2011-2012 OFFICIAL NBA LOCKOUT thread

[soxsoxsoxsox]

This winter is gonna suck without the NBA. don't think I can handle it.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AlJB...ls_games_101011

 

The two sides spent Sunday night and much of Monday negotiating system issues that had the league’s owners pushing for harsh taxes for big-spending teams, a lowering of the midlevel salary-cap exception and the narrowing of players’ “Larry Bird” exception rights. The biggest obstacle in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement had been the split of the league’s revenue, or basketball-related income (BRI), but Stern said two sides probably could bridge that gap once they clear the “system hurdles” – primarily the structure of the league’s salary cap.

 

The owners want to reduce the annual midlevel exception for free agents from $5.8 million to $3 million with a maximum contract length of two years, league sources told Yahoo! Sports. The owners also want to limit the maximum length of contracts to four years for players re-signed by their own teams and three years for players joining new teams, sources said. The union didn’t want to go below five and four years. The current maximums are six years for players re-signed by their own teams and five for other players.

 

The owners also want to greatly penalize teams that exceed the salary cap, sources told Y! Sports, proposing that teams won’t be allowed to pay the luxury tax more than twice in five years. Tax-paying teams also could be restricted from using the Bird exception to re-sign their own players.

 

So, the entire league is coming down to save probably 10 players a year from gaining an extra year or two on s***ty contracts that they're not worth in the first place. Good to know.

 

[ZoomSlowik]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AlJB...ls_games_101011

 

 

 

So, the entire league is coming down to save probably 10 players a year from gaining an extra year or two on s***ty contracts that they're not worth in the first place. Good to know.

 

Huh? How the hell is that all you get out of that article? There are like 5 things mentioned in it and you're harping on one of them.

 

Harsher luxury taxes are going to hurt virtually every player in the league because teams will be less likely to add new talent if they have to send a big check to the league. I'm sure they think it's going to reign in the big spenders, but what it's really going to do is murder non-heavyweights that are trying to contend because it's going to hurt someone like OKC a lot more to pay that money than it's going to hurt the Lakers or Knicks.

 

Lowering the MLE is going to be a major hit to the veteran players, especially when combined with harsher luxury tax penalties. You already have fewer potential roster slots available because teams won't want to pay the tax, now your salary is almost 50% lower when you do sign. That's a pretty big f***ing deal.

 

I'm not sure what they mean by "narrowing bird rights", but that also can affect a ton of players based on how it's changed. Teams might not be able to go over the cap to sign their own guys, which means people like Noah or Marc Gasol could be cap casualties even though their teams desperately want to keep them (again, no idea what that phrase means, just outlining a potential impact).

 

And yes, the drop in contract length is a big f***ing deal, especially since the way the CBA is written, contracts are backloaded. Instead of someone like Lebron, who's absolutely worth every penny he gets paid and then some, getting a 6-125 type deal if he maxes out, he's looking at like 3-54 if he doesn't want to stay with his poorly managed team (actually, he'll get even less than that because the max salary will drop with a lower percentage of BRI, but since I don't know the number I'll just leave that $70 million drop there). That's an absolutely colossal change and it penalizes the guys that are actually worth the money because owners are too stupid to realize that paying Joe Johnson $20 mil a year is a f***ing horrible idea.

 

You seem to have a rather major axe to grind against the players even though the owners are trying to force massive cuts across the board down their throats. They've already come down several hundred million from where they were last year on the revenue split and agreed to slice a year off contracts, but the owners want even more.

 

Yes, there are some very stupid things done in regards to contracts, but the GM's/owners are the ones that have to sign the checks. Even with their griping about costs, they gave out an ungodly number of insanely stupid deals last off-season. They basically want to guarantee profits despite their own ineptitude, which is absolutely ridiculous. You don't need a rule to prevent you from signing a non-elite player to a massive deal, you need some idea of how to manage a salary cap.

Edited October 11, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[Steve9347]

Someone, somewhere, needs to pay Joe Slowik to be their NBA writer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Huh? How the hell is that all you get out of that article? There are like 5 things mentioned in it and you're harping on one of them.

 

Harsher luxury taxes are going to hurt virtually every player in the league because teams will be less likely to add new talent if they have to send a big check to the league. I'm sure they think it's going to reign in the big spenders, but what it's really going to do is murder non-heavyweights that are trying to contend because it's going to hurt someone like OKC a lot more to pay that money than it's going to hurt the Lakers or Knicks.

 

There's a difference between lowering the salary cap (has happened one time and it was a million bucks from 08-09 to 09-10) and imposing larger luxury taxes, which is what the owners want to do. How many teams pay the tax every year? A small minority right? So a small number of teams that already make tons of money and need not concern themselves with the level of contracts (since they can afford to over pay) probably aren't going to be all that upset with having to pay more. A reduction in some contracts? Sure, but for a few teams and a few players. More franchises aren’t going to suddenly pay the tax just because the tax rate goes up.

 

Now the idea that teams can only go over the salary cap two times in five years could change some franchises willingness to take on some contracts, but that’s a negotiating point and who knows how strong the owners are there. Afterall, that would seriously mess with the structure of maintaining championship level talent for 3+ year periods of time and I dunno that the big guns will be thrilled about that. Even so, that’s a benefit to the league and will spread the talent around the league.

 

Lowering the MLE is going to be a major hit to the veteran players, especially when combined with harsher luxury tax penalties. You already have fewer potential roster slots available because teams won't want to pay the tax, now your salary is almost 50% lower when you do sign. That's a pretty big f***ing deal.

Again, how many players are we talking about here? Only teams that go over the salary cap (a minority). And how many players that don’t already have a solid contract are worth more than 5.8 a year? You can split the MLE into multiple players but beyond Miami this year I don’t recall any other team doing it, but I’m not certain it hasn’t been done. Still, low number of players that are probably not worth that much money anyway.

 

And yes, the drop in contract length is a big f***ing deal, especially since the way the CBA is written, contracts are backloaded. Instead of someone like Lebron, who's absolutely worth every penny he gets paid and then some, getting a 6-125 type deal if he maxes out, he's looking at like 3-54 if he doesn't want to stay with his poorly managed team (actually, he'll get even less than that because the max salary will drop with a lower percentage of BRI, but since I don't know the number I'll just leave that $70 million drop there). That's an absolutely colossal change and it penalizes the guys that are actually worth the money because owners are too stupid to realize that paying Joe Johnson $20 mil a year is a f***ing horrible idea.

 

Well no doubt it’s mostly managements fault for signing these dumb contracts, but that market has been set and in some ways they’re forced into it. But we’re talking about a year here. It’s not the end of the world for these guys to take a year (or two if they leave for a different team). Five years is a long time for a guaranteed contract for a max guy. If Joe Johnson gets hurt in year 1 and is never the same player, why should the owners be stuck paying that contract for all of those years when he contributes nothing? Maybe make another exception for injuries or completely s***ting the bed after getting a long contract, I dunno. But I don’t see an issue limiting the number of years as I see six/five being too high.

 

You seem to have a rather major axe to grind against the players even though the owners are trying to force massive cuts across the board down their throats. They've already come down several hundred million from where they were last year on the revenue split and agreed to slice a year off contracts, but the owners want even more.

 

And again, this comes down to the owners having to spend money to make their 47% and the players just having to show up. I don’t see how the players have the balls to demand a majority share of the revenue without conceding SOMETHING. Yes, they’ve gone from 57 to 53….which was too f***ing high to begin with. And now the recession has hurt the league even more. It’s a new age for the league and both sides need to see that and compromise.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

To a point, but I think in this situation, where the majority of the league is losing money, a 50-50 split isn't that unfair.

 

The owners weren't proposing a true 50/50 split, but a 50/50 split after taking $300M out of the pot. Framing it that way was to get this exact PR result: make the players look unreasonable for refusing an even deal.

[Soxfest]

@DwyaneWade - STERN's "WORDS" 2day hurt the ppl who work at the AAA,other arena's,as well as local businesses &our fans..

Like you give a s*** Wade once deal is done you will NEVER mention these people again! Like it or not Wade alot of arena's were barely half full last year in alot of places.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Soxfest

[ZoomSlowik]

There's a difference between lowering the salary cap (has happened one time and it was a million bucks from 08-09 to 09-10) and imposing larger luxury taxes, which is what the owners want to do. How many teams pay the tax every year? A small minority right? So a small number of teams that already make tons of money and need not concern themselves with the level of contracts (since they can afford to over pay) probably aren't going to be all that upset with having to pay more. A reduction in some contracts? Sure, but for a few teams and a few players. More franchises aren’t going to suddenly pay the tax just because the tax rate goes up.

 

First off, four teams are already over the luxury tax for 2011/2012 before a single player is signed or extended. That's going to result in quite a few luxury tax teams.

 

You're also missing a major part of the point. The salary cap IS going down because the slice of the BRI that the players get is dropping AND they want to impose harsher penalties for the luxury tax. So yes, more teams are going to be paying it if they want to keep their roster intact.

 

It also doesn't just affect the teams that actually pay it, it affects the teams that are near the threshold and have to make roster decisions. Utah is a major example. They had been straddling the threshold for a while before losing Carlos Boozer, and if they had managed to keep Deron Williams they would have been a tax team as well. Denver pretty much had to give Marcus Camby away because they were a tax team despite being a 5-seed caliber squad. Phoenix is another one, rather than keeping guys like Johnson, Marion and Stoudemire they overpaid some scrubs but avoided the tax. Atlanta is another one that's going to have problems because of the Joe Johnson salary and having to pay Horford and Smith as well.

 

 

 

 

Again, how many players are we talking about here? Only teams that go over the salary cap (a minority). And how many players that don’t already have a solid contract are worth more than 5.8 a year? You can split the MLE into multiple players but beyond Miami this year I don’t recall any other team doing it, but I’m not certain it hasn’t been done. Still, low number of players that are probably not worth that much money anyway.

 

You really don't understand the salary cap structure, do you? Virtually every team in the league is over the salary cap because of the Bird Exemption and MLE. The cap last year was $58 mil. Again, using 2011/2012 salaries and ignoring that the cap is going to drop with a 53% player cut of the BRI, 10 teams are over the cap before a single free agent is signed. My favorite salary resource (hoopshype) doesn't have 2010/2011 info anymore, but probably 20 teams were over the salary cap last year.

 

The MLE is an extremely valuable tool for teams to be able to add a rotational player here and there. With that rule, you're hurting the veteran role player considerably and making it way more likely that someone like Jeff Green ends up getting overpaid to chuck jumpers for an awful team instead of actually contributing to a team that matters. That player is "worth" a lot more to a team that's going somewhere.

 

Paying $6 mil to a potentially valuable role player isn't going to kill you anyways. That's barely 10% of your cap figure and you can only sign 14 players. It'd absolutely kill roster flexibility for everyone in the league to eliminate contracts that aren't anywhere near their biggest problem.

 

 

Well no doubt it’s mostly managements fault for signing these dumb contracts, but that market has been set and in some ways they’re forced into it. But we’re talking about a year here. It’s not the end of the world for these guys to take a year (or two if they leave for a different team). Five years is a long time for a guaranteed contract for a max guy. If Joe Johnson gets hurt in year 1 and is never the same player, why should the owners be stuck paying that contract for all of those years when he contributes nothing? Maybe make another exception for injuries or completely s***ting the bed after getting a long contract, I dunno. But I don’t see an issue limiting the number of years as I see six/five being too high.

 

You're not "forced" into anything. No one had a gun to Orlando's head making them give Rashard Lewis $20 mil a year when the general belief was he would have signed for $14 mil. Hell, they engineered a sign and trade to get him more money.

 

That trickles down to the lower level too. Is your team really going to suffer significantly if you lose Tyrus Thomas rather than paying him $7.3 million this year? The teams that are smart generally avoid deals like that. Sure, the Spurs probably would have like to keep Stephen Jackson way back when, but they knew he wasn't worth $10 mil a year and they couldn't afford to pay him.

 

5 years is perfectly reasonable for most players. s*** is always going to happen, but remember, most of these guys get their first big deal around age 25 or 26. Doesn't that make sense? The player wants the security, and the team wants to lock him up for his prime. It's not the players' fault that they often give monster second deals to guys in their late 20's/early 30's with an injury history like Elton Brand, Gilbert Arenas or Baron Davis.

 

3 years is just ridiculously low. Then the player takes a massive hit on their next deal if they get hurt. The teams will frequently suffer too because they're never going to know if their players will be around long term and they'll have to pay their next contract at a higher rate.

 

No other league has contracts that short, even the NFL where careers are much shorter (yes, I realize they're not all guaranteed). You don't need to make a rule to mandate shorter contracts. Just because you can offer a 6 year deal doesn't mean you have to do it. If some other idiot wants to give them 6 years, that's their problem. They don't HAVE to be 100% guaranteed either, that's just the way they're typically negotiated.

 

 

And again, this comes down to the owners having to spend money to make their 47% and the players just having to show up. I don’t see how the players have the balls to demand a majority share of the revenue without conceding SOMETHING. Yes, they’ve gone from 57 to 53….which was too f***ing high to begin with. And now the recession has hurt the league even more. It’s a new age for the league and both sides need to see that and compromise.

 

And without the players, there's no public interest and no league. They can't charge $500 for a courtside seat to watch Adam Morrison. ESPN and TNT aren't going to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcast Josh Powell. They'd have a hard time moving Jeremy Pargo jerseys. You're going to have a much harder time getting taxpayers to pony up for a new stadium if they can't see the best players in the world.

 

The players are the entire reason anyone makes any money in the NBA, and why teams frequently sell for $400 mil or more. They're considered valuable commodities because of the revenue streams that are created by the players.

 

If you're going to buy an NBA team, which these guys did even though they could have invested in plenty of other businesses, you need the star players. You can't just put any schmuck out on the court and draw interest and make money. Like any other business, you need to make smart decisions and bring in the best talent to have a successful company.

 

The difference is if you run a restaurant into the ground, you go out of business and the bank takes all your stuff. If you run an NBA team into the ground, you cry about how all of those greedy players are causing you to lose money while your private jet is idling on the tarmac so you can fly off to Fiji until someone tells you that they're ready to play basketball again.

Edited October 11, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[Jenksismyhero]

First off, four teams are already over the luxury tax for 2011/2012 before a single player is signed or extended. That's going to result in quite a few luxury tax teams.

 

You're also missing a major part of the point. The salary cap IS going down because the slice of the BRI that the players get is dropping AND they want to impose harsher penalties for the luxury tax. So yes, more teams are going to be paying it if they want to keep their roster intact.

 

It also doesn't just affect the teams that actually pay it, it affects the teams that are near the threshold and have to make roster decisions. Utah is a major example. They had been straddling the threshold for a while before losing Carlos Boozer, and if they had managed to keep Deron Williams they would have been a tax team as well. Denver pretty much had to give Marcus Camby away because they were a tax team despite being a 5-seed caliber squad. Phoenix is another one, rather than keeping guys like Johnson, Marion and Stoudemire they overpaid some scrubs but avoided the tax. Atlanta is another one that's going to have problems because of the Joe Johnson salary and having to pay Horford and Smith as well.

 

None of this makes sense when you figure that more and more teams were paying the tax over the last decade AND salaries were increasing at rate of 30 and 40%. In other words, the raise in the tax hasn't stopped teams from spending. If the cap gets lowered because of the lowered percent the players get, so will salaries. It's all proportional. Maybe in the short term (i.e., until existing contracts end) there might be some teams out of whack with the salary cap, but i'm guessing they'll agree to some system whereby those existing contracts don't count towards the cap or teams get X amount of cap relief for existing contracts. It's not like current salaries are suddenly going to be used in a system where the cap drops 25%, forcing teams to field a bunch of ex-college stars at the league minimum.

 

 

You really don't understand the salary cap structure, do you? Virtually every team in the league is over the salary cap because of the Bird Exemption and MLE. The cap last year was $58 mil. Again, using 2011/2012 salaries and ignoring that the cap is going to drop with a 53% player cut of the BRI, 10 teams are over the cap before a single free agent is signed. My favorite salary resource (hoopshype) doesn't have 2010/2011 info anymore, but probably 20 teams were over the salary cap last year.

 

How is the bolded true when only 11 teams paid the tax in 2009-2010? As I said, the drop in BRI is going to result in lowered salaries. It'll all even out over the course of a couple of seasons, assuming they don't agree to some system so this problem doesn't happen.

 

 

You're not "forced" into anything. No one had a gun to Orlando's head making them give Rashard Lewis $20 mil a year when the general belief was he would have signed for $14 mil. Hell, they engineered a sign and trade to get him more money.

 

That trickles down to the lower level too. Is your team really going to suffer significantly if you lose Tyrus Thomas rather than paying him $7.3 million this year? The teams that are smart generally avoid deals like that. Sure, the Spurs probably would have like to keep Stephen Jackson way back when, but they knew he wasn't worth $10 mil a year and they couldn't afford to pay him.

 

I'm not excusing ownership ignorance. But some teams are forced into s***ty contracts. Imagine if Reinsdorf decided to be "smart" with his money and not sign any max-deal FA's this last off season. Think the fans would have been ok with an excuse that he was merely trying to run an efficient business? Or was the market set for a number of guys to get max money and the Bulls were basically forced into giving Boozer a max deal (even though he's clearly not worth it) because they might have missed out on signing any of the big FA's. In as much as these measures are in place to stop ignorant owners, it's also to stop other ignorant owners and to keep the league healthy and in balance.

 

5 years is perfectly reasonable for most players. s*** is always going to happen, but remember, most of these guys get their first big deal around age 25 or 26. Doesn't that make sense? The player wants the security, and the team wants to lock him up for his prime. It's not the players' fault that they often give monster second deals to guys in their late 20's/early 30's with an injury history like Elton Brand, Gilbert Arenas or Baron Davis.

 

3 years is just ridiculously low. Then the player takes a massive hit on their next deal if they get hurt. The teams will frequently suffer too because they're never going to know if their players will be around long term and they'll have to pay their next contract at a higher rate.

 

If it's so advantageous for both sides then they can re-up the deal every year or two for the current market rate. That's what you see happen with the NFL. The players worth the money still get paid and the franchise continues to have those players on their roster. There's nothing in the world mandating that six years is reasonable while 4 is not. It's completely arbitrary and based on historical practice. The union won that negotiation session last time around, there's no reason they have to keep it.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

There is a difference between being over the cap and paying the luxury tax.

[Jenksismyhero]

There is a difference between being over the cap and paying the luxury tax.

 

For purposes of his argument - that somehow an increase in the tax is going to screw all of these players- the history doesn't show that. It's made no difference as teams continue to spend regardless.

 

Edit: I see, I read what he wrote wrong. Yes, the majority are over the cap but still a minority pay the tax.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Steve9347]

I'm not excusing ownership ignorance. But some teams are forced into s***ty contracts. Imagine if Reinsdorf decided to be "smart" with his money and not sign any max-deal FA's this last off season. Think the fans would have been ok with an excuse that he was merely trying to run an efficient business? Or was the market set for a number of guys to get max money and the Bulls were basically forced into giving Boozer a max deal (even though he's clearly not worth it) because they might have missed out on signing any of the big FA's. In as much as these measures are in place to stop ignorant owners, it's also to stop other ignorant owners and to keep the league healthy and in balance.

You might want to check the figures on Boozer's deal. It's nowhere close to a max.

[Jenksismyhero]

You might want to check the figures on Boozer's deal. It's nowhere close to a max.

 

I could have sworn with the sign and trade deal with Utah that it was essentially a max deal.

 

edit: yeah I guess I was wrong. He's only signed through 14/15 at 13.5 mill up to 16.8 mill.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[ZoomSlowik]

There is a difference between being over the cap and paying the luxury tax.

 

This pretty much summed up my next response, only in one sentence instead of several paragraphs.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Now people are just getting silly:

 

Stoudemire: We'll start our own league-

One wonders why we haven't heard this earlier. Amar'e Stoudemire said [Tuesday] night if the NBA lockout wipes out the season, he believes the players will form their own league instead of trying to catch on in Europe. "If we don't go to Europe, we're going to start our own league, that's how I see it," the Knicks forward said. "It's very serious. It's a matter of us strategically coming up with a plan, a blueprint and putting it together. So we'll see how this lockout goes. If it goes one or two years, we've got to start our own league." Stoudemire, who spoke at the 34th street Foot Locker where he debuted his new Nike Air Max shoe, declined to say if there's financial backing in place.

[southsider2k5]

Now people are just getting silly:

 

Stoudemire: We'll start our own league-

One wonders why we haven't heard this earlier. Amar'e Stoudemire said [Tuesday] night if the NBA lockout wipes out the season, he believes the players will form their own league instead of trying to catch on in Europe. "If we don't go to Europe, we're going to start our own league, that's how I see it," the Knicks forward said. "It's very serious. It's a matter of us strategically coming up with a plan, a blueprint and putting it together. So we'll see how this lockout goes. If it goes one or two years, we've got to start our own league." Stoudemire, who spoke at the 34th street Foot Locker where he debuted his new Nike Air Max shoe, declined to say if there's financial backing in place.

 

And because the NBA doesn't have an anti-trust protection, they could get away with it.

[bmags]

FULLY SUPPORTED BY BMAGS.

[Jenksismyhero]

And because the NBA doesn't have an anti-trust protection, they could get away with it.

 

That would be incredibly stupid of them. No TV rights = no $$.

[bmags]

Yes, I'm sure no tv station on earth would try to get the rights to that.

[Steve9347]

That would be incredibly stupid of them. No TV rights = no $$.

You do hate the players.

 

Man, tv stations would be falling over themselves trying to air those games. It'd be nuts.

[southsider2k5]

That would be incredibly stupid of them. No TV rights = no $$.

 

Of all fans that should understand that an upstart league can take hold in the right situation, it is the NBA ones.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, I'm sure no tv station on earth would try to get the rights to that.

 

What major, national network is going to get into a bidding war for a "league" that has no definitive presence and a "league" that could simply vanish as the players go back to work for the NBA? I'm not suggesting that no one would purchase the right to televise the game(s), but i'm sure it would be on a game by game type basis with very little money in play. Compared to the money the players would get from NBA TV rights it would probably make sense to just take the NBA's deal.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

And i'm guessing the TNT and ESPN's who already have the billion dollar deals with the NBA aren't going to get out of those contracts very easily. It's not like the contract says "we now have the rights to air the NBA, but only if the NBA has superstar players." The NBA will field teams full of scrubs and existing TV contracts will have to be played out. Is ESPN going to invest another billion to air a new start up league?

[StrangeSox]

What major, national network is going to get into a bidding war for a "league" that has no definitive presence and a "league" that could simply vanish as the players go back to work for the NBA? I'm not suggesting that no one would purchase the right to televise the game(s), but i'm sure it would be on a game by game type basis with very little money in play. Compared to the money the players would get from NBA TV rights it would probably make sense to just take the NBA's deal.

 

OTOH it gives them a paycheck and leverage against the owners.

[StrangeSox]

And i'm guessing the TNT and ESPN's who already have the billion dollar deals with the NBA aren't going to get out of those contracts very easily. It's not like the contract says "we now have the rights to air the NBA, but only if the NBA has superstar players." The NBA will field teams full of scrubs and existing TV contracts will have to be played out. Is ESPN going to invest another billion to air a new start up league?

 

I would be shocked if their contracts didn't contain clauses relating to work stoppages and scab players.