|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rick12322
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 19164
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Billy Hunter considers good about this proposal is it's backloaded to create player movement with the 90% of cap threshold required to receive luxury tax benefits. That's the engine that's going to drive player movement among teams under the cap. The 150% trade rule is designed to facilitate teams in maintaining within that 10% zone.
It's an agreement more friendly to the low to low mid tier players, but it's going to limit high mid to below max players, and it's going to be very harsh on big spenders.
The whole plan assumes big spenders will continue to spend, but what happens if they don't? Player movement will suffer, and the incentive to operate at 90% of the cap won't be there. With the punitive luxury tax in place, it's for all intents and purposes a hard cap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DzLaker
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 1598
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick12322 wrote: | | With the punitive luxury tax in place, it's for all intents and purposes a hard cap. |
I keep hearing about how the punitive lux tax will operate as a functional hard cap. Not sure I understand that yet considering they had a lux tax already. I know this new one is a lot more punitive, but can someone tell me the difference between the new one and the old one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thegreatest
Star Player
Joined: 02 Sep 2002
Posts: 9911
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DzLaker wrote: | | Rick12322 wrote: | | With the punitive luxury tax in place, it's for all intents and purposes a hard cap. |
I keep hearing about how the punitive lux tax will operate as a functional hard cap. Not sure I understand that yet considering they had a lux tax already. I know this new one is a lot more punitive, but can someone tell me the difference between the new one and the old one? |
From AH's post
| Quote: | | * Luxury tax rates: The same dollar-for-dollar as in the previous CBA for the first two years. Starting in Year 3, the rates increase to $1.50 for the first $5 million over; $1.75 for $5-$10 million over; $2.50 for $10-$15 million over; $3.25 for $15-$25 million over; and an additional 50 cents for each additional $5 million (same as previous proposal). |
I think the Mavs and the Lakers will be fine going 10 million over the tax. It will cost them a little over 16 million instead of 10 million in tax money.
_________________
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32754
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| golakersgo121 wrote: |
That's what so frustrating about it. How fast the owners jumped back to the table - to offer what exactly  |
Which perplexes me to no end... AH's cynical interpretation might be closer to the truth. I have the impression that if Hunter hadn't acted fast the players would have ousted him in a matter of weeks. By agreeing to the owner-proposed breadcrumbs he shifted the player focus away from himself, and salvaged his personal reputation (some journalist even labeled him a "winner"). Stern suspected it as well; despite the fact the NBA approached Hunter, it was the NBA that dictated the terms from a position of strength. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhan00
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32067
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick12322 wrote: | What Billy Hunter considers good about this proposal is it's backloaded to create player movement with the 90% of cap threshold required to receive luxury tax benefits. That's the engine that's going to drive player movement among teams under the cap. The 150% trade rule is designed to facilitate teams in maintaining within that 10% zone.
It's an agreement more friendly to the low to low mid tier players, but it's going to limit high mid to below max players, and it's going to be very harsh on big spenders.
The whole plan assumes big spenders will continue to spend, but what happens if they don't? Player movement will suffer, and the incentive to operate at 90% of the cap won't be there. With the punitive luxury tax in place, it's for all intents and purposes a hard cap. |
Wait, that's how the 90% minimum salary floor works? They just can't receive a portion of the luxury tax gains? I thought it would operate almost like a reverse luxury tax: any team spending under 90% of the cap would take the difference and apply it to a pool to be distributed to the teams that did hit at least that floor in addition to not receiving a portion of the luxury tax.
If you're right about that, then that is a legitimate concern for the players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick12322 wrote: | | Is is me or is this misleading? I thought teams over the cap could only use this to max 1 player on their roster at any time? |
No -- players can have more than one max player on their roster. For extensions of rookie scale contracts, the normal limit is four years. Teams can designate a player to receive a five-year rookie scale extension at the max, but can have only one such player on its roster at a time.
This will affect OKC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DzLaker wrote: | | I keep hearing about how the punitive lux tax will operate as a functional hard cap. Not sure I understand that yet considering they had a lux tax already. I know this new one is a lot more punitive, but can someone tell me the difference between the new one and the old one? |
Old one was always dollar-for-dollar. New one gets higher at each $5 million threshold above the tax line. Starting at $1.50, then $1.75, $2.50, $3.25, $3.75, $4.25, etc. If the team plays tax in at least four of five seasons, then it goes up a dollar at each tier: $2.50, $2.75, $3.50, $4.25, 4.75, $5.25, etc. (Note that this doesn't kick in for two years. It's still dollar-for-dollar this season and next.)
Also, taxpaying teams will have less access to various exceptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mhan00 wrote: | | Wait, that's how the 90% minimum salary floor works? They just can't receive a portion of the luxury tax gains? I thought it would operate almost like a reverse luxury tax: any team spending under 90% of the cap would take the difference and apply it to a pool to be distributed to the teams that did hit at least that floor in addition to not receiving a portion of the luxury tax. |
It works just like the old system (just with a higher percentage). If a team doesn't spend at least the minimum team salary, it cuts checks to its own players to make up the difference (in proportion to the players' salaries). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golakersgo121
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 11717
Location: 8 miles from Staples Center
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | golakersgo121 wrote: |
That's what so frustrating about it. How fast the owners jumped back to the table - to offer what exactly |
Which perplexes me to no end... AH's cynical interpretation might be closer to the truth. I have the impression that if Hunter hadn't acted fast the players would have ousted him in a matter of weeks. By agreeing to the owner-proposed breadcrumbs he shifted the player focus away from himself, and salvaged his personal reputation (some journalist even labeled him a "winner"). Stern suspected it as well; despite the fact the NBA approached Hunter, it was the NBA that dictated the terms from a position of strength. |
Ditto, AP
_________________
Major bullets dodged: DH12 - twice, LMA, Melo - twice, PG-13, DeMar DeRozan. Hit jackpot with DH-12 at the right time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick12322
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 19164
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| golakersgo121 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | golakersgo121 wrote: |
That's what so frustrating about it. How fast the owners jumped back to the table - to offer what exactly |
Which perplexes me to no end... AH's cynical interpretation might be closer to the truth. I have the impression that if Hunter hadn't acted fast the players would have ousted him in a matter of weeks. By agreeing to the owner-proposed breadcrumbs he shifted the player focus away from himself, and salvaged his personal reputation (some journalist even labeled him a "winner"). Stern suspected it as well; despite the fact the NBA approached Hunter, it was the NBA that dictated the terms from a position of strength. |
Ditto, AP |
If the scenario I proposed earlier comes to fruition, then 6 years from now Hunter will be gone and we'll be going through all this again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Burgundy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 867
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | composite wrote: | | I'd love to know why the players capitulated suddenly when they were considering a prolonged litigation fight just a few weeks ago. Something must've changed their mind about everything. |
I'll give you a cynical answer and a non-cynical answer:
Cynical answer: This was all about Billy Hunter maintaining control. He got the deal that he wanted and outlasted the agents. The only reason why he went for a disclaimer is that the militant players were about to file a decertification petition. If that had happened, the agents would have won, and Hunter would have lost. By disclaiming, he managed to keep control of the litigation long enough to get back to the bargaining table. He didn't even attempt to negotiate about the truly offensive portions of the owners' proposal, but instead made a list of issues on which the owners could safely give ground. Stern and the owners recognized what was going on, and delivered the bread crumbs.
Non-cynical answer: Hunter understood that the players wanted to play. Although the players as a whole supported decertification, it became obvious that a lot of them did not even understand the system issues. Hunter knew that the players would eventually be perceived to be the winners in this battle, because the average player salary is likely to be pushing $7M in ten years even under this stinker of a deal. Sure, the middle class is going to get hammered, but they'll still be making a lot of money. The players made their stand by decertifying, and that fact will have value when the owners opt out in six years and start demanding another round of massive concessions. Sure, the players didn't follow through with the decertification strategy, but the media will portray the decertification as a great move that saved the season.
I am inclined to the cynical answer. If you prefer the non-cynical answer, that's fine, too. |
I haven't always agreed with you in this thread, but I'm inclined to believe your cynical answer.
As I've said from the beginning, Hunter completely botched this negotiation, and this was his way of saving a little face and then slinking out the back door... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick12322
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 19164
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The equalizing properties of this deal are pretty strong. It's definitely going to flush talent down to the weaker teams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick12322 wrote: | | With the punitive luxury tax in place, it's for all intents and purposes a hard cap. |
Perhaps, but it gives a buffer of an extra $10 mil or so, b/c the punitive measures don't kick in.
BTW, in the NFL what happens if a team effs up its calculation and goes over the cap number by $100k or so? Do they slash the last contract making the team go over the cap? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | composite wrote: | | I'd love to know why the players capitulated suddenly when they were considering a prolonged litigation fight just a few weeks ago. Something must've changed their mind about everything. |
I'll give you a cynical answer and a non-cynical answer:
Cynical answer: This was all about Billy Hunter maintaining control. He got the deal that he wanted and outlasted the agents. The only reason why he went for a disclaimer is that the militant players were about to file a decertification petition. If that had happened, the agents would have won, and Hunter would have lost. By disclaiming, he managed to keep control of the litigation long enough to get back to the bargaining table. He didn't even attempt to negotiate about the truly offensive portions of the owners' proposal, but instead made a list of issues on which the owners could safely give ground. Stern and the owners recognized what was going on, and delivered the bread crumbs.
Non-cynical answer: Hunter understood that the players wanted to play. Although the players as a whole supported decertification, it became obvious that a lot of them did not even understand the system issues. Hunter knew that the players would eventually be perceived to be the winners in this battle, because the average player salary is likely to be pushing $7M in ten years even under this stinker of a deal. Sure, the middle class is going to get hammered, but they'll still be making a lot of money. The players made their stand by decertifying, and that fact will have value when the owners opt out in six years and start demanding another round of massive concessions. Sure, the players didn't follow through with the decertification strategy, but the media will portray the decertification as a great move that saved the season.
I am inclined to the cynical answer. If you prefer the non-cynical answer, that's fine, too. |
Perhaps the cynical answer is correct. But Hunter couldn't sell the prior deal to the players. All 30 team reps turned down the last owner proposal. But somehow this proposal gets their approval???
So much more information is available now compared to '99. It's hard to believe that Hunter hoodwinked the players into a bad deal.
And, about Hunter maintaining control? Look at the media commentary about Hunter and Fisher's dour reactions compared w/ Stern's giddiness about the new CBA. The players aren't pleased. I don't think Hunter will last as union rep any longer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gumby
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 2500
Location: Inland Empire
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
And when the bad teams get more help through talent being flushed downward instead of the taxpaying teams and they still lose, who will they blame this time for still sucking?
The contract? (that they are JUST about to sign)
LOL
They'll blame anyone but themselves.
This WILL be an issue again in the next contract in 6 years or so and make things even harder for the likes of the Lakers, etc.
Honestly, who sees the teams that REALLY are bad, doing really well by then?
It's great ownership and talent that wins. Takes BOTH!
Bye.
_________________
"This trophy removes the most odious sentence in the English Language. It can never be said again that 'the Lakers have never beaten the Celtics.'" -Dr. Jerry Buss (1985) R.I.P., 33 x M.V.O. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OX1947
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jun 2001
Posts: 14951
Location: Winchester, CA.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gumby wrote: | And when the bad teams get more help through talent being flushed downward instead of the taxpaying teams and they still lose, who will they blame this time for still sucking?
The contract? (that they are JUST about to sign)
LOL
They'll blame anyone but themselves.
This WILL be an issue again in the next contract in 6 years or so and make things even harder for the likes of the Lakers, etc.
Honestly, who sees the teams that REALLY are bad, doing really well by then?
It's great ownership and talent that wins. Takes BOTH!
Bye. |
I guarantee you in 6 years, the owners will opt out and look to change the system again. And at that time I would even guarantee they will implement a hard cap as a stipulation without any wiggle room. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gumby wrote: | Honestly, who sees the teams that REALLY are bad, doing really well by then?
It's great ownership and talent that wins. Takes BOTH! |
To be fair, if you've got more $$$ to spend, your margin of error is a lot bigger. Look @ Dallas. They've made some bonehead FA and trade decisions, but b/c they can spend so much, it just doesn't matter. They always outspend to erase those mistakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick12322
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 19164
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| composite wrote: | | Rick12322 wrote: | | With the punitive luxury tax in place, it's for all intents and purposes a hard cap. |
Perhaps, but it gives a buffer of an extra $10 mil or so, b/c the punitive measures don't kick in.
BTW, in the NFL what happens if a team effs up its calculation and goes over the cap number by $100k or so? Do they slash the last contract making the team go over the cap? |
I don't follow the NFL anymore, I have idea what their deal is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick12322
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 19164
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have an awful hard time seeing big spenders going over their present aggregate luxury taxes, which will now yield about 1/3 the talent and at these steep prices the fans are likely that they won't be so ready to pay higher premiums to watch their teams flail away at competing. Can you see that connection? It's basically a hard cap, thus the incentives for all those cute little exceptions are going to be rendered useless because what ultimately drives them is the ASSUMPTION teams under the cap will be reaping a windfall from tax payers. And factor in that now the league is going to dip into that stash to the tune of 50%!
That's why I believe if the players take this deal, they will be the ones striking 6 years from now.
If the players agree to this deal then they get what they deserve for spending more time playing games than getting an education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick12322 wrote: | | That's why I believe if the players take this deal, they will be the ones striking 6 years from now. |
So long as NBA players are earning millions playing basketball, they will never, ever, ever go on strike.
Think about it - these NBA players barely had the political will to stand up to a LOCKOUT. Do you seriously think they'll have the political will to initiate a STRIKE? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lowest Merion
Retired
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10720
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David Aldridge:
| Quote: | NBA players have been mailed cards that will begin the process of re-forming their union, according to a source. Players have been asked to return the cards as soon as possible to expedite the potential reformation, which is necessary before the league and players can formally conclude negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement. The two sides settled their existing lawsuits against one another in Minnesota and New York last Saturday morning, paving the way to ending the 149-day lockout, which began July 1.
Players must indicate their preference to either re-form the National Basketball Players Association as their representative for collective bargaining purposes, or to reject the re-formation of the union. After they indicate their preference and sign the card, they are to scan the card and e-mail it to a neutral observer from the American Arbitration Association, who is acting as an election monitor and overseeing the process. The original card is to be mailed back to the offices of what was (and will likely be again) the Players Association in New York.
A simple majority of voting players, those who return the cards with the "yes" vote, would allow the union to re-form. Any player who was on an NBA roster last season, including players who were on two 10-day contracts, is eligible to vote. (Players who only received one 10-day contract from an NBA team are not eligible.) In addition, drafted rookies from this past June's Draft will also be eligible to vote.
Players are expected to vote yes and re-form the union. If that occurs, the re-formed union would then begin discussions with the NBA on the remaining items that were not addressed in Saturday's agreement, including several of the so-called "B List" issues that need to be answered. However, a final decision on an age limit for the NBA Draft is not likely to be reached during these discussions. The current age limit for U.S. born players is 19, with at least one year of college basketball. It is believed the NBA is seeking a 20-year-old limit with at least two years of college basketball to be eligible for future Drafts. |
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/11/29/union-cards/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lowest Merion
Retired
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10720
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can someone explain the 6-month rule when doing an extend and trade? I heard a writer discussing it on radio, and supposedly it will prevent players from demanding a trade to a certain team if his existing team doesn't like the deal.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lowest Merion
Retired
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10720
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Lee, Wizards' beat-writer for WP:
| Quote: | | expected to soften lockout & allow players access to team facilities in next few days; still can't contact team officials, source says |
Woj:
| Quote: | NBA executives told that they can start talking to agents, and practice facilities will open to players on Friday, source tells Y! Sports.
To be clearer, teams can start talking to agents on Wednesday about deals for players. No deals can be official until Dec. 9.
Coaches are anxious to get players back into gyms and begin working with them. Training camps open on Dec. 9.
NBA has already updated teams and told them that team facilities will now open to players on Thursday instead of Friday, sources tell Y! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| argh, what's taking december 9th so long? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
