• 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
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

What I mainly dislike about a hard cap - especially a low hard cap - is how it essentially "punishes" a team for drafting well. Take the Blazers for example. What if they had picked Durant instead of Oden? Roy was, at the time, a 100% max player. Durant obviously is too. With a hard cap, Aldridge isn't quite a max player but he'd be really expensive. It'd be essentially impossible to retain all three of those players and still have a legitimate team around them unless the hard cap is very high. Even if they had still picked Oden, if he were able to stay healthy he too would be close to a max player

So again, it basically punishes them. Hey Team X, congrats on having a couple home run drafts! Now you get to relinquish one of your best players if you don't want to have a team half full of vet mins! Seems like a great way to reward quality front offices.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

If it gets that bad, most players will go overseas.

It is bitterness. Cleveland still won't be a desired spot for FA's with a hard cap and it won't change the signees at all. No quality players will be signing in Cleveland unless there is a legitimate young core intact but even then, a hard cap will make it difficult if the Cavs want to retain said young core.

Having an open checkbook is a huge, huge benefit if you want to contend. Not because of free agency, because there is still a soft cap no matter what; but because they essentially never have to let anyone expire. If they wanted to keep the player, they'd utilize bird-rights and re-sign him in the off-season. If they don't see him a part of the future, they'd simply trade him for a player that would help in the future. Basically, much like they've done in the past.

Evening the playing field is just not a good idea for the Cavs IMO. They still wouldn't have any free agency appeal. They would no longer have the benefit of going where many owners won't in regards to the cap. It would basically be them relinquishing their edge.

The NBA as a league lost a ton of money the last few years. their current operating model is simply unsustainable. there isn't anyone around that is going to debate that. NBA contracts are going to be scaled down. it isn't going to lead to a mass exodus to Greece, despite your proclamations of such.

at the end of the day, $$$ still talks. teams that adequately manage their caps will have the ability to sign free agents and pay more to get them. that fact will never change. the cavs won't lose their edge. just about every team that has been competitive the last few years was over the cap in the same fashion as cleveland. a level playing field doesn't change anything.

the hard cap line won't be at $45 million. that is simply the first shot fired in this process. it isn't bitterness, it's having good enough business sense to realize that leveling the playing field gives a market like cleveland the best shot of sustainability than the current operating model. that might not have been the case when lebron was here, but lebron isn't here anymore, and there isn't another lebron on the horizon either.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

What I mainly dislike about a hard cap - especially a low hard cap - is how it essentially "punishes" a team for drafting well. Take the Blazers for example. What if they had picked Durant instead of Oden? Roy was, at the time, a 100% max player. Durant obviously is too. With a hard cap, Aldridge isn't quite a max player but he'd be really expensive. It'd be essentially impossible to retain all three of those players and still have a legitimate team around them unless the hard cap is very high. Even if they had still picked Oden, if he were able to stay healthy he too would be close to a max player

So again, it basically punishes them. Hey Team X, congrats on having a couple home run drafts! Now you get to relinquish one of your best players if you don't want to have a team half full of vet mins! Seems like a great way to reward quality front offices.


and again, max contracts and contracts as a whole are going to be rolled back substantially as part of the new CBA. so what it will cost to retain a top notch player is going to decrease proportionally in the future as well.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

The NBA as a league lost a ton of money the last few years. their current operating model is simply unsustainable. there isn't anyone around that is going to debate that. NBA contracts are going to be scaled down.

I'd love to see evidence that a team that's done everything they can reasonably do to run a solid organization, balance their budget, and run a fiscally sane team is losing money.

Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded, and owners who chose to overspend shouldn't even be considered.
Here's a 2010 list of the teams with player expenses below $64m and their operating income (profit before taxes):

Detroit ($64m): + $31.8 mil
Portland ($64m): + $10.7 mil
OKC ($62m): + $22.6 mil
Nets ($64m): - $10.2 mil
Clips ($62m): + 11 mil
Griz ($59m): -2.6 mil

So basically in 2010 there were only 6 teams who even cared to keep their player expenses anywhere close to the salary cap, and of these teams the most significant losses were from an unwatchable Nets team who was still playing in NJ even after announcing a move to Brooklyn.

Data taken from here:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_New-York-Knicks_328815.html
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I hadn't seen this posted.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=CBA-110517

Chris Sheridan said:
SECAUCUS, N.J. -- At the start of a five-hour collective bargaining discussion on Friday, one of the first people to speak was Gary Hall, the No. 2 official at the NBA players' union. And he spoke, like he usually does, quite bluntly.

"Are you guys going to lock us out?" Hall blurted at San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt.

The question was somewhat provocative, and yet somewhat of an icebreaker, too, in the latest round of small group discussions in which the owners and the players have continued to maintain a healthy dialogue while remaining light years apart on the exact terms of a new collective bargaining agreement.

But the dynamics of those labor discussions were irrevocably changed Monday with the news that Hall, a longtime friend and trusted advisor to union director Billy Hunter, had died unexpectedly late Sunday night or early Monday morning.

Hall was Hunter's right-hand man, the person commissioner David Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver often used as a vehicle to convey certain thoughts and ideas to Hunter, union president Derek Fisher and their lead attorneys.

"Gary was a buddy of mine, actually," Silver said Tuesday night at the NBA draft lottery. "Billy and I have had several long, sort of soulful conversations since Gary passed, and I believe Billy viewed Gary as his best friend in the world, and I think even their relationship, in the same way as I've been working with David for close to 20 years, I think they played off of each other a little bit.

"He was absolutely a key player. I think he also had a great sense of humor, and he helped to keep the meetings light, which is often important in this environment."

Hall, 67, appeared to have died from natural causes, the union said. He worked with Hunter at the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco from 1978 to 1985, then joined the National Basketball Players Association five years ago as lead in-house counsel.

Silver recounted how Hunter and Hall would often regale him and Stern with tales of the cases they prosecuted, including a case involving the cult leader Jim Jones, whose followers committed mass suicide at their compound in South America.

All four men are attorneys, and they used their tales of legal battles from years gone by as a diversion from the business they needed to conduct with each other.

"He had a way of sometimes asking very direct questions that sometimes maybe would go unsaid," Silver said. "But I think Gary was great at breaking the ice from that standpoint, but he was also someone we had enormous confidence and trust in, just based on knowing him as long as we have, and knowing that he and Billy were so close.

"When you have two guys who have worked together as long as they have, we knew that when Gary told us something, he was speaking for Billy as well. We'll work through it, but it shook us from a personal standpoint."

Hall and Silver also had spoken on the phone over the weekend about the scheduling of the next round of formal labor talks during the NBA Finals in either Dallas or Oklahoma City. Silver spoke in a conciliatory, almost optimistic tone about the progress the sides have made from a dialogue standpoint, saying they are exploring new ideas in an effort to achieve the owners' goal of reducing the share of revenues devoted to player salaries and giving all 30 teams an opportunity to be profitable.

Stern has said the NBA is projecting a league-wide loss of $300 million this season despite record-setting attendance and television ratings, claiming only eight of the 30 teams are currently profitable. But the union contends that most of that $300 million is attributable to depreciation expenses, plus interest on loans several owners took out to purchase their teams.

The sides have agreed to disagree on the size and scope of the losses, and they have turned their attention to looking at new ways to split up the $4.2 billion of gross revenues the league currently generates.

The league also is seeking a hard salary cap, the elimination of full guarantees on all contracts, and a 40 percent rollback in salaries fazed in over the first three years of a 10-year deal. The union is seeking to retain most of the current system, saying the changes made since the last work stoppage in 1998-99 have had the desired effect of reducing teams' long-term salary commitments.

But to look at how this deal will finally get settled, it is best to look at it in two parts: The financial negotiation, and the negotiation over the operating system with its current "soft" salary cap. And if the players give on the financial end (and they have already offered to eliminate their guarantee of 57 percent of net revenues), the owners will likely need to give on the other end, resulting in a salary cap system that will likely bear a resemblance to the current model.

And if you operate on that premise, the question becomes: How much money will it take (in the form of revenues shifted from the players to the owners) to reach a suitable middle ground?

One of the few people who could have answered that question with some measure of relative certainty was Hall, who was privy to Hunter's notion of where the settlement in this negotiation likely lies.

Another who could postulate with reasonable accuracy on that question is Silver, who made the strongest statement of the night when he said it would be "irrational" for the owners and players to let their dispute evolve into a lockout -- a statement that was quickly overruled by Stern, who said "irrational" was too strong of a word.

In reality, Silver's choice of words was quite succinct.

These are reasonable men negotiating this deal, and there is too much damage to be done by being unyieldingly unreasonable in negotiations. Stern even acknowledged that the sides are at a better point with six weeks left until the deal expires than they were at a similar point in negotiations in 1998, in part because the union does not have the same type of strong personalities in its leadership ranks as it did back in 1998 when Patrick Ewing was the union president and Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo were on the executive council.

I have predicted -- a prediction shared by very few -- that this negotiation will end with a settlement in the first few days of July, without a lockout being imposed.

Or to put it as bluntly, as Gary Hall might have: These guys are not nuts, and this is not the time to punish the product, demonize the players and dynamite the goodwill and broad interest the sport has generated.

"I think the loss of Gary gives us all a sense of perspective, as well, in these negotiations, and I think it will cause us to redouble our efforts in terms of trying to get a deal done by the deadline," Silver said.

The NBA is on an upward, worldwide growth spurt that shows no signs of abating. It would be stupid to harm it, and the men negotiating this deal are not stupid. Eventually, they have to settle, and it just makes too much sense to settle sooner rather than later.

Interesting to say the least.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I am of the thought that there is no way there is a lock out. The NBA is at an all time popularity globably, they know how long it took baseball to get back after the last strike/lock out. No way will they turn off the money printing presses. Something will be worked out, even if its an ext of this current deal for 1 more year.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

The big difference between 98 and now is a whole galaxy of things.

In 98, struggling attendence and losing the big name stars that were replaced by garbage.

In 98, the playing style resembled some serious crap.

In 98, as pointed out in this thread, there were huge personalities on the players committee

In 98, the league was losing popularity because of the MLB become the biggest thing in the US, along with the rising interest in the NFL.

In 98, the owners probably didn't have these glaring issues that they have now and they are quick fixes.

The biggest thing, though, is an honest proposal and basic honesty from the NBA owners to the players. The owners are losing money, and proved to the players that they used money. Honesty can take things that can be hard and makes them much easier. Imagine if the NFL had honest owners, they would probably not be facing an extended lockout.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

When it comes to opening the books, I don't think any owner in any sport has ever been "honest".
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I'd love to see evidence that a team that's done everything they can reasonably do to run a solid organization, balance their budget, and run a fiscally sane team is losing money.

Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded, and owners who chose to overspend shouldn't even be considered.
Here's a 2010 list of the teams with player expenses below $64m and their operating income (profit before taxes):

Detroit ($64m): + $31.8 mil
Portland ($64m): + $10.7 mil
OKC ($62m): + $22.6 mil
Nets ($64m): - $10.2 mil
Clips ($62m): + 11 mil
Griz ($59m): -2.6 mil

So basically in 2010 there were only 6 teams who even cared to keep their player expenses anywhere close to the salary cap, and of these teams the most significant losses were from an unwatchable Nets team who was still playing in NJ even after announcing a move to Brooklyn.

Data taken from here:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_New-York-Knicks_328815.html

So owners who actually spend money to compete shouldn't be able to change the system...that's what you're saying? You just listed 6 teams out of which only 1 is a contender. Furthermore, looking at the past champions, all have been from teams that have went significantly over the salary cap. So the premise that an owner who spends wildly over the cap is irresponsible only works if you discount the fact that many of them are trying to win titles.

They realize that to win, you have to spend a lot of money in order to compete. So that's what they do. It doesn't make them incompetent. It makes them people who are playing the hands they've been dealt. To win, you have to spend over the cap. That probably means you are going to lose revenue. So the choice is to either not spend and not compete OR spend, compete, and lose revenue.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

Honesty can take things that can be hard and makes them much easier. Imagine if the NFL had honest owners, they would probably not be facing an extended lockout.
businessethics.jpg
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

I asked Larry Coon (The NBA salary cap expert) if the amnesty clause will be in the next labor agreement. He said almost 100% sure thing. He said that this isn’t a sticking point for the players so when a deal is agreed upon this will most likely be in the next CBA.

SEE YA LATER ARENAS
1263563485_dancing_kids.gif
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

A hard salary cap would harm LA and Boston much more than Miami. Also Chicago would be destroyed since they are already at 55 million this year and 64 million next year and they would have to give Rose a max contract eventually on top of that.

Miami is only at 67 million for the next few years- Boston and LA are like at 90 million. Miami has the 22nd highest payroll this season.

I know you guys hate Miami, but Miami is going nowhere. Ratings are near an all time high and you think they are gonna break up Miami?

If anything a hard cap would help Miami. Chicago would have to get rid of some players to make it under 45. Also their is an amnesty contract- Miami could use it on Bosh then have Bosh sign back for vet minimum.

If a 42 million hard cap would break up Chicago, LA, Boston more then it would Miami..
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

A hard salary cap would harm LA and Boston much more than Miami. Also Chicago would be destroyed since they are already at 55 million this year and 64 million next year and they would have to give Rose a max contract eventually on top of that.

Miami is only at 67 million for the next few years- Boston and LA are like at 90 million. Miami has the 22nd highest payroll this season.

I know you guys hate Miami, but Miami is going nowhere. Ratings are near an all time high and you think they are gonna break up Miami?

If anything a hard cap would help Miami. Chicago would have to get rid of some players to make it under 45. Also their is an amnesty contract- Miami could use it on Bosh then have Bosh sign back for vet minimum.
If a 42 million hard cap would break up Chicago, LA, Boston more then it would Miami..

Totally and completely unreasonable. No player is going to sign for a minimum when someone else will give him the maximum. No reason to even postulate the idea.

I mean that idea could be used for Chicago too. They could use their amnesty contract on Boozer, right? Or L.A. could use it on Pau? I mean...what?

A hard cap means one of the three has to go. HOw exactly is that not breaking them up?

It might actually HELP Chicago because they could get rid of the useless Boozer.
 
Re: THE NBA CBA WATCH

Boozer is doing his usual crunch time disappearances so they would be better off without him and spending half the money on a more consistent player
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top