Rumor: Owners have dropped insistence on hard cap

[nickagneta]

The rollbacks option must be a negotiating tactic as and if-then type situation when looking at the BRI split. There is NO WAY the owners could expect the players to accept 5-10% rollbacks in salary AND a less than 50% split of the BRI.

The owners gave up the hard cap and want one or the other, an under 50% share going to the players or an above 50% share going to the players and rollbacks. Expecting both is ludicrous in my opinion.

Well, I think the rollbacks are more an issue for the players IMO, because it will be determining whether more money goes to guys already under contract, or guys who are signed under the new system.  Since the players would be guaranteed a certain percentage of the BRI no matter what, the owners don't gain or lose any money with the rollbacks...they just gain a little more flexibility to give more money to guys who aren't already under contract.

Or in other words, the players have the choice of having guys who signed in the last couple years making significantly more than guys who didn't...or they can even the playing field among themselves. 

But either way, I doubt it is a drop dead issue for the owners, because it shouldn't affect their bottom line much.

In a way yes, bu that is assuming the player's salary are under the percentage of the BRI set forth. But if the BRI percentage is set exceedingly low, such as under 50%(and yes that is exceedingly low given what players in the three other major American sports are making as compared to incoming revenue), then it is just a way of reducing the players cost to fit into the low BRI percentage and is another giveback on top of another giveback.

Remember, the precedent was set with NHL players but they also receive a percentage of revenue in the 53-54% area. The owners are asking for a 46-48% player share of the BRI AND the rollbacks. As I said, I think it has to be one or the other. Hiogher BRI with rollbacks evening the players salaries all around or a low BRI and the new free agent player salaries are just going to have to be decidedly lower than there contemporaries for a few years until those contracts signed under the old CBA run out and are adjusted through free agency under the new CBA.

[Chris]

The rollbacks option must be a negotiating tactic as and if-then type situation when looking at the BRI split. There is NO WAY the owners could expect the players to accept 5-10% rollbacks in salary AND a less than 50% split of the BRI.

The owners gave up the hard cap and want one or the other, an under 50% share going to the players or an above 50% share going to the players and rollbacks. Expecting both is ludicrous in my opinion.

Well, I think the rollbacks are more an issue for the players IMO, because it will be determining whether more money goes to guys already under contract, or guys who are signed under the new system.  Since the players would be guaranteed a certain percentage of the BRI no matter what, the owners don't gain or lose any money with the rollbacks...they just gain a little more flexibility to give more money to guys who aren't already under contract.

Or in other words, the players have the choice of having guys who signed in the last couple years making significantly more than guys who didn't...or they can even the playing field among themselves. 

But either way, I doubt it is a drop dead issue for the owners, because it shouldn't affect their bottom line much.

In a way yes, bu that is assuming the player's salary are under the percentage of the BRI set forth. But if the BRI percentage is set exceedingly low, such as under 50%(and yes that is exceedingly low given what players in the three other major American sports are making as compared to incoming revenue), then it is just a way of reducing the players cost to fit into the low BRI percentage and is another giveback on top of another giveback.

Remember, the precedent was set with NHL players but they also receive a percentage of revenue in the 53-54% area. The owners are asking for a 46-48% player share of the BRI AND the rollbacks. As I said, I think it has to be one or the other. Hiogher BRI with rollbacks evening the players salaries all around or a low BRI and the new free agent player salaries are just going to have to be decidedly lower than there contemporaries for a few years until those contracts signed under the old CBA run out and are adjusted through free agency under the new CBA.

And like I said, I think the owners would have no problem with not taking the rollbacks.  The BRI split is what matters.  I really think that the rollbacks was a proposal to balance the burden among the players, rather than punishing those not currently on long-term contracts.

If the players cut is going to drop 7%, then that money needs to come from somewhere.  Either it comes from everyone, or it comes in a much larger percentage by those signing new deals, while Lebron/Wade/et al. count their money.

[Chris]

I still think we end with the same type of system as now, but with reduced contract length, reduced max dollars, changes to the Bird and MLE system (perhaps you can only use one exception a year), an added level of a 2 to 1 tax (if the cap is 56, luxury tax is 70, I think the 2 to 1 will be in the 80 range), and a BRI somewhere in the 51-52% range (in favor of the players). 

That would certainly be a reasonable deal for both sides.  However, I think in this case, the owners may not settle for simply reasonable.  They want a victory, and it wouldn't shock me if they passed on the above, thinking they could do better.

Yeah.  I think that could be the offer that would get both sides to the table.  But I think the owners would hold out for either a harder (and much lower) luxury tax threshold (meaning it also includes a third tier), or a more favorable BRI split.

But you are very close to what I think it will end up being as well.  I also think they will have an amnesty clause, and perhaps a system that allows teams to buyout players and spread their money over more years, like they have in the NHL.

[Moranis]

I still think we end with the same type of system as now, but with reduced contract length, reduced max dollars, changes to the Bird and MLE system (perhaps you can only use one exception a year), an added level of a 2 to 1 tax (if the cap is 56, luxury tax is 70, I think the 2 to 1 will be in the 80 range), and a BRI somewhere in the 51-52% range (in favor of the players). 

That would certainly be a reasonable deal for both sides.  However, I think in this case, the owners may not settle for simply reasonable.  They want a victory, and it wouldn't shock me if they passed on the above, thinking they could do better.

Yeah.  I think that could be the offer that would get both sides to the table.  But I think the owners would hold out for either a harder (and much lower) luxury tax threshold (meaning it also includes a third tier), or a more favorable BRI split.

But you are very close to what I think it will end up being as well.  I also think they will have an amnesty clause, and perhaps a system that allows teams to buyout players and spread their money over more years, like they have in the NHL.

I just used the current numbers for the threshold, obviously if you go from 57% to 51%, the thresholds will change since the cap is based on revenue.

I could certainly see an added level of luxury tax, but I think the Dolans and Busses of the world have enough power to not cripple themselves.  Those guys still want advantages, maybe not baseball sized advantages, but they don't want the NFL either. 

[Interceptor]

Right.  But the point is, if both sides cannot find common ground right before the drop dead date when they both start losing a lot of money, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that either side is going to decide shortly after that that they were wrong, and that they will give in.

The motivation is to get a deal done now.  If it doesn't happen now, then its no longer about negotiating, it is about waiting until one side crumbles...and that means no season.

I disagree with this assessment.  Right or wrong doesn't enter into it at all; this is a fight about money, not morality.  Once the drop-dead date passes, they have plenty of motivation to come to a deal:  losing less money.  Just because the owners are better equipped to survive the lack of income, doesn't mean that the loss doesn't factor into their calculations.

You're detailing a scenario where the prospect of missing 1 of 82 games is vastly different for the negotiation process than for zero of 82, which doesn't make any sense to me at all, especially since there is already a precedent for a compressed/abbreviated NBA season.  I've said this before, I'll say it again in different words: I don't buy an assertion that either the NBA or the NBPA are irrational actors.  Everyone loses money during the lockout.

[Roy H.]

Random Celtics news:  Paul Pierce is at today's meeting.

Sources told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard that Miami's LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, New York's Carmelo Anthony, Oklahoma City's Kevin Durant and Boston's Paul Pierce are among the star players scheduled to attend in support of the union's executive committee, which includes New Orleans' Chris Paul.

[Chris]

Random Celtics news:  Paul Pierce is at today's meeting.

Sources told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard that Miami's LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, New York's Carmelo Anthony, Oklahoma City's Kevin Durant and Boston's Paul Pierce are among the star players scheduled to attend in support of the union's executive committee, which includes New Orleans' Chris Paul.

I am surprised KG and Allen aren't there also.  I actually see those two as being more involved in the union stuff...not sure why though.

[Moranis]

I still think we end with the same type of system as now, but with reduced contract length, reduced max dollars, changes to the Bird and MLE system (perhaps you can only use one exception a year), an added level of a 2 to 1 tax (if the cap is 56, luxury tax is 70, I think the 2 to 1 will be in the 80 range), and a BRI somewhere in the 51-52% range (in favor of the players). 

Seems like I was pretty close to what will actually happen.  It appears they will have more levels of luxury tax at lower levels, but the rest is almost spot on to what has come out recently.