The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

[mcHAPPY]

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on developing in house talent and making smart business decisions as opposed to the small market team having an emphasis on developing in house talent so that the big market teams can then turn around and overpay for said talent... Or force the small markets into spending an irresponsible amount to retain the player because they don't want to let the fans down and hurt their gate numbers. Honestly, the way the NBA is set up right now, ten to fifteen clubs are essentially farm teams to the big six or seven teams.

Expo-esque.

[slaw]

Right, so you think it's cool that one team in the NBA can spend $50 mil and another $100? How is that ever gonna make things fair? I think it's a nice change than having the Red Wings in the finals every year.

We just have very different perspectives on this topic. In fact, I suspect my views are at odds with almost everyone on this board. I have no issue with one team spending $200 million and another spending $35. Don't care. It's likely my baseball bias showing. Everyone talks about how "unfair" MLB is, yet, since the introduction of the cap in the NBA 9 teams have won championships and, in that same time frame, 17 different teams have won the World Series.

I guess I have two views that differ from most. First, I am philosophically opposed to collectives mandating what individuals can make and how they can operate. Second, unlike most, I don't believe a hard cap is going to make a lick of difference in terms of creating parity or "fairness" in the NBA. The nature of basketball is that the team with the best player on the floor wins. If you don't have a superstar, you simply have no chance. That's been true for 50 years in teh NBA and a hard cap won't change it.

People object that small market teams simply serve as farm teams for the top organizations and have no chance. Yet, in the last 25years, San Antonio and Detroit have won multiple NBA titles while the Knicks have won zero. Some say it sucks because teams only have great players for short periods of time and then they leave... well, what exactly do you think is going to happen in a hard cap system? Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

There will, of course, be other unintended consequences we can't foresee yet. Will it be a better system than the current one? Maybe. Or maybe it will simply be different. Does anyone seriously think the Lakers and Celtics won't be more attractive than Minnesota? Does anyone seriously believe that players won't want to go play with Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant? Yes, it will prevent the rich teams from "stacking" a team but it won't prevent them (and their terrific management teams) from getting the best players and it won't make Donald Sterling or Robert Sarver care about winning more than money.

[mcHAPPY]

We just have very different perspectives on this topic. In fact, I suspect my views are at odds with almost everyone on this board. I have no issue with one team spending $200 million and another spending $35. Don't care. It's likely my baseball bias showing. Everyone talks about how "unfair" MLB is, yet, since the introduction of the cap in the NBA 9 teams have won championships and, in that same time frame, 17 different teams have won the World Series.

I guess I have two views that differ from most. First, I am philosophically opposed to collectives mandating what individuals can make and how they can operate. Second, unlike most, I don't believe a hard cap is going to make a lick of difference in terms of creating parity or "fairness" in the NBA. The nature of basketball is that the team with the best player on the floor wins. If you don't have a superstar, you simply have no chance. That's been true for 50 years in teh NBA and a hard cap won't change it.

People object that small market teams simply serve as farm teams for the top organizations and have no chance. Yet, in the last 25years, San Antonio and Detroit have won multiple NBA titles while the Knicks have won zero. Some say it sucks because teams only have great players for short periods of time and then they leave... well, what exactly do you think is going to happen in a hard cap system? Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

There will, of course, be other unintended consequences we can't foresee yet. Will it be a better system than the current one? Maybe. Or maybe it will simply be different. Does anyone seriously think the Lakers and Celtics won't be more attractive than Minnesota? Does anyone seriously believe that players won't want to go play with Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant? Yes, it will prevent the rich teams from "stacking" a team but it won't prevent them (and their terrific management teams) from getting the best players and it won't make Donald Sterling or Robert Sarver care about winning more than money.

Good points.

Regardless of the system (hard cap, soft cap, no cap) good management and a little luck will always find a way to win in whatever environment.

[slaw]

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on developing in house talent and making smart business decisions as opposed to the small market team having an emphasis on developing in house talent so that the big market teams can then turn around and overpay for said talent... Or force the small markets into spending an irresponsible amount to retain the player because they don't want to let the fans down and hurt their gate numbers. Honestly, the way the NBA is set up right now, ten to fifteen clubs are essentially farm teams to the big six or seven teams.

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on getting the most out of in house talent as fast as possible before you have to let them walk away for a bag of balls when their cap hit is too high and you need to replace Amir Johnson with Menghe Bateer to stay under the cap.

Fixed it for you....

[Employee]

People object that small market teams simply serve as farm teams for the top organizations and have no chance. Yet, in the last 25years, San Antonio and Detroit have won multiple NBA titles while the Knicks have won zero. Some say it sucks because teams only have great players for short periods of time and then they leave... well, what exactly do you think is going to happen in a hard cap system? Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

I hear where ya coming from. But I really don't think this point is valid. First off the no one but the players say current 'cap' is working. Originally it was thought that it would curtail spending but all it did was prove that you have to spend even more to win. And I don't like the example of using San Antonio. We've all heard it before. Considering their budget it is THE best run team in basketball. Basically you have to be infallible in your business decisions, and drafting two #1 overall picks really helps too. It's not realistic for small market teams. The Celtics, Lakers, Mavs etc can afford to make mistakes and basically buy new players. Small market teams don't have that luxury.

As far as the window being even shorter, we can't really make that call yet. If they get rid of the Bird rights and/or introduce some kind of franchise tag it will completely change the playing field.

[Apollo]

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on getting the most out of in house talent as fast as possible before you have to let them walk away for a bag of balls when their cap hit is too high and you need to replace Amir Johnson with Menghe Bateer to stay under the cap.

Fixed it for you....

Slaw, the thing about this hard cap setup is that there are no guaranteed contracts. If Amir Johnson is so important to the club then they can "trim the fat" elsewhere to make room for him. There is also the point that for a club to be consistently good for a long stretch they need to be able to continuously place a high emphasis on the draft and player development. Not to mention that fact that all teams in the league would be in the same boat. I can tell you something else. In the NFL for example, the teams who typically stay good for long stretches do it through the draft. You rarely see a team like the Patriots go out and drop a huge contract on a UFA. They don't need to because they scout well, draft well, pluck excellent prospects from other teams via small trades and occasionally roll the dice on a player fallen on hard times. It works for them and that model would work in the NBA. In a hard cap system there is only so much money to go around so don't immediately come to the conclusion that contracts are going to be outrageous like they are right now.

Which problem is better, working in a system where big markets can grow their cap number to huge sums and the maintain that number and thus gain an unfair advantage or being in a system where everyone is on even ground but there is the possibility that sometime down the road a tough roster choice may have to be made if you happen to be blessed with good management who have created a top tier roster?

Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

Is a "shorter window to succeed" better than no window to succeed? I'll take any window over a brick wall. This all comes back to drafting good players and developing them. The Raptors have a good track record in the draft and player development. In a hard cap system you won't see role players getting bloated contracts often. Those who do can be cut without much in the way of consequences. You will see the money in a hard cap system going mostly to the stars.

[Apollo]

Wait, there's more:

One more thought on the hard cap thing. In a hard cap system you will rarely see players demand a trade or exploit the system to get a max contract on any team they want to play for in the league via a S&T. I think you'll see the whole S&T nonsense disappear. I also think you'll see this whole "I'm a big star so I have to play in a big market" thing disappear. Seriously, you don't see this shit in football, baseball or hockey. It's a "culture thing", blah, blah, blah. No, it's a market thing and in a hard capped market this crap ends. Players will sign for the money or in a place where a shot at a title is high. No longer will that be perceived as in a "big market" because those big markets will no longer be able to spend twice as much as some teams. They also won't be able to take on bloated contracts in one-sided cap dump trades.

[slaw]

One more thought on the hard cap thing. In a hard cap system you will rarely see players demand a trade or exploit the system to get a max contract on any team they want to play for in the league via a S&T. I think you'll see the whole S&T nonsense disappear. I also think you'll see this whole "I'm a big star so I have to play in a big market" thing disappear. Seriously, you don't see this shit in football, baseball or hockey. It's a "culture thing", blah, blah, blah. No, it's a market thing and in a hard capped market this crap ends. Players will sign for the money or in a place where a shot at a title is high. No longer will that be perceived as in a "big market" because those big markets will no longer be able to spend twice as much as some teams. They also won't be able to take on bloated contracts in one-sided cap dump trades.

The Sign and trade concept only works in a system with a soft cap and exceptions, so, yeah, you won't see it cause it's nonsensical in a hard cap system.

Agreed, in no other league does a player prefer to play in a big market or hold out or exploit the system for more money. In the NFL, for example, I can only think of Chris Johnson, Eli Manning, John Elway, Bo Jackson, Walter Jones, Emmit Smith, Cornelius Bennett, JaMarcus Russell, Darrelle Revis, John Riggins, Sean Gilbert, Jerry Rice and Mike Singletary... just a few guys of the top of my head. Have I missed two or three hundred?

But maybe you're right, the NFL is a bad example. I am sure that once the hard cap system is in place great players will flock to teams with capspace just like in the NHL. Just look at all the free agents clamouring to go to Edmonton. I am sure that the Atlanta players grumbling about having to play in Winnipeg (for the exact same money) will quickly learn to love the 'Peg over Atlanta. After all, there's no difference playing in either city now that there's a hard cap.

[mcHAPPY]

I disagree with the very last line but other than that......

How A Hard Cap Saves The NBA

Just when it sounded like cooler heads might prevail and we might actually get this lock-out thing over with this week, the NBA owners took a step back in negotiations yesterday. Now a hard salary cap is back on the table, which the players quickly stepped away from.

For those of you who care more about the game than the business of the NBA (a group that usually includes Yours Truly), here’s what we’re talking about. Last season the NBA salary cap was set right around $58 million. Sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider that there was no penalty for spending more until you hit roughly the $70 million figure (the luxury tax threshold), things start to get stupid. Teams who spend more than the luxury tax pay a dollar-for-dollar tax to the league, which splits the proceeds up amongst the teams who were not over the cap.

What this has done is – in a nutshell – create a class system in the NBA. The rich teams who play in major media markets or have owners who will spend any amount of money to win are consistently among the ranks of contenders, while the teams that follow the rules are generally known as the lottery teams. Sure, there are exceptions, like the Oklahoma City Thunder, but let’s see what their cap looks like when Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka and company come off of their very affordable rookie deals. The rest of the time we’re talking about teams like the Los Angeles Lakers, Dallas Mavericks, Orlando Magic, Miami HEAT, Boston Celtics, Chicago Bulls and San Antonio Spurs – teams who treat that $58 million number as if it doesn’t exist.

That brings us back around to the question of why a hard cap is good for the NBA and good for the vast majority of its teams. First and foremost, it puts teams like the Milwaukee Bucks, Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, and the 19 other teams who lost money last season back on an even footing with the Mavericks, Lakers and Spurs. Not that it isn’t fun watching the Lakers buy the best team in basketball year after year, but wouldn’t it be nice to see the rest of the teams get some postseason love?

I don’t think I was the only one who was happy to see newcomers like the Memphis Grizzlies and Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA’s Final Four last year. It’s nice to have some new blood once in a while.

That’s what the hard cap is all about. It’s about allowing the Indiana Pacers, who have to sell out four home games to get the same revenue the Lakers get from one home game, to compete on an even playing field with LA.

Whether or not you’re a fan of the Lakers, Pacers, or any other team, that has to be a good thing. It’s good for the game, it’s good for the teams, and it’s great for fans. It will take a major restructuring of almost every team’s salary base to make a hard cap happen, but in this reporter’s opinion it would be well worth the work. What’s more, if every team lived under the salary cap every team in the NBA would be wildly profitable . . .and there would never be another lockout.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-pm-pho...d-in-minnesota

[Joey]

Lol. slaw. Tongue firmly in cheek, is it?

I personally don't think a Hard Cap will fix everything. The teams that choose to only spend $40M are still only going to spend $40M.

One thing I'm not sure on though is, like the NFL, if contracts are made non-guarenteed, then you better expect there to be Performance bonuses. Whats to stop a team thats nearing the Cap, from offering a low-ball contract (that fits the cap), and then offer the rest in Minor Performance Goals? I know the NBA doesn't do that now, but I would expect the players to fight for such things if they end up giving-in on the Hard Cap.

[Joey]

I disagree with the very last line but other than that......




http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-pm-pho...d-in-minnesota

The thing I don't get is.. how is it going to make it so Indiana DOESN'T have to sell out 4 home games to match that off One game in LA? A hardcap doesn't determine what a team charges, what the cities property values are, a teams worth etc. LA is STILL going to make more money than Indiana. Only now they won't be giving it away to other teams because of Tax reasons. They'll be keeping it.

Indiana will still have to pay $70M to have a successful team; as you know Dallas, Orlando, LA etc. will all be straddling/riding on the line; but will still not be making the same amount of money as LA from Media deals, endorsements etc.
Even if Indiana is competitive, it WON'T compete on a Revenue scale with the Big Media darlings.



ADD Nevermind, read it a couple more times. I guess he's saying EVEN IF Indiana can't compete in Revenues it should still be able to compete on the floor. Makes perfect sense.

[mcHAPPY]

The thing I don't get is.. how is it going to make it so Indiana DOESN'T have to sell out 4 home games to match that off One game in LA? A hardcap doesn't determine what a team charges, what the cities property values are, a teams worth etc. LA is STILL going to make more money than Indiana. Only now they won't be giving it away to other teams because of Tax reasons. They'll be keeping it.

Indiana will still have to pay $70M to have a successful team; as you know Dallas, Orlando, LA etc. will all be straddling/riding on the line; but will still not be making the same amount of money as LA from Media deals, endorsements etc.
Even if Indiana is competitive, it WON'T compete on a Revenue scale with the Big Media darlings.

Good points.

I think the owners are trying to get a deal where they won't lose money with good management. That can't be said now.

The luxury tax is not determined by revenues, it is determined by payroll. A team like LA can have a $90M payroll (which is really $110 with luxury tax) and be profitable while a team like Indiana is spending $64M and losing money. A hard cap places all teams on an even footing when it comes to payroll.

LA private television deal is because of their market - much like NY and Chicago, very large. Local TV deals are a monopoly. If Indiana turns in to a top team in the league, they will be a media darling because people tune in to watch the top teams. If the LAL are losing or mediocre, they won't have the same national interest as OKC vs. IND if it is a top of the east versus top of the west match up.

[mcHAPPY]

Here's a question for you all, and this came to me after reading how the agents are leading this PA rebellion against Billy Hunter... The owners are not allowed to talk to the players. In fact Jordan had to avoid Deron Williams at a charity golf outing even though basketball was probably the last thing on their minds while they were out hitting the links and supporting a cause. To take it further, owners aren't even allowed to mention players' names or talk freely about the negotiations period. I'm sure you all have heard about the $100K fine that Jordan got earlier this week for mentioning the negotiations and using Andrew Bogut in an example scenario to explain his view. That said, are the agents free to talk to the players and the owners right now? If they are, then it bring a lot of things into question.

Good timing for this article (not an owner but deputy commissioner Adam Silver involved but it does make some clarifications regardless of whether one agrees or not):

The NBA says its deputy commissioner, Adam Silver, did not violate league rules by attending Thursday's U.S. Open with Casey Wasserman, owner of the largest agency that represents NBA players.

In the months before the NBA locked out its players on July 1, the league sent several memos to its 30 clubs informing them that team owners and employees would be prohibited from speaking with the league's players or anyone affiliated with them. Rule breakers would be fined as much as $1 million.

So the sight of Silver, one of the key figures in the league's ongoing labor meetings, sitting with Wasserman, head of the Wasserman Media Group, at the Open had some agents and executives crying foul.

But league spokesman Mike Bass said any grumblings are off base.

"Our rules prohibit team personnel from having contact with NBA player agents," Bass said. "Casey Wasserman is not an NBA player agent and Adam Silver is not a team employee. There are no issues here."

Wasserman employs Arn Tellem, the league's foremost agent with 34 players earning a combined salary of more than $150 million annually. Tellem is also at the forefront of the push to get the NBA Players Association to decertify.

While many league executives see nothing wrong with Silver and Wasserman associating with one another, some view it as a double standard.

"I think it's (unfair)," one executive said. "If we can't talk to them, they shouldn't be able to talk to them outside of meetings. I can see why people would get angry about it."

Agent Happy Walters, who represents New York Knicks star Amare Stoudemire, agreed. He complained that Stoudemire, who is recovering from a back injury, isn't able to speak with the Knicks trainer yet Silver can hobnob with Wasserman.

"If it's a rule for everybody else it should be a rule for the NBA office," Walters said. "The reason the rule is out there is so that people involved in negotiations from both sides are not discussing it outside of the theater they want to discuss it in, which is the negotiating table. But Silver's getting together with the owner of an agency that controls the most players and also has the most hawkish of all the agents."

Team owners and employees also are not allowed to speak publicly about the lockout or the players. Icon Michael Jordan, owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, was recently fined $100,000, a source said, for discussing the lockout and a player in an Australian newspaper.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/69...1-million-fine

[Apollo]

The Sign and trade concept only works in a system with a soft cap and exceptions, so, yeah, you won't see it cause it's nonsensical in a hard cap system.

Agreed, in no other league does a player prefer to play in a big market or hold out or exploit the system for more money. In the NFL, for example, I can only think of Chris Johnson, Eli Manning, John Elway, Bo Jackson, Walter Jones, Emmit Smith, Cornelius Bennett, JaMarcus Russell, Darrelle Revis, John Riggins, Sean Gilbert, Jerry Rice and Mike Singletary... just a few guys of the top of my head. Have I missed two or three hundred?

But maybe you're right, the NFL is a bad example. I am sure that once the hard cap system is in place great players will flock to teams with capspace just like in the NHL. Just look at all the free agents clamouring to go to Edmonton. I am sure that the Atlanta players grumbling about having to play in Winnipeg (for the exact same money) will quickly learn to love the 'Peg over Atlanta. After all, there's no difference playing in either city now that there's a hard cap.

I never said holdout. I said you don't see players demanding trades hardly ever and when they have it's typically been about them not being properly compensated for their production when compared to others. Contract re-negotiations are fair game in a system where the players have no security.

Further more I said in the NFL, NHL and MLB players make decisions based on money and/or winning. Obviously Edmonton doesn't qualify for one of those two, now don't they?

No system is perfect but I feel it's blatantly obvious that the current one is nowhere near the best one that exists in North America. You're a Raptors fan and so it baffles me why you would be dead set against something that would obviously help them.

FYI, Edmonton is going to be a respected place to play again sometime over the next couple seasons. All teams need to go through rebuild at some point.

[slaw]

One thing I'm not sure on though is, like the NFL, if contracts are made non-guarenteed, then you better expect there to be Performance bonuses. Whats to stop a team thats nearing the Cap, from offering a low-ball contract (that fits the cap), and then offer the rest in Minor Performance Goals? I know the NBA doesn't do that now, but I would expect the players to fight for such things if they end up giving-in on the Hard Cap.

I would suspect bonuses would be included in the annual cap number. I suppose you could pro rate them over the length of the contract, too, but they won't allow bonuses to exceed the cap (or any other type of compensation). Otherwise, the cap is a joke. I agree that teams will try to find ways around the cap but the NBA knows most of the loopholes from the NHL experience and can cap length and term of contracts, which pretty much wipes out any funny business.

Rather than non-guaranteed contracts, I could abide a system where teams could buyout a player's contract at the end of a year with various restrictions. The thing I don't like about non-guaranteed deals is that it rewards poor management and owership and reduces the competitive advantage for teams that make good decisions. It's also fundamentally bad-faith dealing on the part of a party to sign a long-term deal knowing it has no intention of honouring it. Or, if you need them, then have non-guaranteed deals and at the end of each year the player can opt out if he wants. The owners claim they just want fairness and equity for all, so they certianly couldn't object to something so fair and equitable. Right?