The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
How many were teams that did not spend? There were some notoriously cheap teams that went all out when they saw their shot and then quickly sold their team and are back to being the dregs of the league while the same 6 or so teams poached their star talent.
MLB desperately needs a salary cap, desperately. I'm a Sox fan and even I know this, their salary is still half the Yankees and I'm sure they'd rather spend half of what they do and be able to compete but they can't because they are in the same division with the most ridiculous team in American sports.
As for the 70s you do understand that free agency was still in its infancy don't you? Contracts did not get out of hand until the 90s, I still remember how newsworthy it was when a player became the first to get a $2 million or $3 million a year contract and from there it just exploded into a race to the stratosphere.
MLB desperately needs a salary cap, desperately. I'm a Sox fan and even I know this, their salary is still half the Yankees and I'm sure they'd rather spend half of what they do and be able to compete but they can't because they are in the same division with the most ridiculous team in American sports.
As for the 70s you do understand that free agency was still in its infancy don't you? Contracts did not get out of hand until the 90s, I still remember how newsworthy it was when a player became the first to get a $2 million or $3 million a year contract and from there it just exploded into a race to the stratosphere.
I understand that it would effect every team. Basically the logic there is that it's OK to limit my favorite team's ceiling to a B- because every other team (in theory) will be limited to that same ceiling as well. I just prefer a system where teams can strive for an A+ team. Sure sometimes that means watching another Lakers dynasty, but other times it means a small market team like the spurs winning multiple titles, a team of veterans winning their first title like the Maverick and Celtics, or a team like the 04 Pistons shocking the world and beating a heavily favored opponent. It's not as if we're seeing 60s Celtics level dominance where one team wins 11 of 13 titles. if we were, i could understand the motivation to level things out a little better.
Let me ask you this, in three or four years, assuming Evans, Cousins, and Jimmer are all playing at a star level and the Kings are kicking butt, would you be content with losing one of those stars just because other teams will lose some of their stats as well?
I wouldn’t. To me that sounds like...it’s OK if my teams sucks as long a your team sucks too and I’m just not down with that.
Let me ask you this, in three or four years, assuming Evans, Cousins, and Jimmer are all playing at a star level and the Kings are kicking butt, would you be content with losing one of those stars just because other teams will lose some of their stats as well?
I wouldn’t. To me that sounds like...it’s OK if my teams sucks as long a your team sucks too and I’m just not down with that.
Last edited:
I know salaries were much smaller then. Which brings me to another point. If you're going to limit something, limit how much a payer can be paid, not how much an owner can spend overall. I'm just throwing out ideas here but something like a rule that player's can only get max contracts if they meet a certain production criteria and then maintain that criteria for the length of the contract would help out a lot. You could also put a cap on max contracts, like for example, no player can make more than 15 million per year on their contract. That would also help build teams rather than grossly overpaying a star or two and surrounding them with mediocre talent.
Last edited:
We are more likely to lose them without a hard cap than with one, imho. Whatever the new cap winds up being it should be set up in a way that allows small market teams to retain talent they developed but not restrict depth players from making moves to teams that may actually feature them and pay them a starter's salary.
The flaws with the current system was that Bird rights or whatever they are now called were tradeable, so a player could demand the compensation he gets for staying with his team while simultaneously forcing a trade. That entirely defeats the purpose because the team forced to trade their star never gets equal value.
The flaws with the current system was that Bird rights or whatever they are now called were tradeable, so a player could demand the compensation he gets for staying with his team while simultaneously forcing a trade. That entirely defeats the purpose because the team forced to trade their star never gets equal value.
You understand that the players will sooner agree to a hard cap than they would any kind of production/merit based pay, right?
How about a hard cap where the salary of any player with 5+ years of tenure on the team isn't counted. This allows team building and gives teams an edge in keeping their stars and rewards players for staying in place while still giving them the opportunity to move elsewhere.
How about a hard cap where the salary of any player with 5+ years of tenure on the team isn't counted. This allows team building and gives teams an edge in keeping their stars and rewards players for staying in place while still giving them the opportunity to move elsewhere.
I don't see that. Because under a firm hard cap, no team would really be able to retain three stars unless they decided to take less money. Let's say for example that in 2014 The Kings have 3 legit stars that all need resigning. At that same time let's say The Nuggets have no stars and desperately want one. Assuming the Nuggets have more cap room to work with, then they're in prime position to steal one of our stars and we can't do anything to prevent it because we can't go over the cap.
Last edited:
Well if you’re going to lose a season anyways, might as well play hard ball. Eventually the players would cave. They have no other choice if they want to keep playing professional basketball in the United States.
Make it 3+ years and it sounds reasonable. It has to be at least as long a period of time as an average rookie contract though to prevent other teams from stealing your best draft picks once their rookie contracts expire.
Make it 3+ years and it sounds reasonable. It has to be at least as long a period of time as an average rookie contract though to prevent other teams from stealing your best draft picks once their rookie contracts expire.
The funny thing is that with the escrow system, they already have a hard cap on total player salary. It's just not called that. The only difference between the escrow system and a true hard cap is that individual teams are limited in what they can spend. Obviously the percentage of BRI that the players get is in contention, and that's reasonable. I don't understand the posturing over the hard cap, though.
My personal belief is that a hard-capped (or semi-hard-capped) system should prevail where players are not given contracts in terms of dollars, but in terms of percentage of BRI. From there, you simply negotiate the percentage of BRI that goes to the players, and let the teams sign players up to 100% (semi-hard cap could allow teams to sign above 100% using "out-of-pocket" money). If the players get, for example, 53% of BRI, then each team dumps 53% of its BRI into a league pool every month (or whatever period) and the league distributes it based on contract percentages. Money left over (from teams spending only 97%, for instance) is equally distributed among all players. The only thing that the owners might balk on is that it results in some fairly extreme revenue sharing. I can't really see a players union objection except as regards the BRI%. Players salaries are directly tied to league revenue so in booms players get a windfall, in busts the owners aren't hung out to dry.
Too easy to work?
My personal belief is that a hard-capped (or semi-hard-capped) system should prevail where players are not given contracts in terms of dollars, but in terms of percentage of BRI. From there, you simply negotiate the percentage of BRI that goes to the players, and let the teams sign players up to 100% (semi-hard cap could allow teams to sign above 100% using "out-of-pocket" money). If the players get, for example, 53% of BRI, then each team dumps 53% of its BRI into a league pool every month (or whatever period) and the league distributes it based on contract percentages. Money left over (from teams spending only 97%, for instance) is equally distributed among all players. The only thing that the owners might balk on is that it results in some fairly extreme revenue sharing. I can't really see a players union objection except as regards the BRI%. Players salaries are directly tied to league revenue so in booms players get a windfall, in busts the owners aren't hung out to dry.
Too easy to work?
MLB also has several teams that haven't been in the playoffs in several years.
It doesn't all come down to who wins every time. Money doesn't buy you championships. It does buy you the best players, though, and having the best players puts you in better position to win. It gets you in the playoffs, helps you make a deep run in consecutive seasons, and further improves your standing in your league.
There is a clear separation between big market and small market teams in MLB. The divide grows every year. And we're seeing that type of divide becoming an issue in the NBA.
It doesn't all come down to who wins every time. Money doesn't buy you championships. It does buy you the best players, though, and having the best players puts you in better position to win. It gets you in the playoffs, helps you make a deep run in consecutive seasons, and further improves your standing in your league.
There is a clear separation between big market and small market teams in MLB. The divide grows every year. And we're seeing that type of divide becoming an issue in the NBA.
3+ is too short if you are just going to pull the salary out of the cap calculation, it can't be something that half the players on the team reach after their first contract, that would allow teams to sign a 3 year deal with a wink and a nod that it would be repaid on the second contract, that was the problem before the 99 lockout.
Actually the record label brought in $1 billion in sales and the artist, an employee of the record label, was paid $20 million. That's how it typically happens in the music industry and that's how it happens in the NBA. You're saying the artists/players are overpaid and I'm saying if anything they're underpaid for the amount of revenue they generate. You're trying to portray the players as greedy and unreasonable, I'm saying they have a right to demand fair compensation based on actual revenue.
I do understand the difference between revenue and profits, but common sense says that increased revenue should also result in increased profits. What are these enormous expenses the teams have incurred which are forcing them into debt despite an increase in revenue? Does anyone know? Couldn't it simply be that, like many Americans, they over leveraged themselves prior to the recession with the expectation that their business would continue to build in value on a straight line and when that didn't happen their expected profits turned upside down? That's what the Maloofs did with the Palms and they've paid the price for it. Just because 30 owners get together and demand something which is in their best interest doesn't mean everyone else has to bow down before them and accept it willingly. The players have a right to wait this out until the owners are willing to negotiate fairly.
I already agreed with you before about the owners currently assuming the majority of the risk. That's why a hard cap and incentive based contracts should be (and are) on the table for negotiation. The owners suffered the most through the recession because player contracts were already guaranteed. I think the majority of the players are willing to concede some level of non-guaranteed contracts and they're also willing to concede a certain amount of restructuring to the salary cap. But when it comes to drastically cutting the share of revenue given back to the players, I don't agree that the owners have justification for that and neither does the NBPA and that's why there's a lockout that's probably going to last a long time.
I do understand the difference between revenue and profits, but common sense says that increased revenue should also result in increased profits. What are these enormous expenses the teams have incurred which are forcing them into debt despite an increase in revenue? Does anyone know? Couldn't it simply be that, like many Americans, they over leveraged themselves prior to the recession with the expectation that their business would continue to build in value on a straight line and when that didn't happen their expected profits turned upside down? That's what the Maloofs did with the Palms and they've paid the price for it. Just because 30 owners get together and demand something which is in their best interest doesn't mean everyone else has to bow down before them and accept it willingly. The players have a right to wait this out until the owners are willing to negotiate fairly.
I already agreed with you before about the owners currently assuming the majority of the risk. That's why a hard cap and incentive based contracts should be (and are) on the table for negotiation. The owners suffered the most through the recession because player contracts were already guaranteed. I think the majority of the players are willing to concede some level of non-guaranteed contracts and they're also willing to concede a certain amount of restructuring to the salary cap. But when it comes to drastically cutting the share of revenue given back to the players, I don't agree that the owners have justification for that and neither does the NBPA and that's why there's a lockout that's probably going to last a long time.
The Kings aren't losing money because of the Palms. I've actually argued that there is a boatload of trick accounting going on with NBA reporting and that many teams may be in the red only when it comes to the books. But that is how they are reporting it and unless it can be proven otherwise the team is losing money. There's no denying the arena isn't full these days, so they lose ticket sales, concessions, parking and just about everything else that comes with actual paid attendance. They aren't the only team in that boat.
As for the music industry musicians are not employees of their labels. They do sign contracts which grant them pre-payment on album sales royalties (assuming they sign to a major, not so with smaller labels). Big labels will help finance their tours, but again this is an advance. When bands don't meet their sales expectations they wind up broke. This has happened to plenty of acts. The music industry is a cruel joke and nothing like the NBA.
As for the music industry musicians are not employees of their labels. They do sign contracts which grant them pre-payment on album sales royalties (assuming they sign to a major, not so with smaller labels). Big labels will help finance their tours, but again this is an advance. When bands don't meet their sales expectations they wind up broke. This has happened to plenty of acts. The music industry is a cruel joke and nothing like the NBA.
Also, there's been five or six threads started since yesterday, and I don't intend to look through all this madness to see if it's already been mentioned, but not only have all the pictures been taken down on NBA.com and all team sites, but KINGSDOTCOM's player-related videos have all been made private.
Which one are you referring to, the league site, or the youtube page? Because I really have no recollection of anything that was going on related to the NBA in the summer of 2005, as I was decidedly more interested in what was going on with the Monarchs at that time (that was the championship season), and youtube was still learning to crawl back then.
I just don't see it happening. I think we're lucky if this happens by January.
In 1998, Stern basically said "if this isn't done in time to have at least 50 games and end the season in June, we have to cancel the entire season." I'm sure there's a similar directive this time. So end of December/beginning of January is probably the end game here.
In 1998, Stern basically said "if this isn't done in time to have at least 50 games and end the season in June, we have to cancel the entire season." I'm sure there's a similar directive this time. So end of December/beginning of January is probably the end game here.
I'm pretty sure any institution of a hard cap will go hand in hand with players making much less per year than they are now. I wouldn't be surprised to see that 62 million being an astronomical number on average for NBA teams. I'm also pretty sure the owners want contractual role backs on current deals as well. By giving up the exceptions, or instituting ones as a lower level, I think rumored to be around 2 million a year, you have guys making 6+ million a year now making 2 million a year. That will have a direct effect on how effective a 62 million dollar cap is to work under. Believe me, owners aren't instituting are hard cap so they can't keep their talent, it's so they don't have to pay such a premium so they don't leave.
This is a great read, and really brings into question whether the NBA is losing money.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/
As someone pointed out in the comments on the article, for '09-'10 to Forbes estimate of league-wide profits was $183M, $150M of which was said to be from three teams: Lakers, Knicks, Bulls. That leaves $33M to be spread across the other 27 teams. Clearly a lot of teams are losing money, and a lot more have only razor-thin operating margins, even by Forbes' "more rosy" numbers. Obviously the league claims to be losing money and I'm not near expert enough to determine how questionable the NBA's "questionable accounting" is.
Do the players need to budge? Yes. Does the league need to budge? Yes. Is more substantial revenue sharing necessary? Absolutely. In fact, I think it's unfortunate that the league wants to negotiate any new revenue sharing outside of the context of the CBA. To some extent I feel it would be better done within that context.
Do the players need to budge? Yes. Does the league need to budge? Yes. Is more substantial revenue sharing necessary? Absolutely. In fact, I think it's unfortunate that the league wants to negotiate any new revenue sharing outside of the context of the CBA. To some extent I feel it would be better done within that context.
I believe it was someone from the players union involved in the negotiations that said they hadn't given their best offer yet, and that the owners probably hadn't either. He said no one wants to give their best offer until they know they're getting the best offer they can from the other side. I understand the logic in that, but I don't understand the logic in that. If you know what I mean.