Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread III

[Ponchos]

In the previous CBA, a tax team could offer a full MLE every year. In the current proposal, they can offer a lesser MLE, and only once every other year. Look it up.


Hahahahaha "commodity goes down = demand goes up". I still can't believe it.

Mid-Level Exception for Room Teams: A new Exception is available for teams that use Room under the Salary Cap (and therefore forfeit their Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and Bi-Annual Exceptions). The exception allows a team using Room to thereafter sign one or more free agents to a contract with a total first year salary up to $2.5M and up to 2 years in length. Exception amount to grow 3% annually.

Wrong again. Teams are not limited to offering it bi annually .

What I read in the last few from information floating around was that tax teams could not offer their MLE every year. If I'm misinformed on that, so be it. It really doesn't change my premise. The fact that tax teams cannot offer as much money is an artificial restriction on demand.

P.S. hahahaahahha, I really still can't believe you thought that when the supply of a commodity goes down demand goes up. Oh man, and the fact you're now saying you "meant" price is soooooooo delicious and see-through.

[TiKusDom]

What I read in the last few from information floating around was that tax teams could not offer their MLE every year. If I'm misinformed on that, so be it. It really doesn't change my premise. The fact that tax teams cannot offer as much money is an artificial restriction on demand.

P.S. hahahaahahha, I really still can't believe you thought that when the supply of a commodity goes down demand goes up. Oh man, and the fact you're now saying you "meant" price is soooooooo delicious and see-through.

You being misinformed is no surprise, you make statements about the MLE when you dont even know the proposals laid out by the NBA yeah see through, obviously people dont mix up words. EVER. haha what a joke. Your initial statement was based on a "misinformed" assumption you made, making your entire argument irrelevant.

[Ponchos]

Nope i was talking about price not demand.

Hahahahahahaha

When there is less of a commodity the demand goes up .

DIRECT QUOTE SON (and this was AFTER I pointed out you were wrong, you REPEATED IT!!! HAHAHA).

[TiKusDom]

DIRECT QUOTE SON (and this was AFTER I pointed out you were wrong, you REPEATED IT!!! HAHAHA).

Yep like I said the two words got switched in my head. LOL keep celebrating your little victory , makes you seem even smaller than you really are !

[Ponchos]

DIRECT QUOTE SON (and this was AFTER I pointed out you were wrong, you REPEATED IT!!! HAHAHA).

Yep like I said the two words got switched in my head. LOL keep celebrating your little victory , makes you seem even smaller than you really are !

Hahaha, I understand how it must be hard for someone like you to keep concepts like that straight. Still amazing how you accused me of not understanding economics in the very same paragraph. Hahahaa, you're so dumb.

[TiKusDom]

Hahaha, I understand how it must be hard for someone like you to keep concepts like that straight. Still amazing how you accused me of not understanding economics in the very same paragraph. Hahahaa, you're so dumb.

You didnt even know what the league was proposing and how the MLE was structured in the new CBA proposal , making ignorant assumptions Ill take that over a mix up of words any day

http://www.nba.com/news/Memo_to_Players_111311_3.pdf

hers a link to the proposal, do yourself a favor and read it before you make anymore stupid claims that have to be torn down.

[TiKusDom]

What I read in the last few from information floating around was that tax teams could not offer their MLE every year. If I'm misinformed on that, so be it. It really doesn't change my premise. The fact that tax teams cannot offer as much money is an artificial restriction on demand.

BS ,restricting how much a tax team can offer to a player will have 0 bearing on how many teams approach a player in free agency and the demand for their services. Tax teams will approach the players with the allure of big markets, more publicity , championships and higher earning potential through endorsements will be just as successful as bottom of the barrel and middle of the road teams located in small markets. This only attempts to even the competitive playing field.

[Ponchos]

Hahaha, I understand how it must be hard for someone like you to keep concepts like that straight. Still amazing how you accused me of not understanding economics in the very same paragraph. Hahahaa, you're so dumb.

You didnt even know what the league was proposing and how the MLE was structured in the new CBA proposal , making ignorant assumptions Ill take that over a mix up of words any day

http://www.nba.com/news/Memo_to_Players_111311_3.pdf

hers a link to the proposal, do yourself a favor and read it before you make anymore stupid claims that have to be torn down.

Actually, you're wrong. I was right. You were quoting the official NBA memo (LOL) they conveniently left out that tax teams could only offer the MLE every other year.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/11/10/time-for-some-action/#

One of the people said league negotiators signaled a willingness to raise the so-called “mini mid-level” to three years starting at $3 million for teams above the luxury-tax level, to be available every other year. The previous offer was a two-year deal starting at $2.5 million, available every other year to tax teams.

Here's another link:

http://werebucked.com/2011/11/10/progress-being-made-in-lockout-talks-on-system-issues/

Mid-level Exception: The NBA only wants a “mini” mid-level exception for teams over the luxury tax: 2-year deals, starting at 2.5 M and usable every other year. The NBPA countered with 4-year deals, starting at 5M per year, usable every other year (although every other such contract would be limited to a 3-year deal.)

[Ponchos]

BS ,restricting how much a tax team can offer to a player will have 0 bearing on how many teams approach a player in free agency and the demand for their services.

Hahahaha amazing again. Please please pick up an economics book or go to school. Really incredible. Hahaha.

[TiKusDom]

[

Actually, you're wrong. I was right. You were quoting the official NBA memo (LOL) they conveniently left out that tax teams could only offer the MLE every other year.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/11/10/time-for-some-action/#

One of the people said league negotiators signaled a willingness to raise the so-called “mini mid-level” to three years starting at $3 million for teams above the luxury-tax level, to be available every other year. The previous offer was a two-year deal starting at $2.5 million, available every other year to tax teams.

Here's another link:

http://werebucked.com/2011/11/10/progress-being-made-in-lockout-talks-on-system-issues/

Mid-level Exception: The NBA only wants a “mini” mid-level exception for teams over the luxury tax: 2-year deals, starting at 2.5 M and usable every other year. The NBPA countered with 4-year deals, starting at 5M per year, usable every other year (although every other such contract would be limited to a 3-year deal.)

Wrong

Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception: Set at $3M in year 1, growing 3% annually thereafter; maximum contract length of 3 years; can be used every year.

Straight from the NBA. Can be used EVERY YEAR. They didnt leave out anything it clearly sates so in the memo. Reading comprehension FTW

Hahahaha amazing again. Please please pick up an economics book or go to school. Really incredible. Hahaha.

Common sense escapes you

[ballboy_forever]

Here is a different take on what's going on. The two sides are much further apart than you think. And the players did not make nearly as much of a concession as advertised. They never really agreed to a 50:50 split - although they would like you to think that they did. I base this on the fact that they are fighting tooth and nail against any method that would enforce the 50:50 split. No to salary rollbacks. No to a proportionate reduction in max contracts. No to a reduction in the rookie scale. And especially no to any higher escrow than 8% and no to any mechanism that would allow the teams to recoup if the escrow was not sufficient to reduce the actual salaries to 50%. This is the same game they played before. Let me explain. If total salaries are 57% like they have been all but the past year when some teams stripped down for the big free agent frenzy, the 8% escrow would only reduce the players' take to about 52.5%. if they reach salaries totaling 60%, an 8% escrow would only reduce it to about 55%.

The owners know this and that is why they don't give on "system". I am sure that if the players offered a 15% escrow they could have all the system changes they wanted.

Based on this I don't see any way that further negotiations will go anywhere. There is only one way to save the season. The player leadership must admit that they made a mistake not putting the proposal to a vote. It's not too late to say that on further reflection this is too big a decision to take without having a vote of all the players. They need to have a SECRET ballot asking the players to choose

1. Continue the legal process

or

2. Authorize the leadership to reform the union and accept the proposal.

They don't have to release the actual numbers. If it's 1 the players are in a much stronger position - though still misguided. If it's 2 we'll have ball by Christmas.

[Ponchos]

Yep, it appears that the NBA is claiming it is available to tax teams every year despite what other sources say. I will accept what they are saying as the truth. But it doesn't matter. A cap on the amount a team can spend is a cap on demand. I know you'll object to that fact, because you're Professor TiKusDom (supply down = demand up).

Anyhow I'm off to bed. Nite Troll!

Hahahaa "commodity goes down so demand goes up" hahahaha.

[TiKusDom]

Yep, it appears that the NBA is claiming it is available to tax teams every year despite what other sources say. I will accept what they are saying as the truth. But it doesn't matter. A cap on the amount a team can spend is a cap on demand. I know you'll object to that fact, because you're Professor TiKusDom (supply down = demand up).

Anyhow I'm off to bed. Nite Troll!

Hahahaa "commodity goes down so demand goes up" hahahaha.

lay off the drugs son, its blurring your mind. Kind of sad when the only thing you have to go on is typos

[Ponchos]

Yep, it appears that the NBA is claiming it is available to tax teams every year despite what other sources say. I will accept what they are saying as the truth. But it doesn't matter. A cap on the amount a team can spend is a cap on demand. I know you'll object to that fact, because you're Professor TiKusDom (supply down = demand up).

Anyhow I'm off to bed. Nite Troll!

Hahahaa "commodity goes down so demand goes up" hahahaha.

lay off the drugs sun, its blurring your mind

I think you meant sOn.

Gnite!

[TiKusDom]

I think you meant sOn.

Gnite!

yep thats what i wrote! dont cling on to that typo too much

[TiKusDom]

There are no teams that are able to keep their players for an extra year or two. Contracts in the proposed CBA are shorter. I was referring to the MLE. If you limit the number of teams that can bid on a player, you put an artificial limit on demand. Do you disagree?

How exactly are players retained in a way that they are not available on the market? There is no franchise tag, or similar mechanism. You're speaking nonsense here.

I was talking about restrictions on demand, and you responded with non-existent changes to supply.

WRONG again.

Maximum of 4 new years for rookie extensions (except maximum of 5 new years for a maximum-salary Designated Player rookie extension – team can have only 1 Designated Player on its roster at any time).

If you limit the number of teams that can bid on a player, you put an artificial limit on demand

Limiting tax paying powerhouse teams to offering 3 million instead of 5 million to MLE range players will not lower the demand and offers players get on the table. The NBA is not limiting through its actions how many teams that can use their exception to bid on a player. That is a laughable statement. Majority of the tax paying teams will be big markets who will have no trouble bidding and attracting MLE level players even if they offer a few million less per year.

Like I said read the proposals, your assumptions make no sense and are baseless. There are no restrictions on teams' demand for players and their earning potential will not be hurt. Every team will have an MLE at its disposal to offer whatever player they want every year. Players will have the option of taking 5 million with a middling team or taking less with a big market and making the money back through other incentives like playoffs and advertisements . That is not an artificial cap on demand.

Restrictions to movement must be restrictions on demand for players. If you tell the LA Lakers they can't sign players to the full MLE then there are fewer teams bidding for the services of players. Fewer bidders = lower earning potential.

Again BS. There is nothing stopping the Lakers from offering their MLE, and in which case they will likely succeed in their bid against other teams because it's the Lakers. Having a smaller MLE to offer will not stop the Lakers , Knicks, Celtics , Miami or any other tax team from making an offer. This will not reduce the number of teams bidding for services of players. Your logic is severely lacking.

[Ponchos]

Got up to get a glass of water, and look who's been busy!

WRONG again.

Maximum of 4 new years for rookie extensions (except maximum of 5 new years for a maximum-salary Designated Player rookie extension – team can have only 1 Designated Player on its roster at any time).

Do you understand how a franchise tag is different than having the ability to offer a rookie 1 more year on a deal? Educate yourself on franchise tags then come back.

A price ceiling set below the free-market price has several effects. Suppliers find they can't charge what they had been. As a result, some suppliers drop out of the market. This reduces supply. Meanwhile, consumers find they can now buy the product for less, so quantity demanded increases. These two actions cause quantity demanded to exceed quantity supplied, which causes a shortage—unless rationing or other consumption controls are enforced. It can also lead to various forms of non-price competition so supply can meet demand.

Go read a book.

I know you won't understand what I'm about to say, but for the other readers out there, here goes.

The economics example you just posted does not apply. In the example they're explaining the affects of a price ceiling on a singular commodity with one set price. In the current situation, we're dealing with a price ceiling only on certain teams, some can offer less, some more. If you don't understand why that is significant I really can't help you.

As to the other garbage you posted, we've been over it already.

*Edit* Jesus Christ, can you settle on your insults and gotcha examples before posting them? I had to reply to that non-applicable economics example (in which you told me to go read a book) before you realized it was (Please Use More Appropriate Word) of you to post that so you took it out.

[TiKusDom]

I know you won't understand what I'm about to say, but for the other readers out there, here goes.

The economics example you just posted does not apply. In the example they're explaining the affects of a price ceiling on a singular commodity with one set price. In the current situation, we're dealing with a price ceiling only on certain teams, some can offer less, some more. If you don't understand why that is significant I really can't help you.

As to the other garbage you posted, we've been over it already.

Nope you haven't addressed any of the issues. You didnt even know that teams can use tags on certain players to offer them longer contracts. Nor did you address how the number of offers teams give players will be reduced. Your argument is baseless and flawed.

[TiKusDom]

How exactly are players retained in a way that they are not available on the market? There is no franchise tag, or similar mechanism. You're speaking nonsense here.

Maximum of 4 new years for rookie extensions (except maximum of 5 new years for a maximum-salary Designated Player rookie extension – team can have only 1 Designated Player on its roster at any time).

[Ponchos]

I know you won't understand what I'm about to say, but for the other readers out there, here goes.

The economics example you just posted does not apply. In the example they're explaining the affects of a price ceiling on a singular commodity with one set price. In the current situation, we're dealing with a price ceiling only on certain teams, some can offer less, some more. If you don't understand why that is significant I really can't help you.

As to the other garbage you posted, we've been over it already.

Nope you haven't addressed any of the issues. You didnt even know that teams can use tags on certain players to offer them longer contracts. Nor did you address how the number of offers teams give players will be reduced. Your argument is baseless and flawed.

Teams can offer their own players a longer contract than other teams. Whoopie doo. That's not much different than the status quo, and it has NOTHING IN COMMON WITH A FRANCHISE TAG.