The Lockout

[T Dot O Dot]

3 things that have been agreed upon :

¶ There will be a one-time “amnesty” provision that will allow each team to waive a player (with pay) without his salary counting against the salary cap.

¶ There will be a “stretch” exception, available every year, allowing teams to waive players and stretch out their remaining salary over a number of seasons, thus reducing the annual salary-cap hit.

¶ The midlevel exception will be set around $5 million, a decrease of $800,000, but more than double what the owners were seeking.

[T Dot O Dot]

For the players, the cost of saying “no” can be easily quantified. The owners have offered the players 50 percent of BRI. This season’s BRI is expected to be around $4 billion, so the owners are offering the players a $2 billion slice of the pie. The players are holding out for a 53 percent share, so they’re looking for $2.12 billion.

That’s $120 million that separates them. Of course, that’s just in year one. Over the course of a six-year agreement, assuming four percent growth per year, the total is closer to $796 million.

To say “no” and wait means to suffer the consequences. Those consequences very soon will be cancelled games, meaning revenue will be lost that will never be recouped. The players will be faced with choosing between a 50 percent share of a larger pie, and a 53 percent share of a smaller pie. The longer they hold out, the more the pie will shrink.

If we use the 1998-99 lockout as a guide, a canceled game costs each player 1/82nd of his salary. A full NBA regular season lasts 170 days, so each missed week represents 7/170th of a player’s income. So if a week’s worth of games is cancelled because they say “no” to the owners’ 50 percent offer, the players miss out on $82.4 million.

The players are holding out for an additional $120 million in 2011-12, but holding out costs them $82.4 million per week. They would lose everything they stand to gain this season in less than two weeks. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.

Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled.

Keep in mind that December 16th represents the point at which the players as a whole will break-even. Each individual player would need to stay in the league for six years to recoup his lost wages. In a league where the average career lasts fewer than five years, that’s going to be a problem.

This is one reason the owners have an advantage in this labor dispute -- they have a longer window of time to recoup their losses. An average player is likely to be out of the league in a few years, but an owner can hang on to his team for decades.

[Bklyn]

That's also why that math is too simple. Speaking of only BRI, like that is the only (or last) sticking point, instead of the first in a long line of negotiation points that need to be ironed out, is being overly simplistic.

Without knowing how everything else goes, you have no idea if 6 (or ten, like the owners were proposing) years @ 50% is something that is even equitable to the union.

The owners have an asset they can hold for decades and pass down generationally, Buss style, but the players have a shorter window and need to make sure they don't keep conceding point after point and wind up in a totally inequitable long-term deal after everything is hashed out.

My guess is that that information was provided by an owner to the journo.

[Owlman]

The players keep saying the owners are out to break the union. That's just silly. It's the union that gives the owners protection against antitrust violations.

Anyway, the owners aren't trying to break the union, they are pressuring the majority of the union to step up and limit the highest and best talent. It's easy for the top players to say that they are going to sit out a year. But players 6 through 15, this lockout is extremely painful. They will not like it at all to miss a full season.

[T Dot O Dot]

I would say BRI is the major sticking point, the players have already agreed to shorten contracts by one year

I know Coon's numbers are simplistic, but once you have the BRI %'s and a projection for growth the math works

the salary cap (or luxury penalties) is the next big issue, which doesnt make a whole lot of sense since no matter what, once the BRI is set, the players will get money even if it comes as a surplus cheque if salaries fall short.

we know the cap will be soft since they are bickering about the allowed raises on contracts generated by the mid-level exception(still a slightly irrelevant point once the BRI is set)

Then you have the players asking for rookie deals to be shortened to 4 years and unrestricted free agency afterwards?

Fuqqouttahere with that. So every player can go free after their rookie deal? Might as well just turn half of the teams into a farm league & kill the NBDL.

That's the shyt I hate right there. I'm at the point where BRI isnt even an issue to me anymore, let the players keep 60% for all I care, just make the system so every fan base can have a glimmer of hope every 2-3 seasons. No bad decision or contract should depress a team's long term success for longer than 3 years.

[T Dot O Dot]

The players keep saying the owners are out to break the union. That's just silly. It's the union that gives the owners protection against antitrust violations.

Anyway, the owners aren't trying to break the union, they are pressuring the majority of the union to step up and limit the highest and best talent. It's easy for the top players to say that they are going to sit out a year. But players 6 through 15, this lockout is extremely painful. They will not like it at all to miss a full season.

I think the players are are referring to Spurs owner Peter Holt's comments about they "haven't felt enough pain yet" with regard to missing paycheques.

While I'm not apalled or surprised by that... still a pretty dumb thing to say.It's on of those sentiments that is obviously well known, but you're not supposed to outright verbalize it.

[Owlman]

I think the players are are referring to Spurs owner Peter Holt's comments about they "haven't felt enough pain yet" with regard to missing paycheques.

That's actually my point. The vast majority of the players can't handle a lot of lost games. These aren't the big ticket people, the ones who take big advantage of free agency. These are the people playing for the mid-level exception or less. Their interests are much more concerned with minimum contracts, mid-level exceptions, pensions etc.

[Jungle Rat]

What about the beer vendors?

fuck them

[Hizzy III]

I think the players are are referring to Spurs owner Peter Holt's comments about they "haven't felt enough pain yet" with regard to missing paycheques.

That's actually my point. The vast majority of the players can't handle a lot of lost games. These aren't the big ticket people, the ones who take big advantage of free agency. These are the people playing for the mid-level exception or less. Their interests are much more concerned with minimum contracts, mid-level exceptions, pensions etc.

This is pretty much the rub with all professional sports leagues. Brady, Manning, Brees, et al can sit through a work stoppage and absorb the negatives a lot easier than, say, Arian Foster, who's basically making the league minimum because he was an undrafted FA.

[aTm]

[Hizzy III]

Best $30 million that was never spent.

[aTm]

Arian could wear those same shoes.

[Bklyn]

Fat Boy going in hard on Fish....

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Whit ... sed-102811

(I would smack him like I was Charles Oakley the next time I saw him)

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Dere ... les-101211

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/nba- ... ers-102611

[Hizzy III]

Yeah, I heard him on the radio basically calling Fisher out for being self-serving. Basically said that he probably has GM aspirations down the line and realizes this is his chance to get in good with the owners.

Par for the course. Sports writers don't really give a damn about being responsible. They can throw stuff out there, write parts of it as fact (using a lot of unnamed sources) and then drop in a couple of opinions along the way. Meh. And why should they care about responsible journalism in this day in age? The sports going public doesn't really hold them accountable for this kind of stuff. Be compelling and be provocative.

Now he may end up being right about Fisher having a personal agenda (and specifically front office type agendas) but Whitlock doesn't have any confirmation or corroboration of this. That doesn't stop him from pushing the notion, though.

"As a journalist, I have to raise the question."

Except, he's not raising it, he's basically suggesting it.

[T Dot O Dot]

yeah, whitlock goes off the deepend alot

connecting the dots with regard to Michael Curry? Really?

Curry presided (well Hunter really)over a negotiation that got the players 57% BRI

I just dont get the whole thought process, I find these 2 points completely contradictory:

Looking out for the best interests of superstars, stars, role players and bench players is extremely complex. The difference between 52 and 50 percent won’t come out of the salaries of LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant and Dirk Nowitzki. It’s the bottom 325 players who are going to be squeezed financially.

Earlier this week, I contacted Steve Nash and Grant Hill to talk about the lockout. They are the kind of mature, super-wealthy, thoughtful players who should be at the head of the union.

so Wade, Bron, Kobe & Dirk are too paid to be looking out for the players' best interests?

but Nash & Hill are super wealthy... so they are perfect candidates to do it?

meanwhile Fish didn't make enough to not sellout to Stern?

Whut?

[Bklyn]

Fat Boy just ain't that bright. He just likes to be provocative (get the people going).

[Hizzy III]

Fat Boy just ain't that bright. He just likes to be provocative (get the people going).

Tah-dahh...

[Bklyn]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/718 ... ayers-cave

[T Dot O Dot]

http://on-msn.com/vfVctY

[Bklyn]

Right or wrong, when Whitlock goes in, he goes in hard.