Lockout!!!

[Stifle Tower]

Here's a good article by Larry Coon. https://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=coon_larry&page=NBAFinancials-110630

It's much more sympathetic to the players' point of view than most articles I've read. The single biggest item is that the owners are counting the cost of buying a franchise (done with loans) in the "operating costs" they are reporting. So, when they say that 22 of the 30 teams are losing money, that's including the cost of the loans. Which, in my opinion, it clearly shouldn't for this purpose.

That's not to say that the players have bent far enough... but this aspect of their position makes a lot more sense to me now.

In a thread in the NBA forum, I said there was no way the $300M figure was accurate. I'm sure there are some other fuzzy expenses or revenue sources that have been excluded. There are a handful of teams losing money, but most of that is based on terrible ownership or management. The Jazz turned a profit EVERY year Larry H. ran the team. The only losses have been in the last couple/ But that too, was a management decision...KOC could have been allowed to trade AK and get that salary off the books earlier.

Sure the owners want a bigger share of the pot, but the real problem lies in revenue-sharing. Don;t get me wrong, I hate the players union, but the owners are equally contemptible. Difference is that they have definitely been winning the PR battle. In the end, a deal will be reached and the real losers will be the fans, as ticket prices, concessions, merchandise and LP rates will inevitably rise.

 

[colton]

Sure the owners want a bigger share of the pot, but the real problem lies in revenue-sharing.

I wouldn't say it's the "real problem", but it's half the problem. I totally understand why the players were saying that they need the revenue sharing spelled out before they can figure out what the new CBA should be like.

If revenue sharing could be made much more like the NFL (I think it's something like each team keeps 40% of their income and sends the other 60% to the league HQ for redistribution), and if the players/owners could agree on a simple 50-50 split, the lockout could be over within a week. All of the other items pale in consequence to those two.

 

[zman1527]

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.

Why would the contracts go by the wayside? I am saying is the mega-millionaire who bought say the OKC franchise overpaid then why should anyone bail him out? Let him sell to someone else who inherits the contracts of the franchise. What's wrong with that? I hear a lot of whining multi-millionaires armed with modern (phony) accounting saying the have made a bad investment. Tough luck.

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.

Agreed about the contracts and I can see the hard cap. But the contracts are coming from the owners trying to outduel one another. The players are going along but no one is holding a gun to the owners heads either.

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.

Nor do employees have any say in how the business is run. Just like the players. I think the players have no control over management or accounting procedures so they are right to go for a straight percentage. 50-50 sounds perfectly fair to me.

 

[DutchJazzer]

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.

I paid nbalp for 6 eyars now everyyear it egts more and more and more expensive.
so maybe i dont have a right to complain about the ticket pric es or the frickin nachos. but i do have a rtight to complain about the damm nbalp prices

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I am in total agreement with Alaskan Assassin. And he sounds super smart.

Rep for you Newby!

 

[NUMBERICA]

Guaranteed contracts must go. Or at least be marginalized (have both a soft cap and then a hard cap and if a team would have to go beyond the hard cap to keep the team in tact, they're allotted the ability to cut whatever players necessary).

 

[NUMBERICA]

Real revenue sharing is important too. And get a franchise tag (make those the only guaranteed deals?). Players get more BRI.

 

[The Midnight]

Guaranteed contracts must go. Or at least be marginalized (have both a soft cap and then a hard cap and if a team would have to go beyond the hard cap to keep the team in tact, they're allotted the ability to cut whatever players necessary).

I think a Hard Cap is a must for all teams to be able to compete.

Having said that I agree that some adjustments need to be done about guaranteed contracts for the Hard Cap to work. I propose the following:

1. If player is fit to play but his production has simply declined - then the contract remains guaranteed. The player's salary would still count towards the cap - the team cannot sign another player if the team is at the Cap. (Good for players as they still get paid. Bad for owners, but that's up to their evaluation of the player)

2. If the player faces a season ending injury (as determined by a team of NBA doctors, i.e., Yao Ming's season ending injury), then teams are still liable to pay the players. But the player's salary will come off the Hard Cap total for that year. (Good for players as they still get paid. Good for owners as they can deduct the contract amount off the Hard Cap)

3. Teams can sign a player for 25% over the Max. contract (to be determined each year by the lague - say $15m), provided that the player has been with that team for more than 5 years. This 25% can also exceed the Hard Cap (it will be the only exception to the Hard Cap). (Good for players as they can go over the Cap. Good for owners as they can keep their star player).

Plus do the 50/50 split of revenue. I think that seems fair for both the Players and the Owners.

What do you guys think?

 

[Dr. Jones]

I respect that Hotttnickkk, nicely articulated (particularly the BOLD) and appreciate you sticking your neck out .. a little. Keep up the bold stuff, it's your calling card and don't let the haters (you know who you are) distract you.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I seriously cannot read those damn posts.

From what I skimmed, we're in agreeance. Thought it was implied enough to be assumed.

 

[gregbroncs]

I think a Hard Cap is a must for all teams to be able to compete.

Having said that I agree that some adjustments need to be done about guaranteed contracts for the Hard Cap to work. I propose the following:

1. If player is fit to play but his production has simply declined - then the contract remains guaranteed. (Good for players as they still get paid. Bad for owners, but that's up to their evaluation of the player)

2. If the player is unable to play (i.e., Yao Ming's season ending injury), then teams are still liable to pay the players. But the amount will come off the Hard Cap total for that year. (Good for players as they still get paid. Good for owners as they can deduct the contract amount off the Hard Cap)

3. Teams can sign a player for 25% over the Max. contract (to be determined each year by the lague - say $15m), provided that the player has been with that team for more than 5 years. This 25% can also exceed the Hard Cap (it will be the only exception to the Hard Cap). (Good for players as they can go over the Cap. Good for owners as they can keep their star player).

Plus do the 50/50 split of revenue. I think that seems fair for both the Players and the Owners.

What do you guys think?

Your ideas take a bad system and make them worse. You still have guaranteed contracts and a soft cap. Call a spade a spade if a team can go over the cap for any reason then it's not a hard cap. You leave in all of the guarantees for the players and give the teams the ability to go over the cap in more ways. Basically any player on a team for 5 years or more is not counted against the cap under the senario you outlined. If this offer was put before the players they would take it and run as they get basically everything they have now with a slight loss in pay.

The owner's of the bigger franchises would love your plan. If they have a player that is not performing and a big name player comes available they just have the overpaid player sit with pay while they sign the player that is available to play in their place.

Either they need to be rid of guaranteed contracts or they need to have a real hard cap. Not this version of another soft cap with basically the same guaranteed contracts they have now.

A hard cap means they do not go over the salary cap. NO EXCEPTIONS.

 

[The Midnight]

Your ideas take a bad system and make them worse. You still have guaranteed contracts and a soft cap. Call a spade a spade if a team can go over the cap for any reason then it's not a hard cap. You leave in all of the guarantees for the players and give the teams the ability to go over the cap in more ways. Basically any player on a team for 5 years or more is not counted against the cap under the senario you outlined. If this offer was put before the players they would take it and run as they get basically everything they have now with a slight loss in pay.

The owner's of the bigger franchises would love your plan. If they have a player that is not performing and a big name player comes available they just have the overpaid player sit with pay while they sign the player that is available to play in their place.

Either they need to be rid of guaranteed contracts or they need to have a real hard cap. Not this version of another soft cap with basically the same guaranteed contracts they have now.

A hard cap means they do not go over the salary cap. NO EXCEPTIONS.

OK thank you for your interest - didn't think anyone would analyse it in detail so good to see.

Season Ending Injury

I probably didn't make it clear in my post, but what you're proposing the bigger franchise would do would not be possible (if you're at or over the Cap).

The only way to get his salary taken off the cap would be under option 2 - where the player is out for the year. This would have to be verified by a team of "Official NBA doctors" who would analyse and make a call on whether or not a player's injury is serious enough to warrant this. (i.e., Oden, Yao Ming, would qualify).

Hard Cap VS Soft Cap

I think a modification of a 'Hard Cap' would be required for players to buy into it. I think my modifications above is fair and is something that both players and teams can agree on (i.e., if there is a season ending injury, player still gets paid, and team can have the salary taken off its books).

Note: I've updated my original post to make this point clearer.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Real revenue sharing is important too. And get a franchise tag (make those the only guaranteed deals?). Players get more BRI.

that wont solve the ak problem. cus ak would have gotten the tag

 

[NUMBERICA]

that wont solve the ak problem. cus ak would have gotten the tag

Not if teams continue to have agency rights (without the tag) after the rookie deal. The idea would be to use it after the first big payday.

 

[gregbroncs]

OK thank you for your interest - didn't think anyone would analyse it in detail so good to see.

Season Ending Injury

I probably didn't make it clear in my post, but what you're proposing the bigger franchise would do would not be possible (if you're at or over the Cap).

The only way to get his salary taken off the cap would be under option 2 - where the player is out for the year. This would have to be verified by a team of "Official NBA doctors" who would analyse and make a call on whether or not a player's injury is serious enough to warrant this. (i.e., Oden, Yao Ming, would qualify).

Hard Cap VS Soft Cap

I think a modification of a 'Hard Cap' would be required for players to buy into it. I think my modifications above is fair and is something that both players and teams can agree on (i.e., if there is a season ending injury, player still gets paid, and team can have the salary taken off its books).

Note: I've updated my original post to make this point clearer.

So under your system the big market teams gain a bigger stranglehold on the league. Soft cap, Guaranteed contracts and if a player gets injured they can now go over the cap in an additional way. They now have no recourse against signing players to huge deals. If one of their players come up for FA after 5 years they don't count against the cap. Basically every player on a team for more than 5 years can be a big money player.

Simply put. Without either non-guaranteed contracts or a real hard cap. This whole lockout is a complete waste for the owners.

I also don't believe the owner's need the players to buy into it. The owner's have little incentive to budge until they get their way. Eventually the players will begin to cave. When they do a hard cap is where the owner's negotiation begins. No hard cap no CBA. No CBA no season.

 

[The-Joker]

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

How is it not surprising to me that dutchjazzer doesn't understand supply and demand.

 

[BENTLEY]

I also don't believe the owner's need the players to buy into it. The owner's have little incentive to budge until they get their way. Eventually the players will begin to cave. When they do a hard cap is where the owner's negotiation begins. No hard cap no CBA. No CBA no season.

Astutely put.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Also, I don't think players are necessarily opposed to a hard cap. They just want to get paid.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

A couple of obtuse observations:

If the latter years of player contracts were only partially guaranteed and/or contingent upon players being able to suit up without injury concerns, this would save owners from paying out on players who don't perform due to injury. A few contracts are structured like this already, but this could become the norm. This would prevent the financial downside of injury situations like Grant Hill, Allan Houston, Carlos Boozer, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas, etc.

I've never seen any industry where the employees feel so entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and be paid millions of dollars whether they perform or not. If players get injured, they should take out their own insurance policies, not require owners to do so.

Also, if a player doesn't perform well, the owner should have the option to amend down the contract for non-performance. If the player doesn't like this arrangement, the player can be compensated with restricted free-agent status so he can go to another team and earn his true market value.

I think one of the problems from the owners' perspective is that they have these sunk costs in players who don't or can't perform. Whether there is a hard cap or flexible cap, or whether tv and other revenues are divided differently, isn't going to address this problem.

 

[Dr. Jones]

NEW IDEA. How about the owners demand an 'insurance policy' that has the players 'guarantee' the performance of their peers (they see the work ethic, off-court distractions, and natural ability more than anyone else). The players rate the league on a scale and pay into a fund that guarantees the output of each pro player.

I'm on to something.

/weirdcrazyfunstuff