Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[ATLTimekeeper]

Guaranteed contracts are already off the table. The owners have proposed new maximum contract lengths in order to help off-set bad deals. The players balked.

[Fairview4Life]

Boris, you were wondering where intangible asset amortization and depreciation were listed on the Nets books, I took a few more minutes and read beyond the cash flow statements to see where the amortization and depreciation amounts were coming from:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59074529/Nets-0506

Page 10 of the document, 12 of the PDF. The intangible part of the franchise value (about $161 million) isn't amortized but goes through goodwill impairment tests and something something something. I would not be surprised if the Nets declared impairments losses on that intangible franchise asset, but I have no idea if that's shown anywhere as part of their financial statements or if that's even a thing. It might not be. it is still listed in that section though.

It also looks like there's a lot of fun stuff about their debt. I haven't spent much time looking through the numbers. I doubt you have the time, and despite my post count and obsessive refreshing, I neither have the time nor patience to go through everything. Other people have and there was a somewhat detailed discussion of those numbers:
http://wagesofwins.net/2011/07/07/better-angels/
viewtopic.php?f=15&p=28552631

And everyone would like to know what's in "other expenses". Asserting they are beyond a teams control without knowing what's actually an other expense seems a little strange. Anyway:
http://wagesofwins.net/2011/06/30/takin ... r-dispute/
http://www.sbnation.com/2011/7/7/226389 ... avid-stern
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/7/5/22 ... r-expenses

[Fairview4Life]

Guaranteed contracts are already off the table. The owners have proposed new maximum contract lengths in order to help off-set bad deals. The players balked.

The owners offered reducing from 5 and 6 year max contract lengths to 4 and 5 year contracts, and the players said ok, as of last week.

[dhackett1565]

Guaranteed contracts are already off the table. The owners have proposed new maximum contract lengths in order to help off-set bad deals. The players balked.

The owners offered reducing from 5 and 6 year max contract lengths to 4 and 5 year contracts, and the players said ok, as of last week.

The owners proposed reducing to 3 and 4 years contracts, with a single exception for 5 years for franchise players. The players offered 4 and 5. In no way has anything been agreed on.

[Fairview4Life]

Guaranteed contracts are already off the table. The owners have proposed new maximum contract lengths in order to help off-set bad deals. The players balked.

The owners offered reducing from 5 and 6 year max contract lengths to 4 and 5 year contracts, and the players said ok, as of last week.

The owners proposed reducing to 3 and 4 years contracts, with a single exception for 5 years for franchise players. The players offered 4 and 5. In no way has anything been agreed on.

I just took that from here, posted last week:

http://politic365.com/2011/10/12/nba-ow ... -and-fans/

Owners also want the maximum length of contracts reduced from 5 and 6 year deals to 4 and 5. Players have agreed to the changes in contract length.

The owners originally asked for 3 and 4 years, back in June and July. unless this person is wrong, it sounds like they upped it as a part of negotiations. But he might be wrong, it's the internet.

[ATLTimekeeper]

^That's the first I've heard about it. Anyway, from my viewpoint it looks like there's a compromise to be made. The owners just have to reveal their revenue sharing plan and come down slightly on the lux tax. The biggest stumbling block right now is KG on all fours in the negotiating room... What are they going to do next, have Reggie Evans come in and start pinching nutsacks?

[Fairview4Life]

^That's the first I've heard about it. Anyway, from my viewpoint it looks like there's a compromise to be made. The owners just have to reveal their revenue sharing plan and come down slightly on the lux tax. The biggest stumbling block right now is KG on all fours in the negotiating room... What are they going to do next, have Reggie Evans come in and start pinching nutsacks?

4 and 5 years is pretty reasonable and where things will probably end up.

People have been proposing a flex type of luxury tax all over the internet lately. Like a $1.25 for the first 5 million, $1.50 for the next 5 million, $1.75 for the next 5 million, $2 for the next 10 million, etc.. That also seems fairly reasonable, along with raising the minimum team salary to around 80-85% of the cap to get in line with other leagues.

[dhackett1565]

^That's the first I've heard about it. Anyway, from my viewpoint it looks like there's a compromise to be made. The owners just have to reveal their revenue sharing plan and come down slightly on the lux tax. The biggest stumbling block right now is KG on all fours in the negotiating room... What are they going to do next, have Reggie Evans come in and start pinching nutsacks?

4 and 5 years is pretty reasonable and where things will probably end up.

People have been proposing a flex type of luxury tax all over the internet lately. Like a $1.25 for the first 5 million, $1.50 for the next 5 million, $1.75 for the next 5 million, $2 for the next 10 million, etc.. That also seems fairly reasonable, along with raising the minimum team salary to around 80-85% of the cap to get in line with other leagues.

It is reasonable - but according to both Stern and Hunter in radio interviews last week, the two sides still stand where I said they did on the contract lengths. It could be the owners will accept the compromise, but maybe not.

[ItsDanger]

From the discussion in this thread, it sounds like they are solving none of the core issues re:elague's overall competitive problems. Expect more of the same in the NBA going forward.

[Ponchos]

From the discussion in this thread, it sounds like they are solving none of the core issues re:elague's overall competitive problems. Expect more of the same in the NBA going forward.

Well that's excellent news. I've loved the NBA since the 80's, so more of the same is good with me.

[dacrusha]

From the discussion in this thread, it sounds like they are solving none of the core issues re:elague's overall competitive problems. Expect more of the same in the NBA going forward.

The nature of basketball is that one player can be much more impactful difference maker than in any other team sport. Does this fact lead to only a small amount of teams able to contend each year? Yes, absolutely. Is there anything that can be done about this. Nope, nothing at all.

Every single team in the league has a chance to draft #1 overall and select the next LBJ or Durant, which is pretty much the only the way to become an elite team in the NBA. Being able to spend more money than another team does not make them more competitive. Just ask the Knicks.

The system is just fine afaik.

However, the idea that contract lengths are to be shortened, is even worse for small market teams, since they won't be able to hang onto their elite players for 6-7 years anymore.

Why aren't Raptor's fans (who stand to lose out the most with this concession, since Toronto is at the bottom of most players 'places to live' lists) crying about that?

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

From the discussion in this thread, it sounds like they are solving none of the core issues re:elague's overall competitive problems. Expect more of the same in the NBA going forward.

The nature of basketball is that one player can be much more impactful difference maker than in any other team sport. Does this fact lead to only a small amount of teams able to contend each year? Yes, absolutely. Is there anything that can be done about this. Nope, nothing at all.

Every single team in the league has a chance to draft #1 overall and select the next LBJ or Durant, which is pretty much the only the way to become an elite team in the NBA. Being able to spend more money than another team does not make them more competitive. Just ask the Knicks.

The system is just fine afaik.

However, the idea that contract lengths are to be shortened, is even worse for small market teams, since they won't be able to hang onto their elite players for 6-7 years anymore.

Why aren't Raptor's fans (who stand to lose out the most with this concession, since Toronto is at the bottom of most players 'places to live' lists) crying about that?

Very good points. The only way to get more parity in the NBA is through contraction. Talent is spread out too thin over 30 teams. Unfortunately, neither the players or the owners will accept this.

[Haisan]

I don't think parity is a problem in the NBA. It's just a fact of life, given the importance of the top 5-10 players in the league. I'm not sure if anything good be done to change that.

But I do like Bill Simmons' idea of a "fun as hell tournament" -- that is, a mini-tournament at the end of each season to determine the last couple of playoff berths and draft lottery positions. I think that would go a long way to stop outright tanking. Plus, it could be, well, fun as hell.

Over here in Europe, basketball and football have a lot of different tournaments throughout the year (champions league, often a mini-tournament with last year's top two teams facing off, and other variations), and most of them are fun and worthwhile.

Heck, I would love to see each year's Euroleague champion get an invite to play at least one game versus the NBA champs ... even if only an exhibition game.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Very good points. The only way to get more parity in the NBA is through contraction. Talent is spread out too thin over 30 teams. Unfortunately, neither the players or the owners will accept this.

Contraction will just lead to further contraction. If they took the maximum salary off the players in exchange for a hard cap, that would go a lot further to limiting the effectiveness of a star player than just cutting off the worst four teams. Who makes that deal, though?

[dhackett1565]

Very good points. The only way to get more parity in the NBA is through contraction. Talent is spread out too thin over 30 teams. Unfortunately, neither the players or the owners will accept this.

Contraction will just lead to further contraction. If they took the maximum salary off the players in exchange for a hard cap, that would go a lot further to limiting the effectiveness of a star player than just cutting off the worst four teams. Who makes that deal, though?

The players would never accept that. The negotiators would probably take it, but unless the hard cap was at, say, 65% of BRI, with the full 65% guaranteed, the rank and file would never vote to pass it. Even then, I don't know if they would, as role players' salaries would get slashed HARD under a no-max system.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I've been saying it for a while now, but there IS something that can be done about parity, and the owners haven't shown interest in doing it at all in these negotiations and actually negotiated against it in a previous CBA negotiation. Get rid of maximum contracts after rookie contracts expire. It doesn't mean the league will have every team finish 41-41, but it severely limits the ridiculous advantage a team has from getting Lebron or Wade for the same price other teams get Joe Johnson or Elton Brand. Even with the current luxury tax, it's a massive lux tax bill to pay for a decent supporting cast around one star that makes $40+ million a year and even then the cast would be ridiculously thin making one injury to even a supporting member devastating to a team.

Remove maximum contracts, increase parity. The owners aren't really looking at that kind of parity, though. I think some owners believe they are, but in reality it won't play out that way. The owners are after more financial/spending parity without compromising any of the wealthier owners' high profit margins. That is all.

[dacrusha]

Very good points. The only way to get more parity in the NBA is through contraction. Talent is spread out too thin over 30 teams. Unfortunately, neither the players or the owners will accept this.

Contraction will just lead to further contraction. If they took the maximum salary off the players in exchange for a hard cap, that would go a lot further to limiting the effectiveness of a star player than just cutting off the worst four teams. Who makes that deal, though?

The players would never accept that. The negotiators would probably take it, but unless the hard cap was at, say, 65% of BRI, with the full 65% guaranteed, the rank and file would never vote to pass it. Even then, I don't know if they would, as role players' salaries would get slashed HARD under a no-max system.

Role player salaries SHOULD be slashed.

Players like LBJ and Kobe are easily worth $25-30 million per year while players like Linas Kleiza are worth about $500,000... not $5 million.

But you're right, the (lower/middle-tier) players would never accept this type of salary structure.

[Indeed]

I've been saying it for a while now, but there IS something that can be done about parity, and the owners haven't shown interest in doing it at all in these negotiations and actually negotiated against it in a previous CBA negotiation. Get rid of maximum contracts after rookie contracts expire. It doesn't mean the league will have every team finish 41-41, but it severely limits the ridiculous advantage a team has from getting Lebron or Wade for the same price other teams get Joe Johnson or Elton Brand. Even with the current luxury tax, it's a massive lux tax bill to pay for a decent supporting cast around one star that makes $40+ million a year and even then the cast would be ridiculously thin making one injury to even a supporting member devastating to a team.

Remove maximum contracts, increase parity. The owners aren't really looking at that kind of parity, though. I think some owners believe they are, but in reality it won't play out that way. The owners are after more financial/spending parity without compromising any of the wealthier owners' high profit margins. That is all.

Correct, owners are not looking for parity, but return on their investment.
I agree to cut the contract length for 2 less years, but remain 53% - 57% of RBI. Also a farm team system needs to be setup, so the 53% - 57% might have 2% goes into the farm team. This will make more competition in games and less competition in overpaying players; more talents and more chance of improving each teams.

However, the most important aspect of the game needs to be changed. Game should not be dominated by one player like an entertainment business. NHL used to go that way (big hits, fights, and etc - entertainment), but now they focus on hockey. I hope NBA can change their game (fans won't go away as seen in NHL), better team basketball and more talents.

[Man of Steel]

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/lakersblog/2011/10/nba-lockout-players-union-derek-fisher.html

Not sure if this has been posted yet but nothing new here except DeMar on the left of the screen around five minutes in.

[Mister Ze]

This meeting has been going on for 12 hours and counting. They've probably decreased the gap substantially, I doubt both sides have kept their ground after 12 hours. The players seem to be outnumbered though. If Kobe or Lebron are the "face" of the NBA, i think they should be present, unless they've been making their own deals under the table .