You are correct about one thing, these teams are bad due to bad management in drafting and signing players. Spending is not the sole explanation for why these teams suck. There is an article at ESPN that addresses myths about competitive balance. It lays out that success in the NBA correlates more strongly with drafting than spending. Drafting accounted for 34% of wins compared to the 7% explained by spending. No, the owners should hardline over the system with regard to either a hard cap or going all out and revamping the system by eliminating a cap altogether and instituting relegation and promotion. This is a dynamic way of instituting something like contraction but with the benefit of making relegation (and promotion) games more exciting for fans. The right system can make all the difference. With regard to the financial system, it annoys me how much the North American sports league model relies on public subsidies to exist. I would much rather see a system that more sustainable in its own right. If the NBA insists on the current monopoly franchise system, then true revenue sharing is a must. Someone on the board mentioned earlier that competing teams should split the gate and TV revenue for each game they play at something like 60-40. That is pretty radical. At least go the NFL route. Even that doesn't protect owners from themselves or deal with mooches like Sterling. One thing I would like to see the league do is move more toward promoting team play. Call every freaking traveling and palming violation. Make them pass the rock. Also, loosen up the hand check rule to allow the lat 1980s, early 1990s version of the hand check back in the game. This will decrease the dominance of a single player on the court. It will also decrease the number of manufactured superstars, though. Oh, and I agree with Major that the NBA could deal with talent distribution more directly by eliminating the max salary.
Is suspect is has to do with the idea that the NFL negotiation was finalized only when the threat of missing games became real. That was an 11th hour agreement. By waiting this late, I think Kessler is trying to rectify how he and the NFL players handled things calling the owner's bluff that they are willing to miss a season. It isn't the courtroom, but the out of court settlement the players are most banking on.
silver lining... the lockout is only playing more into daryl morey's hands guys. each contract is getting shorter and teams are going to be more willing to deal after all this time off ...??? owners will send a message and do some real wheelin and dealin
What happened in the NFL? The owners crushed the players. If anything, that alone proved that the players were unwilling to miss games. As a season is much more valuable for a player as opposed to an owner, it is really not their bluff to call....
In the NFL case, the argument is that neither side wanted to miss games. Whether you or I agree with that is immaterial and we have no way of knowing. But apparently Boies and Kessler, who were both involved in the NFL case, with Boies representing the NFL, have solid opinions on the matter. If I were a player, I would hate to miss a year of salary out of a career not likely to last ten years. I don't know how many other avenues they have or making NBA money, even under the terms the league has offered. But here we are.
The problem is, there are superstars and there are Superstars. The only solution is to limit each team to have only one player paid more than 15M a year, three players more than 10M, 7 players more than 5M and so forth. Those numbers can be adjusted and fine tuned. And do away max contracts and salary cap. You can pay LeBron 40M but you can't get another 15M+ player. I've always like the relegation idea. It's the most effective way to stop tanking. Anyway, the idea of competitive balance is not that every team is equally good in the same year. The idea is that every team, if managed well, should have a good chance of becoming good in a fairly short time no matter where it is located.
What sucks is not knowing. If the season was canceled, I could forget about the NBA until next Summer, but the lingering uncertainty is really souring my Holidays.
My issue with hard caps is two fold. First off, it would do more to hurt profitability than help it. The reason is because you have to have a pretty high minimum cap to make up for all the teams that cannot overspend. The second is that it will force teams that do draft a couple of stars, such as the current OKC & Bulls squads, to have to split their teams up. They will have no other alternative, and it will be a shame to sports fans everywhere to watch teams that were managed smartly and grew up together to have to be split up because of the "system" and some nameless "competitive balance" statement. Now while I would love to enact your system of relegation into professional sports into American professional sports. It will absolutely never happen. Heck, imagine trying to convince the powers that be in college sports even though it may actually be feasible. There are many reasons why but that would take away from this thread. Essentially my point is that there is no point hankering after something that will absolutely never happen and frankly cannot happen in the USA. Most major corporations and economic areas rely on some sort of public support or subsidies. It is the nature of our governmental & economic structure. Don't see why professional sports franchises should be any different, especially since they typically act as a "representative" and living advertisement of your city. I do wish they weren't so bed together, but there are not enough interested people rich enough to outright control an entire team. I do however feel that the Green Bay Packers' ownership model could work in other areas of the country if there is enough of a groundswell from the bottom up. However, all current American professional leagues have essentially banned that system from occurring. (The Packers have been allowed to continue in their current scheme due to a grandfather clause) The biggest issue here, that the manufactured personalities and superstars were what allowed the game to grow and become as big as it currently is. Every team needs a face of the franchise to sort of sell itself and get better national recognition. Even the major teams in the NFL and MLB have those guys even if their teams are not totally reliant on them to succeed. It the easiest way to relate to most fans, and to get them care about their teams. On top of that, basketball is the one sport where 1 great player does make just that much difference. There is a reason why historically, there has been very little balance as to which teams win championships. The very best players affect the game so much on both sides that it immensely difficult to overcome. It would be extremely difficult to hide or ignore that aspect of the game. Having said that, I would love for games to be officiated more fairly, and to remove the "highlights" that happen because of "2 steps and a hop" or whatever. Agreed that this is the fairest change to do this. ЯR
Somehow the NFL manages with their hard cap. A hardcap combined with no salary limits and revenue sharing can work. I bring up a system these owners would not want to illustrate the flaws in the current model. There is much economic scholarship on the advantages of the monopoly model and the relegation model, how they could work in the US in theory, and why they won't be implemented in practice. But if we are going to discuss the system, I just jump in with both feet. I do not think they should be treated differently. I will not go D&D on this, but suffice it to say that I think that if your business model needs the subsidies to both exist and grow, then it is a model that should be done away with. Especially if the idea is to push more externalities on the public while hoarding profit. The idea is not to ignore or try to eliminate a fundamental truth about basketball. The idea is to alter the rules to shift the economic valuation of specific skills. The NBA can craft rules that increase the value of a man defender, a strong catch and shoot player, or a dribble penetrator lacking a jumpshot. The rules can also put more value on players able to play within a team concept and system. I think the two changes I mentioned can help accomplish that. If you really don't have the handles for it, you should not be trying to break down the defense. Pass the ball as the ref will not ignore your traveling, etc. I think that is a better outcome than altering the rules to make penetration easier, while, in effect, increasing the power of the individual player over the team. No need to dial back the clock to the 1960s. There is enough talent in the league now to carry the league without trying to make good players into stars through the rules.
NFL'S hard cap per team is $120 million dollars. The salary floor is $106 million for this year. Say the NBA cap is set at $70 million. The floor is $62.3 million. 8 teams last year would have had to INCREASE their total player salaries. Does not exactly help teams profitability does it? NFL also combines ALL its TV revenues. NBA does not do that. Non-national TV games get to be spent by the local team only. Sure if you share that revenue amongst all the teams it would help, but will the Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, et. al. share that money? Will they share enough of it? No one is telling us the answer to this. Lastly, the NFL model survives because they have non-guaranteed contracts. I however do not agree at all with the idea of non-guaranteed contracts for a sports athlete. I still cannot fathom how that the NFL works that way, given the condition many of their athletes are in when they have to leave the league. (Though, this is much bigger discussion deserving it's own thread within which DD cannot post 15 million times continually re-stating: Players are stupid, players are stupid. They don't deserve that money for being fat & lazy.) I would love the idea of no salary limits, because GM's like Morey would pawn all the other GM's. However, for a business model this faces issues because of: 1. We have GM's who give horrible Max Salary deals and Mid-level deals to players who do not deserve them. How many of those bad deals will you expect if there is no limitation on their stupidity? Right now the owners are trying to say "we need protection from ourselves". No limits would do the opposite. 2. Say a GM is smart and only gives money that is deserved to the players he is supposed to. Now say he has 13 players signed to contracts and has used up $50 million of the cap. Remember that floor above? He needs to sign 2 more players, but now he HAS to use up the remaining $12.3 million to do so. Doesn't matter if they players are not good enough, he trying to rebuild, etc. Essentially a Hard Cap model can force bad contracts to ensure you reach the salary floor. Agreed. Would love to discuss that somewhere else. Again should have own thread in D&D, but realize that with that sentiment, you have now extremely affected the oil industry, the farming/food production industry, health care, aeronautics, any defense spending, and the motor vehicles industry. That sentiment only works if corporations do not have the ability to up and move to another country. Since pro sports cannot relocate, it may be possibly feasible under the right circumstances, but the owners and such could just say screw you and close up the entire industry. Sadly, in the USA cities, counties, and states are still competing so much with each other they don't realize this bigger issue and its consequences. It may improve the NBA but only if done in a very limited sense. Essentially make the rules be called as written, not as currently interpreted, and hope it limits the building up of false stars. Some could argue though that the playoffs do tend to do that, since a lot of those calls are not made, more physicality is allowed, and the best teams working together do tend to win. If your not careful though, you risk turning the NBA into a specialist's game, like the NFL or MLB. The beauty of the NBA, though, is that is NOT a specialist's game. Every player has to be able to do at least a little bit of everything. Honestly, this part is determined by what the league is trying to sell. The game was becoming much defense dominant and team oriented in the 90's and early 2000's. Starting with the Bad Boy Pistons up until the end of the Spurs' runs. Stern and the NBA purposely made those changes to "improve the scoring and fun factor"; a bet that it would help ratings and interest. ЯR
I wonder if guaranteed contracts actually protect the owners. How many of these guys who aren't worth their contracts are in in that condition because of an injury? Elsewhere people can sue their employers for loss of future earnings. That can be more years at higher rates than what they're given now.
I never thought about it like that. I am sure in the contract their are waivers that you sign to not be able to sue because of that. My main concern is for guys like Shawn Livingston who have their knees destroyed while playing in a regular game. If it was not for him having a guaranteed contract he would not have had the money to rehab all those years to revive his career. I hope the players are for negotiating long term health care for basketball related injuries after a player is no longer affiliated with a team.
owners have insurance to cover injuries. The claim is likely tied to whether the injury passes the litmus test to be awarded a disabled player exception by the NBA. I suppose if a player's contract is not guaranteed, then the owner wouldn't need injury insurance.
opticon, If I was worried about permanent injury, I would put in for long-term disability insurance(more than 1 yr) also. Disability insurance, unlike health insurance, would cover about 50-70% of your salary. You could use the money for non-medical expenses like mortgage payments, car payments, alternative medical care, athletic trainers, etc. They would be able to cover their living expenses and rehab on their own without taking a roster spot and without taking up cap space. Of course, players would rather get 100% of their salary and use the team's resources for rehab. If the injury is believed to be a short-term issue(e.g. Yao's surgery), players on a non-guaranteed contract would be kept until rehab is complete. They don't want to risk living a player to another team, next season.
This would need to be purchased as a group plan. Right now, I believe the Owners buy. I suppose, with no guaranteed contracts, the Union would do it. anyhow, this is a minor issue. Whether contracts are guaranteed or players/owners have injury insurance protection ... one or the other will cover injuries. The only main issue about guaranteed contracts is whether you can waive/cut a player for lack of skill, and immediately stop paying his salary and get his salary off your salary cap.
With disability insurance, I would get paid for several years after the contract ends. If my contract ends, there is no additional compensation(e.g. Barkley, Mutombo, Yao) past the contract length without insurance.
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've read about this idea before, Easy, and I have to disagree with you. Establishing a "second tier" relegates a couple of teams to the "minors" every season, with those franchises having no idea when they'd make it back to the Show. So what do the fans in those cities have to look forward to? No surety when they'd be bumped up to the "bigs," yet season ticket holders would still be paying thousands for their seats. Corporate sponsers would go ballistic. Income from the Toy Box (in our case) would plument. If a franchise had poor management, they could be sent down for years. Sure, it would be great for the fans of the NBDL teams, but those aren't fans of cities like Houston, so what do the teams sent down gain? If they were assured of a top 5 pick during the next draft if that happened, and perhaps an extra high second rounder every season until they made it back to the Show, that might help mitigate things and make it less difficult to get back to the top tier, but who loses those picks? Too complicated, in my opinion, and a far better option is to shrink the league. Get rid of the teams that simply can't turn a profit and can't field a competitive team year after year. Increase the talent pool. Have fewer teams going after the top talent, leading to an over all more competitive league. A healthier league. Slash the number of games played by ten a year. Create more balance by insuring that the teams remaining have payrolls without such a huge disparity, even if it makes the LA's, the Boston's, and the New York's scream. Have each team required to have an NBDL team that they own and make it easier to move players back and forth to the NBA franchise, like in baseball. The Rockets have been a leader in using the NBDL. Let teams like the Rockets, all the teams, take full advantage of it. Sure, also include many of the other reforms, but to my way of thinking, that's far better than relegation.
The worst teams being sent to a 2nd tier NBDL is a decent idea, but it assures that the two top-5 lottery pick and rookie of the year candidate will be stuck in the NBDL for their rookie season every season. Who wants to watch the next Rose/LeBron/Durant beating up on NBDL scrubs, before they get to play against the big boys?
Deckard, My understanding of relegation is the 2 or 4 worse teams are always moved down (each year?), replaced by the 2 or 4 teams that won in the 2nd tier. You wouldn't be moved down forever, by definition. Question about relegation: are those teams still participants in the NBA draft? And how so? emjohn: I disagree regarding making the relegated teams release their top talent. If you do that, then it is an out for top talent on bad teams...all the have to do is tank as players, and they are released. That's no good. If the team sinks to 2nd tier, the players MuST go with them. A problem with both relegation and contraction (which I favor 100% according to what Deckard just detailed) is what about the cities who funded a stadium. Will they sue you if you kick them out of the league?
Relegation will never happen. The owners lose too much money in that kind of system because of franchise value fluctuation. They're even looking into removing it in the English Premier League for that reason. Besides which, the foundation of relegation is that there are a number of teams in a league that will never compete for a title. Those teams that will forever be near the bottom of the top league or at the top of the lower league are basically farm teams for the top money teams. Their fans know they will never win a title. That will not fly in American sports. Fans will abandon teams that drop down, fans will ignore teams that end up in the relegation/promotion cycle, and the league as a whole will lose revenue (via fans and sponsors). There is no chance a relegation system happens. None. Contraction makes sense though. Drop a couple teams, and then move a couple teams to better markets and you've got good league health again.
