While guys like Lebron James/Wade/Howard, and a bunch of other true superstars are actually underpaid for what they do for the franchise both on and off the court. You should blame dumb GMs, who are hired by the owners, for giving out terrible contracts like that to Rashard Lewis. He was never a superstar, and got superstar money.
With your idea, what's keeping teams from signing restricted free agents to a max offer to **** block another team, them going and buying him out a year later? Value of their contracts? Define that statement. What are the parameters? Is it based on a formula, or media-bias perception? Steve Nash had a "down year" last year, does that mean he didn't live up to his contract (i.e. 2 MVPs). Your idea works in theory, but sadly, this is the real world.
yea, I am for the owners since I don't find the current system to be sustainable. I think its absurd that the players are not held accountable almost unlike any other sports league. If you have an employee and he does well for you or performs well else where and you strike a deal that he should work for you and make a contract that he should work for you for 3-4 years since he was that great in performance. Once he gets that commitment and he decides he can relax and doesn't want to work, you have to keep paying him and not hold him accountable? that is ridiculous. That is what happens with players like Eddy Curry, Jerome James, even guys like t-mac and rip hamilton if they have an issue with the team they can just pout and ruin the team chemistry, performance and not be held accountable. Ofcourse GMS are to blame for the contracts, but in the competitive market, to retain it everyone is outbidding and so you have to take whats available, both sides are to blame, but I am fine with the current system even because there are players who earn it and are even undervalued, but non guaranteed contracts should be the way to go. Like another poster put, something with more incentive based. Right now, the smaller market teams don't have much advantage with the bigger market if they are offering the same money, manage their cap well, etc, the destination might not be appealing so they can't keep their stars or attract new ones. Big teams can go over the cap, absorb more contracts for trades, sign and trades os on and last bc of that city. Ultimately as a fan, it just sucks when there are games that you know are blowouts and teams that just can't compete. It would be great ithe competition was throughout the league and you have to reshape the way teams are managed and regulated in order to do that and the overall product of the NBA will improve
Good points. I am happy to address If it is a restricted free agent the player's original team would have the ability to resign there own player. Other teams around the league would be limited to only offer the maximum salary a team could offer Salary cap rules. Players original team can then decide if it is worth the risk. Let say the player is a unrestricted He has the ability to go where ever he wants. Lets say the player does go for the cash grab and goes for the team with the most cap space to sign him. If that same team buys him out after year one. If the guys has interest around the league he can sign another contract. To address your other point, Cap space and team interest sets value just like it does in the current system. If the flex cap gets approved and there is a median yearly cap of 65 mil and hard cap at say 80 mil. That sets what teams can over. Player ability and a Owners willingness to spend is what sets what they will get. To use your Steve Nash example. Lets say the Suns are looking to rebuild and at first they try to work a trade but all they are getting for offers are Bad contracts. They then have the option to buy Nash out for 1 million for every remaining year of his contact if that's what they want to do and use the remaining cap space they have to go after another player that fits into their future plans. Steve is then a Unrestricted free agent who can sign where ever he pleases. The team who wants him the most and has the most cap space to sign him will get him. Once Nash gets to the point teams are not willing to pay him what ever league minimum ends up being it will be time for him to hang it up and call it a career. The idea needs to be fleshed out but that is what owners want. They want to pay a player what he is worth based on that year of play. Not pay him for the next 5 years based on what he did one year.
I didn't like the speech given during the NBA lottery about the new CBA. I think it's only fair that we hear from both sides.
What is someone is making a million dollar a year. . . but plays like a 18 million dollar a year player. . . should he get the increase too? If some second round player .. . becomes rookie of the year Should he be able to void his contract for the big payday I don't like one-sided options like the one you propose I am on the players side .. . most have about 5 yrs to make their money and they are out . . .. injury . . diminished skills or what ever everyone seems to want to make sure the owners get richer at the expense of the players. . . .the people we actually WANT to see. . . Rocket River
Basically I think your idea gives the owners too much power and control A player falls funny and is paralyzed for ever. . . 1 million dollars and SEE YA . . WOULDN'T WANNA BE YA!! In a league where everyone is over the cap . . .cutting a 20 mill player what is he going to get??? hell the THREAT of the cut would be enough to cow players and drive down the prices. I am for shorter contracts but still guaranteed. if the owners get an OPT OUT every year. . then I think the players should have one as well. It is only Fair. but then it would get crazy cause yearly negotiations would be insane. Rocket River
Maybe a good middle ground would be a buy out option every other year. The owners have all the risk. If only 3 thousand people a game show up to a game, Players still get payed. The owners need a system that allows them to field a competitive team. Players like Rashard Lewis , Vince Carter and Gilbert Arenas are practically stealing when you consider what they make compared to their production.
Until the owners start to look like old versions of the players organized sports is going to be just another version of indentured servitude. No owner will ever be able to provide the service that a player will, but any number of human beings can play the part of owner. We've seen enough incompetence from their side. Although I know it's never going to be feasible, you can always count me on the side of upheaval. Viva la Revolucion!
If I have to pick a side I pick owners. I honestly don't care who has billions and who has millions. I only care about ticket prices and my own costs of watching the games and enjoying the events. If we're going to get into fairness and morality, I've always had issues with the fact that entertainers are treated like royalty. On the other hand, the owners issues are two-fold: 1. Big market owners will always be willing to overpay players given a potential competitive advantage, for this reason I favor a hard(er) cap. 2. Moronic ownership/management can't continue to sign worthless players to unreasonably huge contracts. Greedy players, agents, delusional fans, and arbitrators use said worthless contracts as benchmarks for supposed value based on performance. That's the part I really hate.
Would you be ok of giving the player the same buyout options a-la European leagues? I think I would be ok with that though we might have Lebron might have a "decision" every year. Though in reality, players might start signing shorter contract and how short of a contract a team is willing to offer a player might be part of the competitiveness of the offer. Or we might be like NFL where players will negotiate a larger guaranteed amount upfront and/or hold out when unhappy with contract.
I actually like the system the NFL has. Even the players like it. NFl Players Beef is about the revenue split not how contracts are set up. In the Nfl the Stars get payed like stars and the average players get played like average players. IF some one is overpaid it does not last for long. And when a player starts to decline Teams cut ties.
I am not totally on either side because like in most labor disputes, both sides are partly guilty for creating the problem. I do however side more with the owners than the players because the league (and hopefully the fans) would benefit from the implementation of a "fair" hard cap. The thing that doesn't get mentioned in all of this is how poorly the players manage their money. Sports Illustrated had an article last year stating that over 60% of NBA players have lost most of or all of their fortunes within 5 years after retirement, even though they made tens of millions of dollars , throughout their career. And I'm sure all of them never thought it would happen to them. So what good does it do for a player to make all of that money if they don't know how to manage it or invest it properly? I think the higher salaries lull many of them into a false sense of financial invincibility. The players and league would probably be better off if the players took a smaller salary and in return the NBA would contribute an additional percentage of their salary into a managed hedge fund each year. Once the player retires from the league they could then close out their account in the hedge fund or keep their money in it until a later date. In terms of the teams, there will always be short-sighted stupid GM's and cheap owners in this league no matter what the CBA ends up being. So any system they come up with will be flawed because of that problem. But if you had a hard cap that was tied to the revenue of the TV rights and the teams had revenue sharing for basketball related income it would allow teams to maintain some profitability regardless how many dumb roster moves a GM or owner make. They would only be penalized by having a perennial losing team such as the Timberwolves, the Kings, etc.... Conversely, teams with smart front offices and ownership would have a greater advantage than they do now because they would always create a greater number of ways to improve their teams when compared to the dumb teams. Which currently would favor the Rockets. A main key to winning a championship would be the GM's creativity under the hard cap instead of just buying a championship like the last few championship teams have done. Which, I think would make for a much more intriguing league.
good post. i don't know all the details and nuances about everyone's interests (collectively as well as individual, i'm sure each player and owner feels differently about certain things) ... but what i want most is a more parity across the league with better competition.
I'm not really supportive of a hard cap. I think having less teams would do more for the competitive balance than a hard cap. On the fence about revenue sharing, like in the MLB, will the owners truly spend the money to be competitive on the field. Look at KC Royals, Florida Marlins, Washington Nationals (formerly the Expos), Minnesota Twins (Carl Poland - known for being cheap), and the Chicago Cubs. That's probably what the owner's want more so than lowering players' salaries and certain competitive balance, though ideally they'd want both. It's already been shown that great number owners' rather see profit than a winning team. Only thing about that fans will only come to see wining team, even more than that ... a superstar player or all-stars. The NBA is also endorsement heavy, look at what LeBron did took a massive paycut to play with the Heat, he still makes more money than any other player in the league. It's a league that very much superstar based, it always has been. I'd even throw in Texas Rangers, before a few years ago, and even Seattle Mariners for little stint in the mid 2000s. It's really weird that bottom feeders in most sports regardless of salary cap or free-wheeling player signings are always the bad. The competent franchises always seem to do well, isn't it weird can look at teams, like the Patriots, Colts, and Steelers in the NFL, just as in basketball with the Spurs, the Suns, and even the Lakers. Look at how many bad free agent signings they've had over the last 12 years. The talent pool is very marginal compared to the other sports. There are guys who don't even get on the field in baseball or football, who could be very good players. I really do not think the competition is a problem in the NBA is people make it out to be, especially after watching Western Conference basketball. For the last decade or so, I could honestly say that more than half of the teams have been very good. Look at what happened Memphis and Oklahoma City (formerly Seattle), once they started making right moves. The bad teams usually stay bad, because they are not competently run. Look at the worst NBA teams, their roster problems are completely on management. Mishandling players, team operations in general, their contracts, as well as poor scouting and etc. Most of teams with superstars with fairly decent roster around them, are going to be the ones who still win out. Also, I really do not like player movement that much, either, I would much rather see consistency in a fairly good roster. I do not think it helps the NFL as much as people think, right now, if you don't have a top 10-13 QB, your team is already at a disadvantaged. I almost think that is sort of like having an NBA superstar. For the last decade, especially in the AFC, it has been Indy; New England; Pittsburgh; Baltimore; San Diego; and New York Jets. That's essentially been the AFC hierarchy for the last 10 years. IN the NFC, there hasn't been a consistent hierarchy, but the best teams/franchises are probably right now (from year to year): Green Bay Packers; New York Giants; Philadelphia Eagles; Dallas Cowboys; Atlanta Falcons (actually under Arthur Blank, have had a very good overall record in his ownership of team); New Orleans Saints; Minnesota Vikings; and Seattle Seahawks. Carolina, Tampa, and Chicago on the borderline. Look at the struggling franchises, Detroit Lions; San Francisco 49ers (the Yorks, they've ruined a really); Oakland Raiders; Buffalo Bills; Washington Redskins; and etc. For other sports, the Clippers, the Cavs (LeBron was a god send for them) - I thought they had good organization in 80s and 90s, the Marlins, and even the Mets to an extent. The Redskins, Mets, and Clippers are proof that some teams are going to be bad regardless of how much money they spend. They spend themselves into oblivion, they still cannot win. This is not the players' fault (remember, they do not sign the checks), why are they at fault, you can ask for a salary increase that is ludicrous, but if you aren't worthy it you can find yourself out of the league like Latrell Sprewell: http://sports-kings.com/?p=903 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...st-nba-free-agent-signings-of-all-time/page/4 http://dimemag.com/2010/07/top-10-worst-nba-contracts-this-decade/ This old saying fits perfectly into this ideal: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Small Market teams can and are competitive in the NBA: San Antonio, Portland, Minnesota (was when they had Kevin Garnett), Utah, Indiana (was competitive up until the Brawl and right now they got a promising group of young players who they can deal for better pieces or keep), Miami (is not large market team to the level of Los Angeles or New York), Sacramento (up until about 2006), Houston, and Orlando. Also, this thing about small markets not being able to compete is sort of overrated. http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm Money is not the reason, a franchise cannot win, it's poor management or simply the unwillingness to court or keep quality players. - For some reason aren't the big market teams or more high-profiles organizations are the places players like to flock to. - Some owners again, could care less about the on court production, if he/she turns a great profit. It'll be like who cares how the teams is doing. There are some bad teams out there who do turn a profit. Because, they do not spend money on free agents in abundance, while also lowering operating cost, getting just enough revenue, and etc. To make decent profit. If revenue sharing happens - I've rarely seen a thrifty big market team, New Yorks and LAs of the world are going to spend money, regardless. Some are still good, others are still bad. - I'm sorry the best free agents and players are still going to want to go to Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, generally. For the most part, what's going to get a player to move to Milwaukee beyond the reason of having high dollar contract. For Example, Shaq in Orlando, for the same amount of money in contract, why would he stay in Orlando. Players have different reasons that motivate them. But, endorsements come larger in bigger markets. - It's an issue that also goes above players' salary. Most of the NBA owners in the red are trying to get more across the board. Ticket revenue, TV broadcasting rights, and reduce operating cost. The players are part of that package. It's the system of things, you can get mad at the functioning parts of it, without examining the whole body structure.
