NBA Commissioner Adam Silver yesterday at the league's summer BOG meeting in Las Vegas reaffirmed earlier statements that the league is not going to change the current free agent moratorium period after C DeAndre Jordan orally agreed to play for the Mavericks only to change his mind and re-sign with the Clippers. "The moratorium was discussed, and nobody had a great idea, frankly, in terms of how to change it,” Silver said. "I think there was some discussion about whether the moratorium potentially should be a bit shorter. But as I said the other day, it's an imperfect system. I would say from a personal standpoint, it was not a great look. I mean, it's not what we want to see happen in the moratorium period. It wasn't created so players could enter into, in essence, oral agreements only to have those agreements superseded by binding agreements" (John Lombardo, Staff Writer). In N.Y., Scott Cacciola writes the moratorium "may be imperfect," but most around the NBA "consider it valuable because it prevents a mad rush for contracts." Silver: "It may be that we do need to take a fresh look and shorten it for a few days. But nobody, at least from the owners’ standpoint, came up with a better solution" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/15). In N.Y., Tim Botemps writes it is going to take "more than an emoji war to change the way NBA handles free agency" (N.Y. POST, 7/15).
TV MONEY: In N.Y., Cacciola notes Silver also "addressed the influx of new television revenue, which will drastically raise the salary cap in the coming seasons." But Silver "cautioned that many teams were still not profitable." Silver: "I don’t know the precise number and don’t want to get into it, but a significant number of teams are continuing to lose money, and they continue to lose money because their expenses exceed their revenue" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/15). YAHOO SPORTS' Marc Spears noted those words "came after several NBA players landed mammoth contracts in free agency." Silver: "Some of the contracts we talked about. They still have enormous expenses in terms of arena costs. Teams are building new practice facilities. The cost of their infrastructure in terms of their salespeople, marketing people, the infrastructure of the teams have gone up, and in some cases their local television is much smaller than in other markets" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 7/14). NBA.com's Steve Aschburner wrote Silver "might have raised some eyebrows" in saying teams still lose money (NBA.com, 7/14). ESPN.com's Kevin Arnovitz writes Silver's comments mean revenue sharing "either isn't powerful enough or it needs serious recalibration." For a small- or mid-market team that is "managed poorly, this escalation of the salary cap is going to put them on a treadmill far too brisk for their fitness level" (ESPN.com, 7/15).
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? In Boston, Gary Washburn writes it was "apparent from Silver’s attitude that the NBA is thriving, with some minor matters to address as the league approaches an unprecedented financial boon." The league "has a new problem on its hands approaching the end" of the current CBA, as players have "cashed in big time." The NBPA "has the choice of opting out of the CBA" after the '16-17 season, but it "may want to think twice given the lucrative contracts signed this offseason and the expected mammoth deals next season when the infusion of new television money begins." Silver said, "I’m not sure if the players association will opt out." Washburn notes what "could affect CBA talks is the expected shortfall money the NBA will have to pay to the union if the amount of negotiated contracts does not meet the agreed-upon" 50% revenue split. Silver estimated that the NBA could pay the union $500M because of the "expected shortfall, which may spark the owners to revisit the CBA if the union opts out" (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/15). CBSSPORTS.com's Ken Berger wrote much of the focus during Michele Roberts' tenure as NBPA Exec Dir has been on whether the players will opt out, but "we've been on the wrong scent." Berger: "It's time to wake up and start wondering whether it actually will be the owners who do so." The owners "are going to cry poor again" (CBSSPORTS.com, 7/15).
PLANTING THE SEED: Silver said that the competition committee "had recommended that the league seed teams for the playoffs in each conference based purely on their regular-season records." The TIMES' Cacciola notes each division champion under the current format "is guaranteed a top-four seed" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/15). Silver said that the owners "will consult with their general managers and coaches on the matter before a vote takes place, but he expects it to pass" (USA TODAY, 7/15). Silver said that the proposal "wasn't voted on yet because the league wanted owners to have a chance to talk about the potential change" with their respective GMs and coaches. But he added that there will be a vote "before next season and the expectation is that the change will be adopted and implemented" (NEWSDAY, 7/15). The AP's Tim Reynolds wrote changes to the NBA Playoffs "are almost certainly coming," and it "seems like an easy fix" (AP, 7/14). SI.com's Ben Golliver wrote the NBA's recommendation is a "small and logical step to better align regular-season performance with playoff seeding" (SI.com, 7/14). But NBA.com's Aschburner wrote there "apparently still is enough sentiment among the owners that the divisions be retained" (NBA.com, 7/14). Meanwhile, YAHOO SPORTS' Spears noted there will no longer be a "major benefit" for division winners other than the "pride of putting up a banner in the rafters" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 7/14). NBA.com's Aschburner noted division titles "would lose more than cachet" (NBA.com, 7/14). The POST's Botemps notes whether the proposed change "also means division winners would not even be guaranteed a playoff spot is still to be determined, though it does remain an option." If the NBA "did away with a guaranteed playoff spot for division winners, it would become the first of the four major American sports leagues to do so" (N.Y. POST, 7/15).
