Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

CBA 101

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CBA 101

    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/11/17/l...mer/index.html

    Art Garcia, NBA.com

    CBA 101: Owners, players brace for negotiations
    By Art Garcia, NBA.com
    Posted Nov 18 2010 8:38PM

    • The Issues
    • Glossary

    The NBA's collective bargaining agreement -- the blueprint for all business that takes place between the league and its players in this multi-billion dollar industry -- expires on June 30, 2011. If the two sides are not able to hammer out a new agreement by then, the league seems almost certain to stop operations until a new one is signed. That would effectively "lock out" the players and threaten the start of the 2011-2012 season.

    Both sides have insisted that reaching an agreement is paramount to maintaining the league's soaring popularity. The NBA has had only one work stoppage in its 64-year history -- the 1998-99 lockout that reduced that season to 50 games -- though negotiations always stir passion and sometimes rancorous debate.

    "We know we're going to get an agreement done," NBA commissioner David Stern said on the eve of the season. "And we think that the enthusiasm of the season and the prospective growth that it will ultimately represent will enable us to sit down with the players and negotiate in good faith. And we both seem intent on doing all that we can to reach a deal."

    National Basketball Players Association president Derek Fisher, a guard for the Los Angeles Lakers, said earlier this year: "We don't want a lockout. We don't want our fans to not experience our game. We want to play basketball. That's what we love to do and that's what a lot of us have been blessed to do. There's no desire on our part to not play basketball in 2011-2012."

    If the two sides agree on one thing, it is that achieving labor peace is going to take time and a lot of painstaking work. The sides continue to talk, somewhat sporadically, yet they reportedly remain apart on several important issues.

    Tops among them, as is often the case: money.

    The NBA is pushing for a dramatic adjustment to the league's economic system. Stern claims that the NBA has lost more than $1 billion since the current CBA went into effect in 2005-06, including $380 million last season. In October, Stern said that the league is looking to cut $750-800 million annually from player salaries and benefits that total $2.1 billion, though the league reportedly may be willing to phase in those cuts.

    The players note that the NBA, by its own accounting, is coming off a season of record revenues, which has led to bigger player payrolls and the highest cap on salaries ever. A LeBron James Summer that helped spur season-ticket sales to their highest levels in years has only added to the league coffers. Sports Business Journal reported in September that the league had received $100 million in new full-season ticket sales.

    The league contends that costs -- mainly player salaries -- have skyrocketed out of control. It claims many teams continue to lose vast amounts of money, necessitating the new economic model. The league won't say how many teams lost money last season, but Forbes put the number at 12 for the 2008-2009 season.

    "Even though we reported we have record season ticket sales over the summer and otherwise very robust revenue generation, because of the built in cost of the system, it's virtually impossible for us to move the needle in terms of our losses," said deputy commissioner Adam Silver, the league's chief negotiator. So the league has proposed, among other measures, a set restriction on salaries -- a "hard" salary cap -- along with the rollback in player salaries that Stern mentioned in October.

    NBPA executive director Billy Hunter has disputed both the league's figures and its accounting methods. He added that the league's insistence of "a hard cap, a 40 percent rollback in player salaries, unlimited expense deductions and the elimination of guaranteed contracts" would "inevitably result in a lockout and the cancellation of part or all of the 2011-2012 season."

    The league actually has an option to extend the current CBA for a year, as long as it notifies the players union by December 15. But the league almost certainly won't sign on for another year of what they consider a bad deal. Stern, Silver, key owners and a host of lawyers are ready to work with the union to hammer out something new.

    Here's a look at some major issues that face the two sides in what promises to be a complex and -- if history is any indicator -- sometimes contentious negotiation. (For a more detailed glossary of some of the basketball labor terminology used below, click here.)


    The Salary Cap
    What you need to know: The owners' initial proposal, according to reports, called for a "hard" cap, which sets a fixed figure on team salaries that cannot be exceeded. Players favor a softer cap, which includes several exceptions (see glossary, and below).

    Bottom line: An insistence on a hard cap could be the major sticking point in these negotiations. The union flat-out doesn't want one. The league says it has to have one, though some outsiders suggest that owners would be willing to discuss a cap with fewer exceptions than the current one.

    Salary Cap Exceptions
    What you need to know: Both sides favor the ability to create a system that would help teams to keep their own free agents. A logical way to do that is with exceptions to the cap. A new agreement could bring new exceptions, such as the "franchise" tag that's used in the NFL. An enhancement of Bird rights (see Glossary) is another possibility. "Amnesty" provisions could be reinstated to allow teams tax relief for current contracts, too.

    Bottom line: Despite the owners' insistence, an NBA with a "true" hard cap, one without any exceptions, will be hard to come by given the union's stringent resistance to the idea.

    Basketbal Related Income
    What you need to know: Players get 57 percent of all Basketball Related Income (see Glossary) in the current agreement. That percentage, along with what constitutes BRI, is going to be hotly negotiated.

    Bottom line: The league not only wants to scale back the percentage of BRI the players receive -- from 57 percent to about 41 -- it wants to narrow what revenue is considered as part of BRI. The union, predictably, wants to keep the percentage at or near where it is now, and possibly include revenue streams that are currently not considered basketball-related.

    Salary Rollbacks
    What you need to know: Across-the-board salary rollbacks -- in effect, changing the terms of existing contracts -- are a possibility. The NHL bargained for a 24-percent rollback on all existing salaries after its 2005 lockout. Such a move in the NBA could impact all current contracts.

    Bottom line: The union and its rank-and-file would fight against restructuring existing contracts.

    Revenue Sharing
    What you need to know: Owners are in agreement on the need for increased revenue sharing among teams. Currently, about $54 million is divvied up. The league's position is that better revenue sharing will help teams compete and give them a reasonable expectation of being profitable.

    Bottom line: This would seem to be a mostly owner-controlled issue, but players must agree to any revenue-sharing plan and will have a say on what monies are to be considered for the revenue-sharing pot. The union wants healthy teams, too -- financially and on-the-court competitively -- because that means more job security for players and, theoretically, better wages.

    Guaranteed Contracts
    What you need to know: Owners reportedly favor a system that would allow them to cut their losses on so-called "bad" contracts for underperforming players. That could mean shorter-term contracts and less guaranteed money.

    Bottom line: Guaranteed contracts have been a staple in the NBA for years. The union isn't going to give up what they have without a fight.

    Contraction
    What you need to know: Stern has said that the idea of eliminating at least a couple of teams in order to enhance the league's bottom line -- and its on-court product -- is on the table.

    Bottom line: Contraction remains a longshot for a few reasons. One, there's a question as to whether any teams, even those losing money, would be willing to sell. Two, other cities may be willing to take on a struggling NBA franchise, so many argue that relocation should be considered before contraction. And, of course, cutting teams would mean fewer jobs for players. That's something the union would fight.

    Other Issues
    Rookie salary scale

    Drug policy

    NBA Development League

    Conduct and discipline rules

    Pensions

    NBA.com staff writer Art Garcia has covered the NBA since 1999.


    BASKETBALL RELATED INCOME

    Generally, income received as a result of basketball operations. The sources include broadcast rights, gate receipts, sponsorships, proceeds from NBA properties, percentage of arena naming rights, suite proceeds, concessions, merchandise sales, etc.

    Players are guaranteed 57 percent of BRI in the current agreement. The BRI figure for last season was approximately $3.6 billion, with players guaranteed nearly $2.1 billion in salary and benefits.

    LUXURY TAX

    An amount levied on teams that exceed the salary cap. The luxury tax level for this season is $70.307 million. Teams whose player payroll exceeds that figure will pay a dollar-for-dollar tax. For example: A team with a payroll of $75.307 million pays $5 million in luxury tax.

    The luxury tax is split evenly among the teams that do not pay the tax. Each gets 1/30th of the pot. The remaining money is controlled and used at the NBA's discretion.

    SALARY CAP

    The limit teams can spend on salaries. The salary cap for 2010-11 is $58.044 million, an increase from $57.7 million last season. It's calculated by multiplying projected Basketball Related Income (see above) by 51 percent, subtracting player benefits and then dividing the result by 30 (the number of teams in the league). The minimum team salary, by the way, is set at 75 percent of the salary cap. This season, that equals $43.533 million.

    The league wants a "hard" cap, which would strictly disallow teams from exceeding a calculated payroll limit. The league's current salary cap can only be described as "soft," because it includes several methods that teams can go over the cap (see Salary Cap Exceptions).

    SALARY CAP EXCEPTIONS

    Rules that allow teams to exceed the cap if the player meets certain criteria. Here are some of the current exceptions:

    Qualifying Veteran Free Agent (Bird Exception): Used for a free agent, eligible for up to the maximum salary, if he played for that team for some or the entire prior three seasons, or if he changed teams by trade.

    Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent (Early Bird): Used for a free agent eligible for a salary of up to the greater of (a) 175 percent of the player's salary in the last season of his prior contract or (b) 108 percent of the average player salary for the prior season. The player had to play for the team for some or the entire prior two seasons, or changed teams by trade.

    Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agent (Non-Bird): Used for a free agent who is neither a "Bird" nor an "Early Bird" player. He can sign up to (a) 120 percent of the player's salary in the last season of his prior contract, (b) 120 percent of the player's applicable minimum salary for the current season or, (c) if the player is a Restricted Free Agent, his Qualifying Offer amount.

    Bi-Annual: Can be used to sign one or more players to contracts with first-year salaries totalling up to $2.08 million for 2010-11. Can be used only every other year.

    Mid-Level Salary: Can be used to sign one or more players to contracts with first-year salaries that provide for a total of up to 108 percent of the average player salary for the prior season. Set at $5.765 million for 2010-11. Can be used every year.

    Rookie: Teams may sign their first-round Draft picks for up to 120 percent of the Rookie Salary Scale amount, as negotiated in the CBA.

    Minimum Salary: Teams may sign a player to a one-year or two-year contract at the applicable minimum salary determined by years of service.

    Disabled Player: Teams may replace a player who suffers a season-ending injury with one player making up to 50 percent of the injured player's current salary.

    Traded Player: If a team trades a player's contract to another team, that team can replace the traded player with one or more players acquired by trade. Teams have up to one year to complete transaction to comply to the Salary Cap rules.

    OTHER POINTS OF INTEREST

    In the current CBA, the maximum length on contracts between a team and its Bird free agents, or between a team that is extending rookie contracts, is six years. For the minimum salary exception or bi-annual exception, it's two years. Rookie contracts are two years, plus two one-year team options. All other contracts, including extensions, can be as long as five years.

    The maximum player salary, per year, is based on a player's years of service and a percentage of the salary cap. For players with fewer than seven years of experience, the maximum salary is now $13,603,750. Between 7-10 years, $16,324,500. Ten or more years, $19,045,250.

    The current agreement has an allowance for a player's annual salary to either increase or decrease, as negotiated on the contract's signing. Contracts with Bird or Early Bird players can be negotiated to be increased or decreased after the first year by up to 10.5 percent of first-year salary. For all other contracts, it's 8 percent in both directions.
    I didn't see this posted anywhere and I thought they had some good info although nothing that is new.

    I would hate to see a lockout but I really hope the owners get most of what they want.

  • #2
    Re: CBA 101

    This has got me thinking. I decided to take a different look at things. Instead of just saying what my ideals would be I tried to look at it as how I would try to meet the players in the middle.


    Salary cap: My ideal would be a hard cap.

    If I couldn't get a hard cap I would try to change the exceptions.

    Draft/Trade exception: Gives the team the ability to re-sign a player they drafted or traded for for more than their previous contract.

    Free Agent exception: This allows teams to re-sign a player they sign off of free agency for an equal or lesser percentage of the salary cap that their previous contract.

    Fill the Roster 1 exception: This allows the team to sign a player to a salary equal or less to the average salary of the previous year. Can only be used for 1 player.

    Fill the Roster 2 exception: Allows teams to sign a Free Agent to the minimum salary for a year.


    Contract length:

    Non-rookie contracts can be a maximum of 6 years. The first 2 seasons are guaranteed. The third season is a player option. The fourth can be either a player or team option. The fifth and sixth seasons are team options.


    Current Contracts:

    If the salary cap decreases the worth of a current contract counts a proportional amount of money against the cap, but the teams must still pay the contract in full.


    Revenue Sharing:

    All teams share basketball related revenue.


    NBDL:

    Every team can have the rights to 5 NBDL players not count against the teams roster or salary. After the NBA draft any rookie who was not drafted can declare for the NBDL draft which is 1 round and every NBA team gets 1 pick that cannot be traded. Teams have the rights to a NBDL player for a maximum 2 seasons.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: CBA 101

      I would like to see the mid level exception eliminated.

      If it is not eliminated I would like to see the team that signs a player to a mid level deal be prohibited from signing another mid level deal until the first contract is no longer on the books of any team.

      Even if the player is traded the mid level limitation stays with the original team that signed it.

      That would help to limit the amount of salary the luxury tax teams could add to there cap space.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: CBA 101

        I like some of the ideas proposed and here's what I would like to see:

        1. Contracts -- Continue forward with the rookie slots where if player x is selected 1st, they receive x amount over their first few seasons in the league

        As for new contracts, I like the idea that was proposed where a player can sign a 6 year deal with the first 2 guaranteed, the 3rd and/or 4th year being a player option and maybe 4th-6th year being a team option. Too many teams get saddled with terrible contracts and this may add more parity to the league. This could also be done for say a 4 year deal with the first 2 years guaranteed, the 3rd year being a player option and the 4th year being a team option

        I'm okay with the mid-level, but it would have to be adjusted.

        If a player has an injury, the team has the ability to waive the player and only pay a percentage of their salary. For example, the Blazers could waive Oden and only be forced to pay say 50% of his salary this season and could go out and sign a new player.

        Include good character language where if a player gets arrested or fails a drug test, a team may have the right to waive the player and only have to pay a portion of their contract for that season. Private business has this, why can't the NBA?

        2. Revenue

        Continue with revenue sharing to help the Pacers, Bucks, T-Wolves, Grizz, Kings, Thunder, Blazers, Cavs, Spurs, Magic, Hornets, etc. of the world as these teams are all in smaller media markets.

        Have a specified percentage of BRI for players and owners with incentives for players if BRI exceeds a specific percentage that they get so much. For example, if the formula were 50/50 and let's say the Pacers revenues were 10 million more than expected, maybe 3-4 of that could go back to players in the form of bonuses?

        Continue with the luxury tax, but it may be harder to do with the new CBA in place.

        3. Players

        I love the idea where each NBA team gets so many players in the NBDL that they're responsible for. This would definitely increase excitement in the NBDL, especially as they look to expand. Furthermore, NBA teams would have the right to move players back and forth much more easily as the players would get something similar to MLB where they get so many days or games in the NBA.

        For example, if we retained the rights for Magnum Rolle and he's playing in Ft. Wayne and say the Pacers are paying part of his salary. However, if we want to send Lance up I-69 for 2 weeks to get some PT and bring Magnum down to Indy we could. Furthermore, if a player were injured temporarily, we could bring one of our NBDL guys to the team.

        I like the limits of 15 players and would change the ability to have all players available and not any of these phantom injuries.

        Teams would be aware if a player fails a drug test ala Brandon Rush rather than having to wait until they're suspended.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: CBA 101

          The Salary Cap
          What you need to know: The owners' initial proposal, according to reports, called for a "hard" cap, which sets a fixed figure on team salaries that cannot be exceeded
          Salary Cap Exceptions
          What you need to know: Both sides favor the ability to create a system that would help teams to keep their own free agents.
          This doesn't make sense.

          ---------------


          The league contends that costs -- mainly player salaries -- have skyrocketed out of control.
          This is not true. Players salaries per year:

          05/06 $1.809 billion
          06/07 $1.929 billion
          07/08 $2.006 billion
          08/09 $2.057 billion
          09/10 $2.077 billion

          In the meanwhile:

          • The NBA projected a 2.5 percent to 5 percent drop in revenues last season, and it never materialized. In fact, revenues went up to the highest level in league history. Now, sources tell CBSSports.com that the league’s number-crunches are projecting a significantly rosier 2010-11, with current projections calling for a 3 to 3.5 percent rise in basketball-related income (BRI). That would amount to a second consecutive season of record revenues
          http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.co...38893/25772987

          Costs have sky-rocketed out of control because owners do a very poor job keeping them under control - except when it comes to players salaries because of the cap + escrow system which limits the % of the revenue that can be used to pay the players' salaries.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: CBA 101

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
            This doesn't make sense.
            I quite agree. A hard cap would mean that a team can't keep its free agent if they're near or past the hard cap limit. The only way around it is to have an exception mechanism (perhaps the "franchise tag", perhaps something close to the current system), which means it's not really a hard cap.

            This might be a bit counterintuitive, but I think a hard cap hurts small market teams more than big market ones. The conventional wisdom seems to be that in the current system, big market teams tend to outspend the little guys (which does happen), but what is missed is that small market teams do overspend too when there's a need (see Minnesota during KG years, or Cleveland during LeBron years). Take away the option of overspending, and I think the best players will leave small market teams in droves to sign with the likes of LA or Miami or New York. Obviously it's happened before - LeBron and Bosh leaving their teams to sign with Miami - but they had to take a financial penalty in order to do it. Take away that financial advantage for small market teams, and I think we'll see more Heat-style super teams in big cities.

            Originally posted by Young View Post
            I would hate to see a lockout but I really hope the owners get most of what they want.
            I don't see the sense myself in taking sides. It's really millionaires vs billionaires here. The owners plead hardship all the time but have no qualms at all about jacking up ticket or merchandise prices. If there's a 30% reduction in player salaries, would there be a corresponding reduction in ticket prices? I don't think so.

            If there's one single thing that I would change as a fan, it's the length of contracts. Shorter contracts IMO would give players more incentive to keep performing. It works both ways of course - teams would also need to continuously improve their rosters to keep their star players from walking away. All in all, I think a better free market would improve the overall product.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: CBA 101

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              I quite agree. A hard cap would mean that a team can't keep its free agent if they're near or past the hard cap limit. The only way around it is to have an exception mechanism (perhaps the "franchise tag", perhaps something close to the current system), which means it's not really a hard cap.

              This might be a bit counterintuitive, but I think a hard cap hurts small market teams more than big market ones. The conventional wisdom seems to be that in the current system, big market teams tend to outspend the little guys (which does happen), but what is missed is that small market teams do overspend too when there's a need (see Minnesota during KG years, or Cleveland during LeBron years). Take away the option of overspending, and I think the best players will leave small market teams in droves to sign with the likes of LA or Miami or New York. Obviously it's happened before - LeBron and Bosh leaving their teams to sign with Miami - but they had to take a financial penalty in order to do it. Take away that financial advantage for small market teams, and I think we'll see more Heat-style super teams in big cities.
              If that was true why don't we see it in the NFL? The only leagues that a bunch of all-stars congregate in big markets are the MLB and NBA, the two big leagues that don't have a hard cap. While in the NFL teams aren't able to do that, and the best teams tend to be the ones who draft the best.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: CBA 101

                I'm still trying to figure out which Owners signed to the original deal. The Players get:
                • 57% of BRI
                • 100% of their endorsement
                • On top of their NBA contracts


                That's a lot of money.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: CBA 101

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  I quite agree. A hard cap would mean that a team can't keep its free agent if they're near or past the hard cap limit. The only way around it is to have an exception mechanism (perhaps the "franchise tag", perhaps something close to the current system), which means it's not really a hard cap.

                  This might be a bit counterintuitive, but I think a hard cap hurts small market teams more than big market ones. The conventional wisdom seems to be that in the current system, big market teams tend to outspend the little guys (which does happen), but what is missed is that small market teams do overspend too when there's a need (see Minnesota during KG years, or Cleveland during LeBron years). Take away the option of overspending, and I think the best players will leave small market teams in droves to sign with the likes of LA or Miami or New York. Obviously it's happened before - LeBron and Bosh leaving their teams to sign with Miami - but they had to take a financial penalty in order to do it. Take away that financial advantage for small market teams, and I think we'll see more Heat-style super teams in big cities.
                  Yeps, absolutely. Especially if it's a hard cap + smaller salaries and shorter contracts. The smaller is the salary of a player, the more important it'll be to play for a big market team.

                  Small market teams depend more on the draft. A hard cap is very bad news for them.


                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  I don't see the sense myself in taking sides. It's really millionaires vs billionaires here.
                  I'm a fan, a consummer. They aren't an active part in these conversations, but they're an interested side.


                  --------

                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                  I'm still trying to figure out which Owners signed to the original deal. The Players get:
                  • 57% of BRI
                  • 100% of their endorsement
                  • On top of their NBA contracts


                  That's a lot of money.
                  Nope, it doesn't work like that.

                  The 57% of the BRI are the salaries. The salaries are limited to 57% of the BRI; they don't get the salaries and the BRI %.

                  That's why the "salaries are out of control" is a myth. The players union have done a very poor job of selling their side to the public.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: CBA 101

                    How is it a myth? The average player makes more than the owner on most NBA teams given the fact that most teams are losing money. That means the salaries are out of control. You can't ignore simple math. They have been out of control for a long time. Either the system is majorly flawed and teams profits are dissapearing due to something else. Or the players are making too much money. I believe the larger market teams drive up the salaries of mid level players due to the luxury tax loop hole, forcing smaller market teams to overspend to compete.

                    And a hard cap in no way affects small market teams negatively. Small market teams already have a hard cap, called the luxury tax. The larger market teams are the only ones able to afford exceeding that mark, which is a major loop hole in that flawed idea. How in the world does decreasing the resources of a larger market team to bring in players increase their chances to bring in better players?

                    I guess I am just a fan of simple logic.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: CBA 101

                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      Yeps, absolutely. Especially if it's a hard cap + smaller salaries and shorter contracts. The smaller is the salary of a player, the more important it'll be to play for a big market team.

                      Small market teams depend more on the draft. A hard cap is very bad news for them.




                      I'm a fan, a consummer. They aren't an active part in these conversations, but they're an interested side.


                      --------



                      Nope, it doesn't work like that.

                      The 57% of the BRI are the salaries. The salaries are limited to 57% of the BRI; they don't get the salaries and the BRI %.

                      That's why the "salaries are out of control" is a myth. The players union have done a very poor job of selling their side to the public.
                      Thanks for clearing that up. I was ready to side with the Owners. Actually, I already do. I don't know too many jobs where Employees can get 57% of the revenue. Granted, I'm comparing apples to oranges, but 57% seems way too much when it's the Owners who puts in the money for the said items. It's not like Kobe's accountants are working with the Staples Center to order new supplies for the concession stands, or to have new tickets printed out.


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: CBA 101

                        Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                        This is not true. Players salaries per year:

                        05/06 $1.809 billion
                        06/07 $1.929 billion
                        07/08 $2.006 billion
                        08/09 $2.057 billion
                        09/10 $2.077 billion
                        Well, you're saying salaries went up 1% in 09/10 and comparing it to this year's 3% revenue rise (projected). What was the actual rise (since a drop didn't happen) 09/10? Otherwise the comparison isn't really valid - and, since the salary rise should be lagging the revenue rise, the more important figure would be the rise in revenue in 08/09.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: CBA 101

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Well, you're saying salaries went up 1% in 09/10 and comparing it to this year's 3% revenue rise (projected). What was the actual rise (since a drop didn't happen) 09/10? Otherwise the comparison isn't really valid - and, since the salary rise should be lagging the revenue rise, the more important figure would be the rise in revenue in 08/09.
                          BRI

                          05/06 $3.174 billion
                          06/07 $3.384 billion
                          07/08 $3.519 billion
                          08/09 $3.608 billion
                          09/10 $3.643 billion

                          Mind you, this is just the BRI - the part of the revenue that owners must share with players. There are the other sources of revenue whose product is not included here.

                          I still remember those projections from Stern that the salary cap could drop to $50 million this season and that the luxury tax threshold would be below $65 million - that the BRI would be at 2005 levels. I was always extremely sceptical of those projections, they seemed nonsensical considering the revenue structure of the NBA these days. Turns out it was all crap. However, the meme persisted.

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          Thanks for clearing that up. I was ready to side with the Owners. Actually, I already do. I don't know too many jobs where Employees can get 57% of the revenue. Granted, I'm comparing apples to oranges, but 57% seems way too much when it's the Owners who puts in the money for the said items. It's not like Kobe's accountants are working with the Staples Center to order new supplies for the concession stands, or to have new tickets printed out.
                          Really? Generally in most developed countries - countries with service oriented economies - wages account for 60% to 70% of the total revenue, measured by the labor's share of the GFP (and it used to be higher). I suspect that % is lower in the US but not by much. It then depends on how labor intensive is each individual industry.

                          For example, if we're talking about a logistics/transportation company, which is kind of capital intensive, the % of the revenue that goes to wages is circa 50%. In a law firm (or in a logistics/supply chain company focused solely on consulting services), that number is much higher, 80 or 90%.

                          Pro-sports are relatively labour intensive. Nobody pays tickets or tv fees to see accountants ordering supplies. In soccer teams in Europe the % of revenues that goes to salaries is much higher than 57% - but sports clubs in Europe are structured differently, it's not a good comparison.

                          And again, players are guaranteed 57% of part of the revenue. I don't know how much the non-BRI revenue is, but it means that the wages/revenue ratio is probably lower than 55%.

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          How is it a myth? The average player makes more than the owner on most NBA teams given the fact that most teams are losing money. That means the salaries are out of control. You can't ignore simple math. They have been out of control for a long time. Either the system is majorly flawed and teams profits are dissapearing due to something else. Or the players are making too much money. I believe the larger market teams drive up the salaries of mid level players due to the luxury tax loop hole, forcing smaller market teams to overspend to compete.

                          And a hard cap in no way affects small market teams negatively. Small market teams already have a hard cap, called the luxury tax. The larger market teams are the only ones able to afford exceeding that mark, which is a major loop hole in that flawed idea. How in the world does decreasing the resources of a larger market team to bring in players increase their chances to bring in better players?

                          I guess I am just a fan of simple logic.
                          Why? Let's assume that most teams are losing money (a very risky assumption, in my view). How does that mean that players salaries are out of control? If the salaries have stayed a relatively constant % of the revenue, doesn't it mean that it's the other type of expenses that are out of control?

                          I mean, are we going to assume that for every business losing money it's because the wages component is out of control? That doesn't make any sense.

                          You look at the salary numbers and the thought that crosses your mind is "wow, this is out of control!". I certainly don't. And when exactly did they become out of control? They're basically the same % of the revenue they were 10 years ago (it was 55% in the last CBA). They weren't out of control 5 years ago and they are now?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: CBA 101

                            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                            BRI

                            05/06 $3.174 billion
                            06/07 $3.384 billion
                            07/08 $3.519 billion
                            08/09 $3.608 billion
                            09/10 $3.643 billion

                            Mind you, this is just the BRI - the part of the revenue that owners must share with players. There are the other sources of revenue whose product is not included here.

                            I still remember those projections from Stern that the salary cap could drop to $50 million this season and that the luxury tax threshold would be below $65 million - that the BRI would be at 2005 levels. I was always extremely sceptical of those projections, they seemed nonsensical considering the revenue structure of the NBA these days. Turns out it was all crap. However, the meme persisted.
                            So, as expected it looks like the % rise in salary tracked % rise in BRI. OK.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: CBA 101

                              Okay, I found some interesting data about the issue of the % of the revenue that goes to players.

                              Via Uglesias, a study about the evolution of the compensation in the US:



                              Total compensation as a share of GDP is denoted by the topmost line and is a fairly stable over the period, ranging from about 56 percent to 59 percent.
                              NBA teams also have to pay the front-office, coaches, physicians, PRs and other personnel. On the other hand, there's the non-BRI share of the revenue. Overall it seems the NBA is pretty average when it comes to the labor's share of the revenue.


                              --------

                              Maybe more telling, I found this about the NFL:


                              * The salary cap system that has been in place for the past sixteen years has directly linked the amount of the salary cap to a set percentage of NFL owner revenues. So the current CBA ties the salary cap to revenues – they increase and decrease together.



                              * Under the current 2006 CBA, the percentage of owner revenues on which the salary cap has been based has been essentially constant – 57% of Total Revenues in 2006 and 2007, and 57.5% of Total Revenues in 2008 and 2009.

                              * To the extent that the total amount of cash salary paid to players in any year differs from the salary cap, because of accounting rules, the 2006 CBA provides that the owners have a "cap adjustment mechanism" (or "CAM") so that the amount of the salary cap the next year is reduced if cash player salaries ever exceed a cash 'trigger' amount, which is also defined as a set percentage of owner revenues – 59% of Total Revenues in 2006 and 2007, and 59.5% of Total Revenues in 2008 and 2009.



                              * When you look at the actual cash salaries paid to players on a year-by-year basis since 2006, as a percentage of the Total Revenues of NFL owners, that percentage has gone slightly down, not up, but closely in the range of about 58%:
                              * 2006 – 58.4%
                              * 2007– 58.0%
                              * 2008 – 57.7%

                              This is very similar to what happens in the NBA, it's the exact same mechanism.

                              Why is 57% too high for NBA players? I don't know much about the NFL - do NBA teams pay more their non-players personnel than NFL teams? Is it because of the arenas? I'd guess that NFL's arenas are more expensive to build and run.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X