What's new
By:

CBA Negotiations

B

billyshelby

Well-Known Member
For anyone who wants a break from what Enes Kanter might, or might not have eaten for breakfast, I came across this primer on the CBA Situation. This is the most concise, simple breakdown I've seen, and nicely annotated if you want to read the supplemental articles. Unfortunately, it's only Part I: 'The Owners'. I'll update 'Players' and 'Compromises' as they come in.

Part I: The Owners: https://www.denverstiffs.com/2011/6/2/2201814/collective-bargaining-the-owners

This is General NBA, but I thought I'd give it a little Front Page time.

Edit: Part II: The Players: https://www.denverstiffs.com/2011/6...-bargaining-part-2-of-3-the-players#storyjump
 
Last edited:
Haven't read it yet but it has an affect on the Jazz so I see no reason why it couldn't be in here especially since it is the off season and once the draft settles it will be the main and only thing to talk about.
 
I don't see how the CBA negotiations will end well. The owners are divided between the haves and the haves alot more. The players are divided among the superstar mega millionaires (and thier lap dogs, ie Derrick Fisher) and the more in number but smaller in voice average NBA joe who made less than the 5.9 million league average last year.

Sadly lost in all this is the fan who wants to watch basketball--he is not invited to the table.


Worst of all the taxpayers who are paying for most of the arenas in the league will continue to subsidize revenue for Billionaires and income for millionaires without being able to alter the salary cap or adjust the revenue sharing ratio.
 
Looking at the bullet points:

-38% reduction in overall player salaries.

Owners will never get that much rollback in salaries. Best I could imagine them getting over the long haul is 15%.

-A reduction of the players 57% share of initial revenue to an equal share (ie: 50/50 or close to it).

That will probably happen. Definitely hard for the players to win this one.

-A hard salary cap of $45 million.

Harder cap, maybe, but a hard cap of 45 mil ain't happenin'. A hard cap of 60 mil ain't happenin', either.

-Elimination of salary cap exceptions (which allows a team to exceed the salary cap with minimal or no penalty).

Might lose the MLE, but LLE will probably stay. That'll keep more vets in the league and fewer D-League players.

-Limiting player contract years to four years maximum.

Could happen. Maybe the players would accept four years with a team controlled fifth year. I think five is fine, however.

-Doing away with guaranteed contracts/partially guaranteeing contracts with minimal buyout clauses.

I'm not a total fan of non-guaranteed contracts. Way too much power for the owners. I'm in favor of partially guaranteed contracts, however.

-A reduction of the rookie salary cap

I'm in favor of restructuring it. Picks 25-30 are less in value than 31-35, and that's not how it should be. One way would be to let teams make a decision on a rookie contract's option the year of the option, instead of the year before. Another is to restrict second round picks to only making what the 30th pick can make.
 
Dear owners and players, check this out:

-Offset slashing guaranteed contracts (like the NFL does) by giving players more BRI (or more $ per year). This essentially eliminates the contract year phenomena and makes the competition better and eliminates one bad contract from sabotaging a team.
-Go to a hardER cap, but HARD cap I think is impossible. Cut out the MLE, but teams at or above the cap need to be able to sign their rookies and fill out their rosters (with minimum contract players) without cutting players that they need to compete. I also like Bird Rights. Teams should be able to keep their own players and I think that's good for the league. Keep those.
-Picks 15-30 only have one guaranteed year
 
NUMBERICA said:
Dear owners and players, check this out:

-Offset slashing guaranteed contracts (like the NFL does) by giving players more BRI (or more $ per year). This essentially eliminates the contract year phenomena and makes the competition better and eliminates one bad contract from sabotaging a team.
-Go to a hardER cap, but HARD cap I think is impossible. Cut out the MLE, but teams at or above the cap need to be able to sign their rookies and fill out their rosters (with minimum contract players) without cutting players that they need to compete. I also like Bird Rights. Teams should be able to keep their own players and I think that's good for the league. Keep those.
-Picks 15-30 only have one guaranteed year
Click to expand...

Players having more BRI and no guaranteed contracts is not very healthy, especially for useful veterans who will be cut and replaced by cheaper players. Not good for owners, players, OR fans.

I've had a similar thought to rookie contracts. I've considered 3 full yrs for 1-10, 2 for 11-20, and 1 for 21-30. One year team option for 1-10, and two one year team options for 11-30. All options are taken the year of the option, not the year before as the current model has.
 
In general, I think the salary rollbacks are critical. The more the players give up, the better leverage they have to preserve the closest version of the present system. Compromises should be more easily struck on contract structures and a reduction of the revenue pie. What the owners should be doing is figuring out what type of harder cap they could live with that would still be attractive to the players. And if they get revenue sharing in better shape, the present system could still carry forward with tweaks. Of course, the owners need to get freaking unified for any real progress to be made.

I'll be interested to see the next two installments. The update that indicates big market owners are working to reconcile differences with small market owners is encouraging. But Coon has become increasingly pessimistic, and he knows this situation better than anyone. Real interested to read his take on this week's meetings.
 
I don't see a way possible they come to terms by seasons beginning. If it is true that 22 of the 30 teams are losing money, this could be a looooonnnnnggggg lockout. I think this is the reason the Jazz traded Dwill to the Nets. They knew there is a pretty strong possibility of there not being a season next year...I wouldn't doubt we miss at least a third of the season.
 
I don't see a hard cap, it would backfire on the owners when talented players start getting better offers overseas.
 
Jazz4ever said:
I don't see a hard cap, it would backfire on the owners when talented players start getting better offers overseas.
Click to expand...

....the economy is no better overseas than it is in the states. I doubt very seriously offers will be made that supercede what NBA locked out players could make playing ball for the AND1 League, which they would no doubt, feel more "comfortable" doing!!!
 
I'm more worried that kids will head to Europe if a 2-and-done rule goes into affect. I hate seeing our young future stars heading overseas rather than stay here and play some good ol' college ball (of course I do).
 
LunaticWolf said:
Part 2 and 3 are not posted yet?
Click to expand...

Not yet it seems, though this part was just written a couple days ago so I'm hoping the next parts are churned out soon. It was quite a good read.

I don't know how I'm going to survive as a hermit if both the NFL and NBA go away next year.
 
sojodave said:
I don't see a way possible they come to terms by seasons beginning. If it is true that 22 of the 30 teams are losing money, this could be a looooonnnnnggggg lockout. I think this is the reason the Jazz traded Dwill to the Nets. They knew there is a pretty strong possibility of there not being a season next year...I wouldn't doubt we miss at least a third of the season.
Click to expand...

This seems to be Coon's take so far. The teams losing money have little to gain compromising, and I think he's gone on to say they'll lose next to no money in a lockout. My guess is that's based on the assumption the NBAPA is dug in and won't back down. Since the owners ultimately have the leverage, I'm hoping Hunter is trying to find a political way to save face in inevitable defeat. On the plus side, those teams that are willing to lockout would also like to see some profits. When it's in everyone's interest to play, there's hope creativity in solutions will pave the road.

One solution I see might be to shorten the CBA agreement. Normally it's 5 or 6 years (can't remember.) A lot of general industry/municipal CBA's are only 3 years. It's more of a pain in the ***, but shorter terms alleviates concerns about being boxed in to a bad deal. The players might be more likely to accept more restrictive terms so long as there was promise (legally binding, of course) to reevaluate finances after 3 years (and likely with contingencies that certain provisions were reinstated if specified financial markers were met.)
 
I have said it before and this article confirms it for me. The NBA lockout is going to be long and ugly. The player's are not going to like losing money the small market teams want a hard cap and the big market teams want their built in competitive advantages maintained. The owners can't even agree with want they want and the players will never agree on what they want. How are they suposed to come to an agreement when the 2 sides are not even in agreement within their respective sides?

As a fan. I want the NBA fixed. The advantage big market teams have is bull ****. A hard cap and full revenue sharing is the only possible way to solve those problems. Along with that non or partially guaranteed contracts will have to be in effect in some way for a hard cap to work.

The biggest reason the NFL is the best game in the USA is because at the beginning of the season every team feels that they have a shot. They have a good reason to feel that way as teams come out of nowhere to make a push almost every year.

The NBA needs their fans and their franchises to believe this or the league is going to lose revenue and further hurt the profits of every franchise.
 
I'll give up a year for a hard cap. Give me socialism in sports and nothing else. :) Without a hard cap Utah will always be a 3-6 seed and a second rounder loser.

Also, I don't think a hard cap would send players overseas. Their salaries would still be huge, their endorsements will be bigger and most would rather make 12 million a year in the US than 15 overseas. And I could care less if the Korver's and Childress's leave. They aren't that good anyways. For every Korver that leaves a Jimmer will take his place.
 
green said:
I'll give up a year for a hard cap. Give me socialism in sports and nothing else. :) Without a hard cap Utah will always be a 3-6 seed and a second rounder loser.

Also, I don't think a hard cap would send players overseas. Their salaries would still be huge, their endorsements will be bigger and most would rather make 12 million a year in the US than 15 overseas. And I could care less if the Korver's and Childress's leave. They aren't that good anyways. For every Korver that leaves a Jimmer will take his place.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand socialism. You think a hard cap of tens of millions of dollars for a sport team is socialism? It is obviously capitalism, but with a bit of a socialist twist. That is the way everything should be. ;)
 
siromar said:
You misunderstand socialism. You think a hard cap of tens of millions of dollars for a sport team is socialism? It is obviously capitalism, but with a bit of a socialist twist. That is the way everything should be. ;)
Click to expand...

All right, you win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top