PDA

View Full Version : Details from new CBA - please post links as details surface



Pages : [1] 2

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 11:41 AM
_ On the financial split, the players will receive between 49 and 51 percent of revenues, depending on annual growth. The players had complained prior to Saturday that the owners’ previous offer effectively limited them to 50.2 percent of revenues, but the source said 51 percent was now reasonably achievable with robust growth.

_Owners dropped their insistence on what would have been known as the Carmelo Anthony rule, preventing teams from executing extend-and-trade deals similar to the one that sent Anthony from the Denver Nuggets to the New York Knicks last season. This means that if Dwight Howard, Deron Williams and Chris Paul want to leverage their way out of Orlando, New Jersey and New Orleans, they will still be eligible to sign four-year extensions with their current teams before being immediately traded elsewhere.

_ Teams above the salary cap will be able to offer four-year mid-level exception contracts to free agents each season. Previously, owners were asking that teams be limited to offering a four-year deal one year, a three-year deal the next, then four, then three, etc.

_ The rookie salary scale and veteran minimum salaries will stay the same as they were last season. Owners had been seeking 12 percent cuts.

_ Qualifying offers to restricted free agents will become “significantly” improved. The sides had already agreed to reduce the time for a team to match an offer to a restricted free agent from 7 days to 3.

_ A new $2.5 million exception will be available to teams that go blow the salary cap, then use all of their cap room to sign free agents. Once they are back above the cap, they will be able to use the new exception instead of being limited to filling out their rosters with players on minimum contracts.

_ The prohibition on luxury tax-paying teams from executing sign-and-trade deals was loosened, although the freedom to execute those types of deals will still be limited.

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/26/nba-lockout-agreement-settlement-details/

I'm sure this is probably posted in one of the threads that has hundreds or thousands of posts but instead of going through dozens of pages to find any details I figured post a thread for discussion on whats in the deal and how it may affect teams. Any other info on whats in the CBA post in here for discussion.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 11:56 AM
Seems like every team that wants to compete will not be seriously hindered by the teams that claim they want to compete but never do.

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 11:56 AM
playes won, then.

spreadeagle
11-26-2011, 12:00 PM
It’s less than eight hours after a bleary-eyed group of executives and attorneys shuffled into a small conference room at a New York office building to deliver the news: a tentative deal is in place. The lockout is over.

Now begins the process of unraveling what happened and how, and determining what the new CBA will take shape as under the new detail. We have the first of those details this morning, via NBA.com’s David Aldridge on NBATV and Chris Sheridan of SheridanHoops.com. The early signs are that the owners made significant concessions to the players (after already winning the feast) in order to get a deal. In short:

The players got a concession on BRI, which no one saw coming. The owners’ proposal always called for a band of 49-51 for the players, depending upon revenue, but the players were never going to hit 51 without the greatest basketball-economic explosion in history. Instead, the threshold for the players to reach 51 percent has reportedly been lowered to a point where that figure is reachable for the players.
In addition, the players got one of the biggest elements they were looking for, as the extend-and-trade ban was lifted. This means that Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and Deron Williams can all exercise the same kind of leverage to get the extra year on their deals that Carmelo Anthony exerted. It means more player movement.
Teams above the cap will have a four-year Mid-Level-Exception granted every year. The owners had wanted it to alternate between four and three-year deals each season.
Tax teams will have the sign-and-trade available, though there will be limits, which aren’t known yet.
Escrow payments were raised to 10 percent, which the players wanted, against the owners’ desire for 8 percent. They are currently at 10 percent.
The deal is a ten-year agreement with an opt-out for either side after six years. See you in six seasons!

The deal represents kind of a “fake” win for the players and a fake series of concessions from the owners. They already chopped off seven percent of BRI, increased penalties for tax teams, got the “repeater tax” put in place for teams that pay the tax year after year, and pretty much everything else they wanted. They set such an extreme position that they were able to concede on the issues they did and still walk away winners. But the concessions were major, especially those regarding player movement. The owners finally caved to get us a season, even if they’d already won the battle.

The owners got what they wanted, the players got to save some face, and the fans get a season.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/26/what-we-know-about-the-deal-that-ended-the-lockout-so-far?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 12:01 PM
There's a thread like this already.

edit: mod already merged.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 12:02 PM
playes won, then.LMAO yeah

:clap: :hi5: :clap: :win: :hi5: :clap: :flag:

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:05 PM
Some details so far but I want to see what they exactly settled on for the luxury tax penalties and the sign and trade restrictions.

da ThRONe
11-26-2011, 12:07 PM
Ding-Dong competitive balance is dead.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:08 PM
CHISHOLM: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL

It's over. Almost.

After 149 days of acrimonious dealings, the NBA and the players have reached a tentative agreement on the major points of a new collective bargaining agreement that, if ratified by both sides, will see training camps open on December 9th and the season kick-off on Christmas Day.

The deal is being played as a victory for the league's 29 owners. They went into this lockout wanting radical changes to the way their business operated after suffering a reported $300-million in losses last season and seeing a growing disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" in their ranks - and for the most part they got them. While the most aggressive sought-after reforms were left out of the new agreement (a hard salary cap, salary rollbacks, non-guaranteed contracts), the owners nonetheless received more than a handful of concessions from the players in an effort to get this season underway, impressive considering they gave up next to nothing to make it happen.

Chief among those concessions was a 50-50 split of the BRI, a division of revenue that almost perfectly accounts for the losses that the teams took based off of last year's numbers. The players, who received 57 percent of the BRI under the last deal, were reluctant to dilute their split below 53 percent for a long time, feeling that a robust revenue sharing plan should be put into place to account for at least some of the teams' shortfall. At the end of the day, however, the owners simply had the leverage to wait out the players and get the split that they wanted, a point that the players conceded when they agreed to a 50-50 split and moved onto the system issues that will more directly impact their day-to-day working lives.

While the owners still got reduced maximum-level deals and a smaller mid-level exception, the players managed to hold-off the most restrictive reforms for luxury tax paying teams, they significantly loosened the strangle-hold teams had on their restricted free agents and the kept sign-and-trade and extend-and-trade deals alive for another day. While they bent on a great many issues to get a deal done, it is expected that what they retained was enough to get the majority of the 400+ union to ratify the deal in the coming weeks.

That said, though, the word 'tentative' should not be entirely dismissed just yet when describing this agreement. Remember, we're not at the 'the ink is drying' stage yet, we're not even at the 'ink has touched paper' stage yet. What has happened so far is the primary players in this negotiation have reached an agreement on the major points of division with support from a small number of those that the represent. While it's tremendously unlikely that this deal is not ratified, this lockout has been dominated by tremendously unlikely occurrences becoming the norm. There are going to be hard-line owners that feel that they didn't get enough from the players, just like there are going to be hard-line players that feel that they gave too much. While their numbers aren't expected to be large enough to scuttle this agreement, no one should be breathing easy until the deal is officially signed and put into action.

So what happens now? Well, first the details of this agreement must be disseminated to the entirety of the ownership and the players. The players have to agree to the terms, drop their lawsuits, and re-unify as the NBPA. Several smaller issues relating to things like drug testing and the age limit for the draft need to be worked out still and the whole deal needs to be written down and ratified by both parties. The league wants to open training camps (and start free agency) in two weeks, so that's the amount of time that the league thinks is needed to get all of that done. If all goes according to that plan, we should be able to shelve talk of CBA and BRI and the like and start talking about teams, trades and games again in just 14 days time.

It ain't over yet, but one of the ugliest periods in the modern NBA's history appears to be winding down. Neither side is going to be ecstatic about this deal, but hopefully enough people on both sides can live with it so that they pass it through to get games started on Christmas day. The light at the end of the tunnel is finally shining through. Now where did I put that press pass?

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/story/?id=381321

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:09 PM
playes won, then.

Depends on some of the details that are yet to be released.

gwrighter
11-26-2011, 12:10 PM
Ding-Dong competitive balance is dead.

you gotta start somewhere. The players took a "if we're going down we're going to take you with us" stance. irrationality made the owners cave in. I want to look at the particulars involving everything.

Soccer008
11-26-2011, 12:12 PM
Is there the two year rule for college players?

ink
11-26-2011, 12:15 PM
you gotta start somewhere. The players took a "if we're going down we're going to take you with us" stance. irrationality made the owners cave in. I want to look at the particulars involving everything.

This. Some very hollow victories for the owners, and all the players gave up was money, which they have more than enough of anyway. The lockout was definitely not worth it.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:15 PM
Is there the two year rule for college players?

Still one of the details to be worked out according to the article ink posted above.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:16 PM
Ding-Dong competitive balance is dead.

Pretty much. It's the same rigged league back for another six seasons at least.

Dade County
11-26-2011, 12:17 PM
You should not be able to perform a sign & trade if the team that you are going too, is in the Tax...

I can't understand these players.

And i know Dallas fans are happy... They get to keep their center.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:17 PM
http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/26/nba-lockout-agreement-settlement-details/

I'm sure this is probably posted in one of the threads that has hundreds or thousands of posts but instead of going through dozens of pages to find any details I figured post a thread for discussion on whats in the deal and how it may affect teams. Any other info on whats in the CBA post in here for discussion.

This detail:


_ A new $2.5 million exception will be available to teams that go blow the salary cap, then use all of their cap room to sign free agents. Once they are back above the cap, they will be able to use the new exception instead of being limited to filling out their rosters with players on minimum contracts.

Seems like it was authored by Micky Arison. What do you think about that Bramaca?

mdm692
11-26-2011, 12:18 PM
Players didnt win hahahahah wtf. Every single station is reporting this as a slam dunk for the owners and there are yet many details to be seen. Not to mentions owners are getting 51% of bri and they established severe penalties for repeating tax payers

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:19 PM
Pretty much. It's the same rigged league back for another six seasons at least.

Depending on the luxury and s&t restrictions it might be a small step forward. I'm sure there will still be loopholes but they will be exploited and lead to another small step the next time.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 12:20 PM
Ding-Dong competitive balance is dead.I hope you didn't actually buy into that lie the owners were selling.

The truth is 60% of NBA championships belong to the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, and Bulls. They don't belong to Miami, New York, or New Jersey.

Be thankful if anyone of LAL ,BOS, SAS, or CHI don't win it.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:23 PM
I hope you didn't actually buy into that lie the owners were selling.

I don't think you have ever tried to understand the concept. The same way you don't seem to want to understand that a league with 30 healthy teams is a healthier league. I can understand why you wouldn't care about any other team's well-being though. You're just a fan of one team and don't want to bother with anything else.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:25 PM
Depending on the luxury and s&t restrictions it might be a small step forward. I'm sure there will still be loopholes but they will be exploited and lead to another small step the next time.

I'm not sure if the league can conceive of itself any more without the familiar but really idiosyncratic exceptions they've come to accept as the norm. This was probably the best opportunity to get rid of all of that but you can see how much reliance there is on the convolutions they've worked with in the past.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:25 PM
Seems like it was authored by Micky Arison. What do you think about that Bramaca?

They have been talking about that for a couple months now. That exception doesn't bother me that much, I somewhat agree with it. It always bothered me that a team that was 5 million under the salary cap could only spend the same amount on FA as a team 20 million over the luxury tax. I really wish the MLE had been eliminated for luxury tax teams.

justinnum1
11-26-2011, 12:25 PM
interesting

metsfanssince05
11-26-2011, 12:26 PM
And I wonder why this deal wasnt reached a while ago... W.e NBA is back!!!!!!!!!!

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 12:28 PM
I don't think you have ever tried to understand the concept. The same way you don't seem to want to understand that a league with 30 healthy teams is a healthier league. I can understand why you wouldn't care about any other team's well-being though. You're just a fan of one team and don't want to bother with anything else.The problem is you believe teams shouldn't be held responsible for drafting Rafael Arujos, signing Hedo Turkoglus and Jose Calderons to lousy contracts (I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention your other horrible signings), and making stupid decisions like trading an unprotected 1st rounder knowing you're gonna suck for a long time.

Honestly, Ink, I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without ever accepting responsibility for any of your actions and blaming others instead for every time something went wrong.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 12:28 PM
I wanted the owners to get more than they did...oh well.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:29 PM
They have been talking about that for a couple months now. That exception doesn't bother me that much, I somewhat agree with it. It always bothered me that a team that was 5 million under the salary cap could only spend the same amount on FA as a team 20 million over the luxury tax. I really wish the MLE had been eliminated for luxury tax teams.

I agree. Eliminating just that one option for luxury teams would have helped spread an enormous amount of talent around the league. If they have to have an MLE at least let it help balance talent levels, not enable the biggest spenders. That was a pretty major concession.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 12:31 PM
The problem is you believe teams shouldn't be held responsible for drafting Rafael Arujos, signing Hedo Turkoglus and Jose Calderons to lousy contracts (I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention your other horrible signings), and making stupid decisions like trading an unprotected 1st rounder knowing you're gonna suck for a long time.

Honestly, Ink, I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without ever accepting responsibility for any of your actions and blaming others instead for every time something went wrong.

You don't think teams that aren't as desirable for free agents don't have to take bigger risks? You're ignoring that fact...and that isn't something worth overlooking. The big markets, and the trendy FA destinations, often get players for less money than the other markets. They don't have to take risks on questionable players like the smaller/undesirable markets do.

BuddhaMONK
11-26-2011, 12:32 PM
I don't think you have ever tried to understand the concept. The same way you don't seem to want to understand that a league with 30 healthy teams is a healthier league. I can understand why you wouldn't care about any other team's well-being though. You're just a fan of one team and don't want to bother with anything else.

guys a moron...just ignore him he was trying to tell me on the other thread that a league where only 4 teams compete is good league...lol and he also tried to compare the 1957-1969 celtic run (when there was only 8-14 teams in the league) to the won miami will probably go on lol.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:33 PM
The problem is you believe teams shouldn't be held responsible for drafting Rafael Arujos, signing Hedo Turkoglus and Jose Calderons to lousy contracts (I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention your other horrible signings), and making stupid decisions like trading an unprotected 1st rounder knowing you're gonna suck for a long time.

Honestly, Ink, I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without ever accepting responsibility for any of your actions and blaming others instead for every time something went wrong.

If you haven't noticed, I'm not an NBA owner, so your weak personal shot doesn't stick. Don't resort to baiting OK? And btw, any GM that makes bad decisions is accountable, just as the players are accountable for not delivering what their contracts require of them. It goes both ways.

Jay
11-26-2011, 12:35 PM
Pretty much. It's the same rigged league back for another six seasons at least.

C'mon, let's not be so pessimistic. I'd consider this a quantum leap forward, compared to the "broken" system that was previously in place.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:37 PM
The problem is you believe teams shouldn't be held responsible for drafting Rafael Arujos, signing Hedo Turkoglus and Jose Calderons to lousy contracts (I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention your other horrible signings), and making stupid decisions like trading an unprotected 1st rounder knowing you're gonna suck for a long time.

Honestly, Ink, I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without ever accepting responsibility for any of your actions and blaming others instead for every time something went wrong.

Shouldn't players be held responsible for not doing their jobs? Where is there responsibility when they get guarenteed contracts? What happens to you at your job if you halfass it for a year or two, do you keep getting paid for the next two or three years or do you get canned? If players should have the freedom to go where they want, owners should have the freedom to fire them for not doing their job.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 12:37 PM
I will say that I'm shocked ink said "rigged". I get being upset being a "small" market fan (Toronto isn't a small market, but in NBA terms it kinda is), but nothing is rigged. Is competitive balance perfect? No, far from it, and little was done to fix that...but it isn't a rigged league. I do think it's safe to assume that big markets, like LA, Boston, Chicago, Miami, NY etc will continue to win the vast majority of championships, which stinks...but it isn't a rigged league. It is certainly not a fair league, but it isn't rigged.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 12:38 PM
Shouldn't players be held responsible for not doing their jobs? Where is there responsibility when they get guarenteed contracts? What happens to you at your job if you halfass it for a year or two, do you keep getting paid for the next two or three years or do you get canned? If players should have the freedom to go where they want, owners should have the freedom to fire them for not doing their job.

Yeah. Look at the Magic who had to break the bank to get T-Mac and Grant there, and then Grant is injured for the duration of his contract, and the team never had success. Is that the owner's fault for spending too much money? No. And Orlando, being a small market, couldn't ever bring in the talent around T-Mac to ever seriously contend...because no one wanted to go there...

ink
11-26-2011, 12:39 PM
C'mon, let's not be so pessimistic. I'd consider this a quantum leap forward, compared to the "broken" system that was previously in place.

It's really just a variation on the broken system. As long as the same convolutions and exceptions exist they really haven't done much more than tread water. They got some money back from the players, which is pretty inconsequential in terms of the health of the league. What they needed was to wipe the slate clean like other leagues have done and build a system free of all the loopholes. But as much as they said they wanted to get rid of them, I think for a lot of owners, it's the only way they know how to do business in this league. They've become too dependent on the bizarre practices of the old CBA.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:42 PM
I will say that I'm shocked ink said "rigged". I get being upset being a "small" market fan (Toronto isn't a small market, but in NBA terms it kinda is), but nothing is rigged. Is competitive balance perfect? No, far from it, and little was done to fix that...but it isn't a rigged league. I do think it's safe to assume that big markets, like LA, Boston, Chicago, Miami, NY etc will continue to win the vast majority of championships, which stinks...but it isn't a rigged league. It is certainly not a fair league, but it isn't rigged.

What I'm getting at is that a league that permits teams to outspend their opposition to win is essentially allowing rigging. It's that simple. In fairness, the test of a GM is to see what he can do with exactly the same budget.

Sure, the big spenders may not win every time, but they are definitely fixing it so they have a huge stranglehold on the possibilities of winning it all.

BuddhaMONK
11-26-2011, 12:42 PM
I will say that I'm shocked ink said "rigged". I get being upset being a "small" market fan (Toronto isn't a small market, but in NBA terms it kinda is), but nothing is rigged. Is competitive balance perfect? No, far from it, and little was done to fix that...but it isn't a rigged league. I do think it's safe to assume that big markets, like LA, Boston, Chicago, Miami, NY etc will continue to win the vast majority of championships, which stinks...but it isn't a rigged league. It is certainly not a fair league, but it isn't rigged.

actually toronto is more profitable than 20 other teams in the NBA so I would consider them to be a big market...imagine how much they's make if they were good (all the other teams more profitable than them had about 20 more wins than them).

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 12:42 PM
^bizarre? they simply got terrified that the federal judge would decide they are a monopoly and start messing with thing like draft, rfa etc etc.

but players had "no leverage" :rolleyes: and were gonna get raped in the trial and be stuck with a worse offer adn b lah blah blahl.


its a pity players conceded some , tough.
but whatever, players can still play WHERE THEY WONT after the initial slavery period to the team that drafted + rfa extension, wich is only fair.

da ThRONe
11-26-2011, 12:43 PM
Shouldn't players be held responsible for not doing their jobs? Where is there responsibility when they get guarenteed contracts? What happens to you at your job if you halfass it for a year or two, do you keep getting paid for the next two or three years or do you get canned? If players should have the freedom to go where they want, owners should have the freedom to fire them for not doing their job.

What about guys who out perform their contracts? As management you control the players future the duration of that contract what more do you want.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 12:44 PM
actually toronto is more profitable than 20 other teams in the NBA so I would consider them to be a big market...imagine how much they's make if they were good.

NBA players don't consider it a desirable place to play...period.

Ink, I agree with your use of "rigged" in that sense. I was just hoping you weren't one of those wacky ref-fix-every-game-ever people...

The players still have too much power...we won't see any small market team win a title in a while, unless OKC miraculously does it before everyone bails on that team....

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 12:45 PM
NBA players don't consider it a desirable place to play...period.

toronto would be much better with the rational system.

FREE MARKET.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:45 PM
Shouldn't players be held responsible for not doing their jobs? Where is there responsibility when they get guarenteed contracts? What happens to you at your job if you halfass it for a year or two, do you keep getting paid for the next two or three years or do you get canned? If players should have the freedom to go where they want, owners should have the freedom to fire them for not doing their job.

I agree. I would love to see guaranteed contracts abolished. Who gets a guaranteed contract in life? Absolutely no one. I think the NFL has this one exactly right. If a player (say Rashard Lewis) sucks, cut him. Let him try to re-sign with another team for whatever he can get. You can't demand payment for something you're not delivering.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 12:46 PM
You don't think teams that aren't as desirable for free agents don't have to take bigger risks? You're ignoring that fact...and that isn't something worth overlooking. The big markets, and the trendy FA destinations, often get players for less money than the other markets. They don't have to take risks on questionable players like the smaller/undesirable markets do.Before anything, I just want to say that all I hear are excuses man. You've had Shaq, Penny, and now Dwight Howard. You need to do something when the league giftwraps those players for you. You signed Rashard Lewis to the worst contract in the NBA. You then traded for the next worst contract in the NBA in Gilbert Arenas. Ever heard of accepting responsibility? Obviously not.

if teams that have desirable locations for free agents have it so easy, why have the LA Clippers and Knicks been the butt of jokes for a long time already? Why did LBJ and Bosh choose Miami, a small-mid market city, over Chicago, NY, NJ, and LAC? You're obviously missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding what it takes to win. And that whole market argument has grown stale and you guys use it to avoid placing the blame where it belongs.

Correction: the teams that give players an opportunity to WIN get players at a discount. For example, Amare and Carmelo didn't take no discount to play in New York. Wade LBJ and Bosh took pay cuts to skip CHI, LAC, NY, and NJN to play for Miami.

Don't put the blame on others for David Stern's decision to put NBA teams in markets that even the MLB or NFL wouldn't touch. And Quit blaming others for your Owner and GM's mistakes.

GREATNESS ONE
11-26-2011, 12:48 PM
All I read was Howard can leverage his way out of Orlando.

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 12:49 PM
All I read was Howard leverage his way out of Orlando.

yeah now we need to kidnapp stupid freddo buss so mithc can trade bynum for him.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:50 PM
What about guys who out perform their contracts? As management you control the players future the duration of that contract what more do you want.

Thats why I would have liked to have seen a system with a hard cap based on the regular season and then each round of the playoffs and the ability for owners to do profit sharing with their players. Players get paid more closely to what they are worth in terms of helping their team win and create new revenue. I also don't think contracts should be guarenteed either way (for the player or the league) other then the rookie deal. But thats not what we got.

BuddhaMONK
11-26-2011, 12:50 PM
NBA players don't consider it a desirable place to play...period.

Ink, I agree with your use of "rigged" in that sense. I was just hoping you weren't one of those wacky ref-fix-every-game-ever people...

The players still have too much power...we won't see any small market team win a title in a while, unless OKC miraculously does it before everyone bails on that team....

they go there for MLB and NHL....I think it's because of the poor management...Toronto owners are purely in it for the money. Even when Bosh left he said that, in his entire stay in Toronto they didn't have one experienced coach...which was true

ink
11-26-2011, 12:51 PM
NBA players don't consider it a desirable place to play...period.

Ink, I agree with your use of "rigged" in that sense. I was just hoping you weren't one of those wacky ref-fix-every-game-ever people...

The players still have too much power...we won't see any small market team win a title in a while, unless OKC miraculously does it before everyone bails on that team....

I agree on all points. I think it's the only professional league where "desirable place" is even a factor. I mean baseball, football, and hockey players all play in all kinds of markets like Minnesota, Toronto, Cleveland, wherever. Do you EVER hear anyone saying those are undesirable markets?? I don't.

And yes, I am no conspiracy theorist. Even with Donaghy killing the Suns a few years ago I don't believe rigging is the norm at all. I mean it in the sense that the league's own practices allow for big spenders to use an unfair advantage to win. It's the same reason I think MLB is kinda ********, even though I enjoy MLB.

da ThRONe
11-26-2011, 12:51 PM
I agree. I would love to see guaranteed contracts abolished. Who gets a guaranteed contract in life? Absolutely no one. I think the NFL has this one exactly right. If a player (say Rashard Lewis) sucks, cut him. Let him try to re-sign with another team for whatever he can get. You can't demand payment for something you're not delivering.

People are giving guaranteed contracts, but then that company owns their likeness or their ideas etc. Really it's the reason people sign contracts. Sure the average person don't sign contracts at the same time you company can't force you to stay on your job or relocate.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 12:52 PM
If you haven't noticed, I'm not an NBA owner, so your weak personal shot doesn't stick. Don't resort to baiting OK? And btw, any GM that makes bad decisions is accountable, just as the players are accountable for not delivering what their contracts require of them. It goes both ways.It wasn't a shot, it was actually to gauge where you are in life with the philosophy that everyone is a victim of their circumstances and they shouldn't have to shoulder any of the responsibility/blame as to why their lives turn out the way they do.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:53 PM
they go there for MLB and NHL....I think it's because of the poor management...Toronto owners are purely in it for the money.

Partly, but I think it's mainly cultural. A lot of these players have little exposure to anything different, let alone "foreign".

MTar786
11-26-2011, 12:53 PM
do we still get the amnesty? i wanna cut luke walton :)

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:54 PM
toronto would be much better with the rational system.

FREE MARKET.

If the supposed free market system you are talking about is the one used in Europe I can do without that. That system is just as screwed and isn't as free as you make it out to be.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:55 PM
It wasn't a shot, it was actually to gauge where you are in life with the philosophy that you were the victim of the circumstances and have never felt you were responsible for an ounce of the way your life has turned out.

Don't repeat the bait. Seriously. I'm being really lenient here. And again, you seem to be confusing posters on this board with NBA GMs. No one is talking about victimhood in any way here, we're talking about the business of a league we WATCH, not a league we're in any way a part of. At least keep that straight ok?

btw if you think I don't believe in responsibility you haven't understood a single thing I've posted. ;)

rwynyc
11-26-2011, 12:55 PM
Is there still a rule in place for players that are over paid and cannot perform due to injury?

Being a NYK fan I worry bout the future when Amares knees go to ****.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:56 PM
do we still get the amnesty? i wanna cut luke walton :)

Yeah, amnesty clause is still around.

da ThRONe
11-26-2011, 12:57 PM
C'mon, let's not be so pessimistic. I'd consider this a quantum leap forward, compared to the "broken" system that was previously in place.

I strongly disagree. I think this is way worst. This system just ensure small and mid rev teams won't go into the luxury tax. The better teams will still end up spending whatever to maintain their advantage.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 12:58 PM
Is there still a rule in place for players that are over paid and cannot perform due to injury?

Being a NYK fan I worry bout the future when Amares knees go to ****.

I imagine that rule is still set up the same way as before. I don't think this was really a discussion point.

BigCityofDreams
11-26-2011, 12:58 PM
yeah now we need to kidnapp stupid freddo buss so mithc can trade bynum for him.

:clap::clap::clap:

BuddhaMONK
11-26-2011, 12:59 PM
Partly, but I think it's mainly cultural. A lot of these players have little exposure to anything different, let alone "foreign".

I here people argue that players want to be in warm climates and all this too, but if you look at teams look at teams like kings, clippers, hornets, charlotte (not real warm, but warm enough), etc....they have warm climates, but no one wants to play for them...I think management and ownerships who want to win are the key. Look at the blue jays in 1992 everyone wanted to play for them.

ink
11-26-2011, 12:59 PM
People are giving guaranteed contracts, but then that company owns their likeness or their ideas etc. Really it's the reason people sign contracts. Sure the average person don't sign contracts at the same time you company can't force you to stay on your job or relocate.

Who is giving guaranteed contracts? I work on a contract basis and every contract I sign has at least half a dozen outs for termination for the employer. It's standard. You have to live up to the terms of the contract or you're gone. I mean employers don't generally ditch people for nothing, but they also don't have to pay out the full contract if you're terminated. That's how it should be.

Dade County
11-26-2011, 01:00 PM
All I read was Howard can leverage his way out of Orlando.

lol

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 01:02 PM
If the supposed free market system you are talking about is the one used in Europe I can do without that. That system is just as screwed and isn't as free as you make it out to be.

it isnt?


when you are a FA you can sign wherever you want for as much as you want with no limitations of Force a trade to wherever you want whenever you went when you are under contract.
You also dont need to wait your contract out to ask for a raise, if you are doing better than your salary says, lots of teams will offer so your team will rise your contract.

Team cant trade you /sell you WITHOUTH your consent.


It doenst come more free market than that. .

ink
11-26-2011, 01:03 PM
I here people argue that players want to be in warm climates and all this too, but if you look at teams look at teams like kings, clippers, hornets, charlotte (not real warm, but warm enough), etc....they have warm climates, but no one wants to play for them...I think management and ownerships who want to win are the key. Look at the blue jays in 1992 everyone wanted to play for them.

I see what you mean and you have a point. A lot of places would be better destinations if the team is winning. We know that for sure. But I think there is also a cultural bias against teams that aren't traditional markets or markets with some cultural familiarity. I mean you even saw it with Jianlian Li when he balked at playing in Milwaukee. Exceptional situation, sure, but he didn't want to play somewhere where there wasn't a large Chinese population. Same thing goes for African American players not wanting to play in a city with an unfamiliar demographic. Toronto's demographic mix isn't at all like NYC's or LA's right?

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 01:04 PM
Don't repeat the bait. Seriously. I'm being really lenient here. And again, you seem to be confusing posters on this board with NBA GMs. No one is talking about victimhood in any way here, we're talking about the business of a league we WATCH, not a league we're in any way a part of. At least keep that straight ok?You and many others are saying that there's a competitive balance issue and its "the big market teams'" fault. Sounds like you're victimizing yourselves and not taking responsibility for the well-documented horrible decisions your franchises have made that is clear to everyone in the sports world except yourselves.

Either way, I can see you're dying to hit me up with an infraction, so I won't say anything further to you.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:06 PM
Before anything, I just want to say that all I hear are excuses man. You've had Shaq, Penny, and now Dwight Howard. You need to do something when the league giftwraps those players for you. You signed Rashard Lewis to the worst contract in the NBA. You then traded for the next worst contract in the NBA in Gilbert Arenas. Ever heard of accepting responsibility? Obviously not.

if teams that have desirable locations for free agents have it so easy, why have the LA Clippers and Knicks been the butt of jokes for a long time already? Why did LBJ and Bosh choose Miami, a small-mid market city, over Chicago, NY, NJ, and LAC? You're obviously missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding what it takes to win. And that whole market argument has grown stale and you guys use it to avoid placing the blame where it belongs.

Correction: the teams that give players an opportunity to WIN get players at a discount. For example, Amare and Carmelo didn't take no discount to play in New York. Wade LBJ and Bosh took pay cuts to skip CHI, LAC, NY, and NJN to play for Miami.

Don't put the blame on others for David Stern's decision to put NBA teams in markets that even the MLB or NFL wouldn't touch. And Quit blaming others for your Owner and GM's mistakes.

I'm not making excuses why we've lost...I've tried not to make this about Orlando...but if you want to I will now....Excuses are excuses, but that doesn't make the points behind them invalid :shrug:

Shaq left the SECOND he could to go to LA and be a star that transcended the NBA. LeBron at least gave the ****** city he played in two contracts to prove that they couldn't bring in a good player because no one wanted to go there. Dwight we got because we sucked so much, and then still haven't been able to find a good #2 (like LeBron struggled with). Yes, Lewis was a terrible contract, but he flat out told us that we'd have to spend more than the other teams to get him. He would have gone to any other team that was offering contracts if we didn't overspend. At the time, we had to bring someone in. It failed, but we had to take more risks than teams like LA, Miami, Chicago, etc. ever have to take. He was the ONLY big name player we could get, and we took a risk, and it failed. Bigger market teams don't have to take as many risks.

You point out two big market teams (you know why the Clips have sucked...the Lakers) to point out that all big market teams don't have it easy. Cool! There's a reason why the same teams win over and over...


I don't get your red comment...sure, Melo and Amare didn't take discounts to play in NY, I never said they did. They did go to NYK, instead of Minnesota, Memphis, Detroit etc for obvious reasons. Teams that give players the opportunity to win are always the big markets teams :laugh:

I'm not blaming anyone dude. Why so defensive :laugh: Nothing I said isn't true. If you think that if you made every player a FA and that teams like Minny, Memphis, Detroit, GS, Milwaukee etc. would have an equal chance to succeed as the bigger markets, you're flat out crazy. You're flat out crazy to think that there isn't 100% competitive equality. I wasn't making excuses about my team, I was pointing out obvious flaws and obvious reasons why the same teams win year in and year out.

ink
11-26-2011, 01:06 PM
I strongly disagree. I think this is way worst. This system just ensure small and mid rev teams won't go into the luxury tax. The better teams will still end up spending whatever to maintain their advantage.

I tend to agree. Wasn't the consensus with previous CBAs that the owners had won those too?

This situation so reminds me of the moment when a GM just signs a mediocre player and everything thinks he just pulled off the greatest move. Then in the following years we realize just how stiffed he got.

I think we'll see this deal play out quite poorly for everyone except the luxury teams. They are still able to access players they should be prohibited from signing. They are still able to outspend, and it doesn't matter a bit if they have to pay exorbitantly to do it. They have tons of money and money is no penalty for them.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:07 PM
C'mon, let's not be so pessimistic. I'd consider this a quantum leap forward, compared to the "broken" system that was previously in place.

Explain to me one thing that makes this a quantum leap forward? I see nothing.

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 01:08 PM
was anybody complaining when grant hill signed for magic?

BuddhaMONK
11-26-2011, 01:09 PM
I see what you mean and you have a point. A lot of places would be better destinations if the team is winning. We know that for sure. But I think there is also a cultural bias against teams that aren't traditional markets or markets with some cultural familiarity. I mean you even saw it with Jianlian Li when he balked at playing in Milwaukee. Exceptional situation, sure, but he didn't want to play somewhere where there wasn't a large Chinese population. Same thing goes for African American players not wanting to play in a city with an unfamiliar demographic. Toronto's demographic mix isn't at all like NYC's or LA's right?

i would have thought Toronto would be very desirable for African American players...Toronto is considered to be one of the most cultured cities in the world...I mean how is Toronto demographic that different from New York or LA, it's just on a smaller scale in terms of population...also don't forget that the clippers are in LA and no one wants to play for them, and until recently not many people wanted to play in New York (that's why they have been raptor-like bad for the past 8 seasons).

da ThRONe
11-26-2011, 01:09 PM
Who is giving guaranteed contracts? I work on a contract basis and every contract I sign has at least half a dozen outs for termination for the employer. It's standard. You have to live up to the terms of the contract or you're gone. I mean employers don't generally ditch people for nothing, but they also don't have to pay out the full contract if you're terminated. That's how it should be.

So players are going to sign a contract that says management has the right to terminate them at their discretion? When you sign a contract your giving a list of of things that can get you terminate in pro sports you can't have a set number. How would you go about setting these terms in a pro contract?

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 01:11 PM
it isnt?


when you are a FA you can sign wherever you want for as much as you want with no limitations of Force a trade to wherever you want whenever you went when you are under contract.
You also dont need to wait your contract out to ask for a raise, if you are doing better than your salary says, lots of teams will offer so your team will rise your contract.

Team cant trade you /sell you WITHOUTH your consent.


It doenst come more free market than that. .

Can the team decide you aren't worth your contract and stop the contract? From what I understand they can't, that right there says its not a free system. And if you look at the systems that the leagues over there are starting to implement, they are moving more towards systems with similarities to leagues over here because they realize their system isn't working so well either.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:13 PM
was anybody complaining when grant hill signed for magic?

No. I really wasn't trying to bring Orlando into this, because they aren't as "small" as the teams that really got ****ed here (hence why the Magic ownership were one of the most eager ownerships to get a deal done). They spend a ton of money, the have a great arena, they have great fans, and they've had great players. It's the truly small market teams that FAs never will ever want to go to unless they get so much more money than they're worth that are screwed here.


In terms of guaranteed contracts...I know that in most professions if you and performing up to standards you are supposed to, you can be fired/terminated. I think there should be some protection. One bad contract can cripple a team...and is that fair? Not always.

gwrighter
11-26-2011, 01:13 PM
You and many others are saying that there's a competitive balance issue and its "the big market teams'" fault. Sounds like you're victimizing yourselves and not taking responsibility for the well-documented horrible decisions your franchises have made that is clear to everyone in the sports world except yourselves.

Either way, I can see you're dying to hit me up with an infraction, so I won't say anything further to you.

every Raptor fan knows our MGMT made terrible decisions in the past. We aren't talking about the Raptors. We are talking about the WHOLE LEAGUE. You clearly aren't able to take a step back and see both sides of the fence and the FACT that GM's have been trying to please star Player demands every step of the way which leads to bad decision making.

How is a team supposed to compete against the Celtics when the best FA out there is HEDO? well you ****ing sign Hedo and pray to god that he helps you win because if he doesn't your star player is gone regardless. And your response would be, well you should tank and pray that you get the next LBJ in the draft. That's not a healthy system.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:16 PM
Bucher:


No official word on amnesty clause, but with BRI coming down so drastically, it's almost a foregone conclusion that there will be one.

That should help some of the teams who probably feel like they got a raw deal.

ink
11-26-2011, 01:16 PM
You and many others are saying that there's a competitive balance issue and its "the big market teams'" fault. Sounds like you're victimizing yourselves and not taking responsibility for the well-documented horrible decisions your franchises have made that is clear to everyone in the sports world except yourselves.

I've said again and again that assigning blame and fault is weak thinking. So to jump from your false premise that I'm blaming to saying that struggling teams are victimized is bad logic. When deals are brokered and contracts are signed, there are always two parties pushing for what they want. Owners and GMs don't just do stupid things by themselves. Sometimes the system they're working under enables people like agents or lawyers to extract something from them that they don't want to or shouldn't give.

You must be able to see that with the current CBA talks right?

And yes, sometimes GMs make bad decisions based on wishful thinking. The problem is that in many cases in this dysfunctional league, real talent is not available to all teams. That puts their GMs between a rock and a hard place when trying to improve the team. And that's EXACTLY when they make desperation moves. Every team has to sell hope right? Every GM has to make moves to improve their team and few GMs have the confidence to say to their fan base that we're confident in our team and we're going to stick it out with who we've got. You have to look at the situations from different angles and not oversimplify by blaming and finding fault.


Either way, I can see you're dying to hit me up with an infraction, so I won't say anything further to you.

No, I want you to learn the difference between attacking someone personally and making a strong argument.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:19 PM
You and many others are saying that there's a competitive balance issue and its "the big market teams'" fault. Sounds like you're victimizing yourselves and not taking responsibility for the well-documented horrible decisions your franchises have made that is clear to everyone in the sports world except yourselves.

Either way, I can see you're dying to hit me up with an infraction, so I won't say anything further to you.

I'm not assessing blame at all...I'm pointing out the facts. I don't blame big market teams for being big markets and for being able to see more consistent success overall. Props to them for being successful. I'm not angry at big markets, I'm just upset with the league and players as a whole for not doing a little more to make things more equal. Placing blame is a juvenile thing to do most of the time...

ink
11-26-2011, 01:23 PM
i would have thought Toronto would be very desirable for African American players...Toronto is considered to be one of the most cultured cities in the world...I mean how is Toronto demographic that different from New York or LA, it's just on a smaller scale in terms of population...also don't forget that the clippers are in LA and no one wants to play for them, and until recently not many people wanted to play in New York (that's why they have been raptor-like bad for the past 8 seasons).

Toronto's black population isn't American. It's totally different. It has a mix that I'm sure they couldn't care less about. I don't think the majority of NBA players care about being in a "cultured" city. They want home.


So players are going to sign a contract that says management has the right to terminate them at their discretion? When you sign a contract your giving a list of of things that can get you terminate in pro sports you can't have a set number. How would you go about setting these terms in a pro contract?

I'm just saying that very few contracts in life are guaranteed. I can't think of any. And the NFL handles it simply. You suck, you're cut. That's how it should be. If you don't earn the contract with your play and there is no good reason, like injury, you don't deserve to take up a spot on the roster and receive the paycheque you were promised based on better quality play of the past. It's a sport. You can't be rewarding people that don't deliver. The object of the sport is to compete. How is a team supposed to do that with players unmotivated to earn their contracts?

It's also not black and white when it comes to cutting players. They have to really be sucking for your team before you cut them. Mgmt would have to weigh the pros and cons of keeping that player before cutting them. If they felt in the end that the player isn't worth the money or the roster spot, I think they should be able to let them go find another smaller contract somewhere else. We'll see a version of that with the amnesty clause, but IMO non-guaranteed contracts would be a more significant improvement. Of course, no PA is going to accept that willingly.

VillaMaravilla
11-26-2011, 01:24 PM
all this time gone for nothing becaue from what ive read nothing really has changed nothing significant atleast

Dade County
11-26-2011, 01:29 PM
I've said again and again that assigning blame and fault is weak thinking. So to jump from your false premise that I'm blaming to saying that struggling teams are victimized is bad logic. When deals are brokered and contracts are signed, there are always two parties pushing for what they want. Owners and GMs don't just do stupid things by themselves. Sometimes the system they're working under enables people like agents or lawyers to extract something from them that they don't want to or shouldn't give. And yes, sometimes GMs make bad decisions based on wishful thinking. The problem is that in many cases in this dysfunctional league, real talent is not available to all teams. That puts their GMs between a rock and a hard place when trying to improve the team. And that's EXACTLY when they make desperation moves. Every team has to sell hope right? Every GM has to make moves to improve their team and few GMs have the confidence to say to their fan base that we're confident in our team and we're going to stick it out with who we've got. You have to look at the situations from different angles and not oversimplify by blaming and finding fault.


This doesn't mean you give out bad contracts "Hedo Turkoglu"... etc

You don't do that... This is why you use the media in your local market to guide and educate your fans.

Just don't sign players for false hope.

Actually have a plan, and go through with it. Sign shorter contracts to players that are at best mediocre. If a none star player wants to much money, tell him to sign somewhere else.

Once again... don't let your fans dictate how your organization moves forward with player personal.

gwrighter
11-26-2011, 01:32 PM
This doesn't mean you give out bad contracts "Hedo Turkoglu"... etc

You don't do that... This is why you use the media in your local market to guide and educate your fans.

Just don't sign players for false hope.

Actually have a plan, and go through with it. Sign shorter contracts to players that are at best mediocre. If a none star player wants to much money, tell him to sign somewhere else.

Once again... don't let your fans dictate how your organization moves forward with player personal.

The plan was "Do what it takes to keep Chris Bosh".

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:34 PM
When Hedo was signed, there were a ton of teams offering him a contract that he ended up getting. Let's not act like at the time every one and their grandmas knew he'd suck so much. The fact of the matter is that he played well-enough his FA year to earn that contract, and then flopped. The other fact is that smaller market teams have to spend more to get the same level of talent as bigger market teams. They have to take more risks. Why shouldn't Hedo be held responsible for regressing so much? There should be some sort of out-clause to get teams off the hook for players that underachieve/get hurt. Contracts like Michael Redd, Grant Hill, Eddy Curry, Allen Houston, Jermaine O'Neal etc crippled teams. When those guys were signed, they weren't considered bad contracts. Hell, you could say the same for Gil or Lewis. Lewis' contract was not universally slammed at the time...many felt he was worth it. Hindsight is 20/20, but big markets usually have to take less risks and aren't as strongly impacted by their mistakes.

Let's not act like only small market teams make the mistakes with contracts...and if you do want to pretend that, maybe you should look into WHY that's the case.

ink
11-26-2011, 01:34 PM
This doesn't mean you give out bad contracts "Hedo Turkoglu"... etc

You don't do that... This is why you use the media in your local market to guide and educate your fans.

Just don't sign players for false hope.

Actually have a plan, and go through with it. Sign shorter contracts to players that are at best mediocre. If a none star player wants to much money, tell him to sign somewhere else.

Once again... don't let your fans dictate how your organization moves forward with player personal.

Well, the Raptors had a plan. They wanted a player like Hedo to facilitate better ball movement and team play. They also needed someone who you could give the ball to at the end of the game since Bosh had proven incapable of being a closer. Again, two options that are not great, but that's all there was. Hedo was also coming off a helluva good playoffs that year and he was the "best FA available". That drove up his market price and inflated his value.

That's another thing that fans are guilty of: 20-20 hindsight. A lot of moves judged pathetic after the fact are cheered by fans with all their might when they're made. ;)

ink
11-26-2011, 01:38 PM
all this time gone for nothing becaue from what ive read nothing really has changed nothing significant atleast

This.

smith&wesson
11-26-2011, 01:38 PM
This doesn't mean you give out bad contracts "Hedo Turkoglu"... etc

You don't do that... This is why you use the media in your local market to guide and educate your fans.

Just don't sign players for false hope.

Actually have a plan, and go through with it. Sign shorter contracts to players that are at best mediocre. If a none star player wants to much money, tell him to sign somewhere else.

Once again... don't let your fans dictate how your organization moves forward with player personal.

1. Toronto has to over pay for any free agent signing because most players dont care to live or play here. SOME players would prefer to play for smaller markets so long as its in the states. so imagine how hard it would be to lure free agent talent.

2. bosh wanted hedo on the team. BC was trying to keep his star player happy in hopes to resign or retain him. bad move! it blew up in his face.

3. as dumb as that move seemed, it was almost magic when colangelo was able to get rid of hedo and his contract for barbosa. that was a terrible contract but he did get rid of it after one season.

ink
11-26-2011, 01:43 PM
When Hedo was signed, there were a ton of teams offering him a contract that he ended up getting. Let's not act like at the time every one and their grandmas knew he'd suck so much. The fact of the matter is that he played well-enough his FA year to earn that contract, and then flopped. The other fact is that smaller market teams have to spend more to get the same level of talent as bigger market teams. They have to take more risks. Why shouldn't Hedo be held responsible for regressing so much? There should be some sort of out-clause to get teams off the hook for players that underachieve/get hurt. Contracts like Michael Redd, Grant Hill, Eddy Curry, Allen Houston, Jermaine O'Neal etc crippled teams. When those guys were signed, they weren't considered bad contracts. Hell, you could say the same for Gil or Lewis. Lewis' contract was not universally slammed at the time...many felt he was worth it. Hindsight is 20/20, but big markets usually have to take less risks and aren't as strongly impacted by their mistakes.

Let's not act like only small market teams make the mistakes with contracts...and if you do want to pretend that, maybe you should look into WHY that's the case.

Totally agree. Good post.


1. Toronto has to over pay for any free agent signing because most players dont care to live or play here. SOME players would prefer to play for smaller markets so long as its in the states. so imagine how hard it would be to lure free agent talent.

2. bosh wanted hedo on the team. BC was trying to keep his star player happy in hopes to resign or retain him. bad move! it blew up in his face.

3. as dumb as that move seemed, it was almost magic when colangelo was able to get rid of hedo and his contract for barbosa. that was a terrible contract but he did get rid of it after one season.

Totally agree. It was the move by the Suns that was the real head-scratcher. They had the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and STILL traded for Hedo!!! lol.

GrkGawdofWalkz
11-26-2011, 01:43 PM
Go amnesty clause!

Crackadalic
11-26-2011, 01:43 PM
So what was the point of all this if no big system changes were made? I call BS. We really lost games cause of minor tweaks?

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:44 PM
We're clearly in circles...but I'll just lastly say this.

I'm not salty because I'm a Magic fan...in fact, I think we're one of the absolute winners in this deal. I'm salty because the league as a whole didn't improve as much as I had hoped. It really isn't for selfish reasons, because again, I think we are winners here, I just expected that after such a long lockout that the owners would have gotten more in an attempt to create a more fair league.

One of our saving graces is the amnesty clause that looks like will occur...as it should, considering the changes in BRI split. With it coming down so much, you basically have to have an amnesty clause for teams to survive the off-season.

ink
11-26-2011, 01:45 PM
So what was the point of all this if no big system changes were made? I call BS. We really lost games cause of minor tweaks?

Truth.

GodsSon
11-26-2011, 01:45 PM
Still one of the details to be worked out according to the article ink posted above.

Here's hoping the players fight for it to remain the same.

At the very least, have it come into effect in 2013.

smith&wesson
11-26-2011, 01:47 PM
This.

I know we were expecting bigger changes. but perhaps that bri split played a bigger role then we actually thought in these negotiations.

i think if the owners had more patients they would have eventually gotten what they wanted with the system issues. but the season proved to be more valuable to them in the end. I think the biggest factor ended up being the money for them in which case they got what they wanted.

what i dont get is if soo little changed why did it take one hundred and fourty some odd days to get a deal ? was it the system issues holding up these negotiations all along ? and if thats the case i wonder what made the owners cave. others mentionsed this in the thread and i wonder the same thing.

GrkGawdofWalkz
11-26-2011, 01:51 PM
I know we were expecting bigger changes. but perhaps that bri split played a bigger role then we actually thought in these negotiations.

i think if the owners had more patients they would have eventually gotten what they wanted with the system issues. but the season proved to be more valuable to them in the end. I think the biggest factor ended up being the money for them in which case they got what they wanted.

what i dont get is if soo little changed and it was always just about the money really, why did it take one hundred and fourty some odd days to get a deal ?

Stubborness. :D

ink
11-26-2011, 01:52 PM
I know we were expecting bigger changes. but perhaps that bri split played a bigger role then we actually thought in these negotiations.

i think if the owners had more patients they would have eventually gotten what they wanted with the system issues. but the season proved to be more valuable to them in the end. I think the biggest factor ended up being the money for them in which case they got what they wanted.

what i dont get is if soo little changed and it was always just about the money really, why did it take one hundred and fourty some odd days to get a deal ?

That's the 4 billion dollar question.

And I think both sides blinked when they were faced with the prospects of blowing up the league and going to court.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 01:52 PM
I'm not making excuses why we've lost...I've tried not to make this about Orlando...but if you want to I will now....Excuses are excuses, but that doesn't make the points behind them invalid :shrug:

Shaq left the SECOND he could to go to LA and be a star that transcended the NBA. LeBron at least gave the ****** city he played in two contracts to prove that they couldn't bring in a good player because no one wanted to go there. Dwight we got because we sucked so much, and then still haven't been able to find a good #2 (like LeBron struggled with). Yes, Lewis was a terrible contract, but he flat out told us that we'd have to spend more than the other teams to get him. He would have gone to any other team that was offering contracts if we didn't overspend. At the time, we had to bring someone in. It failed, but we had to take more risks than teams like LA, Miami, Chicago, etc. ever have to take. He was the ONLY big name player we could get, and we took a risk, and it failed. Bigger market teams don't have to take as many risks.

You point out two big market teams (you know why the Clips have sucked...the Lakers) to point out that all big market teams don't have it easy. Cool! There's a reason why the same teams win over and over...


I don't get your red comment...sure, Melo and Amare didn't take discounts to play in NY, I never said they did. They did go to NYK, instead of Minnesota, Memphis, Detroit etc for obvious reasons. Teams that give players the opportunity to win are always the big markets teams :laugh:

I'm not blaming anyone dude. Why so defensive :laugh: Nothing I said isn't true. If you think that if you made every player a FA and that teams like Minny, Memphis, Detroit, GS, Milwaukee etc. would have an equal chance to succeed as the bigger markets, you're flat out crazy. You're flat out crazy to think that there isn't 100% competitive equality. I wasn't making excuses about my team, I was pointing out obvious flaws and obvious reasons why the same teams win year in and year out.

I only brought up Orlando because it's something we're both familiar with, you can relate to it, and Orlando's situation is similar to other teams being discussed.

I won't argue Shaq, there's a lot of speculation as to why he left, but for a guy like Dwight Howard it's rather simple: he wants to win. If Howard was confident he could win with the current Front Office, you'd have no problems keeping him.

Also, the Magic did have a solid number two. Although T-Mac was was tired of losing, there's a good possibility he would've seriously reconsidered staying in Orlando if he had seen how Howard panned out. And T-Mac was a great #2 option at that time and a player that the Magic are still searching for today.

Clippers don't suck because of the Lakers. Clippers suck because of their ownership and FO.

Melo and Amare went to NY because NY had cap space available to make their own Big 3 happen, which gave them the opportunity to compete for a championship.

Before that, both Amare and Boozer wanted to come to Miami over actual big markets like Chicago or New York, because the Heat had enough cap space to make something special happen. The other two markets, Chicago and NY, just so happened to be big markets that have cap space to also put a serious contender together.


Just for reference: Detroit is a bigger market than Miami, has had an NBA franchise for way longer, has a better / longer sports history than Miami, and has a bigger significance in American history than Miami. When their program is winning, they were able to get guys to sign for cheap.


With that said, NONE of those teams you mentioned have ever had cap space and are constantly riddled with bad contracts that they sign or trade for. It's easy to say that no player would go there because they're a losing culture and don't ever make the moves necessary to start putting together a winning culture that will attract players in the future.

Let's put it this way: if the Timberwolves had as many championships as the Lakers, and the Lakers were as bad as the Timberwolves, who do you think the good players would trust with their careers and legacy on the line?

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:53 PM
This is a good read, not sure if it's been posted. If it has, sorry...


The mid-level and Bird Rights
UNCATEGORIZED | COMMENTS

It was perhaps the thorniest “system” issue of all — the one the players were willing to go to war over: Should teams that pay the luxury tax have access to the full mid-level exception, worth $5 million per year over four seasons? The owners had proposed banning any tax team from using the full mid-level and instead allowing them to use a “mini” mid-level worth $3 million per year over three seasons. The players, knowing how many of them get their career-making contract via the mid-level and how many benefit from the leverage that comes when every team can offer it, wanted something better.

Here’s what they got, according to a source familiar with the deal:

• Every team can use the full mid-level exception, provided doing so does not take the team more than $4 million over the tax line.

• Sounds great for the players, right? Here’s the rub: If you use the full mid-level to get to or approach that barrier looming $4 million over the tax line, you cannot cross it by re-signing your own free agents via Larry Bird Rights. You can cross it to sign rookies or guys on veteran minimum contracts.

Let’s use a real world example: The Celtics have about $66 million in salary committed to seven players next season, putting them about $4 million under last year’s tax line of $70.3 million, which we’ll use as a projected tax level for the upcoming season. Using the full mid-level on, say, Jason Richardson, would take the Celtics’ payroll to $71 million–over the tax line. Under the owners’ old proposal, Boston would have thus been prohibited from using the full mid-level.

Under the current proposal — the one to which the two sides have tentatively agreed — Boston could offer the full mid-level to Richardson. But they would leave themselves only about $3 million of room with which to sign their own free agents — Glen Davis and Jeff Green being the headliners — using Larry Bird Rights. In other words: Using the full mid-level would likely mean losing both Green and Davis.

The Celtics could continue spending beyond that $4 million barrier provided they do so via non-Bird deals — veteran minimum contracts, for instance. It is unlikely the Celtics could ink either Davis or Green — young guys seeking a payday — with minimum contracts. They might be able to persuade a ring-chasing veteran for that amount, though.

In effect, the compromise here is that teams just under the tax level must choose between using the full mid-level or re-signing their own free agents to fair-market deals. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It is unclear how many teams this would impact each season. In order to be impact, teams would have to be:

1) near the tax line;

2) interested in using the mid-level;

3) interested in re-signing a key free agent or two.

As an important aside, the same threshold — $4 million over the tax — applies to sign-and-trade transactions, those much-loathed combination deals in which teams re-sign their own free agents to Bird-level deals and then trade them. The owners initially wanted to prohibit such deals, but have decided to allow them, provided they don’t take either team involved more than $4 million over the tax line. (Teams already spending more than that amount would be prohibited from using sign-and-trades that beef up their payroll, it appears).

We’ll be learning more and more about all of this over the next few days.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/

MTar786
11-26-2011, 01:54 PM
i cant wait to amnesty luke #blackberrymessengerdancingface

gwrighter
11-26-2011, 01:56 PM
Thats a pretty good deal IMO to what ManRam just posted.

key phrase:If you use the full mid-level to get to or approach that barrier looming $4 million over the tax line, you cannot cross it by re-signing your own free agents via Larry Bird Rights. You can cross it to sign rookies or guys on veteran minimum contracts.

Thats a step towards thwarting talent hoarding.

LJEATON26
11-26-2011, 01:56 PM
playes won, then.

Fans Won. Screw the players and the Owners, lol

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 01:57 PM
every Raptor fan knows our MGMT made terrible decisions in the past. We aren't talking about the Raptors. We are talking about the WHOLE LEAGUE. You clearly aren't able to take a step back and see both sides of the fence and the FACT that GM's have been trying to please star Player demands every step of the way which leads to bad decision making.

How is a team supposed to compete against the Celtics when the best FA out there is HEDO? well you ****ing sign Hedo and pray to god that he helps you win because if he doesn't your star player is gone regardless. And your response would be, well you should tank and pray that you get the next LBJ in the draft. That's not a healthy system.I try to pick a team that relates to the poster I'm talking to (as evident by ManRam-Magic, and ink-Raptors), but I've gone over the poor decisions of Cavs, Clippers, Knicks, Magic, Warriors, Wizards, Wolves, Bucks, etc. In fact, without even trying, just those names alone are enough to conjure up images of historically bad decision making. Nearly every poor contracts signed in the past decade was the result of those teams' owners and front office.

As for Bosh/Hedo, if you honestly felt he was ready to depart years before becoming an FA, you could've gotten young talent with cap space and perhaps a draft pick (From Heat's perspective, I'm pretty sure we would've offered Beasley, Dorell Wright and filler for Bosh). The Raps took a gamble, saw Bosh's trade value diminish, and lost. Me, personally, I'd be writing my local beat writer calling for my GMs head and demanding that the ownership do something about it.

Dade County
11-26-2011, 01:58 PM
ok... to many people to reply back too "lol"

Hedo was just an example (I guess people didn't see the " ETC")

Toronto should not have signed him (just to hope and pray that Bosh would sign back with them) Not a Pro GM move.

(INK)
And maybe Toronto fans and some other fans might have been happy, but when I heard the story on ESPN... I was like Hedo got PAID lol ... I wasn't like, Toronto made a move to get them to the ECF. This is false hope PEOPLE, GM's should learn from all the past mistakes and start telling these players to take their ( mediocre talents some where else ).

smith&wesson

Very good move to get Hedo out of their.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 01:59 PM
I try to pick a team that relates to the poster I'm talking to (as evident by ManRam-Magic, and ink-Raptors), but I've gone over the poor decisions of Cavs, Clippers, Knicks, Magic, Warriors, Wizards, Wolves, Bucks, etc. In fact, without even trying, just those names alone are enough to conjure up images of historically bad decision making. Nearly every poor contracts signed in the past decade are the result of those teams' owners and front office.

As for Bosh/Hedo, if you honestly felt he was ready to depart years before becoming an FA, you could've gotten young talent with cap space and perhaps a draft pick (From Heat's perspective, I'm pretty sure we would've offered Beasley, Dorell Wright and filler for Bosh). The Raps took a gamble, saw Bosh's trade value diminish, and lost. Me, personally, I'd be writing my local beat writer calling for my GMs head and demanding that the ownership do something about it.

Hindsight is 20/20

Again, let's not act like the big market teams haven't made as many poor decisions...thing is, it just doesn't cripple them nearly as much as it does the rest :shrug:

And, do you agree with me that smaller market teams are forced to take bigger risks?

ink
11-26-2011, 01:59 PM
This is a good read, not sure if it's been posted. If it has, sorry...



http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/

There's some really encouraging news in there. :clap:

Basically if there are restrictions that mean big spenders have to make tough decisions like the rest of the league, it will mean that FAs can't automatically say "I want to go to a superpower, or I want to go to a big market".

They will quickly accept the fact that they CAN'T do that and talent will begin to slowly disperse throughout the league. The change will be incremental but it will start a major attitude shift in the players if league rules prohibit teams from stacking talent.

The players will go to where the opportunities are. And the opportunities will almost always be with building teams. It could be simpler, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

GodsSon
11-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Thats a pretty good deal IMO to what ManRam just posted.

key phrase:If you use the full mid-level to get to or approach that barrier looming $4 million over the tax line, you cannot cross it by re-signing your own free agents via Larry Bird Rights. You can cross it to sign rookies or guys on veteran minimum contracts.

Thats a step towards thwarting talent hoarding.

Agreed. It prevents the top contenders from getting talent way below market value in hopes of ring chasing.

Now they'll have to accept the vet min. if they want to do the same. Not happening.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 02:01 PM
ok... to many people to reply back too "lol"

Hedo was just an example (I guess people didn't see the " ETC")

Toronto should not have signed him (just to hope and pray that Bosh would sign back with them) Not a Pro GM move.

(INK)
And maybe Toronto fans and some other fans might have been happy, but when I heard the story on ESPN... I was like Hedo got PAID lol ... I wasn't like, Toronto made a move to get them to the ECF. This is false hope PEOPLE, GM's should learn from all the past mistakes and start telling these players to take their ( mediocre talents some where else ).

smith&wesson

Very good move to get Hedo out of their.

Bosh wasn't coming back, that was clear. Hedo would have fit that system perfectly if he just didn't all of a sudden suck. Again, at the time, few people felt so certainly that is was a bad contract. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people completely bashing the signing like most do now...

ink
11-26-2011, 02:02 PM
(INK)
And maybe Toronto fans and some other fans might have been happy, but when I heard the story on ESPN... I was like Hedo got PAID lol ... I wasn't like, Toronto made a move to get them to the ECF. This is false hope PEOPLE, GM's should learn from all the past mistakes and start telling these players to take their ( mediocre talents some where else ).

And a lot of us wanted Colangelo to re-sign Shawn Marion.

But guess what got in the way? Yep, Mark Cuban and his wallet. Case in point about the difficulties even large market teams with large budgets like Toronto face.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 02:02 PM
There's some really encouraging news in there. :clap:

Basically if there are restrictions that mean big spenders have to make tough decisions like the rest of the league, it will mean that FAs can't automatically say "I want to go to a superpower, or I want to go to a big market".

They will quickly accept the fact that they CAN'T do that and talent will begin to slowly disperse throughout the league. The change will be incremental but it will start a major attitude shift in the players if league rules prohibit teams from stacking talent.

The players will go to where the opportunities are. And the opportunities will almost always be with building teams. It could be simpler, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

Yeah. I'm a bit less salty after reading that. The players needed to be stripped of some of their power...what Melo did last year, and what others have done in the past, just is not good for the sport at all.

GodsSon
11-26-2011, 02:03 PM
And a lot of us wanted Colangelo to re-sign Shawn Marion.

But guess what got in the way? Yep, Mark Cuban and his wallet. Case in point about the difficulties even large market teams with large budgets like Toronto face.

THIS.

It's crazy how one move can completely alter the direction of your team.

ink
11-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Bosh wasn't coming back, that was clear. Hedo would have fit that system perfectly if he just didn't all of a sudden suck. Again, at the time, few people felt so certainly that is was a bad contract. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people completely bashing the signing like most do now...

Exactly, there were tons of debates in the Raptors forum about Marion vs Hedo and most were really excited about Hedo, just as most were really excited about Jermaine O'Neal before him. Fans always ridicule management without any embarrassment at all over the fact that they were fist-pumping when the actual deal was done.

Ahem, just like fans are fist-pumping because the season is starting on Christmas Day when the deal is pretty sketchy. Some of us HAVE actually learned from past mistakes by the league and know not to get too excited when "deals" get brokered under pressure. ;)

ink
11-26-2011, 02:08 PM
Yeah. I'm a bit less salty after reading that. The players needed to be stripped of some of their power...what Melo did last year, and what others have done in the past, just is not good for the sport at all.

100% in agreement with that.

Dade County
11-26-2011, 02:15 PM
Bosh wasn't coming back, that was clear. Hedo would have fit that system perfectly if he just didn't all of a sudden suck. Again, at the time, few people felt so certainly that is was a bad contract. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people completely bashing the signing like most do now...

Come on Man... what am I supposed to say about that?

He's a world class star one year, then the NEXt just sucks.... they need Performance Drug Testing, year round then.

It's just not that simple, one year your great, then the NEXt (you suck balls)




And a lot of us wanted Colangelo to re-sign Shawn Marion.

But guess what got in the way? Yep, Mark Cuban and his wallet. Case in point about the difficulties even large market teams with large budgets like Toronto face.

Very BIG F'in wallet... smh

ManRam
11-26-2011, 02:20 PM
Come on Man... what am I supposed to say about that?

He's a world class star one year, then the NEXt just sucks.... they need Performance Drug Testing, year round then.

It's just not that simple, one year your great, then the NEXt (you suck balls)





Very BIG F'in wallet... smh

Hedo was good for more than just one year.

Heater4life
11-26-2011, 02:22 PM
The 2M dollar exception for teams that go above the cap after signing FA is very intersting, wouldve been very nice for the Heat last year.

THE MTL
11-26-2011, 02:37 PM
playes won, then. i wouldnt call going from 57% to ~50% winning? I would say that players significantly softened the blow.

Red222
11-26-2011, 02:38 PM
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Minimum team salary increases to 85% in first two years of deal and 90% in years thereafter.
3 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Teams now have three days to match offer sheets given to their own restricted free agents.
4 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Mid-level exception: non-taxpaying teams can use a $5M MLE for up to 4 years. Taxpaying teams have a $3M mid-level for up to 4 years.
9 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
new exception: $2.5M for teams below salary cap to go over the cap. Those teams can't use mid-level or bi-annual exceptions.
11 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
More deal points: Max salaries: only 1 level equal to 30% of cap. Extend and trades: Still allowed. (Good news for Dwight Howard-Chris Paul)
12 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Contract lengths: 5 years (Bird rights), 4 years (non-Bird); Escrow: 10% annual; Rookie scale: No reduction. Minimum salary: no reduction.
14 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Here's a rundown on tentative labor deal points, via memo that's already being circulated to teams, players and agents for ratification.

THE MTL
11-26-2011, 02:40 PM
The new 2.5 million exception is sexy! That means when my knicks go over the cap after signing chris paul we'll have a 2.5 mil exception to bring in more help.

Sly Guy
11-26-2011, 02:43 PM
Ding-Dong competitive balance is dead.

I see it the same way. Aside from the 51-49 split [or thereabouts] I don't see anything in there that actually 'fixes' all the issues the owners were complaining about. **** them, **** this league. All that matter is the cash and not the league's product.

DR_1
11-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Pretty much. It's the same rigged league back for another six seasons at least.

Maybe if the small-market gm's weren't doing stupid stuff like giving Rashard Lewis a max contract they would be doing better. This has nothing to do with balance, it's the owners trying to blame everything else for their own mistakes. Please take your whining elsewhere.

kjoke
11-26-2011, 02:49 PM
So for teams over the cap the MLE is a max at 3 mill a year for 4 years? That sucks, i thought it would be 5

Jamiecballer
11-26-2011, 02:53 PM
The plan was "Do what it takes to keep Chris Bosh".

please don't go there. it's beyond weak. it's also completely unsubstantiated.

as to the topic at hand, that sounds you DON'T hear is me jumping for joy that the NBA is back. way to go losers.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 02:54 PM
So for teams over the cap the MLE is a max at 3 mill a year for 4 years? That sucks, i thought it would be 5

If you are over the cap you can use the full MLE, if you are over the luxury tax it is a max of 3 million according to the posts so far.

Mudvayne91
11-26-2011, 02:54 PM
The problem is you believe teams shouldn't be held responsible for drafting Rafael Arujos, signing Hedo Turkoglus and Jose Calderons to lousy contracts (I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention your other horrible signings), and making stupid decisions like trading an unprotected 1st rounder knowing you're gonna suck for a long time.

Honestly, Ink, I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without ever accepting responsibility for any of your actions and blaming others instead for every time something went wrong.
You just lost all credibility with me. Suppose it doesn't matter, but you're dead wrong.

ink
11-26-2011, 02:55 PM
Come on Man... what am I supposed to say about that?

He's a world class star one year, then the NEXt just sucks.... they need Performance Drug Testing, year round then.

It's just not that simple, one year your great, then the NEXt (you suck balls

The mental aspect of sport is MASSIVE. It's not unknown for good players to let up after they sign a contract. It's also not unknown for players to struggle to find a fit with a team. That's what happened in Toronto.

I don't know what you mean by "it's not that simple". Nothing was simple about it, just like there's rarely anything simple when things fail.

That's why all the posters who like to ridicule bad owners are guilty of very simplistic thinking. Struggling GMs are not just stupid, they're also constantly working against an UN-level playing field. These transactions are so complex they regularly have to have a team of people to draw up the contract. That team often has a capologist just to ensure that the deal passes league standards. There are a thousand elements to every contract, just like there are a thousand reasons why a player under-performs.

kjoke
11-26-2011, 02:55 PM
If you are over the cap you can use the full MLE, if you are over the luxury tax it is a max of 3 million according to the posts so far.

ohhh ok. Thanks

JWO35
11-26-2011, 02:55 PM
So it took them 5 months to get this crap of a CBA done?
Is it me, or does this look like it will fix nothing...

ink
11-26-2011, 02:57 PM
Maybe if the small-market gm's weren't doing stupid stuff like giving Rashard Lewis a max contract they would be doing better. This has nothing to do with balance, it's the owners trying to blame everything else for their own mistakes. Please take your whining elsewhere.

Well deserved facepalm. :facepalm:

ManRam
11-26-2011, 02:58 PM
Maybe if the small-market gm's weren't doing stupid stuff like giving Rashard Lewis a max contract they would be doing better. This has nothing to do with balance, it's the owners trying to blame everything else for their own mistakes. Please take your whining elsewhere.

:eyebrow:

Hooray for being naive! Yes, the ONLY reason why big markets have continual success and small markets don't is because of Rashard Lewis contracts... :laugh:


EDIT: I was gonna whip out the facepalm too...hahaha

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 03:00 PM
This is a good read, not sure if it's been posted. If it has, sorry...



http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/


WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Minimum team salary increases to 85% in first two years of deal and 90% in years thereafter.
3 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Teams now have three days to match offer sheets given to their own restricted free agents.
4 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Mid-level exception: non-taxpaying teams can use a $5M MLE for up to 4 years. Taxpaying teams have a $3M mid-level for up to 4 years.
9 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
new exception: $2.5M for teams below salary cap to go over the cap. Those teams can't use mid-level or bi-annual exceptions.
11 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
More deal points: Max salaries: only 1 level equal to 30% of cap. Extend and trades: Still allowed. (Good news for Dwight Howard-Chris Paul)
12 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Contract lengths: 5 years (Bird rights), 4 years (non-Bird); Escrow: 10% annual; Rookie scale: No reduction. Minimum salary: no reduction.
14 minutes ago
Adrian Wojnarowski
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Here's a rundown on tentative labor deal points, via memo that's already being circulated to teams, players and agents for ratification.

Thanks for posting these, it might get this thread back on track for what it was intended for.

The restrictions past the luxury tax are more restrictive then how reports were making it sound earlier. I think its a step in the right direction.

ink
11-26-2011, 03:02 PM
Thanks for posting these, it might get this thread back on track for what it was intended for.

The restrictions past the luxury tax are more restrictive then how reports were making it sound earlier. I think its a step in the right direction.

Looks that way. We'll start to see with the first round of moves mgmt has to make in the upcoming days if this deal really is approved.

gwrighter
11-26-2011, 03:07 PM
please don't go there. it's beyond weak. it's also completely unsubstantiated.

as to the topic at hand, that sounds you DON'T hear is me jumping for joy that the NBA is back. way to go losers.

are you kidding me? how is that even a debate. BC has been on record saying that they planned to do everything in their power to retain Bosh. Come on now.


Colangelo, whose goal is "to keep [Bosh] here in a Raptors uniform for a long time because he's the right kind of person to have,"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4512832

dated sept 28 2009

topdog
11-26-2011, 03:07 PM
if teams that have desirable locations for free agents have it so easy, why have the LA Clippers and Knicks been the butt of jokes for a long time already? Why did LBJ and Bosh choose Miami, a small-mid market city, over Chicago, NY, NJ, and LAC? You're obviously missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding what it takes to win. And that whole market argument has grown stale and you guys use it to avoid placing the blame where it belongs.

The Knicks have been the butt of jokes because their management has sucked, yet they remain relevant because they can continue to throw money at players and have a large market for additional endorsement deals. Clippers are the Mets of LA - need I say more? LBJ & Bosh chose Miami because it could more-or-less afford to sign them to the money they wanted while already having Wade and being a warm player-friendly market (kind of like a party school - not great in academics but a fun experience).


Correction: the teams that give players an opportunity to WIN get players at a discount. For example, Amare and Carmelo didn't take no discount to play in New York. Wade LBJ and Bosh took pay cuts to skip CHI, LAC, NY, and NJN to play for Miami.

You only give one example of this "discount." And if guys need 2 other superstars to have an "opportunity to win" perhaps they are not worth their contracts in the 1st place.


Don't put the blame on others for David Stern's decision to put NBA teams in markets that even the MLB or NFL wouldn't touch. And Quit blaming others for your Owner and GM's mistakes.

A Miami fan talking about where teams shouldn't be is ironic. Prior to "the decision," Miami was a nothing NBA destination. It didn't have a reliable fan base or a dedication to winning. It just had warm weather. Look at Miami's attendance for the last 20 years and tell me if you would have put a team there.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 03:07 PM
I also noticed how they have changed the max salary. It was previously on a scale that went upward according to age or years in league (not sure which one) from 25% of the cap to 35% of the cap. By the looks of it they have settled at a straight 30% for max contracts.

CeeDub15
11-26-2011, 03:13 PM
The Knicks have been the butt of jokes because their management has sucked, yet they remain relevant because they can continue to throw money at players and have a large market for additional endorsement deals. Clippers are the Mets of LA - need I say more? LBJ & Bosh chose Miami because it could more-or-less afford to sign them to the money they wanted while already having Wade and being a warm player-friendly market (kind of like a party school - not great in academics but a fun experience).



You only give one example of this "discount." And if guys need 2 other superstars to have an "opportunity to win" perhaps they are not worth their contracts in the 1st place.



A Miami fan talking about where teams shouldn't be is ironic. Prior to "the decision," Miami was a nothing NBA destination. It didn't have a reliable fan base or a dedication to winning. It just had warm weather. Look at Miami's attendance for the last 20 years and tell me if you would have put a team there.

BOOM! You just got owned bruh.

HuRRiCaNeS324
11-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Wow..... seems like the players got exactly what they wanted.

In all honestly i kinda wanted some competitive balance back. The sign and trades should have been tinkered with instead of left alone. I've always found that like cheating.

SteBO
11-26-2011, 03:30 PM
The Knicks have been the butt of jokes because their management has sucked, yet they remain relevant because they can continue to throw money at players and have a large market for additional endorsement deals. Clippers are the Mets of LA - need I say more? LBJ & Bosh chose Miami because it could more-or-less afford to sign them to the money they wanted while already having Wade and being a warm player-friendly market (kind of like a party school - not great in academics but a fun experience).
The Knicks remained relevant? How so? Yeah they've been talked about, but that's because they're New York. In terms of basketball, they've been nonexistent for quite some time which is the complete opposite of "relevant". I'll give you the Clippers though.



You only give one example of this "discount." And if guys need 2 other superstars to have an "opportunity to win" perhaps they are not worth their contracts in the 1st place.
I get you're a little irked by the guy you're responding to, but let's slow down. You're talking about two seperate issues here. Granted LBJ and Bosh are getting paid huge chucks of cash, but that doesn't dispute the fact that took less contractually, something Amare and Carmelo did not do. It's one example, but that's all we really have to go off of because it rarely happens, especially the NBA.


A Miami fan talking about where teams shouldn't be is ironic. Prior to "the decision," Miami was a nothing NBA destination. It didn't have a reliable fan base or a dedication to winning. It just had warm weather. Look at Miami's attendance for the last 20 years and tell me if you would have put a team there.
Wrong. Since Wade came in the league, the Heat have been nothing but a playoff team and had been competitive before 2010 FA even became a topic of conversation. I've been through this "reliable" fanbase bs way too many times now so I won't even touch that, but again, I know your feathers are little ruffled by the guy you're interacting with.

DR_1
11-26-2011, 03:56 PM
Well deserved facepalm. :facepalm:

Lol come with a real argument next time

DR_1
11-26-2011, 03:58 PM
:eyebrow:

Hooray for being naive! Yes, the ONLY reason why big markets have continual success and small markets don't is because of Rashard Lewis contracts... :laugh:


EDIT: I was gonna whip out the facepalm too...hahaha

Then explain to me why. It is the MAIN reason.

justinnum1
11-26-2011, 04:06 PM
The Knicks have been the butt of jokes because their management has sucked, yet they remain relevant because they can continue to throw money at players and have a large market for additional endorsement deals. Clippers are the Mets of LA - need I say more? LBJ & Bosh chose Miami because it could more-or-less afford to sign them to the money they wanted while already having Wade and being a warm player-friendly market (kind of like a party school - not great in academics but a fun experience).



You only give one example of this "discount." And if guys need 2 other superstars to have an "opportunity to win" perhaps they are not worth their contracts in the 1st place.



A Miami fan talking about where teams shouldn't be is ironic. Prior to "the decision," Miami was a nothing NBA destination. It didn't have a reliable fan base or a dedication to winning. It just had warm weather. Look at Miami's attendance for the last 20 years and tell me if you would have put a team there.

Thats ********...know what your talking about before making **** up. Ever since RIley came here, this franchise has been all about winning.

ink
11-26-2011, 04:09 PM
Lol come with a real argument next time

Take your own advice. ;) You didn't present an argument, you just repeated simplistic cliches that have already been dealt with countless times. I understand that people don't read through entire threads before posting, or even get informed about major issues, but seriously, those are tired points and they haven't stood up in here. How about thinking through how complex the CBA issue is before posting? How about trying to understand why different moves get made by GMs before reducing them to simple conclusions that don't advance the discussion? Trust me, you're not the only one that does this.

Longhornfan1234
11-26-2011, 04:10 PM
What is the knicks cap situation? Melo and Amare have to take up a ton of cap space.

How can you get CP3?

torontosports10
11-26-2011, 04:10 PM
**** its funny seeing these Heat fans think their front office is so high and mighty. Like **** me, they used a cheated system and signed Lebron and Bosh, two sure thing Free Agents. Two years before that they were the worst team in the NBA.

Simple put, they took advantage of a broken system and used the leverage of playing in Miami, a desired destination, to convince them to play there.

Sorry, but there is no way the Torontos, Minny's, Portlands etc of the world could have done that even if they had the cap room, because the league was and still looks to be B.S.


I as a fan hated the NHL lockout and what it did to my fav team the Leafs, but the NHL joined the NFL as the only leagues with any parity. Baseballs new CBA has just shoved its arm up the lower tiers *** as well.

Stuckey#3
11-26-2011, 04:11 PM
What about the amnesty clause? We have a freeloader in Detroit we have to unload.

DR_1
11-26-2011, 04:15 PM
Take your own advice. ;) You didn't present an argument, you just repeated simplistic cliches that have already been dealt with countless times. I understand that people don't read through entire threads before posting, or even get informed about major issues, but seriously, those are tired points and they haven't stood up in here. How about thinking through how complex the CBA issue is before posting? How about trying to understand why different moves get made by GMs before reducing them to simple conclusions that don't advance the discussion? Trust me, you're not the only one that does this.

:facepalm: Then inform me of your incorrect views

ink
11-26-2011, 04:26 PM
:facepalm: Then inform me of your incorrect views

Thank you for making it clear why there's no point in responding. You don't have anything to contribute beyond what you've already posted.

topdog
11-26-2011, 04:29 PM
The Knicks remained relevant? How so? Yeah they've been talked about, but that's because they're New York. In terms of basketball, they've been nonexistent for quite some time which is the complete opposite of "relevant". I'll give you the Clippers though.

No other subpar team has gotten even as close to as much press coverage or purported free agent interest as the Knicks in the last decade. There was no horrendous signing, no front office blunder, no scandal that changed the fact that players would continue to consider New York because they had money to waste and a market for players to promote their brand. It's not just "talk."



I get you're a little irked by the guy you're responding to, but let's slow down. You're talking about two seperate issues here. Granted LBJ and Bosh are getting paid huge chucks of cash, but that doesn't dispute the fact that took less contractually, something Amare and Carmelo did not do. It's one example, but that's all we really have to go off of because it rarely happens, especially the NBA.

No need to act as if I'm getting emotional. One example is insufficient to make the statements that were made. Players should not need fellow "superstars" to feel they can be competitive.



Wrong. Since Wade came in the league, the Heat have been nothing but a playoff team and had been competitive before 2010 FA even became a topic of conversation. I've been through this "reliable" fanbase bs way too many times now so I won't even touch that, but again, I know your feathers are little ruffled by the guy you're interacting with.

I have no feathers to be ruffled - I'm not a chicken :p Only kidding, but seriously stop trying to play the emotional card and actually debate straight up with me. I will admit that I undersold the Wade era, however, I am referencing the expansion era of the last 20 years which I have heard countless HEAT fans talk about how those teams should be contracted, when the HEAT was irrelevant prior to Wade and have not had as good of attendance figures ever as teams in these locations the "even the NFL and MLB won't touch."

Heediot
11-26-2011, 04:29 PM
The problem is you believe teams shouldn't be held responsible for drafting Rafael Arujos, signing Hedo Turkoglus and Jose Calderons to lousy contracts (I'm sure I'm forgetting to mention your other horrible signings), and making stupid decisions like trading an unprotected 1st rounder knowing you're gonna suck for a long time.

Honestly, Ink, I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without ever accepting responsibility for any of your actions and blaming others instead for every time something went wrong.

In one post you say all teams should spend and be competitive. In another post you bash teams for signing free agents. This is the reason why teams are forced to overpay for people like you who don't understand the paradox and intricacies of the nba. If you want everyone to be competitive and spend, there will ALWAYS be some GM looking stupid. There's too much money and not enough talent worthy of the money. Aside from rookie contracts and some superstars, the vast majority of big and long contracts are bad contracts.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 04:35 PM
Has anybody seen anything about what was agreed upon for the maximum % for annual raises?

SteBO
11-26-2011, 04:37 PM
No other subpar team has gotten even as close to as much press coverage or purported free agent interest as the Knicks in the last decade. There was no horrendous signing, no front office blunder, no scandal that changed the fact that players would continue to consider New York because they had money to waste and a market for players to promote their brand. It's not just "talk."




No need to act as if I'm getting emotional. One example is insufficient to make the statements that were made. Players should not need fellow "superstars" to feel they can be competitive.




I have no feathers to be ruffled - I'm not a chicken :p Only kidding, but seriously stop trying to play the emotional card and actually debate straight up with me. I will admit that I undersold the Wade era, however, I am referencing the expansion era of the last 20 years which I have heard countless HEAT fans talk about how those teams should be contracted, when the HEAT was irrelevant prior to Wade and have not had as good of attendance figures ever as teams in these locations the "even the NFL and MLB won't touch."
Lol I didn't mean it like that. He's been angering alot of people on here lately, so I wouldn't blame you if did get a little annoyed. Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to hold it against you. Good chicken joke by the way....I chuckled at that.

Miami is an ideal city to play in, if the team is winning of course. Players wouldn't touch us in the NFL and in MLB because those teams aren't known for winning, and haven't been for many years on end. The NBA is a different story for Miami however.

Heediot
11-26-2011, 04:39 PM
The number one reason people don't want to play in Toronto is probably the high tax, next the education system (it's not American). The weather excuse is BS because NY, Chi and Bos have the same weather.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 04:55 PM
The number one reason people don't want to play in Toronto is probably the high tax, next the education system (it's not American). The weather excuse is BS because NY, Chi and Bos have the same weather.

There is actually a clause in the CBA that allows Canadian teams to pay signing bonus' on their contracts which is taxed at a lower rate which pretty much eliminates the higher taxes as compared to US cities.

ChongInc.
11-26-2011, 05:21 PM
So nothings really changed?

beliges
11-26-2011, 05:35 PM
Well well well...the BRI goes down to pretty much 50/50. Who wouldve guessed the players would give in? Wow, I cant believe we nearly missed the entire season just so the players can act like theyre hard. So dumb, Im glad the owners got their way since they deserve it and Im glad the players stopped acting like a bunch of *****es and are not gonna get back to work.

BigCityofDreams
11-26-2011, 05:39 PM
Players act like they're hard? This was a lockout not a strike. The players made numerous concessions.

C_Mund
11-26-2011, 05:51 PM
Pretty much. It's the same rigged league back for another six seasons at least.

Yep. It goes to show that in the end the owners only really wanted to make their money back. The whole "small-market-competetiveness" was just a front.
In a perfect world we'd see how this CBA shakes down and both players and owners would make more concessions for the betterment of the league. Instead I have a feeling that it's going to be the players saying "We went down on you last time. Now it's my turn."

C_Mund
11-26-2011, 05:53 PM
There is actually a clause in the CBA that allows Canadian teams to pay signing bonus' on their contracts which is taxed at a lower rate which pretty much eliminates the higher taxes as compared to US cities.

Yeah. I think the real problem is the weather combined with the fact that you have to go through customs every time you play away. If your buddy wants to come over, again, customs. It's just a hassle for people that want a casual lifestyle.

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 06:02 PM
Well well well...the BRI goes down to pretty much 50/50. Who wouldve guessed the players would give in? Wow, I cant believe we nearly missed the entire season just so the players can act like theyre hard. So dumb, Im glad the owners got their way since they deserve it and Im glad the players stopped acting like a bunch of *****es and are not gonna get back to work.

sorry, owners got their way?

they wanted to make players even more enslaved to the team that drafts them.

they failed.

gwrighter
11-26-2011, 06:04 PM
sorry, owners got their way?

they wanted to make players even more enslaved to the team that drafts them.

they failed.

lol, you don't even try to hide your agenda.

ewmania
11-26-2011, 06:06 PM
funny how everyone kept saying the players will never win because they don't have leverage

- sign and trade extension still there
- mid level for tax teams still there
- no hard cap
- 51 rev, not 50/50

ummm seems like the players took this one home

beliges
11-26-2011, 06:15 PM
sorry, owners got their way?

they wanted to make players even more enslaved to the team that drafts them.

they failed.

Its so funny how misinformed you are when it comes to this deal. Exactly how were the owners trying to enslave the players? The owners were trying to achieve any kind of deal that would restrict players from being free agents and testing their services on the open market. Furthermore, yea its enslavement when the owners, who put up ALL of the financial capital to fund the franchises, want to split the revenue evenly, down the middle. Oh yea, slavery bro. For sure. Maybe you dont get the news as much in your country as we do in the States, but you could not be more factually incorrect when it comes to this. The owners won in the sense that now they get to split the revenue equally instead of handing over a substantial portion of their profits to their players.

ManRam
11-26-2011, 06:17 PM
Yeah, I don't get people saying the owners one. They obviously relented on a ton of issues they wanted...so I think a lot of the vitriol directed towards them needs to be re-examined. They made the concessions to get the season going...not the players.


You guys need to ignore crooner whenever he uses the word "slave". He clearly doesn't get it...

Hellcrooner
11-26-2011, 06:20 PM
Its so funny how misinformed you are when it comes to this deal. Exactly how were the owners trying to enslave the players? The owners were trying to achieve any kind of deal that would restrict players from being free agents and testing their services on the open market. Furthermore, yea its enslavement when the owners, who put up ALL of the financial capital to fund the franchises, want to split the revenue evenly, down the middle. Oh yea, slavery bro. For sure. Maybe you dont get the news as much in your country as we do in the States, but you could not be more factually incorrect when it comes to this. The owners won in the sense that now they get to split the revenue equally instead of handing over a substantial portion of their profits to their players.

blah blah blah.

im just cleaning my *** right now with the "competitive balance" and the " parity" owners were "seeking" ( how funny once they got more money from players they forgot bout all that).

ink
11-26-2011, 06:29 PM
I don't even think it's an agenda. It's more incomprehension of history. Slavery my ***! lol. I wonder if RFAs are "slaves". Their free agency is restricted yet I don't hear anyone complaining. Any new rule limiting free agency would be the same idea and would ultimately end up being accepted as a norm. We need to drop the hyperbole.

PlezPlayDKnicks
11-26-2011, 06:33 PM
blah blah blah.

im just cleaning my *** right now with the "competitive balance" and the " parity" owners were "seeking" ( how funny once they got more money from players they forgot bout all that).

Bingo... like I've always said it was always about the money. THAT guy talks about the 50/50 split like the players had a choice. They gave it up to have the system which they basically kept and are still making great money. THE COMPETITIVE BALANCE & Parity garbage the owners were selling fans turned out how????? What happened to the owners waiting this out and giving the players a worse deal with a hard cap. THE UNION was terribly unprepared and still came out on top which is why small market fans on here are pissed. The owners recouped the money they lost and players still have the power over the franchises.

Kevj77
11-26-2011, 06:36 PM
Yeah, I don't get people saying the owners one. They obviously relented on a ton of issues they wanted...so I think a lot of the vitriol directed towards them needs to be re-examined. They made the concessions to get the season going...not the players.


You guys need to ignore crooner whenever he uses the word "slave". He clearly doesn't get it...They both made concessions. How can you say the players didn't make concessions, when they gave up 7% BRI, shorter contracts, a punitive luxury tax, limited restrictions on sign and trades, ect. Players made enough concessions to get this deal done or we wouldn't have a deal.

If both sides are unhappy, but willing to accept then I'd say it's a good deal. That means they both made concessions to get the CBA done.

NYMetros
11-26-2011, 06:37 PM
Ding-Dong competitive balance is dead.

When has there ever been competitive balance in basketball?

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 06:45 PM
Are all of you are done with the owners won/players won, the NBA is a slave plantation crap? Anyone have anymore details on the new CBA or thoughts on how some of the rules will actually affect the league or teams?

I did a rough estimate of what the likely salary cap and luxury tax level will be this year.

Salary cap - 52.67 million
Luxury tax - 65.97 million

This may have a big impact on what teams do in the upcoming free agency and some decent players may come on the market with a possible amnesty clause.

ink
11-26-2011, 06:58 PM
Are all of you are done with the owners won/players won, the NBA is a slave plantation crap? Anyone have anymore details on the new CBA or thoughts on how some of the rules will actually affect the league or teams?

I did a rough estimate of what the likely salary cap and luxury tax level will be this year.

Salary cap - 52.67 million
Luxury tax - 65.97 million

This may have a big impact on what teams do in the upcoming free agency and some decent players may come on the market with a possible amnesty clause.

I will try to help keep this back on topic Bramaca, but remember, there aren't a lot of details out there atm so it is much easier to get distracted by the more general talk.

Anyway, here's a heads up to everyone that this thread is about the details of the new CBA only OK?

justinnum1
11-26-2011, 07:03 PM
Are all of you are done with the owners won/players won, the NBA is a slave plantation crap? Anyone have anymore details on the new CBA or thoughts on how some of the rules will actually affect the league or teams?

I did a rough estimate of what the likely salary cap and luxury tax level will be this year.

Salary cap - 52.67 million
Luxury tax - 65.97 million

This may have a big impact on what teams do in the upcoming free agency and some decent players may come on the market with a possible amnesty clause.

wtf...lux tax will be about 70.3 million

ink
11-26-2011, 07:07 PM
Are all of you are done with the owners won/players won, the NBA is a slave plantation crap? Anyone have anymore details on the new CBA or thoughts on how some of the rules will actually affect the league or teams?

I did a rough estimate of what the likely salary cap and luxury tax level will be this year.

Salary cap - 52.67 million
Luxury tax - 65.97 million

This may have a big impact on what teams do in the upcoming free agency and some decent players may come on the market with a possible amnesty clause.

Not doubting you but could you post your sources so we can gather more information in the thread?

Please post links as you find them people.

NYman15
11-26-2011, 07:28 PM
I don't have links but I have read the cap for the next 2 years is expected to be at 58 million.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 07:39 PM
Not doubting you but could you post your sources so we can gather more information in the thread?

Please post links as you find them people.

Not a source as I said just a rough estimate, just some simple calculations based on the information available.

Basically what they do to calculate the salary cap and luxury tax is take last years BRI and estimate any growth/losses for the next year compared to this year. I estimated growth at 4.5% which is pretty similar to what they have been experiencing (ofcourse it could be less if they estimate a certain backlash from the lockout).

That gives you your estimated BRI for next year. They take that number and divide it by a certain % for each the salary cap and luxury tax. When they had the players share at 57% they used 51% for the salary cap and 61% for the luxury tax. So by that reasoning, if the player share of BRI this year is 50% then they will likely use 44% for the salary cap and 54% for the luxury tax (I messed up here and used 43% and 53% but will change that at the end of my explanation).

After you get that number you subtract the costs of player benefits (it was 112 million in 05 so I estimated around 135 for this year) from it and divide by 30 in both cases to determine the salary and luxury thresholds. In this case, correcting myself and going up 1% in both cases, those numbers come out to;

Salary Cap - 54.00 million
Luxury Tax - 67.3 million

As I said its a rough estimate but I doubt it is far off of what it will be and could be lower depending on if they calculate less growth or higher if they somehow want to ease the transition. It just gives a basic idea of where it will be.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 07:43 PM
wtf...lux tax will be about 70.3 million

Thats what it was last year, they reduced the players share by 7% of BRI so the only way that it is equal is if they somehow want to ease into the new agreement and actually pay more then the agreed upon 50% of BRI which is possible but it would end up in the owners losing more money this year because of it.

justinnum1
11-26-2011, 07:46 PM
Thats what it was last year, they reduced the players share by 7% of BRI so the only way that it is equal is if they somehow want to ease into the new agreement and actually pay more then the agreed upon 50% of BRI which is possible but it would end up in the owners losing more money this year because of it.

But they couldn't afford to do both and stay under the luxury tax line, which is expected to be right about where it was last season at $70.3 million.
http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7283642/nba-owners-concessions-benefit-miami-heat-mike-miller

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 07:55 PM
http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7283642/nba-owners-concessions-benefit-miami-heat-mike-miller

As I said, if they somehow want to ease into it then they might keep it the same. But if they calculate it the same way they have then it will be lower.

Wade>You
11-26-2011, 08:25 PM
Can somebody delete these posts? This thread is about CBA details, per ink.

ink
11-26-2011, 08:30 PM
Can somebody delete these posts? This thread is about CBA details, per ink.

Done, as requested.

beasted86
11-26-2011, 08:37 PM
There are a ton of off-topic posts throughout this thread.

I'm not trying to backseat mod, so I'm not going to point them all out, but this thread didn't get to 12 pages with posts about CBA details or questions about CBA details.

Like I said, I'm not a mod, but maybe it would have been better to move off topic posts to the "Official Lockout Thread"?

ink
11-26-2011, 08:41 PM
There are a ton of off-topic posts throughout this thread.

I'm not trying to backseat mod, so I'm not going to point them all out, but this thread didn't get to 12 pages with posts about CBA details or questions about CBA details.

Like I said, I'm not a mod, but maybe it would have been better to move off topic posts to the "Official Lockout Thread"?

We could but the OP has requested a few times that we get this thread back on topic. I responded by saying I would try to do that. That was after quite a few pages. Rather than debating that now, let's just get back on topic. There are lots of other threads where people can debate slavery, who won/lost, etc.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to have one thread where we post details of the new deal as requested.

Kevj77
11-26-2011, 08:51 PM
Teams can exceed the luxury tax by 4 million to use the MLE.


. For example, if the luxury tax is set at $70 million and a team's payroll is at $68 million, they would be allowed to use the full $5 million.

However, if a team is at $69.5 million in allotted payroll, they can go as far as $74 million and thereby use only $4.5 million of the exception.

Tax-paying teams, meanwhile, will be allowed to use a "mini" mid-level exception of $3 million every year, sources said. Those deals can be a maximum of three years.
This should help competitive balance for those asking for it. Any team over the tax will only be able to offer a 3 year $9 million dollar deal instead of a 4 year $20 million deal that non-tax teams can offer.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7283065/sources-nba-owners-relented-several-key-issues

Sign and trades will only be allowed in the first two years of the deal for luxury tax teams.

Punk
11-26-2011, 08:51 PM
Is there any news on the RFA details? They wanted to cut it from 7 days to 3 days. Which is nuts.

knicks_champ
11-26-2011, 08:53 PM
Bump

ink
11-26-2011, 08:54 PM
Teams can exceed the luxury tax by 4 million to use the MLE.


This should help competitive balance for those asking for it. Any team over the tax will only be able to offer a 3 year $9 million dollar deal instead of a 4 year $20 million deal that non-tax teams can offer.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7283065/sources-nba-owners-relented-several-key-issues

Sign and trades will only be allowed in the first two years of the deal for luxury tax teams.

So luxury teams can continue to use the exceptions without the salary being added to their budget right? If so we're back to luxury teams running up huge budgets without having to count contracts handed out with the aid of various exceptions.

justinnum1
11-26-2011, 09:02 PM
Is there any news on the RFA details? They wanted to cut it from 7 days to 3 days. Which is nuts.

Why? its ****ed up getting that cap space held up for a week..teams were holding up others with this.

Kevj77
11-26-2011, 09:03 PM
I believe so if I understand what you are asking. It will count against their luxury tax payments of course, but they will be able to keep increasing payroll if they choose.

After you go over the tax you can use the mini exception once per year. What I thought could help balance was that players will have to decide if they want to play for one of these tax paying teams or get an extra $11 million from a different team.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 09:04 PM
So luxury teams can continue to use the exceptions without the salary being added to their budget right? If so we're back to luxury teams running up huge budgets without having to count contracts handed out with the aid of various exceptions.

From what I understand they can use the mini-mle if they are above the salary cap. For example, Miami is pretty close to the luxury tax but are low enough that they can use the full mle. However, if they do that then they lost the bird rights to Chalmers. If they use the bird rights to sign Chalmers and it takes them over the tax then they can only use the mini-mle. Or they can use the amnesty on Miller and sign Chalmers and somebody at a full mle.

Confused? I am slightly after trying to explain it.

ink
11-26-2011, 09:07 PM
I believe so if I understand what you are asking. It will count against their luxury tax payments of course, but they will be able to keep increasing payroll if they choose.

After you go over the tax you can use the mini exception once per year. What I thought could help balance was that players will have to decide if they want to play for one of these tax paying teams or get an extra $11 million from a different team.

OK thanks, it is good to know that it will ultimately be counted against their future luxury tax payments. So a team that is into the luxury tax can continue to push deeper and deeper into the tax and the only disincentive is the smaller MLE, certain limitations on S&T, and their LT payment?

beasted86
11-26-2011, 09:09 PM
From what I understand they can use the mini-mle if they are above the salary cap. For example, Miami is pretty close to the luxury tax but are low enough that they can use the full mle. However, if they do that then they lost the bird rights to Chalmers. If they use the bird rights to sign Chalmers and it takes them over the tax then they can only use the mini-mle. Or they can use the amnesty on Miller and sign Chalmers and somebody at a full mle.

Confused? I am slightly after trying to explain it.

If you are trying to use Miami as example, if the article is indeed true about a $74M luxury tax cutoff to the full MLE, everything depends on the revised qualifying offer rules.

If Miami only has to extend a $1M qualifying offer to Chalmers, they can do that, sign the rookie Norris Cole, and probably spend the full MLE without hitting the tax barrier, then later go into the tax to sign Chalmers or match a sheet.

Remember Ilgauskas retired, and Jones opted out. The Heat are only sitting at about $65M right now.

ink
11-26-2011, 09:12 PM
From what I understand they can use the mini-mle if they are above the salary cap. For example, Miami is pretty close to the luxury tax but are low enough that they can use the full mle. However, if they do that then they lost the bird rights to Chalmers. If they use the bird rights to sign Chalmers and it takes them over the tax then they can only use the mini-mle. Or they can use the amnesty on Miller and sign Chalmers and somebody at a full mle.

Confused? I am slightly after trying to explain it.

Def complicated. But I get the gist of it. What I want to know is how the luxury tax level is affected in subsequent years. i.e. if you push yourself into the tax do the exceptions you've rolled up get added to that LT or do they remain exceptions. The year after using an exception does that cost count as a cap hit? Hope my question makes sense, just trying to work out how they are accounting.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 09:14 PM
Def complicated. But I get the gist of it. What I want to know is how the luxury tax level is affected in subsequent years. i.e. if you push yourself into the tax do the exceptions you've rolled up get added to that LT or do they remain exceptions. The year after using an exception does that cost count as a cap hit? Hope my question makes sense, just trying to work out how they are accounting.

The MLE justs allows a team to sign a player to a certain amount and is not an exception to being charged luxury tax for that salary.

Kevj77
11-26-2011, 09:15 PM
OK thanks, it is good to know that it will ultimately be counted against their future luxury tax payments. So a team that is into the luxury tax can continue to push deeper and deeper into the tax and the only disincentive is the smaller MLE, certain limitations on S&T, and their LT payment?I'm not sure, but I think the mini MLE might be under the same restrictions as the regular MLE. Tax teams can't use it if they resign one of their Bird right players. They will have to make decisions on players instead of just resigning their players and adding free agents.

Edit for tax teams sign and trades will be allowed only in the first two years of the deal. After that they won't be able to sign and trade. Non tax teams will still be able do sign and trade deals, but it can't put them more than 4 million over the tax. So an example might be a team is at 65 million in payroll they could do a sign and trade, but only up to $9 million contract.


In the final eight years of the agreement, teams can still make sign-and-trade deals, as long as the result does not put them more than $4 million into the luxury tax.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7283065/sources-nba-owners-relented-several-key-issues

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 09:39 PM
If you are trying to use Miami as example, if the article is indeed true about a $74M luxury tax cutoff to the full MLE, everything depends on the revised qualifying offer rules.

If Miami only has to extend a $1M qualifying offer to Chalmers, they can do that, sign the rookie Norris Cole, and probably spend the full MLE without hitting the tax barrier, then later go into the tax to sign Chalmers or match a sheet.

Remember Ilgauskas retired, and Jones opted out. The Heat are only sitting at about $65M right now.

The 70 million for the luxury tax level was an example of how it would work. They may put the tax level at that or it may be lower if they calculate the cap and tax level according to the 50% of bri in the new cba.

But even at that number its not the qualifiying offer that is important. Say they sign a player to the full MLE of 5 million, they are then at the 70 million mark and the most they can sign any bird right players to is 4 million total. So if Chalmers salary is below 4 million then they would be fine (the heat won't be restricted by Cole's rookie deal in this situation). If the luxury tax is below 70 million thats where things might get a little trickier for the Heat.

Sportfan
11-26-2011, 10:05 PM
when does trading start?

beasted86
11-26-2011, 10:44 PM
The 70 million for the luxury tax level was an example of how it would work. They may put the tax level at that or it may be lower if they calculate the cap and tax level according to the 50% of bri in the new cba.

But even at that number its not the qualifiying offer that is important. Say they sign a player to the full MLE of 5 million, they are then at the 70 million mark and the most they can sign any bird right players to is 4 million total. So if Chalmers salary is below 4 million then they would be fine (the heat won't be restricted by Cole's rookie deal in this situation). If the luxury tax is below 70 million thats where things might get a little trickier for the Heat.

I don't see how the NBA can regulate after-the-fact MLE signings, or how they would put limitations on Bird Rights without forcing teams to renounce rights to players if they want to use the mid-level. I think this is a genuine loophole, that will be in the CBA, but only time will tell after we get everything down in the details. A cap hold is a cap hold, I don't see what new rule cancels this.

Forget the Heat for a minute... we've seen plenty of times in the past when restricted free agents hold out and sign very late into the fall, actually into the start of the season, or sometimes even go over to Europe leaving the cap hold from the qualifying offer to rest with the team. Are you telling me even though a team has a cap hold in place from a restricted free agent, they are hand tied from using the MLE in the scenario that the future Bird Right signing might one day put them into the luxury tax? Or that they lose all ability to sign a player even though they possess that player's full Bird rights?

That doesn't make much sense. If it made sense, the new CBA wouldn't have cap holds at all.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 10:52 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33507/billy-hunters-memo-to-players


1. BRI Split - Players receive a 49-51 band of BRI, with the expectation that players will receive 51% of BRI by year 6. The split is set on a base case of 50%, with the players receiving 60.5% of every incremental dollar beyond the targeted amount, which is based on the mid-point of the agreed upon projections, or a symmetrical reduction in our share if revenues fall short of the targeted amount. The players' share this first season (2011-12) will be 51.2% of BRI.

2. System

a. Mid-Level Exception for Non-Taxpayers: The Mid-Level Exception's contract length is 4 years, every year.

b. Player Options: Player options are allowed for all players, as per the prior CBA. Owners dropped their demand to eliminate player options for high-paid players.

c. Escrow: 10% max withholding, 1% New Benefits Pool, system adjustments as necessary to avoid forecasted overage. Owners dropped their demand for unlimited escrow, carry over, true up, or banking.

d. Qualifying Offers: Beginning in 2012-13, players defined as "starters" - 41 games started or 2000 minutes, average over prior 2 seasons - will receive substantially higher qualifying offers. A first-round pick will receive the greater of his existing qualifying offer or the qualifying offer amount made to the 9th pick of the draft ($4.67 million for the 2010-11 draft class). A second-round pick or undrafted player will receive the qualifying offer amount made to the 21st pick. A first-round pick drafted 1-14 who is not a "starter" receives the amount offered to the 15th pick.

e. Max Salary: A player finishing his rookie scale contract will be eligible to receive a maximum salary equal to 30% of the Cap (up from 25%) if he signs with his prior team and is either: 1st, 2nd or 3rd team All-NBA 2 times; an All-Star starter 2 times; or 1-time MVP.

f. Minimum Salary: The owners dropped their demand to reduce the minimum salary scale by 12%. The current amounts will not be reduced.

g. Rookie Scale: The owners dropped their demand to cut the rookie wage scale. The current amounts will not be reduced.

h. Extend-and-Trade: The owners dropped their demand to eliminate extend-and-trades. As with sign-and-trades, players moving pursuant to an extend-and-trade may not receive Bird annual increases or one year longer maximum contract length.

i. Annual Increases: Annual increases will be set at 7.5% for Bird players and 4.5% for non-Bird players.

j. Taxpayers' Use of Mid-Level Exception & Sign-and-Trade: The owners agreed to a $4 million "apron" above the tax threshold. Teams may go above the tax threshold by $4 million to use the entire $5 million mid-level exception, or acquire a player via sign-and-trade. Teams above the $4 million apron may use a $3 million/3-year mid-level exception every year.

k. Cliff: No change to prior proposal to reduce the cliff by 50%.

Billy Hunter's letter to players on the details.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 10:56 PM
I don't see how the NBA can regulate after-the-fact MLE signings, or how they would put limitations on Bird Rights without forcing teams to renounce rights to players if they want to use the mid-level. I think this is a genuine loophole, that will be in the CBA, but only time will tell after we get everything down in the details. A cap hold is a cap hold, I don't see what new rule cancels this.

Forget the Heat for a minute... we've seen plenty of times in the past when restricted free agents hold out and sign very late into the fall, actually into the start of the season, or sometimes even go over to Europe leaving the cap hold from the qualifying offer to rest with the team. Are you telling me even though a team has a cap hold in place from a restricted free agent, they are hand tied from using the MLE in the scenario that the future Bird Right signing might one day put them into the luxury tax? Or that they lose all ability to sign a player even though they possess that player's full Bird rights?

That doesn't make much sense. If it made sense, the new CBA wouldn't have cap holds at all.

I believe its a choice of one or the other. You can either use you MLE or sign you player with bird rights. I'll take a look at all the info out there again but I believe thats how it works which is why there is the talk that Miami may have to amnesty Miller to use the MLE.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 10:59 PM
No loop hole there that I see beasted.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:00 PM
If you are near the tax you have a choice to make. If you use the MLE you can only use bird rights up to the lux+4. If you resign your guys first and full MLE would take you over lux+4 then you get the mini MLE.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 11:00 PM
h. Extend-and-Trade: The owners dropped their demand to eliminate extend-and-trades. As with sign-and-trades, players moving pursuant to an extend-and-trade may not receive Bird annual increases or one year longer maximum contract length.

i. Annual Increases: Annual increases will be set at 7.5% for Bird players and 4.5% for non-Bird players.

Thats the first I have heard about that for the extend and trades and the first mention of what the annual raises will be.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:06 PM
Thats the first I have heard about that for the extend and trades and the first mention of what the annual raises will be.

so S/T can be used...but they do not get the benefits of actually resigning with their team. I like that. Seems fair.

beasted86
11-26-2011, 11:09 PM
If you are near the tax you have a choice to make. If you use the MLE you can only use bird rights up to the lux+4. If you resign your guys first and full MLE would take you over lux+4 then you get the mini MLE.

I'd like to see if that truly is in the CBA, because I highly doubt it.

You are saying once a team uses the mid-level or the re-signed bird agents up to the tax+4, they have renounced the rights to all free agents, including draft picks.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 11:15 PM
so S/T can be used...but they do not get the benefits of actually resigning with their team. I like that. Seems fair.

I think somewhere in this thread it is also suggested that you can't raise your salary with a s/t if you are above the luxury tax or apron. Like in trades currently you are allowed to be within a certain % plus or minus, I think now you can't take on plus salary in the s/t over the tax.

Bramaca
11-26-2011, 11:18 PM
I'd like to see if that truly is in the CBA, because I highly doubt it.

You are saying once a team uses the mid-level or the re-signed bird agents up to the tax+4, they have renounced the rights to all free agents, including draft picks.

If they are signing players they have bird rights to I think they can keep going but if they choose to use the full mle then yes they have to renounce bird rights for players not yet signed. However, drafted players are not included in this so you don't have to renounce them.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:21 PM
yes... it will probably take the form of cap holds of some kind like was the case in the previous CBA.

It simply forces teams to sign their guys first, actually removing the loophole.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:22 PM
ya...I think min deals and rookies are not included.

LA_Raiders
11-26-2011, 11:38 PM
owners rule

beasted86
11-26-2011, 11:40 PM
If they are signing players they have bird rights to I think they can keep going but if they choose to use the full mle then yes they have to renounce bird rights for players not yet signed. However, drafted players are not included in this so you don't have to renounce them.


1st round drafted players have a cap hold... you say the new CBA is proposing the elimination of cap holds. In past CBAs all cap holds were the same with no special differentiation. Same thing if a draft pick goes over seas, then comes back later, or restricted agent goes over seas and comes back later. Team still has their rights in either situation, and can sign them up to their individual max... and if not will continue to have their cap hold hitting their spending ability all the same.

Here's how I think things will work: As long as with the addition of a team's cap hold they don't hit tax+4, that said team can spend the full MLE. Whether it's a draft pick cap hold, RFA cap hold, or UFA cap hold. Take into account I said cap hold, and not qualifying offer.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:44 PM
1st round drafted players have a cap hold... you say the new CBA is proposing the elimination of cap holds. In past CBAs all cap holds were the same with no special differentiation. Same thing if a draft pick goes over seas, then comes back later, or restricted agent goes over seas and comes back later. Team still has their rights in either situation, and can sign them up to their individual max... and if not will continue to have their cap hold hitting their spending ability all the same.

Here's how I think things will work: As long as with the addition of a team's cap hold they don't hit tax+4, that said team can spend the full MLE. Whether it's a draft pick cap hold, RFA cap hold, or UFA cap hold. Take into account I said cap hold, and not qualifying offer.

cap holds still exist:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_JqVMjKAfLYNzU3YzVlNDAtMDBlOS00Y2UwLWE5ZTI tM2RkZTdjN2FmMzI4&hl=en_US&pli=1

beasted86
11-26-2011, 11:52 PM
cap holds still exist:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_JqVMjKAfLYNzU3YzVlNDAtMDBlOS00Y2UwLWE5ZTI tM2RkZTdjN2FmMzI4&hl=en_US&pli=1

I know cap holds have existed in previous proposals, and the previous CBA, but by what you guys say about the new CBA, it seems to sound like they aren't included, or there is a new differentiation in regards to a draft pick cap hold and a veteran cap hold.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother speculating further on a deal that hasn't happened or been finalized yet. We'll see all the details we need to know in the next few days.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:52 PM
the link I just gave you is the new proposal... which includes cap holds.

(Credit Sam Amick)

beasted86
11-26-2011, 11:56 PM
the link I just gave you is the new proposal... which includes cap holds.

(Credit Sam Amick)

That "new proposal" is dated 11/11/11 before the union disbanded. There is no mid-level threshold in that proposal.

daleja424
11-26-2011, 11:58 PM
It says 11/26 right on the top... and it is straight from SI


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/11/26/tentative.deal/index.html

...and it includes all of the new stuff we have already heard about (plus the rest of the details)

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:01 AM
I know cap holds have existed in previous proposals, and the previous CBA, but by what you guys say about the new CBA, it seems to sound like they aren't included, or there is a new differentiation in regards to a draft pick cap hold and a veteran cap hold.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother speculating further on a deal that hasn't happened or been finalized yet. We'll see all the details we need to know in the next few days.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/

Here is a good article about the mle and bird rights that was posted in this thread earlier. It basically explains everything regarding this situation and gives an example.

number1nykfan25
11-27-2011, 12:02 AM
I am really happy they have a new deal and knock on wood is there any chance the players dont accept the deal? I dont think they would have announced a new deal if it wasnt in the bag but how bad would it be if this dead didnt go through.

Was the happiest ive been in a while life without the nba sucks!

beasted86
11-27-2011, 12:03 AM
It says 11/26 right on the top... and it is straight from SI


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/11/26/tentative.deal/index.html

...and it includes all of the new stuff we have already heard about (plus the rest of the details)

I think this guy is shoveling turds to you guys.

As I'm reading this, the dates are changing at the bottom of the pages, and more pages are being added on. That's not any official tentative agreement sent out by the league. Didn't even have any mention of the $4M "apron"... not sure if he updated and added later from since the first time I speed read it.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:05 AM
I think something is wrong with your browser or something... b/c the file has been stable, not changed, and definitly mentions the 4 million dollar apron ever since I first opened it nearly an hour ago.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:07 AM
I do see what you mean about the first page saying 11/11... oversight?

beasted86
11-27-2011, 12:11 AM
I do see what you mean about the first page saying 11/11... oversight?

If I could somehow hack into my computer's hard drive and show screen shots from previous visits to the page I would look to refresh my memory.

I don't have a photographic memory, but I'm recalling it having 11/11 on multiple pages, reason why I closed it about 2-3 minutes after opening it.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:12 AM
I see... that does seem odd...but maybe it really was an oversight?

The actual terms of the deal are consistent with the new things that have been reported.

I'm guessing that SI republished this using a template from the 11/11 deal perhaps?

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:17 AM
If I could somehow hack into my computer's hard drive and show screen shots from previous visits to the page I would look to refresh my memory.

I don't have a photographic memory, but I'm recalling it having 11/11 on multiple pages, reason why I closed it about 2-3 minutes after opening it.

Read the article that was posted in here already and that I reposted above. It explains how it will work very well.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:22 AM
It looks like they are going with a slightly higher BRI this season, I imagine to ease the blow of the drastic drop, so I changed my estimate of what the salary cap and luxury tax will be for this season.

Salary cap - 55.6 million
Luxury tax - 68.9 million

That would put the Luxury apron at 72.9 million.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:23 AM
It looks like they are going with a slightly higher BRI this season, I imagine to ease the blow of the drastic drop, so I changed my estimate of what the salary cap and luxury tax will be for this season.

Salary cap - 55.6 million
Luxury tax - 68.9 million

That would put the Luxury apron at 72.9 million.

salary cap and lux tax thresholds are guaranteed to be no lower than last year for years 1 and 2 of deal.

so 58 and 70 are the numbers of interest.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:24 AM
It says 11/26 right on the top... and it is straight from SI


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/11/26/tentative.deal/index.html

...and it includes all of the new stuff we have already heard about (plus the rest of the details)

Thanks for posting that link. For the most part all of that is in the thread already but spread out among 20 pages and numerous articles.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:26 AM
salary cap and lux tax thresholds are guaranteed to be no lower than last year for years 1 and 2 of deal.

so 58 and 70 are the numbers of interest.

Then I guess the owners are planning on keeping basically all of the escrow then because revenue isn't going up that much.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:29 AM
Then I guess the owners are planning on keeping basically all of the escrow then because revenue isn't going up that much.

Last year the owners spent about 55% of BRI...so players got all of escrow (and then overage).

This year if owners spend similarly... they will get to keep most of that escrow to bring them down to 51.8%.

beasted86
11-27-2011, 12:34 AM
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/

Here is a good article about the mle and bird rights that was posted in this thread earlier. It basically explains everything regarding this situation and gives an example.

That makes your explanation clearer but I'm still confused as to where cap holds stand.

A) Ex: Staying with Celtics article example.

Celtics want to re-sign Jeff Green, he opts to instead go overseas because money is better. Are Celtics allowed to use full MLE without losing Green's rights? If he comes back in 2012-13 as a RFA, do the Celtics lose their mini-MLE if they are over the tax+4 still? Did they lose the rights to Green forever once they used the MLE and went to tax+4 forever or just for the 1 season?

B) Ex 2: Atlanta Hawks

Hawks are only at $62M in payroll. Problem is they only have 6 players making that $62M, NBA requires 12 player roster. Does the NBA automatically charge them 5x vet minimum cap holds if they want to use the full-MLE to sign 1 player? Were they supposed to get a bi-annual also because they are below the tax at the start of free agency?

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:39 AM
Last year the owners spent about 55% of BRI...so players got all of escrow (and then overage).

This year if owners spend similarly... they will get to keep most of that escrow to bring them down to 51.8%.

10% escrow last year didn't cover the 2% difference between 55 and 57%. I doubt that the 10% escrow is going to cover the 3.85% difference between 55 and 51.15% if they spend the same as you say. In that case do the players have to pay the difference like the owners because the link you provided made it very clear that the players will get 51.15% this, no more and no less. Or are the players paying a little extra escrow this year?

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:40 AM
Good questions.

I would only be able to speculate as to the answers at this point.

I haven't read anything that outlines those specific scenarios. I would imagine that the celts would have to waive rights to him to use full mle and that there has to be cap holds for unoccupied roster spots. But can't be sure.

beasted86
11-27-2011, 12:51 AM
Also, just in general... do teams have to wait to spend their MLE while players may leave them in free agency high and dry?

Going back to the Celtics example, just to make things easy. Let's say this is a full offseason instead of a compressed 2 week free agency frenzy. Say the Celtics really want to re-sign Jeff Green, and sit down at the negotiating table on July 1st, but can't reach an agreement because he thinks he's worth $12M a season, while Celtics only think he's worth/want to spend around $5M.

Can't he hold them hostage from being able to spend the mid-level for the duration of the summer, sign a $9M offer sheet in early September the Celtics can't afford to match, and by the time the Celtics do want to spend full MLE to fill Green's now-empty spot, all the better free agents were signed and gone by then?

Doesn't seem right. This particular scenario seems like it would happen often. But we'll see what happens when the true final details come out.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:52 AM
That makes your explanation clearer but I'm still confused as to where cap holds stand.

A) Ex: Staying with Celtics article example.

Celtics want to re-sign Jeff Green, he opts to instead go overseas because money is better. Are Celtics allowed to use full MLE without losing Green's rights? If he comes back in 2012-13 as a RFA, do the Celtics lose their mini-MLE if they are over the tax+4 still? Did they lose the rights to Green forever once they used the MLE and went to tax+4 forever or just for the 1 season?

B) Ex 2: Atlanta Hawks

Hawks are only at $62M in payroll. Problem is they only have 6 players making that $62M, NBA requires 12 player roster. Does the NBA automatically charge them 5x vet minimum cap holds if they want to use the full-MLE to sign 1 player? Were they supposed to get a bi-annual also because they are below the tax at the start of free agency?

A) I think they will have to make a decision and either use the full mle or let Green go. For them I think they won't be using a full mle and instead will be forced to sign Green and big baby, luckily for them the restrictive tax doesn't kick in for a couple years when the big 3's contracts will be off the books.

Not sure about how it would work if Green goes overseas or if they lose the mini-mle the season they go over the apron.

B) Not too sure about the Hawks situation but I think they might end up being sol and have to make some hard decisions (maybe even amnesty Johnson or more likely Williams)

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:55 AM
That scenario has always existed though in a different form. (analogous to resigning your guys below cap or spending on outside FAs).

And that has never presented a problem.

In the past you had same cap holds that would prevent you from spending on outside free agents. You have always had to make decisions on your guys first.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 12:58 AM
Also, just in general... do teams have to wait to spend their MLE while players may leave them in free agency high and dry?

Going back to the Celtics example, just to make things easy. Let's say this is a full offseason instead of a compressed 2 week free agency frenzy. Say the Celtics really want to re-sign Jeff Green, and sit down at the negotiating table on July 1st, but can't reach an agreement because he thinks he's worth $12M a season, while Celtics only think he's worth/want to spend around $5M.

Can't he hold them hostage from being able to spend the mid-level for the duration of the summer, sign a $9M offer sheet in early September the Celtics can't afford to match, and by the time the Celtics do want to spend full MLE to fill Green's now-empty spot, all the better free agents were signed and gone by then?

Doesn't seem right. This particular scenario seems like it would happen often. But we'll see what happens when the true final details come out.

In that situation he could do that but if he is really jerking them around they can just renounce him and he will have to take what he is offered from whatever team, including the Celtics. And in that case he would be losing the advantage of an extra year on his contract and 7.5% annual raises as compared to 4.5% in annual raises.

The Celtics will have leverage to force him to come to a decision quickly.

LakersIn5
11-27-2011, 01:07 AM
Pretty much. It's the same rigged league back for another six seasons at least.

doesnt matter im fine with just less than half the league competing for a title each year. thats the owners ang GMs fault that they cant build a contending team. just look at the small market teams that made good moves to become serious playoff teams like grizzlies, thunder recently and the hornets a few years back.

beasted86
11-27-2011, 01:09 AM
In that situation he could do that but if he is really jerking them around they can just renounce him and he will have to take what he is offered from whatever team, including the Celtics. And in that case he would be losing the advantage of an extra year on his contract and 7.5% annual raises as compared to 4.5% in annual raises.

The Celtics will have leverage to force him to come to a decision quickly.

Well, Green's situation is a little easy because he's a mediocre player and there are plenty of good wings and PFs in the league. But what about a different scenario.

What about the Grizzlies and Marc Gasol?

They definitely wouldn't be in a position to force him into anything. There are plenty of suitors for him. At least if they knew he was leaving early on they might be able to trade Gay or Mayo for a starting Center, then use the MLE for a replacement SG or SF.... but if Gasol's agent strung them along and it came down to August or September, forget about it, they are screwed. All decent SG or SF replacements would be gone by then.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 01:18 AM
Well, Green's situation is a little easy because he's a mediocre player and there are plenty of good wings and PFs in the league. But what about a different scenario.

What about the Grizzlies and Marc Gasol?

They definitely wouldn't be in a position to force him into anything. There are plenty of suitors for him. At least if they knew he was leaving early on they might be able to trade Gay or Mayo for a starting Center, then use the MLE for a replacement SG or SF.... but if Gasol's agent strung them along and it came down to August or September, forget about it, they are screwed. All decent SG or SF replacements would be gone by then.

But similarly many of the best options for Gasol would likely be gone also. Many teams aren't going to wait forever for him to make a decision while they also lose out on other options. Its usually in the best interest of both the player and the teams to make a relatively quick decision. Its really not that different in this sense then what happens every year.

Crackadalic
11-27-2011, 06:49 AM
I find the Maximum Salaries interesting in a sense that you have to have some form of achievement ex 1st, 2nd or 3rd team all nba to get a max contract. It stops teams from overpaying guys like Lewis and Gilbert a max salary

3XDouble
11-27-2011, 09:42 AM
:eyebrow:

Hooray for being naive! Yes, the ONLY reason why big markets have continual success and small markets don't is because of Rashard Lewis contracts... :laugh:


EDIT: I was gonna whip out the facepalm too...hahaha

Success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. All of the "stupid front office" talk is simply the guys like Wade who love an unfair system because it happens to give their team an advantage in signing free agents. Same thing with the talk about contraction. There were a number of posters who would have eliminated 30-60% of NBA players while claiming to be pro-player. And, their contraction ideas would have also resulted in a significantly lower average salary. The motivation for their position is very transparent.

For those of you like Link who actually apply some common sense, you may as well talk to a wall as talk to the self-indulgent who's entire argument is based on the best system to allow them to get CP3, Howard or whoever else the covet. Many of them are quite direct in suggesting that those of us who follow smaller market teams just don't deserve to have elite players or in some of their eyes even have a team.

I am hoping when the official terms are announced they have done more to level the playing field then is evident by the early reporting.

Hellcrooner
11-27-2011, 12:01 PM
^im proplayer and i advocate for EXPANSION, 32 teams .

MILLERHIGHLIFE
11-27-2011, 12:04 PM
As a result of Saturday's NBA lockout deal, the salary cap for the 2011-12 season will remain flat instead of decreasing substantially. That compromise was present in the NBA's last public proposal on November 10. In the new deal, the players' aggregate salary -- which determines the salary cap level -- will drop to 49-51 percent from 57 percent of the league's revenue. That would have dropped the salary cap 12 percent, to roughly $51 million. But the compromise keeps the $58 million cap for the 2011-12 season and possibly the 2012-13 season.

Salaries will, of course, be pro-rated to adjust for the shortened season. The NBA will play a 66-game season, dropping 20 percent of the regular season schedule. As such, actual salary paid out will be about 20 percent less than the cap figures would amount to.

Expect the pro-rated figures to be highly confusing once free agency begins on December 9 as reporters sort out just how rich new contracts are given the shortened season.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/11/26/2588006/nba-lockout-2011-salary-cap-prorated $58M for this years salary cap. But shortened season of 66 games so it will be prorated. So if ya wanted to figure what your team is. Divide players season cap by 82 to figure how much they make a game then times that by 66 games to figure out the proration for this season. Or could just go to a site that shows the cap then divide that up by 82 games then times it by 66 games. That be easier then of figuring out each player individually.

ChronicTrigger
11-27-2011, 12:23 PM
Breaking news....This just in the new CBA will give the raptors the first pick overall for the next 6 years according to top american media guru EPSN.

KnicksR4Real
11-27-2011, 12:34 PM
Chris Paul to the Knicks!

daleja424
11-27-2011, 12:51 PM
Breaking news....This just in the new CBA will give the raptors the first pick overall for the next 6 years according to top american media guru EPSN.
And they will still be awful ;)

nyKnicks126
11-27-2011, 12:57 PM
I read that they still need to resolve drug testing issues and other small issues, so this is not completely done, and of course it needs majority votes to go through... Plus union needs to obviously drop all law suits that have been filed.

Tom Stone
11-27-2011, 01:04 PM
Breaking news....This just in the new CBA will give the raptors the first pick overall for the next 6 years according to top american media guru EPSN.

Yes !

Tom Stone
11-27-2011, 01:32 PM
One of the things the owners have to talk about is revenue shareing.....the smaller market teams ain't totally happy with the deal......this is where they have leverage .....it's time for Michale Jordan to walk in the room and demand huge revenue sharing from big markets.......evening the playing feild a little more.

ChronicTrigger
11-27-2011, 01:46 PM
And they will still be awful ;)

But wait! there's a second page...According to EPSN after recent players (vince carter, hedo turkaglu) were caught slacking Raptors issued a requisition to impose performance based contracts on their players. The players did not like this at all, and decided on comprimise. According to Billy Hunter the players have anonymously agreed to a comprimise which would give the Raptors the right to deport any underchievers to a third world country of their choice. If the Raptor choose to take this action on one of their players, their contract would immediately come off the cap and be cancelled.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 01:56 PM
But wait! there's a second page...According to EPSN after recent players (vince carter, hedo turkaglu) were caught slacking Raptors issued a requisition to impose performance based contracts on their players. The players did not like this at all, and decided on comprimise. According to Billy Hunter the players have anonymously agreed to a comprimise which would give the Raptors the right to deport any underchievers to a third world country of their choice. If the Raptor choose to take this action on one of their players, their contract would immediately come of the cap and be cancelled.

still bad... :p

Hellcrooner
11-27-2011, 02:33 PM
One of the things the owners have to talk about is revenue shareing.....the smaller market teams ain't totally happy with the deal......this is where they have leverage .....it's time for Michale Jordan to walk in the room and demand huge revenue sharing from big markets.......evening the playing feild a little more.

that is actually all that needed to be changed to have a bit more parity.

but it was easier trying to screw the players than the big budget owners-.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 02:40 PM
One of the things the owners have to talk about is revenue shareing.....the smaller market teams ain't totally happy with the deal......this is where they have leverage .....it's time for Michale Jordan to walk in the room and demand huge revenue sharing from big markets.......evening the playing feild a little more.

no happening. the league has enough support for this deal that the extremes cannot undo it now.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 04:01 PM
no happening. the league has enough support for this deal that the extremes cannot undo it now.

There is the revenue sharing with the luxury tax and then they also mention a plan for revenue sharing that has been shared with the Players association but the details haven't been released. Have you seen any info on what it is, its one of the few things that haven't been released.