NBA Owner: In next CBA, Amare only worth $5-6 million per year

[PLamb]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/12604/cba-negotiations-could-get-ugly

Chris Broussard, usually a pretty reliable source of credible NBA information wrote this in his latest TreuHoop blog:




In conversations with front-office executives Tuesday night, I was told some strong stuff regarding the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement. As you probably know, the current CBA will end after the 2010-2011 season.

The gist of what I was told is that the owners will go for the jugular and drop the players’ salaries immensely.

I spoke with one executive about Amare Stoudemire and was told that, the way owners are talking now, Stoudemire wouldn’t even get a five-year contract worth $60 million under the next CBA. That sounded crazy to me, but when I spoke with a team owner an hour later, he made the executive sound tame.

“The owners are really going to chop the money down,’’ the owner said. “I think Stoudemire would get $5 or $6 million [annually] in the next deal. The bottom line is that things are going to change dramatically.’’

Five to six million dollars for a five-time All-Star in his prime? That sounds cruel compared with the players’ current salaries, so cruel that I just don’t believe it. A general manager I spoke with later agreed that that was an extreme.

“That [$5 million for Stoudemire] sounds a little bizarre, but player salaries are definitely going to take a hit,’’ the GM said. “Players that come up for contracts under the new CBA are going to find themselves getting a lot less money.’’



It looks as if there is going to be some major hard ball played by the owners with an attempt at a massive decline in the money going to players salaries and also an attempt at lower the max length of a contract as well as the amount of guaranteed years in those contracts to start with

If that's what the owners are looking for, watch out, a very, very long lockout could be in the future of the NBA

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't see any circumstance when an all-star big man only makes $5 to $6 million per season.  Even the NHL pays its stars more than that.

It does show, however, why teams like Golden State and Philadelphia are reportedly trying to move their long-term deals.  Unless you have a superstar, it doesn't make sense to go 5 or 6 years on a guy.

[Fan from VT]

Mostly I just wish owners weren't idiots. Why do they need so many rules to save themselves from themselves? EVERYONE knew the Brand contract was terrible, for example. Here's a novel idea: offer only what a player is worth! and if they won't sign, call their bluff! Let someone else screw their team over.

[Chris]

I don't see any circumstance when an all-star big man only makes $5 to $6 million per season.  Even the NHL pays its stars more than that.

It does show, however, why teams like Golden State and Philadelphia are reportedly trying to move their long-term deals.  Unless you have a superstar, it doesn't make sense to go 5 or 6 years on a guy.

Well, that is very close to the max in the NHL.  Only the top 10 or so players in the league make more than that, and I wouldn't put Amare in that class.

I think this is an exageration, because I don't see the owners being able to cut things THAT much, but I do see things changing dramatically. 

This is really good example of why I see Danny continuing to be very careful about taking on more money.  He knows things are going to change dramatically after next year, and he is not going to want to tie his hands any more.

[PLamb]

I had to hit giveth one Tommy Point for Chris

I never translated this into current ideas of how Ainge would run his team or his constant, unending insistence that he is going to go into the playoffs with this team and isn't interested in making deals, though I do believe he is listening

While $5-6 million is extremely low for a player of Amare's talent I do believe the owners will attempt to do everything they can to make max contracts in the 4-5 year/$50-$60 million area because under the current system these 5-6 year/$80-100 million dollar contracts are killing team's flexibility if the player proves unable to perform to that level in the first two years of the deal

[Donoghus]

The owners might push for it but the players association will never make that much of a concession.  Its absolutely wishful thinking on the owners' part.  If they go to the bargaining table with that mind set, we're looking down the barrel of another work stoppage.

The players are just going to point to how much money these teams are really pulling it through gate receiptes, merchandise, etc....   The owners are just gonna open their books?

[slamtheking]

Those figures just don't seem realistic -- too much of a pay cut for a top-of-the-line player. 

I can understand the owners cutting the salary levels to save some franchises financially and possibly using a very heavy-penalty luxury tax to help do so but the players will only give in so much.

Personally, if getting the salaries to half of what they are today resulted in a significant cut in ticket prices as well, I'd encourage the owners to take that hard stand and endure the inevitable strike.  Since we know ticket prices will never be cut, I'm less than sympathetic with the owners plight of falling profits and empty-seat arenas.

[PLamb]

I think the owners want huge concessions and will lock out the players for a portion of a season maybe even a very considerable part of a season to get them

For as many teams in the league that show a great profit and attendance there are as many really hurting and not getting people rushing through their gates

This year close to half the teams are below 90% capacity at their home courts and over 25% are below 80% capacity

Attendance in some large metro areas like New jersey, Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta and Washington is poor

[Chris]

The owners might push for it but the players association will never make that much of a concession.  Its absolutely wishful thinking on the owners' part.  If they go to the bargaining table with that mind set, we're looking down the barrel of another work stoppage.

The players are just going to point to how much money these teams are really pulling it through gate receiptes, merchandise, etc....   The owners are just gonna open their books?

Oh, I absolutely think there will be a work stoppage.  But I also think we will see some dramatic changes to the salary landscape.  These teams are losing money on the whole, and something does need to change.  

Obviously, the $5-6 million for an elite player is an exageration, but I would not be surprised if there are very few players getting contracts more than $10 million per year in the next CBA.  

Remember, the reason why all of these players are free agents this summer is because they purposely signed shorter contracts so they could sign their next deal before the new CBA kicks in.  They knew 4 years ago, well before the fall of the economy, that things were going to change for the worse for elite players.  Now, the economy has fallen apart, and things are looking even worse.  

I think where this could really get interesting for the C's will be with Pierce and Allen.  With Pierce, it could motivate him to opt out, and sign an extension this summer with the fear that if he waits until next year (or whenever the lockout ends), he will end up really hurting his cause, and see his value cut in half.  

And with Allen, it could go 1 of 2 ways.  Either he could get completely frozen out, and forced to take an MLE type deal, because teams do not want to sign any non-elite players for more than the MLE.  Or, he could have a ton of suitors, because he is willing to take a shorter deal than the younger guys.  Better to pay Ray for 2 years, than be stuck with 5 years of Rudy Gay who could be making twice as much as he would have made if he signed a year later.

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't see any circumstance when an all-star big man only makes $5 to $6 million per season.  Even the NHL pays its stars more than that.

It does show, however, why teams like Golden State and Philadelphia are reportedly trying to move their long-term deals.  Unless you have a superstar, it doesn't make sense to go 5 or 6 years on a guy.

Well, that is very close to the max in the NHL.  Only the top 10 or so players in the league make more than that, and I wouldn't put Amare in that class.

The max in the NHL is $11.36 million.  I know that in 2007-08, something like 28 players made over $6 million, and I'm sure those numbers went up last season (I didn't have the time to look for updated numbers).

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2008-03-24-salaries-top-50_N.htm

That being the case, I think it's very unrealistic for an owner to be projecting salaries lower than that -- in a sport that has both more revenue and smaller rosters -- for an all-star player.

[sk7326]

The owners are stupid - clearly the villain in this Dickensian story.  That said they know they can outlast the players because too many players resemble Antoine Walker in handling of money.  I think maximum contract length will come down significantly.  A lot of teams are bleeding money - and so the owners will blame it on the players - and the fans will side with the owners because of the choice of profession players are in.

[Who]

Hate to be a fan of that owner's team. Geesh!

[Donoghus]

The owners might push for it but the players association will never make that much of a concession.  Its absolutely wishful thinking on the owners' part.  If they go to the bargaining table with that mind set, we're looking down the barrel of another work stoppage.

The players are just going to point to how much money these teams are really pulling it through gate receiptes, merchandise, etc....   The owners are just gonna open their books?

Oh, I absolutely think there will be a work stoppage.  But I also think we will see some dramatic changes to the salary landscape.  These teams are losing money on the whole, and something does need to change.  

Obviously, the $5-6 million for an elite player is an exageration, but I would not be surprised if there are very few players getting contracts more than $10 million per year in the next CBA.  

Remember, the reason why all of these players are free agents this summer is because they purposely signed shorter contracts so they could sign their next deal before the new CBA kicks in.  They knew 4 years ago, well before the fall of the economy, that things were going to change for the worse for elite players.  Now, the economy has fallen apart, and things are looking even worse.  

I think where this could really get interesting for the C's will be with Pierce and Allen.  With Pierce, it could motivate him to opt out, and sign an extension this summer with the fear that if he waits until next year (or whenever the lockout ends), he will end up really hurting his cause, and see his value cut in half.  

And with Allen, it could go 1 of 2 ways.  Either he could get completely frozen out, and forced to take an MLE type deal, because teams do not want to sign any non-elite players for more than the MLE.  Or, he could have a ton of suitors, because he is willing to take a shorter deal than the younger guys.  Better to pay Ray for 2 years, than be stuck with 5 years of Rudy Gay who could be making twice as much as he would have made if he signed a year later.

A thing I'd love to see but its possiblity would be considered remote at best (and I doubt is being talked about) would be to more align with the current NFL CBA (which itself is in troule).   The problem is that the players would be making huge concessions here and it would certainly be a step backwards in the unions' eyes.  Part of the reason the NFL was able to pull it off back in the day was that the structure beforehand was so pro-owner that the CBA that really changed the complexion ('92, '93 or so) that true free agency alone (albeit non-guaranteed contracts) was a huge victory for the NFLPA.

I agree that there needs to be a sructuring of the CBA.  Its just that once a union has a stranglehold on things, its going to a be a huge pain in the butt to get anything back.  From the sound of it, the owners are looking at extreme concessions here and that's reason enough for almost certain work stoppage down the road.

[Fan from VT]

Here's a thought. Maybe this was taken a little out of context. Maybe this owner is down on Amare as a no-D, underwhelming rebounder. Maybe this owner assumes the new CBA will allow max deals of 12 million or so for Amare's tenure, and that, while in the older NBA, a glitzy offensive all-star would get the max, this guy is saying Amare is worth half-max. probably right. for example, now Amare's max would be around say 18 million; maybe this owner wouldn't take amare unless he could get him for 9 million now. prorated to the new CBA, maybe that's 5-6 with the MLE average being 3-4.


So maybe he's saying Amare is not worth the max (even if the max is lower) which I do agree with; not saying that 5-6 will be the max.

Spending the max on a guy like amare is why owners want CBA reform.

[Donoghus]

Here's a thought. Maybe this was taken a little out of context. Maybe this owner is down on Amare as a no-D, underwhelming rebounder. Maybe this owner assumes the new CBA will allow max deals of 12 million or so for Amare's tenure, and that, while in the older NBA, a glitzy offensive all-star would get the max, this guy is saying Amare is worth half-max. probably right. for example, now Amare's max would be around say 18 million; maybe this owner wouldn't take amare unless he could get him for 9 million now. prorated to the new CBA, maybe that's 5-6 with the MLE average being 3-4.


So maybe he's saying Amare is not worth the max (even if the max is lower) which I do agree with; not saying that 5-6 will be the max.

Spending the max on a guy like amare is why owners want CBA reform.

The problem is that the owners have fed into this problem.  These guys have shown a tendency to waaaaay overpay on talent in the past.  Max level hasn't been that bad but how many times do you read about a guy's contract and just shake your head?