RealGM

Not to get too optimistic, but this is worth reading if you're looking for some upbeat news.

http://nba-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/31814430

With the coach in place, Rubio and Williams on board, I pray more than ever this gets done.

I always get super excited for a season, to be let down eventually..... I just have a feeling the progress will be there this year.... so please let it happen!

KBergCBS Ken Berger
#NBA labor talks said to be wrapping up soon. Sit tight as updates
begin to trickle out within the hour or so. #lockout

EDIT

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Billy Hunter: "We came with intent to negotiating ... prepared to compromise. ..."

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Hunter: "Unfortunately, were a bit pessimistic."
2 minutes ago

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Hunter: "The owners are unwilling to move off of the position on which they've anchored themselves."
1 minute ago

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Hunter says two sides remain at odds on two key isssues: economics and the system. No future meetings scheduled.
1 minute ago

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Hunter: "As of this moment there doesn't appear to be any progress that we can predict."
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply

yahoo sports page is saying talks broke down and players might have to miss half the season....****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go figure.

It'd be really nice to be a fly on the wall during these talks. From the info that has trickled out, I'd deduce the owners are split into numerous groups.
Group A doesn't mind compromising.
Group B doesn't want to compromise at all.
Group C is somewhere in between.
Group D doesn't care and wants to be able to spend as much $ as they want, and wants the season to start as quickly as possible (so they can make even more money, as these are the big market teams that always make money).

All the "negotiations are picking up speed, could have compromise" talks probably came from Group A and the players union.

Too bad for us, group B must have a majority or heavy influence on group C, shutting the talks down. I also don't think it's as pessimistic as Hunter wants us to believe. He's just using Hyperbole to get the owners to look like the bad guys.

Ah, that's too bad.

If the players are willing to give ground on a hard cap only if it's set at 65% of basketball related income (up from 57%), well, that's like not having any significant change. Given what we know of the owners' position, "no significant change" is not going to get the players anywhere.

The owners clearly want to squeeze down salaries pretty hard and are looking at a hard cap at 40% of BBRI (according to Hunter, who I don't entirely trust on this issue). I would guess the owners would make a deal for a hard cap at 50% of BBRI, but really, the players have a point that they shouldn't have to give up the cap structure and have their % shrink. A hard cap at 58-60% seems like it might be reasonable, but it would still squeeze the stars down the road and, more unfairly, hit the players currently on rookie deals really hard.

The owners seem pretty focused on forcing wages way down across the board. I just don't see that as a realistic position for them to take, but it seems like what they're sticking with. Pretty depressing.

But it's all negotiations right now. I still have some hope, just not a whole lot.

I'm a bit surprised that if the players were willing to take a smaller percentage of the revenues, that it didn't get a few more owners to join the ranks of the big market owners who don't want to change the system that has no hard cap.

This tells me that small-market owners really think that the system is broken, and don't think the NBA will be a good product if big-market teams like the Lakers can simply buy players that gives them a chance at a ring.

Owners are being ripped because they won't compromise on this issue, but if this issue is crucial for the competitiveness of the league, I don't think they should. The players don't seem to care about the competitiveness of the league - they just want the chance to have giant paychecks comparable to celebrities in other businesses.

I don't care who caves as long as we have basketball. It's billionaires vs. millionaires here, there's nobody to feel sorry for.

shrink wrote:I'm a bit surprised that if the players were willing to take a smaller percentage of the revenues, that it didn't get a few more owners to join the ranks of the big market owners who don't want to change the system that has no hard cap.

This tells me that small-market owners really think that the system is broken, and don't think the NBA will be a good product if big-market teams like the Lakers can simply buy players that gives them a chance at a ring.

Owners are being ripped because they won't compromise on this issue, but if this issue is crucial for the competitiveness of the league, I don't think they should. The players don't seem to care about the competitiveness of the league - they just want the chance to have giant paychecks comparable to celebrities in other businesses.

Agreed.

Just to throw this out there, here is an excerpt from an article regarding the big picture issues with the NHL hard cap.

The Chicago Blackhawks, like the Pittsburgh Penguins and Washington Capitals, were terrible for years and years, piled up good draft picks, and went straight to the top. They followed in the Penguins footsteps by winning the Stanley Cup last year, and surely the future is bright. With their core, it likely is, but this summer has been an absolute purging for the Blackhawks thanks to the salary cap. Fans have been forced to enjoy a summer of celebration while watching their team be completely dismantled. The Hawks still have work to do as they are continue to be over the cap. Is the salary cap depriving hockey fans of dynasties? Even the most shrewd of General Managers can’t keep an entire team together with rising player salaries. So the salary cap essentially still handcuffs lousy teams that don’t have enough money to spend, and it handcuffs good teams trying to build a lasting contender. Obviously, no league is perfect, and watching the New York Yankees stockpile star players in baseball reminds everyone why a salary cap is a good thing sometimes. But perhaps the system needs to be re-thought, and it likely will be with the new CBA approaching. Does the cap need to go down, or do inflated players salaries need to go down? Food for thought.

Different leagues obviously, but the same issues would eventually arise if the NBA were to implement a strict hard cap system.

Parity is a good thing, though dynasties are a good thing, too. Very complicated issue.

Small market teams regularly spend up to and over the salary cap. The issue doesn't seem to be that big market teams succeed because they spend more. They succeed because the top players want to play in big markets.

As much as i desperately want a NBA season, I am of the opinion that the system has massive issues, and am willing to wait until these issues are resolved, even if it means missing a season.

I'm on the owners side on this one, the players get so much money, not including all the endorsement money they get, the players are kidding themselves and should come to an agreement with the owners, the players have had a good run with salaries over the past decade.

In the end, you cant have 24/30 teams losing money ( and big money at that) every single season, it doesn't make business sense, it alienates the fan base because the big '6' have essentially monopolised the market and can do as they please.

On a sidenote I though the NFL system was as good as you could get (apart from the rookie contract) and it was locked out for how long???

Anyways heres to hoping for the best, but i'm bunkering down for the long haul

I don't care how much money the players make and I don't care how much money the owners are losing. If there's an issue of parity, it comes from the fact that top players are so important basketball, not from big markets overspending. When's the last time a contender was broken up due to financial reasons? San Antonio's not exactly a major market and they've been perennial contenders for over a decade.

On flip side, I don't blame the owners for trying to get a better financial deal. It's business. I just don't think the system is broken in terms of basketball. Parity is never going to happen in the NBA unless you make the top 5 players rotate teams.

While the advantage isn't as big as it is in baseball, the NBA problems aren't just about the top players wanting to play in big markets. Big markets also have access to more fans, and they are able to sell tickets for far more.

Current numbers are hush hush, but in 2008, the Lakers are able to clear over $2 mil in net ticket revenue per game, with tickets averaging $126 each. Their attendance in Staples was good, but not even top 5. Wolves struggle to price tickets at half that, and even then, can't fill their arena. Their revenues per game? $350,000.

Now when a team is making seven times as much every game, this translates into the roster side as well. Nearly any team in the league would have been forced to let Andrew Bynum go, but the Lakers can afford to give him a near-max deal, even when they are over the lux, simply because they can afford to gamble he'll finally be healthy. In other words, the Lakers can have a $15 mil player sitting in the trainer's room, and still afford a team with salary over the lux on the floor.

Now, there is probably nothing that the NBA can do about the demographics here. Fans in NYC and LA are going to spend a lot of money and fill stadiums. The economist in me understand the players' want to be allowed to sign a big contract if there are owners that will pay a big contract. However, the Bynum dilemma is a real problem if we believe there is value in having a league with parity, and that's something that I feel needs to exist.

Worm Guts wrote:I don't care how much money the players make and I don't care how much money the owners are losing. If there's an issue of parity, it comes from the fact that top players are so important basketball, not from big markets overspending. When's the last time a contender was broken up due to financial reasons? San Antonio's not exactly a major market and they've been perennial contenders for over a decade.

On flip side, I don't blame the owners for trying to get a better financial deal. It's business. I just don't think the system is broken in terms of basketball. Parity is never going to happen in the NBA unless you make the top 5 players rotate teams.

A contender has never been broken up in the NBA due to financial reasons, but that's because there has never been any major restrictions from keeping those teams in tact. The issue is that a hard cap system, which if implemented, and depending on the details, could prevent successful teams with young talent from becoming perennial contenders by not being able to extend some of their most talented players past their rookie contracts due to having to meet the cap requirements. They rise to the top, then boom. Can't resign due to restrictions in the system. That's basically what happened to a team like the Hawks in the NHL and it would ultimately happen in the NBA if they were to follow that path. The OKC core would likely be destroyed with a hard cap.

It would give more parity around the league, I guess, but as you said true parity is never going to happen in the NBA. It's too complicated an issue with many different parts for me to take a huge stance on any side, but I simply don't like the idea of a strict hard cap in the NBA. There are other ways to clear up the financial mess without taking that route.

If I was asked to mediate these negotiations, I think the easiest remedy is for the owners to get a larger percentage of the revenues (as a baseline), and to maintain the soft cap, but heavily penalize teams as they go farther and farther over the lux - a graduated system, like personal income tax. For example:

First $5 mil over the lux: match goes into fund (pays double)
Next $5 mil .. pay triple
Next $5 mil .. pay quadruple
(etc)

Union heads would claim victory by maintaining a soft cap, and owners would have trouble claiming economic reasons necessitated such a hard-line stand. While teams like NYK and LAL could still afford to pay over the lux, it wouldn't be an unlimited amount. Even the poorer owners would be getting more money, so they could delve a little over the cap to assuage fans and keep stars. Perhaps the next CBA (in say, four years) might get to a hard cap, but this would start pushing teams towards more economic parity.

shrink wrote:If I was asked to mediate these negotiations, I think the easiest remedy is for the owners to get a larger percentage of the revenues (as a baseline), and to maintain the soft cap, but heavily penalize teams as they go farther and farther over the lux - a graduated system, like personal income tax. For example:

First $5 mil over the lux: match goes into fund (pays double)
Next $5 mil .. pay triple
Next $5 mil .. pay quadruple
(etc)

Union heads would claim victory by maintaining a soft cap, and owners would have trouble claiming economic reasons necessitated such a hard-line stand. While teams like NYK and LAL could still afford to pay over the lux, it wouldn't be an unlimited amount. Even the poorer owners would be getting more money, so they could delve a little over the cap to assuage fans and keep stars. Perhaps the next CBA (in say, four years) might get to a hard cap, but this would start pushing teams towards more economic parity.

SOLD! Where does the NBA sign?

shrink wrote:If I was asked to mediate these negotiations, I think the easiest remedy is for the owners to get a larger percentage of the revenues (as a baseline), and to maintain the soft cap, but heavily penalize teams as they go farther and farther over the lux - a graduated system, like personal income tax. For example:

First $5 mil over the lux: match goes into fund (pays double)
Next $5 mil .. pay triple
Next $5 mil .. pay quadruple
(etc)

Union heads would claim victory by maintaining a soft cap, and owners would have trouble claiming economic reasons necessitated such a hard-line stand. While teams like NYK and LAL could still afford to pay over the lux, it wouldn't be an unlimited amount. Even the poorer owners would be getting more money, so they could delve a little over the cap to assuage fans and keep stars. Perhaps the next CBA (in say, four years) might get to a hard cap, but this would start pushing teams towards more economic parity.

that's an absoluetly f'ing great idea

What a joke ... this the NBA - not a cold war. This is sad to see greed, arrogance, and self-appointment shine through. A fricken game and look at the babies at work !!! They think its business - it's not business.

We watch the arrogance of LeBron ... now we see the arrogance of an entire league that drives it. This has really lowered my respect to a completely lower level than I realize even existed.

Are we really suppose to be excited that these idiots can find a way to split millions of $$$ ... nice.

Dewey wrote:What a joke ... this the NBA - not a cold war. This is sad to see greed, arrogance, and self-appointment shine through. A fricken game and look at the babies at work !!! They think its business - it's not business.

We watch the arrogance of LeBron ... now we see the arrogance of an entire league that drives it. This has really lowered my respect to a completely lower level than I realize even existed.

Are we really suppose to be excited that these idiots can find a way to split millions of $$$ ... nice.

How is it not a business?