tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN

the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

no. actually, the "duty to bargain in good faith" is a legal requirement in collective bargaining situations under labor law rules. thought i explained pretty clearly why your analogy doesn't work.

they bargained in good faith unless you have facts that they haven't.. do you? Ok then, stop with the rhetoric...

the point is the players don't like the offer, PERIOD...they feel they are being strong armed.. it is ok if they do it, but draconian if the owners do it...

the analogy is perfect....

it doesn't matter if either of us think the league did not bargain in good faith. now it's up to a judge to figure out. though, clearly you have it all figured out as i'm sure you have presided over many antitrust cases. surprised the league doesn't make a motion to move the case into your jurisidiction. lol...

what facts do any of us have? we're all dealing with what's been out in the media. so if i need special facts to make my point, what about you? what facts do you have? how about this fact? the players already conceded $300M per season which, not coincidentally, matches the amount of money the league says it's losing. the league has responded by saying, "thank you. now we want to make it virtually impossible for you to ever freely choose where you want to play when your rookie contract is up."

my post in response to you had nothing to do with who will win the case. i was just trying to explain to you why your analogy doesn't work. it has nothing to do with rhetoric. it's just that you are so hell-bent on fighting the owner's fight that you can't see that all i was doing was pointing out a very clear legal distinction between the two scenarios you have chosen as an example of player-side hypocrisy.

the part that you are having a hard time grasping is that when players negotiate their own personal contracts or trade demands with teams, it is not part of the collective bargaining process, thus, there is no requiremment for the players to negotiate in good faith. thus, what Melo did to Denver, with the way he held them hostage using his leverage, was not in good faith, but rather at "arms-length." but, as already explained, Melo had no duty to negotiate in good faith.

so comparing what he did to Denver to what the owners are doing today is not really parallel because different rules apply in those two scenarios. and it's not some double-standard that the players designed. it's the way the law is written.

i think you are missing the point.. just answer this question.. are the players upset that the owners are not so called "bargaining in good faith" or that the owners are offering them a deal that is substantially lower.. In other words, if the owners said, we are doing ok, but we want to do a little better than that, because we can and we deserve to.. this is our offer... perfectly legal.. would he players be happy? or would they feel strong armed? answer that first... I think we know the answer..

next question after so called agreeing to a deal why are the players upset? is it because they feel bullied? I mean that is what most players are saying, but here the owners are withing their rights to fight for a better deal.. so i ask, they have the leverage, they are using it, the players are upset... what is the difference between the owners and players using leverage, and please no "bargaining in good faith" mumbo jumbo.... lets assume both players and owners are bargaining in this mysterious good faith cloud.....

Again, the players are upset because they feel the owners are running up the score...they despise the leverage the owners have and when they use it.. we are talking Leverage... when one party uses it, it is called "not bargaining in good faith" when the other uses it, you call it "the way the law is written" wow!!

i'm not going to entertain your questions because you refuse to accept that labor law governs collective bargaining and with that comes the requirement of "good faith" negotiations. i have no idea what a judge would consider good faith in this situation. never was my point to claim i knew how a judge would side one way or another. in fact, the lack of binding legal precedent here makes this matter all the more unpredictable.

that aside, i was only pointing to an important distinction that makes your analogy a failure. do you think i'm making this up? look it up yourself. i'm trying to help you understand the context of what's going on and you are falling over yourself trying to argue with me regarding something i had no intention of debating. there is no debate. labor law imposes a duty of good faith in collective bargaing. labor law does not apply to individual contract negotiations between individual players and their teams.

i never said that what Melo did to Denver was in "good faith." all i said is that he had no legal duty to act in good faith. whereas, the League has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Union. don't like that? i don't know what to tell you. write a letter to your congressman.

i don't know why it's failing to make it through. you don't seem emotional, but maybe you are. i have no clue. no point to further extrapolating this.

don't answer them, that is fine, it tells me exactly what I need to know.. and BTW, what is "good faith" your definition, because it seems that whenever the players don't get what they want, that is what they scream and the fans seem to just repeat it.

it's incredibly amusing that someone that's pro-owner finds the pro-player side to be funny or stupid or whatever

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The idea that an employee should no say in where he or she works is ridiculous.

ever work for the govt.. some jobs before you apply says they have the right to relocate you every three years...

Granted, we are all outsiders and not privy to the negotiations so no one here is an expert first hand.

I cannot in any fashion think that anyone can render such an opion based on the media coverage alone.

The only thing I can see is the NBA did have deadlines and drew lines in the sand and still they negotiated beyond those boundries. That shows some "Good intent". Is it in legal terms "good faith", I am not qualified to judge.

No doubt the players are being pressured to accept a deal that is substantially less than the old one. That sucks for them.

Many of the players are quite vain and have not been told "no" in quite some time. They have been courted by private schools in Middle and High school, AAU teams also shower them with love and praise. Money leeches attach to them early creating a world of privilage for them. Some get it, some don't. Lebron is a perfect example of a man given the keys to everything because of his considerable athletic talent and can dictate the rules for many aspects of his life. He has a family but need not be married, friends who he has advanced their careers whether earned or not. His coat tails are very large.

They are used to getting so much from colleges and NBA managers and perhaps are hitting the wall on this. Owners are not moving off. Enter parasite lawyers and agents who have a vested stake in all this and perhaps things are getting out of hand.

We can all argue the moral justifications back and forth based on our own values and stature.

Personally I want the players to get paid and understand the short window and level of professionalism the great ones put into their careers. There must be some recourse whena player does not uphold that level and "mails it in". There are plenty of examples where good faith is not put forth. Knicks because of its free cash flow and business plan have had plenty of examples of players that fit this problem. Eddy, Jalen, Jerome, Marbles, and Steve Francis all by some account to me did not uphold their contract in good faith. They did not try as hard as they could.

Back on the point, I think the owners did negotiate in good faith but they had a very hard agenda and this was a different attempt to reel in their business that according to them is not profitable.

In a court of law we now get the judgement we are all looking for.

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:don't answer them, that is fine, it tells me exactly what I need to know.. and BTW, what is "good faith" your definition, because it seems that whenever the players don't get what they want, that is what they scream and the fans seem to just repeat it.

first of all, i don't just parrot what i've been reading while following along on the lockout. maybe that's what you do, but don't insult me like that.

i don't have a definition of "good faith." if you had been following along, part of what makes the players lawsuit so unpredictable is the fact that "good faith" is a very hard term to define and, in my limited research, i haven't found too much guidance from the courts. if you are really interested in deciphering the definition of "good faith," then you should start by reading the following Supreme Court case:

NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 US 477 - Supreme Court 1960

unfortunately, the facts of this particular case do not resemble the Anthony v. NBA case at all, and thus, it's not legal precedent as far as that's concerned. however, there are little tidbits of discussion in their that would reveal what might be considered.

how's this little morsel:

The Court's opinion rests its conclusion on the generalization that "the ordinary economic strike is not evidence of a failure to bargain in good faith . . . because . . . there is simply no inconsistency between the application of economic pressure and good-faith collective bargaining." This large statement is justified solely by reference to § 8 (b) (3) and to the proposition that inherent in bargaining is room for the play of forces which reveal the strength of one party, or the weakness of 505*505 the other, in the economic context in which they seek agreement. But in determining the state of mind of a party to collective bargaining negotiations the Board does not deal in terms of abstract "economic pressure." It must proceed in terms of specific conduct which it weighs as a more or less reliable manifestation of the state of mind with which bargaining is conducted. No conduct in the complex context of bargaining for a labor agreement can profitably be reduced to such an abstraction as "economic pressure." An exertion of "economic pressure" may at the same time be part of a concerted effort to evade or disrupt a normal course of negotiations. Vital differences in conduct, varying in character and effect from mild persuasion to destructive, albeit "economic," violence[2] are obscured under cover of a single abstract phrase.

oh boy! those Supreme Court Justices really know how to lay it down don't they? all i can gather from this is that "good faith" does not mean conceding every point, but rather, it may mean that your bargaining behavior has to follow a certain etiquette.

anyway, if this doesn't illustrate my point that this case is unpredictable, i don't know what will.

oh and here's a link to the statute that puts the "good faith" requirement in collective bargaining:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_29_00000158----000-.html

scroll down to section D.

(d) Obligation to bargain collectively
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification—

i'm hoping others have at least found this dialogue informative since it no doubt has missed you. i should have never even typed up this post as i'm confident it was a complete waste of time trying to get these concepts through to you. you are so annoyed by the "player's side" that apparently you can't follow simple logic.

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:don't answer them, that is fine, it tells me exactly what I need to know.. and BTW, what is "good faith" your definition, because it seems that whenever the players don't get what they want, that is what they scream and the fans seem to just repeat it.

first of all, i don't just parrot what i've been reading while following along on the lockout. maybe that's what you do, but don't insult me like that.

i don't have a definition of "good faith." if you had been following along, part of what makes the players lawsuit so unpredictable is the fact that "good faith" is a very hard term to define and, in my limited research, i haven't found too much guidance from the courts. if you are really interested in deciphering the definition of "good faith," then you should start by reading the following Supreme Court case:

NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 US 477 - Supreme Court 1960

unfortunately, the facts of this particular case do not resemble the Anthony v. NBA case at all, and thus, it's not legal precedent as far as that's concerned. however, there are little tidbits of discussion in their that would reveal what might be considered.

how's this little morsel:

The Court's opinion rests its conclusion on the generalization that "the ordinary economic strike is not evidence of a failure to bargain in good faith . . . because . . . there is simply no inconsistency between the application of economic pressure and good-faith collective bargaining." This large statement is justified solely by reference to § 8 (b) (3) and to the proposition that inherent in bargaining is room for the play of forces which reveal the strength of one party, or the weakness of 505*505 the other, in the economic context in which they seek agreement. But in determining the state of mind of a party to collective bargaining negotiations the Board does not deal in terms of abstract "economic pressure." It must proceed in terms of specific conduct which it weighs as a more or less reliable manifestation of the state of mind with which bargaining is conducted. No conduct in the complex context of bargaining for a labor agreement can profitably be reduced to such an abstraction as "economic pressure." An exertion of "economic pressure" may at the same time be part of a concerted effort to evade or disrupt a normal course of negotiations. Vital differences in conduct, varying in character and effect from mild persuasion to destructive, albeit "economic," violence[2] are obscured under cover of a single abstract phrase.

oh boy! those Supreme Court Justices really know how to lay it down don't they? all i can gather from this is that "good faith" does not mean conceding every point, but rather, it may mean that your bargaining behavior has to follow a certain etiquette.

anyway, if this doesn't illustrate my point that this case is unpredictable, i don't know what will.

oh and here's a link to the statute that puts the "good faith" requirement in collective bargaining:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_29_00000158----000-.html

scroll down to section D.

(d) Obligation to bargain collectively
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification—

i'm hoping others have at least found this dialogue informative since it no doubt has missed you. i should have never even typed up this post as i'm confident it was a complete waste of time trying to get these concepts through to you. you are so annoyed by the "player's side" that apparently you can't follow simple logic.

no insults meant here.. sorry if you took it that way..

My point was that the players seem to want to operate on a different set of moral and legal grounds.... don't get what they want. the bring up the "good faith" argument.... sure carmelo is not bound to oeprate in good faith, but it is funny how quick these players and some fans(not necessarily you) will use this argument whether the owners are doing so or not....

maybe a time has come when the owners and players need to start over... and those who feel they can get a better deal elsewhere to go pursue that....and the owners that want to sell their teams or contract can do so as well.... let the owners write a new CBA and for the players that want to play under that CBA, you are more than welcome..... not sure if that is legal, but just venting..

i'm hoping others have at least found this dialogue informative since it no doubt has missed you. i should have never even typed up this post as i'm confident it was a complete waste of time trying to get these concepts through to you. you are so annoyed by the "player's side" that apparently you can't follow simple logic.

funny how you felt I insulted you and you come back with this post.. believe me, I completely understand the position of both sides... I am arguing from a different angle.. I am not a labor lawyer so I really try not to get into the legalities especially since I don't know how the court will rule on these things...

but when I hear "good faith" I see something that can be interepreted in a number of ways, I think the players will soon see that.. my point to you that you just can't seem to grasp is that stern and the NBA feels they have negotiated in good faith, the courts will determine that.. my post was pretty much from the perspective that the players are treating this situation as if they are poor factory workers getting crapped upon... yet they when they have leverage it is ok to enforce it.... when the owners do so, it is called "not negotiating in good faith"... the owners have the right to use leverage in negotiations, something the players and fans seem to ignore, and something that your legal definition of "good faith" really does not spell out clearly....

eViL wrote:

tkf wrote:don't answer them, that is fine, it tells me exactly what I need to know.. and BTW, what is "good faith" your definition, because it seems that whenever the players don't get what they want, that is what they scream and the fans seem to just repeat it.

first of all, i don't just parrot what i've been reading while following along on the lockout. maybe that's what you do, but don't insult me like that.

i don't have a definition of "good faith." if you had been following along, part of what makes the players lawsuit so unpredictable is the fact that "good faith" is a very hard term to define and, in my limited research, i haven't found too much guidance from the courts. if you are really interested in deciphering the definition of "good faith," then you should start by reading the following Supreme Court case:

NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 US 477 - Supreme Court 1960

unfortunately, the facts of this particular case do not resemble the Anthony v. NBA case at all, and thus, it's not legal precedent as far as that's concerned. however, there are little tidbits of discussion in their that would reveal what might be considered.

how's this little morsel:

The Court's opinion rests its conclusion on the generalization that "the ordinary economic strike is not evidence of a failure to bargain in good faith . . . because . . . there is simply no inconsistency between the application of economic pressure and good-faith collective bargaining." This large statement is justified solely by reference to § 8 (b) (3) and to the proposition that inherent in bargaining is room for the play of forces which reveal the strength of one party, or the weakness of 505*505 the other, in the economic context in which they seek agreement. But in determining the state of mind of a party to collective bargaining negotiations the Board does not deal in terms of abstract "economic pressure." It must proceed in terms of specific conduct which it weighs as a more or less reliable manifestation of the state of mind with which bargaining is conducted. No conduct in the complex context of bargaining for a labor agreement can profitably be reduced to such an abstraction as "economic pressure." An exertion of "economic pressure" may at the same time be part of a concerted effort to evade or disrupt a normal course of negotiations. Vital differences in conduct, varying in character and effect from mild persuasion to destructive, albeit "economic," violence[2] are obscured under cover of a single abstract phrase.

oh boy! those Supreme Court Justices really know how to lay it down don't they? all i can gather from this is that "good faith" does not mean conceding every point, but rather, it may mean that your bargaining behavior has to follow a certain etiquette.

anyway, if this doesn't illustrate my point that this case is unpredictable, i don't know what will.

oh and here's a link to the statute that puts the "good faith" requirement in collective bargaining:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_29_00000158----000-.html

scroll down to section D.

(d) Obligation to bargain collectively
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification—

i'm hoping others have at least found this dialogue informative since it no doubt has missed you. i should have never even typed up this post as i'm confident it was a complete waste of time trying to get these concepts through to you. you are so annoyed by the "player's side" that apparently you can't follow simple logic.

Thanks for researching these points. Good info.

I am wondering if "good faith" was broken by the owners. The players agreed to the major points on the table; the 50-50 split; MLE; etc. and then, once agreed upon, the owners threw in at the last minute, extra demands to be met. Like the "D" League - if a player is sent down to the "D" League, then he only received a max salary of $75,000. And then a "take it or leave it" approach with a 3 day deadline.

tkf wrote:funny how you felt I insulted you and you come back with this post.. believe me, I completely understand the position of both sides... I am arguing from a different angle.. I am not a labor lawyer so I really try not to get into the legalities especially since I don't know how the court will rule on these things...

sorry. no offense. i read your post that you found the player's side annoying and thought maybe the annoyance was getting in the way of our discussion. i know when i'm annoyed at something, i tend to have a shorter attention span.

i don't find the player's to be a sympathetic group. however, i don't find the owners sympathetic either. on one side, the teams and the league will outlast the players. and of course, my loyalty is with the knicks. that's for sure. on the other side, i have loathed the NBA's restrictive policies with regards to player movement for years now. and i've concluded that the desire to further restrict player moves is driven by small market owners that are being ****blocking pricks.

i feel that by dropping down to 50/50 the players have made the financial concessions the owners asked for. i just want the owners to loosen up on the player movement issues. that's all. i understand that the parties both have competing agendas and are going about getting their goals accomplished in whatever manner they deem fit.

this is where the whole "good faith" thing comes in. whether you and i can even agree on a definition of good faith is irrelevant. what really matters, and what i've been saying the whole time, is that there is uncertainty surrounding the legal outcome of the players lawsuit. my hope is that the uncertainty acts as a catalyst for the owners making concessions on player movement issues. the knicks need this. trust me.

you want to point at double standards about how Melo treated negotiations with Denver. that's fine. i don't find the analogy to be a true parallel to what we're discussing here. however, consider the fact that owners lament overpaid players that don't earn their contracts. while at the same time, you don't see owners making efforts to fairly compensate a superstar, on his rookie deal, whose production far exceeds his compensation on the rookie wage scale (currently: blake griffin, john wall, russell westbrook, derrick rose; and many more before and after). no, those owners enjoy that 4 years of paying a superstar way below his value. the players are not alone in the world of hypocrisy.

here i am, a knicks fan who went through a decade of disaster just wishing there were ways we could get out of the mess we were in. when it was all said and done, it took two years just to climb back to zero. not two years to get to the top. two years to get back to a decent starting point. to me, that's ridiculous and it's a product of a system that's too restrictive. yes, i understand that mismanagement got us in the mess in the first place, but having to sit idle for two seasons is unduly burdensome.

i don't find the small markets argument about competitive balance compelling at all. well managed small markets that draft superstars have been very competitive (see: Spurs, OKC). accept 50/50, loosen up the player movement, and let's have a season. that's my stance on this.

eViL wrote:and TKF, allow me to point out your signature:

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF

that's what the owners want the NBA to be. if you win the NBA lottery and you draft a franchise player, you get to keep him forever! there will be no legitimate free agency options. trades will be impossible. i don't know. maybe i have an extreme view of what the league would look like after the new stricter CBA.

i hope players take mega-pay cuts out of spite and populate all the big market teams. Knicks, Heat, Celtics, Bulls, on the East. Mavericks, Lakers, Warriors, Houston in the West. 8 mini-all-star teams. that would be unbelievable. i know it's not gonna happen, but i'd love to see it.

The NHL system is more restrictive and there is enough players movement. I think the idea that players wont be able to get traded or sign anywhere but their own team is a farce.

In the last 3 years the Rangers have signed Gaborik and Brad Richards (among others) - two very expensive and great hockey players. Gaborik left a smaller market by the way.

All the owners moves are setup to flatten the financial picture. They tried to limit the options that over the cap teams have to improve, meanwhile lowering the cost of paying the players to help the low revenue teams. So you could say that players can move but they will only get smaller contracts from low revenue teams cuz over the cap high revenue teams will be unable to get involved.

The problem is that NY, NJ and MIA were under the cap! Very few teams are still going with the old go over the cap to build a contender route. Like I pointed out only 4 teams are locked into being over the cap after this season.