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

[Joey]

Via Larry Coon:



Source: Larry Coon, ESPN.com

Ugh. This does not make me feel good at all. It appears the only thing that has happened is a harsher luxury tax and that might not even be the same as previously proposed.

Geez. Looks like they're just trying to get something/anything done at this point.

Good to see. I think the harsher Tax will certainly have an effect. Not as much as everything else would have, but still.

[Joey]

I really love seeing how teams only have 3 days to Match an offer on a Restricted Free Agent.

I HATED that 7 days.

[mcHAPPY]

Via Larry Coon:

Friday's compromise included the elimination of the smaller mid-level exception for taxpayers, the restoration of sign-and-trade and extend-and-trade transactions, and the removal of the harsher tax penalties for teams that are taxpayers four times in a five-year span.

"It's not the system we sought out to get in terms of a harder cap," Silver said, "but the luxury tax is harsher than it was in the past deal, and we hope it's effective."

Source: Larry Coon, ESPN.com

Ugh. This does not make me feel good at all. It appears the only thing that has happened is a harsher luxury tax and that might not even be the same as previously proposed.

[mcHAPPY]

totally agree. Said that a couple months ago.

But this was more about some believing the players should just give up to any of the owners desires because they'll never get what they want ("owners have all the leverage and the players have none" idea), and giving the impression the owners were in it for some sort of altruistic design ("competitive balance").

The reality always was it all came down to $... and then morphed into an ego trip. Once it was realized that the ego trip was going to cost significantly more than expected, some peoples pride got checked at the door (thank god).

anyways don't want to jinx this so I'll shut my mouth.

Too bad the Melo rule looks like its out the door though... I think it would have been one of the best changes to come out of the lockout.

I'm not sure that is the case. I do think the owners were trying to achieve maximum competitive balance however money and split of BRI was by far the #1 concern (a league operating at a loss is not sustainable). To get a deal done they had to relent on some of those competitive balance issues but they did get a couple of important changes in there which will hopefully make an impact. Don't forget the much harsher luxury tax is in there and there will still be penalties for repeat tax offenders (although I believe the penalty has been decreased).


*EDIT* Appears not all owners will be too thrilled but the majority will at the least approve.

WindhorstESPN Brian Windhorst
Owners probably will not be happy with last-minute system concessions. But Stern made deal knowing he's got the needed votes.

[Joey]

Wow ... What a fantastic way to start my Saturday!

[GarbageTime]

After December 25th there were ramifications on the national TV deal and other league sponsorships from what I understand. Plus it was in no one's best interest to lose a season. The best deals are when neither party are totally happy.The owners did get:
6-7% more BRI ($240-300M annually)
much harsher tax
shorter contracts
smaller MLE
restrictions on sign and trade for tax teams (not yet exactly known)
monetary advantage for smaller markets in free agency (mini MLE vs full MLE)
25% increase (8% to 10%) in escrow fund
decrease in annual raises

The players kept:
guaranteed deals
no hard cap
no rollbacks for current contracts
no rollbacks for future minimum and rookie contracts



The owners were given a choice to sub the starters and settle for a 20 point win or continue with the starting 5 and win by 40.

In the end a win is a win.



What I am curious to know is:

In previous proposal Bird Rights were not transferable in a sign and trade (i.e. only 4 years and 3.5% raises versus 5 years and 6.5% raises). If this continues to be the case, I can live with no extend and trade (i.e. no Melo Rule).

totally agree. Said that a couple months ago.

But this was more about some believing the players should just give up to any of the owners desires because they'll never get what they want ("owners have all the leverage and the players have none" idea), and giving the impression the owners were in it for some sort of altruistic design ("competitive balance").

The reality always was it all came down to $... and then morphed into an ego trip. Once it was realized that the ego trip was going to cost significantly more than expected, some peoples pride got checked at the door (thank god).

anyways don't want to jinx this so I'll shut my mouth.

Too bad the Melo rule looks like its out the door though... I think it would have been one of the best changes to come out of the lockout.

[mcHAPPY]

makes me wonder a couple things:

did the players have more 'leverage' (using that term loosely) than fans initially thought and losing a season was scarrier to the owners than they let on?

or did the owners never really give a sh*t about 'competitive balance' and this was all about money and ego?

After December 25th there were ramifications on the national TV deal and other league sponsorships from what I understand. Plus it was in no one's best interest to lose a season. The best deals are when neither party are totally happy.

The owners did get:
6-7% more BRI ($240-300M annually)
much harsher tax
shorter contracts
smaller MLE
restrictions on sign and trade for tax teams (not yet exactly known)
monetary advantage for smaller markets in free agency (mini MLE vs full MLE)
25% increase (8% to 10%) in escrow fund
decrease in annual raises

The players kept:
guaranteed deals
no hard cap
no rollbacks for current contracts
no rollbacks for future minimum and rookie contracts



The owners were given a choice to sub the starters and settle for a 20 point win or continue with the starting 5 and win by 40.

In the end a win is a win.



What I am curious to know is:

In previous proposal Bird Rights were not transferable in a sign and trade (i.e. only 4 years and 3.5% raises versus 5 years and 6.5% raises). If this continues to be the case, I can live with no extend and trade (i.e. no Melo Rule).

[GarbageTime]

_Owners dropped their insistence on what would have been known as the Carmelo Anthony rule, preventing teams from executing extend-and-trade deals similar to the one that sent Anthony from the Denver Nuggets to the New York Knicks last season. This means that if Dwight Howard, Deron Williams and Chris Paul want to leverage their way out of Orlando, New Jersey and New Orleans, they will still be eligible to sign four-year extensions with their current teams before being immediately traded elsewhere.

makes me wonder a couple things:

did the players have more 'leverage' (using that term loosely) than fans initially thought and losing a season was scarrier to the owners than they let on?

or did the owners never really give a sh*t about 'competitive balance' and this was all about money and ego?

[mcHAPPY]

Was it all for not?

Here are some of the key details of those moves, according to a league source who was privy to the details of the tentative agreement and shared those details with SheridanHoops.com.

_ On the financial split, the players will receive between 49 and 51 percent of revenues, depending on annual growth. The players had complained prior to Saturday that the owners’ previous offer effectively limited them to 50.2 percent of revenues, but the source said 51 percent was now reasonably achievable with robust growth.

_Owners dropped their insistence on what would have been known as the Carmelo Anthony rule, preventing teams from executing extend-and-trade deals similar to the one that sent Anthony from the Denver Nuggets to the New York Knicks last season. This means that if Dwight Howard, Deron Williams and Chris Paul want to leverage their way out of Orlando, New Jersey and New Orleans, they will still be eligible to sign four-year extensions with their current teams before being immediately traded elsewhere.

_ Teams above the salary cap will be able to offer four-year mid-level exception contracts to free agents each season. Previously, owners were asking that teams be limited to offering a four-year deal one year, a three-year deal the next, then four, then three, etc.

_ The rookie salary scale and veteran minimum salaries will stay the same as they were last season. Owners had been seeking 12 percent cuts.

_ Qualifying offers to restricted free agents will become “significantly” improved. The sides had already agreed to reduce the time for a team to match an offer to a restricted free agent from 7 days to 3.

_ A new $2.5 million exception will be available to teams that go blow the salary cap, then use all of their cap room to sign free agents. Once they are back above the cap, they will be able to use the new exception instead of being limited to filling out their rosters with players on minimum contracts.

_ The prohibition on luxury tax-paying teams from executing sign-and-trade deals was loosened, although the freedom to execute those types of deals will still be limited.

Source: SheridanHoops.com

The “A-list” issues, though, were the ones that had hung up the season, forcing what will be an opening night delayed by 55 days. They’re the ones that caused bargaining to break down Nov. 14 and they’re the ones that needed to be addressed to both sides’ satisfaction –- or tolerable dissatisfaction -– for the tentative agreement to get struck.

Finding middle ground on those was key. Among them:

– The mid-level exception for non-taxpaying teams will have a maximum length of four years every season (instead of alternating at four years, then three years). Starting salary can be as much as $5 million.

– There apparently will be a “mini” MLE for taxpaying teams, restricting the amount they can offer to free agents.

– A 10 percent maximum escrow tax will be withheld without the unlimited “true up” amount requested by the owners in their previous offer.

– Extend-and-trade deals –- as used by Carmelo Anthony and the New York Knicks last season –- will be modified but not eliminated in a new CBA. That could impact players such as Orlando’s Dwight Howard and New Jersey’s Deron Williams.

– A new benefits pool for players equivalent to 1 percent of BRI will include annuities for retired players ages 35-50, as well as funds for continuing education.

– The “match” period for restricted free agents will be reduced from seven days to three days. Qualifying offers are expected to be increased.

– Other compromises were believed to have been reached on the “repeater” luxury tax penalties to be paid by teams exceeding the tax threshold in four of any five seasons. Among the “B-list” issues are the age limit for entry to the draft (possibly upping to 20 years and two years out of high school), drug testing modifications, discipline and D League assignments.

Source: NBA.com

[mcHAPPY]

Few details released

Interestingly, Quinn was not present for the negotiating finale. Neither was NBPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler, who had been quietly pushed out of his role as lead negotiator. Stern, Holt, deputy commissioner Adam Silver, general counsel Rick Buchanan and deputy general counsel Dan Rube closed the deal for the owners. The players were represented by Hunter, Fisher, executive committee member Maurice Evans, general counsel Ron Klempner, economist Kevin Murphy and two outside attorneys.

According to Yahoo Sports, however, Kessler reappeared at a crucial juncture of Friday's talks and proposed a 51-49 split of basketball-related income (BRI) in favor of the players that left owners dismayed when they were consulted by phone. The two sides had previously agreed to a 50-50 split of BRI, but one option to achieve that was a model that would give the players a range of between 49 and 51 percent.

Under the owners' most recently proposed system, the players felt it would have been almost impossible to achieve the 51 percent ceiling. Feeling emboldened by their antitrust lawsuit and the leverage it might provide -- and confident that a nearly $3 billion giveback over 10 years by agreeing to reduce their share significantly from the 57 percent they received in the prior agreement -- the players went into Friday's session hoping to get significant movement on a list of six outstanding system issues. In practice, achieving what they were seeking on most or all of those issues would have by definition, resulted in a chance to get closer to the 51 percent of BRI.

Neither side divulged details of the agreement reached early Saturday, but sources said the players were most concerned about the availability of the mid-level exception and sign-and-trades for luxury tax-paying teams and the definition of a tax-paying team. But they felt that it was possible to get the owners to agree to four-year mid-level deals for non tax-payers (instead of alternating three- and four-year deals) and higher max contracts for star players who achieve certain benchmarks while under their rookie contracts (increasing the max from 25 percent of the cap to 30 percent). The players also were pushing for significantly enhanced qualifying offers for restricted free agents, which they believed along with a shorter match period (from seven days to three) and fully guaranteed qualifying offers -- both already agreed to -- would create a more liberal market for those players.

With some movement from the owners on those technical aspects, the players' negotiators believed they could present a deal that the union membership would embrace despite the massive economic concessions, shorter contracts, smaller raises and other restrictions the owners insisted on to address their dual problems of $300 million in annual losses and competitive imbalance. Under the paradigm previously agreed to, the players retained guaranteed contracts; fought off the owners' efforts to impose a hard team salary cap; withstood their attempt to shrink max salaries and roll back existing contracts; and kept the existing salary cap (about $58 million) and luxury tax level ($70 million) in place for the first two years of the 10-year agreement. The owners also agreed to increase the minimum team salary from 75 percent of the cap to 90 percent -- a provision that, along with a vastly enhanced revenue-sharing plan, will ensure that low-revenue teams will compete for free agents and spend money on players.

A person familiar with the agreement said the owners' greatest compromises were in the areas of restricted free agency and the middle class. There was some compromise on the issues of sign-and-trades and mid-level exceptions for tax-paying teams.

"I think it will largely prevent the high-spending teams from competing in the free agency market in the way they’ve been able to in the past," deputy commissoner Adam Silver said. "As I said, it’s a compromise. It’s not the system we sought out to get, in terms of a harder cap. But the luxury tax is harsher than it was in the past deal, and we hope it’s effective. You never can be sure, with how a new system will work. But we feel ultimately it will give fans in every community hope that their team can compete for championships."

Stern downplayed the players' antitrust lawsuits, which were consolidated and refiled in Minnesota this past week, as a significant factor in achieving the deal. With 30 days needed to prepare for a Dec. 25 start, the negotiators for both sides had pushed their slow, often painful dance to the last possible moment before the lockout would've wreaked devastating effects.

Source: CBSSports.com


It will be interesting to see the final details.

[mcHAPPY]

It's not over yet. The confetti is still dropping the dancing is carrying on, but the NBA isn't back... yet. Not officially, at least. For that to happen, the new collective bargaining agreement must be voted on by both the players and owners and then made official.

Question is, is there really a chance that one of the two sides might not vote for the new CBA? As one veteran player texted Yahoo! Sports, "We (bleeping) caved," he said as he indicated he would vote no on approving a new deal.

However, don't panic. Because Yahoo! also reports that it's going to pass.

"There will be a significant number of players who will not vote to approve this deal, but there won't be a majority. The deal will pass."

The vote will likely take place either Saturday or Sunday and as mentioned, all indications are that it will pass with ease. If the way players reacted on Twitter is any indication, it seems they are all ready to play no matter what the new CBA says.

If for some reason it didn't, it would be absolute mayhem. All the hard work would be gone and the season would almost certainly be lost. But don't fear: That's not happening. Both sides have put their full faith and trust in their bargaining groups and you can be sure that the deal agreed to in principle is one that both sides are entirely comfortable will pass.

Source: CBSSports.com

[mcHAPPY]

Tentative agreement reached!

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/72...tive-agreement


Still to be voted on but an agreement has been reached.

[RandomGuy]

Congratulations guys

[Bendit]

The PA seems overly giddy. Did Stern give them a collective blow job?

That was meant to be metaphorical because the visual of the real thing comes across as sorta messy.

Hope he didn't give away too much on the system.

[mcHAPPY]

Source: Twitter @sam_amick

Seriously, this time we mean it.

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard
Another good sign: NBA owners have Labor Relations Committee conference call scheduled for later tonite, sources say

No, they really, really mean it this time.