The Lockout has arrived.

[bajaden]

If so, I think they're missing the point. Leveling the playing field competitively would serve to boost lower revenue teams ability to stay solvent as a byproduct. Every NFL fan base has hope in August. As a result of that, fans buy tickets, go to games, buy the DirecTV package, etc. And because there are only 8 home games, every team effectively sells out every season, or else they get blacked out on TV locally.

The goal, if you ask me, should be to make sure that every team can compete, with smart management, regardless of whether they're profiting $2 million a year or $200 million a year. The reason small market teams suffer isn't because they can't get TV deals like the Lakers. It's because they can't compete with big money owners who are willing to go over the cap and pay the luxury tax every season and still do all they can to add more talent to their roster. Level the competitive field, and then the Bucks and Pacers and Kings and Hornets and every other small market team will have a chance to build a winning team. And once the fan bases catch on to that, then season ticket sales increase, gate receipts increase, TV deals get more lucrative, and the owners can profit a little more. They'll never profit like the big market teams will, but at least they'll be in the black and have a competitive product on the floor.

Just to say again, I'm not against all revenue sharing. Putting a percentage of the TV money in a pot and divvying it up isn't the worst idea in the world. But it's completely pointless if you don't address the inequities with player acquisition and compensation, because the big money/big market teams will always have more to spend on players than the small market teams, regardless of revenue sharing.

On one hand your saying that teams like the Kings aren't suffering because they can't get big TV deals like the Lakers, and on the other hand, they suffer because they can't compete with wealthy owners that are willing to go over the cap and pay the luxury tax every year. Well, I suggest to you that one of the reasons those owners are wealthy, is because they have those big TV deals that the Kings don't have. So it almost appears to me that were in agreement as to what needs to be done, we just can't agree where the money comes from.

I agree it would be nice if there were some way to guarantee every team had a good management team. But there isn't any way in the world to write up a CBA that would accomplish that. So we have to deal with absolutes and not with subjectives. The best you can do is put a framework in place that restricts how much damage a GM can do, but allows him enough freedom and money to be competitive. What we need to do is borrow the Big Brother house, stick all the parties involved in there, and not allow them out until they come to some kind of resolution.

 

[Superman]

I feel about like this. It is also a very bad business model to have maybe half your members losing money most years. Not only do teams need to be more even competitively, they need to be able to at least break even, if the local market is reasonably good. Teams shouldn't have to move cities more and more often, because they can't make it financially and are too limited in what they can contribute for a new arena. (Unless they are the megabillionaires and even they don't want to pour money into a long-term, losing business.)

This is where I cite Malcolm Gladwell. I don't totally agree with him that it doesn't matter whether a sports franchise loses money, but I don't think that it should be looked at as a normal business, and graded based on it's balance sheet and profitability. Sports franchises are graded primarily on whether they are competitive and successful on the court/field, and monetary standing is considered a secondary gauge of success. They are a luxury for mega-millionaires and billionaires, not a vehicle for which to provide for one's needs. Paul Allen founded Microsoft with Bill Gates to be profitable. He purchased the Blazers as a toy, a status symbol, an outlet, however you want to call it. But not solely for the purposes of it operating as a profit maker. Sure, a franchise gains value as the years go on, but that's not due to yearly profitability. It's due mostly to inflation, but also investments: updated facilities, increases in earnings (earnings related to the franchise, not shared earnings from other franchises), etc.

I don't think the business as a whole should be operating for a loss, and the NBA isn't. Not only is it generating more revenue than ever, it's incredibly popular, and several teams have shown the ability to turn a profit over the years. And I'll say again, the teams that are losing money are in that predicament mostly because they can't/won't field a competitive product on a regular basis.

Touching on the arena issue, teams don't leave because the owners can't afford to build new facilities. Sometimes ownership is strapped, but most of the time, ownership isn't willing to spend their own money on a new arena because another city is offering them a better deal to move. And that move is often into a better market. That doesn't go away with more revenue sharing. Teams will still want to maximize their earning ability, and you'll still have small market teams moving to bigger cities from time to time, because it's good business.

 

[Superman]

On one hand your saying that teams like the Kings aren't suffering because they can't get big TV deals like the Lakers, and on the other hand, they suffer because they can't compete with wealthy owners that are willing to go over the cap and pay the luxury tax every year. Well, I suggest to you that one of the reasons those owners are wealthy, is because they have those big TV deals that the Kings don't have. So it almost appears to me that were in agreement as to what needs to be done, we just can't agree where the money comes from.

Allow me to clarify. Small teams suffer because big teams can go over the cap and pay the luxury tax in order to contend for championships. The Maloofs, when they had more money, were willing to pay the luxury tax to contend for championships. Doesn't really matter whether they get revenue sharing from the Lakers and other big market teams, because those big market teams will always have more money than them. If the small teams are willing to go over the cap, the big teams will be also. If the Kings are willing to pay $15 million luxury tax, the Lakers will be willing to pay $30 million in luxury tax. There will always be a monetary discrepancy -- a wide one, likely -- between what the small teams are willing and able to pay, and what the big teams are willing and able to pay. That's with or without more aggressive revenue sharing.

You're right that TV deals are a contributing factor, but again, that won't change. The Lakers will always have a bigger TV deal than small market teams. And, all things being equal, they'll always be a bigger free agent draw.

It is my belief that the more effective way of leveling the playing field is to say that, irrespective of how much money ownership has, they can only spend a certain amount on player acquisition. That way, it is not up to the team to determine whether they are willing to pay $15 or $30 million in luxury tax if it means they have a team in contention. At the same time, the residual effect would be that player compensation would be held in check, because contracts would either have to be shorter or have less guaranteed money.

As an aside... You talked about the NFL earlier. It's interesting that the NFL has no maximum salary, unlike the NBA. Yet the ten highest paid NFL players average significantly less than the ten highest NBA players in yearly salary. And the NFL has a salary cap almost twice as high as the NBA. It's obvious that, among other things, the NFL does a better job of keeping player compensation in check.

I agree it would be nice if there were some way to guarantee every team had a good management team. But there isn't any way in the world to write up a CBA that would accomplish that. So we have to deal with absolutes and not with subjectives. The best you can do is put a framework in place that restricts how much damage a GM can do, but allows him enough freedom and money to be competitive. What we need to do is borrow the Big Brother house, stick all the parties involved in there, and not allow them out until they come to some kind of resolution.

I don't think you need to try to legislate good management. If a team mismanages itself, they are responsible for bailing themselves out. The league isn't responsible for giving them a way to stay profitable even though they've dug their own hole by overpaying players and mishandling the draft.

However, less guaranteed money and shorter contracts would make it easier for a team to fix its mistakes. That way you're not stuck in five and six year fully guaranteed deals that sink your franchise for half a decade, by which time you've deflated your fan base and have the worst attendance in the league. You'd be able to turnover a misfit roster in just a couple of years, and have a chance to compete because the big market teams aren't able to build and maintain dynasties for long periods of time.

I do agree with your Big Brother idea. The only way to make progress is if both sides have an open dialogue with one another going weeks at a time without meeting is insane.

 

[whozit]

Allow me to clarify. Small teams suffer because big teams can go over the cap and pay the luxury tax in order to contend for championships. The Maloofs, when they had more money, were willing to pay the luxury tax to contend for championships. Doesn't really matter whether they get revenue sharing from the Lakers and other big market teams, because those big market teams will always have more money than them. If the small teams are willing to go over the cap, the big teams will be also. If the Kings are willing to pay $15 million luxury tax, the Lakers will be willing to pay $30 million in luxury tax. There will always be a monetary discrepancy -- a wide one, likely -- between what the small teams are willing and able to pay, and what the big teams are willing and able to pay. That's with or without more aggressive revenue sharing.

You're right that TV deals are a contributing factor, but again, that won't change. The Lakers will always have a bigger TV deal than small market teams. And, all things being equal, they'll always be a bigger free agent draw.

It is my belief that the more effective way of leveling the playing field is to say that, irrespective of how much money ownership has, they can only spend a certain amount on player acquisition. That way, it is not up to the team to determine whether they are willing to pay $15 or $30 million in luxury tax if it means they have a team in contention. At the same time, the residual effect would be that player compensation would be held in check, because contracts would either have to be shorter or have less guaranteed money.

As an aside... You talked about the NFL earlier. It's interesting that the NFL has no maximum salary, unlike the NBA. Yet the ten highest paid NFL players average significantly less than the ten highest NBA players in yearly salary. And the NFL has a salary cap almost twice as high as the NBA. It's obvious that, among other things, the NFL does a better job of keeping player compensation in check.



I don't think you need to try to legislate good management. If a team mismanages itself, they are responsible for bailing themselves out. The league isn't responsible for giving them a way to stay profitable even though they've dug their own hole by overpaying players and mishandling the draft.

However, less guaranteed money and shorter contracts would make it easier for a team to fix its mistakes. That way you're not stuck in five and six year fully guaranteed deals that sink your franchise for half a decade, by which time you've deflated your fan base and have the worst attendance in the league. You'd be able to turnover a misfit roster in just a couple of years, and have a chance to compete because the big market teams aren't able to build and maintain dynasties for long periods of time.

I do agree with your Big Brother idea. The only way to make progress is if both sides have an open dialogue with one another going weeks at a time without meeting is insane.

I agree with you that the big market teams will always have the advantage in terms of revenue. That is why I think it is imperative that some form of revenue sharing is in order. As long as it is reasonable and not a detriment to the competitiveness of the teams that have a net loss in terms of revenue.

As far as shorter contracts and less guaranteed money, I agree to a point. I think you have to be careful about the shorter contracts for the special or franchise type player. You don't want to have an unwanted effect of constant fear of losing such player because their contracts too short. That could hurt the small markets attempts to build around the "face" of a franchise if there is no stability with the cornerstone.

As far as the current MLE type player, I could see having restrictions on the lengths on those contracts. In terms of the guaranteed contracts, perhaps a compromise could be made with any under performing player getting a percentage of their pay automatically spread over a long period (perhaps 10) and only that percentage counting against the cap. Just a thought.

 

[bajaden]

I agree with you that the big market teams will always have the advantage in terms of revenue. That is why I think it is imperative that some form of revenue sharing is in order. As long as it is reasonable and not a detriment to the competitiveness of the teams that have a net loss in terms of revenue.

As far as shorter contracts and less guaranteed money, I agree to a point. I think you have to be careful about the shorter contracts for the special or franchise type player. You don't want to have an unwanted effect of constant fear of losing such player because their contracts too short. That could hurt the small markets attempts to build around the "face" of a franchise if there is no stability with the cornerstone.

As far as the current MLE type player, I could see having restrictions on the lengths on those contracts. In terms of the guaranteed contracts, perhaps a compromise could be made with any under performing player getting a percentage of their pay automatically spread over a long period (perhaps 10) and only that percentage counting against the cap. Just a thought.

The owners originally proposed having a hard cap. They've since softened their stance a little, by suggesting some sort of flexable hardcap. Which is an oxymoron to start with. That aside, I think the best system might be to keep the Bird rule in place along with the MLE, but restrict their use. For instance, allow a team to use the Bird rule on only one player on the team at a time, and that players Bird rights aren't transferable to another team, if that player is traded prior to the end of his contract. You could also apply the one player at a time on the team to the MLE as well.

You might allow a team to cut any player it wants, but the team would still have to pay the player, either according to his contract, or up front, with the ability to do a buy out if the player is agreeable. That salary could then be spread over longer period of time in regards to the cap. By retaining the Bird rule along with the MLE, you would still be allowing teams to go over the cap. But you could add additional detriments. Such as, if a team exceeds the cap by 10 mil, they lose their first round draft pick that year. Then either award that pick to the team with the worse record, or have an additional lottery for the pick. I don't like lotterys, so I'm for awarding it to the worse team that year. The 10 mil is just an arbritary number I picked. Just some thoughts from a cervesa poisoned mind..

 

[pshn80]

I read on this thread that the two sides met mid week. Have they met again? Is there any scuttlebutt as to anything or nothing going on? Info on the matter is very thin or nonexistent.

 

[bajaden]

I read on this thread that the two sides met mid week. Have they met again? Is there any scuttlebutt as to anything or nothing going on? Info on the matter is very thin or nonexistent.

They met last wednsday, with just a few participants, that included both Stern and Hunter, on both sides. The meeting lasted 6 hours. After the meeting neither side had much to say, other than, they set up the groundwork for a series of future meetings in the near future, with no dates given. Both sides also said that they intend to keep whatever happens in the meetings to themselves, with no negative or positive comments to the press.

I said afterward that no news is good news, and I still feel that way. Lets keep our fingers crossed!

 

[whozit]

The owners originally proposed having a hard cap. They've since softened their stance a little, by suggesting some sort of flexable hardcap. Which is an oxymoron to start with. That aside, I think the best system might be to keep the Bird rule in place along with the MLE, but restrict their use. For instance, allow a team to use the Bird rule on only one player on the team at a time, and that players Bird rights aren't transferable to another team, if that player is traded prior to the end of his contract. You could also apply the one player at a time on the team to the MLE as well.

You might allow a team to cut any player it wants, but the team would still have to pay the player, either according to his contract, or up front, with the ability to do a buy out if the player is agreeable. That salary could then be spread over longer period of time in regards to the cap. By retaining the Bird rule along with the MLE, you would still be allowing teams to go over the cap. But you could add additional detriments. Such as, if a team exceeds the cap by 10 mil, they lose their first round draft pick that year. Then either award that pick to the team with the worse record, or have an additional lottery for the pick. I don't like lotterys, so I'm for awarding it to the worse team that year. The 10 mil is just an arbritary number I picked. Just some thoughts from a cervesa poisoned mind..

I think (and hope) that it will be some sort of flex cap that is not a "hard" cap but a harder cap. I have the opinion that a true hard cap would do more harm than good. I'm curious when you propose that a team be allowed to use the bird rule on one player on the team at a time. Do you mean that only one player on the team could've been signed using the bird rule and no other player can be signed by the team until that player is gone or that during a given off season only one player can be retained by using that method or something else? I like the second option better than the first. I do like the idea of the bird rule being non-transferable with the possible exception of the first year or prior to the commencement of the first year. (I wouldn't want to penalize a player that got traded on draft night)

As far as cutting a player, the options you outlined other than extending over a period of time already exist. I could see it as an option of any team under .500 at the end of the season being allowed being allowed to cut a player and pay that player let's say 80% spread out over five years for every year remaining on the contract and the league paying half of the remaining (something similar to how the league pays the difference on minimum wage players). The restrictions being that the team has to be under .500 and the option can be used once for every three years of sub .500 ball.

I do like your idea of teams over the luxury tax being penalized greater the farther over the tax they go and having that penalty not affect them only in the pocket book but on their ability to draft. I'm not sure about how to award the draft pick(s) but I wouldn't want to simply award it to the worst team that year since I wouldn't want any more incentives for a team to tank royally than there already are. Perhaps a equal chance lottery for any team under .400 ball?

 

[Bricklayer]

This would be nice.

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/


BTw, I did not know this guy was no longer with ESPN, and have to say his website is just pathetic. Somebody here could make a quick buck offering to give him soemthing professional instead.

 

[Bricklayer]

This would be nice.

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/


BTw, I did not know this guy was no longer with ESPN, and have to say his website is just pathetic. Somebody here could make a quick buck offering to give him soemthing professional instead.

 

[Sluggah]

This would be nice.

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/


BTw, I did not know this guy was no longer with ESPN, and have to say his website is just pathetic. Somebody here could make a quick buck offering to give him soemthing professional instead.

Wow. You're right. That thing is straight out of 1997...and butt ugly to boot. I might send him an email.

 

[Superman]

I agree with you that the big market teams will always have the advantage in terms of revenue. That is why I think it is imperative that some form of revenue sharing is in order. As long as it is reasonable and not a detriment to the competitiveness of the teams that have a net loss in terms of revenue.

I should just say again, I'm not against revenue sharing altogether. I just don't think it's an effective way to balance the scales from a competitive standpoint. Sure, it will make some franchises balance sheets look a little more attractive, at least for a time, but it's not going to make the small market teams better able to compete with the big money teams, not without real restraints -- for everyone -- on how much can be spent on player compensation.

I don't really like the idea of big money teams aggressively subsidizing smaller teams, especially if those smaller teams aren't required to pump that money back into the franchise. Everyone knows how I feel about the Lakers, but one thing is for certain: they are going to use their TV deal money to better their product, not just to line ownership's pockets. The Buss family will never be accused of being racist slumlords who don't care about winning. I'd rather see them keep every red cent than have them cut a check to Sterling that will do nothing to further the NBA's interests.

As far as shorter contracts and less guaranteed money, I agree to a point. I think you have to be careful about the shorter contracts for the special or franchise type player. You don't want to have an unwanted effect of constant fear of losing such player because their contracts too short. That could hurt the small markets attempts to build around the "face" of a franchise if there is no stability with the cornerstone.

There have been several ideas floated around here and other websites about "franchise player" designations and the ability to offer more money and longer contracts to that type of player. But there's something to be said for a team's ability to free itself of such a contract if the player doesn't pan out for whatever reason. I'm sure the Wizards would have liked to be able to get rid of Gilbert Arenas rather than trade him for another equally bad contract. Of course, one bad contract doesn't hamper you all that much if you have the ability to work around the other contracts. Still, there's advantages on both sides for shorter contracts, and there's risk on both sides. I'm sure someone can find a way to mitigate those risks and amplify the advantages, even if there are built in exceptions.

As far as the current MLE type player, I could see having restrictions on the lengths on those contracts. In terms of the guaranteed contracts, perhaps a compromise could be made with any under performing player getting a percentage of their pay automatically spread over a long period (perhaps 10) and only that percentage counting against the cap. Just a thought.

I think the MLE got out of hand several years ago. I can't believe it was ever intended to be used the way it has been in recent years. I would imagine there will be significant changes made to it, if the NBA actually overhauls how they do business.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

BTw, I did not know this guy was no longer with ESPN, and have to say his website is just pathetic. Somebody here could make a quick buck offering to give him soemthing professional instead.

Well, the site WAS created yesterday. Apparently his departure from ESPN is very, very recent.

 

[Superman]

Well, the site WAS created yesterday. Apparently his departure from ESPN is very, very recent.

You can go to blogger.com and put something together that looks better than that crap. Half an hour, honestly.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I should just say again, I'm not against revenue sharing altogether. I just don't think it's an effective way to balance the scales from a competitive standpoint. Sure, it will make some franchises balance sheets look a little more attractive, at least for a time, but it's not going to make the small market teams better able to compete with the big money teams, not without real restraints -- for everyone -- on how much can be spent on player compensation.

I don't really like the idea of big money teams aggressively subsidizing smaller teams, especially if those smaller teams aren't required to pump that money back into the franchise. Everyone knows how I feel about the Lakers, but one thing is for certain: they are going to use their TV deal money to better their product, not just to line ownership's pockets. The Buss family will never be accused of being racist slumlords who don't care about winning. I'd rather see them keep every red cent than have them cut a check to Sterling that will do nothing to further the NBA's interests.

As far as revenue sharing goes, here's my model:
CBA determines players' percentage of BRI, let's say 50% for sake of argument and easy numbers
Every team puts (50%) of team BRI into a common player salary pot
Player salary pot is split evenly among all teams, and goes only to player salary; unused portions are distributed in some equitable fashion among players
Each team signs players to a percentage of 1/30th of the common pot; 100% salary cap; percentage means player salary is directly tied to league revenue

This solves your first problem above - all teams get the same amount of money to spend on player compensation. It also solves your second problem above - small market teams are required to pump ALL of the revenue-shared money into player contracts, and nothing else.

The only thing I worry about is that it might be too aggressive for the top-flight owners. Let's say the Lakers bring in $400M BRI (average team, $100M). The Lakers contribute $200M to revenue sharing and keep $200M for themselves. However, they only get to spend $50M in salary, so they effectively subsidize the league to the tune of about $150M per year, or 37.5% of their revenue. I don't know if Buss (or the Knicks, etc.) will go for that much revenue sharing. But if so, I can't see any problems. (Doesn't mean there aren't any.)

 

[Capt. Factorial]

You can go to blogger.com and put something together that looks better than that crap. Half an hour, honestly.

What, you don't like seeing a tiled picture of Chris Sheridan on the Great Wall of China as your background?

 

[Superman]

As far as revenue sharing goes, here's my model:
CBA determines players' percentage of BRI, let's say 50% for sake of argument and easy numbers
Every team puts (50%) of team BRI into a common player salary pot
Player salary pot is split evenly among all teams, and goes only to player salary; unused portions are distributed in some equitable fashion among players
Each team signs players to a percentage of 1/30th of the common pot; 100% salary cap; percentage means player salary is directly tied to league revenue

This solves your first problem above - all teams get the same amount of money to spend on player compensation. It also solves your second problem above - small market teams are required to pump ALL of the revenue-shared money into player contracts, and nothing else.

The only thing I worry about is that it might be too aggressive for the top-flight owners. Let's say the Lakers bring in $400M BRI (average team, $100M). The Lakers contribute $200M to revenue sharing and keep $200M for themselves. However, they only get to spend $50M in salary, so they effectively subsidize the league to the tune of about $150M per year, or 37.5% of their revenue. I don't know if Buss (or the Knicks, etc.) will go for that much revenue sharing. But if so, I can't see any problems. (Doesn't mean there aren't any.)

I wouldn't expect that to fly either.

The framework seems fine, but you'll have issues with contract length and guaranteed money on salary caps. Even with an increasing BRI, teams will have to trim salary from time to time. How would that be done?

What you're describing is really not that different from the way it works now, except for the revenue sharing. But the NBA has a minimum payroll requirement, and it has a salary cap. There's also an escrow account which practically guarantees both sides their percentage.

 

[LPKingsFan]

This is where I cite Malcolm Gladwell. I don't totally agree with him that it doesn't matter whether a sports franchise loses money, but I don't think that it should be looked at as a normal business, and graded based on it's balance sheet and profitability. Sports franchises are graded primarily on whether they are competitive and successful on the court/field, and monetary standing is considered a secondary gauge of success. They are a luxury for mega-millionaires and billionaires, not a vehicle for which to provide for one's needs. Paul Allen founded Microsoft with Bill Gates to be profitable. He purchased the Blazers as a toy, a status symbol, an outlet, however you want to call it. But not solely for the purposes of it operating as a profit maker. Sure, a franchise gains value as the years go on, but that's not due to yearly profitability. It's due mostly to inflation, but also investments: updated facilities, increases in earnings (earnings related to the franchise, not shared earnings from other franchises), etc.

I agree here. It's better for the fans if the owners are independently wealthy, and not using a team as a vehicle for becoming wealthy. Teams should be run well, sure, but the ultimate aim is the prestige -- and when you get down to it, fun -- not profit necessarily. Just like one doesn't expect to make money off their yacht, but it's certainly a nice luxury item to have if you have the chance.

 

[bajaden]

Now that everyone is in love with Sheridans new web-site, here's another article by him on proposed changes to the draft. Pretty interesting..

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/07/exclusive-nba-wants-3rd-round-in-draft/

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The framework seems fine, but you'll have issues with contract length and guaranteed money on salary caps. Even with an increasing BRI, teams will have to trim salary from time to time. How would that be done?

Since salaries would be in percentages rather than dollars, you don't ever have to guess about the future cap - it's always 100%. That means that all transactions (signings, trades) can be guaranteed to fit in under the cap at the time of the transaction, or it's not allowed. (Obviously you'd have to have some sort of cap hold for each roster slot not filled.)

So I would hope that there would be less of a need to eliminate contracts that have "gone bad" (e.g. Gilbert Arenas). But, to the extent that it has to be done, I suppose you could do some sort of (bi-?) annual amnesty where you could take one player off of the salary cap...and pay his guaranteed salary out through your own (non-shared) portion of the BRI.

What you're describing is really not that different from the way it works now, except for the revenue sharing. But the NBA has a minimum payroll requirement, and it has a salary cap. There's also an escrow account which practically guarantees both sides their percentage.

I think it's a bit different - the fact that every team has exactly the same amount of money to spend on salaries is certainly not what we see now. It's a hard cap in a way, but a hard cap that ties player salary directly to league revenue. Today's cap is certainly not hard. And the minimum is different - there's no explicit minimum payroll under my scheme (could be) but teams don't see any of the money they don't spend, so there's more incentive to spend it.

It's true that escrow practically guarantees the percentage, but I think cap calculations are cleaner under my suggestion. But no, it's not a radical re-tooling. I don't think either the league or the players are looking for a radical re-tool, though.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I know that is the real Chris Sheridan, but that sooo looks like a site made by someone trying to be him. With the same picture around the border 10+ times ... pretty funny.

 

[Superman]

Since salaries would be in percentages rather than dollars, you don't ever have to guess about the future cap - it's always 100%. That means that all transactions (signings, trades) can be guaranteed to fit in under the cap at the time of the transaction, or it's not allowed. (Obviously you'd have to have some sort of cap hold for each roster slot not filled.)

So I would hope that there would be less of a need to eliminate contracts that have "gone bad" (e.g. Gilbert Arenas). But, to the extent that it has to be done, I suppose you could do some sort of (bi-?) annual amnesty where you could take one player off of the salary cap...and pay his guaranteed salary out through your own (non-shared) portion of the BRI.

Unless you're communizing player salaries, there will be a need to address contract length and guaranteed money. Because you'll have veteran players owed $60 million over four years, and the breakdown will be 12, 14, 16 and 18 million over those four years, but the player won't be worth 18 million as a 36 year old, and the team will be hamstrung by the cap. Same as it happens now. Shaq was 35 and had two years, $40 million left on his deal. Kevin Garnett is 35 and will make $21 million this year. Those kind of deals will have to be addressed. And even prime players with increasing salaries will have to be addressed.

I guess you could grandfather it in and require full compliance two or three seasons down the line. Or offer amnesty up to, say, $30 million over the next two seasons, or something like that. But you'd still need shorter contracts and/or less guaranteed money.

I think it's a bit different - the fact that every team has exactly the same amount of money to spend on salaries is certainly not what we see now. It's a hard cap in a way, but a hard cap that ties player salary directly to league revenue. Today's cap is certainly not hard. And the minimum is different - there's no explicit minimum payroll under my scheme (could be) but teams don't see any of the money they don't spend, so there's more incentive to spend it.

The minimum and the cap operate rigidly, even though teams can spend above the cap. Essentially, every team is putting in a specific amount every year, whether that's in the form of player salaries or escrows. Most years recently, the owners get an escrow rebate, which underscores the idea that (a) player salaries are too high, on the whole; (b) fully guaranteed contracts make it hard for the league to spend to the league-wide salary cap (57% of BRI); (c) contracts are too long.

With your idea, there essentially is a minimum, since the teams get no rebates.

It's true that escrow practically guarantees the percentage, but I think cap calculations are cleaner under my suggestion. But no, it's not a radical re-tooling. I don't think either the league or the players are looking for a radical re-tool, though.

I agree there. And that's where I think they're going to fall short.

 

[dukeswh]

A sign of hope:

According to NBC Sports it appears as if Los Angeles Lakers guard and head of the player’s union Derek Fisher has sent a text message to various players around the league telling them to be physically ready for the NBA season.

Link

 

[Gary]

NEW YORK (AP)—The long looks on players’ faces and the anger in Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver’s voice made it obvious: There was no progress Tuesday in talks to end the NBA lockout.

And with less than three weeks until training camps, the latest setback may be a tough one.

“I think coming out of today, obviously because of the calendar, we can’t come out of here feeling as though training camps and the season is going to start on time at this point,” players’ association president Derek Fisher(notes) of the Lakers said.

more............


Not looking good folks!

 

[kingsboi]

Thank god for the NFL. Too bad you have to wait a week to watch the games.

 

[bajaden]

Honestly, I didn't expect anything to be settled in this meeting. Not with the players meeting and the owners meeting coming up on thursday. The key is, after those meetings, whether there is another meeting scheduled between the two sides in the next week or so. If that happens, then I would expect something to happen in that meeting if the start of the season is going to be saved. As someone elst pointed out, a resolution never comes from a meeting with large groups attending on both sides. The last time it was Hunter and Stern that sat down and worked out a resolution.

 

[rainmaker]

Sounds like both the agents and the players are planning on overthrowing Hunter next week. Will they decertify?


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_standoff_091411

 

[Bricklayer]

Sounds like both the agents and the players are planning on overthrowing Hunter next week. Will they decertify?


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_standoff_091411

That gets dangerous for everybody. Not the least of whom might be us. Imagine a team playing along under the rules, carefully picking up young talent and squirreling away capspace. Then imagine an event which abruptly blows up the entire sytem, eliminates the salary cap., luxury tax, minimum and maximum contracts...throws it all into the courts for them to decided...for a small market team that finally, FINALLY, had the system cornerned, it could be outright disaster.

 

[Sluggah]

this sounds like it could get very very messy...and I was becoming sooo optimistic. I can't handle an absence of pro basketball for long. I don't think i can take missed preseason games.

 

[bajaden]

I'm not going to say that they won't decertify, but I would be shocked it they did. Essentially, all contracts would become null and void. The players association would be starting from scratch. Does anyone really think that Lebron wants to throw away the contract he just signed. How would you like to be a player like Kenny Thomas and suddenly not have a contract. Would there be a welcome back sign from the team thats now rid of that contract. It would be a very dangerous move, and I think cooler heads will prevail in this situation. As far as I can tell, this is simply the agents trying to gain more power.