Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[inonba]

Why can't the owners and GMs realize you don't pay ridiculous salaries to 4th tier players?

Part of the reason is that they're stupid. The other part likely has to do with the struggles of smaller market teams. It's harder to attract free agents without overpaying, there's no question. They don't have the luxury box revenues, corporate support or TV contracts - how is that even debatable?

I'm in favour of a hard cap with some kind of limited exception for a "franchise player" tag that lets you go over by $5 mil. If you're a bad GM, I think you should be affected by the consequences of your stupidity.
- No unguaranteed contracts or cap amnesty.
- No individual player salary cap. Pay $30 mil for Hedo if you want, as long as it fits under the team cap.
- Limited revenue sharing. If you can't make the salary floor, your share gets cut.
- 5 year contract limits, restricted free agency after 3 years (still can't exceed cap), unrestricted after 4.

I agree with most of your post. I don't think it's the GM being stupid, but what the market dictates. It's a game of supply and demand. Most FA classes, there are too few options available along with teams with money to spend. Hence this is why the MLE is the league's average salary and almost everyone making the MLE doesn't deserve it.

[brownbobcat]

I agree with most of your post. I don't think it's the GM being stupid, but what the market dictates. It's a game of supply and demand. Most FA classes, there are too few options available along with teams with money to spend. Hence this is why the MLE is the league's average salary and almost everyone making the MLE doesn't deserve it.

That's true, but you're also trying to have it both ways by simultaneously saying players are overpaid AND also paid according to what the market dictates. The cap mechanism right now allows for this broken system, though. If a team overpays, they'll simply try to offload that contract for nothing on some big market team hoping to add talent (see Arenas, Baron Davis, Lewis, etc.). I think a hard cap would force more teams to eat those contracts, and eventually limit those stupid contracts.

[inonba]

That's true, but you're also trying to have it both ways by simultaneously saying players are overpaid AND also paid according to what the market dictates. The cap mechanism right now allows for this broken system, though. If a team overpays, they'll simply try to offload that contract for nothing on some big market team hoping to add talent (see Arenas, Baron Davis, Lewis, etc.). I think a hard cap would force more teams to eat those contracts, and eventually limit those stupid contracts.

Saying that players are overpaid and what the market dictates aren't necessarily exclusive to each other. It's like saying taking steriods is cheating, but everyone takes steriods.

I agree with the hard cap system, so you don't have to explain it to me.

[knickerbocker2k2]

At end of day what the deal hinges on is the % each party gets. Currently players get 57%. Owners in their initial offer wanted them to take home about 39%. The latest offer is closer to 50%. Once they agree on figure the rest (hard cap, guaranteed contracts, length of contracts, etc) will fall in place.

I think owners are showing desperation with all these offers that are all over the places. I think their plan was to scary the players into deal before the current deal expired but I don`t think players will bite. The won`t feel any effect of the lockout until November when first paychecks were to go out. In addition players will get paid unexpected 8% of their salary held back in escrow around August. So that should tide them over for a month or two.

If owners are smart they will start negotiating good faith now and try to get deal before any preseason or regular season games are lost. I don`t think they will be able to recover the losses of lockout on extra concessions they can get out of players.

[DG88]

Interesting words from Billy Hunter

Players Association executive director Billy Hunter warned NBA players on Wednesday that the league’s proposal of a “hard-flex” salary cap would have grave consequences for the future earnings and security of rank-and-file union members.

The owners’ plan “would decimate the middle class, with teams using the bulk of their hard cap room on star players,” Hunter wrote to players in an email obtained by Yahoo! Sports.

Hunter stayed on his theme of disparaging the league’s offer of a flex cap, promising doomsday scenarios over the course of the 10-year deal the NBA has proposed to players.

The letter was sent to the players as a prelude to Thursday’s bargaining session in New York that could be the final one before the league possibly imposes a lockout at 12:01 a.m. ET Friday.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports


Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1QiJaA53S

[Indeed]

does anyone else find it funny that in these situations, the commish always claims how 75% of the teams lose money and how the league lost eleventy-billion dollars last year -- but theres never any backlash towards the commish? if i ran a company and it was losing 200 million a year, people would say 'hey.. you kindve must suck at your job then, no?'

It depends how the define "lost". Lets say Rogers Comm bought the Raptors, and they are doing promotion (Arena, on the seats, on the food containers, and etc.) for free, then the Raptors says they are losing money. Do you think they are really "lost"? Or actually they took benefits from it?

How about things within the club requires to purchase things from other part of the owner's businesses?

And how about the the current value has been raised for 50% in 10 years? Just like you bought a house without living in it, although you have to pay for tax every year, but you end up selling them much higher. Some people view it as asset, use as a hedging tool to reduce the risk of depreciation.

So I guess it depends, and not surprised for small owners, they will complain, because they don't make profit their related businesses.

[Indeed]

According to that list 15 teams made a profit and 15 teams lost money.

The only teams to make a considerable(more than $15 mil) profit were.

Knicks $64 million
Bulls $51 million
Rockets $36 million
Lakers $33 million
Pistons $32 million
Raptors $25 million
Thunder $22 million
Suns $20 million

Rockets have the Yao Ming factor... Knicks, Bulls, Lakers, and Raptors have the 4 largest TV markets in North America. Pistons have a very good TV deal as well because it was signed in 07 when ratings were through the roof but they will likely fall hard off this list once this deal expires.

Honestly... the small market Thunder and the Suns are both surprising to me on this list.

Suns are not exactly "small market". Their metropiliotan area is 4.5 million which is decent, and there are a lot of relatively affluent people living there who can afford to go to the games and buy merchandise.

People just think they are small market because their owner is cheap.

I think the Suns attracted a lot of different regional viewers as well. Based on their play style, many people want to watch their games (Sportsnet broadcast Suns games on the Pacific region). Perhaps this is another reason why BC wants to build a similar team due to its profit margin.

[Pchu]

I am not sure there will be a season, the owners are obviously willing to waste a year and the players seem to be well prepared for it. I think some owners want to break the union like how the NHL did it a couple of years ago.

[J-Roc]

Worst thing is, you have a player like Ben Gordon put up an efficient 25+ PPG in a contract year just to sign a big 5 year deal and then never see that effort from him again.

What a said thing when some of these players get contracts that make them and their families set for life and then they stop putting in the work that got them to that point.

Under the new owners proposal it will be 3/4/5 year contract lengths so if you're signing with a new team its a max of 3 years... if you're resigning with your own team its a max of 4 years... and if you're the franchise player you can sign a 5 year deal (one per team).

It's all about incentives. There's no incentive for a player to bust his butt anymore one he signs a fat contract. For some, the line is drawn after their second NBA contract. For some, it's after the day they're drafted. You get drafted in the first round, you're set.

[DG88]

TODAY IS D-DAY FOR A NEW CBA!!!! GET READY FOR A LOCKOUT

[inonba]

Worst thing is, you have a player like Ben Gordon put up an efficient 25+ PPG in a contract year just to sign a big 5 year deal and then never see that effort from him again.

What a said thing when some of these players get contracts that make them and their families set for life and then they stop putting in the work that got them to that point.

Under the new owners proposal it will be 3/4/5 year contract lengths so if you're signing with a new team its a max of 3 years... if you're resigning with your own team its a max of 4 years... and if you're the franchise player you can sign a 5 year deal (one per team).

It's all about incentives. There's no incentive for a player to bust his butt anymore one he signs a fat contract. For some, the line is drawn after their second NBA contract. For some, it's after the day they're drafted. You get drafted in the first round, you're set.

You're exactly right with that assessment. The same reason why communism fails.

The problem is not just incentive to work. Players in the NBA have too much power by being able to dictate which team they go while still under contract for example. It's really hard to side with the players on this one.

[Too Late Crew]

does anyone else find it funny that in these situations, the commish always claims how 75% of the teams lose money and how the league lost eleventy-billion dollars last year -- but theres never any backlash towards the commish? if i ran a company and it was losing 200 million a year, people would say 'hey.. you kindve must suck at your job then, no?'

Why should there be?

He's not the OWNER he's comissioner.

NBA teams are in effect franchises. Stern doesn't constrct the CBA the owners and players all vote on it. Stern doesn't control how much Mark Cuban spends on players and luxury tax. Stern is responsible for broad NBA tings that bring revenue which is "shared" among teams like the national TV Contracts. He buolds the brand Internationally .

People atribute FAR too much power to David stern like he's some little dictator personally controlling the outcome of every game and dictating the actions of every team owner.

[alivinglegend]

Why should there be?

He's not the OWNER he's comissioner.

NBA teams are in effect franchises. Stern doesn't constrct the CBA the owners and players all vote on it. Stern doesn't control how much Mark Cuban spends on players and luxury tax. Stern is responsible for broad NBA tings that bring revenue which is "shared" among teams like the national TV Contracts. He buolds the brand Internationally .

People atribute FAR too much power to David stern like he's some little dictator personally controlling the outcome of every game and dictating the actions of every team owner.

Thank you! People don't seem to realize he's beholden to the owners not the other way around. They're the principals in this, Stern is the lead executive but he has no ownership stake in the league at all.

[brownbobcat]

Saying that players are overpaid and what the market dictates aren't necessarily exclusive to each other. It's like saying taking steriods is cheating, but everyone takes steriods.

I don't find that analogous. If steroids=cheating, everyone taking steroids implies everyone is cheating. There's no inherent contradiction there.

But if you're saying the market results in overpaid players, what's your standard of reference? Overpaid compared to what? There are good contracts out there and bad contracts. As a whole, I'm not particularly convinced players make too much. If you're running a multimillion dollar business, you should have enough sense to keep things in the black. The big market teams of the NBA aren't enough to drive up salaries by themselves. NY, Boston and LA did not drive up the price for guys like Hedo, Arenas or Rashard Lewis.

[inonba]

Saying that players are overpaid and what the market dictates aren't necessarily exclusive to each other. It's like saying taking steriods is cheating, but everyone takes steriods.

I don't find that analogous. If steroids=cheating, everyone taking steroids implies everyone is cheating. There's no inherent contradiction there.

But if you're saying the market results in overpaid players, what's your standard of reference? Overpaid compared to what? There are good contracts out there and bad contracts. As a whole, I'm not particularly convinced players make too much. If you're running a multimillion dollar business, you should have enough sense to keep things in the black. The big market teams of the NBA aren't enough to drive up salaries by themselves. NY, Boston and LA did not drive up the price for guys like Hedo, Arenas or Rashard Lewis.

I just noticed, my definition of cheating is probably different from yours. Mine definition would classify cheating as any unfair advantage. It's not the dictionary term. If everyone is doing it, then nobably has an unfair advantage.....

The analogy comes from an old economic principle called the prisoner's dilenma. Basically, it says when there is an incentive to cheat, somebody would do it. That is basically the driving force is the bidding of free agents. The frame of reference I would use is immediately after the contract is signed, how movable the player is. I'd say, the vast majority of contract after they're signed are not movable, simply because the GM that signed the contract had to outbid the market. NY was basically a dumping ground for these types of contracts several years ago. You are right that the big market teams aren't necessarily the ones handing out these contract, as more often, it's the small market ones that have to hand them out in order to obtain or keep certain players. Secondly, there is a reason why the owners are pushing to eliminate the MLE as it has become the NBA average salary. I would once again argue the vast majority of the players who signed for the MLE are overpaid, simply because of that exemption didn't exist, no one would offer those player the same amount of money if they only had cap space.

I'll try to draw another analogy for you. Take the US housing market for example. It took a hard hit because people were paying 400K for a house that was maybe worth 140K. Market price does not neccessarily equal true value. Just because everyone is overpaying, it's still overpaying. Just like if everyone is cheating, it's still cheating.

[Mattd97]

i had no idea matt bonner was vp of the union. that shoudl be good for their PR, if the union president shows up to the negotiations in a pontiac -- no way these players are making too much!

[brownbobcat]

The analogy comes from an old economic principle called the prisoner's dilenma. Basically, it says when there is an incentive to cheat, somebody would do it. That is basically the driving force is the bidding of free agents.

The prisoner's dilemma doesn't really have anything to do with cheating. It's a construct whereby both players would benefit if they cooperated. The payoff system is such that you will always stand to benefit more by not cooperating, though, and this results in both players not cooperating and experiencing the worst outcome.

In the PD, a player suffers if he cooperates and the other doesn't. In the NBA, a GM definitely benefits if he "cooperates" (by not signing stupid contracts), while others hand out big deals. I think the current system results in SOME players being overpaid drastically, but I don't think they're overpaid as a collective group. At least, not to the extent that the problem couldn't be fixed by owners simply losing money and forcing themselves to spend less. Most contracts are eventually moveable. Arenas, Rashard, Vince, Hedo, CWebb, KG, LaFrentz, Baron Davis, and so on.

I'll try to draw another analogy for you. Take the US housing market for example. It took a hard hit because people were paying 400K for a house that was maybe worth 140K. Market price does not neccessarily equal true value. Just because everyone is overpaying, it's still overpaying. Just like if everyone is cheating, it's still cheating.

You're trying to mingle your two separate definitions of cheating. If cheating is defined as an unfair advantage, then it's not really cheating if everybody does it since nobody has an unfair advantage. If you say that steroids=unfair advantage as a statement of truth, then it just becomes a circular argument and not a logical conclusion.

That's a good point about the housing market, bubbles do happen - but they also eventually fix themselves. In the case of the NBA, I don't really see the same huge influx of borrowed cash that pumps up the market - it's a business, not speculation.

[Fairview4Life]

Accounting!

http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-h ... llion-loss

If we're trying to arrive at some idea of how much money the Nets really made in 2004, we'll need to do a little crude math. Knock out the $25.1 million RDA — a paper loss, remember — and add the $9.1 million in tax savings. Suddenly, that $27.6 million loss becomes a $6.6 million profit.

[Eating a Book]

Accounting!

http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-h ... llion-loss

If we're trying to arrive at some idea of how much money the Nets really made in 2004, we'll need to do a little crude math. Knock out the $25.1 million RDA — a paper loss, remember — and add the $9.1 million in tax savings. Suddenly, that $27.6 million loss becomes a $6.6 million profit.

This is why I hate the world.

[FTW]

Wiretap comments by Bonner on the hard cap:

“They’re asking for a deal that is worse than hockey’s, which is considered to be the worst collective bargaining deal in sports history,” Bonner said. “If that’s their best offer, we don’t have much choice but to fight for something better.”

Really? That's stumped me. Can't see how the NHL deal is worse than the NFL - and the hard cap limit has steadily gone up, to the point where the "hard floor" is becoming a problem as small-market teams are forced to spend more than they ever would have.

Is the Red Rocket flat-out lying or is there something I'm missing?