*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (3 Viewers)

[Kev4029]

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

I'm not sure it's fair to just look at championships. It's too small a sample size. There have been plenty of good teams from smaller markets over those three decades. I think the NBA's small/large market parity is a lot closer to the NFL than it is to baseball.

There have been plenty of good small market teams in any given season, but the only two small market teams that I can think of that displayed truly high level basketball for a long period of time are the Jazz of the 90s and the Spurs of the late 90s, early 00s. I don't think three decades of NBA championships is a small sample size. If you don't think that spending an extra 50% a year on salaries like the Lakers or Celtics can over the average NBA franchise is a huge advantage, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Kev4029]

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

I'm not sure it's fair to just look at championships. It's too small a sample size. There have been plenty of good teams from smaller markets over those three decades. I think the NBA's small/large market parity is a lot closer to the NFL than it is to baseball.

So if I live in a small market, I should just be happy to have a "good team"? In reality, that's all the small market teams/fans have. It's all about superstars and big markets. Think Kobe would have won anything in Charlotte? Think he would have stayed there? Garnett was on some decent teams in Minny, but never really had a chance to win a title. When was the last time the Bucks had a sniff of a chance? Toronto?I have no problem with the smaller market owners being "hardline" so they can maybe have something closer to a level playing field in the future.

You're just deliberately choosing teams that have been bad for a while. San Antonio, Utah, Orlando, Portland, Oklahoma City. They're all small markets and have had teams that could plausibly have won championships (or did win, in the case of the Spurs).And you also ignore that sometimes big market teams are awful. The Clippers haven't been good forever. The Wizards haven't competed in a long time. The Knicks and Bulls both went through fairly long periods of suckiness.

Portland was great while Roy was healthy, Utah was great before Williams forced his way out, OKC has been good for two whole years, Orlando has been great until Howard forces his way out before the 2012 season. San Antonio is the only good example of late of a lasting small market franchise, their existence doesn't prove anything other than great management and coaching is really important. The same thing can be said of your examples of big market teams, the Clippers, Wizards and Knicks have had some of the worst management in all of basketball since the mid 90s. The Clippers refuse to spend money because Sterling is the worst owner in sports, the Knicks were ran into the ground by possibly the worst GM professional sports has ever seen and the Wizards have made a handful of horrible decisions since the 90s that have ran them into the ground. Of course throwing money at a problem isn't a good solution, but if you have a good GM and deep pockets, you can build a great franchise (Lakers, Celtics, Mavs), or if you have a great GM and a lot of luck you can build a great franchise (Spurs getting Duncan because of Robinson's injury, Jazz getting Malone and Stockton), but really those are the only two ways to win a championship and the number of option #1 teams winning championships for the last 30 years should show you which is easier to come by.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We've seen countless players make a mockery of the league and its contract structure that it baffles me that people can support them.

How have they made a mockery of the league and its contract structure? By taking money that owners stupidly throw at them- which the owners attempt to address by asking for a new system that protects them from their own stupidity? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to side with those people.

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the players work hard for their money. Some of them aren't nearly worth they money they're paid to do so, but that's on ownership, not them.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

There have been plenty of good small market teams in any given season, but the only two small market teams that I can think of that displayed truly high level basketball for a long period of time are the Jazz of the 90s and the Spurs of the late 90s, early 00s. I don't think three decades of NBA championships is a small sample size. If you don't think that spending an extra 50% a year on salaries like the Lakers or Celtics can over the average NBA franchise is a huge advantage, I don't know what to tell you.

Portland was great while Roy was healthy, Utah was great before Williams forced his way out, OKC has been good for two whole years, Orlando has been great until Howard forces his way out before the 2012 season. San Antonio is the only good example of late of a lasting small market franchise, their existence doesn't prove anything other than great management and coaching is really important. The same thing can be said of your examples of big market teams, the Clippers, Wizards and Knicks have had some of the worst management in all of basketball since the mid 90s. The Clippers refuse to spend money because Sterling is the worst owner in sports, the Knicks were ran into the ground by possibly the worst GM professional sports has ever seen and the Wizards have made a handful of horrible decisions since the 90s that have ran them into the ground. Of course throwing money at a problem isn't a good solution, but if you have a good GM and deep pockets, you can build a great franchise (Lakers, Celtics, Mavs), or if you have a great GM and a lot of luck you can build a great franchise (Spurs getting Duncan because of Robinson's injury, Jazz getting Malone and Stockton), but really those are the only two ways to win a championship and the number of option #1 teams winning championships for the last 30 years should show you which is easier to come by.

I'm not denying that the big market teams have some advantages. I thought we were just discussing the size of the advantage. I thought you were cherry picking data to make it seem like the advantage was bigger than it actually is.And the "50% more" stat seems misleading. The soft cap encourages teams to spend big when they have a chance at a championship run and spend less when they're rebuilding and hoping to attract free agents. It's not that big market teams are consistently spending 50% more on salaries. It's that good teams like the Celtics and Lakers spend more.

 

[Bobcat10]

As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

So you are concluding that the time period in question was more of a perfect storm than anything else, regardless of whether or not we'll ever see a FA class like that again? Those teams you listed, among a few others, decided to, generally speaking, suck (or be average) as well as manage their cap. If Cleveland, Phoenix, Denver, Toronto (well, hmm) and any other smaller market team that has/had a superstar and/or All Star level players was willing to do that (not try to compete for the ultimate goal for your fan base) the end result would likely have been the same and the outrage even worse imo.

No, but the owners are trying to craft a system that basically reverts to no FA movement for superstars. Superstars aren't going to accept that. Amare's brand is worth more (much more) to Amare in NYC than Phoenix. Same with a whole host of players. That's Cleveland's (or any small market team's big problem). The currently proposed deal does nothing to deal with that fact besides telling the player go F- yourself (the manner in which Stern negotiated the deal didn't help matters). In addition to decreasing their salary take, the NBA is basically saying we're going to control you and you have no out. That just doesn't fly today when these superstars have been dictating who and where they play since their first AAU years. The real solution is increasing max contracts, but the owners can't stop themselves from giving max contracts to non-max guys. I've said this before, but until Stern gets his big market owners to give more up to the small market guys, you're not getting a deal.

Is there a good article that summarizes EXACTLY what the owners are offering regarding FA movement and the like? The issues other than BRI. I'm not saying you don't know what you are talking about, but you are saying things that are vague generalizations instead of what exactly is being turned down by the players. I can't imagine a system with no player movement, and you didn't come out and say that, but you were pretty close.And frankly I don't care about Amare's brand (PHO vs NYC), and I don't think anyone here should. If they can't figure out ways to make more money on top of their millions upon millions they are getting paid, then that's their fault. I'm not a fan of the NBA because I want to see Amare realize his full potential in income. That's freaking nonsense, he's a multi millionaire either way.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

We've seen countless players make a mockery of the league and its contract structure that it baffles me that people can support them.

How have they made a mockery of the league and its contract structure? By taking money that owners stupidly throw at them- which the owners attempt to address by asking for a new system that protects them from their own stupidity? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to side with those people.

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the players work hard for their money. Some of them aren't nearly worth they money they're paid to do so, but that's on ownership, not them.

Eddie Curry - got fatBaron Davis - Completely useless unless in a contract year

Carmelo Anthony - demanding a trade and playing like ####

Vince Carter - intentionally played like ####

Chris Bosh - See above

Charlie V - Doesn't give a #### and it clearly shows once he got long term deal

Portland Jail Blazers

Randolph - For 90% of his career

Alonzo Mourning

And I'm sure I could go on for a while but you get the point. The majority of the players play hard but these other guys are pretty much franchise killers.

I don't care if a guy gets overpaid as long as he puts in the effort. I care when a guy gets a long-term deal and mails it in knowing that he is getting that money regardless of his effort.

 

[jestertj]

Take a look at that list of NBA champions and tell me there isn't an advantage to being in a big market. In the past three decades the only smaller market teams to win the championship have been the Heat and the Spurs.

I'm not sure it's fair to just look at championships. It's too small a sample size. There have been plenty of good teams from smaller markets over those three decades. I think the NBA's small/large market parity is a lot closer to the NFL than it is to baseball.

So if I live in a small market, I should just be happy to have a "good team"? In reality, that's all the small market teams/fans have. It's all about superstars and big markets. Think Kobe would have won anything in Charlotte? Think he would have stayed there? Garnett was on some decent teams in Minny, but never really had a chance to win a title. When was the last time the Bucks had a sniff of a chance? Toronto?I have no problem with the smaller market owners being "hardline" so they can maybe have something closer to a level playing field in the future.

You're just deliberately choosing teams that have been bad for a while. San Antonio, Utah, Orlando, Portland, Oklahoma City. They're all small markets and have had teams that could plausibly have won championships (or did win, in the case of the Spurs).And you also ignore that sometimes big market teams are awful. The Clippers haven't been good forever. The Wizards haven't competed in a long time. The Knicks and Bulls both went through fairly long periods of suckiness.

San Antonio won the Tim Duncan lottery and found some gems. Kudos to them. Utah just lost their biggest star. Orlando at this point is at best even money to keep Howard, I would bet he's off to a bigger market. Portland has put together some talent and had injury problems, but have they ever had a marquee free agent sign there? OKC has Durant, will he be enough to attract another star and can they afford one?Also, plenty of small market teams have been mismanaged(Minny)as have some of the bigger ones (NYK, Wiz). Who has the better chance to turn things around in a hurry? I don't see Carmello and Amare playing in Minny or Washington...

 

[TobiasFunke]

We've seen countless players make a mockery of the league and its contract structure that it baffles me that people can support them.

How have they made a mockery of the league and its contract structure? By taking money that owners stupidly throw at them- which the owners attempt to address by asking for a new system that protects them from their own stupidity? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to side with those people.

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the players work hard for their money. Some of them aren't nearly worth they money they're paid to do so, but that's on ownership, not them.

Eddie Curry - got fatBaron Davis - Completely useless unless in a contract year

Carmelo Anthony - demanding a trade and playing like ####

Vince Carter - intentionally played like ####

Chris Bosh - See above

Charlie V - Doesn't give a #### and it clearly shows once he got long term deal

Portland Jail Blazers

Randolph - For 90% of his career

Alonzo Mourning

And I'm sure I could go on for a while but you get the point. The majority of the players play hard but these other guys are pretty much franchise killers.

I don't care if a guy gets overpaid as long as he puts in the effort. I care when a guy gets a long-term deal and mails it in knowing that he is getting that money regardless of his effort.

As a Wiz fan I would add Arenas and Crittendon to the list, but that's beside the point. First, that's still a pretty slim minority. Second, we're not talking about them ripping off taxpayers here. It's them vs. the guys who were stupid enough to pay them and now want to be protected by their own stupidity so they can guarantee revenues in addition to franchise value appreciation for their luxury ego purchase. I don't think the players are blameless for this fiasco but if I have to choose a side it's pretty obvious to me where my loyalties are gonna end up.

 

[Short Corner]

Yes, they are. That's what I meant by a pseudo-monopoly. The NBA has a monopoly over elite professional basketball in the United States, one given them by the players and fans and local governments and the NCAA and everyone else.If the NBA was a national association of 30 restaurants, or 30 theater groups, or 30 whorehouses, or whatever, there would be no strike. The owners would make whatever deal the talent wanted so long as that deal allowed them to continue to profit (through a combination of revenue and increased value on their investment to be realized at the time of sale), because they know otherwise some other investors would jump right in and just buy up their talent and start 30 new restaurants or theater groups or whorehouses to vie for our entertainment dollars. But we all grant the NBA monopoly status by publicly funding their stadiums and respecting the history of the league and the franchises and not accepting substitutes and so forth. And the NCAA cooperates by telling players they can't get paid to play in the only other high-visibility basketball league around. And the owners are taking advantage of that public trust and that monopoly status to gain leverage in these negotiations. Sorry, I've got no sympathy for them and plenty of sympathy for the players opposing them and trying to earn a lifetime's worth of income in less than a decade.

No, they are not. They are not forced to play basketball for a living. If they do want to play basketball for a living, here are a few more options for them if they don't think they are getting paid enough.West Coast Pro Basketball League (2007-present)World Basketball Association (2004-present)Metro-East Basketball League (2010-present)Premier Basketball League (2007-present)United Basketball League (2006-Present)American Basketball Association (2000-present)Eastern Basketball Alliance (1996-present)Global Professional Basketball League (2009-present)International Basketball League (2005-present)Iowa Basketball Exposure League (2010-present)They could also move to pretty much any other country in the world and get a job.

and I'm sure the Knicks would be able to get $240 a ticket to watch a bunch of D-league players (and I'm sure you would watch them on TNT and ESPN).

If they are on the court with other D-leaguers the vast majority of fans won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

We've seen countless players make a mockery of the league and its contract structure that it baffles me that people can support them.

How have they made a mockery of the league and its contract structure? By taking money that owners stupidly throw at them- which the owners attempt to address by asking for a new system that protects them from their own stupidity? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to side with those people.

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of the players work hard for their money. Some of them aren't nearly worth they money they're paid to do so, but that's on ownership, not them.

Eddie Curry - got fatBaron Davis - Completely useless unless in a contract year

Carmelo Anthony - demanding a trade and playing like ####

Vince Carter - intentionally played like ####

Chris Bosh - See above

Charlie V - Doesn't give a #### and it clearly shows once he got long term deal

Portland Jail Blazers

Randolph - For 90% of his career

Alonzo Mourning

And I'm sure I could go on for a while but you get the point. The majority of the players play hard but these other guys are pretty much franchise killers.

I don't care if a guy gets overpaid as long as he puts in the effort. I care when a guy gets a long-term deal and mails it in knowing that he is getting that money regardless of his effort.

As a Wiz fan I would add Arenas and Crittendon to the list, but that's beside the point. First, that's still a pretty slim minority. Second, we're not talking about them ripping off taxpayers here. It's them vs. the guys who were stupid enough to pay them and now want to be protected by their own stupidity so they can guarantee revenues in addition to franchise value appreciation for their luxury ego purchase. I don't think the players are blameless for this fiasco but if I have to choose a side it's pretty obvious to me where my loyalties are gonna end up.

There are plenty more idiots who could be added but I was more going for the guys who don't give a ####.And for the record, I really don't care about how much the owners make. I just don't want the players above to be able hold teams hostage after signing long term deals. The one thing I hope to come out of this lockout is non-guaranteed contracts... and by that I mean not a damn penny after the first year.

 

[Short Corner]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

The bottom half of the league would certainly take it because they need to get paid and their careers are too short to sit out for a full year. The top 10-15% of players (top 2 earners on each team or so) would also take it because their salaries wouldn't take a huge hit. The above average players/earners (the Andre Miller/Jason Terry/Paul Millaps of the NBA) have got to be way against this because they have the salaries that are going to take the hit, but I would also imagine that many of these guys also need a pay check pretty soon. I would say 75% would be about right.

I think its far far less than 75%. If this plays out they're going to have the votes to decertify (and they already have thw 25% to put it to vote...presumably those 25% aren't in favor of the current deal). I also think a lot of the superstars are against the deal since some of them would get locked in some bad situations. As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

the Knicks? Really?

 

[Sammy3469]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

The bottom half of the league would certainly take it because they need to get paid and their careers are too short to sit out for a full year. The top 10-15% of players (top 2 earners on each team or so) would also take it because their salaries wouldn't take a huge hit. The above average players/earners (the Andre Miller/Jason Terry/Paul Millaps of the NBA) have got to be way against this because they have the salaries that are going to take the hit, but I would also imagine that many of these guys also need a pay check pretty soon. I would say 75% would be about right.

I think its far far less than 75%. If this plays out they're going to have the votes to decertify (and they already have thw 25% to put it to vote...presumably those 25% aren't in favor of the current deal). I also think a lot of the superstars are against the deal since some of them would get locked in some bad situations. As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

the Knicks? Really?

Yes really...how else did they sign Amare, trade for Melo and be in a position to go after another big FA.

 

[Short Corner]

If there was an anonymous vote, what amount of players accept a 50/50 split with a hard cap? 75%?

The bottom half of the league would certainly take it because they need to get paid and their careers are too short to sit out for a full year. The top 10-15% of players (top 2 earners on each team or so) would also take it because their salaries wouldn't take a huge hit. The above average players/earners (the Andre Miller/Jason Terry/Paul Millaps of the NBA) have got to be way against this because they have the salaries that are going to take the hit, but I would also imagine that many of these guys also need a pay check pretty soon. I would say 75% would be about right.

I think its far far less than 75%. If this plays out they're going to have the votes to decertify (and they already have thw 25% to put it to vote...presumably those 25% aren't in favor of the current deal). I also think a lot of the superstars are against the deal since some of them would get locked in some bad situations. As much as people are vilifying the movement of the past 2 years, all of it was due to the fact that the Knicks, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas managed their cap well for a change.

the Knicks? Really?

Yes really...how else did they sign Amare, trade for Melo and be in a position to go after another big FA.

They were in no position to go after another big FA under the old CBA. What makes you think they will have more wiggle room under the new one?

 

[Ballstein]

i take it both parties are not the 99%

 

[Popinski]

A loss of a year's salary is a major hit to the fringe NBA player earning minimum salary who will only be in the league for a few seasons.

It is a big hit to pretty much every player who isn't a superstar. Think Billups is happy that he won't see the $14M he is owed this year?

Well no one is happy. But the player I was referring to hasn't already earned close to $100 million in his career like Billups has.

 

[Daywalker]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

 

[Joe Summer]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

 

[Daywalker]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.

Think you might be getting Bucher and Stein mixed up. Bucher was of the position that the owners have not made any concessions at all. Basically their way or the highway and how can the players accept that. Bucher was saying just give the players something so they don't feel like they got their clock cleaned.

 

[Bobcat10]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

Thank you for posting this.Substantial changes:

1) Tax rate is more and incremental

2) Contracts shortened to 4 years for FAs and 5 years for Bird rights

-This looks like how they plan on making stars stay in small markets. Bird players get 6.5% annual raises while FAs get 3.5%

3) Rookie contracts decreased by 12%

4) Tax teams cannot sign and trade

5) Tax payer mid-level reduced to $3M for 3 years. Non-tax payer mid-level $5M 3 or 4 years (alternates each year)

This really makes me think the players and their negotiators are that much stupider. What they'll lose in missing half a season is far more than they'll lose with this deal.

 

[Bobcat10]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

Thank you for posting this.Substantial changes:

1) Tax rate is more and incremental

2) Contracts shortened to 4 years for FAs and 5 years for Bird rights

-This looks like how they plan on making stars stay in small markets. Bird players get 6.5% annual raises while FAs get 3.5%

3) Rookie contracts decreased by 12%

4) Tax teams cannot sign and trade

5) Tax payer mid-level reduced to $3M for 3 years. Non-tax payer mid-level $5M 3 or 4 years (alternates each year)

This really makes me think the players and their negotiators are that much stupider. What they'll lose in missing half a season is far more than they'll lose with this deal.

Why would 1, 3 and 4 be show stoppers from the players perspective? Wouldn't 3 not change the dollars the players earn as a whole, it just makes you earn your post rookie contract by your play, in a sense? That's what the NFL has adopted more or less I think...I don't see why that is unreasonable.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

Thank you for posting this.Substantial changes:

1) Tax rate is more and incremental

2) Contracts shortened to 4 years for FAs and 5 years for Bird rights

-This looks like how they plan on making stars stay in small markets. Bird players get 6.5% annual raises while FAs get 3.5%

3) Rookie contracts decreased by 12%

4) Tax teams cannot sign and trade

5) Tax payer mid-level reduced to $3M for 3 years. Non-tax payer mid-level $5M 3 or 4 years (alternates each year)

This really makes me think the players and their negotiators are that much stupider. What they'll lose in missing half a season is far more than they'll lose with this deal.

Why would 1, 3 and 4 be show stoppers from the players perspective? Wouldn't 3 not change the dollars the players earn as a whole, it just makes you earn your post rookie contract by your play, in a sense? That's what the NFL has adopted more or less I think...I don't see why that is unreasonable.

1 matters because it will stop teams from using tax payer exceptions. A $1 for $1 tax does little to deter the big teams from spending. When they start having to pay $3.75 for $1 they may have second thoughts. ie. Is it worth signing Luke Walton to a 3 year $3M deal when it will really cost you $11.25M per year?Not sure why 3 would matter. You'd think that if someone has to take the hit it will be the rookies.

4

 

[Kev4029]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

I just read it as well, and they are asking basically every player in the NBA to take a significant pay cut other than the top couple of players from each team (rookie salaries take a 12% hit, league minimum salaries take a 12% hit, mid level exceptions take a huge hit) and everybody is getting short contracts. Something to note from that is this 50/50 split that the players association keeps mentioning is really a 51/49 split (not sure how much difference this makes) because 1% is set aside for post-career player benefits/welfare.

Also, the NBA isn't setting in place a hard cap, but there will be very few teams going over the cap because of the new super harsh penalties.

I'm not surprised the NBAPA is fighting this.

 

[thecatch]

4 is huge because agents couldn't shop their free agent clients to the league's biggest spenders. I think it would be a good change as a fan but that really hurts FA.

 

[Gr00vus]

4 is huge because agents couldn't shop their free agent clients to the league's biggest spenders. I think it would be a good change as a fan but that really hurts FA.

5 is pretty big as well.It's easy to see why the players wouldn't agree to this.

 

[Kev4029]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

Thank you for posting this.Substantial changes:

1) Tax rate is more and incremental

2) Contracts shortened to 4 years for FAs and 5 years for Bird rights

-This looks like how they plan on making stars stay in small markets. Bird players get 6.5% annual raises while FAs get 3.5%

3) Rookie contracts decreased by 12%

4) Tax teams cannot sign and trade

5) Tax payer mid-level reduced to $3M for 3 years. Non-tax payer mid-level $5M 3 or 4 years (alternates each year)

This really makes me think the players and their negotiators are that much stupider. What they'll lose in missing half a season is far more than they'll lose with this deal.

Why would 1, 3 and 4 be show stoppers from the players perspective? Wouldn't 3 not change the dollars the players earn as a whole, it just makes you earn your post rookie contract by your play, in a sense? That's what the NFL has adopted more or less I think...I don't see why that is unreasonable.

1 - The teams spending $70M a year won't exist, the tax penalty would absolutely murder every team short of NY, Brooklyn, LA and maybe Chicago. We are going to have all but a few teams each year sticking to below the cap, which is the exact opposite of whats happened for the last decade. That is a whole lot of money lost for the players.3 - The NBA rookie contracts are in control, they aren't like the NFL. I can't imagine this is a sticking point, but its probably not something they are happy with. The bigger issue is lowering the minimum salary players the same 12%, which I would guess is a huge sticking point for the NBAPA.

4 - That's how many of these giant contracts get signed, without sign and trades to tax teams (anybody over the cap, which isn't what the luxury tax used to be) I bet we'll see sign and trades cut by between 50 and 75%.

ETA: I might be wrong about the luxury tax level, which would change my perspective. Are they leaving the level at which the luxury tax kicks in the same? If so, the players should probably take this deal.

 

[biggamer3]

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/pro_sports/basketball/133942443_Nets_left_hanging_by_labor_impasse.html?mobile=1&c=y

Lol Nets potentially traded Favors and #3 pick for 12 games of Deron

 

[Hedgehog]

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/pro_sports/basketball/133942443_Nets_left_hanging_by_labor_impasse.html?mobile=1&c=yLol Nets potentially traded Favors and #3 pick for 12 games of Deron

It all hinges upon him signing extension - if he played an entire season and walked it would be just as bad....doesnt really change anything IMO.

 

[proninja]

http://www.northjers...ml?mobile=1&c=y

Lol Nets potentially traded Favors and #3 pick for 12 games of Deron

That's almost as bad as losing your whole ####### team.Oh wait, no it's not

 

[Killerclown]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

Sounds like baseball.

 

[No. 16]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

 

[Daywalker]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

Lack of revenue sharing doesn't help either. Stern wants a economic structure that makes every team profitable without revenue sharing. As previously said have their cake and eat it too.

 

[culdeus]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

NBA probably has about 2 too many teams. Knock off 4 and it wouldn't be the end of the world. Would anyone cry if the Kings, Grizz, Hornets, and TWolves just closed up shop in the middle of this? If the economics are that bad why not buy out those owners and make the game more competitive if that is the "real issue"? If it isn't the real issue then the big teams should just revenue share enough to support them. Either way you are putting those clubs on life support until they get a LBJ for a few years till he leaves for LA.

Looking at the attendance figures they are quoting all those teams with average over 10k per night. I don't buy that for a second. I remember TWolves games where you would have expected more from a NCAAF game.

 

[thecatch]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

I don't think this is necessarily true. If the NBA makes it so that a team that's paying a superstar can't afford to put quality pieces around him, which is sort of where there are going with this CBA proposal, you may get a shot at real parity.

 

[Daywalker]

direct link to proposal obtained by usa today

in case the above doesn't work, a link is posted on sheridan

I read this top to bottom, and while I cannot comprehend everything, I see alot of similarities to the previous deal and most of the new items seem fair. Since the 50/50 split was essentially agreed to, or at least that is what we've been told, I'm not exactly sure why the players have rejected this.

Thank you for posting this.Substantial changes:

1) Tax rate is more and incremental

2) Contracts shortened to 4 years for FAs and 5 years for Bird rights

-This looks like how they plan on making stars stay in small markets. Bird players get 6.5% annual raises while FAs get 3.5%

3) Rookie contracts decreased by 12%

4) Tax teams cannot sign and trade

5) Tax payer mid-level reduced to $3M for 3 years. Non-tax payer mid-level $5M 3 or 4 years (alternates each year)

This really makes me think the players and their negotiators are that much stupider. What they'll lose in missing half a season is far more than they'll lose with this deal.

Yeah it's real stupid to decide against selling out all the players in the past who made sacrifices to make their union healthier going forward.Do I think that's the driving force? Of course not. But it's in the back of their mind as it should be. Players in '99 missed checks to forge a deal that benefitted the current players. Doubt they are oblivious to that.

 

[GDogg]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

I don't think this is necessarily true. If the NBA makes it so that a team that's paying a superstar can't afford to put quality pieces around him, which is sort of where there are going with this CBA proposal, you may get a shot at real parity.

On the flip side, should you get real parity? Why shouldn't owners be allowed to spend as much as they want? And, isn't it more beneficial to society when the cities that have more people benefit from the joy of championships? Why should the 382,000+ people in Minneapolis have as good a shot at a title than the 3,600,000+ people in Los Angeles or the 8,000,000+ in New York? If the Wolves win a title, nobody gives a crap. If the Lakers or Knicks do, though, large sums of fans care and will buy more merchandise (not to mention the bandwagoners throughout the country)?

 

[Daywalker]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Can you name one thing that the owner's have budged on? It's been a one-way street. Don't hear anyone saying otherwise. What is nauseating is the owner's overreaching to the point that a season may be lost because the owners getting 95% of what they want was not enough.

 

[Joe Summer]

NBA probably has about 2 too many teams. Knock off 4 and it wouldn't be the end of the world. Would anyone cry if the Kings, Grizz, Hornets, and TWolves just closed up shop in the middle of this? If the economics are that bad why not buy out those owners and make the game more competitive if that is the "real issue"? If it isn't the real issue then the big teams should just revenue share enough to support them. Either way you are putting those clubs on life support until they get a LBJ for a few years till he leaves for LA.

From the NBA's perspective, why should they disband 4 teams when they can just force a 50-50 split with the players?Besides that, even if you eliminated 4 teams, you'd still have plenty of small market teams that would struggle to tread water until the current system.

 

[Joe Summer]

Can you name one thing that the owner's have budged on?

Nope.On a similar note, I can't name anything that Crazy Horse or Santa Anna budged on, either.

 

[thecatch]

On the flip side, should you get real parity? Why shouldn't owners be allowed to spend as much as they want? And, isn't it more beneficial to society when the cities that have more people benefit from the joy of championships? Why should the 382,000+ people in Minneapolis have as good a shot at a title than the 3,600,000+ people in Los Angeles or the 8,000,000+ in New York? If the Wolves win a title, nobody gives a crap. If the Lakers or Knicks do, though, large sums of fans care and will buy more merchandise (not to mention the bandwagoners throughout the country)?

It's an investment in the long term health of the league. If you want millions of midwesterners to tune into the nba finals, you have to get them interested in the sport, ie, give them a franchise with legit shot at winning once in awhile. How popular would the league be with just a NY and LA franchise? Those might be the most profitable teams, but they benefit from a larger market for their product as well.

 

[the moops]

On the flip side, should you get real parity? Why shouldn't owners be allowed to spend as much as they want? And, isn't it more beneficial to society when the cities that have more people benefit from the joy of championships? Why should the 382,000+ people in Minneapolis have as good a shot at a title than the 3,600,000+ people in Los Angeles or the 8,000,000+ in New York? If the Wolves win a title, nobody gives a crap. If the Lakers or Knicks do, though, large sums of fans care and will buy more merchandise (not to mention the bandwagoners throughout the country)?

The metro area of the Twin Cities is the 16th largest in the country. Your point would be better taken if you chose Salt Lake or OK City.

 

[Premier]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

NBA probably has about 2 too many teams. Knock off 4 and it wouldn't be the end of the world. Would anyone cry if the Kings, Grizz, Hornets, and TWolves just closed up shop in the middle of this? If the economics are that bad why not buy out those owners and make the game more competitive if that is the "real issue"? If it isn't the real issue then the big teams should just revenue share enough to support them. Either way you are putting those clubs on life support until they get a LBJ for a few years till he leaves for LA.

Looking at the attendance figures they are quoting all those teams with average over 10k per night. I don't buy that for a second. I remember TWolves games where you would have expected more from a NCAAF game.

I wouldn't cry, but I would feel for those fan bases. In the early 90s, the Dallas Mavericks were basically the Timberwolves of today. Then they lucked into a tremendous owner and top-15 player of all-time, and now here we are. But don't act like the Mavs have always been above this.

 

[boubucarow]

I absolutely hate forced parity like the NFL. Let the smartest decisions create the best teams and let teams keep their players. I hope the NBA doesn't force parity. It dilutes the talents on the best teams and makes the playoffs worse games.

 

[Kev4029]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

NBA probably has about 2 too many teams. Knock off 4 and it wouldn't be the end of the world. Would anyone cry if the Kings, Grizz, Hornets, and TWolves just closed up shop in the middle of this? If the economics are that bad why not buy out those owners and make the game more competitive if that is the "real issue"? If it isn't the real issue then the big teams should just revenue share enough to support them. Either way you are putting those clubs on life support until they get a LBJ for a few years till he leaves for LA.

Looking at the attendance figures they are quoting all those teams with average over 10k per night. I don't buy that for a second. I remember TWolves games where you would have expected more from a NCAAF game.

I wouldn't cry, but I would feel for those fan bases. In the early 90s, the Dallas Mavericks were basically the Timberwolves of today. Then they lucked into a tremendous owner and top-15 player of all-time, and now here we are. But don't act like the Mavs have always been above this.

The difference being that Dallas is something like the 3rd or 4th biggest market in the US. The Mavs were never going to go anywhere.

 

[Kev4029]

I absolutely hate forced parity like the NFL. Let the smartest decisions create the best teams and let teams keep their players. I hope the NBA doesn't force parity. It dilutes the talents on the best teams and makes the playoffs worse games.

Says the CHICAGO Bulls fan.I don't think the NBA needs the parity of the NFL, but for us fans in smaller markets, with the way the NBA was headed there was no hope for us. The NBA needs to find a way where players can't force their way out as easily. I think Bill Simmons' idea may be the solution, for every year a player plays for a team, his annual salary has the ability to be raised 500k a year in his next contract. This wouldn't have necessarily kept Lebron, Deron Williams, Bosh, or Melo (or soon to be Howard) with their original teams, but it would have been tough for one of these guys (other than Lebron, IMO) to turn down an extra $20M+ to stay.

 

[Premier]

A couple of good BS Reports on Grantland with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher that really lay things out.

Bucher's pro-ownership rhetoric was nauseating. You can smell the unemployment checks in his voice.*player

Bucher was annoying, he basically said the NBA is different then other leagues only a few teams can be considered each year and a small market team needs to be lucky to win. That is true right now and that's what I hate about the NBA only a few teams are in real contention in each year and the other teams are there just to fill the numbers.

Seems like the deal being purposed would help fix this issue.

No system in the world will help the problem of only a few teams being in contention because basketball by nature can be dominated by one player. There's just so few players who are at that level.

NBA probably has about 2 too many teams. Knock off 4 and it wouldn't be the end of the world. Would anyone cry if the Kings, Grizz, Hornets, and TWolves just closed up shop in the middle of this? If the economics are that bad why not buy out those owners and make the game more competitive if that is the "real issue"? If it isn't the real issue then the big teams should just revenue share enough to support them. Either way you are putting those clubs on life support until they get a LBJ for a few years till he leaves for LA.

Looking at the attendance figures they are quoting all those teams with average over 10k per night. I don't buy that for a second. I remember TWolves games where you would have expected more from a NCAAF game.

I wouldn't cry, but I would feel for those fan bases. In the early 90s, the Dallas Mavericks were basically the Timberwolves of today. Then they lucked into a tremendous owner and top-15 player of all-time, and now here we are. But don't act like the Mavs have always been above this.

The difference being that Dallas is something like the 3rd or 4th biggest market in the US. The Mavs were never going to go anywhere.

Their hockey team ain't looking too sturdy. 97-99, the Mavs drew 15k, 13, then 14k. In 94, they drew 12.8 per game. I don't care how big your market is, that's not good.

 

[biggamer3]

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/pro_sports/basketball/133942443_Nets_left_hanging_by_labor_impasse.html?mobile=1&c=y

Lol Nets potentially traded Favors and #3 pick for 12 games of Deron

It all hinges upon him signing extension - if he played an entire season and walked it would be just as bad....doesnt really change anything IMO.

Not at all, if he played the year and gave Nets indication he wanted to sign elsewhere Nets could have dealt him like Nuggets dealt Anthony in middle of year. If there is a lost season, then Nets never even had a chance to talk to him during lockout, thus making it much more likely he would bolt as a free agent. I still cant believe they made the trade when they had zero shot at the playoffs last year and were gambling the entire freaking house and their Brooklyn future on if a player with no east coast ties will resign on a team he wants no part of joining

 

[Joe Summer]

I absolutely hate forced parity like the NFL. Let the smartest decisions create the best teams and let teams keep their players. I hope the NBA doesn't force parity. It dilutes the talents on the best teams and makes the playoffs worse games.

The only way for the smartest decisions to create the best teams is for the money spent to be equal.

 

[Bobcat10]

I absolutely hate forced parity like the NFL. Let the smartest decisions create the best teams and let teams keep their players. I hope the NBA doesn't force parity. It dilutes the talents on the best teams and makes the playoffs worse games.

So the teams that have made the best decisions in the NFL over the last decade have not been the most successful?The NFL playoffs are worse than they were in the past? Expansion hurts quality more than anything else and that goes across the board in all the sports.