Next CBA

[ranger001]

Dude. You're really being quite annoying. If you really need me to point out the difference between Eddy Curry and Rashard Lewis's situations, why not go back to page 5, post 13?

I didn't ask you for the difference between Rashard and Eddy. I asked if a team wants to cut a contract to give the money to other player(s) if you want a mechanism for that. If not, why not?

[ranger001]

I'm fine with teams having some sort of amnesty clause to be able to get contracts like Curry off of their books. When a team wants to blow it up and start over I do think there should be more ways to let them regain that caproom. And players wouldn't at all oppose another amnesty.

Ok but that would drive costs up, not down so of course the players would be ok with it. The Knicks would have been happy to keep their draft picks and cut everyone else to make caproom. I'm talking about a reallocation, so if Curry's contract could have been voided at 20% say then that leaves 80% to be spent on other players.

[killbuckner]

Ranger- I think the Knicks would have been smart to offer Curry a contract that was only guaranteed 20% in the last year of the deal. BUt they didn't do that- they promised him 100% of the value. I don't at all see what scenarios he doesn't deserve every penny that he is contractually owed. The Knicks wanted him to sign that contract and were happy when he did. If the league wants to give the Knicks the ability to not count him against the cap then thats the players would be fine to work out some sort of amnesty program. But once the knicks guaranteed Eddy Curry's contract then I don't at all see why Curry should pay the price because the KNicks messed up.

The guiding principle to me is that teams should be careful about when they offer guaranteed contracts because they don't want to be stuck paying someone like Eddy Curry. But there are also times when I think that it would be smart for a team to sign a player to a guaranteed contract.

[ranger001]

Kb, that principle is the same as the status quo which is causing the owners to lose money. The standard answer seems to be that its the owners fault for handing out these contracts but that isn't a go forward solution for getting adequate ROI.

If the status quo hasn't worked yet it wont suddenly start working in future, changes will be coming.

[killbuckner]

Moving forward I think that teams should be able to guarantee Carmelo Anthony's contract if they want to encourage him to sign a longer contract and be able to count on building the team with him as a cornerstone. I also think that teams should also have the ability to offer Greg Oden a contract thats partially guaranteed so that he gets paid if he produces but where the team limits their exposure in case he get injured. The only way for both of these to happen that I can see would be to give teams the flexiblity to offer guaranteed contracts when they want to and non-guaranteed contracts in situations where they make more sense.

I'd also support loosening the rules on signing bonuses so teams can try and give players up front incentive to accept a team option. (which is what a non-guaranteed year basically is)

[ranger001]

Flexibility is not really that if the market dictates that the option chosen has to be the most expensive one.

[killbuckner]

The Nuggets convinced Harrington to sign a partially guaranteed contract. The bulls convinced 3 FA's to sign partially guaranteed contracts.

SMarter teams would probably want to sign guys to a higher annual value but to a shorter deal but there are rules that make it tougher. The max salary means that putting extra years on at the end is the easiest way to make the offer more attractive. The NBA strictly limits how big a signing bonus can be which would be another way of making an offer more attractive without adding extra years. Thats where you give teams more flexiblity.

[Nanogeek]

Sephtaka- you are the one that said "all contracts should be unguranteed". I think that is pretty daft to use your words.

If you think a CBA can be one sentence then you are the daft one.

[SJSF]

just make all contracts unguaranteed. Its the best way to go. Copy the NFL. And have a hard cap. I like how the players think they will have a say in whats going to happen. The owners will steam roll the players.

[Three34]

Players do have a say. It's them we'll be paying to see.

[Nanogeek]

Players do have a say. It's them we'll be paying to see.

Agreed. Though NFL revenues apparently only declined about 20% during the "scrub" games in 1987.

[Three34]

Why do D-League teams keep going out of business when their top salary is only $34,000?

[Nanogeek]

Why do D-League teams keep going out of business when their top salary is only $34,000?

D-League teams go bust because their business managers are ITT grads and there is a superior option (the NBA). During the NFL strike in 1987, there was no superior option and people needed to do their tailgaiting and barbecues so they watched the scrub games.

I agree the players definitely have a say but my point is owners can make money with the second tier of talent. They'll pay the second tier of talent 50% of what they are paying the first tier and if they can minimize their revenue hit to say 30% then they have gained economically. In practical terms, the players don't have an alternative option (e.g., organizing their own league) due to the significant logistical barriers that exist.

[Three34]

D-League teams go bust because they don't have any star power. Nor will the NBA without stars.

hey'll pay the second tier of talent 50% of what they are paying the first tier and if they can minimize their revenue hit to say 30% then they have gained economically.

But they can't. It's explicitly obvious how much of a star culture the NBA is; in fact, it's somethign we often all lament, how star-biased it is in terms of both game calling and production. "You can't replace "LEBRON! DWIGHT! It's an all-Florida showdown on ESPN!" with the names "VERNON GOODRIDGE" and "NICK FAZEKAS" and expect to lose only 30% of your revenue.

[Nanogeek]

D-League teams go bust because they don't have any star power. Nor will the NBA without stars.

hey'll pay the second tier of talent 50% of what they are paying the first tier and if they can minimize their revenue hit to say 30% then they have gained economically.

But they can't.

Well, we don't know what they can and can't do. We can only speculate. The only analogous situation in American sports was the 1987 NFL season which I have previously mentioned and which saw a 20% decline in revenues. Of course, there are lots of factors you can look to as to why that decline was smaller than you might expect. For example, season ticket holders and advertisers had likely already committed funds regardless of what players took the field. If the scrubs were still on the teams when the following season came around you'd like see a more precipitous drop in revenues. But the question is not whether revenue will drop because it surely will but rather whether revenue would drop by a larger amount than costs.

It's explicitly obvious how much of a star culture the NBA is; in fact, it's somethign we often all lament, how star-biased it is in terms of both game calling and production.

I am not sure if you are familiar with the NFL or the 1987 NFL but there was certainly a star culture present then also (e.g., Joe Montana, John Elway, Jerry Rice, Reggie White, Warren Moon, Eric Dickerson, Jim McMahon).

Also, there's already a massive group of second tier players that garner significant attention here in the US - college basketball. The star culture of the NBA is not as beguiling as you might think.

Again, the players have a say of course but its not absolute by any means.

[Three34]

Also, there's already a massive group of second tier players that garner significant attention here in the US - college basketball

Well, yes. So all attention that a locked-out NBA would otherwise be going will instead go there. Not to the D-League.

[DBoys]

If I was an NBA owner, I'd simply take my chances, and be prepared to play the season with new players if I need to. And I think in the long run I'd be in a much better position no matter what.

Part of that is because, to a much larger degree than people recognize, I think the league makes the stars - that is to say, there is no test tube to measure a players degree of excellence, so it's only known by playing games. And the NBA provides that venue.

So if they institute a new pay scale that Lebron and Kobe and all won't play in, the NBA can create new stars by having a brand new set of players out of which certain ones will be better than others. Somebody will be throwing down dunks, making shots, throwing slick passes, or patrolling the lane mercilessly - and setting new NBA records. In the short run, fans will say "They aren't as good as Lebron and Kobe" but in the long run fans embrace the new if it's the best that's playing. Then they add some brand new players out of college or overseas, via the draft, and in a couple years the loss of the old guys is like a stone thrown in a lake that makes ripples for awhile then is gone. Somebody new will be all-NBA and somebody will win titles, and the NBA goes on.

In addition, if we can assume that the NBA Finals is currently a lock for LA and Miami and no one else, are we sure that ticket sales will go down in 28 other franchises if you erase Kobe and Lebron and their supporting casts and now everyone else has a chance at a title that formerly was not remotely possible? What if you lose fans in LA and Miami, but gain a significant increase everywhere else? If I own one of the other 28 franchises, I'm excited about the deck being cleared.

[ranger001]

Its the league that makes these guys stars. So if it did come to replacement players the league and the media would find a way to create human interest stories(this is my chance, I ain't gonna blow it, blah, blah).

After a few months of being out of the limelight and a few bank calls about the payments on their mansions and bentley's then the players will come back. Even if the gate dropped 50% salaries would fall further than that so the owners will make money.

Is the tv contract still guaranteed? I seem to remember that in the last lockout it was guaranteed in the event of a long lockout.

[HartfordWhalers]

Its the league that makes these guys stars. So if it did come to replacement players the league and the media would find a way to create human interest stories(this is my chance, I ain't gonna blow it, blah, blah).

After a few months of being out of the limelight and a few bank calls about the payments on their mansions and bentley's then the players will come back. Even if the gate dropped 50% salaries would fall further than that so the owners will make money.

Is the tv contract still guaranteed? I seem to remember that in the last lockout it was guaranteed in the event of a long lockout.

The players typically don't have large cash reserves, which definitely works in the owners favor. But I think you over estimate the public's willingness to watch replacement ball. If the public's perception is that it isn't good basketball, then the public won't want to watch it, regardless of the reality. No one watches dleague ball, no one watches d2 football, etc.
The perception that it isn't the good basketball players is more important than the actual talent gap.

[verbal8]

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.

Actually part of player salaries are put in escrow, so if revenues are down then the players share some of the pain too.