Possible $45 million hard salary cap

[Spurtacus]

John Lombardo, SportsBusiness Journal

The NBA’s initial proposal for a new collective-bargaining deal called for a $45 million per team hard salary cap along with non-guaranteed player contracts and significant cuts in annual salary increases.

The details, spelled out in an April 26 memo issued by National Basketball Players Association Executive Director Billy Hunter, marks the league’s push for a major overhaul of the NBA’s economic model and emphasizes to players an aggressive bid to significantly slash costs and shorten contracts.

The memo was sent to all NBA players and was dated just days prior to the league delivering to the union a new labor proposal, which a source said still included the $45 million hard cap but added a phase-in of the cap over a few years. Union president Derek Fisher publicly dismissed the latest proposal as too similar to the original proposal.

The memo’s most eye-popping element is the league’s proposed $45 million hard cap, which cuts the current $58 million soft cap by nearly 25 percent.

Hunter said in the memo that the NBA projects the $45 million hard cap number with a team’s total salary not to exceed the cap for any reason. The proposed hard cap as outlined by Hunter also would eliminate the current luxury tax provision, which penalizes teams with a dollar-for-dollar tax for the amount spent on player payroll exceeding the salary cap.

The proposed hard cap is something the NBA has never had under collective bargaining, but it has become a critical element to owners. This initial proposal, and its steep cut in player cap space, demonstrates a strong commitment by the owners to dramatically curtail player payrolls while also supporting NBA Commissioner David Stern’s mantra of making the league more profitable.

The inclusion of non-guaranteed player contracts, while a negotiating point, also represents a radical shift for players who have long benefited from guaranteed deals. Taken together, Hunter felt compelled to send out the missive.

“The nature of the owners’ demands is so onerous that I feel it is imperative to reinforce the message of our recent team meetings with this letter,” Hunter wrote in the memo.

The union confirmed the letter but refused to comment.

Hunter also alerts players to the league’s effort to alter the structure of current contracts while detailing the owners’ proposal that no player contract be guaranteed for more than 50 percent for the first $8 million in salary and 25 percent for any amount above $8 million.

“A system-wide change in the nature of guaranteed contracts ... not only would harm players’ economic interests individually, but it would also significantly change the culture of the league collectively,” Hunter wrote.

The league also strikes directly at a team’s cap room to re-sign players at a maximum salary, known as the “Bird” exception, after hall of famer Larry Bird. Annual contract increases would be no greater than 3 percent for players meeting the Bird rule, down significantly from the current 10.5 percent increase, according to the memo. Owners also proposed that the Bird rule contract length be cut to four years from the current six-year length.

Non-Bird players, or free agent players signing with new teams, would see their annual increases cut to 2 percent from the current 8 percent increase, with contract lengths cut to three years from the current five-year length.

The memo also explains that players would be put into one of four categories under a hard cap system, namely, Category A: a minimum salary player; Category B: a rookie wage scale player; Category C: a maximum salary player; and Category D: a player “fighting for whatever room remains under the new hard salary cap after the three above categories are accounted for.”

The union clearly is most concerned about the last category of players seeing major salary cuts. It uses, in the memo, as an example a player placed in the “D” category with his salary to be dictated by the team’s available salary cap. The player is signed through 2013 for a total salary exceeding $9 million. The memo shows that under the initial league proposal, the player’s salary would drop to a total just over $8 million, demonstrating how teams would be forced to cut salaries to remain under the hard cap.

“Under the hard cap proposal, a team’s total salary may not exceed the proposed hard salary cap for any reason,” Hunter said in the memo. “The important part to keep in mind is that without exceptions provided in our current soft cap system, all players would have to squeeze tightly under a hard (and much lower) cap number.”

Hunter and Stern have met in the past few weeks as the June 30 deadline of the current collective-bargaining agreement approaches. But as talks intensify, Hunter used the memo to stress to the players the growing threat of a lockout and the league’s firm hope to roll back salaries.

“Only by making it a point to prepare and educate yourself about the CBA negotiations and the pending lockout will you be able to best protect your own interests and the interests of the players that will follow,” Hunter wrote to the players.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-16/sbj-nba-proposes-45-million-hard-salary-cap

I like the idea of a hard salary cap but I seriously doubt it will be at $45 million.

How would teams like the Lakers or Mavs transition to this? They are already well over the $58 million soft cap. How would this affect our beloved Spurs who are also over the cap?

[Vici]

I'm all for it. The teams that are over the cap would be in the same situation that NFL teams were forced deal with in the mid 90's

[Vici]

The league would most likely honor those current contracts but teams will be limited with new expenses

[Uriel]

I'm all for a hard cap. I'm tired of watching big market teams like the Lakers pay exorbitant amounts of money to superstars and win championships year after year while the rest of the small market teams become little more than fillerson their way to domination. Quite frankly, the only reason why small market teams like the Spurs have even remained competitive is because of the brilliance of their front office. A hard cap would go a long way to leveling the playing field, in my opinion.

[DeadlyDynasty]

I see no way in hell the NBPA agrees to this.

This. If they insist, then we're looking at a LONG lockout

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

no more championships for the lakers. lol they wont allow it to be 45 mil. i can prob see around 60 mil. reasonalbe amount.

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

I peronally think that's not even close to enough. 80 million is a good hard cap. Maybe 75 and lower the soft cap to 50-ish million. The owners can lower the minimum and maximum, but in no way should they cut the players salaries drastically. And slowly lower both caps over the next few years. This needs to be gradual, and not immediate.

maybe 70. if there starting at 45 already i doubt it will make its way up to 80. if it gets up that high then there would most likely be a franchise tag on players. small market teams are sick and tired of LA and Boston.

[SequSpur]

they have to do something, 80 percent of the teams are losing their asses financially, including the spurs.

[Spurtacus]

NHL salary cap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_salary_cap


After reading that no way the NBA is below $60 million.

[ChuckD]

NHL salary cap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_salary_cap


After reading that no way the NBA is below $60 million.

NHL = 23 man roster
NBA = 15 man roster

apples and oranges.

[ChumpDumper]

That's the starting point. Could end up closer to 60 phased in over five years, but I don't see the owners budging on a hard cap, save minimum salary exceptions.

[Spurtacus]

NHL = 23 man roster
NBA = 15 man roster

apples and oranges.

Good point.

[ChuckD]

This. If they insist, then we're looking at a LONG lockout

I don't see it as longer than last time. The stars may rule on the court, but in the union, the shmoes rule. It's one man, one vote. Guys making $1M will likely still be making $1M, and there are a lot of them. Guys making $20-25M will likely be making $6M, but there are many fewer of them, and they won't control the vote.

[ChuckD]

That's gonna be impossible. Kobe alone in 2014 will make 30 million. The NBA can't take that money away because of a new CBA.

They can use the new Alan Houston amnesty slot on him.

[ChuckD]

Hockey is almost a regional sport. As a Flyers fan I almost find it impossible to find a Texan who knows anything about Hockey. Basketball is a national sport that everyone knows about.

Doesn't matter. The NBA salary structure is unsustainable.

[ducks]

they have to do something, 80 percent of the teams are losing their asses financially, including the spurs.

they are not lossing money

if they sell their teams they make money
clippers owners would make a killing
lower the ticket prices did any team sell out all season?

[ChuckD]

Hockey is almost a regional sport. As a Flyers fan I almost find it impossible to find a Texan who knows anything about Hockey. Basketball is a national sport that everyone knows about.

Most basketball "fans" understand a dunk, ESPN highlights, and a shoe commercial, and wouldn't know a back pick or a pin down screen if it bit them in the ass.

[DJ Mbenga]

players wont stand for this. they might budge on eliminating the mid level exception but this cuts their pay basically in half.

[ChuckD]

they are not lossing money

if they sell their teams they make money
clippers owners would make a killing
lower the ticket prices did any team sell out all season?

You understand that GM still had assets when they went into bankruptcy, don't you? It's not about what your company or team is worth on a balance sheet, it's if you can run it profitably on an annual basis. If you can't run it at a profit, eventually it WILL be worth nothing.

[ChuckD]

I'm not saying it will or won't change, but this cannot happen immediately. Not by a long shot. At least if there is going to be as drastic a change as the owners want.

Everything I've heard was a 2-3 year phase in.

[Spurtacus]

players wont stand for this. they might budge on eliminating the mid level exception but this cuts their pay basically in half.

Players won't go for $45 million. This proposal from the owners was likely the absolute minimum. I hope a hard cap does go through but I would expect it to be around $60 million after negotiations.

I think this is an accurate/current list of current salaries. Only 6 teams are below the current $58 million soft cap.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

[ChuckD]

That can't be done. It will have to be a gradual thing starting around 2015. Too much money among too many players over too many years has been handed out by the owners. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Sham wrote a great article not too long ago simply titled "The NBA should save money, but saving money." I'll find it.

They are also proposing a new single player amnesty round.

People said that the NFL would never go hard cap, either, but they did. Hard choices have to be made. Emmett finishes as a Cardinal, Jerry Rice as a Raider. Maybe Kobe finishes as a Clipper or Net.

[ducks]

owners offering big contracts last year during fa
then want a 45 million hard cap
LOL

[ducks]

Changes may need to be made to the system, but nothing would help more than better management.

[ChuckD]

http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/n-b-a-teams-should-save-by-saving-money/

Yeah, that's all nice, but if you allow the owners to spend, they will. They're like B-ball player crack addicts. You'll always have some new idiot, whether it be Cuban, or this new Russian Billionaire, who will spend to show how big their dick or wallet is.

[ChuckD]

P_C, it's like you asking to be banned from the forum because you can't stop on your own. The owners want to be banned from free spending.

[Cane]

Big changes need to be made and imo the NBA would be better off with a relatively low hard cap.

Imo roleplayers and fringe stars make too much guaranteed money. More flexibility and readily-accepted accountability could help especially when a star player nosedives like Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis. Those kind of nightmares need to be met with realistic options.

Uncertainty can also be a part of the ratings draw of the future and it'd help ignite fanbases across the country. Having a hard cap and other changes could go a long way for parity.

Owners and fans alike may be at the point where they would welcome up and coming teams rather than just bandwagoning the fortunate sons aka the Lakers and the Celtics. Many owners and fans are also probably sick of supporting a struggling franchise and losing their stars for scraps in the process.

[rmt]

The memo also explains that players would be put into one of four categories under a hard cap system, namely, Category A: a minimum salary player; Category B: a rookie wage scale player; Category C: a maximum salary player; and Category D: a player “fighting for whatever room remains under the new hard salary cap after the three above categories are accounted for.”

It's the category D players that the league is targeting. A & B are cheap. C - the superstars are who the fans turn out to watch. Category D are players like RJ who have no business earning $10m a year. If there's a lockout, players like Duncan and KG may retire - just not worth coming back for with the salaries they'll be getting.

I agree with some kind of hard cap though. The system the way it is now is not fair to the small market teams who will keep losing their players to bigger markets. With the hard cap, teams like LA and MAVs can't buy their way to a championship by spending so much. SA would have won so many championships if Holt spent like Cuban.

[ploto]

Tim + Manu + Tony > $45 million

The NBA definitely has to do something about long-term, fully guaranteed contracts with guaranteed raises that result in ridiculous salaries like these from this season:

Rashard Lewis $20.5 M
Michael Redd $18.3 M
AK 47 $17.8 M
Gilbert Arenas $17.7 M
Vince Carter $17.3 M

I do not know how the CBA works well enough to understand if and how they can possibly restructure current contracts between players and teams. Otherwise, there is no way teams can be below that hard cap in the next couple of years. There is simply too much money already guaranteed to too many players even if they allow another one-time buy out.

[Isitjustme?]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179842

[Mel_13]

Tim + Manu + Tony > $45 million

The NBA definitely has to do something about long-term, fully guaranteed contracts with guaranteed raises that result in ridiculous salaries like these from this season:

Rashard Lewis $20.5 M
Michael Redd $18.3 M
AK 47 $17.8 M
Gilbert Arenas $17.7 M
Vince Carter $17.3 M

I do not know how the CBA works well enough to understand if and how they can possibly restructure current contracts between players and teams. Otherwise, there is no way teams can be below that hard cap in the next couple of years. There is simply too much money already guaranteed to too many players even if they allow another one-time buy out.

Once the current CBA expires on June 30th, everything is negotiable for inclusion in the new CBA.

If a hard salary cap is agreed upon, there are several ways to deal with the transition. From more likely to less likely, at least IMO:

1. Graduated implementation over a period of years.

2. Amnesty similar to Allan Houston rule in 2005. Teams would be allowed to cut one player. They would still have to pay his salary, but that salary wouldn't count against the cap.

3. Salary rollbacks. The owners will push for reductions to existing contracts and the players will resist. NHL players finally agreed to rollbacks after an entire season was lost.

[dbestpro]

The league would most likely honor those current contracts but teams will be limited with new expenses

This is why they would phase in the system over several years and would also limit the hit incurred by guaranteed contracts. The big three in Miami would see 2 of the players being released, which Miami would have to pay the partial guarantee and then try to resign them at a lesser pay.

Players have gotten use to the big contracts and owners do not have the money to throw away any more in this economy. I for one think we can scratch next season. The only good thing about that is there will be one less year on RJs and Bonner's contracts.

[MannyIsGod]

I see no way in hell the NBPA agrees to this.

[ploto]

Once the current CBA expires on June 30th, everything is negotiable for inclusion in the new CBA...

The owners will push for reductions to existing contracts and the players will resist.

I understand a new CBA but how can they change contracts already signed and negotiated under the old CBA?

[MannyIsGod]

Also - given the Spurs success over the last decade without going over the luxury tax the owners are going to be hard pressed to say you can't win in a small market.

[Mel_13]

I understand a new CBA but how can they change contracts already signed and negotiated under the old CBA?

That's collective bargaining. The union can agree to accept a reduced value on existing contracts. They won't want to, but it's possible and legal.

[dbreiden83080]

Is the NBA really losing money?

The ratings are way up across the board for the playoffs and isn't attendance still great??

[ploto]

I am curious to see how this will impact the overall number of players in the league. With tighter cap rules, I would think more teams would carry only the minimum required number of players or that number could even go down. Are teams going to use scarce cap room for guys who sit in suits or go to the NBDL? I know right now the league guarantees an average of 14 per team although each team only has to have 13. I wonder how that will change.

[dbestpro]

Is the NBA really losing money?

The ratings are way up across the board for the playoffs and isn't attendance still great??

The profit benefit of the NBA has only affected 20% of the teams, while 80% are losing money. The biggest reason has been the lack of parody as only 7 teams have won a ring over the past 30 years, and has come to a head in a down economy.

Owners wrote it off as long as their other business interests were doing well. That is not the case anymore. The rich man's toy must now at last break even.

[ducks]

Tim + Manu + Tony > $45 million

The NBA definitely has to do something about long-term, fully guaranteed contracts with guaranteed raises that result in ridiculous salaries like these from this season:

Rashard Lewis $20.5 M
Michael Redd $18.3 M
AK 47 $17.8 M
Gilbert Arenas $17.7 M
Vince Carter $17.3 M

I do not know how the CBA works well enough to understand if and how they can possibly restructure current contracts between players and teams. Otherwise, there is no way teams can be below that hard cap in the next couple of years. There is simply too much money already guaranteed to too many players even if they allow another one-time buy out.



owners offer them anyone with a brain would sign them

[Mel_13]

The profit benefit of the NBA has only affected 20% of the teams, while 80% are losing money. The biggest reason has been the lack of parody as only 7 teams have won a ring over the past 30 years, and has come to a head in a down economy.

Owners wrote it off as long as their other business interests were doing well. That is not the case anymore. The rich man's toy must now at last break even.

The NBA does not lack for parody.

[ducks]

I am curious to see how this will impact the overall number of players in the league. With tighter cap rules, I would think more teams would carry only the minimum required number of players or that number could even go down. Are teams going to use scarce cap room for guys who sit in suits or go to the NBDL? I know right now the league guarantees an average of 14 per team although each team only has to have 13. I wonder how that will change.

if money was so tight why offer those contracts last year out:lmao:lmao

laughing at owners

[jacobdrj]

A) Rookie Salary Scale has to be a fixed scale based on draft position.
B) Rookie Salaries should never count towards the overall cap.

[yavozerb]

A) Rookie Salary Scale has to be a fixed scale based on draft position.
B) Rookie Salaries should never count towards the overall cap.

A. Isnt that already done?

[Dex]

This offseason is going to be terrible. I'm already ready for the season to end so we can see what the Spurs are going to do with this team over the summer, but all of that is going to get stalled out until they sort out the CBA.

[Mel_13]

A) Rookie Salary Scale has to be a fixed scale based on draft position.



A. Isnt that already done?

It is.

[lmbebo]

I'm ok with Bird Rule, but there would have to be an ammendment that would state that it would only be the with the team the player earned the Bird exception with. Something along those lines so players can't look for a sign-n-trade anymore just to get more money. If they want to go to another team, let them take the financial hit.

[Mel_13]

I'm ok with Bird Rule, but there would have to be an ammendment that would state that it would only be the with the team the player earned the Bird exception with. Something along those lines so players can't look for a sign-n-trade anymore just to get more money. If they want to go to another team, let them take the financial hit.

S&Ts benefit the team that trades the player as well as the player himself. Teams don't do S&Ts just so that the player gets more money.

[Mel_13]

LOL at NBA. Panathinaikos and Olympiacos have budgets that high.

1. Apples and oranges.

2. No, they don't:

http://www.in-the-game.org/?page_id=799

http://www.in-the-game.org/?page_id=802

3. Here comes the convoluted rant about net salaries, maids, mansions, chauffeurs, gardeners, and pool boys.

[temujin]

The salary budget of Olympiacos this season is 32 million euros and 30 million euros for Panathinaikos.

$45 million = 32 million euros.

Lol at you. You are a pathetic loser Mel. Making fun of those Greek clubs that have budgets as high as NBA's new cap.

And BTW, you are also an epic moron to post a link to PAO showing a budget of 33 million euros (they actually lowered it to 30 this year).........hey IDIOT euros are worth more than dollars.

Damn, you are a joke.

Pretty soon it's going to be 230.000.000.000 millions dracmas.


Finally.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Yes it does. It is a 2 team league. Celtics and Lakers. No well known pro basketball league on Earth is as dominated by 2 teams in history as NBA is.

It is known worldwide as a 2 team league.

just : HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

:lol

[Mel_13]

Yes it does. It is a 2 team league. Celtics and Lakers. No well known pro basketball league on Earth is as dominated by 2 teams in history as NBA is.

It is known worldwide as a 2 team league.

The NBA does not lack for parody, nor does your posting style.

Look it up.

[Mel_13]

The salary budget of Olympiacos this season is 32 million euros and 30 million euros for Panathinaikos.

Not according to those links, unless there is some special fake Greek math you're going to tell us about.

[cantthinkofanything]

The NBA does not lack for parody, nor does your posting style.

Look it up.

LOL. Beat me to it.

[Mel_13]

The link you posted shows Panathinaikos with a budget of over 45 million dollars.

It is incredibly pathetic that you don't even know basic math. 33 million euros = $47 million dollars.

The LINK YOU POSTED proves my point. Idiot.

1. That number is from 08/09 and is an estimate.

2. That number is an estimate of the total team budget, meaning all club expenditures. Salaries are one component of the team budget.

3. Now stop babbling and add the salary numbers in the 2010/11 column and get back to us.

4. They apparently don't teach math, reading, or basic business in Arkansas.

[Mel_13]

Name one other league worldwide in basketball that is considered elite that has been as dominated by 2 teams as the NBA has.

The elite basketball leagues worldwide are considered to be:

NBA
Euroleague
Spain
Greece
Italy
Eurocup

Show me where any of those leagues has ever been dominated in history like the NBA has by 2 clubs. News flash, none of them have. Only the NBA has been so dominated historically by 2 clubs.

:rollin

Greek League Champs since 92-93

PAO-12
Oly-6
AEK-1

[cantthinkofanything]

Name one other league worldwide in basketball that is considered elite that has been as dominated by 2 teams as the NBA has.

The elite basketball leagues worldwide are considered to be:

NBA
Euroleague
Spain
Greece
Italy
Eurocup

Show me where any of those leagues has ever been dominated in history like the NBA has by 2 clubs. News flash, none of them have. Only the NBA has been so dominated historically by 2 clubs.

Someone should investigate whatever league the Globetrotters are in. Seems fixed to me.

[Mel_13]

The budget for this season is 30 million euros. I already told you that. That does NOT include "all club expenditures".

:rollin

Then account for difference between the budget figure and the total of the salaries


And in case you are too damn stupid to grasp it, NBA salaries are GROSS, meaning half of the number listed, or even less. The club's don't actually pay that amount. They pay only the net amount, which they never list to artificially inflate the budgets so idiots like you are fooled.



3. Here comes the convoluted rant about net salaries, maids, mansions, chauffeurs, gardeners, and pool boys.

You're nothing if not predictable.

[Mel_13]

The Greek League started in 1927. once again PATHETIC. You know damn well that Greek League is not nearly as dominated by 2 teams as NBA is, so you choose to ignore the first 60 years or so of it.

You are truly a pathetic troll.

Here you go:

NBA from 1991 to 1998

Bulls 6

Rockets 2

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Since you can just pick any year you like in your trolling mind.

Either find another league that is considered elite worldwide that in HISTORY was dominated by 2 teams as much as the NBA was, or STFU troll.

19 years is just like 8 years. :rolleyes

PAO has won 31 of 71 Greek League championships.

The Lakers and Celtics have combined to win 33 of 65 NBA titles.

[Mel_13]

You are a freaking moron.

I think it is time to report you. You owned yourself with that link. You are wrong. I am right. But you still troll me like an a-hole for no reason. You are out of line endlessly in this forum.

You really don't want to add up those salary numbers, do you?

Understandable.

[cantthinkofanything]

Just thought of another league dominated by two teams.

The Laff-a-Lympics were almost always won by either the Scooby Doobies or the Yogi Yahooeys. Very rarely did the Really Rottens come away with the win.

[024]

i say just bite the bullet and implement this hard cap. tired of seeing the big market teams get all the bloated contracts and dominate.

[ChuckD]

You are a freaking moron.

I think it is time to report you. You owned yourself with that link. You are wrong. I am right. But you still troll me like an a-hole for no reason. You are out of line endlessly in this forum.

You owned yourself last time you reported someone. Do you really want another forum spanking by Kori?

[TwelveGs210]

KBP_Forever, you are like the shit nugget that just wont flush, even after several attempts at flushing..everytime I see any type of conversation you are in here, its pissing someone off with you arrogant bs, or just being a pest..

You are seriously more annoying than Rapper, before he was banned from starting threads..only thing is, Rapper wasnt TRYING to be a pain in the ass.

[101A]

I'm all for a hard cap. I'm tired of watching big market teams like the Lakers pay exorbitant amounts of money to superstars and win championships year after year while the rest of the small market teams become little more than fillerson their way to domination. Quite frankly, the only reason why small market teams like the Spurs have even remained competitive is because of the brilliance of their front office. A hard cap would go a long way to leveling the playing field, in my opinion.


Now, with salaries being slashed, endorsement money could become THE deciding factor for free agents who are chasing a buck. Again, the big market teams trump the small.

[Spurtacus]

Now, with salaries being slashed, endorsement money could become THE deciding factor for free agents who are chasing a buck. Again, the big market teams trump the small.

Small market teams need to build HEBs. Everyone needs Mootopia milk.

[ChuckD]

Now, with salaries being slashed, endorsement money could become THE deciding factor for free agents who are chasing a buck. Again, the big market teams trump the small.

The thing is, with a true hard cap, there are only so many FAs who can sign with an LA or NY or CHI, no matter how many want to go there for endorsements. They aren't going to try to subsist on endorsements, because I'm doubting those have an injury guarantee like most team contracts. There will be plenty of players to go around.

[Vito Corleone]

no more championships for the lakers. lol they wont allow it to be 45 mil. i can prob see around 60 mil. reasonalbe amount.

I think parody has killed the NFL, yea you see lots of different teams win championships but you never see dynasties anymore like the Dallas Cowboys were, or the 49ers were. That is because the guys that are drafted in the later rounds and turned into great players are moving to new teams too easily. Gone are the days of NFL teams that have 7 or 8 hall of fame level players that finish off their whole careers with that team.


I'm all for a hard cap. I'm tired of watching big market teams like the Lakers pay exorbitant amounts of money to superstars and win championships year after year while the rest of the small market teams become little more than fillerson their way to domination. Quite frankly, the only reason why small market teams like the Spurs have even remained competitive is because of the brilliance of their front office. A hard cap would go a long way to leveling the playing field, in my opinion.

Actually I think this will be very advantageous to big market teams who will just cut the sucky guys off their roster and fill it with a great player who knows that they can double their salary if they go to LA or New York.

If you're a great player and know that the most you can get paid in any market is 8 million dollars where would you rather be, in San Antonio making just that or in LA making that plus an extra 20 million in endorsements?


they are not lossing money

if they sell their teams they make money
clippers owners would make a killing
lower the ticket prices did any team sell out all season?

Yes they are losing money, and why do you think the New Orleans franchise had to be taken over by the league? There were no buyers.


players wont stand for this. they might budge on eliminating the mid level exception but this cuts their pay basically in half.

The players will cave in just like the NFL players did, when it comes down to it, the NBA players know they are just as greedy as the owners and want their money and will hang each other out to dry to get it.


i would be for a hard salary cap if the NBA owners got to have a hard cap on profits and had to give the rest back to the local taxpayers footing the bill for their expensive hobbies

BINGO, the owners are not victims in this, they are greedy bastards just like the players and they expect us to pony up for their greed.


Yes it does. It is a 2 team league. Celtics and Lakers. No well known pro basketball league on Earth is as dominated by 2 teams in history as NBA is.

It is known worldwide as a 2 team league.

No league has ever been dominated the Baseball is dominated by the Yankees.



Just thought of another league dominated by two teams.

The Laff-a-Lympics were almost always won by either the Scooby Doobies or the Yogi Yahooeys. Very rarely did the Really Rottens come away with the win.

You win the internet :rollin

[buttsR4rebounding]

The league would most likely honor those current contracts but teams will be limited with new expenses


I see no way in hell the NBPA agrees to this.


This. If they insist, then we're looking at a LONG lockout

There is no way the league honors the current contracts if a hard cap CBA goes into effect. Most likely they contracts would be cut by a certain percentage which would increase during the phase in period. As far as the player's association never agreeing to it you have to keep in mind that there are a ton of players making less than $5 million a year. In fact, a quick review of team rosters shows that roughly 1/3 of rosters make under $1million and about 1/3 make between $1 million and $5 million. In addition, there are players that are part of the union that are not currently under contract. All of these players are going to be effected much less than the Kobes, LeBrons and Duncans of the game, but their votes count just as much. They also have much left save up to fall back on, so when they weigh the pros and cons of staying out it will be much different than those few making over $10,000,000 per year.

[Spurtacus]

This is still a go. I find it almost impossible for anything lower then 60 million to be negotiated.


According to NBA executives familiar with the league’s strategies, once the lockout is in place, the owners will push for a hard salary cap of $45 million, the elimination of guaranteed contracts and ask that the players swallow a 33 percent salary cut.

The concessions made in recent weeks, including the “flex cap” of $62 million and a guarantee of $2 billion in annual player payroll, will be off the table.

If this seems certain to guarantee the loss of the entire 2011-12 season, it is because there are owners who think it is necessary for the long-term viability of the league.

[dylankerouac]

This is going to be a long offseason as these two groups seem far apart and neither is budging.

Listing of what both sides want: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=labor-110629

When does the NT play start? Also, still waiting for televised broadcasting of the Silver Stars, that starts early July iirc.

[baseline bum]

LOL, if the owners get a $45 million cap and non-guaranteed contracts the public should get all its fucking arena financing money back.

[Bruno]

If owners really want to go that far, players should start working an creating a new league. Players generates all the money and thus have all the power.

[Mr. Body]

I love how the owners are freaking out over contracts they created, offered, and signed themselves. What a bunch of whiners.

[Cane]

The NBA needs to be more like the NHL and NFL rather than have a soft-MLB type of system. Also non-stars make way too much money for far too long in this league.

There's no way in hell that the cap will lower to $45 mill but the NBA desperately needs to revamp its system. And :lol @ the idea of the players starting their own league.

[TimmehC]

A lot of first round picks and other free agents are going to be stolen by Euroleague teams this season if the owners don't drop these demands.

[baseline bum]

The NBA needs to be more like the NHL and NFL rather than have a soft-MLB type of system. Also non-stars make way too much money for far too long in this league.

There's no way in hell that the cap will lower to $45 mill but the NBA desperately needs to revamp its system. And :lol @ the idea of the players starting their own league.

The NBA needs contracts to go one way only?

[buttsR4rebounding]

I'm not saying it will or won't change, but this cannot happen immediately. Not by a long shot. At least if there is going to be as drastic a change as the owners want.

According to Hoopshype teams are locked into the following salaries for next season and how many players make up that number. This does not include any team options or qualifying offers or rookie contracts.

Team................Sal in Millions.........#of Players
Atl.......................64...................... ...7
Bost.....................72....................... ..8
Charl....................47....................... ..9
Chic.....................61....................... ..10
Cleve...................56........................ .13
Dall......................63...................... ...10
Det.......................48...................... ...9
GS........................51...................... ...9
Houston................46......................... .10
Ind.......................37...................... ....11
LAC.......................45...................... ....10
LAL........................95..................... .....11
Mem......................37....................... ...9
Miami.....................68...................... ....12
Milw........................52.................... .......11
Minn......................48...................... ......13
NJ..........................40.................... ........8
NO..........................42.................... .......5
NY...........................65................... .......9
OKC.........................49.................... .....12
ORL.........................75.................... ......10
Phi...........................54.................. ........8
Pho..........................48................... .......10
Port........................66.................... ........10
Sac.........................29.................... ........8
SA...........................70................... .........10
Tor..........................45................... .........10
Utah........................52.................... ........8

If there is a hard cap around $65 million with the ability to have one contract included in an amnesty virtually every team except the Lakers could field a team next year. The Lakers would have to amnesty Kobe to have any shot (which would just be too funny to contemplate). The teams that appear best suited with current talent locked up for next year are Chicago, Miami, and OKC. If the Spurs jettison RJ they should be able to sign their 2 draft choices, but would leave a rookie starting at the 3. Almost assuredly they would have to allow for the re-negotiation of contracts as part of the deal. Otherwise, teams like Boston would have jettison one of their big 3, for example.

[dbreiden83080]

waaay too low

No chance

[CGD]

Thanks for posting the article... tricky times indeed. I think the owners will concede a greater cap figure provided its fixed. However, the greater the figure the more they push back on length of player contracts. Frankly, hearing people on this forum bitch about RJ's contract, I'm surprised there isn't more sympathy... but I digress. The escrow amount demand smells to me of a bargaining chip: don't be surprised if the owners "generously" concede it.

Seems to me the real battle for the owners is the $2B BRI figure because that takes into account revenue from player imaging, increased in available media delivery options (not just tv rights, but this mobile media), and international growth projections (Euro expansion anyone?). Maybe the owner could guarantee the players the greater of $2B or a floor of 45%?

No doubt, we've come a long way since the mid-1990s when players like Derrick Coleman could demand 90M for 8 years. Still long term deals even by today's standard impact small market teams the most. How many times have we seen small market teams overpay for unworthy players in the hope of retaining some semblance of competitiveness?

[dbestpro]

If owners really want to go that far, players should start working an creating a new league. Players generates all the money and thus have all the power.

The way the players run their business they'd have the league 600 million in debt in no time.

[Bruno]

The way the players run their business they'd have the league 600 million in debt in no time.

I'm not pushing for a league managed by players but they should seek other investor. I find the NBA quite weak at drawing money. A new and more commercial league should be able to be both profitable and pay big salaries to players.

[ChuckD]

I see no way in hell the NBPA agrees to this.

The NBAPA is comprised of 25-30 rich players and a whole bunch of minimum to LLE players who will be missing their paychecks by 15 November. It's one man, one vote. Stars don't have any extra pull.

[MannyIsGod]

The way the players run their business they'd have the league 600 million in debt in no time.

:lmao You make it seem as if the owners are any better? Its absurd.

[callo1]

no more championships for the lakers. lol they wont allow it to be 45 mil. i can prob see around 60 mil. reasonalbe amount.

Actually, a hard cap would drive even more players go to big markets strictly for the marketing potential, thus creating an even larger disparity.

[GSH]

There's not going to be any $45M hard cap. Absolutely no way. And most of the people here know better, if they stop to think about it for a minute. Both groups are greedy bastards, and the fans and taxpayers are footing the bill for their extravagance. The salary distribution got out of hand, and there needs to be a correction. No - there's going to be a correction.

The biggest thing is that the correction came at a time when the whole economy is in the tank. The owners are negotiating as if it will always be this way, and the players are negotiating as if there's no recession/depression going on at all. The owners will talk about a $45M hard cap, and the players will talk about basically a one year freeze on increases. Both sides know the end result will be in the middle. Why get all twisted speculating about something we all know is just a bargaining chip?



I find the NBA quite weak at drawing money. A new and more commercial league should be able to be both profitable and pay big salaries to players.

Oh, come on Bruno. Seriously? I know you think the players have all the power, and should strike out at the capitalist overlords and all that. But c'mon... if there's one thing the league has done is merchandise the shit out of their product. Arena seats are as expensive as they can reasonably be. The merchandise is everywhere, and the league is VERY aggressive with licensing fees. They have strangled billions from the networks, and started their own network for the games that aren't being televised elsewhere. It's hard to imagine them pimping All-Star Weekend any more than they already do. What more do you want them to do?

Oh wait... I know. Make the rivalries more intense so that people riot and assault opposing fans in the stands. Find a way to convince people that the winner of a sporting contest really MATTERS - and if their team wins, it means that their city/state/country is superior. Nothing like a little gladiator action, to make the masses forget that the empire is crumbling. We may be a nation of mindless zombies, but we're still a step above fucking World Cup fans.

The NBA weak at drawing money. What a bunch of horseshit. But hey, if you admit that the league and owners serve a purpose, then there's no justification for the workers to rise up and take over. Or maybe it's just that you think they should join up to become part of FIBA, since Europeans are always superior at doing everything?

You know a lot about basketball... avoid politics.

[sahoopster]

A lot of first round picks and other free agents are going to be stolen by Euroleague teams this season if the owners don't drop these demands.

How come no one seems to be mentioning this as a possibility for the players? If the owners indeed decide to go with a $45 million hard cap I could see a lot of players choosing to either stay in Europe or for American players to go play over there to make more money. I could see quite a few of the second and third tier players going to Europe.

[EmantheSpursFan]

Union VP Matt Bonner: Owners Proposing Worst Deal In History Of Sports


http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214478/Union_VP_Bonner_Owners_Proposing_Worst_Deal_In_His tory_Of_Sports

sorry if already posted

[mingus]

don't the players get something like 57% of the total revenue? it's something over 50% IIRC.

anything close to 50% is fair.

lol Matt Bonner saying it'd be the worst CBA in the history of sports.

i'd love to supposedly get "screwed" and still get paid a million dollars a year w/o a spending two years in college (and choking, too)

ultimately the owners will decide whether they are worth what they are asking for, and i don't think the owners budge on this one. it'll be a comprimise and the owners will get more of what they want.

[Mel_13]

don't the players get something like 57% of the total revenue? it's something over 50% IIRC.

anything close to 50% is fair.

Check out what the current proposal from the owners does to the split.


lol Matt Bonner saying it'd be the worst CBA in the history of sports.

See the current proposed CBA


i'd love to supposedly get "screwed" and still get paid a million dollars a year w/o a spending two years in college (and choking, too)

TV networks aren't paying billions of dollars to broadcast the efforts of typical college dropouts.





ultimately the owners will decide whether they are worth what they are asking for,

it'll be a comprimise

http://www.richardtimothy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/13-confused-dog.jpg

[DPG21920]

Ken Bergers article is solid.

[velik_m]

I have a different idea that would make the salaries more manageable: how about if the league makes it so that both parties have to sign the contract? That way when a GM doesn't want to pay player more than the club can afford, he can just not sign that contract! I think that would be the simplest solution to all the problems with overpaying the players...

[GSH]

I have a different idea that would make the salaries more manageable: how about if the league makes it so that both parties have to sign the contract? That way when a GM doesn't want to pay player more than the club can afford, he can just not sign that contract! I think that would be the simplest solution to all the problems with overpaying the players...


Better still - how about when a player under contract refuses to play (like Spanoulis), he has to pay the club a few million in buyout money?

Or when a player like Fran Vazquez enters the draft, he has to do so in good faith. If he gets drafted and refuses to play, he owes the NBA team millions to compensate for the wasted pick?

Or better still, how about if a team signs a player, who then proceeds to suck, the team can cut him loose immediately without owing him any more money? When you buy a product at the store, and it doesn't perform as advertised, you get your money back.

That all sounds terribly fair to me, and should be easy to implement. That's all anybody wants, isn't it? Fair and practical?

[TampaDude]

According to ESPN, 22 NBA teams lose money every year, and the NBA as a whole loses, $300 million a year.

Then how the fuck are they still in business??? :lol

[GSH]

According to ESPN, 22 NBA teams lose money every year, and the NBA as a whole, loses $300 million a year.

Yeah, well, that's not exactly true either. For tax purposes, they owners take a loss. But their tax losses include depreciation - just like every other business. But, unlike other businesses, the owners get to depreciate their roster.

Those of you who haven't fallen asleep (and have any sort of accounting knowledge) are saying, "What?" Or maybe "WTF?" Don't the owners already show their salary expenses for tax purposes? Yes. And they also get to show a depreciation expense every year for the players on their roster. Many years ago, they sold the idea that their roster becomes worth less every year, as players age. And therefore they should be able to show a business expense related to that decline in value. And, yes, that is in addition to the salary expense. Don't even try to find the logic. It's not there.

So the loss that the owners report doesn't mean that they lose that much money out of their pockets. It's an accounting loss. That's why I keep saying that both the players and the owners are full of shit. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

A lot of the people commenting about the lockout are naive as hell. And I don't just mean fans - a lot of the sportswriters are too. I started to make a thread about this a couple of times, but I get sick of all the flame war crap, and all the 12 year olds burying good comments in a sea of dirty diapers. But you can take this to the bank: the negotiations are being held up by two groups - the big market owners, and the superstar players. The interests of all the players are not aligned, nor are the interests of all the owners. This whole thing could be settled by giving the players about 53% of BRI, and giving the owners some kind of protection from guys who get huge contracts and then quit trying. The big roadblocks, are from the two groups above. And those two groups have all the leverage.

The two groups that SHOULD organize and weigh in on this are the fans and the cities/taxpayers. They would have some leverage too, if they weren't quietly sitting on the sidelines watching.

One thing I want to repeat: there will be no $45M hard cap. Period. Everybody knows it is just a starting point for negotiations. (Including some of the posters on these forums.) The union guys talk about it to try and get the fans riled up. But they all know that the union has already offered far in excess of that.

So why are the owners moving backwards? Because now that there is a lockout, the real negotiations begin. The union was hoping to begin the new negotiations from the highest offer the owners had given, and work their way upward. All the owners did was say that they are going back to their original position to begin negotiations. If you were negotiating to buy something, would you want to start at a high price, or a low price? Duh.

[ducks]

so if they lost so much money why did the gms give the players stupid contracts last year
can they not say no?

[GSH]

so if they lost so much money why did the gms give the players stupid contracts last year
can they not say no?


Nobody is in it to be a loser, Ducks. You know that. And when you're trying to build a team, and the free agent market is thin, you bid on what's available.

So what's the alternative? DON'T pay them? Would you really be happy if even more teams in the league had really, really shitty teams? The only way the owners could effectively lower salaries would be to collude with each other, and agree that nobody offers big contracts this year. And if they did that, the players would de-certify and bring an anti-trust suit in a heartbeat. And, most importantly... the players would win that lawsuit. Seriously, the lawsuit would be automatic, and the win would be a no-brainer.

The other problem - big market teams can afford to swallow a bad contract and still make money. Small market teams can't. Would you really be happy if the league contracted to just 22 teams? Nobody can say that would be better with a straight face. If for no other reason than guys like George Hill and Gary Neal would spend their whole careers in Europe and China. We'd never get to watch them play. I don't know about you, but I would feel like I had missed out to never see those guys play.

You've got guys out there like Sean Kemp, who showed up for camp weighing over 300 pounds. Or Jackie Butler who got his contract, and went into early retirement. Or Stephen Jackson demanding a "mandatory" extension. What choice do small market teams have? It's either give him his extension, or take a chance that he might tank a season to express his unhappiness. Or... send him off to a big market team, in exchange for whatever they want to give.

The owners have some points. But a whole lot of their arguments are bullshit. The players have some points. But a whole lot of their arguments are bullshit. The argument that the GM's should "just show some restraint" is one of the bullshit ones. The current system is designed to make that impossible, if the team even hopes to compete.

One more thing nobody has mentioned. The teams make a large chunk of their profit from the post-season. Not their revenues - but their profits. It's a huge blow for the Spurs to go out in the first round, even. These teams that decide to "just not pay" the big contracts? They're screwed. They will have almost no chance of getting any post-season money. The deck is stacked in favor of paying big, long contracts. There's no way around it.