Continued............
------------------------------------------
Open the trade floodgates
Trades are good for teams and good for the fans. That's the message Insider got from several GMs. So why, they ask, has the CBA made it so difficult to trade players?
GMs have grown weary of the rules that require salaries of players being traded be within 15 percent of each other. The rule has the unintentional side effect of turning simple trades into multi-team monsters, with many players moving to teams that don't necessarily want them. GMs also are sick of archaic rules like base-year compensation and the poison-pill provision that make it virtually impossible to trade players who have recently signed big contracts.
"Trades are exciting for fans, and they're the best way for a team to remake a struggling franchise," one GM said. "But right now the rules make it virtually impossible. We've had big trades fall apart because we didn't have another minimum player salary to include in the deal. I don't know why the league doesn't just dump the rules and let us decide which trades make the most sense for our own franchises."
Trade and salary-cap rules are supposed to rein in free-spending owners like Mark Cuban.
We know why. The trade rules were put in place to prevent teams from circumventing the salary cap. If a team could trade 10 low priced players for 10 high priced ones, the disparity between payrolls could quickly get out of control.
Surprisingly, no one Insider talked to is worried about that. They believe the luxury tax is a big enough deterrent to stop most teams from loading up with unbalanced trades. But what about teams like the Mavericks, Knicks and Blazers who in the past have ignored the tax?
"How many championships have those teams won?" one GM of a small-market team asked. "I think you can buy a good NBA team, but you can't buy a championship. There are just too many factors. An owner can have only 15 players on his roster. Eventually the well dries up. If they can afford it, let them. The amount of tax they pay eventually gets back to the small-market teams, giving us more flexibility to make our own big signings."
What GMs are more concerned about is teams that aren't willing to spend at all. "It wasn't the teams that were overspending that caused a problem in baseball; it was the teams that were always slashing payroll," one GM explained. "As long as everyone's in it to win, I don't have a problem with some teams being able to get around the cap with trades. The teams that are under the cap then have the advantage on free agents."
Flexibility is good
Everyone makes mistakes. But mistakes in the NBA can be especially costly. Whether a GM overpaid an unproven free agent, or a tragic injury sidelined a key player, or a team just misjudged a guy's talent, one thing is pretty clear -- there is little margin for error in the NBA these days.
With a hard cap, strict rules on trades and free-agent signings, the looming luxury tax and little financial relief for teams that slip up, one bad move can haunt a franchise for years.
The Magic didn't exactly get the bang for their buck they were hoping for with Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill.
Several GMs have been quietly petitioning the league for a change in the CBA that essentially would allow franchises to recover more quickly when they make a catastrophic mistake.
Nicknamed the "My-Bad Rule" by one GM, the change would allow teams essentially to waive one bad contract a year from its books. While the team would still be on the hook for the money owed the player, the "My-Bad Rule" would erase that salary from the cap and luxury-tax calculations.
Not every GM is in favor of the rule. Some claim their owners would never go for it, because of the increased financial burdens. If a team was allowed to waive a player like Grant Hill, there would be pressure to sign an expensive replacement. Such a rule could cost owners millions of extra dollars every year.
It's also pretty unlikely David Stern will go for the rule -- it essentially blows a pretty major loophole in the salary cap -- but if you're a fan of a team handcuffed by a bad deal, it would be manna from heaven.
Take a look at some of the worst teams in the league and you'll start to understand why the rule might not be such a bad idea:
Magic: Grant Hill is collecting $13.3 million this year for wearing a foot cast.
Cavs: You think Jim Paxson wouldn't like to erase that $13 million, five-year deal he gave Ira Newble?
Hawks: Alan Henderson (six games, 11.3 minutes per) is taking home $7.7 million this year.
Heat: Eddie Jones and Brian Grant are making a combined $24.3 million this season. That's more than half the Heat's $46 million payroll.
Bulls: The Bulls finally got rid of Jalen Rose, but now they're already talking about ways to get Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams and Eddie Robinson's ridiculous deals off the books.
Knicks: Where do we start? Houston, Van Horn, Hardaway, Anderson ...
Celtics: Vin Baker ain't worth $13.5 million. Ditto for Raef LaFrentz.
Can the Commish get it done?
Those four items aren't the only things on GMs' minds, but they were pretty universal. Other executives are concerned about the challenges of small-market owners. Others believe there is too big a gap between single-digit owners (those who bought their teams years ago for less than $10 million) and triple-digit owners (those who paid more than $100 million).
Economics still rule, and every GM reluctantly admitted his job was about more than winning a championship -- it's also about making an NBA team into a real business. That ultimately works against some, but not all, of the items GMs would like to see changed.
Stern has gone out of his way to protect owners from their worst enemy -- themselves -- and he's been enormously successful. Is there a way to maintain the league's fiscal responsibility while addressing the concerns?
"If anyone can do it, it's David," one GM said. "He listens and always has the big picture in view. I think he has literally saved the NBA and feel great about his ability to lead us into the future. With that said, we've got to find a better way to let us do our job. The handcuffs are too tight, and it's hurting the game. You just hope that the players get it as well. You hope it isn't all about the money. If everyone in pro sports -- the league, owners, management, players, agents -- isn't about winning, then you've got a problem. Great competition keeps the fans coming."
Sounds like Stern has his work cut out for him.
------------------------------------------
Open the trade floodgates
Trades are good for teams and good for the fans. That's the message Insider got from several GMs. So why, they ask, has the CBA made it so difficult to trade players?
GMs have grown weary of the rules that require salaries of players being traded be within 15 percent of each other. The rule has the unintentional side effect of turning simple trades into multi-team monsters, with many players moving to teams that don't necessarily want them. GMs also are sick of archaic rules like base-year compensation and the poison-pill provision that make it virtually impossible to trade players who have recently signed big contracts.
"Trades are exciting for fans, and they're the best way for a team to remake a struggling franchise," one GM said. "But right now the rules make it virtually impossible. We've had big trades fall apart because we didn't have another minimum player salary to include in the deal. I don't know why the league doesn't just dump the rules and let us decide which trades make the most sense for our own franchises."
Trade and salary-cap rules are supposed to rein in free-spending owners like Mark Cuban.
We know why. The trade rules were put in place to prevent teams from circumventing the salary cap. If a team could trade 10 low priced players for 10 high priced ones, the disparity between payrolls could quickly get out of control.
Surprisingly, no one Insider talked to is worried about that. They believe the luxury tax is a big enough deterrent to stop most teams from loading up with unbalanced trades. But what about teams like the Mavericks, Knicks and Blazers who in the past have ignored the tax?
"How many championships have those teams won?" one GM of a small-market team asked. "I think you can buy a good NBA team, but you can't buy a championship. There are just too many factors. An owner can have only 15 players on his roster. Eventually the well dries up. If they can afford it, let them. The amount of tax they pay eventually gets back to the small-market teams, giving us more flexibility to make our own big signings."
What GMs are more concerned about is teams that aren't willing to spend at all. "It wasn't the teams that were overspending that caused a problem in baseball; it was the teams that were always slashing payroll," one GM explained. "As long as everyone's in it to win, I don't have a problem with some teams being able to get around the cap with trades. The teams that are under the cap then have the advantage on free agents."
Flexibility is good
Everyone makes mistakes. But mistakes in the NBA can be especially costly. Whether a GM overpaid an unproven free agent, or a tragic injury sidelined a key player, or a team just misjudged a guy's talent, one thing is pretty clear -- there is little margin for error in the NBA these days.
With a hard cap, strict rules on trades and free-agent signings, the looming luxury tax and little financial relief for teams that slip up, one bad move can haunt a franchise for years.
The Magic didn't exactly get the bang for their buck they were hoping for with Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill.
Several GMs have been quietly petitioning the league for a change in the CBA that essentially would allow franchises to recover more quickly when they make a catastrophic mistake.
Nicknamed the "My-Bad Rule" by one GM, the change would allow teams essentially to waive one bad contract a year from its books. While the team would still be on the hook for the money owed the player, the "My-Bad Rule" would erase that salary from the cap and luxury-tax calculations.
Not every GM is in favor of the rule. Some claim their owners would never go for it, because of the increased financial burdens. If a team was allowed to waive a player like Grant Hill, there would be pressure to sign an expensive replacement. Such a rule could cost owners millions of extra dollars every year.
It's also pretty unlikely David Stern will go for the rule -- it essentially blows a pretty major loophole in the salary cap -- but if you're a fan of a team handcuffed by a bad deal, it would be manna from heaven.
Take a look at some of the worst teams in the league and you'll start to understand why the rule might not be such a bad idea:
Magic: Grant Hill is collecting $13.3 million this year for wearing a foot cast.
Cavs: You think Jim Paxson wouldn't like to erase that $13 million, five-year deal he gave Ira Newble?
Hawks: Alan Henderson (six games, 11.3 minutes per) is taking home $7.7 million this year.
Heat: Eddie Jones and Brian Grant are making a combined $24.3 million this season. That's more than half the Heat's $46 million payroll.
Bulls: The Bulls finally got rid of Jalen Rose, but now they're already talking about ways to get Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams and Eddie Robinson's ridiculous deals off the books.
Knicks: Where do we start? Houston, Van Horn, Hardaway, Anderson ...
Celtics: Vin Baker ain't worth $13.5 million. Ditto for Raef LaFrentz.
Can the Commish get it done?
Those four items aren't the only things on GMs' minds, but they were pretty universal. Other executives are concerned about the challenges of small-market owners. Others believe there is too big a gap between single-digit owners (those who bought their teams years ago for less than $10 million) and triple-digit owners (those who paid more than $100 million).
Economics still rule, and every GM reluctantly admitted his job was about more than winning a championship -- it's also about making an NBA team into a real business. That ultimately works against some, but not all, of the items GMs would like to see changed.
Stern has gone out of his way to protect owners from their worst enemy -- themselves -- and he's been enormously successful. Is there a way to maintain the league's fiscal responsibility while addressing the concerns?
"If anyone can do it, it's David," one GM said. "He listens and always has the big picture in view. I think he has literally saved the NBA and feel great about his ability to lead us into the future. With that said, we've got to find a better way to let us do our job. The handcuffs are too tight, and it's hurting the game. You just hope that the players get it as well. You hope it isn't all about the money. If everyone in pro sports -- the league, owners, management, players, agents -- isn't about winning, then you've got a problem. Great competition keeps the fans coming."
Sounds like Stern has his work cut out for him.
