Blog Entry

Owners position shifts on MLE?

Posted on: November 24, 2011 3:22 pm
Edited on: November 24, 2011 3:26 pm
 
By Matt Moore 

There were a number of issues that caused the last meltdown in NBA talks, leading to the players' disclaim of interest and subsequent lawsuits. Among them was the mid-level Exception. Essentially, the league's proposal called for teams in the luxury-tax to be unable to use the full mid-level, instead limiting them to a shortened (both financially and in length of term) version. There was also discrepancy over whether teams who were under the tax prior to using the luxury-tax but in the luxury-tax after would be considered "tax paying teams" and therefore unable to use the full mid-level. But with both sides angling towards another attempt at resolution (first reported by CBSSports.com last week), there's been movement on the MLE, according to ESPN: 
Sources close to the situation told ESPN.com that Stern has privately surveyed a handful of owners about their willingness to ease the restrictions on the proposed mid-level exception in a new labor agreement.

It is believed the league's next proposal to the players will contain tweaks to some of the "system" issues that the players have strongly objected to in recent negotiations. The players have long insisted -- in exchange for accepting a 50/50 split of annual basketball-related income, after earning a 57 percent share of BRI in the final year of the previous labor deal -- that the league's proposed restrictions against luxury-tax teams must be relaxed.
via NBA lockout -- New NBA talks aimed at resolving lawsuits, sources say - ESPN.

The players' position was that they would accept the lowered BRI split if the league would back off its systemic demands, like the MLE limit. A concession at this level might be enough to push the players off the ledge and get a deal for a Christmas-start season, as the league reportedly desires. However, given the breakdown in talks and increased number of lost games, it's hard to see the hard-line owners surrendering that with the same 50/50 BRI split. A scenario in which both sides agree to the MLE concession from the owners, only to discover the owners now want a more favorable BRI split is entirely possible. 

The question will be whether Stern can get a wrangle on the owners long enough to force a deal through and if this kind of concession is enough to get the players to swallow the huge turkey they're already being forced to down whole. 
Comments

Since: Jan 21, 2011
Posted on: November 25, 2011 6:56 am
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

Who cares? Has anyone shed a tear because there's no NBA? I don't think so. No one even realizes it's gone.
 



Since: Oct 3, 2011
Posted on: November 25, 2011 1:23 am
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

Good to see Karl Marx is represented on this site.....



Since: Oct 29, 2007
Posted on: November 25, 2011 12:02 am
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

Let them taste the Europe, in 2012. they'll come crawling to the NBA, I guarantee you that.




Since: Mar 17, 2007
Posted on: November 24, 2011 11:32 pm
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

"Players would move from team to team every year and probably hate it, but with the paychecks they collect, they have no right to complain." Interesting. So just how much money does a person have to earn before they lose their right to complain about working conditions? and does this apply to industries outside the NBA? Because if it means I get to stop listening to owners and CEOs and the other super-wealthy jack holes in this country complaining about their already minuscule tax rates, I might go along with you.



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: November 24, 2011 10:21 pm
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

If you want parity and a cap, then you scramble teams like they do in many rec leagues for kids.  Can you imagine the intense hype that would surround a summer draft every year where all the teams pick their teams from scratch like a fantasy draft? Each player would have a cap value assigned to them, teams would have to keep their total salaries under the cap.  Players would move from team to team every year and probably hate it, but with the paychecks they collect, they have no right to complain.  Teams wouldn't be doomed to years and years of mediocrity, every team would have a chance every year.  Maybe you could put in some modifications, let teams protect one or two players each year.  The rookies would be thrown into the mix with everyone else just like the fantasy drafts.  Fantasy leagues have already dissolved so many team allegiances anyway, it's the natural outgrowth.



Since: Oct 16, 2011
Posted on: November 24, 2011 10:16 pm
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

Michael Jordan is a hard line owner because he thinks it's economics that make the teams he has run or owned (Washington & Charlotte suck. The real reason these teams haven't performed is he is a an AWEFUL owner. He can't draft, trade, or develop players. DC is a large market in a big basketball area, yet they can't win. Charlotte is in basketball meca, yet they haven't been able to draw fans since the early nineties because the previous team had bad owners too.

Finally I understand why emotionally they want to keep a team in New Orleans, but anyone who thinks that NO is a better place to have team rather than Seatle or Vegas is sniffing glue! After the new deal the woners will sell that team move it, and generate a hge profit. Sort of how the Nets will ne 50% more valuable playing in Brooklyn than in NJ. Heck just putting Brooklyn on a hat or jersey will be twice as atractive versus NJ.



Since: Nov 29, 2006
Posted on: November 24, 2011 9:59 pm
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

I love basketball. I must say that it is so great without the NBA>>>> A bunch of over paid atheletes that in a large percentage are afraid to hit the floor for a loose ball, lucky to be shooting 75 percent from the FT line, and I do not even want to talk about shooting. God I miss the 80's / early 90's NBA>>>>> When players start making too much money the league starts to lose credit in my  eyes. The players are not hungry enough to get dirty then start using the excuse to start protecting players, from both the owners and the players, because of the money made. I am liking hockey more and more now. You cannot go out on the ice and give half an effort without paying a price for that unlike in the NBA where you can slack off and its no big deal anymore.....



WVBeachBum
Since: Feb 7, 2007
Posted on: November 24, 2011 9:01 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: November 24, 2011 8:11 pm
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

Already too much greed. I want the hard line owners to stay firm on the 47% for the players and a firm and very hard salary cap. There is to be NO going over on the cap, period.  The players do not really care about team and record, They only about how much they are paid. Hard cap should be the median salary from last's years teams times 60%. If the Union wants there players to go to Europe, let them go.



Since: May 29, 2010
Posted on: November 24, 2011 7:58 pm
 

Owners position shifts on MLE?

There's never been parity in the NBA.  There never will be.  Hard caps have nothing to do with it.  There is more parity now then there ever has been-six different teams have won it in the last 10 years.  Only comparable time was in the 70's when 6 different teams won it in 10 years.  The NBA had a hard cap in the 80's and most of the 90's and there was very little player movement and very little parity.  Parity (or lackthereof in the NBA) has more to do with talent than money.  The NBA is by far the most difficult league to build a championship franchise because the talent pool is so small.  Think about it.  What percentage of the general population is 6'10 or over?  Pretty small.  Now of those 6'10 and over people how many of them are elite athletes- microscopic portion.  Whole drafts come and go without producing very talented big men, so when a team gets lucky that sets them up for a long period of success.  When people say, "How come The Lakers are always good?  The money that's why."  It's not really the reason.  The Lakers have great management.  So much of there success is do trading Vlade Divac to Charlotte for Kobe Bryant's draft rights, which was the 13th pick in the draft.  I hate the Lakers.  I'm a Celtics fan, but the Lakers were way out in front of everyone with that trade.  Be careful what you wish for because a hard cap in the NBA won't prevent owners from foolishly spending money, but it will prevent them from fixing their mistakes, which will condemn many teams to long periods of malaise.  I've been watching the NBA since '79 and I've seen it happen.  Cap mismanagement condemned the Celtics to 20 years of mediocrity.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com