Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Mister Ze]

I'm pretty sure there will be no NBA season. After a 16 HOUR MEETING.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Source who was in meeting on progress made in 16 hour talks: "Very little. Still not anywhere near a deal."

When asked if sides had closed any gaps, source in meeting tells Y!; "On small stuff. Hard to see where this is going."

[PowerHouse]

Anyone think that both sides made good progress in the 16 hour meeting? And the reason they aren't saying it is because of a potential "last minute breakdown", letting down the fans again.

Why would 2 side meet for as long as they did, and say little progress was made, and then meet again at 10am.


Also, who's paying for lunch and dinner? Just curious.

[Ponchos]

Also, who's paying for lunch and dinner? Just curious.

A month ago the owners and players split the bill for lunch 57-43, but now it's down to 53-47. Cuban and Buss have to pay the taxes.

[Fairview4Life]

Also, who's paying for lunch and dinner? Just curious.

A month ago the owners and players split the bill for lunch 57-43, but now it's down to 53-47. Cuban and Buss have to pay the taxes.

The owners wouldn't agree to that and all future dinners have been cancelled.

[dacrusha]

Also, who's paying for lunch and dinner? Just curious.

A month ago the owners and players split the bill for lunch 57-43, but now it's down to 53-47. Cuban and Buss have to pay the taxes.

The problem is, the owners went way over budget on the caterer and spent too much money on the event space they rented out... yet have the nerve to demand that players make up for their foolish spending.

[Indeed]

Adrian Wojnarowski
Shouldn't be surprising, but two league sources briefed on meeting say luxury tax on the cap remains the biggest hurdle in talks tonight.
21 minutes ago

Simply reducing the MLE from 4 years to 3 years would reduce the luxury tax by $3m per year per team.
Since it is a soft cap, the luxury tax is determined by big market teams, increasing penalty would help, furthermore, this is more between owner vs owner, instead of blaming this to the players.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I'm hoping these talks continue to the start of the college basketball season. I just need something to hold my interest. I don't really care if there's NBA ball this year.

[Rhettmatic]

This seems likely to me too, but maybe I'm just a pessimist:

IraHeatBeat Ira Winderman
Can't help but think that this is all a we-tried charade by NBA, before getting back to squeezing, then eventually crushing union.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Well, I think it would. There will be a few grossly overpaid, but there will not be as many overpaid. Like if there was no max, and Lebron Wade, Kobe, Dwight, were paid at their market value with say a 60 million cap, you'd see teams with offers of 30 mil a season, and you wouldn't see the trend to team up. You'd see the trend to lead their teams, where the rest of the money is shared by the other players. But the progressive system would need a ceiling at some point. And, as has been mentioned, you'd think at some point the agents and rank and file players will realize how much this hurts the majority of them.

I don't think you really need a ceiling on it, just a limit on how those teams can get around a soft cap. A little tweaking to the existing system like limiting the MLE and getting rid of sign and trades would make it a lot tougher to build a supporting cast around a star. Ring chasers will always be a problem, but really, even in the perfect storm like the Heat, with no max contracts at best they'd get Lebron and Wade and no Bosh and would have to give up players like Haslem, Chalmers and Anthony. And I have a hard time believing that either Lebron or Wade gives up $10 million a season over 5 years or whatever to become teammates because that's what they'd have to do to fit both guys under a soft cap of ~$55 million.

Granted, it would probably be tough to get the majority of the union to agree to abolishing max contracts at this point, but probably not as hard as you think because a lot of the young players think they will be stars. The funny thing was, it wasn't that long ago that the owners were making the exact opposite argument and fans everywhere agreed with them, too. The owners were trumpeting how KG was killing his team with his contract and they needed caps on contracts for parity's sake. In reality, that Timberwolves team was the perfect example of parity, with one player eating up a ton of salary and making it really hard to build a dynasty around him.

Ultimately, the idea shouldn't be to completely abolish dynasties, just to make it hard to build one (it already is) and to set up a system where tanking isn't so obviously encouraged - and tanking might be the bigger problem with parity right now than max contracts, although the two are highly linked because teams tank to get a player worthy of being underpaid by a max contract.

[Ponchos]

Granted, it would probably be tough to get the majority of the union to agree to abolishing max contracts at this point

Forget the players, the owners would never ever ever in a million years ever ever want to get rid of maximum contracts. Could you imagine how much more some dumb owner would be paying Joe Johnson???

[Indeed]

Granted, it would probably be tough to get the majority of the union to agree to abolishing max contracts at this point

Forget the players, the owners would never ever ever in a million years ever ever want to get rid of maximum contracts. Could you imagine how much more some dumb owner would be paying Joe Johnson???

And neither they want to eliminate sign and trade. This will make the team even worst without getting back a first round pick.

[Reignman]

This seems likely to me too, but maybe I'm just a pessimist:

IraHeatBeat Ira Winderman
Can't help but think that this is all a we-tried charade by NBA, before getting back to squeezing, then eventually crushing union.

I feel the same way. Bottom line, there are no "tweaks" to the current CBA that's going to be good for the league in the long run when the majority of the teams in the league don't have a healthy profit margin.

You first create a sound business model and then you can worry about tweaks. This CBA is first and foremost about bringing sound profitability for the majority of teams. It just so happens that the owners have a vested interest in the league doing well overall and so I'm down with them.

Again, the last system was broken and it needs to be fixed. They should take the last CBA and just burn it down because it's no longer reasonable in this economic climate. The players are in for a painful wait if they think the next CBA will look anything like the last one.

[Laowai]

I would rather lose the season without getting a competitive CBA this will benefit the Raptors as much as any team. If the arbitration fails like it seems to be happen. Owners should just cancel the season let the stars go on a world tour making big money while 350 players get zip. See the majority player happy to take 45%, hard cap,pay reduction.

[Ponchos]

I would rather lose the season without getting a competitive CBA this will benefit the Raptors as much as any team.

What exactly in any current proposals will help the Raptors gain a comparative advantage in this CBA?

[Ponchos]

Again, the last system was broken and it needs to be fixed. They should take the last CBA and just burn it down because it's no longer reasonable in this economic climate. The players are in for a painful wait if they think the next CBA will look anything like the last one.

Hard cap is off the table. The system being negotiated right now as we speak looks very much like the old one. Slightly shorter contracts, very slight reduction in the size of the MLE, changes to luxury tax levels.

What are the major systemic changes that will make the new CBA look completely different from the old one?

[dacrusha]

I would rather lose the season without getting a competitive CBA this will benefit the Raptors as much as any team. If the arbitration fails like it seems to be happen. Owners should just cancel the season let the stars go on a world tour making big money while 350 players get zip. See the majority player happy to take 45%, hard cap,pay reduction.

A change in BRI, hard cap and pay reduction does nothing to make the Raptors anymore competitive... and everything to bump MLSE's profits from 25+ million per year to $35/40 million per year. And ZERO chance (due to the hard cap) of those profits being re-invested into building a stronger roster.

Owners win. Fans and players lose.

[Reignman]

Again, the last system was broken and it needs to be fixed. They should take the last CBA and just burn it down because it's no longer reasonable in this economic climate. The players are in for a painful wait if they think the next CBA will look anything like the last one.

Hard cap is off the table. The system being negotiated right now as we speak looks very much like the old one. Slightly shorter contracts, very slight reduction in the size of the MLE, changes to luxury tax levels.

What are the major systemic changes that will make the new CBA look completely different from the old one?

The word "hard cap" is off the table. Let's see where this ends up, I say with the punitive lux tax and other measures like being allowed to be a tax team for only 2 out of 5 years, the new system will be closer to a hard cap even if the word isn't used.

[Reignman]

I would rather lose the season without getting a competitive CBA this will benefit the Raptors as much as any team. If the arbitration fails like it seems to be happen. Owners should just cancel the season let the stars go on a world tour making big money while 350 players get zip. See the majority player happy to take 45%, hard cap,pay reduction.

A change in BRI, hard cap and pay reduction does nothing to make the Raptors anymore competitive... and everything to bump MLSE's profits from 25+ million per year to $35/40 million per year. And ZERO chance (due to the hard cap) of those profits being re-invested into building a stronger roster.

Owners win. Fans and players lose.

Actually it does a lot. MLSE has paid up to the cap either way and has even paid the tax. What a hard cap would do is bring the big spenders down to a similar level to what MLSE pays anyways.

Now it puts the onus on management to make good moves because the playing field has been levelled and money is no longer an excuse.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Again, the last system was broken and it needs to be fixed. They should take the last CBA and just burn it down because it's no longer reasonable in this economic climate. The players are in for a painful wait if they think the next CBA will look anything like the last one.

Hard cap is off the table. The system being negotiated right now as we speak looks very much like the old one. Slightly shorter contracts, very slight reduction in the size of the MLE, changes to luxury tax levels.

What are the major systemic changes that will make the new CBA look completely different from the old one?

The word "hard cap" is off the table. Let's see where this ends up, I say with the punitive lux tax and other measures like being allowed to be a tax team for only 2 out of 5 years, the new system will be closer to a hard cap even if the word isn't used.

I don't think so. The rich owners will pop in a few extra dollars into the revenue sharing pot to pay off the broke teams. This will end up softening the punitive lux tax penalties that have already been presented. It'll be slightly stiffer, but the rich teams will still get to go over.

[Ponchos]

Again, the last system was broken and it needs to be fixed. They should take the last CBA and just burn it down because it's no longer reasonable in this economic climate. The players are in for a painful wait if they think the next CBA will look anything like the last one.

Hard cap is off the table. The system being negotiated right now as we speak looks very much like the old one. Slightly shorter contracts, very slight reduction in the size of the MLE, changes to luxury tax levels.

What are the major systemic changes that will make the new CBA look completely different from the old one?

The word "hard cap" is off the table. Let's see where this ends up, I say with the punitive lux tax and other measures like being allowed to be a tax team for only 2 out of 5 years, the new system will be closer to a hard cap even if the word isn't used.

It's my feeling that both sides are making the luxury tax issue a big deal in order to bridge the only true issue in these negotiations, and that's BRI.

The owners do not care as much as they appear to about a punitive luxury tax. Being that it is the only real form of revenue sharing that is already agreed upon by the owners, making it more punitive has the effect of punishing the teams having financial difficulty.

The problem is, the players do not truly care about the luxury tax issue as much as they appear to either. Hard Cap is off the table, and if teams can exceed the cap then players can keep their absolute contract guarantees. They have to make it look like a major sticking point so that they can get movement towards their 53% BRI.

The reason for the impasse is that both sides are bluffing on luxury tax, so it can't really be used effectively to bridge the BRI gap.