Will there be a "next season"?

[Bassman]

I believe the next season is more likely to be cancelled than anything going in in other sports now. The issues at stake for the league and the owners are 10X more critical than the NFL. Either the players will cave, or there will be no season. Too many owners can lose less money by not playing. The NBA needs a shakeout that will only come from a protracted work stoppage. They think they can go the NFL route of the courts to "decertify" (which is a total lie that get's supported by leftist judges). Ultimately the legal process will vindicate the NFL, but it is even more favored to ownership in the NBA. Unlike the NFL, Stern and the owners have shared their balance sheets and ledgers, documenting the financial losses borne by many teams. The Miami "coup" that the players engineered via free agency was the last straw in this process, and Stern is determined to get the table reset to bring competitive balance to the league.

What reasonable modifications would you suggest to the player and salary structure to bring about balanced competitiveness with financial viability?

[W_HAMILTON]

Oh, Christ...

If they can "lose less money by not playing," then why play ever -- hell, why own a sports team to begin with? Now that we can exclude Bob Johnson (who paid a high expansion fee then subsequently sold at a loss), I would imagine all NBA owners could sell their franchises right now for more, in some cases much more (in some cases, much, much, much more) than they originally paid for them. Given that fact, if they are losing so much money, why not sell? And don't say because there are no buyers, because there are. And don't use NOH as an example, because there are even prospective buyers for that team; the problem is, most of them want to relocate.

[Paydro70]

1) It is not the players' problem if the league distributes its money badly, so that Dolan makes $64m (plus whatever he makes off the MSG network and what not), and the Magic lose $23m. Since the league as a whole makes money (according to outside observers like Forbes, rather than Stern's announcements), I don't see why the players need to make sacrifices so that all members of the government-sponsored cartel that is the NBA make profits. They can work that out themselves if they're interested in "competitive balance."

2) If players are free to make a union and collectively bargain, they are also free to decertify that union and negotiate independently. If the NBA were a regular business, this would be an insane decision, because individual bargainers almost never get better results than a collective bargaining agreement can. But since it's NOT a regular business, many owners will keep doing what they do now: pay their players more than they actually make in revenue. Why? Because A) it's a hobby to them, like Cuban, B) they are incompetent, like Bob Johnson, or C) they actually make a net profit because they also own their local TV stations, businesses near the arena, etc. None of these situations obligate the players to sacrifice for their owners' benefit.

But of course the teams CAN ask the players to sacrifice, because they are a government-protected cartel where the owners can agree to simply stop production. This can't happen in most industries, because there is actual competition: Honda can't stop making cars unless Toyota and Ford and GM all do the same, which they never will because there are sales to be had. Even if they did, they'd suffer anti-trust lawsuits. But since the NBA is a protected cartel, they can all agree together to hold their employees hostage (Or at least, they think so), and there are no other leagues permitted to exist. I think I can be forgiven for siding with the "leftist judges" who don't see this as a legitimate exercise of the government's specially-granted privilege to the NBA.

3) The competitive balance in the NBA has little to do with player salaries. The only time that high player salaries become a problem for competition is when the divide between rich and poor is so big that it is impossible for the poor to compete. This is obviously not the case in the NBA, where teams like the Thunder and Bulls are competing right now even though their teams pay about 60% of what the Lakers and Mavs pay. If you look at baseball, a sport with no salary cap, you have some teams paying 5x as much as others. Yet in the last decade 9 different teams have won the World Series, because despite the best efforts of teams with money, teams with good management are the ones that actually succeed.

The problem is not that the Timberwolves can't afford to pay better players. It's that the way NBA basketball works, there are a small number of difference-making players, and their apportionment is partially random (the draft), partially the result of quality management (having a team worth going to as a free agent) and partially the result of where these franchises are located (there's a reason everyone goes to Miami, NYC, LA, etc.).

So to answer your questions, I think the way to make financial viability is for teams to make rational business decisions, and for the NBA to engage in revenue sharing.

To create competitiveness, eliminate the draft lottery and shorten contracts to permit quicker player movement. That means that the worst teams will be the most likely to pick up difference-making rookies, and the ability to shed contracts will help prevent situations like, say, the Bobcats'. As a third measure, you might consider having the maximum salary increased. Making a player like LeBron or Kobe make something closer to their actual market value would ensure that teams with such players have a worse supporting cast. The net effect of this is that a team of 5 OK players (call it the Detroit model) is more likely to be competitive when they have to play a team more like LeBron's Cavs than Kobe's Lakers.

[Tupik]

What Paydro said, I wholeheartedly agree.

[ohara]

One benefit to a cancelled next season would be that aside from us having the #9 and #19 picks this draft, we would again have the #9 pick in the draft next season. And given how deep that draft will be, we should be getting 3 pretty solid young players.

I dont see a missed season happening. Main reason is that the NBA has "guaranteed contracts" where the NFL does not. If the players decertify and the union is dissolved, those contracts are no longer "guaranteed" and dont get paid. I think the players under contract in the NBA will be too hesitent to watch that "guaranteed" money fly away. They may prove me wrong, but I can see a whole lot of players who recently signed big contracts being very fearful of any new contract being much less since most just dont live up to expectations. A bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.

[W_HAMILTON]

Uh, odds are if there is a season played, we will end up with a draft pick better than #9. And if we end up with a worse draft pick, that means we were probably close to (or did) make the playoffs.

Both situations are infinitely better than no NBA for an entire year + the 9th pick.

Stop that bs already. We would not benefit from a season-long lockout.

[ohara]

I dont think we will be the 9th worst team in the NBA next season if it is played. I think we have a good young team that will be either late lottery or make the playoffs. And what happens this draft will have a good bit to say about how good we will be next season.

[W_HAMILTON]

Then why forego an entire season if we are going to make the playoffs? It still makes no sense.

[ohara]

Then why forego an entire season if we are going to make the playoffs? It still makes no sense.

Dude, I am not saying I want that at all. You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am saying that there would be a small benefit, and that would be it. But I would absolutely prefer there be a season. I think we would prove to be a good young team and a season playing together will be great. But if there was a lockout and no season, that the #9 pick in next year's draft would be an OK consolation prize, so to speak.

[Rich4114]

Well put Paydro, I agree with everything you said.

[fatlever]

not sure how i feel about completely getting rid of draft lottery. tanking is bad enough as is.

[Paydro70]

not sure how i feel about completely getting rid of draft lottery. tanking is bad enough as is.

Personally it doesn't bother me. Is there any doubt that the Timberwolves and Cavs are the worst teams? Why can't they just have the top picks then, why only give them a small chance at them? There is no way to eliminate tanking until you eliminate the ranked order of the draft and make it totally random. But I'd rather see bad teams have the chance to improve through the draft than never see tanking again.

[Rich4114]

I think they should give all of the teams in the lottery an equal chance. If the goal is to get a more competitive landscape of teams, that is how you will do it. Look at the Bulls. They went from borderline playoff team (like us) to championship contender building around what they already had as a decent team + Rose.

Unless the draft is 2004 good, the teams who have the top picks will become stuck in lottery purgatory for a while until they can get really lucky. Just bring it back to how it started, teams can never tank and worse case scenario you'll have is the really bad teams complaining about not getting top picks.

[Bassman]

I think they should give all of the teams in the lottery an equal chance. If the goal is to get a more competitive landscape of teams, that is how you will do it. Look at the Bulls. They went from borderline playoff team (like us) to championship contender building around what they already had as a decent team + Rose.

Unless the draft is 2004 good, the teams who have the top picks will become stuck in lottery purgatory for a while until they can get really lucky. Just bring it back to how it started, teams can never tank and worse case scenario you'll have is the really bad teams complaining about not getting top picks.

Rich I like the idea of equal chances within the lottery drawing. That generally supports a "no tanking" rule since positioning only matters relative to getting into the playoffs.

Paydro made many good points. However, the NBA is not a cartel. There is nothing preventing a competing league from being formed and placed against the NBA. Realistic? Of course not, as the NBA has made the league strong with TV contracts, history, etc. Yes there are stupid owners, and rich owners, and stupid-rich owners. But no league can expect to thrive without creating conditions condusive to competitive balance, cost management and franchise quality. The answer cannot be an excessive tax (redistribution of wealth).

I suggest use of a hard cap that limits the total dollars a team can pay in base salary to all their players. The hard cap woud represent a percentage of all league revenue and be adjusted every season. Base salaries would be non-escalating, remain guaranteed for the term of the contract (the term would be shorter than current maximums) and have no player or team options for renewal. Teams would have the option to pay a 1-time re-signing incentive to their expiring players in the form of a signing bonus, representing 50% of the new contract's annual base salary. These signing bonuses would not count against the hard cap. The teams would also offer incentive bonuses that provide an opportunity for players to earn up to an additional 30% of their base salary. These are structured incentive bonuses, paid to players based on 3 criteria: individual productivity, team performance and years of service. Lastly players would earn playoff bonuses for every game they play. Those funds do not count against the hard cap.

I think this process places reasonable targets on revenue for both the owners and players, removes the loopholes that allow teams to stack up stars like cordwood in wealthy markets, yet still provides players multiple means to earn more money through individual and team achievement.

[Walt Cronkite]

The penalty for tanking in a scenario where the league "rewards" tanking by giving the highest picks to the teams with the worst record is that the teams suck so no one comes to their games. If the team is bad, but still entertaining, no one loses. It's when teams are awful and boring that the game suffers... I mean, look at our history.

[Paydro70]

Rich I like the idea of equal chances within the lottery drawing. That generally supports a "no tanking" rule since positioning only matters relative to getting into the playoffs.

...but I thought the point here was competitive balance? Why would you want to reward better teams at the expense of bad ones?

Paydro made many good points. However, the NBA is not a cartel. There is nothing preventing a competing league from being formed and placed against the NBA. Realistic? Of course not, as the NBA has made the league strong with TV contracts, history, etc. Yes there are stupid owners, and rich owners, and stupid-rich owners. But no league can expect to thrive without creating conditions condusive to competitive balance, cost management and franchise quality. The answer cannot be an excessive tax (redistribution of wealth).

You don't know what a cartel is, then: "a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices." The NBA is a collection of 30 companies that are allowed by the government to engage in anti-competitive practices. Things like... the draft. Relocation approval. Expansion and contraction agreements. Revenue sharing. And, of course, locking out their employees by agreeing to stop production (or, in this case, play). These restrictions are more or less necessary for the successful functioning of the league... but make no mistake, this is a cartel.

"Cost management" is already being done: players have a maximum salary, the league punishes excessive spending on salaries, and makes it difficult to pay players too much because of the rules regarding trades and cap space (which is, of course, limited to a certain portion of revenues). Actually that's pretty much the primary benefit of the cartel.

Using the word "tax" to describe revenue sharing is a rather cheap ploy. The members of the NBA depend on each other to make profits. That those profits are distributed unequally is the inevitable result of a league where there are winners and losers, and each team has a protected geographic area. I have no idea why it should be the players' responsibility to sacrifice so Dolan can keep huge profits and help Cuban run his franchise at a loss because it's fun.

I suggest use of a hard cap that limits the total dollars a team can pay in base salary to all their players. The hard cap woud represent a percentage of all league revenue and be adjusted every season. <specific stuff>

I think this process places reasonable targets on revenue for both the owners and players, removes the loopholes that allow teams to stack up stars like cordwood in wealthy markets, yet still provides players multiple means to earn more money through individual and team achievement.

1) The hard cap does nothing to improve profitability unless it is set at a lower portion of league revenues than it currently is. In other words, it only helps if it's a pay cut, which the players are unlikely to accept unless they have their arms twisted into it by the owners' greater ability to withstand not playing (because, of course, the owners have a monopoly on professional basketball and a special privilege to collude).

2) The major consequence of your system is that player movement will be constant. Teams will be still be locked into salary they can't shed, but now they won't even have the ability to resign their own players above the salary cap (or "stack stars like cordwood" so to speak). It will be even worse than the NFL, which has tremendous roster turnover as is but at least can cut players at will to fit in pay raises for those they deem most important.

I don't consider this to be a good thing... it hurts the casual fan's understanding, undermines franchise loyalty, and has consequences for team chemistry.

3) Playoff bonuses and incentives already exist. That they would be beyond the hard cap is sort of meaningless, they'll be accounted for in CBA negotiations and would simply push the hard cap figure slightly lower than it would otherwise be. The fundamental problem will be the same: the portion of the pie given to the players.

If the NBA were actually losing money, or if it were even close to breaking even, then I would agree that the players are clearly taking up too much of the revenue. But instead makes a lot of money, and the reality is that some owners don't know or don't care how to make their franchises profitable. It's easier to say "gee whiz look how much money some teams are losing, it's clearly those greedy players" than "wow our profits are so badly distributed, we should work on fixing that."

[Bassman]

[

I suggest use of a hard cap that limits the total dollars a team can pay in base salary to all their players. The hard cap woud represent a percentage of all league revenue and be adjusted every season. <specific stuff>

I think this process places reasonable targets on revenue for both the owners and players, removes the loopholes that allow teams to stack up stars like cordwood in wealthy markets, yet still provides players multiple means to earn more money through individual and team achievement.

1) The hard cap does nothing to improve profitability unless it is set at a lower portion of league revenues than it currently is. In other words, it only helps if it's a pay cut, which the players are unlikely to accept unless they have their arms twisted into it by the owners' greater ability to withstand not playing (because, of course, the owners have a monopoly on professional basketball and a special privilege to collude).

If you believe any new CBA for the NBA is not going to reduce the player's share of the revenue, you are mistaken. The league will go to the mat to lower player share. It won't be as big a cut as the NFL but it will happen. And again, the owners do NOT have a monopoly with the NBA. It has no competition because they merged with their chief competitor years ago. Frankly some players could choose to form their own league and compete with the NBA.

2) The major consequence of your system is that player movement will be constant. Teams will be still be locked into salary they can't shed, but now they won't even have the ability to resign their own players above the salary cap (or "stack stars like cordwood" so to speak). It will be even worse than the NFL, which has tremendous roster turnover as is but at least can cut players at will to fit in pay raises for those they deem most important.

I don't consider this to be a good thing... it hurts the casual fan's understanding, undermines franchise loyalty, and has consequences for team chemistry.

Player movement hasn't hurt the NFL. Competitive balance is aided by the availability of buyers and sellers. You speak against the evil owners and their "monopoly", yet you prefer the players to gain unlimited salary increases relative to a system that only allows that via artifical methods (the Bird rule). Having contracts limited to 5 or even 4 years provides greater opportunity for really good players to get a raise, even with their own team. The 50% one time bonus proposal doesn't count against the hard cap, and represents is a large incentive to stay with their current team.

3) Playoff bonuses and incentives already exist. That they would be beyond the hard cap is sort of meaningless, they'll be accounted for in CBA negotiations and would simply push the hard cap figure slightly lower than it would otherwise be. The fundamental problem will be the same: the portion of the pie given to the players.

You clearly have never been involved in owning and running a business. Who takes all the risk? Who is responsible for every aspect of investment? Who spent the huge money in the first place to aquire the team? NBA owners deserve a profit. The players are the product, but they have NOTHING without the owners and the league.

If the NBA were actually losing money, or if it were even close to breaking even, then I would agree that the players are clearly taking up too much of the revenue. But instead makes a lot of money, and the reality is that some owners don't know or don't care how to make their franchises profitable. It's easier to say "gee whiz look how much money some teams are losing, it's clearly those greedy players" than "wow our profits are so badly distributed, we should work on fixing that."

So how much money should the owners make? What is your pronouncement on a "fair" profit? The NBA can only thrive or survive if they properly manage the resources and assets of the franchise properly. The players earn TONS of money from endorsement deals...deals which they contract for individually, but are only an option because they play IN THE NBA! Does the league say that players can only make X amount of money from endorsements? We are not likely to agree, as your position is leftist labor and mine is more alligned with ownership. But I can guarantee you that the owners will not adopt any CBA that is close to the current one.

[Paydro70]

If you believe any new CBA for the NBA is not going to reduce the player's share of the revenue, you are mistaken. The league will go to the mat to lower player share. It won't be as big a cut as the NFL but it will happen. And again, the owners do NOT have a monopoly with the NBA. It has no competition because they merged with their chief competitor years ago. Frankly some players could choose to form their own league and compete with the NBA.

I suppose the players will probably end up caving and giving the owners more money. But why will they be able to do that? Because the only 30 companies selling professional basketball have colluded to do so. If this happened in a normal industry, it would be incredibly illegal. But since the NBA is a legal cartel, they can lock out their employees and use their leverage as billionaires to enforce a pay cut. My sympathy is not with the owners, in this case.

The NBA does have a monopoly, because they are the only basketball league in this country. Claiming the players can leave is pretty disingenuous. If every car company banded together and refused to make cars until all their employees took a pay cut (which is, again, very illegal), is it really a fair response to say "well, they could form their own car company"? Not to me.

Player movement hasn't hurt the NFL. Competitive balance is aided by the availability of buyers and sellers. You speak against the evil owners and their "monopoly", yet you prefer the players to gain unlimited salary increases relative to a system that only allows that via artifical methods (the Bird rule). Having contracts limited to 5 or even 4 years provides greater opportunity for really good players to get a raise, even with their own team. The 50% one time bonus proposal doesn't count against the hard cap, and represents is a large incentive to stay with their current team.

Again, it hasn't hurt the NFL because football is a different product from basketball. I don't care who the backup guards are for the Panthers. But I do care who the backup guards are for the Bobcats, and shifting them out every year (which is what would happen) does not appeal to me.

Here's the solution to the "unlimited salary increases": DON'T GIVE THEM OUT. If a player isn't worth it, don't pay him. I don't think owners should be crying to the public and the players because they can't control themselves and have no idea what they're doing.

I agree with cutting contract length. So long as total payrolls are tied to league revenue, long contracts don't benefit anyone and the players are stupid if they fight for them. I just don't think you're being realistic about the result of a hard cap here. In the current system, if you are over the cap, you can still resign your players, and for more money than anyone else can give them. A player has to really want out to leave (unless the team actually is reaching the amount its owner will spend). But what happens when there's a hard cap? The Bobcats have 10m in space, and Henderson turns out to be Kobe. Well, we can give him a 5m bonus in addition to that 10m-per-year contract... but the Timberwolves can give him 15m a year for 4 years. Which does he take?

The reality is that it is nearly impossible to know how much every player on your team will be worth 4 years ahead of time, plus players that don't exist yet, and an unknown pool of free agents. A hard cap WILL force teams to watch team/fan/coach favorites walk because it will be literally impossible to resign them. This is why the NBA put in the Bird rules to begin with... they never wanted to see a situation where the Celtics have to watch Larry Bird leave.

You clearly have never been involved in owning and running a business. Who takes all the risk? Who is responsible for every aspect of investment? Who spent the huge money in the first place to aquire the team? NBA owners deserve a profit. The players are the product, but they have NOTHING without the owners and the league.

I'm not sure what that has to do with incentives in contracts. My only point here is that those features already exist, and don't really have much to do with the CBA negotiations. I wouldn't mind seeing more performance-based contracts, but I don't think that's really integral to making the system work.

As for your questions: the owners, taxpayers and players (unless we're claiming playing basketball is without its risks?), the owners and taxpayers, and the owners and taxpayers. NBA owners deserve a profit if they can get one... which they do. Their players are under no obligation to help with that unless their industry itself is threatened... which it's not.

So how much money should the owners make? What is your pronouncement on a "fair" profit? The NBA can only thrive or survive if they properly manage the resources and assets of the franchise properly. The players earn TONS of money from endorsement deals...deals which they contract for individually, but are only an option because they play IN THE NBA! Does the league say that players can only make X amount of money from endorsements? We are not likely to agree, as your position is leftist labor and mine is more alligned with ownership. But I can guarantee you that the owners will not adopt any CBA that is close to the current one.

I don't know what a "fair" profit is. I think $200m, in a crappy economy, is not too bad a return, especially since most of these owners make their own "outside" funding from ownership of nearby properties and associated businesses (like TV networks, etc.). By the way, most players don't get "TONS" of money from endorsements. SOME players do. Most get something from the local car dealership, at best.

The real issue here is not whether owners get a profit. It's that they've presented a sense of urgency and helplessness that is disingenuous when the league as a whole continues to be profitable. It's nowhere near as unreasonable as the NFL owners' position, of course, but the principle is the same. This would be one thing if it were merely a negotiating tactic going into the CBA... but instead we get a lockout, an anti-competitive action that is only possible because the owners are granted an exception from antitrust law. In no other industry would we permit ownership to collude this way to squeeze concessions from labor, and I don't think it should elicit any sympathy from the public when they try to do it in the NBA.