If the owners are to be believed, it is not just about BRI split covering losses, but also about remaking the system to improve competitive balance. It is arguable whether or not the last deal addressed that problem. A more competitive team is one that has the potential to be more profitable. EDIT: here is an article about generating competitive balance in the league. The owners look to be wrong about how they think the system will promote it. http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32841/the-payroll-and-competitive-balance-myth
Making all teams more profitable does not equate to competitive balance. The BRI split means that the highest paying teams get the most money back. The lowest paying teams get less. In fact, the lawyer for the owners said that the BRI and system rules are independent of each other...that is what he said. Don't make me look that up. How is the profitablity of the BRI split attached to system rules when the league says they are independent of each other.
I think you misunderstand my post. I do not think profitability makes teams more competitive. But I do think that a more competitive team has a better chance to increase its own profitability.
Money losing teams have to cut expenses or increase debt to keep making payroll. It's a salary dump. If the Grizzlies were not bleeding money each season, Gasol would have not been traded for Kwame Brown's expiring contract. Lakers went on to win another title. Finley was waived by Mavericks with the amnesty clause, even though he was way better than many other players and scrubs on that roster. He had a huge salary though. After he was waived, he joined the Spurs and helped them win another title. Cuban was making a financial move not a competitive move. The money losing teams like Jordan's Bobcats will finally have the money to sign a star, since they are no longer in the red. It would be great to see these salary dump moves be limited to only teams trying to get a star player(ex:Knicks trading for T-Mac for cap relief to chase Amare and a 2nd star), instead of profitability.
I don't know if this was posted already, but it was very interesting http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/star+Andreychuk+says+players+will+losers+playing+chicken/5735221/story.html ORLANDO, Fla. — Dave Andreychuk has a wise piece of business advice for NBA players who believe they can outlast the NBA owners in this game of collective bargaining chicken: Don’t do it. Don’t even think about it. You will lose. And you will lose badly. You are the Washington Generals and the owners are the Harlem Globetrotters. “If players think it’s better to sit out the season, let me tell [you], it’s not. It’s just not,” Andreychuk says. “In the end, it will be worse.” More than almost anyone, Andreychuk should know. He was the captain of the 2004 Tampa Bay Lightning that shocked the hockey world by winning the Stanley Cup. One season later, hard-line NHL owners wanted to drastically cut player salaries, restrict movement and make systematic changes to the sport’s collective-bargaining agreement. The players protested, negotiations broke down and the season was cancelled. Sound familiar, NBA fans? It should because this is exactly where the NBA is headed. NBA players don’t want to have their salaries sliced and their free agency inhibited. They want to be able to take their talents (and their lucrative long-term guaranteed contracts) to South Beach whenever the mood hits them. And they are willing to stand up and fight against what they feel is an unfair deal that owners are trying to shove down their throats. It is an admirable stance, but not a smart one. Players would be better off signing the bad deal owners are offering now rather than the worse one they will get later. Before long, they will divide and cave and become so desperate they’ll sign anything to get the cash flowing again so they can pay for their eight cars, five houses, four kids, three nannies, two bodyguards and one personal chef. That’s what happened to NHL players. At first, they were indignant and angry when owners made them an insulting offer and told them to take it or leave it. Initially, they were unified in their fight against the tyranny of league management. But their resolve and unity quickly dissipated into a bunch of bickering and backstabbing among a divergent group of players with distinctive financial needs. Some players had enough money to weather the lockout, many didn’t. Players flocked to Europe or migrated to the minor leagues just so they could cash a paycheque. “As the pressure built — after a month, two months, three months — it started to sink in,” recalls Andreychuk, now a team executive with the Lightning. “Guys were saying to themselves, ‘I’m 25 years old and hockey is how I make my living. We need to get a deal done.’ ” Players essentially overthrew Bob Goodenow, the head of the NHL Players’ Association, and replaced him with Ted Saskin, who was given a clear mandate: Sign a deal, any deal, and sign it now. Within two weeks, the players, beaten and beleaguered, signed for far less than what they were originally offered. Not only did players lose millions in salaries; their new CBA was more restrictive than the one they refused to sign months earlier. “The deal got worse by us sitting out,” Andreychuk admits. “At the end, we were so willing to sign, we had to agree to what the owners wanted. We gave back a tremendous amount just to get a deal done so we could go back to work.” Sadly, the NHL has still not fully recovered from the lost season. It has taken many franchises years to rebuild their fan bases. “All of the momentum and excitement surrounding the franchise after we won the Stanley Cup was lost,” Andreychuk says. “Fans who bought tickets and jumped on the bandwagon during the playoffs never came back because the next season was cancelled.” Sign the deal, NBA players. Sign it now. Take it from the hockey guy. You’re about to get iced.
Apparently the owners and Players will try to reach each other so a deal can be made to save the season for a Christmas time start. For that to happen, they need to have a deal done by Thanksgiving because Stern said it would take at least a month to prepare. Obviously time is not on nobody's side and some sources say that they are already reaching out to each other through various "back channels".
Rick Bucher likes to use the analogy going to the "Wall". The "Wall" is the Court system. Neither the players or the owners want the court to render a judgment. My gut tells by New years day at the absolute latest we will be playing basketball. Neither side is a dumb as they appear to be right now. The owner side intentionally put out crap offers and played hardball during the talks to make players bust out the De-certify the union card early. The sooner they used it the less power the strategy had as shown with the NFL. The players knowing this held back doing it from the start of the lockout even though the agents wanted them to. Another reason the players tried to work through the bargaining process was the chance that common ground could actually be found and a deal could be reached. Worse case they show a history of negotiating in good faith which adds merit to their legal case. The more merit their case has the less likely owners want to role dice in court and actually start talking deal. I think after 140+ days of posturing the 2 sides are actually ready to get down to business. Please prove me right.
So we do agree. Whether the owners proposal will achieve what I want is another topic. But I'm not gonna argue with you on that. I was just trying to point out the flaws of the "players deserve a free system" argument. I've been advocating a pyramid tiered salary structure, which in essence is a multiple-tier hard caps, with no max contract. I also favor relegation. These are major overhaul of the system. I don't think they have the gut to do.
My 2 cents. I think Stern and co. and Hunter and co. should meet and keep it anonymous. Don't tell anyone about the meeting, not even the media. Just get down to business and shock the world, reach an agreement and then you contact the media for photo ops of both yall just shaking hands and hugging it out.
Then why did Hunter go to the courts? Solely as a leverage tactic? If that is the case, it could turn out pretty ugly for them. Very huge legal risk there. Also, who do you think will be paying the lawyers on the side of the NBPA? You are telling me they would go through all this for the already diminishing chance the owners budge? Hate to break it to you, but only one side looks dumb right now. Owners are businessmen, they can wait as long as it takes to get what they want. Do you have any idea how terrible Billy Hunter has been? Seriously do you? In a negotiation sides always set the bar further apart at first in order to gain position. If the owners originally had set the bar lower, it would have been even harder for them to get what they wanted. Isn't that painfully obvious? Yes, if the players were going to De-certify, you better believe the owners would have preferred they did it in the summer. They would have rather resolved this by now and had a season. I don't know where you got that idea from. What does the timing of the basketball season have to do with the courtroom? If anything, it hurts their chances as more and more players are going to get angry. Quite frankly, you are the only person who thinks Billy Hunter made a wise move to De-certify this late. SORRY, the man clearly doesn't know what he is doing. He couldn't even get all the player reps to New York last Monday. On top of that he failed to give his union enough information, did not allow them to vote, and after five days of waiting didn't do anything but deny the proposal. No counter. Nothing. If they were as close as he had previously stated, there is no excuse for his actions. Especially this late into the year. The NFL players didn't have a case and neither do the players. Again, this is completely wrong. I don't know why I should have to argue the merits of the players subscribing to an idea you completely made up, but I will say this. The players did not want to miss games. Many of them are already pissed off. That is obvious and there is no point in debating this. As the only real difference between De-certfying now and months ago is missed pay checks and a lost season, I really don't see how your argument is valid, at all. Further, agents are pushing for the best deal possible on their end. They would like to preserve what they had at all costs. They do not have the same constraints placed on them as the players do. (Most notably a much longer time span for their careers and multiple sources of income.) What you are saying is that agents were essentially keeping the players from decertifying earlier on despite the benefits (solely in your eyes) of doing it later during the season. Why would they do that? Agents are not nearly as affected by a missed season as the players are. The agents are trying to get the best deal for themselves financially. If you truly believe that a Decert in the summer wasn't the best idea from a monetary standpoint, then why would the agents push for it? No worst case is missed games and a much worse deal in the end. I am curious to know how you define negotiating in good faith. Reluctancy to take virtually any losses while the system is broken and the economy is a mess, or by offering little to no counter proposals. Either way, owners should have a right to determine employee salaries. I just don't see a case here. I don't see any merit to a legal case for the players, I really dont. For this to happen now, to put all of these players in jeopardy for the CHANCE that something goes in favor of the NBPA is just insane. What exactly has changed to allow for this?
Competitive balance isn't going to be achievable in the NBA by a hard cap. Unlike the NFL, in the NBA's 5 man game, franchise superstars carry to much weight in winning and there are maybe MAYBE 12 guys that qualify in a 30 team league. Only a couple of ways I can fathom establishing relative parity: 1. Superstars (regardless of years in the league), as soon as they establish themselves as such, automatically get slotted for 55% of the cap (~$33M). They're underpaid as it is and this would prevent a Miami Heat situation. The downside is if you hit the jackpot drafting, you'll be penalized and forced to get rid of homegrown talent. It's also thorny in how you'd fairly and objectively establish who qualifies and who doesn't. 2. Relegation. There's simply too many teams diluting the talent. Cut the number of teams in the NBA to 20-24 and establish a 2nd Tier with the rest, along with some NBDL teams to fill it out (12 or so). Worst 1-2 teams each season are sent down, with the best 1-2 in the 2nd tier taking their place. Make the salary cap in the 2nd tier 40% of the NBA 1st tier (~$24M), to keep money more in line with a minor league and to force relegated teams to release any top talent back into the 1st tier (waiver rights for claiming). Hard cap doesn't change the fact that Kobe, Dwight, Wade, LeBron, Dirk, Durant, Rose, and a couple others punch your perennial playoff ticket...and at least 12-18 teams are going to be also-rans every season without one of them.
I would get rid of superstar bailouts or bias from the refs. Add a video referee. Introduce an age restriction for referees, aka as the Dick Bavetta rule.
emjohn, I love the 55% of cap for max contracts. The homegrown talent wouldn't to be gone, if you the Bird exception is not eliminated. If a player is an instant hit, the team still has 4 years of his rookie contract to make the proper planning. Since contracts only last 5 years, all the veterans signed before the draft would expire right on time.
This is exactly what you don't want - if Lebron gets paid the same as Amare who gets paid the same as Chris Paul, you can't get to parity. You need to have NO max salary for superstars, so Lebron commands more money than Amare. That way, Amare can get better teammates than Lebron, which helps create parity. Right now, with an artificial cap on salaries, whoever gets Lebron has a huge advantage because they get a better player for the same price as everyone else is paying for a worse player. A hard cap plus no max salaries is the way to achieve parity fairly easily / quickly. You get 1 superstar, or 3 stars, or 5 pretty good players. But you can't get 3 superstars that way.
Not really a update on the lockout, but thought it was an interesting comparison to the losses that the NBA teams are staying they have had in past years: That is a roughly a 1 year loss of $313 million dollars. They do point out that, this is supposedly the low point, and eventual earnings from international cups and other sources on the horizon. Also, due to some funky accounting methods, it was apparently allowed by FIFA, but the article does not specify what those are, and we all know those are no where near as stringent as NBA regulations. Still the comparison to the NBA and the owner's position is quite interesting.
Jeff, What you are saying is quite true, if you are talking about avoiding teams that win less then 25 games a year such the Cavs, T-wolves, Nets, Clippers, or Kings at all costs. If no team lost more than 30 games a year and it was very rare to be blown out of games, they would be some increase income for those teams. However, that would not likely have much of an effect on those teams profitability because it would not likely affect their chances of getting to the playoffs and truly competing for a title. However, most of those teams were that bad because of owner decisions to cut all their costs, and that is the issue that I and many others have with the owners stance of "trying to balance competition." Firstly, because many of these owners made bad decisions on player signings putting them in bad situations. Secondly, the profitability issue of many of these teams is very much from a the business side of the equation and not the entertainment/quality of play. Meaning that the issues of city size, city interest, local business interest (to buy the luxury boxes), local endorsements & TV deals, and arena contracts that really make the NYC'S profitable no matter what is the issue. Changing the system issues is not what the owners should be hardlining about. Contraction should be as Roc and others have pointed out. When a large corporation composed of multiple smaller companies is losing money, they figure out which of their assets are losing money and which are not. Afterwards, they may look to see the "quality of the products" being made can be improved, but they eventually realize that the best way to balance their budget is to kill that assest, consolidate it into another one of their companies, or sell it. Yes it will take some start up capital to do that, but that is what the owners should be fighting to do instead of a stupid hard cap. Then to prevent future teams from falling into a trap you need pure revenue sharing. Sidenote: All those teams I mentioned now have very promising young talent around which they can build a competitive team (excepting the T-wolves who have not made a good draft decision in awhile). Historically that has also been the case as well.
Spoiler I hear that, and why I admitted coming up with the system to anoint who's eligible for the supermax is tricky. I'm talking about those truly elite, not Stoudamire. You probably need to insert automatic, subsequent year only, escalator/incentive clauses that add on top of regular contracts. ROY, MVP, DPOY, All-NBA 1,2,3rd,, All Star, Finals MVP, etc, at different values (MVP = +$6M, All-NBA 3rd team = $1M, or some such). Not exclusive to one another, so a LeBron could tally up multiple escalators and end up over $30M despite a $14M base. Look at what we have now: think of the top 20 players of the league and look up the top 20 paid. Half on the list have no business being there. Rashard is #2, Arenas is #5, etc. Up to their own devises, the owners will continue to hand out dumb "max" deals. Elevator clauses, only applicable on a year to year basis, balloon the deals for only those that earn it and ice out role player phoneys.
