CBA Shenanigans Begin
by Auswolf on Feb 6, 2010 3:53 PM CST
Email
Print
Small item from RealGM indicating the owners will be looking for a hard cap.
Now in this early stage of negotiations, we are looking at ambit claims all round, but this particular aspect may have a significant impact on current wheeling and dealing if owners give greater scrutiny to future cap projections.
If this comes to fruition we are seemingly well positioned, even allowing for a grandfathering period to allow teams to meet their previous obligations and get under a hard cap by a future date.
What say you all?
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, I read the article on CBS sports; couple of initial thoughts
I have to say I’m not clear on the position that the owners are taking. Are they saying they want a hard cap that limits players to less than 50% of BRI? That strikes me as verging on the absurd. It should not be the players’ job to guarantee owner profits.
Right now, the cap is set at 57% of BRI. Let’s say that was actually a hard cap right now. Are you telling me that teams would be losing money if that were the case? I don’t believe that, and if it’s true, it speaks to the business acumen of the owners, not labor costs.
Being a labor guy, I want the players to hold firm. They are the product, and while I want to see a healthy league, owners should not profit on the backs of underpaid labor. Run your business well. Of course, the problem with a business like the NBA is that it’s zero sum—if one team succeeds, another fails in the standings, and the standings are going to drive revenue to a large extent.
Ultimately, I don’t have faith in Billy Hunter going up against Stern, so I suspect the owners will get a lot of what they want, but I sure don’t think the owners deserve the kinds of concessions they are asking for.
I'm thinking that owners would
be much better off going after a partial guaranteed fixed contract where let’s say 50-80% is guaranteed at a fixed base rate and the remaining is based off of some percentage of the overall hard cap number. That way if the cap grows then players automatically share in the profits with getting raises…if it drops then so does a portion of the cap.
For example, say the “Hard Cap” is 50M (just a made up number) and you are offering Lebron a contract. Say the max per player is 25% of cap. So Lebron would get at least $10M a year and assuming the actual cap number based off of BRI was 50M he would also get a 2.5M bonus check.
No way in hell the owners get the players down below 55% of BRI. If owners really want additional cost certainty, they would be better off trying to negotiate off the top end of contracts to make sure they are not liable if the economy just tanks again. For me, it’s all about aligning risks and rewards between players/owners and not creating a situation where one side is immune from all negative events.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 6, 2010 5:13 PM CST reply actions
I'm thinking..
….there is going to be an ugly strike because the game’s finances are WAY out of whack.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I promise, 100% that there won't be a strike
there likely will be a lockout, which is not the same thing.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 6, 2010 5:44 PM CST up reply actions
agreed
without clear and concise understanding of what a problem is, there will be no clear and concise resolution.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 6, 2010 5:45 PM CST up reply actions
I'm sticking with (and meant) strike..
…the owners hold the cards here and part of their victory will involve a public relations crushing and a slow but steady stream of "the league’s finances are terrible’ that every fan can relate to, know about, and talk about. The players, on the other hand, have already been delivered the opening negotiating salvo and they are going to be left debating whether or not D-Wade and LeBron should get huge checks or if the guys near the bottom should get a bump in pay while those at the top take a hit (which will undoubtedly be accompanied by “sources tell me” articles letting the world know how slighted LeBron and Kobe feel about earning anything less than $18 mil/year).
This will be a negotiation out in public every bit as much as it will be one behind closed doors and the fact that about 1/2 of the teams in the league have fan bases that talk more about cap space, how their favorite teams aren’t really playing for this season, and about how the arena is 1/2 empty leads me to believe that, at the end of the day, fans are going to relate far more to what the owners are selling and that the players are going to have to be the ones with the heavy public hand.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
true
however I think the difference between a strike and lockout is that in a lockout the owners literally lock the down and say go away. While in a strike, the players say they aren’t coming back to work unless they get X, Y and Z.
Which situation sounds more like reality. Although, if there is no CBA, then there is no job to go to, so who is there to lockout.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 7, 2010 9:58 AM CST up reply actions
I'm betting on..
….a catastrophic misjudgment by the players union. They will be the ones to walk away from the table because I don’t think they have anything else to bargain with. Too many teams lose money, guaranteed contracts are guaranteed for too long, the bottom 3rd of the 1st round is something that people want to trade out of, and so on and so forth. I can’t think of anything other than the silly 1 year rule in college that I completely side with the players with. What are they going to hold out for other than threatening to walk away?
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm with you
I think they would be better off arguing about the % of BRI and making only a portion of contracts fully guaranteed with the remaining a plug to bring their contract to a % of a cap number. That way players can still get more while giving owners some cost certainty.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 7, 2010 12:32 PM CST up reply actions
I have no faith at all in Billy Hunter
but I would bet all the money in my pocket (roughly $12.34) that if there is a stoppage, it will be a lockout. The owners are clearly going to play hardball; just their first proposal tells you that. They want to break the union.
The players will try to negotiate for what they want, but they will be ready to continue to play under the rules of the previous agreement; it’s the owners who will lock the doors.
And I completely have the opposite view from you; I can think of very little that I agree with the owners on. It is not the players’ fault that teams lose money (if they do). It is poor management. The entire history of NBA collective bargaining over the past 30 years has been give backs by the players. Starting with the salary cap, up to limiting max salaries and agreeing to a rookie wage scale.
In all that time, despite constant bleating, no NBA team has gone out of business. Many teams have been purchased for huge sums.
Perhaps the teams need to do a better job of revenue sharing. And running their damn businesses. And another thing: last I checked, there isn’t a guarantee that every professional sports franchise has to make a profit every year, and yet that seems to be the position that owners take.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 7, 2010 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
I guess the technical difference between
a strike and a lockout is that one side breaking the status quo. If there is no CBA agreement, then there is no status quo and hence no league play. So what do you call that? A true lockout is when management/owners decide that’s enough and say everyone get out…or you come to work the next day and there are chains on the doors, etc.
Both words are so loaded, but when in reality it will just be a labor stalemate, with neither side willing to cave. Contracts just don’t automatically extend themselves if they are not replaced. If a new contract is not negotiated, then there will be no play. period. That’s not a lockout.
As to your last comments, most people get canned for some of the crap that ball players do too. We as employees (especially NBA players) are representatives of their companies and their incentives need to be aligned as such. If too many do stupid things to cause people to lose interest in the NBA, then it should hurt the players pockets too.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 7, 2010 1:43 PM CST up reply actions
I hear yout point....
…and philosophically I side with labor, but i think that the owners will win the public affairs battle.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
As a matter of semantics, if there is a work stoppage
it will probably end up a lockout because as you say, the players are willing to stick with the status quo, hence the owners need to lockout as a means to impose their will.
I think one thing people should ask when taking sides. Is there really a backup, 5-10 minute player worth $3 or $4 million per year. As a fan, was paying 5% of your ticket cost worth it to see Rhino, or Brian Cardinal? Not for me. Half the players in the NBA would make less than a million a year if not for the union. BTW, where else could they go to make comparable money. The rest of us are paid on this same basis, why should players be any different. Considering how much money they pay for teams, and the risk they are taking, owners do not really get that big of a return on their investment.
I think this CBA will be bad for all players, but especially those on the bottom third of the totem pole.
as a matter of semantics
not having an operating agreement is not the same as a lockout. There is no default status quo here. The CBA expires and that is it. It is up to both sides to agree and if they can’t, it’s just a work stoppage/stalemate.
Strike and Lockout imply that only one side is taking a stance. A stalemate or impass, implies both can’t agree.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 7, 2010 7:35 PM CST up reply actions
Well, not exactly
Generally speaking, if sides are negotiating when a CBA expires, and neither wants a work stoppage, they can continue under the rules of the prior CBA.
Sometimes, labor refuses, and strikes. Sometimes ownership refuses; that’s a lockout. You don’t get a lockout when there is still a functioning CBA; that would be a violation of federal labor law. You get one in exactly this situation.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 7, 2010 7:44 PM CST up reply actions
SnP
you got a verdict? Should we henceforth just refer to it as the impending work stoppage?
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 7, 2010 10:09 PM CST up reply actions
I'm hoping neither...
….but i’m not optimistic.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I don't recall there ever being a work stoppage
that wasn’t referred to as either a strike or a lock out. Mutually agreed to work stoppages are pretty unlikely.
The players need to be smart in how they approach negotiations
They are going to need to give something. I saw an article the other day showing that BRI is higher than it was shortly after the half season lockout a decade ago. If the owners shut down half a season back then (during a roaring economy) to get closer to 50%, they certainly will again now, especially considering the economy and many teams losing money.
If the players are smart, they will give in on the max contract lengths being a year shorter. The players who play well will be unaffected, the ones who suffer will be the Mark Blount’s. The union should not be risking a lockout to protect the Mark Blount’s of the NBA. Just getting rid of these bad contracts will get the percentage down, probably under 55% (He is almost 15% of the Wolves current payroll). Do this and get a tiered luxury tax that goes up to $2, and a lockout/strike may be averted.
This is also why the Wolves need to be careful about taking on or adding long term contracts over the next couple years. But with the potential of a work stoppage, a bad contract with two years left may not really be that bad.
Are these the rumored changes or are you just throwing ideas out?
I’ve heard the shortening of contracts but I hadn’t heard about the tiered luxury tax. Most of the owners will be able to stand a strike but you’re right, the players can’t afford to give up a year of their careers for a few ’s… I can understand not wanting to drop to 50 but they would probably go for 53-55%.
About 1/3 is the owners first offer, 1/3 my opinion, 1/3 other sources
The shortened contracts are in the first offer, I think this if the biggest thing the owners want (in additional to lower max annual salaries). It seems like a no brainer to me, the players can call it a major concession (it is, even though only about 10% of players ever get a max term offer).
When I say closer to 50% BRI, this is kind of my opinion and reading tea leaves. The owners offered “significantly less” than 50%, don’t know what that is, but the ultimate agreement will be at least 50%, maybe even as high as your 53-55% if it is a hard cap.
The tiered tax is something I read a few months ago. I mentioned it here, and based on responses it seems other posters had seen the concept and still other posters thought it made sense. I think if an owner wants to keep a great team together (Lakers, Spurs), he should be able to if he is willing to pay the price. The price should be steep though because having ten year dynasties in a few towns while other towns suffer for years really doesn’t help the league as a hole. The NFL prospers because any fan knows no matter how bad their team is they can be a contender in a few years (sorry Lion’s fans). Ultimately, I say it is in the players hands because if they give in to one year shorter contracts, I believe owners will then give in to a multi-tiered luxury tax (which several would prefer) rather than a hard cap.
It just comes down to the fact that about 5-10% of NBA payroll is going to guys like Blount and Jaric….owners are sick of this, and frankly the players busting their A$$e$ on the floor every night should be sick of it as well. If everyone agrees to address this issue, labor peace is possible.
As EiM stated
it’s lockout…not strike. Big difference, but I think we are all on the same page anyways.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 6, 2010 9:09 PM CST up reply actions
I would be all for a fixed cap... it would help to even out the talent.
Instead of allowing teams like the Lakers to spend way over the cap because they have the revenue to do it. I know what I’m saying is a little socialistic, but it would improve the competition in the leauge and make the championship contention more wide open. How much more interesting is the NFL when you know at the beginning of each season just about any team (save Detroit) can contend. I’d love it if the NBA were that way. Instead we know at the start of each season that one of these teams is going to win the title: CLE, BOS, LAL, DEN, ORL. And that’s it, there are no surprises.
New League?
Suppose there is a lockout. Does anything prevent L. James, C. Bosh, C. Anthony, D. Howard, C. Paul, B. Davis, K. Bryant, , K. Garnett, B. Cardinal, and A. Walker from selling $300 tickets to pick up games at various arenas across the country?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
