Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    A small but very important change

    Owners Took Steps Forward, Albeit Side-Steps

    The NBA has since raised the MLE for tax teams to $3 million starting and three years in length. They’ve also reportedly restored the ability to sign and trade.

    The union might be willing to begrudgingly accept the lower dollar MLE but they want it every year. Or even the full amount instead, if there’s going to be a restriction on consecutive seasons. This is the primary area that will be contested before a final deal is struck.

    While those are both concessions on the owners’ side, a new issue arose in determining who is considered a tax team.

    The players expected the offer to view any franchise under the threshold as MLE eligible, even if the signing would put them into the tax.

    The owners instead have insisted that the MLE be restricted for teams under the threshold if it would in turn position them over.

    Given that the cap/tax numbers are expected to be held at the same level as last year ($58/70.3 million, respectively), who then would be eligible to spend their full MLE?

    It’s not available for teams under the cap, so the MLE would only work for teams with salary between $58 and $65.3 million. Anything more and it’s a $3 million exception available every other year.

    If an agreement does not get done next week, this distinction may be the reason why.
    Source: HoopsWorld.com


    For once I side with players. This seems stupid in my opinion.


    *EDIT* The more I read about this new offer, the more I realize there is only one true issue left and that is the bolded section above:

    a new issue arose in determining who is considered a tax team.

    The players expected the offer to view any franchise under the threshold as MLE eligible, even if the signing would put them into the tax.

    It’s not available for teams under the cap, so the MLE would only work for teams with salary between $58 and $65.3 million. Anything more and it’s a $3 million exception available every other year.
    I'm not too sure I have been on side with the players with anything through the lockout (except the draft but that is for selfish Raptor fan reasons versus betterment of the game - the draft age limit really should be raised..... in 2013 ) however I most certainly am now.

    The owners are making a change that has never been done before AFTER all the other details the owners have pushed have become reality. This seems a bit much to me.

    The only thing I can see it being is another bargaining chip. With all the secondary issues left open, the owners are keeping another bargaining chip.

    I think if they removed this new threshold ($65.3M versus $70.3M) for the full mid level exemption ($5M per season), a deal would be all but done.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Fri Nov 11, 2011, 07:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post
    The floor can be quite dangerous for teams that have a lot of rookie contracts (like the Raptors). That would mean holding on to players like Bargnani since he gets paid well, and then signing on other scrubs for $5mil a year when they aren't worth half that. You really need good management when you have a floor to work with.
    The Raptors will be fine, just as Matt explained.

    This floor will prevent massive cap dump tactics taken by rebuilding teams. Look at it this way, when teams do massive cap dumps they shift power unfairly to those(usually the big spenders) who are likely enough to capitalize on those sweetheart deals. The Owners can't have it both ways. They want the Players to make big time concessions, the least they can do it guaranteed that teams must spend to a certain level. I'm fine with this. What you'll probably see sometimes is a trade between a team filtering with the cap and a team flirting with the floor.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    New details keep coming out on Twitter. The latest on the salary floor:



    Chris_Broussard Minimum payroll jumps to 85% of salary cap in first 2 years of CBA; 90% in years after that. Used to be 75%

    So for a $58M soft cap, 85% in first two years is $49.3M and 90% thereafter is $52.2M. That of course does not include increases in BRI.


    The previous minimum was 75% and $43.4M.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    "We believe that we will be proven right over time, that this new model, if the players were to agree to it, will create a better league. It will create one where fans in more markets will be able to hope that their teams can compete for championships. That fans can believe that a well-managed team, regardless of market size, regardless of how deep the owners' pockets are, will be in a position to compete for a championship. And that more players will be in a position to compete for rings as well."
    It sounds wonderful - lets hope it happens.
    That was music to my ears right there.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    1. Fact or Fiction: The owners and players essentially have an agreement.

    Henry Abbott, ESPN.com: Fact. The players have religion on some of the remaining system issues -- issues that I can't imagine mean nearly as much to the owners. Who cares, honestly, if the Lakers can add a backup point guard who'll cost them a fortune in luxury tax? How mad can Paul Allen be to want to cancel a season over that?

    Chris Broussard, ESPN The Magazine: Fiction. This latest offer from the owners could very well be rejected by the players. One executive committee member told me that "in some ways, this offer is worse than the last offer.'' Another influential player in the league told me he hopes "the players reject the deal'' so they can decertify the union. The players' main problem with this offer is their belief that it restricts player movement significantly. For the players, the owners have not addressed that enough in this most recent proposal.

    Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Fact. They've essentially had an agreement for a long time. It didn't take a crystal ball to see where they would eventually land on the BRI split and system issues. But they still needed to do the dance that gets them there.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Fact. The two sides, from both a monetary perspective and a system perspective, are very close. What stands in the way right now is pride. No one wants to be the side that caves. The players are hurting because they're getting screwed. The owners are hurting because they didn't totally destroy the union. Both sides are miserable. Sounds like a deal.

    Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Fiction. There will be a massive push from various corners of the NBA universe to turn this deal down. It's already started, actually. And everything I've heard in the wake of Thursday night's proposal suggests that the player reps want to heed those calls. Players still have to have the steel to resist the urge to cave and check "no" on those ballots when it really counts if they're so unhappy with this deal, but overwhelming disappointment in the player ranks about this offer immediately filled the air. Nothing has been settled yet.
    2. Fact or Fiction: The players' decision is the biggest one yet.

    Henry Abbott, ESPN.com: Fiction. The theatrics of it are overblown. Ignoring rhetoric, the two sides have done nothing but move closer and closer together. One way or another they'll hammer out these final few remaining points, while David Stern's ultimatums will either keep getting pushed back or cause only temporary breaks in the talks.

    Chris Broussard, ESPN The Magazine: Fact. I could be wrong because I did not foresee David Stern suspending his ultimatum this week, so who knows? Maybe he'll do it again. But it seems like if the players reject this deal, the owners will indeed drop to their 47 percent/rollback/flex cap offer, the union will decertify (or issue a disclaimer of interest), and the season will be thrown into serious jeopardy.

    Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Fact. Since the stakes rise over time, this is their biggest decision thus far. But it's possible there are bigger decisions yet to come.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Fact. If the players say no … they're saying no to the season. They're also going blindly into the wilderness of decertification without any assurances that they'll ever be able to get the same deal, let alone a better one, from the owners. That's a huge leap of faith for the rank and file. It might pay off, but it could also be disastrous. A known evil is usually better than an unknown future.

    Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Fact. Because if this thing actually goes to a player vote next week, there will inevitably be a section of players who winds up caving and voting for the deal against their instincts because they so badly want to play and know that voting against it greatly increases the likelihood of a canceled season. Which is something lots of guys can't stomach financially or emotionally. It's easy to scream to the heavens about this deal until that ballot is in your hands. Complicating matters further: Turning this offer down would mean the players believe they can get a better deal eventually ... even though the available evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Since their leverage count still basically sits at zero.

    3. Fact or Fiction: This is truly the owners' last, best offer.

    Henry Abbott, ESPN.com: Fiction. Not buying it. All the other big and final rhetoric has dissolved, and this can too. The league may mess around at 47 percent of BRI for a time to show who's boss, but the owners can offer whatever they want, and they have showed time and again that they are OK with offering 50. So long as a season can be played, I suspect the players will be able to get half the revenues.

    Chris Broussard, ESPN The Magazine: Fiction. I write that word with hesitation because it seems absurd that the league would offer another toothless ultimatum, but if the players ask for just a couple more "tweaks,'' why blow up the entire season (potentially) when there is still plenty of time left to negotiate en route to a 60-some-odd-game season?

    Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Fiction. If the players say "no" and counter, they can still meet in the middle of next week, Stern's "we're done negotiating" notwithstanding. And if they say "no" and file a decertification petition, this could all come to a head again in January.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Fact. The hard-liners have been unhappy with the deal Stern has been negotiating all along. The fact that the players aren't moving on their so-called "concessions" should sway enough owners to the hard-liners' cause. Unless players start winning a court battle or two, I doubt they'll ever see 50-50 again.

    Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Fact. I finally buy it. The only way it can prove to be fiction is if the disgruntled players out there file their decertification petition Monday and it has the desired effect of creating sufficient uncertainty among the owners and real uneasiness about the prospect of this labor battle moving to the courtroom, thus nudging the owners to budge off that hard line at last.

    5. Fact or Fiction: We'll have a 72-game season starting Dec. 15.

    Henry Abbott, ESPN.com: Fiction. I think it'll start just a little later than that. It is the nature of these talks that they just keep going and going. Surely there will be a few more to hammer out the finest points of the systems issues, and to allow players to miss their first paychecks, which will help hard-line owners feel satisfied they have done what they can do.

    Chris Broussard, ESPN The Magazine: Fiction. Just an educated hunch, but I get the feeling we're headed toward decertification.

    Larry Coon, ESPN.com: Fact. But just barely fact -- and to get there, Derek Fisher has to sell it to the player reps as the best deal they're going to get, with no better option on the horizon. This could still easily blow up, and it's still pretty close to a coin flip. I'd call it a 51/49 split.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Fiction. The rational thing to do is for the two sides to shake hands, split their billions and play ball. But human beings are rarely rational creatures when it comes to bargaining -- and the NBA owners and players left rationality behind months ago.

    Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Fiction. Pains me to say it -- literally makes me hurt to type it -- but I don't see the sides striking a deal by next week. Am I secretly hoping to trigger one of Bill Simmons' famous reverse jinxes by saying so out loud? Of course. But everyone agrees that 30 days are needed to start the season after a handshake. And I just can't envision a handshake by Nov. 15. Sorry.
    Source: ESPN.com


    I'm rolling with Larry Coon on everything. All the other guys are pawns used by league, players, and agents alike.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The end may not be near after all:

    I'd like to know how it got worse. Is this it?







    Sign and trade for tax teams for only the first 2 years:





    Did you watch the NBAPA press conference? The tone was much different. It was no longer a defiant tone, more defeated, in my opinion.

    As for BC's collars, they have actually shrunk in recent years - don't you think?


    That grandfathered S&T for 2 years seems to me a bone to the potential next few max players to get them to become "yes" advocates. LA would have to pay a heavy price though in lux tax or get rid of players like Gasol going back to Orlando for DH. I didnt particularly like the mid level exception @3 mil every year for tax teams though players who are actually worth 5 mill. will be giving up a total of 6 mill. over the life of the deal for the ring presumably.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    The end may not be near after all
    bah! Its near... I'm calling it. (*crosses fingers*)

    As for BC's collars, they have actually shrunk in recent years - don't you think?
    haha no doubt.... but don't think he won't break them out again in a second.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Bendit wrote: View Post
    I understand what you are saying about the perceived threats but I do believe it has had the desired effect so far. I mean what is he supposed to say when he is asked a direct question about what the NBA's position will be if the union answer is negative. A wishy washy one might be taken as an invitation he is up for some more tete-a-tete. Unlike some of the crass metaphoric slavemaster type rhetoric he has been quite professional in his I think.
    I'm not opposed to one side making 'threats'. Thats all part of the negotiations game. But there is a time and a place, and at some point they are more effective/useful when they are private... and followed through with right away rather than making the same one 4 times.

    To me, what Stern was doing was just adding an 'I win' clause to the negotiations.... where if the players take a deal it gives the apprearance of Stern wininng the negotiations. That will hardly be relevant in the long run, but short term that just adds to the divisiveness of the negotations and makes it harder for the egos on the other side to accept the deal. If the goal really is to come to an agreement that works rather than 'win' a negotiation, just keep it private. Use the threat to come to an agreement rather than stroke your ego and possibly push the negotiations further apart.


    Then you have him having made this same threat a bunch of times. He may very well follow through with it... he may not. But his 'bluff' has been, arguably, called each time. When he makes it again its alot easier for the PA to call it again, to try and play the 'I win' game themselves.... which I can't imagine anyone who wants this negotiation to end really cares about.

    I remember someone mentioning about a month ago that the negotiations were very close, but they were at the point of it coming down to 'winning' rather than coming to a conclusion both sides could accept and then get back to ball. And I see that very clearly in Stern's comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Glad to see the end may be coming near..... its the same with any negotiations though, takes the hardliners (on both sides) to shut their mouths and then things get done.
    The end may not be near after all:


    AlexKennedyNBA The union reps almost unanimously rejected the NBA's last offer. If this is worse, no way executive comittee and team reps accept on Monday.
    AlexKennedyNBA Uh oh. I just got this text from an NBPA source: "No deal. Total BS. The deal got worse. No season."

    I'd like to know how it got worse. Is this it?


    Chris_Broussard Raise annual salary increases...union says problem is that owners changed definition of tax payer in way that would destroy Bird rights and
    Chris_Broussard make it nearly impossible to be a tax payer so exceptions would be lost anyway

    Sign and trade for tax teams for only the first 2 years:

    Chris_Broussard Owners phase in of sign-&-trade for tax teams is big.Means Dwight, CP3, DWill & Nash could all be signed-&-traded.That keeps LAL n hunt 4 DH
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Wonder if Stern has ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf though? His 'its gonna get worse if you don't accept this' sounds more hollow every time he says it. Ah well.... maybe it strokes his ego. And if it makes him feel real good about himself, I'm sure BC mom can starch some high collared shirts for him.
    Did you watch the NBAPA press conference? The tone was much different. It was no longer a defiant tone, more defeated, in my opinion.

    As for BC's collars, they have actually shrunk in recent years - don't you think?
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Fri Nov 11, 2011, 12:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Glad to see the end may be coming near..... its the same with any negotiations though, takes the hardliners (on both sides) to shut their mouths and then things get done.

    Wonder if Stern has ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf though? His 'its gonna get worse if you don't accept this' sounds more hollow every time he says it. Ah well.... maybe it strokes his ego. And if it makes him feel real good about himself, I'm sure BC mom can starch some high collared shirts for him.
    I understand what you are saying about the perceived threats but I do believe it has had the desired effect so far. I mean what is he supposed to say when he is asked a direct question about what the NBA's position will be if the union answer is negative. A wishy washy one might be taken as an invitation he is up for some more tete-a-tete. Unlike some of the crass metaphoric slavemaster type rhetoric he has been quite professional in his I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • ezz_bee
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    C'mon players, sign-off and let the senseless free agency spending begin!
    When even Slaw comes out and says it's time for the players to accept the new deal it's hard to see any scenario where the player's don't take the deal.

    Unfortunately I don't think they will... I'll in africa for 2012, probably with sketchy internet at best, so I guess a lost season won't be the worst thing.

    Anyone who advocates to the players that they shouldn't take this deal is really doing a dis-service to the players in my opinion.

    Stupid NBA PA!

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Previous offer had 2 year, $2.5 mini-MLE every OTHER year for tax payers.

    Newest offer has 3 year, $3M mini-MLE EVERY year for tax payers.

    To me, that is a big move from the league and fires the players argument of restricted player movement in the trash. They can go where they want - just not for top dollar.


    Chris_Broussard Changes in owners new proposal: mini midlevel for luxury tax teams from $2.5 million every other year to $3 million EVERY YEAR

    It would be interesting to know the restrictions of sign and trade for tax payers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    Maybe a new poll should be setup...will (not should) the players take the deal: yes, no or more negotiation (if Stern is posturing here).

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/sp...ewanted=1&_r=1



    Watching the 2 press conferences on NBA.com, as I have with all the others, I get a very different feel from both sides. I think the above quotes are very real and the end is here. I could be wrong. Like I said before, hopefully the league is very giving on the 'secondary' 30-40 issues.
    Glad to see the end may be coming near..... its the same with any negotiations though, takes the hardliners (on both sides) to shut their mouths and then things get done.

    Wonder if Stern has ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf though? His 'its gonna get worse if you don't accept this' sounds more hollow every time he says it. Ah well.... maybe it strokes his ego. And if it makes him feel real good about himself, I'm sure BC mom can starch some high collared shirts for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    Actually every team except the Kings in 2010-2011 had a payroll higher than the projected floor for next year according to this Wiki link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2...layer_salaries

    The floor should be very easy to reach for most teams.
    Last edited by planetmars; Fri Nov 11, 2011, 12:33 PM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X