Would a lockout benefit the Spurs?

[lotr1trekkie]

After following this free agent frenzy, ad nauseum, I have come to seriously doubt the existence of the Spurs in 5 to 10 years if the next CBA doesn't level the playing field even more. For the average SA fan ticket prices are already prohibitive except for the upper decks. SA and other non-major cities will not be able to compete unless each team has the same same number of chips in the game.
The Knicks and Nets are offering the most $$$ because they can then pass on the cost to their cable viewers over the MSG network. Have a choice? Don't pay or don't see any games all year. NO free TV. Imagine SA with no free broadcasts. Pay the fee, go to the game or don't watch.
The NFL has a less then imperfect system that has provided parity. Otherwise Payton Manning would be playing in Chicago, NY, Miami or Boston + others by now.

[completely deck]

When SpursTalk gets really bored, they start doubting the existence of the Spurs

[spursfaninla]

I have heard some people speculate that if the max is too small, then going to a team where the possibility of getting better endorsement contracts might become a significant difference; therefore, even in that situation, the big money towns own.

Not any different than now in that respect.

Hard cap seems to be the most proven way to parity; max salaries lower will only get you part way there. Hard cap also leads to good players being more evenly spread throughout the league...

The thing that I am against because it would destroy player/team identity would be making one-way contracts where teams can tear it up but the player can't; that encourages teams to gamble because they are not stuck to their mistakes. I think players migrate too much with that.

[024]

hard cap is the only way to go. luxury tax further penalizes small markets.

[ChuckD]

I have heard some people speculate that if the max is too small, then going to a team where the possibility of getting better endorsement contracts might become a significant difference; therefore, even in that situation, the big money towns own.

Not any different than now in that respect.

Hard cap seems to be the most proven way to parity; max salaries lower will only get you part way there.

The thing that I am against because it would destroy player/team identity would be making one-way contracts where teams can tear it up but the player can't; that encourages teams to gamble because they are not stuck to their mistakes.

The NFL has jumped from the third most popular sport to the first by being able to bury their contract mistakes. The first couple of years, players took it personally, but now, it's just part of the business. The players understand that only the guaranteed money is guaranteed, and if they want the rest or part of the rest, they're going to have to earn it. The only players this will affect are the Eddie Currys and the Tim Thomases. If you bring it, you earn. If you don't, you're curbside.

[Shifty]

There are 2 major problems I can see and non are related to "rules" or agreements.



Owners that are little interested in the game. You have them making decision based on what makes them lose less money instead of what makes them win games and therefore win money later. See Sterling, Donald.
General managers that give away too much money on players that obviously not deserving it. Bill Simmons actually makes some sense when he asks something like "If I pay this guy max money, it means he is my best player or a very, very good second best player, am I winning a championship with him being either of those 2?" The answer is almost always: "No". See Johnson, Joe or Lewis, Rashard. There is nothing wrong with either of them, is just that you can't expect to win a championship when you can't afford to get a better team when you have players like them on $120 million. You just can't.

[Shifty]

The only players this will affect are the Eddie Currys and the Tim Thomases. If you bring it, you earn. If you don't, you're curbside.

Good examples for my point too. What the hell are you aspiring to when you give that much money to players like them. There are a few "new" contracts like that this year.

[Chieflion]

So why should the players be penalized for an owner and GM's stupidity, giving out large contracts? The players are the ones putting out the product out there.

[gospursgojas]

So why should the players be penalized for an owner and GM's stupidity, giving out large contracts? The players are the ones putting out the product out there.

So a gm's stupidity can't be forgiving but a player being paid a max contract and then not showing up can?

[Chieflion]

So a gm's stupidity can't be forgiving but a player being paid a max contract and then not showing up can?

No one said the player was worth a max contract, yet you give him one. Great logic. So why should the player be penalized for accepting a contract he is not deserving of?

[Stump]

If the 2011-12 season ends up being shortened like the 1999 season, it could help a team depending on a creaky Duncan and Ginobili. Endurance isn't exactly our greatest quality.

Also, I'm all for a hard salary cap. If you look over a year-by-year list of nba champions, it's pretty easy to see that the structure of the league very much favors dynasties, which is boring as a fan. Plus this is the only way small market teams can keep up and new franchises can potentially get started.

[dallaskd]

No one said the player was worth a max contract, yet you give him one. Great logic. So why should the player be penalized for accepting a contract he is not deserving of?

This.

But the NFL gives out fat signing bonuses as well.

[lotr1trekkie]

The problem is that leverage has now gone too far to the players. Johnson and Amare-- 20 $$$ men. Sorry neither of these players are HOF material unless you reduce it to stats. 4 mil for a backup pointguard in LA doesn't work in SA. The NBA is slowly drifting back to an only rich owner's league. Owners are stupid because they have no choice except to fold. Joe Johnson for 20 mil!!!
IF THE SPURS AREN'T CHAMPIONSHIP COMPETITIVE IN 3 YEARS --WHO WILL GO TO THE GAMES? Who will be able afford to the games with family?

[Chieflion]

The problem is that leverage has now gone too far to the players. Johnson and Amare-- 20 $$$ men. Sorry neither of these players are HOF material unless you reduce it to stats. 4 mil for a backup pointguard in LA doesn't work in SA. The NBA is slowly drifting back to an only rich owner's league. Owners are stupid because they have no choice except to fold. Joe Johnson for 20 mil!!!
IF THE SPURS AREN'T CHAMPIONSHIP COMPETITIVE IN 3 YEARS --WHO WILL GO TO THE GAMES? Who will be able afford to the games with family?

What the fuck are you talking about? Ticket prices are not going to reduce just because the players are going to take a paycut. In the end, the product gets paid lesser and you still pay the same amount for tickets. Is this fair to the players? I don't think so unless the owner suits up and starts balling for the league too.

[ChuckD]

What the fuck are you talking about? Ticket prices are not going to reduce just because the players are going to take a paycut. In the end, the product gets paid lesser and you still pay the same amount for tickets. Is this fair to the players? I don't think so unless the owner suits up and starts balling for the league too.

Ticket prices are already "reducing". They need to bring payroll costs into line. The only way to do that is "pay for play". You're given a nice contract, part guaranteed, part earned. It's been a highly successful formula for about 15 years in the NFL.

[Chieflion]

Ticket prices are already "reducing". They need to bring payroll costs into line. The only way to do that is "pay for play". You're given a nice contract, part guaranteed, part earned. It's been a highly successful formula for about 15 years in the NFL.

It still doesn't solve stupidity. I don't see the point of reducing the product's pay and let the owners cash in for doing nothing except dishing out the money and collect more money. It only makes rich people richer. Ticket prices reduced because of the recession, if the owners had a choice, they wouldn't reduce ticket prices.

[lotr1trekkie]

Sorry chef leon. You simply didn't understand the issue. If David and Tim had gone for the money only-- SA Spurs wouldn't exist right now. I am of the opinion that all tickets from any sports event should be from personal money. Like going to a movie. The entire tax code needs to be adjusted so that losing money is not a tax break for the owners.

[Mel_13]

Sorry chef leon. You simply didn't understand the issue. If David and Tim had gone for the money only-- SA Spurs wouldn't exist right now. I am of the opinion that all tickets from any sports event should be from personal money. Like going to a movie. The entire tax code needs to be adjusted so that losing money is not a tax break for the owners.

Until this last extension that will cover the final two years of his career, when did Tim take anything less than the maximum possible contract?

What does that second bolded portion even mean?

[gospursgojas]

No one said the player was worth a max contract, yet you give him one. Great logic. So why should the player be penalized for accepting a contract he is not deserving of?

The way it is now, the only way to gain or retain a player is to give him max money. If theres no chance top tier free agents i.e Lebron, wade, bosh, etc. are goin to sign with your team, holding on to whoever you can may mean having to give a 2nd tier player max money. See: Joe Johnson.

[baseline bum]

Sorry chef leon. You simply didn't understand the issue. If David and Tim had gone for the money only-- SA Spurs wouldn't exist right now. I am of the opinion that all tickets from any sports event should be from personal money. Like going to a movie. The entire tax code needs to be adjusted so that losing money is not a tax break for the owners.

Incorrect. If David hadn't gone for the money, then the Spurs wouldn't exist. David got a 10 year contract that guaranteed him the average of the two other highest paid players in the league, every year. Also, when Tim stayed instead of going to Orlando, he got a bigger contract than he could have elsewhere.

[Chieflion]

The way it is now, the only way to gain or retain a player is to give him max money. If theres no chance top tier free agents i.e Lebron, wade, bosh, etc. are goin to sign with your team, holding on to whoever you can may mean having to give a 2nd tier player max money. See: Joe Johnson.

So whose fault is it? GMs and owners not playing hard ball and agreeing to everything or the player's fault for signing? That is how negotiations work. The fault lies within the organization for caving in so easily. 1 day into free agency, deals were already agreed to, so whose fault is it?

[gospursgojas]

So whose fault is it? GMs and owners not playing hard ball and agreeing to everything or the player's fault for signing? That is how negotiations work. The fault lies within the organization for caving in so easily. 1 day into free agency, deals were already agreed to, so whose fault is it?

The cba as is.

[Chieflion]

The cba as is.

So you are trying to blame the CBA, a collective bargaining agreement that the owners and players reached an agreement on which benefited the players? So it is the owners' fault for not playing hard ball and caving in so easily.

[ChuckD]

So you are trying to blame the CBA, a collective bargaining agreement that the owners and players reached an agreement on which benefited the players? So it is the owners' fault for not playing hard ball and caving in so easily.

No point in doing it again. That's our point. You seem to think the status quo is fine. We don't.

[Chieflion]

No point in doing it again. That's our point. You seem to think the status quo is fine. We don't.

And yet you don't have a reason to reduce a player's salary?

[ChuckD]

And yet you don't have a reason to reduce a player's salary?

Good reasons: some of them don't live up to their contracts, and some get lazy afterwards. The owners don't have a crystal ball.

I'm not so much about reducing contracts as in knocking out the fully guaranteed deals. Don't you think players should have to actually earn at least part of their contracts? I think a mix of guaranteed money, plus money they have to earn is fair to both players AND owners.

[xmas1997]

It benefited them in 1999. They won their first championship, * or not.

[Blackjack]

Shortening or ending Tim Duncan's career does not in any way benefit the Spurs. Period, end of sentence.

[Chieflion]

Good reasons: some of them don't live up to their contracts, and some get lazy afterwards. The owners don't have a crystal ball.

I'm not so much about reducing contracts as in knocking out the fully guaranteed deals. Don't you think players should have to actually earn at least part of their contracts? I think a mix of guaranteed money, plus money they have to earn is fair to both players AND owners.

Players have to attempt to live up to their contracts, I agree with that, which was why players slog their ass out during their contract year. However, it would be unfair to reduce their expected play because the owners and GMs make illogical decisions, just by looking at one "breakout" season. The current CBA, as everyone knows, favor the veteran players more than the young players in the league, so older players tend to get more because the owners and GMs can't hold themselves back, and veteran players may decline anytime soon.
And also due to the fact that 1 player in the NBA will impact the game more than 1 player in any other team sport, be it soccer, football, hockey, baseball, players get paid significantly more.
On the lazy players: Out of 400 + players in the league, only a certain few like Eddy Curry and Jerome James become lazy and fat. You can't penalize the entire league just because there is an idiot out of a 100 people. It isn't fair to the players who work night in and night out. Besides, those people will never see an NBA contract ever again after their contract expires.

[ChuckD]

Players have to attempt to live up to their contracts, I agree with that, which was why players slog their ass out during their contract year. However, it would be unfair to reduce their expected play because the owners and GMs make illogical decisions, just by looking at one "breakout" season. The current CBA, as everyone knows, favor the veteran players more than the young players in the league, so older players tend to get more because the owners and GMs can't hold themselves back, and veteran players may decline anytime soon.
And also due to the fact that 1 player in the NBA will impact the game more than 1 player in any other team sport, be it soccer, football, hockey, baseball, players get paid significantly more.
On the lazy players: Out of 400 + players in the league, only a certain few like Eddy Curry and Jerome James become lazy and fat. You can't penalize the entire league just because there is an idiot out of a 100 people. It isn't fair to the players who work night in and night out. Besides, those people will never see an NBA contract ever again after their contract expires.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. If there are only a few bad apples among the players, then only they should be affected, and the owners should be able to void their contracts, after paying off the guaranteed part.

If you make the contracts maybe 60% guaranteed and 40% pay to play, then every year is a contract year for players, and the NBA puts a superior product on the floor each and every game.

[tuncaboylu]

Accept or not, basketball players are winning too much money and they're working too much.

The regular season games takes too long, tones of meaningless games for just putting the teams into slots before play-offs. It causes the injuries and decreases regular season's importance. 82 games, to play only 1 more game at home in play-off comes!! 82 regular season games have only logical explanation to win money. The ticket prices are using to pay the salaries of the players and every team should play too much game to win enough money. Everything is going bad year by year, most of the players and fans don't care the regular season games and it becomes boring. Too many franchise are moving or changing hand because of high salaries and low attendance.

I've some radical solution offers. The regular season should be shortened.(60 games at most) The salary threshold should be decrease as the same ratio. 40M instead of 55M). The player's salaries are also should be decrease with the same ratio in new contracts. Max contract shouldn't be more than 10M in it's first year. Max contract duration should be 5 years at most. If it's wanted 6 years, 6th year should be a team option.

The play-off game numbers may be increased. It can be Best of 9 after 1st round, so the deep play-off teams can earn more money and we can watch more important games, instead of scrub regular season games.

[spursfaninla]

Good reasons: some of them don't live up to their contracts, and some get lazy afterwards. The owners don't have a crystal ball.

I'm not so much about reducing contracts as in knocking out the fully guaranteed deals. Don't you think players should have to actually earn at least part of their contracts? I think a mix of guaranteed money, plus money they have to earn is fair to both players AND owners.

What about the players who do so well that they out-perform their contract?

That does not seem very fair; why do the owners one-way contracts?

And, why not let players have the same right?

Not like I am feeling sorry for them, I just don't understand why it is beneficial this way.

[ChuckD]

What about the players who do so well that they out-perform their contract?

That does not seem very fair; why do the owners one-way contracts?

And, why not let players have the same right?

Not like I am feeling sorry for them, I just don't understand why it is beneficial this way.

Shorten the deals, then. That keeps pay in line with performance from both sides.

I just don't think owners should have to shoulder ALL of the risk in a contract. Too many players just relax or worse, act out like Arenas after they get their deal. There's no incentive for them to play hard.