Resuming CBA talks

[Giuseppe]

The current CBA was due to expire after this year anyway so this whole notion that the players are being locked out really holds no water. We were heading to this point anyway. Lockout or strike it makes no difference, the issues that need to get worked out are still the same.

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only.

Birn with the bitter truth.

Good stuff, Birn.

[Birn]

You're wrong. Local TV deals were absolutely part of BRI under previous collective bargaining agreements. You can read it in the Article VII of the 2005 CBA

Those deal exclusively with "league related en ies" that derive 50% or more income from the NBA. Spurs Sports and Entertainment Inc is not considered a league related en y since they also derive income from the Silver Stars, The Rampage, Monster Truck Shows, Home Shows, Concerts, etc. and The Toros.

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be en led to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are en led to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

Just look at Michael Jordan as perfect example. Now that he's an owner and has to operate a business on a day to day basis he fully understands what is going on. Notice he isn't saying much about the players' position. If he was a player that truly felt this way about revenue sharing then why isn't he doing it as an owner? Same for many of these players who own businesses themselves. Do you really think they believe in sharing 57% of their total business income on salaries for THEIR employees? Before expenses are even deducted? Heck no! Talk about hypocrisy!

Players need to get a grip on reality and get this deal done on Tuesday!

Greedy BAS S!!!!

[Birn]

You should look into a career in politics tbh.

LOL!! I would get CLOBBERRED!! I'm not politically correct enough.

[ElNono]

The current CBA was due to expire after this year anyway so this whole notion that the players are being locked out really holds no water. We were heading to this point anyway. Lockout or strike it makes no difference, the issues that need to get worked out are still the same.

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only. It's bye bye Spurs if you believe this is the way the league should operate.

I love my Spurs and want them to remain compe ive. If you also love your Spurs, then you would be for the owners on this deal.

This deal is all on the players. They have no right to demand more than 50% of the revenue from the owners. They have no right to keep demanding to keep 57% from owners unless they also take 57% of the operating costs from the owners. You people need to wake up and realize just how greedy and selfish these players really are. It is disgusting, de able, and sickening to see them acting this way in this current economy with millions of people out of work and striving for some kind of entertainment to take their minds off of their problems in trying to keep their families together.

Greedy Bas s!! Accept the 50/50 deal and play ball now!!!

The bottom line is that players would be playing if the old CBA was renewed. Heck, they would be playing if the league accepted the union concessions, which covered half the losses.

What do you mean 'players have no right'? This is a star driven league. Stern made that bed, now he has to lay on it.

I'm not opposed to some contraction, btw. I think teams like the Spurs can still make ends meet with the last union proposal. And ultimately, why do solely the players have to subsidize small market teams? They didn't create those teams or relocate them there. That was entirely approved by owners. Again, it's time for the owners to step up to the plate and either cover the other half of the losses by better redistribution or simply axe a few teams.

[ElNono]

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be en led to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are en led to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

But they did. They offered to cover half the alleged owner's losses from the get go.

Again, why should players subsidize owner's bad decisions?

[baseline bum]

Those deal exclusively with "league related en ies" that derive 50% or more income from the NBA. Spurs Sports and Entertainment Inc is not considered a league related en y since they also derive income from the Silver Stars, The Rampage, Monster Truck Shows, Home Shows, Concerts, etc. and The Toros.

That doesn't appear to be the case at all according to the text of the collective bargaining agreement. If you can show the section that establishes what you're saying I'll gladly concede the point.

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be en led to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are en led to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

Your argument would be more convincing if the league was losing money, but it's not. I don't understand why that profit for small market teams should come as a subsidy primarily from the players. It doesn't make sense to divorce the teams of the NBA syndicate as a whole. The stance I keep hearing here is free market when it comes to my profits, but not when it's my expenses. If you really believe every team is en led to its profits over the common good of the rest of the league then you should also apply those kind of free market principles to player compensation. Of course that would be disastrous for the league though; we'd lose the small market teams and the big market teams would then start making less with fewer teams to play against, lower merchandise and national broadcast revenues, and so on while paying true market value for the LeBron James and Kobe Bryants of the league.

Just look at Michael Jordan as perfect example. Now that he's an owner and has to operate a business on a day to day basis he fully understands what is going on. Notice he isn't saying much about the players' position. If he was a player that truly felt this way about revenue sharing then why isn't he doing it as an owner? Same for many of these players who own businesses themselves. Do you really think they believe in sharing 57% of their total business income on salaries for THEIR employees? Before expenses are even deducted? Heck no! Talk about hypocrisy!

I can't think of many businesses that are filled with 1 in a million talent as bit players like every NBA roster is. Especially ones that need to expose their employees and their work directly to the public the way professional sports have to. The fans get attachments to players they can see directly, they can read about on ESPN.com, and so on.

Players need to get a grip on reality and get this deal done on Tuesday!

Greedy BAS S!!!!

They don't owe it to you to take a huge paycut when the product they're putting out is generating profit.

[ChuckD]

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only. It's bye bye Spurs if you believe this is the way the league should operate.

The bottom line is that owners who paid $200-300M aren't going to allow their teams to be contracted. They'll claw back more shared revenue from the other owners first.

[Birn]

That doesn't appear to be the case at all according to the text of the collective bargaining agreement. If you can show the section that establishes what you're saying I'll gladly concede the point.



Your argument would be more convincing if the league was losing money, but it's not. I don't understand why that profit for small market teams should come as a subsidy primarily from the players. It doesn't make sense to divorce the teams of the NBA syndicate as a whole. The stance I keep hearing here is free market when it comes to my profits, but not when it's my expenses. If you really believe every team is en led to its profits over the common good of the rest of the league then you should also apply those kind of free market principles to player compensation. Of course that would be disastrous for the league though; we'd lose the small market teams and the big market teams would then start making less with fewer teams to play against, lower merchandise and national broadcast revenues, and so on while paying true market value for the LeBron James and Kobe Bryants of the league.



I can't think of many businesses that are filled with 1 in a million talent as bit players like every NBA roster is. Especially ones that need to expose their employees and their work directly to the public the way professional sports have to. The fans get attachments to players they can see directly, they can read about on ESPN.com, and so on.



They don't owe it to you to take a huge paycut when the product they're putting out is generating profit.

If I knew how to copy and paste from a PDF do ent I would show you. It's a couple of paragraphs before the one you cited. It explains it all right there.

Your premise that the players will be "subsidizing" the owners is incredibly flawed. In order for one en y to "subsidize" another, the subsidizing party must own the process. The NBA players in this case don't own the process, the NBA franchise owners do. The fact is there would be no NBA without the owners putting up all of their capital. As much as people like to say this is "players league" it really isn't....the league belongs to the owners in all reality. It's important that we always deal with fact and reason.

The concept of free market is perfectly applicable in this case. A free market is where two parties enter into an agreement with each other in order to serve their own self-interest. In order for this to work, each party must be willing to accept each other's terms. If one party doesn't accept the other's terms, there's no deal and there should be no compulsion for either party to accept the other's terms. That's why it is called a free market. Either side is free to accept or reject the other's terms. The owners are telling the players that their terms are simply unacceptable.

The league is not making money hand over fist as you suggest. This is a serious situation for the NBA and its future especially for small market teams like the Spurs. Some teams made money while others lost a lot of money. The point of the whole lockout is that salaries are growing at a much faster rate than the revenues generated by the league and it just can't be sustained into the foreseeable future. Believe it or not, the NBA is a private enterprise that must earn and account for all of it's money. This is not the federal government where you just print money if you run out.

On the concept of revenue sharing, it is not up to the owners to share more of their own revenue with each other. They don't need to share anything and nobody is en led to their independent revenue. Same is true for the players - they don't have to share their endorsement income with anybody. However, the players keep talking about the importance of unity and solidarity - if that's the case then they should share their own money with each other. If they really and truly believe they are unified they would share each other's money. It would be stupid for them to actually do that because they would not be realizing their full earning potential. That's not how it works in a free market.

The owners and players are involved in a true partnership that can be very prosperous for all involved. Like any other partnership, a 50/50 split of the revenues is fair and more than reasonable.

[baseline bum]

If I knew how to copy and paste from a PDF do ent I would show you. It's a couple of paragraphs before the one you cited. It explains it all right there.

OK, thanks (saw it in the 1st subsection). Hard to believe Spurs Sports and Entertainment could draw more than 50% of their income from the Silver Stars and so on, but if there have been ways to snake out of putting local TV deals in the BRI in previous CBAs, that sets precedent for the league to negotiate from and thus reject player's demands for more revenue sharing driven mainly by the local TV deals.

[ElNono]

The point of the whole lockout is that salaries are growing at a much faster rate than the revenues generated by the league and it just can't be sustained into the foreseeable future.

But this is what's baloney. Salaries are tied to a percentage of income. That's exactly what the 'share of BRI' is. If income goes down, salaries go down too.
Conversely, if income goes up, then there's more money to split on salaries.

And this is exactly why players are already 'revenue sharing'. Since the salary pool is a relatively-fixed amount, and the amount of players on teams is already a fixed amount too, the $5 million/season Roger Mason gets is the extra $5 million Lebron should be getting (I think there's little doubt that in a true free market economy, NBA star players are generally underpaid. How much is a guy like Kobe worth to LA?).

[Birn]

That doesn't appear to be the case at all according to the text of the collective bargaining agreement. If you can show the section that establishes what you're saying I'll gladly concede the point.



Your argument would be more convincing if the league was losing money, but it's not. I don't understand why that profit for small market teams should come as a subsidy primarily from the players. It doesn't make sense to divorce the teams of the NBA syndicate as a whole. The stance I keep hearing here is free market when it comes to my profits, but not when it's my expenses. If you really believe every team is en led to its profits over the common good of the rest of the league then you should also apply those kind of free market principles to player compensation. Of course that would be disastrous for the league though; we'd lose the small market teams and the big market teams would then start making less with fewer teams to play against, lower merchandise and national broadcast revenues, and so on while paying true market value for the LeBron James and Kobe Bryants of the league.



I can't think of many businesses that are filled with 1 in a million talent as bit players like every NBA roster is. Especially ones that need to expose their employees and their work directly to the public the way professional sports have to. The fans get attachments to players they can see directly, they can read about on ESPN.com, and so on.



They don't owe it to you to take a huge paycut when the product they're putting out is generating profit.

But this is what's baloney. Salaries are tied to a percentage of income. That's exactly what the 'share of BRI' is. If income goes down, salaries go down too.
Conversely, if income goes up, then there's more money to split on salaries.

And this is exactly why players are already 'revenue sharing'. Since the salary pool is a relatively-fixed amount, and the amount of players on teams is already a fixed amount too, the $5 million/season Roger Mason gets is the extra $5 million Lebron should be getting (I think there's little doubt that in a true free market economy, NBA star players are generally underpaid. How much is a guy like Kobe worth to LA?).

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very compe ive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster. The best run teams and most respected organizations like the Spurs would benefit from such a system.

[Dex]

So should we start a pool on if the NBA/NBPA will actually make any progress tomorrow? At least make this interesting...

[spurs10]

I would think protecting guaranteed contracts is at the top of the union's list. These players all know they have relatively short careers in the NBA. If any one of them can be easily discarded when they suffer an injury, then all of them are standing on shaky ground. The whole purpose of a union is to protect their players from getting kicked to the curb when they are no longer able to perform due to unintentional injuries etc. Most contracts in every field protect people in this way. Tim Duncan is getting paid well for what he's done for our team as much as what he will do in the future for our team. That being said, the owners have no motivation to continue losing large sum of money. That's likely why Stern doesn't want to spend more than one day negotiating with a mediator present. They already know they won't accept a 53/47 split.

[ElNono]

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very compe ive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster. The best run teams and most respected organizations like the Spurs would benefit from such a system.

I don't disagree with this. I'm just not sure it would maximize returns for the league, but that's certainly debatable.

The whole situation sucks, and quite frankly, hearing about owners like Sarver and Gilbert taking a leading role after making decisions over and over is frankly the epitome of hypocrisy. Badly managed teams SHOULD lose money and should potentially disappear or be sold to better management.

[Giuseppe]

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very compe ive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster.

Birn again, with the indominable goods.

[Mr. Body]

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very compe ive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster. The best run teams and most respected organizations like the Spurs would benefit from such a system.

Vastly to the benefit of the owners, although it seems you're heavily in their favor. Your idea is very silly.

Regardless, the best players wouldn't sign unless they were offered multiple years. The teams would have to accept in order to sign them. Then the rest of the players would start holding out in the same way, so the the teams missing out on the first run of players would have to do the same for the second run, and on down the line. Besides, the teams would want multiple year contracts, anyway - it helps to not have to negotiate tirelessly every year for the same players. Not only does this put a lot of hazard for teams to not play their best players, it ignores the enormous benefit of keeping players in the community, marketing them to fans who want to see them year in and year out, etc., and keeping a team together to build cohesion and experience.

The massive problem the owners have - and have always had, in this league -is that they substantially bid against themselves. Stupid owners/stupid GMs make things hard enough as it is, but then the very process of negotiation and the small number of players per team pushes the value of players higher in any given summer market.

This isn't the players' fault, but of course Stern wants it to be their fault. He's won a lot of concessions in the last ten to fifteen years to ameliorate this situation, and the players have conceded to them (rookie scale, Bird rights, luxury tax, etc...). But now you have the league saying teams aren't solvent for basically is the same problem they've created for themselves. If they weren't paying out exorbitant contracts, they wouldn't have this problem. You're making the same argument they are, and it's a bit daft.

[Birn]

Vastly to the benefit of the owners, although it seems you're heavily in their favor. Your idea is very silly.

Regardless, the best players wouldn't sign unless they were offered multiple years. The teams would have to accept in order to sign them. Then the rest of the players would start holding out in the same way, so the the teams missing out on the first run of players would have to do the same for the second run, and on down the line. Besides, the teams would want multiple year contracts, anyway - it helps to not have to negotiate tirelessly every year for the same players. Not only does this put a lot of hazard for teams to not play their best players, it ignores the enormous benefit of keeping players in the community, marketing them to fans who want to see them year in and year out, etc., and keeping a team together to build cohesion and experience.

The massive problem the owners have - and have always had, in this league -is that they substantially bid against themselves. Stupid owners/stupid GMs make things hard enough as it is, but then the very process of negotiation and the small number of players per team pushes the value of players higher in any given summer market.

This isn't the players' fault, but of course Stern wants it to be their fault. He's won a lot of concessions in the last ten to fifteen years to ameliorate this situation, and the players have conceded to them (rookie scale, Bird rights, luxury tax, etc...). But now you have the league saying teams aren't solvent for basically is the same problem they've created for themselves. If they weren't paying out exorbitant contracts, they wouldn't have this problem. You're making the same argument they are, and it's a bit daft.

I agree my idea of a pure system will never happen. However, it's in no way silly or "daft", whatever the that means. Many people on the side of the players talk incessantly about how they just want the free market to work for the players. My opinion on a pure free market system is that players should have to prove their worth every year. If injuries happen, that's too bad. They just have to rehab and get back in shape so they can become marketable again. I realize that's not going to happen but it's the purest form of a free market.

I'm glad to know you agree that player salaries have become exorbitant. Now we just need to focus on how to fix it. Owners can't just decide to pay less in the current system because the union will cry collusion and seek damages through the courts. In the current system, the owners have no choice but to pay crazy salaries because that is the way the current system is set up. If an owner wants to field a compe ive team they have to pay pretty much what the players are demanding. The way to fix that is to correct the flaws in the system. Basically, move away from a 43/57 split to a 50/50 split. NBA players will still be the highest paid players in all major sports and the highest paid NBA players in the history of the league.

This is really a no brainer for the players. If no progress is made tomorrow, there's a strong likelihood there will be no basketball this season.

[therealtruth]

I agree with Birn. The players should have to prove their worth. It's kind of silly for players to say owners are stupid to pay Eddie Curry a long deal and then offer no alternative. It makes it easy for them to get a long term deal and then take it easy. We've seen the contract year phenomenon so much. If players actually played like that every year the league would be much more compe ive. I can't think of a good argument for allowing long term deals and allowing players not to live up to it. Shorter contracts also rewards players for getting better and working on their skills. They can get a pay raise by improving. Right now if a player is locked into a deal there's no real motivation for them to get better till the contract year.

One idea is adding more conditions that measure performance/effort into contracts.That's why I liked it when the Grizzlies started doing that with their rookies. It may seem a little controversial because not everything is under a player's control.

[Dex]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sport...vid-stern-spin

NBA Lockout Update: More Bad David Stern Spin

I have Mike and Mike to thank for making my morning commute just a little brighter. A few days ago they had David Stern on, which wasn’t good for my happiness level. Here were some of David Stern’s points.

1. The Owners are being more cooperative than the players

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. We need to remember that this is a lockout! That means the owners started it! Why should the players be as cooperative as the owners here? By being cooperative the owners get more money. By being more cooperative the players lose money.

2. The world has changed and the owners are losing money

David Stern pointed out 57% is no longer feasible. Now let’s point out that number is tied to revenue! That means the players salaries stay flat relative to how the league is doing. The NBA may be losing money but it isn’t due to the player salaries, it’s due to external costs. Stern brought up two, which I’ll go into more detail below.

3. Charter jets are expensive

This is an ever popular topic. Oil prices have gone up and planes use oil so this is an unforseen cost that can explain the issue teams are having with money! I decided to look up the cost for a charter jet (I used a 737-200 and 727-200 as my plane type) the prices I’ve seen are around $7,000 hourly. I decided to go ahead and up the cost to $10,000 hourly to adjust for any fuel arguments. A round trip flight to Boston to Los Angeles is around 11 hours (courtesy of Google Flights) Using these two numbers we can get a fun upper bound estimate. If every team paid $10,000 an hour per flight and every flight was a Boston-Los Angeles length flight then the total flight budget for the regular season(41 flights for 30 teams) would be $135 million. The league is claiming losses of over $300 million. In the worst case flights only explain $135 million in total cost! That means the actual hit would have to be somewhere between what the NBA actually expected the flights to cost and the increase in value. In short even if we buy that the NBA was shocked by changing fuel prices and that they paid top dollar for the flights and every flight was as long as can be they still come up over $200 million short. That means every other excuse the NBA is using would have to cover the rest of those costs. That brings me to another point.

4. The NBA needed more employees to handle ticket sales.

David Stern said that demand for the game had dropped. Of course this isn’t true. The way he sold it was that because people were buying tickets in smaller bundles (e.g. sets of 10 instead of sets of 40) that more employees were needed to handle sales. His two main cost points were charter jets (see above) and this! First off are we expected to believe that low wage workers to sell tickets could even make a decent dent in $300 million? Second, do we really believe the NBA is losing costs to employees? Employees were one of the first casualties of the lockout. The NBA has shown no problem cutting employees to cut costs. If they were losing money since the last CBA does Stern really expect us to believe they’d be content losing costs to employees?

David Stern isn’t addressing anything

I didn’t hear David Stern explain how the NBA was going to try and curb the uncontrolled costs. I didn’t hear David Stern explain how the NBA would try to increase revenue. I heard David Stern say the players need to fork over money to help the owners. The issues put forward by the owners seem flimsy. Also if the issues are enough to put the NBA in danger, why aren’t the owners trying to do anything to deal with them in this CBA? David Stern and the owners have done nothing to address the issues and have essentially asked the players for a check. The negotiations have nothing to do with the issue in fact! They have everything to do with the size of the check.

As an NBA fan I want this lockout to end. That said, when I hear David Stern talk, I can’t help but feel more upset at the fact that I am being lied to and the wrong people are being blamed. Instead of locking out the players perhaps the owners should have locked themselves out and hired a new commissioner.

-Dre

Another perspective, and a few factors that I haven't really seen brought up yet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those deal exclusively with "league related en ies" that derive 50% or more income from the NBA. Spurs Sports and Entertainment Inc is not considered a league related en y since they also derive income from the Silver Stars, The Rampage, Monster Truck Shows, Home Shows, Concerts, etc. and The Toros.

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be en led to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are en led to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

Just look at Michael Jordan as perfect example. Now that he's an owner and has to operate a business on a day to day basis he fully understands what is going on. Notice he isn't saying much about the players' position. If he was a player that truly felt this way about revenue sharing then why isn't he doing it as an owner? Same for many of these players who own businesses themselves. Do you really think they believe in sharing 57% of their total business income on salaries for THEIR employees? Before expenses are even deducted? Heck no! Talk about hypocrisy!

Players need to get a grip on reality and get this deal done on Tuesday!

Greedy BAS S!!!!

You do not understand market economics or the basis for the need for a CBA in the first place. The owners do not want free market instead want the market fixed to a particular value. Thats why the issue of BRI comes up.

Pro sports is a business unlike any other. Scarce labor. Think about it and maybe you will finally get the baseline.

The players are en led to a free market. The onwers don't want one.

[ElNono]

I agree with Birn. The players should have to prove their worth. It's kind of silly for players to say owners are stupid to pay Eddie Curry a long deal and then offer no alternative. It makes it easy for them to get a long term deal and then take it easy. We've seen the contract year phenomenon so much. If players actually played like that every year the league would be much more compe ive. I can't think of a good argument for allowing long term deals and allowing players not to live up to it. Shorter contracts also rewards players for getting better and working on their skills. They can get a pay raise by improving. Right now if a player is locked into a deal there's no real motivation for them to get better till the contract year.

You can solve that with bonuses/incentives, which, BTW, are already part of the league. Focusing on just ty deals and ty players overlooks the players that season in and out come out to play, and there's probably just as many of them. For every Toronto's Vince Carter, there's a LA's Kobe.

[Birn]

I don't disagree with this. I'm just not sure it would maximize returns for the league, but that's certainly debatable.

The whole situation sucks, and quite frankly, hearing about owners like Sarver and Gilbert taking a leading role after making decisions over and over is frankly the epitome of hypocrisy. Badly managed teams SHOULD lose money and should potentially disappear or be sold to better management.

Agree 100%. Both owners and players have to accept all the risks that come with a pure free market.

[Birn]

You do not understand market economics or the basis for the need for a CBA in the first place. The owners do not want free market instead want the market fixed to a particular value. Thats why the issue of BRI comes up.

Pro sports is a business unlike any other. Scarce labor. Think about it and maybe you will finally get the baseline.

The players are en led to a free market. The onwers don't want one.

I agree the current system in no way resembles a "free" market. However, it is both the owners and the players that don't want a purely free market. Each side wants protections and guarantees that strip away all the risks that come with a free marketplace. My position is simple - players are given 1 year non-guaranteed deals with no salary cap limitations. Owners are then free to spend as much or as little as they're willing to spend. This is not realistic and will never be considered but nobody should ever try to argue that the players only want the free market to work. That's all BS...they want nothing close to a free market...they want guarantees and protections. If the players want those guarantees then they have to be prepared to give up some of the rewards that come with a free market. If the players truly understood the concept of a free market, they would make more money than they ever imagined. Same with the owners. Reason is because both sides are always accountable to perform at the highest levels. This makes better players and better teams to put on the floor to sell tickets and TV advertising.

[Mel_13]

I agree the current system in no way resembles a "free" market. However, it is both the owners and the players that don't want a purely free market. Each side wants protections and guarantees that strip away all the risks that come with a free marketplace. My position is simple - players are given 1 year non-guaranteed deals with no salary cap limitations. Owners are then free to spend as much or as little as they're willing to spend. This is not realistic and will never be considered but nobody should ever try to argue that the players only want the free market to work. That's all BS...they want nothing close to a free market...they want guarantees and protections. If the players want those guarantees then they have to be prepared to give up some of the rewards that come with a free market. If the players truly understood the concept of a free market, they would make more money than they ever imagined. Same with the owners. Reason is because both sides are always accountable to perform at the highest levels. This makes better players and better teams to put on the floor to sell tickets and TV advertising.

That position doesn't describe a free market. It's every bit as contrived as the current situation, just with different projected outcomes.

[Mr. Body]

Birn, your 'one-year contracts' is silly and completely beside the point. No one in their right mind would consider it, least of all the owners, who want longer-term certainty. The players, who have families they'd have to move, would hate it. The fans, who like to follow their favorite players, would hate it. The local businesses, who like to hire these athletes for endorsements, would hate it.

It's an utterly daft idea and hopefully you'll stop flogging it.