Owners' CBA proposal detailed: $45 million hard cap

[Jeff]

ok, new plan, let all our expiring salaries walk/retire after next year use the amnesty rule to cut Pierce's salary, and start with Rondo, Avery, and whatever draft picks we get in the next couple of years - we'll be one of the only teams able to actually sign anyone under the hard cap

wheeeee, this should be fun #sarcasm

[KGs Knee]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

[the_Bird]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.  In my opinion, it's a little morally queasy but I don't think there's any question that if the player's union agrees to a salary rollback, the individual players are out of luck trying to fight that (other than by dissolving the union).

[Roy H.]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

It's illegal unless both parties agree to modify the contract, which is what would be happening here.  By agreeing to a "roll back" provision in the CBA, the players would be voluntarily giving up their contract rights in the future.

[KGs Knee]

ok, new plan, let all our expiring salaries walk/retire after next year use the amnesty rule to cut Pierce's salary, and start with Rondo, Avery, and whatever draft picks we get in the next couple of years - we'll be one of the only teams able to actually sign anyone under the hard cap

wheeeee, this should be fun #sarcasm

Maybe that was Wyc and Danny's Plan.  Wyc probably knew the desires of the owners and relayed that to Danny, who set us up to be one of the lone deireable destinations under the cap.

I guess that is our only hope?

[KGs Knee]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

It's illegal unless both parties agree to modify the contract, which is what would be happening here.  By agreeing to a "roll back" provision in the CBA, the players would be voluntarily giving up their contract rights in the future.

Yeah, I realize it's legit if both parties agree, and under a collective bargaining agreement it is permissable.  wa sspeaking more to the purely capitalistic aspect vs dictorial.

Players still have to agree, otherwise they can attempt to sue for their money.  It has yet to be determined if that is possible, and if the players are willing to take it that far.

[the_Bird]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

It's illegal unless both parties agree to modify the contract, which is what would be happening here.  By agreeing to a "roll back" provision in the CBA, the players would be voluntarily giving up their contract rights in the future.

Yeah, I realize it's legit if both parties agree, and under a collective bargaining agreement it is permissable.

Players still have to agree, otherwise they can attempt to sue for their money.  It has yet to be determined if that is possible, and if the players are willing to take it that far.

Roy's the expert here, but I don't think the individual players would have the right to sue for their own contracts to be honored as written.  That's the whole point of having the union, to negotiate on everyone's behalf.

Of course, if more than 50% of the players are p---ed off enough about the concessions, they can always do what the NFL Player's Union did; decertify. 

[LooseCannon]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.

I read the initial statement as a belief that a collective bargaining environment and unions are bad things.

I get the sense some people think it would be a good thing if there were less restraints on the owners and they could crack the whip on some lazy, shiftless players.

[KGs Knee]

Of course, if more than 50% of the players are p---ed off enough about the concessions, they can always do what the NFL Player's Union did; decertify. 

Which was ultimately my point

[Donoghus]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.

I read the initial statement as a belief that a collective bargaining environment and unions are bad things.

I get the sense some people think it would be a good thing if there were less restraints on the owners and they could crack the whip on some lazy, shiftless players.

I really wouldn't mind the non-guranteed contract approach that the NFL utilizes.

It won't happen but I do like the idea that only bonuses are guaranteed.  Helps lessen the blow of ridiculous long-term contracts down the road.

[KGs Knee]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.

I read the initial statement as a belief that a collective bargaining environment and unions are bad things.

I get the sense some people think it would be a good thing if there were less restraints on the owners and they could crack the whip on some lazy, shiftless players.

I really wouldn't mind the non-guranteed contract approach that the NFL utilizes.

It won't happen but I do like the idea that only bonuses are guaranteed.  Helps lessen the blow of ridiculous long-term contracts down the road.

I just loathe the idea of allowing someone to sign you to a contract and then cancel it with no recourse.  Shorter contracts would be fine.  Would the owners ever let the players opt out of a contract at any point if they didn't like the terms any longer.  Doubt it.

[Roy H.]

Roy's the expert here, but I don't think the individual players would have the right to sue for their own contracts to be honored as written.  That's the whole point of having the union, to negotiate on everyone's behalf.

Of course, if more than 50% of the players are p---ed off enough about the concessions, they can always do what the NFL Player's Union did; decertify. 

Yeah, you're basically right.  If they decertified, they'd have the right to sue individually.  However, based upon how things are going in the 8th Circuit, that may not be a winning strategy.

I'm definitely not an expert in all the ins and outs of labor law, though.

[Donoghus]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.

I read the initial statement as a belief that a collective bargaining environment and unions are bad things.

I get the sense some people think it would be a good thing if there were less restraints on the owners and they could crack the whip on some lazy, shiftless players.

I really wouldn't mind the non-guranteed contract approach that the NFL utilizes.

It won't happen but I do like the idea that only bonuses are guaranteed.  Helps lessen the blow of ridiculous long-term contracts down the road.

I just loathe the idea of allowing someone to sign you to a contract and then cancel it with no recourse.  Shorter contracts would be fine.  Would the owners ever let the players opt out of a contract at any point if they didn't like the terms any longer.  Doubt it.

I agree that from a player's standpoint, it can be brutal (although it was collectively bargained) but from a fan's standpoint, I think its a great business plan.  Rather that being bogged down for years in salary cap hell, a team can dig themselves out of a mess much quicker.  There is more hope for franchises rather than the NBA experience of often looking years ahead to when "so & so is off the books and then we can be good again". 

If I'm a fan, I'm liking the idea that my team might be able to compete right away rather than waiting 2-3 years when the fat is trimmed. 

[KGs Knee]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.

I read the initial statement as a belief that a collective bargaining environment and unions are bad things.

I get the sense some people think it would be a good thing if there were less restraints on the owners and they could crack the whip on some lazy, shiftless players.

I really wouldn't mind the non-guranteed contract approach that the NFL utilizes.

It won't happen but I do like the idea that only bonuses are guaranteed.  Helps lessen the blow of ridiculous long-term contracts down the road.

I just loathe the idea of allowing someone to sign you to a contract and then cancel it with no recourse.  Shorter contracts would be fine.  Would the owners ever let the players opt out of a contract at any point if they didn't like the terms any longer.  Doubt it.

I agree that from a player's standpoint, it can be brutal (although it was collectively bargained) but from a fan's standpoint, I think its a great business plan.  Rather that being bogged down for years in salary cap hell, a team can dig themselves out of a mess much quicker.  There is more hope for franchises rather than the NBA experience of often looking years ahead to when "so & so is off the books and then we can be good again". 

If I'm a fan, I'm liking the idea that my team might be able to compete right away rather than waiting 2-3 years when the fat is trimmed. 

So basically, you want smarter GM's.  GM's who don't just throw money around pointlessly.  Joe Johnson $80m, Rashard Lewis $100m+?  Gilbert Arenas $100m+?  That isn't the player fault.

Also, shorter contracts are a better, more fair solution.

Solely on principal am I against it.

[Donoghus]

Let's face it. If anything is broken its the players union and player contracts. There's absolutely no reason that teams should be at the mercy of a Carmelo Anthony or a LeBron James who get whatever they want. In the end, they're not the ones who have a say in what goes on. They're simply performers, they're a product, they're employees. The people who cut their paychecks are and should be in charge.  

Personally, this statement sounds like some kind of communist/dictorial idealogy.

Sounds more capitalist ideology to me. (I am not a hardcore capitalist.)

Except in a capitalistic society, you can not sign a contract with someone and then later arbitrarily decide not to pay someone.  Its illegal.

Different rules apply when you're in a collective bargaining environment.

I read the initial statement as a belief that a collective bargaining environment and unions are bad things.

I get the sense some people think it would be a good thing if there were less restraints on the owners and they could crack the whip on some lazy, shiftless players.

I really wouldn't mind the non-guranteed contract approach that the NFL utilizes.

It won't happen but I do like the idea that only bonuses are guaranteed.  Helps lessen the blow of ridiculous long-term contracts down the road.

I just loathe the idea of allowing someone to sign you to a contract and then cancel it with no recourse.  Shorter contracts would be fine.  Would the owners ever let the players opt out of a contract at any point if they didn't like the terms any longer.  Doubt it.

I agree that from a player's standpoint, it can be brutal (although it was collectively bargained) but from a fan's standpoint, I think its a great business plan.  Rather that being bogged down for years in salary cap hell, a team can dig themselves out of a mess much quicker.  There is more hope for franchises rather than the NBA experience of often looking years ahead to when "so & so is off the books and then we can be good again". 

If I'm a fan, I'm liking the idea that my team might be able to compete right away rather than waiting 2-3 years when the fat is trimmed. 

So basically, you want smarter GM's.  GM's who don't just throw money around pointlessly.  Joe Johnson $80m, Rashard Lewis $100m+?  Gilbert Arenas $100m+?  That isn't the player fault.

Also, shorter contracts are a better, more fair solution.

Solely on principal am I against it.

GM's should be smarter but a lot of contracts that were given were also driven by the market.  One GM or another was going to make that mistake.  The player did have a hand in generating those salary offers.    Someone was gonna pay.

If they wanna cap the years on a contract, fine.  That would certainly make things better.  I have no issue with that.

My issue has always been teams that are in the proverbial "salary cap hell" for years.  It sucks as a fan and the non-guranteed salaries can help alleviate the years of mediocrity.  The model used by the NFL still generates a pretty solid payday for the players in the form of guaranteed bonuses upfront.  The players are still doing pretty well for themselves. 

I'm a fan first and want to see a competitive team that I can actually share some hope in.  Call me selfish, but I could care less about the business ethics aspects of these guys. I don't lose any sleep over it.