Details on CBA discussions; which do you like?

[stylo617617]

i love all of these persoanlly but the moves helps teams save money more than raise competitive balance

but at east we wont go thru the same melodrama with dwight howard we'll know soon whether's he's a magic or a laker or if he's getting delt to another team ,

1 thing i want is to move up the trade deadline from around feb to late dec

[StartOrien]

I wonder financially how much competitive balance will help. I can't help but look at the Hawks and think that there are certain markets that just won't sell well.

[KGs Knee]

I guess some of thes points are ok, although there are many I find to be bad for the players and bad for the game too.

At this point though, the only thing I want to see negotiated into the new CBA, is the firing of one David Stern.  The man is a goon.  He is single-handedly the worst thing for the game, which is ironic, because once upon a time he helped save the game.

I don't know why, or what was said, but, good for D-Wade for putting Stern on blast.

  http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7039251/nba-labor-talks-players-owners-return-talks-saturday-tense-moments

[Eja117]

My initial reaction was "I like every one of these ideas"

[The Walker Wiggle]

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.

While I wouldn't argue with the fact that NBA stars are underpaid relative to both wins produced and the profits they generate, I can't otherwise agree. I'm not interested in watching fullcourt three on three NBA Jam.

As for the owners' leaked proposals, I'm in favor of a lower luxury tax threshold and tiered tax, although if the goal is actually greater parity these measures should go hand-in-hand with a raised minimum team salary.

I also support the elimination of the sign-and-trade. I'd eliminate cash considerations as well, or at least the sale of first round picks. And like others here, I'd prefer non-transferable Bird Rights over the currently proposed measures.

I'm opposed to a reduction in the size of the MLE. Who said it first, but it's the length not size of mid-level contracts that's really at issue. Three years. As for trying to shorten all guaranteed contracts to three or four seasons? That's only going to insure we lose much or all of this season.

I'm also opposed to the elimination of the bi-annual LLE - neither fans nor owners need three-fifths of players living year to year. I also look down my nose at any and all amnesty clause talk - although I expect one. Keep in mind we'll see at least half a dozen players bought out who were signed or extended last summer, in the face of the lockout and mounting "loses."

Concessions to the Players Union not under discussion that should be: raising the minimum team salary, raises to the rookie scale and veteran minimum, a cap on fines not related to failed drug tests or convictions, a limit on the number of back-to-backs in the schedule, and a new roster requirement that all teams carry two D-League designees.

[JSD]

Amnesty clause - As long as there is something put in place that wouldn't allow Kobe to go right back to the Lakers after they cut out his contract.

[LooseCannon]

I like a progressive luxury tax instead of a flat luxury tax.  It just makes sense to do it that way.

I'm okay with the amnesty clause as I see that as an attempt to sweeten the deal and make it more acceptable to teams rather than as an attempt to create more competitive balance by giving teams relief from past deals.  I would consider letting teams simply cut players to avoid luxury tax, but charge them something if they want to gain actual cap space.

I don't like capping the guaranteed years at 3-4 seasons.  I would offer a compromise of capping the fully guaranteed years in a contract (all but the last year in a 3- or 4-year contract, all but the last two for anything longer) and allowing partially guaranteed years after that, with a cap on what percentage can be guaranteed.  I would like it if teams can offer their own free agents a higher level of guarantees than other teams can.

I like limiting Bird rights to one player per year, in theory.  I can make a case for creating a second tier of Bird Rights.  Maybe you can re-sign additional players, but only for contracts of up to three years not exceeding the average salary, basically, so you can match any MLE offer (if you limit the MLE contract length).

I would prefer that the MLE remain pegged to the average salary, but I like limiting the number of years to three.

I don't think keeping the LLE is that big of a deal.  Here's an idea.  A contract signed under this exception (and maybe the MLE) doesn't count or is only counted on a 50% basis as time accrued towards qualifying for Bird (or early Bird) rights.

I'm sure Miami would have found a way to assemble their troika without sign-and-trades, but allowing sign-and-trades has made it harder for the Heat to improve by getting lucky with a late draft pick.

[wdleehi]

I would freeze the minimal contract.


The biggest issues are the middle contracts.  Those are the ones that have gotten to big. 

This does a good job minimizing this issue.

[Q_FBE]

There seem to be a lot of good ideas out there like the luxery tax penalty for exceeding a certain threshold. And lowering the mid-levels so stiffs like Glen Davis don't make 8 million a year.

I get the impression the players are more willing to compromise than the owners on issues with the owners being the ones split into factions (haves like the Dallas Owner and the have nots like the Sacremento and Utah owners). That is what makes this labor dispute so dangerous.

Basketball players would be advised to seek employment with other teams outside the NBA. Heck, let Lebron, Kobe, Paul Pierce, Wade, Melo and friends start their own league and set up exhibitions around the country. I am pretty sure I would look up these people and plunk down a 50 dollar bill if they volunteer to play a game at Key Arena in Seattle.

[Chris]

I get the impression the players are more willing to compromise than the owners on issues

I hear this a lot, but I really think its just a perception problem.  People look at the owners offers, and see how far away they are from the current system, and think that they are not moving. 

However, they are not negotiating the current CBA, they are negotiating a NEW CBA, which means it doesn't matter what the current system is.

In reality, the owners have been moving just as much (if not more) off their original offer as the players have been moving off theirs.  Its just finding that middle ground that can be so tough.

[CaptainJackLee]

I don't think a super luxury tax helps smaller market teams or competitive balance. Quite the opposite. Especially if the luxury tax revenue becomes the shared revenue. This super-luxury tax would mean nothing to the Lakers or the Knicks. It'd be awful for a team like the Thunder or even the Mavericks.

[GreenEnvy]

There seem to be a lot of good ideas out there like the luxery tax penalty for exceeding a certain threshold. And lowering the mid-levels so stiffs like Glen Davis don't make 8 million a year.

I get the impression the players are more willing to compromise than the owners on issues with the owners being the ones split into factions (haves like the Dallas Owner and the have nots like the Sacremento and Utah owners). That is what makes this labor dispute so dangerous.

Basketball players would be advised to seek employment with other teams outside the NBA. Heck, let Lebron, Kobe, Paul Pierce, Wade, Melo and friends start their own league and set up exhibitions around the country. I am pretty sure I would look up these people and plunk down a 50 dollar bill if they volunteer to play a game at Key Arena in Seattle.

That's what I originally thought, that the players were willing to make the necessary concessions. But it seems now that Stern is actually trying to end this thing and the players are standing firm.

Also, what makes owners like Utah's and Sacramento's "have-nots?" Both had excellent teams not all that long ago, and both had (still have?) such rabid fan bases that nobody wanted to go into Arco Arena or Salt Lake City. They just aren't running their respective team all that well. I don't believe their failure is a direct correlation to free agency.

[nickagneta]

Before we start hearing that the players aren't willing to compromise and that the owners are because the players said no to a 50/50 split, know this, if the owners thought for a minute that they could deservingly get a 50/50 split to begin with, this would have ended a long time ago.

The owners KNOW the players deserve more than a 50/50 split. It is already common knowledge that in professional American sports, the players receive the larger share of the total revenues. All the other major American sports have the players receiving the larger share of the revenue pie because they ARE the product.

The owners know this. For them to come forward and say that they could settle for a 50/50 split and that the players need to take this to their people is disingenuous and doing nothing more than trying to gain support amongst the fans and trying to place blame for lost games on the players.

They KNOW the players should and will get more than 50% of the BRI in the end. They KNOW they are going to have to concede this. This statement by Stern is nothing more than  Stern trying to turn public opinion in favor of the owners because he KNOWS games are going to be lost.

[Roy H.]

All the other major American sports have the players receiving the larger share of the revenue pie because they ARE the product.

Interestingly, in the NFL the owners receive between 51.5% and 53.0% of all revenues, and they're the league where careers are the shortest and most dangerous. 

[TheReaLPuba]

All the other major American sports have the players receiving the larger share of the revenue pie because they ARE the product.

Interestingly, in the NFL the owners receive between 51.5% and 53.0% of all revenues, and they're the league where careers are the shortest and most dangerous. 

Players only play once a week.

They're not the ones that actually drive the product.

Football more than any other sport is driven by the teams and media.