PDA

View Full Version : ESPN: Sources: Players unlikely to accept deal



beasted86
11-11-2011, 09:21 PM
But one source close to the process told Broussard that while these changes may look significant, "the problem with all of that is that the owners changed the definition of a taxpayer in a way that would destroy (Larry) Bird rights and make it almost impossible to be a taxpayer, so the exceptions would be lost anyway."

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7220959/nba-lockout-players-unlikely-accept-owners-proposal-sources-say

This quote really got me thinking about what exactly is in this offer that would qualify that statement.


Player contracts previously 6/5 years... NBA proposes 5/4/3 years
Player raises previously 10.5%/8%... NBA new proposal 5.5%/3%
Previously mid-level for all teams + bi-annual for all teams... NBA proposes no bi-annual, half mid-level for tax teams, half mid-level if signing puts team into tax in future
Before mid-level was a calculation of the average salary which was $5.8M+ mid-level for 2011.... NBA new proposal of no calculation, but rather a set mid-level cap of $5M/ $2.5M
NBA proposes punitive tax at 1.75% in first tier of $5M which escalates
NBA proposes increased escalation of punitive tax and no mid-level for taxpayers for 2 or more consecutive seasons
NBA proposes no S&T for taxpayers


In the end with these restrictions, it seems like an in depth, well thought out disguise to a hard cap. Once the existing contracts run out, it will be harder for a team to get very deep into the luxury tax even if a team's owner was willing to pay it.

ink
11-11-2011, 10:14 PM
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7220959/nba-lockout-players-unlikely-accept-owners-proposal-sources-say

This quote really got me thinking about what exactly is in this offer that would qualify that statement.


Player contracts previously 6/5 years... NBA proposes 5/4/3 years
Player raises previously 10.5%/8%... NBA new proposal 5.5%/3%
Previously mid-level for all teams + bi-annual for all teams... NBA proposes no bi-annual, half mid-level for tax teams, half mid-level if signing puts team into tax in future
Before mid-level was a calculation of the average salary which was $5.8M+ mid-level for 2011.... NBA new proposal of no calculation, but rather a set mid-level cap of $5M/ $2.5M
NBA proposes punitive tax at 1.75% in first tier of $5M which escalates
NBA proposes increased escalation of punitive tax and no mid-level for taxpayers for 2 or more consecutive seasons
NBA proposes no S&T for taxpayers


In the end with these restrictions, it seems like an in depth, well thought out disguise to a hard cap. Once the existing contracts run out, it will be harder for a team to get very deep into the luxury tax even if a team's owner was willing to pay it.

"Disguise" insinuates some evil intentions. No, they wanted a hard cap and they're trying to get a CBA that comes close to what they wanted. So yes, of course, it resembles a hard cap.

Are you surprised? Is anyone?

If a person goes to a job interview wanting a job are you surprised if they persist even after the prospects don't seem that good? Of course not. They want the job. They're going to go for it. Same with the owners. They want to repair the league with a hard cap. So they go for it.

Yes, this resembles a hard cap because that's what their objectives were and the players have only really been trying not to lose these labour negotiations. They had nothing positive to contribute. All they've really been doing is defending the status quo.

da ThRONe
11-11-2011, 10:27 PM
This will make the league about owners with endless pockets. Owners have shown they can't help themselves. This just hurts the owners who may have gone into the luxury before, but now can't.

daleja424
11-11-2011, 10:29 PM
I want to know the details here. I had read this...but no ones seems to know how they have changed the definition of tax payer to accomplish that

Bramaca
11-11-2011, 10:31 PM
It has some similarities to a hard cap but I would prefer to see an actual hard cap. As ink said, is anyone really surprised by this? The owners wanted a hard cap so they have deviated as little as possible from it.

beasted86
11-11-2011, 11:52 PM
I want to know the details here. I had read this...but no ones seems to know how they have changed the definition of tax payer to accomplish that

I think what they mean is the tax system is so punitive many teams will avoid it, and the others that do venture in really can't sustain a high luxury tax because of the short 3 yr nature of a mid-level and it being reduced (or possibly eliminated all together), and the reduction in raises for all players combined, along with elimination of sign & trades.

Aside from these factors, top tier markets are doubly punished if they are a "taxpayer".


For ex: Let's use the Lakers and their $90M payroll
Under the old system-
A $90M payroll taxpayer like the Lakers might have previously paid $20M in luxury tax. That $20M was basically "indirect revenue sharing" but in the end a tax.

Under the new proposal-
The Lakers being in a high revenue market might be asked to pay $20M in "direct revenue sharing" per year outright (basically a tax because of their market). Then (using this source of info (http://www.hoopsworld.com/cba-scenarios-the-new-luxury-tax/)) by being $20M over the tax, pay $50M in luxury tax.


So by that example, the definition of a taxpayer is changed for the Lakers. They are taxed $20M more than other teams because of their market, then might be taxed again if they go into the luxury tax.

Kevj77
11-12-2011, 12:17 AM
That is probably how it will work. Top earning teams who made a profit last year would actually lose money after revenue sharing and with a more punative luxury tax if they go over, so even they won't go into the tax.

Even if they wanted to go into the tax it wouldn't help them add players because the MLE will be much lower and sign and trades won't be allowed for tax teams. It might allow these teams to retain homegrown talent if they are already in the tax, but does anyone really have a problem with that?

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 01:01 PM
Its a hard cap in disguise but it shows you what the league thinks of the players intelligence. The players say no to a hard cap and they basically comeback and say ok we've come off of our hard cap stance how about this instead? All the while still ultimately the same situation just worded differently.......

ink
11-12-2011, 02:28 PM
Its a hard cap in disguise but it shows you what the league thinks of the players intelligence. The players say no to a hard cap and they basically comeback and say ok we've come off of our hard cap stance how about this instead? All the while still ultimately the same situation just worded differently.......

It's not personal. It's business.

GiantsSwaGG
11-12-2011, 02:43 PM
:facepalm:

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 02:46 PM
It's not personal. It's business.


Who says its personal? The question was is their a proposal a hard cap in disguise and the answer is yes. When you say you're no longer insisting on a hard cap and upon examination thats essentially what you're offer still is that qualifies as a disguise by definition.

Typically you try to disguise something on a individual you feel won't be able to recognize it....i.e. someone that isn't that bright.

I know you feel the players "aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer" so apparently you're not the only one that feels that way......

smith&wesson
11-12-2011, 02:49 PM
Who says its personal? The question was is their a proposal a hard cap in disguise and the answer is yes. When you say you're no longer insisting on a hard cap and upon examination thats essentially what you're offer still is that qualifies as a disguise by definition.

Typically you try to disguise something on a individual you feel won't be able to recognize it....i.e. someone that isn't that bright.

I know you feel the players "aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer" so apparently you're not the only one that feels that way......

well you said "it shows you what the league thinks of the players intellegence" thats why ink said its not personal. doesnt matter what they think of theyre intellegence. the league knows what its fighting for and is obviously prepared to use different tactics to get what they want. shouldnt matter if they think the players are stupid. whatever works they will use. in business its not about respecting your counterpart its about politics and where you stand coming out of the negotiations.

i think the players simply think they have more leverage then they actually do which is whats hurting them most. they are unable to see what is a fair deal at this point because they are used to getting what they want.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 04:10 PM
I totally get that this is business and its win by any tactics/means/pr spins necessary. I disagree that the players somehow think they have more leverage than they actually do. If that was the case they wouldn't have made the concessions they have.

But there is a huge difference between knowing you have to concede and trying to minimize the damage and just getting bullied into a bad deal you will be locked into for a decade.

Charles Barkley put it perfectly: "The owners have already won the game, everyone knew they were always going to win the game, but now thats not enough they want to run up the score."

Bramaca
11-12-2011, 04:38 PM
I totally get that this is business and its win by any tactics/means/pr spins necessary. I disagree that the players somehow think they have more leverage than they actually do. If that was the case they wouldn't have made the concessions they have.

But there is a huge difference between knowing you have to concede and trying to minimize the damage and just getting bullied into a bad deal you will be locked into for a decade.

Charles Barkley put it perfectly: "The owners have already won the game, everyone knew they were always going to win the game, but now thats not enough they want to run up the score."

I believe the players received an option out after 6 years on the CBA. And really how is it a bad deal? Whats the difference between getting 50% in a hard cap, 50% in a system that has some similarities to a hard cap, or 50% in a system similar to the last CBA?

ewmania
11-12-2011, 07:03 PM
I totally get that this is business and its win by any tactics/means/pr spins necessary. I disagree that the players somehow think they have more leverage than they actually do. If that was the case they wouldn't have made the concessions they have.

But there is a huge difference between knowing you have to concede and trying to minimize the damage and just getting bullied into a bad deal you will be locked into for a decade.

Charles Barkley put it perfectly: "The owners have already won the game, everyone knew they were always going to win the game, but now thats not enough they want to run up the score."

obviously they do because without they approval there will be no NBA games so that counts as having just as much leverage as the owners

why are people making it seem like NBA is the only league on the planet... tons of players have been surviving off of playing basketball that didn't include a NBA paycheck

ink
11-12-2011, 07:06 PM
obviously they do because without they approval there will be no NBA games so that counts as having just as much leverage as the owners

why are people making it seem like NBA is the only league on the planet... tons of players have been surviving off of playing basketball that didn't include a NBA paycheck

Yes and it's been pointed out that Europe has some great big market cities. I'm not even being facetious. Better place to live, apparently better pay days, no "evil" owners who (gasp) want to run their own businesses by workable rules, I'm sure they'd be happier.

THE MTL
11-12-2011, 07:12 PM
I thought they recently revised it for less harsh penalty on luxury tax teams, S&T for tax payers, and mini midlevel at 3 mil per season.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 07:18 PM
The players union has been saying for years that they felt the league was willing to forgo a season to get what they wanted. So far all indications have been thats correct...

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 07:21 PM
I thought they recently revised it for less harsh penalty on luxury tax teams, S&T for tax payers, and mini midlevel at 3 mil per season.



There seems to be some dispute about how the league is defining "tax payer" that has the players saying its basically the same deal.....

ewmania
11-12-2011, 07:30 PM
Yes and it's been pointed out that Europe has some great big market cities. I'm not even being facetious. Better place to live, apparently better pay days, no "evil" owners who (gasp) want to run their own businesses by workable rules, I'm sure they'd be happier.

hahaha sarcasm, that's funny

when bill russell was winning a decade worth of rings I wonder why no owners was complaining about fairness

Oh yeah that's right! bill russell was getting paid a WNBA like paycheck and his contract length was so long he probably wouldn't have been a FA until after he retired

workable rules even funnier... Yeah oh how fair it is to force chicago from being able to get good quality role players because Portland is getting tired of losing in the first round

or because Jordan wouldn't know how to run a team properly, just allowed raymond felton to walk for nothing.

or because Portland picked Oden instead of durant in 07 draft. lets not forget Portland picked god knows who instead of Jordan in 84.

so know it's not the answer to any problem because the league always make this weird changes and yet you still see the same teams at the finish line so basically it's not the systems fault on why you don't see minny vs the bobcats at the finals... it's the owners who obviously don't know how to run a team

nitram58
11-12-2011, 07:49 PM
sounds like the heat?
I totally get that this is business and its win by any tactics/means/pr spins necessary. I disagree that the players somehow think they have more leverage than they actually do. If that was the case they wouldn't have made the concessions they have.

But there is a huge difference between knowing you have to concede and trying to minimize the damage and just getting bullied into a bad deal you will be locked into for a decade.

Charles Barkley put it perfectly: "The owners have already won the game, everyone knew they were always going to win the game, but now thats not enough they want to run up the score."

Knicks21
11-12-2011, 07:51 PM
powellshaun Shaun Powell
Source: "This the best deal the owners will extend, everyone understands that."

powellshaun Shaun Powell
"The players want to play, and they'll take the deal," he said. We'll see.

http://twitter.com/#!/powellshaun

gwrighter
11-12-2011, 07:59 PM
It's not a hard cap but its close. Still, the owners with deep pockets and irrational spending habits will pay the luxury tax to sustain a competitive advantage.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 08:07 PM
hahaha sarcasm, that's funny

when bill russell was winning a decade worth of rings I wonder why no owners was complaining about fairness

Oh yeah that's right! bill russell was getting paid a WNBA like paycheck and his contract length was so long he probably wouldn't have been a FA until after he retired

workable rules even funnier... Yeah oh how fair it is to force chicago from being able to get good quality role players because Portland is getting tired of losing in the first round

or because Jordan wouldn't know how to run a team properly, just allowed raymond felton to walk for nothing.

or because Portland picked Oden instead of durant in 07 draft. lets not forget Portland picked god knows who instead of Jordan in 84.

so know it's not the answer to any problem because the league always make this weird changes and yet you still see the same teams at the finish line so basically it's not the systems fault on why you don't see minny vs the bobcats at the finals... it's the owners who obviously don't know how to run a team


*On a side note I was pretty skeptical about the move your Knicks did to get Melo but in retrospect Im glad they did it. With the Tomfoolery about to be pulled they are going to make something like that damn near impossible to do in the future so at least he got there while the gettin was good. I miss the Knicks being competitive......

Tmath
11-12-2011, 08:27 PM
This is some bull****

ewmania
11-12-2011, 08:44 PM
*On a side note I was pretty skeptical about the move your Knicks did to get Melo but in retrospect Im glad they did it. With the Tomfoolery about to be pulled they are going to make something like that damn near impossible to do in the future so at least he got there while the gettin was good. I miss the Knicks being competitive......

i miss us being competitive too... but dude knicks are a perfect example... we are the biggest market team in the NBA... and we only have two rings and we have been crap for an entire decade

its all about how the owner runs his own business... spurs 4 rings they handled they business very well for a 2 decades i believe since the 90's

gotoHcarolina52
11-12-2011, 09:02 PM
To hell with Billy Hunter. To hell with Derek Fisher. To hell with these intransigent owners. This is some bull ****.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 10:52 PM
i miss us being competitive too... but dude knicks are a perfect example... we are the biggest market team in the NBA... and we only have two rings and we have been crap for an entire decade

its all about how the owner runs his own business... spurs 4 rings they handled they business very well for a 2 decades i believe since the 90's


Man its so obvious but you can't even explain it to people, its like someone that thinks Elvis is still alive or something there's just no way in convincing them different despite all the facts and evidence you give them.

The Knicks have been bad for a while, Dallas has had 2 finals trips the entire Mark Cuban era, Orlando has been having marginal success, and these are the big spenders that are supposedly making things unfair.... meanwhile small market moderate spending teams Denver, Utah, Spurs and Portland have been competitive for the better part of a couple decades because they consistently manage their teams well.

People want to use Lakers as an example of a unfair recruiting team but I remember back in the post Shaq era no free agents would touch LA with a 10ft pole. But guess what you draft Bynum, trade for Gasol and now its once again the place to be. People just say big market but they leave out big WINNING market. Just ask the Clippers if theres a difference.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me but oh well, at least when we get the new system it will be entertaining to see what excuse they can come up with next as to why certain teams are never any good.

Kevj77
11-12-2011, 11:38 PM
Man its so obvious but you can't even explain it to people, its like someone that thinks Elvis is still alive or something there's just no way in convincing them different despite all the facts and evidence you give them.

The Knicks have been bad for a while, Dallas has had 2 finals trips the entire Mark Cuban era, Orlando has been having marginal success, and these are the big spenders that are supposedly making things unfair.... meanwhile small market moderate spending teams Denver, Utah, Spurs and Portland have been competitive for the better part of a couple decades because they consistently manage their teams well.You can add the Suns to that list, they have been competitive for most of the last two decades, the Suns have only missed the playoffs four times since 1988 and had legitimate chances to win titles. Kings haven't had that kind of consistency they did have a great run with Cwebb. That Dallas was a laughingstock before Cuban bought them, while the Knicks and Boston where in obscurity with bad management most of the last decade or the Bulls went through a very long rebuilding process post Jordan. You can't convince them that management is what wins.


People want to use Lakers as an example of a unfair recruiting team but I remember back in the post Shaq era no free agents would touch LA with a 10ft pole. But guess what you draft Bynum, trade for Gasol and now its once again the place to be. People just say big market but they leave out big WINNING market. Just ask the Clippers if theres a difference.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me but oh well, at least when we get the new system it will be entertaining to see what excuse they can come up with next as to why certain teams are never any good.It's not rocket science. I also remember LA losing out on every free agent they targeted post Shaq. People use the Lakers as an example, but never mention that LA made great decisions to get where they are. They won't tell you that the Lakers already had Kobe, traded Shaq for Odom, drafted Bynum or admit that the Pau trade was actually fair. Look at the results of the Pau trade it is now the core of the grizz, Marc Gasol and Zach.

Nobody mentions that the only free agents on LA are Fisher, Barnes, Blake and Artest or that the only reason they signed Artest is because Ariza wanted more money from LA. That the Lakers asked Odom to take less than market value and he seriously considered signing with Miami because of it.

NBA_Starter
11-12-2011, 11:39 PM
I hope they accept but whatever, I'm so ill of this lockout.

specialiststeve
11-12-2011, 11:54 PM
Players better recognize that they are not going to get what they want and sign the deal as EVERYONE knows if they don't get it done they are going backwards and will not be getting the money they lost back - ever. It's called damage controll. As I have stated I would love a system like the NFL - no guarenteed contracts and a Hard cap! If the players decertify that is what I would go for if I were the owners. Imagine the players actually having to earn their money each year, playing hard to ensure their current contract and playing for their next one all in one. Who wins US the fans.

CityofChaos
11-13-2011, 12:56 AM
Quick Question: If the players decertify, how long would the process take?

beasted86
11-13-2011, 12:57 AM
Players better recognize that they are not going to get what they want and sign the deal as EVERYONE knows if they don't get it done they are going backwards and will not be getting the money they lost back - ever. It's called damage controll. As I have stated I would love a system like the NFL - no guarenteed contracts and a Hard cap! If the players decertify that is what I would go for if I were the owners. Imagine the players actually having to earn their money each year, playing hard to ensure their current contract and playing for their next one all in one. Who wins US the fans.

Billy Hunter said in an interview that he proposed a system similar to the NFL with signing bonuses, and the owners said no.

What the owners want is a hard cap lower than all other leagues (including the NHL). Then they want to pay the players a percentage similar to the NFL but without signing bonuses.

beasted86
11-13-2011, 12:59 AM
Quick Question: If the players decertify, how long would the process take?

Decertify itself is about 2 months. Go through Anti-trust litigation is 1-1.5 years.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-13-2011, 01:04 AM
What most are not getting is that if this deal is indeed not accepted, not only will this season be canceled, but they are not going to sign a worse deal later. What if there is no deal NEXT YEAR?
THE PLAYERS BETTER WISE UP HERE! If not better pick your Euro team now

Tony_Starks
11-13-2011, 01:21 AM
There are a lot of issues that aren't really being discussed that make the deal just outright horrible. One that hardly gets mentioned is that the owners want to be able to send players to the D-league for a pro-rated $75,000 for up to their first 5 years in the league.

That is so ridiculous thats its truly laughable but Im sure defenders of the owners can rationalize how thats a great idea too.......

Sactown
11-13-2011, 01:49 AM
There are a lot of issues that aren't really being discussed that make the deal just outright horrible. One that hardly gets mentioned is that the owners want to be able to send players to the D-league for a pro-rated $75,000 for up to their first 5 years in the league.

That is so ridiculous thats its truly laughable but Im sure defenders of the owners can rationalize how thats a great idea too.......

I actually really dislike this clause... The lower end players were the ones I was hoping the owners would let slide..

NYKalltheway
11-13-2011, 01:56 AM
I don't get why they just don't get rid of the salary cap, agree on the BRI and end this thing....

mkdo
11-13-2011, 02:19 AM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19750980&posted=1#post19750980

ewmania
11-13-2011, 04:38 AM
Man its so obvious but you can't even explain it to people, its like someone that thinks Elvis is still alive or something there's just no way in convincing them different despite all the facts and evidence you give them.

The Knicks have been bad for a while, Dallas has had 2 finals trips the entire Mark Cuban era, Orlando has been having marginal success, and these are the big spenders that are supposedly making things unfair.... meanwhile small market moderate spending teams Denver, Utah, Spurs and Portland have been competitive for the better part of a couple decades because they consistently manage their teams well.

People want to use Lakers as an example of a unfair recruiting team but I remember back in the post Shaq era no free agents would touch LA with a 10ft pole. But guess what you draft Bynum, trade for Gasol and now its once again the place to be. People just say big market but they leave out big WINNING market. Just ask the Clippers if theres a difference.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me but oh well, at least when we get the new system it will be entertaining to see what excuse they can come up with next as to why certain teams are never any good.

yup... same with the knicks bro.... no big FA would touch this team Amare basically shocked me plus the world coming here and he wasn't even a top FA in 2010, maybe 5th

I highly doubt fairness is the real issue here, because besides lakers and boston, teams like Pistons, spurs, utah, Kings, portland, Pacers have done pretty well for theyselve this last decade...

Knicks finally got in the eye of the public since the 90's
Chicago finally in the eye of the public since derrick rose
Boston finally in the eye of the public since Garnett trade

Nobody was complaining about fairness when kings had webber and bibby destroying dallas and the west in 2001 2002 era

Kevj77
11-13-2011, 05:32 AM
yup... same with the knicks bro.... no big FA would touch this team Amare basically shocked me plus the world coming here and he wasn't even a top FA in 2010, maybe 5th

I highly doubt fairness is the real issue here, because besides lakers and boston, teams like Pistons, spurs, utah, Kings, portland, Pacers have done pretty well for theyselve this last decade...

Knicks finally got in the eye of the public since the 90's
Chicago finally in the eye of the public since derrick rose
Boston finally in the eye of the public since Garnett trade

Nobody was complaining about fairness when kings had webber and bibby destroying dallas and the west in 2001 2002 eraOf course not because it wouldn't back their arguement about how unfair the system is.

Look at the last decade plus

Conference Finals, Finals, Champions

2000
Lakers v. Blazers, Lakers v. Pacers, Lakers
Knicks v. Pacers

2001
76ers v. Bucks, Lakers v. 76ers, Lakers
Lakers v. Spurs

2002
Nets v. Celtics, Lakers v. Nets, Lakers
Lakers v. Sac

2003
Nets v. Pistons, Spurs v. Nets, Spurs
Spurs v. Mavs

2004
Pistons v. Pacers, Lakers v. Pistons, Pistons
Lakers v. Wolves

2005
Spurs v. Suns, Spurs v. Pistons, Spurs
Pistons v. Heat

2006
Heat v. Pistons, Heat v. Mavs, Heat
Suns v. Mavs

2007
Cavs v. Pistons, Spurs v. Cavs, Spurs
Spurs v. Jazz

2008
Lakers v. Spurs, Lakers v. Celtics, Celtics
Celtics v. Pistons

2009
Lakers v. Nuggets, Lakers v. Magic, Lakers
Magic v. Cavs

2010
Lakers v. Suns, Lakers v. Celtics, Lakers
Magic v. Celtics

2011
Heat v. Bulls, Heat v. Mavs, Mavs
Mavs v. Thunder

Looks like well managed small market teams are competing just fine to me.

IrespectNumber3
11-13-2011, 06:06 AM
As stupid as this sounds I think the NBA should just get rid of the damn salary cap. Let the owners take full responsibility, power and ownership of putting there teams toghether. So owners can do what they want as far as competing goes. If small market teams dont like it then contract.

magichatnumber9
11-13-2011, 07:06 AM
DFish should not be negotiating for the players, he is letting them get ****ed

Knicks21
11-13-2011, 07:20 AM
I don't get why they just don't get rid of the salary cap, agree on the BRI and end this thing....

See Manchester United.