Thoughts and questions about BRI and hardcaps

bigfoot · Post #1 » by **bigfoot** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:27 am

Let's put out a hypothetical situation under the old CBA. Suppose all 30 teams exceed the softcap and pay $90M each in team salary. With 30 teams that's $2700M in player salary for the league. This year the BRI was $3817M. Technically the players could not receive more than 57% of the BRI which is $2175M. There would be $525M ($2700M - $2175M) due back to owners from the players, hence the escrow system (see http://nbastoppage.com/understanding-th ... nue-split/). A player with a $5M contract would really see about $4.028M ($5M / $2700M x $2175M).

If we change the situation with each team spending $60M in salary, the league salary would be $1800M. The owners would owe the players an extra $375M ($2175M - $1800M). A player with a $5M contract would really see about $6.04M ($5 / $1800M x $2175).

Clearly the BRI is share based system. The players are really negotiating a percentage of the BRI when they establish an individual contract. Seems to me players would want to see smaller teams (fewer players equals fewer shares) and not see their shares diluted by big spending teams exceeding the soft cap. That is, teams which overspend dilute the shares of teams that underspend.

In summary, the BRI is a hard cap. The players can only get so much money. The owners are asking that the BRI hardcap be spread equally among teams (so the Lakers can no longer outspend the Kings by a 2-to-1 margin). The players are arguing vehemently against, calling it a hard cap, which already exists. It's just a team cap and how does a team cap hurt the players ?

denial · Post #2 » by **denial** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:16 am

I don't understand what the players have against a hard-cap. It would seem to me that for 90% of the players in league that shouldn't matter that much to them. The amount of money they lose this year is more than whatever they might ever see from teams spending LT to get them (teams won't spend LT just on any ole' body)

EDIT: The current system is not a hardcap as you have stated. Teams can exceed the cap as much as they want to, as long as they pay the tax.

bigfoot · Post #3 » by **bigfoot** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:01 pm

denial wrote:EDIT: The current system is not a hardcap as you have stated. Teams can exceed the cap as much as they want to, as long as they pay the tax.

Re-read the example. All 30 teams exceed the cap by spending $90M in salaries for a total of $2700M in league salary. But under the current system the players must be paid 57% of the BRI or $2175M. Not a penny more ... not a penny less. The $5M player only gets $4M (read the escrow link). Sounds like a hardcap to me.

It's really about how to spread $2175M among 30 teams. The owners want to spread it equally (claiming league parity) and the players don't. What are the players reasons.

keith16 · Post #4 » by **keith16** » Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:14 am

As you mentioned, regardless of what type of cap is in place the players collectively make the exact same amount of money. The bigger issue financially is the %BRI.

As I understand it, the type of cap and other issues like length of contracts, exceptions, etc. decide how the money is distributed among the players and what options they have as far as where they play. This is what I find frustrating. NBA players believe that they should earn every penny they're worth AND they should get to decide where they work. In the NFL, players would happily play in Cleveland or Green Bay if those teams were offering the most money. Mind you in the NFL there are 53 players per roster instead of 15 so it is harder to get paid. In the NBA the big $$ is to be expected and they also think they should be able to earn it in their city of choice. Without the MLE for example, the Lakers wouldn't be able to afford someone like Ron Artest. So Artest would have had to decide between playing in LA for less $$ or playing for someone else.

It seems to me that better distribution of talent throughout the league would make the league as a whole better off, which in turn could mean more total BRI but the players don't want to give up the flexibility they have.

Also, a decrease in contract length would mean that there is a better chance of the money going to the players that are actually performing, as contracts like Rashard lewis, Arenas, Eddy Curry, etc. would expire sooner. But the players seem to think that shorter contracts mean less job security for players, even though for every $1 less Eddy Curry makes, that is $1 more in another player's pocket.