PDA

View Full Version : Are the owners torpedoing their arguments heading into the new CBA?



Hicks
07-02-2010, 12:24 AM
I mean, seriously, what the hell is up with today's Bad Contract Jamboree from multiple franchises in a world where the owners collectively (well, many of them, I thought) cried poverty this year and were going to rally this summer to "force" the players into smaller/shorter contracts so they would stop losing money on their franchises?

I don't get it. It's like they WANT to fail. Are they really this dumb? Or if not dumb, misguided or insert-your-preferred-take-here?

News flash, franchises with bad financial situations: If you want to stop bleeding cash, a good step is to stop flushing millions down the toilet through bad contracts that also make it harder for you to make better teams (that would theoretically bring you more revenue due to their success on the floor!

Smoothdave1
07-02-2010, 12:32 AM
I saw something today from an NBA GM who noted how the contracts handed out thus far have only given the owners more ammo for the new CBA.

I mentioned it in another thread, but maybe it's a good thing that the Pacers don't have any cap space to utilize this summer so that they're not tempted to bet the farm on an average player. Guys like Salmons, Amir, Gooden, Frye, Darko, etc. are all average. Guys like Gay and Joe Johnson are good player, but not at the Kobe or LeBron level. These teams will regret these deals later on and we'll be reading Bill Simmons' article in a few years about the worst contracts in the league and have a flash back to the summer of 2010.

Hicks
07-02-2010, 12:57 AM
How will this give them more ammo? They're the ones throwing that kind of cash around.

Swish
07-02-2010, 01:01 AM
Maybe the ol' "I had to do it because if I hadn't, someone else would have" defense?

Smoothdave1
07-02-2010, 01:02 AM
Simply for the fact that a handful of teams have given out insane contracts whereas the other 20-25 teams have not gone crazy -- at least yet. But the fact is that Stern claims they are losing 400 million a year and some of the smaller market teams like Indy, Sacramento, San Antonio, are spending their money wisely. Not sure what Herb Kohl is thinking in Milwaukee, Wallace in Memphis or what Kahn is doing in Minnesota with the 30+ million he gave out today, but the majority of teams won't go crazy this summer and the teams that do are usually in larger markets with a greater revenue stream (Knicks, Nets, Bulls, Clippers, etc.)

cdash
07-02-2010, 01:06 AM
Holy **** Hicks, that avatar is fantastic.

Bball
07-02-2010, 01:40 AM
They'll argue that the existing CBA has created an inflated market for players and they have to pay the market rate in order to attempt to stay competitive.

Of course you could counter that it's not the CBA that created the inflated market but instead it's government handouts and things like TV contracts that aren't based on any direct realities (instead being based on perceived and potential halo effects (IOW the 'wow' factor of saying "we (broadcast or cable network) have the NBA").

Throw in multi-millionaire and billionaire owners that are insulated against losses by the shear size of their wallet (and ego)... and the fact they don't fully have to support their product financially (since they are able to get states/cities to fund portions of the business) and you have a market that is not cemented to market realities.

A new CBA that not only saves owners from themselves, but also is good for the long term health of the league. IMHO the current business model is unsustainable.

SycamoreKen
07-02-2010, 02:07 AM
Don't forget that is the owners all low ball these guys then they get sued for collusion and end up having to pay it anyway. It looks like the system they have now says salaries HAVE to go up even if it isn't warranted or feasible.

Taterhead
07-02-2010, 02:25 AM
I mean, seriously, what the hell is up with today's Bad Contract Jamboree from multiple franchises in a world where the owners collectively (well, many of them, I thought) cried poverty this year and were going to rally this summer to "force" the players into smaller/shorter contracts so they would stop losing money on their franchises?

I don't get it. It's like they WANT to fail. Are they really this dumb? Or if not dumb, misguided or insert-your-preferred-take-here?

News flash, franchises with bad financial situations: If you want to stop bleeding cash, a good step is to stop flushing millions down the toilet through bad contracts that also make it harder for you to make better teams (that would theoretically bring you more revenue due to their success on the floor!

I disagree a little here.

I think the problem in the NBA is the system itself. It puts owners in a major bind. It simply takes too long to rebuild. If Atlanta, who has a very good young team, let Johnson walk it likely starts a domino effect. How long before Josh Smith asks for a trade? How likely is it Horford stays next year? It would take them 5 years to rebuild. So teams hang on when they shouldn't, and make desperation moves because they have limited options. The system creates a damned if you do or don't atmosphere, IMO.

The league has to get a system more like the NFL's. People complain about the NFL as being unfair and cold to players, but it is no coincidence it is the only healthy league of the bunch. They don't have franchises handcuffed for 4-5 years by bad contracts. They don't have high profile players moving around without teams getting compensation for them. They don't have teams losing tons of money. Because if you make a bad investment you can stop the bleeding relatively quickly. And you can go from the outhouse to the penthouse in 2 years.

Swish
07-02-2010, 09:32 AM
You can go from the outhouse to the penthouse in the NFL because the calibur of players available to be drafted in the NFL is much higher than in the NBA. You can find a starting quarterback that will turn your team into a dynasty in the sixth round. You're lucky to find an average starter at the sixth overall pick in the NBA.

CableKC
07-02-2010, 09:42 AM
How will this give them more ammo? They're the ones throwing that kind of cash around.
This is more of a rhetorical question....but do we have a list of Teams that aren't making $$$ that are throwing out $$$ like it's bad bath water?

I can understand it if the Pacers were the ones throwing around $$$...but Teams that are overpaying their Players to keep them have been positioning themselves to absorb these costs. Then there are Teams like the Wizard and Nets who have new Owners that may not mind throwing around $$$.

If this was the case for ALL Teams then I can see what you're saying...but I don't think all Teams are doing this.

DocHolliday
07-02-2010, 09:50 AM
It's like giving a teenager $1,000. You have to set really strict rules for them (like using it to fix their car) or else they'll blow it on a video game system, an HDTV, a ton of snacks and a bag of weed.

The owners need a new set of rules to save them from themselves.

cgg
07-02-2010, 09:57 AM
What could a teenager possibly need more than a video game system, an HDTV, a ton of snacks and a bag of weed?

thewholefnshow31
07-02-2010, 10:06 AM
This does not give the owners any kind of ammo. This gives the player association more ammo. They can sit there and say look at all the money that was given out in free agency so why should we give so much back if the owners are throwing money around.

This just shows that there needs to be some kind of hard cap in place to protect the owners from themselves. Gay getting 80 million? Darko getting 20 million? Are you kidding me?

Hicks
07-02-2010, 10:08 AM
Good answers, guys. Thanks!

Sparhawk
07-02-2010, 11:41 AM
I disagree a little here.

I think the problem in the NBA is the system itself. It puts owners in a major bind. It simply takes too long to rebuild. If Atlanta, who has a very good young team, let Johnson walk it likely starts a domino effect. How long before Josh Smith asks for a trade? How likely is it Horford stays next year? It would take them 5 years to rebuild. So teams hang on when they shouldn't, and make desperation moves because they have limited options. The system creates a damned if you do or don't atmosphere, IMO.

The league has to get a system more like the NFL's. People complain about the NFL as being unfair and cold to players, but it is no coincidence it is the only healthy league of the bunch. They don't have franchises handcuffed for 4-5 years by bad contracts. They don't have high profile players moving around without teams getting compensation for them. They don't have teams losing tons of money. Because if you make a bad investment you can stop the bleeding relatively quickly. And you can go from the outhouse to the penthouse in 2 years.

A-men dude! I've been saying this for years. Glad someone agrees with me.

Taterhead
07-02-2010, 02:30 PM
You can go from the outhouse to the penthouse in the NFL because the calibur of players available to be drafted in the NFL is much higher than in the NBA. You can find a starting quarterback that will turn your team into a dynasty in the sixth round. You're lucky to find an average starter at the sixth overall pick in the NBA.

I don't think that is the case. What franchise QB was drafted in the 6th round? Brady? It rarely happens. The hardest thing to find in all of sports is a franchise QB.

I do agree however that the draft is much better in the NFL due to the junior eligible rules. But that has very little to do with the overall fact. In the NFL the Pacers could of just cut Tinsley and Jackson, paid their guarantees owed and moved on. However in the NBA they were not only forced to take back ridiculous contracts, but include other players and expand the deal to make it work financially. The NBA is full of stupid rules.

You only deserve to be paid what you are WORTH, WHILE you are worth it. Guaranteed contracts are the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. And they have already ruined the competitive balance in baseball, and you are seeing the NBA start to suffer from it as well. Pretty soon these small market teams will become farm systems for the LA's and NY's of the world without a change. management has to have the upper hand over it's employees. Imagine how any business was run if any employee could just say F-U to his boss and not lose a penny as a result.
JMO

Swish
07-02-2010, 04:31 PM
It's a mixture of both. Most big time free agents in the NFL don't make a big impact on their new team. Most of the successful teams in the NFL have been built bottom to top from the draft. That doesn't seem to be possible in the NBA. There just aren't enough prospects to get you from 14-20 in the draft to a legit contender.

And while Brady is an extreme case, it's the truth. You can find solid, even great, players deeeeeeeeeeep into the draft. The depth just isn't there in the NBA.

SycamoreKen
07-02-2010, 06:14 PM
One of the talking heads on ESPn was saying today that the NBA may try to force the players to let them revamp existing contracts in the new CBA. If they think these new contracts will not last past the next season then that may be why they are throwing this money around.

Eleazar
07-02-2010, 07:56 PM
I don't think guaranteed contracts are necessarily the problem, but I do think they only make it worse. I would say there needs to be a limit to how many years can be guaranteed, say maybe 2 or 3. Everything beyond that is not guaranteed.

What I think the main problem is not having a hard salary cap. A soft cap keeps gives the allusion of a salary cap, but still gives the advantage to big markets.

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2010, 08:16 PM
If Atlanta, who has a very good young team, let Johnson walk it likely starts a domino effect.Like Dallas when they decided not to pay for Nash.


And the myth starts to die. Teams don't turn it around in FA, teams don't fall apart when FAs leave.

Heck, look at the Pacers letting Brad Miller go. I think the case is easy to make that they shouldn't have even worked out Pollard coming back. Letting Jax go was a slight setback and MAYBE could have kept Smits playing for another year, but the team didn't even fall out of the playoffs and Reggie stuck it out to the bitter end.

Atlanta could have let Joe walk and still kept things together I think. Maybe they dip for a year, but frankly they already seem a little plateaued unless Horford and Smith find some more game or they add another piece somewhere. I don't think it was a case of just "one more year together and they jump up". Maybe the coaching change does that, hard to be sure.

But let's say Joe walks and they end up working a deal over the next year that brings in a couple of good but not great guards, but with one of them being a solid Blake type PG that just gets the show moving. Maybe they use cap space to take Troy from us as a means to get Rush. And say the new coach is a clear improvement.

Next thing you know Joe is losing in New York and the Hawks are better than ever, more complete and well-rounded, and are making a serious best-record push.

I don't think this is far-fetched at all.

GMs feel a real pressure, especially from fans, but often that pressure is misguided. The GM needs to have his vision and just put it together and let the fans find their way to the team as it starts to win (if the GM knows what he is doing).

Teams like OKC proved just how much you can take advantage of desperate GMs chasing the FA dream. If anything that's how you keep it rolling, you let your overpriced FA walk and then grab up assets from teams looking to clear cap space.



Final example - Peja. That would have been a horrid resigning for the Pacers and it ended up hurting the Hornets quite a bit. It's not been that long ago since the Peja signing with Paul and West had them as one of the faves to win the West.

Yes the Pacers found other problems, but keeping Peja for a high priced long term deal would have only made those problems worse.

Taterhead
07-02-2010, 08:28 PM
Like Dallas when they decided not to pay for Nash.


And the myth starts to die. Teams don't turn it around in FA, teams don't fall apart when FAs leave.

Heck, look at the Pacers letting Brad Miller go. I think the case is easy to make that they shouldn't have even worked out Pollard coming back. Letting Jax go was a slight setback and MAYBE could have kept Smits playing for another year, but the team didn't even fall out of the playoffs and Reggie stuck it out to the bitter end.

Atlanta could have let Joe walk and still kept things together I think. Maybe they dip for a year, but frankly they already seem a little plateaued unless Horford and Smith find some more game or they add another piece somewhere. I don't think it was a case of just "one more year together and they jump up". Maybe the coaching change does that, hard to be sure.

But let's say Joe walks and they end up working a deal over the next year that brings in a couple of good but not great guards, but with one of them being a solid Blake type PG that just gets the show moving. Maybe they use cap space to take Troy from us as a means to get Rush. And say the new coach is a clear improvement.

Next thing you know Joe is losing in New York and the Hawks are better than ever, more complete and well-rounded, and are making a serious best-record push.

I don't think this is far-fetched at all.

GMs feel a real pressure, especially from fans, but often that pressure is misguided. The GM needs to have his vision and just put it together and let the fans find their way to the team as it starts to win (if the GM knows what he is doing).

Teams like OKC proved just how much you can take advantage of desperate GMs chasing the FA dream. If anything that's how you keep it rolling, you let your overpriced FA walk and then grab up assets from team's looking to clear cap space.



Final example - Peja. That would have been a horrid resigning for the Pacers and it ended up hurting the Hornets quite a bit. It's not been that long ago since the Peja signing with Paul and West had them as one of the faves to win the West.

Yes the Pacers found other problems, but keeping Peja for a high priced long term deal would have only made those problems worse.

You don't think there are a lot of examples the other way? What about Orlando when Shaq left? Sure it might not of ended up that way, and Johnson ain't Shaq, but you can't predict that. Dallas still had Nowistki and one of the best owners in sports. Do the Hawks have that? Do they have Devin Harris waiting in the wings? I don't think the situations are similar at all. Many teams have fallen apart in free agency. How would the Pacers have done if Reggie bolted for NY back in the day?

That Dallas team was loaded too. Stackhouse, Harris, Howard, Terry, Nowitski, Finley and Marquis Daniels as well.

And what do you mean teams don't turn it around in Free Agency? Los Angeles did in aquiring Shaq back in the day. Phoenix did by aquiring Nash, the same move you mentioned. And somebody definitely will this year. And we are banking on turning it around in free agency next summer. So I respectfully disagree.

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2010, 08:46 PM
You don't think there are a lot of examples the other way? Sure it might not of ended up that way but you can't predict that. Dallas still had Nowistki and one of the best owners in sports. Do the Hawks have that?
You just had Horford and Smith leaving and that this was a bad thing and something to avoid. So it sounds to me like you already know the answer to your question.


You know what the NBA doesn't have? HOLDOUTS. You don't think Lebron would just sit out and wait for his current deal to get bumped up even more, or that CLE would have to pay it?

You don't think that Lebron would just hold out and demand a trade to NY 2 years ago if he wanted?


The NFL is not having success because of salary issues. SUCCESS as we are discussing it here isn't the books, it's the RATINGS. Ratings have everything to do with the nature of the sport (violent, once a week, daytime weekend mostly, tailgating before/after due to timing, bigger field of play meaning bigger stands without people feeling far from the action, etc).



The NFL also has another huge benefit - it's TEAM based rather than star based. Of the 22 starters you can swap 17 of them on any given day and most fans wouldn't know it for sure. Fans easily switch from rooting for Sanders to rooting for Bullett.

It's easy for a team to dismiss one player holding out, and this also allows them to cast aside stars at the first sign of trouble. The minute Montana costs too much you let him walk to the Chiefs.

Did the rest of the 49'ers walk out just like the Hawks would if Joe was let go? Of course not. Neither did the fans.

On top of this you have a college feeder system that develops stars and makes them familiar to fans right out of the gate, so the few big names you do get are already known and popular. More fans knew Reggie Bush or Vince Young than knew even guys like Evan Turner or Derrick Favors.

The NBA has taken a smart step toward fixing this by setting an age limit, forcing players to "make a name for themselves" someplace else in the world other than the NBA. If they could push that limit to one more year this effect would really take off.




And ironically the thing that would keep the Hawks together is the guaranteed deals of Horford and Smith. Like always people only see the negative of things because the positives are out of sight, out of mind. People would start to lose touch with the NBA even more if it was just a constant shuffle of players with non-guaranteed contracts.

You think Danny Granger is still a Pacer without an NBA style contract at this point? Sure, you'd love to cut Tinsley, but you also love that Danny is locked up. But because this is the norm, that Danny isn't leaving, then people stop appreciating that benefit.

There's nothing wrong with giving Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant or even Derek Fisher a guaranteed deal, and in fact the NBA is better off having those guys stay in one spot and growing an association between themselves and a single team.

Giving a bum a bad deal is just a mistake, and all GMs in all sports make mistakes. That's part of the allure and interest, the gamble of it all.

vnzla81
07-02-2010, 08:46 PM
Here is a nice article from SI.com



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/frank_hughes/07/02/free.agent.spending/index.html


Hey, big spender! Why this summer may mark end of free-agent excess


Enjoy this frenzied summer of free agency. You're probably never going to see anything like it again.

Lost amid the feverish maneuvering of NBA owners and front-office personnel to recruit individual members of the best free-agent crop ever is that next summer these same men are going to claim they can't afford to pay the contracts that they will so proudly distribute over the next few weeks.

The irony of the owners likely shutting down the league next summer in order to get their books straightened out is that speculation over free agents' destinations has generated unprecedented publicity for the NBA. But media coverage does not pay the bills these days, at least not enough to overcome the sobering deficits some teams are incurring by virtue of the very process they are undertaking in the last year of the collective bargaining agreement. And so a lockout, it seems, is inevitable, because as one owner admitted earlier this year, "We need protection from ourselves."

The first day of the free-agent negotiating period proved that point emphatically. Despite playing in a small market and losing loads of cash, Memphis owner Michael Heisley, who in the past has looked to sell the team, is giving a five-year maximum deal worth an estimated $82 million to the 23-year-old Rudy Gay, a four-year player who has never made the All-Star team or lead his team to the postseason; the Hawks, whose ownership has refuted reports that the team is for sale, is said to have offered Joe Johnson, 29, a second-tier star who did not perform well in the postseason, a max six-year deal for about $120 million; Drew Gooden, who last offseason as a free agent signed a one-year deal for less than $2 million guaranteed, is receiving a five-year, $32 million deal from his ninth team in nine years, the Bucks, who also are reportedly discussing a $39 million deal with journeyman scorer John Salmons; the Timberwolves moved quickly Thursday to reach a four-year, $20 million deal with a well-traveled backup center, Darko Milicic; and the Raptors agreed to a five-year, $34 million contract with 23-year-old Amir Johnson, a 2005 second-round pick who has career averages of 4.7 points and 4.2 rebounds.

And yet, after these next few manic weeks of profligate spending, the joy of signing free agents will be replaced by furrowed brows that suggest the machine is broken and badly needs an overhaul. This is precisely why there is so much mistrust between the owners and the players; essentially, the owners talk out of both sides of their mouths and the players don't know which side to believe.

In reality, if the players and the owners could work collaboratively, they probably could enjoy an unheard-of level of financial success. But it is not going to happen because there is inherent suspicion between the sides.

I asked one of the best financial minds I've come across -- who asked to remain anonymous because he consults for an NBA team -- what he would do to repair this broken system. No restrictions on ideas. Think outside the box rather than building off what is in place.

His suggestion was to remove cost-control barriers like the salary cap and the luxury tax -- which require more layers of convoluted rules in subsequent CBAs because teams inevitably find loopholes -- and focus solely on maximizing basketball-related income. The first step is to agree on what percentage of that income each side gets and then guarantee that percentage by using an escrow system. And the second step is to work in a non-adversarial fashion to make the league as popular, successful and, by extension, financially flush as possible. In effect, the larger the pie grows, the bigger the piece of pie everyone gets.

To me, one of the best ways to do that is to eliminate guaranteed contracts. Just look at the list of next season's highest-paid players to understand. And this is before even one contract is signed this summer.

Kobe Bryant will be the highest-paid player at $24 million, and very few would argue that he is unworthy. But Rashard Lewis, who averaged 14 points and 4.4 rebounds for Orlando last season, is next at $20.5 million. An injury-riddled Kevin Garnett will make $18.8 million with Boston. Milwaukee's Michael Redd, who has had major knee injuries in each of the last two seasons, will make $18.3 million. Yao Ming, who can't stay healthy with Houston, will be paid $17.7 million. The Wizards' Gilbert Arenas, who has played 47 games over the last three seasons because of injury and suspension, will make $17.7 million. And that's just among the top nine players.

Power forwards Elton Brand of Philadelphia and Kenyon Martin of Denver, both diminished by injury, are on the books for $16 million, or close to the same amount as another former star plagued by injuries, New Orleans' Peja Stojakovic. Notoriously lazy point guard Baron Davis will get $13 million from the Clippers. Over-the-hill Richard Hamilton will cash in $12.6 million from Detroit.

Yes, teams agreed to these contracts. But teams should not be penalized for five or six years for making a bad choice, or because circumstances like Redd's injury intervene and make their investments basically a total loss. Isn't having to pay somebody $15 million for one season of nothing penalty enough? To be locked in for half a decade is absurd.

It makes teams worse, and in the end it makes the league worse. And because the product is not as good as it could be, it drives down overall revenue. After all, what fan wants to pay an astronomical ticket price to see Davis loaf up and down the court, or Brand and Andre Iguodala make about $27 million combined and team up for 27 victories as they did last season?

Wouldn't it be better -- and downright refreshing -- to see players have to compete for and justify their contracts every season? Wouldn't the level of play be higher if the guidelines were similar to those in the NFL, where production and quality of play are paramount and insouciance is not tolerated? Wouldn't the overall quality of the NBA improve if the players who are producing are paid, while the ones unable to compete for whatever reason -- age, injury, lack of skill -- are jettisoned?

I asked Lakers guard Derek Fisher, the president of the players' association, this very question: Why have guaranteed contracts?

"Because the owners agreed to them," he said.

But why do players who are actually contributing care whether a guy who is unable to help either the team or the league gets his $10 million?

"Because that is the contract that an owner signed and the player is entitled to that money," Fisher said.

This is why a lockout appears inevitable. There is a disconnect between what is needed and what is wanted. Players have become so accustomed to getting their money that they can't see an alternative solution to the obvious problem. But make no mistake, guaranteed contracts are the very thing that will bog down CBA negotiations next summer and could cost a good portion, if not all, of the 2011-12 season. The owners will not completely eliminate the guarantees, but they will limit them -- again, in part to protect themselves from their own errors in judgment.

Hornets forward David West is among those players who doesn't believe an owner who is given the chance to cut a contract will use that opportunity to improve the team.

"Performance is subjective," West said. "One owner may think that what you are doing on the court is worth your salary, while another may not think he is getting his money's worth. That gives them the opening to cut somebody loose just because their salary is too big. You would never see an older player get to the end of their contract because the team would just use the excuse that he is not being productive enough and cut him before they have to pay him."

The solution to that is to front-load the contract rather than backload it, the latter being the current formula because teams are always trying to defer their initial costs, thinking they can trade a player in the final year of his contract to a team seeking cap relief.

The other solution is to implement a minimum salary threshold so that if a team cuts a player to save salary or renegotiates his contract, it has to spend at least a portion of that money on other players to upgrade the club.

"I just don't trust that owners will do that," West said. "Some guys want to save money more than they want to win."

The other factor, West acknowledged, is that players feel their careers are short-lived and they want to maximize their earnings in that span. But that goes against the very argument that it is better for the overall health of the league for the best players to be on the floor and earning money -- something the players are going to have to reconcile in their minds during the upcoming negotiations.

Player agent David Falk, who represented many of the players who helped shape the current version of the CBA -- including Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing and Juwan Howard -- said he believes the mid-level exception has been the league's downfall and that eliminating it will go a long way toward restoring the sport's health.

The mid-level exception is a contract equal to the average player salary, which last season was $5.85 million. Falk said allowing teams to sign players to that contract while limiting what they can give players like LeBron James has made the league far weaker.

"Why is Jerome James allowed to make $5 million and LeBron James is only able to be paid $15 million?" Falk said. "Nobody is going to an arena to see Jerome James play, and yet he is making one-third as much as LeBron. LeBron drives interest in this league. He is why people are coming to the arena and buying tickets. If you put a Ford and a Ferrari side by side, which one are you doing to drive? The Ferrari every time. LeBron James is the Ferrari. He should not be limited in how much he can earn so that Jerome James can make $5 million."

The very prospect of smaller salaries and shorter deals for players in the next CBA is why so many stars opted out of their contracts this summer. A new day is dawning soon in the NBA, one that embraces fiscal responsibility and temperance through institutional design.

It will take six years -- the maximum length of a current contract -- to get to the end of this cycle, at which point we'll remember those heady days of obscene spending as perhaps the last of their kind.

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2010, 08:49 PM
And what do you mean teams don't turn it around in Free Agency? Los Angeles did in aquiring Shaq back in the day.
They also got KOBE, kinda a big deal.

Oh, and they won 3 more games IIRC. That's "turning it around"?!? Hell no. The Lakers kept doing the exact same thing they were doing. It wasn't until Phil showed up 3-4 years later that they broke through.

But I'll buy your Lakers thing a bit more - they did go acquire Karl and Payton and that went great in terms of "wow, we are a lot better now".

Taterhead
07-02-2010, 08:53 PM
You just had Horford and Smith leaving and that this was a bad thing and something to avoid. So it sounds to me like you already know the answer to your question.


You know what the NBA doesn't have? HOLDOUTS. You don't think Lebron would just sit out and wait for his current deal to get bumped up even more, or that CLE would have to pay it?

You don't think that Lebron would just hold out and demand a trade to NY 2 years ago if he wanted?


The NFL is not having success because of salary issues. SUCCESS as we are discussing it here isn't the books, it's the RATINGS. Ratings have everything to do with the nature of the sport (violent, once a week, daytime weekend mostly, tailgating before/after due to timing, bigger field of play meaning bigger stands without people feeling far from the action, etc).



The NFL also has another huge benefit - it's TEAM based rather than star based. Of the 22 starters you can swap 17 of them on any given day and most fans wouldn't know it for sure. Fans easily switch from rooting for Sanders to rooting for Bullett.

It's easy for a team to dismiss one player holding out, and this also allows them to cast aside stars at the first sign of trouble. The minute Montana costs too much you let him walk to the Chiefs.

Did the rest of the 49'ers walk out just like the Hawks would if Joe was let go? Of course not. Neither did the fans.

On top of this you have a college feeder system that develops stars and makes them familiar to fans right out of the gate, so the few big names you do get are already known and popular. More fans knew Reggie Bush or Vince Young than knew even guys like Evan Turner or Derrick Favors.

The NBA has taken a smart step toward fixing this by setting an age limit, forcing players to "make a name for themselves" someplace else in the world other than the NBA. If they could push that limit to one more year this effect would really take off.




And ironically the thing that would keep the Hawks together is the guaranteed deals of Horford and Smith. Like always people only see the negative of things because the positives are out of sight, out of mind. People would start to lose touch with the NBA even more if it was just a constant shuffle of players with non-guaranteed contracts.

You think Danny Granger is still a Pacer without an NBA style contract at this point? Sure, you'd love to cut Tinsley, but you also love that Danny is locked up. But because this is the norm, that Danny isn't leaving, then people stop appreciating that benefit.

There's nothing wrong with giving Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant or even Derek Fisher a guaranteed deal, and in fact the NBA is better off having those guys stay in one spot and growing an association between themselves and a single team.

Giving a bum a bad deal is just a mistake, and all GMs in all sports make mistakes. That's part of the allure and interest, the gamble of it all.

What? The NFL has a franchise tag, and the Colts have used it to keep virtually every one of their star players. The good teams keep their core in tact. I'm not saying they still shouldn't have rules in play to help teams keep their most important pieces. Nothing changes in that aspect by getting rid of guranteed contracts. Danny would still be a Pacer. In fact he would be more happy because the Pacers wouldn't have had to waste 4 years of his career waiting for bad contracts to expire.

The stars will always have guaranteed deals. I doubt the Spurs would have ever cut Tim Duncan under any circumstances. He would be their Peyton Manning. And he would make the same amount of money regardless. The NBA doesn't have holdouts, but so what? They have players demanding trades. Remember Ron Artest? Thats worse than a holdout.


They also got KOBE, kinda a big deal.

Oh, and they won 3 more games IIRC. That's "turning it around"?!? Hell no. The Lakers kept doing the exact same thing they were doing. It wasn't until Phil showed up 3-4 years later that they broke through.

But I'll buy your Lakers thing a bit more - they did go acquire Karl and Payton and that went great in terms of "wow, we are a lot better now".

Dude it's pretty easy to look for an example here and there to make your point. There are examples for each POV. What about Orlando after Shaq left, I'd say that loss broke that team, no doubt about it. The Lakers wouldn't have won without either one of those players. What makes the Kobe pick any more important than Shaq? The turn around began with Shaq. It didn't happen immediately but it did happen. And Shaq was the most dominant player in the league at that time. But the aquisition of Kobe, who never hit his full potential until after Shaq left was the real catalyst? It's all important. Didn't that Lakers team with Payton and Malone make the finals? But because they lost that means it was a complete failure? That is silly.

dal9
07-02-2010, 09:02 PM
They'll argue that the existing CBA has created an inflated market for players and they have to pay the market rate in order to attempt to stay competitive.

Of course you could counter that it's not the CBA that created the inflated market but instead it's government handouts and things like TV contracts that aren't based on any direct realities (instead being based on perceived and potential halo effects (IOW the 'wow' factor of saying "we (broadcast or cable network) have the NBA").

Throw in multi-millionaire and billionaire owners that are insulated against losses by the shear size of their wallet (and ego)... and the fact they don't fully have to support their product financially (since they are able to get states/cities to fund portions of the business) and you have a market that is not cemented to market realities.

A new CBA that not only saves owners from themselves, but also is good for the long term health of the league. IMHO the current business model is unsustainable.


I'm not some "free market is the solution to everything" right winger here, but why is this an inflated market for players? Inflated relative to what? Isn't your market value whatever someone (the highest bidder) willing to pay for your services?

I agree with the OP that, at the least, it better not be the owners giving 20 mil to Darko, 80 mil to Gay, however many mil to Drew Gooden, who are crying during the CBA negotiations.

Bball
07-03-2010, 02:43 AM
[QUOTE=dal9;1026481]I'm not some "free market is the solution to everything" right winger here, but why is this an inflated market for players? Inflated relative to what? Isn't your market value whatever someone (the highest bidder) willing to pay for your services?

I agree with the OP that, at the least, it better not be the owners giving 20 mil to Darko, 80 mil to Gay, however many mil to Drew Gooden, who are crying during the CBA negotiations.


It's over inflated because the NBA doesn't function on gate and television ad generated revenue (and arena/external advertising) to survive. They get government subsidies such as sweetheart arena deals, tax breaks, and other perks that normal businesses don't see. Television deals with the networks aren't based on advertising dollars, they are based on the halo effect of having what they consider premier events on their network. Things (games) that you won't see anywhere else on television. Exclusives. It is supposed to help them shine a brighter light on the network (or network division) as a whole and generate monies and/or value that way.

If tomorrow morning the rules were changed and team owners had pay market value for their arenas and cities and states were no longer allowed to subsidize them in any way. No free (or 1.00 land). No 1.00 leases. No giving away use of the building during non NBA times. Owners must immediately pay market value on leases or outright buy their existing venues.

Meanwhile TV contracts would change and be negotiated purely as percentage deals on ad revenues. No network could pay any more than the ad revenues minus the cost of production.

Do you think the player salaries would be what they are? That's what I mean by an over-inflated market currently.

There still is the issue of multi millionaire and billionaire owners and that pride/ego thing, wanting to spend just a little more than the next guy to keep someone from 'stealing' his players... or him grabbing someone else's star.... So that (without some form of check and balance) is always going to be part of the equation. How much is winning really worth? ...Not just to the bottom line but to a competitive owner who has more money than he knows what to do with anyway?

But if teams really had to pay their players thru gate revenues and ad revenues... and whatever their owner's ego dictated... I don't think we see this explosion of player salaries. And with some checks and balances on the owner's spending into the red to feed his ego more than the bottom line, the salaries would really start to fall in line with what the market really will bear.

But the horse is so far out of the barn already on that to where that's just pie in the sky stuff to think it could ever be reeled in quickly (outside of the league just going belly up and starting from scratch). But then again, if some of this stuff isn't gotten under control somehow, then that is where this is headed anyway. Teams bouncing from billionaire owner to billionaire owner and city to city isn't good for the long term health of the league. And that is really the only way this current model is going to be sustainable at all (and eventually that runs out of steam because there's only so many billionaires and so many cities to go to).

A new CBA that has some flexibility for teams to not be stuck with bloated contracts and underperforming players is a start in getting some sanity back in the numbers.

Sollozzo
07-03-2010, 02:58 AM
They also got KOBE, kinda a big deal.

Oh, and they won 3 more games IIRC. That's "turning it around"?!? Hell no. The Lakers kept doing the exact same thing they were doing. It wasn't until Phil showed up 3-4 years later that they broke through.




You're leaving out a huge element, which is that Shaq was only able to play *51* games in that first Laker season. The Lakers record was 38-13 with Shaq in the lineup (.745) and just 18-15 (.545) without him. Had Shaq been able to play the entire season, or even in a substantial majority of it, the differential would have been much much greater than 3 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/gamelog/1997/

Once Shaq came back for the playoffs, they were able to win a playoff series (something they couldn't do the year before) before being eliminated by Utah. The next season was a more accurate representation of what 96-97 could have been as they won 61 games and went all the way to the WCF's before again being eliminated by Utah. The year after that was somewhat disappointing as the eventual champion Spurs swpt them.

They weren't doing anything close to the exact same thing they'd been doing in years prior to Shaq. The Shaq addition instantly made them an elite team capable of winning playoff series and being one of the top 2-3 teams in the West, something they weren't before him. It might have taken Phil to get them to the top, but they were still a force to be reckoned with before he came.

There would have been nothing for Phil to take to the top if Shaq hadn't been added. I don't think a team of Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Cedric Ceballos, and Vlade Divac would've been competing for the title in 2000. There's a reason Phil wanted to go to the Lakers - they were the most talented roster in the NBA because of Shaq and Kobe. The Shaq addition shifted the balance of power.

dal9
07-03-2010, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=Taterhead;1025667]




It's over inflated because the NBA doesn't function on gate and television ad generated revenue (and arena/external advertising) to survive. They get government subsidies such as sweetheart arena deals, tax breaks, and other perks that normal businesses don't see. Television deals with the networks aren't based on advertising dollars, they are based on the halo effect of having what they consider premier events on their network. Things (games) that you won't see anywhere else on television. Exclusives. It is supposed to help them shine a brighter light on the network (or network division) as a whole and generate monies and/or value that way.



Yes, the gov't arena subsidies are lining the owners' pockets, but, to be fair, they are often voted on by citizens...so you could look at it, in part, as voluntary support. The TV thing I don't get: surely the networks should be able to pay they need to, to outbid competitiors...if they feel that NBA gives publicity to the network (which leads to more viewership of other programs, which leads to more ad revenue), then let them bid up the price until they don't feel it is a net benefit for them economically




If tomorrow morning the rules were changed and team owners had pay market value for their arenas and cities and states were no longer allowed to subsidize them in any way. No free (or 1.00 land). No 1.00 leases. No giving away use of the building during non NBA times. Owners must immediately pay market value on leases or outright buy their existing venues.

Meanwhile TV contracts would change and be negotiated purely as percentage deals on ad revenues. No network could pay any more than the ad revenues minus the cost of production.

Do you think the player salaries would be what they are? That's what I mean by an over-inflated market currently.

There still is the issue of multi millionaire and billionaire owners and that pride/ego thing, wanting to spend just a little more than the next guy to keep someone from 'stealing' his players... or him grabbing someone else's star.... So that (without some form of check and balance) is always going to be part of the equation. How much is winning really worth? ...Not just to the bottom line but to a competitive owner who has more money than he knows what to do with anyway?

But if teams really had to pay their players thru gate revenues and ad revenues... and whatever their owner's ego dictated... I don't think we see this explosion of player salaries. And with some checks and balances on the owner's spending into the red to feed his ego more than the bottom line, the salaries would really start to fall in line with what the market really will bear.

But the horse is so far out of the barn already on that to where that's just pie in the sky stuff to think it could ever be reeled in quickly (outside of the league just going belly up and starting from scratch). But then again, if some of this stuff isn't gotten under control somehow, then that is where this is headed anyway. Teams bouncing from billionaire owner to billionaire owner and city to city isn't good for the long term health of the league. And that is really the only way this current model is going to be sustainable at all (and eventually that runs out of steam because there's only so many billionaires and so many cities to go to).

A new CBA that has some flexibility for teams to not be stuck with bloated contracts and underperforming players is a start in getting some sanity back in the numbers.

But isn't it a problem that the only realistic proposal punishes players by throwing away guaranteed contracts--while leaving the owners end of the deal unchanged.

graphic-er
07-03-2010, 12:55 PM
But isn't it a problem that the only realistic proposal punishes players by throwing away guaranteed contracts--while leaving the owners end of the deal unchanged.

NO its not a problem. Is there another sport that hands out guaranteed contracts? I can't think of one, they get paid to perform and if they dont' perform then they are let go. Just like any other occupation in the world that isn't a CEO. The guaranteed contract as the standard is the #1 thing killing this league. It prevents teams from correcting, and it prevents an influx of new talent, and it dilutes the talent of the league because once you sign that nice hefty contract, you can't basically play like crap and go through the motions.

The bigger question is why shouldn't the player be punished if they under perform and not representing the franchise with their best foot forward? It wouldn't fly in any other sport or occupation.

dal9
07-03-2010, 01:09 PM
NO its not a problem. Is there another sport that hands out guaranteed contracts? I can't think of one, they get paid to perform


well, MLB, for one, and as far as I know, NHL.


also: should you be able to cut players if they get injured?

what if they were just never very good, and the owner overpaid, but they are still "trying to put their best foot forward"...(like I don't know: Adonal Foyle, Brian Cardinal)...where do you draw the line between "not very good in the first place" and "Jerome James?"

[Last edit]:

No one is forcing owners to put up guaranteed contracts: you can go the 1-year route if that is what you think is warranted (like we are) ...



[Matter of fact, one more edit]:

If you end guaranteed contracts, shouldn't the players be allowed to opt out in the middle of a contract as well? After all, in the "real world" you can quit your job whenever? Why should only the owners have the right to breach the contract?

pacergod2
07-03-2010, 01:25 PM
I didn't have time to read this whole thread, but I thought it seemed particularly interesting. Thanks Hicks. Great topic.

I want to throw a quick thought out there... How great is this for the Pacers that we get to watch all these teams throw money around right before the contraction of salary guidelines within the new CBA. I think this will actually be fantastic for us. Everybody who is caught up in the hype right now is going to look back in three years and be glad we weren't one of the teams with a boatload of cap space this year.

It reminds me of the tech stock bubble from the late nineties. I called it then and am calling this now. There will be a team or two that really do well, because they got Wade and James, but most of the teams blowing their load spending money this off-season will regret it later down the road.

Taterhead
07-03-2010, 02:11 PM
well, MLB, for one, and as far as I know, NHL.


also: should you be able to cut players if they get injured?

what if they were just never very good, and the owner overpaid, but they are still "trying to put their best foot forward"...(like I don't know: Adonal Foyle, Brian Cardinal)...where do you draw the line between "not very good in the first place" and "Jerome James?"

[Last edit]:

No one is forcing owners to put up guaranteed contracts: you can go the 1-year route if that is what you think is warranted (like we are) ...



[Matter of fact, one more edit]:

If you end guaranteed contracts, shouldn't the players be allowed to opt out in the middle of a contract as well? After all, in the "real world" you can quit your job whenever? Why should only the owners have the right to breach the contract?

Nobody is suggesting owners be able the breach a contract, we are talking about changing the structure of the contracts. The owners are forced to offer guaranteed contracts, in order to compete with the other franchises. How many guys do you think would sign with you offering only 1 year deals? The only players willing to sign one are those with very limited options. No, the players should not be allowed to opt out. A regular person is allowed to quit his job anytime he wants because he doesn't have a contract. These players will always have a contract, so unless it is a stipulation of the contract, they must honor it. In the NFL it is written in the contract that there is a certain amount of money guaranteed to them, the rest is based off of whether or not they make the team. There are performance incentives, workout incentives, roster bonuses, and award bonuses as well. Teams are allowed to release an injured player, but they can't get out of paying him the guaranteed portion of his deal. The NFL players are not hurting by the structure of the NFL's bargaining agreement. The top players make more than top players in other sports on a per game basis. That is exactly how a contract should be structured. Some money guaranteed, the rest is incentive. You still have to go to work and excel at your job to get the rest. NFL players can't hang it up once they signed the deal like a lot of NBA players do. They will be out on their butt, just as they should be.

It is funny how many people talk about the spoiled athlete and how these guys should be thankful for their dream lives. And their are still people who act like taking away these ridiculous guaranteed contracts is "punishing" these poor guys, lol. Some people need a dose of reality. If 95% of working Americans went to their employers and asked for a guaranteed contract, probably 94% of them would be laughed out of the room.

graphic-er
07-03-2010, 02:24 PM
well, MLB, for one, and as far as I know, NHL.


also: should you be able to cut players if they get injured?

what if they were just never very good, and the owner overpaid, but they are still "trying to put their best foot forward"...(like I don't know: Adonal Foyle, Brian Cardinal)...where do you draw the line between "not very good in the first place" and "Jerome James?"

[Last edit]:

No one is forcing owners to put up guaranteed contracts: you can go the 1-year route if that is what you think is warranted (like we are) ...



[Matter of fact, one more edit]:

If you end guaranteed contracts, shouldn't the players be allowed to opt out in the middle of a contract as well? After all, in the "real world" you can quit your job whenever? Why should only the owners have the right to breach the contract?

No I wouldnt' say that they should be cut in if they are injured, but perhaps there should be an injury pay rate.

I understand what you are getting at, If the players could opt out after any seaosn they wish then you'd have teams stealing players away. But the simple fact is that the owners provide the venue for these guys to work and display their talents and get paid. But the players seem to have all the power. I understand that you pay for talent and that's the basis behind it all. But something needs to be fixed about how the contracts are structured so that players don't hold all the cards once the contract is signed.

How about a performance clause? Player X is required to average X pts per game, etc..... or the team reserves the right to void the remainder of the contract?

Eleazar
07-03-2010, 07:12 PM
well, MLB, for one, and as far as I know, NHL.


also: should you be able to cut players if they get injured?

what if they were just never very good, and the owner overpaid, but they are still "trying to put their best foot forward"...(like I don't know: Adonal Foyle, Brian Cardinal)...where do you draw the line between "not very good in the first place" and "Jerome James?"

[Last edit]:

No one is forcing owners to put up guaranteed contracts: you can go the 1-year route if that is what you think is warranted (like we are) ...



[Matter of fact, one more edit]:

If you end guaranteed contracts, shouldn't the players be allowed to opt out in the middle of a contract as well? After all, in the "real world" you can quit your job whenever? Why should only the owners have the right to breach the contract?

When was the last time a player in the NFL requested to be released didn't receive his wish? No one wants a player on their team that doesn't want to be there, and since the team wouldn't have to pay a large guaranteed money they would most likely cut the player. Yes, it is a more round about kind of way, but it still gets the job done.

SycamoreKen
07-03-2010, 07:17 PM
No I wouldnt' say that they should be cut in if they are injured, but perhaps there should be an injury pay rate.

I understand what you are getting at, If the players could opt out after any seaosn they wish then you'd have teams stealing players away. But the simple fact is that the owners provide the venue for these guys to work and display their talents and get paid. But the players seem to have all the power. I understand that you pay for talent and that's the basis behind it all. But something needs to be fixed about how the contracts are structured so that players don't hold all the cards once the contract is signed.

How about a performance clause? Player X is required to average X pts per game, etc..... or the team reserves the right to void the remainder of the contract?

What if a team changes coaches in mid-contract and a player has scoring numbers based on a Suns style of play but then gets a Popovich type of system? You then have players trying to "get theirs" at the expense of the team.

Sookie
07-03-2010, 07:43 PM
I don't agree with this "semi-guaranteed" contract thing.

If you aren't going to guarantee their contract, then they ought to be able to chose where they want to go..isntead of being drafted or traded.

I don't feel bad for the athletes and their money...but the owners have more money..and I don't feel bad for them either.

Taterhead
07-03-2010, 08:39 PM
I don't agree with this "semi-guaranteed" contract thing.

If you aren't going to guarantee their contract, then they ought to be able to chose where they want to go..isntead of being drafted or traded.

I don't feel bad for the athletes and their money...but the owners have more money..and I don't feel bad for them either.

OMG, are you serious? Why should they be able to choose where they go? So you would enjoy an NBA where the top franchises like the Lakers and Celtics get their choice of the players and the rest of the league gets the scraps? Wow, I'm sure that structure would be a big hit with fans everywhere.

So let me get this straight. The owners aren't guaranteed a profit, as evidence by the fact they are almost all losing money. They are actually required to do a good job running their business to get it. However, their employees should be guaranteed their salaries without having to worry about their performance at all? Wow, that sounds fair.

That is not a recipe for success in any business, IMO.


What if a team changes coaches in mid-contract and a player has scoring numbers based on a Suns style of play but then gets a Popovich type of system? You then have players trying to "get theirs" at the expense of the team.

Yeah, no doubt. What is wrong with requiring players actually earn their money? Even the lowest paid guy in the NBA makes like 10x the average salary in this country. And they don't even have to play for it most of the time, and only has to work half the year. Poor guys.

graphic-er
07-03-2010, 09:08 PM
What if a team changes coaches in mid-contract and a player has scoring numbers based on a Suns style of play but then gets a Popovich type of system? You then have players trying to "get theirs" at the expense of the team.

Again it would be up to the team to decide it, I would think they would be able to evaluate why this player had such a drastic drop in production. Also that player would then just hit the open market and be able join a new team. If Jamal Tinsley can get picked up by Memphis after sitting a whole year in Indiana, then it really wouldnt' be a problem now would it?

Putnam
07-03-2010, 09:30 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1026464&postcount=24


http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1027138&postcount=41






.

Brad8888
07-03-2010, 09:36 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1026464&postcount=24


http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1027138&postcount=41






.

Brought to you courtesy of the Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department, which is the deaprtment which brought this to you, redundantly.

Sookie
07-03-2010, 09:42 PM
OMG, are you serious? Why should they be able to choose where they go? So you would enjoy an NBA where the top franchises like the Lakers and Celtics get their choice of the players and the rest of the league gets the scraps? Wow, I'm sure that structure would be a big hit with fans everywhere.

So let me get this straight. The owners aren't guaranteed a profit, as evidence by the fact they are almost all losing money. They are actually required to do a good job running their business to get it. However, their employees should be guaranteed their salaries without having to worry about their performance at all? Wow, that sounds fair.

That is not a recipe for success in any business, IMO.


My point is, if you aren't going to give the players the freedom to play where they want, then you have to give them some sort of other benifit.

It was being compared to the workplace today. Well, if a person is a doctor they can chose where they want to work. Heck, if a person works at McDonalds, they can pick which McDonalds.

So my point, if a GM can get rid of a player (non guaranteed contract) then a player should be able to pick where they want to go. (Obviously, the team has to WANT that play, and be able to pay for them..)

Here's an idea for the owners, don't give out stupid contracts. That's good business decisions.

SycamoreKen
07-04-2010, 12:02 AM
Yeah, no doubt. What is wrong with requiring players actually earn their money? Even the lowest paid guy in the NBA makes like 10x the average salary in this country. And they don't even have to play for it most of the time, and only has to work half the year. Poor guys.

You seriously believe that most players do not work hard for their money and don't want to win? I would think that the B. Davis's and such are more the exception than the norm.

Taterhead
07-04-2010, 01:36 AM
You seriously believe that most players do not work hard for their money and don't want to win? I would think that the B. Davis's and such are more the exception than the norm.

Where did I say most? No I don't feel most do at all. But that doesn't mean a lot of them don't. I think guaranteed contracts extinguishes the little fire under your butt, or that pressure to perform. There shouldn't be ANY players doing it, but there is. And a team should not be held hostage by the guys that do. That's all I am saying. The Pacers have had their share, TJ Ford is a guy I don't think works hard at all. Jamal Tinsley was another. It only takes 1 key guy to ruin a whole team by not putting his all into it.




My point is, if you aren't going to give the players the freedom to play where they want, then you have to give them some sort of other benifit.

It was being compared to the workplace today. Well, if a person is a doctor they can chose where they want to work. Heck, if a person works at McDonalds, they can pick which McDonalds.

So my point, if a GM can get rid of a player (non guaranteed contract) then a player should be able to pick where they want to go. (Obviously, the team has to WANT that play, and be able to pay for them..)

Here's an idea for the owners, don't give out stupid contracts. That's good business decisions.

Players can pick where they want to go it's called Free Agency. This isn't a normal job, and they are paid for their troubles. Partially guaranteed deals would actually give them much more freedom to ask for a release so that they could go somewhere else. You see players in the NFL ask for a release and get it all the time. The NBA would work the same way.

Benefit? How about making tons of money to play a sport 6 months a year? That to me is a pretty nice benefit. When is it enough? These guys live pretty blessed lives, and it seems to me that should be enough. If the league has teams start going belly up the opportunities these guys have are going to start to disapear. And then that just means less jobs for these guys to live their dream. Partial guarantees seems like a very small price to pay for that.

Sure the owners shouldn't give out bad deals, no doubt about that. But the market is being driven up by larger market teams with more money to spend. The Knicks have had a near 100 million dollar payroll for the last several years and completely stunk up the joint, and they still made money. The Pacers have had a payroll much less and won more games, but have lost money. The Knicks can afford to overspend, we can't. So in essence they drive up the cost for us. The NBA needs a hard cap as well, IMO, but that's another issue.

Eleazar
07-04-2010, 02:01 AM
I think a hard cap would make a bigger difference than not having guaranteed contracts.