Roy's negotiations and the fear of a hard cap

[maxiep]

I have to think given the current crazy level of the median salary ($5.8MM) and the finances of most NBA teams, the new CBA is going to be much less player friendly. There may even be talk of an NFL-style hard cap with non-guaranteed contracts, where you can't go over the cap even to re-sign your own players.

We may look to limit Roy's contract, because to sign him long term may mean renouncing a guy like Oden or LaMarcus. And don't give me the Turkuglu or Millsap line, because we could cut those guys in a heartbeat a few years from now and not lose sleep over it.

I don't think this negotiation has anything to do with Brandon's perceived value to this team, but the idea of keeping everyone here to win as many championships as possible. Everyone involved knows he's the face, heart and soul of the franchise and everyone loves him. However, we also know that Roy wants to win. Is he willing to gut this team just to get a few more dollars? I'm not sure that reality has fully hit home with him. He and his agent are thinking about this negotiation under these CBA guidelines. It's the BBT's job not only to think about this year, but also the future.

Flame away, but I'm just offering an alternative explanation to a confusing situation.

 

[ABM]

I have to think given the current crazy level of the median salary ($5.8MM) and the finances of most NBA teams, the new CBA is going to be much less player friendly. There may even be talk of an NFL-style hard cap with non-guaranteed contracts, where you can't go over the cap even to re-sign your own players.

We may look to limit Roy's contract, because to sign him long term may mean renouncing a guy like Oden or LaMarcus. And don't give me the Turkuglu or Millsap line, because we could cut those guys in a heartbeat a few years from now and not lose sleep over it.

I don't think this negotiation has anything to do with Brandon's perceived value to this team, but the idea of keeping everyone here to win as many championships as possible. Everyone involved knows he's the face, heart and soul of the franchise and everyone loves him. However, we also know that Roy wants to win. Is he willing to gut this team just to get a few more dollars? I'm not sure that reality has fully hit home with him. He and his agent are thinking about this negotiation under these CBA guidelines. It's the BBT's job not only to think about this year, but also the future.

Flame away, but I'm just offering an alternative explanation to a confusing situation.

That's about as pragmatic explanation as I've seen in here............or anywhere.

Repped, young man.

 

[illmatic99]

That certainly makes sense, but is there conclusive evidence that there WILL definitely be a hard cap?

 

[Draco]

When there are massive changes to the CBA they get phased in over multiple seasons. I don't think the NBA commissioner, who works for and answers to the owners, is going to put a system in place that could screw over numerous team in a short time span.

I think the Roy negotiations are more about keeping the teams options open, as they know Roy will agree to a max extend/resign if he is still a top 10 player in a number of seasons but the team can save money if he has a few injuries/setbacks.

 

[oldmangrouch]

That certainly makes sense, but is there conclusive evidence that there WILL definitely be a hard cap?

Stern has expressly stated that is his goal....and when was the last time Stern didn't get his way on an important issue? The owners who won't like the idea (IE the ones who put winning first) don't have the guts for a confrontation, and the player's union is too weak to put up a meaningful fight. The fans? We don't count.

 

[Idog1976]

Stern has expressly stated that is his goal....and when was the last time Stern didn't get his way on an important issue? The owners who won't like the idea (IE the ones who put winning first) don't have the guts for a confrontation, and the player's union is too weak to put up a meaningful fight. The fans? We don't count.

Can you provide a link for that?

I hadn't heard that he wants a hardcap. You certainly are right about Stern's will being immediately entered into the record with a clap of his hands. His scalp disturbed only by the breeze created by slaves fanning him with palm fronds...

"So let it be written! So let it be done!"

 

[Idog1976]

I have to think given the current crazy level of the median salary ($5.8MM) and the finances of most NBA teams, the new CBA is going to be much less player friendly. There may even be talk of an NFL-style hard cap with non-guaranteed contracts, where you can't go over the cap even to re-sign your own players.

We may look to limit Roy's contract, because to sign him long term may mean renouncing a guy like Oden or LaMarcus. And don't give me the Turkuglu or Millsap line, because we could cut those guys in a heartbeat a few years from now and not lose sleep over it.

I don't think this negotiation has anything to do with Brandon's perceived value to this team, but the idea of keeping everyone here to win as many championships as possible. Everyone involved knows he's the face, heart and soul of the franchise and everyone loves him. However, we also know that Roy wants to win. Is he willing to gut this team just to get a few more dollars? I'm not sure that reality has fully hit home with him. He and his agent are thinking about this negotiation under these CBA guidelines. It's the BBT's job not only to think about this year, but also the future.

Flame away, but I'm just offering an alternative explanation to a confusing situation.

Excellent post and an interesting possibility. I tried to rep but need to "spread more around."

I agree with your premise but, I also think the idea that the front office is setting a standard for negotiations with LMA and Oden who they may not want to max out for flexibility and performance reasons. Oden while still holding fantastic potential of almost unlimited beast domination in the middle, still hasn't put it together on the floor consistently. I am in the realist camp that G.O didn't play for a year and couldn't do serious lifting with his legs (just did his first squat in over a year a few weeks back) coming back from ME etc. However, Oden needs to show alot more in order to be worth a max year max salary deal.


Roy to me is clearly a max salary, max year player, but equally clearly he should recognize that if he wants to win he might have to settle for a few less million in the interest of creating a potential dynasty. Roy has a chance to show his leadership here but someone might need to explain to him why they need that 4th year contract to end so they can resign Batum, Bayless, Rudy, LMA and Oden.

I am sure it will all work out and that the media is over playing it for their own reasons. I still expect some trades to occur this summer as I think Pritchard would be really putting us in a dangerous situation if he made no moves this summer. I say this because he would then only have two real opportunities to change our roster in a significant manner that being the trade deadline and draft 2010. I think you have to be careful not to paint yourself into a corner and lose leverage with everyone knowing you HAVE to make a move and that is where we would be with an unchanged roster on draft day 2010.

Make no mistake this Roy negotiation thing is not done as an insult or a questioning of Roy's talent. It has everything to do with flexibility and long term strategy.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Can you provide a link for that?

I hadn't heard that he wants a hardcap. You certainly are right about Stern's will be immediately entered into the record with a clap of his hands. His scalp disturbed only by the breeze created by slaves fanning him with palm fronds...

"So let it be written! So let it be done!"

Sorry, it has been several months since that interview took place, and my google-fu is too weak to track it down right now.

Stern is smart. He has fired his volley across the bow of the players, and for now he is content to keep the issue off the radar. Only a few writers (including the much-maligned Bill Simmons) have made an effort to keep the story in the public eye.

 

[Haakzilla]

I think the Roy negotiations are more about keeping the teams options open, as they know Roy will agree to a max extend/resign if he is still a top 10 player in a number of seasons but the team can save money if he has a few injuries/setbacks.

...and technically speaking, he is somewhat "injury-prone"

 

[ABM]

Stern has expressly stated that is his goal....and when was the last time Stern didn't get his way on an important issue? The owners who won't like the idea (IE the ones who put winning first) don't have the guts for a confrontation, and the player's union is too weak to put up a meaningful fight. The fans? We don't count.

FWIW...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/stern/060216

S: And we've given teams a look with rookies' contracts -- the team has the option after two years to see if they want to extend it. So we worked around the edges, it's called "accommodation" rather than "work stoppage." And frankly, I think what we're gonna demonstrate through this deal is that the better players who are playing well are helped by the shorter contracts. Right now it's five [for a new free-agent contract] and six [for someone re-signing with his own team]. It used to be six and seven … maybe five and four isn't a terrible idea.

BS: So you're taking baby steps.

DS: Completely.

BS: In '99 [with the lockout], you grew a beard, you dug in your heels, you were ready to cancel the season … it was almost like poker. You were hoping they would fold, you knew these guys had their money spread all these different ways, right? What was the mind-set heading into the lockout?

DS: We didn't have a business model that worked. And if we didn't make a change then, we would never make a change. The players couldn't afford it, but quite frankly, many of the owners couldn't afford it. Right now we have a system that has a cap, an individual player's cap, a rookie cap, an escrow, and a tax. And by the way, I always believed that the hard cap works for the NFL, but it doesn't work for a league with smaller rosters. [Imagine in the '80s, if teams were saying], when their contracts expired, "All right, who we gonna get rid of, Parish, McHale or Bird?" or, "Who we gonna get rid of, Kareem, Magic or Worthy?" It just didn't make sense. We always wanted a softer cap that allowed teams to retain their own free agents, but we needed to come up with a system that said, "Yes, but you can only pay them a certain amount by the years of service."

BS: I still can't believe the agents agreed to that.

DS: You know, they're smart, they're smart. This was a system that was going to pay the players more … it was about the system. The salary cap keeps going up, the average salary keeps going up. It's really about distribution, to the extent that one player doesn't take out a disproportionate amount so it remains there for the other players...........

or.............

http://www.hoopsvibe.com/nba-blog/cba-drama-5-reasons-for-nba-work-stoppage-in-2011-ar50296.html


or..................

http://www.insidehoops.com/lockout-interview-061305.shtml

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Clearly, there are going to be large changes in the NBA. A hard cap and non guaranteed salaries has been discussed for the last two years. It's also clear the player's union will fight very hard against both issues. Who knows, it may cause a prolonged work stoppage.

But in the case of BR, I don't think this is the reason for stalled negotiations for two reasons:

1) If the players are going to agree to both a hard cap and non guaranteed salaries, then there will have to be some grandfathering in on current conrtacts.

2) So what? For example, da Bulls won numerous championships with 3 players and trash- MJ, Pippen & Rodman. None of the other players (who came and went as frequently as Shawn Kemp did with women) were all-stars and none will be hall of famers. All we need is BR, LA & Oden (assuming he improves) and surround them with trash and we should be OK. So, we need to keep those 3 happy.

 

[BlazersBlood]

Wouldn't the thought of having a hard cap only promote the thought of extending Roy as long as possible? If they do move in that direction (highly unlikely IMO) they would have to grandfather in all the existing contracts and implement the hard cap in over several seasons.

 

[SpanishFly]

I have to think given the current crazy level of the median salary ($5.8MM) and the finances of most NBA teams, the new CBA is going to be much less player friendly. There may even be talk of an NFL-style hard cap with non-guaranteed contracts, where you can't go over the cap even to re-sign your own players.

We may look to limit Roy's contract, because to sign him long term may mean renouncing a guy like Oden or LaMarcus. And don't give me the Turkuglu or Millsap line, because we could cut those guys in a heartbeat a few years from now and not lose sleep over it.

I don't think this negotiation has anything to do with Brandon's perceived value to this team, but the idea of keeping everyone here to win as many championships as possible. Everyone involved knows he's the face, heart and soul of the franchise and everyone loves him. However, we also know that Roy wants to win. Is he willing to gut this team just to get a few more dollars? I'm not sure that reality has fully hit home with him. He and his agent are thinking about this negotiation under these CBA guidelines. It's the BBT's job not only to think about this year, but also the future.

Flame away, but I'm just offering an alternative explanation to a confusing situation.

Heya Riggo (Surge from Olive), I totally agree, the NEW economics of the next CBA are likely going to be vastly different and I am sure Blazer mgmt is thinking ahead as are many agents. And with the cap and hence Lux tax level likely to be MUCH lower next summer, it gets very interesting. Things are not as cut and dry as many think.

 

[Sinobas]

That doesn't make sense to me.

A) If they truly feared that, they would want to lock him and Aldridge up ASAP BEFORE that new rule went into effect.

B) They would not be going after Paul Millsap if they feared it would mean losing Oden.

 

[Minstrel]

That doesn't make sense to me.

A) If they truly feared that, they would want to lock him and Aldridge up ASAP BEFORE that new rule went into effect.

B) They would not be going after Paul Millsap if they feared it would mean losing Oden.

If the NBA went to an NFL-like system, contracts would be unguaranteed. Which means that they could cut Millsap if needed.

Ideally, Portland would get Roy and Aldridge locked up to as reasonable contracts as possible so that, in such an eventuality, they wouldn't need to cut either of them to be able to afford other players, like Oden (or, if one of them breaks out into a star, Bayless, Batum, Fernandez).

 

[Ed O]

I don't think we know enough about what the CBA will look like, but I don't think that a hard cap is a real possibility. The NBA wants to LIMIT player movement to allow fans to connect and to reduce the chances of free agent bidding wars.

Compare and contrast Hedo and Roy. Hedo was unrestricted and had teams lining up to give him five year deals. Roy is presumably being offered more money a year but fewer years... because he has so little leverage.

By limiting free agent movement, it allows teams to control their costs more easily and hurts players, potentially (although BRI distribution percentages can be established so players overall make an acceptable amount as a group).

Maybe it will be a franchise player designation or some other type of restricted free agency/qualifying offer thing for players... I dunno.

Within THIS context, Portland does not want to commit too long to any player. They want to pay Roy and take care of him, but they would know that, when his contract ran out, he would have fewer options.

Ed O.

 

[BlazersBlood]

If the NBA went to an NFL-like system, contracts would be unguaranteed. Which means that they could cut Millsap if needed.

Ideally, Portland would get Roy and Aldridge locked up to as reasonable contracts as possible so that, in such an eventuality, they wouldn't need to cut either of them to be able to afford other players, like Oden (or, if one of them breaks out into a star, Bayless, Batum, Fernandez).

If they moved to a hard cap, the current contracts wouldn't all of a sudden become "non-guaranteed." They are contracts and they'd have to honor them. The only difference would be that maybe they wouldn't count against the cap, but they'd still have to pay them. That sounds like bad business to me.

 

[LOTBfan]

Bad business is letting franchises fail in markets that can't afford to go as far over the cap as a rich owner desires to chase the wins. While it may mean that players won't march further and further towards making 25, 30, 40 million a year, it will allow for the teams, and thus the penetration of the NBA, to continue in places other than to top 5 cities... that IS good business, and that is exactly what Stern was talking about.

In a failing economy where a good percentage of your owners are walking a thin financial line, doing what it takes to keep teams on the hardwood needs to be looked at as being just as important as inflated player salaries. Will this piss off players and their managers? Sure. Will there be lockouts? Maybe. But in the long run, if the economy doesn't turn around and giuve all these car dealership owners some playing money, the whole league will turn on its head and the players will be unemployed anyway.

 

[cdub503]

NBA_Rumors_News: Brandon Roy says he feels there is a 50% chance he will remain a Trailblazer after this season

per Twitter fwiw

I call bs though

 

[B-Roy]

NBA_Rumors_News: Brandon Roy says he feels there is a 50% chance he will remain a Trailblazer after this season

per Twitter fwiw

I call bs though

Um..that came from Roy's interview when he mentioned the 50/50 chance of getting something done.

NBA_Rumors_News is a twitter made by some random fan, which happens to post news a few days after they have already come out.

 

[cdub503]

Meh!

 

[PapaG]

It makes that much more sense for the players to strike at next year's All-Star break.

 

[Ed O]

Um..that came from Roy's interview when he mentioned the 50/50 chance of getting something done.

NBA_Rumors_News is a twitter made by some random fan, which happens to post news a few days after they have already come out.

Yes. Without sources most of the time and seemingly without very good reading comprehension of the stories he's regurgitating

Ed O.

 

[Sinobas]

Well, all the COs and business owners that shut down non-profitable businesses would disagree with you there.

Is it possible that the NBA needs to downsize? Baseball went on during the great depression, but players didn't earn nearly what they are now. If the NBA forces them to take too much of a pay cut, how many will we see bolting to Europe? Europe's economy is in the crapper too, so how many players could they even absorb?

The NBA has a pretty good system in place right now, they enforce the luxury tax on teams that go too far over and divide that money amongst the rest of the teams. Many teams that were previously willing to go over the cap are now very reluctant to because of that. It's a great system.

One area, that I hope they would make like the NFL is non-guaranteed contracts. Or perhaps, have a maximum number of guaranteed years in every contract. It would prevent teams being being strapped with players who aren't really worth it.

Bad business is letting franchises fail in markets that can't afford to go as far over the cap as a rich owner desires to chase the wins. While it may mean that players won't march further and further towards making 25, 30, 40 million a year, it will allow for the teams, and thus the penetration of the NBA, to continue in places other than to top 5 cities... that IS good business, and that is exactly what Stern was talking about.

In a failing economy where a good percentage of your owners are walking a thin financial line, doing what it takes to keep teams on the hardwood needs to be looked at as being just as important as inflated player salaries. Will this piss off players and their managers? Sure. Will there be lockouts? Maybe. But in the long run, if the economy doesn't turn around and giuve all these car dealership owners some playing money, the whole league will turn on its head and the players will be unemployed anyway.