PDA

View Full Version : Did The New CBA Mess Up?



xabial
07-04-2012, 03:20 PM
When the NBA lockout was occurring, and they finally re-negotiated a new CBA you would think they fixed all the problems the old CBA had, but no...

Under New CBA There are HEAVY TAX PENALTIES (Worse than before) on teams that reach a certain Payroll. (I think $70M). I have no problems with this.

What I do have problems with is however is that This allows certain teams to exploit a loophole and offer "Poison Pill" Contracts to Free Agents. These "Poison Pill" Contracts are offered to Teams with High Payrolls (Bulls, Knicks..etc)

An example of this Loophole Exploited is the Rockets offering Omar Asik a three year $24M Contract. Rockets made the first two years of Asik's contract an affordable $5M, $5.2M and that the third year balloons to a ridiculous $14M.

The Rockets' charge would be averaged over the length of the contract would be— $8 million annually. But the Bulls' hits would be $5 million, $5 million, then $14 million in 2014-15. (How is that fair?)

Hence the "Poison Pill"— Severely Back-loading a Players Contract, would place that player's Team in Severe Luxury Tax Penalty Complications for the year that players Salary Balloons. If the Bull's Match Asik's offer this would almost certainly guarantee the Bulls Amnesty Carlos Boozer in the third year of Asik's contract.

Really? How is that fair and I hate the bulls. Cap Hit for the Bulls should be the average, ($8M per year) or Cap Hit to the Rockets should be $5, $5.2, and $14M for Signing Asik. Am I the only one who thinks its not fair to average the Asik's Cap Hit for the Rockets, and Separate Asik's Cap hit year by year for the Bulls?

It's a massive loophole that circumvents the entire purpose of the Arenas provision, but it's not one the owners will be able to close in the next CBA without bloodshed.

It doesn't seem fair and to be honest it takes away the whole purpose of "Bird Rights".


Does anyone have a problem with this?

chicago lulz
07-04-2012, 03:25 PM
I was wondering if the whole Omer situation was due to the new CBA. If so, then it's quite the bummer. Why was this implemented? Is it to help out small market team? To reward those who are under the cap?

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2012, 03:26 PM
Well.. small market teams need some sort of advantage over the big market teams like Chi-town, NY and LA. If this is how they choose to do it... I don't have an issue with it. They need some sort of advantage. Besides, deals can be re-worked, so the Bulls could simply say: lets we-work this deal to give you 8mil per.

KB-Pau-DH2012
07-04-2012, 03:26 PM
I was wondering if the whole Omer situation was due to the new CBA. If so, then it's quite the bummer. Why was this implemented? Is it to help out small market team? To reward those who are under the cap?

It was basically made to **** over the Lakers and nothing else, and therefore, it was successful.

Shammyguy3
07-04-2012, 03:29 PM
Well.. small market teams need some sort of advantage over the big market teams like Chi-town, NY and LA. If this is how they choose to do it... I don't have an issue with it. They need some sort of advantage. Besides, deals can be re-worked, so the Bulls could simply say: lets we-work this deal to give you 8mil per.

This. You have to have even ground across the league. I wouldn't even call this a "loophole." Just great business moves that were noticeable from a distance if anyone had the smallest bit of knowledge on the Arenas Provision (which every NBA team has).

xabial
07-04-2012, 03:35 PM
I was wondering if the whole Omer situation was due to the new CBA. If so, then it's quite the bummer. Why was this implemented? Is it to help out small market team? To reward those who are under the cap?

I was wondering this too. I don't think big market owners would accept such a Provision if they knew of its detrimental effects. It honestly makes Bird Rights Usless.

Now that they've experienced it firsthand, they will fight and try their hardest to remove it. Bulls shouldn't lose Omar Asik, and Knicks shouldnt lose Jeremy Lin. Its stupid.

jimm120
07-04-2012, 03:36 PM
When the NBA lockout was occurring, and they finally re-negotiated a new CBA you would think they fixed all the problems the old CBA had, but no...

Under New CBA There are HEAVY TAX PENALTIES (Worse than before) on teams that reach a certain Payroll. (I think $70M). I have no problems with this.

What I do have problems with is however is that This allows certain teams to exploit a loophole and offer "Poison Pill" Contracts to Free Agents. These "Poison Pill" Contracts are offered to Teams with High Payrolls (Bulls, Knicks..etc)

An example of this Loophole Exploited is the Rockets offering Omar Asik a three year $24M Contract. Rockets made the first two years of Asik's contract an affordable $5M, $5.2M and that the third year balloons to a ridiculous $14M.

The Rockets' charge would be averaged over the length of the contract would be— $8 million annually. But the Bulls' hits would be $5 million, $5 million, then $14 million in 2014-15. (How is that fair?)

Hence the "Poison Pill"— Severely Back-loading a Players Contract, would place that player's Team in Severe Luxury Tax Penalty Complications for the year that players Salary Balloons. If the Bull's Match Asik's offer this would almost certainly guarantee the Bulls Amnesty Carlos Boozer in the third year of Asik's contract.

Really? How is that fair and I hate the bulls. Cap Hit for the Bulls should be the average, ($8M per year) or Cap Hit to the Rockets should be $5, $5.2, and $14M for Signing Asik. Am I the only one who thinks its not fair to average the Asik's Cap Hit for the Rockets, and Separate Asik's Cap hit year by year for the Bulls?

It's a massive loophole that circumvents the entire purpose of the Arenas provision, but it's not one the owners will be able to close in the next CBA without bloodshed.

It doesn't seem fair and to be honest it takes away the whole purpose of "Bird Rights".


Does anyone have a problem with this?

MAYBE, just maybe the new CBA Wasn't about lowering contracts...well, not all contracts.

Maybe it was

1- to lower max contract money and years (which does lower payroll).

2- to make the top teams stop hogging up all of the talent through sign and trades

Look at how teams like the lakers an Knicks or mavs are losing players or having to sacrifice to get players. It's because of the new CBA and the hard cap at $74 mil

xabial
07-04-2012, 03:39 PM
MAYBE, just maybe the new CBA Wasn't about lowering contracts...well, not all contracts.

Maybe it was

1- to lower max contract money and years (which does lower payroll).

2- to make the top teams stop hogging up all of the talent through sign and trades

Look at how teams like the lakers an Knicks or mavs are losing players or having to sacrifice to get players. It's because of the new CBA and the hard cap at $74 mil

Thats irrelevant... If a player wants to go somewhere, he'll go somewhere. Nash is willing to take a Paycut to be Signed and Traded to the Knicks..

As for Lowering Max years, and Money.. Yeah, I knew that. Shouldn't affect their Own Free Agents though. Teams should be able to sign their Free Agents for LESS MAX years, and LESS MONEY,, not lose them to a Poison Pill provision Loophole.

llemon
07-04-2012, 03:40 PM
When the NBA lockout was occurring, and they finally re-negotiated a new CBA you would think they fixed all the problems the old CBA had, but no...

Under New CBA There are HEAVY TAX PENALTIES (Worse than before) on teams that reach a certain Payroll. (I think $70M). I have no problems with this.

What I do have problems with is however is that This allows certain teams to exploit a loophole and offer "Poison Pill" Contracts to Free Agents. These "Poison Pill" Contracts are offered to Teams with High Payrolls (Bulls, Knicks..etc)

An example of this Loophole Exploited is the Rockets offering Omar Asik a three year $24M Contract. Rockets made the first two years of Asik's contract an affordable $5M, $5.2M and that the third year balloons to a ridiculous $14M.

The Rockets' charge would be averaged over the length of the contract would be— $8 million annually. But the Bulls' hits would be $5 million, $5 million, then $14 million in 2014-15. (How is that fair?)

Hence the "Poison Pill"— Severely Back-loading a Players Contract, would place that player's Team in Severe Luxury Tax Penalty Complications for the year that players Salary Balloons. If the Bull's Match Asik's offer this would almost certainly guarantee the Bulls Amnesty Carlos Boozer in the third year of Asik's contract.

Really? How is that fair and I hate the bulls. Cap Hit for the Bulls should be the average, ($8M per year) or Cap Hit to the Rockets should be $5, $5.2, and $14M for Signing Asik. Am I the only one who thinks its not fair to average the Asik's Cap Hit for the Rockets, and Separate Asik's Cap hit year by year for the Bulls?

It's a massive loophole that circumvents the entire purpose of the Arenas provision, but it's not one the owners will be able to close in the next CBA without bloodshed.

It doesn't seem fair and to be honest it takes away the whole purpose of "Bird Rights".


Does anyone have a problem with this?

Teams need to be smart enough to sign their potential RFAs to 3 year contracts, not all of which has to be guaranteed.

xabial
07-04-2012, 03:43 PM
Teams need to be smart enough to sign their potential RFAs to 3 year contracts, not all of which has to be guaranteed.

This doesn't apply to players who literary come out of nowhere the last month of a season, and take their team to the playoffs. A la "Lin"

Can you explain that one?

ink
07-04-2012, 03:43 PM
Most people who were concerned about cap weaknesses predicted that the new CBA was not worth staging a lockout for.

yanksrock
07-04-2012, 03:45 PM
Yeah they whiffed on this one.

Hellcrooner
07-04-2012, 03:46 PM
It means it acomplished what they targeted.

Being easier to transit from a big market to a **** market than the other way around.


What the envious stupid bufoon bad managed owners didnt realize is top markets will STILL pay the TOP players whatever is needed and keep them whilst all they will lose will be "asiks" going to a bad market with their modest skill and a bloatloaded overpaid contract.

Wich means, those stupid owners will pay a tone for teams that still underperform and come back crying again for stupid things when the new cba needs to be done.

chicago lulz
07-04-2012, 03:47 PM
It was basically made to **** over the Lakers and nothing else, and therefore, it was successful.
:rolleyes:


I was wondering this too. I don't think big market owners would accept such a Provision if they knew of its detrimental effects. It honestly makes Bird Rights Usless.

Now that they've experienced it firsthand, they will fight and try their hardest to remove it. Bulls shouldn't lose Omar Asik, and Knicks shouldnt lose Jeremy Lin. Its stupid.
I really don't mind if it helps out small market teams. Would like to understand why this was implemented though. I'm also curious as to why the lockout was necessary, what they were trying to accomplish, and what they actually accomplished.

xabial
07-04-2012, 03:53 PM
:rolleyes:


I really don't mind if it helps out small market teams. Would like to understand why this was implemented though. I'm also curious as to why the lockout was necessary, what they were trying to accomplish, and what they actually accomplished.

They were mostly fighting over how League Profits would be Split. Under the Old CBA it was 57% Players, 43% Owners.

After the Lockout, and Massive Negotiations They reduced it to 49-51% Players. (Depending On League Profits)

Other Accomplishments as a Result of the Lockout Were: Max Contract Lengths Were Reduced from Six Years to Five Years, Money Given To Players was Reduced, The full $30M 5 Year Mid-Level Exception was Removed. (Used to Sign Ron Artest, Mike Miller,..etc.), and replaced with a 3 Year $9M-$15M Mid-Level.

Owners were losing money and wanted Better Profits. (I think I read a report that claimed 23 Teams Lost money) The overall theme was How much Money Would be Taken From the Players and added to the Owners Pockets because owners were Losing Money. It was basically a matter of How much Benefits would the Players would Lose.

Derek Fisher was in charge of negotiating on the Players Behalf (Along with Billy Hunter), and personally I think Fisher did a terrible job.

llemon
07-04-2012, 03:55 PM
This doesn't apply to players who literary come out of nowhere the last month of a season, and take their team to the playoffs. A la "Lin"

Can you explain that one?

The new CBA gives those teams the ability to hold on to those players that at one point those teams didn't have.

CBA could make it easier by spreading the payments for the RFA team as the do for the team that tenders the offer sheet.

Anything else would be unfair to the player

Explanation enough?

JWO35
07-04-2012, 04:02 PM
To me it makes Large Market teams harder to hold onto their players, and Small Market to overpay for those players...so Small Markets have a slight edge vs the old CBA :shrug:

beasted86
07-04-2012, 04:05 PM
This has nothing to do with small market vs. big market. This PPP contract was always there. At the end of the day, this is good GM vs bad GM.

It's kind of like...

HOU: "Haha suckers, there's no way you can match paying Asik $14M. We win!"

CHI: "How did you win? You have to pay Asik $14M dollars"

HOU: "Um, because....... F%@K!!.... How do we keep letting this happen?"

:laugh:

Bigbadmoffo
07-04-2012, 04:06 PM
I'm all for screwing the big market teams after all us small market teams outnumber you:p

llemon
07-04-2012, 04:10 PM
To me it makes Large Market teams harder to hold onto their players, and Small Market to overpay for those players...so Small Markets have a slight edge vs the old CBA :shrug:

So, again, large market teams start offering 3 year contracts to the potential RFAs that are eligible for 3 year contracts.

Hell, all Nets have is non-bird rights to hold onto Gerald Green, which isn't going to be enough for the to keep him.

The arbitrator's ruling, which is in direct conflict with the CBA that was just signed, gave the Knicks a way to hold onto Lin and Novak.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
07-04-2012, 04:22 PM
If teams not smart with payroll the RFA aren't safe to keep. I think its fair to keep the big markets from stacking teams. More balance league.

GrumpyOldMan
07-04-2012, 04:29 PM
The only way the small market teams are able to get RFAs to sign is to overpay. Otherwise the player will take the Qualifying Offer and in a year become a UFA.
Small market teams aren't so much helped by this. They are overpaying to compete. That's my opinion anyway.

topdog
07-04-2012, 04:49 PM
All I here is a bunch of large market teams' fans crying about a CBA that was intended to even the playing field. Mission accomplished.

C_Mund
07-04-2012, 04:50 PM
I'm no hockey buff but I'm pretty sure that this rule applies in the NHL too.... you'll see teams sign a goalie to a 15- year contract and the last four years will be like $1million so it averages out to like $6mil a season.

IndyRealist
07-04-2012, 04:51 PM
They were mostly fighting over how League Profits would be Split. Under the Old CBA it was 57% Players, 43% Owners.

After the Lockout, and Massive Negotiations They reduced it to 49-51% Players. (Depending On League Profits)

Other Accomplishments as a Result of the Lockout Were: Max Contract Lengths Were Reduced from Six Years to Five Years, Money Given To Players was Reduced, The full $30M 5 Year Mid-Level Exception was Removed. (Used to Sign Ron Artest, Mike Miller,..etc.), and replaced with a 3 Year $9M-$15M Mid-Level.

Owners were losing money and wanted Better Profits. (I think I read a report that claimed 23 Teams Lost money) The overall theme was How much Money Would be Taken From the Players and added to the Owners Pockets because owners were Losing Money. It was basically a matter of How much Benefits would the Players would Lose.

Derek Fisher was in charge of negotiating on the Players Behalf (Along with Billy Hunter), and personally I think Fisher did a terrible job.

This. The lockout and new CBA had nothing to do with big market vs. small market teams, it was about how much money the owners could take from the players. Luxury tax penalties, etc. were extremely small changes blown out of proportion by the owners and media as a smokescreen for what was really going on, which was a reduction in payroll by around 12%.

Verbal Christ
07-04-2012, 04:52 PM
# butthurt

Toastyy
07-04-2012, 06:03 PM
Ok

amos1er
07-04-2012, 06:23 PM
It was basically made to **** over the Lakers and nothing else, and therefore, it was successful.

^^
This.