Labor Negotiation Posturing Begins NOW!

[Guest]

Here's a great write-up of Adam Silver discussing the state of the NBA from Kevin Arnovitz:

LAS VEGAS -- Just about the time DeAndre Jordan sorted out his internal conflict, NBA teams had committed to players' contracts whose total compensation nearly equaled the $1.7 billion debt payment Greece failed to pay the IMF to avoid a default.

A person can drive himself crazy drawing parallels like these: The summer blockbuster budget versus the per capita earnings of a distressed nation. The cost of running a senatorial campaign versus the capital required to give homes to those who need them in that state. Or the salary of Enes Kanter versus the collective earnings of everyone on your block.

So you have to feel for NBA commissioner Adam Silver when he was asked whether he was concerned about the NBA's new reality, one being fueled by Monopoly money.

"I think most fans recognize that to the extent that these guys have a special and unique talent that are being rewarded by the marketplace," Silver said. "It's very difficult to make value judgments. I'm like any other fan when I say, oh, my God, I can't believe that compared to a teacher or doctor or someone else. But we live in a market economy. So that's how values are set."

Silver is right, the NBA doesn't create the rules that govern supply and demand. Anyone who has a Netflix account, sees first-run movies or watches pro sports is part of a consumer class that drives the entertainment economy where a league-average center makes more than a cardiologist. And the league merely reacts to this phenomenon like any other market entity.

Except that the NBA isn't a traditional market entity.

Silver is correct that NBA players have a special and unique talent, but he's not being completely honest when he says they're being rewarded by the marketplace. Even with the robust windfall the NBA is enjoying through the explosion of existing revenue streams, compensation for NBA players is not "the market rate." It's a dollar figure that's filtered through a complex, oligopolic system called a salary cap designed by a cooperative or cartel -- depending on your economic orientation -- to keep those salaries down.

From the perspective of an NBA owner, the salary cap is a necessity in a league where teams from Oklahoma City and Memphis must compete with teams from New York and Los Angeles. A week of Lakers broadcasts in Southern California can generate more revenue than a team such as the Charlotte Hornets draws from a broadcast season, which is why the league has instituted another revenue sharing -- and that's just local TV. Sponsorships, ticket sales, luxury suites, sweetheart lease deals and debt obligations can skew the scale even more.

This system of revenue sharing either isn't powerful enough or it needs serious recalibration because Silver said on Tuesday that "a significant number of teams are continuing to lose money." Silver explained that even in a world where teams on the receiving end of revenue sharing are drawing, in some cases, more than $20 million in handouts and often large public subsidies in the form of facilities, the expenses are too much.

"That in order to compete across this league with a relatively harsh tax, teams are spending enormous amounts of money on payroll -- some of the contracts we talked about." Silver said. "They still have enormous expenses in terms of arena costs. Teams are building new practice facilities. The cost of their infrastructure in terms of their sales people, marketing people, the infrastructure of the teams have gone up, and in some cases their local television is much smaller than in other markets. In some cases because of historical deals, and in some cases just because the market won't command the kinds of dollars that you can get in the larger markets."

It's true that capital investment can be really expensive. Spend 10 minutes with an NBA executive here in Las Vegas this week and you'll learn that there's an arms race for the best training facilities, medical services and branding campaigns. But it's not a coincidence that the first item on Silver's grocery list is the "enormous amounts of money on payroll -- some of the contracts we talked about."

The collective bargaining agreement between owners and the union stipulates that players receive a fixed percentage of the NBA's overall revenue -- roughly 50 percent. If the aggregate salaries committed to players fall short of that amount -- as they currently are -- the owners make up the difference.

As if to underscore the league's generosity under the current collective bargaining agreement, Silver emphasized on Tuesday that he expects ownership to cut a check for as much as half a billion dollars next year to cover the shortfall.

"There are projections that for next year we could be writing a check moving close to half a billion dollars to the [National Basketball] Players Association," Silver said. "That's not of course the ideal outcome from our standpoint. It's not something we predicted when we went into this collective bargaining agreement. Now it's happened because the revenue we generated was much higher than we had ever modeled. But we're also learning that when you have all that money coming into the system, team behavior isn't necessarily predictable either."

This sounds like a good problem to have -- so much money we have to give it away! But Silver understands that -- and we apologize for this -- Mo Money, Mo Problems in the NBA. For a small-market team or a mid-market one that is managed poorly, this escalation of the salary cap is going to put them on a treadmill far too brisk for their fitness level. Yes, owners will see a nice fat check in their mailboxes courtesy of the new national broadcast deal, but that amount likely won't be enough for some teams to keep up with the big spenders in free agency.

Charged with figuring out a way to keep expenses down for these sad owners who have to wear last year's salary cap to the ball, which budget line do you think the league is going to target in its negotiations with the players union as the only way to save the NBA from overheating?

Just take a wild guess.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13258707/even-revenue-pie-gets-bigger-some-get-enough

This is going to be fun to pay attention to.

[Guest]

To keep in line with other negotiation tactics, mega-agent David Falk talked with Ken Berger about banishing the Max and it's kind of funny:
 

Two minutes into the NBA's wildest free-agency period in years, All-Star Anthony Davisagreed to a five-year, approximately $145 million extension with the New Orleans Pelicans. It was the first move in a frenzy of activity that made the 2015 offseason one to remember.

It also was the richest contract in NBA history. Nobody blinked.

Even at only 22 years old, Davis deserved it -- at least by current standards. In his third NBA season, he led the Pelicans to the playoffs, made first-team all-NBA, led the league in blocks and player-efficiency rating and was fourth in points per game and win shares. The max contract -- and especially the super-max, starting at 30 percent of the salary cap for high achievers -- was conceived for players exactly like Davis.

The problem is, outside the rarified air where Davis and other top-shelf superstars live, the NBA's max contract has become so common and overused as to completely lose its value and meaning. And critics say it's actually had the opposite effect than what owners intended when they pushed for it during the ugly 1998-99 lockout that cost owners and players hundreds of millions and canceled the All-Star Game.

"When you place an artificial bottleneck, you're going to create disequilibrium," agent David Falk, who represented the NBA's first $30 million-a-year player, Michael Jordan, told CBSSports.com.

"By saving $20 million on the best five players, you're probably paying 30 guys an extra $10 million each. If the owners realized that by saving $100 million it would cost them $300 million, do you think they would've done it?"

To understand how we got here -- more than 30 players making max money, including 12 who received the max in the past nine days -- we have to review the origins of the cap on individual player salaries.

In 1997, after his second NBA season, Kevin Garnett agreed to a six-year, $126 million contract with the Minnesota Timberwolves. At the time, it was the richest contract in league history. Coming on the heels of seven-year, $105 million deals signed by Juwan Howard with Washington and Alonzo Mourning with Miami, and Glenn Robinson signing a 10-year, $68 million deal as a rookie, the owners were in a full-on panic.

"The owners drew a line in the sand and said, 'We've got to put a max in. This can never happen again,' " Eric Fleisher, Garnett's agent at the time, told CBSSports.com.

But from some agents and union officials came a "be careful what you wish for" warning that wasn't heeded.

"When you set a max, it's a clear invitation to not only the Michael Jordans but also the Vin Bakers of the world to say, 'I'm somewhere on the high end of the spectrum, but I'm going to feel disrespected if I don't get the max,' " a person who was involved in negotiating the 1999 collective bargaining agreement told CBSSports.com. "It's going to be a high-water mark, and everyone's going to be seeking that level. You knew that players who weren't necessarily deserving were going to get it."

Like Davis, Garnett was 22 when he got his record-breaking deal. Unlike Davis, he'd yet to participate in a playoff game. Under the rules in effect at the time, rookies were eligible for contract extensions after two seasons of service, as opposed to three. (The rookie wage scale was instituted in 1995 to prevent rookies like Robinson, Penny Hardaway, Jason Kidd and Grant Hill from signing massive guaranteed deals before playing a minute in the NBA.)

"What shocked [owners] the most was not just the amount," Fleisher said of Garnett's landmark contract. "It was the fact that somebody of that age, who hadn't yet been an all-pro, was able to get those kind of dollars."

Garnett's extension was set to kick in for the 1998-99 season, but the owners promptly locked the players out on July 1, 1998, determined to impose severe cost controls. Rhetoric flowed, commissioner David Stern's lockout beard grew and the league lost 32 of the 82 regular-season games plus the All-Star Game by the time the dispute was resolved in January 1999.

The new financial landscape included a luxury tax to discourage big-market teams from running roughshod over smaller ones; an escrow system to cap the players' overall share of revenues; and for the first time, a cap on individual player salaries. (Existing deals like Garnett's were grandfathered in.)

The NBA's max contract was born. And as predicted by some, it became a birthright and status symbol more than a performance standard for the best of the best.

For every Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan or Kidd, there would be three Bakers, Allan Houstons, Rashard Lewises or Joe Johnsons. And by artificially depressing what the very best players could make, the league and the union unwittingly brought pseudo-stars into an earnings bracket that was supposed to have been reserved for real stars -- Magic-Larry-Michael kind of stars.

"Without the max," said the person involved in league bargaining, "LeBron James would be making twice as much."

As a result, the max contract also has ushered in the era of the $30 million backup center who couldn't play (Jerome James), the $30 million third-string point guard (Cory Joseph) and the role player who gets the max (Gordon Hayward) because of leverage rather than accomplishment.

"Gordon Hayward's a very good basketball player," an agent who doesn't represent him said. "But the max? Really?"

In the NBA's alternate universe, leverage for a max deal often is dictated by a small window of performance and the simple economics of supply and demand (loads of cap space, not enough stars).

"Sometimes, it's purely fortuitous," said the agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "You're coming off a good year and the team is saying, 'All right, what the [expletive], let's try it.' "

Hayward was able to get a max deal last summer as a restricted free agent. Charlotte had money to spend and knew the only chance to overcome Utah's matching rights was to offer the max. In the end, the Jazz matched, and Hayward got $64 million for four years.

(Another restricted free agent, Chandler Parsons, left Houston for Dallas last summer with a four-year, $46 million deal that was a touch under the max, according to NBA salary data.)

"If players were allowed to and able to get whatever the market would bear, does anybody think the numbers wouldn't be different than what they are right now?" Fleisher said. "My gut feeling is they'd be less. There would be a few guys with astronomical deals, but they're worth it."

How many current NBA players are "worth it"? That's a judgment call, and one the market is not capable of sorting out and agents can no longer fully negotiate. In Falk's estimation, you start with James and Kevin Durant and get to "maybe Russell Westbrook," he said. Bryant, who in 2013-14 became the first $30 million-a-year player since Jordan, would've spent a decade earning more than that in a free-market system. (Bryant's seven-year, $136 million deal from 2004-11 had been the high-water mark before Davis came along.)

"If you only had Kobe and LeBron making the max all these years, no player in the league would ever think they were worth what Kobe and LeBron are worth," Falk said. "So you're grossly overpaying the people that aren't as valuable because you've created this artificial limitation."

James agreed to a two-year, $47 million deal and can opt out again next summer -- or be eligible for a five-year, $204 million deal in 2017. His $23 million salary next season is 0.5 percent of the NBA's estimated revenues of $5 billion -- any way you slice it, the biggest bargain in pro sports. Alex Rodriguez, who bats five times a game, hit the $22 million mark in 2001.

"The union has made the decision that it's better for LeBron James to give up $20 million or $30 million in salary so that Jodie Meeks can make $6.7 million," Falk said. "... They try to make rules to homogenize everybody because there are many more Matthew Dellavedovas than LeBrons, so the rules are skewed toward those guys. It would be like the competition committee making a rule that once you score 12 points, you have to sit down. So LeBron would play six minutes and score 12 points a game and Delly would play 41 minutes and score 12 points a game."

Beyond James, the other players who have agreed to max deals this summer are LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol, Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, Damian Lillard, Enes Kanter, Wesley Matthews, Davis and yes, one of Falk's clients, Greg Monroe. Davis and Lillard got their max deals on extensions with their current teams, the Pelicans and Trail Blazers. Kanter, a restricted free agent, agreed to a max offer sheet with Portland.

Tim Duncan officially returned to the San Antonio Spurs Thursday, signing a one-year deal with the silver and black. Most stunning?

MAX CONTRACTS SIGNED IN 2015 PLAYER YEARS AMOUNT ($MILLIONS, U.S.) LaMarcus Aldridge 4 $84M Jimmy Butler 5 $94M Anthony Davis 5 $145M Marc Gasol 5 $113M DeAndre Jordan 4 $88M Kawhi Leonard 5 $94M Damian Lillard 5 $120M Kevin Love 5 $113M Greg Monroe 3 $51M LeBron James 2 $47M Enes Kanter 4 $70M Wesley Matthews 4 $68M

Matthews, who originally committed to a four-year, $57 million deal with Dallas, reportedly was bumped up to the max ($70 million) once Jordan backed out of his commitment to the Mavs and returned to the Clippers.

Further complicating matters, the max isn't the same for everyone. For Love and Gasol, it's five-years, $113 million since they stayed with their current teams, the Cavs and Grizzlies. Aldridge got four years and $84 million; the rules dictate that a player can get at most a four-year deal with smaller annual increases if he changes teams. (Jordan chose to take a four-year, $88 million deal with LA instead of the five-year max.) Leonard's max deal with San Antonio is five years, $94 million -- less than Gasol's and Love's because he has fewer years of service.

The total numbers for Davis ($145 million) and Lillard ($120 million) are higher because their extensions kick in when the salary cap escalates in 2016. Aggregate player salaries are calculated as 50 percent of basketball-related income, which gets a massive boost after next season with the influx of the NBA's $24 billion TV deal.

But none of this addresses the underlying problem: Salaries for sub-maximal players have been artificially inflated in response to the limit on what the true stars can make.

"I think it's probably cost the owners more than it saved them in the first place," Fleisher said.

Well, not in a capped system, where the players' aggregate salaries come in just north of 50 percent of BRI no matter what. But the argument against the individual max centers on value.

"If I know I'm going to overpay," Falk said, "I want the best return."

There's also intangible value for superstars in a system that caps their earnings. What players like James have given up in salary, they've made up for in power. By having his own earnings capped, James was able to team up with two other max players, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh and win two championships in Miami. Wade took slightly less than the max to allow Pat Riley to fit all three under the cap.

"Players have more control over who they play with and where they go than they ever did before," Fleisher said. "That's another unintended consequence that teams and the league are going to have to navigate." If James had been making $50 million with a $58 million salary cap in 2010-11, he would've been playing with Falk and some other old cranks from the senior home in Bethesda. Of course, when Jordan hit the $30 million mark for the first time in NBA history in 1996-97, the Bulls' next highest-paid player was Dennis Rodman ($9 million). Scottie Pippen made $2.25 million.

Next season, James will make $23 million, Love will make $19.7 million and Kyrie Irving will make $15.8 million. (Owner Dan Gilbert hasn't even gotten to Tristan Thompson's presumably max extension yet, but that's none of my business.)

"Time is an amazing thing," Fleisher said. "I've done this for 35 years, and I've seen the pendulum swing in different ways. It wouldn't shock me to see the pendulum swing back and see league say, 'Wait a minute. We can't have this.' And when they run the calculations, are they better off paying $50 [million] or $60 million to a few people or paying millions to too many?"

Falk, who represented Howard, Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Dikembe Mutombo, Elton Brand and other stars, said he proposed a solution to Stern many years ago. But his idea of a two-tiered pool for player salaries never went anywhere, in part because it would've further divided a players' union in which different classes have always had different priorities.

"When you go to the airport, is everybody in the same union?" Falk said. "There's a pilots union, a mechanics union, a baggage handlers union. If I were 40 years old, I would try to start my own union with the top 40 players and I'd go to the league with no maxes and make a deal with Adam Silver. Those 40 guys are what make the TV money go.

"Then I'd say [to the NBPA], you represent the other 400 guys," Falk said. "I'd love to have your guys, but if not, I'll get guys from the D-League, from high school, from Europe. Your guys are better, but they're slightly better. Then you explain to the 400 players that unless they agree that LeBron is not going to be capped, he's going to create his own league and you're not going to be in it."

That's a radical solution, to say the least. But in the NBA, transformative times often lead to extreme reactions. The power exerted by Miami's Big Three in 2010 led to an ugly lockout in 2011, just as Garnett's landmark deal led to an even uglier one in 1998. With revenues soaring and the deepest class of "max" players ever carving out their niche, what perils await in 2017, when the owners or players can opt out of the agreement that governs all this madness?

"If history has borne one thing out," Fleisher said, "it would be foolish not to be concerned."

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/25237635/nba-max-money-explained-for-every-anthony-davis-theres-a-cory-joseph

 

I hope no one fell for that. The Max is an issue between the P L A Y E R S. It is not a player versus ownership issue at all. And can anyone figure out why Falk would want the Max banned? Ah that's right, it would give him a bigger commission for less work. It makes sense that Falk wants to abolish it.

[capstone21]

Those poor players ... how are they supposed to feed their families??

[Guest]

And here's another one from Ken Berger:
 

LAS VEGAS – On one hand, the NBA business couldn't be better. Basketball is all the buzz nearly a month after the last Finals game was played, and $2.6 billion in player contracts have been handed out during free agency. All that's missing is the confetti.

Commissioner Adam Silver and his suited cabinet members should've left the Board of Governors meeting on Tuesday, sauntered out onto the veranda overlooking a golf course at the Wynn Las Vegas and sparked up a cigar.

But no.

There's a dark side, and it could be the key to whether there will be another lockout in 2017.

Much of the focus since the National Basketball Players Association elected firebrand trial lawyer Michele Roberts as its executive director 12 months ago has focused on whether the players will be opting out of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement. We've been on the wrong scent, everybody.

Even with revenues soaring astronomically – from $3.8 billion in 2010-11 to a projected $5 billion next season – it's time to wake up and start wondering whether it actually will be the owners who do so.

Silver revealed Tuesday after meeting with league owners that the NBA is projecting that it will have to write a nearly $500 million shortfall check to the players after the 2016-17 season. There was a shortfall in the players' guaranteed 50 percent of revenue for this past season, and there could be another one after '15-'16, as well.

"That's not, of course, the ideal outcome from our standpoint," Silver said. "It's not something we predicted when we went into this collective bargaining agreement."

Or, viewed another way, it's what happens when player salaries are capped and business is great.

Anyway, this past season's shortfall was due to revenues coming in much higher than projected, resulting in the salary cap rising to $70 million from the projection of $67.1 million. A much larger shortfall in '16-'17 will result from the massive influx of new revenue from the league's $24 billion, nine-year deal, which begins hitting the system that season.

"It's happened because the revenue we generated was much higher than we had ever modeled," Silver said. "But we're also learning that when you have all that money coming into the system, team behavior isn't necessarily predictable either."

The upshot is that, in the last three years before either side can opt out of the CBA, players' negotiated contracts will come in lower than their guaranteed share of 50-51 percent – significantly lower in '16-'17. And, as one league source told me hypothetically, there are going to be a lot of owners who will look at those numbers and say, "If they're only worth 46 percent, why the hell are we paying them 50?"

Buckle in; it gets worse.

Silver also said Tuesday that a "significant number" of teams are "continuing to lose money" despite "fairly robust revenue sharing when some teams are receiving $20 million checks from their partners."

Why are teams losing money? Silver cited the cost of competing with high payrolls and harsh luxury taxes (money the owners willingly spent and taxes they themselves imposed) as well as arena costs, new practice facilities and other infrastructure costs that have "gone up."

Here we go again. After a massive reduction in the players' share of revenues (from 57 percent to 50) in the last CBA … after revamped revenue sharing to balance out large and small markets … after ever-more punitive luxury tax rates to level the competitive playing field … the owners are going to cry poor again.

And just wait. LeBron James hasn't even signed the five-year, $200-plus million contract that is awaiting him in 2017 – that is, if the league isn't shut down by then.

"As we have done historically with the players' association, and rather than at least publicly having a back and forth with the union on our revenue and expenses, we've made absolutely clear to them -- just as we have historically -- that we will share the audited financials of the league office and all 30 teams," Silver said.

The commissioner hopes this will lead to "an understanding -- a common understanding -- of what the league finances are and will move us that much closer to a long-term relationship, a long-term collective bargaining agreement."

Holy rhetoric, Batman!

If either side wants to opt out of the 10-year labor agreement after the '16-'17 season, it must give written notice by Dec. 15, 2016.

Of course, Silver's stated goal as the owners' lead negotiator in 2011 never had anything to do with every NBA team turning a profit. (If it had, not a single NBA game would've been played in the past four years.) From Silver himself in April 2011 -- and many, many times thereafter until the lockout finally ended in November of that year -- the goal was "a system in which all 30 teams can compete, and, if they are well managed, make a profit."

Now, the owners are concerned about rising expenses, even as they are handing out $2.6 billion in free-agent contracts as part of a system they agreed to.

And that's where it gets even worse. Someone or something has to take the blame if the owners are going to justify cutting off the lights in the midst of the NBA's new golden age, and "the system" is always an easy target. That's where they'll strike first. The one thing Silver, David Stern and the owners wanted so badly the last time around and couldn't get was a hard salary cap.

Silver has even used the hard-cap threat in responding to some of Roberts' rhetoric about opting out when she first got the job – apparently forgetting that the NBA has had a hard aggregate salary cap for almost 20 years since the players' share of the revenue is, um, capped.

"If there's a feeling that we should reopen the collective bargaining agreement," Silver said in May, "there will be things that we're going to bring back to the table, too."

Is it hopeless? Hardly. Silver and Roberts are both reasonable people, and the hope is that they will get together as early as later this summer to start comparing notes and moving toward this "common understanding."

"In discussions that she and I have had, and I've had with players' association representatives, it's clear the goal on both sides is to avoid any sort of work stoppage whatsoever and maybe even to avoid the opt out," Silver said.

One of the problems, of course, is that they don't necessarily work for reasonable people.

This is why Roberts and the NBPA leadership must be careful what they wish for in 2017. It's also why the union may have made the first mistake of the Roberts era – after decades of missteps under her predecessor, Billy Hunter – by rejecting the league's proposal to "smooth" the influx of TV revenue into the system.

The massive spike in the cap over the next two seasons without smoothing is the reason the league may have to cut a $500 million check to the players. Had the new money been smoothed in gradually, the shortfalls would've been smaller and the players' percentages would've been higher, giving the owners' less credibility if they wanted to claim that the system was broken again.

Then again, from a timing standpoint, maybe it's fine. The players will get the shortfall money – according to Silver's estimates, more than $1 million per player if distributed evenly -- in July 2017.

Just in time for the lockout.

Playoff seeding changes. As CBSSports.com reported Monday, changes are coming to the rule that awards a higher playoff seeding to a division winner with a worse record than a non-division winner. Silver said the competition committee recommended to the board that teams be seeded 1-8 in each conference based on record. Owners didn't vote on it Tuesday, but Silver said he expects the change to be passed before the start of next season.

Jordan flip-flop 'not a great look.' Silver admitted that DeAndre Jordan committing to the Mavs during the free-agent moratorium before changing his mind and re-signing with theClippers was "not a great look." But he said none of the owners in the room Tuesday "had a great idea, frankly, in terms of how to change it."

What's been missed in the whole Jordan fiasco is that the problem wasn't necessarily the moratorium – in this case, an eight-day period during which players and teams could agree to contracts but couldn't sign them. It was the shenanigans that went on before the moratorium started.

According to a detailed, entertaining account from ESPN.com, Mavs forward Chandler Parsons' recruiting of Jordan actually was more extensive than anyone knew. Chandler, according to the story, had been traveling around the country partying with Jordan for weeks while Jordan was still under contract with the Clippers.

"It's largely out of our realm," Silver said, when asked about the practice of players recruiting free agents to their teams. "And I technically would not call it tampering. We've made a decision that when a player is talking to another player and saying, 'I'd love to play with you,' and that's not done at the behest of the team, we accept that.

"I think it's not ideal," he said. "I mean, because … preferably you wouldn't want a player to be doing what a team couldn't otherwise do."

So why have a rule? Article 35, Section (e) of the NBA Constitution and By-Laws expressly prohibits player tampering. So if the rule cant be enforced and the league accepts that players are gonna play, why have the rule at all?

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/25241544/summer-league-buzz-owners-may-opt-out-of-collective-bargaining-agreement

[nitte]

Those poor players ... how are they supposed to feed their families??

 

The owners are not so poor either...

[AHF]

That leap in logic from Falk and Fleisher was pretty remarkable.

[Vol4ever]

Problem is the NBA still allows the rich to over the cap and creates a unfair playing field, like with the Cavs

[Guest]

That leap in logic from Falk and Fleisher was pretty remarkable.

Oh, so you don't think that a salary restriction has been more costly to the NBA??? Shocking. {/sarcasm}

[NBASupes]

Those poor players ... how are they supposed to feed their families??

If AHF didn't ban me from saying it, this would perfectly qualify for the Diesel and IheartFerry uno effort award. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by NBASupes

[NBASupes]

That leap in logic from Falk and Fleisher was pretty remarkable.

I think it's weird. In Baseball, the owners know how to control spending. You see the elite players get elite salaries. They have a reasonable system which will never work in the NBA because one Lebron is worth more than 90% of NBA franchises in terms of his value to base. 

 

Basketball is a crazy sport but I am glad Lebron is the Union lead. I think he will leave it the same in terms of pay but I think he will demand more from the union like holding out longer for a lockout so they can get a better deal. I hear these players need to get paid but so do these owners. Just because of a lockout doesn't mean the stadiums aren't costing them anything. Ideally, the players hold more cards if they play it correctly. 

 

As for Michelle Roberts saying f the smooth cap and go straight to the parachute was smart. You were going to get locked out anyway. Might as well get paid for doing it. 

[Watchman]

It appears to me that what is being advocated is a caste system among the players.  The "top 40" can get all they want, and the others are left to fight over the scraps.  I think it is foolish for "top 40" players to think they can win without a supporting cast.  Should a "superstar" get $40 million, and the rest of the team get the veteran minimum?  That is not reflective of the contributions of the rest of the team.

[AHF]

Oh, so you don't think that a salary restriction has been more costly to the NBA??? Shocking. {/sarcasm}

 

I see it on two levels.  One, in the big picture of course capping the total salaries means you pay less than you do in an uncapped system.  Duh.

 

Two, it is silly to think owners are throwing max deals at guys who wouldn't get them because they capped out Lebron's salary.  That is just silly.  You think Atlanta cares how much Lebron is getting paid when it maxed Joe Johnson?  No.  They decided Joe was worth that salary and offered it.  The difference is that while Joe started at $20M and might have been worth about $20M for the Hawks (i.e., they thought that was about what they would pay in an uncapped environment), Lebron was capped at around $18M and was worth easily double that to the Heat.  

 

The  logic is just so bad on that attack on salary caps that it hurts my head.  The irony of it is that Falk's logic only works if you assume that Lebron and Kobe are only worth the max salary.  The argument is that only the elite guys are supposed to be max players and now a bunch of other guys are because those top guys are capped.  But if you think Lebron is really worth $60M a year or whatever, then you shouldn't be surprised when it turns out there are a pretty high number of guys worth $15-20M or so on max deals.  Just because they earn the same as Lebron doesn't mean they are getting overpaid - it just means that the team that employs Lebron is getting a bigger windfall in terms of bang for its buck.

 

Your fundamental point about this being an issue among the players is right on point.  If the players are going to get 50% of the revenue then the only issue is how they divide the pie among themselves.

 

Let's be real.  Falk's bread is buttered by the 'stars' of the league.  He could give a rip about the rest of the guys so he is happy to sell them out to get more for his guy.  That is frequently how Unions work in real life and how you end up with tiered wages (because the high wages are unsustainable the senior guys sell out the unborn (i.e., usually the future hires but sometimes the junior guys as well) so they can keep their premium compensation).

Edited July 15, 2015 by AHF

[atlhawks1]

I got a suggestion. START MARKETING THE WHOLE LEAGUE, instead of just Lebron, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc.   The NFL is great because on Sunday, people care what happens in Jacksonvillle, as much as they do New York......