Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

Rapsfan07 · Post #581 » by **Rapsfan07** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:12 am

Oh well. This new tentative agreement hasn't changed anything anyway.

Tofubeque · Post #582 » by **Tofubeque** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:34 am

dacrusha wrote:
Ponchos wrote:
BLKMASS wrote: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.

The NFL rakes in record profits year after year, and five different teams have won the superbowl over the last five seasons.

Post #583 » by **floppymoose** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:45 am

...which might be why I never watch football.

C_Money · Post #584 » by **C_Money** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:07 am

I think his point is that all 32 teams have an even chance to win a superbowl. The Colts don't have to worry about Peyton Manning going to the New York Jets and leaving their team in the dust. The small town of Green Bay won the Superbowl last year which is basically unheard of in the NBA unless you get ridiculously lucky like the San Antonio Spurs.

Ponchos · Post #585 » by **Ponchos** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:11 am

C_Money wrote:I think his point is that all 32 teams have an even chance to win a superbowl. The Colts don't have to worry about Peyton Manning going to the New York Jets and leaving their team in the dust. The small town of Green Bay won the Superbowl last year which is basically unheard of in the NBA unless you get ridiculously lucky like the San Antonio Spurs.

All 32 teams have an even chance? Someone call Vegas, they have their numbers all wrong.

In the last 10 years, the NFL has had 7 different teams win titles. In the NBA, 6 different teams won titles. OMG THE DIFFERENCE!!!

C_Money · Post #586 » by **C_Money** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:19 am

Meaning if you're team sucks its your front offices fault and nobody elses, duh.

DreamTeam09 · Post #587 » by **DreamTeam09** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:24 am

Change the draft, change the NBA. If the large markets are the playoff teams, let the small markets get 2 first round picks. If your a playoff team, you miss out on the 1st 28 players of the 1st round. If you dont make the playoffs your getting 2 out the 1st 28 players drafted that yr. A rebuild becomes a lot more easier, a lot less costly and lot more painfelt. Plus that team will have more good players to market.

Skeezo · Post #588 » by **Skeezo** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:29 am

I think a lot depends on how much more revenue sharing there is that would suggest how much parity this new system will bring in...

Overall I think it's really not that bad

-4/5 year contracts is huge considering the final year is always the most lucrative, tie in the fact the players will receive less raises means there is less chance you can get tied into a bad deal... I know everyone here thinks "Oh damn less time to lock in a superstar" C'mon now, I've seen way more bad contracts get signed then superstars being able to keep their value for an entire 6yr deal...

-The luxary tax hikes are huge!! No way does Jerry Buss pay an extra 20 million dollars in tax + extra in revenue sharing I'm sure to field that team... Again though it depends on how much revenue sharing there is... Gotta remember all the tax money & rev sharing goes back to small market teams which enables them to spend more

-The only thing I agree with that would conserve a bit more parity would be... No Tax paying team can use their mid-level exemption...

OAKLEY_2 · Post #589 » by **OAKLEY_2** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:18 am

Change the draft, change the NBA. If the large markets are the playoff teams, let the small markets get 2 first round picks. If your a playoff team, you miss out on the 1st 28 players of the 1st round. If you dont make the playoffs your getting 2 out the 1st 28 players drafted that yr. A rebuild becomes a lot more easier, a lot less costly and lot more painfelt. Plus that team will have more good players to market.

-The only thing I agree with that would conserve a bit more parity would be... No Tax paying team can use their mid-level exemption...

I like and I like but is Stern's league ever going to punish the TV money makers because they are successful and competitive? Both MLB and the NBA can have the same big markets going to the final 4 and then the other teams provide the air of credibility that the league has a certain size, stature and schedule. Unless the TV reality changes and we are talking about the one which is also responsible for marketing the over hyped stars, Jerry Buss will be in the drivers seat well into the future with Stern smiling all the way.

DonkeyPunch · Post #590 » by **DonkeyPunch** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:50 pm

Sooo...is this crap almost done or what?

I've been up in godforsaken Labrador working for the past few weeks and haven't been paying attention.

Everyone is talking here that this is the week it will get signed?

C Court · Post #591 » by **C Court** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:53 pm

Skeezo wrote:
-The luxary tax hikes are huge!! No way does Jerry Buss pay an extra 20 million dollars in tax + extra in revenue sharing I'm sure to field that team... Again though it depends on how much revenue sharing there is... Gotta remember all the tax money & rev sharing goes back to small market teams which enables them to spend more

No way? Buss says 'Yes way'!

Buss and the Lakers new tv deal starts in 2012 and pays them an average of $150 million a year. So paying an extra $20 million in luxury tax isn't a big deal if it means more championships. Even if the front end revenues are lower than the average, the Lakers have at least $50 million+ to play with starting in 2012/13.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... 1-billion/

The new CBA reduces the front end salaries that the Lakers pay, so there is potentially a saving of $5 - $7 million on their bottomline which helps cover the additional luxury tax payments.

The Boston Celtics new tv deal adds another $20 million to their annual bottomline:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/7/20/2 ... ew-england

What is interesting though is that the new CBA seems to exclude these new tv deals from BRI calculations (according to the Celtics news report. Even with the new CBA, the big market teams still seem to have an advantage.

pspot · Post #592 » by **pspot** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:44 pm

owners are in a good position

give them the 2.5% but make them pay for it by conceding to other items the owners want.

tecumseh18 · Post #593 » by **tecumseh18** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:50 pm

Skeezo wrote:Gotta remember all the tax money ... goes back to small market teams which enables them to spend more

Not just small market teams, all teams under the lux tax cap. That was always a disincentive for MLSE to spend more during the Bosh years. It wasn't just that the team wasn't worth going into the tax for.

So the effect of the system was that franchises with a big marketable star (locally and nationally) and relatively secure playoff prospects had every incentive to go into the tax. Teams that didn't have both characteristics had every financial motivation to avoid the tax. In terms of game and season results, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer.

I'd really like to see that changed. If hard cap is off the table and upgrading the tax hit doesn't look sufficient, then by all means add on additional sanctions (such as no MLE signings).

I excised out the "revenue sharing money" from your quote. Without hearing any rumours of what the terms would be, I have no hope that there will be significant revenue sharing in the new CBA. And if so, it wouldn't help the Raptors. Have there been any legitimate concrete proposals?

ATLTimekeeper · Post #594 » by **ATLTimekeeper** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:54 pm

Centre Court wrote:
Skeezo wrote:
-The luxary tax hikes are huge!! No way does Jerry Buss pay an extra 20 million dollars in tax + extra in revenue sharing I'm sure to field that team... Again though it depends on how much revenue sharing there is... Gotta remember all the tax money & rev sharing goes back to small market teams which enables them to spend more

No way? Buss says 'Yes way'!

Buss and the Lakers new tv deal starts in 2012 and pays them an average of $150 million a year. So paying an extra $20 million in luxury tax isn't a big deal if it means more championships. Even if the front end revenues are lower than the average, the Lakers have at least $50 million+ to play with starting in 2012/13.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... 1-billion/

The new CBA reduces the front end salaries that the Lakers pay, so there is potentially a saving of $5 - $7 million on their bottomline which helps cover the additional luxury tax payments.

The Boston Celtics new tv deal adds another $20 million to their annual bottomline:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/7/20/2 ... ew-england

What is interesting though is that the new CBA seems to exclude these new tv deals from BRI calculations (according to the Celtics news report. Even with the new CBA, the big market teams still seem to have an advantage.

I just think it isn't the time to put a hard cap in. It'll just lock Miami into the next 5 rings and that will only suit 1 owner. The league knows that it's good for them to milk the remaining years of Kobe and KG, even if it's just one or two years left of relevancy. This deal is just a payoff for the teams that are going to eat it the next 6 or 7 years.

Post #595 » by **Cyrus** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:55 pm

Centre Court wrote:
Skeezo wrote:
-The luxary tax hikes are huge!! No way does Jerry Buss pay an extra 20 million dollars in tax + extra in revenue sharing I'm sure to field that team... Again though it depends on how much revenue sharing there is... Gotta remember all the tax money & rev sharing goes back to small market teams which enables them to spend more

No way? Buss says 'Yes way'!

Buss and the Lakers new tv deal starts in 2012 and pays them an average of $150 million a year. So paying an extra $20 million in luxury tax isn't a big deal if it means more championships. Even if the front end revenues are lower than the average, the Lakers have at least $50 million+ to play with starting in 2012/13.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... 1-billion/

The new CBA reduces the front end salaries that the Lakers pay, so there is potentially a saving of $5 - $7 million on their bottomline which helps cover the additional luxury tax payments.

The Boston Celtics new tv deal adds another $20 million to their annual bottomline:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/7/20/2 ... ew-england

What is interesting though is that the new CBA seems to exclude these new tv deals from BRI calculations (according to the Celtics news report. Even with the new CBA, the big market teams still seem to have an advantage.

Either way, the new cba taxes better than the old CBA, so while this CBA won't bring parity, it does bring a bit of damper than the old CBA, so in turn is better than the old one.

C Court · Post #596 » by **C Court** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:01 pm

Cyrus wrote:
Either way, the new cba taxes better than the old CBA, so while this CBA won't bring parity, it does bring a bit of damper than the old CBA, so in turn is better than the old one.

Cy, I actually like this new CBA alot. I am not a fan of the hard cap. But I don't think it will satisfy those fans who really thought that David Stern would institute a new system where every team is on an equal footing.

While making it more difficult to do, the new CBA does not prevent 2 or 3 superstars from all joining a big market team which was a big complaint with fans. Nor does it prevent Cuban or Buss from buying a championship.

Post #597 » by **ranger001** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:40 pm

This deal could still get reworked. Silver did say if the players think its a hard cap then why not just use a hard cap.

"Our response is then let's have a hard cap, which is what we wanted," he said.
We don't think it's a hard cap. ... We've all been wasting our time if they believe this is a hard cap. We've been spending literally hundreds of hours negotiating the specifics of a system, where they're now saying is the equivalent of a hard cap. We've been clear from the beginning from a league standpoint we would prefer a hard cap.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71531 ... cellations

Homer Jay · Post #598 » by **Homer Jay** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:35 pm

Tofubeque wrote:
dacrusha wrote:
Ponchos wrote:
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.

The NFL rakes in record profits year after year, and five different teams have won the superbowl over the last five seasons.

The NFL markets itself so much better. It doesn't promote its players at all. It promotes teams, rivalries, tradition, and the game itself. Stern got on Jordan's piece so hard and then locked himself into a star driven league, and handed the players way too much power. Now, without it's biggest stars in the biggest markets, it suffers.

Amongst all his mistakes, this is definitely the biggest.

It's interesting post steroid era baseball is kind of heading the NFL way as well. Players don't get pushed anymore in MLB either.

S.W.A.N · Post #599 » by **S.W.A.N** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:38 pm

ranger001 wrote:This deal could still get reworked. Silver did say if the players think its a hard cap then why not just use a hard cap.

"Our response is then let's have a hard cap, which is what we wanted," he said.
We don't think it's a hard cap. ... We've all been wasting our time if they believe this is a hard cap. We've been spending literally hundreds of hours negotiating the specifics of a system, where they're now saying is the equivalent of a hard cap. We've been clear from the beginning from a league standpoint we would prefer a hard cap.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71531 ... cellations

Thats just Silver pulling a Stern... Deal now or the deal gets worse later. Reality is the only thing thats going to change in the deal is bri and one or two last clauses on the system side. All the rhetoric is just to get players to make first move.

Skeezo · Post #600 » by **Skeezo** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:29 pm

Centre Court wrote:
Skeezo wrote:
-The luxary tax hikes are huge!! No way does Jerry Buss pay an extra 20 million dollars in tax + extra in revenue sharing I'm sure to field that team... Again though it depends on how much revenue sharing there is... Gotta remember all the tax money & rev sharing goes back to small market teams which enables them to spend more

No way? Buss says 'Yes way'!

Buss and the Lakers new tv deal starts in 2012 and pays them an average of $150 million a year. So paying an extra $20 million in luxury tax isn't a big deal if it means more championships. Even if the front end revenues are lower than the average, the Lakers have at least $50 million+ to play with starting in 2012/13.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... 1-billion/

The new CBA reduces the front end salaries that the Lakers pay, so there is potentially a saving of $5 - $7 million on their bottomline which helps cover the additional luxury tax payments.

I wouldn't say the front reduces there salary all that much, you gotta remember if the salary cap line drops, then so does the luxary tax line meaning the quicker they start paying through the additional tax brackets...

Don't get me wrong I am in agreement this does not solve a lot of issues when it comes to parity & I do think there needs to be some more enforced restrictions when it comes to tax paying teams... It does though prevent some bad deals in the future though... My suggestions would be...

No Team in the Tax Can can use Mid-Level
No Team in the Tax Can can use the 25% Rule in a trade to take on additional salary
No Team in the Tax Can use the amnesty clause, but will be allowed to use stretch/waive clause...