Reply With Quote
Interesting read which explains some of the not-so-subtle implications of the proposed CBA: SI article
Was that Pierce with the text?
Interesting read which explains some of the not-so-subtle implications of the proposed CBA: SI article
almost every successful business in America places limits on salaries and wages, dumb ass
Salary caps? No they don't.
They do have salary budgets, though. And those tend to be hard caps.
Not caps. Not when they have to compete on a free market.
Dumbass
And that's why they have to make do with mediocre employees like Birn.
A salary/personnel budget is far, far different from a salary cap. And the range between a janitor's salary and a CEO's salary in a Fortune 500 company would be far vaster than the difference between the most expensive and least expensive players on a team.
The question that was originally posed by EL Pussy Pussy was "Anyone know another business that caps what employees can earn?" The answer to that question would be Yes, of course. There are budgets for every employee level - be it janitors (El Pussy Pussy's profession), middle managers, executives, CEO's, etc.
A budget isn't a salary cap. Capitalist Warrior would know that.
So your answer to my question would be NO. Which would be the right answer, BTW.
Yeah, there is no salary cap in about every other profession that I can think of. There is the opposite: a minimum wage to protect the floor of a what a person can earn (though the courting of undo ented workers works to go under that, obviously.)
The only other professions are other professional sports leagues that are working basically under the same premise of the NBA (a government sanctioned monopoly). It's fairly apparent that capping salaries goes against the core of a free-market system.
So I see Birn showed up to have his ass handed to him again.
Actually, salesmen get their salaries and commission capped more often than you'd think. I didn't read most of the other posts, but I thought I'd throw that into the conversation.
Capped? Doubt it. If anything, they get what they negotiated when they got the job. There's nothing stopping them from bargaining a better deal with a different employer.
lol @ all this bull and players taking it up the ass for moreparity
The rich get richer, the owners keep spending like there's no tomorrow...
Do you realize that the main measure to ensure parity hasn't even started?lol @ all this bull and players taking it up the ass for more
The rich get richer, the owners keep spending like there's no tomorrow...
We will see how the new CBA will truly impact the whole parity issue in a couple of years when the new luxury tax and repeater tax will kick in.
Oh, I know the lux tax portion won't kick in till next season (IIRC). But none of these 3/4 years deals are changing by then.
Basically, teams like LA will happily pay the lux tax (especially after the cable deal they have), superstar players still prefer to head to a big market if possible even if they leave money on the table (apparently, endorsements are worth that much since they're not part of the BRI), and the relarively severe lux penalty actually keeps small markets small (Holt can't afford a $100 million payroll for 3/4 years, and the system is built such that he's incentivized to stay under the luxury tax to get the checks from the big spenders, which means the Spurs will have to keep building through the draft).
So this is more of the same, except that players get 49%-51% of the pie instead of 57%...
The new luxury tax will start next season and the repeater tax in 2 seasons.
The biggest early sign that the new CBA will do a better job than the previous one at keeping a compe ive balance is Knicks not matching Lin contract. They are a big market team that has let go a good player because keeping him would have cost too much with new tax rules.
Lakers and their $100M payroll isn't a sign that the new CBA isn't working. When you look more closely, all the Lakers players are on a short term contract.
The NBA is in a transition phase between two CBAs. Nothing of what has happened this summer suggest that the new CBA won't do a significantly better job at keeping a compe ive balance between teams. The only little worrying sign is what happens in Brooklyn with the Nets but it hasn't reached an alarming level.
Well, we'll see Bruno. Right now I'm not seeing it at all.
Its hard to tell exactly what the effect will be until it happens. The new luxury tax and repeater tax seem to be prohibitive measures on paper, and for most of the league they probably will be.
However a team like that Lakers, which will literally be receiving $150 million a year from a TV deal that is not taxed and/or redistributed, gives them a lot more room to work even with the harsher penalties. Even with the new taxes, if the Lakers spent 2/3 of that TV revenue toward player salaries it would still give them a significantly higher salary budget than most of the league to work with, and one that few if any other team in the league would be able to match for any period of time.
On the other hand, the limitations like not being able to do S&Ts and other measures could stifle the type of acquisitions teams like the Lakers could do.
They had Kidd and Felton already lined up. As bad as Felton was last season, he was a pretty solid point guard when he was in New York.
It's also not that complicated to side-step the lux tax through pseudo-'endorsements'.
Player signs for less salary money and team arranges for 'endorsement' to cover the difference. The system actually encourages it, since both team and player benefit. The team takes less of a tax hit if any hit at all, and the player has to return less money to the league at season's end, which actually means less money to redistribute.
Do you know how prevalent this is? I know that one perk of playing for a big-city team is the potential endorsements, but obviously the team can't officially do what you say due to CBA cir vention rules. Would teams be willing to take that risk, or just let the players act on the unspoken fact that endorsements make playing in a big city better when player contract amounts would otherwise be equal?
I don't know how prevalent it is, and the NBA supposedly could penalize such arrangements (look at questions #29 and #30 here). The thing is, it can be difficult to prove that certain endorsements are "sponsored" by the team.
As it states there, Minnie got caught because such an under-the-table arrangement was written on paper, but otherwise, it would be pretty difficult to prove. With big markets it's even more difficult, since players could legitimately want to give up a bit of salary to go to a bigger market because of endorsement possibilities. Especially with superstar talent and salary caps.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
