Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[RapTelligence]

Translation: the NHL owners locked out the players for a whole year and the deal didn't get worse when it was finally signed. Not sure why anyone thinks the NBA would be different…

That Union was decimated at the end of that lockout. They are on the 3rd Union head since then. We still don't know if they are NHL players still have the capability of putting up a united front.

[RapTelligence]

Honestly once the season is finished the owners lose most of their leverage. If it comes to that it means the players are strongly united and fighting for principle because it doesn't make sense to lose the season on the 2%.

At that point why wouldn't the players decertify? Players without any caps/luxury tax/max salaries would probably get more than 60% of the BRI.

At the moment I suspect the cartel of the big agents are the ones trying to push for the extra 2 percent.

[Cyrus]

I believe they have already decided on not rolling back. They would adjust to the reality of new numbers via the amnesty clause. I suspect this will end a the 50% BRI for the players. The players have absolutely no leverage at the moment. When do they start missing the first cheque? In two weeks?

They'd be missing it now, it's regular season now, so in roughly a week, they'll miss the first pay check. The only saving grace is the escrow payment that the owners had to make to the players, which means each member will get a "lil something" to hold them over.

[RapTelligence]

Just spent a bit reading up on the NHL lockout. I think the players got a better deal by waiting. It's complicated and depends on exactly how you define victory. Owners offered a 40 million sal cap before bargaining broke off. Once they lost the season they agreed to a cap based on 54% revenue, which was 39 million that first season but immediately jumped up to 50 million the next and hit 60 million by the end of the CBA. Given that the initial salary cap was for a season right after a full lost season, I have a hard time calling the 1 million loss there a defeat for the players. Once the fans came back, they did better than the owners earlier offers.

Most of that jump is due to the 30% increase in the Canadian dollar since the lockout. That skewed their calculation and the owners in the US got screwed even more. The Canadian teams (especially the big 3) bring in more revenue even if you put the bottom 15 teams in the US. Their HRI calculation will have to factor in the currency fluctuations in the future I would imagine.

[RapTelligence]

I believe they have already decided on not rolling back. They would adjust to the reality of new numbers via the amnesty clause. I suspect this will end a the 50% BRI for the players. The players have absolutely no leverage at the moment. When do they start missing the first cheque? In two weeks?

They'd be missing it now, it's regular season now, so in roughly a week, they'll miss the first pay check. The only saving grace is the escrow payment that the owners had to make to the players, which means each member will get a "lil something" to hold them over.

Without a existing CBA do the owners still make excrow payments? Just wondering.

[mintsa]

I'm surprised that it's wednesday and we haven't heard anything about any more meetings......I thought for sure we'd hear something about a new meeting by today.

[RapTelligence]

My point has nothing to do with whether the players will recover a lost season. It is that they will get 50% of the BRI (at least) no matter how long this drags on.

And AB_7, you can always take the wager, if you dare.

If they are going to agree to 50% a year from now, why not now? The players have limited years in which they can earn those salaries. Why lose one of those years? But if they lose a year I suspect 50% will not be on the table. Where are the players going to play. So far they tried to organize some tour to Puerto Rico and even that fell apart.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I'm surprised that it's wednesday and we haven't heard anything about any more meetings......I thought for sure we'd hear something about a new meeting by today.

There's a NBAPA meeting today. They'll either circle the wagons hoping to squeeze out 51, or they'll fall apart and this thing will be done on the weekend, IMO.

There was talk of the mediator coming back in, but that's been nixed.

[mintsa]

I'm surprised that it's wednesday and we haven't heard anything about any more meetings......I thought for sure we'd hear something about a new meeting by today.

There's a NBAPA meeting today. They'll either circle the wagons hoping to squeeze out 51, or they'll fall apart and this thing will be done on the weekend, IMO.

There was talk of the mediator coming back in, but that's been nixed.

Oh really ?? Thanks for the info. Where did you get that info from ?? (twitter ? Article ?)

[dhackett1565]

Twinkie, a rollback in the NBA is very unlikely. As for my wager, I've been very clear. I don't blame people for trying to change the bet, though.

Just to step in here - if the BRI was the only thing on the table, I might take you up on that bet.

However, with all the system changes being implemented, who knows what the owners will push for as time ticks away. Perhaps they push the BRI split down, but maybe they give back some BRI in exchange for a hard cap, or huge escrow withholdings. Hard to guess at this point. But I am fairly certain that just like the NHL lockout, there will be player concessions of some kind, be they system changes, salary rollbacks, BRI split, if the lockout drags past the next couple weeks.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I'm surprised that it's wednesday and we haven't heard anything about any more meetings......I thought for sure we'd hear something about a new meeting by today.

There's a NBAPA meeting today. They'll either circle the wagons hoping to squeeze out 51, or they'll fall apart and this thing will be done on the weekend, IMO.

There was talk of the mediator coming back in, but that's been nixed.

Oh really ?? Thanks for the info. Where did you get that info from ?? (twitter ? Article ?)

Sorry, the meeting is tomorrow.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7179759/nba-lockout-nbpa-meet-thursday-discuss-move-sources-say

Howard Beck tweeted that the mediator won't come in.

This is what's going on today:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/nba-players-union-federal-court-decertification-process-article-1.970924

[LittleOzzy]

We have a new Mod in place, I hope the NBA starts soon to give him something to do

[Homer Jay]

What is funny, is I remember some big name players like Shaq, talking all the way back in '98, about how the owners were slowly going to get everything back over the next couple of CBAs. That the players in 2015 would be insanely jealous of the players of the salary explosion of '93-'98, the so-called "Golden Age for Players".

[ranger001]

Henry Abbott writes about the owner's willingness to include an amnesty clause in the new CBA.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... ling-costs

He asks if the owners want to control costs and are losing so much coin, then why would they amnesty anyone? Interesting take.

Interesting tweet from NBA_labor which puts this to rest:-

Amnesty $$$ WILL count towards plyrs' total share of BRI and WILL NOT increase overall payout to plyrs
19 hours ago

https://twitter.com/#!/NBA_Labor

[floppymoose]

FYI, my reasons for thinking the players can get 50% BRI whenever they want have nothing to do with the particulars of the NHL lockout. It's interesting to learn about that, but it doesn't matter what the details were. NBA lockout has its own set of facts.

Also, I never said taking 50% now was worse than taking 50% later. I've never argued that, so you can go argue that with someone else.

It's a common theme of this lockout debate that if you point out how ridiculous position X is, it gets morphed into position Y and treated as if that was the argument.

[RapTelligence]

Is Billy Hunter going to suffer the same fate of Bob Goodenew? Looks like.

[Ponchos]

Henry Abbott writes about the owner's willingness to include an amnesty clause in the new CBA.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... ling-costs

He asks if the owners want to control costs and are losing so much coin, then why would they amnesty anyone? Interesting take.

Interesting tweet from NBA_labor which puts this to rest:-

Amnesty $$$ WILL count towards plyrs' total share of BRI and WILL NOT increase overall payout to plyrs
19 hours ago

https://twitter.com/#!/NBA_Labor

This is how I figured amnesty worked.

Anyhow, it certainly sheds light on how the NBA feels about "competitive balance" since amnesty definitely favors rich teams, and gives them yet another advantage.

[Tofubeque]

Anyhow, it certainly sheds light on how the NBA feels about "competitive balance" since amnesty definitely favors rich teams, and gives them yet another advantage.

It does and it doesn't. Rich teams will have the benefit of using amnesty cap space to pick up players who want to play for them. But it's also going to get weaker teams (think Milwaukee) out of contracts that are far worse (Maggette, Gooden) than anything rich teams can boast, primarily because those teams have to overspend like crazy to get anyone to sign with them in the first place.

When you see lists of overpaid players, they're almost always loaded on crappy teams. Who will a team like the Lakers amnesty? Artest? That's chump change.

[Ponchos]

Anyhow, it certainly sheds light on how the NBA feels about "competitive balance" since amnesty definitely favors rich teams, and gives them yet another advantage.

It does and it doesn't. Rich teams will have the benefit of using amnesty cap space to pick up players who want to play for them. But it's also going to get weaker teams (think Milwaukee) out of contracts that are far worse (Maggette, Gooden) than anything rich teams can boast, primarily because those teams have to overspend like crazy to get anyone to sign with them in the first place.

When you see lists of overpaid players, they're almost always loaded on crappy teams. Who will a team like the Lakers amnesty? Artest? That's chump change.

So if Milwaukee uses it to get rid of Maggette or Gooden, how does that make them more competitive?

[Twinkie defense]

It allows them to replace those guys with players who are better or at least take up less cap space, or extend the contracts of their young stars when otherwise they might have lost them or been forced to get rid of other players they liked in order to keep out of the luxury tax.