Good News. Labor deal is 95.632% complete

[hwangjini_1]

geez louise guys....honestly, how can we expect owners and players to work together when the latest posts at cb show we even have trouble doing so.

i love this place, in part because of the civility. please take a nice deep breath, get a good beer, and come back posting good posts....as you usually do.

I got a scotch instead.

But its having the same effect.

 

Yep. A good single malt will work too.

[nickagneta]

So if what I have been reading is true, the owners proposed an increase in qualifying offers but also a 12% decrease in rookie scale wages.

So, if the qualifying offers are tied into how much the rookies are making in the last year of their rookie contract, and the rookie contracts are going to be 12% lower, then the qualifying offers aren't really going to increase, are they?

[fairweatherfan]

It looks like the players are planning to vote on (and presumably approve) an "amended" version of the owners' proposal.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/11/12/nba.players.meeting/index.html?eref=writers

This is a pretty smart move (for once) by the union - they've been losing the PR battle because despite being the ones making all the concessions, they're having to publicly say "no" to offers, which makes it seem like they're the ones at fault for missing games.  Now they're trying to turn the tables on the owners by "accepting" the proposal they want instead of the one they've been given.  The game of chicken continues...

[Chris]

It looks like the players are planning to vote on (and presumably approve) an "amended" version of the owners' proposal.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/11/12/nba.players.meeting/index.html?eref=writers

This is a pretty smart move (for once) by the union - they've been losing the PR battle because despite being the ones making all the concessions, they're having to publicly say "no" to offers, which makes it seem like they're the ones at fault for missing games.  Now they're trying to turn the tables on the owners by "accepting" the proposal they want instead of the one they've been given.  The game of chicken continues...

I personally think, based on Stern's unwillingness to characterize the offer as the "last and best" (he might have tried to make it sound like it, but refused to label it), as an indication that there is room for one more counter there...and Hunter knows this.

I think if the players come back with very small changes, the owners will accept it.

[fairweatherfan]

It looks like the players are planning to vote on (and presumably approve) an "amended" version of the owners' proposal.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/11/12/nba.players.meeting/index.html?eref=writers

This is a pretty smart move (for once) by the union - they've been losing the PR battle because despite being the ones making all the concessions, they're having to publicly say "no" to offers, which makes it seem like they're the ones at fault for missing games.  Now they're trying to turn the tables on the owners by "accepting" the proposal they want instead of the one they've been given.  The game of chicken continues...

I personally think, based on Stern's unwillingness to characterize the offer as the "last and best" (he might have tried to make it sound like it, but refused to label it), as an indication that there is room for one more counter there...and Hunter knows this.

I think if the players come back with very small changes, the owners will accept it.

Especially if they know the deal with those changes already has been approved by the player reps.  It puts the ball back in their court, but I think Stern's amenable to it. 

Honestly, with all the saber-rattling going on right now, if it shakes out the way Amick describes it's close to a best-case scenario.

[Chris]

Another indication that:

1. there is a lot of misinforation out there about the owners proposal to the players.

and

2. there is some desperation among Stern and company to make sure that the correct information gets to the players, because the end game really is near, and they can't mess this up.

Stern and Silver will be answering questions about the proposal via twitter at 7pm tonight. 

I really think this is more about reaching the players than to spin to the fans...and I think it might just work.

[Roy H.]

For those who missed it, the owners' full proposal is here:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba%20proposal%2011-11-2011.pdf

I didn't realize the more punitive luxury tax didn't kick in until Year 3. 

I'm curious how this one works:

A team in any season that uses the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level
Exception or the Bi-Annual Exception, or that in year 3 or after
acquires a free agent in a sign-and-trade, cannot at any time
thereafter have a team salary at any point during that season in
excess of the Tax level; provided, however, that a team with a team
salary below the Tax level would be permitted prior to October 15 to
engage in a transaction using either of the foregoing exceptions or a
sign-and-trade that would result in its team salary exceeding the Tax
level by no more than $5M, so long as it engages in other
subsequent transactions to bring its team salary below the Tax level
on October 15 and its team salary does not exceed the Tax level at
any time thereafter.

So, let's say the Celts are just below the luxury tax line, and sign somebody to the MLE.  October 15 comes and goes, and the Celtics haven't gotten under the cap.  What's the consequence?

[Roy H.]

It's also interesting that players who are signed-and-traded can't sign a Bird rights contract (with larger raises and a longer contract).  This idea puts a little more teeth into Bird rights, as the only team that can use them are the player's team.

[Roy H.]

The owners also want to close the loophole where a player is traded, then cut, and re-signs with his original team.

[Roy H.]

This is an unreported rule related to the Amnesty provision:

A modified waiver process would be utilized for players waived pursuant to the Amnesty rule, under which teams with Room under the Cap could submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player’s
remaining contract. If a player’s contract is claimed in this manner, the
remaining portion of the player’s salary will continue to be paid by the
team that waived him.

So, looks like it wouldn't necessarily be a free agent free for all, although it's doubtful most amnesty players would be claimed.

[Chris]

For those who missed it, the owners' full proposal is here:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba%20proposal%2011-11-2011.pdf

I didn't realize the more punitive luxury tax didn't kick in until Year 3. 

I'm curious how this one works:

A team in any season that uses the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level
Exception or the Bi-Annual Exception, or that in year 3 or after
acquires a free agent in a sign-and-trade, cannot at any time
thereafter have a team salary at any point during that season in
excess of the Tax level; provided, however, that a team with a team
salary below the Tax level would be permitted prior to October 15 to
engage in a transaction using either of the foregoing exceptions or a
sign-and-trade that would result in its team salary exceeding the Tax
level by no more than $5M, so long as it engages in other
subsequent transactions to bring its team salary below the Tax level
on October 15 and its team salary does not exceed the Tax level at
any time thereafter.

So, let's say the Celts are just below the luxury tax line, and sign somebody to the MLE.  October 15 comes and goes, and the Celtics haven't gotten under the cap.  What's the consequence?

Yeah, it is an interesting way of doing it.  Obviously, the idea is, if you use the full MLE, you can't go over the tax line that season.  But implementing it could be difficult.

[fairweatherfan]

This is an unreported rule related to the Amnesty provision:

A modified waiver process would be utilized for players waived pursuant to the Amnesty rule, under which teams with Room under the Cap could submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player’s
remaining contract. If a player’s contract is claimed in this manner, the
remaining portion of the player’s salary will continue to be paid by the
team that waived him.

So, looks like it wouldn't necessarily be a free agent free for all, although it's doubtful most amnesty players would be claimed.

That's a nice way of cushioning the blow to teams that amnesty, as well as reducing player salaries overall (albeit by a small amount).  More importantly, if I'm reading it correctly it also means a sort of reverse restricted free agency, where teams under the cap make various "qualifying offers" and the amnestied player has to go to the highest bidder if he wants to keep his original salary.  Not a fan of the last bit.

It's also interesting that players who are signed-and-traded can't sign a Bird rights contract (with larger raises and a longer contract).  This idea puts a little more teeth into Bird rights, as the only team that can use them are the player's team.

The owners also want to close the loophole where a player is traded, then cut, and re-signs with his original team.

Like both of these a lot and hope they make it in.  Crazy thing about this whole process is I mostly side with the players on BRI and the owners on system changes (the ones that might help competitive balance), and it looks like the players are now pushing for the opposite.

[nickagneta]

Bucher reporting although the NBDL send down provision is not in the proposal that it is a priority that the owners told the union executive committee verbally they would want.

The NBA, via its NBA Labor twitter feed and in a question-and-answer session on Twitter with commissioner David Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver, denied that the owners ever proposed that teams have the right to send players down to the NBDL during the first five years of their career and receive a pro-rated contract of $75,000, rather than their NBA salary. A league official said the topic was on "a B list" of issues that were still negotiable.

Union sources, however, reiterated that in Thursday's negotiations the two sides selected the B-list items that they considered essential to any new collective bargaining agreement. The owners told the union that both year-round drug testing and the ability to send two players down to the D-League and pay them the aforementioned pro-rated salary were essential elements to them, sources said, positions that were particularly upsetting to the players' executive committee.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/7231908/players-union-note-sticking-points-owners-proposal-sources-say

Also apparently being left to verbalization only is the owners new revenue sharing plan

16. Revenue Sharing
• The NBA will commit to maintaining during each year of the CBA the
revenue sharing plan that the NBA has described to the Players
Association.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba%20proposal%2011-11-2011.pdf

[LooseCannon]

For those who missed it, the owners' full proposal is here:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba%20proposal%2011-11-2011.pdf

I didn't realize the more punitive luxury tax didn't kick in until Year 3. 

I'm curious how this one works:

A team in any season that uses the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level
Exception or the Bi-Annual Exception, or that in year 3 or after
acquires a free agent in a sign-and-trade, cannot at any time
thereafter have a team salary at any point during that season in
excess of the Tax level; provided, however, that a team with a team
salary below the Tax level would be permitted prior to October 15 to
engage in a transaction using either of the foregoing exceptions or a
sign-and-trade that would result in its team salary exceeding the Tax
level by no more than $5M, so long as it engages in other
subsequent transactions to bring its team salary below the Tax level
on October 15 and its team salary does not exceed the Tax level at
any time thereafter.

So, let's say the Celts are just below the luxury tax line, and sign somebody to the MLE.  October 15 comes and goes, and the Celtics haven't gotten under the cap.  What's the consequence?

I'm not sure what the consequence is, but one benefit is that teams don't have to renounce free agents immediately to get under the tax level so that they can use the non-taxpayer MLE.  It does present a problem if a team has lot of injuries, so teams should be allowed to use the minimum salary exception to exceed the tax level.

One possibility is that teams can be required to have a combination of cap holds (free agents that can be renounced or draft picks that can be left unsigned) and unguaranteed contracts that can be cut totaling at least as much as the team goes over the tax line.

I would suggest a counter-proposal for the player that, instead of teams effectively triggering a hard cap for themselves with the use of certain exceptions, that the use of those exceptions triggers a more progressive luxury tax schedule.  Another idea would be that which MLE you can use depends on your taxpayer status from the previous season.

With regards to other bits:
The waiting period for re-signing traded players who are waived kills any hare-brained trade idea that involves the Celtics trading someone like Ray Allen with a wink-wink deal that he gets waived and re-signed by the Celtics for the minimum.  Maybe that will clean up the trade ideas forum a bit.

The qualifying offer for late first-round picks being determined by "starter" status could lead to the sort of games with playing time that lead baseball teams to try and manage prospects to avoid them getting "Super Two" status for arbitration.

As written, the traded player exception gives non-taxpayers a bigger exception than taxpayers until the team trades $19.6 million in salary.  Above that, the TPE for taxpayers is larger.

Base-year compensation is eliminated, except in sign-and-trades, in favor of not allowing those players to be traded until January 15.

[Roy H.]

There's always some idiot that opens his mouth and makes players look like entitled morons:

Cleveland forward Samardo Samuels: "They're making it so that the NBA is not a dream come true but more like a dream gone bad. Wake me up."
 
* Samuels again: "The average family doesn't fly to a new city everyday, spend the holidays alone on the road, or put themselves at the same physical risk."

Yes, Samardo, you have it so bad.  Earning $500k per season is truly a nightmare scenario.  I feel horrible at the great physical risk you put yourself at every day.  Your life is *definitely* worse than the average family's.

Imbecile.