Details on CBA discussions; which do you like?

[Roy H.]

Over the course of the week, various sources with knowledge of the talks have shared some of the concepts being discussed with ESPN.com. Possibilities presented by the league as alternatives to a hard cap include:

•  The institution of a sliding "Supertax" that would charge teams $2 in luxury tax for every dollar over $70 million in payroll, $3 for every dollar over $75 million in payroll and $4 for every dollar for teams with payrolls above $80 million

•  A provision to allow each team to release one player via the so-called "amnesty" clause and gain both salary-cap and luxury-tax relief when that player's cap number is removed from the books

•  Shortening guaranteed contracts to a maximum of three or four seasons

•  Limiting Larry Bird rights -- which enable teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents -- to one player per team per season

•  Reducing the annual mid-level exception, which was valued at $5.8 million last season, to roughly $3 million annually and limiting mid-level contracts to a maximum of two or three seasons in length as opposed to the current maximum of five seasons

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

•  The abolition of sign-and-trades and the bi-annual exception worth $2 million

•  Significant reductions in maximum salaries and annual raises and a 5 percent rollbacks on current contracts

There are also still some teams, sources say, who are pushing for some sort of franchise-tag system similar to what the NFL employs as well as a restriction that allows big spending teams to exceed the annual luxury-tax threshold only twice every five seasons.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7037865/start-nba-season-jeopardy-owners-players-set-meet

[PosImpos]

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this.  This rule would seem to make it more difficult for teams to trade their superstar players prior to them hitting free agency unless they can find a deal for them before July 1st of their player's final season.  I guess the idea is to prevent players from holding their team hostage due to their impending free agency, as Carmelo did.  But it still seems to me that it would somewhat hinder a team's ability to find the best possible deal for their "Carmelo."  

I'd rather see a team given more power to resign their own players (longer contract, more incentives, etc), and requirements for compensation of some kind when a top player like Carmelo leaves for greener pastures.  I think a major goal of the CBA must be to avoid the kind of stuff we've seen happening the past few years where franchises are held hostage and ultimately screwed over by their franchise player (see: Toronto, Cleveland, Phoenix and to lesser extent Utah, Denver).

[fairweatherfan]

•  The institution of a sliding "Supertax" that would charge teams $2 in luxury tax for every dollar over $70 million in payroll, $3 for every dollar over $75 million in payroll and $4 for every dollar for teams with payrolls above $80 million

Like this in some form - really clamps down on overspending by big teams and aids in competitive balance

•  A provision to allow each team to release one player via the so-called "amnesty" clause and gain both salary-cap and luxury-tax relief when that player's cap number is removed from the books

Meh - it's reducing the impact of making bad signings.  This is an advantage for bigger market teams who can afford to eat their crappy contracts (and usually have more bad deals to begin with).  But I'm sure the players are ok with it because it expands the money pool a lot next year.

•  Shortening guaranteed contracts to a maximum of three or four seasons

Don't like it - I'd rather see 5.  Too much player turnover this way.  Imagine if "The Decision" happened every 3 years.   

•  Limiting Larry Bird rights -- which enable teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents -- to one player per team per season

Like it - makes teams prioritize but still gives the right to lock down their most important players.

•  Reducing the annual mid-level exception, which was valued at $5.8 million last season, to roughly $3 million annually and limiting mid-level contracts to a maximum of two or three seasons in length as opposed to the current maximum of five seasons

Really like the drop in years (prefer 3), like the salary cut but would like to see less of one. 

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

Really, really like this one.  No more skirting the Bird rules with mid-season acquisitions.  I might like to see the deadline moved into the off-season free agent period, though.  If you've got a guy for a full season you should be able to use Bird Rights.  This would encourage teams with superstars who are likely to bolt (Denver, now Orlando) to move the guy in the offseason instead of shaking up the league midway through the year.

•  The abolition of sign-and-trades and the bi-annual exception worth $2 million

Really like no sign-and-trades, would rather see the bi-annual stick around, especially as contract length drops and more players are in the free-agent mix each year.

•  Significant reductions in maximum salaries and annual raises and a 5 percent rollbacks on current contracts

Ok with the first, really don't like the second.  You wrote and signed the contract, live up to it.  If they have to gradually work in the new system to deal with this, so be it.

There are also still some teams, sources say, who are pushing for some sort of franchise-tag system similar to what the NFL employs as well as a restriction that allows big spending teams to exceed the annual luxury-tax threshold only twice every five seasons.

Don't like the franchise tag at all, and the threshold rule seems like it'd be really tough to implement - if a team goes significantly over the threshold, it usually stays there for awhile (or guts the team to get under it).


I guess my biggest overall concern is with the reduction in deal length and cap exceptions creating a much more volatile league.  Big, big free agent classes every year.  Seems like it'd be a lot tougher to create a long-term core under these rules, and that's what I think a lot of fans respond to.

[PosImpos]

I guess my biggest overall concern is with the reduction in deal length and cap exceptions creating a much more volatile league.  Big, big free agent classes every year.  Seems like it'd be a lot tougher to create a long-term core under these rules, and that's what I think a lot of fans respond to.

That seems to be the NFL-style strategy of creating parity.

[Who]

(1) I like the supertax. I wanted to see something like that come in.

(2) The amnesty clause. I don't know. Unfairly hurts teams who have ran their clubs in a proper and professional manner ... but it does improve several clubs short to long term outlooks too. Mixed.

(3) I'd love to see contracts shortened to 3 or 4 year deals but I don't think it will happen. I can't see the players union making that large of a concession .... Shortening it to 4 and 5 years would be a big step in the right direction though. I would be very happy with that and believe it to be achievable.

(4) I agree that the Larry Bird rights situation needs to be changed and I like hearing that they're attempting to do so. I don't like that suggestion of one player per team each season idea though. Meaningless.

As I scroll further down I see that "Carmelo rule", I like that. Bird rights shouldn't be transferred in a trade. I'd prefer if they weren't transferred at all rather than their 1 year measure but this "Carmelo rule" a big step in a positive direction so I am happy.

(5) MLE = I think $3 million is too low but I would like to see it reduced to $4 or slightly higher (below $5mil) + to stop all annual increases on MLE contracts. I also think the length of MLE deals is more problematic than the per annum dollars (although that is an issue too) and should be capped at 3 years. No more 5 year MLE deals.

(6) Abolishing sign and trades + LLE are positives. The sign and trade market has gotten silly. Needs to be reigned in. Teams over the cap have too many options to spend additional moneys. Happy to take the LLE away.

(7) I disagree with lowering the maximum contract levels. I agree with lowering the annual increases but I would prefer to abolish them entirely. The max should be the max and you can't go over it. You get your 25-30% of the cap and that's that. No more. Ever.

I also love the idea of rollbacks. All previous contracts should be altered to represent the new CBA.

I would also like to see more changes to maximum deals with players able to earn their "max" max contracts in the 25-30 year range instead of after 10+ years of service. It's stupid to put teams in a position where they have to pay players like Kobe Bryant who are in their mid 30s, past their prime and continuing to decline the highest salaries of their careers. It makes it too difficult to build or maintain Championship caliber squads around them. Their salaries should be decreasing at this phase in their careers.

(7)

[PosImpos]

Worth noting for all fans who hope for the Cs to get Dwight Howard: an amnesty clause allows Orlando to get out of Gilbert Arenas' contract, and perhaps even Turkoglu's contract, if they can trade him to a team that would use their clause on him.  This would greatly improve Orlando's situation, giving them a better chanc of keeping Dwight.

[action781]

Worth noting for all fans who hope for the Cs to get Dwight Howard: an amnesty clause allows Orlando to get out of Gilbert Arenas' contract, and perhaps even Turkoglu's contract, if they can trade him to a team that would use their clause on him.  This would greatly improve Orlando's situation, giving them a better chanc of keeping Dwight.

I can't imagine the allowance of using an amnesty clause more than once per season.  Regardless, I think the Magic would be in good shape if they could JUST get out of Arenas' contract.  They'd be down to $55M with Jameer, Redick, Turk, Bass, Howard, and some bench players.  There aren't too many rosters in the NBA that would look that good at $55M or less.

[action781]

I've been pulling for restricting use of Bird Rights for a while now.  I like this new Carmelo Rule.  While it does not allow teams to get as much back for 'Melo as they might like, it more importantly, limits the # of teams that 'Melo could go to, which would make it way more likely that teams could keep their superstars.  I think that's the objective of this change.

[nickagneta]

I really see all of these changes doing nothing more than completely eliminating the middle class of NBA players and what will happen is that teams will be made up of 2 max contract players and everyone else making $3 million or less. I can't see how the Player's Association will allow for all of this. There's definitely some outstanding ideas in there though.

[Chris]

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this.  This rule would seem to make it more difficult for teams to trade their superstar players prior to them hitting free agency unless they can find a deal for them before July 1st of their player's final season.  I guess the idea is to prevent players from holding their team hostage due to their impending free agency, as Carmelo did.  But it still seems to me that it would somewhat hinder a team's ability to find the best possible deal for their "Carmelo."  

That actually might be one of my favorite provisions being thrown out there.  It will absolutely stop the situations where players dictate trades, and then get rewarded with a Bird Rights extension. 

If a player wants to leave when their contract is up, great, but let them find a team that has cap space for them...otherwise, let them stay where they are, so they can build some stability.

While this does hinder a teams ability to cash in on a star player by trading them in their walk year, that shouldn't matter.  This just moves the time to trade players like this by half a year, and eliminates the distraction of the "will they trade them?" discussion midseason of their walk year. 

[Chris]

I really see all of these changes doing nothing more than completely eliminating the middle class of NBA players and what will happen is that teams will be made up of 2 max contract players and everyone else making $3 million or less. I can't see how the Player's Association will allow for all of this. There's definitely some outstanding ideas in there though.

Well, if you listen to Dwayne Wade, that is what he thinks is the way it should be.  And I agree with him.  The stars bring in the money.  Everyone else is pretty much interchangable. 

You are right though, it is going to be a tough sell for the players, since the vast majority of them will be the ones losing out, while a small handful cash in. 

[fairweatherfan]

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this.  This rule would seem to make it more difficult for teams to trade their superstar players prior to them hitting free agency unless they can find a deal for them before July 1st of their player's final season.  I guess the idea is to prevent players from holding their team hostage due to their impending free agency, as Carmelo did.  But it still seems to me that it would somewhat hinder a team's ability to find the best possible deal for their "Carmelo." 

That actually might be one of my favorite provisions being thrown out there.  It will absolutely stop the situations where players dictate trades, and then get rewarded with a Bird Rights extension. 

If a player wants to leave when their contract is up, great, but let them find a team that has cap space for them...otherwise, let them stay where they are, so they can build some stability.

While this does hinder a teams ability to cash in on a star player by trading them in their walk year, that shouldn't matter.  This just moves the time to trade players like this by half a year, and eliminates the distraction of the "will they trade them?" discussion midseason of their walk year.

Doesn't it just shift that distraction back one year?  Now, if Carmelo wants a Bird Rights contract with NY, he's gotta start pushing for it in the 2nd to last year of the contract, instead of the last.  Couple that with shorter contracts and the superstar trade demands might actually become more frequent.

That's why I like moving the deadline to the end of the free agent period, instead of messing up the regular season with trade talk like last year, and affecting the competitive balance by making major midseason trades.  Owners have the option of waiting til the offseason to weigh offers and get the best value for their player.

[Chris]

What I would love to see, but will never happen, is put a 2-3 year limit on all exceptions.  

To me, the biggest issue is guys getting long term deals by teams already over the cap, and then not living up to it.  This would maintain the soft cap, and allow teams to hold on to their own players, but will also require players to continue to perform to get paid.  

[Chris]

•  A new "Carmelo Rule" that would prevent teams -- as the New York Knicks did in February with Anthony -- from using a Bird exception to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless they are acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player's contract

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this.  This rule would seem to make it more difficult for teams to trade their superstar players prior to them hitting free agency unless they can find a deal for them before July 1st of their player's final season.  I guess the idea is to prevent players from holding their team hostage due to their impending free agency, as Carmelo did.  But it still seems to me that it would somewhat hinder a team's ability to find the best possible deal for their "Carmelo."  

That actually might be one of my favorite provisions being thrown out there.  It will absolutely stop the situations where players dictate trades, and then get rewarded with a Bird Rights extension.  

If a player wants to leave when their contract is up, great, but let them find a team that has cap space for them...otherwise, let them stay where they are, so they can build some stability.

While this does hinder a teams ability to cash in on a star player by trading them in their walk year, that shouldn't matter.  This just moves the time to trade players like this by half a year, and eliminates the distraction of the "will they trade them?" discussion midseason of their walk year.  

Doesn't it just shift that discussion back one year?  Now, if Carmelo wants a Bird Rights contract with NY, he's gotta start pushing for it in the 2nd to last year of the contract, instead of the last.  

Yes, it does.  However, what it does it make it so once that July 1st date passes, the player is locked in, and can just play their last year, whether they are going to resign or not.

I would prefer they eliminated the transfer of Bird Rights altogether (make a player log 3 years with that team to be signed to a bird right contract), but if that is not actually on the table, this is a decent alternative.

[fairweatherfan]

Doesn't it just shift that discussion back one year?  Now, if Carmelo wants a Bird Rights contract with NY, he's gotta start pushing for it in the 2nd to last year of the contract, instead of the last.  

Yes, it does.  However, what it does it make it so once that July 1st date passes, the player is locked in, and can just play their last year, whether they are going to resign or not.

I would prefer they eliminated the transfer of Bird Rights altogether (make a player log 3 years with that team to be signed to a bird right contract), but if that is not actually on the table, this is a decent alternative.

Now that I think about it, a lot of my problem with this was confusing the free agent period with the trading period.  I'd like more options for superstars to be traded in the offseason vs midseason, but at least the option does exist with a July 1 deadline.