Article: Permanent Peace Between Owners and Players

[GeneWilderSTL]

http://realgm.com/src_feature_pieces/95 ... nd_owners/

What ramifications do you think such a cba would have on the league?

This system is very well thought out and seems free of flaws. Practices would be pretty competitive. Yet as someone who wants a team in St. Louis its scary to think of owners being in the black near-guaranteed. Franchise values might go through the roof. Sterling was never going to sell his team anyway. There'd be little incentive to relocate a team which is great for the NBA but bad for me. I guess in the end, being a Laker fan and an NBA fan..I would be happy to see this as it would appear to make for a better league. A lot of incentive for players and a GMs job is made pretty easy.

I wonder what trades would have gone down if GMs didn't have to worry about salaries?

[Joe Berry]

excellent article, it seems to be a better system for both the players and the owners, i guess the agents don't like it that much the nba would benefit from such a system in the longrun, but i guess the change would be too radical, and i am sure players won't give up long term contracts for anything

[Bluewhale]

I am not sure about this proposal.

1. This is really the "performance" based salary. In this case, the coach's decision would be very important. This also could make the chemistry very tricky in the team.

2. The Free Agent system is very strange. The player need to commit to the team but what happened if the performance of player is not good?

3. This will make the BIG CITY even easier to recruit the BIG player. I don't think everyone like this.

[GeneWilderSTL]

I disagree I think it'll distribute talent pretty fairly. Players are going to go where they can maximize their earnings by getting more minutes and playing a larger role on teams. EDIT: I think this is perfect. Player A might not want to play with Player B because he's afraid Player B would take away his potential earnings since its performance based. I think it would be interesting to see a young team implode over ego and paid-performance while a veteran team worries about the rings. I think it magnifies an element that's already in the game. For better or worse depends on who you are. Still, ballhogging and me-first goes on already. You can't expect every team to have championship chemistry.

Who the Coaches decide to play has to be respected in the end, Jerry Sloan isn't going to tolerate somebody simply going for theirs. However I can imagine it causing chemistry issues on a bad team but doesn't that happen already to some degree? Players are entering free agency and looking to put up big numbers on a crappy team to get their next big contract e.g. Tim Thomas.

I think in the end coaches are going to coach and do what's best to win games and keep their own jobs. The average base salary is going to go up so I still think you'll have guys collecting a paycheck. Players can be released at any time if their performance is not good. GMs don't have to worry about a cap, only filling roster spots and creating the best team. I think a lot of smarter trades would happen in this scenario. I really think this is where the CBA shines brightest.

Also again, I can't see a scenario where this makes big cities more attractive than they already are. Right now you can get the same max contract in New York that you could get in Memphis. The benefit of big markets is exposure and marketing opportunities but that's never going to change with any CBA.

I think this CBA covers the bases as well as can be expected.

[mysticbb]

I think this is perfect.

No, it is not. You are missing here that the players will request contracts with guaranteed minutes. If a player will not get the minutes he thinks he deserves he will cause chemistry problems. The minutes management is up to the coach not to the players and agents. Something you completely forgot here.

It is also not a good idea to base the salary that much on "performance", because players are not only paid because of their oncourt performance, but also because of the way they draw interests from fans.

Your team performance bonus and the individual award bonus is also pretty redundant, because the voting of the MVP award and the All-NBA teams are heavily based on team success. An example would be Chris Bosh and Pau Gasol, those two seperates nearly nothing in their performances, but the one player was selected All-NBA, the other player not. The voting process is also subjective, putting that into the basis to calculate the salary is a bad idea.

And there are more holes in that proposal, if I have time (and obviously the desire) I will make another post about that.

[GeneWilderSTL]

^ good points, please point out any other scenarios/ flaws. minutes are the currency instead of money..interesting. Still, that scenario only arises in free agency and negotiations are already apart of that process now. I still think this is a step in the right direction.

[mysticbb]

minutes are the currency instead of money..interesting.

Yes, that is the basic problem. Players will always look first for guaranteed money over performance based bonuses.

Still, that scenario only arises in free agency and negotiations are already apart of that process now.

Well, that will likely also happen more often, because especially players in their development and not so rich players will look for shorter contracts. That makes it more difficult for a GM to build a team with a longterm plan. Not quite sure, but I can also see that this will not be looked as a good thing by fans, because they usually like to see how a young player developes and that players stay loyal to the team.

I still think this is a step in the right direction.

Well, increasing the amount of money tied up in performance bonuses is the right direction. Maybe the GM should be forced to do that more often.

Another problem with the big chunk of money tied up in the minutes per game thing is the fact that the ranking of the players is something which will be there at the end of the season. You are tying up 70% of the available money in that. How do you want to pay the players during the season? The same goes for the bonuses based on team success. At the end of the day the proposed system will not be able to determine how much money every gets until the end of the season. I can't imagine that the players or the owner are interested in such a thing.

I would say 70% of the money as guaranteed salary and 30% as bonuses seems like a good idea. There is just a need to find a rather objective way to determine the bonuses for each player. But the bonus needs to be tied up more with the team success and probably not only on the court, but also financially. Even a bad team can make a lot of profit (e.g. Chicago Bulls over the last decade). That is something which needs to accounted for. As I said players aren't only paid for their OnCourt performances.

Edit: Not related to the topic at all, but one thing I thought about during the current free agency is some sort of a "franchise player tag". Each team can tag one player on their roster as "franchise player". When the guy is a free agent, the team will make the first offer and the only way to get that player as another team is to sign him to at least the same contract which is offered by the original team. In that way the thing the Miami Heat did wouldn't have been possible, because Cleveland and Toronto would have for sure tied Bosh and James up with a max contract. It would still be possible to leave a team, but the other team wouldn't have that kind of capspace after that as the Heat had. And in fact Wade, Bosh and James signed contracts under their market value which in the end was their choice, but screwed up the competition.

[lorien]

I can see one very major issue from the players perspective. Under this system there is no way to determine what a player is going to get paid prior to the end of a season. So how would a player get paid during the season?

Also I don't like how this incentivises a player not telling coaches about minor injuries to keep their playing time up.

[cochiseuofm]

I really don't like this system for several reasons. I dislike the fact that it takes away salary control from the teams and gives it to the league. Last time I checked, the 30 teams are individually owned. The owners and GMs don't need all of their decision-making stripped away, they need stricter guidelines. I hate the fact that teams in this scenario wouldn't be rewarded for smart management and punished for bad moves. Everyone would get the same reward, same everything. The NBA...where socialism happens.

The NBA basically needs the NFL system with a few tweaks. A hard cap based on a percentage of revenue, as said in the article above, and partially-guarenteed contracts that are heavily incentive based and come with signing bonuses. No more MLEs or Bird Rights, and no more max. contracts either. Teams can offer whatever they want, because if they can't fit 12-15 players under a 69-70 mill cap their screwed. Rookie contracts stay the same, and Franchise Tags don't come over from the NFL. Max contract goes from 6-7 years to 5.

I don't mind incentivizing, but salaries should not be based on a system, it should be decided on by teams during negotiations with players. Teams should be able to decide what metrics matter the most for them in terms of variable pay, and they should also be allowed to decide how long to sign a player for, up to 5 years max, and for how much guarenteed money.

[Bluewhale]

Also again, I can't see a scenario where this makes big cities more attractive than they already are. Right now you can get the same max contract in New York that you could get in Memphis. The benefit of big markets is exposure and marketing opportunities but that's never going to change with any CBA.

I think this CBA covers the bases as well as can be expected.

Sorry, you are deadly wrong.

Currently CBA doesn't land LBJ+Bosh+Wade to NY, because NY doesn't have cap space. This terrible system will make EVERY super star jump to LA or NY after rookie contract. This proposal just benefit LA and NY most, and I could see why you like it and deny this by your signature.

[GeneWilderSTL]

Also again, I can't see a scenario where this makes big cities more attractive than they already are. Right now you can get the same max contract in New York that you could get in Memphis. The benefit of big markets is exposure and marketing opportunities but that's never going to change with any CBA.

I think this CBA covers the bases as well as can be expected.

Sorry, you are deadly wrong.

Currently CBA doesn't land LBJ+Bosh+Wade to NY, because NY doesn't have cap space. This terrible system will make EVERY super star jump to LA or NY after rookie contract. This proposal just benefit LA and NY most, and I could see why you like it and deny this by your signature.

Lakers are always going to be a destination no matter what CBA is put in place. I just thought this proposed CBA would bring more parity to the rosters as teams wouldn't be trading for cap space. Every trade would be based on building a better team.

How does this make LA and NY even more desirable? Greater off the court earning potential is the only thing I see in NY and LA. Please explain what you mean.

You think because there isn't a cap every star player is going to team up in NY or LA? As an NBA fan I want parity. As a Laker fan I simply want my team on the floor to win.

I just don't see how this CBA would make Brandon Roy jump to LA when we've already got Kobe.

[Bluewhale]

Lakers are always going to be a destination no matter what CBA is put in place. I just thought this proposed CBA would bring more parity to the rosters as teams wouldn't be trading for cap space. Every trade would be based on building a better team.

How does this make LA and NY even more desirable? Greater off the court earning potential is the only thing I see in NY and LA. Please explain what you mean.

You think because there isn't a cap every star player is going to team up in NY or LA? As an NBA fan I want parity. As a Laker fan I simply want my team on the floor to win.

I just don't see how this CBA would make Brandon Roy jump to LA when we've already got Kobe.

Parity doesn't exist in this system. In current cap NY doesn't land LBJ/Wade/Bosh this summer, just make your argument not valid. No matter how NY is great city, if they don't have CAP space like this summer, they fail.

This does make LA and NY even more desirable. Bynum is always hurting, what if DH jump to Laker when Bymun is hurt? LA won't welcome DH and happily say goodbye to injuried Bynum? Don't lie to yourself. In addition, when Bynum come back from injury, he MUST play backup for LA! Bynum cannot jump to another team for the year he committed to LA. LA had a wonderful backup center, or LA can trade Bynum for something GOOD!

This just make super star jump to LA and NY. HUGE advantage for LA and NY. No parity at all.

[cochiseuofm]

That is actually the first thing I thought too. How do you make money as a player in this new league? You a) play a lot of minutes, b) make MVP/All Conference voting ballots, and c) win games. All of those can be achieved by a team boasting five superstars. A team can easily guarentee 35-40 minutes a game to a top-flight starter, they can easily make a case that playing with All-Star talent is the best way to showcase skills to voters, and obviously the team has the best chance to win it all.

And the bonus teams can give their own players is very small. Just to make a comparison, LeBron, Bosh, and Wade all gave up $15 million over the life of their deals to play together. In your scenario, they'd only have to give up $6 million. $6 million is nothing to superstars like LeBron, that is the amount of money he'd save by playing in a no-tax state like Florida over Cleveland. I would even buy that he could make more than that difference in marketing opportunities in cities like LA or NY, an argument I usually dont buy into. At least in the current CBA, teams can offer an additional year so it comes out to something like $25-30 million extra. That at least makes a case for the player to stay, especially if he is a second-tier star who may not get a next contract.

I stand by my suggested system and all of my comments before. This is too extreme of a suggestion, the NBA needs a couple of tweaks and a hard cap. That's it.

[Bluewhale]

Exactly. In the brave new world. There will be about 4 super teams in the league, two in the east, two in the west. Likely all four are in NY and LA. And all star players in these 4 super team are very likely to be ASG. (Their team won! You don't get recognized if your team sucks.)

[epheisey]

This system gives the teams far too much power. To say that they can just cut someone with no repercussions once they decide they don't want him around anymore would never be ok'd by the players. And this doesnt factor in those players that make their career's in categories that aren't actively tracked by stats. Players like Ben Wallace (during his prime) would be getting paid marginally despite being the best defender in the NBA. Yes he would be highly rated in his select categories of blocks, rebounds, and maybe steals, but what about the shot alterations, and team defense that he provides? It's players like this, that make themselves a commodity that would highly oppose such a stat-driven NBA salary structure. One other thing that I have a huge issue with is the opinionated selection of All-Stars. Last season T-Mac and A.I. would have most definitely not passed up on the All-Star game if there was such a large amount of money at stake, and they most definitely don't deserve any of it.

[cochiseuofm]

This system gives the teams far too much power. To say that they can just cut someone with no repercussions once they decide they don't want him around anymore would never be ok'd by the players. And this doesnt factor in those players that make their career's in categories that aren't actively tracked by stats. Players like Ben Wallace (during his prime) would be getting paid marginally despite being the best defender in the NBA. Yes he would be highly rated in his select categories of blocks, rebounds, and maybe steals, but what about the shot alterations, and team defense that he provides? It's players like this, that make themselves a commodity that would highly oppose such a stat-driven NBA salary structure. One other thing that I have a huge issue with is the opinionated selection of All-Stars. Last season T-Mac and A.I. would have most definitely not passed up on the All-Star game if there was such a large amount of money at stake, and they most definitely don't deserve any of it.

I agree this isn't a good system but did you even actually read the article?

a) Teams actually lose power in this system IMO...they have nothing unique to offer FAs except, really, location. The article says teams from big markets won't have an advantage but that is laughably wrong.

b) Ben Wallace actually would have made a good deal of money in his heyday. He was a starter who played big minutes, he constantly played on a good team, and he was highly regarded in terms of value to his team by most around the league. I'd guess he'd make $15 million in his best years under this system, which is pretty good pay.

c) The All-Star game does not factor in to the formula. He called one aspect of the pay "All-Star Bonus Pay" but it is based on MVP voting and All-Conference team selections. So Iverson and T-Mac would not have made money by going to the All-Star game.

I actually like the variable pay suggestions, I just hate the not letting teams have flexibility to sign players themselves and not punishing them for mistakes. This is a business and teams who make dumb moves deserve to suffer.

[SJSF]

I for one really like this. I personally am against guaranteed contracts. A player like a Marbury, Curry, Houston, or Francis got paid way too much money for too many years. ANd it held back their teams from being good. Oh yeah and McGrady. He made what 24m this past year. What a joke. BUt anyway. I think it should be based on production and winning. If your team wins you win financially. And the best part for me is that the coach has all the power again. We would never see the whole NBA star wants the coach gone crap. I am so for the players not having any power. Just play the game at your best and listen to the coach. And if your team wins and you play well and log a lot of minutes. You will make great money. THe onyl things wrong with the NBA today is the dead weight of contracts. Guys making 10-20m a year that are not worthy of such money. ANd the teams get penalized as such. And there would no longer be salary dumps. Just regular trades. I for one am for a radical chnge in the new CBA. I am also for a lockout for where the owners get power back against these prima donnas.

[SJSF]

This system gives the teams far too much power. To say that they can just cut someone with no repercussions once they decide they don't want him around anymore would never be ok'd by the players. And this doesnt factor in those players that make their career's in categories that aren't actively tracked by stats. Players like Ben Wallace (during his prime) would be getting paid marginally despite being the best defender in the NBA. Yes he would be highly rated in his select categories of blocks, rebounds, and maybe steals, but what about the shot alterations, and team defense that he provides? It's players like this, that make themselves a commodity that would highly oppose such a stat-driven NBA salary structure. One other thing that I have a huge issue with is the opinionated selection of All-Stars. Last season T-Mac and A.I. would have most definitely not passed up on the All-Star game if there was such a large amount of money at stake, and they most definitely don't deserve any of it.

I agree this isn't a good system but did you even actually read the article?

a) Teams actually lose power in this system IMO...they have nothing unique to offer FAs except, really, location. The article says teams from big markets won't have an advantage but that is laughably wrong.

b) Ben Wallace actually would have made a good deal of money in his heyday. He was a starter who played big minutes, he constantly played on a good team, and he was highly regarded in terms of value to his team by most around the league. I'd guess he'd make $15 million in his best years under this system, which is pretty good pay.

c) The All-Star game does not factor in to the formula. He called one aspect of the pay "All-Star Bonus Pay" but it is based on MVP voting and All-Conference team selections. So Iverson and T-Mac would not have made money by going to the All-Star game.

I actually like the variable pay suggestions, I just hate the not letting teams have flexibility to sign players themselves and not punishing them for mistakes. This is a business and teams who make dumb moves deserve to suffer.

What teams have to offer is if their team is a good team they will make more money on that team by winning more games and making the playoffs.

[epheisey]

I may just be playing dumb again here, but what in this type of a CBA would prevent all the superstars from all playing on the same team? The idea of a salary cap would be very hard to put in place in a league where the salaries are varying each season. So instead of just Bosh, Bron, and Wade, we could see Dwight and Cp3 joining them all just so that they get paid more. Seems like if this were the case, the smaller market teams would suffer greatly. Again, i could be missing something huge here, so my bad..

[cochiseuofm]

I for one really like this. I personally am against guaranteed contracts. A player like a Marbury, Curry, Houston, or Francis got paid way too much money for too many years. ANd it held back their teams from being good. Oh yeah and McGrady. He made what 24m this past year. What a joke. BUt anyway. I think it should be based on production and winning. If your team wins you win financially. And the best part for me is that the coach has all the power again. We would never see the whole NBA star wants the coach gone crap. I am so for the players not having any power. Just play the game at your best and listen to the coach. And if your team wins and you play well and log a lot of minutes. You will make great money. THe onyl things wrong with the NBA today is the dead weight of contracts. Guys making 10-20m a year that are not worthy of such money. ANd the teams get penalized as such. And there would no longer be salary dumps. Just regular trades. I for one am for a radical chnge in the new CBA. I am also for a lockout for where the owners get power back against these prima donnas.

I don't know why everyone is rushing to help owners save money. They are the ones who agreed to pay these players the enormous amounts of money to start out with. In business, if you acquire an asset and it turns out to be useless, you lose the money you spent on it. NBA players are assets, their contracts, the full amount, is their cost. If GMs and owners want to treat free agency like bidding on a property in Monopoly, that is their choice. But they deserve to be punished if they make that mistake.