A weird idea that could change the NBA

[clover]

I take it you are neither a player nor a player's agent.

[the_Bird]

I take it you are neither a player nor a player's agent.

...  or part of a player's entourage, or a player's babymomma, or a player's other babymomma...

[fairweatherfan]

Man even forum topic titles are looking like upworthy links now....

This man learned one weird trick to fix the NBA.  Agents hate him!



(mandatory unrelated image)

[ram]

I think for a lot of these guys, it's not even really about the actual dollars.  At a certain point, each extra dollar doesn't mean all that much.  BUT - and you're never, ever going to change this - it's pride.  "My paycheck this big, and yours is this much smaller."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point.  I've seen that in normal businesses.  People might be happy with their income until they find out a peer is making $50/week more than them.  There's a principal involved.  Bill Russell once told Red, after Wilt just signed for $100,000 with the Sixers, "Either I'm worth $1 more or I'm not signing."  Red, of course, gave him the $100,001 contract.

[JOMVP]

Or just raise the salary cap more than a couple million dollars every year. The owners would never agree to it, because they don't want to spend anymore money than they have to, just like players wont take any less money than they have to.

[michael 26]

I know that this is probably not going to happen because of all those reasons that you mentioned. I just wish it would happen.

[LarBrd33]

They should make and take a heck of a lot less money

The Clippers just sold for 2 billion dollars.

Simmons had an article a few years ago that suggested that LeBron would make about 75 million per year if the NBA had no salary cap at all. 

For the purposes of this column: If the NBA operated with an open market like baseball does, and teams could spend whatever they wanted without any real fear of the luxury tax, then LeBron would earn more than four times what he?s making right now. You heard me ? $75 million per season. That?s not a misprint. The Lakers, Knicks and Nets would pay him that without blinking. Think of what you?re getting: He drives up your courtside prices, your suite prices, your cable ratings (Miami?s jumped 34 percent last season) and your sponsorship packages; he makes you the league?s most relevant franchise; he guarantees you 10-12 playoff home games every year; and oh yeah, you might win a few championships, too.

And actually, that $75 million number might be low. Once a year, Forbes magazine breaks down the team value of every NBA franchise. This year?s report was especially fascinating ? Forbes reported that the average value of the 30 teams had risen to $509 million, a 30 percent increase from last year, saying that ?the increase is due to higher revenue from television, new and renovated arenas, and the NBA?s new collective-bargaining agreement, which reduced player costs from 57% of revenues to roughly 50%.? Translation: The owners didn?t just beat the players in that last lockout; they trounced them like it was one of those Cowboys-Bills Super Bowls.

Anyway, in 2009, Forbes valued the Cavaliers at $476 million and the Heat at $364 million. Four years later, they valued the Cavaliers at $434 million ? and the Heat at $625 million. Gee, I wonder what changed.

(LeBron James, you deserve a raise. A massive one. Just know that you won?t get it.)

Again... the Clippers just sold for 2 billion dollars.

[LarBrd33]

They should make and take a heck of a lot less money

The Clippers just sold for 2 billion dollars.

Simmons had an article a few years ago that suggested that LeBron would make about 75 million per year if the NBA had no salary cap at all. 

For the purposes of this column: If the NBA operated with an open market like baseball does, and teams could spend whatever they wanted without any real fear of the luxury tax, then LeBron would earn more than four times what he?s making right now. You heard me ? $75 million per season. That?s not a misprint. The Lakers, Knicks and Nets would pay him that without blinking. Think of what you?re getting: He drives up your courtside prices, your suite prices, your cable ratings (Miami?s jumped 34 percent last season) and your sponsorship packages; he makes you the league?s most relevant franchise; he guarantees you 10-12 playoff home games every year; and oh yeah, you might win a few championships, too.

And actually, that $75 million number might be low. Once a year, Forbes magazine breaks down the team value of every NBA franchise. This year?s report was especially fascinating ? Forbes reported that the average value of the 30 teams had risen to $509 million, a 30 percent increase from last year, saying that ?the increase is due to higher revenue from television, new and renovated arenas, and the NBA?s new collective-bargaining agreement, which reduced player costs from 57% of revenues to roughly 50%.? Translation: The owners didn?t just beat the players in that last lockout; they trounced them like it was one of those Cowboys-Bills Super Bowls.

Anyway, in 2009, Forbes valued the Cavaliers at $476 million and the Heat at $364 million. Four years later, they valued the Cavaliers at $434 million ? and the Heat at $625 million. Gee, I wonder what changed.

(LeBron James, you deserve a raise. A massive one. Just know that you won?t get it.)

Again... the Clippers just sold for 2 billion dollars.

By the way, that data is old.  In January, Forbes estimated that there were 4 teams worth over 1 billion. 

Knicks - 1.4 bil
Lakers - 1.35 bil
Bulls - 1 bil

... They estimated the average value of an NBA franchise at 635 mil.  Fair to say the Clippers sale has changed that.   They had estimated the Clippers worth at about 535 million... and again... they just sold for 2 billion dollars.

But if we're using those January estimates as a guide... they had the Heat worth 770 million.  The Cavs worth about 515 mil. 

It's now suggested that the Knicks may be worth about 3 billion dollars.  Yeah... LeBron is grossly underpaid.  I imagine if there were less restrictive rules, Bron would make close to 100 mil per year or he'd buy part ownership of a team like the Cavs and play for them.

[quidinqui33]

I agree with the poster that said the cap should be increased, rather than continuing to limit the earning potential of the players.

As people with "normal" jobs, we cannot let the fact that players earn millions of dollars cloud our judgement on what they should be able to earn.  Sure, does it really matter if you make 10 million per year, or 15 million per year, probably not.  But that is the money that their business earns, and you cannot begrudge the players (who are who we pay to see) for trying to maximize their income in the years that they play (just look at the money football players, and baseball players are getting.  NBA star players are actually underpaid based in the revenue the league generates).   

Someone else said the league get's locked out because the players want more money.  That is completely incorrect.  If the players wanted more money, they would go on strike (similar to baseball and hockey).  The league was locked out (the owners are figuratively locking the players out from coming to work, and as such impacting a lot of "normal jobs" as well) because, in fact, the owners wanted more money because they claimed they were losing money, when in fact all of their franchises have appreciated by the 100's of millions of dollars (see Kings, Bucks, and Clippers sales).

To address the original posters original point, taking money for less to play with other start, is not such a novel concept.  Players do it all the time, and yes the Heat Big Three and the Spurs are probably the most obvious example.  Even the Celts did this towards the end of this last run.  But there is a limit to how low a player should go before it just becomes bad business.

[pokeKingCurtis]

I have always that LeBron wants to be the first basketball billionaire.  I grew up in Ohio about 1.5 hours from him.  So he was always in the papers.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/394770-is-lebron-james-serious-about-becoming-the-first-billionaire-athlete

"How am I supposed to feed my family without a billion dollars?"

[scotto1205]

I just had a question. How do signing bonuses work? And do they count against the cap? Is their a limit for them? I figured they would be used more if they didn't go against the cap.

[saltlover]

I just had a question. How do signing bonuses work? And do they count against the cap? Is their a limit for them? I figured they would be used more if they didn't go against the cap.

I forget the exact numbers, but there is a limit to them (I think 15% of the total contract) and their value is prorated for each year of the contract.  Since NBA deals are more guaranteed than NFL deals, and so signing bonuses aren't really used as cap circumnavigation, you don't see them reported that often.  But if you see a $20 million deal, it's very possible that $3 million of that is in fact a signing bonus.

[D.o.s.]

I agree with the poster that said the cap should be increased, rather than continuing to limit the earning potential of the players.

As people with "normal" jobs, we cannot let the fact that players earn millions of dollars cloud our judgement on what they should be able to earn.  Sure, does it really matter if you make 10 million per year, or 15 million per year, probably not.  But that is the money that their business earns, and you cannot begrudge the players (who are who we pay to see) for trying to maximize their income in the years that they play (just look at the money football players, and baseball players are getting.  NBA star players are actually underpaid based in the revenue the league generates).   

Someone else said the league get's locked out because the players want more money.  That is completely incorrect.  If the players wanted more money, they would go on strike (similar to baseball and hockey).  The league was locked out (the owners are figuratively locking the players out from coming to work, and as such impacting a lot of "normal jobs" as well) because, in fact, the owners wanted more money because they claimed they were losing money, when in fact all of their franchises have appreciated by the 100's of millions of dollars (see Kings, Bucks, and Clippers sales).

To address the original posters original point, taking money for less to play with other start, is not such a novel concept.  Players do it all the time, and yes the Heat Big Three and the Spurs are probably the most obvious example.  Even the Celts did this towards the end of this last run.  But there is a limit to how low a player should go before it just becomes bad business.

This post is phenomenal.