The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
Interesting that they did not go after Silver, who is normally brilliant, and instead went after Forbes numbers which some have questioned but many treat like gospel. And of course one of the main takeaways from Silver's piece is that greater revenue sharing is needed went ignored in the NBA's rebuttal.
The problem of course with the revenue sharing solution is that while it may solve the cash issues of small market non-competitive teams but won't address the issues of those teams being able to keep their top talent, as MLB perfectly illustrates.
The problem of course with the revenue sharing solution is that while it may solve the cash issues of small market non-competitive teams but won't address the issues of those teams being able to keep their top talent, as MLB perfectly illustrates.
In other words, the only way to do it.Small and mid market teams haven't traditionally been farm teams for big market teams in the NBA. I think we've all gotten a little carried away with the recent goings-on. I think you can help small market teams keep their best players, but I don't think it should be done in a way that restricts the players' ability to sign with another team if they wish to do so. As for the trade-forcing and such, that kind of nonsense should be rooted out of the game entirely.
By nature any rule that you make to encourage players to re-sign restricts their ability to sign with the team of their choosing. A salary cap restricts a free agent's options as well. But who said anything about doing away with free agency? My concern has been about insuring a hard cap doesn't prevent teams from keeping their home grown talent.
I think we all know that something must be done. The current business model does not work for the owners no matter if you think they are lying or not. The richest and most greedy of the owners intend to keep the system the way it is and the less rich owners look to even the playing field. But what is in the best interests of the game. If you truly want to have all fans believe that their team has as good a shot as anyone on a year to year basis, then the playing field must be leveled. How many of you think the Kings will win a championship next year? OK, next question, what would it take to give you hope. Therein lies the problem. If fans have no hope at all, then the season is all for naught. Eventually fans will see that 10 or so teams compete for the championship every year and then there is 20 also rans. Washington Generals if you will. If the NBA doesn't fix the current structure of the game itself and the appearances of having a non level playing field, eventually popularity will wane in those cities who's chances are next to nil to win it all.
Well in any given season you are only going to have 5-10 contenders in any sport. There is no such thing as a sport where every team could win any season, except in the most deluded minds of fans. The alleged issue is whther certain teams could EVER win the way things are going. Now it should be noted that small market teams have consistently belied that question, whether it be the Utah and Portlands and Orlando and Indianas of the world repeatedly reaching the Finals, or the Spurs winning a bunch of rings, or OKC being part of the Final Four this year or whatever. I am not sure there is a good argument that small market teams HAVEN'T been able to compete. But the questions are whether they can compete wihtout going broke, and whether the most recent LeBron style star defections is going to make it impossible in the future.
For the most part, but teams will be less likely to take a guy if it puts them at the cap and they have other holes to fill. Also the stupidity of allowing over the cap teams to trade a star for a midrange player and filler and then the over the cap team can meet roster needs by signing guys to minimum contracts as well, all that will be gone.
If you make a hard cap with non-tradeable Bird type rights that set the Bird contracts at a fixed amount (say % of the cap) and limit the amount of Bird signings on the roster (3, maybe 4 sounds right) I think you'll get something close to the cost control owners want plus enough flexibility to sign guys you develop that become stars.
If you make a hard cap with non-tradeable Bird type rights that set the Bird contracts at a fixed amount (say % of the cap) and limit the amount of Bird signings on the roster (3, maybe 4 sounds right) I think you'll get something close to the cost control owners want plus enough flexibility to sign guys you develop that become stars.
Note that if you don't allow Bird-type rights to be traded, then the players will make a serious push for no-trade clauses because a trade could seriously hurt their future earnings. I think in that case you might see far less player movement than we have become accustomed to - trades involving star players might disappear altogether. If you're proposing a Bird-type right with a hard cap (for instance, with Bird can be signed for up to 20% of cap, without Bird can be signed for up to 15% of cap), I think you have to let the rights transfer with the players. The current rules on Bird rights are reasonable in my opinion. I'm not sure there's a great incentive to change them.
I want to get rid of sign and trades where players get the benefits of re-signing but get to leave their team and the past team is forced to go along with it because they might get a compensatory pick out of it, but they also get stuck with a bunch of junk contracts.
In any event my proposed exception would limit trades that were unfavorable to the player as well as the team.
So here is my hypothetical using nice round numbers, of course:
Hard Cap is 40 million. Bird exception = contract = 10% of cap. 4 players are allowed to be Bird. Bird status granted after 4 years of tenure with current club (thus all rookies at the end of their contract plus long term players). Max contract is 10 million.
Let's say the Kings signed Dally for 8 mill and Thornton for 6.
They will give Evans, Cousins and Jimmer 10 million each but declare them Bird players so their cap hit will be 4 million.
At that point they have 5 guys signed for 44 million but the total cap hit is actually 26, leaving 14 million to fill out the roster. JT would be eligible for a Bird exception. Hickson would not.
Let's say you need to make them tradeable the rule would be simple - Bird players can only be traded for Bird players plus cash or picks. A Bird player traded for a Bird player retains his status.
So you've got cost certainty - a two tiered hard cap that gives wiggle room to keep your franchise players, still allows player movement and rewards star players for team loyalty.
In any event my proposed exception would limit trades that were unfavorable to the player as well as the team.
So here is my hypothetical using nice round numbers, of course:
Hard Cap is 40 million. Bird exception = contract = 10% of cap. 4 players are allowed to be Bird. Bird status granted after 4 years of tenure with current club (thus all rookies at the end of their contract plus long term players). Max contract is 10 million.
Let's say the Kings signed Dally for 8 mill and Thornton for 6.
They will give Evans, Cousins and Jimmer 10 million each but declare them Bird players so their cap hit will be 4 million.
At that point they have 5 guys signed for 44 million but the total cap hit is actually 26, leaving 14 million to fill out the roster. JT would be eligible for a Bird exception. Hickson would not.
Let's say you need to make them tradeable the rule would be simple - Bird players can only be traded for Bird players plus cash or picks. A Bird player traded for a Bird player retains his status.
So you've got cost certainty - a two tiered hard cap that gives wiggle room to keep your franchise players, still allows player movement and rewards star players for team loyalty.
I definitely did not have the structure of your suggestion clear in my first impression. Instead of allowing a team to pay a Bird player more, you're allowing the team to get a lower cap hit for a Bird player.
That definitely changes things a bit. I'm not sure what it does to convince a player to stay. The players don't get any technical incentive to stick with their own team, except to the extent that other teams do not have the ability to give a max contract without Bird rights. But if the Lakers have $10M in usable cap space, they can "match" any other team's Bird offer so prudent spending (including prudent use of your own Bird rights) will allow big-market teams to still have a considerable "draw" advantage. Do you think this will not be a problem? I think I'd prefer a system that gives teams holding Bird rights some method of paying a larger amount of money, period.
That definitely changes things a bit. I'm not sure what it does to convince a player to stay. The players don't get any technical incentive to stick with their own team, except to the extent that other teams do not have the ability to give a max contract without Bird rights. But if the Lakers have $10M in usable cap space, they can "match" any other team's Bird offer so prudent spending (including prudent use of your own Bird rights) will allow big-market teams to still have a considerable "draw" advantage. Do you think this will not be a problem? I think I'd prefer a system that gives teams holding Bird rights some method of paying a larger amount of money, period.
Since I was just using round numbers, let's assume that if this were adopted the current rules that allow a team to pay slightly more on a max contract than a new team can would remain in place. I also think having a limit on excepted players (both in number and their effect on the cap) would make even the rich teams think long and hard about who they go after. They would still have their built in market advantages as selling points and that will never go away.
Is the hard cap $40 million, or is it $60 million? You said you have five guys signed for $44 million with $14 million to fill out the roster, so I'm assuming you meant $60 million...
Generally speaking, sign-and-trades are only done when the team and/or player wants to part ways, but there's a team that's favorable to paying said player but doesn't have the cap space to sign them outright. The team sending the player away typically doesn't take back junk contracts. They could simply say "no" and let the player land wherever he may land.
For instance, we got Brad Miller in a three team deal, and all Indiana took back was Scot Pollard, who they wanted anyway. They didn't want to pay Miller $60 million, and would have let him walk regardless (Utah and Denver both wanted him), but in exchange they got a player in the deal. And San Antonio hopped in the deal because they had cap space, and got two players out of it, for nothing. The deal included Bird rights, but only for a seventh year on his contract, as he wasn't a max level player.
What I'm protesting against is the idea that sign-and-trades are the players' way of leaving their team and the team is forced into a bad deal. In reality, sign and trades are usually effected because the team doesn't intend to keep the player, for one reason or another (usually money), but wants to get some kind of compensation. The other popular scenario is that the team the player is going to doesn't have cap space, but is willing to provide the compensation the original team is looking for. So the Pacers said "we can let Miller sign with Denver or Utah and wave goodbye, or we can S&T with Sacramento, and ditch Ron Mercer, and get back Scot Pollard." Win for the Kings, win for the Pacers, win for the Spurs for using their cap space, and win for the player. What's wrong with that?
Usually, when a player walks, there is no S&T, like when Amare Stoudemire went to the Knicks last summer. In which case, the original team didn't even try to keep him, didn't make an offer, nothing. Bird rights didn't even matter; he only signed a five year deal. In that case, the Suns could have offered the Knicks a S&T in exchange for a draft pick, but why would the Knicks do that when the player is willing to sign a non-Bird contract with them and they have the cap space?
And where we're diametrically opposed is the idea that players should be rewarded for team loyalty. That's never been the design. The design has been to give the Bird team the ability to add extra incentive for the player. They don't stay out of loyalty; they stay for extra money. That being the case, it would seem that the fix would be to make Bird rights stronger in comparison to other teams, not to restrict the Bird team's ability to reap compensation from a player leaving, if they choose to do so. That way, if the Pacers want to let Brad Miller leave, but have a chance to get some compensation, they can make that decision themselves, rather than being legislated out of it.
This nonsense that the Cavs and Raptors did with the Heat last season was not normal, and wasn't the original plan. Bosh and James were going to sign with Miami with or without the S&T for draft picks, and probably should have. As it stands, Miami agreed to part with picks in exchange for Bird rights for both players, which may or may not make sense. What would have been more appropriate would have been four year deals for both with player options after Year 3, so they could extend the contracts at that time. But whatever, the point is that generally speaking a team doesn't have to do a bad trade in order to get compensation.
Even in the Carmelo Anthony deal, the Nuggets did the deal the way he wanted them to because they wanted to maximize compensation, and he wasn't willing to sign an extension with anyone but the Knicks. In reality, they could have traded him to Utah for Gordon Hayward and a pick if they wanted to do it their way. Bird rights only matter when it's time for a new contract. Other than that, I don't see why we're focusing on them.
Generally speaking, sign-and-trades are only done when the team and/or player wants to part ways, but there's a team that's favorable to paying said player but doesn't have the cap space to sign them outright. The team sending the player away typically doesn't take back junk contracts. They could simply say "no" and let the player land wherever he may land.
For instance, we got Brad Miller in a three team deal, and all Indiana took back was Scot Pollard, who they wanted anyway. They didn't want to pay Miller $60 million, and would have let him walk regardless (Utah and Denver both wanted him), but in exchange they got a player in the deal. And San Antonio hopped in the deal because they had cap space, and got two players out of it, for nothing. The deal included Bird rights, but only for a seventh year on his contract, as he wasn't a max level player.
What I'm protesting against is the idea that sign-and-trades are the players' way of leaving their team and the team is forced into a bad deal. In reality, sign and trades are usually effected because the team doesn't intend to keep the player, for one reason or another (usually money), but wants to get some kind of compensation. The other popular scenario is that the team the player is going to doesn't have cap space, but is willing to provide the compensation the original team is looking for. So the Pacers said "we can let Miller sign with Denver or Utah and wave goodbye, or we can S&T with Sacramento, and ditch Ron Mercer, and get back Scot Pollard." Win for the Kings, win for the Pacers, win for the Spurs for using their cap space, and win for the player. What's wrong with that?
Usually, when a player walks, there is no S&T, like when Amare Stoudemire went to the Knicks last summer. In which case, the original team didn't even try to keep him, didn't make an offer, nothing. Bird rights didn't even matter; he only signed a five year deal. In that case, the Suns could have offered the Knicks a S&T in exchange for a draft pick, but why would the Knicks do that when the player is willing to sign a non-Bird contract with them and they have the cap space?
And where we're diametrically opposed is the idea that players should be rewarded for team loyalty. That's never been the design. The design has been to give the Bird team the ability to add extra incentive for the player. They don't stay out of loyalty; they stay for extra money. That being the case, it would seem that the fix would be to make Bird rights stronger in comparison to other teams, not to restrict the Bird team's ability to reap compensation from a player leaving, if they choose to do so. That way, if the Pacers want to let Brad Miller leave, but have a chance to get some compensation, they can make that decision themselves, rather than being legislated out of it.
This nonsense that the Cavs and Raptors did with the Heat last season was not normal, and wasn't the original plan. Bosh and James were going to sign with Miami with or without the S&T for draft picks, and probably should have. As it stands, Miami agreed to part with picks in exchange for Bird rights for both players, which may or may not make sense. What would have been more appropriate would have been four year deals for both with player options after Year 3, so they could extend the contracts at that time. But whatever, the point is that generally speaking a team doesn't have to do a bad trade in order to get compensation.
Even in the Carmelo Anthony deal, the Nuggets did the deal the way he wanted them to because they wanted to maximize compensation, and he wasn't willing to sign an extension with anyone but the Knicks. In reality, they could have traded him to Utah for Gordon Hayward and a pick if they wanted to do it their way. Bird rights only matter when it's time for a new contract. Other than that, I don't see why we're focusing on them.
The problem with sign and trades that include Bird rights is exactly what Lebron and Bosh did last summer. The whole year everyone said how they won't leave the extra year on the table and will sign with the home team.
They agreed to sign with Miami for 5 years I'm sure on the condition that Miami would try to work out sign and trades with Cleveland and Toronto. Players end up getting their money and years anyway so the home team doesn't have that much of an advantage. Cleveland and Toronto could have said no but cut their losses slightly by taking the exception and bad picks. Pretty sure Lebron and Bosh knew that would happen. So the question everyone wonders is if they really would have left if there was no possible workaround to get their money/years. I think it is much less likely.
They agreed to sign with Miami for 5 years I'm sure on the condition that Miami would try to work out sign and trades with Cleveland and Toronto. Players end up getting their money and years anyway so the home team doesn't have that much of an advantage. Cleveland and Toronto could have said no but cut their losses slightly by taking the exception and bad picks. Pretty sure Lebron and Bosh knew that would happen. So the question everyone wonders is if they really would have left if there was no possible workaround to get their money/years. I think it is much less likely.
When is the last time a team that had adequate cap space did a S&T for a big name player? It doesn't happen, as we saw with Stoudemire to New York. When a player is a free agent, he stays where he is or goes where there's cap space, and the only time a S&T is done is if a team without cap space offers the Bird team compensation. But the player still has to agree to the S&T. So in the Stoudemire signing, Phoenix couldn't say "we'll S&T you to the Knicks," but then sent him to the Pacers out of spite. They tried to trade him to Cleveland, but he wouldn't agree to an extension, so the deal couldn't get done.
Like I said, the Cleveland and Toronto deal with Miami is the exception to the rule. That's not how S&Ts normally work. If you want to argue against trading Bird rights, you have a much better case with the Carmelo deal. Even still, Denver did that deal rather than lose him for nothing, and they didn't have to take back any "bad" contracts, depending on how you view Felton's deal (but they moved him for Andre Miller, so that's a moot point anyway). They could have told Carmelo to sit down and shut up, and then told him to kick rocks and sign a free agent deal under a new CBA. What they did was smart. In reality, Bird rights protect smart teams because they can get compensation for soon-to-be free agents, rather than get nothing.
Like I said, the Cleveland and Toronto deal with Miami is the exception to the rule. That's not how S&Ts normally work. If you want to argue against trading Bird rights, you have a much better case with the Carmelo deal. Even still, Denver did that deal rather than lose him for nothing, and they didn't have to take back any "bad" contracts, depending on how you view Felton's deal (but they moved him for Andre Miller, so that's a moot point anyway). They could have told Carmelo to sit down and shut up, and then told him to kick rocks and sign a free agent deal under a new CBA. What they did was smart. In reality, Bird rights protect smart teams because they can get compensation for soon-to-be free agents, rather than get nothing.
No, he meant $40M. His Bird exception is a bit different than how we normally see it. Under his system if you use "Bird rights" on a player, they only count for (in his example) 10% of your cap number, even though they can be signed for up to a max contract of 25% of the cap. So everybody has a "hard cap" of $40M, but for Bird rights players, you can pay them money on top of their cap hit and outside of the cap structure, so to speak.
I don't think the problem is that smaller markets can't contend for a championship, but more that their margain of errors is much smaller than big market teams. This is more true in MLB, but the NBA has shown it as well.
If the Lakers sign a marginal player to a mid-level excemption (and he doesn't work out), they can eat his salary while signing another player to an excemption to take his place (hence the large pay roll). If the Kings (or other small market teams) try that, they start losing money very quickly.
If the Lakers sign a marginal player to a mid-level excemption (and he doesn't work out), they can eat his salary while signing another player to an excemption to take his place (hence the large pay roll). If the Kings (or other small market teams) try that, they start losing money very quickly.
This is where I disagree. This exception IS the serious problem right now. That's why we saw the Carmelo circus, saw Deron Williams get traded, and will likely see Chris Paul get traded if it does not change. Small markets are not able to keep superstars and the sign and trades that include Bird rights allow the players to force their way into getting the money and years they would get if they had stayed.
The Amare deal is the anomaly. The Suns did not offer him a guaranteed max deal with the extra year. If they had, Amare said he would have stayed. He got a better offer years and money from New York and he went. No problem there.
You are really right. But it is only one side of coin. I think that root of problem it is absence of compensation for free agents leaving to more attractive franchise. For example: LeBron leave Cleavland for Miami and Cavaliers stay with nothing.
I think, that in this case Miami should pass to Cleav any part of their salary cap depends on size of Lebron's contract. Suppose , something like 5 million for max contract. So, Cavaliers will increase their possibility for free agents resigning, and Miami will reduce their ability for resign another free agents from others. I mean, that we desperately need system that will give compensations to teams which can't hold their players from departure.
I think, that in this case Miami should pass to Cleav any part of their salary cap depends on size of Lebron's contract. Suppose , something like 5 million for max contract. So, Cavaliers will increase their possibility for free agents resigning, and Miami will reduce their ability for resign another free agents from others. I mean, that we desperately need system that will give compensations to teams which can't hold their players from departure.
Carmelo and Deron Williams got traded because their teams didn't think they'd be able to keep them once they hit free agency. It had nothing to do with Bird rights. They wanted to get compensation before it was too late. Carmelo didn't force his way to the Knicks through trade because of Bird rights; he did it because he wanted to sign his extension before the lockout. Utah traded Deron Williams because they saw it unlikely that he would resign with them. Again, not a S&T and had nothing to do with Bird rights.
Most of the time, players aren't forcing their way anywhere. If a player says he wants to be traded, and the team acquiesces, that's the team's prerogative, and again, it has nothing to do with Bird rights. Usually when a S&T that has anything to do with Bird rights is done, it's done because the Bird team has no intention of keep the player but wants to get some compensation for him, like when we traded for Brad Miller. The Pacers didn't want to pay him, he could have signed with a number of teams outright, but he agreed to a S&T that the Pacers perpetrated for their own benefit. It wasn't a case of him forcing his way anywhere. They could have told him to trample off and sign a non-Bird deal with whoever would have him. You're acting like S&T deals hold the Bird team ransom, when in reality it's a way for them to recoup something for a player they're losing anyways.
The Amare deal is most certainly NOT an anomaly. I think perceptions have been grossly skewed away from reality with the craziness of the past year or so. In reality, when a player is a free agent and wants to leave, he just leaves. He goes wherever he wants to a team that can pay him what he wants to be paid. The Bird rights give the home team an advantage, and that's why over the years big name free agents often stayed at home for max contracts (and still do, like Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay). But there are still players who pick up and leave for a new team, and it's not just Amare Stoudemire. And again, in that case, the Suns didn't want to keep him for what he wanted. The fact that he said he would have stayed is an argument for Bird rights as they are.
Most of the time, players aren't forcing their way anywhere. If a player says he wants to be traded, and the team acquiesces, that's the team's prerogative, and again, it has nothing to do with Bird rights. Usually when a S&T that has anything to do with Bird rights is done, it's done because the Bird team has no intention of keep the player but wants to get some compensation for him, like when we traded for Brad Miller. The Pacers didn't want to pay him, he could have signed with a number of teams outright, but he agreed to a S&T that the Pacers perpetrated for their own benefit. It wasn't a case of him forcing his way anywhere. They could have told him to trample off and sign a non-Bird deal with whoever would have him. You're acting like S&T deals hold the Bird team ransom, when in reality it's a way for them to recoup something for a player they're losing anyways.
The Amare deal is most certainly NOT an anomaly. I think perceptions have been grossly skewed away from reality with the craziness of the past year or so. In reality, when a player is a free agent and wants to leave, he just leaves. He goes wherever he wants to a team that can pay him what he wants to be paid. The Bird rights give the home team an advantage, and that's why over the years big name free agents often stayed at home for max contracts (and still do, like Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay). But there are still players who pick up and leave for a new team, and it's not just Amare Stoudemire. And again, in that case, the Suns didn't want to keep him for what he wanted. The fact that he said he would have stayed is an argument for Bird rights as they are.