I'm with heyp (and, I guess, the players) on this. The financing of the purchase of the franchise is not the players' concern. If an owner levered up too much to buy the thing, too bad, it sucks to be him. The pie to be split should be from operations.
Maybe because they know the union wouldn't be stupid enough to agree to one. I'm not trying to compare anything to slavery, but all of these things have to be agreed to and I don't see a group of guys who are used to going somewhere when their contract is up suddenly agreeing to have that right restricted. Especially not at the same time as coming to grips with making less $$ anyway. And franchise tags are BS. If you serve out your deal then you should be free to sign with the highest bidder. A team can already lock you in for what, 4 or 5 years now (if drafted as a rookie)? The draft is arguably better for the game, as well as some of the other restrictions that players have agreed to. I don't see how a franchise tag is better for the game of basketball. Even with the hell that broke loose last summer (the Big 3 hooking up), the league overall was still in the same situation as most seasons over the last 3 decades....a few teams with a chance to win and the rest really don't have one.
The key to all of this is really the owners, the players do not matter, if the owners want to crush the union they can, the players have nowhere else to go and make the money. If the owners want to do what the NHL did, which ultimately probably saved Hockey, they will. The players will cave, they do not have the resources that the owners do. DD
Owners have the most leverage. Players talk about how they will go overseas based on 'principle' so on, they have it hte best here even under the new conditions. No league or any other occupation ahs the guaranteed contracts the way the players do. They were spooiled because they had no accountability. The owners need to suffer and when their team loses, they do lose revenue etc bc of their bad choices. AS far as players, if they half ass it, if they show up out of shape, if they dont get along with the team and decide they dont like their role, they just can keep getting their money for years. Look at tinsley, eddy curry, rafer alston, jerome james, Tj ford...even iverson, didn't like his role, team still had to pay him millions to take 'leave'. The players want no accountability and just guarantees and it is unrealistic and kind of sickening for me to see as a fan. I say, lets take out the cap and keep things as is, heck bring back 5 year contracts so on, but make outs and stipulations. So the players, if they keep performing and being a positive addition to the team, they will keep getting their money and earning their way through, if they bring a gun to the locker and stop this and decide to sign of frequent points program of Shipley donuts, they can be held accountable and be cut. That makes the most sense, the palyers if they do their job, get all their old perks, if they don't then they are accountable.
Unfortunately, guaranteed contracts are a "blood issue" for the union. No matter how stupid it seems, the union will vote to miss the entire season and/or decertify before they will agree to non-guaranteed contracts. But I'm with you, in the sense that the new CBA should only guarantee a certain percentage of a player's salary in outlying years of his contract. Perhaps fully guaranteeing salaries in the first two seasons but then only guaranteeing X% in Year 3, Y% in Year 4 and (if applicable) Z% in Year 5 (where X > Y > Z). (EDIT: I seem to recall reading somewhere that this is a concept that the owners have introduced to the players. It was not greeted favorably.)
I agree with him as well. Whatever hoops the owners had to jump through, or assets they had to mortgage to buy their respective teams has no relevance here, in my opinion. I disagree with the tone of the first part of your post (the part I didn't quote), but think this idea is a good one, and would be a big concession on the part of the players. Split the BRI 50-50, shorten the maximum length of the contracts, and do a bit of tinkering here, and tinkering there, and I don't see why this can't be the framework of a deal. The owners could chip in concessions on retirement benefits (especially for the guys who missed out on the largess in recent decades).
How is that stupid? Guaranteed contracts are a big + for NBA players and I value the current players for thinking of how this standoff will impact future NBA players. I would hope they wouldn't just give that up.
No doubt it is a big plus for the players. But Billy Hunter has let it be known to the owners that there are certain "blood issues" on which they will not budge, presumably even if the owners conceded elsewhere. My point about it being "stupid" was in the context of the union not agreeing to non-(fully) guaranteed contracts in exchange for numerous other concessions from the owners. For instance, if the union got EVERYTHING else it wanted, system-wise, and a satisfactory split of BRI, skewed towards the union's suggested split, would they really forego the entire 2011-12 season just because the owners wanted non-guaranteed contracts (in a "mostly guaranteed" context as I outlined in my earlier post) in return for everything else?
Guaranteed contracts for 1st round draft picks in exchange for no real signing bonuses always seemed a fair compromise to me. Also, after your rookie scale years, most guaranteed years are a matter of negotiation. What is wrong with keeping guaranteed years part of contract negotiations -- because the owners can't control themselves, so they sign too many guaranteed contracts???
The Agents want to look at the books now....lol..... The NBA and their accountants are hiding money......just because it is legal to pay your kid $10 million a year as part of operating a franchise does not mean that you actually lost money that year. DD
Actually, I am not sure the players should do that....do you think the front office is worth 50% of the revenue? The players are the product here, without them, the league would suck and there would be no revenue. How much is Morey or Les worth as compared to Lowry and Scola? Clearly a good GM is worth a lot, but how much, as much as a star player? Here is currently what the owners can do....say I owned the Rockets..... I could pay oldest son $2 million a year for consulting, my wife $5 million a year, my youngest $1 million a year and myself $10 million a year. Now this might show that the organization lost money, but the truth is my family made $18 million that year.....of which is money from the BRI...... On top of that, the owners make a TON of money when they resell their franchise, probably after showing years of organizational loss, while making personal gain. I don't blame the players for sticking up for themselves, they are the product, and they are the ones being asked to give up something so the owners can pay even more to themselves, but the players don't get stock options, or bonuses if the organization has a good year...... There are some things I think they should give up, but less of the BRI...I think that is worth going to war over...... Personally, I think they should decertify and hit the courts. DD
From what I'm reading it seems that the players haven't had a BRI under 53% in the last 3 decades. If that's true then I wouldn't go under 53 if i were them. They are already coming down from 57.
Great piece on the Nets "losing money": http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics
To me it is a which came first: the chicken or the egg? The NBA brand or the players currently in the league. 50/50 makes sense to me. What about the other kind of court. Why haven't the players or agents floated the possibility of the creation of a Players' League.
How much would Scola be worth if it weren't for the NBA structure? The NBA and the players need each other. Guys like Scola don't drive NBA revenue. If he disappeared tomorrow nobody would miss him but Rockets fans. The guys that drive the NBA train are Stern and the top 10-15 marketable players. Players like Scola reap the benefits of Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc pulling the wagon. Masses of fans don't buy tickets or watch TV to see Scola or Lowry. The NBA would indeed "suck" if the top stars weren't there. But if players 50 to 100 went missing, it would keep on truckin'. The top stars (in combination with the league marketing machine) are why the NBA is what it is today. But even those guys wouldn't be anything without NBA arenas, TV deals and a
Actually if the stars left the league would sink pretty low, the only reason it exists is because it has the best talent in the world. You don't see the TV deals in Europe you see here, because the ball is not nearly the same level of quality. Same reason the MLS contracts are much smaller than the Premier league TV deals. People will pay to see the best of the best, once the product is diluted, interest wanes considerably. All the bits about the owners losing money is pure bull****, they are using accounting practices to "cook the books".....now it is all legal, but it is not ethical when discussing the split. I would love for someone to start up another league to compete with the NBA, but as soon as that happens, the NBA would lift the lockout to quash the competition. Just sit tight folks, this is going to be a long process, I think. DD
Heh, you might be right, but hopefully people get the gist here, the owners are not REALLY losing any money. DD
Why does it make sense for the players to come down from 57 to 50, when they haven't been under 53 in 3 decades? Based on what?
