• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

THE NBA CBA WATCH (LOCKOUT IS OVER / OWNERS WIN)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
4,770
Reaction score
4,377
Points
113
I figured one of these would be necessary. Tons of ideas already floating, owners wheelin' and dealing' while the players are declinin' and denyin'. Post whatever you can find.


Sources: NBA delayed hard cap in offer

By Marc Stein


The proposal from NBA owners that the NBA Players Association rejected last week called for the implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer.

Sources told ESPN.com this week that the central change made by owners to past collective bargaining proposals called for easing in a more restrictive financial landscape over a three-season cycle as opposed to trying to impose a hard salary ceiling with immediate effect next season.

The league, sources said, regards this as a major concession, since the next two seasons would employ a salary-cap system with luxury-tax penalties not unlike the system currently in place. Teams currently operate with a salary cap of $58 million per franchise, with a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax imposed for every dollar teams spend over the tax threshold of $70.3 million.

Sources said the owners' latest proposal, however, does still call for immediate rollbacks of 15 percent, 20 percent or 25 percent to current contracts depending on salary levels, as part of the league's oft-stated desire to reduce payroll by roughly $800 million leaguewide on an annual basis.

The NBA's ongoing push for such sharp salary reductions, sources said, is what caused the quick rejection from the players' side, with the union also still determined to oppose a hard cap.

The NBA, sources said, likewise hopes to implement even lower salaries for rookies than they currently make based off the league's rookie scale. The league also would like to propose new rules that make it hugely advantageous for marquee players to stay with the teams that draft them.

The new rules would grant teams the ability to offer even more years and dollars to a designated "star" player than current rules allow, heeding the clamor from various small-market teams for such a measure after last summer's free-agent defections of LeBron James and Chris Bosh to Miami and the trades that sent Carmelo Anthony to New York and Deron Williams to New Jersey.


An SI.com report Wednesday said that teams, under the NBA's proposal, would not be able to unilaterally "tag" a player to be their designated star, as NFL teams can by using their "franchise tag" to prevent one chosen player from becoming a free agent. Under the NBA's proposal rejected by the union last week, teams would only be able to designate one player for preferential contract treatment if the player agreed to it.

Another key wrinkle from the rejected proposal, sources said, called for the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.

The league likewise has proposed to eliminate sign-and-trades in the next labor agreement. In a provision conceived by the league to inspire loyalty, teams are presently allowed to pay their own free agents more than anyone else. But that ability to offer a contract one year longer than the competition often has resulted in marquee free agents getting traded to the team they choose in free agency after first signing a larger contract with their original team, as seen with both James and Bosh last summer.

Although the players quickly rejected last week's proposal, sources close to the process have expressed mild optimism about the league's increased willingness to negotiate before the current labor agreement expires June 30.

ESPN.com's Henry Abbott reported Tuesday that Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter have been quietly meeting face-to-face to negotiate on a fairly regular basis. The sides, sources said, met last week in Chicago with staffers from both sides present. The two sides are also set to talk this week in New York.

NBA owners are expected to lock out their players on July 1 if there is no new deal before the June 30 deadline. But against a backdrop of labor strife and ongoing legal action in the NFL, representatives of both the NBA and the players' union have recently softened their public rhetoric.

NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said April 15 that the league's goal is "a system in which all 30 teams can compete, and, if they are well-managed, to make a profit. We have never suggested to the union that there's only one way to accomplish that end."

But players association president Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers, explaining the union's quick dismissal of the league's latest offer, told ESPN.com last week: "Unfortunately, the proposal is very similar to the proposal the league submitted over a year ago. This last proposal doesn't look close to what we were expecting."

The union has pushed for a revenue deal similar to the current one, with Hunter insisting that a hard salary cap would effectively end guaranteed contracts, which he calls "the lifeblood" of professional basketball.

"We've had that right for years, and it's not something we're trying to give up," Hunter has said.


The league recently announced that, in addition to soaring TV ratings this season, 2010-2011 ticket sales were up roughly 1 percent. The union contends that the league's recent surge in popularity might have wiped out the losses caused by the recent recession, but league officials say that their overall loss has been reduced only from $340 million last season to $300 million this season, asserting that 22 of the NBA's 30 teams are losing money.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6530352
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

Well knowing the history of Watch threads with this forum, this doesn't look good.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I actually like all of those proposals. The only thing i'm not big on is the no S&T.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I can't see the rollbacks happening. The players would revolt if they had to give up money from their current contracts.

I also don't like the idea of the hard cap, unless its around $90 million.

The elimination of the sign and trade is interesting. However, what I want to know is does this mean players can still be signed and traded, but they can't get the hometown money? In other words, if they want to join another team, and their current team still wants to get something for them, does the player have to settle for the lower max deal?

Also, letting teams offer even more money and years to their own FAs solves nothing. The Miami situation showed us that these guys are willing to take paycuts, and if a team has to overpay even more to keep players, how does a hard cap make sense?
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

Another key wrinkle from the rejected proposal, sources said, called for the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.

This generally would favor rich teams (or dumb teams who made a bad signing). If this got approved, would it help or hurt the Cavs? Because they're willing to spend, the Cavs seem to be willing to absorb some of those bad contracts (as long good picks/etc. come along with them). Would this briefly take away one of the few advantages they currently have? For example, the Pistons could drop someone like Richard Hamilton without giving away any assets.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I really love the concept of putting in a harsh hard cap after a few seasons then allowing small market teams to blow all their money on one guy. Allowing them to sign for more with no type of exemption ultimately penalizes the team.
Id rather see guaranteed contracts with an injury provision that scales a contract back based on how many games they were available to play and ensured the player was able to get their own doctor for medical clearance if there was a dispute.
There is also no mention of Larry bird rights. If the one contract amnesty takes hold.. Cavs better be grabbing that Iggy contract.
I would like to see how the proposed deal works out for a team like Memphis if they resign Gasol. Since they would have 5 players committed to the hard cap year.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

This generally would favor rich teams (or dumb teams who made a bad signing). If this got approved, would it help or hurt the Cavs? Because they're willing to spend, the Cavs seem to be willing to absorb some of those bad contracts (as long good picks/etc. come along with them). Would this briefly take away one of the few advantages they currently have? For example, the Pistons could drop someone like Richard Hamilton without giving away any assets.
I Believe the amnesty allows them to keep the player but not have the contract count against them but im not familiar with the 2005 provision. If it means the guy is off the roster. The Provision will be worthless for the majority of teams.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

Also, letting teams offer even more money and years to their own FAs solves nothing. The Miami situation showed us that these guys are willing to take paycuts, and if a team has to overpay even more to keep players, how does a hard cap make sense?


It could be HUGE if they went away with guaranteed contracts.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

It could be HUGE if they went away with guaranteed contracts.

I don't like that idea, to be honest. If they went with partially guaranteed, maybe. But fully non-guaranteed will not work.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

This generally would favor rich teams (or dumb teams who made a bad signing). If this got approved, would it help or hurt the Cavs? Because they're willing to spend, the Cavs seem to be willing to absorb some of those bad contracts (as long good picks/etc. come along with them). Would this briefly take away one of the few advantages they currently have? For example, the Pistons could drop someone like Richard Hamilton without giving away any assets.

It will allow teams like the Clippers the room to sign Dwight and CP3 as well. I don't really lie that idea at all. It really just opens up the door to super teams even further.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I don't like that idea, to be honest. If they went with partially guaranteed, maybe. But fully non-guaranteed will not work.

I was thinking of making maybe only two years guaranteed, the rest team options. Maybe three years tops. Then, make the "franchise contract" fully guaranteed for 6 years and for more money. Guys would have to think once or twice about signing with another superstar getting more money. I don't know if Wade/LeBron/Bosh get together and take less money for only two guaranteed years, and certainly don't see LeBron joining Wade (or the other way around) with one of those guys getting "franchise money" while the other is getting far less.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

It will allow teams like the Clippers the room to sign Dwight and CP3 as well. I don't really lie that idea at all. It really just opens up the door to super teams even further.

No, if anything it'll allow teams to cut down contracts to put them exactly below the luxury tax.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I was thinking of making maybe only two years guaranteed, the rest team options. Maybe three years tops. Then, make the "franchise contract" fully guaranteed for 6 years and for more money. Guys would have to think once or twice about signing with another superstar getting more money. I don't know if Wade/LeBron/Bosh get together and take less money for only two guaranteed years, and certainly don't see LeBron joining Wade (or the other way around) with one of those guys getting "franchise money" while the other is getting far less.

That's intriguing, but will the players go for it? I say no.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

This generally would favor rich teams (or dumb teams who made a bad signing). If this got approved, would it help or hurt the Cavs? Because they're willing to spend, the Cavs seem to be willing to absorb some of those bad contracts (as long good picks/etc. come along with them). Would this briefly take away one of the few advantages they currently have? For example, the Pistons could drop someone like Richard Hamilton without giving away any assets.
Hurt. The only bad contracts available would be ones on teams that currently have multiple (cough LOL ORLANDO cough) but that would apply to maybe what....2-3 teams?
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

That's intriguing, but will the players go for it? I say no.

Well, they're posturing right now. So far they've said to make all contracts not guaranteed. . . then they make up a bunch of other ridiculous ideas like allowing owners put incentives in the middle of the season that would cut from a player's contract, easier ways to get the disabled player exception (just examples of extremes). Then they go back to negotiating contracts and say fine, we'll keep injury exceptions how they are and not punish players with incentives, but you have to make contracts only guaranteed for 2-3 years.


Just posturing. . . they started with making no contracts guaranteed, but by the end of all of this the players might concede to 2-3 years max. It just depends on how much the owners want it and how much they're willing to give up for it. I still think there are still a lot of "extremes" and "throw aways" in these talks, once we're near the lockout we'll see both sides start to give up and agree to a lot of stuff.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top