NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

[baseline bum]

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.

[vy65]

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 le. In the second case, you cost yourself the 2005 and 2007 les. A hard cap will ensure a great team cannot be kept together. Parity in sports is bull .

Why's parity bull ?

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?

[vy65]

Exactly, why stifle compe iveness? If a team wants to spend to win, let them.

Because it's not true compe iveness. 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.

[baseline bum]

Why's parity bull ?

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?

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.

[baseline bum]

Because it's not true compe iveness. 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.

You're going to say this with a straight face when the Spurs won 4 les since 1999? Spending huge money guarantees nothing, as evidenced by the train-wrecks in New York and Portland.

[vy65]

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.

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.

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 compe ion.

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 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?

[Seventyniner]

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 do ent 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

[baseline bum]

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.

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 compe ion.

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 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?

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!

[vy65]

You're going to say this with a straight face when the Spurs won 4 les since 1999? Spending huge money guarantees nothing, as evidenced by the train-wrecks in New York and Portland.

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.

[baseline bum]

The Spurs won 4 les. 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 le contender right now. Orlando made the Finals twice.

[vy65]

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!

First, I don't know why the spurs would have to ride Tim that hard.

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 compe ive.

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 compe ive rosters.

[baseline bum]

First, I don't know why the spurs would have to ride Tim that hard.

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 compe ive.

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 compe ive 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.

[vy65]

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.

Even if that's true, that's a result of the games being more compe ive. 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.

Plus, there's a chance that teams would find someway to cope with that kind of wear-and-tear. Who knows

[baseline bum]

Even if that's true, that's a result of the games being more compe ive. 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.

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.

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.

[vy65]

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.

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.

1. It's the status quo: players like Lebron, Wade, 'Melo, etc... already play a 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 compe ive 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 compe iveness of teams, and thus the games, becomes far better with a hard cap.

[exstatic]

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.

You act like this only applies to the Spurs. Guess what? You can't pay Shaq $25M and Kobe $15M either!! No three-peat!

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.

[spectator]

HoopsHype.com Salaries

Eastern Conference

Atlantic

Central

Southeast

Boston

Chicago

Atlanta

New Jersey

Cleveland

Charlotte

New York

Detroit

Miami

Philadelphia

Indiana

Orlando

Toronto

Milwaukee

Washington

Western Conference

Southwest

Northwest

Pacific

Dallas

Denver

Golden State

Houston

Minnesota

LA Clippers

Memphis

Portland

LA Lakers

New Orleans

Oklahoma City

Phoenix

San Antonio

Utah

Sacramento

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 Salaries

1. Tracy McGrady Houston

$23,239,561

2. Kobe Bryant LA Lakers

$23,034,375

3. Jermaine O'Neal Miami

$22,995,000

4. Tim Duncan San Antonio

$22,183,218

5. Shaquille O'Neal Cleveland

$20,000,000

6. Dirk Nowitzki Dallas

$19,795,714

-. Paul Pierce Boston

$19,795,712

8. Ray Allen Boston

$19,766,860

9. Rashard Lewis Orlando

$18,876,000

10. Michael Redd Milwaukee

$17,040,000

11. Pau Gasol LA Lakers

$16,451,250

-. Andrei Kirilenko Utah

$16,451,250

13. Kevin Garnett Boston

$16,400,000

14. Yao Ming Houston

$16,378,325

-. Amare Stoudemire Phoenix

$16,378,325

16. Vince Carter Orlando

$16,300,000

17. Gilbert Arenas Washington

$16,192,080

18. Zach Randolph Memphis

$16,000,000

19. Carmelo Anthony Denver

$15,779,912

-. LeBron James Cleveland

$15,779,912

-. Chris Bosh Toronto

$15,779,912

-. Dwyane Wade Miami

[Kori Ellis]

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.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4894018

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.

[ElNono]

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.

[baseline bum]

You act like this only applies to the Spurs. Guess what? You can't pay Shaq $25M and Kobe $15M either!! No three-peat!

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.

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 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?

I think the current "star system" is all kinds of fail from a basketball perspective.

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 like

- 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.

Too many young players getting too much money too soon, before they win ANYTHING.

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)

[velik_m]

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.

[baseline bum]

There are a couple of problems with your premise.

1. It's the status quo: players like Lebron, Wade, 'Melo, etc... already play a 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.

Wade looked pretty drained in the playoffs last year. We already established what happened with Kobe in that situation.

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?

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.

What does this have to do with a hard cap?

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.

I don't care about artificial drama. I'd rather see good basketball, which requires great players.

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 compe ive as a whole. The overall product becomes better.

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.

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 completely disagree, as it weakens any compe ive 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.

I think that you can cite individual examples forever, but my point is that the overall compe iveness of teams, and thus the games, becomes far better with a hard cap.

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.

[Seventyniner]

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.

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.

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.

[wijayas]

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.

It is about time the primadonas are put in their place.

[dbestpro]

How about a hard cap for salaries with an unlimited bonus cap for pay for performance?