Lockout

[Twinkie defense]

Yeah I know there are offsets with buyouts - Adonal Foyle lost a little Warrior money once he started taking money from Orlando. If the last amnesty clause did not allow for offsets, while the new one may, it doesn't seem like that big a difference to me. Seems like the main benefit is getting cap relief, and once new deals were signed they were much smaller than the original, amnestied deals (why would a team cut a guy because he makes too much, only for another team to then pay that player a bunch of money?). Though I suppose if teams are complaining about making profits, getting refunded a few mil from an amnestied player's new contract would be a help, though a relatively small one.

[Twinkie defense]

Even in the Michael Finley example above - and I think Finley was more an exception to the rule, as he was still a very serviceable player - Finley's new contract with the Spurs only paid him $2.5 mil per. So the Mavs were still shelling out $48.5 of that $51 mil owed (less any additional years' salaries from his new deal) - a pretty paltry amount given the size of the hit to Mark Cuban's wallet with Finley's original deal.

(And so maybe this is where the owners and players can duke it out regarding a new amnesty - to offset or not to offset?)

So while a new salary offset for an amnestied player's payout fits the financial narrative of the owners, it's such a small benefit that it really has to be the fact that you can get a guy off your cap that is the real selling point for teams.

And teams will continue to take a financial hit to the gut in order to try to field a competitive team, that's not in question - it seems to me that owners would simply like to make these kind of decisions without the weight of multi-million dollar losses hanging over their franchises.

Or, if you're of the belief that teams are already profitable in the vast majority of cases (I think Sleepy proclaimed that there was only one team that has really lost any money), it just becomes a cynical ploy for the owners to extract as much profit from players as possible, and that they are fine throwing away a season just to pad their already-bulging wallets.

For me, the latter scenario doesn't ring true - but obviously that is the very point that people are arguing about right?

[turk3d]

It's really going to be a matter of not penalizing the owners with lux tax (which might be eliminated anyway with the new CBA). As for owners using the amnesty if made available, I think it's going to be team dependent. There just aren't too many Mark Cuban type owners who are 1) wealthy enough to dump big salaries even if they are allowed to and take the one time hit and b) even if they can afford it, are too cheap to take advantage of it and 3) if they do, to what extent (how big of a hit will they be willing to take, if any).

Amnesty I think is something more that the fans want than the owners do and it would just a way to bring back the fans once the lockout is over with certain franchises. A nice gesture on the owners part in a way and a way of showing us that all owners aren't the cheap b s that most of us think they are.

[floppymoose]

The Finley comparison doesn't tell us much if we are talking about a Lee amnesty with offsets. Lee would get more than 2.5 mill from a new team.

[The Maestro]

Owners drop hard cap

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32327585

[Twinkie defense]

The Finley comparison doesn't tell us much if we are talking about a Lee amnesty with offsets. Lee would get more than 2.5 mill from a new team.

Oh, we're talking about fantasy world

[Sleepy51]

Owners drop hard cap

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32327585

Great, you can now officially file this lockout under "colossal waste of time for the fans."

No hard cap=no level playing field=no improvement in the competitive landscape for fans. The ONLY way this lockout was ever going to result in any tangible benefits for NBA fans was if we got some kind of hard cap to level the playing field. Instead, we're going to get a guaranteed profit based revenue sharing system just like MLB. The NBA's journey to the top heavy over-expanded watered down showcase for major market brands dark side will be complete. I sadly care a bit less about the NBA less today than I did yesterday.

[turk3d]

Quoted from that article:

"We already have a hard salary cap," one person connected to the talks told CBSSports.com Tuesday night. "That train left the station in the last collective bargaining. If you accept that as an important victory point, then we've been bamboozled."

You're right. Just colossal waste of time. I'm starting to get the impression (based on this article) that the owners are now scrambling to get a settlement before they lose any more money than they already have while most of the players are still getting paid or looking to get jobs elsewhere.

Also there seems to be a real divide expanding between owners wheras (surprisingly) the players are seeming to be fairly united still.

[floppymoose]

I don't really believe in any progress until they agree on how to split the $$$. I think everything, including a hard cap, is still on the table until the real issue is resolved.

[turk3d]

From what I've read recently (and I think it may be in that article) it seems that the players are willing to go 50-50 (as well as the owners) so if that's all it is, then I think they may have a solution. However, I don't think that's the big one here, and that it's all these other things. At least that's what I'm starting to see coming from both sides. Of course I could be reading things wrong here.

[Twinkie defense]

Instead of dramatically changing the system this sounds like fine-tuning to allow more teams to have a chance at profitability, which in and of itself is a move towards competitive balance. If the League thinks they can be profitable under these tweaks, it seems like the players and owners are moving a lot closer together - the bottom line, as floppy points out, will be the share of the pie.

Terms of the latest proposal:

• Mid-level exception gets smaller, shorter

• Ability to use Larry Bird exception reduced

• Luxury tax penalties increased (which, as the players want, will increase revenue sharing)

• Percentage of BRI designated to players reduced from 57% to 48%

For me the biggest variable is % of BRI. Setting aside a percentage of BRI for player salaries means that all stake holders can benefit from League revenue growth, which is the fair way to do it. I've always thought that 57% of BRI was insane, but if they end up at 48% or 49%, with the tightening of the restrictions on using exceptions, that sounds like they may be able to hammer out a deal that is fair to both owners and players sooner that thought.

[Twinkie defense]

Oh and I almost forgot:

"The owners also want a five-percent reduction on all existing salaries for this season, a 7.5 percent reduction of all 2012-13 salaries and 10 percent reduction of 2013-14 salaries, a source said."

That would obviously help get the percentage of BRI down from 57%, since most players are already under contract. I would have to think this would be one of the most contentious issues for players though, because it's easier for them to negotiate away something like overall percentage of revenue, but to have their own existing contracts reduced is a bitter pill. (But not one that a lot of people haven't been taking under the current economic climate - me included!)

[BROWN]

I like everything listed above.... Players lose a couple bucks, but we get a season, owners give the players near half of BRI, and the owners get taxed hard if their over the luxary threshold.

[floppymoose]

[...] to have their own existing contracts reduced is a bitter pill. (But not one that a lot of people haven't been taking under the current economic climate - me included!)

Did you have your contract reduced despite your business making more money than ever? Then NBA had it's all time high revenue last season. That is the "current economic climate" for the NBA.

[FNQ]

No hard cap is the worstworstworst thing that could have happened to us... now I could give a sh*t about this stupid lockout.

[Twinkie defense]

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS

Abrams: David Lee. Toss-up between him and Andris Biedrins ($27 million through 2014), but Lee makes more money for more years ($68.7 million through 2016).

Simmons: Are you crazy??? If the Warriors use their amnesty on Lee over that cap-hogging stiff Biedrins, I will walk from Los Angeles to San Francisco while wearing a Lakers no. 32 jersey that says "ABRAMS" on the back.

Hahaha

[Twinkie defense]

[...] to have their own existing contracts reduced is a bitter pill. (But not one that a lot of people haven't been taking under the current economic climate - me included!)

Did you have your contract reduced despite your business making more money than ever? Then NBA had it's all time high revenue last season. That is the "current economic climate" for the NBA.

Revenue is not the important factor, profits are.

[floppymoose]

Revenue is not the important factor, profits are.

Indeed. And the players took the same percentage of revenue they took in prior years. So what's the explanation for the lower profits? Could it be mistakes by the owners on other expenses? Or could it be *gasp* simply a lie???

[floppymoose]

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS

Abrams: David Lee. Toss-up between him and Andris Biedrins ($27 million through 2014), but Lee makes more money for more years ($68.7 million through 2016).

Simmons: Are you crazy??? If the Warriors use their amnesty on Lee over that cap-hogging stiff Biedrins, I will walk from Los Angeles to San Francisco while wearing a Lakers no. 32 jersey that says "ABRAMS" on the back.

Hahaha

Ha! I thought I was the only one. That Abrams dude owes me royalties.

[FNQ]

The more I read about the lockout, the more it makes me sick... 30 individuals depriving us of pro basketball because the millions upon millions they make off of us aren't enough, since the players get too much money in their opinion.