A-Rod says he won’t waive no-trade clause

18 Oct
2012

It might be great fun to spin the wheel of possible trade destinations for Alex Rodriguez, but the embattled New York Yankees star says our party is already over.

Speaking to reporters after the Yankees were swept out of the postseason on Thursday night, A-Rod says he will not waive the no-trade clause in his contract this offseason and wants to remain in pinstripes for the foreseeable future. The 37-year-old still has five years and $114 million left on the 10-year, $275 million deal he signed after opting out in 2007.

"I will be back. I have a lot to prove," Rodriguez told reporters (via MLB.com's Bryan Hoch) after New York's 8-1 loss to the Detroit Tigers. "I've never thought about going to another team. My focus is on staying here. Let's make that very, very clear."

Right now, the only thing that's clear is that A-Rod appears to either be a glutton for punishment or own an insatiable need for attention. Or maybe both. He was booed constantly at Yankee Stadium during a postseason that saw him go 3 for 25 at the plate while losing three starts to Eric Chavez, who didn't bother to collect a single hit. On top of it all, the New York tabs stuck him in the middle of a ridiculous and, frankly, unfair flirting controversy involving an Australian swimsuit model who was sitting near the Yankees dugout.

[Related: Tigers must wait for full applause after sweeping Yankees | Photos]

If there ever were a time for A-Rod to hit an escape hatch and watch his skills diminish in a less critical atmosphere, this hot stove season would seem to be it.  Speculation over possible landing spots, including Miami and Chicago's South Side, started (and denied!) even before the Yankees were eliminated in Game 4 and perhaps the raw emotions after such a collapse would have put the Steinbrenner Bros. in a money-eating mood this winter.

Perhaps A-Rod will change his mind in the weeks and months ahead or perhaps he won't. At the very least you have to give him credit for maintaining a level head through the extreme soap opera of the past week and not giving into the emotion of the moment.

But if he really wants to stay in New York, the place he professes to love so much, he'll have to find out what's wrong with that swing.

Otherwise, it's going to be a long five seasons for everyone involved.

Make sure all your bases are covered this postseason ...
Follow @bigleaguestew, @KevinKaduk and the BLS Facebook page!

Outside the Game from Yahoo! Sports:

Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:
• Dan Wetzel: Nike, Livestrong abandon Lance Armstrong at wrong time
• Vikings punter Chris Kluwe poses in gay magazine
• Kobe's got A-Rod's back
• Y! Screen: The best — and worst — tequilas

No Comments Share Read More

The Los Angeles Lakers will attempt to sign LeBron James as a Kobe Bryant-replacement in 2014, ‘several’ NBA team executives suggest

18 Oct
2012

It seems like news intended for those who only know the names of four or five basketball players, and three NBA teams. LeBron James could become a Los Angeles Laker in 2014. Of course, he could become a member of the Memphis Grizzlies or Houston Rockets in 2014 should he decide to utilize the Early Termination Option in his contract and join one of the 29 other teams besides the Miami Heat that would want to employ his services, but it's the Lakers' potential to sign James that has some NBA executives talking.

ESPN.com's Brian Windhorst, who has followed James for years and knows him as well as any journo talking, discussed the options with a few high-rankers around the NBA, and they seem to be pretty convinced that Los Angeles is attempting to go after James when Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol's contracts run out following the 2013-14 season. From ESPN:

Several teams' executives have told ESPN.com they believe the Lakers are positioning themselves to make a run at LeBron James in 2014, when the Miami Heat star can choose to become a free agent.

[…]

"It's not a mistake that all those deals end the same year Kobe's does. They have probably been planning for their next phase for a while," said one general manager. "The Busses and [Lakers GM] Mitch [Kupchak] are always thinking about the next big deal."

It's true. The Lakers are always thinking a few years down the line, but just about any NBA GM with a scintilla of job security is always thinking one or two or three offseasons ahead.

And what is also true is the fact that, sure, the Lakers are leaving that option open. That doesn't mean James is using the Lakers as an option, or even a hoped-for destination; and it certainly wouldn't preclude Los Angeles from re-signing both Pau and Kobe for any number of years at any point between now and then. The Lakers are going to go after LeBron James in some capacity in 2014, much in the same way the Grizzlies and Rockets will when James opts out of his contract that season. Maximum cap space or not, you always have to send a feeler out.

[Related: Derek Fisher could be a Los Angeles Laker again ]

The reason for the opt-out from LBJ has nothing to do with any perceived animosity between the Heat and James, or LeBron worrying about his supporting cast (from Dwyane Wade's knee to the roster that will have to be completely overhauled when each — read that again, "each" — of the team's contracts could be knocked off the books in 2013-14 due to various player and team options.

It has to do with money, and flexibility. James can make more money from the Heat with a new contact in place of his current one -- recall that he took slightly less than the max to join the team in 2010 -- and he can wield a greater influence (either by turning down more money, again, or taking all he can, or signing for any number of years to retain free-agent flexibility) within the team's personnel structure. The Lakers, potentially free and clear from Kobe and Pau's salary, will be one of his options.

(See, ESPN.com editors? That is how you link to sites outside of your ESPN umbrella. Putting links inside of columns in order to further educate and entertain your readers won't cause massive public copulation in Bristol, Connecticut's High Street, we promise. You can link to CBS Sports and Yahoo! Sports, various ESPN EDs, and nothing will break.)

That's taking on the notion that LeBron James, after working for years to tone down the vitriol sent his way following the much-reviled Decision in 2010, would join the NBA's most-loathed team. It's fun to love the Lakers, we certainly do, but they're also the newest team that er'ryone loves to hate because of Bryant's haughty presence, and the way they were able to dupe lesser lights on their way towards fielding Kobe, Gasol, Dwight Howard, and Steve Nash.

Nash will still be under contract in 2014-15, and it seems close to certain that Dwight Howard will re-sign with what amounts to his hometown team (he grew up around Atlanta, but has called Los Angeles home for years) this summer when his contract expires. With several other Lakers besides Kobe and Gasol hitting the skids that summer, the team would have enough space to pair Howard (making over $20 million that season as a max player), a 40-year-old Nash, and James.

They'd also have to ensure that Kobe Bean Bryant, who has never met a bug he hasn't wanted to crush, would be A-mother[bleepin']-OK with willingly handing the reins to a team he would have called his own for 18 years over to his greatest rival. One that, if our projections are correct, he'll have faced in the 2013 and 2014 NBA Finals.

[Related: Kobe Bryant's got A-Rod's back]

Because Kobe's cap hold is monstrous, and until a team either renounces or re-signs a player after their contract expires, teams are on the hook for a "cap hold" which prevents them from using the cap space established by the divorce between player and team. This would mean the Los Angeles Lakers would have to officially cut ties with Kobe Bryant, who may or may not want to retire by that point, in the eyes of the NBA's league office. To sign LeBron, bloody, James.

And because Kobe is Kobe, the dude might just go and sign with the Clippers or a 35-win Boston Celtics team just out of spite. If Michael Jordan can play for the Washington Wizards, Kobe Bryant can find a way to get back at the team that asked him to leave in favor of the Next Big Thing.

Or, Current Big Thing. Because the Lakers aren't doing anything wrong, here.

By the time 2013-14 comes around, they'll be paying Kobe a salary over $30 million, a price that will just about match half of the team's salary cap. And this isn't exactly the same $30 million handed two different times to Jordan in the 1990s — Kobe hasn't been able to lead his Lakers out of the second round (or, most damningly, take more than one game in nine tries) for two consecutive years despite a supporting cast featuring Gasol and Andrew Bynum. We respect the hell out of Kobe and think the Lakers top contenders for the Finals this year and next, but he's clearly been on the decline for a while now, and 2014 still seems like a long way away.

For James, 29 by the time that free agency hits, it probably feels like just as long an eternity. One perhaps filled with a pair of rings between then, and now. And though we were gobsmacked by his tactlessness as he made the move from Cleveland to Miami, that mess will have been four years old at that point. The Lakers both then and now feature the NBA's second-best player — Dwight Howard, for all his foolishness — but would LeBron make a similar move, again? Even if it meant another few titles?

The Lakers certainly hope so, according to the guesswork of a few NBA executives.

And the fallback plan? It's not all that bad. Re-sign Mssrs. Bryant and Gasol, pair them with Nash and Howard, and try it one more time. Either way, we'll have a big story on our hands, and some interesting basketball to watch.

Related NBA video from Yahoo! Sports:

Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:
• Celtics try to remain relevant in East
• Steelers' James Harrison: I've had double-digit concussions
• England code of conduct bans room service, video games OK
• Y! News: Passenger jet finds man lost at sea

No Comments Share Read More

Should NHL rookies be limited to 2-year entry level deals?

18 Oct
2012

One of the most surprising elements of the NHL's CBA proposal to the players was on Entry Level contracts:

Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

This was a radical shift from the NHL's initial proposal back in July, which called for a 5-year maximum on rookie contracts; in other words, young players would be locked into salary-restricted entry-level deals well into their productive years.

(On the flip side, their teams save money and keep talented young players in the fold.)

Why did the NHL decide short-term rookie deals were the way to go? Are you in favor of them?

From Pierre LeBrun of ESPN, on the rookie deals:

You may wonder why the heck the league would want to shorten the entry-level deal.

Combined with the fact that the league also asked for a five-year limit on term for contracts and UFA eligibility to go to eight years or 28 years old, what the league is trying to do here is change the dynamics of the second contract -- limit the financial flexibility of the second contract -- and change the system so that players now make their big money in the third contract.

Look at the players that got in under the wire with their second contracts: Taylor Hall is a $6 million a year (beginning in 2013-14) player despite never having broken 60 points; Jeff Skinner had 63 points to win the Calder and then struggled in his sophomore season, but also earned a $6 million annual salary deal (6 years) from the Carolina Hurricanes.

There's no denying the talent both players possess; but at this point in their careers, this is still playing for potential.

So is this a contentious element in the new deal? Yes it is, as Mirtle writes in the Globe & Mail:

Players believe making entry level deals (Standard Player Contracts) shorter and moving arbitration eligibility later will leave a large group of young players entering their third, fourth and fifth seasons without a contract and without any way to negotiate a deal beyond holding out.

Currently, arbitration acts a "fail-safe" for getting a "fair" deal done for many of these players. The league, however, believes too many unproven young players are being paid well too early in their careers.

There are also some proven young players that get overcompensated in their second contracts.

Hey, look, Drew Doughty's an outstanding player who now has a Stanley Cup ring. But he has a higher cap hit from his second contract ($7 million) than Zdeno Chara does as a 35-year-old defenseman ($6,916,667).

The combination of contractual changes proposed by the NHL would, in theory, force young players to make less money because their leverage is limited. But as one anonymous agent told Michael Traikos of the National Post, the cream of the crop will still get their money:

"If the guy's a good player, we're going to negotiate early anyway," he said. "We're still going to get it. At the end of the day, a team's not going to let a good player go."

The rookie contract limit and the 5-year cap on all contracts are two options that Donald Fehr could target and, in theory, "win" for the players in a counterproposal. (Especially the 5-year cap, which seems designed for Fehr to pivot off of to, say, a 7-year cap.)

But even if it goes through, do you trust the owners' self-control enough to keep the salaries of young players deflated in the next CBA, even with the restrictions?

Tags: cap, , , entry level, limit, , , SPC
No Comments Share Read More

Raptors exercise 4th-year option on Davis (Yahoo! Sports)

17 Oct
2012
TORONTO (AP) -- The Toronto Raptors exercised the fourth-year team option on forward Ed Davis' rookie-scale contract.
Tags: , Ed Davis, exercise, , option, , , team option, the Toronto Raptors, ,
No Comments Share Read More

Kings pick up options on Cousins, Fredette (Yahoo! Sports)

17 Oct
2012
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The Sacramento Kings exercised the 2013-14 contract options of center DeMarcus Cousins and guard Jimmer Fredette.
Tags: , , , contract options, Cousins, DeMarcus, DeMarcus Cousins, Fredette, , Jimmer, Jimmer Fredette, , , Sacramento Kings
No Comments Share Read More

Death to salary cap cheaters! NHL proposal targets circumvention, punishes teams

17 Oct
2012

It's been predestined since the start of negotiations: The next NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement is going to outlaw long-term contracts with creative, salary cap circumventing accounting.

For every team that has dabbled in the dark arts of front-loaded deals, there's another team (hi, Brian Burke) that despises them. But most importantly, Gary Bettman isn't a fan: These contracts helped subvert the rules that the NHL closed down a season to establish, and frankly that's an embarrassment for the commissioner.

The NHL's latest proposal to the players features a 5-year maximum for any non-rookie contract, and that the "maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5 percent of the value of the first year of the contract."

What does that mean? Well, if a player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his deal, his compensation cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC. No giant peaks or valleys.

This would effectively kill the cap-circumventing contract, going forward. No more Marian Hossa deals that have salary dips from $7.9 million in 2015-16 to $4 million in 2016-17. No more Roberto Luongo contracts that go from $6.714 million in 2017-18 to $3.382 million the following season. Conversely, no more Ilya Kovalchuk deals that rise from $6 million to $11 million in Years 2-3.

But the NHL's CBA proposal doesn't end The War On Cap Circumvention there. Oh no sir (and/or ma'am) it does not. The NHL intends to also go after the teams that were handing out these cap-cheating megadeals under the terms of the previous CBA. Including some close friends of the commissioner …

One of our major gripes with the NHL's decision to go after Kovalchuk's (admittedly preposterous) 17-year contract with the New Jersey Devils was that it was selective enforcement. There was tacit endorsement of clear cap circumvention when the NHL looked the other way on Hossa, Luongo and others.

Retroactively punishing the teams that abused the system has been a facet of these NHL proposals since the CBA talks began. Damien Cox reported in September that the new CBA could punish the Devils for Kovalchuk and other cap-circumventing deals:

It's not just Kovalchuk, of course. All the long-term deals that conclude with much smaller salaries would theoretically be impacted. Like Marian Hossa's with Chicago, which has a $5.25 million cap hit but pays out only $1 million in each of the final four years.

Or Henrik Zetterberg's deal with Detroit, which pays out a total of $5.25 million in the final three years. Or Roberto Luongo's arrangement with Vancouver, which pays a total of $7 million for the final four years when Luongo is between the ages of 39 and 43. If there's no takers for Luongo's contract now, imagine how the market will freeze up if teams know that they'll also be liable for the full $5.33 million cap hit even after Luongo is almost certainly retired.

The answer: The team that trades for Luongo won't be liable for his cap hit when he retires before his contract terms ends.

According to the owners' proposal, the Vancouver Canucks will be the ones paying for it.

From the NHL's latest CBA proposal:

All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

This provision has been labeled the "Wade Redden Rule" in honor of the banished New York Rangers defenseman, collecting millions off the cap in the AHL. But it also affects players on long-term deals in the NHL.

To use Luongo as an example: He makes $5,333,333 against the cap. Let's say he's traded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, and then retires in 2019 with three years left on his deal. Under the terms of this CBA, that $5,333,333 cap hit would then be reapplied to the Canucks for the next three years.

(Keeping in mind that by 2019, we might not even had a salary cap if the players take a run at the system in the next CBA … or, gulp, this one.)

What this provision does is punish not only the teams that circumvented the cap during the "hey, EVERYONE'S doing it" days, but also the teams that tried to sneak in under the wire before the CBA expired: Shea Weber's 14-year contract, matched by the Nashville Predators after it was handed out by Ed Snider; Zach Parise and Ryan Suter's 13-year deals that drop significantly in 2022; and going back to last summer, Christian Ehrhoff's preposterous contract with the Buffalo Sabres in which he earns $6 million in the last four years and $34 million in the first six.

Again, this could just be one of those planks in the NHL's CBA platform that's there so Donald Fehr can negotiate it out in the players' counterproposal.

Or perhaps the NHL is serious about punishing some of its most important owners — Rocky Wirtz, Mike Illitch, Ed Snider (if he's on the hook for the Jeff Carter deal, as Travis Hughes suspects) — for helping to circumvent the rules they put in place seven years ago.

Tags: cap, , circumvention, , , NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, , Roberto Luongo
No Comments Share Read More

Read the full NHL CBA proposal to players, including end of Gary Bettman as appellate judge

17 Oct
2012

In case you were wondering if the National Hockey League was on the power play in their latest proposal to players, here's the equivalent of unleashing a Zdeno Chara slap shot: The NHL released the full contents of their proposal on Wednesday morning, in an unprecedented, cards-on-the-table move.

It was one made out of necessity, as news leaked all over about the proposal. But here it is, as the NHLPA received it. Kudos to the NHL for making it so.

A few of the highlights:

• The salary cap would be $59.9 million for the 2012-13 season; but seeing as how 16 teams are currently over that limit, the NHL will allow teams to go over that cap up to $70.2 million for this season only. The salary cap floor will be $43.9 million; every team in the League is over that floor at the moment.

• The rookie contract maximum is two years, unless a player plays a partial season in which case the contract will cover that season and two subsequent seasons. This is an attack on the "second contracts" for players, which have proven to be some of the most lucrative in the NHL and inflationary to the cap system.

• Hockey Related Revenue still needs "mutual clarification," which is no doubt still a sticking point for the NHLPA.

• Finally, this one:

Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

That's right: Brendan Shanahan's massive suspensions (i.e. a "clearly erroneous" judgment on a player's actions) will be reviewed by a third-party arbitrator rather than the man who hired Shanahan to make the rulings, i.e. Gary Bettman.

Read the full NHL proposal …

Term:

Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.

HRR Accounting:

Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

Applicable Players' Share:

For each of the six (6) years of the CBA (and any additional one-year option) the Players' Share shall be Fifty (50) percent of Actual HRR.

Payroll Range:

Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

2012/13 Payroll Range…

Lower Limit = $43.9 Million

Midpoint = $51.9 Million

Upper Limit = $59.9 Million

Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

Cap Accounting:

Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

System Changes:

Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years).

Group 3 UFA eligibility for Players who are 28 or who have eight (8) Accrued Seasons (continues to allow for early UFA eligibility -- age 26).

Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.

NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.

Revenue Sharing:

NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of $200 million for 2012/13 season (based on assumption of $3.303 Billion in actual HRR). Amount will be adjusted upward or downward in proportion to Actual HRR results for 2012/13. Revenue Sharing Pools in future years will be calculated proportionately.

At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

The distribution of the Revenue Sharing Pool will be determined on an annual basis by a Revenue Sharing Committee on which the NHLPA will have representation and input.

For each of the first two years of the CBA, no Club will receive less in total Revenue Sharing than it received in 2011/12.

Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.

Existing performance and "reduction" standards and provisions relating to "non-performers" (i.e., CBA 49.3(d)(i) and 49.3(d)(ii)) will be eliminated and will be adjusted as per the NHL's 7/31 Proposal.

Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline:

Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

No "Rollback"

The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision:

The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.)

Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.

• • •

The final section here is a key one: Deferring payment on current contracts. Will the NHLPA actually trust the League to come through?

Donald Fehr responded to the offer in a letter to the players, as revealed by TSN's Bob McKenzie, including this bit on the last section:

"The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

Yeah ... this might not fly.

Tags: , , , , payroll, , , SPCs
No Comments Share Read More

Bears release former first-round pick OL Williams (Yahoo! Sports)

16 Oct
2012
LAKE FOREST, Ill. (AP) -- The Chicago Bears have terminated offensive lineman Chris Williams' contract, ending a disappointing run for the former first-round draft pick.
Tags: , , Forest, LAKE, , ,
No Comments Share Read More

Derek Fisher could be a Los Angeles Laker again, thanks to a contract misunderstanding

16 Oct
2012

He's flirted with the Chicago Bulls (who, legally, can't even sign any players until mid-December as it is) and the Oklahoma City Thunder, but veteran guard Derek Fisher has always seemed like a "Los Angeles or bust"-sorta guy. The roadblock between that eventual destination and the free-agent guard's current status, it was presumed, is the NBA bylaw that states that Fisher can't re-sign with the Los Angeles Lakers until next March, while he technically is being paid for the final year of a 2012-13 he was bought out from last spring, following a deal that sent Fisher to Houston.

Now, ESPN's Marc Stein is reporting, it appears as if the final year of that deal was never able to be latched on to by Fisher and his reps, and as a result he could sign with the Lakers whenever they see fit. If they see fit. He fits, to be sure, but the Lakers aren't sure if he'll actually fit on an already-packed team bus, to say nothing of their monstrous payroll.

First, Stein's take on the machinations that made this all possible:

The NBA's new labor agreement stipulates that a player traded and then waived by the team that acquired him can't re-sign with his original team for one year or until the traded contract runs out -- whichever comes first. But in Fisher's case, confusion surrounding his player option for the 2012-13 season led to the belief in some league circles that he had picked up the option before the Houston Rockets bought him out. In reality, sources confirm, Fisher was bought out by Houston before he was eligible to invoke the 2012-13 option, which means that his contract was deemed to have ended June 30, sending Fisher to full-fledged free agency on July 1.

Fisher is a great guy, a hard worker, and an NBA success story to be admired. But ho-lee cow has this man turned in some sweetheart deals when it comes to working as a free agent. And, for the third time in his career, he could end up on a bench next to a player in Kobe Bryant that he debuted with as a rookie all the way back in 1996.

(Where are you, Travis Knight? Do you have a Twitter?)

The problem for Los Angeles, and potentially Fisher, is that the team is pretty well stacked at point guard. Not only do they boast the all-world talents of Steve Nash in Fisher's former starting spot, but career backups Steve Blake and Chris Duhon are also stuck to the bench. Both are on the trade market, but it's hard to see any team (no matter how desperate) dealing even that infamous conditional second-round pick for the last two years and $8 million on Blake's contract, and Duhon may have played the worst basketball of any player in the NBA last year. That's not us being cruel, Duhon is struggling that much.

[Fantasy Basketball '12: Play the official game of NBA.com]

Fisher would be an improvement over Duhon, but in terms of actual on-court production he wouldn't be a massive, startling upgrade.

Derek hasn't turned in a double-digit Player Efficiency Rating (15 is average) since the 2008-09 season, and hasn't shot better than 40 percent from the field since that championship run. His defense, at age 38, is a step slow; though for the third season in a row he has upped his play during the postseason — a postseason that was spent with the Oklahoma City Thunder last spring.

The other issue, frankly, is that the Lakers don't really need Derek right now.

In 2008-09? Sure, his defense was a huge upgrade over Smush Parker's, and he ably controlled the team's varying attempts at sticking to the triangle offense. The Lakers aren't running a strict triple-post in 2012-13, it's safe to say Steve Nash (drafted the same year as Fisher, Bryant, and Travis Knight) doesn't really need any help navigating the waters, and if Fisher and Bryant share a similar mindset, Derek's influence might be a bit superfluous.

Might be. It's always nice to have another big basketball brain hanging around. Especially one that has taken in as much as Fisher has over the last 16 years.

Of course, there's also the whole part about when Los Angeles traded Derek some seven months ago just before the playoffs in what was essentially a payroll-slashing move. Not a salary cap-enhancing move, a payroll-cut. Involving Derek Fisher, five-time champion.

The options, limited though they may be, are there. And with Fisher's declining play, working as an assistant coach of sorts in shorts with the Lakers might be the best and only available option. It seems fitting, if only to ensure Derek doesn't retire as a member of the Oklahoma City Thunder.

More news from the Yahoo! Sports Minute:

Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:
• Michael Silver: Andy Reid should resist benching Michel Vick
• NCAA's response to New Jersey's gambling plan laughable
• Justin Verlander 'got away with some pitches'
• omg!: Model unveils $2.5 million 'fantasy bra'

No Comments Share Read More

NHL offers 50/50 split in revenue, no rollback in order to preserve 82-game season

16 Oct
2012

The National Hockey League issued a new proposal to its players on Tuesday that significantly pushed the sides toward a potential resolution of the lockout: a 50/50 split on hockey-related revenue — as it's currently defined — without a traditional salary rollback, in an effort to preserve an 82-game 2012-13 season beginning on Nov. 2.

An even more significant part of this proposal, which the NHLPA later revealed was in the neighborhood of six years: The preservation of player salaries in the initial years of the deal, according to Pierre LeBrun of ESPN. It's been one the of the NHLPA's most consistent demands: The owners honor the value of the contracts they handed out.

NHLPA chief Donald Fehr will take the offer back to his negotiating committee. But the devil's in the details.

There's a now-familiar vocabulary in the National Hockey League's collective bargaining talks. Words like "escrow" and "hockey-related revenue." We know what they mean, but not always how they're defined. Here's another one for that glossary: "rollback."

The NHL's initial proposal to the NHLPA last summer was like a parody of what one should look like, and it included a 24 percent rollback on existing contracts. The subsequent proposals, including one submitted by the NHL on Tuesday during their talks in Toronto, haven't.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a salary reduction, as Darren Dreger notes:

The NHL has been aiming for a 50/50 split for months. It's where it was willing to arrive. In the Luntz Global fan surveys leaked by Deadspin, a 50/50 split "like in other sports leagues" was explicitly mentioned.

As far as preserving salaries, Elliotte Friedman of CBC has a theory and it's consistent with what we've heard about the NHL's plans:

I'd expect the key thing for players to discuss is what sounds like an NHL offer to "return" whatever is lost on their salaries this season. My guess: league has said if you have a long-term contract and you lose xx% this year, we will find a way to "return" it over term. What that means for players on a shorter deal, I don't know. But, my sense is NHL has at least made a proposal that should get things moving.

The great John Shannon of Sportsnet had some of the other details:

Entry level contract maximums will go from three years to four years; i.e. every star rookie will be locked into a 4-year contract before their payday.

[Ed. N0te: Shannon later said it'll remain at a three-year cap.]

• The cap on long-term contracts will be five years. No more lifetime, cap-circumventing deals; no more securing your investments for a decade. But hey, at least the free-agent frenzy will be fun again.

• "Revenue sharing would be at or near 200 million dollars." Closer to what the NHLPA desired, and presumably expanded to teams like the Devils and Ducks.

• Free agency would "be at 28 years old and 8 years of NHL service."

• "Players' Salaries for those NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap." Now, are they formally calling this the Wade Redden Rule or not ...

Again, that's if the NHLPA takes the 50/50 split.

The bottom line is that we can feel a twinge of optimism here. The NHL went to 50/50, and tossed out many of the poison pills from previous offers. Donald Fehr didn't reject it. This is progress.

UPDATE: Via the NHL, here are Gary Bettman's comments from Tuesday:

Good afternoon, everyone.  Bill Daly and I just spent the last hour with Don and Steve Fehr, and I would like to briefly report to you on what was discussed.  As I think all of you know we have been extremely disappointed, and that's an understatement, that we've been unable to get these negotiations on the essential elements moving forward.  So, today, we began by discussing with Don and Steve that if we were to drop the puck on November 2nd for the start of the regular season, we could preserve an 82-game schedule for the regular season and play full playoffs as we normally do and be done before the end of June.

We very much want to preserve a full 82-game season, and in that light, we made a proposal, an offer, really that is our best shot at preserving an 82-game regular season and playoffs, and this offer that we made obviously was contingent upon having an 82-game regular season.

A lot of you know we don't negotiate publicly, and I'm not going to break that habit because I don't think it's constructive.  The fact of the matter is, we offered a 50-50 share of HRR, hockey related revenues, and we believe we addressed the concern that players have about what happens to their salaries as a result in this year of reducing the percentage from 57 to 50%.

Beyond that, I don't want to get into the substance other than to say we believe that this was a fair offer for a long-term deal, and it's one that we hope gets a positive reaction so that we can drop the puck on November 2nd -- which backing up, entails at least a one-week training camp.  So we have about nine or ten days to get this all put to bed, signed, sealed and delivered, in order for this offer to be effective and for us to move forward.

We hope that this effort that we've undertaken today would be successful because we know how difficult this all has been for everybody associated with the game, particularly our fans.

Q. How confident are you that this is going to go forward?

Well, we certainly hope it will.  We've given it our best shot.

What was the reaction?

The reaction was that they obviously need to study it, and so we told them that we're available to them.  But they're going to need some time to review it, and I respect that portion of the process.  Obviously, they've got to understand the offer and get comfortable with it.

Was it just the core economic issues in terms of the offer?

We had a number of significant elements that we believe can and should serve as the basis of a deal to get us playing hockey.

Why do this today?

Because if we want to have an 82-game regular season, if we want to preserve an 82-game regular season and you back up the timetable in terms of the schedule, we needed to do it.

By the way, in terms of the schedule, so everybody understands, the compression that would be involved is one additional game every five weeks. Beyond that, we don't think it would be good for the players or for the game.  But if you look at what our ability would be to schedule 82 games and you work back from November 2nd, if we didn't do it now, if we didn't put an effort on the table that we thought was fair and could get us playing hockey, if we didn't do it now, then it probably wasn't going to happen for a while.  Because, again, it's done in the spirit of getting a full season in.

Is it 50-50 across the board?

It's 50-50 across board.

How long of a contract will this be?

I'm not going to get into the specifics.  We proposed a long-term contract.  We think that's in everybody's interest.  We think that's what our fans want.

Can you explain how you address the roll back or the escrow?

There is no roll back, and I'm not going to get into the specifics. It would not be constructive at this point in time.  The union has some work to do, and we respect the process.  I probably have gone further than I usually have in terms of discussing what we've proposed than at any other time.  But I'm not comfortable going any further.  I'm more concerned about the process right now and getting us back on the ice.

How worried are you they might say no and more of the season will be lost?

I don't even want to go there.

Is the league amenable to playing an abbreviated schedule?

We're focused on getting the puck dropped on November 2nd and playing a full 82-game regular season and full playoffs.  That's what this offer is all about.

Have you made plans to meet later in the week?

We're going to be on-call to them.  They have some work to internally.  Obviously, we didn't put this proposal, this offer, together overnight, and they're going to need a little time to review it.  I'm hoping that review will get us to a positive and constructive place.

This may have been the first officially released Bettman transcript since the Stanley Cup Final.

And here's Fehr speaking to the media about the proposal:

Tags: cap, , Donald Fehr, , , , , NHLPA, rollback
No Comments Share Read More
« Previous 1 2 3 4 32 33

Recent Posts

  • Holliday (back) in Cards lineup for NLCS Gm 7 – Matt Holliday | STL
    Holliday (back) in Cards lineup for NLCS...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Charles Woodson breaks collarbone, out 6 wks – Charles Woodson | GB
    Charles Woodson breaks collarbone, out 6...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Panthers send top CB Chris Gamble to I.R. – Chris Gamble | CAR
    Panthers send top CB Chris Gamble to I.R...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Donald Brown (knee) to miss one more game? – Donald Brown | IND
    Donald Brown (knee) to miss one more gam...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Titans to stay with Matt Hasselbeck in Week 8 – Matt Hasselbeck | TEN
    Titans to stay with Matt Hasselbeck in W...
    October 22, 2012No Comments