Good points, but I guess I didn't make my initial point clear enough. I'm not talking about player collusion, I'm talking about the fact that owners are not allowed to get together as a group, even secretly, and say, "hey guys, let's not outbid each other for this or that free agent." That's the original meaning of collusion in baseball, which changed free agency in sports forever, and caused player's salaries to skyrocket.blackjitsu wrote:
Hard cap fixes ALL of this. >:/
I was unsure about my opinions on the NBA labour disputes, but thank god there are people like Gilbert who are willing to simplify the issues down to a Grade 1 level. Complete with the spelling, grammar, and punctuation of a Grade 1 student, no less.
The horrible generalizing stereotyper in me expects better from somebody named "Gilbert"
I agree as long as it is fair. The idea of a flex cap (i.e. NHL cap) with a target in the mid-high $60's and an absolute cap in the low-mid $70's seems more than fair for all parties.
The players want it all ways, they want:
1) the ability to have a free and open market (which they should have) to fetch top dollar for every possible player,
2) they want to be able to point the finger of blame at the owners for giving out such contracts
3) they do not want to have any onus or responsibility to play up to their contracts and refuse to give owners an opportunity to fix the mistakes of the Michael Redd's, Eddy Curry's, or Biendris' of the league.
Personally, I don't give a sh!t about millionaires fighting it out with billionaires. What I care about is creating a fair league where most teams are competitive and have a real chance to win each year - the current system doesn't allow it.
To those who point to small market teams such as San Antonio or OKC:
San Antonio hit the lottery jack pot in when David Robinson sat for the almost the entire season to then pick #1 and get Duncan. They have done their part on getting players around Duncan but when you're talking about one of the best big men of all time, that is not an insurmountable task.
OKC haven't had to pay Westbrook - yet - but they will. But what happens when Harden and Ibaka come up for renewal in the same year in 2 seasons time? They are competitive now and will continue to be for a year or two with current roster but will they be able to keep this core together for 8-10 years as their age would suggest they should be able to?
*EDIT*
I was in a rush at the end earlier - joys of wife and child waiting to go for a walk on a nice summer evening.... but it was a great trek.
A couple of additions:
1) The owners currently have a system of revenue sharing in place with the luxury tax system (every $ over the luxury tax in salary is equal to $2). The teams that pay luxury tax have the tax money divided up among the non-tax paying teams. I believe there were 6 or 7 teams who paid tax in 2011 however this was a different year because of the impending new CBA and many teams prepared for this. Using 2010 as an example (because I can't find definitive information on this past season), 10 teams were over the cap for a total of approximately $110M. That left $5.5M for each team who did not pay tax. It might not be the best way of revenue sharing but it is something.
2) As for additional revenue sharing, arguments of capitalism or socialism among players having to take cutbacks in salary can equally be given for owners of successful/profitable franchises - why should they suffer due to poorly run franchises inadequacy? The owners have contended that the CBA and revenue sharing amongst owners are separate - and I have to agree with them. Once the owners figure out how much revenue is shared with the players they can look at how much is shared with each other. Also do not forget that the owners share of the revenue is used to pay for arenas, travel, insurance, medical, trainers, coaching, scouting, management, marketing, etc. etc.
Again, I don't give a sh!t about millionaires debating and fighting billionaires, it comes down to trying to have as many fans of franchises having a legitimate hope and prayer of their team making deep playoff runs and, even better, competing for banners and championships each year.
Last edited by Matt52; Mon Jul 4th, 2011 at 06:48 PM.
Very well said sir! Summed it up nicely.
Eh follow my TWITTER!
Mow-Ron
I am sick and tired of hearing how the owners expect the players to fix the spending problem over player salaries. Think about it...What salient advice can you expect from a moron who thinks it prudent to bring a gun to work to make a point.
I gotta get this one off my chest....
Whose business is this anyway? The NBA owners run a North American basketbal cartel. It's stupid for players to think otherwise. The NBA is a business to which the players contribute very little. Take the best 20 players in the last 20 years and remove them from the face of basketball and what do you have? You know it...A new top 20. The point is the NBA as a business is incredibly successful at creating money making superstars. That's what they do and that will always be the case when you have a short 48 minute game.
Now the problem starts when the owners realize they need a winner in order to sell tickets and television deals. They need a team where people and corporations will pay big money to be part of their fanbase or sponsorship.
Therein lies the problem...Joe Fan...The backbone to professional sports demands the best. This fan site proves it...We all demand the raptors to be winners. We do not silently tolerate teams who are destined to lose for the foreseeable future.
...Back to our friend Gilbert...What he fails to realize is that the NBA players do not assume any of their owners risk to play this sport. They, the owners start with their own capital and assume enormous amounts of risk in order to extract dollars from Joe Fan with a sellable product. The players (via their parasitic agents) make it impossible for every team to compete by negotiating such a large piece of the pie. When the players get 57% of revenue with 0% risk spread over 30 regional profit centers you have an unsustainable model. I don't even think a 50-50 split will do it either. Could you imagine what would happen to Mcdonalds or Walmart if over 70% of the stores where not profitable? Oh and yes that is how you have to look at this...Each NBA franchise is a Mcdonalds restaurant and NOT a Burger King and a Mcdonalds and a White Castle and a Wendys etc.
Who is to blame...Both the owners and the players but mostly the players for threatening to cripple the small market owners if they don't pay out gobs of money. Also a smaller chunk of blame goes to the large market teams who enable free agent talent with the promise of money and fame and thereby making it financial suicide for a smaller market team to compete on the same level.
The solution...Simple...Create a hard cap that gives players far less than 50% of gross revenue. I'm not sure what the actual number would be but I think 22 teams will not become profitable with a payroll hard cap that is only a few percentages lower. Also, the NBA should consider increasing the game duration to 60 minutes. This would take the luster off of some of the stars who simply can't last that long and force teams to use their bench in order to win. What would happen to baseball if it were 7 innings or hockey and football if they were 48 minutes each. You would have sports where a few stars are able to dominate the game and the reliance on the bench is minimized therefore the importance of a "A" list star who can carry the day is now essential. Without the relative importance of such stars you no longer need rely on the pampered 20 million dollar athlete who if you don't do things according to their mindset they leave town and leave you reeling for years to come...If you successfully eliminate the Prima Donnas in sport then you don't need to "build around" them...You simply need to build a team.
Last edited by gradgrind101; Mon Jul 4th, 2011 at 08:38 PM. Reason: Inadvertently posted incomplete message
I agree with alot of what you said, my only concern is with a true hard cap. The reason being teams who have paid their dues (ie. rebuilt) drafted smart, used FA and trades wisely can now still be limited by players whose contracts are ending.
Look at hockey and the Chicago Blackhawks specifically. Spend years rebuilding. Make smart draft choices and develop those players, used FA wisely and a few trades. End result Stanley Cup. That same offseason they basically have to tear their team apart (it was 6-8 key players anyways) because they weren't allowed to pay them. Thats something I don't want to see in basketball.
At the same time I don't want to see teams buy their teams either. My idea would include a franchise tag for each team and also reduce max contracts significantly (and probably salaries across the board). I'd also like to see some small luxury room aswell. That is if the salary cap is say 60 mil, you can pay luxury up to 70 mil (at to 2:1) where it is then hard capped. If we leave the onus on the players to take less or go else where, well we are going to see alot of players changing teams regularily.
Ofcourse the easiest solution is to not make contracts guaranteed, but I highly doubt that will ever happen.
I actually believe you are a nba owner trying to sell its bs to the players. Every team sold within the last 15 years is essentially allowed to cook the books. The price of buying the franchise can be used as an depreciation expense over 15 years. This is a giant loophole in the American tax system and the fact that 20-35 million can be used as depreciation each year obviously causes teams actually making money to appear as if they lose money. Another reason for the 'losses' is that owners force teams to take out high interest loans from the owners in order for there to be a high interest expense. This is also financial bs and has no relation to the players. If these things are accounted for very few teams are losing money, and that can only be because they are in very small markets. A team can relocate to a city where they can actually make money instead of staying in a small town like Milwaukee.
Also if a hard cap would be instated, it is almost guarenteed the highest salaries would not cahnge. You can use the NHL as an example and clearly all of the best players still make boatloads of money. It is the other starters and bench players who actually took pay cuts. We are not talking about 20 million dollar prima donnas but people who worked their butts of to make the nba, and are continually working to remain there.
People dont pay money to watch the owners, we go to games and buy jerseys for the players. If you removed the top 20 players of any decade the NBA most likely would have folded 50 years ago. There would be no fan base without the Russell/Chamberlain, Magic/Bird, and the Jordan eras. Players are the league, the owners just own it.
to me thats the only beneficial thing to this lockout that and the likeliness that raptors get a good pick
If the hard cap was in the $70M range with no player earning more than 20% of the cap figure I think many of the concerns would be solved on the hard cap.
As for the Blackhawks, I'd rather be a fan of theirs post hard cap than pre-hard cap. The joy of watching a team grow over a few seasons, win, get torn apart, and watch it grow again would be much better than a continuation of what Raptors and other perennial bottom dwellers fans have enjoyed for the last number of years - but that is just my opinion.
Teams allowed to spend $70M and pay players $14M a year .. Ya, I'm not sure thats what the owners have in mind as an 'overhaul to the system'. haha
People need to keep in mind that the Raptors HAVE been successful with the Current System. Far more successful than teams like Golden State and the Clippers, both of whom are 'key' markets.
And a hard cap IS NOT going to make any difference. If teams like the Lakers can still spend $70M on a team, you don't think they're going to find some way to Back Load contracts and get their guy anyway? Free Agency is NOT the only way to build a team. Its actually one of the least Effective options if you ask me, and capping teams at $70M, hard cap or not, isn't going to change ANYTHING in the league. If this new CBA has our best interests in mind, the Franchise Player tag is the only one that will be a game changer. Complete game changer. In my opinion.
ADD And even with the Franchise tag, Vince Carter still shits the bed for half a season, and we still trade him for Magic Beans.
I'd be in favour of teams that lose a certain level of Free Agent, getting a draft Pick. Ala MLB. Even if its a late First Rounder. But seeing as the NBA draft is MUCH smaller in scale than the MLB, that probably wouldn't work.
Last edited by joey_hesketh; Tue Jul 5th, 2011 at 07:16 AM.
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
― Oscar Wilde
If a "flex cap" as has been proposed was brought in at say $63M and teams were permitted to go up to $70M - why not?
The problem is the teams that get superstars (Kobe, Garnett) and give them huge deals ($20 plus M) then can sign their own free agents with Bird's Rights and use exemptions to, especially MLE's, to keep spending over the current cap of $58M. How fair is it for teams to be limited to $65-$70M in salary while LAL/DAL/ORL can spend $90M which is actually $110M - we are talking nearly double the salary (with tax) in some cases.
A hard cap in the high $60's with no player able to get more than 20% solves the issue of a player getting 1/3 of the salary cap (like Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis) and over 50% (Kobe Bryant).
It also makes it so no team can spend more than $70M - period - and this is where sound management and good drafting comes in to play. Currently every year a team over the cap can give a 29/30 year old veteran $35M over 5 years to come play for a championship on a team with a payroll already in luxury tax area - to the owner this contract now is $70M over 5 years with tax, do you see OKC or MEM or SAC shelling out this money? The only way a small market team can do this is if their owner is a billionaire such as ORL or POR - and more power to those fans for having an owner with endless pockets.
As for back loading contracts - that is fine. But remember, under such a hard cap system, no player can get more than 20% of the cap. So as a player would you take a 5 year contract of $5M/$8/11/14/14 or a $11/12/13/14/14 or $14M for all years? Keep in mind Bosh, LBJ gave up about $1.5M per season in a state where 47 of their games have no income tax - they didn't give up much in terms of percentage of total contract - about 5% (about $5M on a $95M contract) in salary but savings income tax takes it down to negligible. If you start talking a situation where they take a back loaded contract costing them $19M, I think tunes change for 99/100 players.
Having a hard cap doesn't just change the game for free agency, it also changes the game for trades. The 125% plus 100K can be thrown out the window. All of a sudden a rebuilding team can trade their franchise/all-star/highest paid player for a draft pick(s) and players on rookie deals to a team needing one player to get them over the hump - in one trade they gain financial flexibility, inject youth, and draft picks without having to take back bad contracts to just make them a worse product on the court and lose more financially off the court.
I disagree with the success Toronto has had. They, like all other teams that are not contending, have had to overpay to get talent. The Raptors, of course, have to deal with the Canada stigma as well. The MLE only further exacerbates the problem giving players who do not deserve 5 years and $35M leverage to get owners to overspend. The owners could say no but then we are in to collusion and no longer a free market for players - again they want it all ways to their benefit. Comparing the Raptors to the Warriors or LAC is like saying Katrina victims were better off than those in Haiti or Japan - all are bad and I would not wish the fortunes of any of citizens of those countries on anyone nor would I wish the fortunes of the Warriors/Clippers/Raptors on any sports fans (except maybe the Celtics or HEAT - lol). It should be mentioned the Clippers appear to have turned the corner but that is not a given yet and given their owner/management track record odds are they screw it up - but that is another thread.
Most teams pay up to the luxury tax in the current system. The need is to eliminate the ability of some teams to spend more than other teams. It is only at that point can teams compete on equal footing. It is only at that point does prudent financial planning and sound drafting determine on-court success versus opening the cheque book.
Again, I have to reiterate, I really don't care about millionaires versus billionaires. I want to see a system that gives fans of as many franchises have a legitimate hope to compete for a championship each year - or if their team sucks, an opportunity to have a chance to compete in a couple of seasons. It just so happens this vision aligns more closely with what the owners are pushing - even though it is obviously in their own best interests for the bottom line.
Last edited by Matt52; Tue Jul 5th, 2011 at 08:36 AM.
those numbers were just a rough example not the specific number it should be.
A hard cap would make a huge difference. Teams would not only be limited in signing FA, but it would also limit trades.
And don't forget free agency doesn't only mean signing other FAs, its also resigning your own. For example, imagine the Lakers as they are with a hard cap and Kobe coming up on a contract year. If they are at or near the cap they will either need to let Kobe walk, or move a ton of players to make space for him. You can't tell me that isn't going to be a franchise altering decision.
I'd also assume the NBA would keep is current length of contract rule (which the NHL was stupid enough not to include), and teams wouldn't be able to sign players for 20 year contracts. They could back load a contract sure... but then they are leaving themselves in a ton of trouble down the road.
One of the problems is with enforcing a hard cap... its one thing to say you can't do it, its another for an adequate punishment. Taking away draft picks is one, hefty fines another, hell even doing what soccer does (albeit with rowdy fans) and not allowing fans to home games if a team is over the cap would be amazing. I guarantee that if a team signed 5 players to 5 year deals at 1, 2, 3, 4 then 14 mil, and then they are forced play home games without fans due to being over the cap they'd never do it again (and have other owners pissed). Even not allowing teams that are over the cap to be in playoff contention, that is they play out the year but can not play in the playoffs, would definetely be an eye opener.
As for a franchise tag player not turning out... well thats always a chance you take with a guaranteed contract. That simply cannot be helped.
I had not thought of the enforcement. Those are some stiff penalties and no doubt would ensure teams toe the line. Great points.
and what if a team does something similar to the blackhawks but doesn't win? can you still be as happy about it then? Or pissed that your team is building and improving but one contract coming due completely alters the team? There will be 30 teams trying to do (roughly) the same thing... and only 1 can win in any give year. Only 2 make the finals, only 4 make the semi-finals. There will be a lot of teams along the way not achieving much but then having to restart because they can't afford their players.
Its not that I have a problem with the hard cap per se (alot I like about it), just I don't want to see teams forced to give up on their players they developed and built with because they aren't allowed to pay them. Its going to eliminate smart teams doing things right (ex SA).. although not completely..... and will result in, who got luckiest that year with value contracts.... and I'm not sure thats necessarily much better than who spent that most in any given year. (maybe it is in the sense of a more level playing field... but it doesn't in the sense of teams earning their title. Eg. as much as Dallas is one of the worst offenders for paying out cash, didn't you prefer seeing them win by building a team over a decade or so than Miami having cap space available at a convient time? What about when the Lakers played Boston in the 'Big 3's first season? Or goign forward OKC winning next year and then being able to continue with that team, rather than say GS able to grab Chris Paul and Dwight Howard and then win because their respective teams couldn't afford to keep them?)
Honestly its not an easy solution... but I think Joey_big country_Hesketh is right in that any new CBA has to include a franchise player tag. For me a Franchise Tag + Hard cap = best bet for the fans. The issue will just be with teams actually using their tags properly (I can totally picture the Raps with Bargnani as their franchise tag player)
All valid points but this is where smart management will win out. I'd rather these types of situations where teams have to make difficult decisions but have options versus being handcuffed in the current situation.
Your point about number of winners, finals, semi's - all valid. Personally, I'd like to see the Kings or Wolves or Raptors or Wizard have a chance more than once every 20 years. I'd like to see more runs by a team like MEM rather than a progression through the playoffs as the top teams often do in the first round and sometimes two.
Good point. But if Chicago is truly a good organization that drafts and develops better than the rest of the league they will be back on top. If they got lucky their trades and draft choices and everything peaks at the right time you would have to conclude that as an organization they overachieved and now they are back to where they belong.
I didn't want to really get into this so I'll be brief...My thoughts are that the players should get a hard cap of about 15-25% of gross revenue as a base salary. On top of that players earn performance bonuses via a controlled or league sanctioned schedule. There could be more than one schedule of base pay + bonuses so that all players may be competitive. By this I mean there could be rookie schedules, veteran schedules etc. You could also skew the rewards somewhat so that players who remain with their teams longer get a lightly larger piece of the team bonus pie. It might seem complicated but it really doesn't have to be. The bottom line is...If you perform well as a player and a team you earn more money on top of your base.
One more thought...The draft should never be a lottery. It should be the average of the last 3 years so the team with the worst record over the last 3 seasons picks first. They need help the most and should get the pick.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote