Untangling the CBA

[zenter]

The CBA is crazy and I do my best to make sense of it, especially during FA time. Obviously, we all are (or should be) acquainted with Larry Coon's CBA FAQ... But sometimes the answer to the very specific scenario that the real world present isn't there. Or it's unclear why a team does what it does.
 
Basically, post your CBA qs and we can collectively try to get at the answers.
 
Here's the current question on my mind...
 
The Celtics own cap holds for Nenad Krstic, Chris Wilcox, Shaq, and many others (Olowokandi, for example)... Does not-renouncing their 22M in holds in some way help the Cs? Doesn't keeping them on-books severely strict cap flexibility? Is there something I'm not seeing?

 

[zenter]

Also this.
 

Can someone help me out with this CBA mechanics? Hunted around CBA FAQ and couldn't answer this specific question. I was under the impression that sequence matters to some extent (Q39).
 
Scenario A
 
1) Heat complete the signings of McRoberts and Granger July 10.
2) LeBron decides to go elsewhere July 10
 
Thus: The McRoberts and Granger deals need to be renegotiated, since they're simultaneous.
 
Scenario B
 
1) Heat complete the signings of McRoberts and Granger July 10.
2) LeBron decides to go elsewhere July 11.
 
Thus: ?
 
The McRoberts and Granger deals were signed under the circumstances of LeBron's cap hold. Shouldn't these deals be okay? 
 
Scenario C
 
1) Heat complete the signings of McRoberts and Granger July 10
2) LeBron decides to go elsewhere August 15.
 
Thus: ?
 
The McRoberts and Granger deals were signed under the circumstances of LeBron's cap hold and more than 30 days had passed. Shouldn't these deals definitely be okay?
 
Did the new CBA change how Q39's Michael Redd situation is handled?
 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Also this.
 

 
Cross-posting from the Heat thread on your second question.  Happy for someone to tell me I'm wrong.
 

Again, not an expert but I think what happens is that when McRoberts/Granger are signed, their salary counts against the cap but are available because of the exceptions if the Heat are over the cap (counting their salaries).  When (if) the Heat have cap room at any point - including McRoberts/Granger, for example if Bosh or James were to sign elsewhere - the exceptions disappear and the salaries just become regular salaries that count against the cap.
 
I got this from Coon's FAQ (#26):

For example, assume there is a $58 million salary cap, and during the offseason a team has $50 million committed to salaries, along with a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a trade exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $59.5 million, or $1.5 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary (including their remaining exceptions) drops to $57.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and trade exceptions.
 
There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team cannot go over the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. A rule of thumb is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but it can't have both at the same time. However, a team in this situation does qualify to use the Room Mid-Level exception (see question number 25).
 

 

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

The CBA is crazy and I do my best to make sense of it, especially during FA time. Obviously, we all are (or should be) acquainted with Larry Coon's CBA FAQ... But sometimes the answer to the very specific scenario that the real world present isn't there. Or it's unclear why a team does what it does.
 
Basically, post your CBA qs and we can collectively try to get at the answers.
 
Here's the current question on my mind...
 
The Celtics own cap holds for Nenad Krstic, Chris Wilcox, Shaq, and many others (Olowokandi, for example)... Does not-renouncing their 22M in holds in some way help the Cs? Doesn't keeping them on-books severely strict cap flexibility? Is there something I'm not seeing?

 
None of those cap holds count against the current cap, since those guys are all retired. The Celtics just own that players rights, so that if they were to come out of retirement they couldn't sign anywhere else without the C's renouncing them. I think it's just a mechanism to avoid players from "retiring" as a means of going to a different team, but I'm not sure of that. I am sure of the fact that that 22 million has no relevance to their current cap situation.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
None of those cap holds count against the current cap, since those guys are all retired. The Celtics just own that players rights, so that if they were to come out of retirement they couldn't sign anywhere else without the C's renouncing them. I think it's just a mechanism to avoid players from "retiring" as a means of going to a different team, but I'm not sure of that. I am sure of the fact that that 22 million has no relevance to their current cap situation.

Correct. They *could* attempt to circumvent the salary cap by including any of these players in a sign-n-trade similar to how Joe Kleine earned his largest annual salary the year after he "unofficially" retired and had agrees to do radio commentary for the Suns. It is questionable whether Silver will allow a deal such as this to go through but Ainge would certainly have a better read than any of us on this matter.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The CBA is crazy and I do my best to make sense of it, especially during FA time. Obviously, we all are (or should be) acquainted with Larry Coon's CBA FAQ... But sometimes the answer to the very specific scenario that the real world present isn't there. Or it's unclear why a team does what it does.
 
Basically, post your CBA qs and we can collectively try to get at the answers.
 
Here's the current question on my mind...
 
The Celtics own cap holds for Nenad Krstic, Chris Wilcox, Shaq, and many others (Olowokandi, for example)... Does not-renouncing their 22M in holds in some way help the Cs? Doesn't keeping them on-books severely strict cap flexibility? Is there something I'm not seeing?

 
As for your first question, I believe the answer (and a list of all free agent cap holds) can be found here:  http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/freeagentcapholds.jsp.  It says:
 

 
If you waive a player, they are automatically renounced, and so will not have a cap hold. If a player signs with another NBA team, they also no longer have a cap hold to their former team. And if a player retires (by which I mean he properly retires, sending official retirement paperwork to league and everything, and not just informally saying that they've retired), then their free agent amount is removed too. However, players often don't formally retire until they're eligible for their NBA pension, and the reason for that (other than laziness) is that many of them still have cap holds with NBA teams, which means that they can still be incorporated into sign and trades as salary filler for trades. It would be an extremely impossible thing to imagine had it not already happened: at the 2007 trade deadline, Aaron McKie and Keith Van Horn were both signed and traded to complete deals while being unofficially retired, earning them 7 figures worth of free cheddar. And all they had to do was not file the retirement paperwork. It's implausible, but it happens. (Similarly, if a player's contract with an NBA team expires without him going through waivers, and he then signs with a non-NBA team, he will continue to have a cap hold until he's renounced.)

These cap holds can stick around for years if the team remains over the salary cap in that time. And, as you'll see below, they do. There's some players from the late 90's on here, for God's sake. However, when teams have set themelves up for cap room, they renounce these basically useless free agent amounts to maximize how much room they have. For example, in the summer of 2007, Milwaukee, Orlando and Memphis all figured to have cap room, and so they renounced all their free agents who weren't under contract. These included players from previous years; Orlando renounced Darko Milicic, Grant Hill, Andrew DeClercq, Stacey Augmon, Jaren Jackson, Mark Jones, Shawn Kemp, Sean Rooks, Bo Outlaw and Olumide Oyedeji; Milwaukee renounced Reece Gaines, Jermaine Jackson, Ervin Johnson, Toni Kukoc, Jiri Welsch, Ruben Patterson, Brian Skinner, Jared Reiner and Earl Boykins; and Memphis renounced Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Junior Harrington, Lawrence Roberts, Mike Batiste, Antoine Carr, Kevin Edwards, Antonis Fotsis, Dahntay Jones, Will Solomon and Doug West. The randomness of those players should help illustrate the randomness of some of the players listed above, and why they're still here.
 

 

[Brickowski]

There is a very good forum on RealGM entitled "CBA & Business" where you can post questions about the CBA. Coon himself used to post there with some frequency, and there are several posters who work in NBA front offices who are very helpful. Here's a link: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=93cf0e9a23136467fe5f87f7adeefa3a

 

[lexrageorge]

The value of those cap holds on retired players is not what it used to be.  With the latest CBA, players have to be with the team the preceding season in order to be eligible for a sign-and-trade.  This basically prevents teams from doing sign-and-trade gymnastics by using Bird rights on retired players and their associated cap holds.  
 
Cap holds do not affect the calculations for the apron nor the luxury tax.  So there's no downside for team over the cap to retain these cap holds.  While essentially useless today, they could come in handy during a future CBA.  For now, they are essentially nothing more than an interesting curiosity. 

 

[wutang112878]

I wish I knew this CBA like I knew the old one.  I started a thread just like this and bullet pointed a few of the key issues that came up again and again, it ended up being a handy reference.
 
Now a question that is a little off-topic, but: Can anyone think of any good reason for having this complex CBA and system?  Why cant they just move to a hard cap (which would be higher than it is today of course) with max salary limits and call it a day?  I have never heard a good reason to justify this.

 

[lexrageorge]

I wish I knew this CBA like I knew the old one.  I started a thread just like this and bullet pointed a few of the key issues that came up again and again, it ended up being a handy reference.
 
Now a question that is a little off-topic, but: Can anyone think of any good reason for having this complex CBA and system?  Why cant they just move to a hard cap (which would be higher than it is today of course) with max salary limits and call it a day?  I have never heard a good reason to justify this.

First, the players have a bigger say into the CBA than fans wishing for an easier to understand salary cap.
 
Second, teams did want the ability to resign their top players, which is a big consideration given the impact a single player has to an NBA team. It's much harder to do that with a hard cap. 

 

[zenter]

Now a question that is a little off-topic, but: Can anyone think of any good reason for having this complex CBA and system?  Why cant they just move to a hard cap (which would be higher than it is today of course) with max salary limits and call it a day?  I have never heard a good reason to justify this.

 
Why the CBA exists as-is seems easy to me. It's is a series of balancing interests for players and the teams. The BRI thing is meant to protect players, the slotted draft is meant to protect teams, etc. Most rules were at least created in response to a real-world scenario. The Bird rule was created because the NBA has interest in teams being able to go above cap to keep their superstar. The Stepien rule was to keep owners from making rev-share money without actually trying to develop the team.
 
The question you're really asking is whether it can be simpler and essentially do the same thing. I'd argue yes, but any proposal to simplify likely has vocal and rational opposition. For example, the hard cap doesn't make sense for creating player continuity. My preferred solution (basically, only a luxury tax line with repeater penalties) might not make sense for owners of low-revenue teams. And so on...

 

[zenter]

None of those cap holds count against the current cap, since those guys are all retired. The Celtics just own that players rights, so that if they were to come out of retirement they couldn't sign anywhere else without the C's renouncing them. I think it's just a mechanism to avoid players from "retiring" as a means of going to a different team, but I'm not sure of that. I am sure of the fact that that 22 million has no relevance to their current cap situation.

 
I'm pretty sure Wilcox and Krstic are not retired, but even if they were, I don't see the value of holding on to their rights.
 

Cap holds do not affect the calculations for the apron nor the luxury tax.  So there's no downside for team over the cap to retain these cap holds.  While essentially useless today, they could come in handy during a future CBA.  For now, they are essentially nothing more than an interesting curiosity. 

 
These holds do count for MLE and BAE, don't they (ie, over soft cap or not)? Even if they're not taxed on it, contract-related maneuverability appears constrained.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I'm pretty sure Wilcox and Krstic are not retired, but even if they were, I don't see the value of holding on to their rights.
 
 
These holds do count for MLE and BAE, don't they (ie, over soft cap or not)? Even if they're not taxed on it, contract-related maneuverability appears constrained.

The MLE and BAE are available to teams that are over the cap.  In that respect, the holds do count, as that can allow a team to stay over the cap and thereby retain their rights to use the MLE/BAE; that can be valuable in that it would allow a team to resign their own free agents, and then use the MLE in any order.  
 
But since the cap holds do not count against the apron, they do not ever cause the exceptions to go away.  
 
They can be renounced at any time if they ever did cause any contract issues.  I'm sure Mr. Ainge and staff are aware of that and would do so if the opportunity arises. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
I'm pretty sure Wilcox and Krstic are not retired, but even if they were, I don't see the value of holding on to their rights.
 
 
These holds do count for MLE and BAE, don't they (ie, over soft cap or not)? Even if they're not taxed on it, contract-related maneuverability appears constrained.

 
As lexrageorge explains, they kind of count, but not in any substantive way.  You notice that the only teams that have these holds are the ones that have been over the cap for years.
 
They don't limit maneuverability.  If the Cs needed to get under the cap, they'd renounce all of them without any negative effect. 

 

[zenter]

The MLE and BAE are available to teams that are over the cap.  In that respect, the holds do count, as that can allow a team to stay over the cap and thereby retain their rights to use the MLE/BAE; that can be valuable in that it would allow a team to resign their own free agents, and then use the MLE in any order.  
 
But since the cap holds do not count against the apron, they do not ever cause the exceptions to go away.  
 
They can be renounced at any time if they ever did cause any contract issues.  I'm sure Mr. Ainge and staff are aware of that and would do so if the opportunity arises. 

 
Right. I trust Ainge knows what he's doing. I want to know what he's doing.
 
You're saying the reason to hang on to these is pretty much exclusively the potential value they may have after 2017. Can we collectively see any other kind of current value these holds have now, especially since they cannot be S&T'd?

 

[wutang112878]

First, the players have a bigger say into the CBA than fans wishing for an easier to understand salary cap.
 
Second, teams did want the ability to resign their top players, which is a big consideration given the impact a single player has to an NBA team. It's much harder to do that with a hard cap. 

 
On #1, monetarily what exactly does this gain them on the whole?  This is really simplified but there is BRI (basketball related income) and the players get 45% of BRI which sets the cap.  Then, they are guaranteed 90% of the cap (team cap * 30 teams) and if the total spending then that gets added to the cap the following year. 
 
This year the cap is estimated at ~$62M so the guarantee is $56M and then there is the luxury tax and I forget how that is set.  My overly simplistic model is set the floor for each team at $56M or a bit lower, and set the cap a bit higher to like say $68M  You can look at the average spending data to figure out where to set this number based on knowing which teams will gladly go over the luxury tax, which will stay just under and which stick at the floor.  It would be pretty easy to figure out where to set the new cap and keep spending on the whole to be the same.  And if total spending went down, then there is the mechanism to correct that with the increase of the future cap if the guarantee isnt reached.  I dont see a reason that wont work.
 
As for the Larry Bird provision, that was a slippery slope.  It was added for Larry but it basically addressed the 'I cant plan future cap space to make sure I can retain a guy I really want'.  The NFL has a hard cap but doesnt have this problem, and yes they have the wiggle room with releases and fluctuating contracts but thats so infrequent now, but the Patriots made sure they planned for Tom Brady.  The NBA could do the same thing if they were forced to, and to implement it just ban it starting in 3 offseasons from now.  If you cant look at a rookie on your roster this year, and over the next 3 seasons figure out if you want him, what it might cost and how to plan for that then you really shouldnt be a GM.  Then once we weed out all the stupid GMs, sure you have to go hire like 20 more GMs, but after that then you dont have this 'save me from myself, I cant plan' problem anymore.  This is very cold, but again, I just dont understand why this cant work.
 
 

 
Why the CBA exists as-is seems easy to me. It's is a series of balancing interests for players and the teams. The BRI thing is meant to protect players, the slotted draft is meant to protect teams, etc. Most rules were at least created in response to a real-world scenario. The Bird rule was created because the NBA has interest in teams being able to go above cap to keep their superstar. The Stepien rule was to keep owners from making rev-share money without actually trying to develop the team.
 
The question you're really asking is whether it can be simpler and essentially do the same thing. I'd argue yes, but any proposal to simplify likely has vocal and rational opposition. For example, the hard cap doesn't make sense for creating player continuity. My preferred solution (basically, only a luxury tax line with repeater penalties) might not make sense for owners of low-revenue teams. And so on...

 
Exactly, why cant we simplify the system.  We have all these mechanisms like the MLE, bi-annual, blah blah blah and at the end of the day we are left with the BRI, % of BRI, guarantee, any adjustment and then cap setting.  You can have all the same dynamics without all these exception mechanisms.  I dont have a problem with the BRI guarantee or the Stepien, just all the cap exception complications.
 
The player continuity can be addressed though, it just cant be fixed immediately, as in you cant switch to a hard cap this offseason.  But after 3 full offseasons you should be able to.  This is just like the creation of the max (which I would also be fine with keeping if the players agree, its a simple rule) they allowed KG to keep resigning for more than the max but any player contract for anyone who wasnt already over the max couldnt go to that level.  That got weeded out of the system really fast because I believe it only affected Shaq and KG, but they could do the same thing for the hard cap.  Then everyone is playing by the same rules and just needs to plan just like they do in the NFL.
 
As for the low revenue teams, thats the owners problem not the league.  If its not a fair playing field they need to sort it out amongst themselves because their inability to do so just complicates matters further.  Since it affects BRI (because a league of haves and have nots wouldnt be good for revenue) the players can force their hand to work this out, the same exact way the NFL owners had to work it out.
 
It just seems to me some things are just fundamentally broken with the NBA and it really starts with the unlevel playing field which is why they have the luxury tax to limit the haves instead of having the Lakers give up money. 

 

[lexrageorge]

Wutang, what you're missing is that the owners and players don't want what you're proposing.  Football is different; Tom Brady is one guy among 53; LeBron James is one guy among 15.  Big difference.  Yes, I'm sure a hard cap could be worked out; but it's not clear it would necessarily make the CBA less complex.  The NFL and NHL have all sorts of little gimmicks in their CBA even with the hard cap.  
 

As for the low revenue teams, thats the owners problem not the league.

 
The owners are the league.  They are also a party to the CBA.  
 

You're saying the reason to hang on to these is pretty much exclusively the potential value they may have after 2017. Can we collectively see any other kind of current value these holds have now, especially since they cannot be S&T'd?

 
The only hypothetical I could come up is if the Celtics were in one year in danger of dropping so far under the cap that they would lose the MLE and BAE, but not far enough to attract the players they really want.  But it seems like a far-fetched scenario, especially as the value of the MLE/BAE are included in the salary cap calculation unless and until those exceptions are renounced.  But there could be something buried in the bowels of the CBA that makes them valuable in other, very specific circumstances that I'm at a loss to elucidate. 
 
There's truly no harm with keeping these holds on the books, so I guess it's more of a case of "why not".  

 

[mcpickl]

 
Right. I trust Ainge knows what he's doing. I want to know what he's doing.
 
You're saying the reason to hang on to these is pretty much exclusively the potential value they may have after 2017. Can we collectively see any other kind of current value these holds have now, especially since they cannot be S&T'd?

They hang on to them because there is no reason to renounce them.
 
They only affect your team if you want to go under the cap and wish to sign someone with cap space.

 

[Brickowski]

The complicated CBA is fun. It beats Sudoku. Of course, every so often you get it wrong or overlook a provision, and feel like an idiot, but so what? Besides, it has created a cottage industry for guys like Larry Coon.

 

[wutang112878]

The owners are the league.  They are also a party to the CBA.  

 
That was a typo, I meant the players problem.  But its really an issue the owners and players should collectively want to fix.  Anyway,
 

Wutang, what you're missing is that the owners and players don't want what you're proposing.  Football is different; Tom Brady is one guy among 53; LeBron James is one guy among 15.  Big difference.  Yes, I'm sure a hard cap could be worked out; but it's not clear it would necessarily make the CBA less complex.  The NFL and NHL have all sorts of little gimmicks in their CBA even with the hard cap.  

 
You are totally right, this really never occurred to me but it makes perfect sense.  With every CBA the fight is the same but each side adds some more complex wrinkles they think benefits themselves, when at the macro level they are just fighting over the BRI and guarantee percentages. 
 
What seems outlandish to me is why wouldnt either side like to remove complexity?  I realize each of the caveat is a tweak to address some supposed problems, but I really think there is great value in removing the complexity.  All the major sports now want to be 12 months a year products but for the non-hardcoare fans beyond watching where Lebron lands and the big moves for their local team, I think they tune out.  So many hardcore fans are so baffled by the salary cap and CBA that the less informed fans cant really care for or follow free agency.  From a team standpoint you arent going to have the huge payroll peaks and valleys that we are seeing now with the Lakers which isnt exactly a wonderful transition to watch.  Projecting cap space and spending would be so much easier for players, agents and GMs and the GMs budgeting job would be simplified as well.  I think there is a lot to like about a more simple approach.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The owners just destroyed the players in the latest negotiations and are reaping the benefits with their franchise valuations skyrocketing before the ink dried on the CBA. Why in the world would they want to work with the players when they can simply outmuscle and outsmart them while winning big in the negotiations?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
why wouldnt either side like to remove complexity? 

 
complexity makes it an easier sell to constituents.  Can you imagine if the union said, "Well we get 51% of BRI and we can split it however we want"?  Probably not a great sell.
 
Plus, don't discount the facts that lawyers are writing these agreements.  Lawyers like to create annuities for themselves . . . .  (only half-joking).

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
That was a typo, I meant the players problem.  But its really an issue the owners and players should collectively want to fix.  Anyway,
 
 
You are totally right, this really never occurred to me but it makes perfect sense.  With every CBA the fight is the same but each side adds some more complex wrinkles they think benefits themselves, when at the macro level they are just fighting over the BRI and guarantee percentages. 
 
What seems outlandish to me is why wouldnt either side like to remove complexity?  I realize each of the caveat is a tweak to address some supposed problems, but I really think there is great value in removing the complexity.  All the major sports now want to be 12 months a year products but for the non-hardcoare fans beyond watching where Lebron lands and the big moves for their local team, I think they tune out.  So many hardcore fans are so baffled by the salary cap and CBA that the less informed fans cant really care for or follow free agency.  From a team standpoint you arent going to have the huge payroll peaks and valleys that we are seeing now with the Lakers which isnt exactly a wonderful transition to watch.  Projecting cap space and spending would be so much easier for players, agents and GMs and the GMs budgeting job would be simplified as well.  I think there is a lot to like about a more simple approach.

 
I think you're overstating the complexity of the new CBA. Upthread, you stated that you wish you knew this new CBA as well as you knew the old CBA, yet the new CBA and old CBA are essentially the same. The crux of the lockout battle was about the the percentage of basketball revenue going to the players and the escrow figures. Those two things are basically irrelevant when it comes to the typical fan following free agency. Outside of that, the major changes in the 2011 CBA relative to the prior version were things like the amnesty provision (which improves teams abilities to participate in free agency), revenue sharing alterations (irrelevant to free agency), the stretch provision, and the length of time teams had to match on RFAs. Contracts were shortened slightly, and a mini-MLE was added (which gives teams over the cap more ability to sign a free agent). Most of those things are only vaguely relevant to following free-agency. 
 
Further, I think you're blaming the intricacies of the CBA for things the CBA isn't really responsible for. Particularly, the bolded sentences above. How is the current CBA responsible for huge payroll peaks and valleys like the one we're seeing with the Lakers? And how does your simplified approach solve that? I'm not really seeing a connection. Likewise, do you really think that GMs are so confused by the cap that they're having difficulty budgeting and projecting cap space? I don't see that, either. In fact, what I see this offseason is a system that does very little to actually limit a team's flexibility. Look around the league and you'll see a half-dozen completely capped out teams who are still very active in free agency right now. Only the Nets have screwed up so terribly that they can't do much this offseason, and they did that to themselves purposefully because, I dunno, the back page of the New York Post is enticing, I guess.

 

[wutang112878]

The owners just destroyed the players in the latest negotiations and are reaping the benefits with their franchise valuations skyrocketing before the ink dried on the CBA. Why in the world would they want to work with the players when they can simply outmuscle and outsmart them while winning big in the negotiations?

 
These arent completely related.  The skyrocketing franchise values sort of seem to do with the new TV deal, and the players were too stupid or unified to demand a bigger slice of this.  And the owners could still ruin them on BRI with a simpler system.  With the checks and balances in place what the players 'get' on the whole really just comes down to the BRI%. 
 
Take the NFL owners, they ruined the players by forcing them to take a smaller share of revenue and on the 'time value of money'.  The players share escalates over time and must 'average' 47% over the length of the deal but when the new TV deal kicks in its still very low, so the owners get a ton of money in their pocket early on from a cash flow perspective which obviously increases the value of it for them.  They were able to accomplish this while keeping the relative simplicity of their free agency and cap dynamics.
 
 

 
complexity makes it an easier sell to constituents.  Can you imagine if the union said, "Well we get 51% of BRI and we can split it however we want"?  Probably not a great sell.
 
Plus, don't discount the facts that lawyers are writing these agreements.  Lawyers like to create annuities for themselves . . . .  (only half-joking).

 
Honestly, I dont understand why this is a tough sell?  Isnt moving closer to a free market system without restrictions of the MLE, bi-annual exception, etc move the players closer to getting their true market value in free agency?  If you told the players 'we are getting rid of the MLE and all exceptions that let you go over the cap, but the cap is going to go to $73M which is just about the same as current cap + MLE + other exceptions, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
 
 

 
I think you're overstating the complexity of the new CBA. Upthread, you stated that you wish you knew this new CBA as well as you knew the old CBA, yet the new CBA and old CBA are essentially the same. The crux of the lockout battle was about the the percentage of basketball revenue going to the players and the escrow figures. Those two things are basically irrelevant when it comes to the typical fan following free agency. Outside of that, the major changes in the 2011 CBA relative to the prior version were things like the amnesty provision (which improves teams abilities to participate in free agency), revenue sharing alterations (irrelevant to free agency), the stretch provision, and the length of time teams had to match on RFAs. Contracts were shortened slightly, and a mini-MLE was added (which gives teams over the cap more ability to sign a free agent). Most of those things are only vaguely relevant to following free-agency. 
 
Further, I think you're blaming the intricacies of the CBA for things the CBA isn't really responsible for. Particularly, the bolded sentences above. How is the current CBA responsible for huge payroll peaks and valleys like the one we're seeing with the Lakers? And how does your simplified approach solve that? I'm not really seeing a connection. Likewise, do you really think that GMs are so confused by the cap that they're having difficulty budgeting and projecting cap space? I don't see that, either. In fact, what I see this offseason is a system that does very little to actually limit a team's flexibility. Look around the league and you'll see a half-dozen completely capped out teams who are still very active in free agency right now. Only the Nets have screwed up so terribly that they can't do much this offseason, and they did that to themselves purposefully because, I dunno, the back page of the New York Post is enticing, I guess.

 
I agree the CBA is old CBA with some tweaks like max contract went from 6 years / 10.5% raises to 5 years / 7.5% raises, basically the big stuff is whats listed here and then there were some other tweaks as well.  When I say I dont know it, I mean I knew what was listed here in 2005 but I havent been able to spend enough time on the 2011 one to be able to spit out these specific rules from memory like I used to be able to.  As a fan thats what I dont like, when a player signs I dont know the dynamics well enough to truly analyze and intelligently opine on it, which reduces my enjoyment of free agency and unfortunately my interest as well. 
 
I'm not saying this in a jerk 'oh yeah' type of way, but I sort of think you are understating the complexity of the CBA.  I know the changes you mentioned are minor additions but it doesnt seem that complex to you because you can rattle them off the top of your head.  For fans that dont have the time, or cant find the resources to understand it to the level that you do, if you just ask them point blank they will probably say 'its complex, there are so many rules and I dont know them all'.  I guess my point is not that its got all that much more complex, but as I lose touch with it I have come to believe that its a little too complex in general and that could probably be avoided.
 
As for the peaks and valleys in payroll, lets take the Nets.  They traded for Joe Johnson, PP & KG all for contracts that had less salary cap commitments (over the lengths of the deals), they also traded for Deron and could resign him because they had his bird rights.  These dynamics pushed them further above the 'soft cap' for a longer and longer period of time, and now to have any significant salary cap space in 2015/16 they need to completely stop signing anyone and/or trade away Johnson or Deron and not resign Lopez just because the alternative is to collectively 'lose talent' if they dont.  Now to rebuild they have to go through a very significant valley and a real big part of that is because they were allowed to push themselves so far into these cap problems.  Its almost like a 'pay day' loan, they arent completely responsible for the poor financial management of the people that use them, but that dynamic allows them to push themselves further into financial ruin.  Or like a credit card that allows someone to continue to spend more than they make when eventually you have to completely reverse that trend to pay it off just to get back to a zero balance.
 
The GMs arent completely confused, no but I do think the simplicity would make it a bit easier to project and there wouldnt be these exceptions to go above a cap that and drive up the balance on that credit card to the point that the talent is decaying and they have to go and completely tear it all down.  Its sort of saving themselves from themselves. 

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
These arent completely related.  The skyrocketing franchise values sort of seem to do with the new TV deal, and the players were too stupid or unified to demand a bigger slice of this.  And the owners could still ruin them on BRI with a simpler system.  With the checks and balances in place what the players 'get' on the whole really just comes down to the BRI%. 
 
Take the NFL owners, they ruined the players by forcing them to take a smaller share of revenue and on the 'time value of money'.  The players share escalates over time and must 'average' 47% over the length of the deal but when the new TV deal kicks in its still very low, so the owners get a ton of money in their pocket early on from a cash flow perspective which obviously increases the value of it for them.  They were able to accomplish this while keeping the relative simplicity of their free agency and cap dynamics.
 
 
 
Honestly, I dont understand why this is a tough sell?  Isnt moving closer to a free market system without restrictions of the MLE, bi-annual exception, etc move the players closer to getting their true market value in free agency?  If you told the players 'we are getting rid of the MLE and all exceptions that let you go over the cap, but the cap is going to go to $73M which is just about the same as current cap + MLE + other exceptions, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
 
 
 
I agree the CBA is old CBA with some tweaks like max contract went from 6 years / 10.5% raises to 5 years / 7.5% raises, basically the big stuff is whats listed here and then there were some other tweaks as well.  When I say I dont know it, I mean I knew what was listed here in 2005 but I havent been able to spend enough time on the 2011 one to be able to spit out these specific rules from memory like I used to be able to.  As a fan thats what I dont like, when a player signs I dont know the dynamics well enough to truly analyze and intelligently opine on it, which reduces my enjoyment of free agency and unfortunately my interest as well. 
 
I'm not saying this in a jerk 'oh yeah' type of way, but I sort of think you are understating the complexity of the CBA.  I know the changes you mentioned are minor additions but it doesnt seem that complex to you because you can rattle them off the top of your head.  For fans that dont have the time, or cant find the resources to understand it to the level that you do, if you just ask them point blank they will probably say 'its complex, there are so many rules and I dont know them all'.  I guess my point is not that its got all that much more complex, but as I lose touch with it I have come to believe that its a little too complex in general and that could probably be avoided.
 
As for the peaks and valleys in payroll, lets take the Nets.  They traded for Joe Johnson, PP & KG all for contracts that had less salary cap commitments (over the lengths of the deals), they also traded for Deron and could resign him because they had his bird rights.  These dynamics pushed them further above the 'soft cap' for a longer and longer period of time, and now to have any significant salary cap space in 2015/16 they need to completely stop signing anyone and/or trade away Johnson or Deron and not resign Lopez just because the alternative is to collectively 'lose talent' if they dont.  Now to rebuild they have to go through a very significant valley and a real big part of that is because they were allowed to push themselves so far into these cap problems.  Its almost like a 'pay day' loan, they arent completely responsible for the poor financial management of the people that use them, but that dynamic allows them to push themselves further into financial ruin.  Or like a credit card that allows someone to continue to spend more than they make when eventually you have to completely reverse that trend to pay it off just to get back to a zero balance.
 
The GMs arent completely confused, no but I do think the simplicity would make it a bit easier to project and there wouldnt be these exceptions to go above a cap that and drive up the balance on that credit card to the point that the talent is decaying and they have to go and completely tear it all down.  Its sort of saving themselves from themselves. 

 
This bit about the Nets is what I was trying to ask you: how does simplicity solve that? You're not proposing unguaranteed contracts, so whether or not there is a hard/soft cap, the Nets still would have acquired most if not all of the players you listed. Their contracts wouldn't be any shorter or worth any less, and spending on additional free agents wouldn't be any easier. I just don't see how your proposal solves the "issue" of the Nets at all. I also, frankly, don't really see how or why it is an issue. They made their bed. They went all in, in a misguided fashion. It's entirely possible to be capped out every single season and still maintain a ton of flexibility in the offseason. Look at Houston: they're capped out, have two max guys and the Lin/Asik contracts, and they still found a way to offer a max contract to Chris Bosh. For all of the talk about the CBA limiting flexibility, NBA free agency is amazingly exciting and unpredictable. The Celtics, for instance, just got compensated a first round pick and Tyler Zeller to rent out cap space--when they didn't even have cap space to rent out. It's not the strict, stifling system that most portray it as, and the Nets are such an extreme example that they should sort of just be thrown out. They're a couple more Jarret Jack trades away from the next CBA including a Prokorhov Rule.

 

[wutang112878]

 
This bit about the Nets is what I was trying to ask you: how does simplicity solve that? You're not proposing unguaranteed contracts, so whether or not there is a hard/soft cap, the Nets still would have acquired most if not all of the players you listed. Their contracts wouldn't be any shorter or worth any less, and spending on additional free agents wouldn't be any easier. I just don't see how your proposal solves the "issue" of the Nets at all. I also, frankly, don't really see how or why it is an issue. They made their bed. They went all in, in a misguided fashion. It's entirely possible to be capped out every single season and still maintain a ton of flexibility in the offseason. Look at Houston: they're capped out, have two max guys and the Lin/Asik contracts, and they still found a way to offer a max contract to Chris Bosh. For all of the talk about the CBA limiting flexibility, NBA free agency is amazingly exciting and unpredictable. The Celtics, for instance, just got compensated a first round pick and Tyler Zeller to rent out cap space--when they didn't even have cap space to rent out. It's not the strict, stifling system that most portray it as, and the Nets are such an extreme example that they should sort of just be thrown out. They're a couple more Jarret Jack trades away from the next CBA including a Prokorhov Rule.

 

Because the Nets could not have gone over the hard cap.  If the hard cap this year was $72M they never would have gotten to $90M or whatever it was.  It doesnt stop a team from making stupid moves and giving themselves no cap space in future years, but it reduces the problem.  Instead of the gap between the Nets actual cap number and the salary cap being $17M (90-63) it would be zero, that limits the damage teams can do.  Just like the Stepien rule is a built in protection of sorts.  

I wasnt making the case that the CBA wasnt flexible, its actually the flexibility that allows for some of the volatility.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Because the Nets could not have gone over the hard cap.  If the hard cap this year was $72M they never would have gotten to $90M or whatever it was.  It doesnt stop a team from making stupid moves and giving themselves no cap space in future years, but it reduces the problem.  Instead of the gap between the Nets actual cap number and the salary cap being $17M (90-63) it would be zero, that limits the damage teams can do.  Just like the Stepien rule is a built in protection of sorts.  

I wasnt making the case that the CBA wasnt flexible, its actually the flexibility that allows for some of the volatility.

 
But even if the Nets were up against a hard cap, instead of over a soft cap, it wouldn't improve their situation or increase their flexibility. The same penalty--minus the luxury tax payments--is just imposed at an apron with a lower dollar figure. Maybe a hard cap increases player movement because 20 million dollars worth of Nets' players would be forced to find other jobs, but the Nets problem isn't that their payroll is too high, it's that the players they're paying aren't attractive to other teams at their current salary. I'm still not really seeing what it solves. Either way aren't the Nets a team that loses in the second round of the playoffs and has to wait two years before they have cap space?

 

[wutang112878]

Here is the Nets team salary over the past few years from BBRef:
10/11 - $58M
11/12 - $65M
12/13 - $84M
13/14 - $102M
 
The 'soft' salary cap was $58M for each of these years, say my 'hard' cap was $10M over the soft so $68M, last year their payroll would have been $68M.  They wouldnt have been able to add KG, PP & Terry.  Unless they fielded a team of 9 minimum salary rookies, they wouldnt have Johnson, Deron and Lopez at those salaries.  It seems to me like it puts a lot of limits in place.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Here is the Nets team salary over the past few years from BBRef:
10/11 - $58M
11/12 - $65M
12/13 - $84M
13/14 - $102M
 
The 'soft' salary cap was $58M for each of these years, say my 'hard' cap was $10M over the soft so $68M, last year their payroll would have been $68M.  They wouldnt have been able to add KG, PP & Terry.  Unless they fielded a team of 9 minimum salary rookies, they wouldnt have Johnson, Deron and Lopez at those salaries.  It seems to me like it puts a lot of limits in place.

 
You lost me. To add KG, PP, and Terry they sent out equal salary in Humphries, Wallace, etc. Why wouldn't they have been able to add them? And in terms of the salaries of Johnson, Williams, and Lopez, I still don't see what's accomplished. The Nets can't sign them to those deals, so Williams leaves in free agency, maybe they don't trade for Johnson, and and who knows what happens with Lopez. But the problem is that somebody would have signed Williams to a max, and Johnson would still be sitting on Atlanta's cap being overpaid, and Lopez would still be a highly paid, injury prone center somewhere. So what's accomplished, exactly? You're spreading Brooklyn's problems throughout the league? I guess I'm just not following. Truth be told, I'm having a little bit of trouble grasping the thesis statement here. What's the major problem that you're trying to solve here, exactly?

 

[wutang112878]

 
You lost me. To add KG, PP, and Terry they sent out equal salary in Humphries, Wallace, etc. Why wouldn't they have been able to add them? And in terms of the salaries of Johnson, Williams, and Lopez, I still don't see what's accomplished. The Nets can't sign them to those deals, so Williams leaves in free agency, maybe they don't trade for Johnson, and and who knows what happens with Lopez. But the problem is that somebody would have signed Williams to a max, and Johnson would still be sitting on Atlanta's cap being overpaid, and Lopez would still be a highly paid, injury prone center somewhere.

 
The transition from 2011/12 to 2012/13 is really a good example.  The big changes were:

• After 11/12 Okur expired the cap for $11M
• They added Joe Johnson for $20M
• They gave Lopez a new deal at $14M
• They added Gerald Wallace for $10
• Plus some other moving parts and their cap number went from $65M to $48M

If the hard cap was $68M, they could still give Lopez his deal and add Wallace but they couldnt add Johnson.  Whatever the dynamics of the events, increasing the payroll total like that wouldnt happen.  Lets forget adding KG, PP & Terry, just fast-forward to what is on their books for 15/16, its Deron & Johnson (guaranteed deals) and a player option for Lopez.  If they dont have Johnson then they have $41M on the books and if the hard cap is $68M + whatever it went up, they are  $27M + whatever it went up under the cap.  Now in reality Lopez is opting out, so they are going to be at $50M, but that could have been $25M if they couldnt add Johnson.
 
Those players would have got deals elsewhere, but what is accomplished is that an individual team isnt allowed to running further and further away from having cap space.  Even if they are at the cap and they have anything that is expiring, then they have at least that cap space.
 
 

 
You're spreading Brooklyn's problems throughout the league? I guess I'm just not following. Truth be told, I'm having a little bit of trouble grasping the thesis statement here. What's the major problem that you're trying to solve here, exactly?

 
My original thesis is that I would like a simpler CBA which effectively still has the same total spending throughout the league and is primarily accomplished by a hard cap.  I think simpler is better for some of the reasons I posted upthread.  An ancillary benefit of that is the 'salary peaks and valleys' that I think it can avoid, and I used Brooklyn as my most extreme example.  The purpose isnt simplification to stop peaks and valleys.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
The transition from 2011/12 to 2012/13 is really a good example.  The big changes were:

• After 11/12 Okur expired the cap for $11M
• They added Joe Johnson for $20M
• They gave Lopez a new deal at $14M
• They added Gerald Wallace for $10
• Plus some other moving parts and their cap number went from $65M to $48M

If the hard cap was $68M, they could still give Lopez his deal and add Wallace but they couldnt add Johnson.  Whatever the dynamics of the events, increasing the payroll total like that wouldnt happen.  Lets forget adding KG, PP & Terry, just fast-forward to what is on their books for 15/16, its Deron & Johnson (guaranteed deals) and a player option for Lopez.  If they dont have Johnson then they have $41M on the books and if the hard cap is $68M + whatever it went up, they are  $27M + whatever it went up under the cap.  Now in reality Lopez is opting out, so they are going to be at $50M, but that could have been $25M if they couldnt add Johnson.
 
Those players would have got deals elsewhere, but what is accomplished is that an individual team isnt allowed to running further and further away from having cap space.  Even if they are at the cap and they have anything that is expiring, then they have at least that cap space.
 
 
 
My original thesis is that I would like a simpler CBA which effectively still has the same total spending throughout the league and is primarily accomplished by a hard cap.  I think simpler is better for some of the reasons I posted upthread.  An ancillary benefit of that is the 'salary peaks and valleys' that I think it can avoid, and I used Brooklyn as my most extreme example.  The purpose isnt simplification to stop peaks and valleys.

 
This is what I don't quite get: Cap space isn't the ultimate goal for every team in the league, nor should it be. Oklahoma City, for instance, may not have substantial cap space again for a half a decade. And that's a great thing for the league. If everything goes as planned for them, the trio of Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka will lead them to championships and warrant new contracts. In your system, all three would likely have to take paycuts to make that happen, or Oklahoma City would have to be stingy with the supporting cast to ensure that had the space down the road to re-sign that major trio. If any of Reggie Jackson, Mitch McGary, Jeremy Lamb, or Steven Adams blossom into stars or even high-end role players, Oklahoma City wouldn't be able to afford to keep them. How do you explain to OKC that the reason the league has mandated that they can't keep their homegrown talent is that the league wants Brooklyn to have cap space soon? How do you explain to the owners of franchises in cities like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minnesota, and other less-than-desirable locales that the league's placing a new emphasis on player movement in free agency, and if they're successful in drafting well and developing talent they won't be able to keep all of it?
 
Lastly, you keep bemoaning this idea of salary peaks and valleys, but the example you're using in Brooklyn doesn't include any valleys. It sounds to me like you're trying to create peaks and valleys. I guess I just don't see what's accomplished by forcing the Brooklyns of the world into cap space every couple of years. What harm is Brooklyn doing to the league right now? It'd be one thing if they could just buy the best players in the league consistently, but I'm not sure they have a top 25 guy on their roster. If they want to spend the way they are to continue being mediocre, so be it. I'm just not seeing the break in the system when it comes to player movement and team construction.

 

[zenter]

Yeah, I'm not clear on the goal, wutang. Like in in two sentences.
 
Here's mine: Talent should be paid commensurate with their value and they cannot because of the cap. That said, in the interest of competitive balance across have/have-not teams, teams should be encouraged to spend within a reasonable range.
 
My solution meets my goals. There's ONLY a (higher) soft cap after which there is a non-prohibitive-but-painful "luxury tax" and repeater escalators. Exceptions et all are eliminated.

 

[wutang112878]

 
This is what I don't quite get: Cap space isn't the ultimate goal for every team in the league, nor should it be. Oklahoma City, for instance, may not have substantial cap space again for a half a decade. And that's a great thing for the league. If everything goes as planned for them, the trio of Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka will lead them to championships and warrant new contracts. In your system, all three would likely have to take paycuts to make that happen, or Oklahoma City would have to be stingy with the supporting cast to ensure that had the space down the road to re-sign that major trio. If any of Reggie Jackson, Mitch McGary, Jeremy Lamb, or Steven Adams blossom into stars or even high-end role players, Oklahoma City wouldn't be able to afford to keep them. How do you explain to OKC that the reason the league has mandated that they can't keep their homegrown talent is that the league wants Brooklyn to have cap space soon? How do you explain to the owners of franchises in cities like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minnesota, and other less-than-desirable locales that the league's placing a new emphasis on player movement in free agency, and if they're successful in drafting well and developing talent they won't be able to keep all of it?
 
Lastly, you keep bemoaning this idea of salary peaks and valleys, but the example you're using in Brooklyn doesn't include any valleys. It sounds to me like you're trying to create peaks and valleys. I guess I just don't see what's accomplished by forcing the Brooklyns of the world into cap space every couple of years. What harm is Brooklyn doing to the league right now? It'd be one thing if they could just buy the best players in the league consistently, but I'm not sure they have a top 25 guy on their roster. If they want to spend the way they are to continue being mediocre, so be it. I'm just not seeing the break in the system when it comes to player movement and team construction.

 
So lets look past the peaks and valleys because that really is an ancillary thing and you are correct it only affects a very few franchises.
 
The issues with OKC are problems in today's system, no doubt, but in a system where everyone is playing by these rules the talent would have to be spread out more than it is today.  So the issues around not being able to retain everyone would be something that everyone is facing.  And lets remember that my hard cap would be above today's soft cap but short of the luxury level.  It seems as though OKC wont go to or past the luxury tax, so I think they would be ok with my new system. 
 
I think this would give the less than desirable locations a better chance to be involved in free agency actually.  They would have more money under the cap, and the teams that are beyond or near the luxury level would have slightly less.  If they want to keep their homegrown talent, but have a higher hard cap than the soft cap, how does that really stop them from retaining much talent?  This is just a guess, but the spread between the soft and luxury tax today is about 10-15M or so, and I would expect my hard cap to fall close to the middle of that range.  So we are talking about losing somewhere between $5M - $8M in flexibility, which to me doesnt seem to be too limiting.
 
 

Yeah, I'm not clear on the goal, wutang. Like in in two sentences.
 
Here's mine: Talent should be paid commensurate with their value and they cannot because of the cap. That said, in the interest of competitive balance across have/have-not teams, teams should be encouraged to spend within a reasonable range.
 
My solution meets my goals. There's ONLY a (higher) soft cap after which there is a non-prohibitive-but-painful "luxury tax" and repeater escalators. Exceptions et all are eliminated.

 
In 2 sentences: I want the CBA to be easier to understand, by eliminating some complexity like all the exceptions like MLE, Bi-Annual, etc.  Thats accomplished with a higher hard cap by in essence providing additional flexibility that is lost when removing the exceptions.
 
I wouldnt be adverse to your system because at the end of the day I really just want all the exceptions to be gone, because I no longer have time to digest and remember all the intricacies of the CBA like I used to (even though as Marty mentioned the changes arent that significant just minor tweaks). 
 
I kind of got us off track with what I thought would be an ancillary benefit of stopping teams like the Nets from going bonkers, but as I found chatting with Marty the effect there really isnt that huge.