↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Ben Gordon a plaintiff in Minnesota lawsuit against NBA owners

Ben Gordon has been the most visible Piston in the players’ fight against the owners during the NBA lockout, and that continues. Gordon is one of four plaintiffs named in a lawsuit against the NBA filed in Minnesota.

Via Matt Moore of Eye on Basketball

18 Comments

  • Nov 16, 201112:17 am
    by Jodi Jezz

    Reply

    Yeah, Ben Gordon is apart of filling suit against the owners!..Go get a fair deal players, I’ll be here waiting to support to you…Go Pistons

    • Nov 16, 20119:50 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      What makes the proposed deal horrible? They will still get paid millions on average to play basketball. It may be worse than the old deal but that deal is gone. To determine how good or bad the deal is, compare it to the alternative (no deal). That would be worse for owners. They aren’t making money from their teams and getting psychic/ancillary benefits. But it would be WAY, WAY worse for the players. They have to get jobs that they probably don’t like as much that pay them maybe 1/100th as much money. In conclusion, the proposed deal was good, no wait, fantastic for the players. It just wasn’t as good as what they were used to.

      • Nov 16, 201111:29 am
        by Laser

        Reply

        1) There probably aren’t TOO many of these guys, percentage-wise, who “have” to get jobs. And the ones who actually DO probably wanted to accept the new CBA offer.
         
        2) Just because the NBA owners offered these guys “this” or “nothing,” doesn’t automatically make “this” a good offer. Don’t forget that they’re establishing the financial landscape for the next decade. So making a short-sighted decision just to play right away wouldn’t necessarily be in their best interest. By my best guess, the final offer from the owners was close to fair. The provisions looked about right, and a 50/50 profit split doesn’t sound egregious to me, but what do I know? Something tells me the owners shot themselves in the foot by low-balling the players with their absurd initial offers…
         
        3) The real losers here (if you don’t count the fans… and I certainly think nobody suffers less from a lockout than Pistons fans) are the owners. As much as you may think the players wanted to get back to basketball (and some of them certainly did), it’s like this: If the new CBA got inked, the players get right back to work and bust their damn asses playing ball. Meanwhile, the owners hang out and do bong loads, and everybody gets rich. Since there is no deal, the players have a multitude of options to make money; they may not be as good as “playing basketball for millions,” but at least they’re not breaking their backs to rake in dough for ownership they feel oppressed by. The owners may have done a ton of work to get where they are, but the players are the ones who would be doing ALL the heavy lifting tomorrow. I understand why they wouldn’t jump at that chance.
         
        4) Ownership was truly being unfair here. The system couldn’t possibly be as broken as they insisted it was, and their opening offer was offensively off-base. As a fan who would like to watch basketball this season, they couldn’t possibly convince me that they were bargaining in good faith.

      • Nov 16, 201112:40 pm
        by Jodi Jezz

        Reply

        I agree, I thought the deal we all seen was acceptable…But we didn’t see all the in’s and out’s of the CBA proposal…The PowerPoint that Stern sent out wasn’t the full CBA proposal, it was probably just a piece of it…Apparently something in it wasn’t appealing to the players…
        I think most of the players that went overseas need the money…Not all of them, but most of them…Especially players that went to China, like JR Smith and Wilson Chandler…Nobody in their right mind would sign with a foreign team for 3 million without an out-clause, when he is a valuable American Professional basketball player…

  • Nov 16, 20111:17 am
    by Joe Dumars

    Reply

    Obviously someone still wants to be overpaid.

    • Nov 16, 201111:30 am
      by Laser

      Reply

      You can’t possibly be the real Joe Dumars, because here we are in the same room and my boot isn’t covered in your brains!

      • Nov 16, 20115:08 pm
        by Joe Dumars

        Reply

        Just for that comment i’m going to trade two 1st rd picks and monroe for baron davis when the lockout is over.

        • Nov 16, 20115:55 pm
          by Laser

          Reply

          *GASP*
           
          This trade is so unconscionably bad that it’s not even ALLOWED, due to the gross discrepancy in salaries being exchanged. It MUST be the real you!

        • Nov 16, 20118:15 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          And then give Stuckey a max deal and mandate that Daye be given the starting center job.

  • Nov 16, 20117:44 am
    by detroitpcb

    Reply

    Amnesty please.

  • Nov 16, 201111:00 am
    by Normal2

    Reply

    My sources tell me..who am I?, you know dang well I don’t have any sources.  I’m not on either side, I just want to see the Pistons play ball again.  From what I’m seeing in my own personal view and analysis, It’s not about the money anymore…well, not that much.  The players went down to 50% in my understanding.  They already gave up the money, but their not willing to give up their freedom so easily.  Think about it.  Carmello, Denver and NY.  Look at what’s going on with D-Howard and Orlando and LA.   I don’t count Lebron or Bosh Because they were Free Agents so it was their choice to go to the Heat after they fulfilled their contracts.
     
    With this new system in place, that freedom is going to be shot.  This is why the Super Star players in the NBA is hard lining it also.  Think about it.  I don’t know all the detail so you will have to look it up for yourself to get that but to my knowledge from what I’ve been hearing and reading, if a team goes over the L-Tax they won’t be able to sign and trade players to a certain extent.  Not only that, the L-Tax will be so high that those teams will be unwilling to sign free agents.  Now just imagine if it was 10 teams in the L-Tax and 40 free agents.  That means, in order for the free agent’s to get paid near their worth, that means that’s 10 less team they can look at during free agency, if they want to get a good contract.  Now just imaging if they’re 15 teams in the L-Tax and 50 free agents..some players are going to be left out of the loop or are not going to be getting paid a handsome amount playing for an L-Tax team. 
     
    You know what that means; the Superstar’s of the leagues are not going to be able to get the help they were accustomed too.  This is what I believe the players are fighting over and what they meant by Hard Cap and system issues.  I could be wrong in all of this but this is just my own analysis of what’s going on after really listening to the players.  The owners are trying to get paid and restrict the players movement.  They players says…here take the money but you won’t be taking our freedom.   Let’s just play some ball!!..haha

    • Nov 16, 20119:06 pm
      by ds

      Reply

      There were several items that would have hurt a lot of players. I think this has more to do with the rank and file than the superstars.
      1. The crazy rule about to sending players to the d-league where they’d only make 75k. Would you take a job where your owner could decide to give you a huge pay cut like that?
      2. The mid-level – while I don’t really appreciate it as a fan, these guys work really hard to get to the NBA and many only work a few years. 5 million / year is a ton of money, but if you only work a handful of years… then that has to last you for a long time. These guys hope for one big payday. The owners want to cut what they ‘hope for’ from 30 Million to 9 Million – that’s going to have a very emotional impact.
      3. In general, the system rules really seemed to shrink the middle class and limit the freedom of everyone to move.
      I have a lot more sympathy for the players – I think the owners were way too greedy.
      Derek

      • Nov 16, 201110:38 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        The fact of the matter is that every one of those players you mentioned who would be hurt by the deal are players who are losing their teams money. By that I mean that what they are being paid is more than what their presence on the team is bringing in as revenue. All those possibilities for paycuts make sense because they basically say that if you are given a contract based on what level you can be expected to perform at but then you vastly underperform, you stand to lose some of that money. Players who are generating income for the league will continue to be underpaid. Of course, it would make sense for the proposal to throw in a clause allowing vastly overperforming players to get a pay boost within their contracts as well.

        • Nov 17, 20119:38 am
          by ds

          Reply

          I don’t disagree – but from a player’s perspective, there are being asked to give up a lot. It is really hard to stop overpaying someone. If the players are giving up $300 million a year then it seems like overkill to also demand that owners can also get out of contracts that they (the owners) deem are under-performing.

          The BRI and system are tied together – and the players have been pretty consistent that if they go to 50 / 50 BRI, then they don’t want a ton of system changes. If the owners want more protection in contracts then they need to back off on the BRI. IMO.

          • Nov 17, 201111:10 am
            by tarsier

            I understand how it would feel like to the players like they are giving up $300M or whatever a season. But fact is that they aren’t. The old CBA is gone. If you get laid off from a job making $50K/yr and get a new one making $40K/yr, you arent giving up $10K/yr because the old job is no longer an option to you. The terms of the old CBA are not even on the table. So comparisons to them are irrelevant even if they are natural to us as humans.

            Also, a certain percentage of the BRI will probably continue to become a better deal to the players as time goes on as long as the league keeps working towards expansion (in terms of more international markets, not necessarily more teams). Because that means both costs and revenues are going up. As players just get a share of revenue but don’t carry part of the burden of cost, that means that their split of the profit will continue to increase. That is how an old CBA that was considered great for owners when signed came to be seen as bad for owners by the end in spite of record high revenue streams.

  • Nov 16, 20113:15 pm
    by Adrià Pagès

    Reply

    I’ve been hearing lots so much about who looses and who “wins” with the lockout and I’m sick with that!!!
    The real loosers of the Lockout are the team’s workers. All of them! Not the owners (who are rich enough to survive) or the players (who can go anywhere – any team around the world would sign them) neither the fans (Yes, we love basketball, but we don’t eat of it).  THE LOOSERS ARE THE NORMAL WORKERS, the guys that now don’t have their jobs and maybe they won’t for a year or so!!!!
    They should have some voice in this lockout, and we should never forget about them!

  • Nov 17, 20112:20 am
    by Shane

    Reply

    Hey Dan/the mods of this site.. is it possible to make a forum for people to talk about random piston related topics?

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here