Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[redraptors]

What the NBA essentially wants to do is bring in a round of massive paycuts. Is it because that it will make Atlanta a more viable market? New Orleans? Charlotte? If it truly was an owners domain they'd lay people off and hire cheaper replacements. This is an example of an operation where how well one does their job is vastly more important and valuable than how cheaply they do it for. Without the players there is no game.

Well without players of course there would be no game. I 100% agree the players deserve a handsome return however, the GAME is the NBA and not basketball. The threat of European teams has been around for a long time and who has the NBA really lost...Linas Kleiza and Josh Childress?? I highly doubt that there would be a huge rush of tallented NA players to the Euro leagues.

Rudy Fernandez leaving the NBA to Make more money is a unique situation because his name is a draw in Europe his NBA production does not show that he is worth keeping around at 7 million per year (Before Tax).

As for Laying employees off - One it is not highly publicized so I do not know nor do most people what has been done and laying Salary employees off is essentially releasing their rights and is costly. If you are looking for the highest costs in the organization which all companies will do on occassion I highly doubt the AR AP individual is coming close to he money the players receive. cutting the pay of an indivdual that makes 50K, 75K,100K even 1 million compared to players that AVERAGE 5 Milion?? is what you think will help teams become more successful?? Detroit has not hired a coach because they do not want to pay for that position, so some teams have done cost saving maneuvers.

The point of Atlanta and Charolette is to make them equitable in their region. The funny thing that people fail to see is that if they were to shut down two franchises it would cost Ball Players Jobs high paying jobs which would hurt the Union and Agents. In those unique situations nobody wins. So if they want higher paying jobs upto 7 million avergae in the next 6 years and franchises shut down HOW does that help anyone?? It hurts the players, union, agents and the League.

The issue is the long term contracts without any way out of them unless you pay them out totally anyway. There are no true controls if a Owner is willing to spend. Not every Owner can afford that which then hinders those teams. In "real" life that is what happens all the time. Except in Sports it is driven by competition within the league. If you do not have competition in the league it hurts the league generall speaking, the higher clubs will continue to reap the benefits as the other clubs become farm systems. So it really depends on what type of league you ejoy to watch MLB or NFL.

[ballislife]

So, how many people knew Jerryd Bayless is our player representative... and Julian Wright is the alternative?

[C Court]

I always support owners in player/owner negotiations except this time. That's because I don't feel the owners are being honest about their losses. It sure sounds like they've trumped up the numbers.

Larry Coon summarized the issue of owners losing money in this ESPN article. This is also why the players are skeptical of the owner's numbers and rightly so.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... als-110630

Stern contends the owners lost over $300 million last season. Yet when you look at Forbes (estimates) of operating income, the NBA as a whole earned over $182 million in 2010.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/bas ... _rank.html

I believe the system needs an adjustment and not the complete overhaul the owners are suggesting.

[bballsparkin]

Did you know that during a lockout you can use paragraphs as opposed to walls of text?

Haha, true. Still a good post though. Adds perspective. But as a fan I find it hard to trust these billionaires and the numbers they produce. I don't blame them for wanting changes. But from what I see, they are asking for such drastic changes that I can't blame the players for taking a strong stance.

[J-Roc]

I believe the system needs an adjustment and not stay the same as the players are suggesting.

same difference.

[Laowai]

When the Memphis owner was criticized for not giving his 1st and 2nd draft picks the maximum.
Everyone was on his case that he was cheap where he was being fiscally responsible.
I think both sides are drawing lines in the sand rather than being constructive and negotiating in good faith. Undoubtedly in a war of attrition the owners will ultimately prevail they can take a financial beating longer but the loss of a year plus will do harm to the popularity of the league and lead to a few teams collapsing like Charlotte. A maximum cap must be established whether it is a cap with star player exemption or a maximum. With that a minimum cap should be established as well.
The mid-level and bi annual exemptions should be scrapped and a modification of the Bird exemption.
From the owners side they need to share the pot more Blake Griffin is a great draw where ever he goes but the LAC have low attendance and a small local TV package. So revenues from attendance and local media packages should be shared.

Also team receiving sweet heart deals by cities should be required to kick in against teams that financed their buildings.

As I indicated this is a owners & players battle and owner versus owner battle.
A level playing field or somewhat even is best for players and owners.
To bad they couldn't have a arbitration panel with forensic accountants make a equitable decision on % .

[J-Roc]

Is there any advantage to a fan taking the side of the players? At least if the owners win, there's a chance it could be good for the fans. Teams with stability, control over players. Why would a [url]fan[/url]side with the players?

[Ponchos]

Is there any advantage to a fan taking the side of the players? At least if the owners win, there's a chance it could be good for the fans. Teams with stability, control over players. Why would a [url]fan[/url]side with the players?

Well, there are several reasons.

1) If the deal is too good for owners, you WILL see expansion into crappy markets. I think we all know why this is bad.

2) If the deal makes a maximum salary cap that is too low, star players will begin to take overseas contracts.

3) Part of the reason the best athletes in the world gravitate towards playing basketball has to do with the personal earning potential as compared with other sports.

4) As player salaries go down, the percentage of income they make from endorsements goes up. This will create even more pressure for star players to go to big market teams.

5) If owners are guaranteed to make money, there is less incentive to try to improve the on court product.

6) The Raptors probably have one more bad year before BC has to make a big "win - now" push. The owners are pushing hard for an increased age limit. If the age limit is increased, the 2012 draft suddenly becomes significantly worse. This would be very very bad for our long term prospects.


Downside of keeping the same system (the supposedly unsustainable one that has sustained the league for over a decade.)

1) Some billionaires make tons of money, and some billionaires in small markets lose money year after year?

[J-Roc]

Is there any advantage to a fan taking the side of the players? At least if the owners win, there's a chance it could be good for the fans. Teams with stability, control over players. Why would a [url]fan[/url]side with the players?

Well, there are several reasons.

1) If the deal is too good for owners, you WILL see expansion into crappy markets. I think we all know why this is bad.

2) If the deal makes a maximum salary cap that is too low, star players will begin to take overseas contracts.

3) Part of the reason the best athletes in the world gravitate towards playing basketball has to do with the personal earning potential as compared with other sports.

4) As player salaries go down, the percentage of income they make from endorsements goes up. This will create even more pressure for star players to go to big market teams.

5) If owners are guaranteed to make money, there is less incentive to try to improve the on court product.

6) The Raptors probably have one more bad year before BC has to make a big "win - now" push. The owners are pushing hard for an increased age limit. If the age limit is increased, the 2012 draft suddenly becomes significantly worse. This would be very very bad for our long term prospects.


Downside of keeping the same system (the supposedly unsustainable one that has sustained the league for over a decade.)

1) Some billionaires make tons of money, and some billionaires in small markets lose money year after year?

Some of your ideas there are very long term and speculative. Your #4 is interesting, though players may not have a choice about where to go if a cap prevents it.

And regarding #5, what if there was a system whereby playoff teams took in a bunch of money from a pot. But then you'd definitely have every team fighting for 8th spot.

As it is, the Raps feel pressure to win, so they put BC into win-now mode. Maybe the pressure to improve on the court isn't a good thing.

[Ponchos]

Some of your ideas there are very long term and speculative. Your #4 is interesting, though players may not have a choice about where to go if a cap prevents it.

What cap system being proposed prevents player movement? Nothing the owners have proposed has much of anything to do with changing free agency. In fact, owners want shorter contracts.

And regarding #5, what if there was a system whereby playoff teams took in a bunch of money from a pot. But then you'd definitely have every team fighting for 8th spot.

There is no such system being proposed by the owners so it is pointless to speculate on that. This is not J-Roc's fantasy system being proposed by Mr. Stern.

As it is, the Raps feel pressure to win, so they put BC into win-now mode. Maybe the pressure to improve on the court isn't a good thing.

No incentive to improve the on court product does not mean that the team will embark on a patient and well crafted rebuild. It means they can fire their scouts, draft poorly and keep losing games, while never ever making a push to win. Obviously owners like Cuban would always try to win, but I would not put it past a group like MLSE to take the Sterling route if it was available.

[Too Late Crew]

Sterling has been brought up a ferw times and he's an intetresting example of why the current system is broken. Its often heard that "owners are at fault for losing $ becuase they should just not give out these biog contracts". Well in general that is what Sterling does. He refuses to play the game of spedning big or competing to get players to improve his team. He thinks $ first. He makes $. Consequetly the Clippers usually suck. Sarver is another example. He's given away players and picks becuasde its the best thing to do in terms of $s.

When you choose $ over what's right on the basketball court you lose on the court to guys who will outbid you. Mark Cuban spending 100M a year on players gives him a competive advanatge over the Twolves or many other teams. Owners aren't simply giving out big contracts becuase they are stupid they often need to balance $ with the appearnace of at least trying to win.

The Clippers play in a huge market and have a relativley sweet arena deal. They can be profitable wile allowing thenselves to suck. You can't get away with that in Milwakie or Minny or Clevland.

[Fairview4Life]

Sterling has been brought up a ferw times and he's an intetresting example of why the current system is broken. Its often heard that "owners are at fault for losing $ becuase they should just not give out these biog contracts". Well in general that is what Sterling does. He refuses to play the game of spedning big or competing to get players to improve his team. He thinks $ first. He makes $. Consequetly the Clippers usually suck. Sarver is another example. He's given away players and picks becuasde its the best thing to do in terms of $s.

When you choose $ over what's right on the basketball court you lose on the court to guys who will outbid you. Mark Cuban spending 100M a year on players gives him a competive advanatge over the Twolves or many other teams. Owners aren't simply giving out big contracts becuase they are stupid they often need to balance $ with the appearnace of at least trying to win.

The Clippers play in a huge market and have a relativley sweet arena deal. They can be profitable wile allowing thenselves to suck. You can't get away with that in Milwakie or Minny or Clevland.

So then increase revenue sharing so Sterling doesn't get to sit on his pile of cash. Problem solved.

[Too Late Crew]

Sterling has been brought up a ferw times and he's an intetresting example of why the current system is broken. Its often heard that "owners are at fault for losing $ becuase they should just not give out these biog contracts". Well in general that is what Sterling does. He refuses to play the game of spedning big or competing to get players to improve his team. He thinks $ first. He makes $. Consequetly the Clippers usually suck. Sarver is another example. He's given away players and picks becuasde its the best thing to do in terms of $s.

When you choose $ over what's right on the basketball court you lose on the court to guys who will outbid you. Mark Cuban spending 100M a year on players gives him a competive advanatge over the Twolves or many other teams. Owners aren't simply giving out big contracts becuase they are stupid they often need to balance $ with the appearnace of at least trying to win.

The Clippers play in a huge market and have a relativley sweet arena deal. They can be profitable wile allowing thenselves to suck. You can't get away with that in Milwakie or Minny or Clevland.

So then increase revenue sharing so Sterling doesn't get to sit on his pile of cash. Problem solved.

No that won't solve the issue.

The issue is that the "market" artificially infates player salaries becuase its not a true "free market".

Revenue sharing would help some of the samaller teams lose less/make money. But a hard cap would fix the issue of teams being "forced" to overspend in oprder to be competitive.

If players get 57 % of revenue then the pile of revenue you suggest sharing is too small. I don't know what the exact right number is but if I were investing 100s of millions of dollars in a business of my "won" $ and taking all the risks I think that I'd want at LEAST 51% of the revenues.

The solution needs more than one part:

Revenue sharing
Some kind of harder cap to level the market
reduced share of revenue to the employees

[J-Roc]

How to resolve the issue of players not trusting BRI?

[Ponchos]

How to resolve the issue of players not trusting BRI?

The players absolutely trust BRI, it is easy to measure. Are you thinking about something else?

[dagger]

So then increase revenue sharing so Sterling doesn't get to sit on his pile of cash. Problem solved.

So you are going to punish someone for being smart about spending. You will force him to sign players or lose the same money to revenue-sharing.

So how does that end the practice of giving out bad contracts?

Okay, so maybe that's a pretty dumb idea. Let owners decide whether to spend those revenue sharing dollars as they see fit.

Let me introduce you to Jeffrey Loria.

You see, getting a pisspot full of free cash doesn't mean it will get spent or spent well. It doesn't mean you will be smart enough to tell if Eddy Curry will be a player in the second week of a new contract or an understudy for the Michelin Man.

[Fairview4Life]

Let me introduce you to Jeffrey Loria.

Getting a pisspot full of free cash doesn't mean it will get spent.

Jeffrey Loria isn't operating under the current NBA CBA with increased revenue sharing. Which is what I said would solve the problem of Donald Sterling.

[Kevin Willis]

Ideas proposed that are interesting:

Hard Cap with exemptions I like. Designate one franchise player which would make the Big 3's harder to build.

A sliding hard cap based on revenue percentage sounds good to me also. Criteria would need to be set but if the NBA does well so does the players. It would also mean the NBA would have to open it's books for auditing as well and I'm not sure they would do that.

Raising the age-level to sophmore will happen. So next year is not going to be as great a draft as ppl think.

Stay away from an NHL like CBA with a minimum cap. It will fold teams. If owners want to suck to make some coin then so be it.

[dagger]

Let me introduce you to Jeffrey Loria.

Getting a pisspot full of free cash doesn't mean it will get spent.

Jeffrey Loria isn't operating under the current NBA CBA with increased revenue sharing. Which is what I said would solve the problem of Donald Sterling.

No it wouldn't. Forced expenditures will lead to bad signings.

[J-Roc]

How to resolve the issue of players not trusting BRI?

The players absolutely trust BRI, it is easy to measure. Are you thinking about something else?

So BRI is not under dispute? So all revenue issues are fine, but the dispute is over actual expenses?