PDA

View Full Version : CBA Negotiations Could Get Ugly (ESPN)



wintermute
01-27-2010, 12:26 PM
thought this was interesting.

key points:
- player contracts after 2011 will be much smaller than what they are now
- a lockout seems inevitable

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/12604/cba-negotiations-could-get-ugly



CBA Negotiations Could Get Ugly
By Chris Broussard

In conversations with front-office executives Tuesday night, I was told some strong stuff regarding the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement. As you probably know, the current CBA will end after the 2010-2011 season.

The gist of what I was told is that the owners will go for the jugular and drop the players’ salaries immensely.

I spoke with one executive about Amare Stoudemire and was told that, the way owners are talking now, Stoudemire wouldn’t even get a five-year contract worth $60 million under the next CBA. That sounded crazy to me, but when I spoke with a team owner an hour later, he made the executive sound tame.

“The owners are really going to chop the money down,’’ the owner said. “I think Stoudemire would get $5 or $6 million [annually] in the next deal. The bottom line is that things are going to change dramatically.’’

Five to six million dollars for a five-time All-Star in his prime? That sounds cruel compared with the players’ current salaries, so cruel that I just don’t believe it. A general manager I spoke with later agreed that that was an extreme.

“That [$5 million for Stoudemire] sounds a little bizarre, but player salaries are definitely going to take a hit,’’ the GM said. “Players that come up for contracts under the new CBA are going to find themselves getting a lot less money.’’

It’s well-known that owners will try to shorten contracts. Currently, players can sign contracts as long as six years. One GM told me the owners are looking to shorten the maximum length of a contract to four or five years. He added that they have actually discussed trying to guarantee only the first two years of a four-year deal, and that the third and fourth years would be guaranteed only if a player reached certain performance-based incentives the previous season.

In other words, it would be closer to the NFL than to today’s NBA.

“Those concepts are being discussed,’’ another GM told me. “Is there a sentiment among some [owners] that they’d like to have it like football? Yeah. But I think that’s out of bounds.’’

Severe drops in salary. Non-guaranteed contracts. Billy Hunter, the Executive Director of the Players Association, will not settle for that without a fight, and the owners know it.

“There’s going to be a lockout,’’ the owner said. “There’s not even a doubt in my mind about that. Billy’s not going to make a deal like that. Teams are already saving up money for a strike.’’

Maybe the players should start saving too.


what does this mean for the pacers? currently we are expected to get cap space in 2011, the first season under the new cba rules. if we preserve our cap space until then (as opposed to, say, trading our expiring contracts next summer), we would be in a position to sign free agents to cheaper deals than we previously imagined. alternatively, we would be able to accept salary from teams who might find themselves with suddenly overpriced assets on their hands.

not a bad position to be in, well, assuming the team survives the coming lockout.

Tom White
01-27-2010, 02:22 PM
...we would be able to accept salary from teams who might find themselves with suddenly overpriced assets on their hands.



If those assets are overpriced, why would the Pacers want them? Isn't that basically what we have now? I would think players with overpriced contracts would be even more difficult for a team to move, or for another team to accept.

Since86
01-27-2010, 02:40 PM
If those assets are overpriced, why would the Pacers want them? Isn't that basically what we have now? I would think players with overpriced contracts would be even more difficult for a team to move, or for another team to accept.

I might be wrong, but I think the point is that Murphy's contract would be up by the time teams need to trim payroll. So they could shed that large amount in one quick movement.

In return, the Pacers could get 3 younger guys at a cheaper price individually they could work with.

Bball
01-27-2010, 02:49 PM
The NBA needs to find a model where contracts are not guaranteed. Not 100% guaranteed anyway. I'm not sure I like the idea of having incentive clauses to guarantee subsequent years. That might lead to selfish play.

I think I'd rather see a model where year 1 is guaranteed and subsequent years are team options that must be picked up by X date in the summer or the player becomes a free agent. If you need to sweeten the pot then have a pro-rated severance pay for the years left on the contract (although nothing overly hindering to the team... maybe 10% of the remaining contract).

Some might say that the above would lead to selfish play but I think it would be self-correcting fairly quickly. Players who don't listen to the coach or don't play team basketball will be finding themselves on the bench, cut, and LOSE value on the open market... IMHO...

wintermute
01-27-2010, 03:55 PM
If those assets are overpriced, why would the Pacers want them? Isn't that basically what we have now? I would think players with overpriced contracts would be even more difficult for a team to move, or for another team to accept.

we wouldn't want bad contracts, per se, but we could absorb them if the other team provides sufficient incentive (talent, picks).

just an alternative in case suitable free agents aren't available (2011 doesn't look like it's going to be a great free agent year), or are unwilling to sign here.

Infinite MAN_force
01-27-2010, 03:56 PM
This is great. Even if there is a lockout, these gigantic garenteed contracts are killing the sport. Ill be cheering for ownership on this one.

Brad8888
01-27-2010, 04:04 PM
This is great. Even if there is a lockout, these gigantic garenteed contracts are killing the sport. Ill be cheering for ownership on this one.

Agreed, even in the event of a lockout.

Hicks
01-27-2010, 04:29 PM
Interesting. Could make our 2011 cap space more valuable than previously expected, and in the meantime perhaps our expiring contracts all the more valuable in a trade (if we really, really like the guy we'd be getting in return at what would soon be an "overpaid" amount).

I'm intrigued by this, though I dread a lockout in general. Still, if the lockout means player contracts get shorter, smaller, and/or less guaranteed than they currently are, I'm all for it.