Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[McFurious1]

For the Raptors sake I hope there is a lockout at least half or full season.

[Rapsobsessed7]

dont know if this was posted but i posted it in the cap situation thread and thought some may enjoy if you havent seen it.

Possible No S&Ts in New CBA

The league likewise has proposed to eliminate sign-and-trades in the next labor agreement. In a provision conceived by the league to inspire loyalty, teams are presently allowed to pay their own free agents more than anyone else. But that ability to offer a contract one year longer than the competition often has resulted in marquee free agents getting traded to the team they choose in free agency after first signing a larger contract with their original team, as seen with both James and Bosh last summer.

Possible 62 million Cap

Adrian Wojnarowski reports that David Stern is targeting a $62 million salary cap in negotiations.It seems like the owners have backed off of their demand for a hard cap, which is positive news because the players would never accept that. The "flex cap" would allow certain teams to go exceed the limit or operate beneath it, so it should be interesting to see where negotiations move from this point. Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver said the new flex cap

thats huge no S&T's anymore and the 62 million flex cap.

[RocLaFamilia]

It's hard to see revenue sharing (on the NFL model?) coming in. But the lux tax was always a back-door way of sharing revenues, and without it then maybe something else will have to be devised.

This may sound like a neanderthal statement, but why don't we just raise the luxury tax where its not just $1 tax for every $1 over. Instead make it like $2 tax for every 1$ over. I actually like the soft cap we have, it allows owners who are willing to spend, to well spend. But hitting them hard with a heftier luxury tax may prevent them from spending too much. Just a thought, I am sure its not the best one lol

[dagger]

There is a lot of good stuff being written about the CBA - if you have the patience to get up to scratch on the minutiae which most people lack

This is an interesting discussion of what a possible deal might look like.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2 ... /#comments

[OAKLEY_2]

There is a lot of good stuff being written about the CBA - if you have the patience to get up to scratch on the minutiae which most people lack

Guilty as charged. Will read.

[cookieman]

Pretty ridiculous to say the owners haven't moved but the players have. Initial proposal from owners was a $45m hard cap. The now-offered $62m flex cap is surely an improvement.

New blog about it from Ken Berger today:

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/m ... 3/30279581

[There There]

For the Raptors sake I hope there is a lockout at least half or full season.

I assume this is a pro-tanking wish.

If so, how does a shortened season help in any way whatsoever ?

In a shortened season, every fluke win is magnified. Every winning streak has a greater impact on the overall standings.

The longer the season, the more likely it is that the **** teams will sink to the bottom.

It's the same idea as to why nobody thinks 5 game playoff series are fair to the teams who finished with the best records, because it even's the playing field somewhat and increases the chances of the lesser team fluking their win to a series victory.

If you're pro-tank, you either want a full 82 game season or no season at all ( although depending on how the lottery would be determined in the event of no season, this could be the worst outcome of all ).

If you're pro-basketball, you want this **** to resolve itself long before the season starts so that games are not lost.

I can't see why anybody on this board would want a shortened season, unless if you want to increase the chances of sneaking into the 8th spot.

[Rhettmatic]

For the Raptors sake I hope there is a lockout at least half or full season.

I assume this is a pro-tanking wish.

If so, how does a shortened season help in any way whatsoever ?

In a shortened season, every fluke win is magnified. Every winning streak has a greater impact on the overall standings.

The longer the season, the more likely it is that the **** teams will sink to the bottom.

It's the same idea as to why nobody thinks 5 game playoff series are fair to the teams who finished with the best records, because it even's the playing field somewhat and increases the chances of the lesser team fluking their win to a series victory.

If you're pro-tank, you either want a full 82 game season or no season at all ( although depending on how the lottery would be determined in the event of no season, this could be the worst outcome of all ).

If you're pro-basketball, you want this **** to resolve itself long before the season starts so that games are not lost.

I can't see why anybody on this board would want a shortened season, unless if you want to increase the chances of sneaking into the 8th spot.

My guess is that most of the pro-tankers who want a shortened season feel that way because they suspect a lengthy lockout would handcuff BC from making win-now moves.

I have hope that with his recent moves (specifically drafting Valanciunas), that isn't his priority anyway. But I can understand why it's a concern.

[There There]

My guess is that most of the pro-tankers who want a shortened season feel that way because they suspect a lengthy lockout would handcuff BC from making win-now moves.

I have hope that with his recent moves (specifically drafting Valanciunas), that isn't his priority anyway. But I can understand why it's a concern.

I'm not sure it would though... You're still going to have a period to sign Free Agents, makes trades etc...

Whatever moves he is planning, he will have the opportunity to make them. What would concern me more is that a shortened season will without doubt improve this team's chances of lucking their way into a bottom playoff spot.

[OAKLEY_2]

One thing that the players do not get is a share in the equity. Cuban can lose 70 mil a year but then see the value of his investment skyrocketing on paper and offset his losses. Also big free agents have an incentive to go to a big market for reasons the CBA doesn't even touch. Big 3 for example. So the argument that the owners are losing money (boo hoo) while factually correct is one dimensional. Add to that the fact that many teams pay the tax with money virtually no object. The owners have themselves to blame for blowing budgets and they don't count equity on ROI calculations in so far as the CBA is concerned. So if I'm a player and they want to take away guaranteed contracts and have players hand revenue back over the life of the deal then I'd be asking them to boost their pension contribution massively as an offset and defacto equity stake indexed to revenue growth. The league could shut down for 5 minutes or 2 years and there still will be a hard cap simply because it makes sense and is a trend. That cap should come at the expense of the so-called "stars" not the lower to middle players. If the owners try to "break" the union I think they will badly damage the value of their assets blowing their own brains out in the process. The owners and the "stars" look like the bad guys here as they are mutually supporting a narrow self interest club that damages the league as a whole. In fact I would go as far as to say the "stars" do not look at all like rank and file members but unofficial management. It will be the "stars" that will try and divide the union when they start losing buckets of money.

[Courtside]

It's hard to see revenue sharing (on the NFL model?) coming in. But the lux tax was always a back-door way of sharing revenues, and without it then maybe something else will have to be devised.

The NBA already has revenue sharing. The largest portion of revenues - TV money - is split up 30 equal ways. Merchandising is the same - every team gets 1/30 of revenues whether they have Lebron as their marquee guy or Kevin Love. This is fair, since it takes 30 teams to generate these revenues.

What is not shared is local media revenue, local sponsorships, home ticket sales and other concessions like parking and whatnot. I think that it's entirely reasonable to share the revenues earned (mostly) by the group, but I do think it's reasonable for teams who have great ticket sales or local sponsorships to keep more of that money for themselves, since that is more team specific revenue.

Every team gets something like $60 mil a season before they even sell a ticket, so the disparity is really between teams who only generate another $30 mil locally and those who can generate $50 mil plus. If you're going to have small market teams then I think you have to accept that they will simply never make as much money and those who do have good markets shouldn't be punished for it. Those big market teams are already contributing the lion's share of 'value' that creates the shared TV and merchandising revenues.

This is why having a more strict set of operating guidelines for teams is necessary. The strong teams can only subsidize the weaker teams to a reasonable level and the general thinking is they have already exceeded that level since there are as many - or more - "have-not" teams than there are "have" teams. The way to level the playing field is to control your costs better, so the profitable teams will still remain profitable while the lower tier teams will at least go into a season with a chance - not a guarantee - but a chance to break even or make some money.

The player's investment never, ever generates a loss for them since it is labor for pay, while the owners have to invest hard dollars which certainly can result in a loss. The owners would never ask the players to play at a loss - they recognize the players are their biggest asset and willingly pay them the largest share of revenues - but the current % is what needs to be adjusted for the health of all teams and the ability of all players to continue earning extremely generous salaries.

So what if an owner pockets $30 mil in profit - he had to invest something and any return is well earned. The fact that only a couple of teams a season even have the chance to profit as much as the players to (assuming a $62 mil average payroll) is proof that things are out of whack. If they are truly partners in the bigger picture, then more teams would be turning a profit that at least exceeds their highest plaid player, let a lone scratch out a few mil like some journeyman vet.

[bstein14]

One thing that the players do not get is a share in the equity. Cuban can lose 70 mil a year but then see the value of his investment skyrocketing on paper and offset his losses. Also big free agents have an incentive to go to a big market for reasons the CBA doesn't even touch. Big 3 for example. So the argument that the owners are losing money (boo hoo) while factually correct is one dimensional. Add to that the fact that many teams pay the tax with money virtually no object. The owners have themselves to blame for blowing budgets and they don't count equity on ROI calculations in so far as the CBA is concerned. So if I'm a player and they want to take away guaranteed contracts and have players hand revenue back over the life of the deal then I'd be asking them to boost their pension contribution massively as an offset and defacto equity stake indexed to revenue growth. The league could shut down for 5 minutes or 2 years and there still will be a hard cap simply because it makes sense and is a trend. That cap should come at the expense of the so-called "stars" not the lower to middle players. If the owners try to "break" the union I think they will badly damage the value of their assets blowing their own brains out in the process. The owners and the "stars" look like the bad guys here as they are mutually supporting a narrow self interest club that damages the league as a whole. In fact I would go as far as to say the "stars" do not look at all like rank and file members but unofficial management. It will be the "stars" that will try and divide the union when they start losing buckets of money.

Equity is valued in what though? American dollars... which continue to lose value compared to other foreign currencies, gold, and commodities.

If an NBA team was worth $300 million US 5 years ago and and $350 million US today its worth a lot less today than it was 5 years ago.

[J-Roc]

For the Raptors sake I hope there is a lockout at least half or full season.

I assume this is a pro-tanking wish.

If so, how does a shortened season help in any way whatsoever ?

In a shortened season, every fluke win is magnified. Every winning streak has a greater impact on the overall standings.

The longer the season, the more likely it is that the **** teams will sink to the bottom.

It's the same idea as to why nobody thinks 5 game playoff series are fair to the teams who finished with the best records, because it even's the playing field somewhat and increases the chances of the lesser team fluking their win to a series victory.

If you're pro-tank, you either want a full 82 game season or no season at all ( although depending on how the lottery would be determined in the event of no season, this could be the worst outcome of all ).

If you're pro-basketball, you want this **** to resolve itself long before the season starts so that games are not lost.

I can't see why anybody on this board would want a shortened season, unless if you want to increase the chances of sneaking into the 8th spot.

My guess is that most of the pro-tankers who want a shortened season feel that way because they suspect a lengthy lockout would handcuff BC from making win-now moves.

I have hope that with his recent moves (specifically drafting Valanciunas), that isn't his priority anyway. But I can understand why it's a concern.

We have a GM who we need to handcuff. There's something inherently wrong with that.

[OAKLEY_2]

Equity is valued in what though? American dollars... which continue to lose value compared to other foreign currencies, gold, and commodities.

Not much you can do when the US dollar went off the gold standard and is backed by faith and China banks. Profit share is the only way forward because all these leagues may have gone as high as they can go in terms of revenue growth sustained by ever increasing ticket prices. There is no revenue certainty and trying to have negotiated cost certainty might also be harmful. In one year two MLB teams have gone chapter 11.

[Courtside]

There is no revenue certainty and trying to have negotiated cost certainty might also be harmful. In one year two MLB teams have gone chapter 11.

...and there is less cost certainty in the MLB than any other pro sport.

Profit sharing is not much different than getting a negotiated %, since both scenarios are based upon an agreed upon split. In fact, the latter is preferable for the players since your % is guaranteed regardless of the profitability of the team or league, which will vary. That sort of cost certainty would be better for the players and why they have gone that way up until now - it's only the % that they're trying to tweak.

[trick]

My guess is that most of the pro-tankers who want a shortened season feel that way because they suspect a lengthy lockout would handcuff BC from making win-now moves.

I have hope that with his recent moves (specifically drafting Valanciunas), that isn't his priority anyway. But I can understand why it's a concern.

I think it's simpler than that. A shortened season would mean a quicker end to a long, tanking season. An entire 82 game season of losing, like the one the Raptors just went through, is pretty tough to swallow as a hardcore fan. Even though we know it's needed, it would be great to fast forward through the season and onto the draft.

[bstein14]

My guess is that most of the pro-tankers who want a shortened season feel that way because they suspect a lengthy lockout would handcuff BC from making win-now moves.

I have hope that with his recent moves (specifically drafting Valanciunas), that isn't his priority anyway. But I can understand why it's a concern.

I think it's simpler than that. A shortened season would mean a quicker end to a long, tanking season. An entire 82 game season of losing, like the one the Raptors just went through, is pretty tough to swallow as a hardcore fan. Even though we know it's needed, it would be great to fast forward through the season and onto the draft.

Especially when you pack 50 games into a little over 2 months.

[plainballing]

Sorry guys I am not really sure how does the contract and draft pick work...so if we have lockout does that take one year off a player's contract? So, if we have a full-year lockout, is Jose expiring or still has two years left? If we have a lockout, how do we determine draft position?

[flatjacket1]

Sorry guys I am not really sure how does the contract and draft pick work...so if we have lockout does that take one year off a player's contract? So, if we have a full-year lockout, is Jose expiring or still has two years left? If we have a lockout, how do we determine draft position?

I remember hearing the players union sending out a memo last offseason to sign contracts that pay every 6 months or something so I'd assume that a year ticks off and some contracts have to be paid even in the event of a lockout.

If the lockout last a full season they might cancel the draft all together and allow players 1 year removed from college eligible for a year or they will base it off this years draft. I don't believe it will be a full season lockout, I'd expect them to play a 60 game season and playoffs.

I'm not 100% sure so somebody else confirm...

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

Has a lockout been sanctioned yet by the board of governors?