Player Salary Cuts

[wdleehi]

I don't care about the amount.

I hate the Guarantee part. 



I am still a big fan of the NFL model where only the signing bonus is guaranteed allowing teams to waive players that are not playing up to the level they are being payed at. 




As for the big salaries being thrown around, I have not doubt that the player salary cut was going on in these owners heads when they threw out the offers.

[Bankshot]

Ha!  I told you guys this technical foul thing was about money. Stern is trying to tech the players up the ying yang to rack in the dough.  If that doesn't work, lower the salaries. What other reason would he give such incompetent refs more power instead of addressing the horrible reffing problem?  Giving these incompetent refs instruction on more technical fouls is sure to bring in the money.

[Fan from VT]

The whole "oh the poor owners, the athletes are bankrupting them" took a real public opinion hit with the release of baseball, traditionally the poor criers, were outed as pretty big frauds by those accounting leaks.

I also think football, if the owners keep it up, will sour fans to the "poor owners" issue by locking players who want to play out.

Both sides will lose, but i think players in both sports are doing a better job of keeping the discussion focused on owner greed instead of the traditional "players are overpaid babies" argument the owners resort to.

And the owners are doing a pretty good job of it too:

Amir Johnson: 5 yr 34 mil.
Hakim Warrick: 4 yr 18 mil.
Travis Outlaw: 5 yr 35 mil.
Channing Frye: 5 yr 30 mil.
Rudy Gay: 6 yr 80 mil.
Joe Johnson: 6 yr 120 mil.
David Lee: 6 yr 80 mil.
Wes Matthews: 5 yr 34 mil.
John Salmons: 5 yr 40 mil.
Drew Gooden: 5 yr 32 mil.
Ty Thomas: 5 yr 40 mil.

Who made GMs sign those deals? Against whom were they bidding? But yeah, owners are strapped for cash.

Those deals aren't really relevant. Players are given a certain portion of what the league makes according to the CBA. Stern seems to want to chance that.

There will always be player who are overpaid and who are underpaid (like stars on rookie contracts).

Well, I'd say they are a little relevant, as teams are crying "we are over budget" yet then go out and VOLUNTARILY spend money they then say they don't have.

[Rondo2287]

The whole "oh the poor owners, the athletes are bankrupting them" took a real public opinion hit with the release of baseball, traditionally the poor criers, were outed as pretty big frauds by those accounting leaks.

I also think football, if the owners keep it up, will sour fans to the "poor owners" issue by locking players who want to play out.

Both sides will lose, but i think players in both sports are doing a better job of keeping the discussion focused on owner greed instead of the traditional "players are overpaid babies" argument the owners resort to.

And the owners are doing a pretty good job of it too:

Amir Johnson: 5 yr 34 mil.
Hakim Warrick: 4 yr 18 mil.
Travis Outlaw: 5 yr 35 mil.
Channing Frye: 5 yr 30 mil.
Rudy Gay: 6 yr 80 mil.
Joe Johnson: 6 yr 120 mil.
David Lee: 6 yr 80 mil.
Wes Matthews: 5 yr 34 mil.
John Salmons: 5 yr 40 mil.
Drew Gooden: 5 yr 32 mil.
Ty Thomas: 5 yr 40 mil.

Who made GMs sign those deals? Against whom were they bidding? But yeah, owners are strapped for cash.

Those deals aren't really relevant. Players are given a certain portion of what the league makes according to the CBA. Stern seems to want to chance that.

There will always be player who are overpaid and who are underpaid (like stars on rookie contracts).

Well, I'd say they are a little relevant, as teams are crying "we are over budget" yet then go out and VOLUNTARILY spend money they then say they don't have.

In there though, I would say that Salmons, Lee and Gay are pretty decent deals

[Phil125]

"Expiring contracts" are a loophole in a broken system.

When the only way you can build a team is by shifting around dead million dollar weight something is wrong.

[Roy H.]

I like expiring contracts. Another asset for GMs to play with.

I think it's much easier to rebuild well and rebuild quickly nowadays ... and the expiring contracts play a big role in that.

Much more hope (possibilities) for turning around a team.

I'm not following you.  Why is a $15 million expiring contract more valuable than $15 million in cap space that a team could open up by cutting non-guaranteed players?

Teams that want to rebuild don't want to take back any salary at all.  Thus, it's better for them to trade a guy to a team that can fully absorb that guy's entire salary, rather than having to take back a year of salary.

Much like in the NFL, non-guaranteed contracts would lead to parity.  The worry would be that the top free agent destinations would sign all the best free agents, but if you combined non-guaranteed deals with a generous hard cap, you'd solve both problems.

[Who]

I like expiring contracts. Another asset for GMs to play with.

I think it's much easier to rebuild well and rebuild quickly nowadays ... and the expiring contracts play a big role in that.

Much more hope (possibilities) for turning around a team.

I'm not following you.  Why is a $15 million expiring contract more valuable than $15 million in cap space that a team could open up by cutting non-guaranteed players?

Teams that want to rebuild don't want to take back any salary at all.  Thus, it's better for them to trade a guy to a team that can fully absorb that guy's entire salary, rather than having to take back a year of salary.

Much like in the NFL, non-guaranteed contracts would lead to parity.  The worry would be that the top free agent destinations would sign all the best free agents, but if you combined non-guaranteed deals with a generous hard cap, you'd solve both problems.

Sorry, I was trying to say ... I was comparing the expiring contracts era to pre-expiring contracts era.

Saying that I don't have a problem with a trading for contracts / talent for talent versus talent for talent. I enjoy that added variable. And that the added asset of expiring contracts have played a big role in making it easier for clubs to rebuild nowadays from where the league was 15+ years ago when it was far more difficult to turn around a failing team.

Rather than in comparison to non-guaranteed deals. I agree with everything you said above, non-guaranteed deals make it easier for teams to rebuild quickly.

I don't think the expiring contracts are bad thing for the league. I think it's an improvement over the past. I wouldn't be trying to get rid of them. I don't see them as a problem. I have liked their addition to the trading market.

[BballTim]

I don't care about the amount.

I hate the Guarantee part. 



I am still a big fan of the NFL model where only the signing bonus is guaranteed allowing teams to waive players that are not playing up to the level they are being payed at. 




As for the big salaries being thrown around, I have not doubt that the player salary cut was going on in these owners heads when they threw out the offers.

  I'm not necessarily a huge fan of non-guaranteed contracts. If they come with a big bonus, that's fine. Otherwise, if the team can cancel the contract whenever they want, why can't the player?

[fairweatherfan]

I don't care about the amount.

I hate the Guarantee part. 

I am still a big fan of the NFL model where only the signing bonus is guaranteed allowing teams to waive players that are not playing up to the level they are being payed at. 

As for the big salaries being thrown around, I have not doubt that the player salary cut was going on in these owners heads when they threw out the offers.

  I'm not necessarily a huge fan of non-guaranteed contracts. If they come with a big bonus, that's fine. Otherwise, if the team can cancel the contract whenever they want, why can't the player?

This is my philosophy, and why I hate people getting so uptight over NFL players holding out.  If they can be cut at will, they should be able to quit at will.  Of course this would lead to all sorts of problems during the season, but pre-season?  They've got every right to try and get as much money as they can, because the only guaranteed paycheck is usually the signing bonus.

In the NBA I'd like to see a compromise - maybe half-guaranteed contracts.  You can cut a guy at will, but you're still paying him half his remaining contract, and it stays on your cap.  Gives teams the flexibility to save money and chemistry by cutting guys, but they're still partly on the hook for signing guys to terrible contracts.

[wdleehi]

Did any one see this one?


http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html

A person with knowledge of the owners' discussions said the league "will continue to be open to contraction" as a possible mechanism for restoring the league to profitability.

I am a fan of this as well.  

[wdleehi]

I don't care about the amount.

I hate the Guarantee part. 

I am still a big fan of the NFL model where only the signing bonus is guaranteed allowing teams to waive players that are not playing up to the level they are being payed at. 

As for the big salaries being thrown around, I have not doubt that the player salary cut was going on in these owners heads when they threw out the offers.

  I'm not necessarily a huge fan of non-guaranteed contracts. If they come with a big bonus, that's fine. Otherwise, if the team can cancel the contract whenever they want, why can't the player?

This is my philosophy, and why I hate people getting so uptight over NFL players holding out.  If they can be cut at will, they should be able to quit at will.  Of course this would lead to all sorts of problems during the season, but pre-season?  They've got every right to try and get as much money as they can, because the only guaranteed paycheck is usually the signing bonus.

In the NBA I'd like to see a compromise - maybe half-guaranteed contracts.  You can cut a guy at will, but you're still paying him half his remaining contract, and it stays on your cap.  Gives teams the flexibility to save money and chemistry by cutting guys, but they're still partly on the hook for signing guys to terrible contracts.

I think players can, they just have to give back to the team their bonus money. 


Somehow, players just aren't handing back that money. 



Sure, there will be holdouts, but that is better then year after year of Raef making max money on you injury report. 

[guava_wrench]

The whole "oh the poor owners, the athletes are bankrupting them" took a real public opinion hit with the release of baseball, traditionally the poor criers, were outed as pretty big frauds by those accounting leaks.

I also think football, if the owners keep it up, will sour fans to the "poor owners" issue by locking players who want to play out.

Both sides will lose, but i think players in both sports are doing a better job of keeping the discussion focused on owner greed instead of the traditional "players are overpaid babies" argument the owners resort to.

And the owners are doing a pretty good job of it too:

Amir Johnson: 5 yr 34 mil.
Hakim Warrick: 4 yr 18 mil.
Travis Outlaw: 5 yr 35 mil.
Channing Frye: 5 yr 30 mil.
Rudy Gay: 6 yr 80 mil.
Joe Johnson: 6 yr 120 mil.
David Lee: 6 yr 80 mil.
Wes Matthews: 5 yr 34 mil.
John Salmons: 5 yr 40 mil.
Drew Gooden: 5 yr 32 mil.
Ty Thomas: 5 yr 40 mil.

Who made GMs sign those deals? Against whom were they bidding? But yeah, owners are strapped for cash.

Those deals aren't really relevant. Players are given a certain portion of what the league makes according to the CBA. Stern seems to want to chance that.

There will always be player who are overpaid and who are underpaid (like stars on rookie contracts).

Well, I'd say they are a little relevant, as teams are crying "we are over budget" yet then go out and VOLUNTARILY spend money they then say they don't have.

This is an optimization problem.

If a team decides to only pay out the minimum in salaries, this makes their team really bad and could kill revenue. If they try to at least be competitive, then perhaps they as a team can lose a little less money.

The problem is gaining wins is a zero sum game. Because a single team is trying to improve their bottom line by get more wins, they are in effect spending money to make their opponents worse. This may end up making their team more profitable, but the league on the whole becomes less profitable as teams below the median go more in the red.

So the league needs to figure out what the optimal salary level is so that we don't end up with a league where only 6 teams are profitable.

This needs to be in the CBA so we don't have collusion problems like MLB had a few decades ago.

[fairweatherfan]

Did any one see this one?

http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html

A person with knowledge of the owners' discussions said the league "will continue to be open to contraction" as a possible mechanism for restoring the league to profitability.

I am a fan of this as well.  

Me too - I think losing 2-4 teams would be very useful to the league.  Maybe drop 2 and move back to 4 7-team divisions. 

But just like when baseball was talking about it, I'll believe contraction when it happens.  It's easy to talk about and very, very hard to do.

[BballTim]

Did any one see this one?


http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html

A person with knowledge of the owners' discussions said the league "will continue to be open to contraction" as a possible mechanism for restoring the league to profitability.

I am a fan of this as well.  

  Pretty interesting web page, but probably not the link you meant to put in your post.

[BballTim]

Did any one see this one?

http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html

A person with knowledge of the owners' discussions said the league "will continue to be open to contraction" as a possible mechanism for restoring the league to profitability.

I am a fan of this as well.  

Me too - I think losing 2-4 teams would be very useful to the league.  Maybe drop 2 and move back to 4 7-team divisions. 

But just like when baseball was talking about it, I'll believe contraction when it happens.  It's easy to talk about and very, very hard to do.

  They should bring up the possibility of contracting the Heat in the summer of 2013. Our large, soon to expire contracts would take on a lot of value as teams tried to get under the cap again.