New CBA could have a cap at 62 mil..

Crazy⑧s

Evacuee
Though the CBA negotiations have received substantial media attention, there is very little detailed analysis of the real issues.

Under the current CBA the players are guaranteed 57% of "BRI" (Basketball Related Income). That, obviously, leaves the teams with the remaining 43%. I have seen on several occasions that the players' share of current BRI is $2.17 billion. This translates into about $1.64 billion for the teams. In a 30 team league, this is an average of about $55 million a team. Bear in mind, this is a more a gross figure than a net figure because, in theory at least, all costs other than player compensation must be deducted.

It takes over 20 pages of the current CBA to define BRI. To some extent it looks like gross proceeds from every income source from any NBA related entity, e.g. "aggregate operating revenues." But there are numerous adjustments and sub-definitions too time consuming and complicated to try to figure out. For example, proceeds from broadcassts are "net of reasonable and customary expenses." And for certain things, such as luxury suites or arena signage, the BRI includes only 40% of the gross proceeds net of taxes.

There has got to be some creative accounting going on. Fifty-five million dollars does not seem an appropriate "gross" for an NBA team. I would expect substantial expenses in addition to players' salaries. The Golden State Warriors were recently purcased for $450 million. The debt service at 5%, for example, would be $22.5 million a year.

Although I could be wrong on this, it also appears that despite its inclusion in the BRI, an individusl team's local broadcast revenues are not shared with other teams. This makes little sense and is apparently part of the union argument suggesting that the large market teams share with the small market teams. Let them, and not the players, subsidize the teams in markets that do not command substantial broadcast revenue.

In short, I find the coverage of the CBA negotiations totally lacking in substance. What the hell is really going on?

Whew. Thanks for the in depth read, OT. The BRI is beyond my reckoning entirely! There'll never be any sort of pervasive coverage of the CBA talks. The NBA can't afford the torch and pitchfork reaction they'll get from fans.
 

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
Sorry but you're wrong. Just because there are millions and millions of dollars flowing through the hands of the NBA doesn't mean the people in the right places are making the right amounts of money.

The NBA is a business and thus the people involved are involved because they want to make money. Money makes the world go round as they say.

Baseball is the most popular sport in America. Basketball is 3rd on that list behind American Football. So of course, salaries, income and turnover are going to be much higher for a sport which is the biggest in a nation as huge as the USA.

A 45 million hard cap would actually balance the league a lot more in the short term than any of the deals they have been discussing so far. And if the league is heading for lockout, why should the owners care? They are LOSING money anyway. Why agree to a deal which is just going to continue losing them money? Why rush to bring the league back so they can earn less than their outgoings?

The stupid thing is that this has already come to a head 6 years after the previous deal was set. The business model of the NBA is clearly very flawed if they are having to hugely restructure things only 6 years after the two sides came to an agreement.

How am I wrong? Do you really think that the Players' Association would EVER accept a deal where every player had to reduce his salary by 33%? You do realize that makes the maximum contract a team can offer a FA 11 million dollars, right? You honestly think that there would ever be a situation where the maximum amount of money a team could offer a player would be 11 million dollars? That salary is so low that I could see players bolting for Euro teams in order to make more money. What do you think a rookie contract is going to be? 1 million dollars a year for a first overall pick? No chance in hell.

You're dead wrong if you think the Players' Association would ever acquiesce to that. Never in a million years. The league would sooner force six teams into contraction than lower the hard cap to 45 million dollars and stand firm on it.

I don't think for a SECOND that the league should ruin the earning power of NBA stars at the expense of small-market owners. If a city and owner can't afford to keep a team, then that team should be contracted and its players drafted out...why should the league ruin itself for the sake of the owner of a shit franchise that can't afford to keep itself afloat?
 

smokes

Huge Member
How am I wrong? Do you really think that the Players' Association would EVER accept a deal where every player had to reduce his salary by 33%? You do realize that makes the maximum contract a team can offer a FA 11 million dollars, right? You honestly think that there would ever be a situation where the maximum amount of money a team could offer a player would be 11 million dollars? That salary is so low that I could see players bolting for Euro teams in order to make more money. What do you think a rookie contract is going to be? 1 million dollars a year for a first overall pick? No chance in hell.

You're dead wrong if you think the Players' Association would ever acquiesce to that. Never in a million years. The league would sooner force six teams into contraction than lower the hard cap to 45 million dollars and stand firm on it.

I don't think for a SECOND that the league should ruin the earning power of NBA stars at the expense of small-market owners. If a city and owner can't afford to keep a team, then that team should be contracted and its players drafted out...why should the league ruin itself for the sake of the owner of a shit franchise that can't afford to keep itself afloat?

You talk like 11 million dollars is a small amount of money. It's a huge amount of money, it's just small in relation to the 15-20 million per year that was on the table a couple of years back.

It's really a case of who can play hardball the longest. The owners of NBA teams have much more money than the players trust me :)
 

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
You talk like 11 million dollars is a small amount of money. It's a huge amount of money, it's just small in relation to the 15-20 million per year that was on the table a couple of years back.

It's really a case of who can play hardball the longest. The owners of NBA teams have much more money than the players trust me :)

Some of them do. Others don't. If 11 million dollars is the maximum, then let's say 4 million dollars would probably be the league average salary. The minimum salary would probably go down to around 400,000 if you scaled everything down exactly.

As a late first round or second round draft pick, you'd be better off playing in Europe at that point. The owners can talk what they want about a hard cap but if they want to roll back salaries by 33% I think they'll have to accept the reality that European teams will pay players more.
 

smokes

Huge Member
Some of them do. Others don't. If 11 million dollars is the maximum, then let's say 4 million dollars would probably be the league average salary. The minimum salary would probably go down to around 400,000 if you scaled everything down exactly.

As a late first round or second round draft pick, you'd be better off playing in Europe at that point. The owners can talk what they want about a hard cap but if they want to roll back salaries by 33% I think they'll have to accept the reality that European teams will pay players more.

But look at the flip side. There are players like Eddy Curry who were strangling a teams ability to grow purely because of the way the salaries are worked in the NBA. It's not only the fault of the idiot GM's who sign off on these contracts it's because you have such a huge amount of disposable income that these hair-brained decisions can be made in the first place.

I agree a 45 million hard cap is a crazy step down from what is currently on offer that's why the players union at this point should take the 65 million flex cap and be thankful for it.

People seem to paint the players association as the victims and the NBA as the dictators in this situation but actually it is the NBA who has been trying to make all the concessions to their plans and the players who refuse to budge.
 

mafra

Legend
Owners are giving the players one chance to save the season, but unfortunately the players will be mislead by their super-uber agents who will convince the players that they shouldn't relent b/c it's not "in their best interest" moving forward.

The agents just want their "fair" share and wont accept making less money... they want an even larger portion of the pie! The players wont see this, so of course they'll draw a line in the sane... and they'll lose.

There are a few owners who feel losing a whole season will be healthy for the sport (looking at the long term picture); and there are other owners who have a sour taste in their mouths b/c of what Bosh-Lebron-Wade did last summer. There are even a few owners who want to stick it to some players... Either way... billionaires don't like to be told what to do, or be boxed in, by millionaires. Lebron and Co. are good at playing basketball, but owners are good at negotiations and business.

The players will lose if they do not heed the owner's warning. The players will lose if they listen to their super-uber agents, who have their hands in the player's pockets.

You think CLE & TOR would love nothing more than to rob a year from the prime of Lebron's and Bosh's youth? MIA failed to win in year #1, and now the owners are this close from preventing the Heatles from a title in year #2. BEWARE FELLOWS. Hell hath no fury like a billionaire scorned.

A HARD CAP ISN'T FAIR b/c some teams play in state's with not state tax. In essence, teams in MIA & DAL would then have a clear advantage.
 

mafra

Legend
NOW... looking at the Knicks, and what this all means for them. Obviously, a hard cap and missing a year would hurt. BUT, in a way it wouldn't be terrible.

BOS would be hurt b/c their core would be 2 years older next time they take the court then they were this year. MIA would be hurt b/c suddenly they would be in year #1 and still titleless (so pressure on them to win would be immense). Knicks would be able to give Amar'e and Billups plenty of time to recover. For Jerome Jordan to develop. All that stuff.

BUT, we don't want that.

SO, what does a 62 million flex cap mean? Well, currently our payroll is at 65 million... and we still need to sign Shawne Williams and our draft pick. I think we could then offer a vet exemption, right? That would be Kurth Thomas. Then, we would have the mid-level exemption? That would be for a center (Brown or Pryzbilla).

That would be it huh?
 

mafra

Legend
FINALLY, as for which side to take in this battle? I'm siding with the owners, and that's tough to say b/c I am pro labor and our beloved Knciks have the most incompetent owner in sports. But at least Dolan spends so I won't tar-&-feather the spoiled brat.

Why am I against the players? Or, more to the point, why do I feel the current system is broken? Simple really... I call it my 3-point problem, otherwise known as the Lebron-Curry-Van Horn factor. What you ask?

Lebron James: I have no problem with Lebron b/c he left CLE. I have no issue with the fact that he turned down NY. Free agency is something he earned and I am all for that. HOWEVER, with that said, the entire process was too much (and this isn't even accounting for his ridiculous DECISION special).

-He labels himself as the King. NO SIR, you're a basketball player (maybe an entertainer). You're not Alexander the Great nor are you Bill Gates.

-He declares he wants to be the first billionaire athlete. He wants to be a marketing empire all unto himself.

-He requests that owners come to him on their knees and beg for his services, with that nonsense he pulled in CLE.

Look, I have no problems with a victory tour, going to eachcity and getting courted and wooed. Even if you have no intentions to play in a place... That's fine. That's the system. But Lebron tried to reinvent the way the process, and in doing so he spoiled it for the rest of those who will come after him. This is too much. It went beyond what is acceptable. He made a mockery of free agency, and after it was reported that he pretty much decided long ago to pair up with Wade-Bosh, then he pretty much made those billionairs beg and grovel for nothing.

I AM ALL FOR PLAYERS GETTING PAID, but when players fly to close to the sun with their pride, when they build an ivory tower of hubris into the sky, when they reach for stars believing the are equal to or greater than their owners... Well, they've gone to far, IMHO. There is an order to things. I can live with rooting for a player who makes a hundred million, but when they covet billions and they ask for owners to bow and kiss their ringless fingers... This is too much.

Eddy Curry: I have a serious problem when a chump signs a contract and then doesn't honor the piece of paper b/c he practically gives up and lets himself go. Just like the BIRD RIGHTS, there should be an EDDY CURRY RULE... And that is NOTHING IS 100% GUARANTEED. I don't want to go as far as to say this is the NFL, but a team should not be held hostage locked into a bad contract with a player who doesn't dedicate themselves fully to the team.

I am not sure what this means or how you go about addressing it... But there should be situations where teams can void contracts and release players

Keith Van Horn: I have a real problem with the current way teams go about trading players... the entire 'matching contracts' nonsense is bogus. When you have to include a Keith Van Horn in a deal, then we've gone to far. What I mean is, when you have to recall a player on your payroll... who hasn't played in 2 years... and you have to recall him from his couch and send him to another team, and he dresses in sweats and sits on the bench and gets an extra few mil for doing so... Something is broken.

When you can trade a BIG Z to match contracts, and then he gets releases, sits a months, and then returns... This is crazy.

SO THERE YOU GO... THE NBA is a mess, and most of the blame falls on Stern's shoulders. But there are serious flaws and loopholes in the old CBA and ways of doing business. The players are passing the point of getting what they deserve and have now entered the realm where they want to be worshipped as well.

The NBA is bleeding money, unlike the NFL, and it's obvious it can't continue to operate as it has under the current status quo. GO BACK 35 years, and hardly 10 teams have won a title. In the MLB, where competivie inbalance is seemed to be the norm, 9 different teams have won the WS in the last 10 years!

The owners have a point here. Blame Stern, blame the agents, and blame the players... Then point your fingers at the owners.
 

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
But look at the flip side. There are players like Eddy Curry who were strangling a teams ability to grow purely because of the way the salaries are worked in the NBA. It's not only the fault of the idiot GM's who sign off on these contracts it's because you have such a huge amount of disposable income that these hair-brained decisions can be made in the first place.

I agree a 45 million hard cap is a crazy step down from what is currently on offer that's why the players union at this point should take the 65 million flex cap and be thankful for it.

People seem to paint the players association as the victims and the NBA as the dictators in this situation but actually it is the NBA who has been trying to make all the concessions to their plans and the players who refuse to budge.

I agree wholeheartedly. The league should institute a policy where a player's contract loses value on the cap and off the books when a player does stuff like show up to camp out of shape, fail to report to his training duties, etc.

It'll never be like the NFL where contracts are nonguaranteed but FFS every team could use a break. Imagine if the Bobcats could get rid of Diop, the Hornets could get rid of Okafor, the Knicks could get rid of...Eddy ****ING Curry, etc...
 
Top