Reply With Quote
I'm all for it. The teams that are over the cap would be in the same situation that NFL teams were forced deal with in the mid 90's
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/stor...ard-salary-capJohn Lombardo, SportsBusiness Journal
The NBA’s initial proposal for a new collective-bargaining deal called for a $45 million per team hard salary cap along with non-guaranteed player contracts and significant cuts in annual salary increases.
The details, spelled out in an April 26 memo issued by National Basketball Players Association Executive Director Billy Hunter, marks the league’s push for a major overhaul of the NBA’s economic model and emphasizes to players an aggressive bid to significantly slash costs and shorten contracts.
The memo was sent to all NBA players and was dated just days prior to the league delivering to the union a new labor proposal, which a source said still included the $45 million hard cap but added a phase-in of the cap over a few years. Union president Derek Fisher publicly dismissed the latest proposal as too similar to the original proposal.
The memo’s most eye-popping element is the league’s proposed $45 million hard cap, which cuts the current $58 million soft cap by nearly 25 percent.
Hunter said in the memo that the NBA projects the $45 million hard cap number with a team’s total salary not to exceed the cap for any reason. The proposed hard cap as outlined by Hunter also would eliminate the current luxury tax provision, which penalizes teams with a dollar-for-dollar tax for the amount spent on player payroll exceeding the salary cap.
The proposed hard cap is something the NBA has never had under collective bargaining, but it has become a critical element to owners. This initial proposal, and its steep cut in player cap space, demonstrates a strong commitment by the owners to dramatically curtail player payrolls while also supporting NBA Commissioner David Stern’s mantra of making the league more profitable.
The inclusion of non-guaranteed player contracts, while a negotiating point, also represents a radical shift for players who have long benefited from guaranteed deals. Taken together, Hunter felt compelled to send out the missive.
“The nature of the owners’ demands is so onerous that I feel it is imperative to reinforce the message of our recent team meetings with this letter,” Hunter wrote in the memo.
The union confirmed the letter but refused to comment.
Hunter also alerts players to the league’s effort to alter the structure of current contracts while detailing the owners’ proposal that no player contract be guaranteed for more than 50 percent for the first $8 million in salary and 25 percent for any amount above $8 million.
“A system-wide change in the nature of guaranteed contracts ... not only would harm players’ economic interests individually, but it would also significantly change the culture of the league collectively,” Hunter wrote.
The league also strikes directly at a team’s cap room to re-sign players at a maximum salary, known as the “Bird” exception, after hall of famer Larry Bird. Annual contract increases would be no greater than 3 percent for players meeting the Bird rule, down significantly from the current 10.5 percent increase, according to the memo. Owners also proposed that the Bird rule contract length be cut to four years from the current six-year length.
Non-Bird players, or free agent players signing with new teams, would see their annual increases cut to 2 percent from the current 8 percent increase, with contract lengths cut to three years from the current five-year length.
The memo also explains that players would be put into one of four categories under a hard cap system, namely, Category A: a minimum salary player; Category B: a rookie wage scale player; Category C: a maximum salary player; and Category D: a player “fighting for whatever room remains under the new hard salary cap after the three above categories are accounted for.”
The union clearly is most concerned about the last category of players seeing major salary cuts. It uses, in the memo, as an example a player placed in the “D” category with his salary to be dictated by the team’s available salary cap. The player is signed through 2013 for a total salary exceeding $9 million. The memo shows that under the initial league proposal, the player’s salary would drop to a total just over $8 million, demonstrating how teams would be forced to cut salaries to remain under the hard cap.
“Under the hard cap proposal, a team’s total salary may not exceed the proposed hard salary cap for any reason,” Hunter said in the memo. “The important part to keep in mind is that without exceptions provided in our current soft cap system, all players would have to squeeze tightly under a hard (and much lower) cap number.”
Hunter and Stern have met in the past few weeks as the June 30 deadline of the current collective-bargaining agreement approaches. But as talks intensify, Hunter used the memo to stress to the players the growing threat of a lockout and the league’s firm hope to roll back salaries.
“Only by making it a point to prepare and educate yourself about the CBA negotiations and the pending lockout will you be able to best protect your own interests and the interests of the players that will follow,” Hunter wrote to the players.
I like the idea of a hard salary cap but I seriously doubt it will be at $45 million.
How would teams like the Lakers or Mavs transition to this? They are already well over the $58 million soft cap. How would this affect our beloved Spurs who are also over the cap?
I'm all for it. The teams that are over the cap would be in the same situation that NFL teams were forced deal with in the mid 90's
The league would most likely honor those current contracts but teams will be limited with new expenses
I'm all for a hard cap. I'm tired of watching big market teams like the Lakers pay exorbitant amounts of money to superstars and win championships year after year while the rest of the small market teams become little more than fillerson their way to domination. Quite frankly, the only reason why small market teams like the Spurs have even remained compe ive is because of the brilliance of their front office. A hard cap would go a long way to leveling the playing field, in my opinion.
This. If they insist, then we're looking at a LONG lockout
no more championships for the lakers. lol they wont allow it to be 45 mil. i can prob see around 60 mil. reasonalbe amount.
maybe 70. if there starting at 45 already i doubt it will make its way up to 80. if it gets up that high then there would most likely be a franchise tag on players. small market teams are sick and tired of LA and Boston.
they have to do something, 80 percent of the teams are losing their asses financially, including the spurs.
NHL salary cap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_salary_cap
After reading that no way the NBA is below $60 million.
NHL = 23 man roster
NBA = 15 man roster
apples and oranges.
That's the starting point. Could end up closer to 60 phased in over five years, but I don't see the owners budging on a hard cap, save minimum salary exceptions.
Good point.
I don't see it as longer than last time. The stars may rule on the court, but in the union, the shmoes rule. It's one man, one vote. Guys making $1M will likely still be making $1M, and there are a lot of them. Guys making $20-25M will likely be making $6M, but there are many fewer of them, and they won't control the vote.
They can use the new Alan Houston amnesty slot on him.
Doesn't matter. The NBA salary structure is unsustainable.
they are not lossing money
if they sell their teams they make money
clippers owners would make a killing
lower the ticket prices did any team sell out all season?
Most basketball "fans" understand a dunk, ESPN highlights, and a shoe commercial, and wouldn't know a back pick or a pin down screen if it bit them in the ass.
players wont stand for this. they might budge on eliminating the mid level exception but this cuts their pay basically in half.
You understand that GM still had assets when they went into bankruptcy, don't you? It's not about what your company or team is worth on a balance sheet, it's if you can run it profitably on an annual basis. If you can't run it at a profit, eventually it WILL be worth nothing.
Everything I've heard was a 2-3 year phase in.
Players won't go for $45 million. This proposal from the owners was likely the absolute minimum. I hope a hard cap does go through but I would expect it to be around $60 million after negotiations.
I think this is an accurate/current list of current salaries. Only 6 teams are below the current $58 million soft cap.
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
They are also proposing a new single player amnesty round.
People said that the NFL would never go hard cap, either, but they did. Hard choices have to be made. Emmett finishes as a Cardinal, Jerry Rice as a Raider. Maybe Kobe finishes as a Clipper or Net.
owners offering big contracts last year during fa
then want a 45 million hard cap
LOL
Changes may need to be made to the system, but nothing would help more than better management.
Yeah, that's all nice, but if you allow the owners to spend, they will. They're like B-ball player crack addicts. You'll always have some new idiot, whether it be Cuban, or this new Russian Billionaire, who will spend to show how big their or wallet is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
