An idea for the new CBA (Percentage-based compensation)

by austinpwnz on Aug 21, 2009 1:42 PM PDT

In thinking about the LMA contract extension negotiations, an idea for the new CBA solidified in my mind. I know this could probably go in Dave's post of a week or so ago, but I'm afraid no one would see it, and I really want to see what people think of this. In fact I don't have a lot of detail, but long story short:

make all contracts a percentage function of the salary cap.

My reasons:

1. Max contracts are already based off the salary cap

2. It doesn't make sense for contracts to go up in absolute terms while the league revenue etc goes down, and it does make sense for contracts to go up faster when the NBA is booming.

3. It avoids something like us giving LMA a $72 mil contract extension (which I personally think is too much, but that's beside the point) only to have that end up being within a few mil of what Brandon Roy eventually gets under max contract rules.

4. Just seems more transparent and honest to me (but that's just me).

Some corollaries:

Players could still have relatively increasing contracts, eg a contract for 9%, 9.5%, 10% over 3 years.

I have no idea how performance bonuses or whatever would work.

I just thought of this so I'm probably overlooking a lot.

Anyway, I am pretty interested to hear what everyone thinks of this kind of percentage-based pay scale.

Poll

What do you think?

Good idea, but unlikely to happen

22 votes

I have a way to improve on this and am going to post it below

1 votes

Doesn't really change anything

3 votes

Makes me throw up in my mouth a little, for reasons posted below

0 votes

26 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is a good system but has some shortcomings

1, It lacks a method to allow one team to spend more than any other (assuming it’s a fraction of league revenue and teams only get 100% spending).
2. Players will dislike the system in that their value is based on a percentage of revenue with little chance of ever increasing the percentage.
3. It will slot players into salary scales. For example Max players get 25%, second teir players 20%? leaving only 55% for the other 11-13 guys on a squad.

That said it is a more fair system and has some advantages.
1. It can force teams to spend to spend the full hundred percent, which means all owners must spend the same even if the host losing teams.
2. It should increase the number of teams with more players as more players will give teams greater flexibility to trade. And make trade possibly more limited in nature.

I personally like the idea and think a good group brain storming the scope of such contract could be fair and favorable to both players and owners. However neither side is likely willing to jump ship to such a different system. In that sense it is very much like the health care debate: we should retool the system but people fearing change can be persuasive enouhg to kill the dialogue before an honest assessment ever gets presented.

by NWfan on Aug 21, 2009 9:54 PM PDT reply actions

I agree that it's very unlikely such a drastic change would be made.

I wasn’t assuming though that this implies a hard salary cap. Rules for resigning your own players, veteran’s minimum, rookie contracts etc to go over the cap (and maybe even MLE or whatever ends up happening under the new CBA) could easily still happen with this. So teams can still have uneven spending.

Also I was kind of assuming that increasing percentages would be at least an option – but historically speaking players will be making more money over time with the growth of the league revenue anyway, you’ll just be seeing a different number.

You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.

by austinpwnz on Aug 22, 2009 2:48 AM PDT up reply actions