Ownership to take a hard line on the next CBA

[Roy Hobbs]

When the NBA hands the players' association its first proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement sometime in the next 10 days, the percentage of revenues that the league wants to give to the players will be "well below 50 percent," according to multiple league sources.

The players currently receive 57 percent of basketball-related income, and the union's executive director, Billy Hunter, told SI.com earlier this month that he thought the league was going to offer a 50-50 split.

However, sources confirmed that NBA commissioner David Stern, intent on getting the league's cost structure back in line and positioning teams so they once again can be profitable, will propose that the players get closer to 45 percent of basketball-related income. Moreover, there is a strong chance that Stern will try to redefine exactly what "basketball-related income" is so the financial onus is not so much on owners.

The biggest question the union wants answered is whether the NBA intends to roll out a low proposal at first in order to give the league room to negotiate later, or whether Stern is putting forth low percentages because that is truly what the owners expect to get.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/frank_hughes/01/29/labor.strife/index.html?eref=sihp

[Donoghus]

Going from 57% to 45% is a pretty significant concession. 

Lockout storm clouds on the horizon?  Looks like it.

Let's hope this is negotiable (guessing it will be to an extent).

[Roy Hobbs]

Going from 57% to 45% is a pretty significant concession. 

Lockout storm clouds on the horizon?  Looks like it.

Let's hope this is negotiable (guessing it will be to an extent).

Yeah, maybe they start at 45% hoping to get to 50% - 52%.  It sounds like it's going to be messy, though.

[PLamb]

I figured that the salary cap would fall at about 49% of the BRI

I wonder how much lower that would make that number

[Fan from VT]

Seems like it has to be one or the other. either change what constitutes BRI or change the amount of BRI that goes to players. I'd probably prefer the latter, because it would hold owners more accountable for their own financial dealings.

In other words, I think the owners would prefer BRI be what is taken in after all expenses, including their own salary, a salary for their cousins and brothers, etc. Ideally it would be out of all the money that the league generates as a whole.

[PosImpos]

Though it may lead to a lockout this is almost certainly for the best.

When many borderline role players are making over 3-4 million dollars per year on multi-year deals and half the franchises in the NBA are losing money, it's clear that something needs to change.

I think a max contract should be around $15 million a year and the MLE should be closer to $3.5 million.  The majority of players in the NBA should be making less than $5 million a year, and only true stars should be making more than $10 million.  Most deals should be shorter, too.  Too many franchises getting screwed over by GMs who are either stupid or too willing to let players and their agents have whatever they want.

It shouldn't be so difficult for a franchise to be stable and profitable that only the teams with a history of success and die hard fan bases can manage to stay afloat and not constantly be in salary shedding mode. I'd like to see the main concern of most teams be how to make the team better, not how to squeeze underneath the luxury tax.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ian Thomsen suggests that a "hard" salary cap is very likely:

Four team executives have told me they're anticipating a hard cap on payrolls, which will clamp down on player salaries and prevent big franchises like the Lakers, Knicks and Celtics from outspending teams from smaller markets.

A hard cap would transform the way teams are assembled. Look at the Lakers, whose payroll of $91.4 million has vaulted them a league-leading $33.7 million above the cap. Try this perspective: If the soft-cap system of today was instantly replaced by a hard cap, the Lakers would no longer be able to afford the salaries of Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum, who are their second- and third-most-expensive players with current salaries of $16.5 million and $12.5 million, respectively. And even their disposal wouldn't be enough: The Lakers would need to slash another $4.8 million to climb under the hard cap. (Goodbye, Luke Walton.)

If, in fact, a hard cap is installed after next season, then it will likely be preceded by a transitional system over a short number of years that will enable contenders like the Lakers to keep the likes of Gasol and Bynum without destroying their roster. After all, it would be self-defeating for the NBA to instantly deconstruct the most popular -- and expensive -- payrolls. Maybe some kind of amnesty will enable a few salaries to be grandfathered in until those preexisting contracts expire.

No one knows for sure what kind of system will result from extended negotiations and a potential lockout of the players in July 2011. Some believe (as you'll see below) that the players will avoid a hard cap, or that other more creative solutions will be applied. But let me repeat this much: I asked executives from four teams what they think they'll be dealing with after next season, and all four predicted a hard cap.

"I really think worst case it will be a hard cap that gets phased in over three years," a GM said.

By "worst case," he's implying that the players shouldn't hope for anything better than a three-year transition. Another senior executive predicts an even more draconian transformation, especially if a failure of negotiations results in a lockout. "Our players don't save money," he said, and so he predicts that a few months without income will force the players to cave in and accept the owners' demands, including an instantaneous reduction in salaries similar to the harsh transformation of the NHL, which was able to get its players to concede to a 24 percent pay cut following the season-long lockout of 2004-05.

"If there's going to be a lockout," he said, "then there's a 99 percent chance there is going to be a hard cap."

Link

[RebusRankin]

I think a hard cap and lower salaries are fine, if ticket prices drop as well. I see the Timberwolves once a year (closet team) and got great tickets this year for $60. What's wrong with that?

[Andy Jick]

be prepared for work stoppages in the NBA and NFL...  It's inevitable - owners aren't going to pony up the cash and players aren't going to settle for less.

I'd suggest people here stock up on NBA Hardwood Classics and get a hobby (like reading or video games)... 

[Donoghus]

I like the idea of a hard cap alot.  It would defintely be a big step in the direction of leveling the playing field. 

[Fan from VT]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

[PosImpos]

I think a hard cap and lower salaries are fine, if ticket prices drop as well. I see the Timberwolves once a year (closet team) and got great tickets this year for $60. What's wrong with that?

Yeah, as long as the reduction in costs for the team translates into savings for the fans, then great.

Hard cap seems like a good and bad thing to me.  On one hand, it means a lot more parity in the league - no longer can big market teams dominate just by being able to spend a lot more.  

On the other hand, it means a lot more parity in the league.  That might make the NBA a lot more like the NFL, where any team has a chance to get hot at the right time in the playoffs; in other words, the best team might not always win.  To me parity is just another word for widespread mediocrity.

Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Oh boy, I think you just figured out exactly why David Stern will want a hard cap.  Superstars winning it all single handedly every year is like a marketing wet dream for Stern. 

Teams like the Celtics and Spurs (teams with good coaching and talent spread out over the whole roster) are exactly what Stern doesn't like.  Average NBA fans find teams like that boring.  They just want to see LeBron and Kobe put up 40 points a night.

[dlpin]

I think a hard cap is unlikely. Too many teams benefit from the tax luxury right now for there to be a consensus among owners. I think the owners will most likely only agree on a lower share of income for salaries and non guaranteed contracts (or at least partially non guaranteed contracts).

To get a hard cap, you'd have to get all these teams that only turn a profit after getting money from the tax to go along, and I doubt it will happen.

[Fan from VT]

I think a hard cap and lower salaries are fine, if ticket prices drop as well. I see the Timberwolves once a year (closet team) and got great tickets this year for $60. What's wrong with that?

Yeah, as long as the reduction in costs for the team translates into savings for the fans, then great.

Hard cap seems like a good and bad thing to me.  On one hand, it means a lot more parity in the league - no longer can big market teams dominate just by being able to spend a lot more.  

On the other hand, it means a lot more parity in the league.  That might make the NBA a lot more like the NFL, where any team has a chance to get hot at the right time in the playoffs; in other words, the best team might not always win.  To me parity is just another word for widespread mediocrity.

Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Oh boy, I think you just figured out exactly why David Stern will want a hard cap.  Superstars winning it all single handedly every year is like a marketing wet dream for Stern. 

Teams like the Celtics and Spurs (teams with good coaching and talent spread out over the whole roster) are exactly what Stern doesn't like.  Average NBA fans find teams like that boring.  They just want to see LeBron and Kobe put up 40 points a night.

on the other hand, this could come back and bite Sterny. If there's a hard cap AND still have the rookie scale, then 1st-4th year players will be the best value in terms of production/cost. So you could easily see more young, NOT YET MARKETED players winning titles. In addition, you'd see much more movement of MARKETED players in order to get the high value rookies; it'd be hard for Stern to keep convincing us that Player X is a star when a team is always trying to move their Player X's for a couple rookies.

[RebusRankin]

Wasn't the product better when you had teams that played like teams even though they had Superstars?