More signs of labor peace?

[StartOrien]

Yes it does.

The owners are not complaining that Joe Johnson is making to much money.  

They are complaining the the players as a whole are making to much money.

Fans complain about single players making to much money.

Owners understand either they overspend on some players or they give the money to all the players at the end of the season.  

Overpaying good players helps sell tickets.  Giving lump sums to at the end of the season does not.

What you're saying is accurate, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that KC is also right.

People are upset, and everyone's rushing to take sides. I think the owners are more in the right, but they absolutely deserve their fair share of the blame and Joe Johnson is an excellent example of that.

[KCattheStripe]

Yes it does.

The owners are not complaining that Joe Johnson is making to much money.  

They are complaining the the players as a whole are making to much money.

Fans complain about single players making to much money.

Owners understand either they overspend on some players or they give the money to all the players at the end of the season.  

Overpaying good players helps sell tickets.  Giving lump sums to at the end of the season does not.

What you're saying is accurate, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that KC is also right.

People are upset, and everyone's rushing to take sides. I think the owners are more in the right, but they absolutely deserve their fair share of the blame and Joe Johnson is an excellent example of that.

Also, I don't understand the logic behind, " I might as well pay these players anyway if I have to pay the players I'm in a partnership with anyway."  Overpaying for players keeps your team from being competitive, fan bases know when a team realistically has a chance and when there is a good product on the court, and overpaying for a player hinders that. However, not paying that much for a player and having to contribute to a bonus that doesn't affect your team's cap room seems like a sound investment to me.

[StartOrien]

Overpaying good players helps sell tickets.

Not necessarily.

[nickagneta]

Greenpride's view of things is really simplified and rather inaccurate.

Let's say you are a team that has limited revenue streams and can only afford a payroll of $65 million per year. If you know that at the end of the year there is a chance that every owner is going to have to pay $5 million to a pool of money to make up for the $150 million deficit there existed because the 57% payoff to the players wasn't achieved then you budget that into your figuring of your payroll.

If all of the above is true then that means you are limited to paying only $60 million that year for player salaries because you may have to pay that extra $5 million at the end of the year. Spending extra money to retain players that are not worth the extra money doesn't mean that you aren't going to have to pay that $5 million at the end of the season.

It only drives your total costs up and means you enter into yearly losses. If you stick to the budget and overspend on a player then that means you are sacrificing the quality of the bench players and other starters because you have less to spend to get quality players.

I don't think people are ignorant of the system. I just think people understand the running of a business and what it means to overspend on players. Overspending on Joe Johnson means possibly losing a different quality starter or just sending your team into the land of massive losses because you don't have the revenue streams to pay for Joe Johnson and give all the other players what they deserve to be paid as well in order for you to be competitive.

And you do not have to overspend to be competitive. The Thunder and Bulls had salaries of $60 million or less last year. meanwhile a team like Philly is always spending in the $75-85 million range and are never competitive. Philly also has horrible attendance figures so you might figure they would want to limit that payroll, but they don't. At some point poor management has to be held accountable and if that means no profits, then that's what they deserve.

You don't have to overspend to keep people in the seats and to be competitive. I just don't buy that at all. If you are a businessman and know what your revenues will be and your non-basketball player salary costs will be then figuring out what you cab spend on payroll isn't to difficult.

[BballTim]

And you do not have to overspend to be competitive. The Thunder and Bulls had salaries of $60 million or less last year. meanwhile a team like Philly is always spending in the $75-85 million range and are never competitive. Philly also has horrible attendance figures so you might figure they would want to limit that payroll, but they don't. At some point poor management has to be held accountable and if that means no profits, then that's what they deserve.

  It's pretty easy to be competitive without overspending if you have Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka or Rose/Noah/Gibson playing for a combined $10M or so.

[StartOrien]

And you do not have to overspend to be competitive. The Thunder and Bulls had salaries of $60 million or less last year. meanwhile a team like Philly is always spending in the $75-85 million range and are never competitive. Philly also has horrible attendance figures so you might figure they would want to limit that payroll, but they don't. At some point poor management has to be held accountable and if that means no profits, then that's what they deserve.

  It's pretty easy to be competitive without overspending if you have Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka or Rose/Noah/Gibson playing for a combined $10M or so.

At the same time, those teams have continuously opted against reaching on players. The Thunder in particular; how often have people complained about them not "going out and getting that extra piece"?

[BballTim]

And you do not have to overspend to be competitive. The Thunder and Bulls had salaries of $60 million or less last year. meanwhile a team like Philly is always spending in the $75-85 million range and are never competitive. Philly also has horrible attendance figures so you might figure they would want to limit that payroll, but they don't. At some point poor management has to be held accountable and if that means no profits, then that's what they deserve.

  It's pretty easy to be competitive without overspending if you have Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka or Rose/Noah/Gibson playing for a combined $10M or so.

At the same time, those teams have continuously opted against reaching on players. The Thunder in particular; how often have people complained about them not "going out and getting that extra piece"?

  Didn't they do that with Perk, who many claim is signed to an overpriced extension?

[StartOrien]

  Didn't they do that with Perk, who many claim is signed to an overpriced extension?

I thought the perception was praise for being patient and waiting for the right piece and then paying him near market value.

[cman88]

alot of guys on the Bulls/Thunder are young and still on their rookie deals...That is why their payrolls are so cheap.

what happens when westbrook, durant, Rose etc. become free agents? surely theyll command a much bigger raise.

idk, perkins is being paid on average $8.7million a year...I wouldnt say he's exactly cheap

[BballTim]

  Didn't they do that with Perk, who many claim is signed to an overpriced extension?

I thought the perception was praise for being patient and waiting for the right piece and then paying him near market value.

  There wasn't much of a need to rush out and get pieces until Durant was ready for a good playoff run.

[greenpride32]

If Joe Johnson gets paid $15m/year and the owners are short of 57% by $100m, they have to pay the players $100m at the end of the year.

If the owners instead pay Joe Johnson $20m/year, assuming everything else is the same, they are short of 57% by $95m.  So they have to pay $95m. 

Guess what, no matter what they have to pay the $100m.  So if your player is unhappy and wants to leave, you'd rather spend the money, THAT YOU HAVE TO SPEND ANYWAYS. 

If you don't understand the logic, you don't understand the system.  No offense to anyone, but it's humorous reading some of these comments that make absolutely no sense.

[greenpride32]

Read this article: http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/08/lockout-update-checks-totaling-161-million-being-paid-to-players-by-nba/

Basically what it says is the owners are required to pay the players $187m because the player's salaries for the 2010-11 season fell short of 57% BRI by that amount of dollars.

So you say owners are overpending on player salaries right?  Well they just cut back by $187m and guess what?  They have to pay it to the players anyways. That's why they sign guys to big contracts.  If your cherished free agent X is worth $5m/year, but one team goes 6, another goes 7, you just go $8m to get him because if too many teams are under the cap (the cap is based on the 57% BRI figure) you need to pay to make up that 57% difference.  You could just pay the money and get nothing in return.  Or you can "overpay" a guy and hope it helps the franchise on and off the court. Does that make more sense?

[StartOrien]

If Joe Johnson gets paid $15m/year and the owners are short of 57% by $100m, they have to pay the players $100m at the end of the year.

If the owners instead pay Joe Johnson $20m/year, assuming everything else is the same, they are short of 57% by $95m.  So they have to pay $95m.  

Guess what, no matter what they have to pay the $100m.  So if your player is unhappy and wants to leave, you'd rather spend the money, THAT YOU HAVE TO SPEND ANYWAYS.  

If you don't understand the logic, you don't understand the system.  No offense to anyone, but it's humorous reading some of these comments that make absolutely no sense.

I think you might need to do a little more homework.

From the article you linked below Sheridan notes that the league had to send out an additional 26 million dollars to the players cover the BRI mark.

Had the Hawks decided to not sign Joe Johnson, surely someone else would've for slightly lesser money - let's say 4 million less. The difference between what the Hawks and the hypothetic suitor would have to be covered by the league, but again, that's divided out.

The problem is that the Hawks are the one that signed him to that many, as opposed to a more sure-fire money making team like the Knicks.

[StartOrien]

I'm not saying that they don't need to work on the system at all, they do, but it's not as simplistic as you make it sound GP.

[nickagneta]

If Joe Johnson gets paid $15m/year and the owners are short of 57% by $100m, they have to pay the players $100m at the end of the year.

If the owners instead pay Joe Johnson $20m/year, assuming everything else is the same, they are short of 57% by $95m.  So they have to pay $95m. 

Guess what, no matter what they have to pay the $100m.  So if your player is unhappy and wants to leave, you'd rather spend the money, THAT YOU HAVE TO SPEND ANYWAYS. 

If you don't understand the logic, you don't understand the system.  No offense to anyone, but it's humorous reading some of these comments that make absolutely no sense.

If you pay Joe Johnson $15 million and the owners are short $150 million then you are paying Joe Johnson $15 million and an extra $5 million at the end of the year.

If you pay Joe Johnson $20 million and the owners are short $145 million then you are paying Joe Johnson $20 million and an extra $4.833 million at the end of the year.

In the end you are spending more money. If you do this for several players overpaying them by millions yet only fractionally lowering the overall underpayment to the players then you are costing your team more and more money that you may not have.

To lower your payment to the league underpayment by $1 million in the above given scenario, the above team would have to overpay their players $30 million.

I understand the system and the logic. You don't properly understand the numbers for one particular team and how that overspending affects that teams bottom line.