My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman
My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,729
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 19, 2004
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- OBisHalJordan
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,177
- And1: 909
- Joined: Aug 22, 2008
- Location: Portland, ME
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
elrod, do you have any indication that anyone is proposing Garvey solution? Do you think such and proposal has much chance of being adopted?
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 946
- And1: 690
- Joined: Jun 27, 2007
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
i like the bonuses for winning.
i'd also propose that players over 34 or so can make one year commitments to teams without the teams retaining their rights. there are a lot of good, serviceable players that age that can make teams better for a year or two, but might opt for retirement rather than allowing a team to retain their rights for multiple years. (yes, i'm thinking of p.j. brown).
i'd also propose that players over 34 or so can make one year commitments to teams without the teams retaining their rights. there are a lot of good, serviceable players that age that can make teams better for a year or two, but might opt for retirement rather than allowing a team to retain their rights for multiple years. (yes, i'm thinking of p.j. brown).
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 28,105
- And1: 7,738
- Joined: Jan 08, 2004
- Location: Providence, RI
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
While I appreciate the effort two huge issues exist that make this almost a non starter. The financial problems that are presently apparent are far more individual owners problems that are not basketball related and that of individual teams who reside in insufficient markets or have insufficient arenas. Teams can be sold and moved negotiating labor contracts based on the weakest part of the industry is a mistake.
There is no way in hell the players are going to give up long term salaries they don't even do that in the NFL as everything is based of signing bonuses, while everyone thinks it is cool that their team can just cut a guy they tend to forget that the guy already got paid, this is the key salary structure that should change in the NBA. This is the flaw many people don't grasp about pro sports the window for earning money is very small how many people can only expect to work at their chosen career for 3-5 years?
What they should do is simply stop the back loading of contracts. They can use almost all of the same mechanisms in place to calculate salary but year 5 is now year 1 as far as pay to the player and his contract is paid in reverse so he gets the most money when he is earning it. On top of that two mechanisms are added the team has the option to buy out the last two years of a 5 year contract (now the cheapest two years) at 50% of it value and make the player a free agent, at the same time a player has an early termination option for those two years as well.
There is no way in hell the players are going to give up long term salaries they don't even do that in the NFL as everything is based of signing bonuses, while everyone thinks it is cool that their team can just cut a guy they tend to forget that the guy already got paid, this is the key salary structure that should change in the NBA. This is the flaw many people don't grasp about pro sports the window for earning money is very small how many people can only expect to work at their chosen career for 3-5 years?
What they should do is simply stop the back loading of contracts. They can use almost all of the same mechanisms in place to calculate salary but year 5 is now year 1 as far as pay to the player and his contract is paid in reverse so he gets the most money when he is earning it. On top of that two mechanisms are added the team has the option to buy out the last two years of a 5 year contract (now the cheapest two years) at 50% of it value and make the player a free agent, at the same time a player has an early termination option for those two years as well.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,729
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 19, 2004
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Sully--
re-read the proposal; the only players who lose out are players who sign long-term deals and then suck, like Szczerbiak. Or guys who get way overpaid late in their career but were worth the money when still in their prime. I don't think a rational CBA can have the protection of those guys as the main goal, not in a declining economy. In my proposal, guys who get seriously hurt get two seasons at close to top pay while they recover, and then insurance if they continue to be hurt. That is sufficient long-term protection. Otherwise, guys get paid what they are worth the first year in the league and every year thereafter; they do not need to wait until year 5 or 6 as at present. Think Rondo and every other young player in the league wouldn't mind making big money before they are in the league five years? Rondo deserves it a heckuva lot more than Szczerbiak or Marbury or Jerome James.
Also, the economic crisis is affecting the entire league. The economy is falling off a cliff, and we are all in the boat. Sure some teams are hurt worse than others, but if you think moving 10-15 franchises will be OK as a solution, then your vision of a stable NBA is very different from mine. The more successful franchises need a stable league to remain successful. They can't become barnstorming squads like the Harlem Globetroitters.
elrod
re-read the proposal; the only players who lose out are players who sign long-term deals and then suck, like Szczerbiak. Or guys who get way overpaid late in their career but were worth the money when still in their prime. I don't think a rational CBA can have the protection of those guys as the main goal, not in a declining economy. In my proposal, guys who get seriously hurt get two seasons at close to top pay while they recover, and then insurance if they continue to be hurt. That is sufficient long-term protection. Otherwise, guys get paid what they are worth the first year in the league and every year thereafter; they do not need to wait until year 5 or 6 as at present. Think Rondo and every other young player in the league wouldn't mind making big money before they are in the league five years? Rondo deserves it a heckuva lot more than Szczerbiak or Marbury or Jerome James.
Also, the economic crisis is affecting the entire league. The economy is falling off a cliff, and we are all in the boat. Sure some teams are hurt worse than others, but if you think moving 10-15 franchises will be OK as a solution, then your vision of a stable NBA is very different from mine. The more successful franchises need a stable league to remain successful. They can't become barnstorming squads like the Harlem Globetroitters.
elrod
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 28,105
- And1: 7,738
- Joined: Jan 08, 2004
- Location: Providence, RI
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Socializing the NBA is not going to change the economics of the world and how they effect the league. In the end 57% is 57%. While you seem to be concerned about the uglies of the big contracts your formula is equally as focused on rewarding marginal players with overvalued contracts because they happen to be on good teams. How does Leon Powe deserve what is is essentially a starters salary when he plays a 3rd of the team's mins?
This is why there is a union what you are proposing is subjective merit pay. What happens to teams like the Wolves or Grizzlies in the second half the season? Not only is the season shot but now guys aren't even going to get paid? Guys would be better off being on the Lakers or Celtics bench then playing for OKC, how does it create competitive balance?
Some rules to help owners protect them from themselves would be helpful but you have to respect that players have the right to some sort of future guarantee against sucking as well as poor health. I agree some of that could use to be mitigated but your putting players completely at the mercy of teams and coaches. The control has to come from those spending the money themselves, the system isn't bad what is bad is an owner giving James Posey 2 or 3 times as much as he is worth and turning around and crying poor a half a season later.
Get rid of the back loaded contracts (the Bulls are an organization who has already done some of this) and allow 50% buyouts of the final two years of long term contracts as well as play options on those two years. No more trade demands opt out. You can sign Wally World to a 65 million dollar contract but if you are going to use raises to get the money as opposed to flat salaries they you pay up front and it should go on the team's taxes that season. Would the Wolves have signed Wally to that deal if they had to sign a check for nearly 14 mil in year one? Probably not.
I don't think the league can afford a labor stoppage, but it also may not be able to afford the Dolans or the Sterlings anymore either, perhaps it is time to find better owners and stop worrying about the rules that govern them.
This is why there is a union what you are proposing is subjective merit pay. What happens to teams like the Wolves or Grizzlies in the second half the season? Not only is the season shot but now guys aren't even going to get paid? Guys would be better off being on the Lakers or Celtics bench then playing for OKC, how does it create competitive balance?
Some rules to help owners protect them from themselves would be helpful but you have to respect that players have the right to some sort of future guarantee against sucking as well as poor health. I agree some of that could use to be mitigated but your putting players completely at the mercy of teams and coaches. The control has to come from those spending the money themselves, the system isn't bad what is bad is an owner giving James Posey 2 or 3 times as much as he is worth and turning around and crying poor a half a season later.
Get rid of the back loaded contracts (the Bulls are an organization who has already done some of this) and allow 50% buyouts of the final two years of long term contracts as well as play options on those two years. No more trade demands opt out. You can sign Wally World to a 65 million dollar contract but if you are going to use raises to get the money as opposed to flat salaries they you pay up front and it should go on the team's taxes that season. Would the Wolves have signed Wally to that deal if they had to sign a check for nearly 14 mil in year one? Probably not.
I don't think the league can afford a labor stoppage, but it also may not be able to afford the Dolans or the Sterlings anymore either, perhaps it is time to find better owners and stop worrying about the rules that govern them.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- tombattor
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,662
- And1: 807
- Joined: Nov 11, 2003
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
I agree with Sully.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- Celts17Pride
- RealGM
- Posts: 68,254
- And1: 69,833
- Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
The NBA will go into a lockout and it's going to last a very long time (1-2 years). The players are going to have to give back a little and they will resist. Get use to the idea of a lockout because it will happen. Too bad.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- tombattor
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,662
- And1: 807
- Joined: Nov 11, 2003
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Celts17Pride wrote:The NBA will go into a lockout and it's going to last a very long time (1-2 years). The players are going to have to give back a little and they will resist. Get use to the idea of a lockout because it will happen. Too bad.
It won't. And people need to stop all this "players are too greedy" BS. You only think that because their salaries are known to public and you can put a face to their names. Plus, a giant case of jealousy.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,729
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 19, 2004
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Nothing would make me happier than to think you guys are right, because you are in conventional wisdom mode. If we were not entering what looks to be a deep and prolonged depression or, at best, an extremely severe Recession -- an economy we have not seen for 70 years -- you guys would be absolutely right to dismiss my proposal without barely even reading it. In standard times the notion of changing the system would be absurd, and no stakeholder would have an interest in doing so. The system has been a success, on balance, to this point.
But the crisis period we are entering makes the conventional wisdom meaningless, even dangerous. The entire NBA system was predicated upon annual growth in revenue streams; it papered over the contradictions and problems in the system, like vastly overpaying certain deadbeat players. Revenues are going to fall very sharply and they will not return to recent levels for quite some time. The international angle which propped up NBA revenues for the past decade is going to be devastated, as the rest of the world is in an even greater freefall than the US economy.
The NBA is a not a free market competitive institution but a monopoly, where the dominant teams need the league to survive for them to survive, not to mention prosper, individually.
And having a two-year lockout to end up basically with the same system but players getting much less money is simply a means to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Fresh thinking is needed. I offered one idea, and I concede it is far from flawless. But it damn well beats a two-year lockout, or having a third of the teams in the league go under and another third move to new cities that close down their public schools to build the owners new arenas.
If someone has a better proposal than mine, I am all ears. But if the NBA owners and players (and fans) think just monkeying with the edges of the current CBA, and having massive franchise shifts, failures and lockouts is the only way to go, my proposal will seem like the height of sanity in the not so distant future.
And, again, nothing wold make me happier than having the economy make a miraculous recovery, so when I come to realGM I can deal with the game on the floor, not the CBA.
But the crisis period we are entering makes the conventional wisdom meaningless, even dangerous. The entire NBA system was predicated upon annual growth in revenue streams; it papered over the contradictions and problems in the system, like vastly overpaying certain deadbeat players. Revenues are going to fall very sharply and they will not return to recent levels for quite some time. The international angle which propped up NBA revenues for the past decade is going to be devastated, as the rest of the world is in an even greater freefall than the US economy.
The NBA is a not a free market competitive institution but a monopoly, where the dominant teams need the league to survive for them to survive, not to mention prosper, individually.
And having a two-year lockout to end up basically with the same system but players getting much less money is simply a means to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Fresh thinking is needed. I offered one idea, and I concede it is far from flawless. But it damn well beats a two-year lockout, or having a third of the teams in the league go under and another third move to new cities that close down their public schools to build the owners new arenas.
If someone has a better proposal than mine, I am all ears. But if the NBA owners and players (and fans) think just monkeying with the edges of the current CBA, and having massive franchise shifts, failures and lockouts is the only way to go, my proposal will seem like the height of sanity in the not so distant future.
And, again, nothing wold make me happier than having the economy make a miraculous recovery, so when I come to realGM I can deal with the game on the floor, not the CBA.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- Pogue Mahone
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,006
- And1: 738
- Joined: Aug 09, 2003
- Location: In the Sun
- Contact:
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
I guess I am the only one who agrees with Bob. I think Bob's proposal shows foresight, ingenuity and resourcefulness.
I draw objection to the comment that Leon Powe, under Bob's proposal, doesn't deserve starter pay for paying a third of the minutes. He is partly responsible for the team's success, no? Why shouldn't he be compensated for it? There is a limit on roster spots in the NBA. There are not going to be more than a handful Leon Powe scenarios under Bob's proposal. The current system already has it's Brian Cardinal's, Mark Blount's, etc.
Furthermore, players would have a stake and ownership in their play. The onus would move away from Stern's "It doesn't matter if you don't impact games so long as you score a lot so I can market you" to more where high-level athletes help their team win actual games. Do you think the other 14 players on a team, when they all have financial interest in the outcome of games, would stand for a ball-hogging, me-first teammate or a teammate who didn't want to commit to playing defense? Players would better police themselves.
I think it was Sully that stated that ownership has to do a better job of avoiding ill-advised, long-term commitments. While I do agree, that is a lot easier said than done. In the current system, for 2008-09, teams were required to pay out ~$44.01M as a minimum or else be surcharged. That money that was collected would then be given to the players. Call it $45M but that means, for a 15-man roster, teams were going to give out, on average, $3M per player.
Now, assume Garnett, R. Allen, Pierce, Perkins and Rondo all retired/left the team due to expiring contracts/poor health/desire to be near family/etc. Boston, with no first round pick, would have to find free agents willing to come to a team who, by no fault of their own, would be forced to pay those prospective free agents more than they were likely worth. The current free agent system is an artificial market which is based upon the mid-level salary. Rebuilding teams are often coerced into paying middling talent big money because of the raw statistics that were attained due to extended minutes and opportunity. Young players often eschew team play so they can "get theirs" and take care of their families for life.
There was a comment to the effect that you can't socialize the system. The nature of the sport itself requires teamwork to be effective. Should Rajon Rondo not pass to Ray Allen because Rajon wants to get paid in the future and Ray has already got his? That may seem like a silly proposition but essentially the current system ensures that the haves continue to get theirs at the expense of the lower class (rookie scale, vet min, BAEs.)
Besides, the system already operates outside of a true capitalist system. Due to it's anti-trust status, the NBA and it's players already get to play by different rules and regulations. To ensure the viability of its markets, the continued following of its fans and further success of existing franchises and ownership, the players AND the owners need to take drastic steps to fix the system.
While good teams don't want to see parity because it makes it more difficult to remain on top, parity is good for the league as a whole. How is having 30 franchises, with built-in parity, where ownership and players are both reaping the rewards, different than having 24 franchises (with a less amount of current replacement level players) which, if you think about it, would cause parity? In the second scenario, less players and less owners are making money. That is in neither parties best interest.
I think this proposal is great on many different levels. Great work, Bob.
I draw objection to the comment that Leon Powe, under Bob's proposal, doesn't deserve starter pay for paying a third of the minutes. He is partly responsible for the team's success, no? Why shouldn't he be compensated for it? There is a limit on roster spots in the NBA. There are not going to be more than a handful Leon Powe scenarios under Bob's proposal. The current system already has it's Brian Cardinal's, Mark Blount's, etc.
Furthermore, players would have a stake and ownership in their play. The onus would move away from Stern's "It doesn't matter if you don't impact games so long as you score a lot so I can market you" to more where high-level athletes help their team win actual games. Do you think the other 14 players on a team, when they all have financial interest in the outcome of games, would stand for a ball-hogging, me-first teammate or a teammate who didn't want to commit to playing defense? Players would better police themselves.
I think it was Sully that stated that ownership has to do a better job of avoiding ill-advised, long-term commitments. While I do agree, that is a lot easier said than done. In the current system, for 2008-09, teams were required to pay out ~$44.01M as a minimum or else be surcharged. That money that was collected would then be given to the players. Call it $45M but that means, for a 15-man roster, teams were going to give out, on average, $3M per player.
Now, assume Garnett, R. Allen, Pierce, Perkins and Rondo all retired/left the team due to expiring contracts/poor health/desire to be near family/etc. Boston, with no first round pick, would have to find free agents willing to come to a team who, by no fault of their own, would be forced to pay those prospective free agents more than they were likely worth. The current free agent system is an artificial market which is based upon the mid-level salary. Rebuilding teams are often coerced into paying middling talent big money because of the raw statistics that were attained due to extended minutes and opportunity. Young players often eschew team play so they can "get theirs" and take care of their families for life.
There was a comment to the effect that you can't socialize the system. The nature of the sport itself requires teamwork to be effective. Should Rajon Rondo not pass to Ray Allen because Rajon wants to get paid in the future and Ray has already got his? That may seem like a silly proposition but essentially the current system ensures that the haves continue to get theirs at the expense of the lower class (rookie scale, vet min, BAEs.)
Besides, the system already operates outside of a true capitalist system. Due to it's anti-trust status, the NBA and it's players already get to play by different rules and regulations. To ensure the viability of its markets, the continued following of its fans and further success of existing franchises and ownership, the players AND the owners need to take drastic steps to fix the system.
While good teams don't want to see parity because it makes it more difficult to remain on top, parity is good for the league as a whole. How is having 30 franchises, with built-in parity, where ownership and players are both reaping the rewards, different than having 24 franchises (with a less amount of current replacement level players) which, if you think about it, would cause parity? In the second scenario, less players and less owners are making money. That is in neither parties best interest.
I think this proposal is great on many different levels. Great work, Bob.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 6,008
- And1: 18
- Joined: Sep 19, 2007
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
You say that players should be paid based on how much they play.
Just wondering, what's your take on players who do not play anymore than 30 minutes? Usually bigs only play about 30 minutes per game because they don't have the stamina to play more. How is that fair to them?
Also, in the course of a blow out, how do you manage players who are getting paid based on the minutes that they play?
Just wondering, what's your take on players who do not play anymore than 30 minutes? Usually bigs only play about 30 minutes per game because they don't have the stamina to play more. How is that fair to them?
Also, in the course of a blow out, how do you manage players who are getting paid based on the minutes that they play?
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- Celts17Pride
- RealGM
- Posts: 68,254
- And1: 69,833
- Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
tombattor wrote:Celts17Pride wrote:The NBA will go into a lockout and it's going to last a very long time (1-2 years). The players are going to have to give back a little and they will resist. Get use to the idea of a lockout because it will happen. Too bad.
It won't. And people need to stop all this "players are too greedy" BS. You only think that because their salaries are known to public and you can put a face to their names. Plus, a giant case of jealousy.
The NBA is borrowing $200 milllion to keep half the teams afloat and you think this is going to have no effect on player's salaries. Keep dreaming.
The players are going to have to give something back in these economic times or the owners will lock them out. The players probably won't be willing to give back anything (they never do) so I believe there is a very high probability of a lockout.
This has nothing to do with "players are too greedy" BS, this has to do with the league surviving.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- tombattor
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,662
- And1: 807
- Joined: Nov 11, 2003
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Celts17Pride wrote:The NBA is borrowing $200 milllion to keep half the teams afloat and you think this is going to have no effect on player's salaries. Keep dreaming.
The players are going to have to give something back in these economic times or the owners will lock them out. The players probably won't be willing to give back anything (they never do) so I believe there is a very high probability of a lockout.
This has nothing to do with "players are too greedy" BS, this has to do with the league surviving.
The players don't have to give anything back. It goes both ways. Players and owners. You are focusing only on the players because you can put a face to the name. Owners are just as responsible. Why can't owners take less and let the players keep the pay? They are the show, after all. Aren't they?
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- tombattor
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,662
- And1: 807
- Joined: Nov 11, 2003
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Patterns wrote:You say that players should be paid based on how much they play.
Just wondering, what's your take on players who do not play anymore than 30 minutes? Usually bigs only play about 30 minutes per game because they don't have the stamina to play more. How is that fair to them?
Also, in the course of a blow out, how do you manage players who are getting paid based on the minutes that they play?
Exactly. That's why that model is flawed. What about someone like Manu? Should he get paid less than Roger Mason because he's not a starter?
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,888
- And1: 283
- Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
elrod, you system cannot work at all.
For example, Knick refused to play Marbury in this season. So his performance=0. Do you think Player's union can live with it? You just try to open a can of worms and fix nothing.
For example, Knick refused to play Marbury in this season. So his performance=0. Do you think Player's union can live with it? You just try to open a can of worms and fix nothing.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- Celts17Pride
- RealGM
- Posts: 68,254
- And1: 69,833
- Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
First of all, the player's union would never agree to anything that was performance based. Free Market.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 28,105
- And1: 7,738
- Joined: Jan 08, 2004
- Location: Providence, RI
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
The players do not have to give back anything, that is not the problem. Bad contracts are the problem if there is one. The players salaries are based on a percentage of the take if the revenue goes down the salaries will go down why exactly do the players have to give up something again?
If you centralize the pay but weight towards teams that win and the trappings that come with it how the hell are you going to get anyone who can play to go Memphis? This system doesn't encourage anymore competitive balance than the present one.
There is not going to be a prolonged lockout, unlike in the past the league and owners are not going to be on solid enough financial footing to afford it, to the contrary teams may fold and the union will lose jobs that is reality is going to be what convinces the union to accept changes.
Agents and players are not responsible for irresponsible owners and gms. It is there job to get the most money possible in a negotiation the other sides job is to do the opposite.
Changes may well come and are probably needed. Shorter allowable guaranteed years on contracts and perhaps more limits on the max salary. At the same time the restricted FA rules are ridiculous and also need to change.
The league's problem isn't the money going out, the problem is the drastic reduction in the revenue coming in on the horizon and whether team's are going to be able to meet their financial obligations. It doesn't mean the player compensation system is broken, recently the league was at all time highs the issues are external and need to be addressed that way.
If you centralize the pay but weight towards teams that win and the trappings that come with it how the hell are you going to get anyone who can play to go Memphis? This system doesn't encourage anymore competitive balance than the present one.
There is not going to be a prolonged lockout, unlike in the past the league and owners are not going to be on solid enough financial footing to afford it, to the contrary teams may fold and the union will lose jobs that is reality is going to be what convinces the union to accept changes.
Agents and players are not responsible for irresponsible owners and gms. It is there job to get the most money possible in a negotiation the other sides job is to do the opposite.
Changes may well come and are probably needed. Shorter allowable guaranteed years on contracts and perhaps more limits on the max salary. At the same time the restricted FA rules are ridiculous and also need to change.
The league's problem isn't the money going out, the problem is the drastic reduction in the revenue coming in on the horizon and whether team's are going to be able to meet their financial obligations. It doesn't mean the player compensation system is broken, recently the league was at all time highs the issues are external and need to be addressed that way.
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,205
- And1: 19,891
- Joined: Jan 05, 2004
- Location: real gm
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
Well it will be interesting to see if What Bill Simmons has been saying for years- that players live paycheck to paycheck is true. If it is than I think the owners are going to be in a pretty strong position. Im curious, does anyone know who the seniormost player rep is?
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
- tombattor
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,662
- And1: 807
- Joined: Nov 11, 2003
-
Re: My take on the Impending NBA Labor-Management War
sully00 wrote:The players do not have to give back anything, that is not the problem. Bad contracts are the problem if there is one. The players salaries are based on a percentage of the take if the revenue goes down the salaries will go down why exactly do the players have to give up something again?
If you centralize the pay but weight towards teams that win and the trappings that come with it how the hell are you going to get anyone who can play to go Memphis? This system doesn't encourage anymore competitive balance than the present one.
There is not going to be a prolonged lockout, unlike in the past the league and owners are not going to be on solid enough financial footing to afford it, to the contrary teams may fold and the union will lose jobs that is reality is going to be what convinces the union to accept changes.
Agents and players are not responsible for irresponsible owners and gms. It is there job to get the most money possible in a negotiation the other sides job is to do the opposite.
Changes may well come and are probably needed. Shorter allowable guaranteed years on contracts and perhaps more limits on the max salary. At the same time the restricted FA rules are ridiculous and also need to change.
The league's problem isn't the money going out, the problem is the drastic reduction in the revenue coming in on the horizon and whether team's are going to be able to meet their financial obligations. It doesn't mean the player compensation system is broken, recently the league was at all time highs the issues are external and need to be addressed that way.
Listen to this man. He knows what he's talking about!