CBA - Interesting Idea

[jlove]

I saw this article on RealGM and absolutely LOVE the idea. This would definitely be something the owners would love as well as most of the players in the league. The only thing I would want to see is maybe a mandatory 3 year comittment from a player who is a 1-7 type player (8-15 are usually a 1-4 year contract now) since with this each player would be a FA each summer.

http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_p...rmanent_peace_between_nba_players_and_owners/

 

[Divide Et Impera]

That is interesting. Under this scenario, we'd never again see what happened in MIA this offseason again. Why? Well, if your salary is slotted and you get bonuses for where you rank in the league, there's no way you'll want to jeopardize your own ranking.

Lebron James probably ranked #1 this past year under these metrics. Now with Bosh and Wade to account for, he could end up in the 2nd tier (6-10), thus forfeiting a $1.5 million bonus.

The good? Star players would scatter all over the league. This could lead to league parity rather than continuing the concentration of championships.

The bad? I think this might actually enhance the power of major media markets. Money earned through endorsements outside of NBA salaries becomes of greater import. If a player ranks #20 on this slotting, he knows what he'll make with any team no matter what. The variable consideration now becomes endorsements and extra income, thus empowering places like NYK and CHI and LAL/C.

That's how I see it....

 

[Sunburn]

Why does money earned through outside endorsements become of greater importance? What's the difference in what large markets can offer in endorsements now as compared to what they could offer under this proposed system? NY and LAC offer more endorsement money now, yet we're not seeing an exodus to these markets. They are and always will be more attractive than smaller markets, but just as we're seeing now, I think it really comes down to winning. Then again, I might be writing something completely uneducated down here since I've been too lazy to read the realgm article yet.

 

[Sunburn]

Ok, kinda skimmed over it. My take is although endorsement market would play a role in decision making, no more of a role then it plays now. Part of the plan is team performance pay, with more money going to players on winning teams. This encourages players to be on winning teams even more so than they already are presently, where we're seeing players turn down more money for the chance to win. This supports the argument that players will still choose winning over money. Yet, the plan also encourages players to spread out, so we wouldn't see the monopolies that we're witnessing today. I like it. Kinda covers all the bases. Under this plan, I don't see market size playing any more of a role in decision making than it already does presently.

 

[SactownSunsFan]

That system would be more broken than the current one. Team basketball in the NBA would suffer tremendously, as players would play more selfishly to get better stats to justify higher minutes, and thus a higher salary.

It would be a league of Allen Iverson-minded players.

 

[Covert Rain]

That system would be more broken than the current one. Team basketball in the NBA would suffer tremendously, as players would play more selfishly to get better stats to justify higher minutes, and thus a higher salary.

It would be a league of Allen Iverson-minded players.

I think I agree with you. I think this could create a catch 22. While encouraging players to spread out, I think it will also encourage players to "go for theirs" more as well. You will get guys trying to pump up their stats to improve their slot.

I think there should be more reliance on the success of your team in any equation they do. No system is going to be perfect but I think there needs to be a balance here in any formula they use.

 

[Errntknght]

I disagree SacTown, but man will it ever empower the coaches since they directly control the players minutes. There will no particular incentive for the players to score unless that is what their coaches want them to do. The players incentives will be to win games, especially in the playoffs and to keep their coaches happy.

Now when a GM or meddling owner pays an outrageous price for a player, the coach is virtually forced to play them and the players know it. Under the new scheme the FO folks won't have much financial incentive to pressure the coaches that way - their financial interests will be served by putting a team on the floor that appeals to fans, which primarily means winning lots of games.

Personally, I think the 'voted on' awards should be decreased by half, at least, and the team performance awards increased by the same amount - and it should be apportioned in direct proportion to games won for teams not in the playoffs. (That disincentives tanking.) That would probably entail a bit of sliding scale for the players in divying up the team performance awards instead of making the player shares the same for every player.

For those of you who didn't read the full tale, players bonuses for MVP voting ranged from 5 to 3 million over ranks 1-25. There would be ten layers of all conference teams(100 players total) with bonuses from 4.8 million down to 1.2 million. But getting into the playoffs was worth less that 425,000 - how much less was not clear because the amounts were not given for players on teams out of the playoffs. The biggest payoffs for playoff success was a mere 2 million. It just seems goofy to me to peg so much money to 'awards' - they're over emphasized already.

I think it is a wonderful idea and I really think it will re-vitalize the game. Imagine the coaches having the weapon to force their primadonnas into taking defense seriously.

 

[Chaplin]

What about lower contracts but with more palpable and significant incentives? Not personal incentives, but team incentives? Like making the playoffs, the WCF's or the Finals. Probably too simplistic.

 

[Covert Rain]

I disagree SacTown, but man will it ever empower the coaches since they directly control the players minutes. There will no particular incentive for the players to score unless that is what their coaches want them to do. The players incentives will be to win games, especially in the playoffs and to keep their coaches happy.

That's all great in theory. However, the reality is this....for most teams in the NBA..the players run the asylum. There are only a few coaches in this league (Phil Jackson types) that command player respect. Also, how many times have we seen when push comes to shove...players trump coaches?

Maybe that changes....I just don't see it.

What about lower contracts but with more palpable and significant incentives? Not personal incentives, but team incentives? Like making the playoffs, the WCF's or the Finals. Probably too simplistic.

I would much prefer this.

 

[Chaplin]

I would much prefer this.

Isn't incentivizing (?) contracts a good model (as seen in the NFL)?

 

[Covert Rain]

Isn't incentivizing (?) contracts a good model (as seen in the NFL)?

I think it is. It still encourages pay for performance while rewarding a guy for being the best team player possible. If the league gets its way and reduces contract length as well...it's not like a player has to stick with a bad team that has bad ownership. It just guarantees that player will not be there long.

I just don't like the idea of ranking each player based on individual stats to determine salary slots. The more I think about it the more I don't like it...unless it's almost entirely based on team performance. Not just wins but it could be you have one of the best defenses, rebounding teams...etc...

 

[Sunburn]

How would incentivizing contracts be much different than the proposed deal? Wouldn't that still foster the same culture of selfishness, if this is the argument?

 

[Chaplin]

How would incentivizing contracts be much different than the proposed deal? Wouldn't that still foster the same culture of selfishness, if this is the argument?

Not if they are more geared towards team incentives rather than personal ones. A Finals appearance isn't going to be a achieved by a single guy playing selfishly.

 

[Sunburn]

I agree that incentivizing team success would be important to the game and would quash selfishness, but then how do you counteract the motivation for all the best players to jump to one team, like we're seeing now?

 

[Chaplin]

I agree that incentivizing team success would be important to the game and would quash selfishness, but then how do you counteract the motivation for all the best players to jump to one team, like we're seeing now?

Good question, but how does the NFL keep that from happening?

 

[Sunburn]

Good question, but how does the NFL keep that from happening?

The salary cap. They also have personal incentives blended into contracts as well.

 

[Covert Rain]

Good question, but how does the NFL keep that from happening?

They have a hard cap. You do that and it definitely impact the NBA. The problem has been that in the NBA nobody has ever agreed to a hard cap. To me you do that and it will help.

I still think less of players salaries should be guaranteed and based on team incentive stats versus individual stats.

 

[Irish]

I still think less of players salaries should be guaranteed and based on team incentive stats versus individual stats.

They might consider a "hard cap" and a luxury tax on incetives in a context of very limited guarantees.

IMHO, most teams are concerned about the big money paid to guys who stop producing. They's happily pay for producing superstars, but end up getting locked into contracts that are well beyond what the guy is actually producing.

 

[Errntknght]

That's all great in theory. However, the reality is this....for most teams in the NBA..the players run the asylum. There are only a few coaches in this league (Phil Jackson types) that command player respect. Also, how many times have we seen when push comes to shove...players trump coaches?

Maybe that changes....I just don't see it.

My reading of the suggestion is that a players minutes is the primary determining factor in how much he gets paid. Presently, the player trumps the coach because he's going to get paid the same regardless of how much the coach plays him - and the owner shells out the full amount. Naturally the owner wants his expensive assets to be used. But if the total player cost to the owner is a fixed amount he has little motivation to interfere - he'd have to have a legit basketball reason to do it. Same for the GM. Should a coach start using his power for petty reasons, his team will underperform and he'll get fired but if he uses it to win more games then all is well - thats what he's supposed to do.

 

[Covert Rain]

My reading of the suggestion is that a players minutes is the primary determining factor in how much he gets paid.

Which might not work. For instance, you could have a dirt worker on your team who plays alot of minutes but might not be a star. Meanwhile you have your star player who plays fewer minutes and he get's less? Nash is a perfect example.

Presently, the player trumps the coach because he's going to get paid the same regardless of how much the coach plays him - and the owner shells out the full amount. Naturally the owner wants his expensive assets to be used. But if the total player cost to the owner is a fixed amount he has little motivation to interfere - he'd have to have a legit basketball reason to do it. Same for the GM. Should a coach start using his power for petty reasons, his team will underperform and he'll get fired but if he uses it to win more games then all is well - thats what he's supposed to do.

Your star players will always be happy. What this will create is a ton of animosity for the 2nd tier and 3rd tier players on your team. They are all going to say I should get more minutes. If 70% of your salary is determined on this it will create a vacuum. Players will be complaining about minutes. Not because it would help the team win but because they want a higher salary slot. I see those 2nd & 3rd tier players not sticking around and going to teams that will probably unofficially guarantee them more playing time to give them a higher salary slot. It will create a revolving door for all the players but the stars.

Also the team play part is too high with wins equating to 10% of the salary. That # needs to be low and only part of it because of those teams that just don't win. You don't want players jumping ship because this % is too high.

I would include wins as only part of the equation. It should take into account team stats around defense, rebounds, assists, offense and those types of Team stats. I could have the best defense in the NBA but it doesn't equate to very many wins. I could have the best offense but it doesn't equate to wins etc.... It should be a formula so that if you have the best rebounder in the NBA and that has made my TEAM one of the best rebounding teams....his salary reflects that regardless of wins.

I would have to think about this but I would prefer a much more well rounded formula that takes all of this into account. Throwing to high a percentage into any one of these categories will result in something bad IMO.

 

[SactownSunsFan]

I disagree SacTown, but man will it ever empower the coaches since they directly control the players minutes. There will no particular incentive for the players to score unless that is what their coaches want them to do. The players incentives will be to win games, especially in the playoffs and to keep their coaches happy.

And I think that in itself would piss a lot of players off - pay based on minutes played would make for a lot disgruntled players who sit at or near the end of the bench, especially for teams that aren't winning.

 

[Sunburn]

...pay based on minutes played would make for a lot disgruntled players who sit at or near the end of the bench, especially for teams that aren't winning.

Do those guys make much more now than what the deal is proposing they would receive?

 

[Errntknght]

DarenG,

Which might not work. For instance, you could have a dirt worker on your team who plays alot of minutes but might not be a star. Meanwhile you have your star player who plays fewer minutes and he get's less? Nash is a perfect example.
.
.
.
Your star players will always be happy.

Which of your two statements do you agree with?

What this will create is a ton of animosity for the 2nd tier and 3rd tier players on your team. They are all going to say I should get more minutes. If 70% of your salary is determined on this it will create a vacuum. Players will be complaining about minutes. Not because it would help the team win but because they want a higher salary slot. I see those 2nd & 3rd tier players not sticking around and going to teams that will probably unofficially guarantee them more playing time to give them a higher salary slot. It will create a revolving door for all the players but the stars.

Players compete for playing time now and they currently switch to teams where they will get to play more - by agreement or just hopefully. Indirectly playing time equates to money now, but making the relationship so sharply defined will probably intensify the competition, as you're saying. Of course, competition is good - unless it escalates to the point where a guy would injure a teammate in practice to up his own minutes. Social forces curb that pretty effectively because any guy who did that would be anathema throughout the whole league. And if the coach had a strong suspicion it was purposeful, the guy'd get a permanent spot on the pine or IL.

The revolving door won't revolve very fast as contracts will be for four years, after the five year initial contract - at least, thats how I read the suggested plan. Teams can trade players and players can request to be traded just like now - but if anything, I'd expect less player movement because financial motives for pursuing trades will be greatly diminished. No more lesser players being cap filler in a trade, for one thing.

If team winning percentage is a signifcant factor players will obviously prefer the teams that are winning more, but playing time is another factor they have to balance. I don't see any problem with that at all.

Don't forget that the players union is going to have to agree to the various percentages for team wins, playoff success, playing time, individual awards and individual performance. Historically, unions oppose pay for performance (individual or team) and love job security, pay for seniority & retirement plans. But, if they go along with a scheme like this different levels of players are not going to agree wholly - stars got their money by contract negotiation so the leveling effects of prior CBAs were minor. They will be all in favor of pay for individual performance but they will be in a minority. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out, if they go this route at all. The owners will not be all that unanimous on all the elements either - the big markets will be fighting the income sharing and probably the whole scheme.

 

[Covert Rain]

DarenG,

Which of your two statements do you agree with?

Both. In some instances your star players will be happy. However, there will always be exceptions to the minutes rule. Just like Nash.

Basing this mostly on minutes is ridiculous IMO. It has to be more then that.

 

[Errntknght]

Both. In some instances your star players will be happy. However, there will always be exceptions to the minutes rule. Just like Nash.

Basing this mostly on minutes is ridiculous IMO. It has to be more then that.

You've moved from 'always' to 'some instances' - that's progress.

Well, I gave a list of things the parties involved are going to hash over. I happen to agree with the suggested plan that 'playing time' is an excellent measure of a players contribution, but my opinion, like yours, is going count for nothing if and when the negotiations take place.