The compromises that need to be made

[I_Like_Dirt]

If the owners were really after a greater sense of parity, they'd be targetting contract limits. The biggest problems for parity in the NBA today are maximum contracts. Teams start off with minimum players and then bid more and more on better and better players. If one team winds up with Lebron for the same price another team winds up with Elton Brand, the end result winds up being awful disparity in teams. Even with a hard cap, both teams in turn have the same amount of money to pay their supporting casts, and you can bet which team will have players more likely to choose it if money is equal. That, in turn, leads to even greater disparity which also pushes teams towards tanking for the next Lebron since they can't compete without one, which in turn further increase the disparity. A hard cap doesn't solve this problem - in fact, in a lot of ways it makes it worse.

The owners haven't made any mention of wanting to eliminate maximum contracts and I doubt the union would put up a fight if they did. As evidence of how maximum contracts create disparity, the best example is the KG Timberwolves. People always blamed KG for being paid too much thereby costing his team wins, but that's how the system is supposed to work. You aren't supposed to get a top 4 player for the same price as other top 20 players. The teams that routinely beat KG's Wolves? Teams with superstars on maximum contracts that were invariably quite a bit less than KG's. Now management also plays an important role, but the Spurs wouldn't have been manhandling the Wolves all the time if they had to pay Duncan $30 million a season instead of $15 million.

Artificial limits on contracts like maximum contracts and rookie scale contracts invariably mean teams have more money to throw around in free agency since they couldn't spend it on the players that actually would have gotten that moneyon an open market. Since that money can't be spent on max contract players or rookie scale contract players, teams inevitably throw money at the middling players on the back end of their careers because they have nobody else thay can pay. This is going to continue to be true regardless of what percentage of BRI gets agreed upon in these negotiations. Ultimately, getting rid of caps on individual contracts increases competition and decreases bad contracts. I'm amused that in the owners' cry for parity that they aren't arguing for this - and actually actively campaigned for maximum contracts previously as though it was required for parity.

Until the owners propose raisong max contracts, if not abolishing them entirely, to me it's pretty clear that they really aren't interested in parity and are more interested in money.

[DBoys]

Artificial limits on contracts like maximum contracts and rookie scale contracts invariably mean teams have more money to throw around in free agency since they couldn't spend it on the players that actually would have gotten that moneyon an open market.

***********

Until the owners propose raisong max contracts, if not abolishing them entirely, to me it's pretty clear that they really aren't interested in parity and are more interested in money.

Please explain how any altering any of this would change what the owners will get, for better or for worse, in a league where the owners are guaranteed to pay the same specified total amount (and no more) no matter what. We'll wait.

The fact that proposed "system changes" don't effect the owners bottom line by a single penny, should completely shatter the nonsense that these proposals are a money grab by the owners. If they don't stand to gain any money, they can't be - and must be for a different reason. They've even told us that reason.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

My point is that there are two completely separate issues here: league parity as it relates to wins and losses, and money. The two aren't nearly as related as people seem to think.

There wasn't a big parity push when the Lakers and Knicks and Bulls were missing the playoffs. Now that it's their turn on the upswing after years of futility in the cases of the Bulls and Knicks, it's suddenly a problem because the revenue disparity is so much greater.

If you want parity in wins and losses, you look to eliminate shelters that allow teams to accumulate underpaid talent. This is completely independent of the money issue.

If you're worried about the fact that the smaller market teams are being dwarfed by the spending power of the larger market teams, then adding more limits doesn't solve this, either, you look for revenue sharing.

It's clear here, that the owners, like the players, are in it to get as much money as they can possibly get. The rest of the issues are of much less importance to them than getting as much as they possibly can.

[DBoys]

I'd say the "parity push" has been there for years. But it can only be addressed when the CBA ends and its time to create a new one. The issue is one of every team having a fair chance. Revenue sharing is part of the solution, and that one is clearly going to be implemented.

[floppymoose]

So the story now is that the system issues were blasted through pretty easily, and the final snag is BRI. Surprise surprise!

[DBoys]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... sse_102811

...the BRI split was only “partly” responsible for the breakdown in talks. The two sides also “couldn’t agree on the final pieces of the system.”

[floppymoose]

We've been down this path before... first report is it's the money, and then there is a followup saying something else. I still think when they have an agreement on the money, the lockout will end quickly.

[DBoys]

Yes we've seen this before. And i think we all agree that BRI is a key issue, even the biggest one. But, as before, on closer examination, we find out it's not hung up solely on BRI per se.

It looks to me like the other issues are crucial - deal-stoppers, in fact - because the players won't let the BRI domino fall until they are resolved. And those remaining system issues aren't simply small unresolved details - they instead are the very core of determining whether teams will end up with semi-similar-sized player payrolls or not.

Yes BRI will be the last thing, but that's not because it's all that matters. It's because they'll first have to get the rest of it done as a condition of compromising on BRI. So getting the system argument resolved somehow is just as much in the way as BRI is, from what I'm seeing.

[DBoys]

There's now a report up by Sheridan, and his account of the hangup reads almost exactly like I envisioned and explained. The crux of his account, which comes from Hunter:

According to Hunter, during the negotiating session Stern listed five system items on the board that the sides needed to resolve, and the discussion then moved to the split of revenues.

Hunter said as long as those five issues remained unresolved — most of them had to do with restrictions on teams that surpass the luxury tax threshold, such as a prohibition against signing mid-level free agents — the players were not willing to move off their number, 52.5 percent of basketball related income, after making numerous concessions.

That pretty much ended the meeting

[Thugger HBC]

So in the end that BRI is the problem.

[floppymoose]

BRI BRI BRI

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sport ... r=2&src=tp

The new N.B.A. labor deal is practically done. You wouldn’t know it from the headlines, the dour news conferences or the apocalyptic rhetoric spilling from league officials. But the deal, in practical terms, is about 95 percent complete.

The N.B.A. and the players union have agreed on contract lengths and luxury-tax rates, trade rules and cap exceptions, and a host of oddly named provisions offering “amnesty” and “stretch payments” and less onerous “base-year” rules.

All of these pieces — some favoring the players, most of them favoring the owners — have fallen into place in recent weeks, even as talks collapsed and restarted and collapsed again. The checklist has been reduced to a few items.

But it is the last 5 percent that is ruining the prospects for labor peace and gradually eroding the N.B.A. season.

Four weeks of games are gone, and more could fall, because owners and players are still fighting over how to split $4 billion in revenue. The league wants a 50-50 split. The players want 52.5 percent.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I'd say the "parity push" has been there for years. But it can only be addressed when the CBA ends and its time to create a new one. The issue is one of every team having a fair chance. Revenue sharing is part of the solution, and that one is clearly going to be implemented.

Revenue sharing is a part of the solution that could be negotiated at any time. That's why it isn't part of the negotiations now, because it isn't a part of any CBA.

If that parity push was as strong as the owners were making it out to be, they could have increased revenue sharing years ago with no questions asked and leveled the playing field. They also could have asked to remove maximum contracts in these negotiations and the players wouldn't have batted an eye.

All of the other major issues here are about money, too. This doesn't have much to do with parity.

As far as revenue sharing being a guarantee, what kind of guarantee, exactly? If it's such a sure thing, why didn't the owners agree to it in advance? It's pretty clear that the way the owners are currently negotiating things that they want to avoid the revenue sharing solution as much as possible because rich owners want to keep their money and the owners appear to think it a better idea to fight with the players than to fight amongst themselves. As soon as money gets agreed upon, everything else will fall into place in the blink of an eye.

[DBoys]

ILD, you're out of touch with what has been agreed on about a month ago. Your belief that the owners are somehow avoiding the rev sharing issue couldn't be further from the truth.

Floppy, do you see now how the system is being intertwined into the BRI issue? There is already an air of inevitability about a 50-50 outcome, yet it's still up in the air whether they can come to a deal. The players are determined to fiddle with the owners' desired system changes before conceding on a deal.

[floppymoose]

Dboys, I actually have a lot of questions about how the system issues are intertwined with the take home money for the players. I wish I had more visibility into the negotiations so that I could see what each side is going for, and why.

[DBoys]

Dboys, I actually have a lot of questions about how the system issues are intertwined with the take home money for the players. I wish I had more visibility into the negotiations so that I could see what each side is going for, and why.

I agree that BRI is all that truly should matter to the players, because that's the money split.

But reports everywhere tell the same tale. This deal has been clearly headed for something like a 50-50 deal for a long time, and could have been there weeks ago, but the players wouldn't give that last drop to 50-50 (even though they knew it was inevitable, and that they would do it at some point) until they got more of what they wanted on the system.

Now they are even overtly putting the 50-50 out there, but with their hand still on the offer to yank it back if they don't get the system details like they want.

I think you're looking at the system things they are fighting for, and thinking "that is just not important enough to truly be losing paydays for." And I see it like you do. But whether it's stupid or not, the players by all reports are approaching it differently, and have became so focused on those relatively trivial (to us) matters that they have been deal breakers for weeks. Who knows why. Maybe it's just ego, the perennially spoiled kids who can't take "no" for an answer after years of getting whatever they want.

I can see why the owners want them (to give all teams a more level playing field). But I can't see why the players really make a big deal about them - given the guarantee via BRI split to the players, it should actually be things that do more to help the players (by raising the prospects and the fan base of the weak sisters) by increasing league revenues. Yet here we sit, while they still insist on having it their own way on those relatively microscopic matters. It makes no sense.

[floppymoose]

So to be more specific, I'm wondering if the players don't believe the owners 50/50 split is really 50/50, due to how the system issues impact things. Another thing I wonder is if they think it is really 50/50, but they think that the system the owners want will depress the median salary and create a league of super rich stars and "everybody else".

That latter question speaks to a lot of what I'm hearing from the players. In effect, that question is the same as the revenue sharing question for the teams. The rich teams don't want to share all their profits (understandably), and the poor teams would like to get as much of that money as possible. It's likely the same with the players. The rank and file guys would like to see as big a slice of the pie as possible. The only difference is that the superstars may not care as much about fighting that. For one thing they will be a rank and file guy at the tail end of their own career, possibly. And they also can make endorsement money that helps take the sting out of sharing their basketball worth with their peers.

[I_Like_Dirt]

ILD, you're out of touch with what has been agreed on about a month ago. Your belief that the owners are somehow avoiding the rev sharing issue couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't think they're avoiding it, I think they're delaying it. There is definitely a difference. If the owners didn't want to delay it, they'd negotiate it in with the CBA and nobody would be asked to make a leap of faith. Without knowing the details of revenue-sharing, how can the players know that the owners won't be right back asking for more in the next CBA? If the new revenue-sharing deal is going to increase over time as revenues increase to prevent wealthier teams from driving up salaries by driving up BRI while revenue-sharing remains flat, then suddenly you've got a few assurances that revenues will continue to grow in every market along with BRI/salaries. If it's just a flat revenue-sharing deal, or one with limited growth, and 5 years from now the Lakers, Bulls, Knicks and Raptors are making twice the money they are now while small market teams haven't seen much growth, suddenly those same teams are going to be crying poor again and the NBA will be out to cut the players' % of BRI even more to accomodate those same small market teams.

The real question here is, where do the owners demands end? At what point do they no longer need to cut salaries to appease small market teams? If the Bobcats mismanage their team for the next 5 years, alienate fans further and lose revenues while salaries increase, do they deserve a better CBA next time around? If they make a little more money but not nearly as much as the top teams, do they deserve a better CBA then? What point is the cutoff where it's on the league for revenue-sharing if one team is making $100 million while the other is losing $10 million and salaries are the same? I know incraesed revenue-sharing is coming, but to just take it on faith that it will come in a helpful way is only easy to do if you aren't being told your salary needs to be cut from 12 to 20% in part because there isn't currently a revenue-sharing deal in place.

[DBoys]

So to be more specific, I'm wondering if the players don't believe the owners 50/50 split is really 50/50, due to how the system issues impact things.

I've heard reported that the x-x split (such as 50-50) is exactly what it sounds like. Whatever number it is, that's EXACTLY what each side will ultimately get. Period.

So, with that as the structure, the form of the system can have no effect whatsoever on the total take. And there's nothing for the players to somehow doubt about the bottom line. It is what it is.

Another thing I wonder is if they think it is really 50/50, but they think that the system the owners want will depress the median salary and create a league of super rich stars and "everybody else".

That's what they've said. Maybe they believe it. But if so, much of it is an irrational fear ... with max salaries set to be REDUCED, lower raises, shorter contracts, and so few legit stars in the league, there will be a greater portion of the player pool "left over" after the stars get paid. And that means the "others" will get that money, from somebody.

I also think a good part of it is due to some irrationality that has romanicized the 2005 CBA as one in which all teams bid for all players, all teams spent their MLE every year, and all teams would go sailing past the tax line without hesitation. None of that is true at all, yet that's how they've packaged it - perhaps even envisioned it - in their own minds. And at the same time, they are saying they are afraid that stopping a tax-paying team from using the MLE (for example) will somehow scuttle all opportunity for players to get bids, as if every player is being chased by the Lakers and Mavs every year with the MLE and now they won't be. I don't follow the Lakers spending closely, but I know the Mavs already have been operating under a budget and only seem to spend the MLE about every other year.

[DBoys]

ILD, you're out of touch with what has been agreed on about a month ago. Your belief that the owners are somehow avoiding the rev sharing issue couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't think they're avoiding it, I think they're delaying it. There is definitely a difference.

You can believe what you choose. But you're flat wrong by thinking this is somehow unresolved to everyone's satisfaction. Those issues have already been negotiated long ago (maybe a month or more) and are done. It was an issue that the owners were committed to - because it's an owner-to-owner thing and has nothing to do with the money going to players.

As for whether it belongs in the CBA, it probably doesn't, and it probably won't appear there. But the players have already seen and agreed with the plan. The CBA is only for resolving issues between players and owners, and this has to do with how the owners share. The league's by-laws, which govern owner-to-owner things, is where this will probably go.

Bottom line is this, however -
1 The players' salaries aren't being cut. The contracts will remain intact.
2 The total percentage the players will make this time around will be a smaller one than before, but you can easily say that last time they were overpaid, and this is an adjustment.
3 In any event, none of that is related to a lack of revenue sharing in the past. The percentage is being altered because the league is bleeding red ink, with 22 of the 30 teams losing money and the league's net being <$300 million>. You can't "revenue share" that away - with losses like that, if they had had more rev sharing in the past, there still wouldn't have been nearly enough to go around and justify the player salaries. The bucket of revenue to potentially share was about $300 million short every year.

[floppymoose]

You can believe what you choose. But you're flat wrong by thinking this is somehow unresolved to everyone's satisfaction. Those issues have already been negotiated long ago (maybe a month or more) and are done. It was an issue that the owners were committed to - because it's an owner-to-owner thing and has nothing to do with the money going to players.

I think you are wrong there. The owners want to see how much money they can transfer from the players first. Revenue sharing will not be finalized until that has happened. Everything that the owners have done so far point to that.