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

[mcHAPPY]

I would suspect bonuses would be included in the annual cap number. I suppose you could pro rate them over the length of the contract, too, but they won't allow bonuses to exceed the cap (or any other type of compensation). Otherwise, the cap is a joke. I agree that teams will try to find ways around the cap but the NBA knows most of the loopholes from the NHL experience and can cap length and term of contracts, which pretty much wipes out any funny business.

Rather than non-guaranteed contracts, I could abide a system where teams could buyout a player's contract at the end of a year with various restrictions. The thing I don't like about non-guaranteed deals is that it rewards poor management and owership and reduces the competitive advantage for teams that make good decisions. It's also fundamentally bad-faith dealing on the part of a party to sign a long-term deal knowing it has no intention of honouring it. Or, if you need them, then have non-guaranteed deals and at the end of each year the player can opt out if he wants. The owners claim they just want fairness and equity for all, so they certianly couldn't object to something so fair and equitable. Right?

That would be a good idea.

If players mail it in after signing a good deal, they are cut; if a player is not getting paid what they feel is fair, they can opt out.

To do something like that there would have to be an absolute hard cap though.

[Apollo]

Owners aren't going to go for that... In the NFL there are bonuses and that money is guaranteed. For example, Vick signed a $100M contract recently, for six years I think and almost half the money was guaranteed... Unless he goes on another dog slaughtering spree and gets caught red handed.

[mcHAPPY]

Owners aren't going to go for that... In the NFL there are bonuses and that money is guaranteed. For example, Vick signed a $100M contract recently, for six years I think and almost half the money was guaranteed... Unless he goes on another dog slaughtering spree and gets caught red handed.

Incentive based contracts would be ideal. Unfortunately what happens at the end of the year if incentives are met (appear in 78 games, play 2500 mins, make the all-star team, make the playoffs, etc.) and the team finishes over the 'hard cap'?

Or would the total value be used towards the hard cap and anything not met goes in owner's pocket? That would not help free agency in a hard cap system though.

[Joey]

Incentive based contracts would be ideal. Unfortunately what happens at the end of the year if incentives are met (appear in 78 games, play 2500 mins, make the all-star team, make the playoffs, etc.) and the team finishes over the 'hard cap'?

Or would the total value be used towards the hard cap and anything not met goes in owner's pocket? That would not help free agency in a hard cap system though.

This is exactly what I was asking with my initial comment about Incentives.
Whats to stop a team from signing someone to a $1M contract, and then offering $10M in bonuses.
This would subsequently HAVE to be written as an $11M contract, and then the overall hit to the cap, is based on how the player performs. It would be tricky ... because then they wouldn't know how much money they have to spend until its too late.

Similar to Michael Vicks vase where alot of the contract was 'guarenteed' and the rest would have to be 'earned'. I wouldn't be against that.
ADD Didn't see Apollo post about Bonuses ... so All of Michael Vicks Bonuses are included in that $40M? So potentially only say $30M is actually Guarenteed, depending on how he plays?

And to your point about "if the player mails it in, they can be dropped, if they overproduce they can renegotiate", this is almost what Baseball does with their Arbitration, in the offseason, is it not?

[Apollo]

Incentive based contracts would be ideal. Unfortunately what happens at the end of the year if incentives are met (appear in 78 games, play 2500 mins, make the all-star team, make the playoffs, etc.) and the team finishes over the 'hard cap'?

Or would the total value be used towards the hard cap and anything not met goes in owner's pocket? That would not help free agency in a hard cap system though.

Either the incentives are factored into the cap or somebody gets cut. If a guy just had a nice season, maybe a career season, and earned a bunch of incentives chances are he stays and some other guy not doing his share gets cut. Hard cap rewards people who produce. The only guys who need to worry are those who aren't producing.

This is exactly what I was asking with my initial comment about Incentives.
Whats to stop a team from signing someone to a $1M contract, and then offering $10M in bonuses.
This would subsequently HAVE to be written as an $11M contract, and then the overall hit to the cap, is based on how the player performs. It would be tricky ... because then they wouldn't know how much money they have to spend until its too late.

Similar to Michael Vicks vase where alot of the contract was 'guarenteed' and the rest would have to be 'earned'. I wouldn't be against that.
ADD Didn't see Apollo post about Bonuses ... so All of Michael Vicks Bonuses are included in that $40M? So potentially only say $30M is actually Guarenteed, depending on how he plays?

And to your point about "if the player mails it in, they can be dropped, if they overproduce they can renegotiate", this is almost what Baseball does with their Arbitration, in the offseason, is it not?

In the NFL the bonuses are included in the total salary figure for a player and that's added to the cap.

As far as I know all of the 40 something million which was reported as guaranteed money is really guaranteed money. How the other $50-60M works on paper, I don't know. Some of it could be incentive driven bonuses. Not all bonuses are guaranteed, I think it depends on the particular contract. Sometimes you'll see guys get cut in the off-season before certain deadlines so a team can avoid paying them a bonus. Some bonuses are all guaranteed and some aren't. I think it all comes down to a player's market worth, how good his agent is and what he's willing to accept.

[mcHAPPY]

Either the incentives are factored into the cap or somebody gets cut. If a guy just had a nice season, maybe a career season, and earned a bunch of incentives chances are he stays and some other guy not doing his share gets cut. Hard cap rewards people who produce. The only guys who need to worry are those who aren't producing.

I'm thinking about June time when the season is over. Payroll was $64M and under *$65M* hard cap. Incentives push final payroll to $72M yet hard cap was $65M.

What happens then? You can't tell numbnuts who rode the pine making $12M to give back $7M.

[Joey]

I'm thinking about June time when the season is over. Payroll was $64M and under *$65M* hard cap. Incentives push final payroll to $72M yet hard cap was $65M.

What happens then? You can't tell numbnuts who rode the pine making $12M to give back $7M.

If we're talking Non-Guarenteed contracts, then you just Drop numbnuts riding the pine and save all $12M. No? Or whatever you haven't paid to him, but the entire worth of the contract will come off the Cap.

[mcHAPPY]

If we're talking Non-Guarenteed contracts, then you just Drop numbnuts riding the pine and save all $12M. No? Or whatever you haven't paid to him, but the entire worth of the contract will come off the Cap.

But the season is over. Numbnuts was just paid $12M for a horrible year. Future years are a no brainer - cut him.

I think my confusion is based on how in the current CBA luxury tax figures are calculated based on June 30 payroll. Maybe the date to be under the cap changes to first day of regular season - or something like that.

[Apollo]

I'm thinking about June time when the season is over. Payroll was $64M and under *$65M* hard cap. Incentives push final payroll to $72M yet hard cap was $65M.

What happens then? You can't tell numbnuts who rode the pine making $12M to give back $7M.

I'm thinking that possible incentives are factored into the cap number so it would be impossible to have incentive based bonuses driving you over the cap. I could be wrong though, I don't know. I think what's more likely is the incentives taking up the remaining cap space, like they were allotted to do and then a team being in a situation where another player is due for a raise but can't get it because the team needs to keep space for another player's potential incentive bonus. Most teams in the NFL aren't pressed by the cap, it's so large, as in $120M. My thoughts are that in the NBA, if a hard cap comes in, you'll see it set at $70M or in that ball park.

If we're talking Non-Guarenteed contracts, then you just Drop numbnuts riding the pine and save all $12M. No? Or whatever you haven't paid to him, but the entire worth of the contract will come off the Cap.

Yeah, if bonus incentives aren't factored into the cap then it's going to lead to a highly volatile labor market for end of the bench guys. People don't pay to watch them so... You know... Tough, guys, hit the gym or use the university degree you should have got for free.

But the season is over. Numbnuts was just paid $12M for a horrible year. Future years are a no brainer - cut him.

I think my confusion is based on how in the current CBA luxury tax figures are calculated based on June 30 payroll. Maybe the date to be under the cap changes to first day of regular season - or something like that.

Numb nuts is on salary so he hasn't collected all the money yet. We can't look at this from a guaranteed contract perspective. If he's cut 3/4 through a contract year they've only paid up 3/4 of that cap hit. I think that's how it might work anyway... So if it were a one year, $4M contract and they cut him 3/4 of the way through the contract year then they've just freed up $1M.

[mcHAPPY]

Well, one labour negotiation has been resolved:

NBA and refs reach 5 year deal

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-refere...ear-agreement/

[Apollo]

I don't have the articles because I read this on my iphone yesterday and this morning but there was a report that Buss and Dolan were pissed at the small market owners for playing hardball on the labor spat. One name in particular that came up was Sarver. Anyway, a report came out today where Stern stated that the Owners are in fact on the same page. I can understand why Buss and Dolan just want to get this done, I mean they're going to lose a lot of revenue. However, tune up the violins because they are the minority of super rich teams and I'm fairly sure that the likes of Jordan and Sarver aren't going to bow down so that Buss can continue to make a killing year in, year out while they struggle to balance the books.

[slaw]

I don't have the articles because I read this on my iphone yesterday and this morning but there was a report that Buss and Dolan were pissed at the small market owners for playing hardball on the labor spat. One name in particular that came up was Sarver. Anyway, a report came out today where Stern stated that the Owners are in fact on the same page. I can understand why Buss and Dolan just want to get this done, I mean they're going to lose a lot of revenue. However, tune up the violins because they are the minority of super rich teams and I'm fairly sure that the likes of Jordan and Sarver aren't going to bow down so that Buss can continue to make a killing year in, year out while they struggle to balance the books.

Sorry, I don't find Sarver a sympathetic figure. He overpaid for the team, has spent years cutting salary and has done his best to alienate his players, management team and fans. You want me to tune up violins for one of the worst owners in sports? Sorry, no can do.

Here's the thing: guys like Sarver, Gilbert, Jordan, Sterling, Taylor, are among the worst owners in pro sports. Look at how they run their own teams! Now, you want those guys dictating how the league should be run! Yikes. If owners like these are the future of the NBA, then the NBA is doomed.

[mcHAPPY]

Sorry, I don't find Sarver a sympathetic figure. He overpaid for the team, has spent years cutting salary and has done his best to alienate his players, management team and fans. You want me to tune up violins for one of the worst owners in sports? Sorry, no can do.

Here's the thing: guys like Sarver, Gilbert, Jordan, Sterling, Taylor, are among the worst owners in pro sports. Look at how they run their own teams! Now, you want those guys dictating how the league should be run! Yikes. If owners like these are the future of the NBA, then the NBA is doomed.

Sterling has run a profitable team for years. Probably why he does such a sh*t job - he keeps making money.

Gilbert has spent tonnes of money year in, year out trying to win. Gilbert is a good owner, in my opinion. He didn't handle the LeBron aftermath very good but other than that he has done nothing but try to win, expenses be damned. Hell, he bought a second first round draft pick for essentially $12M (difference between Davis and Williams' contracts) and as luck would have it it turned out to be #1 (as an aside, imagine Irving with the Clippers).

Taylor has shown he is willing to spend in the past. McHale set that franchise back a decade with the Joe Smith fiasco, bad draft nights (Roy for Foye?), poor free agent signings (Mike James?), and questionable trades. Owners are routinely criticized for getting involved in basketball matters and not letting basketball minds do their jobs, however, in this case he should have fired McHale before he did. The verdict was in but the appeal is still out on Kahn - it will be interesting to see how everything works with the talent assembled and Adelman.

As for Sarver and Jordan, I agree.

For a number of teams that have lost money year in and year out due to the current CBA, I wonder how much of their bad basketball decisions are made because of factors related to money. I would imagine quite a few. Using the stock market as an analogy, you never make a market decision (exception of raising a stop) with money in play because your emotions (i.e. fear of losing money) can get the better of you and cause you to do things you otherwise would not do. That is hard to do as an NBA owner because money is always in play.

[mcHAPPY]

I was curious about selective voiding of contracts if the players decertified. So I asked Alex Kennedy for his take. I'd really love to get Larry Coon's opinion.

Matt
Technically if the players decertified, the owners could void all contracts. However, would the owners be able to selectively void contracts? For example, could Orlando void Gilbert and keep Dwight? If owners could do this, I really hope the players decertify. Thanks.

Alex Kennedy
If the players decertify and the owners start voiding contracts, you will see hundreds of lawsuits filed by agents. Selectively voiding contracts would be even messier. I think that was just a threat. I can’t see the owners actually following through if the players decertify. Several agents that I’m close to agree, which is why some in their industry have been pushing for decertification. They want to call the owners’ bluff.

[Employee]

Interview with Derek Fisher, I thought his point on guaranteed deals was kinda dumb but I guess I can see his point.

SI.com: Billy Hunter called the hard cap a "blood issue," but they're acting like it's a blood issue on their end as well. Why?

Fisher: However we view the numbers, we still don't agree that the [league's] losses are at the magnitude that they are, but let's say for conversation purposes we agree that there is a certain level of loss being incurred by the teams -- regardless of what the system is. Let's just say the system is to the side for now. If you're able to reach an agreement that provides you with a certain level of economic relief that helps you resolve the economic issues, then why does the system need to change?

Secondly, no matter what level of salary cap or compensation that will be paid out on an individual team, with a hard salary cap, you essentially wipe out the ability for a team to be able to guarantee a certain number of contracts. It's inevitable, and that's something that in basketball that we don't view as a positive thing. We're not advocates for guys gaining contracts and long-term security and not doing their jobs; we're advocates for guys earning and being paid for performance, etc. But we don't believe that in basketball, that guys consistently facing non-guaranteed contracts, then having to literally go to battle with each other.

SI.com: Doesn't the game itself come into play there? In football, an offensive lineman in a contract year can't do a whole lot on his own to take away from the team and will still do his assignment.

Fisher: That's our opinion and that's what we've expressed. And because we play the game, we obviously feel we have a better viewpoint on that perspective that it really would negatively impact the way the game of basketball is played.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201....fisher/1.html