Lockout!!!

[AlaskanAssassin]

The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.

I actually think this is a "blood" issue for the owners. Without the steep tax, big market teams are not afraid to use the mid-level every year, and attract the "best" average players. Think of how many mid-level exception contracts end up being good for a team. Not many?

Low tax penalties allows for big markets to have the upper hand on selecting free agents every year. If fewer teams are willing to use the mid-level because of the penalties, some of that talent will spread to small market teams that are not over or at the cap.

 

[carolinajazz]

Hahaha, this is great.

Piss on the NBA, I've spent my last dollar on your merchandise, your TV packages, and your tickets. This is liberating stuff, really.

.....I'm with the troutbum all the way! When the season gets completely shut down.....I'm taking a break from this board for 60 days....which will also give me a chance to clear up some of the bogus infractions I have accumulated!

 

[Qman]

The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.

The thing that has always confused me was why the players are so hung up on this. They are guaranteed a certain amount of BRI. Whatever amount of luxury tax paid will only affect which players are paid which amount exactly and where they would be playing. The players as a group will be paid the same amount roughly.

 

[billyshelby]

I actually think this is a "blood" issue for the owners. Without the steep tax, big market teams are not afraid to use the mid-level every year, and attract the "best" average players. Think of how many mid-level exception contracts end up being good for a team. Not many?

Low tax penalties allows for big markets to have the upper hand on selecting free agents every year. If fewer teams are willing to use the mid-level because of the penalties, some of that talent will spread to small market teams that are not over or at the cap.

I'm talking about easing the penalties, not doing away with them. Competitive balance is not going to be greatly swayed by the scraps rich teams can pick up in accepting exorbitant taxes on role players. The owners need to address the players concerns for a middle class. They can do this by softening the spending hits. Small market teams should agree to this because A) they're still getting bigger checks for staying under the tax; and B) they have to accept some responsibility in this process -- ie., not handing out foolish contracts.

The owners have already won the most important battle -- profitability -- with the BRI and pending revenue share agreement. But they might not get to enjoy it if they don't sacrifice a little on the competitive balance front.

 

[InGameStrategy]

The thing that has always confused me was why the players are so hung up on this. They are guaranteed a certain amount of BRI. Whatever amount of luxury tax paid will only affect which players are paid which amount exactly and where they would be playing. The players as a group will be paid the same amount roughly.

I think that the agents and/or the superstars are the ones driving the luxury-tax debate because they are the ones who are most likely to benefit from looser luxury-tax stipulations. Meanwhile, low-priced journeymen are more likely to be affordably sandwiched under the salary cap.

Your astute insight, Qman, sheds light for me on the notion that the agents and/or superstars--with their more abundant financial resources and higher likelihood of getting on camera than Joe Midlevel--have been disproportionately represented in the CBA negotiations overall--not just the luxury-tax discussion. The responsibility for ensuring that the entire union is represented rests squarely on the shoulders of the likes of Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher, and I am skeptical that the team representatives truly embody the sentiment of their respective teams (as evidenced by Raja's comments in contrast to informal interviews of other Jazzmen at the charity game). These union "leaders" appear to have listened too closely to the louder voices of the elites (and even their embarrassing screams sometimes; think D-Wade and Chrissy), thus causing everyone--owners, players, and fans alike--to suffer.

Ironically, the legacy of DF or BH--and perhaps their union jobs--would've been enhanced if they had been able to come to an agreement much sooner, which they could have done if they hadn't let these agents/elites control the dialogue so much. IMHO, it also goes to show that even an accounting degree (Fish) or a law degree (Billy Hunter and Jeffrey Kessler, the NBAPA lawyer) isn't always enough to lead and negotiate effectively, especially when dealing with relatively uneducated people such as NBA "professionals," whose views are further skewed by their inflated sense of themselves. Such a combination is something that some JazzFanz might believe that I have personal experience with .

Update: Latest chatter is that players balk at the new negotiable/eliminatable "B list" clause allowing demotion of the 14th and 15th player of each team to the D-League for a reduced salary ($75K?) during the first five years of their careers.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/...s-unlikely-accept-owners-proposal-sources-say

I get why the owners want this. I also appreciate why the players don't, even if it affects only the end-of-the-benchwarmer youngins. If the owners refuse to drop it, it's a sign to me that they're willing to blow the league up and start from scratch (which would be interesting to see from an operational standpoint but very uninteresting to see the subpar basketball in the process, which could last years).

 

[billyshelby]

The thing that has always confused me was why the players are so hung up on this. They are guaranteed a certain amount of BRI. Whatever amount of luxury tax paid will only affect which players are paid which amount exactly and where they would be playing. The players as a group will be paid the same amount roughly.

This is a good question. My assumption has been that players are returned their escrow losses and cut equal checks for overages in BRI. That would help the low guys, be insignificant to the high guys, and mostly hurt the middle class. In that scenario, the middle class would be getting checks for the profitability of the league that would be under what they could have formerly signed for under the previous agreement.

If payouts are a percentage of salary, ie. Lebron gets a bigger check than Sundiata Gaines, then I'm as confused as you.

 

[BENTLEY]

The one issue I truly support the players on are the tax issues. The penalties are a little excessive. If the owners truly want to play, they should try to throw the players a bone on this.

I'm talking about easing the penalties, not doing away with them. Competitive balance is not going to be greatly swayed by the scraps rich teams can pick up in accepting exorbitant taxes on role players. The owners need to address the players concerns for a middle class. They can do this by softening the spending hits. Small market teams should agree to this because A) they're still getting bigger checks for staying under the tax; and B) they have to accept some responsibility in this process -- ie., not handing out foolish contracts.

The owners have already won the most important battle -- profitability -- with the BRI and pending revenue share agreement. But they might not get to enjoy it if they don't sacrifice a little on the competitive balance front.

I don't care about BRI. It doesn't affect me, the fan. I am concerned with competitive balance though and so the luxury tax issues are important to me. But I don't like them either - the principle is the same ie: rich markets can spend more than small markets. Making the taxes even more exorbitant doesn't necessarily make them a deterrent. Not for rich markets that can afford to throw money away. It just makes it so the small markets have to stay locked up under the salary cap. If you really want competitive balance then make it a hard cap. I hate the luxury tax.

There's been so much talk in the news about % BRI split - what do I care about that? None of that affects me whatsoever. I want the system fixed. I want competitive balance.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I don't care about BRI. It doesn't affect me, the fan. I am concerned with competitive balance though and so the luxury tax issues are important to me. But I don't like them either - the principle is the same ie: rich markets can spend more than small markets. Making the taxes even more exorbitant doesn't necessarily make them a deterrent. Not for rich markets that can afford to throw money away. It just makes it so the small markets have to stay locked up under the salary cap. If you really want competitive balance then make it a hard cap. I hate the luxury tax.

There's been so much talk in the news about % BRI split - what do I care about that? None of that affects me whatsoever. I want the system fixed. I want competitive balance.

Players .. Owners .. now, Bentley .. 3 separate and distinct aspects of prima donna.





(sorry, owners and players, didn't mean to add guilt by association to the already complicated equation)

 

[BENTLEY]

Players .. Owners .. now, Bentley .. 3 separate and distinct aspects of prima donna.

That's it, I'm signing the decertify petition.
Except the only other person on it is CJ and he didn't sign his name - everyone else did.

 

[Dr. Jones]

That's it, I'm signing the decertify petition.
Except the only other person on it is CJ and he didn't sign his name - everyone else did.

haha

 

[Stifle Tower]

That's it, I'm signing the decertify petition.
Except the only other person on it is CJ and he didn't sign his name - everyone else did.

I'm in. If the $ decreases, some of the prima donnas will head overseas and the "hoppers" will see they can make more money by pimpin' and selling drugs. That will give a guy like me a chance to make $200K sitting on the end of the bench. I may not be great, but I guarantee a "Rudy-like" effort in getting the team ready for the next opponent and I won't complain about playing time.

 

[freakazoid]

I am concerned with competitive balance though and so the luxury tax issues are important to me. But I don't like them either - the principle is the same ie: rich markets can spend more than small markets. Making the taxes even more exorbitant doesn't necessarily make them a deterrent. Not for rich markets that can afford to throw money away. It just makes it so the small markets have to stay locked up under the salary cap. If you really want competitive balance then make it a hard cap. I hate the luxury tax.

I see two possible benefits from the proposed system. If the rich teams are not deterred from going into the tax, that means more money going to the teams under the tax. Utah is never going to be a team that pays the tax frequently, but more money on a regular basis means a better chance the Miller's might be willing to pay it on occasion.

Secondly, If the rich ARE deterred somewhat from going into tax, it should help spread talent around more evenly.