How would you change the CBA?

[scoop]

But non-guaranteed contracts are already allowed by the current CBA, aren't they? 

A minor league is a pipe-dream. D-League teams are losing money; a better minor league would need to be hugely subsidized by the NBA franchises that are already losing money. There is no market in the US for a 2nd professional basketball league able to compete with the top overseas leagues.

[Fan from VT]

Sure, ideal for the owners-- but not for the players.

Ideal for the fans.  I can care less about how many millions the owners or players earn.


I haven't seen too many starving NFL stars.

No, just crippled with dementia and little support system by the age of 50 from a multi billion dollar industry

Would it be any different under another CBA?

Certainly you can't argue players wouldn't be better off if they had fully guaranteed contracts that they could depend on and/or better healthcare insurance built into retirement plans from their CBA.

Really?


Teams filled of bad contracts of players that can no longer play means that new players would not be able to earn more money. 


If a player is good, they will get their money through signing bonuses.  Even fringe players get small amount of bonuses.  Teams can not take that money back because of injury.

I think it needs to go both ways. If a team can cut players without consequence for underperformance, a player should be able to opt out at any moment if they overperform a contract. It's insane to have it one sided.


I love the rookie scale, that should be applied to all sports; the fact that the NFL has the strictest cap of major sports yet the most ridiculous rookie salaries is bizarre.


The players are the commodity. I don't care about the owners at all. If the current players left I'd stop watching and I'd watch wherever league they ended up. It would behoove the league to take care of their players long term (at least while we have employer dependent healthcare...hopefully not for long). I think the NBA has the best system, though it could probably be improved. I like the idea of having luxury tax only and no trade restrictions other than financial considerations. I think sports are better when teams that build a strong core can stay competitive for a long time rather than the all-.500/hot streak for 6 weeks NFL.

Non-guaranteed contracts aren't one-sided; the team has already paid the player a big signing bonus.  If you theoretically wanted to allow a player to opt out of contracts, then the team should be able to seek the guaranteed bonuses paid previously.

of course they're one sided. the team can cut, the player can't opt out.

In the NBA contracts are guaranteed, for better or for worse. A player can get locked into an above market deal and hurt the team. This happens quite a bit; I kind of like it because it rewards smart owners. The owners have no one to blame but themselves for these mistakes.

On the other hand, players can get locked into under-market deals too. We just never hear about them as much. Think about Haywood for the past 5 years, Perk now, Billups for a while, etc. They are locked in just like owners with overpaid players.


The NFL, there's an agreed upon signing bonus, then yearly salaries. If that salary is above market, the owner cuts ties, no prob. If it turns out the salary is below market, the player has no option. I think if there's going to be cuttable contracts, all players should also have a buyout option too. That way there'd only be incentive to end a contract if a player was way above or way below market value.

[hardlyyardley]

The way to minimize "bad" contracts from the players' end is to set a maximum of say three years on any contract

A hard cap such as NFL is less likely to work with guaranteed contracts, but a luxury tax (graduated as in an earlier reply)
would cover it

[slamtheking]

I had a thought at the time of the prior CBA but it's far too radical.

The league throws a set percentage of all income into a player salary pool.  Each player that spends time on a roster gets a set amount per game.  Each player gets the same amount.

At the end of the season, the players divvy up the remaining amount based on whatever criteria they choose.  Have them deal with having to evaluate each other's performance.

In order to prevent absolute chaos, the owners retain the rights to their drafted players (going back to 3 rounds if need be).  This ensures owners cannot lose the rights to their stars, especially for financial reasons.  The only times players can switch teams is either during a trade or if a team chooses to cut their ties with the player and that player becomes a free agent able to join any other team.

Since $ is no longer a road block to keeping players with a team and the retention of good players by their original teams would prevent a super-team  from being developed by the players, the teams would be pressed into developing their drafted talent as well as developing their scouting. 

I'd re-organize the draft to be based on worst record not lottery.  Since players now control who gets paid what, they can penalize a tanking team's players by giving them a slice of the payroll pot that matches the effort they put forth on the court.

Radical I know, but a dream I have to bring balance to the league for all teams and players.

[ToppersBsktball10]

Sure, ideal for the owners-- but not for the players.

Ideal for the fans.  I can care less about how many millions the owners or players earn.


I haven't seen too many starving NFL stars.

No, just crippled with dementia and little support system by the age of 50 from a multi billion dollar industry

What does that have to do with the money they're making? And it's not like they can't retire at any point. Which is why you have to be crazy to play a full NFL career.

[Roy Hobbs]

of course they're one sided. the team can cut, the player can't opt out. . . .

The NFL, there's an agreed upon signing bonus, then yearly salaries. If that salary is above market, the owner cuts ties, no prob. If it turns out the salary is below market, the player has no option. I think if there's going to be cuttable contracts, all players should also have a buyout option too. That way there'd only be incentive to end a contract if a player was way above or way below market value.

The reason players get huge signing bonuses is because owners have the right to cut them later.  Thus, they insist on the signing bonuses up front.  That bonus money is meant to compensate them for their lack of guaranteed money throughout the rest of the contract.  If players had the right to re-negotiate their contracts at any point, then the owners should have the right to get back the money they laid out up front in lieu of guaranteed salaries.

For instance, if a rookie signs a deal with a seven year deal with a $40 million signing bonus, and immediately suffers a career-ending injury in his rookie year, the player essentially pockets that $40 million, and there's nothing the owner can do about it.  On the other hand, if that rookie meets expectations, under the current system they're fairly compensated.

Under your proposed system, that rookie could get his $40 million bonus, have one great year, and then opt out and become a free agent.  That makes no sense to me.  The bonus / non-guaranteed system is a balanced one; giving players the right to opt out would unfairly slant things in the players' favor.

[Fafnir]

of course they're one sided. the team can cut, the player can't opt out. . . .

The NFL, there's an agreed upon signing bonus, then yearly salaries. If that salary is above market, the owner cuts ties, no prob. If it turns out the salary is below market, the player has no option. I think if there's going to be cuttable contracts, all players should also have a buyout option too. That way there'd only be incentive to end a contract if a player was way above or way below market value.

The reason players get huge signing bonuses is because owners have the right to cut them later.  Thus, they insist on the signing bonuses up front.  That bonus money is meant to compensate them for their lack of guaranteed money throughout the rest of the contract.  If players had the right to re-negotiate their contracts at any point, then the owners should have the right to get back the money they laid out up front in lieu of guaranteed salaries.

For instance, if a rookie signs a deal with a seven year deal with a $40 million signing bonus, and immediately suffers a career-ending injury in his rookie year, the player essentially pockets that $40 million, and there's nothing the owner can do about it.  On the other hand, if that rookie meets expectations, under the current system they're fairly compensated.

Under your proposed system, that rookie could get his $40 million bonus, have one great year, and then opt out and become a free agent.  That makes no sense to me.  The bonus / non-guaranteed system is a balanced one; giving players the right to opt out would unfairly slant things in the players' favor.

Besides good players hold out all the time trying to get new deals. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

I think it is very difficult to compare CBA's in different leagues due to the wildly divergent revenue structures. For example, MLB could never have a NFL type CBA/salary cap in that the majority of NFL revenue is national and spread evenly between teams coming from television rights and a revenue sharing based upon that. As such a hard salary cap which is shared by all teams can function to a degree. Though that said, the NFL has enormous problems with its CBA and is looking at the realistic potential of a) the un-capped 2010 season and b) a lockout in 2011 (now, related, I agree that the NFL CBA is incredibly problematic, is unfair to the players ((the growth of signing problems is a poorly applicated band-aid in response to non-guaranteed contracts, not a well thought out system)) and is largely a result of the failures of the NFLPA which HAS treated their retired players horribly, a system they must change).

Similarly, an MLB-style CBA also differs from the NBA though perhaps not as divergnetly as the NFL but is equally problematic. To quote Donald Fehr on the differences between MLB and the NFL:

"In football, two-thirds of the revenue is generated by national sources. One third is generated mostly from gate receipts, and you're only trying to sell out eight games," said Fehr. "In baseball, you're trying to sell out 81 games, most of them are not on Sunday afternoons, a good part of them are during the school year and you're trying to broadcast locally up to 162 games. By definition, it means what you do locally matters much more than it does in football; and by definition, you will see significantly wider spreads. There's nothing you can do about it."

Chiefly, for myself at least, I have found my interest in baseball waning dramatically as the distance between the haves and the have-nots has grown laughably large. It just isn't as fun a sport to watch when you know going into spring training 60 percent of the league has not a chance at making the playoffs, that their players will never stay past their rookie contracts, that some teams have 2 players making more than the payroll of entire other teams. The economics of MLB are messed up horribly and it greatly effects the game in a negative way. As much as I love the Red Sox my interest is severly challenged by the fact their payroll is 5 times as much as other teams in their own division.

So, per the NBA it is very difficult to say let's take a little of this and a little of that because the differing economic situations of the leagues has such a profound effect on how their CBA's are structured. I for one think going to a system that abolished a salary cap would be detrimental to my interest as a fan and to the economic success of the league (which is trouble at the moment, granted). The "soft-cap" of the league now provides a structure that isn't hard, and allows some flexibility, and the luxury tax punishes and deters MLB style rampant spending, which I find to be a good thing. Yes, it is overly complicated but I think changes to the CBA have to be minor ones within this system not a drastic overhaul based on a NFL or MLB system.

These are somewhat general thoughts but I have rambled for some time so will hopefully add some more specific thoughts later.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Sure, ideal for the owners-- but not for the players.

Ideal for the fans.  I can care less about how many millions the owners or players earn.


I haven't seen too many starving NFL stars.

No, just crippled with dementia and little support system by the age of 50 from a multi billion dollar industry

What does that have to do with the money they're making? And it's not like they can't retire at any point. Which is why you have to be crazy to play a full NFL career.

Yes, but as the NFLPA has essentially screwed over their retiree's it isn't so easy to say they can just retire at any point. Because the NFLPA has abandoned the former NFL players with god-awful pensions and atrocious health-care and attention to injuries suffered while playing football there is more pressure to keep on playing and make money while they can and to come back from injuries before they reasonably should while playing out of fear of being cut because contracts aren't guaranteed, etc. etc.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

I had a thought at the time of the prior CBA but it's far too radical.

The league throws a set percentage of all income into a player salary pool.  Each player that spends time on a roster gets a set amount per game.  Each player gets the same amount.

At the end of the season, the players divvy up the remaining amount based on whatever criteria they choose.  Have them deal with having to evaluate each other's performance.

In order to prevent absolute chaos, the owners retain the rights to their drafted players (going back to 3 rounds if need be).  This ensures owners cannot lose the rights to their stars, especially for financial reasons.  The only times players can switch teams is either during a trade or if a team chooses to cut their ties with the player and that player becomes a free agent able to join any other team.

Since $ is no longer a road block to keeping players with a team and the retention of good players by their original teams would prevent a super-team  from being developed by the players, the teams would be pressed into developing their drafted talent as well as developing their scouting. 

I'd re-organize the draft to be based on worst record not lottery.  Since players now control who gets paid what, they can penalize a tanking team's players by giving them a slice of the payroll pot that matches the effort they put forth on the court.

Radical I know, but a dream I have to bring balance to the league for all teams and players.

(and my last of 3 straight posts)

Yes, too radical. That would be the dissolution of the NBA, though perhaps a new, competing league would spring up, one that has a system much more like the current NBA.

[wdleehi]

Sure, ideal for the owners-- but not for the players.

Ideal for the fans.  I can care less about how many millions the owners or players earn.


I haven't seen too many starving NFL stars.

No, just crippled with dementia and little support system by the age of 50 from a multi billion dollar industry

What does that have to do with the money they're making? And it's not like they can't retire at any point. Which is why you have to be crazy to play a full NFL career.

Yes, but as the NFLPA has essentially screwed over their retiree's it isn't so easy to say they can just retire at any point. Because the NFLPA has abandoned the former NFL players with god-awful pensions and atrocious health-care and attention to injuries suffered while playing football there is more pressure to keep on playing and make money while they can and to come back from injuries before they reasonably should while playing out of fear of being cut because contracts aren't guaranteed, etc. etc.

The retirement plan has improved for the current players.  It is the real old players that are not being taken care of. 

[slamtheking]

I had a thought at the time of the prior CBA but it's far too radical.

The league throws a set percentage of all income into a player salary pool.  Each player that spends time on a roster gets a set amount per game.  Each player gets the same amount.

At the end of the season, the players divvy up the remaining amount based on whatever criteria they choose.  Have them deal with having to evaluate each other's performance.

In order to prevent absolute chaos, the owners retain the rights to their drafted players (going back to 3 rounds if need be).  This ensures owners cannot lose the rights to their stars, especially for financial reasons.  The only times players can switch teams is either during a trade or if a team chooses to cut their ties with the player and that player becomes a free agent able to join any other team.

Since $ is no longer a road block to keeping players with a team and the retention of good players by their original teams would prevent a super-team  from being developed by the players, the teams would be pressed into developing their drafted talent as well as developing their scouting. 

I'd re-organize the draft to be based on worst record not lottery.  Since players now control who gets paid what, they can penalize a tanking team's players by giving them a slice of the payroll pot that matches the effort they put forth on the court.

Radical I know, but a dream I have to bring balance to the league for all teams and players.

(and my last of 3 straight posts)

Yes, too radical. That would be the dissolution of the NBA, though perhaps a new, competing league would spring up, one that has a system much more like the current NBA.

Maybe, maybe not.  If the players are truly in control of the money spent on salaries, it puts the responsibility on their shoulders for fair compensation for the members of their union.

* This would eliminate tanking for higher draft picks due to a commesurate cut in pay at the end of the season. 
* The fanbase could be assured of consistancy in their team's roster and rely on the team's best players to remain with the team and not be traded for financial reasons.  Trades would be based solely on an exchange of talent, not a swap of expensive players for expiring deals. 
* Non-performing players are dropped from rosters with no financial penalties to the team.  A team can truly put their best players on the court.  No more slackers or underperforming players that are on guaranteed contracts and just don't care to put forth the effort any more.  No effort, no $.
* Teams would have the onus of developing their scouting for the best draft results and developing their young players so that they become productive.
* The downside is this puts a premium on coaches playing the best players.  If the players recognize a role player's contributions to a team rather than someone who's just racking up stats to look impressive, this becomes less of an issue---again this puts the onus on the players to determine what's fair compensation for each player.

Radical, sure.  Would a new league spring up because of it?  I doubt it.  The only reason that would happen is if the players are afraid of taking that much responsibility for their financial security. 

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Maybe, maybe not.  If the players are truly in control of the money spent on salaries, it puts the responsibility on their shoulders for fair compensation for the members of their union.

* This would eliminate tanking for higher draft picks due to a commesurate cut in pay at the end of the season. 
* The fanbase could be assured of consistancy in their team's roster and rely on the team's best players to remain with the team and not be traded for financial reasons.  Trades would be based solely on an exchange of talent, not a swap of expensive players for expiring deals. 
* Non-performing players are dropped from rosters with no financial penalties to the team.  A team can truly put their best players on the court.  No more slackers or underperforming players that are on guaranteed contracts and just don't care to put forth the effort any more.  No effort, no $.
* Teams would have the onus of developing their scouting for the best draft results and developing their young players so that they become productive.
* The downside is this puts a premium on coaches playing the best players.  If the players recognize a role player's contributions to a team rather than someone who's just racking up stats to look impressive, this becomes less of an issue---again this puts the onus on the players to determine what's fair compensation for each player.

Radical, sure.  Would a new league spring up because of it?  I doubt it.  The only reason that would happen is if the players are afraid of taking that much responsibility for their financial security. 

While I agree with many of the ideas and ideals of this concept it is just impossible in application. In what job, sport or not, can you imagine the workforce successfully deciding at the end of a fiscal year appropriate compensation for all without it disolving into self-serving or personally motivated decisions, just to name two mitigating factors? Now, not to bring in politics, but let me say these are not neccesarily my political opinions but observations of shifting the pay structure in what is a late-capitalist country.

That is just one hypothetical. The reality is that there is a players union that works on the CBA and none of these ideas would ever fly past a leadership charged with looking out for the best rights of their players. Hence if in some moment after the end of the current CBA the league decided to implement these decisions, well, no new CBA is ever reached (as it wouldn't be collectively bargained, ha) and the end of the NBA.

[slamtheking]

Maybe, maybe not.  If the players are truly in control of the money spent on salaries, it puts the responsibility on their shoulders for fair compensation for the members of their union.

* This would eliminate tanking for higher draft picks due to a commesurate cut in pay at the end of the season. 
* The fanbase could be assured of consistancy in their team's roster and rely on the team's best players to remain with the team and not be traded for financial reasons.  Trades would be based solely on an exchange of talent, not a swap of expensive players for expiring deals. 
* Non-performing players are dropped from rosters with no financial penalties to the team.  A team can truly put their best players on the court.  No more slackers or underperforming players that are on guaranteed contracts and just don't care to put forth the effort any more.  No effort, no $.
* Teams would have the onus of developing their scouting for the best draft results and developing their young players so that they become productive.
* The downside is this puts a premium on coaches playing the best players.  If the players recognize a role player's contributions to a team rather than someone who's just racking up stats to look impressive, this becomes less of an issue---again this puts the onus on the players to determine what's fair compensation for each player.

Radical, sure.  Would a new league spring up because of it?  I doubt it.  The only reason that would happen is if the players are afraid of taking that much responsibility for their financial security. 

While I agree with many of the ideas and ideals of this concept it is just impossible in application. In what job, sport or not, can you imagine the workforce successfully deciding at the end of a fiscal year appropriate compensation for all without it disolving into self-serving or personally motivated decisions, just to name two mitigating factors? Now, not to bring in politics, but let me say these are not neccesarily my political opinions but observations of shifting the pay structure in what is a late-capitalist country.

That is just one hypothetical. The reality is that there is a players union that works on the CBA and none of these ideas would ever fly past a leadership charged with looking out for the best rights of their players. Hence if in some moment after the end of the current CBA the league decided to implement these decisions, well, no new CBA is ever reached (as it wouldn't be collectively bargained, ha) and the end of the NBA.

I don't disagree that this concept would cause a commotion in the union but that's not my main concern.  The NBA (and professional sports in general) has a unique work structure where employees (players) are designated to specific "competitive" entities via a draft.  This isn't a free market structure/industry that allows employment candidates to move freeely from job/employer to job/employer.


I don't think this pay structure would ever be implemented but I do think it would lead to more fairness in the league regarding player compensation and competitve play amongst the teams.  Again, the topic of the thread is what we would change in the next CBA.  I know I'm offering up just a fantasy option but that's what I believe would work best for the league.

[nickagneta]

Well now that the Gilbert Arenas gun situation has occurred would anyone be surprised that language is installed in the new collective bargaining agreement that makes it a lot easier to void Uniform Player Contracts?

I won't be.