Lockout!!!

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

You all realize that the total percentage of revenues that teams would allocate to players was already set at a hard cap right?

I'm probably not getting what you're asking here but I don't think anybody thought the BRI was anything but fixed (or hard) there was talk of maybe negotiating a flex BRI. The only other thing I could think of being confused (besides me) is that this year the NBA had to pay the PA a chunk of money because the players salaries didn't equal 57% so the players did get some checks sometime this week (or so I read). Didn't see how the chunk was divided up on who got what.

But that is another question in my head I've been meaning to ask if the BRI is at a certain % but players are still fighting over hard caps or a "harder" cap claiming it keeps them from making money, or even guaranteed or partial guaranteed contracts in the end if the NBA teams don't meet the BRI % the NBA still cuts them a check. I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.

 

[carolinajazz]

I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.

...players that get "cut" do what we did when we lost the court in sandlot basketball...they go home with there tails between there legs!

 

[Watcher]

You all realize that the total percentage of revenues that teams would allocate to players was already set at a hard cap right?

It's a hard cap for the NBA as a whole (total revenue vs. total player salaries) but not on a team by team basis. One team can still spend way more than their share of that "hard cap."

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I'm probably not getting what you're asking here but I don't think anybody thought the BRI was anything but fixed (or hard) there was talk of maybe negotiating a flex BRI. The only other thing I could think of being confused (besides me) is that this year the NBA had to pay the PA a chunk of money because the players salaries didn't equal 57% so the players did get some checks sometime this week (or so I read). Didn't see how the chunk was divided up on who got what.

But that is another question in my head I've been meaning to ask if the BRI is at a certain % but players are still fighting over hard caps or a "harder" cap claiming it keeps them from making money, or even guaranteed or partial guaranteed contracts in the end if the NBA teams don't meet the BRI % the NBA still cuts them a check. I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.

I believe that the reason the Players Union is against a hard cap is not for financial purposes, but rather to lessen any restrictions they have about which teams they can play for. For instance, a hard cap would really make it difficult for 3 stars (Miami Heat) to all play on the same team and still have enough remaining under the cap to fill out the roster. A hard cap would end the mid-level exception, and probably lots of bird rights. Kicky is exactly right in that the amount of $ the players as a whole receive is pretty much set!

Most seasons, the amount of player contracts actually exceeds the 57%, so every year the NBA holds back a percentage of their salaries. Then, if the previously paid out salaries don't equal 57% (or the agreed upon %), the NBA distributes the escrow money that it previously held onto.

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm probably not getting what you're asking here but I don't think anybody thought the BRI was anything but fixed (or hard) there was talk of maybe negotiating a flex BRI. The only other thing I could think of being confused (besides me) is that this year the NBA had to pay the PA a chunk of money because the players salaries didn't equal 57% so the players did get some checks sometime this week (or so I read). Didn't see how the chunk was divided up on who got what.

But that is another question in my head I've been meaning to ask if the BRI is at a certain % but players are still fighting over hard caps or a "harder" cap claiming it keeps them from making money, or even guaranteed or partial guaranteed contracts in the end if the NBA teams don't meet the BRI % the NBA still cuts them a check. I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.

I was asking because people keep writing about various issues that have differing implications as if they are the same in this thread.

The NBA could have instituted a hard cap for NBA teams (this is in theory to make a point I understand they can't do this unilaterally) at $10 million per team two years ago and the players would still have received 57% of BRI. That's the way it is. As a result the BRI discussion and the hard cap discussion are entirely different. If that were to have happened, player compensation would have been the same but the effective earnings of the players would be less transparent because the public doesn't see how money is divided out of the escrow payment among the players. Those (like CJ) who rant on and on about exorbitant player salaries are missing this fundamental distinction.

The hard cap discussion really only matters to the players to the extent it affects player movement, implies the need for non-guaranteed contracts, and affects high-end star's bargaining power (since they are largely the ones who benefit from Bird rights). Team parity is, at best, a tertiary issue from the player's perspective when it comes to a hard cap. A hard cap, from that perspective, is entirely an owner-to-owner negotiation. It's not a players vs. owners dispute on team competitiveness at all.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Then there's this:
Is it economically worthwhile for the players to hold out for $500 million?
No. Total NBA salaries last year were over $1.5 billion, about three times the amount they are fighting over. Canceling a third of the current season would wipe out the gain of winning the extra 2.5 percent of BRI over the life of the new collective bargaining agreement. Canceling the whole season over 2.5 percent of BRI is insane for the players.

...but then slapping your entire body with jail-house tats is INSANE!!!

Ok, so why do you have hope the whole season will be lost when this fact is staring them in the face?

 

[carolinajazz]

Ok, so why do you have hope the whole season will be lost when this fact is staring them in the face?

...simply speaking....if they are insane enough to do to there bodies what they do...then they are INSANE enough to not take the present deal, hold out for what will never come...and lose the whole season anyway!

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Hey players. Look, you lost. Tell your union it's time to play.

 

[GVC]

The hard cap discussion really only matters to the players to the extent it affects player movement, implies the need for non-guaranteed contracts, and affects high-end star's bargaining power (since they are largely the ones who benefit from Bird rights).

I'm not sure I agree exactly which players would be affected by a hard cap (and similar or lessened restrictions on max salaries), but there'd certainly be a large enough effect on a large enough group of players that they'd demand a lot of time be spent on the discussion and negotiating of the specifics of any radically changed system (like going to an NHL or NFL style hard cap). This point has been completely omitted from a shockingly high percentage of media reports on the lockout, and the players' stance on a hard cap has been used to discredit the union (whether this was David Stern's doing, some larger conspiracy, or a coincidence, I have no idea). It's unfortunate.

 

[carolinajazz]

...somebody pointed out very nicely in this thread that once the CBA ended...it was if the players became "unemployed" and now have to negotiate there own contracts by starting over. The players should be thankful the owners started out at a 50/50 take! The owners could have started at any number! 25 players....75 owners...take it or leave it! It may just come to that if they don't wise up and sign now!

 

[oldtimer]

Sirkickyass

you wrote that the NBA could have instituted a hard cap for NBA teams (this is in theory to make a point I understand they can't do this unilaterally) at $10 million per team two years ago and the players would still have received 57% of BRI. That's the way it is. As a result the BRI discussion and the hard cap discussion are entirely different.

That is not the way the BRI calculation works. The BRI is league wide cap. Players don't have to earn 57% they just can't exceed that number. The league escrows a small percentage of every players check throughout the year. If at the end of the year the total league wide player salary expense is less than than 57% of BRI the league refunds the players the money withheld from their checks. If the salaries exceed 57% the players lose that portion of the check. So if the cap was 10 million per team there would be no way total salaries could even come close to 57 percent of BRI. The players would get back that portion of their checks withheld by the league. In a case where a hard cap of 10 million was installed (and yes I know you took an absurd number to prove a point) the total BRI would not even come close to 57 percent. So why they may be unrelated issues, they do have some relation.

 

[YB85]

I know I'm going to regret this, but...

...simply speaking....if they are insane enough to do to there bodies what they do...then they are INSANE enough to not take the present deal, hold out for what will never come...and lose the whole season anyway!

What do you mean by "insane enough to do to 'there' bodies what they do"?