Here's The Proposed CBA Up For Vote

DEEP3CL · Post #1 » by **DEEP3CL** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:14 am

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba ... 1-2011.pdf

There will be an Amnesty clause !

Luke is good as gone.

Jetset · Post #2 » by **Jetset** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:33 am

luke's contemplating retirement and hopefully he does, that way it'll come down to either blake or artest as to who gets amnestied.

Post #3 » by **Slava** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:38 am

Good find!

From that document it seems like teams can amnesty one player before each season under the CBA.

That'd be pretty sweet.

DEEP3CL · Post #4 » by **DEEP3CL** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:47 am

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Good find!

From that document it seems like teams can amnesty one player before each season under the CBA.

That'd be pretty sweet.

I think in the long run it'll help teams with players who no longer can contribute and may be at the end of their deals. But even for us if we amnesty Luke, we're still way over the cap...so it's not like bumping him off will land us a better player. Basically it's a reset button of the MLE.

TylersLakers · Post #5 » by **TylersLakers** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:56 am

Does the players salary come off the salary cap in the amnesty clause?

In my opinion at first glance... CBA looks fine to me. Nothing worth holding up the rest of the season over. Players might be pissed that they can use an amnesty clause every year.. but it should also be a motivator for the player to play well when he earns the contract.

Post #6 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:13 am

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Good find!

From that document it seems like teams can amnesty one player before each season under the CBA.

That'd be pretty sweet.

nah, its not for each season, its for any season, meaning you don't have to use your amnesty right away like last time. you still just get one.

Post #7 » by **Slava** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:23 am

Oh cool.

Sofa King · Post #8 » by **Sofa King** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:46 am

I'm sure the rest that Luke is getting from the lock out has given him plenty of time to recover and he'll be ready for the next season. He'll take his starting SF spot back.

That Nicka · Post #9 » by **That Nicka** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:48 pm

So from what I understand, teams in the lux tax only have an MLE of 3mil while the other teams get the full MLE of 5mil+?

eckoner · Post #10 » by **eckoner** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:30 pm

That Nicka wrote:So from what I understand, teams in the lux tax only have an MLE of 3mil while the other teams get the full MLE of 5mil+?

Thats correct - It's just another way to penalize tax teams and make them less desirable for free agents to consider signing with

LApwnd · Post #11 » by **LApwnd** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 am

eckoner wrote:
That Nicka wrote:So from what I understand, teams in the lux tax only have an MLE of 3mil while the other teams get the full MLE of 5mil+?

Thats correct - It's just another way to penalize tax teams and make them less desirable for free agents to consider signing with

bad teams with bad mgmt. will still find a way to F this up by giving it to overachieving players only to see them suck and force to be traded.....rules like this would only prevent tax paying teams from gaining talent with the likes of Gooden, Harrington, and the likes who are not even worth their MLE deal....I bet even if this was placed before Artest arrival, he still would've came here for the $3mill annual. MLE is normally used on vets anyways looking to win and get paid, in this scenario they have to choose one or the other.

Norm2953 · Post #12 » by **Norm2953** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:52 am

DEEP3CL wrote:
SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Good find!

From that document it seems like teams can amnesty one player before each season under the CBA.

That'd be pretty sweet.
I think in the long run it'll help teams with players who no longer can contribute and may be at the end of their deals. But even for us if we amnesty Luke, we're still way over the cap...so it's not like bumping him off will land us a better player. Basically it's a reset button of the MLE.

Deep:

I haven't visited this board in some time and was wondering how the Laker board views the legal
impasse. The Portland board (with the exception of D Train) led by Wiz mostly supports the owners
but looking at the calendar, its likely by the time the attorneys get something done, we'll either
have another 50 game season or Stern will say to hell with it and cancel the season.

I'm not that unhappy if the season gets cancelled for I don't have the Lakers on my half season
package at the Rose Garden anyway :lol:

DEEP3CL · Post #13 » by **DEEP3CL** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:26 am

Norm2953 wrote:
DEEP3CL wrote:
SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Good find!

From that document it seems like teams can amnesty one player before each season under the CBA.

That'd be pretty sweet.
I think in the long run it'll help teams with players who no longer can contribute and may be at the end of their deals. But even for us if we amnesty Luke, we're still way over the cap...so it's not like bumping him off will land us a better player. Basically it's a reset button of the MLE.

Deep:

I haven't visited this board in some time and was wondering how the Laker board views the legal
impasse. The Portland board (with the exception of D Train) led by Wiz mostly supports the owners
but looking at the calendar, its likely by the time the attorneys get something done, we'll either
have another 50 game season or Stern will say to hell with it and cancel the season.

I'm not that unhappy if the season gets cancelled for I don't have the Lakers on my half season
package at the Rose Garden anyway

What up Norm! Well for the most part we all seem to be pro player in this. Part of that is because we know we've never had a cheap skate owner and he's always will to spend to win. I was surprised at Paul Allen, knowing he has the resources but after all is a very smart business man. Now that we've hit this process going to the courts, I personally don't see even a 50 game season in sight.

I'm not in favor of the revenue (TV) sharing at all among teams, since the LA, NY and Chicago garner most of that revenue. I get keeping the league profitable, but breaking off dough to teams like the Bucks, Cavs and Suns and so on, knowing they have cheap owners who have no interest in making their teams better.

Norm2953 · Post #14 » by **Norm2953** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:11 am

As I mentioned on the Blazer board, I'd rather the teams like the Kings to go away.
The league already owns the Hornets and nobody would miss the Wolves, Bobcats,
Bucks and even a good team like the Hawks could disappear in that market for
they are a poor sister to the football teams and even the Braves. It be simple to
contract the league down to 24 teams.

I understand there are 3 NBA teams (Pacers, Wolves and Nuggets) that are reportedly
on the verge of financial collapse and it seems to me the league can contract
around their stronger franchises or perhaps look to foreign markets for expansion
which would lead to some horrendous road trips. Something is going to happen and
its likely the MLE player is going to be extinct for we will either have the superstar
level players playing with either rookies or role playing guys making the minimum
perhaps more from abroad.

TylersLakers · Post #15 » by **TylersLakers** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:41 am

The main push behind this in my opinion is the agents. That's what's holding up this deal and I think they've pushed that into the thoughts of Derek and Billy. The commissions on deals they'll make back over the next 20,30 years of their careers. Kobe Bryant and every other player can't recoup the money they're losing without a season right now. This is definitely agent driven.