Player Salary Cuts

[BballTim]

I'm all for contraction

Get rid of Grizzles and Raptors.  Do contraction draft based on season record (worst team first) and teams must honor the contract of the player they sign (if they elect to take anyone).  Allow teams to go over the cap to take on a player, but with caveat if they do they can't trade that player for one year.

Cut the league back to 28 and go for 4 7 team divisions.  Add Atlanta, Washington, and Charlotte to the Atlantic (minus Toronto) and send Miami and Orlando to the Central.  And out west, add Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Denver to the Southwest (minus memphis) and Utah and Portland to Pacific.

  Are those the worst teams in terms of fan support? I'd think Atlanta and Detroit (at least) would give them a run for their money.

  When's the last time they had contraction in the nba? I'm curious about what would happen to the contracts of the players.

During the ABA merger most of the franchises folded.

  Yes, but that's an entire league. What if, for example, the Pistons folded and nobody wanted Charlie V for that money?

[fairweatherfan]

I'm all for contraction

Get rid of Grizzles and Raptors.  Do contraction draft based on season record (worst team first) and teams must honor the contract of the player they sign (if they elect to take anyone).  Allow teams to go over the cap to take on a player, but with caveat if they do they can't trade that player for one year.

Cut the league back to 28 and go for 4 7 team divisions.  Add Atlanta, Washington, and Charlotte to the Atlantic (minus Toronto) and send Miami and Orlando to the Central.  And out west, add Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Denver to the Southwest (minus memphis) and Utah and Portland to Pacific.

  Are those the worst teams in terms of fan support? I'd think Atlanta and Detroit (at least) would give them a run for their money.

  When's the last time they had contraction in the nba? I'm curious about what would happen to the contracts of the players.

During the ABA merger most of the franchises folded.

And some of them are still getting a share of TV money in perpetuity.  I doubt the league will be repeating that little misstep. 

If you cut teams I think Memphis is the gimme, but I'm not sure who the 2nd team would be. 

[Fafnir]

I'm all for contraction

Get rid of Grizzles and Raptors.  Do contraction draft based on season record (worst team first) and teams must honor the contract of the player they sign (if they elect to take anyone).  Allow teams to go over the cap to take on a player, but with caveat if they do they can't trade that player for one year.

Cut the league back to 28 and go for 4 7 team divisions.  Add Atlanta, Washington, and Charlotte to the Atlantic (minus Toronto) and send Miami and Orlando to the Central.  And out west, add Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Denver to the Southwest (minus memphis) and Utah and Portland to Pacific.

  Are those the worst teams in terms of fan support? I'd think Atlanta and Detroit (at least) would give them a run for their money.

  When's the last time they had contraction in the nba? I'm curious about what would happen to the contracts of the players.

During the ABA merger most of the franchises folded.

  Yes, but that's an entire league. What if, for example, the Pistons folded and nobody wanted Charlie V for that money?

The Pistons ownership would still be on the hook for his contract I'm sure, maybe the league.

He'd still get paid, it'd be equivalent to the one time exemption to cut a player off your cap (Michael Finley rule) or waiving a player.

[Moranis]

I'm all for contraction

Get rid of Grizzles and Raptors.  Do contraction draft based on season record (worst team first) and teams must honor the contract of the player they sign (if they elect to take anyone).  Allow teams to go over the cap to take on a player, but with caveat if they do they can't trade that player for one year.

Cut the league back to 28 and go for 4 7 team divisions.  Add Atlanta, Washington, and Charlotte to the Atlantic (minus Toronto) and send Miami and Orlando to the Central.  And out west, add Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Denver to the Southwest (minus memphis) and Utah and Portland to Pacific.

  Are those the worst teams in terms of fan support? I'd think Atlanta and Detroit (at least) would give them a run for their money.

  When's the last time they had contraction in the nba? I'm curious about what would happen to the contracts of the players.

During the ABA merger most of the franchises folded.

  Yes, but that's an entire league. What if, for example, the Pistons folded and nobody wanted Charlie V for that money?

Either you make the contracting team pay for him (or make up the difference when he signs on elsewhere) or you just say tough crap Charlie, sign on somewhere else for whatever you can get.  I can see it both ways.

[Fafnir]

I'm all for contraction

Get rid of Grizzles and Raptors.  Do contraction draft based on season record (worst team first) and teams must honor the contract of the player they sign (if they elect to take anyone).  Allow teams to go over the cap to take on a player, but with caveat if they do they can't trade that player for one year.

Cut the league back to 28 and go for 4 7 team divisions.  Add Atlanta, Washington, and Charlotte to the Atlantic (minus Toronto) and send Miami and Orlando to the Central.  And out west, add Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Denver to the Southwest (minus memphis) and Utah and Portland to Pacific.

  Are those the worst teams in terms of fan support? I'd think Atlanta and Detroit (at least) would give them a run for their money.

  When's the last time they had contraction in the nba? I'm curious about what would happen to the contracts of the players.

During the ABA merger most of the franchises folded.

  Yes, but that's an entire league. What if, for example, the Pistons folded and nobody wanted Charlie V for that money?

Either you make the contracting team pay for him (or make up the difference when he signs on elsewhere) or you just say tough crap Charlie, sign on somewhere else for whatever you can get.  I can see it both ways.

The players union would sue the league for an arbitrary voiding of a contract in a contraction situation. Give past arbitrations and rulings they'd almost certainly win.

The players union isn't going to want to hear about contraction as is, if you tried to void contracts it'd be even worse.

[guava_wrench]

I'm all for contraction

Get rid of Grizzles and Raptors.  Do contraction draft based on season record (worst team first) and teams must honor the contract of the player they sign (if they elect to take anyone).  Allow teams to go over the cap to take on a player, but with caveat if they do they can't trade that player for one year.

Cut the league back to 28 and go for 4 7 team divisions.  Add Atlanta, Washington, and Charlotte to the Atlantic (minus Toronto) and send Miami and Orlando to the Central.  And out west, add Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Denver to the Southwest (minus memphis) and Utah and Portland to Pacific.

  Are those the worst teams in terms of fan support? I'd think Atlanta and Detroit (at least) would give them a run for their money.

  When's the last time they had contraction in the nba? I'm curious about what would happen to the contracts of the players.

During the ABA merger most of the franchises folded.

  Yes, but that's an entire league. What if, for example, the Pistons folded and nobody wanted Charlie V for that money?

Either you make the contracting team pay for him (or make up the difference when he signs on elsewhere) or you just say tough crap Charlie, sign on somewhere else for whatever you can get.  I can see it both ways.

The league should have to guarantee contracts, especially considering draft rules and forcing players to only negotiate with the drafting team. Add to that trade rules. And the fact that a player can't bolt to another team when they see a team is about to go under but they are still under contract.

What exactly would happen if a team couldn't make payroll?

[RebusRankin]

I'm all for lower salaries. Millions of dollars to play a kids game? As a personal example, I teach in an inner city school and have students dealing with parents with mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, kids in foster care, woman's shelters etc and a lot of players make my salary in 10 minutes. And I know most of us can tell similar stories.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm all for lower salaries. Millions of dollars to play a kids game? As a personal example, I teach in an inner city school and have students dealing with parents with mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, kids in foster care, woman's shelters etc and a lot of players make my salary in 10 minutes. And I know most of us can tell similar stories.

Right, but it's not like those salary reductions are going to the needy, they're going to the even wealthier owners.  Somebody's gonna make a preposterous amount of money one way or the other. 

Ultimately I think the 33% is just a jumping off point - the league wants that 57% player share cut sharply.  Dropping it by 1/3rd makes it 38%, all else being equal, which won't happen.  I don't think the union will go below 50-50, for the symbolism if nothing else, but I think that'll ultimately get it done, give or take a few secondary concessions. 

[Andy Jick]

Sign me up for the contraction idea.  We can start with the Lakers...

But seriously, sounds sad, but the Hawks should be given consideration - seems like they are always playing in an empty building.  Dropping 2 or 4 teams would make the NBA more appealing to watch.

Plus, think of how much interest a draft would garner when all these players are dispersed?

[JBcat]

One area I would like to see adjusted is not so much the guaranteed or how much part of the contract but the length.   I would love to see the restriction reduced that the most you can sign for is say 3 or 4 years. 

 Some players can tend to relax at times if say they have a 5 or 6 year deal which I believe is the maximum length right now.   If they are only signed for 3 years it could put more pressure on the player to perform as they would know they would soon be up for a new contract again soon.  You would also have less dead weight contracts if a player is not performing in the middle of his contract.  You would also have more expiring contracts and more easily tradeable contracts I would think. 

[Who]

One area I would like to see adjusted is not so much the guaranteed or how much part of the contract but the length.   I would love to see the restriction reduced that the most you can sign for is say 3 or 4 years. 

 Some players can tend to relax at times if say they have a 5 or 6 year deal which I believe is the maximum length right now.   If they are only signed for 3 years it could put more pressure on the player to perform as they would know they would soon be up for a new contract again soon.  You would also have less dead weight contracts if a player is not performing in the middle of his contract.  You would also have more expiring contracts and more easily tradeable contracts I would think. 

I think this will be done in phases. Last go round, they reduced it from 6 and 7 years to 5 and 6. This time, I think they'll get it down to 4 and 5 years.

Next CBA, or the one after that, I think they'll re-visit it again and get it down to 3 and 4 years ... which is the ideal maximum length to me.

At least that is my expectation anyway.

[Andy Jick]

One area I would like to see adjusted is not so much the guaranteed or how much part of the contract but the length.   I would love to see the restriction reduced that the most you can sign for is say 3 or 4 years. 

 Some players can tend to relax at times if say they have a 5 or 6 year deal which I believe is the maximum length right now.   If they are only signed for 3 years it could put more pressure on the player to perform as they would know they would soon be up for a new contract again soon.  You would also have less dead weight contracts if a player is not performing in the middle of his contract.  You would also have more expiring contracts and more easily tradeable contracts I would think. 

You will never see shortened contracts in any professional sport...ever.  They do this for the NBA rookie deals, but I see no way the player's union would accept this. 

Might as well get set for no NBA next season...this is gonna be a fight.  Stern fired the first shot the last two days in which he 1) stated the amount of reduction needed in contracts ($750-$850 million), 2) thew out the idea of being open to contraction. 

Players are going to fight this hard and it's going to be a long negotiation process...

[freshinthehouse]

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.

I'm pretty sure all fine money goes to charity.

[Casperian]

This isn´t about money, it´s about power.

A player with a salary worth over 30% of the cap is pretty much untouchable. Just look at Carmelo and the Nuggets.
I think Stern and the owners want some of their power back.

[Roy H.]

One area I would like to see adjusted is not so much the guaranteed or how much part of the contract but the length.   I would love to see the restriction reduced that the most you can sign for is say 3 or 4 years. 

 Some players can tend to relax at times if say they have a 5 or 6 year deal which I believe is the maximum length right now.   If they are only signed for 3 years it could put more pressure on the player to perform as they would know they would soon be up for a new contract again soon.  You would also have less dead weight contracts if a player is not performing in the middle of his contract.  You would also have more expiring contracts and more easily tradeable contracts I would think. 

You will never see shortened contracts in any professional sport...ever.  They do this for the NBA rookie deals, but I see no way the player's union would accept this. 

I think the union agreed to it previously, when both the amount and length of contracts were capped.  Previously, I know there were seven year deals, and I believe there were eight year contracts, as well.