DD, you know that a hard cap without non-guaranteed contracts leads to more problems and less overall competition than there currently is.
Maybe there should be some guarantee on contracts, but how they are fully guaranteed right now has proven to pay people like Rashard Lewis and his great great great great great grandchildren.
(About not getting hurt) Name 10 players who don't give a ****, who showed zero signs of acting that way before they got their contracts...
I would think the players themselves are fractured. The lower echelon group should be able to see that if they don't give, they're going to wind up with less job availability due to contraction. Don't make sense. How much money you gotta have anyways?
Agree. The crap that Lebron pulled going to Miami the way he did and recruiting Bosh, cemented the owners resolve in fixing their system issues. The system is flawed big time.
I like non-guranteed contracts because that motivates the players, but I think part of it should be guranteed (like a certain percentage) otherwise, stupid managers will get a free pass.
The thing about it is that I've never had a problem with the fact that Lebron left for Miami, and Miami depending on how you look at it, took a huge risks - I mean, they basically tanked for two straight years to do that, as well as the Knicks. I mean, he was a complete dick about HOW he did it, but what, should he have been forced to play for that crap Cleveland team for his whole career? It's his ******* choice, and I can't support a system which would basically lock him up there and not give him any choice about where he wants to play. You mean Number 1? Like I said, if the owners actually considered revenue sharing, then I would have more sympathy for their claims on how they're trying to make things equal. But we've heard NOTHING on any plans to deal with revenue sharing. NOTHING. So how can we take them seriously if they refuse to do that?
The Lux tax is their way of sharing revenue.......but you are correct, they should be sharing all revenue like the NFL. DD
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7147909/nba-lockout-owners-discussing-revenue-sharing-sources-say If the 8 profitable teams gave up $300 million, then there would be 30 teams losing money instead of 22. The 8 formerly profitable teams would be come unprofitable teams with a loss of $150 mill($150 mil profit - $300 mil revenue sharing). The 22 money losing teams will end up with $150 mil losses(-$300 mil loss + $300 mil revenue sharing). Revenue sharing starts with having more profitable teams than money losers. Reducing the BRI, so that that there are 22 profitable teams with $450 million and 8 teams losing $150 million would change the whole dynamic. The 22 profitable teams could give up $200 million and provide a profit of $50 for the 8 losers. Split the $50 mil between the 8 teams, and they each make 6 mil/yr. It'sa decent profit for the owner. If you have more teams losing money than making money, revenue sharing only spreads the losses. The math is not favorable unless: 1) The number of profitable teams are increased to increase the number of teams that can contribute to a revenue sharing plan 2) The number of teams needing revenue sharing to be profitable is reduced.
Now if you take increased revenue sharing + some money from the union in terms of reduced BRI, would that help? I would think so.
If the owners really wanted to ensure profitability and ensure a competitive "equality" for all NBA teams in the future, maybe they should finally buy out that stupid Silnas brothers' contract they signed at the ABA-NBA merger. It's not like they have not proposed terms for a buyout in the past. There have been numbers passed back and forth, but the NBA has just been complete idiots about the whole thing. That contract only costs the NBA ~$15 million a year from the national TV contract plus a percentage of the Nuggets, Pacers, Nets, and Spurs local TV deals. Seems like a good amount of money if your losing ~$180 million a year and two of those four teams "are in the red".
If the BRI is dropped 7% from 57% to 50%. It would be $280 mil($4 bil BRI x 0.07). It would make up most of the $300 million loss. There would still be $20 mil, which would be covered by increased ticket and revenues within a season. Yes, that's why the NBA is so adamant on a 50% BRI split instead 53%. Instead of thinking, The $120 million gap between 53% and 50% is the difference between bleeding more money every season, or breaking even. Breaking even point would be good. It gives a fair shot to every team to be profitable with revenue sharing. The money makers like the Knicks would have to be less wasteful on bad contracts, while the money losers like the Timberwolves could afford better free agents like Amare Stoudemire instead of surving on rookie contracts. The Knicks would become unprofitable if they kept offering Jared Jeffries and Eddy Curry $$$ contracts, if the revenue sharing made it a zero sum game.
The Timberwolves were able to afford Kevin Garnett's $20 million a year contract, and still able to bring in Sprewell and Cassell despite all their other idiotic GM deals to get to the WCF. Correlation does not equal causation.
http://www.tcbmag.com/peoplecompanies/starters/95107p2.aspx It is no coincidence that the only years that they lost money was during the KG/Sprewell/Cassell Era from 2004-2007. Small market teams are unable to sign star free agents, without going unprofitable. That's why it was KG and the B-team for so many years. After they had some profits saved up money and paid off their $40-45 million in loans, they went after Sprewell and Cassell. Thanks for highlighting those losses, rpr.
Because losing 3 1st round draft picks on cheap contracts after the Joe Smith debacle as well as the signing of Michael Olowokandi for a 3-year, $15 million dollar deal, the resigning of Troy Hudson for a 6 year, $36 million dollar deal, and the resigning of Wally Szczerbiak for a 6 year, $63 million dollar deal had absolutely nothing to do with that? I'm not arguing that Garnett's deal was not ludicrious but that issue has already been dealt with since max contracts are capped. But the Timberwolves didn't lose money because they tried to compete. They lost money because they made bad investments and took ill-advised risks. In other words, they were badly managed.
This is all based on taking the owners at their word that they lost 300 million. I dont think it's nearly that much. Guaranteed revenue sharing would only subsidize the poorly run teams. How would that lead to better decision making or help the game? Maybe this league should have less teams. If the talent is intent on flocking to major markets, so be it. The league made record revenue last year, thanks to the players. Asking them to take a bath because of the Torontos, Minnesotas, and other crap franchises is silly.
Look, the players got a great deal last time, and the lack of a cap is ridiculous......the owners need to take a hard line for the good of their franchise and the league. Sorry people don't like it, but in the end it has to be done. DD
