Resuming CBA talks

[Kyle Orton]

Lol n word



Nig

[Bruno]

That luxury tax hit is over the borderline prohibitive. I can't believe the players agreed to that.

Christ.

The new luxury tax won't change a lot of things. In the previous system, about 3 teams per year go over the luxury tax threshold by more than $10M. So for 90% of the NBA teams, who pay no luxury tax or very few, this rule will have almost no impact.

And the 3 teams per year who are way above the luxury tax, will likely continue to be at that level. Being $20M over the tax will now cost $45M instead of $20M in tax payment. Lakers with their $150M per year TV deal could very well paid these $25M more per year. Cuban will pay these $25M if it allows him to have a compe ive Mavs team.

What should worry Lakers fan is the union wanting that teams above the tax will lose their MLE. It is what could hurt Lakers to improve their team.

[eric365]

What should worry Lakers fan is the union wanting that teams above the tax will lose their MLE. It is what could hurt Lakers to improve their team.

Isn't the contrary ?
The owners are pushing for team above the tax not having the right to use the MLE and the union want to keep it as now.

This point is in favor of small market only. Big market and players are on the same side on this one

[Bruno]

Isn't the contrary ?
The owners are pushing for team above the tax not having the right to use the MLE and the union want to keep it as now.

This point is in favor of small market only. Big market and players are on the same side on this one

Yep, my bad. It's off course the league that wants to remove the MLE for teams in the luxury tax territory.

Big market owners are in fact on the same side than players against small market owners. Big market owners would be damn fine with a 52/48 split and the system players want. Small market owners are the one responsible of this mess.

And it draws another question. Is it logical that Bucks vote count as much as Lakers vote while Lakers generate ten times more money? Same question for the players: Lebron James generate tons of money and has the same weight than a random end of the bench scrub. NBA is a business and shouldn't work on this parity rule. The more money you generate, the more influential you should be in negotiating business' rules.

[ElNono]

The labor committee refers to the internal group of owners tasked with putting together an initial offer and playing hardball in the negotiations, NOT to the players group. Allen was most certainly lobbying the up front negotiating owners, but since he reputedly didn't say a damn word to anyone on the other side of the table during talks or even on breaks, how could he have lobbied them or pushed them into anything? The 40% model was never on the table.

Chuck, I don't disagree that 40% might not have ever been on the table from the owners (though I'm not completely sure), but there were certainly owner(s) wanting to stick to that figure (and I think it was more than just Allen. Sarver and Gilbert were also tossing the hard line out there).

[spurs50_]

Get this done so we can see leonard unleash his fury.

[spurs10]

It would seem with Hunter walking out of the room, after rejecting the 50/50 split, the deal is only going to get harder. I wonder if he stuck it out they could have settled at 51 and saved the season. The players have given up a lot already to be sure. I think both sides are more than ready to lose the entire season rather than get a deal. The consequences to the NBA will be to pay. Losing 300 million is bad (though when you add in all the income not included in the BRI, I'm sure it's not so bad)...4 billion in losses will just be the beginning. They better do some thinking over the weekend.....

[ChuckD]

Chuck, I don't disagree that 40% might not have ever been on the table from the owners (though I'm not completely sure), but there were certainly owner(s) wanting to stick to that figure (and I think it was more than just Allen. Sarver and Gilbert were also tossing the hard line out there).

I don't doubt that the owners internally talked 40%. My point was that of the two starting positions in the actual negotiations, 47% for the owners and the current deal of 57%, the players have moved 5 points and the owners have moved 3 points and dug in.

[therealtruth]

I don't doubt that the owners internally talked 40%. My point was that of the two starting positions in the actual negotiations, 47% for the owners and the current deal of 57%, the players have moved 5 points and the owners have moved 3 points and dug in.

I think the owners were claiming they were coming from 41% to show how much they have moved from their original positions. Since the previous CBA was extremely player friendly it makes sense they would have more to give up.

[eric365]

I don't like the amnesty clause.

Basicaly the players that got stupid contract or got lazy after their contract will be rewarded by the full amount of their contract + the possibility to be a free agent.

So Rachard Lewis will get 120M + probably MLE money in a team he want just as a reward to play poorly

[spurs10]

I think the owners were claiming they were coming from 41% to show how much they have moved from their original positions. Since the previous CBA was extremely owner friendly it makes sense they would have more to give up.

If the previous CBA was 'extremely owner friendly', we wouldn't be in a lockout right now.

[ChuckD]

I don't like the amnesty clause.

Basicaly the players that got stupid contract or got lazy after their contract will be rewarded by the full amount of their contract + the possibility to be a free agent.

So Rachard Lewis will get 120M + probably MLE money in a team he want just as a reward to play poorly

Uh, he's not still due $120M. I think he's down to like maybe 40M? The team only pays what's left, not the whole contract.

[eric365]

Uh, he's not still due $120M. I think he's down to like maybe 40M? The team only pays what's left, not the whole contract.

Yes it's the remaining of the contract. If he has only 2 years left it's ~45M for him.

Anyway, he get the whole money and he is rewarded by being a free agent.

[ChuckD]

Yes it's the remaining of the contract. If he has only 2 years left it's ~45M for him.

Anyway, he get the whole money and he is rewarded by being a free agent.

He got the previous money because as badly as he played, he fulfilled those years of the contract. That happens whether there is amnesty or not.

As for the $40M, he's getting that regardless of if he plays those two years or they are amnesty years. Washington gets out from under his horrible cap figure, and diffident play. He gets to be free.

I'm doubting anyone gives him an MLE contract. His buyout is going to be a negotiating point by any team dumb enough to want to sign his lazy ass. They'll want him for minimum, and then they'll want to use the MLE on someone else who isn't receiving $40M in payouts.

[TD 21]

According to this, you can forget about the Spurs using the amnesty on Jefferson: http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssp...48484/33013382

Amnesty clause: As Ken Berger of CBSSports.com has reported, a new amnesty clause will be in the new CBA, allowing teams to waive one player at anytime during the life of the new CBA. You still have to pay the players but his salary won't count against the cap and luxury tax. But here's a catch: It can't be used on anyone signed before July 1, 2011. So all that talk about who you'd amnesty would change quite a bit because those players aren't eligible.

He may still be movable though. I've long thought that Jefferson/Blair for Johnson/Kleiza was plausible and the chances of it happening may have improved in the past week, as the Raptors hired Stefanski -- who's credited with drafting Jefferson -- to be their executive vice-president of basketball operations.

[Mel_13]

According to this, you can forget about the Spurs using the amnesty on Jefferson: http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssp...48484/33013382
[I]
Amnesty clause: As Ken Berger of CBSSports.com has reported, a new amnesty clause will be in the new CBA, allowing teams to waive one player at anytime during the life of the new CBA. You still have to pay the players but his salary won't count against the cap and luxury tax.[B] But here's a catch: It can't be used on anyone signed before July 1, 2011. So all that talk about who you'd amnesty would change quite a bit because those players aren't eligible.

I'm fairly certain that the writer of that blog has it backwards. For what he says to be true, it would mean that no player currently under contract can be released under the new amnesty. It could only be used on players yet to be signed. That just doesn't pass the common sense test.

It's much more likely that the new amnesty will only apply to players currently under contract and anyone signed after July 1, 2011 would not be eligible.

[slick'81]

yeah i thought it was to be used on current players not players just signed

[ElNono]

Yeah, that's probably a typo. It should read after not before. I've heard owners couldn't use it on new contracts under the new CBA.

[lrrr]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...-clause-on-way

Holt wants 2 years to decide to use the amnesty clause?

Thoughts?

[benefactor]

It's a typo.

Amnesty clause: Each team will be permitted to waive one player, with pay — anytime during the life of the C.B.A. — and have his salary be exempt from the cap and the luxury tax. Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sp...ref=basketball

[ElNono]

Now that Holt is sitting across the aisle from Bonner and sees him as the enemy, I just hope he understand how your average Spursfan feels, tbh...

Unfortunately Holt would probably need at least 2 amnesty clauses to fix this roster.

[Dex]

Now that Holt is sitting across the aisle from Bonner and sees him as the enemy, I just hope he understand how your average Spursfan feels, tbh...

Unfortunately Holt would probably need at least 2 amnesty clauses to fix this roster.

If Pop used Bonner sparingly like he should be used, instead of relying on him as first big off the bench, then he wouldn't really be a problem.

Unfortunately, the odds of that are about as likely as a CBA deal being done tomorrow.

[ElNono]

If Pop used Bonner sparingly like he should be used

That ship sailed two/three seasons ago. tbh, I'm sick and tired of hearing the same , but I don't want to turn this thread into another redhead argument (even though at the moment it doesn't look like there's anything else to talk about).

[slick'81]

fck bonner

[Bruno]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...ble-teams-2/2/

However, if NBA commissioner David Stern gets his way, an imbecile would be able to make money running a team. Stern wants to lop $750 million off of player costs, lowering the portion of basketball-related revenue that goes to players from 57% to around 40%. If Stern succeeds, even teams like the Hornets, who were thought to be headed for bankruptcy before the NBA rescued the franchise, would immediately rise at least 30% in value because potential buyers would know they don’t run the risk of writing checks to cover operating losses.

I think it's a reason why players should really fight not to get a too much owners-friendly new CBA.

The better the CBA is for owners, the more expensive teams will be to buy. New owners, who will buy their team in the future years for a lot of money, will then try to get an even better new CBA when the next one will be over. A too much owners-friendly CBA will be the start of a loop with franchises being more and more expensive to buy and players getting less and less money.

While owners shouldn't lose money, they shouldn't be too much profitable. The NBA should be a business slightly less profitable than the rest of the economic field. I want a league with owners liking basketball and having fun owning a team. Owners having a team just to make money would be a disaster for the NBA. Fans don't deserve to have 30 Donald Sterling at the helm of teams.