Next CBA

[ranger001]

What's your feeling on what the next CBA will contain?

Just speculation I know but I think this is the year the owners push for a hard cap.

So:-
- Hard cap decreasing gradually to around current salary cap
- Some way to get rid of onerous contracts. e.g. partially guaranteed contracts or shorter guaranteed years.
- salary roll back to get teams closer to hard cap
- lower max percentage so other players will get more of the pie

[SJSF]

Hard Cap will happen. I say 55m.
Max contract at 12m.
I personally would not have guaranteed contracts. If you stink, you get cut. You don't get paid. Just like every other job.

Players will get less money then owners. Owners should get the most. THey are the employers!!!!

[Three34]

I still need convincing that these things should happen.

[hard49]

Hard Cap will happen. I say 55m.
Max contract at 12m.
I personally would not have guaranteed contracts. If you stink, you get cut. You don't get paid. Just like every other job.

Players will get less money then owners. Owners should get the most. THey are the employers!!!!

You do understand that employees usually get more than the employers in other industries right?

[ranger001]

I still need convincing that these things should happen.

Stern said that the owners lost 370 million last year. Around 25 of the nba teams lost money, the owners are not going to put up with that. Don't be fooled, these guys are in this business to make money, everything else is secondary.

[Three34]

That's also far from documented fact. And besides, even if the league is losing money, and it is agreed that too much of it is going to the players, that doesn't necessitate things such as the hard cap. The way it's set up, people can spend pretty much a ton of money if they want. If they spend all this amount on payroll by choice, then claim to be losing money, whose bloody fault is that?

[ranger001]

Its documented by accountants via legal statements of account to the IRS. Stern lets the players association view the books.

As for losing money, the problem is that winning teams attract fans, losing teams don't. So you can't just refuse to spend money and hope to still make a profit. The ideal is like the NFL, parity within the league and more than 2 or 3 teams with the chance at a championship. That keeps the fans interested when their team has the chance at a playoff spot and championship.

[Three34]

The NBPA very much disagree with that opinion of such substantial losses. And this still isn't an argument for a hard cap.

[ranger001]

The nbapa can disagree but those are the figures that the owners submit to the government.

A hard cap levels the playing field and brings cost certainty. Losses don't demand a hard cap but it does prevent owners from over spending and that is what the owners want. Most of the revenue is certain and adding cost certainty equates to profit certainty. Why wouldn't you want that if you were an owner?

[Three34]

Why would you accept that if you're a player? Two way street. The best way for owners to avoid mistakes is to make better decisions with the hire of guys who are supposed to make these decisions. Same with unguaranteeing all contracts, another popular suggestion. Why should Rashard Lewis hypothetically be robbed of $60 million just because he was never as good as Otis Smith imagined? If the players are getting too much, cut their share of the total BRI by a couple of percent. The whole system doesn't need reworking. The system largely works. The league has parity. And anyway, what's wrong with the bigger markets winning more?

[Three34]

I just don't get this idea that the whole thing is intrinsically flawed. No one makes owners give out stupid money other than a combination of the fear of reprisal if they don't do it, and the relentless obstacle that is bad decision making. Why should a hard cap be brought in? Given the very nature of the revenue sharing-like side effect of the luxury tax, I don't see how the soft cap system really disadvantages smaller teams. It might need tweaking, but it doesn't need replacing.

And if a team plays in a substantially smaller market than a big market team, why are we forced to try to match the two up? If team A has about a third of the size of the market as team B, and still can't make a profit even after spending significantly less than team B whilst receiving a share of their rebates for not being tax payers, then it's not the fault of team B nor the system. Maybe team A just shouldn't exist.

[DBoys]

I think a hard cap is about a business model, not about bottom line dollars.

1 A hard cap is just a number. It's not the apocalypse for players being portrayed here, if the number is the right number.
2 All you do is set a split of revenues, x%. There's clearly a number that can be defined or negotiated, using the facts of recent years. Then simply make sure the players get it. There are many ways to make such guarantees within a hard cap format.
3 If the change to a hard cap wouldn't necessarily be one of total dollars, then why would owners want it? It would be about a shift in the league's business model. A hard cap forces choices and demonstrably leads to more parity of team success. There's no avoiding that reality. If you want to give more teams a shot at winning titles, it's a proven mechanism for doing so.
4 Therefore, before chasing a hard cap, the NBA has to make a fundamental decision about who they want to be. Are they in business to market a few super-teams, with everyone else existing to be their Washington Generals? Or do they want every team to be able to win, letting the chips fall where they may? Stern's model is arguably the former not the latter, with the attitude that super-teams are the most viable economic model for all ...and the owners have to decide what they want the most.
5 With an equal playing field economically, several situations are effected greatly. The Marc Cuban type has to find some way to get it done without using extra payroll as a tool. The Donald Sterling type faces being forced to spend more (or perhaps pay a tax for not spending) if the league guarantees x%. And it becomes more of a GM's league, with a huge advantage going to the efficient use of payroll while also figuring out how to keep your own talent.

[Three34]

Also, the party line for the hard cap idea seems to be that it will inject some idea of "parity." Sod that. Intercourse parity. A hard cap doesn't facilitate parity, and nor does parity need facilitating. Balls to parity.

The best five teams in the Eastern conference this year were Orlando, Cleveland, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. All of those teams have won less than 25 games at some point in this decade. Atlanta even went as few as 13. At the bottom we find teams like New Jersey, Detroit, Indiana and Philadelphia; all were title contenders this decade. All were NBA finalists this decade. One of them even won it. The west has had less parity in the last decade, but in the decade before, it was the other way around, with the East dominating and beating out a variety of Western contenders. The NBA has a much parity as it needs. it should not be confused with the Greek league.

There may only be about 4 valid title contenders every season, but who those few are changes every few years. Is that not parity enough? The best run teams SHOULD win more. The NBA rewards the crap-run ones enough with the draft system. It is that same draft system that makes teams good, not any salary system. With but the rarest of exceptions, it is that system that allows teams to acquire the superstars that makes them contenders. And the NBA is a superstar-driven league. No salary system could or should change that.

What good does a hard cap do if it mitigates and undermines the careers of the game's very best? What good is a talent like Tim Duncan if the team that owns him can only surround him with Keith Bogans types, because some teams that are too cheap and crap to make profits insisted that that team be stripped of their financial flexibility so that the crapper team with the crapper players could have a chance?

[DBoys]

"A hard cap doesn't facilitate parity"

You keep saying that with finality. But if you look at other leagues with a hard cap, it's hard to support that position.

The current NBA business model has teams tanking games and seasons, stripping down talent for several years in order to have a chance to get top players, and players openly colluding and tampering with players on other teams ...and only a few teams have a chance to win. I can't believe that's a sustainable model for success.

In the NFL, you don't see any of that. Teams play to win every season, and in the offseason they have a chance to rise from the ashes immediately even if they weren't good the prior year, because the top teams don't have the chance to hoard all the talent. The players make more money than they ever have. The best run franchises still have an advantage, but the poorly run ones now have an incentive to make changes because success comes from an equal playing field.

[ranger001]

Why would you accept that if you're a player? Two way street. The best way for owners to avoid mistakes is to make better decisions with the hire of guys who are supposed to make these decisions. Same with unguaranteeing all contracts, another popular suggestion. Why should Rashard Lewis hypothetically be robbed of $60 million just because he was never as good as Otis Smith imagined? If the players are getting too much, cut their share of the total BRI by a couple of percent. The whole system doesn't need reworking. The system largely works. The league has parity. And anyway, what's wrong with the bigger markets winning more?

The players will accept what the owners mandate. As Rodman said without the NBA most of the players wouldn't know what to do. The players need the NBA owners more than the NBA owners need the players.

You seem to be caught up on the system working as is and needing minor tweaks however the purpose of the system is to make lots of money for the owners. If that isn't the case for every owner then the system is fundamentally flawed from an owners viewpoint. Entertaining you is secondary, you might be fine with the system as a fan but the owners will decide how best to make money and if a hard cap is what they feel will work then that's what we will see.

[WiscoKing13]

I don't really mind the old system, just change a few things.


Some type of unguaranteed contracts. Second year 50 percent/3rd 25 percent/4th Zero
Lower the salary/lux tax, along with a full scale deduction in all current contracts to fit a smaller cap.
Maybe slightly increase the luxary payment to for every dollar spent over the lux, you pay a a bucks twenty five.


I think owners would gladly have a team payroll around 50 mil, if their not spending big dollars on Redd/Chandler/Dalmbert/K-mart and not ruining year of their franchise because some GM decides to invest heavily in the wrong core.

[Dunkenstein]

I don't really mind the old system, just change a few things.


Some type of unguaranteed contracts. Second year 50 percent/3rd 25 percent/4th Zero
Lower the salary/lux tax, along with a full scale deduction in all current contracts to fit a smaller cap.
Maybe slightly increase the luxary payment to for every dollar spent over the lux, you pay a a bucks twenty five.


I think owners would gladly have a team payroll around 50 mil, if their not spending big dollars on Redd/Chandler/Dalmbert/K-mart and not ruining year of their franchise because some GM decides to invest heavily in the wrong core.

I'm sure the owners would love your plan. They'd agree to it in a heartbeat.

But what about the players. The nature of a collective bargaining agreement is that the owners and the players come to an agreement where both parties each give up something. Your plan just has the players giving up a lot and the owners gaining everything.

I particularly like the part where you forgive management for making poor decisions. Heaven forbid they should have to "ruin a year of their franchise" because they made a mistake in judgment. It's much better that the players should pay whenever management makes a mistake.

If the union were told that this was the deal they'd have to take, we probably wouldn't see professional basketball in the United States for the foreseeable future.

[Dunkenstein]

The players will accept what the owners mandate. As Rodman said without the NBA most of the players wouldn't know what to do. The players need the NBA owners more than the NBA owners need the players.

You seem to be caught up on the system working as is and needing minor tweaks however the purpose of the system is to make lots of money for the owners. If that isn't the case for every owner then the system is fundamentally flawed from an owners viewpoint. Entertaining you is secondary, you might be fine with the system as a fan but the owners will decide how best to make money and if a hard cap is what they feel will work then that's what we will see.

Any argument that uses Dennis Rodman as an authority is flawed from the git-go.

And your belief that "the players need the NBA owners more than the NBA owners need the players" is just plain ludicrous. I'm sure that fans will pack the stands to watch Donald Sterling and Mark Cuban take on Jerry Buss and Jimmy Dolan in a game of two-on-two.

They need each other and that's why the next CBA will be a compromise between the two sides, not the players just accepting what the owners tell them they have to take. If you think that's the case, you have absolutely no understanding of the labor movement in this country.

[ranger001]

Rodman is a straw man, you know it. His argument is sound though. The players do not have another career where they can make the same money, the owners can rent their stadiums out and have their other businesses for money.

The owners would rather not lose any games but if if the NBA is based on a financial model where they are not making money they will not hesitate to lose a season if necessary. As soon as they start the talk about replacement players the union will capitulate. Its always happened.

Do you really think the players will just walk away from the NBA and go to Europe and China to make a tenth as much(or less) while NBDL players are hired as replacements and get paid and the draft starts the process of getting in new NBA players?

[Dunkenstein]

Do you really think the players will just walk away from the NBA and go to Europe and China to make a tenth as much(or less) while NBDL players are hired as replacements and get paid and the draft starts the process of getting in new NBA players?

They will if all they're offered is the onerous terms you were suggesting.

As for the owners, most of them don't own their arenas, so many will be sitting on a $300-400 million investment, paying interest on the money they had to borrow in order to buy the team, and losing a whole lot more than they say they're losing under the current system.

Bottom line, they're not going to be just able to dictate terms to the players as you assert. An agreement will be reached through negotiation where each side gives up more than they would like. That's the only way either side can make money.