The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[User 15002]

The only drawback I see with performance based pay is players being more selfish on the court. Maybe it should be tied to the success of the team...lol. That would be interesting. Maybe we would get some more competitive games.

 

[User 15002]

The only drawback I see with performance based pay is players being more selfish on the court. Maybe it should be tied to the success of the team...lol. That would be interesting. Maybe we would get some more competitive games.

 

[grittyman20]

Doen't have to be all tied in to scoring though, I'm thinking all aspect of the game...rebounds, assists, blocks, whatever hell even the positive/negative ratio if you want

 

[grittyman20]

Doen't have to be all tied in to scoring though, I'm thinking all aspect of the game...rebounds, assists, blocks, whatever hell even the positive/negative ratio if you want

 

[hankmoody]

http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/post/_/id/30819/11-thoughts-about-the-end-of-the-cba
Sorry if it has been. 

I was also just alerted to this BDL post: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...eally-losing-money-maybe-so-ma?urn=nba-wp6022

 

[hankmoody]

http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/post/_/id/30819/11-thoughts-about-the-end-of-the-cba
Sorry if it has been. 

I was also just alerted to this BDL post: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...eally-losing-money-maybe-so-ma?urn=nba-wp6022

 

[User 15002]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

Doen't have to be all tied in to scoring though, I'm thinking all aspect of the game...rebounds, assists, blocks, whatever hell even the positive/negative ratio if you want

Anything tied to scoring would hurt the league for sure.  I would like to see players rewarded for wins.  Things might get interesting.

 

[User 15002]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

Doen't have to be all tied in to scoring though, I'm thinking all aspect of the game...rebounds, assists, blocks, whatever hell even the positive/negative ratio if you want

Anything tied to scoring would hurt the league for sure.  I would like to see players rewarded for wins.  Things might get interesting.

 

[grittyman20]

soychulo wrote:
Anything tied to scoring would hurt the league for sure.  I would like to see players rewarded for wins.  Things might get interesting.
I think the problem with rewarding players for wins is that non-valuable players (like Luke Walton) would still receive their incentive pay. Including something like "minutes played" and "games played" would definitely be a plus, because then guys might possibly be more inclined to do things in the best interest of the team. I remember Marcus Camby having something like that years ago where he had a base salary and clauses where he received bonuses for playing in a certain number games...maybe he had something in there about number of block shots per game, but that was his role on the team. 

 

[grittyman20]

soychulo wrote:
Anything tied to scoring would hurt the league for sure.  I would like to see players rewarded for wins.  Things might get interesting.
I think the problem with rewarding players for wins is that non-valuable players (like Luke Walton) would still receive their incentive pay. Including something like "minutes played" and "games played" would definitely be a plus, because then guys might possibly be more inclined to do things in the best interest of the team. I remember Marcus Camby having something like that years ago where he had a base salary and clauses where he received bonuses for playing in a certain number games...maybe he had something in there about number of block shots per game, but that was his role on the team. 

 

[statis22]

I not going to even pretend to be an accounting or finance major but I can't help but think return on investment for a lot of these teams are real low.

I have no issues with certain owners who want to turn profits on their business.

 

[statis22]

I not going to even pretend to be an accounting or finance major but I can't help but think return on investment for a lot of these teams are real low.

I have no issues with certain owners who want to turn profits on their business.

 

[User 15002]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

soychulo wrote:
Anything tied to scoring would hurt the league for sure.  I would like to see players rewarded for wins.  Things might get interesting.

I think the problem with rewarding players for wins is that non-valuable players (like Luke Walton) would still receive their incentive pay. Including something like "minutes played" and "games played" would definitely be a plus, because then guys might possibly be more inclined to do things in the best interest of the team. I remember Marcus Camby having something like that years ago where he had a base salary and clauses where he received bonuses for playing in a certain number games...maybe he had something in there about number of block shots per game, but that was his role on the team. 
Or there could be team-based incentives like the for every five losses the fans get to vote on what player's car get demolished before the next home game.  That would get ratings up and really stimulate some interest.
On a more serious note incentive based contracts that take into account both player and team success would be good IMO.  That way teams don't have to pay up if players decide to start coasting as we've seen.  Maybe cuts down on some of these suspect injuries.  Assists, rebounds, blocks and steals all count toward productivity.  Find a way to reward for team wins.  What has really been missing is penalties for slacking.  

 

[User 15002]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

soychulo wrote:
Anything tied to scoring would hurt the league for sure.  I would like to see players rewarded for wins.  Things might get interesting.

I think the problem with rewarding players for wins is that non-valuable players (like Luke Walton) would still receive their incentive pay. Including something like "minutes played" and "games played" would definitely be a plus, because then guys might possibly be more inclined to do things in the best interest of the team. I remember Marcus Camby having something like that years ago where he had a base salary and clauses where he received bonuses for playing in a certain number games...maybe he had something in there about number of block shots per game, but that was his role on the team. 
Or there could be team-based incentives like the for every five losses the fans get to vote on what player's car get demolished before the next home game.  That would get ratings up and really stimulate some interest.
On a more serious note incentive based contracts that take into account both player and team success would be good IMO.  That way teams don't have to pay up if players decide to start coasting as we've seen.  Maybe cuts down on some of these suspect injuries.  Assists, rebounds, blocks and steals all count toward productivity.  Find a way to reward for team wins.  What has really been missing is penalties for slacking.  

 

[pmatic]

@KBerg_CBS Part II of the Berger Plan, my new cap system that will fix the #NBA: http://bit.ly/mRLw7s along with the fine print http://bit.ly/qKGd9J

There are a lot of moving parts and details to go along with what I'm proposing in Part II of the Berger Plan to fix the NBA. I'm sure I'm missing something, but here are the basics:

[size=+1]•[/size] Luxury tax: Buh-bye. The luxury tax will be no more under my plan. The $70 million to $75 million in luxury tax payments due for the 2010-11 season (approximately $20 million of which was earmarked for the revenue-sharing pool) will be converted to 100 percent revenue-sharing dollars in future years. The league's plan to increase total revenue sharing to $180 million to $200 million would be just a start. The poorest teams will get an immediate influx of cash in the first two years through the small-market reinvestment plan, and that will be supplemented with aggressive revenue sharing that includes local money like broadcast deals and gate receipts.

[size=+1]•[/size] Contract length: To keep big-money teams from abusing the signing-bonus provision, the length of signing bonus prorations should be limited to five years. I also propose limiting the number of years of guaranteed base salary to three -- with the exception of two franchise players per team, who could get five years guaranteed if they stayed home as free agents. This will allow players to be guaranteed they'll be paid what the market bears when their playing ability is most predictable while avoiding the problem of saddling teams with massive contracts for players who are no longer worth it (Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis).

[size=+1]•[/size] Incentive-based guarantees: This could replace or supplement the three- and five-year guarantee proposal, and it's the brainchild of Kauffman Sports' Matt Tolnick, who has written extensively on CBA issues for HoopsHype.com. His proposal is to allow five- or six-year guarantees, with Year 4 converting to a team option if the player fails to reach certain performance benchmarks (such as playing time) in the first three years. So if Arenas signed a five-year, $80 million deal and was no longer contributing as a starting-caliber player, his team could A) decline the team option for the fourth year, making him a free agent and allowing him to sign with a team for a price more appropriate to his diminished production and role; or B) restructure his contract to reflect his new market price. This is a far better allocation of resources that would prevent teams from being crippled by monstrous contracts for diminished players, with the added benefit of freeing up that money for one or more other players who deserve it or better fit the team's strategy. This is what executives I've spoken with say they want: roster and payroll flexibility, and the ability to turn over the roster without getting locked into toxic contracts. This is what fans want, too; they want their teams to have a chance to remain competitive or become competitive, regardless of market size.

[size=+1]•[/size] Franchise players: Each team would be able to designate a tier 1 and tier 2 franchise player, but the restrictions would not be as rigid as those imposed on NFL franchise and transition players. The point would be to sweeten the incentive for free agents to re-sign with their teams. As LeBron James and Chris Bosh proved last summer, the marginal financial benefit to saying home (an extra year with 10.5 percent raises as opposed to 8 percent) is no longer enough to keep free agents with the teams that drafted them. Under this proposal, franchise free agents would be able to get a five-year, fully guaranteed contract from their current team vs. a five-year contract with only three years guaranteed from other suitors. Tier 1 vs. tier 2 would have to do with the compensation a team would get if it loses a franchise free agent. In this article at HoopsHype, Tolnick proposes a variety of compensation solutions, including A) one player selected by the team losing the free agent from his new team's roster, with each team able to protect certain players from such poaching; B) one top-15 pick or two top-30 picks; or C) two top-15 picks and a second-round pick. The problem, obviously, would be how to handle situations where a team doesn't have the prescribed draft picks to give, but such details are ironed out all the time in trades. The point is to strengthen the incentive for franchise free agents to stay put and enhance the compensation for the team losing him beyond low-level draft picks and trade exceptions that often expire without being used.

[size=+1]•[/size] Bird rights: Bird rights were created to prevent teams from losing superstar players such as, um, Larry Bird. The concept has become thoroughly corrupted, with Bird rights being assigned to every Tom, **** and Harry in the NBA. No more Bird rights under my proposal, other than for the tier 1 and tier 2 franchise players declared by each team.

[size=+1]•[/size] Midlevel and bi-annual exceptions: No more. If teams sign players to cap-friendly contracts that reflect production over time and manage their cap wisely, they can sign any player they want -- provided they have the cap room. If in the first few years of this new CBA, low-payroll teams get the lion's share of midlevel free agents simply because they have cap space, this would merely supplement the two-year small-market reinvestment plan and enhanced revenue sharing to further bolster the struggling teams. Isn't that what owners say they want?

[size=+1]•[/size] Toxic contract amnesty: Every other year on Sept. 1, each team would be able to waive a player entering the final year of his contract who has failed to meet certain performance benchmarks and will account for at least 25 percent of the cap. If the remaining money owed is contractually guaranteed, the player will be paid (subject to a negotiated buyout), but the money will not count on the team's cap. If the player signs with another team, his original team will get an offset for the amount of his new deal.

[size=+1]•[/size] Minimum payroll: If you have a ceiling, you have to have a floor. Under the expired CBA, the NBA's minimum payroll was 75 percent of the cap. I propose 85 percent. With revenue-sharing help from the big-spenders, the low-paying teams have to do their part to pay what it takes to be competitive. In the NFL talks, owners have proposed a 90 percent payroll floor.

[size=+1]•[/size] Hybrid roster spots: This would be a cost-saving measure for owners and a boost for deserving players who aren't getting a chance to develop. Each team would be able to allot three roster spots as hybrid NBA/D-League spots. If the player is on the NBA roster, he would be paid his NBA salary. If there are no minutes for him with the NBA team, he can be sent to the team's D-League affiliate and be paid a new D-League salary that is more than the current pay for that league but far less than the NBA minimum. The player would get the experience necessary to develop into an NBA rotation player, and the team wouldn't be forced to pay the NBA minimum. Last season, that figure ranged from $473,604 for rookies to $1.4 million for players with 10-plus years of service. Some provisions would have to be made for first-round picks, whose pay was dictated by the rookie scale under the previous CBA ($850,800 for the 30th pick last season). Also, D-League assignments would need to be limited so teams can't send players to the D-League simply to get under the cap.

 

[pmatic]

@KBerg_CBS Part II of the Berger Plan, my new cap system that will fix the #NBA: http://bit.ly/mRLw7s along with the fine print http://bit.ly/qKGd9J

There are a lot of moving parts and details to go along with what I'm proposing in Part II of the Berger Plan to fix the NBA. I'm sure I'm missing something, but here are the basics:

[size=+1]•[/size] Luxury tax: Buh-bye. The luxury tax will be no more under my plan. The $70 million to $75 million in luxury tax payments due for the 2010-11 season (approximately $20 million of which was earmarked for the revenue-sharing pool) will be converted to 100 percent revenue-sharing dollars in future years. The league's plan to increase total revenue sharing to $180 million to $200 million would be just a start. The poorest teams will get an immediate influx of cash in the first two years through the small-market reinvestment plan, and that will be supplemented with aggressive revenue sharing that includes local money like broadcast deals and gate receipts.

[size=+1]•[/size] Contract length: To keep big-money teams from abusing the signing-bonus provision, the length of signing bonus prorations should be limited to five years. I also propose limiting the number of years of guaranteed base salary to three -- with the exception of two franchise players per team, who could get five years guaranteed if they stayed home as free agents. This will allow players to be guaranteed they'll be paid what the market bears when their playing ability is most predictable while avoiding the problem of saddling teams with massive contracts for players who are no longer worth it (Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis).

[size=+1]•[/size] Incentive-based guarantees: This could replace or supplement the three- and five-year guarantee proposal, and it's the brainchild of Kauffman Sports' Matt Tolnick, who has written extensively on CBA issues for HoopsHype.com. His proposal is to allow five- or six-year guarantees, with Year 4 converting to a team option if the player fails to reach certain performance benchmarks (such as playing time) in the first three years. So if Arenas signed a five-year, $80 million deal and was no longer contributing as a starting-caliber player, his team could A) decline the team option for the fourth year, making him a free agent and allowing him to sign with a team for a price more appropriate to his diminished production and role; or B) restructure his contract to reflect his new market price. This is a far better allocation of resources that would prevent teams from being crippled by monstrous contracts for diminished players, with the added benefit of freeing up that money for one or more other players who deserve it or better fit the team's strategy. This is what executives I've spoken with say they want: roster and payroll flexibility, and the ability to turn over the roster without getting locked into toxic contracts. This is what fans want, too; they want their teams to have a chance to remain competitive or become competitive, regardless of market size.

[size=+1]•[/size] Franchise players: Each team would be able to designate a tier 1 and tier 2 franchise player, but the restrictions would not be as rigid as those imposed on NFL franchise and transition players. The point would be to sweeten the incentive for free agents to re-sign with their teams. As LeBron James and Chris Bosh proved last summer, the marginal financial benefit to saying home (an extra year with 10.5 percent raises as opposed to 8 percent) is no longer enough to keep free agents with the teams that drafted them. Under this proposal, franchise free agents would be able to get a five-year, fully guaranteed contract from their current team vs. a five-year contract with only three years guaranteed from other suitors. Tier 1 vs. tier 2 would have to do with the compensation a team would get if it loses a franchise free agent. In this article at HoopsHype, Tolnick proposes a variety of compensation solutions, including A) one player selected by the team losing the free agent from his new team's roster, with each team able to protect certain players from such poaching; B) one top-15 pick or two top-30 picks; or C) two top-15 picks and a second-round pick. The problem, obviously, would be how to handle situations where a team doesn't have the prescribed draft picks to give, but such details are ironed out all the time in trades. The point is to strengthen the incentive for franchise free agents to stay put and enhance the compensation for the team losing him beyond low-level draft picks and trade exceptions that often expire without being used.

[size=+1]•[/size] Bird rights: Bird rights were created to prevent teams from losing superstar players such as, um, Larry Bird. The concept has become thoroughly corrupted, with Bird rights being assigned to every Tom, **** and Harry in the NBA. No more Bird rights under my proposal, other than for the tier 1 and tier 2 franchise players declared by each team.

[size=+1]•[/size] Midlevel and bi-annual exceptions: No more. If teams sign players to cap-friendly contracts that reflect production over time and manage their cap wisely, they can sign any player they want -- provided they have the cap room. If in the first few years of this new CBA, low-payroll teams get the lion's share of midlevel free agents simply because they have cap space, this would merely supplement the two-year small-market reinvestment plan and enhanced revenue sharing to further bolster the struggling teams. Isn't that what owners say they want?

[size=+1]•[/size] Toxic contract amnesty: Every other year on Sept. 1, each team would be able to waive a player entering the final year of his contract who has failed to meet certain performance benchmarks and will account for at least 25 percent of the cap. If the remaining money owed is contractually guaranteed, the player will be paid (subject to a negotiated buyout), but the money will not count on the team's cap. If the player signs with another team, his original team will get an offset for the amount of his new deal.

[size=+1]•[/size] Minimum payroll: If you have a ceiling, you have to have a floor. Under the expired CBA, the NBA's minimum payroll was 75 percent of the cap. I propose 85 percent. With revenue-sharing help from the big-spenders, the low-paying teams have to do their part to pay what it takes to be competitive. In the NFL talks, owners have proposed a 90 percent payroll floor.

[size=+1]•[/size] Hybrid roster spots: This would be a cost-saving measure for owners and a boost for deserving players who aren't getting a chance to develop. Each team would be able to allot three roster spots as hybrid NBA/D-League spots. If the player is on the NBA roster, he would be paid his NBA salary. If there are no minutes for him with the NBA team, he can be sent to the team's D-League affiliate and be paid a new D-League salary that is more than the current pay for that league but far less than the NBA minimum. The player would get the experience necessary to develop into an NBA rotation player, and the team wouldn't be forced to pay the NBA minimum. Last season, that figure ranged from $473,604 for rookies to $1.4 million for players with 10-plus years of service. Some provisions would have to be made for first-round picks, whose pay was dictated by the rookie scale under the previous CBA ($850,800 for the 30th pick last season). Also, D-League assignments would need to be limited so teams can't send players to the D-League simply to get under the cap.

 

[koolbarbone]

There's nothing idiot about Sterling when it comes to business. His team might not be the most profitable, but they consistently turn profits regardless of their record. That's a statement that many owners simply cannot say.

 

[koolbarbone]

There's nothing idiot about Sterling when it comes to business. His team might not be the most profitable, but they consistently turn profits regardless of their record. That's a statement that many owners simply cannot say.

 

[pmatic]

Understanding and fixing this whole CBA mess

It’s a depressing time to be an NBA fan. Right about now, we should be ready to start watching the recently drafted rookies playing ball, albeit sloppy ball, in the Vegas summer league.

The moratorium on free agent activity should be coming to a close with the actual trading and free agent signings starting up this week.

Internet chatter and debate should be at a yearly high and thankfully, it would’ve been a “Decision

 

[pmatic]

Understanding and fixing this whole CBA mess

It’s a depressing time to be an NBA fan. Right about now, we should be ready to start watching the recently drafted rookies playing ball, albeit sloppy ball, in the Vegas summer league.

The moratorium on free agent activity should be coming to a close with the actual trading and free agent signings starting up this week.

Internet chatter and debate should be at a yearly high and thankfully, it would’ve been a “Decision

 

[pmatic]

League, union to hold first post-lockout meeting

In-house staff of the NBA and National Basketball Players Association will hold their first meeting Friday since the league imposed a lockout July 1, a person with knowledge of the plans told CBSSports.com.

The session will not include commissioner David Stern, NBPA executive director Billy Hunter, owners or players. The purpose of the session is to "get back on track" and address the timetable of future bargaining sessions, the person said.

Until now, there had been no contact or formal negotiation of any kind since the previous collective bargaining agreement expired July 1 and the league locked out the players.

While the meeting scheduled for Friday afternoon in Manhattan is not overly significant, it could lay the groundwork for the two sides to resume bargaining in an effort to avoid losing regular season games to a work stoppage for the second time in NBA history and the first time since the 1998-99 lockout, which resulted in a shortened, 50-game schedule.

Word of the planning session came as the league laid off 114 employees from its New York, New Jersey and international offices this week in what it described as an ongoing cost-cutting effort aimed at shedding $50 million in expenses. The layoffs represented 11 percent of the league workforce and were felt across multiple divisions. The NBA also closed its offices in Tokyo and Paris.

The job reductions were "not a direct result of the lockout but rather a response to the same underlying issue — that is, the league’s expenses far outpace our revenues,

 

[pmatic]

League, union to hold first post-lockout meeting

In-house staff of the NBA and National Basketball Players Association will hold their first meeting Friday since the league imposed a lockout July 1, a person with knowledge of the plans told CBSSports.com.

The session will not include commissioner David Stern, NBPA executive director Billy Hunter, owners or players. The purpose of the session is to "get back on track" and address the timetable of future bargaining sessions, the person said.

Until now, there had been no contact or formal negotiation of any kind since the previous collective bargaining agreement expired July 1 and the league locked out the players.

While the meeting scheduled for Friday afternoon in Manhattan is not overly significant, it could lay the groundwork for the two sides to resume bargaining in an effort to avoid losing regular season games to a work stoppage for the second time in NBA history and the first time since the 1998-99 lockout, which resulted in a shortened, 50-game schedule.

Word of the planning session came as the league laid off 114 employees from its New York, New Jersey and international offices this week in what it described as an ongoing cost-cutting effort aimed at shedding $50 million in expenses. The layoffs represented 11 percent of the league workforce and were felt across multiple divisions. The NBA also closed its offices in Tokyo and Paris.

The job reductions were "not a direct result of the lockout but rather a response to the same underlying issue — that is, the league’s expenses far outpace our revenues,

 

[statis22]

The players got them escrow checks, if it matters to anyone.

 

[statis22]

The players got them escrow checks, if it matters to anyone.

 

[pmatic]

Full labor session not likely before August

While the basketball world was obsessed Tuesday with the release of an NBA schedule that may never happen, CBSSports.com has learned that the owners and players may not convene for another full-blown collective bargaining session until August.

It is up for interpretation, however, whether that would put the two sides behind the negotiating pace set during the 1998-99 lockout. Back then, it was 37 days between the imposition of the lockout on July 1 and the next bargaining session on Aug. 6.

But this time, the two sides have met once at the staff level -- last Friday -- and are scheduled to gather again this Friday for a second meeting. In the smaller sessions, which have not included commissioner David Stern or union chief Billy Hunter, the focus has shifted from the larger economic issues that led to the labor impasse to smaller-ticket system items such as how a new salary cap would be structured, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

The highest-ranking figures involved in the smaller staff meetings have been deputy commissioner Adam Silver and Ron Klempner, associate general counsel for the National Basketball Players Association. NBPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler has not been involved, perhaps due to his obligations with hammering out the final details of a new NFL collective bargaining agreement. Kessler represents the players' associations in both locked-out sports.

It is possible that the two staffs could negotiate again next week, but sources said it does not appear likely that a full session -- including Stern, Hunter, Kessler, owners and players -- could occur until sometime in August. Though this technically would put the two sides behind the pace from 1998-99, when the lockout resulted in a shortened 50-game schedule, it is possible that the smaller meetings could create some much-needed momentum before the heavy hitters become involved in the process again.

When bargaining broke off June 30, hours before the owners officially imposed a lockout, both sides alluded to first making progress on less controversial topics when bargaining resumed, and then returning to the biggest philosophical divide -- the split of revenues.

"Both sides left the room still fully committed to getting a collective bargaining agreement done," NBPA president Derek Fisher said.
Link