Rumor: Owners have dropped insistence on hard cap

[Interceptor]

No need to start over if games begin being cancelled.  At this point, the basic form of the final agreement is finally taking shape.  We have a good idea what the points of contention are, the issue is just the details of how they are resolved.  It serves nobody's interests to blow the whole thing up, and even if they did, everyone knows what would be argued about, so you wind up with the same thing anyway.

Sucks for everyone involved if games start dropping off the map, but that's the gamble the owners took when they locked out the players.

[Chris]

No need to start over if games begin being cancelled.  At this point, the basic form of the final agreement is finally taking shape.  We have a good idea what the points of contention are, the issue is just the details of how they are resolved.  It serves nobody's interests to blow the whole thing up, and even if they did, everyone knows what would be argued about, so you wind up with the same thing anyway.

Sucks for everyone involved if games start dropping off the map, but that's the gamble the owners took when they locked out the players.

Well, the point is, if they form hasn't taken shape, then they are back to square one.  If it has taken shape, they will get the deal done in time to save games.

That is why these meetings this weekend are so huge.  If they are close enough at that point to just get down to the small details, then the deal will be done next week.  However, if they are still far apart, then they will know it truly is a fundamental disagreement, and the season will likely be lost.

[Interceptor]

Well, what I mean is, we know what they disagree on, so by extension you know what the deal is probably going to look like, just not exactly where it lands or what levers get pulled.  Suppose they meet this weekend, and Billy Hunter challenges David Stern to a game of one-on-one.  Due to a disagreement about the officiating, a fistfight breaks out and they both resign in disgrace.

We start over.  Where are we?  The players still like the last CBA, and the owners are still crying into their caviar-stained, limited edition, gold-leaf trim handkerchiefs about how much money that they will lose.  The points of contention will be the BRI split, soft vs. hard cap, various exceptions (trade, Bird, MLE, etc), guaranteed contracts, sign n' trade, contract length, pay scale, possibility of amnesty, draft rules, etc.

In other words, nothing new under the sun.  It's not as if they come back to the table, and start arguing about whether or not to replace the scheduled games with dance parties that give out free cotton candy.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Seems among the issues on the table for Friday's meeting are rollbacks.

Again, Ken Berger with the specifics:

In addition to what they presented as hard cap alternatives - which also included a reduction in the Bird and mid-level exceptions - league negotiators also have presented a concept that could drive a wedge in the players' association. In exchange for keeping certain spending exceptions in place - albeit in a reduced form - one idea floated by the owners was a gradual reduction in existing contracts - the "R" word, as in rollbacks - that would minimize the financial hit for players who will be signing deals under the new system.

Such a proposal would alleviate the problem of players such as James, Wade, Stoudemire, Anthony, Chris Bosh and Joe Johnson having outsized contracts compared to stars who'd be faced with signing lesser deals under a new system. In essence, the players who already are under contract would take a percentage cut in the early years of a new CBA - 5 percent the first year, 7.5 the second and 10 percent in the third year, sources said - so that players like Derrick Rose, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Deron Williams wouldn't bear a disproportionate share of the burden when they sign their max deals under the reduced salary structure the owners are seeking.

The provisions are not geared strictly for the star class of players; in fact, the proposed rollbacks would be across the board, "for everyone," a person with knowledge of the idea said. And while this concept may alleviate the problem of having future stars bear more of a burden, it would create other problems - not the least of which is the players' unwillingness to accept a percentage of BRI in the mid 40s that would make such rollbacks necessary.

[Chris]

Well, what I mean is, we know what they disagree on, so by extension you know what the deal is probably going to look like, just not exactly where it lands or what levers get pulled.  Suppose they meet this weekend, and Billy Hunter challenges David Stern to a game of one-on-one.  Due to a disagreement about the officiating, a fistfight breaks out and they both resign in disgrace.

We start over.  Where are we?  The players still like the last CBA, and the owners are still crying into their caviar-stained, limited edition, gold-leaf trim handkerchiefs about how much money that they will lose.  The points of contention will be the BRI split, soft vs. hard cap, various exceptions (trade, Bird, MLE, etc), guaranteed contracts, sign n' trade, contract length, pay scale, possibility of amnesty, draft rules, etc.

In other words, nothing new under the sun.  It's not as if they come back to the table, and start arguing about whether or not to replace the scheduled games with dance parties that give out free cotton candy.

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.

[Chris]

Seems among the issues on the table for Friday's meeting are rollbacks.

Again, Ken Berger with the specifics:

In addition to what they presented as hard cap alternatives - which also included a reduction in the Bird and mid-level exceptions - league negotiators also have presented a concept that could drive a wedge in the players' association. In exchange for keeping certain spending exceptions in place - albeit in a reduced form - one idea floated by the owners was a gradual reduction in existing contracts - the "R" word, as in rollbacks - that would minimize the financial hit for players who will be signing deals under the new system.

Such a proposal would alleviate the problem of players such as James, Wade, Stoudemire, Anthony, Chris Bosh and Joe Johnson having outsized contracts compared to stars who'd be faced with signing lesser deals under a new system. In essence, the players who already are under contract would take a percentage cut in the early years of a new CBA - 5 percent the first year, 7.5 the second and 10 percent in the third year, sources said - so that players like Derrick Rose, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Deron Williams wouldn't bear a disproportionate share of the burden when they sign their max deals under the reduced salary structure the owners are seeking.

The provisions are not geared strictly for the star class of players; in fact, the proposed rollbacks would be across the board, "for everyone," a person with knowledge of the idea said. And while this concept may alleviate the problem of having future stars bear more of a burden, it would create other problems - not the least of which is the players' unwillingness to accept a percentage of BRI in the mid 40s that would make such rollbacks necessary.

Berger really has been killing it with his coverage of the lockout.  I never followed him much with regular NBA stuff, but I might have to now.  He clearly has some great sources.

As for the rollbacks...he is absolutely right, those are going to be a VERY tough sell.  They would benefit players who are going to be free agents in the next few years, but the players currently on contracts will be tough to convince.

The key for these rollbacks might be how they affect the agents.  We all know the agents are very influential in this stuff, and I wonder whether they see the loss in commission of contracts already signed being greater than the gain in commission by contracts that could be signed in the future if teams have a little more breathing room, then they could be a real roadblock.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Berger really has been killing it with his coverage of the lockout.  I never followed him much with regular NBA stuff, but I might have to now.  He clearly has some great sources.

Agree.

As for the rollbacks...he is absolutely right, those are going to be a VERY tough sell.  They would benefit players who are going to be free agents in the next few years, but the players currently on contracts will be tough to convince.

Must be motivating at least some of this afternoon's posturing from both sides.

I was hoping we'd get news of a 50-50 BRI split offer on the table from one side or the other, as clearly they remain too far apart.

[StartOrien]

via Shane Battier's twitter

I believe the reports about the lockout are a tad more optimistic than the reality

[Chris]

I was hoping we'd get news of a 50-50 BRI split offer on the table from one side or the other, as clearly they remain too far apart.

Well, not much time has passed, so that could still come out.  But I also am not surprised they wouldn't throw that out there yet.  I have a feeling that would be a "last offer" type thing from both sides, and probably would not come until at least the weekend.  It sounds like they are getting closer to the 50/50 split though, so I think the bigger issue right now is figuring out the hard cap issue.

[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.

[ManUp]

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.

My thoughts exactly.

The owners are asking for the sun & the moon, and seem unwilling to settle for just one. It seems like they are waiting for and fully expect the players to cave. We are definitely going to miss some games before things are resolved. The players aren't going to just give up all that without trying to make a stand.

[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.

[Chris]

Anyone know where to find what percentage of members of the player association are currently under contract for more than 1 year?  Because that could be the key on that point.  I imagine those who are not under contract, or who are coming up for a potentially big payday next summer might vote for the rollbacks, so they don't get squeezed as much.

There also is a precedent for this, as the NHL players rolled back their salaries as well (and if I remember correctly, it was an offer from the players side, not a demand by the owners that brought it up).

[Moranis]

If I'm reading all of this correctly, the Owners haven't actually dropped the hard cap demand, they just couch it in a different way so they can say, see we are negotiating.  I mean seriously no team is going to pay a 4 for 1 tax, and thus there is a hard cap.  The Owners just increased the dollars and called it something different, but it is a hard cap any way you look at it.

At least the owners have finally budged on the BRI number and are moving in the correct direction.

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). 

[Roy H.]

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.