Is the CBA working? What is the biggest flaw?

[Dougiefresh2333]

I'm writing a paper on the CBA and wanted to hear the thoughts/comments from various fans of the league. Do you think it's working what is it's largest flaw? Is it creating super teams? Do the fans really win? Etc.
I am a first time poster but would really appreciate any input, thank you in advance .

[[SteveM]]

I don't think you can accurately gauge how effective it is yet. You probably have to wait until all these bad pre-CBA contracts fall off the books. Right now, it looks like it will help, but not enough. It needs more of a hard cap. Right now the hard cap only comes into play under certain situations. The biggest flaw is what allows Brooklyn to spend over $100 million, while capping a handful of other teams at around $75 million.

[giberish]

Again, it's early so most effects so far aren't that clear. The harsher luxury tax only kicks in this season, and repeater taxes don't start until next season.

One thing to watch is the push towards shorter contracts. Mostly to protect from their own mistakes, owners limited contract lengths. The catch is that an increasingly large amount of the league will be FA's each season, likely creating more player movement and perhaps hurting 'unfashionable' franchises.

[DBoys]

I'm writing a paper on the CBA and wanted to hear the thoughts/comments from various fans of the league. Do you think it's working what is it's largest flaw? Is it creating super teams? Do the fans really win? Etc.
I am a first time poster but would really appreciate any input, thank you in advance .

How do you define success?

Are we looking at it from the angle of owners? Players? If either or both, even if both sides are making more money than before, neither is probably happy - it's a zero-sum game where more money for one side means less for the other.

If we are looking at it from the angle of fans, then which fans? I would wager that fans of teams currently on top see success as a CBA that allows them to continue to have more talent for as long as possible, while those who love teams currently farther down the standings want the talent and chance for winning more evened out. That too is a zero-sum game, where "success" for the wishes of one side is failure for the other.

[brent_strong]

Based on the recent valuation of franchises, the CBA is working extremely well for the owners. Look at franchise sale prices or offers before and after the new CBA. Teams have almost doubled in value!

There are a lot of different ways to evaluate whether the CBA is "working"...not sure which one you're specifically interested in.

[HartfordWhalers]

Based on the recent valuation of franchises, the CBA is working extremely well for the owners. Look at franchise sale prices or offers before and after the new CBA. Teams have almost doubled in value!

There are a lot of different ways to evaluate whether the CBA is "working"...not sure which one you're specifically interested in.

You can also look at profits per team, although I would recommend normalizing them.

Hypothetically if Sac with an extra 100m of debt to pay interest on is making the same amount of profit as they did a year earlier without that extra debt to service, it isn't much of an apples to apples comparison to say that profit is flat.

[DBoys]

Based on the recent valuation of franchises, the CBA is working extremely well for the owners. Look at franchise sale prices or offers before and after the new CBA. Teams have almost doubled in value!

There are a lot of different ways to evaluate whether the CBA is "working"...not sure which one you're specifically interested in.

You can also look at profits per team, although I would recommend normalizing them.

Hypothetically if Sac with an extra 100m of debt to pay interest on is making the same amount of profit as they did a year earlier without that extra debt to service, it isn't much of an apples to apples comparison to say that profit is flat.

But if debt, or profit (or any other number you want to look at) is up ...or down ...or flat ...
....in and of itself, it still can't define "success" unless we know whose angle we are considering.

Certainly the owners want more money in their pocket. But would that be considered a plus by the players? By the fans? Does anyone but the owners care at all? Goals (and, therefore, "success") differ diametrically - it all depends on whose eyes we are evaluating through.

[HartfordWhalers]

Based on the recent valuation of franchises, the CBA is working extremely well for the owners. Look at franchise sale prices or offers before and after the new CBA. Teams have almost doubled in value!

There are a lot of different ways to evaluate whether the CBA is "working"...not sure which one you're specifically interested in.

You can also look at profits per team, although I would recommend normalizing them.

Hypothetically if Sac with an extra 100m of debt to pay interest on is making the same amount of profit as they did a year earlier without that extra debt to service, it isn't much of an apples to apples comparison to say that profit is flat.

But if debt is up ...or down ...or flat ...
....in and of itself, it still can't define "success" unless we know whose angle we are considering.

Certainly the owners want less debt. But would that be considered a plus by the players? By the fans? Does anyone but the owners care at all? Goals (and, therefore, "success") differ diametrically - it all depends on whose eyes we are evaluating through.

Why would the owners want less debt? That is a silly presumption.

I absolutely agree there are many angles from which a cba could be declared to succeed or fail -- parity, profits, the beauty of the game etc.

However, if we are looking at the financial aspect for owners, in addition to individual sales (which are infrequent), there is annual profits.

Now, if you have:
TEAM X (year before): 20 million earnings before interest and taxes 5 million debt service, 10 million profit after taxes and debt
TEAM X year after: 40 million earnings before interest and taxes, 30 million debt service, 7 million profit after taxes and debt

And the debt was not incurred to fund operations but just to change the name of the owner, it would seem to most people silly to ignore that the after interest comparison is oranges to apples and declare the business is fundamentally less profitable.

[DBoys]

You've missed my point. It doesn't matter whether we use debt, or profit, or what number you want to use* ...It still comes down to whether that number matters when it comes to defining "success."

And whether that specific number matters, depends on whose point of view you adopt, when you consider if the CBA is working.



* I've edited my prior post to clarify for others who come later.

[HartfordWhalers]

You've missed my point. It doesn't matter whether we use debt, or profit, or what number you want to use* ...It still comes down to whether that number matters when it comes to defining "success."

And whether that specific number matters, depends on whose point of view you adopt, when you consider if the CBA is working.



* I've edited my prior post to clarify for others who come later.

Oh, I 100% agree with all of that. Just figured if people were looking at franchise sale value, then profit was worth a mention as a similar angle with some big advantages (more data points) and some disadvantages (apples to oranges for some teams).

If we are looking for different yardsticks for success, one might be if there is a lockout and/or games cancelled when one party inevitably opens it up for re-bargaining when we get there.

I think there would be quite a few basketball fans that couldn't care less where the money is being split and just want a guarantee not to have a stupid shortened season again.

Of course, we have a few years before that can be measured, which would make the paper undoubtedly late.

[shrink]

OP: Do you mean the CBA in general, or the new changes to the CBA?

[ERGOPHOBIAC]

Too early to tell but me personally would like to see all caps and maxes abolished and implement a much more lenient luxury tax.

Currently it looks like only large market teams will be able to afford to compete for a title but the repeater tax might remedy that.

Salary caps do not protect the integrity of the game they protect the owners from having to spend too much to be competitive but as has shown the highest pay rolls are the only ones that are going to truly compete, despite a few that have very high payrolls with out competing.

[hands11]

I say the new CBA is working great.

I see it as achieving the balance it set out to do.

I say the league is healthier and will get that way even more. More fair to the owners who fork out a ton of money to buy these franchises and who take a lot of risk signing these players to big money contracts. Players get to walk into a ready made money making machine.

It still takes skill in drafting because most team want to be under the cap so they can collect taxes instead of paying them. This means if you want to win, you need to get some productive lesser expensive players. Drafting the best way to do that for most teams. Owners, front office and coaches still make a huge difference. They system can level that out. Better front office are going to do better.

Healthier league means more money for the players as the cap goes up.

Top players still get paid really well. Smaller market teams are better protected financially because those over the cap taxes get distributed. It is a league. Its take all the teams in order to have a league.

Major markets and warm weather places will always have some extra appeal but you can't stop that. Not like you can have a CA tax.

It was a nice compromise. The soft cap still warps things some because there are people out there in the world now a days that just have more money then they now what to do with. From the other owners stand point, they say fine with that. Bring it on. We will take all that tax money from you. See BRK.

I like that college players aren't coming into the league as young. I think the league is better because of that. I think as time goes on we will see better and better quality basketball. I think its a good system. You still get MLE and BAE. Can go over the cap to sign as many vets at the min as you want. DL call ups. Birdrights. But at that end of the day, if a player really want to leave a team, they still can. Its of good compromise.

Having player signed for to much on long term deals where they aren't producing at that level isn't good for the league. And without a system like this, the incentive was to have price war that lead to overbidding. Owners almost had to do it or they would be seen as not supporting the fans by not spending. And player had an incentive to overvalue themselves and go look for that fat over priced contract that would kill a team.

This way, the players are still making fat coin and the owners have a better system to compete against each other while they all make some coin. I like it.

[HurricaneKid]

The abject lack of competitive balance was not even addressed by ownership in the last negotiation. If Stern and ownership would have focused on creating a more level playing field instead of just lining their pockets it would have been better. But I am also a fan of a small market team so take my complaints with a grain of salt.

[ERGOPHOBIAC]

The abject lack of competitive balance was not even addressed by ownership in the last negotiation. If Stern and ownership would have focused on creating a more level playing field instead of just lining their pockets it would have been better. But I am also a fan of a small market team so take my complaints with a grain of salt.

I think I know your team and they are 1 of the teams most inhibited by the new CBA. With the inability to go into the luxury that makes your windows for contending are a lot smaller.

Maybe in the future repeater tax will stifle big spenders but TV contracts are worth a lot of money.

[Grover]

It is working heavily in favor of the owners and likely better than it has in the past several. Collective bargaining deals often favor labor early and move in the direction of owners over time; this one immediately as opposed to near the midpoint of the contract. The smaller market teams, who have a majority voting block, won the CBA battle as the tax penalties increased dramatically along with several circumvention methods employed by large market teams that were closed. Sign and trades that end in both teams required to be at or below the apron stops the Net's and other teams recent cap numbers from happening again. The big three in Miami was probably not given the weight it may have deserved, as short of very few examples, players tend to sign for the largest paychecks on the longest deals. It does not appear that the owners truly considered the lengths that players might take in sacrificing dollars for winning and the resultant additional earnings associated outside the game. That said, egos may block it from becoming a issue. A very large flaw exists with regard to states without income tax as the discrepancy is not addressed fairly in the cab. It would be a very easy calculation to level that playing field. I would suggest looking up the archives on Larry Coon in regard to the collective bargaining agreement. Look for his answers to questions along the lines of yours as there are many. There are also several posters who have insight and you might dig through the dates surrounding the new cba for some interesting tidbits.

[Baller2014]

I love the CBA changes we've seen since 99. It has had the result of finally balancing the NBA, and making teams profitable. That's exactly what we should want it to do. People who think the CBA hasn't been gradually improving the NBA since 99 are basically wrong, there's no other way to say it.

[Baller2014]

Too early to tell but me personally would like to see all caps and maxes abolished and implement a much more lenient luxury tax.

Currently it looks like only large market teams will be able to afford to compete for a title but the repeater tax might remedy that.

Salary caps do not protect the integrity of the game they protect the owners from having to spend too much to be competitive but as has shown the highest pay rolls are the only ones that are going to truly compete, despite a few that have very high payrolls with out competing.

That is the absolute worst way to help balance, and screw small markets. Except for changing the draft that is.