Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[dagger]

I'm more inclined to see this all falling apart. The combination of system issues outstanding or decided, like raising the trade matching differential to 150% (owner's offer) or 200% (players' demand), and watering down the demand for a higher luxury tax and more restrictive rules for taxed teams raises a red flag when juxtaposed with the player's refusal to consider a higher escrow. In a liberal system, big markets would still be able to run up salaries, and thereby suck up a disproportionate amount of the salary. If it's more than can be recovered by the player's escrow, the small markets get screwed again. It's a complex concern that requires seeing how a number of issues could interact, but if I can see it, so can the 30 owners.

So my bet is that Wednesday will be a failure, the 47% offer will come on the table, and games will be cancelled until Dec 15.

[BorisDK1]

I'm more inclined to see this all falling apart. The combination of system issues outstanding or decided, like raising the trade matching differential to 150% (owner's offer) or 200% (players' demand), and watering down the demand for a higher luxury tax and more restrictive rules for taxed teams raises a red flag when juxtaposed with the player's refusal to consider a higher escrow. In a liberal system, big markets would still be able to run up salaries, and thereby suck up a disproportionate amount of the salary. If it's more than can be recovered by the player's escrow, the small markets get screwed again. It's a complex concern that requires seeing how a number of issues could interact, but if I can see it, so can the 30 owners.

So my bet is that Wednesday will be a failure, the 47% offer will come on the table, and games will be cancelled until Dec 15.

If I were the owners, I'd give up the trade match regulation in an instant. That doesn't really affect anything meaningful. The higher luxury tax is a gateway to revenue sharing for the smaller-market teams, so that probably needs to be held onto.

I think it should be easier to put a team together via trades and drafting than free agency, so if the rules for trades get liberated somewhat I don't think I'd object too much.

[floppymoose]

I think once the decertification petition gets filed, we could see movement from the owners. Especially if the players get 50% participation on the petition. That sends a sign to the owners that the decertification vote itself could pass.

[Homer Jay]

I think it shakes down like '98 again: The bargaining comittee rejects the deal tomorrow, then a player (maybe Kobe) goes on TV and says the players want to vote on this. Proposals gets fed ex'd to the players on Thursday and Friday. Monday there is a vote in NY or LA boycotted by Hunter and Fisher, deal passes, then Pierce goes around threatening to put Kobe in a wheelchair.

[S.W.A.N]

I'm more inclined to see this all falling apart. The combination of system issues outstanding or decided, like raising the trade matching differential to 150% (owner's offer) or 200% (players' demand), and watering down the demand for a higher luxury tax and more restrictive rules for taxed teams raises a red flag when juxtaposed with the player's refusal to consider a higher escrow. In a liberal system, big markets would still be able to run up salaries, and thereby suck up a disproportionate amount of the salary. If it's more than can be recovered by the player's escrow, the small markets get screwed again. It's a complex concern that requires seeing how a number of issues could interact, but if I can see it, so can the 30 owners.

So my bet is that Wednesday will be a failure, the 47% offer will come on the table, and games will be cancelled until Dec 15.

I don't think the owners have to give up that much to get a deal done. Give the players a few minor concessions (sign and trade for tax teams, bump up the mid level for lux teams to 4 mill, make teams who pay tax 4-5 years pay penalty etc.)

Right now its about saving face for the union. They have to go back to the players and say okay now this is the best deal we can get, we got some changes to the ultimatum... Its still not great but its the best deal we going to get...

Stern knows this, he knew this when he gave the ultimatum that they would come back. He now has given the owners 50% bri and some significant system changes. They have won, all they have to do is throw the union a bone so they can go to players.

The refusal to do so means decertification and messy messy war. Lost season, possibly two if it goes to court. Is it worth a stinking sign and trade that never gets used, or lowsy mid level for lux teams...

[Tofubeque]

The refusal to do so means decertification and messy messy war. Lost season, possibly two if it goes to court. Is it worth a stinking sign and trade that never gets used, or lowsy mid level for lux teams...

It might be worth it to some hardline owners. The question is, why is it worth it to the players? Why do they care so much about being able to sign with lux tax teams?

Oh right, because they all want to ring chase in Miami, Dallas and Los Angeles.

[KRANG]

Just like a company that uses the supposed threat of "global warming/environmental disaster" to sell u crappy products like fuel efficient cars and environmentally friendly bleach. (even though those products can have an even more negative impact on the environment than their supposed more harmful counterparts),

the owners have used the supposed threat of "these economic times" to squeeze the union by the balls and rape 'em hard.

I can't believe the Players Union have conceeded this much. This lockout is all on the owners. F*** them.

[OAKLEY_2]

Sweet deal for them considering that all the risk is taken by owners only (while players have guaranteed fat contracts).

Agree and disagree. That is like saying this is a normal business enterprise and the players are no different than other employees. Without the players there is no business. It is that simple. There isn't the same supply and demand of labour that exists in other industries so being a player in this operation is a much more significant position as stakeholder than say with a restaurant or convenience store. Stop making invalid comparisons. Corner stores and restaurants do no get tax incentives to build big arenas therefore lessening "risk" as you claim. I do agree with you though that in this economy, or whatever it is called south of the border, this is the best that could or should be expected for players who help flog a luxury product. As for the idea that "system issues" derailing an agreement I think 50/50 gets it done and system issues are pretty much agreed to. There will be a lot of unhappy owners and players but the economy sucks so they all have to make sacrifices and move on. Look at the attendance in the NHL in some U.S. cities. The next big issue may well be contraction.

[J-Roc]

Fundamentally, the players aren't even fighting for anything. No matter the proposal, they will all make a great living. Labour battles are meant for workers to make a decent wage. No matter how you define a decent wage, NBA players make a heckuva lot more than that.

[ronleroy]

decertification is pointless, they will lose in court. That's why the owners are not afraid. They are losing money. NFL was making money and decertified, and the courts were still in favor of them.

[CPT]

I'd rather:
Owners give up the 1% but keep all system changes

I'd expect:
Owners keep the 1%, but give up the system changes

Ditto.

I'm past the point of caring who makes what. I think it makes sense that reasonably well managed teams should be able to turn a profit in any market, and the 50/50 split just seems fair, but I wouldn't care if the percentage of BRI swung 5, 10, 20% in either direction, as long as it's sustainable.

What I want out of this lockout is improvements to the system that bring about more parity. Yes, that dirty word again. I understand that the NBA doesn't lend itself well to true competitive parity because of the greater impact each player has on the game, but the way the system is set up right now is not helping matters. And I don't consider parity to mean that every team has an equal shot at the championship, because no system changes can do that. Every team should have a reasonable shot at the playoffs though, unless they are not trying to do so. And if they aren't, it should be a 1-2 year rebuilding process, not 3, 4, 5, or in perpetuity as we see today. For me parity doesn't mean a different team wins the championship each year, it just means that every team has some hope. And with that hope, you get meaningful games for every team. You get real playoff races down to the last night of games. All of this would of course bring in more interest, which is why I don't see why it's such a fight to make it happen.

[dacrusha]

I'd rather:
Owners give up the 1% but keep all system changes

I'd expect:
Owners keep the 1%, but give up the system changes

Ditto.

I'm past the point of caring who makes what. I think it makes sense that reasonably well managed teams should be able to turn a profit in any market, and the 50/50 split just seems fair, but I wouldn't care if the percentage of BRI swung 5, 10, 20% in either direction, as long as it's sustainable.

What I want out of this lockout is improvements to the system that bring about more parity. Yes, that dirty word again. I understand that the NBA doesn't lend itself well to true competitive parity because of the greater impact each player has on the game, but the way the system is set up right now is not helping matters. And I don't consider parity to mean that every team has an equal shot at the championship, because no system changes can do that. Every team should have a reasonable shot at the playoffs though, unless they are not trying to do so. And if they aren't, it should be a 1-2 year rebuilding process, not 3, 4, 5, or in perpetuity as we see today. For me parity doesn't mean a different team wins the championship each year, it just means that every team has some hope. And with that hope, you get meaningful games for every team. You get real playoff races down to the last night of games. All of this would of course bring in more interest, which is why I don't see why it's such a fight to make it happen.

The only hope a team has of competing is by drafting all-star calibre players.

For bottom feeder teams like the T'Wolves, Raptors and Bobcats who have had the BEST shot at drafting these players over the past decade, the excuse that the 'system isn't fair' just doesn't fly: their management has just plain sucked.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Ditto.

I'm past the point of caring who makes what. I think it makes sense that reasonably well managed teams should be able to turn a profit in any market, and the 50/50 split just seems fair, but I wouldn't care if the percentage of BRI swung 5, 10, 20% in either direction, as long as it's sustainable.

What I want out of this lockout is improvements to the system that bring about more parity. Yes, that dirty word again. I understand that the NBA doesn't lend itself well to true competitive parity because of the greater impact each player has on the game, but the way the system is set up right now is not helping matters. And I don't consider parity to mean that every team has an equal shot at the championship, because no system changes can do that. Every team should have a reasonable shot at the playoffs though, unless they are not trying to do so. And if they aren't, it should be a 1-2 year rebuilding process, not 3, 4, 5, or in perpetuity as we see today. For me parity doesn't mean a different team wins the championship each year, it just means that every team has some hope. And with that hope, you get meaningful games for every team. You get real playoff races down to the last night of games. All of this would of course bring in more interest, which is why I don't see why it's such a fight to make it happen.

The only hope a team has of competing is by drafting all-star calibre players.

For bottom feeder teams like the T'Wolves, Raptors and Bobcats who have had the BEST shot at drafting these players over the past decade, the excuse that the 'system isn't fair' just doesn't fly: their management has just plain sucked.

This is exactly it right here. Competitive parity is just pure BS. I haven't seen this many people buy into propaganda since the whole "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" excuse. To compete in this league, you need multiple all star players, and there simply aren't enough to go around for 30 teams.

There's only 2 ways to get competitive parity in the NBA:
1) Contraction.
2) Shorten the season, and make the playoffs a best 3 out of 5 until you get to the Finals. Better chances at upsets in the playoffs. Less games during the year also makes each game more meaningful in the standings too.

[C Court]

decertification is pointless, they will lose in court. That's why the owners are not afraid. They are losing money. NFL was making money and decertified, and the courts were still in favor of them.

Actually the NFLPA did not decertify. A couple of players filed a disclaimer which is different. Most legal experts seem to think that the players would prevail in an anti-trust lawsuit battle.

[Reignman]

Of course there aren't enough stars to go around, that's what happens when groups of 2 or 3 of them flock together on one team.

So let's revisit this whole idea that you can't improve competitive parity. Have a hard cap with a franchise tag (no max) and you can have the stars spread out a bit better.

The systems problems are very obvious in the NBA and I hope the league doesn't sacrifice those just to get some more BRI.

That's why I want talks to fall apart today. Let the owners go to 47% and a flex cap and we'll be back on the right path.

If the players want a system where player movement isn't stifled, then all they need to do is agree to shorter contracts (3 year deals). Honestly, if I'm the owners I'm laughing at the players when it comes to player movement. If they want to move around freely all they have to do is agree to shorter contract lengths and then they aren't "stuck" anywhere for longer than 3 years.

[BLKMASS]

"multiple all star players, and there simply aren't enough to go around for 30 teams."

It doesn't help that about 5 of them are on 2 teams.

[CPT]

The only hope a team has of competing is by drafting all-star calibre players.

For bottom feeder teams like the T'Wolves, Raptors and Bobcats who have had the BEST shot at drafting these players over the past decade, the excuse that the 'system isn't fair' just doesn't fly: their management has just plain sucked.

That's true, but only if you define competing as going deep in the playoffs. Pretty good definition, to be fair, but not the only way teams can be playing meaningful basketball deep into the season.

If it is simply competing for a playoff spot, a decent number of teams make it every year without an All-Star (Indiana, Philly, Denver, Portland, Memphis in 2010-2011). Granted, sending some of those teams to the playoffs was akin to sending lambs to the slaughter, but I'm sure their fans didn't mind (especially those WC teams). I'm sure the owners didn't mind the home playoff dates, and I'm sure the players didn't mind having a chance to play playoff basketball. Now, I understand 16 teams are going to make the playoffs whether there is parity or not, but the point is to make it easier for more teams to have a shot.

It's true that the teams that have been perpetually mismanaged have nobody to blame but themselves, but certain system tools could be put in place to help them out. Rebuilding shouldn't be a 3-5+ year process, even if you screw it up. Shorter contracts that are easier to get out will allow teams more flexibility when they make mistakes, whether those mistakes are borne of poor management or plain bad luck. Shorter contracts will also increase player turnover, so when teams are nearing the end of their rebuilding cycle, there are real options for them to add via free agency. Getting rid of the MLE for taxed teams will improve this tremendously, as there are usually good free agents available every year, but they flock to the teams that are already good, since those teams don't actually need cap space to offer them a lucrative long-term contract. Getting rid of sign and trades for taxed teams (I would say for everyone, actually) will help here as well. Make it a tough decision to leave. No more having your cake and eating it too. Teams losing a player can be compensated in ways other than sign and trades. Players may end up choosing to take less money to play for good teams in big markets anyway, but restricting their options will make places like Indiana, Milwaukee, Memphis, Toronto and others more palatable. I would also like to see teams able to retain control of their drafted players for longer, but with better compensation for those players. Again, the abolition of sign and trade deals would make it a much tougher decision to leave.

[Reignman]

Once again, if the players want to increase player movement why the hell are they wanting tax teams to be able to use the MLE or lessen the tax penalty? Seems like a transparent ploy for the good players to join in big markets.

If they are serious about opening up player movement then they should ask for shorter contracts, that's the easiest way to open up player movement.

This BS is directly from the stars that want to build more super teams like Miami, Boston, LA and soon to be NY.

**** the players, I'm tired of their hypocrisy. I'd much rather they just come out and be honest about what they want.

Edit: At the very least, the owners stated their stance 2 years ago and have stuck to their guns. I can respect that. They said they wanted changes to both the BRI and the system and that's exactly what's happening.

[dacrusha]

Of course there aren't enough stars to go around, that's what happens when groups of 2 or 3 of them flock together on one team.

So let's revisit this whole idea that you can't improve competitive parity. Have a hard cap with a franchise tag (no max) and you can have the stars spread out a bit better.

The systems problems are very obvious in the NBA and I hope the league doesn't sacrifice those just to get some more BRI.

That's why I want talks to fall apart today. Let the owners go to 47% and a flex cap and we'll be back on the right path.

If the players want a system where player movement isn't stifled, then all they need to do is agree to shorter contracts (3 year deals). Honestly, if I'm the owners I'm laughing at the players when it comes to player movement. If they want to move around freely all they have to do is agree to shorter contract lengths and then they aren't "stuck" anywhere for longer than 3 years.

How do shorter contracts help the Raptors?

All it means is that we turn into a farm team for the richer franchises who prey on our young talent once their short stint with the Raptors is up.

[NH]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-am-unifie ... on-system/

Interesting, seems like the players have waved the red-flag on the BRI, but want the system back. Hopefully if the owners are smart they can save the season. All the owners win with the BRI at 50-50, as suppose to the system changes, which only the 'disadvantaged' teams win. I think there are enough owners who want to complete the deal than those who are hardliners.

I also like how the Raptors are playing it. Guys like MJ and Sarver are dragging their teams through the mud and destroying relationships. By staying neutral, Raptors may become a more attractive place for agents to send their players