NBA Lockout

D2D

So there's now a lockout starting from 5am tomorrow morning (12am est)

Labor talks over, owners to lock out players at midnight
By NBA.com staff

Posted Jun 30 2011 2:50PM - Updated Jun 30 2011 5:01PM

Talks on a new collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and its players broke off on Thursday afternoon, prompting the league to announce that it will lock out the players when the current agreement expires at midnight. The lockout would effectively shutter the league and could end up jeopardizing parts or all of the 2011-12 season.

"We tried to avoid the lockout," said the Spurs' Matt Bonner, a member of the players' union executive committee. "Unfortunately, we couldn't reach a deal."

The last time the league went through a work stoppage, after the expiration of its deal with the players in July 1998, owners and players trudged through more than six months of fitful bargaining and sometimes contentious rhetoric before coming to an agreement in January 1999. The NBA season was sliced to 50 games that year.

"I hope it doesn't come down to that," National Basketball Players Association head Billy Hunter told reporters. "Obviously, the clock is now running with regard to whether or not there will or will be a loss of games, and so I'm hoping that over the next month or so that there will be sort of a softening on their side and maybe we have to soften our position as well."

This expected lockout comes as the league completes one of its most successful seasons ever, with attendance, broadcast ratings and revenue up virtually across the board. But owners insist that the current labor agreement is no longer financially viable, and they point to player salaries as the main culprit. Commissioner David Stern has said that the league lost as much as $300 million in the 2010-11 season and that 22 of the league's 30 teams were in the red. Owners are now asking for player concessions, including a more equitable divide of income, more rigid rules that will limit the amount that teams can pay players (the often-mentioned "hard cap" on salaries), givebacks in an escrow system that the players have paid into and changes in the length and terms of certain types of player contracts.

Players have publicly challenged the league's claims of dire financial hardship and have remained adamantly opposed to many of the league's proposals. Chief among those is the "hard cap," an idea that the union staunchly rejects, saying it would unfairly restrict player salaries. Hunter also has called for improving on the plan that moves revenue from the league's richer teams to its more financially challenged ones.

Hunter and Stern were the key players in the last work stoppage in 1998 and have helped steer the league as it's grown into a more than $4 billion industry worldwide, featuring the world's highest-paid professional athletes. NBA players make an average of more than $5.7 million a year.

During the last few weeks, each side in the dispute has made what it considers concessions, though both parties admit that the gulf between the two remains considerable. The league has pulled back its initial call for player contracts that are not fully guaranteed, for example, while the union says it is willing to reduce its share of the split of "basketball related income," or BRI. The players receive 57 percent of BRI in the expiring agreement, with the remaining portion going to owners.

Still, the two sides remained so far apart that their meetings -- most notably during a rousing NBA Finals between the Miami Heat and the eventual champion Dallas Mavericks -- have produced negligible gains, if any. After a meeting last Friday in New York, the owners and players did not meet again until Thursday's deadline-day get-together, which lasted about three hours.
The last time the league locked out its players, the two sides did not meet for more than a week before the deadline passed and the lockout was imposed, and then went 37 days until meeting again. That session lasted only 90 minutes before owners walked out. The first two weeks of the 1998-99 season were officially canceled on Oct. 13, 1998, and negotiations continued to sputter throughout the fall and into the winter.

Stern announced late in December of that year that he would recommend the season be canceled if an agreement was not reached before Jan. 7. After an all-night session, Hunter and Stern finally announced an agreement on Jan. 6, 1999.

"We're not closer," Stern said after the talks broke down, when asked how these negotiations compare to the last ones at this point. "In fact, it worries me that we're not closer."

Lafortezza

It's a complicated situation but surely they will have negotiations throughout the summer? 3 months should be enough to compromise and be ready to go in the autumn.

Sea Devils

The NBA is coming off a season where they just had one of the most enthralling playoffs in recent years, generated more revenue than they've had at any point in history last year and the 2010 Finals game 7 was the highest rating for a Finals game since Jordan and now we're likely going to miss part if not all of next season.

Paully D

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what the whole thing is about

Is it that the owners are refusing to let their players play because they're not happy with the financial setup? Also, what is the current ''labor agreement''? If someone could explain it to me as basically as possible I'd be very grateful.

I've just got back into basketball this season and now it looks like I'll have very little, if any, NBA to watch next season! :mad:

Sea Devils

Found this on another site but one of the guys posted a very excellent explanation as to what it's all about.

Why is the league locking out now, after a season when ratings, attendance and interest in the league are at the highest levels in decades?

July 1 is when the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owners and the players union runs out. It was not so much they chose right now as this was the time the old deal was up and a new one needed to be hammered out. Both sides have known for years that this would be a tough negotiations — that the owners were going to look for big changes to the system — and both sides have anticipated for a couple years a lockout would come now.

That it came on the heels of a fantastic season for the league was a coincidence, but it may be the one thing that saves next season. Both sides understand the need to get a deal done that does not cost games next season or all that newfound momentum will be lost and it will take years and years just to get back to this point.

What are the two sides disagreeing over?

Everything. Much like the negotiations at the end of the Vietnam War, I’m not sure the two sides could agree on the shape of the table they should sit down at to negotiate.

But as always the big issue is money. Specifically how to divide up the money that comes into the league. That money is called “basketball related income” (BRI). That is the money from ticket sales, national television contracts, local television deals, luxury boxes, concessions, jersey sales — basically everything tied to basketball.

Currently the players get 57 percent of the gross BRI — 57 cents on every dollar that comes into the league goes to the players in salary. The owners want to change that number dramatically, their proposal would have the players in the low 40s percent wise in a decade. The players have agreed to go down to about 54 percent in their proposals.

In that gap is hundreds of millions of dollars per season. The two sides are nowhere near close – they can’t even agree on how to define BRI (the owners want to start taking a number of expenses out of it so it is more net than gross that is divided between them).

What are the owners proposing?

The owners want a radical change in the system. They want to put in a “flex cap” of $62 million per team. For some perspective, the Dallas Mavericks payroll last season was $86.2 million (the team with the lowest payroll was Sacramento at about $44 million). Teams could not exceed that $62 million number except to sign their own free agents, and even then teams could not exceed a second figure that would not be more than a few million higher.

What David Stern will gladly tell you is that this number guarantees the players about $2 billion a year in salary, which is not much below the $2.17 billion they made last year. The difference is the owners want to lock that figure in for a decade — even as revenues rise for the league the salary cap would remain flat. All that additional revenue goes to the owners.

The owners also want to reduce the length of contracts by two years when handed out (from five to three for signing a free agent, for example), so they don’t end up stuck with terrible choices and bad deals as long. (Yes, the owners want the CBA to protect them from themselves.)

What is the owners’ sales pitch?

For fans, they are selling parity. This season the Lakers spent more than $90 million on salary, with the luxury tax they spent more than $110 million. And as a franchise they will still turn a profit. Smaller market teams have a hard time competing with teams willing to spend like that. What this harder salary cap would do is put teams on a more even playing field financially.

Now will parity work in the NBA as a practical matter or in marketing manner like it does in the NFL? That’s a harder sell. The best times for the NBA were when Michael Jordan’s Bulls dominated the league, or when Magic and Bird ran the show. Parity has never sold the same in the NBA like it has for the NFL.

What do the players say about the owners’ plan?

What would you say if your boss asked you to take a pay cut then told you they expect record growth for the company in the next decade but you’d see none of the rewards? Yes, NBA players are very well paid, but they also realize that they are the product that drives the league and they should see money from any growth in the league’s business.

What do the players propose?

The players are essentially playing goalie in these negotiations — they want to keep the system pretty much the way it is now. They like the “soft cap” which allows teams to spend well over the cap to keep their own free agents and has a host of other exceptions (a mid-level exception, a veterans exception, and more).

The players have proposed a reduction in the percent of BRI they get down to 54 percent, which would be a give back of about $100 million per season. They say that is their percentage of the losses they admit some owners are suffering. But aside that they want even more flexibility for teams to make trades (not as restricted by matching salaries) and other steps to increase player movement.

What about revenue sharing?

This is the players’ other big push — they want the owners of big market teams to share much more revenue with smaller market teams. They also point to the NFL where about 70 percent of league revenue is shared; where in the case of the NBA it’s about 25 percent. (That is primarily because the NFL has much larger national television deals.)

For example, the Lakers new local television deal that kicks in for the fall of 2012 will pay the team upwards of $150 million a year, the Sacramento Kings made about $11 million last season on their local television deal. None of that revenue is shared right now, the players say it should be and they want to know the numbers.

The owners are talking about revenue sharing amongst themselves, but they say it is not part of the CBA negotiations and the players do not have a seat at that table.

So is the NBA lockout like the NFL lockout?

No. Not at all… well, in one key way yes.

But not in the details. The bottom line is the NFL is a league that is still making gobs and gobs of money, it’s just that the owners are not making as much as they used to so they are locked out. But at the end of the day, that argument truly is about how to divide the profits.

The NBA has lost money for several years in a row, and even though the players dispute the owners figures they do not dispute the losses overall. The losses this past season as a league were around $300 million according to Stern. And that is the key difference between the two lockouts — the NBA has far more serious issues to deal with, real revenue and expenditure issues to deal with. Because of that the two sides are farther apart than they ever were in the NFL. A few minor issues are the same but the big issues are different in the two lockouts.

So how are the NBA and NFL lockouts alike?

The arc of how the problems will be solved.

The NFL has been locked out for more than 100 days but only now are we starting to see some real progress towards a deal, in time to save this season. (How much progress depends on who you ask.) The bottom line is this — in any negotiations, from teachers unions to longshoremen to sports leagues, nothing actually gets done until there is pressure on one or both sides to compromise. In the NFL, with the owners seeing the threat of lost games and the players fearing lost paychecks, the negotiations are getting serious.

It will be the same with the NBA. With the start of the lockout, the two sides will move farther apart. They have both known this lockout is coming for years — there have been proposals on the table since the 2010 All-Star Game in Dallas — and they have dug in their heels. Don’t be shocked if the owners start talking about going back to their original proposal of a $45 million hard salary cap.

But as we move into the second half of August and September, when the threat of lost games starts to become more real, then we will see movement and the two sides start to negotiate in earnest.

Then we will see the resolve of the two sides.

How and when does this end?

The when is unpredictable. I want to believe there will be a full season next year. But there are hardline owners — smaller market owners who leveraged themselves in recent years to buy these teams and who need a change in the business model — who are willing to lose some or all of a season to reshape the financial landscape of the NBA.

The players are going to come out of these negotiations with less money then when they went in (even under their own plans), the question is how far back will they go and how hard are the owners as a group willing to push for a deal they want? We’ll start to get a feel for that in August and September.

If we get to mid to late September and the two sides are nowhere near a deal like they are now, then my friends we may not see the NBA for a long while.

padraig_f

Doug Thonus, a respected Bulls beat writer, had an interesting article on it:
Owners don't want to deal, want to destroy players

I thought things would be sorted out before the start of next season, but reading that, it's not looking good.

In general, I'm with the players. I think more revenue sharing would be good. I don't like the idea of a hard salary cap, I started watchign NFL this year and while it means anyone can win, it also seems to ensure there are no great teams. There have been 8 different Superbowl winners in the last 10 years, the contestants of the 2010 Superbowl (New Orleans Siants & Indianapolis Colts) both got knocked out in the first round of the 2011 playoffs, and you're left wondering if the team that won it was really a great team, or if anyone could've won it. I think the NBA with its soft cap currently has a good balance between parity and continuity. In the NBA, I think there's little doubt that any team who wins a championship is a great team.

Reading Thonus's article, it seems the losses are exaggerated and trying to lock in a cap-figure for the next 10 years when media is due to change a lot over that time seems a pretty unrealistic proposal.

Edit:
doing some more reading, Tom Ziller has a good article here:
NBA Lockout 2011: How Insane Is David Stern's Latest Proposal?

#15

Lakers fan Larry Coon has wrote a FAQ for ESPN. Union decertification would be a nightmare scenario for everyone.

It's here. For two years we've had July 1, 2011, circled on our calendars, and a small shiver went down our spines every time we looked ahead to that date. Or we went through some ritual akin to whistling in a graveyard, trying to purge the lingering thought from our heads.

But now it's here. There's no avoiding it and no denying it. We just have to face it. The NBA's collective bargaining agreement has expired. The league has locked out its players. And it may be a long time before any of us sees NBA basketball played again.

Since the lockout will be occupying every NBA fan's mind for the foreseeable future, it's time to answer some of the more commonly asked questions about the work stoppage. I won't bother with elementary questions like "What's a lockout?" If you're taking the time to read an NBA labor article in July, you already know what a lockout is. And if you didn't know a week ago, you've now had it explained to you on every website, radio show, podcast, newspaper and TV show that covers the NBA.

So let's concentrate on the questions to which you may not already know the answer. We'll also mix in questions about what life might be like in a post-lockout NBA.

If the owners get a hard cap, how will teams like the Lakers and Magic get under it?
The league's previous soft cap was really more of a suggestion than an actual spending limit. Teams were free to operate above the cap so long as they used certain mechanisms called exceptions, and few teams were ever below the cap during an NBA season. The owners' original proposal sought to change all that, and called for a $45 million hard cap.

A true hard cap is a different animal altogether -- teams are required to be below a hard cap at all times. If a $45 million hard cap were to be imposed starting with the 2011-12 season, a number of teams would be in trouble. For example, the Lakers have already committed to over $91 million in salaries for 2011-12, and the Magic aren't far behind, at just over $76 million.

But teams likely wouldn't be forced to jettison half their rosters should a hard cap be imposed. The same proposal that included a hard cap also included salary rollbacks (reductions in existing salaries of 15 to 25 percent) and an amnesty provision, which would allow teams to waive one player without cap consequences. These provisions would have softened the blow of a hard cap, and additional rules likely would have accommodated teams in other ways.

Also keep in mind that the league's proposal for a $45 million hard cap was just that -- one proposal. Their next proposal kept the hard cap, but gave teams a three-year grace period before it would be imposed. They further softened their stance in later proposals, adopting what they called a "flex cap," which is a hybrid between a soft cap and a hard cap. It is possible that as negotiations continue, the proposals will become less and less stringent, and the final agreement won't force teams to make tough decisions regarding their core players.

If there is a hard cap, will the league provide teams with an amnesty clause? How would it work?
The 2005 CBA included a clause referred to as the "Luxury Tax Amnesty Provision." It allowed teams to waive one player whose salary would then be excluded from the team's luxury tax calculations. This clause was added because the league changed its luxury tax system in the 2005 agreement. Teams made their roster decisions based on the terms of the 1999 agreement, and might have planned differently had the 2005 rules been in place at the time. The provision was seen as a way of accommodating teams that may have been impacted by these rule changes.

This year the league wants to change more than just the luxury tax system -- it wants to make fundamental changes to the salary-cap system itself. Depending on how the negotiations turn out, these changes could be as severe as implementing a hard cap with which teams must immediately comply.

If the league makes a fundamental change to the salary-cap rules, it is expected to follow suit with another amnesty provision to accommodate the impacted teams. Such a provision would likely allow teams to waive one player, whose salary would then be excluded from the team's salary-cap calculations. The player would still be paid in full -- for example, Orlando couldn't use such a provision to escape its commitment to pay Gilbert Arenas the $62.3 million he is owed over the next three seasons.

The owners' proposal which included a $45 million hard cap reportedly also included such a provision. But the final determination won't be made until the two sides actually come to terms on a new agreement. The specific workings of an amnesty provision -- or whether a provision is included at all -- ultimately will depend on the changes that are made to the salary-cap system. It's possible that the next agreement will include an amnesty provision that can be used on more than one player, or can be used more than once during the lifetime of the agreement.

Can teams have any contact with teams, coaches or trainers during the lockout?
No, and in fact according to ESPN.com's Ric Bucher, teams will be fined $1 million for any contact. This would presumably extend to player agents, but as of this writing one agent says he hasn't heard anything official on this yet.

When do players start missing paychecks?
The regular NBA pay schedule has 12 biweekly paydays, starting Nov. 15 and ending May 1. But some players are paid over 12 months, and will continue to be paid their 2010-11 salaries through Dec. 1.

Teams are only required to pay 20 percent of a player's salary on regular league paydays. The remaining 80 percent can be paid according to whatever schedule the team and player agree to. A few players receive a large lump-sum payment July 1, the first allowable date.

So some players will miss their first paycheck July 1. All players will miss their first paycheck no later than Nov. 15.

What is union decertification?
Decertification occurs when the players effectively dissolve the union. It's a tactic that clears the way for the players to sue the league for antitrust violation. Many league practices, such as the draft and salary restraints, are exempted from federal antitrust laws because they are part of a collective bargaining agreement. This protection extends past the expiration of the agreement so long as a labor relationship continues to exist between the two sides.

By decertifying their union, the players would end that labor relationship and, in theory, also end the league's exemption from antitrust laws. This would clear the way for a lawsuit against the league.

How would union decertification affect the labor dispute? Would the NBA players actually decertify their union?
A union decertification would do nothing to hasten a solution to the labor dispute. It would put a stop to the negotiations and open the door to an extended legal battle. It's more like a nuclear option -- its mere threat could motivate the league to negotiate in earnest, but it also comes with consequences that no one wants to contemplate.

Union president Derek Fisher understands the potential consequences of decertification, and has said it represents more of a last resort than a first choice. "For us, decertification is never something that you want to do -- it's not a strategy like that," he said. "It's more a decision you make when your hand is forced and there isn't another option to try to save the season."

David Stern said that if the players decertify their union, all contracts would become null and void. What did he mean? None of the legal experts I consulted are entirely sure what he meant. The act of locking out the players means the players won't be paid until the labor dispute ends and a new agreement is in place. Once that happens, the players' paychecks resume.

So Stern had to have meant that if the players decertify the union during the lockout, then their contracts become unenforceable, even after the dispute is settled. According to everyone I've talked to, this simply is not true. Perhaps Stern was speaking metaphorically, as if to say that if the players decertify their union, it will be a long, long time before the dispute is settled -- so the contracts will have expired before the players actually return to work.

Can NBA players play overseas during a lockout?
The answer to this one is "It's complicated." Stern said as far as he's concerned, the players can do what they want to do. But keep in mind, he's going to say that regardless -- he doesn't want to appear in any way to be trying to prevent the players from earning a living. Labor laws don't allow an employer to lock out its employees and prevent them from earning a living elsewhere.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Stern says or does -- the decision isn't up to him.

In order to play professionally overseas, FIBA (the organizing body for international basketball) requires a Letter of Clearance from the player's national organizing body. In the case of players from the United States, that's USA Basketball. The Letter of Clearance certifies that the player is free to sign a contract -- i.e., he has no other contractual obligations that would get in the way. An NBA contract is such a contractual obligation. Lockout or not, it's still an existing contract. So on the surface, an NBA player who's under contract would not be allowed to sign in any FIBA league. NBA free agents, on the other hand, can sign wherever they'd like.

But here's the rub -- we're getting into uncharted territory. FIBA has never found itself in this position before. FIBA could decide to alter or suspend its rule requiring a Letter of Clearance, or allow contracts to be signed so long as they contain language that says the contract becomes null and void immediately if the NBA lockout ends.

More likely, FIBA simply would stick to its existing rule, essentially punting the problem to the national organizing bodies. These bodies (such as USA Basketball) could decide to issue a Letter of Clearance notwithstanding the NBA lockout. Or they could issue a Letter of Clearance with a specific notation about the lockout -- essentially punting the problem right back to FIBA.

Finally, the NBA players could take FIBA and/or the national organizing bodies to court. The ability to block players in a lockout has never been tested through litigation, and once they're there, anything can happen.

If players under contract are cleared to play in Europe, will there be a mass exodus?
It's doubtful. For one thing, there simply aren't enough teams with enough open roster spots to accommodate 400-plus NBA players. And the ones who do sign overseas will likely make only a fraction of what they earned in the NBA. The Euroleague and other FIBA leagues simply can't afford to pay NBA players commensurate with the salaries to which they've grown accustomed.

So we will probably see a few head overseas, but certainly not a Who's Who of NBA players.

If the lockout lasts an entire season, what will happen with the 2012 draft? How will the draft order be determined?
If the season is canceled and the sides come to an agreement by next June, the 2012 draft should go on as planned. The draft order will be a little tricky. There will be no season upon which to determine the order, and they can't just repeat the 2011 draft order -- that would "reward" teams twice for the same bad season in 2010-11.

The NHL was faced with this dilemma when it lost its 2004-05 season to a lockout. The league settled on a weighted lottery that included all 30 teams. The weighting was based on playoff appearances over the previous three seasons and first overall picks over the previous four seasons.

The NBA would likely adopt a similar system should the 2011-12 season be canceled. It would be a one-time occurrence -- the league would revert to its usual system the following year.

If the lockout lasts an entire year, what happens to contracts that expire following the 2011-12 season? Do they expire anyway, or does the contract extend through 2012-13?
A contract that is scheduled to expire following the 2011-12 season should expire on June 30, 2012, whether or not the season is played. This means it's possible that 2012 free agents -- like Dwight Howard -- may have already played their last game for their current teams. Nervous teams had the opportunity to make a trade by June 30 to avoid the risk of losing these players without compensation. However, no such trade was completed, which may indicate either some faith in their ability to hang on to their potential free agents, or in the league's ability to resolve the labor dispute before the season is lost. (Sacramento and Cleveland swapped Omri Casspi and J.J. Hickson on Thursday, but neither player's contract ends in 2012.)

It is also possible for the two sides to mutually agree that 2011-12 "didn't happen," so all contracts will simply be pushed back by one year. Therefore this is all subject to negotiation.

After the labor dispute is settled, will my team be able to ….
We're a long way away from knowing how the rules will work in the next agreement. At this point it's unknown whether there will be a hard cap or a soft cap, how much room teams will have to sign free agents, what the trade rules might be or whether exceptions will continue to exist. So it's pointless to ask right now if the Knicks will be able to sign a third star to go with Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony, if Orlando will need to trade Dwight Howard, if New Jersey will need to trade Deron Williams, if Miami can add a point guard and a center to complement the Big Three, if the Bulls can add a shooting guard, if the Clippers can add a small forward or if the Lakers can add a point guard who's not an AARP member. These questions will just have to wait.

The only hope is that we won't have to wait too long.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=coon_larry&page=lockoutFAQ-110701

#15

Replying to my own post, which is a bit weird - but anyway.
I've always looked out for Coon's articles. I like his ability to break down the CBAs to fans.

Here is a FAQ for the CBA that expired yesterday.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

And this is an article about the current situation:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=coon_larry&page=NBAFinancials-110630

He also has been in two podcasts about the lockout:
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=3634017
http://www.theprobasketballtalk.com/2011/06/nba-unplugged-with-larry-coon-cba.html

I haven't listened to either of them yet though.

I guess a lockout must be like Christmas for cap experts like Larry Coon!:cool:

Kinetic^

So... are we taking bets on who is going to come back from the lockout in terrible shape?

Shawn Kemp came back a whole new man the last time!

#15

Kinetic^ wrote: »

So... are we taking bets on who is going to come back from the lockout in terrible shape?

Shawn Kemp came back a whole new man the last time!

A shortened season might help veteran teams like the Lakers and Celtics.

My money would have been on Shaq coming back looking like a blimp.

Zach Randolph maybe? Artest might not come back overweight, but the free time and lack of paychecks could inspire something crazy.

Sea Devils

Interesting that NBA.com suddenly has no current photos or stats of the League at the moment.

Paully D

Sea Devils wrote: »

Interesting that NBA.com suddenly has no current photos or stats of the League at the moment.

I thought that was strange myself......

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/52117324-77/nba-players-lockout-free.html.csp

K.O.Kiki

Get rid of David Stern, he looks like the biggest sh!t-stirrer in this whole affair.

Sea Devils

Every time I see a commercial for the WNBA, I can't help but wonder how much NBA owners lose every year by subsidizing it.

slick89

A lot of talk of players playing in Europe until the lockout finishes. Deron Williams to Besiktas seems almost certain to happen..I'm sure if he ended up getting a bad injury the Nets wouldn't be too happy but not a lot they can do to stop it anyhow?

Kinetic^

Miami are lucky this lockout is happening, barely any media coverage of their failure last season.

padraig_f

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Miami are lucky this lockout is happening, barely any media coverage of their failure last season.

TheBillWalton is doing his best:

"Coming soon to ESPN, a one hour special called "La Decisión" where LeBron picks the Euro League team he won't win a title with next year."

Lafortezza

Deron Williams has confirmed on Twitter that he has signed with Besiktas in Turkey. I know very little about basketball outside of the NBA but are turkish teams playing at a high level? I would have thought a Spanish team would be better.

Sea Devils

Well they must have some sort of pulling power. Apparently they were very close to signing Kobe as well before this scandal happened

Kinetic^

Lafortezza wrote: »

Deron Williams has confirmed on Twitter that he has signed with Besiktas in Turkey. I know very little about basketball outside of the NBA but are turkish teams playing at a high level? I would have thought a Spanish team would be better.

Greece, Turkey, Spain, Italy and a couple of others would have good standard leagues.

ButtersSuki

Lafortezza wrote: »

Deron Williams has confirmed on Twitter that he has signed with Besiktas in Turkey. I know very little about basketball outside of the NBA but are turkish teams playing at a high level? I would have thought a Spanish team would be better.

The Greek, Russian, Italian and Spanish Leagues are all top-notch leagues but there are some fundamental differences versus the NBA. The real event though is the EuroLeague - basketball's version of the Champion's League.

Besiktas aren't a European powerhouse so I suspect this may be little more than a publicity stunt on their part. Fair play if happens (and until Deron Williams plays a game for them I'll be sceptical), but I'm not sure it wilol. Makes sense for Williams though to keep in shape, but he'll be a little surprised at the slow pace of European games. Kinda surprised someone like Barcelona didn't come into play for some of the Nike athletes in the NBA, but that may happen yet.

The Euro Leagues are fundamental and not athletic driven; so you're more likely to see real defence, better shooting, passing and ball-handling than the NBA - but most people watch the NBA for dunks, alley-oops, behind the back passing and shotblocking. You will see these in the Euro Leagues of course but at nowhere near the same level as the NBA. Plus seeing a 7'1" white pasty-white Russian dunking from an inch away from the basket doesn't exactly compare with D-Rose throwing in down in a crowded lane......

They also call travelling in Europe so maybe that's why the NBA players are so reluctant to come! Are you listening to me LeBron, D-Wade and Kobe?!!!:D:D

padraig_f

Dennis Rodman goes into the hall of fame next week, Sam Smith has a retrospective on his career: Rodman was different -- in a good way

Paully D

How can the NBA players move to clubs such as Besiktas? Even though there's a lockout are they not contracted to their current clubs, or are those contracts null and void until the lockout ends? What happens if one of them suffers a serious injury over there etc?

Thanks.

Sea Devils

In Deron's case his contract has an immediate clause which allows him to return to the NBA if/when the lockout ends. However recently Billy Hunter has gone on record as saying that he expects the entire season to be cancelled so that might not even be an option. If he gets injured however then I think the Nets could void his contract completely. I'm not too sure here though.

Paully D

Any further updates?

Sea Devils

The last I heard is that the NBA sued the players ,they didn't even have their first bargaining session until August 1st, and there was reportedly no movement on any issue.

I'd be completely shocked if we didn't miss some games, and the entire season is in jeopardy, according to everything I've read.

padraig_f

I liked this: Evolution of team NBA logos

From what I can judge, the 1980s was the golden age of NBA team logos, a lot of them are better than the present ones.

Also: the colour gold should have no place in any sports team's strip. The 76ers wisely ditched that awful thing they had a couple of years ago, the Wizards will be playing in red, white & blue from next year. C'mon Cavs, your turn.

It affects court-design as well, the 76ers have about the best looking court now, while the Cavs is by far the worst:
NBA Courts: The Good, The Bad the The Ugly


If you missed it, Bill Simmons talked to David Stern a week or two ago about the lockout, and it's well worth a listen.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/feeds/itunes/podCast?id=2864045

For Forks Sake

padraig_f wrote: »

I liked this: Evolution of team NBA logos

This must be the worst logo of all time:

gammon_steak

At this stage does it look like the NBA will be able to start on schedule this year?

Lafortezza

From what I've read even the optimists think the league starting after the New Year is unlikely.

Sea Devils

gammon_steak wrote: »

At this stage does it look like the NBA will be able to start on schedule this year?

Very unlikely unfortunately. I posted this earlier, but when the Director of the NBA Players Union goes on record as saying he expects no season whatsoever then it really is doom and gloom