Damn. Interesting. Saw it on the ticker on ESPN. Another sign it's going to get ugly and to expect a lockout.
It's just a negotiating tool. No one affected by the age limit rule is actually represented by the player's union. It's just something they can use in order to fight for something they actually want and then give this up in compromise. That way, they get something they want and no one actually in the union loses anything.
Yeah, if anything the union should want an ever-increasing age limit. Keep those young punks from taking their jobs. barfo
I get that. This is just another sign though that both sides aren't going to budge on a single thing for quite some time. It's only getting worse.
A negotiating tool that will allow younger players to take the jobs of veterans actually in the union who make more money? Wow, seems like a dumb bargaining chip. The owners should accept this one immediately.
It matters more to the owners and the league. The league feels it damages their product to allow raw prospects into the league proper and the owners detest having to pay premiums for prospects that may or may not pan out years down the line (and potentially not even for their franchise). It's closer to neutral for the union...yes, the established members might prefer to keep money out of the hands of unproven players, but in the end, most of the high schoolers who get drafted would be members of the union eventually anyway. Ultimately, it's not a question of who it benefits (none of the parties at the negotiating table), it's a question of who wants it not to happen the most. As far as I can tell, that's definitely the league and owners.
Seems like a simple agreement by the owners on this issue as long as the rookie scale is still a part of the new agreement. Hunter seems to be flailing away at bargaining chips right now. What does the union gain out of this other than younger players entering the league and pushing out some vets? I also wonder how helping kill NCAA basketball helps the union's case in the public arena.
It gives them something to compromise on in the pursuit of something they actually want. It's a simple game theory concept...even if it's negative for both sides, the side that it's more negative for is the one that has to negotiate against it if they're being rational. Of course, they could be irrational and petty and say, "Fine, even if it really hurts us, have your removed age limit!" Ultimately, though, these are all businessmen and they will probably act rationally.
History has shown it works the other way. Most kids who play without benefit of several years in college fail to have productive NBA careers. Having a bunch of disappointing draft picks should up the value of the vets. If Bayless had done 4 years in college, he might have been a real player. If Oden had stayed in school, we'd have Durant.
How is it a negative to the NBA? Part of the last CBA eligibility age restrictions agreed to by the union was to keep worthless/unproven players from signing contracts and taking a spot from a veteran. Hunter seems to be acting against his own union here. If I'm an owner, I accept this demand and force the union to accept one of my demands. For the sake of compromising, of course.
Stern has said many times that he absolutely wants an age limit, because he feels it weakens the NBA product to have kids unready for the NBA on NBA rosters. And the owners want the age limit because it prevents them from spending a lot of money on players who they may not see a return on for a while, if ever. It's definitely a bigger negative for them than for the player's union. And if that negative for the owners/league nets the union something good for them, in return for the union dropping their opposition to the age limit, then it's far from acting against the interests of the union to oppose the age limit.
Seems like Stern was already negotiating the next CBA when he said this. Hunter took the bait. Stern is probably laughed his ass off about this "demand" over a glass of Manischewitz wine tonight. Why do you think Stern started the NBDL?
In a free market perhaps, but when the disappointing draft picks have guaranteed contracts, and there is a salary cap, and a roster size limit, it necessarily reduces the value, and number, of the vets. If Durant had stayed in school, we wouldn't be quite so disappointed in Oden's health. barfo
I side with the Players Union on this issue. 18 year olds aren't RESTRICTED from getting most jobs (they might not be qualified for a lot of them). This rule increases the pressure on teams to scout better, so naturally the teams with better drafting ability will rise to the top. I want that. Plus, if this restriction weren't in place a few years ago, Oden would have been a Raptor, and we'd have gotten DRose the next year.
Doesn't really appear to have merely been a gambit, as he took a hard line to get it instituted in the first place. For precisely the same reason. A place to foist off the players that bring down the quality of the NBA but teams still want to develop. It seems like a sincere desire from Stern, not a mind game with Hunter.
I side with the union in theory, but as a practical matter, it hurts the NBA, the too young players, and the NCAA. So while it's a good thought, as a policy it is a fail.
