What are the top 3 things you want to see in the next CBA?

[spotatl]

The power of the bird right is not the extra year. The power of the bird rights is that retaining a player's bird rights is so powerful (by allowing teams to also get other players, keep mle, etc) that the vast majority of teams would rather do a sign and trade than trade outright.

The benefit for the PLAYER is that they get the extra year. The benefit for the team would be the thigns you listed. But when a team has the caproom to sign a player outright then the extra year is only leverage the current team has. Basically if no sign and trade is worked out then the only option the player has is to say that they would be willing to take the 5 year contract to sign outright which is a pretty big threat. Under my system then Lebron would have had the choice of the 6 year 120 million dollar contract with the Cavs, a S&T to the Heat under the terms the Cavs agreed to, Or taking a 1 year 19 million dollar deal with Cleveland to become a free agent.

Edited March 8, 2011 by spotatl

[AHF]

AHF- writers get CBA stuff wrong all the time. All players in their first 3 seasons in the league are restricted free agents except for first round picks who had their team options declined. It was a common misconception at the time.

Agreed - they are wrong at least as often as they are right.

This is all I was able to find. I can't find the 2001 CBA, but the summary I see on the 2005 CBA indicates that the old CBA gave teams restricted free agency rights if they made a contract offer of 3 years to a rookie so it looks like that is consistent with your read. (The 2005 CBA changed it so that a team had to make a 2 year contract offer to be entitled to restricted free agent rights.)

http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-collective-bargaining-agreement.shtml

If someone has the link to the old CBAs, I would be interested in bookmarking that.

* * * *

Boozer just has no integrity.

[Guest]

Agreed - they are wrong at least as often as they are right.

This is all I was able to find. I can't find the 2001 CBA, but the summary I see on the 2005 CBA indicates that the old CBA gave teams restricted free agency rights if they made a contract offer of 3 years to a rookie so it looks like that is consistent with your read. (The 2005 CBA changed it so that a team had to make a 2 year contract offer to be entitled to restricted free agent rights.)

http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-collective-bargaining-agreement.shtml

If someone has the link to the old CBAs, I would be interested in bookmarking that.

* * * *

Boozer just has no integrity.

If memory serves me correctly, Boozer was a RFA when he signed with the Jazz. The problem was that the Cavs simply didn't have enough cap space to match the offer so it was impossible for them to match.

Boozer's original contract was for 3 years where the 3rd year was either unguaranteed or a team option. Both Boozer and the Cavs essentially tried to circumvent the CBA by using early bird rights to get Boozer more money. Both of them were wrong for doing this IMO, but Boozer did a double wrong by also misleading a blind owner.

[AHF]

If memory serves me correctly, Boozer was a RFA when he signed with the Jazz. The problem was that the Cavs simply didn't have enough cap space to match the offer so it was impossible for them to match.

Boozer's original contract was for 3 years where the 3rd year was either unguaranteed or a team option. Both Boozer and the Cavs essentially tried to circumvent the CBA by using early bird rights to get Boozer more money. Both of them were wrong for doing this IMO, but Boozer did a double wrong by also misleading a blind owner.

Agreed.

The question we were discussing was whether Boozer would have been an UFA or a RFA if the Cavs had exercised their team option for $695,000. I can't find the 2001 CBA online to verify. spotatl is certain he would have been a RFA after his 3rd year on the cheap team option and the summary of the 2005 CBA and how it differs from the 2001 CBA to which I linked appears to support that read of the 2001 CBA.

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[Guest]

(1) I get the concern raised by several posters as far as a franchise player not having the right to change teams with a franchise tag. As a fan, I take that over the impact on teams that end up without a real hope when their superstar walks. LA, for example, will always be able to get their next superstar under the current system. They can draft him and keep him (Magic, Kobe, West, etc.) or they can acquire him because people will always want to go to the glitz and glamour of the LA Lakers (Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, etc.) Memphis will never have one unless they draft him and then they are at risk to lose him unless he is a low maintenance guy like Karl Malone. In my view, someone who is being paid above the maximum salary and therefore more than every other player in the league doesn't deserve the label of "slave" any more than you would call Peyton Manning a slave. If the max salary is $20M and the franchise tag costs $21M, that doesn't quite rank among the great tragedies of life to have to play in Cleveland like Manning plays in Indianapolis.

So...once you own them they are yours no matter what? Well hot dang, where can I get this kind of a sweet deal!

You're also imposing your own views on life here by saying money rules all, if someone is being paid more than anyone else then damnit they should just suck it up and be forced to be paid the max. Come on AHF, money doesn't rule all the world. One couldn't pay me enough to live up North, but in the context of a sports world I have no choice?

The current CBA gives a huge advantage to the team's who draft players with Bird Rights and RFA. You want an even harsher punishment of saying that no matter what, a player has no choice in movement within a league?

[Guest]

Agreed.

The question we were discussing was whether Boozer would have been an UFA or a RFA if the Cavs had exercised their team option for $695,000. I can't find the 2001 CBA online to verify. spotatl is certain he would have been a RFA after his 3rd year on the cheap team option and the summary of the 2005 CBA and how it differs from the 2001 CBA to which I linked appears to support that read of the 2001 CBA.

Oh he definitely would still be a RFA had the 3rd season on Boozer's original contract not been terminated. Restricted free agency occurs regardless of contract status after the first 3 seasons in the NBA, and then its gone after that unless you were on a rookie-scale contract which would make your RFA after your 4th season.

The only major changes with RFA in the 2005 CBA dealt with the Boozer and Arenas situation where a team had right of first refusal but could not match a contract. They put an additional restriction on how much of an offer a RFA could receive. Another ad hoc move IMO that doesn't warrant an actual change. Why not have a mentality change on the owner's part to not allow a player to enter into a Boozer/Arenas situation? Its simple, guarantee more money to 2nd rounders or just accept the risk that your 2nd rounder exceeds expectations.

[AHF]

So...once you own them they are yours no matter what? Well hot dang, where can I get this kind of a sweet deal!

You're also imposing your own views on life here by saying money rules all, if someone is being paid more than anyone else then damnit they should just suck it up and be forced to be paid the max. Come on AHF, money doesn't rule all the world. One couldn't pay me enough to live up North, but in the context of a sports world I have no choice?

The current CBA gives a huge advantage to the team's who draft players with Bird Rights and RFA. You want an even harsher punishment of saying that no matter what, a player has no choice in movement within a league?

(1) Look the NFL for that "sweet deal" and how poor Peyton Manning's career has been destroyed by it, not to mention the league's popularity.

(2) As a fan, I want a mechanism that gives teams the option to retain their franchise player rather than having to choose between risking being humiliated on national television and then trading your franchise for a pittance or trading franchise players before the end of their contract to avoid getting Boshed.

On the accusion that I am imposing my own views, I am not saying people are always happiest with the most money. I am saying I am happier as a fan with a league where franchises can retain their franchise player than one like the NBA today and that a player being paid more than anyone else in the league to play somewhere he isn't excited about isn't ideal for the player but strikes me as not overly harsh and is preferable to me as a fan to the status quo. I know you would like to see the league eliminate the draft and let players pick their teams, but I am in favor of the draft restrictions and the idea of a franchise tag.

As an aside, I don't expect there actually will be a franchise tag. I just expect more economic incentives to stay with the incumbent team.

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[AHF]

Oh he definitely would still be a RFA had the 3rd season on Boozer's original contract not been terminated. Restricted free agency occurs regardless of contract status after the first 3 seasons in the NBA, and then its gone after that unless you were on a rookie-scale contract which would make your RFA after your 4th season.

The only major changes with RFA in the 2005 CBA dealt with the Boozer and Arenas situation where a team had right of first refusal but could not match a contract. They put an additional restriction on how much of an offer a RFA could receive. Another ad hoc move IMO that doesn't warrant an actual change. Why not have a mentality change on the owner's part to not allow a player to enter into a Boozer/Arenas situation? Its simple, guarantee more money to 2nd rounders or just accept the risk that your 2nd rounder exceeds expectations.

I know that is how RFA works under the 2005 CBA but wasn't sure about the 2001 CBA when the 3rd year was a team option since multiple articles said he would be an unrestricted FA and I couldn't find the actual 2001 CBA.

Here is the summary I found on changes in RFA:

I. Restricted Free Agency

# A team must exercise its options for the third and fourth seasons of a Rookie Scale Contract in order to have first refusal rights (following year 4).

# Offer Sheets must be for at least two seasons (instead of three), not including any option year, unless the player’s prior team gives the player both a Qualifying Offer and an alternative offer of a “maximum” contract, in which case the Offer Sheet must be for three or more years (not including any option year).

# Offer Sheets for players with one or two years of service must comply with the following: 1. The first year salary may not exceed 108% of the average player salary for the prior year and the second year salary may not increase or decrease by more than 8%. 2. If the Offer Sheet provides for 108% of the average player salary for the first year with an 8% increase for the second year, then the Offer Sheet may provide for salary in the third year up to the amount that the player would have been eligible to receive in that year had his salary in the first year been for any amount up to the “maximum” salary allowable for that player (e.g., first year at the player’s maximum allowable salary with annual increases of 8% of the first-year salary). The player’s salary after the third year may increase or decrease by no more than 6.9% of the third-year salary. 3. In order to determine whether a team has room to extend such an Offer Sheet, the first year salary will be deemed to equal the average of the aggregate salaries for each year covered by the Offer Sheet. 4. If the player’s prior team doesn’t exercise its Right of First Refusal, the averaged salary amount will be included in the new team’s Team Salary for each year of the contract. However, if the player’s prior team does exercise its Right of First Refusal, the amount included in Team Salary for each year shall be the salary set forth in the contract.

# A team now has seven (7) days (instead of 15) to match an offer sheet tendered to a player that is subject to such team’s Right of First Refusal.

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[spotatl]

AHF- maybe from a fan's perspective a league without any free agency is better but I do think that players should be able to live in the city where they want to. They shoudl be able to play for the organization that they want to. I think the league gets it pretty much right with the draft- after 4 seasons the player has to pick between the team that drafted them or taking a 1 year contract to hit unrestricted free agency. If they want out badly enough and their current team refuses to trade them then they can take a 1 year contract and go where ever they like. But for the most part players take the long term security and sign the extension. For teams making the best offer they are allowed to make I do think it should give the team some more leverage. But I also think that the player should have a light at the end of the tunnel if he truly wants out.

[AHF]

AHF- maybe from a fan's perspective a league without any free agency is better but I do think that players should be able to live in the city where they want to. They shoudl be able to play for the organization that they want to. I think the league gets it pretty much right with the draft- after 4 seasons the player has to pick between the team that drafted them or taking a 1 year contract to hit unrestricted free agency. If they want out badly enough and their current team refuses to trade them then they can take a 1 year contract and go where ever they like. But for the most part players take the long term security and sign the extension. For teams making the best offer they are allowed to make I do think it should give the team some more leverage. But I also think that the player should have a light at the end of the tunnel if he truly wants out.

I get that. I just prefer the NFL model as a fan and am disconcerted by what I am seeing in Denver, Toronto, New Orleans, Utah, Cleveland, Orlando, etc.

I don't actually expect to see a franchise tag in the NBA - just more tweaks on the current model.

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[sturt]

I had a long post written about the things I wanted to see but evidently I never hit send or wasn't logged when I typed it.

The major thing I want to see is an escalating luxury tax based on how many years a team has been a tax payer. The current tax is 100%. You pay a dollar for every dollar over the tax you are. I'd say that under my new system the first season you are over the tax it wouldn't be painful. Maybe a 50% tax. That way if a team had a big salary they were waiting to clear off of the books that it wouldn't be too painful to pay the tax one season waiting for the player to come off. But if the team stayed over the tax line the next season it would be a 125% tax. The next season it would be a 175% tax. The next season a 225% tax. Pick the numbers however you want- basically it would let teams extend out their run a couple extra seasons but eventually that team would collapse under its own weight and eventually the team would have to blow it up and shed salary to get back under the tax line.

I like... a lot... but with the caveat that, again, the Cubans and the Dolans and the Buss' of the world are less motivated by taking financial penalties and more motivated by taking a talent hit... but a combination of both would seem to be, nonetheless, ultimately beneficial to keep them from pricing the rest of the league out of contention.

And again, I like something like that in combination with a similar mechanism as discussed earlier with dlpin... teams who fail to excel for multiple consecutive years are entitled to an ever-decreasing share of the luxury tax proceeds... and in fact, maybe to be effective (since I maintain that teams' exceeding the luxury tax would soon become significantly more sporadic under these circumstances), that decrease would need to be enacted with regard to proceeds from TV contracts as well (?).

I'd like to see a team once every 3 seasons be able to buy out a player and have him completely come off of the team's cap. (the player still gets the money owed to him though)

I'll have to think about this one... would initially seem to mainly benefit those teams who can afford to eat salary, and those are largely the teams who aren't really needing any additional benefit to be competitive.

I'd like to see the rules on signing bonuses be relaxed. Currently players would be stupid to sign an non-guaranteed contract but if he were given a big enough signing bonus then maybe he would. It would give smart teams more flexibility.

Again, I'm unsure if this necessarily benefits anyone but the teams with the greatest resources. In fact, I'm thinking the opposite--that there's really no purpose served by having contractual signing bonuses at all (...?).

[spotatl]

AHF- the 2 vs 3 year thing is how long a contract must be if another team offered a RFA an offersheet. That has nothing to do with what players would be restricted free agents. The rest of it is the Arenas rule. The Arenas rule would have helped the Cavs with boozer.

[AHF]

AHF- the 2 vs 3 year thing is how long a contract must be if another team offered a RFA an offersheet. That has nothing to do with what players would be restricted free agents. The rest of it is the Arenas rule. The Arenas rule would have helped the Cavs with boozer.

Gotcha. It would be nice to actually be able to read the CBAs instead of the limited summaries. At least you can get the 2005 agreement online.

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[spotatl]

My rule changes are based on giving teams flexibility to solve their problems. Letting a team buy out a contract would absolutely help teams with more resources- but it would also have let the Bucks get out of Michael Redd's contract while it was covered by insurance. (my idea would be that a player would have to be on your team for at least 1 full calendar year to use that provision) I just think its tough when teams know they made a mistake on a contract and it locks up their cap for several seasons. To me the Player absolutely has to get what they are owed but I'd like to see a team be able to clear them off of their cap and move on. They would still get the right to set off so they would get a portion of their money back if that player signed a new deal.

As far as signing bonuses go- thats what the NFL uses to give players incentive to take a non-guaranteed year. Basically a non-guaranteed year is a team option. Players need incentive to give team options... without a signing bonus what other reason is there? I get why the NBA limited the size of a signing bonus but to me it simply takes away a took that would be useful for a smart team.

Edited March 8, 2011 by spotatl

[AHF]

To me the Player absolutely has to get what they are owed but I'd like to see a team be able to clear them off of their cap and move on. They would still get the right to set off so they would get a portion of their money back if that player signed a new deal.

Why would the player sign more than a minimum contract if they can't get more than their original deal?

For example, if Player X signs a $10M/year, 5 year deal and bombed out after year 1...Then Player X is bought out for $10M/year (or the present value of the same) and that money frees up on the original team's cap....Then Player X signs a new deal for less than $10M/season...What is the incentive to sign for $6M/year rather than $1M/year if they are getting the $10M/year anyway and any amount they sign for goes back to their original team (thus hurting the competitiveness of their new team by taking up more cap space)?

If you aren't talking about a traditional set off like that, how do you see the money flowing?

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[spotatl]

AHF- how the right to set off works is that the team gets a rebate of 50% of the new contract (above the minimum) refunded to them. So the player does get incentive to sign for a bigger contract but the old team gets some money back.

So If the player had a 10 million dollar contract bought out and signed for 6 million a year. The player would then get $13 million ($10 from the old contract plus $3 million from the new one) while the old team would get $3 million back.

Edited March 8, 2011 by spotatl

[AHF]

AHF- how the right to set off works is that the team gets a rebate of 50% of the new contract (above the minimum) refunded to them. So the player does get incentive to sign for a bigger contract but the old team gets some money back.

So If the player had a 10 million dollar contract bought out and signed for 6 million a year. The player would then get $13 million ($10 from the old contract plus $3 million from the new one) while the old team would get $3 million back.

Thanks. I thought you were proposing a pure set-off.

So in the above example, the player would get $3M from his new team, $10M from his original team and then the original team would receive $3M from Player X's salary.

[Guest]

Gotcha. It would be nice to actually be able to read the CBAs instead of the limited summaries. At least you can get the 2005 agreement online.

Now, that I see what part of the summarizing article you were looking at I understand what you meant. I hate the lost in translation aspect of sports writers. They really do a pisspoor job of summarizing the first hand information mainly because I don't think they even understand the first hand information. What is worse is that sports writers rarely cite their summaries, or at least I feel there has been a downward trend of citing references.

[Buzzard]

Agreed.

The question we were discussing was whether Boozer would have been an UFA or a RFA if the Cavs had exercised their team option for $695,000. I can't find the 2001 CBA online to verify. spotatl is certain he would have been a RFA after his 3rd year on the cheap team option and the summary of the 2005 CBA and how it differs from the 2001 CBA to which I linked appears to support that read of the 2001 CBA.

Boozer would not have been unrestriced if the Cavs would have not released him from his contract.. That was the beef. They agreed to it at Boozers request and he promised to sign a MLE type deal. If you want verification, look up these players contract history. Dan Gadzuric, Ronald Flip Murray, Matt Barnes, Rasual Butler, Luis Scola. All were 2nd round picks in 2002 and none of them became UFAs in just their 3rd or 4th season. Its all about bird rights and retaining the option to match. No draft pick, under the CBA Boozer fell under,becomes a UFA after only 3 to 4 seasons in the NBA unless the team does not at least keep him under contract for its full length.

That is the gist. If they do not release him from his contractual obligation, they keep him for one more cheap year, then could have matched all offers just as we did with all our picks. The real difference between 1st and 2nd round picks is 2nd round picks become RFAs sooner, not UFAs, because the guaranteed money is lower and contract length is shorter. Which in most cases is exactly what owners want, since 2nd round picks have such a high chance of not even sticking in the league.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Buzzard