|
 |
| |
|
#1
02-06-10, 11:39 PM
| ||||
| ||||
Updated: February 6, 2010, 10:50 PM ET Owners present CBA plan to players Comment Email Print Share By Ric Bucher ESPN.com The NBA will put its marquee players on display in next weekend's All-Star Game in Dallas, but the party-like atmosphere is sure to be chilled when the stars learn the details of the collective bargaining agreement offer presented at the end of January by commissioner David Stern to players' union director Billy Hunter. The proposal, a source familiar with talks said, includes rollbacks that could reduce maximum guaranteed salaries, both for veterans such as Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, as well as up-and-comers like Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose, to almost a third of what they would have been eligible for under the current agreement. Perhaps the biggest shocker: The owners' proposal includes a provision that would require any preexisting deals to be revised to conform to the new deal's limits. The current deal is set to expire as of July 1, 2011. The league's owners have the option to extend it one more year, but they've already made it clear they don't intend to. "The league has to be careful," said one agent who requested anonymity. "If the top players are united against David, that's going to make for a tough fight. It could get very ugly." Presenting a new proposal nearly 18 months in advance of the current deal's anticipated expiration is unprecedented, several sources said. Doing so right before All-Star weekend also seems odd, particularly since Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, the weekend's host owner, has crowed about the event drawing a record 100,000 fans and a surrounding spectacle dwarfing that of the NFL's Super Bowl XLIV. "It's the most dire economic time, so they want to take advantage of that and scare the players now," the agent said. "It is a negotiation. This is what you do." The total value for a veteran maximum deal would be well under $60 million and for players currently on rookie salary-scale deals well under $50 million, the source familiar with the proposal said. Fully guaranteed maximum deals also could be a thing of the past, with the proposal allowing for less than half of any contract to be guaranteed. The mid-level exception and other devices that allow teams over the salary cap to sign free agents also would be abolished, several sources said, effectively creating a hard cap. Both the league and players association declined to comment on the source's details of the proposal, as did union president Derek Fisher. "David and Billy have decided not to comment until we get to All-Star weekend and I'll fall in line with those two gentlemen," Fisher said Friday night. Both Stern and Hunter are expected to address where negotiations stand on a new labor agreement sometime during the weekend. Ric Bucher covers the NBA for ESPN The Magazine. Source: NBA owners proposal to include salary rollbacks - ESPN      |
|
#3
02-07-10, 12:37 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I'm excited for the ultimate change this could bring about. If San Antonio could hold on to Hill, Parker and Blair through all of this (assuming Timmy either retires, or takes a pay cut to hang around as long as he chooses) then they would be well off. If these changes are even half as drastic as listed in this article, teams and players will be reeling and trying to figure it all out. Rosters will change quite a bit I would think, and as the Spurs are coming out of a long era of success this times out well for us. We are at a point where we could be struggling anyway, so perhaps our FO could take advantage of the shake up and launch us into a new era of contention. I bet that paragraph I wrote doesn't make sense. Essentially, if there will be a lockout in 2 years it would conincide with a changing of the guard in San Antonio (end of the TD Era, whether he retires or not). So we will probably be rebuilding on some level, and if there is a lockout and shakeup perhaps our FO could take more advantage and launch into contention faster. |
|
#4
02-07-10, 01:37 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
There may very well be a lock out but the offer on the table is simply a bold starting point. They've got 18 months to go and the shape of the US economy (i.e. unemployment rate)at the time the current CBA expires will be a huge factor in what ultimately happens. I think there's no doubt that the owners have the upper hand this time around but just how much of an upper hand remains the big question. |
|
#5
02-07-10, 03:30 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Yeah, it is a perfect time for the owners to change how things are and get back to what made the NBA great. How about more pay for performance to many fat contracts whith players who could care less of ever playing or even getting better. Yes the owners are at fault for signing some of these idiots but it hurts the league and the fans.... In the end though the players won't stand together they are to selfish and with this economy they want their money. Some things I would like to see change.. 1. Able to draft and pay foreign players more on how many years they have played. 2. More contracts based on performance 3. Length of contracts 4. Have rookie contracts that are tiered based on how long they stayed in college..ie... A senior gets a slightly better contract then a freshman.. |
|
#6
02-07-10, 08:36 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#7
02-08-10, 12:41 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
I'd like to see a way that NBA teams could draft guys but have them retain college eligibility as well as receive some basic payments, so essentially an NBA team could pick a kid, pay for him to stay in college and then bring him to the NBA when he's ready. Helps the NBA game because you have more guys learning their trade in the college ranks and helps college ball because the best guys don't just go pro as soon as they hit draftable age
__________________ "I do believe that just walking out there and winning with two stars, and seven guys that you're playing, it's going to be harder and harder to win like that" Joe Dumars |
|
#8
02-08-10, 01:02 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Wow I'm surprised every one here seems to be taking the side of the owners. I remember reading that the average earnings of an NBA Franchise as of 2004 was 90 million, do all of you really think this is about assuring that the players live up to their contracts? No this is about the owners wanting more than 90 million to take home at the end of the year. I think it's great that the NBA has a players union because had it not been for the union to step in every time a new CBA is discussed the owners would walk away with 120 million plus every year. Every one is quick to point fingers at the players and their greed, but come on don't act like you wouldn't want a big payday too, and it's more about the owners greed I guarantee it. I am in favor of maybe having partially guaranteed contracts in addition to fully guaranteed contracts, that way a guy like Kenyon Martin never gets 85 million for the productivity of half that amount. Even though the team's front office should be held accountable for offering such ridiculous deals, at the end of the day it's the fan that gets the worst of it because it's the fan that has to watch his/her team suffer for years because of a bad salary situation.
__________________  |
|
#10
02-08-10, 03:36 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
I'm concerned about a hard cap. It may mean the end of small market teams. If NO team can offer more than $X millions, then the player will start to consider markets for supplemental income. The soft cap allows teams such as SA, Utah and Charlotte to retain the players they draft. A hard cap could remove that ability. Of course, there are months of negotiations to clarify this. Personally, I like the current structure. The percentages probably need to be adjusted, but that's do-able. I can see contract length shortened, etc. I think the owners are putting the hard cap out there in order to get more of what they REALLY want, when they pull the hard cap off the table. I can't see Peter Holt as a big supporter of a hard cap. |
|
#11
02-08-10, 03:54 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
read below...
__________________ Last edited by halshalchi; 02-08-10 at 04:02 PM. |
|
#12
02-08-10, 04:00 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Whether you want to admit it or not, that's the nature of the business. Sorry but a fan's ambition to watch a contracted player play for the love of the game is not written anywhere on anyone's contract. Sad reality but that's the truth in all of professional sports. How ever you, I, or anyone else sides with a player is a matter of personal opinion. The NBA gets the worst rep because the players were successful at negotiating high salaries, including Michael Jordan landing a 30 million dollar 1 year deal back in 1998. That's when Stern became more involved in trying to limit what a player can earn.
__________________ Last edited by halshalchi; 02-08-10 at 04:02 PM. |
|
#13
02-08-10, 07:23 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#15
02-08-10, 09:06 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
2. Instead of performance based... I'd like to see better benefits for the further into the playoffs they get (more team-oriented guys would benefit). 3. I agree something has to be done. I know they mentioned non-guaranteed contracts, but I think that is a bad idea for the owners to have that power. If an owner is willing to (stupid enough to) offer Shaq a 120mil deal, they should honor it. I'd like to see more front-loaded contracts given to older vets. 4. Rookies can already be signed to 80-120% of the rookie scale (most get signed to the max anyway).... l'd be happy to see a bonus of a couple percent per year in college (maybe 4 year seniors get offered between 88-128% of rookie scale (small percentage but equals decent signing bonus). Anyways.... I agree with what you had to say... these are just my take |
|
#16
02-09-10, 07:23 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
I guess the players would plan to form their own league and pay themselves max salaries? Whats Lebron James gonna do? Quit? He hasnt even gone to college... I hear they pay pretty good in the NBA. |
|
#18
02-10-10, 05:21 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
I think the real question in all of this isn't how much should the players be allowed to make but how much should the owners be allowed to make. While the NBA currently has a stranglehold on basketball revenue and thus on salaries, there are plenty of crazy European owners that will pay top dollar for top talent. If all of the Kobes, Lebrons, Wades and Duncans go overseas, suddenly fans will stop watching the NBA and those tv contracts will drop to nothing. What the owners have to realize is that there is a partnership between themselves and the players and that they shouldn't expect to make any more than their stars. Those owners that overspend on mediocre talent deserve to lose money, while those owners that spend wisely deserve to reap the rewards. |
|
#19
02-14-10, 01:05 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Sorry about the late response but that 90 million is after overhead. Keep in mind that that is the average as of 2004. One can probably assume it went up then down b/c of the economy, but with the economy slowly strengthening I'm pretty sure that that number will grow especially if the owners get the CBA they want...
__________________ |
Linear Mode
