The NBA Supermax Contract Isn't Doing What it Was Supposed to Do

[Seventyniner]

I think it's going to be even nastier than 99. Owners have to feel like suckers when stars can have both perpetual free agency and the security of long term money. As bad as Kawhi and AD were, the Paul George trade demand was supremely perverse with three years remaining. How pissed must OKC be paying repeaters luxury tax on a full rebuild?

I wish I could disagree with you. It's very hard to see the owners and players coming to an agreement ahead of time over such a contentious issue.

[exstatic]

No way will the players give up guaranteed contracts. NBA players have more power than NFL players because the NBA has more stars given the smaller roster sizes and the recognition of the best players. The NFL has a lot of unknown stars and the rosters are so big and players are so replaceable (except quarterbacks to some extent) that they do not have the power to negotiate guaranteed deals, though they have made some progress in that effort.

The NBAPA is comprised of roughly 450 players. 15 of them are ALL NBA. A few more than that are All stars. The rest want to be able to pay their bills, and usually have some non-guaranteed money on their deals anyway.

[sasaint]

The NBAPA is comprised of roughly 450 players. 15 of them are ALL NBA. A few more than that are All stars. The rest want to be able to pay their bills, and usually have some non-guaranteed money on their deals anyway.

Yet the “rank and file” of the NBAPA only stood to be potentially hurt by the provisions of the last agreement.

[Mr. Body]

If the players elect self-serving assholes like Derek Fisher and Chris Paul, this next round will go badly.

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

Player empowerment means that now the fans are getting screwed by the owners and the players… Great.

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

If the players elect self-serving assholes like Derek Fisher and Chris Paul, this next round will go badly.

It sounds like Vice President Matt Bonner didn’t have much say in the matter. Ha.

[cd021]

I still think the owners are going to push hard for non-guaranteed contracts, and for once I'll be on their side this time around. If Kawhi Leonard, Anthony Davis, and Paul George refuse to abide by their contracts why the should owners be stuck paying John Wall's and Chris Paul's contracts?

That's a recipe for another lockout.

[lmbebo]

Player empowerment means that now the fans are getting screwed by the owners and the players… Great.

And we the idiots that keep spending our money and attention on them ...

[Harry Callahan]

Unfortunately its true. Never mind they are playing a game for millions and millions of dollars with generational wealth. Yet its still about "slavery" because they can't get it all...... cry me a ing river. No parallels.

But league has renamed team owners as "governors" to step away from this "master-slave dynamic".

How about employer and employee?

Power has shifted too much to the players and I blame Lebron.

League needs a reboot.

I like my T-Shirt that states I am "Property of the San Antonio Spurs". I ought to wear it to a start of the season press conference next year and have Pop yell at me for being behind the times.

[ZeusWillJudge]

I don't think the league loves it. I think it sees the problems that it created and the problems that it did not fix.

I don't know how you define "the league", but -With-Ears Silver recently talked about how it's creating a lot of excitement, and bringing a lot of offseason attention to the league. If that bas thinks it translates into revenues, he likes it. If he can convince enough team owners that it will translate into greater overall revenues for them, and higher team values, "the league" loves it too.

The networks love superstars and superteams, because that drives revenues, and the shoe companies love them for the same reason. They don't give a if they leave small markets for big markets - in fact, they like it better. The lower-level players are still getting more money than they used to, so they aren't going to even if the super-max will never have anything to do with them. A lot of fans in a lot of cities like these supermax players being able to play musical chairs, because they can crow like s on a dungheap when it's their team who buys the super-max guys.

It's mostly fans of small market teams who hate it, and "the league" doesn't give a because small markets don't drive revenues, and fans will keep watching anyway.

That's just the way it works, and the way it's going to work.

[exstatic]

I don't know how you define "the league", but -With-Ears Silver recently talked about how it's creating a lot of excitement, and bringing a lot of offseason attention to the league. If that bas thinks it translates into revenues, he likes it. If he can convince enough team owners that it will translate into greater overall revenues for them, and higher team values, "the league" loves it too.

The networks love superstars and superteams, because that drives revenues, and the shoe companies love them for the same reason. They don't give a if they leave small markets for big markets - in fact, they like it better. The lower-level players are still getting more money than they used to, so they aren't going to even if the super-max will never have anything to do with them. A lot of fans in a lot of cities like these supermax players being able to play musical chairs, because they can crow like s on a dungheap when it's their team who buys the super-max guys.

It's mostly fans of small market teams who hate it, and "the league" doesn't give a because small markets don't drive revenues, and fans will keep watching anyway.

That's just the way it works, and the way it's going to work.

It's not just the fans of the small markets that hate it. The owners of the small markets hate it, too, and there are more of them. It's not large markets, per se, that benefit from it. Chicago is a VERY large market, and can't make any more inroads on top FAs than San Antonio. I would categorize it as 2NY teams/2 LA teams, plus a couple of opportunists in Miami and GS, who happened to have HUGE amounts of cap room at the right time. I'd say the rest of the owners are fed up with it. They don't answer to Silver, he answers to them, and if enough of them want a lockout, they'll get it.

[sasaint]

That's a recipe for another lockout.

No problem. The product is verging on impossible to watch anyway. Besides if LeBron and Number 2 both lose a year of their careers, all the better.

[exstatic]

No problem. The product is verging on impossible to watch anyway. Besides if LeBron and Number 2 both lose a year of their careers, all the better.

And if CP3 loses a year of that stupid salary, that's just the cherry on top.

[sasaint]

And if CP3 loses a year of that stupid salary, that's just the cherry on top.

Perfect!

[ZeusWillJudge]

It's not just the fans of the small markets that hate it. The owners of the small markets hate it, too, and there are more of them. It's not large markets, per se, that benefit from it. Chicago is a VERY large market, and can't make any more inroads on top FAs than San Antonio. I would categorize it as 2NY teams/2 LA teams, plus a couple of opportunists in Miami and GS, who happened to have HUGE amounts of cap room at the right time. I'd say the rest of the owners are fed up with it. They don't answer to Silver, he answers to them, and if enough of them want a lockout, they'll get it.

I understand what you're thinking. But the revenue sharing scheme is there to try and make sure that small market teams still come out in the black at the end of the season. Some of them used to cheap out on team salary, but the league put in a minimum salary by assuring them that they would get it back and not lose money. But the big thing is that team valuations keep going up. Tell a guy that Forbes is going to be reporting his net worth as plus another $100M, and he'll go along with having super-max players migrate, and settle for his team just getting into the playoffs.

I think small market owners don't like it. But I'm also pretty sure that enough of them go along because there's better money in it for them. It's a spectacle - a very, very profitable spectacle. And they've figured out that they make more money this way than they ever thought about by running it as a sport. They may make some token, cosmetic changes. But they aren't going to take any kind of drastic action as long as the revenue curve is pointing upward. Maybe the Spurs and a few others object, but there aren't enough of them to swing the big picture changes.

Put your idealism aside, and take a critical look at what you see, and you'll know it's true.

[BillMc]

No problem. The product is verging on impossible to watch anyway. Besides if LeBron and Number 2 both lose a year of their careers, all the better.

And if CP3 loses a year of that stupid salary, that's just the cherry on top.

Amen brothers

[timtonymanu]

I wouldn’t mind a lockout. That’s how little I give a about this league, commissioner and its players.

[picnroll]

Contracts where the total salary amount doesn’t fully vest until the player has fulfilled the terms of his contract, like stock options. Player doesn’t fulfill his contract he loses a sizable amount of the total value of the contract.