Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Ponchos]

Different situation, different owners.

I don't think the majority of the owners in the NBA even want a hard cap.

So Stern was doing his own thing proposing a $45 million hard cap? Or are you just guessing?

I am sure you are aware of negotiating tactics?

Stern and the owners abandoned the hard-cap completely a few weeks later in their flex-cap proposal (which functions almost exactly like the current system, except it is linked to a hard dollar figure (2 Billion in wages) as opposed to a % of BRI).

Soooooo what am I to make of the owners almost immediately abandoning a hard-cap proposal?

[ranger001]

The players called the flexcap a hard cap. And they're right, its still a hard cap.

[Ponchos]

The hyped max "stars" are suking the league dry lets call it like it is.

Actually, the hyped max "stars" are the primary revenue driver for the league and generate far more value for the NBA than they take out of it.

[Ponchos]

The players called the flexcap a hard cap. And they're right, its still a hard cap.

Actually no. It's not.

It's a hard cap as much as the current soft-cap is a hard cap.

In the flex cap system you have:

A median cap number that can be exceeded with Bird rights and MLE's (just like the soft cap!)

An overall wage value that cannot be exceeded. (just like the soft cap!)

Guaranteed contracts. (just like the soft cap!)

A minimum cap figure. (just like the soft cap!!)

I am sure you can present more reasoned arguments than simply "The owners presented a hard-cap therefore they must truly prefer it", and "the players said the flex-cap was a hard-cap so then it truly must be a hard-cap".

[ranger001]

What happens when a team exceeds the flex cap? The players pay the excess!

[Ponchos]

What happens when a team exceeds the flex cap? The players pay the excess!

Nope.

The players only pay the excess if league-wide salaries exceed their guaranteed amount of 2+ Billion in wages. Individual teams can exceed the cap (just like they do today).

Again, this is EXACTLY like the soft-cap system in place now. If the players are paid more than 57% BRI then they give back a portion of their salary to the owners.

[ranger001]

They only pay a portion now, with the flex cap they would pay all. The net effect is a cap on salaries.

Answer this. Do total league salaries have a maximum limit with the flex cap?

[Ponchos]

They only pay a portion now, with the flex cap they would pay all. The net effect is a cap on salaries.

Answer this. Do total league salaries have a maximum limit with the flex cap?

Actually, again you're wrong.

If the players got paid 65% of BRI one season, and the escrow does not cover the difference to get back to 57% BRI, the the players would still have to make up that overage next season. Salaries are hard-capped at 57% BRI right now, no ifs ands or buts about it.

As I have said already (if you read my posts) league salaries have a maximum in the flex-cap. JUST LIKE THEY DO IN THE SOFT CAP!!!! The only difference, as I have stated over and over and over again, is that the current system links the maximum to a % of revenues and the flex-cap links it to 2+ billion dollars. This does not make it a hard-cap.

The hard-cap in the NHL has a maximum linked to a % of revenues. It is a hard-cap because each team gets a cap figure that cannot be exceeded by things like Bird-exceptions and MLE's.

[ranger001]

They only pay a portion now, with the flex cap they would pay all. The net effect is a cap on salaries.

Answer this. Do total league salaries have a maximum limit with the flex cap?

the current system links the maximum to a % of revenues and the flex-cap links it to 2+ billion dollars. This does not make it a hard-cap.

Yes it does make it a hard cap. There is a maximum limit league wide. Individual teams do not have a limit but there is a league limit. That makes it a hard cap which does not vary year by year unlike the current system.

[Ponchos]

They only pay a portion now, with the flex cap they would pay all. The net effect is a cap on salaries.

Answer this. Do total league salaries have a maximum limit with the flex cap?

the current system links the maximum to a % of revenues and the flex-cap links it to 2+ billion dollars. This does not make it a hard-cap.

Yes it does make it a hard cap. There is a maximum limit league wide. Individual teams do not have a limit but there is a league limit. That makes it a hard cap which does not vary year by year under the current system.

Sigh, now you're just being difficult.

Call it a hard-cap if you like. Call the sky purple.

By your logic the NHL has a soft-cap.

[ranger001]

What is a hard cap? Its a number that salaries cannot exceed. So league wide the flex cap is actually a a hard cap.

Note that under the present system only 8% of the players salary is withheld. So it is possible for the owners not to receive enough escrow money int he present system.

[Ponchos]

What is a hard cap? Its a number that salaries cannot exceed. So league wide the flex cap is actually a a hard cap.

By this logic the current soft-cap is a hard-cap.

Note that under the present system only 8% of the players salary is withheld. So it is possible for the owners not to receive enough escrow money int he present system.

Again you're mistaken. Please do some research. I would suggest you read Larry Coon's CBA faq:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

LARRY COON WRITES: "It is possible that they find themselves at the end of the season with insufficient escrow funds to cover the overage. If this happens, then the discrepancy is made up by deducting extra money from the players the following season."

There is NO POSSIBILITY in the current system, that players will get an amount that exceeds 57% of BRI.

[ranger001]

Yes there is, the overage can be more than the escrow. It carries over to the next year but then the overage can be more again.

[Ponchos]

Yes there is, the overage can be more than the escrow. It carries over to the next year but then the overage can be more again.

No.

No no no.

The overage that is lacking is deducted in ADDITION to the normal escrow amount.

There is no possibility of a perpetually insufficient escrow fund.

Jesus Christ.

[ranger001]

Explain this then:-

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q15

It is possible that they find themselves at the end of the season with insufficient escrow funds to cover the overage. If this happens, then the discrepancy is made up by deducting extra money from the players the following season.

[Ponchos]

The key lies in the word "extra".

It is possible that they find themselves at the end of the season with insufficient escrow funds to cover the overage. If this happens, then the discrepancy is made up by deducting EXTRA money from the players the following season.

The escrow is calculated before the season starts. Any overage is added to the initial escrow estimate (ie. duducting EXTRA money, ie. in addition to the normal escrow amount.)

[Ponchos]

"Thanks for clarifying that Ponchos. That's interesting and I didn't realize how the escrow amount was truly calculated and that, in fact, the NBA soft-cap absolutely has a set in stone maximum. I guess my logic was a bit skewed after all. And although there are differences between the current soft-cap and the flex-cap, it appears the flex-cap has more in common with the soft-cap than the hard-cap. My Bad. "

--- Sincerely, ranger001

No problem dude, it was a fun debate. I'm glad you can admit you were mistaken though. Shows class.

[ranger001]

I think there's more to the flex cap or the union would not be so against it. But even if its just exactly the same as the current system except its a total dollar limit it'd limit salaries just as effectively as a hard cap.

So hard cap!

edit: I'm out for a while. I'll answer more of your hard cap questions tomorrow.

[Ponchos]

I think there's more to the flex cap or the union would not be so against it. But even if its just exactly the same as the current system except its a total dollar limit it'd limit salaries just as effectively as a hard cap.

So hard cap!

edit: I'm out for a while. I'll answer more of your hard cap questions tomorrow.

It is quite difficult to debate with someone with such a moving target for that they're arguing for.

Now your position is "The union is super against it so it must be a hard cap!". No.

If the owners proposed the current system, but changed player salaries so they were set at 40% BRI, the union would be just as against it.

There are a few reasons the 2 billion dollar deal is terrible for the players, and excellent for the owners.

1) It is 10 years long. The players would be locked into 2 Billion a year with no chance to improve it regardless of how popular the league gets or how much revenue the owners receive. There are few things that are nearly certain in life, but 2 billion dollars in 2021 will be a lot less valuable than 2 billion in 2011.

2) As I stated, the amount the players get has no chance of improving and both the players and the owners are estimating that revenues will continue to grow. At the end of the deal the players will likely be receiving less than 45% of BRI. Which is, a total screw job.

even if its just exactly the same as the current system except its a total dollar limit it'd limit salaries just as effectively as a hard cap.

Just like the current system does. The salaries are limited.

So then the soft-cap is a hard-cap. And the sky is again purple.

I look forward to addressing your misinformation again tomorrow.

[Laowai]

The problem is that the vast majority of owners haven't treated the NBA as a business rather a play thing. That was peachy when the economy was good and they had other sources of income to subsidize the hobby which is no different than billionaires collecting art or cars.

MLSE was one of the few that treated it as a business I know that is unpopular on RealGM but I must applaud them. Owners in Phoenix. Memphis, SAC & Carolina are in trouble add NO to list. You have the 6 teams that also own NHL Franchises. Owners should have the ability to make a profit obvious some won't but the majority will. Sharing by owners of some revenues would allow more profits for small market owners.

Players have been getting the majority of the income which is unreasonable and BB has the lowest number of players in professional sports. This will be a long and nasty battle which in the end the small market & corporate owners will win.