http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_p...ophic_war_between_owners_and_players_in_2011/ This is a long story about the future CBA with suggestions for new financial strategies by players and management. Do you think it will fly? I see some weaknesses -- players being much more selfish because the suggested contract lends great import to their personal statistics -- but overall this plan makes sense. Thoughts?
So, a large part of salary would be based on all-star/all nba/mvp voting? And, minutes played? What happens to an injured star, like Yao last year?
Boooooooooooooo. This plan has so many flaws I seriously don't know where to begin. How about I just go with the obvious...a player is locked into a 4 yr deal every time then sign, until they are 31....then 3 year deals after that? Yes the team can drop them whenever they please? How is that fair? The team can get out a s crap deal on their part, but if a dude signs with a team and is stuck on the pine he has to stay there for 4 years...when his pay is based off his playing time?
Only a portion would be all star and all NBA voting, like a bonus, the "base" salary would be based on playing time and productivity. He talked about the injury issue, a separate fund to pay injured players either their last year's salary or the average of their last three years' salary, whichever is higher.
I really like that the coaches would have a ton of latitude to help them with headcases. They could have a headcase ride the pine, effectively giving the Starbury's of the league a massive pay cut. That could do a lot for the collective attitudes of the prima donnas.
I kinda agree with you. However, not all guys that don't get along with their coaches are headcases. For example, a coach like Larry Brown can be an a$$ at times. Or a good player like V-Rad shouldn't be stuck on the bench (and losing $$ because of it) just because his coach doesn't like him or thinks someone is a better fit for the system. In that case (where the agreement clearly isn't working), the team shouldn't be able to get out of the deal for nothing while the player is stuck if he doesn't like the system, the team doesn't build around him like they promised, etc.
Dumb. The solution is easy. Have a hard cap but make it easy for teams to get rid of the cap hit for injury and plain suckiness. Kind of like the a modified NFL system except the contracts are still guaranteed.
My thoughts: Keep the cap, alter the Luxury Tax: LT remains 125% of the cap, but there is a "forgiveness" zone in the first 4% (one year only, not applicable if the second consecutive year above the tax line)(as in: Cap is $60M, LT is $75M, Forgiveness line if at $78M or less). Only teams below the tax share in the luxury tax revenue ("forgiveness" teams don't pay tax but do not share in revenue) Double Luxury Tax ($2 per $1 over) at and above 140% of cap ($84M with a $60M cap). A team at $90M would pay $9M in LT + $12M in 2LT for a total of $21M (today it would be $15M). The Luxury Tax is a great thing - it keeps almost everyone's payroll under control, and it is a solid form of revenue sharing that protects small markets like Milwaukee. Make the MLE skip years and the LLE annual. Swap their frequencies - the MLE has been the primary source of bad contracts since the last CBA (Juwan Howard, Mike James, etc). Dropping the MLE to a max of 3 or 4 years would also be a good idea. Stem the raises. 10% raises in max deals is way too much. Even when the economy is going strong, inflation is well below that. 6% raises on max contracts (own team) to 4% (sign with new team). 10% raises on rookie deals (think about the kids). 5% on everything else. Lemon Law. Team out options after 2 years into 5+ year contracts. If exercised, team will buy out the rest of the contract for 30% of the money due on the third year. Exercising the option removes the cap implications after the following (third) year, similar to a medical retirement. This should make a big dent in the common problem of guys playing out of their minds to earn a huge deal, only to show up to camp out of shape or disclose that they really needed microfracture surgery immediately after signing.
Although it was an interesting read, the proposed idea is horribly flawed and many of those problems have been pointed out here. I think the best idea is to have players' contracts based on the health of the league. Let's say a player is making $5 mil a year. If the overall NBA revenues increase 10% the next year, the player would be paid $5.5 million. However, if they decreased 10%, he would be payed $4.5 million. This would help to prevent the current problem of owners being locked into long-term contracts based on boom years, even as the league faces falling revenues.
Doesn't the CBA have a system where part of everyone's salary is put in escrow with part of that money going back to the league if the players get too much of the BRI? Wasn't that included to protect the league from labor costs during an economic decline? Is it not working?
