PDA

View Full Version : Stern Seeks To Relieve The Burden Of Bad Contracts



pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 12:32 PM
Oct 08, 2010 5:57 AM EST
In discussing the NBA's negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement with the players union, David Stern emphasized the league's interest in giving teams greater flexibility to get out from under contracts that prove to be unwise investments.

The commissioner noted a desire to "come up with a system where teams are not doomed by their past mistakes for inordinate lengths of time, so the fans can have hope."

Stern cited "shorter contracts or less guaranteed money" as potential solutions.



Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/69463/20101008/stern_seeks_to_relieve_the_burden_of_bad_contracts/#ixzz11mmL277X

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 12:33 PM
why coulnt of thy done this 3yrs ago lol

Trader Joe
10-08-2010, 12:35 PM
They should call this "The Isiah Thomas Rule"

MillerTime
10-08-2010, 12:36 PM
why coulnt of thy done this 3yrs ago lol

I was just thinking that...

This is what we needed 2 or 3 years ago...

In all reality, theres really not much Stern can/will do. I highly doubt that NBA is going to pay any players contract on behalf of a team. Its going to open way too much flood-games. What defines a "bad contract"??? Its going to cause a mess if he even tries.

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 12:42 PM
I was just thinking that...

This is what we needed 2 or 3 years ago...

In all reality, theres really not much Stern can/will do. I highly doubt that NBA is going to pay any players contract on behalf of a team. Its going to open way too much flood-games. What defines a "bad contract"??? Its going to cause a mess if he even tries.

I have no clue what they would define as a bad contract. Eddy Curry he didnt even workout in NY or call the tem all summer. lol

Speed
10-08-2010, 12:46 PM
This is the biggest issue from a fans perspective, to me.

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 12:49 PM
This is the biggest issue from a fans perspective, to me.

i think it should be like the NFL give part of the money guarnteed. The rest make them work for. Think about if the Redskins had to pay all of Albert Haynsworth's contract that would suck. They are only out 41m lol if they cut him not 100m.

MillerTime
10-08-2010, 12:52 PM
i think it should be like the NFL give part of the money guarnteed. The rest make them work for. Think about if the Redskins had to pay all of Albert Haynsworth's contract that would suck. They are only out 41m lol if they cut him not 100m.

I agree...

look at the Raiders with Jamarcus Russell

MyFavMartin
10-08-2010, 01:01 PM
They did have the time a gew years ago where one contract wasn't applied to the cap/luxury tax. I would think the players' union would fight this if it meant non-guaranteed conracts ala the NFL.

dohman
10-08-2010, 01:19 PM
It would be nice if you could sign a player to a 4 or 5 year deal and half way through if it is not working out you could simply say see ya later.

BRushWithDeath
10-08-2010, 01:20 PM
The players will never go for this. It's just one more step to a lockout.

Karlton
10-08-2010, 01:26 PM
They did have the time a gew years ago where one contract wasn't applied to the cap/luxury tax. I would think the players' union would fight this if it meant non-guaranteed conracts ala the NFL.

It may. Then again, fewer bad contracts that can't be gotten around only means that there's more money to spend on desirable players; I'm not too sure you wouldn't see close to the similar amount being spent, albeit allocated differently.

As an avid follower of the NFL salary cap, I was surprised to learn there is a CBA imposed maximum contract. Perhaps that may be the trade off. If the NBA wants to get rid of the fully guaranteed contract, they need to open up the upper end a little bit as well.

Sparhawk
10-08-2010, 01:53 PM
I think Football is the closest to being right. Non-Guaranteed contracts or just less years. I really think this would also help with players with slacking and taking plays off and crap.

I used to be a huge baseball and basketball fan, but I'm almost sick of all the money being thrown to these players and they never produce like they did in their "contract year". Football is great cause those guys bust their *** on just about every single player (minus pre-madonna wideouts). I still love baseball and basketball, but it's been waning over the past 10 years or so.

A perfect example is the Atlanta Falcons. After Michael Vick was put in jail and his contract nixed, a lot of players left and even the coach. They were able to turn that franchise around in no time. It takes several years for a basketball team to recover at the current bloated contracts. I'm sure Atlanta will regret their contract to Joe Johnson in 2 years.

It was the steriod era that really saw contracts balloon out of control. I wonder if we'll see them go down like they should...very doubtful cause the players union is just too strong.

I'm not mad that players make a good living, it's that they are almost all over paid in some way and it's the fans who foot the bill. They want pay increases when economically most working people have been suffering I would think a lot of people would be thankful for no pay increase cause they still have their job. I have some friends who have lost their job because of downsizing/budget cuts.

It's like sports players/entertainers live in their own world outside of everyone else. Plus I've had a ****ty and stressfull week at work and I needed to vent.

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 04:04 PM
The players will never go for this. It's just one more step to a lockout.

The players will give in if the owners are willing to wait it out. I am willing to miss some basketball and have them have non gurateed deals but still get some money guarteed like the NFL. To get a better product on the court. Having every player play hard and care unlike jamal tinsley eddy curry and about 50 others lol.

Anthem
10-08-2010, 04:55 PM
This could actually be bad for us. We've done so much work to clear up our cap structure and move bad contracts... if everybody else is able to do that for free, we might end up as the losers.

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 11:25 PM
This could actually be bad for us. We've done so much work to clear up our cap structure and move bad contracts... if everybody else is able to do that for free, we might end up as the losers.

yes but i doubt he will take the current contracts off or the players would sue. I would think it would be on new deals only. Because if i am agent zero i am sueing if my 80m gets voided and rashad lewis also.

xBulletproof
10-08-2010, 11:31 PM
yes but i doubt he will take the current contracts off or the players would sue.

Any new CBA requires a vote from the players to agree to it. How do the players sue for something they agreed to?

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 11:35 PM
Any new CBA requires a vote from the players to agree to it. How do the players sue for something they agreed to?

not every player has to agree right?

xBulletproof
10-08-2010, 11:37 PM
not every player has to agree right?

Doesn't matter. You're a part of the NBAPA. A part of being represented in such a manner involves rolling with whatever agreement is made by the majority of your peers.

Same as being in a Union, which I've been a part of and was screwed personally out of $2 an hour by a decision I disagreed with. Didn't matter.

pacer4ever
10-08-2010, 11:44 PM
Doesn't matter. You're a part of the NBAPA. A part of being represented in such a manner involves rolling with whatever agreement is made by the majority of your peers.

Same as being in a Union, which I've been a part of and was screwed personally out of $2 an hour by a decision I disagreed with. Didn't matter.

ok ty i didnt know that. Im sure the players wont agree to that then lol. maybe for new deals they would but not termating old ones.

SycamoreKen
10-08-2010, 11:45 PM
If the NFL system is so good, why is it about to get blown up? The best thing for the NBA is for them to settle this and be on TV when the NFL shuts down.

Kstat
10-09-2010, 12:20 AM
Because the nfl pays their top draft picks $70 million contracts with $40 million still guarenteed....

pacer4ever
10-09-2010, 12:24 AM
If the NFL system is so good, why is it about to get blown up? The best thing for the NBA is for them to settle this and be on TV when the NFL shuts down.

the only differnce will be the veterns get more money and the rookies will probly have a payscale like the nba

joew8302
10-09-2010, 11:45 PM
Oh lord, I will take what we have currently over this idea. If you want to sign Joe Johnson to 122 million bucks for 7 yrs you should have to own that. That makes the strategy and league overall more interesting IMO. The get out of jail free card for bad franchises is lame.

BringJackBack
10-10-2010, 12:36 AM
I think Football is the closest to being right. Non-Guaranteed contracts or just less years. I really think this would also help with players with slacking and taking plays off and crap.

I used to be a huge baseball and basketball fan, but I'm almost sick of all the money being thrown to these players and they never produce like they did in their "contract year". Football is great cause those guys bust their *** on just about every single player (minus pre-madonna wideouts). I still love baseball and basketball, but it's been waning over the past 10 years or so.

A perfect example is the Atlanta Falcons. After Michael Vick was put in jail and his contract nixed, a lot of players left and even the coach. They were able to turn that franchise around in no time. It takes several years for a basketball team to recover at the current bloated contracts. I'm sure Atlanta will regret their contract to Joe Johnson in 2 years.

It was the steriod era that really saw contracts balloon out of control. I wonder if we'll see them go down like they should...very doubtful cause the players union is just too strong.

I'm not mad that players make a good living, it's that they are almost all over paid in some way and it's the fans who foot the bill. They want pay increases when economically most working people have been suffering I would think a lot of people would be thankful for no pay increase cause they still have their job. I have some friends who have lost their job because of downsizing/budget cuts.

It's like sports players/entertainers live in their own world outside of everyone else. Plus I've had a ****ty and stressfull week at work and I needed to vent.

Of course people are going to think that this view is extreme, particularly sports radio heads and agents and such, but its the truth that has been hidden. I can imagine Colin Cowherd saying "Sparhawk and BJB are nuts! They are conspiracy theory lunatics who to take their conspiracy theory glasses off."

These guys are paid too much money. An average person would say to Magnum's contract, "Dang, wish I was him." Or when we signed Earl Watson we thought it was a decent contract when really it is A LOT of money.

The perception of these contracts have been changed and now the average sports fans are led to believe that this is just fine and the way it is.

These players are being paid too much and the Owners can't do anything about it because if they try to make things right, they all go on strike. Tremendous pressure on Stern and Co.

However, the owners need to put their foot down and stop paying these guys so much cash and just set the bar. It goes both ways. They need brains in the FO and not people who are willing to spend because it is not their money ala Kahn, Otis, etc. We need more owners and GMs that aren't going to overpay these guys and such.. Its not going to happen though. It's competition.

I really do hope that I do not get bashed or attacked for this.

BringJackBack
10-10-2010, 12:39 AM
Oh lord, I will take what we have currently over this idea. If you want to sign Joe Johnson to 122 million bucks for 7 yrs you should have to own that. That makes the strategy and league overall more interesting IMO. The get out of jail free card for bad franchises is lame.

While that makes sense, 122 million is too much for an employee no matter who you are. I don't like the unguarunteed contracts and all of that but I think that the overall amount of cash being given to the players needs to be lowered. Set the cap lower and lower the Max contract and MLE would be amazing for the NBA. Of course if that happened all the players would be on strike.

joew8302
10-10-2010, 08:05 AM
While that makes sense, 122 million is too much for an employee no matter who you are. I don't like the unguarunteed contracts and all of that but I think that the overall amount of cash being given to the players needs to be lowered. Set the cap lower and lower the Max contract and MLE would be amazing for the NBA. Of course if that happened all the players would be on strike.

It is all about supply and demand. Truth be told, in the NBA, with a cap the salaries are artificially low. How much would these guys get on a open market? 200 million?

BringJackBack
10-10-2010, 09:35 AM
It is all about supply and demand. Truth be told, in the NBA, with a cap the salaries are artificially low. How much would these guys get on a open market? 200 million?

Of course, but these owners have to eventually stop.. They know that they are being hassled by the NBPA and they need put their feet down.

shags
10-10-2010, 09:50 AM
I think the most likely solution is another "Allan Houston exemption" (probably named the Gilbert Arenas exemption in this CBA). Basically, the player gets paid but their salary doesn't count against the cap.

So Arenas would get every penny of the $62.4 million owed to him, but the Wiz don't have to count it against their salary cap. While that type of thing would hurt the Pacers, they could still use it on Dahntay Jones or James Posey and still benefit.

dohman
10-10-2010, 10:32 AM
The only reason we are talking about this is be us as fans will pay crazy money for tickets and merchandise.


No offense to any of these athletes but the top basketball player shouldn't be worth more then 2-3 million per year tops. We are taking the hit so these guys can buy yachts and live lavish life styles. How mice would it be to have ticket prices cut by a third. How many more games would you attend.

shags
10-10-2010, 11:01 AM
The only reason we are talking about this is be us as fans will pay crazy money for tickets and merchandise.


No offense to any of these athletes but the top basketball player shouldn't be worth more then 2-3 million per year tops. We are taking the hit so these guys can buy yachts and live lavish life styles. How mice would it be to have ticket prices cut by a third. How many more games would you attend.

Remember, pro sports are part of the entertainment industry. Top actors and actresses demand $10 million (and more) per movie. The Friends cast famously got $1 million per episode (approximately $20 million for that season apiece). The top basketball, baseball, football, hockey, etc. will make that much based on the industry. It's just how it works.

Los Angeles
10-10-2010, 11:13 AM
Anything to help the Knicks out, I see.

pacer4ever
10-10-2010, 12:27 PM
Anything to help the Knicks out, I see.

Knicks dont have any bad contracts now that Curry is expiring.

NapTonius Monk
10-11-2010, 09:47 AM
They did have the time a gew years ago where one contract wasn't applied to the cap/luxury tax. I would think the players' union would fight this if it meant non-guaranteed conracts ala the NFL.I'm not totally clear on the NFL structure. Can someone answer this for me? If a player gets cut in the NFL, is the team completely relieved of the outstanding contracted amount? Or do they still have to pay the remaining amount, only, the outstanding balance doesn't count against the salary cap?

graphic-er
10-11-2010, 10:04 AM
The only reason we are talking about this is be us as fans will pay crazy money for tickets and merchandise.


No offense to any of these athletes but the top basketball player shouldn't be worth more then 2-3 million per year tops. We are taking the hit so these guys can buy yachts and live lavish life styles. How mice would it be to have ticket prices cut by a third. How many more games would you attend.

LOL, do you really think you as the patron would pay that much less to attend games if all players were making less money. Thats not how business works, they set the prices at what they think the public will pay and how much they need to pay the expenses.

aceace
10-11-2010, 06:24 PM
I look at this as Stern wanting teams to be able to buy out bad contracts for less money. An example would be if a player signs a 5 year deal the first 3 years guaranteed with the team able to buy out the last 2 years for 25% or something and a player gets his release papers able to sign with anyone else for whatever amount. This would hold players more accountable.

Kstat
10-11-2010, 06:37 PM
That seems like the most reasonable conclusion: partially guaranteed contracts. You can cut a player loose for a minimum percentage of their remaining salary.

%50 might do it. I don't see the players agreeing to any less.

cordobes
10-11-2010, 06:43 PM
I look at this as Stern wanting teams to be able to buy out bad contracts for less money. An example would be if a player signs a 5 year deal the first 3 years guaranteed with the team able to buy out the last 2 years for 25% or something and a player gets his release papers able to sign with anyone else for whatever amount. This would hold players more accountable.

On the flip side, it'd hold the GMs less accountable.

There needs to be a balance between protecting GMs from themselves and limiting their ability to make disastrous mistakes and allowing enough room for shrewd decision-making and best management practices making a difference. Plus, limiting the earnings + safety of the best players too much would make the league too vulnerable to outside competitors + give teams in markets with larger endorsement opportunities a larger advantage.

I'd like to see the maximum extension of contracts going down from 6/5 to 5/4 and the use of the MLE limited to once every 2 years, while giving teams the ability to spend the LLE every season. That should be enough. Also, allow a different use of the D-League, allow teams to fill the last 3 spots of the roster with D-League players making smaller salaries.

purdue101
10-11-2010, 07:03 PM
Knicks dont have any bad contracts now that Curry is expiring.

True, but this further promotes their habit of spending recklessly due to their access to income above and beyond that of smaller market teams. This harms those teams who succeed by making prudent business decisions. Voiding underperforming contracts will drive simple economic principles;

1.) It will saturate the FA market with bidders, which essentially drives up price.
2.) Less risk = higher price. Wouldn't you be willing to pay more for a player if you knew you could void the deal if you choose so down the road? .

Smaller market teams will not only have to compete more often with more lucrative destinations (NY, LA, CGO), but they will also have to pay higher prices.

If you give Eddy Curry $80M then that's your own damn fault. I see no reason small market teams should suffer from that poor decision making.

xBulletproof
10-11-2010, 07:53 PM
I'm not totally clear on the NFL structure. Can someone answer this for me? If a player gets cut in the NFL, is the team completely relieved of the outstanding contracted amount? Or do they still have to pay the remaining amount, only, the outstanding balance doesn't count against the salary cap?

It's a mix. Say a guy signs a 5 year deal. In the NFL there are 2 numbers to look for, the overall salary, and the part of the yearly salary that's guaranteed. For simplicity purposes we'll say it's set up like this, the guy signed a 5 year deal for 15 million, and 5 million is guaranteed.

Year 1 - 3 million overall, 1 million of guaranteed money
Year 2 - 3 million overall, 1 million of guaranteed money
Year 3 - 3 million overall, 1 million of guaranteed money
Year 4 - 3 million overall, 1 million of guaranteed money
Year 5 - 3 million overall, 1 million of guaranteed money

Numbers aren't always this evened out, and all that, but I'm doing it for simplicity reasons.

Lets say you want to cut this player in the preseason of Year 4. There's still 1 million in guaranteed money owed for "Year 4" and "Year 5". So what happens is that 2 million guaranteed left is suddenly now you're cap hit for that player for that season. So you saved 1 million in cap space for that season for cutting that player. Year 5 you're off the hook completely.

However this makes for a problem if you want to cut a guy early in his contract. Say you want to cut him in Year 2, since there's 4 million in guaranteed money left over the course of the remaining contract that's what you'll pay that player that year. Problem is that his overall salary is 3 million. So you've essentially given away 1 million in cap space for that year because the remaining guaranteed money is more than the season's overall salary.

It can get more complicated, but that's the very basics of it. This is the reason Bob Sanders still plays for the Colts. Until this season his guaranteed money remaining exceeded that of his overall salary. He should be cut at the end of this year because that now changes. Watch and see. :)

speakout4
10-11-2010, 08:30 PM
Getting rid of a bad contract like Tinsley, Curry, and others will make a team more competitive and increase its fan base. The knicks have been bad for a long time and because they are a big market team their ineptitude has cost the nba lots of $$. It's not the stupidity of the GMs that Stern is trying to save or the financial wealth of the owners but the nba product of having the best players on the floor especially in places like Boston, NY, chicago, and LA. players on

pacer4ever
10-11-2010, 08:43 PM
True, but this further promotes their habit of spending recklessly due to their access to income above and beyond that of smaller market teams. This harms those teams who succeed by making prudent business decisions. Voiding underperforming contracts will drive simple economic principles;

1.) It will saturate the FA market with bidders, which essentially drives up price.
2.) Less risk = higher price. Wouldn't you be willing to pay more for a player if you knew you could void the deal if you choose so down the road? .

Smaller market teams will not only have to compete more often with more lucrative destinations (NY, LA, CGO), but they will also have to pay higher prices.

If you give Eddy Curry $80M then that's your own damn fault. I see no reason small market teams should suffer from that poor decision making.

Two are at fault for New York giving bad players money James Dolan and "Zeke" lol.

Hicks
10-11-2010, 10:17 PM
On the flip side, it'd hold the GMs less accountable.

There needs to be a balance between protecting GMs from themselves and limiting their ability to make disastrous mistakes and allowing enough room for shrewd decision-making and best management practices making a difference. Plus, limiting the earnings + safety of the best players too much would make the league too vulnerable to outside competitors + give teams in markets with larger endorsement opportunities a larger advantage.

I'd like to see the maximum extension of contracts going down from 6/5 to 5/4 and the use of the MLE limited to once every 2 years, while giving teams the ability to spend the LLE every season. That should be enough. Also, allow a different use of the D-League, allow teams to fill the last 3 spots of the roster with D-League players making smaller salaries.

What about some kind of "Internal Affairs" group?

Or what about a committee made up of former players/coaches/GMs that is paid to make rulings on trades/signings with regards to how much of a 'mistake' or issue it is for each franchise involved to somehow try to keep teams in check? This is a half-baked (or less) idea, but I kind of like it.