[BasketBalAllanParticipant]

It has reached the point of no return. With the NBA owners seeking to reduce alleged losses to a point of copious profit all that is left of the once numerable barriers between the status quo and unprecedented change is the willingness of the National Basketball Players Association to hold onto their single bargaining chip, rejection. This may seem bizarre to some, but why should the casual fan be worried about NBA money? Why is there the perception in this dilemma that one should side, in any amount, with either the NBPA or the NBA? It should be brought to attention that a predicament such as this is not exclusive to one of two solutions, but rather a variety of different viewpoints. It is the intention of this article to bring forth a seemingly untold story in the evolution of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, one that should merit attention from those who matter most in the NBA; the fans.

 

The most prevalent proposal for the new CBA has been and will continue to be those that are set forth by the NBA owners. The NBPA has not been organized or mature enough to do much besides walk away or propose cuts so immeasurable that it noticeably frustrates their employers. This is what has given the owners the upper hand in negotiations and why they are facing unprecedented cuts in the way salaries and teams are composed. A current proposal, one of a few, would set in place a $45 million hard cap, and role back player salaries by an average of around 20%. This means that you would be rolling back the current cap of $58 million by 22%, or nearly the same amount as the player salaries. In practical terms it can be understood as if all the teams in the NBA last year were allowed to operate as if the soft cap that was in place was instead a hard cap. What would that mean for the league? It would be unprecedented. It would change not only the structure of 22 of the 30 teams in the NBA last season, the Bulls, Thunder, and Knicks being the only teams in the 2011 playoffs whose roster would be unchanged, but it would require changing the rosters of every single championship team in the past 15 years. Only one of those championship teams being even close to only minor roster changes, 04-05 Spurs.

 

Here is a list of those teams and salaries vs. cap:

 

96-97 Bulls: $58 million, $33.7 million over the $24.4 million salary cap (138% above)

 

97-98 Bulls: $61 million, $34.1 million over the $26.9 million salary cap (127% above)

 

98-99 Spurs: $43.5 million, $13.5 million over the $30 million salary cap (45% above)

 

99-00 Lakers: $55 million, $21 million over the $34 million salary cap (61.5% above)

 

00-01 Lakers: $59 million, $23.5 million over the $35.5 million salary cap (66% above)

 

01-02 Lakers: $54 million, $11.5 million over the $42.5 million salary cap (27% above)

 

02-03 Spurs: $53 million, $12.7 million over the $40.3 million salary cap (31.5% above)

 

03-04 Pistons: $53.5 million, $9.8 million over the $43.8 million salary cap (22% above)

 

04-05 Spurs: $47.5 million, $3.6 million over the $43.9 million salary cap (8% above)

 

05-06 Heat:  $60.4 million, $11 million over the $49.5 million over salary cap (22% above)

 

06-07 Spurs: $65.4 million, $12.3 million over the $53.1 million salary cap (23% above)

 

07-08 Celtics: $74 million, $18.7 million over the $55.6 million salary cap (34% above)

 

08-09 Lakers:  $78 million, $19.3 million over the $58.7 million salary cap (33% above)

 

09-10 Lakers: $91.2 million, $33.5 million over the $57.7 million salary cap (58% above)

 

10-11 Mavericks: $85.5 million, $27.4 million over the $58 million salary cap (47% above)

 

That is an average of 49.5% over each years salary cap.

 

This would put enormous pressure for teams to not only draft extremely well, but also for them to wait until the correct moments to hand out contracts. Contracts that would free cap space at the correct times in order to compete with young core players, solid veterans and descent role players. Coupled with shortened contract lengths and lower percent annual raises on contracts – both resigned and continuing – this drop in cap and salary would not only make the NBA’s balance of power shift toward shorter periods of dominance and irrelevancy but also make the league much more competitive amongst all 30 teams. Dynasties are fun and memorable but they are also tiring and turn fans away that are fed up with more of the same teams winning repeatedly. This is part of the reason why the most profitable and popular sports league in America is the one with a track record of shorter turnarounds and a greater number of champions for periods of time, the NFL. This CBA proposal would be a step in the right direction and would help turn the NBA into a much more attractive and enjoyable sport to follow.

 

 Sources:

 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=coon_larry&page=NBAFinancials-110630

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

I do not see how the Hard Cap makes things more competitive. Really don’t. The NBA does not work the same way as the NFL, I do not think you can have a "Franchise Tag" in the NBA and I do not like the concept of being able to cut people at the drop of a hat. The Hard Cap might spread some players around, but I do not think it would create as much parity as one would think.

The bottom line is that certain teams will be better than others, it happens in literally every sport and it has more to do with location and management. There will still be teams that will spend less money than others, or spend money poorly in this system. I really have no idea how this makes things more exciting or competitive, I think you are just screwing the players out of money and lining the owners pockets with even more.

Yes, NBA players make obscene amounts of money. But, the owners make even more, all things considered. They have more money than the players, they have more equity and they will usually make a ton of money off of the eventual sale of the team. Yes, teams have been "over the cap" that have won the championship, but every team is over the cap during the season. If you are not, than the odds are, you have a bad team. Not to mention, has every team that has won been the team spending the most money? The answer has been pretty much no.

So, you can kid yourself that owners are trying to do this to make their product even better, but are people really that upset with the current system? I guess a person with a Kings logo as his avatar might be, Timberwolves fans, Raptors fans (I live in Toronto) and Bucks fans will always struggle to have competitive teams, and everything you list that will be "changed" is the exact same now. The NBA has always had teams with "unfair" competitive advantages, but salary cap never became as much of an issue when the players finally started a fair share of the pie. Good players will continue to play where ever they have the best chance of winning, hard cap or soft cap. I guess I could understand why smaller market teams would be happy if this happened, but the odds are, the glamorous places to play will always be in larger cities. If you read the article by Larry Coon and still feel that the owners are not trying to screw the players, than I guess we tend to look at things very differently. 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

I do not see how the Hard Cap makes things more competitive. Really don’t. The NBA does not work the same way as the NFL, I do not think you can have a "Franchise Tag" in the NBA and I do not like the concept of being able to cut people at the drop of a hat. The Hard Cap might spread some players around, but I do not think it would create as much parity as one would think.

The bottom line is that certain teams will be better than others, it happens in literally every sport and it has more to do with location and management. There will still be teams that will spend less money than others, or spend money poorly in this system. I really have no idea how this makes things more exciting or competitive, I think you are just screwing the players out of money and lining the owners pockets with even more.

Yes, NBA players make obscene amounts of money. But, the owners make even more, all things considered. They have more money than the players, they have more equity and they will usually make a ton of money off of the eventual sale of the team. Yes, teams have been "over the cap" that have won the championship, but every team is over the cap during the season. If you are not, than the odds are, you have a bad team. Not to mention, has every team that has won been the team spending the most money? The answer has been pretty much no.

So, you can kid yourself that owners are trying to do this to make their product even better, but are people really that upset with the current system? I guess a person with a Kings logo as his avatar might be, Timberwolves fans, Raptors fans (I live in Toronto) and Bucks fans will always struggle to have competitive teams, and everything you list that will be "changed" is the exact same now. The NBA has always had teams with "unfair" competitive advantages, but salary cap never became as much of an issue when the players finally started a fair share of the pie. Good players will continue to play where ever they have the best chance of winning, hard cap or soft cap. I guess I could understand why smaller market teams would be happy if this happened, but the odds are, the glamorous places to play will always be in larger cities. If you read the article by Larry Coon and still feel that the owners are not trying to screw the players, than I guess we tend to look at things very differently. 

[Author]

Posts