http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/02/13/stern.all.star/index.html Hard to believe the players won't eventually cave on this. You compare their salaries to any other sport and it's hard to argue they aren't being overpaid. Of course, on the flip side the owners are still seeing the value of their team appreciate. So while they may not make money on a franchise, they can always register huge gains just by selling to some other well-healed organization or person who wants the ego trip of owning an NBA franchise.
well almost everyone else in this country is and has suffered significantly from this economy, the ridiculous money these athletes get should be cut back, especially the guaranteed contract part IMO
The owners don't have to pay these ginormous salaries, but they always do, and then demand protection against themselves every time a new labor contract comes up. S.O.S Fucking idiots!
Maybe they should go to 1 year contracts with some sort of insurance to cover a few years' worth if a player gets hurt.
Denny, we should have 1 year contracts on here. Filter out some of the scrubs and us superstars will get their deserved respect for their greatness!
What I'm wondering is if Stern actually does get the salary reduction that he wants won't that just make it easier for European teams to not only keep their players but to get a few stars?
It would be impossible to build a team with that sort of system. You'd never know who would be around the following year. The NFL system isn't bad, but the NBA would still need to scale rookie contracts. NFL players make their money primarily from guaranteed bonuses, and the contract still counts on the cap if a player is cut early. That's a system I could live with, and it is fair to both the owners and the players.
How so? Baseball player earn quite a bit more. NBA players have "max salaries," a concept that doesn't exist in any other sport. It will be interesting to see. Generally in these types of disputes, there haven't been viable leagues for players to jump ship to, like there are now in Europe for basketballs. In terms of sympathy, I've never sympathized with the owners' position of "We need rules to stop us from spending. We're just poor businessmen with no idea how to individually control our own spending." To me, it's simple: if you, as an owner, think players are paid more than they're worth to you, offer less. Why should there be rules to force you to do what you believe you should be doing? The answer is, of course, that the owners know full well that the players are worth the salaries...that is the only reason the owners offer them and pay them. They want to use rules to get the players for less than they're worth, thus artificial market restrictions.
The artificial market restrictions work both ways. There's no way that a guy like Brad Miller deserves to be paid 3x what Derrick Rose gets paid.
That is a way oversimplified view of how it works. If an owner opts to not overspend, they know full well someone will swoop in and steal their players. If you want to play the game, you have to pay the going rate. And as long as there aren't limits in place, that will likely be higher than the league can sustain.
Really? I didn't realize that. I don't really follow baseball. I stand corrected. Anyway, teams could save a ton of cash if they just made the Allan Houston rule an annual event. Every year each team gets to cancel one absurdly bad contract without it going toward luxury tax. Add in that if such a contract is cancelled, the team owes the player only $.50 on the dollar. So you could unload a guy like Brad Miller, who would probably just get re-signed somewhere else for significantly less.
It's not oversimplified at all. What I described is how the marketplace at large works. "Paying the going rate" on players is not somehow unfair to owners, just as "paying the going rate" on iron is not unfair to business owners.
Heh, using yet another artificial market restriction that is in favour of owners is not an example of it "going both ways." Miller's price hasn't been artificially inflated...he's getting the market rate as a veteran. Derrick Rose's price has been artificially reduced by the caps on rookie deals. That's why their comparative salaries are out of whack.
That's one way to reach his goal of "taking the game international"....drag the NBA down and reverse the talent flow.
I find it interesting that people will complain about jocks being overpaid - but they never apply the same argument to actors or rockstars.
Given the upcoming renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, it appears to be in the best interest of the league to go public with the sour state of their finances.
Derrick Rose is probably getting close to his worth, but certainly Miller is overpaid for what he contributes. Longevity is irrelevant, it's production that counts. Miller did earn his big bucks contract for the few seasons when he was all-star or near that level. The NBA is losing $400M, there's about 1/3 the owners paying the players handsomely (deep in the Luxury Tax), and there are a bunch of over the hill veterans getting paid way too much. The consequence is the league isn't as talent rich as it should be, IMO. Like I said, the things that players are concerned with seem to be insurable type things. Salary maintained for X seasons if they get hurt, and even an annuity based upon years of service is an insurance thing. The latter assures guys who play a long time get paid for that.
