Lockout!!!

[Marty McFly]

A hard-cap actually hampers the ability of a small-market team to keep their players or attract others. Seriously think about it.

True, but we can't really do that very effectively as it is now. For me though, it's not so much about the Jazz getting shafted as it is the Lakers/Heat/Celtics/etc having it way too easy. If a hard cap makes it slightly harder to keep Gasol, Kobe, Odom and Bynum on the same team... or LeBron, Wade and Bosh... then the road for this CURRENT Jazz team (and the team of the last 5 years, RIP) would instantly be a lot easier, even if we still can't attract and keep stars.

Seriously though, all I hear about all day every day is millionaires arguing with millionaires over millions whether it's politics or sports or whatever. I just want to watch some quality basketball. Please.

 

[One Brow]

A soft cap with revenue distribution and some provisions for allowing teams to have an advantage in keeping players is the best chance the small-market teams have to be competive financially. You still need to run a team well, of course.

 

[shadler]

A hard-cap actually hampers the ability of a small-market team to keep their players or attract others. Seriously think about it.

And I don't know if you've actually read the ****ing thread, but most people are quite GOP about this.

How does that hurt the small market from keeping their players when every other team wont be able to keep their players? And who said I was talking about the thread but it seems to be you are against a hard cap? What you said makes no sense at all. Utah is ranked one of the last places where players want to play at. So how does that hurt the jazz? You don't see the kobes or lebrons just flying over here wanting to play for the Jazz anyway. A hard cap will hurt the big markets in a huge way to do anything. Look at how much the lakers and Boston had been paying for with their players they have. You take a few of those players away from those teams they would have never won the title. Also if you are the jazz you would still be seeing players like wes matthews on the team. You think Portland would have gave him a huge contract? So it helps the Jazz a lot more then you think.

 

[GVC]

Why are Jazz fans against the owners in all if this? I would be happy to wait a few years of no basketball if it meant a hard cap to level the playing field out there. If there was one thing I was sick of watching this year was all nba players making a joke of the game. Instead of basketball it was all about the big markets and the money. Now they have their stupid t-shirts to go with their pride. If they don't fix the problem now then you can pretty much kiss the Jazz chances of winning any title soon goodbye. People on here sit and talk about how the owners should cough of the money like it was candy just so we can have a season. If you are a Jazz fan you want a hard cap because frankly the Jazz are not in a market where people want to be and the they also don't have that kind of money to throw out. I want to see teams like the thunder and cavs get a title instead of watching the lakers and heat ever year. Shouldn't be about the big markets and owners who have more money. It should be about the game.

Some people (me, for example) are siding with the players because the owners demands are ridiculous relative to other American pro sports leagues. The owners want their current revenue sharing model PLUS a guarantee that ALL teams are in the black, regardless of how poorly they're run and what ridiculous backwater they're located in. Revenue sharing should be on the table. Players receiving less than 50% of revenues should be off the table. The players seem willing to compromise to get the NBA season started as soon as possible. The owners don't. It's a stupid game of chicken the NBA is playing, and unless the players cave entirely, everyone is going to lose BIG.

 

[GVC]

How does that hurt the small market from keeping their players when every other team wont be able to keep their players?

Consider what Miami did last offseason. LeBron and Chris Bosh took LESS money to play in Miami because endorsements and favorable income tax laws easily made up the difference. Star players are willing to play for less in better markets, and teams like the Jazz will still have to pay more to attract them. I'm not arguing that a hard cap wouldn't help, but it certainly won't level the playing field completely.

 

[margodydek]

I agree that the owners definitely need to budge, but for years NBA players have had it better than everyone. And when I say everyone I mean everyone. There wasn't a more well paid set of employees in the world than the NBA players. The owners want the players to give into all their demands and the players are probably hoping to meet them half way, but I think it should be more like players move 3/4 of the way and the owners at least move 1/4 of the way off of their current stance. I'll say it again, if I were the players I'd choose one demand (guaranteed contracts, longer contracts, soft-cap, whatever) and stick to that one, while giving into the rest.

 

[shadler]

Consider what Miami did last offseason. LeBron and Chris Bosh took LESS money to play in Miami because endorsements and favorable income tax laws easily made up the difference. Star players are willing to play for less in better markets, and teams like the Jazz will still have to pay more to attract them. I'm not arguing that a hard cap wouldn't help, but it certainly won't level the playing field completely.

I see what you are saying it it may be true to a point but teams are going to have to look at what they can do as well. Say there is a 60 million on a hard cap and you look at what the three bigs are going to make. The big three is going to make close to 65 million alone in 2015 and that leaves no room for any other player. Players might give up some of their money but they are not going to give up a lot of it. Not sure if I just read this right or not on the net but it looks like lebron is making more this year then he was last year with the cavs. I don't see how lebron, Bosh, or wade took a pay cut from what i look at what their salaries are. They all are going to make more then 20 million in 2014-16 and that is not less. If i had to bet is that all three of those players are making more now then they did last year. If you had a cap one of those players if not all would not give up that money to play with each other. Depends on what the max salary is as well.

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

I agree that the owners definitely need to budge, but for years NBA players have had it better than everyone. And when I say everyone I mean everyone. There wasn't a more well paid set of employees in the world than the NBA players. The owners want the players to give into all their demands and the players are probably hoping to meet them half way, but I think it should be more like players move 3/4 of the way and the owners at least move 1/4 of the way off of their current stance. I'll say it again, if I were the players I'd choose one demand (guaranteed contracts, longer contracts, soft-cap, whatever) and stick to that one, while giving into the rest.

I want to agree with you but I think MLB players are probably in a better situation.

 

[GVC]

I see what you are saying it it may be true to a point but teams are going to have to look at what they can do as well. Say there is a 60 million on a hard cap and you look at what the three bigs are going to make. The big three is going to make close to 65 million alone in 2015 and that leaves no room for any other player. Players might give up some of their money but they are not going to give up a lot of it. Not sure if I just read this right or not on the net but it looks like lebron is making more this year then he was last year with the cavs. I don't see how lebron, Bosh, or wade took a pay cut from what i look at what their salaries are. They all are going to make more then 20 million in 2014-16 and that is not less. If i had to bet is that all three of those players are making more now then they did last year. If you had a cap one of those players if not all would not give up that money to play with each other. Depends on what the max salary is as well.

LeBron and Bosh took less money than their previous teams (and others) were offering.

The current soft cap, more than anything else, helps teams keep their own players. Yes, a few teams go over the LT line every year (although very few by very little), but for the most part the current setup helps teams keep their players and add solid roll players (with the MLE, LLE, etc.). A hard cap wouldn't solve that problem, and teams like the Jazz would have to jettison their players (since they've been over the cap AND LT in recent years) just like the big spenders.

 

[GVC]

Also, a hard cap in the NBA would likely cause more player movement than it does in the NHL and NFL. NHL teams carry 20/21 players on their roster AND have a true minor league system to develop and draw players from. NFL teams carry 53 players. When teams in these two leagues find themselves up against the cap, they have a lot of flexibility to move/cut players without reshaping their rosters entirely. Even with the NBA's soft cap, teams seem to be forced to make more drastic roster changes from year to year than their NFL and NHL counterparts, largely because NBA teams only carry 13-15 players total (including DLeague players) and generally count on only 8-10 to carry the team. A hard cap would make the NBA trade market and free agency an absolute cluster ****.

 

[margodydek]

I want to agree with you but I think MLB players are probably in a better situation.

Average NBA salary: $5.3MM
Average MLB salary: $3.3MM

I know people will harp on the NBA salary being at $5.3 and they'll say that the median is closer to $2MM per player, but it doesn't really matter because regardless of who has what contract, the players get 57% of revenue.

It's pretty simple as to why NBA players are above the rest. There are fewer of them, thus there's more to go around. Which on the flipside probably means that becoming an NBA player is harder than the rest.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Looks like the owners are caving first. Considering about 20% of the player base will be making money in Europe by the end of the year, while 100% of the owners will be losing boatloads of money, I''m not surprised. They have authorized Stern to negotiate alternatives to the hard cap.

https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32015/ready-to-negotiate-that-hard-cap-david-stern

 

[margodydek]

Looks like the owners are caving first. Considering about 20% of the player base will be making money in Europe by the end of the year, while 100% of the owners will be losing boatloads of money, I''m not surprised. They have authorized Stern to negotiate alternatives to the hard cap.

https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32015/ready-to-negotiate-that-hard-cap-david-stern

Economically I don't think the players have any leverage on the owners. The only reason the owners would be compelled to give in is the fear of the backlash from media/fans from missing games.

 

[shadler]

LeBron and Bosh took less money than their previous teams (and others) were offering.

The current soft cap, more than anything else, helps teams keep their own players. Yes, a few teams go over the LT line every year (although very few by very little), but for the most part the current setup helps teams keep their players and add solid roll players (with the MLE, LLE, etc.). A hard cap wouldn't solve that problem, and teams like the Jazz would have to jettison their players (since they've been over the cap AND LT in recent years) just like the big spenders.

With a hard cap every team would have to jettison their players and the jazz can't afford to go over the cap every year anyway. Players value will go down as well because teams can not pay for them. With the way it is setup now I don't see teams keeping their players. I been seeing way too much of players bolting for the bigger markets. I think the way it is has hurt the Jazz more then anything because teams with more money can out pay what the jazz can. Our starter now is Cj miles instead of wes mathews and that doesn't help because we couldn't pay that extra money. With a hard cap it gives the Gms more options on what they want to do. Most of those teams that are over the LT are the ones that are winning titles in the bigger markets. I just don't see how it has been helping the Jazz at all. We had to trade away our best player and start over.

 

[GVC]

The only reason the owners would be compelled to give in is the fear of the backlash from media/fans from missing games.

Bull ****. If the players are really willing to go 50/50 on revenue (which has been reported as a possibility), then the owners have a **** ton to lose, as their teams' values would plummet if the season is lost, especially if you think it's a real possibility that the NHL would swoop in and take a bunch of the available TV money (which I think is almost certainly the case). As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, in spite of the reported economic losses the NBA has experienced in the last few years, most (all?) NBA owners have done quite well over the long haul.

I'd love to see a 6 year CBA with a 50/50 revenue split, max contract lengths shortened by a year, the LT to cap ratio lowered, salary roll-backs to account for the reduction in the cap/LT and a return to 18-year-old draft eligibility. I can't see why the owners would turn that CBA down, even with the soft cap in place.

 

[GVC]

the jazz can't afford to go over the cap every year anyway

The Jazz have been over the cap since the 04/05 season (I think...certainly since the 05/06 season). That's the case with all but a few NBA teams every season. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't understand how the NBA's soft cap works.

 

[GVC]

Our starter now is Cj miles instead of wes mathews and that doesn't help because we couldn't pay that extra money.

The Jazz re-signed Memo two years ago, went out and got Al Jefferson last year, and then signed Raja Bell. The Jazz could easily have kept Matthews if they valued him as much as the Blazers did. The Jazz had the 5th highest payroll last season, after the Lakers, the Magic, The Mavs and the Celtics.

 

[margodydek]

Bull ****. If the players are really willing to go 50/50 on revenue (which has been reported as a possibility), then the owners have a **** ton to lose, as their teams' values would plummet if the season is lost, especially if you think it's a real possibility that the NHL would swoop in and take a bunch of the available TV money (which I think is almost certainly the case). As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, in spite of the reported economic losses the NBA has experienced in the last few years, most (all?) NBA owners have done quite well over the long haul.

Maybe I didn't say it right. My point was that players playing overseas does not give them leverage over the owners by saying, "see we don't need you, we can still make money without you". If I were an owner I wouldn't be scared of players signing contracts over seas. What I would be scared of is exactly what you said, and what I called backlash. I'm not sure they understand just how pissed people/fans will be and they would definitely run the risk of losing goodwill, which is worth a lot, from the public.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Maybe I didn't say it right. My point was that players playing overseas does not give them leverage over the owners by saying, "see we don't need you, we can still make money without you". If I were an owner I wouldn't be scared of players signing contracts over seas. What I would be scared of is exactly what you said, and what I called backlash. I'm not sure they understand just how pissed people/fans will be and they would definitely run the risk of losing goodwill, which is worth a lot, from the public.

The backlash factor is very real, but they were also counting on the fact many players burn through most of their money and save little for a rainy day. Take a player like JR Smith for example, dumb as a door nob and probably has less than a million in his bank account. Without Europe he would have two choices, liquidate assets to pay his bills, or give in to the owner's demands. He can now check option C: none of the above.

 

[GVC]

Maybe I didn't say it right. My point was that players playing overseas does not give them leverage over the owners by saying, "see we don't need you, we can still make money without you". If I were an owner I wouldn't be scared of players signing contracts over seas. What I would be scared of is exactly what you said, and what I called backlash. I'm not sure they understand just how pissed people/fans will be and they would definitely run the risk of losing goodwill, which is worth a lot, from the public.

Fair enough. I don't disagree.