Category: In the News

Union to meet today to discuss league’s offer

MIAMI — Decision day for players may have arrived.

The players’ association will meet in New York this morning, a session that could lead to the end of the lockout or send it into a bigger tailspin. Representatives from all 30 teams are expected, as are other players, to examine and discuss a seven-page summary of the NBA’s latest collective bargaining proposal to the union.

The proposal, a copy of which was obtained by , was dated to be delivered to union executive director on Friday. At least some of the people who will be in the NBPA meeting said Sunday they had not yet seen the offer, creating more than a little confusion over what exactly is on the table.

“We haven’t asked for anything more than what we had,” player representative said Sunday. “We understand the times. We understand the economy. We just want a fair deal where both sides are bearing the weight of the present times and with an eye on the future of the game of basketball.”

Sounds so simple. But it’s not.

By today, things could finally become clear — because this union meeting may decide if basketball will be played this season.

Some project that team payrolls will exceed $100 million in the next five or so years, even to the chagrin of many owners. And on Saturday, commissioner said again if the current offer is rejected, a harsher one — where owners would keep about another $120 million of basketball related income, or BRI, each year, along with other so-called system issues that players didn’t want — will take its place.

“We’re not going to cancel the season this week,” Stern said. “We’re just going to present them what we told them we would.”

The NBA wants a 72-game season to begin Dec. 15. For that to happen, a handshake deal almost certainly would have to be in place this week. Stern says it will take about 30 days to get the season started once an agreement is reached.

There are 17 items in the memo, including how teams paying a luxury tax would not be able to acquire free agents in sign-and-trade deals after the 2012-13 season. One of the key points comes on Page 5, where the NBA says “there will be no limitations on a player’s ability to receive 100%guaranteed salary in all seasons of a contract.”

Players have repeatedly said they will reject a deal where contracts are not guaranteed.

“I’m going to sit down, take a look at the deal and analyze it,” Minnesota player rep said Sunday, as the lockout reached Day 136. “Not like it’s the first offer or the last offer, but just as one where I’ll say ‘Would I or my teammates want to play under these conditions?’

“I was a little bit more hopeful last week than I am this week. I’m trying not to be too negative, but it’s kind of hard not to when it’s been this long and this many meetings. It’s hard not to get continuously more pessimistic by the day. Hopefully this deal will blow me away in a good way. But it’s hard to believe that’s going to be the case.”

Is RJ fated to be a casualty of the amnesty clause?

Most observers are expecting that there will be some kind of “amnesty clause” as a result of the end of the lockout.

This, quite simply, will provide all teams with an out to get out from under one onerous contract.

ESPN.com reports that” is expected this year, according to sources close to the negotiations. Early reports are that teams will receive cap relief and tax relief: 75 percent of a player’s contract value will not count against the salary cap when it is shed via amnesty.

that San Antonio Spurs majority owner Peter Holt has been at the forefront of a successful push to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to release one player via amnesty, as opposed to the 2005 version that gave clubs two weeks in August to use or lose the amnesty option forever.

Holt strategy is an interesting one. It would effectively allow the Spurs  the chance to keep their current roster together for one more season — which also is likely to be Tim Duncan’s final season.

It would give the Spurs an opportunity to get some sizable cap relief in one more season.

Chad Ford and Marc Stein of ESPN.com have crafted a list of potential casualties that includes one per team. They have Richard Jefferson listed as the most likely player to be cut, although the Spurs are considered lukewarm at immediately using the provision.

Which helps explainwhy the Spurs can avoid casting Jefferson aside in spite of the $9.3 million, $10.2 million and $11 million that he is scheduled to earn over the next three seasons.

It makes sense that the Spurs want to keep fielding the strongest team possible before Duncan decides to retire. But the Spurs’ aims could be forced if the new luxury-tax scale is extremely punitive. That would be  financially crippling for a franchise that has lost money in each of the last  two seasons (according to Holt) and would still be above $65 million in 2011-12 even without him.

It’s also interesting to scan some of the names that are listed as potential amnesty candidates.

Considering the current weaknesses of the Spurs, players like Cleveland guard Baron Davis, Milwaukee guard Beno Udrih, Miami guard Mike Miller, Orlando forward Hedo Turkoglu and Philadelphia forward/center Elton Brand would help the team.

What about it Spurs Nation? Would you like to see Jefferson leave the franchise? And which of the potential amnesty candidates do you think would most help the team?

Or, would you prefer to use the amnesty clause next season?

Owners putting ball in players’ court

Facing an ultimatum from league owners and dissension within its membership, the leadership of the Players Association will conduct a conference call today to consider its options.

Spurs forward , a member of the union’s executive committee, said he expects a wide-ranging discussion. One topic will gauge the level of player interest in signing a petition to force a vote that could decertify the union.

The NBA late Saturday night gave the union a formal proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement that Bonner characterized as “basically another 50-50 split” of basketball-related income. It included some changes in the luxury tax system he said represented little change from the owners’ previous positions.

The union rejected the offer on the spot, but commissioner said it would remain on the table only through the end of business Wednesday.

Details of the league’s offer, which Stern promised to put in writing for the union to assess ahead of the deadline, include:

A “band” of revenue for the players between 49 and 51 percent, depending on revenue growth.

Restrictions on teams over the luxury tax threshold, including a ban on both sign-and-trade deals and full use of mid-level salary cap exceptions. The full mid-level would be replaced for tax-paying teams by a “mini” mid-level that would start at $2.5 million, half of the full mid-level.

An added penalty for teams that exceed the luxury tax threshold three times in five seasons.

If it is not accepted by Wednesday, Stern said the offer would be withdrawn and replaced by a much worse deal, with a revenue split giving the players only 47 percent of BRI and a “flex” salary cap system the players already have characterized as an unacceptable hard cap.

Lakers guard , the union’s president, told reporters in New York on Saturday that the NBA deal was not one the executive committee could take to its players for a vote.

Bonner said every member of the executive committee is behind the decision to reject it.

“We’re all on the same page,” he said.

Saturday’s session, which was conducted under the guidance of , head of the , was frustrating for the players.

“Saturday sucked,” Bonner said. “The way we saw to save the season and get a deal was by saying the system was more important to us, BRI more important to them; we can compromise on BRI if they can come more to us on the remaining system issues.

“That’s what we were hoping would get a deal, and we really thought the approach we took was going to get it done. But when George came back after taking our offer to the owners, what he came back with was five or six changes in system things, and all but one were what the owners wanted. It was basically their deal.”

Disbanding the union would allow players to file an anti-trust lawsuit against the league. The more important, immediate result would be some leverage for the union during the roughly 45 days it would take for the to arrange a vote of all 450 members of the union.

The threat of decertification and the uncertainty that comes with it could give the union the leverage it needs to coax a better offer from the league than the deal it rejected Saturday.

“I’m sure we’ll talk about everything on the call,” Bonner said.