Beck: New CBA Specifics (and what's left)

by douglast on Oct 29, 2011 8:10 PM PDT

Per Howard Beck at the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sports/basketball/nba-deal-is-close-but-last-hurdle-is-a-big-one.html?_r=2&src=tp

What's Left:

BRI (50% vs 52.5%)
Should over-tax teams get use of MLE and BAE (union yes, owners no)

Read on to see what appears to be settled

Items that apparently have been agreed to:

Contracts lenghts: 5 Bird, 4 non-bird (down from 6 and 5)
Raises: 5.5% annual for Bird, 3.5% non-Bird (down from 10.5 and 8)
MLE starts at $5 million. length and raise amount under discussion
Amnesty. 1 player per team, usable anytime during the life of the new CBA. Limited to players under contract as of July 2011. Salary exempt from cap and tax
Stretch payments to waived players: money spread out over years left multiplied by two, plus one
Luxury tax: Starts at $1.50 for $1 over the tax. After $5 million, goes up to $1.75 per $1, then $2.50 per $1 after $10 million. Rates still negotiable, but basic structure is agreed to.
Relaxing of trade rules (one presumes the 125% is going up to some other amount making lop-sided trades easier
Relaxing of restricted free agency rules (no details)

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 4 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Awesome.

I’m interested in seeing some of the details that aren’t yet specified, but should give us a picture of what Portland can and can’t do when the season starts.

"Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant. What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed." - G. K. Chesterton, The Common Man

Blazersedge.com || New to Blazersedge?
Actions -> Rec and Flag. Blazersedge works right when you use these two things.

by T Darkstar on Oct 29, 2011 9:14 PM PDT reply actions

I wonder of Relaxed Regulations on Restricted Free Agents simply means less time

for a team to decide to match an offer sheet. That is the only thing I’ve seen mentioned before and it’s hard to think of what else they could do to “relax” the “restrictions”.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 29, 2011 9:22 PM PDT reply actions

I'd assume it means that it will be easier for teams to re-sign (one of) their own free agents every year.

As was rumored a few times (Melo/Howard/D-Will rule). But of course could mean lots of things.

by Norsktroll on Oct 29, 2011 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions

What could make it easier when they already have the right to match on a restricted free agent?

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 29, 2011 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Abolishing the QO so a player can't threaten to just walk away?

At best, he could demand a S&T then.

by Norsktroll on Oct 29, 2011 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions

"Abolishing the QO so a player can't threaten to just walk away? "

How often does that scenario actually come into play? Only high-profile case I remember is Ben Gordon, who was overrated anyhow. It did happen to the Seattle SuperSonics, too, with Vladimir Radmanovic back in 2005, but Rick Sund should thank his lucky stars that the goofy Serb turned down a guaranteed $42 million.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Oct 30, 2011 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions

It's true that it didn't happen very often that a player followed through with this. Under a dozen times during this CBA.

But I suppose it is used by agents as a threat more often. And in general it’s a pretty arduous process for the team to first having to make a player restricted when that could happen automatically in the appropriate situations. Or that they have to make QO’s again and again to players playing overseas (e.g. Josh Childress, or now the Nuggets with Chandler and Smith).

Of course the line could relate to something totally different as well. Your guess is as good as mine what that could be since I don’t have additional information on the state of discussions about restricted vs unrestricted free agency in the new CBA up to now.

by Norsktroll on Oct 30, 2011 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions

That would help the teams and I interpreted this as something to help the players??

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 30, 2011 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions

the other thing I heard something of

was going from 4 years to 3 on rookie deals, getting that RFA year sooner, and big money kicking in faster. but I generally heard this in conjuction with raising the draft age to 20, so not sure how it ties in, if at all

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 29, 2011 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I had heard that one too. I suppose that would qualify as "relaxing" the RFA rules,

but I would have expected that to be referred to more as shortening rookie contracts. Relaxing the rules sounds more like a smaller process change to me, but I guess it could mean anything.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 30, 2011 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions

It's entirely possible that Greg Oden will be a UFA immediately upon the signing of a new CBA.

That happened with the new NFL CBA, which benefited a few teams and hurt others. The Seattle Seahawks were one team that benefited, as it signed two high-profile UFAs, Sidney Rice and Zach Miller, who had just four years of tenured service and would’ve been RFAs under the prior CBA.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Oct 30, 2011 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions

If they eliminated the RFA after rookie contracts expired, but the owners would be crazy

to do that. And that’s far beyond “relaxing” the RFA rules.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 30, 2011 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions

I just can't see this happening

I don’t think owners would go for that at all. Even if they did, I would expect a grandfather clause for existing players who would be affected by this scenario.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 30, 2011 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I'd also hope for a grandfather clause in that case.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Oct 30, 2011 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Wow, a 5 percent reduction in raises? That's an underreported story so far

by Norsktroll on Oct 29, 2011 9:40 PM PDT reply actions

i think ultimately the raises and shorter contracts are going to be one of the bigger effects

previously, most players getting 3-years or more would seemingly automatically get the max raise per year. MLE deals were almost always max length too. this 8% annual raise would inflate these contracts disproportionate to increase in BRI, so in years 3, 4, 5, and 6, the deals became much more bloated and unworthy. lowering the raises is bigger than it appears, because each of those follow-on years compounds on the last one too.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 29, 2011 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree. It's very unlikely that league revenues would increase that much every year, so a player would get a bigger and bigger share.

Of the total revenues, or especially of the salary available to a team. Of course if a player negotiated for a contract that already starts too rich he’ll still be overpaid, but at least that would stop some bloating and give teams a better ability to manage their payroll around an existing core. And while it might mean less money for some veterans, it could even out in the end for all sides by enabling teams to keep a a decent veteran on the roster instead of having to dump him off to a team with cap space when his contract balloons while his performance can’t fully keep track. Then you don’t have as many players pissed that a contender trades them away to a terrible team purely for economic reasons.

by Norsktroll on Oct 30, 2011 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions

Makes me wonder if the storm out/pandering apologies

of each side are just the final bit of posturing before the agreement is made.

volatilelyle.com

by almost awesome on Oct 29, 2011 10:55 PM PDT reply actions

How Long Now

If owners prevail on the non-use of the ME and BAE for over-tax teams, then this, in combination with the new tax rules, shorter contracts, and reduction in automatic raises will have a substantial impact on the league. Even a Cuban may wince at paying $2.50 in luxury tax for each $1 over $10 million, as a $5 million player would actually cost $12.5 million. In addition, we also have the fact that revenue sharing is still out there, which will reduce the available cash to larger market teams.

Another factor which wasn’t mentioned is whether or not there will be a final CAP on the luxury tax. $2.50 per $1 over $10 million is the top rung being discussed, but what we don’t know is if it will be limited to say $15 million or $20 million over-all. Whatever the case, the days of one team having a $56 million payroll, and a second a $90 million plus payroll appear to be winding down. Further, if the over-tax team can’t use the ME and BAE this will restrict their ability to easily add talent.

Of course, the players are still not playing, and the owners negotiated much of this based on the players taking 50% of the revenue’s, not 52%. However, it is now pretty quiet, as the outline of the over-all deal has come into view for everyone, including the players. At some point, the difference between 52% and 50% will shrink into insignificance as the players loss of salary will far outweigh that $80 million, and the additional income for players derived from over-tax teams being able to use the ME and BAE will also begin to look less important.

So, how long do we wait?

by ebenc on Oct 30, 2011 5:50 AM PDT reply actions

If the player gets $5 million, and the tax is $2.50, or $12.5 million, the total is $17.5 million.

by ebenc on Oct 30, 2011 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions

We wait until Stern sets a date to cancel the rest of the season, like last time.

Last time he waited until late Dec before setting the first week in January date. The players then voted overwhelmingly to accept (it was something like 172-5) and we were playing on Feb 5. I hope he sets the date a little earlier this time, but he has to wait until the players miss a few checks first and unfortunately they have the escrow refund from last season coming back to them soon.

I just wish the Players Union management would let the players vote on the 50-50 split today. I bet it would pass right now. Of course they won’t until the players break ranks and some start calling for a vote.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 30, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Allegedly some already did indicate they would accept a 50-50 split, on Twitter or behind closed doors

Among them are rumored to be Kobe and Fisher.

by Norsktroll on Oct 30, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm wondering if either side will start breaking ranks in Nov

Sarver made an interesting comment (intimating that the impasse is not his fault), and I can imagine some players will start feeling annoyed when they lose paychecks they won’t recover.

by Timmay! on Oct 30, 2011 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Micky Arison (Heat) also made comments on Twitter to the effect that there should be agreement by now

And it didn’t sound like he blames it all on the players.

by Norsktroll on Oct 30, 2011 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Of every team in the league, I think the Heat is the one who wants the season to start the most.

They have a set number of years with their Big Three. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t want a lockout at all.

At the same time, it definitely makes sense that the owners are keeping a united front, while some of them are saying “come on guys, this is good enough”. I wonder how much their team financials are related to it.

The players and owners seem to have a noticeable parallel: Some of them have drawn a line, others are saying, “come on guys, I’m ready to play.” Interestingly, from the rumors, it seems that the poorest owners have typically drawn the line, while the highest paid players have done the same. Exceptions involved, of course.

by Timmay! on Oct 30, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions

its not shocking that owners like Arison, Dolan and Buss are just fine with the status quo

they have enormous financial and competitive advantages, they are happy to keep them, I’m sure.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 30, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions

"Among them are rumored to be Kobe and Fisher."

Doesn’t surprise me. Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher appear more calm, cool, and collected than, oh, Kevin Garnett.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Oct 30, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed.

After all, Kobe knows at his age that if he loses one year, he’ll never get it back. Other players in the NBA are in the same boat. Camby, for example. You’d have to think that many of the vets in their early to mid-30’s would be the first to shift. You have to wonder what even Garnett is thinking. At his age, he’s only got a handful of years left.

by ebenc on Oct 31, 2011 5:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, guys like Tim Duncan, Jason Kidd, and Grant Hill would never get this season back.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Oct 31, 2011 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions

"Even a Cuban may wince at paying $2.50 in luxury tax for each $1 over $10 million"

I do not believe however it to stop P. Allen.I am convinced that if he sees the slightest possibility the Blazers to become a contender,he would not worry about money.

by prostofen on Oct 31, 2011 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd like to see amnesty extended

to once every 3 years allow teams to simply amnesty players and take them off the books.

Red means run, son, numbers add up to nothin

by Biph on Oct 30, 2011 7:39 PM PDT reply actions

Amnesty and "stretch" are two seperate items, correct?

That amount of “stretch” seems kind of crazy to me. Sign a dude up for a 5 year contract, he ends up sucking, then you buy him out and pay him over 9 years???

And that version of Amnesty is pretty intriguing as well.

Overall, what are the chances we get basketball before January?

I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Sean in Vancouver on Nov 1, 2011 11:00 PM PDT reply actions

There is a catch to the negotiations that could make a few owners go over the tax limit

And that is the reported negotiated provision that all 30 teams share equally in the tax money. (It used to be shared only among the non-tax payers.) Thus if 7 teams (as current) go $20M each over the tax limit the tax (= $41.25M) will partially come back (7/30=$9.625M). The contenders do not dare let an opponent get an advantage on them, do they? Teams like Dallas, Miami, L.A., New York (both) and Boston have the cash flow to easily accomplish this. Strange but Chicago does as well but are not a current tax payer. Portland does not have the revenue stream to go over the tax limit but that does not prevent Paul Allen so long as he believes Portland is in the hunt for the WC Championship. He has said in the past Portland has to get to the second round to do this.

by lee3022 on Nov 3, 2011 11:20 PM PDT reply actions