What's new
By:

Are the Jazz winners or losers under the new CBA?

larryselbows

larryselbows

Banned
From what I understand (I could be wrong) but the split is not 47% to the players and there is no hard spending cap. Revenue sharing is nice though with stiffer luxury tax fines....

Did we come away ahead or behind from the previous CBA? How close are we to the ideal CBA that Jazz owner Greg Miller wants?
 
I dunno. I'm not sure there's a lot to be happy about. Has the system changed all that much or do the owners just get a bigger % of BRI?

Hard cap? or just a stiffer cap? A stiffer cap means less teams will dare pay luxury tax -- only the super rich will be able to. That would be even worse. The middle class gets bigger, the Lakers get richer. DOOM DOOM!

Sorry. I'm feeling a little negative.
 
larryselbows said:
From what I understand (I could be wrong) but the split is not 47% to the players...
Click to expand...
According to espn it's a 50-50 split with a 1% leeway either way based on revenue outcomes and projections.

Sounds like the luxury tax penalties are indeed stiffer but some of the proposed tax brackets may have been eliminated.
I'm disappointed to see that sign-and-trade and extend-and-trade transactions were added back in.

Revenue sharing is a win for a team like the Jazz although tifwiw...per Henry Abbott: "sources say revenue sharing is not entirely done. Plenty of work on many fronts."
 
If you're an organization, you've won.

Relative to the league, the Jazz stay in about the same position. All of that ****ing drama for BRI. The 1% of 1% are stoked.
 
The problem I have with keeping the LT and just making it more punitive is that it makes it practically impossible for small market teams to get to that threshold. Effectively, it actually creates an advantage to the haves.

The only significant change to this whole thing is the BRI split.
 
NUMBERICA said:
The problem I have with keeping the LT and just making it more punitive is that it makes it practically impossible for small market teams to get to that threshold. Effectively, it actually creates an advantage to the haves.

The only significant change to this whole thing is the BRI split.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this.
 
I'm not an expert, but won't the new CBA help the jazz keep the Milsap/Mathews type players without overpaying them? Or will all the exceptions and the tax punishments make it easier for other teams to steal away teh best players?
 
NUMBERICA said:
The problem I have with keeping the LT and just making it more punitive is that it makes it practically impossible for small market teams to get to that threshold. Effectively, it actually creates an advantage to the haves.
Click to expand...

The only thing I care about is how it affects Utah. Utah was never going to be a team that goes deep into the tax anyway. If teams continue to go into the tax, that means more money for teams who stay under the tax. More money for Utah means more willingness to go into the tax when they feel the team can contend. If it discourages teams from going into the tax, it should help spread talent around.

It will be interesting to see exactly how this new CBA changes the dynamics of the NBA.

I thought this was interesting.
LOSER: Mark Cuban

The good news is he gets to have a season of glory and a chance to defend that title. The bad news is he is said to have wanted a system that would protect him from big losses even as he went all-out to field the most competitive possible team. A stiff luxury tax, however, does not get him there. Now, to protect his bottom line, he’ll have to develop a new skill: spending discipline.
Click to expand...

https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32302/the-winners-and-losers-of-a-new-cba
 
NUMBERICA said:
The problem I have with keeping the LT and just making it more punitive is that it makes it practically impossible for small market teams to get to that threshold. Effectively, it actually creates an advantage to the haves.

The only significant change to this whole thing is the BRI split.
Click to expand...

This. And again, why should I care about BRI? I don't care if the players or the owners make 57%. So what? I want a hard cap. I kinda hope this deal doesn't get the votes.
 
The amnesty thing is the minor victory. ONE contract that isn't guaranteed. I feel like the owners caved except they got 3 billion over the next 10 years.

So the players got to keep a luxury tax - albeit a more punitive one so only the super rich can spend it.
The owners got 3 billion in BRI.
Fans got what?
 
It'll probably take the owners and GM's much of the season to figure out how to use the new system effectively. I have no idea who "won" or "lost", so I'll just try to enjoy what's left of the season...
 
If they did indeed cave on the S&T and mid -level for teams spending over the LT, this is sad. There was a chance to deal with the issues that confront small market teams and it sounds like the owners folded. BRI is irrelevant compared to those issues.
 
BENTLEY said:
The amnesty thing is the minor victory. ONE contract that isn't guaranteed. I feel like the owners caved except they got 3 billion over the next 10 years.

So the players got to keep a luxury tax - albeit a more punitive one so only the super rich can spend it.
The owners got 3 billion in BRI.
Fans got what?
Click to expand...

They get to see Basketball at Christmas. I've missed the Jazz no doubt, but the NBA doesn't really get going until around January. We haven't missed that much.
 
NUMBERICA said:
The problem I have with keeping the LT and just making it more punitive is that it makes it practically impossible for small market teams to get to that threshold. Effectively, it actually creates an advantage to the haves.

The only significant change to this whole thing is the BRI split.
Click to expand...

It favors rich owners, which isn't always the same as large markets (See LA Clippers and Portland Trailblazers).
 
It sounds like the deal the players rejected a couple weeks ago is basically the deal the players accepted yesterday. The players' anti-trust law suit didn't accomplish much if anything, and the small-market teams must have gone along with the basics of the deal that Stern put on the table two weeks ago.

Having a stiff luxury tax or even a hard cap isn't going to create parity in the league. The real question is whether small-market teams are going to be able to keep their star players or not, and what can these small-market teams do to make players want to come there and stay there?? I think that has to do with tv contracts and merchandising.

Another question hidden in all of this might be whether small markets can afford to compete for top coaches, but at the end of the day savvy ownership and GMs make or break the franchise with the hires they make--including players and coaches. Mike Brown in LA? Yeah, good luck with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top