Would someone explain what all this "lockout" talk is all about....

[Vegas Green]

I mean, I know what a lockout is and why it could happen, but people are talking as if there is guaranteed to be no NBA in two years or whenever.  I don't hear anyone freaking out about not having NBA for an entire year!!  Is this all just posturing by the owners or are we really going to be without it for an extended period of time?!?!

[Drucci]

It could be posturing, and both parties' best interest is to "predict" a lockout so Stern does his best to avoid that and gives them some favors.

With that said, the owners are pretty serious about the new CBA and reducing the payrolls while the players really want to keep their "rights" so, yeah, it's likely to happen in my opinion.

[bobdelt]

I'd be shocked if it doesnt happen. It sounds like most teams are not making money. Players don't want to give up there $20mil a year either. Owners also want shorter contract lengths.

Players are already skeptical of the new salary cap and economics. A lot of it just has to do with how the economy is and the owners are taking a hit, and want to take advantage of the down turn to negotiate more favorable cba.

[pearljammer10]

Yeah its just bound to happen... Players being greedy and wanting more and more money. The office trying to look good and reduce the payroll. Its going to be a messy bargaining and I dont think a middle ground is going to come easily.

[the_Bird]

Salaries came down pretty dramatically after the last change to the CBA, we're just now seeing some of those older contracts come off the books.  Guys like Jermaine O'Neil and T-Mac were making a helluva lot more last year than this summer's max-contract guys will be making.  Got to believe that the timing of this labor agreement had a lot to do with LeBron signing that three-year extension so he'd be a free agent in 2010, not 2011 or 2012.

[Mr October]

Part of me is p---ed at the owners/managers for shelling out the bad contracts to begin with.

But I am more p---ed at the system. Teams often overpay for free agents because they are often forced into making a move in a tiny window of flexibility.

I think loosening up the ease of trades would help. Get rid of the base year rules.  And allow maybe a 33-50% difference in salaries in trades.

[the_Bird]

Sounds like ownership wants to get rid of the MLE.  Not sure what they're really proposing as an alternative system.

[Mr October]

Sounds like ownership wants to get rid of the MLE.  Not sure what they're really proposing as an alternative system.

Goofy owners. They dont need to spend it if they dont want to. I think the MLE is a great off season tool. And teams have used it more responsibly in the last couple of years.

Whats the alternative? Max contracts and minimum contracts? Uggg... I'm not looking forward to the lockout, and the greed on both sides.

[Brendan]

NBA Players Union will do what all unions do, protect the senior guys at the expense of the new ones. Predictions:

1. Longer rookie deals with more team options
2. Shorter max deals
3. Higher ability of home town rights
4. Grandfathering in higher and longer contracts from before the new CBA
5. Some sort of realignment to make contracts non-guaranteed

You have three classes of guys in the NBA:

superstars - they can wait out a lockout and want the biggest maxes on contract amount and length, being grandfathered in achieves this for most of them

role players - these are the guys who want the league to start playing ASAP, basically they don't have the funds to support their lifestyle if a paycheck is not coming in, and its probably a push for them anyways

future guys - these are the guys who get jobbed by the changes

I think there is probably a class of guys that have the potential to be superstars (or make more money in the future if the current CBA is left alone) but are not over extended financially - I'm guessing its sufficiently small that they won't have the ability to over come the first two groups.

[Brendan]

My personal choice would be the players agree to not unionize, and the owners agree to not collude on contracts given to players. No restrictions on how players get paid.

[Mr October]

NBA Players Union will do what all unions do, protect the senior guys at the expense of the new ones. Predictions:

1. Longer rookie deals with more team options
2. Shorter max deals
3. Higher ability of home town rights
4. Grandfathering in higher and longer contracts from before the new CBA
5. Some sort of realignment to make contracts non-guaranteed

You have three classes of guys in the NBA:

superstars - they can wait out a lockout and want the biggest maxes on contract amount and length, being grandfathered in achieves this for most of them

role players - these are the guys who want the league to start playing ASAP, basically they don't have the funds to support their lifestyle if a paycheck is not coming in, and its probably a push for them anyways

future guys - these are the guys who get jobbed by the changes

I think there is probably a class of guys that have the potential to be superstars (or make more money in the future if the current CBA is left alone) but are not over extended financially - I'm guessing its sufficiently small that they won't have the ability to over come the first two groups.

Man I hope they dont extend rookie deals and hometown rights. Then all rebuilding efforts fall even more heavily on those stupid ping pong balls.

[LooseCannon]

I think loosening up the ease of trades would help. Get rid of the base year rules.  And allow maybe a 33-50% difference in salaries in trades.

Those rules exist for a reason.  From the NBA Salary Cap Faq

Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the Traded Player exception (which says teams can't take back more than 125% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says "if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary."

And if you allow a bigger difference in traded contracts, you might as well get rid of the salary cap.

[hwangjini_1]

NBA Players Union will do what all unions do, protect the senior guys at the expense of the new ones. Predictions:

1. Longer rookie deals with more team options
2. Shorter max deals
3. Higher ability of home town rights
4. Grandfathering in higher and longer contracts from before the new CBA
5. Some sort of realignment to make contracts non-guaranteed

You have three classes of guys in the NBA:

superstars - they can wait out a lockout and want the biggest maxes on contract amount and length, being grandfathered in achieves this for most of them

role players - these are the guys who want the league to start playing ASAP, basically they don't have the funds to support their lifestyle if a paycheck is not coming in, and its probably a push for them anyways

future guys - these are the guys who get jobbed by the changes

I think there is probably a class of guys that have the potential to be superstars (or make more money in the future if the current CBA is left alone) but are not over extended financially - I'm guessing its sufficiently small that they won't have the ability to over come the first two groups.

Thanks for the info, and tp to you.

I have a question about the brave new CBA world coming up.

If existing contracts are grandfathered, will they count against the new lower salary caps we expect will exist?

That, if a player makes $15 million now, will the entire salary count against the cap in three years? If so, then it seems that then any team signing a FA for big dollars now would be ham stringing themselves in a few years.

[Mr October]

I think loosening up the ease of trades would help. Get rid of the base year rules.  And allow maybe a 33-50% difference in salaries in trades.

Those rules exist for a reason.  From the NBA Salary Cap Faq

Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can't because of the Traded Player exception (which says teams can't take back more than 125% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says "if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary."

And if you allow a bigger difference in traded contracts, you might as well get rid of the salary cap.

I'm not entirely against a baseball cap-less system.

I'm still Ok with limiting percentages of raises for a player, and setting maximums. However i would like to see trading loosened up.

[bobdelt]

Part of me is [peeved] at the owners/managers for shelling out the bad contracts to begin with.

But I am more [peeved] at the system. Teams often overpay for free agents because they are often forced into making a move in a tiny window of flexibility.

I think loosening up the ease of trades would help. Get rid of the base year rules.  And allow maybe a 33-50% difference in salaries in trades.

That unfairly helps the teams who can spend more, and defeats the purpose of the cap.