SI's Thomsen illuminates main head-scratchers of the CBA dispute

[sturt]

http://sportsillustr...html?xid=si_nba

Any educated fan would urge the players to move toward a system that rewards performers and punishes malingerers who sign long contracts only to wind up "stealing the money" (to turn a phrase that players use among themselves), and likewise that the deep and entertaining rosters of the champion Mavericks and Lakers should not be diminished in order to prop up the underachieving Timberwolves and Clipper.

And herein is a major crux of the discussion.

A major reason the NFL is successful because its rosters are not bloated with guys who used to play well but aren't as good as the guys coming behind them. Rosters are not stuck from year to year in a perpetual muck of celebrating past accomplishments, but rather it is a league of "what have you done for me lately," and that's as it ought to be in an occupation where entertainment rooted in athleticism is the product being sold.

A system, such as I put forward a few weeks ago, and then enhanced slightly a few days later with my own concept of softening the hard cap, needs to embrace this competition-for-every-job paradigm. It is a guiding principle that will make the NBA a stronger game and league that it's been... and unlike baseball or football who have no real international competition for the best talent, that will become increasingly important in the next two decades if other nations' economies begin to catch up to ours in an appreciable way.

Someone made the assertion that if you implement a system that forces players on the roster to compete with each other for a pre-set pool of money, you're asking for trouble. Players will simply begin playing for their own stats like never before.

Think just one iota deeper and you'll understand why that's a fallacious assertion.

To the player who would think that way, he would quickly come to understand that he can't get stats if he can't get playing time.

And as long as head coaches dictate playing time, the system will continue to reward the players who can be productive in roles even beyond scoring.

As a consequence, nothing actually changes.

Players on the floor are those players who understand their role and do it well. Players whose role is to score, obviously, are always going to command the largest paychecks since putting the ball in the basket is the bottom-line way wins are determined. But there will remain only one ball, and thus will remain many other supporting roles on any given team.

And another overarching question is "how can we eliminate these every-so-many-years labor disputes?"

One major disagreement has been raised by the owners' insistence on an unprecedented 10-year collective bargaining agreement. When Fisher reminded the owners that they've routinely been credited with outfoxing the union in previous CBA negotiations, he was surprised by their response. "They gave us credit for outnegotiating them in the past," Fisher said. "So it cuts two ways. If you've been so severely outnegotiated by us in shorter-term deals, why would you want a deal that is twice as long? The other way of looking at it is that you're patronizing me and that you know that if you get a deal twice as long as the last one for much better terms, then it could be the grand slam of all grand slams [at the expense of the players]."

Fisher does have a point... owners appear to be taking a page from the Rahm Emanuel School of Opportunism... ie, never waste a hiccup in the economy to get all you want.

Again, this is where I believe there is a place in the process for regulatory authority under the U.S. Department of Commerce, essentially giving oversight largely through licensing authority, and thus, inserting a public-sector arm that is sensitive to the voice of fans. And having that, I would look to that U.S. Sports Commission (or whatever you want to call it) to have the authority to do arbitration. That is, both sides are allowed to negotiate their own deal, but if the deal is not completed in a timely manner, both sides present their cases to the Commission in support of an agreement they advocate, and one or the other plan gets adopted.

Edited July 22, 2011 by sturt

[coachx]

http://sportsillustr...html?xid=si_nba

And herein is a major crux of the discussion.

A major reason the NFL is successful because its rosters are not bloated with guys who used to play well but aren't as good as the guys coming behind them. Rosters are not stuck from year to year in a perpetual muck of celebrating past accomplishments, but rather it is a league of "what have you done for me lately," and that's as it ought to be in an occupation where entertainment rooted in athleticism is the product being sold.

I can't see the players giving up guaranteed contracts or going for production driven conrtracts. They would see that as giving up too much.

I think the best shot the owners have is lowering the length of contract. Teams can still get burned but being burned for 4 years is alot better then being burned for 6 years............and most of the times its only the last 2 years, of the long 6 year deals, that teams really regret.

Is it best for the inidvidual player ? Well that depends which player you side with. Do you side with the 36 year old veteran being paid like a top 5 player but is now a shadow of his former self ? Do you side with the young player who is producing more but can't get paid much b/c the old guy is eating up all the salary cap ?

Edited July 22, 2011 by coachx

[sturt]

Not saying what will happen.

Saying what ought to happen.

And saying what, as a fan, is in my/your/our best interest in all of this.

And truly, it shouldn't matter to the union... why is Derek Fisher seeking to protect the LaDanien Tomlinsons of the NBA?... who actually benefits from that other than the individual player? (EDIT: I see you agree.)

If you want to create the NBA equivalent of the PGA Senior Tour, be my guest, but as a fan I simply want the best players on the rosters, period.

Edited July 22, 2011 by sturt

[spotatl]

but as a fan I simply want the best players on the rosters, period.

So what you are asking for is for the players to decertify the union. This would be the pure competition you are looking for- unfortunately that also means that the draft, salary cap, luxury tax, maximum salary, and maximum contract length would all be illegal and teams could offer the players whatever they wished to. Somehow I don't think this is exactly what you have in mind.

[AHF]

So what you are asking for is for the players to decertify the union.

No. I don't think that is what he is looking for at all.

This would be the pure competition you are looking for- unfortunately that also means that the draft, salary cap, luxury tax, maximum salary, and maximum contract length would all be illegal and teams could offer the players whatever they wished to. Somehow I don't think this is exactly what you have in mind.

I think he has in mind limited guarantees on contracts so that players whose play doesn't support their wages get their wages cut rather than riding out years of overpaid contracts like Eddy Curry, Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis, etc.

I think what he has in mind is a system where the total dollars to the players as a whole are guaranteed but they are distributed to the productive players rather than those who the players themselves describe as "stealing" the money.

[sturt]

Indeed, the union will continue to have just as many members and players will continue to command x-amount of league income.

A system that makes performance in the prior year about 2/3-3/4 of a player's compensation, and with only 1/3-1/4 of their compensation being tied to a contractual obligation of x-number of years, is sufficient to accomplish what we want, and yet is an acceptable compromise given the system that's been in-place previously.

[coachx]

Not saying what will happen.

Saying what ought to happen.

Understood but....

That never happens.

[AHF]

Understood but....

That never happens.

I think some lessening of guaranteed money is likely to happen, though - whether by directly reducing the guaranteed nature of contracts or reducing the maximum number of years or incorporating some kind of buyout provision, etc.

Whatever form it takes, I expect the NBA compensation system will shift a higher % of the players' money from non-productive players to productive players in the next CBA.

[coachx]

I think some lessening of guaranteed money is likely to happen, though - whether by directly reducing the guaranteed nature of contracts or reducing the maximum number of years or incorporating some kind of buyout provision, etc.

Whatever form it takes, I expect the NBA compensation system will shift a higher % of the players' money from non-productive players to productive players in the next CBA.

I agree that the 2 most probable scenerios to lessen guaranteed money are some form of buyout and reducing the length of guaranteed contracts.

My disagreement was only centered around the players union accepting performance based contracts taking the place of the guaranteed contracts they currently have.

Edited July 22, 2011 by coachx

[sturt]

Yes. But my question continues to be, why should the union do that? Why are performance-based contracts a bad idea if, in the end, ownership still invests the same pool of money (by percentage) in payroll overall?... and, especially if we buy-in to the premise that putting the best athletes on the rosters equates to a better game overall which equates to more viewers/attendance overall which equates to more income overall... which then, equates to a higher base number and more money getting paid to players overall...?

Edited July 22, 2011 by sturt

[dlpin]

Let me make 2 points:

- The NBA already allows for non guaranteed contracts, just like the nfl allows teams to offer contracts where almost all the money is guaranteed. While cases of players being overpaid can hurt a franchise, the fact is that forcing non guaranteed contracts essentially take choices away from owners and players.

- Guaranteed contracts are far from being the main issue in this CBA. at the end of the day, player salaries are set at 57% of revenues, so guaranteed contracts essentially makes some players overpaid at the expense of others. Something that should be dealt with, sure, but not what the owners are mainly about. It is no accident that this was one of the first things owners were willing to give up.

I am staunchly against restrictions on individual contracts. Sure, total salaries should be restricted and salary cap is important. But the more restrictions you put on individual contracts, the more it backfires and hurts competition. When all salaries are determined the same way, when all salaries have the same restrictions, big markets and top teams win out.

If Memphis can only offer the same as the lakers or the celtics, players are going to pick the lakers or the celtics.

[Randy]

Let me make 2 points:

- The NBA already allows for non guaranteed contracts, just like the nfl allows teams to offer contracts where almost all the money is guaranteed. While cases of players being overpaid can hurt a franchise, the fact is that forcing non guaranteed contracts essentially take choices away from owners and players.

- Guaranteed contracts are far from being the main issue in this CBA. at the end of the day, player salaries are set at 57% of revenues, so guaranteed contracts essentially makes some players overpaid at the expense of others. Something that should be dealt with, sure, but not what the owners are mainly about. It is no accident that this was one of the first things owners were willing to give up.

I am staunchly against restrictions on individual contracts. Sure, total salaries should be restricted and salary cap is important. But the more restrictions you put on individual contracts, the more it backfires and hurts competition. When all salaries are determined the same way, when all salaries have the same restrictions, big markets and top teams win out.

If Memphis can only offer the same as the lakers or the celtics, players are going to pick the lakers or the celtics.

And that is the problem that likely is never going to be solved. Basically, this is a two tier league - the Celtics and Lakers and maybe a few other places are where the name players want to go. It sucks that Orlando lost Shaq in his prime, and likely will lose Dwight Howard to LA, but that's probably going to happen no matter what the new CBA does. And that's even really an owner v. player issue, but an owner v. owner issue. Part of the problem with this lock out is that the problems are probably more between owners than anything else, but since they can't agree they figure the next best thing is to reduce the players take so that when they lose there stars to the big markets, at least they can still make a buck.

[AHF]

My solution to the Shaq issue would be a franchise tag where the player gets the max plus some additional amount, like 5%, that doesn't count against the cap.

[sturt]

The current CBA is a monstrosity of convoluted exceptions and caveats... give it 20 years and it might even begin rivaling the US tax code.

As for Lakers versus Grizzlies?

Which team would you imagine has more money to spend than any other in the NFL, and thus under dlpin's premise, ought to be picking up every free agent they want when they want...?

Many of us would knee-jerkedly say "Cowboys, of course."

And is that the case?

No.

And does the NFL have a hard cap?

Yes.

How about baseball... which team ought to be picking up every free agent they want when they want...?

Yankees, of course.

And is that the case?

Usually.

And does MLB have a hard cap?

Anything but.

What lessons do we learn?

We learn that the harder the cap, the less likely it is that a team can manipulate free agency to give themselves advantage.

[Randy]

Truth be told, if I was a great young player, I'd probably want to play for the Lakers or Celtics, given the choice. A little bit more money would not make that much differnce. You could probably make a lot more from endorsements playing in one of the bigger markets, if nothing else.

sturt mentioned the tax code. Its interesting that Florida, Tennessee and Texas have no state income tax, whereas NY has a top rate of about 9%, CA is 9.3% and MA is about 5%. So the Heat, Magic, Grizzlies, Spurs and Mavs have an advantage already compared to the Celtics, Knicks and Lakers. Their players get to keep more of their money. In GA, the top rate is 6%, so the Hawks are at a disadvantage compared to some teams. As long as the CBA is already as complicated and convoluted as possible, maybe they should add exceptions to adjust for differences in state tax rates. :mail:

Edited July 23, 2011 by Randy

[Trueblood]

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.

[sturt]

You have to start with this question if you want to emerge with a rational agreement: Recognizing that the NBA is a business and the fan is its customer, what is the ultimate purpose of having guaranteed contracts in the first place?

"That it gives players security."

How is that important to the customer? Why do you or I care how secure any given player is? Just drawing out the logic here.

No, the ultimate purpose of having guaranteed contracts where the customer is concerned is simply and exclusively to promote fans' familiarity with the players on the roster... taken to an extreme to illustrate the point... iif you had no guaranteed contracts and a brand new slate of players every season, that would contribute significantly to fan apathy... fans wouldn't connect as they otherwise do, and fan support therefore would be eroded... leading to less revenues for NBA owners and players to divvy up.

The problem with the current system is that, by mandating all guaranteed contracts, it places the greater emphasis on this familiarity element than is necessary or productive.

To the contrary, a rational system would allow for guaranteed contracts as a smaller portion of compensation, but would place emphasis on ... and thus give greater compensatory reward for... recent performance.

We can negotiate actual numbers... I'm on record for a 75-25 weighting... but the concept is a rational one and where all these talks ought to be headed. Essentially, one could think of the concept is analogous (though not perfectly) to base-pay-plus-commission.

[Trueblood]

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.

[sturt]

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.

1. Performance-based can be done in a variety of ways. I agree that the one you've indicated isn't appealing. Take a look at the plan I put on the table, though (see link from initial post). It has none of those concerns.

2. There will always be decisions that GMs make that prove to be stupid, no matter the environment. I get that. But a well-conceived CBA can limit the number of years that one is stuck with those bad decisions... and regardless of the fact that ASG or whoever pays the bills, I "pay" too by having my loyalty wasted on a franchise that is stuck. I'm looking out for our interests, and that's at the core of our interests.

Edited July 23, 2011 by sturt

[TheNorthCydeRises]

( 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.