PDA

View Full Version : NBA owners to seek big salary rollback



KnicksPain
02-07-2010, 09:58 AM
Proposed CBA would limit LeBron deal

By Ric Bucher
ESPN The Magazine
Archive

The NBA will put its marquee players on display in next weekend's All-Star Game in Dallas, but the party-like atmosphere is sure to be chilled when the stars learn the details of the collective bargaining agreement offer presented at the end of January by commissioner David Stern to players' union director Billy Hunter.

The proposal, a source familiar with talks said, includes rollbacks that could reduce maximum guaranteed salaries, both for veterans such as Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, as well as up-and-comers like Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose, to almost a third of what they would have been eligible for under the current agreement.

Perhaps the biggest shocker: The owners' proposal includes a provision that would require any pre-existing deals to be revised to conform to the new deal's limits.

The current deal is set to expire as of July 1, 2011. The league's owners have the option to extend it one more year, but they've already made it clear they don't intend to.

"The league has to be careful," said one agent who requested anonymity. "If the top players are united against David, that's going to make for a tough fight. It could get very ugly."

Presenting a new proposal nearly 18 months in advance of the current deal's anticipated expiration is unprecedented, several sources said. Doing so right before All-Star Weekend also seems odd, particularly since Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, the weekend's host owner, has crowed about the event drawing a record 100,000 fans and a surrounding spectacle dwarfing that of the NFL's Super Bowl XLIV.

"It's the most dire economic time, so they want to take advantage of that and scare the players now," the agent said. "It is a negotiation. This is what you do."

The total value for a veteran maximum deal would be well under $60 million and for players currently on rookie salary-scale deals well under $50 million, the source familiar with the proposal said. Fully guaranteed maximum deals also could be a thing of the past, with the proposal allowing for less than half of any contract to be guaranteed.

The mid-level exception and other devices that allow teams over the salary cap to sign free agents also would be abolished, several sources said, effectively creating a hard cap.

Both the league and players association declined to comment on the source's details of the proposal, as did union president Derek Fisher. "David and Billy have decided not to comment until we get to All-Star Weekend and I'll fall in line with those two gentlemen," Fisher said Friday night.

Stern and Hunter are expected to address where negotiations stand on a new labor agreement sometime during the weekend.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4894018

I keep hearing about a upcoming lock out, anyone know if this is what it is about? Regardless, this seems like its gonna be big.

cheezinmypocket
02-07-2010, 10:50 AM
July 1, 2011.

End of the NBA as we know it. :(

_Supreme_
02-07-2010, 10:51 AM
There is absolutely no way I see this happening.

If they try to push this on the players there will be a guaranteed lockout, maybe even longer than one season. It is funny that this comes at a time when some of the league's top players are about to sign new contracts, because that probably will matter.

And it is not like I do not agree that players seem to be overpaid. It should be a simple calculation though. The owners get x revenue and have y expenses. I do not know the numbers, so I do not know how much of a profit owners make after all expenses are paid (including salaries). If that still is a fair amount compared to/after paying the salaries, then that should become obvious soon enough. If it is not, then that should become obvious too.

If it is somewhere in between of the obvious, a debatable amount, it would lead to the most trouble.

However this:


Perhaps the biggest shocker: The owners' proposal includes a provision that would require any pre-existing deals to be revised to conform to the new deal's limits.

If this means what I think it means, that current deals will be changed (devaluated) to fit under the proposed new rules, I am not even sure it would be legal under US law.
I must assume qualified legal people have looked into this before the NBA presented it to the Player's Union, but to go back on signed contracts, and do such a thing one sidedly? That is not legally possible in a lot of countries.

KnicksPain
02-07-2010, 11:04 AM
There is absolutely no way I see this happening.

If they try to push this on the players there will be a guaranteed lockout, maybe even longer than one season. It is funny that this comes at a time when some of the league's top players are about to sign new contracts, because that probably will matter.

And it is not like I do not agree that players seem to be overpaid. It should be a simple calculation though. The owners get x revenue and have y expenses. I do not know the numbers, so I do not know how much of a profit owners make after all expenses are paid (including salaries). If that still is a fair amount compared to/after paying the salaries, then that should become obvious soon enough. If it is not, then that should become obvious too.

If it is somewhere in between of the obvious, a debatable amount, it would lead to the most trouble.

However this:



If this means what I think it means, that current deals will be changed (devaluated) to fit under the proposed new rules, I am not even sure it would be legal under US law.
I must assume qualified legal people have looked into this before the NBA presented it to the Player's Union, but to go back on signed contracts, and do such a thing one sidedly? That is not legally possible in a lot of countries.

Thats what caught me to, If there is a legal way to do that I see the players rep slappin the paper off the table and stormin out on some get the F outta here type reaction.

_Supreme_
02-07-2010, 11:23 AM
The owners appear to want to change everything in their favor.

Maybe it is a ploy to start negotiating as high as possible, so you end up with a more favorable compromise, but they can not realisticly expect the players to accept these changes.

29$JerZ
02-07-2010, 01:51 PM
Lockout will happen if this gets passed

That whole tidbit about altering current contracts to fit the new deal is what will cause the most damage. Also that loss of the MLE and Bi annual contracts is just wow

Kakaroach
02-07-2010, 02:21 PM
Why lose MLE and Bi-annuals? That part doesn't make any sense. But I do agree that in this economy players need a pay-cut, I hope it doesn't lead to a lock-out though.

ink
02-07-2010, 02:28 PM
It's already so far out of control I doubt they can do anything anyway. If they're serious about doing something, they might make a 5-10% difference if they have a long lockout. But even then the salaries will still be obscenely high.

jetsfan28
02-07-2010, 03:20 PM
Ive been saying it for over a year now, the NBA and NFL will both have (possibly lengthy) lockouts. The sides are just too far apart.

Badluck33
02-07-2010, 03:41 PM
nba players get the biggest piece of the pie out of all pro sports.

i think this lockout happens. NBA players are getting way too much. and i can understand owners wanting to cut the guaranteed contract by 50%.

people like Marbury, Eddy Curry, Shaq, Alan houston and Allen Iverson have all raped the system and made owners look very silly on signing these players long term.

The salary cap is gonna drop to make it more difficult for owners to sign better deals and these nba players want individual raises? Thats pretty selfish especially in this economy.

i may be the only one but i am definitely on the owners side on this.

this will def. get interesting....

jetsfan28
02-07-2010, 04:40 PM
nba players get the biggest piece of the pie out of all pro sports.

i think this lockout happens. NBA players are getting way too much. and i can understand owners wanting to cut the guaranteed contract by 50%.

people like Marbury, Eddy Curry, Shaq, Alan houston and Allen Iverson have all raped the system and made owners look very silly on signing these players long term.

The salary cap is gonna drop to make it more difficult for owners to sign better deals and these nba players want individual raises? Thats pretty selfish especially in this economy.

i may be the only one but i am definitely on the owners side on this.

this will def. get interesting....

Individual NBA players should make more, there's less of them. Basically half as many NBA players as MLB, and a quarter of NFL, the individuals should make a lot.

KnicksPain
02-07-2010, 08:01 PM
nba players get the biggest piece of the pie out of all pro sports.

i think this lockout happens. NBA players are getting way too much. and i can understand owners wanting to cut the guaranteed contract by 50%.

people like Marbury, Eddy Curry, Shaq, Alan houston and Allen Iverson have all raped the system and made owners look very silly on signing these players long term.

The salary cap is gonna drop to make it more difficult for owners to sign better deals and these nba players want individual raises? Thats pretty selfish especially in this economy.

i may be the only one but i am definitely on the owners side on this.

this will def. get interesting....

I coulda swore MLB and NFL players make more and there are more players in those leagues.

gattaca
02-07-2010, 08:41 PM
NBA needs to be careful. Of course, this is a negotiation and there will be a lot of that going on. But to start this low. Only time will tell if the NBA made a good move for them and the owners. But for now it seems like a low ball offer and when the other side knows it's a low ball offer, that can lead to some head butting over pride rather than head butting over salary numbers.

A hard cap in the NBA is a bad idea.It's not like Baseball where you can just buy a good team (read Yankees).The cap in baseball is a joke and has made it really hard to be a Jays fan. The NBA cap works. In the NHL, the hard cap is needed because of revenue and smaller cities needing to stay competitive. But the downside to the NHL hard cap is that a team can draft and develop good players and then not afford to pay them later. That's where the Bird rights in the NBA is such a great idea. I hope the league is not playing with getting rid of Bird rights. And I like the Mid level exception too.

Anyway, this sounds more like a just a money in terms of profit rather than a money in terms of team survival thing.

ChiSox219
02-07-2010, 09:22 PM
Why lose MLE and Bi-annuals? That part doesn't make any sense. But I do agree that in this economy players need a pay-cut, I hope it doesn't lead to a lock-out though.

I would guess that it's to level out high profit teams with low profit teams. The Lakers can give out a full MLE every year and pay the extra tax without batting an eyelash. A small market team that is already near or above the tax likely can't afford to give out the MLE.

Also, the MLE has led to some lousy contracts such as Jerome James.


As for the issue as a whole, the NBA is starting reeeeeeallly low. If they actually try to push a CBA this poor you might see a new league created. It's just too early to speculate though. Teams are losing money so I expect the players to have to make concessions. It's clear the NBA will try to take advantage of the economic climate, which means when the economic turns for the better we will have to deal with this all over again in the form of a players strike.

JasonJohnHorn
02-07-2010, 10:52 PM
Its odd how the owners increase salaries by over bidding on mid-level talent and then ***** that they are paying too much. Players like Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady and Gilbert Arenas have singed huge and/or long term contracts that many would suggest are far more than those players are worth, but you can't blame those guys for agreeing to the contract.

The soft cap, as it stands, works very well. Teams who invest a lot of money on players who don't turn out well can still build a team via the mid-level exception, verteran minimum signings and the draft and also creates an environment where players are more likely to re-sign with the team that drafts them so that teams can actually build through the draft. A hard cap would create an enviroment wher mid-level talent and role/bench players will see shrinking contracts as owners will still try to out bid for the top tier talent, leaving little money for other players.

The most logical way to stretch the owner's money isn't to put in place a hard cap, but rather shrink the size of the max contracts, and/or limit the number of max contracts on each team. Top tier talent won't like it much, but it will ensure there is still money to be spent on non-star starters and key role players off the bench. It may also be in the owners interest to reduce the length of max contracts, but a hard cap is not going to be good for the league.

ChiSox219
02-07-2010, 11:29 PM
Its odd how the owners increase salaries by over bidding on mid-level talent and then ***** that they are paying too much. Players like Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady and Gilbert Arenas have singed huge and/or long term contracts that many would suggest are far more than those players are worth, but you can't blame those guys for agreeing to the contract.

The soft cap, as it stands, works very well. Teams who invest a lot of money on players who don't turn out well can still build a team via the mid-level exception, verteran minimum signings and the draft and also creates an environment where players are more likely to re-sign with the team that drafts them so that teams can actually build through the draft. A hard cap would create an enviroment wher mid-level talent and role/bench players will see shrinking contracts as owners will still try to out bid for the top tier talent, leaving little money for other players.

The most logical way to stretch the owner's money isn't to put in place a hard cap, but rather shrink the size of the max contracts, and/or limit the number of max contracts on each team. Top tier talent won't like it much, but it will ensure there is still money to be spent on non-star starters and key role players off the bench. It may also be in the owners interest to reduce the length of max contracts, but a hard cap is not going to be good for the league.

I think the best solution is to limit the amount of guaranteed money. TMac was certainly worth the money he got for most of his contract but now, well his primary value is as an expiring. If teams only have to guarantee 50% of the contract, it makes it so the team can severe ties and minimize its loss while the player still gets enough to agree to a new CBA.

I absolutely hate the idea of a "max", this America, no individuals salary should be arbitrarily limited.

The soft cap and most of the current rules work, it encourages individuals to stay with their original teams but doesn't trap them there. Limit the max money and maybe adjust the max "young" players can get and everyone should be able to come out ahead.

JasonJohnHorn
02-08-2010, 09:37 AM
European teams to start buying up the All-stars if a hard cap is introduced. They have already picking off mid-level talent like Josh Childress and have thrown money at many talented European players to get them to stay. The NBA will see a lot of talent moving overseas and that means I'll have to start watching European teams, which sucks because I hate hot the key's are shaped :(