Who do you support?

[Jay240]

I support the players on this one. They are willing to take 53% as opposed to 57% of the BRI. In other words they're willing to take a pay cut so they can keep on playing. It's up to the commissioner and the owners to make sure teams don't lose money. The players are the main reason people buy tickets.

The NBA acts as if the players have no choice but to take a less attractive offer. And now to recoup losses, the offers are gradually going to get worse. To me that sounds like bully negotiating. And more so it sounds as if Stern and the owners don't care about the fans either.

The players just want to play. The money is probably a small part of it for the majority of the players at this stage. A lot of them have sponsorships, endorsements, investments. Some have gone overseas. Some are smart and saved up before the lockout.

Just my two scents.

[J-Roc]

It's up to the commissioner and the owners to make sure teams don't lose money.

Yes. Yes it is.

[Buyaka]

Neither. I want a hard salary cap and severe penalties for players demanding trades and a percentile salary reduction for not producing consistently,

So then if a player performing consistently is traded, he should also expect the team to make him a significant compensating payment.

Nope. Trade kickers are already in place to address the concern you've raised. Also, note that my previous post was more reflective of trying to negate "guaranteed contracts" (restrict players from having a...." I got PAID mentality" before delivering results).

[JN]

Nope. Trade kickers are already in place to address the concern you've raised. Also, note that my previous post was more reflective of trying to negate "guaranteed contracts" (restrict players from having a...." I got PAID mentality" before delivering results).

Would at least like to see more of a team option element on the second half of long term contracts.

[Clutch Carter]

I can't support the players when %50 of BRI with no risk still isn't enough for them.

[Hendrix]

Why would you put `expenses` into account for players?

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Expenses other then players salaries (depreciation, managment salary expense, stadium rent expense etc..) are a cost of doing business, and need to be factored in before determining how big the remaining slice of the pie will be.

What if the owner said he wants a fake lake beside the stadium, and put that as an expense? Would that be fair to the players? Does it help getting more revenue by adding a fake lake beside the stadium?

Then the owner would loose money. If they set it up in the way I suggted ( with the artificial #'s). And lets say for the sake of argument that lake cost $30, 000, 000.

This would be my inital suggestion.

$300,000,000 <---- revenue.
$160,000,000 <----- players salaries
$110,000,000 <-----other expenses
____________
$30,000,000 <-----Net income

Now if he built a $30,000,000 lake then those #'s would become...

$300,000,000 <---- revenue
$160,000,000 <----- players salaries
$140,000,000 <-----other expenses
____________
$0 <----- net income


I'm not saying I think the owners should get their 10% regardless of what transpires. I'm saying they should look at past history, forcast it for the future, and leave room in the cba for owners to make ~10% (or whatever is deemed fair). Then if the owners run things appropriately they should see a reasonable return on their investment. And if they do spend money rediculously on things such as an unnecesary lake then they would loose their profit.

[roundhead0]

Most of the teams that are championship winners or contenders found ways to totally demolish the salary cap. That's great if you're a Mavs or Lakers fan. Not so good for most of the markets though.

The Lakers did it by drafting Kobe and signing Shaq with available capspace. That is not a system anyone is arguing should change. What about the Spurs and Pistons? I would like to know how spending is actually correlated with winning in the NBA, since almost every team sits at or near the luxury tax line every year. There isn't much variation short of a few teams, and those teams don't win all the time.

And how many years have the Pistons been contenders? How many have they NOT been contenders? The Spurs got Parker and Manu for a reasonable price all things considered, and Duncan was worth far more--relatively speaking--than his max salary. The Lakers had a team salary of what, around $95M last year? Same with the Mavs. The Heat essentially had around a $85M roster except their best players took pay cuts.

In baseball the Devil Rays do well most years with limited team salary, and every 10 years or so the Twins come out of nowhere to threaten or to win. But for the vast number of teams every year is basically little or no hope unless they are among the elite in salaries.

The harder the cap rules in place, the more competitive the entire league. NFL and MLB are at the extreme ends. Basketball is somewhere in the middle. Higher salries do not guarantee success, but teams with high salaries certainly have more success overall than teams that don't.

[knickerbocker2k2]

The harder the cap rules in place, the more competitive the entire league. NFL and MLB are at the extreme ends. Basketball is somewhere in the middle. Higher salries do not guarantee success, but teams with high salaries certainly have more success overall than teams that don't.

I would guess that most of the people supporting owners think that if there is hard/cap and other changes, it will change the competitive balance in this league. Thinking teams like the Raptors/Kings/Bucks/etc will be more competitive in this environment.

1. NBA requires just one player to change the whole team. Who ever has the likes of Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, etc will be contenders. There can only be 5-8 of these players. You can't competitive balance because these players are rare. Whoever has these players will dominate.

2. Having hard cap just makes this problem worse. Currently you have one or nearly two players making the max on every team. When the cap is reduced, only few teams will offer the max, and probably the most deserving will get those. What you will have than is bunch of 2nd tier superstars currently making $10M+, making probably half of that. Teams like Lakers will be able to afford two/three of Gasols. Than instead of having role players playing for MLE, they will get these at minimum. You think players like Amir will join Raptors for $3M instead of playing in LA making $1.5M? Money will become less of an issue and players will be more attracted to winning/attractive markets.

[anj]

I am loving Fairview4Life in this thread.

+1 to everything he's (or she's) said.

[Rhettmatic]

I am loving Fairview4Life in this thread.

+1 to everything he's (or she's) said.

Agreed. I don't have the energy or knowhow to get into the trenches of these CBA debates, so it's nice to have people like F4L and Schad posting all the things I wish I were smart enough to post.

[Indeed]

Why would you put `expenses` into account for players?

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Expenses other then players salaries (depreciation, managment salary expense, stadium rent expense etc..) are a cost of doing business, and need to be factored in before determining how big the remaining slice of the pie will be.

What if the owner said he wants a fake lake beside the stadium, and put that as an expense? Would that be fair to the players? Does it help getting more revenue by adding a fake lake beside the stadium?

Then the owner would loose money. If they set it up in the way I suggted ( with the artificial #'s). And lets say for the sake of argument that lake cost $30, 000, 000.

This would be my inital suggestion.

$300,000,000 <---- revenue.
$160,000,000 <----- players salaries
$110,000,000 <-----other expenses
____________
$30,000,000 <-----Net income

Now if he built a $30,000,000 lake then those #'s would become...

$300,000,000 <---- revenue
$160,000,000 <----- players salaries
$140,000,000 <-----other expenses
____________
$0 <----- net income


I'm not saying I think the owners should get their 10% regardless of what transpires. I'm saying they should look at past history, forcast it for the future, and leave room in the cba for owners to make ~10% (or whatever is deemed fair). Then if the owners run things appropriately they should see a reasonable return on their investment. And if they do spend money rediculously on things such as an unnecesary lake then they would loose their profit.

Then, they should start revenue sharing between owners. It is not because they are not making 5% - 10%, it is because not every teams are making 5% - 10%.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/bas ... _land.html

And 10% is ALOT! Most investments are 5% (GIC is 1% for extremely low risk), while basketball business is not a high risk business, why are they getting 10% for?

[Indeed]

The harder the cap rules in place, the more competitive the entire league. NFL and MLB are at the extreme ends. Basketball is somewhere in the middle. Higher salries do not guarantee success, but teams with high salaries certainly have more success overall than teams that don't.

I would guess that most of the people supporting owners think that if there is hard/cap and other changes, it will change the competitive balance in this league. Thinking teams like the Raptors/Kings/Bucks/etc will be more competitive in this environment.

1. NBA requires just one player to change the whole team. Who ever has the likes of Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, etc will be contenders. There can only be 5-8 of these players. You can't competitive balance because these players are rare. Whoever has these players will dominate.

2. Having hard cap just makes this problem worse. Currently you have one or nearly two players making the max on every team. When the cap is reduced, only few teams will offer the max, and probably the most deserving will get those. What you will have than is bunch of 2nd tier superstars currently making $10M+, making probably half of that. Teams like Lakers will be able to afford two/three of Gasols. Than instead of having role players playing for MLE, they will get these at minimum. You think players like Amir will join Raptors for $3M instead of playing in LA making $1.5M? Money will become less of an issue and players will be more attracted to winning/attractive markets.

Exactly, the NHL still has teams not being competitive. When was the Leafs in the playoffs? Are they much better than the Raptors?

[Laowai]

The harder the cap rules in place, the more competitive the entire league. NFL and MLB are at the extreme ends. Basketball is somewhere in the middle. Higher salries do not guarantee success, but teams with high salaries certainly have more success overall than teams that don't.

I would guess that most of the people supporting owners think that if there is hard/cap and other changes, it will change the competitive balance in this league. Thinking teams like the Raptors/Kings/Bucks/etc will be more competitive in this environment.

1. NBA requires just one player to change the whole team. Who ever has the likes of Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, etc will be contenders. There can only be 5-8 of these players. You can't competitive balance because these players are rare. Whoever has these players will dominate.

2. Having hard cap just makes this problem worse. Currently you have one or nearly two players making the max on every team. When the cap is reduced, only few teams will offer the max, and probably the most deserving will get those. What you will have than is bunch of 2nd tier superstars currently making $10M+, making probably half of that. Teams like Lakers will be able to afford two/three of Gasols. Than instead of having role players playing for MLE, they will get these at minimum. You think players like Amir will join Raptors for $3M instead of playing in LA making $1.5M? Money will become less of an issue and players will be more attracted to winning/attractive markets.

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Amir would sign with 3 million not 1 1/2. The Raptors are in a unique posit they are a young team with Alabi. Babosa and Jose expiring within the next 2 years. They will get a top 5 draft pick or better this year and have Jonas in his 1st year. So yes they will be extremely competitive.

[Buyaka]

Nope. Trade kickers are already in place to address the concern you've raised. Also, note that my previous post was more reflective of trying to negate "guaranteed contracts" (restrict players from having a...." I got PAID mentality" before delivering results).

Would at least like to see more of a team option element on the second half of long term contracts.

Agreed.

[Fairview4Life]

Most of the teams that are championship winners or contenders found ways to totally demolish the salary cap. That's great if you're a Mavs or Lakers fan. Not so good for most of the markets though.

The Lakers did it by drafting Kobe and signing Shaq with available capspace. That is not a system anyone is arguing should change. What about the Spurs and Pistons? I would like to know how spending is actually correlated with winning in the NBA, since almost every team sits at or near the luxury tax line every year. There isn't much variation short of a few teams, and those teams don't win all the time.

And how many years have the Pistons been contenders? How many have they NOT been contenders? The Spurs got Parker and Manu for a reasonable price all things considered, and Duncan was worth far more--relatively speaking--than his max salary. The Lakers had a team salary of what, around $95M last year? Same with the Mavs. The Heat essentially had around a $85M roster except their best players took pay cuts.

In baseball the Devil Rays do well most years with limited team salary, and every 10 years or so the Twins come out of nowhere to threaten or to win. But for the vast number of teams every year is basically little or no hope unless they are among the elite in salaries.

Weren't the Pistons in the conference finals for 4-5 years in a row? I'd say they were contenders for a decent stretch. And you can't say the Heat were an 85 million dollar payroll. They were under the luxury tax (I'm pretty sure). Their players specifically took a pay cut to play together, something you would see a lot more of under a hard cap, since endorsements in big markets like LA, Chicago, and especially NY become a lot more valuable relative to salary. Same thing with the Spurs. Yes, they got Manu and Parker at a good price...and? Isn't that the point? They won and contended for like 12 straight years because they got Tim Duncan and surrounded him with the right guys at the right price. Not by spending more than everyone else. The Lakers payroll was so high predominantly because the kept their own draft pick in Kobe and signed him to successively larger deals, and they paid more than Orlando initially offered for Shaq by freeing up the necessary capspace at the right time, and then kept him around with successively larger deals as their own free agent. Keeping your own players like that is a part of the system that not too many people want changed.

Success in the NBA takes generational talent or a combination of a lot of talent like the Pistons, and it takes a lot of luck and the right timing to get that talent. A hard cap isn't going to change that, unless you want to see situations like the Blackhawks dismantling their cup winning team. Even then, an NBA team can still compete by keeping the right player or two, unlike in hockey which requires a lot more talent than just one or two guys.

[Buyaka]

I would guess that most of the people supporting owners think that if there is hard/cap and other changes, it will change the competitive balance in this league. Thinking teams like the Raptors/Kings/Bucks/etc will be more competitive in this environment.

1. NBA requires just one player to change the whole team. Who ever has the likes of Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, etc will be contenders. There can only be 5-8 of these players. You can't competitive balance because these players are rare. Whoever has these players will dominate.

2. Having hard cap just makes this problem worse. Currently you have one or nearly two players making the max on every team. When the cap is reduced, only few teams will offer the max, and probably the most deserving will get those. What you will have than is bunch of 2nd tier superstars currently making $10M+, making probably half of that. Teams like Lakers will be able to afford two/three of Gasols. Than instead of having role players playing for MLE, they will get these at minimum. You think players like Amir will join Raptors for $3M instead of playing in LA making $1.5M? Money will become less of an issue and players will be more attracted to winning/attractive markets.

I see nothing wrong with the scenario you are pointing out above. In terms players wanting to go to a winning team; with the exception of a ring chaser at the tail end of their career, most certainly, most will choose $3 Mil over $1.5.

[Fairview4Life]

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Amir would sign with 3 million not 1 1/2. The Raptors are in a unique posit they are a young team with Alabi. Babosa and Jose expiring within the next 2 years. They will get a top 5 draft pick or better this year and have Jonas in his 1st year. So yes they will be extremely competitive.

LAL would be able to afford those guys, because no one else would be able to big money for them either and they'll want to play in LA for slightly less salary (or NY, or Chicago) and make up the lost salary in endorsements, and/or win with a guy like Kobe, Lebron, or Rose, etc.. A had cap in the NBA will not help the Raptors attract talent like that at all. The Lakers et al would also just stop paying the Ariza's and Walton's of the world, which isn't necessarily a bad thing for them either.

[knickerbocker2k2]

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Well the more you thin out the talent because the likes of Gasol/Bynum are playing for the likes of Sacramento/Detriot on max contracts, Lebron/Kobe/Durants talent become more evident. For instance Miami could have the big two and than fill out the roster with role players playing near the minimum. These same players would probably have cost MLE in current. In fact given the reduction in MLE and reduction in years, you will have player playing at discount for winner contender to play for their next contract. You will have mid-tier players playing for contenders/raising their value, and than signing for low-tier teams at premium. Right now through the MLE, decent/average players aren't going to the likes of Miami/Lakers. Usually they get 1 of these players and than they are forced to sign older veterans chasing ringers.

[3Si]

LAL would be able to afford those guys, because no one else would be able to big money for them either and they'll want to play in LA for slightly less salary (or NY, or Chicago) and make up the lost salary in endorsements, and/or win with a guy like Kobe, Lebron, or Rose, etc.. A had cap in the NBA will not help the Raptors attract talent like that at all. The Lakers et al would also just stop paying the Ariza's and Walton's of the world, which isn't necessarily a bad thing for them either.

I never bought into that arguement even though it has mentioned numerous times in different articles. Role players do not get that much endorsements. With a hard cap, they will look at that increase in pay twice before turning it down. Especially for the young talents who are looking for long term security. Ring chasers will continue to join the big teams regardless of the system. I'm willing to bet Bynum will not take a 2M pay cut to stay in LA.

As for your Detroit being competitive arguement, that doesn't happen too often. You might as well use NY as an example of how to waste money as well. If you look at the overall picture through out history in any sport. Teams who are willing to spend will always have a bigger chance at winning. It doesn't guarantee a championship, but it does give them a bigger chance. For every Detroit, there are plenty more of LA, Dallas, Boston, Miami to counter that example.

Looking at this chart:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

I'd take the top half over the bottom half any day. Spending money, doesn't mean winning a championship, but it does give you a better chance at winning.

[J-Roc]

Or lower ticket prices... either or.

Easy now. If there were lower ticket prices, there would be less money for NBA players to feed their families.