Tag: NBA lockout

NBA And Players Representatives Meet To Discuss Possible Settlement

Draft age limit, other “B-list” issues still to be resolved


There are still some big issues sitting out there unresolved in the NBA labor talks.

At what age can players declare for the NBA draft? Keep it at 19 (the one-and-dones) or move it to 20? Or 18? Then there are the specifics of the NBA drug testing policies. And the rules in the unlikely event of the league contracts a team. Plus the owners still have to finalize their revenue sharing plan.

That’s just the tip of iceberg of the B-list issues the lawyers for the NBA owners and players still have to hammer out. They may be secondary issues to how to divide up the money, but they impact the lives of players and future generations of NBA players.

These issues are not going to derail the framework of the NBA labor deal hammered out by NBA owners and players in the wee hours of Saturday morning in New York.

Neither side can afford to let that happen. The five-month NBA lockout that cost 480 games of this season has already tested the faith of NBA fans and risked alienating the fan base in the middle of the worst recession the nation has seen in more than 50 years. To go back on the handshake deal now, to offer a season then pull it back, would simply devastate the game in a way neither side can afford to do. What’s the point of arguing over how to divide the revenue pie if the pie gets much smaller?

But there are still plenty of issues on the table. And the sides don’t agree on them.

The NBA draft age limit will be the biggest. In early proposals the owners wanted to move it to age 20 — essentially two-and-dones. The players have said this is something they want to see moved back to age 18. Expect this to move to 20 or stay the same — this is a more important issue for owners. They do not want to go back to scouting high school players again, both for the expense of it and the unpredictability of the picks. The owners like the idea of more college ball during which time players can be evaluated, plus the NCAA hype machine can already start turning them into stars fans want to follow. Both good things for the owners. Which is why they want this more than the players want the issue moved back to age 18.

This will be one of the next issues on the table and could be decided before the weekend is over, according to a source near the talks.

Other issues include can the league start testing for human growth hormone with a blood test as Major League Baseball just agreed to? That will be a hard sell with players but would be welcomed by many fans.

Another key issue for fans will be the rules on assigning players to the D-League. In the old deal players could be sent down only for the first two years of their contracts and at full NBA salary. Owners want to be able to send players down for more years — up to five — and reduce their salary while down in the “minors.” More years is one thing but the salary reductions would be a very tough sell to the union.

Almost tied to that, should the NBA draft be expanded to a third round? The idea from owners — aside creating a little more draft buzz — is to find guys that they can send to the D-League and develop into NBA players over a few years. Already much of the second round is that way, do we need more?

The other big issue out there is not in the labor deal itself but will be key — the owners still need to finalize the revenue sharing plan amongst themselves. Proposals were put forward but the owners didn’t feel they could talk about revenue sharing until they saw how much they were getting back from the players. Now they know. But getting big markets to fork over more to small markets is always going to be contentious.

There are a host of other interesting little issues we will get to discuss just like those over the coming weeks.

Point is, while the NBA is on the verge of a labor deal there are a lot of issues still on the table. Negotiations will continue. And for guys like high school seniors with dreams of the NBA, those talks matter a lot.

NBA owners won. Big. But the players can live with it.

CORRECTED VERSION - NBA And Player's Association Meet To Negotiate CBA

As the talk starts to build of all the little concessions the NBA players got in the last week to make an NBA labor deal happen in time for games on Christmas day, remember this:

The owners won.

In a massive way. This is an Attila the Hun sweeping through Eastern Europe kind of win — devastating and total.

David Stern and the owners came into these NBA labor talks saying they lost more than $300 million last season and $400 million the year before that. By getting the players to agree to what is in practice a 50/50 split of basketball related income (although the deal allows the players to get to 51 percent if revenue increases enough) the owners got the players to essentially accept a 12 percent salary cut that will cover those losses.

This will come to more than $3 billion back in the owners’ pockets if the deal lasts the full 10 years (both sides can opt out of the deal after six years). What’s more, the deal means the players will have shorter contracts with lower raises going forward. Plus, the system now ties the hands of larger market, bigger spending teams helping depress salaries that way.

The owners will tell you they didn’t get everything they wanted, some will vote against this deal. Those guys are fools — they got more than enough to balance their books. Combined with more robust revenue sharing — soon to be triple what it was — small market owners should be able to break even or turn a profit. They should be able to compete (they could before, ask San Antonio and Oklahoma City). If they can’t, well, it’s on them now. It’s not the system.

All that said, the players got enough small victories — and a couple key ones — that this is a deal they can live with.

Early in the lockout, PBT spoke with former NBA players union president Charles Grantham and he said the smartest move the union ever made, the thing they could not give up in these talks, was keeping the salary cap tied to league revenue. Early offers from the owners wanted to detach the two — players salaries would stay flat at about $2 billion a year and all of the money from expected growth in the league (such as a new national television deal coming in 2016) would go straight to the owners pockets.

The players won that fight. They will get a smaller share of that revenue, but as the league’s revenue grows player salaries will go up. Grow the game and grow how much money you make.

The other two hills the players were willing to die on were guaranteed contracts and a hard salary cap. The owners relented on those as well. Yes, the owners now have more ways to get out of bad contracts faster, and yes the new luxury tax rules make it much more costly for high-revenue teams to spend big, but the players won those fights on principle.

There were other small victories, such as getting the threshold to get to the 51 percent of revenue lowered to a makeable goal. The players got the extend-and-trade so their biggest stars can better control their exits from teams. They got a solid mid-level exception for tax paying teams.

That was enough. It needed to be enough because the players were going to start losing more money in salary than they were making back fighting over the scraps of this deal.

But this negotiation was all about the money, and the owners got a lot more of it. They won. The small market owners in particular should now be able to turn a profit. The players got a way to save face at the end but the owner won and won big.

With this caveat…

In 1999, after a lockout that lasted into January, the owners were thought to have won. They got a cap on max salaries, so that there would be no more deals like the one Kevin Garnett and Shaquille O’Neal had gotten. They got a percentage that capped players’ salaries in total at 57 percent. Everyone said the owners won, including the players.

A dozen years later, the owner were crying that the deal was unfair and killing them. You never know how things will play out. And you can bet in 10 years, when this deal formally ends, there will be owners saying what a bad deal this is for them and how it is killing them. Even if the fault is their own management.

Owners have a lot to prove in the life of this CBA

Mark Cuban, David Stern

It’s over, and now we have to look back and survey the wreckage. 480 games lost. Millions of dollars in league revenue, local economy revenue, player salaries. Fans hurt by the way the league and players left them behind in pursuit of more money. Momentum lost after the most exciting season in over a decade. And for what?

Was any of this worth the effort? Was any of this worth the price?

For the owners, it better be.

The owners started this lockout, ending the structure of the league 149 days ago. They stood in pursuit of a total victory, wanting to crush the union, to instill measures to send the players’ economic influence in this league back to the stone ages, while removing the kind of power they had shown over the past 18 months in things like “The Decision” and Carmelo Anthony’s move to New York. They used draconian tactics, forcing their way past precedents set by the last deal and flying in the face of well-reasoned arguments that competitive balance cannot exist in the NBA. They decided to show it was their league and they’d run it how they saw fit.

They’ve gotten their chance, now we’ll have to see whether the fragile peace can hold, and if any of what the owners believed was true turns out to be grounded in reality.

Over the course of the next six years (the players will undoubtedly opt-out before the ten-year agreement is up), the owners have a lot to prove. They have to prove they can profit under the new system, that their biggest enemy is not themselves and their own inabilities to control spending and make wise decisions. They have to prove that competitive balance can be achieved and that small markets can now compete with larger ones for free agents and on the floor. Failure to do so will render their philosophy in this debacle a falsehood and pave the way for a further, potentially longer lockout six years down the road.

The split of BRI should help, but there’s still  the capacity for teams to fail. And that’s not because of the drain from the players or wasteful positions the league mostly eliminated with layoffs. It’s because if you run your team badly, no one wants to watch them. It’s because you can’t profit if you don’t run your business well, and in the NBA, running your business well is winning games. So the league needs to prove all this talk about competitive balance will result in small market teams competing for championships. The Oklahoma City Thunder may wind up proving that the same way the Spurs did in the last agreement, by simply running their team well. But given that New York, Chicago, LA, and Boston are set to compete for at least two more years of this agreement (and most people consider Miami a large market even if it does not qualify as one under metrics), it’ll be a steep climb. Are we going to see conference champions in Indiana, Milwaukee, Memphis, Portland? Because if not, if things remain the same, the owners will have some explaining to do.

Games didn’t need to be lost. The season didn’t need to be shortened. A deal could have been struck months ago. The owners already won this battle in September, but they kept pushing until they had nearly no option left. They got what they wanted, a system more under their control and a bigger cut of the pie. The players got what they wanted, the opportunity to earn their money. The fans got what they wanted, a season, even if it is shortened. Now it’s time to see whether everything the owners went to war over was worth it at all.