NBA's Current Proposal To NBPA Is Released Publicly

The NYTimes also posted copies of all three proposals (Nov 6, Nov 10, and the “Reset” proposal):
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/14/sports/basketball/20111114-nba-proposals.html?src=tp

Kind of kills my last big post, huh? Nothing like being relevant!

Also, with rookie scale contracts being proposed to be cut by 12%, it makes Rubio look like a genius for getting his deal done in May.

If I weren’t on vacation, I’d be locked in a room going over details. As it is, my internet access is limited for at least another day…..

They clearly want the public to see the details of the proposal before the players vote on it (or don’t get the option). If the public deems it to be somewhere in the “reasonable” range, and the players reject it, they’ll lose most of their credibility among the fan base. They can’t pull the “let us play” card anymore. They can go for more drastic measures, but they’ll be pushing it uphill with minimal support outside of the players org itself. OR…. they could just accept this proposal and fit in a 70 game season.

Sounds like it was a calculated risk by the owners. It’ll be interesting to see how it works out.

14. Amnesty
• Each team permitted to waive 1 player prior to any season of the CBA (only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA) and have 100% of the player’s salary removed from team salary for Cap and Tax purposes.

The key here is “prior to any season of the CBA”. That means the Blazers would have to waive Roy before a season starts and not “try him out” for part or most of a season before exercising amnesty for that season. i.e. if they start the season with him, then they finish that season with him for cap and tax purposes. (This contradicts what Larry Coon tweeted the other day).

Also important for the Blazers. Teams could not make max (or other very high offer) to Oden and then amnesty him later to get out of the deal. That vastly reduces the chances he gets an RFA offer sheet. But it also means the Blazers can’t resign him and then amnesty him later either.

Also interesting is the modified waiver process for Amnestied players.

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.

This sounds like there would be a bidding process for amnestied players, but teams over the cap could not bid. Hence Roy would not be going to the Lakers.
 

The NBPA’s executive staff and player representatives, including Portland Trail Blazers forward LaMarcus Aldridge, are meeting on Monday morning in New York City to discuss the proposal and possible amendments.

The owners have made their stand. The players think sending back a no without more amendments will influence the owners. Actually it will more likely empower the hard-liners who think this offer is already way too much. If you owned an asset worth $356 million would you be content to lose money every year instead of getting a return on your investment? This 50-50 split changes the salary cost downward by $266 million while yearly losses were $300 million. To get a return on investment of 4% the players would have to take 34% of BRI.

So the posturing of the union that the players have made all the sacrifices ignores the $1.8 billion over the past six years that the owners have lost. That is their sacrifice. Agreeing to another losing CBA would be stupid. The big market owners want that because it keeps small markets from competing.

But this seems to me like a offer that both sides can live with, not necessarily like. I see no reason to keep things going, But, of course I want to see the Blazers play.

IMO, if you start a season with a player, other then being injured you should finish the season with him. One more full year with BRoy would not be that bad in my book, but of course there are many that disagrees with me.

- Confirmation that the stretch provision could only be used on new contracts – no existing contracts could be waived and stretched

- Teams that use the full MLE, the BAE or receive a sign-and-trade player (in year 3 or later) are prohibited from being over the tax threshold after October 15th

- No team or player options in new contracts where the first year salary is greater than the average player salary

- BYC eliminated except for sign and trades

It does very little to help align pay and performance, and almost nothing to help level the playing field so that lesser spenders can compete with shrewd management.

First, the failure to limit Bird Rights will be seen as a good thing for small markets who want to retain their good players. However, it creates asymmetrical pressure on them to also re-sign non-franchise players to massive contracts.

Second, the relaxation of restrictions on trades will make it even easier for the big spenders to simply trade expiring contracts to these overpaid, but still productive, players.

Third, requiring a team to be a tax payer four out of five years to qualify for punitive tax basically renders it toothless, especially considering the two year phase-in. If a team is a tax-payer for three years, it will be relatively easy to restructure the roster using trades and the “stretch” provision without making real sacrifices, in my opinion.

Overall, I wasn’t expecting the owners to do much to help competitive balance, and they met my expectations.

Yo, if you’re going to be a player rep, do your job!

David Aldridge: Awaiting @TheNBPA meeting in NYC this morning. Ran into player on the way. He said he still hadn’t heard from his team’s player rep. SMH.

A. Sherrod Blakely: Spoke to a player last night who didn’t know there are 3 different MLEs in new proposal. Have to wonder how informed are these players on what they’re being offered.