Thank God for the New CBA

Its been said on the boards and in the national media quite a bit, but remember how the lockout was suppose to be about making the league more competitive, leveling the playing field, and getting rid of FO overspending and bloated contracts...

And then Omar Asik was offered $25 million 3 year contract, Laundry Fields got a 20 million 3 year deal, Nash is getting a sign and trade to a team with nearly $80 million in salary committed before the trade and without sending any salary back, and Jeremy Lin is reportedly being offered something in the ballpark of 30-40 million for a 3-4 year deal. There are others I'm missing, but again, other than the 50-50 revenue split, what the hell did we miss 16 games and have a compressed season last year for. Seriously?

The CBA didn't account for stupid FOs.

All that stuff about competition was a subordinate goal that the owners abandoned.

They got the 50-50 split, the more punitive tax, and revenue sharing.

The league as a whole will be more profitable. If individual owners want to spend like drunken idiots, that's fine as long as they pay their taxes.

I like that the contracts are shorter. In fact I think it'd be better if the max length is only 3 years. Some crappy players are getting shitloads of cash. These owners are really doing some stupid spending.

Wasn't it 2 or 3 seasons until the punitive tax comes into play? There's still time for some of these teams to shred salary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Wasn't it 2 or 3 seasons until the punitive tax comes into play? There's still time for some of these teams to shred salary.

---

Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA are at the same tax levels as before.

Years 3 and 4 the higher taxes take effect.

Year 5 and beyond, the most punitive taxes for repeat offenders kick in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel_13

All that stuff about competition was a subordinate goal that the owners abandoned.

They got the 50-50 split, the more punitive tax, and revenue sharing.

The league as a whole will be more profitable. If individual owners want to spend like drunken idiots, that's fine as long as they pay their taxes.

---

This. It was never about competition. There are only so many good players, and as long as their salaries are kept constrained to far below market value there won't be competition. This was obvious at the time of the lockout to people that paid attention.

Only way to get competition would be a salary cap with no maximum individual salary. Teams offer $40 million to LeBron, fill out with scrubs but the union would never agree to that, as all but the top guys would lose a ton of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andthentherewas21

Its been said on the boards and in the national media quite a bit, but remember how the lockout was suppose to be about making the league more competitive, leveling the playing field, and getting rid of FO overspending and bloated contracts...

And then Omar Asik was offered $25 million 3 year contract, Laundry Fields got a 20 million 3 year deal, Nash is getting a sign and trade to a team with nearly $80 million in salary committed before the trade and without sending any salary back, and Jeremy Lin is reportedly being offered something in the ballpark of 30-40 million for a 3-4 year deal. There are others I'm missing, but again, other than the 50-50 revenue split, what the hell did we miss 16 games and have a compressed season last year for. Seriously?

---

Lol

Preach on, brother, cuz CBF is in tha middle of tha choir

IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.

But that may just be me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.

But that may just be me.

---

Well lets put it into perspective its just a game and there getting payed to play. If anything it is a blessing to get paid that much to play a GAME.

Regular life? They get paid millions of dollars. You know who should get paid are men and women in the military.

Supply and demand.

I have always said - It would be a lot easier to find owners than this talent. That really is the only argument to me on who deserves more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamoanTD

Well lets put it into perspective its just a game and there getting payed to play. If anything it is a blessing to get paid that much to play a GAME.

Regular life? They get paid millions of dollars. You know who should get paid are men and women in the military.

---

And doctors and firemen etc etc

Let's stop acting like running a basketball team is easy business. 50/50 is ransom on the players part...you think people would go watch these players if it weren't for the built up hype/commercialism/tv deals/arenas to play in?

If the players just banned together to create their own league, do you think they'd pile up 50% of their "hard earned cash" to build the infrastructure for a league? No way....their greed would lead to their demise, because all a player would be concerned about is himself and making sure the league last just long enough for their career.

Without all the things the owners provide, players wouldn't even be making the income they enjoy today.

The whole concept that the players were saying that they lived in modern day slavery with a 60/40 like split was/is a disgusting exaggeration when the average working man makes 1/100th the average NBA player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan2177

And doctors and firemen etc etc

---

Exactly so all I'm saying is basketball players get payed a lot of money for what they do and saying the get paid to little is kinda blah.

Yea basketball players don't save peoples lifes all they do is play is a fucken game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.

But that may just be me.

---

I agree. They can't even tweet their minds without getting fined.

I agree that players are underpaid. 57% was close, Owners were just losing money because there non player costs increased so much, and rather than control those they just went to take back money from the players.

Owners could wait out the season, as most of the money they get is from franchises rapidly appreciating in value over time. They were giving up a year of basically neutral cash flow, players would have sacrificed 2 Billion in salaries if they sat out the year. Owners used that fact to screw over the players.

We won't see an end to absurd contracts. The only way people are going to get pried away is offering a large contract that is above what a team will pay, and it's likely that the Winners curse will screw over the team that signs a player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

I agree that players are underpaid. 57% was close, Owners were just losing money because there non player costs increased so much, and rather than control those they just went to take back money from the players.

Owners could wait out the season, as most of the money they get is from franchises rapidly appreciating in value over time. They were giving up a year of basically neutral cash flow, players would have sacrificed 2 Billion in salaries if they sat out the year. Owners used that fact to screw over the players.

We won't see an end to absurd contracts. The only way people are going to get pried away is offering a large contract that is above what a team will pay, and it's likely that the Winners curse will screw over the team that signs a player.

---

Players are underpaid? Are you kidding? I don't know what universe you live in but they get paid better than doctors,millitary, and policemen and they save lifes. All basketball players do is play a game. gtfo with that bs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan2177

Players are underpaid? Are you kidding? I don't know what universe you live in but they get paid better than doctors,millitary, and policemen and they save lifes. All basketball players do is play a game. gtfo with that bs

---

What does that has to do with anything? If cops, doctors, military, firemen, etc could have the talent to play basketball and fill arenas like NBA players do, then they wouldn't be cops, doctors, military, firemen, etc.

You can't teach being Lebron James.

The CBA arguments were never about competative balance.

The NBA has never been about competative balance.

It's only been about owners getting more money and paying players less overall. Teams like the Lakers will still go well into the luxury tax because their income is so much higher than most of the other teams in the NBA and can afford it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamoanTD

Well lets put it into perspective its just a game and there getting payed to play. If anything it is a blessing to get paid that much to play a GAME.

Regular life? They get paid millions of dollars. You know who should get paid are men and women in the military.

---

I disagree. Doing that is their choice; knowing all risks involved. If they were actually "defending the country", I might agree to a pay increase. . .but not that high since it's illogical. As bloated as US military spending is right now, it's bloated towards giving US-based defense contractors assloads of money to make vehicles, jets, and other bullshit. . .not it's personel who tend to be looked at as lowly peons by the rich pricks in charge.

this is what i also dont get, if half the teams are not competitive or in any form of contenders, why do they need to spend close to the cap? they could just fit the requirements of the 80% cap rule and field out a shitty roster collect the revenue sharing....

unless they are force to put out a product to fill seats in teh stadium....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.

But that may just be me.

---

Ya da, specially cuz you are spurs brass insider

WTF, I guess tha lj finally showed his colors with this one

I thought sign and trade are no longer allowed in new CBA?

To play devils advocate with the owners, its one thing to be a rare athletic talent at something, and another to find ways to monetize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donjuansdaddy

Any sport, cap or no cap, teams overpay at the start of FA, which is why the Spurs wait the suckers are weeded out before bidding on players. Lakers will be paying Nash more like 30mil a year to play for them with his added salary. Yeah, Buss must really want to win.

CBA has huge ramifications for going over the Luxury Tax. The Lakers 98mil dollar roster 3 years ago would have cost Buss like 90mil in Tax Penalities and as a repeat offender, make it 120mil. That's right, for being 27mil over the Tax level its $3.5 times the amount over, and $4.5 for repeat offenders.

The Lakers are going to be paying around 45mil + in Luxury Tax with Nash's new salary. Next year, it will be around 60mil. So yeah, it does curtail it when you see how huge the penalties are going to be. Unless your Mob Steel Tycoon from Russia, this will deter most owners from exceeding the cap at extreme levels.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel_13

Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA are at the same tax levels as before.

Years 3 and 4 the higher taxes take effect.

Year 5 and beyond, the most punitive taxes for repeat offenders kick in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kidd K

The CBA arguments were never about competative balance.

The NBA has never been about competative balance.

It's only been about owners getting more money and paying players less overall. Teams like the Lakers will still go well into the luxury tax because their income is so much higher than most of the other teams in the NBA and can afford it.




I disagree. Doing that is their choice; knowing all risks involved. If they were actually "defending the country", I might agree to a pay increase. . .but not that high since it's illogical. As bloated as US military spending is right now, it's bloated towards giving US-based defense contractors assloads of money to make vehicles, jets, and other bullshit. . .not it's personel who tend to be looked at as lowly peons by the rich pricks in charge.

---

In turn they should be rewarded for there selfless service not just military but all jobs who risk there own lives for the well being of others. Basketball players should be happy with what they get honestly.

All I'm saying is there are more important things in the world and we should keep things in perspective. Saying they don't get paid enough is kinda crazy for what they do. At the end of the day it is just a GAME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What does that has to do with anything? If cops, doctors, military, firemen, etc could have the talent to play basketball and fill arenas like NBA players do, then they wouldn't be cops, doctors, military, firemen, etc.

You can't teach being Lebron James.

---

But it's the job is what he is saying can basketball skills save people? No it can't

What's worth more a life or what somebody can do with a basketball? The value of things in this world are upside down honestly.

You can't honestly say playing games is worth more than saving lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamoanTD

You can't honestly say playing games is worth more than saving lives.

---

We don't live in a society where financial compensation is ordered on that basis. Now you can have philosophical discussions about a perfect society, but that's not the subject of this thread.

The simple fact is that the CBA artificially constrains the earning power of the best professional basketball players, with their lost earning capacity shared by ownership and lesser players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel_13

We don't live in a society where financial compensation is ordered on that basis. Now you can have philosophical discussions about a perfect society, but that's not the subject of this thread.

The simple fact is that the CBA artificially constrains the earning power of the best professional basketball players, with their lost earning capacity shared by ownership and lesser players.

---

Got it all I'm saying is sayin players dont get paid enough is bullshit honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.

But that may just be me.

---

But it would be very difficult for the players as a whole to create a stage where their skills could be marketed for high dollars without the anonymous suit. For example, how long has it taken the league to get as profitable as it is today with the ownership investment.

Broke high school and college kids, no matter how good they are at basketball, couldn't get a stage without the ownership. 50/50 split is high, but owners have invested millions in their respective franchise.

I actually didn't think this thread would take a turn to this type of discussion but anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.

But that may just be me.

---

I understand where your coming from, but on the other hand, the whole reason they are able to be paid salaries significantly higher than other people is because they are essentially publicizing and selling a product. It does mean they don't get to lead a normal life and that they are subject to criticism especially when their play if subpar. However if they weren't subject to being in the spotlight then the product (the NBA) would be less profitable and marketable, and then they would be making less money.

As far as the owners go, its the same as any business. If your an investor you expect a good possibility for a return on your investment. Admittedly all the new CBA has done is ensure a return for the ownership. But its the same with any organization. You don't have a business if its not trying to be profitable, and when its a business that demands high amounts of capital, that means your going to have to offer a high level of capital return in order to secure the investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kidd K

It's only been about owners getting more money and paying players less overall. Teams like the Lakers will still go well into the luxury tax because their income is so much higher than most of the other teams in the NBA and can afford it.


I disagree. Doing that is their choice; knowing all risks involved. If they were actually "defending the country", I might agree to a pay increase. . .but not that high since it's illogical. As bloated as US military spending is right now, it's bloated towards giving US-based defense contractors assloads of money to make vehicles, jets, and other bullshit. . .not it's personel who tend to be looked at as lowly peons by the rich pricks in charge.

---

Actually in absolute terms the players have incrementally made more money. The only thing that the CBA did was change the rate at which their salaries increase in respect to the income taken in by the league. Now you can say that by doing that the owners are taking money away from them, but without the owners there wouldn't be a league to take money away from players.

As for the whole "choice" argument between NBA players and police/firemen/doctors ect., both sides have choices. People can't complain that NBA players don't lead normal lives and should be paid more for it, because that is the nature of the job and one of the reasons the compensation for it is so high. Likewise its a job that only a few people can fill, whereas there are obviously more people able to become police/doctors/ect.

Sidenote:
Military personnel deployed into combat areas are paid more; its combat or hazard pay. However the extra couple of thousand a year is poor compensation when the reason for it is getting killed or losing a arm/leg for the rest of your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan2177

Players are underpaid? Are you kidding? I don't know what universe you live in but they get paid better than doctors,millitary, and policemen and they save lifes. All basketball players do is play a game. gtfo with that bs

---

If doctors, soldiers, and policemen generated the same return on their salaries that hedge fund managers and basketball players do, they'd get paid just as much. It's really simple: if you enter a line of work where you personally generate a shitload of money for someone, odds are, you'll get paid a (smaller) shitload of money to do it.

I don't really have that much sympathy for the argument that basketball players are underpaid, but paying people based on how much value they add for their employer and not based on how useful they are to society is pretty endemic to capitalism. Unless we have the stomach for putting a really punitive European-style tax system in place (e.g. 70% taxes on income over $1 million), we have the salary structure we're pretty much stuck with.

Like Clint Eastwood said, "deserve's got nothing to do with it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tesseractive

I don't really have that much sympathy for the argument that basketball players are underpaid, but paying people based on how much value they add for their employer and not based on how useful they are to society is pretty endemic to capitalism.

---

Precisely.