Want to read the owners proposal? Here it is.

[URL="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba%20proposal%2011-11-2011.pdf"]PDF File[/URL]. 7 pages.

Looks good..

[IMG]http://www.homeimprovementplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/contract.jpg[/IMG]

Wasn't the last one like 300 pages? You sure that is real?

Deal looks terrible...Players will fight for their 43%!

:violin:

[quote=Sarcastic]Wasn't the last one like 300 pages? You sure that is real?[/quote]It's not the entire CBA, it's a summary of the points of contention.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Wasn't the last one like 300 pages? You sure that is real?[/QUOTE]

Bet its just a simple summary/overview for everyone who isnt going to read 300 pages.

BTW, Stern and Silver are personally answering questions right now on Twitter, @NBA.

[url]https://twitter.com/#!/NBA[/url]

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]BTW, Stern and Silver are personally answering questions right now on Twitter, @NBA.

[url]https://twitter.com/#!/NBA[/url][/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]One_Sage Michael Sadoff
@NBA using the D-league 5 year $75k demotion clause, are you trying to get out from guarantee contracts? Isn't this clause a bit too unfair?
4 hours ago[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]NBA NBA
.@One_Sage No such clause was even proposed[/QUOTE]

Pretty cool seeing Stern interact with the players though.

[quote=NoGunzJustSkillz]Pretty cool seeing Stern interact with the players though.[/quote]That's true btw, there's no mention of the D-League in the proposal. Who knows where that came from, probably an agent.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C4zaisIRxQ&feature=channel_video_title[/url]


:oldlol: Stern is too much.

[QUOTE=Reverend Hoops][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C4zaisIRxQ&feature=channel_video_title[/url]


:oldlol: Stern is too much.[/QUOTE]

Do those facts bother you? Can't seem to twist them to make it seem like the players [I]aren't[/I] being greedy f

[URL="http://www.nba.com/news/Memo_to_Players_111311_3.pdf"]Stern to players[/URL]

Not gonna lie, the deal looks better than I expected.


That amnesty rule should be interesting.

[QUOTE=bdreason]Not gonna lie, the deal looks better than I expected.


That amnesty rule should be interesting.[/QUOTE]

I will be so choked as a Clippers fan. Because it will mean we gave away the 1st overall pick for nothing.

I like most of the changes in the system.

[QUOTE=Reverend Hoops][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C4zaisIRxQ&feature=channel_video_title[/url]


:oldlol: Stern is too much.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the propaganda machine is in full effect.
:oldlol:

Did anybody see the Sign and Trade Free Agent part?

After the 2012-13 season, taxpaying teams are prohibited to acquire a player like this. That's going to make things interesting. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=BoogieWoogieMan]Did anybody see the Sign and Trade Free Agent part?

After the 2012-13 season, taxpaying teams are prohibited to acquire a player like this. That's going to make things interesting. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

basically making previous MLE exceptions either retire or go to d-league. but ya know, it's all about 'competitive balance', making things 'fair' and making it 'even across the board', lol

i suspect the definition of 'taxpayer' will become much more broad as well.

I think the best part is "Dear Billy,"

[quote=BoogieWoogieMan]Did anybody see the Sign and Trade Free Agent part?

After the 2012-13 season, taxpaying teams are prohibited to acquire a player like this. That's going to make things interesting. :oldlol:[/quote]If you can't get under the tax while being able to amnesty two guys (who have a grandfathered in contract) then you've got some pretty major problems.

[quote=blacknapalm]basically making previous MLE exceptions either retire or go to d-league. but ya know, it's all about 'competitive balance', making things 'fair' and making it 'even across the board', lol

i suspect the definition of 'taxpayer' will become much more broad as well.[/quote] The go to the D-League for a prorated 175k or whatever is a complete falsehood.

[QUOTE=InspiredLebowski]The go to the D-League for a prorated 175k or whatever is a complete falsehood.[/QUOTE]

i already stated the d-league thing was a rumor. the MLE exception is not though and i actually don't have much of a problem with it since it affects so few players. i'd be upset if that was a sticking point for the players.

[quote=blacknapalm]i already stated the d-league thing was a rumor. the MLE exception is not though and i actually don't have much of a problem with it since it affects so few players. i'd be upset if that was a sticking point for the players.[/quote]My fault, thought that's what you were referring to.

[QUOTE=Fiasco]I will be so choked as a Clippers fan. Because it will mean we gave away the 1st overall pick for nothing.[/QUOTE]

From Donald Sterling point of view, he saved a lot of money. You still have to pay the player you choose for the amnesty

But I agree it sucks really bad for Clippers fan !

[QUOTE=TimmyDuncan]From Donald Sterling point of view, he saved a lot of money. You still have to pay the player you choose for the amnesty

But I agree it sucks really bad for Clippers fan ![/QUOTE]

ha, now you get it man. it sucks for the clips since they have some real talent despite sterling. i really wish you guys had a better owner. owners like the NJ owner are better for the league.

InspiredLebowski, i get it man. there's been a lot of confusion over that the last week or so. i'm pretty much fine with the MLE. not perfect but good.

4 year contracts lol....next

When I read the 7 pages ... my first thought came to mind was :

[SIZE="4"]The owners want the players to play for payroll increases , instead of the players telling the owners before they play what they think they are worth. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=BoogieWoogieMan]Did anybody see the Sign and Trade Free Agent part?

After the 2012-13 season, taxpaying teams are prohibited to acquire a player like this. That's going to make things interesting. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Once again - the players are trying to dedicate their worth before they play.
The only benny is that the owners have a option to obtain another player or lose the option.

Sign and trades - I never liked .

Commish : [url]http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7234584[/url]

decert: [url]http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/9699/an-economics-professor-explains-the-nbpa-and-the-lockout[/url]

Soft cap? Who the hell are they kidding?

Trying to calculate what the Isiah Knicks would have paid in luxury tax penalty. Pretty sure it would have peaked north of $8.25/$1 of salary or a total cost to the team of ~300m+ in lux taxes alone per year (assuming it is a marginal rate- 500M+ if not marginal). Of course getting rid of one of those terrible deals each year in amnesty would have lowered that...

Still, calling it a soft cap is laughable.

[quote=HurricaneKid]Still, calling it a soft cap is laughable.[/quote]How? Soft cap has an actual defintion, you can go above it if you pay a penalty. Obviously a hard cap means you can't pay a cent over the cap. It's pretty clearly a soft cap by definition.

[QUOTE=InspiredLebowski]How? Soft cap has an actual defintion, you can go above it if you pay a penalty. Obviously a hard cap means you can't pay a cent over the cap. It's pretty clearly a soft cap by definition.[/QUOTE]

How is it a soft cap when recent teams would be paying $8 in tax for every $1 of salary? Thats not soft. Its at the very least a firm cap. There isn't a team out there that would go near this. It IS for all intents and purposes a hard cap.

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]How is it a soft cap when recent teams would be paying $8 in tax for every $1 of salary? Thats not soft. Its at the very least a firm cap. There isn't a team out there that would go near this. It IS for all intents and purposes a hard cap.[/QUOTE]

You don't understand what a hard cap means.

[QUOTE=JohnnyWall]You don't understand what a hard cap means.[/QUOTE]

Of course I know what a hard cap is. While this gives a minute amount of flexibility the real world application of this is pretty damn close to a hard cap.

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]Of course I know what a hard cap is. While this gives a minute amount of flexibility the real world application of this is pretty damn close to a hard cap.[/QUOTE]

A $15 tax would be even closer to a hard cap. So would a $20 tax. Or $40. Or $90.. etc. But they aren't hard caps.

i didn't read it but they change anything regarding guaranteed contracts? thats one of the biggest jokes about nba being spoiled brats, especially in comparison to nfl...

[QUOTE=Godzuki]i didn't read it but they change anything regarding guaranteed contracts? thats one of the biggest jokes about nba being spoiled brats, especially in comparison to nfl...[/QUOTE]

Except deals are limited to 4 years instead of 6.

6 to 4 means the owners want the players to earn their paycheck.

How many times have we've seen a final year contract player dial up their athletic play , but the year before was stagnant :confusedshrug:

I'd actually like to see a 3 year max , more player movement , and force players to play at their fullest potential all three years .

[QUOTE=Jasper]6 to 4 means the owners want the players to earn their paycheck.

How many times have we've seen a final year contract player dial up their athletic play , but the year before was stagnant :confusedshrug:

I'd actually like to see a 3 year max , more player movement , and force players to play at their fullest potential all three years .[/QUOTE]

Agree. I think shorter contracts are better.

Stein , Buch, Simmons Pod cast brought up and interesting factoid :

Players could now sue the union and Billy Hunter from not representing them , and losing life time salaries :bowdown:

I'd lov to see multiple suits , because of this crap