What do you think of a hard cap in the NBA?

[Guest_Randy]

Owners want one as well as these other concessions:

4 year limit on contracts.

Doing away with guaranteed contracts.

Obviously, the Players Assocation disagrees with these concessions because they obviously want more money guaranteed for their players no matter what -- but what do you think?  One thing I do think -- there won't be a work stoppage in the NBA this year -- the NHL may NEVER recover from their present work stoppage and it took years for MLB to recover -- not sure that the NBA has EVER truly recovered for a partial work stoppage.

[Guest]

hard cap I don't think would be a good idea, ESPECIALLY without non-guaranteed contracts.

non-guaranteed contracts would be great, and the 4 year limit would be good as well.

Of the 3, I only see the 4 year limit being possible to get.

[Guest_Randy]

I actually like the idea of a hard cap -- but I don't see that happening.

I REALLY like the idea of 4 year contracts -- don't like the idea of doing away with guaranteed contracts but the 4 year cap on contracts would help make that unnecessary.  

I doubt that teams with talent are going to like the idea of a limited (4 year) contract -- well, those with young talent, anyway.  Those teams, at least right now, have the ability to sign their own players to a longer deal (and better deal) than any other team -- the limited 4 year contract takes away some of that advantage.  Still like it though -- would like to see it happen.

I have a problem with players who sit on the bench (some for years) getting paid (and eating up salary cap) because of their unwillingness to retire and their desire to keep getting those big bucks (even when they can't produce longterm).

[ziggy]

Owners want one as well as these other concessions:

4 year limit on contracts.

Doing away with guaranteed contracts.

Obviously, the Players Assocation disagrees with these concessions because they obviously want more money guaranteed for their players no matter what -- but what do you think?  One thing I do think -- there won't be a work stoppage in the NBA this year -- the NHL may NEVER recover from their present work stoppage and it took years for MLB to recover -- not sure that the NBA has EVER truly recovered for a partial work stoppage.

The most likely one is max deals of only 4 years, and I believe that would be fabulous.  In many regards 4 year contracts can help accomplish a lot of what they are shooting for with the other 2 (guaranteed deals, and hard cap) anyway.  

The players association won't give up guaranteed deals, but by limiting them to 4 years, you have taken away most of the worst parts of guaranteed deals anyway.  Yes in some cases teams would like to get out from under a deal in 1 year rather than 4, but 4 is much better than 6 or 7.  This will allow teams who do sign bad deals to get out from underneath them sooner.  This will make it much more likely that teams will be able to turn their situation around sooner.  That has been great for the NFL, and it will help the NBA.  Almost every team in the league has had at least 1 (Portland had half a dozen) bad contract that was taking up valuable cap space, pushing you closer to the luxury tax, or limiting your ability to get to the next level.  This will improve things dramatically.

Four year deals will also greatly help get the league closer to a hard cap.  The biggest reason you have cap problems is these escalating deals of 12% a year for 7 years.  Start with $8,000,000 and in the 7th year it is now $14,000,000.  With only 4 year deal the max year will reduce the max contract to $11 million, and this gets you closer to a hard cap.  

One thing that will also happen is 4 year deals will tend to drive salaries down.  It is simple supply and demand.  If the supply of FA's increases (and contracts ending sooner will do that) without a corresponding increase in demand, which will limited by the soft cap, will cause the price of FA's to drop.  Demand for FA's will only increase as the soft cap increases, which is determined by league wide revenues.  This will assure a stronger economic picture.

[Joe Vancil]

As for 4-year deals, I'm rather ambivalent.  Why teams insist on signing marginal players to 6 and 7 year deals is beyond me, anyway.  And everybody and their brother is a max player these days, when only Shaq, Garnett, and Duncan really deserve it.

If you ask me, the owners are victims of their own stupidity.
 

[Ted]

Here's a little inside info I heard directly from an NBA owner's mouth.

I may have mentioned before that I took a class from Jazz owner Larry H. Miller the last few months. One class (in fact, the first class after the Pacers game) he talked about the CBA and work stoppage for a little bit. This is what he told us:

He said that the last work stoppage was such a damaging and painful experience, that's he's 95% sure that if work stopped again, the owners would completely shut it down and go for everything. They'd go for a hard cap, tough drug testing, increased disciplinary powers, the works.

I was quite surprised by that statement. I don't know how well Larry speaks for the feelings of other owners, but he said he'd be ready to shut it down until the owners got what they wanted if the players walked or "forced a lock-out." Larry was one of the panel of owners directly involved in the last CBA negotiations, so he knows something about the process.

[Lurker]

It's called negotiating.

Ther owners of course ask for the moon...but then so do the players.  The idea is then to give up certain items to get what you really want.  In the end the owners will get the shorter contracts and the players will get either a higher percentage of revenues or a elimination of the escrow tax they pay.

[Ted]

Lurker you dumb Texas sheep ogler,

The quote "shut it down and go for everything" is pretty clear, IMO. Larry said the owners would shut it down, that's means SHUT IT DOWN, no games, no season if they had to. Obviously in the course of normal negotiations both sides are going to come in high. But Larry was very clear to us, he said if the players and owners are ever again as far apart as they were in 1999, the owners would go Pete Rozelle on their arses.

[Lurker]

Lurker you dumb Texas sheep ogler,

The quote "shut it down and go for everything" is pretty clear, IMO. Larry said the owners would shut it down, that's means SHUT IT DOWN, no games, no season if they had to. Obviously in the course of normal negotiations both sides are going to come in high. But Larry was very clear to us, he said if the players and owners are ever again as far apart as they were in 1999, the owners would go Pete Rozelle on their arses.

Actually you ignorant Ute...your quote said that IF there were a work stoppage by the players THEN the owners would shut it down and go for broke.  Just exactly what do you think will happen to the value of the owners' franchises if there is no game?  Do you think that anyone would give a wooden nickel for a current NHL franchise?

And THAT (the value of the franchise) is where these guys make their money.  And don't be so quick to believe the owners when they say they aren't making money....accounting wise the teams may be losing but on a cash flow basis they seem to do alright.
 

[Ted]

No you wool-grabbing Texas sheep lover,

I said "if work stopped." Work can stop in two ways: strike or lockout.

Strikes are initiated by the players union.
Lockouts are initiated by the owners.

So if either happened, work would stop.


Okay, all insults aside. I find it interesting that the healthiest professional sports league in the world also has possibly the weakest players union. Personally, I don't think the NBA is in such bad shape, I was just posting an interesting tidbit.

[Derek Bodner]

i believe football's probably healthier.  probably has the worse players union asa well.

[Guest]

I believe the player's association will make the concessions needed to avoid a work stoppage -- I believe this is ONE year that they have the players over the barrel.  Why?  Too many recent work stoppages in sports (and the NHL may NEVER recover) along with dips in the economy and the fact that they got some major concessions in the last work stoppage equals the owners getting some strong concessions this year, IMO.  It doesn't help that the Player's Association is led by a bunch of idiots (you may not like Stern but the guy isn't an idiot).

I think the owners will do whatever they can to ensure they don't lose money -- that's what they really care about -- and so I think they will use EXACTLY what Larry shared with you as their bluffing card.  IF we go to a work stoppage -- these are the things we will INSIST on -- and I don't think the Player's Association will call that bluff -- they just aren't holding the cards they need to feel comfortable enough to call that bluff -- esp. with the pot that is at stake (and I think they are pretty happy with their pot right now).

By-the-way, Ted, you did get one thing wrong:

you wool-grabbing Texas sheep lover

I hear that Lurker prefers his sheep shaved!

[JoMal]

Look, you two conjoined, six-pack butted, prison beyatch wannabee's, if the owners think they have leverage by instigating a lockkout, it is going to happen.

One of the player reps, I forget who now, recently hinted that it looks to him like a lockout is very likely for next year. The sides are not talking about deals yet, they are strictly talking about their positions on the issues and no compromises have been suggested.

So, dbods - maybe for next year you can start up a knitting chatroom to fill the space, so Ted and Lurker could argue the merits of the bobble stitch versus the back curl cross.

Not that I follow that stuff myself, of course.

I think I have been sitting on one of my crochet needles all day. I'd move, but I kind of like it.

[ziggy]

And THAT (the value of the franchise) is where these guys make their money.  And don't be so quick to believe the owners when they say they aren't making money....accounting wise the teams may be losing but on a cash flow basis they seem to do alright.

Spoken like a true CPA.

Actually Lurker is quite right here.  Cash flow is quite different than profit, and asset appreciation is equally important.  The owners are doing fine, just that some (Mr. Buss, and Mr Sterling), are doing better than the rest.