PDA

View Full Version : Whose side are you on if there is a lockout



speakout4
02-20-2011, 09:29 PM
If there is a lockout who would you be with? Assume a lengthy lockout?

croz24
02-20-2011, 09:32 PM
owners

ilive4sports
02-20-2011, 09:32 PM
I want to know more before I decide.

BringJackBack
02-20-2011, 09:35 PM
Owners, plain and simple.

Bball
02-20-2011, 09:35 PM
Owners right now... That could change as negotiations move forward. But players need to make some serious concessions IMHO.

oxxo
02-20-2011, 09:38 PM
Owners easily.

CooperManning
02-20-2011, 09:41 PM
Owners in NBA, players in NFL.

xBulletproof
02-20-2011, 09:46 PM
Owners. I want some changes that make it easier for teams like ours to compete. That would take some serious changes, and will probably take the players being pushed to the brink of foreclosure for it to happen.

Unclebuck
02-20-2011, 09:52 PM
I'm on the side of the NBA. I can live with a lockout if it helps the NBA in the long term.

Ramitt
02-20-2011, 09:59 PM
I am on the fans side, this is a bunch of millionaires arguing about how to divide up our money.

Will Galen
02-20-2011, 10:40 PM
I'm more for the owners, but what I really want is a level playing field. And I really don't like the best players getting together in the big markets. Actually I don't like them getting together period.

Ramitt
02-20-2011, 10:51 PM
what I really want is a level playing field. And I really don't like the best players getting together in the big markets. Actually I don't like them getting together period.

I can get on board with that,and so should the NBA if smart.

ilive4sports
02-20-2011, 11:21 PM
I'm more for the owners, but what I really want is a level playing field. And I really don't like the best players getting together in the big markets. Actually I don't like them getting together period.

The thing is there is no way that the NBA should do anything to stop it outside the realm of a hard cap. Thats the only logical way I could see the NBA having a say in it that way. I certainly don't want the NBA stepping in and saying a player cant go somewhere because they already have a star or two.

King Tuts Tomb
02-20-2011, 11:27 PM
Players. I'll always be pro-labor.

Ramitt
02-20-2011, 11:30 PM
Players. I'll always be pro-labor.

I am far from anti-union , but some times they get it just as wrong.

Eleazar
02-20-2011, 11:50 PM
Players. I'll always be pro-labor.

Even win the pro-labor side is obviously wrong?

King Tuts Tomb
02-21-2011, 12:26 AM
Even win the pro-labor side is obviously wrong?

I don't think the players are obviously wrong in this situation. They need to make a few concessions (shorter contracts, ability for teams to escape albatross contracts) but some of the stuff I'm hearing is absurd. Non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap aren't good for the league.

smj887
02-21-2011, 12:42 AM
Non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap aren't good for the league.

Could you elaborate on why? Not saying you're wrong, just the only view that I've really seen is that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed (to avoid things like the contract hell we've been in since 07) and that a hard cap would be beneficial (to somewhat level the playing field). I'd be interested to hear why you're pro-guaranteed contracts and soft caps.

idioteque
02-21-2011, 12:43 AM
Players. I'll always be pro-labor.

Please, we're not talking about the steel union here.

But I'm definitely on the side of the players for the most part in the NFL.

King Tuts Tomb
02-21-2011, 12:54 AM
Please, we're not talking about the steel union here.

But I'm definitely on the side of the players for the most part in the NFL.

Doesn't matter if it's steel, basketball or teaching, I support the people who do the work.

King Tuts Tomb
02-21-2011, 01:08 AM
Could you elaborate on why? Not saying you're wrong, just the only view that I've really seen is that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed (to avoid things like the contract hell we've been in since 07) and that a hard cap would be beneficial (to somewhat level the playing field). I'd be interested to hear why you're pro-guaranteed contracts and soft caps.

Guaranteed contracts are just fair. NFL teams use players until they're broken then toss them aside. Aside from that, I don't like the idea of NBA players constantly playing not to get cut.

As for leveling the playing field, I don't think the NBA will ever be level. There are only a certain number of game changing players in the league who will dominate the league at a certain time, hard cap or not.

beast23
02-21-2011, 01:53 AM
Guaranteed contracts are just fair. NFL teams use players until they're broken then toss them aside. Aside from that, I don't like the idea of NBA players constantly playing not to get cut.

As for leveling the playing field, I don't think the NBA will ever be level. There are only a certain number of game changing players in the league who will dominate the league at a certain time, hard cap or not.It's true that players in the NFL get tossed aside if they cannot continue performing. But what the hell? Every corporation in America does the same. You can't or won't perform and you need to look for another job. What you overlook is that most players in either league, at least the smart ones, carry insurance policies that protect them against career-ending injuries.

It's also true that there are onlyh a handful of true, elite difference makers in the NBA at any one time. A new CBA with that is still free to pay huge salaries to individual players and that has a much lower hard cap will reduce the likelihood of multiple superstars being on the same team. And, with that in place, the league would achieve as much parity as is possible... certainly much more than under the current CBA allows.

Eleazar
02-21-2011, 05:23 AM
I don't think the players are obviously wrong in this situation. They need to make a few concessions (shorter contracts, ability for teams to escape albatross contracts) but some of the stuff I'm hearing is absurd. Non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap aren't good for the league.

This isn't an NBA issue I am talking about. I'm just talking about in general. What you said is that you support the labor side no matter what, but what if what the labor side wants is just wrong and would ultimately cost them their jobs because they no longer work for a company that can compete.

Bball
02-21-2011, 06:54 AM
Ideally I'd like to see player salaries come down to reasonable levels that can be supported at the gate and w/tv revenue, merchandising, etc.... and I'd like to see owner profits have nothing to do with any taxpayer dollars what-so-ever. The business model shouldn't rely on taxpayer support to survive in any city and in fact should be barred from it.

A business with so many people making huge sums of money shouldn't need any type of taxpayer support. This isn't saving basketball for our culture because it can't generate enough money on its own to survive in the free market.

There's nothing 'fair' about guaranteed contracts. Fair would imply fair to both sides. If you can at any point decide to give half-*** effort at your job and are contractually bound to still be paid for X amount of years, most likely even receiving raises in those years, and especially at the level NBA contracts pay, then there is nothing 'fair' about that. Not to the person writing the check.

I do agree if you are on a roster at a certain point each off season then your upcoming season $$$ should be guaranteed, but nothing past that. You either continue to earn your contract or you get replaced by someone that will.

Bball
02-21-2011, 07:00 AM
This isn't an NBA issue I am talking about. I'm just talking about in general. What you said is that you support the labor side no matter what, but what if what the labor side wants is just wrong and would ultimately cost them their jobs because they no longer work for a company that can compete.

Some people unquestionably support labor under the belief the market and thus negotiations will ultimately decide something that is fair to both parties.

Ideally that might be true, but a lot of things have been negotiated based on bubbles, short-sightedness, and unsustainable business models and IMHO the current CBA is one of those things.

Roaming Gnome
02-21-2011, 08:40 AM
No guaranteed contracts, eh? Hope you remember the damage players holding out use to have on their respective franchises. Granted, the NFL does have player protections like signing bonuses that lose their "pro-rated" status against the hard cap as soon as a player is cut. Meaning, when a player is given a signing bonus which is typical... That bonus amount is spread over the term of the contract in regards to the NFL hard cap, however if that player is cut....The total amount of that bonus is figured into the cap that that year he is released. Basically a poison pill for just cutting players of high caliber.

Personally, I AM for a hard cap, shorter contracts and a franchise tag to help some of the smaller & less then desirable markets out. Ultimately, I think the compromise will land somewhere near there. I just don't see the players taking the hit to current salaries in the form of anything greater than a 5% roll back if any at all. Granted, the players are going to hurt greater than the owners during the course of a lockout, but there are some owners that will feel the pinch of having to fulfill vendor contracts and building leases while they receive no gate or TV money for a season. Not every owner has the sweetheart set up that the Simons do with their municipally owned building.

That is the reason we don't have a hard cap now, certain owners like Glen Taylor in Minnesota were also being financially punished along with the players. In the '98 lockout... The owners dropped the hard cap to get the players to come back to the table.

As for the concept of pushing down player salaries to push down the cost to the fans.... That will always be a pipe dream. The owners will always charge what the market is willing to pay to be in the building. As for the league as a whole, super teams are what the LEAGUE (All owners) wants.... Remember, most of the money the owners make is made from TV revenue not the gate. Granted, we are fans of a team that doesn't fit the profile, so our view of league business is going to be skewed to that. I've come to find out most NBA fans, not Pacer fans are wanting these super teams. Believe it or not, there are a lot of these NBA fans that are right here in Indy... A lot of them share my demographic and they could care less about the Pacers as long as LeBron, Kobe, Amar'e, CP3, KG & Paul Pierce are on TV from week to week.

As far as the original question.... It's just Millionaires brawling with Billionaires and neither side really gives a ***** about me... The Fan!

Bball
02-21-2011, 11:23 AM
Gnome,
Even though what you said runs counter to a lot of what I said, I don't disagree with you when it comes down to the realities of the situation.

BillS
02-21-2011, 12:11 PM
Both sides need to decide if the NBA is going to be a theatrical production or a sports league. The models and decisions on "fairness" are completely different.

As a fan, I vote for "sports league" and believe everything should be geared toward fair (but not excessive) salaries and profits that support (rather than hinder) the largest possible number of competitive teams.

However, I'm betting the big owners and superstar players are going for "entertainment", and they will win in the long run.

Mackey_Rose
02-21-2011, 12:20 PM
I don't believe that the majority of the owners in the league are hurting financially nearly as badly as they are leading people to believe.

Spirit
02-21-2011, 12:43 PM
The owners. The maximum payments on players is so high right now that it could send team owners into bankruptcy.

Hicks
02-21-2011, 01:24 PM
I'm the side of whatever makes the Pacers more competitive.

That said, some specific thoughts:

On the subject of contracts, shorter is probably better. I don't think we need non-guaranteed contracts, but I am curious about either:

1) Partially-guaranteed contracts. Either more powerful team options that currently exist on player contracts, or perhaps a scenario where X% is guaranteed, but if the player is cut, Y% is not guaranteed.

2) Guaranteed contracts, but with team options to get those numbers off of their cap. I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but the general idea is to give teams some kind of a weapon for when players under-perform to the point of being a team detriment, and what would happen is the player keeps his money, but the team is allowed to move on from said player without being in salary cap hell. I'm not sure if this would mean the team still pays the contract, but it can be removed from their cap total, or perhaps the opposite where it still does, but the NBA has to pay the money instead of the team. Something, somehow to give a team relief when a player 'goes Eddy Curry' on them.

Speaking of the salary cap, I'm fine with a hard cap in theory, though I'm not sure it's necessary. I still wonder about multiplying the existing luxury tax instead to $2 or $3 for every dollar you go over the tax line. Make big spenders think again about going over, and then if they still choose to do so, a lot more money falls into the pockets of financially responsible teams.

Back to my initial point, I just want a CBA that makes it more of an even competition between the Indiana's and Minnesota's of the NBA and the Los Angles's and Boston's of the NBA.

I don't care how well-run your franchise is, there's probably a big market that runs their franchise just as well, and they'll still have an edge on you when it comes to attracting major talent if all other things are equal.

Maybe since we'll likely have to just concede that big stars will bolt small markets to team up on a beach somewhere (or a Boston, New York scenario), perhaps the NBA needs to bring back compensations. When LeBron leaves Cleveland, give CLE some additional draft picks or something.

wintermute
02-21-2011, 02:15 PM
I'm the side of whatever makes the Pacers more competitive.

I think improved revenue sharing is the single biggest factor that could reduce the imbalance between big and small markets. Granted, it still won't make Indy the equivalent of NY or LA though.

I'm not in favor of any sort of amnesty for bad contracts. IMO it just encourages profligate spending by the big market teams. Eddy Curry should not be held up as an example of owners being screwed by the system. Most people thought he was a bad contract waiting to happen when Zeke signed him to that deal.

I'm not in favor of a hard cap. IMO the ability to overpay is what keeps small market teams competitive. I'm fine though with increasing the luxury tax penalty. At least it gives the option for small market teams to spend if they really need to - for example, going over the lux tax allowed Utah to keep Milsap last year.

The idea of compensation has some merit, but it's a tricky business. For example, should the Pacers compensate Atlanta for signing away Solo? Or Denver for Dahntay? Who sets the price for compensation? Should it be a first round pick? Second round pick? Miami signed a whole bunch of free agents this year, not only LeBron and Bosh but also guys like Ilgauskaus, Juwan Howard, Dampier, etc. If they have to compensate for all those guys with picks, they'd be out of picks until some time in the next decade.

beast23
02-21-2011, 03:05 PM
Remember, most of the money the owners make is made from TV revenue not the gate. Granted, we are fans of a team that doesn't fit the profile, so our view of league business is going to be skewed to that. I've come to find out most NBA fans, not Pacer fans are wanting these super teams. Believe it or not, there are a lot of these NBA fans that are right here in Indy... A lot of them share my demographic and they could care less about the Pacers as long as LeBron, Kobe, Amar'e, CP3, KG & Paul Pierce are on TV from week to week.
I agree with most of your post. I was wondering if you travel much. The reason I ask is that I do travel a lot and part of your statement just isn't accurate from the feedback that I've received.

The NBA fans that I have come across do support super teams, as long as their beloved team is among them. If not, they do not want them any more than we fans do here in Indianapolis. In other words, the avid fan doesn't really care how the league enables teams to be stacked, as long as they are stacked in their favor. If that can't be done, the folks I've talked to don't want anyone else having anything that they don't have.

I travel to Miami and the South Beach area a lot, and the folks down there were all about Wade. But man did they b!tch once Boston was able to manipulate Minnesota into giving up Garnett. Once Boston picked up a couple more excellent players, you would have thought the sky was falling. They didn't even think it was fair to stack a team without player collusion. And you don't even want them to get started about LA. Of course they think everything is great now, because they now have one of the stacked teams.

As for TV revenue, I believe that viewers have their favorite teams and they many, maybe even most, become bandwagon fans of a particular player or players. Viewers will watch what is available, even if the team they back has only their favorite player as its only star. I will admit that when I flip channels across multiple games on at the same time, I usually watch the games that involve a pair of good teams. But I will watch a game between two equally matched teams before I will waste my time watching a game between one great team versus a lousy team. My thought is that the closer to parity the league would get, the more each team, not just the better teams or big market teams, would be watched.

ilive4sports
02-21-2011, 04:13 PM
Of course when it comes to an actual fan of a team they don't want to see other super teams. But if you look at the casual NBA fan that doesn't have a real allegiance to a team, they love the super teams. They love being able to see LeBron, Wade and Bosh take on Pierce, KG, Allen and Rondo in one game. And you can't blame them because it's highly entertaining.

Richard_Skull
02-21-2011, 05:24 PM
It isn't that i want to get rid of super teams (they are awesome), I just want the Pacers to have an equal chance getting one as the other large markets.

Eleazar
02-21-2011, 07:03 PM
But if you look at the casual NBA fan that doesn't have a real allegiance to a team,.

The number of people like that are so small compared to the number that have allegiances that they shouldn't matter.

speakout4
02-21-2011, 08:40 PM
I don't quite understand the idea of compromise between owners and players. No player loses money but a number of owners , more than half, are losing money. The Simons have stated they lose money each year. Are they incompetent owners, hire incompetent FO people or are they victims of a poor system? Would any other owner do better in Indy?

What does compromise mean-losing less money each year than now-for example losing 10 instead of 20M.

The only fair system that works requires everyone to be profitable or no one. When labor bleeds management or when management bleeds labor we have a unsustainable system.

BlueNGold
02-21-2011, 09:04 PM
I'm on the fans side, but I'm not against the players or owners unless one of those groups mistreats the fans.

So let them negotiate whatever they can. This is America for goodness sakes. If the players want to organize, let them. If the owners want to do the same thing, let them. But while negotiating...they best be taking into account the fans or they may very well lose support. Basketball isn't America's past-time and it's not NFL football. It will survive of course, but there could be serious damage. Major league baseball did not easily recover after the strike in the early 90's. Peak attendance hit 70 million in 1993 and went to 50 the next two years. It didn't hit 71 until 2000. That type of lull in the NBA may wipe out several franchises...

speakout4
02-21-2011, 09:13 PM
I'm on the fans side, but I'm not against the players or owners unless one of those groups mistreats the fans.

So let them negotiate whatever they can. This is America for goodness sakes. If the players want to organize, let them. If the owners want to do the same thing, let them. But while negotiating...they best be taking into account the fans or they may very well lose support. Basketball isn't America's past-time and it's not NFL football. It will survive of course, but there could be serious damage. Major league baseball did not easily recover after the strike in the early 90's. Peak attendance hit 70 million in 1993 and went to 50 the next two years. It didn't hit 71 until 2000. That type of lull in the NBA may wipe out several franchises...
Sorry but fans don't have a union or anyone to negotiate their interests. The only thing fans can do is to side with the less greedy side if that side exists.

BlueNGold
02-21-2011, 09:14 PM
I don't believe that the majority of the owners in the league are hurting financially nearly as badly as they are leading people to believe.

The Simons are worth billions and while I have not recently done the math, I believe it would take them hundreds of years to spend their fortune losing money on the Pacers. That said, where is it our place to tell them how to run their business or invest their money?

Why don't you (rhetorically of course) buy the Pacers and run it differently? What I'm saying here is that the Simons (or any owners for that matter) don't owe the fans or the city anything. This is a business, pure and simple. If they don't treat the fans (i.e. customers) properly, the fans should simply walk away.

The same goes for the players. While the owners probably have skills that are transferable to running other businesses, the players should feel very fortunate to make great money playing a sport...something most of us would do for free. 90% of the players in the league would probably make a tiny fraction of that money doing any other job available...so they best be taking care of the fans. Yet, it's their choice. They can strike and I support their right to do it. It doesn't mean I won't walk away as a fan, because I did that with major league baseball nearly 2 decades ago.

BlueNGold
02-21-2011, 09:17 PM
Sorry but fans don't have a union or anyone to negotiate their interests. The only thing fans can do is to side with the less greedy side if that side exists.

Nope. The fans can walk away and find another interest. There are far more interests in this world than there are National Basketball Associations. They have a great product, but it's not necessary.

xIndyFan
02-21-2011, 09:35 PM
the negotiation/lockout are a normal part of the employee/employer negotiating process. it is not something to get all bent out of shape about.

after the process is over, things will get back to the new normal and hopefully the pacers will have an opportunity to get some good players for cheap.

speakout4
02-21-2011, 09:59 PM
Nope. The fans can walk away and find another interest. There are far more interests in this world than there are National Basketball Associations. They have a great product, but it's not necessary.
They can but they don't!!

BlueNGold
02-21-2011, 10:58 PM
They can but they don't!!

I would hate to see it, but it already happened in MLB.

I have a little news for you. I am not alone saying this...but I am a bigger NBA fan in large part because I abandoned MLB after the strike in the early 90's. Did it hurt? Sure, but it hurt more when I followed my team (Reds) through many more (much longer) games than we see in the NBA, only to watch the league shut down. The Reds were in 1st place, headed for the world series. You can do that to some fans, but not all of them. Literally 30% of them moved on. The lost advertising revenue by itself had to be astounding.

So, in 1994 their attendance literally dropped 30% the next year and stayed at that level for a second year....and honestly, I don't think the league has ever fully recovered. They lost a large percentage of an entire generation of fans. The NBA will pay similarly if this gets really nasty. The NBA in particular cannot afford it because the well known players like Lebron and Kobe are simply not as popular as past stars like MJ and Bird/Magic. BTW, if you doubt that, have you tried a McJordan burger or watched Space Jam? The players donning uniforms these days hardly have the charisma and are in fact not that well liked by the masses...

idioteque
02-21-2011, 11:26 PM
The NBA absolutely has to be more competitive. The current fans who like the super teams may not demand it, but I guarantee you there are tons of people who don't like the NBA now that would be fans if there was more parity. I love how there are posters who say, well, the ratings are better than ever, yet the owners are still losing money and the majority of arenas are pretty empty and also lacking in enthusiasm. Level the playing field and make the NBA competitive and the league will become popular to an unprecedented extent. The NFL now is more popular than the NBA was during the MJ years. I'm not saying the NBA will get that popular, but its popularity will increase.

Sure, the league won't fold if you keep the current structure in place, far from it. But the lack of parity currently in place ensures a fan base full of lame hanger on fan boys and repels the majority of people in this country who actually like competitive sports and parity.

I mean, hell, I haven't watched the first or second round of a playoff series since the Pacers were making the playoffs. The outcome is more or less predetermined.

And I think this can be done in a way that doesn't hurt the players much at all. I'm also sure there are sacrifices the owners need to make.

BlueNGold
02-21-2011, 11:38 PM
The NBA absolutely has to be more competitive. The current fans who like the super teams may not demand it, but I guarantee you there are tons of people who don't like the NBA now that would be fans if there was more parity. I love how there are posters who say, well, the ratings are better than ever, yet the owners are still losing money and the majority of arenas are pretty empty and also lacking in enthusiasm. Level the playing field and make the NBA competitive and the league will become popular to an unprecedented extent. The NFL now is more popular than the NBA was during the MJ years. I'm not saying the NBA will get that popular, but its popularity will increase.

Sure, the league won't fold if you keep the current structure in place, far from it. But the lack of parity currently in place ensures a fan base full of lame hanger on fan boys and repels the majority of people in this country who actually like competitive sports and parity.

Excellent post. BTW, this fan didn't want Lebron and Charmin to go down to Miami. I'd prefer the talent stay home and try to build around those guys. It makes for more interesting stories IMO and as a fan how do you not love the underdog? How do you not love the story of the boy from Akron going to Cleveland and bringing home a championship? It could have happened if Lebron had some patience.

...and as you say, with more parity, there is more chance an underdog will see success. When you have a huge difference in talent...the games are simply not as interesting...and therefore I am less inclined to follow the games.

Edit: ...of course, if Reggie had moved on he might be wearing jewelry and be a first ballot HOF now...maybe.

Bball
02-22-2011, 03:18 AM
I'm the side of whatever makes the Pacers more competitive.

That said, some specific thoughts:

On the subject of contracts, shorter is probably better. I don't think we need non-guaranteed contracts, but I am curious about either:

1) Partially-guaranteed contracts. Either more powerful team options that currently exist on player contracts, or perhaps a scenario where X% is guaranteed, but if the player is cut, Y% is not guaranteed.

2) Guaranteed contracts, but with team options to get those numbers off of their cap. I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but the general idea is to give teams some kind of a weapon for when players under-perform to the point of being a team detriment, and what would happen is the player keeps his money, but the team is allowed to move on from said player without being in salary cap hell. I'm not sure if this would mean the team still pays the contract, but it can be removed from their cap total, or perhaps the opposite where it still does, but the NBA has to pay the money instead of the team. Something, somehow to give a team relief when a player 'goes Eddy Curry' on them.

Speaking of the salary cap, I'm fine with a hard cap in theory, though I'm not sure it's necessary. I still wonder about multiplying the existing luxury tax instead to $2 or $3 for every dollar you go over the tax line. Make big spenders think again about going over, and then if they still choose to do so, a lot more money falls into the pockets of financially responsible teams.

Back to my initial point, I just want a CBA that makes it more of an even competition between the Indiana's and Minnesota's of the NBA and the Los Angles's and Boston's of the NBA.

I don't care how well-run your franchise is, there's probably a big market that runs their franchise just as well, and they'll still have an edge on you when it comes to attracting major talent if all other things are equal.

Maybe since we'll likely have to just concede that big stars will bolt small markets to team up on a beach somewhere (or a Boston, New York scenario), perhaps the NBA needs to bring back compensations. When LeBron leaves Cleveland, give CLE some additional draft picks or something.

This is obviously some of the most groundless, short-sighted, drivel that's ever been posted...
Because I agree with your leanings and thoughts 100%!









:D

Whiskeyjim
02-23-2011, 06:01 AM
Ideally I'd like to see player salaries come down to reasonable levels that can be supported at the gate and w/tv revenue, merchandising, etc.... and I'd like to see owner profits have nothing to do with any taxpayer dollars what-so-ever. The business model shouldn't rely on taxpayer support to survive in any city and in fact should be barred from it.

A business with so many people making huge sums of money shouldn't need any type of taxpayer support. This isn't saving basketball for our culture because it can't generate enough money on its own to survive in the free market.

There's nothing 'fair' about guaranteed contracts. Fair would imply fair to both sides. If you can at any point decide to give half-*** effort at your job and are contractually bound to still be paid for X amount of years, most likely even receiving raises in those years, and especially at the level NBA contracts pay, then there is nothing 'fair' about that. Not to the person writing the check.

I do agree if you are on a roster at a certain point each off season then your upcoming season $$$ should be guaranteed, but nothing past that. You either continue to earn your contract or you get replaced by someone that will.Perfect.

SoupIsGood
02-23-2011, 09:32 AM
Hicks had some pretty good ideas in his post. I'd greatly prefer a progressive luxury tax to a hard cap, though somehow I doubt the big-spending owners are eager to impose that on themselves. NFL-style compensation would be great too, but I don't know that it's workable in the NBA. For most significant signings a second rounder would be too little and a first rounder too much. The sheer number of picks in the NFL draft makes this work for them.

That said, artificially generated (ie not taken from the signing team) first-round picks could work. If someone like Granger leaves your team, maybe you're looking at a #15ish pick, w/ there being one additional first-round pick in the draft. If you lose a LeBron, maybe you get a #6. (I'd probably make the top 5 untouchable.) Forbid the trading of these compensatory picks, too; the whole point is that the fans are given a little bit of hope. I would like that a lot.

NFL contracts should not be used as an ideal here. As major pro sports go, they get completely bent over by the league, and the players would shut the NBA down for years before adopting that system. It's not even remotely realistic.

Fully guaranteed contracts imo. NBA players don't hold out, and that's what make guaranteed contracts fair for both sides. The moment the league sas "whoops, sorry, didn't really mean that" on a contract they negotiated is the moment players start holding out every time they have a great season. I think you could introduce an amnesty clause, used only once every five years, to cut a player and remove his cap number, even though you still must pay the contract. That gives GMs a little wiggle room w/o allowing them to go hog-wild on signings. It sucks for the fans but to a certain degree a team should always have to pay the consequences for an idiotic signing. They'll just have to adopt a smarter more responsible business plan, or go out of business.


Besides, if more than one player every 5 years is going "Eddy Curry" on you, you've got bigger problems. Most bad contracts involve productive role-players or low-level starters who are getting paid like stars. Teams will just have to swallow those. Or, stop handing out star-level money to obvious non-stars.