Reply With Quote
Argument boils down to "NFL players took it in the ass, so the NBA should too"
Not to mention this is a star driven league moreso than any other sport. They deserve it.
Argument boils down to "NFL players took it in the ass, so the NBA should too"
I must admit now that you've explained it (if you're correct) I do feel better.For example the luxury tax line could be 70mil and the "cliff" could be 65mil. Thus encouraging teams to stay under the tax by 5mil to receive rewards but not penalizing a team until they get to 70mil.
Is my understanding correct?
THAT
That obviously is what Deepy was trying to tell me, but, I panicked.
Bend over. I'll in' boil down.
You are probably right but in reality it's the Heat and Knicks that found a way to make a mockery of the old system. Though, they just made sure they had cap space for stars and have the luxury of being sizable markets. It should not be news to the owners that players like large market teams, the Lakers have been attracting stars for years, maybe longer. If all large market teams gain an advantage though then it's understandable that small market teams would want a change to the system. Still, the players don't deserve to be burned; players are still partners and should be treated like so.
It looks like the players are giving up a lot but that's simply because they had a ridiculously favorable agreement before. The owners couldn't start out at 43% and meet at 50/50. So they started with a higher BRI and negotiated a little and then held ground.
No, the MLB has a favorable agreement. The NBA has one that ensures rookies and stars will never be paid market value.
All i know is the average NBA salary is 5+ mil...thats pretty damn good and #1 in all professional sports
Like I said, ask the cavs and nugs how there partnerships went...In any business the ownership should have all or most of the say so, not star players...The NBA was headed down dark and nasty place if something was not done to fix this..
NBA teams only have 15 players maximum, and maybe 10 that actually play. That argument is almost like when the NFL refs went on strike and complained how they made less than NBA refs and MLB umpires for their once a week workday.
Also, look up the difference between "average" and "median" salary. For every Kobe salary, there's 10 getting paid like Gary Neal.
If I wanted to hire Einstein for my company, I would understand that he would hold an enormous amount of power to negotiate with since I can't find too many more talents like him.
Owners have given up too much in this deal and it will come back to bite them in the ass. I already laid it out here how they were being fair in their offers.
It's not about the BRI split though, it's the huge system issue they gave up on long ago that will have them crying about locking out the players at the next opportunity.
There's NOTHING in the current owners offer that would prevent future cases of Rashard Lewis or Gilbert Arenas, or Eddy Curry (beyond one small trip on where he would have been fat). Or the many many others like them.
Without limits to how much of a contract can be guaranteed (like not at all or only 2 of a 4 year deal or 3 of a 5 year deal), salary cap albatrosses will continue to happen and continue to hamstring franchises. Doesn't matter if the BRI is 50 to the owners, 57 to the owners, or 43 to the owners, it's these guaranteed contracts that squeeze out the market for free agents and forces them to accept MLE deals or worse when teams can't just cut the non-performing players. And it painfully extends the rebuild time of teams that want to get better.
Even the proposed rule (that I don't even know is still in the deal) that tax paying teams can't do sign-and-trades wouldn't have prevented Rashard Lewis.
All that's happened is that albatross contracts will be one year shorter.
As long as there are no limits to the guarantees teams will continue to be screwed by their own decisions and the quitting of players. Even the best run teams as perceived by the experts make bad deals and can't get out of them (RJ comes to mind).
The owners gave up on the guarantee battlefront, what, a month before the first day of camp was cancelled?
If you're putting a season into jeopardy, do it to fix the system, and it's biggest flaw: albatross players hurting both teams and other players by hogging up cap room and not earning it when others should be getting that money.
What would your view be on players sitting games out when they're underpaid?
I for one wouldn't watch the NBA if it had a MLB system. I can't be the only one. I wonder what the market value would look like once millions of fans stop watching.
I don't know; what does ARod's deal look like?
I don't know; how long is the schedule and what does the average attendance look like?
Exactly. How people fail to realize this is crazy. This league is about stars and rare talents.
2004... Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker are the best backcourt in the league but are on lousy rookie deals that pay them a total of $2.3 million together. Question to those like objective who don't believe contracts should be honored: what's your reaction when Parker and Ginobili decide they're sitting out until Holt rips up the discount contract and pays them market value?
Disagree...There are always at least 3-4 players per roster who get very little to zero PT in a season. That is about 25% of all the players in the NBA. I can gurantee you that an NFL and MLB roster does not have 25% of its players do absolutely nothing in a season and still get paid..
as of now there is no renegotiating an existing deal.
If the players would agree to no guarantee past two years but with the option to renegotiate after two years, which would open the door for holdouts . . . I couldn't disagree.
Those last few spots that aren't used are often non-guaranteed deals and short-term contracts. Bobby Simmons, Alonzo Gee, Garrett Temple... these guys made hardly anything. Udoka was cut. Chris Quinn played half the team's games. Steve Novak got signed with 30 games left in the season, and played most of them.
I just find it a little hypocritical that it falls on the players. If you want the NFL why not point out that it's the owners preventing that because they want the players to foot the bill and not participate in profit sharing?
Some people that talk about ownership in the NBA just like any other business would do well to look at The History of NBA Labor, especially the "ESTABLISHING A PLAYER-OWNER PARTNERSHIP" section.
@robinlundberg Robin Lundberg
The NBA and the NBAPA just ordered dinner into their meeting. No word on how they'll split the check.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
