Very interesting CBA mention by Bucher on owners wanting to reduce future contracts

[johnnyde]

OK, here is what Bucher just said in an interview on ESPN in regards to all the money being handed out to current free agents:

"One of the things they'll(owners) be looking for in this next collective bargaining agreement is to take this money back. That all these contracts out there - they have strings attached and that the owners are going to go very hard and harshly and say 'we want the ability in the next cba to reduce every contract not just the ones that we are signing from this point forwards but to be able to do a reduction on even the existing contracts'...apparently that's what the owners have in mind."

Sounds like they want to do something along the lines of what would be the opposite of paying incentives in contracts - meaning as well as paying a player extra for achieving certain goals (all-nba, making playoffs, etc.) that they would have something in contracts saying that if the player doesn't meet a certain minimum goal then they can pay them less?

I don't see how the player's union would agree to this but this would change the face of the NBA. But if somehow it did maybe more or these slackers actually start playing up to their contracts.

[AHF]

Is he talking about incentives or retroactively applying changes in pay structures to existing contracts?

If he is talking about the latter, it would work something like this:

* JJ signs a six year deal worth $119M, after this season 5 years and $103M remain

* New CBA limits contracts to 4 years and max salary of $17M/year

* JJ's deal is re-written to a 4 year, $68M deal instead of the 5 year, $103M deal

Edited July 2, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

In the NHL after the lockout there was a rollback league wide of existing contracts and the salaries the players were owed. But it would take the players union being absolutely crushed for them to accept that.

[johnnyde]

Is he talking about incentives or retroactively applying changes in pay structures to existing contracts?

If he is talking about the latter, it would work something like this:

* JJ signs a six year deal worth $119M, after this season 5 years and $103M remain

* New CBA limits contracts to 4 years and max salary of $17M/year

* JJ's deal is re-written to a 4 year, $68M deal instead of the 5 year, $103M deal

Yeah, I wasn't sure on how to take what he said. When he mentioned the contracts having "strings" attached it made me think of incentives. But the rest of his wording could sound like how you explained it also.

Edited July 2, 2010 by AHF

[sturt]

There, no doubt, are some legal types gathered here who can speak to this better than can I, but that doesn't seem on the surface to be something that would stand up in court. If I have a contract that I'm to be paid for my services at a specific rate, then you either have to give up my services or pay me, or create some incentive/reason why I would be compelled to renegotiate.

To my mind, the only way to deal with it is what the NFL does, which is to allow teams to cut players before the conclusion of their contracts.

[spotatl]

sturt- in the CBA negotiation the owners can certainly ask for a salary rollback. If the players agree to it then its possible. Thats what happened in the NHL. It just depends how ugly the new CBA negotiation gets- it would take armageddon for the players to accept a rollback.

[exodus]

sturt- in the CBA negotiation the owners can certainly ask for a salary rollback. If the players agree to it then its possible. Thats what happened in the NHL. It just depends how ugly the new CBA negotiation gets- it would take armageddon for the players to accept a rollback.

The owners certainly aren't helping their case the way they seem to be throwing money around right now.

[Kimsey]

All I know is they better make the last year mostly un-guaranteed or team option. They'll be fools to pay a 35 year old 25 million dollars.

[AHF]

sturt- in the CBA negotiation the owners can certainly ask for a salary rollback. If the players agree to it then its possible. Thats what happened in the NHL. It just depends how ugly the new CBA negotiation gets- it would take armageddon for the players to accept a rollback.

This is right.

The owners certainly aren't helping their case the way they seem to be throwing money around right now.

It cuts both ways. If the owners aren't throwing around ridiculous money, why do they need new rules to curtail spending? Doesn't the existing structure work fine if owners can exercise self-restraint?

[coachx]

In the NHL after the lockout there was a rollback league wide of existing contracts and the salaries the players were owed. But it would take the players union being absolutely crushed for them to accept that.

Wow !

I had no idea they had the power to reduce/ rollback existing salaries.

There is alot going on behind the scenes that the owners are prevy too that we are not.

[coachx]

All I know is they better make the last year mostly un-guaranteed or team option. They'll be fools to pay a 35 year old 25 million dollars.

At least be accurate. JJ will be 34 during the entire last season of the deal. He would not even play 1 game at the age 35 under a current contract.

Edited July 2, 2010 by coachx

[exodus]

This is right.

It cuts both ways. If the owners aren't throwing around ridiculous money, why do they need new rules to curtail spending? Doesn't the existing structure work fine if owners can exercise self-restraint?

LOL I hadn't thought of that.

[Joker]

As a fan I wouldn't mind but the players are going to request that the fees gets shorten by 45% which is as unlikely as the salary rollback. The NBA players have more fees than any other league by an extremely large margin. The NBA players basically fund all these NBA Cares and NBA/Basketball expansion throughout the world. No way Stern makes the owners pay for it, and no way the owners will pay. I don't see salary rollback or minimum fees as an option to either side.

[gsuteke]

There, no doubt, are some legal types gathered here who can speak to this better than can I, but that doesn't seem on the surface to be something that would stand up in court. If I have a contract that I'm to be paid for my services at a specific rate, then you either have to give up my services or pay me, or create some incentive/reason why I would be compelled to renegotiate.

To my mind, the only way to deal with it is what the NFL does, which is to allow teams to cut players before the conclusion of their contracts.

Anti-trust exemption