Next CBA

[Three34]

If you buy an extremely expensive ticket to go to an NBA game, you do so on the implicit understand that that money is going to the owners and players.

The point was "missed" when the stupid Katrina parallel was brought up. The fact that players get huge sums of money, and always will, does not mean that they must deal with substantial losses.

[Dunkenstein]

But I do take exception to the idea that the only people hurt by Lewis' excessive salary is ownership because they just pass the cost along to the fans.

Buying a ticket to a Magic game is not like health insurance. It's not something you have to buy. If you think that if Rashard's contract was $10M less, then the ownership of the Magic would reduce ticket prices, then you are somewhat naive. Ownership price tickets as high as they think the market will bear, in the same way businesses all over the world price their products.

[SJSF]

As opposed to those starving owners, who have had to resort to licking gravel and suckling otters for their daily nutrition, so desperate is their plight in those tough economic times, whose kids are having to make their clothes out of worms and using dead kittens for duvets, all because the NBPA wouldn't let them have an amnesty on their own stupid business decisions.

You do know that the owners should be making more money then the players. Its their business, not the players. An NBA player doesn't loose money if the attendance is down. THe players make all this money with no risk. THe owners have a ton of risk and fear losing money everyyear. SO to me the people that take the risk, should make the most money.

[Three34]

And that's fine, which is why changes need to be made. But the players shouldn't have to fall on their sword to protect a faulty business model. If some teams can't draw adequate attendances, maybe they shouldn't be there.

[Nanogeek]

But I do take exception to the idea that the only people hurt by Lewis' excessive salary is ownership because they just pass the cost along to the fans.

Buying a ticket to a Magic game is not like health insurance. It's not something you have to buy. If you think that if Rashard's contract was $10M less, then the ownership of the Magic would reduce ticket prices, then you are somewhat naive. Ownership price tickets as high as they think the market will bear, in the same way businesses all over the world price their products.

Where did I or anyone else in this thread claim that NBA fans had to buy a ticket? A fan can decide the NBA experience is too pricey for him when considering ticket, parking, concessions, etc. and not attend a game but that still doesn't mean the fan might feel ill-used for being priced out of watching a game in the arena.

And if you think that salary costs of teams has no bearing on ticket prices, concession prices, etc. then you don't understand the economics of NBA teams or business in general. Certainly, demand for tickets is a component of the pricing but the costs are also a component - and don't forget concessions, parking, memorabilia, fees, etc.

[SJSF]

It all comes down to this for me. THe tickets are way over price. Tickets should not be 100 bucks in the lower level just to see these guys play basektball. The product isn't that good. I can afford to buy season tickets if i want. BUt i would never pay top dollar from the team when i can buy them from suckers that buy the season tickets who then want to unload them at 50% off just to see a mediocre product. And from that, i think the players need to take a massive pay cut. I can't see why the top player should make 20m a year. I can see 10m. BUt the average player makes well into 7 digits and most of them can't even dribble or shoot a free throw. THe quality of players coming into the league are subpar. And this is why i think that the new CBA has to give the owners a chance to cut and release players who just can't play. Maybe the players will then maybe stay in college longer and work on their game. ANd also have the protection against players like Curry, Marbury, Houston, and Francis. Guys that just couldn't play anymore or just wouldn't. And still think that they deserve 10m.

[giberish]

And if you think that salary costs of teams has no bearing on ticket prices, concession prices, etc. then you don't understand the economics of NBA teams or business in general. Certainly, demand for tickets is a component of the pricing but the costs are also a component - and don't forget concessions, parking, memorabilia, fees, etc.

You have cause and effect backwords on pricing. Tickets, parking, concessions, etc., are priced to maximize money for the team. Even if players played for free, owners would look to maximize revenue because they like money. Ticket prices would remain exactly the same. It's truely naive to believe otherwise.

Now, beacuse owners can make a lot of money from NBA teams, they can pay players a lot of money and not go bankrupt (and noone is going bankrupt, even the least valuable NBA team goes for well over $100M). If demand for NBA tickets dropped so that revenue in dropped, player salaries would fall. There would be a bit of a lag with some long-term contracts, but that can also hurt players on long-term deals if revenues increase dramatically (as happened in the late 80's and early 90's).

[Nanogeek]

And if you think that salary costs of teams has no bearing on ticket prices, concession prices, etc. then you don't understand the economics of NBA teams or business in general. Certainly, demand for tickets is a component of the pricing but the costs are also a component - and don't forget concessions, parking, memorabilia, fees, etc.

You have cause and effect backwords on pricing. Tickets, parking, concessions, etc., are priced to maximize money for the team. Even if players played for free, owners would look to maximize revenue because they like money. Ticket prices would remain exactly the same. It's truely naive to believe otherwise.

We don't need to derail this thread with a bunch of quid pro quo on this so this will be the last I will say on the topic. As I said before, cost is not the only component in pricing but it is a factor. To think otherwise is absurd. Here's an example of an actual NBA owner confirming ticket prices being increased because of player salaries increasing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... pollin.htm

[killbuckner]

Not sure why players think they deserve such things like a guarantee.

Maybe they deserve a guarantee because teams offer to give them a guarantee.

Once again- the real question is why teams are so quick to lock themselves into a guaranteed contract despite the obvious downside. Maybe the players would be more OK with signing non-guaranteed contracts if the team could give them a bigger signing bonus in order to do so. But currently the CBA has strict rules on the size of the signing bonuses that can be offered.

Thats the thing- if you want to see players sign agree to a non-guaranteed contract you need to think about why they would do so instead of just signing a 1 year contract and then hitting FA again. The players sign a multi-year contract because they want that guaranteed money and are risking the chance that they overperform and end up locking themselves into less money than they would get if they were allowed to become a Free Agent.

All this is solved by teams being willing to let a player walk away if they get a contract from someone else that they think would be bad for the franchise.

[Curmudgeon]

So Curmudgeon- in your world would it be legal to have contracts become guaranteed based on performance measures?

In my world, whatever the two sides negotiate will govern the relationship during the term of the CBA. That is what current U.S. labor law requires.

You keep using the term "illegal." Murder is illegal. Non-guaranteed contracts are not. Do you have a guaranteed contract from your employer? Most people don't, including most players in the NFL. In the NFL most contracts are non-guaranteed. Hence the importance of signing bonuses under that CBA.

[SJSF]

I just think you should give out semi guaranteed cotracts. Where if you want to buy them out, you can do it at 50%. But also, no contract longer then 4 years. And with the max being no more then 10m.

[killbuckner]

SJSF- should teams be able to make those contracts fully guaranteed based on hitting certain mutually agreed to performance marks?

[SJSF]

SJSF- should teams be able to make those contracts fully guaranteed based on hitting certain mutually agreed to performance marks?

I am all for performance contracts. I would says yes to making the following year guaranteed if certain things are met. Eg. MInutes played, games played, points scored. The biggest problem is the contract on the team with the player that is just dead wood. Every tem has one or two players like that. That they wish they could chop.

[killbuckner]

Once you let contracts become guaranteed based on performance benchmarks then teams will be able to give virtually guaranteed contracts. "If you play 1 minute then the contract becomes guaranteed". Whats the point? The real problem is that teams are being stupid and giving out long term guaranteed contracts far too freely, they just don't realize how stupid they are being. Its not like the current CBA prohibits partially guaranteed contracts or team options- teams just have to be smarter about using them.

I don't think the players would have ANY problem with bringing back the amnesty clause to let teams clear players off of their roster. I don't htink that the players would have any issue with letting the amnesty completely remove players from the cap (the last amnesty was just about the luxury tax).

[giberish]

And if you think that salary costs of teams has no bearing on ticket prices, concession prices, etc. then you don't understand the economics of NBA teams or business in general. Certainly, demand for tickets is a component of the pricing but the costs are also a component - and don't forget concessions, parking, memorabilia, fees, etc.

You have cause and effect backwords on pricing. Tickets, parking, concessions, etc., are priced to maximize money for the team. Even if players played for free, owners would look to maximize revenue because they like money. Ticket prices would remain exactly the same. It's truely naive to believe otherwise.

We don't need to derail this thread with a bunch of quid pro quo on this so this will be the last I will say on the topic. As I said before, cost is not the only component in pricing but it is a factor. To think otherwise is absurd. Here's an example of an actual NBA owner confirming ticket prices being increased because of player salaries increasing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... pollin.htm

I see an owner who wants more money comming in and believes he can make more money with higher ticket prices (which obvously stops being true at some point). Player salaries may be the public justification for higher ticket prices, but they aren't in any way the cause.

I'm amazed at the number of people in this thread who take the word of NBA owners about NBA finances as absolute truth.

[ranger001]

What I find amazing is the number of people who think that the owners shouldn't be able to implement non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL if they want to when they are the ones paying the bills.

Its the duty of the league(Stern) to make an ownership investment safer for the owners. If the majority of teams are losing money then it jeopardizes the future of the NBA as an entity. If it were true that the teams were all lying and they were all making money then there would be no need for a lockout and they'd just continue the present CBA.

[Nanogeek]

What I find amazing is the number of people who think that the owners shouldn't be able to implement non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL if they want to when they are the ones paying the bills.

Its the duty of the league(Stern) to make an ownership investment safer for the owners. If the majority of teams are losing money then it jeopardizes the future of the NBA as an entity. If it were true that the teams were all lying and they were all making money then there would be no need for a lockout and they'd just continue the present CBA.

The concept of guaranteed money is completely odious and has created laughable situations like Jim Mcilvaine, Keith Van Horn, Adonal Foyle, Larry Hughes, Brian Grant, Diop, etc. But the downside of unions is they must never be satisfied with what they have secured for their membership otherwise union members stop paying dues. A union would say its members must have A, B and C to be treated fairly and once they get it then the union must come back and ask for D, E, and F.

All contracts should be unguaranteed. That will create some actual dedication and desire amongst players and a better game for the fans.

[giberish]

What I find amazing is the number of people who think that the owners shouldn't be able to implement non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL if they want to when they are the ones paying the bills.

Its the duty of the league(Stern) to make an ownership investment safer for the owners. If the majority of teams are losing money then it jeopardizes the future of the NBA as an entity. If it were true that the teams were all lying and they were all making money then there would be no need for a lockout and they'd just continue the present CBA.

Owners already have the option of offering non-guaranteed contracts. Outside of rookie contracts (which aren't bankrupting anybody) and the 1st year of S&T deals no other contracts have to be guaranteed.

They just freely choose to give Joe Johnson $120M.

[killbuckner]

Septhaka- if contracts were unguaranteed why would players ever sign more than a 1 year contract? I think that it would be pretty ridiculous to have 80% of players hit FA every season.

WHat should happen is that teams stop offering contracts as if the player is sure to continue to improve. The Hawks gladly promised Joe Johnson $25 million dollars in 2015. Teams simply need to be smarter about the contracts they offer.

[Three34]

And the Hawks owners gave him that because they (allegedly) intend to sell the team before then, thus meaning they're no longer liable for that ridiculous burden. They knew what they were doing; they can't now claim that that contract is a liability and pin the blame elsewhere.

In fact, on that very subject, I wrote this:

http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ing-money/

When NBA teams are more diligent, I'll have more sympathy for them.