Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[DG88]

The whole idea with the flex cap is that there's minimum, middle and maximum thresholds. The middle value of the cap is at 62 million. Now the owners haven't come up with the minimum and maximum a team can spend. The players still see this as a hard cap because there is a limit in terms of spending.

[timdunkit]

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)

Great argument Schad but I disagree with some points .. I think its give or take and like any system that gets put in place, someone is going to get the short end of it.

While spending wisely is an issue for most franchises, but there still exists parity between teams who can spend and who can't. While the Raptors did have a 70 mil budget, lets not forget that they spent that on a rebuilding squad with further flexibility coming up in the next few years. Further proof of that is the fact taht the Raptors 17 in the league interms of total committed salary, while Miami is #1 with 416 mill to pay in total for there roster (if it stays intact). 7 of the top 10 spenders in the league where playoff teams and the top 10 teams with the highest committed salary were all in the playoffs.

Teams who spend money in the NBA have an advantage over others, its a fact in the NBA.

Implementing a hardcap in the NBA would even out the spending power in the NBA. Its not teams like Miami you look at, but teams like Orlando/Dallas/LA/Boston etc who can cover up the mistakes they make because they can spend money.

A hardcap won't stop owners from being stupid ... but it will make elite teams spend there money wisely as well ... LA can pay Walton 5 mill a year and not care, or Odom 10 mill a year to come of the bench because of it ... Orlando is a team full of terrible contracts. Dallas can pay 10 mill for Butler to be injured, pay Haywood 10 mill a year to not show up and would be able to retain Chandler despite having such a high commitment because there owner is a special case who will spend no matter what ...

[itbobby007]

Modified thread title.

[notic519]

Not sure if this is the thread to post this but I really like the idea with a "flexible hard cap". The idea of the cap is that if you are trading for players or signing players their salary goes 100% against the cap. However if you drafted a player that players salary as long as he is employed under your control only counts towards 50% of the cap.

This type of structure would allow teams to spend more on their players. Making it harder for teams to negotiate sign and trades and also making it easier to retain at least the players you drafted and spent time developing.

I'm sure this system isn't perfect but I believe its a step in the right direction.

[DG88]

Not sure if this is the thread to post this but I really like the idea with a "flexible hard cap". The idea of the cap is that if you are trading for players or signing players their salary goes 100% against the cap. However if you drafted a player that players salary as long as he is employed under your control only counts towards 50% of the cap.

This type of structure would allow teams to spend more on their players. Making it harder for teams to negotiate sign and trades and also making it easier to retain at least the players you drafted and spent time developing.

I'm sure this system isn't perfect but I believe its a step in the right direction.

Yet the players still don't want a hard cap be it this flexible hard cap or an NHL hard cap.

[Parataxis]

Not sure if this is the thread to post this but I really like the idea with a "flexible hard cap". The idea of the cap is that if you are trading for players or signing players their salary goes 100% against the cap. However if you drafted a player that players salary as long as he is employed under your control only counts towards 50% of the cap.

This type of structure would allow teams to spend more on their players. Making it harder for teams to negotiate sign and trades and also making it easier to retain at least the players you drafted and spent time developing.

I'm sure this system isn't perfect but I believe its a step in the right direction.

It would also make it nearly impossible to trade players that you drafted (unless you're trading them for somebody who makes half as much).

They should just do away with S&Ts, IMNAAHO.

[notic519]

Not sure if this is the thread to post this but I really like the idea with a "flexible hard cap". The idea of the cap is that if you are trading for players or signing players their salary goes 100% against the cap. However if you drafted a player that players salary as long as he is employed under your control only counts towards 50% of the cap.

This type of structure would allow teams to spend more on their players. Making it harder for teams to negotiate sign and trades and also making it easier to retain at least the players you drafted and spent time developing.

I'm sure this system isn't perfect but I believe its a step in the right direction.

It would also make it nearly impossible to trade players that you drafted (unless you're trading them for somebody who makes half as much).

They should just do away with S&Ts, IMNAAHO.

In hard caps contracts don't need to match so technically if you are trading a player away as long as both teams are under the cap when the transaction is complete it would work.

I guess if both teams are at the cap threshold point then if you are trading a player you drafted then it would be very difficult to get a deal done.

I agree. S&Ts need to go.

[RapsFanInOhio]

I didn't understand this at first, but I get it now. The cap would be set at $62 million, but the only way teams could go over is either by way of bird rights or an exception that allows a team to sign it's maximum salary players without it counting towards the cap. That is assuming Bird rights are still in play. I'm completely for this. You've got to even the playing field a little bit - we spent more than the heat this year because we had to overpay players in order to compete.

I didn't expect the cap to be at $62 million, though. That seems high to me; wasn't this years cap somewhere around $55 or $58 million? Looks like the owners want to negotiate. I understand that the players don't want a hard cap but does this really reduce salaries that much? Eddy Curry got paid to do nothing (!) - guys like him are who the union is fighting for and that's just plain dumb.

The players are the reason this lockout may last into the season - the current NBA model is broken because of overpaid guys like Arenas, Curry, JO a few years back. The owners came to the table ready to deal, but they aren't going to budge much more than this. From what we know it seems fair, and my guess is that something similar to this will end up being the deal, even if it takes until January.

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

I didn't understand this at first, but I get it now. The cap would be set at $62 million, but the only way teams could go over is either by way of bird rights or an exception that allows a team to sign it's maximum salary players without it counting towards the cap. That is assuming Bird rights are still in play. I'm completely for this. You've got to even the playing field a little bit - we spent more than the heat this year because we had to overpay players in order to compete.

I didn't expect the cap to be at $62 million, though. That seems high to me; wasn't this years cap somewhere around $55 or $58 million? Looks like the owners want to negotiate. I understand that the players don't want a hard cap but does this really reduce salaries that much? Eddy Curry got paid to do nothing (!) - guys like him are who the union is fighting for and that's just plain dumb.

The players are the reason this lockout may last into the season - the current NBA model is broken because of overpaid guys like Arenas, Curry, JO a few years back. The owners came to the table ready to deal, but they aren't going to budge much more than this. From what we know it seems fair, and my guess is that something similar to this will end up being the deal, even if it takes until January.

The players are going to unnecessarily drag this thing out, and in the process, are going to piss David Stern and the owners off, 'cause they appear to be doing their best to avoid a lockout, while the players are whining and complaining about a hard[er] cap.

[wfnshow316]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/30170072 has a pretty good overview of the owners proposal. Basically it's a 62 million Cap - to be negotiated max and min range for the cap - above cap only for exceptions (Bird and mid-level?) - So assuming 8mill on either side and you get a cap ceiling at 70 mill and a cap floor at 54 mill. Using projections of next years salaries there are 16 teams under the cap floor and 4 teams over the cap ceiling. Under this type of setting each of those 16 teams would need to commit to an average of 14 mill more in salaries. While the 4 teams over the cap ceiling would need to cut an average of $9 mill (really less then this as LA needs to cut 25 mill and the other three teams over the ceiling need to cut around $2.5 mill)

So if the players reject this it will play out that the players are objecting to making good salaries in places like Sacramento and New Jersey - pretty weak position

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/30170072 has a pretty good overview of the owners proposal. Basically it's a 62 million Cap - to be negotiated max and min range for the cap - above cap only for exceptions (Bird and mid-level?) - So assuming 8mill on either side and you get a cap ceiling at 70 mill and a cap floor at 54 mill. Using projections of next years salaries there are 16 teams under the cap floor and 4 teams over the cap ceiling. Under this type of setting each of those 16 teams would need to commit to an average of 14 mill more in salaries. While the 4 teams over the cap ceiling would need to cut an average of $9 mill (really less then this as LA needs to cut 25 mill and the other three teams over the ceiling need to cut around $2.5 mill)

So if the players reject this it will play out that the players are objecting to making good salaries in places like Sacramento and New Jersey - pretty weak position

Yup.

[DG88]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/30170072 has a pretty good overview of the owners proposal. Basically it's a 62 million Cap - to be negotiated max and min range for the cap - above cap only for exceptions (Bird and mid-level?) - So assuming 8mill on either side and you get a cap ceiling at 70 mill and a cap floor at 54 mill. Using projections of next years salaries there are 16 teams under the cap floor and 4 teams over the cap ceiling. Under this type of setting each of those 16 teams would need to commit to an average of 14 mill more in salaries. While the 4 teams over the cap ceiling would need to cut an average of $9 mill (really less then this as LA needs to cut 25 mill and the other three teams over the ceiling need to cut around $2.5 mill)

So if the players reject this it will play out that the players are objecting to making good salaries in places like Sacramento and New Jersey - pretty weak position

The owners have given the player a very generous offer. I say accept this offer because it's the best one I've seen so far.

[Tough Tony D]

OMG! Is this supposed to make the NBAPA look good and like victims?

Brian T. Smith: NBPA's Hunter: What [NBA owners] are proposing makes the NHL deal look good. about 14 minutes ago

Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1Q7tvhO6s

lol, doesnt he see that the NHL deal was very very good to the players!? What a bunch of idiots!

[dagger]

OMG! Is this supposed to make the NBAPA look good and like victims?

Brian T. Smith: NBPA's Hunter: What [NBA owners] are proposing makes the NHL deal look good. about 14 minutes ago

Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1Q7tvhO6s

lol, doesnt he see that the NHL deal was very very good to the players!? What a bunch of idiots!

NHL cap has increased every single year since deal was negotiated - from $39m to over $60m next season.

[DG88]

OMG! Is this supposed to make the NBAPA look good and like victims?

Brian T. Smith: NBPA's Hunter: What [NBA owners] are proposing makes the NHL deal look good. about 14 minutes ago

Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1Q7tvhO6s

lol, doesnt he see that the NHL deal was very very good to the players!? What a bunch of idiots!

NHL cap has increased every single year since deal was negotiated - from $39m to over $60m next season.

Yet the owners are offering something different. With a median cap at 62 with a min and max cap. For all we know teams can spend up to 72-75 million to as low as 47-50 million. It looks better than the NHL cap system.

[wfnshow316]

Stern sure flip the PR of the situation within the last two meetings - first give in to the guaranteed contract (players response is the whole can't give in on something you don't bit - just stupid - when companies like Inco go on strike for a year to preserve pensions - you argue that you are somehow entitled to perpetual guaranteed contracts - that because it was agreed to before it is your right now - unbelievable) - then set the flex cap - which guarantees that teams all spend a minimum amount, most can be competitive at the cap average - and allow for mid level and Bird exceptions at the high end - And now the players respond that they are appalled at the owners - taking 8 billion from the players (this figure is over 10 years) - and is based upon what they could get under the existing agreement vs THEIR projections of the new agreement. Pure voodoo math. Then Hunter says this deal makes the NHL look good - which the owners would gladly accept -

Derek Fisher is sounding like a self absorbed en-titlist who expects everyone to get max salaries and ride on Kobe's shirttails to get a few titles - Wake up man - you represent all the players not just the max salary prima donnas - this proposal will help the rank and file - just like it did in the NHL - You are getting toasted in the Media arena - and the vast majority of fans will be on the owners side when they lock you out

[Ponchos]

Stern sure flip the PR of the situation within the last two meetings - first give in to the guaranteed contract (players response is the whole can't give in on something you don't bit - just stupid - when companies like Inco go on strike for a year to preserve pensions - you argue that you are somehow entitled to perpetual guaranteed contracts - that because it was agreed to before it is your right now - unbelievable) - then set the flex cap - which guarantees that teams all spend a minimum amount, most can be competitive at the cap average - and allow for mid level and Bird exceptions at the high end - And now the players respond that they are appalled at the owners - taking 8 billion from the players (this figure is over 10 years) - and is based upon what they could get under the existing agreement vs THEIR projections of the new agreement. Pure voodoo math. Then Hunter says this deal makes the NHL look good - which the owners would gladly accept -

Derek Fisher is sounding like a self absorbed en-titlist who expects everyone to get max salaries and ride on Kobe's shirttails to get a few titles - Wake up man - you represent all the players not just the max salary prima donnas - this proposal will help the rank and file - just like it did in the NHL - You are getting toasted in the Media arena - and the vast majority of fans will be on the owners side when they lock you out

The owners proposal, as it stands, has no provision to share increasing revenues with players. It's static. As the revenue pie increases, the player's slice stays the exact same size. Oh not to mention the fact the owners want to lock the players into this "generous" deal for a decade.

It's a ridiculously good deal for the owners, and an unfair one for the players.

By all indications the NBA is on the verge of entering a golden age of revenue growth and increasing global popularity. The owners want to lock the players into an inflexible and very long contract in order to unfairly gain all of those increases in value. This is a good deal for the players how?

[BLKMASS]

I think NBA has the best system out of the 4 leagues.

No it doesn't. The same teams every year win a championship, there's no parity at all, it's vomit inducing.
Glad Mavericks won and broke that **** up, but it'll be back to the same old teams next season (Lakers/Celtics etc...) winning again.

[Ponchos]

I think NBA has the best system out of the 4 leagues.

No it doesn't. The same teams every year win a championship, there's no parity at all, it's vomit inducing.
Glad Mavericks won and broke that **** up, but it'll be back to the same old teams next season (Lakers/Celtics etc...) winning again.

You're watching the wrong sport if you're hoping that any type of hard-cap or flex-cap or limitation on spending will create parity in the league.

Only thing a spending cap would do is limit the ability for Dallas/LA/Orlando/Boston to compete with Miami.

It is a star driven league, and there will always been star driven dynasties because of the dominance of individual players. If you want parity, the randomtastic NHL might be the place for you.

[BLKMASS]

You're watching the wrong sport if you're hoping that any type of hard-cap or flex-cap or limitation on spending will create parity in the league.

Only thing a spending cap would do is limit the ability for Dallas/LA/Orlando/Boston to compete with Miami.

MY point is that it the NBA clearly doesn't have the best system when the same teams are winning the championship over and over again since the beginning ... It's tiresome, boring and just simply irritating.
Whatever system can create parity is the system the NBA needs to adopt, which that would be exactly I'm not certain.

It is a star driven league, and there will always been star driven dynasties because of the dominance of individual players. If you want parity, the randomtastic NHL might be the place for you.

As a fan of the Raptors you should be more open to the idea of parity.