Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

Post #1081 » by **Schad** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:19 pm

I'd be shocked if it was anything other than 5-6 years. And it will be pretty close to 50/50...probably 51/49 for the players, with a more strict lux tax.

S.W.A.N · Post #1082 » by **S.W.A.N** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:48 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:I'd be shocked if it was anything other than 5-6 years. And it will be pretty close to 50/50...probably 51/49 for the players, with a more strict lux tax.

I bet 7 as in 10 year deal with opt out at 7. But think whether it happens now or latter you got the bri and tax right on...

Post #1083 » by **Schad** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:00 pm

I just doubt that the owners are going to feel confident enough about this deal (read: will believe that the next deal won't hold even greater riches) to tie themselves in for so long. My expectation from the peanut gallery is that they'll trade 1% of BRI or thereabouts to get a 5 or 6 year deal with an owner-controlled opt-in for another couple beyond.

S.W.A.N · Post #1084 » by **S.W.A.N** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:11 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:I just doubt that the owners are going to feel confident enough about this deal (read: will believe that the next deal won't hold even greater riches) to tie themselves in for so long. My expectation from the peanut gallery is that they'll trade 1% of BRI or thereabouts to get a 5 or 6 year deal with an owner-controlled opt-in for another couple beyond.

I see it going the other way. Owners know that revenues are only going one way and the longer they keep the players at a lower BRI the more used to it they get.

But I see you being right if the owners do have to concede higher BRI than they want. But I sticking with 7

BLKMASS · Post #1085 » by **BLKMASS** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:20 pm

Players have already given up ridiculous amount of money, owners want more, WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Haisan · Post #1086 » by **Haisan** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:25 pm

So, reading stories like the latest SI, I have to wonder -- are the players unable to understand basic mathematics, or are the owners, or is it just the reporter?

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10 ... nba_t11_a0

There is a lot of noise about luxury taxes and what players will accept. But all that talk seems pretty stupid to me (unless I am missing something) because the player % of BRI is pretty fixed. Luxury taxes are interesting because it theoretically makes like a lot more profitable to be cheap (hello Clippers!).

Really, why would the players care about a hard cap or luxury tax if they got the BRI% they wanted? I guess it might matter for the owners (at least the ones who think $120 million for Gilbert Arenas or Joe Johnson is a good idea), but I don't see how those details would affect the players.

The more I think about it, the more I think the owners really screwed up by fighting from the beginning for salary rollbacks. No one likes losing money in absolute terms. But if they owners had kept salaries increasingly slower than BRI, then they could have sold the deal like the players' salaries were increasing, but after 5 or 10 years, had player BRI down to 50% or so. Just bad negotiation tactics from Team Stern.

Scraptor · Post #1087 » by **Scraptor** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:49 am

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern says that the first two weeks of season have been cancelled.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern: "we remain very, very apart on all issues."

highness · Post #1088 » by **highness** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:50 am

****!!!! I HATE THEM ALL!

Orsk · Post #1089 » by **Orsk** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:58 am

The players union are a bunch of idiots. The owners have already won this battle, why cost themselves more money when they can not possibly win. The players have expenses and no other source of income (the majority of players) where as the owners didnt make it rich buy owning a basketball team. All of the owners have other sources of income, do not live off of the NBA and are not spending as much money whhen there are no games, they can hold out for as long as they like (when we say they lose $200 million by not having the first 2 weeks of the season, we are talking about projected income here, not having to spend that out of pocket, they arent actually losing anything, they just arent making that)....

I give it a month before 1/2 of the players are calling for Billy Hunters head and having spent the rest of their savings.

Eitherway, we all expected this, in the long run it probably works out better for the Raps, though I'd prefer to see DD and the rest of our young players spending time with Casey and playing meaningful games developing. Hopefully they are all still doing everything they can to develop in their own time!

Post #1090 » by **5DOM** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:03 am

I don't think I care anymore, am starting to wonder if I even liked NBA basketball much. Most people probably don't care either.

Orsk · Post #1091 » by **Orsk** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:09 am

Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA

Stern: "With every day that goes by, there will be further reductions on what's left of the season"

Stern: "We can't get over the system hurdles..."

Stern suggests that owner's offers will get worse for players to account for NBA losses during missed games.

Sounds like we arent getting any games this season haha.

Indeed · Post #1092 » by **Indeed** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:12 am

The owners are just too greedy. Already reduced from last year 57% of share to 53%, and they try to remove mid-level?
By removing mid-level, it becomes more like a hard-cap. Other than bi-annual, nothing else adds to the team salary on FA, while trade kicker and trade differences (25%) are the only thing to make team salary goes up.

Really disappointed by the owners, I should start watching the Leafs, since they look good.

Post #1093 » by **DG88** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:16 am

Indeed wrote:The owners are just too greedy. Already reduced from last year 57% of share to 53%, and they try to remove mid-level?
By removing mid-level, it becomes more like a hard-cap. Other than bi-annual, nothing else adds to the team salary on FA, while trade kicker and trade differences (25%) are the only thing to make team salary goes up.

Really disappointed by the owners, I should start watching the Leafs, since they look good.

The owners and players sort of agreed that the MLE should be shortened not taken out.

knickerbocker2k2 · Post #1094 » by **knickerbocker2k2** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:16 am

Stern is trying to win PR war with this statements. What concessions have they made? Start at extreme position and moving couple of inches is considered concession?

It is becoming very clear that owners strategy has being from the get go to start at extreme position and not really negotiate until players miss out on pay checks. Even if this plan works, don't they realize this does damage to the league? With high unemployment and countless other entertainment options, do they expect the fans to all come back when the NBA is ready? Not very smart move. And that is assuming it actually works and few games are lost. Doesn't even take into account if large parts or all of the season is lost. It could take the length of the CBA to recover just in time for another labour strive.

carlosey · Post #1095 » by **carlosey** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:22 am

Orsk wrote:The players union are a bunch of idiots. The owners have already won this battle, why cost themselves more money when they can not possibly win. The players have expenses and no other source of income (the majority of players) where as the owners didnt make it rich buy owning a basketball team. All of the owners have other sources of income, do not live off of the NBA and are not spending as much money whhen there are no games, they can hold out for as long as they like (when we say they lose $200 million by not having the first 2 weeks of the season, we are talking about projected income here, not having to spend that out of pocket, they arent actually losing anything, they just arent making that)....

I give it a month before 1/2 of the players are calling for Billy Hunters head and having spent the rest of their savings.

Eitherway, we all expected this, in the long run it probably works out better for the Raps, though I'd prefer to see DD and the rest of our young players spending time with Casey and playing meaningful games developing. Hopefully they are all still doing everything they can to develop in their own time!

Thats basically it. They should have come to an agreement by now because from here on out the owners are just simply going to give them less and less. And yes, just like you say, now the little guys are going to start missing money and they will start pressuring Hunter to get something done.

All things considered, this is just a sophisticated game of chicken.

C_Money · Post #1096 » by **C_Money** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:26 am

Time to start reading up on college basketball.

JC16 · Post #1097 » by **JC16** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:27 am

What the players don't realize is, they need the owners more than the owners need them. Where is the money going to come from for the players if they arent playing? (oh their "savings"? or their "investment") who is it to say that they wont go broke from their wild spending lifestyle? The players had a chance to max out their income but because of (Please Use More Appropriate Word) superstars like wade and lebron who think they are worth 50mil a year. These (Please Use More Appropriate Word) figures got into the minds of these stupid athletes who think they can make more than what they are making now.

mowe · Post #1098 » by **mowe** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:28 am

knickerbocker2k2 wrote:Stern is trying to win PR war with this statements. What concessions have they made? Start at extreme position and moving couple of inches is considered concession?

It is becoming very clear that owners strategy has being from the get go to start at extreme position and not really negotiate until players miss out on pay checks. Even if this plan works, don't they realize this does damage to the league? With high unemployment and countless other entertainment options, do they expect the fans to all come back when the NBA is ready? Not very smart move. And that is assuming it actually works and few games are lost. Doesn't even take into account if large parts or all of the season is lost. It could take the length of the CBA to recover just in time for another labour strive.

Completely agree with everything here.

The stubbornness of the owners leaves us fans as the losers. There goes all the momentum from an excellent last season.

I miss basketball already.

Tenacious_C · Post #1099 » by **Tenacious_C** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:43 am

knickerbocker2k2 wrote:Stern is trying to win PR war with this statements. What concessions have they made? Start at extreme position and moving couple of inches is considered concession?

It is becoming very clear that owners strategy has being from the get go to start at extreme position and not really negotiate until players miss out on pay checks. Even if this plan works, don't they realize this does damage to the league? With high unemployment and countless other entertainment options, do they expect the fans to all come back when the NBA is ready? Not very smart move. And that is assuming it actually works and few games are lost. Doesn't even take into account if large parts or all of the season is lost. It could take the length of the CBA to recover just in time for another labour strive.

The nature of bargaining is taking the extremes and working to the middle. What I read out of all of this is that the players want to maintain the status quo and this in itself can be an example of the players' extreme position.

Salaries are out of whack in the NBA and when mid-level players are being paid silly (8mil/per), I think the owner's gripes need to be assessed and considering that the agents are starting to weigh in; I don't think that the players are going to win the PR battle.

BRI isn't fair and considering the owners are fronting the money to run the organizations and secure markets, the players don't deserve more than half. I think base salaries should be across the board and be paid like a grid system. Maybe even offering a rating based on career statistics vs. years played and load it with incentives (change in multipliers based on statistical improvement).

I find that the players like the cheques but take none of the risk. I'm with the owners. The league is out of balance.

S.W.A.N · Post #1100 » by **S.W.A.N** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:53 am

The optimist in me is disappointed. Common sense and business savy dictate that a deal should of gotten done.

But seeing how the majority of NBA owners have run their businesses I should of known those two things were not part of the equation.

I am now squarely in the decertify camp. F U greedy owners, see you in court