The Official CBA Thread

[Underdog]

Always gotta be OFFICIAL with these threads... I was going to post it in the Around The NBA sub-forum, but I figured Mavs trade scenarios and cap moves will eventually leak their way into the discussion, so the General Mavs Discussion is probably more fitting...

I'm going to kick this thread off with a slice from a Bill Simmons article that was posted after Game 5, but there's a lot of meat & potatoes concerning the CBA in this, so enjoy!

Basketball is at its peak right now — too bad it's about to fall off a cliff

link

On Tuesday and Wednesday at the Hilton Anatole in Dallas, in a massive conference room that could have doubled as one half of a basketball court, an eclectic group of maybe 40 people convened to determine whether the NBA would play next year. The combined worth in the room was roughly 10 kajillion dollars. There were owners, lawyers, players, league and union officials, and of course, David Stern and Adam Silver, the two men with the most to lose.

You may have noticed this, but the NBA is back. Not since Michael Jordan was coughing up mucus on Ahmad Rashad in Utah has the league been this compelling: personified by its incredible 2011 Finals, currently riding a four-game "Games That Will Be Shown On ESPN Classic" streak. The NBA has more marketable stars than every other American team sport combined. Its three biggest markets (Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago) feature three playoff teams, five of the best 15 players, the reigning MVP (Derrick Rose), one of the 10-best players ever (Kobe Bryant), and the league's most exciting young star (Blake Griffin). Its signature franchise (Miami) has been the single most polarizing American sports team since … since … (wait, has there ever been a more polarizing American sports team?). Even better, the league has gravitated toward an NFL-type model in which fans watch playoff games no matter who's involved, as we found out during the Oklahoma City-Memphis series.

Internationally, the league has never been stronger: It's the only American sports league that attracts stars from every corner of the world. Digitally, the league has been light years ahead of everyone else, embracing the revolution and staying ahead of the curve with social media and video content. It's also spent the past two decades carefully (and successfully) selling mostly black players to a mostly white audience, an ongoing conundrum that nearly submarined the league in the late-'70s and early-'80s. Throw in a killer 2011 Finals and everything looks fantastic on paper … except for the part that the league is losing money.

Unlike the NFL, they opened the books and showed everyone exactly how much: $300 million. Why are they losing money?

1. The economy tanked and fans don't have the same disposable income.

2. The secondary ticket market lessened the need to buy season tickets; you can just cherry-pick 10 regular-season games online and skip the other 31.

3. We're slowly learning that fans would rather stay home, watch sports on their crystal-clear HD widescreen and surf the Internet over hauling their asses to a stadium, then pay for (overpriced) parking, (overpriced) mediocre food and drinks, and (overpriced) mediocre tickets.

4. Every state-of-the-art arena built in the past 15 years was built to accommodate as many fans as possible, when actually we're learning this decade that things might need to shift the other way: You need fewer seats, you need as many good seats as possible, and you need to figure out a way to engage fans who aren't close enough to the court (like the Cowboys did with their obnoxiously brilliant video screen).

5. Typing this sentence makes me feel like I'm typing the words, "Michael Cera just beat up one of the Klitschko Brothers," but it's absolutely true: Billy Hunter beat David Stern on the last two labor deals.

You know how I know this? Because the players made $2.1 billion dollars this year … and again the owners lost $300 million. Hold on, I have their $300 million right here: Vince Carter ($17.5m), Richard Hamilton ($12.5m), Baron Davis ($13m), Jose Calderon ($9m), Gilbert Arenas ($17.7m), Rashard Lewis ($19.6m), Michael Redd ($18.3m), Matt Carroll ($4.3m), Mike Dunleavy ($10.6m), Jason Kapono ($6.6m), Andrei Kirilenko ($17.8m), Marvin Williams ($7.2m), Jared Jeffries ($6.8m), Vlad Radmanovic ($6.8m), Hedo Turkoglu ($10.2m), Boris Diaw ($9m), Marcus Banks ($4.8m), Joel Pryzbilla ($7.4m), TJ Ford (8.5m), Darius Songalia ($4.8m), Andris Biedrins ($9m), Yao Ming ($17.7m), Sam Dalembert ($13.4m), Memo Okur ($9.9m), DeSagana Diop ($6.4m), Jermaine O'Neal ($5.7m), Eddy Curry ($11.2m), Dan Gadzuric ($7.2m), Troy Murphy ($11.9m). Boom! Everyone on that list ranges from "violently overpaid" to "brazenly stole money and hasn't been arrested yet."

You tell me: Should a professional sports league be stuck in a situation in which T.J. Ford is guaranteed $8.5 million, and Peter Holt (owner of the Spurs, the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference this season) is guaranteed to lose $8.5 million or more? Probably not. They need to fix it. Hunter's team agrees, to a degree: They're fine with shortening long-term contracts (you will never see one longer than four years again), and they're fine with making it more difficult for stars to jump franchises (even if it means abolishing the sign-and-trade rule). They're even fine with giving back a little money, as well as the owners' plan to frame Lewis and Arenas for murders so they can void their contracts. It's just about finding middle ground. If the players made $400 million less last season and the owners shared revenue with each other a little better, everyone would have made money. On paper, this seems really, really, really, really, really, really simple.

So why is it so hard? Why are we 20 days away from that self-imposed June 30 deadline with no real momentum? Where is the urgency? Why did Derek Fisher, the head of the National Basketball Players Association, decide that his family vacation was more important than a fairly crucial labor meeting in Miami last week? And why doesn't anyone realize that the league will absolutely shut things down on July 1 if there's no agreement? This isn't like what's happening in the NFL, where both sides are staring each other down like two assholes fighting over the last Maybach in a Mercedes dealership because they literally can't figure out how to split up the hundreds of millions they're making. The NBA infrastructure is fundamentally flawed right now: Superstars shouldn't be able to hold free agency over their teams' heads like an anvil; frauds like Eddy Curry shouldn't be able to cash eight-figure paychecks for six straight years with no repercussions; and idiotic owners and front offices need to be protected from themselves because teams knew we were heading for a hard salary cap and still splurged for the likes of Channing Frye, Drew Gooden, Josh Childress, and Mike Conley.

It's like a big jigsaw puzzle: You can see all the pieces, they all make sense, but it's impossible to figure out how to assemble them. I am cautiously optimistic only because this is David Stern's last rodeo; it just seems incomprehensible that the final chapter of his legacy would be, "LOCKED OUT THE PLAYERS, LOST ALL THE MOMENTUM FROM A FANTASTIC SEASON, TURNED FANS AGAINST THE LEAGUE." He wants to set up Adam Silver to succeed in his place; he wants to make sure no franchises fold on his watch (a genuine source of pride for him, a streak that has extended to 27 years); and he doesn't want to be remembered by his owners like NFL owners remember Paul Tagliabue, who sold them out and left money on the table just because he wanted to get one final deal done and get the hell out of there. Stern also cares about the smaller market owners — particularly the Maloofs (he still calls them "the boys"), Peter Holt (the most respected NBA owner, as well as the head of the labor committee), Minnesota's Glen Taylor (the other bigwig on the labor committee), and Michael Jordan (no need to explain) — and wants to make sure they're protected going forward.

An underrated difference between the NBA and NFL: In the NFL, three greedy billionaire megalomaniacs (Bob Kraft, Jerry Richardson, and Jerry Jones) have controlled the owners' side of the labor talks, while Roger Goodell has been exposed as a glorified puppet, a talking Ken doll who plays the media brilliantly but has no real juice at all. Any time you have the selfish interests of three people representing 30, you're headed for trouble — especially in a league in which wealthy people buy teams for the same reason that they'd purchase an obscenely lavish yacht. You have to see my new boat, it's fantastic! The NBA works differently; its owners are more interactive, more accountable, more diverse, more available, more hands-on. They have more at stake because, unlike the NFL (where the money just pours in), you can never feel safe when you're owning an NBA team … not when the league dramatically ebbs and flows depending on the quality of its superstars, not during this economy, and not when it's becoming more and more unclear why anyone would want to attend more than eight to 10 regular-season games per year unless they had fantastic seats.

The NFL lockout concerns me more because the league's owners haven't put real thought into it. They're just greedy. You can't predict what will happen in a situation when the only motivating factor is greed; it's like trying to predict the weather. The reasons for an NBA lockout (or, the threat of it) feel much more genuine. For instance, let's say you had a son in kindergarten who wasn't reading at the same level as everyone else. That's a problem. But it's a fixable problem. You could read with him every night, find him a tutor, work on him with his letters … as long as he's not dyslexic, the kid will catch up to everyone else, as long as you spend the time.

Now, let's say that you didn't do anything. And let's say your kid is now in the fourth grade, and he still can't read or write very well. That's a real problem. You're going to have to work three times harder to get him up to speed, and only because you blew it by not taking care of it sooner.

That's where the NBA is sitting right now, in the kindergarten stage … and they have to take care of it now. Which is why we will have a lockout if they don't. And look, I hate bringing this up during such an astonishingly compelling Finals, but it's impossible NOT to think about this stuff. Professional basketball, potentially, is one or two games away from disappearing for a while. That's why those games are so important: The more momentum we have, the harder it will be for both sides to walk away on June 30. You never want to leave a hot blackjack table. Ever. Keep the cards coming, keep the drinks coming, keep the run going. It's the only way. You don't leave. And yet that's what they would be doing with a lockout in three weeks.

So as fans, we have more at stake with these last two Finals games than anyone in the series. We need one or two more killer games. We need more momentum, higher ratings, more drama, more everything. The better this goes, the harder it will be for everything to stop. Keep your fingers crossed.

[Underdog]

NBA owners yield on guaranteed deals in talks

link

NEW YORK -- In a somewhat conciliatory gesture, NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday during the latest round of collective bargaining negotiations to replace the labor agreement that expires at the end of this month.

The players welcomed the move but cautioned there was still a wide gulf to be bridged. The sides are still hundreds of millions of dollars apart on how to split revenues, and the owners are still asking for a hard salary cap system.

Another labor meeting is set for next Tuesday, and commissioner David Stern said the onus will be on the players to make a new economic proposal.

"The time to have an optimistic or pessimistic view is at the close of the day Tuesday. That's an important day," Stern said after the sides met for nearly five hours. "Time is running out, but both parties seem, at least to me, intent to make a deal by June 30."

The question of guaranteed contracts has been called a "blood issue" in the past by union director Billy Hunter, and the owners had earlier proposed a new system in which all contracts would contain only partial guarantees.

But that proposal was taken off the table Tuesday, with the owners agreeing to continue with the current system in which guarantees on individual contracts are a negotiable issue on a case-by-case basis.

"Every move is important, but if there is still a hard cap, it is not as significant," union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said.

Still, the day began with the sides far apart on three issues -- the split of revenues, the type of salary-cap system the league will operate under and the question of contract guarantees -- and ended with one of those items crossed off the list.

How to resolve the sides' remaining differences remains a puzzle, and the key will be the almighty dollar -- or, more specifically, the split of those dollars.

"One piece controls several hundred thousand pieces, so essentially we could put together a million-piece puzzle in a very short time if we can get two or three pieces in the right place, and that's what we're focused on doing," union president Derek Fisher said.

Owners are seeking to redefine the calculation of basketball-related income, the pile of net revenues of which the players, under the current system, are guaranteed 57 percent.

The union has offered to drop that guarantee, but it has been unable to agree with the owners on either a formula for a recalculated BRI or the percentage of those revenues that each side would get under the terms of a new deal.

"Everyone is a little frustrated," said Maurice Evans of the Washington Wizards, a member of the union's executive council. "We feel like they're trying to give us things that we already have.

"But are we committed to trying to hammer out a deal and see their perspective? Yes, we are," Evans said.

Stern said each side has presented three formal proposals plus one informal proposal, and he said the owners decided to yield on the issue of guaranteed contracts because of the significance several players placed on that issue during the course of negotiations over the past 18 months.

"I would say we're not on the same page right now, but there's some good conversations going on, and both sides are trying to come to an agreement. We'll see what happens," said Carmelo Anthony of the New York Knicks, who is not a member of the union's negotiating committee. "It was a must that I came to this meeting, just for me to sit in there in the position I'm in and with the stature I have."

Prior to the meeting, which began at noon ET at a hotel across the street from league headquarters, Hunter said the players wanted to see a more reasonable split of revenues put forth by the owners, who are proposing a 10-year agreement in which certain changes would be phased in.

The sides ended Friday's meeting still in disagreement on exactly how much of a financial sacrifice the players are being asked to make. In their early proposals, owners demanded a reduction of some $750 million to $800 million in player salaries from the $2.1 billion that players earned in the 2010-11 season. The union maintains that is still the case, whereas Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver contend the owners have scaled back those demands considerably.

Absent more tangible signs of progress Tuesday, the sides are expected to dig in their heels for what would be the league's first work stoppage since the summer of 1998 -- a lockout that lasted into February of 1999 before a truncated 50-game season was played.

"Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to," Stern said. "The clock is ticking and the runway is shortening."

Hunter indicated there is a growing belief that a group of hard-line owners are dictating the pace and tone of the negotiating process.

"The owners appear to be pretty unified in their position," Hunter told ESPN.com. "If I had to say who, I'd probably say the small markets are driving. Because if you look at the big markets -- Chicago, L.A., New York -- they're making tons of money. So it's not an issue with them, it's an issue of the smaller markets. I think that David (Stern), if he feels the climate is right within the room and there is a deal to be made, then David still has enough sway to make the deal. But I'm not sure that's an easy move on their part."

Also Friday, the league told the players that this weekend it would be canceling its Las Vegas Summer League, which would have started in early July. Silver stressed that was simply a function of the calendar, not a threat to the players.

Progress?

[Underdog]

And in a completely foreseeable move:

NBA cancels Las Vegas Summer League

link

NEW YORK -- The NBA has told the players that it will cancel its Las Vegas Summer League for 2011. An announcement will be made during the weekend.

The Vegas Summer League, which would have run for nine days beginning in early July at Cox Pavilion and the Thomas & Mack Center, has been in operation since 2004.

Speaking after the latest round of collective bargaining negotiations, deputy commissioner Adam Silver stressed that the cancellation of the Vegas league was simply a function of the calendar, not a threat to the players.

The NBA's labor agreement expires June 30. Owners and the players association are still hundreds of millions of dollars apart on how to split revenues, and the owners are still asking for a hard salary cap system.

[jthig32]

I really can't even muster up the energy to read about the negotiations yet. I have no hope. There's going to be an extended lockout.

BTW, make no mistake, as Mavs fans we should be rooting for the players here. The last thing we want is a hard cap taking away one of our biggest advantages.

[Underdog]

NBA players worry about fans

link

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- NBA players who just finished a season capped by the highest rated championship series in more than a decade are concerned about how their labor dispute and a potential work stoppage before next season will affect their surging fan base.

Luke Walton said the packed road arenas the Los Angeles Lakers played in this season suggest the league's popularity is at a high point, and he's most concerned about how fans would respond if the labor issues aren't resolved and cause a delay to the start of the next season.

"The idea of the lockout and losing fans is probably the scariest thing of all," the eight-year veteran said. "Even moreso than missing games or losing out on your salary for however long you lose those games, it's losing the fan support because it's at an all-time high right now."

The numbers bear it out.

All three networks that televise NBA games reported a huge increase in viewers, led by a 42 percent increase for TNT. ABC had 38 percent more viewers, and ESPN had 28 percent more.

Arena capacity was 90.3 percent, its seventh straight year of 90 or better, and the 17,306 average was up 1 percent from last year and is the fifth highest in the league's history.

With the emergence of Derrick Rose as the league MVP, young teams in Oklahoma City and Memphis rising up to challenge traditional powers such as the Lakers and NBA champion Dallas Mavericks, and even the New York Knicks on the rise with the addition of Carmelo Anthony, the league seems to have as many viable contenders as in recent memory, which adds to its allure.

To stop the momentum with a lockout that fans might perceive as a selfish battle between already rich greedy owners and greedy players, Walton said, would be taking a huge risk.

"We know how dangerous it can be. We've seen it happen before. We've seen it happen in our sport with the last lockout. We saw it happen in baseball, hockey, and it's damaging," he said at the NBPA's annual Top 100 camp for elite high school players. Walton was taking part in a coach program for players at the camp, which wraps up Sunday at the University of Virginia.

"The popularity is at the top," he said. "It's high, and the ratings were record-breaking the last few years, and from the fans' perspective, the owners make a ton of money and are very wealthy, and the players make a ton of money and are very wealthy, so its kind of hard for them to sympathize with either side when these guys are hard-working people trying to make it and they're spending their hard-earned money on tickets and merchandise and all that stuff."

Walton isn't the only one.

"We would probably lose fans if we have a work stoppage," said Royal Ivey of the Oklahoma City Thunder, who said he came to the camp "to get my feet wet" in the coaching program.

The Grizzlies' Tony Allen also was taking part in the coaching program, and while he said a work stoppage would "put a needle in the balloon" of momentum, he sees a rather simple solution.

Financial restraint by management.

"If you're a GM, you've got to be smarter with your money," he said, echoing a thought career scoring leader Kareem Abdul-Jabbar voiced Friday. "If you don't want to give a guy $197 million and you believe he's only worth 60 percent of that, sign him for just 60 percent of it."

Abdul-Jabbar, who highlighted the importance of education in his chat with the campers, said he understands why fans won't be sympathetic to arguments over enormous amounts of money.

"There's a lot of guys that are overpaid, and that's another issue that the owners need to deal with because certain people are overpaid and that's ballooning the salaries to the point where the owners can't recoup their investment," the Lakers' assistant coach said.

"Everybody should be able to feel satisfied. The players should feel satisfied that they are getting paid adequately and the owners should feel satisfied that they are getting a good return on their investment," he continued. "In a perfect world, that's how it will end up."

.

[sefant77]

I really have no idea how they wanna introduce a hard cap in a "fair" way.

You have teams like the Heat that shipped quasi the entire roster out to use the last summer before the new CBA to sign players with a guaranteed salary of 76m in 14-15 but will complain if they cut the MLE and they wont be able to sign a quality player.

And you have teams like Lakers, Mavs, Magic with a big payroll that gonna complain if they wont be able to re-sign player...

[Scott McGuire]

I think with guaranteed contracts back on the table that there cannot be a hard cap. I don't think any team is willing to put themselves in a situation where they can't bird rights their star player because of a hard cap. If it were like the NFL and you could cut anyone at anytime then I could see a hard cap.

I think this is great news for us. In the end I see maximum 4 year contracts, no more mid level exemptions, lowered cap number and lowered luxury tax numbers.

The domino of guaranteed contracts is great news for the players and thus big pocketbook teams like the Mavs.

[OSUmavsfan]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...own/index.html

I would paste it in here, but it's just incredibly long. Still, it's a really good breakdown of the CBA situation by David Aldridge.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

I think with guaranteed contracts back on the table that there cannot be a hard cap. I don't think any team is willing to put themselves in a situation where they can't bird rights their star player because of a hard cap. If it were like the NFL and you could cut anyone at anytime then I could see a hard cap.

I think this is great news for us. In the end I see maximum 4 year contracts, no more mid level exemptions, lowered cap number and lowered luxury tax numbers.

The domino of guaranteed contracts is great news for the players and thus big pocketbook teams like the Mavs.

Yea, once you guarantee deals, would be incredibly difficult to implement a hard cap. I think most of the simple things are done, it looks like they'll use the same system with shorter max years to start. I think the owners gave in on the guaranteed deals because they want to scale back the salaries and BRI, thus putting a bit more in their pockets.

[Mavsfan4ever]

I do not see any way we avoid the lockout by July 1st. On the other hand I'm optimistic the owners will back off the hard cap when things are all said and done.

This is bad for the league while it will not drive off the hardcore fans such as those of us who post here I see the fair weather fans losing interest.

[GP]

Wow! Those articles read like the owners have already conceded all of their best positions. They really, really need to get rid of or limit guaranteed contracts. Amazingly, there have been a lot of players who cash in and then just quit playing hard. There has got to be a way to deal with that situation. Maybe when signing a free agent they get 2 guaranteed years and then the remainder of the contract becomes guaranteed upon reaching certain milestones.

The elite players like Dirk, LeBron, Kobe, etc. are never a problem. They live up to their contracts, play hurt, pack the arenas, promote the team and just do a darned good job. It is the guys that come into the league and get 3 guaranteed years just for being picked. It is the guys who sign those mid level deals and then check out later. Those guys are problems to me.

Personally, I think they ought to have both a hard cap and a hard minimum but player salaries are hardly the problem. Lots of teams are losing money because they fail to build competitive clubs and have no incentive to do this. Lots of teams play the lottery card year after year. I think the draft lottery contributes to a lot of this. Good NBA players like Sasha Pavlovic often can't get work while some "prospect" gets guaranteed money. There are a lot of bad basketball teams that have no interest in being good.

The NBA needs to take away the disincentive and give every team the same chance in the lottery and do this for both rounds. What I am saying is to put 1 ball in the hopper for each team and decide the draft order for all 30 positions in this manner and then do it all again for round 2.

There is just a heck of a lot the league could do to improve the product on the floor. Improve the overall product, limit guaranteed contracts, put hard cap plus hard minimum on salaries, give teams an incentive to play veterans, provide limited revenue sharing to teams and to players. I am sure the players will want a certain % of the profits. If player salaries fall below that % the league could cut each player a check. All players get the same cut. Just some of my ideas.

[aexchange]

I've read that the owners have given up not only on guaranteed contracts, but also on the hard salary cap, which would seem to bode well for the good guys. It will be interesting to see if the owners are able to get franchise player designations into the new CBA and what that does to future player movement.

[Mavsfan4ever]

I have a question if by some slim chance the league avoids the lockout will trade deadline be moved to give teams more time to negotiate?

[Axilla]

as usual i'm in the minority here... but i feel like my motives are pure

totally in favor of a hard cap. in fact i'm in favor of an EXTREMELY LOW hard cap

change this whole culture.

i root for society, rather than rich athletes in this case. owners are owners. they take the risks and write the checks.

[FreshJive]

Society? This is rich people arguing over money. The rest of us just want to watch games. How exactly does the difference between the size of Chandler's paycheck and Cuban's profit margin make a difference in society?

[Scott McGuire]

Extremely low cap? I don't know how that wold make sense. Forcing people to work for a non competitive salary. I believe people have a right to negotiate for the contract they can get.

I don't know what your "pure motives" are, but I doubt you'd like these pure motives applied to your job.

[Lor20]

hard cap obviously cant just be integrated - it'd have to be phased in over say 5 years.

The system is obviously broken. Either you accept that the small market teams will never compete for a championship and get rid of caps completely and let the market govern itself or you put a cap in place where there is a slim profit margin for the owners.

A system where you have a "socialist" cap on total salaries and mostly market driven salary negotiations is pretty difficult to keep up.

If the NBA is honest and really wants to give small market teams a chance to compete for the top talent then they need a hard cap.

But frankly - with endorsement deals etc on the side they still don't have a shot. I mean - when is the last time a small market team won the NBA championship?

If you don't count miami in 2006 - and miami isn't truly a small market -i suppose you got to go back to 1971 when the Milwaukee bucks took it.

[Maringa]

Maximum 2 year guaranteed salaries with 2-3 year team options (for a total of 4-5 year contracts). If team does not extend option, then they can't resign that particular player for a minimum of years remaining on the original contract...(this would keep teams from releasing player and trying to resign at a lower salary).

[FreshJive]

Originally Posted by Lor20

hard cap obviously cant just be integrated - it'd have to be phased in over say 5 years.

The system is obviously broken. Either you accept that the small market teams will never compete for a championship and get rid of caps completely and let the market govern itself or you put a cap in place where there is a slim profit margin for the owners.

A system where you have a "socialist" cap on total salaries and mostly market driven salary negotiations is pretty difficult to keep up.

If the NBA is honest and really wants to give small market teams a chance to compete for the top talent then they need a hard cap.

But frankly - with endorsement deals etc on the side they still don't have a shot. I mean - when is the last time a small market team won the NBA championship?

If you don't count miami in 2006 - and miami isn't truly a small market -i suppose you got to go back to 1971 when the Milwaukee bucks took it.

Spurs?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

Spurs?

I just about to bring them up - San Antonio is proof-positive that smaller markets can stay competitive IF they have competent owners...

Honestly, this lockout should be less about "players vs. owners" and more about "good owners vs. bad owners" because it's definitely the bad owners who are responsible for the bad contracts that are losing them money...

[Kidd Karma]

I'd actually like to see the maximums scaled back, that more or less fights against the LTCs, I mean going form 5-6 years drop it to 3-4 years, then again with that comes probably a lot of movement. Drop the max dollars, MLE, just drop everything 25%. I'd actually give an incentive to players reaching the playoffs and every round there after, say for a playoff series win, you get X amount of dollars and so forth. I woudn't put it into the next CBA, but something they should consider, each time they drop the max dollars.

[j0Shi]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

I'd actually give an incentive to players reaching the playoffs and every round there after, say for a playoff series win, you get X amount of dollars and so forth. I woudn't put it into the next CBA, but something they should consider, each time they drop the max dollars.

That's what they do in European Soccer a lot.

I also agree on cutting the max salary. They earn enough (imho ... as I don't earn that much and probably never will be). Only thing you don't want is European teams to outbid NBA teams. But that's unlikely even with a significant cut. The best paid athlete in European basketball earns ~5.0 million right now according to this site.
Plus I would say the biggest stars do actually make a lot money with advertising contracts more than anything. So why bother?

And helping the smaller markets to stay competitive is a huge thing to me. In Europe you don't have any cap in any sport. So bigger markets can spend more money to gather more talent. As you might now there is a lively debate on fan hate going on right now and it's certainly interesting that it started with, maybe for the first time in NBA history, three stars blatantly lining up (like they do in Europe all the time). Over here the fan base is much more aggressive and violent. They use to call it passion but it's really more than that. Fan chants are much more insulting, objects are thrown on the court to hurt players/referees and stuff. Not every gameday but multiple times over the course of a season. This especially happens when small market teams play the bigger ones. You certainly don't want that in American Sports.
I think to some degree in Europe that's because fans get frustrated when they realize that other teams are better just because they can spend more money. And history says that the underprivileged will always fight the establishment. And "fight" would have to be taken literally at worst.

[Lor20]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

Spurs?

san antonio has 2.1 mio people in the metro area. That is more medium market than small. But I agree - the spurs have made the most of the smallest market in the last 20 years.
Popovich has been great and they had a string of good luck: Getting the #1 pick to select duncan, and totally got lucky with ginobili at 57 and parker at 28.

They have definitively done a good job - but if they don't get the #1 pick with their third worst record in 1997 they probably have 0 banners instead of 4.

[OSUmavsfan]

Originally Posted by Lor20

san antonio has 2.1 mio people in the metro area. That is more medium market than small. But I agree - the spurs have made the most of the smallest market in the last 20 years.
Popovich has been great and they had a string of good luck: Getting the #1 pick to select duncan, and totally got lucky with ginobili at 57 and parker at 28.

They have definitively done a good job - but if they don't get the #1 pick with their third worst record in 1997 they probably have 0 banners instead of 4.

Well none of the "small market" teams are actually in small markets. But compared to the competition, San Antonio is definitely a smaller market team. The only NBA cities that are smaller media markets are OKC, Memphis, and New Orleans.

http://www.tvjobs.com/cgi-bin/markets/market2.cgi

Getting Duncan was certainly very lucky, but I think you'd have to credit their front office on drafting and keeping Parker and Ginobili. There are probably some front offices that would have failed to capitalize on the situation.

[FreshJive]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I just about to bring them up - San Antonio is proof-positive that smaller markets can stay competitive IF they have competent owners...

Honestly, this lockout should be less about "players vs. owners" and more about "good owners vs. bad owners" because it's definitely the bad owners who are responsible for the bad contracts that are losing them money...

Yep. The Clippers aren't failures because they lack potential customers.

Lor20, there is no reason any market smaller than New Orleans should have a team. There is a D league for that. There are enough existing larger markets without teams. OKC seems to have no problem paying Durant and surrounding him with talent. The players shouldn't be forced to accept lower salaries just so Omaha, Nebraska can field an NBA team.

[Mavsfan4ever]

Maybe I'm viewing this wrong, but doesn't a hard cap hurt the small market teams even more? I just think if you already have a hard time attracting big name talent it will be even harder to attract a superstar when you can not afford to place top talent around him.

[Lor20]

Originally Posted by Mavsfan4ever

Maybe I'm viewing this wrong, but doesn't a hard cap hurt the small market teams even more? I just think if you already have a hard time attracting big name talent it will be even harder to attract a superstar when you can not afford to place top talent around him.

well - right now with all the exceptions the bigger market teams can spend a lot of extra money without losing money.

LA and Dallas spent around 90 mil on salaries even though the cap was around 60 last season. if everyone can only spend 50 mil a year obviously the whole market will have to adjust. cant pay your top guy 25 mil (kobe) and surround him with talent anymore.
the heat big three together will be around 50 mil next season so a hard cap would mean they'd have to blow it up or play with 3 guys on the floor.

[Lor20]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

Yep. The Clippers aren't failures because they lack potential customers.

Lor20, there is no reason any market smaller than New Orleans should have a team. There is a D league for that. There are enough existing larger markets without teams. OKC seems to have no problem paying Durant and surrounding him with talent. The players shouldn't be forced to accept lower salaries just so Omaha, Nebraska can field an NBA team.

KD was still on his rookie contract this year. his pay moves from 6 mil to 13.5 this off season. In fact a lot of OKC is on rookie contracts that are pretty low. they realistically have another 2, possibly 3 seasons with the same core of players before they want their pay days and OKC will have to let some of their guys go.

[FreshJive]

Yes but they gave him his extension, and also had the confidence in thier financial situation to trade for Perkins and give him an extension as well.

[jcm28]

Hard cap sucks. Im actually a fan of the unlimited cap that euro sports use, but the Lakers (and us) would abuse of it.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by Mavsfan4ever

Maybe I'm viewing this wrong, but doesn't a hard cap hurt the small market teams even more? I just think if you already have a hard time attracting big name talent it will be even harder to attract a superstar when you can not afford to place top talent around him.

No it doesn't the only advantage is for off the court pay outs, Nike, ads etc. I would imagine the NFL style of cap shows equity throughout the league. One year you can own the 1st pick, the next year you're in the playoffs. The issue is making the contracts unguaranteed, you can cut anyone at any time, though there probably would be penalties to hit your cap.

[Underdog]

I have a feeling this is going to be a looooong lockout...

Owners want to keep $160M, union says

link

NEW YORK -- It is not just about future money. It's about past money, too.

The union for NBA players spoke out Wednesday about how livid they are that owners are not only asking for $7 to $8 billion in concessions in a proposed new collective bargaining agreement, but also are asking players to give back $160 million that was withheld from their paychecks last season.

The $160 million was collected under the so-called "escrow tax" system to ensure that players received no more than 57 percent of basketball-related income. That money is scheduled to be disbursed to players in August.

"To me, it speaks to the arrogance they have in approaching us," union president Derek Fisher said. "Trust and loyalty pretty much go out the window when it comes to business.

"We haven't been partners in this venture from day one. We've been employees, the talent that has grown the game. It's difficult to be partners in recovery when we haven't been partners in generating those losses."

Commissioner David Stern issued a statement later Wednesday.

"Players have benefited from the current system more than the teams," Stern said. "For them it has been a much better partnership. We are sorry that the players' union feels that way since it doesn't seem designed to get us to the agreement that is so important to the teams, and we had hoped, the players."

In calling the meeting Wednesday on the eve of a meeting of player representatives from all 30 teams, the union sought to gain some measure of control over the public discourse surrounding the negotiations.

Owners made a substantial move off their previous financial position Tuesday in a three-hour bargaining session, offering a guaranteed $2 billion per year in salaries over the life of a 10-year agreement. But the union Wednesday sought to hammer home the point that players are already earning $2.17 billion in salary and benefits under the current system, and they would not surpass that figure under the owners' proposed terms until the 10th year of the proposed 10-year deal.

They also questioned why the owners have not been forthcoming on details of a revenue sharing plan for local television revenues, saying it was fundamentally at odds with the "partnership" ethic the sides have tried to cultivate.

Collective bargaining negotiations will resume Friday in New York, and owners will meet Tuesday in Dallas and could vote to authorize a lockout if a new labor agreement is not reached to replace the one expiring June 30.

Players made a half-billion dollar concession in Tuesday's meeting in proposing a five-year agreement that would keep the current salary cap system but would reduce their share of basketball-related income from 57 percent to 54.6 percent in the first several years of a new labor deal.

According to the union, if the players agreed to the owners' request to return the $160 million in escrow funds, it would have the effect of retroactively reducing their share of basketball-related income for the 2010-11 season from 57 percent to 52.8 percent.

"If we were inclined to do that deal, we would be giving up $8.2 billion over 10 years," union director Billy Hunter said, adding that he has told team owners in the past that the only way the players would agree to a hard salary cap would be if they were guaranteed 60 to 65 percent of basketball-related income. It was the first time Hunter publicly disclosed that he would accept a "hard" cap under any terms.

In one of his bolder comments, Hunter also declared that when Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert promised his fans their team would win a championship before the Miami Heat would, he said those words with the underlying motivation that the rules of the new collective bargaining agreement would preclude the Heat from keeping their core of three superstars together.

"Gilbert's ambition, when speaking post-LeBron, was to split the Heat up in the new system," Hunter said.

In total, the union's actions Wednesday were meant to placate the growing notion that a settlement is near, while also calling attention to the size of the financial concessions the owners are seeking.

"A lot of players are calling thinking we've gotten beyond the flex-cap issue, and that's just not true," Fisher said, adding that when the sides' respective positions are spelled out in greater detail to players, the tone of the conversations shift.

"Guys are in total disbelief and are asking 'Why are we even meeting?'" Fisher said.

Hunter added that the sides still have a litany of issues still to discuss, and it could take a month or more to resolve those differences. He and Fisher also said the owners are seeking a 10-year deal in order to reap windfall profits after a new television rights deal is negotiated following the 2015-16 season.

"It makes no sense to do a 10-year deal. We haven't signed off on that. It doesn't make sense on any level," Fisher said.

[GP]

Underdog that last post of yours is kind of disheartening. They do know that teams on the financial precipice will cut salary and field bad teams that are cheap? This will hurt the revenue of other teams as well and it will snowball. In a time where they need to enhance the product on the court they are insuring that it will be degraded. I think they are going to lose the salary regardless of the CBA and then if that doesn't work we all know what happens next and teams like the Hornets employ a lot more than just 15 basketball players. Not good.

[bernardos70]

Offtopic, but I'm glad we won the title now. Get that out of the way before this whole mess f*cks everything up.

[Thespiralgoeson]

It seems to me like owners are really the players' collective b*tches so far. Makes sense, because the players are completely united, whereas I seriously doubt the owners are. They might say they all want the same things publicly, but there's just no way owners like Cubes, Jerry Buss, and James Dolan want the same things that smaller market owners want.

The owners have given up so much ground already. Seems to me like they fear the lockout more than the players do. I tend to agree with the view put forth by some already that when it's all said and done the system won't have changed much. Shorter contracts, a BRI split that doesn't favor the players so heavily, and probably no more MLE (although I would imagine something different would be put in its place.)

I can't imagine Bird rights and sign-and-trade exceptions are going anywhere. They might change a bit, but they're not going to disappear.

[sefant77]

"To me, it speaks to the arrogance they have in approaching us," union president Derek Fisher said. "Trust and loyalty pretty much go out the window when it comes to business.

"We haven't been partners in this venture from day one. We've been employees, the talent that has grown the game. It's difficult to be partners in recovery when we haven't been partners in generating those losses."

I think Fisher missed all the Eddy Currys etc that got their contract and decided they dont have to work hard anymore...

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by sefant77

I think Fisher missed all the Eddy Currys etc that got their contract and decided they dont have to work hard anymore...

Yep, let's try placing these players in positions where they're handing out guaranteed 4-5 year contracts to employees of their non basketball business ventures and see what is made of it.

[dalger]

Assuming that it's true that 22 out of 30 teams lost money last season and the NBA has to deal with a $300 million deficit, I think that the union's proposal to reduce the players' collective salaries by $100 million per year isn't going to cut it. Savings of not even $3.5 million per team don't make that much of a difference and turn a money-losing franchise into a cash cow. At this point, it seems that it's not even so much about making money for the owners. Instead, it's about finding a way to not pay the players more than $2 billion per year while losing money at the same time. That's simply a bad investment. Granted, the recent offers made by the owners indicate that they want to save AND make money, but that was to be expected in the first rounds of negotiations.

Although it's common sense that friendship ends with money, one would still think that coming to an agreement has to be possible.

- The easiest and least costly way for the players to appease the owners would be to accept shorter contracts. The term "contract year" is infamous around the NBA and certain players deliver big-time performances to get a six-year deal and just mail it in immediately after signing the deal. Contracts that run no longer than four years wouldn't erase the issue, yet they would provide teams with more flexibility and allow them to get rid of those players earlier.

- Keep the bi-annual exception the way it is and turn the mid-level exception into another bi-annual exception worth an annual salary of $5 million without increases. Right now, a five-year MLE contract is worth $32 million. By limiting it to $5 million and four years, a MLE contract would never pay a player more than a total of $20 million.

- Limit the raises a bit. A soft cap is really soft when only two Lakers players (Kobe and Gasol) are set to make a combined $50 million in 2013/14. That's 86% of the current salary cap (58,044,000). One can only imagine what the Lakers payroll would look like in 2013/14 under the current CBA with those two contracts on the books. It's okay for deserving players to benefit from the raises that new contracts and many years in the league provide, however, it does seem a bit excessive these days. Kobe's going to make $30 million as a 36-year-old.

- Due to the ever-increasing salary cap as a result of higher revenues (from $35.5 million in 2000/01 to $58.0 million in 2010/11), there has to be some sort of revenue-sharing system to help out small-market teams and keep them competitive.

- The current 57-43 split of basketball-related income in favor of the players needs to be addressed. The union has already offered a more reasonable 54-46 split.

Even after changes like this, being guaranteed a minimum of something like 52-54% of all basketball-related income would still allow the players to make huge money due to the increasing revenues. The owners themselves said that a new CBA according to their wishes would guarantee the players to never make less than $2 billion per year collectively.

[j0Shi]

http://deadspin.com/5816870/

[Kidd Karma]

I love it, RDA, roster depreciation. I guess that's something the players want to highlight, nice, double expense to avoid taxes. The rich get richer.