And all players were no longer under contract, and the free market took over, how much would different players get? How much would a superstar like Lebron make? How about very good, but non-superstar like Aldridge? How about a more average player like Wes? How about an end of bench guy like cunningham?
LeBron is garbage but he'd probably get 25 mill a year. Aldridge would get what he's getting. Matthews would get what he's getting. Cunningham would get 500K
If there weren't minimums, Dante wouldn't even get 500k...not when a D-Leaguer makes 25k. I could see K*be and the other stars getting close to 40M.
I could see the NBA making most of their money off of merchandise they sell to idiots who spend their paychecks on jerseys and shoes (instead of food and regular people clothing), instead of off of fans who have been going to games for 30 years spending 100 bucks for 2 beers.
Agreed, there would be superstars earning $40-70million per season EACH then scrub end of the bench guys making a few thousand per game. Michael Jordan was paid $35 million for one season 13 years ago, he was probably underpaid at that time in terms of value to his Bulls teams, and the league as a whole has much more revenue today then it did back then. When Lebron left Cleveland the franchise lost over $300 million of market value. LeBron was worth over $300 million dollars! If there were no max contracts he would be paid close to what the market valued him at.
I asked in another thread (didn't see this one) if someone could explain to me how decertification would help the average Joe Player, compared to the mega-zillionaire players. I guess my guess was right.
I don't watch basketball to see individual players. I root for laundry. Unless they fix the league to provide more (not less) parity, I'll find other things to do.
Honestly, I think that if the league decertified, with the loss of much of the fan base, and star players demanding 50+mil contracts, the league would be in collapse within three seasons. and a new league would have to start up. As much as people talk about the union helping players, the existence of a union with all the draft, trade, salary, and parity rules helps the owners just as much. This is why I think this is just a negotiating tactic by the players. A small market team would be in dire straights if decertification happened. It's the small market teams that are currently pushing the hardest for 50/50, so by the players threatening decertification they are trying to scare the small market teams into caving. Not a bad tactic, but I assume the owners will see right through it.
I totally agree with this. I actually watch a fair bit (although less than I used to), and I'll watch either way, but I agree that more parity would make me more interested in the NBA as a whole. Ed O.
I think that the union helps the rank-and-file (in terms of guarantees and minimum salaries, health care, etc.) and it DOES help the owners. I agree. The thing is that it hurts (at least in the short run) superstar players... and superstar players are the most visible and longest-lived of NBA players. While there are journeymen who never achieve all-star status and have long careers, there are a lot of Boumtje-Boumtje-level players that come and go. Ed O.
I agree with everything you say, there are winners and losers on both sides. But, my question is, do you think the players that are threatening decertification are really for it as a whole, or do you think it's just a tactic being used to try and gain some leverage in the negotiations?
If decertification occurs then the true superstars of the league like Kobe and Lebron would make something like 30 to 40 million a year (maybe more?) -- based strictly on how valuable they are to their respective teams in terms of wins and losses and revenue. Distributing money to the rest of the league would follow a sliding scale, but the journeymen and "pretty good" players would definitely make less than they do. In any case if there is no cap, no rules, no union and no CBA then there's probably only going to be 3 or 4 truly competitive teams in places like New York, Chicago and LA, with a whole lot of also-rans that won't matter at all ... and it will be a terrible product.
We don't know who the players are that are toying with it (it's not likely that the 50 are ALL superstars) but I think that the players that are most strongly for it are almost certainly those that have the most to gain from it. Players who are getting good advice might very well disagree not just about what the union should be seeking but whether there should be a union at all. Ed O.
If decertification took place, ALL players would make significantly less than they do now. I think the owners have had it with big salaries, and even bigger egos, and they'd start draining the water out of the pool.
Unfortunately, I don't think all owners agree on anything. And even if they agreed on this, I don't believe they'd stick to it. The big money big market teams will screw the rest, because they can afford it.
I wish that was the case, but realistically Portland would be fucked. Part of the reason why Portland can have some of the players they do is because they have Paul Allen. You take that away (in the sense that everyones in the same boat and can sign players), you'll see players flock to LA, New York, Chicago, Miami, Orlando, the Texas teams and Phoenix. The rest of the league would get shit.
Is there any reason to think the agents who represent the players who would get the tiny end of the stick after decertification are going to give those players the correct advise now? IOW, the agents know where their bread gets the sweet cream butter, and it ain't from 10% of the smallest contracts in the league.
Why would everyone be in the same boat? With no cap, ability to pay would be what wins. That does give the big market teams an advantage, because they have more revenue to spend, but Paul doesn't need revenue in order to be able to spend. If player X can get $25 million in NYC, but Paul offers him $50 million, will X go to NYC or PDX? Owners might make a temporary pass at financial restraint, but in the end they'll overspend for the same reason they've always overspent in the past: they want to win, and they can afford it. Decertification would be a disaster for the owners, pocketbook-wise, and for the league, because some teams will become D-league quality while the talent all flows to those who can pay. I think Paul Allen's team would be one of the latter rather than the former. barfo
I don't believe the owners are all that united. It only takes one guy to start the arms race. If one owner starts paying more than the (illegally) agreed upon spending limit, then everyone else has to follow or accept losing. LeBron and Kobe would make more if you remove the maximum salary limit, not less. barfo
same boat in the sense that they have 0 players, and can sign players. it's not the same when you have UFA or FAs. We'd all be in the same boat because we'd be fighting for the same players because we have none.
