Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Ponchos]

I've always been a firm believer of the guy who pays the bills is th guy who makes dictates everything else.

Make no mistake, the players pay the bills for the NBA. The players and the owners have more of a partnership than a traditional owner/employee relationship.

P.S. The owners want a collectively bargained agreement with the players just as much as the players do. The players union helps the owners get around antitrust laws that would radically reshape the league if the NBA had to abide by them.

[Parataxis]

If you dont like the pay, GTFO and find another job... If they dont like the rules they should get out and go play in Europe or somewhere else imo...

Umm, isn't that what they're doing?

That's pretty much what collective bargaining is. The owners are saying 'We're only going to pay you X'. The players are saying 'F that, we won't work for that cheap, if you're being like that, we'll find something else'. And then the owners say "well, maybe we actually need you guys, how about we pay you Y?'

I really don't see where your issue is.

[HANKX12]

What happens when a team exceeds the flex cap? The players pay the excess!

Nope.

The players only pay the excess if league-wide salaries exceed their guaranteed amount of 2+ Billion in wages. Individual teams can exceed the cap (just like they do today).

Again, this is EXACTLY like the soft-cap system in place now. If the players are paid more than 57% BRI then they give back a portion of their salary to the owners.

I don’t know this is right or wrong but I think it is possible for player’s total salary to exceed BRI 57%.

Player’s contract is guaranteed and only 8% of its contract’s money is in the escrow system. Under NBA’s current soft cap system, it is possible to exceed BRI 57%. It’s unlikely to happen because it will require every NBA team to have a huge player’s payroll, like 90million for each team. It’s unlikely to happen but that’s what owners afraid of, is it? They are afraid if they don’t do something about player’s salary it will lose control.

For me, flex cap is all about profit. I heard about Flex cap will have a 62 million cap limit for each team. I think the league consider each team’s payroll for players under 62 million will be profitable. The reality is many teams are over this cap limit, I think it is logical to have another limit that higher than 62 million as hard cap limit. It’s unlikely to abandon current exception such as middle level exception. However, if there is no hard cap limit set for each team, those exceptions will bring player’s payroll over BRI 57% sooner or later.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.

[Ponchos]

I don’t know this is right or wrong but I think it is possible for player’s total salary to exceed BRI 57%.

It's not possible.

Any overage in one year is added on to the escrow estimate the next year.

I went over and over this with Ranger a page back or so.

The players can not earn more than 57% BRI ever. EVER!

[C_Money]

How is it possible that they haven't met yet? Its taken the NFL 5 months and they still haven't made a deal. And the NBA offseason is like 3 months shorter. What else could you possibly be doing during a lockout thats more important?

[Laowai]

It will take a very long time because it isn't just the CBA owners and players.
It is also owners versus owners right now the train is being driven by the small & mid market teams and teams that have NHL franchises. They want a hard cap or at least a flex-cap with a max of $62 million.

[tecumseh18]

If you dont like the pay, GTFO and find another job... If they dont like the rules they should get out and go play in Europe or somewhere else imo...

Umm, isn't that what they're doing?

That's pretty much what collective bargaining is. The owners are saying 'We're only going to pay you X'. The players are saying 'F that, we won't work for that cheap, if you're being like that, we'll find something else'. And then the owners say "well, maybe we actually need you guys, how about we pay you Y?'

I really don't see where your issue is.

Actually, his lack of appreciation for reality goes deeper than that. The fact is that players don't play for the league as a whole, they play for a team. In a free market, teams would be able to bid for the rights to each player. It's in both the individual team's and the league's interest to restrict this competitive bidding for services, to keep the overall salary cost reasonable and ensure some level of parity to keep the fans' interest.

The draft, and any rules that restrict free agency, are anti-competitive - in violation of US (and Canadian) antitrust rules. The NBA can only get away with this by obtaining the consent of the players - represented by their union. If the players don't consent, the whole system falls apart.

[postup]

Interesting piece in today's NYT contrasting NFL and NBA labour disputes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/sport ... ref=sports

It'll be interesting to see whether NBA players decide to decertify. To me, that's the elephant in the room. I don't buy Stern's veiled threat that decertification could void current contracts, but it's still a major gamble on the players' side.

The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that this could be a very long lock-out, very possibly a full season. I'm OK with that as long as it brings meaningful, ie. substantial change, not like the farce teh NHL went through.

[40 Guzzle]

you dont think the new NHL CBA resulted in substatntial change?

[J-Roc]

you dont think the new NHL CBA resulted in substatntial change?

Yeah, not sure what postup is talking about. The NHL lockout lead to serious changes.

But also, the years subsequent to the NHL lockout have shown that the problem isn't just "stupid owners and GM's giving out bad contracts". It's just part of sports business that bad contracts have to be given out to retain talent, or obtain it, to sell to the fans, keep your job, etc. So even with all the controls in the NHL CBA, one small opening was the ability to sign players to an unlimited number of years of a contract. 10+ year deals. So if owners want control of contracts, they need to use the CBA close every possible loophole to control GM's. Change won't happen because one day owners and GM's will smarten up.

[postup]

you dont think the new NHL CBA resulted in substatntial change?

I don't really follow hockey, but from what I've read, contracts have crept back to pre-lockout dimensions, with many owners side-stepping by offering these ludicrous, front-loaded, super long deals.

Is there more parity now than before? Are small market teams are more competitive? I don't know; as I said, I don't follow hockey.

[J-Roc]

you dont think the new NHL CBA resulted in substatntial change?

I don't really follow hockey, but from what I've read, contracts have crept back to pre-lockout dimensions, with many owners side-stepping by offering these ludicrous, front-loaded, super long deals.

Is there more parity now than before? Are small market teams are more competitive? I don't know; as I said, I don't follow hockey.

Pre the NHL lockout, players could make $10M/yr or as much as possible. The current CBA says that no individual player can make an annual salary of more than 20% of the hard cap, so Sidney Crosby was maxed at an avg of $8.7M/yr. So they only loophole for one team to offer more...or for agents to demand more....is more years of contract. It's just not something the NHL ever thought they had to cap...they years of a contract. Now a broken down goalie for the NY Islanders, Rick DiPietro, is a few years into a 15yr, $67.5M deal.

As for parity, absolutely. The championship team from a year ago, Chicago, immediately had to break up their team to stay within the cap. They ended up an 8th seed and first round exit this season. There is absolutely no reason to believe this year's Cup team, Boston, will be a contender next season. Basically, the NHL is now like the NFL.....total crapshoot year over year.

[McFurious1]

^ This is great news for the Raptors if the NBA adopts this hard cap.

[NH]

Help me out here; why would the players want to decertify their union? Isn't the union helping them get the pay they want?

[Schad]

^ This is great news for the Raptors if the NBA adopts this hard cap.

Do you really want a league where there is no such thing as sustained success, and winning is merely about waiting your turn to benefit from salary purges elsewhere? I still doubt that we'll ever have parity of that nature anyway, but it's a pretty hollow way to succeed.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Help me out here; why would the players want to decertify their union? Isn't the union helping them get the pay they want?

As it stands the union is primarily helping owners/and middle class NBA players, which constitutes the majority of the players. If the owners keep pushing these drastic changes (Hard cap at around $45-50M) what it will do is essentially kill the "middle class" of the nba, teams will fill their roster with one or two superstars still making mega bucks and fill the rest of the roster with near minimum contracts (probably in the $1-2M range).

At this point it makes no sense to have union anymore. The whole of point having union is to protect the average player. There is a point in which union will feel that they are better off without. If they decertify the league can't do these like hard caps, minimum/max salary, etc. Each player will have to negotiations for benefits and salary without any restrictions on either party. So a player could in theory play for $100M per year or $10,000.

IMO this route would be very risky for the NBA and bad for the league. If it comes down this they'll definitely not be a season next year as these will go to the legal court and that will take a sometime. I think owners are playing a dangerous game if they think they can force the players into a bad deal.

[dagger]

^ This is great news for the Raptors if the NBA adopts this hard cap.

Do you really want a league where there is no such thing as sustained success, and winning is merely about waiting your turn to benefit from salary purges elsewhere? I still doubt that we'll ever have parity of that nature anyway, but it's a pretty hollow way to succeed.

There is still sustained success in the NHL, just not dynasties. Pittsburgh, Washington and Boston have enjoyed repeat success as high end playoff contenders. Ditto Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose. The system rewards good general managers and puts a greater emphasis on the draft and player development. It allows smaller market teams to remain competitive at a high level if they are creative and bold (see Nashville, Tampa Bay).

[ranger001]

So you agree that the players would have an upper limit of 2 billion a year.

In the current system total salaries go up as BRI goes up. Under the "flex" cap total salaries are capped at a hard limit. Its a league hard cap. Call it something else if you want.

Ok, since you have a very hard time understanding simple concepts this will be my last post on the issue.

A hard-cap is not a hard-cap just because you say it is. Here are the definitions of a hard-cap and a soft-cap:

http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-cba-glossary/g/soft-cap.htm

The NBA's salary cap is described as a "soft" cap; that is, there are a variety of methods teams can use to exceed the cap in any given season.

And this is what a hard-cap is:

The owners' initial proposals for a new collective bargaining agreement reportedly ELIMINATE ALL OF THESE EXCEPTIONS in favor of a "hard" salary cap that cannot be exceeded for any reason. The National Hockey League employs a hard cap, as did the National Football League, until their collective bargaining agreement lapsed.

A hard-cap is a set number for an INDIVIDUAL TEAM, that cannot be exceeded by exceptions such as the Bird-exception or MLE's. A hard cap is not something you can just make up an arbitrary definition for.

Here is another website proving my point:

http://www.sportscity.com/NBA/Salary-Cap/

The NBA institutes a 'soft cap' as appose to a 'hard cap' like the NHL and NFL. 'Soft Cap' meaning that their are several Exceptions and loop holes to exceed the salary cap. Hard Cap meaning their is little or no circumstances on which teams may exceed the Salary cap.

The Flex-cap is a type of soft-cap as there is a set cap for each team, then each team can go beyond it (into luxury-tax) with EXCEPTIONS.

You're fixated on the "CAP" part of hard-cap and soft-cap which does not adequately highlight the differences between the two systems.

Anyhow, in summation, I'm right and you're wrong (yet again). Respond if you like, call soft-caps hard-caps if you like. This post is primarily so that readers on this site with at least a lower level grasp of the English language will not be misinformed by you.

That's why I called it a LEAGUE hard cap. Basic English.

[ranger001]

^ This is great news for the Raptors if the NBA adopts this hard cap.

Do you really want a league where there is no such thing as sustained success, and winning is merely about waiting your turn to benefit from salary purges elsewhere? I still doubt that we'll ever have parity of that nature anyway, but it's a pretty hollow way to succeed.

It's not going to be as simple as 'waiting your turn'. A team would still have to draft well, scout well and make the right trades so that they have a team capable of competing. Plus the requisite luck in all those things.

How is that more hollow though than the luck involved currently? Teams get lucky through the draft or through trades(Pau Gasol).

[bstein14]

According to reports there is a good chance the NFL lockout will be over within the next 10 days... just in time to set up a short FA, have training camps, and not loss any preseason or regular season games.

If this is true, it will put a lot of pressure on the NBA players to get something done by the end of August so the NBA doesn't miss any games. If not, a lot of fans will want to know why NFL players (who on average make much much less than NBA players and have much shorter careers) can come to an agreement while NBA players are still holding out.