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

[GarbageTime]

I actually like the rookie scale. I think back to when there was no scale and the contracts being given without ever proving a thing at the pro level was ridiculous - and players holding out as well. If a player is good enough, they'll get the contract they deserve in due time. One could argue the system currently rewards those who do not perform, as well. Adam Morrison would have made around $20M in his stellar career on the bench.

agree. Letting rookies work out their own deals with teams is just asking for overpriced contracts out the wazoo. The great rookies who are good enough to 'deserve' a better contract will get it eventually, and can likely make up the difference in endorsement deals anyways. Would love to see how much Lebron made before he even step on the court. Or Blake Griffon since the start of the season.

[Apollo]

I actually like the rookie scale. I think back to when there was no scale and the contracts being given without ever proving a thing at the pro level was ridiculous - and players holding out as well. If a player is good enough, they'll get the contract they deserve in due time. One could argue the system currently rewards those who do not perform, as well. Adam Morrison would have made around $20M in his stellar career on the bench.

One could argue that in a hard cap system with no guaranteed money is it really a risk for teams to negotiate rookie deals?

agree. Letting rookies work out their own deals with teams is just asking for overpriced contracts out the wazoo. The great rookies who are good enough to 'deserve' a better contract will get it eventually, and can likely make up the difference in endorsement deals anyways. Would love to see how much Lebron made before he even step on the court. Or Blake Griffon since the start of the season.

Yet it doesn't happen often in the NFL draft when you get outside the top picks.

[mcHAPPY]

One could argue that in a hard cap system with no guaranteed money is it really a risk for teams to negotiate rookie deals?

If no guaranteed deals, sure, why not.

However I am not 100% in agreement with non-guaranteed deals. I would like a situation for all players similar to the rookie scale where the team has until a set date to make the contract guaranteed for the following year. It would give players incentive to work to the best of their abilities. A team that cut a player for more financial reasons rather than production would certainly find another team if the cut date was in line with the start of free agency period. Injuries would have to be treated differently - what the answer is there, I am not quite sure.

[slaw]

The lack of ability to house a deep team is being overrated in my opinion. Every team has their own core they're going to have to pay for and worry about keeping underneath the hard cap. I think you'll see contracts of those who aren't stars reduce tremendously. People like to use Oklahoma City as an example of a team that will fall apart but I'll argue that really there are only two stars on that club and then a large group of quality role players. In a hard cap system teams won't be able to afford to overpay for role players to any level close to the past. For that reason alone you probably won't see bidding wars for role players. Center will probably still be valued higher due to supply but they will see a pay cut too.

This flies in the face of everything we have learned about pro sports over the last 25 years. OKC will fall apart because some team that is well below the cap and needs to sign players will pay Serge Ibaka $10mm/season and Harden $6 or $7. Everyone will say they are bad contracts and make no sense but it won't matter to OKC, which will need to sign Joey Dorsey and Joey Graham to replace them. It isn't like this is speculative. Look at the NHL. Look at the NFL.

Come on. We all know what will happen the second a new CBA is singed. Owners/GMs will do everything in their power to circumvent the rules and will hand out ludicrous contracts. Then they will complain in 5 years that the system doesn't work and they can't make money. A hard salary cap, unguaranteed contracts - won't change anything. As GT pointed out above, the well-run teams will be well-run, the crappy teams and and bad markets will struggle, and one or two players will dominate the league. Just like it's always been.

[mcHAPPY]

This flies in the face of everything we have learned about pro sports over the last 25 years. OKC will fall apart because some team that is well below the cap and needs to sign players will pay Serge Ibaka $10mm/season and Harden $6 or $7. Everyone will say they are bad contracts and make no sense but it won't matter to OKC, which will need to sign Joey Dorsey and Joey Graham to replace them. It isn't like this is speculative. Look at the NHL. Look at the NFL.

Come on. We all know what will happen the second a new CBA is singed. Owners/GMs will do everything in their power to circumvent the rules and will hand out ludicrous contracts. Then they will complain in 5 years that the system doesn't work and they can't make money. A hard salary cap, unguaranteed contracts - won't change anything. As GT pointed out above, the well-run teams will be well-run, the crappy teams and and bad markets will struggle, and one or two players will dominate the league. Just like it's always been.

I agree with most of what you said.

The concern I have is the bad market comment. What is a bad market? For me that is the point of this CBA. Make a contract where a team is not going to be hindered in the ability to put a winning product on the court based on their geographical location or any other factor that may cause it to be a 'bad market'.

[Apollo]

Not true. Some teams can't spend with the big boys. It's impossible for them to legitimately contend for titles no matter who is in charge. I don't agree with your ultra pessimistic opinion on this. A hard cap is a brick wall, not a wet napkin. What will happen is that well run teams will continue to be well run teams but instead of only those who have the support of owners with deep pockets being able to compete for championships, all of them will be able to compete for championships. The poorly run teams will still be run poorly but at least those who could throw money at problems in the past will go away and make room for those clubs more deserving of playoff revenues.

As for Harden and Ibaka, I don't entirely disagree. I think Ibaka will be a prized FA but that doesn't mean he'll ever get to free agency in a hard cap system. Being able to renegotiate contracts at any time and there being such a thing as a franchise tag will really help teams like the Thunder:

• Contract renegotiation can be used to extend guys like Ibaka long before FA opens up.
• Contract renegotiation can be used to restructure other player's contract to make room for guys like Ibaka
• Franchise tags can be used to block players like Ibaka from hitting the open market.

As for Harden, maybe but that's not as big a shock to the system. The Thunder have superb scouting and decision making when it comes to prospects. Teams like the Thunder should continue to get good prospects and so they're actually more likely to be good for the long haul. Teams who are short sighted enough to spend $7M on role players like James Harden will be going against the new current and will eventually change their strategies to a new age philosophy shared by almost all successful teams in the NFL and up and coming teams in the NHL. That philosophy is franchise growth through the draft and prospect development.

[Apollo]

Amnesty Clause

Two NBA sources told me Tuesday that they believe there's consensus among owners on a few important lockout issues. One of those issues being an amnesty clause that would give NBA teams the ability to release one player, pay his salary, take no luxury tax liability, and also, not have that player count against the season salary cap.

This is different than the last round of amnesty, which didn't give the cap relief. And if true, it would likely allow Portland to strongly consider releasing three-time All-Star Brandon Roy, creating an additional $15 million in cap relief next season. Which is only to say, the Blazers need a general manager in the chair now, as this develops, if they're going to fully maximize the advantages of making such a powerful play.

Who knows when the lockout will end. But when it does, free agency will be a free-for-all waged in short time period, as recently happened in the NFL. Teams have to be ready to move fast. That's especially true for Portland, which faces some difficult decisions involving high-profile players.

Source: Oregonlive.com

[GarbageTime]

Two NBA sources told me Tuesday that they believe there's consensus among owners on a few important lockout issues. One of those issues being an amnesty clause that would give NBA teams the ability to release one player, pay his salary, take no luxury tax liability, and also, not have that player count against the season salary cap.

This is different than the last round of amnesty, which didn't give the cap relief. And if true, it would likely allow Portland to strongly consider releasing three-time All-Star Brandon Roy, creating an additional $15 million in cap relief next season. Which is only to say, the Blazers need a general manager in the chair now, as this develops, if they're going to fully maximize the advantages of making such a powerful play.

few things I know:

1) owners are looking for both a short and long term return to profitability

2) if a hard cap is put into place, amnesty is going to be close to a necessity to allow teams to work within the hard cap.


But, using Portland as the example, if they use Roy's contract under the amnesty clause and replace it with another (or other) contract(s), they are still going to be paying more in total salaries than before.

So if they were paying 60 mil (just a guess), they cut Roy's at 15 (but they still have to pay it) then replace it with others at a total of 15 mil... they are now paying 75 mil in contracts.

That sure as heck doesn't look like any short term relief...... (mind you it doesn't mean all teams will do this, and the shorter the contract the more effective it will be)

The teams that would benifit from this are those already paying into the soft cap since as they will save on luxury taxes to the league but these teams tend to already be the profitable teams (although not always). In fact it would mean less tax money to be distributed to the poor teams in the short term.

Its stuff like this that makes me question how honest the owners are really being.

free agency will be a free-for-all waged in short time period

excellent. Because that often leads to fair market values...........

[Apollo]

the ability to release one player, pay his salary, take no luxury tax liability, and also, not have that player count against the season salary cap.

This leads me to believe that they won't be required to replace his contractual value with that of other players. It makes sense too seeing how the writer describes it as the Blazers being required to pay Roy his entire contract. The PA isn't taking a hit that way. Their guy is getting all that was financially promised.

The teams that would benifit from this are those already paying into the soft cap since as they will save on luxury taxes to the league but these teams tend to already be the profitable teams (although not always). In fact it would mean less tax money to be distributed to the poor teams in the short term.

Maybe those poor teams wouldn't be poor if they didn't have to take crazy gambles in hopes of being successful? Not to mention that they probably would not need handouts if expenses were lower and gate numbers were up because suddenly fielding a playoff team wasn't, in almost all cases, directly linked to spending over the cap

We're not talking medical science here. It's not taboo to talk about treating the cause rather than prescribing multiple bottles of expensive drugs which help to hide the problem for a short period of time.

excellent. Because that often leads to fair market values...........

So what do you propose they do? Tell those without contracts they're not allowed back into the league? They could make a waiting list and everybody could take a number. Then each year the league can allow so many back in. Sure, they'll lose lots of money but at least they'll get a market value that seems fair to us guys sitting on the sideline.

[GarbageTime]

Maybe those poor teams wouldn't be poor if they didn't have to take crazy gambles in hopes of being successful? Not to mention that they probably would not need handouts if expenses were lower and gate numbers were up because suddenly fielding a playoff team wasn't, in almost all cases, directly linked to spending over the cap

We're not talking medical science here. It's not taboo to talk about treating the cause, rather than prescribing multiple bottles of expensive drugs.

hey I don't disagree with that at all... but then really the fault of this entire situation falls almost squarely on the shoulders of the owners, so why should they have a right to force the players to clean it up for them? ?

Its like I said yesterday, a hard cap is just protection of the owners against each other. It really has little to do with the players... mind you the results inevitably will.

[Apollo]

They're not forcing the players to clean it up for them. They're cleaning it up themselves. The players are the ones holding up the process. The hard cap does protect the players because it protects the business. Yeah, they're going to take a big hit but at least they save a bunch of jobs. Here you have a bunch of guys with an average salary of roughly $5M/yr and they're kicking and screaming about falling into line with two other major PA's who have already signed onto a similar philosophy and who are still prospering. You can spin it however you like but America has changed. Prices on commodities are shooting up, unemployment is over 20% and the future seems more bleak than present day. Times change, time for the players to grow up. It's blatantly obvious they're going to take a shave. I think it's a matter of do they want to lose their salary for a year to end up facing the same fate regardless?

[GarbageTime]

So what do you propose they do? Tell those without contracts they're not allowed back into the league? They could make a waiting list and everybody could take a number. Then each year the league can allow so many back in. Sure, they'll lose lots of money but at least they'll get a market value that seems fair to us guys sitting on the sideline.

Theoretically I would propose they clean up their own mess. But that won't happen because, LA and NY and whoever else is gonna keep spending $ driving up prices for everyone else making the mess just as big if not bigger.

They could always just implement the hard cap and the teams that are over just have to deal with it (ie. they are allowed to be over until their current contracts run out).... but I doubt LA and Dallas and whoever else goes for that.

I prefer the soft cap (no expections except perhaps to long term injuries) with a huge luxury hit (4x salary in luxuries) and all teams over that soft cap right now start paying the luxury. Hell even donate that luxury money to a charity for the first year or two

[GarbageTime]

They're not forcing the players to clean it up for them. They're cleaning it up themselves. The players are the ones holding up the process. The hard cap does protect the players because it protects the business. Yeah, they're going to take a big hit but at least they save a bunch of jobs. Here you have a bunch of guys with an average salary of roughly $5M/yr and they're kicking and screaming about falling into line with two other major PA's who have already signed onto a similar philosophy and who are still prospering. You can spin it however you like but America has changed. Prices on commodities are shooting up, unemployment is over 20% and the future seems more bleak than present day. Times change, time for the players to grow up.

I'm not spinning anything. I am neither for union nor for management in this. I don't trust either side is telling the whole truth and they are both asking for more than they need.

And yes the hard cap has worked great for hockey, who still has teams on the brink of folding, league ownership of teams and owners looking to sell without buyers in sight. Those same owners (who blamed salaries as the problem) kept giving out 100 mil dollar deals but just stretched them out of 10 - 20 years instead. Obviously such a great solution for them.....

For every bad contract that is hurting a team there is an owner behind it who offered it aswell.... yet what exactly is their sacrifice to fixing this mess?

[Apollo]

Time for my yearly basketball rant...

I'd love for them to bring in revenue sharing, but that's not the most important thing in all this. They need a system that allows every team an equal chance to compete for a championship. That's the most fair outcome for the fans. Owners and players are all rich, if they're intelligent they'll all be fine no matter what the final agreement is. I care about the sport I love to watch. I want to see it stay strong and healthy for my kids to enjoy and their kids to enjoy. Through that time I want a product where I know the team I cheer for has just as much chance at a ring as the Lakers or the Heat or the Spurs or whoever. I want to be able to know that if they're knocked out it was solely because of management's doing and not have to wonder what would have happened if they could have been able to spend $30M more like the Mavs can. One of the main reasons the NFL is so popular is because everyone has a chance. The Bengals stink and they have stunk for most of their existence but they've always tried to get out of that mediocrity. They've always been on even playing ground with the rest of the league. Their fans know this and because of it there was always hope. Because there was always hope they sold out 57 consecutive games and that streak only ended recently. That's almost four entire seasons of selling out the house while being mediocre. You don't see that in the NBA. Why? Because when Michael Redd is eating up like 20% of the cap to watch the games in a suit and you know your ownership can't afford to throw dollars around like Buss or Dolan or Cuban then what's the point in caring? I've seen enough miserable basketball to last me a lifetime. I'm sick of watching the team I cheer for improve long enough to get get shoved back down into the abyss, a victim of this stupid system that alienates the fans of almost half the league yearly. The current CBA is big stinking pile of crap and so I say to hell with the players and their ridiculous excessive lifestyles. The fastest way to this thing getting on track is a hard cap. You can't fix it all in one day but you sure as hell should value the foundation as a higher priority than the shingles. Sign it for five years and if economic times are better (not likely) then the players can start clawing back some.

I'm not spinning anything. I am neither for union nor for management in this. I don't trust either side is telling the whole truth and they are both asking for more than they need.

And yes the hard cap has worked great for hockey, who still has teams on the brink of folding, league ownership of teams and owners looking to sell without buyers in sight. Those same owners (who blamed salaries as the problem) kept giving out 100 mil dollar deals but just stretched them out of 10 - 20 years instead. Obviously such a great solution for them.....

For every bad contract that is hurting a team there is an owner behind it who offered it aswell.... yet what exactly is their sacrifice to fixing this mess?

Hockey is not a nationwide part of the culture in the U.S. like basketball is. Hockey has always trailed the other sports. The hard cap has helped most teams and the majority aren't handing out those sorts of contracts like you're suggesting. The NHL's current system is far more stable than the old system. With prices exploding, with unemployment exploding and with the federal government basically declaring financial war on the middle class, which sport do you think will naturally be on the chopping block for most American families?

[slaw]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...r_talks_092211

This raises something I have wondered about and presents some danger to the owners. If the union simply caves and gives the owners everything they want then a basic question comes to mind: what the hell is the point of the union? If the players must concede to all the owners' demands under the current system, then what is the benefit of the current system? Maybe the players are just all better off as free agents where Lebron can demand $50 million/year and 5% of the team.

The risk of the unknown is one reason the owners might move off a hard cap. We all know the owners don't care about parity or competitive balance (that's just to placate the fans) but money. Give up enough money and the owners will make it work. This is why I believe the players need to let go the sword of damacles (decertification) cause it will bring the owners to the table for serious discussions and we can start playing again.