What's new
By:

Lockout!!!

And that same fear had permeated the Jazz FO regarding Deron Williams. I suspect it was the reason the Jazz chose to trade him rather than wait and lose him later with no compensation.
The small-market owners should see this as a RARE opportunity to band together with enough clout (as in VOTES) to get Stern's attention and get this issue resolved now.
 
Gameface said:
If the players want to negotiate pay on an individual basis then what's the union for? I'm pretty sure it wasn't set up by the owners.
Click to expand...

1) The union allows the NBA to avoid anti-trust legislation.
2) Before the union, the teams adopted rules league-wide. They did not act as individual entities in a competition. So, back then ther was no free market for players, either.
 
NotDeadYet said:
Escalating player salaries and benefits are largely responsible.
Click to expand...

Player salaries have been capped at 57% of BRI for over a decade. There has only been excalation to match proportionate increases in revenues.

NotDeadYet said:
If the NBA chooses to follow the path of the NFL and NHL with a hard salary cap, both of which have made great strides toward competitiveness for all teams regardless of market-size,
Click to expand...

Green Bay did well before the hard cap, and the hard cap didn't help St. Louis. It's effectiveness has been overstated by the owners.
 
Can someone explain what happens to the player's share of the BRI? Where does the money go? Who gets it and in what amount? For instance how much would Gordon Hayward receive each year from the BRI? Does anybody know how this works?
 
I work in a nursing home and had to explain to an avid Jazz fan why there was no basketball. I'm pretty sure she will be ok and here to see games when they come back but it really put home the ridiculousness of the situation trying to explain it to somebody that needs a little help understanding.

Ugh.
 
The Pearl said:
Discuss

https://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8300/two-economists-explain-the-nba-lockout
Click to expand...

.....I liked this paragraph!

Why don’t the players settle?
"Perhaps because they have done so well in the past, it’s hard for the players to accept that the owners are dead set on MC-hammering them this time. They feel, correctly, that they have been making all the concessions. Imagine trying to redo your “chores deal” with your spouse, with one side giving in on every negotiating point. As human beings, we are programmed to reject one-sided deals, even when surrender might be the rational choice."

MCHammer! One of the original hip hoppers! Comes back to haunt the players! Yes, the players Union is going to get MCHammered!
 
Then there's this:
Is it economically worthwhile for the players to hold out for $500 million?
No. Total NBA salaries last year were over $1.5 billion, about three times the amount they are fighting over. Canceling a third of the current season would wipe out the gain of winning the extra 2.5 percent of BRI over the life of the new collective bargaining agreement. Canceling the whole season over 2.5 percent of BRI is insane for the players.

...but then slapping your entire body with jail-house tats is INSANE!!!
 
GVC said:
Nice and concise. Grantland has been the best source for lockout articles BY FAR. I've never understood the hate for Bill Simmons.
Click to expand...
I believe it is just ingrained in Jazzfanz culture due to him not giving proper respect (or perceived respect) to the statues (S&M).
Oh and yes that was a good read.
 
Fine article, but no discussion of the hard cap. I understand the hard cap is not a GUARANTEE, especially initially, of all teams being competitive, but over time EVERY team's CHANCES at being competitive greatly increase. We can clearly see that trend in the NFL and even the NHL.
 
NotDeadYet said:
Fine article, but no discussion of the hard cap. I understand the hard cap is not a GUARANTEE, especially initially, of all teams being competitive, but over time EVERY team's CHANCES at being competitive greatly increase. We can clearly see that trend in the NFL and even the NHL.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
 
You all realize that the total percentage of revenues that teams would allocate to players was already set at a hard cap right?
 
Sirkickyass said:
You all realize that the total percentage of revenues that teams would allocate to players was already set at a hard cap right?
Click to expand...
I'm probably not getting what you're asking here but I don't think anybody thought the BRI was anything but fixed (or hard) there was talk of maybe negotiating a flex BRI. The only other thing I could think of being confused (besides me) is that this year the NBA had to pay the PA a chunk of money because the players salaries didn't equal 57% so the players did get some checks sometime this week (or so I read). Didn't see how the chunk was divided up on who got what.

But that is another question in my head I've been meaning to ask if the BRI is at a certain % but players are still fighting over hard caps or a "harder" cap claiming it keeps them from making money, or even guaranteed or partial guaranteed contracts in the end if the NBA teams don't meet the BRI % the NBA still cuts them a check. I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.
 
//r00t 4 Jazz said:
I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.
Click to expand...

...players that get "cut" do what we did when we lost the court in sandlot basketball...they go home with there tails between there legs!
 
Sirkickyass said:
You all realize that the total percentage of revenues that teams would allocate to players was already set at a hard cap right?
Click to expand...

It's a hard cap for the NBA as a whole (total revenue vs. total player salaries) but not on a team by team basis. One team can still spend way more than their share of that "hard cap."
 
//r00t 4 Jazz said:
I'm probably not getting what you're asking here but I don't think anybody thought the BRI was anything but fixed (or hard) there was talk of maybe negotiating a flex BRI. The only other thing I could think of being confused (besides me) is that this year the NBA had to pay the PA a chunk of money because the players salaries didn't equal 57% so the players did get some checks sometime this week (or so I read). Didn't see how the chunk was divided up on who got what.

But that is another question in my head I've been meaning to ask if the BRI is at a certain % but players are still fighting over hard caps or a "harder" cap claiming it keeps them from making money, or even guaranteed or partial guaranteed contracts in the end if the NBA teams don't meet the BRI % the NBA still cuts them a check. I would think they could work out something that players that got cut and didn't get resigned and/or other "victims" of these new potential new system ideas could get a bigger portion of the cut.
Click to expand...

I believe that the reason the Players Union is against a hard cap is not for financial purposes, but rather to lessen any restrictions they have about which teams they can play for. For instance, a hard cap would really make it difficult for 3 stars (Miami Heat) to all play on the same team and still have enough remaining under the cap to fill out the roster. A hard cap would end the mid-level exception, and probably lots of bird rights. Kicky is exactly right in that the amount of $ the players as a whole receive is pretty much set!

Most seasons, the amount of player contracts actually exceeds the 57%, so every year the NBA holds back a percentage of their salaries. Then, if the previously paid out salaries don't equal 57% (or the agreed upon %), the NBA distributes the escrow money that it previously held onto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top