RealGM

kosmovitelli wrote:

magnumt wrote:

KBerg_CBS Ken Berger
Stern says cap "target" is $62 million per team, with a max above that to allow for exceptions such as the Bird exception." #NBA

--Mags

You can update the first post with Ken Berger's lengthy article.

Here's a snippet :

NBA relaxes stance on hard cap
Posted on: June 21, 2011 5:55 pm
Edited on: June 21, 2011 7:32 pm

NEW YORK – Negotiations between NBA owners and players reached a critical juncture Tuesday when commissioner David Stern went public with the league’s offer to relax its stance on a hard salary cap and guarantee the players $2 billion a year in compensation as part of a 10-year collective bargaining proposal. [...]

The essence of the system described by Stern was an NHL-style cap system with a targeted salary of $62 million per team and a to-be-negotiated range from a minimum to an amount above $62 million that teams could spend up to through various exceptions currently in place – such as the Larry Bird exception and mid-level exception. An escrow-like system would be used to adjust for teams coming in below and above the $62 million target. Unlike the current escrow system, through which 8 percent of players’ salaries is withheld and paid back if negotiated salaries fall short of 57 percent of revenues, Stern said owners would keep the escrow under the new system – making this, in effect, an 8 percent pay cut for the players in Year One.

In terms of the owners’ initial proposal of a $45 million hard cap, the latest offer from the league amounts to a $650 million move from their initial position. The basic structure of a 50-50 split of revenues – based on a modified formula with about $900 million in expenses deducted before sharing with the players – remains intact. The luxury tax would be eliminated under the owners' proposal.

UPDATE: In what Stern termed a "modest" proposal, the players on Tuesday offered to reduce salaries by $500 million over a five-year deal, sources with knowledge of the proposal told CBSSports.com. The $100 million-per-year reduction would be achieved through a reduction in the players' share of basketball-related income (BRI) by from 57 percent to 54.3 percent, sources said. The owners and players continue to disagree about the expenses the owners want taken off the top before revenues are shared with the players.

The owners' proposal, sources said, would reduce the players' effective share of BRI -- once expenses were deducted -- to less than 50 percent by the third year of their 10-year proposal and to 36 percent in the last three years of the deal. The players' salary and benefits for the 2010-11 season were approximately $2.17 billion, sources said.

A day that Stern had billed as an important moment in these labor negotiations began with the “modest” $500 million salary reduction proposal from the players. In addition to reducing their share of BRI from from 57 percent to 54.3, the players also enhanced their proposed formula for the revenue split on future revenue increases. The players previously proposed giving the owners more than 50 percent of revenues beyond the 2010-11 level of approximately $3.8 billion, and on Tuesday raised the ante and agreed to a more owner-favorable split on additional revenues.

Upon receiving that offer, the owners convened for a lengthy private meeting during which Stern said they agreed to put forth “what we think is a very significant offer to the players in order to avoid a work stoppage.” The new system, Stern said, would result in an average salary in the NBA of $5 million.

Deputy commissioner Adam Silver denied a CBSSports.com report that there were different agendas and priorities among owners based on market size and revenue. But the flex cap offer made by the owners Tuesday seemed to be a victory for high-revenue owners and the trend of forming superteams. Both would’ve been reined in by the original (and highly unrealistic) $45 million hard-cap system that owners initially proposed in January 2010.

The sliding salary band for teams, which essentially sets a league-wide cap with flexibility to deviate on a team-by-team basis above and below the $62 million target, also would put the onus on teams that have been reluctant to spend much above the current minimum payroll to spend in the hopes of enhancing their ability to compete.

“We believe as a league that there’s no question the data shows a correlation between salaries and success on the court,” Silver said. “And what we’ve said to them is we want a league in which all 30 teams can compete for championships. As another byproduct of that, it will raise more revenue, because greater competition will mean better business, for us and the players.”

But the players clearly view the owners’ latest proposal as little more than nuanced hard cap, which they adamantly oppose.

“It’s been characterized in different ways, but essentially they want to create a hard salary cap in our game, and we just don’t see it,” Fisher said.

Asked if there can be a deal with a hard cap, Fisher said, “No.”

Knicks_Fan2 wrote:I believe that the system now allows for a soft cap and teams can use their Bird rights, and the other exceptions, on any number of eligible players to an unlimited degree (obviously subject to max salary requirements). The only penalty, now, for paying a certain amount of the cap is a luxury tax. It appears that this sytem will have the soft cap at 62 mm, and then you can use your other exceptions (probably only Bird will be left) to get to a max cap amount of X (variable). The luxury tax will likely be eliminated.

BrOnXKing1 wrote:How is this any different from the soft cap we have now? Actually the salary cap is more than the 58mil that we had last year. Great news if true b/c we can get our third max next year.

Fury wrote:Can someone explain what a flex cap means and how that's different from today? Thanks.

moocow007 wrote:

Fury wrote:Can someone explain what a flex cap means and how that's different from today? Thanks.

If by "Flex Cap" they mean flexible cap that's basically the same as a soft cap which is what they have today. So from a literal standpoint there isn't any difference between "soft cap" and "flex cap". There are probably going to be restrictions (as in lowering) as far as max salary, MLE, LLE and rookie salaries. When you do that it makes it quite a bit more difficult for owners to push themselves to and beyond the soft cap even if they wanted to because they won't have the tools to allow them to spend. So in that sense, sure you can increase the soft cap but it'll be extremely difficult to get to the cap if max salaries are lower, MLE/LLE either is removed or limited and rookie contracts are smaller and none guaranteed. In fact the none guaranteed contracts is probably still going to be the sticking point causing the lockout.

jstudabaka wrote:

moocow007 wrote:

Fury wrote:Can someone explain what a flex cap means and how that's different from today? Thanks.

If by "Flex Cap" they mean flexible cap that's basically the same as a soft cap which is what they have today. So from a literal standpoint there isn't any difference between "soft cap" and "flex cap". There are probably going to be restrictions (as in lowering) as far as max salary, MLE, LLE and rookie salaries. When you do that it makes it quite a bit more difficult for owners to push themselves to and beyond the soft cap even if they wanted to because they won't have the tools to allow them to spend. So in that sense, sure you can increase the soft cap but it'll be extremely difficult to get to the cap if max salaries are lower, MLE/LLE either is removed or limited and rookie contracts are smaller and none guaranteed. In fact the none guaranteed contracts is probably still going to be the sticking point causing the lockout.

I thought there was some indication owners are willing to back off non-guaranteed contracts