Do Owners still have to pay players under contract?

[turk3d]

This may have already been asked in another thread, but if the Owners are the ones who initiate a lockout, are they still obligated to pay players who are under contract next year? I would think they are. IMO it would only be if the players went on strike, that they owners wouldn't have to pay.

[killbuckner]

In a lockout the players do not get paid.

[turk3d]

Wow. Then that must be specifically spelled out in the CBA agreement.

[killbuckner]

No... thats just how federal labor law works in the US.

[turk3d]

Then I guess contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on? This brings me to my second question. Maybe it's already been discussed but in the new CBA when reached, what is the likelihood that teams and they're current contracts will be grandfathered in, regardless of what the new agreement is (ie, a team which is over the cap but is under the tax)? If after the new agreement they go over the tax (but were under during the old) will they now have to start paying tax based on the new numbers? After I get the answer to this, it will lead me to my third question which is what I'm driving toward. Thx.

[killbuckner]

Personally I would be surprised if existing contracts had any rollbacks though I know other people expect contracts to be rolled back to some degree. It all comes down to what can be collectively bargained. As an example in the NHL the players agreed to roll back existing contracts and it was perfectly legal because it was collectively bargained.

They would have to start paying the tax based on the new numbers. (thats assuming there even is a luxury tax in the new CBA) Basically the CBA sets the new rules and they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as both sides agree to it. But remember if the rules change then they could allow for exceptions to the luxury tax like they did with the luxury tax amnesty to help with the transition.

[turk3d]

That's kind of what I was thinking, thanks for the answer KB.