Spirit of '99: 2011 Lockout Discussion

So, it seems all parties are still a far way apart as we head for a lockout. The Vegas summer league has already been cancelled and it remains to be seen whether we'll lose some or all of the 2011/2012 NBA season.

I'm guessing it's safe to say that no one's really looking forward to that prospect; for whatever complaints we may have about this or that, we're all basketball fans and continue to take an interest in the league. I know some people enjoyed the shorter season that was the result of the last lockout but the preceding weeks of uncertainty weren't all that enjoyable. I would say we're all keen for a new agreement to be reached so that it can be business as usual.

But since it seems a new agreement isn't imminent, I figure the lockout and the various issues the players, owners and league are divided upon are a topic worth discussing...hence this thread. Any further updates/articles related to the lockout and CBA discussions can go here so that we can talk about them as well.

With that out of the way...

One of the stumbling blocks at the moment is the prospect of a hard cap, which the players are against and the owners/league are all for. Even if both sides could agree to a hard cap, I don't see how it could work. I'm not against the concept in theory as it works for other professional sports leagues but with NBA team payrolls, I'm not sure it's feasible. Those contracts were signed fair and square under the rules at the time, so you can't just void them and it's not fair to punish teams that violate a newly adopted hard cap.

In 2010/2011, 24 of the 30 teams were over the cap ($58.044 million). The Lakers have the biggest payroll in the league last season at over $91 million (the Mavs were right behind them with a little over $90 million). The way I see it, you either have to force those teams to get rid of players or you set the hard cap that high. The former isn't really fair and if you do the latter, you might as well keep the current soft cap/luxury tax system.

I assume if they do end up adopting a hard cap, the only way it's going to work is if they phase it in, so that the teams with high payrolls can get under it within a few years as contracts expire and new contracts comply with the new CBA. Otherwise, I can't see how it will work without setting a ridiculously high cap or breaching contracts.

I'm guessing it's safe to say that no one's really looking forward to that prospect; ... I would say we're all keen for a new agreement to be reached so that it can be business as usual.

And some of us want to watch the world burn.

One of the stumbling blocks at the moment is the prospect of a hard cap

The biggest issue of all is the revenue formula. The players would accept a hard cap in a heartbeat to change that formula even more in their favor. (Not on the table since the union are morons who don't realize they've already lost because they got hoodwinked from the start.)

I assume if they do end up adopting a hard cap, the only way it's going to work is if they phase it in, so that the teams with high payrolls can get under it within a few years as contracts expire and new contracts comply with the new CBA. Otherwise, I can't see how it will work without setting a ridiculously high cap or breaching contracts.

That is what all the suggested proposals include, three to five years with the teams being fined after the grace period.

Shaq ended the last lockout, it'll take some young stars to do it again. You don't really have the same situation here where the heads of the union were the guys who were underpaid in the 1980s and 1990s due to the old contracts and trying to make up for it, it's now mostly all veteran reserves who have used the CBA to get themselves paid more than they would otherwise. Chris Paul might be key since he's on the Exec Committee and apparently in with Melo/LeBron/etc.

That is what all the suggested proposals include, three to five years with the teams being fined after the grace period.

Fair enough, but if those teams are still allowed to compete for the championship and just pay a fine, isn't it practically the same as having a soft cap with the luxury tax? For an owner willing to shell out the money, they'll surely pay the fine if it means a legitimate shot at a championship or two.

You can't add new salaries over the cap, it's just for those contracts grandfathered in.

It absolutely would come with another amnesty though.

So how are those grandfathered contracts going to count against the cap?

I guess I don't understand your question.

The grace period is for the fines, the teams won't be able to add more salary (other than probably rookies and minimum contracts) until they get under the hard cap. The Lakers would have to let all the contracts expire until they fell under the cap, then they could start to resign their players.

It's one reason Melo had to get that trade to the Knicks done this season.

I doubt there will be a hard cap though, the owners don't really want one it's just a bargaining tactic. (Instead there will likely be some increased revenue sharing to pay off the bad teams rather than have all the good teams get gutted.)

Not to worry, that's pretty much cleared things up. Thanks.

What else do you see being added or done away with once it's all said and done?

The MLE is definitely gone. Contract lengths are going to be shortened again.

I saw some talk about sign-and-trades potentially being on the block, but I see that as something the owners aren't in agreement on. They may add some restrictions though.

What about restricted free agency?

Meanwhile: NBA drops insistence on non-guaranteed contracts

NBA owners relaxed their insistence on non-guaranteed contracts in a new collective bargaining agreement Friday, but players cautioned that isn't enough because the league is still seeking a hard salary cap.

Even so, the proposal by the owners during a 4 1/2-hour meeting was perhaps their most significant movement yet as the sides try to agree to a new deal before the current one expires June 30.

I'm guessing once all is said & done, I'm thinking it might end up like this:

- BRI (not sure what is classed as this, but benji alluded to the player's union was probably foolish for not addressing this) will be split 50-50;
- Guaranteed contracts will remain but maximum level of contract will be 3 years for signing with new team or 4 years if re-signing with current team;
- Soft cap $50 million, hard cap $60 million (can only exceed soft cap to sign players with Bird rights or in trade where contracts match within 10%);
- Teams need to be below hard cap within 3 years or get levied dollar for dollar penalty that is distributed amongst other teams that keep below the cap. All teams must be below hard cap within 5 years regardless, no exceptions;
- Soft cap will increase by CPI each year;
- Annual contract increases will be capped at 5% rather than the current 10%; and
- Get rid of MLE.

I am unsure of what will happen with draft age limit, whether it gets bumped to 20 or left at 19. Unsure on what will happen with free agency. I think restricted free agency should go. I'd like to see sign and trades go as well.

I'd keep the age limit at 19. I don't think there's any benefit in raising it or harm in leaving it as it is, so I believe the NBA should leave that alone.

Sign and trades are alright in my book. Maybe a few additional restrictions on them are in order but if all parties are in agreement and it satisfies the conditions of the salary cap, I say it's on the level and potentially mutually beneficial.

What about trade exceptions? I'm not a fan of those. I don't mind injury exceptions, just not trade ones.

I'd imagine they'd go if there's a hard cap, stay if there's a soft cap.

Trade exceptions exist because they have to the way the CBA is setup regarding cap holds, RFAs, and Bird rights.

The owners didn't care about guaranteed contracts, they owners went for complete hardball to start because they're right the union is stupid. So they get to give up things they didn't care about like non-guaranteed contracts and the hard cap to make the union think it's winning battles as it loses the war.

BRI (not sure what is classed as this, but benji alluded to the player's union was probably foolish for not addressing this) will be split 50-50

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q13

The owners haven't even talked about changing the share percentage, just to change it from gross to net. Which will have a bigger effect, if the union accepts any lowering of the share as "compromise" (or worse accept the change to net) then the union should just give up as they're done.

I have no clue why the players even bother being unionized as they have no leverage collectively in the first place. They haven't done anything to help all the players in forever, it's a cartel of veteran role players inflating their salaries at the expensive of young players and stars. (As unions are designed to do.)

imo...

I agree with the hard cap.

What about those non-expired player contracts and teams that are over the cap, would they be grandfathered with the new CBA?...

Fuck grandfathering the previous deals.
Amnesty clause. Teams can drop player contracts so the teams can get below the hard cap. The dropped player contracts won't count against the teams' current cap.

What? You can't just drop agreed contracts just like that? It will be lawsuits galore! Class action even! You stupid shadowgrin...

I know. The dropped players contracts will still be honored, the players won't have a team but will still get paid.
The league will compensate half of the dropped players' contracts (the league has a fund for shite like that), with the other half being compensated by the players' team itself since we know that some teams are really stupid in giving out ridiculous contracts so they must pay for their idiocy. The payments will be done for the duration of the contract length. The percent increase in the previous CBA will still apply with the compensation. Player Options in the compensated contracts will be considered null.
The dropped players can negotiate with other NBA teams for a new contract (which will be surely less than their previous deals) based on the new CBA and in that case the amount of their new salary will be deducted from what the league and their previous team are paying for their compensation.

With that idea, the dropped players will still get paid based on their original contract. They can sign with a new NBA team if they want to without losing income, they can also choose not to sign with an NBA team or not to even play even and get paid for doing nothing! I would like for it to be referred to as the Eddy Curry Rule.
It also makes the teams more selective in choosing which players to drop since they're basically paying a player to play against them if their dropped players sign with a division/conference rival.



All of that is if having a hard cap is really that important. Unless benji is right that the hard cap demand is merely a smokescreen by the owners to blindside the union, which might be a possibility considering the ridiculous contracts given to some players (Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay) a year before the CBA expired!
If the teams did think that far ahead about grandfathering the previous deals in place of a new CBA, I still think they haven't thought far enough as grandfathering the previous and more expensive contracts will severely limit their roster flexibility not to mention the bargain price they could get other players for with the new CBA.

You can't legally do any of that though. You think a lockout is bad, how about a federal case for the next 20 years if that.

Which in the end, will be paid off by the taxpayers.

The league will compensate half of the dropped players' contracts (the league has a fund for shite like that), with the other half being compensated by the players' team itself since we know that some teams are really stupid in giving out ridiculous contracts so they must pay for their idiocy. The payments will be done for the duration of the contract length. The percent increase in the previous CBA will still apply with the compensation. Player Options in the compensated contracts will be considered null.

Extended Phillipino nonsense.

Not a single thing I quoted is or could ever be true. There is no fund, under such a situation the league would fold and no player would be paid. Your only hope is a bailout from the federal government.

Thankfully for the players, Obama.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Obama.

YOU EDITED MOTHERFUCKER

All of that is if having a hard cap is really that important. Unless benji is right that the hard cap demand is merely a smokescreen by the owners to blindside the union, which might be a possibility considering the ridiculous contracts given to some players (Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay) a year before the CBA expired!

The hard cap HAS to be a smokescreen. Either that or the owners are morons.

A soft cap means the teams with funds can go over the cap. I.E. The Lakers, Knicks, Heat, Mavericks, Bulls, need I do go on? If they place a hard cap, they can't get rid of current contracts, which they all shelled out for superstars, they aren't going to agree to letting all their talent leave to get paid elsewhere. So they have to gut the teams. They aren't going to do this. It was a hard position they set because the union is full of morons who don't realize they have absolutely no leverage ever if the union breaks up and their only way out is waiving the antitrust protection which fucks the union even more.

Teams will always overpay for talent than position themselves so they lose that talent for nothing. The OWNERS have to set a spending cap but they can't because every other team wants to outspend them for the talent.

The owners agree to a soft cap because they know it gives them a minimum layer of talent and that they can spend to win. A hard cap HARMS them and they can't keep adding talent, they actually have to divest talent, as shown in the Lakers example they have to ditch Kobe, Gasol or Bynum. FOR NOTHING.

The NBA isn't the NFL, it's not even the MLB, you HAVE to seriously expend on players because of how valuable each individual is.

Not a single thing I quoted is or could ever be true. There is no fund, under such a situation the league would fold and no player would be paid. Your only hope is a bailout from the federal government.

I thought of that Eddy Curry Rule in the hope that dropped players will be fairly compensated. Seems like the players are still screwed.
Owners for the win again!
The fund idea came up from the league paying a portion of a veteran player's salary (10 yrs. experience?) that signed for the league minimum. iirc, the team pays the base minimum salary while the league pays the remaining balance that should be paid to the player based on his years of playing.
But yeah, I just realized that it still would not be enough to pay for all the dropped players.

The NBA isn't the NFL, it's not even the MLB, you HAVE to seriously expend on players because of how valuable each individual is.

This.
That is why I don't see the Restricted FA tag going away. Owners want compensation for the talent they 'develop'.

I wonder if both sides would agree to a toned down version of restricted free agency, where matching an offer keeps a player under contract with their current team at that amount for one year (rather than two, three, four or however many years they're allowed to sign for under the new CBA). During that year, a team can try to negotiate an extension and if they're unsuccessful, the player is an unrestricted free agent at the end of the year. Kind of a mix of how offer sheets and the qualifying offer currently work. Teams could still elect not to match offers if they deem them too high or otherwise don't want to keep the player.

Aside from teams wanting the security of restricted free agency, I think it's fair to say players use it to their own advantage as well. If they know that their team would like to keep them but is a bit unsure about paying them X amount of dollars, they can sign an offer sheet and basically force the team's hand. If the offer sheet is matched, they get to stay and get their payday. If the offer sheet isn't matched, they get their payday and get to move on to a new team.

Aside from teams wanting the security of restricted free agency, I think it's fair to say players use it to their own advantage as well. If they know that their team would like to keep them but is a bit unsure about paying them X amount of dollars, they can sign an offer sheet and basically force the team's hand. If the offer sheet is matched, they get to stay and get their payday. If the offer sheet isn't matched, they get their payday and get to move on to a new team.

This paragraph describes the current situation.

I wonder if both sides would agree to a toned down version of restricted free agency, where matching an offer keeps a player under contract with their current team at that amount for one year (rather than two, three, four or however many years they're allowed to sign for under the new CBA). During that year, a team can try to negotiate an extension and if they're unsuccessful, the player is an unrestricted free agent at the end of the year. Kind of a mix of how offer sheets and the qualifying offer currently work. Teams could still elect not to match offers if they deem them too high or otherwise don't want to keep the player.

I think this would be a mess, every team would automatically match if the player had any value and they lose nothing because he becomes a UFA if he doesn't agree to an extension. Meaning he has to fit into the cap space of those teams under it only.

Let's hypothetical. Blake Griffin signs a max contract with the Lakers, the Clippers match, then the next season every single team is $3 million under the cap. The Clippers though can pay Blake a max extension. He can't leave unless he wants 1/5th the salary.

If a team can sign you for a single season and ditch you then you have nothing. Players would much prefer the current qualifying offer thing because you either get an extension or you get a year to justify a new contract. Letting your old team bench you for a year to destroy your value won't fly.

Not that the union won't do this, as long as they can screw the new players for veteran bums.

I thought of that Eddy Curry Rule in the hope that dropped players will be fairly compensated. Seems like the players are still screwed.
Owners for the win again!
The fund idea came up from the league paying a portion of a veteran player's salary (10 yrs. experience?) that signed for the league minimum. iirc, the team pays the base minimum salary while the league pays the remaining balance that should be paid to the player based on his years of playing.
But yeah, I just realized that it still would not be enough to pay for all the dropped players.

Two different things. The teams are refunded for the veterans (but it's a drop in the bucket) so that they will sign them (another stupid union rule that hurts the game) but the amnesty rule, which there will be another, like Michael Finley, Allan Houston, etc. faced was that their contracts were wiped from the salary cap, the players were still paid. It's why some players everyone assumed would be hit lived through it, the teams preferred they came back and justified the contract rather than let them go off like Michael Finley and join a rival contender.

Point taken. I guess if restricted free agency remains, the current system can work for both sides so there's no real need to tweak it.

A couple of snippets, courtesy of Woj:
http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA/statu ... 5768859648
http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA/statu ... 0528149504

At end of labor meeting, still "big gaps" one official says between two sides. Meeting again on Friday. Some movement, civil meeting.

NBPA will continue to resist hard salary cap, and impossible to imagine owners backing down on it prior to June 30th deadline.

Stern steers NBA toward chaos

It did seem he was getting booed a little more heartily than normal during the Draft. He took it with pretty good humour though.

Stern’s deputy commissioner, Adam Silver, had the most patronizing of lines in the NBA playoffs, suggesting how the fact that James and Dwyane Wade(notes) would be getting 10 percent raises next year, and how with revenues growing only 4 percent, this was evidence of how well the system worked for the players. Hey, James is the reason Silver gets to wear such nice suits on Stern’s private charters, the reason buildings are full, television ratings robust and the reason merchandise leaves the shelves.

I couldn't disagree more with Wojo, Silver is right. That's why I think yearly contract raises should be capped at 5%.

I think what Woj was getting at is that the financial situation of two of the top 30 paid players in the league doesn't necessarily indicate that the system works for all players.

It's also a dishonest argument. Yearly raises in individual contracts are completely irrelevant in comparison to league revenue growth. Player salaries are capped at a percentage of league revenue no matter what. If the players get more than their share of revenue they have to pay the teams back and vice versa.

LeBron James might get a 10% increase next season but what will Andrei Kirilenko and Michael Redd get?

Rashard Lewis got a 10% increase this season but Erick Dampier got a 91% decrease.