Like Bucher asked, if you are against NG deals then are you also in favor of guys being able to opt out of a undervalued contract (Rose, Durant, Brooks, Landry)? Also, are you in favor of a guy being able to opt out when he signs with you as a free agent and you trade him (Ariza) or he's not playing as much (Brad Miller)?
There's too much loose play with the terms capitalist and communist in this thread. Neither are wholly appropriate. It's more that the NBA owners are pursuing a strategy not unlike many modern banks, hedgefunds, etc. In this system profits are always private, but losses need to be made public. It's why we tax payers foot the bill for their mistakes but never profit when they succeed. The owners want a hyper controlled and regulated market when it comes to expenditures (player's salaries) but are unable to break the hyper privatized model of profits. The players have given plenty back that when combined with some modest profit sharing would easily solve all the league's problems. Somehow the conversation never seems to veer in that direction and even the small market owners seem unable to see that part of the problem is the big markets are keeping all the $.
I don't see why. I mean, look at the NFL. Are there no player movement even though they have literally a hard cap and trades result in problems with signing bonuses? Your logic only works if teams are all idiots and never plan ahead. It would be the case, for example, if CD is our GM handing out 5+ yr contracts to random scrubs. But I don't see why GMs like Morey can't simply plan for the future and simply gain enough capspace to sign players. If Iggy wants to move to Houston, for example, then the Rockets can simply clear 10 mil of capspace and sign him for that money. If the Rockets are stupid and don't have the cash, then another team with the cash will sign him instead.
I would be in favor of non guaranteed contracts, and if the player wants to sign for one year, then by all means they can be a free agent every single year. DD
From the sound of your post It sounds like you have not read the finite details of The owners proposal. There are only 2 ways to cut a player, only one of which you can only use once that does not count against the cap ( the amnesty). The stretch acceptation can be used more then once but part of the players salary still counts against the cap every remaining year of the players contract. Also you can't resign the player you cut for a year. So you can make some cuts to create space to sign the guy you want in the short term, but you end up with less money to spend to replace the guys you cut to make the room in the first place. Also you have to consider that in the NFL you have a 52 man roster which gives you more fat to trim with out effecting your core team. In the NBA you have a max of 15 if you count the ones you list as inactive. So chances are if you cut some one who makes a significant salary then more then likely had a important role on your team that you now have to fill with a cheaper player. Its a double whammy not only do you have less money to sign free agents, but you also end up with lower quality players on your bench which hurts depth. Which then leads to a lower quality team.
There is less player movement. There are rarely trades in the NFL, and the franchise tag restricts movement every offseason. But a lot of teams are idiots. It's one of the reasons some are losing $$ (stupid decisions).
Why can't the players have the same out that you think the owners deserve, for multi-year deals? The owner takes a risk that the player will not live up to the contract. The player takes the risk that they will outperform the contract, or that the owner will not live up to it (playing time, traded elsewhere, etc). So you only have a problem with owners getting stuck? Better yet, why can't the owners sign draft picks to 1 year deals? I'm pretty sure the players union would be all for being a free agent every year if you allowed them that privilege from day 1. But I doubt the owners would like it. They love guaranteed contracts that benefit them. Lord knows our GM does.
Or, you know, you could gain capspace by not signing crappy players to long term deals? Your assumption is that teams will always give long term contracts just for being r****ded. The thing is, teams will eventually wise up when it becomes punitive for them to do so in a hard cap system. And you'll simply see more 1-2yr contracts where teams can clear cap the old fashioned way: by having their players contracts run out. There's nothing in the new CBA which suggest the owners can just keep players even when their contracts run out. This isn't the old days. If a player wants to move, he can sign a short term contract. And if he's worth the money he wants, a team will clear enough cap to get him. See Miami, Chicago, NY and Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, etc. No MLE or luxury tax helped with the movement of these players.
Are NFL players complaining that they're forced to play in the same city all the time? Is AJ or Foster or Schaub complaining that the NFL CBA are forcing them to stay in Houston when they can be elsewhere? If you take out the monetary aspect of the old CBA, teams are rewarded for overpaying mediocrity. Because there is no hard cap and you can keep going over. The Mavs are the perfect example of this. This system works when owners are making big money can can spend such money. From a competitive standpoint, it's beneficial to overpay. The reason this is no longer feasible is because majority of the owners are no longer making such big money. Hence, the old system allows your Lakers and Knicks to spend like crazy, but prohibit smaller teams from doing so. Hence, competitive imbalance. As a fan of a team whose owner isn't exactly a multi-billionaire, I personally would prefer a system that doesn't reward reckless spending.
No, it's not a strike. But they could have accepted the deal which would still pay them millions of dollars and everybody could get back to work. Both sides are responsible for the situation. You seem to blame only one side.
What freedom? Nobody is forcing them to play basketball for the NBA. They could play in the playground. They could play in Europe. They could play in China. That's their freedom. Or they could do other things if they thought basketball was so cruel to them. Do you have the freedom to work for any company you want? Do millions of people in America have the freedom to even work for ANY company at all?
You are pointing out the need for the NBA owners to figure out a better revenue sharing agreement amongst themselves. Currently they are trying to have the best of both worlds, a united league and 32 independent businesses. All the teams need each other and should share revenues to reflect that fact. Of course, they will need a way to deal with mooches like Sterling.
Not sure if "sympathetic" is the right word to describe my take. I think it has a little to do with a despise the blame game of fans/media and the negotiating tricks of the owners to manipulate everything. So, I defend the players. After all, I love the players. I don't really hate any players, except for Jazz players. I hate the fact the owners have created a league with too many teams. I hate the fact the owners force the players to play 82 games, which makes the NBA one of the only leagues in the world that drastically alters the scheduling of a sport versus the amateur leagues that the players come through. I hate ticket pricing. I hate owners wanting to regulate to guarantee profits way beyond the likes of any other business sector in this country. It's crazy. And we defend them by saying, "they need to be able to run their business profitably," so let's rig the system to guarantee it...rather than fixing the problem. I honestly believe the owners don't give a damn about the fans; yet, we defend them. They are probably laughing at us for falling for all their negotiating tactics and laughing at the players when we take the owner's side and blame the players.
I think you're making this way too complicated. Like every owner and every player and every lawyer/agent, I care mostly about myself. And when it comes to the NBA, I only care mainly for two things. 1. That the NBA continue to exist and games are played 2. The Rockets winning So the logical position as a Rockets fan puts me squarely on owner's side. On point 1, the more the owners win in this negotiations, the less likely of the next work-stoppage happen sooner than later. The players are less likely to strike with an anti-player CBA than the owners are with an anti-owner CBA. On point 2, it's clear the Rockets are not a big market team. So I'm for anything that rewards prudence and competitive balance.I want my team's winning and losing to be based on my front office's work. If the Rockets lose because we draft badly and sign bad FAs, I can live with that. If the Rockets lose because all the superstars just go to premier destinations, I can't live with that. There's no reason to call sides selfish and greedy. Because we're all human and we are all greedy. It's really just best to look at it from our own perspective as fans. And as a fan, I just prefer the owners winning because it's better for me. If I were a Heat fan or a Lakers fan, I'd probably prefer the players getting what they want, so my team has competitive advantage.
I don't defend or give a dam about the owners, but in principle, I relate more towards there side. You are talking about handouts, then the players are the ones who want no accountability. Look, if you are under paid and on a 2-3 year contract, you will get an upgrade next time around. If you are overpaid, and on a 2-3 year contract, your contract won't go down. Guess who is not for shorter contracts? The players. They want guarantees no matter what. If Iverson, TJ ford, tinsley, or any other player decides to be unprofessional, ruin team chemistry, not accept the roll that they bought him in to play for, then so be it. You are paying that man his money to sit and watch from his home. If eddy curry, dampier, jerome james just decide to get fat or not give heart to the game, it doesn't matter. Pay that man his money. That is what these guaranteed long contracts and no accountability do. It is unlike anything in the workforce in the history what these guys get away with. Outside of injury, they need to be held accountable and shorter contracts give you enough income and the chance to ascend, stay the same, or descend depending on your performance and attitude. They need to be held accountable and they don't want that. The players talk about how much they gave in this. Can they not understand you can't give back what you were given and make it out to be like there was a crime committed against them? They had a CBA on an inflated market bubble just like the real estate bubbble. do we expect to buy prices on houses the same from a few years ago when the bubble was at the top? no, the economy and landscape has changed and that last deal is irrelevant. They need to understand that like the rest of the world. For the first time NBA teams were sold at a loss in Charlotte and New Orleans. The landscape is not the same and for fans that means less parity and less competition. Iwant to see a good game everynight, you can't guarantee equality, but you can create a platform that allows more equal dealing because a Minnesota can't compete for straight up signings against an LA team plain and simple. The players say its all about management and not the market. they site San antonio and Thunder. Those guys did well, but if Kevin Durant and Tim duncan demanded a trade or left? At the very best they woudl be mediocre teams. Doesn't matter how well you did, they hit the lottery with superstars and superstars who don't mind staying in small markets. Denver spent moeny all over the place and did whatever to help Melo and had a pretty damn competitive squad, yet he left bc he wanted to goto NY to an arguable worse team even. So much denver could do. It is well noted that the Cavs GM moves were heavily influenced by lebron, he was allowed to do everything he wanted to from personell moves to just flight rules to on the court didnt have to even listen to Coach or wasn't allowed to be criticized. they gave him the keys to the franchise, he made bad moves in what he signed off on and demanded from the team, sure enough, he left and now they are stuck. they say then don't give him that treatment, then he would've left faster, it is a lose lose for them The players themselves say don't blame us for taking these contracts, blame owners. so even THEY KNOW they aren't worth some oft hese contracts, but say blame the owners when they know the market over pays them? The answers are simple, the owners are at fault and the players clearly are too. We need a system that is more fair and holds BOTH sides accountable. Shorter contracts not only allow the overpaid to be accountable but also the underpaid faster chances to ascend. The players are against this bc they want to live in the fairy tale of the last CBA
Agreed, if the owners and players want to negotiate a one year deal - fine. If they want to give the owners the option in year 2, fine, if they want to give the players an opt out option, fine. Guaranteed contracts suck the life out of the player, too many lazy players not trying hard......the NBA sucks in the first 3 quarters, players don't play hard......it is mind numbing to watch them coast. DD
If players can currently get 4-5 year deals then isn't a system that encourages teams to only do 1-2 year deals more restrictive? Why would the players agree to a new system like that, on top of giving back big $$? I'm not trying to argue whether it's right or not. My question is do you realize that this is more restrictive and is it shocking that a player sees that type of system, along with big $$ going back and says "no thanks"? Is this a serious question? NFL guys that get franchised complain about it all the time. Vincent Jackson of the Chargers almost missed the entire 2010 season because of this. And it's not only about being forced to play in the same city. It's being forced to stay with the team and not having other teams bid for your services, which drives down your contract. You have better chances of a big payday on an open market than as a restricted free agent, or franchised player. Actually, teams are rewarded for drafting well and building around their star players. All of the recent champions have been led by someone they drafted, except for the 3-peat Lakers and 04 Pistons. And this holds true for big $$ teams and small $$ ones like the Spurs. You get that players rights for 4-5 years. Even if he is at an MVP level you still get him on a rookie wage for those initial years (Rose, Durant). You can pay him more than any other team unless you choose to S&T him. You can exceed the cap to extend him. All of that benefits teams with good management. It's no surprise that teams that build around their stars properly and keep them happy retain them. The only game changers that decided to leave are Moses, Shaq and LeBron. Most guys decide to stay. Studies show that drafting has more to do with success than your ability to spend. Spending accounts for around 7%. Again, economists show that the ability to spend accounts for around 7% of winning. Drafting is the most important factor. The Lakers wouldn't be dominant without Kobe, who they drafted. The Heat aren't one of the high dollar teams. The Mavs are though. The Bulls and Thunder (other Conf Final teams) don't have hefty payrolls. They key to all of these teams is they have a stud player that they acquired through the draft. So why aren't wreckless spenders competing for titles, as opposed to the teams that draft well?
