Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[dacrusha]

To a large degree you're right. Look, anyone who really believed that the owners would implement a parity-driven system were not understanding what makes the owners tick. It's 'money'.

Yeah, I'm not sure why "parity" became the rallying call for people supportive of the owners. It's never been their real priority. And the NBA will never have the parity of the NHL or NFL simply due to the nature of the game.

Parity was a PR ploy by the owners to gain sympathy from fans. When you peel back the onion, the NBA is no closer to parity:

- NO hard cap
- Big markets can still spend as much as they want if they are willing to pay higher penalties
- Amnesty gives big market teams a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card on one player mistake
- Stretch exemption reduces the cap hit on a waived player
- No indication of enhanced revenue sharing
- Players have one less year with their team = more player turnover

While the small market teams will see their costs lowered, the big market teams will enjoy a massive rise in revenues. Amnesty and Stretch Exemptions are good news for deep pocket owners.

I don't see this new CBA significantly deterring LA or Dallas from spending.

Shorter contract lengths actually hurt any sort of parity initiative as the small market teams will now have an even shorter leash on their own young talent.

[Reignman]

Yeah, I'm not sure why "parity" became the rallying call for people supportive of the owners. It's never been their real priority. And the NBA will never have the parity of the NHL or NFL simply due to the nature of the game.

Parity was a PR ploy by the owners to gain sympathy from fans. When you peel back the onion, the NBA is no closer to parity:

- NO hard cap
- Big markets can still spend as much as they want if they are willing to pay higher penalties
- Amnesty gives big market teams a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card on one player mistake
- Stretch exemption reduces the cap hit on a waived player
- No indication of enhanced revenue sharing
- Players have one less year with their team = more player turnover

While the small market teams will see their costs lowered, the big market teams will enjoy a massive rise in revenues. Amnesty and Stretch Exemptions are good news for deep pocket owners.

I don't see this new CBA significantly deterring LA or Dallas from spending.

Shorter contract lengths actually hurt any sort of parity initiative as the small market teams will now have an even shorter leash on their own young talent.

Actually, you're wrong, that just applies to FAs or RFAs (as per the previous CBA). As far as I know, the rookie scale hasn't changed.

[Reignman]

To a large degree you're right. Look, anyone who really believed that the owners would implement a parity-driven system were not understanding what makes the owners tick. It's 'money'.

Yeah, I'm not sure why "parity" became the rallying call for people supportive of the owners. It's never been their real priority. And the NBA will never have the parity of the NHL or NFL simply due to the nature of the game.

Parity was a PR ploy by the owners to gain sympathy from fans. When you peel back the onion, the NBA is no closer to parity:

- NO hard cap
- Big markets can still spend as much as they want if they are willing to pay higher penalties
- Amnesty gives big market teams a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card on one player mistake
- Stretch exemption reduces the cap hit on a waived player
- No indication of enhanced revenue sharing
- Players have one less year with their team = more player turnover

While the small market teams will see their costs lowered, the big market teams will enjoy a massive rise in revenues. Amnesty and Stretch Exemptions are good news for deep pocket owners.

I don't see this new CBA significantly deterring LA or Dallas from spending.

when you frame it like that, of course it would look like money was the only factor.

How about:

- Shorter contracts
- Much more restrictive MLE
- Extremely punishable Lux tax (eg. LAC would've paid $42 mil instead of the $20 mil they paid)


Clearly CC you've been involved in some PR work because the way you made it look as if the owners have no vested interest in improving competive parity but both you and I know they do.

I'll continue this in a bit, gotta run.

[dhackett1565]

To a large degree you're right. Look, anyone who really believed that the owners would implement a parity-driven system were not understanding what makes the owners tick. It's 'money'.

Yeah, I'm not sure why "parity" became the rallying call for people supportive of the owners. It's never been their real priority. And the NBA will never have the parity of the NHL or NFL simply due to the nature of the game.

Parity was a PR ploy by the owners to gain sympathy from fans. When you peel back the onion, the NBA is no closer to parity:

- NO hard cap
- Big markets can still spend as much as they want if they are willing to pay higher penalties
- Amnesty gives big market teams a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card on one player mistake
- Stretch exemption reduces the cap hit on a waived player
- No indication of enhanced revenue sharing
- Players have one less year with their team = more player turnover

While the small market teams will see their costs lowered, the big market teams will enjoy a massive rise in revenues. Amnesty and Stretch Exemptions are good news for deep pocket owners.

I don't see this new CBA significantly deterring LA or Dallas from spending.

1) the players refused a hard cap.
2) if the NBA gets their way, teams over the lux tax level will NOT be able to use the MLE or sign and trades.
3) amnesty is only for players already under contract, and is there to provide relief to teams that spent under the old system.
4) stretch exemption doesn't reduce the cap hit, just spreads it out - lets a team reduce the hit now for a quick shot at success at the cost of future flexibility to do the same.
5) there have been extensive indications of revenue sharing.
6) true enough, and the only valid point you made.

[floppymoose]

With the owners unwilling to accept the massive 5% giveback the players have offered, I think it's time for the players to just decertify the union and let this play out in court for a while. Let the owners miss a season. Let the player agents deal with the owners after decertification.

[Ponchos]

Clearly CC you've been involved in some PR work because the way you made it look as if the owners have no vested interest in improving competive parity but both you and I know they do.

I'll continue this in a bit, gotta run.

Prove it. All historical evidence in the NBA points to less parity = higher revenues/ratings.

The golden era for the NBA is synonymous with MJ/Bulls dominance.

[Ponchos]

Actually, you're wrong, that just applies to FAs or RFAs (as per the previous CBA). As far as I know, the rookie scale hasn't changed.

He isn't wrong. He isn't referring to the rookie scale, he's referring to a young stars first contract after the rookie deal.

Chris Paul and Dwight would be free agents right now under the new deal (and likely on different teams).

[BLKMASS]

Clearly CC you've been involved in some PR work because the way you made it look as if the owners have no vested interest in improving competive parity but both you and I know they do.

I'll continue this in a bit, gotta run.

Prove it. All historical evidence in the NBA points to less parity = higher revenues/ratings.

The golden era for the NBA is synonymous with MJ/Bulls dominance.

That makes no logical sense. Who the hell wants to watch a bunch of scrub teams and 3-4 good teams. LAME. BORING.

[C Court]

- Shorter contracts
- Much more restrictive MLE
- Extremely punishable Lux tax (eg. LAC would've paid $42 mil instead of the $20 mil they paid)

Clearly CC you've been involved in some PR work because the way you made it look as if the owners have no vested interest in improving competive parity but both you and I know they do.

The owners may have a vested interest in improved parity, but this new CBA does very little to improve parity. This new CBA "tweaks' the system but not much else besides reducing what players get paid.

-Shorter contracts are just one less year - no big deal

-The MLE is not much more restrictive - only change appears that tax teams don't have an MLE

-Luxury tax is more punitive, but will it really stop LA, Dallas or NYK from over-spending? While the Lakers tax paid may double, they have reduced salaries to pay and have a new monster local tv deal. They can still afford the extra tax penalty if it means more championships.

Having said that, I like the flexibility in the new system. I just don't think it will have a significant impact on creating more parity. This deal is mostly about saving money, not parity.

[C Court]

Actually, you're wrong, that just applies to FAs or RFAs (as per the previous CBA). As far as I know, the rookie scale hasn't changed.

He isn't wrong. He isn't referring to the rookie scale, he's referring to a young stars first contract after the rookie deal.

Chris Paul and Dwight would be free agents right now under the new deal (and likely on different teams).

You're right about the new CBA's impact on free agents like Dwight and Paul. There doesn't appear to be any new mechanism or rules that would increase the likelihood that these free agents would be more inclined to stay in a small market.

That's why I believe that other than some tweaks, there is no real change in the overall NBA system.

[Ponchos]

Clearly CC you've been involved in some PR work because the way you made it look as if the owners have no vested interest in improving competive parity but both you and I know they do.

I'll continue this in a bit, gotta run.

Prove it. All historical evidence in the NBA points to less parity = higher revenues/ratings.

The golden era for the NBA is synonymous with MJ/Bulls dominance.

That makes no logical sense. Who the hell wants to watch a bunch of scrub teams and 3-4 good teams. LAME. BORING.

Yeah! Who the heck watched MJ and the Bulls beat up on the league year after year?!?! Oh yeah, everyone.

[dacrusha]

Parity was a PR ploy by the owners to gain sympathy from fans. When you peel back the onion, the NBA is no closer to parity:

- NO hard cap
- Big markets can still spend as much as they want if they are willing to pay higher penalties
- Amnesty gives big market teams a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card on one player mistake
- Stretch exemption reduces the cap hit on a waived player
- No indication of enhanced revenue sharing
- Players have one less year with their team = more player turnover

While the small market teams will see their costs lowered, the big market teams will enjoy a massive rise in revenues. Amnesty and Stretch Exemptions are good news for deep pocket owners.

I don't see this new CBA significantly deterring LA or Dallas from spending.

Shorter contract lengths actually hurt any sort of parity initiative as the small market teams will now have an even shorter leash on their own young talent.

Actually, you're wrong, that just applies to FAs or RFAs (as per the previous CBA). As far as I know, the rookie scale hasn't changed.

Fine, then they have a shorter leash on their young FAs and RFAs. Which is even more damaging since we're talking about the most prolific years of their careers.

It'll be sobering when Valanciunas leaves us at the age of 28 to go to a real basketball market.

[dacrusha]

Prove it. All historical evidence in the NBA points to less parity = higher revenues/ratings.

The golden era for the NBA is synonymous with MJ/Bulls dominance.

That makes no logical sense. Who the hell wants to watch a bunch of scrub teams and 3-4 good teams. LAME. BORING.

Yeah! Who the heck watched MJ and the Bulls beat up on the league year after year?!?! Oh yeah, everyone.

The heydays of just about any league ever were fraught with dynasties and dominant teams.

[Laowai]

Basically Stern should be shown the door.

He has absolutely screwed up the CBA negotiations even if the BRI is 50% it screws the small and middle sized franchises and teams like the Raptors who fiscally responsible The only way the penalties will work is if the luxury threshold is lowered substantially to mid 50's but that still handicaps many teams.

It was far better to lose a season than to settle for this garbage.

[Ponchos]

Basically Stern should be shown the door.

He has absolutely screwed up the CBA negotiations even if the BRI is 50% it screws the small and middle sized franchises and teams like the Raptors who fiscally responsible The only way the penalties will work is if the luxury threshold is lowered substantially to mid 50's but that still handicaps many teams.

It was far better to lose a season than to settle for this garbage.

Pssst. The owners aren't settling. They never wanted a drastically different system.

[C Court]

Pssst. The owners aren't settling. They never wanted a drastically different system.

Agreed. Stern has two owner groups to keep happy and he delivered something to both:

Small markets - lower salary costs and some additional drag on salaries (smaller increases, lower MLE, higher tax penalties)

Big markets - they still can spend freely and are not forced to maintain spending under a Hard Cap

Bottom line is the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, Chicago Bulls, Miami Heat and NY Knicks are collectively more important to the NBA than all the small markets combined. Stern's hands were tied because the big markets opposed a Hard Cap.

[Rapsfan07]

This whole CBA thing is a joke. Barely any changes were made...certainly none of major significance. I can't believe the lockout has lasted 110+ days and that's all they've come up with. So badly wanted a flex cap system, much more punitive taxes and a franchise tag. If the system included say a 58-60 mil cap + a franchise tag, that would hurt very few teams but still (given the restriction around the cap) delegate talent a little bit better. I'd rather lose more games than accept a deal like this. The NBA owes it to its fans to give every team a real chance to win.

[The Duke]

lol... once everyone comes to terms that competitive balance was not the driving force for the lockout and it was simply money (getting what they can now, because you can) ... we can move on.

Stern essentially gets enough of what was wanted and they keep the season = big win for owners.

[bboyskinnylegs]

I had little optimism that the system would change in any significant way to help us compete better, I just hope our 2012 draft doesn't get ruined because the owners want kids to spend two years in college before entering the league.

[dacrusha]

This whole CBA thing is a joke. Barely any changes were made...certainly none of major significance. I can't believe the lockout has lasted 110+ days and that's all they've come up with. So badly wanted a flex cap system, much more punitive taxes and a franchise tag. If the system included say a 58-60 mil cap + a franchise tag, that would hurt very few teams but still (given the restriction around the cap) delegate talent a little bit better. I'd rather lose more games than accept a deal like this. The NBA owes it to its fans to give every team a real chance to win.

The only way any team has of becoming a conference contender is through drafting a top 5 talent (Kobe, Duncan, Durant, LBJ, Nowitzki, Rose, Wade etc etc). The CBA has zero to do with a teams' 'real chance to win'.

All your flex cap and lowered cap system does is ensure the same old 30-win seasons for the Raptors... and boost MLSE's profit levels to $35 million a year to re-invest in condo projects.