Resuming CBA talks

[ElNono]

So, the faction of owners being led by Jordan does know how "good" he is with decisions, right? Kwame Brown, Adam Morrison, etc...

And this is part of it too... If you make decisions, you shouldn't be allowed to flex the monopoly power you were granted to shield yourself from the responsibility.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Guys you should have learned by now that until you hear that one side or the other has agreed to both BRI AND system that no deal is even close to done.

They had just 'agreed' to a system a couple of weeks ago and we know how that turned out. The BRI split sets a starting point for luxury tax purposes and a salary floor. The system determines how much that percentage shifts. You can figure how much of a budget teams have and forecast rather closely given those terms.

If you give 50% BRI but you don't see a serious regression in the tax until 8% then large market teams are going to drive that mark up a few %. That ends up with the players getting 52-53% versus if you block the regression at 4%.

Thats whats so misleading about this whole episode. The players got 57% last year but what was the luxury tax threshold set at relative to BRI. I don't think that it was at 57%. We really are not comparing apples to apples and we are fixating on one thing when both need to be viewed concurrently as they feed off each other.

[spurs10]

Today the owners can stop the bleeding or stand firm and let the bloodbath begin. Maybe they bend a little during the 45 day wait to decertify, but that will mean December will go off the books for sure. The next two hours will have a historical effect on the NBA as we know it, because it won't be pretty if this goes to court. The only winners there will be the lawyers, as usual.

[Giuseppe]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...hing-to-owners

"The cliff," which is a term to describe the penalty for going one dollar into the tax. In the old system, teams that were a dollar below the tax threshold paid no tax and received, typically, millions from the league. Going just one dollar over, in other words, would cost those lost millions, plus a dollar in luxury tax for every dollar the team is over. There's an effort to reduce "the cliff" in the league's proposal. Both sides agree, however, that teams that spend hugely on salary will pay significantly more tax than in the past with a new graduated rate system.]]]

me. That graduated rate system is still there {{{3.5-1}}} at last ganders.

That's an ELE for the Lakers.

[DPG21920]

No, Seppe. The Cliff helps LA. At least in theory.

[ElNono]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
The owners and players have finalized a 1 p.m. ET bargaining session in New York, source confirms.
3 hours ago

[ElNono]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Y! Sources: Stern has enough ownership support to "tweak" system issues to try and get labor deal done today. tinyurl.com/bqyqjkp
4 hours ago

[DPG21920]

Theyve already started nono

[ElNono]

Not getting my hopes up, tbh

[ElNono]

Yeah, that's why I'm posting the "X hours ago"

[DPG21920]

No hopes here. There is no reason for the owners to all of the sudden want to negotiate. They will force the players to decertify before they consider budging. All the talk is for show just like always. As soon as the doors close, the owners will show their real colors yet again.

[spurs10]

Not getting my hopes up, tbh

Wish I had your resolve....once again, I'm getting all optimistic when I should know better!!

[DPG21920]

Guys you should have learned by now that until you hear that one side or the other has agreed to both BRI AND system that no deal is even close to done.

They had just 'agreed' to a system a couple of weeks ago and we know how that turned out. The BRI split sets a starting point for luxury tax purposes and a salary floor. The system determines how much that percentage shifts. You can figure how much of a budget teams have and forecast rather closely given those terms.

If you give 50% BRI but you don't see a serious regression in the tax until 8% then large market teams are going to drive that mark up a few %. That ends up with the players getting 52-53% versus if you block the regression at 4%.

Thats whats so misleading about this whole episode. The players got 57% last year but what was the luxury tax threshold set at relative to BRI. I don't think that it was at 57%. We really are not comparing apples to apples and we are fixating on one thing when both need to be viewed concurrently as they feed off each other.

Can you explain further how they are intertwined?

[DesignatedT]

Rick Barry thinks ‘Billy Hunter is one of the worst things that happened to the NBA’
By Kelly Dwyer

"If I was still a player today I would be totally ticked off by the fact that we didn't make a deal months ago. I really do believe that this could've been resolved and should've been resolved a long time ago. Why they always have to come down to this I don't know.
I'm not a big fan of Billy Hunter. I think Billy Hunter is one of the worst things that happened to the NBA. Yes he got them an unbelievable deal last time but he also was responsible for the lockout in the late 90's which cost the players one third of their salaries basically and got nothing for it. The same thing is happening here.
What they're doing is they're making a situation which is a bad situation worse by standing firm. Standing firm for what? You're standing firm to get nothing. All you're trying to do is minimize the losses that you have to accept in order for there to be a deal put in place."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...medium=twitter

[dylankerouac]

It seems to me like the owners want two things:

1) Return a profit regardless of market size (which happens in other sports, and I agree with this, every team should be returning a profit)
2.1) be able to compete for a championship regardless of market size if done correctly continue to do so for several years, i.e. 2.2 not easily lose their star players to larger markets

So plain and simple, the lockout is the owners fault for wanting these things and (even after being aware of these issues for several years) not being able to think of and present a deal to their partners (the players) in a way that doesn't completely screw the players.

[yavozerb]

It seems to me like the owners want two things:

1) Return a profit regardless of market size (which happens in other sports, and I agree with this, every team should be returning a profit)
2.1) be able to compete for a championship regardless of market size if done correctly continue to do so for several years, i.e. 2.2 not easily lose their star players to larger markets

So plain and simple, the lockout is the owners fault for wanting these things and (even after being aware of these issues for several years) not being able to think of and present a deal to their partners (the players) in a way that doesn't completely screw the players.

In essence, Melo and Bron should get an ass beating after this is all said and done by the players since they made a mockery of the old system...I really believe those 2 moves is what motivated majority of the owners to look out for themselves when the time came for another agreement.

[Giuseppe]

No, Seppe. The Cliff helps LA. At least in theory.

If the 3.5 to 1 is still in place it's an ELE for the Lakers. Even 1 to 1 at gross examination is an abomination to any business en y. 3.5 to 1? It's a death knell.

[yavozerb]

If the 3.5 to 1 is still in place it's an ELE for the Lakers. Even 1 to 1 at gross examination is an abomination to any business en y. 3.5 to 1? It's a death knell.

Ya, I agree seppe..3.5 is pretty much hard capping anyone from entering over the marked cap..

[mavsfan1000]

I'm just shocked at the number of people on this site that blame the players for the same thing you could easily blame the owners for. It is just awful logic. I'm also shocked at how you can't see what the owners are doing and how the players have made every concession; very large concessions & the owners not only fail to move forward, but threaten to move backwards?

I agree the players have been unorganized and shuffled their feet some, but that is the only thing you can be upset about towards them IMO. Even then I have a hard time getting upset at that considering they did that because they had the (foolish) hope the owners wanted to negotiate in good faith. The owners are the greedy liars here and this CLEARLY falls on them IMO.

Players are way overpaid. You can't deny that.

[baseline bum]

Players are way overpaid. You can't deny that.

If you go by Rashard Lewis then yeah, but the top tier players are paid far less than they'd get in an open market without artificial caps.

[DesignatedT]

Even with this "Terrible" offer the owners are proposing, it would still be the best deal in professional sports for players.

[DPG21920]

No. Also it would be far and away the best deal in sports for owners. Ask yourself why they have THE worst revenue sharing in all of pro sports.

[DesignatedT]

Even with union givebacks, NBA players will still be the best paid, best taken care of athletes in their peer group (all professional athletes). The new proposed deal still makes a ton of dollars and sense for NBA players, especially compared to the deal that was recently accepted by their NFL brethren.

In August, when NFL players agreed to reduce their share of revenues from 50 percent to between 47 percent and 48.5 percent and to lower the per team salary cap from $128 million to $120.4 million, I thought they set a horrible precedent for NBA players. NFL business has been booming and virtually all teams have been making money; yet, NFL players were willing to take less. How could NBA players expect to earn a greater share of their league's money than NFL players at a time when most NBA teams are losing money and many are absolutely hemorrhaging cash annually? Yet the deal on the table for NBA players, whether a 50/50 or 52/48 split in revenues, remains appreciably better than the NFL players' deal by all measures.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/s...l-pro-athletes

[Nathan89]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...hing-to-owners

"The cliff," which is a term to describe the penalty for going one dollar into the tax. In the old system, teams that were a dollar below the tax threshold paid no tax and received, typically, millions from the league. Going just one dollar over, in other words, would cost those lost millions, plus a dollar in luxury tax for every dollar the team is over. There's an effort to reduce "the cliff" in the league's proposal. Both sides agree, however, that teams that spend hugely on salary will pay significantly more tax than in the past with a new graduated rate system.

me. That graduated rate system is still there {{{3.5-1}}} at last ganders.

That's an ELE for the Lakers.

No, Seppe. The Cliff helps LA. At least in theory.

For example the luxury tax line could be 70mil and the "cliff" could be 65mil. Thus encouraging teams to stay under the tax by 5mil to receive rewards but not penalizing a team until they get to 70mil.

Is my understanding correct?

THAT

[DPG21920]

Again, look at owner revenue sharing. That article is also opinion, not fact.