Good News. Labor deal is 95.632% complete

[LB3533]

Bucher now says "League official says NBDL rule, along w/20-yr age limit + offseason drug testing are B-List and not take-it-or-leave-it. BRI/tax rules are."

Not sure what that means; I doubt it's like the players can just Sharpie it out and then do the deal.

That makes more sense.  Basically, those are part of the 30 or so things that still need to be negotiated, if the players accept the rest of the deal. 

My guess is the owners just threw it in there as a starting point.

I think its also important to remember that the players (or owners) can't take an official vote until the entire deal is finished and in stone.  The players are basically just going to discuss on Monday/Tuesday whether they can make a handshake agreement on the major issues, in order to move on to the small stuff.

That's a pretty messed up starting point. Its basically saying 'If you're not gonna have a 10+ year career, enjoy coaching that high school boys team when you're 31.'

Sorry. I just can't summon up much outrage over the possibility that some NBA players may have to actually resort to normal employment to make a living.

I guess there would be no outrage if normal employment went down to minimum wage right?

[Roy H.]

A summary of the proposal (not much different than noted above):

According to league and union officials, the revised offer on the table includes the following improvements:

¶ The midlevel exception for tax-paying teams would be worth $3 million, with a maximum three-year contract, and could be used annually. (The league had proposed $2.5 million, with a two-year maximum, for use every other year.)

¶ A new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two years, was created for teams that are just below the cap (i.e. with less than $2.5 million of cap room).

¶ Taxpaying teams would retain the right to conduct sign-and-trade deals in the first two years of the agreement, but would be banned from doing so starting in the third year. Previously, the league proposed banning them immediately.

¶ The minimum team salary would be set at 85 percent of the cap, and increase to 90 percent in the third year of the deal.

¶ Players signed using so-called Bird rights would get 6.5 percent annual raises, up from 5.5 percent in the prior offer.

¶ Players who sign contracts below the average salary would be eligible for opt-out clauses (which are otherwise banned, except in limited situations).

¶ The 10-year labor deal would include a mutual opt-out after the sixth year — at the union’s request — instead of the seventh.

Also, the D-League stuff was *not* in the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/sports/basketball/nba-players-weigh-sterns-latest-ultimatum.html?_r=2&ref=sports

[Roy H.]

Just heard two more wrinkles in NBA's offer. No. 1: Teams can only add total of $3 mil (cash) per SEASON in trades. Previous max: $3M per DEAL

New wrinkle No. 2: Teams would only have 3 days to match offer sheets to restricted FAs like Marc Gasol/Arron Afflalo. Previously had 7 days

Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1dVFGng7I

I like both suggestions.  The first one keeps rich franchises from exploiting their assets, and the second benefits both players and teams, who aren't paralyzed by waiting a week while other free agents come off the market.

[nickagneta]

Owners want to find out how much they can squeeze the sponge until it's nearly dry....

Yeah, I've gone from hating the players union to hating the owners.

I have this theory in life that has worked wonders for me through the years:

Never trust the richest man in the room.

I think if you used this theory you would have known which group to hate from the very beginning.

[nickagneta]

A summary of the proposal (not much different than noted above):

According to league and union officials, the revised offer on the table includes the following improvements:

¶ The midlevel exception for tax-paying teams would be worth $3 million, with a maximum three-year contract, and could be used annually. (The league had proposed $2.5 million, with a two-year maximum, for use every other year.)

¶ A new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two years, was created for teams that are just below the cap (i.e. with less than $2.5 million of cap room).

¶ Taxpaying teams would retain the right to conduct sign-and-trade deals in the first two years of the agreement, but would be banned from doing so starting in the third year. Previously, the league proposed banning them immediately.

¶ The minimum team salary would be set at 85 percent of the cap, and increase to 90 percent in the third year of the deal.

¶ Players signed using so-called Bird rights would get 6.5 percent annual raises, up from 5.5 percent in the prior offer.

¶ Players who sign contracts below the average salary would be eligible for opt-out clauses (which are otherwise banned, except in limited situations).

¶ The 10-year labor deal would include a mutual opt-out after the sixth year — at the union’s request — instead of the seventh.

Also, the D-League stuff was *not* in the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/sports/basketball/nba-players-weigh-sterns-latest-ultimatum.html?_r=2&ref=sports

The union requested an opt out on this deal the same year the national television contracts are renegotiated....

Interesting. Sounds like a strike threat to change this CBA to grab a larger chunk of the BRI for the players will occur or the players will make sure those negotiations don't go so well.

[Roy H.]

Owners want to find out how much they can squeeze the sponge until it's nearly dry....

Yeah, I've gone from hating the players union to hating the owners.

I have this theory in life that has worked wonders for me through the years:

Never trust the richest man in the room.

I think if you used this theory you would have known which group to hate from the very beginning.

Eh...  there are plenty of rich men in that room who aren't saints.  I don't think either side should be hated, but I also don't think either should be seen as particularly altruistic or trustworthy.  They're all self-interested.

[PosImpos]

Bucher now says "League official says NBDL rule, along w/20-yr age limit + offseason drug testing are B-List and not take-it-or-leave-it. BRI/tax rules are."

Not sure what that means; I doubt it's like the players can just Sharpie it out and then do the deal.

That makes more sense.  Basically, those are part of the 30 or so things that still need to be negotiated, if the players accept the rest of the deal. 

My guess is the owners just threw it in there as a starting point.

I think its also important to remember that the players (or owners) can't take an official vote until the entire deal is finished and in stone.  The players are basically just going to discuss on Monday/Tuesday whether they can make a handshake agreement on the major issues, in order to move on to the small stuff.

That's a pretty messed up starting point. Its basically saying 'If you're not gonna have a 10+ year career, enjoy coaching that high school boys team when you're 31.'

Sorry. I just can't summon up much outrage over the possibility that some NBA players may have to actually resort to normal employment to make a living.

I guess there would be no outrage if normal employment went down to minimum wage right?

There wouldnt be if the minimum wage were a million dollars a year ....

[nickagneta]

Owners want to find out how much they can squeeze the sponge until it's nearly dry....

Yeah, I've gone from hating the players union to hating the owners.

I have this theory in life that has worked wonders for me through the years:

Never trust the richest man in the room.

I think if you used this theory you would have known which group to hate from the very beginning.

Eh...  there are plenty of rich men in that room who aren't saints.  I don't think either side should be hated, but I also don't think either should be seen as particularly altruistic or trustworthy.  They're all self-interested.

Hate is a strong word. probably should have used another.

You're right about them all being rich and untrustworthy.

But, from the beginning I haven't trusted the owners side of things. I haven't trusted their claims of huge losses, especially when one of their teams are sold for a $170 million profit during the strike.

I haven't trusted their claim that they want competitive balance. Now word is that they still haven't come forward with any type of formal proposal to the players about revenue sharing that would ensure more competitive balance and that teams would be ensured profits. This is something they had promised would happen.

They got their $300 million from the players with a 50/50 split and they are still putting out some dubious demands that seem to be making a union approval more and more difficult.

At this point I just want my NBA basketball back and I can't help but think it is the owners that are more responsible for my not having it at this point in time.

[TheReaLPuba]

72 game season.

Where are the Owners who said they'd be "saving money" if they missed the entire year at?

[LB3533]

Bucher now says "League official says NBDL rule, along w/20-yr age limit + offseason drug testing are B-List and not take-it-or-leave-it. BRI/tax rules are."

Not sure what that means; I doubt it's like the players can just Sharpie it out and then do the deal.

That makes more sense.  Basically, those are part of the 30 or so things that still need to be negotiated, if the players accept the rest of the deal. 

My guess is the owners just threw it in there as a starting point.

I think its also important to remember that the players (or owners) can't take an official vote until the entire deal is finished and in stone.  The players are basically just going to discuss on Monday/Tuesday whether they can make a handshake agreement on the major issues, in order to move on to the small stuff.

That's a pretty messed up starting point. Its basically saying 'If you're not gonna have a 10+ year career, enjoy coaching that high school boys team when you're 31.'

Sorry. I just can't summon up much outrage over the possibility that some NBA players may have to actually resort to normal employment to make a living.

I guess there would be no outrage if normal employment went down to minimum wage right?

There wouldnt be if the minimum wage were a million dollars a year ....

I am pretty sure the Vet's minimum is something a little over 1 million, so not all NBA players get a minimum wage of 1 million per season.

Also, if you are a baller, good enough to get into the NBA and stick around and if you feel 1 million per year is sufficient enough to live a luxurious life of a professional athlete.....good for your. More power to you.

An average NBA player is a pretty good baller, agree?

I think 3 million per season is sufficient for a rotation player. A 6th man can and should make about double that. Starters a little bit more that...and all-stars double digits annually....super stars....a lot more than max.

[KGs Knee]

They got their $300 million from the players with a 50/50 split and they are still putting out some dubious demands that seem to be making a union approval more and more difficult.

At this point I just want my NBA basketball back and I can't help but think it is the owners that are more responsible for my not having it at this point in time.

Agreed.  I too, just want basketball back.

My question is simply, why do the owners insist on going for the kill when they've already won?  It's as if making up for all their "suppossed" losses isn't enough.  What else do they want, the right to every player's first born child too?

I wish the owners would just realize they are going to be getting a pretty sweet deal here, and accept it.  Stop trying to kill the sport for the sake of destroying the union.

The union requested an opt out on this deal the same year the national television contracts are renegotiated....

Interesting. Sounds like a strike threat to change this CBA to grab a larger chunk of the BRI for the players will occur or the players will make sure those negotiations don't go so well.

Again, agreed.

I would be surprised if the players agree to more than a 5 year deal, although the owners may force it.  If there is a longer deal signed, I can absolutely see a player strike in the future.

It is widely recognized that when the national TV contract comes up for renewal it is going to be for substantially more money.  This of course depends on how badly this current CBA negotiaion process plays out.  The league could be doing a lot of harm to itself here.

I suspect that if the league does continue to grow in popularity, and a resulting increase in national TV money is inevitable, the players are going to use that as signifcant leverage against the owners.  Basically, I see a scenario where the players make it known they are going to strike, and put a major wrench in the league's ability to negotiate a increase in TV money, unless more favorable CBA terms are agreed to by the owners.

And they will have every right to.  For as much as the owners have used their leverage now, you can bet the players will use their's in the future.  I have a feeling the players are not going to soon forget the way the owners have been negotiating his time around.

[LooseCannon]

I am pretty sure the Vet's minimum is something a little over 1 million, so not all NBA players get a minimum wage of 1 million per season.

The veteran's minimum is pegged to years of service.  In 2010-2011, the minimum salary for a player with six years in the NBA was a bit over $1 million.  10 or more years got you $1.3 million.

[Chris]

A summary of the proposal (not much different than noted above):

According to league and union officials, the revised offer on the table includes the following improvements:

¶ The midlevel exception for tax-paying teams would be worth $3 million, with a maximum three-year contract, and could be used annually. (The league had proposed $2.5 million, with a two-year maximum, for use every other year.)

¶ A new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two years, was created for teams that are just below the cap (i.e. with less than $2.5 million of cap room).

¶ Taxpaying teams would retain the right to conduct sign-and-trade deals in the first two years of the agreement, but would be banned from doing so starting in the third year. Previously, the league proposed banning them immediately.

¶ The minimum team salary would be set at 85 percent of the cap, and increase to 90 percent in the third year of the deal.

¶ Players signed using so-called Bird rights would get 6.5 percent annual raises, up from 5.5 percent in the prior offer.

¶ Players who sign contracts below the average salary would be eligible for opt-out clauses (which are otherwise banned, except in limited situations).

¶ The 10-year labor deal would include a mutual opt-out after the sixth year — at the union’s request — instead of the seventh.

Also, the D-League stuff was *not* in the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/sports/basketball/nba-players-weigh-sterns-latest-ultimatum.html?_r=2&ref=sports

Sounds reasonable.  What is shocking though (OK, its not really shocking, but sad) is how little the players actually understand the deal.  I think a lot of the outrage right now is coming from players who don't understand what the actual offer is. 

I think a deal is going to be reached this week, once Hunter and Fisher spin this deal the right way.

[indeedproceed]

Sounds reasonable.  What is shocking though (OK, its not really shocking, but sad) is how little the players actually understand the deal.  I think a lot of the outrage right now is coming from players who don't understand what the actual offer is. 

I don't know if that's really fair, the players in charge likely understand a lot mire than we do here

[nickagneta]

A summary of the proposal (not much different than noted above):

According to league and union officials, the revised offer on the table includes the following improvements:

¶ The midlevel exception for tax-paying teams would be worth $3 million, with a maximum three-year contract, and could be used annually. (The league had proposed $2.5 million, with a two-year maximum, for use every other year.)

¶ A new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two years, was created for teams that are just below the cap (i.e. with less than $2.5 million of cap room).

¶ Taxpaying teams would retain the right to conduct sign-and-trade deals in the first two years of the agreement, but would be banned from doing so starting in the third year. Previously, the league proposed banning them immediately.

¶ The minimum team salary would be set at 85 percent of the cap, and increase to 90 percent in the third year of the deal.

¶ Players signed using so-called Bird rights would get 6.5 percent annual raises, up from 5.5 percent in the prior offer.

¶ Players who sign contracts below the average salary would be eligible for opt-out clauses (which are otherwise banned, except in limited situations).

¶ The 10-year labor deal would include a mutual opt-out after the sixth year — at the union’s request — instead of the seventh.

Also, the D-League stuff was *not* in the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/sports/basketball/nba-players-weigh-sterns-latest-ultimatum.html?_r=2&ref=sports

Sounds reasonable.  What is shocking though (OK, its not really shocking, but sad) is how little the players actually understand the deal.  I think a lot of the outrage right now is coming from players who don't understand what the actual offer is. 

I think a deal is going to be reached this week, once Hunter and Fisher spin this deal the right way.

This is fairly insulting to the players. Assuming they are too stupid or misinformed to understand this offer could be interpreted in a few different ways, none of them being very flattering to you.

As compared to the deal they had this deal is horrid. They have every right to be outraged. Did you ever think that maybe the reason they are so outraged is because they DO UNDERSTAND the deal and UNDERSTAND how bad it is as compared to the deal they have had for the past 12-13 years or so.