New CBA Rules Agreed To
We don't have a deal done so there's no deal till they figure out how to divvy up the cash, but at least we know a lot of the new rules that will be in place. Or at least, Howard Beck of the New York Times is reporting that we do. Here are some key items..
Luxury-tax rate: Teams will be charged $1.50 per $1 spent beyond a threshold, replacing the previous dollar-for-dollar tax, according to people who have seen the plan.
To further discourage spending, the tax will increase for every $5 million spent beyond the threshold: to $1.75 after $5 million, $2.25 after $10 million and $3 after $15 million.
If memory serves, this was a "blood issue" for the union. So much for that. Basically this will act as a harder soft cap but teams with oodles of cash (perhaps including Boston because of their new TV deal) would be willing to keep going over the threshold to put a title-competing team on the court.
Contract lengths: Players with "Bird" rights will be eligible for five-year deals, while others will be limited to four. The previous C.B.A. allowed for six-year (Bird) and five-year deals. The 1999 C.B.A. allowed for seven-year (Bird) and six-year deals.
That actually still sounds too long to me, but perhaps with the stiff luxury tax rates, teams will be smart enough to put in out clauses towards the end of most deals. That said, smart agents will look to drop that in any bidding war.
Raises: Annual raises will be reduced by several percentage points, possibly as low as 5 percent for Bird players and 3.5 percent for non-Bird players. The prior deal allowed raises as high as 10.5 percent (Bird) and 8 percent.
Basically a win for the owners.
Midlevel exception: It will start at $5 million, a decrease of $800,000. The contract length and annual raises attached to the exception remain under discussion.
I'm pretty surprised this didn't get lopped off even more, but I think $5M is fairly reasonable for a mid level guy (if by mid level you mean "solid starter, not a star" instead of "Brian Scalabrine."
Amnesty clause: Each team will be permitted to waive one player, with pay - anytime during the life of the C.B.A. - and have his salary be exempt from the cap and the luxury tax. Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.
Owners big Get Out Of Jail Free card. They don't deserve it, but I suppose the league will be better off if everyone gets one big mulligan. Doesn't help the Celtics much at all, unless Pierce or Rondo gets hurt badly in the next few years. It would not help us if we signed Jeff Green to a big contract and wanted out of it next summer. This will be perfect for teams like Portland who want to see if Brandon Roy has anything left in the tank before cutting ties.
Stretch exception: Teams will be permitted to stretch out payments to waived players, spreading out the cap hit, over several seasons. The payment schedule will be set by doubling the years left on the contract and adding one. (Thus a team waiving a player with two years left could pay him over five years.)
Sounds similar to what they already have in the NFL. Basically you can spread the pain of a bad contract over several years. In fact, if memory serves, this is what we were able to do with Vin Baker's dead money. This would give owners a little more confidence in signing bigger contracts to guys without eliminating the pain of bad contracts altogether.
So, how can Danny utilize these rules to better build a team now and for the future? I think it is going to be tough. There won't be a flood of amnesty cuts right away because there's no deadline for when you can use those cuts. He'll have the ability to use the Mid Level and he can give up to 5 years to guys like Jeff Green and Big Baby, but will he want to?
Other reports have indicated that sign-and-trades will still be an option and trades will be less difficult to match up money-wise. That might end up being the best immediate impact option for us depending on what we can get in return.
Also, the team can go as far over the tax threshold as Wyc will sign off on, so I guess there's always that.
I think things are going to get very interesting, ...you know, once they stop being really boring.
Related: Details of latest NBA negotiating session shed light on status of deal - Sam Amick - SI.com
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
$1,50 for every $1 spent over the threshold......wow
Teams would be wise to remember what Shakespeare says about that?
“All that Glitters is not Gold”
Is it Soup Yet?
LA, NY, CHI, DAL...Possibly BOS,MIA,HOU, etc...
could afford to pay a 3:1 ration at $15mil over the threshold
the question is, how long or often will they do so?
" Hell yeah I'm trying to gain an advantage out here. If you can't handle it, get off the court."- Kevin Garnett
"Stats are for losers."- Rahim Morris (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
They will be spending all their money to just get these greedy players back to playing....how you like dem apples
Mr Union Man …LOL …peace
Is it Soup Yet?
Mr Union man?
I don’t care for quite a few unions. They can be every bit as greedy (and more).
To me, sometimes workers have the moral high ground, other times the owners do. Does “moral high ground” even mean anything? Without leverage, hardly.
Both sides have an argument. I just happen to find the workers side more reasonable/believable in this case.
" Hell yeah I'm trying to gain an advantage out here. If you can't handle it, get off the court."- Kevin Garnett
"Stats are for losers."- Rahim Morris (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
Haha...
These are the type of conversations (well, the serious ones, not the ones with good humor) that I’m talking about in the article above.
Who cares who is right? Just play ball, I say. Nobody is struggling to feed their kids here.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
the new CBA rules look very good for the celtics
Once this lockout ends, the C’s should be in great shape going forward, better than most other teams to be able to rebuild following the decline of the big 3.
I still don't get why the cap matters to players
when the players as a whole are getting a set percentage of revenue. Why would the cap matter to the union if it doesn’t change the amount of money they receive in totality?
I understand this issue from the perspective of small market teams, but not in terms of players concerns.
It's the distribution of money between players, as well as less competition salary wise and less freedom
Stars and minimum salary players would be the least affected. Players in between would only be able to sign on teams under the cap (usually bad teams) and there wouldn’t be much demand for them since contenders who are over the cap wouldn’t be able to bid for them. Also Fisher and Hunter stated they want players to have the choice of taking less money to be on a contender. Basically decent and mid level players get screwed compared to the last cba. We as fans don’t care, but the players definitely do. Also Fisher/Hunter said a hard cap would increase the number of unguaranteed contracts.
Not so bad for players
It seems to me that the amnesty and stretch exemption are player-friendly. Owners will make mistakes on players by overpaying for duds and other players pay the price when that mistake stays trapped on the team’s cap.
The luxury tax step up is a good one for owners and players can say “we avoided a hard cap”. Nice work Billy Hunter but there’s only Charles Dolan dumb enough and the Lakers rich enough to abuse that soft cap by very much. Net, net a win for owners there.
Just because the players got away with 57% BRI last time doesn’t mean 50/50 is unreasonable today. Your deal doesn’t always get better. Those silly days are over. A few years ago Greece was an over-indulgent member of the EU. Now it is a suitcase nuke on the whole system. Take-backs are happening everywhere, players. The whupping that you are taking on this CBA still leaves you all very wealthy young men. You don’t get much public sympathy by not agreeing to a 50/50 deal. Grow up, smell the bad smell in the global economy, go – if you want to – to the big bucks available in, where, Turkey (where you are no better than 50/50 to get what you signed for). If the owners were arguing for more than 50% I’d take exception to them. But they only had that as a starting bargaining tactic.
Do you want a better than 50/50 bet? Bet on Billy Hunter not being in his job for very long.
This deal is very good for the players..jump on the deal.
50/50 is good enough on the BRI. You will still make plenty of money. What’s the hold up? These players/union are making themselves look worse and worse.
The deal looks pretty fair to both sides
Is there some real showstopper to this proposed deal other than the BRI split?
If not, the logic of being $80 million apart and holding out for an extra $40 million or $80000 dollars per year per player (well for journeymen it could be important) does not seem worth it.
Come on guys, I want my NBA!
Boston Celtics - 2008 World Champions
Boston Bruins - 2011 Stanley Cup Champions
New England Patriots - Super Bowl xxxvi, xxxviii, and xxxix champions
Boston Red Sox - 2004, 2007 World Series Champions



































