The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[lawdog1]

^^^ I thought that the players said they would be ok with the 50-50 on the BRI and just want some concessions on the system? If that's right, there still might be a glimmer of hope. If they want the owners to move on both the BRI and system, I think its a wrap for the 2011-2012 season.

 

[ill steelo]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Originally Posted by ill steelo

Originally Posted by Burns1923

But the system issues are actually what the owners are most insistent on at this point. I don't see them moving that.

They might move a tad on BRI but nothing else. Players want BRI AND system changes.

Owners have been insistent on everything. They haven't budged on giving the players the majority of the BRI split from the beginning of the negotiations.

Players would probably be fine with that as long as tax paying teams can use the MLE & sign and trades, which is why they rejected the offer.

How exactly do the players want BRI when they've gone down from 53% to 51 and are even willing to drop below that?

link

We'll see what the owners do in the coming days.

Players rejected current 50/50 deal. Why would they take 50 or less at this point?
They'll only take 50 if they get the system concessions they want. Owners aren't doing 50 AND concessions.

Are you even reading my posts? I JUST said that.

And how do you know that owners aren't doing 50 and concessions? Before they weren't doing a softcap. Then they weren't doing a MLE. So we'll see.

The players are giving up 270 mil. Surely they can get full (or close to full) MLE & sign and trades & sign and extends for tax paying squads.

 

[ill steelo]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

Originally Posted by ill steelo

Originally Posted by Burns1923

But the system issues are actually what the owners are most insistent on at this point. I don't see them moving that.

They might move a tad on BRI but nothing else. Players want BRI AND system changes.

Owners have been insistent on everything. They haven't budged on giving the players the majority of the BRI split from the beginning of the negotiations.

Players would probably be fine with that as long as tax paying teams can use the MLE & sign and trades, which is why they rejected the offer.

How exactly do the players want BRI when they've gone down from 53% to 51 and are even willing to drop below that?

link

We'll see what the owners do in the coming days.

Players rejected current 50/50 deal. Why would they take 50 or less at this point?
They'll only take 50 if they get the system concessions they want. Owners aren't doing 50 AND concessions.

Are you even reading my posts? I JUST said that.

And how do you know that owners aren't doing 50 and concessions? Before they weren't doing a softcap. Then they weren't doing a MLE. So we'll see.

The players are giving up 270 mil. Surely they can get full (or close to full) MLE & sign and trades & sign and extends for tax paying squads.

 

[burns1923]

You didn't say that. You said "How exactly do the players want BRI when they've gone down from 53% to 51 and are even willing to drop below that?"

From what I've been reading, "53% to 51" hasn't been formally on the table. Flex between 49 and somewhere between 50-51. Kessler's the one who said 51% would be wildest dreams scenario. Remember when players were worshipping 52?

When I said players want BRI, they (still) want higher than 50, which isn't happening because they have admitted to themselves what we all know: the owners have had the leverage from the start. players were never getting 51 or more. They should never have come out with 53 and 52.

How do I know owners aren't doing 50 and concessions? Without being in the negotiations, you go by the facts. Current deal - 50 and system owners want - is what's on the table. It's been WELL established that owners not only want to squeeze players on BRI but most importantly they want the meaningful system changes they've proposed. If they back off that now, what's been the point of all this.

I know you want a season but hoping all these give-and-takes magically fall into place is asking too much at this stage.

 

[burns1923]

You didn't say that. You said "How exactly do the players want BRI when they've gone down from 53% to 51 and are even willing to drop below that?"

From what I've been reading, "53% to 51" hasn't been formally on the table. Flex between 49 and somewhere between 50-51. Kessler's the one who said 51% would be wildest dreams scenario. Remember when players were worshipping 52?

When I said players want BRI, they (still) want higher than 50, which isn't happening because they have admitted to themselves what we all know: the owners have had the leverage from the start. players were never getting 51 or more. They should never have come out with 53 and 52.

How do I know owners aren't doing 50 and concessions? Without being in the negotiations, you go by the facts. Current deal - 50 and system owners want - is what's on the table. It's been WELL established that owners not only want to squeeze players on BRI but most importantly they want the meaningful system changes they've proposed. If they back off that now, what's been the point of all this.

I know you want a season but hoping all these give-and-takes magically fall into place is asking too much at this stage.

 

[ill steelo]

Read a few posts up. I said, "players would be fine with that (50/50 split) as long as tax paying teams could use the MLE and sign and trade" all of that is system stuff. And read the article from the link that I posted. Players at 51 and are willing to drop based on system tweaks.

And yes, the owners wanted to win the BRI battle and the players will concede that as long as tax paying teams can use the mid level and sign and trade. Seeing as how those tweaks aren't going to cause the league to lose any more money (cause tax paying teams are usually the profitable ones with the exception of DAL) I don't see why the owners won't budge off of them. Especially now that they'll have the even BRI split

 

[ill steelo]

Read a few posts up. I said, "players would be fine with that (50/50 split) as long as tax paying teams could use the MLE and sign and trade" all of that is system stuff. And read the article from the link that I posted. Players at 51 and are willing to drop based on system tweaks.

And yes, the owners wanted to win the BRI battle and the players will concede that as long as tax paying teams can use the mid level and sign and trade. Seeing as how those tweaks aren't going to cause the league to lose any more money (cause tax paying teams are usually the profitable ones with the exception of DAL) I don't see why the owners won't budge off of them. Especially now that they'll have the even BRI split

 

[you big dummy]

Bill Clinton has the solution

 

[you big dummy]

Bill Clinton has the solution

 

[pmatic]

@KBergCBS To correct the record, there were only THREE sign-and-trades involving tax teams during previous six-year CBA, according to league source.

@KBergCBS Eddy Curry to Knicks, Kwame Brown and Laron Profit to Lakers, and Shawn Marion to Dallas. That's it.

@KBergCBS There've been a grand total of TWO extend-and-trade deals that anyone can remember: Garnett to Celtics and Melo to Knicks. That's it.

@KBergCBS So after the players essentially accepted the league's 50-50 offer today, these are some of the issues holding up a deal. Non-issues.

@KBergCBS The luxury-tax-related items are important to the league, which believes it needs them to even the playing field. Those will be tough.

@KBergCBS But despite obvious that owners WILL follow through on threat to pull offer off table tomorrow, what's the fight about at this point?

@KBergCBS A 50-50 deal shifts $3.3B from players to owners over 10 years compared to previous 57 percent system.

@KBergCBS That's $330M a year, MORE than the owners said they were losing! Think about that.

@KBergCBS Lots of people want to say players should've taken this deal and run. If you're owners and getting $330M/year, shouldn't you do same?

@ChrisMannixSI Thunder forward Kevin Durant told SI he was in favor of rejecting the NBA's current proposal

@johnhollinger IMHO If players do 50-50, lockout's over. Owners can concede whatever on "system", it was always just a horse to trade. BRI is what matter$

 

[pmatic]

@KBergCBS To correct the record, there were only THREE sign-and-trades involving tax teams during previous six-year CBA, according to league source.

@KBergCBS Eddy Curry to Knicks, Kwame Brown and Laron Profit to Lakers, and Shawn Marion to Dallas. That's it.

@KBergCBS There've been a grand total of TWO extend-and-trade deals that anyone can remember: Garnett to Celtics and Melo to Knicks. That's it.

@KBergCBS So after the players essentially accepted the league's 50-50 offer today, these are some of the issues holding up a deal. Non-issues.

@KBergCBS The luxury-tax-related items are important to the league, which believes it needs them to even the playing field. Those will be tough.

@KBergCBS But despite obvious that owners WILL follow through on threat to pull offer off table tomorrow, what's the fight about at this point?

@KBergCBS A 50-50 deal shifts $3.3B from players to owners over 10 years compared to previous 57 percent system.

@KBergCBS That's $330M a year, MORE than the owners said they were losing! Think about that.

@KBergCBS Lots of people want to say players should've taken this deal and run. If you're owners and getting $330M/year, shouldn't you do same?

@ChrisMannixSI Thunder forward Kevin Durant told SI he was in favor of rejecting the NBA's current proposal

@johnhollinger IMHO If players do 50-50, lockout's over. Owners can concede whatever on "system", it was always just a horse to trade. BRI is what matter$

 

[thatpersianguy]

Originally Posted by PMatic

@KBergCBS To correct the record, there were only THREE sign-and-trades involving tax teams during previous six-year CBA, according to league source.

@KBergCBS Eddy Curry to Knicks, Kwame Brown and Laron Profit to Lakers, and Shawn Marion to Dallas. That's it.

@KBergCBS There've been a grand total of TWO extend-and-trade deals that anyone can remember: Garnett to Celtics and Melo to Knicks. That's it.

@KBergCBS So after the players essentially accepted the league's 50-50 offer today, these are some of the issues holding up a deal. Non-issues.

@KBergCBS The luxury-tax-related items are important to the league, which believes it needs them to even the playing field. Those will be tough.

@KBergCBS But despite obvious that owners WILL follow through on threat to pull offer off table tomorrow, what's the fight about at this point?

@KBergCBS A 50-50 deal shifts $3.3B from players to owners over 10 years compared to previous 57 percent system.

@KBergCBS That's $330M a year, MORE than the owners said they were losing! Think about that.

@KBergCBS Lots of people want to say players should've taken this deal and run. If you're owners and getting $330M/year, shouldn't you do same?

@ChrisMannixSI Thunder forward Kevin Durant told SI he was in favor of rejecting the NBA's current proposal

@johnhollinger IMHO If players do 50-50, lockout's over. Owners can concede whatever on "system", it was always just a horse to trade. BRI is what matter$



Both owners and players need to swallow their pride. They owe it to the fans to get this deal done. Tired of all the shenanigans.

 

[thatpersianguy]

Originally Posted by PMatic

@KBergCBS To correct the record, there were only THREE sign-and-trades involving tax teams during previous six-year CBA, according to league source.

@KBergCBS Eddy Curry to Knicks, Kwame Brown and Laron Profit to Lakers, and Shawn Marion to Dallas. That's it.

@KBergCBS There've been a grand total of TWO extend-and-trade deals that anyone can remember: Garnett to Celtics and Melo to Knicks. That's it.

@KBergCBS So after the players essentially accepted the league's 50-50 offer today, these are some of the issues holding up a deal. Non-issues.

@KBergCBS The luxury-tax-related items are important to the league, which believes it needs them to even the playing field. Those will be tough.

@KBergCBS But despite obvious that owners WILL follow through on threat to pull offer off table tomorrow, what's the fight about at this point?

@KBergCBS A 50-50 deal shifts $3.3B from players to owners over 10 years compared to previous 57 percent system.

@KBergCBS That's $330M a year, MORE than the owners said they were losing! Think about that.

@KBergCBS Lots of people want to say players should've taken this deal and run. If you're owners and getting $330M/year, shouldn't you do same?

@ChrisMannixSI Thunder forward Kevin Durant told SI he was in favor of rejecting the NBA's current proposal

@johnhollinger IMHO If players do 50-50, lockout's over. Owners can concede whatever on "system", it was always just a horse to trade. BRI is what matter$



Both owners and players need to swallow their pride. They owe it to the fans to get this deal done. Tired of all the shenanigans.

 

[duba169]

The players HAVE swallowed their pride. A lot. Seven percent is a lot of money. Throw em some scraps as a sign of good will and be done with it.

 

[duba169]

The players HAVE swallowed their pride. A lot. Seven percent is a lot of money. Throw em some scraps as a sign of good will and be done with it.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

[duba169]

The league already has $100 million in revenue sharing coming from the two richest teams, the Knicks and Lakers, combined.


If true, that plus other big markets rev sharing, and the seven percent drop in BRI? That enough. Hard liners need to end this

 

[duba169]

The league already has $100 million in revenue sharing coming from the two richest teams, the Knicks and Lakers, combined.


If true, that plus other big markets rev sharing, and the seven percent drop in BRI? That enough. Hard liners need to end this

 

[aepps20]

Originally Posted by DubA169

The league already has $100 million in revenue sharing coming from the two richest teams, the Knicks and Lakers, combined.


If true, that plus other big markets rev sharing, and the seven percent drop in BRI? That enough. Hard liners need to end this

QFT

I don't know about anyone else but this lockout has really changed my view of certain teams and players.

 

[aepps20]

Originally Posted by DubA169

The league already has $100 million in revenue sharing coming from the two richest teams, the Knicks and Lakers, combined.


If true, that plus other big markets rev sharing, and the seven percent drop in BRI? That enough. Hard liners need to end this

QFT

I don't know about anyone else but this lockout has really changed my view of certain teams and players.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Originally Posted by aepps20

Originally Posted by DubA169

The league already has $100 million in revenue sharing coming from the two richest teams, the Knicks and Lakers, combined.


If true, that plus other big markets rev sharing, and the seven percent drop in BRI? That enough. Hard liners need to end this

QFT

I don't know about anyone else but this lockout has really changed my view of certain teams and players.

Just makes me realize how big a sell out Michael Jordan is.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Originally Posted by aepps20

Originally Posted by DubA169

The league already has $100 million in revenue sharing coming from the two richest teams, the Knicks and Lakers, combined.


If true, that plus other big markets rev sharing, and the seven percent drop in BRI? That enough. Hard liners need to end this

QFT

I don't know about anyone else but this lockout has really changed my view of certain teams and players.

Just makes me realize how big a sell out Michael Jordan is.

 

[big j 33]

At this point it's simply a matter of the players saving face. If they're willing to do 50/50, then the owners need to give them a few "system issues" just so the players can say "at least we kept x, y, z,". Call it a sign of good faith, something, anything to appear like they're giving up something too. And so help me god if I hear Stern reference all of the "concessions" the owners made already... it's hard to say they gave up something that was never a serious possibility, like rollbacks or non-guaranteed deals. Imagine if the players demanded a 70/30 split initially then said they conceded to a 50/50.

If we get a season this year, I'm shocked if Stern is still commissioner next season. He looks like he's about to die every time I see him speak.

 

[big j 33]

At this point it's simply a matter of the players saving face. If they're willing to do 50/50, then the owners need to give them a few "system issues" just so the players can say "at least we kept x, y, z,". Call it a sign of good faith, something, anything to appear like they're giving up something too. And so help me god if I hear Stern reference all of the "concessions" the owners made already... it's hard to say they gave up something that was never a serious possibility, like rollbacks or non-guaranteed deals. Imagine if the players demanded a 70/30 split initially then said they conceded to a 50/50.

If we get a season this year, I'm shocked if Stern is still commissioner next season. He looks like he's about to die every time I see him speak.