Bima, Why would the league want to ban team options? Morey uses those a lot.... Seems conter productive. DD
Not a clue. Hope so. Not holding my breath, though. Both sides are far too emotional for logic and reason to clearly win out. Let's just hope both sides come to their senses before lighting a huge pile of money on fire.
I know you asked Bima but I think the reason is that they want teams to use partially guaranteed or non-guaranteed years more. Like what Dampier and Buillps had in there final years. Ironically Morey is all ready doing this, check out the final year of Scola's deal. Morey is already ahead of the game.
Not that I like sporting leagues being compared to economic principles, if you absolutely had to label the nba, or pretty much any sporting league, the closest system is fascism, everyone may act in their best interests provided that it doesn't offside or harm the central authority, whose head ultimately maintains dictatorship level executive powers. Personally I think the revenue split should be 50/50, if Milwaukee doesn't turn up at Staples, the Lakers would get a big fat zero, but the lakers are taking 50/50 of every game they play at staples. So if for example the league had 3 teams, the lakers making 100m, the rockets making 40 and the bobcats making 10, the rockets would get 20+25 (1/2 of half the games they play at staples)+2.5 = 47.5 per year, the bobcats would get 5+25+10 = 40 per year and the lakers would get 50+10+2.5 = 62.5, the lakers are still making the most by a fair margin, but your league isn't looking like its headed to 2 teams in the near future. So long as the central authority, ie the league wants to keep teams in Charlotte, New Orleans etc, teams from cities with 10-15m people need to accept that cities with 2m people need a way to compete and exist.
My guess is that a ban on team options was a compromise from the league for the players agreeing to a ban on player options. These bans will increase certainty when making trades and otherwise planning for future years. For instance, New Orleans suffered through the entire 2010-11 season without knowing whether or not David West was going to exercise his ETO (basically, a player option). That uncertainty may have played a role in them trading for Carl Landry and making other roster decisions. Eliminating these types of player options would give teams a little better picture of their roster from one season to the next.
@aleron ... posted this in another less active thread: What are the league's main sources of BRI? The national TV deals with Disney & TNT. That money is split evenly I believe. But each individual team also has local tv deals and gate receipts which is kept by each individual team. The main problem is that the big markets have such massive revenues in the last 2 "local" areas in comparison the the other smaller market teams. But the Lakers need the Twolves of the world to come into their building and lose to conduct business. Without them the Lakers huge profits would be impossible. In theory the gate receipts & local tv deals should be split somewhat. A 50/50 split doesn't make sense. The Lakers of the world should be awarded for marketing their team, negotiating their deals, etc; but they can't play a game without other teams to play. All the NBA teams should keep like 65% of their "local" moneys. The remaining 35% should be thrown in a pot. After all 30 NBA teams surrender their 35% that pot should be divided equally amongst the 30 teams. That way the big market teams are rewarding their opponents without whom they have no game to sell to their fans. Well run teams would still benefit from their ingenuity and business acumen, but would be returning some $ into the NBA in general to keep smaller markets viable. Would love to hear if I am misreading how BRI is split/generated.
No I just disagree on 50/50 not making sense, it's not ingenuity that creates the rich teams, it's big markets, the Lakers could be run by a complete moron (like for example, Jerry Buss' son) and they'd still be in the top cpl for most profitable despite post salary tax having a player salary output of nearly 80m more than some other teams, and then you have the r****dness that plagued the knicks for decades but still has them as the league's most valuable franchise.... On the other hand, Warren Buffett couldn't turn Charlotte or Portland into a 'rich' franchise, although the latter does have the league's richest owner, but that shouldn't be part of the equation, this isn't the EPL.
Right. That's what I would like to know, too. And I hope they define use of exception based on whether they take you over the limit at the moment of use, not based on what an owner's salary was for the previous year.
Good Bye Extend and Trade is an answer to attention w**** named Carmelo from owners. They really show that they can't stand that
I actually agree with banning the extend-and-trade, due to exactly what Melo pulled with the Nuggets. According to Stern (haven't double-checked it), only Melo (2011) and KG (2007) were extended and traded under the prior CBA, so you won't see a drastic change in how player movement was affected by this previously. It will also save Orlando, New Orleans and New Jersey from being held hostage like Denver was last year. I'm fine with that.
Hilarious, it never ends. The NBA will never get back on track without a franchise tag. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/nets/nets_deron_williams_won_commit_to_2iko7gkKvVv25WfLeQOU7L
In fairness to D-Will, the franchise is moving to Brooklyn in the not-too-distant future. Even if he was committed to the Nets, there's nothing wrong with deciding not to buy a house in New Jersey right now.
TheMother-Load: The NBA's official proposal, both the Nov. 6 edition, the Nov. 10 concessions and the "reset" proposal. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/266285/nba-proposal-11-11-2011.pdf
regarding the new "Room" exception: How does this help the players? I read this as only beneficial to the teams. Doesn't this allow an owner to tell free agents that they are forfeiting their Mid-level and Bi-annual in favor of using a smaller exception?
The Rockets have 9 million in cap space. They can spend all nine and then use the exception. Under the current system, you couldnt use the exceptions if you have cap space. Its an avenue for teams with cap space to spend more, which helps players.
heyp, I agree completely with larsv8's answer (although not sure I agree with the cap figures). Also, to further clarify, under the prior CBA, teams opting to use cap space AUTOMATICALLY waived their right to use the MLE or BAE. This is not new. The players (ought to) realize that. Based solely on its own merits as a line-item in the owners' latest proposal, this is definitely a substantive concession in favor of the players. Like allowing an entirely new additional set of BAEs to become available for players who would otherwise make the minimum salary (i.e., less than one-third of what the BAE or "Room" Exception pay). Frankly, as someone who has previously complained about the relative disadvantage a team that was, say, $6M under the cap had to an over-the-cap team in filling out its roster with quality players, I think this is a great addition to the new CBA, one that will benefit both players and owners alike.
I read from other sources that this Room Exception is only available to teams who are $2.5m or less under the cap see Howard Beck in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/s...rns-latest-ultimatum.html?_r=2&ref=basketball "A new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two years, was created for teams that are just below the cap (i.e. with less than $2.5 million of cap room). " So you are saying that "Under the Cap" means $2.5m under the cap including the cap hold on other exceptions? Or $2.5m under the cap after renouncing the other exceptions? EDIT: OK, I see you are all saying the former, not the later.
Yeah, knew that. I just find media gets this confused sometimes (i.e., not counting the cap holds on exceptions when reporting cap room, rather assuming they will be renounced), so that's the clarification I was looking for. So, $2.5m under the cap includes the cap holds on other exceptions -- prior to renouncing them. I see now.
