Author Topic: More details of the owners' CBA proposal, and threatened consequences if no deal  (Read 1620 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62980
  • Tommy Points: -25466
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Here's the gist of the owners' proposal:

Quote
The N.B.A.’s current proposal to the players includes a soft salary cap, a 50 percent share of revenues for players and these features:

¶ Salary-cap and luxury-tax levels in Years 1 and 2 of the new agreement will be no less than they were in 2010-11. By Year 3, they will be adjusted downward to conform to the new system.

¶ Sign-and-trade deals and the biannual exception will be available only to nontaxpaying teams.

¶ Extend-and-trade deals, such as the one signed by Carmelo Anthony last season, will be prohibited.

¶ The midlevel exception will be set at $5 million for nontaxpaying teams, with a maximum length between three and four years (alternating annually). The value of the exception will grow by 3 percent annually, starting in Year 3.

¶ The midlevel exception will be set at $2.5 million for taxpaying teams, with a maximum length of two years, and cannot be used in consecutive years. Its value will also grow at 3 percent annually.

¶ A 10 percent escrow tax will be withheld from player salaries, to ensure that player earnings do not exceed 50 percent of league revenues. An additional withholding will be applied in Year 1 “to account for business uncertainty” stemming from the lockout.

¶ Maximum contract lengths will be five years for “Bird” free agents and four years for others.

¶ Annual contract increases will be 5.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others.

¶ Players will be paid a prorated share of their 2011-12 salaries, based on the number of games played once the season starts.

¶ Team and player contract options will be prohibited in new contracts, other than rookie deals. But a player can opt out of the final year of a contract if he agrees to zero salary protection (i.e., if it is nonguaranteed).

I didn't see anything in there about the "stretch" exception, which is one of my favorite parts of the rumored proposal, but otherwise it's as expected.

However, the owners also made it clear that if the deal isn't accepted by Wednesday, then they're rolling back their offer, and are going to insist on this deal:

Quote
The “reset” proposal features a flex-cap system that contains an absolute salary ceiling — to be set $5 million above the average team salary. In addition, the N.B.A. would roll back existing contracts “in proportion to system changes in order to ensure sufficient market for free agents.”

The other major differences in the “reset” proposal are:

¶ The midlevel exception would be set at $3 million in Year 1, with a maximum length of three years, and would grow at 3 percent annually.

¶ Maximum salaries would be reduced.

¶ Sign-and-trade rules would remain consistent with the 2005 labor deal.

¶ Contracts would be limited to four years for “Bird” free agents and three years for others, but each team could give a five-year deal to one designated player.

¶ Raises would be limited to 4.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others.

¶ Changes requested by the union on restricted free agency rules and salary-cap holds would not be included.

Is that a real threat?  A ploy?  We have no way of knowing, but I will say that the NHL players left a much better deal on the table than the one they ultimately agreed to.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER... AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!

KP / Giannis / Turkuglu / Jrue / Curry
Sabonis / Brand / A. Thompson / Oladipo / Brunson
Jordan / Bowen

Redshirt:  Cooper Flagg

Offline greenpride32

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 83
If you believe what's being reported in the media, there are at least 10-14 owners who don't even want to give 50% BRI.  My feeling is the owners are willing to give up more BRI if it means the season can be saved.  If the season is lost, they're just going to ask for what they really want which is 47% BRI to the players; and they will have months to works this out.  With a lost season they would only gain more leverage over the players.  Really the player's only option is legal recourse.  If the courts don't favor them, they're out of options.  What was writtent months ago still holds true: the owners can withstand the lockout much longer than the players can.

Offline The Walker Wiggle

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Tommy Points: 758
  • Pretend Hinkie
¶ The biannual exception will be available only to nontaxpaying teams.

I've read this elsewhere, but I've always been under the impressions that the MLE and LLE were only available to teams over the cap?

Somebody want to set me straight?

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62980
  • Tommy Points: -25466
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
¶ The biannual exception will be available only to nontaxpaying teams.

I've read this elsewhere, but I've always been under the impressions that the MLE and LLE were only available to teams over the cap?

Somebody want to set me straight?

Yeah, they're "exceptions" to the salary cap, so they're only available to teams over the cap (and to certain teams that are technically under the cap, but that would be over if they exercised the MLE, etc.)

I wouldn't expect that to change.  Therefore, the LLE could only be used by teams over the cap but under the luxury tax, according to the owners' proposal.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER... AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!

KP / Giannis / Turkuglu / Jrue / Curry
Sabonis / Brand / A. Thompson / Oladipo / Brunson
Jordan / Bowen

Redshirt:  Cooper Flagg

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
If there ends up being a deal with the luxury tax restrictions that are laid out here, it could be very interesting for the C's.

Depending on how they determine what a tax paying team is (would they count cap holds and qualifying offers in the calculation), the C's could be in a position where they need to strongly consider using the Amnesty clause on Jermaine Oneal, so they can get under the luxury tax line, and gain the use of the full MLE, the Bi-annual exception, and the ability to sign and trade Davis and/or Green.

A new system like this might also convince Danny to consider much more strongly the possibility of blowing things up a year earlier than he might like, since, the new system may take away his primary means of reloading the roster for one more run at the championship with this core.