Player Salary Cuts

[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.

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.

It isn't arbitrary though.  The teams that would be contracted aren't profitable ones, thus it would be like a business closing.  It is slightly different given the union, but if you had a contract with Circuit City, you weren't going to get paid (at least not fully) when it went into bankruptcy.  The same principal applies in this situation.

[EJPLAYA]

I think the answer is an even lower payout version of the current rookie scale, along with an NFL style contract that allows a team to release a player who isn't performing. Also it would allow pay for production. Signing bonuses allow a really good player to get some guarantee. A reduced salary cap should be tied to ticket prices. Cut the total cap in half and cut ticket prices in half accordingly. Make it affordable for the people to attend a game and they'll end up better off in the long run.

[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.

It isn't arbitrary though.  The teams that would be contracted aren't profitable ones, thus it would be like a business closing.  It is slightly different given the union, but if you had a contract with Circuit City, you weren't going to get paid (at least not fully) when it went into bankruptcy.  The same principal applies in this situation.

They'd have to open their books to a bankruptcy court to get out of player contracts.

I don't see that happening.

[Phil125]

If we are basing it on attendance

30 Nets
29 Kings
28 Grizzlies
27 Pacers

I remember when the Nets couldn't sell out there NBA finals games.

[BballTim]

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.

  I don't think the league can get much power over the superstars that they incessantly market to the public as the faces of the nba.

[fandrew]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if anyone said this, but I think there needs to be player salary cuts, profit sharing, and change how garanteed contracts work.

If player have to take a 30% cut, than profit sharing should be at 30% as well; if one side needs to make such a concetion for the "good of the league" so to speak, than both should.

And garanteed contracts need to be changed as well, in a way that not only let the team remove pork, but to also allow for players to get out of a bad situation for them as well.

Each major talking point can easily be made to work on both sides. If profits are that bad, than all sides should be made tighten their belts. I don't think that removing teams is a good answer though. I think that 30 teams is a good number.

[Andy Jick]

If we are basing it on attendance

30 Nets
29 Kings
28 Grizzlies
27 Pacers

I remember when the Nets couldn't sell out there NBA finals games.

thanks for sharing this information.  i'm actually surprised by two things: the kings are noted to have the most rowdy fanbase in the nba, and their playboy owners.  and seeing the pacers here is sad.  to go from where they were in the reggie miller era to now is awful to witness.  sadly, larry needs to walk away.

[wdleehi]

If we are basing it on attendance

30 Nets
29 Kings
28 Grizzlies
27 Pacers

I remember when the Nets couldn't sell out there NBA finals games.

thanks for sharing this information.  i'm actually surprised by two things: the kings are noted to have the most rowdy fanbase in the nba, and their playboy owners.  and seeing the pacers here is sad.  to go from where they were in the reggie miller era to now is awful to witness.  sadly, larry needs to walk away.

I think the better way to look at it is how well a team sells when they are doing well.


Teams like Atlanta, for example, do not sell well when they are good except in the playoffs. 


When the Pacers were good, their attendance was good. 

[Andy Jick]

If we are basing it on attendance

30 Nets
29 Kings
28 Grizzlies
27 Pacers

I remember when the Nets couldn't sell out there NBA finals games.

thanks for sharing this information.  i'm actually surprised by two things: the kings are noted to have the most rowdy fanbase in the nba, and their playboy owners.  and seeing the pacers here is sad.  to go from where they were in the reggie miller era to now is awful to witness.  sadly, larry needs to walk away.

I think the better way to look at it is how well a team sells when they are doing well.


Teams like Atlanta, for example, do not sell well when they are good except in the playoffs. 


When the Pacers were good, their attendance was good. 

i understand the pacers...larry has assembled a team that just doesn't fit together.  but the kings have a lot of young talent (evans is a heck of a player) and i'm a bit surprised by their ranking.

[GreenEnvy]

I don't really understand how the NBA could be in such bad shape. I almost don't believe it. Prices for games (atleast for Celtics and Knicks games) are pretty darn high. And both sell out the vast majority of their games. Of course these are two of the biggest markets, but except for a few really lousy teams, everyone else seems to be drawing solid crowds, even selling out when the big teams come to town.

The Nets were the lowest attended team last season. They are in a newer arena this season, and are moving to Brooklyn in two seasons. They will be selling out in Brooklyn, no doubt about it.

The owners are crying, the players are crying. It's sad when millionaires aren't making enough from the billionaires and the billionaires are losing money because of the millionaires. I feel for them.


A hard cap seems almost impossible because of all the contracts signed under the soft cap rules. Would all of these teams have made these moves knowing they would be strapped down in the tail end?

I guess you can make a hard cap if you unguarantee contracts (giving the team some flexibility), but the contracts already signed ARE guaranteed. Then you will just see crazy signing bonuses, where players like Durant are making $6M per, but are handed $50M just for signing.


The players will probably have to sacrifice more then they would like, but it's better than missing a whole years worth of NBA paychecks. A (temporary?) contraction may not be the worst idea for a couple teams, but maybe some relocating would be better. Look at OKC.

[Phil125]

I don't really understand how the NBA could be in such bad shape. I almost don't believe it.

Oh nobody is starving in the NBA.  What happened was a bunch of rich owners got taken to the cleaners when the stock market crashed.  Everything crashed except for player salaries.  And it has not recovered yet.  So the owners want to level the field.  Its funny they want to cut a 1/3 when the stock market is still down a 1/3 from its high.