2010-11 Lockout?

[Bricklayer]

We better win a title in the next couple of years, because if the anonymous boobs quoted in this story get their way, they're going to blow up the league with insanity:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/12604/cba-negotiations-could-get-ugly


That will be it for the NBA as the undisputed premiere league -- Europe will come into play in a big way and we'll never have all the best players grouped in one place again. The hope would have to be that its woofing from the extremist wing of the owners -- maybe they interviewed Sarver or some such. Otherwise you can kiss 2010-11 goodbye, along with the golden era of the NBA.

 

[Gargamel]

It went from MJ and Magic making 2.5 mill base salary in 1991 to 100 million contracts within 5 yrs. Now they're trying to rectify it like they did w/ the rookie scale after the idiot in Milwaukee gave Glenn Robinson 68 mill before his first game. Pippen was going schizo over Kukoc's rookie contract because he signed a hilariously small extension a couple of years before the boom.

Owners are going to win this like they won the last one. They'll be even MORE staunc about their principle than they were back then -- in the peaceful Clinton economy.

 

[bajaden]

I would be surprised if he was serious about the 5 mil salary. Obvously the owner want some concessions. This appears to be fluffing the feathers in advance so that the owners have a lot of room to concede some things that probably aren't even issues. I've read a couple of articles about what Stern has laid out and those articles seemed more realistic. Of course the owner could have had a couple and maybe his team sucks too.

 

[Bricklayer]

It went from MJ and Magic making 2.5 mill base salary in 1991 to 100 million contracts within 5 yrs. Now they're trying to rectify it like they did w/ the rookie scale after the idiot in Milwaukee gave Glenn Robinson 68 mill before his first game. Pippen was going schizo over Kukoc's rookie contract because he signed a hilariously small extension a couple of years before the boom.

Owners are going to win this like they won the last one. They'll be even MORE staunc about their principle than they were back then -- in the peaceful Clinton economy.

There's a difference -- the rookie scale was essentially a redistribution of the player's wealth. You could win that fight with the union because it actually benefitted most of the members of the union -- they weren't rookies anymore, so money not spent on rooks was spent on them instead. Chopping player salaries across the board is another issue altogether. You can get away with some degree of that (or just limiting increases the easier path), but you try to cut them 50% or some such and break the old revenue sharing/partnership model...that's entirely another deal. And you try to cut a star/superstar level salary down to $5-$6mil, that's it for you as top dogs of the basketball world. Europe moves in, and heck if nobody else does I'll start a rival league myself, make the top salary $10mil, and restart the old NBA/ABA wars.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Yeah, we pretty much have to anticipate a big labor struggle before the next CBA. The ideas from this article seem a bit off base, however - things like Amare only getting $5-$6M per year after the new CBA. I just can't see that happening. In the long run, NBA revenues will recover from the current downturn, and Basketball-Related Income (BRI) will return to where it was (unless the owners drastically cut seat prices - I don't imagine the TV deals will decline much under any circumstances). The players currently get 57% of BRI and while they might have to take a cut, they won't be willing to let that go off of a cliff. Nor do the owners have a particularly good reason to try to take a big chunk out of that - greed is one thing, but greed that threatens to kill your industry is another.

So I may be way off base, but right now I can think of three reasons why the owners would try to severely limit salaries:
1) To avoid being stuck paying huge, long contracts to injured/ineffective players.
2) To prevent economic downturns from threatening the vitality of the sport (due to large guaranteed contracts that reduced revenues have trouble meeting).
3) To spend tons of money elsewhere (like for the private construction of arenas).

The first reason could be easily dealt with by changing the nature of guarantees - no reason to limit salaries themselves.

The second, which I kind of suspect is the largest concern, could be best dealt with by tying salaries to revenues - so long as revenues are high there's no reason salaries can't be high.

The third would seem to be the only justifiable reason to take money (as a percentage of BRI) away from the players - in order to spend it elsewhere. Perhaps recent troubles in securing public funding for the construction of arenas (Seattle, Sacramento) has spooked the owners and they believe they're going to need to put a lot more private money into new arena funds.

But outside of #3, I don't really see why player salaries have to drop. If owner responsibility (i.e. the owners won't stop signing contracts that are too big) is the real issue, as I guess it is, there are better ways to deal with the problem than slashing salaries and angering the players.

 

[Section 101]

There's a difference -- the rookie scale was essentially a redistribution of the player's wealth. You could win that fight with the union because it actually benefitted most of the members of the union -- they weren't rookies anymore, so money not spent on rooks was spent on them instead. Chopping player salaries across the board is another issue altogether. You can get away with some degree of that (or just limiting increases the easier path), but you try to cut them 50% or some such and break the old revenue sharing/partnership model...that's entirely another deal. And you try to cut a star/superstar level salary down to $5-$6mil, that's it for you as top dogs of the basketball world. Europe moves in, and heck if nobody else does I'll start a rival league myself, make the top salary $10mil, and restart the old NBA/ABA wars.

I don't think Europe is that big of a threat right now. First, the economy world wide is hurting. It would take a recovery before they had the money. Sure a few may leave, but if your talking a lot they don't have that many roster spots for one. Then what happens to the players spots they take? Second, the NBA is still the top level in the world. That is still a draw otherwise most Euro's would stay there for more money. It would take the top players moving to Europe to change this part.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't think Europe is that big of a threat right now. First, the economy world wide is hurting. It would take a recovery before they had the money. Sure a few may leave, but if your talking a lot they don't have that many roster spots for one. Then what happens to the players spots they take? Second, the NBA is still the top level in the world. That is still a draw otherwise most Euro's would stay there for more money. It would take the top players moving to Europe to change this part.

If the salaries get down to $5-$6mil that's within reach for the top European teams. And wihtout a cap, they can go higher, and would in some cases, to nab a Kobe etc. It also of course means that the second and third tier NBA players would be earning $4mil, or $3mil or whatever, at which point Europe is a very serious option for them -- same money, less wear and tear on the body. Its just a ridiculous thing to ponder, and I assume it has to be from a cheap and very foolish relatively new owner. It might not happen immediately, but you take away your own financial advantage, and the talent drain is inevitable.

 

[piksi]

Euroleague could become pretty good

Player salaries in most European countries are "tax free"

Russian billionares as well as greek and some spanish teams could pay nice money

 

[Aenadin]

I havent been following the league per say. but what indeed is the problem, the league is going down hill seriously players are way out of control sometimes and dont get me started on Oden too the radio commentators here made a joke out of it btw it was blocked in our campus...

is it monetary reasons why this threatening possibility of a lockout? I have to point out that the salaries are way too high and ridiculous sometimes rashard lewis for example.. i mean really

 

[Section 101]

If the salaries get down to $5-$6mil that's within reach for the top European teams. And wihtout a cap, they can go higher, and would in some cases, to nab a Kobe etc. It also of course means that the second and third tier NBA players would be earning $4mil, or $3mil or whatever, at which point Europe is a very serious option for them -- same money, less wear and tear on the body. Its just a ridiculous thing to ponder, and I assume it has to be from a cheap and very foolish relatively new owner. It might not happen immediately, but you take away your own financial advantage, and the talent drain is inevitable.

Don't they have a limit on the number of players from other countrys allowed on the teams? I thought they could only have like 2.

 

[Trueblood]

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions quite yet. Like it has been speculated on in this thread, the Amare numbers most likely come from that doofus Sarver. More in the know type owners wouldn't make an assinine statement like that.

It helps that they are starting talks at such an early date and as usual, the owners will always throw out as many threats as possible to gain leverage for negotiations. Look at the history and how things wound up..

In '98, they threatened a hard cap but settled for max salaries.

They threatened to extend rookie deals to 6 years but settled for 4.

They didn't want any sort of cap exception but not only did the players keep the old small exception, they were granted the mid level exception.

In 2005, they threatened to lock out for the summer but we got a new agreement in place before July.

They threatened to have a 20 year plus 2 years minimum in college age requirement but settled for 19 and 1 year.

This time, they are making all the threats in the world but as usual, they will make concessions as that's the nature of collective bargaining.

For me, I'll stick with what I've been saying all along. The new agreement should have just one new rule. Owners have the right to terminate one contract every other year provided the player has already played 3 years on it.

If you look at the history of teams losing money, it's always because of just one or two contracts. Allow for the owners to wipe one out and almost all of them would be under the lux tax line.

Keep in mind that it's not necessarily a matter of getting rid of the player but it could be a form of renegotiation. For example, let's say we're talking about the Hornets and Peja Stojakovic next year. He is due for around $15 million and that will most likely put the Hornets $7 million above the tax. He will have played 4 years of his deal so he's eligible for being whacked. If the Hornets value what he does but not at $15 million, they could renegotiate it down to $8 million so that they fall at the lux tax level or so.

 

[cstorm]

Fine by me. All I want is entertaining basketball. I can get that on any even playing field. I don't care if some players go to Europe. Good riddance. The contracts of today are absolutely ridiculous and I'm tired of paying for them. I'd be willing to forgo basketball for a season or two if that's what was required to get salaries back in line.

I follow my son's high school team and get a lot of entertainment from them, even games where my son is not on the team.

In my opinion, there are very few people in the world who merit a paycheck of over 10mil a year. Steve Jobs being one of the exceptions.

 

[piksi]

Don't they have a limit on the number of players from other countrys allowed on the teams? I thought they could only have like 2.

not any more

 

[sidney]

contract lengths really do need to be addressed. This is good for fans and franchises - eliminating the dead weight off a team.

MLE contracts - 3 years max instead of 5
stay with your team - 4 years max
sign with a new team - 3 years max

That would solve an enormous number of problems and raise the quality of play making the league more entertaining.

I can see there being some marginal adjustment to the BRE percentage but I can't see max contracts going down to 5M. More like a 10-20% adjustment from where they are now.

 

[hrdboild]

I don't see how they can realistically cut salaries to that extent. Not with a player's union to contend with. Ultimately the league doesn't sell without having premier players. Those players can fairly demand to be paid according to the market demand. Artificially capping max salaries sounds a lot like collusion to me. A more realistic approach perhaps would be to reduce ticket prices to a more reasonable level than what they are now and bring down the $20 million dollar max salaries that way by taking some of the money out of the pot. That would also make the league more recession proof, especially in smaller markets. A move to lower ticket rates across the board (and thus willingly commit to lower returns) is unprecedented though with any professional sports league that I know of.

Things like performance incentives and shorter max contracts are most likely what the owners will push for. Maybe throwing out all these other ridiculous demands is just an early negotiating tactic to get the more conservative changes that they really want. They're trying to pre-preemptively set the terms of the negotiation in a direction more favorable to them.