The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

So then how do you go about setting a system where you can afford your own stars, but not be able to buy other teams players?  That's my point/question. 
 
So no hard cap, and lessen the luxury so you can keep your own players, so then my scenario, how many can you keep?  3 stars, 2 stars etc?   

I agree with most of what you said about what the owners are doing here, but in reality they should just be choosing between going after the 50/50 BRI split or systemic changes.

Anyway, the biggest changes that need to be made would be to eliminate sign/trade deals, the max salary on individual contacts, MLE,  AND to limit the usage of the Bird exception. I think we'd have that system that you're looking for. I don't even think you'd need to lessen the luxury tax as is because it seems as if teams are indeed making a conscious effort to avoid paying it unless they're a contender. With no limits on player salaries and no more sign/trades, teams with a superstar player would have a better chance of keeping them. So if Cle would have offered Lebron 30 mil annually, unless another team was 30 mil under the cap all other offers wouldn't have even been close. As far as the Bird exception, well limit teams to only having 2 or 3 Bird exceptions on the roster and not be able to use it on every single FA situation they face year in and year out, inflating the market. In theory if I applied this to OKC, then I would have KD making 25-30 mil, RW somewhere around 8-10, Harden maybe 6-8 and the rest of the roster would basically be making less on shorter contracts and they're are all essentially replaceable IMO.

I don't know man, just a thought...

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

So then how do you go about setting a system where you can afford your own stars, but not be able to buy other teams players?  That's my point/question. 
 
So no hard cap, and lessen the luxury so you can keep your own players, so then my scenario, how many can you keep?  3 stars, 2 stars etc?   

I agree with most of what you said about what the owners are doing here, but in reality they should just be choosing between going after the 50/50 BRI split or systemic changes.

Anyway, the biggest changes that need to be made would be to eliminate sign/trade deals, the max salary on individual contacts, MLE,  AND to limit the usage of the Bird exception. I think we'd have that system that you're looking for. I don't even think you'd need to lessen the luxury tax as is because it seems as if teams are indeed making a conscious effort to avoid paying it unless they're a contender. With no limits on player salaries and no more sign/trades, teams with a superstar player would have a better chance of keeping them. So if Cle would have offered Lebron 30 mil annually, unless another team was 30 mil under the cap all other offers wouldn't have even been close. As far as the Bird exception, well limit teams to only having 2 or 3 Bird exceptions on the roster and not be able to use it on every single FA situation they face year in and year out, inflating the market. In theory if I applied this to OKC, then I would have KD making 25-30 mil, RW somewhere around 8-10, Harden maybe 6-8 and the rest of the roster would basically be making less on shorter contracts and they're are all essentially replaceable IMO.

I don't know man, just a thought...

 

[CP1708]

Russ gets more than 10 on the market don't he? 

  That's gotta be low.  And Harden at 8 too. 

I do see what you're sayin on not limiting upper tier deals, Simmons has said similar things.  I guess it would work to an extent, but now what are we talkin about?  Say you give Dwight 30 mil, how you gonna get him help? 

 

  He would be furious 2 years into his deal, he'd never win @#$%  So his counter is, he has to take less money, to play where he wants, with whom he wants.  And the cycle continues. 


Something been sittin in my mind the whole time, I have this feeling like the owners want the 80's back where the only real turnover on a roster was deals THEY make, but nowadays, players/agents are smart enough to see things coming 2 years in advance, and know how to control situations.  We just saw it all play out last year.  We'll see more.  Shorter contracts will make for more turnover on given years, but maybe a lot less in between years, does that make sense?  If Paul and Howard end up moved after the CBA, owners are gonna be pissed all over again, and guys like Rose, Blake G, and Wall on the horizon, gonna be panic moves, as well as dump moves all over again potentially, as has been said, GM's can't help themselves. 

What a @#$%^& mess. 

 

[CP1708]

Russ gets more than 10 on the market don't he? 

  That's gotta be low.  And Harden at 8 too. 

I do see what you're sayin on not limiting upper tier deals, Simmons has said similar things.  I guess it would work to an extent, but now what are we talkin about?  Say you give Dwight 30 mil, how you gonna get him help? 

 

  He would be furious 2 years into his deal, he'd never win @#$%  So his counter is, he has to take less money, to play where he wants, with whom he wants.  And the cycle continues. 


Something been sittin in my mind the whole time, I have this feeling like the owners want the 80's back where the only real turnover on a roster was deals THEY make, but nowadays, players/agents are smart enough to see things coming 2 years in advance, and know how to control situations.  We just saw it all play out last year.  We'll see more.  Shorter contracts will make for more turnover on given years, but maybe a lot less in between years, does that make sense?  If Paul and Howard end up moved after the CBA, owners are gonna be pissed all over again, and guys like Rose, Blake G, and Wall on the horizon, gonna be panic moves, as well as dump moves all over again potentially, as has been said, GM's can't help themselves. 

What a @#$%^& mess. 

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Russ gets more than 10 on the market don't he? 

  That's gotta be low.  And Harden at 8 too. 

I do see what you're sayin on not limiting upper tier deals, Simmons has said similar things.  I guess it would work to an extent, but now what are we talkin about?  Say you give Dwight 30 mil, how you gonna get him help? 

 

  He would be furious 2 years into his deal, he'd never win @#$%  So his counter is, he has to take less money, to play where he wants, with whom he wants.  And the cycle continues. 


Something been sittin in my mind the whole time, I have this feeling like the owners want the 80's back where the only real turnover on a roster was deals THEY make, but nowadays, players/agents are smart enough to see things coming 2 years in advance, and know how to control situations.  We just saw it all play out last year.  We'll see more.  Shorter contracts will make for more turnover on given years, but maybe a lot less in between years, does that make sense?  If Paul and Howard end up moved after the CBA, owners are gonna be pissed all over again, and guys like Rose, Blake G, and Wall on the horizon, gonna be panic moves, as well as dump moves all over again potentially, as has been said, GM's can't help themselves. 

Maybe Russ and Bearden get more slightly more money in my hypothetical system, but my point is the salary gap between elite players and the rest of the roster will definitely be much greater then what they currently are.

In a situation where Orlando would be paying Dwight 30 mil to stay, and the market has adjusted to where you can sign highly effective players in the 5-7 million range plus there will be a lot more older (but still contributing) veterans playing for the minimum. Worst case scenario the new system will include shorter contract lengths then if Dwight is pissed after 2, then there's only more 2 more years on his deal until both parties can move on.

I don't know if the owners have a problem with the concept of free agency, but I know for a fact that they have to be pissed at the manner in which guys like Lebron/Dwight/CP3 are handling themselves during or while approaching their status as a free agent.

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Russ gets more than 10 on the market don't he? 

  That's gotta be low.  And Harden at 8 too. 

I do see what you're sayin on not limiting upper tier deals, Simmons has said similar things.  I guess it would work to an extent, but now what are we talkin about?  Say you give Dwight 30 mil, how you gonna get him help? 

 

  He would be furious 2 years into his deal, he'd never win @#$%  So his counter is, he has to take less money, to play where he wants, with whom he wants.  And the cycle continues. 


Something been sittin in my mind the whole time, I have this feeling like the owners want the 80's back where the only real turnover on a roster was deals THEY make, but nowadays, players/agents are smart enough to see things coming 2 years in advance, and know how to control situations.  We just saw it all play out last year.  We'll see more.  Shorter contracts will make for more turnover on given years, but maybe a lot less in between years, does that make sense?  If Paul and Howard end up moved after the CBA, owners are gonna be pissed all over again, and guys like Rose, Blake G, and Wall on the horizon, gonna be panic moves, as well as dump moves all over again potentially, as has been said, GM's can't help themselves. 

Maybe Russ and Bearden get more slightly more money in my hypothetical system, but my point is the salary gap between elite players and the rest of the roster will definitely be much greater then what they currently are.

In a situation where Orlando would be paying Dwight 30 mil to stay, and the market has adjusted to where you can sign highly effective players in the 5-7 million range plus there will be a lot more older (but still contributing) veterans playing for the minimum. Worst case scenario the new system will include shorter contract lengths then if Dwight is pissed after 2, then there's only more 2 more years on his deal until both parties can move on.

I don't know if the owners have a problem with the concept of free agency, but I know for a fact that they have to be pissed at the manner in which guys like Lebron/Dwight/CP3 are handling themselves during or while approaching their status as a free agent.

 

[pmatic]

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

 

[pmatic]

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

 

[pmatic]

Jeff Foster, the Buffett of Basketball

Early in his National Basketball Assn. career, Jeff Foster, a center for the Indiana Pacers, became acquainted with a man he came to think of as a friend. The man followed the team on road trips and called Foster’s hotel room to invite him for meals. Then one day the man presented Foster with a business opportunity: For just $2 million, the basketball player could be part of a surefire venture to open a bed and breakfast in the verdant Pennsylvania hills. When Foster explained, truthfully, that he didn’t have that kind of money—the Pacers paid him just over $4 million for the first four years of his career, about half of which was gobbled up by taxes, escrow payments, and his agent’s fee—his “friend

 

[pmatic]

Jeff Foster, the Buffett of Basketball

Early in his National Basketball Assn. career, Jeff Foster, a center for the Indiana Pacers, became acquainted with a man he came to think of as a friend. The man followed the team on road trips and called Foster’s hotel room to invite him for meals. Then one day the man presented Foster with a business opportunity: For just $2 million, the basketball player could be part of a surefire venture to open a bed and breakfast in the verdant Pennsylvania hills. When Foster explained, truthfully, that he didn’t have that kind of money—the Pacers paid him just over $4 million for the first four years of his career, about half of which was gobbled up by taxes, escrow payments, and his agent’s fee—his “friend

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

That's a hard cap, yes?

What if a guy outperforms his contract easily? Then what?

I don't like that at all.

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

That's a hard cap, yes?

What if a guy outperforms his contract easily? Then what?

I don't like that at all.

 

[duba169]

It's unfixable. And it shouldn't need to be fixed.

One person means more in basketball. That's it. There will always be ways around whatever rules the NBA makes. It's disgusting that people want to give the owners the power to basically hold on to a superstar for their entire career. As if we wouldn't see cheap owners spend the least amount of money possible on the supporting cast.

Everyone was calling the players greedy for staying at 52 percent. They moved down to 50 but that still isn't enough. They could move to 47 and it wouldn't be enough. It's jealousy and envy mixed in with some good ol fashioned racism at this point.

I hear people calling the players selfish while also implying that they should basically take any al the owners present. That's just as selfish. You just want to watch your team.

 

[duba169]

It's unfixable. And it shouldn't need to be fixed.

One person means more in basketball. That's it. There will always be ways around whatever rules the NBA makes. It's disgusting that people want to give the owners the power to basically hold on to a superstar for their entire career. As if we wouldn't see cheap owners spend the least amount of money possible on the supporting cast.

Everyone was calling the players greedy for staying at 52 percent. They moved down to 50 but that still isn't enough. They could move to 47 and it wouldn't be enough. It's jealousy and envy mixed in with some good ol fashioned racism at this point.

I hear people calling the players selfish while also implying that they should basically take any al the owners present. That's just as selfish. You just want to watch your team.

 

[duba169]

there is a rumor going around that JR smith was seriously injured

 

[duba169]

there is a rumor going around that JR smith was seriously injured

 

[scientific method]

Yep, blew his knee out in some fashion but still dropped 20,5, and 4 and had to be taken to the hospital afterward

 

[scientific method]

Yep, blew his knee out in some fashion but still dropped 20,5, and 4 and had to be taken to the hospital afterward

 

[duba169]

Paul Pierce on decertification:


“I think the owners have to take the step. We have taken a lot of steps. I think we have taken as many steps as we can take, which is why we are at where we are at. We feel like we’ve taken the most steps. That’s why we are going to court now.

 

[duba169]

Paul Pierce on decertification:


“I think the owners have to take the step. We have taken a lot of steps. I think we have taken as many steps as we can take, which is why we are at where we are at. We feel like we’ve taken the most steps. That’s why we are going to court now.

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

If I understand this right then top players could still leave a franchise, be designated as a 2nd tier player and only face a 5% pay cut

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

If I understand this right then top players could still leave a franchise, be designated as a 2nd tier player and only face a 5% pay cut

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by PMatic

What about a salary based on percentages? Designated top player on team gets 30% of team's salary cap, second player gets 25%, third player gets 15%, and the rest is split amongst the rest of the roster. Not perfect either but just something to think about.

70% top 3 guys, so LO would make what? Know what would happen? Players would fight for numbers, leave a team to be the 2-3 etc.......could balance guys maybe. Bosh wouldn't sign for 15% I don't think. Downside?

If I understand this right then top players could still leave a franchise, be designated as a 2nd tier player and only face a 5% pay cut

I did put a disclaimer that this wasn't the perfect idea.

President Clinton, the NBA needs you to save the season

The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
c/o The William J. Clinton Foundation
55 West 125th Street
New York, N.Y. 10027

Dear President Clinton,

I hope this note finds you well. I see that the Secretary is in Myanmar and that NBC has just hired Chelsea as a correspondent. What on earth did you all do before Skype was invented?

I write both as a reporter who is out of suggestions and recommendations -- not that anyone heeded them -- and a frustrated NBA fan who sees the 2011-12 season in danger of never being played. Since February of 2011, when the league and the players' union first got together formally during All-Star Weekend in Los Angeles, the lockout has loomed, ominously, over this great game. We knew then that the likelihood of a delayed or canceled season was great, given the separation between the two sides. And like a formulaic television drama, the days and months of rhetorical flourishes and malaprops, feigned and real anger and endless meetings have played out, leaving us where we are now: in court, with 26 percent of the regular season gone, and more to follow.

The NBA needs you.

The NBA needs you to mediate between the players and the owners.

If there is to be a season, someone has to intervene. Someone whose credentials are above reproach, who can get everyone's attention and to whom both sides will listen. Trust is at a premium now. Individually, David Stern and Billy Hunter may still get along, and, if left to their own devices, I remain convinced they could get this done in a couple of hours. But they aren't negotiating this deal in a vacuum. Powerful forces on each side are forcing their hands -- small-market owners who think they have to have a radical restructuring of the game's finances to survive, and agents who see a severe reduction in their clients' paydays on the horizon (and, by extension, their own) and who genuinely believe that what the owners are asking for is inherently unfair and wrong.

You obviously have helped solve a thorny issue or two over the years. You are keenly aware of the need for discretion and quiet diplomacy at sensitive moments in delicate negotiations. This job wouldn't be a public one. At this point, back channels are the only way this is going to be solved, because each side's pride is getting in the way of making contact with the other and re-starting negotiations. You obviously know some of the parties in this, like your fellow Arkansasan Derek Fisher, the president of the players' union before it was recently dissolved. And I know how much you love sports and basketball in particular -- though you're more of a college guy. That's OK. The job doesn't involve coaching; it requires someone who can do more than cut through all the rhetoric and see where the solutions lie. The solutions have been obvious for weeks. What is needed is will, the ability to get one of these sides -- both, probably -- to do something that they don't want to do.

Anyway, this isn't about politics, even though Stern and Hunter are both strong Democrats like you, and so are most of the players, and many -- not all -- of the owners. If I thought either of the former Bush presidents was interested in doing this, I'd be writing them. But neither 41 nor 43 seemed much interested in the orange leather -- they were, and are, baseball guys.

Your work would be cut out for you. Having come this far, the owners that have been holding out for an even higher percentage of Basketball Related Income see no reason to stop now. They know that 45 to 47 percent of BRI for the players is in sight now, after the players turned down a deal that would have included a 50-50 BRI split if the league had agreed to loosen some of its system demands. Now, there's nothing to stop the NBA from imposing its "reset" offer at 47 percent--and Stern made it clear that 47 wasn't even, potentially, the bottom line. The owners also know that if the season is indeed lost, they'll be able to offer just about anything -- 45 percent, 43 percent -- next summer, and the players will almost certainly take it. (Of course, what used to be the union knows that as well. That's why, I think, it didn't allow a full vote of the rank and file on the league's last offer -- because it would have been approved.)

The league is also convinced it is right that shrinking the gap between what teams spend on salaries will improve competitive balance. It says it does not expect or want everyone to be .500 every season, and that there are many factors that affect competitive balance. But it believes limiting the means by which the league's biggest spenders can add and retain players will work. It is a matter of the numbers, but it is also a matter of faith -- we believe this because we believe this.

On the other side, many believe the union's longtime attorney, Jeff Kessler, has been chomping at the bit for years to see a sports antitrust case through to its legal conclusion. He doesn't have enough clout to hold off a settlement, but he has Hunter's ear and respect, and if he indeed wants to fight to the bitter end he will be someone who'll have to be convinced otherwise -- or be overcome. Players think they've come far enough; having agreed to $3 billion in salary cuts over 10 years, they are genuinely gobsmacked when the league says, Not Enough. The player reps, genuinely, think the league is being obstinate when there are so relatively few differences remaining between the sides. (Of course, the owners think the exact same thing, except they think the players are being stubborn in not moving just a little further when they've moved so far already. You've had to deal with this in negotiations, certainly: you go first. No, you go first.)

You no doubt know David Boies well and how good he is at his job. But he couldn't have been more clear last week that he really would like this case resolved before it ever gets to the point where his courtroom skills would be needed. The owners are confident that if the case were somehow to go forward, they would win somewhere -- with a district judge, an appelate court, the Supreme Court, somewhere. All they need is one, basically. So they're in no great hurry to give in, especially since the players really haven't missed a paycheck yet. Technically, their first missed check was Nov. 15, but many players were reimbursed for at least some of that money when they got their escrow refund checks from the league in early November. The owners still think the players will cave after they miss some stubs.

But there is some reason, still, for optimism.

There are so many people on both sides who want to make a deal. There are dozens of players who are ready to lay down their arms and get back to the basketball court, as long as the owners give them just a little more on the system side, and their agents have heard an earful from them this past week. There are agents who likewise want to stop the fighting and start the season, but they don't have many avenues to utilize. The big-name, big-time agents are ready to decertify at the drop of a hat, thinking it will keep the pressure on the owners, and they have the bigger megaphone. But, believe me -- if you were to reach out quietly, you'd get some positive feedback.

Same with more than a few of the owners. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a majority on any one position -- keep the players locked out, come back to the bargaining table. It's more of a plurality. I'd say a dozen teams, maybe a couple more, are willing to stick it out as long as it takes to get the deal they want, including scuttling the season if necessary. Another eight or 10 teams want to get back in business, and it's obvious who they are if you've been paying any attention. As in your line of work, the independents are the ones who can sway the election. It's equally clear to me that the Commish desperately wants this to be over and try and salvage what's left of the season, and his legacy. He was shocked, an ownership source says, that the union's rank-and-file didn't accept the league's offer last weekend and demand a vote to ratify the deal. Now, a start on Christmas Day , when many casual fans actually start paying attention anyway, is about as good as one could hope for now.

But time is wasting.

This week, Thanksgiving Week, would normally be unlikely to produce much progress, what with everyone getting their Tryptophan on and all. And there will need to be at least a month under ideal circumstances even after an agreement is reached to prepare the teams and players for the start of the regular season. So you'd have to get started in the next couple of days, I'm afraid. (I'm sure you've just been sitting by the phone with nothing pressing on your schedule.) But who wouldn't take your call, even on Thursday? Maybe especially on Thursday; even we in the media like to watch football and tolerate our families on Thanksgiving, so your old office in Harlem -- right down the street from where the union/trade association is headquartered -- should be free from snooping reporters. Or, your buddy Ron Burkle's place on the East Side could do. An ex-president has lots of places to hold secret negotiations, right?

I can't stress enough how important discretion will be in this endeavor. For each side to move, it has to be able to save face; to save face, it cannot be viewed as capitulating to the other side and picking up the phone. A breakthrough announced only after a few days of underground talks would be hard for anyone to shout down or tear apart. what would the argument be against a compromise settlement brokered by a former president of the United States? Sonia Sotomayor, now on the Supreme Court, gets a lot of credit for laying the groundwork for what became the settlement which finally ended the baseball players' strike in 1995. But the NBA doesn't have time for a court-ordered settlement. It will take weeks just to establish whether the players' joint lawsuits in California and Minnesota can remain there or in New York, where the league would prefer they be adjudicated. If weeks go by now, the season is toast.

Even your political opponents recognize your people skills. (The whole "feel your pain" thing.) You put people at ease and have shown an ability to master complex issues in a hurry. And this isn't all that complex. Well, maybe revenue sharing, but that's another story. Again, this is about getting these guys to see the big picture, to realize that there are more important things than getting, or saving, every possible dollar.

My guess is that your friend, the late diplomat and ambassador Richard Holbrooke, confided a few things about the great difficulties in bringing factions together when he and others put the Dayton Peace Accords together in 1995 that ended the fighting in Bosnia. Again and again, failure seemed inevitable, even as Holbrooke tried to convince all the sides to "leap for peace," as he put it in his book, To End a War. This is, decidedly, not war, and I invite calumny by even bringing it up. But difficult negotiations seem to always involve similar facets: headstrong personalities, intractable positions, a looming deadline. To solve difficult problems requires a special skill set, patience, working past the point of seeming impasse.

The NBA and its players are at an impasse. It will require someone uniquely qualified to save the season.

That is you, Mr. President.

Sincerelyhttp://,

David Aldridge

Link