The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

[mcHAPPY]

Players and agents misinformed on numerous issues

Despite Stern's threat that this was a take-it-or-leave-it situation, players could simply ignore the parameters he has set forth and give the league a deal that they claim could be done. But numerous agents who spoke with SI.com were frustrated by the lack of information coming from the union at such a crucial time, as they were attempting to educate their clients but often doing so with either incomplete or inaccurate information. There were no widespread updates on the proposal, the union's strategy or its stance beyond private conversations between members of its executive committee and player reps with their innumerable colleagues.

Thus, agents and players spent Friday and Saturday scrambling to piecemeal the details of the deal.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1daOFNPvi

So most of the players have no idea what is going on. Great. Yet they continue to bang the war drum. Very intelligent.

Stern also disputed a claim from some within the union that it had not received a written version of the owners' offer, thereby making it more difficult to properly educate its members.

"That would be a lie," Stern said. Then he paused, saying he would look up the e-mail to which a written summary was attached. "Nov. 11 at 1:42 p.m., from [NBA general counsel] Rick Buchanan to Billy Hunter," Stern said. "It was sent by electronic and overnight mail. So I doubt you'll hear that [there was no written version] from Billy or Derek."

So what does Stern expect, assuming the players are fully informed by the time they weigh the merits of the latest offer on Monday?

"Hopefully we'll have Dec. 15" as the season's new opening night, he said. "It's in the hands of the players and the unions."

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...bor/index.html

The players really are bush league. Wow.

Hours after the N.B.A. delivered its final collective bargaining proposal to the players union, the rumors and the rhetoric began to flow.

The deal would let teams send players to the development league and cut their pay.

Teams that used certain salary cap exceptions would lose the right to re-sign their own players.

“Bird” rights would be jeopardized.

The middle class would be eliminated.

These and other concerns filled Twitter timelines on Friday, a day after labor talks concluded. They turned out to be unfounded, speculative or simply false.

The D-League is not mentioned anywhere in the seven-page proposal that was delivered to the union on Friday — a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

Nor are there any measures that could curtail “Bird” rights. While some provisions might crimp the N.B.A.’s middle class, others could boost it.

In the absence of official documentation — neither the league nor the union released the proposal publicly — the rumors have prevailed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/sp...r=1&ref=sports

Hopefully the correct information is starting to reach the (empty?) space between player's ears.

NEW YORK — Players reps from all 30 NBA teams are arriving in town today, and tomorrow they’ll get debriefed on what is and what isn’t in the owners’ latest proposal.

Up until now, they’ve been getting fed plenty of bad information in the two days since the owners and players went their separate ways at the conclusion of Thursday night’s bargaining session.

Case in point: ESPN.com drew 5,000-plus comments on a story about how players could be sent down to the D-League and have their salary reduced to $75,000 during their first five seasons. A dealkiller, right?
Maybe it would be, except it is NOT in the owners’ proposal.

“It’s of grave concern to the league that there is an enormous amount of misinformation concerning our proposal, both on Twitter and in the more traditional media,” Adam Silver, the deputy commissioner, told the New York Times on Saturday night. “We believe that if the players are fully informed as to what is and is not in our proposal, they will agree that its terms are beneficial to them and represent a fair compromise.”

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/13/...les/#more-1981

[mcHAPPY]

Comparing offers

The most detailed article I have come across yet. It seems a lot of the issues the players have been 'kicking up stink' about are not here:

New offer

Presented to union on Nov. 10:
• A 50-50 split of basketball-related income (BRI), either straight or in a 49-to-51 "band" adjusted for growth figures.
• A mid-level exception for non-taxpaying teams with a starting salary of up to $5 million in contracts up to four years in length.
• A MLE for tax-paying teams starting at $3 million with a maximum length of three years, available every year.
• A new "room" exception for all teams below the salary cap starting at $2.5 million for up to two years.
• Sign-and-trade deals available to all teams, including -- in Years 1 and 2 of the CBA -- taxpaying teams.
• Maximum annual raises of 6.5 percent for "Bird" free agents (players re-signed by their current teams) and 3.5 percent for others.
• Minimum payroll requirement -- known as "the floor" -- of 85 percent of the salary cap in Years 1 and 2, increasing to 90 percent thereafter.
• An allowance for teams whose use of the full MLE would put them over the luxury-tax threshold. They would be permitted to conform by reducing payroll by an Oct. 15 deadline, either through trades or the "stretch" provision in which a player would be cut, with his remaining salary spread out over a longer period of time (two times the years remaining on his deal, plus one). This lower salary figure could enable the team to get down below the tax.
• A mutual opt-out clause in the new CBA after 6 years, conforming to NBPA preference.
* * Other provisions in the new offer -- relating to escrow money (10 percent, up from 8), stiffened luxury-tax penalties, a 12 percent drop in rookie and minimum-salary scales (to accommodate 12 percent drop in BRI share from 57 percent), the limiting of bi-annual exceptions to non-taxpaying teams, a 6-month buffer on extend-and-trade deals and other items -- remain essentially unchanged from the previous proposal.


Previous offer

Presented to union on Nov. 5:
Same as above, except:
• The MLE exception for taxpaying teams would have started at $2.5 million for a maximum of two years and been available to use only every other year.
• No "room" exception. Teams under the salary cap would only have that cap space available for free-agent signings.
• No sign-and-trade deals for taxpaying teams.
• Maximum annual raises of 5.5 percent for "Bird" players and 3.5 percent for others.
• The minimum payroll requirement in past CBAs was 75 percent of the cap number.
• The mutual opt-out in the 10-year CBA would come after 7 years.


"Reset" offer

To be presented if the union rejects the current offer:
• A 47 percent share of BRI for the players.
• A hard salary cap set $5 million above the average team salary.
• Rollbacks of individual player contracts "in proportion to system changes" to allow for spending on free agents.
• A MLE exception with a starting salary of $3 million and a maximum term of three seasons.
• Maximum contract lengths of four years for "Bird" free agents and three years for other players. Each team could give a five-year deal to one designated player.
• Maximum annual raises of 4.5 percent for "Bird" players and 3.5 percent for others.

Source: NBA.com


From the above it would appear the two issues I said yesterday (double tax and full MLE not available if it takes you in to the tax) leaves us with just one. Teams would have until October 15th to get under luxury tax via stretch provision - or I would assume trade as well.

I would like to know how the 6 month buffer on extend and trades work. If the trade deadline is at the end of February, that would mean the end of August would be the deadline. Or would it be 6 months before the start of the final season on the deal? *EDIT* See post 1527 for the 'loopholes' - this provision is not what it appears.

[Bendit]

This is my big reason why I generally favour the owners. What the players want tends to be the complete opposite of what most fans want. At least the one's who aren't fans of the Lakers, Chicago, Heat, Celtics or Knicks. Either the NBA gets rid of every team that players wouldn't want to go to, or they make rules that restrict player movement enough to be able to give those teams a fighting chance to compete with the more favoured cities, er, teams.

I wonder if there was any consideration given to the application/restriction of team content not containing more than two unrestricted signed free agents at any time...or some variation of f/a signings. That would do it for me I think in terms of trying to spread the talent around.

[Tim W.]

This is what pisses me off about Nazr Mohammed and the players position in general:

Via Nazr's twitter:



The players never give specifics for their position. Give specifics and maybe the majority of fans will support you guys. I can only assume the specifics show their lack of desire for the majority of franchises to ever have a chance to field a competitive team capable of deep playoff runs.

This is my big reason why I generally favour the owners. What the players want tends to be the complete opposite of what most fans want. At least the one's who aren't fans of the Lakers, Chicago, Heat, Celtics or Knicks. Either the NBA gets rid of every team that players wouldn't want to go to, or they make rules that restrict player movement enough to be able to give those teams a fighting chance to compete with the more favoured cities, er, teams.

[mcHAPPY]

This is what pisses me off about Nazr Mohammed and the players position in general:

Via Nazr's twitter:

I would love to give specifics but it's not my position to say. Only people who were in the meeting should share that info.

The players never give specifics for their position. Give specifics and maybe the majority of fans will support you guys. I can only assume the specifics show their lack of desire for the majority of franchises to ever have a chance to field a competitive team capable of deep playoff runs.

[mcHAPPY]

The @NBA_Labor Twitter feed is, according to its own description, “Collective Bargaining news and facts directly from the NBA office”. By definition, this means that it is a biased, one-sided source of information presented from the side of the owners, but it also means that it is able to present certain details with a high level of accuracy.

Friday, the account tweeted a number of details from the latest proposal the owners presented to the players’ association — a proposal, sources have already told ESPN.com, that the players are unlikely to accept.

The details tweeted by the @NBA_Labor feed — that is, the details that the NBA wanted to be sure were well publicized — included the following (all quoted directly from their respective tweets):

More mid-levels than 2005 CBA: $5M for non-taxpayers, $3M for taxpayers, $2.5M for room teams
More cap exceptions for teams who are not taxpayers…
Projected tax level ranges from $70M-$85M over next 6 years; more than enough money to keep teams together
New trade rules to promote more player movement
Projected max salaries range from $13M to $19M and growing
Increased minimum team salary – from 75% of cap to 90%
Plyr-friendly changes 4 restricted FAs: qualifying offers higher & 100% guaranteed, shorter match period 4 offer sheets
Ability to stretch waived player’s salary frees up more money for teams to spend on FAs
Players retain full Bird rights
Repeat tax rates apply only when team is taxpayer 4 out of 5 yrs (not 3 out of 5)

Source: SI.com

A few more tweets not included in SI.com article:

NBA_Labor NBA Labor
.@Casspi18: Fact: 22 out of 30 teams lost $$$ in 2010-11 & we have shared our financial info with NBPA

NBA_Labor NBA Labor
.@JasonTerry31: Not true new deal would "eliminate middle class"; NBA proposal has more mid-level opportunities than 2005 CBA

NBA_Labor NBA Labor
Over last CBA, only 4 sign-and-trades by taxpayers that new rule would have prohibited

NBA_Labor NBA Labor
.@RicBucher Incorrect; only preliminary discussions have been held on NBA/NBA D-League relationship; nothing in 11/11 proposal

NBA_Labor NBA Labor
Fact: Under prior CBA, only 3 players per season received more than $5M salary using mid-level exception

With all the B-issues left to address, it seems at least 1 more negotiation session is needed.

Many of these B-issues are what many players seem to be upset about, however, NBA is saying they are still open for negotiation. As Alan Hahn tweeted:

alanhahn Alan Hahn
By the way, all this B-list stuff in the proposal that players are railing about? Not in the deal up for vote. Still to be negotiated.

Therefore how can players vote on an offer that is not complete? Clearly one more negotiation session will be needed at minimum.

[mcHAPPY]

every team but 1 in the league already spends more than 53 mil (I think thats what the number was).... so the top is coming down while the bottom isn't really changing. Which means someone is getting squeezed. And as its been talked about many times before... the chance that its gonna be the top earners is unlikely. (they will ofcourse take a hit, but I imagine it will be proportionally less than the middle)

It was actually 4 teams (Sacramento, Minnesota, Clippers, Cleveland).

It would be interesting to see how many players are actually in this 'middle class' seeing as how 50% make less than $2.33M as it is.

The exemptions are still there and there will still be a few teams able and willing to go over the luxury tax - just not as far with much smaller difference between teams

Also, the difference between top spending teams and 'average' teams is sure to shrink.

$75M now equals $82.5M
$80M now equals $96.25M
$85M now equals $113.75M
$90M now equals $135M
$95M now equals $156.25M

Plus the penalty for the 4th year of luxury tax within 5 years.

-how was the previous CBA in 'their favor'? From everything I recall the players were hammered in the previous negotiations by owners. Will the new one be 'less in their favour', yes.

57% of revenues. Sign and trade. Extend and trade. Opt outs. Team opt outs with players still getting paid - for example, VC has an $18M team option with $4M guaranteed. 10.5% raises for Birds RIghts players, 8% for non-Birds. 6 and 5 year guaranteed contracts without accountability for performance.

-The cost of producing every dollar may have gone up... but it hasn't been due to the player's salary. It has been 57% since the last CBA.

That does not help owners to continue pay for costs increasing faster than their split of BRI. The players need to (and to their credit have) reduce their share of BRI now to get a smaller percentage of a hopefully larger pie in the future.

-how do you assume they have been "shielded" from the realities of the economic world anymore than the next guy or any owner for that matter?

Guaranteed contracts regardless of performance. 10.5% and 8% annual raises. An income that will only cause a moderate reduction in the amount of discretionary funds due to the effects of rising energy and food prices.

[GarbageTime]

I disagree.

The payroll floor - i.e. the minimum amount a team must spend - will go from $43.5M to 49.3M for the first 2 years and then to $52.2M for remainder of the contract. Percentage wise that is 75% of the cap to 85% for 2 years and then 90% after that.

A new $2.5M exemption has been added.

For over 50% of the league, this deal is better for them.

As for the BRI drop, they have been guaranteed to keep the salary cap and luxury tax at the same amount for 2 years ($58M/$70M). The players will most likely not get the escrow back but, except for last season first time ever, that is nothing new.

every team but 1 in the league already spends more than 53 mil (I think thats what the number was).... so the top is coming down while the bottom isn't really changing. Which means someone is getting squeezed. And as its been talked about many times before... the chance that its gonna be the top earners is unlikely. (they will ofcourse take a hit, but I imagine it will be proportionally less than the middle)

Plus the NBA created another $2.5M exemption for teams.

I think the majority are fighting on the principle of what they feel is 'fair'. They do not seem to realize that:
1) previous CBA's were very much in their favour,
2) the cost of producing every dollar of revenue has risen for owners,
3) they have been shielded from the harsh realities of the economic world over the last 4-5 years.

-how was the previous CBA in 'their favor'? From everything I recall the players were hammered in the previous negotiations by owners. Will the new one be 'less in their favour', yes.

-The cost of producing every dollar may have gone up... but it hasn't been due to the player's salary. It has been 57% since the last CBA.

-how do you assume they have been "shielded" from the realities of the economic world anymore than the next guy or any owner for that matter?

[mcHAPPY]

I don't understand. The numbers I am seeing are a 7% reduction in BRI portion for the players, a 12.3% total reduction in players salaries if the BRI maintains at 4 billion per season, which it will not due to a shortened season this year, the overall negative effect of the lockout and, of course, the economy.

You are certainly correct there is a 7% cut to BRI but it is not as simple as that in terms of contracts to be awarded.

To be honest, I don't really understand it totally either (in other words I have not read anything by a source I would consider an authority explaining it) but here is my understanding:

The league has kept the salary cap and luxury tax the same for the next 2 seasons,
the exemptions are still there for teams to use (MLE, new $2.5M exemption),
minimum payroll will be raised to 85% for 2 years and 90% thereafter,
the escrow tax is going to be raised to 10% and they are going to keep a little extra this year only to account for possible negative effects of lockout,
and there are no roll back to contracts currently signed.


To account for all the above with the lower BRI, I can only imagine the league is banking on never giving back the 10% escrow as the numbers will not allow it.

I guess the thinking is either:

1) with a freeze for 2 years on salary cap and luxury tax amounts, this is the 'gimme' to the players - new changes are to be eased in in 2 seasons time,

2) the league is raising the escrow rate from 8% to 10% saving them money,

3) in 2 seasons time, the new cap and luxury tax rate will reflect new BRI numbers and with (hopefully) increased revenues, the change will not be very dramatic.


Anyone who knows different (and ideally can provide a source), please do!

[Bendit]

Those mid level players are the ones that are really going to feel the financial squeeze if this "final offer" is ratified by the NBAPA. The veteran star players will still get their top dollar and the star players with less than 5 years in the league (Durant, Griffin, Wall, etc.) will continue to be underpaid in terms of their value to their teams, while the mid level players will feel the crunch the most with the drop in BRI from 57% to 50%, which is a drop in total players' salaries of 12.3%.

The other factor working against all players is that the average NBA career is just 4 seasons. To lose a season would reduce the average career by 25%.

There is certainly a giveback by the players. But you have to factor in the losses claimed by the owners which makes the players theoretically having benefited from the last agreement. With the possibility of a better upcoming TV agreement the new (50%) portion of bri may well supersede the old 57% going forward in total dollars...and if this happens to drastically favour the owners it will certainly be an issue to be fought over again come the next cba renewal. The pendulum always swings. In the old cba in my view the factors governing movement were quite flawed which was leading to a two tiered league....and that too severely unequal in numbers.

[stretch]

I disagree.

The payroll floor - i.e. the minimum amount a team must spend - will go from $43.5M to 49.3M for the first 2 years and then to $52.2M for remainder of the contract. Percentage wise that is 75% of the cap to 85% for 2 years and then 90% after that.

A new $2.5M exemption has been added.

For over 50% of the league, this deal is better for them.

As for the BRI drop, they have been guaranteed to keep the salary cap and luxury tax at the same amount for 2 years ($58M/$70M). The players will most likely not get the escrow back but, except for last season first time ever, that is nothing new.

I don't understand. The numbers I am seeing are a 7% reduction in BRI portion for the players, a 12.3% total reduction in players salaries if the BRI maintains at 4 billion per season, which it will not due to a shortened season this year, the overall negative effect of the lockout and, of course, the economy.

[mcHAPPY]

Those mid level players are the ones that are really going to feel the financial squeeze if this "final offer" is ratified by the NBAPA. The veteran star players will still get their top dollar and the star players with less than 5 years in the league (Durant, Griffin, Wall, etc.) will continue to be underpaid in terms of their value to their teams, while the mid level players will feel the crunch the most with the drop in BRI from 57% to 50%, which is a drop in total players' salaries of 12.3%.

The other factor working against all players is that the average NBA career is just 4 seasons. To lose a season would reduce the average career by 25%.

I disagree.

The payroll floor - i.e. the minimum amount a team must spend - will go from $43.5M to 49.3M for the first 2 years and then to $52.2M for remainder of the contract. Percentage wise that is 75% of the cap to 85% for 2 years and then 90% after that.

A new $2.5M exemption has been added.

For over 50% of the league, this deal is better for them.

As for the BRI drop, they have been guaranteed to keep the salary cap and luxury tax at the same amount for 2 years ($58M/$70M). The players will most likely not get the escrow back but, except for last season first time ever, that is nothing new.

[mcHAPPY]

Thanks...yes it would be!! Thats quite an eyeopener number..so if those who made upto 5 mil. took that number to about 300 plus ...I have a hard time figuring out what is it this majority group would be fighting for by rejecting the current offer. A fairly minimal number of them would reach the star-superstar status which is really the group being impacted on and that is mostly on movement issues at that. Most of the group I raise really have very little say on where they play but a lot to lose if they dont. A secret ballot as well changes the dynamic of the vote.

Plus the NBA created another $2.5M exemption for teams.

I think the majority are fighting on the principle of what they feel is 'fair'. They do not seem to realize that:
1) previous CBA's were very much in their favour,
2) the cost of producing every dollar of revenue has risen for owners,
3) they have been shielded from the harsh realities of the economic world over the last 4-5 years.

[stretch]

Does anyone know how many players (of 430) are below the 5 mill. line. I would think that this group would be more prone to vote yes for many more reasons.

Those mid level players are the ones that are really going to feel the financial squeeze if this "final offer" is ratified by the NBAPA. The veteran star players will still get their top dollar and the star players with less than 5 years in the league (Durant, Griffin, Wall, etc.) will continue to be underpaid in terms of their value to their teams, while the mid level players will feel the crunch the most with the drop in BRI from 57% to 50%, which is a drop in total players' salaries of 12.3%.

The other factor working against all players is that the average NBA career is just 4 seasons. To lose a season would reduce the average career by 25%.

[Bendit]

Thanks...yes it would be!! Thats quite an eyeopener number..so if those who made upto 5 mil. took that number to about 300 plus ...I have a hard time figuring out what is it this majority group would be fighting for by rejecting the current offer. A fairly minimal number of them would reach the star-superstar status which is really the group being impacted on and that is mostly on movement issues at that. Most of the group I raise really have very little say on where they play but a lot to lose if they dont. A secret ballot as well changes the dynamic of the vote.