Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[CPT]

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.

Shorter contracts with more control over your own drafted players and more incentive for players to re-sign with their own teams.

It's not impossible to do both.

[dacrusha]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-am-unified-players-focus-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

MLSE is quiet because regardless of the agreement details forthcoming, they're going to make out like bandits. Also, I'm sure they're too busy drawing up plans for new condo developments (using proceeds from the the huge increase in revenues to come) to bother commenting in the media.

[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.

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.

You missed the other part where each team gets a franchise tag with no max coupled with a hard cap.

So if another team wants our star they will need to open up their franchise tag for that player while clearing enough cap room to make it happen. If the player wants long term security he has the option to sign extensions with his current team. The franchise tag no max will also create a large enough gap between the Star 1 and Star 2 that the player will need to really think about the financial loss he might suffer for wanting to join with another star.

This won't be like LBJ and Bosh losing $15 mil over the life of their contracts by signing with Miami, the financial loss will be much greater.

Also, the 3 year contracts will create great movement for the non-star players. I wouldn't be mad if we lost the Jose's or Andrea's of the world after 3 years because the Jose's and Andrea's from other teams would be looking for spots as well.

Again, if the players want greater movement than the logical conclusion is shorter contracts but we know that's not what the stars really want. They want their monstrous / long term guaranteed deals while being able to force themselves out from any team on a whim.

[Reignman]

Here's a great summary of the what the owners want and what the players are rejecting.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... index.html

Seems the players basically want the same system requirements that made the last CBA such a mess and what has created such lopsided teams. The players clearly aren't trying to fix the system, they love it the way it is because it has given them all the control. The stars get to do whatever they want and the middling guys get overpaid.

[ranger001]

The two sides are not really all that close. Unless Jordan has a change of heart I expect the Wednesday deadline to expire with no deal.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/FAQ ... g-play-out

They seem closer than ever! Why are the two sides willing to blow up the season when the gap is so small?

They weren't as close as it might have appeared. It's easy to look at just the difference in the sides' positions on the revenue split and conclude that it should be easy to bridge the gap. But the revenue split and the cap system are intertwined. For the league to come up on the revenue split, it would require a significant tightening of the cap system. Likewise, for the players to come down on the split, they would need a system that's closer to the one they had in the previous agreement.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

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.

You missed the other part where each team gets a franchise tag with no max coupled with a hard cap.

So if another team wants our star they will need to open up their franchise tag for that player while clearing enough cap room to make it happen. If the player wants long term security he has the option to sign extensions with his current team. The franchise tag no max will also create a large enough gap between the Star 1 and Star 2 that the player will need to really think about the financial loss he might suffer for wanting to join with another star.

This won't be like LBJ and Bosh losing $15 mil over the life of their contracts by signing with Miami, the financial loss will be much greater.

Also, the 3 year contracts will create great movement for the non-star players. I wouldn't be mad if we lost the Jose's or Andrea's of the world after 3 years because the Jose's and Andrea's from other teams would be looking for spots as well.

Again, if the players want greater movement than the logical conclusion is shorter contracts but we know that's not what the stars really want. They want their monstrous / long term guaranteed deals while being able to force themselves out from any team on a whim.

So in other words, you'd punish smart drafting teams like OKC and San Antonio by causing them to break up their teams, as well as make it easier for big cities to steal players. With shorter contracts, NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago would have a much easier time clearing cap space. Thanks guys!!

[BLKMASS]

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.

You got 4 of the top 10 players in the league on two teams. LeBron and Wade = Heat, and Carmelo & Amare on the Knicks.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You cannot predict profits strictly by revenues: you have to look at costs. I don't know what other costs the NHL has or does not have over against the NBA, so I won't comment on it.

You won't comment on the costs of the NHL because you don't know them but you will and do comment on the costs of the NBA saying that the owners couldn't control their other expenses and that player salaries were the only things they could control, and that the other expenses (over 50% of BRI + other non-BRI expenses according to the owners) were just the normal costs of running the league.

So based on that one comment you made about the NBA at least one, if not a combination of the following, must be true:
(1) the NBA costs several hundred million more to run than the NHL (I'd like to know why)
(2) the NHL includes a downright magical ownership group that has managed to keep costs below what you'd normally expect at which point it's clear that ownership can control their other costs despite your claim to the contrary
(3) the NBA actually can control their other costs and is either not doing so wisely, or is manipulating them to show more costs in the one season where they need to negotiate for revenues, or is investing heavily somewhere outside of normal costs of running a league with the intention of some future revenue (unknown if it would be BRI-related or not, or if the expenses would be ongoing or more temporary) which is what business people do (i.e. take a risk)
(4) the NHL is exaggerating how low their expenses are (they don't have much to gain by doing so)
(5) the NBA is exaggerating how high their expenses are (they have a lot to gain by doing so)

I know you just won't comment anymore, but none of those answers really fit with your position.

[ranger001]

You cannot predict profits strictly by revenues: you have to look at costs. I don't know what other costs the NHL has or does not have over against the NBA, so I won't comment on it.

You won't comment on the costs of the NHL because you don't know them but you will and do comment on the costs of the NBA saying that the owners couldn't control their other expenses and that player salaries were the only things they could control, and that the other expenses (over 50% of BRI + other non-BRI expenses according to the owners) were just the normal costs of running the league.

So based on that one comment you made about the NBA at least one, if not a combination of the following, must be true:
(1) the NBA costs several hundred million more to run than the NHL (I'd like to know why)
(2) the NHL includes a downright magical ownership group that has managed to keep costs below what you'd normally expect at which point it's clear that ownership can control their other costs despite your claim to the contrary
(3) the NBA actually can control their other costs and is either not doing so wisely, or is manipulating them to show more costs in the one season where they need to negotiate for revenues, or is investing heavily somewhere outside of normal costs of running a league with the intention of some future revenue (unknown if it would be BRI-related or not, or if the expenses would be ongoing or more temporary) which is what business people do (i.e. take a risk)
(4) the NHL is exaggerating how low their expenses are (they don't have much to gain by doing so)
(5) the NBA is exaggerating how high their expenses are (they have a lot to gain by doing so)

I know you just won't comment anymore, but none of those answers really fit with your position.

I keep telling you that the NHL has two franchises in bankruptcy, one had to move to avoid bankruptcy and some teams are having trouble meeting the _minimum_ payroll. The NHL is in trouble yet you keep ignoring this and looking at the NHL as though they are a great league making tons of money.

Does two franchises in bankruptcy mean nothing to you?

[Reignman]

So in other words, you'd punish smart drafting teams like OKC and San Antonio by causing them to break up their teams, as well as make it easier for big cities to steal players. With shorter contracts, NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago would have a much easier time clearing cap space. Thanks guys!!

It wouldn't necessarily be punishment, it would be a system where the stars are forced to choose between money or a preferred destination. It would also spread the stars out. This would be the same for every team.

Right now the monetary penalty isn't great enough to deter stars from joining up. LBJ / Bosh lost approximately $15 mil over the life of their contracts by joining up in Miami vs staying in Clev/Tor, that's not enough of a deterrent when these guys are signing deals over $100 mil.

The franchise tag no max would mean that your top player is likely making WAY more than everyone else on the team. For him to go join up with another star there would be a huge financial penalty. He could still leave but he'd have to sacrifice a significant amount of cash to do so. On top of that, the other team would need to strip their roster down to facilitate the move because with the hard cap there wouldn't be any wiggle room.

Bottom line, it would be a major improvement from the current system. Not perfect but a hell of a lot better.

[djsunyc]

i also believe in a slotted salary scale. meaning a team can only had out one max contract and then every contract after that is slotted at a lower amount.

let's same your "franchise" contract starts at $15 mil.
the next highest contract you can give out is $9 mil.
then keep going till you hit $50 mil total for the team.

you want to play with your buddy? then you have to play for almost half your buddy's pay.

basketball is unlike any other sport where 1 player can dictate the win #.

[BLKMASS]

Howard Beck: Players' offer to reduce their share from 57% to 50% is a more than $3 billion concession over a 10-year deal.

So someone explain to me what there is no deal yet, after the players have conceded a ridiculous amount already, and why there are people that still think it's the players fault there is no season?

[ranger001]

Howard Beck: Players' offer to reduce their share from 57% to 50% is a more than $3 billion concession over a 10-year deal.

So someone explain to me what there is no deal yet, after the players have conceded a ridiculous amount already, and why there are people that still think it's the players fault there is no season?

If I give you 5 billion and you give me back 3 billion who is it that has conceded more?

[Reignman]

There's no deal because the last CBA wasn't only broken from a BRI split but also from a systems perspective. The owners should not have signed off on that CBA.

They are now correcting their mistakes, so far it looks like they're in the same ball park on the BRI split but not close enough on the sytems issue.

This isn't a this or that situation, the last CBA was broken all around and there needs to major reform. This has been known for over 2 years so it should come as no surprise that it's taking so long.

People that think this is ONLY about money for the owners are mistaken. The owners have a vested interest in improving the quality of the sport as most are in it for the long haul.

[djsunyc]

balance of power shifted from owner to player over the past 5 years. owners want it back.

imho, lebron joining the heat was the straw that broke the owner's back...

[Indeed]

You cannot predict profits strictly by revenues: you have to look at costs. I don't know what other costs the NHL has or does not have over against the NBA, so I won't comment on it.

You won't comment on the costs of the NHL because you don't know them but you will and do comment on the costs of the NBA saying that the owners couldn't control their other expenses and that player salaries were the only things they could control, and that the other expenses (over 50% of BRI + other non-BRI expenses according to the owners) were just the normal costs of running the league.

So based on that one comment you made about the NBA at least one, if not a combination of the following, must be true:
(1) the NBA costs several hundred million more to run than the NHL (I'd like to know why)
(2) the NHL includes a downright magical ownership group that has managed to keep costs below what you'd normally expect at which point it's clear that ownership can control their other costs despite your claim to the contrary
(3) the NBA actually can control their other costs and is either not doing so wisely, or is manipulating them to show more costs in the one season where they need to negotiate for revenues, or is investing heavily somewhere outside of normal costs of running a league with the intention of some future revenue (unknown if it would be BRI-related or not, or if the expenses would be ongoing or more temporary) which is what business people do (i.e. take a risk)
(4) the NHL is exaggerating how low their expenses are (they don't have much to gain by doing so)
(5) the NBA is exaggerating how high their expenses are (they have a lot to gain by doing so)

I know you just won't comment anymore, but none of those answers really fit with your position.

I keep telling you that the NHL has two franchises in bankruptcy, one had to move to avoid bankruptcy and some teams are having trouble meeting the _minimum_ payroll. The NHL is in trouble yet you keep ignoring this and looking at the NHL as though they are a great league making tons of money.

Does two franchises in bankruptcy mean nothing to you?

That doesn't proof this is due to the system, but not management, correct?

[Salted Meat]

So in other words, you'd punish smart drafting teams like OKC and San Antonio by causing them to break up their teams, as well as make it easier for big cities to steal players. With shorter contracts, NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago would have a much easier time clearing cap space. Thanks guys!!

It wouldn't necessarily be punishment, it would be a system where the stars are forced to choose between money or a preferred destination. It would also spread the stars out. This would be the same for every team.

Right now the monetary penalty isn't great enough to deter stars from joining up. LBJ / Bosh lost approximately $15 mil over the life of their contracts by joining up in Miami vs staying in Clev/Tor, that's not enough of a deterrent when these guys are signing deals over $100 mil.

The franchise tag no max would mean that your top player is likely making WAY more than everyone else on the team. For him to go join up with another star there would be a huge financial penalty. He could still leave but he'd have to sacrifice a significant amount of cash to do so. On top of that, the other team would need to strip their roster down to facilitate the move because with the hard cap there wouldn't be any wiggle room.

Bottom line, it would be a major improvement from the current system. Not perfect but a hell of a lot better.

I like the idea, and maybe I've missed this part, but how would a team, say, go about trading their franchise-tagged player, should they choose to do so? A tagged player would undoubtedly have a guaranteed contract, and with teams only allowed one franchise player, would teams thus only be allowed to trade franchise players to teams who have not given out such a designation (unless they're trading franchise players for each other)?

I mean, what happens if a guy get injured or falls off? Would the tag be flexible (ie: can it be removed from a player at any time)? If so , I don't see how the players would agree to it... I'm sure they'll want some contract security. If it's inflexible, and a player gets inured, it really cripples a team. You're right though, it could be a really great change to the system... it just comes with a hell of a lot of risk.

[Salted Meat]

Howard Beck: Players' offer to reduce their share from 57% to 50% is a more than $3 billion concession over a 10-year deal.

So someone explain to me what there is no deal yet, after the players have conceded a ridiculous amount already, and why there are people that still think it's the players fault there is no season?

The players haven't conceded anything but their demands. The CBA is built from the ground up, not from the last CBA.

By your logic, if I'm the players association, and I demand 80% BRI, then reduce it to 50%, I can say that I've "conceded" more than $12 Billion over the course of the deal.

A fair split is 50-50. The players want more than their fair share, and this time, the owners don't want to give it to them. That's why there's no deal.

[Reignman]

So in other words, you'd punish smart drafting teams like OKC and San Antonio by causing them to break up their teams, as well as make it easier for big cities to steal players. With shorter contracts, NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago would have a much easier time clearing cap space. Thanks guys!!

It wouldn't necessarily be punishment, it would be a system where the stars are forced to choose between money or a preferred destination. It would also spread the stars out. This would be the same for every team.

Right now the monetary penalty isn't great enough to deter stars from joining up. LBJ / Bosh lost approximately $15 mil over the life of their contracts by joining up in Miami vs staying in Clev/Tor, that's not enough of a deterrent when these guys are signing deals over $100 mil.

The franchise tag no max would mean that your top player is likely making WAY more than everyone else on the team. For him to go join up with another star there would be a huge financial penalty. He could still leave but he'd have to sacrifice a significant amount of cash to do so. On top of that, the other team would need to strip their roster down to facilitate the move because with the hard cap there wouldn't be any wiggle room.

Bottom line, it would be a major improvement from the current system. Not perfect but a hell of a lot better.

I like the idea, and maybe I've missed this part, but how would a team, say, go about trading their franchise-tagged player, should they choose to do so? A tagged player would undoubtedly have a guaranteed contract, and with teams only allowed one franchise player, would teams thus only be allowed to trade franchise players to teams who have not given out such a designation (unless they're trading franchise players for each other)?

I mean, what happens if a guy get injured or falls off? Would the tag be flexible (ie: can it be removed from a player at any time)? If so , I don't see how the players would agree to it... I'm sure they'll want some contract security. If it's inflexible, and a player gets inured, it really cripples a team. You're right though, it could be a really great change to the system... it just comes with a hell of a lot of risk.

Typically the franchise tag would have an expiry (maybe a couple of years). You could trade the player to another team but with a lower cap with no luxury space or exceptions, the other would really need to strip their roster to acquire said player.

In an ideal situation, franchise tagged players wouldn't move at all. For eg. If there's a $50 mil cap and your franchise guy is eating $20 - $30 mil of it, I don't see how many teams would be able to field a full roster by having two guys making that much, it just wouldn't fit under the cap.

That is unless you want 2 stars and a supporting cast made up of NBDL players. Trying to make a 3 star team like Miami or Boston? Forget about it.

And again, if the players don't like the idea of getting stuck with one team, take the shorter contract and you can bounce for a better situation if A) You're willing to sacrifice money B) A team really wants you and creates a franchise tag spot for you.

Much more difficult than what's happening now. Now your star could have 2 or 3 years remaining on his deal and all he has to say is "trade me to team X or I leave you without you getting anything in return".

[ranger001]

(4) the NHL is exaggerating how low their expenses are (they don't have much to gain by doing so)
(5) the NBA is exaggerating how high their expenses are (they have a lot to gain by doing so)

I know you just won't comment anymore, but none of those answers really fit with your position.

I keep telling you that the NHL has two franchises in bankruptcy, one had to move to avoid bankruptcy and some teams are having trouble meeting the _minimum_ payroll. The NHL is in trouble yet you keep ignoring this and looking at the NHL as though they are a great league making tons of money.

Does two franchises in bankruptcy mean nothing to you?

That doesn't proof this is due to the system, but not management, correct?

IMO, if the system allows it to happen then the system is at fault. If the minimum payroll is set too high then the minimum should be reduced right?