RealGM

Bill Simmons had an interesting (and long) article yesterday title "Welcome to the No Benjamins Association". There were a number of things discussed, but I wanted to a pull out a little section of it for discussion here.

I'm just curious what everyone thinks of his seven predictions here.

Team Stern and the owners know this better than anyone. They will pick the next fight, and again, they will win. When the players' union waves a white flag and the lockout finally ends (2012? 2013?), I predict a raise of the individual salary max (to $24-25 million), a softer salary cap, a restriction on long-term contracts (can't be more than three years unless you're re-signing your own star), the elimination of opt-out clauses and the midlevel exemption, and the rookie age limit rising to 20. That's seven predictions in all … and I bet I'll end up nailing six. Will the league survive a yearlong disappearance? What about two years? We're less than 29 months from starting to find out. If you think it's a good idea to disappear for even six months in shaky economic times, ask any Writers Guild member how that turns out. These wealthy or used-to-be-wealthy owners don't want to keep losing money just to feed their ego by continuing to own a basketball team. They will make other arrangements, the same way they would arrange to sell their favorite yacht because they didn't feel like splurging on gasoline anymore. These guys don't want to fix the system; they want to reinvent it.

Link

I think a lockout will occur unless the players are smart before and get a deal negotiated. There are a few things I think need to be addressed in the next CBA:

-Leave age limit as is
-Players % of revenues must be dropped approx 5%
-Contract limits - 5 for signing with your own team, 4 with new team
-lower salary cap
-After 3 years, contract may be terminated?

The NBA has priced themselves out. Their fan base is having trouble going to games because they feel they arent getting what they paid for. Many people think the players get way more than they deserve to make compared to other players. If we make the league more accessible by fans, people will show up and spend money, but right now so many people have bad tastes in their mouths about the league.

I think the raising of the rookie age limit portends to be a "no-brainer" type of concession by the union. It won't impact any current player, and seeing players create a multi-year basketball "resume" in college or in Europe is a pretty good method to create more interest in those players as they enter the NBA (and therefore more revenue to throw into the pie to be split).

That "bigger pie" is precisely what both sides want and need, and the shrinking pie is the source of all the impending problems.

Whether you think it's good or bad, I don't see that one being debated very much. Other issues are going to cause huge disputes, but that one looks pretty easy to me.

The league is clearly in leverage mode and someone has Simmons in their back pocket. It's uncharacteristic of him to write something like that so I find it as no surprise that it comes when all these owners, most likely under Stern's orders, are coming up with all of these "woe is me" scenarios.

That being said, they do need to make some changes although the ideas set forth in hoopshype are lame. It talks about max salaries going up and getting rid of the midlevel. This is BAD because it gets rid of the middle class and that's what they fought so hard for in the last round of collective bargaining. The MLE is great for teams trying to upgrade their roster without going overboard and it's great for free agents who aren't wanted by the team with their bird rights but now don't have to settle for the minimum elsewhere or go to any team with cap space, even if that team makes no sense for them in a basketball standpoint.

The MLE needs to stay but be lowered somewhat. Instead of the base salary being the average salary in the league, it should be a flat rate of around $4 million with 5% raises or something.

Raising the max salary is a terrible idea unless it's there to protect against the Lebron's and Kobe's of the world bolting to Europe. Thing is, both those guys will be done with free agency by the time the new cba kicks in so that wouldn't make sense. Lower the max. Instead of 25%, 30% and 35%, make it 20, 25 and 30 for 0-6, 7-9 and 10 year fa's accordingly.

Extend the rookie deal. Instead of the right of first refusal being set for year 5, make it in year 7. Kickback to the players would mean that the owners no longer have the right to terminate a rookie deal after 2 years but now it will be 3 or 4. Trust me, this will save lots of money in the long run and will force rookies to really prove their worth before getting their first major deal.

Of course, the players will need some sort of concession given that it's the natural process of collective bargaining so maybe allow HS players back in and have management utilize the D-League with them to a larger extent than they do with the current one and done rookies. Maybe extend the right to send players to the D-League to a 3rd year.

A second Amnesty Provision seems both likely and sensible.

Extend the rookie deal. Instead of the right of first refusal being set for year 5, make it in year 7.

The players would never agree to that. No one wants to be on a rookie contract for that long.

guaranteed money needs to go bye bye
I'd say 60% for max players
Average vet around 40%
I mean look at some of these rosters, you could find over 20 players who would get cut under these rules.

Sham wrote:A second Amnesty Provision seems both likely and sensible.

My problem with this idea is that there are a number of teams that have maintained fiscal sanity...

Yeah I know, but I think solvency has become a more pressing problem. If they had an amnesty today, for example, players like Mike James, Antonio Daniels or Morris Peterson, Jamaal Tinsley, Tony Battie....players like these would be gone, and the teams that are borrowing money and frantic to avoid tax penalties next season would get a much needed reprieve. It may seem harsh to the teams that didn't mismanage themselves into such a position in the first place, but I would suspect that it's too necessary now for that to count.

Can't see a tax amnesty being tossed into the mix NOW, because that has the effect of changing the rules in the middle of the game. When the new CBA is being negotiated? Perhaps (depending on the economic situation then). But if teams wanted to make serious attempts to off-load salary, they've had all year to do so, and only Sacramento took serious steps when they had the chance.

That's what I meant. I was just using the "now" scenario, because I can't see a need for it being ever more pressing than it is right now. And right now, it's really really pressing.

What do you guys think about the idea of allowing contract restructuring?

I was thinking about the following conditions:

1. Has to be a veteran (i.e., no one on rookie scale).
2. The team must have Bird rights.
3. The restructuring must take place between July 1st and October 31st prior to the last year of the player's last season under contract.

Let me use Mike Bibby as an example.

Instead of paying him $15M this year and having his contract drop off dramatically (at least in half) for the next three seasons, the Hawks would've restructured his deal over four years.

With the current system, he'll make something like this: $15M + $6M + $7M +$8M (I'm rounding off, obviously) = $36M
Under my system, he makes $9M + $9M +$9M + $9M = $36M

I think this system would help veterans who want to stay with their current club do that without having to deal with FA.

mrhonline wrote:

Sham wrote:A second Amnesty Provision seems both likely and sensible.

My problem with this idea is that there are a number of teams that have maintained fiscal sanity...

It does kind of smell like the US bail-out for borrowers defaulting on their loans, but teams who have maintained financial responsibility would find new trade opportunities with teams that have two bad deals. However, I think that teams are starting to get a grip on contracts, and many of these over-sized contracts will be gone by 2011. Last year, every team would have had somebody to drop, but with the uncertainty of the future, its those remaining long contracts that might be the most worrisome.

At the end of the day, all it would take for most teams would be just one guaranteed deal to get squashed for them to go from losing money to being profitable.

Forget restructuring the cba. I say go with a rule that says that every other year, you can terminate one guaranteed deal provided that the player has played 3 years of it already or has just one left. For instance, if a player only has a 3 year deal and is a total bust, you can get rid of his deal after year 2 since he would only have a year left.

While it may not seem like much, some teams would save a ton of dough this summer if the rule were hypothetically in effect.

New Orleans...Looks to have a payroll of 78 million which is roughly 9 million above the assumed threshold. Peja will have played 3 years on his deal when the offseason arrives. Get rid of his guaranteed 13 million and you get 4 million under. This means that you not only save his 13 million but you tack on an extra 9 million in lux tax savings for a total of 22 million. Throw in the lux tax payout and you're close to 30 million in savings.

Charlotte....Get rid of Nazr Mohammed and you save 6.7 million.

Utah....Assuming Boozer and Okur don't opt out, you're looking at another lux tax team. Get rid of Kirilenko's 16.4 million and you not only avoid the tax but you get the payout. Another team that would save roughly 30 million.

A lot of people feel that Houston is better off without TMac so get rid of his 22 million as well.

These are just a couple examples. Of course, the players would want a giveback. Maybe give them the 3rd year rookie deal guarantee back and take away their escrow tax or something but all in all, the players realize that they need to give back a lot more than the owners in this economy.

More importantly, good players get rewarded with this system. As it stands now, a team like New Orleans could use a good MLE pickup after the team's success has fallen off a bit. Shinn won't sign an MLE player while he's paying the tax so a potential MLE free agent gets shafted and must settle for playing for less than his market value while Peja sits on the bench injured.

The players aren't going to agree to have the Owners be able to arbitrarily make guaranteed contracts non-guaranteed. Its not like non-guaranteed contracts are forbidden by the CBA. Seriously I don't get why owners think they have to shorten the length of contracts allowed either. If you want to have shorter contracts just offer shorter contracts. If you want to have team options then offer contracts iwth team options. If you want all non-guaranteed contracts then only offer non-guaranteed contracts. Its not like teams aren't the ones in charge of giving out the ridiculous contracts that most of us (here) at the time know are going to be negative value by the end. I just don't get why the players have to take the brunt of the owners making mistakes on contracts. If the league wants to allow one contract every few years to be wiped off the books (while the player still gets paid) then I can certainly see the rationale for that but not in a situation where the player doesn't get what he is owed.

How about if a team doesn't use the Amnesty provision, give them a first round pick after the lottery? Just an idea.

Maybe it would make more sense to have a team give up their first rounder if they do want to use a amnesty on a player. Maybe let a team "lottery protect" that first round pick- they would lose their first rounder in the first season that they make the playoffs. Though admittedly I haven't thought through how that would affect rookie scale contracts.

killbuckner wrote:Maybe it would make more sense to have a team give up their first rounder if they do want to use a amnesty on a player. Maybe let a team "lottery protect" that first round pick- they would lose their first rounder in the first season that they make the playoffs. Though admittedly I haven't thought through how that would affect rookie scale contracts.

Or screw up already-completed trades, especially with the Stepien rule. Interesting idea, but it would cause a lot of other threads to get tangled.

I think the free market would work things out.

Suppose we reinstate the Allan Houston rule. NYK jumps for joy, and quickly uses their amnesty on Eddy Curry. Then they get greedy, and think, "Man, I wish we had two of these, so we could get rid of Jared Jeffries, and free up all our 2010 cap space! Imagine what additional players we could bring in"

They call up MIN, who is a team entirely with 2010 expirings, save Al Jefferson and Telfair.

MIN: We told you before, I don't care who the Knicks dream of signing in free agency .. we aren't trading Brian Cardinal's expiring for Jeffries, even if you throw $3 mil and a NYK pick/BOS pick swap! We have no interest in cutting into our space under the cap in 2010 by $6.9 mil.

NYK: Didnt you hear? The one-time Amnesty Rule is back!

MIN: Hmmm. $3.9 mil for your 2009 lottery pick? We get far enough under the cap this year to offer a deal bigger than the MLE <sic - Does it instantly affect this year's numbers?>? Yeah, we'll sell our amnesty for that.

shrink wrote:I think the free market would work things out.

Suppose we reinstate the Allan Houston rule. NYK jumps for joy, and quickly uses their amnesty on Eddy Curry. Then they get greedy, and think, "Man, I wish we had two of these, so we could get rid of Jared Jeffries, and free up all our 2010 cap space! Imagine what additional players we could bring in"

They call up MIN, who is a team entirely with 2010 expirings, save Al Jefferson and Telfair.

MIN: We told you before, I don't care who the Knicks dream of signing in free agency .. we aren't trading Brian Cardinal's expiring for Jeffries, even if you throw $3 mil and a NYK pick/BOS pick swap! We have no interest in cutting into our space under the cap in 2010 by $6.9 mil.

NYK: Didnt you hear? The one-time Amnesty Rule is back!

MIN: Hmmm. $3.9 mil for your 2009 lottery pick? We get far enough under the cap this year to offer a deal bigger than the MLE <sic - Does it instantly affect this year's numbers?>? Yeah, we'll sell our amnesty for that.

The Allan Houston amnesty only allowed teams to cut players without counting towards the luxury tax. They still count against the cap.