link
Union’s Reversal of Position Disrupts NBA Collective Bargaining Negotiations
NEW YORK, May 18 -- NBA Deputy Commissioner Russ Granik announced today that, due to the Players Association’s recent reversal of position on several key issues, there are no further negotiations scheduled at this time and issued the following statement:
“Since the All-Star break the NBA and the Players Association have been in arduous negotiations to reach a new collective bargaining agreement. For its part, the League has offered in any new agreement to raise the salary cap from 48% to 51% of BRI, to lessen the impact of the luxury tax by distributing escrow funds to all teams equally, and to guarantee the players as a group the same 57% they have received in each of the last two seasons. At the conclusion of a bargaining session on Sunday, April 17 we thought we were very close to a deal, with only a few items remaining to be compromised.
“On April 19, a day after the Players Association met with a group of player agents, we were informed that the Players Association could no longer agree to a previously-committed five-year rule on length of contracts. Then, last week, after promising a written proposal to form the basis of a new agreement, the union instead advised us orally that it needed to backtrack on several other essential terms that had already been resolved.
“Since we are at a loss as to how we can possibly reach a new deal that is in any way consistent with the principal terms that we have been discussing for many months, there are no further meetings scheduled at this time.”
OMG. That sucks!On April 19, a day after the Players Association met with a group of player agents, we were informed that the Players Association could no longer agree to a previously-committed five-year rule on length of contracts. Then, last week, after promising a written proposal to form the basis of a new agreement, the union instead advised us orally that it needed to backtrack on several other essential terms that had already been resolved.
Get it done.
not again. You would think that these guys would not be such s about everything. The Players are so mis treated with their million dollar contracts.
I don't want to see a lockout but it would benefit the Spurs if it happened...With the Spurs returning virtually all their players next year they would have a significant edge in a short season...not sure how it would effect bringing Scola in though...if they can't pay him he can't buy out his contract...
Money is the root of all evil. $Billions at stake. Polarization, animosity, in your face aggression.
Did I catch a announcement that playoff viewers ratings are WAY down vs last year?
Git 'R Done!!!!!
Last edited by Samr; 05-18-2005 at 06:07 PM. Reason: I can't spell misspellings
See where Hockey is at right now? If the NBA isn't careful...looks like those Silverstars season tickets will be hard to come by next year!
They're not already?
I don't know about the overall ratings. But the Spurs did well in the Nuggets series.
The San Antonio Spurs’ series clinching victory over the Denver Nuggets Wednesday (May 4) was the highest-rated Spurs telecast on FSN Southwest in three years and the third highest of all-time, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Ratings have been lagging since Jordan left. That's no secret.
you mean james is not as good as the market guy as mj
gee I wonder why
And Ducks brings up James out of the thin air just to insult him.
Man, did James dump you so bad that you have this personal hatred for the 20 year old kid?
I don't really care about attendance or LeBron, but I don't want a lockout.
It seems like the players association agreed to terms, then balked after talking to their agents.
Five year max contracts isn't bad ... they had originally wanted three/four, so the players should be happy with five.
Updated: May 18, 2005
League suspends talks, says union backtracked
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider
In February, NBA commissioner David Stern was "optimistic" that owners and players would reach a deal on a new collective-bargaining agreement and avoid a nasty lockout.
Recently, Stern downgraded his mood from optimistic to "hopeful."
On Wednesday, his deputy commissioner, Russ Granik, told ESPN.com that if the National Basketball Players Association doesn't change its negotiating strategy soon, a lockout is coming.
The NBA announced in a statement Wednesday that it had suspended negotiations with the union and no further meetings were scheduled.
Granik claims the union recently reversed positions on several key issues.
"The issues that the union has backed away from in the past few weeks will prevent us from reaching an agreement," Granik said. "A deal can't be reached with the union's new positions on all of these points. How can we have further negotiations?"
The current collective-bargaining agreement expires on June 30. With no negotiations scheduled, does that mean a lockout is inevitable?
"We're six weeks away from having to look at that prospect," Granik said. "I don't want to make predictions. But, the situation is alarming."
Why the sudden change from optimism to alarm?
According to the league's press release: "At the conclusion of a bargaining session on Sunday, April 17, we thought we were very close to a deal, with only a few items remaining to be compromised.
"On April 19, a day after the Players' Association met with a group of player agents, we were informed that the Players' Association could no longer agree to a previously committed five-year rule on length of contracts.
"Then, last week, after promising a written proposal to form the basis of a new agreement, the union instead advised us orally that it needed to backtrack on several other essential terms that had already been resolved."
On Tuesday, ESPN.com reported the details of that meeting between the agents and union chief Billy Hunter.
"Billy put us on the spot," SFX agent David Bauman, whose firm represents more players than any other agency in the NBA, said. "He wanted to know if we had his back, whether we'd tell our players the same thing that we were telling him. We all stood up, every one of us, said our names and said we'd reject the offer. The deal the NBA is offering the players right now makes absolutely no sense. I've told my clients that. Every one of them agrees that the deal that's on the table is a bad one."
The agents are especially concerned about several major issues.
The biggest is the owners' insistence that guaranteed contracts be considerably shortened. Currently, players can sign a contract for a maximum of six or seven years, depending upon whether the player is signing with a new team (six years) or his current team (seven years). The owners have been trying to get that rolled back to three and four years.
Three other issues have become sticking points: 1) the owners' proposal to reduce the amount of annual raises in a contract from 10 percent to 5 percent; 2) a "super luxury tax" that would more harshly penalize teams that spend more than a certain predetermined threshold; and 3) the proposed minimum age requirement of 20 years old.
The league's release implied that the agents might have taken control of the process. Granik said he didn't know why the union reversed itself on the issues after the meeting.
"I don't know why," Granik said. "After I read your column and from other things that I heard, it appears to be a possibility that the agents are responsible for what happened here. I don't have personal knowledge of this."
"Regardless of why, they've been backing up on half a dozen things. When you're backing off points that have already been agreed to, it's impossible to make a deal."
While the Players' Association had no comment on the league's latest release, a players' source said he was shocked by the league's public announcement.
"Stern has been saying for months that nothing is agreed to until the entire agreement is agreed to," the source told ESPN.com. "That's the nature of collective bargaining. How can they say we agreed to anything unless the whole deal was agreed to?"
In the NBA's press release, it contended the players reneged on an agreement to reduce the maximum length of contracts to five years.
When pressed on the point, Granik conceded that "agreed" might not be the right world.
"As a matter of law, nothing's agreed to until it's all agreed to," Granik said. "As a practical matter, the way you reach agreement is that you eliminate issues and put them to the side."
Still, don't be surprised to see talks begin soon enough. Both sides say they aren't that far apart on key issues and that a deal can be worked out in time.
"I'm still hopeful," an NBA league source said. "At the end of the day, both sides really want to get a deal done. A lockout is the worst-case scenario. No one really wants it to happen. Hopefully, after the dust settles, people will start making up."
From yesterday ...
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Agents say owners offering raw deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider
After a year full of labor peace and love rhetoric between NBA commissioner David Stern and union chief Billy Hunter, it looks like the two sides might be headed for a protracted battle.
The NBA owners canceled a critical meeting with the National Basketball Players Association scheduled for Tuesday. As of late Monday night, it had not been rescheduled. The chatter about reaching an agreement has become more pessimistic.
What happened?
Stern and Hunter sat hand in hand in Denver at the All-Star Game in February and professed optimism that a deal would be reached before the collective bargaining agreement expired June 30.
Players Association president Michael Curry went further, claiming he was "very optimistic" a deal would be done before the end of the regular season.
Both sides claimed they didn't want to follow the NHL down the road to a protracted lockout.
"We don't want to repeat what happened in hockey," Hunter said in February. "We went through a lockout seven years ago and we don't want to go there again."
"I learned from hockey if you think that a move at the last second can do the deal, you may be raising the stakes too much and eliminating the flexibility that might come from making your move earlier," Stern said.
Three months later, both camps have cooled in their hopes that a deal will be done in time to avoid a lockout. Talking to the media in Seattle, Stern said Friday, "I was optimistic that we would have a deal in place by the end of the regular season. I don't have any news to give you. But if there's nothing next week, I will downgrade my position from optimistic to hopeful."
One group in particular sounds like it's ready for a fight.
Seven years ago, the owners took a strong hand against the NBA's most powerful agents during the last round of collective bargaining.
The changes Stern fought for – a rookie wage scale, maximum contract amounts, pre-defined raises, and a luxury tax – were meant to give NBA owners some cost certainty. But they also had the premeditated effect of taking away much of the negotiating power that agents had once wielded.
Now they're fighting back.
Hunter met with 12 of the most powerful agents in the business April 18 in New York and laid out the current proposal by the league.
Here's what happened, according to several agents who were in the room: After Hunter laid out the proposal, the rhetoric from the agents started getting tough. At one point, shouting and obscenities filled the room. Before the end of the meeting, Hunter had each agent stand, say his name and pledge that they'd urge their clients to support the players association if the league didn't soften its stance on several key bargaining issues and forces a lockout.
"Billy put us on the spot," SFX agent David Bauman, whose firm represents more NBA players than any other agency in the NBA, told ESPN.com. "He wanted to know if we had his back. Whether we'd tell our players the same thing that we were telling him. We all stood up, every one of us, said our names and said we'd reject the offer. The deal the NBA is offering the players right now makes absolutely no sense. I've told my clients that. Every one of them agrees that the deal that's on the table is a bad one."
While the NBPA declined to comment for the story, it did not deny, when asked, that the meeting took place as Bauman and several other agents described to Insider.
Since then, the tone of negotiations between the union and owners has gotten tougher and progress toward a deal has slowed considerably.
Agent Bill Duffy, who represents MVP Steve Nash, Yao Ming and Carmelo Anthony, was also at the meeting. He says the current system is working and has recommended that the league and players extend the current deal.
"Attendance is up. Revenues are up. There are stars in the league. The system we have is working," Duffy said. "If a team is well managed, they can be profitable in the NBA. The changes the owners are asking for might help their bottom line, but they come at a huge cost to the players. The players are willing to negotiate almost every point, but negotiation involves give and take. Right now, that's not happening."
Duffy said he too has recommended to his clients that they reject the league's current offer, even if it results in the owners locking the players out on July 1.
The agents are especially concerned about several major issues.
The biggest is the owner's insistence that guaranteed contracts be shortened considerably. Currently, players can sign a contract for a maximum of six or seven years, depending upon whether the player is signing with a new team (six years) or his current team (seven years). The owners have been trying to get that rolled back to three and four years.
"Of all the issues that the owners are trying to push, that one is the most absurd of all," Chicago-based agent Mark Bartelstein, another of the meeting's attendees, said. "No one is putting a gun to owners' heads and forcing them to sign players to these long-term deals. Almost every proposal that the owners are pushing are rules that really save the owners from themselves. It's ridiculous. If an owner is willing to give a player a six- or seven-year deal, the player should have the right to sign it."
Three other issues have become sticking points: 1) the owners' proposal to reduce the amount of annual raises in a contract from 10 percent to 5 percent; 2) a "super luxury tax" that would more harshly penalize teams that spend more than a certain predetermined threshold; and 3) the proposed 20-year-old age limit.
In almost every case, the owners are asking the players to compromise without offering much in return. The only concrete concession the league seems willing to make, according to the agents ESPN.com interviewed, is raising the salary cap from $43.8 million to $50 million next season.
The league, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the story.
"They say they want to bargain and they say the proposals they're making are tweaks," Bauman said. "They're not tweaks. Cutting the length of guaranteed contracts in half is not a tweak. Forcing talented high school players and young international players to wait two more years before entering the NBA is not a tweak. They are fundamental changes to a system that already favors the owners. If they are willing to negotiate to get what they want, fine. But right now, what they're offering in return is insignificant compared to what they're taking."
Of course, agents have their own interests at stake. The current CBA, with its firmer salary structure, has encouraged some players to forego agents and negotiate on their own or with the help of an attorney.
Bartelstein doesn't deny the current collective bargaining agreement hurts the agents, and the next collective bargaining agreement has the potential to do further damage. But he doesn't think it's agent greed fueling the fight against Stern and the owners.
"Our job is to negotiate the best price for our client," Bartelstein said. "I have no doubt the owners would like to create a system which eliminates the ability to negotiate and thus prohibits us from doing our jobs.
"But the bottom line is that the system works. How can the league justify a lockout when they have a hard cap, the players paying 10 percent of their salaries into escrow accounts, and a luxury tax that penalizes owners that go over the predetermined salary cap?"
That's why Bartelstein, Duffy and Bauman, along with several agents who refused to go on the record, believe the players, not the league, hold the leverage right now. Historically, the public usually sides with management in labor disputes. But given the success of the league right now, they think fans will be upset with the owners if they lock the players out.
"I can understand why NHL owners locked out their players," Bartelstein said. "I can even understand the last NBA lockout. Those systems didn't work. This one does. And I think the league is going to have a hard time justifying a work stoppage to the fans. This isn't a strike. Players are willing to abide by the current deal. This is owners telling players that they can't come to work."
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Updated: May 18, 2:13 PM ET
Contract length a deal breaker?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider
Trying to pin down the exact positions of either side in the midst of collective bargaining isn't easy or precise.
Insider has talked to numerous sources on both sides of the negotiation to try to paint the most accurate picture possible of where things stand.
While the negotiations and compromises talked about are really a moving target, here's where we believe they are now:
Age limit
Currently, players are eligible to declare for the NBA draft after their high school senior class graduation if they are from the United States. If they are international players, they must be 18 years old by the night of the draft.
For several years, commissioner David Stern has been vocal in support of an age minimum of 20 for players to be eligible for the draft. Union director Billy Hunter has been just as vocal opposing the limit.
In February, it appeared that the players had warmed to the age-limit idea to the point that several sources believed an age limit would become part of the new collective bargaining agreement. Since then, however, several prominent players have come out and publicly opposed it. Player agents also have been adamant that the union not accept Stern's proposal.
Said one source close to the negotiations, "I think David is the only one left on either side who really wants this to happen."
But that doesn't mean the proposal is dead. The players might be willing to agree to a compromise that sets the age limit at 19, two sources close to the union told Insider.
According to sources, under the current league proposal, high school players would have to wait two years after their high school class graduated before becoming eligible for the NBA draft. International players could not declare for the draft until the age of 20.
The rule likely would go into effect for the 2006 NBA draft.
If an age limit is implemented, it would dilute the draft dramatically for the next several years. If the rule had gone into effect last year, for example, 11 of the first 19 players selected would have been ineligible. Underage players such as LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh and Dwight Howard would've been ineligible for the draft, had the rule been in effect earlier.
It would take several years for the talent pool to restock. By 2008, however, the draft would be stronger, giving teams an extra couple of years of scouting before having to make crucial – and expensive – decisions on players.
The league's main interest in establishing an age limit, however, is economic. With the rare exception of a player such as LeBron, it is difficult to market players who are coming straight from high school. Two years of college publicity gives fans a chance to get to know players before they join the NBA.
"Everything is an economic issue," Stern said in February when asked about an age limit. "I mean that sincerely. Because it affects our business, in terms of our responsibility, the way we are viewed, the players' maturity and how they deal with the community.
"On a broader sense, everything we are talking about, even though it may turn out to be about a minor league or D League or age limit, it all relates to the operation of this league, and at the bottom, it sort of all could be referred to as an economic question."
If the league does ins ute such a rule, it likely will be challenged in court. However, the league is confident the rule will hold up as long as it was collectively bargained. The NFL successfully defended a recent suit by running back Maurice Clarett. In May, a three-judge appeals panel said federal labor policy allows NFL teams to set rules governing when players can enter the league, stopping Clarett from entering last year's NFL draft.
Contract length
This issue could be the deal breaker.
Currently, players can sign a fully guaranteed contract for a maximum of seven years if they re-sign with their current team. Players signing with a new team in free agency can sign six-year deals.
This is a sticking point for owners, who often get stuck with the bill for players who become injured or don't pan out. Teams have few options if they want to part with a player with a bad contract. They can hope he retires, try to trade him (usually taking back another bad contract in return) or try to buy out the contract.
This fall, several players, including Howard Eisley and Eddie Robinson, were bought out for significant sums. The problem for owners is they have to pay a player who winds up playing for another team. They also cannot get the player off the books until the contract originally would have expired. Once a team buys out a player, the buyout amount remains on the books until the original deal expires.
This has grown into a major problem. This season, the Bulls and Nets will be paying more than $15 million in salaries to players who aren't on their current rosters. Three other teams – the Bucks, Celtics and Grizzlies – owe more than $10 million in salaries to players not with the teams. A number of other clubs, including the 76ers, Wizards, Rockets, Mavericks and Suns, also owe significant amounts to players who are playing elsewhere.
The owners' original proposal wanted contracts shortened to three or four years. According to several sources, the owners in the past few weeks have softened their stance a little and are now willing to agree to maximum contract lengths of four and five years.
So far, the union has agreed to compromise a little, shortening the maximum number of contract years to five or six. However, the players don't seem to be willing to move any further without major economic concessions from the owners.
"If they want to get rid of that extra year," one source close to the union told Insider, "it's going to cost them. That's a major issue for the players. We've already given up one year. I think it's enough. If they want to get rid of the escrow tax or something, then we can talk about reducing those lengths further."
Raises
For months, players and management remained far apart on this issue.
Under the current CBA, players are allowed maximum raises of 12.5 percent per year if they re-sign with their current teams and 10 percent if they sign with new teams in free agency.
The effect of those raises can be devastating to a franchise over time. For example, the Los Angeles Lakers, who last summer signed Kobe Bryant to a seven-year contract with 12.5 percent raises, are on the hook for $14.175 million this year. In 2010-11, they owe him $24.8 million.
Owners contend the raises are out of whack with the current financial realities. Last year, the salary cap stayed flat. In years past, it has increased by small, incremental amounts. If salaries are rising 10 percent per year and the cap is rising 3 percent, teams that are avoiding the luxury tax now won't be so lucky in three or four years.
Some clubs have tried to counter this trend by offering players flat contracts. However, very few agents or players are agreeing to them.
To curb the growth of salaries, owners have proposed rolling back the maximum raises to 5 percent for players who re-sign with their current teams and 4 percent for players who sign with a new teams in free agency.
This is a major sticking point for veteran players, who count on those nest-egg balloon payments at the end of their careers. So far, the players are holding firm to the current numbers of 12.5 and 10 percent.
According to sources, the owners have softened their stance on this issue during the past few weeks to the point that it's unlikely the raise structure will be changed significantly.
The mid-level exception
Some GMs feel the mid-level exception, more than any other "soft-cap" device in the CBA, is responsible for the out-of-control salaries in the league.
The mid-level exception is available every year to teams that are above the league's salary cap. It's based on the average salary of players in the league – currently $4.9 million. Teams can use the exception to sign players for a maximum of six years with 10 percent raises.
Derek Fisher, for example, signed a six-year deal with the Warriors last summer that totaled $37 million. Although his starting salary this year is $4.9 million, it escalates to $7.4 million in 2009-10.
Owners argue that the exception has blown a huge hole in the cap. Because teams can use the exception every year, the numbers really start to add up. Owners believe lowering the mid-level exception and implementing shorter contracts will bring things under control.
Everyone still wants the loophole – they just don't want to be able to drive a semi through it.
Currently, the owners are looking to split the mid-level exception in two pieces. Teams could sign two players with the exception: one for 75 percent of the exception, the other for 25 percent. Under current exception figures, teams would have a $3.7 million slot and a $1.2 million slot.
Right now, most teams are forced to offer the full $4.9 million to top players in free agency. That number would be lowered to $3.7 million. Most teams would choose not to use the $1.2 million exception, in effect lowering payroll.
Combine that with the shortened contract length the sides are working toward, and the mid-level exception won't be nearly as problematic.
A typical mid-level exception contract would be four years, $20 million, compared with six years, $40 million. It's a big difference.
The salary cap
The current CBA puts a salary cap in place based on basketball-related income. The cap is set at 48 percent of BRI. Last year, that came to $43.87 million.
According to sources, the owners have agreed to increase that percentage, in effect raising the salary cap. Sources claim the cap could rise to $50 million next year under current proposals. This is a big concession to the players. With a larger cap, more teams will be able to spend on contracts each summer.
The luxury tax
The infamous luxury tax is something for which neither side cares. However, it's Stern's biggest stick in beating the owners into submission for out-of-control spending.
Last season, teams whose payroll exceeded $54.6 million paid a dollar-for-dollar tax on the amount they were over the threshold. For example, the Knicks' payroll last season was $94.4 million. That means they paid the league $39.8 million in tax penalties. The total taxes paid by teams last season amounted to more than $157 million.
The luxury tax kicks in when total player salaries exceed 61.1 percent of total basketball revenues. That threshold jumped to 63.3 percent this season – giving the owners their first shot in a long time at a season without a luxury tax.
The tax probably is not going away, regardless of what both sides might want. The latest proposal from the league, according to sources, pushes for a "super tax." Owners who exceed the salary cap by more than a certain percentage would be penalized $2 for every dollar they are over the tax threshold.
That's actually a bigger penalty than is now in place and something to which the players have been staunchly opposed. The union believes this would amount to a "hard cap" because the penalty is so severe that few teams would dare exceed it.
The league is looking for the stiffer penalty for two reasons. First, it believes the current penalties have not been enough to deter many owners from exceeding the threshold and paying the luxury tax. Twelve teams paid it last season. Second, the extra revenue derived from the tax would make up for the costs incurred by raising the cap and reducing the amount players pay into escrow accounts (see below).
Currently, it appears that the owners have been willing to compromise on the "super tax" to the point that it would affect only the most egregious spenders, such as the Knicks. They would move the threshold back so far that few teams would ever cross it. Under the current proposal being debated, the "super tax" wouldn't touch 90 percent of the teams in the league, making it more palatable to the players.
Player escrow account
Currently, players must pay 10 percent of their salaries into an escrow account each season. If, at season's end, the total amount of player salaries exceeds 57 percent of the league's total basketball-related income, that money goes to the owners. If it doesn't exceed 57 percent, the players get their money back.
For the past two seasons, salaries have been hovering at more than 60 percent of BRI, and the owners who have kept their payrolls below the league's luxury-tax threshold (and a few that fall within a certain "cliff threshold") have gotten millions back from the players.
As you can imagine, the players want this to end. They already pay an enormous amount in taxes. Factor in the 10 percent that's taken off the top, and a player's take-home pay is far less than what it appears on paper.
Owners are reluctant to make the change. The windfall teams got last year from the escrow tax and fees paid by owners who were over the luxury-tax threshold put roughly $8 million back in the pockets of those owners who were under the tax or in the cliff threshold.
For several teams, that rebate meant the difference between turning a profit and posting a loss for the season.
Right now, sources claim the owners might be willing to compromise by phasing down the amount players pay into the escrow account from 10 percent to 5 or 6 percent. They are unwilling to eliminate it completely, however.
This is a major sticking point for both sides. While owners are pushing for a number of items that will get their finances under control over the long term – remember these proposals won't be retroactive; they would only apply to contracts going forward – they also are unwilling to take huge financial hits now to get it done.
That's why the phaseout is important to the owners. It means they give up less money now and more once the system begins improving.
There's also another significant development in this area. Under current rules, the NBA has sole discretion over the use of the escrow money. Currently, it redistributes the cash (and luxury tax revenues) to teams that are under the luxury tax threshold. In essence, Donald Sterling gets a bonus for being cheap.
The union hates this rule and tried (unsuccessfully) to litigate it in court. The players feel as though withholding the escrow money is yet another tax on teams over the threshold. Not only are they paying money in but they're losing out on money in the form of a rebate. The league has been willing to negotiate this issue.
Contracts
The NBA minimum wage, currently starting at $385,277 and increasing each year a player is in the league, will increase significantly, sources say. This is an obvious concession by the league and should placate a large cons uency of players who consistently sign deals for minimum wage.
Rookie salary scale
Currently, first-round picks are tied into a league salary scale. When a first-round pick signs a contract, the first three years are guaranteed, with a team option for the fourth year. Players are paid a set amount based on where they were selected in the draft.
The current proposal, according to sources, modifies that deal in favor of the owners. Under the new rules, first-round picks would get the first two years of their contract guaranteed. The third and fourth years of the contract would be team options.
This is another proposal to which the union is adamantly opposed.
Roster space
Currently, teams can have a maximum of 15 players on their rosters, with a minimum of 11. Under current proposals, the minimum would be raised to 14. This is another concession by the league.
The owners also have agreed to do away with the injured list, changing to inactive and active lists. That means teams no longer will have to fake player injuries in order to manage their roster.
Trade rules
For years, both GMs and players have been complaining about restrictive trade rules that mandate all trades be within 115 percent and $100,000 of each other. That restricts player movement to the point that many deals become impossible.
Expect the league to loosen those trade rules significantly under the new CBA. That includes widening the gap between salaries traded and received to 125 percent.
NBA minor league
There has been a movement among GMs for some time to see the league turn the National Basketball Development League into something that looks more like a real minor league.
Stern told Insider in April 2004 that such a league already was in the works, with the possibility of the NBDL expanding to 15 teams and each team being affiliated with two NBA teams. In February, Stern reiterated his commitment to creating a true NBA minor league.
"One of the things we'd like to do is have young players subject to having their contracts assigned, but we understand that there can be differences of opinion on that issue," Stern said.
Creating a minor league has been an issue in the bargaining process. The players and league must collectively agree to a system. Hunter said he's still not convinced the NBA needs a minor league.
However, sources say it's likely the idea will move forward. Here are a few details currently on the table:
Each NBA team would send young players to a designated NBDL team, along with an assistant coach to monitor the players' development.
Stern plans to expand the league beyond the Southeast to as many as four regional pods, starting with the Southwest. If the league expands to 15 teams, two NBA teams would share each NBDL team.
First-round picks would continue to be paid at the rookie wage scale. This was a key concession to players who didn't want owners to use the league as a way of cutting player salaries.
Teams would retain the rights to all of their players and could recall them at any time.
Players with three or fewer years of experience in the NBA could be sent down to the NBDL. Veterans could not be assigned to an NBDL team.
The bottom line
The NBA is in better financial shape than it was before the current 1999 CBA kicked in. The luxury tax and escrow accounts have curbed spending, though not to the degree the owners would like.
With the NHL embroiled in a nasty lockout, the last thing either NBA side wants is a work stoppage.
"Our players are making a substantial sum of money," Hunter said in February. "The league appears to be thriving and we would be foolish to not make every effort to make a deal and to be separated by something that shouldn't be something that prohibits that from occurring.
"We think there's a possible window of opportunity for which we can generate a lot of good will."
With both sides bickering over the details and a lockout looming, are the league and the players really willing to risk damaging that good will?
Typical ing assholes. And it's probably all s like Stephen Jackson's agent, too.player agents
Weren't they paying attention to hockey? A few asshole agents have hijacked the future of the NBA. Total bull . Don't the players have spines?
They said on ESPN that there could be a lockout in the summer but it wouldn't effect the fans just the nba teams and players. IF there is a lockout I doubt it would cut into the regular season time after seeing how the NHL is and how ty it is now with the lockout.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
