Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Laowai]

I think that the owner ratifying getting a 50/50 split isn't a sure thing simply because the players really have given up very little o nsystem issues contract length, hard cap, exemptions etc.

I know if I was a small, mid-market or corporate team I would not be rushing to ratify.
The CBA as proposed still is hugely tilted in favor of large market teams like LAL, Boston, NYKs,Chicago and indiscriminate spenders like Dallas, Miami & Orlando.

The amnesty clause only benefits large markets such as the Lakers who can get rid of Walton's contract with minimum pain. I believe Stern has over stepped his mandate to the vast majority of the teams.

Better to lose the season get a hard cap lets say 60 to 62 million, BRI in the 57/43 area in the teams, favor, no exemptions. Reduction of up to 20% in current salaries reduction in contract length, modification of rookie salaries ton conform with BRI with fixed rates not a range. but with a 10% performance bonus. Rookie contract length 6 years with restricted free agency with the owners able to opt out after 3rd year and every other year of the contract after.

Owners over the cap can amnesty 2 players and the players can't resign at the minimum for the same team but by the 2nd year of the CBA must be under the cap if not they can't draft, sign there free agents and must pay 10 times luxury tax on anything over.

Trades not bound by percentages a rookie could be traded for a 20 million dollar player.

Owners receive into a pool at least 35 of local TV revenues and 25% of gate revenues to be evenly shared.

This would be a great system for parity in the league. In one year the players would be happy to sign.

[Twinkie defense]

Twinkie, a rollback in the NBA is very unlikely. As for my wager, I've been very clear. I don't blame people for trying to change the bet, though.

OK then what's so bold about saying the players won't ever take less than 50% of BRI in the next CBA? The owners have already offered 50%. I've been saying 50% was a natural landing place for months, while you thought that was absurd, that players deserved more than 50%, and that any new CBA would look very similar to the old CBA (i.e., closer to 57% than 50%). I think it could be 50%. Could be 51%, possibly. Maybe 49%. If you want to take a bold stance why not stick to your guns and say they will never take less than say the 52.5% or whatever was the players last, best offer?

Basically by saying they won't go below 50% you're just saying that they won't entirely and completely cave, but that they will instead settle on the best offer that the owners have proposed. And that seems like a pretty soft stance to take, wager-wise.

Not to mention that 50% in a couple months is worse than 50% today, so practically speaking they would very much be caving and shooting themselves in the foot if they missed paychecks to hold out for a deal that has been on the table for them already.

[floppymoose]

OK then what's so bold about saying the players won't ever take less than 50% of BRI in the next CBA? The owners have already offered 50%.

There is nothing at all bold about it. That's the whole point. Yet people have argued against that. Even reputable nba people:

David Aldridge, http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/d ... ef:nbahpt1

In the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, the league is going to get, at minimum, a 50-50 split of Basketball-Related Income with the players [... ] Those are the choices now, and they will only get worse, because now that a month of the season is officially gone, and $800 million is down the tubes, there's no reason for the league to stay at 50-50, and it won't.

There have been folks buying into this on realgm forums and other forums as well.

But none of them have taken the wager.

[Twinkie defense]

Since we are talking that game with sticks:

More NHL players tell NBA brethren to get deal done

[Ponchos]

It allows them to replace those guys with players who are better or at least take up less cap space, or extend the contracts of their young stars when otherwise they might have lost them or been forced to get rid of other players they liked in order to keep out of the luxury tax.

If you cut Maggette to save money you're not improving your team and you're not going to be able to replace him with someone better.

Being able to sign your young talent does not make you "better" either.

Guys like Maggette will go to the big markets for cheap after they get cut. The rich teams will probably save their amnesty for use in a one sided trade with a poor team down the road (rich team takes on talent and another player with a bad contract, then uses amnesty to dump the bad contract).

The rich get richer.

[floppymoose]

I'm not surprised by those comments from the NHL players, although it would be more meaningful if they polled the entire league and presented the results, rather than just relying on a a couple of quotes.

I fully expect infighting among the nba players as this drags on. But what we don't see is that the same thing happens with the owners: they aren't united either.

And with the NHL, the league really was losing money, and player salaries before that lockout were over 70% of revenue. In the NBA many teams are very clearly making a ton of money, and many of the teams losing money are at least having their team value appreciate. The NBA owners have a lot more to lose than the NHL owners did in 2005.

[floppymoose]

If you cut Maggette to save money you're not improving your team and you're not going to be able to replace him with someone better.

I totally agree with your main point, but you picked a bad example to illustrate it.

You get better when you cut Maggette. He's special that way.

[Ponchos]

If you cut Maggette to save money you're not improving your team and you're not going to be able to replace him with someone better.

I totally agree with your main point, but you picked a bad example to illustrate it.

You get better when you cut Maggette. He's special that way.

Haha, fair enough.

[knickerbocker2k2]

And with the NHL, the league really was losing money, and player salaries before that lockout were over 70% of revenue. In the NBA many teams are very clearly making a ton of money, and many of the teams losing money are at least having their team value appreciate. The NBA owners have a lot more to lose than the NHL owners did in 2005.

This is what gets lost in these conversations. People think players are the only ones to lose if season gets lost. If players can get past the initial fear of losing pay check, as the deadline to saving the season approaches the gain more leverage vis vie owners. Owners are calling the bluff of the players because it makes no sense for them to lose a season too.

Forget about the future loss (baseball never recovered from season lost and it was bigger league than the NBA with rich history. If you take the owners claims at face value, they earned net of players salaries $1.7B. Supposedly they lost $300M so that means their non player costs were $2B. So with lost season they can potentially lose $2B. Lets say there is some variable costs such as marketing, game day costs, personnel, and some other costs they are able to avoid because of no games. If you say half of that is fixed, than they would lose $1B and this would be conservative because I don't think variable costs like marketing, and personnel are $1B per year. So are they going to get an additional $1B in concessions from players in the next 10 years to recoup the loses of lost season?

[Turbo_Zone]

HD: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx14 ... 012_HD.jpg

[Ponchos]

Amazing pic.

[floppymoose]

HD: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx14 ... 012_HD.jpg

I gotta quote that pic so that it will be on this page too.

[hoophoophooray]

The problem with the debate is twofold.

1. Players are approaching the debate from the way they always have in sports. Win or lose. They feel they are already losing. They have to hold their ground to "win". This is not about winning or losing on some arbitrary 57/43, 52/48 or 48/52 split. It is about getting a deal both sides can live with. Is it better to make 4% less (or even 10% or 30% less) in the NBA or to play in some two bit league earning 60% to 90% less (and in some cases risk not being paid)?

2. At current splits the leverage is with the owners, like it or not. If 50% goes into the players pockets it is in their pockets. Of the 50% that goes to the owners they only get to keep a small portion (hopefully) after costs. While on strike the players lose 50%, and the owners lose less (50% less costs that they don't pay while on strike - travel, per diems, arena costs etc, etc.). The only way this leverage starts to tilt the other way is if the franchise value starts to decline. The NHL strike showed that a one year strike only enhances value. Will it take the players 2 or 3 years of their careers to win? If so is it a win?

Lets get this thing settled. 50% isn't all bad.

[knickerbocker2k2]

2. At current splits the leverage is with the owners, like it or not. If 50% goes into the players pockets it is in their pockets. Of the 50% that goes to the owners they only get to keep a small portion (hopefully) after costs. While on strike the players lose 50%, and the owners lose less (50% less costs that they don't pay while on strike - travel, per diems, arena costs etc, etc.). The only way this leverage starts to tilt the other way is if the franchise value starts to decline. The NHL strike showed that a one year strike only enhances value. Will it take the players 2 or 3 years of their careers to win? If so is it a win?

Owners will lose on average more because they are only 30 of them while there are 400 players sharing the 50%. So if they lose $1B as whole, than each owner is on the hook for $33M, more than anyone one player will lose. Also I don't see how losing whole season increases any value. I read article stating that half of the NHL revenue increases since lockout is due to increase in Canadian dollar. Plus with NHL being niche league with core support (canadian/us fans) that could explain the reason for it not dropping off the face of the earth.

NBA is different because it has core support like you and me, but I would imagine large percentage of its following is the casual fan that NHL strongly courts. They won't necessarily become hockey fans overnight but people will find other ways of spending their money and some will not return just because they found better things to do with their money. It is dangerous game to be playing when the consumer has many options and with tough economic times ahead, significant portion of the fans might not return. Baseball attendance dropped 20% in their strike and tv ratings were down similar numbers.

Do you think owners if it came down it would reject players 52.5%? They would be nuts. They would never recoup those losses. And if the season is lost, guess who losses the most? Not stable clubs like Lakers, Knicks, Miami, etc. But the struggling clubs like Charlotte, Cleveland, Phoenix and all the hard line owners. They have the most to lose!

[Twinkie defense]

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. The Warriors will likely be just a small amount under the cap next season. If they amnesty Andris Biedrins ($9 mil) and use the money freed up under the cap to sign Nene, they have suddenly become a better team: Nene > Biedrins. And if he wants to go miss free throws for the Lakers instead, more power to him and Jerry Buss. But the amnestying team doesn't "save money" at all, they spend even more - they still have to pay Biedrins the remainder of his contract, it just doesn't count towards cap and luxury tax calculations. Also, no one is forced to use the amnesty.

And MLB did not go into some big decline because of their lost games - fans came clamoring back as soon as there were games, just like they will when NBA games start up again, whether that is this season or next. We've lost some games, but I still see you guys here - how come you haven't lost interest in the NBA?

In fact I dare any person here to say they will never watch NBA games again if the season is lost.

[Ponchos]

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. The Warriors will likely be just a small amount under the cap next season. If they amnesty Andris Biedrins ($9 mil) and use the money freed up under the cap to sign Nene, they have suddenly become a better team: Nene > Biedrins. And if he wants to go miss free throws for the Lakers instead, more power to him and Jerry Buss.

30 teams, 1 Nene.

But the amnestying team doesn't "save money" at all, they spend even more - they still have to pay Biedrins the remainder of his contract, it just doesn't count towards cap and luxury tax calculations. Also, no one is forced to use the amnesty.

That's why small market teams who are worried about money will not use the provision to get better.

[floppymoose]

And MLB did not go into some big decline because of their lost games - fans came clamoring back as soon as there were games, just like they will when NBA games start up again, whether that is this season or next. We've lost some games, but I still see you guys here - how come you haven't lost interest in the NBA?

MLB had a significant decline after their lockout. They averaged around 31000 fans per game for the two seasons leading into the lockout, and dropped down to 25000 the season after. They slowly ramped back up since then but still have not matched the numbers they saw in '93 and '94.

If it hadn't been for Cal Ripken and the streak, it would have been even worse.

I really don't have a feel for whether the NBA would suffer the same fate, though.

[tecumseh18]

If it hadn't been for steroids and HGH, it would have been even worse.

Fixed.

Definitely the MLB strike hurt attendance in Canada, ultimately killing the Expos. The permanent drop in the Jays league-leading (to the tune of 4 mill/yr) attendance occurred around this time. And if attendance and ratings never quite recovered across the league, I think it's because baseball is a bit of an anachronism in this hyperactive culture. 3 1/2 hour games? Where not much happens? F that.

Basketball has more to offer the instant gratification crowd. It will "rebound". But it will need a bit more (not too much) parity.

[The Duke]

And MLB did not go into some big decline because of their lost games - fans came clamoring back as soon as there were games, just like they will when NBA games start up again, whether that is this season or next. We've lost some games, but I still see you guys here - how come you haven't lost interest in the NBA?

MLB had a significant decline after their lockout. They averaged around 31000 fans per game for the two seasons leading into the lockout, and dropped down to 25000 the season after. They slowly ramped back up since then but still have not matched the numbers they saw in '93 and '94.

If it hadn't been for Cal Ripken and the streak, it would have been even worse.

I really don't have a feel for whether the NBA would suffer the same fate, though.

Yea the MLB recently glory days was when the Jays were on top

[Reignman]

As mentioned many times, the deal will only get worse and worse.

Ric Bucher: I'm hearing that the owners' resolve and they are willing this: to lose the entire season and get the absolute best deal that they can is gaining strength at this point. ESPN.com

Chris Broussard: I'm hearing a lot of the same things that Ric has heard. At the beginning of the week I was told that if a deal is not done within a week and a half to two weeks, the 50/50 will no longer will be on the table from the owners. They will go now on the 46, 47 percent of BRI. They feel like if they lose this season the money they'll lose they will gain it back in over the next ten years because they will have a very favorable CBA if they not have this season. ESPN.com

I expect that the deal (when eventually finalized) will look similar to the owner's original demands. They are going to win on the BRI split and they are going to win on the systemic changes. This is why I've wanted for this to drag on longer and became a bit nervous when they were talking about a 78 game season.

The longer this goes on the better it'll be for the system.