Poll: Expected level of CBA changes

[AllBall]

Simple question. In your opinion, how much of a shift will there be in the new CBA?

[StocktonShorts]

Players are going to give up a lot by the time this is done, I think.

[Wavy Q]

Drastic Changes.

[KnickelandDime]

This question is too simple. Define minimal. Define drastic. Some people will say minimal meaning no MLE, a reduction in pay raises, introducing non-guaranteed contracts with the idea that drastic change entails all of that plus a hard cap and a reduction in players contracts as is. Other people will say even getting rid of the MLE will be drastic and think that minimal means a new CBA that is more or less the same.

[Foshan]

My un-educated guess is going to be that the $$ numbers will stay roughly the same, but there will be some kinda of player accountability worked into the contracts, whether its buyout/waive options on under-preforming/injured contracts or simply bi-annual team options on every contract. I could also see some of the smaller exceptions going away (Bi-annual/injury)

So not sure if that would qualify as major or minor...

[AllBall]

This question is too simple. Define minimal. Define drastic. Some people will say minimal meaning no MLE, a reduction in pay raises, introducing non-guaranteed contracts with the idea that drastic change entails all of that plus a hard cap and a reduction in players contracts as is. Other people will say even getting rid of the MLE will be drastic and think that minimal means a new CBA that is more or less the same.

Minimal changes will be pretty much unchanged just #'s here and there. Removal of MLE would not be minimal. Adding a hard cap is not minimal, etc.

[tidho]

I think the owners come out on top. Here's my crystal ball version....

The MLE is as good as gone but I'm guessing that will be the only change to the cap. The LLE and vetmin exception will be retained and the luxery tax will continue.
I think they'll fail to get any franchise player type structure in place, but they will get partial guarentees (75%) starting in the 3rd year of contracts and extended Bird Right benefits.

In exchange they won't cut the player's share of revenue that creates the cap. The only other victory the players will get will be that the owners won't move further toward the NFL model.

[irie]

A lot of posturing coming into it, but I think in the end people will agree to some minimal changes in order to avoid a lockout.

[JasonDaPsycho]

Drastic changes, mostly with the contract situation.

[killbuckner]

I think minimal changes would be enough- but I think that owners want to break the union and so they won't agree to anything reasonable.

[hoops4life]

I hope that there are drastic changes.

[BubbaTee]

Minimal changes.

Notably, reducing the maximum length of a contract from 7 years to 4-5 years. Possibly with automatic team options after 3 years. Contracts remain guaranteed.

Salary as a percentage of revenue stays mostly the same (+/-5%).

[killbuckner]

I don't get the point of having an "automatic team option after 3 years". Why would someone like Lebron agree to a team option year? He would be better off just taking a 3 year contract and I think it would really hurt the popularity of the leagues if there was a ton of player movement because teams were prohibited from giving 4 year contracts even if they wanted to.

[tidho]

Automatic team option gives teams an opportunity to drop guys that are significantly underperforming their contracts.

I won't speak to what a guy 'like LeBron' would do because there are about 5 guys like LeBron in the entire league. It doesn't really matter what they do because of it. For everyone else they sign a longer deal for the security then know they have to earn it. It minimizes situations like Travis Outlaw.

Take a look at the top 10 highest paid players in the league. By my count 5 of them have no business being among the top 25 highest paid. That isn't good for the league.

[sully00]

I expect significant change, less of the BRI, reduction in max salaries, a revised MLE, shorter guaranteed deals, tighter limits on exceeding the salary cap and luxuary tax.

It is always difficult for the NBAPA to find unity as the goals of the members as so drastically different. I think ownership will look to exploit how many players are on the minimum this season, how many teams are operating closer to the cap, and how few teams are paying the luxury tax and sell the idea of their being more middle class money if there were more limits on the highest contracts and easier for all teams to be financially competitive.

Unlike in previous contentious negotiations the players are not going to be unable to find short term financing to fund their lifestyles, while ownership is united and prepared.

[killbuckner]

For everyone else they sign a longer deal for the security then know they have to earn it

A team option doesn't give a player any more security. For every player in the league its better to sign a 3 year contract than a 3 year contract plus a team option for a fourth season. And I think there are a lot of situations where its in the team's best interest to sign a player to more than a 3 year contract- I think its pretty ridiculous to prohibit them from doing so in situations where it makes sense. The real solution is for teams to only give out longer contracts when it makes sense to do so.

[DBoys]

There are so many sides to the discussion, that anything could happen. There are owners who like the status quo, others who are hardliners wanting big change, superstars, fringe players, agents, and union.

However, inertia usually has the advantage.

So I think the basic core of the system stays intact, with simple adjustments to the pieces
...the cap is lower, with a tweaked formula that may include certain designated expenses
...MLE remains (a league without reasonable player movement hurts owners as much as players) but with a lowered formula (75% of average salary, rather than 100%?) and lesser years
...age limit raised by a year
...increased team use of D-league (more players, and/or more experienced players, can go to D-league)

The biggest changes I can imagine ...
...maybe a hard limit or a double tax at a certain amount above the existing tax line
...some sort of franchise tag or a way to allow a team a bigger advantage in keeping their biggest star
...D-league to become closer to a true minor-league system
...the final year of every contract longer than 2 years mandatorily becomes some sort of "team option" or "non-guarantee"

[SnoBrdrRob]

The contract part is where the big issues will come I think. I would do the following:

- 1 5+ year contract allowed per every other season for each franchise
- For every contract 4+ years, player/team options are required for final season of contract allowing either party to terminate the contract a year earlier.
- No player's salary can exceed 25% of the league's salary cap
- No team can carry the contracts of 3 or more players whose contract reaches 25% of the leagues salary cap. Max is 2

[killbuckner]

The one thing that I would love to see would be an escalating luxury tax. Where the first year you exceed the tax its at its current level where you pay a dollar for every dollar that you exceed the tax (a 100% tax). But the next season it would excalate by 33% so you would pay $1.33 for every dollar you were over. If you exceeded the tax again the following season it would raise by 33% again (compounded) so you would a 176%. By the 5th year it would be a 235% tax. Basically so that teams could exceed the tax in the short term but eventually the team would collapse under its own weight and it would be very expensive to decide to pay the tax long term. And it would give teams big incentive to eventually break it apart and get down below the tax line.

Pick the starting point for the tax and the yearly increases however you like to give your desired balance.

[eyeteeth]

There are so many sides to the discussion, that anything could happen. There are owners who like the status quo, others who are hardliners wanting big change, superstars, fringe players, agents, and union.

However, inertia usually has the advantage.

So I think the basic core of the system stays intact, with simple adjustments to the pieces
...the cap is lower, with a tweaked formula that may include certain designated expenses
...MLE remains (a league without reasonable player movement hurts owners as much as players) but with a lowered formula (75% of average salary, rather than 100%?) and lesser years
...age limit raised by a year
...increased team use of D-league (more players, and/or more experienced players, can go to D-league)

The biggest changes I can imagine ...
...maybe a hard limit or a double tax at a certain amount above the existing tax line
...some sort of franchise tag or a way to allow a team a bigger advantage in keeping their biggest star
...D-league to become closer to a true minor-league system
...the final year of every contract longer than 2 years mandatorily becomes some sort of "team option" or "non-guarantee"

A lot of this sounds about right. Especially the increased use of the D-League.

One thing I think is guaranteed is that there will be more leeway for teams that have players that suffer career ending injuries. The idea that a player can explode their knee or back and be gone forever but still count against a teams cap for 3+ years is absurd.

Also, any hard cap would be well above the current luxury tax. The league as a whole benefits too much from the marketing opportunities that happen when big stars go to big cities. Plus the owners of the large-market teams will not give up their advantages in constructing champion teams.