NBA Lockout News and Analysis..

[AsUdUdE]

I have had an eye on this potential NBA lockout for a while now, seeing it as close to a sure thing when my favorite summer vaction the Vegas Summer League was canceled in anticipation of this..

But hearing now the the owners want non-guarenteed contracts AND a 45 million dollar hard cap. To put that in perspective the Mavs and Lakers had DOUBLE this year..

Ofcourse the players are scoffing at these demands and are basically telling the owners to go to hell...

It is a fascinating stand still, because unlike the NFL where fans don't really care which side wins and we all just want to see the game, here depending which team you support, there will be FIERCE opinions from fans..

If you are a Laker/Mavs/Magic/Heat/Celtic/Knick or any other team with a great owner, you are fully on the players side, thinking a hard cap is unfair, and as long as you are willing to pay the Tax and can con some team out of a superstar or two, your all good..

If you are a Suns fan, or any small-medium market team it would be an absolute GAME CHANGER to have a hard cap. Suddenly $aver isn't such a liability and super teams will not be allowed to combine simply because your owner is James Dolan..

For the record I think they should comprimise with a hard cap at a higher amount (this year was 58 million, only 6 teams were at or under) perhaps 55 million, and as for the non-guareented contract, make them partially guarentee, with a buyout of half the contract that STILL count against the cap. This way the Players are penalized completely, and the owners still take some responsiblity..

In the end, a lockout could be the best thing that ever happend to this franchise who is in a complete state of limbo, and not really going anywhere..

I feel bad for even saying this, but I may secretly be hoping for a lockout, as long as it brings a hard cap and perhaps consequently direction to this franchise..

Thoughts

 

[elindholm]

I don't see how a hard cap can work without also drastically limiting player salaries, especially raises. Even if you have only a few guys making eight figures, the hard cap gets eaten up very quickly. What do you tell teams like the Thunder (or next generation's version of the Thunder) who are clever enough to draft multiple stars: They have to give one of them up, for no reason?

I think the $45 million figure has to be pure posturing, but it's so absurd on its face that I doubt it will be an effective negotiating tactic. It's one thing to come in with a hard line and then "compromise" down (or up) to the terms you wanted in the first place, but it's another thing to make a demand so outrageous that it pollutes any further conversation.

I see this ending badly.

 

[Covert Rain]

I don't see how a hard cap can work without also drastically limiting player salaries, especially raises. Even if you have only a few guys making eight figures, the hard cap gets eaten up very quickly. What do you tell teams like the Thunder (or next generation's version of the Thunder) who are clever enough to draft multiple stars: They have to give one of them up, for no reason?

I think the $45 million figure has to be pure posturing, but it's so absurd on its face that I doubt it will be an effective negotiating tactic. It's one thing to come in with a hard line and then "compromise" down (or up) to the terms you wanted in the first place, but it's another thing to make a demand so outrageous that it pollutes any further conversation.

I see this ending badly.

I like the idea of a hard cap in the NBA. However, I think they need to do have exceptions to the hard cap based on years of service. So, basically you can pay Vets a little more without impacting the cap as their salaries normally would.

 

[elindholm]

I like the idea of a hard cap in the NBA. However, I think they need to do have exceptions to the hard cap based on years of service.

Then it's not a hard cap. A cap with exceptions is a soft cap.

 

[Griffin]

If you are a Suns fan, or any small-medium market team it would be an absolute GAME CHANGER to have a hard cap. Suddenly $aver isn't such a liability and super teams will not be allowed to combine simply because your owner is James Dolan..

But what the Heat had done this summer they could have done with a hard cap. A $55M hard cap is more than enough to sign three max players, especially if they are willing to take pay cuts to play in a large market, and especially if player salaries will go down in the new CBA. And with a hard cap, that may become the only way to put this much talent on a single team, so you might see more teams (and more groups of superstars) go that route. So I am not sure if I would argue for a hard cap at this point.

The main exceptions that currently allow teams to exceed the salary cap are the Larry Bird exception and the mid-level exception. The first one in particular was created so that teams can re-sign their star players even if they couldn't afford them anymore. This will always be the case since players will always be up for raises. You'd almost have to combine a hard cap with some level of non-guaranteed contracts, so that a team wishing to keep its best players could still do so by releasing some others (if they cannot get rid of their salaries via trades).

 

[AsUdUdE]

I don't see how a hard cap can work without also drastically limiting player salaries, especially raises. Even if you have only a few guys making eight figures, the hard cap gets eaten up very quickly. What do you tell teams like the Thunder (or next generation's version of the Thunder) who are clever enough to draft multiple stars: They have to give one of them up, for no reason?

I think the $45 million figure has to be pure posturing, but it's so absurd on its face that I doubt it will be an effective negotiating tactic. It's one thing to come in with a hard line and then "compromise" down (or up) to the terms you wanted in the first place, but it's another thing to make a demand so outrageous that it pollutes any further conversation.

I see this ending badly.

From what I understand the introduction of a hard cap is directly related to a decrease in players saleries...

For example, if the hard cap is set at 55 million, a max salary will be a % of the cap, something like 30%.

So the max salary will be 11-12 million instead of 15-20...

So you could still in theory have 2-3 "stars" but the days of Mark Cuban having a 90 million dollar payroll because he can and consequently attracks every F.A. or trade because he can take the salary are ing HOPEFULLY close to being over...

It will without a doubt level the play field.. but the only way a hard cap actually works, is if the contracts are not fully guarenteed..

By having the flexibity to cut players who are not playing up to their cap number you will be able to mold your team year after year to be competitve.

Its a win win for every team that doesn't have a billionaire owner..

 

[Mainstreet]

My hope is Stern and Hunter are smart enough to reach an agreement on a new CBA because both must realize each side has too much to lose if a season or even a part of a season is lost.

The Suns need a new owner to solve their problems not necessarily a hard cap although I agree some form of a more rigid cap is needed to help the smaller market teams. I just don't buy the Suns are a small market team.

I find it interesting that there seems to be an anti-union movement going on nationwide but pro sports such as the NFL and NBA need a players union to avoid anti-trust laws. I don't see either sport surviving without a bargaining agreement. Then it would be winner take all, the end of drafts and rules regarding contracts. The owners would quickly eat each other up. Maybe it is getting time to form a new league like the old American Basketball Association with new ownership and a new league FO.

 

[AsUdUdE]

But ..

The main exceptions that currently allow teams to exceed the salary cap are the Larry Bird exception and the mid-level exception. The first one in particular was created so that teams can re-sign their star players even if they couldn't afford them anymore. This will always be the case since players will always be up for raises. You'd almost have to combine a hard cap with some level of non-guaranteed contracts, so that a team wishing to keep its best players could still do so by releasing some others (if they cannot get rid of their salaries via trades).

Those two execptions are HUGE.. Being able to resign any player on your team for any amount of money you wish is a huge disadvantage for teams who can't.

And the mid-level, being able to constantly add a fringe starter year after year helps the rich get richer, while other teams who may have been frugel and were under the cap by a couple million could not entertain that possibilty even if they wanted to.

Add that to the fact that because these owners are dealing out ridiculous contracts, when they become set to expire they simply add those to any trade to give another team "cap relief" while they get back a significant player they can now resign for any amount, without having any regard for the "cap". (See Pau Gasol Trade).

The bottom line is the NBA is a lot more like the MLB, than anything. The "cap" doesn't mean really anything these days, you can tell this by the fact that only 6 teams were at or under the cap this year..

 

[AsUdUdE]

My hope is Stern and Hunter are smart enough to reach an agreement on a new CBA because both must realize each side has too much to lose if a season or even a part of a season is lost.

The Suns need a new owner to solve their problems not necessarily a hard cap although I agree some form of a more rigid cap is needed to help the smaller market teams. I just don't buy the Suns are a small market team.

I find it interesting that there seems to be an anti-union movement going on nationwide but pro sports such as the NFL and NBA need a players union to avoid anti-trust laws. I don't see either sport surviving without a bargaining agreement. Then it would be winner take all, the end of drafts and rules regarding contracts. The owners would quickly eat each other up. Maybe it is getting time to form a new league like the old American Basketball Association with new ownership and a new league FO.

They absoluetly are a small market team as long as Sarver owns the team. Same thing as the Clippers, they are in a HUGE market but because of Sterling they are run and should be considered a small market team..

If James Dolan owned the Milwakee Bucks they would be a run as a big market team, with lots of cash to spend. It really almost entirely depends on the owner..

The Phoenix Suns even though we are a big city, are being run as a small market organization and will continue until they get a new owner..

 

[Mainstreet]

They absoluetly are a small market team as long as Sarver owns the team. Same thing as the Clippers, they are in a HUGE market but because of Sterling they are run and should be considered a small market team..

If James Dolan owned the Milwakee Bucks they would be a run as a big market team, with lots of cash to spend. It really almost entirely depends on the owner..

The Phoenix Suns even though we are a big city, are being run as a small market organization and will continue until they get a new owner..

Well we are certainly in agreement about Sarver. What is really frustrating about Sarver is he usually spends the money but it is usually spent penny wise and pound foolish. He should be investing in scouting and FO positions such as the GM... investing in a good basketball minds. Even Porter and Gentry were hired on the cheap. Luckily Gentry has done a fairly good job given the circumstances.

 

[Divide Et Impera]

If the owners want a low, hard cap like that, I want lower ticket and concessions prices....

 

[Covert Rain]

O

Then it's not a hard cap. A cap with exceptions is a soft cap.

Technically your right but the NFL does something similar and that is not the same thing as having a choice to circumvent the cap if you can afford it. That to me is more of soft cap. There is no such thing as a hard cap if you want to say exceptions make is soft. I don't know of any hard cap that has ever been implemented without exceptions.

IMO a soft cap is one in which a team with more funds then another can exceed the cap without limitation as the current cap is (utilizing luxury tax). My idea is to allow teams to pay their vets a little more based on years of service so they don't get squeezed out by larger star contracts. Nobody is saying millions. Just something above minimum. It could be tiered say after 5 years in the league or something.

Eliminate the ability to go over the cap and the ridiculous luxury tax that allows the rich teams to continue to do what they want. The current system just perpetuates the the current problems in the league.

 

[Superbone]

I don't see how a hard cap can work without also drastically limiting player salaries, especially raises. Even if you have only a few guys making eight figures, the hard cap gets eaten up very quickly. What do you tell teams like the Thunder (or next generation's version of the Thunder) who are clever enough to draft multiple stars: They have to give one of them up, for no reason?

To start with, you get rid of 8 figure salaries.

 

[AsUdUdE]

To start with, you get rid of 8 figure salaries.

this..