Idea: Give teams that lose a player in FIBA comp a lottery spot and...

[Real Men Wear Green]

Idea: Give teams that lose a player in FIBA competition a supplementary lottery spot in the next draft and a 10 million dollar cap exception/deduction financed for the first year of any deal made with it by FIBA as an attachment to whatever insurance policy is used to cover contracts of players that play for their home country (I am talking about a subject I'm nowhere near fully-informed about). This would be a bit fairer to NBA teams (like the recently-destroyed Pacers) that routinely risk their absolute best players with no chance of adequate replacement in case of injury (if Indy trades for Jeff Green or signs Ray Allen that's definitely not adequate replacement). They would be able to package a spot in the next lottery, the exception and whatever other assets to trade for a good player, use the exception to sign someone with the lottery pick to build for the future, or just use the cap deduction and pick to start the rebuild (which is where I see the Pacers at this point).

Please note that this topic is 5 minutes of stream-of-consciousness posting so if you feel the need to rip it apart be gentle.

[niko]

They are getting an injury spot. It will be half of George's contract. The fact they are going to be too cheap to use it is the problem. I don't see a need to do anything else. I feel bad for George but it's something you need to deal with as the Pacers.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If it was something they didn't have to pay for and was a major salary space (maybe even bigger than 10 mil) it could well change their thinking. All the big free agents are now gone and the unrestricted group is uninspiring. Is it going to make a real difference in their season if they throw 7 mil per at Jordan Crawford? Especially seeing as they are losing a player for a cause that only benefits them indirectly they should get more compensation than the ability to sign a guy that might not even be a starter.

[Sarcastic]

:facepalm

[D-FENS]

Perhaps we could give the Pacers Israel as well? How about giving them one night with Jennifer Lawrence as well?

Injuries happen, get over it.

[D-FENS]

If it was something they didn't have to pay for and was a major salary space (maybe even bigger than 10 mil) it could well change their thinking. All the big free agents are now gone and the unrestricted group is uninspiring. Is it going to make a real difference in their season if they throw 7 mil per at Jordan Crawford? Especially seeing as they are losing a player for a cause that only benefits them indirectly they should get more compensation than the ability to sign a guy that might not even be a starter.


You're coming at it from the wrong angle.

Pacers are going to get a lottery pick, because they will suck. Also, Hibbert, Hill and others should step up their games, which is a bonus in itself. When George comes back, this team is going to have a more assertive Hibbert and Hill, and a lottery pick to add to the team. We're writing off the 14-15 season, but they'll be back next year

[Real Men Wear Green]

Perhaps we could give the Pacers Israel as well? How about giving them one night with Jennifer Lawrence as well?

Injuries happen, get over it.
That's not even an argument. The Pacers basically got knocked out of the playoffs before the season began and your response is, "injuries happen." They lost their #1 asset to a cause that benefits the league as a whole but not their team directly. They should be compensated in a meaningful way.

[hawkfan]

Idea: Give teams that lose a player in FIBA competition a supplementary lottery spot in the next draft and a 10 million dollar cap exception/deduction financed for the first year of any deal made with it by FIBA as an attachment to whatever insurance policy is used to cover contracts of players that play for their home country (I am talking about a subject I'm nowhere near fully-informed about). This would be a bit fairer to NBA teams (like the recently-destroyed Pacers) that routinely risk their absolute best players with no chance of adequate replacement in case of injury (if Indy trades for Jeff Green or signs Ray Allen that's definitely not adequate replacement). They would be able to package a spot in the next lottery, the exception and whatever other assets to trade for a good player, use the exception to sign someone with the lottery pick to build for the future, or just use the cap deduction and pick to start the rebuild (which is where I see the Pacers at this point).

Please note that this topic is 5 minutes of stream-of-consciousness posting so if you feel the need to rip it apart be gentle.

Lottery pick is a good idea as compensation.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You're coming at it from the wrong angle.

Pacers are going to get a lottery pick, because they will suck. Also, Hibbert, Hill and others should step up their games, which is a bonus in itself. When George comes back, this team is going to have a more assertive Hibbert and Hill, and a lottery pick to add to the team. We're writing off the 14-15 season, but they'll be back next year
"More assertive" Hibbert? How do you know what he will do? You also have no idea how good George will be when he returns. We have seen lots of players come back worse from a missed year due to injury. Maybe he comes back strong, maybe he doesn't. I do agree that Indy will be a lottery team but seeing as they have lost an All-Star and we don't know how good he'll be when he comes back I figure they deserve better than some exception for half his contract after all the top free agents are gone.

[rule1223]

what if im a defending champion and i lose my 15th man who plays for some middle eastern country, do i still get to cash in on the insurance?

[Real Men Wear Green]

what if im a defending champion and i lose my 15th man who plays for some middle eastern country, do i still get to cash in on the insurance?
That's a fair point. I guess it should be adjusted to in some way affect the value of the player. Base it on minutes and salary: a 30+ mpg guy gets the team a lottery pick, 20-29 somewhere in the second half, less than that in the second round. As for the exception, maybe just make it one year of the players contract with a minimum of some kind based on statistical production or achievements (like making the All-Star team).

[Sarcastic]

Injuries happen. Get over it. The Pacers have insurance. They will recoup the money.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Injuries happen. Get over it. The Pacers have insurance. They will recoup the money.
They will not recoup losing an All-Star. You disagree? Fine. But try and make a real argument.

[Sarcastic]

They will not recoup losing an All-Star. You disagree? Fine. But try and make a real argument.


So if it happens in FIBA, you get a pick. What happens if this injury occurs during say the Rucker tournament, or any other summer Pro Am?

[Real Men Wear Green]

So if it happens in FIBA, you get a pick. What happens if this injury occurs during say the Rucker tournament, or any other summer Pro Am?
That's a different issue because Pro-Am and Rucker aren't major events. FIBA is big business and a major commitment with serious practices. Players give FIBA half of their summer, a time during which their peers are recovering from the previous season. The Rucker is almost just a pick-up game where a guy calls up Fat Joe or whoever and says he'll show up and show off for a half. Pro-Am is a little more serious but still nothing like the FIBA level of business and commitment.

[Sarcastic]

That's a different issue because Pro-Am and Rucker aren't major events. FIBA is big business and a major commitment with serious practices. Players give FIBA half of their summer, a time during which their peers are recovering from the previous season. The Rucker is almost just a pick-up game where a guy calls up Fat Joe or whoever and says he'll show up and show off for a half. Pro-Am is a little more serious but still nothing like the FIBA level of business and commitment.


Players are under better supervision, and have better medical assistance from the international play, than they would anywhere else other than the NBA. They are actually safer playing with team USA, than in the pro ams.


The players benefit from playing these tournaments as well. Every player always raves about how "I learned so much, blah, blah, blah" from playing against the top competition. Are the NBA teams repaying Team USA for actually helping their stars get better?


It's a freak injury. It could have happened anywhere, at anytime. Even Larry Bird has said this, and accepted it. So should you.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Players are under better supervision, and have better medical assistance from the international play, than they would anywhere else other than the NBA. They are actually safer playing with team USA, than in the pro ams. You think an NBA player can't get a quality doctor just about anywhere in America? This is about what happens to make up for an NBA team losing a star player to a catastrophic injury. Questions about what happens to a player if he gets hurt in New York are irrelevant to begin with and it's really not going to make much difference in terms of the quality of care.


The players benefit from playing these tournaments as well. Every player always raves about how "I learned so much, blah, blah, blah" from playing against the top competition. Are the NBA teams repaying Team USA for actually helping their stars get better?How much better they get playing for Team USA vs. whatever they normally do in the offseason is an unknown and the value of that extra improvement is more than made up for by the fact the NBA teams are lending their paid talent without any kind of direct payment in return. Plus, I'm pretty sure that Paul George didn't get any better on Friday.



It's a freak injury. It could have happened anywhere, at anytime. Even Larry Bird has said this, and accepted it. So should you.
"Freak injuries" are the injuries that ruin basketball careers. I'm pretty sure that you can't find an athletic injury where we can say the player that got hurt meant to do that. Larry Bird was being gracious. But I highly doubt he'd reject a higher level of compensation if it was offered and there's never been any value to the argument, "(Insert celebrity) thinks (insert statement), so you should, too."

[Dr.J4ever]

This is a good idea within the NBA organization. It still doesn't address Cuban's objection which is that the NBA, the players, and their respective franchises are taking all the risk while the IOC and Fiba are lining their pockets.

That will always be the sticking point. Cuban is a very shrewd businessman so he knows there is something inherently irrational in this set up.

[Real Men Wear Green]

This is a good idea within the NBA organization. It still doesn't address Cuban's objection which is that the NBA, the players, and their respective franchises are taking all the risk while the IOC and Fiba are lining their pockets.

That will always be the sticking point. Cuban is a very shrewd businessman so he knows there is something inherently irrational in this set up.
I wasn't thinking about Cuban's points specifically but I bet he'd like to see something done about the compensation when a team loses players, among the other issues he has with the status quo. The changes I suggest wouldn't go far enough for him of course as he wants the NBA to take over international competition. I was just thinking about the problem of teams becoming increasingly less willing to let their stars play for their home countries (I should have mentioned this to start the OP). We already saw the Spurs get involved with keeping Parker and Ginobili out of this year's games. With the George injury this will get worse. The changes I suggest would need to be refined by the NBA lawyers and businessmen of course but if teams know they will get some kind of real replacement if they lose a major talent they should be more willing to let their stars compete.

[Sarcastic]

The players are not slaves. They are not the property of the teams. Teams should not receive compensation because their property was damaged.


Should the Bulls get extra compensation because Derrick Rose got hurt the past 2 years? Should the Lakers receive compensation because Kobe tore his Achilles? Injuries are part of the game. The players know this going in. It's unfortunate that it happened, but it's no different from any other injury.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The players are not slaves. They are not the property of the teams. Teams should not receive compensation because their property was damaged.


Should the Bulls get extra compensation because Derrick Rose got hurt the past 2 years? Should the Lakers receive compensation because Kobe tore his Achilles? Injuries are part of the game. The players know this going in. It's unfortunate that it happened, but it's no different from any other injury.
Talking about "slavery" in regards to this issue is hyperbolic nonsense. NBA teams are going to be increasingly against having their players participate in the World Games and the Olympics if the status quo is maintained. You can sit there and recite "injuries happen" while the Spurs keep Tony Parker off of the French team and Ginobili away from Argentina. Your "injuries happen" line isn't going to deal with this issue. You hear the way Mark Cuban is talking? Most owners probably don't go as far as he does but they are undoubtedly not happy with the current situation.

[Rooster]

Idea: Give teams that lose a player in FIBA competition a supplementary lottery spot in the next draft and a 10 million dollar cap exception/deduction financed for the first year of any deal made with it by FIBA as an attachment to whatever insurance policy is used to cover contracts of players that play for their home country (I am talking about a subject I'm nowhere near fully-informed about). This would be a bit fairer to NBA teams (like the recently-destroyed Pacers) that routinely risk their absolute best players with no chance of adequate replacement in case of injury (if Indy trades for Jeff Green or signs Ray Allen that's definitely not adequate replacement). They would be able to package a spot in the next lottery, the exception and whatever other assets to trade for a good player, use the exception to sign someone with the lottery pick to build for the future, or just use the cap deduction and pick to start the rebuild (which is where I see the Pacers at this point).

Please note that this topic is 5 minutes of stream-of-consciousness posting so if you feel the need to rip it apart be gentle.

The problem in this lottery pick concept is other teams will be affected too and it will be complicated by opinions on where is that pick gonna be. I think the best way is to give the team that lost a player a trade exception based on that player value or an amnesty choice so they can create a cap space.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The problem in this lottery pick concept is other teams will be affected too and it will be complicated by opinions on where is that pick gonna be. I think the best way is to give the team that lost a player a trade exception based on that player value or an amnesty choice so they can create a cap space.
We just saw a full third of the Eastern Conference tank for lottery position. The Sixers are opposed to the Commissioner's changes to the lottery because they don't feel like they've done enough sucking yet. I feel no qualms whatsoever about making it less rewarding to be in the lottery. In fact, I strongly feel that a team that lost a star to an injury is more deserving of a lottery pick than a team that decided to suck.

[qrich]

Elton Brand missed all but eight games of a season due to an off season injury during a pick-up game.

:confusedshrug:

[Real Men Wear Green]

Elton Brand missed all but eight games of a season due to an off season injury during a pick-up game.

:confusedshrug:
Said pick-up game was not being run by a multi-million dollar business which the NBA lent him to for nothing, was it?

[qrich]

Said pick-up game was not being run by a multi-million dollar business which the NBA lent him to for nothing, was it?

So if a player gets injured during the Drew League, a Pro-Am, etc. and costs the team the entire season, its okay.

If a player gets injured, while voluntarily, representing his country, and costs the team the entire season, the team needs a hug?

[Sarcastic]

Talking about "slavery" in regards to this issue is hyperbolic nonsense. NBA teams are going to be increasingly against having their players participate in the World Games and the Olympics if the status quo is maintained. You can sit there and recite "injuries happen" while the Spurs keep Tony Parker off of the French team and Ginobili away from Argentina. Your "injuries happen" line isn't going to deal with this issue. You hear the way Mark Cuban is talking? Most owners probably don't go as far as he does but they are undoubtedly not happy with the current situation.


Talking about "slavery" is not hyperbolic nonsense, when you are the one suggesting that the teams receive compensation for an injured player. People (or in this case teams) receive compensation when their property is damaged.

The Pacers' property was not damaged. Paul George is not their property. He is a basketball player under contract to play for the Pacers. He has a "love of the game" clause in his contract, which means he can step onto any basketball court, at any time, in part of the world, and play basketball. His injury could have happened at any time, anywhere.

And Mark Cuban can shout as loud as he wants to, but he is powerless to stop the NBA players from playing international basketball. Adam Silver just said the other day, this injury will likely have no effect on the future of NBA players playing in international tournaments. The NBA benefits from these tournaments, through exposure. The shoe companies benefit from this. The players benefit from this by getting their name known in new parts of the planet. Paul George was recently in Asia, I believe, for promotional reasons.

[Sarcastic]

Said pick-up game was not being run by a multi-million dollar business which the NBA lent him to for nothing, was it?


Again with the owner/slave reference. The NBA does not "lend" out players. They don't own them.

[Real Men Wear Green]

So if a player gets injured during the Drew League, a Pro-Am, etc. and costs the team the entire season, its okay.

If a player gets injured, while voluntarily, representing his country, and costs the team the entire season, the team needs a hug?
Yes, because if you have not noticed teams have already started to keep their players out of international competition and this is before George's injury. If nothing is done to address what happens when a player gets hurt we'll see fewer and fewer stars participate in international competition.

[qrich]

Yes, because if you have not noticed teams have already started to keep their players out of international competition and this is before George's injury. If nothing is done to address what happens when a player gets hurt we'll see fewer and fewer stars participate in international competition.

Yet, teams don't hold out players from the World Cup in soccer, though injuries are just as likely, if not more likely, and we are yet to see a drop in the amount of participating stars.

It sucks what happened to George, but he knew, as did every other participant, whether American, Angolan, etc. that an injury could occur. They voluntarily participated as I doubt the contracts they have with their respective teams, whether in the NBA/NBL/etc., stipulate no non-NBA oriented games/work-outs.

So no, the Pacers should not be compensated a spot in the lottery, as they gain a big injury exception AND an additional roster slot. They can just go ahead and use that to try to salvage the season.

The NBA just needs to insure the contracts of any participant in non-NBA related games, so they would get off the financial hook, at the least.

[Sarcastic]

Yes, because if you have not noticed teams have already started to keep their players out of international competition and this is before George's injury. If nothing is done to address what happens when a player gets hurt we'll see fewer and fewer stars participate in international competition.


It's actually the player's decision to play or not. Kevin Love chose not to play, because he has a big contract coming up, and did not want to risk injury. The teams can't stop players from playing if they want to.

[D-FENS]

I don't know why people respond to RMWG threads. He may ask questions, but he already has the answer in his head, and he won't accept any other opinions. Much like deucewallaces.

It's a shame, because he is often a very informative fan and a fellow C's fan.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Talking about "slavery" is not hyperbolic nonsense, when you are the one suggesting that the teams receive compensation for an injured player. People (or in this case teams) receive compensation when their property is damaged. Your comparision is ridiculous. A slave can't leafve and is treated infinitely worse. I'm just referring to the need for NBA teams to get adequate compensation when they lose a player. The changes I am discussing are not in any way a violation of the players' civil rights and in fact would be an expansion of their freedoms as it would lead to teams being more willing to let them participate inthe world games. Your slavery talk is unnecessary hyperbole taking the place of a meaningful point. Try harder at making a point and be less about distracting the conversation with useless hyperbole.


The Pacers' property was not damaged. Paul George is not their property. He is a basketball player under contract to play for the Pacers. He has a "love of the game" clause in his contract, which means he can step onto any basketball court, at any time, in part of the world, and play basketball. His injury could have happened at any time, anywhere. Which does nothing to help the Pacers. OK, he has the right to play. You think NBA teams are going to do nothing about this going forwards when we're already seeing the Spurs keep players out?


And Mark Cuban can shout as loud as he wants to, but he is powerless to stop the NBA players from playing international basketball. Completely wrong. Dirk Nowitzki hasn't played for Germany for years now. You think Cuban's opinion wasn't part of that decision? The man who signs the checks always has quite a bit of power. If he wanted to play hardball he could absolutely have clauses put into contracts expressly forbidding participation in FIBA and Olympic basketball.
Adam Silver just said the other day, this injury will likely have no effect on the future of NBA players playing in international tournaments. The NBA benefits from these tournaments, through exposure. The shoe companies benefit from this. The players benefit from this by getting their name known in new parts of the planet. Paul George was recently in Asia, I believe, for promotional reasons.Adam Silver's job is to protect the NBA's image and there is no benefit in saying that teams won't let player's play. But the reality of Cuban's comments and the Spurs' actions show us where things are headed.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I don't know why people respond to RMWG threads. He may ask questions, but he already has the answer in his head, and he won't accept any other opinions. Much like deucewallaces.

It's a shame, because he is often a very informative fan and a fellow C's fan.Please excuse me for having an opinion, and I'm sorry that you are unable to construct a decent argument against it. But, FYI: People with opinions oftem make topics and they have no responsibility to change their minds just because you do not agree.

[Crown&Coke]

Yes, because if you have not noticed teams have already started to keep their players out of international competition.

I think you are referring to the Spurs and Ginobili, he is recovering from a pre-existing injury. That why he is held out. Other teams (like the Mavs) informally ask their players to sit out, some agree some don't.

I really think this is a slippery slope. A lottery pick is going to be tough. There are mathematical formulas and shit used. giving a team a guaranteed pick would throw all that out of whack.

I think the current formula is an injury exemption (up to the MLE)

IMO that contract should be kept off the salary cap for sure. I would increase that to 2/3 the injured players salary, or even 100%

But as for further compensation, I don't know what would be an equitable value draft pick. There are only 2 rounds in the draft. Maybe add a compensatory pick in between rounds like the NFL?

[Rooster]

I think you are referring to the Spurs and Ginobili, he is recovering from a pre-existing injury. That why he is held out. Other teams (like the Mavs) informally ask their players to sit out, some agree some don't.

I really think this is a slippery slope. A lottery pick is going to be tough. There are mathematical formulas and shit used. giving a team a guaranteed pick would throw all that out of whack.

I think the current formula is an injury exemption (up to the MLE)

IMO that contract should be kept off the salary cap for sure. I would increase that to 2/3 the injured players salary, or even 100%

But as for further compensation, I don't know what would be an equitable value draft pick. There are only 2 rounds in the draft. Maybe add a compensatory pick in between rounds like the NFL?

Trade exception and Amnesty choice is the the better compensation. Teams can easily rebuild that way.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I think you are referring to the Spurs and Ginobili, he is recovering from a pre-existing injury. That why he is held out. Other teams (like the Mavs) informally ask their players to sit out, some agree some don't. Ginobili had said injury through the playoffs. It's a valid reason not to play but he played with it for the Spurs and then the Spurs used it as the reason to keep him out. (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24644692/spurs-manu-ginobili-fibula-will-not-play-in-fiba-world-cup)


I really think this is a slippery slope. A lottery pick is going to be tough. There are mathematical formulas and shit used. giving a team a guaranteed pick would throw all that out of whack. It's not that big a deal, just make a new formula. They are already talking about changing the formula anyway to deal with tanking, how hard would such an adjustment be?


I think the current formula is an injury exemption (up to the MLE)

IMO that contract should be kept off the salary cap for sure. I would increase that to 2/3 the injured players salary, or even 100%

But as for further compensation, I don't know what would be an equitable value draft pick. There are only 2 rounds in the draft. Maybe add a compensatory pick in between rounds like the NFL?To me it needs to be a lottery pick because especially when it's a Team USA guy you are talking about someone that is one of his team's best players. There would no doubt need to be a lot of thought put into refining the changes to not, as another poster mentioned, hand out a lottery pick to a team that loses the 15th man on their roster but to me there's no question that teams should get more than they currently do.

[D-FENS]

Please excuse me for having an opinion, and I'm sorry that you are unable to construct a decent argument against it. But, FYI: People with opinions oftem make topics and they have no responsibility to change their minds just because you do not agree.

So what you're telling me is that you think it's fair that the Pacers leapfrog all playoff teams and get an automatic lottery pick no matter their season record? It;s an idiotic idea, and extremely problematic. Due you think the playoff teams would be happy if Indiana finished within the top 4 in the East, and then were given a lottery pick? Is the lottery pick conditional on sucking?

Also, what if the player is injured playing for Argentina, Greece or Spain? DO their teams get to benefit from the same rules?

Why not extend this to any franchise that has an injury any time of year? That way we can award the Trailblazers a lottery pick for Walton, Bowie and Oden and also give the Bulls lottery picks every time Derrick Rose breaks something.

Truthfully, this is an idiotic idea and reeks of communism. You can spend money on players that are fragile, and feel happy knowing that you'll get a lottery pick and a injured player exception if anything happens to them.

Go back, do your research and see the fortunes of teams that lose a star due to injury. What happens the following year? How does the team perform? Do they end up with a lotto pick anyway? Do other players step-up? Does the team rebuild? How does team/player perform after returning?

Some examples for you:
1996-97, San Antonio Spurs
-David Robinson misses almost entire season.
-Spurs have an awful record, fall into the lottery
-Spurs draft Tim Duncan
-Next season, Robinson come back healthy, and the Spurs find success again

1988-89, Boston Celtics
-Larry Bird misses almost entire season
-Celtics remain a playoff team, but are swept in the first round
-Reggie Lewis gets a chance to start, and puts up big numbers
-Celtics get the 13th pick and waste it on Michael Smith from BYU (had the opportunity to draft Tim Hardaway, Shawn Kemp, Dana Barros, BJ Armstrong, Vlade Divac or Clifford Robinson.
-Nex tseason, Bird comes back healthy, Lewis is now a big time contributor and the Celtics win an additional 10 games

2013-14, Los Angeles Lakers
-Kobe Bryant misses almost entire season
-Lakers stink and end up in the lottery
-Lakers develop young wing talent: Bazemore, Johnson, Meeks, Young, Henry
-Lakers get Julius Randle who slides in the draft to #7
-Bazemore signs with Atlanta, and Meeks to Detroit. All other talent is retained, and now would qualify as experienced depth behind Bryant.

1978-79, Portland Trailblazers
-Bill Walton misses the entire season, the year before he played 58 games and the Blazers won 54
-Other players step up in Walton's absence, namely Maurice Lucas and the Blazers still win 45 games.
-Walton remains an ongoing injury concern, and is sent to the San Diego Clippers in a sign and trade for Kermit Washington
-Blazers drafted Mychael Thompson in a pre-existing trade, and continued to make the playoffs in 23 of the next 24 seasons.

[Real Men Wear Green]

So what you're telling me is that you think it's fair that the Pacers leapfrog all playoff teams and get an automatic lottery pick no matter their season record? It;s an idiotic idea, and extremely problematic. Due you think the playoff teams would be happy if Indiana finished within the top 4 in the East, and then were given a lottery pick? Is the lottery pick conditional on sucking?If my proposed changes actually happened it would be because the NBA owners thought they were for the best, so, yes. A player like Paul George, an All-Star, is a major talent and there would no doubt be owners that thought a team should get a high pick in compensation. Especially because they could easily find themselves in the position of losing a player that played for their country.


Also, what if the player is injured playing for Argentina, Greece or Spain? DO their teams get to benefit from the same rules?Of course. The tricky part would be determining how much compensation a player is worth, not which country they played for.


Why not extend this to any franchise that has an injury any time of year? That way we can award the Trailblazers a lottery pick for Walton, Bowie and Oden and also give the Bulls lottery picks every time Derrick Rose breaks something. I didn't mention it in the OP but I have since mentioned that this topic is the result of me thinking about what it may take to make teams that are apprehensive about their players participating in international play more cooperative. A number of owners have told their players not to play for their countries and with the George injury I expect that to get worse. We saw a lot of guys withdraw. Something needs to be done or the World Games and Olympics are going to lose a lot of star power. So this part of your post has nothing to do with the subject.


Truthfully, this is an idiotic idea and reeks of communism. You can spend money on players that are fragile, and feel happy knowing that you'll get a lottery pick and a injured player exception if anything happens to them.Communism? What? Do you even know what that is? If I was you I wouldn't use the word "idiotic."


Go back, do your research and see the fortunes of teams that lose a star due to injury. What happens the following year? How does the team perform? Do they end up with a lotto pick anyway? Do other players step-up? Does the team rebuild? How does team/player perform after returning?No, sounds boring.

[Sarcastic]

Your comparision is ridiculous. A slave can't leafve and is treated infinitely worse. I'm just referring to the need for NBA teams to get adequate compensation when they lose a player. The changes I am discussing are not in any way a violation of the players' civil rights and in fact would be an expansion of their freedoms as it would lead to teams being more willing to let them participate inthe world games. Your slavery talk is unnecessary hyperbole taking the place of a meaningful point. Try harder at making a point and be less about distracting the conversation with useless hyperbole.

Which does nothing to help the Pacers. OK, he has the right to play. You think NBA teams are going to do nothing about this going forwards when we're already seeing the Spurs keep players out?

Completely wrong. Dirk Nowitzki hasn't played for Germany for years now. You think Cuban's opinion wasn't part of that decision? The man who signs the checks always has quite a bit of power. If he wanted to play hardball he could absolutely have clauses put into contracts expressly forbidding participation in FIBA and Olympic basketball. Adam Silver's job is to protect the NBA's image and there is no benefit in saying that teams won't let player's play. But the reality of Cuban's comments and the Spurs' actions show us where things are headed.


The reason I am making comparisons to slavery, is that you keep on making references to ownership. There is no ownership in the Pacers/George relationship. It's an employer/employee relationship. Not all slavery is "southern white masta" slavery from the early American history.


If a bus hits a Best Buy cashier on his way to work, should Best Buy receive compensation for his injuries?

If a bus runs through the front window of a Best Buy store, should Best Buy receive compensation for the damage?




I'm pretty sure Dirk Nowitzki stopped playing for Germany for health reasons, rather than Cuban telling him he can't. He played for them up till 2011, so Cuban didn't stop him through his prime.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-09-10/dirk-nowitzki-germany-2016-olympics-mavericks-chris-kaman-dennis-schroeder


"If I'm still healthy enough and we have a chance to qualify, then I'd consider it," Nowizki said.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The reason I am making comparisons to slavery, is that you keep on making references to ownership. There is no ownership in the Pacers/George relationship. It's an employer/employee relationship. Not all slavery is "southern white masta" slavery from the early American history. Again with the irrelevance. What do we call people that own NBA teams? We call them "owners." This is how things have been for as long as I can remember. That does not make NBA players slaves. They are, however, employees, and employees do have to listen to whoever owns the business they work for...we'll call them, um, "Gentle Smurfs."



If a bus hits a Best Buy cashier on his way to work, should Best Buy receive compensation for his injuries?A bus needs to hit your computer if this is the best argument you can come up with.


I'm pretty sure Dirk Nowitzki stopped playing for Germany for health reasons, rather than Cuban telling him he can't. He played for them up till 2011, so Cuban didn't stop him through his prime.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-09-10/dirk-nowitzki-germany-2016-olympics-mavericks-chris-kaman-dennis-schroeder


"If I'm still healthy enough and we have a chance to qualify, then I'd consider it," Nowizki said.
I'm sure his health was also a consideration. But having his boss, the guy that has been paying him tens of millions of dollars, tell him he doesn't want him to participate is a factor in Nowitzki's decsion.

[Sarcastic]

Again with the irrelevance. What do we call people that own NBA teams? We call them "owners." This is how things have been for as long as I can remember. That does not make NBA players slaves. They are, however, employees, and employees do have to listen to whoever owns the business they work for...we'll call them, um, "Gentle Smurfs."


A bus needs to hit your computer if this is the best argument you can come up with.


I'm sure his health was also a consideration. But having his boss, the guy that has been paying him tens of millions of dollars, tell him he doesn't want him to participate is a factor in Nowitzki's decsion.


We call them owners because they own the teams. They don't own the players. The players are not their property. If a player gets hurt, they should not receive compensation, as if their property was damaged. They take out insurance on the contracts if a player is hurt, and are re-compensated that way.


I brought up the bus analogy, because its comparing property damage to an employee getting hurt. In one situation, the company (owner) should receive compensation. In the other, the company shouldn't.


Stop thinking of Paul George as the being the Pacer's property. He decided to play for Team USA for himself, for his own selfish reasons. Playing internationally helps players improve their worldwide marketability, and helps them make more money for the shoe companies they represent. They do it for themselves, on their own. Not everything they do has to profit for the NBA 24/7/365. He can make profit on his own in the off season, which is what playing for Team USA represents. He got injured doing it, and that's his loss. Every player weighs the positives and negatives of playing or not playing, and makes their own decision.


If Mark Cuban really doesn't want his players playing for Team USA, he will have to work it into the contracts he signs with his players. He can do that, but outside of that, he is really powerless to stop anyone else from playing.

[Real Men Wear Green]

We call them owners because they own the teams. They don't own the players. The players are not their property. If a player gets hurt, they should not receive compensation, as if their property was damaged. They take out insurance on the contracts if a player is hurt, and are re-compensated that way.This is semantic and irrelevant. No one is saying the Pacers own George. They do however own his contract which means he plays for them and if they lose his services that is a major blow to their franchise for which it would be a good idea to compensate them or else they and other teams will not want their players to participate in FIBA in the future. This should be easy to understand. And has nothing to do with slavery.


I brought up the bus analogy, because its comparing property damage to an employee getting hurt. In one situation, the company (owner) should receive compensation. In the other, the company shouldn't.Is the bus that hit the Best Buy employee somehow making money off of the employee selling HD televisions for Bus Buy incorporated and is the Best Bus Buying employee as hard to replace as an NBA All-Star? Or does your analogy make no sense whatsoever?



If Mark Cuban really doesn't want his players playing for Team USA, he will have to work it into the contracts he signs with his players. He can do that, but outside of that, he is really powerless to stop anyone else from playing.You can think the billionaire paying millions has no influence if you want to.

[Timmy D for MVP]

This is a ridiculous idea.

What is the difference between an injury sustained for Team USA and an injury sustained elsewhere? What if it wasn't a star player but a role player, what about a bench warmer? What about preseason injuries?

[Real Men Wear Green]

This is a ridiculous idea.

What is the difference between an injury sustained for Team USA and an injury sustained elsewhere? What if it wasn't a star player but a role player, what about a bench warmer? What about preseason injuries?
I've replied to all of this already. Teams are starting to object to their players doing FIBA. If the status quo is mainained we'll see more teams like the Spurs and owners like Cuban take stances against it and they aren't just going to talk, there is going to be some level of action. Stars are going to be less likely to participate because their teams will ask them not to. So the NBA should require that FIBA, the IOC, or the country the players play for in some way insure the players enough that they finance the exception and the NBA should give the team that loses a player a spot in the lottery so that they are adequately compensated for the loss.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I've replied to all of this already. Teams are starting to object to their players doing FIBA. If the status quo is mainained we'll see more teams like the Spurs and owners like Cuban take stances against it and they aren't just going to talk, there is going to be some level of action. Stars are going to be less likely to participate because their teams will ask them not to. So the NBA should require that FIBA, the IOC, or the country the players play for in some way insure the players enough that they finance the exception and the NBA should give the team that loses a player a spot in the lottery so that they are adequately compensated for the loss.

Players are currently asked not to go. They are also currently asked not to participate in other things that have an injury potential. The Spurs asked Manu to sit because he is injured. Just last summer they allowed Tony to play for France in the Euros and he logged a lot of miles. I was not happy but it was his right.

It is the player's decision to go or not. If eventually stars are less likely to go then so be it, the international scene will be far more boring.

Injuries are unfortunate. But they can happen at any point in time to anyone doing anything. Why would an exception be made for an event that is not an obligation, as high profile as it may be?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Players are currently asked not to go. They are also currently asked not to participate in other things that have an injury potential. The Spurs asked Manu to sit because he is injured. Just last summer they allowed Tony to play for France in the Euros and he logged a lot of miles. I was not happy but it was his right.

It is the player's decision to go or not. If eventually stars are less likely to go then so be it, the international scene will be far more boring.

Injuries are unfortunate. But they can happen at any point in time to anyone doing anything. Why would an exception be made for an event that is not an obligation, as high profile as it may be?
And you will note that this year Parker is not playing nor is his teammate Ginobili. Don't expect to see owners just accept the stus quo. They are already asking players not to and this does influence the decisions that players make. We could well see owners take it a step further and start making some kind of demands.

[D-FENS]

I've replied to all of this already. Teams are starting to object to their players doing FIBA. If the status quo is mainained we'll see more teams like the Spurs and owners like Cuban take stances against it and they aren't just going to talk, there is going to be some level of action. Stars are going to be less likely to participate because their teams will ask them not to. So the NBA should require that FIBA, the IOC, or the country the players play for in some way insure the players enough that they finance the exception and the NBA should give the team that loses a player a spot in the lottery so that they are adequately compensated for the loss.

So how do you propose to compensate the Pacers for losing George, compared to say the Nets losing Plumlee?

DO you have tiers? Let's see your system of madness

[andremiller07]

Or be a smart organisation and don't allow your best player to play in 2nd tier comps that you are not paying for. I don't understand how any of these owners who pay 10+mil for a player allow them to go play in meaningless comps.

[Timmy D for MVP]

And you will note that this year Parker is not playing nor is his teammate Ginobili. Don't expect to see owners just accept the stus quo. They are already asking players not to and this does influence the decisions that players make. We could well see owners take it a step further and start making some kind of demands.

I did notice. Parker withdrew himself after so much basketball and Manu already has an injury.

But I was countering your point that teams are going to start holding players out when just last year Parker logged hard minutes.

Again, this isn't anything new. There is always a risk. To compensate a team for an event that a player is voluntarily attending is ridiculous. AT BEST a team could try to include a clause that would nullify a contract if a player got hurt at said event which A) No one would sign B) The NBAPA would lose their shit.

You said you were just spitballin and I appreciate that. But the idea is a poor one.

[Sarcastic]

Or be a smart organisation and don't allow your best player to play in 2nd tier comps that you are not paying for. I don't understand how any of these owners who pay 10+mil for a player allow them to go play in meaningless comps.


Because the owners don't have a say in telling players to go or not. They can only advise them. They can't force any of them to NOT play.

Again, the players are not their property. They can't tell them what to do.

[dunksby]

Top soccer coaches and presidents have complained about this for years for much lesser competitions like WC qualifiers, continental championships etc. Wenger used to badmouth FIFA so much they fined him a few times I think. At the end of the day you cannot keep a star from playing in an official tournament. Could do it to scrubs via threatening them to limit their minutes or whatever but how can you force your star to sit out?
About the premise of this thread not much can be said but that it's idiotic and unfair to the rest. What happens if Rose comes back from the games and injure himself the first practice session during warmup? The Bulls could argue they lost him to Team USA and demand a lottery pick and all the other freebies OP is so eager to hand out.

[SpanishACB]

Top soccer coaches and presidents have complained about this for years for much lesser competitions like WC qualifiers, continental championships etc. Wenger used to badmouth FIFA so much they fined him a few times I think. At the end of the day you cannot keep a star from playing in an official tournament. Could do it to scrubs via threatening them to limit their minutes or whatever but how can you force your star to sit out?


Don't come here with big words talking about 2005. Get on with the times please.

http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/squire-patton-boggs/item/your-guide-to-fifa-s-club-protection-programme
http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/115728/fifa-to-cover-part-of-neymars-barcelona-salary/

this could happen in NBA with ease since they're the ones making money of the franchises.

[dunksby]

Don't come here with big words talking about 2005. Get on with the times please.

http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/squire-patton-boggs/item/your-guide-to-fifa-s-club-protection-programme
http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/115728/fifa-to-cover-part-of-neymars-barcelona-salary/

this could happen in NBA with ease since they're the ones making money of the franchises.
What's that got to do with giving them a free lotto pick and cap space? The Pacers have no problem covering PG's salary. CPP doesn't magically heal up the injured player on national duty. Coaches want their stars to play and missing them due to injury while playing for another team is going to piss them off either way.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I did notice. Parker withdrew himself after so much basketball and Manu already has an injury. Players almost always have injuries at the start of the offseason. Ginobili helped the Spurs win a Championship with that very same injury. And another Spur, Leonard also withdrew from consideration for USA. I am not saying the Spurs forced them to stay out but I would guarantee they told their guys they didn't want them to participate.
Again, this isn't anything new. There is always a risk. To compensate a team for an event that a player is voluntarily attending is ridiculous. AT BEST a team could try to include a clause that would nullify a contract if a player got hurt at said event which A) No one would sign B) The NBAPA would lose their shit.

You said you were just spitballin and I appreciate that. But the idea is a poor one.
It's silly to think that teams will just accept this when owners are already objecting and we have Cuban (who I will admit is on the far end) making a major stink. I don't know what exactly they will do, this topic is just one proposed solution that team owners won't be reading. But sooner or later they are going to do something. FIBA and the IOC are not just playing pick-up ball at some gym, this is big business off of which people are making a ton of money. The NBA is lending their players out and thus putting their stars at risk with no direct profit, just the ideal that putting NBA stars in international ball helps the brand grow. More and more owners are not going to feel that's good enough.
So how do you propose to compensate the Pacers for losing George, compared to say the Nets losing Plumlee?

DO you have tiers? Let's see your system of madness
There may need to be tiers and it's something that would have to be worked out. The rough idea I offered based the tiers on how much players played. Please forgive me for not completely revamping Olympic basketball. The fine details of any changes would be some 100-page document written up by lawyers. I'm just talking general ideas. The low level of compensation is something that I will be surprised if we don't see the NBA owners address.
Or be a smart organisation and don't allow your best player to play in 2nd tier comps that you are not paying for. I don't understand how any of these owners who pay 10+mil for a player allow them to go play in meaningless comps.A number of them do have a problem with it. But right now if a player is set to play for his country they can. I'm just expecting to see the owners do something about that sooner or later. The ideas in this topic are one way to deal with the issues.
What happens if Rose comes back from the games and injure himself the first practice session during warmup? The Bulls could argue they lost him to Team USA and demand a lottery pick and all the other freebies OP is so eager to hand out.
It should be obvious that any such claim would have to be validated.

[JtotheIzzo]

Idea: Give teams that lose a player in FIBA competition a supplementary lottery spot in the next draft and a 10 million dollar cap exception/deduction financed for the first year of any deal made with it by FIBA as an attachment to whatever insurance policy is used to cover contracts of players that play for their home country (I am talking about a subject I'm nowhere near fully-informed about). This would be a bit fairer to NBA teams (like the recently-destroyed Pacers) that routinely risk their absolute best players with no chance of adequate replacement in case of injury (if Indy trades for Jeff Green or signs Ray Allen that's definitely not adequate replacement). They would be able to package a spot in the next lottery, the exception and whatever other assets to trade for a good player, use the exception to sign someone with the lottery pick to build for the future, or just use the cap deduction and pick to start the rebuild (which is where I see the Pacers at this point).

Please note that this topic is 5 minutes of stream-of-consciousness posting so if you feel the need to rip it apart be gentle.

He was injured in a USA Basketball money grab, not a FIBA event.

Also, we gonna do this for the Drew League, Rucker, and all the shoe trips they take to Taiwan, China and the Philippines.

Ballers play ball in the summer, that is what they do, and money grubbers grub money.

Shit just happens, ask Forest.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He was injured in a USA Basketball money grab, not a FIBA event.Then they would be the ones held liable in this case. Topic is about international competition and NBA players in general, not this one instance.

Also, we gonna do this for the Drew League, Rucker, and all the shoe trips they take to Taiwan, China and the Philippines.I have addressed this a few times now.

[kshutts1]

Many people have posted my views already.

Injuries happen, no matter what you're doing.
I'm not a professional athlete, but I was once injured badly enough to consider calling out of work (very fast-paced work environment) just because I'm a klutz. Tripped over a curb or something stupid.

If owners care that much, they can some terms into a contract.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If owners care that much, they can some terms into a contract.That's one way it may be dealt with. The superstars of the league wouldn't accept that though, not with the salary cap leaving teams unable to balance it out with extra money.

[D-FENS]

To summarize the thread.

RMWG posts opinion.
No one agrees with said opinion.
RMWG still has same opinion but now replies arrogantly.

:confusedshrug:

[Timmy D for MVP]

Where do you work RMWG?

[SpanishACB]

RMWG is just applying very good logic to a topic in which he refuses to recognize the whole picture.

You cannot compare american franchises to a profesional sports clubs in an international context and assume it will make sense.

FIBA might make money, but NBA makes more money off the players employed by the franchises.

Professionals in european sports are employed by club, which are independent bodies with their own policy and economy, no one there to tell them how much they can spend nor anyone to bail them out if they go bankrupt.

Players sign independent marketing deals with brands, some of those players allow their clubs to have a share of their image money but ultimately there is no big daddy taking all the money and then deciding how to share it.

And then there's the worst assumption of all. That international competition is free. It's not. Players get an opportunity to not only represent their country KNOWING they'll get injured, but also increase their value and relevance internationally - not a big deal right?

[Real Men Wear Green]

To summarize the thread.

RMWG posts opinion.
No one agrees with said opinion.There were a few posters that agreed with some of the things I had to say.

RMWG still has same opinion but now replies arrogantly.I am not required to change my mind just because some people don't see things my way. This is a board where basketball is discussed. Discussion normally involves some level of disagreement. If that causes you problems? Then that's your problem.

[IGOTGAME]

Or be a smart organisation and don't allow your best player to play in 2nd tier comps that you are not paying for. I don't understand how any of these owners who pay 10+mil for a player allow them to go play in meaningless comps.


They have no grounds to stop them. And for most players, those not going deep in the playoffs every year, it is beneficial.

You can tell who has played ball and who hasn't here. This wasn't some injury that can from overuse over a season. It had nothing to with the fact it was extra games that wore someone down. It was a freak injury that could have happened anywhere.

These teams also don't lend there players out. They have no recourse if a player wants to play. And they honestly shouldn't because they can't rationalize wanting players to play/practice in the off season but not practice and play with the best players in the world.

People sound like babies when discusses this and also sound like they think playing in the NBA is slavery. They do not own these players entire lives. They have contractual obligations, none of these obligations effects whether they can play on an off season international tournament. Contrary to one Celtic fans beliefs, you can't just make up terms to a contracts mid contract.

This is silly. It's bad logic. No one is lending these players out because they don't have the right to do so. Therefore no one should be forced to compensate them in case of injury. Voluntary compensation is one thing but nothing should be compelled.

[Real Men Wear Green]

People sound like babies when discusses this and also sound like they think playing in the NBA is slavery. They do not own these players entire lives. They have contractual obligations, none of these obligations effects whether they can play on an off season international tournament. Contrary to one Celtic fans beliefs, you can't just make up terms to a contracts mid contract.Nowhere do I talk about changing an already existing contract. That's a complete misinterpretation. You are posting crap that I didn't write and then replying to your own fiction. I do point out that teams can and do ask players not to participate but that is not changing contracts. The actual changes I discuss are the NBA requiring FIBA/IOC to provide insurance to finance a cap exception and a supplementary lottery pick. If the NBA was serious about changing the relationship with FIBA to keep NBA players out of it they absolutely could do it if they were acting as a whole body in the next CBA. I don't expect it to come anywhere near that level but I do expect, over the years, to see NBA owners get some concessions from FIBA and the IOC. The stupid talk of "slavery" is just nonsense from the moyuth of ignorant people that want to get a rise

[AnaheimLakers24]

lol no. george participated. No ones fault but his

[IGOTGAME]

Nowhere do I talk about changing an already existing contract. That's a complete misinterpretation. You are posting crap that I didn't write and then replying to your own fiction. I do point out that teams can and do ask players not to participate but that is not changing contracts. The actual changes I discuss are the NBA requiring FIBA/IOC to provide insurance to finance a cap exception and a supplementary lottery pick. If the NBA was serious about changing the relationship with FIBA to keep NBA players out of it they absolutely could do it if they were acting as a whole body in the next CBA. I don't expect it to come anywhere near that level but I do expect, over the years, to see NBA owners get some concessions from FIBA and the IOC. The stupid talk of "slavery" is just nonsense from the moyuth of ignorant people that want to get a rise
1. Asking means nothing. They can ask anything they want...in a contractual relationship terms control how the parties interact.

2. What would would FIBA have to do with the NBA giving them an extra lottery pick, wait....absolutely nothing.

Actually, I'm an attorney. My firm actually represents one of the major sports leagues. I feel better talking about it because I'm leaving in a few weeks. Slavery talk is appropriate(more of an allusion to text on the similar matters in sports)because you are trying to control these people when you don't have the right to do so. The talk is very similar to Skip Bayliss trying to advocate for players not going out to night clubs or strip clubs. Truth is these NBA teams do not have the power to make these demands. The players participation is voluntary, they were not "lent" out as you said. And any talk of compelling drastic levels of compensation is silly.

To summarize...you want the NBA teams compensated for something they had no say in allowing to happen. Based on the above post you somehow want them to magically give them a draft pick. Maybe FIBA should give The owner forty virgins to compensate for injuring his chattel.

[Real Men Wear Green]

1. Asking means nothing. They can ask anything they want...in a contractual relationship terms control how the parties interact.When your boss makes a request or expresses an opinion, you don't care? Well, maybe you don't, but there are going to be a lot of players that factor it into their decision.


2. What would would FIBA have to do with the NBA giving them an extra lottery pick, wait....absolutely nothing.Who said it did?


Actually, I'm an attorney. My firm actually represents one of the major sports leagues. I feel better talking about it because I'm leaving in a few weeks. Slavery talk is appropriate(more of an allusion to text on the similar matters in sports)because you are trying to control these people when you don't have the right to do so. The talk is very similar to Skip Bayliss trying to advocate for players not going out to night clubs or strip clubs. Truth is these NBA teams do not have the power to make these demands. The players participation is voluntary, they were not "lent" out as you said. And any talk of compelling drastic levels of compensation is silly.Slavery is people being bought and sold and forced to work. If the owners took a harder stance against FIBA by, for example, putting a clause into the next CBA that gave teams the right to forbid players from playing for any organized competition that does not have some kind of agreement with the NBA then it would be a collectively bargained agreement and players woukd tell their countries that they need to deal with the NBA before they could deal with them or else said player, not being a slave, can go play for their country while incurring whatever penalty their NBA team has the CBA-bargained right to enforce. That's not slavery, that's business. Now before you take your next illogical leap note that that's just a hypothetical situation, I don't think the NBA owners would surrender another 2% of BRI or whatever concession it would take to get the players to agree to that, I'm just pointing out a way that owners could grab more power over this situation were they so inclined. And no, that's not slavery.

[IGOTGAME]

When your boss makes a request or expresses an opinion, you don't care? Well, maybe you don't, but there are going to be a lot of players that factor it into their decision.

Who said it did?

Slavery is people being bought and sold and forced to work. If the owners took a harder stance against FIBA by, for example, putting a clause into the next CBA that gave teams the right to forbid players from playing for any organized competition that does not have some kind of agreement with the NBA then it would be a collectively bargained agreement and players woukd tell their countries that they need to deal with the NBA before they could deal with them or else said player, not being a slave, can go play for their country while incurring whatever penalty their NBA team has the CBA-bargained right to enforce. That's not slavery, that's business. Now before you take your next illogical leap note that that's just a hypothetical situation, I don't think the NBA owners would surrender another 2% of BRI or whatever concession it would take to get the players to agree to that, I'm just pointing out a way that owners could grab more power over this situation were they so inclined. And no, that's not slavery.

Ok, so at least you have some a minimum understanding of why this is silly.

1. currently they have no right to demand players not play in FIBA events. We've established this.

2. I severely doubt players would allow for this type of clause in a contract because it is a slippery slope. Where does the control end, what is the rationale for holding them out of international completion but then also asking them to work on their game in the season. Where does the parental role end? So no, I don't think this would ever be collectively bargained...it is silly. The owners are not going get that in exchanged or money, players wouldn't agree to it and they shouldn't.

Gotta go but I do think this is an interesting convo...

[Real Men Wear Green]

1. currently they have no right to demand players not play in FIBA events. We've established this.This whole time I've said they have influence but not complete power. Though it should be noted that in the case of Ginobili, because he had a nagging injury, the Spurs had the power to pull him out.


2. I severely doubt players would allow for this type of clause in a contract because it is a slippery slope. Where does the control end, what is the rationale for holding them out of international completion but then also asking them to work on their game in the season. Where does the parental role end? So no, I don't think this would ever be collectively bargained...it is silly. The owners are not going get that in exchanged or money, players wouldn't agree to it and they shouldn't.For the players getting more money out of the BRI would be a huge thing. Something like 2% of BRI cost 16 games in the last lockout. Throw in maybe some concession like lighter marijuana penalties (if there are any at this point) or some other issue the players want? It could definitely be bargained, especially as the rule would not mean the end of players playing for their home countries. As much money as FIBA and the IOC are making there is no question that countries would find the money to finance the insurance that the NBA owners would theoretically require. I'm not even talking about a direct payment here, I'm talking about insurance policies.

[Sarcastic]

Who the hell lets their boss tell them what to do outside of work? As long as you are not doing anything illegal, your boss should have no say over what you do on your own personal time.

[niko]

Who the hell lets their boss tell them what to do outside of work? As long as you are not doing anything illegal, your boss should have no say over what you do on your own personal time.
That's pretty much wrong. Almost all proffesional jobs say that you cannot have other jobs. So that's one thing. You can't take drugs cause you'd fail a drug test. That's two. You can't come to work ****ed up beyond recognition, so that's more things you can't do outside. You can't embarrass work while you are outside. If you act like a lunatic with other coworkers, outside, and it comes back you'll get nailed.

There's a ton of things. Plus in the NBA there are contractual specifc things. That more you get paid, the more shit you are told not to do. Essentially if you want all your free time to be your own, McDonalds will let you do it no problem. But for other things, you have tons of restrictions.

I think this topic is unnecessary though. Already, the teams can ask players not to participate. Teams are given injury slots. Being too cheap to use it is not a reason to change the process. And no matter what you do, some teams are ****ed i you lose a player. If the Knicks lose Melo to the Olympics, cancel their season. NOTHING can replace that. What can you do?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Who the hell lets their boss tell them what to do outside of work? As long as you are not doing anything illegal, your boss should have no say over what you do on your own personal time.
They paid him anyway but the Bulls could have voided Jay Williams' deal when he hurt himself on a motorcycle. He and many other players (I'm not sure, maybe even all) are prohibited from doing activities outside of work that the team doesn't want them too, normally because they're viewed as being too dangerous. You will also see just about every player delete his twitter account a few seconds after they post a controversial tweet. An owner, not just a player, but an owner, is in the process of losing his franchise as the result of something he said in a private conversation.

So I guess we could say that quite a few people in sports allow their activities to be somewhat limited by their bosses. And frankly, people in every day life that don't have the job security of a contract and are far more easy to replace than an NBA star are even more limited.

[Sarcastic]

That's pretty much wrong. Almost all proffesional jobs say that you cannot have other jobs. So that's one thing. You can't take drugs cause you'd fail a drug test. That's two. You can't come to work ****ed up beyond recognition, so that's more things you can't do outside. You can't embarrass work while you are outside. If you act like a lunatic with other coworkers, outside, and it comes back you'll get nailed.

There's a ton of things. Plus in the NBA there are contractual specifc things. That more you get paid, the more shit you are told not to do. Essentially if you want all your free time to be your own, McDonalds will let you do it no problem. But for other things, you have tons of restrictions.

I think this topic is unnecessary though. Already, the teams can ask players not to participate. Teams are given injury slots. Being too cheap to use it is not a reason to change the process. And no matter what you do, some teams are ****ed i you lose a player. If the Knicks lose Melo to the Olympics, cancel their season. NOTHING can replace that. What can you do?


Jobs can make you sign a non compete agreement, so that you can't use the information you have from your job, and profit with it at another job. I don't think basketball would qualify for a non compete agreement, especially considering that there is a "love of the game" clause in every single NBA contract.

But a boss can't tell you not to work a second job. Millions of people across the country work multiple jobs. It's pretty common in this country.



I said "as long as you are not doing anything illegal", which would cover the drug portion.

[Sarcastic]

They paid him anyway but the Bulls could have voided Jay Williams' deal when he hurt himself on a motorcycle. He and many other players (I'm not sure, maybe even all) are prohibited from doing activities outside of work that the team doesn't want them too, normally because they're viewed as being too dangerous. You will also see just about every player delete his twitter account a few seconds after they post a controversial tweet. An owner, not just a player, but an owner, is in the process of losing his franchise as the result of something he said in a private conversation.

So I guess we could say that quite a few people in sports allow their activities to be somewhat limited by their bosses. And frankly, people in every day life that don't have the job security of a contract and are far more easy to replace than an NBA star are even more limited.


NBA contracts, just like all sports contracts, have clauses which say they can void your contract if you participate in high risk activities, such as motorcycle riding, sky diving, etc. That's perfectly within reason. If you get hurt doing something dangerous, then yea, you should lose your money/contract.

Paul George was playing basketball. All the players play all year round. Playing basketball is allowed in every contract with the "love of the game" clause.

[Real Men Wear Green]

NBA contracts, just like all sports contracts, have clauses which say they can void your contract if you participate in high risk activities, such as motorcycle riding, sky diving, etc. That's perfectly within reason. If you get hurt doing something dangerous, then yea, you should lose your money/contract.

Paul George was playing basketball. All the players play all year round. Playing basketball is allowed in every contract with the "love of the game" clause.Well what you wrote was,
Who the hell lets their boss tell them what to do outside of work? As long as you are not doing anything illegal, your boss should have no say over what you do on your own personal time.So I pointed out that there are plenty of legal activities outside of an NBA arena that players don't engage in because their team told them not to. Yes, for the nth time (when did I say that teams have absolute authority over players playing in international comp?) George has the right to play for Team USA. What I am saying is that owners are not going to be completely satisfied with the status quo and we will see them do something about it at some point.

[Sarcastic]

Well what you wrote was, So I pointed out that there are plenty of legal activities outside of an NBA arena that players don't engage in because their team told them not to. Yes, for the nth time (when did I say that teams have absolute authority over players playing in international comp?) George has the right to play for Team USA. What I am saying is that owners are not going to be completely satisfied with the status quo and we will see them do something about it at some point.


The NBA can't tell the players not to engage in those activities. They can void their contracts if they participate in them and get hurt. Jay Williams absolutely rode a motorcycle. The owner of the Kings was not able to tell him not to. He was able to void his contract if he chose to.


The only way the NBA could stop the players from playing for Team USA, would be to remove the love of the game clause. I don't see that ever happening, considering that teams WANT players playing basketball in the off season to improve their game.


It was a freak injury. It could have happened in any practice, any summer pro am, any charity game, anywhere.

Let it go.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The NBA can't tell the players not to engage in those activities. They can void their contracts if they participate in them and get hurt. Jay Williams absolutely rode a motorcycle. The owner of the Kings was not able to tell him not to. He was able to void his contract if he chose to.Bulls not Kings, different J-Will. Anyway, your distinction doesn't matter as the vast majority of players aren't going to do something that could void their million-dollar contract. There will always be a few exceptions but for the most part these guys don't risk their money like that.


The only way the NBA could stop the players from playing for Team USA, would be to remove the love of the game clause. I don't see that ever happening, considering that teams WANT players playing basketball in the off season to improve their game.Not necessarily remove it, just alter it. The difference with IOC/FIBA is that these are big money events so it's not unreasonable to expect them to provide the NBA some assurances in case contracted players get hurt.

[IGOTGAME]

In terms of bargaining with NBAPA, not Fiba, why does it matter where the players get hurt? Why does it matter that George got hurt in that scrimmage and not playing with Kobe and Kevin Love at UCLA the following day? You can't want players to get better but not practice. And you can't prove a higher liklihood of getting hurt in international comp than in practice.

Please explain the NBA owners rationale? are there studies showing an increase likelihood of getting hurt during international competition...they very well may or may not exit.

Howver, players get turnt up all the time whether they are on TV or at some random gym playing other top players. Rationally, in bargaining with the NBAPA, the request would make little sense rationally on the request of the owners. The only type of injuries that players would have to worry about are over-use type of injuries...and I could see having to have a team doctor sign off or mandating a certain amount of min rest period per player even tho that is also a bit draconian.

excuse the lack of structure. hard to copy on phone.

[Real Men Wear Green]

In terms of bargaining with NBAPA, not Fiba, why does it matter where the players get hurt? Why does it matter that George got hurt in that scrimmage and not playing with Kobe and Kevin Love at UCLA the following day? You can't want players to get better but not practice. And you can't prove a higher liklihood of getting hurt in international comp than in practice.It matters because in this hypothetical their goal is to get FIBA to give them some assurances and that would be easier if they had the authority to tell players they can't play for FIBA without putting their NBA deals at risk. It creates the leverage to force FIBA to cooperate if they don't want to.


Please explain the NBA owners rationale? are there studies showing an increase likelihood of getting hurt during international competition...they very well may or may not exit. Do I really need a study? I think it should be obvious that the more a guy plays the more likely he'll get hurt. I am not saying that playing for one's home country is riskier than playing anywhere else. I'm just pointing out that that's a lot of ball and we're seeing teams don't want their players to play. If they got a large cap exception (financed by the insurance I suggest they get from FIBA) along with a supplemental pick (this comes from the NBA itself, obviously) they would be more comfortable with having their stars play in international competition.

[Dr.J4ever]

No sane owner/businessman will soon allow their franchise players to participate in these international events without being compensated. It's about economics more than anything.

Woj is now reporting there is a growing clamor among owners to start moving in Cuban's direction. He is even quoting anonymous owners and they are not happy with the current set up.

The problem is the NBA has an agreement with Fiba that the NBA or any franchise CANNOT stop a player from participating with team usa unless there are very legitimate injury concerns such as the recent case with the Spurs' Manu. So it's not just the "love of the game" clause or whatever. This is a legal NBA/Fiba thing.

Now the NBA holds a lot of cards here internationally. The NBA has the best players in the world. Without these players, the Fiba cup can be made irrelevant. While RMWG's idea of awarding teams lottery picks can be workable internally, I just wonder how many NBA owners will soon continue to agree sending franchise players and risking injury and thereby putting the future of the franchise at risk without gaining profits that the IOC and Fiba are making.

Any sense in that at all?

[niko]

Jobs can make you sign a non compete agreement, so that you can't use the information you have from your job, and profit with it at another job. I don't think basketball would qualify for a non compete agreement, especially considering that there is a "love of the game" clause in every single NBA contract.

But a boss can't tell you not to work a second job. Millions of people across the country work multiple jobs. It's pretty common in this country.



I said "as long as you are not doing anything illegal", which would cover the drug portion.
Almost every proffessional job, every city job, a huge pct of jobs it specifically says "you cannot have a second job". If it doesn't say that and your second job interferes with first, it;s grounds to fire. I don't think i've ever taken on a assignment in 20 something years that didn't say you can't have another job.

[Real Men Wear Green]

No sane owner/businessman will soon allow their franchise players to participate in these international events without being compensated. It's about economics more than anything.

Woj is now reporting there is a growing clamor among owners to start moving in Cuban's direction. He is even quoting anonymous owners and they are not happy with the current set up.

The problem is the NBA has an agreement with Fiba that the NBA or any franchise CANNOT stop a player from participating with team usa unless there are very legitimate injury concerns such as the recent case with the Spurs' Manu. So it's just the "love of the game" clause or whatever. This is a legal NBA/Fiba thing.

Now the NBA holds a lot of cards here internationally. The NBA has the best players in the world. Without these players, the Fiba cup can be made irrelevant. While RMWG's idea of awarding teams lottery picks can be workable internally, I just wonder how many NBA owners will soon continue to agree sending franchise players and risking injury and thereby putting the future of the franchise at risk without gaining profits that the IOC and Fiba are making.

Any sense in that at all?
Well if the owners are now wanting some $ from this then I guess they'll do what they have to do. I don't think things will go fully Cuban's way with the NBA taking FIBA over but I could definitely see the owners pulling a money grab. That's how they become billionaires.

[Dr.J4ever]

Well if the owners are now wanting some $ from this then I guess they'll do what they have to do. I don't think things will go fully Cuban's way with the NBA taking FIBA over but I could definitely see the owners pulling a money grab. That's how they become billionaires.

I agree. These are shrewd SOBs. On his idea of an NBA world cup, Cuban says this is something "we want to own", and not share. I agree that the logistics can be a problem, but if anyone has the clout to do it, it's the NBA.

Perhaps talking to fiba and having them share the profits somehow might be more workable. Bill Simmons podcast in Grantland today discusses a little bit about this.

In soccer, the big European teams have a big say on how fifa is managed, and the NBA is still learning how to pull it's weight around. Give them time. It could start as soon as the new board meeting coming up soon.

[Sarcastic]

Almost every proffessional job, every city job, a huge pct of jobs it specifically says "you cannot have a second job". If it doesn't say that and your second job interferes with first, it;s grounds to fire. I don't think i've ever taken on a assignment in 20 something years that didn't say you can't have another job.


Completely wrong. No job tells you that you can't work a second job. You sign non compete agreements, that say for instance that you can't go work for a competitor, where you may be able to pass inside information to another company. Like if you work for Coca-Cola, they would have you sign an agreement that says you can't work for Pepsi. But if you want to go work for a camera company in your off time, like Nikon, they couldn't stop you.


You have the right to attempt to earn as much money as you possibly can. A job can't restrict your right to earn a living.

[niko]

Completely wrong. No job tells you that you can't work a second job. You sign non compete agreements, that say for instance that you can't go work for a competitor, where you may be able to pass inside information to another company. Like if you work for Coca-Cola, they would have you sign an agreement that says you can't work for Pepsi. But if you want to go work for a camera company in your off time, like Nikon, they couldn't stop you.


You have the right to attempt to earn as much money as you possibly can. A job can't restrict your right to earn a living.
You're absolutely wrong. A standard proffesional contract says you cannot work a second job while you have the current job. I have my consulting contract right here (i have a problem with back pay i'm fighting), it says while working the position you CANNOT have a second job.

I don't know what to tell you. I know some jobs allow that, proffessional jobs do not for the most part.

Note: You have no clue about non competes also, they are for AFTER you leave the current position, not for the same time (that's implied of course). But if you work for Coke you can't quit and go to Pepsi.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I don't doubt that at some point the subject will come up with the owners. This I do not doubt. But they do not own players. The NBA is not lending it's players to another competition.

The owners will never agree to that type of compensation. And the NBAPA won't allow for a void clause when it comes to basketball. It has been established for some time now that these guys can play ball when not with the team.

George was in the best possible environment to play ball. If I were a coach or GM I would encourage my younger players to go play, and have an opportunity to practice and play against the best. Because there was a reaction to an injury all of the sudden the system is broken and the owners aren't going to take it any more? That makes no sense.

The Cuban stance has far far far less to do with the injury, and for more to do with these owners always want more money.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I don't doubt that at some point the subject will come up with the owners. This I do not doubt. But they do not own players. The NBA is not lending it's players to another competition. Whether they go my route (unlikely, especially seeing as they've never heard of me) or what is looking likely, demanding compensation the reason will be because they are allowing players with NBA contracts to play. That's just a fact.
The Cuban stance has far far far less to do with the injury, and for more to do with these owners always want more money.
Sure, but the justification for it is the same thing at heart.