NBA PA Rejects "smoothing mechanism" for salary cap

[WiggyRuss]

Players' union rejects salary-cap smoothing; historic cap increase in NBA set - ESPN

After a meeting this week failed to produce a compromise, the NBA is now preparing itself for the largest salary-cap jump in league history for the 2016-17 season.



[+] Enlarge
Gregory Shamus/NBAE/Getty ImagesLeBron James could take his salary from about $22 million next season to around $30 million if he signs for the maximum salary in 2016.


It's a move that could have significant implications for potential 2016 free agents such as Kevin Durant and LeBron James as well as teams that have positioned themselves to have cap space, most notably the Los Angeles Lakers andNew York Knicks.

The NBA announced Wednesday that the players' union formally rejected a so-called "cap-smoothing" proposal that would pay players the same 51 percent of basketball-related income they get under the current collective-bargaining agreement, while artificially lowering the cap over several years. The plan was put forth to manage the influx of revenue that is coming with the $24 billion television deal that begins after next season.

NBA teams using internal data are projecting the salary cap to jump to between $88 million and $92 million per team, sources told ESPN. To compare, this season the cap is set at $63 million and next season it is projected to land at about $66 million. To put it into perspective, the largest salary-cap jump in history is $7 million in one season. What happens in 2016 could triple that leap.

Owners have been trying to avoid such a spike because it would dramatically raise salary levels for free agents that season. James, for example, could take his salary from about $22 million next season to around $30 million if he signs for the maximum salary in 2016.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

I like it because it means my Team will have some money to add to their core players even after maxing out DeAndre this Summer.

But, It stinks for a Team like OKC who has to worry about losing a guy like Durant with zero compensation.

In a normal year, the Wizards would need to gut their roster to add a guy like Durant in 2016.

Now, they don't have to do a thing.

Same with the Cavs .

 

[Davis_Mike]

Here comes the lockout after the 16/17 season when owners/players can opt out. Dummies should have went with cap smoothing over a drastic nearly 50% increase to the cap. Look at how the NFLPA did it. They went with cap smoothing and are seeing the big jumps of $7+ mil every year.

Most owners will just go the backdoor collusion route for that one season & then opt out of the CBA. The players will lose more than they would have gain if they went with cap smoothing.

 

[wildturkey]

Here comes the lockout after the 16/17 season when owners/players can opt out. Dummies should have went with cap smoothing over a drastic nearly 50% increase to the cap. Look at how the NFLPA did it. They went with cap smoothing and are seeing the big jumps of $7+ mil every year.

Most owners will just go the backdoor collusion route for that one season & then opt out of the CBA. The players will lose more than they would have gain if they went with cap smoothing.

It's not that dumb if they have a plan. They can get a big cash influx in 2016, then the Union can opt out in 2017 and push for a friendly deal than they got in 2011. It's a real possibility that could happen since it looks like the NBAPA actually has real leadership now that Billy Hunter is gone.

 

[Davis_Mike]

It's not that dumb if they have a plan. They can get a big cash influx in 2016, then the Union can opt out in 2017 and push for a friendly deal than they got in 2011. It's a real possibility that could happen since it looks like the NBAPA actually has real leadership now that Billy Hunter is gone.

A handful of players will see an increase at the expense of all the others. That's not a good thing for the league overall.

You don't think the owners will just suppress spending that year? Or rollback the cap when they opt out after 16/17 thus costing all the other non-superstars & soon-to-be FA(s) money in the new CBA. That's what the NFL did at the start of their new CBA & added cap smoothing that has worked at well for the players after the smoothing started resulting in increased jumps in the cap. FA(s) in the following 1-2 seasons lost out on a lot of money.

Lockouts 99% of the time favor the owners. Billionaires > Millionaires

 

[wildturkey]

A handful of players will see an increase at the expense of all the others. That's not a good thing for the league overall.

You don't think the owners will just suppress spending that year? Or rollback the cap when they opt out after 16/17 thus costing all the other non-superstars & soon-to-be FA(s) money in the new CBA. That's what the NFL did at the start of their new CBA & added cap smoothing that has worked at well for the players after the smoothing started resulting in increased jumps in the cap. FA(s) in the following 1-2 seasons lost out on a lot of money.

Lockouts 99% of the time favor the owners. Billionaires > Millionaires

I doubt the owners will suppress spending given the history of the league. They by and large tend to pay market value for the players regardless so I don't think they'll be hurt by it. I see the logic behind the PA's moves so far. The lack of smoothing will hurt the minimum level guys and some old players that will retire within the next year, but it'll be counted as a win if the PA gets back any ground they lost in 2011

 

[GNG]

I like it because it means my Team will have some money to add to their core players even after maxing out DeAndre this Summer.

But, It stinks for a Team like OKC who has to worry about losing a guy like Durant with zero compensation.

In a normal year, the Wizards would need to gut their roster to add a guy like Durant in 2016.

Now, they don't have to do a thing.

Same with the Cavs .

The NBA would be better if they had a system like the NFL.

 

[Davis_Mike]

I doubt the owners will suppress spending given the history of the league. They by and large tend to pay market value for the players regardless so I don't think they'll be hurt by it. I see the logic behind the PA's moves so far. The lack of smoothing will hurt the minimum level guys and some old players that will retire within the next year, but it'll be counted as a win if the PA gets back any ground they lost in 2011

The problem is that they could lose even more ground in a new CBA. There is still a lot the owners as a whole gave up in the last CBA. They could once again take a hardline stance. Who do think buckles first in a prolonged lockout? Most owners can lose a whole season & not feel too many effects, can the average player say that?

It won't just be the lower level or older guys feeling the pinch if there is a lockout & the owners will end up with what the want, cap smoothing, anyways. What you will see is what happened in the NFL. Most owners will impose an artificial cap on spending, many of the big market guys won't, but enough owners will that it will have an impact. The superstar FA players will get their money & most of the rest of FA(s) will see normal spending. Then after the lockout, you will see a rollback of the cap or it could become a hard cap, thus creating an environment where there will be less money available while there are these large contracts taking up a larger % of the cap space. That would be really bad for mid level to good players who become FA(s) soon after a new CBA.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

The NBA would be better if they had a system like the NFL.

Agreed.

And at the top of the to do list should be " Non-guaranteed " contracts.

I feel bad that the Bucks have to pay a guy like Sanders after he decides he can't stop smoking weed, so he doesn't want to play.

The players would shit their pants before they agreed to that.

 

[GNG]

Agreed.

And at the top of the to do list should be " Non-guaranteed " contracts.

I feel bad that the Bucks have to pay a guy like Sanders after he decides he can't stop smoking weed, so he doesn't want to play.

The players would shit their pants before they agreed to that.

You're right, the players like things the way they are.

 

[wildturkey]

The problem is that they could lose even more ground in a new CBA. There is still a lot the owners as a whole gave up in the last CBA. They could once again take a hardline stance. Who do think buckles first in a prolonged lockout? Most owners can lose a whole season & not feel too many effects, can the average player say that?

It won't just be the lower level or older guys feeling the pinch if there is a lockout & the owners will end up with what the want, cap smoothing, anyways. What you will see is what happened in the NFL. Most owners will impose an artificial cap on spending, many of the big market guys won't, but enough owners will that it will have an impact. The superstar FA players will get their money & most of the rest of FA(s) will see normal spending. Then after the lockout, you will see a rollback of the cap or it could become a hard cap, thus creating an environment where there will be less money available while there are these large contracts taking up a larger % of the cap space. That would be really bad for mid level to good players who become FA(s) soon after a new CBA.

You're basing this all on the belief that its a fact the PA will lose out on the CBA. That's not a given any more. With Hunter gone, they stand the chance at forming a legit union. A solid union can get good deals for itself. You keep bringing up the NFL, but their union sucks and got crushed last CBA (just like the NBA). The goal is to be more like MLB, where their union is pretty darn strong and does well for its players.

 

[WiggyRuss]

The players were absolutely decimated during the last labor deal. They went from 57% share of revenue, down to 51%....after that, new owners could not by in fast enough. A lot of the players saw how teams were selling for astronomical sums, like the Bucks for over $500M and the players knew they got taken to the woodshed.

The last straw for the players was the sale of the Clippers for 2 Billion. The owners had cried poor during the sessions and that they were losing money- yet this guy pays over 500 million more than what many people thought the team was worth.

Michelle Roberts, their new director, has already been laying the ground work for a highly contentious negotiation- and - I think I was naive when I felt they might be able to agree to a smoothing mechanism- because there was no way in hell the players were going to give up any kind of leverage (or even perceived leverage) before the next agreement is negotiated.

I think the owners will be ready to give back a little- especially with this new TV deal. They will be making more money than ever- and really- their costs are not going to go up. The players will "win" this round, but in reality the owners will just give back a little after scalping the players last time. The owners will probably have public support on their sides because they will show how they are willing to budge and give back to the players- when really- they should never have gotten as much as they did last time.

To me, and who knows if its true, it seems the players as a whole are taking this negotiation a lot more seriously than last time- and have a much more capable management team, and high level players invested in the outcome.

 

[gordontrue]

I'm struggling to see what possible incentive there is for the Players in a cap-smoothing plan? What do they have to gain? Why would they accept that plan?

The NBA is very different from the NFL in that 1 player can drastically change the win total and profitability of a team. Big time NFL players get cut all the time... because they're more replaceable despite their big name. NBA players... they will get paid.

Today's superstars are actually underpaid (relative to their worth) with the current max.

 

[lakersrule]

I think the PA will be in the driver's seat during this next CBA negotiations. The main factor during the last negotiation was teams losing money. Since then they've seen a massive new television deal signed and franchises being sold for record sums. The league isn't hurting for money. The PA will get back some of what they gave up last time.

 

[wildturkey]

I think the PA will be in the driver's seat during this next CBA negotiations. The main factor during the last negotiation was teams losing money. Since then they've seen a massive new television deal signed and franchises being sold for record sums. The league isn't hurting for money. The PA will get back some of what they gave up last time.

They weren't even losing money the last time. It was ruse with creative accounting to use as justification to lock the players out and take a bigger chunk of the revenue. They were plotting ahead knowing the TV deal was coming and they had to lop the revenue in their favor before the deal was put into place. That's why Hunter's group was so shitty. This was planned for awhile but his group acted like they had no idea what was coming. But now, there is no real way the owners can cry poor again. But you watch, come 2017 they'll come up with something like that and fans will side with the owners for completely blind reasons. The PA looks to have legit leadership right now so I'm interested in seeing what happens.

 

[gordontrue]

They weren't even losing money the last time. It was ruse with creative accounting to use as justification to lock the players out and take a bigger chunk of the revenue. They were plotting ahead knowing the TV deal was coming and they had to lop the revenue in their favor before the deal was put into place. That's why Hunter's group was so shitty. This was planned for awhile but his group acted like they had no idea what was coming. But now, there is no real way the owners can cry poor again. But you watch, come 2017 they'll come up with something like that and fans will side with the owners for completely blind reasons. The PA looks to have legit leadership right now so I'm interested in seeing what happens.

 

[lakersrule]

They weren't even losing money the last time. It was ruse with creative accounting to use as justification to lock the players out and take a bigger chunk of the revenue. They were plotting ahead knowing the TV deal was coming and they had to lop the revenue in their favor before the deal was put into place. That's why Hunter's group was so shitty. This was planned for awhile but his group acted like they had no idea what was coming. But now, there is no real way the owners can cry poor again. But you watch, come 2017 they'll come up with something like that and fans will side with the owners for completely blind reasons. The PA looks to have legit leadership right now so I'm interested in seeing what happens.

Yeah, I should have inserted apparently before losing.

I think the PA with this new lawyer and a couple of superstars leading the way will have a lot more power and influence during these next negotiations.

 

[Mark Engleson]

Agreed.

And at the top of the to do list should be " Non-guaranteed " contracts.

I feel bad that the Bucks have to pay a guy like Sanders after he decides he can't stop smoking weed, so he doesn't want to play.

The players would shit their pants before they agreed to that.

Larry Sanders gets paid because the Bucks agreed to add a special clause to his contract guarantee his payment in the event that he was unable to play due to mental illness. It's not a standard guarantee. There's a term, "moral hazard," which means that when create a situation for someone to profit from bad behavior, you encourage the bad behavior.

 

[wildturkey]

Yeah, I should have inserted apparently before losing.

I think the PA with this new lawyer and a couple of superstars leading the way will have a lot more power and influence during these next negotiations.

The key is Lebron and CP3 will have to put something on the table for the rank and file players. They can't just be fighting for no max salaries, which is something that clearly would only benefit them, and thus could split the union.

 

[trojanfan12]

The key is Lebron and CP3 will have to put something on the table for the rank and file players. They can't just be fighting for no max salaries, which is something that clearly would only benefit them, and thus could split the union.

I don't follow these negotiations all that closely because I find millionaire's fighting with billionaire's over money that is supplied by thousandaire's to be a bit distasteful.

However, from what I do follow, it seems that your post hits on what has always been the biggest problem with these negotiations. The star players already make the most money and most of them make more money outside of basketball with commercials, etc. than they make from their teams. They can holdout virtually indefinitely. It's the rank and file players that end up caving in because their income all but stops during work stoppage's.