BS Report W/ Billy Hunter

[Roy H.]

The NBA says Mark Cuban proposed a new salary cap exception, not the elimination of the salary cap, during a meeting between owners and players last week.

In a podcast with ESPN.com, players’ association executive director Billy Hunter said Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ owner, proposed what he called a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing the idea, but then were told by the owners they wouldn’t pursue it.

However, NBA spokesman Mike Bass says Tuesday that it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the cap, an idea he says “was even worse for the NBA than the union’s prior proposals.”

Link.

It seems odd that Hunter would say this and have it not be true.

Isn't a heavy luxury tax essentially the same thing as a salary cap exception?

In what manner?

A cap exception is something like the MLE, or the bi-annual exception, or Bird Rights.

The luxury tax is something completely different, more akin to a soft cap that has revenue sharing aspects.

[StartOrien]

The NBA says Mark Cuban proposed a new salary cap exception, not the elimination of the salary cap, during a meeting between owners and players last week.

In a podcast with ESPN.com, players’ association executive director Billy Hunter said Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ owner, proposed what he called a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing the idea, but then were told by the owners they wouldn’t pursue it.

However, NBA spokesman Mike Bass says Tuesday that it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the cap, an idea he says “was even worse for the NBA than the union’s prior proposals.”

Link.

It seems odd that Hunter would say this and have it not be true.

I'm with you, Roy. Seems fishy.

Hunter has a lot more to lose by fabricating this story than he'd have to gain.

[Chris]

The NBA says Mark Cuban proposed a new salary cap exception, not the elimination of the salary cap, during a meeting between owners and players last week.

In a podcast with ESPN.com, players’ association executive director Billy Hunter said Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ owner, proposed what he called a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing the idea, but then were told by the owners they wouldn’t pursue it.

However, NBA spokesman Mike Bass says Tuesday that it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the cap, an idea he says “was even worse for the NBA than the union’s prior proposals.”

Link.

It seems odd that Hunter would say this and have it not be true.

Isn't a heavy luxury tax essentially the same thing as a salary cap exception?

In what manner?

A cap exception is something like the MLE, or the bi-annual exception, or Bird Rights.

The luxury tax is something completely different, more akin to a soft cap that has revenue sharing aspects.

I haven;t listened to the Podcast yet, so I can't speak to exactly what Hunter said.  However, based on what I have read about this proposal by Cuban, it sounds like basically just a hard(ish) cap.

It would essentially be the stringent luxury tax line that the players are so against (which, perhaps wasn't quite as stringent in Cuban's proposal?), and they just got rid of the soft cap below it.  

So, teams can spend freely until the luxury tax line, without having to worry about exceptions, etc.  But then, they would be hit hard once they hit the luxury tax line.

Personally, I like the idea, assuming the luxury tax would be as stringent as the owners have been talking about.  So, it basically would be a hard cap, that still allowed teams to go over it if they REALLY felt compelled to.

[Roy H.]

One of the funny things about this whole lockout, to me, is the sillyness of the whole mediation process.

Mediation is supposed to be a confidential process; things said in mediation are meant to stay behind closed doors, and generally aren't admissible in court, etc.  The purpose of mediation is to allow people to brainstorm and to come up with creative solutions, without being held to their statements if things fall through.

Here, they just threw all of that out the window.  While the supposed "gag order" lasted for a couple days, there has been absolutely no shyness about describing the negotiations in intimate detail.  I suppose to most people this is no big deal, but for those involved with the courts, the idea of mediation becoming so public is just against every standard you're held to.

[nickagneta]

I don't understand. Isn't Cuban's proposal essentially what the owners have proposed and that the union hates only with the luxury tax levels already defined?

I thought the owners proposal was a salary cap with tiered luxury tax levels that would severely penalize teams that exceeded those specific levels. So if a team wanted to exceed the salary cap they could and depending on how much they would exceed it determined just how steep a penalty they would pay with increasingly larger penalties the higher above the cap you went. Basically a soft hard cap.

Hunter says Cuban proposed "a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level". Isn't that the same freaking thing?

[StartOrien]

My assumption is that Cuban's proposed tax thresholds would be significantly less than the 2-1 or 3-1 rumors we heard.

[quidinqui33]

Owning a sports franchise is not a normal business.  It is a sport and a gamble and owners know that going in.  

Yes it is.  Like any business if it fails, it closes.  That's why the NBA's doors are currently closed.  

That's just it.  It hasn't failed.  It works but owners and GMs need to make wise moves and have luck on their side just like any other business.  It's not right to try to cover all financial short comings by taking it completely off the backs of the players.  Realize the players have come down from where the current CBA stands in almost every category to help the NBA.  The owners are "coming up" from an imaginary line in the sand they drew when the negotiations started.

And I agree.  The teams that continue to lose money year after year due to poor management, contract them.  Less teams in a league where having one or two stars makes the difference would help the competitive parity the league so strongly desire.

One other point, keep in mind that the value of the Cleveland Cavaliers went up and dropped by 10's of millions with the arrival and departure of Lebron James.  If Dan Gilbert wanted to make his money, he could have sold the team at any time during the Lebron years and made off like a bandit.  Sports owners are driven by their own competitive juices, which is why they don't necessarily sell when things are great like Gilbert should have.  So he can't turn around and complain about Lebron leaving his team and how the system should help him make a profit year after year, when it was his decision not to cash in when he should have.  Even with that said, Gilbert still would come out on top if he sold the Cavs today simply because he had lebron there for 7 years and the value of the club went up that much and has not come all the way back down.  These owners are not losing money they way they say they are.  The numbers we are hearing about are year to year profits and do not take into account appreciation of team value.  Why don't the owners take out of the increasing value of their franchises to bridge this BRI gap?

Let's play some ball owners!!!!

[StartOrien]

Not sure how I'd feel about an uncapped league. It'd be cool to have that many more mega teams, but bad basketball can be dreadful to watch and I wonder how watchable some of those "lesser" games would be.

[LB3533]

Owning a sports franchise is not a normal business.  It is a sport and a gamble and owners know that going in. 

Yes it is.  Like any business if it fails, it closes.  That's why the NBA's doors are currently closed. 

That's just it.  It hasn't failed.  It works but owners and GMs need to make wise moves and have luck on their side just like any other business.  It's not right to try to cover all financial short comings by taking it completely off the backs of the players.  Realize the players have come down from where the current CBA stands in almost every category to help the NBA.  The owners are "coming up" from an imaginary line in the sand they drew when the negotiations started.

And I agree.  The teams that continue to lose money year after year due to poor management, contract them.  Less teams in a league where having one or two stars makes the difference would help the competitive parity the league so strongly desire.

One other point, keep in mind that the value of the Cleveland Cavaliers went up and dropped by 10's of millions with the arrival and departure of Lebron James.  If Dan Gilbert wanted to make his money, he could have sold the team at any time during the Lebron years and made off like a bandit.  Sports owners are driven by their own competitive juices, which is why they don't necessarily sell when things are great like Gilbert should have.  So he can't turn around and complain about Lebron leaving his team and how the system should help him make a profit year after year, when it was his decision not to cash in when he should have.  Even with that said, Gilbert still would come out on top if he sold the Cavs today simply because he had lebron there for 7 years and the value of the club went up that much and has not come all the way back down.  These owners are not losing money they way they say they are.  The numbers we are hearing about are year to year profits and do not take into account appreciation of team value.  Why don't the owners take out of the increasing value of their franchises to bridge this BRI gap?

Let's play some ball owners!!!!

Well said my good man, tommy point!

[Chris]

One of the funny things about this whole lockout, to me, is the sillyness of the whole mediation process.

Mediation is supposed to be a confidential process; things said in mediation are meant to stay behind closed doors, and generally aren't admissible in court, etc.  The purpose of mediation is to allow people to brainstorm and to come up with creative solutions, without being held to their statements if things fall through.

Here, they just threw all of that out the window.  While the supposed "gag order" lasted for a couple days, there has been absolutely no shyness about describing the negotiations in intimate detail.  I suppose to most people this is no big deal, but for those involved with the courts, the idea of mediation becoming so public is just against every standard you're held to.

This is why Cohen is still sitting at the hotel bar with Alan Hahn and Ken Berger, mumbling quietly to himself.

[Chris]

My assumption is that Cuban's proposed tax thresholds would be significantly less than the 2-1 or 3-1 rumors we heard.

I think most likely that the idea was never explored enough to even discuss that.  I get the impression it was shot down almost as quickly as it was brought up, so they only got to the point of a "heavy tax".

[Moranis]

The NBA says Mark Cuban proposed a new salary cap exception, not the elimination of the salary cap, during a meeting between owners and players last week.

In a podcast with ESPN.com, players’ association executive director Billy Hunter said Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ owner, proposed what he called a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing the idea, but then were told by the owners they wouldn’t pursue it.

However, NBA spokesman Mike Bass says Tuesday that it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the cap, an idea he says “was even worse for the NBA than the union’s prior proposals.”

Link.

It seems odd that Hunter would say this and have it not be true.

Isn't a heavy luxury tax essentially the same thing as a salary cap exception?

In what manner?

A cap exception is something like the MLE, or the bi-annual exception, or Bird Rights.

The luxury tax is something completely different, more akin to a soft cap that has revenue sharing aspects.

my understanding of what Cuban proposed and Hunter said, are essentially the same thing i.e. no salary cap, but a luxury tax level with strict penalties going over it.  Different descriptors but essentially the same thing.

[BballTim]

I don't understand. Isn't Cuban's proposal essentially what the owners have proposed and that the union hates only with the luxury tax levels already defined?

I thought the owners proposal was a salary cap with tiered luxury tax levels that would severely penalize teams that exceeded those specific levels. So if a team wanted to exceed the salary cap they could and depending on how much they would exceed it determined just how steep a penalty they would pay with increasingly larger penalties the higher above the cap you went. Basically a soft hard cap.

Hunter says Cuban proposed "a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level". Isn't that the same freaking thing?

  I would think no salary cap would get rid of all of the restrictions on trades and free agent signings. Now you can exceed the cap by various methods. With no cap, the Knicks could conceivably trade Fields for Wade and sign Howard and CP3 to max contracts and just pay the mega-tax.

[StartOrien]

I wonder if the smaller market teams could be talked into a system like this. I do seem some benefit of it.

Assuming you wouldn't have to match salaries, it'd make getting rid of bad contracts that much easier.

For example: Last year the Bucks could've traded Maggette for a 2nd rounder to a contender just to get out of the contract. I'm sure a team like the Mavs, who could've used a 3 wouldn't mind taking on at least some of that salary.

[LB3533]

Small market teams do not want to get on board with this.

They want to make profits and handcuff the larger markets' ability to spend on big name stars.

Small markets want to bring the spending ceiling down to their level, not up to their larger market brethren's level.