RealGM article on CBA:

[bajaden]

With a lockout looming and both parties being light years apart, this article suggests some comprimises that are interesting.

http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_p...players_squabble_and_avoid_a_lockout_in_2011/

 

[cfechter]

With a lockout looming and both parties being light years apart, this article suggests some comprimises that are interesting.

http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_p...players_squabble_and_avoid_a_lockout_in_2011/

Yes - it was an interesting article.

I think what has to happen is there be some kind of ability to non-guarantee non-performers. This league can't have Kenny Thomases, Eddy Curry's, etc, with the awful contracts in non-performing positions. It kills trying to keep teams competitive one year to the next. That's what's great about the NFL - you can cut the crappy ones and you have hope going into each season.

To be fair to the players, I would not only propose saying "we'll pay out a max of 54% of total revenues", but I would also say - "each year we have to pay out a MINIMUM of 50% of total revenues". In the Kings circumstance, maybe you could dole out the difference to the Kings players, or put it into a league wide pool to be given to all the players based on number of games active or something.

Something has to change. The Kings were effectively hampered by Chris Webber's knee from 2003 until Kenny Thomas came off the books at the end of the 2009 season. Guaranteed contracts kill competitiveness.

 

[bajaden]

Yes - it was an interesting article.

I think what has to happen is there be some kind of ability to non-guarantee non-performers. This league can't have Kenny Thomases, Eddy Curry's, etc, with the awful contracts in non-performing positions. It kills trying to keep teams competitive one year to the next. That's what's great about the NFL - you can cut the crappy ones and you have hope going into each season.

To be fair to the players, I would not only propose saying "we'll pay out a max of 54% of total revenues", but I would also say - "each year we have to pay out a MINIMUM of 50% of total revenues". In the Kings circumstance, maybe you could dole out the difference to the Kings players, or put it into a league wide pool to be given to all the players based on number of games active or something.

Something has to change. The Kings were effectively hampered by Chris Webber's knee from 2003 until Kenny Thomas came off the books at the end of the 2009 season. Guaranteed contracts kill competitiveness.

I know the owners want a hard cap, and I'm still sceptical they'll ever get the players union to agree to it. So some sort of system where a team can elliminate the contracts of players that simply aren't producing, would be a good compromise. I'm not sure an incentive based formula would work. It would be either too subjective, or if you went only on the stats, it wouldn't take into account all the intangibles of a player.

 

[cfechter]

I know the owners want a hard cap, and I'm still sceptical they'll ever get the players union to agree to it. So some sort of system where a team can elliminate the contracts of players that simply aren't producing, would be a good compromise. I'm not sure an incentive based formula would work. It would be either too subjective, or if you went only on the stats, it wouldn't take into account all the intangibles of a player.

I have no idea what the best solution is going to be. If a team could arbitrarily axe bad contracts and there were no way to get a minimum amount of $ to the players, you would see the bad teams cutting guys mid season left and right just to save as much scratch as possible (at least I could foresee that happening).

There has to be something one can do though - bad players with big contracts hold teams in this league hostage. You can blame it on the owners for being stupid enough for giving them, but at some point the players need to realize these contract suck the hope out of franchises. If anything else, the money will still get passed around and keep guys playing harder longer. If we had cut KT after the 2006 season when clearly he was underplaying the $ he was getting, we would have gone and competed to sign someone else.

 

[sidney]

There has to be something one can do though - bad players with big contracts hold teams in this league hostage. You can blame it on the owners for being stupid enough for giving them, but at some point the players need to realize these contract suck the hope out of franchises. If anything else, the money will still get passed around and keep guys playing harder longer. If we had cut KT after the 2006 season when clearly he was underplaying the $ he was getting, we would have gone and competed to sign someone else.

I agree with this. Always thought that at minimum contracts should only be 50% guaranteed. If a team would rather pay half the contract amount and not have the player on the team, they should have that option. The players get some security in case of injuries + they could let them resign elsewhere to try and make up the 50% they lost. I see that being great for the league and harmful only to players that are severely underplaying their contracts or have career affecting injuries.

In our case, we could have bought out KT in 06 and just swallowed the poison pill of 4M a year on the cap for a couple of years. It would still stink, but it wouldn't have harmed the team's ability to sign new players so badly.

 

[bajaden]

I have no idea what the best solution is going to be. If a team could arbitrarily axe bad contracts and there were no way to get a minimum amount of $ to the players, you would see the bad teams cutting guys mid season left and right just to save as much scratch as possible (at least I could foresee that happening).

There has to be something one can do though - bad players with big contracts hold teams in this league hostage. You can blame it on the owners for being stupid enough for giving them, but at some point the players need to realize these contract suck the hope out of franchises. If anything else, the money will still get passed around and keep guys playing harder longer. If we had cut KT after the 2006 season when clearly he was underplaying the $ he was getting, we would have gone and competed to sign someone else.

Obviously you can't just let teams cut anyone they want because its convenient financially. There would have to be some sort of limit along with requirements. At the very worse, maybe they should be allowed to cut, or buy out a contract and then not have it count against the cap. That way the player still gets his money, or at least part of his money, and the team gets cap space to work with. Of course the problem with this is that it would favor the big market teams like New York etc. that can afford to eat contracts without blinking. I think the whole idea is to try and bring finanical equality to the league.

My hope is that the new CBA will include total profit sharing between all the teams. Teams like the Knicks and the Bulls make more money off their TV revenues than teams like the Kings bring in, in total profits. Where the Knicks are paid millions of dollars for their TV rights, the Maloofs have to pay comcast to carry their games with the hope of making it up by selling commercial time. Just a wee bit of inequity there.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I was talking about this (bad contract thing) with my cousin a few days ago. We came up with something kind of nutty, but it would certainly make things interesting.

Every team has the ability to take one contract off the books once every 5 years. Obviously the player has to get some money somehow. Maybe the team still has to pay them but it doesnt count against the cap. Smart teams can also trade this ability if they dont need to use it. This way it doesnt just favor the large markets, because you can only do it once in a while. And it doesnt totally favor the poorly run teams because, again, you can only do it once. Unless you trade for someone elses, which would reward the smarter teams because they would obviously get something of value for it.