So what? Can you see the future? Do you know what the BRI will be 6 years from now? If you are old enough to know about investing, you will know bond rates with 6 year duration are higher than bond rates with 1 year duration, that's because the longer the time frame you are looking at the higher the risk is. Asking the players to change their salary to % that will be depended on the BRI will cause volatility in their earnings, in return for that they will want higher base salary since they are taking more risk. The cap will always change upwards of 3M, that is already big enough to change the salaries of minimum-3M players significantly, and these comprise a significant population of NBA players. I didn't say they aren't fighting hard now I said they will fight HARDER. Like I said before the players fight hard for their % but that is with the knowledge they know how much money they are gonna make. If you tell them there is a possibility that they can lose money then of course they will take a harder stance and demand higher % of the profits. So what's the point of doing this if you are saying it's just a 1 time thing because of the sudden increase in cap? By your own argument there is no point in making further changes because the damage has already been done. No that's not how the current system works. If the salary cap is 100M and you max out your cap you will have a salary of 100M. If the cap increased to 110M you will have 10M of salaries to spend on players. If the cap rises just 3M, so what that's still 3M you can use in additional players. The "raises" you talk about is just staggering of their contract value over multiple years, over the course of their contract players will still make the exact amount they have agreed to. It has nothing to do with cap increase or decrease and does not affect cap room because these players made less on their previous years. Once players have their contract set their salary is fixed, that's why Curry was only making 15M prior to his new contract even if the salary cap increased. But in the system being proposed if you already used 100% of your cap no matter how much the cap rises you are still stuck with the same players, just that the owners are paying more than what they did last year. Players on current contract will like that, but new/Free agents won't like that because they will be squeezed out of the picture, like if your contract ends what are your choices in free agency if every team is capped out and they don't get any wiggle room even if the cap increases? Like I said, before someone spend all the time and effort thinking of proposals they should first think of benefits of players and owners. Owners definitely won't like this change because they will end up paying more money for the same players if we assume the current trend of cap increasing. NBA players wouldn't like it because it will make their earnings volatile and it limits their choices in Free agency. Maybe you forgot but Kevin Durant himself is a member of the NBA player association. Will he like a move that prevents him from joining multiple teams? And its not just him every NBA free agent will find it hard to switch teams if this change is implemented. So even before the NBA players submit this change they will face division and opposition within, this is the same reason why hard cap and no max salaries have not been proposed by the players. It's a dumb proposal who will introduce this in the CBA when they can introduce other conditions that unilaterally benefit their side? These two parties want the max amount of benefits they can get, whoever proposes this suddenly loses leverage on the bargaining table because if one side says this, the other side will say ok you want this system? Fine then give me X, Y and Z. The NBA audience just pay for the product, we have no bargaining power in these negotiations and we are not even a party to it. **** like parity or w/e these aren't stuff owners and players care about at all. Players make their own parity if they want to win a ring then they can just join Lebron or GSW for vet min. Owners care about making $$$ on their billion dollar investment, if you propose a change like this it is more likely to cost them more than make them money. Again who will be dumb enough to propose this on the bargaining table?
do you understand that most players have contracts that have raises every year? a guy who signs for 3 yrs / $9M typically makes something like 2.85, 3, 3.15 in those 3 years. it's not fixed. I'm guessing they like getting as much money as possible already. CBA negotations stick for like 7 years and are about getting as much of the pie as possible for the long term. not slightly increasing next year's money. and players as a whole will get the exact same amount of money no matter which of these 2 systems is used, I can't tell if you are getting that. % contracts may or may not have any effect on next year's salaries. against, almost every contract includes raises already. the system is essentially already designed like how I am proposing, just without actually doing it correctly. it's like saying you are going to give everyone at a company a raise based on the CPI, but then just guessing what the CPI will be instead of actually using the CPI. the players will get the exact same amount of money overall. the only way they can "lose" money is if BRI goes down, in which case the cap goes down, in which case less money goes to the players, exactly the same as the current system. so if something bad happens, you don't make plans to deal with it in the future? you just say, well it already happened which means it can never happen again so no need to take precautions? and yes, this isn't the biggest deal ever. we're not arguing over the future of western civilization, just tweaking a system to do what the system is already trying to do. no, that's not how it works. almost every contract has raises from year to year. a team at 100M with no free agents is almost certainly going to have well over 100M committed next season. I think raises average about 6%. so if the cap goes up 6%, you will have no cap room. you need the cap to go up more to have cap room. a small 3M rise will mean you are over the cap. exact same as current system. if there are free agents, that means they came off their team's cap and there is now cap room around the league. every team can't be capped out with no free agents and there also be a bunch of free agents at the same. same as the current system. cap room comes from free agents. owners will pay out exactly the same amount. players will make the same amount. they split BRI 50/50, essentially no matter what. that is written in the CBA. it only limits it when the cap goes way up, in which case all the guys already under contract do not get to share in that cap spike and are essentially underpaid. everyone who signs a long term contract right now essentially agrees to be underpaid for the rest of their contract if the cap goes up a lot. would you rather sign a 5 year contract and be underpaid in years 2-5 or not be underpaid in years 2-5? I'd probably choose not being underpaid. for every overpaid player there has to be an underpaid player. yes, that would happen, in a one time cap explosion scenario. otherwise it wouldn't have that effect. and why would you want the benefits of a cap explosion to only go to the 25% of the league that is free agents? there's a 75% you will miss out on it. would you rather take part in it or miss out on it? players don't like max salaries because only a few of them are worth it and it underpays the max guys and overpays the middle of the road players. it has no effect on how much either side makes. only on cap management and preventing random swings in the cap from affecting only a select few instead of many. they made the luxury tax much worse than last time because the owner's wanted more parity, or at least the smaller markets do. but % contracts doesn't have much, if anything, to do with parity. it will cost who more exactly? it doesn't affect BRI, nor the owner/player split of BRI. so how will it cost them money?
LMAO you really shouldn't be arguing me on this issue because you apparently don't understand anything about this proposal. 2.85/3/3.15 for 3 years is FIXED salary, the player and the team agrees on the breakdown amount when the contract is signed and the player understands that at the end of 3 years he will have 9M in his pocket. It is not a given that the salary will increase or decrease it is all up to how the team and player structures the payment but at the end of the contract the player will still receive the exact amount they had agreed to. There is no volatility in that because the players knows exactly what his salary will be no matter what the BRI is. If the NBA suffers a revenue loss next year and the BRI and cap half in amount, the player doesn't give a **** because he will still make whatever the amount is stipulated in his contract unless the league is dissolved and the NBA team declares bankruptcy. The proposed change will make the salary a % of the cap, meaning if the cap increases or decreases for the year then his earnings will also increase or decrease, this is regardless of whether the amount is staggered or not. For example if you have 100M cap and you agree on a 3M 3 year contract. A normal NBA contract will be something 0.85/1/1,15 but for simplicity it will be referred to as 1/per. In this case, the percentage will be 0.85/1/1.15 of the cap but will be referred to as 1%/PER. However, in the first scenario the player is guaranteed to take 3M no matter what but in the 2nd scenario the player will make more or make less than his agreed upon 3M salary depending on the cap. If the cap increases then the player will make more than his agreed upon salary, but if it decreases he will lose money ie in 3 years he will get less than 3M a year. Again this is regardless whether they stagger the payment or just pay a flat rate every year. This is the volatility I'm talking about and why players don't like it because more volatility means more risk. and more risk should result in a better reward so they will ask for a higher profit share then they had agreed to before. OTH, owners will not want it because they will lose more money if the trend of cap increase continues. You need to wrap your head around this basic concept before you start arguing with me because all your arguments don't. make sense. If you want an example let's use the real world. What if Pat Bev had signed his current salary during this proposed change?: Bev Contract: 17,999,999/3 or roughly 6M per year or 8.5% of the cap in 2015 A. Real World Year 2015 2016 2017 Salary 6,486,486 6,000,000 5,513,513 Total 17,999,999 B. Proposed change Year 2015 2016 2017 NBA cap 70M 94.143M 102M Bev Salary 5,950,000 8,002,155 8,670,000 Total Salary 22,622,155 So in the real world Bev would make his agreed upon salary of 18M but in the fictional world with % salaries he will make 4.6M more. This isn't something brought upon by "staggering" the salaries as you keep talking about, this is actual profit for the player and actual loss for the owner on top of their agreed upon salary already. This is the volatility I'm talking about regarding linking salaries to % of the cap and why it is a dumb assumption because the cap doesn't stay the same year after year, it changes upwards or downwards so players and owners will make more or less depending on what happens. This alone causes a big issue whenever something happens like cap spikes due to more NBA revenues or cap declines due to less NBA revenue, players would be looking at major bonuses or dips in their income and the owners will be looking at paying significantly more or less than what they expected. This idea will cause more problems then they fix that is why it will never be proposed. You also keep talking both sides of your mouth, you keep insisting nothing will change that owners will pay the same etc. but then you go ahead and say in a one time cap explosion 75% will benefit. How can there be benefits if owners are paying the same amount as before? More importantly if there really are no benefits and no downsides why will the players and owners propose this idea then? You and the OP can circle jerk and agree with 100 other people that this idea should get proposed but guess what, neither of you are players nor owners so what does it matter? You have failed to provide any compelling reason for either owners or players to submit this proposal so why will they do it if it still results in the same situation and nothing will change? You even deny that this is for parity so no parity, no benefits, no downsides...why exactly would anybody waste their time on this proposal then when they can use their energy on something that will give them benefits? The increased luxury tax happened because something changed, other teams get more money through the luxury tax. That is a strong benefit for the proposal which is why it got done and the players don't really care because they aren't affected either way, it's an internal matter between owners. This proposal has major effects for both sides which I had already discussed in my previous post, and even if you are correct and "owners still pay the same as the previous system" then nobody will take the initiative to propose this because they don't gain anything. You need to carefully read my previous post because your reply shows you didn't understand anything I or the OP said.
