If the NBA season starts on time

[Chris]

How do you figure they are good to go after only one week?  The Celtics have only seven players under contract don't they?

If they have 2 weeks of combined signing period/training camp/preseason, they will be good enough to go.  Don't get me wrong, the first few weeks (or months) of the season are going to be very subpar basketball.  The first few weeks of the season will essentially be the preseason.  But, they don't NEED a month long preseason/camp, and they don't need a long signing period before the camp begins.

For example, lets say they come to a handshake agreement on October 7.  They then have a week to finalize the paperwork, and get all of their ducks in the row. 

As things are being finalized, they can begin talking to free agents on October 12, and the official signing period and league year begins on October 15th. 

Camp opens up on Monday October 17. 

Preseason games start on the 21st, and each team has 3-4 preseason games between the 21st and the 31st. 

Opening night is on November 1st as originally scheduled.

[thirstyboots18]

You know I love an optimist, Chris...hope your "if" works out!

[Chris]

You know I love an optimist, Chris...hope your "if" works out!

The hard part is going to be agreeing to a deal.  But with so much money wrapped up in the regular season, and opening night always being a huge draw (and something the networks count on), I don't think it takes an optimist to realize that, IF they can come to an agreement, they will make any sacrifice they possibly can to start the regular season on time, even if it means the first few weeks of the season are still a glorified training camp.

Plus, this is basketball, its not like the NFL where guys need to learn a huge playbook or anything.  While the product wouldn't be at its best, they could throw those guys out there with no training camp, and it would still be a decent product.

Or lets put this another way.  Do you think an extra week of training camp or extended signing period is worth $167 million?  That is the estimated revenue that will be lost for each week of the regular season cancelled.  They will do everything they can to avoid that.

[Interceptor]

Because as the paychecks are missed, the players will be hurting much more than the owners.

This doesn't really go to my point.  It's true that the players will be more inclined to come to an agreement once the paychecks stop coming in, but it's also true that making the terms of the CBA even more onerous to the players than what's already proposed, makes a deal less likely.  The owners are in a better negotiating position, certainly, but the NBPA is not stupid:  they also know what's at stake in the long term as well.  There is not just a single season on the table.

If the owners are really inclined to torpedo negotations like that after the games start to be cancelled, this is irrational behavior, and the players never had any "leverage" to begin with.  So, I don't believe it to be the case.  There will be a staring match to be sure, which the owners will probably win, but I'd be completely flabbergasted if the ultimate agreement was MORE owner-friendly than their current bottom line already is.

[Chris]

Because as the paychecks are missed, the players will be hurting much more than the owners.

This doesn't really go to my point.  It's true that the players will be more inclined to come to an agreement once the paychecks stop coming in, but it's also true that making the terms of the CBA even more onerous to the players than what's already proposed, makes a deal less likely.  The owners are in a better negotiating position, certainly, but the NBPA is not stupid:  they also know what's at stake in the long term as well.  There is not just a single season on the table.

If the owners are really inclined to torpedo negotations like that after the games start to be cancelled, this is irrational behavior, and the players never had any "leverage" to begin with.  So, I don't believe it to be the case.  There will be a staring match to be sure, which the owners will probably win, but I'd be completely flabbergasted if the ultimate agreement was MORE owner-friendly than their current bottom line already is.

The PLAYERS opening proposal was more owner friendly than the current bottom line already is.  There is no doubt that the new system will be more owner friendly than the current one. 

The question is whether offers after say, October 15th by the owners are moving closer or further away from the center...and I personally believe they will move further away.

And I also think it makes complete sense from the owners standpoint.  If this owners make an offer right now, and that same offer is on the table in December, then the offer would actually be significantly worse for the owners, since they will still be accruing costs over the next 2 months, but they will not be getting revenue. 

So, lets say the owners offered a 50/50 split of BRI next week, and the players still turned it down.  Had the owners taken it, it means they would have gotten 50% of the full $4 billion (or whatever) from a full season, which they could use to pay their expenses, and still have some profit.  However, if they kept that same deal on the table in December (with the season resuming in January), it would be significantly worse for the owners, since they will still be accruing expenses over the next 3 months, but would be getting 50% of a smaller pie to pay those expenses.  So, instead of getting $2 billion to pay for their rent, front office staff, coaches, etc., they will be getting about $1.4 Billion.  So, instead, the owners are going to ask for that $600 million to come out of the players side, and the players are going to laugh at them, because after missing just 2 paychecks, they will not be desperate enough to give in on something crazy like that.

So, the owners will just shut things down.  Continue to cut expenses as much as possible, and hold out for a deal that will reimburse them for all of their lost revenue from this season, while setting them up for a new system that puts a lot more money in their pockets in the future.

However, if they can get a deal done before this stuff start happening, the owners will be much more willing to play ball.  They will be working from a blank slate, rather than trying to make up cash from lockout losses, and will give the players the best offer they can actually make. 

[Interceptor]

The PLAYERS opening proposal was more owner friendly than the current bottom line already is.  There is no doubt that the new system will be more owner friendly than the current one.

There is no current system; that CBA is dead and gone.  When I say "their current bottom line", I am referring to the proposed CBA from owners, their bottom-line negotiation position, AKA their hard cap and whatnot.  I am not talking about what the players have proposed, or what we used to have.

The question is whether offers after say, October 15th by the owners are moving closer or further away from the center...and I personally believe they will move further away.

That is not the question, though.  At the risk of sounding like Yoda, there is no "center", there is only the NBA and the NBPA.  Logic suggests that the final solution lies somewhere between those two things, and the smart money is on a deal closer to the NBA's proposal.  But a deal that's worse for the players than the baseline stance that they've already taken?  I find that very hard to believe.  Why would the players ever agree to something like that?

And I also think it makes complete sense from the owners standpoint.  If this owners make an offer right now, and that same offer is on the table in December, then the offer would actually be significantly worse for the owners, since they will still be accruing costs over the next 2 months, but they will not be getting revenue.

It's called "the cost of doing business".  This is revenue that they are willing to give up in order to achieve their long-term goal of a more owner-friendly CBA.  If they build the lost revenue into their proposal, they are moving the goalposts, and reducing the chances of making a deal.  This is not rational from a negotiating standpoint.

So, lets say the owners offered a 50/50 split of BRI next week, and the players still turned it down.  Had the owners taken it, it means they would have gotten 50% of the full $4 billion (or whatever) from a full season, which they could use to pay their expenses, and still have some profit.  However, if they kept that same deal on the table in December (with the season resuming in January), it would be significantly worse for the owners, since they will still be accruing expenses over the next 3 months, but would be getting 50% of a smaller pie to pay those expenses.  So, instead of getting $2 billion to pay for their rent, front office staff, coaches, etc., they will be getting about $1.4 Billion.  So, instead, the owners are going to ask for that $600 million to come out of the players side, and the players are going to laugh at them, because after missing just 2 paychecks, they will not be desperate enough to give in on something crazy like that.

So, the owners will just shut things down.  Continue to cut expenses as much as possible, and hold out for a deal that will reimburse them for all of their lost revenue from this season, while setting them up for a new system that puts a lot more money in their pockets in the future.

However, if they can get a deal done before this stuff start happening, the owners will be much more willing to play ball.  They will be working from a blank slate, rather than trying to make up cash from lockout losses, and will give the players the best offer they can actually make.

It is well-known that the owners can hold out longer than the players, but that doesn't mean they can get away with highway robbery, as the NBA is nothing without their players.  There is some point where spawning an alternative league is no longer a ridiculous prospect, given a proposed alternative.  The owners know this, so they won't go there.

[Chris]

I think we are not too far off here, just kind of missing each others points.  Let me just clarify one thing though, that might help.

I am not suggesting that the owners offers going forward will end up being worse than their latest official offer.  However, I believe that offer (which was made a long time ago, and before they even started really talking) is nowhere near their last and best offer.  I think their BEST offer will come in the next 2-3 weeks, and then they will be moving closer to that original offer.  Now, there will still be movement on some things from that original offer, they are not going to take that kind of hard line.  But, the best offer the players are going to get will be before any games are lost.

Now, where this could get complicated is with the hard cap demands.  I think the players are not going to budge on that, but the owners are going to want a better split of revenue if they drop that one. 

Just to throw things out there, I think in the next 2 weeks, the owners would agree to a deal with a 50/50 split, and a soft cap that is stricter than the current cap (shorter contracts, eliminate or at least cut down the MLE), in the hopes of avoiding missing games.

I don't think that will ever be on the table once games are missed.

[Interceptor]

There is always a little bit of wiggle room, giving up something that want in exchange for something else, and the process is fluid.  As they say, "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to": the owners may drop their insistence on a hard cap if they get something in return, regardless of what they asked for prior.

But what you are describing, is a situation where they make a certain offer, the best that they will ever do, and then start walking back said offer to account for lost revenue once games start being missed.  This is essentially demanding that the players subsidize the cost of the owner's negotiation strategy, which I can triple-guarantee you will poison the process.

The problem with escalating demands like this, is that you have to credibly be able to keep turning the screws until you get what you want. It only works if you hold all of the cards. This is manifestly not the case for the NBA, and everyone knows it:  if they keep stacking demands on top of their best offer, eventually you reach a point where currently-ludicrous alternatives -- such as starting a new league -- aren't so crazy anymore.

That's why I say that the owners are not so boneheaded as to escalate when they are already at an impasse.  Their best stretagy is to insist on the most favorable deal that they can, but to be willing to "walk away" (lose a season) if their minimum acceptable parameters are not met. The loss of pay for the players is enough to move the dial in their favor on its own.

[Chris]

There is always a little bit of wiggle room, giving up something that want in exchange for something else, and the process is fluid.  As they say, "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to": the owners may drop their insistence on a hard cap if they get something in return, regardless of what they asked for prior.

But what you are describing, is a situation where they make a certain offer, the best that they will ever do, and then start walking back said offer to account for lost revenue once games start being missed.  This is essentially demanding that the players subsidize the cost of the owner's negotiation strategy, which I can triple-guarantee you will poison the process.

The problem with escalating demands like this, is that you have to credibly be able to keep turning the screws until you get what you want. It only works if you hold all of the cards. This is manifestly not the case for the NBA, and everyone knows it:  if they keep stacking demands on top of their best offer, eventually you reach a point where currently-ludicrous alternatives -- such as starting a new league -- aren't so crazy anymore.

That's why I say that the owners are not so boneheaded as to escalate when they are already at an impasse.  Their best stretagy is to insist on the most favorable deal that they can, but to be willing to "walk away" (lose a season) if their minimum acceptable parameters are not met. The loss of pay for the players is enough to move the dial in their favor on its own.

I am not sure what we are arguing about.  I agree completely that the owners will "walk away" and lose the season if they are at an impasse after the next few weeks.  But my point is, when they come back to the table, the owners are not going to be offering the same offer that is being made before games were lost.  Owners are not going to simply absorb the costs of a lost season.  Those costs are going to be passed on to the players in some way when the revenues return, whether its by a smaller cut, or costs off the top, or something else. 

Like you said yourself, the loss of pay for the players is enough to move the dial.  The owners have the upper hand, and it is just going to get stronger as players miss paychecks.  So, there is no way the owners are going to continue to give back more as they start losing money, when it will do no good.  The players will break when they break, and the longer it takes them to break, the less the owners will give them.

Or look at it this way.  The last 6th months has just been posturing.  The next 3 weeks will be serious negotiating to see if there really is a deal to be had before the suffering starts.  If we get past that, it will begin the staring contest...and that is the type of contest that the Billionaires always wins over the millionaires.

[Interceptor]

I am not sure what we are arguing about.

There's a bit to it, but I would say that the core of the disagreement is about the likelihood of owners passing on the costs of a fully or partially aborted season.  You think that they would, arguing as a foregone conclusion that the players will eventually break, and be forced to accept a deal where the owners are made whole in some fashion to compensate for the missed games.

I think that they won't, for a variety of reasons. While the owners have a stronger hand than the players, they do not hold all of the cards.  They cannot simply dictate terms of negotiation, since the league is nothing without the players, who frankly can play basketball somewhere else or under different circumstances.  This is an extraordinarily unlikely result right now, but see what happens after continued intransigence on the part of the owners.

Also, the idea will be toxic to the players:  they will not be inclined to essentially pay for the NBA's negotiating strategy out of their pockets.  Why would the NBA want to make a deal LESS likely by doing this?  As I said, the owners will look at this as the cost of doing business, missed revenue is the price of securing a more favorable deal for the long term.  The cost of a few missed games or even an entire season is ultimately less than the alternative scenario of a continuation of the old CBA.

It just makes no sense from a negotiation standpoint.  You have the likelihood of a deal tipping in your favor as the players are starved of their pay, but at the same time you are actively undermining the chances of a deal happening by making the terms of it more onerous with each passing day?  If someone actually did that, I'd start wondering whether they were actually even interested in a deal at all, it's not rational.