Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[RapTelligence]

There was a suggestion earlier on about a Carmelo Rule. Don't exact what it really was. But have they incorporated anything in this CBA to avoid the Carmelo situation?

[Rhettmatic]

There was a suggestion earlier on about a Carmelo Rule. Don't exact what it really was. But have they incorporated anything in this CBA to avoid the Carmelo situation?

I'm pretty sure any talk of a Carmelo Rule refers to extend-and-trades.

[Courtside]

I agree that it would make a stronger statement to the players about how good they have it if it's actually taken away long enough to be felt, but that's just being vindictive considering how much of a clawback this CBA is over the previous one.

There will be systemic improvements, but I'm not sure they want to go nuclear and try to win everything in one shot. The league is scoring a rather large victory here and will use this as a building block for next time, when they can improve it some more.

In a way, I feel bad for the NBPA since they are giving up a fair bit of what the last two CBA's won for them. Players did lose pay in order to win what was in those agreements, and it's not going the other way. No one wants to be the generation who goes backwards and these guys will wear that no matter what. No need to pummel them further.

[bboyskinnylegs]

I wonder what specific issues they've made headway on, and what remains as the final obstacles to reaching a deal.

[Indeed]

I agree that it would make a stronger statement to the players about how good they have it if it's actually taken away long enough to be felt, but that's just being vindictive considering how much of a clawback this CBA is over the previous one.

There will be systemic improvements, but I'm not sure they want to go nuclear and try to win everything in one shot. The league is scoring a rather large victory here and will use this as a building block for next time, when they can improve it some more.

In a way, I feel bad for the NBPA since they are giving up a fair bit of what the last two CBA's won for them. Players did lose pay in order to win what was in those agreements, and it's not going the other way. No one wants to be the generation who goes backwards and these guys will wear that no matter what. No need to pummel them further.

I agree, they already backed down from 57% to 53% (perhaps 51%), also on some system issue agreeing on reducing contract length and MLE salary.

I thought the owner can do some revenue sharing as well, but they are even more greedier than the players.

[plainballing]

As a fan, I rather the players win the BRI and owner fixed the system. From what I am seeing now...the system will produce overpaid players and teams like Mavs, Lakers will hit the luxury tax once again.

If there's a good system in place, yes the players will receive less $ and yrs but they get it back from BRI.

[dhackett1565]

I agree, they already backed down from 57% to 53% (perhaps 51%), also on some system issue agreeing on reducing contract length and MLE salary.

I thought the owner can do some revenue sharing as well, but they are even more greedier than the players.

The owners are definitely doing some revenue sharing. It has been well established that the owners have set up a significant revenue sharing plan that the owners are expected to fully sign off on once the CBA is resolved, with small changes potentially driven by what the exact end result of the CBA is.

The owners are certainly greedy, but it's not for lack of revenue sharing.

[dacrusha]

I agree, they already backed down from 57% to 53% (perhaps 51%), also on some system issue agreeing on reducing contract length and MLE salary.

I thought the owner can do some revenue sharing as well, but they are even more greedier than the players.

The owners are definitely doing some revenue sharing. It has been well established that the owners have set up a significant revenue sharing plan that the owners are expected to fully sign off on once the CBA is resolved, with small changes potentially driven by what the exact end result of the CBA is.

The owners are certainly greedy, but it's not for lack of revenue sharing.

Do you have a link showing their revenue sharing plan, because I haven't heard anything on that front, except for owners saying 'no' to any kind of plan until a new CBA is reached (which, of course, means nothing).

The Lakers just signed a local TV deal for $3 billion... is that being shared with the other owners?

[floppymoose]

dacrusha beat me to it: link please.

[Rapsfan07]

Yeah the league is getting a little greedy now. No need to continue to break the Players down because all it's doing is challenging egos and dragging it out longer than it needs to be.

However, we see the Players still fighting for the ability to build superteams and that trend cannot continue if the Owners want a profitable and fair league. The owners also can't expect the players to compensate for all of their losses because at the end of the day, owners have to do a better job in terms of the presidents and GM they are hiring. If the team is not well managed and the GMs are handing out too much money, not drafting the right guy etc then he needs to be canned.

Anyways, I would much rather the NBA entertain a 51-49 or 52-48 split in the Players favor and keep the system if it in fact does bring a bit more parity. Seems to me like the reason S&Ts, E&Ts and MLE is such a big issue is because Players still want to build superteams and hoard talent. Whether or not competitive balance really is PR or not, that needs some fixing.

[Rapsfan07]

I agree, they already backed down from 57% to 53% (perhaps 51%), also on some system issue agreeing on reducing contract length and MLE salary.

I thought the owner can do some revenue sharing as well, but they are even more greedier than the players.

The owners are definitely doing some revenue sharing. It has been well established that the owners have set up a significant revenue sharing plan that the owners are expected to fully sign off on once the CBA is resolved, with small changes potentially driven by what the exact end result of the CBA is.

The owners are certainly greedy, but it's not for lack of revenue sharing.

Do you have a link showing their revenue sharing plan, because I haven't heard anything on that front, except for owners saying 'no' to any kind of plan until a new CBA is reached (which, of course, means nothing).

The Lakers just signed a local TV deal for $3 billion... is that being shared with the other owners?

Gotta agree with these guys too. If the owners wanted to make a deal faster, they have an idea of where the number will be. They can make a plan of some kind to show that most owners can more or less agree on. All ive heard is they refuse to come up with a plan until a CBA is signed which I personally believe is unfair but hey

[LittleOzzy]

Hoping the lockout ends before we hit page 100.

[dhackett1565]

I agree, they already backed down from 57% to 53% (perhaps 51%), also on some system issue agreeing on reducing contract length and MLE salary.

I thought the owner can do some revenue sharing as well, but they are even more greedier than the players.

The owners are definitely doing some revenue sharing. It has been well established that the owners have set up a significant revenue sharing plan that the owners are expected to fully sign off on once the CBA is resolved, with small changes potentially driven by what the exact end result of the CBA is.

The owners are certainly greedy, but it's not for lack of revenue sharing.

Do you have a link showing their revenue sharing plan, because I haven't heard anything on that front, except for owners saying 'no' to any kind of plan until a new CBA is reached (which, of course, means nothing).

The Lakers just signed a local TV deal for $3 billion... is that being shared with the other owners?

The owners have stated that the NBA plans to increase revenue sharing from roughly $60 million last year to up to $150 million per year in this agreement. Although there will be some negotiation between owners about this, the NBA representatives would not have made a public statement with that precision unless it was a fairly sure thing.

Here is a link to an article from a couple weeks ago that references the new revenue sharing plan, and makes some remarks on a few top earning teams potentially being opposed to it - but that a better revenue split could make it more palatable to them.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71479 ... ources-say

There have been numerous news stories since then that have more subtly referred to the revenue sharing as a sure thing in one form or another, but since it is dependent on the end result of the CBA, of course no details or guarantees have emerged.

[Salted Meat]

I thought the owner can do some revenue sharing as well, but they are even more greedier than the players.

Please stop.

[MEDIC]

I could care less about BRI, revenue sharing.....any of that crap. It doesn't affect me as a fan in any way.

What I want is:

A. Rules that prevent the quick & easy construction of "super teams".

B. Talent spread more evenly throughout the league.

It seems to me that the players are fighting these issues more than any, which is quite annoying. Is it because Fisher is leading the group, who happens to play for the Lakers?

I'm not sure the players can see the forest for the trees anymore.

If they can't fix the key system issues & increase parity, blow up the season. I hope the owners stand firm.

Blow up the whole damn league if you have to. I'll watch College ball.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Did you actually read that article, hackett? They're in discussions for revenue-sharing and they've thrown out a figure but they admit that there is no agreement amongst the owners on potential revenue-sharing and that they might try to get the federal mediator in to help negotiate on that front (we've seen how much the mediator has helped negotiations here). They also agree that they aren't discussing revenue-sharing as a part of CBA discussions, which really says they don't want to do it unless they absolutely have to, so if they can get the sweetest possible deal then they'll only do some token revenue-sharing. Throw revenue-sharing into the discussion and things get a lot more interesting. The big reason why the owners aren't discussing it here is because (a)they feel it gives them an advantage in their negotiations with the players, and (b) they can't agree amongst themselves what, if any revenue-sharing should be implemented.

[jimmie]

The big reason why the owners aren't discussing it here is because (a)they feel it gives them an advantage in their negotiations with the players, and (b) they can't agree amongst themselves what, if any revenue-sharing should be implemented.

No, the reason they aren't discussing it -- outside of the fact that they have, and continue to say, that it will be discussed after the CBA is signed -- is that it can't actually be done until the CBA is done and they have a firm idea of how that will or will not impact any revenue-sharing plan. So it's true that they can't agree on how that revenue sharing will be done under the new system. It's not true, however, that they don't agree it's needed. There's no chance that revenue sharing will not be included in the system going forward, and no chance that it will not be at a greater number than the previous $60M.

[dacrusha]

I could care less about BRI, revenue sharing.....any of that crap. It doesn't affect me as a fan in any way.

What I want is:

A. Rules that prevent the quick & easy construction of "super teams".

B. Talent spread more evenly throughout the league.

It seems to me that the players are fighting these issues more than any, which is quite annoying. Is it because Fisher is leading the group, who happens to play for the Lakers?

I'm not sure the players can see the forest for the trees anymore.

If they can't fix the key system issues & increase parity, blow up the season. I hope the owners stand firm.

Blow up the whole damn league if you have to. I'll watch College ball.

How do propose to stop "super teams"? If Blake Griffin wants to play with Kevin Durant in his home state of Oklahoma when his rookie contract runs out, there is nothing that can be done to stop this.

Parity will never happen, and besides, neither players NOR owners care for it.

[J-Roc]

You never hear in the NFL about how players don't want to play in Buffalo.

That's the system we need.

[Reignman]

I could care less about BRI, revenue sharing.....any of that crap. It doesn't affect me as a fan in any way.

What I want is:

A. Rules that prevent the quick & easy construction of "super teams".

B. Talent spread more evenly throughout the league.

It seems to me that the players are fighting these issues more than any, which is quite annoying. Is it because Fisher is leading the group, who happens to play for the Lakers?

I'm not sure the players can see the forest for the trees anymore.

If they can't fix the key system issues & increase parity, blow up the season. I hope the owners stand firm.

Blow up the whole damn league if you have to. I'll watch College ball.

How do propose to stop "super teams"? If Blake Griffin wants to play with Kevin Durant in his home state of Oklahoma when his rookie contract runs out, there is nothing that can be done to stop this.

Parity will never happen, and besides, neither players NOR owners care for it.

What do you mean nothing can be done about it?

Hard cap with Franchise Tag No Max. Sure, he can try to go play with his buddy in OKC but he'll be leaving a significant amount of cash behind.


I don't get some of you really. You honestly don't believe you can improve parity? seriously? You won't have a perfect system but you can do a hell of of a lot to restrict superteams from happening.

I keep using this example but LBJ/Bosh only left about $15 mil on the table by leaving Clev/Tor. That's nothing in the sense thaht they signed for over $100 mil. You need to make the financial sacrifice much greater than that.

I just don't get this ideaq that "nothing can be done". What a defeatist attitude. I could come up with several things that can be done without blinking.