NBA, NBPA reach a tentative new seven year CBA
- Thread starter DeJesus Built My Hotrod
- Start date
Gonna be interesting to see what happens when those checks from ESPN start bouncing in a few years.
I'm thinking Disney is fairly solvent with their $100B in cash along with it's $10B net operating income last year. I'd be cashing those checks with confidence.
Its really not. ESPN may be losing subscribers but traditional cable is a long way from.having a disney owned company bounce checks on them and not pay for live sports.
Live sports is the last reason to have traditional cable.
Glad they put in measures to not allow the Warriors to add KD to a 73 win team the year after it happened.
GS will still be able to max Curry and KD still without losing key parts correct?
GS will still be able to max Curry and KD still without losing key parts correct?
Bounce checks? Yeah, you're right. But I would put a significant bet that the next rights contracts that come up in 2020-2022 for the major sports leagues for TV rights fees (not including any streaming packages or anything like that), are going to be the first ones ever that are smaller than the previous cycle.
Not if the winning bidders are Google, Facebook and/or Amazon. Differentiating TV from streaming in 5-6 years won't be possible I suspect.
I'm not entirely sure on this. Here's why.
Bundled cable channels are generally a massive boon to consumers. Let's look at two channels with completely opposite profiles. ESPN is still in 90M+ homes, picking up somewhere north of $7 per month per subscriber. So they grab $630M per month just by virtue of those monthly fees. But in a given month, ESPN only averages somewhere around 12-20M households watching, because the people watching the NBA aren't always the same as those watching MLB, and there is a huge segment of the population that simply doesn't care about sports and doesn't watch it anyways.
So let's say ESPN moves to a streaming model, or even that Google or Facebook win a contract there and pick it up. If that entity does not charge a dedicated streaming fee, are they going to be able to demand significantly higher advertising fees from their partners to cover that gap? Probably not, because advertisers will arbitrage and move to cheaper and more efficient forms of reaching their customers (which may even be just traditional Facebook or Google ads, ouch cannibalization). But if the streaming company keeps ad rates the same and doesn't charge a subscription fee, then the bid has to be lower in order to make it profitable. Facebook and Google don't need the stream sports to get people to their sites, they are the two biggest sites in the world already. The third option is that they charge a subscription fee. But 90M people aren't going to sign up for an NBA or NFL package. Because there aren't that many people who actually watch month in and month out as it is. So even if they get 10M people subscribing, they need to charge 9x the current rate to make it up, except it actually has to be closer to 18x since these leagues only go for half a year. And that means that you probably don't get 10M people paying $200 for an NBA package, and I have no idea what the attrition rate will be.
So that's what happens to a high-subscription fee channel like ESPN that has massive distribution on basic cable. Now let's look at a lower end channel like beIN, which probably gets like $0.02 per subscribe and is in maybe 10-15M homes since it's on more expensive packages. Right now they get $200k a month just for showing up and broadcasting. If the bundle goes away, are they going to be able to find enough people who want to pay that fee for the 8 US Soccer games that end up on the channel over the course of the year? I mean, I love watching soccer, but I don't know if I'm going to pay $10 a month for a channel I watch two hours every other month effectively.
These are the questions facing content providers as unbundling happens. Unbundling is initially good, because it allows people to arbitrage between the vastly different costs right now, but in the end, bundled packages are the best for both content producers and subscribers in terms of bang for your buck. And the more splintering you have, the more consumers are going to have to pick and choose what they want to watch, as opposed to having easy and relatively cheap access today.
I don't have cable and I can find nearly any sports live games. And this is just through less than legal channels. That, coupled with the packages that MLB, NBA, etc offer for streaming directly give everyone an opportunity to ditch cable, IMO.
Holding up liquor stores gives you the opportunity to ditch having a job, as well.
Holy Cow!!!
Shams Charania @ShamsCharania 57m57 minutes ago
Vertical Sources: NBA, NBPA project salary cap to rise to $120M in 2020, with $143M tax threshold. Up from $94.1M in 2016, $103M in 2017.
Everyone this off season is going to want to sign a 2 year and opt out contract.
Shams Charania @ShamsCharania 57m57 minutes ago
Vertical Sources: NBA, NBPA project salary cap to rise to $120M in 2020, with $143M tax threshold. Up from $94.1M in 2016, $103M in 2017.
Everyone this off season is going to want to sign a 2 year and opt out contract.
There are not any cap smoothing efforts to stop the 2018 Free Agent signings from being just like the 2016 signings where Ian Mahimni makes more than John Wall. Free agents this year probably won't go for a one year and opt out. So Hayward or Milsap could benefit by not opting out and playing one more year, even though they will be top five players on the market this year.
The rookie scale is going up 45%, as well as the prior three years of drafted players. Jaylen, Yabusele, Zizic are going to take up more cap room now.
I am looking for the best break down of these changes, as I want to see exactly what numbers players like Hayward, Milsap, Griffen and the like can get from their current teams vs going elsewhere. Bontemps has the best breakdown I have found, but it is very topical.
The rookie scale is going up 45%, as well as the prior three years of drafted players. Jaylen, Yabusele, Zizic are going to take up more cap room now.
I am looking for the best break down of these changes, as I want to see exactly what numbers players like Hayward, Milsap, Griffen and the like can get from their current teams vs going elsewhere. Bontemps has the best breakdown I have found, but it is very topical.
Lowe podcast with Windhorst did a nice job explaining a lot of this cap stuff. Worth a listen if you haven't checked it out.
It really was a great listen - and they deliberately ensured it didn't get too technical without dumbing it down excessively.
There won't be any change for Millsap. There will be no change for Hayward this summer, chance there could be if he waits until summer of 2018 to sign a longterm deal.
Assuming a cap of 102M, my numbers will be approximate.
Millsap could sign a deal a 4 year deal with Atlanta for a max of 4/159, or with a new team of 4/152.5. Advantage for Atlanta is they could guarantee him a 5th year for a max of 5/205.5
Hayward, if he signs this summer could sign a 4 year deal with Utah for a max of 4/136, or a new team of 4/131. Advantage for Utah is they can offer him a 5th year, max of 5/176. If Hayward wanted to gamble on himself, play out next season as well and make the all-NBA team, he would qualify for Millsap's 5/205.5
Griffin is the type of player the new CBA rule is aimed at, but his injury may affect him. If he doesn't make the all-NBA team this year, his maxes are the same as Hayward. If he does make the all-NBA, his max for the Clippers would be the same as Millsap, 4/159 or 5/205.5. But with a new team it would still be 4/131.
The rule to follow is, if the guy isn't an all-NBA player(orMVP, Defensive POY), the new CBA changes don't apply.
Thanks Pickl, currently teams can only give one player a 5 year max correct? With the new CBA the "Kevin Love Rule" will allow them to sign two players to a five year max.
Not that Favors deserves a max 5 year deal, but, if they give Hayward the 5 year max this offseason they will be able to give Favors a five year max in the summer of 2018? But, if Favors were a UFA this summer they could only offer him a 4 year if they gave Hayward a 5 year max?
Not that Favors deserves a max 5 year deal, but, if they give Hayward the 5 year max this offseason they will be able to give Favors a five year max in the summer of 2018? But, if Favors were a UFA this summer they could only offer him a 4 year if they gave Hayward a 5 year max?
Yes, you can have two Designated Veterans in the new CBA. I don't think it would apply to Hayward/Favors because you have to be MVP, DPOY or all-NBA to qualify for it. Can't see Favors ever making it. Hayward has a shot to make all-NBA this year, if he does it probably ends the Celtics chance to get him this summer. Would leave a ton of money on the table if Utah offers him the max.
Tough to see Hayward being one of the top six forwards in the league, or guards depending where he qualifies.
Russ, Harden, Steph, Kyrie, Paul, Lowry. (Amongst others like Isiah)
Lebron, KD, Kawhai, Davis, Giannias, Butler, Kristaps
I see very little chance.
But I don't think that matters for the two 5 year players.
Russ, Harden, Steph, Kyrie, Paul, Lowry. (Amongst others like Isiah)
Lebron, KD, Kawhai, Davis, Giannias, Butler, Kristaps
I see very little chance.
But I don't think that matters for the two 5 year players.
Hayward would be a forward I'd imagine, and I agree it's not likely. I said he had a shot. I think if Utah stays on their pace and finishes at 50ish wins, he might get rewarded for the team.
I think of the guys you listed, Lebron, KD, Kawhi, Giannis and Butler are locks, assuming the last two are counted as forwards. Davis makes it, but I'd bet he's voted in as a center like they do with Cousins. I don't think Kristaps has a chance since the Knicks aren't very good. I'd lock Kevin Love in as the 6th forward right now. I'd have Hayward next, lurking if one of those top six got hurt. Draymond, Paul George and Blake Griffin could make a run at a final spot then as well, but they'd have to finish hot, and in Blakes case recover quickly from injury.