Printable View
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
This is a desperate time in the NBA, and there will be desperation in these talks. They’ll go into these negotiations with 30 teams and they’ll come out with 30, but the landscape of the NBA could be dramatically different. The way trades are done and free agents are signed and teams are likely be transformed, and it could take a long lockout – maybe much, if not all, of the 2011-12 season – to get there.
This is worrying for the last year of Duncan's contract, let alone the future of the franchise.
Or we could trade for players under the assumption we won't pay them next year. Ha.
Fucking arseholes, the owners.
No players, no NBA. The players currently get between 55-60% of BRI, and that is fair. Shortening guaranteed contracts makes sense, but reducing the player's cut of BRI below 50% is fucking greedy bullshit.
No players, no NBA. Who provides the entertainment in the NBA? Definitely not the owners unless you are named Mark Cuban when all you do is get laughed at.
Hear ye, hear ye, Ruffnready has proclaimed it to be fair, so from this day forth ... this is the standard that all shall follow!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
15 teams lost money last year. More teams lose money in the NBA than any other major sport. The overhead is now greater than 50% for many teams so they can't break even. Of course having no hope of winning a championship even if you make the playoffs has contributed to this. The NBA needs an 8th seed who has never been to the finals to win it all. That would wake up revenues all over the NBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
Hence, that's why they're fighting for a hard cap and thus the elimination of the MLE and the Bird exception. Dropping the percentage of the BRI the players get in combination with these moves would be ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbestpro
If 15 teams are losing money, wouldn't NOT dropping the player percentage be ridiculous? I mean, if you're going to precipitate a work stoppage, shouldn't you get something for it? If your slice of the pie isn't bigger, does any of the rest of it matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
They gotta do away with gaurenteed contracts. I don't blame the owners for trying to change the rules for the next CBA, too many players sit on their fat contracts. the union serves a purpose but if it's going to destroy the league what;s the point. My take is that the league can drop all the players and start over with new players and I guarentee you the NBA will get just as big in a couple of years. Doesn't matter where they go, Europe, China, the US fans won't follow them. The union has to stop being so greedy and the owners need to fix their product especially the refs.
No way teams are going to be losing money on a hard cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Then just get rid of contracts period. Every player is a free agent every year. It's ridiculous to think contracts should only go one way like in the NFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjjrfan
We'll see if the players learned from last time and can actually afford to endure a long lockout.
The NBA has to do something to fix the game, though I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it. Though they have to do something to reign in the free spending the owners do, thus driving up overall salary structure.
The MLE is as good as gone. What they should do is setup a soft cap where you pay a tax if you go over it and then there is a hard level some % above the soft cap.
That would be 'interesting' I'd think.
this is all just corporate cockwaving and grandstanding. both parties stand to lose major money in a lockout, so there is impetus to find an acceptable solution.
its just like time warner and fox news.
Uh, no. Major sports have a frequent history of labor stoppages. The owner's have the backing of the networks and will be paid during the lockout as sort of a loan arrangement, so they really have no incentive to work things out. They'll put the players in the position of having no income, keep them there as long as possible, and extract what they want in terms of concessions. This is going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by greyforest
What sucks is that this time, it's going to be both the NBA and the NFL at the same time. WTF am I going to watch on TV for my Sports Jones? Fucking Hockey?
What the deal the league is supposedly wanting is just a starting offer. There is going to be a lot of negotiation on the next CBA so it better for the league to start with a low ball offer then let the union counter back until they finally reach an acceptable deal.
I would not take the report of this initial offering too seriously. The new CBA will be a lot different when all is said and done.
At least they'll be another asterisk champ in 2012.
Seriously the owners should police themselves on their spending, but there still remains a great deal of players who just don't earn there massive salaries.
Only the all-star level guys should be getting 10+ per year.
Look at this list:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
How many of these guys are earning that contract?
If the owners can push down the player salaries, I don't expect to see any drop in ticket prices, which are justified as being very high due to the high player salaries.
The owners will simply pocket what they squeeze out of players.
Bud Selig is probably smiling at that thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Yeah, I might actually have to pay attention to baseball before the Series, like pennant races and shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Das Texan
This is so weird. I had a dream the other night that the Spurs won the 2011 NBA title to complete the perfect sequence. I didn't realize it would have NBA lockouts as bookends.
Lockout
1999 Spurs Champs
3 years without a title
2003 Spurs Champs
1 year, no title
2005 Spurs Champs
1 year, no title
2007 Spurs Champs
3 seasons without a title
2011 Spurs Champs
Lockout
The sequence will be complete. So let it be written...so let it be done.
I don't understand why fans of basketball in general, and fans of small-market teams in particular wouldn't back the owner's proposal. A hard cap equalizes the field amongst all teams by ensuring teams like the Lakers, with their $91,377,313 payroll (approx. $33.6 million over the cap), will not be able to assemble the types of roster they have. It also prevents the league from having 5-6 contending teams and 25-24 crappy teams. Parity is good for basketball in general and the Spurs in particular.
This is going to suck. I certainly hope this does not hurt the league too badly.
If the salary cap was a hard cap, the Spurs would have been forced to either let Tony Parker walk in 05-06 or trade Manu Ginobili for an expiring deal in 2004-05. In the first case, you murdered your future, and cost yourself the 2007 title. In the second case, you cost yourself the 2005 and 2007 titles. A hard cap will ensure a great team cannot be kept together. Parity in sports is bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Exactly, why stifle competitiveness? If a team wants to spend to win, let them.
I also never saw ticket prices go down when max salaries were slashed and smaller raises and shorter deals were implemented twice. Maybe if there was something in the CBA that passed the owners' savings on to the fans via lower ticket prices I'd support the owners' proposal more, but we all know that's not happening.
Why's parity bullshit?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
You can't say for sure what would have happened had there been a hard cap, but I don't remember much to really argue with you on that point.
However, given that the owners are looking to reduce salaries across the board, if we're going to play revisionism, there's a risk that Manu and/or Tony would have had to take whatever lower-salaried contract we would have offered them. But this is all besides the point.
The alternative to the hard cap is either the soft-cap of the status quo or no cap at all. Are you saying that having 5 contending teams and 25 worthless teams is better for the NBA? I fail to understand that point. And while we may have had to let go of Tony and/or Manu, why would a hard cap be bad for the Spurs in the long term given their ownership has been notoriously reluctant to go over the cap?
Because it's not true competitiveness. Teams in bigger markets with affluent ownership can routinely outspend smaller markets. Those teams don't stand a chance against the LAs and Dallases of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
Teams that don't have any stars would have definitely offered Parker $10+ million a season. A hard cap ensures you could never have three star players on a team, and thus you'd never see great teams again. I'd much rather see teams that draft well and make smart trades for young prospects be able to keep them when they pan out.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
You're going to say this with a straight face when the Spurs won 4 titles since 1999? Spending huge money guarantees nothing, as evidenced by the train-wrecks in New York and Portland.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
I think that begs the question of what makes a great team. Is it just who assembles the greatest amount of talent? Or is it a team that works with the pieces they have, riding its chemistry and cohesiveness to the championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
If you have an equal spread of talent across the league, I'd think that whoever wins the championship any given year would be a great team given that it would face stiffer competition.
Think of the East. There's 2 - 3 good teams there. Can you really argue that whoever comes out of the East is really a "great team" given that they didn't face shit for the first two rounds of the playoffs, are fresh for the ECF and the finals, and probably have a greater chance of winning it all?
There need to be stronger disincentives for stupid GMs giving out huge contracts to players that don't deserve them. Whether it's a hard cap, hard tax, or whatever, the owners are going to lock the players out rather than hold their GMs accountable.
Oh yeah, and this quote from the article:
Here’s how an NBA front-office executive described the document the commissioner’s office delivered to the union to start labor negotiations: “It’s just a photocopy of Stern’s middle finger.”
is now my second-favorite Stern-related quote of all time, behind this one:
"Yes it was unanimous, 1-0, and I won."
-- NBA commissioner David Stern, after being asked whether the vote to suspend Ron Artest for the season was unanimous
What makes a great team is having great players with good chemistry together. A hard cap kills that. It would be awesome seeing the Spurs have to ride Duncan 42 minutes a night every year and have him looking like Finley now!Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Yah, I'll take the pepsi challenge on what I said. Besides SA, which small market team last won the LOB? Detroit? I'm pretty sure that they're much larger than SA. But even spotting Detroit, I'm pretty sure there's been nothing for the past 15-25 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
The Spurs won 4 titles. In recent history, Sacramento came 1 shot from winning a championship. Utah made 2 finals. Indiana made the Finals and had an amazing team before the Artest incident. Denver's a major title contender right now. Orlando made the Finals twice.
First, I don't know why the spurs would have to ride Tim that hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
But I think you're proving my point. A hard cap would force players like Tim to play longer minutes probably because the games as a whole are more competitive.
As a Spurs fan, I wouldn't be too thrilled with that prospect. But, from a NBA-as-a-Product viewpoint, that's probably a good thing. And aside from this specific example, small markets as a whole would still be able to field more competitive rosters.
You seriously don't know why the Spurs would have to ride Tim that hard every night? Because there would be no Tony Parker to take the pressure off of him. Because you couldn't use the MLE to sign guys like Brent Barry or Robert Horry. Every single coach would have to become Don Nelson. Every NBA star would be burned out by about 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Even if that's true, that's a result of the games being more competitive. Teams wouldn't be able to stockpile talent, creating haves and have-nots. While superstars might be burnt out by 30 (which isn't universally the case--Kobe and KG lasted until what, 32, 33?), the NBA product, overall, would be much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Plus, there's a chance that teams would find someway to cope with that kind of wear-and-tear. Who knows
It would make the playoffs much worse. Every star player would be drained. No teams with multiple skilled players playing the game at its highest level. The conference finals would look just like the regular season.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Kobe's really not a good example to use here either, since his body broke down and he missed the entire stretch run of the season one of those couple of years when the Lakers were a one-man team.
There are a couple of problems with your premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
1. It's the status quo: players like Lebron, Wade, 'Melo, etc... already play a shit ton of minutes during the regular season. They're not drained by the ECF/WCF. This might, however, adversely affect older players. But, such is life.
2. Teams can ameliorate some of the harm: when teams have locked up playoff seeding, they can rest their players those last couple of games right before the playoffs start. It might not be a lot, but it might be something.
3. The league can do something about this too: placing more days in between playoff games could go a long way towards resting players before each game.
4. It increases drama: part of what makes individual performances great during the playoffs is seeing players push threw fatigue. Jordan and the flu is not exactly analogous, but you get the point.
5. It makes the regular season more important: if teams are on equal playing terms, each and every game becomes more important for playoff positioning. Also, games become more competitive as a whole. The overall product becomes better.
And another thing: given that we're looking at a closing window, wouldn't it be better for us going forward if free agents could not go to larger-markets because those teams could go over the cap? If those players are prevented from signing with a team because of a hard cap, it makes our ability to scoop them up much stronger.
I think that you can cite individual examples forever, but my point is that the overall competitiveness of teams, and thus the games, becomes far better with a hard cap.
You act like this only applies to the Spurs. Guess what? You can't pay Shaq $25M and Kobe $15M either!! No three-peat!Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I think if you go to a more star distributed league, better TEAMS rise to the top, meaning better basketball = wins. I'm all for better basketball. I think the current "star system" is all kinds of fail from a basketball perspective. Too many young players getting too much money too soon, before they win ANYTHING.
HoopsHype.com Salaries
Eastern ConferenceAtlanticCentralSoutheastWestern ConferenceSouthwestNorthwestPacific
i only see 8 of the top 22 players earning their money
but only 5 of the top 18!!!
there are a lot of bad contracts and the best way to do it, in my opinion, is to have contracts be performance-based; that way, if a player achieves a certain level, we pay him well and might even give him a bonus; otherwise, you play like crap, you get payed what you're worth. heck, i don't remember getting a job where my pay was not performance-based
also, if they get injured, insurance covers their salaries - just to clarify for everyone.
Top NBA Salaries1. Tracy McGrady Houston$23,239,5612. Kobe Bryant LA Lakers$23,034,3753. Jermaine O'Neal Miami$22,995,0004. Tim Duncan San Antonio$22,183,2185. Shaquille O'Neal Cleveland$20,000,0006. Dirk Nowitzki Dallas$19,795,714-. Paul Pierce Boston$19,795,7128. Ray Allen Boston$19,766,860$18,876,00010. Michael Redd Milwaukee$17,040,00011. Pau Gasol LA Lakers$16,451,250-. Andrei Kirilenko Utah$16,451,25013. Kevin Garnett Boston$16,400,00014. Yao Ming Houston$16,378,325-. Amare Stoudemire Phoenix$16,378,32516. Vince Carter Orlando$16,300,000$16,192,08018. Zach Randolph Memphis$16,000,00019. Carmelo Anthony Denver$15,779,912-. LeBron James Cleveland$15,779,912-. Chris Bosh Toronto$15,779,912-. Dwyane Wade Miami
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4894018Quote:
Perhaps the biggest shocker: The owners' proposal includes a provision that would require any pre-existing deals to be revised to conform to the new deal's limits.
This is the part that I don't think they have any chance of achieving. How could they possibly expect the players union to agree to re-write every contract to be under the new rules? ....ridiculous.
As I wrote on the NBA forum, this is the standard procedure. Owners file their incredibly lopsided proposal to the union, then the union sends back their incredibly lopsided proposal back to the league, then negotiations begin. Neither side will get all they want. We'll just have to see what's the middle ground once the smoke clears.
No Three-Peat? That's a major problem to me. I love seeing great teams that play incredible basketball. A hard cap means you'd turn the league into a bunch of Clevelands and Miamis: teams with a good/great player that every other team can throw 2-3 guys on all-night so we can see the likes of Anderson Varejao and Jermaine O'Neal decide games.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
I don't consider the work of Tim Duncan, maybe one of Parker or Ginobili, and a bunch of mid-level players better basketball than that of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and a bunch of mid-level players. What do you mean by better teams? Better management? Because how exactly does the Spurs great management hold onto the gems it unearths when it's hamstrung by a hard cap and here comes Golden State to poach RC's great find by offering $4 million more than the Spurs are allowed?Quote:
I think if you go to a more star distributed league, better TEAMS rise to the top, meaning better basketball = wins. I'm all for better basketball.
I don't. I remember how boring the Western Conference was in the 80s when there was enormous parity from team #2 on down. Imposing the hard cap would ensure you'd never see a dominant team like the 80s Lakers put together through brilliant deals likeQuote:
I think the current "star system" is all kinds of fail from a basketball perspective.
- trading an old Gail Goodrich for the pick that became Magic Johnson
- convincing Cleveland to take a scrub for the pick that became James Worthy
- trading an aging Norm Nixon to the idiot Clippers for Byronn Scott
- stealing AC Green with a late pick
It's not like they drove a dump truck full of money to these guys' homes. They made smart basketball moves that allowed them to become one of the all-time great teams.
Huh? There's a very restrictive rookie scale that binds every rookie player to his team for 4 seasons (last two are team options) at a set rate way below superstar pay that also degrades quickly with increasing pick number. Kevin Durant, a player at the extreme high-end of the set scale, is making $4.8 million this season and $6.1 million the next when he's an absolute monster and easily a top-10 player. That complaint has been ended by the rookie scale. A player cannot get a market value contract until his fifth season, unless he sucks (a nice double-standard that benefits the owners immensely)Quote:
Too many young players getting too much money too soon, before they win ANYTHING.
A hard cap will lower player salaries. Lower player salaries mean other incomes for players (such as sponzorship&marketing deals) become much more important. Thus the hard cap benefits big market teams much more, than small market ones.
Also as far as parity goes: UEFA Champions league has no salary cap, since 1992 (when CL was established) there hasn't been a repeat winner.
Wade looked pretty drained in the playoffs last year. We already established what happened with Kobe in that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
What does this have to do with a hard cap?Quote:
2. Teams can ameliorate some of the harm: when teams have locked up playoff seeding, they can rest their players those last couple of games right before the playoffs start. It might not be a lot, but it might be something.
What does this have to do with a hard cap?Quote:
3. The league can do something about this too: placing more days in between playoff games could go a long way towards resting players before each game.
I don't care about artificial drama. I'd rather see good basketball, which requires great players.Quote:
4. It increases drama: part of what makes individual performances great during the playoffs is seeing players push threw fatigue. Jordan and the flu is not exactly analogous, but you get the point.
The overall product becomes way worse when talent is spread thin. Watch a Cleveland game or a Miami game and tell me that's beautiful basketball. Or go back and watch LA trapping and consistently tripling Duncan at the end of games in the 01 and 02 playoffs and tell me how much fun that was to see. Now imagine every superstar playing in that situation.Quote:
5. It makes the regular season more important: if teams are on equal playing terms, each and every game becomes more important for playoff positioning. Also, games become more competitive as a whole. The overall product becomes better.
I completely disagree, as it weakens any competitive advantage a knowledgeable front office like the Spurs' would have in building a championship-level team around a lucky draft pick (like another Duncan). Even if it was better for the Spurs, which I clearly do not think it is, I like the game a lot more than the team, and it would disgust me to never be able to see historically great teams again.Quote:
And another thing: given that we're looking at a closing window, wouldn't it be better for us going forward if free agents could not go to larger-markets because those teams could go over the cap? If those players are prevented from signing with a team because of a hard cap, it makes our ability to scoop them up much stronger.
I think your point is dead wrong; I remember parity, and it was boring. How many really good western conference playoff series played at high levels can you remember from the 80s, when the whole conference aside from LA seemed to be bunched up around the .500 mark? About the only one I can think of was LA-Dallas in 88. Where you had great teams in the East, there were incredible series all over, like Boston-Philly in 81, Boston-Philly in 82, Boston-Detroit in 87, Boston-Atlanta in 88, and Chicago-Detroit in 89. You're just bringing conjecture, but I'm bringing real examples of what parity was like.Quote:
I think that you can cite individual examples forever, but my point is that the overall competitiveness of teams, and thus the games, becomes far better with a hard cap.
Parity is bad for the fans of the game, but good for casual fans. We agree that a hard cap would create far more parity in the league than exists today. The NBA (read: owners + league, not players) is probably trying to reach out to more casual fans (bandwagon, fairweather, you name it); playoff runs like Golden State's in 2007 sell tons of tickets and merchandise.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
With the amount of money a team brings in for playoff games, the "have-not" owners are going to want to be saved from their own dumb decisions and push for a hard cap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
It is about time the primadonas are put in their place.
How about a hard cap for salaries with an unlimited bonus cap for pay for performance?
The quality of the games would be much increased if 10 - 15 franchises were annulled.
There's simply not enough coaching and playing talent to field 30 decent teams.
Of the 2400 games/season, there's probably only 400 worth watching.
Achieving parity in mediocrity is a shitty objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbestpro
Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
To be honest, I really like the current CBA structure; I think it's the best of the three major US sports. I certainly understand if salaries have to be pared back to make owners profitable (e.g.- reducing the % of income that goes to the players), but there are a lot of good qualities to the current agreement:
-The Bird rules allow teams to hang on to their best players. This breeds more loyalty between teams and players, and allows players to stay in one place for longer. This helps fans stay more familiar with their team for longer periods of time. Not having something like this is a major problem in the NFL, where fan-favorite players who still have a lot of skill are flat-out waived for cap reasons.
-The MLE and LLE give teams to improve every single offseason, and creates a well-paid middle class. I would certainly understand reducing the amounts of these exceptions and/or making the MLE every-other season. However, to eliminate these completely would help keep teams in ruts for a couple years at a time. (I guess I could see the argument of "those teams deserve it," but the light at the end of the tunnel is nice for fans.)
-The soft-cap and luxury tax system keeps teams from spending like crazy (a la MLB) while still giving them some flexibility. If you're set on having a hard cap, I'd prefer you have a soft cap similar to the current one, followed by a hard cap $5-20 million higher, which retains some of the Bird/MLE flexibility but puts a hard number on what teams can spend. I'd also be fine with starting the luxury tax right at the soft cap line, which punishes teams even more who try to overspend.
-As far as the section Kori quoted above, where they expect to make current contracts conform to new rules, I really don't see that happening. They'd be better off biting the bullet on the current contract, reducing all contracts signed after the new CBA, and grandfathering in old contracts to keep teams competitive under new cap rules. (For example, you could say that contracts signed before January 1, 2011 only counts 50% toward the new cap.) This would yield about 3-6 years where some players are making grossly more than others, but it would all even out in the end.
Need to also consider shorting the regular season to make a better product, but not sure how you could convince the owners to do it. I wonder how many games are played at a loss.
this.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
the owners make it look like this economy is staying bad forever.
Players’ Union More Unified After Latest Collective Bargaining Offer
SportingNews
David Stern and the owners recently submitted their first collective bargaining agreement offer for the upcoming negotiations. A few weeks ago, it was already clear that a lockout is looming in 2011 based on the demands of the owners and the resolve of the players’ union. Now we have some more specifics.
As Yahoo!’s Adrian Wojnarowski tells it, the details are not pretty:
The owners want to fundamentally change the salary structure of the NBA. They don’t want to negotiate a fresh collective bargaining agreement, as much as they want to crush the union once and for all.
The owners want to take a far greater percentage of the basketball-related income. They want to pay millions less for maximum deals and shorten contracts. Most of all, they want a hard salary cap and assurances that protect themselves against a diminished economy and, well, themselves.
Not only would all new contracts be subject to the rule changes, but existing contracts would have to be restructured or renegotiated. That would be a huge concession by the union, even more than what was anticipated. Plus, as the early reports suggest, Stern and Co. aren’t willing to concede anything right now.
The players are not happy. Adonal Foyle had this to say to the Orlando Sentinel:
"I think [changing existing contracts] is probably the fatal flaw, because if there is one way to unite the entire NBA against a single thing it would be to go after everybody," Foyle told the Orlando Sentinel before the Magic played the Boston Celtics at TD Garden. "I think what this proposal has done has done us a favor. It has basically mobilized all our players.
"Guys are calling. Guys what to know [sic] what’s happening and they want to get involved. So, I am in a way happy that they [the owners] did what they did, because I think now they have awakened not only the players who have been constantly involved in these kinds of negotiations, but they’ve awakened the guys that would have been on the outside looking in."
In any negotiation, there’s something to be said for asking for the world first and shifting the area of compromise further in your direction. I doubt the NBA thinks the union will agree to these initial terms, but they’ve already changed the parameters of the negotiation. With many franchises losing money, there’s no doubt that they’re willing to deal with lockout if these more lasting protections are eventually instituted.
However, making such an outlandish proposal so early also makes the other side more unified, as Foyle’s comments show. The eventual compromise may be more in the NBA’s favor, but it also makes it more likely that negotiations will drag on for a very long time as both sides refuse to budge. Everyone has expected a lockout of some kind, but a protracted, potentially season-long stalemate could hurt the league more than any financial trouble the owners are trying to guard against with these protections.
I don't dislike the idea of performance bonuses like the NFL. Of course a real risk exists of making game even more about the individual than the team. Maybe teams can get creative with incentives, e.g., (1) team-wide incentives for wins or for holding teams between 40-45% shooting; (2) individual incentive NOT linked to point totals but maybe FG efficiency, rebounds, opposing player FG%, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbestpro
Unfortunately, player/team performance isn't the only factor driving profits. True Kobe and Lebron sell in part because of their amazing feats; however, there are also the AI of the world that either play sparingly or inconsistently but are still coveted by teams for their ability to sell seats. Or put another way, there are the TDs of the world with amazing numbers, but who don't "enjoy" the same popularity.
The legitimate gripe the union has with the hard cap is that it essentially erodes the earning power of the middle range of NBA players. The concern is that teams will still bend over backward to pay the franchise level players (including those not deserving of the title) and to do so eat up a significant part of the remaining cap. The remaining portion then would have to be allocated among the quasi-star, middle-range, and system/clog players.
Here's the latest from the union: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4895310