Trueblood

Let's not forget that Atlanta will have enough cap space to sign TWO max free agents.CP3 wanted to come here when he was drafted and so did DH. They both want to play together.All DH has to do is look at how old Nash and Kobe are getting and that their respective games are falling off.Sterling has a reputation for screwing things up. CP knows that.I'm going to start a twitter campaign after the season but before free agency starts. It can't hurt. If nothing else, we can say we tried.

We have to pray on this. Assuming we have no shot at D12, we're stuck putting our faith in Otis Smith. Please oh please do the right thing and don't trade him to LA. Find a way to get the Brooklyn deal done so we don't have to watch another damn superteam.

FWIW, Jordan came back at the end of the '94-'95 season and was David Falk's top client during the mini lockout of '95. As was briefly touched on above, there was actually a deal prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. Falk and Jeffrey Kessler didn't like the deal and said that they would decertify the union if they couldn't come up with something better.

They went back to the bargaining table and negotiated a deal on August 8th. Falk and his boys still didn't like the deal but said that they would let the players vote on it. Their choice was to either decertify the union or not decertify the union. Not decertifying was the equivalent of accepting the deal that the union negotiated. They overwhelmingly voted to not decertify and the season started on time.

The one problem was that the owners had a 3 year out clause so after Shaq and KG signed humongous deals, the owners decided to opt out and we were back to a lockout, only this time it would take up almost half the season.

Jordan was actually not retired yet and he played a major role in the negotiating. There were times when the bargaining sessions consisted of just Stern and Jordan.

The owners won, Jordan retired and the rest is history up until now.

I'm a little more optimistic this week then I was before. The talk of lawsuits is simmering down and now we are hearing about REAL bargaining sessions being held and not mud slinging contests. There is going to be a real effort to get things done. Not necessarily saying that I think there will be major progress but at least they are going to make an attempt.

I too would like to see more parity but let's not forget that this past cba saw 5 champs in 6 seasons.

2006-Miami

2007-San Antonio

2008-Boston

2009-Lakers

2010-Lakers

2011-Dallas

I would take Lebron. Lebron on any NBA team will make them a contender. He is just that good. The Magic have a team of scrubs with Dwight and they were hell to deal with as well as won 50 games. We aren't contenders now or later. We are struck in good but not great unless we trade to make an upgrade while creating a better fit and upgrading what we have as well because of the trade.

That's under the assumption that he would make any team a contender and I agree that I would take Lebron if he were to indeed make the team a contender.

However, my hypothetical was asking if the fans would rather have a 50 win plus team that got to 2nd round or further in the playoffs or take a team with Lebron where the supporting cast was so bad that he was getting bounced in the first round and only winning 45-50 games. In that scenario, which would you take?

There are many things I could say to this, but here is the main point. The ASG never ran the hockey team correctly, and that cost the city a professional team. If you don't like hockey so be it, but for those of us who enjoy both hockey AND basketball please refrain from the name calling.

That's just the thing. I DO like basketball and hockey. It's the people commenting on the AJC that clearly have an anti basketball based agenda and when looking at their bigoted commentary, it's easy for more reasonable posters and readers to dismiss their takes. When they refer to NBA players as "thugs" and what not, they lose credibility. They do the sport and the NHL a disservice.

alright! fellow LA Hawks fan! thought i was all alone in my principles...lol. but is pizza loca any good?

Good to hear. I hope this guy is the real deal.

FWIW, there are some *ss backwards idiots on the AJC comments section. It's clear from reading their comments that they watch hockey for one reason and one reason only. First they said that they would never watch a Hawks game as long as the ASG was the owner and now that they're gone, they're complaining about the ASG still having a minority stake. Give it up. You morons never had any intention of watching the Hawks in the first place.

Also, I wouldn't sell recent parity short. During this past collective bargaining agreement, we saw 5 champions in 6 years.

2006-Miami

2007-San Antonio

2008-Boston

2009-Lakers

2010-Lakers

2011-Dallas

Some thoughts....

Hard cap is too general a term. A lot depends on where the hard cap is set. A $45 million cap is a joke but if you get it to $70 million with layers below it meaning a mid level exception threshold at $60 million and a soft cap at $50 million, then you may have a deal...

I say we keep the grandfather clause. That's what allows teams to sign their own stars for a number above the max salary. For instance, let's say the cap comes down to $50 million and 7-9 year vets can now only get 25% of the cap if they leave as opposed to the 30% that they get now. That means that Chris Paul could only sign for a base salary of 12.5 million (25% of 50) if he wanted to go to the Knicks but a grandfather clause could net him an extra 5% off the $16.5 million he makes now meaning that his base salary if he stays in New Orleans would be $17.3 million. An extra $2.5 million couldn't keep Lebron in Cleveland but an extra $4.8 million could very well keep the new batch of free agents from bolting....

The Hawks have new ownership. Whatever blunders they have made in the past shouldn't be held against them. Now that someone with his head on straight is making the calls, I don't see a hard cap or further contract restrictions having too much of a negative effect on the team. Hire the right people to make the decisions and that will have a much bigger impact than a favorable or unfavorable cba.

If the NBA were to hypothetically just have one more relocation, which one do you think makes the most sense and makes the league better off?

If the NBA were to hypothetically just have one more relocation, which one do you think makes the most sense and makes the league better off?

Assuming there is an MLE of some sorts and the Bulls are in financial position to spend it beyond the flex cap amount, I would say the Bulls are his best bet if they don't get Jason Richardson.

I think the Kings are top 10 because of Casspi. Someone on a Sacramento board mentioned that a lot of teams have a jewish heritage night and they reserve it for Casspi coming to town.

But yeah, in general, road attendance is based on individual star power. Never doubted that.

But the majority of fans who buy season tickets and root for their home team are doing it for pride in their hometown and it's local team as opposed to just an individual star. When we see the Cavs attendance drop next year, it will have more to do with fans just not wanting to invest in a losing product as opposed to not being able to see Lebron. People forget, the team was winning over 50 games with it's most marketable stars being Price and Daugherty and they had no problem filling up the joint and if Irving and Thompson turn out to be the real deal, the fans will be back. At the end of the day, Lebron WON GAMES and gave the city hope that it could finally win a title.

The Clips are the exception as they draw fans to see a losing team but have a very marketable superstar. Keep in mind that being a cheap and accesible NBA option with no NFL compeition to the Lakers has always allowed them to have an upper hand over other franchises in small markets with NFL competition.

The schedule definitely doesn't favor the Hawks this year but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's a conspiracy. It's going to happen. It's impossible for the league to even it out for everyone. With so many dates being locked due to other events going on, some teams just don't get the luck of the draw.

Now, if this starts happening on a yearly basis then I may start questioning things but not until then. I'll give the schedule makers the benefit of the doubt.

I stand corrected on Al's defensive numbers although we have to keep in mind that the majority of his minutes have come at C so with a limited amount of minutes to work with, it's still tough to get a good read on what he would do over the course of 82 games and 36 minutes a night at the 4 spot. The numbers can change.

Regardless, there is still the Smoove factor and like Randy says, unless Smoove gets dealt, the team is better off with him at the 4 then the 3.

OTOH, if Smoove is gone then I could definitely see Horford at the 4 and Marvin getting full time minutes at the 3.

Good post Sturt.

As for the genesis of the NBA being a star driven league, I blame the corporate partners more than I blame the league itself. Super Agent David Falk was the first agent to really get players involved in endorsements and what not. That created the big financial gap as well as marketability between the stars and non stars.

Coming out of the lockout of '98, the league did what it could to market teams over superstars. It tried it's best to get it's sponsors on board and they made an attempt but when it came down to it, the sponsors said it wasn't working and that they would pull their money if they weren't allowed to market the way they saw fit and that was it for Stern trying to dictate things as far as marketing teams goes. Money talks.

Well Trueblood . . we might as well have it the other way then. If a young player turns into a superstar within his 1st or 2nd year, give him the ability to become a restricted free agent at the end of his 2nd year, instead of the end of his 3rd year.

Chicago gets to underpay the league MVP for one more year, before the crazy offers come his way. The Cavs had an instant superstar player that played well above his worth for 4 years in a Cavs uniform, before he got a major contract. The Thunder get to underpay Kevin Durant for one more year, before his extension kicks in.

So if guys can see a contract be reduced because of underplaying his wort, guys should conversely be given the opportunity to opt out of his deal early, if he's playing way over his contract.

Which is the exact argument that I give to all the right wing hard liners who want to get rid of guaranteed deals altogether. Much of them are in New Orleans and I always give the example of Chris Paul and that he was practically a 2 time MVP while still under the rookie salary scale but they never have a good comeback for that.

Again, my deal is COMPROMISE oriented. I don't expect the owners to have to re-negotiate anybody's contract while under the rookie scale but I don't expect the owners to be able to get rid of players on a year to year basis either. My way works for the all sides including the players because getting rid of the Eddy Curry's of the world allows for an extra $11 million in cap space that the Knicks can spend on someone who otherwise would've been playing for the minimum or MLE.

And I disagree with you about where fan loyalties lie. The players in the NBA are who people go to see . . not necessarily the teams. Half of my "Hawk fan" rants have centered around this very issue. The fact that up until this past season, we had been a damn good home team to see and that going to Hawk games was a good value to the fans. But what do some give as the reason why fans don't come out?

WE DON'T HAVE A SUPERSTAR.

That's why Lebron said what he said. 50% of Cavs fans un 2009 weren't Cavs fans . . they were Lebron fans. And wherever Lebron goes, his fans will root for that team.

Ok, we can agree to disagree on that one but I'd prefer to see the Hawks win over 50 games without a superstar as opposed to be like the Clips with a superstar yet fall out of the playoffs time and time again. But that's just me. If most Hawks fans feel what you're saying then I guess I see differently than a lot of Hawks fans. This would actually make for an interesting poll. Would you prefer to see Lebron in a Hawks uni even if the team had no supporting cast and he kept getting tossed in the first round or would you prefer no star and go to the EC finals?

Let Sund tell it . . we're an "elite" team because we've made the "final 8" for the past 3 years. So if we're that good, why is our fan support indicatve of a team who is an 8th seed or a team who isn't quite good enough to make the playoffs? It's because thw average NBA fan don't come to support their team. They come to root for their favorite player. And the team he plays on, becomes their team. Only the true die hard fans will unconditionally support their team, regardless of who is on the squad.

The NBA isn't team driven. It's SUPERSTAR driven. And now these owners are mad that these players are not only commanding stratospheric contracts, they're starting to form alliances to team up with each other.

Once again . . this is the monster that the owners created, and will continue to create. They'll negotiate a new deal, and some owner who really wants a player will find a loophole in the new CBA, and exploit the hell out of it ( such as how owners did with upfront balloon payments ).

Well Sund is wrong and everyone on this board knows he is. That was a lame comment and he knows it and it was well documented.

However, I will agree to a certain extent on the monster that the owners created. What the NBA haters don't realize is that there is still a salary cap and if the owners don't create that cap space, the superstars can't move from team to team via free agency. When Chauncey Billups talks about how great it is that the players are taking control of their destiny, he is dead wrong and clearly doesn't realize that if the owners of the Heat don't get $50 million under, the players can't do jack diddly but stay with their own team.

But I disagree wholeheartedly about the future loopholes. The league has learned it's mistake and little by little, from '95 to the big lockout of '98 to the new cba of 2005, have slowly but surely eliminated loopholes. They're digging in this time and we'll see a new league with EVERYBODY having a shot at competing due to hard cap restrictions and more revenue sharing. ANY Hawks fan has to be happy about that since they've been in the lower half of the league in revenue generated for well over a decade and maybe 2 now.

( crying )

The poor owners don't know how to spend their money correctly, so they have to be saved from themselves.

Look at what is going on in the NHL. Christian Ehrhoff of the Buffalo Sabres signed a 10 YEAR - 40 million dollar contract. Now why would a team sign a player to a contract like that, for that long?

Well for one, the contract is frontloaded like hell. He'll get 10 million next season, and 8 million the season after that. Next, because it's a 10/40 deal, the cap hit will only be 4 million a year. Even though he's 29, you keep one of their best and most popular players on the team. But some of you guys want to let these owners off the hooks for making these types of deals with star players?

Why let the Knicks off the hook for a contract like Eddy Curry, when they themselves REFUSED to play the kid and MAKE him earn his money? Or the Wizards off the hook for acquiring Rashard Lewis?

If these teams are dumb enough to continue to do this, I say let them do it . .and LET THEM SUFFER. No one is forcing these owners to make these types of deals. So why penalize the player for not "living up to the deal"? It's funny, when players want to re-negotiate their contract or ask for more money, fans have a fit. But if it's the other way around, fans seem to be cool with it.

My idea of giving the owners ONE contract to opt out of every 5 years is in the best interest of compromise. We have posters that will side with players and others who side with the owners but want what's not only best for us fans but what both sides will realistically agree to. The opt out one guy per 5 years plan allows for owners to get out from mistakes that are impossible to see coming but at the same time saves the remainder of the roster from getting cut.

And North, why do you suppose that is?

Maybe... because the customer recognizes that how money is spent on payroll has a direct bearing on the fans' likelihood of enjoyment... maybe?

It just so happens that our interests as fans, then, run more parallel to the interests of the team than to the interests of individual players.

And that will continue to be the case as long as this is a... team... sport. Our loyalties over the years are for our teams, and individual players are only temporary employees who we engage for some period of time.

This is true. Players come and go but our overall devotion is to the organization and the city it represents. Something Lebron didn't get when he talked about "Lebron fans" will continue to be Lebron fans, not realizing that sports fans base their loyalties on team over individual.

I checked your link and that's some good, out of the box thinking. Idealistically, it's a good plan but the union will never go for it. Unfortunately, it's a non starter for them. They want to have some sort of idea of what they'll be making so they can finance accordingly. If they are an all star in year 1 and get the 25% that you laid out, that will make them happy but if they get hurt in year 2 and drop to the 2% level or whatever, they won't be too happy and it will make for a non starter at negotiations.

With the 2 or 3 year out rule, it gives them 2 or 3 years worth or money to figure out how to finance things but at the same time, it's just short enough to force them to have incentive to play hard and within the team structure that you pointed out, so that they get another deal and then hopefully another deal on top of that.

The only problem with linking contracts to performance is that there is too much grey area and what not. If you base it on scoring average, you'll have players, guys will take the last 10 games of the season off if they've hit their number at game 72.

On the flip side, if the coaches have their way, they'll listen to ownership orders demanding that players sit the end of games to help avoid them getting to the scoring peak.

By giving the owners the ability to opt out of any deal after 2 or 3 years, you are more or less basing it on performance. After all, if a player is carrying his weight, the owner will have no reason to get rid of him when he has the option to get rid of someone who isn't.

Also, I don't have as big a problem with guarantees because when you get down to it, the owner is the one who is doling out the money. If he has a problem with giving out guaranteed years, he should just give out one year deals. The problem is that someone else will want the player and offer a larger deal of maybe 2 or 3 years so in essence, the players have earned those guarantees based on market value. Someone is always willing to tack on an extra year or 2 due to the value of the player so it's always the owner who winds up dictating market value based on what they offer.

I've thought the same thing. He may be slightly better offensively at PF but with the stretch 4 seeming to be the new trend in the NBA, he's going to be wearing himself out on the defensive end a lot as he'll be chasing guys out to the 3 pt. line and what not.

If Smoove doesn't get dealt, the team is better off with Al at 5 and Smoove at 4 as opposed to 4 and 3.

I will say this. With an extra 41 open dates due to having no NHL team, future Hawk schedules should be more favorable.

Still, I believe that a compromise is pretty easy to come about when it comes to guaranteed contracts.

Owners should be able to terminate one guaranteed deal for the first 5 years of the new cba and then have the right to terminate one more during the final 5 years.

My thinking is that if you look at the history of NBA payrolls, it's usually never more than one deal that sticks out as overbearing and forces an owner into red ink. Having the right to get rid of one deal probably is all they really need.

Also, no player knows who is going to get cut so every player now has incentive to go out and play hard and not be a jake. I disagree with the owners and Joe Public who think players get fat and lazy when they sign a big deal. Some do but not all. Despite that, there is public and ownership pressure to at least be able to get rid of some bad deals so allowing for 2 over the course of the cba should be good enough.

I'd even add a stipulation that says that players should at least be guaranteed to get 2 or 3 years on their deal so even if they start sucking in year one or get hurt, they are protected for another year or 2 as a form of compromise. Maybe just put an out clause in every NBA contract that exceeds 3 years but say that the owners can only exercise the out on just one per 5 years which is the equivalent to terminating one every five years assuming the player has already completed 2 or 3 years on the deal.

For the players, it should be looked at as a good thing as well. If I'm a free agent and I want to play somewhere but can't because some goon is making $15 million and hogging up the cap at the end of the bench then I look at that as a bad thing. Get rid of that jake and now I'm in position to sign a deal that will pay me $6 million per year and I'm now satisfied.

Owner, hard working players and fans win. Overpaid jake loses. I don't see how that doesn't work.

1. FLEX CAP or MID LEVEL EXCEPTION THRESHOLD

The owners want to get rid of the mid level exception while the players not only want to keep it but add a 2nd one with more penalties heaped on teams that utilize a 2nd one.

I’ve always maintained that I support the concept and existence of the MLE but that it had to be limited so that the big markets don’t take advantage of it and create a league where competitive balance and parity gets tossed to the side. With the luxury tax in place during the just expired collective bargaining agreement, my thinking was that if you limited the MLE to the teams whose payroll fell in the window of the soft cap of $58 million and the lux tax threshold of $70 million and disallowed it for big market teams who were already well above the threshold, you would have a league with much more parity.

Towards the end of June, when the league and players were trying to come to an agreement, the league made a proposal to the players that included something called a “flex cap” which sounded very similar to what I wrote in the previous paragraph. While details were somewhat sketchy, the rough draft idea was that teams could slightly exceed the soft cap in order to sign MLE players or resign a player using their early bird or bird rights but that they could only exceed it to a certain extent before hitting a hard cap.

The players countered that they don’t want any form of a hard cap and that since the “flex cap” still used a hard cap above the flex cap, it would be considered a hard cap and thus, a non starter.

Since this is a compromise oriented article, my solution is to meet halfway. I like the idea of a hard cap as long as you have the layers of a flex cap/midlevel exception threshold cap then a soft cap and a minimum cap where at least 75% of the soft cap must be spent by owners on player payroll. Since current payrolls are so high, you would have to phase this in over a 3 year period. For me, it would look something like this…

2011-12 season……$95 million hard cap followed by a $68 million flex cap and then a $55 million soft cap.

2012-13 season……$88 million hard cap followed by a $65 million flex cap and then a soft cap of $53 million.

2013-14 season…….$78 million hard cap followed by a $62 million flex cap and then a cap of $51 million.

2014-15 season……League would finally get to a hard cap of $70 million, $60 million flex cap and a $50 million soft cap. Adjustments from here on out would be based on whether revenue is increased or decreased as a whole for the league.

The concept of how this works is simple. Like it is now, teams who want to sign a free agent to a contract exceeding the MLE would have to get below the soft cap.

Teams could exceed the soft cap by resigning their own free agents AND using the MLE or any portion of it as long as their payroll falls below the flex cap level. For example, if they have $3 million below the threshold and the MLE is $4 million, a concept I’ll get into later, they would only be able to spend $3 million of the MLE instead of the full $4 million.

Teams could then only exceed the flex cap up to the hard cap by signing their own free agents.

The owners could then decide if they want the flex cap/mid level threshold to also act as a luxury tax threshold depending on if revenue sharing solves their in house problems or not.

In summation, I think the players would be wise to accept a hard cap but not at the ridiculously low number of $45 million. Get it up to $70 million with the possibility of going up or down based on league revenue and you have a legitimate middle ground.

Example on how this would effect the rest of the league:

The hard cap numbers of $95 million for the first year and $88 million for the 2nd year are derived from contracts already on the books for players. $95 million represents the largest payroll, this case being the Lakers and since the owners aren’t allowed to terminate any guaranteed deals YET, another concept that I’ll get into later, we have to set a cap where the largest payroll is.

In year 2 of the deal, the Lakers have options on both Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum. The thinking behind the $88 million is another compromise. They would have room to keep one but have to get rid of the other.

On the flip side, the Lakers wouldn’t be able to improve their roster beyond signing their 2nd rounders to minimum deals since they would already be up against the hypothetical hard cap and wouldn’t be able to improve their roster via the MLE since they are also well above the hypothetical flex cap number of $68 million. Not only the Lakers but world champion Dallas, Boston, Orlando and Miami would be at a disadvantage due to being too close to or over the flex cap number. Dallas would be limited to concentrating on their own free agents like Caron Butler, Tyson Chandler and J.J. Barea, Boston with Big Baby and Jeff Green while it would be James Jones and Mario Chalmers or bust for the Heat.

On the other hand, teams on the cusp like New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Milwaukee would be far enough under to sign an MLE level player and thuse create a level of parity and competitive balance that the league has stated that it’s looking for.

2. ALLOW THE OWNERS TO TERMINATE ONE GUARANTEED DEAL OVER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE CBA AND THEN ONE MORE DURING THE 2ND FIVE YEARS.

This is one I could actually do without but with public pressure to limit or get rid of guaranteed contracts at an all time high, I concede this to the spirit of compromise. Plus, with a hard cap in place, teams are going to need to be able to get out from under mistakes and allowing for this clause makes that an easier task.

The thinking behind limiting it to one per five years or two over the course of a hypothetical, league proposed 10 year deal is that the public outcry from hard line fans and owners is for the most part, overblown. If you look at the history of team payrolls, it’s rare that a team has more than 1 or 2 horrible contracts that limit their ability to improve. Being able to get rid of just one of the them would usually put a team below the cap or at least in position to better the team via the MLE or portion of it.

If a team needs to get rid of more than one deal then I place the blame at the feet of management. At that point, they need to look themselves in the mirror as opposed to just trying to find ways to get more money back from the players.

I also add a phase in for this concept as well, only this time for the players benefit. We can point our fingers all we want and laugh at how much the players spend but at the end of the day, it’s their money and they can spend it how they see fit. They signed their contracts with the thinking that they would see every penny of it and have bought houses, cars and various goods for family members and friends, financing all of it based on their respective contracts. The phase in would make it so the owners would not be able to terminate any deals during the first 5 years of the cba until the summer of 2013. That gives players time to re-finance or prepare for the possibility of their contract being voided.

Another benefit to the players is that while someone will most likely get their contract terminated, that means that there is an available opening for someone else to get a well deserved contract whereas had the opening not existed in the first place, said player would most likely have to play for the minimum or in Europe as opposed to getting the MLE or contract created by cap space due to the outgoing contract. In short, the good players get paid while the overpaid jake loses out. Owners, fans and players win. Overpaid chump who didn’t live up to his deal gets tossed. I don’t see how you can argue with that.

I will also add that the concept of rollbacks is a no go as well due to what I pointed out above. A contract is a contract and you can’t just go back on what has been signed. Giving the Gilbert Arenas’, Brandon Roy’s and Mike Miller’s of the world a 2 year warning is a good compromise.

Also, make it so that not only is there a 2 year phase in period from the time the cba is ratified but also allow for all players to have completed 2 years on their deal before it’s eligible for termination. This protects players who get hurt in the first year. At least now, they have a 2nd year to fall back on and when you get down to it, injury isn’t their fault but the result of unfortunate circumstances so they shouldn’t be punished in full.

For those of you who want more and think the players are lazy, I will disagree with you but comfort you with the knowledge that nobody knows in advance who will be terminated. Therefore, it adds incentive to ALL players to play hard, team oriented ball despite the fact that only one can be terminated and should help improve the on court product all the more.

Also, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!! For those of you who want all contracts to be non guaranteed, we would actually be thrown back to a situation where this is less parity in the league. Big, attractive market teams could just terminate as many contracts as they need during a summer in which there are a number of big time free agents and just build more super teams. And trust me, it would happen. If the Heat could do it despite not being able to terminate guaranteed deals, imagine what the Lakers could do if they had that at their disposal.

How this effects teams around the league:

Teams like Orlando can take advantage of this after 2 years since they will still have 2 horrible contracts in Hedo Turkoglu and Gilbert Arenas on the books. By getting rid of one of them, they can better convince Dwight Howard that changes are coming and that the team can improve if he’s patience.

3. NATIONAL TV SLIDING SCALE

Revenue sharing is a big source of controversy. As mentioned before, the players believe that the majority of the league’s problems are a result of the lack of revenue sharing and that if the league could install a system of more revenue sharing, the players wouldn’t have to give back as much. This is true to a certain extent but as we’ve seen in Major League Baseball, it doesn’t stop the big spenders from spending more on talent. They can write a luxury tax bill that allows the little guy to be profitable but at the expense of the fans. You see, the small market owners just keep the money instead of spending on free agent talent to make the team better. If they keep their payroll low enough, they can be profitable but then wind up losing 100 games or so.

This is why a cap is necessary so the combination of a hard cap to go along with revenue sharing makes everyone a winner in this mess. The question now becomes, how do we go about implementing a system of revenue sharing that’s fair for the small market but doesn’t take away too much from the large market? You see, new owners in Detroit, Phoenix, Brooklyn and Golden State can say that they spent as much on their respective teams with the knowledge that they would get a large return on their investment due to being in a large or succesful NBA market. Having to give away too much to the little guy will make their investment a long term loser or so they project.

I actually agree with this sentiment to a certain extent. Some will argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with forcing large markets to share and that it’s borderline communist and un American. While I think that’s going too far, a good solution would be for the league to disperse their national tv money differently. Teams wouldn’t be forced to share their earned revenue but rather the LEAGUE itself would be deciding that for the good of the game, the gap needs to be closed so we’ll take it upon ourself to decide how to disperse the money that WE NEGOTIATED.

As it stands now, teams get roughly $32 million per season as a result of the national tv deal that Stern inked with Disney and Turner. Despite this equal dispertion, there is still a wide gap dividing the haves and have nots. Some teams are very profitable while others lose money in the eight figure range. In order to rectify this situation, the league should be able to disperse this money depending on how much revenue the teams bring in on an individual basis for the previous season. I will use the 2008-09 season as an example. The Lakers led the league in revenue earned, followed by the Knicks, then Detroit, then Chicago, Houston, Cleveland and Dallas.

At the bottom of the league, you had Memphis in last, followed by Milwaukee, New Jersey, New Orleans and then Minnesota at #26.

My system would then pay the top grossing team, the Lakers in this case, $17.5 million. The #2 team would get $18.5 million, followed by #3 at 19.5 million and so on, adding one million to each team in the ranking order. By the time you get to #26 Minnesota, you have $42.5 million, then $43.5 million to New Orleans, $44.5 to Jersey/Brooklyn then $45.5 and finally $46.5 to the lowest ranking team.

To some, this is an ugly form of welfare. My counter argument is that it’s not welfare. Franchises shouldn’t be penalized for being in small markets. Fans shouldn’t suffer losing season after losing season because their team can’t create enough revenue to compete. This is just a way of bridging the gap some. According to Forbes, the high ranking teams would still be profiting well above $30 million while if you add $15 million to a team at the bottom, they go from losing $5-10 millon to profiting $5-10 million. In short, the big guy doesn’t get hurt much while it makes all the difference for the little guy.

4. TWEAK THE NUMBERS

From here, it gets easy. You keep most of the elements of the old cba but just lower the numbers. What most people forget is that this recently concluded collective bargaining agreement was even more owner friendly than the cba that was ratified in 1999 after the big lockout. That 1999 deal was considered to be a huge victory for the owners. If that was a huge victory then the 2005 deal should’ve been considered a landslide. So what happened?

In my opinion, the cap just kept going too high. With revenues in the league going up just about every year, there’s no reason why teams should becoming less and less profitable. If only 8 teams spent the luxury tax yet 22 of them lost money, then the simple answer is that the cap and lux tax threshold were just too high. The cap was determined by overall revenue created and since the large markets were mostly responsible for that revenue, the cap wasn’t fairly determined. Sure, the big market will still be profitable but the small markets weren’t seeing more generated revenue so the cap would eventually be too high for them. So……

a) Lower the cap. As mentioned earlier, the soft cap should get down to $50 million in 2015 and then from there, base the number at less than 40% of BRI as opposed to the current 48%.

b) Lower the amount of the max salary by reducing the percentage that players can get. Currently, 0-6 year vets can max out at 25% of the cap, 7-9 year vets get 30% and veterans with over 10 years experience can get 35%. Lower it to 20%, 25% and 30%.

c) Lower the length of contracts to 5 years maximum if you resign with your current team and 4 if you switch teams as free agents from the current 6 and 5 setup. Limit MLE signees to 3 year deals. The combination of a 5 year deal and a 20% max for players coming off their rookie deal would make for a $10 million base salary on a hypothetical $50 million cap. With 10% raises, this would make the total deal come out to $60 million over 5 years. This is well below the $100 million deals that we see all over the place and would lower the total payroll to the point that teams would still be under the hard cap and opportunities would still be abundant for free agents.

d) Add a “Keith Van Horn” provision. Dallas was able to use KVH’s bird rights to their advantage despite the fact that he was almost 2 years into retirement. It was a loophole that made a mockery of the system. To fix this problem, players should no longer have bird rights if they’ve been out of the league for over a year. The whole point of bird rights is to allow teams to retain their stars. If a player is out of the league for over a year, he really isn’t much of star anymore.

e) Add a “Big Z” provision. When Cleveland dealt Zydrunas Ilgauskas to Washington for Antawn Jamison, the Wizards then waived Big Z and he then went back to Cleveland. They basically got Jamison for nothing. Other teams have taken advantage of this loophole as well. To get rid of it and the possibility of teams colluding together in the future, a new simple rule should be put in place that says a team can’t bring a player back until the following season.

f) Make the raises in contracts be 10% for someone resigning with his team and 5% if they leave via free agency. Those numbers are easy to factor in your head and are lower than the current 10.5 and 8.5. Lower raises means lower overall contract and lower payroll.

g) KEEP THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE AND FORGET ABOUT FRANCHISE TAGS!! This is a clause that allows for teams to resign their own free agents to a number that is above the max. For example, if a free agent is coming off his 8th year in the league and he makes $17 million, he should be eligible for a 5% raise off that $17 million. That would bring his new base salary to $17.85 million. With a hypothetical $50 million cap and a 25% max for 7-9 year vets, that would mean that he could only sign for a max of $12.5 million elsewhere. That’s a difference of over $5 million on the base salary alone and probably is enough to keep the player from leaving. It’s one thing for Lebron James to take a $2.3 million base salary cut but if you more than double that, he probably stays in Cleveland so future free agents will have less incentive to leave and eliminates the need for franchise tags, something the players union is justifiably fighting.