PDA

View Full Version : movement made on lockout but is it enough ??



pacer4ever
06-21-2011, 07:01 PM
they plan to meet again friday
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/basketball/7620820.html

Trader Joe
06-21-2011, 08:00 PM
Does the NBA realize at all the potential gain in pub/goodwill if they can get their CBA done before the NFL?

ilive4sports
06-21-2011, 08:05 PM
Does the NBA realize at all the potential gain in pub/goodwill if they can get their CBA done before the NFL?

I really hope they do. This would help the NBA a lot, especially in the eyes of fair weather fans. Unfortunately the NBA's problem is worse than the NFL's.

BillS
06-21-2011, 08:07 PM
Does the NBA realize at all the potential gain in pub/goodwill if they can get their CBA done before the NFL?

Not if the NFL gets done before the NBA season can start, and definitely not if the owners don't get the minimum they think they need to survive until the end of this contract.

I think finishing before the NFL would be nice in a pat-themselves-on-the-back kind of way, but I don't think it gains them fans either in and of itself or as a substitute for the NFL. Unless the NFL loses a LOT of games, no one will be watching the NBA to tide them over while waiting for the NFL to start.

Unclebuck
06-21-2011, 08:18 PM
Just watching NBATV and they had a live report from DA. Sounds to me they will get an agreement, maybe not by June 30th, but I bet they are close enough on that date that they will extend the negotiations 10 days and or 30 days. There is history of them doing this, not in 1998, but in several other years.

The players gave a little today and they have another meeting scheduled for Friday.

It is coming down to the hard cap vs a softer cap, everything else can be agreed upon.

Maybe my memory is failing, but this feels a lot different than 1998. Now obviously things can breakdown and turn nasty at a moments notice, but as I have maintained for several months this will get settled without any games being missed, I think it will be settled by end of July or thereabouts

graphic-er
06-21-2011, 08:19 PM
I just heard Brent Barry on NBA TV wishing to see the big name players get involved in these negotiations. What a tool. Lebron James does not care what the mid level exception is and his opinion on shouldn't even matter. Honestly the top 10% of players in the league do not matter in these negotiations, they gonna get paid regardless.

Pacersalltheway10
06-21-2011, 08:23 PM
I believe it comes down to small markets vs. large markets and superteams. Do Danny Granger or Dirk have a say?

Unclebuck
06-21-2011, 08:30 PM
Good question who is the Pacers player rep?

Sandman21
06-21-2011, 08:32 PM
Good question who is the Pacers player rep?

Danny, with Dunleavy the apparent alternate at this time. Jason Terry represents Dallas, and Durant is the OKC rep.
http://www.nbpa.org/player-representatives

Scot Pollard
06-21-2011, 08:38 PM
It's actually good news in the least.

The NBA's movement is moving more swiftly than the NFL's.

The NFL just can't reach any kind of agreement and rarely are you hearing of any progress.

The NBA lockout may very well come and go quickly and before the NFL.

pacer4ever
06-21-2011, 08:54 PM
I just heard Brent Barry on NBA TV wishing to see the big name players get involved in these negotiations. What a tool. Lebron James does not care what the mid level exception is and his opinion on shouldn't even matter. Honestly the top 10% of players in the league do not matter in these negotiations, they gonna get paid regardless.

Melo was there and he isnt a rep. CP3 is there also but he is the team rep.

Young
06-21-2011, 08:58 PM
Is anyone else surprised that there are not more stars as player reps? Just looking through the list surprised me.

Trader Joe
06-21-2011, 09:40 PM
Would you want Lebron James to be your rep? I wouldn't.

graphic-er
06-21-2011, 10:13 PM
It's actually good news in the least.

The NBA's movement is moving more swiftly than the NFL's.

The NFL just can't reach any kind of agreement and rarely are you hearing of any progress.

The NBA lockout may very well come and go quickly and before the NFL.

I think both the owners and the players are in it for the long haul with the NFL. Its like they are trying to take each other to the cleaners, thats what happens when the product is so successful.

focused444
06-21-2011, 10:19 PM
It's actually good news in the least.

The NBA's movement is moving more swiftly than the NFL's.

The NFL just can't reach any kind of agreement and rarely are you hearing of any progress.

The NBA lockout may very well come and go quickly and before the NFL.

I agree the NBA is moving swiftly, but the NFL had significant progress today!!!

But like UB said these talks can turn ugly at any point.

graphic-er
06-21-2011, 10:20 PM
Melo was there and he isnt a rep. CP3 is there also but he is the team rep.

Stat is NY's rep. Why would any player want those guys as your team's rep though? Sure nobody can really say anything bad about CP3, but these guys do not have to worry about 90% of the issues in contention.
Many of these players are already on a max contract deal.

Pacerized
06-21-2011, 10:21 PM
I'm sure a more detailed explanation will come out about the proposed flex cap. I've read that there is a soft cap that you need to be under to bring in a free agent and that a team can go over that up to 62 mil. in order to keep their own players (Bird rights). I don't understand the quote from Silver that they're seeking a mid point salary of 62 mil. How can they have an average salary of 62 mil if that is the max? I agree with the players that this is a hard cap and I don't care at all what they want. The system needs to change for our team to turn a profit and have any hope of a competitive balance. The more the system resembles the current cba, the less balanced the league will be.
I really hope the league doesn't give in any more on this. If we want to level the playing field at all then we need a lower cap with no way for teams like the Lakers or Knicks to get around it.

Hicks
06-21-2011, 10:56 PM
Just watching NBATV and they had a live report from DA. Sounds to me they will get an agreement, maybe not by June 30th, but I bet they are close enough on that date that they will extend the negotiations 10 days and or 30 days. There is history of them doing this, not in 1998, but in several other years.

The players gave a little today and they have another meeting scheduled for Friday.

It is coming down to the hard cap vs a softer cap, everything else can be agreed upon.

Maybe my memory is failing, but this feels a lot different than 1998. Now obviously things can breakdown and turn nasty at a moments notice, but as I have maintained for several months this will get settled without any games being missed, I think it will be settled by end of July or thereabouts

I hope you're right.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 08:49 AM
Stat is NY's rep. Why would any player want those guys as your team's rep though? Sure nobody can really say anything bad about CP3, but these guys do not have to worry about 90% of the issues in contention.
Many of these players are already on a max contract deal.

Personally, I'd like someone with a college education to be my rep.

Ozwalt72
06-22-2011, 08:55 AM
I'm sure a more detailed explanation will come out about the proposed flex cap.

What I've seen on it is a "cap" of 62 million that can be exceeded by exceptions to retain your own players, but not others. And a mid-level for free agents.

And if the average is higher than 62 million for teams, the players would pay the difference.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 08:56 AM
What I've seen on it is a "cap" of 62 million that can be exceeded by exceptions to retain your own players, but not others.

Isn't that basically what we already have?

Ozwalt72
06-22-2011, 08:59 AM
Isn't that basically what we already have?

Expanded more on it, but no.

Our cap is entirely soft. This cap is a flex. The key is that players pay back if the average is over 62 million. I'd assume there are more restrictions on the exceptions with the flex cap as well.

Edit: Also, I'd be shocked if there werent a cap "ceiling" above that 62 million mark to go along with a salary floor.

Pacerized
06-22-2011, 09:02 AM
What I've seen on it is a "cap" of 62 million that can be exceeded by exceptions to retain your own players, but not others. And a mid-level for free agents.

And if the average is higher than 62 million for teams, the players would pay the difference.

I really hope it's a harder cap then that. It sounds like it's the same structure as what we have but the players pay the LT. That would do nothing to create competitive balance.

Ozwalt72
06-22-2011, 09:05 AM
I really hope it's a harder cap then that. It sounds like it's the same structure as what we have but the players pay the LT. That would do nothing to create competitive balance.

Because we don't know the details with the exceptions, they could be very strict and limited or they could be similar to how it is now. Regardless, I doubt this will make it through to the final CBA deal.

wintermute
06-22-2011, 12:45 PM
Very sketchy right now with too few details publicly known. However, count55 (on twitter) thought that the "flex cap" could be similar to the hockey system, where teams that exceed the $62m cap in one year are penalized a corresponding deduction in the cap for the next season.

BRushWithDeath
06-22-2011, 01:22 PM
The more the system resembles the current cba, the less balanced the league will be.
I really hope the league doesn't give in any more on this. If we want to level the playing field at all then we need a lower cap with no way for teams like the Lakers or Knicks to get around it.

More teams had a shot to win the NBA title this year than any in recent memory. The NFL, by all accounts the ideal league as far as competitive balance is concerned, basically is the same as the NBA only with fewer true contenders and more true bottom dwellers. In any given NFL season, there are usually about 6 title contenders, 6 bottom dwellers, and 20 who are about average. The NBA is usually the same. The NFL has the mystical hard cap yet their results are no different than the NBA's.

But I suppose all those titles that the Knicks have racked up can sure make it seem like the only thing that affects winning in the current NBA is the size of your market.

Anthem
06-22-2011, 01:30 PM
More teams had a shot to win the NBA title this year than any in recent memory. The NFL, by all accounts the ideal league as far as competitive balance is concerned, basically is the same as the NBA only with fewer true contenders and more true bottom dwellers. In any given NFL season, there are usually about 6 title contenders, 6 bottom dwellers, and 20 who are about average. The NBA is usually the same. The NFL has the mystical hard cap yet their results are no different than the NBA's.
I'm fairly sure there are significant differences between the NBA and NFL revenue-sharing models.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 01:32 PM
More teams had a shot to win the NBA title this year than any in recent memory. The NFL, by all accounts the ideal league as far as competitive balance is concerned, basically is the same as the NBA only with fewer true contenders and more true bottom dwellers. In any given NFL season, there are usually about 6 title contenders, 6 bottom dwellers, and 20 who are about average. The NBA is usually the same. The NFL has the mystical hard cap yet their results are no different than the NBA's.

But I suppose all those titles that the Knicks have racked up can sure make it seem like the only thing that affects winning in the current NBA is the size of your market.

Just like those small-town Dallas boys and their $86,000,000 payroll.

BRushWithDeath
06-22-2011, 01:40 PM
I'm fairly sure there are significant differences between the NBA and NFL revenue-sharing models.

Absolutely. But the results are the same. Yet, people routinely act like the NBA's competitive balance is more in line with Major League Baseball than the NFL.

BRushWithDeath
06-22-2011, 01:50 PM
Just like those small-town Dallas boys and their $86,000,000 payroll.

Sure the Mavs spend a lot. But every team in the league has the option to spend a lot. They just choose not to. Herb Simon could have an $86,000,000 payroll if he wanted one. The point is, it doesn't matter how much you spend. It matters how you use the money you do spend. The small market Pacers have not been competitive because they have not wisely spent their money, not because they don't have the money to spend. The Knicks, in the biggest market in all of sports, have spent gobs of money. Yet they have as much to show for it as the Pacers. A small market team, like the Spurs, can compete in the NBA because they spend their money wisely. That is no different than the Colts or Packers in the NFL who have wisely spent their money. The three biggest markets in the NFL are Washington, Dallas, and New England. Yet only the one who wisely uses its money is competitive.

There is absolutely nothing in the CBA that prohibits the Pacers or Bucks from competing with the Lakers or Celtics. The factors that have taken the Pacers out of contention are bad luck and incompetence. Not wallet size.

Anthem
06-22-2011, 02:43 PM
Sure the Mavs spend a lot. But every team in the league has the option to spend a lot. They just choose not to. Herb Simon could have an $86,000,000 payroll if he wanted one. The point is, it doesn't matter how much you spend. It matters how you use the money you do spend. The small market Pacers have not been competitive because they have not wisely spent their money, not because they don't have the money to spend. The Knicks, in the biggest market in all of sports, have spent gobs of money. Yet they have as much to show for it as the Pacers. A small market team, like the Spurs, can compete in the NBA because they spend their money wisely. That is no different than the Colts or Packers in the NFL who have wisely spent their money. The three biggest markets in the NFL are Washington, Dallas, and New England. Yet only the one who wisely uses its money is competitive.

There is absolutely nothing in the CBA that prohibits the Pacers or Bucks from competing with the Lakers or Celtics. The factors that have taken the Pacers out of contention are bad luck and incompetence. Not wallet size.
Eh, kinda.

LA can go way over the tax but still be profitable by making that money back on the large LA fanbase.

If Indy goes way over the tax to compete with them, there's far less of an ability to make that money back.

Market size really does matter... it dramatically impacts a team's ability to spend.

naptownmenace
06-22-2011, 02:47 PM
Very sketchy right now with too few details publicly known. However, count55 (on twitter) thought that the "flex cap" could be similar to the hockey system, where teams that exceed the $62m cap in one year are penalized a corresponding deduction in the cap for the next season.

I absolutely love that scenario. As long as there is a maximum amount, it would keep owners with deep pockets from overpaying and stock-piling big contract players like they do now. Especially the Lakers, who always seem to be able to force lopsided (talent-wise) trades and then re-sign those players to bigger deals once they become free agents.

Teams would probably be forced to build through the draft more and this new CBA will probably hurt Free Agency player movement, which I'm sure is what the players are concerned about.

BRushWithDeath
06-22-2011, 04:35 PM
Eh, kinda.

LA can go way over the tax but still be profitable by making that money back on the large LA fanbase.

If Indy goes way over the tax to compete with them, there's far less of an ability to make that money back.

Market size really does matter... it dramatically impacts a team's ability to spend.

Indiana's market size has not at all impacted its ability to spend on their roster. What has impacted its ability to spend high dollars on quality players is spending high dollars on non-quality players. If Boston or LA was stuck paying huge contracts to the likes of Jonathan Bender, Austin Croshere, Jamaal Tinsely, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, etc, they'd be in the same spot the Pacers are. No team, the Pacers included, have lost out on any player because they couldn't afford to pay them due to a low revenue stream. They've lost out on players because they've been paying the wrong ones.

BillS
06-22-2011, 06:26 PM
Indiana's market size has not at all impacted its ability to spend on their roster. What has impacted its ability to spend high dollars on quality players is spending high dollars on non-quality players. If Boston or LA was stuck paying huge contracts to the likes of Jonathan Bender, Austin Croshere, Jamaal Tinsely, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, etc, they'd be in the same spot the Pacers are. No team, the Pacers included, have lost out on any player because they couldn't afford to pay them due to a low revenue stream. They've lost out on players because they've been paying the wrong ones.

I won't argue that the Pacers in particular have made some contract extensions that might be questionable over the years, but if that was the only issue then those other markets wouldn't be over the cap by $30M. After all, they are only paying the "right" players, not the expensive ones.

I venture to say every team has players whose contracts are higher than they seem to be worth. However, winning makes those contracts seem small.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 06:51 PM
So I'm reading the owners wanted the players to give up money from this completed season? Good Lord. Lockout central.

Anthem
06-22-2011, 07:50 PM
Indiana's market size has not at all impacted its ability to spend on their roster. What has impacted its ability to spend high dollars on quality players is spending high dollars on non-quality players. If Boston or LA was stuck paying huge contracts to the likes of Jonathan Bender, Austin Croshere, Jamaal Tinsely, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, etc, they'd be in the same spot the Pacers are. No team, the Pacers included, have lost out on any player because they couldn't afford to pay them due to a low revenue stream. They've lost out on players because they've been paying the wrong ones.

Sure, this is true. Indy has been bad because of stupid contracts (including the coach). But once we get back into contention, we'll face teams that are simply able to out-pay us.

Kegboy
06-22-2011, 09:36 PM
So I'm reading the owners wanted the players to give up money from this completed season? Good Lord. Lockout central.

Yeah, I just saw this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6694528

:nuclear:

pacer4ever
06-22-2011, 09:43 PM
Yeah, I just saw this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6694528

:nuclear:

plus the players wont accept a hard cap no matter what. Even if it is around 70 million dollars this is :bs:. Selfish players!

wintermute
06-22-2011, 10:06 PM
plus the players wont accept a hard cap no matter what. Even if it is around 70 million dollars this is :bs:. Selfish players!

Eh? From the article:


"If we were inclined to do that deal, we would be giving up $8.2 billion over 10 years," union director Billy Hunter said, adding that he has told team owners in the past that the only way the players would agree to a hard salary cap would be if they were guaranteed 60 to 65 percent of basketball-related income. It was the first time Hunter publicly disclosed that he would accept a "hard" cap under any terms.

Bottomline is really the BRI split. Owners will say ok we won't have a hard cap but we'll want the revenue split 60-40 in our favor. Players will counter by saying ok we can accept a hard cap but we want 60-65% of revenue in return. In the end, there won't be a real hard cap but there will be a lot of horse trading over the BRI split.

I know some of you think that a hard cap will help out small market teams like the Pacers. I don't see it that way though, and in fact I think revenue sharing is the more appropriate solution. So I won't be too disappointed if the hard cap gets taken off the table.

wintermute
06-22-2011, 10:11 PM
Yeah, I just saw this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6694528

:nuclear:

Both sides have been ratcheting up the rhetoric recently, and that's not a good sign I think. Both sides seem to be hardening their positions - Stern with his cupboards are bare talk, now Hunter with these comments. No agreement soon, I don't think.