We might have news of a new collective bargaining agreement soon.
Does an early deal mean that nothing is changing in the NBA?
Will it be business as usual next July as the league heads into free agency?
Not exactly.
What should we look for in the new CBA? Here are three big things the NBA would like to fix.
What's different this time
There probably won't be any sweeping changes, but the sides are taking the opportunity to improve the system. Among a number of smaller tweaks, the sides are paying attention to three larger issues.
After Kevin Durant made headlines last summer by joining the Golden State Warriors, the league is taking steps to make superteams harder to assemble. They're also trying to level the playing field for restricted free agents, and they're taking further steps to establish the NBA D-League as a true minor league.
These negotiations reflect a spirit of cooperation that hasn't existed since -- well, ever.
The two sides aren't at odds with each other this time and aren't under the gun to ratify an agreement as soon as humanly possible. Previous agreements -- the recent ones, at least -- were finalized in July or later with the entire league on hold, eager to get back to business the instant a deal was struck. For the most part, neither side trusted the other. Both sides thought the other would happily throw them in front of a speeding train, just to get a little extra for themselves.
How do you improve the system in that kind of environment? You can't, really. The best you can hope for is a workable compromise, something neither side really likes but both sides can live with. You address the deal-breaking issues, and you patch the glaring holes. You punt on as many issues as you can -- saying you'll deal with them later, or maybe never.
But this time the sides are close to shaking hands on a deal in late November or early December, seven months before the season ends. In this case, the possibility of an opt-out on Dec. 15 is driving the discussion -- the current CBA will end on June 30, 2017, if either side exercises its right to terminate the agreement. Both sides want to have a deal in place before the opt-out date.
Coming to an agreement this early would be unprecedented -- but a lot has changed since 2011, including the leaders and their approach.
"From day one, we both tried to establish a tonality, a process in which there would be transparency and in which there would be respect from both sides," NBA commissioner Adam Silver said at his Board of Governors news conference in October.
The other big difference between then and now is money. Back in 2011, the league maintained that the system was unsustainable, with at least 20 of the 30 teams operating in the red. But with the fixes from the 2011 CBA and the infusion of revenue from the new national television contracts, the league is now flush with cash -- teams are now turning a profit, the salary cap spiked from $70 million to more than $94 million in 2016-17, and franchises are selling for record prices.
Collectively the players are signed for $3.4 billion in 2016-17, compared to the $2.2 billion they made in 2010-11. Even though the players are making a smaller percentage now (51 percent vs. 57 percent), they are still being paid a lot more under the current deal.
So pretty much everybody is motivated to keep the business running smoothly. No one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
According to reports, rather than endless haggling over how to split the pie, the two sides have reached to a pretty quick consensus to leave the revenue split the way it is, with the players receiving the same 49 to 51 percent (the exact percentage depends on how well the league does financially in each season). The reported quid pro quo from the league is that additional money will be set aside for retired players to fund health benefits, educational benefits and the like.
With the biggest issue -- money -- apparently resolved, the sides have had the time and the freedom to look at some of the other problems they want to fix.
Three big things to watch for
Here are three issues the two sides appear to be addressing in the next CBA, according to media reports over the past month or so.
1. Slowing down the formation of superteams
Durant leaving the Thunder for the Warriors sent shock waves through the entire league. It shouldn't have been so easy for a team to win so many games and then sign a recent MVP in his prime without touching the core of its roster. But because the stars aligned just right in 2016, that's exactly what happened.
The players fought long and hard for the right for today's version of free agency, and the league is respectful of that. So rather than overreacting to a fluke occurrence and adding additional restrictions to chill player movement, owners instead appear to be focused on making it easier for teams to retain their own talent.
The best way to keep a player from leaving in free agency is to lock him up before he can become a free agent. To that end, it looks as if the owners are trying to increase the availability of extensions. Currently an extension can't be signed until the third anniversary of the contract signing. The new rules would lower that to two years. Rookie extensions would see some improvements as well, with two players, rather than only one, eligible to be designated to receive a five-year extension.
We'd still need to see more to be sure that an extension will be an attractive alternative to free agency. One big limitation is that a player cannot receive more than a 7.5 percent raise in the first year of an extension. Unless this restriction is lifted, free agency will continue to be the preferred choice for many players.
Another way to reduce superstar movement is to reduce teams' cap room (without necessarily lowering the cap itself). It appears the new agreement will increase cap holds for players coming off their rookie contracts. It probably will also raise minimum salaries (and also the cap holds for empty roster spots), and maybe maximum salaries as well.
In addition to the direct financial effect on players, these rule changes also will have the indirect effect of reducing teams' cap room. It appears superteams will be harder to assemble under the new agreement. That said, as long as we have a cap on individual player salaries, it will encourage players to join forces.
2. Making restricted free agency less restrictive
Restricted free agents have always been akin to second-class citizens. They don't enjoy
And because of the three-day window to match a contract offer, teams are hesitant to make offers to restricted free agents. They often feel they can't risk tying up their cap room for three days in the crucial free agency period, only to have their offer matched -- not only do they miss out on the free agent, but other free agents are getting signed in the meantime.
Cases like Dion Waiters' only add to the indignity. The Thunder made Waiters a restricted free agent last summer, restricting his marketability, then rescinded their qualifying offer on July 18, which made him unrestricted after most teams had already committed their cap room and roster spots to other players.
It appears the new agreement will feature several rule changes aimed at leveling the playing field for restricted free agents. Teams will be able to sign them to offer sheets as early as July 1, while unrestricted free agents will still have to wait several more days until the end of the July moratorium. The window to match an offer will be shortened to 48 hours, and teams will no longer be able to scare off other teams by proclaiming they will match any offer, then wait the entire match period before pulling the trigger.
And in what should now be called the Dion Waiters rule, teams can no longer unilaterally rescind their qualifying offers. Once a qualifying offer is submitted, making the player a restricted free agent, the offer has to stay on the table.
3. Taking the D-League to the next level
The sides are making a number of changes to increase the value of the D-League as a true minor league. Some D-League salaries will rise from their current $19,000 -- $26,000 to a much healthier $50,000 -- $75,000.
The league will introduce two-way contracts, in which the player will earn a higher salary when he's with the parent NBA club and less when he's playing for the D-League affiliate. The league also will add two additional roster spots for two-way contracts.
As the league continues to make strides toward every NBA team having its own affiliate, the D-League will continue to grow in importance as a destination for young players to develop.
But there are still some questions to answer. To utilize two-way contracts, will a team have to have a full complement of 15 players under regular NBA contracts? If not, teams will be able to simply replace more expensive NBA contracts with less expensive two-way contracts for the players at the end of their rosters. If this happens, a rule change that will be touted as creating up to 60 new jobs will instead become a means for teams to cut corners.
Another consideration is preventing teams from using D-League assignments as a punitive measure. If a coach is upset with a player on a two-way contract, he could assign that player to the D-League, effectively forcing the player to take an enormous salary cut.
The first problem is easy to solve -- don't let a team sign a two-way contract unless it already has 15 players under NBA contract -- although some of the details will need to be tweaked (for example, what happens when a team has 15 NBA contracts and two two-way contracts, then makes a two-for-one trade). The second problem will be harder to solve: How do you protect a player with a two-way contract from a vindictive coach?
Superteams, restricted free agency, and player development appear to be some of the principal areas of focus as the sides nudge closer to an agreement. They also appear to be looking at changes to the revenue and cap calculations, tweaking maximum salaries and the over-36 rule, raising salaries at the low end of the spectrum, and clarifying some of the rules on player discipline.
But none of this should be considered a lock until there's a handshake on an actual agreement. The information that has leaked might represent an incomplete or inaccurate depiction of what's being discussed at the negotiating table. Even if something has been agreed to, it can still be traded for another rule change that one side wants more. Nothing is final until the entire agreement is finalized.
But everything we've heard so far sounds promising. These are the kinds of changes you get to make when you have the luxury of time on your side.