NEW CBA....

[Diesel]

I agree. The GM's need to be held responsible to a certain extent. I briefly mentioned that at the end of the paragraph 3. The problem is that the owners are hell bent on getting their way this time and I think the players are better off making a deal now as opposed to missing half or all of the season and then getting that same bad deal later, only this time they have lost an entire year's worth of salary.

I even think that for a lot of players, allowing for 1 or 2 guys to be whacked who aren't playing up to par is actually a good thing. Here's why. Let's say you have a team like the Hawks. They want to resign Crawford but just don't want to go over the lux tax to do so. It's not just the Hawks who get hurt if JC leaves. JC now has to find a team that will pay him what he feels is fair market value and with the MLE most likely being compromised in the next cba, he is going to have a hard time finding it. Not to mention the fact that he's gonna be over 30 as well. With my rule in place, they can take out Marvin or Hinrich and then have plenty of breathing room to bring back JC. Now, this is just a hypothetical example. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the Hawks are better off with JC over Marvin or Hinrich but you get the idea. If Marvin or Hinrich were truly under performing at the level that some guys in the league are, then being able to get rid of one of them works to the advantage of an upcoming free agent who wants to stay but can't due to said bad salaries.

The league in general would be better. You wouldn't have as many Euro departures. The Hawks wanted JChildress back but were up against it financially and had to let him go. Lot's of teams have found themselves in that boat. Getting rid of 1 lame brain every 5 years helps everyone. The fans win because the team is better, the owner wins because he saves a boat load of dough and the upcoming free agent who deserves a pay day as opposed to floating over to Greece win as well. The only loser is the overpaid jake. The key is getting the players to understand the above. Don't hold out on a good deal for a new cba for overpaid underperformers.

Since Stern, the owners have always got what it wanted. That's not to say that the players were screwed, In fact, I think basketball has the best players deals. I just think that the owners need to signal time for a hard cap without lying about not making money.

As far as your example, I think an Amnesty clause would be a definite for Marvin. Hinrich.. is a great trade piece because he's in the end of his contract. If there were two contracts to release, Marvin is one and I don't think there's really another. I would then see if Craw would gofor 4 yrs 31 Million. It's not really lowball when you consider that with a hard cap, teams would be reluctant to give a player his age, that many years.

[Joker]

I like reading Trueblood's post. I don't always agree but I appreciate quality posts. Your 1st +1.

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

Simply put baseball is the favorite pastime and has no cap at all, and NFL is probably the most popular US sport and they have a hard cap but if you really look into it, it is different for each team, which makes it not a true hard cap. Why the heck would the league or the players be trying to follow the lead of hockey which is below the NBA in the popularity pecking order? They should be trying to model things after the NFL or MLB. The soft cap luxury is the way to go IMO.

This year players salaries totalled over $2 billion.

Simply cut salary by 25%

Which would knock it down to $1.5 billion

Divide that by 30 teams and you get $50 million as salary cap anything over that is luxury tax, anything over $70 million you get none of the pot in which luxury goes into. So, you both give a player salary cut of 25% and you allow more money into the luxury pot.

Edited May 23, 2011 by TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA

[Trueblood]

Thanks NBAsuperstar40. I didn't even realize that we had a point system over here. I'll try to post more often. :biggrin:

[Diesel]

Simply put baseball is the favorite pastime and has no cap at all, and NFL is probably the most popular US sport and they have a hard cap but if you really look into it, it is different for each team, which makes it not a true hard cap. Why the heck would the league or the players be trying to follow the lead of hockey which is below the NBA in the popularity pecking order? They should be trying to model things after the NFL or MLB. The soft cap luxury is the way to go IMO.

This year players salaries totalled over $2 billion.

Simply cut salary by 25%

Which would knock it down to $1.5 billion

Divide that by 30 teams and you get $50 million as salary cap anything over that is luxury tax, anything over $70 million you get none of the pot in which luxury goes into. So, you both give a player salary cut of 25% and you allow more money into the luxury pot.

No. That sucks.

Here's what will work.

Hard cap.

Take it up to 75 Million.

That's 2.25 Billion.

1st two years, Amnesty Clause on 1 player.

Player Exception for players with the same team 6yrs and newly drafted players.

Now, why does yours suck?

It is the same thing we have now.

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

No. That sucks.

Here's what will work.

Hard cap.

Take it up to 75 Million.

That's 2.25 Billion.

1st two years, Amnesty Clause on 1 player.

Player Exception for players with the same team 6yrs and newly drafted players.

Now, why does yours suck?

It is the same thing we have now.

Well I guess there is nothing wrong with the current one. Like I stated simply cut 25% player salary then divide by 30. $50 million salary cap. That means salaries have went from 2 Billion to 1.5 billion. Then you move the luxury to $75 million. So, looking at this past year that means you would divide $500,000,000 by 26 teams. Each of those 26 team owners would get $19 million for not going over $75 million luxury. So, that means 26 owners are making money. How can you complain about the four that may or may not be making money? They could be making money regardless of there cap you know.

[Diesel]

These are the things that come with BRI that is apart of the collective Bargain:

Regular season gate receipts • Broadcast rights • Exhibition game proceeds • Playoff gate receipts • Novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within a 75-mile radius) • Parking • Proceeds from team sponsorships • Proceeds from team promotions • Arena club revenues • Proceeds from summer camps • Proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments • Proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances • Proceeds from beverage sale rights • 40% of proceeds from arena signage • 40% of proceeds from luxury suites • Proceeds received by Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald's Championship and other NBA special events.

Now, couple that with the fact that the ABC, ESPN, TNT contract pays 966 Million per year.

The NBA makes a pretty penny.

Stern won't dare open the books because 41 homes games... and the NBA get the gate... and it's spread abroad.... That's good money ($828,985).

We have yet to talk about sponsored...

Maybe 2.25 Billion is a bit much, but having a soft cap... ensures that there will be a luxury tax that feeds back into the BRI.

[Guest]

Maybe 2.25 Billion is a bit much, but having a soft cap... ensures that there will be a luxury tax that feeds back into the BRI.

Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, the LT does not go into the BRI. BRI does not include any LT in it.

[Diesel]

Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, the LT does not go into the BRI. BRI does not include any LT in it.

The LT goes back to the owners. It is a measure that helps the smaller market teams because it increases their profit. Therefore, the smaller market teams would prefer a smaller Cap and a Luxury tax so that they can make more money. As I read more, a hard cap... doesn't insure the owners another revenue stream like the LT does. Therefore if there were a hard cap (based on all the numbers that I can find), they would prefer it be small.

[dlpin]

In theory, I am in favor of a hard cap.

But in reality, I don't think a hard cap is going to work in the NBA. The NBA is a lot more like the MLB than the NFL in that only a few franchises can truly be profitable.

In the NFL, even the Lions, which had the worst revenue of any NFL franchise the year before last, made more money than 28 of the NBA teams. The NFL, because of the popularity of football, makes a lot more money.

Meanwhile, in the NBA, like the MLB, only a few markets are big enough to allow teams to truly make a profit. A Forbes piece from a few years ago claimed that only 5 NBA franchises made a profit before counting money from the luxury tax, but that the luxury tax was enough to put a whole bunch of teams in the black. New York, LA, Boston, Chicago and Dallas can all spend close to 100 million in payroll, get bounced from the playoffs early, and still make a substantial profit. Other franchises struggle even when spending a fraction of that money.

As such, the solution is to redistribute money some way, and a soft cap with a luxury tax does that. In the MLB the tampa bays and the st louis cardinals of the world compete by getting money from the yankees and red sox of the world.

In an ideal world, all teams would spend the same. In the nba, it is better to have some redistribution of income like that.

[DJlaysitup]

Realistically...due to contract Law...nobody with a currently fixed contract can be forced into a non-guarranteed contract....it's just not legal. Everybody will get paid.

So nothing is going to change JJ's contract. Worse, a new salary cap will make JJ even MORE untrade-able. If it works out like I think it will we are taking this contract to the grave boys and girls...just like Speedy's except JJ can actually play...(thank goodness).

The wild card IMO is that the bigtime franchises will not want to give up their ability to overspend for talent. Lets face it - the Celtics had their own network for home TV games way back when I was in the navy and stationed at the South Boston Shipyard for repairs...the only games I got to see on free TV living in Boston were away games....and that was in 1988. Absolutely no way they are giving up that revenue stream...and they know the only way to insure a top level team is to be able to buy the best players. If its' a hard cap they are right there with MILW and the Timberwolves. I can't see that happening. Money talks...always has.

[Trueblood]

No. That sucks.

Here's what will work.

Hard cap.

Take it up to 75 Million.

That's 2.25 Billion.

1st two years, Amnesty Clause on 1 player.

Player Exception for players with the same team 6yrs and newly drafted players.

Now, why does yours suck?

It is the same thing we have now.

I'm cool with a hard cap as long as you have the layers below it. For example, if the hard cap is $75 million then I could see a lux tax threshold at around $63 million with a soft cap at $51 million and 75% of the soft cap is a tad over $37 million for the minimum salary level for the cheap owners.

When you talk about the amnesty clause, are you referring to the old clause where you could waive a player and he doesn't count against your lux tax payment or does your system mean that his contract gets terminated altogether?

I'm fine with the owners having the ability to terminate 2 deals over the course of the 10 year cba but I would at least make them wait 2 years in order to give the players a warning of sorts.

[Diesel]

I'm cool with a hard cap as long as you have the layers below it. For example, if the hard cap is $75 million then I could see a lux tax threshold at around $63 million with a soft cap at $51 million and 75% of the soft cap is a tad over $37 million for the minimum salary level for the cheap owners.

When you talk about the amnesty clause, are you referring to the old clause where you could waive a player and he doesn't count against your lux tax payment or does your system mean that his contract gets terminated altogether?

I'm fine with the owners having the ability to terminate 2 deals over the course of the 10 year cba but I would at least make them wait 2 years in order to give the players a warning of sorts.

There's no such thing as a hard cap and a soft cap together.

Just say, you want a soft cap with a LT.

That's understandable, but it's the same thing that we have had.

I realize that owners are paid more because of the LT... so maybe it's not going away.

But small market teams won't flourish until there is a hard cap.

[Trueblood]

There's no such thing as a hard cap and a soft cap together.

Just say, you want a soft cap with a LT.

That's understandable, but it's the same thing that we have had.

I realize that owners are paid more because of the LT... so maybe it's not going away.

But small market teams won't flourish until there is a hard cap.

I should've confirmed what I meant.

Let's say you have a soft cap, lux tax threshold and then a hard cap on top of that. You make the soft cap be $50 million, the lux tax is at $62 and then a hard cap at $75 million. Here's how it works....

You are allowed to exceed the soft cap of $50 million to not only sign your own free agents BUT ALSO sign someone for the MLE provided you stay below the lux tax threshold of $62 million. For example, if the Bulls are at $52 million this summer, they can go out and sign Jason Richardson to shore up their 2G position. Assuming the MLE is around $5 million, he will fit under the $62 million lux tax threshold but they can't go any higher than that $62 million since they spent the MLE.

The only way you can exceed the lux tax of $62 million is if you sign your OWN free agents, similar to what you have now. You can't use the MLE or any other exception to exceed the $62. This works for the Hawks though since JC is their own free agent. Assuming they are willing to pay the tax this year, they can resign JC as long as they stay BELOW the hard cap number of $75 million.

The $75 million is the hard cap. No exceptions. Period. End of story. You can't exceed this number. If your payroll is at $74 million and you have an expiring contract of $4 million that puts you in the $70-75 range, you can't trade that expiring deal for another contract that will put you above the hard cap for the next season. In other words, the Lakers can't make a deal like the one that sent Kwame's expiring deal to Memphis for Pau Gasol. Those big market teams will now be stuck in the same boat that everyone else is in and it will even out the playing field as a result.

If there is just a hard cap with no layers below it, it makes things tougher. Teams will constantly be right up against and FA's will be fleeing to Europe just to make more than the minimum. By creating layers below the hard cap and lux tax threshold, teams will still try to create cap space below the $50 million soft cap so that they can get the prime free agents that are out there only now they are going to have to sacrifice more than what the Heat did when the cap was at $58 million. Plus, by doing that, you have $12 million in breathing room for MLE free agents for the next year as well as up to $75 million in the hard cap to resign your own free agents. If the owner and GM put together a good roster, they should still have the right to exceed the cap to keep the team together, only now they can't just keep signing MLE guys like the Lakers and Celtics do. They can only do that if they are below the $62 million lux tax threshold.

I know it sounds confusing but trust me, I have thought this thing out over and over and this is the best possible compromise that I can think of between both sides. They're both going to have to give a bit and take a bit.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Trueblood

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

$75 million hard cap does not work for me, because it really does not cut player salaries if that is the real problem. Neither does it fix the issue of owners supposedly not making money. Just throwing $75 million out there as a hard cap helps nothing. If everyone said okay let's get us a $75 million team and have a level playing field you would be in worse shape by putting this mandatory number to not exceed out there. 2.25 Billion is worse than 2 billion.

$50 million is the cap. If you all abide by that we will have cut salaries by $500 million from where they currently are. End of story. There are exceptions that let you spend how much you want but $50 million is the goal you should all be trying to reach. The truth of the matter is there is no togetherness amongst owners just like the rest of the world. People do what is best for them in the end. You can't hate the Yankees, Celtics, Lakers, Knicks, or whoever else feels like there city deserves a winner every year and is willing to pay for it.

[Trueblood]

$75 million hard cap does not work for me, because it really does not cut player salaries if that is the real problem. Neither does it fix the issue of owners supposedly not making money. Just throwing $75 million out there as a hard cap helps nothing. If everyone said okay let's get us a $75 million team and have a level playing field you would be in worse shape by putting this mandatory number to not exceed out there. 2.25 Billion is worse than 2 billion.

$50 million is the cap. If you all abide by that we will have cut salaries by $500 million from where they currently are. End of story. There are exceptions that let you spend how much you want but $50 million is the goal you should all be trying to reach. The truth of the matter is there is no togetherness amongst owners just like the rest of the world. People do what is best for them in the end. You can't hate the Yankees, Celtics, Lakers, Knicks, or whoever else feels like there city deserves a winner every year and is willing to pay for it.

It's not necessarily the $75 million that I'm shooting for but the concept of a multi layered cap system that I outlined. The players are going to fight tooth and nail to keep their rights and having exceptions to a soft cap and lux tax before hitting the hard cap is something that can work for everyone.

NOW, that being said, we don't have to put the hard cap at $75 million. It can be lowered to the $60 to $65 range and then you put in the softer cap amounts below that. Since most teams can't get to that amount right now, the league would probably phase in the new cap levels over a 2 or 3 year period.

This is also assuming you believe everything you read when it comes to the owners and their "losses". Let's be honest, do any of us really believe that the owners would be totally honest about their earnings, especially with a collective bargaining agreement about to expire? They always lie. ALL business owners lie and over report losses, cry "poverty" and hide earned revenue sources from employees.

It's funny how all the Stern haters say that he is an evil liar that fixes games and is Satan in the flesh. Then, when he says that everyone is losing money, he all of a sudden turns into the poster boy for honesty and integrity. His job is too do everything he can to make the owners more profitable and help their various causes. Crying poverty and leveraging the players into an owner friendly CBA is what he needs to do. Otherwise, he's not doing his job.

Let's also not forget that higher payroll doesn't necessarily guarantee success. The Knicks of this decade can attest to that. Orlando right now as well. Portland in the jail blazer era. For all we know, $75 million isn't high at all. If one team can profit with a $60 million payroll, then it's not totally out of the question that they can still be better than a team at $75 million who has made a mistake or two in player assesment. Detroit and San Antonio won it all with payrolls below the soft cap level while teams well above it were below .500.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Trueblood