 |
| RealGM Hoop Net |
|
| Search |
|
|
|
|
| Trade Checker ID |
| Draft Sim ID |
| Newsletter |
|
|
|
|
Authored by RealGM - 25th November, 2005 - 1:30 pm
|
|
|
| Current Featured Columns |
|
Merry Christmas, Raptors Fans
The Raptors might not be playing good basketball right now, but there are plenty of things for Toronto fans to be thankful for this holiday season.
A Melo Behind The Superstars
Carmelo Anthony has never been one of the league's most efficient offensive players.
A Melo Behind The Superstars
Carmelo Anthony has never been one of the league's most efficient offensive players.
|
When the new NBA collective bargaining agreement was settled and released, we knew that a new Larry Coon CBA FAQ would soon follow.
It has just been released to the public, and is now available HERE.
In preparation for the official release of the new FAQ, RealGM asked Larry a series of questions to know more about the very important document and the man who put it together.
As many users of RealGM know, the off-season of sports is often times more intriguing than the actual games. This is how, Larry, a computer scientist for the University of California became one of the foremost experts on the NBA’s CBA.
Larry Coon: We already know that the Spurs are going to be really good this year, and the Hawks...not so much. Why? Because to a large extent the season's outcome is known before the first game is played.
The "other" season takes place in team offices from June to October, and if you're anything beyond a casual fan you also follow the draft and the offseason, and you understand the rules of these activities just as you understand the rules on the court.
Over time I realized I had assimilated enough knowledge to be able to tell when the media were getting their facts wrong, and I also realized they were getting their facts wrong quite often. A FAQ already existed, but it was only a couple pages long and wasn't authoritative. I organized my knowledge into a document that followed the same question & answer format (which is great not only from an organizational standpoint, but also from a pedagogical standpoint) as the previous FAQ, got a copy of the CBA and did a lot of research, and this monster was born. After that, it was just my exacting nature taking over -- the better you understand something, the better you can explain it.
RealGM: How much work went into the new FAQ?
LC: When I first released the FAQ in 1999, I knew I was going to be really busy with it in 2005. I was right. Fortunately they only come out with a new CBA every seven years or so. As it turns out, the work on this revision followed the 80/20 rule pretty closely. I had 80% of the revision done by the end of August, and the rest of the time was spent on the finer details (and trying to get people on the phone). By the end....well, last week I wrote an entire paragraph to one of my reviewers defending one use of the word "was." But I'm really happy with the outcome. Part of the problem is finding a balance between clarity for the average fan and a level of detail for the person who wants more. Hopefully what I've ended up with will satisfy both audiences.
RGM: Who are your peers in the field?
LC: There are a few guys whose interests have led to a similar level of knowledge. Dan Rosenbaum may be the best known, since he's frequently quoted in the media. Ryan Hoak at RealGM. Andy Stein, a few others. All of them have been great to collaborate with, and the FAQ is much better because of their input.
RGM: What is the one rule that you can single out as something that has been highly overlooked yet can potentially make a huge impact?
LC: One very interesting thing is something the league & players association apparently overlooked when they drafted the new agreement. It's regarding trade bonuses -- in both the old and new CBAs, a player's trade bonus added to his salary cannot exceed the player's maximum salary amount in the year of the trade. What they changed is how they handle this situation when it arises -- under the old CBA, the player had to waive some/all of his trade bonus to make the trade legal, which effectively gave the player a no-trade clause. The league hated that idea, so they negotiated a change to the rule -- the waiver of some/all of the bonus now happens automatically, and no longer requires the player's consent. But this only applies to contracts & extensions signed after the new CBA went into effect (August of this year). They failed to specify what happens with the already-existing contracts. In fact, a literal reading of the new CBA indicates that these players can't be traded at all!
The league and players association later reached an agreement about how to deal with these players -- players in this situation CAN be traded, and they receive their entire trade bonus. The league felt they would rather give the player the money than give him a no-trade authority. But remember, we're talking about the high-salary players here. Kevin Garnett rumors are making the rounds, and he's one of the guys in this situation. The team that trades for him is going to have to cut him a $12 million check, on top of his salary -- and it's money that neither the old nor the new CBA intended for him to have. This could have a big impact on the trade market.
RGM: Are you pleased with the new rule concerning 2nd round draft picks (Gilbert Arenas provision)? Would something else have been more effective?
LC: I thought it was a problem that definitely needed to be addressed, and they killed three birds with one stone: they protected teams like Golden State from losing players like Arenas in the future, they kept second round picks from cashing in with big contracts sooner than first round picks can, and they controlled league-wide salaries a little (because salaries in the first two seasons of these contracts are now capped).
This was actually one of the rules I had the hardest time understanding completely -- not because of its canonical usage, but rather, what happens in the fringe cases? If the average salary amount is $5 million, and a team has $5.01 million of cap room, how does it work? It turns out this is one of the places where the interpretation of the rule is slightly different than a literal reading of the CBA would indicate.
RGM: Will deceased players automatically be taken off against the cap and luxury tax in the future?
LC: While certainly far more tragic, from a league standpoint a deceased player is treated no differently than one who suffers a career-ending injury. The team can apply for salary cap relief after one year. And hopefully in either case, insurance will cover the salary.
RGM: Who got more on this CBA, players or owners? Most important victory for each? Most important loss for each?
LC: It was actually pretty even. One of the biggest problems was expensive, long-term, cap-sucking contracts being paid to players who are no longer worth the money. The new deal mitigates that problem by limiting contract lengths and raises. The owners also got more sanity. For instance; the tax level is now set before the season, rather than determined afterward. The trade rules are also less restrictive. The players get a higher cap and less money going to escrow. In addition, they took steps to keep the distribution of escrow & tax proceeds from becoming a spending disincentive. Overall, I think spending will increase, but with a greater percentage of the money going to the rank-and-file players. |
