What's new
By:

Lockout!!!

AlaskanAssassin said:
The only major "bad investment" the League made was agreeing to the last CBA. While individual teams may look at bad contracts like AK, Eddy Curry, and Gilbert Arenas as "bad contracts," the reality is that the players are going to get 57% of the revenue, no more and no less. The league would have lost $300 million last year REGARDLESS of the amount of individual contracts. The league swallowed losses for the last few years, they are not looking for a bail out. They do have the right to negotiate and adjust the CBA (as do the players) to terms that better meet their needs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it's true? Does it mean that players get bonuses somehow on top of their contract salaries? Link?
 
I am rooting for the "franchises tag" to come out of the new agreement. It's not good for the NBA for teams to be decimated by free agents walking with nothing in return. I wish they would come up with a hard cap so billionaires can't kill teams like the Jazz.
 
theNBAnerd said:
that actually happened in the NFL. their union leader agreed to lower his salary to $1 during the lockout as a show of solidarity and shared urgency. shane battier asked billy hunter if he planned to do the same and hunter apparently squirmed and dodged the question.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. But that's why I said BOTH sides.
 
sepanol said:
so when will it be clear , how long will the lockout last?
Click to expand...

It won't be clear for some time, unfortunately. Probably not until a week before it ends, whenever that may be. Right now the most likely scenarios seem to be:

a) they get things agreed on before the season starts, and have a full season (I'm still hoping for this, myself)
b) they get things agreed on in November/December, after the players start missing paychecks, and have a partial season starting in Dec/Jan (most people in the know think this is the most likely scenario)
c) they miss the whole season
 
zbone said:
Are you sure it's true? Does it mean that players get bonuses somehow on top of their contract salaries? Link?
Click to expand...

It's not a bonus, contracts are usually over 57% of the total BRI. The NBA holds onto 8% of players salary until August. They then disperse a portion of that so that the final outcome is 57%. Players are rarely paid EXACTLY what is outlined in their contract, but it will be really close. I pasted a portion of the CBA taken from the link.

https://www.insidehoops.com/nba-collective-bargaining-agreement.shtml

A. Escrow Level

The escrow level will be 57% (same as the 2004-05 season). This percentage will be guaranteed to the players, so that if total player costs before deducting escrow monies from the players are less than 57% of BRI, the difference will be paid by the league to the players. (In the event BRI for any season is more than 30% above the BRI level for 2004-05, the escrow level will increase to 57½% for that season and subsequent seasons).
The maximum percentage of player salaries and benefits that can be withheld from the players for purposes of meeting the 57% escrow level will be: 10% in year 1; 9% in years 2 – 5; and 8% in year 6 (and 8% in the option year, if exercised). The previous escrow withholding limit was 10%.
 
sojodave said:
I am rooting for the "franchises tag" to come out of the new agreement. It's not good for the NBA for teams to be decimated by free agents walking with nothing in return. I wish they would come up with a hard cap so billionaires can't kill teams like the Jazz.
Click to expand...

I think a soft -- but harder -- cap would be fine. Like have:

a) a luxury tax level like now, where owners pay a 1:1 penalty on each dollar spent over this level. Make this at $55 million, perhaps.
b) a double luxury tax level, where owners pay a 2:1 penalty on each dollar spent over this level. Make this at $60 million, perhaps
c) a quadruple luxury tax level, where owners pay a 4:1 penalty on each dollar spent over this level. Make this at $65 million, perhaps.

You get the idea.

I would think even the Lakers would think twice about spending $90 million in player salaries if they actually had to pay $205 million to get there. (205 = 55 + 5x2 + 5x3 + 25x5)

I haven't heard anyone suggest this idea yet, but it seems like a very good one to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top