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

[NoPropsneeded]

NoProps: you are thinking of binding arbitration. The mediator, unfortunately, has no final say. His role is more like that of a marriage counsellor working with a couple looking to give it one last shot before they start divorce proceedings. In the end if one side still isn't happy they can walk away.

ya we just learned about that in civics class a few weeks ago. I guess i got them mixed up

[GarbageTime]

When basketball related incomes are exceeding basketball related expenses, revenues are negative

hardly relevent. This is NOT about whether the league is or isn't profitable. This isn't about creating profit.

This is about 'competitve balance'.

If a hard cap is 200 mil each team it may not be profitable either. If a hard cap is 10 mil its still possible for teams to not be profitable.

Again for about the 200th time SEPERATE IDEAS.

Sharing team basketball income is what the owners, and I, are talking about. I'm not talking about outside sources or owners other revenue streams. Did you read the breakdown of BRI?

Every team has a local TV contract - why should the Lakers, Raptors, Knicks, Bucks, Spurs, Houston have to share that? They already share a national TV contract. Why should every team have to share the proceeds from their luxury suites and arena signage? Where is the incentive for a franchise to be run profitably if they are going to get a bailout at the end of the year from those who do a good job?

Back to the players, every player has the opportunity to get endorsement money that is directly related to their performance in the NBA. Your example would be akin to having players who perform extremely well or are extremely marketable sharing their windfalls with those who do not perform or are not marketable.

So you are missing my point.

no I get your point... but you are stretching now as to what should be 'shareable'. How many deals has Buss or Cuban made due to their name? Could we even quantify it? How much money have they made by using their franchise as a form of collateral or as counting it as an asset? Thereby inticing investors into other projects or investments? That is all 'basketball related' as well if we are going to use your interpretation.

A hard cap means there are no exemptions. That is the heart of the lockout. They are interrelated and one of the same. I'm starting to wonder if you have a good grasp of the concepts here.

haha hilarious. This entire discussion was about the hard cap vs revenue sharing itself. You are (and have been) trying to bring outside issues and tie them in. Such the Carmelo Rule, can't have revenue sharing if you don't have revenues etc. I have a perfect grasp of this, you are trying to manipulate the discussion.

The players did not say they would go for a hard cap at $90M they said they would with a BRI share of 65% which is a hard cap of $86.7M. If the owners are losing money with a share of the BRI at 43%, how are teams going to remain operational with a 35% share?

Oh right, allocating assets. Like I said, get the players to sign off on sharing their endorsements equally. I know you said it is not the same, but it really is. To this I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

the statement was sarcastic.... to show that what everyone does or doesn't want is beyond to scope of hard cap vs revenue sharing.

Expenses differ from team to team based on local rents, arena situation, local tax rates, geographic location. Just splitting all revenues does nothing to give an even playing field. A hard cap on the other hand makes every teams largest expense equal thereby creating on court financial parity.

I'm willing to bet players would be for revenue sharing instead of a hard cap just as much as owners would be for all player endorsement contracts subsidizing NBA contracts.

Teams will only ever have 1 constent expense that is equal. Thereby, using your argument, just splitting that one expense doesn't give a level playing field either.

I also don't doubt that the owners would be for that. So include every dollar, directly or indirectly, an owner makes that has in some way been related to the league and their team aswell. In fact thats a great idea, now we can completely open their books.

As an aside, I've already given a link showing exactly what is included in BRI. Maybe I'm missing something so when you say allocate basketball assets or revenues, what exactly are you referring to? Please give specifics

All BRI, (all broadcast contracts, including local, gate receipts etc), that does not go to players being shared among the owners. ie. NFL
style.

Again, where is the incentive for teams to operate to the best of their ability? A friend of mine is a radiologist: he had the choice to work in two areas of Canada, in one area all the radiologists pooled their money and split it evenly, in the other area they kept their salaries separate and could make as much or as little as they wanted. Guess which area he picked? Separate. Why? Because those who work hard are continually complaining about those who f*ck the dog, day in and day out.

Indeed.... isn't that always the problem though. If owners decided to not try and operate under a profit, then this entire lockout is one big farce is it not? Because, if regardless of the rules/system, owners planned to lose money or not make money or not try to etc, they really should have no ones support to lock out players based on the league not making money.

So on one side they say they want to make money. But on the other, if they have to share part of it, they won't try to anymore? Hmm...


On a side note, your example of your friend. That is EXACTLY what the owners are trying to do, and doing, to the players. Lebron James, Dwight Howard whoever, is not making as much as they could no matter how hard he works or how good he is. Now they want to limit it more. So what am I missing here. Its good for the goose but not for the gander?

What the owners are asking for is allowing as much free market capitalism for their outputs as they can, while at the same time as much socialsim for their inputs as they can. What I'm saying is if the owners want to socialize their inputs, they need to be willing to socialize their ouputs aswell.





Look my point, beyond what I intially said about never being able to actually create a level playing field, is if the owners actually wanted to create a more competitive playing field, they could get rid of the idea of a hard cap and use revenue sharing instead. It would create that same playing field they claim they want, and make it easier to end the lockout. But they do not care about a competitive playing field if it doesn't definetely improve their ability to make a profit. Thats why this is a red herring. They are using competitive balance as an excuse to 'bribe' fan support, and to offer a concession (that they don't really care about anyways) to get other concessions out of the union.

They realize 99% of fans don't actually care how much players or owners actually make or don't make. Fans only actually care about that so much as it directly effects their home teams itself. But most fans want to know that their team has a chance to get and keep the next Lebron James. So they are feeding them this half truth about how a hard cap will create a competitive balance, making those fans mad at players and thereby giving owners an edge.

I, for the most part, have no issues with how this lockout ends. It could end with a 50/50 split, a 60/40 a 0/100 its all the same to me. It could end with a hard cap or no cap. It could end with no Melo rule or multiple Melo rules. My issue is with these half truths coming from the owners. In fairness to them, its a game in and of itself and they are good at it. They are playing politics. What bothers me is fans are actually buying this crap and those half truths are helping to extend the lockout.

Like I've said before I don't support either side. Both sides have more money then they need. Both sides are douches... one is just a douche thats lieing to you aswell.

[mcHAPPY]

hardly relevent. This is NOT about whether the league is or isn't profitable. This isn't about creating profit.

This is about 'competitve balance'.

If a hard cap is 200 mil each team it may not be profitable either. If a hard cap is 10 mil its still possible for teams to not be profitable.

Again for about the 200th time SEPERATE IDEAS.

Owners and players agree on a split of the BRI.

Players guaranteed their percentage of BRI.

That percentage split over 30 teams.

No team can spend more than another team - and players get the exact same amount of BRI as agreed upon.

I am missing how this does not create competitive balance.

no I get your point... but you are stretching now as to what should be 'shareable'. How many deals has Buss or Cuban made due to their name? Could we even quantify it? How much money have they made by using their franchise as a form of collateral or as counting it as an asset? Thereby inticing investors into other projects or investments? That is all 'basketball related' as well if we are going to use your interpretation.

Which is exactly why it is not included.

Nor is the money player X makes by investing in enterprise Y included in a share with other players.

The BRI is all encompassing of operational revenues of an NBA franchise. Any money made outside of that through the franchise stays with the franchise.

The NBA's current national tv contract is for $930M which gives each team around $31M per year. Teams then have their own local contracts which they keep for themselves.

I guess this is where we have having the fundamental differences of opinion.

I think each team has the right to keep income outside of the defined basketball related income for themselves just like every player has the right to earn money from their performance on the NBA stage.

I'm not looking for each franchise to make the same amount of money just like I am not looking for Kobe to earn the same amount of money as Sonny Weems.

All I want to see is each franchise break even at the very least on the average year in and year out. The league has already discussed quadrupling revenue sharing. This would inject another $15M or so in to franchises that need it.

So when we talk about competitive balance the players are going to receive their 50/53% of BRI no matter what. The philosophical difference we are having is you have no problem with LAL contributing 4.5% of that BRI while Sacramento is only able to contribute 2%. I want every team to contribute 3.3% to the BRI system.

The benefit for the league is every team has the same allotment of money to spend - so who spends it wiser becomes the victor - thus creating competitive balance. It no longer becomes about which star players can join a franchise under the soft cap and then add to their roster via exemptions pushing their payroll well past $100M.

I assume that ideally you want a free and open system, much like MLB, for the players.

haha hilarious. This entire discussion was about the hard cap vs revenue sharing itself. You are (and have been) trying to bring outside issues and tie them in. Such the Carmelo Rule, can't have revenue sharing if you don't have revenues etc. I have a perfect grasp of this, you are trying to manipulate the discussion.

The entire discussion has been about how the players and owners are no longer truly fighting about the split of BRI. Hunter and Stern have both said the bigger issue is the system.

I feel a hard cap creates equal opportunity for teams to acquire talent outside of the draft (either through trade or free agency).

The idea of teams sharing all basketball revenues does not seem hardly fair. Players with more talent and who use it make more money than other players. Franchises in a better location or market should make more money than other franchises. However, no franchise should have an on court advantage because of their market. That is the difference between the NFL and the NBA.

the statement was sarcastic.... to show that what everyone does or doesn't want is beyond to scope of hard cap vs revenue sharing.

I am sure when Billy Hunter was stating it he was not being sarcastic. Players want to continue to make the most money possible where they want. I have an issue with that. If I am an engineer working for Exxon, I can earn $125K a year living in Canada or the US. However, I can earn $400K a year if I take a position in Qatar or Dubai. The money is the trade off for having the other aspects of life. I do not agree with players concentrating talent and getting maximum money while choosing where they want to play. A hard cap, in my opinion, would more evenly spread talent throughout the league.

Teams will only ever have 1 constent expense that is equal. Thereby, using your argument, just splitting that one expense doesn't give a level playing field either.

I also don't doubt that the owners would be for that. So include every dollar, directly or indirectly, an owner makes that has in some way been related to the league and their team aswell. In fact thats a great idea, now we can completely open their books.

Limiting the amount of money each team can spend most certainly helps create parity. It may not achieve 100% parity but I'm not looking for perfection. Perfection will never happen. I'm only looking for an improvement to the current system.

All BRI, (all broadcast contracts, including local, gate receipts etc), that does not go to players being shared among the owners. ie. NFL
style.

I've already discussed this. As certain players deserve to earn more than others, certain franchises do as well. Anything less is a double standard. Players have already limited themselves to the amount they can earn as have franchises by sharing all basketball related income. At the end of the day with a hard cap the only difference between teams will be the amount of money they clear. A team clearing $100M a year will not necessarily be better on the court than the team clearing $6M as both teams product is based on the same amount of dollars. The team that makes the better decisions with the same amount of salary dollars will be the victor.

Indeed.... isn't that always the problem though. If owners decided to not try and operate under a profit, then this entire lockout is one big farce is it not? Because, if regardless of the rules/system, owners planned to lose money or not make money or not try to etc, they really should have no ones support to lock out players based on the league not making money.

So on one side they say they want to make money. But on the other, if they have to share part of it, they won't try to anymore? Hmm...

Nothing I can type here has not already been said.

On a side note, your example of your friend. That is EXACTLY what the owners are trying to do, and doing, to the players. Lebron James, Dwight Howard whoever, is not making as much as they could no matter how hard he works or how good he is. Now they want to limit it more. So what am I missing here. Its good for the goose but not for the gander?

What the owners are asking for is allowing as much free market capitalism for their outputs as they can, while at the same time as much socialsim for their inputs as they can. What I'm saying is if the owners want to socialize their inputs, they need to be willing to socialize their ouputs aswell.

Fair points. However if we had a true free market of player labour and owner revenue, then it would not create competitive balance which what you said at the beginning was what we are discussing.

Both sides have to give.

Now we are back to the start where the issue is not about the total number of dollars spent on player salaries as Hunter and Stern have admitted. Players want to have maximum income and roster flexibility. As the Exxon engineer example shows, you can't have both in the real world, why should players have both in the NBA?

Look my point, beyond what I intially said about never being able to actually create a level playing field, is if the owners actually wanted to create a more competitive playing field, they could get rid of the idea of a hard cap and use revenue sharing instead. It would create that same playing field they claim they want, and make it easier to end the lockout. But they do not care about a competitive playing field if it doesn't definetely improve their ability to make a profit. Thats why this is a red herring. They are using competitive balance as an excuse to 'bribe' fan support, and to offer a concession (that they don't really care about anyways) to get other concessions out of the union.

Owners want the opportunity to make as much money as they can and win. It doesn't sound that much different from what the players want either. Why should the owners have to sacrifice more than the players? The only players who truly sacrifice are the stars and that is to artificially inflate the salaries of role players throughout the league. Owners who make money shared $61M last season. Under proposed new revenue sharing they are upping that to $240M over the next couple of years. So star players and profitable owners are both already making sacrifices.

It just so happens the wishes of fans (an opportunity for their franchise to have a legit shot to compete with good management) more closely aligns with that of owners.

They realize 99% of fans don't actually care how much players or owners actually make or don't make. Fans only actually care about that so much as it directly effects their home teams itself. But most fans want to know that their team has a chance to get and keep the next Lebron James. So they are feeding them this half truth about how a hard cap will create a competitive balance, making those fans mad at players and thereby giving owners an edge.

You are right - fans don't care how much owners or players make. It is more money than most are able to comprehend.

But the reality is a hard cap does create a competitive balance.

You example of revenue sharing would probably do the same but it takes away from the rights of owners to make as much money as they can through their franchise once they have shared basketball related revenues as outlined in the BRI.

Once again using the example of players sharing the money they earn through endorsements with other players, that would never fly - so why should it for the owners?

I, for the most part, have no issues with how this lockout ends. It could end with a 50/50 split, a 60/40 a 0/100 its all the same to me. It could end with a hard cap or no cap. It could end with no Melo rule or multiple Melo rules. My issue is with these half truths coming from the owners. In fairness to them, its a game in and of itself and they are good at it. They are playing politics. What bothers me is fans are actually buying this crap and those half truths are helping to extend the lockout.

Like I've said before I don't support either side. Both sides have more money then they need. Both sides are douches... one is just a douche thats lieing to you aswell.

Personally I do care how the lockout ends. I want a system that gives each franchise the opportunity to succeed or fail on the court based on its own merits - the current system does not when one team can spend $110M and another barely $45M.

Just as you are sick of the half truths from owners, I'm sick of the half truths from players. The players have not come out and said it but their actions and comments imply it: they do not want accountability, they do not want pay for performance, they want to continue leveraging individual player desires over individual franchise success, they want to continue having bad contracts handcuff a franchises immediate future, and they do not want to ensure the flow of player salaries will go from the unproductive to the productive. In essence the players union, like any union, is protecting the unworthy at the expense of the worthy.

EDIT: It should be noted that upping revenue sharing to $240M (an additional $180M per season) and the players going down to 53% of BRI (creating approximately another $160M per season) covers the estimated $300-350M a year in losses owners and league are claiming. Again, it comes down to the system and how the player's portion of BRI is distributed among the teams.


http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

http://www.blazersedge.com/2011/5/4/...ng-and-the-nba

http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/201...cal-tv-revenue

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

[Apollo]

Who says that is best case scenario? And if it is, the owners will recoup the money. The players will NEVER get the money back - NEVER.

So the owners lose because of contraction? And each team lost is 15 jobs for your union, Maurice. What are you guys smoking at these PA meetings?

I agree 100%. If it gets to that point the owners will probably be looking for total domination. I think the players with fold before then. The PA leadership looks shaky and there will be a mutiny at some point if things get too dire.

[Apollo]

"Secret schedule" of 82 games after one month delay?

I'm not sure if this was covered yet but:

As reassurance for those of you who, like us, will be reduced to unspeakable misery (and probably worse) if there isn't an NBA game until after the 2012 Olympics in London, be advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games. The New York Post has likewise reported that NBA schedule-maker Matt Winick has quietly drafted a variety of contingency plans spanning anywhere from 50 to 74 games.

It's thus probably not an accident that Stern, upon telling WFAN Radio in New York on Thursday that "my gut is that we won't be playing on Christmas Day" without a major breakthrough at Tuesday's mediation session, threw in the following disclaimer: "This is not in my official capacity of canceling games."

Source: ESPN.com

[Apollo]

Hunter's popularity decreasing?

Hunter's critics, however, are growing in number and rising in volume after the union's abrupt departure from the negotiating table Oct. 4, shortly after Stern unexpectedly resuscitated an earlier union idea of a 50-50 split of Basketball Related Income based on the same calculations used in the league's previous labor agreement. Hunter left the distinct impression that day that famously intense Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett was suddenly in charge after participating in zero meetings to that point, thanks to a string of reports in the wake of the dissolved talks that union officials ended negotiations at the urging of Garnett's passionate/furious insistence that the NBPA accept nothing less than 53 percent of old BRI. The union hasn't backed off the 53 percent figure since.

That sequence of events spawned the follow-up perception that Hunter was determining policy based on the wishes of his most vocal and/or most decorated constituents as opposed to establishing the course of action as the union's lead voice. And that feeds right into the question that has been privately posed for months by various agents as well as a handful of players: Is Hunter willfully avoiding tough stands and simply sticking to his "stay strong" and "prepare for the worst" preaching mantras in hopes that the players themselves force a resolution while he retains a job that pays him a reported $2 million annually?

ESPN.com's Henry Abbott, quoting a source close to negotiations, reported earlier this week that Hunter "has his hands full" dealing with players like Garnett and Dwyane Wade who are taking a harder line than he has. During a wide-ranging round of TV and radio interviews Thursday, Stern only amplified those concerns by insisting that Hunter wasn't even in the room on Oct. 4 when Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver were summoned behind closed doors to hear that the NBPA had decided that it couldn't attempt to sell a 50-50 revenue split to its members and that, according to sources, there was nothing left to discuss.

Hunter returns to the spotlight Friday, when he hosts a regional players meeting in Los Angeles before meeting Monday with federal mediator Cohen in advance of Tuesday's bargaining session with the league that will be overseen by Cohen. Yet it was at one of those regional meetings earlier in the summer that sources say another Celtics player -- Paul Pierce -- loudly challenged Hunter to enlighten the assembled audience on the details of "our plan" to withstand the owners' push for a far more restrictive financial system that enhances competitive balance.

No one ever said Hunter's job was easy, given the heavy odds in the owners' favor of getting many of the changes they want, but a lot of players out there are still waiting to finally hear some specifics from that plan.

Source: ESPN.com

If he gets on KG's and Wade's bad side those two prima donna are liable to go to the media and thus portray a public rift in the union. On the flip side he doesn't just work for Kevin Garnett and Dwayne Wade. End of the day, most people in the league can't relate to those two pushing for a long lockout when most of the league probably doesn't have as vast a nest egg waiting in the wing.

[Apollo]

Teams allowed to attend college player practices

After initially forbidding front-office executives from attending college basketball practices during the lockout, the NBA has changed course and informed teams they can now do so, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

With college practices starting this weekend, NBA executives and scouts are free to travel to campus and watch practices and workouts. Front-office executives and scouts were always going to be allowed to scout games, which don’t start until mid November.

The league office relented on its original rules after team executives lobbied hard about how much of their player evaluation depends on the ability to attend practices, as well as games. When the NBA imposed the lockout, it instructed teams they wouldn’t be allowed into practices partially to avoid the possibility they could have contact with current NBA players who are on campus.

Source: Yahoo Sports

[Bendit]

In order to foster greater transparency owners should make full disclosure to their financials. This has always been a sore spot and reason for mistrust or else come end of the new cba such stoppage will occur again. The environment of a prof. sports league is unlike a normal business and both sides need to quit pretending it is so and hyping elements that suit their positions. The public as well get a more open view of the reality of the business.

[mcHAPPY]

Hopefully the below is comprehendible to you. Essentially it is giving the percentage of BRI of the players with the salary cap and luxury tax levels associated with each.


BRI % of previous Cap Tax
57% N/A $58,044,000 $70,307,000
53% 92.98% $53,970,737 $65,373,175
51.5%90.35% $52,443,263 $63,522,991
51% 89.47% $51,934,105 $62,906,263
50% 87.72% $50,915,789 $61,672,807
46% 80.70% $46,842,526 $56,738,982

(Table from http://www.hoopsworld.com/bri-reduct...could-it-mean/)

This is what I do not understand about the hard cap and the player's resentment towards it:


Based on the table above, even if they get 53% of BRI they are looking at a soft cap of $53.97M and a luxury tax threshold of $65.4M. Exemptions are going to be lowered under any new agreement. So once a team hits $54M dollars, they need to rely on exemptions, first round draft picks, or minimum contracts to add payroll. Then once a team hits $65.3M they are going to start taking on tax which is going to be more punitive in a new system. Also there are currently 16 teams in the league that are already at $54M for next season BEFORE free agency and there are 9 teams who would be luxury tax payers with payrolls over $65.4M or higher.


If the players took a straight 53% of BRI with no deductions and accepted a hard or much harder cap, they would be looking at a cap of $70.7M. They might be able to add a couple of minor exemptions like 2 minimum contracts to help round out the roster.


In taking the hard cap in the example I have given, they are creating an extra $501M dollars per season in salary (the difference between the soft cap and the hard cap) and an additional $159M per season in salary over the luxury tax.


If the league guarantees all contracts, I do not see what the problem is. What I mean by guaranteeing it means teams must be at or under the tax before preseason or the season opens with a minimum number of roster spots - say 12. If a team is over, they can make trades to get under the cap or they will have to buy a player out and pay them in full. If the player is waived and bought out, then they have an opportunity to double dip and sign with another team - possibly a contender.


To me it makes absolutely no sense why something like this wouldn't fly for both sides. The owners get a limit on salary and competitive balance with regards to payroll. The players collectively guarantee themselves more salary. GM's who are waiving players and paying them in full due to their mismanagement of the new rules are going to find themselves out of jobs.

[mcHAPPY]

Stephen A. Smith: Players Need To Explain Their Position

The players can scream all they want about how they are being locked out and are not on strike. They can lament over how unfair it is that since they're the product fans come to see, they shouldn't have to give up anything. But when commissioner David Stern announced that the first two weeks were being canceled, ensuring that approximately $200 million would be lost, it should have reminded players of something they should have realized quite a long time ago: Whatever leverage they thought they had is on the verge of extinction.

Let the players try to hashtag their way through these negotiations, tweeting to their hearts' content. Let LeBron James apologize to the world, saying "There's no us without ya'll," and let Steve Nash keep asking, "Why are the owners unwilling to negotiate in good faith?" Such rhetoric rings hollow right now to a fan base aware that there will be no NBA games starting Nov. 1.

Fans don't hear a reduction in basketball-related income from 57 percent to 53 percent as much as they hear that players made $2 billion in salaries. They're not interested in the suffering of those averaging $5 million a year in salary when a ravaged economy has many Americans worrying about whether they'll have a job next month.

"We tried awfully hard to move towards the players and ultimately come up with a system that works for everyone," Stern said last night, following the latest failed meeting with the players' association. "We made, in our view, concession after concession.

"I'm not sure if the players would agree with everything we've done. But we think we've tried very hard to move towards the players and ultimately come up with a system that ... over the seven years of the deal we offered before, the players have the right to opt out of a 10-year deal ... a raise [in average-player salary] from $5.5 million to probably over $7 million. In this economy, at this time with what's going on in this country and in the world … I'm proud of my owners. They really demonstrated to me, to the fans ... that they really tried to make a deal."

So now that Stern has won that public relations battle, as he usually does, getting his message out first, it's up to the players to provide more pointed arguments. The kind devoid of emotion, and not limited to 140-character tweets.

It's up to the players to fully explain why a deal could not be made.

Somehow, it is the players who'll need to explain why, after entering the negotiations determined to fight off the owners' insistence on omitting guaranteed contracts and implementing a hard salary cap and being successful on both fronts, games are still being canceled.

It is the players who'll need to justify why the potential for $1.5 million in average-salary pay hikes -- with a guarantee of no pay cuts -- for at least the next seven years was not a deal good enough to accept.

The players will also need to explain why it's a problem for owners to want Memphis, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Charlotte and other small-market cities to have a fairer shot at competing economically with New York and Los Angeles if it wouldn't affect the bottom-line dollars the players are actually receiving.

The cancellation of games means the loss of income to players. It also means that whatever stance is being taken by the owners will only harden now that games are missed and money has been lost.

The players, emboldened by a desire for "respect" and not "caving in" to the owners -- as many of them have said -- will now be forced to prove that their financial portfolios can stomach hits to the degree that owners' portfolios can.

On that note, there's only one thing left to say: Good Luck With That!

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/s...-pointedly-now

[GarbageTime]

If he gets on KG's and Wade's bad side those two prima donna are liable to go to the media and thus portray a public rift in the union. On the flip side he doesn't just work for Kevin Garnett and Dwayne Wade. End of the day, most people in the league can't relate to those two pushing for a long lockout when most of the league probably doesn't have as vast a nest egg waiting in the wing.

I actually found it funny reading this as I had just finished reading the article below. One mans prima donna is another man's matyr I guess.

For Garnett to privately fight for the union in meetings, to implore the players to make no more undue concessions even if it means they sit out the season, has to be one of the most unselfish acts in these labor talks. They’ll call him greedy, ungrateful, a pig, and they’ll be wrong. There’s no winning for Garnett in this labor fight, unless he’s left something for the next generation of players, the way his predecessors did for him.

“What he’s doing now, to me, it says a lot about K.G.,” says a younger NBA player who made about $5 million last season. “He’s willing to sit out the year, and give up [$21 million] at the end of his last big contract, and probably his last really good chance to win another ring. For him, this is about the principle.

“I don’t want to hear this stuff from our guys saying, ‘Oh, he can afford to sit out. He’s made a lot of money.’ I respect the [expletive] out of those guys standing up for us right now, him, Kobe, all of them.”

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;...garnett_100611

[Apollo]

Unless the owners get the union to sign on to a deal where they clear all contracts from the prior CBA, Kevin Garnett is not going to lose anymore than 5% of that last big pay day. The owners locked the players out, they'll be expected to honors the tail ends of the current contracts unless the union totally crumbles in negotiations. What we're talking about here is KG sacrificing a MLE year, later on...

And Kobe is still owed $84M over three years... That's $80M with the proposed 5% contract scale back. These guys aren't sacrificing more than a drop in the bucket compared to what they've already earned. Garnett isn't helping the players by telling them to turn down an offer that's not going to get better.

And how is he a martyr?

[mcHAPPY]

Apollo -

What are you thoughts on post 834?

Am I missing something?

Those advocating the player's position - what do you think?

I do not understand why a hardcap of 53% BRI divided by 30 is a bad thing - as I outlined in the post.

[Apollo]

Apollo -

What are you thoughts on post 834?

Am I missing something?

Those advocating the player's position - what do you think?

I do not understand why a hardcap of 53% BRI divided by 30 is a bad thing - as I outlined in the post.

Sorry for not getting to it yet. I find myself missing some posts because there is so much activity in here.

Hopefully the below is comprehendible to you. Essentially it is giving the percentage of BRI of the players with the salary cap and luxury tax levels associated with each.


BRI % of previous Cap Tax
57% N/A $58,044,000 $70,307,000
53% 92.98% $53,970,737 $65,373,175
51.5%90.35% $52,443,263 $63,522,991
51% 89.47% $51,934,105 $62,906,263
50% 87.72% $50,915,789 $61,672,807
46% 80.70% $46,842,526 $56,738,982

(Table from http://www.hoopsworld.com/bri-reduct...could-it-mean/)

This is what I do not understand about the hard cap and the player's resentment towards it:


Based on the table above, even if they get 53% of BRI they are looking at a soft cap of $53.97M and a luxury tax threshold of $65.4M. Exemptions are going to be lowered under any new agreement. So once a team hits $54M dollars, they need to rely on exemptions, first round draft picks, or minimum contracts to add payroll. Then once a team hits $65.3M they are going to start taking on tax which is going to be more punitive in a new system. Also there are currently 16 teams in the league that are already at $54M for next season BEFORE free agency and there are 9 teams who would be luxury tax payers with payrolls over $65.4M or higher.


If the players took a straight 53% of BRI with no deductions and accepted a hard or much harder cap, they would be looking at a cap of $70.7M. They might be able to add a couple of minor exemptions like 2 minimum contracts to help round out the roster.


In taking the hard cap in the example I have given, they are creating an extra $501M dollars per season in salary (the difference between the soft cap and the hard cap) and an additional $159M per season in salary over the luxury tax.


If the league guarantees all contracts, I do not see what the problem is. What I mean by guaranteeing it means teams must be at or under the tax before preseason or the season opens with a minimum number of roster spots - say 12. If a team is over, they can make trades to get under the cap or they will have to buy a player out and pay them in full. If the player is waived and bought out, then they have an opportunity to double dip and sign with another team - possibly a contender.


To me it makes absolutely no sense why something like this wouldn't fly for both sides. The owners get a limit on salary and competitive balance with regards to payroll. The players collectively guarantee themselves more salary. GM's who are waiving players and paying them in full due to their mismanagement of the new rules are going to find themselves out of jobs.

I agree, I don't understand how 53% it's a bad thing either at this point... But I understand why the owners won't cave on 50%. I don't understand why the players won't come down 3% more because they stand to lose far more in an extended lockout and they probably collectively can't afford that.

I'm starting to think it's the fact the loudest voices would stand to lose the most money (ex: Wade is screaming he could make $50M in an NBA market where there are no restrictions but instead of something like that the owners want him to take a 5% pay cut and limit his earning potential on his next and final deal.) Some of these guys have the ego to think they'd be worth more money than what some teams possibly could be spending in total salary in a new system. They feel that money should be 100% guaranteed no matter how their performance is even though they earn their contracts based on performance. These are the guys holding up the proceedings in my opinion. They're also the guys most likely to have a big nest egg in the bank, able to wait out a season where as the bulk of the union probably doesn't have that kind of cash lying around OR big endorsement cheques that keep coming. Wade has already taken it personal, shouting down Stern during discussion. It's probably not fair to gauge all the stars based on Wade but maybe his view and actions are telling of all the stars with a lot to lose?

The hard cap/high penalty soft cap and the guaranteed contract sticking points don't have as much meaning to the average NBA players who always have to look over their shoulders regardless. They need to work their tail off no matter what. But to the Eddy Curry's of the league, the hard cap/high penalty soft cap and non-guaranteed contracts is brutal. Not only is their future earning potential limited and thus the union as a whole becomes richer at their expense, they're also required to work hard during their entire contracts so that they don't lose even more money... Which ends up back in the union's collective pockets at their expense.

[GarbageTime]

Unless the owners get the union to sign on to a deal where they clear all contracts from the prior CBA, Kevin Garnett is not going to lose anymore than 5% of that last big pay day. The owners locked the players out, they'll be expected to honors the tail ends of the current contracts unless the union totally crumbles in negotiations. What we're talking about here is KG sacrificing a MLE year, later on...

And Kobe is still owed $84M over three years... That's $80M with the proposed 5% contract scale back. These guys aren't sacrificing more than a drop in the bucket compared to what they've already earned. Garnett isn't helping the players by telling them to turn down an offer that's not going to get better.

And how is he a martyr?

If the season happens KG doesn't loose much, but if the season is lost he looses his last (and biggest?) pay year.

You are also only looking at current paycheques. One of the reason KG is 'standing strong' (that the article refers to anyways) is for players future pay, which he is going to benifit very little from as his NBA tenure is closing fast.

KG has alot to loose and little to gain from this lockout. hence the idea of matyrdom

I'd also mention if we are going to criticize the players for not sacrificing more than a drop in the bucket compared to what they already have.... how do we not use the same reasoning with the owners?

Assuming its true the owners lost 300 mil combined, thats 10 mil per owner. A 4% drop in BRI (at 4 bil per season) changes this to an assumed loss of 140 mil or 5 mil per owner. Which is "a drop in the bucket" to these guys aswell which the owners are unwilling to sacrifice.