The Lockout has arrived.

[pdxKingsFan]

The difference between the NFL and NBA is staggering, the NBA has one of the most powerful player unions while a good number of teams and owners have at least claimed to be struggling over the last few years. The NFL already has everything the NBA owners want - non guaranteed contracts, at least the illusion of parity, a weakened union - not to mention the league continues to flourish despite the struggles of other leagues.

So it makes sense that Stern goes away to try to weaken the NBA players' resolve while Goodell does everything in his power to make sure the NFL doesn't miss a beat where it matters.

The NHL blew a season and took quite a few steps back but owners got what they wanted and the league is the best its been since Bettman came and started screwing everything up.

 

[bajaden]

The difference between the NFL and NBA is staggering, the NBA has one of the most powerful player unions while a good number of teams and owners have at least claimed to be struggling over the last few years. The NFL already has everything the NBA owners want - non guaranteed contracts, at least the illusion of parity, a weakened union - not to mention the league continues to flourish despite the struggles of other leagues.

So it makes sense that Stern goes away to try to weaken the NBA players' resolve while Goodell does everything in his power to make sure the NFL doesn't miss a beat where it matters.

The NHL blew a season and took quite a few steps back but owners got what they wanted and the league is the best its been since Bettman came and started screwing everything up.

Yeah, I'm sure the NFL is the model the NBA is looking to imitate. I doubt they'll ever get the players to go along with totally unguaranteed contracts. But maybe some version of it with 2 years guaranteed and the final 2 years non-guaranteed. Or perhaps all contracts could be encentive based. One way or another there has to be a way for teams to rid themselves of a player that fails to live up to expectations. Because in reallity, its the fans that suffer. Yes, a team may have a moron for a GM. And its not the players fault that he wants to overpay with a long contract. But the league isn't about how players can make a lot of money and not earn it. The league isn't putting on a morality play. Its hopefully putting out a product that fans want to see.

We suffered through the Kenny Thomas era, and its not unique to just us. Every team has had its albatross at one time or another. Its not helpful to the franchise, or the league. So there needs to be either, a total revamp of how contracts are drawn up, or a safety valve of some kind that allows the player his due compensation, and free's up capspace for the team. I realize that the players don't operate in the real world. In the real world, if you don't perform, your gone, and replaced. No questions asked. But, they're the best of the best in a unique profession. They're not easily replaced. At least not the top players. So special treatment is understandable. I think a billboard of the Maloof's offering to mow C. Webbs lawn speaks for itself. Therein lies the problem. The owners essentially need protection from themselves.

The players know this, and present it as a good argument for their side. In the end, hopefully, both sides will look at whats best for us. We the fans, are the engine that drives the league. We're the one's that need to be kept happy. Not a lot of happiness going around right now.

 

[VF21]

...The players know this, and present it as a good argument for their side. In the end, hopefully, both sides will look at whats best for us. We the fans, are the engine that drives the league. We're the one's that need to be kept happy. Not a lot of happiness going around right now.

I would love to hear Derek Fisher or Billy Hunter acknowledge that just once. I would also love to hear them admit they're being paid obscene amounts of money to play a game. I'm not holding my breath in either instance...

I think your analysis of the situation, however, is spot on.

 

[mac]

I would love to hear Derek Fisher or Billy Hunter acknowledge that just once. I would also love to hear them admit they're being paid obscene amounts of money to play a game. I'm not holding my breath in either instance...

I think your analysis of the situation, however, is spot on.

HEY VF!! Long time no see!

I agree with what you guys have said. You know what infuriates me? How during the season the players are all "oh we're so lucky to be able to play the game we love for a living! It's not about the money, it's about doing what you love" and even recently Mo Evans said "it's not about the money" in one of the interviews. Well if it isn't about the money then why are you guys being such ****tards about the whole thing! You'll still get your millions, which err most people don't even get in their lifetime. And there they are complaining that they're going to get a couple of million less over a 10 year career. Oh boo hoo.

 

[CruzDude]

Players still don't get it. Many have replied that when trade rumors about them pop up, "It's a business. If we get traded well, it's just part of the business of basketball". I ran a company for 22 years and hired many over that time. In a real business if an employee doesn't perform they get let go or fired. If they are really key and perform then they get paid well. if NBA players want to work in a "business" then they should agree to be dealt with the same as employees In all other businesses. Even entertainers who don't perform well get dumped and don't get paid. Charlie Sheen anyone?

Fans do get stuck with idiot owners that screw up the "business" of an NBA team to satisfy their own egos (Donald Sterling, David Kahn???) or to cover their own incompetences (Dolan in NY?). That is a more difficult problem to solve. But player attitudes and abilities still need to be dealt with for the better of the team, not the other way around. With the prisoners running the asylum as now 20+ NBA teams are suffering and so are their fans. Change is needed and now.

 

[Superman]

I would love to hear Derek Fisher or Billy Hunter acknowledge that just once. I would also love to hear them admit they're being paid obscene amounts of money to play a game. I'm not holding my breath in either instance...

I think your analysis of the situation, however, is spot on.

I think they both have. But I don't think that changes the merits of the debate one bit. The fans are important, but that doesn't mean the players should just capitulate because they make a lot of money. They are not just employees, they are the actual product. To expect them to just fold without a fight so that the fans can be happy really isn't fair to them. They have earning power, and while it's hard to appreciate because they make millions, they still should be able to fight to maximize their earning power.

 

[PurpleHaze]

It might be nice if the players would acknowledge all the "little people" who run the concessions and provide services for both fans and players throughout the NBA. This lockout is affecting them too and if it goes deep into the season will put big hit on their meager incomes. They have no recourse in this tough economy but are essential to everyones enjoyment of the games.

 

[bajaden]

I think they both have. But I don't think that changes the merits of the debate one bit. The fans are important, but that doesn't mean the players should just capitulate because they make a lot of money. They are not just employees, they are the actual product. To expect them to just fold without a fight so that the fans can be happy really isn't fair to them. They have earning power, and while it's hard to appreciate because they make millions, they still should be able to fight to maximize their earning power.

No denying the points you made. And legally, the players have the right to do what they think is in their best interest. However, I and all the fans have the right to be critical of either side in this dispute. And while I admit that its hard to take a side without knowing all the tiny details.This I do know. We, the fans of the Sacramento Kings, are living a up close and personal life of a fan of a small town team. And unlike Portland, we don't have a billionaire owner.

If the goal of the league is to formulate a CBA that allows each and every team the financial ability to stand on its own two feet, then I'm down with that! In a capitalistic society, you succeed, or you disapear. I doubt anyone here wants the Kings to disapear. We can argue the merits of either side in this debate. But there's no denying that owners like the Maloofs, are dammed to be bottom dwellers if the system isn't changed. Small town teams have little to offer, but the mystic of being winners. Example, The Spurs or the the Thunder, etc.

The basic rule is always, don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The league is the Goose. As long as the league is healthy, the players will continue to make big bucks. So if I might suggest something to the players. Set your pride aside! Agree to all the proposals that make sense for the long term success of the entire league, and demand some sort of compensation, either long term or short term in return.

My advice to the owners. Get your house in order, and don't expect to be bailed out in the future by the players union. Prove to the players that your approaching these talks honestly, by putting revenue sharing on the table for the players to see. While I agree that revenue sharing is something to be agreed upon by the owners, I see no benefit in keeping those agreements secret from the players union. Unless of course, there is no agreement.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think it is a bit simple to say the "players are the product".

This past year or so has been a pretty huge reminder to some (though obviously not all) of us that this team is as much about the players and owners as it is about civic/hometown pride and our community. I am a fan of the team first and foremost, and I have been no matter whether it was crap or brilliance that the team put on the court, and it will remain that way.

Should the players run off and form their own teams would I automatically just become a fan of a new team and league? I honestly can't say. If the Kings were still around with second tier players I'd probably still follow that team first.

 

[Superman]

No denying the points you made. And legally, the players have the right to do what they think is in their best interest. However, I and all the fans have the right to be critical of either side in this dispute. And while I admit that its hard to take a side without knowing all the tiny details.This I do know. We, the fans of the Sacramento Kings, are living a up close and personal life of a fan of a small town team. And unlike Portland, we don't have a billionaire owner.

If the goal of the league is to formulate a CBA that allows each and every team the financial ability to stand on its own two feet, then I'm down with that! In a capitalistic society, you succeed, or you disapear. I doubt anyone here wants the Kings to disapear. We can argue the merits of either side in this debate. But there's no denying that owners like the Maloofs, are dammed to be bottom dwellers if the system isn't changed. Small town teams have little to offer, but the mystic of being winners. Example, The Spurs or the the Thunder, etc.

The basic rule is always, don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The league is the Goose. As long as the league is healthy, the players will continue to make big bucks. So if I might suggest something to the players. Set your pride aside! Agree to all the proposals that make sense for the long term success of the entire league, and demand some sort of compensation, either long term or short term in return.

My advice to the owners. Get your house in order, and don't expect to be bailed out in the future by the players union. Prove to the players that your approaching these talks honestly, by putting revenue sharing on the table for the players to see. While I agree that revenue sharing is something to be agreed upon by the owners, I see no benefit in keeping those agreements secret from the players union. Unless of course, there is no agreement.

No doubt that adjustments need to be made. I'd favor a hard cap, similar to the NFL, which is totally opposed by the players and big market teams, for obvious reasons. I don't mean to come across like I'm "pro player." I'm really not. I don't care whether the players get 57% or 37% of BRI. Doesn't matter to me.

That said, I don't think that the amount of money a person or group of people make can be looked at in a vacuum. The average NBA player makes north of $5 million a year because the NBA is a $4 billion business. They get a share of the revenues. So for fans to say "what, they can't survive if they only make $3 million a year? Why don't they just take the cut and go play?" isn't fair. It's partly due to their talents that the league is a multi-billion dollar business, so it's understandable that they want to maximize their earning potential.

The money isn't the problem, if you ask me. It's the system. The players might make more than they should, based on the numbers and the profitability of the league, but you have a system that's being further and further skewed in favor of the big money and big market teams, despite the so-called restraints in place. It's obvious that things need to change, but what things are those?

For small market fans, like Kings fans, the problem isn't that the average player makes $5 million a year. The problem is that the contending teams have or will soon have $90 million payrolls, despite the $56 million salary cap. The problem is that big money teams can afford to pay a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, so there are no real restraints preventing them from stacking their teams with talent. It does no good to draft well when big money teams can draft poorly and then pay your best draft picks max money once their contracts are up, effectively turning you into a farm system. People complain about the MLB, but there's really little difference between what the Yankees have been doing for a decade and what the Lakers are starting to do. Yeah, it's a little harder for an NBA team to add talent once they're above the cap, but it's not impossible, and as such, not only can the Lakers continue to pay their best players $20 million a year, they can actually bring in other star players and pay them $20 million a year as well. And so on.

It isn't even really about revenue sharing. I don't think the Lakers should have to subsidize the rest of the NBA with their $3 billion TV deal. But I don't think they should be able to outspend everyone using that $3 billion either. Fact is, revenue sharing is already a reality, in several ways. Staying with the Lakers, when they go to Sacramento and the PBP sells out, the Kings don't split those gate receipts and concessions with the Lakers. When high profile teams go to Milwaukee or Charlotte or New Orleans or Memphis, and the home team sells out, the road team gets none of that windfall. The big market/high profile teams are already subsidizing the small market teams, in more ways than one.

And it's like you said, if you can't cut it, you get cut. If the league wants to have a truly competitive league, serious changes need to be made, but it's not necessary for the best teams to subsidize the struggling teams. Sad to say, but if an NBA franchise can't hack it in a small city, then that franchise needs to make changes, maybe even move. The NBA's job isn't to make sure small towns get to keep their teams. But they should provide each team an equal opportunity to be competitive, or at least take steps in that direction. The highest paid player in the NFL is in one of the smallest cities in the country. That city also just built a new stadium to keep their team. Small cities can support pro teams, but that becomes a significantly difficult proposition when the league provides them with zero protection against big market teams with fat pocket owners.

In this situation, the players' first proposal included a loss on their part. They've already come to terms with the fact that they're going to take a hit. But just having the players make less doesn't guarantee the financial well-being of the league, and it doesn't protect the small market teams. There needs to be systemic change in the NBA in order for the Kings and other small market teams to be competitive. That change can actually take place without the players taking a sizable hit in their percentage. The two issues are related, but separate.

 

[Superman]

I think it is a bit simple to say the "players are the product".

This past year or so has been a pretty huge reminder to some (though obviously not all) of us that this team is as much about the players and owners as it is about civic/hometown pride and our community. I am a fan of the team first and foremost, and I have been no matter whether it was crap or brilliance that the team put on the court, and it will remain that way.

Should the players run off and form their own teams would I automatically just become a fan of a new team and league? I honestly can't say. If the Kings were still around with second tier players I'd probably still follow that team first.

I'm saying that this isn't the typical union deal, where management comes to the union and says "we need you to take a reduction in order for the business to succeed. The union employees are also the product that gets presented to the public, and as such aren't easily replaceable.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm saying that this isn't the typical union deal, where management comes to the union and says "we need you to take a reduction in order for the business to succeed. The union employees are also the product that gets presented to the public, and as such aren't easily replaceable.

But ultimately they all get replaced and most fans stay loyal to one team. There's a lot of infrastructure and other things which the players tend to take for granted that is also part of the product. They are one component but not the entire piece of the puzzle. Maybe less of a piece than they think.

 

[Superman]

But ultimately they all get replaced and most fans stay loyal to one team. There's a lot of infrastructure and other things which the players tend to take for granted that is also part of the product. They are one component but not the entire piece of the puzzle. Maybe less of a piece than they think.

Players get replaced, but not wholesale. You don't say "If these players won't agree to the terms we want them to, we'll just replace the entire field with new players." It doesn't work that way. No player or group of players is so important that the league can't survive without them, but fans pay to see the best players in the world. You can't just force them to comply because they do have leverage. Not a ton, but some.

Fan loyalty is also changing. Player movement has increased, fantasy sports and the Internet have increased visibility and awareness, etc. I think the team will always trump the player, overall, but I don't think fans will sell out every night in Orlando if Dwight Howard isn't there.

That's not really my point, though. I just don't think that because the players make a lot of money that fans should expect them to be okay with taking significant cuts.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

No doubt that adjustments need to be made. I'd favor a hard cap, similar to the NFL, which is totally opposed by the players and big market teams, for obvious reasons. I don't mean to come across like I'm "pro player." I'm really not. I don't care whether the players get 57% or 37% of BRI. Doesn't matter to me.

What's odd to me is that with the current escrow system, there really IS a hard cap in the NBA right now, and it's at 57% of BRI. Any payroll above that 57% level gets taken back by the league in proportion to the contract size, and any deficit below that gets paid out to the players' union (which may then distribute it in proportion to contract size, but I'm not sure). Either way, the players' argument against the hard cap doesn't really make any sense, because one is essentially in place now, it just doesn't have that name.

I think that there are really two things to be ironed out. First, the two sides need to come to an agreement on what gets classified as BRI. Then, once that's done, they have to come to an agreement on the percentage of BRI going to the players (and whatever it is, it will need to be substantially below 57%). From there, it's just details.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Players get replaced, but not wholesale. You don't say "If these players won't agree to the terms we want them to, we'll just replace the entire field with new players." It doesn't work that way. No player or group of players is so important that the league can't survive without them, but fans pay to see the best players in the world. You can't just force them to comply because they do have leverage. Not a ton, but some.

Fan loyalty is also changing. Player movement has increased, fantasy sports and the Internet have increased visibility and awareness, etc. I think the team will always trump the player, overall, but I don't think fans will sell out every night in Orlando if Dwight Howard isn't there.

That's not really my point, though. I just don't think that because the players make a lot of money that fans should expect them to be okay with taking significant cuts.

I'm not suggesting that the NBA could survive forever on scrubs, what I am suggesting is that in a battle of wills the owners will likely win. They would be immediately able to start poaching the best talent in the college ranks and I'm sure more than a few current players would jump back to the NBA quickly if not at all.

As for your last point, maybe it isn't fair for fans to expect players to take cuts but those fans are enduring the same kinds of cuts in their lives with a lot less disposable income to work with so it may be time to realize how sweet you have it even if you take a bit of a haircut in the process.

 

[Superman]

I'm not suggesting that the NBA could survive forever on scrubs, what I am suggesting is that in a battle of wills the owners will likely win. They would be immediately able to start poaching the best talent in the college ranks and I'm sure more than a few current players would jump back to the NBA quickly if not at all.

As for your last point, maybe it isn't fair for fans to expect players to take cuts but those fans are enduring the same kinds of cuts in their lives with a lot less disposable income to work with so it may be time to realize how sweet you have it even if you take a bit of a haircut in the process.

This problem exists on several levels. The players have already shown a willingness to take a loss. The question has always been how big of a loss they are willing to take. And since the problem is bigger than "the players make too much money," they also need to redo the CBA probably from scratch in order to build in protections for small market teams and limit the money teams can spend. There's really no sense in having the players take a loss when you're left with the same "big vs. small" issues that are destroying competition in the NBA. You'll still have teams leaving small cities, you'll have other teams facing contraction, and at the end of the day, the league won't be any more profitable than it is now with players getting 57% of BRI. Don't just replace the drywall; fix the leak first.

 

[hrdboild]

It might be nice if the players would acknowledge all the "little people" who run the concessions and provide services for both fans and players throughout the NBA. This lockout is affecting them too and if it goes deep into the season will put big hit on their meager incomes. They have no recourse in this tough economy but are essential to everyones enjoyment of the games.

I'm sure I read a report a few weeks ago about Kobe Bryant and Luke Walton donating a big chunk of money to Staples Center staff who are going to be unemployed until the lockout ends.

EDIT: Here it is, though it's just a couple of laid off staffers at this point and it was playoff bonus money.

 

[Superman]

What's odd to me is that with the current escrow system, there really IS a hard cap in the NBA right now, and it's at 57% of BRI. Any payroll above that 57% level gets taken back by the league in proportion to the contract size, and any deficit below that gets paid out to the players' union (which may then distribute it in proportion to contract size, but I'm not sure). Either way, the players' argument against the hard cap doesn't really make any sense, because one is essentially in place now, it just doesn't have that name.

I think that there are really two things to be ironed out. First, the two sides need to come to an agreement on what gets classified as BRI. Then, once that's done, they have to come to an agreement on the percentage of BRI going to the players (and whatever it is, it will need to be substantially below 57%). From there, it's just details.

This is true to an extent. But only a fixed percentage of player salaries go to escrow, so in a year like 2010-11 when that percentage doesn't totally cure the overage (from what I understand), the players do get more than 57% of BRI. Not by a lot, but some.

The problem is that in order to a hard cap, you can't have fully guaranteed contracts. Players would have to be cut in order for teams to get under the cap. The average contract would decrease drastically, and there'd be a significant market correction over the next several seasons. Agents also play a role, for obvious reasons. (Question about that: Does an agent get paid his percentage based on the contract value, or based on the after escrow pay to the player?)

Anyways, once BRI is redefined, the percentage the players get isn't really that important. I think what's most important to the players is that they have the ability to share in the future growth of the league, not that they maintain their 57% or anything close to it.

Besides that, there's a small market/small money vs. big market/big money dynamic among the owners that has to be straightened out. And the only way to do that and stimulate competition is with some form of a hard cap, which has to be agreed to by the players. Like I said earlier, related, but separate.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

This problem exists on several levels. The players have already shown a willingness to take a loss. The question has always been how big of a loss they are willing to take. And since the problem is bigger than "the players make too much money," they also need to redo the CBA probably from scratch in order to build in protections for small market teams and limit the money teams can spend. There's really no sense in having the players take a loss when you're left with the same "big vs. small" issues that are destroying competition in the NBA. You'll still have teams leaving small cities, you'll have other teams facing contraction, and at the end of the day, the league won't be any more profitable than it is now with players getting 57% of BRI. Don't just replace the drywall; fix the leak first.

Yes, I agree with that assessment, but I doubt the players have any interest in helping small markets because they would just as soon all be playing in the biggest market they can.

 

[Superman]

Yes, I agree with that assessment, but I doubt the players have any interest in helping small markets because they would just as soon all be playing in the biggest market they can.

Most players don't care what market they play in. They want the most money a team can offer them, and they want to have a chance to win. It's the top 3% of players who can get a max contract from any team in the league who have the luxury to choose between small and big market cities. Most of them are just eager to get an offer.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Most players don't care what market they play in. They want the most money a team can offer them, and they want to have a chance to win. It's the top 3% of players who can get a max contract from any team in the league who have the luxury to choose between small and big market cities. Most of them are just eager to get an offer.

But that is only because there are small market teams with better job offerings - if teams could all move to the top 5 cities and thrive I'm sure 90% the players would have absolutely no problem trading Indy for LA or NY. Because like you said, they want to play where the best job is. But LA or NY do offer more potential for off the court dollars so if the pay and role are the same they usually jump at the bright shiny city.

 

[bajaden]

The money isn't the problem, if you ask me. It's the system. The players might make more than they should, based on the numbers and the profitability of the league, but you have a system that's being further and further skewed in favor of the big money and big market teams, despite the so-called restraints in place. It's obvious that things need to change, but what things are those?

In one way or the other, money is exactly the problem. Whether its money under the cap that a team doesn't have, or money an owner doesn't have to spend on the necessary players to make the team competitive. Its money that the players are complaining about, and its money that the owners are trying to cut by reducing salaries. The entire argument is over money, either directly or indirectly. Now that may be disquised in length of contract, or hardcap discussions. But in the end, its all about money.

I'm certainly not going to argue about what percentage of the BRI the players are entitled to. I've haven't been allowed to look at the books, and I probably wouldn't understand them if I did. But if its true that 22 teams lost money, then something needs to change. Now I owned my own business. A business somewhat smaller than the NBA. And the last thing I wanted to do was lay anyone off. But when it came down to one of my workers, and my own income, the worker lost!! And, I didn't have to show him my books to justify my move. A poor comparison, I know. But the principle is tha same. The owners do own the business. The players like to call it a business right up until it tries to operate like one.

You mentioned a football team in a small city being successful. Green Bay is a prime example. But the NFL plays one game a week, and I don't think I need to go over the differences between the CBA in football and basketball. As I said, the NFL is the model the NBA would like to imitate. Baseball is the complete opposite. At the begining of every season I can just about tell you every team that will be in the playoffs that year. You'll get your occasional surprise like the Giants last season, but they're the exception. As a fan, I'd rather see the NBA arrive at something closer to the NFL than MLB.

To the best of my knowledge, other than trying to reduce the percentage of the BRI, the league hasn't tried to deligate what the salaries will be. But they are trying to change the way in which teams arrive at what they can, or would be willing to pay for a player. A legitimate hard cap will, in of itself reduce the payrolls of teams. Personally, if there is to be an exception of any kind, it should only be to help a team keep its own players. Keep the Larry Bird rule, but if the player is traded, the Bird exception doesn't get traded with him.

While you and I may have philosophical differences, I believe we both want the same result. We just have different ideas on how to arrive at that result. Perhaps we should start a thread where a small group of posters represents the players, and another group represents the owners. Then we can see how long it takes to hammer out an agreement.. Hmmm! I better head to the store and stock up first..

 

[Capt. Factorial]

This is true to an extent. But only a fixed percentage of player salaries go to escrow, so in a year like 2010-11 when that percentage doesn't totally cure the overage (from what I understand), the players do get more than 57% of BRI. Not by a lot, but some.

I thought that for 2010-11 that salaries went down relative to BRI - that for the first time the league returned the entirety of the escrow withholding. However it is true that since the escrow withholding is only 8%, if the players' total salaries exceeded their 57% "share" of BRI by more than 8% they'd actually come out a bit ahead. But for all intents and purposes, it's a hard cap at 57%.

The problem is that in order to a hard cap, you can't have fully guaranteed contracts. Players would have to be cut in order for teams to get under the cap. The average contract would decrease drastically, and there'd be a significant market correction over the next several seasons.

I don't think that the two are completely incompatible (hard caps and fully guaranteed contracts), but I do recognize that if a player with a big contract gets hurt or otherwise loses effectiveness, that is a real drag on a hard cap - more so than a soft one. There are ways to make exceptions, like periodic amnesties, but non-guaranteed contracts are the easiest way out. Maybe a hard sell to the players, but eventually something has to give, right? As far as current salaries go, I don't imagine that anybody will be forced to be cut or have their contract reduced. Rather, the league will probably just ease in the hard cap over the next 5 years (which is as long as any current contracts go).

Anyways, once BRI is redefined, the percentage the players get isn't really that important. I think what's most important to the players is that they have the ability to share in the future growth of the league, not that they maintain their 57% or anything close to it.

I'm not sure I follow this one. As long as player salaries are tied to a percentage of BRI, then the players DO have the ability to share in the future growth of the league. I certainly do think they're afraid of a hard cap that is, for instance, $60M and never goes up. But if a hard cap is tied on a year-by-year basis to the league's revenues that seems like what the players would want to me - and at that point, the percentage of BRI becomes probably the most important issue of all. The only other thing I can think that would challenge it in importance would be length/guarantees on contracts.

Besides that, there's a small market/small money vs. big market/big money dynamic among the owners that has to be straightened out. And the only way to do that and stimulate competition is with some form of a hard cap, which has to be agreed to by the players. Like I said earlier, related, but separate.

There's also revenue sharing. Stern has said this summer that there is already the framework of a revenue sharing system worked out and agreed to by the owners (even the large-market owners) but that finally hashing it out won't be done until after the CBA comes through. I guess the thinking there is that the league doesn't want to have to go through the collective bargaining process on the revenue sharing aspects, and that's probably smart. But there's at least reason to believe that the league is serious about revenue sharing and poised to implement some form of it (though we know not what), and that ought to go a long way towards evening the playing field for the small market teams.

 

[Superman]

But that is only because there are small market teams with better job offerings - if teams could all move to the top 5 cities and thrive I'm sure 90% the players would have absolutely no problem trading Indy for LA or NY. Because like you said, they want to play where the best job is. But LA or NY do offer more potential for off the court dollars so if the pay and role are the same they usually jump at the bright shiny city.

A guy like Matt Barnes has no off-court earning potential. Even big money guys like Rudy Gay or Al Jefferson aren't going to get endorsement deals or get reality TV shows just because they play in big market cities. For those guys, it's about the money, and it's about the opportunity to contend. Mostly in that order. Amare Stoudemire said he would have stayed in Phoenix had they offered him a contract. They didn't, so he went to the Knicks.

I think this big market city thing is being overplayed as it pertains to free agent decisions. Most players go for the money.

 

[Superman]

In one way or the other, money is exactly the problem. Whether its money under the cap that a team doesn't have, or money an owner doesn't have to spend on the necessary players to make the team competitive. Its money that the players are complaining about, and its money that the owners are trying to cut by reducing salaries. The entire argument is over money, either directly or indirectly. Now that may be disquised in length of contract, or hardcap discussions. But in the end, its all about money.

I'm certainly not going to argue about what percentage of the BRI the players are entitled to. I've haven't been allowed to look at the books, and I probably wouldn't understand them if I did. But if its true that 22 teams lost money, then something needs to change. Now I owned my own business. A business somewhat smaller than the NBA. And the last thing I wanted to do was lay anyone off. But when it came down to one of my workers, and my own income, the worker lost!! And, I didn't have to show him my books to justify my move. A poor comparison, I know. But the principle is tha same. The owners do own the business. The players like to call it a business right up until it tries to operate like one.

You mentioned a football team in a small city being successful. Green Bay is a prime example. But the NFL plays one game a week, and I don't think I need to go over the differences between the CBA in football and basketball. As I said, the NFL is the model the NBA would like to imitate. Baseball is the complete opposite. At the begining of every season I can just about tell you every team that will be in the playoffs that year. You'll get your occasional surprise like the Giants last season, but they're the exception. As a fan, I'd rather see the NBA arrive at something closer to the NFL than MLB.

To the best of my knowledge, other than trying to reduce the percentage of the BRI, the league hasn't tried to deligate what the salaries will be. But they are trying to change the way in which teams arrive at what they can, or would be willing to pay for a player. A legitimate hard cap will, in of itself reduce the payrolls of teams. Personally, if there is to be an exception of any kind, it should only be to help a team keep its own players. Keep the Larry Bird rule, but if the player is traded, the Bird exception doesn't get traded with him.

While you and I may have philosophical differences, I believe we both want the same result. We just have different ideas on how to arrive at that result. Perhaps we should start a thread where a small group of posters represents the players, and another group represents the owners. Then we can see how long it takes to hammer out an agreement.. Hmmm! I better head to the store and stock up first..

I think we're saying the same thing. My point is that the problem for the small market/small money owners isn't solely that the players get 57% of BRI. It's mostly that they can't be competitive in a league where the big money/big market owners are spending $20 million over the cap -- and still turning a profit. I'm not concerned with the players' BRI %. I just don't want to see a new CBA that doesn't address the rift between big market teams and small market teams. Cut players' percentage without doing anything about the Lakers and Mavs and other big money teams going over the cap without penalty, and you'll have the same problems you have now. And eventually, small market owners will bail on those small markets, just to survive.

The Nets are showing everyone what's coming if things stay the same. You'll pile a bunch of teams in major metro areas, and the small cities will lose. If you want to have a league where small cities can compete against major metros, you have to restrain the amount of money those metros can spend on player salaries.

Separate from that, but related, is the fact that player salaries are out of control. It's hard for me to feel for the owners, since they agreed to these ridiculous contracts (I say it over and over again: Brendan Haywood signed a $55 million contract before last season, when everyone knew there was going to be a lockout). But still, the average player shouldn't make $5 million a year. There needs to be a major market correction. I thought it was coming last year, but it's definitely coming. One way or the other.

The league does dictate how much player salaries can be, in a way. They set a maximum contract value based on BRI. It's profit sharing among the players, really. While a guy in his prime could probably make significantly more than the max in a truly free market, he's limited. Meanwhile, that money gets funneled back to average players who really aren't worth the money they make. Luke Walton is making $5 million (which is $5 million more than he's worth), meanwhile Kobe Bryant is limited in his NBA earnings.

I don't know how I come across on this issue, as my opinions are many and varied. I'm not pro-owner or pro-player. I think there are significant adjustments that need to be made across the board. Both sides need to make concessions, drastic ones. I couldn't argue for one side or the other because I don't side with one side or the other.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Maybe its rap albums and bad movies. Plus the big cities tend to appeal to the WaGs. My point was that if the money was equal the city would become more of a concern. Since it is not it won't be a big factor as long as small market teams are able to survive in their small markets. Which of course is the concern.

 

[Superman]

I thought that for 2010-11 that salaries went down relative to BRI - that for the first time the league returned the entirety of the escrow withholding. However it is true that since the escrow withholding is only 8%, if the players' total salaries exceeded their 57% "share" of BRI by more than 8% they'd actually come out a bit ahead. But for all intents and purposes, it's a hard cap at 57%.

I might have that backward. But either way, it is essentially a hard cap. It just doesn't operate as one when it comes to balancing the playing field between teams. The teams with $70 million payrolls still have to cut $70 million in payroll checks.

I don't think that the two are completely incompatible (hard caps and fully guaranteed contracts), but I do recognize that if a player with a big contract gets hurt or otherwise loses effectiveness, that is a real drag on a hard cap - more so than a soft one. There are ways to make exceptions, like periodic amnesties, but non-guaranteed contracts are the easiest way out. Maybe a hard sell to the players, but eventually something has to give, right? As far as current salaries go, I don't imagine that anybody will be forced to be cut or have their contract reduced. Rather, the league will probably just ease in the hard cap over the next 5 years (which is as long as any current contracts go).

The thing about fully guaranteed contracts is that they are not a given under the recently expired CBA. Never have been. They are negotiated individually with each player. Aside from rookie contracts, teams have allowed fully guaranteed contracts to become the norm, to the point that people consider them to be a right. They are not. If all owners decided to stop giving fully guaranteed contracts to everyone except the truly top tier players, they'd be sued for collusion, but it's probably what needs to happen.

As for the hard cap being eased in, that's part of the proposal the owners presented originally. Problem with that proposal is that they drastically cut the players BRI %, and reduced their share in the future as revenues increase.

I'm not sure I follow this one. As long as player salaries are tied to a percentage of BRI, then the players DO have the ability to share in the future growth of the league. I certainly do think they're afraid of a hard cap that is, for instance, $60M and never goes up. But if a hard cap is tied on a year-by-year basis to the league's revenues that seems like what the players would want to me - and at that point, the percentage of BRI becomes probably the most important issue of all. The only other thing I can think that would challenge it in importance would be length/guarantees on contracts.

I believe the owners' original proposal removed or altered the BRI tie-in, so that players would not necessarily share in the growth.

There's also revenue sharing. Stern has said this summer that there is already the framework of a revenue sharing system worked out and agreed to by the owners (even the large-market owners) but that finally hashing it out won't be done until after the CBA comes through. I guess the thinking there is that the league doesn't want to have to go through the collective bargaining process on the revenue sharing aspects, and that's probably smart. But there's at least reason to believe that the league is serious about revenue sharing and poised to implement some form of it (though we know not what), and that ought to go a long way towards evening the playing field for the small market teams.

I don't know any of the specifics of this, though I had heard about it. I think they're going to get it wrong. I do think revenue sharing can work, but more important than that to me is restricting the amount of money teams can spend on players every year. Otherwise, the same problems will present themselves. No matter what, the Lakers and Knicks and Bulls will make significantly more money than the Bucks and Pacers and Kings. Always. The fix to the competition problem isn't to give money to the small market teams. It's to give them the ability to spend competitively. And the only real way to fix that is to restrict the big money teams from spending without regard for the salary cap.

 

[=LarryLegend=]

Jimmer update..

 

[Superman]

I'm not sure I follow this one. As long as player salaries are tied to a percentage of BRI, then the players DO have the ability to share in the future growth of the league. I certainly do think they're afraid of a hard cap that is, for instance, $60M and never goes up. But if a hard cap is tied on a year-by-year basis to the league's revenues that seems like what the players would want to me - and at that point, the percentage of BRI becomes probably the most important issue of all. The only other thing I can think that would challenge it in importance would be length/guarantees on contracts.

Found it. Check the chart out. The owners' "flex cap" proposal would essentially lock players into a fixed dollar amount of compensation for the next ten years. I don't think the players necessarily have a right to have their compensation tied to a certain percentage of BRI, but I don't expect them to agree to a proposal that precludes them from sharing in the expected growth for the next decade.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31668/nba-negotiations-in-a-handy-chart

 

[Telemachus]

I think we're saying the same thing. My point is that the problem for the small market/small money owners isn't solely that the players get 57% of BRI. It's mostly that they can't be competitive in a league where the big money/big market owners are spending $20 million over the cap -- and still turning a profit. I'm not concerned with the players' BRI %. I just don't want to see a new CBA that doesn't address the rift between big market teams and small market teams. Cut players' percentage without doing anything about the Lakers and Mavs and other big money teams going over the cap without penalty, and you'll have the same problems you have now. And eventually, small market owners will bail on those small markets, just to survive.

I think this is the biggest reason for why they need some kind of hard cap. It would force the big market teams to have play with the same payroll as everyone else instead of going out and signing another player to a mid-level exeption and eating a bad contract. Small market teams can't afford to do that cause they start to lose money.