Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[dacrusha]

A change in BRI, hard cap and pay reduction does nothing to make the Raptors anymore competitive... and everything to bump MLSE's profits from 25+ million per year to $35/40 million per year. And ZERO chance (due to the hard cap) of those profits being re-invested into building a stronger roster.

Owners win. Fans and players lose.

Actually it does a lot. MLSE has paid up to the cap either way and has even paid the tax. What a hard cap would do is bring the big spenders down to a similar level to what MLSE pays anyways.

Now it puts the onus on management to make good moves because the playing field has been levelled and money is no longer an excuse.

If a hard cap is implemented, all the star players will migrate to the large markets to look for their paydays via alternate means (ie. endorsements) or warm weather markets or tax-free markets and Toronto continues being a feeder team for the the LAs, Bostons and Miamis of the league.

A hard cap means that the Raptors end up with a roster of over-paid, middle tier players... and leaves the star players with zero incentive to go to back-water basketball markets.

[Ponchos]

If a hard cap is implemented, all the star players will migrate to the large markets to look for their paydays via alternate means (ie. endorsements) or warm weather markets or tax-free markets and Toronto continues being a feeder team for the the LAs, Bostons and Miamis of the league.

A hard cap means that the Raptors end up with a roster of over-paid, middle tier players... and leaves the star players with zero incentive to go to back-water basketball markets.

Ding ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Rhettmatic]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Source involved in labor talks to Y! on today's meeting: "No real progress. A lot of jostling, a lot of back and forth...But no progress."

[ATLTimekeeper]

If a hard cap is implemented, all the star players will migrate to the large markets to look for their paydays via alternate means (ie. endorsements) or warm weather markets or tax-free markets and Toronto continues being a feeder team for the the LAs, Bostons and Miamis of the league.

A hard cap means that the Raptors end up with a roster of over-paid, middle tier players... and leaves the star players with zero incentive to go to back-water basketball markets.

Ding ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Except there's no truth to it at all. How hard is it to understand that each team having the exact same amount of money to spend doesn't mean that there's less money for the players to earn? LA will get Kobe, maybe Pau, but they won't be able to afford Bynum at market value, they won't be able to just bury a bad contract like Walton or Sasha. If Bynum wants to make his $12 million dollars or whatever his market worth is, he'll have to find another team. There's a finite number of desirable markets to play in. Players will have to decide, do I want to make well below my market value in a place I want to play, or do I want to make what I'm worth in a less desirable market. This already occurs in the NBA as is, the only difference is that instead of having a handful of teams spend with impunity while the rest play by the rules, these wealthy teams would have to manage their resources more carefully.

[Ponchos]

Except there's no truth to it at all. How hard is it to understand that each team having the exact same amount of money to spend doesn't mean that there's less money for the players to earn? LA will get Kobe, maybe Pau, but they won't be able to afford Bynum at market value, they won't be able to just bury a bad contract like Walton or Sasha. If Bynum wants to make his $12 million dollars or whatever his market worth is, he'll have to find another team. There's a finite number of desirable markets to play in. Players will have to decide, do I want to make well below my market value in a place I want to play, or do I want to make what I'm worth in a less desirable market. This already occurs in the NBA as is, the only difference is that instead of having a handful of teams spend with impunity while the rest play by the rules, these wealthy teams would have to manage their resources more carefully.

LA would keep Kobe, Pau, Bynum and Odom and fill out the rest of their roster with minimum guys.

Guys like Walton, Sasha, Fisher, Blake, Barnes would be looking to less desirable locations to make money.

Teams like Denver, Sac, Minny, Pacers, Grizz, Nets would not only have a ton of money to spend but they HAVE to spend it. Hard caps come with high salary floors. Mucho cash and mediocre players flooding the market = mediocre and expensive rosters.

There are 30 teams in the league and there is not anywhere close to 30 franchise players. If each team is spending the same money, the middling level guys are going to be getting the difference.

Here's one guy's take about how the Hard Cap in the NHL has forced the bottom feeders to spend big money on bad players. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/07/01/brophy_free_agency/

[ATLTimekeeper]

Except there's no truth to it at all. How hard is it to understand that each team having the exact same amount of money to spend doesn't mean that there's less money for the players to earn? LA will get Kobe, maybe Pau, but they won't be able to afford Bynum at market value, they won't be able to just bury a bad contract like Walton or Sasha. If Bynum wants to make his $12 million dollars or whatever his market worth is, he'll have to find another team. There's a finite number of desirable markets to play in. Players will have to decide, do I want to make well below my market value in a place I want to play, or do I want to make what I'm worth in a less desirable market. This already occurs in the NBA as is, the only difference is that instead of having a handful of teams spend with impunity while the rest play by the rules, these wealthy teams would have to manage their resources more carefully.

LA would keep Kobe, Pau, Bynum and Odom and fill out the rest of their roster with minimum guys.

Guys like Walton, Sasha, Fisher, Blake, Barnes would be looking to less desirable locations to make money.

Teams like Denver, Sac, Minny, Pacers, Grizz, Nets would not only have a ton of money to spend but they HAVE to spend it. Hard caps come with high salary floors. Mucho cash and mediocre players flooding the market = mediocre and expensive rosters.

There are 30 teams in the league and there is not anywhere close to 30 franchise players. If each team is spending the same money, the middling level guys are going to be getting the difference.

Then they'd pay the consequences of having half their rotation making the league minimum. And there doesn't have to be 30 franchise players. The league doesn't have to have perfect equality, it just shouldn't foster inequality. High salary floors are good. Make teams spend money on good players instead of hiding in the lottery. Make them compete instead of loading up on rookie deals and praying for the best.

[Ponchos]

Then they'd pay the consequences of having half their rotation making the league minimum.

You mean like the dire consequences the Heat suffered by having half their rotation making the league minimum? Making it to the finals while paying a ton of money less than the other big teams? Sign me up!

And there doesn't have to be 30 franchise players. The league doesn't have to have perfect equality, it just shouldn't foster inequality.

'
Having a system that enforces paying near equal money for unequal talent is the definition of fostering inequality.

High salary floors are good. Make teams spend money on good players instead of hiding in the lottery.

See the article I linked. The problem is bad teams will spend good money on bad players.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Then they'd pay the consequences of having half their rotation making the league minimum.

You mean like the dire consequences the Heat suffered by having half their rotation making the league minimum? Making it to the finals while paying a ton of money less than the other big teams? Sign me up!

And there doesn't have to be 30 franchise players. The league doesn't have to have perfect equality, it just shouldn't foster inequality.

'
Having a system that enforces paying near equal money for unequal talent is the definition of fostering inequality.

High salary floors are good. Make teams spend money on good players instead of hiding in the lottery.

See the article I linked. The problem is bad teams will spend good money on bad players.

I can't get into this right now. But the salary floor did not force Florida to hand out long-term deals. That's ridiculous.

[Ponchos]

I can't get into this right now. But the salary floor did not force Florida to hand out long-term deals. That's ridiculous.

Salary floors force teams to hand out contracts period. End of story.

Length and terms of the contracts work based on supply and demand. Higher salary floors artificially increase demand whereas the supply remains exactly the same. Hence, longer richer contracts for inferior players.

Anyhow I always find it funny when proponents of hard cap systems look at the big spending teams and salivate about how they will have to let their top talent go. Look at the big spenders in the NBA, the reason they are so far over the cap is because guys like Cuban will pay waaaay too much money for a guy like Haywood in order to gain a small competitive advantage. If guys like Cuban are forced to cut costs, they ain't trading away Dirk, Kidd or Terry.

[knickerbocker2k2]

One thing I don't think has being mentioned, but people assume that owners will be able to drive wedge between rich/low end players. Thinking goes that if the owners give benefits/money to the low end players, they will be able to restrict the high end player, and given the qty of low end players, they will be able to get the majority to vote on the deal.

However this would be overestimating the rationality of people. Studies have shown that people overestimate their place in society. For instance most poor people don't see themselves as poor, but rather middle class. I read study awhile back that 20% of people think they'll be millionaires. And I'm sure this is greater percentage among the low end players, as they probably don't see themselves earning the low end, but rather moving into the MLE/higher end salary range.

[Indeed]

Except there's no truth to it at all. How hard is it to understand that each team having the exact same amount of money to spend doesn't mean that there's less money for the players to earn? LA will get Kobe, maybe Pau, but they won't be able to afford Bynum at market value, they won't be able to just bury a bad contract like Walton or Sasha. If Bynum wants to make his $12 million dollars or whatever his market worth is, he'll have to find another team. There's a finite number of desirable markets to play in. Players will have to decide, do I want to make well below my market value in a place I want to play, or do I want to make what I'm worth in a less desirable market. This already occurs in the NBA as is, the only difference is that instead of having a handful of teams spend with impunity while the rest play by the rules, these wealthy teams would have to manage their resources more carefully.

LA would keep Kobe, Pau, Bynum and Odom and fill out the rest of their roster with minimum guys.

Guys like Walton, Sasha, Fisher, Blake, Barnes would be looking to less desirable locations to make money.

Teams like Denver, Sac, Minny, Pacers, Grizz, Nets would not only have a ton of money to spend but they HAVE to spend it. Hard caps come with high salary floors. Mucho cash and mediocre players flooding the market = mediocre and expensive rosters.

There are 30 teams in the league and there is not anywhere close to 30 franchise players. If each team is spending the same money, the middling level guys are going to be getting the difference.

Then they'd pay the consequences of having half their rotation making the league minimum. And there doesn't have to be 30 franchise players. The league doesn't have to have perfect equality, it just shouldn't foster inequality. High salary floors are good. Make teams spend money on good players instead of hiding in the lottery. Make them compete instead of loading up on rookie deals and praying for the best.

And you still produce bad contracts for half of the league. When you need to fill out roster, you are over paying Arena 18m per year, Elton Brand 15m per year, Al Jefferson to stay in Min/Utah, Randolph to stay in Mem, and etc.

[KG1585]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
While there was no major breakthrough, progress was made on the BRI revenue split, two sources in NBA labor talks tell Y! Story to come.

Seems like luxury tax and length of contracts the only issues left.

[Mister Ze]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
While there was no major breakthrough, progress was made on the BRI revenue split, two sources in NBA labor talks tell Y! Story to come.

Seems like luxury tax and length of contracts the only issues left.

They're also the main issues

[MEDIC]

If a hard cap is implemented, all the star players will migrate to the large markets to look for their paydays via alternate means (ie. endorsements) or warm weather markets or tax-free markets and Toronto continues being a feeder team for the the LAs, Bostons and Miamis of the league.

A hard cap means that the Raptors end up with a roster of over-paid, middle tier players... and leaves the star players with zero incentive to go to back-water basketball markets.

Ding ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm not saying they are bargaining for it, but that's why you need a franchise player tag system in conjunction with the hard cap.

[Ponchos]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
While there was no major breakthrough, progress was made on the BRI revenue split, two sources in NBA labor talks tell Y! Story to come.

Seems like luxury tax and length of contracts the only issues left.

They're also the main issues

Disagree. BRI is far and away the biggest issue. If they made progress on BRI, great. If they come to an agreement on BRI, then the lockout will soon be over.

[Mos Def]

If a hard cap is implemented, all the star players will migrate to the large markets to look for their paydays via alternate means (ie. endorsements) or warm weather markets or tax-free markets and Toronto continues being a feeder team for the the LAs, Bostons and Miamis of the league.

A hard cap means that the Raptors end up with a roster of over-paid, middle tier players... and leaves the star players with zero incentive to go to back-water basketball markets.

Ding ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm not saying they are bargaining for it, but that's why you need a franchise player tag system in conjunction with the hard cap.

How does that make any sense? What you have just explained is exactly what is happening in the NBA right now.

[Haisan]

Judging by the progress the mediator has been making over the past couple of days, it seems to me that the owner-player problem was more about egos than substance. Sure, $100 million is more money than I have in my bank account, but a $100 million difference in a $4 billion/year business should not make the whole thing grind to a halt.

[J-Roc]

One thing I don't think has being mentioned, but people assume that owners will be able to drive wedge between rich/low end players. Thinking goes that if the owners give benefits/money to the low end players, they will be able to restrict the high end player, and given the qty of low end players, they will be able to get the majority to vote on the deal.

However this would be overestimating the rationality of people. Studies have shown that people overestimate their place in society. For instance most poor people don't see themselves as poor, but rather middle class. I read study awhile back that 20% of people think they'll be millionaires. And I'm sure this is greater percentage among the low end players, as they probably don't see themselves earning the low end, but rather moving into the MLE/higher end salary range.

Now that was more complicated than rebounding.

[J-Roc]

NHL has a hard cap, but no limit on length of contracts, so players have signed up 10+ year deals. Stern is trying to get his cake and eat it too by setting a hard lux tax + lower the length of contracts.

[baulderdash77]

Per Chris Bouchard: The League is now offering 49-51% BRI and the players want 51-53% BRI. They're talking an MLE starting at $5M.

It's so maddeningly close that it's aggravating for the games to be ticking off the schedule.