Thoughts about making a hard cap tolerable to the players

by Zboy on Sep 13, 2011 9:43 PM PDT

The league and the players appear to be at grid lock over the issue of a hard cap. Two somewhat vague concepts have been floating in my head that might bridge the gap and make the hard cap the league insists upon acceptable to the players . I would welcome reaction to help me better understand the relevant issues.

In considering these concepts, please assume that the rumors are accurate and that the league and the players have agreed on [or will agree on] a percentage of basketball related income that will in all events be dedicated to player salary.

First, what about a modified amnesty agreement. Many teams have players on their rosters who for whatever reason everyone recognizes are being dramatically overpaid. What if the collective bargaining agreement allows a team to cut one such player say every other year. Once cut, the team would still have to pay the players full contracted salary, but the salary would not go against the hard cap. The team would not be allowed to have any further relationship with the player. Any other team could pick the player up, but would have to pay him a salary of not less than a fixed percentage of his existing salary [say 50%]. The old team would get salary relief for the 75% of the amount of the player's new salary. If the player was unable to find a new team willing to pay the fixed percentage salary, he would be entitled to play in any other league for whatever the market would bear. In that event, the old team would get salary relief for say 25% of the new contract. In all events, the salary that a team paid for the player it amnestied would not count against the total amount guaranteed to the leagues players as part of their basketball related income.

This rule would allow a team that had overpaid for a player to remain competitive by biting the bullet. However, the reiief would be expensive and it would be limited. Major market teams would continue to have an advantage, but a much smaller advantage than the soft cap presently affords them. From the players perspective, being amnestied would be threatening but they would still be entitled to play in the league if they could find a team willing to bear half the cost of their salary, and in that event, they would actually earn more. If they couldn't find such a team, they would be free to play in some other league and earn even more. Or, of course, they could just sit by the pool collect their [excessive] salary.

Second, what about fostering team cohesiveness by allowing a team's players flexibility to rearrange their salaries among themselves. Take the Blazers. It's easy to imagine that if our young players develop well, under a hard cap it would be impossible to keep all of our talent, especially if the skills of some of our long term salaried players decline. Imagine the following hypothetical [and please take no offense at my random choices]. Nic and Greg become all stars, Brandon can still play well but only for 20 minutes per game and Gerald's play deteriorates to the point he plays behind Nic. Imagine also that we are on a red hot roll with multiple championship opportunities. Our players might well want to adjust their compensation; after all, in that scenario, one player might be vulnerable to being amnestied, and others might value the prospect of staying together as a unit. Why not give them the chance?

Yes, I can see multiple potential issues, but none appear to me to be disqualifying. I will appreciate your comments.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The second option would destroy team chemistry

but I could see some form of the first the first being a possibility.

—Dave

by Dave on Sep 13, 2011 9:52 PM PDT reply actions

"The second option would destroy team chemistry"

Shoot, it’d go beyond that. I mean way, way beyond that.

I’d literally be afraid that such a proposal could lead to a financially motivated murder where one player kills another.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 15, 2011 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions

A lot of people think they're a lot better and worth more than they really are... tears will fall.

by johnshmidt on Sep 17, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions

"A lot of people think they're a lot better and worth more than they really are..."

Hell, it’s that way in all walks of life.

Try the same thing at a national retail chain full of poorly compensated employees and a free-for-all of infighting will ensue there, too.

No matter if someone is rich, middle class, or poor, it’s true how greed, selfishness, and hubris are three human characteristics that drive us all. There’s no getting around it, either.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 17, 2011 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions

1 – The NBA and world market is not that cooperative

2 – Sorry, but if you hand me a fat check… do you really think I am going to share it with you! NO NO NO…

by Chea Cubana on Sep 13, 2011 10:50 PM PDT reply actions

Why not trust the free market

In a free market the players would be earning far more than they currnetly are paid. The CBA allows owners to pay players less because it limits the ceiling in bidding wars between teams.

Funny when it comes to writing laws the supre wealthy lobby for “free-market” but whn it comes to employee negotiations, forget about it.

by NWfan on Sep 14, 2011 9:56 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs

I think at one point this was true

But in the current economic climate I suspect it’s not. I don’t think most owners at this point have an appetite for losing additional millions and who can really blame them. There are owners and franchises though that would gladly choose your option. There are a number of reasons the NFL is by far the most successful sport, and I believe the hard cap is one of them. It promotes responsible spending by teams, and allows for competitive balance even among small markets (i.e. Green Bay, and Pittsburgh).

by ebnerblazer on Sep 15, 2011 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Herein lies the rub

The player’c can’t possible get a fair agreement with owners unitl the owners come to an internal agreement about revenue sharing amongst themselves. Thus the owners are putting the cart before the horse (which in this case is the players). There can be no way a hard cap can be instituted without a revenue sharing model already in place simply because of the financial disparity among clubs- the owners will not be in agreement about what is fair. Without an owner agreement, the sway unduly favors the majority of small market clubs who will want a smaller cap.

by NWfan on Sep 15, 2011 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Only some players would be earning far more than they are currently paid if there weren't maximum salaries

the “average” or “mid-level” NBA players would be earning far less if the LeBrons, CP3s and Dirks of the world could earn what the market would support.

The thought is that before the 1998-99 lockout, there was mass income equality among players: you had select superstars (Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing) making huge salaries, a few stars making good chunks of changes and everyone else making relatively little. The new CBA in ’99 capped salary at the top and invented new mechanisms (all hail the mid-level exception) to redirect payroll to the mid-rung players of the league.

Now, the concern is that those middle-class players make too much money. The ‘99 CBA was too effective as an income redistributor, and it’s driving the league out of business because no one can afford to pay all of these Travis Outlaws and Amir Johnsons $7 million a year.

Link

Further down in the quoted article there is a graph that shows how many players earned how many millions in the last season prior to the 1998 lockout and last season. The dollar amounts aren’t nearly as important as the shape of the graphs. Last seasons had a fairly uniform distribution across the income spectrum while in the pre-lockout era it was what you would expect if the market set the cap: a normal distribution.

by tingeyga on Sep 15, 2011 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Hunter said he'd accept a hard cap

if the player guarantee of BRI was increased to 65%.

by Storyteller on Sep 14, 2011 12:26 PM PDT reply actions

whoah

what is it now, 57%?
what would the difference in money be?

"I was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all."

by thankyouforblaze on Sep 15, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Changing the player guarantee from 57% to 65%

Would cost the owners in the neighborhood of $300 million.

by tingeyga on Sep 15, 2011 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Question?

In reference to the basketball related income BRI and hard cap. If every team is held to a hard cap of say 45 million there would be a massive loss in player salaries across the board. There are teams like the lakers over 90 million that would cut 45 million in player salaries to adhere. I am not even pretending to understand all this but am I missing a part of the equation. How does the BRI weigh in when you have 32 teams under 45 million in player salaries. There would still be literally over 100 million in player slaries cut easy were would the extra money from increased or even the same BRI go.

by seth#55 on Sep 16, 2011 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions

Amnesty favors big spending teams though,

especially ones willing to take on huge salary in trades.

It doesn’t help competitive balance. There’s already exceptions for injured players. You can’t replace a star with an exception though, obviously. In reality, there are only so many safeguards in the real world against stupidity and bad luck. Perhaps the NBA should resemble real life a bit more in order for the more prudent teams to compete.

by Hipster Olympic Team! on Sep 14, 2011 5:26 PM PDT reply actions

I realize the Blazers have been hit hard by injuries but

Brandon DID have red flags on his knees coming out of college. Is if fair to a team that passed on him because of that if the Blazers are allowed to wipe his salary off the cap? No. It’s not.

by Hipster Olympic Team! on Sep 14, 2011 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions

"what about [...] allowing a team's players flexibility to rearrange their salaries among themselves."

Guys would be at one another’s throats. Not just figuratively, either, since money can drive people to kill.

What a mess!

Seriously, in no industry is that an advisable style of management. It’d essentially be like letting the inmates run the asylum when it comes to budgeting, organizing, and dispersing payroll.

All in all, it’d be an epic disaster.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Sep 15, 2011 8:16 PM PDT reply actions

How about some new 'max deal' rules ?

If the concern is that a hard cap leaves no money after holding onto the super stars, how about paying the super stars less, and/or only allowing ONE max contract per team, then maybe one max2 (lower, but still high), and maybe a tiered few max contracts. This would not allow teams to spend all their payroll on two or three guys, with the rest ‘role players’ getting way less. Also it could tend to distribute the super stars around, since there would be significant incentive to stick with the max contract on a team, rather than join with another max buddy on one team… I would think this kind of a deal could sail through the union vote, since it clearly is to the advantage of the majority, and the Heat can cry about it (if necessary for owners to agree, you could allow ‘grandfather’ clause to save existing deals.)
And there needs to be better ways to dump toxic contracts that are killing teams, rather than ‘too bad, you lose’.
? just a thought.

Wake me when the game is on.

by Berkeley on Sep 16, 2011 12:19 PM PDT reply actions