OT: Really?!!!!??

[oldmangrouch]

The CBA, agreed to by the league, the team owners, and the players' union specifically prohibits players from asking to be traded in the media. All that matters is that Jackson broke a rule, and that he was fined for breaking that rule. You can say the rule is silly, but saying that enforcing the rule is silly is silly.

No, what is silly, is taking the decision out of the hands of the team....the people who actually pay his salary.

As others have pointed out, Kobe wasn't fined for similar comments - the Lakers were allowed to deal with the situation internally. For all we know, the *team* did fine him....but Stern stayed out of it.

 

[PapaG]

No, what is silly, is taking the decision out of the hands of the team....the people who actually pay his salary.

As others have pointed out, Kobe wasn't fined for similar comments - the Lakers were allowed to deal with the situation internally. For all we know, the *team* did fine him....but Stern stayed out of it.

Nobody has pointed out that Stephen Jackson is a prior offender in torching the NBA's brand, either. I'm sure this had something to do with the decision to fine the guy. He's basically a repeat offender and has already served a 30 game suspension in his career for his thug act in the Artest brawl. I'm not fan of Kobe Bryant, but Jackson is lucky to still be in the league and should realize how lucky he is. I'm not going to cry for the guy because he got fined $25k for violating the CBA his union agreed to sign.

 

[SnakeOiler]

Kobe recanted in the same day. Jackson didn't he got fined. Kobe is therapist.

 

[STOMP]

Here's the rub - the NBA isn't his employer! He works for the Warriors. If *they* want to punish him for violating his contract, that's *their* call.

pretty sure you're wrong here. If memory serves, contracts are with the league not the individual teams so...

STOMP

 

[SnakeOiler]

Its no wonder the unemployment rate is so high when people are unable to understand what a CBA with a union is. Explains quite a bit.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Its no wonder the unemployment rate is so high when people are unable to understand what a CBA with a union is. Explains quite a bit.

As a former union construction worker, albeit a long time ago, I understand just fine. If you mess up on the job, you answer to the firm that pays your wages, not the Association of General Contractors. Your BOSS makes the decision on the apporpriate way to deal with it - not the guy who negotiated the contract for the Association.

 

[oldmangrouch]

pretty sure you're wrong here. If memory serves, contracts are with the league not the individual teams so...

STOMP

I'm pretty sure that is an over-generalization. The Union negotiates the CBA with the Association, and that sets a general framework everyone has to abide by. Individual player contracts are still with the team. Otherwise, the League would control who plays for what team, and how much they make. I'm sure Stern would *like* it to be that way, but it isn't. Team owners still have some rights and control over their teams.

 

[DaRizzle]

I'm pretty sure that is an over-generalization. The Union negotiates the CBA with the Association, and that sets a general framework everyone has to abide by. Individual player contracts are still with the team. Otherwise, the League would control who plays for what team, and how much they make. I'm sure Stern would *like* it to be that way, but it isn't. Team owners still have some rights and control over their teams.

David Stern is the Fedral Government

Teams are states


...he has say so

 

[STOMP]

I'm pretty sure that is an over-generalization. The Union negotiates the CBA with the Association, and that sets a general framework everyone has to abide by. Individual player contracts are still with the team. Otherwise, the League would control who plays for what team, and how much they make. I'm sure Stern would *like* it to be that way, but it isn't. Team owners still have some rights and control over their teams.

I'm recalling an interview with Stern himself talking about this very issue saying that the player checks come from the league not the teams... that they're employed by the league. Maybe I'm recalling it wrong or misunderstood him initially, but I doubt it.

btw, a couple google searches weren't able to get me a definitive answer to link on this question but maybe someone else here can shed some light?

STOMP

 

[Boob-No-More]

I'm pretty sure that is an over-generalization. The Union negotiates the CBA with the Association, and that sets a general framework everyone has to abide by. Individual player contracts are still with the team.

This is true. There is a Uniform Player Contract that ALL contracts between players and teams must be comply with. The league office reviews every contract and must approve all contracts before they are final and binding. The Uniform Player Contract includes very specific language about players conduct and actions that are detrimental to the league's best interest. It also gives the comminsioner very broad power to assess fines and suspensions for any violations of the Uniform Player Contract.

Otherwise, the League would control who plays for what team, and how much they make. I'm sure Stern would *like* it to be that way, but it isn't. Team owners still have some rights and control over their teams.

Wrong. There is, and has never never been, any power granted to the commisioner over who plays for what team and how much they make (as long as it doesn't violate the salary cap or other general conditions spelled out in the CBA). It does give the commisioner the right to unilaterally assess fines of up to $50,000 per incident for conduct deterimental to the league's best interest. That is clearly within the commisioner's rights and that's exactly what he did in this case. Just like with any other fine or suspension, the Player's Union has a right to appeal the penalty, but in the case where the fine does not exceed $50,000, the final decision lies solely with the commsioner. The Player's Union agreed to this when they signed the CBA and Stephen Jackson (and every other player under contract to the NBA) agreed to it when he signed his contract.

BNM

 

[SnakeOiler]

As a former union construction worker, albeit a long time ago, I understand just fine. If you mess up on the job, you answer to the firm that pays your wages, not the Association of General Contractors. Your BOSS makes the decision on the apporpriate way to deal with it - not the guy who negotiated the contract for the Association.

I wish that were the general rule, but it isn't. If you violate your contract, the one that negotiated the outcome will prevail. Only occasionally is the "Boss" the one that holds the collective contract.

 

[Shooter]

One more time. Jackson didn't "make the league look bad." That's just silly. This was between a player (employee) and team (employer). The league was not a party to the dispute and Stern should have kept his nose out of it.

You don't think it makes the league look bad (i.e., unstable, and filled with discontented players) if everytime a player wants to be traded, he calls a press conference??

If it didn't make the league look bad, the NBA wouldn't have insisted it be in the CBA.

 

[julius]

Absolutely. You can get fired for saying, "Leave the heavy thinking to me. You just sit there and look pretty, Sugarpants."

Trust me, I know.

What, you got someone fired for saying that to you?

 

[BlazerWookee]

But, the rule isn't silly. It not only protects the league, but it protects the players (the Player's Union would not have agreed to it if it wasn't in the best interest of their members).

If a player's actions damage a team's image, impacts their season ticket sales, causes lower TV ratings, lower merchandise sales, etc. it hurts all teams and all players. Lower basketball related income (BRI), league wide, means a lower salary cap, which means a lower MLE, lower max. contracts, etc. Basically, less money for everyone. The salary cap is calculated as a percentage of BRI (57% to be exact). BRI goes down, the salary cap goes down and and so do players salaries. Anything a player does that results in one less ticket sold, one less jersey sold, etc. means less BRI. If I was an NBA player, I'd be pissed at any other player who does stupid stuff that limits my potential income.

BNM

Just so you know, I don't think the rule is silly. I just meant that oldmangrouch could call the rule silly.

 

[BlazerWookee]

No, what is silly, is taking the decision out of the hands of the team....the people who actually pay his salary.

As others have pointed out, Kobe wasn't fined for similar comments - the Lakers were allowed to deal with the situation internally. For all we know, the *team* did fine him....but Stern stayed out of it.

The power to decide was handed by the team to the league via the CBA. Specifically.

K*be should have been heavily fined by the league.

 

[BlazerWookee]

As a former union construction worker, albeit a long time ago, I understand just fine. If you mess up on the job, you answer to the firm that pays your wages, not the Association of General Contractors. Your BOSS makes the decision on the apporpriate way to deal with it - not the guy who negotiated the contract for the Association.

Unless your boss, at the behest of the union, signs over the authority to deal with it to the league.

 

[BlazerWookee]

What, you got someone fired for saying that to you?

LOL, no, they call me Boogerpants.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Kobe recanted in the same day. Jackson didn't he got fined. Kobe is therapist.

Kobe is a therapist? Cool. Actually I thought he was a combination analyst and therapist. You know, an analrapist.

[video=youtube;YknjhnywGGI]

BNM

 

[graybeard]

Can you bargain away your First Amendment rights to an employer?

It's even worse.... someone else has bargained away your first amendment rights.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It's even worse.... someone else has bargained away your first amendment rights.

No it's not. First ammendment protection does not apply to private parties. It protects the citizens from government censorship of their speech/expression.

A private employer can't stop you from saying whatever you want, but they also have no obligation to continue to employ you or pay you if you make public statements that damage their bottom line. If the statements can be proven false and malicious, they can also sue you for damages.

Think about it. If you work for Nike and are quoted on the local news saying the only reason the company's quarterly profits are up is due to hiring more underage workers and working them longer hours, you wouldn't have a job the next morning. If you work for Intel and are quoted in the local paper saying their latest generation CPUs perform worse and cost more than the previous generation, you will be out of a job instantly.

The whole notion that 1st ammendment rights apply to anything other than government censorship is totally bogus. That would be like saying you can't be president of a company for more than 8 years because of the 22nd ammendment.

BNM

 

[THE HCP]

Kobe = Double Standard? From HoopsWorld........

A Double Standard At Work?

The NBA fined Golden State Warriors guard Stephen Jackson $25,000 last week for "public statements detrimental to the NBA." Those statements involved Jackson's request to be traded to another team.

The NBA explained the fine further saying: "Players are not permitted to make trade requests publicly. Ron Artest, then of the Indiana Pacers, was fined during the 2005-06 season for requesting a trade through the media."

To be honest, this rule is probably a good thing. The last thing the NBA needs is a bunch of divas making trade demands and sitting out games as we see players, especially wide receivers (you know who you are Terrell Owens and Brandon Marshall), do all too frequently in the NFL.

It's also interesting, albeit certainly not surprising, that the league decided to use Ron Artest as an example.

However, there's one problem with all of this. Anyone remember a guy named Kobe Bryant who demanded a trade in the summer of 2007?

Remind me how much he got fined again?

The NBA has reportedly said it did not fine Bryant because he publicly backed off the trade demand the same day he made it.

So let me get this straight: a player is allowed to publicly demand a trade as long as said player backs off of that request the same day?

Seems to me this is a slippery slope. A player can authentically demand a trade in the morning to get his point across and then issue a less then genuine statement saying he didn't mean it later that day after he already got his point across?

Let's not forget, a video also surfaced during the summer of 2007 that showed Bryant telling fans in Newport Beach to buy some Chicago Bulls jerseys, implying that he would be moved to the Bulls. Bryant also created a media circus during training camp the next October, and even head coach Phil Jackson seemed resigned to the fact that Bryant would be moved about mid-way through training camp that October. Even during the first regular season game Bryant looked less than happy to be a Laker.

As a general policy, I like this rule. However, the rule needs to be enforced across the board regardless of a player's stature or reputation.

And once an act is committed, how can the NBA rationalize allowing a player to take it back? If that reasoning was used consistently in the league's decision making process, a player could simply say he didn't mean to yell at a referee or commit a flagrant foul after the game and should be able to avoid a fine.

This situation reeks of preferential treatment for certain players with a primitive and nonsensical rationalization after the fact.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Well said HCP.

Everytime the league does something questionable, people defend it as the league enforcing "the letter of the law." The problem is, the league sometimes ignores the "letter of the law" based on arbitrary criteria.