Gonna suck for the Cavs if Kyrie and Thompson pan out to be studs. Good luck trying to resign them based on their bird rights. This could hurt a lot of teams who have a lot of young players who deserve big contracts. I'm not a fan of this proposal.
Ahhhh thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense. I wonder if Mark Cuban is still willing to pay that much in taxes to sustain such a high payroll....eh, he probably will. That rich b*stard.
They should plan accordingly. Anything that promotes the fiscal responsibility of the owners is ok by me. It will ultimately lead to more parity in the league, which, imo, is always good.
4x? Wow - (I am assuming that this threshold would not be put in for the first year, and that amnesty options would be available, but using the Lakers as an example.) So, if the luxury tax is around 70million again this year, the Lakers, being 21 million over that, would owe 84 million in luxury tax? (Sheridan's website gets blocked at my office.)
You think it sucks for the Cavs, just think about what Pat Riley must think of this idea. Sure, he's got maybe the best chance to win multiple championships in the next 2-3 years, but his team's championship window may have just closed to 5 years. That's when all the contracts of Lebron, Wade and Bosh expire. With all other player salaries increasing year-to-year, Riley will likely only be able to re-sign ONE of them at "market value", with the other(s) needing to take substantial pay cuts. Even if one of them opts out early (or, stated better, if Riley can convince 2 of the 3 NOT to opt out early), it still means that the Heat would most likely end up not being able to retain one of their Big Three. So, . . . so long, Chris Bosh, when your current contract expires. (Keep in mind that Bosh will still be in the later part of his prime when that happens.)
I don't know. it sounds a lot like Income Tax. Progressive more, the more you spend, which is the way it is in the current CBA now; I believe. Only dollars above a tax bracket are taxed at that amount. Not all Lakers money would get hit at 4:1. something like this: dollars that are $0-5m over the tax are 1:1. dollars that are $5-10m over the tax are 2:1. dollars that are $10-15m over the tax are 3:1. dollars that are >$15m over the tax are 4:1. So the Laker's would be: $5m + (for first 5m over the limit) $10m + (for 2nd 5m...and so on) $15m + $24m ------- $54m rather than $84 This is just for illustration. But I would assume the tax would come in tax brackets.
Assuming it becomes law, this is probably pretty close to what the owners proposal looks like, numbers wise. Generally I like it. It still allows the richer teams to have an advantage over the poorer ones, but to a lesser extent. And if greater revenue sharing is part of the package also, it will make any team think twice about entering the 3x and 4x tax territory. For a hypothetical example, lets say Team A is already 10M over. Its the trade deadline and your wanting to add $8M to your team payroll in a trade or signing. 8M x 1 5M x 3 3M x 4 ------- $35M Ouch! Same scenario, but Team A is at the limit. 8M x 1 5M x 1 3M x 2 ------- $19M
I think there should be some slack for players that are drafted by teams and remain with them. This would be another equalizer for "weaker" franchises that draft well.
I think this would encourage teams to tank too much. For the draft would become the only way to build and maintain a team of multi-star players.
This is an admittedly wild analogy and prolly not nearly as apt as it sounds in my head, but the concept seems to make sense to me. Here's my plan to cut down on murders: First, Im going to tell you it's illegal to murder people. Now, if you disobey me and murder someone anyway, Im not going to do anything to you the first time. But you'll get in trouble if you murder anyone else within the next year. Then after that year, you'll get in trouble if you murder certain people, but we'll allow some exceptions of people you can murder without getting in trouble, but you're only allowed one per year. BUT, if you save up your rights each year to kill an allowed person you can trade those rights to someone else for their right to kill anyone. If you break any of these rules, Im not going to physically stop you from continuing to do it, but you're going to have to pay everyone a small tax every time you kill somebody. Y'all think this'll keep murders down? No? You don't think telling people not to do something, but then coming up with endless exemptions for when they ARE allowed to do it, will stop them from doing it? Then why does David Stern think that this is the best way to get owners to stop throwing r****ded amounts of money at players? It doesn't matter if you say they can't spend $40mil or $65mil, if you give them exemptions to spend as much as they want, they're gonna spend as much as they want.
The "only one Bird rights player per season" rule would only materially adversely impact teams who either (a) draft two studs in the same year (a la Cleveland in 2011 or Seattle in 2007) or (b) have a veteran due for a new contract in the same year as a young player's rookie deal is expiring. For those interested, here is how that rule would possibly affect the Rockets. Morey has done a good job "lining up" his players' contracts so as not to be TOO hard-hit by this rule if it goes into effect in the new CBA: 2011 - Chuck Hayes 2012 - either Courtney Lee or Goran Dragic 2013 - either Kevin Martin or Chase Budinger 2014 - either Kyle Lowry or Patrick Patterson 2015 - Marcus Morris (or 2011 free agent acquisition?) 2016 - One of Houston's 2012 free agent acquisitions? (I limited this list to those players likely to be "difference makers" for the Rockets in the coming years.) Obviously, a million things can change during this time. But still.
https://twitter.com/#!/KBergCBS/status/119115861473759232 https://twitter.com/#!/KBergCBS/status/119116038695694337
5 years from now Wade will turn 34 mid season, Bosh would turn 32 at towards the end of the season and James would be 31. Are you sure it would be Wade you'd be resigning?
Regarding the one Bird per year. This would also eliminate SnTs of one while signing another under Bird rights.
Team and player options could help mitigate the damage of a one-Bird-player-per-year rule. The Superfriends have player options on their last 2 years, if I'm reading Hoopshype right. So one player could decline the first option, another the second option, and the third ride the contract to the end. Of course, to do this they have to leave some money on the table.
The 4:1 ratio is still effectively a hard-cap, but this is a sign that we're actually starting to get down to the real negotiations since they're going away from a hard-cap/no hard-cap anchor to something where you can actually get to a middle point. Now the 4:1 penalty is the new Owner-side anchor, but that'll be bargained away with the BRI split and probably move closer to Bima's 2:1 number. I suspect the penalty is going to depend on the internal negotiations between big market vs. small market owners. If the big market guys get the upper hand, they'll probably make more BRI concessions to the players.
S&T needs to just go away, period. It is one of the worst things out there and does little other than let max players hold their team hostage. That rule, simply put, washed away all advantages a home team had of keeping its free agents. A ratcheted up luxury tax has been something I was calling for all along* - already we had about 22-25 teams scared to death of the tax line. It was working. Just improve on it (put fear into NY, Dal, LA, and Mia) rather than jump feet first into a brand new system. Plus, it doubles as at least some measure of revenue sharing. Hard cap just means Dolan and Buss gorge themselves on 9-figure profits year in and year out. It's shaping up to be a very fair deal. I think they may end up with an agreement in a month. *gratuitous, for sure. sorry. but true! http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=200206
Basketball Related Income is the amount of money generated from tickets, concession contracts, merchandise, and national television contracts. Currently, the players get 57% of BRI, the owners want a new split where the players would get in the mid-40% range.
