OT - David Stern & NBA Lockout

[overseascardfan]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...david-stern-nba-wants-player-salary-drop.html

First read about this on SI.com but now its in the AZ Republic. Stern and the owners are nuts if they think the players union will agree to lower there salaries at least 1/3. This is going to be a long lockout. FWIW, I think that player salaries do need to go down, compared to the NFL, NBA players make more but face less physical punishment that football players. Stay tuned.

 

[AzStevenCal]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...david-stern-nba-wants-player-salary-drop.html

First read about this on SI.com but now its in the AZ Republic. Stern and the owners are nuts if they think the players union will agree to lower there salaries at least 1/3. This is going to be a long lockout. FWIW, I think that player salaries do need to go down, compared to the NFL, NBA players make more but face less physical punishment that football players. Stay tuned.

Yeah, I watched that press conference. I think a lockout is almost a sure thing. Maybe I missed it in the article but Stern did allow that the entire 800 million dollar swing doesn't necessarily have to happen overnight (in the first year of the new deal) so I guess there's a little hope.

Steve

 

[MigratingOsprey]

i don't think you can compare across leagues ..... hockey players take a ton of punishment and really don't make much money at all

it's not about being compensated for risk - it's about being compensated as a draw

the NBA is a good league to be in as it has usually had pretty good revenue streams with not many players to cut it up amongst ..... in the NFL you have to pay 3x-4x the amount of players, their revenues are stronger so the skew really isn't that bad

but if you flip it to something like hockey where you have 20 guys hit the ice each night, not a huge TV deal, not all the merchandising money, etc then salaries are going to be lower .... less money cut over more people

so the issue can't be what they make in real dollars relative to other sports ... could maybe look at percentage of overall revenue allocated to player salary

i think the NBA has done a lot of good things in the way they have setup their salary structure (especially for those entering the league), but this has the potential to get kind of interesting

 

[SactownSunsFan]

i don't think you can compare across leagues ..... hockey players take a ton of punishment and really don't make much money at all

it's not about being compensated for risk - it's about being compensated as a draw

the NBA is a good league to be in as it has usually had pretty good revenue streams with not many players to cut it up amongst ..... in the NFL you have to pay 3x-4x the amount of players, their revenues are stronger so the skew really isn't that bad

but if you flip it to something like hockey where you have 20 guys hit the ice each night, not a huge TV deal, not all the merchandising money, etc then salaries are going to be lower .... less money cut over more people

so the issue can't be what they make in real dollars relative to other sports ... could maybe look at percentage of overall revenue allocated to player salary

i think the NBA has done a lot of good things in the way they have setup their salary structure (especially for those entering the league), but this has the potential to get kind of interesting

Very well said, and very true.

 

[overseascardfan]

i don't think you can compare across leagues ..... hockey players take a ton of punishment and really don't make much money at all

it's not about being compensated for risk - it's about being compensated as a draw

the NBA is a good league to be in as it has usually had pretty good revenue streams with not many players to cut it up amongst ..... in the NFL you have to pay 3x-4x the amount of players, their revenues are stronger so the skew really isn't that bad

but if you flip it to something like hockey where you have 20 guys hit the ice each night, not a huge TV deal, not all the merchandising money, etc then salaries are going to be lower .... less money cut over more people

so the issue can't be what they make in real dollars relative to other sports ... could maybe look at percentage of overall revenue allocated to player salary

i think the NBA has done a lot of good things in the way they have setup their salary structure (especially for those entering the league), but this has the potential to get kind of interesting

I agree with some of what you say especially since the NHL really isn't as big a draw as the NFL or NBA. But prior to the NHL almost going bankrupt they had some pretty big salaries.

 

[SunsTzu]

NBA players are far more marketable the NFL players. Top players also have a much larger impact on games in the NBA. Even NFL rookies who haven't taken any NFL punishment or proven they even belong in the league can be making more the perennial Pro-Bowlers.

 

[Folster]

The biggest problem is guaranteed contracts. One bad contract, or injury can cripple a franchise for a better part of a decade, especially when you consider the those teams usually end up sacrificing draft picks just to rid themselves of the albatross.

The second biggest problem is the erosion of the NBA "middle class". In fact, if it weren't for the MLE, the mid level salary would be all but eliminated. Most team payrolls are comprised of 3-4 max or near max players and the remaining remaining players make 6 million a year or less.

 

[Irish]

The biggest problem is guaranteed contracts. One bad contract, or injury can cripple a franchise for a better part of a decade, especially when you consider the those teams usually end up sacrificing draft picks just to rid themselves of the albatross.

The second biggest problem is the erosion of the NBA "middle class". In fact, if it weren't for the MLE, the mid level salary would be all but eliminated. Most team payrolls are comprised of 3-4 max or near max players and the remaining remaining players make 6 million a year or less.

I mostly agree. Top players can have a massive impact on a team's winning or losing. Average players can't and thus aren't paid as well. Unforunately, there aren't enough top players so even second tier guys get huge contracts (Amare is very good, but he's no Durant).

Too many of the "great" players were viewed as great in college. But unless you tank your season to get a top three pick, it is just not likely that a great player will fall into the 20's when drafting. As it is, it is hard to get superstars through free agency (usually excessively expensive).

 

[Covert Rain]

I just want to come out of this lock out or not a hard cap. The reason the NFL is the best sport on the planet is because it can be a more even playing field. We have seen it that teams can become good again managing the salary cap. We have seen teams that have not been any good for 30+ years become good again. We have seen teams you didn't associate with winning the championship have opportunities to do so.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I just want to come out of this lock out or not a hard cap. The reason the NFL is the best sport on the planet is because it can be a more even playing field. We have seen it that teams can become good again managing the salary cap. We have seen teams that have not been any good for 30+ years become good again. We have seen teams you didn't associate with winning the championship have opportunities to do so.

I don't think they can go to a completely "hard" cap. There has to be some flexibility. Unlike the NFL, one salary can eat up a significant portion of the cap. They would need to have something like a cap for active players with some kind of allowance for injured players and the like. Also, because there would be so little room to manuever (and no Bird rights) an inflexible cap would create more player movement which is bad for the league IMO.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

I don't think they can go to a completely "hard" cap. There has to be some flexibility. Unlike the NFL, one salary can eat up a significant portion of the cap. They would need to have something like a cap for active players with some kind of allowance for injured players and the like. Also, because there would be so little room to manuever (and no Bird rights) an inflexible cap would create more player movement which is bad for the league IMO.

Steve

I simply don't agree. Those same arguments were made before the NFL hard cap. Yes there has been movement of players in the NFL but teams still manage to hang on to their great players for the most part. Also, look at all the NFL teams that don't spend all their cap every year. That will still happen in the NBA as well.

This would prevent teams like Miami stacking the deck. Just like the NFL, NBA teams will adjust. If salaries become more manageable (see Sterns comment about reducing salary) then it becomes a matter of managing your cap dollars and structuring contracts.

It can't be exactly the same but something similar will only help the league in the long term IMO.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I simply don't agree. Those same arguments were made before the NFL hard cap. Yes there has been movement of players in the NFL but teams still manage to hang on to their great players for the most part. Also, look at all the NFL teams that don't spend all their cap every year. That will still happen in the NBA as well.

This would prevent teams like Miami stacking the deck. Just like the NFL, NBA teams will adjust. If salaries become more manageable (see Sterns comment about reducing salary) then it becomes a matter of managing your cap dollars and structuring contracts.

It can't be exactly the same but something similar will only help the league in the long term IMO.

How do you handle career ending injuries? Is that team just doomed to lottery land until the contract runs out. What do you do if you are at your max and 3 of your players are in a car accident? Do you force that team to play with 3 fewer roster spots? What if it's a bus accident and 13 of your players are injured?

The NFL splits their salary cap among a large number of players (plus they have a separate rookie cap) but in the NBA the lion's share of a team's salary goes to such a small percentage of the players on that team. It leaves little room for flexibility or error. Unless they can figure out a way to do some kind of slotting an inflexible cap just won't work, IMO and even then they will have to have some cap exception rules.

I agree they need to firm up the cap but there is a lot of room between a completely hard cap and what the league has today.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

How do you handle career ending injuries? Is that team just doomed to lottery land until the contract runs out. What do you do if you are at your max and 3 of your players are in a car accident? Do you force that team to play with 3 fewer roster spots? What if it's a bus accident and 13 of your players are injured?

The NFL splits their salary cap among a large number of players (plus they have a separate rookie cap) but in the NBA the lion's share of a team's salary goes to such a small percentage of the players on that team. It leaves little room for flexibility or error. Unless they can figure out a way to do some kind of slotting an inflexible cap just won't work, IMO and even then they will have to have some cap exception rules.

I agree they need to firm up the cap but there is a lot of room between a completely hard cap and what the league has today.

Steve

It sounds like your assuming they institute a hard salary cap without any of the other details? I don't know why you would assume that the entire structure of how they handle salaries and contracts wouldn't change as well. The owners are going to attempt a hard salary cap. I am sure they have had their people working on the structure and how salaries would be handled along with contracts for months.

Just like the NFL did, there would be exceptions to the salary of course which is the obvious answer. The NBA would have to put some of their own spin on that simply because of the smaller roster size. They have already done rookie salary slotting. Also, usually 4 or 6 players even on a huge NFL roster usually make up the majority of your salary. Hard cap isn't going to change that. What will change is the # of years and max dollar amount any one player can have.

The owners are also proposing maximum contracts reduction and a limit on years. If you already know the max contract a player can have and the max number of years, I think it becomes easier to spread salary around and plan salary structure. Instead of wondering if your top player is going to get 10 million a year or 15 million a year, you know what the maximum is going to be worse case scenario. You can plan on slotting that extra money towards multiple players or another star player on your team.

 

[AzStevenCal]

It sounds like your assuming they institute a hard salary cap without any of the other details? I don't know why you would assume that the entire structure of how they handle salaries and contracts wouldn't change as well. The owners are going to attempt a hard salary cap. I am sure they have had their people working on the structure and how salaries would be handled along with contracts for months.

Just like the NFL did, there would be exceptions to the salary of course which is the obvious answer. The NBA would have to put some of their own spin on that simply because of the smaller roster size. They have already done rookie salary slotting. Also, usually 4 or 6 players even on a huge NFL roster usually make up the majority of your salary. Hard cap isn't going to change that. What will change is the # of years and max dollar amount any one player can have.

The owners are also proposing maximum contracts reduction and a limit on years. If you already know the max contract a player can have and the max number of years, I think it becomes easier to spread salary around and plan salary structure. Instead of wondering if your top player is going to get 10 million a year or 15 million a year, you know what the maximum is going to be worse case scenario. You can plan on slotting that extra money towards multiple players or another star player on your team.

The last time we argued over this subject (a few months ago), I asked if you really meant a hard cap. I thought you confirmed that you were talking about a hard cap. To me, a truly hard cap says no exceptions. If you're talking about firming up the cap while still allowing for certain circumstances than we are in agreement.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

The last time we argued over this subject (a few months ago), I asked if you really meant a hard cap. I thought you confirmed that you were talking about a hard cap. To me, a truly hard cap says no exceptions. If you're talking about firming up the cap while still allowing for certain circumstances than we are in agreement.

Steve

It's semantics. Nobody is going to call it a "firm cap". It will not be considered "soft" if there only a few exception scenarios (assuming they are not big loop holes and used for instance injury only). I could also see the NBA having no exceptions and having a true hard cap which is still very manageable in my opinion if you have smaller contract maximums and fewer years.

NFL teams have been screwed in some seasons by losing their star player(s) in the same season. It will happen in the NBA as well. I see no difference. Teams that have lost stars in the NBA soft cap just can't go and trade (most of the time) for another star and are screwed anyway if that happens barring they happen to have a ton of cap space.