, this contract may be better than what Fernandez could get in America.
Now, Fernandez is a decent player, but he is a role player. He is not, and will never be, a centerpiece for a championship team. He is a bench player who can come in and drain a three. That's all. In all likelihood, it would make sense for him to go overseas, where he could be a primary scorer and make more money there than to play for ten minutes a night here.
Now, this is just the possible tip of the iceberg. Role players going overseas won't matter a big deal to most teams, as a lot of players with a similar skill set can be found elsewhere. But what happens if a star player gets a Godfather offer from a foreign club once the hard cap is instituted? Let's say that Kevin Durant becomes a free agent, and a Euroleague team offers him $25Million a year. Does he take what would be much less to stay in the NBA, or does he jump overseas for the money?
Sports like basketball and hockey have to worry about foreign teams going after some of their players as it stands now. The NBA may need to worry a lot more about this in the near future.
As such, players, particularly those that would not be considered star caliber, may look to other avenues to maximize their income. One such way would be to play for a professional team overseas, where they do not have such guidelines. Previously, foreign leagues had been seen as a last resort for those not good enough for the NBA, or for those players whose peak had passed them by, yet they still thought they had something to offer (see Iverson, Allen).
However, this has begun to change. In hockey, Jaromir Jagr spent three seasons playing in the KHL for Avangard Omsk before returning this past week to the NHL. Evgeni Nabokov later joined him in the KHL, signing with SKA St. Petersburg. Even in basketball, Josh Childress played for Olympiacos Piraeus in the Euroleague, turning down a contract from the Atlanta Hawks for one that was worth the equivalent of $15Million per year in Greece.
Fast forward to yesterday, when Real Madrid in the Spanish ACB offered Rudy Fernandez a six year contract that would make him the highest paid player in the history of the league. The proposed contract would pay roughly $4.25Million per year, which is a million dollars more than the qualifying offer that he would receive next season as a free agent. Given the potential of a vastly altered financial landscape in the NBA, this contract may be better than what Fernandez could get in America.
Now, Fernandez is a decent player, but he is a role player. He is not, and will never be, a centerpiece for a championship team. He is a bench player who can come in and drain a three. That's all. In all likelihood, it would make sense for him to go overseas, where he could be a primary scorer and make more money there than to play for ten minutes a night here.
Now, this is just the possible tip of the iceberg. Role players going overseas won't matter a big deal to most teams, as a lot of players with a similar skill set can be found elsewhere. But what happens if a star player gets a Godfather offer from a foreign club once the hard cap is instituted? Let's say that Kevin Durant becomes a free agent, and a Euroleague team offers him $25Million a year. Does he take what would be much less to stay in the NBA, or does he jump overseas for the money?
Sports like basketball and hockey have to worry about foreign teams going after some of their players as it stands now. The NBA may need to worry a lot more about this in the near future.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The NBA Lockout
This is going to make the NFL lockout seem like a minor disagreement.
On one side, there are the owners and David Stern. They are claiming that 22 of the 30 teams lost money over the past season, and are looking to institute a hard salary cap, as opposed to the soft cap they presently have. The hard cap number they are looking at? Somewhere in the $40Million to $60Million range. The owners also want a 60-40 split on revenue, with ownership getting the 60%. Presently, the players get 57%.
Naturally, the players want nothing to do with this proposal. They feel that it is likely that only 10 teams lost money during the previous season. Also, they feel that it is not their fault that incompetent management and short-sighted owners gave them the ridiculous contracts that they presently have (looking at you, Gilbert Arenas, Josh Childress, and Desagano Diop, amongst others). The players also refuse to accept a proposed splitting of the revenue that has them losing that much money.
In other words, they are not even close to an agreement.
Around the league, it is fully expected that the NBA will not play this season. Owners lose less money when they do not have to open up the arenas and by not fielding teams. David Stern has stated that once the lockout actually started, the offers by the NBA will be lowered, which is not exactly conducive to getting an agreement in place. Nor does this seem like a fair bargaining tactic, especially if the NBA truly wants there to be a 2011-12 season.
The NBA was riding the high of a season of goodwill and momentum, where they had the opportunity to be the primary focus for the winter months. Now, they have thrown that all away. With the distinct possibility that the NFL labor dispute will be wrapped up in short order, the NBA faces the distinct possibility of losing it's hold on the American public. The season being lost may initially be met with outrage from the fans, but will settle down to complete apathy, as the viewing public moves on to the NHL or watches the English Premier League.
So, who wins in all of this? The NHL. On the heels of a great Stanley Cup Finals, they find themselves on the verge of being the only daily American winter league. You know Gary Bettman wants the NBA to take it's ball and go home for the year. And it looks like Gary is about to get his wish.
On one side, there are the owners and David Stern. They are claiming that 22 of the 30 teams lost money over the past season, and are looking to institute a hard salary cap, as opposed to the soft cap they presently have. The hard cap number they are looking at? Somewhere in the $40Million to $60Million range. The owners also want a 60-40 split on revenue, with ownership getting the 60%. Presently, the players get 57%.
Naturally, the players want nothing to do with this proposal. They feel that it is likely that only 10 teams lost money during the previous season. Also, they feel that it is not their fault that incompetent management and short-sighted owners gave them the ridiculous contracts that they presently have (looking at you, Gilbert Arenas, Josh Childress, and Desagano Diop, amongst others). The players also refuse to accept a proposed splitting of the revenue that has them losing that much money.
In other words, they are not even close to an agreement.
Around the league, it is fully expected that the NBA will not play this season. Owners lose less money when they do not have to open up the arenas and by not fielding teams. David Stern has stated that once the lockout actually started, the offers by the NBA will be lowered, which is not exactly conducive to getting an agreement in place. Nor does this seem like a fair bargaining tactic, especially if the NBA truly wants there to be a 2011-12 season.
The NBA was riding the high of a season of goodwill and momentum, where they had the opportunity to be the primary focus for the winter months. Now, they have thrown that all away. With the distinct possibility that the NFL labor dispute will be wrapped up in short order, the NBA faces the distinct possibility of losing it's hold on the American public. The season being lost may initially be met with outrage from the fans, but will settle down to complete apathy, as the viewing public moves on to the NHL or watches the English Premier League.
So, who wins in all of this? The NHL. On the heels of a great Stanley Cup Finals, they find themselves on the verge of being the only daily American winter league. You know Gary Bettman wants the NBA to take it's ball and go home for the year. And it looks like Gary is about to get his wish.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Carson Palmer Is Stuck
Leave it to a Bengal to screw up the timing when he demands a trade.
With the NFL lockout, player movement is prohibited. Free agents are not able to sign with new teams. Trades cannot occur. Should the lockout last through the draft, undrafted free agents will not be able to sign with teams. Nothing is able to be done until a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. As such, Carson Palmer's trade demands are unable to be met, even if the Bengals wanted to. And Cincinnati has stated repeatedly that they will not trade Palmer.
So, where does that leave him? Presently, Palmer is in limbo. He has no idea if he is going to be a Bengal or if they will acquiesce to his demands. In a time where all of the players are dealing with uncertainty in regards to their situations, Palmer is in an even more precarious situation.
Meanwhile, the Bengals are also in an interesting position. With there being no guarantee that the labor dispute will be resolved by the draft on April 28, they have to decide whether or not to draft a quarterback in the first round. As it stands, the Bengals need a quarterback to develop even if Carson Palmer is still on the roster. Presently, their backups are Jordan Palmer and Dan LeFevour - not exactly a group that provides any confidence should they be called upon. On top of this, the Bengals history in drafting quarterbacks is terrible. Over the past 20 years, they have drafted Donald Hollis, David Klinger, Akili Smith, Scott Covington, Palmer, Reggie McNeal, and Jeff Rowe. Yikes.
Palmer has stated on multiple occasions that he plans on retiring should he not be traded. If the labor situation is not resolved by the draft, it will be interesting to see how the Bengals handle it. Even should they call him out on his threats, they still need to draft a quarterback for the future. And watching that should be interesting.
With the NFL lockout, player movement is prohibited. Free agents are not able to sign with new teams. Trades cannot occur. Should the lockout last through the draft, undrafted free agents will not be able to sign with teams. Nothing is able to be done until a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. As such, Carson Palmer's trade demands are unable to be met, even if the Bengals wanted to. And Cincinnati has stated repeatedly that they will not trade Palmer.
So, where does that leave him? Presently, Palmer is in limbo. He has no idea if he is going to be a Bengal or if they will acquiesce to his demands. In a time where all of the players are dealing with uncertainty in regards to their situations, Palmer is in an even more precarious situation.
Meanwhile, the Bengals are also in an interesting position. With there being no guarantee that the labor dispute will be resolved by the draft on April 28, they have to decide whether or not to draft a quarterback in the first round. As it stands, the Bengals need a quarterback to develop even if Carson Palmer is still on the roster. Presently, their backups are Jordan Palmer and Dan LeFevour - not exactly a group that provides any confidence should they be called upon. On top of this, the Bengals history in drafting quarterbacks is terrible. Over the past 20 years, they have drafted Donald Hollis, David Klinger, Akili Smith, Scott Covington, Palmer, Reggie McNeal, and Jeff Rowe. Yikes.
Palmer has stated on multiple occasions that he plans on retiring should he not be traded. If the labor situation is not resolved by the draft, it will be interesting to see how the Bengals handle it. Even should they call him out on his threats, they still need to draft a quarterback for the future. And watching that should be interesting.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Had To See This Coming
This was inevitable.
Despite word of progress being made in talks, the NFLPA decertified at 5:00 pm yesterday. As a result, the owners and Roger Goodell got exactly what they were aiming for, a lockout. Since 2008, when the owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement, this has been the plan.
This is part of the three year plan they had. Everything since the point that they opted out of the CBA has led to this. The contract they had with the television networks where they were guaranteed $4 billion, regardless of whether or not football was played, just furthers the point.
The NFL is used to being able to trample the players union, since they always had in the past. This time, the union has made their own demands, which they have not backed down on. The primary demand - for the owners to open up their financial records to prove that the teams are losing as much money as they claim. The owners are refusing to provide anything beyond profitability statements, which are essentially useless without the rest of the financial information. Just because Team A claims they only made $5 million in 2010, down from $7 in 2009, doesn't mean anything. How did they get to that number?
In the end, this is about money. This is the fruition of shortsighted greed. This is the result of demanding an 18 game schedule without any further compensation for the players. This is about the owners wanting more of a $9 billion dollar pie, and refusing to compromise whatsoever.
If any games are lost, which is what seems the most likely outcome, the NFL will have shot itself in the foot. What league in it's right mind would stage a lockout at the apex of it's popularity? Why risk alienating a fanbase that is growing exponentially each year? And over what - an extra $137.5 million dollars, which is the amount that is being reported as the cause of the stalemate. Dumb. Just inexplicably dumb.
Hopefully the NFL remembers what happened to Major League Baseball when they had their lockout in 1994, and how long it took for the game to become popular again. But nothing about the owner's stance leads for anyone to hope that they will have learned from those who went before.
Despite word of progress being made in talks, the NFLPA decertified at 5:00 pm yesterday. As a result, the owners and Roger Goodell got exactly what they were aiming for, a lockout. Since 2008, when the owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement, this has been the plan.
This is part of the three year plan they had. Everything since the point that they opted out of the CBA has led to this. The contract they had with the television networks where they were guaranteed $4 billion, regardless of whether or not football was played, just furthers the point.
The NFL is used to being able to trample the players union, since they always had in the past. This time, the union has made their own demands, which they have not backed down on. The primary demand - for the owners to open up their financial records to prove that the teams are losing as much money as they claim. The owners are refusing to provide anything beyond profitability statements, which are essentially useless without the rest of the financial information. Just because Team A claims they only made $5 million in 2010, down from $7 in 2009, doesn't mean anything. How did they get to that number?
In the end, this is about money. This is the fruition of shortsighted greed. This is the result of demanding an 18 game schedule without any further compensation for the players. This is about the owners wanting more of a $9 billion dollar pie, and refusing to compromise whatsoever.
If any games are lost, which is what seems the most likely outcome, the NFL will have shot itself in the foot. What league in it's right mind would stage a lockout at the apex of it's popularity? Why risk alienating a fanbase that is growing exponentially each year? And over what - an extra $137.5 million dollars, which is the amount that is being reported as the cause of the stalemate. Dumb. Just inexplicably dumb.
Hopefully the NFL remembers what happened to Major League Baseball when they had their lockout in 1994, and how long it took for the game to become popular again. But nothing about the owner's stance leads for anyone to hope that they will have learned from those who went before.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Best sign yet for football in 2011
In a ruling that signaled a major blow to the NFL, US District Judge David Doty agreed with the NFLPA in regards to the NFL receiving $4billion in television revenue, regardless of whether or not football was played this upcoming season. In his decision, Doty stated that the NFL violated it's agreement with the NFLPA, stating that "The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players."
By having the television contracts set up in such a way where the NFL, and the various teams, would be paid whether or not a football game was played, the owners guaranteed that a lockout would happen, especially when they had an out clause in the previous collective bargaining agreement. After all, why would someone pay the players to perform when they can just shut the gates and turn a profit?
Lost in all of this is that the players WANT to be playing football in 2011. The biggest issues are that the owners want a bigger piece of the revenue pie, and they want 18 games so that they can 'give the fans what the fans want'. However, amongst people that identify themselves as NFL fans, only 45% are even slightly in favor of the change, and a mere 18% strongly favor it. So, in other words, 82% of NFL fans don't want it, or are lukewarm at best to the concept.
Furthermore, expanding the NFL season to 18 games will further decrease the future health, and length of career, for the players. However, this does not seem to matter to a commissioner and a league that continually talks about 'player safety'. If they are so concerned with the future health of the players, why are they trying to expand the season under a flimsy excuse to disguise their profit motives? Why do they continue to promote and market DVDs of defenseless players getting blown up? Hypocrites.
Hopefully this ruling will force the hand of the NFL and the commissioner, so that there will be a season in 2011. With the NFL being at the apex of it's popularity, why risk a disruption over a few million dollars? It's short sighted, reckless, and hazardous to a sport that has become the most watched in the nation. Should a lockout actually occur, it will be interesting to see how the league recovers - if it does at all.
By having the television contracts set up in such a way where the NFL, and the various teams, would be paid whether or not a football game was played, the owners guaranteed that a lockout would happen, especially when they had an out clause in the previous collective bargaining agreement. After all, why would someone pay the players to perform when they can just shut the gates and turn a profit?
Lost in all of this is that the players WANT to be playing football in 2011. The biggest issues are that the owners want a bigger piece of the revenue pie, and they want 18 games so that they can 'give the fans what the fans want'. However, amongst people that identify themselves as NFL fans, only 45% are even slightly in favor of the change, and a mere 18% strongly favor it. So, in other words, 82% of NFL fans don't want it, or are lukewarm at best to the concept.
Furthermore, expanding the NFL season to 18 games will further decrease the future health, and length of career, for the players. However, this does not seem to matter to a commissioner and a league that continually talks about 'player safety'. If they are so concerned with the future health of the players, why are they trying to expand the season under a flimsy excuse to disguise their profit motives? Why do they continue to promote and market DVDs of defenseless players getting blown up? Hypocrites.
Hopefully this ruling will force the hand of the NFL and the commissioner, so that there will be a season in 2011. With the NFL being at the apex of it's popularity, why risk a disruption over a few million dollars? It's short sighted, reckless, and hazardous to a sport that has become the most watched in the nation. Should a lockout actually occur, it will be interesting to see how the league recovers - if it does at all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)