What Will the New CBA Look Like?

by Ceasaleo on Jan 26, 2011 11:13 PM CST

We're always on here proposing trades, and making deals, but without knowing the rules. No one knows the rules, because they don't even exist. The majority of articles I've read say the league wants a hard cap, but is it the NHL kind with no give or the NFL one with a couple of soft spots? How much will it be set at? Will there still be exceptions?

Right now, if we stand pat, we look pretty good for any type of cap alterations. If we do make a trade look for it to be an expiring contract (rental) or young, cheap guy (potential). No big names.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Can't really answer that

because the parties aren’t even close to making a deal. The owners initially proposed a hard cap with a reduction of players’ salaries to something like 40% BRI (down from 57%, an $800 million or so reduction). They’ve also discussed at some point or another lesser guarantees and shorter contracts, revenue sharing, a franchise tag, and other spending restrictions. Meanwhile the NBAPA mostly wants to keep the current system. They’ve been willing to concede on a slight reduction in salaries, but in return they want to build upon the current framework with things like another MLE and less trade restrictions.

Basically the whole thing is a big mess. The NBA lost over $350 million last year (with a similar number expected this year), and that new Forbes list shows that a majority of NBA franchises are now losing money. In such a scenario, you’ve got people on one side of the negotiating table who are not just willing, but would prefer to take a season or two off than to keep losing money in the current CBA. And on the other side you’ve got a union of a few hundred players that won’t get paid next year if there’s a lockout. It really depends on how much the players are willing to concede, and given how far apart their offers are, I’m not optimistic that there will be basketball in 2012.

Rose before hoes

by Bullsfan7210 on Jan 27, 2011 1:30 AM CST reply actions

And about the Bulls

I’m not really convinced we’re in all that great of shape either. The 2012-13 payroll doesn’t look that good compared to the rest of the NBA. Our core consists of Boozer’s new deal, the infamous Deng contract, Noah’s extension, and Rose will be making near-max type money. That’s four contracts totaling at least $55 million

Rose before hoes

by Bullsfan7210 on Jan 27, 2011 1:37 AM CST up reply actions

If they do institute a hard cap

I don’t see how there won’t be some kind of grandfather effect for current contracts. Especially given that NBA contracts are guaranteed, it could be impossible for some teams to get under the cap.

by tuluse on Jan 27, 2011 2:39 AM CST up reply actions

Grandfathering existing contracts is one thing

assuming they’ll allow teams to re-sign players if they’re already over the cap is another. Plus, if a team is at or over the cap with less than a full roster, we have no idea what kind of allowance the CBA will give to sign role players to fill out the team.

That’s why I agree with the Bulls’ (apparent) position to be prudent with payroll until the new CBA comes into play and Rose has signed his extension. They should be OK on both fronts if they don’t add any major salary.

And if you look, the two teams in the worst shape are the Lakers and the Heat. That makes me soooo happy.

by kozzer on Jan 27, 2011 8:58 AM CST up reply actions

When the NHL...

went to a hard cap they allowed teams to buy out current contracts at 2/3 value to get under the cap. The payment didn’t count towards the cap as long as it was made/agreed to before a certain date. The caveat being that player would become a FA but could not re-sign with the team that just bought him out.

If there’s a hard cap, I could see the league going one of two ways with it. And which way may depend on how long the lockout lasts.

Option 1 – Figure out the cap number then tack on $10M or something to help teams with contracts made under the old system. Next year though scale the addition back to $8M, then $6M, etc. until 5 years from now when the number is the number and almost all the current contracts should have expired.

Option 2 – Figure out a number and stick to it. It would force a ton of teams to cut/buyout players to get under or to simply have enough money to fill out the rest of the roster (think Miami). That would flood the FA market with players and there would be a lot of movement.

Option 2 might be threatened if the players drag out the process since Option 1 allows them to keep more money and stability. At least, if I was on the owners side of the table, that’s something I might think about doing.

What I want to know is how committed are particular owners to a hard cap knowing how it will immediately affect their own teams. Would Jerry Buss cave a little easier on this if he knew that it might cost them a player or two? What about the Miami owner?

Second what if – Who gets cut/bought out of Miami if they have to get rid of someone to either get under or just have enough money to sign 9-10 other guys. Do you cut Bosh because you can’t cut Wade (or can you?) and you can’t lose LeBron. A couple articles mention that Bosh has been the key to the Heat playing well this year so then do you lose on of the other guys? If so, would you really keep Wade over LeBron? Or would you actually get rid of the face of your franchise?

by CubFan81 on Jan 27, 2011 11:41 AM CST up reply actions

All very good points and questions

by kozzer on Jan 27, 2011 12:10 PM CST up reply actions

Players aren't guaranteed all of the money in their contracts

Salaries are limited to a certain percentage of basketball-related income, so a portion of every player’s paycheck is held in escrow in case of an overage. The league can cut salary in different ways, such as lowering the share of BRI while increasing some amounts in escrow, or adding a new buyout clause or some other plan. But you’re right, a new CBA can basically do whatever with the value of contracts as applied to cap restrictions. So existing contracts might only count 67% against the cap while new CBA contracts are full value, or something like the options CubFan81 mentioned. But regardless, you’re still looking at cuts across the board. So the point remains that the Bulls will have four players taking up a significant portion of the payroll. I think we’ll still be a great team, but it limits our ability to add another big piece

Rose before hoes

by Bullsfan7210 on Jan 27, 2011 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

Not true

in 2012-2013, the Bulls have 8 players under contract (guaranteed or not), plus Rose’s qualifying offer which would take effect before the extension, for a payroll of $57 million. Not sure where you’re getting your numbers from, but I usually get mine from poopsworld. I assume they’re accurate.

by kozzer on Jan 27, 2011 8:55 AM CST up reply actions

Same numbers

I didn’t phrase that right though. Boozer (15), Deng (13.4), and Noah (11.3) are under contract for a little under $40 million. Rose has a qualifying offer of only $9 million, and there’s no way he should accept that because he is worth a lot more on the market. Assuming he wants to sign for a near-max contract, he should at the very least make as much as Boozer, so that puts the price tag on those four payers at a minimum of $55 million. (Unless Rose is far more humble than I realize and he’s willing to take a significant pay cut so we can add more talent.)

Rose before hoes

by Bullsfan7210 on Jan 27, 2011 3:08 PM CST up reply actions

ah, ok... that makes sense

by kozzer on Jan 27, 2011 4:45 PM CST up reply actions

Like this, but with different terms...

http://www.nbpa.org/cba/2005

by drock8686 on Jan 27, 2011 9:27 AM CST reply actions

It seems to me that large market/small market competitiveness

dominates the owners’ positions.

If all teams made the same amount of money there would be no need for any salary/player movement constraints whatsoever. And there would be no need for a players’ union. But they don’t and there is. One thing the owners could do is distribute revenues equally, but then where would competition come from.

So for me the more interesting dynamic will be not that between the players and the owners, but between the large market/small market owners. I think that’s where the boundaries will be set for cap space, taxes, and things like the MLE. At this point who knows where those are?

by hlac on Jan 27, 2011 11:44 AM CST reply actions

there would be no need for a players’ union.

That’s not true at all.

by tuluse on Jan 27, 2011 5:16 PM CST up reply actions

If there were no salary/player movement constraints why would the players need a union?

by hlac on Jan 27, 2011 10:17 PM CST up reply actions

1) Owners would not be required to spend money
2) Owners would likely collude
3) Players would be unlikely to receive benefits

That’s just off the top of my head. Players need a union for the same reason every union ever has existed, and it has nothing to do with competitors for labor having equal money.

by tuluse on Jan 29, 2011 3:53 AM CST up reply actions