Hunter: Lockout might be 'death knell' for NBA

Whottt, I think that's a fairly balanced kind of post. I mostly agree. Where I disagree is on things where the owners have clearly compromised and players have backed off. That pisses me off. I am a loyal Spurs fan, and a big basketball fan, so I'll return if they lockout, but I'll be pretty cynical, and most of the folks I know will be done with it.

And as for the drug penalties - hell yeah you should be fired if you are taking any illegal substance or performance enhancing substance. What good is a raise? What difference does it make if you blow it coke?

Quote:

---

From what I've read of the average players' comments, they don't seem to be standing to solidly behind Hunter and the player's union, they want a deal done.

---

Yeah that's true. The players pretty much agreed to everything but their agents freaked out. NBA agents get a maximum of 4%, so if a total of a contract is significantly less than it hurts them. Greedy bastards :)

Agents' timeline is the next twenty years, that's how long they'll be in business minimum if they're good. Players timeline is on average, what 4-5 years. Agents are representing their own interests more than their clients in most cases.

The NBA players made the ultimate concession by agreeing to a max salary limit...I may be out of touch with MLB and the NFL...but last I checked the NBA is the only league that has such a deal and the NBA players made a huge concession there.

They in effect put a cap on their own earning potential to protect the NBA from irresponsible owners who would cannibalize the other owners and destroy the NBA just because of a laziness to be responsible with how they spend their money and a flat out indifference to the well being of the league for their own selfish reasons...

That's it right there...how many of us are willing to put a cap on our max earning potential? I am not...I may not get greedy but I am not going to let someone tell me the max I can ever make in my career...it's down right un-American actually...I gurantee you Stern and the owners don't have a cap on how much they can make in their careers.

Sorry but that concession alone makes the NBA players Saints compared to any other major pro sports leagues players.

Hell no they shouldn't have to concede years...in fact I would it'd be well within the realm of fairness for them to be pushing for more years.


As for the PCT's...I think that's based on league revenues and so I can't claim to really know what would be fair there...but I'd be inclined to say the players are being reasonable by maintaining the status quo...

The max salary limit pretty much beats anything the owners can offer the players...the players have made the greatest concession just based on that alone...it's time for the owners to be responsible for themselves...just a little. The players have given more than enough to do their part in protecting the league from owners stupidity.

This is still America.

whottt how exactly should the league protect itself from the potential destruction of a handful of mutli-billionare owners who view their franchises as toys with no regard to economics whatsoever?

Quote:

---

The NBA players made the ultimate concession by agreeing to a max salary limit...

---

I only ask this because I really don't know much about caps. Isn't that what a salary cap does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Austin

How is 6 and 5 asking too much if what is being offered in return is raising the cap and softening the lux tax? Especially if the % of BRI is fixed at at least the current level? The amount of money going to the players would stay the same, but there would be a modest shift towards players that can actually help a team win and away from useless players.

---

They should raise the cap and soften the tax anyway for one thing. It would help the teams too...some of the biggest franchises are contrained by that cap and they'd be willing to spend more regardless of the players adjusting the max length of years.

If nothing changes except fort he cap being raised and the penalty being lessened even our own Spurs are going to be spending...and the players know that, they aren't stupid. The owners aren't offering the players anything there.


You act like the owners are conceding something to the players when it would help them compete better as much as it would help the players.

Raising the cap and lessning the tax in and of itself will helps teams win...expecially since it's been well demonstrated that teams are able to be comepetive at well under the current cap.


The players gave up the right to pursue being able to earn the most they could earn based on INDIVIDUAL ability...now ask you them to give up the years they can get as a way of lesser compensation for giving up max earning power...that's just not fair.

If I were the players I'd say fine...you get your 6 year deal...and we want the right to pursue earning based on our individual ability and not a scale...and they'd still be giving the NBA a better deal than any other athletes are giving their league.

whottt's solution will ultimately result in about 10 - 12 NBA franchises located in LA, New York, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Portland will hang in there until Allen dies or gets bored with basketball. San Antonians will have their choice of driving to Dallas or Houston to watch a game. Most iof the in between cities' fans will just tune out of pro ball entirely so the total revenue available for players will drop dramatically. But that's okay because instead of 450 or so NBA pros there'll only be 100 or so to split the money and the rest of the players will be scrounging in Europe, the NBDL or bagging groceries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

I only ask this because I really don't know much about caps. Isn't that what a salary cap does?

---

Well I guess it means one player can't take up an entire teams cap...

A cap is a concession made by the players anyway...

But no there is a definite maximum a player can earn that doesn't exist in other leagues...IE...Tim Duncan can't just go out ask for 20 million a year...and you can damn well bet he'd get it from just about any team in the NBA...

Bu the most he can ask for is the max for a player that has been in the league his number of years and it's based on league revenue...I forgot what it was but it was a hell of a lot less than he could have gotten if there wasn't a max. What did Duncan's last contract start out at? 12 million a season? And that was about 6 or 7 years after Garnett and Shaq inked deals that paid them even more than that with no max scale in place...

No...in MLB Alex Rodriguez could go out and get the most any team was willing to pay him 25 million per season.....In the NBA a player can only go out and get the max allowed under the CBA...and his old team can better that offer by one year...

There are teams that would be willing to pay Tim Duncan a lot more than he is making right now...a lot more...and for longer years.


That's what the NBA players gave up...and to the best of my knowledge they are only athletes in a major pro league that have done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

whottt's solution will ultimately result in about 10 - 12 NBA franchises located in LA, New York, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Portland will hang in there until Allen dies or gets bored with basketball. San Antonians will have their choice of driving to Dallas or Houston to watch a game. Most iof the in between cities' fans will just tune out of pro ball entirely so the total revenue available for players will drop dramatically. But that's okay because instead of 450 or so NBA pros there'll only be 100 or so to split the money and the rest of the players will be scrounging in Europe, the NBDL or bagging groceries.

---

So...how is your right to watch basketball game greater than their right to earn what someone is willing to pay them?

Hmm...you show me where you have a constitutional right to limit another persons earning ability so you can watch a fucking basketball game with a team from your own home town.

If the game is too rich for you then fold your hand and get the fuck off the table...and go buy a CBA team.

That's bullshit anyway...We have an entire roster of players that took less to come here and are all working on very good deals...and it's all done under the current CBA...and the Spurs would be willing to spend more right now if they could do it without getting hammered by lux tax.


I am in favor of maintaining the status quo basically...the owners want to be bailed and protected from stupid contracts, they already are, at the cost of the players right to pursue pay based on their own individual ability..the Spurs don't sign stupid contracts and there is more than enough protection in place...I reccomend other teams take up that practice rather than taking dollars out of the pockets of others.

I don't follow football but doesn't it have a hard cap, much harder than the NBA?

Yep and it sucks...but the last I remember they don't have a limit on what an individual player can earn(other than the totality of a cap) and even with their hard cap I think they have certain exceptions like franchise player designation...

I dunno because I don't watch the NFL anymore because it pretty much sucks and has no identity and very few players become associated with a franchise like it used to be, and like the soft cap in the NBA allows for, and their hard cap is the reason for it.

Last time I paid attention to the NFL players could still try and get as much as someone was willing to pay them...that is not the case in the NBA...

And baseball has a cap now too that I think is more like the NBA cap than the NFL but I still believe the players have the right to go out and pursue the most someone is willing to pay them individually. And I think the owners can go still go over the cap if they are willing to incur a luxury tax.

If I'm an owner of an NBA franchise in a major market I want to have no cap. I can buy a good team and I can make a ton of money off my franchise.

If I'm an owner of a smaller market team I want a cap of some type to prevent the rich owners and dominant market teams from basically putting me out of business because I can't retain talent, can't compete, can't stay in business.

If I'm a superstar I want no cap because I can always get a lucrative contract even if there are fewer teams and less total revenue going into pro basketball

If I'm the average player I'd like to get a great deal but if I'm not to stupid I realize if there are fewer teams I'm not getting any money at all. This is the great majority of players.

If I'm Stern I want the NBA to generate the most revenue possible which means the largest fan base which means more franchise to maintain local interest.

Players get paid enough.. IMO... plus they get more time off for vacations than most of us working class. More humility and less decadence... do it for the kids man they need to show more realistic earnings than just being pimp daddy rich.

I am sure even the rich owners are in favor of a soft cap that allows them break the cap if they are willing to pay for it...I am sure that Cuban and the Knicks would love for there to be no maximum salary though...so they can raid the talent of other teams.

But they don't get all of that, they are constrained on a level playing field...and now it's those guys that are hamstrung by the shitty contracts and they can't squash the smaller teams with their financial clout...

So IMO, it's those guys that are now wanting protection from the shitty contracts they give out...using the only leverage their $$$ gives them...the ability to overpay shitty players and sign them to longterm deals..

I don't think the Spurs, Clippers and Suns are the ones complaining about it...they are the ones laghing at the dumbasses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vashner

Players get paid enough.. IMO... plus they get more time off for vacations than most of us working class. More humility and less decadence... do it for the kids man they need to show more realistic earnings than just being pimp daddy rich.

---

You get paid enough. IF you work with the bigggest slacker in the world who you constantly have to carry...you should never be paid more than he is.


It's called communism. And it drags the fastest horses back to the pack instead of letting them push the limits of just how fast a horse can go.

The rampant inflation of sports salaries effects a lot of people. I think pro's should be rich and make millions... but there needs to be a sanity check in there somewhere so the little folks don't suffer. I am just saying a little less greed would be nice.

Ultimately it's in everybodies interest to put in place a system that is financially viable for all parties. Otherwise you end up with the NHL where the owners lost less money shutting it down than they would have if they played the season under the current economics.

And 1 league, here I come :)

If you think about it, what is really wrong with 5 year max deals? I mean if you earn your pay, you will get an extension, if you don't you still got 5 years worth of money to eat off of. The longer you make these deals, the less likely it is teams will have the cap to sign any of the FA's on the market, which guess what hurts the TALENTED players which could use the money.

So giving the bums longer contracts so that teams can't make a run at other dudes IF it doesn't work out, is hurting the players? Bullshit.

If you don't like it stop supporting the NBA...stop giving them your money. I am sure your local highschool or college team would be greatly appreciative of your dollars.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you are talking about the NBA though...

The point is...there are no out of control salaries in the NBA, there is no spiraling salary problem...the players have already made that concession and there are constraints on them...

They gave up their right to pursue pay based on their individual ability, some of these players gave up millions of dollars per year for that.....the one way they of being compensated for that is getting paid later in their career when they might not possibly be worth as much as they were during their prime...

Tim Duncan is worth a hell of a lot more than 15 million dollars a year to this franchise...and the fucking owners make a hell of a lot more than 15 million dollars a year off of him. So Tim gave that up...in fact he even gave up the 7th year IIRC...but that should be his right to do so and it should not be forced upon him...he already gave up the right to earn what he is worth.

I have a five year contract. Has a terminate without cause clause in it. Think Hunter would go for one of those?

Whottt, Nobody is telling the players after a 5 year deal they can't play basketball anymore. If they EARN the money, they will be able to find work..just like in any job. If you do well you get rewarded for it. if you do poorly and can't perform the tasks anymore, why should you keep your job?

Thats why people tell them they should all finish college, so if they do go bust, they have something to fall back on.

The owners are full of shit...if right now you raised the cap and lessened the lux tax penalty the Spurs would be one of the first in line to spend a few extra bucks signing Glenn Robinson or something like that. The only thing the Spurs are afraid right now is the lux tax....they probably wouldn't mind it kicking in before they go too far over the cap though...because they'd bank on it right now

If you don't want them to get a 6 year deal then don't offer them one...if someone else wants to offer them one them let them...the protection for the smaller teams is already in place because all teams can only offer the same amount per year(except for the home team).


Limiting it to 6 years is still not going to protect the stupid owners...