NBA CBA Deal is 95% done

[magicbalala245]

It may seem strange to hear that the NBA labor deal is 95% done, with the NBA lockout now 121 days old and commissioner David Stern cancelling an additional two weeks of games on Friday.  Yet that’s exactly what Howard Beck of the New York Times asserts.

 

The N.B.A. and the players union have agreed on contract lengths and luxury-tax rates, trade rules and cap exceptions, and a host of oddly named provisions offering “amnesty” and “stretch payments” and less onerous “base-year” rules.

 

According to Beck, agreements are already in place for: luxury-tax rate, contract lengths, raises, midlevel exceptions, an amnesty clause, and stretch exceptions.

 

The problem is that one of the remaining issues — part of the other 5%, to use Beck’s math — is the split of Basketball Related Income, or BRI.  The owners want a 50-50 split; the players refuse to go lower than 52.5-47.5.  And neither side seems inclined to budge. Reports indicated that talks fell apart on Friday over the BRI split, and until this issue is resolved, it won’t matter if the deal is 95% done or 99% done — it still won’t be done.

[fish7718]

This isn't news?

[Flash]

I think I dislike every one of the changes. They are changing this to a league where they are penalizing big team that try to win and are willing to spend and they want to help the shit teams that mismanage their teams, suck at drafting and dont spend money. Its terrible. They want small teams to basically be able to force stars to stay while not going over their caps, not seriously trying to win, and still being able to turn profits.

 

There's a political term for this, but I won't accuse the L of using this model.

[YugoRocketsFan]

Flash is a shitty philosopher

[AboveLegit]

I think I dislike every one of the changes. They are changing this to a league where they are penalizing big team that try to win and are willing to spend and they want to help the shit teams that mismanage their teams, suck at drafting and dont spend money. Its terrible. They want small teams to basically be able to force stars to stay while not going over their caps, not seriously trying to win, and still being able to turn profits.

 

There's a political term for this, but I won't accuse the L of using this model.

Teams like the Lakers and Knicks will still be able to afford stiffer tax penalties, and owners like Mark Cuban will still be going after every free agent he thinks will help get his Mavs a second title.

 

Honestly, I don't see how some of these provisions are helping small market teams like Minnesota or Charlotte. An example is the sign and trade idea being thrown around. Wasn't that already a giant loophole in the old CBA that allowed for players like Carmelo to get to New York? Teams were over the cap, and were still able to trade for a free agent, pay him a max salary with the extra year. Wasn't that the big problem with the old CBA causing a competitive imbalance? Not sure why the owners are wanting this...

 

Then, the owners are also pushing for an amnesty cut which is beyond me if I'm on their side. It would make sense if the hardcap was still on the negotiating table because the amnesty would allow for teams to get under the cap and avoid tax penalties. Yet we're hearing owners say they're losing money, but they still want add players without any sort of risk in free agency or by trades, and if he doesn't pan out, use the amnesty. How is that saving money or making the league more profitable or improve the competitive balance? Owners will still have to pay the released player and will probably end up paying a new player to replace the one they just cut.

 

So, who will benefit most from these provisions? Definitely not the small market teams...The only real way to for the league to be more competitive is through the draft, which is why I'm pretty satisfied having an owner who knows what he's doing. This isn't the NFL where there's only 16 games a season, and single elimination playoff games, making it easier for middle of the pack teams to win.

[Flash]

 

 

 

From Howard Beck of the New York Times:

 

 

 

“Tentative agreements are already in place on the following major items: Luxury-tax rate: Teams will be charged $1.50 per $1 spent beyond a threshold, replacing the previous dollar-for-dollar tax, according to people who have seen the plan. To further discourage spending, the tax will increase for every $5 million spent beyond the threshold: to $1.75 after $5 million, $2.25 after $10 million and $3 after $15 million. Under this system, the Los Angeles Lakers would have paid $42.5 million in taxes last season, compared with $20 million under the old formula. (The rates could still change based on other tradeoffs.) Contract lengths: Players with “Bird” rights will be eligible for five-year deals, while others will be limited to four. The previous CBA allowed for six-year (Bird) and five-year deals. The 1999 C.B.A. allowed for seven-year (Bird) and six-year deals.

 

Raises: Annual raises will be reduced by several percentage points, possibly as low as 5 percent for Bird players and 3.5 percent for non-Bird players. The prior deal allowed raises as high as 10.5 percent (Bird) and 8 percent. Midlevel exception: It will start at $5 million, a decrease of $800,000. The contract length and annual raises attached to the exception remain under discussion. 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. Stretch exception: Teams will be permitted to stretch out payments to waived players, spreading out the cap hit, over several seasons. The payment schedule will be set by doubling the years left on the contract and adding one. (Thus a team waiving a player with two years left could pay him over five years.) There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures. Nearly all of the new provisions will benefit the owners. In return, the players will gain an easing of trade rules and relaxed regulations on restricted free agents. So the broad parameters of an agreement are in place. The gap on the revenue split is significant, but manageable. As N.B.A. officials have said many times, both sides know where the deal is — they just have to get there.

 

 

 

[Built Ford Tough]

From Howard Beck of the New York Times:

 

From The Great BFT of OTR

 

http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/topic/25055-nba-inching-closer-to-ending-lockout/page__view__findpost__p__294338

 

According to the NY Times, here are the details of some of the things that have already been agreed to:

 

Luxury-tax rate: Teams will be charged $1.50 per $1 spent beyond a threshold, replacing the previous dollar-for-dollar tax, according to people who have seen the plan.

 

To further discourage spending, the tax will increase for every $5 million spent beyond the threshold: to $1.75 after $5 million, $2.25 after $10 million and $3 after $15 million.

 

Under this system, the Los Angeles Lakers would have paid $42.5 million in taxes last season, compared with $20 million under the old formula. (The rates could still change based on other tradeoffs.)

 

Contract lengths: Players with “Bird” rights will be eligible for five-year deals, while others will be limited to four. The previous C.B.A. allowed for six-year (Bird) and five-year deals. The 1999 C.B.A. allowed for seven-year (Bird) and six-year deals.

 

Raises: Annual raises will be reduced by several percentage points, possibly as low as 5 percent for Bird players and 3.5 percent for non-Bird players. The prior deal allowed raises as high as 10.5 percent (Bird) and 8 percent.

 

Midlevel exception: It will start at $5 million, a decrease of $800,000. The contract length and annual raises attached to the exception remain under discussion.

 

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.

 

Stretch exception:Teams will be permitted to stretch out payments to waived players, spreading out the cap hit, over several seasons. The payment schedule will be set by doubling the years left on the contract and adding one. (Thus a team waiving a player with two years left could pay him over five years.)

 

 

 

Still under discussion:

 

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sports/basketball/nba-deal-is-close-but-last-hurdle-is-a-big-one.html?_r=2&src=tp

 

Edited October 31, 2011 by The Great BFT

[?QuestionMark?]

Not sure how I feel about this super tax. I know that you don't want to have big market teams or owners with deep pockets to just spend ridiculously, but at the same time it does penalize a team if they've been smart with their trades and drafts. Suppose a team does their homework and lucks out and are lucky enough to draft 5 all-star calibar players, now they may have to let one walk or just trade him because they can't afford the super tax.

 

I think getting rid of a sign and trades and giving players incentives to re-sign with their team would almost eliminate the need for a supertax. Owners have a better chance at keeping their players and teams over the cap can't acquire them unless it's with an exception that would probably be below market value. It also would give players less leverage to hold their teams hostage ala Carmelo.

[Nitro]

I like increasing the luxory tax. It will help dull down teams going way over the cap. Owners will still have that ability if they choose to, but it should eliminate teams with $40M more in payroll than franchises like the Kings.

[Sħãlïq™]

The difference between 50 and 52.5 percent is about $100 million annually, based on last season’s revenues, or $1 billion over the course of the 10-year agreement the NBA is seeking.

The cost of not making a deal is a $2 billion.

 

The owners, who own valuable stadium deals, can make up some of their losses by selling those contracts for the season. The players would get none of that.

So the players loose as much in a single year by not making a deal, as they would lose over 10 years if they signed a 50-50 deal. The owners lose less than that. Plus, the loss of that year puts financial pressure on the players to cave in to the demand at the end of that year anyway.

 

Looks like the players need to give in. Holding out only hurts them financially any way you look at it. And the owners know this. Also:

 

"David Stern swears that Friday's talks ended when Hunter stormed out. And before Hunter did that, Stern says "he said his phone and pager are ringing off the hook with agents."

 

Stern's point: Agents? You're listening to agents? It's tough to make a case that Hunter represents their interests. In some cases it's tough to make a case that agents and Hunter are even allies -- if there's a threat to Hunter's leadership, it's from those same men. For instance, agents can earn back lost revenue over however many decades they want to keep working. Players, though, play for just a few years, and may never earn it back.

 

Stern said the word "agents" with notable disdain, and to highlight that the most strident voices in Hunter's ear don't belong to players. "

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32972/first-real-test-of-player-resolve