Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[knickerbocker2k2]

Toronto lack of winning has nothing to do with system. In fact the current proposed system would hurt their chances. Spending wise Toronto has being mid-pack but one of the worst teams over the last 10-15 years. You would imagine if they are spending this much for a loser, if the opportunity came for a winner, they would spend a bit more for deep playoff run. Well the proposed system would make it that less likely not just because it would prevent them from doing so, but MLSE would not see the additional benefit in paying all these extra luxury tax.

[BorisDK1]

Toronto lack of winning has nothing to do with system. In fact the current proposed system would hurt their chances. Spending wise Toronto has being mid-pack but one of the worst teams over the last 10-15 years. You would imagine if they are spending this much for a loser, if the opportunity came for a winner, they would spend a bit more for deep playoff run. Well the proposed system would make it that less likely not just because it would prevent them from doing so, but MLSE would not see the additional benefit in paying all these extra luxury tax.

Oh, I think we can safely say that after we just lost Chris Bosh to free agency that the system has a whole hell of a lot to do with why Toronto is losing. It might not have as much to do with losing as, say, Andrea Bargnani - but it plays a significant role nonetheless.

I think what we need is a team that makes it less possible to lose and acquire star players via free agency and one that at least attempts to neutralize those few teams with geographical advantage.

[Indeed]

why is your opinion so in favor of the players? did the owners ancestor use your ancestors as slaves? The owners need to make money. Ok, so I don't give crap about either side. I do give a crap about toronto losing every year to this stupid system. No hard cap means toronto will never be able to compete. I'm tired of seeing western teams dominate cause they have more cash. All this talk about being fair from the players is b.s. Like a restaurant not making money, and the chef keeps on demanding a raise. Quit complaining, go to Europe and die in a plane crash.

You know what? I'm not so sure a purely hard cap improves Toronto's odds any. Just due to geographical disadvantage to the Miamis and L.A.s and New Yorks, we will always have to pay more than they will to attract talent, and while the odds aren't impossible, it's not likely that any top-tier free agent will ever come to Toronto without it already having a strong, contending team. Having to overpay free agents or to retain players to stay means that a hard cap already puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

I think the most advantageous system to Toronto is the one being proposed: limiting the use of exceptions to teams over the luxury tax, and penalizing the hell out of teams who go deep into the luxury tax. Toronto has the cash to spend; what we don't have is the winning program to attract players here. I'm guessing that we've got a good step towards that with some of our young pieces we have and the ones we will have soon. I don't think having a system where someday we'll just have to jettison one of our previous draft picks who's become a pretty good player just to get under a hard salary cap limit is in our best interests at all, honestly. I think what we all want is a system that allows teams to build themselves through drafts and trades, but somewhat neutralizes the inherent advantages that geography provide for a few select teams.

I agree some of your point. And perhaps limiting the use of exceptions to teams over luxury tax will help, but I think it is more effective to change the system and salary structure.

I think if the salary can be based on performance and role, that would be help competition. A base salary with a bonus as Franchise, Starter and 6th man. Therefore, if Bayless has out played Calderon, he will get the starter bonus, and Calderon will be paid less. This can avoid LeBron and Wade being together, because franchise bonus will be way more than starter bonus. Even rookie can earn more based on their contribution, and teams like OKC may force to trade Durant or Westbrook to ensure all teams are fairly competing each other.

[Indeed]

Toronto lack of winning has nothing to do with system. In fact the current proposed system would hurt their chances. Spending wise Toronto has being mid-pack but one of the worst teams over the last 10-15 years. You would imagine if they are spending this much for a loser, if the opportunity came for a winner, they would spend a bit more for deep playoff run. Well the proposed system would make it that less likely not just because it would prevent them from doing so, but MLSE would not see the additional benefit in paying all these extra luxury tax.

Oh, I think we can safely say that after we just lost Chris Bosh to free agency that the system has a whole hell of a lot to do with why Toronto is losing. It might not have as much to do with losing as, say, Andrea Bargnani - but it plays a significant role nonetheless.

I think what we need is a team that makes it less possible to lose and acquire star players via free agency and one that at least attempts to neutralize those few teams with geographical advantage.

You are correct. No matter Chris Bosh is a star or not, our return or replacement is James Johnson (traded the pick for him) + Ed Davis (shared playing time) + Amir Johnson (increase in salary). Simply say we got nothing back except for the TPE, which sits there and wait for it to expire.

[bboyskinnylegs]

what's the difference between a soft cap with punitive tax (which I understand is more or less what we have now), and this flex cap that Stern says will be offered after Wednesday?

[ronleroy]

soft cap means you can go over the say 60 million cap. but pay a fine of 1.50 for every dollar you spend over. and the fine goes up if they go over the cap more then 5 million every dollar after that is like 1.75. For me not good enough, i can still see some rich teams will still spend.

NHL flex cap is say the cap is 60 million, plus 10 million, that means teams must spend at least 50 million and can't go over 70 million.

Sticking point for me is not the cap, is the stupid exceptions. Every year a team can spend over the cap and sign a player using that exception, owners don't want to allow that at least the smaller markets don't want. Why sign with toronto, when i can take 5 million and go to miami.

[BorisDK1]

I agree some of your point. And perhaps limiting the use of exceptions to teams over luxury tax will help, but I think it is more effective to change the system and salary structure.

I think if the salary can be based on performance and role, that would be help competition. A base salary with a bonus as Franchise, Starter and 6th man. Therefore, if Bayless has out played Calderon, he will get the starter bonus, and Calderon will be paid less. This can avoid LeBron and Wade being together, because franchise bonus will be way more than starter bonus. Even rookie can earn more based on their contribution, and teams like OKC may force to trade Durant or Westbrook to ensure all teams are fairly competing each other.

I suppose the good thing about that system is that it makes players make decisions about where to play based on purely basketball criteria, i.e. what's most likely for them to play the best. The problem with it is, it's so hopelessly variable and complex that it shoots right to hell the idea of a salary cap in the first place. It doesn't guarantee money, it's too undefined, etc. It'll never happen.

[Indeed]

soft cap means you can go over the say 60 million cap. but pay a fine of 1.50 for every dollar you spend over. and the fine goes up if they go over the cap more then 5 million every dollar after that is like 1.75. For me not good enough, i can still see some rich teams will still spend.

NHL flex cap is say the cap is 60 million, plus 10 million, that means teams must spend at least 50 million and can't go over 70 million.

Sticking point for me is not the cap, is the stupid exceptions. Every year a team can spend over the cap and sign a player using that exception, owners don't want to allow that at least the smaller markets don't want. Why sign with toronto, when i can take 5 million and go to miami.

I think the exception is to encourage teams to improve their roster.
Although not very effective, but I suppose players like Jarrett Jack got a better off on the year we acquired him, instead of him getting the offer from Indiana, which is half of the MLE. It is good for some RFA to ask for more if he deserves it.

I would prefer shorten the contract to 2 years + 1 year team option (3 years at most), but reducing the MLE amount will reduce competition in bidding mid - low talent players.

[mademan]

Man, the way some of you talk, you'd think the players owe you something. Did these guys rape your wives or something? They're just trying to get a good deal, for themselves, and future workers.

Not really anti-player. But if any owners are losing money while trying to remain within the area of the salary cap (If you go into tax and lost money I got no sympathy for you), then that system needs to change, and the players have to realize that. The league should not exist solely for the players to make money at the expense of the owners. I think the owners have the right to make money as well.

I don't know all of the details, and that's the main reason I can't really back anyone in this dispute. But by reading some of the comments in this thread, you'd swear half of these guys were in the room negotiating. The way some of the people on this board rush to choose a side when they have so much incomplete information is scary.

[Indeed]

I agree some of your point. And perhaps limiting the use of exceptions to teams over luxury tax will help, but I think it is more effective to change the system and salary structure.

I think if the salary can be based on performance and role, that would be help competition. A base salary with a bonus as Franchise, Starter and 6th man. Therefore, if Bayless has out played Calderon, he will get the starter bonus, and Calderon will be paid less. This can avoid LeBron and Wade being together, because franchise bonus will be way more than starter bonus. Even rookie can earn more based on their contribution, and teams like OKC may force to trade Durant or Westbrook to ensure all teams are fairly competing each other.

I suppose the good thing about that system is that it makes players make decisions about where to play based on purely basketball criteria, i.e. what's most likely for them to play the best. The problem with it is, it's so hopelessly variable and complex that it shoots right to hell the idea of a salary cap in the first place. It doesn't guarantee money, it's too undefined, etc. It'll never happen.

Yes, it is more of a theory, and players won't accept it neither. Players want stable and long term benefits, and that system doesn't provide it.

Anyway, perhaps changing the way how basketball should play might work (more team ball), but it takes time to change the culture, and NBA based on the focus of promoting one dominate player might not work best for them.

Therefore, I am not looking forward in any competitive parity, because it is not a priority to them.

[floppymoose]

Woj Tweet:

Front office officials of two teams say owners returned from Saturday meeting telling staff to prepare for strong possibility of no season.

[Ponchos]

what's the difference between a soft cap with punitive tax (which I understand is more or less what we have now), and this flex cap that Stern says will be offered after Wednesday?

Flex cap has a maximum that can be spent on salaries as well as a tax.

[Ponchos]

Woj Tweet:

Front office officials of two teams say owners returned from Saturday meeting telling staff to prepare for strong possibility of no season.

More posturing.

[floppymoose]

This is where the players have to debate each other about whether to decertify or to take the owners offer. There are sizable camps on both sides. As long as the decertify crowd hasn't clearly carried the day, the owners will stay on their current path: "here's our take it now or it gets worse offer". If the players for decertification ever look like they are in control, that's the moment the owners change their tune.

So now we wait on the players to fight it out internally.

[BorisDK1]

Yes, it is more of a theory, and players won't accept it neither. Players want stable and long term benefits, and that system doesn't provide it.

Anyway, perhaps changing the way how basketball should play might work (more team ball), but it takes time to change the culture, and NBA based on the focus of promoting one dominate player might not work best for them.

Therefore, I am not looking forward in any competitive parity, because it is not a priority to them.

You know, this is way OT, but it really bothers me when people assume that having a more equitable distribution of shots on a team is somehow "more team ball". The best players on the team should bear the most possessions, because by doing so they make their teammates more efficient. Smart basketball players always ask themselves four questions: "Who am I? Who are my teammates? Who's guarding me? Who's guarding them?" Smart basketball players defer to better ones, and really good ones who are also really smart welcome and flourish even with greater defensive scrutiny. Stupid players seek more shots when they have better players in more advantageous situations around them.

Good team basketball requires players who understand their roles and play within them. That's how efficient offense is created, and that's where winning comes from. Do we really think the Raptors would have been better off two years ago with Andrea Bargnani and Chris Bosh having an equitable distribution of offense? Of course not: Bosh was ridiculously efficient, and Bargnani is ridiculously inefficient. You need to capitalize on the best players available.

[BorisDK1]

If the players for decertification ever look like they are in control, that's the moment the owners change their tune.

I doubt it will change that much. They can still keep the players locked out and keep the battle in the courts for quite some time, letting the players lose more and more income in the meantime. I'm pretty sure the owners are aware of the possibility of decertification and have their contigency plans for it.

[Ponchos]

Yes, it is more of a theory, and players won't accept it neither. Players want stable and long term benefits, and that system doesn't provide it.

Anyway, perhaps changing the way how basketball should play might work (more team ball), but it takes time to change the culture, and NBA based on the focus of promoting one dominate player might not work best for them.

Therefore, I am not looking forward in any competitive parity, because it is not a priority to them.

You know, this is way OT, but it really bothers me when people assume that having a more equitable distribution of shots on a team is somehow "more team ball". The best players on the team should bear the most possessions, because by doing so they make their teammates more efficient. Smart basketball players always ask themselves four questions: "Who am I? Who are my teammates? Who's guarding me? Who's guarding them?" Smart basketball players defer to better ones, and really good ones who are also really smart welcome and flourish even with greater defensive scrutiny. Stupid players seek more shots when they have better players in more advantageous situations around them.

Good team basketball requires players who understand their roles and play within them. That's how efficient offense is created, and that's where winning comes from. Do we really think the Raptors would have been better off two years ago with Andrea Bargnani and Chris Bosh having an equitable distribution of offense? Of course not: Bosh was ridiculously efficient, and Bargnani is ridiculously inefficient. You need to capitalize on the best players available.

Agree 100%, which reminds me that we pretty much agree on real basketball issues. Aside from your opinions on Derrick Rose of course.

[HangTime]

They should make a basketball a spring/summer sport.

Training camp/preseason: mid-february to mid-march
Season: mid-march to August
Playoff: late August to mid-October

Draft: early November, before the NCAA season starts
- it gives the students a chance to relax during the summer then decide whether they would want to enter the draft or not.
- it gives them a chance to go to school and September, and maybe change their mind about declaring for the draft.

It gives all players a chance to be with family on major holidays.

[Rapsfan07]

You know what? I'm not so sure a purely hard cap improves Toronto's odds any. Just due to geographical disadvantage to the Miamis and L.A.s and New Yorks, we will always have to pay more than they will to attract talent, and while the odds aren't impossible, it's not likely that any top-tier free agent will ever come to Toronto without it already having a strong, contending team. Having to overpay free agents or to retain players to stay means that a hard cap already puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

I think the most advantageous system to Toronto is the one being proposed: limiting the use of exceptions to teams over the luxury tax, and penalizing the hell out of teams who go deep into the luxury tax. Toronto has the cash to spend; what we don't have is the winning program to attract players here. I'm guessing that we've got a good step towards that with some of our young pieces we have and the ones we will have soon. I don't think having a system where someday we'll just have to jettison one of our previous draft picks who's become a pretty good player just to get under a hard salary cap limit is in our best interests at all, honestly. I think what we all want is a system that allows teams to build themselves through drafts and trades, but somewhat neutralizes the inherent advantages that geography provide for a few select teams.

Agree 100%.

The objective behind tweaking the system should be to neutralize the geographical advantages. If they do that, then everybody wins because then every team can have a legitimate shot at being profitable because they have a equal shot at acquiring "money making" talent.

As for the negotiations, I think Fisher and Hunter are being unfair and catering too much to the Stars. I think the League is also in some ways responsible for stalling the negotiations but Fisher and Hunter aren't being fair. They're supposed to represent the Player's. This is the highest percentage of BRI the League has offered to date so if I were them, I'd take that percentage and try to bend the system slightly though from a fan perspective I think it's as close to fair as anything I've seen proposed so far. Fisher should be forced to call a vote on this because at the end of the day, the league is filled more with mid-level guys than stars and if decertification happens, the stars can afford it, the mid-level guys can't.

Likewise, the League should come up with a fair revenue sharing proposal that will ease some of the owner vs owner tension. Stern said he has/can sell the current offer to the Owners so it's just now to have richer teams share revenue with the poorer teams.

But I think Players should take this deal. Decertification is a long and costly process.

[Ponchos]

They should make a basketball a spring/summer sport.

Training camp/preseason: mid-february to mid-march
Season: mid-march to August
Playoff: late August to mid-October

Draft: early November, before the NCAA season starts
- it gives the students a chance to relax during the summer then decide whether they would want to enter the draft or not.
- it gives them a chance to go to school and September, and maybe change their mind about declaring for the draft.

It gives all players a chance to be with family on major holidays.

You want them to put their playoffs in the middle of the NFL season and MLB playoffs?