cba questions

[stylo617617]

i heard somewhere the cba dosent expire until june or july 30th
is that true?

are teams allowed to trade with teams that season's already ended? for example can we trade with a team like sacremento???


so is there no draft until a new cba is greed upon or is it like the nfl where we can choose players but cant sign em, when is the draft anyway?

i kinda want this to be the cba question thread for guys like me who have no clue what we cant ot cannot do becuase of this cba thing to ask guys with knowledge on this subject ...

[Roy H.]

1.  I believe the CBA expires June 30, as the new league year begins on July 1.  However, nothing would stop the owners from "locking out" the players before that, like the NFL did.

2.  Teams can complete trades once they're eliminated from the playoffs, but they can't trade players whose contracts are expiring or which could expire due to options.

3.  The draft is June 23.  It will most likely go forward, although players are likely to be signed under whatever new rules are agreed to.

[Chris]

1.  I believe the CBA expires June 30, as the new league year begins on July 1.  However, nothing would stop the owners from "locking out" the players before that, like the NFL did.

2.  Teams can complete trades once they're eliminated from the playoffs, but they can't trade players whose contracts are expiring or which could expire due to options.

3.  The draft is June 23.  It will most likely go forward, although players are likely to be signed under whatever new rules are agreed to.

Just to add 1 thing, much like with the NFL, even if the league locks out the players before June 23, the draft would still likely go forward.

[Roy H.]

1.  I believe the CBA expires June 30, as the new league year begins on July 1.  However, nothing would stop the owners from "locking out" the players before that, like the NFL did.

2.  Teams can complete trades once they're eliminated from the playoffs, but they can't trade players whose contracts are expiring or which could expire due to options.

3.  The draft is June 23.  It will most likely go forward, although players are likely to be signed under whatever new rules are agreed to.

Just to add 1 thing, much like with the NFL, even if the league locks out the players before June 23, the draft would still likely go forward.

Yeah, I'm actually not sure about that; you could be right.  The NFL had specifically protected the draft under the CBA.  In the NBA, I'm not sure if they have.  However, as a practical matter, it's irrelevant, because free agency can't begin until after July 1, anyway.  Smartly, the 2011 draft is considered part of the 2010-2011 league year, so it shouldn't be affected either way.

[Kiorrik]

Good topic.

I read that one piece somewhere where they talk about the NFL lockout in comparison to what's happening in the NBA. It came across as though it wanted to say: "there's now a 60% chance there will be no lockout, or a short one."

Is there any truth in that?

And maybe even more, is there any way we can estimate the duration of a potential lockout?

[Roy H.]

Good topic.

I read that one piece somewhere where they talk about the NFL lockout in comparison to what's happening in the NBA. It came across as though it wanted to say: "there's now a 60% chance there will be no lockout, or a short one."

Is there any truth in that?

And maybe even more, is there any way we can estimate the duration of a potential lockout?

My guess is that it really depends on what happens in court.  If the NFL wins their June 3 appeal, I think it strengthens the owners.  If the NFL loses, then I think it dramatically strengthens the players.  Basically, what's at stake is the ability of the league to lock out players if they decertify their union as a negotiating ploy.

As for the duration, it comes down to how long one side or the other can afford to lose money.  The last NBA lockout lasted a few months, but the NHL killed an entire season plus.

[stylo617617]

ive heard alot about this hard cap & franchise tag would the players really agree to that? & why would the leauge even want the hard cap? , teams who are contenders need that flexability like the MLE & the vet min to add to thier team espeically la who's at 90 MILLION! if the hard cap for example is at 65-70 million do they lose players ?

[Roy H.]

ive heard alot about this hard cap & franchise tag would the players really agree to that? & why would the leauge even want the hard cap? , teams who are contenders need that flexability like the MLE & the vet min to add to thier team espeically la who's at 90 MILLION! if the hard cap for example is at 65-70 million do they lose players ?

With the hard cap, the owner's idea would be to "roll back" existing contracts, decreasing them from 15% - 30%.  Then, teams would be given time to get their rosters in order, with a hard cap going into effect sometime within the next three year.

Who knows if the players would agree?  They say they won't, but the NHL players didn't want one, either, and the owners broke their will.

Hard caps protect the owners by providing cost certainty, and by leveling the playing field so that "rich" franchises don't have an unfair advantage.

[Kiorrik]

I like the hard cap idea, even though it means we'll be "back down in there with the rest". It would reshuffle a lot of things, wouldn't it?

Anyway, what's this "franchise tag"? It's a word I've seen around a few times lately, but I have no clue as to its meaning.

[stylo617617]

ive heard alot about this hard cap & franchise tag would the players really agree to that? & why would the leauge even want the hard cap? , teams who are contenders need that flexability like the MLE & the vet min to add to thier team espeically la who's at 90 MILLION! if the hard cap for example is at 65-70 million do they lose players ?

With the hard cap, the owner's idea would be to "roll back" existing contracts, decreasing them from 15% - 30%.  Then, teams would be given time to get their rosters in order, with a hard cap going into effect sometime within the next three year.

Who knows if the players would agree?  They say they won't, but the NHL players didn't want one, either, and the owners broke their will.

Hard caps protect the owners by providing cost certainty, and by leveling the playing field so that "rich" franchises don't have an unfair advantage.

i guess all i've heard was what the owners want to do on ESPN & the internet
so the players want things to stay the same or are there changes they want as well? like the NFL players where they've said that they like the way things are now

my guess is players win & we only see minor changes

[Roy H.]

I like the hard cap idea, even though it means we'll be "back down in there with the rest". It would reshuffle a lot of things, wouldn't it?

Anyway, what's this "franchise tag"? It's a word I've seen around a few times lately, but I have no clue as to its meaning.

In football, a "franchise tag" is a label you can give to one of your free agents every year.  That player isn't allowed to leave in free agency.  In return, the team has to pay that player the average of the top five salaries at that players position, or a 120% raise, whichever is greater.

Presumably, an NBA franchise tag would be similar, although perhaps tweaked.  For instance, it might not make sense to give NBA teams one franchise tag per year, since there are so few free agents relative to the NFL (which has 53 person rosters).

[Roy H.]

ive heard alot about this hard cap & franchise tag would the players really agree to that? & why would the leauge even want the hard cap? , teams who are contenders need that flexability like the MLE & the vet min to add to thier team espeically la who's at 90 MILLION! if the hard cap for example is at 65-70 million do they lose players ?

With the hard cap, the owner's idea would be to "roll back" existing contracts, decreasing them from 15% - 30%.  Then, teams would be given time to get their rosters in order, with a hard cap going into effect sometime within the next three year.

Who knows if the players would agree?  They say they won't, but the NHL players didn't want one, either, and the owners broke their will.

Hard caps protect the owners by providing cost certainty, and by leveling the playing field so that "rich" franchises don't have an unfair advantage.

i guess all i've heard was what the owners want to do on ESPN & the internet
so the players want things to stay the same or are there changes they want as well? like the NFL players where they've said that they like the way things are now

my guess is players win & we only see minor changes

I believe the players want to keep things relatively the same.  They're actually willing to give up some money, if reports are accurate.  Currently, players receive something like 57% of all revenue from the league.  The owners want to reduce that number, and the players seem to agree.

The only issue I've heard the players talk about that they'd want to see changed for their benefit is the rookie age limit; they'd like to go back to no age limit.

[LooseCannon]

According to Zack Lowe at The Point Forward:

The system the league has presented would not work this way, according to sources. Instead, a team would be allowed to designate one player for preferential contractual treatment, including more overall money, more guaranteed money and at least one extra year on his contract. A player would have to agree to such a designation. It is designed to work as an incentive to get a player to remain with his team rather than as a roadblock to free agency, the sources said.

You can think of the proposed franchise tag as super-Bird rights, where a team can tag one player to be eligible for even more benefits than its other free agents.

[Kiorrik]

I like the hard cap idea, even though it means we'll be "back down in there with the rest". It would reshuffle a lot of things, wouldn't it?

Anyway, what's this "franchise tag"? It's a word I've seen around a few times lately, but I have no clue as to its meaning.

In football, a "franchise tag" is a label you can give to one of your free agents every year.  That player isn't allowed to leave in free agency.  In return, the team has to pay that player the average of the top five salaries at that players position, or a 120% raise, whichever is greater.

Presumably, an NBA franchise tag would be similar, although perhaps tweaked.  For instance, it might not make sense to give NBA teams one franchise tag per year, since there are so few free agents relative to the NFL (which has 53 person rosters).

Thanks, and AWESOME.

I really love that franchise tag idea. Really do. It's like an extra piece in the chess game called NBA.

[Roy H.]

I like the hard cap idea, even though it means we'll be "back down in there with the rest". It would reshuffle a lot of things, wouldn't it?

Anyway, what's this "franchise tag"? It's a word I've seen around a few times lately, but I have no clue as to its meaning.

In football, a "franchise tag" is a label you can give to one of your free agents every year.  That player isn't allowed to leave in free agency.  In return, the team has to pay that player the average of the top five salaries at that players position, or a 120% raise, whichever is greater.

Presumably, an NBA franchise tag would be similar, although perhaps tweaked.  For instance, it might not make sense to give NBA teams one franchise tag per year, since there are so few free agents relative to the NFL (which has 53 person rosters).

Thanks, and AWESOME.

I really love that franchise tag idea. Really do. It's like an extra piece in the chess game called NBA.

See LC's post above.  Apparently, the NBA is talking about a "franchise tag" which is completely different.  (Seriously, they couldn't come up with a less confusing name?)