PDA

View Full Version : Stern says owners want relief from bad contracts



Kori Ellis
10-29-2004, 12:36 PM
NEW YORK (AP) -- Defining one of the goals of owners in ongoing collective bargaining talks, NBA commissioner David Stern said teams would like some type of relief from long-term contract obligations to unproductive players.

The NBA's seven-year labor agreement expires after the upcoming season, and the league and players' union have been holding preliminary talks on a new deal -- the first since the sides went through a costly lockout that wiped out a large portion of the 1998-99 season.

Sounding a fairly optimistic tone, Stern said it was far too early in the process to even be speaking about the possibility of another lockout.

But he did give some insight into what's behind one of the owners' current proposals -- cutting the maximum length of contracts from seven years to four.

"Owners, on balance, want to come up with system that's a bit more profitable than the existing system and doesn't reward players who are no longer in the league -- or who shouldn't be in the league at higher prices," Stern said Thursday in a conference call with reporters.

"Players getting contracts and not playing in the league is taking money from players who are in the league and are playing heavily. That's what gets us into discussions of shorter contracts," Stern said.

Stern met with ownership's negotiating committee earlier this week during the league's Board of Governors meeting, giving a briefing on what parameters have been established thus far in talks with the union.

The union is seeking greater freedom of movement for players, along with an end to the escrow tax system under which 10 percent of players' paychecks are withheld, and the luxury tax system that penalizes owners with the highest payrolls.

Stern also said he has asked for a 20-year-old age limit, with incentives provided to players who defer their draft eligibility to stay in college. The union says it adamantly opposes raising the current age limit of 18.

"There are lots of proposals and ideas going around. We remain committed to a process that guarantees the players a specific percentage of revenues," Stern said. "We're talking more about certain approaches as to redistributing money than we are about major efforts to clamp that money down."

Basketball's collective bargaining talks come as the National Hockey League is in a work stoppage, the owners having locked out the players and postponed the start of the 2004-05 season.

NBA owners are also seeking a reduction in the size of annual raises given in long-term contracts. Currently, players can receive 12.5 percent raises if they re-sign with their current team; 10 percent if they sign with a new team as a free agent.

Owners are also seeking a reduction in the starting salary for the midlevel exception, which allows teams over the salary cap to free agents.

But the most important item on the wish list, Stern made clear, was some mechanism to prevent teams from having to pay millions of dollars to players who stop being productive after signing long-term contracts.

The New York Knicks, for instance, paid $6 million to Travis Knight -- along with an additional $6 million in luxury tax -- despite cutting him prior to last season.

Also, Matt Maloney is being paid $3.2 million by Houston this season despite having been out of the league for most of the past three seasons, and the Knicks are on the hook for $1.2 million to John Amaechi despite having waived him just days after acquiring him from Houston last season.

New York is currently pondering a buyout of the three years and $24 million it owes Shandon Anderson, and the Chicago Bulls are in similar straits trying to part ways with Eddie Robinson.

"The system may not have adequate rewards for veteran players and others who can make contributions," Stern said.

Union director Billy Hunter did not immediately respond to Stern's statements. He said during the summer that a lockout is possible if ownership didn't move significantly away from its initial demands.

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-29-2004, 01:07 PM
What's the big deal with the age limit being raised? All I ever hear is how the league vets are just thrown aside for young guys, and how it isn't fair?

I guess when the union says no to an age limit, it's really the agents talking.

IcemanCometh
10-29-2004, 01:10 PM
heres the big deal, its giving in to what the owners want.

timvp
10-29-2004, 01:11 PM
An easy way for owners to avoid paying salaries to players who suck is to not sign those sucky players to begin with.

Pretty simple.

JsnSA
10-29-2004, 02:47 PM
I agree with the owners on most of this.

And not paying sucky players big money is easier said than done.

Usually those players were not sucky whent they got the contract...its after that they got sucky.

boutons
10-29-2004, 02:54 PM
"What's the big deal with the age limit being raised?"

I think that particular issue may involved federal right to work rules, age discimination, whatever.

One can drive and drink and kill/die in the military at 18, but one is denied a job in sports entertainment because of age?

I think they should leave that issue way down the list of CBA priorities. It ain't exactly destroying the NBA or the players.

JsnSA
10-29-2004, 03:02 PM
"What's the big deal with the age limit being raised?"

I think that particular issue may involved federal right to work rules, age discimination, whatever.

One can drive and drink and kill/die in the military at 18, but one is denied a job in sports entertainment because of age?

I think they should leave that issue way down the list of CBA priorities. It ain't exactly destroying the NBA or the players.

Although it can mess with some teams who draft young on player potential for fear of missing the next KG or KObe (who most of these young guys will NOT be)...only to get burned.

But at the same time...yeah...it hasnt destroyed the NBA either.

I kind of wish they could have some sort of deal were the young studs could go into the developmental league...but if it is known that they would have been a top draft pick...they will make NBA league minimum and have their developmental years (which should only end up being a few at most) go towards their NBA duration....when it comes to contracts and pay brackets and such.

This way they still get paid...but they also get more time to develop and teams can see if they are indeed worth drafting when they reach the age to enter the NBA.

BronxCowboy
10-29-2004, 04:35 PM
If teams draft players who are too young based solely on potential, that's the teams fault. A player can't make a team draft him. Also, if a team gives an unproven (or past his prime, for that matter) player a 6 or 7 year contract and gets burned, they knew that was a possibility when they offered that length of a contract. I'm tired of hearing all the bitching about bad contracts the owners/teams get stuck with. Just because you CAN sign a guy for 7 years doesn't mean you HAVE to. You make a business choice, it turns out bad, you suck it up and live with it. If the owners want to do something about bad contracts, there is no need to change the rules, just change their habits.

JsnSA
10-29-2004, 05:10 PM
It may be the teams fault...but it still is going to happen. It has been happening.

I think the league wants this to stop happening...and really raising the age limit is the ONLY way it will happen.

aka_USAPA
10-29-2004, 05:28 PM
When a 32-year old player who is in his prime plays for a contract year, and he has a kick-ass season, it's natural for owners to be hesitant to extend that player a 7-year deal when the rest of the world knows that this player might only have 2-3 good years in his prime left. That's why they want this 4-year max rule in place. It makes a lot of sense.

timvp
10-29-2004, 05:32 PM
I agree with the owners on most of this.

And not paying sucky players big money is easier said than done.

Usually those players were not sucky whent they got the contract...its after that they got sucky.


The New York Knicks, for instance, paid $6 million to Travis Knight -- along with an additional $6 million in luxury tax -- despite cutting him prior to last season.

Also, Matt Maloney is being paid $3.2 million by Houston this season despite having been out of the league for most of the past three seasons, and the Knicks are on the hook for $1.2 million to John Amaechi despite having waived him just days after acquiring him from Houston last season.

New York is currently pondering a buyout of the three years and $24 million it owes Shandon Anderson, and the Chicago Bulls are in similar straits trying to part ways with Eddie Robinson.

Knight, Maloney, Amaechi, Anderson and Robinson were bad before they got their contracts. None of them deserved the contracts they got ... and now the teams are paying for them.

Protecting owners against their own stupidness doesn't make sense to me. That's like making a compulsive purchase and the regretting it and wanting your money back. It doesn't work that way.

You don't want it, don't buy it.

aka_USAPA
10-29-2004, 05:37 PM
I can see the side of the owners. I actually like the 4-year rule. Besides, it gives other teams a better chance to be competitive, and lesser chance for trade demands.

In your example about not buying what you don't want, player contracts are like cars. You really don't want one for a very long time. After 4 years, you're ready for a new contract.

BronxCowboy
10-29-2004, 06:01 PM
I can see the side of the owners. I actually like the 4-year rule. Besides, it gives other teams a better chance to be competitive, and lesser chance for trade demands.

In your example about not buying what you don't want, player contracts are like cars. You really don't want one for a very long time. After 4 years, you're ready for a new contract.


Then only offer a four-year contract to start with. Once again, just because they can doesn't mean they have to. It's their own stupidity. Let them live with it.

aka_USAPA
10-29-2004, 06:13 PM
Then only offer a four-year contract to start with. Once again, just because they can doesn't mean they have to. It's their own stupidity. Let them live with it.

That won't work. You'll lose a lot of players.

spurster
10-29-2004, 07:11 PM
The owners want a lot of stuff, but what do the players get in return? This is a nonstarter. The owners better keep the lux tax if they want to keep salaries down.

SequSpur
10-29-2004, 07:38 PM
This sounds like a New York Knick plan.