Technically, Melo never demanded a trade and insisted to the end that he'd consider re-signing with Denver. Denver insisted that he commit and extend his contract and he declined.
-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
THE NBA CBA WATCH (LOCKOUT IS OVER / OWNERS WIN)
- Thread starter ButterMPancakes
- Start date
Technically, Melo never demanded a trade and insisted to the end that he'd consider re-signing with Denver. Denver insisted that he commit and extend his contract and he declined.
Jezzar
Your own Euroleague Guru
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,478
- Reaction score
- 1,218
- Points
- 113
That's just rhetoric. We all know Melo was pushing for a trade to NYK.
Mike Manifesto
Sixth Man
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 3,152
- Reaction score
- 2,061
- Points
- 113
I don't know where else to put this and it might of already been discussed, but I don't care...
Say we amnesty Baron (which I am not supporting) whats the chances he just goes to Miami? I would love to keep him for Kyrie's sake.
Say we amnesty Baron (which I am not supporting) whats the chances he just goes to Miami? I would love to keep him for Kyrie's sake.
Walter White
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 25,548
- Reaction score
- 19,211
- Points
- 123
He'd probably go to the Lakers first, and if I understand correctly, all of the other teams have first bid on him that have some extra money. Not sure how much more he would be worth then vet min though considering every team (besides Lakers and Heat) already have an elite point guard.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 21,132
- Reaction score
- 57,941
- Points
- 148
The latest update from Marc Stein:
---
Billy Hunter: Talks to resume Friday
By Marc Stein
ESPN.com
The NBA and the reformed players union will resume negotiations on the remaining terms of their new labor agreement starting Friday at noon, according to a letter sent to union members Thursday night by NBA Players Association executive director Billy Hunter.
In the letter, obtained by ESPN.com, Hunter tells players that the owners and NBPA "still must negotiate numerous non-economic matters, including the anti-drug agreement, commissioner and team discipline, and workplace rules, together with relatively smaller economic and other contract issues."
The union's hope, according to Hunter, is that the deal tentatively agreed to in the early hours of last Saturday morning will be fully negotiated and ready to present to the union membership at a general meeting next Wednesday in New York City. The meeting will be mandatory for team player representatives but open to all players.
The deal, Hunter writes, would then be subject to ratification via electronic voting on Dec. 8 and would be completed by 5 that night, as per the terms set forth in the litigation settlement agreement reached between the owners and players earlier this week.
The NBA Board of Governors, according to Hunter's letter, is likewise scheduled to hold a ratification meeting next Thursday.
"If both the players and owners vote to ratify the agreement," Hunter wrote, "then training camps will open the following morning on Friday, December 9."
Hunter added: "As with the union authorization process, the American Arbitration Association will supervise the ratification process. Every player will have an opportunity to vote on the proposed agreement."
The NBPA announced earlier Thursday that NBA players had formally authorized the reforming of the union, with more than 300 players submitting the necessary signatures to a third-party accounting group.
"This is good news and completes another step in the process of finalizing our agreement," NBA spokesman Tim Frank said.
When talks between the players and owners broke down Nov. 14, Hunter and union president Derek Fisher announced that the NBPA was disclaiming its interest in representing the players, enabling them to file an antitrust lawsuits against the league. Negotiations finally resumed after Thanksgiving, in a last-ditch attempt to reach an agreement in time to start the season by Christmas Day, finally leading to a handshake agreement on the broad points of a tentative labor pact after 15 hours of talks last Friday.
Teams and player agents were cleared to begin contract talks Wednesday and NBA practice facilities opened leaguewide Thursday. The union needed at least 261 signatures from players to be received by the American Accounting Association by the end of the business day Thursday to officially reform as a union and have the ability to resume CBA negotiations with the league on a variety of outstanding salary-cap matters and so-called B-List issues that could include establishing an age requirement for NBA eligibility, which currently requires a player to be 19 years old and, in the U.S., one year removed from high school.
ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher reported this week that, while it has been widely held that the NBA would like to push the age limit to 20, sources familiar with the dialogue between the two sides now say it is expected to remain at 19 for at least the first two years of the new deal and possibly beyond that.
Several alternatives have been discussed, sources told Bucher. One option would be to allow players to enter the draft directly out of high school but have the option to withdraw and go to college, similar to the draft rule used by Major League Baseball. Under this concept, such players would next be required to attend at least two years of college before entering the draft again.
Another option would be to revise the rookie salary scale by adding incentives to stay in college longer, one source close to the labor talks told Bucher. Potential incentives would include increasing the salary range for each year a player stays in school or allow him to qualify for free agency sooner.
There are several ancillary reasons why keeping the age limit at 19 for the time being is seen as desirable by the NBA. The first is the limited time that owners and players have to complete a collective bargaining agreement by Dec. 9, which is the date NBA commissioner David Stern has announced for the start of training camp and free agency. All significant rules pertaining to league operations have to be in place by then.
The prospect of re-stocking the league with young talent is another appealing factor.
The 2012 draft class is expected to feature several lottery-level collegiate players -- North Carolina's Harrison Barnes and Ohio State's Jared Sullinger among them -- who passed on the 2011 draft because of the labor uncertainty.
One league official told Bucher that a star-studded draft and the hope that it offers the league's struggling teams -- with NBA-caliber collegiate freshman such as Kentucky's Anthony Davis and Connecticut's Andre Drummond also potentially joining Barnes and Sullinger -- could help erase whatever lingering disenchantment fans might feel from the labor turmoil.
The 2012 NBA draft is tentatively scheduled for June 28, which would fall two days after the scheduled date for Game 7 of the 2012 NBA Finals.
---
Billy Hunter: Talks to resume Friday
By Marc Stein
ESPN.com
The NBA and the reformed players union will resume negotiations on the remaining terms of their new labor agreement starting Friday at noon, according to a letter sent to union members Thursday night by NBA Players Association executive director Billy Hunter.
In the letter, obtained by ESPN.com, Hunter tells players that the owners and NBPA "still must negotiate numerous non-economic matters, including the anti-drug agreement, commissioner and team discipline, and workplace rules, together with relatively smaller economic and other contract issues."
The union's hope, according to Hunter, is that the deal tentatively agreed to in the early hours of last Saturday morning will be fully negotiated and ready to present to the union membership at a general meeting next Wednesday in New York City. The meeting will be mandatory for team player representatives but open to all players.
The deal, Hunter writes, would then be subject to ratification via electronic voting on Dec. 8 and would be completed by 5 that night, as per the terms set forth in the litigation settlement agreement reached between the owners and players earlier this week.
The NBA Board of Governors, according to Hunter's letter, is likewise scheduled to hold a ratification meeting next Thursday.
"If both the players and owners vote to ratify the agreement," Hunter wrote, "then training camps will open the following morning on Friday, December 9."
Hunter added: "As with the union authorization process, the American Arbitration Association will supervise the ratification process. Every player will have an opportunity to vote on the proposed agreement."
The NBPA announced earlier Thursday that NBA players had formally authorized the reforming of the union, with more than 300 players submitting the necessary signatures to a third-party accounting group.
"This is good news and completes another step in the process of finalizing our agreement," NBA spokesman Tim Frank said.
When talks between the players and owners broke down Nov. 14, Hunter and union president Derek Fisher announced that the NBPA was disclaiming its interest in representing the players, enabling them to file an antitrust lawsuits against the league. Negotiations finally resumed after Thanksgiving, in a last-ditch attempt to reach an agreement in time to start the season by Christmas Day, finally leading to a handshake agreement on the broad points of a tentative labor pact after 15 hours of talks last Friday.
Teams and player agents were cleared to begin contract talks Wednesday and NBA practice facilities opened leaguewide Thursday. The union needed at least 261 signatures from players to be received by the American Accounting Association by the end of the business day Thursday to officially reform as a union and have the ability to resume CBA negotiations with the league on a variety of outstanding salary-cap matters and so-called B-List issues that could include establishing an age requirement for NBA eligibility, which currently requires a player to be 19 years old and, in the U.S., one year removed from high school.
ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher reported this week that, while it has been widely held that the NBA would like to push the age limit to 20, sources familiar with the dialogue between the two sides now say it is expected to remain at 19 for at least the first two years of the new deal and possibly beyond that.
Several alternatives have been discussed, sources told Bucher. One option would be to allow players to enter the draft directly out of high school but have the option to withdraw and go to college, similar to the draft rule used by Major League Baseball. Under this concept, such players would next be required to attend at least two years of college before entering the draft again.
Another option would be to revise the rookie salary scale by adding incentives to stay in college longer, one source close to the labor talks told Bucher. Potential incentives would include increasing the salary range for each year a player stays in school or allow him to qualify for free agency sooner.
There are several ancillary reasons why keeping the age limit at 19 for the time being is seen as desirable by the NBA. The first is the limited time that owners and players have to complete a collective bargaining agreement by Dec. 9, which is the date NBA commissioner David Stern has announced for the start of training camp and free agency. All significant rules pertaining to league operations have to be in place by then.
The prospect of re-stocking the league with young talent is another appealing factor.
The 2012 draft class is expected to feature several lottery-level collegiate players -- North Carolina's Harrison Barnes and Ohio State's Jared Sullinger among them -- who passed on the 2011 draft because of the labor uncertainty.
One league official told Bucher that a star-studded draft and the hope that it offers the league's struggling teams -- with NBA-caliber collegiate freshman such as Kentucky's Anthony Davis and Connecticut's Andre Drummond also potentially joining Barnes and Sullinger -- could help erase whatever lingering disenchantment fans might feel from the labor turmoil.
The 2012 NBA draft is tentatively scheduled for June 28, which would fall two days after the scheduled date for Game 7 of the 2012 NBA Finals.
Mdog1
NBA Starter
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 14,319
- Reaction score
- 4,565
- Points
- 113
Too bad they don't add in a
"let the team with the rights to a player obtained through drafting said player offer a contract of 150% of the maximum contract allowed by all other suitors. Under this rule only the amount of the maximum contract shall count against the salary cap. Can not be signed and traded, and also can not be traded with the 150% application, player would only recieve 100% of the maximum in the event of a trade"
Just for a Cavs related example, for LeBron that would have been approximately 25 million. Let's see anyone turn down 10 million extra dollars a year. This type of rule would prevent every one of these "superstars" from leaving their teams. But at the same time it would prevent players from being "free" agents. Maybe it could only be used for one year or something. I don't know how to make it "fair" for the players to leave. Because with my rule in place a player would be forced to give up almost 50 million dollars over the life of a contract by leaving in free agency. That could mean a team could bascally hold a player hostage while they did nothing to improve the team or get players to help that star win. I still think a maximum salary is a stupid idea. If there was a way that the team that "owns" the player could pay him more than any other team then the playey would likely stay with the team, but at the same time you want t keep the player free to do what he wants in free agency.
I think I need to stop drinking and posting. Although my spelling is damned good.
"let the team with the rights to a player obtained through drafting said player offer a contract of 150% of the maximum contract allowed by all other suitors. Under this rule only the amount of the maximum contract shall count against the salary cap. Can not be signed and traded, and also can not be traded with the 150% application, player would only recieve 100% of the maximum in the event of a trade"
Just for a Cavs related example, for LeBron that would have been approximately 25 million. Let's see anyone turn down 10 million extra dollars a year. This type of rule would prevent every one of these "superstars" from leaving their teams. But at the same time it would prevent players from being "free" agents. Maybe it could only be used for one year or something. I don't know how to make it "fair" for the players to leave. Because with my rule in place a player would be forced to give up almost 50 million dollars over the life of a contract by leaving in free agency. That could mean a team could bascally hold a player hostage while they did nothing to improve the team or get players to help that star win. I still think a maximum salary is a stupid idea. If there was a way that the team that "owns" the player could pay him more than any other team then the playey would likely stay with the team, but at the same time you want t keep the player free to do what he wants in free agency.
I think I need to stop drinking and posting. Although my spelling is damned good.
Photon
Winning
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2005
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 2,174
- Points
- 113
Problem is Stern is not to much concerned with us... If he really cared, this would be a damn good suggestion.
I'd say he made his interest in the Knicks well known. I can't recall any evidence of him "pushing" or "demanding" anything. He didn't need to. He just had to play out the season, and the choice was his. If he had signed with the Knicks as a free-agent, they wouldn't have had to give up anything. IMO, it was the Knicks who pushed the deal because they felt pressure after only coming away with Amare in free-agency to not wait any longer.
Getting things right isn't "rhetoric" it's very pertinent to the discussion.
Fact is the only difference is that Denver demanded Melo either extend or help them trade him while they can could something in return. That's it.
That gets to the root of the problem, IMO. NBA players are already paid so much that and the max-contract has become so cheapened (hello Rudy Gay?) that it's just not the incentive it used to be. Once upon a time the union pushed all players to accept top-dollar no matter how much more it was because it raised the market value of all players. But nobody was denied a denied a max contract just because Wade and James took less. They don't set the market, the max contract does because it's less than these guys are worth.
So, for Bird rights to work, the added incentive the home team can add has to be significant to the player/agent/union.
James is still a special case, IMO, and he still might have turned even a +50% increase down. What's needed is even some more leverage, and that could be done by making the super-Bird extension only available to the player for a specific period of time that expires well before the trading deadline of the last year of his contract. Perhaps even before his last season starts.
If James had turned down a super-Bird extension while we were coming off of a 66 win season, then it would have been clear to everyone what was going on and there would have been little blame at the organization if they traded him and little surprise if we kept him and he walked.
Jezzar
Your own Euroleague Guru
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,478
- Reaction score
- 1,218
- Points
- 113
He has made it well known that he will not sign an extension unless he was traded to Knicks.
That's demanding a trade to the Knicks. You don't always have to come up and say "Hey, trade me to the Knicks", this is just as effective.
Melo forced his way out of Denver to the Knicks. That is a fact regardless of how you try to spin it.
Goldin Brown
NBA Starter
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,824
- Reaction score
- 2,996
- Points
- 113
According to this, http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7303114/everything-ever-want-know-new-nba-labor-deal, amnestied players do not have the ability to choose which team signs them.
blazenmp
Cleveland's still home
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 683
- Reaction score
- 306
- Points
- 63
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,308
- Reaction score
- 23,679
- Points
- 135
Only if some team puts a bid in for the player-- If there's no bid, then they become a free agent.
The bidding system is going to be like a blind auction, so in theory, teams with cap space won't know how much the other teams are bidding or even if any other teams put in any bids. It makes for some interesting gamesmanship between the teams that want to scrape the amnesty waiver wire.
Last edited:
Mdog1
NBA Starter
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 14,319
- Reaction score
- 4,565
- Points
- 113
I've given it some sober thoguht and now I don't think either of us are right Jon. I think the way that you give the home team the advantage is through the raises. If the raises are 10% for the home team and only 2.5% for other potential suitors then I think the advantage becomes "real".
For example let's say for simple math the maximum contract is 15 million the first year so under the bird it would be 16.5 the next year, third year 18.15, fourth year 19.97. Also a super bird as you call it should be able to sign a player for longer than a normal bird contract, and it should only be available one time for the life of previous super bird contracts given so a team can't just go out and offer multiple players the super bird for 10 years each.
Again not tradable.
Oh and for the other side 15 million with 2.5% raises would be 15,375,000 the second year, 15,759,375 the third, and 16,153,359 the fourth which is a huge amount of money to lose over 4 years.
Finally the final way to truly make the home team have an advantage is the ability to offer fully guaranteed contracts. If other teams could only offer 2 years guaranteed out of a 4 year contract and the home team could offer fully guaranteed contracts to all bird players and to the super bird players they could offer up to 2x as many years as a normal suitor could (which is 4 years I believe).
So for example we could have offered LeBron a fully guaranteed 8 year contract with 10% raises while the Heat could have only offered a 4 year contract with 2 years guaranteed with 2.5% raises. This would actually allow the home team a real advantage to keeping their stars. Players would be forced to realize that they are one injury away from only getting paid for two more years instead of 8.
For example let's say for simple math the maximum contract is 15 million the first year so under the bird it would be 16.5 the next year, third year 18.15, fourth year 19.97. Also a super bird as you call it should be able to sign a player for longer than a normal bird contract, and it should only be available one time for the life of previous super bird contracts given so a team can't just go out and offer multiple players the super bird for 10 years each.
Again not tradable.
Oh and for the other side 15 million with 2.5% raises would be 15,375,000 the second year, 15,759,375 the third, and 16,153,359 the fourth which is a huge amount of money to lose over 4 years.
Finally the final way to truly make the home team have an advantage is the ability to offer fully guaranteed contracts. If other teams could only offer 2 years guaranteed out of a 4 year contract and the home team could offer fully guaranteed contracts to all bird players and to the super bird players they could offer up to 2x as many years as a normal suitor could (which is 4 years I believe).
So for example we could have offered LeBron a fully guaranteed 8 year contract with 10% raises while the Heat could have only offered a 4 year contract with 2 years guaranteed with 2.5% raises. This would actually allow the home team a real advantage to keeping their stars. Players would be forced to realize that they are one injury away from only getting paid for two more years instead of 8.
No, it's through allowing owners to play their players what they are worth.
If Lebron was worth $35 million a year to Dan Gilbert (which he was) he should have been allowed to pay him that.
The NFL has it right. Give teams a salary band or cap, and let the teams spend it how they see fit. If that means paying your star a disproportionate part of the payroll so be it, but cookie cutter contracts like the NBA has have done more harm to the game than good since they were instituted.