The New CBA: A Shotgun Wedding on the Horizon
by Dave on Feb 8, 2010 12:13 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintOne of the hot topics around the virtual water cooler this weekend (at least if you could get anybody to talk NBA in the face of the Superbowl) was the proposal submitted to the Players' Union by David Stern on behalf of the owners. Ric Bucher has the story and Chris Sheridan the off-the-cuff response from union vice-president Adonal Foyle. Points in a nutshell:
- Maximum salaries for vets could be slashed down to around one-third of what they are eligible for under the current bargaining agreement.
- Maximum salaries for those under rookie contracts would also be reduced significantly.
- Pre-existing deals would be revised to conform to the new standards.
- Contracts would be limited to four years in length.
- Contracts would no longer be fully guaranteed, with the target assumed to be less than one-half of each contract subject to guarantee.
- Bird Rights, mid-level-exceptions, and other cap-bending provisions would be abolished, in effect creating a hard cap.
Sheridan has Foyle describing the proposal as "ludicrous" and "far-reaching", though I'm comfortably sure that off the record players aren't using 9- and 10-letter words in their reactions. Given the gravity of the proposals I'm thinking four-letter words liberally repeated is more the norm.
Let's take a look at what's probably going on here as well as some of the implications of the proposals.
First of all, one has to expect that any proposal submitted 18 months before the expiration of the current deal is going to be wholly one-sided. Nobody is going to be accepting that proposal, or even seriously debating it. It's meant to set a baseline from which to start negotiations. Everybody knows the two sides will be meeting somewhere in the middle.
However the starkness of these proposals shows that the owners do mean business and are probably more committed to getting what they want than they are making their opponents happy. They have a couple things going in their favor. The economy is in the pits. And as the players found out during the last lockout, it's far easier for the owners to remain close to their standard of living without basketball than it is for the players to remain close to theirs. The last time work stopped the players all but capitulated. That started a slippery slope that has culminated in them fighting to keep a CBA that they once fought to avoid.
Between the momentum and the economy the owners are swooping in for the kill this time. They intend the players to come a long way and they've just raised the war flag to communicate those intentions. No matter how much the players end up salvaging, the NBA we've known for the last couple of CBA cycles is going to change.
As far as the specific changes, the lowering of the maximum salary is a provision we've discussed many times in this space. They want it not just for the money they'll save on superstars but for the trickle-down effect it will have on salaries league-wide. Hardening the cap will reinforce the provision. I don't know that the cuts will be as draconian as proposed or the cap as impermeable as desired but the owners are likely to fight hard for these provisions.
Lowering the max salary is an issue that will receive popular support (in general terms at least) as the overpaid athlete is a universal cliché. Cap laws remain arcane to most fans and limiting exceptions should receive some support as well. The hidden consequences of these moves may not be as popular. Though the financial peril of small-market teams will likely be a selling point on the owners' side in practice these moves will probably disadvantage those same markets when it comes to attracting or re-signing stars. The more basketball income is limited the more non-basketball income (read: endorsements) becomes attractive. If a player makes $20 million then a $2 million endorsement deal represents a 10% raise. Cut that player's salary to $10 million and the same $2 million becomes 20%. Getting that extra 20% in Los Angeles but not in Sacramento becomes a significant incentive. If Sacramento can no longer use Bird Rights to exceed the cap and offer the player more than the Los Angeles team its negotiating power is gone. The first time a home-town franchise's superstar departs for the big city while the front office chases after him with a useless check people are likely to start screaming.
As far as the retroactive provision, I'd need to know more about the specific wording to understand how big of a sticking point it's going to be. The headline of the Bucher article indicates that the agreement would affect contracts signed in 2010 which leads one to presume it would affect all existing contracts. Would the provision only affect the max contracts that exceeded its limits or would the hard cap take effect and require everybody's contracts to be scaled down? Either way it's an incredibly problematic proposal. Imagine, for instance, a player who signed a contract which had its max payout in its final years...a guy who had perhaps taken less in the early years of the deal in anticipation of that later payout. Now he's given his services below cost and seen the promised payoff scooped back into the owners' coffers. If the proposal flies I'd imagine there would be severe limitations regarding how long ago the contract was signed and how much it was reduced. Even that is so odious that I don't believe the owners will be able to get their way on this one.
The real negotiations will probably come in the area of contract length and guarantees. It's going to be easier for the owners to get concessions on the former than the latter. A short contract length could be advantageous to players as well as owners, giving the former more opportunities to negotiate as it gives the latter the security of not being on the hook forever for a bad decision. When push comes to shove most players will probably believe they'll be worthy of a better contract in four years anyway.
The guarantee issue will scare the players silly, especially with the rash of injuries we've seen this year around the league. They're not going to want to budge but it's unlikely they'll be able to hold their position without giving up significant ground in other areas. The owners will probably say, "Either make our contracts cheaper overall or make them non-guaranteed." The knee-jerk reaction would be to guarantee most but not all years, perhaps omitting the final year of every contract from guarantee. The problem there is that most contracts are based on raises, which means players would be losing the most attractive years of their deals. Also if the maximum contract length is shortened to four years then each contract really covers only three. Perhaps they will allow five-year contracts with the fifth year non-guaranteed. Or perhaps they'll try to define mutually-agreeable circumstances in which a team can void a contract, circumstances which are looser than the current setup but have to do with situation rather than contract length. Whether that's possible remains to be seen.
One way or another contract amount, contract length, and contract guarantees will be scaled against each other. The players will buy concessions in one area with their own concessions in the others.
The billion-dollar question on most people's minds is whether there will be a work stoppage. The opening salvo looks ominous but I'm still hopeful that in 18 months this can be resolved, though the actual resolution is not likely to occur until the final moments. Lockouts and strikes benefit nobody in the end, save maybe some European teams that might inherit a player or two. The players will never recoup the money they lose. The owners have to know that interrupting play will hurt the league. Most fans don't care what the two sides agree to as long as the games continue.
The players will have to take a long, hard look at history and their current situation and decide one or two points they feel are most critical to their viability. They'll have to bend with the wind on the rest. Even a $1 million per year job is impossible to find outside of the league, let alone one that pays you multiple millions. At the end of the day, that's going to tell the story.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
82 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I have been drafting a post about the same thing but
All I have is questions and no answers
by southern oregon on Feb 8, 2010 12:24 AM PST reply actions
Dave, great article here.
I would urge you to submit it for publication to somebody with a broader audience — I don’t have a clue about the market for this kind of sports-related writing — if that’s still possible after you’ve already posted it here.
I found this piece to be amazingly clear and extremely helpful, and I believe that many other folks throughout NBA-land would likewise appreciate it. Maybe you don’t care to venture out of your present niche, but you should really consider it, at least in this case.
#52
Stuff like this is why I love BE
well, and the fun game day threads, but articles like this is why old timers get told to shut up when they make blanket statements about blogs having bad writing.
"Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums." -Captain Kirk
by terryisntbald on Feb 8, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
Potentially NBA game-changing
These proposals are just the opening positions in what looks like a heated contest that might include lockout (or, can NBA players strike?) In this round of the CBA David Stern and the NBA owners seem to be trying to fundamentally change the NBA business model.
Yes, very well written, thorough article. I do have a ?..didn't the owners also want a
change in the % of revenue the players receive from merchandise sales? Did that get submitted to the players’ union?
No play, no pay
But they might charge you seat holding rights. Not sure. When the time comes you’ll have to ask the Blazers.
—Dave
I suspect the format will be similar to playoff tickets
Pay as you play sort of set-up. The other option I can think of would be that you’ll be charged for the whole season and refunded for each game missed sort of set-up.
What are you impressions of Roy?
"He's just a very, very good basketball player. Very smart. Very heady. He can do a little bit of everything on the court. As coaches, when we scout Portland we kind of put him in the same category as Kobe (Bryant), LeBron (James), Dwyane Wade. We treat him the same. He's that good."
- Byron Scott
2011
One would imagine. It wouldn’t suprise me at all to lose the pre-season that year no matter what. Let’s just hope they’re not going to eat into the regular season.
—Dave
Dave and Ben, when the *natives* (i.e., us the fans) get restless, I hope you have creative ways to keep us entertained! :)
I remember that the last shortened season wasn’t much fun. Most of us can’t wait for September/October/November to roll around.
Just to clarify - I hope people know that my previous comment was supposed to be a joke ;)
Dave and Ben are not really the people responsible for keeping us entertained.
(P.S. I was going to add: “The people who are really responsible for keeping us entertained are ______.” However, maybe I should stop before getting into more hot water.:)
judging from the opening salvo
it’s hard not to imagine another short season, a’la 1998-99. I’m sure some of the distance will be bridged before October 2011, but I’m guessing the final sticking points will linger longer – long enough for the players to start hurting then come crawling back.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
with the economic downturn and uncertainty, some pay rollbacks have justification.
Obviously a pretty complex, and potentially emotional issue. Probably going to be throwing a lot of numbers back and forth to establish positions. Maybe some kind of adjustable, profit based pay scale. I am not even going to try and seriously research the details of this.
I will just say, I used to be a serious baseball fan until the first strike. And that somehow killed it for me. I just never felt the same about pro baseball again. If players have no loyalty to their team, or love of the game to keep playing, it just makes me feel like a sucker caring more than they do. I mean, I PAY to just watch them enjoy the joy of playing, and they quit making millions of dollars to get to play. Teams are huge investments, and liabilities, they should all be profitable. It is also critical to keep the small markets competitive, and not let some “Steinbrenner” just buy all the talent he wants. So, some kind of revenue sharing is essential to maintain parity. Kind of unseemly watching rich guys fight for money, especially when you are unemployed. Hope they make progress.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
by Berkeley on Feb 8, 2010 12:55 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
My thoughts exactly
This is going to have huge implications on all of the leagues stars. If the negotiations are as stiff as the proposal a lockout seems eminent.
by ODEN on a stick on Feb 8, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
This situation makes me very nervous.
Could blow up. I really hope that we can keep our core players through this…
A positive attitude will not solve all of your problems but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort - Herm Albright
Keep the faith.
this is what worries me
at first blush, you think “hey this will help smaller market teams stay competitive”, but Dave shoots that theory all to heck when you start looking at the secondary incomes. And let’s face it, Portland isn’t your typicall small/mid market team -thanks to an owner who has been willing and able to spend when warranted. A hard cap would effectively negate our deep pocket advantage. Take that away and what advantage do we have left? weather? media center? endorsement prospects? low state income tax? that’s 4 strikes right there…
Nic and Rudy (and Bayless) are extension eligible in summer 2011 – but doubt that happens until a new deal is in place. if the new deal precludes us from extending them at market value, then what? we just watch them walk away in summer 2012 and say “gee, I wish we could pay you…” Either that or we have to trade them for pennies on the dollar.
I really don’t see how you can have a hard cap without also having non-guaranteed contracts (this is the NFL model). You have to have some mechanism to give teams a choice to cut overpaid guys and keep young talented ones instead. But do you really want the NFL style in the NBA, where only the very best of best stay with their teams long-term, and everyone else plays for a new team every other year and fans have no connection to their players?
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
All good points about 2011 negotions with Nic, Rudy, and Bayless. This coming summer is also negotiation time with Greg.
Remember how last summer’s negotiations with Brandon and LMA went on sooo long. We kept hearing that it was very hard to settle negotiations when the parties didn’t know what next year’s cap would be.
Now fast forward to summer 2009 and summer 2011 as we negotiate with Greg, Rudy, Nic, and Jerryd in an environment where the uncertainties about the cap and the CBA are cranked up much much higher.
Add these uncertainties on top of personal uncertainties over the health of Greg’s knees and Rudy’s feeling he sacrificed by leaving millions in Spain to sign with the NBA in hopes of future rewards. It all does add up to a very difficult time.
it does indeed
the Oden situation this summer should be very revealing. What is the team willing to offer? It seems like it would be either less per year for 3-4 years OR more per year for 2-3 years (with team option maybe?) going high and long would seems to be insanely risky
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
we just watch them walk away in summer 2012
Since we don’t know what the new CBA will bring, it’s difficult to speculate on this…but Portland could sign the qualifying offers on Batum, Rudy and Bayless for the 2012-2013 season, if they haven’t already been extended before the beginning of the 2011-2012 season. Oden’s the real test case, though, since the end of his rookie contract coincides with the potential work stoppage. It’s fairly certain there will be “forces at work” to pry him away from PDX and towards a larger market. Negotiations for an extension with Greg’s agent(s) are going to be a huge issue this summer, with the new CBA on the minds of both parties
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I know as fans we don't control negotiations with our players
In the case of the Blazers, it’s really between KP and the players’ agents. But for us as fans, a huge part of our emotional involvement is being vicariously involved with both sides – the players and the management. We want to like both sides, and we don’t want to see either the players or the team hurt.
I hope it proves wrong, but it looks like what’s coming is potentially an epic conflict. This time there are real economic reasons on both sides to dig in that go beyond mere posturing for negotiations. I’m not an NBA historian, but I can’t think of a past NBA battle since the league started this fraught with the potential to damage the league, the players, and the connection of fans to the teams and the league.
As a Blazer fan, I care less what happens to other teams, but I do care about the quality of the league as a whole. Also as a Blazer fan, I hope what might happen potentially won’t damage our local connection with the players and the organization and their connection with each other.
i hate to see anyone get a career ending injury and add poverty to injury but the contracts severely kill teams for years
the reality is most of these guys make plenty of money now and have plenty of warning now, and came into this league with Nothing and how hard is it Really to go back to that temporarily, for a year,,,2years. pay off your house cars ets now drop some diddy in the bank and chill. go back and live at moms house for a year or 2 whatever. i think eventually teams would fold if they got serious since the whole league has built itself around the SuperStars it would be more difficult than alot of sports to bring in the Dleaguers
I recall reading in separate places, mostly here on BE
The benefits and hazards of the current CBA—examples include the numerous effects non-guaranteed contracts would cause and how a hard cap would affect the NBA differently than the NFL. I would like to see an article collecting such effects when we know more (written by someone with much more knowledge and motivation than me, of course).
One aspect in particular I have seen discussed, and I would like to see brought up again, is comparing what NBA players make to other professions—businessmen and NBA businessmen in particular, but also doctors, lawyers, and successful authors, movie stars and popular musicians. I suspect that even the most highly paid NBA superstars (including endorsements) aren’t much out of scale as CEOs of large, publically traded companies, NBA owners, or popular stars of screen and music. I don’t, however, have the numbers to back up my suspicion.
Honor Alaa Abdelnaby.
First in the NBA. At least alphabetically
Well, let’s say one of the owners of the Thunder made more money in the year they moved the team than Gilbert Arenas or Kevin Durant make over a whole deal. But that made him the best-salaried CEO of a S&P 500 company. A few of the owners are billionaires who founded their own companies, achieving wealth that none of their “employees” will ever reach. But the total compensation compared to what the owners make is not so much the issue, since the team is not the source of their wealth. An argument certainly can be made that NBA players are making “too much”. Especially at the end of guaranteed deals should they not perform anymore due to injury or other issues. Then again it’s a star-driven league with players that can expect to get a fair share of the profits that are generated.
As for explaining the cap situation in the NFL and NBA, Mavs owner Mark Cuban has posted his thoughts about that a while ago:
http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/25/understanding-salary-caps-and-why-the-nfl-opted-out/
I'm talking more to your second point: the perception that NBA players are making "too much"
especially in the wake of corporate bonuses. The best of the league make up to $20 million or so a year for a few years, but in the field of business even the moderately talented make that, and many make billions. Or to call in a similar field, the “hot” Hollywood stars or recording artists (not to mention movie and music executives) I’ve seen listed as making around $50 million during a good year, figures that are either not as publicized or controversial enough to be derided to the same degree as prime athletes.
Honor Alaa Abdelnaby.
First in the NBA. At least alphabetically
The difference is
that, for the most part, in each of those other industries, the entities paying the actors, artists, or executives are profitable in spite of their salaries (don’t really want to get into a discussion about the finance industry here), so even if they may also be considered “overcompensated”, it’s within a sustainable business model.
In the NBA, most of the entities in the league that are compensating these players are in fact losing money, and so costs need to be cut somewhere to make these teams financially viable. Since player salaries are tied to 57% of revenue, this will remain by far the biggest chunk, and so represents the easiest place to trim costs, hence the overcompensation argument.
Ironically, it’s probably the case that the top 3 or 4 guys in the game are actually some of the most undercompensated players in the league. LeBron, Chris Paul, or Kobe are probably worth far more than $20 million (roughly the current max salary) in terms of the financial impact for their teams, just like Jordan was worth far more than his actual salary to the Bulls, despite being the highest paid player in the league.
It’s instead the 2nd and 3rd year players who are the ones vastly overpaid relative to their financial impact. While Brandon Roy may be worth a max deal financially for Portland, LaMarcus Aldridge probably isn’t worth $65 million to the Blazers over the next 5 years in terms of the bottom line. Same with guys like Iggy, Deng, Brand, Troy Murphy, Z-Bo, Ben Gordon, Hedo, etc. Maybe on the right team their deals can make sense (i.e. Pau Gasol being the difference between the Lakers winning titles or losing early in the playoffs may be worth his deal to LA), but on their own, these deals don’t make much financial sense because Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand aren’t exactly ticket sellers.
To fit things into movie analogies, Will Smith may be the most expensive actor right now, but Will Smith movies are so wildly successful that no one has a problem paying him his quote, and he’s certainly not a negative for the industry. If studios started paying Kevin Spacey, Ashton Kutcher, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke and Philip Seymour Hoffman the same amount as Will Smith, though, you’d start to see issues. And of course, if you put it to a vote for those 5 guys plus Will Smith whether they want to cut all of their salaries or to leave Will Smith’s salary alone (because his movies can make money at that price) in order to make movies profitable again, they’ll probably vote to cut all of their salaries, because they’ll still be getting a bigger piece of the pie. This is basically the choice that the NBA is trying to force on the NBPA.
#52
Bah, typo
Should be 2nd and 3rd TIER players…, not YEAR players in the 4th paragraph
#52
yeah, a hard cap with no max player salaries
would really hit the 2nd/3rd tier guys hard. Think of guys like Travis or Martell. 4-5 million per has been pretty standard for that level of production for a while now. These guys could end up getting squeezed down into the 1-2 million per year range very quickly.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
While the Travis's and Martell's will undoubtedly get hurt
I think the biggest squeeze it would put on would be on the “not quite stars” I mentioned above. Iguodala, Brand, Jason Terry, Luol Deng, etc. There’s an inherent “stickiness” in the NBA wage structure right now that more or less dictates that the best players on each team get paid roughly the same (as proportioned according to the salary restrictions). So, each team’s best player is getting either a max contract or close to it (Iggy/Brand-type deal), the second-best is getting paid another near max deal, and down the line, regardless of how good these players are in a vacuum. Thus, you have Luol Deng making close to what LeBron, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul, D-Will, etc. make simply because he happened to be the “best” player on the Bulls at the time he was due for an extension.
You don’t really see this that much in the NFL (outside of the Redskins, Raiders and possibly the Cowboys), with the exception being the absurdity that is rookie contracts. Sure, teams will overpay some quarterbacks, but even then, Matt Cassel isn’t making anywhere near what Peyton Manning makes. Obviously there are a half dozen guys in the league who are roughly in the same ballpark as Peyton, but all of them would be probably be considered guys very important to winning football games. Matt Hasselbeck was never going to get a Manning-level deal simply because he was the starting QB and offensive leader of a playoff team, although I’d consider him a decent analogue to Luol Deng.
So instead of these guys making 85-90% of what LeBron, CP, and Kobe make, they’d be looking at 60-70%, and all of these teams have much more flexibility to deal with payroll in the future. For the Sixers example, if Iggy was getting paid a flat $10 million a year, Dalembert was making ~$7 million a year, and Brand made ~$9 million/year, I’d guess all of the Sixers money troubles more or less disappear even with minor adjustments to Travis/Martell-level deals like Lou Williams’ or Willie Green’s. $12 million in salary saved alone there.
Of course, this would require sanity and rational thinking from wide-spread sanity and GMs, along with some balls to stand up to agents and risk losing solid players instead of just overpaying them, so it’s never going to happen without some structural rule changes to save GMs from themselves, like they’re pushing for in the new CBA.
#52
Wojnarowski had one interesting observation in his article on this issue: The players union is a "one man, one vote union"
So in effect, 400-something scrubs and role players can overrule those maybe 30 guys who stand to lose the most money under those proposals, but who in turn can generate the most non-basketball related income. It might not happen, but the owners seem to have asked Stern to drive a hard bargaining course and are hell bent on reducing the overall cost of owning and operating a team.
He also brought up one of Dave’s favorite topics: Contracting two teams, having the other owners buy those out, and thus spreading a slightly larger share of the pie around among less teams and payers. But that very likely would only fly under a new commissioner.
In practice
one man-one vote doesn’t change much. It’s a reality of the human condition that you don’t have to reward everyone in order to get them to play along. You only have to reward a few while many of the others think they have a chance of being rewarded. People will usually fight as hard to keep the dream as they do to keep the reality. Even those who know they’ll never get the huge deals will appreciate that they exist, figuring their co-workers deserve it and enjoying the residual bump they get in their own salaries thereby. If the highest-paid player in the league makes $24 million then you don’t blink at paying a reserve guy $4 million. But if the highest-paid player makes only $12 million then that $4 million for your 7th man looks awfully spendy by comparison.
—Dave
this could really hurt the quality of basketball played in the future
just a thought, but couldn’t making everyone take a massive pay cut cause an already show boating heavy league even worse? For example- since the players would no longer be making as much money from salary wouldn’t they then be more focused on making themselves a marketable player and in the basketball world that means flashy. More and more players could turn to playing a more stat orientated style of play( and that already is a problem), defense would go by the wayside and even winning could lose it’s value to some players. From a fans perspective this would be my biggest fear.
the few, the proud, the blazers
I think it would work the other way around actually
If everyone makes less money, then they can afford to pay role players more money. With a lower max, all-star/sub all star caliber (like LMA) will automatically get max pay, so forcing 30 shots to get 30 ppg gets you no more money then someone who gets 20 ppg and good team play. This also takes away the monetary reward of being a superstar, but I think I would prefer players become superstars from competitive nature rather then just for monetary gain.
I would assume the cap would lower to go with the lower pay, but I havent heard anything about it besides hardening the cap.
Portland could coast along with their superior talent and stay right with us. Now that Portland woke up, the hammer cometh down.
Bayless > Daffy Duck after 3 cans of rockstar
by Batumshakalaka on Feb 8, 2010 4:58 AM PST up reply actions
i think youd actually get less me-first garbage
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Feb 8, 2010 6:53 AM PST up reply actions
inc lockout
but this was long overdue and im fine with missing a season or two of basketball
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
Good: A more equitable CBA
Bad: Losing two years of the core Blazers ‘championship window’.
"I was surprised, I was listening to the coach on the bench and behind me, she touches me and says, ‘Rudy, I love you. Nice to meet you. Good game.’ - Rudy
by The Mallorcan Rocket on Feb 8, 2010 8:49 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
i agree with few of the things, i.e. less amount guaranteed contracts
but is a little extreme, 4 years is the max?
Awesomeness (ô'səm-nes)
1. n. Something that inspires awe
2. n. Nicolas Batum
This is an attempt to divide the players
If the max contract value is reduced to one third of its current value, that means more money to go around for the rest of the players. Note that the article makes no mention of reducing the salary cap, other than by bringing in effectively a hard cap. So under the proposal, we would have just as much money to spend as we are spending this year on salaries, but we would be paying less to Darius, so we would have more to spend on other players. Next year, it would mean less for Brandon and LMA, again meaning more salary to spend elsewhere.
Significantly lower max salaries without lowering total salaries will get quite a bit of support among a lot of the players, I would guess.
#7 #10 #25 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Just the sort of proposal that could lead to, "concessions," that favor the masses
Let’s say the top ten percent will have less money available to them while the other ninety percent will be able to make more money. The question then becomes, “Who cares,” about a hard cap or the length of contract or maybe even the money being fully guaranteed. Certainly a weakness of a one player one vote system.
This looks like a pretty good strategy for dividing and conquering, and it’s most democratic ; > )
#52+1.5
Thats one of the reasons Foyle said the proposal doesn't create/support a middle class
to keep the non-stars from endorsing the redistribution of wealth….
If it hurts the L*kers, I'm for it.
Dave, great article and I agree w/ many of your points, but I question the part about how this would hurt small markets. It seems to me that “leveling the field” would help the small markets and prevent some teams (L*kers) from buying the market as the Knicks are about to try and do.
As for endorsements, I question whether location has that much to do with endorsements. Teams that can compete and/or are exciting to watch get air time and fans (see increase in Bucks showings). The best players get endorsements regardless of location. (Kevin Durant in OK city) So an inability to buy the market = more competitive league = more equality in the ability to earn endorsements.
And I love me some NBA, but YES, players are overpaid. This isn’t the NFL where the players are forever sacrificing their ability to walk. These guys make more in a year than many people make in a career for playing a game most of us play for free, and pay just to watch.
Please no lockout in the year we get healthy…
Will somebody please go sacrifice a chicken at the Rose Garden to appease the injury gods?
Essentially any move here isn't going to be good for small markets
The NBA’s revenue sharing system is worthless, essentially modeled on baseballl’s, which is entirely structured to allow the same teams to dominate baseball year after year (just ask any Pirates or Royals fans). The only thing that prevents the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Angels from winning the World Series every single year is mismanagement and the inherent unpredictability of the game of baseball. Imagine if the NBA were set up like baseball, and every single major free agent went to one or two teams (a la the Yankees and Red Sox). You’d be looking at the Knicks or Lakers alternately picking up the single biggest, or the 2 biggest FA every single year. The analogue to the Yankees signing Sabathia and Texeira last year would be the Knicks signing LeBron and Bosh this offseason, except it would happen every year. The summer after that, they’d add Tony Parker and Marc Gasol, and so on and so on. History shows a similar super team in baseball isn’t guaranteed the title every year, but I’d bet that, in such a system with basketball, it’d be pretty much exclusively Laker/Knick/Bull titles from that point on.
This is because the luxury tax system with little other revenue sharing (like in MLB and the NBA) builds in an inherent competitive advantage to big market teams. In order for their increased revenue to get “properly” distributed, they need to have a higher payroll, and assuming, roughly equivalent competencies in the management of the two clubs, one with a $100 million payroll will be more competitive than a team with a $50 million payroll.
Which is why it was nice for the rest of the NBA to have Isiah Thomas running the Knicks all those years. Sure, they had a huge payroll, but they were so incompetently run that it didn’t give them a competitive advantage. Plus, he did everyone a favor by redistributing all of his good picks to other teams and absorbing toxic contracts that no one wanted while signing all of the marginal guys to deals to prevent other teams from being saddled by their contracts. Sure, well run teams wouldn’t have given Jerome James a ton of money, but if Isiah hadn’t someone probably would have stepped in and overpaid him and been saddled by his contract.
Similarly, the Magic wouldn’t have been in as workable a financial shape if they didn’t get to dump Steve Francis’s contract for the expiring Penny Hardaway. Neither would we with Z-Bo. Same with the Suns and Marbury/Penny (dumped in the same trade, impressively enough). Same with the Bulls and Crawford/Curry. However, now that the Knicks know what they’re doing, it just exacerbates the situation. teams get lower luxury tax payments because the Knicks payroll is lower, and they don’t have a nice dumping ground for contracts and players that they screwed up with.
Isiah Thomas: the TARP of the NBA.
#52
exactly
and the Lakers can have a $100 million payroll, pay $25 million in taxes, and STILL turn a handsome profit. Other teams can have a $55 million payroll, receive $3-4 million in taxes, and still LOSE a tidy sum of money. It’s not like the NFL, where profits are heavily shared, significantly leveling the playing field.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
The NBA's brand is not in the greatest position at the moment
And I think they know this. Any work stoppage could really hurt them.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
They're in between the NFL and NHL
Right now the NBA seems like it’s in between where the pre-strike NHL is and the NFL is now in terms of financial stability and popularity. Hockey wasn’t strong enough to survive a strike, but I’ve heard the NFL would be (they have a work stoppage looming). Obviously going more than a year without seeing the game will make some people realize they don’t need it, but there’s degrees. I think the NBA would be like baseball after their strike in the 90s, but I don’t know if taking steroids would have such a visible impact it’d save the league.
"Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums." -Captain Kirk
by terryisntbald on Feb 8, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
As a fan, I just want to keep players on their same teams
for as long as possible. It makes it more fun to root for “our guys” than for “our brand” or colors, you know?
"Space Monkey, Mafia, Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go" -- Billy Joel
I hear ya
but that era is getting further and further in the past. the most recent incarnation of the CBA has certainly helped – the “home” team has several advantages toward keeping it’s player, and I think that’s a good thing. Whatever the new CBA is, hopefully there remains a home team advantage. Returning to the days when Shaq can just walk out of Orlando after would not be a good thing.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
I really agree with the need to give teams who draft a player an exception
of some kind which give that team an advantage in keeping that player. It is dissappointing to develop a player who then is compelled to move to another team due to a luxury tax for staying with “his” team. Just rooting for colors does seem pretty shallow, and even wierd. The individual players, and their built relationship with their fans is, or at least should be, a significant factor in enjoying and supporting a team. The draft is a critical piece of maintaining team parity which is independent of owner wealth/market size. Helping a team keep their good picks, generally strengthens that balance, and the loyalty factor that I like to see from players as well as from fans.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
a special exception for drafted players is a nice idea...
especially if the the exception is tradeable (one team’s draft exception for another team’s draft exception)
I wonder what kind of effect this proposal will have on the trade deadline THIS YEAR?
I have been pondering the merits of the Blazers picking up the Iguodala and Dalembert contracts. However, if a hard cap is staring them in the face, would the Blazers pull the trigger on acquiring salary?
I can’t imagine that it would be legal for any existing contract to be modified by a new CBA. If that occurred, the legal fight would last a lot longer than CBA negotiations. Our legal system takes contracts very seriously, and all a player would have to do is vote “No” for the new CBA and then sue if the NBA tried to alter previously signed contracts.
Dalembert's contract
is just for this year and next, right? This would have no impact on that, his contract runs out at the same time the CBA does. Iggy’s would be the one to watch. I think if you get a player of that quality, you have to think about it even if it ties your hands somewhat going forward.
I’m guessing it won’t be retroactive, no matter what. All contracts have been signed under the current CBA, and probably have some provision which allows them to be modified by a new CBA — that was probably agreed in the last one. So revising the contracts could legally happen, in all probability, but it would sour relations so badly that I don’t see it happening. It is one thing to play hardball going forward, but quite another to take away from people something that they thought you had agreed with them.
And of course, if someone bought a big house with a loan secured because of the contract they’ve just signed, and then you zap that contract, presumably the bank might make noise as well. And sure, the bank probably saw that contract, and so knows about the provision that it could be modified, but even so, it is going to be a problem.
So while it is probably technically/legally possible to modify existing contracts, it is going to create so much bad blood and bad publicity that it is extremely unlikely unless somewhat forced by catastrophic conditions. If four teams go out of business between now and then, and others are in danger, then you have a situation where everyone will say, “The golden goose is dying, we have to do something.” I don’t think we’re in that situation, though.
#7 #10 #25 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
i wonder about the downsizing effect
consolidation wouldn’t be the worst thing to hit this league….
man, what fun it would be to see how they do a consolidation draft
imagine they scrapped two teams – say the Hornets and the Kings. How would they distribute their players under contract? like a reverse expansion draft – where the other teams get to each pick a player until they are all gone? How would they determine the order? if it’s by reverse record and/or lottery, would you have to relinquish your amateur draft pick in order to take the contraction pick instead? Would you get both? Can you imagine the tanking that would ensue for a shot at picking Chris Paul #1 in the contraction draft? Wow, this would be cool to watch.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
that idea makes me smile
some of the struggling teams have some very nice pieces….
First team that should go? the Clippers. Two teams in the same conference in the same city is bad enough. Two teams in the same building is one of the stupidest ideas ever.
but the Clippers actually make money, and Sterling loves his sweet hookup
Clips aren’t going anywhere.
Interestingly enough, the Hawks would be a candidate. Great team, lots of young exciting talent – can’t get anyone to come to the games. Kind of sad really.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
CBA negotiations are idiotic!
The CBA exists because through time player concerns over money, health, retirement were ingnored or discounted by owners. The owners have always believed that if it wasn’t for them then there wouldn’t be professional sports (Green Bay Packers not withstanding). The owners want to pay players less not because they want to be profitable (which would be ok) alone but because it makes the franchise more saleable (that’s where the big money is to be made—eventual sale of a team). It may be that many owners want to sell teams and having a lower salary commitment would make that easier, and more profitable.
I find it ironic that the players take the brunt of salary criticism but the owners do not. I mean isn’t it the owners that bid each other up? Why punish the players for the lack of fiscal responsibility of the owners?
Ah, you’ll say that the players ask for too much. But if the players are what brings audiences to spend on tickets, products and advertiser’s merchandise then why not let the players cash in too. In such a small market system, the interdependence of the parties is so great that saying players make too much means your saying your product costs too much. What a stupid way to market the NBA. Advertizers should get together with the players and owners and tell them, shut up and do your negotiations in private and stop disparaging the product, it hurts our bottom line.
I'm a union guy and talk about breaking unions, even unions of rich players, isn't good for anyone.,
But that doesn’t mean changes can’t be made.
I personally think that huge guaranteed contracts are a problem. It’s tough on owners and it rewards players who get paid and decide to mail it in. That said, I think that the players shouldn’t get shortchanged on gross revenue nor should they be tossed over the side if they get injured.
However there are solutions. Contracts could be shorter and smaller, but with lots of incentives built in to add income and even additional years at the player’s option. So they can still get their share of the loot, but only by playing and playing hard. Even as a union guy, I believe people need to work at the top of their skill set if they want good pay.
I’m pretty sure that players can be insured against injury so that they don’t take a huge hit if they get a career ender. (Though the whole career ending injury process is broken)
There needs to be a cap, otherwise the NBA will be like baseball, tow or three good teams and a lot of teams which are completely hopeless.
The thing I like about the NFL is that a real bottom feeder can turn it around in a couple of years with the right management and good decisions. In the NBA it takes five or six years to go from dreck to good. Most fans won’t wait that long. There needs to be a cap structure which allows teams to become competetive in less time than it takes to fight a war.,
by raoulduke on Feb 8, 2010 10:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Could change everything
If I’m a player rep and they are throwing around numbers and ideas like that I’d fire back with everything I had. Ask for 50 game regular season, no back-to-back games, no more than 2 games a week per team. That would extend careers a lot. My thinking would be “if they want to cut our salaries make sure we can play many more years.” or something like that.
I guess it would completely throw out the record book but that is a price to pay.
50 game regular season
means a LOT less revenue and seems like it would be disasterous to the players’ long-term security, IMO.
Just an "anchor" position piece - don't start thinking about impacts yet
In any negotiation, it is very valuable to be able to set out a position and, therefore, control the where the discussions start from. This is usually referred to as “setting an anchor”.
For example, if you are looking to buy a car, and you know this one generally sells from $10-12k, you could say "I was planning to pay $8k for something. The seller is unlikely to come back with, "well, I’m looking for $12k for this one. Instead, he’s likely to say, “I can’t take that little, but I’d sell mine to you for $10,500”. You aren’t going to get the car for anywhere near $8k, but you’ve already negotiated down to near the bottom of the range as his starting point.
It also seems to me that the owners are trying to set this anchor now, while the economy is bad, so that the discussions start now while cuts are expected. They will probably really push to get something done quickly, because the economy is likely to be a lot better in 17 months.
They are putting this out with all kinds of horrible and unacceptable provisions so that they’ve got lots of room to yield, and can do so quickly to try to get a deal in place while the economic situation is in their favor.
All that glitters isn't chrome
If the owners
were concerned with the “marketability” of the NBA, and hence their income, they might have proposed a more limited term for the agreement, say two years. Just because you’re in business doesn’t mean you are smart—it just means you’re in control.
Proposal looks great.
These are exactly the kinds of reforms the NBA should be making.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
cba
Players are going to have to agree to close to 100% of the proposals. Millionaires have to recognize that everyone else is getting hammered in this economy and they are going to have to be willing to give something up too.
Why?
I fail to see why they would have to give up as much as this says. It sounds like a harsh starting point. I’m sure the end result will be more favorable to the players than this current deal.
I’m sure the players will have to make some concessions but they will gain things when making them, that’s the nature of negotiations. No one is going to watch NBA games that are loaded with scrubs.
Owners could afford a year off, players can't
If players are smart they’re saving now like NFL players are being told to. The last time this happened in 1999 most of the players were living paycheck to paycheck so they had no leverage. I don’t know how many Antoine Walker’s are currently in the NBA, but if it’s close to half the players will flop faster than Manu after a bump.
"Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums." -Captain Kirk
by terryisntbald on Feb 8, 2010 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah long contracts, not so good
What is there for players besides pride who just want to mail it in? Darius Miles comes to mind. I wouldnt mind seeing some things change. I watch a lot Blazers games on the road and a LOT of stadiums look half empty to me on tv.
See, and I think this is an important point. The owners, instead of worrying about how to turn a profit with half full venues
should be thinking about how to fill the venues.
I think the NFL has it figured out:
1) have a structure which allows teams to turn around quickly. If you have a lousy team, as a fan, you can have a reasonable hope that with good managment and good decisions it can get turned around and you can be competetive in a couple years, not five or six or never.
2) the NFL has stars, but they market the team. You go to watch the Steelers or the Cowboys, not Rothlisberger or Romo. Stars matter, but the team matters more.
3) In the NFL you don’t spend a lot of time worrying that your team can’t win because the officials are crooked. Whether or not the officials are crooked in the NBA is an open question, but the fact that the question has to be asked is a problem.
4) Hard cap or soft cap you need a strong revenue sharing model. Unless small market teams can compete you’re going going to see 3 or four teams dominate the league and the rest wither.
1) agreed. but the cost of this (which the NFL has shown) is that outside a big star or two, EVERYONE else on the roster will be turned over a lot – like every two years. If you are a fan of becoming attached to players you draft and watching them grow as part of your team – the NFL model is not going to give you this, which ties in nicely with…
2) agreed again. This is my biggest complaint about the Stern era – turning team basketall into “player X vs. player Y”, which I think at least somewhat ties into…
3) The league markets the stars, therefore the refs are predisposed (intentionally or not) to favor the stars. Throw in the fact that only in the NBA do infraction/foul calls limit the time a player can spend on the field or court – a star DB does’t have to sit the bench the whole 2nd quarter because he got called for pass interference early in the game. Other than that though, the refereeing comparison doesn’t hold much water – basketball is so much more difficult to officiate than any other major sport. There are about 10 judgement calls every possession they have to decide whether or not to make, and if so, which way to call it.
4) Agree completely. hard cap without NFL style revenue sharing would be a disaster in the ways Dave mentioned, and the ways we see every year at this time – teams bascially giving talent away to save money – is this baseball? Additionally, a hard cap without the NFL style contracts (up front bonuses in exchange for non-guaranteed future years) would completely hamstring teams for far too long. In the NFL you can get out from bad contracts and “start over” quickly – giving hope to fans. Without removing the guaranteed contracts though, the hard cap just makes it that much harder to rebuild or retool.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
great post BTW
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
The NFL is the best of sports socialism combined with the worst of sports capitalism...
On the revenue side, all monies are split evenly amongst teams — there are no local deals that help some teams more than others, since a local deal for the Lakers is always gonna be >>>>>> anything the Comcast idiots pay the Blazers.
Also, in the NFL, they have a hard cap, so there’s no cheating it by the big market teams. Voilá, you have New Orleans and Indianapolis competing for the championship….
But it also has a dark side. The utterly non-guaranteed player contracts make for a steady stream of shafting of players injured by the sport. It’s brutal and violent and doesn’t end well for most players. Teams have even taken to suing for the return of “guaranteed” portions of contracts on a pro-rated basis over various more or less bogus pretexts.
There definitely needs to be more player protection in the forthcoming NBA CBA than the NFL affords.
Getting rid of the ability of local teams to negotiate and keep their own local TV contracts and instituting 100% revenue sharing is where a balanced playing field begins.
Maybe the NBA can go through a Chapter 11 to void the local TV deals… Just an idea.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Random thoughts
This is mostly me just putting what I was just thinking down in words, so ignore it if it makes no sense.
The players have very little leverage right now because of a couple factors:
1. The owners can afford to not have the teams play but most players can’t afford to not play
2. There is not another basketball league to compete for the players
That is the reality of the power dynamics right now. Most of the talk about this seems to forget the third, and arguably the most powerful, group that is involved with the NBA, the fans. It is from the fan’s ticket spending, merchandise spending, and advertising attention that all of this happens. The fans are really the ones with the power here if they were to organize and represent what they really are, the economic force behind the NBA.
I starting thinking about this and my mind starting imagining what could happen. When I asked myself “who has the economic ability and interest to start a competing league to the NBA?” The only group that came to my mind was the fans. Fan owned teams exist in other sports. The Green Bay Packers are the most familiar to American fans. Everyone knows that if the fan’s didn’t own the Packers they they would have moved away from Green Bay a long time ago. That is a potential huge advantage for fans of small market teams. To know that your team isn’t leaving town without your consent.
My follow up questions were these:
1. Would fans be willing to support a team that couldn’t be called the Bulls or the Trailblazers or the Lakers or YourTeamNameHere? Do they care that much about basketball in their cities? Or do they just support their team?
2. Would there be anything stopping the teams from not having nicknames(a la some soccer clubs) and be Portland Basketball Club? They could still have Portland on their jersey’s and presumably still use the same or very similar team colors. Then people could still choose to call them the Blazers as it would just be a nickname.
Would there be enough organization to ever make something like that a reality? Likely not, but the players would be smart if they started talking to fanclubs and such and at least get the idea out there. Because it could potentially be enough to get the NBA owners back into negotiations.
18 months of this crap is gonna blow
The 2010 LeBron/Wade/Bosh stuff makes me sick in my tummy; I can’t believe as soon as that crap goes away, that I gotta deal with the CBA distraction.
If you are unlucky you will have to deal with this more often
Why should someone like LeBron who can play for whoever is good sign more than a 3-year deal under a scenario like this if it doesn’t provide him with more security or money?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
