Bonn1997 wrote:

I say this JJ reddick!! go to europe with your slow feet and average game and tell me if you would make what you are getting now?

I say this, greedy billionaire corporate owners: Go get some NBDL and Euro replacement players and then you'll realize how unreplaceable your current players are.

Dude, nobody said a thing about replacement players. You can't get scabs to cross a picket line when there is none. cuz they are locked out, not "on Strike"!

Bonn1997 wrote:

I say this JJ reddick!! go to europe with your slow feet and average game and tell me if you would make what you are getting now?

I say this, greedy billionaire corporate owners: Go get some NBDL and Euro replacement players and then you'll realize how unreplaceable your current players are.

tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

eViL wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

I say this JJ reddick!! go to europe with your slow feet and average game and tell me if you would make what you are getting now?

I say this, greedy billionaire corporate owners: Go get some NBDL and Euro replacement players and then you'll realize how unreplaceable your current players are.

Laughable statement. Others will come.

how soon?

Very.

that's interesting. then why would the owners bother to negotiate with the current crop of players if they are so readily replaceable?

they are required to under the CBA.... I think..

well, technically there is no CBA right now. that's what they're negotiating over. but you're probably right that they're required to negotiate with the player's union right now.

still, the idea that the NBA will be able to replenish it's talent pool in short order is ridiculous. 5 years minimum, but more likely 7-10 years (maybe even 15). it'd take a long time is basically my point.

Freaking brilliant. If some players agree to less, then can players holding out really sue on the difference and have grounds?

Nalod wrote:No Union, no CBA........and no CBA means players can sign on as they wish, not have to have a majority vote on a CBA.

Freaking brilliant. If some players agree to less, then can players holding out really sue on the difference and have grounds?

if no CBA, every player is an independent contractor, free to contract for whatever they feel they are worth. however, if no CBA, then likely no draft, no cap, no need for sign and trades, none of those artificial market restrictions. so maybe some would sign for less. but some would sign for a lot more.

i don't think one individual and unique player agreeing to contract, with his own personal priorities, and his own set of talents, can reflect on another player who could be in an entirely different situation and have a completely different skillset. i don't think it would be as simple as saying, "hey look, andy rautins took $15/hr to play NBA ball. now everyone must."

Nalod wrote:

eViL wrote:

Nalod wrote:No Union, no CBA........and no CBA means players can sign on as they wish, not have to have a majority vote on a CBA.

Freaking brilliant. If some players agree to less, then can players holding out really sue on the difference and have grounds?

if no CBA, every player is an independent contractor, free to contract for whatever they feel they are worth. however, if no CBA, then likely no draft, no cap, no need for sign and trades, none of those artificial market restrictions. so maybe some would sign for less. but some would sign for a lot more.

i don't think one individual and unique player agreeing to contract, with his own personal priorities, and his own set of talents, can reflect on another player who could be in an entirely different situation and have a completely different skillset. i don't think it would be as simple as saying, "hey look, andy rautins took $15/hr to play NBA ball. now everyone must."

My point is if some players start to some back after decertifying it could blow holes in a lawsuit. Im just speculating.

If players start to play at lower values then the market resets itself.

Current contracts would still need be fulfilled, but for the Players to win a lawsuit they would have to show damages.

Im trying to see where the players get benefits by decertifying in the long run. I get the the fact it could kill the season, and I get the fact they can sue the owners based on them denying thier ability to make money but they are not doing that as the owners have made offers. Its just not for the same pay as before.

Im not legal law expert but few articles go far in the process. No writer has projected a who would clearly benefit from decertifying.

i posted an article in your other thread. it's a good one. written by a sports law professor at tulane.

basically, if the union decertify's they'd be able to sue the NBA under antitrust law. right now, since the players are unionized, the NBA is exempted from certain antitrust rules. antitrust law has very very serious damages for anti-competitive activity. the damages are tripled as a means of scaring businesses into competing. the idea is, you might get away with collusion and anti-competitive behavior for a little while, but whatever you profit illegally gained during that period will be washed away when we hit you with these mega-damages. it's statutory scare tactics.

the players would argue that the lockout is an illegal boycott where "competitors" have joined up and agreed to boycott NBA talent in an effort to drive the price down.

the chance that their argument would succeed is impossible to predict because there is no precedent involving a case with these circumstances. so it's a novel question of law and with that comes a lot of uncertainty. for players, the risk is losing multiple years of an already short career. for owners, the risk is suffering treble damages (i.e. triple damages -- don't ask me why they are called "treble" in the legal world). both sides have a lot at stake.

Nalod wrote:I did read the article and it was very good.

I would like for it to have gone further into plausability of some of those issues but thats asking a lot!

i think the reason that the article didn't really get into that is because of the lack of precedent. it'd basically be his opinion with no legal backing. and if this ever came to trial, the only opinion that would matter would be the trial judge. and then probably the appellate judges. and then probably the US supreme court. it would truly be mountain of litigation. if you want my opinion on who would win, i'd say: the lawyers. ;)

tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

eViL wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

I say this JJ reddick!! go to europe with your slow feet and average game and tell me if you would make what you are getting now?

I say this, greedy billionaire corporate owners: Go get some NBDL and Euro replacement players and then you'll realize how unreplaceable your current players are.

Laughable statement. Others will come.

how soon?

Very.

that's interesting. then why would the owners bother to negotiate with the current crop of players if they are so readily replaceable?

they are required to under the CBA.... I think..

well, technically there is no CBA right now. that's what they're negotiating over. but you're probably right that they're required to negotiate with the player's union right now.

still, the idea that the NBA will be able to replenish it's talent pool in short order is ridiculous. 5 years minimum, but more likely 7-10 years (maybe even 15). it'd take a long time is basically my point.

YOU ARE assuming that every player would refuse to play for a 47% or even 48% split of BRI.. there are a lot of guys I am sure that would take that, add in all of the college players drafted that have not earned a dime and guys coming out next year and the year after, bring in some euro talent and boom, you have replenished your talent pool.. and don't be fooled, every big name star will come and take that 47% because they know they will still get top dollars.... with no union to answer to, these greedy jokers would line up for money and don't give a damn if they are playing in empty arenas and if their teamates are making peanuts...

Andrew wrote:What I don't understand is what if the union decertifies, and the owners say ok...lets play basketball?

No min salaries? No max salaries? No player pensions? No BRI% guarenteed to the players? Is that what happens?

right. no draft either. no age limit.

players would negotiate everything independently.