Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread III

[lucky777s]

The players have decided to hold this up over the last couple of issues, which both attempt to take away the effectiveness of the cap.

They want:

1. The 'tax cliff' completely altered so teams only over the cap by a certain amount still get a portion of the tax pie sent back to them.

2. If a team stays in the tax zone for 4 out of 5 years they would pay an additional dollar for dollar tax.

Union opposes both of these because it makes the lux tax cap stronger. Which is the entire point of having any kind of cap, to discourage spending over that line.

They also want the MLE to remain quite high so the FAs can go to the top teams and still make very good money.

The cap is how the league chooses to revenue share among teams. I think it makes a lot sense and if more revenue sharing is needed then cranking up the tax is a good way to do it.

I read a post the other day describing how the small market teams have been subsidizing the big market teams. Yes, that is correct. If the Lakers or Knicks have 300 mill in revenue and player BRI split is 50 that means they should have a salary of 150 million. But they can't do that under the CBA. So the other teams must somehow put in extra money to the players in order to make up for the Lakers/Knicks because those teams BRI is thrown into the entire league pot of BRI. Thus the smaller teams are subsidizing the larger ones.

The tax is a wealth distribution system that should allow smaller market teams to spend more on players without losing large amounts of money.

[NH]

Not sure if this was posted but here is the new deal according to Steve Kyler Hoopsworld:

In all the deal looks like this:

- The biannual exception will be available only to nontaxpaying teams. The NBA will allow sign and trade deals for tax paying teams, on a limited and restricted basis.

- Extend-and-trade deals, such as the one signed by Carmelo Anthony last season, will be prohibited.

- The midlevel exception will be set at $5 million for nontaxpaying teams, with a maximum length between three and four years (alternating annually). The value of the exception will grow by 3 percent annually, starting in Year 3. The Mid-Level would not be available to a team if its use would push them into luxury tax.

- The mini-midlevel exception will be set at $3 million for taxpaying teams, with a maximum length of three years, and cannot be used in consecutive years. Its value will also grow at 3 percent annually.

- A 10 percent escrow tax will be withheld from player salaries, to ensure that player earnings do not exceed 50 percent of league revenues. An additional withholding will be applied in Year 1 “to account for business uncertainty” stemming from the lockout.

- Maximum contract lengths will be five years for “Bird” free agents and four years for others.

- Annual contract increases will be 5.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others.

- Players will be paid a prorated share of their 2011-12 salaries, based on the number of games played once the season starts, with a 72-game season on the table.

- Team and player contract options will be prohibited in new contracts, other than rookie deals. But a player can opt out of the final year of a contract if he agrees to zero salary protection (i.e., if it is nonguaranteed).

- The Basketball Related Revenue Split will be 50-50, with the NBA locking in salaries and benefits equal to last season for the first two years of the deal insuring the players lose no money in accepting a reduced BRI share.

- The Luxury Tax would be an escalating tax based on tiers over the tax line. The tax will increase for every $5 million spent beyond the established line – starting at $70 million in the first year of the labor deal. Teams would be charged a tax of $1.50 for every dollar over the $70 million tax line. That number increases to $1.75 after $5 million over ($75 million), $2.25 after $10 million ($80 million) and $3 after $15 million ($85 million).

- The Repeater Tax would offer an additional $1 charge to each tax tier for teams that exceed the Luxury Tax more than three times in a five year span. Allowing teams to dip into the Luxury Tax, but penalize teams who stay above the tax line for too long.

- There will be a one-time Amnesty Cut allowed. 100% of this cut will be removed from the Luxury Tax and the Salary cap, however 100% of the cut salary will be paid in full to the player and the value of the cut contract will count towards the BRI calculation.

[Reignman]

Much better than the last CBA. Hope they can get rid of Sign n Trades though.

[BorisDK1]

Much better than the last CBA. Hope they can get rid of Sign n Trades though.

I don't. That's the one option a team losing a player has to get something back.

[gerrit4]

Much better than the last CBA. Hope they can get rid of Sign n Trades though.

I don't. That's the one option a team losing a player has to get something back.

Exactly. I'm not sure where people get the idea that sign and trades are bad for parity - it got us a first round draft pick for Chris Bosh. It's not much, but it was better than nothing.

Other S&Ts have had even better returns. Generally, they give the team losing their star something (as opposed to nothing) in return. In the case of Bosh, if there were no S&T, he would have still went to the Heat...

This whole idea of forcing a player to stay with one team for his entire career is not only ridiculous, but also unfair. Why should a player have to stay on the Clippers with Donald Sterling's history of racism and cheapness? Is it not in a players right to want to sign somewhere else when his contract finishes? If I had a boss like that, I'd certainly do my best to change jobs. This whole idea of having to take a paycut so you don't have to be in a toxic work environment is pretty brutal.

I agree that teams who draft a player should have the advantage in keeping him under contact - but that's already the case. And most star players in the past 10 years have stayed at least 5 years with
the teams that drafted them - most of them have stayed seven.

Not to mention, player movement is good for the league - it gets people talking. What brought more headlines in the newspapers last summer - Lebron's decision or Durant re-signing with the Thunder? The Miami big 3 may have been annoying, but they were a "must watch" team all year and my friends who don't talk basketball, were talking about it non-stop. Same with when the big 3 celtics were assembled, or the Pau Gasol trade. If every offseason, the biggest move was the signing of Travis Outlaw or Raja Bell, people would start to lose interest pretty fast. Heck, even the Turkuglu signing had the sports world talking.

It seems that most people here want the star players to stay on one team for their entire careers, and the role players to move around the league on 3 year contracts. It seems pretty ridiculous that some fans think that they have the right to tell someone where to live, where to play, how to act and so on.

[Reignman]

Much better than the last CBA. Hope they can get rid of Sign n Trades though.

I don't. That's the one option a team losing a player has to get something back.

That's a bit of a downside but the upside is much greater. It allows teams to A) Not get a poo poo platter back for their star (see T Mac / Bosh) and it puts the onus on the other team to really clear cap space if they want to sign a star.

I'd much rather the other team has to work / manage their cap if they want to sign a star rather than the star saying sign/trade me to team X and team X saying "here's what I have for you, it's crap but it's better than nothing".

[Reignman]

To add, sign and trades mean a star has the option of going to 29 other teams if he chooses to do so and that team can give back some crap with a cheesy late round pick all in the name of "it's better than nothing".

Get rid of sign and trades and the stars options reduce drastically. Only a team that has the space to outright sign them will be an option.

Miami would still happen under this scenario but that's fine, Miami tanked multiple seasons and shredded their payroll to get what they wanted. I can live with that.

Edit: It also makes the other team make legitimate trades for a star if they really want someone rather than waiting for FA and then the star forcing his way to the other team for minimal return.

[lucky777s]

Much better than the last CBA. Hope they can get rid of Sign n Trades though.

I don't. That's the one option a team losing a player has to get something back.

Well, it also has the effect of putting the GM into a very tough spot as the player tends to 'milk
the idea that they may still re-sign with their club which then derails any trades you might make that last year with a club willing to rent the player. Those kind of trades could easily have seen us get a first round pick or a couple of seconds or maybe a young player we wanted stuck behind veterans on a winning team.

Not having the ST option would have probably forced BC to move Bosh earlier and potentially stopped him from doing dumb deals like giving away the pick that MIA so kindly gave us back to get Bosh in ST.

ST's make it too easy for the players to have their cake (contract) and eat it too (accept only one destination). The players have gained too much power and effectively bypass GMs in many ways. If they are in the last year or two of their deal they can say they want out and handpick their destination which puts their team into a really bad spot.

[Cool-Hand-Luke]

Adding to Reignman's points, the S & T even existing gives the player more leverage just for the fact that it exists. If you take it out of the equation, the player potentially has to take a pay cut in order to move to a city of his choice. It may handcuff the team in terms of losing someone outright, but it also handcuffs the player in terms of earnings. Might give players more incentive to stay.

[BorisDK1]

That's a bit of a downside but the upside is much greater. It allows teams to A) Not get a poo poo platter back for their star (see T Mac / Bosh) and it puts the onus on the other team to really clear cap space if they want to sign a star.

I'd much rather the other team has to work / manage their cap if they want to sign a star rather than the star saying sign/trade me to team X and team X saying "here's what I have for you, it's crap but it's better than nothing".

Firstly, that "poo poo platter" consisted of not only Miami's first round pick (which obviously wasn't going to be all that valuable), but our first round pick back from the Shawn Marion trade, which will be extremely valuable. Would you rather that we had lost Bosh for nothing at all?

Secondly, Miami (Bosh) and Orlando (McGrady) did clear their cap to sign them outright so I don't know where those objections come from.

[ghuytro]

No mention of reducing the amount of time teams have to match contract offers to RFA's to 3 days?

I heard earlier in the week that was one of the proposals?

[BorisDK1]

To add, sign and trades mean a star has the option of going to 29 other teams if he chooses to do so and that team can give back some crap with a cheesy late round pick all in the name of "it's better than nothing".

Get rid of sign and trades and the stars options reduce drastically. Only a team that has the space to outright sign them will be an option.

But that's not true, and you know it. If a player is asking for an unreasonable sign and trade, the GM can easily say, "No, we're not taking those salaries back. Go take the MLE, if that's what you want." The player doesn't hold all the cards in that kind of a deal.

Edit: It also makes the other team make legitimate trades for a star if they really want someone rather than waiting for FA and then the star forcing his way to the other team for minimal return.

How so? If a star is "forcing his way to the other team" in free agency, he could have gone anyway. What team trades a huge package for a guy who's going to be a free agent at the end of the year (absent an extend-and-trade)?

[J-Roc]

If a player can get more money to sign with his own team, he should have to stay with that team for a year to make that re-signing legit. Otherwise all any player has to do is sign and then demand a trade. Or as Reignman says the silliness of the sign and trade where you get back crap.

[bboyskinnylegs]

No mention of reducing the amount of time teams have to match contract offers to RFA's to 3 days?

I heard earlier in the week that was one of the proposals?

that's a good idea, the one week wait really held up team's options in terms of pursuing alternate free agents or trade scenarios in case the team decides to match.

[BorisDK1]

Adding to Reignman's points, the S & T even existing gives the player more leverage just for the fact that it exists. If you take it out of the equation, the player potentially has to take a pay cut in order to move to a city of his choice. It may handcuff the team in terms of losing someone outright, but it also handcuffs the player in terms of earnings. Might give players more incentive to stay.

That's already the case. If a player wants to sign with a team which is over the cap, the S&T either has to be agreeable to his current team, or it's not going to happen and he's going to have to take the MLE. Players cannot order an S&T on their own whim.

[Reignman]

That's a bit of a downside but the upside is much greater. It allows teams to A) Not get a poo poo platter back for their star (see T Mac / Bosh) and it puts the onus on the other team to really clear cap space if they want to sign a star.

I'd much rather the other team has to work / manage their cap if they want to sign a star rather than the star saying sign/trade me to team X and team X saying "here's what I have for you, it's crap but it's better than nothing".

Firstly, that "poo poo platter" consisted of not only Miami's first round pick (which obviously wasn't going to be all that valuable), but our first round pick back from the Shawn Marion trade, which will be extremely valuable. Would you rather that we had lost Bosh for nothing at all?

Secondly, Miami (Bosh) and Orlando (McGrady) did clear their cap to sign them outright so I don't know where those objections come from.

Like I said, I'm ok with losing my star guy for nothing if the other team outright signs them. This would be coupled with 1 no max franchise tag for each team and would narrow the options of the star and potential huge financial sacrifices.

I'm not one of those guys that want to "trap" a star. If he wants to leave and another team has made the moves to sign him then I'm ok with that. I just want there to be some deterrents in place that make that movement minimal while he is under contract and a situation where if another team really wants your star, they'll have to pony up something serous.

[Reignman]

Adding to Reignman's points, the S & T even existing gives the player more leverage just for the fact that it exists. If you take it out of the equation, the player potentially has to take a pay cut in order to move to a city of his choice. It may handcuff the team in terms of losing someone outright, but it also handcuffs the player in terms of earnings. Might give players more incentive to stay.

That's already the case. If a player wants to sign with a team which is over the cap, the S&T either has to be agreeable to his current team, or it's not going to happen and he's going to have to take the MLE. Players cannot order an S&T on their own whim.

Come on, you and I both no that when given the choice between nothing and something management will likely take the something.

Hell, after all of Gilbert's bitching about LBJ he still SnT'd him to Miami for that late round garbage pick.

In fact, I don't remember the last time a team did what you are suggesting. Under the previous CBA when a star has wanted to be traded to team X, it has happened.

[Reignman]

How so? If a star is "forcing his way to the other team" in free agency, he could have gone anyway. What team trades a huge package for a guy who's going to be a free agent at the end of the year (absent an extend-and-trade)?

A team that doesn't have the capspace to sign him outright.

[BorisDK1]

Come on, you and I both no that when given the choice between nothing and something management will likely take the something.

Hell, after all of Gilbert's bitching about LBJ he still SnT'd him to Miami for that late round garbage pick.

But that's not the situation you're talking about. LeBronze wasn't S&T to a team over the cap because he forced it: he could have just gone over to Miami and signed and Cleveland could have received nothing in return. You've already said you have no problems with S&T done in this manner, so start being consistent on this issue.

In fact, I don't remember the last time a team did what you are suggesting. Under the previous CBA when a star has wanted to be traded to team X, it has happened.

Name me one time a star has been S&T for a manifestly bad package to a team over the salary cap.

[BorisDK1]

A team that doesn't have the capspace to sign him outright.

And you tell me all the times that's happened involving a "star" (your constant criterion).