The 2017 NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement Opt-Out

[PapaG]

How should this impact current contracts being offered? It would make me leery of a big contract this summer, but for summer 2015, it's a better deal. Amnesty of contracts seems to be a given in pasts CBA negotiations, and it makes sense for both sides.

The owners get to get rid of a cap figure who isn't performing to his contract, and open up cap space.

The players get fully paid on the contracts, and the cap money is used to sign a fellow union member to a contract.

Only cheap owners would be against not only one amnesty, but why not two? Rich owners and player union members would want as much money available to improve their team, and their wallet, respectively.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think a bit of that will be mitigated by the upcoming TV deal. With popularity so high (and live TV being able to charge exorbitant advertising fees) most NBA folks feel that the networks will back up a Brink's truck to get the rights, which adds to BRI. If in 2016 or 2017 the cap's somewhere near 75M (with the tax line at 90M or so) then the few contracts you sign now won't be cripplers by the 2017 lockout--and I'm pretty sure there'll be one, unless owners can pacify the players early and big. I don't see that happening.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Does this make it easier or harder to trade lamarcus?

 

[PapaG]

I think a bit of that will be mitigated by the upcoming TV deal. With popularity so high (and live TV being able to charge exorbitant advertising fees) most NBA folks feel that the networks will back up a Brink's truck to get the rights, which adds to BRI. If in 2016 or 2017 the cap's somewhere near 75M (with the tax line at 90M or so) then the few contracts you sign now won't be cripplers by the 2017 lockout--and I'm pretty sure there'll be one, unless owners can pacify the players early and big. I don't see that happening.

First off ... welcome back!!

Secondly, that's my point. The closer to 2017 it gets, the more a max contract signed prior to it diminishes. Max contracts to players in their prime seem to be the best bet in 2015. You get 2 years of your max player, and then could amnesty him if there is debilitating injury whenever the 2017 opt out is re-negotiated. And one side will opt out. The players ended up getting a bit screwed on the 2011 CBA, in terms of their potential free agency. The 5-year/4-year UFA change for sign-and-trades should be readdressed by the players. If I'm negotiating for owners, I'd want 2 amnesty attempts if I'm a rich owner, and the standard 1 amnesty contract if I owned the Jazz.

 

[BrianFromWA]

thanks . It was a long few months leading a project, but I'm back to normal for a couple of weeks...and I can't miss draft time.

I guess I just don't see that that risk is going to be realized in the 2014 set. Totally agree with you about 2015 being the sweet spot, but I don't know how many GMs/owners are going to wait around until next year's class. I mean, some of the biggest names on the 2015 market (LBJ, Love, LMA, etc) could already be locked up before the summer starts. And if the cap's going up, you're not getting lux tax-penalized for that debilitating injury (and in amnesty you're paying the cash anyway).

If it was still an austere environment (say, 2009) then I could see contracts being doled out parsimoniously this summer. But with the league popular, some superstars on the market, the league about to be flush with cash, cap and tax line increasing...I just don't see it being a downer.

And I agree with your amnesty thoughts, but I think there are still more "Jazz-y" types now than "rich" types. Fewer than before (with MIL's new owners, Ranadive, Ballmer), but still a majority.