If the Players hate the hard cap so much - why don't they come up with a better system so that all teams can COMPETE for championship?
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
The players, more specifically the player's union, is not in the business of caring about competitiveness. It only cares about how much total money its players make.
Yeah I know that - but unless you can create a system that the owners' are happy with, I don't think this issue will ever get resolved.
To me it is the heart of the problem. With a hard cap - teams with the most cap (Read: not teams named LA, NY or Miami) will be able to attract big name free agents - and for once have a chance at winning and Yes make a bit of money along the way.
Revenue sharing only goes so far - winning is the only sure way of getting people through the gates and make real money.
So if there is a better system than the Hard Cap - let's hear it!
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Andre Kirilenko made almost $18 million last season. He made similar amounts since his contract began. Did he bring that much economic value to the team? Probably not even close. Had the contract not been guaranteed the Jazz probably would have cut him long ago. Under the threat of being cut if he didn't perform. Andre might have felt more pressure to play basketball instead of World of Warcraft.
Carlos Boozer repeatedly demonstrated that maximizing his value for his next contract was more important to him than giving his all under his current contract. He imagined that playing at less than 100% health could have the effect of shortening his career, so he sat out whenever he felt a slight tweak. Economically this made the most sense to him because he he still got paid under his current contract, and he'd be more likely to have a longer career and thus future contracts as well.
Nearly every other employee in the world works under an environment where their continued employment is contingent on their performance. If most employees didn't show up for work because they didn't feel perfect they would be replaced. If most employees didn't produce benefit that exceeded their cost they would be out of a job. Until the NBA adopts the sorts of employment rules that govern the rest of the world these sorts of problems will continue.
Carlos Boozer repeatedly demonstrated that maximizing his value for his next contract was more important to him than giving his all under his current contract. He imagined that playing at less than 100% health could have the effect of shortening his career, so he sat out whenever he felt a slight tweak. Economically this made the most sense to him because he he still got paid under his current contract, and he'd be more likely to have a longer career and thus future contracts as well.
Nearly every other employee in the world works under an environment where their continued employment is contingent on their performance. If most employees didn't show up for work because they didn't feel perfect they would be replaced. If most employees didn't produce benefit that exceeded their cost they would be out of a job. Until the NBA adopts the sorts of employment rules that govern the rest of the world these sorts of problems will continue.
However, reportedly it is the owners that are refusing to include income redistribution in the CBA talks, not the players. The players want to give every franchise a chance to compete by equalizing profit margins, the owners are insisting that this be done through a hard(ish) cap.
Nearly every other employee in the world does not have the unique set of skills that allows them to sign guarnateed contracts. However, in any industry, you'll find there are some employees that do get similar contract guarantees.
Did AK hold a gun to LM's head to make him sign that agreement? Do any of the players do that? I too hate these guaranteed contracts but they voluntarily agreed to by both sides. If the owners sign stupid deals that is their fault. Would you refuse to sign a contract for $1 million to show up for work for the next year if you boss put it under your nose? I doubt it.
Don't blame the players for taking what they can get. In our system we all do it and are fools if we do not. It is up to the NBA to make it fair and make it competitive. I think the players just want their fair share of an enormous amount of revenue the NBA generates.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not blaming Andre for signing that contract. He would have been a fool to pass it up. I also understand why LHM felt he had to offer it given the way the NBA works and the situation at the time. If it had been signed under the NFL agreement, though, Andre would have been required to perform in order to have continued earning the money. The team can cut ties if they sign a contract then decide that the performance they're receiving in return isn't worth the money. That's a better system.
Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
Interesting read:
Exclusive: How (And Why) An NBA Team Makes A $7 Million Profit Look Like A $28 Million Loss
https://deadspin.com/5816870/exclus...-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss
Exclusive: How (And Why) An NBA Team Makes A $7 Million Profit Look Like A $28 Million Loss
https://deadspin.com/5816870/exclus...-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss
mellow
Well-Known Member
Literaly? Probably not, but you never know with the Russian Maffia.
But com'on we all know what really happens. The players use every bit of leverage and threat to put the team in a corner, so the player can maximize his deal. Or did anyone imagine that one day while sitting at a golf course for a 'charity' event that LHM calls Andrei and says: You know sucess in business is about making good deals, buying low & selling high, cutting overhead & increasing sales and optimizing the risk/reward ratio, but to hell with all that--I want to pay you 17 mill for 6 years.The player knows the team has a limited number of roster spots and the teams want to stay competive and/or marketable. Many of the teams roster spots are filled with 19-yr old kids who can't play yet or the guy who is perpetually injured durring the middle of his contract or the 36 year old that hasn't played in 3 years but he has a guarantee. So the team has limited roster spots and salary available to keep the team competitive--thats when the player steps up and says I'm leaving town unless you give me X. Its not a gun, but to small markets, or the undesireable teams it might as well be.
AK and his agent did put the proverbial gun to LHMs head.
So did Milsap, his agent and Portland.
So did Mathews.
So did Memo for his extension.
LOL, though would they even be eligible to sign a D-league contract? I doubt it.
I KNOW this is a dumb question, but I don't really understand how this works for the players that are currently under contract. Isn't anyone whose current contract runs through the 2011-2012 season (or beyond) still under a valid contract? Shouldn't they still be working?
my little pea brain just can't keep up with all the intricacies of this and all that BRI stuff has me even more confused
Great find, great article. There are no white knights here, but the owners trying to portray themselves as beleaguered John Galt's is just laughable. Didn't they refuse to totally open their books to the players? That proves beyond any doubt that they have something to hide, that they are lying, and that they make more profit than they ever want to let on.
A small excerpt: "This can't be emphasized enough: Every year, taxpayers hand the plutocrats who own sports franchises a fat pile of money for no other reason than that one of those plutocrats, many years ago, convinced the IRS that his franchise is basically a herd of cattle. Fort calls it "special-interest legislation." "It's not illegal," he says. "It's just weird."
The billionaires get to hire numerous attorneys to take advantage of the numerous loopholes out there or even get a politician to write some up for them, like the above. I agree the players ought to be very grateful to be paid so much for playing a game, but hey deserve honesty and a fair cut. The owners, like so much of the modern corporate world, have total disdain for honesty and fairness, they want it all.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
Look, we can all debate who is at fault for large, ridiculous contracts and underperforming athletes but in the end I am convinced that in the new CBA (however long it takes) the owner's will have a way to wiggle out of a giant contract in which the player is underperforming. Whether it be a regular annual or biennial "amnesty" exception, or something that can only be done under certain circumstances, it's something that is essential in keeping team's competitive and not doomed for years because of one player.
Yes I know it would be essentially a way to save the owner's from themselves, but there would of course be regulations that punished reckless spending and ridiculous contracts.
Those of you siding with the players need to keep in mind that the owners represent the teams. Essentially, the more concessions the owners can get the more flexibility and leverage teams, ie the Jazz will have moving forward to build their team. Players are no more loyal than their next paycheck. We want the Jazz to come out of this CBA with the best chance to win and be competitive moving forward.
Yes I know it would be essentially a way to save the owner's from themselves, but there would of course be regulations that punished reckless spending and ridiculous contracts.
Those of you siding with the players need to keep in mind that the owners represent the teams. Essentially, the more concessions the owners can get the more flexibility and leverage teams, ie the Jazz will have moving forward to build their team. Players are no more loyal than their next paycheck. We want the Jazz to come out of this CBA with the best chance to win and be competitive moving forward.
DutchJazzer
Banned
what aboput the fans i keep hearing all about this ****ty fight between billionaires and millionaires
but since when is it ok to charge $100 foir a lowerbowl ticket to a frikking game taking 2 hours.
or about 20 bucks for snacks.
those prices should be lowered
but since when is it ok to charge $100 foir a lowerbowl ticket to a frikking game taking 2 hours.
or about 20 bucks for snacks.
those prices should be lowered
Did you pay it? Nuff said.
I am actually with you, but if the seats are full and there are long lines at the concession stands it won't change.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
This would be great. But then the players can forget about guaranteed contracts. If you don't want to play for the money you are paid then you are fired. If a team wants to be financially responsible it is very difficult to do that and claim you are trying to win.
Guaranteed contracts are the bane of the NBA. If the players want their guaranteed contracts then they need to be willing to make a lesser profit and submit to a hard cap.
They can't have it both ways. Either they are employee's or they are partners. Right now it seems like they want to be whichever one supports the argument of the day.
Give us our share of the income but don't expect us to take any of the risk we are just employees. Well last I checked employees don't have any say in how the income is spent beyond their individual salary.
Actually, everything I have read said the owners DID totally open their books to the players. That's how the players know about things like this.