Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[douggood]

anyone have a link to the nba owners current proposal. I am sure the majority of the issues are resolved ie max years on a contract, amnesty and such.

i think it gets solved today, an framework of a deal will be in place today at 50/50 and the players winning some of the system issues, which by the looks of it are meaningless to majority of teams/players.

[McFurious1]

^ in a free agent market where Hedo Turkgulo gets $50 million for 5 yrs the system is broken.

[Reignman]

anyone have a link to the nba owners current proposal. I am sure the majority of the issues are resolved ie max years on a contract, amnesty and such.

i think it gets solved today, an framework of a deal will be in place today at 50/50 and the players winning some of the system issues, which by the looks of it are meaningless to majority of teams/players.

Enjoy!

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

[Reignman]

^ in a free agent market where Hedo Turkgulo gets $50 million for 5 yrs the system is broken.

And that sad thing is that's not even one of the worst contracts out there.

[McFurious1]

anyone have a link to the nba owners current proposal. I am sure the majority of the issues are resolved ie max years on a contract, amnesty and such.

i think it gets solved today, an framework of a deal will be in place today at 50/50 and the players winning some of the system issues, which by the looks of it are meaningless to majority of teams/players.

Enjoy!

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

looks like they removed the link

[douggood]

anyone have a link to the nba owners current proposal. I am sure the majority of the issues are resolved ie max years on a contract, amnesty and such.

i think it gets solved today, an framework of a deal will be in place today at 50/50 and the players winning some of the system issues, which by the looks of it are meaningless to majority of teams/players.

Enjoy!

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

looks like they removed the link

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... =nba_t2_a4

[douggood]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/chris_mannix/11/08/players.lockout/index.html#?sct=nba_t2_a4

ok so mostly the players want teams to be able to pay lux tax, make it possible for them to earn more money. But if the bri is a fixed number, it doesnt help them. If teams in total spend more then the players give back and viceversa. So why should it matter to them that the lakers are able to spend 90$ million when at the end of the day the take home pay is 50% of bri?

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

i guess they all hope to play for NY, MIA, LAL, MAvs, and teams like that. No one wants to be apart of building and growing with team, they all want to join the arms race.

[Indeed]

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?

lol, even the RBI is at 1%, would the owners be losing money? Yes, they can claim that.
So would it make sense to have a 0% on RBI? Should everyone be working without being paid?

Wake up my friend, the owners take their own risk on those inflated expenses, nothing to do with the players. I can't ask you for money if I am losing money at this moment right?

[Rhettmatic]

^ in a free agent market where Hedo Turkgulo gets $50 million for 5 yrs the system is broken.

So you want a system that completely protects owners and management from their own boundless stupidity?

[Rhettmatic]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column: Owners to blame if season lost.

Reality has been blurred, when it shouldn't be. Because the simple fact is that the NBPA has made concession after concession and gotten nothing in return.

Think about it: In the NFL labor talks, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith did some serious horse-trading. We give you a bigger piece of the revenue split, you reduce organized team activities and padded practices and eliminate two-a-days. We let you reduce rookie salaries, you impose a salary floor for the veterans.

That's not happening in the NBA. The NBA's relationship with the union is parasitic; it takes and gives nothing back. Sure, there are things the union wants -- incentives for rookies, higher qualifying offers -- but it probably won't get them. Right now, the players' priority is stopping the bleeding, getting Stern & Co. to quit gashing their share of the BRI while at the same time creating a luxury tax system so punitive an owner would rather stick a fork in his eye than exceed the limit.

They should stop, too. It's enough already. The NBA claims it has been losing around $300 million, annually. The players are willing to hand $200 million per year back now and another $80 million a season (in a 50-50 split scenario) if the owners will budge on a few system issues. That's $280 million funneled back into the owners' pockets that, when coupled with revenue sharing, should infuse every team in the league with enough cash to be competitive.

Will it guarantee profitability? No. Then again, it shouldn't. It's amazing how some of the owners have escaped being held responsible for their own foolish mistakes. Struggling financially? Don't give Darko Milicic $20 million. Problems with your payroll? Maybe it's because Gilbert Arenas' $110 million is eating it up. Deep in luxury tax territory? Rashard Lewis didn't force you to write $113 million on the contract. These were bad decisions that should not be allowed to be collectively bargained away.

So take a deep breath, David Stern. Reflect for a minute Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert and Paul Allen. Think about what you are doing. You have already won. History will record that you crushed the union, winning unprecedented concessions while giving virtually nothing back. If you haven't solved the problems that plagued the league the last few years, you have at least given the owners the means to fix it themselves.

Yes, you have already won, NBA. But before you blow up the season, ask yourself this: Is it really necessary to run up the score?

[Indeed]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column: Owners to blame if season lost.

Reality has been blurred, when it shouldn't be. Because the simple fact is that the NBPA has made concession after concession and gotten nothing in return.

Think about it: In the NFL labor talks, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith did some serious horse-trading. We give you a bigger piece of the revenue split, you reduce organized team activities and padded practices and eliminate two-a-days. We let you reduce rookie salaries, you impose a salary floor for the veterans.

That's not happening in the NBA. The NBA's relationship with the union is parasitic; it takes and gives nothing back. Sure, there are things the union wants -- incentives for rookies, higher qualifying offers -- but it probably won't get them. Right now, the players' priority is stopping the bleeding, getting Stern & Co. to quit gashing their share of the BRI while at the same time creating a luxury tax system so punitive an owner would rather stick a fork in his eye than exceed the limit.

They should stop, too. It's enough already. The NBA claims it has been losing around $300 million, annually. The players are willing to hand $200 million per year back now and another $80 million a season (in a 50-50 split scenario) if the owners will budge on a few system issues. That's $280 million funneled back into the owners' pockets that, when coupled with revenue sharing, should infuse every team in the league with enough cash to be competitive.

Will it guarantee profitability? No. Then again, it shouldn't. It's amazing how some of the owners have escaped being held responsible for their own foolish mistakes. Struggling financially? Don't give Darko Milicic $20 million. Problems with your payroll? Maybe it's because Gilbert Arenas' $110 million is eating it up. Deep in luxury tax territory? Rashard Lewis didn't force you to write $113 million on the contract. These were bad decisions that should not be allowed to be collectively bargained away.

So take a deep breath, David Stern. Reflect for a minute Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert and Paul Allen. Think about what you are doing. You have already won. History will record that you crushed the union, winning unprecedented concessions while giving virtually nothing back. If you haven't solved the problems that plagued the league the last few years, you have at least given the owners the means to fix it themselves.

Yes, you have already won, NBA. But before you blow up the season, ask yourself this: Is it really necessary to run up the score?

Thank you, exactly what I have been saying to ranger001 since a month ago.
The system will never work with people who takes no responsibility to the root problem. Plugging holes for their own mistakes and benefit from it won't make the game better.

As players already taking one forth of the risk from the owners, I do not see the owners deserve all the protection.

[J-Roc]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column: Owners to blame if season lost.

Reality has been blurred, when it shouldn't be. Because the simple fact is that the NBPA has made concession after concession and gotten nothing in return.

Think about it: In the NFL labor talks, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith did some serious horse-trading. We give you a bigger piece of the revenue split, you reduce organized team activities and padded practices and eliminate two-a-days. We let you reduce rookie salaries, you impose a salary floor for the veterans.

That's not happening in the NBA. The NBA's relationship with the union is parasitic; it takes and gives nothing back. Sure, there are things the union wants -- incentives for rookies, higher qualifying offers -- but it probably won't get them. Right now, the players' priority is stopping the bleeding, getting Stern & Co. to quit gashing their share of the BRI while at the same time creating a luxury tax system so punitive an owner would rather stick a fork in his eye than exceed the limit.

They should stop, too. It's enough already. The NBA claims it has been losing around $300 million, annually. The players are willing to hand $200 million per year back now and another $80 million a season (in a 50-50 split scenario) if the owners will budge on a few system issues. That's $280 million funneled back into the owners' pockets that, when coupled with revenue sharing, should infuse every team in the league with enough cash to be competitive.

Will it guarantee profitability? No. Then again, it shouldn't. It's amazing how some of the owners have escaped being held responsible for their own foolish mistakes. Struggling financially? Don't give Darko Milicic $20 million. Problems with your payroll? Maybe it's because Gilbert Arenas' $110 million is eating it up. Deep in luxury tax territory? Rashard Lewis didn't force you to write $113 million on the contract. These were bad decisions that should not be allowed to be collectively bargained away.

So take a deep breath, David Stern. Reflect for a minute Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert and Paul Allen. Think about what you are doing. You have already won. History will record that you crushed the union, winning unprecedented concessions while giving virtually nothing back. If you haven't solved the problems that plagued the league the last few years, you have at least given the owners the means to fix it themselves.

Yes, you have already won, NBA. But before you blow up the season, ask yourself this: Is it really necessary to run up the score?

I don't like those arguments about "just don't give Darko x dollars". The dollars are not given by the owners. They're given by GM's, who determine the market based on what each other is up to. GM's make a "mistake", they get fired. The owners are stuck with the bill. The system has to be an arena where GM's can be allowed to run wild, but where the consequences are losing in the standings, not bleeding money for the franchise and forcing relocation or whatever.

[bboyskinnylegs]

As one GM told me: "The age limit is a much bigger issue for the commissioner and owners than it is for (basketball executives)."

Many keep asking about "one-and-done" draft rule. It's on B-list of issues they'll get to once/if economic-system points are agreed on.

[douggood]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column: Owners to blame if season lost.

Reality has been blurred, when it shouldn't be. Because the simple fact is that the NBPA has made concession after concession and gotten nothing in return.

Think about it: In the NFL labor talks, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith did some serious horse-trading. We give you a bigger piece of the revenue split, you reduce organized team activities and padded practices and eliminate two-a-days. We let you reduce rookie salaries, you impose a salary floor for the veterans.

That's not happening in the NBA. The NBA's relationship with the union is parasitic; it takes and gives nothing back. Sure, there are things the union wants -- incentives for rookies, higher qualifying offers -- but it probably won't get them. Right now, the players' priority is stopping the bleeding, getting Stern & Co. to quit gashing their share of the BRI while at the same time creating a luxury tax system so punitive an owner would rather stick a fork in his eye than exceed the limit.

They should stop, too. It's enough already. The NBA claims it has been losing around $300 million, annually. The players are willing to hand $200 million per year back now and another $80 million a season (in a 50-50 split scenario) if the owners will budge on a few system issues. That's $280 million funneled back into the owners' pockets that, when coupled with revenue sharing, should infuse every team in the league with enough cash to be competitive.

Will it guarantee profitability? No. Then again, it shouldn't. It's amazing how some of the owners have escaped being held responsible for their own foolish mistakes. Struggling financially? Don't give Darko Milicic $20 million. Problems with your payroll? Maybe it's because Gilbert Arenas' $110 million is eating it up. Deep in luxury tax territory? Rashard Lewis didn't force you to write $113 million on the contract. These were bad decisions that should not be allowed to be collectively bargained away.

So take a deep breath, David Stern. Reflect for a minute Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert and Paul Allen. Think about what you are doing. You have already won. History will record that you crushed the union, winning unprecedented concessions while giving virtually nothing back. If you haven't solved the problems that plagued the league the last few years, you have at least given the owners the means to fix it themselves.

Yes, you have already won, NBA. But before you blow up the season, ask yourself this: Is it really necessary to run up the score?

Thank you, exactly what I have been saying to ranger001 since a month ago.
The system will never work with people who takes no responsibility to the root problem. Plugging holes for their own mistakes and benefit from it won't make the game better.

As players already taking one forth of the risk from the owners, I do not see the owners deserve all the protection.

teams have to meet minimum salary cap as well, if not for these contracts, teams like the clippers would be operating at a 20 mil cap. There is no possible deal in which the owners protect themselves, unless it involves un-guaranteed contracts. So even with the new cba soon to be agreed upon, at the next cba negotiations there will still be players contracts we will shake out heads at.

[dhackett1565]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column: Owners to blame if season lost.

Reality has been blurred, when it shouldn't be. Because the simple fact is that the NBPA has made concession after concession and gotten nothing in return.

Think about it: In the NFL labor talks, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith did some serious horse-trading. We give you a bigger piece of the revenue split, you reduce organized team activities and padded practices and eliminate two-a-days. We let you reduce rookie salaries, you impose a salary floor for the veterans.

That's not happening in the NBA. The NBA's relationship with the union is parasitic; it takes and gives nothing back. Sure, there are things the union wants -- incentives for rookies, higher qualifying offers -- but it probably won't get them. Right now, the players' priority is stopping the bleeding, getting Stern & Co. to quit gashing their share of the BRI while at the same time creating a luxury tax system so punitive an owner would rather stick a fork in his eye than exceed the limit.

They should stop, too. It's enough already. The NBA claims it has been losing around $300 million, annually. The players are willing to hand $200 million per year back now and another $80 million a season (in a 50-50 split scenario) if the owners will budge on a few system issues. That's $280 million funneled back into the owners' pockets that, when coupled with revenue sharing, should infuse every team in the league with enough cash to be competitive.

Will it guarantee profitability? No. Then again, it shouldn't. It's amazing how some of the owners have escaped being held responsible for their own foolish mistakes. Struggling financially? Don't give Darko Milicic $20 million. Problems with your payroll? Maybe it's because Gilbert Arenas' $110 million is eating it up. Deep in luxury tax territory? Rashard Lewis didn't force you to write $113 million on the contract. These were bad decisions that should not be allowed to be collectively bargained away.

So take a deep breath, David Stern. Reflect for a minute Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert and Paul Allen. Think about what you are doing. You have already won. History will record that you crushed the union, winning unprecedented concessions while giving virtually nothing back. If you haven't solved the problems that plagued the league the last few years, you have at least given the owners the means to fix it themselves.

Yes, you have already won, NBA. But before you blow up the season, ask yourself this: Is it really necessary to run up the score?

Seriously? His two major points are:

1) The players are giving back 280 million. The league lost 300 million. Therefore the league will still lose 20 million per year. And therefore revenue sharing will fix the rest? You can say you don't believe the owners' monetary claims, but say that, don't ignore that and claim that the players have actually already met the owners' suggested needs. News flash - the league as a whole does NOT want to lose money. And they sure aren't going to give in on the system issues for the privilege of getting a financial system that doesn't address their cost concerns.

2) Again, back to the 'bad contracts' argument? Last year, with all those bad contracts on the books, and having to up the pay to the players to match the required 57%, the league claims to have lost money. When will sportswriters do some research and realize that the big, bad contracts hurt the teams' competitiveness, but don't impact the league's books in the least.

There are plenty of good arguments why the owners are the bad guys here. But this article sure doesn't make any of them.

[Indeed]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column: Owners to blame if season lost.

Reality has been blurred, when it shouldn't be. Because the simple fact is that the NBPA has made concession after concession and gotten nothing in return.

Think about it: In the NFL labor talks, commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith did some serious horse-trading. We give you a bigger piece of the revenue split, you reduce organized team activities and padded practices and eliminate two-a-days. We let you reduce rookie salaries, you impose a salary floor for the veterans.

That's not happening in the NBA. The NBA's relationship with the union is parasitic; it takes and gives nothing back. Sure, there are things the union wants -- incentives for rookies, higher qualifying offers -- but it probably won't get them. Right now, the players' priority is stopping the bleeding, getting Stern & Co. to quit gashing their share of the BRI while at the same time creating a luxury tax system so punitive an owner would rather stick a fork in his eye than exceed the limit.

They should stop, too. It's enough already. The NBA claims it has been losing around $300 million, annually. The players are willing to hand $200 million per year back now and another $80 million a season (in a 50-50 split scenario) if the owners will budge on a few system issues. That's $280 million funneled back into the owners' pockets that, when coupled with revenue sharing, should infuse every team in the league with enough cash to be competitive.

Will it guarantee profitability? No. Then again, it shouldn't. It's amazing how some of the owners have escaped being held responsible for their own foolish mistakes. Struggling financially? Don't give Darko Milicic $20 million. Problems with your payroll? Maybe it's because Gilbert Arenas' $110 million is eating it up. Deep in luxury tax territory? Rashard Lewis didn't force you to write $113 million on the contract. These were bad decisions that should not be allowed to be collectively bargained away.

So take a deep breath, David Stern. Reflect for a minute Robert Sarver, Dan Gilbert and Paul Allen. Think about what you are doing. You have already won. History will record that you crushed the union, winning unprecedented concessions while giving virtually nothing back. If you haven't solved the problems that plagued the league the last few years, you have at least given the owners the means to fix it themselves.

Yes, you have already won, NBA. But before you blow up the season, ask yourself this: Is it really necessary to run up the score?

I don't like those arguments about "just don't give Darko x dollars". The dollars are not given by the owners. They're given by GM's, who determine the market based on what each other is up to. GM's make a "mistake", they get fired. The owners are stuck with the bill. The system has to be an arena where GM's can be allowed to run wild, but where the consequences are losing in the standings, not bleeding money for the franchise and forcing relocation or whatever.

MLSE has been turning down some offers, Michael Jordan has been turning down some offers, and etc. Therefore, the owners definitely have the power to stop those ridiculous contracts.

The reason why you see these contracts, is because the gap between rich teams and poor teams are huge. Rich teams don't care and want to dominate with those large contracts, as they believe they can continue to dominate in the competitive standings.

The problem starts with the owners, they should resolve it. Some changes, such as shorten contract length will help, but decreasing BRI will not change the way how teams are going to spend. And rich team still wants to spend more to maintain their competition. Without revenue sharing between owners, the gap remains.

[Indeed]

Is this the first time the players seem to have won a PR battle?

Sports Illustrated column:

Thank you, exactly what I have been saying to ranger001 since a month ago.
The system will never work with people who takes no responsibility to the root problem. Plugging holes for their own mistakes and benefit from it won't make the game better.

As players already taking one forth of the risk from the owners, I do not see the owners deserve all the protection.

teams have to meet minimum salary cap as well, if not for these contracts, teams like the clippers would be operating at a 20 mil cap. There is no possible deal in which the owners protect themselves, unless it involves un-guaranteed contracts. So even with the new cba soon to be agreed upon, at the next cba negotiations there will still be players contracts we will shake out heads at.

Correct, there is no possible deal in which the owners protect themselves through negotiation with the players, because the root problem is not the players.
However, making the playing ground fair between rich teams and poor teams will be the key. Certainly the contract length needs to be reduced, but asking players to reduce BRI won't help much.

[ranger001]

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?

lol, even the RBI is at 1%, would the owners be losing money? Yes, they can claim that.
So would it make sense to have a 0% on RBI? Should everyone be working without being paid?

Wake up my friend, the owners take their own risk on those inflated expenses, nothing to do with the players. I can't ask you for money if I am losing money at this moment right?

The players are employees. Thus they are exposed to risk just like any other employee.

[Homer Jay]

^ in a free agent market where Hedo Turkgulo gets $50 million for 5 yrs the system is broken.

That wasn't too sad. What was sad is that he was able to sign that and then check the f out. Do you know what I love about thee NFL? Non guaranteed contracts. You work your tail off every week or you are out the door with no paycheque. There are no Hedo's or Curry's in the NFL. They are rife in the NBA thou.