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

[hpantazo]

If the owners do cut salaries dramatically, at what point will players start moving to Europe? Childress makes 6 million a year in Greece.

So I doubt it will go down this much. I think hard caps and contracts that are non guaranteed after a number of years are more likely to be implemented than radical salary changes.

If players did start going to Europe en masse, the money would dry up quickly.  They have enough money to cherrypick guys and give them big money, but they do not have the money over there to start throwing big money at multiple players.  There really are only a few teams with the money to even lure NBA role players over, so if they starting trying to pay stars, it won't work in the longrun.

Maybe not, but if the max the NBA can offer is, say 7 million, Im sure that there would be enough money to lure at least a couple of borderline stars. And we would have even more Euro players reluctant to come over.

Top stars will not go.  Most of their money comes from advertising.  Advertising wants them in the NBA where they get the exposier these compainies want. 


How many of Childress' games have been televised in the US?

there is a whole world of advertising $$ outside the U.S. Also, if enough stars go over to europe, the revenue of those teams will skyrocket and so will the amount of money they can offer to get more NBA players to come over. European teams are not in some 3rd world country, they are in a very successful market and the popularity of basketball may be higher there than in the U.S., where it takes a backseat to both baseball and football.

[Who]

Drastic lowering of salaries sounds like a fantasy ... can't see it happening.

I would like to see player's max salaries lowered though. Make the max 20% (years 0-6), 25% (years 6-10), 20% (years 11+). Have no increases on those contracts to avoid player's earning far more than the max in later years of their contracts.

Try to allow teams to build more balanced squads. Get their top players more help.

[sk7326]

If the owners do cut salaries dramatically, at what point will players start moving to Europe? Childress makes 6 million a year in Greece.

So I doubt it will go down this much. I think hard caps and contracts that are non guaranteed after a number of years are more likely to be implemented than radical salary changes.

If players did start going to Europe en masse, the money would dry up quickly.  They have enough money to cherrypick guys and give them big money, but they do not have the money over there to start throwing big money at multiple players.  There really are only a few teams with the money to even lure NBA role players over, so if they starting trying to pay stars, it won't work in the longrun.

Maybe not, but if the max the NBA can offer is, say 7 million, Im sure that there would be enough money to lure at least a couple of borderline stars. And we would have even more Euro players reluctant to come over.

Top stars will not go.  Most of their money comes from advertising.  Advertising wants them in the NBA where they get the exposier these compainies want. 


How many of Childress' games have been televised in the US?

Getting veterans to Europe is one thing - and probably unlikely.  Getting pre-college guys to go is more likely - especially after Brandon Jennings.  Sure he was frustrated and the system is very seniority based, but it did humble him - and the results for his development and ability to contribute right away are clear.

For Childress it made sense.  The Hawks were not playing especially fair with him, he had few options and Olympiakos paid well.  Childress went to Stanford - so he probably had enough exposure to study abroad kids and stuff to actually be able to adjust to the culture change better than other players.  And it is not like Childress was a candidate for Nike ads.

[slamdunk]

I think the league should look at contraction. With less teams vying for talent the price for players would go down. It would also improve the quality of the game.

[Fan from VT]

I am a union guy and I support the players' right to get fair compensation. But a strike or work stoppage would just crush my spirit.

Game night is the only time I get to control the TV. If I have to spend next winter watching crime shows and hospital dramas, I may end up being the subject of one of their episodes.

There's unions and then there's unions.  A union has its place when it's fighting for fair wages, standard benefits, some job security and safe working environments. 
A union of multi-millionaires that play a game for a living is a whole other thing.  I just have a lot of difficulty feeling sympathy for someone making that kind of money to essentially have fun and not really work.  These guys aren't working in coal mines and are essentially working, on a yearly average, less than what, 2 hours a day if that, which includes practice session and actual time on the court?  Throw in meal stipends during the season and private jets to travel in comfort.

Sorry, not much sympathy for them.  Not saying they shouldn't get a fair cut of the profits, but I'm of the feeling that the product is way overpriced for the average fan currently and that ticket, concession and merchandise fees should come down to a level affordable to the average fan.

Yeah, a union's "greed" versus the employer's "greed" is relative to the value of the commodity, which is determined by how much people/tv companies are willing to pay to consume the commodity.

For teachers, funded by taxes, they must consider in their negotiations the relative requirements of their jobs compared to the general population in which they serve as well as the means of their job.

It's similar in pro sports, just a much bigger pie for fewer people. As Roy pointed out, that money is in the sport; clearly if owner's are losing money it's either
1. They're incompetent, and there needs to be a better mechanism for removing them or
2. The players are making too big a pie slice. or
3. There are too many teams and it's a watered down product.

Ideally, the NBA as a league would get what it can from TV/gates, cover their operating expenses, then, with what's left over, have a set percentage go to the players. Salaries would be based on expected earnings with an escrow for over/under estimates of league income. Of course, I don't trust any of these owners one iota, and i'm sure if this were the case they'd hide money, cook the books, and create B.S. jobs as part of the "operating expenses." However, there may be a way to have very open oversight since leagues only exist due to anti-trust exemptions which the gov. could easily threaten to remove to get some transparency.


Regardless, if I were CBA czar today (I may change my mind), here's what I would probably create, trying to keep in mind the fans, owners, and players. First, you should know I naturally have very little sympathy for owners; I see them as extremely wealthy people who wanted the rush of owning a team and immediately lost whatever business savvy they had that enabled them to get into it in the first place. If you can run a business well enough to make enough money to buy a team, you should be able to run a team ok. The second thing is that I hate the amount of parity in football. the coin-flip aspect of season to season ruins it for me. I want chances for great teams to really keep themselves together and something conducive to player continuity. I also hate the other extreme, baseball. It's ridiculous that one team could spend, on three players, the entire payroll of other teams. That is also boring. Ideally, you'd want some type of system that enabled a team to rebuild well while also allowing great teams to stay great; competitive greatness is much more fun to watch than mediocre parity (football). That said:

1. Remove one team option year from the rookie contract system. A concession for players since they get their pay-raise more quickly. After 3 years you're an RFA; after 4, if no extension, you're a UFA. However, definitely KEEP slotted salaries.

2. 5 year max contracts across the board, whether it's your own FA or another FA. However, for your own FA, you could offer maybe 5% more at year one and maybe 2.5% greater raises per year, like now I believe.

2b. However, here's the twist. only 2 years are fully guaranteed. After 2 years, EITHER the player OR the team can void the contract for something like 25% of the remaining money on the deal. This would ensure that players aren't cut to really penny pinch (i.e. the team REALLY regrets the signing) and also that players aren't voiding willy nilly (i.e. a player had better be REALLY sure he's going to get a bigger raise elsewhere). Rookie contracts can't be bought out in this manner. Additionally, a player's bought out salary does not count against the cap; a team buying out a contract can pro-rate it (i.e. take a 1 million cap hit each of the next three years) or can pay an additional 25% tax to the league luxury tax pool to take a 1 year hit of 3 million if they want in on the next offseason (so they'd pay the player 3 mill to get rid of the contract and .75 mil to the league to get no cap hit next offseason).

Example 1: Kendrick Perkins signs a 5 year, 20 million dollar deal without raises, that pays him 4 per year. In his first year, he's a 10/10 machine and 2nd team all-defense. It's clear he should make more. Same thing in year two. Year three rolls around, and he has to think: I could pay the Celtics 3 million dollars (.25 x 12 million remaining) to void my contract. I'm making 4 million now. Will someone pay me AT LEAST 5 million per year to make it worth my while to move and go through this process? In this case, probably so. However, what if he were making 6 mil per year, but he was worth 7 on the open market. would he give back 6 years at 18 million by paying about 4.5 million to make 7 million a year and have to move? probably not.
Clearly, there'd also be some player-team negotiations to find a happy compromise if necessary.

Example2.
Philly signs Brand to a 5 year 60 million dollar contract, without raises (12 mil per). They REALLY regret it, and could be free agent players in 2 years. So, after 2 years, they pay Brand 9 million dollars to get rid of the last three years, and also pay 2.25 mil to the league to take it in a one year hit so they have full cap room next offseason.

Edit: The percentage may have to be a little higher to really be effective, but that's the idea. In general, you want players and teams to be able to get out of very over or underpaying contracts, but you want them to be quite bad or quite favorable, not have it be about a few hundred K.


3. Keep the soft cap/125% Trade rule. I like it, it allows trades to happen and ensures a team won't have to get rid of a player it doesn't want to.


4. Pretend the cap is 55 million. I'd make sure the minimum salary is 50 million total per team. If you can't afford to pay that, your team needs to fold. If you go below that, you need to pay dollar for dollar to the league. Sam for a luxury tax of about 65 million. Dollar for Dollar. Any team operating between 50 and 65 million payroll gets the payout.


5. League pays all taxes. Pretty simple, really. League pools a portion of the TV money, figures out approximately what the players are going to be making in each state, and pays that out. A little escrow account should take care of fluctuations. Since we're tightening up on salaries here, I want to eliminate loopholes; this way a player can't consider that he'll take home 10% more in Florida than another state. Doesn't matter. Your contract amount is what it is; a 10 million dollar deal in Boston is a 10 million dollar deal in Florida. (Well, a 10 million dollar deal NOW in Boston or Florida would be like a 6 million dollar deal in Boston or Florida; but the idea is that taxes are paid for so that some teams don't have a competitive loop hole).


I guess that's it for now. I'll post more if i think of it.

[Brickowski]

All the owners would like to go to the NFL system but I doubt if it will happen.  There is no easy solution; there rarely is when the pie is shrinking.

The saddest thing is, the people hurt most by a strike or lockout are not the owners and the players.  It is the vendors, the arena maintenance staff, the team marking people, the pubs and restaurants near the arenas and all of the other "little people" and small businesses whose livelihood depends at least in part on the NBA.

[dlpin]

Top stars will not go.  Most of their money comes from advertising.  Advertising wants them in the NBA where they get the exposier these compainies want. 


How many of Childress' games have been televised in the US?

Which is why I said borderline stars. Players like Josh Smith, Al Horford, David Lee, and good euro and South American players like Rudy, Marc Gasol and Scola would certainly see more in terms of advertising over there, and if there is a massive pay cut over here (and anything over 10-15% is a massive pay cut) the salary discrepancy wouldn't be as large.

Childress signed a nike contract over there, so for mid level players to borderline stars, I think there is a lot more money to be had over there than in the US.


And let's not forget that salary restrictions currently in place are already having a similar impact: look at how many Euro players are reluctant to come over and play for the rookie scale these days.

Point being, I think the owners will not shoot themselves in the foot regarding this. A few mid level to borderline stars leaving will probably not affect the NBA's viewership in the US, but it can have a significant impact abroad.

I think it is far more likely that they make contracts partially non guaranteed. Even then it's doubtful. Owners may have a lot of power vis a vis players, but what about other owners? Will the owners of small teams that profit from the excesses of the top teams go for this?

[sk7326]

I think the league should look at contraction. With less teams vying for talent the price for players would go down. It would also improve the quality of the game.

Contraction implies reducing jobs.  The quality of play has not really been an issue since 2002 or so - there are more talented basketball players out there now than ever before.  

The league really should look at franchise relocation and removing territorial restrictions.  New York could easily support a third team for instance.  

[sk7326]

The salary cap seems like an instrument for parity and in the NFL it makes some sense where the main revenue source (national TV) is in fact central.  But really it is a transfer of wealth to owners - pure and simple.  What other business do owners whine about cost certainty - they need labor to be fairly priced, as if they don't have negotiating power?  Come on now.  But let's assume the salary cap is here to stay - it does make markets attractive to players that would not otherwise be attractive.  A couple of basic things that make sense.

- Lift all restrictions on free agent deals.  Think about it.  Does LeBron James theoretically making $40 million of a teams $60 million cap REALLY bother anybody?  The problem with the max salary is that there is no way to differentiate the very best with the very good.  LeBron is more valuable than Amare, and the idea they both might be in the same tax bracket is frankly offensive.  And if a team wants to put 50% of its payroll into one guy, that is their problem.  Frankly in the case of the Cavs where LeBron is their entire revenue source - it would probably be a discount.

- Relax the luxury tax to how baseball does it.  A one year offender pays 25% per dollar over the threshold, a consecutive year offender 50% and a three or more year offender 100%.  This rewards teams for going for it while still keeping the principle in place.

- Rookies are free agents after 4 years.  But I'd take a baseball idea here as an outside the box pro-labor thing to do.

- An NBA Rule V sort of draft in August.  Who would be eligible?  Any player with 2 years of experience who has played fewer than 1000 minutes combined at the NBA level (50 games, 20 minutes a game) can be drafted by another team.  The acquiring team must have a contract available (i.e. less than 15 guaranteed roster spots filled) and the contract is guaranteed for the season at 125% of the previous season's salary.  The draft is by reverse order and the picks are tradeable.  This prevents teams from burying players and gives enterprising teams another means of getting young talent.
 

[PLamb]

I think where the owners are going to strive for cuts are in the percentage of monies being handed over to the players via setting the salary cap as a percentage of the BRI(Basketball Related Income) and the percentage of the salary cap a max contract can be

Right now those numbers are that the salary cap is set as 51% of the BRI and that players with 0-6 years experience max out at 25% of the salary cap, players with 7-9 years experience max out at 30% of the cap and players with 10 or more years experience max out at 35% of the salary cap

I think the numbers the owners will strive for will be the salary cap being set at somewhere arounf 49.5% of the BRI and for players with 0-6 years experience maxing out at 20% of the salary cap, players with 7-9 years experience maxing out at 22.5% of the salary cap and players with 10 years or more experience maxing out at 25% of the salary cap

That of course will cause all salaries, like they are now to be set based on the total BRI but if this were done for this year the effect on salaries would be thus:

The salary cap would have been set at $56 million instead of $57.7 million
The max salary for players with 0-6 years experience would have been $11.2 million instead of $13.5205 million
The max salary for players with 7-9 years experience would have been $12.6 million instead of $16.224 million
The max salary for players with 10+ years experience would have been $14 million instead of $18.928 million

The numbers on the the percentage scale doesn't look like much but as can be seen, they break down to a significant amount of money on the individual player's end