[HitsterParticipant]

Having watched the lockout with interest and frustration as I want to see trades happen and certainly don’t want the season to be shortened or lost, the following things struck me:-

1. Would a reduced season merely be the regular season with the play offs as normal or would maybe the first two play off rounds be shortened to say 5 games to enable some regular season games to be saved.

The big clubs would surely want to keep the full play off schedule as they make so much money from this but lottery teams might be glad of a couple of extra games to get as close to 82 games as possible to help with revenue.

2. Why is the NBA firmly on the owners side, as the people who run the league surely they should mediate between players and team owners to try to save the season.

In most other sports the league/governing body tends to be the rule maker and is there to look after the games best interests, the NBA seems firmly on the owners side but I have not seen how a lockout would affect the league financially yet.

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

1. It didn’t happen last time (though the NBA still had 5 game first round series), won’t happen this time. No real reason to, the play-off’s will just go on as normal if the regular season is shortened from anywhere 50-70 games.

2. The owners in EVERY league are usually firmly supported by the leagues administration. The owners are technically the NBA’s bosses as well, and if they are upset about not making a profit, very obviously the NBA will try to do whatever is in there power to make them happy. Yes, it would be great if they were more of a mediator between the two sides, but the owners always will have more sway and influence as the guys handing out the cash. I am completely on the side of the players, but these questions are both fairly obvious when you look at the big picture. 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

1. It didn’t happen last time (though the NBA still had 5 game first round series), won’t happen this time. No real reason to, the play-off’s will just go on as normal if the regular season is shortened from anywhere 50-70 games.

2. The owners in EVERY league are usually firmly supported by the leagues administration. The owners are technically the NBA’s bosses as well, and if they are upset about not making a profit, very obviously the NBA will try to do whatever is in there power to make them happy. Yes, it would be great if they were more of a mediator between the two sides, but the owners always will have more sway and influence as the guys handing out the cash. I am completely on the side of the players, but these questions are both fairly obvious when you look at the big picture. 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

1. It didn’t happen last time (though the NBA still had 5 game first round series), won’t happen this time. No real reason to, the play-off’s will just go on as normal if the regular season is shortened from anywhere 50-70 games.

2. The owners in EVERY league are usually firmly supported by the leagues administration. The owners are technically the NBA’s bosses as well, and if they are upset about not making a profit, very obviously the NBA will try to do whatever is in there power to make them happy. Yes, it would be great if they were more of a mediator between the two sides, but the owners always will have more sway and influence as the guys handing out the cash. I am completely on the side of the players, but these questions are both fairly obvious when you look at the big picture. 

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

No owner would go for shortening the playoffs. That is where the big money is made.

I don’t think David Stern is an owner patsie. He has fined Mark Cuban too many times and gag ordered too many billionaires to think he is anything but in complete control. What I think he wants for the good of the league is more revenue sharing. To achieve that, he needs to get the players to give back some money in order to get the big market owners to share in the burden as well. He won’t get the big market owners to give without the players giving, so that is his move. From the start of the lockout to this moment, I have thought that the lockout will end when the players go to 50-50 split. Everything else is largely meaningless. Stern doesn’t want to break up the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, or Mavs. Gilbert might want to break up the Heat, but Stern has the big veto. He knows on that end that what is good for the league is actually what the players want, and that is why those ideas of franchise tags haven’t had much in the way of legs.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

No owner would go for shortening the playoffs. That is where the big money is made.

I don’t think David Stern is an owner patsie. He has fined Mark Cuban too many times and gag ordered too many billionaires to think he is anything but in complete control. What I think he wants for the good of the league is more revenue sharing. To achieve that, he needs to get the players to give back some money in order to get the big market owners to share in the burden as well. He won’t get the big market owners to give without the players giving, so that is his move. From the start of the lockout to this moment, I have thought that the lockout will end when the players go to 50-50 split. Everything else is largely meaningless. Stern doesn’t want to break up the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, or Mavs. Gilbert might want to break up the Heat, but Stern has the big veto. He knows on that end that what is good for the league is actually what the players want, and that is why those ideas of franchise tags haven’t had much in the way of legs.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

No owner would go for shortening the playoffs. That is where the big money is made.

I don’t think David Stern is an owner patsie. He has fined Mark Cuban too many times and gag ordered too many billionaires to think he is anything but in complete control. What I think he wants for the good of the league is more revenue sharing. To achieve that, he needs to get the players to give back some money in order to get the big market owners to share in the burden as well. He won’t get the big market owners to give without the players giving, so that is his move. From the start of the lockout to this moment, I have thought that the lockout will end when the players go to 50-50 split. Everything else is largely meaningless. Stern doesn’t want to break up the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, or Mavs. Gilbert might want to break up the Heat, but Stern has the big veto. He knows on that end that what is good for the league is actually what the players want, and that is why those ideas of franchise tags haven’t had much in the way of legs.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

Seven percent doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s A LOT of money for the players to give up. There’ll be less money to go around, which means salaries will be reduced big time.

However, I do feel if the players are willing to go 50-50 with the BRI, the owners will adopt a more aggressive revenue sharing plan and also let go of the hard cap idea. Like it was said above… Stern doesn’t want to break up the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Mavs, etc.

I don’t understand why Stern doesn’t start focusing on the long term growth and health of the league. I think it’s time to expand the league overseas. IF they do that, they’ll be more than enough revenue coming in because interest overseas is off of the charts.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

Seven percent doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s A LOT of money for the players to give up. There’ll be less money to go around, which means salaries will be reduced big time.

However, I do feel if the players are willing to go 50-50 with the BRI, the owners will adopt a more aggressive revenue sharing plan and also let go of the hard cap idea. Like it was said above… Stern doesn’t want to break up the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Mavs, etc.

I don’t understand why Stern doesn’t start focusing on the long term growth and health of the league. I think it’s time to expand the league overseas. IF they do that, they’ll be more than enough revenue coming in because interest overseas is off of the charts.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

Seven percent doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s A LOT of money for the players to give up. There’ll be less money to go around, which means salaries will be reduced big time.

However, I do feel if the players are willing to go 50-50 with the BRI, the owners will adopt a more aggressive revenue sharing plan and also let go of the hard cap idea. Like it was said above… Stern doesn’t want to break up the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Mavs, etc.

I don’t understand why Stern doesn’t start focusing on the long term growth and health of the league. I think it’s time to expand the league overseas. IF they do that, they’ll be more than enough revenue coming in because interest overseas is off of the charts.

[scliddiardParticipant]

I’m on the side of the owners, the players make tons of money, I think the average salary is like 6 million . The last CBA proved too generous and too many teams are losing money. If I were an owner I wouldn’t be anxious to play a season where I’m going to lose money.  Even if the players concede and the owners get their way the players will still make millions. I’m not sorry for the players at all.  I hope the players realize how good they have it and make to concessions necessary so the owner can be profitable and the season can get started on time.

[scliddiardParticipant]

I’m on the side of the owners, the players make tons of money, I think the average salary is like 6 million . The last CBA proved too generous and too many teams are losing money. If I were an owner I wouldn’t be anxious to play a season where I’m going to lose money.  Even if the players concede and the owners get their way the players will still make millions. I’m not sorry for the players at all.  I hope the players realize how good they have it and make to concessions necessary so the owner can be profitable and the season can get started on time.

[scliddiardParticipant]

I’m on the side of the owners, the players make tons of money, I think the average salary is like 6 million . The last CBA proved too generous and too many teams are losing money. If I were an owner I wouldn’t be anxious to play a season where I’m going to lose money.  Even if the players concede and the owners get their way the players will still make millions. I’m not sorry for the players at all.  I hope the players realize how good they have it and make to concessions necessary so the owner can be profitable and the season can get started on time.

[llperez]

im on both sides, but more so the owners. NBA players are the highest paid athletes in the world. More then football, baseball and international soccer. Plus unlke football, every single penny is gauranteed. The nba players have it made and its hard to feel bad for them as i truly do believe that nba owners either lose or make very little profit. So the players do need to accept less money.

With that said, its not all on the players. Owners CONSTANTLY overpay players. And i dont just mean hindsite overpaying where it looks good at first but later not so much, im talking about about just straight up making it rain on players without a care in the world. I mean even average nba players like jared dudley( not to pick on dudley, just an example) but is this dude really worth 5 mill a year? I mean do you really need to pay guys who should be 10th men 5 mill? It goes on and on with too many examples for me to waist my time. Fact is owners need to man up for their lack of spending IQ.

i fully expect we will lose a full season and i honestly wont even be all that mad at the nba. I will jump right back in line and follow my lakers the second the lockout ends. Now if we are talking about interupting a second season even in the slightest, i will honestly consider leaving the sport for good.

 

[llperez]

im on both sides, but more so the owners. NBA players are the highest paid athletes in the world. More then football, baseball and international soccer. Plus unlke football, every single penny is gauranteed. The nba players have it made and its hard to feel bad for them as i truly do believe that nba owners either lose or make very little profit. So the players do need to accept less money.

With that said, its not all on the players. Owners CONSTANTLY overpay players. And i dont just mean hindsite overpaying where it looks good at first but later not so much, im talking about about just straight up making it rain on players without a care in the world. I mean even average nba players like jared dudley( not to pick on dudley, just an example) but is this dude really worth 5 mill a year? I mean do you really need to pay guys who should be 10th men 5 mill? It goes on and on with too many examples for me to waist my time. Fact is owners need to man up for their lack of spending IQ.

i fully expect we will lose a full season and i honestly wont even be all that mad at the nba. I will jump right back in line and follow my lakers the second the lockout ends. Now if we are talking about interupting a second season even in the slightest, i will honestly consider leaving the sport for good.

 

[llperez]

im on both sides, but more so the owners. NBA players are the highest paid athletes in the world. More then football, baseball and international soccer. Plus unlke football, every single penny is gauranteed. The nba players have it made and its hard to feel bad for them as i truly do believe that nba owners either lose or make very little profit. So the players do need to accept less money.

With that said, its not all on the players. Owners CONSTANTLY overpay players. And i dont just mean hindsite overpaying where it looks good at first but later not so much, im talking about about just straight up making it rain on players without a care in the world. I mean even average nba players like jared dudley( not to pick on dudley, just an example) but is this dude really worth 5 mill a year? I mean do you really need to pay guys who should be 10th men 5 mill? It goes on and on with too many examples for me to waist my time. Fact is owners need to man up for their lack of spending IQ.

i fully expect we will lose a full season and i honestly wont even be all that mad at the nba. I will jump right back in line and follow my lakers the second the lockout ends. Now if we are talking about interupting a second season even in the slightest, i will honestly consider leaving the sport for good.

 

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

@scliddiard

The "average" NBA player salary is $5.15 million. I’m not a big fan of using "average" in this situation though. It’s inflated due to the salaries of max players.

For example, let’s say a company consisted of four employees. Here are their salaries:

Employee 1: Paid $20,000/yr

Employee 2: Paid $20,500/yr

Employee 3: Paid 21,000/yr

Employee 4: Paid 21,500/yr

Now, let’s calculate the "average" salary of the company. Let’s total up the salaries ($83,000) and divide them by the total numbers of employees (4). The "average" salary is $20,750. Seems like a fair number. 

However, let’s say that same company wanted to hire ONE more employee. This employee is going to be in charge of the others… He’s the big shot… The star player… The guy who’s going to make this company big.

Employee 5: $100,000/yr

NOW, let’s calculate the "average" salary of the company. Let’s total up the salaries ($183,000) and divide them by the total number of employees (5). The "average" salary is now $36,600.

Does it seem fair to use that number when most of the company is making significantly less than that? I don’t think so.

I’d much rather prefer using the "median" salary, which is the actual mid point. IF you were to calculate the "median", it’d be significantly lower than the "average" salary due to the fact it isn’t inflated by max player salaries.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

@scliddiard

The "average" NBA player salary is $5.15 million. I’m not a big fan of using "average" in this situation though. It’s inflated due to the salaries of max players.

For example, let’s say a company consisted of four employees. Here are their salaries:

Employee 1: Paid $20,000/yr

Employee 2: Paid $20,500/yr

Employee 3: Paid 21,000/yr

Employee 4: Paid 21,500/yr

Now, let’s calculate the "average" salary of the company. Let’s total up the salaries ($83,000) and divide them by the total numbers of employees (4). The "average" salary is $20,750. Seems like a fair number. 

However, let’s say that same company wanted to hire ONE more employee. This employee is going to be in charge of the others… He’s the big shot… The star player… The guy who’s going to make this company big.

Employee 5: $100,000/yr

NOW, let’s calculate the "average" salary of the company. Let’s total up the salaries ($183,000) and divide them by the total number of employees (5). The "average" salary is now $36,600.

Does it seem fair to use that number when most of the company is making significantly less than that? I don’t think so.

I’d much rather prefer using the "median" salary, which is the actual mid point. IF you were to calculate the "median", it’d be significantly lower than the "average" salary due to the fact it isn’t inflated by max player salaries.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

@scliddiard

The "average" NBA player salary is $5.15 million. I’m not a big fan of using "average" in this situation though. It’s inflated due to the salaries of max players.

For example, let’s say a company consisted of four employees. Here are their salaries:

Employee 1: Paid $20,000/yr

Employee 2: Paid $20,500/yr

Employee 3: Paid 21,000/yr

Employee 4: Paid 21,500/yr

Now, let’s calculate the "average" salary of the company. Let’s total up the salaries ($83,000) and divide them by the total numbers of employees (4). The "average" salary is $20,750. Seems like a fair number. 

However, let’s say that same company wanted to hire ONE more employee. This employee is going to be in charge of the others… He’s the big shot… The star player… The guy who’s going to make this company big.

Employee 5: $100,000/yr

NOW, let’s calculate the "average" salary of the company. Let’s total up the salaries ($183,000) and divide them by the total number of employees (5). The "average" salary is now $36,600.

Does it seem fair to use that number when most of the company is making significantly less than that? I don’t think so.

I’d much rather prefer using the "median" salary, which is the actual mid point. IF you were to calculate the "median", it’d be significantly lower than the "average" salary due to the fact it isn’t inflated by max player salaries.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

I don’t "feel sorry" for NBA players at all and feel a paycut has been overdue, but of course they’re the highest paid athletes in the world.

I mean, there are only 15 players on an NBA roster, while there’s 53 in the NFL, 25 in the MLB and 23 in the NHL.

I mean, NFL players don’t even play both sides of the ball. Chris Johnson can’t go run a touchdown for 50 yards and then make the game winning tackle on defense. Tom Brady isn’t playing defense. Darrelle Revis isn’t playing offense. Your best players in baseball don’t even play every game… Pitchers play what… Every five games? NBA players play both sides of the ball and a starter, especially a superstar, is responsible for their team’s success unlike any of the other sports…

I’m not on either side. I just want to see a FAIR compromise and for the long term health of the sport to be put first.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

I don’t "feel sorry" for NBA players at all and feel a paycut has been overdue, but of course they’re the highest paid athletes in the world.

I mean, there are only 15 players on an NBA roster, while there’s 53 in the NFL, 25 in the MLB and 23 in the NHL.

I mean, NFL players don’t even play both sides of the ball. Chris Johnson can’t go run a touchdown for 50 yards and then make the game winning tackle on defense. Tom Brady isn’t playing defense. Darrelle Revis isn’t playing offense. Your best players in baseball don’t even play every game… Pitchers play what… Every five games? NBA players play both sides of the ball and a starter, especially a superstar, is responsible for their team’s success unlike any of the other sports…

I’m not on either side. I just want to see a FAIR compromise and for the long term health of the sport to be put first.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

I don’t "feel sorry" for NBA players at all and feel a paycut has been overdue, but of course they’re the highest paid athletes in the world.

I mean, there are only 15 players on an NBA roster, while there’s 53 in the NFL, 25 in the MLB and 23 in the NHL.

I mean, NFL players don’t even play both sides of the ball. Chris Johnson can’t go run a touchdown for 50 yards and then make the game winning tackle on defense. Tom Brady isn’t playing defense. Darrelle Revis isn’t playing offense. Your best players in baseball don’t even play every game… Pitchers play what… Every five games? NBA players play both sides of the ball and a starter, especially a superstar, is responsible for their team’s success unlike any of the other sports…

I’m not on either side. I just want to see a FAIR compromise and for the long term health of the sport to be put first.

[andxxxParticipant]

 As much as ppl say the players are overpaid you would think the owners are making chump change.

[andxxxParticipant]

 As much as ppl say the players are overpaid you would think the owners are making chump change.

[andxxxParticipant]

 As much as ppl say the players are overpaid you would think the owners are making chump change.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

22/30 teams are supposedly losing money. I don’t think the owners are profiting like they should. I mean, you have your Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, etc that are profiting, but a lot of successful teams aren’t really profiting like they should.

Instead of arguing over the current piece of the pie, they need to starting thinking about making the pie bigger. The long term health of the league is being ignored for short term issues. Fix these little issues, but focus on the long term health of the league, which would be smart for everyone involved.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

22/30 teams are supposedly losing money. I don’t think the owners are profiting like they should. I mean, you have your Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, etc that are profiting, but a lot of successful teams aren’t really profiting like they should.

Instead of arguing over the current piece of the pie, they need to starting thinking about making the pie bigger. The long term health of the league is being ignored for short term issues. Fix these little issues, but focus on the long term health of the league, which would be smart for everyone involved.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

22/30 teams are supposedly losing money. I don’t think the owners are profiting like they should. I mean, you have your Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, etc that are profiting, but a lot of successful teams aren’t really profiting like they should.

Instead of arguing over the current piece of the pie, they need to starting thinking about making the pie bigger. The long term health of the league is being ignored for short term issues. Fix these little issues, but focus on the long term health of the league, which would be smart for everyone involved.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

andxxx, the thing that the McCourt divorce revealed is that these teams serve the function as high paying employers for family members that aren’t necessarily qualified for the position and collateral for other investments/lifestyle purchases. For every Jeanne Buss, there are a few Joey Busses.

IndianaBasketball, seven percentage points is a lot, but what it would essentially be is the players foregoing their share of the growth from last season. BRI hit $3.8 billion last year, up from $3.6 billion in 2009-10. Under the old system, the league would be looking at a $74-77 million tax line and a $62-64 million cap line (depending on how much is taken off the top by the league from that number) both up from $70.307 million and $58.004 million. Now let us say the league goes to 50-50. They can set the cap line at 45 percent of BRI and still have a $55-57 million cap and a tax line set at $67-70 million. Now if the league and union agree that revenues with increase to $4 billion+ next year and then even greater increases with the next television deal, then the overall impact would not really be felt on any sort of grand scale. The teams and unions can pretend to scrap over the hard cap vs soft cap, years of the deals, annual raise amounts, how to measure MLE (for example, instead of average player salary, they can go to something like 1/13th the cap number) and bi-annual exceptions, and rules for the draft, but everything will be easy once the split gets settled.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

andxxx, the thing that the McCourt divorce revealed is that these teams serve the function as high paying employers for family members that aren’t necessarily qualified for the position and collateral for other investments/lifestyle purchases. For every Jeanne Buss, there are a few Joey Busses.

IndianaBasketball, seven percentage points is a lot, but what it would essentially be is the players foregoing their share of the growth from last season. BRI hit $3.8 billion last year, up from $3.6 billion in 2009-10. Under the old system, the league would be looking at a $74-77 million tax line and a $62-64 million cap line (depending on how much is taken off the top by the league from that number) both up from $70.307 million and $58.004 million. Now let us say the league goes to 50-50. They can set the cap line at 45 percent of BRI and still have a $55-57 million cap and a tax line set at $67-70 million. Now if the league and union agree that revenues with increase to $4 billion+ next year and then even greater increases with the next television deal, then the overall impact would not really be felt on any sort of grand scale. The teams and unions can pretend to scrap over the hard cap vs soft cap, years of the deals, annual raise amounts, how to measure MLE (for example, instead of average player salary, they can go to something like 1/13th the cap number) and bi-annual exceptions, and rules for the draft, but everything will be easy once the split gets settled.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

andxxx, the thing that the McCourt divorce revealed is that these teams serve the function as high paying employers for family members that aren’t necessarily qualified for the position and collateral for other investments/lifestyle purchases. For every Jeanne Buss, there are a few Joey Busses.

IndianaBasketball, seven percentage points is a lot, but what it would essentially be is the players foregoing their share of the growth from last season. BRI hit $3.8 billion last year, up from $3.6 billion in 2009-10. Under the old system, the league would be looking at a $74-77 million tax line and a $62-64 million cap line (depending on how much is taken off the top by the league from that number) both up from $70.307 million and $58.004 million. Now let us say the league goes to 50-50. They can set the cap line at 45 percent of BRI and still have a $55-57 million cap and a tax line set at $67-70 million. Now if the league and union agree that revenues with increase to $4 billion+ next year and then even greater increases with the next television deal, then the overall impact would not really be felt on any sort of grand scale. The teams and unions can pretend to scrap over the hard cap vs soft cap, years of the deals, annual raise amounts, how to measure MLE (for example, instead of average player salary, they can go to something like 1/13th the cap number) and bi-annual exceptions, and rules for the draft, but everything will be easy once the split gets settled.

[HitsterParticipant]

Thanks for all the feedback. When we here this $300 million banded about then if it is across 22 clubs then the average losses would be about $13.5 million a team. I always wonder if this is due to lack of support, lack of success meaning less revenue from the play offs etc or for over paying players.

I’d love to know how many owners who offered big contracts last summer are now looking to get them possibly reduced.

In any sport to make it an even playing field is hard as bigger teams have their own TV deals, probably shift a lot more merchandise and if they are play off teams then averaging 20,000 maybe across 50 plus home games generates a lot more revenue than averaging say 13,000 across 41 regular season games.

With all due respect to smaller teams like say Charlotte, NOH, Bucks etc they will never generate revenue like say the Lakers, Mavs, Knicks, Heat and Bulls etc.

Teams perhaps gear up for success like the Lakers carrying a big salary cost most years and Dallas spent to try and compete and finally won this year.

My personal favourite idea would be:-

1. To bring in a tiered luxury tax system whereby those who go over say $80 million pay 2 dollars luxury tax for one dollar over that limit.

2.Maybe freeze rookie deals for say 5 years, the players association may go for this as their current members would not be affected by it.

3. Uniform maximum length contracts, the players union may push for 5 years so rookie deals could go to 5 years helping the lottery teams out. Teams still retain restricted FA rights after year 5.

4. Players give back a nominal sum in contracts lets say 1% most of that would go in tax to the IRS anyway but 1% would save about $16 million this year alone and if you then factored in all the other existing deals you would have a considerable saving over the next 3 years.

[HitsterParticipant]

Thanks for all the feedback. When we here this $300 million banded about then if it is across 22 clubs then the average losses would be about $13.5 million a team. I always wonder if this is due to lack of support, lack of success meaning less revenue from the play offs etc or for over paying players.

I’d love to know how many owners who offered big contracts last summer are now looking to get them possibly reduced.

In any sport to make it an even playing field is hard as bigger teams have their own TV deals, probably shift a lot more merchandise and if they are play off teams then averaging 20,000 maybe across 50 plus home games generates a lot more revenue than averaging say 13,000 across 41 regular season games.

With all due respect to smaller teams like say Charlotte, NOH, Bucks etc they will never generate revenue like say the Lakers, Mavs, Knicks, Heat and Bulls etc.

Teams perhaps gear up for success like the Lakers carrying a big salary cost most years and Dallas spent to try and compete and finally won this year.

My personal favourite idea would be:-

1. To bring in a tiered luxury tax system whereby those who go over say $80 million pay 2 dollars luxury tax for one dollar over that limit.

2.Maybe freeze rookie deals for say 5 years, the players association may go for this as their current members would not be affected by it.

3. Uniform maximum length contracts, the players union may push for 5 years so rookie deals could go to 5 years helping the lottery teams out. Teams still retain restricted FA rights after year 5.

4. Players give back a nominal sum in contracts lets say 1% most of that would go in tax to the IRS anyway but 1% would save about $16 million this year alone and if you then factored in all the other existing deals you would have a considerable saving over the next 3 years.

[Bmore_DCParticipant]

dont MLB players get paid the most?

[Bmore_DCParticipant]

dont MLB players get paid the most?

[JayhawkFan23Participant]

it seems like it

[JayhawkFan23Participant]

it seems like it

[llperez]

the nba average salary is slightly over 5 mill while the mlb average slary is slightly over 3 mill. I’ve read from a few different sources that NBA players are the highest paid athletes on average in the world.

[llperez]

the nba average salary is slightly over 5 mill while the mlb average slary is slightly over 3 mill. I’ve read from a few different sources that NBA players are the highest paid athletes on average in the world.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

Here is what I don’t understand about the news today, how is making a rebuilding Sacramento team spend more than $45 million on a team that is trying to identify and develop young players for the future going to help them and the league? What good will it do the Bobcats to keep having to keep their payroll at a higher salary floor while they spend the next three or more years trying to build a real team? I know without any doubts that the most important and marketable franchise in the league, the Lakers and their $90+ million committed for the next two years, will be negatively impacted. I know that the Heat with the backloaded deals for LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Miller, Haslem, and Anthony will be negatively impacted. A team like OKC that just gave Kendrick Perkins too much money is going to be able to afford one more big money deal. Good luck when Harden, Ibaka, and Maynor come due. Why would the league owners want to hurt the interest generators while really doing nothing to help the bums? A hard cap isn’t going to make David Kahn any smarter.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

Can you break that down into layman’s terms lol?

[aamir543Participant]

The reason Baseball’s average salary is less than that of NBA players is because in the NBA, although there is a cap, there is also a minimum (which is why Nick Collison made 14 million this past season). And obviously Baseball has 25 men on the roster, and that doesn’t neccesarily mean there are that many high paid players on "each team, but it does mean that there are many more "12th men" on the rosters, which brings the average down. A few years ago, The Florida Marlins’ payroll was 36 million. Around that same time, A Rod was at 30 mil per year. So although the top may just be slightly bigger than the NBA’s, the bottom of the MLB’s payroll is much deeper.

[apb540Participant]

1. A franchise tag similar to the NFL’s.

2. Lowering the max length of any contract to 3 or 4. And just in case you don’t agree: Elton Brand, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson to name 3.

3. Possibly adding an extra year that is a mutual option at the end of rookie contracts. 

4. Lowering the overall salary cap by a large percent. I would be totally cool with 25%. I’m about to come out of college and it is still hard to find a job to make a decent salary. These players will be just fine, and I think that it will make some of them be a little smarter with their money. Can’t hurt.

[SmooveKRYPTParticipant]

I don’t think a 50-50 split is realistic in the players’ eyes. They’ve worked hard over the last few labor deals to get the upper hand they now have, and to be the highest paid athletes…they’re not gonna give that up just because some teams are losing money. I think the lowest they go is 52-48, which would still work very well if the top level teams agree to a revene sharing system to help those smaller market teams that struggle to sell tickets & don’t have lucrative TV deals.

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

It’s surprising, but it looks like a hard cap vs soft cap is the sticking issue… Surprising considering the BRI split is where the money is.

I thought the owners were requesting a 50-50 BRI split (the lowest the players dropped was 54.3), but they’re actually looking for the players to drop down to the 40’s. I can’t see that happening.

I’m honestly starting to believe the season may be canceled.

[TallmanNYCParticipant]

 Until the players figure out a way to put pressure on the team owners, they are going to lose. The players need to start getting real live competitive basketball on TV as a replacement for the NBA. That is the only thing that will get the owners worried. Remember, the owners are just 32 rich dudes and are completely replaceable by another set of rich dudes. The players aren’t replaceable without a drop off in ability. 

Just so everyone gets it, the "We lost $300 million last year." is a funny number based on accounting and tax rules and not really reality. It is basically a lie if the NBA is claiming that this shows the league is going to go out of business. The NBA didn’t lose anywhere close to that amount and it probably didn’t lose any money at all. And even if a team was losing money, every owner can sell its team if it wants. There are thousands of rich dudes waiting to buy even the crappyiest franchises. Whenever a team has sold in the last 30 years it has sold for a huge profit. We just saw the Warriors get sold last year for $450 million. That is supposedly one of the teams that is "losing" money. Please. 

All the suggestions above are reasonable and the players will go for things like shorter term contracts. But the owners don’t really care about that. They just want a more favorable revenue split and a harder cap. Less money to players means more money for the owners, it is as simple as that. Anyone who thinks that rich spoiled kids who inherrited their team like Dolan got the Knicks and the Maloof brother’s got the Kings (well they bought them back based on their Dad’s construction empire) really deserve that money more than the players must also think that we should go back to a feudal system where you get born into being a duke or something. 

[HitsterParticipant]

I wonder if things don’t progress whether some of the more high profile owners will start making their views known especially to the other owners and trying to put pressure on them. People like Jerry Buss at the Lakers is one of the longest term NBA owners and his team could be affected the most by the hard cap but his views would surely be respected as an HOF owner. But if the owners split clearly into two then David Stern would have a difficult job to bring them back together, the smaller teams might hold the numbers advantage but would the bigger teams perhaps hold more sway.

With players now signing contracts abroad which will not allow them to return until the league they are playing in ends I wonder how many more players may follow their lead. I would guess that these would be FA players but it could also include several of this year’s draft class especially those from Europe who might just decide to remain in situ for a few years if they could get decent terms from none NBA teams.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32003502

With decertification apparently tabled, at best, the so-called "blood issues" for the players remain unchanged.

"We’ve been clear on a few main points which are, in a sense, nonnegotiable," Fisher told reporters after the main press conference adjourned. "We’re not going to sign a deal if they include a hard salary cap, if they include a limitation on exceptions and guaranteed contracts, those are things we just cannot and will not sign off on."

Asked whether he thought the 30 NBA owners were united in a willingness to sacrifice a season in general and to sacrifice a season over the institution of a hard cap, Fisher was clear.

"No. Not even close. Nowhere near 30 teams and 30 owners. [Less than half], in my opinion. Obviously, I’m not in the room when they take votes but in my opinion there are not as many teams and owners as people would think that are interested in throwing away a season over a hard cap issue. I think [deputy commissioner] Adam Silver and commissioner [David] Stern have even said it themselves. If we can find a way to find some common ground on economics, they don’t see throwing away a season over the system. And so that’s the way we’ve attacked the matter. If we can get into a range where the economics are acceptable for both sides, the system will stay where it is."

As far as a timeline, Fisher would not confirm specific next step plans but said he hoped talks with the owners would begin next week, noting that the players are ready to continue the process. Hunter also noted that he expects to hear back from the National Labor Relations Board regarding the union’s complaint that the NBA is not negotiating in good faith "within the next three weeks or so." 

Until then, the message is simple: keep negotiating whenever possible, and wait.

"The resolve is strong," Hunter concluded. "This is still early in the game, nobody has lost any paychecks. That doesn’t happen until November 16. There’s still time to get a deal."

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

I’ve read that Dan Gilbert is the main one arguing for a hard cap… Not surprising.

IF LeBron was on his team still, he knows good and damn well he wouldn’t be arguing for a hard cap.

[WizardofOzParticipant]

 ^^I think Sarver (Suns owner) is arguing for one too. They need to stop being little whiny b!tches!

[HitsterParticipant]

I cannot see how a small minority of owners could effectively hold up the season, if David Stern got consensus from say 25 owners then I would think he would feel comfortable with taking their proposals

[Author]

Posts