Thread Tools

Display Modes

Kmurph · 02-25-2005, 02:47 PM

I just read the ESPN Insider piece about what the new CBA could look like and it gives me SOME hope for optomism.

ESPN Insider

Here are a couple of the highlights that I think could help POR in its rebuilding efforts...

1)

Quote:

According to sources, high school players would have to wait two years after their high school class graduated before becoming eligible for the NBA draft. International players could not declare for the draft until the age of 20...The rule likely would go into effect for the 2006 NBA draft.

This potentially favores POR...Part of my concern with a #4-8 draft pick is that the level of talent is not that strong....What I mean by that is ...good players?...yes lots of good NBA players...star "franchise" players?...Not IMO...

But according to Ford and his "insiders" the players union is now willing to impose an age limit AND according to Ford, the NBA feels that if it is collectively bargained that it will withstand a lcourt challenge.

Quote:

If the league does institute such a rule, it likely will be challenged in court. However, the league is confident the rule will hold up as long as it was collectively bargained. The NFL successfully defended a recent suit by running back Maurice Clarett. In May, a three-judge appeals panel said federal labor policy allows NFL teams to set rules governing when players can enter the league, stopping Clarett from entering last year's NFL draft

I potentially see HS players, college underclassmen, and european youngster (in that order) rethinking their decisions to enter the draft. PArticularly the good ones (ie consensus 1st round picks) and with the pressure to enter increasing the higher that player is projected to go...

and THAT would be VERY good for POR....b\c then you are talking guys like Rudy Gay, Marvin Williams, Gerald Green, Martynas Andriuskevicius, Nemanja Aleksandrov, Andrea Bargnani, ...having to seriously contemplate entering the draft (especially since all would be likely lotto picks)...and those players combined with Chris Paul, Andrew Bogut, Tiago Splitter, Chris Taft, Josh Boone...

IF POR could get their hands on a guy like Rudy Gay or Marvin Williams I would feel much more optomistic about our future...and Bogut, Taft, Boone, Andriuskevicius or Splitter would not be a bad consolation.

I'll be hoping the new CBA has that 20yr age provision, b\c if it does I'd be willing to bet that a lot of young players would opt to enter this year.

2)

Quote:

According to sources, the owners have agreed to increase that percentage, in effect raising the salary cap...Expect the league to significantly loosen those trade rules under the new CBA. That includes widening the gap between salaries traded and received to 125 percent.

The percentage in the 2nd part is in regards to trades where salaries (presently) must be within 115% and $100,000 I think, they are talking about raising that to 125%...For a team with large contracts (POR\NVE in particular)...that is potentially helpful for trades...The 1st part is a discussion of raising the salary cap by a fair margin....for a team over the cap...this is a another potentially good thing

3)

Quote:

Currently, the owners are looking to split the mid-level exception in two pieces. Teams could sign two players with the exception: one for 75 percent of the exception, the other for 25 percent. Under current exception figures, teams would have a $3.7 million slot and a $1.2 million slot.

Another good thing for POR...potentially....IF the MLE is truly split into two, this makes it so, players that want more money are going to have to work with their current team to orchestate a sign and trade...not that I have a lot of hope of a team giving a lot back, liks some of you think they would...but something for Damon or SAR, for instance...is better than nothing....This MAY help POR chances of doing a S & T instead of just losing those two players...

4)

Quote:

Both sides expect a compromise in which players can sign for a maximum of five years if they re-sign with their current teams and four years if they sign with new teams in free agency...To curb the growth of salaries, owners want to roll back the maximum raises to 5 percent for players who re-sign with their current teams and 4 percent for players who sign with a new teams in free agency.

The most important aspect of all this...the raises of 5% for current team, 4% for new teams...this does NOT help with teams resigning their own FA...in fact it reduces the disadvantage a new team has bidding against a player's current team...the lower percentage (from 12.5% to 5%) and the paltry 1% difference b\t what a player's current team and a new team can offer...combine that with the reduction in years (from 7/6 to 5/4) and the total difference in compensation b\t what a player's current team can offer and what a new team could offer has been significantly reduced....Think how this could help when aplied to the larger of the new Mid Level Exceptions ($3.7)...Maybe someone could do the math and show the difference....Of course that is assuming that the player wants to come to POR.

Anyway, some intriguing developments, and a few that could have a positive effect for POR.....we hope.

Fork · 02-25-2005, 02:56 PM

So, do you think sign and trades would become easier to make and therefore more likely to happen?

**Tince** · 02-25-2005, 02:59 PM

Great Post!

**Minstrel** · 02-25-2005, 03:13 PM

I have a question. Why does it make a difference to courts whether it was "collectively bargained" or not? The implication of "collectively bargained" is that both "sides" agreed to it. But, as many people note, one of the main reasons (if not the main reason) that the NBAPA would be willing to agree to the age limit is because they don't represent high schoolers who are yet to be drafted. They only represent players currently in the league and, therefore, in the union.

So, the people who's rights are being abridged, the 18 year olds who want to enter the NBA, aren't being represented by anyone in the collective bargaining agreement. So why does it being collectively bargained make it more legitimate legally, when the challenge is coming from a party that wasn't part of that agreement? It seems like a collective agreement would only be a strong legal point if it were being challenged by a party that was in the agreement.

If A "collectively" agrees with B to exclude C from a field of employment, why is the collective nature of it a strong barrier to a challenge by C? One entity trying to abridge another entity's rights is weaker than two (or more) entities trying to abridge another entity's rights?

Kmurph · 02-25-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fork

So, do you think sign and trades would become easier to make and therefore more likely to happen?

Potentially, yes.

It depends on when the new CBA goes into effect. It won't effect the draft b\c that is in June, but FA period starts in July? sometime, and the new CBA expires July 1st? I think. So technically, I would guess that it would take place THIS year...which means that all of the sudden the MLE goes from $5 million to TWO exceptions (that cannot be combined) of $3.7 and $1.3 million. That is if this goes into the CBA as rumoured...

Both Damon and SAR are UFA, but if you are over the cap, the MAX deal you could offer SAR for example is $3.7 over 4 years...That ain't going to cut it for him...and thankfully most of the good teams...the teams that a vet player like SAR or Damon would want to go to...are over the cap. So how does MIN for example, pay SAR more? They have to negotiate with POR, who COULD pay SAR $6-9 mil or so and then deal him to MIN...and if the 125% rule goes into effect...POR could potentially take back less or accept more back...This is important to remember for deals involving large contracts (or multipl players).

For example...Let's say POR resigns SAR for $8mil...under the current agreement POR would have to (since they are over thecap) take back contracts within 115% & $100k...meaning a minimum of somewhere under $6.9mil or a maximum of $9.3mil

Under this new proposal the minimum\maximum POR would have to take back would be a tad under $6.4mil or a maximum of $10.1mil. This difference would grow exponentially the larger the dollar figures involved.

Don't expect a lot in return for either player under this scenario though..teams aren't going to bend over backwards (ie give POR a high return) in order to do this for a player...however, it does potentially help POR.

Ed O · 02-25-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kmurph

I'll be hoping the new CBA has that 20yr age provision, b\c if it does I'd be willing to bet that a lot of young players would opt to enter this year.

Good post, kmurph. I started a thread about this yesterday, and while it was pointed out to me that the new CBA won't take effect until next draft, so the age floor won't affect people entering this year, after some reflection, I'm not sure there's any sort of bonanza either.

Why not?

Because only people who are 18 this season should see their decisions affected. If they're 19, they'll be 20 next year and not care.

Rudy Gay turns 20 on July 17, 2006. Marvin Williams on June 19, 2006. Those are two guys who may or may not com out this season and who may or may not be affected by the new rule (assuming it exists, it would depend on the cutoff for age 20).

Andriuskevicius on March 12, 2006. Johan Petro on January 27, 2006. Those guys almost certainly won't be impacted by the age limit... and in fact might be more willing to sit out if they think that others are going to come out because of the age limit.

Another reason is that the prep class this year is lacking top prospects. Gerald Green seems the only guy to have a chance at the lottery.

Just something to keep in mind.

Ed O.

Kmurph · 02-25-2005, 03:28 PM

Good point Minstrel...But if that is the case then why did Clarett lose his court challenge to enter the NFL draft?

I think that result, emboldened Stern to push for it, and possibly opened the Player's Association's eyes a little to consider its merits.

I think it will get challenged and it may eventually get overturned...but the important part for ME as a Blazer fan, is the effect having it in place for the 2006 draft (or heck, just the threat of it) would have on young players jumping into the 2005 poll, and THAT would be potentially good for POR's rebuilding effort.

One has to wonder if Greg Oden or Derick Character wouldn't throw their hat into the ring THIS year under that scenario...especially if one of them turns 18 before the draft. Any ideas on their ages\birthdays?

Just think about this though...How valuable would those 2006-2007 draft picks become? Ugh! It would at least take a couple of years for the talent pool to strengthen itself.

Kmurph · 02-25-2005, 03:34 PM

Good points Ed...I think, and maybe someone here knows...that they have to be that age at the time of the draft...which if that is the case means Gay would have to wait two years (2007), but Williams could come out next year...

and you could be right, that they don't think it is that big of a deal and they stay, BUT just the threat, or reality if agreed upon of a 20yr old age limit, could make some kids decisions to enter now...even if, as you pointed out it wouldn't necessarily effect them as much as they THINK it would. At least that is the hope....as a POR fan.

I want to see POR draft Rudy Gay or MArvin Williams....badly....

**Minstrel** · 02-25-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kmurph

Good point Minstrel...But if that is the case then why did Clarett lose his court challenge to enter the NFL draft?

I was legitimately asking, actually, because I've seen this point made a few times, that courts would look more favourably on the age limit if it were collectively bargained for. For the reasons I stated above, I wonder why. In case anyone knows.

As to why Clarett lost to the NFL, I might posit (without an inkling of legal knowledge on this issue) that safety issues differentiate the NFL from the NBA and MLB. An under-developed kid could get seriously injured playing football with enormous, fully developed men. An under-developed basketball player only runs the risk of being bruised quite a bit under the hoop, at worst.

**HKF** · 02-25-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I was legitimately asking, actually, because I've seen this point made a few times, that courts would look more favourably on the age limit if it were collectively bargained for. For the reasons I stated above, I wonder why. In case anyone knows.

As to why Clarett lost to the NFL, I might posit (without an inkling of legal knowledge on this issue) that safety issues differentiate the NFL from the NBA and MLB. An under-developed kid could get seriously injured playing football with enormous, fully developed men. An under-developed basketball player only runs the risk of being bruised quite a bit under the hoop, at worst.

With no precedent you can't underscore how easy it was to overturn it. Being a pioneer is not easy. Someone is eventually going to break that, but it wasn't meant to be Clarett. The NBA can't justify the point that the players aren't good enough to be in the league. All one needs to see is the NBA All-star game (with HS and International players making up almost half the roster).

Ed O · 02-25-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I have a question. Why does it make a difference to courts whether it was "collectively bargained" or not?

See page 22 of http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/n...fl20504opn.pdf for a look at the law.

The basic idea is that collective bargaining is often exempt from antitrust action because in order to come to fruitful agreements, sometimes parties need to make what would be monopolistic or oligopolistic acts.

Quote:

If A "collectively" agrees with B to exclude C from a field of employment, why is the collective nature of it a strong barrier to a challenge by C? One entity trying to abridge another entity's rights is weaker than two (or more) entities trying to abridge another entity's rights?

There arguably are only two parties: the employer and the employees. Potential employees can be affected by the decisions of the employees' representatives... that's essential to collective bargaining.

The opposite side is adopted by the court in the .pdf I linked to above on pages 33 and 34. The reasoning seems a bit skimpy, to be honest with you, relative to the rest of the opinion.

In the words of Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three judges who put a stay on the lower court decision, "That's what unions do every day: protect people in the union from those not in the union," she said. (See http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache...erturned&hl=en , which is a cached page so no registration is necesary with jsonline).

Ed O.

Ed O · 02-25-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hong Kong Fooey

With no precedent you can't underscore how easy it was to overturn it. Being a pioneer is not easy. Someone is eventually going to break that, but it wasn't meant to be Clarett. The NBA can't justify the point that the players aren't good enough to be in the league. All one needs to see is the NBA All-star game (with HS and International players making up almost half the roster).

Clarett lost in SPITE of the fact that the evidence of true arms length negotiation of the age restriction seemed weak.

If the NBA and NBPA agree to put in an age floor, I think that it's going to be solid. If the NBA tried to unilaterally impose it, I think it would be doomed.

Ed O.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes