Marc Stein posted a report today with some interesting details in the owners' latest CBA proposal:

•  The institution of a sliding "Supertax" that would charge teams $2 in luxury tax for every dollar over $70 million in payroll, $3 for every dollar over $75 million in payroll and $4 for every dollar for teams with payrolls above $80 million

•  A provision to allow each team to release one player via the so-called "amnesty" clause and gain both salary-cap and luxury-tax relief when that player's cap number is removed from the books

•  Shortening guaranteed contracts to a maximum of three or four seasons

•  Limiting Larry Bird rights -- which enable teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents -- to one player per team per season

•  Reducing the annual mid-level exception, which was valued at $5.8 million last season, to roughly $3 million annually and limiting mid-level contracts to a maximum of two or three seasons in length as opposed to the current maximum of five seasons

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

•  The abolition of sign-and-trades and the bi-annual exception worth $2 million

•  Significant reductions in maximum salaries and annual raises and a 5 percent rollbacks on current contracts

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7037865/start-nba-season-jeopardy-owners-players-set-meet

How realistic do you think this is?  Which ones seem likely to be approved by the union?  My opinion is below the jump...

• The institution of a sliding "Supertax" that would charge teams $2 in luxury tax for every dollar over $70 million in payroll, $3 for every dollar over $75 million in payroll and $4 for every dollar for teams with payrolls above $80 million
• It's been reported that the players are against this, as they feel it will depress the size and length of contracts, especially to role players.  I'm guessing this Supertax happens, but with smaller or more gradual penalties.  They might have to expand the ranges or go $1 per dollar on the first range.  The players biggest objective is retaining guaranteed contracts, and I don't think the Supertax system would endanger them nearly as much as a hard cap.  The players will have to accept higher luxury taxes in exchange for retaining the soft cap.
  
  
• A provision to allow each team to release one player via the so-called "amnesty" clause and gain both salary-cap and luxury-tax relief when that player's cap number is removed from the books
• I think this one will happen.  Players still get paid, and it provides a way for current luxury tax teams to avoid the more stringent taxes.  I'd like to see this be available once per year, but I'd guess it will only be available for one year or perhaps the first few years as a higher tax is phased in.
  
  
• Shortening guaranteed contracts to a maximum of three or four seasons
• The current CBA offers six seasons when resigning with your own team, five seasons otherwise.  So I'm guessing they'll compromise on a max of five seasons with your own team, four seasons otherwise.
  
  
• Limiting Larry Bird rights -- which enable teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents -- to one player per team per season
• This one seems stupid to me.  The point was allowing teams to retain their own star players.  Why penalize a team for accidentally having its best two players have their contracts end on the same year.  I'm guessing this one does not happen.
  
  
• Reducing the annual mid-level exception, which was valued at $5.8 million last season, to roughly $3 million annually and limiting mid-level contracts to a maximum of two or three seasons in length as opposed to the current maximum of five seasons
• I think this will definitely happen, although I could see negotiation leading to a slightly higher amount and/or perhaps one more year.  Owners hate the mid-level and the awful contracts it has resulted in.  There is no way owners approve a deal without a significant reduction in the MLE.
  
  
• A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract
• I'm sure the owners are quite angry with the Melo debacle that consumed all of last season and the Dwight & Paul debacles about to happen.  I could see this proposal happening, or something else with a similar aim.  Strangely enough, like the Allan Houston rule, this one would not have applied to Melo.
  
  
• The abolition of sign-and-trades and the bi-annual exception worth $2 million
• Abolishing sign-and-trades is part of avoiding the Melo debacle.  But it is tricky, as it theoretically provides a team trading its superstar with the tools necessary to rebuild.  I'm guessing this happens, but I'm not sure if it is actually in the owners' best interests.  Abolishing the bi-annual exception seems like overreaching by the owners.  These are small contracts that offer at least something above the vet minimum to foster a 'middle class' for players.  I think the union will successfully fight to keep this one in the CBA.
  
  
• Significant reductions in maximum salaries and annual raises and a 5 percent rollbacks on current contracts
• I think both of these are owners overreaching.  I could see a small reduction in maximum salaries, but for every overpaid Joe Johnson there is an underpaid Kobe or Lebron.  The actual superstars are way underpaid.  I think a reduction in annual raises is more reasonable, given how some of the contracts seem to grow much faster than the rate of inflation and pay the most when the player is producing the least.  A 5 percent rollback on current contracts is a ridiculous cash grab, and I can't see players accepting it at all.

What do you think?