RealGM

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
At end of labor meeting, still "big gaps" one official says between two sides. Meeting again on Friday. Some movement, civil meeting.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
NBPA will continue to resist hard salary cap, and impossible to imagine owners backing down on it prior to June 30th deadline.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern: "We've modified proposal to a flex cap, where some teams can go above it, some can go below it..."

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern says new deal would guarantee players $2 billion in annual salaries over 10 year deal. "Our best shot .." to get a deal done.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern: NBA proposed a targeted $62 million cap. As far as league's best offer? "It's all out there." Wouldn't call it "final" though.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Players have meeting scheduled for Thursday, and will respond to league's proposal on Friday in another league-union meeting.

Updates:
http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_t ... ef:nbahpt2
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/06/24/asch ... ef:nbahpt1

Players don't want a hard cap, the owners are pushing for it. That's pretty much the big hold-up, from what I gather. I suppose the unguaranteed vs. guaranteed contracts are also standing in the way, but I think owners would move off of it if a hard cap can be secured.

They obviously are trying to avoid a lockout. I don't think Stern wants one. Players have to make concessions. Owners are standing firm, it's all on the players, really.

What is a flex cap? Isn't that what the league essentially already has?

As if a hard cap will stop Miami Heat-style teams. You can't stop bajillionaire athletes from playing together for the sake of winning. They make enough money that it doesn't matter if they take less.

Mr.Raptorsingh wrote:Players don't want a hard cap, the owners are pushing for it. That's pretty much the big hold-up, from what I gather. I suppose the unguaranteed vs. guaranteed contracts are also standing in the way, but I think owners would move off of it if a hard cap can be secured.

They obviously are trying to avoid a lockout. I don't think Stern wants one. Players have to make concessions. Owners are standing firm, it's all on the players, really.

Owners have already backed away from the non guaranteed contracts in the meeting before this one. They're looking at a flex cap now which seems pretty much like the cap system we have now.

as a fan of this game i think we all want the hard cap its just that, if i was a player i'd be totally against and it's totally understandable. there is no solution other than one side backing down......sigh

After the draft is done, we'll have nothing to talk about for a looong time.

DG88 wrote:

Mr.Raptorsingh wrote:Players don't want a hard cap, the owners are pushing for it. That's pretty much the big hold-up, from what I gather. I suppose the unguaranteed vs. guaranteed contracts are also standing in the way, but I think owners would move off of it if a hard cap can be secured.

They obviously are trying to avoid a lockout. I don't think Stern wants one. Players have to make concessions. Owners are standing firm, it's all on the players, really.

Owners have already backed away from the non guaranteed contracts in the meeting before this one. They're looking at a flex cap now which seems pretty much like the cap system we have now.

Except there is no talk of retaining some exceptions. Like the MLE. Bird rights would remain. Cap would be harder, not hard.

Wow the owners are apparently dropping the non guaranteed contracts and now moved to a flex cap.

Players have them by the balls - that's a lot of concessions and they are clearly trying to avoid a lockout - they should really take this offer - receiving 50% of the revenues seems fair.

Derek Fisher, I'm counting on you to hit a buzzer-beater in the last second.

tke_mark wrote:Wow the owners are apparently dropping the non guaranteed contracts and now moved to a flex cap.

Players have them by the balls - that's a lot of concessions and they are clearly trying to avoid a lockout - they should really take this offer - receiving 50% of the revenues seems fair.

Yeah, owners/NBA have probably conceded as much as they will. I think they've drawn the line in the sand. It's the players' move now, and I'm hoping they take this offer.

dagger wrote:

DG88 wrote:

Mr.Raptorsingh wrote:Players don't want a hard cap, the owners are pushing for it. That's pretty much the big hold-up, from what I gather. I suppose the unguaranteed vs. guaranteed contracts are also standing in the way, but I think owners would move off of it if a hard cap can be secured.

They obviously are trying to avoid a lockout. I don't think Stern wants one. Players have to make concessions. Owners are standing firm, it's all on the players, really.

Owners have already backed away from the non guaranteed contracts in the meeting before this one. They're looking at a flex cap now which seems pretty much like the cap system we have now.

Except there is no talk of retaining some exceptions. Like the MLE. Bird rights would remain. Cap would be harder, not hard.

That's another thing I've heard as well. They might change some of those exceptions. I think the MLE will be removed. It hasn't done much good since it was implemented. Look at our signings using the MLE . David Aldridge proposed that the Bird rights should be changed as to where the later years of the contract are partially guaranteed depending how long the player plays out that contract. So that if that said players wants to leave he loses money and it saves the franchise money with being more flexible with trades.

kiddy*jordan wrote:as a fan of this game i think we all want the hard cap its just that, if i was a player i'd be totally against and it's totally understandable. there is no solution other than one side backing down......sigh

I don't want a hard cap. At all. People assume that it'll create parity (and assume that a lack of spending is our problem; just the opposite, we have money, but our management has been inept), but it's just as likely that the opposite will occur.

Take a look at the Heat for a moment. Their payroll for this past year: $66,735,985. Our payroll: $70,148,649. They assembled a team with three superstars for less money than it cost us to assemble a roster of scrubs. How is that possible? Because with the price ceiling created by the soft cap we have in place, every team can offer similar money...which means that players end up gravitating toward the best playing/living situation, which then concentrates talent; Bosh and LeBron took slightly less money in Miami than they would have gotten in Cleveland or Toronto, but because our bid was capped at the max salary, we couldn't hit them with a deal that they couldn't turn down, so they opted for a team that could offer almost as much money, and a far better team. A hard cap will only encourage more player movement, and thus more situations like that.

Not that an uncapped world would be any better (I quite like the system that we have now, as a balance)

Agree with you Shad.

How has a hard cap been for the Leafs?

With the ownership (revenue stream) both teams have, we "SHOULD" be able to compete with any team out there, but that's just not the case.

Schadenfreude wrote:

kiddy*jordan wrote:as a fan of this game i think we all want the hard cap its just that, if i was a player i'd be totally against and it's totally understandable. there is no solution other than one side backing down......sigh

I don't want a hard cap. At all. People assume that it'll create parity (and assume that a lack of spending is our problem; just the opposite, we have money, but our management has been inept), but it's just as likely that the opposite will occur.

Take a look at the Heat for a moment. Their payroll for this past year: $66,735,985. Our payroll: $70,148,649. They assembled a team with three superstars for less money than it cost us to assemble a roster of scrubs. How is that possible? Because with the price ceiling created by the soft cap we have in place, every team can offer similar money...which means that players end up gravitating toward the best playing/living situation, which then concentrates talent; Bosh and LeBron took slightly less money in Miami than they would have gotten in Cleveland or Toronto, but because our bid was capped at the max salary, we couldn't hit them with a deal that they couldn't turn down, so they opted for a team that could offer almost as much money, and a far better team. A hard cap will only encourage more player movement, and thus more situations like that.

Not that an uncapped world would be any better (I quite like the system that we have now, as a balance)

That actually males a lot sense. Never thought of it that way before. I wonder if they plan on implementing some kind of "franchise player" tags? Not quite sure what but I do think some think has to be done. Teams like T.O, Minny. etc have become talent farms for the rest of the NBA and it's not fair. The system that we currently have is essentially saying that only teams with palm tress and nice weather can win/contend for championships. If they're going to keep this system then they might as well fold these kinds of small market teams and just go big or nothing at all. Otherwise its a waste of everyone's time and money.

On another note though, one thing that has me worried in the one-and-done rule. I sincerely hope Stern leaves it the way it is

David Stren is awesome. When it comes to this he is one of the best guys to run the league.

I think what they should do is have a hard cap at the 62 million then have a franchise exception that doesn't count against the cap. That way you have 62 million to spend on 14 players and 1 who you can pay more than the rest of your players and outbid teams. Then limit the amount of years on none franchise players to 3 or 4 years. Also with none franchise players the cap hit should be the average salary over the course of the contract rather than their salary in a particular year.

I think NBA has the best system out of the 4 leagues. Just maybe need a franchise tag and cut down on salaries in general.

I just hate how draft works in MLB and NFL. NHL is **** and MLB is way unbalanced.

What they don't realize is neither side is going to be happy when this is all over with. Both sides want it their way and they won't budge until its panic time and the season is about to start. Thats how these lockouts work every single time.

the league has a delicate balancing act here - it needs a hard(er) cap to ensure the viability of small market teams. There is no league TV revenue to support the small markets - so the league has to institute a system that allows for profitability for small markets and some degree of parity for the large market teams. So having a hard(er) cap is the only way to go. It certainly doesn't help the Raptors as much as Sacramento's and Milwaukee's of the world but it also stops the process of Miami Heating. Exactly how "the players" cover the amount the median over the cap bit is unknown - but I suspect this is just the process of arriving at the cap number for the following year - and the gradual erosion of the % of BRI for the players. It is a rather elegant solution as it is aimed at the mid level player - but how do players in this case stop a team from fragrantly going over the cap. If the next year cap is lowered or % of BRI is lowered because the Knicks go mad (for example) how could the players block that??