CBA owner "hardball" begins

I sort of thought this might happen - where the owners play hardball and revert to the original 45 mil hard cap and other initial proposals if no deal gets done now - this is likely going to be ugly and long.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214454/Source_Owners_Will_Push_For_$45_Million_Hard_Cap_Once_Lockout_Begins

 

Good for them. If they hold strong, they should get pretty much whatever they want. I would much rather have the season cancelled for a long term fix

 

don't disagree, will really miss Bball if that occurs, but it is what it is

 

Ultimately I'm hoping the NBA goes away from guaranteed contracts. That's the biggest issue in my mind. Guys should not be able to pull a Darius Miles and collect an exorbitant sum of money while sitting on a bench in a nice suit.

 

I'd love some sort of compromise on guaranteed contracts too. I have no problem with players getting paid if they are hurt, but maybe a clause where every other year or something a team can waive a player and only be forced to pay 1/2 his salary? I'd LOVE to see a code of conduct of sorts be instituted. If a player does something detrimental to the team or something, the team should be allowed to waive him, and that player should not be allowed back in the NBA until his original contract expired

 

I want to go to an NFL type CBA. If a guy underperforms, he's gone. I'm tired of these guys getting their paydays, getting lazy, and getting fat.

 

The last CBA was a financial disaster for the owners, but the problem is that it set the bar for player compensation at a level that they're not going to willingly back away from. Obviously, this new threat is posturing by the owners looking to push the players into signing before the current CBA expires. OTH, if owners really push for the hard cap and everything else they've asked for, this is going to be one long and ugly battle. Oden may actually be the age he looks by the time there's a new season.

 

That's one of the most reasonable suggestions I've seen.

 

I doubt that they go away from Guaranteed contracts, that is an issue on par with the Hard Cap. I would personally like partially Guaranteed contracts were half there money is Guaranteed and the other half is doled out in a performance based process. I would also like the cap to more resemble Hockeys.

 

If "performance based" is games played then I would agree. But you can't go by stats or they will all play selfish. And you can't go by wins or they will all want to play for the best team.

But I agree with an out for the owners if a player misses x amount of games. But even that gets tricky. Do you play hurt, or do you sit out more to prevent any long term injuries......

 

How about: contracts can only be guaranteed for a maximum of three years. Contracts can be longer, but there must be a team option every year thereafter. (Or: a twofold system: there's a player option for a smaller contract and a team option for a larger contract. So if the team wants to keep the player, they have to pay him more. Conversely, if you're a crappy player who lucked into a long (ish) contract, you get the option, but the team doesn't have to pay you as much as if they wanted you.)

 

Personally, I favor a system where after each game they dump a big pile of money representing 1/82nd of the season's total gross receipts into the middle of the basketball court, have the players line up at one end of the floor and the owner/management team at the other, set a timer for 10 minutes and let them have at it to see who can collect the biggest pile. That might be more entertaining than the game.

 

Oh I might buy season tickets just to see that.

Or, the players could work for tips; Ushers pass the hat in each section, and then the pot gets split: Starters get 100-level tips, rotation guys get 200-level tips, and the benchwarmers get 300-level tips.

 

the wealthy in general don't tip well, the bench warmers will actually come out ahead in this scenario i think.

 

Funny how that works, huh? Maybe those stingy NBA players would get a taste of their own poor-tipping medicine.

 

There are some really solid ideas in this thread, but if you want to boil the problem down to its most essential level, the only real issue is the salary cap. Do away with it and let owners foolishly spend as much as they want to.

The whole guaranteed contract thing is a bit misleading. In the NFL, sure they can cut a guy, but they've already paid him the bulk of the money up front. It doesn't really accomplish anything other than freeing up a roster spot. Out of sight, out of mind... People complain about the Darius Miles type situations, but the issue isn't paying him, rather being held accountable (i.e. salary cap) for paying him.

That said, I would prefer to see guaranteed contracts but at a shorter length -- you sign a contact with them, you should pay them -- and no godawful hard cap full of exceptions.

 

You're absolutely right about the NFL system and your recommendation about how the NBA should operate matches mine, but I don't suggest it because I know the owners and league would never adopt it. They want the salary cap to save them from themselves, as an artificial limit on what their "workers" can earn.

In the absence of the cap, salaries might explode in the short-term, but they'd correct based upon what franchises can actually afford. Baseball has never had a salary cap (and a very toothless luxury tax recently) and baseball has never been in any real danger of failing (even in times of self-inflicted PR wounds due to strikes/lockouts).

 

If there is an extended lockout, it will be interesting to see how much of their fanbase the NBA loses. I quit following baseball after their long lockout in the mid-1990's. Given the movement toward super teams, the crooked officiating, and the league's (percieved?) perference toward large market teams, it wouldn't be too hard for me to say 'screw it' after 36 years of following the Blazers.

Go Blazers

 

1) I love this, three year max totally guaranteed contracts, with options after that. (only applying to bird rights or teams under the cap), so you can do a 4, 5, or 6 year contract but basically there's a floor and a ceiling. The team has an option at 1.5X the deal amount that they have two weeks in the offseason to decide to use or not (directly before free agency). The players have one month to decide whether to exercise their option (@ 2/3 of the prior salary), during this time they can negotiate and field offers from other teams and still have a fall-back, teams can also negotiate with other players at the same position, true market valuation at the present time. And I wouldn't feel bad for teams who made shitty deals for players paying 2/3. Perhaps the team could amnesty the player if they opted in and the salary wouldn't count against the cap but the team would have to pay the player.

2) Break the MLE in half. Two 3 year, 3 million dollar MLE's available. No five year deals w/12.5% raises each year to journeymen. This will encourage players to stick with the team that drafted them, or that team getting compensation back.

3) Franchise player tag, just means you're allowed to sign the player for a larger signing bonus%, and other teams have to give up a 1st round pick w/in three years (of their choosing) to sign the player in free agency. You can only designate one player at a time, can only be used once every three years.

4) Bigger signing bonuses available, maybe 15% of a deal (which don't count against the cap), and only 5% raises each year of a contract. This allows players to get paid for potential now, instead of later when they don't pan out or get injured.

5) Reduction in games for the season to 70, four pre-season games (two overseas) per team. Eliminate back to backs, get the same number of games on TV (where a lot of the revenue is). Let's face it, the season is too long, losses mean two little, and at the end lots of teams are resting players, not good for the league. I would suggest along with this eliminate four teams from the playoffs.

So the season would be approximately 70 games, four divisions instead of six (I'd suggest west coast, central, NE, SE), play teams in your division 4X, everyone else twice. The division winners get a bye in the first round, then the top 4 at large from each conference.

/\ both of these moves would add much significance to each regular season game w/o really decreasing the revenues IMO. You'd still have all the key matchups televised, and the smaller markets would likely get more exposure.

Also players might be willing to drop 15% in their current contracts if they didn't have to play back to backs and cut out 12 games a season (along with four teams from the playoffs with no chance at winning). The level of competition would increase dramatically, don't you always think I wish the regular season games were like playoff intensity, this would change things a lot.

I feel like these suggestions would increase competition and fan interest, help out small market owners, and the players would possibly make more in the long run too.