There's a lot of discussion in lots of threads about salaries, salary caps, players being overpaid or underpaid, etc. etc. The owners and players should make it simple for everybody in the coming contract: Players 1 - 6 make the same amount of money, players 7 - 9 make a lesser but equal amount and players 10 - 12 make the same but an even lesser amount. For example, if each of the starters and sixth man made $5M each, that's $30M. If players 7 - 9 made $3M each, now the team is at $39M. If players 10 - 12 made $1M each, that would be $42M. These figures could be adjusted to meet the new salary cap maximum. The head coach would decide the ranking of the players, which would give him enormous power. Players who surprise everyone with a great year get rewarded by moving up in the food chain. Those who don't perform would get less money -- this conforms to the American way of life, i.e., productivity is rewarded and slothfulness is not. For the injured player, he stays at his level when injured, and the team's cap is adjusted upward when league officials confirm the injury is real and keeps the player from playing. Also, the same formula could be applied to team income so the players get their share. This would lead to greater roster stability. Now, I realize players would want to gravitate to bigger markets where their advertising income would be greatest. However, as long as a player is a member of the NBA, he would get a percentage for his name and the greater percentage would be spread among his teammates and a lesser percentage to all the pleyers league wide (or some such form of equalizing the money so that being in a large market was not that big of an advantage. Regarding the latter, input by some of the "thinkers" like MacBeth, Gater, MannyRamirez et al would be helpful.) For the Grant Hills and Jay Williamses -- players who likely will never play again because of debilitating injuries or illnesses -- those contracts get shipped off to the NBA for payment by the league -- not the teams. The salary madness has to stop.
Thumbs what a great idea! I like it and it would be more acceptable by the public who think Sports Players are overpaid anyway. It would help Clubs like the Rockets not overpay players like Cato Norris, Taylor and Rice. I think that the NBA would have to have an Arbitration Board to iron out any conflicts over a players rating. For example when Rice came from Ny to Houston he would have been reduced in Rank from Level one to level three. The Reward and demotion at seasons end would ensure that every player would earn his money by giving of his best. Could a tail ender be sent down to a lesser league? The Big question in my mind is how would this effect Trading? Would we only trade say a level one player for another level one player or could we get two level two players for him?
How would you keep coach's from keeping players down. Say a player deserve's to be a 1-6 but he and his coach dont see eye to eye so he ranks him as a 7 just because. I like the idea but I think it gives the coaches way too much power. Coach's like George Karl may abuse the system. When one of his players appropriately questions him (in house, not in the public) he may take offense and take retribution action against that player. And what better way to do that but in his pockets. That wouldnt be right, to have one man dictate your salary pending on wether you kis his arse or not.... Other than that, I like your idea
Original idea, but if anything like this were to ever be implemented, I could see one 7' 350 lb middle linebacker, a bunch of 6'7 to 6'10" wide receivers. The true athletic freaks in the world would move on to greener pastures. The NBA would lose its luster (read:$$ dreams) to other sports. If all the athleticism left the NBA, we'd be left with a league full of Moochie's.
Original in theory, absolutely impossible in practice. The NBA players' union would never accept something like this. When would the rankings be decided? Can you adjust the rankings midseason? How would they be decided? Subjectively in the coach's mind? Coaches have favorite players. You'd have a mutiny with players who think they should be higher on the scale. Objectively based on stats? You'd have players caring only about getting their numbers. It'd be a league full of L.A. Clippers. How about free agency? The contract structure is the only way to keep teams together in professional sports. There is one reason why the players have the owners by the balls - guaranteed contracts. In the real world, if you do a crappy job your pay can get cut or you can get outright fired with very little compensation. In the NBA, you can suck but the owners legally have to pay you and they can't cut your pay. It does work both ways - a guy like Mobley is probably worth a little more than he is actually getting paid and he can't get a bump in pay until his next contract. In exchange for the security of a long term deal through which he will get paid even if he suffers a career ending injury, he may give up some of his earning potential had he signed a 1 or 2 year deal, put up numbers, became a free agent, and signed a bigger contract. However, it is not uncommon for existing contracts to be torn up and new extensions put in their places. An owner wants to keep his player and keep him happy. See Sam Cassell. On the flip side, it never works the other way. A player will never take responsiblity for his poor performance and agree to a cut in pay. The owners have the salary cap as a way of protecting themselves, but it's more of a "reactive" mechanism than anything else. The cap is an excuse not to spend any more money, but not a proactive way of being fiscally responsible. In the NFL, contracts are not guaranteed. I'm not exactly sure how it works... something like if you cut a guy before a certain date then you only take a partial cap hit for his salary... can someone out there fill in the details? In the NBA, I think owners should be able to cut or "terminate" or reduce a player's contract at the end of a season if that player is not performing up to expectations. If the player refuses a pay cut, then he can become a free agent. If a player gets terminated, then the owner could pay 50% of next year's salary and take a 50% cap hit. The player would become a free agent. So instead of a Matt Maloney contract, where the Rockets are on the hook for multiple years, the pain would be limited to one year. On the other side, an owner in good faith should bump up a player's pay if that player's performance warrants it. I think owners would be more likely to do that if they didn't have to worry about the other crappy contracts they have on the books. Players are not really just "players." They are assets, on the basketball court and off. They are the identities of the franchise, and the owners would do well to protect that. If the case arises where the player would like to renegotiate and can't come to agreement with the owner, then the 2 sides could go through salary arbitration like they do in basketball. This all would allow players to be paid closer to what they are actually worth. Many times, that is not the case in the NBA today, especially with young, unproven players. I just came up with all this off the top of my head, so I am sure there are holes in my arguments... feel free to improve.
Guess what, "alternative" sports teams have roster limits as well, so that 6-10 linebacker still has to be the best in that sport, which is why you see very few players who are professional level athletes in two sports. Yes, there are quite a few wrinkles that would have to be fleshed out. However, the goal here is to pay for performance today -- not tomorrow or yesterday. If players gravitate to other sports, then owners may want to up the ante. Each player would have the incentive to give his all because he wants to move up to the top level and doesn't want to fall to the level below. Head coaches would rule the roost, but perhaps safeguards against the tyrant coaches (George Karl et al) would need to be implemented. Basketball is a team game, so players should be compensated for team play -- especially if they had a stake in team and star player profits as well. Think how many more players would want to be a Cavalier because of LaBron James' shoe contract!
The real problem with this idea is that it would create superteams. Why would someone come to play with the Cavs when they could go be with Duncan or Garnett? With the top superstars making the same amount as borderline starters, there is no way to even attempt to distribute talent. Hello, Russel era Celtics.
As I said, there are kinks, but read the last sentence of my last post. The revenue sharing from star players would have a real appeal. However, you do have a valid point. Perhaps each team could annoint a Franchise Player that gets the most bucks, with the other five queing up behind. The NBA could alot say $10M extra to the franchise cap if a team said they wanted to designate a franchise player. Of course, can you image the cat fight between Kobi and Shaq over who is the franchise player? Maybe they could split the franchise label and get half the fee for being co-franchise players. Francis and Ming would share, I'm sure.
Hey, here's an idea. What if some group took all of the money the players made and distributed it equally among all players. That would work out great. Or, we could have a system where each player is paid his perceived value, and allow the market to adjust player's salaries over the long run. I'd call this "capitalism". Call ne naive, but I think it might be the best way to handle this.
You've been grazin' in the grass too long, Goatboy. What you suggest is communism. Whereas it IS a solution, I feel that competitive capitalism is better. What makes a player great? The answer is probably heart (desire), physical tools, etc. etc. However, can that player be great without the other four players? No. I mean who passes him the ball, sets a pick, etc. etc.? So shouldn't they receive some part of the overall reward that he reaps as the result of their support -- kind of like how a big company pays dividends to the shareholders. The players who work their way to the top are the big winners -- there are no inherited promotions lest the team dwell in the cellar.
thumbs, he was being sarcastic... your plan introduces some communistic elements to it... which is what GoatBoy is getting at. first of all, sharing an owner's profits is not going to happen. players are not shareholders... they not really even true employees... they are contractors. contractors in the working world have no benefits other than the salary they receive or other perks written into their contracts. a key element of a free market capitalistic system is that you can sell your services to the highest bidder. your idea denies an NBA player the ability to do this, even with a "franchise player" tag. there needs to be free agency. it's the American way. there needs to be a star system in the NBA. it's healthy. you are right, basketball as a sport is a "team game" ... you need your teammates to win... but you get paid largely for what you do as an individual. is someone going to pay Bill Wennington $10 million a year because he won a bunch of championships with the Bulls? Heck no. In your ratings system, the levels would lead to an everyman for himself frenzy. you'd have guys hurting each other in practice trying to move up in the systems... the team elements would be destroyed. basketball is not a love-fest. player's want to win, but they want to win on their own terms. really read my post again and see what you think. teams and owners have their hands tied because of the bad contracts they have given out. because they are guaranteed, they are screwed until the contract is up. in any contract there is an implicit satisfaction level for the client (owner). in the "real world," people sue for breach of contract... now you can't really do that in the basketball world because of so many factors that come into play that affect a player's performance, and you can't judge a player's performance on numbers alone, but I think an owner should be able to cut a player's salary or let them become a free agent (with a buy out) if they aren't performing up to the expectations in his mind. After all, he is the one signing the checks.
I understand, Rainmaker, lthough the players already do get 55% of the owners' profits. My real purpose in ths exercise is to get people to think out of the box in which they are currently encased. Pardon, my girlfriend is poking at me calling me a "commie." You see, I founded a company that spread over several states before I sold it and I'm currently engaged in trying to make another startup successful enough to go public. So, as an entrepreneur, I'm not going to live this down. Quit! However, I do believe that sports greed is squeezing the fans out of the stadia and SOMETHING has be done so we can root for teams that are together (more or less) year after year.
Thumbs, I definitely agree with your intent. I really like the thread. Sports greed sucks, everyone is out to make a buck. But that is the trade-off for all the benefits of living in a society like ours. Free market. I don't like the current salary/contract structure as it is either. Someone should ask David Aldridge how the owner's got suckered into this in the first place. Greed will never go away, especially because of the hype machine that dominates the sporting world today, but I'd at least like to see guys get paid what they are currently worth as opposed to what they think they are worth or what they were worth 2 years ago. Thinking about of the box is good... and I'd like see more of these ideas from everyone, just for discussion's sake. Just realize that thinking out of box automatically can generate critiques, good and bad. The intent of my posts was not to be critical at all... I'm a very practical guy and am just offering my objective opinions on your idea and its possible *practical* application. The business side of basketball, as much as talking about players, is very interesting to me. Good luck with your potential IPO. Cheers.
Wasn't there something in the CBA 2 prior to this one similar to this called salary slots? Needless to say, that didn't work and this idea, while an interesting theory, wouldn't work in practice.
For all out there I hereby go off topic and wish everyone a wonderful Fourth of July: http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=1515334696 Be safe and be well.
