News Radio WOAI KTKR AM Sports
SpursReport.com
  #1  
Old 08-10-05, 09:30 AM
Amente's Avatar
SpursReport Mod Geezer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,528
Some NEW CBA answers

By Dan T. Rosenbaum

Shortly after the new deal was announced between the players and owners, I declared it a big victory for the players. But with a caveat. We shouldn't pretend that the fat lady was singing until the fat lady was indeed singing.

And not a peep was heard from the fat lady until more than a month later when the final details were hammered out. Based upon what I am hearing, the owners did quite well. This deal is pretty even for both sides and the ultimate outcome will depend largely on what happens to revenue growth over the life of the deal.

The initial details suggested that the teeth were taken out of the luxury tax, but that does not appear to be true. The luxury tax is guaranteed in every season of the deal at a lower threshold than used in 2004-05. Perhaps most importantly, teams not paying luxury taxes will likely continue to get larger luxury/escrow tax distributions than teams paying the tax. The new luxury/escrow tax system will be different, but it may deter spending just as much as the old system.

The increases in the salary cap were not extended to maximum salaries, which for owners takes a bit of the sting out of that change. Also, changes in the formula for the salary cap and for salary cap holds will, in effect, make the increase in the salary cap smaller than it appears. In addition, changes in the formula for the Mid-Level Exception (MLE) will result in it growing more slowly than it otherwise would.

Another important detail not known last month was that basketball related income (BRI) increased to $3.037 billion in 2004-05 - a 10.2% increase over 2003-04. That is a marked change from the 1.7% average growth over the previous two seasons. Part of the increase is due to the expansion Charlotte franchise and some accounting quirks, but some of it appears to reflect real growth. If so, the players may regret allowing maximum raises to decrease. It could be the case that revenue growth comes close to outstripping these maximum raises.

Before continuing, let me lay out the major provisions of this new deal. The provisions in green should significantly increase the overall compensation of the players, while those in red should decrease them. There is a lot in here that I believe is not reported anywhere else at this time, so I hope that this can serve as a resource for what this new deal looks like (at least until Larry Coon is able to update his FAQ). I think I have pretty good information on most of these provisions, but as new information becomes available, I will update this material.

1. The luxury tax will be dollar-for-dollar on spending above the 61.0% of BRI luxury tax threshold (just below that used prior to 2004-05), except that the new deal guarantees that the luxury tax will be triggered in every season of the deal. [Note that in 2004-05 the threshold was at 63.3% of BRI.]
2. All teams (including those who pay tax) under the new deal will receive a full share of the escrow tax collections. The most likely distribution of the luxury tax appears to be a full share to teams below the luxury tax threshold with the remainder being split evenly among all teams. This is likely to result in teams losing about $3 million in distributions if they end up being taxpayers.
3. Luxury Tax Amnestry Provision (Allan Houston Rule): Up through August 15, teams will be given a one-time opportunity to waive one player and eliminate the luxury tax on any future contractual payments to that player. The salary will still count towards the salary cap, and payment will still have to be paid to the player according to the contract, but the team will not be subject to tax on that player’s contract. This provision will also apply to previously waived players, but not players traded for after June 21st.
4. For all minimum salary players, teams above the luxury tax threshold will pay luxury tax equal to the amount for a minimum salary player with two years of experience. This is also true of minimum salary players with zero or one year experience, whose salary for luxury tax purposes will be bumped up to that for players with two years of experience.
5. The salary cap and luxury tax exceptions for players who are deemed ‘permanently injured’ will begin after one year rather than two, but can only be applied by the team on which the player played at the time of injury. [Teams will not be able to trade Terrell Brandon to a team looking to create salary cap space and/or avoid the luxury tax.]
6. The escrow tax on player salaries will be reduced from 10% in year one, to 9% in years two through five, and to 8% in year six of the agreement.
7. The players will be guaranteed a total of 57% of BRI each year. My understanding is that, contrary to earlier reports, this percentage will not increase during the life of this agreement.
8. The escrow tax will only be retained by the owners to offset salary costs when total salaries exceed 57%, just like in the last season of the prior deal, but in the new deal that threshold will be raised to 57.5% if BRI is 30% higher than in 2004-05 and to 58% if BRI is 60% higher than in 2004-05.
9. The salary cap will be set at 49.5% iof BRI in 2005-06 and 51% thereafter, up from 48.04%. Maximum salaries will continue to be tied to the old 48.04% of BRI percentage.
10. Gilbert Arenas Provision: Restricted free agents in their first two seasons can be offered contracts above the MLE by teams with salary cap room, but in the first two seasons of such deals players will be paid the MLE and 108% of the MLE. After the second year of the contract, the contract can increase to the maximum allowable salary for that player. For example, with no restrictions a player in their first two seasons could be offered a maximum deal of $69.6 million over five years ($12M, $12.96M, $13.92M, $14.88M, and $15.84M.) But this provision will limit that to $55 million over five years ($5M, $5.4M, $13.92M, $14.88M, and $15.84M). For the team offering this contract, the salary cap hold will be equal to the average value of this contract over each of the five years of the contract - in this case $11 million. Thus, the offering team would need to have $11 million in space under the salary cap in order to offer this contract. The original team can match if it has its MLE or early Bird exception available and for the original team the salary cap hold will be equal to the value of the contract in each year ($5 million in the first year, $15.84 in the last year).
11. A team will have 7 days to match an offer for a restricted free agent (down from 14).
12. The maximum length of a new contract will now be 6 years for a player who signs with his current team (down from 7), and 5 years for a player who signs with another team (down from 6).
13. The maximum annual raises on a new contract will now be 10.5% of the first-year salary (not compounded) for a player who signs with his current team (down from 12.5%), and 8% for a player who signs with another team (down from 10%).
14. First-round picks will be given standard contracts with two years guaranteed (down from 3), followed by two years of team options (up from 1). The contract amounts will remain standardized. [The option for year 3 will have to be picked up prior to year 2. This is very early to give up on a rookie, so it is likely that teams will rarely decline this option.]
15. In general, there are no changes being made to the general salary cap exception mechanisms which allow teams to exceed the salary cap to add players, such as the Bird Exception, Million Dollar Exception (renamed the Bi-annual Exception), Mid-Level Exception (MLE), etc. However, the average NBA salary will be computed assuming 13.2 players per team (up from 12.5), which will result in the MLE being about five percent smaller than it would otherwise be.
16. For teams over the salary cap, trades will be allowed as long as they trade away as much first-year salary as they receive within 25% (up from 15%) + $100,000.
17. Gary Payton Rule: Players will have to wait 30 days in the regular season (20 days in the offseason) before being allowed to sign with the team that traded them away.
18. Alonzo Mourning Rule: The league will have more discretion to fine players who refuse to play for a team they are traded to.
19. Base-year compensation (BYC) rules (for trades involving players who just received a sizable raise) will expire on the later of (a) June 30 of the following year or (b) six months following the commencement of base year compensation player status.
20. Minimum salary levels will be increased by 3.5%.
21. Teams will be required to have 13 players (up from 11) under contract with the maximum staying at 15. Related to this, teams will have a salary cap hold for every roster spot under 12 (up from 11). The league has guaranteed that teams will have an average of 14 players and will be fined if that average is not met.
22. The active roster will still be limited to 12 players, but the designation for the others will now be ‘inactive’ rather than ‘injured.’
23. The NBA age limit will be 19, and one year past high school for Americans, based on calendar year. [There is likely to be a related league rule implemented that prohibits NBA scouts and personnel from scouting any high school games.]
24. The NBA Developmental League (NBDL) age limit will be 18, down from 20.
25. Teams will be able to send players with less than two years experience to the NBDL for needed development during the year, while still retaining full rights, with the ability to recall any such player at any time as desired. Such players will receive their full NBA pay.
26. Teams will be able to send an assistant coach to their associated NBDL team to work with and monitor the development of their players.
27. Players will be subject to as many as 4 random drug tests per year (up from 1), with penalties increasing for failing a test on a 4-strike system (5-10 games, 25 games, 1 year, lifetime).
28. Suspensions for on-court misbehavior will be subject to arbitration if the penalty exceeds 12 games (formerly there was no arbitration regardless of length).
29. More money will be added to pension payments for the older retired players, pending approval under IRS regulations. [I am not sure what happened with this. I certainly hope this made it into the final deal.]

From the beginning, I have argued that the big enchilada in this deal is the change in how luxury and escrow taxes are distributed back to the teams. In the old deal the bulk of the $300 million or so a year (in luxury and escrow taxes) went to teams below the luxury tax threshold. This resulted in the first $3 to $4 million spent above the luxury tax threshold costing teams $3 to $4 million in luxury taxes and $8 to $10 million in lost distributions. That, in effect, was a 300 to 400 percent effective tax rate for spending just above the luxury tax threshold. That got teams attention and for some teams made the luxury tax threshold a "hard cap."

The new deal results in the escrow taxes being distributed evenly to all of the teams. Non-luxury tax payers also get 1/30th of the luxury taxes and mostly likely all teams will get about 1/30th of what is left over. That would mean that the first dollar of luxury tax would cost teams $3 to $4 million in lost luxury tax distributions. It is not the $8 to $10 million in the last deal, but if teams might lose all of that money with their first dollar of luxury tax it might result in many teams treating the luxury tax threshold as a "hard cap."

This is bolstered by the the luxury tax being guaranteed to be triggered in every season and the luxury tax threshold being known prior to the season (at a level below that of 2004-05). I suspect this might result in more teams treating the luxury tax threshold as a "hard cap."

On the other hand, as soon as teams take the $3 to $4 million hit, the effective tax rate will be just 100 percent, which is lower than it was in the old deal. Also, the luxury tax teams will be richer because they will be getting a higher share of the distributions. This could result in more spending. The luxury tax amnesty provision, in essence, redistributes income from low-spending to high-spending teams, which likely will result in more spending, espeically since it puts more players into the free agent market.

So the luxury/escrow tax system will be different, although it is possible that it may deter spending as much as the old deal. (Note also that the players will be paying less in escrow tax at the end of this deal. That is a clear benefit for the players.)

As mentioned above, the salary cap increase is a benefit to the players. But it is phased in (starting at 49.5% in 2005-06 and rising to 51% thereafter) and the salary cap hold for the 12th roster spot will in effect make the increase a bit smaller. Also, the welcome changes in how projected BRI is calculated will likely result in the salary cap being a bit smaller than it otherwise would have been. Finally, not allowing maximum salaries to rise with the increase in the salary cap is a big deal, because maximum salary players account for a significant share of total player compensation. All told, the increase in the salary cap is good for the players, but not as much as it appeared a month ago.

And finally, if the over 10 percent increase in BRI is the start of a new trend, the legislated reduction in maximum raises could result in players not being able to keep pace with BRI growth. Potentially that more than anything could result in this being a great deal for the owners.

This author initially claimed that the players may have taken the owners to the cleaners with this new deal. Well, about the only thing that needs to be taken to the cleaners is perhaps my mouth for suggesting that the league may have negotiated a bad deal. (I expressed a lot of caveats, but should have been more skeptical of those initial details.) So if the league would like to send a bar of soap down here to Greensboro, I promise to oblige them by sticking it in my mouth.

http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-10-05, 10:38 AM
Amente's Avatar
SpursReport Mod Geezer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,528

Quote:
4. For all minimum salary players, teams above the luxury tax threshold will pay luxury tax equal to the amount for a minimum salary player with two years of experience. This is also true of minimum salary players with zero or one year experience, whose salary for luxury tax purposes will be bumped up to that for players with two years of experience.
This doesn't appear as if this helps the Spurs out
much when it comes to not having to pay luxury tax.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-10-05, 08:59 PM
Seventyniner's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amente
This doesn't appear as if this helps the Spurs out
much when it comes to not having to pay luxury tax.
It might. I don't think the Spurs will have many, if any, rookies or second-year players as last-minute minimum additions, while if they sign a veteran at the minimum (another roll with TMass or Big Dog?), his salary would only count as that of a third-year player.
__________________

Mike Wilks, we barely knew ye.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-10-05, 09:16 PM
Spurd_On's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: the next beam
Posts: 4,697

Quote:
22. The active roster will still be limited to 12 players, but the designation for the others will now be ‘inactive’ rather than ‘injured.’
Finally! For the first time it will become
apparent just how prevalent left patella tendonitis truly is.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-11-05, 03:28 PM
Amente's Avatar
SpursReport Mod Geezer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,528

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurd_On
Finally! For the first time it will become
apparent just how prevalent left patella tendonitis truly is.

Only question I now have about being put on inactive is will the old rule still apply where a player will have to remain inactive - previously injuried - for 5 games?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-11-05, 03:42 PM
bnwhuxley's Avatar
SpursReport Team Captain
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 7,593

Well, if the hit from being $1 over the luxury tax is as big as $3-$4m, I believe it is enough to deter Peter Holt from going over the tax threshold under any circumstances, even though it is much smaller than the $8-$10m from previous seasons.

Given the current salaries, which by various calculations are close to or at $59m, the Spurs do not have much wriggle room at all. Devin is almost definitely gone unless he takes the qualifying offer.

(NB minimum salaries range from $640k for 1yr vets to $1.14m for 10yr vets)
__________________
Whatcha gonna do when Huxamania runs wild on you?!!

Last edited by bnwhuxley; 08-11-05 at 03:44 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-14-05, 03:25 PM
Amente's Avatar
SpursReport Mod Geezer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,528

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnwhuxley
Well, if the hit from being $1 over the luxury tax is as big as $3-$4m, I believe it is enough to deter Peter Holt from going over the tax threshold under any circumstances, even though it is much smaller than the $8-$10m from previous seasons.
Given the current salaries, which by various calculations are close to or at $59m, the Spurs do not have much wriggle room at all. Devin is almost definitely gone unless he takes the qualifying offer.
(NB minimum salaries range from $640k for 1yr vets to $1.14m for 10yr vets)

Things are beginning to make sense when it comes to what the spurs FO wants or doesn't want in regard to signings and contracts.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-14-05, 07:03 PM
user name's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sabbatical
Posts: 1,925

From what I have been able to find- all minimum salary players will count $720,000 as far as computing the luxury tax.

I thought I saw somewhere that Horry's contract was not quite as high as people thought- so we were closer to $58.4M-- we would have between $2.2M and $2.8M to sign players. 3 or 4 minimum guys- depending on the correct number- would put us right up to the spot.

If they want to pay NO tax and get a FULL share- all they can do is sign minimum guys- unless a trade occurs in which they are able to receive back a salary within the guidelines but less than the one they trade away. If they go over the threshhold- they owe the tax amount plus are out an estimated $3M in distributions.

So the question remains- with 10 solid guys locked up, will they spend that kind of money on anyone? Definitely helps explain why they didn't want to spend money on Scola.
__________________
Absence diminishes little passions but increases great
ones, as wind extinguishes a candle but fans a fire.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-14-05, 09:05 PM
Amente's Avatar
SpursReport Mod Geezer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,528

Quote:
Originally Posted by user name
From what I have been able to find- all minimum salary players will count $720,000 as far as computing the luxury tax.

Thing is, if I understand the rule correctly, the teams have to already be over the tax threshold at the time of the signings in order for that tax amount to apply to your minimum contract signees.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-14-05, 09:19 PM
user name's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sabbatical
Posts: 1,925

Ohh-- otherwise they count the full amount- so it might be more advantageous in staying below the luxury tax threshold to sign a rookie or second year minimum rather than a veteran minimum- whereby it would only count the lower amount. Maybe bring in a guy form overseas or someone undrafted as opposed to a 10 year vet?
__________________
Absence diminishes little passions but increases great
ones, as wind extinguishes a candle but fans a fire.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4 Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0