Players Reject Latest Proposal; File for Notice of Disclaimer

[?QuestionMark?]

Good for the players. I'm surprised they actually sacked up went this route. Leading up to today I was expecting them to cave.

 

I would have actually thought less of the players if they took this deal (which was terrible for various reasons) just to make a few bucks and therefore screwing future players. Whatever deal they strike will be the starting point for the next CBA negotiations where owners will want to take even more. There has to come a time where players in whatever sport take a stand and say "enough".

 

The owners pushed the players to this point. The union made an effort to get a deal done and the owners kept wanting more without giving anything. That's not a negotiation. And I'm sure that's what the union will argue -- that they're the only ones making any concessions. And, ironically, Hunter waiting until now to decertify may actually work to the union's benefit to show they negotiated in good faith.

 

I'd much rather someone cave so we can have hoops this year, but I understand why the players made this decision. And I blame Stern for creating this climate.

[Gooner]

These players are fools. Hope they get crushed in the courts and end up having to take a worse deal. BRI in the 40's, hard cap, unguaranteed contracts.

[Real Deal]

And, ironically, Hunter waiting until now to decertify may actually work to the union's benefit to show they negotiated in good faith.

That's the problem: they aren't going to decertify. They disbanded the union immediately, with the Notice of Disclaimer...which basically tells the court that they were done negotiating. This is a huge problem for the players...probably the biggest mistake they made, aside from not taking the 50/50 deal.

 

I agree that the owners are trying to screw them over, and the players standing up for the future stars in the league is great and all...but in doing so, they may have screwed themselves over far more than they realize. If the court sees that they decided to disband the union immediately, rather than to decertify (needing approval from the union board, votes from the players, etc), Stern and the owners have more rope to hang them with.

[Lkr]

I think the NBA players are hurting the case that concussions lead to brain damage, because they are making the NFL players look like complete geniuses at the moment

[NomarFachix]

do ho ho

[?QuestionMark?]

That's the problem: they aren't going to decertify. They disbanded the union immediately, with the Notice of Disclaimer...which basically tells the court that they were done negotiating. This is a huge problem for the players...probably the biggest mistake they made, aside from not taking the 50/50 deal.

 

I agree that the owners are trying to screw them over, and the players standing up for the future stars in the league is great and all...but in doing so, they may have screwed themselves over far more than they realize. If the court sees that they decided to disband the union immediately, rather than to decertify (needing approval from the union board, votes from the players, etc), Stern and the owners have more rope to hang them with.

 

 

They have decertified. A disclaimer of interest and decertification both dissolve the union and now Hunter and Kessler and file suit against the league on behalf of the players. The 50/50 deal was terrible. Dissolving the union finally gives the players some leverage besides just saying "no" to a bad proposal.

 

I disagree that the players screwed themselves. Is it a risk? Yeah, but it's just as big, if not a bigger risk, for the owners. If the players lose they go back to playing basketball under a bad deal. But they'll still play. If the owners losing, they've lost potential revenue, they have to payback the TV networks plus interest, and they're facing damages in the billions where some franchises may not exist when the dust settles.

 

And I'm not sure doing this now is such a bad thing. Hunter will argue that they could have taken this step in July, but made a real effort to negotiate in good faith and its been the owners who won't budge. He'll likely point out that Stern threatened the union with a lockout three years ago.

 

This isn't a slam dunk for the owners. If they didn't fear this move by the players, they wouldn't have filed lawsuits with the NLRB or the district court. Even if the odds for the owners are 70-30 in their favor, when they're facing possible damages of what? 6 billion? That 30 percent risk starts looking huge enough that they might budge off their demands.

 

 

Personally, I think we at OTR could have reached a fair CBA far faster than these two groups.

[Built Ford Tough]

They have decertified. A disclaimer of interest and decertification both dissolve the union and now Hunter and Kessler and file suit against the league on behalf of the players. The 50/50 deal was terrible. Dissolving the union finally gives the players some leverage besides just saying "no" to a bad proposal.

 

Except they aren't the same thing.

 

Yeah, the union is disolved, but a decertification and a disclaimer of interest aren't the same thing. The players (all 450 some odd) have to vote for decertification in order for it to go through. There is also a 45 day period after the petition is filed before it is official.

 

A disclaimer of interest doesn't require a vote from all players and takes effect immediately, which is exactly why they went this route. Hunter knew that if he went the decertification route there was a very good chance that the players would vote it down.

 

This ESPN article explains the difference much better than I could ever dream of, so rather than making an ass out of myself, I'll leave it to people who actually know what they are talking about.

 

What do the players mean when they say they will "disclaim" their union status and file antitrust litigation?

 

The word "disclaim" is important. It is a new word in this context since we went through the NFL lockout earlier this year, and it is the first step in a new process that the players hope will expedite their antitrust litigation and give them some negotiating leverage they do not now have. When the NBA players "disclaim" their union rights, it is different from the "decertification" of union rights that the NFL players did when they were locked out by NFL owners.

 

 

What difference will the change of words and procedures make?

 

The players have obviously learned from what happened when the NFL players decertified: They were unable to stop the NFL owners' lockout with an injunction. It is not a big surprise that they learned from that experience. The same lawyers who decertified the NFL union are now disclaiming the NBA union -- Jeffrey Kessler and David Feher. But there is some doubt that the disclaimer will eliminate the owners' legal position. The owners will argue that the move is a sham, but the players will have a more persuasive response to that claim. They will tell the judge that the union is no longer bargaining and that the only possible bargaining after disclaimer can be with plaintiffs (players) who file the antitrust lawsuit. Instead of delaying the antitrust case for months, I believe the owners' claim of a sham will be quickly ended in a ruling for the players.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-111114/questions-answers-nba-players-announcing-disclaim-their-union

Edited November 15, 2011 by Built Ford Tough

[?QuestionMark?]

Except they aren't the same thing.

 

Yeah, the union is disolved, but a decertification and a disclaimer of interest aren't the same thing. The players (all 450 some odd) have to vote for decertification in order for it to go through. There is also a 45 day period after the petition is filed before it is official.

 

A disclaimer of interest doesn't require a vote from all players and takes effect immediately, which is exactly why they went this route. Hunter knew that if he went the decertification route there was a very good chance that the players would vote it down.

 

This ESPN article explains the difference much better than I could ever dream of, so rather than making an ass out of myself, I'll leave it to people who actually know what they are talking about.

 

 

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-111114/questions-answers-nba-players-announcing-disclaim-their-union

 

 

It serves the same purpose for the players. It's a voluntary decertification via the disclaimer of interest. It's quicker but it acheives the same thing: Allows the players to file antitrust suits against the owners.

[Real Deal]

It serves the same purpose for the players. It's a voluntary decertification via the disclaimer of interest. It's quicker but it acheives the same thing: Allows the players to file antitrust suits against the owners.

It serves the same purpose, but basically can lead the court to believe that they aren't coming to a deal JUST SO they can pursue the anti-trust lawsuits.

 

I'm pretty sure it makes sense. They had a professional talking about it on TV (can't remember who, if he was a lawyer or what), and then they had a lawyer talking about it on CNN, briefly. Both would know far more than all of us.

 

They messed up.

 

The truth is, even if they did decide to take the other route, it wouldn't matter. The players are willing to sit out up to two seasons, and assuming we could even toss that out the window...well, we know who will run out of money first.

 

The owners are back to their 47%, and the players are uncertain and crossing their fingers. It was a huge mistake.

[Lkr]

The players can't last long without income anyway, so they can't pull off a charade like this for long. The owners don't need to budge at this point. They also waited too long to decertify - the NFLPA had some brains in Brees, Manning, and Brady who tried to ensure that the season would not be jeopardized with the labor dispute. The NBPA has waited until after the season was expected to start to pull this shit. The NBA is also losing money, which doesn't help the players' cause, because unlike the NFL deal which was imminent due to the money at stake, the NBA might benefit from not paying anyone at the moment.

[Nitro]

I would have actually thought less of the players if they took this deal (which was terrible for various reasons) just to make a few bucks and therefore screwing future players. Whatever deal they strike will be the starting point for the next CBA negotiations where owners will want to take even more. There has to come a time where players in whatever sport take a stand and say "enough".

 

By losing this season, the players will have lost far more money over the course of this CBA than if they took this current deal, not to mention the extreme damage the league will receive by losing an entire season, and to the current players in their prime or past it who will never get a chance to make that back up. There were clearly flaws in the old CBA, from the completely guaranteed contracts, length of contracts, unfair BRI split, and weak luxory tax penalties. The owners are the reason for this lockout, but even with the dibandment of the union, the owners still have the leverage in these negotiations. They still have far less to lose than the players because they are wealthier and, for many owners, this is their 2nd or 3rd most important business venture. They have been a lot stronger and united in these negotiations, and have dominated the media battle. By not taking this deal now, which appeared to be relatively fair from things I've read, the players are [expletive]ing the current crop of players up, and there's a great chance that as this progresses the owners' offer will get worse and worse.

 

The owners pushed the players to this point. The union made an effort to get a deal done and the owners kept wanting more without giving anything. That's not a negotiation.

 

The owners went from wanting 56% of the BRI to 53%, then 50%. They went from absolutely wanting a hard cap at around $50M to a soft cap with stricter luxory tax penalties (which won't stop the rich owners from spending, and the cheap owners will still be cheap), went from wanting no MLE to putting that back on the table, etc... The players have stubbornly budged less on their intial plans (which was basically the current, broken CBA) than the owners have, which was also unfair. Both sides have been extremely greedy, but the owners have all the leverage and surprisingly have given up a lot more in these negotiations than they needed to. The players are STUPID for not taking this deal.

[?QuestionMark?]

It serves the same purpose, but basically can lead the court to believe that they aren't coming to a deal JUST SO they can pursue the anti-trust lawsuits.

 

I'm pretty sure it makes sense. They had a professional talking about it on TV (can't remember who, if he was a lawyer or what), and then they had a lawyer talking about it on CNN, briefly. Both would know far more than all of us.

 

They messed up.

 

The truth is, even if they did decide to take the other route, it wouldn't matter. The players are willing to sit out up to two seasons, and assuming we could even toss that out the window...well, we know who will run out of money first.

 

The owners are back to their 47%, and the players are uncertain and crossing their fingers. It was a huge mistake.

 

 

Sure the courts can rule that the players aren't getting to a deal just to pursue an antitrust suit....if they ignore common sense. The players could have gone this route back in July but spent several months negotiating. The players are the ones that have gone from 57 to 50 in BRI. The players are the ones making consessions. The owners have just been giving ultimatums and threats. And it was the owners that locked them out. I don't see how a court could say the players are dissolving the union just to seek a suit when they're the only ones negotiating and they're not the reason for the work stoppage.

 

The owners aren't as well off as you make it seem. Their case isn't a guaranteed win by any stretch of the imagination. The players aren't asking to lift the lockout, they're seeking damages-- damages that would destroy some NBA teams. In the meantime they're still generating losses and accruing interest debt. Everything you're arguing is based on a guaranteed victory by the owners (which could happen), but sometimes just the threat of losing is enough to get them to come to a more reasonable deal.

[Gooner]

Apart from the BRI, what concessions have the players made? Under the NBA's proposed deal:

 

The salary cap is the same for the next two years and then it's going up, not down.

Tax threshold is going up, not down.

Salary floor going from 75% to 90%.

Average salaries projected to go from 5 million to 8 million over the life of the deal.

MLE is basically the same.

There's a new "Room" exemption.

Only the MLE for tax paying teams is really restricted. And that was only used a handful of times during the entirety of the last CBA.

 

 

So the players are going to go to court and argue what? They have the highest revenue share of any US sport. They have the highest average salary of any sport. They have guaranteed contracts. And the NBA is losing $300 million a year. Look at the NFL case, a league that is making a ton of money still had the courts rule in their favor.

[Built Ford Tough]

It serves the same purpose for the players. It's a voluntary decertification via the disclaimer of interest. It's quicker but it acheives the same thing: Allows the players to file antitrust suits against the owners.

 

It is also less formal and legitimate than a true decertification that requires a full players vote and 45 days.

 

It is also much more likely to be called a sham and be used against the players than if they had gone on to decertify.

 

So no, it is not the same thing.

 

Hunter went this route because he knew that if he tried to sell the players on decertifying that there was a very good possibility that it would be shot down and if that happened, he would have no choice but to accept the proposal and give in to Stern. His ego won't let him and he has to come out of this with the idea that he "beat" Stern (Stern likely has the same opinion when it comes to Hunter).

 

By doing this, he also manages to preserve his $2.5M salary as opposed to decertifying, which would result in him losing his entire salary, something that he would never do (as Shane Battier called him out on in June or July).

Edited November 15, 2011 by Built Ford Tough

[Real Deal]

Sure the courts can rule that the players aren't getting to a deal just to pursue an antitrust suit....if they ignore common sense. The players could have gone this route back in July but spent several months negotiating. The players are the ones that have gone from 57 to 50 in BRI. The players are the ones making consessions. The owners have just been giving ultimatums and threats. And it was the owners that locked them out. I don't see how a court could say the players are dissolving the union just to seek a suit when they're the only ones negotiating and they're not the reason for the work stoppage.

 

The owners aren't as well off as you make it seem. Their case isn't a guaranteed win by any stretch of the imagination. The players aren't asking to lift the lockout, they're seeking damages-- damages that would destroy some NBA teams. In the meantime they're still generating losses and accruing interest debt. Everything you're arguing is based on a guaranteed victory by the owners (which could happen), but sometimes just the threat of losing is enough to get them to come to a more reasonable deal.

If the numbers are correct (the losses the owners are struggling to deal with every season), you do realize that the owners will actually lose less money, over the next two seasons, by NOT playing them, don't you? On the other hand, the players won't get a dime outside of what they make from shoe companies and TV, unless they find a place to play.

[Flash]

Hooray hard-line owners!!

[?QuestionMark?]

By losing this season, the players will have lost far more money over the course of this CBA than if they took this current deal, not to mention the extreme damage the league will receive by losing an entire season, and to the current players in their prime or past it who will never get a chance to make that back up.

 

No doubt they lose big, but they also hurt their future earning potential if they agree to this deal.

 

 

There were clearly flaws in the old CBA, from the completely guaranteed contracts, length of contracts, unfair BRI split, and weak luxory tax penalties. The owners are the reason for this lockout, but even with the dibandment of the union, the owners still have the leverage in these negotiations. They still have far less to lose than the players because they are wealthier and, for many owners, this is their 2nd or 3rd most important business venture. They have been a lot stronger and united in these negotiations, and have dominated the media battle. By not taking this deal now, which appeared to be relatively fair from things I've read, the players are [expletive]ing the current crop of players up, and there's a great chance that as this progresses the owners' offer will get worse and worse.

 

Those flaws are optional though. Just because you're allowed to give someone a 6 year deal doesn't mean you have to. The owners have no self control and are taking it out on the players.

 

The BRI split is there as a concession for originally implementing a salary cap. So it was fair to have it placed high, or else why would have the players ever agreed to limit their earning power. I agree there were some parts of the CBA that needed to be changed, but the owners took it too far.

 

IMO this deal isn't really fair. More restriction on movement, paycuts, a defacto hard cap with the lux tax system, and this on top of the 3 billion the players are giving back to the owners. What have the players gotten out of it?

 

The owners went from wanting 56% of the BRI to 53%, then 50%. They went from absolutely wanting a hard cap at around $50M to a soft cap with stricter luxory tax penalties (which won't stop the rich owners from spending, and the cheap owners will still be cheap), went from wanting no MLE to putting that back on the table, etc... The players have stubbornly budged less on their intial plans (which was basically the current, broken CBA) than the owners have, which was also unfair. Both sides have been extremely greedy, but the owners have all the leverage and surprisingly have given up a lot more in these negotiations than they needed to. The players are STUPID for not taking this deal.

 

That's not a concession. They haven't given the players anything they didn't already have. They're just asking for less in return.

 

To your comment that the players have budged less? They've given 3 billion dollars to the owners. They've agreed to take paycuts. And this at a time where the NBA has record attendence, viewership, revenue, and franchise values are at an all time high.

 

I disagree that the owners have all the leverage. If they did, what's to stop them from demanding capping salaries for everyone at 5 million? I agree that they have more leverage because they can hold out longer, but they've also underestimated the players' resolve by holding out for this long. The players run a risk by going the legal route, but they score a few wins there the owners are screwed. It's still a longshot but when you're facing 6 billion in potential damages, that tends to make you budge a little just to avoid the major risk.

[?QuestionMark?]

Apart from the BRI, what concessions have the players made? Under the NBA's proposed deal:

 

The salary cap is the same for the next two years and then it's going up, not down.

Tax threshold is going up, not down.

Salary floor going from 75% to 90%.

Average salaries projected to go from 5 million to 8 million over the life of the deal.

MLE is basically the same.

There's a new "Room" exemption.

Only the MLE for tax paying teams is really restricted. And that was only used a handful of times during the entirety of the last CBA.

 

 

So the players are going to go to court and argue what? They have the highest revenue share of any US sport. They have the highest average salary of any sport. They have guaranteed contracts. And the NBA is losing $300 million a year. Look at the NFL case, a league that is making a ton of money still had the courts rule in their favor.

 

 

On the surface that looks nice, but the owners new deal restricts the players ability to move. The new lux tax itself is a hard cap, not even an owner like Cuban would pay it at that rate. Just because they don't call it a hard cap doesn't mean it won't functionally work as one.

 

There were also reports that the NBA wanted to be able to retract two teams (which lowers the BRI for the players further) without talking to the union.

 

So yeah it looks "fair" but the NBA is also trying to sneak some provisions in there hurt free agency.

[?QuestionMark?]

It is also less formal and legitimate than a true decertification that requires a full players vote and 45 days.

 

It is also much more likely to be called a sham and be used against the players than if they had gone on to decertify.

 

So no, it is not the same thing.

 

Hunter went this route because he knew that if he tried to sell the players on decertifying that there was a very good possibility that it would be shot down and if that happened, he would have no choice but to accept the proposal and give in to Stern. His ego won't let him and he has to come out of this with the idea that he "beat" Stern (Stern likely has the same opinion when it comes to Hunter).

 

By doing this, he also manages to preserve his $2.5M salary as opposed to decertifying, which would result in him losing his entire salary, something that he would never do (as Shane Battier called him out on in June or July).

 

 

And yet both dissolve the union, which allows the players to bring an antitrust suit against the NBA. It serves the same purpose for the players.

 

 

As a side note, I do think the best thing the players could do is fire Hunter and try to disassociate themselves as much as possible before this goes to trial. I'm still surprised he has a job.

[?QuestionMark?]

If the numbers are correct (the losses the owners are struggling to deal with every season), you do realize that the owners will actually lose less money, over the next two seasons, by NOT playing them, don't you? On the other hand, the players won't get a dime outside of what they make from shoe companies and TV, unless they find a place to play.

 

I'm not sure I follow. When I say the owners aren't as well off, I'm refering in regards to the lawsuit. I don't think this is a slam dunk victory for them at all. Odds are in their favor, but the odds of them losing are high enough to scare them of the 6 billion dollars of damages the players are seeking.

 

 

But as to your point of the owners losing less money. Even though all of them are accuring debt (they have to payback their TV deal with interest), there are some teams that probably will lose less money not having a season.

 

But how long will the owners that do make a profit go along with this? Especially when those teams are the big markets, the ones the NBA relies on the most for revenue? The Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, Heat will lose a lot of money that they won't get back either if the season is lost.

 

But as to the owners massive losses. I don't buy it. I believe there are some owners losing money, but I don't think its as massive as the league claims it to be. Doesn't pass the BS test. In 2005 when they negotiated the new CBA, players agreed to take less money. Fewers years, less raises, lower base salary. So how could owners suddenly start losing this mass amount of money? I know we're in a recession, but the NBA has been making record revenue. And I go back, if franchises were in such bad shape, then how is it possible then for franchises to be sold at record price tags? I assume that the billionaries who purchase these teams are idiots, and would know a good or bad investment when they see it. The NBA hasn't really explained why the sudden losses. I tend to agree with the players that the owners are trying to include the purchase price of their team as part of their losses on their balance sheet.

[Real Deal]

But as to your point of the owners losing less money. Even though all of them are accuring debt (they have to payback their TV deal with interest), there are some teams that probably will lose less money not having a season.

 

But how long will the owners that do make a profit go along with this? Especially when those teams are the big markets, the ones the NBA relies on the most for revenue? The Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, Heat will lose a lot of money that they won't get back either if the season is lost.

Well, Buss is supposedly one that reported losses, and we've talked about this plenty of times on TLN before. Remember, it's supposedly the reason why he didn't trade Vujacic's contract for Hinrich's...instead, trading Sasha for nothing.

 

But as to the owners massive losses. I don't buy it. I believe there are some owners losing money, but I don't think its as massive as the league claims it to be. Doesn't pass the BS test. In 2005 when they negotiated the new CBA, players agreed to take less money. Fewers years, less raises, lower base salary. So how could owners suddenly start losing this mass amount of money? I know we're in a recession, but the NBA has been making record revenue. And I go back, if franchises were in such bad shape, then how is it possible then for franchises to be sold at record price tags? I assume that the billionaries who purchase these teams are idiots, and would know a good or bad investment when they see it. The NBA hasn't really explained why the sudden losses. I tend to agree with the players that the owners are trying to include the purchase price of their team as part of their losses on their balance sheet.

If they negotiated all of those things in 2005, it didn't work, because salaries are worse. Veterans are getting paid far too much now (see Gooden and Stackhouse). Players supposedly take pay cuts to play on great teams, but some don't get that it means they are asking for max salary percentage increases, max years. Coaches are making far more money, some that shouldn't have a job.

 

Last year, I had League Pass. I watch a LOT of basketball. It was amazing to see how many games contained rows and rows of empty seats, and that's huge.

 

I'm not siding with anyone, by the way. I think both sides absolutely SUCK. I'm just not going to sit and say these teams aren't losing money, but a lot of that is their fault as well.

[?QuestionMark?]

Well, Buss is supposedly one that reported losses, and we've talked about this plenty of times on TLN before. Remember, it's supposedly the reason why he didn't trade Vujacic's contract for Hinrich's...instead, trading Sasha for nothing.

 

I don't think that's true. The Lakers make about 80 million in revenue alone just in ticket prices. That doesn't include their TV rights and their other revenue streams. The Lakers were one of the most profitable teams in the NBA by far.

 

I think the biggest reason they didn't deal for Hinrich, besides salaries not matching, was not finding a place for him to play with Fisher and Blake already on the roster. I think the extent where money comes in is that the Lakers are Buss's primary source of income, so he won't just spend blindly and didn't feel Hinrich was worth the 18 million cap hit.

 

If they negotiated all of those things in 2005, it didn't work, because salaries are worse. Veterans are getting paid far too much now (see Gooden and Stackhouse). Players supposedly take pay cuts to play on great teams, but some don't get that it means they are asking for max salary percentage increases, max years. Coaches are making far more money, some that shouldn't have a job.

 

Bad players are going to get overpaid regardless of the system. Owners just have no self control.

 

But even if players are asking for max raises and max everything, that is no different than what players were demanding with the 99 CBA. Yet the owners agreed to continue with a similar system. But now suddenly the owners are amassing these massive losses? Doesn't make sense.

 

Last year, I had League Pass. I watch a LOT of basketball. It was amazing to see how many games contained rows and rows of empty seats, and that's huge.

 

I'm not siding with anyone, by the way. I think both sides absolutely SUCK. I'm just not going to sit and say these teams aren't losing money, but a lot of that is their fault as well.

 

I don't deny teams are losing money. I just think the extent of their losses is exaggerated. If they can't turn a profit with the players giving them 3 billion back and with the league making record revenue, then that's on the owners. If small markets can't support a team, then they need more revenue sharing or get move to a bigger market.

[AboveLegit]

NEW YORK -- Despite the grim outlook of potentially lengthy and costly lawsuits, there are strong indications that NBA officials and attorneys representing the players want to take one more shot at reaching a settlement before the possibility of having close to a full season is devoured by the legal process.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/16161349/nba-players-hoping-for-one-more-shot-at-settlement

[Gooner]

On the surface that looks nice, but the owners new deal restricts the players ability to move. The new lux tax itself is a hard cap, not even an owner like Cuban would pay it at that rate. Just because they don't call it a hard cap doesn't mean it won't functionally work as one.

 

There were also reports that the NBA wanted to be able to retract two teams (which lowers the BRI for the players further) without talking to the union.

 

So yeah it looks "fair" but the NBA is also trying to sneak some provisions in there hurt free agency.

It doesn't restrict player movement at all. Actually it gives them more opportunity to move. Under this proposal, when you're a free agent you have the ability to sign for every single team in the league, provided they want you of course.

 

-Teams at or under the cap can sign you with cap space or the room exception.

-Teams over the cap can sign you with the MLE.

-And tax payers can sign you with the mini MLE.

-Bi-Annual Exception is still there for non-tax teams.

-Matching trades is easier. (125% rule up to 150%)

 

The only thing this restricts is moving while keeping your humongous salary ala Carmelo Anthony, and soon to be Chris Paul.

 

And yes the luxury tax is strict. The whole point is to cut spending and improve competitive balance. We can speculate all we want on who'd be willing to pay it or not, but there's no point until we see it in action.

[Gooner]

Bad players are going to get overpaid regardless of the system. Owners just have no self control.

 

But even if players are asking for max raises and max everything, that is no different than what players were demanding with the 99 CBA. Yet the owners agreed to continue with a similar system. But now suddenly the owners are amassing these massive losses? Doesn't make sense.

The economic climate is much different now than it was then. That's not hard to see.

 

I don't deny teams are losing money. I just think the extent of their losses is exaggerated. If they can't turn a profit with the players giving them 3 billion back and with the league making record revenue, then that's on the owners. If small markets can't support a team, then they need more revenue sharing or get move to a bigger market.

The players aren't "giving back" anything. Everything they've gotten they get to keep. Record revenue means nothing when the losses keep piling up to the tune of nearly two billion over the course of the last 6 years, and that's because the last CBA was horrendous for the owners. So now it's time to make it up. And there won't be any basketball until the owners get their way, simple as that.

 

These players talk about how they want this to be a partnership, yet they just take the guaranteed profits, while the owners take all the risk.