PDA

View Full Version : Hunter warns players of ‘flex’ cap The owners’ plan “would decimate the middle class



pacer4ever
06-29-2011, 06:29 PM
Players Association executive director Billy Hunter warned NBA players on Wednesday that the league’s proposal of a “hard-flex” salary cap would have grave consequences for the future earnings and security of rank-and-file union members.
More From Adrian Wojnarowski


The owners’ plan “would decimate the middle class, with teams using the bulk of their hard cap room on star players,” Hunter wrote to players in an email obtained by Yahoo! Sports.

Hunter stayed on his theme of disparaging the league’s offer of a flex cap, promising doomsday scenarios over the course of the 10-year deal the NBA has proposed to players. The letter was sent to the players as a prelude to Thursday’s bargaining session in New York that could be the final one before the league possibly imposes a lockout at 12:01 a.m. ET Friday.

In the key points Hunter tried to impart to players, he wrote: “… The owners have not backed off of a hard cap system, although they’ve added a middle tier and now refer to it as a ‘flex cap.’ Don’t be fooled by these semantics – the ceiling of the system is still an absolute barrier, so it produces the same harsh effects of a hard cap.

“…The owners have finally come off their demand that no contract may be fully guaranteed, but such a ‘concession’ is virtually meaningless within a hard cap system. General managers are far less likely to give players guarantees in a hard cap system because, without the benefit of the Larry Bird and other existing exceptions, they will need to leave room to re-sign key players and sign other players in future years.”

Hunter’s most important job now could be keeping his union together over what could be a long, contentious lockout. Owners are seeking unprecedented givebacks in the collective bargaining agreement talks, citing financial losses and competitive imbalances among big- and small-market teams. The union has pushed the league to consider more serious revenue-sharing plans to remedy the problem.

“We remain open to negotiations and continue to exchange dialogue and ideas with the NBA, but at last week’s summer meeting our player reps voiced their opinion loud and clear that we cannot sit back and allow the owners to so drastically alter the landscape we have created over the past half century,” Hunter wrote. “Right now the owners are asking for much more than we can give without a fight.”



http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_billy_hunter_union_letter_062911

BBQ
06-29-2011, 06:40 PM
I can see the mathematics of what Hunter is saying. If he is trying to keep on the right side of public opinion amongst fans though, perhaps "Middle Class" was not the wisest term to use.

It is way too easy to disregard every point of validity and respond, "Millionaires aren't middle class these players have lost touch with reality."

NapTonius Monk
06-29-2011, 06:42 PM
http://sgsocialworker.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ecf0a174970b014e86c1d9a4970d-800wi

SMosley21
06-29-2011, 06:42 PM
I'm really sick of hearing about the whole situation.

vnzla81
06-29-2011, 06:48 PM
Middle class? Please .............

Psyren
06-29-2011, 07:03 PM
Middle class? Please .............

Exactly what I was about to say.

What "Middle class" are we talking about? I didn't know there was such thing as an NBA "Middle class".

I've worked my entire life and probably haven't earned as much/barely more than what an NBA rookie makes in one season.

xBulletproof
06-29-2011, 07:15 PM
Whew. You guys are taking the middle class thing way out of context.

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 07:17 PM
So the idea is that even with a hard cap, superstars will get their big contracts, and only scraps will be left for middle- and lower-class talent, right?

Speed
06-29-2011, 07:19 PM
Exactly what I was about to say.

What "Middle class" are we talking about? I didn't know there was such thing as an NBA "Middle class".

I've worked my entire life and probably haven't earned as much/barely more than what an NBA rookie makes in one season.


Nor have we generated as much as revenue as the players do, as a whole, including the 'middle class' :)

Its the argument I always have with my father, you usually get paid commiserate to what you can generate.

xBulletproof
06-29-2011, 07:19 PM
So the idea is that even with a hard cap, superstars will get their big contracts, and only scraps will be left for middle- and lower-class talent, right?

Your wording is a bit confusing. "Even" with a hard cap? It's not that, it's ESPECIALLY with a hard cap will middle and lower level players get squat. Contracts between 5-8 million dollars now exist because teams can go over the cap signing their own players.

In this scenario, the middle and lower level players would be better served going to Europe.

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 07:21 PM
Your wording is a bit confusing. "Even" with a hard cap? It's not that, it's ESPECIALLY with a hard cap will middle and lower level players get squat. Contracts between 5-8 million dollars now exist because teams can go over the cap signing their own players.

In this scenario, the middle and lower level players would be better served going to Europe.

So the idea is that even with a hard cap, superstars will get their big contracts. Then only scraps will be left for middle- and lower-class talent, and they will become the 'lower class,' right?

Psyren
06-29-2011, 07:29 PM
So the idea is that even with a hard cap, superstars will get their big contracts. Then only scraps will be left for middle- and lower-class talent, and they will become the 'lower class,' right?

That's the way I took it.

Meaning, oh no, the lower/middle class talent might have to sell one of two of their 25 cars they have. Poor them.

This whole thing is f***ing stupid. I'm sorry but it just hits a nerve with me. I know it's a business and all that and yadayada but I just can't stand to listen to whiney rich people argue with more whiney rich people.

Then when the less talented take a pay cut, they whine and complain like their lives are going to be over.

:censored: i hate listening to these people.

Sorry for the rant, but it just really really hits a nerve.

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 07:36 PM
It bugs me too. I think it might be different in the NBA though because the owners, while still rich, are losing money. I don't know if that is the case in the NFL or not. I hate all of this too though.

able
06-29-2011, 07:36 PM
5 or 6 million now would likely becomes 2 or 3 million, meaning that said player is better of playing in Europe for 2 million tax free, free accommodation etc.

Swish
06-29-2011, 07:37 PM
Nor have we generated as much as revenue as the players do, as a whole, including the 'middle class' :)

Its the argument I always have with my father, you usually get paid commiserate to what you can generate.

I'm not sure what word you were going for there (though I do get the point), but I don't think it's "commiserate". :buddies:

On topic, isn't there already a hard cap? What's the problem? :confused:

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 07:38 PM
5 or 6 million now would likely becomes 2 or 3 million, meaning that said player is better of playing in Europe for 2 million tax free, free accommodation etc.

Purely financially, yes. I imagine giving up the life/people here would be a different story though.

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 07:38 PM
I'm not sure what word you were going for there (though I do get the point), but I don't think it's "commiserate". :buddies:

On topic, isn't there already a hard cap? What's the problem? :confused:

It is a soft cap. It may be the limit, but you can spend over the limit for a price. With a hard cap you cannot go over at all.

King Tuts Tomb
06-29-2011, 07:40 PM
That's the way I took it.

Meaning, oh no, the lower/middle class talent might have to sell one of two of their 25 cars they have. Poor them.

This whole thing is f***ing stupid. I'm sorry but it just hits a nerve with me. I know it's a business and all that and yadayada but I just can't stand to listen to whiney rich people argue with more whiney rich people.

Then when the less talented take a pay cut, they whine and complain like their lives are going to be over.

:censored: i hate listening to these people.

Sorry for the rant, but it just really really hits a nerve.

Compared to half the people on earth, everyone posting on this board lives like a millionaire. Players are entitled to gripe and complain about how much they make just as much as anyone else.

able
06-29-2011, 07:41 PM
Purely financially, yes. I imagine giving up the life/people here would be a different story though.

This supposed to be green ?


try to imagine being Roy Hibbert, little over mid-level (ooops gone) money spend on 2 or 3 big names, offered salary 5 mio, get offer from Barcelona to play for them, @ 3 mio (euro) tax free, free house on the beach, transpoirt and less games.

come again ?

Psyren
06-29-2011, 07:47 PM
Compared to half the people on earth, everyone posting on this board lives like a millionaire. Players are entitled to gripe and complain about how much they make just as much as anyone else.

True. But you don't find it to be absolutely ridiculous?

Sure, I'd like to make more. But you won't see me b***h and moan about it all the time and have month long arguments over it.

I will however b***h about some of the richest people on earth complaining for months on end about it.

And I am a very fortunate person, and I realize that. I'd never want to live like much of the world does. But it sure as hell pisses me off that these people really takes months and months to argue about who needs that money.

I don't think for a second that they aren't entitled to arguing about it, but should they really be? And then you have players like (I think it was Iverson several years back?) saying that his kids won't be able to eat. Please.

Millionaires arguing with billionaires, and then some whining because it will affect their livelihood is just ridiculous, and I think everyone knows it, no matter how entitled they are.

PacerDude
06-29-2011, 07:48 PM
As long as they keep the 'max' contract numbers relative to the cap number, there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe for some GM that thinks signing 3 'max' players and a bunch of scraps is the way to go (yeah - how did THAT work out ??) there might be financial issues, but 1 superstar, a few good players and fill out the roster with reserves is the model they want to create. Brings a little parity - which the NFL has thrived on - to the league. Unless it's the Clippers or Kahn ............... who will figure out a way to screw anything up. But I digress.

The NBA is broke. It's up to the owners to fix it. The players are just going to have to deal with it.

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 07:48 PM
This supposed to be green ?


try to imagine being Roy Hibbert, little over mid-level (ooops gone) money spend on 2 or 3 big names, offered salary 5 mio, get offer from Barcelona to play for them, @ 3 mio (euro) tax free, free house on the beach, transpoirt and less games.

come again ?

What about the people who want to be near family? Friends? Some people dream of playing in the NBA their whole life. Some players may just like being famous here.

The rookies who go overseas I understand. You also don't have to uproot every thing, sell your house, car, etc. You don't have to move your family, who would also be moving away from their family.

It would definitely be appealing to a lot of players, but not all of them I don't think.

PacerDude
06-29-2011, 07:51 PM
I think it was Iverson several years back saying that his kids won't be able to eat. Please.That was Lattrell Spreewell (sp?) who was turning down a 3 year, $27 million deal. He never played in the league after turning that down. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

And like Patrick Ewing said - yeah, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too.

Anthem
06-29-2011, 07:53 PM
This supposed to be green ?


try to imagine being Roy Hibbert, little over mid-level (ooops gone) money spend on 2 or 3 big names, offered salary 5 mio, get offer from Barcelona to play for them, @ 3 mio (euro) tax free, free house on the beach, transpoirt and less games.

come again ?
I think the point is that even if you're loaded, it would be hard to move away from your friends and family. I could see someone preferring 1mil w/ fam to 3mil without.

Regardless, I'm not enthralled w/ Hunter these days. The owners have moved on several things, but the players haven't budged yet.

xBulletproof
06-29-2011, 07:54 PM
I think some people have no idea how much is involved in paying agents and other things. It still leaves a lot of money yes, but it's also not the number you read on HoopsHype either.

Ever looked at how much in taxes come out of your checks? Imagine what it is for someone in their tax bracket alone.

PacerDude
06-29-2011, 07:57 PM
I think some people have no idea how much is involved in paying agents and other things. It still leaves a lot of money yes, but it's also not the number you read on HoopsHype either.
Define 'other things'.

Sookie
06-29-2011, 07:59 PM
Then why not make a hard cap on what you can pay to an individual player, as well?

Say the hard cap is 50 Million..all right..then the most you can pay an individual is 10 million..that should decrease the problem substantially. Or something like that. Not saying my math is correct, but I'm saying that it should be easy for the NBA owners and players to get accountants that can do that math for them.

I know, neither the players or the teams are going to want that. (I know there's already a set amount, I'm saying decrease it to fit the hard cap) But at the end of the day, there's a lot less "superstars" than "middle of the road" kind of players, and this is better for the middle of the road type of players.

ECKrueger
06-29-2011, 08:01 PM
Then why not make a hard cap on what you can pay to an individual player, as well?

Say the hard cap is 50 Million..all right..then the most you can pay an individual is 10 million..that should decrease the problem substantially. Or something like that. Not saying my math is correct, but I'm saying that it should be easy for the NBA owners and players to get accountants that can do that math for them.

I know, neither the players or the teams are going to want that. (I know there's already a set amount, I'm saying decrease it to fit the hard cap) But at the end of the day, there's a lot less "superstars" than "middle of the road" kind of players, and this is better for the middle of the road type of players.

Exactly. If you are going to have a hard salary cap, include a hard contract cap as well.

Anthem
06-29-2011, 08:07 PM
I've got no problem with players making lots of money. If there's only a couple dozen people in the world who can do what you do, you're going to get paid.

But the players are crazy if they think the system's not going to change. They're missing their bargaining window... Once the lockout starts, the owners are totally driving the bus. Offer a 50/50 BRI split. Offer to decrease max contracts. Offer different buyout rules, shorter contracts, the possibility of multiple team options, revenue sharing, whatever. But make an offer.

speakout4
06-29-2011, 08:17 PM
5 or 6 million now would likely becomes 2 or 3 million, meaning that said player is better of playing in Europe for 2 million tax free, free accommodation etc.
if the 5-6 million becomes 2-3 in the US then the 2M in Europe will become 1M--the dominoes will fall.

speakout4
06-29-2011, 08:23 PM
Then why not make a hard cap on what you can pay to an individual player, as well?

Say the hard cap is 50 Million..all right..then the most you can pay an individual is 10 million..that should decrease the problem substantially. Or something like that. Not saying my math is correct, but I'm saying that it should be easy for the NBA owners and players to get accountants that can do that math for them.

I know, neither the players or the teams are going to want that. (I know there's already a set amount, I'm saying decrease it to fit the hard cap) But at the end of the day, there's a lot less "superstars" than "middle of the road" kind of players, and this is better for the middle of the road type of players.
Good point but the union will always take care of the high-end players first.

Sookie
06-29-2011, 08:31 PM
if the 5-6 million becomes 2-3 in the US then the 2M in Europe will become 1M--the dominoes will fall.

Overseas will pay far more than that though. I would actually guess some teams would be 10 Million +

pacer4ever
06-29-2011, 08:39 PM
Overseas will pay far more than that though. I would actually guess some teams would be 10 Million +

certain teams over seas would pay the stars in the NBA major money possibly even A-rod type money in baseball.

PacerDude
06-29-2011, 08:45 PM
certain teams over seas would pay the stars in the NBA major money possibly even A-rod type money in baseball.Then let 'em pay that much.

Swish
06-29-2011, 08:50 PM
It is a soft cap. It may be the limit, but you can spend over the limit for a price. With a hard cap you cannot go over at all.

But isn't there a hard cap above the soft cap?

pacer4ever
06-29-2011, 08:58 PM
But isn't there a hard cap above the soft cap?
right now? no i mean the Lakers spend in triple digits


in the flex cap yes

Swish
06-29-2011, 09:01 PM
Oh. Ok. I always thought there was the luxury tax line and then a steadfast hard cap. I blame video games.

Anthem
06-29-2011, 09:15 PM
Good point but the union will always take care of the high-end players first.
Which is crazy.

smj887
06-29-2011, 09:20 PM
Define 'other things'.

Just the other costs that the players incur. If they lose half or so in taxes and then the agent takes something like 10%, then a $3 mil/year deal is down to $1.2 mil before it reaches the player. It's still a large sum, but for a player in NY, Boston, or another area where the cost of living is high, it's not THAT astronomical. Add in the fact that a lot of them provide for their family and friends, and it seems that a lot of them also make pretty poor investments, and it's not hard to see where it might be worth it for them to fight to keep a couple million or so.

I think the current model is unsustainable, but I also understand the players' desire to keep as much money as possible. If I was making $100,000 a year and my boss told me he was only going to give me $50,000 next year, I'd probably whine and complain and do everything I could to stop it - despite the fact that $50,000 can provide a pretty nice lifestyle.

One thing's for certain though, if the cap comes crashing down and is also a hard cap, so that we're on a level playing field with the LA's and Boston's of the league - then the Pacers need to hire a charismatic financial advisor who can explain to these guys how much more $4 million can go in Indy vs $4 million in a lot of other places.

Kstat
06-29-2011, 09:27 PM
I don't think you need a financial adviser to tell players that the cost of living in NY is a lot more than the cost of living in Indiana....

daschysta
06-29-2011, 09:27 PM
Superstars will get that huge money only as long as they still win and are more profitable than teams that make a team more intelligently, plus since teams won't be able to sign mulitple superstars there won't be the leverage to massively inflate their value that there is now.

For a while what hunter is saying may be true, but as soon as those teams who invested al their money in one or two players start failing, becaues they need a team around them....

There will just be a lower price on all players, which needed to happen.

This is like spreewell needing to feed his family...

pacer4ever
06-29-2011, 09:29 PM
I don't think you need a financial adviser to tell players that the cost of living in NY is a lot more than the cost of living in Indiana....

but endorsement options could make up the difference

hoosierguy
06-29-2011, 09:32 PM
Just the other costs that the players incur. If they lose half or so in taxes and then the agent takes something like 10%, then a $3 mil/year deal is down to $1.2 mil before it reaches the player. It's still a large sum, but for a player in NY, Boston, or another area where the cost of living is high, it's not THAT astronomical. Add in the fact that a lot of them provide for their family and friends, and it seems that a lot of them also make pretty poor investments, and it's not hard to see where it might be worth it for them to fight to keep a couple million or so.

I think the current model is unsustainable, but I also understand the players' desire to keep as much money as possible. If I was making $100,000 a year and my boss told me he was only going to give me $50,000 next year, I'd probably whine and complain and do everything I could to stop it - despite the fact that $50,000 can provide a pretty nice lifestyle.

One thing's for certain though, if the cap comes crashing down and is also a hard cap, so that we're on a level playing field with the LA's and Boston's of the league - then the Pacers need to hire a charismatic financial advisor who can explain to these guys how much more $4 million can go in Indy vs $4 million in a lot of other places.

Even factoring the inevitable deductions for taxes and an agent- the player should have more than enough money to live comfortably.

Maybe they should get rid of the leeches in their posse, make any spouse sign a prenuptial agreement and keep their dick in their pants and not have so many dang kids.

Any NBA player that is broke after retiring has no one to blame but them-self.

owl
06-29-2011, 09:43 PM
I think the current model is unsustainable, but I also understand the players' desire to keep as much money as possible. If I was making $100,000 a year and my boss told me he was only going to give me $50,000 next year, I'd probably whine and complain and do everything I could to stop it - despite the fact that $50,000 can provide a pretty nice lifestyle.

One thing's for certain though, if the cap comes crashing down and is also a hard cap, so that we're on a level playing field with the LA's and Boston's of the league - then the Pacers need to hire a charismatic financial advisor who can explain to these guys how much more $4 million can go in Indy vs $4 million in a lot of other places.


I have no problem with either side trying to get what they can but it sure looks like the owners have more to lose than the players financially and thus are more motivated to take this to the endpoint which is no season. If Hunter is worried about the "middle class" then make a counter offer. Blabbing to the media is only going the hack off the fans.

Swish
06-29-2011, 09:51 PM
Am I the only one ok with losing an entire season if it means a more even playing field for the Pacers and other smaller market teams?

daschysta
06-29-2011, 09:52 PM
Am I the only one ok with losing an entire season if it means a more even playing field for the Pacers and other smaller market teams?

Well we were finally in a position to take advantage of the system. A lower cap lessens the value of our cap space.

RLeWorm
06-29-2011, 09:54 PM
Am I the only one ok with losing an entire season if it means a more even playing field for the Pacers and other smaller market teams?

no. I'm on the same boat.

Swish
06-29-2011, 09:56 PM
Well we were finally in a position to take advantage of the system. A lower cap lessens the value of our cap space.

Depends. If there's still enough to pay someone, we could get someone on a firesale from some team that has to get under the cap pronto.

Brad8888
06-29-2011, 09:57 PM
The word is "commensurate".

What they want to do is to change the current hard cap into an even harder cap that will protect them from themselves, with less circumventing of the cap due to the willingness of owners to pay the luxury tax.

Hicks
06-29-2011, 10:06 PM
Looking at it with the players' eyes, I can totally understand wanting to fight back against anything that takes money out of their pockets. That's perfectly understandable; pretty much anybody would feel that way if it were them.

However, no matter how this ends up, the reality will remain that these guys are still going to be paid very, very well to do exactly what they love to do, and if that weren't enough, it just so happens to be playing a lot of basketball for God's sake (!). They're not exactly mining coal or treating patients.

Looking at it as an outsider and as someone with much worse money problems than they (most likely) will ever, EVER face again in their lives, they can cry me a freaking river.

I understand there's more to life than that, but we're only talking about money here, and they will have plenty.

I also understand, as I said to start this post, that no one wants their salary to get cut, but you simply cannot erase the fact that the salaries are so high here that even a big % cut will still result in the truth of the matter: They will continue to be made multimillionaires because they play basketball.

They've had it pretty damn well for a while now, and even if they take a hit this year, they'll still be more than fine, so my sympathy is extremely low.

Finally, I'll reiterate that my interest here is as a fan of the small market Indiana Pacers. If that means what's best for them is the owners bending the players over a barrel, so be it.

Hicks
06-29-2011, 10:08 PM
Well we were finally in a position to take advantage of the system. A lower cap lessens the value of our cap space.

Not that much when you consider that there will be teams looking to get under the new cap, which could mean either a lop-side trade done for financial purposes, or, if there's an amnesty of some kind, having to cut a good player, releasing him to free agency, where we still have almost as much money as anyone to offer said good player (if we want them).

graphic-er
06-29-2011, 10:18 PM
I've got no problem with players making lots of money. If there's only a couple dozen people in the world who can do what you do, you're going to get paid.

But the players are crazy if they think the system's not going to change. They're missing their bargaining window... Once the lockout starts, the owners are totally driving the bus. Offer a 50/50 BRI split. Offer to decrease max contracts. Offer different buyout rules, shorter contracts, the possibility of multiple team options, revenue sharing, whatever. But make an offer.

I totally agree, players need to realize that the unfettered money train is coming to an end. If they don't offer a deal that is beneficial to both parties, then they will be dragged kicking and screaming 6 months from now. The owners can always reduce their expenses over the course of a lock out, and will be all to happy to do it too in order to save their interests. Players will not be able to reduce their expenses so easily.

I'd like to know where is the leadership amongst the players who actually support the idea of the players making less money overall? I thought Granger said last fall in an interview that he would be okay taking less money if it meant the league would be viable long term.

Eleazar
06-29-2011, 10:29 PM
Just the other costs that the players incur. If they lose half or so in taxes and then the agent takes something like 10%, then a $3 mil/year deal is down to $1.2 mil before it reaches the player.

Yeah, agents are the biggest scam in sports. Unless you are a star who gets a lot of endorsement offers there really is little to no need for an agent. Considering how much agents make per player and how many players most of them have I wouldn't be surprised if many, especially the high profile ones, make 2 or 3 times as much money as their clients.

vapacersfan
06-29-2011, 10:29 PM
I think some people have no idea how much is involved in paying agents and other things. It still leaves a lot of money yes, but it's also not the number you read on HoopsHype either.

Ever looked at how much in taxes come out of your checks? Imagine what it is for someone in their tax bracket alone.

A great point.

One thing that shocked me when I worked in film and TV in Jacksonville was the amount of money working actors had taken out before they ever saw a penny (agents, managers, taxes, etc)

rexnom
06-29-2011, 11:02 PM
1.) What is the flex cap? I'm confused. It's not the soft cap and it's not the hard cap. I don't want to be repetitive but the info on this has completely overwhelmed me.

2.) A lock-out shortened season seems like it would be great for a small-market, young team like ours. First, a lock-out means that the owners are probably going to win out, which is good for a small market like ours. Second, we're not really looking to contend this year. Just playing a handful of games, getting a bit of seasoning on our guys, playoffs, would be enough. It would certainly hurt other teams with windows more than us. Third, I think our guys would be able to handle the intense short season relatively better than older players on other teams.

3.) Even though these guys are millionaires, they have so many more commitments to moochers and leechers than we do (also to agents, family, taxes, etc., like the above posters pointed out). Though the absolute quantities are still much higher, a lot of these guys also live paycheck-to-paycheck. I'm not saying pity them. I'm just saying that a lock-out would mean serious, serious problems for the players.

Anthem
06-29-2011, 11:10 PM
Second, we're not really looking to contend this year. Just playing a handful of games, getting a bit of seasoning on our guys, playoffs, would be enough. It would certainly hurt other teams with windows more than us.
Wow, that's a really good point that I hadn't considered.

pacer4ever
06-29-2011, 11:10 PM
1.) What is the flex cap? I'm confused. It's not the soft cap and it's not the hard cap. I don't want to be repetitive but the info on this has completely overwhelmed me.

2.) A lock-out shortened season seems like it would be great for a small-market, young team like ours. First, a lock-out means that the owners are probably going to win out, which is good for a small market like ours. Second, we're not really looking to contend this year. Just playing a handful of games, getting a bit of seasoning on our guys, playoffs, would be enough. It would certainly hurt other teams with windows more than us. Third, I think our guys would be able to handle the intense short season relatively better than older players on other teams.

3.) Even though these guys are millionaires, they have so many more commitments to moochers and leechers than we do (also to agents, family, taxes, etc., like the above posters pointed out). Though the absolute quantities are still much higher, a lot of these guys also live paycheck-to-paycheck. I'm not saying pity them. I'm just saying that a lock-out would mean serious, serious problems for the players.

It is a hard cap basically there is a certain # a team cant go over.

trailrunner
06-29-2011, 11:25 PM
Compared to half the people on earth, everyone posting on this board lives like a millionaire. Players are entitled to gripe and complain about how much they make just as much as anyone else.

The players and owners obtain their income from us, the fans, who cannot afford anymore of this overpaid nonsense. Multi-millionaires have no right to whine when fans cannot even afford to see a game because of greed and arrogance. Normally I side with the players but in this case they are drowning the people who pay their salaries. 15 million to put a leather ball in an iron hoop? I love basketball but I can live with college hoops. I say if there is a lockout fans should bail on the next season in protest.

trailrunner
06-29-2011, 11:29 PM
Not that much when you consider that there will be teams looking to get under the new cap, which could mean either a lop-side trade done for financial purposes, or, if there's an amnesty of some kind, having to cut a good player, releasing him to free agency, where we still have almost as much money as anyone to offer said good player (if we want them).

I suspect the cap will remain near the current level but it will be hard.

rexnom
06-29-2011, 11:40 PM
It is a hard cap basically there is a certain # a team cant go over.
I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Aren't you basically describing a hard cap once again? What makes what you're describing different than a hard cap. Hunter is arguing that in practice there is none while the owners ostensibly say there is. Both seem to agree that at least in theory they're different. I'm not getting that distinction.

trailrunner
06-29-2011, 11:50 PM
I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Aren't you basically describing a hard cap once again? What makes what you're describing different than a hard cap. Hunter is arguing that in practice there is none while the owners ostensibly say there is. Both seem to agree that at least in theory they're different. I'm not getting that distinction.

I believe with a flex cap there are a couple of exceptions where a team could exceed the cap limit. Like the Larry Bird exception. But there would no longer be a luxury tax because teams could not surpass the cap except for those very few exceptions. Not sure if this pertains to your inquiry. Not even sure if this is entirely correct but it is what I have been able to comprehend from my limited research. I think with a hard cap it levels the playing field a bit for smaller market teams like Indiana. I am unsure if there is revenue sharing in the NBA but I would favor it as well.

Infinite MAN_force
06-29-2011, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Aren't you basically describing a hard cap once again? What makes what you're describing different than a hard cap. Hunter is arguing that in practice there is none while the owners ostensibly say there is. Both seem to agree that at least in theory they're different. I'm not getting that distinction.

From what I understand, there is going to be the regular cap number like there is now, that you can exceed by using certain exceptions. Sort of like the MLE right now allows teams that are over the cap to sign players. I don't know if the MLE will exist in the new CBA, but there will most likely be exceptions to allow teams to go over the cap to resign their own players, etc...

The difference is, right now, you can use those exceptions indefinitely year after year as long as you are willing to pay the luxury tax. You can still essentially spend as much as you want. The "flex" cap will allow a team to go over the regular cap to say... resign their own player, or sign draft picks, whatever... but there is going to be an absolute limit you cannot exceed no matter what. Which is not currently the case.

And yeah, its totally still a hard cap. If that is what you are getting at.

travmil
06-30-2011, 12:19 AM
Someone needs to remind these players in the NBA what happened to the players in the NHL a few years back. They would not budge on anything that took money out of their pockets. The owners locked them out, scrapped the season, and then the players had to figuratively kiss the feet of the owners by firing their union rep (Hunter's equivalent) while crawling back to the bargaining table. When they got back to the table, they gave away the largest percentage of money any sports union has ever had to give up. This took place AFTER the players blinked and offered to take a 24% across the board paycut which the owners REJECTED without voting on. Added to that there are several NBA owners who also own NHL teams and know all too well how beneficial the NHL deal is for them. If the NBA players aren't smart, the exact same scenario the NHLPA found themselves in is going to play out for them.

Eleazar
06-30-2011, 12:26 AM
The flex cap is basically what it is now except the luxury tax threshold becomes a hard cap. So the first cap is still soft like now, but there is a second hard cap.

SycamoreKen
06-30-2011, 12:40 AM
I'm tired of both groups. If the owners don't like losing money then sell the team or shut it down. The players really need to stop complaining about having to give money back. The state of Texas just passed a bill allowing school districts to roll back salaries and furlough teachers to save money. Pretty much what the owners want to do with their employees.

Until you get a deal, just go away.

pacer4ever
06-30-2011, 01:48 AM
I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Aren't you basically describing a hard cap once again? What makes what you're describing different than a hard cap. Hunter is arguing that in practice there is none while the owners ostensibly say there is. Both seem to agree that at least in theory they're different. I'm not getting that distinction.

That is the point that's why the players don't want it. It is still a hard cap and the players know that.

stew
06-30-2011, 04:02 AM
Just the other costs that the players incur. If they lose half or so in taxes and then the agent takes something like 10%, then a $3 mil/year deal is down to $1.2 mil before it reaches the player. It's still a large sum, but for a player in NY, Boston, or another area where the cost of living is high, it's not THAT astronomical. Add in the fact that a lot of them provide for their family and friends, and it seems that a lot of them also make pretty poor investments, and it's not hard to see where it might be worth it for them to fight to keep a couple million or so.



If I go with your number: 3 mil /year = 1.2 mil (reaches the player)
then a 20% cutback on salary is: 2.4 mil / year = 1 mil (.96 mil reaches the player).

is 200k that big of a deal (middle income nba players) to really force a lock out?

pacer4ever
06-30-2011, 05:26 AM
Shane Battier’s question, directed to Players Association executive director Billy Hunter, was simple: The NFL’s union leader, DeMaurice Smith, had agreed to take $1 in salary for the length of the NFL lockout. Will you do it too, Billy? The mere suggestion seemed to offend Hunter, players witnessing the exchange privately told Yahoo! Sports. After Hunter told Battier he hadn’t given it much thought, members of the union’s executive board came to Hunter’s defense. Hunter had taken the union from the red to the black in his term, done a good job, they said. Hunter never did give Battier a firm answer, nor would he answer the question for Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday. Yahoo! Sportshttp://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_billy_hunter_nba_union_062911

Every thing i hear from this player union guy makes me dislike him. I mean it is like he wants a lockout and doesn't want to get a deal done or compromise at all.

Kuq_e_Zi91
06-30-2011, 06:56 AM
I'm all for a hard cap. We simply can't compete with the current model when teams like Dallas and the Lakers spend about $90 million. A hard cap would even the playing field, and as a small-market team, that's all you can ask for. I don't know what the proposed hard cap amount is, but good luck filling the roster when 3 of your players make almost $50 million like Miami.

Kuq_e_Zi91
06-30-2011, 06:59 AM
I'd like to know where is the leadership amongst the players who actually support the idea of the players making less money overall? I thought Granger said last fall in an interview that he would be okay taking less money if it meant the league would be viable long term.

Why would a player say that publicly? It undermines what the Players Association is trying to do in negotiations.

Dece
06-30-2011, 10:46 AM
In the fight between millionaires and billionaires I have no sympathy for either side, but I'd bet the farm that the billionaires win.

CoolHand
06-30-2011, 10:57 AM
If the Player's Union acted like most unions, they would set standard wages across the board... X amount for a starting guard, Y amount for a starting center, Z amount for a backup center, etc... xx% increase for each year in the league... the players could get a bigger % of their total, because they could completely ditch agents. The amounts could be bigger for the majority, because the total pot would be spread across all players, instead of giving the lion's share to the superstars.

I'm not saying that this is the ideal method, but just observing that this method would be more in line of a real union...

BillS
06-30-2011, 11:01 AM
I think the Euro money is a factor, but not a big one. I'd bet we'd be talking at most a dozen upper-mid-level players going to Europe. If it isn't the top players, the media and casual fans won't care, and if the players develop and end up commanding big salaries to come back as superstars then the players union won't care.

I also don't think it is simple as being entirely tax free, either, at these salary levels.

Ultimately, though, if players bolt for Europe and it starts to affect the bottom line of basketball in the US, it becomes a bargaining chip for the players next time. Until then, negotiations have to be based in the current situation.

Sandman21
06-30-2011, 03:00 PM
I got an easy solution to this: Stick the owners and players association in a room, lock the doors and windows, and don't let them out UNTIL a deal is done. :D

Otherwise, a repeat of 98-99 should be grounds for the removal of both Stern and Hunter.

ECKrueger
06-30-2011, 03:02 PM
I got an easy solution to this: Stick the owners and players association in a room, lock the doors and windows, and don't let them out UNTIL a deal is done. :D

Otherwise, a repeat of 98-99 should be grounds for the removal of both Stern and Hunter.

There really is no excuse for these lockouts to go on for a hundred days, as the NFL's has.

Sandman21
06-30-2011, 03:40 PM
Hence we lock the doors on them! Either they make a deal or they kill each other trying!

The Sleeze
06-30-2011, 03:53 PM
Also you could make sure there are no bathrooms and that they are without food....that should speed things up a bit.

Sandman21
06-30-2011, 03:54 PM
When I say no deal, no exit, I mean NO deal, NO exit. :D

Yes, I do have a sadistic evil side to me. :D

DaveP63
06-30-2011, 05:01 PM
Then why not make a hard cap on what you can pay to an individual player, as well?

Say the hard cap is 50 Million..all right..then the most you can pay an individual is 10 million..that should decrease the problem substantially. Or something like that. Not saying my math is correct, but I'm saying that it should be easy for the NBA owners and players to get accountants that can do that math for them.

I know, neither the players or the teams are going to want that. (I know there's already a set amount, I'm saying decrease it to fit the hard cap) But at the end of the day, there's a lot less "superstars" than "middle of the road" kind of players, and this is better for the middle of the road type of players.

I like your idea, but "Billy" will never let you take money out of their pockets, which is essentially what you are proposing. At least in "Billy's" view :D Perhaps, after a nice sustained vacation without pay, they may feel differently...

xBulletproof
06-30-2011, 05:42 PM
There really is no excuse for these lockouts to go on for a hundred days, as the NFL's has.

Sure there is. The NFL season is much shorter, they have between February and September before games start. The NBA 100 day lockout means you're cutting into the time for the next season, because their seasons are much longer.

That's a major difference.

speakout4
06-30-2011, 05:55 PM
Which is crazy.
The idea is to continually raise the ceiling.

ECKrueger
06-30-2011, 06:01 PM
Sure there is. The NFL season is much shorter, they have between February and September before games start. The NBA 100 day lockout means you're cutting into the time for the next season, because their seasons are much longer.

That's a major difference.

I really don't think there is. Quit being difficult, meet, and settle this already. Don't meet once a month. Every one just has to get their way instead of trying to compromise and do what is best for everyone.

Sandman21
06-30-2011, 06:55 PM
I really don't think there is. Quit being difficult, meet, and settle this already. Don't meet once a month. Every one just has to get their way instead of trying to compromise and do what is best for everyone.

If they meet only once a month, then people need to fired on both sides. I want to see them meeting WEEKLY, none of this monthly crap. Oh, and get the lawyers OUT of this!

Oh, and padlock the doors shut too with the owners and PA reps inside. That would help too.:dance:

pacerDU
06-30-2011, 07:39 PM
The player's union better start making some concessions because the longer the lockout goes, the less they'll get.

The NBA's popularity has spiked upwards tremendously this season. A long lockout will only hurt the league by turning away fans, which will in-turn mean less fans going to and watching games, meaning less revenue for teams, meaning less money to pay players.

On the other side, not having a season will actually save the owners massively (except maybe for the teams making healthy profits). No player salaries, no operating costs, a lot of money saved right there. Plus these guys are billionaires. They all have income from other business ventures and therefore can ride out any loss of income from their team without issue.

NBA player salaries are at an absurd level. Can you imagine making 150K for playing one game of basketball?!? That's a house for 2-3 hours of work! Reducing that by 25-30% or so is not going to affect their life at all.

I understand not wanting to take a pay-cut. But these guys have to face reality. They don't live in a vacuum. The economy affects them too.

Sandman21
06-30-2011, 07:55 PM
The owners already have made several concessions, the players need to be doing the same.

bellisimo
07-01-2011, 05:01 AM
if the NBA doesn't get their act together soon they'll certainly be losing the fans and have to go through the cycle of trying to get them back again.

Shade
07-01-2011, 07:20 AM
Billy Hunter is an idiot, which is why he gets outmaneuvered by Stern at every turn.

If "middle class" NBA salaries come down, then superstar salaries will, as well. Everything is relative, which is why salaries are so inflated now anyway. The average big man doesn't make 10 mil/yr if a superstar big man isn't making 20+ mil.

Shade
07-01-2011, 07:24 AM
Hence we lock the doors on them! Either they make a deal or they kill each other trying!

Sounds like a win-win to me. :devil:

count55
07-01-2011, 09:17 AM
Billy Hunter is an idiot, which is why he gets outmaneuvered by Stern at every turn.

If "middle class" NBA salaries come down, then superstar salaries will, as well. Everything is relative, which is why salaries are so inflated now anyway. The average big man doesn't make 10 mil/yr if a superstar big man isn't making 20+ mil.

Actually, no.

The "middle class" salaries are inflated, because under the current system, the superstars are underpaid.

Consider this (admittedly extreme) example:

Last season, the Pacers had $14.1mm on their books for TJ Ford and Jamaal Tinsley. Miami had $14.5mm on their books for LeBron James.

From a league wide perspective, the benefits received from LeBron James far outweighed the waste from Ford & Tinsley. If LeBron had been paid $28mm, it would have been a bargain for the league - from an interest and revenue generation perspective.

However, the "max contract" provision limits how much money that can go to the actual elite difference makers. How many real difference makers are there in the league? It's probably less than 10, but let's be kind and say there are 25.

In a $3.8B league, the players are required to receive 57%, or a little less than $2.2B. In the generous scenario that says there are 25 "superstars", they'll get $500mm or less. Add another 100 players or so at any point in time that are on rookie contracts averaging about $1.5mm, and that gives you $650 for "stars" and rookies. (And that's probably high, when you consider guys like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant were on rookie deals).

That leaves a little over $1.5B that has to be paid, and therefore is spread among the remaining 325 guys, or an average annual salary of about $4.7mm per player. If you assume that a little more than half of those guys (at least) either are, or should be, min level players, that shears off another $175mm or so on 175 guys.

The remaining 150 guys split just over $1.3B, which boils down to an average of $8.9mm per player per year.

Most players know they're not stars. Truth is, most either are or aspire to be in this group of 150 (or fewer) guys who split up slice of the pie far in excess of their actual contribution.

It's these guys the union works for, and it's these guys who sway the vote totals. In these negotiations, the rank and file end up conspiring against the stars and, to a lesser extent, the rookies.

What Hunter and most of the players fear, perhaps more than anything else - even a reduction in overall BRI split - is a hard cap system with no max salary. Under that, the economics will gravitate toward a payroll structure that pays as much as half of the salaries to perhaps less than 5% of the player population.

In that, payrolls would look a lot more like Miami's, with a huge gap between the elite and the rest. League wide, the union's nightmare scenario is 25 guys averaging $30mm per year, and the other 425 averaging around $3mm - regardless of whether or not that's the way the actual value is structured or not.

Hunter isn't an idiot - at least not in this instance. He knows precisely what's at stake.

Reginald
07-01-2011, 09:44 AM
It bugs me too. I think it might be different in the NBA though because the owners, while still rich, are losing money. I don't know if that is the case in the NFL or not.

That's what I've been talking about all along. The NBA is facing the very real possibility of losing a season, and I will almost guarantee a shortened season. Why? Because they're fighting over entirely different variables than the NFL owners and players. In the NFL, they're just deciding who gets more fruit from the endless money tree. In the NBA, they're trying to rebuild the CBA from scratch to ensure that something north of eight teams will be in the black.

The NFL is a viable business model. The NBA isn't.

ECKrueger
07-01-2011, 11:40 AM
If they meet only once a month, then people need to fired on both sides. I want to see them meeting WEEKLY, none of this monthly crap. Oh, and get the lawyers OUT of this!

Oh, and padlock the doors shut too with the owners and PA reps inside. That would help too.:dance:

Monthly might have been an exaggeration, but they need to be meeting all the time. I don't think they are meeting for a while now because no one feels the pressure until the season draws near. That is bull I think. Get together and get something done, for everyone's sake.

You just aren't giving up on that idea, huh? haha

Speed
07-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Count55 is back!!

Shade
07-01-2011, 01:50 PM
Actually, no.

The "middle class" salaries are inflated, because under the current system, the superstars are underpaid.

Consider this (admittedly extreme) example:

Last season, the Pacers had $14.1mm on their books for TJ Ford and Jamaal Tinsley. Miami had $14.5mm on their books for LeBron James.

From a league wide perspective, the benefits received from LeBron James far outweighed the waste from Ford & Tinsley. If LeBron had been paid $28mm, it would have been a bargain for the league - from an interest and revenue generation perspective.

However, the "max contract" provision limits how much money that can go to the actual elite difference makers. How many real difference makers are there in the league? It's probably less than 10, but let's be kind and say there are 25.

In a $3.8B league, the players are required to receive 57%, or a little less than $2.2B. In the generous scenario that says there are 25 "superstars", they'll get $500mm or less. Add another 100 players or so at any point in time that are on rookie contracts averaging about $1.5mm, and that gives you $650 for "stars" and rookies. (And that's probably high, when you consider guys like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant were on rookie deals).

That leaves a little over $1.5B that has to be paid, and therefore is spread among the remaining 325 guys, or an average annual salary of about $4.7mm per player. If you assume that a little more than half of those guys (at least) either are, or should be, min level players, that shears off another $175mm or so on 175 guys.

The remaining 150 guys split just over $1.3B, which boils down to an average of $8.9mm per player per year.

Most players know they're not stars. Truth is, most either are or aspire to be in this group of 150 (or fewer) guys who split up slice of the pie far in excess of their actual contribution.

It's these guys the union works for, and it's these guys who sway the vote totals. In these negotiations, the rank and file end up conspiring against the stars and, to a lesser extent, the rookies.

What Hunter and most of the players fear, perhaps more than anything else - even a reduction in overall BRI split - is a hard cap system with no max salary. Under that, the economics will gravitate toward a payroll structure that pays as much as half of the salaries to perhaps less than 5% of the player population.

In that, payrolls would look a lot more like Miami's, with a huge gap between the elite and the rest. League wide, the union's nightmare scenario is 25 guys averaging $30mm per year, and the other 425 averaging around $3mm - regardless of whether or not that's the way the actual value is structured or not.

Hunter isn't an idiot - at least not in this instance. He knows precisely what's at stake.

That's not how company structures work, though. Everything is in a "tiered" system. And second-tier players will make more than third-tier players, who will make more than fourth-tier players, etc.

LeBron is not so much better than, say, Nene that he's going to make 10 times his salary. Otherwise, I'll build a team of 15 "middle class" players while the "superstar & 14 scrubs" teams get pummeled.

Dece
07-01-2011, 01:57 PM
Lebron is 10 times better than Nene, but even if not, that's hardly the point. Contracts don't pay people equivalent to their basketball skill, even in an ideal world they don't, that's not their purpose. They pay for value added to the franchise. Of course these things ARE correlated, but they are hardly substitutes.

Lebron's value to an NBA team is probably much more than 10 times that of Nene's, because Lebron sells jerseys, he sells tickets, those ticket buyers buy more concessions, Lebron's team is more likely to be on national tv, and his team is a virtual gaurantee to make the playoffs. Everything about having Lebron is better than not having Lebron.

Lebron makes 16M a year
Nene makes 12M a year.

Lebron's value is 10+ times that of Nene's, but he only gets paid 25% more. Clearly this system isn't working at paying value, as Count tried to illustrate.

Shade
07-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Lebron is 10 times better than Nene, but even if not, that's hardly the point. Contracts don't pay people equivalent to their basketball skill, even in an ideal world they don't, that's not their purpose. They pay for value added to the franchise. Of course these things ARE correlated, but they are hardly substitutes.

Lebron's value to an NBA team is probably much more than 10 times that of Nene's, because Lebron sells jerseys, he sells tickets, those ticket buyers buy more concessions, Lebron's team is more likely to be on national tv, and his team is a virtual gaurantee to make the playoffs. Everything about having Lebron is better than not having Lebron.

Lebron makes 16M a year
Nene makes 12M a year.

Lebron's value is 10+ times that of Nene's, but he only gets paid 25% more. Clearly this system isn't working at paying value, as Count tried to illustrate.

I didn't say the pay scale was proportionate, just relative.

And that added value LeBron sees back in endorsement deals with various companies. His actual NBA salary is relatively inconsequential compared to the money he receives from endorsements.

But at the end of the day, if LeBron's team isn't winning, his endorsements, and salary, will fall. And that is what will happen if his salary is so much higher than other players' that he's forced to play with nothing but scrubs and, ultimately, play on a bad team. This is what makes a hard cap work.

wintermute
07-01-2011, 03:00 PM
And that added value LeBron sees back in endorsement deals with various companies. His actual NBA salary is relatively inconsequential compared to the money he receives from endorsements.


Not really. LeBron gets endorsement deals because he helps sell Nike, Sprite, McDonalds etc. The tickets and merchandise sales that he drives for the Heat (and previously the Cavs) aren't captured by his salary.



But at the end of the day, if LeBron's team isn't winning, his endorsements, and salary, will fall. And that is what will happen if his salary is so much higher than other players' that he's forced to play with nothing but scrubs and, ultimately, play on a bad team. This is what makes a hard cap work.

What count55 has been getting at is that the superstar + scrubs lineups will become the norm in a hard cap regime. Yeah, teams may still build by other ways (such as getting a number of good not great players), but historically most GMs go after superstars.

Shade
07-01-2011, 03:05 PM
Not really. LeBron gets endorsement deals because he helps sell Nike, Sprite, McDonalds etc. The tickets and merchandise sales that he drives for the Heat (and previously the Cavs) aren't captured by his salary.

LeBron is only able to sell Nike, Sprite, McDonald's, etc. due to his status as an NBA player.


What count55 has been getting at is that the superstar + scrubs lineups will become the norm in a hard cap regime. Yeah, teams may still build by other ways (such as getting a number of good not great players), but historically most GMs go after superstars.

But what happens when it turns out that those "good player" teams are continually better than the "superstar + scrubs" teams?

troyc11a
07-01-2011, 03:16 PM
One thing that gets me is that the players do not want to have a system that assures the owners will make a profit.
If this is their line of thinking, how about doing it both ways? How about non-guaranteed contracts. Eddy Curry was guaranteed and got his money and didnt do squat. Why is it fair for the players to be guaranteed a profit and not the owners? The players arent the ones who invested hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, no matter how much their salaries are cut, they are guaranteed to make a profit. It is a bad system that allows for the worst player in the NBA to be guaranteed a profit while Mr. Simon is not!

The Sleeze
07-01-2011, 03:32 PM
Let's say a player makes 5 mil/year. If he were to take a 20% pay deduction he would be down to 4 mil/year. His taxes would be lower because he makes less, and his agent fees would be lower because they are based on percentages.

So let's say that he is actually getting payed $750,000 less per year. So he would rather lose a full season and thus 5 million dollars, than lose 750 k per season. Even though it would take over 5 years of losing 750 k to make up that 5 million he lost in one lump sum.

The players will have to lose a percentage, it may not be as high as 20%, but either way if they don't play next season then that's 5 mil they will lose on top of the extra percentage they lose in the new CBA.....just don't see how it's worth it for the players to fight this to the point of no season being played.

Taterhead
07-01-2011, 04:50 PM
Actually, no.

The "middle class" salaries are inflated, because under the current system, the superstars are underpaid.

Consider this (admittedly extreme) example:

Last season, the Pacers had $14.1mm on their books for TJ Ford and Jamaal Tinsley. Miami had $14.5mm on their books for LeBron James.

From a league wide perspective, the benefits received from LeBron James far outweighed the waste from Ford & Tinsley. If LeBron had been paid $28mm, it would have been a bargain for the league - from an interest and revenue generation perspective.

However, the "max contract" provision limits how much money that can go to the actual elite difference makers. How many real difference makers are there in the league? It's probably less than 10, but let's be kind and say there are 25.

In a $3.8B league, the players are required to receive 57%, or a little less than $2.2B. In the generous scenario that says there are 25 "superstars", they'll get $500mm or less. Add another 100 players or so at any point in time that are on rookie contracts averaging about $1.5mm, and that gives you $650 for "stars" and rookies. (And that's probably high, when you consider guys like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant were on rookie deals).

That leaves a little over $1.5B that has to be paid, and therefore is spread among the remaining 325 guys, or an average annual salary of about $4.7mm per player. If you assume that a little more than half of those guys (at least) either are, or should be, min level players, that shears off another $175mm or so on 175 guys.

The remaining 150 guys split just over $1.3B, which boils down to an average of $8.9mm per player per year.

Most players know they're not stars. Truth is, most either are or aspire to be in this group of 150 (or fewer) guys who split up slice of the pie far in excess of their actual contribution.

It's these guys the union works for, and it's these guys who sway the vote totals. In these negotiations, the rank and file end up conspiring against the stars and, to a lesser extent, the rookies.

What Hunter and most of the players fear, perhaps more than anything else - even a reduction in overall BRI split - is a hard cap system with no max salary. Under that, the economics will gravitate toward a payroll structure that pays as much as half of the salaries to perhaps less than 5% of the player population.

In that, payrolls would look a lot more like Miami's, with a huge gap between the elite and the rest. League wide, the union's nightmare scenario is 25 guys averaging $30mm per year, and the other 425 averaging around $3mm - regardless of whether or not that's the way the actual value is structured or not.

Hunter isn't an idiot - at least not in this instance. He knows precisely what's at stake.

The problem with making statements like Lebron is worth x amount of dollars to the Heat.......is that nobody can ever prove it. Nobody just goes to a basketball game to watch 1 single player play. And no one ever figures in the millions of dollars that were spent by other people to make it possible for him to go out and earn that kind of money in the first place. He just shows up and plays. The owner is worth much more to Lebron than he is to the owner, trust me on that.

He is only worth what he can get in the market. Like everything else in this world. If he doesn't like it he should go to the local park and see how much money he can scrape together for dunking on the neighborhood kids.


BTW: Does it make any sense to think that under a hard cap, teams would give the majority of their payroll to just a few players? Does that really make sense? No it doesn't.

wintermute
07-01-2011, 07:24 PM
LeBron is only able to sell Nike, Sprite, McDonald's, etc. due to his status as an NBA player.


But that has nothing to do with LeBron's NBA salary. LeBron generates revenue for the Heat, and you say he is recompensed by endorsement deals by these other companies. How does that make sense?

LeBron's popularity comes from being a basketball player, true. LeBron sells tickets because he's popular. LeBron also gets endorsements because he's popular. There's no link between selling tickets and getting endorsements other than both stem from his popularity.

How about Dirk then? He doesn't do endorsements. Does that mean he's underpaid?



But what happens when it turns out that those "good player" teams are continually better than the "superstar + scrubs" teams?

That would be good. I'm not a fan of superstar teams either. But how many teams followed the Detroit model of team building after they won a title? Also, do you remember what happened to the Pistons soon after? That's right, Ben Wallace got overpaid and left. That's the problem of a champion team with too many good players. Someone's bound to overpay one of your guys thinking he's better than he actually is.

wintermute
07-01-2011, 07:29 PM
He is only worth what he can get in the market.


That's exactly right. So if there weren't any artificial limits on maximum contracts, you don't think someone would offer LeBron more than the $16m he got from the Heat? I'll bet Cleveland would have been prepared to pay him $30m if the rules have allowed it.



BTW: Does it make any sense to think that under a hard cap, teams would give the majority of their payroll to just a few players? Does that really make sense? No it doesn't.

The Heat clearly have done this. The Spurs have been following this model for a long time. What a hard cap would do is to make it the norm.

Kstat
07-01-2011, 07:36 PM
Am I the only one that thinks the middle class NEEDS to be decimated? The main problem with NBA contracts isn't the superstars getting $18-20 million, it's the role players getting $10-15 million when they are in no way worth that price.